Support NeoGAF

[Pusherman]

I do think it fits into the wider discussion of what we expect people who come to another country and culture - and their descendants - to do, and if we should allow certain changes to the values we have set for ourselves. Thing is, here two sets of values conflict: the one to choose what you wear, and the one to not have someone mandate what you wear. Which is a conflict that will never be resolved.

I am of the opinion that the burqa and what is stands for conflicts with women's rights. But banning it conflicts with religious rights, but I think those are less important in this instance.

This doesn't make sense tho. I mean let's look at everything you say in favor of a ban. You mention the need to adapt to a new host country and accept their values. But what are those European values? In my opinion those values are personal liberty, freedom of expression and freedom of religion. Equality is also one of our core values but I take equality to mean freedom from discrimination and the equal opportunity, regardless of gender, race, sexual orientation or creed, to pursue your own happiness and express yourself as you see fit. How is a woman deciding to live by a very conservative interpretation of islam in opposition to those values?

A Dutch christian woman living in the bible belt who decides to stay unemployed because she believes her place is in the home and who sees her husband as the rightful head of the household is obviously living a lifestyle that sees her as unequal to her husband. That lifestyle is also tied to a larger religion and therefore not strictly speaking completely her own idea. And yet that doesn't mean she is not living in accordance to our Dutch value of gender equality. Why can't the same be true for a conservative muslim woman.

The only way a woman deciding to be a very conservative muslim is in opposition to our values is if those values include showing your face in public. Some might argue that's the case but I disagree. I don't think anyone is entitled to see anyone else's face and I don't think forcing someone to show their face is an important part of European society. Now, there are certainly places where facial identification is necessary but we don't need a general or even particular ban to make sure that still happens. Right now, while the Dutch face veil ban is still being discussed in our senate, face veil wearing women already identify themselves where necessary.

There is, however, another important part to your argument. You state, without any proof, that most or even all women wearing a face veil are forced to do so. I don't think that's true. I have shown multiple examples of women, including adult converts, who can eloquently explain why wearing a face veil is their own choice. If your only response to that is "well, they're brainwashed" I don't think you're actually being very progressive or feminist. Why would an adult convert not born into a muslim family or from a conservative muslim community be brainwashed when she dons a face veil? And if native converts can make that decision voluntarily why wouldn't minority women also be able to do so. It's not a very compelling argument at all.

An other thing people might say is that those women, the women we can actually see and hear, are a small minority and that there's a larger group of women (even though face veil wearing women often barely number in the couple of hundreds in western countries) who go invisible in society and are forced to wear a face veil. I see no reason to just assume so but I also have no reason to doubt that there are at least some women who are indeed forced. But then again, there are also women forced to wear a hijab. Forced to not wear jeans or short skirts. The problem there is not the article of clothing but the forcing of it by others. Do we really solve that problem with a ban on face veils? Such a ban would do nothing for the women forced to wear or not wear other articles of clothing. If we want to help all those women, and I certainly do, then we would do better by investing in cooperation with mosques, sharpening our domestic abuse laws so that such behaviours are easily punished and increasing awareness among minority women of their pathways to legal protection.

In short, I see no reasonable argument that a face veil ban is either necessary or helpful for women currently wearing one.

This is to say nothing of the fact that face veil bans don't arise in a vacuum but should be seen in the context of the islamophobic atmosphere of which they are a part and the role played by bigoted far-right parties and the more centrist parties hoping to siphon off some votes.

France, Netherlands and Belgium, the poster boys of authoritarianism... banning something does not automatically make it authoritarian. We ban stuff all the time that some people think should not be banned.

I'd argue that Continental Europe is certainly less free than the Anglophone west, especially in comparison to the United States. While we do some things better than they do I would call their commitment to personal liberty and freedom of expression admirable and superior to ours.

 

[Mung]

Good. The burqa is an absolute disgrace and has no place in civilised society.

 

[rubius01]

The burqa, or face veil, is not a requirement in the Koran no matter how hard you try to push for it. It is not scriptural. You have Muslims in this topic telling you that.

But isn't a hadith (I could be wrong on that)? Those can carry almost as much as a passage in the Quran.

 

[janoDX]

Burqa needs to disappear once and for all.

I'm okay with this.

 

[MetaCircular]

I think people raised in a cult (Islam absolutely fits the bill) simply don't have sufficient perspective to properly assess if the cult's practices are good or bad.

Women raised on Mormon compounds might tell you (eloquently, even) how they 'chose' to be polygamous, for instance. That doesn't make the practice acceptable.

I think a reasonably objective perspective reveals the burqa to be extremely harmful to the social wellbeing of most women who wear it.

 

[Pusherman]

I think people raised in a cult (Islam absolutely fits the bill) simply don't have sufficient perspective to properly assess if the cult's practices are good or bad.

Women raised on Mormon compounds might tell you (eloquently, even) how they 'chose' to be polygamous, for instance. That doesn't make the practice acceptable.

I think a reasonably objective perspective reveals the burqa to be extremely harmful to the social wellbeing of most women who wear it.

