Support NeoGAF

[BadWolf]

we're discussing islamophobic violence here

No we are discussing the Niqab here.

 

[Arrogant Bastard]

It doesn't actually matter what the law intends or not when it actually makes life worse for a group of people.

Sometimes your life is going to be made worse for the betterment of everyone else. You shouldn't be able to be in public while hiding your identity,that is the point here.

 

[Zen_Arcade]

Let me explain it more.

I now girls who were abused BECAUSE they wanted to practice their religion more. They lived in western countries, yet did not get help. It was viewed that since they wanted to wear the hijab and practice their religion more, they were the one in the wrong. It was not said out loud, but the feeling we go was that we deserved being abused because if that's what's going to make us less religious, then so be it. Now, in this case, is it the religion that is at fault?

My cousin (and super best friend) who wears the niqab was once insulted by a policeman as she passed by him on the street. She refused to leave home for several days. An ex-coworker who wore (don't know if she does anymore) was chased around and severely beaten by a non-muslim stranger while she was walking on the street. Everyone stood around and watched or just walked by as she was abused, until someone in their shop called the police.

We don't feel safe because we feel the authorities and people don't want to help, and we have our anecdotes to back our fears. Religion does not abuse us, everyone and everything else fails us.

Of course it's not your fault if people start discriminating against you because of the law. But just because there are people use the law to do something else to you that is clearly illegal or ignorant doesn't mean the law itself is unsound or illogical. Perfectly reasonable laws are abused all of the time.

That said, religion is clearly still a part of the abuse here. Obviously not in any of your examples, but just because other people go overboard and assume things and commit acts they shouldn't based on your religion, it doesn't mean that the religion itself isn't flawed and harmful in other ways.

 

[Funyarinpa]

I'm not sure if anyone is interested in the actual reasoning of the law, which is not to free 'oppressed' Muslim women:



http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng-press?i=003-5788319-7361101

Yeah. Just as I thought, it's about principles of social harmony.

Divorced from the question of whether banning or allowing it is misogynistic, I think it's perfectly fine. Religion shouldn't get special provisions.

That said, I do fear that it'll have adverse effects in empowering women in Muslim society.

I think the real debate is whether we need to be able to see faces at all times, or not. The ruling itself seems to say "we saw that this ban was in order to establish some social norms and we decided that religion isn't an exception", and I see no issues with that.

 

[Fantastapotamus]

In the present case, the Belgian State had intended in adopting the contested provisions to respond to a practice that the State deemed incompatible, in Belgian society, with the ground rules of social communication and, more broadly, with the creation of the human relationships that were essential to life in society. The State was seeking to protect a principle of interaction between individuals that was, in its view, essential to the functioning of a democratic society.

This is just another anecdote, but the best friend of my sister is from Iran. When she was 18 (or possibly younger, I'm 10 years younger than my sister so I'm not 100% clear) she had to run away from her home because her family was trying to force her to wear *something* (again, I was pretty young so I don't remember what it was).
The only thing I clearly remember was her calling *it* basically a chain to force her to stay within the (tiny) Muslim community in my home village and keep her from ever fitting in with anybody else around her. Things got pretty ugly back then.

Spoiler

Just to put a positive end to this, today she works as lawyer in Vienna, is married and has two children.

Again: Just anecdotal, but it did shape the way I see Niqabs and co

 

[AntChum]

Because we don't want to normalize this shit in our society. That is why I am fine with this ban and agree with the EU court, even if I won't insist on having it in my own country (which doesn't have the ban).

You're fine with marginalising a group of already marginalised women so long as you get to stick it to misogynistic fabric? I find your position mind boggling.

So... two women could have avoided verbal and physical abuse if one physical object was taken out of the equation?

"Listen tuts, you shouldn't have gone walking down that alleyway that late at night."

 

[You Are Viewtiful]

Except the physical object in question is now banned and by default the situation would be avoided moving forward. If the Niqab really was the only reason they were abused that is.

If it was religion or something else then that becomes another issue.

So if someone attacks women for only a specific piece of clothing, it makes it okay to victim blame?

