Support NeoGAF

[BajiBoxer]

Not sure how I feel about a ban. Generally women don't have a choice, and it's been used extensively as a tool for the supression of women with origins in forced modesty imposed by male religious leaders.

We have limits to freedom of religion here in the U.S., such as banning an old Mormon practice that is used against women more often then not. We also see though that a ban doesn't entirely stamp out such things, as women who are true believers will still go along with it regardless of the law. If implementing such a law, I think it should be accompanied by studies to determine whether it is actually effective in improving women's situations.

 

[You Are Viewtiful]

These illiberal/authoritarian policies usually make extremism worse as it fuels the (valid) persecution complex and is government intrusion into private lives.

 

[Liha]

You what now?

You can't do whatever you want and that includes clothes. The majority of the society thinks that public racism and burka are a thing of the past and should be banned. We as a society define unwritten (moral) und written (laws) rules about how we live together and that will always result in loosing personal freedom.

 

[Measley]

You're going to have a hard time pushing and justifying archaic religious norms in secular societies. Especially if said secular society views those religious norms as oppressive towards women.

 

[Fuchsdh]

What is your definition of "free society"?

Btw I think free society is a pretty dumb phrase.

For the purposes of what this thread is talking about, a place that doesn't make laws designed specifically to impact one group of people defined by their religion, or at least cultural religiosity.

Removing the ability of people to practice their faith is not going to encourage assimilation, especially when the only real argument for where it affects people is "it makes me uncomfortable". Until we have crime sprees of niqab-wearing women, there's not much of a justification otherwise.

It'd be like deciding that the best way to deal with the problems of Catholicism is to outlaw it, but then again I'm sure there are plenty of people on this forum who don't see the problem with that, either.

 

[cromofo]

Fuck society that will bring laws that decide what people can or can't wear.

a bit off topic but here's a street sign in one of our most popular tourist destinations:

 

[d9b]

More to the point: we are not regulating what people can wear. We have decided it is an oppresive symbol, and we are not going to allow women being oppressed in our streets. Even if they think they are not being oppressed.

Mansplaining much?

 

[Tuck]

This line of thinking is a slippery slope. Again, you can be muslim, just not too muslim. Because your entire way of life that does not affect me but your PRESENCE makes me uncomfortable and because of that you must change yourself so that I can feel comfortable, despite how uncomfortable it makes you.

Is the niqab even in the quaran? Is it a religious issue or is it a cultural one?

 

[Muffin1611]

You're going to have a hard time pushing and justifying archaic religious norms in secular societies. Especially if said secular society views those religious norms as oppressive towards women.

Is "banning it will make it even worse for the actual oppressed and we should leave it to the communities themselves to modernize by furthering education programs and such" a good justification or nah?

 

[Tuck]

Fuck society that will bring laws that decide what people can or can't wear.

Ok, fuck every society that exists in our world today then.

 

[d9b]

a bit off topic but here's a street sign in one of our most popular tourist destinations:

You are seriously comparing vulgar and obnoxious behaviour with this law?

 

[cromofo]

You are seriously comparing vulgar and obnoxious behaviour with this law?

Hence off topic.

Stop mansplaining to me

 

[NewDust]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-mask_laws

Most countrie have some kind of ant mask laws

While I started in favor of the Ban in this thread, some reflection and well written post made me question my opinion.

Now I'm even questioning anti-mask laws...

Wearing full face covering attire might be awkward, but isn't inherently dangerous. It isn't preventing people with ill intentions wearing one.

 

[Muffin1611]

How y'all are still throwing yourselves on one stupid comment that disregards that clothing rules are nothing new while disregarding actual arguments is pretty telling, btw.

While I started in favor of the Ban in this thread, some reflection and well written post made me question my opinion.

Now I'm even questioning anti-mask laws...

Wearing full face covering attire might be awkward, but isn't inherently dangerous. It isn't preventing people with ill intentions wearing one.

Yup. Also was just recently used as excuse to illegally break up a demonstration at G20. But that's a bit off topic.

 

[Khaz]

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

You have a misconception about rights and freedoms. They are not about you, they are about everybody. Laws are designed to organise society, so that people are equal in their rights and prevent people using their freedom to do whatever at the expense of someone else.

The people who taught you about freedom lied to you: there is no such thing as freedom in a society. You are limited in your actions by laws, laws by nature designed specifically to limit your actions and protect other people (who are also subjects to laws). These laws are designed by the society itself, ie those who are living in it; whether directly, or through the election of representatives. If the society decides some action is or isn't good, they have all the keys to make it legal or illegal, subjecting everybody in the society to the law, even those who disagree.