I'm not going to disregard the perspectives of most human beings on the planet just because they were raised religiously, conservatively or traditionally. You might feel perfectly happy doing so but that just seems disgusting to me. And while there are legal hurdles (inheritance, tax breaks, etc.) to recognizing polygamous marriages I certainly would never restrict any adult of being in a polygamous relationship with other adults, regardless of the religious beliefs of said adults.

But even with your extremely paternalistic view of other human beings I'd still like know what you think of women not raised islamically who converted as a teen or adult and decided to wear a face veil? There's absolutely no reason to believe those women did not make that decision voluntarily outside of your own personal feelings towards a face veil. What makes you think you're entitled to disregard their agency and make their clothing decisions for them?

 

[freenudemacusers]

But isn't a hadith (I could be wrong on that)? Those can carry almost as much as a passage in the Quran.

You can pick and choose Hadiths like one picks and chooses bible passages. Wife beating ones tend to get downgraded pretty quick around here.

 

[MetaCircular]

I'm not going to disregard the perspectives of most human beings on the planet just because they were raised religiously, conservatively or traditionally. You might feel perfectly happy doing so but that just seems disgusting to me. And while there are legal hurdles (inheritance, tax breaks, etc.) to recognizing polygamous marriages I certainly would never restrict any adult of being in a polygamous relationship with other adults, regardless of the religious beliefs of said adults.

But even with your extremely paternalistic view of other human beings I'd still like know what you think of women not raised islamically who converted as a teen or adult and decided to wear a face veil? There's absolutely no reason to believe those women did not make that decision voluntarily outside of your own personal feelings towards a face veil. What makes you think you're entitled to disregard their agency and make their clothing decisions for them?

You know damn well that the kinds of polygamous 'relationships' I referred to are rife with abuse (for example, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Jeffs). It doesn't matter whether or not you could come up with an equitable polygamy system (for example, where women can have multiple husbands). Current religious implementations simply aren't acceptable (and are consequently outlawed).

I mean, is there ANY religiously motivated practice beyond direct physical harm that you find psychologically harmful enough to be banned?

As for your second question, of course it's possible that converting to Islam and wearing a burqa makes a small number of women feel better (even if it appears absolutely insane to me). The experience of those few doesn't erase the net harm the burqa does in the majority of cases.

 

[Dingens]

Always fascinating how a thread like this can reach over 700 posts... although 90% is more ore less the same shit over and over again.
I guess this isn't about the Austrian case at all- if it ever was, but more about the burka in general... to stick to the topic, I'd argue the law is basically a non-issue. Like some have pointed out, this is going to affect roughly 150 people (probably the reason why the social democratic party could agree to it).
From the governments point of view it's basically a victimless crime if you will. One that is sure to bring back a few stray right-wing voters to the mainstream parties. The needs of the many out-way the needs of the few if you will. On the other hand you may also see it as the state suppressing (arguably) the smallest minority in the country or even worse.
And opposed to many voices in here, I'd argue that those 150 people have a better chance of integration without it. There's a lot of prejudices against women wearing a burka and I'm sure, a woman without one has an indefinitely higher chance of becoming a part of society.

and than there is the elephant in the room:
If this sort of clothing is not a sign of suppression and just a religious symbol, than why do tourists have to wear hijabs in certain middle eastern countries too? And if said countries can force visitors to wear them, why aren't other countries allowed do the exact opposite?
At least in this case (as stated above) this is mostly going to affect tourists (usually the wifes of rich saudis). So from that point of view, I don't see tooo much wrong with it.

[...]
Ego. They would scream if they went to Flushing in New York and noticed that the majority of the signs are written in traditional Chinese and Korean.

You've never been to europe, have you?

Fucking stupid. I didn't know France banned it either, which is probably even stupider considering France is better than Austria.

but TAIWAN #1! (china #4)

 

[Rest]

I know! We'll make them more like us by telling them they're unwanted! Brilliant! It could never fail!

Suppressing people isn't how you get them to integrate. This isn't the way to get people to change what they're doing.

More stupid.

More wronger.

 

[Morrigan Stark]

As a devout muslim I'm damn glad they banned nonsense like the burqa, it's a man made, fairly modern way of controlling women and nothing else. There is zero Islamic scripture, rule, law or Qu'ranic I have read so far that makes it part of the relion over a billion people belong to.

Cheers dude.

It's completely insane to call this ban "islamophobic" when actual Muslim countries have banned it. People love to split hairs about principles and sometimes forget the actual reality.

Good. The burqa is an absolute disgrace and has no place in civilised society.

Agreed.

 

[SaniOYOYOY]

But isn't a hadith (I could be wrong on that)? Those can carry almost as much as a passage in the Quran.

no its not and no they dont

 

[Pusherman]

You know damn well that the kinds of polygamous 'relationships' I referred to are rife with abuse (for example, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Jeffs). It doesn't matter whether or not you could come up with an equitable polygamy system (for example, where women can have multiple husbands). Current religious implementations simply aren't acceptable (and are consequently outlawed).

I mean, is there ANY religiously motivated practice beyond direct physical harm that you find psychologically harmful enough to be banned?

