Support NeoGAF

[Khaz]

You know what Cyframe, I think I know who to add to my ignore list now. I'm so fucking tired of this thread and so boiling with anger because I keep posting about my experiences with hate and discrimination and people seem to gloss over it. I guess at the end of the day, one side 'winning' an argument is all that matters, not the lived experiences of actual human beings.

If there are people who genuinely want to understand more about me and background, and why I'm against this ban, that I haven't already said, I'll reply to you. If you're here to make your opinion about muslim women and how they should be saved, vent all you want. I won't be listening to it.

You've been discriminated against. We get it. And that traumatised you. Rightly so, I wouldn't wish it to anyone and can only imagine what it would be. Nevertheless, it seems you can't see the bigger picture, or imagine that your experience is not the experience of everybody else.

I can say it again, but the niqab ban is not a muslim ban, or a hijab ban. Racists gonna racist, but the vast majority of people against the niqab are plenty fine with the hijab, and dislike it for pure practical reasons, the social cohesion that was discussed previously. I'm pretty sure the vast majority of people who, maybe bluntly, expressed their approval about the ruling, are in the same state of mind. We're not against you. But we'd like to be able to see you when communicating with you. You and your close family may have your tells to know who's who, but we don't: we need to see the faces of the people we talk to.

Sleep over it, start wearing a hijab in your daily life, and you will realise that nothing has changed. Maybe you'll even have more people interacting with you.

 

[Sunster]

Religious symbols are banned when you hold public office. For instance, a jewish police officer can't wear a jewish headgear. A Muslim judge can't wear a headscarf. A christian teacher in a public school can't wear a cross. Just like public offices (town hall, schools, ...) can't have religious symbols at the walls.

If you work in a private company, your boss can decide the rules. But I think (should read up on it) he has to have a sound argument (for instance, security reasons while working with machinery)

I am against this law for people by the way.

well we (US) had a single female Muslim judge, and she wore a headscarf. But she was found dead in a river last April. Also teachers here wear crosses all the time.

 

[Sean C]

I look at these pictures and it's beyond me how can someone defend this. And as a symbol of freedom and autonomy no less! It's mindboggling.

Freedom and autonomy means respecting the individual rights of people, and not patronizingly assuming their views don't count.

That's why I'm glad the Canadian courts have been muscular in protecting the religious liberties of Muslim women, unlike the European courts.

 

[ClosingADoor]

Freedom and autonomy means respecting the individual rights of people, and not patronizingly assuming their views don't count.

That's why I'm glad the Canadian courts have been muscular in protecting the religious liberties of Muslim women, unlike the European courts.

I'm glad European courts don't hold individual rights as something untouchable, but see that sometimes when it is beneficial for the whole society, you can limit it. Same thing with freedom of speech where European countries have a bit more restrictions. Of course it should not be done lightly though, but I think the EU courts are doing a pretty good job with it.

 

[Occam]

Freedom and autonomy means respecting the individual rights of people, and not patronizingly assuming their views don't count.

That's why I'm glad the Canadian courts have been muscular in protecting the religious liberties of Muslim women, unlike the European courts.

Human rights trump religious liberties. Banning symbols of oppression is not opression, it's the road towards freedom.

 

[Billy_Pilgrim]

Narrated 'Aisha: The wives of the Prophet used to go to Al-Manasi, a vast open place (near Baqia at Medina) to answer the call of nature at night. 'Umar used to say to the Prophet "Let your wives be veiled," but Allah's Apostle did not do so. One night Sauda bint Zam'a the wife of the Prophet went out at 'Isha' time and she was a tall lady. 'Umar addressed her and said, "I have recognized you, O Sauda." He said so, as he desired eagerly that the verses of Al-Hijab (the observing of veils by the Muslim women) may be revealed. So Allah revealed the verses of "Al-Hijab" (A complete body cover excluding the eyes).

Yup, that ruling is a good thing. Pretending god told you that women must be covered because someone spied your missus having a wee.

 

[wartama]

I understand that you came to this choice and conclusion completely on religious believes, and I repect that. But, as I've said before, your religious choice does not,place you above secular law.

Legislators don't base legislation on scientific research alone. It's based on culture too, on a vision on society. That vision is: people in public should be recognizable, and we don't want people to shield themselves of from others. We also don't want women supressed, which, however you look at it, still is a big part of the niqab (though not in your case). It's the same with nudism. You can argue there isn't enough research or proof of the effects of it, but the society, and the law decided that you can't be naked in public places.