Fundamentally, there is no difference between Saudi Arabia enforcing a dress code and Belgium and France banning a dress code. It is a matter of perspective, and what we (and they) as a society decide what is good and what is bad for us. The main difference is how the laws are voted and enforced: Saudi Arabia citizens don't have the mean of changing the laws that don't fit them, whereas French do.

And your human rights aren't trampled either. You are free to believe, to express you beliefs, and are guaranteed protection against oppression. However, Europe has decided not every mean of expression are allowed: specifically, covering your face and concealing your identity is a no no. It doesn't change anything to your identity, you are still guaranteed all the rights previously cited, but this very specific mean of religious expression is not allowed any more. Mind you it is part of a bigger legislation on face covering, that affects people regardless of their religion.

 

[BreezyLimbo]

Is the niqab even in the quaran? Is it a religious issue or is it a cultural one?

Iirc even within different Muslim sects, the use of thr Niqab is debated upon. Some forbid niqabs, some say its optional, some say it pertained to only Muhammads wives, some say if youre too beautiful you have to wear it...

...yeah. Its even debated amongst Muslims.

 

[wartama]

I dont' know, man. I don't agree.

First, even if you say you want to be oppressed, you are still oppressed. "No, but I want to be oppressed" is not a good enough reason to let people be oppressed. For me, having to hide your whole body just because you are a woman is a form of oppression. A person saying they want to be oppressed has been brainwashed and needs help - it's not something we should be OK with just because it's a form of religion.

I know it's not the same case, but if a woman wants to go through genital mutilation because her religion says so and she feels religion is her "safe space", we still shouldn't allow it. That person needs help and orientation. I don't give a fuck if you call it a white-centric point of view or a colonist rethoric or whatever. We, as a society have agreed that it is wrong. We limit that person's freedom to do that. Same thing that just happened with niqab.

The most confusing part is that then you talk about feminism and being queer, and how religion is your safe space for that. I mean....religion is going to protect you from discrimination for being queer or a feminist? What?

Sure, speak for me. I mean, I didn't know I was oppressed, wow I've so seen the light. Thank you, who we have never talked before.

Those of us who "hide our bodies" arrived to that conclusion because we think we are being tested by God to see if we will go through the restrictions for his sake. And before you start the argument that "God is a male, so yes you're being oppressed", no, God is not male, and argument into that will veer us into the territory of theology which I have do not want to start.

Yes, our religion is our safe space, because my religion tells me that I am important, God's own creation, and thus my thoughts and actions are important and that I solely am responsible for my own personhood. Whether society thinks I'm less because I am a woman, black queer and muslim (yes, didn't you know muslim queer existed? They've always existed even in the time of the prophet, too bad heternormative people steered the helm of the religion for so long they effectively erased us), my religion tells me to not heed them any mind, that I am the sole responsible of me, and that my actions are important, and that my life is accountable. When there is nowhere else that accepts me, God accepts me, and tells me that I have the right to fight for a good life.

Many other muslim women arrived at a different conclusion: they thought that the hijab does not represent them and they can be muslim without it. I say excellent, but because they arrived at a different conclusion does not mean I should change mine.

Feminism has long discarded our voices because the majority of those who steered the movement are white. White women can be as racists and eurocentric as their male counterpart. As long as they get what they want, they will through women minority under the bus. Because who cares, fuck you got mine.

FGM is not okay because it causes pain and unnecessary health complications for nothing. And no, FGM is not part of Islam. Mutilating yourself is prohibited in the religion.

 

[RevolverRoden]

Fuck them. And fuck everyone who's alright with it.

I guess 'Freedom of choice' and "Fight against oppression' has finally come with the asterisk 'so long it's in line with the eurocentric view that the global society should look like us. If they go against our ideal, fuck them and we don't care what happens to them. la la la WE DO CARE ABOUT WOMEN yeah'

I have personal account of being discriminated against and insulted because of my choice to wear the niqab. My mother was imprisoned back in her home country because she chose to wear the hijab, not even the niqab. I know a friend who was beaten up by her father because she chose to wear the niqab, and no one helped her because 'she was the one in the wrong'. Here, in UK. There's a lot of violence against the women in muslim communities because the men dictate how they should dress. If they want them to dress less, they should dress less. If they want them to dress more, they should dress more. And in neither cases should the women have a say in the matter. And guess what the white man (and woman, let's be fair, they're part of the problem too) these muslim men want to appease want?