As for your second question, of course it's possible that converting to Islam and wearing a burqa makes a small number of women feel better (even if it appears absolutely insane to me). The experience of those few doesn't erase the net harm the burqa does in the majority of cases.

I agree that religious polygyny can be abusive but that does not take away from the fact that I would never support legal action against unofficial polygamous relationships or cohabitation between multiple consenting adults. Even if most of those unofficial relationships are had within certain religious minorities. The current legal prohibition to polygamy did not came about out of any concern for the women involved but out of a moral revulsion to the practice and religious opposition. I think if we were to have the discussion today, in our current legal climate, it'd be much harder to justify a complete ban on polygamy, outside of the obvious hurdles I already mentioned.

I mean, look at something like sex work. The outlawing of sex work in the past was almost never done in order to protect the women themselves but because of that same revulsion towards their behaviour. Nowadays we know better. Sex work is, like polygamy, linked to some very serious societal ills: human trafficking, childhood poverty and abuse, and drug abuse. Just like polygamy is disproportionally polygynous, sex work is disproportionally done by women. Still, I think we can all agree that outright banning most sex work is not only unrealistic but also unfair. Among all sex workers, from simple strippers and web cam girls to porn stars and escorts, are women who have chosen their line of work voluntarily. I would never dare to question those women's agency. So, in my opinion, we should always be extremely cautious when it comes to paternalistically deciding what's best for others.

That brings me to your second question and I truly have a hard time thinking of a religious practice that I think is harmful enough to outlaw that I would not also classify as abuse. To give an example, I believe gay conversion therapy for minors is abusive and should be illegal. But here's a pretty tragic video from vice about conversion therapy for adults and while it isn't technically abusive it still seems extremely psychologically harmful. But I don't believe it should be banned. Similarly, some shia muslims self-flagellate on the Day of Ashura and even that is something I think should be allowed. Maybe you know some other practices.

Finally, I just don't see why you would assume that most women wearing a face veil in the west are harmed by it. Estimates put the number of face veil wearing women in the Netherlands for example in the low hundreds. After our house of representatives passed a bill banning it from most public places an action group of face veil wearing women arose to fight the bill and stop it from getting through our senate. That action group, Hands off our Niqab, numbers about 40 women. What proof do you have that those women are a small minority of face veil wearing women?

Cheers dude. It's completely insane to call this ban "islamophobic" when actual Muslim countries have banned it. People love to split hairs about principles and sometimes forget the actual reality.

Why do people keep using oppressive regimes as examples of what to do?!? I don't care what some muslim countries have done. Is that who you want to follow? I prefer the company I'm in. You know, Trudeau over in Canada, the Greens in the Netherlands and Amnesty International. The Dutch Legal Committee for Human Rights opposes our bill to ban the face veil and it isn't even as far-reaching as the Austrian one.

It's not crazy at all to think a face veil ban islamophobic if you consider that these bans are not some last-ditch effort after years and years of trying to fight forced wearing through less oppressive means. Instead, it is an attempt at fueling anger and hatred for a small minority group and using that to gain votes. It is far-right parties and weak centrists desperate for votes trying to tap into existing prejudices against muslims, appeasing bigots and those too ignorant to know better.

 

[ClosingADoor]

How is it progressive when we don't allow a woman to choose how she interprets history?

My views on the burka perhaps correlate to yours. But I don't understand how you fail to put yourself in the shoes of a woman who would choose to wear a burka or niqab.

Do you not think they are capable of reason or intellectual engagement? I've spoken to many such people and they seem very eloquent regardless of our differences in opinion. They do not want their rights infringed upon. You get to wake up in the morning and decide what you wear. They simply want that same right.

Because this thing is a symbol of oppression and we should take a stand in that discussion. I don't see how giving room to sexism here because some people might want to wear it voluntarily should impact the decision.

change must come from those cultures themselves,not be imposed from the outside,things don't work that way,much like you and everyone else in this thread would stick to his/her beliefs even if they were suddenly banned by the state.

But we are talking about Austria here, so they are now part of Austrian culture. That is the problem: the different cultures need to be brought closer together, and things like this stand in the way of that.

No, people won't suddenly change their mind after it is regulated. But that doesn't make the regulation wrong. We ban a lot of things people disagree with to some extend, so the argument of "they won't change their mind now suddenly" doesn't hold much value. It is also about showing what a country wants to stand for and what they expect of people who want to join that country.

Is this banned in Austria?

http://www.rd.com/wp-content/upload...sy-ways-to-winter-proof-you-make-up-scarf.jpg

Do you walk around like that non stop and refuse to take it off when someone ask for safety reasons?

Why do people keep using oppressive regimes as examples of what to do?!? I don't care what some muslim countries have done. Is that who you want to follow? I prefer the company I'm in. You know, Trudeau over in Canada, the Greens in the Netherlands and Amnesty International. The Dutch Legal Committee for Human Rights opposes our bill to ban the face veil and it isn't even as far-reaching as the Austrian one.

Pointing towards another country and organizations isn't really useful. I can then point towards the European Court of Human Rights and how it upholds the ban, or other people and organisations that support. Just because Trudeau has an opinion, doesn't make him automatically right.

