Support NeoGAF

[Muffin1611]

You won't find a single law which doesn't make life worse for a group of people.

Nice standard. The effect of this is alledgedly freeing Muslim women from their oppression in the long-term.

By helping Muslim oppressors have them on a shorter leash in the short-term. Hm.

I think this is a little more obvious than these other laws you mention. And one-sided in terms of positives.

 

[Audioboxer]

I'm indifferent. If a Muslim woman wants to wear it, it's their choice. If they don't it's also their choice. It's not even obligatory but the point is, is that in both situations you have people saying they should/shouldn't and that ironically produces two extremes. We should give them the choice and education and let them make their own informed decision taking into account political/social/religious and personal spiritual factors. That's all I'm saying.

Indifference is often fence sitting which routinely leads to those with stronger conviction than yourself getting their way. Doesn't that sound familiar? Who do you think has the stronger, if not forceful conviction around an "informed decision"? I often think it's not the women, but the man of the house. Or family. Hence, legislating like I said earlier to produce a consequence where male Muslims who aren't like many of their more progressive brothers have to reform to continue living in a society that says no, you cannot treat or encourage women to be like this any longer.

Disagreeing with what Muslim women wear and legislating what Muslim women wear are not the same, and to do the latter without regard for their desires is pure, unadulterated condescension, of which you seem to have an endless supply.

We routinely legislate for things that not everyone agrees with is my point. It doesn't necessarily matter that your defence is "my religion!". Especially when not everyone within your religion even agrees with you. The fundamentalist Christians did not get to dictate over any Christians who supported equal marriage, because many in society and Government decided what was best wasn't what they wanted. Sometimes your dogmatic beliefs do not end up being accepted by a society/Government. You can continue thinking them in private, but you may not be able to do anything about the society, publicly, moving forward without you.

 

[Occam]

This. This post should be at the top of every page.

Religion is not a 'above the law'-card, and just as it a law mustn't have the intend of opressing a religion, a law mustn't be abolished because of one. This law is not intended to opress Islam or limit the freedoms of muslim women, but sets a rule for the way we intract with each other. Which is what laws in a society need to do.

You don't get it. Not wanting women to be oppressed by men by being made to wear face veils in the name of religion (and being brainwashed into liking it) and wanting a free unsegregated society where people can see each others faces makes you an islamophobe.

 

[wartama]

You're saying that it's a problem to ban this because of the effect it has on the women that wear them and their ability to get away from their oppressors. Despite the fact that any modern society has organizations in place to help people fearful of their spouses.

We have outlets in place for the exact situation you're describing, yet we shouldn't try and progress a society in another way because they might have to use them.

If any woman is fearful of their husband to the point that they won't leave the house without covering their face because of what the man might do, that is not the fault of society for making the law. If anything, it highlights why society should infringe upon the religion of people more, because it forces people who hold harmful archaic religious beliefs to act differently.

Did I tell you that many muslim women who were abused did not get help, even though they informed the authorities? One was even handed back to her abuser, and she suffered until she ran away. And it was in the Netherlands.

Our suffering doesn't matter unless it's useful to some people's agendas. When that times comes, everyone expresses their heartful comments and laws about how they really care about us.

 

[psyfi]

You won't find a single law which doesn't make life worse for a group of people.

I agree that laws usually don't go over well, but a collective decision that is mutually consensual for all parties involved can be pretty strong.

 

[boiled goose]

It does. If you wear a ninja costume in Belgium, police can ask you to reveal your face. If you don't, you can be fined. Iirc the law against covering your face predates the niqab/hijab discussion

If police ask you to reveal your face no matter what you are wearing that is fine.
I'm ok with that. Religions shouldn't get exemptions.

An outright ban is different.

You don't get it. Not wanting women to be oppressed by men by being made to wear face veils in the name of religion (and being brainwashed into liking it) and wanting a free unsegregated society where people can see each others faces makes you an islamophobe.

The goal is fine. It is the means that I have a problem with.
Bans like this are silly, promote prejudice, are irrational, target a specific group, and are arbitrary.

 

[Osahi]

It doesn't actually matter what the law intends or not when it actually makes life worse for a group of people.