And now that the court of HUMAN RIGHTS has given the ok to further bully these women, those who wore it because of personal reasons will rather stay at home than be part of the society, and those who were forced to do it will now be told to stay home by their fucktards patriarchs. And before you say why don't they tell the police, no the authorities don't care what these poor women go through. Someone I know went through violent domestic abuse (and she doesn't wear the niqab, by the way) and every single time she went to the authorities she was sent back to her abuser. She escaped to another country when she had four children and couldn't handle it anymore. I don't know whether her abuser followed her. To this day, she suffers from severe mental illnesses.

But you know, they're muslim women. At the end of the day they don't matter, let's make some more rules that work against them.

I love how (almost) everyone is ignoring this (and your other posts)

 

[Occam]

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

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

 

[d9b]

Hence off topic.

Stop mansplaining to me

Not just off topic, looks like this topic went over your head by a mile or two.

 

[Fantastapotamus]

For the purposes of what this thread is talking about, a place that doesn't make laws designed specifically to impact one group of people defined by their religion, or at least cultural religiosity.

Fair enough, though I would argue that religion shouldn't automatically be protected by law just because it is religion.
I don't really have an opinion on this either way and lean towards the "this is probably bad" side but laws are above religion and shouldn't restrict themselves because of it.
Basically, my problem isn't that this law is restricting a religious practice but rather the implications and possible consequences.

 

[cromofo]

Not just off topic, looks like this topic went over your head by a mile or two.

Still mansplaining I see.

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

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

Yep, that is the image I had in mind when reading this thread. Good post

 

[Muffin1611]

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

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

So you're saying we should fund better accessible education for women like this instead of forcing them to stay home because of this law?

Sure, speak for me. I mean, I didn't know I was oppressed, wow I've so seen the light. Thank you, who we have never talked before.

Those of us who "hide our bodies" arrived to that conclusion because we think we are being tested by God to see if we will go through the restrictions for his sake. And before you start the argument that "God is a male, so yes you're being oppressed", no, God is not male, and argument into that will veer us into the territory of theology which I have do not want to start.

Yes, our religion is our safe space, because my religion tells me that I am important, God's own creation, and thus my thoughts and actions are important and that I solely am responsible for my own personhood. Whether society thinks I'm less because I am a woman, black queer and muslim (yes, didn't you know muslim queer existed? They've always existed even in the time of the prophet, too bad heternormative people steered the helm of the religion for so long they effectively erased us), my religion tells me to not heed them any mind, that I am the sole responsible of me, and that my actions are important, and that my life is accountable. When there is nowhere else that accepts me, God accepts me, and tells me that I have the right to fight for a good life.

Many other muslim women arrived at a different conclusion: they thought that the hijab does not represent them and they can be muslim without it. I say excellent, but because they arrived at a different conclusion does not mean I should change mine.

Feminism has long discarded our voices because the majority of those who steered the movement are white. White women can be as racists and eurocentric as their male counterpart. As long as they get what they want, they will through women minority under the bus. Because who cares, fuck you got mine.

FGM is not okay because it causes pain and unnecessary health complications for nothing. And no, FGM is not part of Islam. Mutilating yourself is prohibited in the religion.

Quoting for visibility.

 

[BreezyLimbo]

So you're saying we should fund better accessible education for women like this instead of forcing them to stay home because of this law?

Thats the thing though

Having better education doesnt necessarily mean that the intended target(the uneducated) will see it.

And when youre part of a society that tries its damnedest to stop you from getting that education, theres little that person can do without intervention from outside forces.

 

[Audioboxer]

No it isn't. You're right.

But that's also not what we are arguing about here, really.

We kind of are. How many of the women wearing full-face veils do you think are non-Islamic? I said in one of my posts the reason you are now seeing more debate at the levels of Government/Courts around this is precisely because Islam is largely a growing religion in many Western nations which have been Christian/Catholic strongholds for generations. Very few, if any, Christians or Catholics go around in our societies with their faces fully covered all year round. Unchartered waters are being faced in many societies with freedom of religion and how to balance that with secularism/tolerance/the image a country wants to show itself as supporting to the world. Islam, like the other religions, has soo many individuals all interpreting things differently and acting differently, but the point is the backing behind full-face veils and women being FULLY covered is almost exclusively coming from interpretations of Islamic text/life. So when Islam grows in % share in a country, you tend to see more women going around fully covered. As that is happening when we try to integrate people from all around the world, rightfully, in our societies it also brings about seeing more women fully covered in public spheres. This then spurs the debates around whether it's beneficial to the society and often complaining it isn't helping integration/communication/cultural mixing.