 

[Pusherman]

Pointing towards another country and organizations isn't really useful. I can then point towards the European Court of Human Rights and how it upholds the ban, or other people and organisations that support. Just because Trudeau has an opinion, doesn't make him automatically right.

Here's a summation of the ECHR judgement on the french face veil ban:

The Court found that the ban interfered with Article 8 (right to private life) and was an infringement on Article 9 (freedom to manifest one’s religion).[5] Noting that the Convention mechanism is “fundamentally subsidiary” to national authorities with democratic legitimacy and local insight, the Court limited its role to ensuring that the measure was justifiable and proportionate to a legitimate aim.[6]

The French government argued that the law “pursued two legitimate aims: public safety and ‘respect for the minimum set of values of an open and democratic society.’” [7] It identified these minimum values as “equality between men and women, respect for human dignity and respect for the minimum requirements of life in society”[8] and connected this aim to its obligation to protect “the rights and freedoms of others.”[9] The Court was unconvinced that notions of “gender equality” and “human dignity” could justify a blanket ban, but found that “respect for the minimum requirements of life in society” and the principle of “living together” could be legitimate aims towards protecting “the rights and freedoms of others” even though these were not explicitly stated in Articles 8 and 9 of the Convention and the concept of living together is yet to be fully articulated.[10]

The Court agreed that concealing the face was tantamount to a barrier against others, based on the importance of the face in social interaction, and would breach “the right of others to live in a space of socialization which makes living together easier.”[11] Acknowledging that Article 9 did not protect every religiously motivated act, [12] the Court ruled that limitations to the right to manifest one’s religion could be acceptable. Looking to its own jurisprudence on limitations to religious expression, the Court opined that the present case was unique because the religious clothing in question completely concealed the face. As such, even though the Court found the ban to be disproportionate with respect to the aim of protecting public safety because no threat was shown to exist, it accepted that the state might see voluntary concealment of the face as having a detrimental effect on common social interaction. The Court decided that a ban was within the powers of the state to ensure the conditions of “living together.”[13]

The Court further underscored that the ban did not specifically limit religious expression, only the concealment of the face, and even though it would negatively impact a group of women[14] who would have to choose between removing the veil, traumatic criminal prosecution, or isolation from society, sanctions for conviction were light.[15] Furthermore, the ban was justifiable: even as it limited one aspect of pluralism by hindering a specific form of religious expression for one group, it advanced a different aspect of pluralism, tolerance and broad-mindedness, by protecting the elements necessary for continued social discourse and the requirements of “living together.” Recognizing the need to balance multiple conflicting local interests,[16] and noting that the French government had arrived at a measure through democratic process, [17] the Court restrained its own review and found that France had to be given a wide margin of appreciation in legislating the matter, especially because there was no European consensus on the issue.[18] The Court therefore found that the French law was proportionate with respect to the aim pursued and there was no discrimination under Article 14 as the measure, though it had a negative impact on some women, had an objective and reasonable justification.

You can bring up the ECHR decision as an appeal to authority but do you actually agree with their judgement? Do you agree that a face veil ban interferes and infringes on people's right to private life and freedom of religion? Do you agree that gender equality and human dignity are not enough to justify a blanket ban on the face veil? Most people here seem to argue exactly from the position of gender equality so if those people bring up the ECHR they're actually undermining their own position.

The Court's judgement is certainly not some great endorsement of a face veil ban. The Court decided that a face veil ban is justifiable, though not proportionate, when it comes to public safety. The Court also decided that the aim of 'living together' is a justified aim for issuing a face veil ban. In other words, both aims considered justified by the ECHR are more about protecting others than they are about protecting the women involved. It is about public safety and ensuring others live in a sociable environment. I disagree with their decision. I agree with the dissenting judges that:

The dissenters took issue with the majority’s finding that the French government had a legitimate aim in ensuring the principle of “living together” or that such an aim could be identified as a subset of the “rights and freedoms of others.” Noting that the Court’s own jurisprudence on the matter was unclear and that the generalized concept of “living together” was not explicitly connected to any of the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Convention, the dissenting judges questioned the proportionality of the French measure. They challenged the majority’s finding that concealing the face made social exchange impossible, regardless of the importance of the face in social interaction,[21] and criticized the majority for not explaining how other acceptable forms of concealing the face such as hairstyles, motorcycle helmets, dark glasses, or hats differed from the veil in terms of their impact on social engagement.[22] They further stated that the same values of the Republic, including liberty, equality, fraternity, pluralism, broadmindedness, and tolerance could be used to justify the acceptance of a religious dress-code and noted that the French government did not explain why less restrictive measures such as education programs and awareness-raising were not adopted ahead of the blanket ban. In the dissenters’ view, the blanket ban could be seen as “a sign of selective pluralism and restricted tolerance” and that by banning the full-face veil, the French government was obscuring a point of social tension rather than encouraging tolerance among different groups.[23] Thus, the dissenters found the blanket ban to be disproportionate to its purported aim and irreconcilable with the “Convention’s restrictive catalogue of permissible grounds for interference with basic human rights.”[24]

