Support NeoGAF

[cryptosporidium]

"The oppressor would not be so strong if he did not have accomplices among the oppressed themselves".

Thats a damn fine quote, whose is it?

Also, after finishing Kymlicka's Multicultural Citizenship I agree with this stance in that a state has no obligation to protect or create special ethnic (this includes religion apparently according to Kymlicka) minority rights because they generally volunteered to migrate to the host country thus leaving the state to pick and choose which ethnic/cultural practices it finds are a benefit to its liberal democracy (Kym only talks about liberal democracies unfortunately, but whatever since it works in this case I presume). The only time a state should really consider specific groups rights is when a sizable national minority (those who had no choice in being in the country they reside in, ie canadian aboriginals, palestinians, etc. Also a national minority is one who seeks semi-autonomy WITHIN the state) exists.

 

[Nephtes]

I'm actually kind of curious what the actual historical reason for the face veil is.
Like, I have a feeling that it was all about hiding the fact that some dude's wife was uggo hundreds of years ago, and other dudes with uggo wives forced their wives into the practice.

Disgusting really...

Either way, like many, I'm torn on this issue.
On the one hand, the face veil is obviously an implement of oppression that has been implemented into religious Tennant, but on the other hand, banning it is against my personal belief that we should not legislate what people do to themselves so long as it does not hurt others.

How does a woman chosing to wear a face veil hurt me?
It doesn't.
So why should we legislate that?

On the other hand, again... It's an implement of oppression so a woman chosing to wear one may be doing so against her own interests.

There's probably no right answer here thanks to asshole men hundreds of years ago who invented this shit. We're still suffering for their douchebaggery.

 

[mjAUT]

This ban is nothing but a pr-stunt, mainly by the conservative party, to appeal to the "swing-voters" that drift towards the right-wing FPÖ. It was part of a deal the two ruling parties - socialists and conservatives - negotiated to bring the government back on track and prevent reelections. it has nothing to do with a stricter separation of church and state (crucifixes are still hanging in all/most classrooms of public schools) or security reasons. there are almost no "burqa-carriers" in austria

This is absolutely spot on.

Our currently ruling coalition between the SPÖ (center-left) and the ÖVP (center-right) was on the brink of collapse and they finally got their shit together last weekend. If a re-election had happened, there is a high probability that the FPÖ (right wing) would have won.

A burqa ban is something the FPÖ has been campaigning for a long time, although you rarely see burqas around here. This is certainly a move (probably suggested by the ÖVP) to sway away some voters from the FPÖ until the next regular election in 2018.

 

[raindoc]

Anything that covers up your face in public makes me uncomfortable. The most people should get away with is head scarf like how most nuns tend to dress. But your face should be visible for ease of identification at any time.

beards, sunglasses, baseball caps, hoodies, scarfs slung around your mouth during winter... all these are perfectly normal "clothing items" to wear. and they make identification harder, or even impossible. and they have been used to commit criminal acts for exactly that purpose, time and time again. even in austria.
you're supporting a ban of these too?

 

[chillybright]

fyi this is a burqa

I'm fine with banning this

Yep. This shit doesn't belong in society today.

 

[Pusherman]

Thats a damn fine quote, whose is it?

Also, after finishing Kymlicka's Multicultural Citizenship I agree with this stance in that a state has no obligation to protect or create special ethnic (this includes religion apparently according to Kymlicka) minority rights because they generally volunteered to migrate to the host country thus leaving the state to pick and choose which ethnic/cultural practices it finds are a benefit to its liberal democracy (Kym only talks about liberal democracies unfortunately, but whatever since it works in this case I presume). The only time a state should really consider specific groups rights is when a sizable national minority (those who had no choice in being in the country they reside in, ie canadian aboriginals, palestinians, etc. Also a national minority is one who seeks semi-autonomy WITHIN the state) exists.

Kymlicka champions Canada as a success story in terms of creating multicultural citizenship and politicians like Trudeau exemplify why that's the case:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-KLph1eoc10

https://youtu.be/JWI5-vWqcGc?t=6m20s

I mean, as beautiful and empowering as that picture of the little girl burning her veil is, I also think there's something beautiful to this picture:

Knowing that all of us, regardless of our beliefs, customs and traditions are equal in the eyes of Canadian law and can be full Canadian citizens fills me with hope for a true multicultural future. Even despite knowing that future will contain things I might personally not like. There's still a place for all of us there.

