Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9073 total)
88 online now:
CosmicChimp, jar, PaulK, Percy (Admin), Phat, Tangle (6 members, 82 visitors)
Newest Member: FossilDiscovery
Post Volume: Total: 893,249 Year: 4,361/6,534 Month: 575/900 Week: 99/182 Day: 6/27 Hour: 2/3

Announcements: Security Update Released


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Should countries outlaw the hijab, niqab and burka?
ringo
Member
Posts: 19528
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 331 of 372 (774183)
12-14-2015 10:58 AM
Reply to: Message 323 by Tangle
12-13-2015 5:56 PM


Tangle writes:

There is no other test other than individual opinion - yours against the European Court of Human Rights.


Canadian courts have ruled that banning the niqab is not legitimate, so I'm not alone. Maybe Europe just needs to catch up.

Tangle writes:

Only if you wish to artificially seperate one form of female oppression from another.


What we're talking about here is oppression of women by dictating what they wear: oppression BY government.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 323 by Tangle, posted 12-13-2015 5:56 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 332 by Tangle, posted 12-14-2015 11:12 AM ringo has replied

Tangle
Member
Posts: 8493
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 332 of 372 (774185)
12-14-2015 11:12 AM
Reply to: Message 331 by ringo
12-14-2015 10:58 AM


ringo writes:

Canadian courts have ruled that banning the niqab is not legitimate, so I'm not alone. Maybe Europe just needs to catch up.

I'd like to read that judgement - do you have a reference?

But the point remains, it was - by simple definition - legitimate to ban the Burka in France. You and even your government may disagree, but it would still be legitimate.

What we're talking about here is oppression of women by dictating what they wear: oppression BY government.

Nope - you are trying to twist the argument around to say that it is oppressive of the government to prevent people wearing full body and facial coverings. And of course it is the restriction of a freedom but it is done in order to benefit the community as a whole and to protect some women from worse oppression and subjugation. Governments do this all the time - try walking down the High Street naked. Do you feel oppressed? This guy does:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Gough


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 331 by ringo, posted 12-14-2015 10:58 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 333 by ringo, posted 12-14-2015 11:28 AM Tangle has replied

ringo
Member
Posts: 19528
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 333 of 372 (774187)
12-14-2015 11:28 AM
Reply to: Message 332 by Tangle
12-14-2015 11:12 AM


Tangle writes:

I'd like to read that judgement - do you have a reference?


I should clarify that the specific case involved wearing the niqab at a citizenship ceremony. From what I Googled:
quote:
In the recent ruling, the court said that the government had gone too far by implementing the ban on wearing face veils during citizenship oath ceremonies, and said the ban hindered the citizenship judge’s legal obligation to make sure that the "greatest possible freedom" is given to people taking the Canadian oath of citizenship.link

Other courts have ruled that a woman must remove her niqab for identification purposes. I have no problem with that.

Tangle writes:

And of course it is the restriction of a freedom but it is done in order to benefit the community as a whole and to protect some women from worse oppression and subjugation.


But it doesn't "benefit the community" any more than banning crosses or banning bindis or banning turbans would benefit the community. And it doesn't protect women from worse oppression and subjugation; it just drives them underground. Banning [arbitrary items of clothing] accomplishes no more than banning alcohol.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 332 by Tangle, posted 12-14-2015 11:12 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 334 by Tangle, posted 12-14-2015 11:38 AM ringo has replied
 Message 335 by Tangle, posted 12-14-2015 11:44 AM ringo has replied
 Message 338 by Tangle, posted 12-14-2015 12:12 PM ringo has replied

Tangle
Member
Posts: 8493
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 334 of 372 (774189)
12-14-2015 11:38 AM
Reply to: Message 333 by ringo
12-14-2015 11:28 AM


If veiling was really just a personal choice like wearing pink socks, there would be no problem. But we know that it is not, it's a requirement which under some forms of islam is enforced. From the New Humanist

Sharia law is still enforced in approximately 35 nations, where some form of veiling is compulsory. An estimated 83 Sharia courts operate in England today. Many Muslim families living in Western Europe use legal forms of coercion to make girls and women conform to veiling. The murder of Shafilea Ahmed, by her own parents, is a case study in how Europeans respond to these situations of family violence with an embarrassed silence, rather than the kind of outrage that would be seen as appropriate were its victims not exclusively female. The Iranian and Kurdish Women’s Rights Organisation (Ikwro) found last year that 39 out of 52 police forces across the UK had recorded at least 2,823 “honour” attacks over 2010. Some forces showed a jump of nearly 50 per cent in such cases from 2009. This is the backdrop against which Muslims in Europe claim that wearing the burqa is a “choice”.