You could say if Islam wants to grow as a religion in some of these established Western societies it will need to integrate itself in ways which are compatible with the countries in which it wants to flourish. I'm not one for getting too theological over debating the texts, rather I'd prefer to see separation of Church and state and the Government valuing secular ideas whilst still supporting freedom of religion as best it can (with a note though that sorry, "my culture/my religion" being used to allow ANYTHING obviously cannot be accepted ~ we do have laws/social expectations at times). The other majority religions have to adapt here too, and routinely get challenged by public criticism and even courts/Law (such as gay marriage/abortion being passed and Christianity/Catholicism being told sorry, it's now law). If you want to believe in some things that could only be done based on faith instead of evidence, that is fine, most societies value and support of freedom of religion in private (with the caveats of you still cannot abuse/hurt/threaten someone in private). However, if we're talking about public displays things get more complex like it does with many things in life.

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

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

Unfortunately, humanity isn't on a straight course and it routinely goes backwards at times. It's why we usually try our best to learn from history and not repeat it, but often history is repeated. Most people will and do have some tolerance for religious garbs/expression, but in the context of this topic, we're discussing the most oppressive and exclusive one. The short point here being I doubt you'd see many advocating for a head scarf to be banned even if they still feel it's a form of oppression. The burqa/full-face covering is on another level.

 

[Khaz]

Wearing full face covering attire might be awkward, but isn't inherently dangerous. It isn't preventing people with ill intentions wearing one.

Laws has never prevented sufficiently determined people to break them. Just because there are criminals doesn't mean laws are useless.

 

[Muffin1611]

Thats the thing though

Having better education doesnt necessarily mean that the intended target(the uneducatex) will see it.

"better accessible education"

"accessible"

 

[Occam]

So you're saying we should fund better accessible education for women like this instead of forcing them to stay home because of this law?

Who is forcing them to stay home?

 

[Elfotografoalocado]

How is it a free society if you're not free to cover your face if you choose to do so? ��

The argument of the ruling is that a modern, democratic society that is shaped around information is incompatible with people that cover their entire faces in the public sphere, since they are posing a barrier to communication and whatnot.

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

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

Iran was a rightwing dictatorship before the Revolution, and had 6.4 children per woman in 1979 and low rates of female school enrollment. Today, they have 1.79 like a developed country and a high level of female qualification. There is strong political participation of women, and plenty of opposition to the more repressive elements of the regime. Being secular doesn't mean shit. There are also secular sexists, there is no inherent relation.

 

[gutter_trash]

You are seriously comparing vulgar and obnoxious behaviour with this law?

what's vulgar about wearing swimsuits and swim trunks in a park?

 

[Muffin1611]

Who is forcing them to stay home?

Are you seriously playing dumb after we had over 10 sites explaining why back and forth?

The argument of the ruling is that a modern, democratic society that is shaped around information is incompatible with people that cover their entire faces in the public sphere, since they are posing a barrier to communication and whatnot.

We're doing that on the net every day.

 

[BreezyLimbo]

"better accessible education"

"accessible"

Again

You act as if you build it, they will come, so to speak. Alot of times in societies that deal in oppressing another, even accessible education isnt going to help.

 

[Muffin1611]

Again

You act as if you build it, they will come, so to speak. Alot of times in societies that deal in oppressing another, even accessible education isnt going to help.

Lowering their chances for access even further certainly isn't going to help either.

 

[NewDust]

Laws has never prevented sufficiently determined people to break them. Just because there are criminals doesn't mean laws are useless.

What's criminal about wearing a facemask? What does it, other than inconveniencing some social interactions? Actual crimes are already prohibited, what does this do to add to that?

 

[Occam]

Again

You act as if you build it, they will come, so to speak. Alot of times in societies that deal in oppressing another, even accessible education isnt going to help.

Indeed. Why would those men who oppress their wives allow them any education to emancipate themselves?

 

[BreezyLimbo]

Lowering their chances for access even further certainly isn't going to help either.

If banning the niqab completely removes their chances from getting an education

Chances are they never had a choice in the matter to begin with. With or without the Niqab ban.

 

[MistakenMobius]

What's criminal about wearing a facemask? What does it, other than inconveniencing some social interactions? Actual crimes are already prohibited, what does this do to add to that?

What's wrong with a KKK uniform?

 

[daxy]

Are you seriously playing dumb after we had over 10 sites explaining why back and forth?

We're doing that on the net every day.

I'm not sure if the Belgian law has such a component, but the French law prohibiting full facial coverage/veils fines a person forcing another person to wear such a garment for 30,000 60,000 euros.

 

[Muffin1611]

Indeed. Why would those men who oppress their wives allow them any education to emancipate themselves?