As i stressed before. I don't care at all if people wear religious symbols in public, but I do believe that in our way of interacting and in our society, you expose your face, so that is where the limit of that freedom of religious expression lies. The Human Rights court, which doesn't tread lightly in cases regarding religious freedom, agrees.

What really infuriates me about the argument that law takes 'culture' into account is that the same argument is used to police women's dress in some parts of the Middle East, only difference being in that, there the excuse used is 'modesty', here, it's 'communication' or 'social cohesion'. And both have little evidence to prove pieces of clothing have an effect on modesty or communication. I have no respect for both arguments. Women should be allowed to wear whatever they feel to, and damn the excuses.

As for the nudist argument, I would say that the niqab is something that already existed in muslim communities in the west, and the wearer perfectly functions within the society until it no longer does. In some parts of the west, nudity has never been allowed (though it was alright in Norway during summer if my memory serves me right; it's been a long long time since I've been there). Why was something that was alright for so long suddenly bannable now?

 

[Sean C]

I'm glad European courts don't hold individual rights as something untouchable, but see that sometimes when it is beneficial for the whole society, you can limit it.

Canada has that same principle. But we don't take the view that enacting laws targeting Muslim women is beneficial to society.

Human rights trump religious liberties.

Whose human rights? It's nonsensical and patronizing to punish women in the name of their "human rights".

 

[Khaz]

I can? I need to get my info up to date.

So what was the fuss of 'the religious symbols ban' I heard about in the news? When are they allowed and when are they not?

Things you cannot do: wear a religious symbol or garment when you are a public servant holding public office. The state is secular and so should you. You are allowed your beliefs of course, but you can't show them to the public.

In a private office: it's down to the employer, but it's an all or nothing ban for all religions, and needs to be justified. An employer cannot ban a religious garment if people wore it without causing any fuss previously, but they can set in stone a previously unwritten neutral dress code.

Religious symbols and garments at school (not uni): ironically, it was done to protect people who did not want to wear them. Peer pressure is enormous in some neighbourhoods, and girls were pressured, shamed, threatened into wearing religious garments if they looked the part. Banning religious symbols on kids was radical, but solved that problem neatly. There is a lot more work to do obviously, and schools are working towards educating young people about these issues. For example, no brown girl, regardless of her actual religion, would ever dare wear a skirt in high school. There'd be riots.

Things you can do: everything else. In public space, you cannot conceal your face or be naked, but everything else is halal.

 

[wartama]

Freedom and autonomy means respecting the individual rights of people, and not patronizingly assuming their views don't count.

That's why I'm glad the Canadian courts have been muscular in protecting the religious liberties of Muslim women, unlike the European courts.

Now that you mention it, I need to check out Canada. One of these days, when I get more money...

 

[Sunster]

Yup, that ruling is a good thing. Pretending god told you that women must be covered because someone spied your missus having a wee.

it's legit not even in the Quran

 

[Occam]

Whose human rights? It's nonsensical and patronizing to punish women in the name of their "human rights".

Removing this tool of disenfranchisement is not punishment.

 

[PrimaNocta]

Good. If your in public, your face shouldn't be fully covered. no problem with this ruling.

 

[Sean C]

I'm not sure what point you think that makes.

If you're suggesting this inevitably leads to such things becoming compulsory, the same laws about religious freedom that grant the ability to wear such a covering prevent its being mandatory.

EDIT:

Removing the this tool of disenfranchisement is not punishment.

Yes it is, because the only way this ruling has any teeth is by excluding women who don't abide by it. That is punishment. And, again, the assumption that these women are "disenfranchised", which is patronizing and denies them individual agency.

 

[wartama]

Things you cannot do: wear a religious symbol or garment when you are a public servant holding public office. The state is secular and so should you. You are allowed your beliefs of course, but you can't show them to the public.

In a private office: it's down to the employer, but it's an all or nothing ban for all religions, and needs to be justified. An employer cannot ban a religious garment if people wore it without causing any fuss previously, but they can set in stone a previously unwritten neutral dress code.

Religious symbols and garments at school (not uni): ironically, it was done to protect people who did not want to wear them. Peer pressure is enormous in some neighbourhoods, and girls were pressured, shamed, threatened into wearing religious garments if they looked the part. Banning religious symbols on kids was radical, but solved that problem neatly. There is a lot more work to do obviously, and schools are working towards educating young people about these issues. For example, no brown girl, regardless of her actual religion, would ever dare wear a skirt in high school. There'd be riots.

Things you can do: everything else. In public space, you cannot conceal your face or be naked, but everything else is halal.

I see, thanks for the clarification. There's been a lot of misinformation about it when the law was enforced.