The claim that covering yourself up in public is an empowering choice insults the intelligence and dignity of women everywhere, just as the theological claim that the burqa is a necessary defence against predatory male sexuality insults Muslim men insofar as it treats them as fundamentally incapable of responsibility for their sexual behaviour.

The reason Western feminists (male or female) object to seeing women in burqas is not that we can’t tolerate diversity, but that the burqa is a symbol of patriarchal Islam’s intolerance of dissent and desire to contain and repress female sexuality.


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 333 by ringo, posted 12-14-2015 11:28 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 336 by ringo, posted 12-14-2015 11:51 AM Tangle has taken no action

Tangle
Member
Posts: 8493
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 335 of 372 (774191)
12-14-2015 11:44 AM
Reply to: Message 333 by ringo
12-14-2015 11:28 AM


ringo writes:

But it doesn't "benefit the community" any more than banning crosses or banning bindis or banning turbans would benefit the community. And it doesn't protect women from worse oppression and subjugation; it just drives them underground. Banning [arbitrary items of clothing] accomplishes no more than banning alcohol.

Once again, it benefits the community for the reasons that have been presented several times, just saying no it doesn't is not terribly convincing.

The clothing is not arbitrary nor is it equivalent to crosses or turbans. The burka has a particular purpose, it's not just a symbol, it's a means of male oppression and it is not a free choice.


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 333 by ringo, posted 12-14-2015 11:28 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 337 by ringo, posted 12-14-2015 11:54 AM Tangle has replied

ringo
Member
Posts: 19528
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 336 of 372 (774192)
12-14-2015 11:51 AM
Reply to: Message 334 by Tangle
12-14-2015 11:38 AM


Tangle writes:

But we know that it is not, it's a requirement which under some forms of islam is enforced.


Under some forms of Christianity, wearing skirts is enforced. Let's ban skirts.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 334 by Tangle, posted 12-14-2015 11:38 AM Tangle has taken no action

ringo
Member
Posts: 19528
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 337 of 372 (774193)
12-14-2015 11:54 AM
Reply to: Message 335 by Tangle
12-14-2015 11:44 AM


Tangle writes:

Once again, it benefits the community for the reasons that have been presented several times, just saying no it doesn't is not terribly convincing.


I haven't seen any remotely convincing arguments that a dress code for women "benefits the community". Feel free to refresh my memory.

Tangle writes:

The clothing is not arbitrary nor is it equivalent to crosses or turbans.


How is a hijab different from a turban? How is a hijab different from a bindi?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 335 by Tangle, posted 12-14-2015 11:44 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 340 by Tangle, posted 12-14-2015 12:30 PM ringo has replied
 Message 341 by Tangle, posted 12-14-2015 12:51 PM ringo has replied

Tangle
Member
Posts: 8493
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 338 of 372 (774198)
12-14-2015 12:12 PM
Reply to: Message 333 by ringo
12-14-2015 11:28 AM


ringo writes:

I should clarify that the specific case involved wearing the niqab at a citizenship ceremony.

From what I can gather, your government introduced a law banning niqabs in 2011. There have been legal challenges which look like will result in a Supreme Court hearing.

So your country has a law banning the niqab......


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 333 by ringo, posted 12-14-2015 11:28 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 339 by ringo, posted 12-14-2015 12:20 PM Tangle has taken no action

ringo
Member
Posts: 19528
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 339 of 372 (774199)
12-14-2015 12:20 PM
Reply to: Message 338 by Tangle
12-14-2015 12:12 PM


Tangle writes:

From what I can gather, your government introduced a law banning niqabs in 2011. There have been legal challenges which look like will result in a Supreme Court hearing.


Our newly-elected government has promised to drop the appeal to the Supreme Court. link

Edited by ringo, : Added reference.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 338 by Tangle, posted 12-14-2015 12:12 PM Tangle has taken no action

Tangle
Member
Posts: 8493
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.5


(1)
Message 340 of 372 (774203)
12-14-2015 12:30 PM
Reply to: Message 337 by ringo
12-14-2015 11:54 AM


ringo writes:

How is a hijab different from a turban? How is a hijab different from a bindi?