 

[Bitch Pudding]

The burqa is a disgraceful tool to opress women I want to see it gone, but I don't think a ban will help these women and I also don't think helping women was the goal of this ban.

You are probably right. The alt-right is super strong in Austria, so what the government did was to take one of their trademark topics away.

 

[cryptosporidium]

Kymlicka champions Canada as a success story in terms of creating multicultural citizenship and politicians like Trudeau exemplify why that's the case:

When it comes to Canada, I find Kymlicka is more into how were the only country to actually have legislation in place in regards to seccession. Kymlicka is obsessed with Quebec and he probably pays a lot of attention to aboriginals seeing how he was in his prime when Oka happened. He cares more for national minorites rather than ethnic minorites which makes sense given the times he had lived in.

His argument gets really stupid though when talking about illiberal minorities such as those who advocate sharia law and such as he says in the book at one part we should not allow illiberal minorities to restrict the rights of their members as autonomy is the heart of liberal democracy but later on says we should tolerate their actions. He makes some bad arguments

 

[Replicant]

beards, sunglasses, baseball caps, hoodies, scarfs slung around your mouth during winter... all these are perfectly normal "clothing items" to wear. and they make identification harder, or even impossible. and they have been used to commit criminal acts for exactly that purpose, time and time again. even in austria.
you're supporting a ban of these too?

None of those on their own completely obscures your face except when combined together. In that case yes, it makes sense to not allow them to be used in together. And some places already ban the use of any form of clothing which prevents identification. I find it laughable that you're trying to compare something used for temporary protection from colds while walking, which is easily opened when you finally reach your destination, to something you never intend on opening at all.

Not to mention covering up your face would make it harder for you to converse with other people. We use facial cues on top of tonal voice to detect all forms of emotions. Most people will be uncomfortable talking to someone whose face they can't see well because you'll have no idea of the intents or emotions behind their words.

 

[somecrazymember]

Good

 

[raindoc]

None of those on their own completely obscures your face except when combined together. In that case yes, it makes sense to not allow them to be used in that sense. And some places already ban the use of any form of clothing which prevents identification.

Not to mention covering up your face would make it harder for you to converse with other people. We use facial cues on top of tonal voice to detect all forms of emotions. Most people will be uncomfortable talking to someone whose face they can't see well because you'll have no idea of the intents or emotions behind their words.

Not bold: so beard and sunglasses or scarf and cap = no-go in your eyes?

bold: you're moving goal posts. and making assumptions: where's that "most people" coming from? also whether you feel "comfortable" around something is of little concern to me, when it comes to the freedom of others. there's plenty of people out there that feel uncomfortable around two males kissing - are you supporting a ban on gay love?

I do not support the burqa. I'd like to see it gone too, but not because a populist government issues it (a ban) to appease intolerant, little, easy-to-scare minds. the motivation behind acts like these is far more important than the act itself. and the motivation behind this is deeply wrong, it's the same way of thinking that got trump into power and fuels his bonkers executive orders of the past week.

 

[Audioboxer]

What is always interesting to me about most muslims I encounter online is that (having been one formerly) I almost never see them go "you know what, this aspect of our faith may be problematic and it needs reform. I think the ban is wrong but burqas are also clearly not required by the Koran and requiring women to wear them is oppressive, and we should address what aspects of our culture makes women feel that they need to do this". It's almost always do or die, full on defense against every criticism. I was also part of this cult/tribe mentality once and it is toxic. The way to reform is through discussion of errors and how to fix them, not through blanket opposition. If this was something in the book I'd be more sympathetic to the discussion but there is no sura that actually prescribes this. It's just cultural oppression that hides under the shadow of religious tolerance.

Pretty much, but I think what is even more interesting is it always seems to be nearly exclusively males online arguing in favour of it. Therein lies our biggest challenge socially. A lot of oppressive or misogynistic practices only change if you can get the men on board. That is often tough as some "enjoy" being in a place where they can oppress, demand and control. Not necessarily saying that about anyone on GAF, as I don't know most of you, but men in a general sense and why we even have women treated like slaves in the first place. All throughout history, it's always been about power and control, and this goes for the treatment of women in many religions. Catholicism and Christianity still face issues with men wanting to control women. Heck, even outside of religion there are still men who think they can control women.