 

[AcademicSaucer]

8 March, 1979, days after the Islamic dictatorship was established in Iran, 100,000 (educated) women spontaneously took to the streets to protest compulsory religious clothing (hijab). It was the first and only time.
The best way to keep women docile is to indoctrinate them from a young age and to deny them education, which is what has been successfully practiced in Iran ever since.

http://nytlive.nytimes.com/womenint...00000-iranian-women-protested-the-head-scarf/

So much this.

Is disheartening seeing so many people in this thread defending Religion oppressing women like that.

 

[Sean C]

So much this.

Is disheartening seeing so many people in this thread defending Religion oppressing women like that.

Defending a woman's right to wear a niqab does not equal defending people being compelled to wear a niqab.

The same principle that requires one also bars the other.

 

[wartama]

I'm not sure what point you think that makes.

If you're suggesting this inevitably leads to such things becoming compulsory, the same laws about religious freedom that grant the ability to wear such a covering prevent its being mandatory.

It's just a 'look at all these women with the sacks who look like each, they're funny, let's make fun of them while we pretend that we want to save them'.

It's not making a point. It's pointing a finger. Another to add to the pile of ignore.

 

[Occam]

And, again, the assumption that these women are "disenfranchised", which is patronizing and denies them individual agency.

You mean the way their husbands and families do?

 

[Sean C]

You mean the way their husbands and families do?

Again, assuming they're all abuse victims and can't make up their own minds. It's inherently patronizing.

 

[Occam]

http://reemarazek.com/2014/03/18/three-former-muslim-women-look-back-on-the-hijab/

 

[Sean C]

http://reemarazek.com/2014/03/18/three-former-muslim-women-look-back-on-the-hijab/

Anecdote is not the basis for laws of universal application. I'm sure some do it against their own desires. There are, and should, be laws in respect of that. But it's discriminatory to ban anyone from wearing it on the assumption that they're all zombies who need other people to make their decisions for them.

 

[Osahi]

What really infuriates me about the argument that law takes 'culture' into account is that the same argument is used to police women's dress in some parts of the Middle East, only difference being in that, there the excuse used is 'modesty', here, it's 'communication' or 'social cohesion'. And both have little evidence to prove pieces of clothing have an effect on modesty or communication. I have no respect for both arguments. Women should be allowed to wear whatever they feel to, and damn the excuses.

As for the nudist argument, I would say that the niqab is something that already existed in muslim communities in the west, and the wearer perfectly functions within the society until it no longer does. In some parts of the west, nudity has never been allowed (though it was alright in Norway during summer if my memory serves me right; it's been a long long time since I've been there). Why was something that was alright for so long suddenly bannable now?

I don't think you can make the same argument for this laws as laws obligating women to veil themselves in the Middle-East. In Belgium you are absolutely free to wear what you want, but to a certain extent. If you want to wear a hijab, you can. If you want to wear long dresses, you can. If you want to wear miniskirts and close-to-all-revealing tops: no problem. You are free. But we put some limits on that freedom, because, for instance, society feels that you need to be able to see someones face in public. Just like nudity (which was never legal here), it's a restriction on a pretty big freedom you have. Compared to some ME countries you have a lot of freedoms, it's just not absolute.

And I'm not entirely familiar with how this law came to be 6 years ago, but I'm pretty sure it was a reaction to a rise in women with niqabs, which wasn't something that was seen a lot before.(It still isn't for that matter). It was a reaction to a certain phemonon that, in some circles, was on the rise. (Like every new law is a reaction to new phenomenons or changing rules). I'm pretty sure the mysognistic aspect of the veil was part of the discussion too. It was in the same period an organisation as Sharia4Belgium came about too and caused unrest, recruiting young muslims (If I am not mistaken, one of the few women ever fined for this, was the wife of one of S4B's leaders). So I recon at that time the niqab became more visible, and the 'problem' so to say became more apparent.

So I don't believe that it was something regarded as 'allright' for a long time. In an unspoken, cultural rule it always has been something that was frowned upon. (You don't hide yourself when interacting with others) It's just that at one point they decided to make a law for it (which again, bans ALL ways of obscuring your face in public)

Look, I understand you encountered a lot of discrimination in your life, and I understand you feel this law is a personal attack on you and your views. But in a society there are limits to freedoms.

 

[Audioboxer]

I'm glad European courts don't hold individual rights as something untouchable, but see that sometimes when it is beneficial for the whole society, you can limit it. Same thing with freedom of speech where European countries have a bit more restrictions. Of course it should not be done lightly though, but I think the EU courts are doing a pretty good job with it.