Sharia law is still enforced in approximately 35 nations, where some form of veiling is compulsory. An estimated 83 Sharia courts operate in England today. Many Muslim families living in Western Europe use legal forms of coercion to make girls and women conform to veiling. The murder of Shafilea Ahmed, by her own parents, is a case study in how Europeans respond to these situations of family violence with an embarrassed silence, rather than the kind of outrage that would be seen as appropriate were its victims not exclusively female. The Iranian and Kurdish Women’s Rights Organisation (Ikwro) found last year that 39 out of 52 police forces across the UK had recorded at least 2,823 “honour” attacks over 2010. Some forces showed a jump of nearly 50 per cent in such cases from 2009. This is the backdrop against which Muslims in Europe claim that wearing the burqa is a “choice”.
The claim that covering yourself up in public is an empowering choice insults the intelligence and dignity of women everywhere, just as the theological claim that the burqa is a necessary defence against predatory male sexuality insults Muslim men insofar as it treats them as fundamentally incapable of responsibility for their sexual behaviour.

The reason Western feminists (male or female) object to seeing women in burqas is not that we can’t tolerate diversity, but that the burqa is a symbol of patriarchal Islam’s intolerance of dissent and desire to contain and repress female sexuality.


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 337 by ringo, posted 12-14-2015 11:54 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 345 by ringo, posted 12-15-2015 10:48 AM Tangle has replied

Tangle
Member
Posts: 8493
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.5


(1)
Message 341 of 372 (774204)
12-14-2015 12:51 PM
Reply to: Message 337 by ringo
12-14-2015 11:54 AM


ringo writes:

I haven't seen any remotely convincing arguments that a dress code for women "benefits the community". Feel free to refresh my memory.

In a Grand Chamber judgement published today, the top rights court ruled that there had been no violation of the European Convention on Human Rights.
The ruling was based on France’s aim of “living together” with the court accepting the State’s argument that a barrier to other people’s human rights was created by women wearing the burqa.
This barrier centred on the fact that it could stop people from feeling they could socialise with others, breaching their human rights to live in an inclusive society.

The judgement is here:
http://cdn.thejournal.ie/...lothing-concealing-ones-face.pdf


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 337 by ringo, posted 12-14-2015 11:54 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 346 by ringo, posted 12-15-2015 10:50 AM Tangle has taken no action

Greatest I am
Member
Posts: 1483
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 342 of 372 (774214)
12-14-2015 2:06 PM
Reply to: Message 325 by Hyroglyphx
12-14-2015 2:08 AM


Re: Put yourself in someone else's shoes
If I had this type of ideology, they would be idiots to hire me.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=p...

Regards
DL

Edited by Greatest I am, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 325 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-14-2015 2:08 AM Hyroglyphx has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 343 by Jon, posted 12-14-2015 10:55 PM Greatest I am has replied
 Message 344 by Bliyaal, posted 12-15-2015 9:57 AM Greatest I am has taken no action

Jon
Inactive Member


Message 343 of 372 (774236)
12-14-2015 10:55 PM
Reply to: Message 342 by Greatest I am
12-14-2015 2:06 PM


Re: Put yourself in someone else's shoes
Impressive!

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 342 by Greatest I am, posted 12-14-2015 2:06 PM Greatest I am has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 350 by Greatest I am, posted 12-15-2015 12:42 PM Jon has taken no action

Bliyaal
Member (Idle past 1606 days)
Posts: 171
From: Quebec City, Qc, Canada
Joined: 02-17-2012


Message 344 of 372 (774254)
12-15-2015 9:57 AM
Reply to: Message 342 by Greatest I am
12-14-2015 2:06 PM


Re: Put yourself in someone else's shoes
With your type of ideology, I wouldn't hire you either.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 342 by Greatest I am, posted 12-14-2015 2:06 PM Greatest I am has taken no action

ringo
Member
Posts: 19528
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 345 of 372 (774256)
12-15-2015 10:48 AM
Reply to: Message 340 by Tangle
12-14-2015 12:30 PM


Tangle writes:

ringo writes:

How is a hijab different from a turban? How is a hijab different from a bindi?


blah blah blah

Yes, we've been through that "symbol" nonsense before. My response has always been that removing the symbol doesn't remove the oppression.

By what mechanism is banning the hijab supposed to prevent oppression? It's illegal to wear the hijab in public, so an oppressive husband forbids his wife and daughters to go out in public. The oppression magically disappears.

It's the same as making alcohol magically disappear. Look, not a single bar in the whole town! Maybe Muslims will have to open speakeasies where they're free to practice their religion.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 340 by Tangle, posted 12-14-2015 12:30 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 347 by Tangle, posted 12-15-2015 11:11 AM ringo has replied
 Message 351 by Greatest I am, posted 12-15-2015 12:50 PM ringo has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022