 

[Replicant]

Not bold: so beard and sunglasses = no-go in your eyes?

To me it's always sketchy. And many stores usually requires you to move your sunglasses when entering the store.

bold: you're moving goal posts. and making assumptions: where's that "most people" coming from? also whether you feel "comfortable" around something is of little concern to me, when it comes to the freedom of others. there's plenty of people out there that feel uncomfortable around two males kissing - are you supporting a ban on gay love?

Since when I moved goal post? I always say the same thing in this thread. It's actually you who keeps doing that by bringing up different topics into the convo. If the intention of immigration is integration, then covering up your face is not way to achieve it. People are more reluctant to converse with someone who covers up their face. Why do you think people always tell you to remove your hats or sunglasses when inside?

But it's nice of you to compare wearing piece of additional clothing, which is unnecessary, to basic human needs for affection, which by the way, are pretty rare in the first place. Most people are pretty off-key when it comes to PDA. I don't think I've seen many occasions where people, be it gay or straight, openly kiss in public and it usually happens in romantic places. Either way, PDA does make people slightly uncomfortable so I and many people I know tend not to do it too much in public.

I do not support the burqa. I'd like to see it gone too, but not because a populist government issues it to appease intolerant, little, easy-to-scare minds. the motivation behind acts like these is far more important than the act itself. and the motivation behind this is deeply wrong, it's the same way of thinking that got trump into power and fuels his bonkers executive orders of the past week.

Trump got into power partly because there are people who were unsure where they should put their support on. The choices were either leaning completely left or right and nothing in the centre. And when push comes to shove, they made a decision where they felt the need to protect their own self-interest first and foremost. Until politician recognizes this, Trump situation will happen all over again.

 

[XOMTOR]

Not bold: so beard and sunglasses or scarf and cap = no-go in your eyes?

bold: you're moving goal posts. and making assumptions: where's that "most people" coming from? also whether you feel "comfortable" around something is of little concern to me, when it comes to the freedom of others. there's plenty of people out there that feel uncomfortable around two males kissing - are you supporting a ban on gay love?

I do not support the burqa. I'd like to see it gone too, but not because a populist government issues it (a ban) to appease intolerant, little, easy-to-scare minds. the motivation behind acts like these is far more important than the act itself. and the motivation behind this is deeply wrong, it's the same way of thinking that got trump into power and fuels his bonkers executive orders of the past week.

Those items of clothing serve a practical purpose outdoors and are also usually removed indoors and out of respect when interacting with others. When you go up to a bank teller, you're going to remove your sunglasses I would hope.

 

[necrosis]

this is cool if you're an islamophobe i guess

 

[99Luffy]

this is cool if you're an islamophobe i guess

Egypt and Turkey full of islamaphobes I guess.

 

[ClosingADoor]

this is cool if you're an islamophobe i guess

Banning terrible misogynistic practices is not Islamophobia.

Not bold: so beard and sunglasses or scarf and cap = no-go in your eyes?

More like, try walking around all day with a helmet on and see what happens when walking into a store.

 

[Pusherman]

When it comes to Canada, I find Kymlicka is more into how were the only country to actually have legislation in place in regards to seccession. Kymlicka is obsessed with Quebec and he probably pays a lot of attention to aboriginals seeing how he was in his prime when Oka happened. He cares more for national minorites rather than ethnic minorites which makes sense given the times he had lived in.

His argument gets really stupid though when talking about illiberal minorities such as those who advocate sharia law and such as he says in the book at one part we should not allow illiberal minorities to restrict the rights of their members as autonomy is the heart of liberal democracy but later on says we should tolerate their actions. He makes some bad arguments

A quote by Kymlicka that explains, I think, why that picture I posted above is beautiful in its own way and why Canada is an example of how to do multiculturalism right is this one:

What is the alternative? I would suggest that we need to develop a form of multiculturalism that is tied to an ethic of social membership: that is, a form of multiculturalism that enables immigrants to express their culture and identity as modes of participating and contributing to the national society. A solidarity-promoting multiculturalism would start from the premise that one way to be a proud and loyal Canadian is to be a proud Greek-Canadian or Vietnamese-Canadian, and that the activities of one's group – be they religious, cultural, recreational, economic or political – are understood as forms of belonging, and of investing in society, not only or primarily in the economic sense, but in a deeper social sense, even (dare I say it?) as a form of nation-building.