Ironically there you tend to see a lot of Americans and to a lesser extent, Canadians, say they wish they had some of the speech regulation we do in the EU. I'm a massive supporter of freedom of speech as I think it goes hand-in-hand with other freedoms, like that of religion, to allow societies to debate, criticise and practice ideas as we see fit. However, a reasonable way to approach freedoms is to also recognise if you just left it up to every single human being to say my freedom is the most important, then you'd have a very messy, hostile and possibly broken/violent society. It's a balancing act that can lead to installing safeguards to make sure questionable behaviours/beliefs don't just get unrestricted access under the guise of freedom. If it were just left up to the millions of people all with different views to continually fight without intervention to try and progress a society you'd either end up going nowhere or it would be at a snail's pace. Hence why we often do invoke the courts and Government for aid.

I'm not quite sure where the balance lies, but I'm unconvinced complete and utter do and say whatever the hell you want is always a beacon of productivity. Not everything every human being wants to do with their concept of freedom is objectively productive. Nor would it be to stop variance of the people and end up with some authoritarian thought police system enforced by a Big Brother government. That's how you get a dictatorship or a mini-dictatorship. Before any decisions are ever made I think you need a great pool of evidence to try and support what you may want to legislate. Such as gay marriage, where there were years of medical and psychological evidence backing how homosexuality is not a choice and spurring on the question why can't two people who love each other be legally recognised? That was in the face of a shit tonne of religious and social opposition, but a decision was still made in many societies to go ahead, regardless of the conflicting views. There's yet again a shit tonne of evidence here that full face coverings are negative towards social interactions/cohesiveness, so again we see some societies make decisions, legally, that courts end up approving.

We already know that things that pass in the EU might not pass in America, or even Canada. However, countries around the world aren't always diverging on the same paths and each can sometimes come to conclusions the others do not.

 

[Plum]

The idea that because some choose to wear it the Niqab is fine is something I cannot get behind. It's semi-erasure of the fact that it is used for oppression and seems to imply that, somehow, without any external help, those who are oppressed will break free of oppression themselves. That some Muslim woman will be forced to stay home because of this ban does not fill me with hope that those same women would have escaped oppression any time soon even if we pumped money into education, social services, etc.

EDIT: Sorry, that sounded different after I read it. Basically: the issues of female oppression in the Muslim community will not be solved by Niqabs being banned, but I don't see the alternative as doing so any quicker as often times oppressive religious practices can only start to solve themselves with drastic measures.

Even then this law is a blanket law which just so happens to have a heavy religious context. I could never get behind something that bans a specific religious garb whilst allowing others (e.g. banning the Hijab whilst allowing Nuns to wear what they wear) but I can get behind this.

 

[wartama]

I don't think you can make the same argument for this laws as laws obligating women to veil themselves in the Middle-East. In Belgium you are absolutely free to wear what you want, but to a certain extent. If you want to wear a hijab, you can. If you want to wear long dresses, you can. If you want to wear miniskirts and close-to-all-revealing tops: no problem. You are free. But we put some limits on that freedom, because, for instance, society feels that you need to be able to see someones face in public. Just like nudity (which was never legal here), it's a restriction on a pretty big freedom you have. Compared to some ME countries you have a lot of freedoms, it's just not absolute.

And I'm not entirely familiar with how this law came to be 6 years ago, but I'm pretty sure it was a reaction to a rise in women with niqabs, which wasn't something that was seen a lot before.(It still isn't for that matter). It was a reaction to a certain phemonon that, in some circles, was on the rise. (Like every new law is a reaction to new phenomenons or changing rules). I'm pretty sure the mysognistic aspect of the veil was part of the discussion too. It was in the same period an organisation as Sharia4Belgium came about too and caused unrest, recruiting young muslims (If I am not mistaken, one of the few women ever fined for this, was the wife of one of S4B's leaders). So I recon at that time the niqab became more visible, and the 'problem' so to say became more apparent.

So I don't believe that it was something regarded as 'allright' for a long time. In an unspoken, cultural rule it always has been something that was frowned upon. (You don't hide yourself when interacting with others) It's just that at one point they decided to make a law for it (which again, bans ALL ways of obscuring your face in public)

Look, I understand you encountered a lot of discrimination in your life, and I understand you feel this law is a personal attack on you and your views. But in a society there are limits to freedoms.

Fair enough, if that's how it is in Belgium. I understand it, I don't like it, I still see it as policing what a woman wear. I've never been to Belgium, never will now, and when someone says there's a free society in Belgium I'll shake my head, and tut at them. If the law comes to England, however, I will make my opnion explicitly heard. The number of women who wear it here are more significant than in Belgium, and there are postgraduate students, dentists and lawyers among us. We have been wearing for so long now and we are part of the society. The 'communication' and 'social coherence' have never been a negative factor, so I won't let that excuse fly here.