 

[wartama]

I'm not sure if anyone is interested in the actual reasoning of the law, which is not to free 'oppressed' Muslim women:



http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng-press?i=003-5788319-7361101

Thank you for including it. Again, this shows that the court took the legislators' words (who have nothing to lose if a handful of women mind their own business in the society) without consulting those who are affected by this ruling. Did they go and ask how these women will respond to the ruling? Did they follow them and observed them in their day to day life and witnessed how their choice affects the democracy of Belgium? Is their decision rooted in evidence and literal observation case by case? I want answers.

 

[MKIL65]

This is interesting, I don't exactly have an answer on whether this is good or not.

My mother and cousin only wears a hijab, so i can't comment on niqab. But I've always thought it looked uncomfortable...

My question is: Would these women, that wears a niqab, face less discrimination (overall) if they were to not wear it? In western countries specifically.

Would islamophobia diminish somewhat?

 

[Ahasverus]

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.

That's nice and all but that's not culture, it's oppression, disguised as "culture".

 

[NewDust]

Thank you for including it. Again, this shows that the court took the legislators' words (who have nothing to lose if a handful of women mind their own business in the society) without consulting those who are affected by this ruling. Did they go and ask how these women will respond to the ruling? Did they follow them and observed them in their day to day life and witnessed how their choice affects the democracy of Belgium? Is their decision rooted in evidence and literal observation case by case? I want answers.

In fact, I'm interested in how this would impact you, if Sweden is also to adopt such a law.

 

[Ottaro]

Sometimes your life is going to be made worse for the betterment of everyone else. You shouldn't be able to be in public while hiding your identity,that is the point here.

Is there any evidence of a society that allows public anonymity being more prone to crime, or having greater difficulty solving crimes than a society that does not? Honest question, not trying to be glib.

If someone is going to commit a crime while concealing their face, I dont see how a law banning concealing one's face would stop them from just doing so anyways. They were already planning to break a law anyways so why would they care about that one?

 

[BadWolf]

So if someone attacks women for only a specific piece of clothing, it makes it okay to victim blame?

It's not about victim blaming, it's about pinpointing the reason for the abuse.

 

[Occam]

Is there any evidence of a society that allows public anonymity being more prone to crime, or having greater difficulty solving crimes than a society that does not? Honest question, not trying to be glib.

If someone is going to commit a crime while concealing their face, I dont see how a law banning concealing one's face would stop them from just doing so anyways. They were already planning to break a law anyways so why would they care about that one?

This isn't about crime, it's about people who conceal their faces excluding themselves from the rest of society.

 

[wartama]

Of course it's not your fault if people start discriminating against you because of the law. But just because there are people use the law to do something else to you that is clearly illegal or ignorant doesn't mean the law itself is unsound or illogical. Perfectly reasonable laws are abused all of the time.

That said, religion is clearly still a part of the abuse here. Obviously not in any of your examples, but just because other people go overboard and assume things and commit acts they shouldn't based on your religion, it doesn't mean that the religion itself isn't flawed and harmful in other ways.

When even the police hates us and abuse against us is turned a blind eye to, we are fearful of getting help because we know we will not. When our worth is seen in terms of what we wear, the abuses within the community that do actually occur will go unreported, unnoticed, and in the case when it's noticed, no action will be taken.

And now that the ban is in place in Belgium and the Human Rights™ court approves it, other European countries will follow suit. More ammunition is given to the bigoted men and women, those who want force the niqab on women and those who want to forcefully take it from us. Our voices are not and will not be taken into the consideration. And the Human Rights™ will give themselves a pat on the back for fighting the good fight for us when they don't see any more of us on the streets.

Listen: we can argue about the theological fine points and the cons and pros of following a religion (which, let me iterate, can be used to fuel sexism and misogynistic attitudes, I am witness to that), but putting in place laws that works against an already disadvantaged subgroup of people is not just, and cannot be argued as just. Upholding the norm, sure, but not just.

 

[His Majesty]

Listen: we can argue about the theological fine points and the cons and pros of following a religion (which, let me iterate, can be used to fuel sexism and misogynistic attitudes, I am witness to that), but putting in place laws that works against an already disadvantaged subgroup of people is not just, and cannot be argued as just. Upholding the norm, sure, but not just.

Of course they can be argued as just. In Belgium we will implement a ban on ritual slaughter starting from 2018-2019 which was met with heavy protest from Jewish and Islamic communities. Sucks for them but religious freedom takes no precedence over animal rights.

