Support NeoGAF

[Morrigan Stark]

Absolutely horrifying that anyone can defend this misogyny.

You're just trying to "stick it up to the misogyny cloth", admit it

Spoiler

actual thing someone said ITT

 

[Audioboxer]

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.

If you concede it can vary between cultures then that by definition means you should be able to accept some societies/cultures would not see the above in a positive way to depict women in 2017 (all those pictures of full-face veils/coverings). Potentially even pushing back against it if it tries to work it's way into their cultures/society.

It just so happens a vast majority of societies strive to view women as 100% equal to men, and while few are perfect in this notion (if any), many are far ahead of wanting women's faces to be covered but not men's. That is what degrades a woman to the point of not even having the ordinary social cues we all use throughout life to see someone's face and acknowledge who we are talking to. This is far beyond a headscarf, kippah or turban. There is a lot of religious garb out there that will forever be deemed socially acceptable and functional to appreciate/respect.

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.

To be fair, most people do not defend the actual garb. Some get it mixed up with headscarves, but usually when you show them the difference in pictures they realise. The majority get tangled up in what has caused all these pages of debate and that is saying, no, I do not support it/think highly of it, but I also do not want the Government being involved.

 

[daxy]

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.

In France, the hijab and all other forms of worn religious imagery are banned only in public schools and for public service workers, because the French state sees itself as being secular and therefore does not want public service workers to be visually identifiable by one or the other religion so as to appear as an impartial reflection of the state's identity, and schools are supposed to be 'neutral' spaces with respect to religion. This ban is not specific to hijabs and making an exception toward hijabs would make the law incompatible with non-discrimination laws, at both national and EU level.

 

[Ahasverus]

If you concede it can vary between cultures then that by definition means you should be able to accept some societies/cultures would not see the above in a positive way to depict women in 2017 (all those pictures of full-face veils/coverings). Potentially even pushing back against it if it tries to work it's way in their cultures/society.

It just so happens a vast majority of societies strive to view women as 100% equal to men, and while few are perfect in this notion, many are far ahead of wanting women's faces to be covered but not men's. That is what degrades a woman to the point of not even having the ordinary social cues we all use throughout life to see someone's face and acknowledge who we are talking to. This is far beyond a headscarf, kippah or turban. There is a lot of religious garb out there that will forever be deemed socially acceptable and functional to appreciate/respect.

Yep, this 100%. As as this ruling concerns EUROPE, it's the western, equalitarian view of the woman that should prevail.

In the meantime, that culture of oppresion, that should be erracdiated from the entire world, can still thrive in the hellholes contolled by animals who think of their wives as reproductive beasts, unworthy to live and thrive in freedom.

 

[wartama]

[QUOTE

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".[/QUOTE]

Again, have you ever spoken to a niqabi? Have you ever witnessed how we interact in society, who we shop and work and study with our garments and interact with muslims and non-muslims? Have you ever witness how we identify ourselves, how someone we know recognizes us while walking on the street? Have you ever seen children managing to identify us and know who's the aunt and the other aunt? Have you ever talked to us about how we view the world, how we view ourselves in that world, and what fears, expectations, and aspiration we own and have?

Have you ever gotten to know any of us instead of viewing us on the screen and pictures?

These questions are not just for you. They are for everyone claiming we don't and can't function in society, and that we are oppressed by our own thoughts and believes.

Do not ignore. Answer the questions.

 

[EmiPrime]

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".

Again, have you ever spoken to a niqabi? Have you ever witnessed how we interact in society, who we shop and work and study with our garments and interact with muslims and non-muslims? Have you ever witness how we identify ourselves, how someone we know recognizes us while walking on the street? Have you ever seen children managing to identify us and know who's the aunt and the other aunt? Have you ever talked to us about how we view the world, how we view ourselves in that world, and what fears, expectations, and aspiration we own and have?

Have you ever gotten to know any of us instead of viewing us on the screen and pictures?

These questions are not just for you. They are for everyone claiming we don't and can't function in society, and that we are oppressed by our own thoughts and believes.

Do not ignore. Answer the questions.

I don't think the onus is on other people to talk to niqabis. They are the ones who have decided to put a barrier up between themselves and the rest of society.

 

[Holiday]

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.

In the chance that you're referring to me, I'm not saying I agree with it or what it symbolizes (I don't), simply that it should be up to the women who wear it to decide if they wear it or not, and that in the discussion about why people wear it, the voices of the people who actually wear it should be listened to rather than talked over.

 

[ElFly]

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."

they don't need a random gaffer tho

http://reemarazek.com/2014/03/18/three-former-muslim-women-look-back-on-the-hijab/

I was severely depressed. I felt empty, like a robot or a zombie, but not truly able to pinpoint the reason. One day I got an email from my father and aunt with an ad for hijab in which the hijab acted as a protective barrier between a lollipop and flies. And I had an epiphany, there it was, the reason I felt nonhuman. I was, according to the email my own family members sent me…a thing.

And it occurred to me that the only way I could take my life back was by unveiling, not only my hair but also my true nature.I would have to obliterate the persona that I was so carefully molded into in order to discover who I really was.

My father constantly ranted about how Islamophobic western media is when it comes to Muslim women, how they delude the majority in to believing these women are helpless, oppressed victims who have no agency over something like the hijab while they’re clearly wearing it by choice. During one of those rants I commented saying “wearing the hijab is my choice?” to which he answered “Of course it is”. I found myself saying” I don’t want to wear it anymore”. As soon as I uttered those words, my father’s expressions changed drastically, it was like a Pandora’s box had sprung open of every nasty, hateful and vile insult aimed at me. It took about six months of struggle from the time I mentioned that I didn’t want to wear it to actually taking it off.