That woman pictured above, Zunera Ishaq, fought for her rights in court and used the laws and norms of her new host country because she believed she could be both a muslim by the standards of her own interpretation and a contributing member of Canadian society. Like Kymlicka says, cultural expression by immigrants becomes a part of belonging and investing in society. I think that's a far cry from the kind of approach we see in Europe and the one on display in this thread. People saying things like:

Yep. This shit doesn't belong in society today.

Cultural expressions become an inhibition to belonging in society even when it isn't hurtful.

Now people will rightfully point out that immigration into Canada and immigration into Europe are two very different things. But as the son of a muslim refugee living in Europe I can honestly say that absolutely nothing is done to even promote the kind of multicultural citizenship visible in Canada. Instead it's usually the opposite. Systemic racism and islamophobia are often dismissed or trivialized. Actual integrative measures (Housing and school desegregation, investments into language acquisition and education, bettering representation of minorities on TV, in politics and industry, and fighting discrimination on the job market and in criminal justice) are almost never seriously considered. There's a reason these kinds of bans are usually promoted by far-right parties. It's just one aspect of a larger culture that questions our presence in Europe in the first place. Hell, questioning doesn't even do it justice. It's downright an assault on our presence in Europe.

Very few women wear the face-veil and as I've shown again and again there's no real proof those women are forced to wear it. Quite the opposite, many of the women can and do explain exactly why it's their own choice. So who is helped by this ban? Even if you fear for some invisible group of women forced to wear one, why not introduce measures that would also help other women forced to wear or act in a certain way. I mean, I'd also not want women to be forced to wear a hijab but I don't see anyone ask for a banning on that. Why not introduce a domestic abuse hotline explicitly targeted at minority women, available in many languages. Why not run TV-spots and work together with mosques to teach everyone that forcing someone to wear something is abuse and therefore against the law. Work together with the different religious and migrant communities and, most importantly, consider and listen to the women affected by a ban.

 

[T.O.P]

this is cool if you're an islamophobe i guess

13 pages of discussion and we back here lol

 

[raindoc]

To me it's always sketchy. And many stores usually requires you to move your sunglasses when entering the store.

and they are free to do so - but between stores, in public space, you're free to wear facial hair and sunglasses, even at night. there's no law prohibiting it, despite the criminal abuse of that freedom.

Since when I moved goal post? I always say the same thing in this thread. It's actually you who keeps doing that by bringing up different topics into the convo. If the intention of immigration is integration, then covering up your face is not way to achieve it. People are more reluctant to converse with someone who covers up their face. Why do you think people always tell you to remove your hats or sunglasses when inside?

When you changed your argument from security to people "feeling uncomfortable"
i'd like to see other gaffers comment on your accusation of me shifting thematics, because i really do not see myself moving any goalposts when responding to your argument - which changed from "EVERYTHING that prefents facial ID should be banned" to "finding it laughable to bring up cap and scarf/beard and sunglasses" [sic!] and suddenly talking about people "feeling comfortable" instead of security reasons.

Trump got into power partly because there are people who were unsure where they should put their support on. The choices were either leaning completely left or right and nothing in the centre. And when push comes to shove, they made a decision where they felt the need to protect their own self-interest first and foremost. Until politician recognizes this, Trump situation will happen all over again.

trump got into power because he told people what they want to hear, not what they should hear. he played with fears and that is exactly what the FPÖ is doing and this ban is about.

 

[Dilly]

Talk about moving goalposts when comparing a beard and sunglasses to a full body veil.

 

[Replicant]

and they are free to do so - but between stores, in public space, you're free to wear facial hair and sunglasses, even at night. there's no law prohibiting it, despite the criminal abuse of that freedom.