We're all parts of a society, and we have a silent agreement to abide by the rules of that society. In return we get some democratic say in things. Sometimes that means certain sacrifices. I've used this example before: nudists can't freely walk around naked, even if this maybe 'makes life worse' for them. Or another example: maybe you opose open gun carry or free gun ownership (like I do), but laws against this are making life worse for some people....

We can't have a reasonable law abolished because of religious sensitivities. Religion should never dictate any laws.

And yes, there is a chance oppressed niqab wearers won't be allowed to go outside by their husband. I think it is way more important to try to identify such practices and combat them (as we have laws forbidding keeping people prisoner too), than it is to give an exemption to the niqab on this ban on covering your face in public.

 

[Zen_Arcade]

True. But religion often gets a pass.


Really, that's your comparison? You'd have a point if I said something like, "women who wear the niqab do so because they love how it pisses off Westerners, it has nothing to do with their freedom, they're just pretending", but I never did anything like that.


I don't know what you're talking about, but no, I'm not going to do that, thank you very much.

Definitely. Bit my point is that it shouldn't. And that blaming the law instead of the oppressor and his ideology because of his religion just furthers religion getting a free pass.

 

[Cat Party]

This law isn't banning it because it is a religious object. It is being banned because it hides a person's identity.

This. This post should be at the top of every page.

Religion is not a 'above the law'-card, and just as it a law mustn't have the intend of opressing a religion, a law mustn't be abolished because of one. This law is not intended to opress Islam or limit the freedoms of muslim women, but sets a rule for the way we intract with each other. Which is what laws in a society need to do.

A law that bans you from covering your face in public in general is also insane to me. I fully disagree with the notion that the government should dictate the way we interact with each other.

 

[boiled goose]

We're all parts of a society, and we have a silent agreement to abide by the rules of that society. In return we get some democratic say in things. Sometimes that means certain sacrifices. I've used this example before: nudists can't freely walk around naked, even if this maybe 'makes life worse' for them. Or another example: maybe you opose open gun carry or free gun ownership (like I do), but laws against this are making life worse for some people....

We can't have a reasonable law abolished because of religious sensitivities. Religion should never dictate any laws.

And yes, there is a chance oppressed niqab wearers won't be allowed to go outside by their husband. I think it is way more important to try to identify such practices and combat them (as we have laws forbidding keeping people prisoner too), than it is to give an exemption to the niqab on this ban on covering your face in public.

The ban is dictating laws because of religion.

A law that bans you from covering your face in public in general is also insane to me. I fully disagree with the notion that the government should dictate the way we interact with each other.

.

 

[Osahi]

If police ask you to reveal your face no matter what you are wearing that is fine.
I'm ok with that. Religions shouldn't get exemptions.

An outright ban is different.

Well, It is outright banned. I ment the police can ask you to remove your mask, as you aren't allowed to wear one (with an exemption for, for instance carnaval festivities, or work as a mascotte and such)

 

[Morrigan Stark]

Definitely. Bit my point is that it shouldn't. And that blaming the law instead of the oppressor and his ideology because of his religion just furthers religion getting a free pass.

Oh, I was agreeing with that too.

 

[Fantastapotamus]

A law that bans you from covering your face in public in general is also insane to me. I fully disagree with the notion that the government should dictate the way we interact with each other.

So who should?
Let god sort them out? Survival of the fittest? Or do you hope that humantiy suddenly becomes way less violent without laws and regulations?

 

[gutter_trash]

The ban is dictating laws because of religion.



.

gender equality trumps misogynist religious belief systems

 

[boiled goose]

Well, It is outright banned. I ment the police can ask you to remove your mask, as you aren't allowed to wear one (with an exemption for, for instance carnaval festivities, or work as a mascotte and such)

That is insane to me. Disagree completely with my European friends here. The government can forbid you from covering your face in public at any time?

Do masked carnivals have to be approved by the state?
Do mascots have to have licenses?
(you also forgot motorcyles)
Also, if you are cold and cover your face with a scarf, what happens? Can you get fined for that?

gender equality trumps misogynist religious belief systems

I agree gender equality trumps religious beliefs.
I agree that many religious wear is sexist.