Because you can't really completely control everything they do when they're not at home?

Like I said, for example phone hotlines, anonymous help groups. More of them, better accessible.

I'm not sure if the Belgian law has such a component, but the French law prohibiting full facial coverage/veils fines a person forcing another person to wear such a garment for 30,000 euros.

It still hurts the women at the end of the day if it also bans it from the public. That component alone as law would be good, sure.

 

[NewDust]

The argument of the ruling is that a modern, democratic society that is shaped around information is incompatible with people that cover their entire faces in the public sphere, since they are posing a barrier to communication and whatnot.

Elfotografoalocado
Member
(Today, 06:00 PM)

What's wrong with a KKK uniform?

Come to think of it... actually nothing. Most things the KKK stand for are already outlawed.

 

[Fuchsdh]

Fair enough, though I would argue that religion shouldn't automatically be protected by law just because it is religion.
I don't really have an opinion on this either way and lean towards the "this is probably bad" side but laws are above religion and shouldn't restrict themselves because of it.
Basically, my problem isn't that this law is restricting a religious practice but rather the implications and possible consequences.

I'd agree, in general. If a religion is based around kidnapping and torturing people we wouldn't allow it. The separation of church and state even in the US isn't an absolute pact.

 

[Khaz]

What's criminal about wearing a facemask? What does it, other than inconveniencing some social interactions? Actual crimes are already prohibited, what does this do to add to that?

You said "It isn't preventing people with ill intentions wearing one." I'm simply pointing the flaw in your logic, not making any argument for or against facemasks or whatever you are talking about.

Having people breaking the law doesn't make the law useless.

 

[BajiBoxer]

So you're saying we should fund better accessible education for women like this instead of forcing them to stay home because of this law?

Yes, that might be the best and least controversial way to go. Along with extensive outreach, protection, and empowerment for women who might be abused.

 

[BadWolf]

What's criminal about wearing a facemask? What does it, other than inconveniencing some social interactions? Actual crimes are already prohibited, what does this do to add to that?

As a basic example look at how a lot of people act IRL compared to how they do online under anonymity.

Is everyone a dick online? Nope, but it sure as heck makes it easier for those that want to be.

 

[Muffin1611]

As a basic example look at how a lot of people act IRL compared to how they do online under anonymity.

Is everyone a dick online? Nope, but it sure as heck makes it easier for those that want to be.

Getting caught for being a dick IRL is way easier though, even if you hide your face.

 

[BajiBoxer]

What's criminal about wearing a facemask? What does it, other than inconveniencing some social interactions? Actual crimes are already prohibited, what does this do to add to that?

It could be useful in identification in many cases (depending on how extensive surveilence and police presence is).

 

[Frost_Ace]

While I started in favor of the Ban in this thread, some reflection and well written post made me question my opinion.

Now I'm even questioning anti-mask laws...

Wearing full face covering attire might be awkward, but isn't inherently dangerous. It isn't preventing people with ill intentions wearing one.

Well but it help identifying ill intended people, doesn't it? If I, white male, go around my town with face covering mask, I'm sure I'll have either someone stop me and ask me some questions or have someone call the cops on me. Being identifiable is a matter of public security in my opinion.

 

[SgtCobra]

So would this also be banned in the EU? They are putting stuff on to cover their faces. I mean we can all agree that this is "morally" wrong and unacceptable in any society. I'm just curious on how deep does this ruling's well go.

Are you seriously comparing Zwarte Piet to niqabs? Or is this some sort of sarcastic post? I mean, seriously? How about you educate yourself better on this (horrible) thing we've going on here in The Netherlands before making silly comparisons like this?

 

[trineo_feo]

Mansplaining much?

A posts that says nothing. A buzzword. Why do you assume I'm a man, by the way?

I insist: some people are oppressed and they don't know it. Them saying they are not oppressed is not enough fur us as a society to allow it.

Same way when a woman is abused by a husband, and because of battered person syndrome they think they are ok, we still remove them from the environment.

Again: in Europe, we have decided that human rights and respect are above religious freedom. If your religion is against the human rights that we, as a society, have established, then you need to change it.

Genital mutilation, multiple wives, discrimination agains homosexuals because of religion, the use of prayer instead of medicine, and now niqab, are some of the things that if a religion tries to enforce, will not be tolerated by us, the people of Europe. It's that simple.

 

[BadWolf]

Getting caught for being a dick IRL is way easier though, even if you hide your face.

Obviously, but hiding your identity makes it harder.

Like getting caught on camera is a lot less of a problem.