And that:

The dissenters queried whether the subjective feelings against veiling were in fact a reaction to the philosophies ascribed to the practice of veiling such as subservience, dehumanization, violence, and the self-confining and effacing of women from public life.[30] Noting that there was no “right not to be shocked or provoked by different models of cultural or religious identity”[31] and no “right to enter into contact with other people, in public places, against their will,”[32] the dissent in effect found that the that the ban’s oppressive consequences to the women concerned outweighed the burden that it placed on the abstract aim of “living together” and in fact served to exclude the affected women from society.[33]

When I bring up people like Trudeau or organizations like Amnesty International I bring up people and organizations who's arguments I genuinly agree with. It isn't some lazy attempt at creating the illusion of authority. Compare that to people who bring up islamic countries that have banned the face veil. I doubt anyone actually agrees with those countries when it comes to personal liberty and the extend of state power. In most cases those countries are oppressive regimes that see no problem with restricting people's freedom. The people/organizations I cite align for more with my and the majority of GAF's views on freedom and the limitations of the state. People bringing up Morocco or Egypt are doing so to lazily dismiss actually arguments made by others. Telling me Egypt banned the face veil and that therefore face veil bans can't be islamophobic is no argument at all.

 

[ClosingADoor]

Here's a summation of the ECHR judgement on the french face veil ban:



You can bring up the ECHR decision as an appeal to authority but do you actually agree with their judgement?

it accepted that the state might see voluntary concealment of the face as having a detrimental effect on common social interaction

Yes, I agree.

No, I don't agree with them that it can not be a safety issue, since Chad and Morocco banned (or banned production/import in an effort to stop it from gaining more ground) it for that reason. Different countries, different issues of course, but the discussion when towards burqa bans in general and not the Austria situation specifically.

 

[gulfamashraf]

The burkaaasss! We got to bring down those burkaaasss!

 

[Two Words]

Who gets to decide she's brainwashed?

I think it is fair to say that women who wear burqas are influenced to do so. I can't see how they would have come to that conclusion entirely on their own.

 

[Frillen]

Good, we're moving forward.

 

[Pusherman]

Yes, I agree.

No, I don't agree with them that it can not be a safety issue, since Chad and Morocco banned (or banned production/import in an effort to stop it from gaining more ground) it for that reason. Different countries, different issues of course, but the discussion when towards burqa bans in general and not the Austria situation specifically.

Okay, I'd argue the discussion has become about face veil bans in the west, not the entire world.

So anyway, you think that is enough grounds for a ban that the Court itself decided interferes and infringes on people's human rights? Do you also agree with the Court's other statements? About gender equality and human dignity not justifying a blanket ban? About a ban interfering and infringing on people's human rights?

I mean if the detrimental effect of a face veil on social interaction is enough reason for you to ban it then I guess we just disagree. Nothing we can do about it. But I've seen very few people actually argue that in this thread. Instead most people argue about conflicting values and oppressed women. Do you agree with both me and the ECHR (and Amnesty International, Trudeau, GroenLinks, NJCM, etc.) that those arguments are faulty and not enough to justify a ban? Because that's what most of these threads keep spinning on about.

I think it is fair to say that women who wear burqas are influenced to do so. I can't see how they would have come to that conclusion entirely on their own.

That isn't fair to say at all. I've shown multiple examples of women explaining why they wear a face veil, some of whom where not raised muslim and only came to their decision at a later age. Just because you can't personally see how does not mean that it's impossible.

 

[ClosingADoor]

Okay, I'd argue the discussion has become about face veil bans in the west, not the entire world.

So anyway, you think that is enough grounds for a ban that the Court itself decided interferes and infringes on people's human rights? Do you also agree with the Court's other statements? About gender equality and human dignity not justifying a blanket ban? About a ban interfering and infringing on people's human rights?

I mean if the detrimental effect of a face veil on social interaction is enough reason for you to ban it then I guess we just disagree. Nothing we can do about it. But I've seen very few people actually argue that in this thread. Instead most people argue about conflicting values and oppressed women. Do you agree with both me and the ECHR (and Amnesty International, Trudeau, GroenLinks, NJCM, etc.) that those arguments are faulty and not enough to justify a ban? Because that's what most of these threads keep spinning on about.

Like I said earlier, I agree that there is a conflict here between multiple rights. And in that discussion I lean towards the ban, because I think promoting things like gender equality in this case overrules the right to wear everything you want in public.

Let me ask you: do you think the burqa itself and the way it is used is something we should or should not strive to get rid of, even if some people want to wear it voluntarily? That maybe you think a ban is not the right way to go about it, but the end goal - for example through education - should be that no women feels obligated to exclude herself from society in that way?

 

[Pusherman]

Like I said earlier, I agree that there is a conflict here between multiple rights. And in that discussion I lean towards the ban, because I think promoting things like gender equality in this case overrules the right to wear everything you want in public.

Let me ask you: do you think the burqa itself and the way it is used is something we should or should not strive to get rid of, even if some people want to wear it voluntarily? That maybe you think a ban is not the right way to go about it, but the end goal - for example through education - should be that no women feels obligated to exclude herself from society in that way?