And do you know in certain parts of the ME where hijab is enforced, the degree of 'hijabness' is also relative. You can wear the clothes to a certain degree until it 'immodest'. It's not absolute there as well.

 

[You Are Viewtiful]

And if I'd want to run around naked in public because I am overconfident? Should I be able to too?

Why not? What's your reason for banning nudity? You can't just ban what you want for no reason.

The only reason I'm concerned is that being nude and exposing your genitals can be seductive to children, who are not capable of consent. To create a safe space for children, I'd be okay with nudist colonies and beaches, just as long as children are banned from there without supervision. But other than that, I think you should be allowed to walk in your thong. I think it's indecent, but that's my problem, not their problem.

Again, as a society, by law, we have decided that it's not desirable to cover your face in public, whatever the reason is. It is where we draw a certain line in the way we interact with each other. And there is the undeniable aspect of the niqab as a tool of oppression, which doesn't rhyme with how our society views women's rights.

Sorry, but the bolded is exactly the problem I have with your style of thinking. You cannot use the strong hand of government to dictate how other people should live. What kind of "free society" is that? If you're going to create a law, it should be based on logic and reason, and it should promote freedom and protect people. Not create laws for "whatever reason". If you can't convince me it can do that, then it's simply tyrannical government's intrusion into private people's lives. Plain and simple.

The Niqab is a tool of oppression for some, a part of their religious faith for others. We can do what we can to help the former (legal, financial, educational and social support) without resorting to poorly thought out authoritarianism.

And don't lay words in my mouth. Offcourse society won't collapse. You are exagerating without any fundation to do so. But rules and laws decide how we organise our society. Also, it will take a lot before a judge will place a woman in prison for this in Belgium. Trust me. I don't think there is precedent in the 6 years this law is in effect.

To me it's simply amusing that people think that society can't function without seeing people's faces, since this is more or less what I see happen every winter. The paranoia and fear is baseless, the "you have to see people's faces" rule is completely made up. A woman wearing a Niqab can function perfectly fine and do anything anyone else can, if other people let her. If she needs to reveal her face for security or identification reasons, they do so.

Jailing and imprisonment is violence against women, plain and simple. We should be helping these women who are being abused, but instead, the state piles on the violence and makes a woman truly feel trapped. This is not feminist, this is not progressive, and this is most certainly not liberal.

And also don't turn this in a fear tactic. Please. That's obnoxious and besides the case. I also don't want to be asociated with that at all. I have been vocally against laws proposing the ban of the hijab in public functions. I have been vocally oposed to lots of measures we in Belgium took after the attacks in Paris (like putting soldiers on our streets). I have been vocally oposed against proposed laws lengthening the time someone can be jailed without orders from a judge (it's 24 now, they tried to make it 72). I've been vocally oposed against the law that states that foreigners living here can lose their right to live here on the mere suspicion of terroristic activities or sympathies. I found the burqini ban in France laughable, and vocally oposed when Belgian politicians wanted to follow. Hell, I've been very vocal in my opinion that the terror attacks are abused to push laws that limit our freedoms.

I'm not sure where I implied that you weren't progressive, I was speaking strictly of this measure. I'm happy you did those things though (really). But you say you laughed at the burkini ban. How is the burkini ban any different? Manuel Valls said banning the burkini is okay to protect public order and social norms. Really, how is that any different from what you are arguing?

Just like I am vocal that religion does not exempt someone from laws, and that we have certain limites, rules and ways that form our society, like the fact that in interacting with one another in real life, you don't cover your face. And though I'm very left on the political spectrum, I don't want to defend practices like the Niqab just because it's a practice of a minority of which I believe they need to be protected against discrimination and need to have absolute equal rights as everyone else.

I don't like the Niqab or Islam or religion either. But there are a lot of things people do that I don't like, and my instinct isn't to get government to ban them. People are going to do things that offend your sensibilities, it's just how it is.

As for women who have no choice but to wear it, that is the true crime. We have to find out why it is that they don't out their husband (usually for financial and socio-cultural reasons) and target those specifically.

 

[Reckheim]

Fair enough, if that's how it is in Belgium. I understand it, I don't like it, I still see it as policing what a woman wear. I've never been to Belgium, never will now, and when someone says there's a free society in Belgium I'll shake my head, and tut at them. If the law comes to England, however, I will make my opnion explicitly heard. The number of women who wear it here are more significant than in Belgium, and there are postgraduate students, dentists and lawyers among us. We have been wearing for so long now and we are part of the society. The 'communication' and 'social coherence' have never been a negative factor, so I won't let that excuse fly here.