 

[wartama]

This is interesting, I don't exactly have an answer on whether this is good or not.

My mother and cousin only wears a hijab, so i can't comment on niqab. But I've always thought it looked uncomfortable...

My question is: Would these women, that wears a niqab, face less discrimination (overall) if they were to not wear it? In western countries specifically.

Would islamophobia diminish somewhat?

Nope. From my experience, putting on the niqab and just wearing the hijab makes no difference, bigot just hate a muslim woman showing her faith. Except that with the niqab, we are much more likely to not be helped because we were asking for it.

 

[wartama]

Of course they can be argued as just. In Belgium we will implement a ban on ritual slaughter starting from 2018-2019 which was met with heavy protest from Jewish and Islamic communities. Sucks for them but religious freedom takes no precedence over animal rights.

And animal rights have more priority than muslim women's rights. I wonder where we are on the list of Rights.

 

[nekkid]

This is interesting, I don't exactly have an answer on whether this is good or not.

My mother and cousin only wears a hijab, so i can't comment on niqab. But I've always thought it looked uncomfortable...

My question is: Would these women, that wears a niqab, face less discrimination (overall) if they were to not wear it? In western countries specifically.

Would islamophobia diminish somewhat?

Islamaphobia (is that a word?) wouldn't diminish. But they might get treated a lot better by people in general who now don't have a barrier in front of the part of the person that's most personable.

 

[Zen_Arcade]

When even the police hates us and abuse against us is turned a blind eye to, we are fearful of getting help because we know we will not. When our worth is seen in terms of what we wear, the abuses within the community that do actually occur will go unreported, unnoticed, and in the case when it's noticed, no action will be taken.

And now that the ban is in place in Belgium and the Human Rights™ court approves it, other European countries will follow suit. More ammunition is given to the bigoted men and women, those who want force the niqab on women and those who want to forcefully take it from us. Our voices are not and will not be taken into the consideration. And the Human Rights™ will give themselves a pat on the back for fighting the good fight for us when they don't see any more of us on the streets.

Listen: we can argue about the theological fine points and the cons and pros of following a religion (which, let me iterate, can be used to fuel sexism and misogynistic attitudes, I am witness to that), but putting in place laws that works against an already disadvantaged subgroup of people is not just, and cannot be argued as just. Upholding the norm, sure, but not just.

Of course it's not going to be seen as just by the religious group who has to change their mentality to fit in with society. That doesn't mean it can't be argued that it's a just decision on a larger societal level.

 

[Audioboxer]

Well this is exactly the point of contention; assuming any woman who wants to wear the niqab is automatically pressured by her husband/father. I've already mentioned this in my previous posts so cba to repeat myself again, (even though I haven't talked to you ITT so I'm sorry to be so blunt), but I feel like we're just gonna go in circles.

Also I (obviously) disagree with your assessment regarding the need for
'reformation' but would rather use the word renovation of Islam (particularly speaking as a Muslim) -- I think clearly it is something that we have two completely opposing outlooks on considering one of us believes Islam is man made and the other doesn't.

My point is, even amongst Muslim circles, the idea that Islam needs to "change" isn't a new one, after all, one aspect of our faith, Fiqh, is something that is dynamic and ever changing (a simple example to try and explain what I mean is that a Muslim in the 15th century probably wouldn't recognise a modern day Muslim, yet both are wearing clothes that abide by Islam rulings).

The only thing that is different is what constitutes change, because all classical and modern day Muslim scholars agree there are certain principles in our faith that are here to stay and there are others that can be reinterpreted depending on the time period based on Qiyas, Ijmaa and other more complicated things lol.

I'm not very specialist in terms of jurisprudence and technicalities on rulings (and the reason why I mention this is because Fiqh and 'contentious' aspects of our religion such as Sharia that people want changed are more intricate and complex than is often thought to be so really understanding first it is as important as discussing it and I'm not going to pretend I know what's I'm talking about).

There is a good introductory Reddit post to kind of get what I'm driving at here which I recommend you to read if you're genuinely interested, though I'm sure someone more eloquent and educated than I am in Islamic jurispedence and Sharia can pitch in here.