I think that's the wrong way of looking at it. What I aim for is a society where everyone is truly free to decide for themselves how to pursue happiness. That does mean decreasing the influence of religion in the sense of counteracting things like family, close community and upbringing with a shared secular and plural environment. So I would personally be in favor, for example, of scrapping special education and creating a completely public school system. Now, you probably know that the biggest obstacle to that in the Netherlands would not be muslims but christians. So as long as such a move would be framed as fighting against islamization I would probably not support it.

Where you and I might differ is that I do not envision some kind of ultimate end state or goal. We should ensure our institutions promote freedom of thought, expression and religion and that everyone grows up free, but where that freedom takes them I don't care. I think there's definitely a correlation between the educational level of a nation and religiosity but I don't think we should improve our educational system with the express purpose of rooting out religion. I don't care what free people wear, what job they have, how they spend their free time and who or what they pray to. What I care about is that they're free. If a man decides to stay celibate his entire life because of some God I don't believe exists that's perfectly okay as long as it's his choice. A woman deciding to wear a face veil is similarly okay as long as it is her choice.

That doesn't mean that I oppose non-governmental organizations that promote cultural change. Feminist organizations fighting against choices they deem misogynistic is completely fine by me. Hell, I support those groups wholeheartedly. But I don't think the government should promote anything but freedom.

 

[Abelard]

Good, a truly regressive and abhorrent piece of clothing.

Next target: the niqab

 

[PistolGrip]

Good. The burqa is an absolute disgrace and has no place in civilised society.

This. Liberals need to stop getting distracted with items like these. This is how you lose folks in the middle.

 

[Damerman]

Hijabs seem like a choice for modesty, burqas seem like oppression of women.

 

[clem84]

Completely agree with this. It promotes and validates the stone age values of Islam. It needs to disappear.

 

[Gutek]

Hijabs seem like a choice for modesty, burqas seem like oppression of women.

Perfect

 

[shintoki]

A lot of the argument against the ban seems to be in line with the same argument of freedom of Speech and hate speech.

Many countries have hate speech laws because they know it has no fucking place in society. Yet, people will still defend that people have the right to speak positively on advocating murder of a race, discrimination against a sex, etc. A full body drape has no place in society since it's only purpose is to completely oppress women.

A country does not have to accept every aspect of a religion for religious freedom. I mean, regardless of how a certain religious group tries in America to have gays removed from society, we have been moving in a better direction for the past 20 years... till now. >_>

 

[ClosingADoor]

I think that's the wrong way of looking at it. What I aim for is a society where everyone is truly free to decide for themselves how to pursue happiness. That does mean decreasing the influence of religion in the sense of counteracting things like family, close community and upbringing with a shared secular and plural environment. So I would personally be in favor, for example, of scrapping special education and creating a completely public school system. Now, you probably know that the biggest obstacle to that in the Netherlands would not be muslims but christians. So as long as such a move would be framed as fighting against islamization I would probably not support it.

Where you and I might differ is that I do not envision some kind of ultimate end state or goal. We should ensure our institutions promote freedom of thought, expression and religion and that everyone grows up free, but where that freedom takes them I don't care. I think there's definitely a correlation between the educational level of a nation and religiosity but I don't think we should improve our educational system with the express purpose of rooting out religion. I don't care what free people wear, what job they have, how they spend their free time and who or what they pray to. What I care about is that they're free. If a man decides to stay celibate his entire life because of some God I don't believe exists that's perfectly okay as long as it's his choice. A woman deciding to wear a face veil is similarly okay as long as it is her choice.

That doesn't mean that I oppose non-governmental organizations that promote cultural change. Feminist organizations fighting against choices they deem misogynistic is completely fine by me. Hell, I support those groups wholeheartedly. But I don't think the government should promote anything but freedom.

You didn't answer my question with your personal opinion of whether you think that the burqa would be preferable to get rid of, even if you think that people should be allowed to wear it. You constantly say it is OK if the woman wants to wear it, but that is not the question I tried to ask.

As for aiming for a society where everyone is free in how they pursue happiness, that is an impossible thing. Tons of people would love to decide to do things we as a society do not allow. There are good reasons for that, since something terrible things make people happy.

The education part was just me trying to point out there are of course other ways in trying to get rid of the burqa, so maybe you'd agree with those means. I've pointed out earlier in the thread that I would like an education system with no room for religion, since I don't think it is the position of the state or school to teach those things outside of history classes and such. That is not aimed at rooting out religion, but to have it be something you do at home. It is also more healthy to not split up schools based on religion.

 

[PdotMichael]

It's a cultural item not a religious one.

And that culture is not a worth protecting.

 

[Dee Dah Dave]

Good. The Mrs and I both support this and hope it becomes the standard in all western countries. It has no place in modern civilization, along with the security concerns of it due to concealment of the face.

Wifey is also a Muslim, well she identifies as one but not really. But half of her family are.