What happens then when you enter a store? Are you going to take it off? I'm pretty sure that is going to go well for the store owner when there is no regulation for it in the first place. And if you're wearing one I assume the idea is to keep wearing one even when inside an establishment.

When you changed your argument from security to people "feeling uncomfortable" i'd like to see other gaffers comment on your accusation of me shifting thematics, because i really do not see myself moving any goalposts when responding to your argument - which changed from "EVERYTHING that prefents facial ID should be banned" to "finding it laughable to bring up cap and scarf/beard and sunglasses" [sic!] and suddenly talking about people "feeling comfortable" instead of security reasons.

That was two arguments that I started in this thread not shifting things and it's impossible for convo not to flow onto other things when talking to others. OTOH, you threw everything and the kitchen sink to counter my argument, even down to checking my post history to figure out how to counter my argument and threw gay rights in my face.

In case you're failing to string a proper conclusion from this: none of the things you mention bar beard are permanent fixtures. They are easily removed. PDA: stop doing it when children are around. Sunglasses: easily removed. Parka/Hoodies: take them down, etc. You can't do this with Burqa. It's a permanent fixture that you wear. Stores can't even ask you to remove it because it'll make situation uncomfortable due to it being religion attire. Therefore it's a fucking joke that you compare them with Burqa in the first place.

trump got into power because he told people what they want to hear, not what they should hear. he played with fears and that is exactly what the FPÖ is doing and this ban is about.

That is partly it but also because there is no other party that represents their interest but the worst, most radical right-leaning ones.

 

[KO Traveling Hobo]

There's merit to the argument over freedom of choice vs banning oppression, but even if you believe that the burqa should be banned on moral grounds, I don't think you should be welcoming this ban because it seems like a transparent attempt to pander to actual Islamophobic conservatives.

This doesn't seem to be something that's being done in good faith.

 

[raindoc]

That was two arguments that I started in this thread not shifting things and it's impossible for convo not to flow onto other things when talking to others. OTOH, you threw everything and the kitchen sink to counter my argument, even down to checking my post history to figure out how to counter my argument and threw gay rights in my face.

dude, you're paranoid. i responded to the posts I quoted and nothing more.

In case you're failing to string a proper conclusion from this: none of the things you mention bar beard are permanent fixtures. They are easily removed. PDA: stop doing it when children are around. Sunglasses: easily removed. Parka/Hoodies: take them down, etc. You can't do this with Burqa. It's a permanent fixture that you wear. Stores can't even ask you to remove it because it'll make situation uncomfortable due to it being religion attire. Therefore it's a fucking joke that you compare them with Burqa in the first place.

It was you who said everything that grants anonymity/prevents facial recognition should be banned. it's there for everyone to read. in the posts i quoted, there was no "except" or "but", you were dealing in absolutes and I responded to that.
and, once more, this is about a complete, public ban. not about entering a bank wearing a ninja costume. laws could support banks and stores in making people remove their facial clothing for easier identification, but that is not what is happening, or what you posted/supported initially.

 

[mckmas8808]

We also banned nazi uniforms and symbols. The people who'd "voluntarily" want to be associated with such traditions will have to survive somehow else.

You comparing Nazis to everyday Muslims now?

 

[mckmas8808]

I'm actually kind of curious what the actual historical reason for the face veil is.
Like, I have a feeling that it was all about hiding the fact that some dude's wife was uggo hundreds of years ago, and other dudes with uggo wives forced their wives into the practice.

Disgusting really...

Either way, like many, I'm torn on this issue.
On the one hand, the face veil is obviously an implement of oppression that has been implemented into religious Tennant, but on the other hand, banning it is against my personal belief that we should not legislate what people do to themselves so long as it does not hurt others.

How does a woman chosing to wear a face veil hurt me?
It doesn't.
So why should we legislate that?

On the other hand, again... It's an implement of oppression so a woman chosing to wear one may be doing so against her own interests.

There's probably no right answer here thanks to asshole men hundreds of years ago who invented this shit. We're still suffering for their douchebaggery.

There's a reason this exist too.

It comes from a similar place.

 

[Replicant]

dude, you're paranoid. i responded to the posts I quoted and nothing more.