And do you know in certain parts of the ME where hijab is enforced, the degree of 'hijabness' is also relative. You can wear the clothes to a certain degree until it 'immodest'. It's not absolute there as well.

I gotta ask, where do you originally come from? It seems like you wouldn't be able to visit many countries if you're basing your travel preferences based on 'free societies'.

 

[Occam]

Burqa and Niqab are tools of male oppression. Otherwise, why don't men wear them?
Tolerating oppression is not freedom.

 

[Ahasverus]

8 March, 1979, days after the Islamic dictatorship was established in Iran, 100,000 (educated) women spontaneously took to the streets to protest compulsory religious clothing (hijab). It was the first and only time.
The best way to keep women docile is to indoctrinate them from a young age and to deny them education, which is what has been successfully practiced in Iran ever since.

http://nytlive.nytimes.com/womenint...00000-iranian-women-protested-the-head-scarf/

 

[Nerazar]

Defending a woman's right to wear a niqab does not equal defending people being compelled to wear a niqab.

The same principle that requires one also bars the other.

No, we have certain rules. This is a slight argumentative stretch, but I will, for example, also never defend anyone's right to wear a SS uniform or other totalitarian symbols or symbols of systemic oppression in public like a KKK hood. Defending that would make me a co-perpetrator of the oppression.

The niqab is also never mentioned in the Koran, so there's that as well. The hijab is "good enough" and wearing that causes way less problems and is generally accepted and protected. And even if you argue that the niqab is specifically mentioned in the Koran: it's part of a ritual and should only be worn in times of trial. And that is not everyday in public.

 

[You Are Viewtiful]

Burqa and Niqab are tools of male oppression. Otherwise, why don't men wear them?
Tolerating oppression is not freedom.

Why don't men wear skirts?

I can wear it if I want to and not fear persecution. That is freedom.

We don't have to tolerate oppression. When someone infringes on the freedom of others (forces someone else to wear a niqab), that is where everyone else can step in. We are not going to pre-emptively remove freedoms, so that the other person doesn't have to.

 

[Poona]

I've seen someone wearing one of the full body one of these twice in Australia (Melbourne) both times at a shopping centre and it is kind of scary seeing one in person, like as if I saw a black ghost (you know how ghosts are depicted with white sheets).

 

[Arrogant Bastard]

Crazy that people are debating this a means of expression an autonomy. They are raised i.e. indoctrinated into this behavior from birth, they only believe it is what they want because of that brainwashing. This is a solid ruling, the practice should be stomped out everywhere.

 

[Plum]

As for women who have no choice but to wear it, that is the true crime. We have to find out why it is that they don't out their husband (usually for financial and socio-cultural reasons) and target those specifically.

How are we supposed to do that? Trying to appeal to an oppressive group's heart rarely, if ever, helps if their tools of oppression are still legal. Even when they aren't legal the underlying feelings are still there.

 

[Ahasverus]

Why don't men wear skirts?

False equivalency.

 

[Miles Quaritch]

Burqa and Niqab are tools of male oppression. Otherwise, why don't men wear them?
Tolerating oppression is not freedom.

This is flawed reasoning.

Why don't men wear short skirts? Revealing low cut tops?

Are those tools of male oppression too? Clothing designed to objectify women and encourage the 'male gaze'

 

[Khaz]

Fair enough, if that's how it is in Belgium. I understand it, I don't like it, I still see it as policing what a woman wear. I've never been to Belgium, never will now, and when someone says there's a free society in Belgium I'll shake my head, and tut at them.

You need to realise there is no such thing as a free society. We are all bound by rules, laws, and we cannot do whatever we want. Society = rules, by its very definition. We can discuss the extent of those laws but true freedom can never be achieved as long as there is more than one person in a society.

 

[Occam]

Crazy that people are debating this a means of expression an autonomy. They are raised i.e. indoctrinated into this behavior from birth, they only believe it is what they want because of that brainwashing. This is a solid ruling, the practice should be stomped out everywhere.

Yeah, it's almost like it's futile to have a debate with indoctrinated people.

 

[Zen_Arcade]

This is flawed reasoning.

Why don't men wear short skirts? Revealing low cut tops?

Are those tools of male oppression too? Clothing designed to objectify women and encourage the 'male gaze'

They absolutely would be if when those things were made women were forced to wear them because of some weird outdated ideology passed down from the Bible that women must wear skimpy clothes at all times because they're there to be eye candy for men.