I can still be against the ban.
Telling people what to wear in public is the definition of oppression to me. Especially when it's arbitrary, irrational, targeting specific group.

 

[Zen_Arcade]

Did I tell you that many muslim women who were abused did not get help, even though they informed the authorities? One was even handed back to her abuser, and she suffered until she ran away. And it was in the Netherlands.

Our suffering doesn't matter unless it's useful to some people's agendas. When that times comes, everyone expresses their heartful comments and laws about how they really care about us.

That's terrible, but not really a condemnation of this law or the reasoning for it existing. Ultimately, the issue still stems from the religion and not society. Though your point about the authorities does show how society needs to do better dealing with situations like this.

Oh, I was agreeing with that too.

I know, I was just furthering my point.

Sorry for the confusion!

 

[Fantastapotamus]

Do masked carnivals have to be approved by the state?
Do mascots have to have licenses?

Yes and yes

 

[Cat Party]

So who should?
Let god sort them out? Survival of the fittest? Or do you hope that humantiy suddenly becomes way less violent without laws and regulations?

You misunderstand. There is an enormous gulf between laws protecting the welfare of the public and laws that dictate how we interact.

 

[boiled goose]

Yes and yes

What country?

 

[Fantastapotamus]

You misunderstand. There is an enormous gulf between laws protecting the welfare of the public and laws that dictate how we interact.

I'm not sure I understand then.

What country?

Me? I'm from Austria
Like any business you need a license to run a carnival. Probably more than one to be honest, depending on what you do.
And you surely need either a license or at least a permission if you want to be a mascot, though I'm not sure if we mean the same when we say mascot. I'm thinking of mimes and stuff, but maybe that's not what you mean.

 

[Osahi]

A law that bans you from covering your face in public in general is also insane to me. I fully disagree with the notion that the government should dictate the way we interact with each other.

Why? There are many reasonable to have one. One thing is a certain degree of security. You should be identifiable by for instance, the police. There is a anti-crime aspect to it. Unmasked people can be more easily described by witnesses. But also a simple thing like someone missing. How do you want to sent out a 'missing'-message if you can't have a picture actually showing the person?

And offcoure government (and society in general) dictates how we interact with each other. We need such (sometimes unspoken) rules to make society working. Do you think you should be able to walk into ones house immidiatly once they open the door? It's a way of interacting, but it's forbidden to enter ones home without invitation...

The ban is dictating laws because of religion.



.

It is not. It doesn't ban the headscarf or religious symbols in general. It bans the covering of your face, by a religious symbol or not. Which is a reasonable rule. Like I said, if I'm not completely mistaken, it has been forbidden in Belgium to walk around masked for a long time allready, before the niqab became 'an issue'.

 

[fantomena]

Do masked carnivals have to be approved by the state?
Do mascots have to have licenses?

Yes
Yes

 

[boiled goose]

Why? There are many reasonable to have one. One thing is a certain degree of security. You should be identifiable by for instance, the police. There is a anti-crime aspect to it. Unmasked people can be more easily described by witnesses. But also a simple thing like someone missing. How do you want to sent out a 'missing'-message if you can't have a picture actually showing the person?

And offcoure government (and society in general) dictates how we interact with each other. We need such (sometimes unspoken) rules to make society working. Do you think you should be able to walk into ones house immidiatly once they open the door? It's a way of interacting, but it's forbidden to enter ones home without invitation...




It is not. It doesn't ban the headscarf or religious symbols in general. It bans the covering of your face, by a religious symbol or not. Which is a reasonable rule. Like I said, if I'm not completely mistaken, it has been forbidden in Belgium to walk around masked for a long time allready, before the niqab became 'an issue'.

If countries have anti mask laws, I don't think religions should get an exemption.
I agree totally there.

I don't agree with the anti mask laws in the first place though.

 

[Liha]

I fully disagree with the notion that the government should dictate the way we interact with each other.

Do you also support hate speech and discrimination against minorities by private businesses or do you just want to push your own agenda?

 

[Somnid]

Why is banning facewear "reasonable?" It there anything real to back that up? I'd wager that it was created on pure anecdote and not actually due to a large systemic wave of unsolved crime. Many countries have no such laws and aren't any worse off.

