Indrid Cold1
Member
Great decision. No place in modern secular society.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
European Court of Human Rights: Ban on Muslim full-face veil legal
- Thread starter Occam
- Start date
Muffin1611
Banned
I understand the principle, but I'd guess outlawing it won't stop people who really don't want to be identified when they're doing something. Might be off a bit, of course.
Uuh the evil EU is at it again, promoting its socialist distopia propaganda state! Good thing the US are always ready to export some freedom and democracy!
On a more serious note, there is no clear winner here, but:
- full face covering was already banned in most countries, and this was about lifting the exemption for religious clothing, as in: does religion deserve a pass over civil law? If yes, to what extent?
Keep in mind this is the same continent where having a cross in a public space is bad optics. Religion in open spaces is seen as problematic for various historical and cultural reasons, except southern europe (which is, first hand report, a shithole compared to central and northern europe). Something which is extremely hard to grasp for the rest of the world except maybe china and japan.
- if both options are bad, it's a matter of choosing the least bad option. This is what courts and politicians are out to do, all the time. Making choices for the society that elected them. Is this a bad choice? We'll see in the long term. I suspect it won't be, it may have bad optics, but lots of precedents tell me it's gonna be a lot of smoke and no fire.
Next step: creating an official european islamic centralized istitution, and put progressive islamic scholars in there, to promote more progressive teachings and stamp out stupidity like the wahabbi and salafi schools. Muslims also are extremely weak politically for their numbers because they have no centralized entity to represent them, something like this would give them much more power and voice in politics.
Also, promote positive examples of ethics and equality: that woman that opened up a intersex mosque for example? Promote her. It's good optics for all groups involved and may prevent more radicalization for than any intelligence effort. There were lots of talks about this in leftwing politic circles in EU a couple years ago, but with the shitshow the world is now i have no hopes this will ever be done soon. Especially since right-wingers are gaining lot of popularity and they have "better solutions".
Macron as much as a neoliberal economist scum he is, at least strike me as a pragmatist which would see the good of something like this, and France could easily lead the way in this sense, creating a more official central islamic institution to give both voice and control against radicalisms.
On a more serious note, there is no clear winner here, but:
- full face covering was already banned in most countries, and this was about lifting the exemption for religious clothing, as in: does religion deserve a pass over civil law? If yes, to what extent?
Keep in mind this is the same continent where having a cross in a public space is bad optics. Religion in open spaces is seen as problematic for various historical and cultural reasons, except southern europe (which is, first hand report, a shithole compared to central and northern europe). Something which is extremely hard to grasp for the rest of the world except maybe china and japan.
- if both options are bad, it's a matter of choosing the least bad option. This is what courts and politicians are out to do, all the time. Making choices for the society that elected them. Is this a bad choice? We'll see in the long term. I suspect it won't be, it may have bad optics, but lots of precedents tell me it's gonna be a lot of smoke and no fire.
Next step: creating an official european islamic centralized istitution, and put progressive islamic scholars in there, to promote more progressive teachings and stamp out stupidity like the wahabbi and salafi schools. Muslims also are extremely weak politically for their numbers because they have no centralized entity to represent them, something like this would give them much more power and voice in politics.
Also, promote positive examples of ethics and equality: that woman that opened up a intersex mosque for example? Promote her. It's good optics for all groups involved and may prevent more radicalization for than any intelligence effort. There were lots of talks about this in leftwing politic circles in EU a couple years ago, but with the shitshow the world is now i have no hopes this will ever be done soon. Especially since right-wingers are gaining lot of popularity and they have "better solutions".
Macron as much as a neoliberal economist scum he is, at least strike me as a pragmatist which would see the good of something like this, and France could easily lead the way in this sense, creating a more official central islamic institution to give both voice and control against radicalisms.
Indeed. And it's quite ridiculous how some people claim that fully covering your face whenever leaving your house doesn't segregate you from the rest of society.
Laws against crime don't stop crime from happening altogether, they sure as heck help with lowering it though.
Thank you for your very reasonable post.
I am fine with people disagreeing with what I wear. I am fine with going into the debate of theological merits and stuff (though this is not the time neither the place). I do sense people's discomfort and weigh the risks and reward every time I go outside. What I am not okay with is people speaking on my behalf, people pretending they're doing it for them muslim women's good when they are clearly not. People talking about my experience and insulting us while never EVER having talked with a muslim women wearing the niqab. Of people calling out the human injustices going on in other places in the world while cheering when the Human Rights court approve injustices in their own countries. I know these people do not care about my safety, my experiences, my thoughts and my aspirations, yet they dare to talk about our lives as if they know how we feel and how we want to be treated.