And men don't wear short skirts or low cut tops because they're seen as women's clothing. Men have alternatives like shorts/kilts and v necks that serve the same purposes.

 

[Osahi]

Why not? What's your reason for banning nudity? You can't just ban what you want for no reason.

The only reason I'm concerned is that being nude and exposing your genitals can be seductive to children, who are not capable of consent. To create a safe space for children, I'd be okay with nudist colonies and beaches, just as long as children are banned from there without supervision. But other than that, I think you should be allowed to walk in your thong. I think it's indecent, but that's my problem, not their problem.



Sorry, but the bolded is exactly the problem I have with your style of thinking. You cannot use the strong hand of government to dictate how other people should live. What kind of "free society" is that? If you're going to create a law, it should be based on logic and reason, and it should promote freedom and protect people. Not create laws for "whatever reason". If you can't convince me it can do that, then it's simply tyrannical government's intrusion into private people's lives. Plain and simple.

The Niqab is a tool of oppression for some, a part of their religious faith for others. We can do what we can to help the former (legal, financial, educational and social support) without resorting to poorly thought out authoritarianism.



To me it's simply amusing that people think that society can't function without seeing people's faces, since this is more or less what I see happen every winter. The paranoia and fear is baseless, the "you have to see people's faces" rule is completely made up. A woman wearing a Niqab can function perfectly fine and do anything anyone else can, if other people let her. If she needs to reveal her face for security or identification reasons, they do so.

Jailing and imprisonment is violence against women, plain and simple. We should be helping these women who are being abused, but instead, the state piles on the violence and makes a woman truly feel trapped. This is not feminist, this is not progressive, and this is most certainly not liberal.



I'm not sure where I implied that you weren't progressive, I was speaking strictly of this measure. I'm happy you did those things though (really). But you say you laughed at the burkini ban. How is the burkini ban any different? Manuel Valls said banning the burkini is okay to protect public order and social norms. Really, how is that any different from what you are arguing?



I don't like the Niqab or Islam or religion either. But there are a lot of things people do that I don't like, and my instinct isn't to get government to ban them. People are going to do things that offend your sensibilities, it's just how it is.

As for women who have no choice but to wear it, that is the true crime. We have to find out why it is that they don't out their husband (usually for financial and socio-cultural reasons) and target those specifically.

It's late for me, so I won't go into every detail. I would be a zombie behind my desk tomorrow.

- no nudity, and the visibility of your face are social conventions to begin with. Conventions are needed to make society work. Nobody can be 100% free. There are limits to every freedom. There are fair arguments for both bans too. Children in case of nudity. The face being a part of communication as one for the ban of veils (which also takes into account the oppressive nature of the niqab)

- again. There is a big difference between scarfs in winter and the concious decision to hide your face. It has nothing to do with fear, paranoia or the functioning of society. It is a social convention.

- for the record: i am totally against jail sentences for wearing a niqab.

- i draw the line at covering ones face. The burqini (not the burqa) doesn't do that. If women at the beach want to wear a burqini as to not expose there arms and legs, that's fine by me. I do agree with banning burqinis in pools for hygienic reasons.

- i don't want to ban religion or practises. But I do believe religions should adhere to secular laws and certain. conventions. I also believe that the government has the right to limit freedoms and may push cerain measures to combat for instance female oppression. (Which i am surz is part of the reason for this ban too)

- i agree. Women who are forced to wear it are the real victims. But why should that be an argument against the ban? It does not exclude measures to help those women. As an atheist i could even argue women choosing to wear one based on religious texts are in some way 'forced' to, by the men who wrote those texts and the social conventions of the time that led them to writing it. But that's a slippery slope i don't want te tread on, lol.

 

[Miles Quaritch]

They absolutely would be if when those things were made women were forced to wear them.

And men don't wear short skirts or low cut tops because they're seen as women's clothing. Men have alternatives like shorts/kilts and v necks that serve the same purposes.

But women are forced to wear them through dress codes at work or does that not count?

They could just get another job I suppose...

 

[You Are Viewtiful]

Crazy that people are debating this a means of expression an autonomy. They are raised i.e. indoctrinated into this behavior from birth, they only believe it is what they want because of that brainwashing. This is a solid ruling, the practice should be stomped out everywhere.

You don't get to say whether an adult woman can make her own choices or not. That's incredibly patronizing not to mention misogynist. We can do more to target the sources of indoctrination (going after religious institutions, encouraging more critical thinking of religoo into the curriculum etc.), but you're not entitled to say what an adult woman can do with her own body.