 

[G.ZZZ]

That is insane to me. Disagree completely with my European friends here. The government can forbid you from covering your face in public at any time?

Do masked carnivals have to be approved by the state?
Do mascots have to have licenses?
(you also forgot motorcyles)
Also, if you are cold and cover your face with a scarf, what happens? Can you get fined for that?

- Yes, or more specifically, by the local authority. You can still be asked to remove the mask and you have to comply. Also always bring an ID with you, by law.
- No, but you have to notify the authorities for a permit to work as one
- Mirrored helmet visors are banned and normal helmet are permitted while driving a motorbike and never anytime else
- You can be asked to remove it at any point by the authorities

Welcome to the autoritharian EU distopia.

 

[CSJ]

I want safety and financial stability. That's all I ask. To go to local market and to the GP without expecting that I would be stopped and fined/jailed because wearing a niqab. I don't have the luxury to work in countries where the niqab is enforced. My mother was imprisoned in a muslim country BECAUSE she dared to wear the hijab. In the Scandinavian country where I was born, I cannot even work and study with a normal Abaya and hijab, let alone a niqab. NOWHERE in the world can we be women, muslim and black and have a stable and safe lifestyle where I can work and go to uni and hospital and no be treated like dirt. And the Human Right court of all places should not have upheld a law that further restricts our rights.

Here's the thing: with this ban upheld, soon when other European countries follow suit, there would be nowhere where I can live as a muslim, black and queer woman. If I want to live like a normal human being, I would need to shed and hide one of these identities (which I'm actually kinda doing right now, since I'm still not fully out as a queer).
And the Human Right's court would be helping shaping that future. The Human. Rights. Court.

That's it, pack it up folks. Human Rights™ and Freedom* was a lie. I mean, what is the difference between Saudi Arabia enforcing a dress code and Belgium and France banning a dress code? Is it a matter of perspective, that "when they ain't doing it like us they're bad, when we do it it's good"? I mean, you could argue that not wearing the hijab in Saudi Arabia is going against social norms. Going against norms should never be the basis for criminalizing a dress code.

I'm not educated enough on the matter to understand why not wearing one is a problem for you. I guess I'm too ignorant on the matter but I thought having to wear one at all was a form of oppression on women in certain countries. Coming to a western country I'd have assumed you were now free of that assumed burden.

But you said it's a choice earlier, so I now assume it's something you want to do.

 

[boiled goose]

- Yes, or more specifically, by the local authority. You can still be asked to remove the mask and you have to comply. Also always bring an ID with you, by law.
- No, but you have to notify the authorities for a permit to work as one
- Mirrored helmet visors are banned and normal helmet are permitted while driving a motorbike and never anytime else
- You can be asked to remove it at any point by the authorities

Welcome to the autoritharian EU distopia.

Side bar: Mask laws vary by state in the US.

http://www.anapsid.org/cnd/mcs/maskcodes.html

It is interesting.

 

[Osahi]

That is insane to me. Disagree completely with my European friends here. The government can forbid you from covering your face in public at any time?

Do masked carnivals have to be approved by the state?
Do mascots have to have licenses?
(you also forgot motorcyles)
Also, if you are cold and cover your face with a scarf, what happens? Can you get fined for that?



I agree gender equality trumps religious beliefs.
I agree that many religious wear is sexist.

I can still be against the ban.
Telling people what to wear in public is the definition of oppression to me. Especially when it's arbitrary, irrational, targeting specific group.

You can't walk around with your motorcycle helmet on. You have to take it of outside of traffic. You can hide your face in a scarf when it's cold offcourse, but you have to be able to take it off too. The law talks more about covering your face with the intend to hide your identity, so a scarf when it freezes doesn't fall under it.

And yes, carnaval festivities need police clearance, like any big festivity.

 

[wartama]

That's terrible, but not really a condemnation of this law or the reasoning for it existing. Ultimately, the issue still stems from the religion and not society. Though your point about the authorities does show how society needs to do better dealing with situatuons like this.

Let me explain it more.