And here's me talking about experience: growing up in Scandanavia and Uk among other places, I learnt that whether I wore the normal hijab or the niqab did not make a difference with bigots. Both signaled me as a muslim, and they do not like a muslim showing their faith (and if we are arguing that we shouldn't be showing our faith, then what should be showing? Do we have to dress in costumes that have originated in the west and assimilate in the eurocentric global society? Is being like a 'westerner' the only right way of dressing?) It is not a matter of relativity, it's an either 1 or 0.
Muffin1611
Banned
You didn't even respond to my argument and continue to agree with others instead, that's what I call a discussion.
I find it ridiculous that you don't seem to realize that one of the two options segregates more.
Yeah, I guess. The question is, should there be exemptions, which etc. I think in this case there should be since it will have bad consequence otherwise.
AcademicSaucer
Member
This
Perhaps we should get the discussion back to religious full face coverings? And yes I realize I was the one going a bit off-topic regarding the validity and usefulness of anti-mask laws.
You didn't answer my question about who forces them to stay home. If someone does that to them, then that is clearly illegal in Europe. Sounds to me like we need more social workers to visit such women's homes to make sure they aren't confined against their will.
Muffin1611
Banned
We extensively talked about it on the pages before that.
And as if more social workers are the sole solution. They can't exactly break into your house.
More of those is a good idea, sure. Worsening the problem by knowingly trapping more people isn't.
Well I think they are related. Nobody wants to ban those piece of cloth because they are muslim related. The only problem is they make the person who wears it completely unrecognazble
Zvonimir Boban
Banned
Right, so can we all agree that the arguments that it's helping oppressed women are bullshit then?
DerZuhälter
Member
I picked those quotes because they resemble in a certain way the same thing, the same problem that most have in common who are for this ban.
It's you that have an issue with the niqab and why you agree with the ban. Wether it makes you uncomfortable, you don't like Islam, or think it oppresses the people inside the niqab.
It is you having the issue, being confronted with what you see. And thanks to this ban you won't be confronted with it anymore. It is the solution to your uneasyness. And in some way or another you are saying exactly that. You want those people you are confronted with, to be more like you. For whatever reason. A sense of superiority of ideals, values or culture. It doesn't matter. They are different and you don't seem to want that.
This way we guarantee
. We used to say we are open to new cultures, but now we are only open to new cultures on specific terms.
This. This right here is the sad and maybe ugly truth. Although Europeans and western society like to label themselves as free, tolerant, diverse, open people, the truth is we are moving further and further away from these ideals.
It's clear as daylight in these personal opinions which also mirror a societal change and the growing support of right/nationalists parties and candidates as well as the growing orientation toward the right by conservative parties. This isn't just rhetoric since this can be shown in clear numbers across Europe and the US in the last few years.
The political instability in the middle east (in parts caused by the west) lead to an increase of immigration, which lead to an increase of contact with people out of these regions (or the growing problem of ghettos or parallel societies). Due to the recent rise of terror attacks a lingering fear has crept into our societal mindset, especially in connection to Islam. How much "foreignness" can society cope with? Well if we talk specifically about Islam the limit seems to have been reached.
It's sad that it has come that far, because I feel the generations of muslim immigrants that came over to Europe decades ago integrated better than most are willing to admit. But with this law in place we are calling for integration or rather assimilation right away, or stay the fuck out of our country.
Well I guess being unrecognizable does indeed go against our western societal norms. It's why most normal opt to not wear face-hiding clothing. But honestly, seeing women wearing a niqab never has inconvenienced me, or made me feel uncomfortable. And if we are especially talking about an exception being made for religious apparel, which is very much a minority of all face coverings, maybe that should be allowed.
How come the internet is a free society when we are using avatars and made-up names? Turns out, the human mind can interact with anything and anyone without needing to see the physical form, as long as the mind is willing to.
Zvonimir Boban
Banned
"This is a free society, so we're going to tell you what you can't wear"
That is no contradiction. If you put on an SS uniform with a swastika armband in Germany, you will be arrested.
(And no, I am not saying face veils are like SS uniforms. I am just giving you a simple example of the state telling you what you can't wear.)
And they are less free because of it.
That doesn't mean that that law shouldn't exist. But its existence doesn't make someone more free, it's freedom the German citizenry are giving up for some other goal.
Because this is the established social norm on the internet. This is not the case in public in most of European society. That's the key difference.
Free societies has and will always limit individual freedom in multiple ways.
Norway is a free society, but you can't have assisted suicide and you can't drink beer in the park.
Zen_Arcade
Banned
This happens all of the time. Even in free socieities.
trineo_feo
Member
The way we see the world is so different that we will never reach an agreenment.