The last time I checked, there are 179,800 members on NeoGAF. I'm pretty sure I'm not that famous. I don't even post much in political topics and yet for some reason you know how to hit me with the gay topic, a topic, I didn't mention *at all* until you brought it up here. I mean, either you've been stalking me, which is a good reason for paranoia, or you've been checking my post history.

It was you who said everything that grants anonymity/prevents facial recognition should be banned. it's there for everyone to read. in the posts i quoted, there was no "except" or but, you were dealing in absolutes and I responded to that.
and, once more, this is about a complete, public ban. not about entering a bank wearing a ninja costume. laws could support banks and stores in making people remove their facial clothing for easier identification, but that is not what is happening, or what you posted/supported initially.

IMO those items should be but that's just me. It's not enforced because those items of clothing you mentioned are easily removable, not associated with any religion so there's no difficulty for people asking the wearer to remove it, the likelihood of causing a scene or awkwardness is therefore decreased.

It's impossible for anyone or any business to ask the wearer of a religion-based item of clothing to remove it and not causing a commotion/repercussion. Especially in this time of sensitive political climate. A ruling will sidestep the necessity on any individual to ask the wearer to remove it when it's necessary.

 

[raindoc]

IMO those items should be but that's just me. It's not enforced because those items of clothing you mentioned are easily removable, not associated with any religion so there's no difficulty for people asking the wearer to remove it, the likelihood of causing a scene or awkwardness is therefore decreased.

It's impossible for anyone or any business to ask the wearer of a religion-based item of clothing to remove it and not causing a commotion/repercussion. Especially in this time of sensitive political climate. A ruling will sidestep the necessity on any individual to ask the wearer to remove it when it's necessary.

like I said: laws could allow banks and stores to demand removal of any of those items. wearing a burqa and nothing but lingerie underneath? tough luck.
but one would still be allowed to walk one's kids to the park or go for a simple walk, wearing whatever you want. beard and sunglasses and scarf, burqa, a furry costume or dressed up as a stormtrooper or knight crusader to go to a carnival ball. none of my (or your) business. the fact that we both do not like what a burka stands for doesn't change that.

The last time I checked, there are 179,800 members on NeoGAF. I don't even post much in political topics and yet for some reason you know how to hit me with the gay topic, a topic, I didn't mention *at all* until you brought it up here. I mean, either you've been stalking me, which is a good reason for paranoia, or you've been checking my post history.

or i just heard people mentioning beeing uncomfortable around gay love time and time again and it was the first thing that crossed my mind when you used that phrasing. it was not ment as a personal insult, but as a sincere response to your argument about people feeling "uncomfortable" being more important than the freedom of others. if that got through to you: good, that was my intention - but not on a personal level, only concerning this argument. i really do not care enough about you or your opinion to warrant spending time reading your post history and I will withdraw myself from this discussion with this post, since it's getting way to weird and personal.

 

[Replicant]

like I said: laws could allow banks and stores to demand removal of any of those items. wearing a burqa and nothing but lingerie underneath? tough luck.
but one would still be allowed to walk one's kids to the park or go for a simple walk, wearing whatever you want. beard and sunglasses and scarf, burqa, a furry costume or dressed up as a stormtrooper or knight crusader to go to a carnival ball. none of my (or your) business. the fact that we both do not like what a burka stands for doesn't change that.

Err yeah, you can understand why that'd be awkward for everyone involved including the wearer. Besides, it's not like the law asks them not to wear any form of islamic clothing. They can still wear niqab/jilbab, which covers up everything but the face. If it bothers them, they can wear sunglasses, which they can then easily remove for point of ID.

or i just heard people mentioning beeing uncomfortable around gay love time and time again and it was the first thing that crossed my mind when you used that phrasing. it was not ment as a personal insult, but as a sincere response to your argument about people feeling "uncomfortable" being more important than the freedom of others. if that got through to you: good, that was my intention - but not on a personal level, only concerning this argument. i really do not care enough about you or your opinion to warrant spending time reading your post history and I will withdraw myself from this discussion with this post, since it's getting way to weird and personal.

LOL, if you want to mention uncomfortable, most people are uncomfortable about PDA in general. And yet you zeroed in on that particular topic, which is why I found it creepy. And you obviously cared enough to respond this much and this long.

 

[typist]

There's a reason this exist too.

It comes from a similar place.