I now girls who were abused BECAUSE they wanted to practice their religion more. They lived in western countries, yet did not get help. It was viewed that since they wanted to wear the hijab and practice their religion more, they were the one in the wrong. It was not said out loud, but the feeling we go was that we deserved being abused because if that's what's going to make us less religious, then so be it. Now, in this case, is it the religion that is at fault?

My cousin (and super best friend) who wears the niqab was once insulted by a policeman as she passed by him on the street. She refused to leave home for several days. An ex-coworker who wore (don't know if she does anymore) was chased around and severely beaten by a non-muslim stranger while she was walking on the street. Everyone stood around and watched or just walked by as she was abused, until someone in their shop called the police.

We don't feel safe because we feel the authorities and people don't want to help, and we have our anecdotes to back our fears. Religion does not abuse us, everyone and everything else fails us.

 

[AntChum]

They are inherently so. Misogyny is why they were created to begin with.

While that might be the case historically, do you not think that contemporaneously the Niqab can be 'reclaimed' in a similar fashion to the N-word? Regardless of that, there are Muslim women who do choose to put one on, and so who are we to stop them because of some dickheads' actions centuries ago? I do realise there are women denied a choice today, and the only people in our sights should be the husbands, the parents — the abusers. Banning pieces of cloth won't fix the misogynistic elements of Islam as practiced by some believers — it's just one symptom, not the root cause.

No, I'm not saying that at all. I am not talking about Belgium becoming a theocracy but referring to existing theocracies or so-called secular countries becoming more and more theocratic (e.g. Turkey). I am saying that panicking over the erosion of freedom with regards to this ban is an absurd misplacement of priorities. You want to panick over erosion of freedoms, just take a look at what Turkey is turning into.

I was being a touch glib, sorry. Ultimately, we're all capable of caring about more than one issue. Although not as aware as I probably should be, the actions of Turkey's Erdogan are something we should all be mindful, but this is a thread about the banning of the veil in Belgium. No, it's not some great injustice that will shake the West to its ideological core, but I see it in conjunction with the potential erosion of civil liberties that springs from the ashes of terror attacks.

 

[Fantastapotamus]

Also, it should be noted that it's not like cops tackle you to the ground and give you a ticket if you were a scarf in winter.
At most they might say "Could you please remove the scarf for a moment and identify yourself". If you were a biker helmet in a supermarket, that's a different thing.

 

[Kralamoonard]

Indifference is often fence sitting which routinely leads to those with stronger conviction than yourself getting their way. Doesn't that sound familiar? Who do you think has the stronger, if not forceful conviction around an "informed decision"? I often think it's not the women, but the man of the house. Or family. Hence, legislating like I said earlier to produce a consequence where male Muslims who aren't like many of their more progressive brothers have to reform to continue living in a society that says no, you cannot treat or encourage women to be like this any longer.

Well this is exactly the point of contention; assuming any woman who wants to wear the niqab is automatically pressured by her husband/father. I've already mentioned this in my previous posts so cba to repeat myself again, (even though I haven't talked to you ITT so I'm sorry to be so blunt), but I feel like we're just gonna go in circles.

Also I (obviously) disagree with your assessment regarding the need for
'reformation' but would rather use the word renovation of Islam (particularly speaking as a Muslim) -- I think clearly it is something that we have two completely opposing outlooks on considering one of us believes Islam is man made and the other doesn't.

My point is, even amongst Muslim circles, the idea that Islam needs to "change" isn't a new one, after all, one aspect of our faith, Fiqh, is something that is dynamic and ever changing (a simple example to try and explain what I mean is that a Muslim in the 15th century probably wouldn't recognise a modern day Muslim, yet both are wearing clothes that abide by Islam rulings).

The only thing that is different is what constitutes change, because all classical and modern day Muslim scholars agree there are certain principles in our faith that are here to stay and there are others that can be reinterpreted depending on the time period based on Qiyas, Ijmaa and other more complicated things lol.

I'm not very specialist in terms of jurisprudence and technicalities on rulings (and the reason why I mention this is because Fiqh and 'contentious' aspects of our religion such as Sharia that people want changed are more intricate and complex than is often thought to be so really understanding first it is as important as discussing it and I'm not going to pretend I know what's I'm talking about).