 

[Dazzler]

I'm all for religious freedoms, but I draw the line at the Burqa, it simply has no place in the modern world

I feel so sorry for the women I see that are forced to wear them

 

[Pusherman]

You didn't answer my question with your personal opinion of whether you think that the burqa would be preferable to get rid of, even if you think that people should be allowed to wear it. You constantly say it is OK if the woman wants to wear it, but that is not the question I tried to ask.

As for aiming for a society where everyone is free in how they pursue happiness, that is an impossible thing. Tons of people would love to decide to do things we as a society do not allow. There are good reasons for that, since something terrible things make people happy.

The education part was just me trying to point out there are of course other ways in trying to get rid of the burqa, so maybe you'd agree with those means. I've pointed out earlier in the thread that I would like an education system with no room for religion, since I don't think it is the position of the state or school to teach those things outside of history classes and such. That is not aimed at rooting out religion, but to have it be something you do at home. It is also more healthy to not split up schools based on religion.

My personal opinion of the face veil is "whatever makes you happy". That's it. It's like asking me if it was preferable to get rid of religion. Some people might immediately say yes to that but I just don't think like that. I don't need the rest of the world to be like me and in terms of wants I just want everyone to have the freedom to express themselves however they want. I don't have any wants about other people's beliefs or traditions as long as they don't restrict other people's freedoms. So let's make it more concrete. If I had a daughter I'd try to raise her to be tolerant and understanding and open to other views. But I don't doubt that I'd also raise her with my own personal views, whether I wanted to or not. My atheism, my liberalism, etc. If, however, she decided as a teenager or adult to become a muslim and to wear a hijab or even a face veil I'd support her. How could I not? I want people to be themselves, not something I envision for them.

And in terms of a truly free society being impossible, yeah I agree. But in my opinion it is still worth striving for and that means personal liberty should take precedence over almost everything. It can't be more important that literally everything, but it should still be incredibly important. That's why I support the free the nipple movement for example. The moral objection of some people to women bearing their breasts is in my opinion not enough to prevent those women from doing so. You said that in your opinion the detrimental effect to social interaction is enough to ban the face veil. I think personal liberty takes precedence there.

And to go back to education, I don't think we should aim to root out anything through education. Instead, education should be about giving our children knowledge and the ability to amass it, enriching their lives and making sure they come into contact with other perspectives. That's why I said I'm open to getting rid of special education. We're in agreement there. I do think schools should spend some time on the different world religions and cultures. I think it's important that every child sees the plurality of human experience, not just kids living in mixed neighborhoods.

 

[Costa Kid]

Sometimes in public shops and buildings I'm asked to take my hood down by security guards, and I completely understand why. I don't see why banning the burqa is so controversial. It is undoubtedly a symbol of oppression, to add to that.

It's interesting to see liberals/progressives argue aggressively over this.

 

[typist]

We need to ban school uniforms too. People telling me what to wear and how to wear it caused me considerable stress as a child

 

[Jigorath]

We need to ban school uniforms too. People telling me what to wear and how to wear it caused me considerable stress as a child

What school made you cover up your entire face and body whenever you're in public.

 

[nelsonroyale]

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.

Agreed.

I very much disagree with the burqa, but I don't think banning it is the answer. It will just contribute to more radicalisation.

 

[DeviantBoi]

Agreed.

I very much disagree with the burqa, but I don't think banning it is the answer. It will just contribute to more radicalisation.

Okay... go and reason with the Imams. I'm sure they'll be open to changing the requirements for women.

 

[Ashes]

Sometimes in public shops and buildings I'm asked to take my hood down by security guards, and I completely understand why. I don't see why banning the burqa is so controversial. It is undoubtedly a symbol of oppression, to add to that.

It's interesting to see liberals/progressives argue aggressively over this.

It isn't really a 'liberals or progressive issue.' These women by law had the right to wear what they like. You're taking that right away.

 

[Pusherman]

A lot of the argument against the ban seems to be in line with the same argument of freedom of Speech and hate speech.

Many countries have hate speech laws because they know it has no fucking place in society. Yet, people will still defend that people have the right to speak positively on advocating murder of a race, discrimination against a sex, etc. A full body drape has no place in society since it's only purpose is to completely oppress women.

A country does not have to accept every aspect of a religion for religious freedom. I mean, regardless of how a certain religious group tries in America to have gays removed from society, we have been moving in a better direction for the past 20 years... till now. >_>

I think this is an interesting comparison. Hate speech laws are put in place not to protect individuals from their own hate but to protect the people/groups they target. However, a face veil ban is a paternalistic attempt at protecting women from themselves. The only way this comparison truly works is if you believe no woman can decide for herself to wear a face veil, it is always forced by her family, partner or community. I've tried to demonstrate again and again that that's just not true. Some women, including adult converts, do wear a face veil voluntarily.

Further more, I actually disagree with a lot of hate speech laws as well. I can certainly understand the desire for them. As an ex-muslim that's pretty scared of the rise of islamophobia in Europe I get wanting the law to protect you from hateful speech. But I've also seen how such laws can be used to hurt minorities as well. Using them to criminalize the Anti-Israeli BDS movement for example. Or applying such laws unfairly, protecting the islamophobic speech of Charlie Hebdo but targeting the antisemitic speech of Dieudonne. I much prefer the American approach to freedom of expression.