This is an excellent point. It also raises the question of exactly how opaque a veil must be before it's considered illegal. A similar question is how much blue paint must you add to a blob of red paint before it becomes purple

 

[3N16MA]

How many women would actually want to wear a burqa if given the freedom to choose and without any
repercussion?

There should be a ban on all items that fully cover someone's face when worn in certain places.

 

[perfectchaos007]

How many women would actually want to wear a burqa if given the freedom to choose and without any
repercussion?

There should be a ban on all items that fully cover someone's face when worn in certain places.

If they grew up in an Islamic home where burqas were the norm, many of them would probably still choose to wear one since its what they were accustomed to. It can be difficult to break customs since at one point it was all you ever knew growing up.

 

[paskowitz]

If this stems far right growth in Austria then I guess it is a "necessary evil".

 

[bitbydeath]

Sure it looks creepy as fuck but there really is no harm in it, I do agree with banning it in places where your face needs to be seen though, like banks, driving etc

But otherwise people should be able to wear what they want.

 

[WeirdoStalkerJr]

I agree with the ban. I think forcing your daughter or wife to cover herself to remain pure and the idea that only the husband is allowed to see his wife is a old tradition that needs to go away. I know in some countries woman who are found not wearing it face punishment.

 

[mckmas8808]

If this stems far right growth in Austria then I guess it is a "necessary evil".

Be careful about "necessary evils". They may come back to bite you.

 

[Fantastapotamus]

There's a reason this exist too.
It comes from a similar place.

It should be noted that the ban is also supposed to help with immigration. Whether or not it will help I can't say. But not covering the face isn't the only reason they name

 

[Netherscourge]

I'm not anti-Burqa, but if you need a photo ID to get something or go somewhere, I can see where you have to at least show your full face temporarily.

But an out-right ban? Not sure about that.

It should be reworded so that you must show your face when pressed to present a photo ID in order to get whatever it is you're trying to get. But once you're cleared, you should be able to cover up again.

I think that's a decent compromise.

 

[perfectchaos007]

If burqa's were more common in America, conservatives would definitely try to ban people wearing them from going to the restroom since they'll claim it could be a man under the burqa using the womens restroom and vice versa.

 

[TM94]

Totally agree with this, disgusting practice that has no place in modern society.

 

[Morrigan Stark]

You comparing Nazis to everyday Muslims now?

"Everyday Muslims" don't wear Burqas.

 

[SwolBro]

Knowing that all of us, regardless of our beliefs, customs and traditions are equal in the eyes of Canadian law and can be full Canadian citizens fills me with hope for a true multicultural future. Even despite knowing that future will contain things I might personally not like. There's still a place for all of us there.

Only if the rationale for covering ones face was some type of deep spiritual meaning instead of making sure women act "modestly" in public.

People really need to understand the intentions and purposes of these things more.

 

[3N16MA]

If they grew up in an Islamic home where burqas were the norm, many of them would probably still choose to wear one since its what they were accustomed to. It can be difficult to break customs since at one point it was all you ever knew growing up.

The question to ask is who made it the norm in those homes? I have my doubts that Muslim women openly asked to wear burqas and it then became a custom.

 

[Pusherman]

Only if the rationale for covering ones face was some type of deep spiritual meaning instead of making sure women act "modestly" in public.

People really need to understand the intentions and purposes of these things more.

The only way of understanding what a face-veil means to a woman wearing one is to ask. I've seen none of the people advocating or defending a ban do so.

Just making assumptions about the reasons for wearing a face-veil, even if those assumptions are informed by a genuine understanding of the history of a tradition, it's theological underpinning and a deep well of knowledge about patriarchy and misogyny, is ultimately unhelpful because it says nothing about what it means to the women actually wearing it. We're not entitled to decide for them what a face-veil is and why it is worn.

 

[Audioboxer]

The only way of understanding what a face-veil means to a woman wearing one is to ask. I've seen none of the people advocating or defending a ban do so.

Just making assumptions about the reasons for wearing a face-veil, even if those assumptions are informed by a genuine understanding of the history of a tradition, it's theological underpinning and a deep well of knowledge about patriarchy and misogyny, is ultimately unhelpful because it says nothing about what it means to the women actually wearing it. We're not entitled to decide for them what a face-veil is and why it is worn.