There is a good introductory Reddit post to kind of get what I'm driving at here which I recommend you to read if you're genuinely interested, though I'm sure someone more eloquent and educated than I am in Islamic jurispedence and Sharia can pitch in here.

If you're genuinely interested about why I think reformation is the wrong word to use, there is a good video by Sheikh Hamza Yusuf in a discussion he gave at Oxford University about 'reformation' vs 'renovation' and I'm only posting it here as you mentioned reformation and I hope I'm watching it you can at least understand what I'm trying to say, not necessarily even agree:

https://youtu.be/qY17d4ZhY8M

I'd like to hear your thoughts. It's long so watch at your own pace (or his segment only).

 

[wartama]

I'm not educated enough on the matter to understand why not wearing one is a problem for you. I guess I'm too ignorant on the matter but I thought having to wear one at all was a form of oppression on women in certain countries. Coming to a western country I'd have assumed you were now free of that assumed burden.

But you said it's a choice earlier, so I now assume it's something you want to do.

Again, I read extensively in the islamic discourse, and I find that the evidence that supports it outweighed the evidence that does not. Other muslim women came to different conclusions, and each of us strives to do her best in accordance to what we believe in.

Thank you for asking it in a civilized way. If every post was as nicely written as yours, I would have gone around saying thank you to them. That is how bad posts have been today.

 

[Morrigan Stark]

While that might be the case historically, do you not think that contemporaneously the Niqab can be 'reclaimed' in a similar fashion to the N-word?

Not really, no. Using a tool of oppression on yourself on purpose doesn't "stick it to the man" at all. I find the very idea laughable, even.

Regardless of that, there are Muslim women who do choose to put one on, and so who are we to stop them because of some dickheads' actions centuries ago?

Because we don't want to normalize this shit in our society. That is why I am fine with this ban and agree with the EU court, even if I won't insist on having it in my own country (which doesn't have the ban).

 

[BadWolf]

My cousin (and super best friend) who wears the niqab was once insulted by a policeman as she passed by him on the street. She refused to leave home for several days. An ex-coworker who wore (don't know if she does anymore) was chased around and severely beaten by a non-muslim stranger while she was walking on the street. Everyone stood around and watched or just walked by as she was abused, until someone in their shop called the police.

So... two women could have avoided verbal and physical abuse if one physical object was taken out of the equation?

 

[CSJ]

Again, I read extensively in the islamic discourse, and I find that the evidence that supports it outweighed the evidence that does not. Other muslim women came to different conclusions, and each of us strives to do her best in accordance to what we believe in.

Thank you for asking it in a civilized way. If every post was as nicely written as yours, I would have gone around saying thank you to them. That is how bad posts have been today.

I guess you've answered it a hundred times already sorry, it's hard to keep up with some threads.

 

[Kralamoonard]

Considering religion, particularly the Abrahamic type, has been one of the most powerful tool to oppress women across all of human history, my views shouldn't be surprising. I don't have a problem with people being religious in their private homes, but once someone's beliefs start negatively impacting the people and the world around them, then I will not hesitate in opposing them.

Well I completely disagree (specifically regarding Islam) and think you're misunderstanding what Islam is really about but I think that is a whole other discussion for whole other day.

 

[Osahi]

Just have to add for honesty's sake I was mistaken this is an old law in Belgium. It's one from 2011, I just found out. I believe, but need to do research, it was obligated to be willing to reveal your face to police before...

So yeah, the law was made in reaction to niqabs and burquas appearing. This doesn't change my opinion on it though, as I feel the neccissety to be recognisable in public is important, and this law provides clarity on the issue.

Edit: and the law expressively states 'covering your face in any way', so doesn't single out niqabs and burquas

 

[You Are Viewtiful]

So... two women could have avoided verbal and physical abuse if one physical object was taken out of the equation?

Yeah, and if girls didn't wear such slutty clothing they wouldn't be hurt either. *eyeroll*

 

[psyfi]

Banning the niqab is not the right way to address the misogyny here. The women who wear the niqab are the only ones who should decide whether they wear or not, and their autonomy should be supported and respected. Telling them they can't wear the niqab is just as insulting as telling them they have to. It's another form of patriarchy.