If you're genuinely interested about why I think reformation is the wrong word to use, there is a good video by Sheikh Hamza Yusuf in a discussion he gave at Oxford University about 'reformation' vs 'renovation' and I'm only posting it here as you mentioned reformation and I hope I'm watching it you can at least understand what I'm trying to say, not necessarily even agree:

https://youtu.be/qY17d4ZhY8M

I'd like to hear your thoughts. It's long so watch at your own pace (or his segment only).

I put reform in italics, as for what it's worth I routinely think it's the wrong way to approach the texts. Reform suggests that there is something wrong with the texts (a very contentious point to make towards anyone of a faith that will lead to instant defensiveness), and I think it's better to suggest if anything is ever wrong it is how someone BEHAVES because of the texts. All religions have a book(s) that was written a long time ago, and societies and civilisations have changed over time. A lot of what you could do hundreds of years ago, let alone thousands, you cannot now. Reforming behaviour is, therefore, something I support and agree with. It's precisely how societies move forward, influencing and changing behaviours. Also, looking at historic behaviour from around the globe and saying, whatever comes next for us we do not want to go down those paths. One could say full-face veils being on display on mass in other countries leads many Western civilisations to think is that a future we want?

If other people can read the same texts as you and not come away thinking women literally need every single inch of their face covered 24/7, then yes, it may well be the case your behaviour could see a benefit in being reformed into something better suited to 2017 rather than the 7th century. That's not telling anyone they cannot follow Islam, it's questioning and morally targeting a collective who want to use a text to inflict abusive behaviour on women in current day society. The law/government is obviously concerned most at the point where it ceases to simply be a religious garb, but something which completely covers a face, masks all social queues and can be argued as a minor identification/security risk. The burqa/full-face veils go beyond what is normally socially acceptable religious wear of any other religion. It also has its history deeply rooted in oppression and some could say slavery. The height of enslaving women from all of their autonomy is to have them walk around resembling nothing of what a woman is, and convincing them it is solely their choice.

Where we therefore have great difficulty and argument is when some people cannot move forward in a society they choose to live in. This is where societies/government and occasionally law can step in and say, well, our country and society wants to move forward/deems this move to be progressive and if it can be democratically supported/legislated then it can turn into law. You can therefore legitimately ethically and morally get "left behind" on the sidelines shouting about how you disagree, but the rest of the country moves on. Which is why I'm not that interested in fighting large-scale "reform" battles within any religious text, but more-so focussing on what societies can do alongside freedom of religion to make sure we move behaviours forward in the world. Full-face coverings are not how we move forward if you ask me, so that, therefore, attracts me to the debate. As I attempted to say earlier it wouldn't matter if this was coming from Christianity or Catholicism, it's a practice I cannot support due to what it turns women into. Education is often put forward as the end all and be all answer, but sometimes education has to come alongside legislated social/societal change. If we just left the Pope up to being "educated" on gay marriage and deciding for our nations do you think we'd have gay marriage legalised in as many places as we do now (if any)? I don't think so. Therefore, if done democratically and above board, sometimes laws come into play to shape social acceptance/behaviour alongside a wave of educating information from the likes of doctors/psychologists and so on.

 

[Holiday]

It's not about victim blaming, it's about pinpointing the reason for the abuse.

The reason for the abuse is the perpetrator, not the clothing the victim is wearing. Distracting from that is blaming the victim.

 

[You Are Viewtiful]

It's not about victim blaming, it's about pinpointing the reason for the abuse.

It is exactly victim blaming. There is no reason to use physical violence against defenceless women, ever. Not when they're wearing niqabs, not when they're wearing jeans, not when they're wearing skirts. Never. And now you want to use state violence to further restrict the freedom of movement of already victimized women. They need our compassion and our support, not for the government to tell them it's their fault.

 

[Morrigan Stark]

You're fine with marginalising a group of already marginalised women so long as you get to stick it to misogynistic fabric? I find your position mind boggling.

...Not that I remotely agree that the ban is "marginalizing" anyone, but I find it far more mind-boggling that you would reduce the rejection a powerful symbol of misogyny to "sticking it to fabric", tbh.

 

[MKIL65]

Islamaphobia (is that a word?)

Okay, I don't think you're qualified to answer my question, since you're asking such a stupid fucking thing.

It's a word in the dictionary, because a new word was needed to show the mass prejudice against muslims after 9/11.