"Only way" is intellectually dishonest. We know a fair bit about the origins of it and why women are made to wear it. Do you expect answers such as "yes, this is liberating and sure helps me integrate with the general public and have a fruitful social life?" What is next, asking women in Saudi Arabia what it means to not be able to drive? I mean, surely that is the ONLY way to understand the benefits of that?

Sometimes societies make hard calls on the type of traditions and symbolic gestures they want to have around. At times that can mean dragging people kicking and screaming and/or leaving them "in the past" (look at some LGBT rights/laws we pass that we have to drag people along with). As many say on some calls you're always free to leave a country if it doesn't allow you to oppress or make demands of your women how you'd like.

Also, good luck getting near any of these women as liberals/journalists or anyone trying to ask them questions. Chances are the men will put a stop to that. Quite honestly it should be the men we try to target next, I'm sure a lot of abuse and oppression is being dished out by them. As always it's usually men arguing in favour of face-covering veils for women. Always men saying "oh, but these women might really appreciate all the benefits of them, you just have to ask them and see!".

The irony usually goes off the charts when it's argued under "religious tolerance" considering time and time again it has to be stated the Koran does NOT ask women to cover their faces. This is also a good post by an ex-Muslim. Ties in nicely to it almost being exclusively men online arguing that we just need to be more tolerant of some traditions like this and just ask questions. It's not the fault of some being understandably wary about decisions like this, but often they just incorrectly think this is a religious expression or request, when it is NOT. It is fully man-made or man-demanded, and as I noted even has ties to ISIS violently forcing women to cover their faces. There is a reason the majority of Muslims do not adhere to face coverings.

 

[Soph]

The only way of understanding what a naziuniform means to a person wearing one is to ask. I've seen none of the people advocating or defending a ban do so.

Just making assumptions about the reasons for wearing a naziuniforml, even if those assumptions are informed by a genuine understanding of the history of a tradition, it's theological underpinning and a deep well of knowledge about patriarchy and misogyny, is ultimately unhelpful because it says nothing about what it means to the people actually wearing it. We're not entitled to decide for them what a naziunfiorm is and why it is worn.

I edited your post, maybe you now see why your whole line of reasoning doesn't make any sense whatsoever?

 

[petran79]

The question to ask is who made it the norm in those homes? I have my doubts that Muslim women openly asked to wear burqas and it then became a custom.

In some countries wearing it is law instead of custom. Not law as we regard it in the West though.

Moving to a Western country with a completely different legal framework that separates religion and law, is something incomprehensible for many adherents of Islam.

 

[mckmas8808]

I edited your post, maybe you now see why your whole line of reasoning doesn't make any sense whatsoever?

Nazis murdered people and did terrible things in the name of that political belief. People wearing burkas aren't out here murdering people. Why are you making this bad comparison?

 

[More Fun To Compute]

beards, sunglasses, baseball caps, hoodies, scarfs slung around your mouth during winter... all these are perfectly normal "clothing items" to wear. and they make identification harder, or even impossible. and they have been used to commit criminal acts for exactly that purpose, time and time again. even in austria.
you're supporting a ban of these too?

The difference between clothing like this is if you have a private business you can ask customers or employees to remove them. If there was a claim that you couldn't based on some sort of discrimination then it would not be considered seriously. Even if the hoodie had a picture of Trump holding a crucifix that they claim would help protect from vampires or whatever people believe these days.

 

[Messofanego]

This is absolutely spot on.

Our currently ruling coalition between the SPÖ (center-left) and the ÖVP (center-right) was on the brink of collapse and they finally got their shit together last weekend. If a re-election had happened, there is a high probability that the FPÖ (right wing) would have won.

A burqa ban is something the FPÖ has been campaigning for a long time, although you rarely see burqas around here. This is certainly a move (probably suggested by the ÖVP) to sway away some voters from the FPÖ until the next regular election in 2018.

For sure this is a right-wing populist tactic but it doesn't hurt that loads of liberals are ok with such a ban as it would never affect them and they don't recognise the size of the issue, so it would have bipartisan support. People thinking banning something like a burqa is woman emancipation are deluding themselves.