 

[wartama]

So... two women could have avoided verbal and physical abuse if one physical object was taken out of the equation?

Why am I not surprised you will see it as just that. Now go back, think about the implication of those incidents, read all my previous posts, sleep on it, and then come ask me tomorrow if you still feel the answer eludes you.

 

[psyfi]

So... two women could have avoided verbal and physical abuse if one physical object was taken out of the equation?

"they were asking for it"

 

[Koren]

No, I don't, and in fact, ironically, this ban just limits their freedom even more. It's sad that when people see this they automatically assume the case is always being forced upon them by their husbands, when in many cases it's the opposite and they choose to wear it out of their own choice.

"own choice" is a tricky thing... I'm not sure there's a good solution, but I don't buy the "own choice" any more than the "it's forced" *.

The choices you're doing are heavily linked to the culture you're into, and to some extend, I think that, with a lot of caution, society has some rights to put limits in cultures.


* just because I know how it'll turn out, I'm not saying I'm better, there's plently of things I'm doing "by my own choice", knowing that I, in fact, do it because I've learned to believe, over the years, that's it's the best thing in the world...

 

[BadWolf]

Yeah, and if girls didn't wear such slutty clothing they wouldn't be hurt either. *eyeroll*

Except the physical object in question is now banned and by default the situation would be avoided moving forward. If the Niqab really was the only reason they were abused that is.

If it was religion or something else then that becomes another issue.

 

[Shiggy]

I'm not sure if anyone is interested in the actual reasoning of the law, which is not to free 'oppressed' Muslim women:

In the present case, the Belgian State had intended in adopting the contested provisions to respond to a practice that the State deemed incompatible, in Belgian society, with the ground rules of social communication and, more broadly, with the creation of the human relationships that were essential to life in society. The State was seeking to protect a principle of interaction between individuals that was, in its view, essential to the functioning of a democratic society. From this perspective, and similarly to the situation which had previously arisen in France (S.A.S. v. France), it seemed that the question whether or not it should be permitted to wear the full-face veil in public places constituted a choice of society. Furthermore, while it was true that the scope of the ban was broad, because all places accessible to the public were concerned, the contested provisions did not affect the freedom to wear in public any garment or item of clothing – with or without a religious connotation – which did not have the effect of concealing the face. Lastly, there was no consensus within the member States of the Council of Europe as to whether or not there should be a blanket ban on the wearing of the full-face veil in public places, which justified, in the Court’s opinion, leaving the respondent State significant room for manoeuvre (“a very large margin of appreciation”).

In consequence, the Court considered that the ban imposed by the joint by-law of the municipalities in the Vesdre police area could be regarded as proportionate to the aim pursued, namely the preservation of the conditions of “living together” as an element of the “protection of the rights and freedoms of others. It therefore held that the contested restriction could be regarded as “necessary” “in a democratic society” and concluded that there had been no violation of Articles 8 and 9 of the Convention.

http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng-press?i=003-5788319-7361101

 

[psyfi]

Except the physical object in question is now banned and by default the situation would be avoided moving forward. If the Niqab really was the only reason they were abused that is.

we're discussing islamophobic violence here

 

[Fantastapotamus]

Except the physical object in question is now banned and by default the situation would be avoided moving forward. If the Niqab really was the only reason they were abused that is.

That doesn't really make the situation any better, tho.

 

[Nerazar]

Banning the niqab is not the right way to address the misogyny here. The women who wear the niqab are the only ones who should decide whether they wear or not, and their autonomy should be supported and respected. Telling them they can't wear the niqab is just as insulting as telling them they have to. It's another form of patriarchy.

We have to free them from self-oppression and self-segregation at some point. This is one step of making the point heard that participating in (our) society doesn't involve such practices. There are certain limits and rules such as not obscuring your face in public.

Just because, say, 1% of women decide to wear it by their own choice, we have to intervene with the rest. There's always the hijab to fall back to.

 

[Cat Party]

Do you also support hate speech and discrimination against minorities by private businesses or do you just want to push your own agenda?

The government can and should protect people from discrimination, harassment, abuse, etc.

None of that is related to a law that prohibits you from concealing your face in public.

This isn't complicated stuff.