I'm really sorry you have such views. For me, that you need your religion to tell you that you are important is very sad. That, and the fact that you feel wearing a niqab is OK tell me you had a very rough upbringing, in which your freedom was very limited and your life quite controlled.
There is no way in which you are going to convince me that a woman born free, with complete liberty to determine their future, and go to university and learn whatever they want and marry whoever they want and travel wherever they want, is going to choose, at a point in their life, that wearing a niqab is what they want for their life. At least i'm sure as fuck I wouldn't want that for my - hypothetical - daughter.
And I'm sorry, but it's not society or Europe that thinks less of you beause you are a woman or black or gay. We are the ones trying to protect you and other minorities from religious oppression. I mean, it blows my mind that you blame white people and heteronormative society from your oppression, and not Islam and other forms of religion.
Zvonimir Boban
Banned
Like Matt said, this makes society less free. Just because it's not as restrictive as somewhere like North Korea doesn't stop "this is a free society" from being a quite obvious contradiction to "You can't wear this or do that".
None of that makes it a 'free' society.
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/
Very powerful image. Thank you.
The most important freedom is freedom from religious compulsion.
To me this is a matter of pubic order. Being always identifiable is useful to the public forces in many cases. And this goes above religion.
Audioboxer
Member
The long-term goal or idea is future generations of Islamic men will have to get with the times and support their female counterparts being out in public without their faces covered. Just in the same way the Christians/Catholics are having to accept gay people are getting married after societies used law to make a decision. The idea here is women having their faces shown will lead to men over time having to accept/embrace it. The pursuit is a long-term goal which aims to stop full-face coverings getting to a point where they continually grow in number, as education alone does not seem to stop growing numbers.
This argument (preventative/reformative), of course, is only relevant if you actually think it's a detrimental thing for society. If anyone is in agreement with the concept of women covering their faces then I'd assume they wouldn't want the men to be dragged along kicking and screaming. It is, of course, the men, whether preachers or family who are indeed indoctrinating the women and often demanding they cover their faces.
Portugeezer
Member
Of course it's legal to ban.
i believe the goal is to be as free as possible for the widest number of citizens.
Bitch Pudding
Member
Of course they will, or do you really think their men will do the groceries now?! /s
Zen_Arcade
Banned
Well if your argument here is that no one is truely free while living in society because they need to adhere to basic social expectations that might take away their ability to do whatever they want, then yeah, there is no "free society". There are hundreds of examples of how even the most progressive societies don't allow people to do literally whatever they want.
But most people understand reality, and the idea that when people say "Free society" they mean it relative to other societies on the planet.
Muffin1611
Banned
Lmao, he wrote the actual way to go about this is written under the image and he and you both rather punish the women themselves for being oppressed. Instead of furthering education.
I can't.
I am glad.
Telling people what they can and can't wear is why the face coverings exist in the first place.
hurricanes
Member
Fully covered face is illegal (without permit) already, why should they get special treatment?
While it's possible I believe most people will choose to rather interact someone whose face they can see. Even someone covering their eyes with sunglasses can sometimes come off as rude.
Chairman Yang
if he talks about books, you better damn well listen
Are you sure about that? These sorts of policies seem to have worked pretty consistently, from historical examples (Turkey and ex-Soviet Muslim countries) to contemporary repression in places like Xinjiang in China.
Kralamoonard
Member
I find it hilarious when people post that Iran picture...it's became a meme copy pasta within itself as if 'Look how free and westernised Iran was HUR DUR, Islam ruined everything!'
To quote from Reddit, the ironic thing is, Iran was not really free or "democratic" but rather a repressive dictatorship, ruled over by a foreign-installed megalomaniac and secret police that was trained by the CIA to use Nazi torture techniques
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyGzAkpMcvU
Iranians massively improved their living standards AFTER the 1979 Islamic Revolution, when literacy rates went from under 50% (lower for women) to over 98% and when the average Iranian gained 22 years of additional life span.
Only 1 other country (S Korea) was able to do better http://www.ir.undp.org/content/iran/en/home/countryinfo.html
http://iranprimer.usip.org/blog/2013/apr/01/un-stats-life-longer-and-healthier-iran
Ironically it was many of the policies of the Islamic regime that actually empowered women there, for example massive improvement in education, family planning and healthcare:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/amygutt...s-science-and-engineering-students-are-women/
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-iran-divorce-idUSKCN0IB0GQ20141022
http://www.latimes.com/world/population/la-fg-population-iran-20120729-html-htmlstory.html
Before the revolution, Iran's HDI was low and not at all rising.