Since then, it has always been an official word.

 

[Holiday]

If other people can read the same texts as you and not come away thinking women literally need every single inch of their face covered 24/7, then yes, it may well be the case your behaviour could see a benefit in being reformed into something better suited to 2017 rather than the 7th century. That's not telling anyone they cannot follow Islam, it's questioning and morally targeting a collective who want to use a text to inflict abusive behaviour on women in current day society. The law/government is obviously concerned most at the point where it ceases to simply be a religious garb, but something which completely covers a face, masks all social queues and can be argued as a minor identification/security risk. The burqa/full-face veils go beyond what is normally socially acceptable religious wear of any other religion. It also has its history deeply rooted in oppression and some could say slavery. The height of enslaving women from all of their autonomy is to have them walk around resembling nothing of what a woman is, and convincing them it is solely their choice.

Thank God these women have you around to tell them about their autonomy, the boundaries of their choice, and to define for them "what a woman is."

 

[nekkid]

Okay, I don't think you're qualified to answer my question, since you're asking such a stupid fucking question.

It's a word in the dictionary, because a new word was needed to show the mass prejudice against muslims after 9/11.

Since then, it has always been an official word.

Ok, I was just confirming. Why are you being a prick about it?

Fuck you.

 

[Zero²]

I'm ok with this, all this talk about women that choose to wear it is just pure rubbish. Why would they choose to wear it from their on volition without the pressure from their regressive husbands or culture?

 

[Osahi]

And animal rights have more priority than muslim women's rights. I wonder where we are on the list of Rights.

He doesn't say that at all. Animal rights are above religious laws. Just like human rights are.

Yes, there is a problem of racism and discrimination in Belgium (make that: the world), but for the law, Muslim women are equal to other women. They have exactly the same rights and plights.

For various reasons, we have a law forbidding someone to cover ones face in public. This law doesn't explicitely target one religion or one group, but is in effect for everyone. That's how society works: with a set of rules respected by everyone. There are many laws that in someway are undesirable to some groups (our euthanasia laws aren't very popular with religious groups, and or freedom of religion law isn't very popular with islamophobe).

Muslim women can still wear a headscarf if they want too. It's just that as a society we have decided it is not desirable somebody covers there face to be unrecognisable, even if the reason is religious. I am sorry if this makes you feel like you are limited in your expression, but every freedom has its limits.

 

[DerZuhälter]

That's nice and all but that's not culture, it's oppression, disguised as "culture".

It's this sort of condescending semantic that alienates muslims even further from western society after forcing them into a "superior" culture.

 

[Holiday]

I'm ok with this, all this talk about women that choose to wear it is just pure rubbish. Why would they choose to wear it from their on volition without the pressure from their regressive husbands or culture?

If you actually wanted an answer to this, you could maybe start by reading the thread, in which people have explained why they wear it.

 

[BadWolf]

The reason for the abuse is the perpetrator, not the clothing the victim is wearing. Distracting from that is blaming the victim.

If it is being brought into a conversation about the banning of Niqab (and it is being pointed out as the reason for the abuse) then obviously I will consider it in that light and look at the situation before the ban and how it maybe would have gone after the ban.

Of couse it's a crime of hate and it is wrong no matter what triggers it but I can't help but consider the alternative where the possibility of two women being abused is considerably reduced.

 

[slit]

So what happens here? You know some will always put religion before law. If they go out will they just keep going to jail or be fined?

 

[Audioboxer]

Thank God these women have you around to tell them about their autonomy, the boundaries of their choice, and to define for them "what a woman is."

Well, do you think this is the height of embodying what a woman is?

Of course, we can provide some slits for eyes so that they at least appear human

The complete lack of identification with another human being through the face is precisely something that can lead to nullifying who you are as a person. It removes you from the normal social expectations/cues/interactions with others. Keeping in mind it IS women above who end up looking like this, and not men. Hence me phrasing it around "resembling nothing of what a woman is".

 

[You Are Viewtiful]

So what happens here? You know some will always put religion before law. If they go out will they just keep going to jail?

Yes, the "victim" must pay a fine or face jail time. Thanks progressives, you saved her from an oppressive culture!

 

[Zero²]

If you actually wanted an answer to this, you could maybe start by reading the thread, in which people have explained why they wear it.