 

[Pancake Mix]

I feel that the burqa is largely pushed on women by Muslim society, even if they feel they wear it of their own free will.

Whenever you see Western female reporters in majority Muslim nations (aside from Turkey) wearing it, that makes me feel that my culture (where women's hair is free) is not respected, even moreso if that country uses Sharia law, which means my cultural ideals would definitely not be respected.

To come to a Western country and demand that the most oppressive outward displays of a religion will remain with you might make a Western woman uncomfortable and unwelcome going through a majority immigrant community. Remember that Western birth rates have gone down the drain. Pretty soon the indigenous majority will be the minority, and I just don't think that being irreligious is particularly respected in the Islamic world, which by simple demographics could become Europe too at one point. If you can't make a stand for indigenous values (which in parts of Europe have nothing to do with an idea of religious freedom, remember that some places have official state religions), then you won't be able to make a stand in the future...

 

[mckmas8808]

Hijabs seem like a choice for modesty, burqas seem like oppression of women.

At the end of the day I agree with this post. Primarily because Burqas don't make sense when it comes to comfort and ease of use. Like it's not reason to wear to live a normal life.

 

[Joni]

Is this banned in Austria?

Would you refuse to remove this when asked to identify yourself or when entering a building?

 

[Pancake Mix]

Is this banned in Austria?

[IMG[/IMG]

You have got to be kidding me with that comparison. That looks like a Sami person in Northern Finland, who might be in temperatures far below zero at that moment and is near constant darkness most of the year at that latitude. That is not comparable to a lighter, thinner (though perhaps still ridiculously hot) material that is used to hide women's hair and skin in extremely warm countries, and is worn even when it makes identifying who you're speaking to nearly impossible.

 

[Bruce Springsteen]

Is this banned in Austria?

Does that person dress just like that 24/7 in public and is forced to wear that?


What a horrible comparison to make

 

[Dingens]

Update? kind of...
there's been a demo today organised by a few muslim- and a left-leaning group
(for pics see the article)
http://derstandard.at/2000052109217/Demo-gegen-Kopftuchverbot-in-Wien

The thing I don't really get, is that they apparently protest a "Kopftuchverbot" (face veil) when the ban is about the burka? Either I'm missing something here, or they are.

There have been reports, that the protest groups were actually separated by gender - not sure if that's actually true or not, but if it was... yeah I don't think I'd support their cause.

btw the signs in the pics read "Am I a free citizen now?", "I want my freedom" and stuff like that...
I wonder if they realized, that they probably wouldn't be able to protest this in countries where the burka is actually a thing

edit: nah, forget the gender separation part, that was completely taken out of context by some and seemed to be a concious decision on the women's behalf

 

[Koren]

Like I said earlier, I agree that there is a conflict here between multiple rights. And in that discussion I lean towards the ban, because I think promoting things like gender equality in this case overrules the right to wear everything you want in public.

Feeling the same. Can't say a ban is a good solution, but I don't think there's good solution. I'd say the possible consequences of the alternative are worse...

That isn't fair to say at all. I've shown multiple examples of women explaining why they wear a face veil, some of whom where not raised muslim and only came to their decision at a later age.

Just because people explain (with valid arguments) why they're doing something doesn't mean there haven't been influenced. I'm NOT saying they can't think for themselves, just that the reasons for any personal choices are complex, and linked to social interactions by essence. I believe we are all influenced, on a lot of matters. I sure don't say my own choices are better. But you don't always make the best choices for yourself.

You have to be really, really cautious with any ban of such sort, because who is entitled to say which is good or bad? But it can still make sense sometimes. On a less controversial topic, I don't think it's bad to put regulation on advertisements for tobacco products. Advertisement has effect on people behaviours, and that doesn't mean people are stupid. Or look for example in the past when people fighted against new rights (women fighting against women voting rights, for example).

On a broader scope, education is definitively the best road, but that's tricky. It's even easier to suggest social behaviours at school. I can't even imagine how schools can be neutral, (I'm not even talking about promoting "good" ethics). And in any case, there's more and more private schools were parents can leave their children if they want to lay emphasis on some social choices.

 

[Engell]

The thing I don't really get, is that they apparently protest a "Kopftuchverbot" (face veil) when the ban is about the burka? Either I'm missing something here, or they are.

yeah i don't see anybody at this demo that are actually wearing a burqa.. shouldn't it be them protesting?

 

[KRod-57]

Does that person dress just like that 24/7 in public and is forced to wear that?


What a horrible comparison to make

Force? isn't prohibiting someone from wearing a thing under punishment of law considered force?


How about this, we give each individual legal authority over their own body. Whatever they want to do with their own body is up to them, but they don't get authority over anyone else's body but their own.

 

[Joni]

Force? isn't prohibiting someone from wearing a thing under punishment of law considered force?


How about this, we give each individual legal authority over their own body. Whatever they want to do with their own body is up to them, but they don't get authority over anyone else's body but their own.

You only have the right to do something until it infringes on other rights and duties.