This is how Iran changed after the revolution compared to other countries and the rest of the world:
http://www.ir.undp.org/content/dam/...cr_content/renditions/cq5dam.web.540.390.jpeg
Regarding the standards of living before and after the revolution -- before Iran's Human Development Index was low, and not at all rising. After the revolution is massively improved at twice the rate of the rest of the world, coming second to China since 1980 or S Korea since 1990.
http://iranprimer.usip.org/blog/2013/apr/01/un-stats-life-longer-and-healthier-iran
http://www.photius.com/rankings/human_developement_index_1975-2005.html
http://www.ir.undp.org/content/iran/en/home/countryinfo.html
Not that modern day Iran doesn't have its problems, but let's not fall into revisionist history to try and play the 'Look at how X country was better when it was "westernised" card' and completely ignore what actually happened. It's reductive and selection bias at its core.
To quote from Reddit, the ironic thing is, Iran was not really free or "democratic" but rather a repressive dictatorship, ruled over by a foreign-installed megalomaniac and secret police that was trained by the CIA to use Nazi torture techniques
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyGzAkpMcvU
Iranians massively improved their living standards AFTER the 1979 Islamic Revolution, when literacy rates went from under 50% (lower for women) to over 98% and when the average Iranian gained 22 years of additional life span.
Only 1 other country (S Korea) was able to do better http://www.ir.undp.org/content/iran/en/home/countryinfo.html
http://iranprimer.usip.org/blog/2013/apr/01/un-stats-life-longer-and-healthier-iran
Ironically it was many of the policies of the Islamic regime that actually empowered women there, for example massive improvement in education, family planning and healthcare:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/amygutt...s-science-and-engineering-students-are-women/
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-iran-divorce-idUSKCN0IB0GQ20141022
http://www.latimes.com/world/population/la-fg-population-iran-20120729-html-htmlstory.html
Before the revolution, Iran's HDI was low and not at all rising.
This is how Iran changed after the revolution compared to other countries and the rest of the world:
http://www.ir.undp.org/content/dam/...cr_content/renditions/cq5dam.web.540.390.jpeg
Regarding the standards of living before and after the revolution -- before Iran's Human Development Index was low, and not at all rising. After the revolution is massively improved at twice the rate of the rest of the world, coming second to China since 1980 or S Korea since 1990.
http://iranprimer.usip.org/blog/2013/apr/01/un-stats-life-longer-and-healthier-iran
http://www.photius.com/rankings/human_developement_index_1975-2005.html
http://www.ir.undp.org/content/iran/en/home/countryinfo.html
Not that modern day Iran doesn't have its problems, but let's not fall into revisionist history to try and play the 'Look at how X country was better when it was "westernised" card' and completely ignore what actually happened. It's reductive and selection bias at its core.
Golden_Pigeon
Banned
Male white savior meter is rising all-time high on this thread.
Muffin1611
Banned
Must be nice gloating at others in a forum discussion when talking about something that has actual negative impact on people. Like someone in this very thread.
Not you, of course.
I have mixed opinions about this ruling. I completely agree that these full-face veils have no place in a secular society. There's also a safety concern with not being able to identify people who have their face fully covered, and they don't realize that it works against them if they found themselves a suspect of an unfortunate event.
The problem is that there's a struggle with feminist voices running the risk of being discredited as anti-nationalist (of their home country) or anti-religious in the Middle East. We have to remember that women's adherence to received norms such as veiling and seclusion became forms of nationalist/cultural defense in Middle Eastern countries under severe forms of European colonization threatening the culture itself. Bans such as this will be perceived as another cultural attack from the West, when really we should be advocating for and supporting the women in these communities who speak out against full-face veils and other oppressive ideologies.
The problem is that there's a struggle with feminist voices running the risk of being discredited as anti-nationalist (of their home country) or anti-religious in the Middle East. We have to remember that women's adherence to received norms such as veiling and seclusion became forms of nationalist/cultural defense in Middle Eastern countries under severe forms of European colonization threatening the culture itself. Bans such as this will be perceived as another cultural attack from the West, when really we should be advocating for and supporting the women in these communities who speak out against full-face veils and other oppressive ideologies.
oh please, it was you with the "lmao" and the "I can't".........
Golden_Pigeon
Banned
In Iran it gave you Khomeini. In Turkey's, Erdogan. In Algeria, FIS. So, no, forced state-secularization is not working if it goes against society.
At the contrary, it consistently backfire.
In comparison, French urban middle-class was, by large, way secularized when the separation of State and Church occurred (1905).
Are those improvements somehow in correlation with compulsory religious clothing? I don't see people making the argument that the old Iran was perfect, just that those women very much reject this type of religious clothing.
That's a good point there. If you think a woman is oppresed and forced to wear something, it's pretty fucked up if you punish her for it.
Muffin1611
Banned
Well, I for one actually seem to care what Muslim women say.
Similar threads
- Locked