I read it and the best I could find is because of their religious beliefs? Oh please that's just as rubbish as telling its ok to burn someone at a stake because you religion say they are a witch. It's not because your religion tells you it's right that it makes it right, blindly following some idiotic rules has no place in modern society. Now I agree that this is but a band aid solution, the problem is with the Muslim religion or all religions for that matter.

 

[Morrigan Stark]

It's nice to pretend that these horrible garments weren't created to oppress women and dehumanize them to begin with, I guess. It's nice to pretend that this is just about a woman's choice of clothing and not the fact that it affects their interactions with others and their places in society.

But reality ain't so nice.

 

[Duffman]

there is something fundamentally wrong about islam if this ban really leads to women being forced to stay at homes like some of you are saying.

 

[Clefargle]

People have interesting definitions of "free societies" in this thread.

Freedom isn't absolute, no country has lawlessness. It's all in degrees. Stop being obtuse, this is very specific. It's all about being identifiable and communicating with the rest of society. The freedom of my fist ends at your nose. The freedom of wearing what you want ends when society can't interact with you and identify you. It's real plain and not any more "unfree" than other democratic countries.

 

[Morrigan Stark]

there is something fundamentally wrong about islam if this ban really leads to women being forced to stay at homes like some of you are saying.

No you see they are totally free to wear this by their own free choice and this ban is infringing on this freedom. Yet at the same time this means they will be forced to stay at home by their controlling husband who won't want them to be seen in public oh wait did we just confirm that this wearing garment has nothing to do with clothing choice oops no I mean...

Freedom isn't absolute, no country has lawlessness. It's all in degrees. Stop being obtuse, this is very specific. It's all about being identifiable and communicating with the rest of society. The freedom of my fist ends at your nose. The freedom of wearing what you want ends when society can't interact with you and identify you. It's real plain and not any more "unfree" than other democratic countries.

This.

 

[wartama]

He doesn't say that at all. Animal rights are above religious laws. Just like human rights are.

Yes, there is a problem of racism and discrimination in Belgium (make that: the world), but for the law, Muslim women are equal to other women. They have exactly the same rights and plights.

For various reasons, we have a law forbidding someone to cover ones face in public. This law doesn't explicitely target one religion or one group, but is in effect for everyone. That's how society works: with a set of rules respected by everyone. There are many laws that in someway are undesirable to some groups (our euthanasia laws aren't very popular with religious groups, and or freedom of religion law isn't very popular with islamophobe).

Muslim women can still wear a headscarf if they want too. It's just that as a society we have decided it is not desirable somebody covers there face to be unrecognisable, even if the reason is religious. I am sorry if this makes you feel like you are limited in your expression, but every freedom has its limits.

Now, hear me out: what if, like in France, the headscarf is criminalized too in Belgium because of, let's see, 'social cohesion'? Woman who are wearing the scarfs are setting themselves apart, and the hijab too is a 'symbol' of oppression, and hence should be banned. Would that law still be within the parameters of Human Right™? If not, what is the difference between banning a niqab and a hijab?

And let me tell you, for what that poster said, it seems that our rights are lower in the list than animal rights. Basically, as long as animals affect* The People, animals can be killed. So long as the rules don't affect* The People, animals have rights. Also as long minority religious people don't affect* The People and the animals, they also can have rights.

*the word 'affect' includes aesthetic displeasures The People may experience in the company of the animals and the minorities.

 

[You Are Viewtiful]

Freedom isn't absolute, no country has lawlessness. It's all in degrees. Stop being obtuse, this is very specific. It's all about being identifiable and communicating with the rest of society. The freedom of my fist ends at your nose. The freedom of wearing what you want ends when society can't interact with you and identify you. It's real plain and not any more "unfree" than other democratic countries.

There is mass confusion and chaos here in Canada every winter when people cover their faces with scarves and toques. There is complete moral deterioration and society falls apart. /s

The ski mask law is dumb and irrational on its own. There's no need to expand on such a childish law. If people need to be identified, then they should identify themselves. Other than that, there is nothing threatening about face coverings.

 

[Holiday]

Well, do you think this is the height of embodying what a woman is?