How are we supposed to do that? Trying to appeal to an oppressive group's heart rarely, if ever, helps if their tools of oppression are still legal. Even when they aren't legal the underlying feelings are still there.

What do you mean? In another post, I said offer more financial, legal, social and educational support. Financial, so they don't have to rely on their husband or parents to stay alive, this plays a large part in way women don't report their abusive relatives. Legal protections, as in more stern laws and sensible penalties (more jail time is good, but often women don't want to see their relatives in jail, in this case they should be allowed to sign some restraining order or peace bond). Social supports like women shelters, support hotlines and support groups and other safe spaces go a long way. Educational, as in introducing more critical thinking in schools to undo religious indoctrination.

Banning it does NOT work. It fuels a (very valid) persecution complex. The state violence and jailing of innocent women creates a strong distrust of government institutions and encourages isolationism. This all fuels religious extremism. You can go look at France and tell me if things are getting better there, after they're banning everything under the sun.

False equivalency.

Not really. Just because men don't wear it doesn't mean it's oppressive. The Niqab is sexist, but it's not always oppressive. For some women, being able to freely practise their faith is the opposite of oppression.

 

[Parham]

I generally oppose state and religious institutions imposing laws that dictate what people can and cannot wear.

 

[Zen_Arcade]

But women are forced to wear them through dress codes at work or does that not count?

They could just get another job I suppose...

That means that corporate policies are oppressive. Not the actual clothing being worn. By that logic t shirts, business suits, work boots, and helmets are all oppressive pieces of clothing because in certain situations you're forced to wear them.

 

[Moosichu]

I generally oppose state and religious institutions imposing laws that dictate what people can and cannot wear.

Just out of curiosity. You oppose the fact that people cannot be naked in public?

 

[wartama]

I gotta ask, where do you originally come from? It seems like you wouldn't be able to visit many countries if you're basing your travel preferences based on 'free societies'.

Born in Scandinavia from African parents and living in the UK. If they day comes when I financially can to visit different countries, those that have explicit laws against the niqab won't even be in the consideration. As for countries where muslims are the minor minority and do not historically have major contact with muslim countries, they're still maybe, maybe not in my mind. I'll see when the opportunity comes.

 

[Occam]

I generally oppose state and religious institutions imposing laws that dictate what people can and cannot wear.

So you are against these veils then? Because it was religious institutions (run by men) who decided women should have to dress that way.

 

[Dude Abides]

I don't like religious modesty nonsense but I doubt this ban will have any of the salutary effects put forth to justify it.

 

[Plum]

What do you mean? In another post, I said offer more financial, legal, social and educational support. Financial, so they don't have to rely on their husband or parents to stay alive, this plays a large part in way women don't report their abusive relatives. Legal protections, as in more stern laws and sensible penalties (more jail time is good, but often women don't want to see their relatives in jail, in this case they should be allowed to sign some restraining order or peace bond). Social supports like women shelters, support hotlines and support groups and other safe spaces go a long way. Educational, as in introducing more critical thinking in schools to undo religious indoctrination.

Banning it does NOT work. It fuels a (very valid) persecution complex. The state violence and jailing of innocent women creates a strong distrust of government institutions and encourages isolationism. This all fuels religious extremism. You can go look at France and tell me if things are getting better there, after they're banning everything under the sun.

First off, how is one supposed to seek jail time for those who oppress if the tools of their oppression aren't illegal? How can one prove that a woman is being forced to wear something unless the absurd happens and it has a pad lock. Physical and emotional abuse are both incredibly illegal, forcing someone to give up their identity is not and it is also incredibly easy to hide.

Secondly, we have support groups, safe spaces and the like. Whilst we can fund them so much more at what level of funding will a sheltered, cut off and completely identity-less (to the public) person feel like they can break away? Same goes for education; what are we supposed to teach that will break years upon years of indoctrination into a certain way of thinking? Education helps but it isn't some magic solution to the issues of the world.

As for the persecution thing, Christians felt the exact same way when gay marriage was legalized. I won't feel empathy for those who put their own persecution complex over the real, tangible suffering of the oppressed. And no, banning the Hiqab will not solve the problems of female oppression in the Muslim community in much the same way legalizing gay marriage has not solved the persecution of gay people, but I don't see leaving it be and keeping the status quo as helping that goal as much as you think it would be.

I'm heading to sleep so I'll conclude by saying that I don't think some choosing to wear it, or some feeling persecuted by not being allowed to wear it in public/ not being allowed to get others to wear it as being good arguments for exempting wearing the Hiqab from this blanket ban.