The complete lack of identification with another human being through the face is precisely something that can lead to nullifying who you are as a person. It removes you from the normal social expectations/cues/interactions with others. Keeping in mind it IS women above who end up looking like this, and not men. Hence me phrasing it around "resembling nothing of what a woman is".

I don't presume to define "the height of embodying what a woman is", because I'm not a woman, and because I understand that "embodying what a woman is" varies between cultures.

 

[Ahasverus]

It's this sort of condescending semantic that alienates muslims even further from western society after forcing them into a "superior" culture.

Good riddance to the extremists then. Not our problem their culture is based on male superiority. The radicals can keep it to themselves.

I don't presume to define "the height of embodying what a woman is", because I'm not a woman, and because I understand that "embodying what a woman is" varies between cultures.

Then how about embodying what a human being is. Spoiler: not that. I'd like to see you in their position.

 

[Clefargle]

There is mass confusion and chaos here in Canada every winter when people cover their faces with scarves and toques. There is complete moral deterioration and society falls apart. /s

The ski mask law is dumb and irrational on its own. There's no need to expand on such a childish law. If people need to be identified, then they should identify themselves. Other than that, there is nothing threatening about face coverings.

Again, stop making this black and white. It isn't that simplistic. Those people in Canada take their masks off once they enter an airport or train car. They take them off when they interact with the rest of society and are not forced to wear them. Ski masks are also not gender specific as the niqab is.

 

[wartama]

No you see they are totally free to wear this by their own free choice and this ban is infringing on this freedom. Yet at the same time this means they will be forced to stay at home by their controlling husband who won't want them to be seen in public oh wait did we just confirm that this wearing garment has nothing to do with clothing choice oops no I mean...

Again, do not speak for me

 

[Morrigan Stark]

fucking lol @ the scarf and ski masks comparisons

You know what, if some guy/girl enters a public store

Spoiler

that isn't part of a ski resort, just so we cover the bases

wearing a ski mask and doesn't take it off, I'd actually think that super fucking sketchy and I would probably feel threatened, so, yeah?

Now, hear me out: what if, like in France, the headscarf is criminalized too in Belgium because of, let's see, 'social cohesion'? Woman who are wearing the scarfs are setting themselves apart, and the hijab too is a 'symbol' of oppression, and hence should be banned. Would that law still be within the parameters of Human Right™? If not, what is the difference between banning a niqab and a hijab?

The hijab doesn't fully cover the face and isn't dehumanizing the way a full face veil is. Women who wear a hijab won't have difficulties communicating with other people in public.

Spoiler

Gee that was hard

Again, do not speak for me

I'm not, I'm mocking a contradiction that appeared often in this thread.

 

[Osahi]

There is mass confusion and chaos here in Canada every winter when people cover their faces with scarves and toques. There is complete moral deterioration and society falls apart. /s

The ski mask law is dumb and irrational on its own. There's no need to expand on such a childish law. If people need to be identified, then they should identify themselves. Other than that, there is nothing threatening about face coverings.

I am pretty sure that once you walk into a shop for instance, you actually drop the scarf to communicate, no?

How is a scarf the same? A niqab is a consious decision not to show your face to anyone, which is not something that has a place in society imo. It's not that it is threatening (though there are security arguments to consider) per se.

 

[Ahasverus]

Our voices are not and will not be taken into the consideration. And the Human Rights™ will give themselves a pat on the back for fighting the good fight for us when they don't see any more of us on the streets.

You CAN go out to the streets, you're FREE, because you're humans in a free land. That's the whole point. If you suddenly can't be seen in the streets because reasons, that's not Europe problem, that's the people-who-won't-let-you-go-out-because-other-people-can-see-your-fucking-face problems.
Or yours, whatever, if you're not gonna make use of your privilege, let the new generations do it.

 

[Kayhan]

Well, do you think this is the height of embodying what a woman is?

Of course, we can provide some slits for eyes so that they at least appear human

The complete lack of identification with another human being through the face is precisely something that can lead to nullifying who you are as a person. It removes you from the normal social expectations/cues/interactions with others. Keeping in mind it IS women above who end up looking like this, and not men. Hence me phrasing it around "resembling nothing of what a woman is".

Absolutely horrifying that anyone can defend this misogyny.

Knowing that only women are told to wear this it is gobsmacking that anyone is OK with this in the year 2017.