 

[BreezyLimbo]

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...


This.

This is what Ive been saying. If a Niqab ban is stopping a woman from going out, chances are that it was never the ban itself that was the issue.

Some people are in disbelief and think that this ban is oppressing the women who "choose" to wear it. But if it was always a choice, why are they oppressed? Why are they suddenly secluded to their homes? Because the problem was never the ban, but the pressures these women face from their close ones, from the environment, from their religion.

The niqab in the end is just a misogynistic, oppressive piece of clothing meant to make a person invisible. To take away from that person what makes them, them. The fact that some Muslim sects shun the use of it(and even fewer enforce it) is more than enough proof that even the Niqab is considered divisive. Yeah there may be some people who "choose" to wear it out of their own free will, but when they make the argument that the ban will prevent them from going outside...then the choice was never theirs to begin with.

 

[Ahasverus]

they don't need a random gaffer tho

http://reemarazek.com/2014/03/18/three-former-muslim-women-look-back-on-the-hijab/

Damn.

 

[wartama]

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.

So fuck you and sort out the problems we created in collisions of patriarchs and dictators because you're too different and we don't care. Thanks. But be more honest next time.

And if you've read the posts I've written before, you'll see that our problems it's not only 'the people-who-won't-let-you-go-out-because-other-people-can-see-your-fucking-face'. But you know what? That doesn't matter too, because gee, look at this muslim woman shouting because we took back the 'privilege' we've given her, isn't she silly. Now she will have to discard part of her identity and we TOTES didn't force her to. We are fighting the good fight *pats on the back*.

First. Learn what privilege means.

 

[Audioboxer]

Again, have you ever spoken to a niqabi? Have you ever witnessed how we interact in society, who we shop and work and study with our garments and interact with muslims and non-muslims? Have you ever witness how we identify ourselves, how someone we know recognizes us while walking on the street? Have you ever seen children managing to identify us and know who's the aunt and the other aunt? Have you ever talked to us about how we view the world, how we view ourselves in that world, and what fears, expectations, and aspiration we own and have?

Have you ever gotten to know any of us instead of viewing us on the screen and pictures?

These questions are not just for you. They are for everyone claiming we don't and can't function in society, and that we are oppressed by our own thoughts and believes.

Do not ignore. Answer the questions.

I think I'm lucky if I've seen a handful of women dressed in full-face veils like the pictures I posted. It's very uncommon around where I live. Headscarves, turbans, and other headwear which doesn't cover the face are far more abundant.

As for asking me to identify/ask questions/get to know, if we're talking strangers a massive consequence of ever being part of striking up a conversation with a stranger comes through social queues which lead you to

a) Have the confidence to do so yourself
b) Make eye contact of some sorts/watch someone's expressions
c) Have the confidence from how the other person looks/signals that they actually want a random to talk to them in the first place

So maybe you should think about why many random members of the public would either shy away from, avoid or feel incapable of randomly and confidently striking up a conversation with a woman who looks like the pictures I posted. Before you or anyone jumps straight to that is bigoted, there's literally more research done on social interactions/facial queues than any of us could read as to how we interact with others. All of those years of research into both humans and other animals is precisely one of the reasons the ECHR has stated they can erode social cohesion. Eye/mouth/facial interactions can be very important, and if missing by default can make people feel a lack of confidence/certainty and comfort.

I mean, you can ask someone about how speaking to another person with sunglasses on when it's not appropriate to be wearing them can throw them off-guard (indoors) ~ Something reflective like aviators especially, where you cannot see the eyes behind the lens. They only restrict the eyes as well, not the full face! It's all relative to how human beings want to and expect to interact socially with each other.

 

[Osahi]

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.

I would strongly oppose the prohibition of the hijab. Just like I vocally opposed the religious symbols ban for people in public office. But, again, every right has it limits. There are reasonable arguments against covering your face in public (which is an important aspect in communication and interacting in real life). Less so for covering your hair.

And yes, your religious laws don't give exemptions to state laws, including animal right laws. You can feel that the ban on unsedated slaughter is an attack on your rights or freedoms, but just as we have religious freedom, we have seperation between church and state. And these laws set out the way we interact with animals. It's how we decide as a society how we treat them. That's how laws work. It's not that animals don't have rights when they affect us at all. It's actually the opposite. We set rules for dezling with them, when they affect us.

And religious people are protected by the fucking costitution. You have every right to your religion. But your religion is NOT above the secular laws, because we seperate church and state. That's not to deny you rights. Your rights are the same as everyone elses. For the law, you are equal. It's that in a society every freedom has it's limits, and when there is a reasonable argument to limit a freedom, society will.

 

[wartama]

I don't think the onus is on other people to talk to niqabis. They are the ones who have decided to put a barrier up between themselves and the rest of society.

Yet the onus is on those who talk about us as if they know what's good for us to actually get to know those they are having opinions about. Develop empathy, I think you've heard of the word.

Do not speak about us until you have actually spoken to us. Simple.

 

[wartama]

I would strongly oppose the prohibition of the hijab. Just like I vocally opposed the religious symbols ban for people in public office. But, again, every right has it limits. There are reasonable arguments against covering your face in public (which is an important aspect in communication and interacting in real life). Less so for covering your hair.

And yes, your religious laws don't give exemptions to state laws, including animal right laws. You can feel that the ban on unsedated slaughter is an attack on your rights or freedoms, but just as we have religious freedom, we have seperation between church and state. And these laws set out the way we interact with animals. It's how we decide as a society how we treat them. That's how laws work. It's not that animals don't have rights when they affect us at all. It's actually the opposite. We set rules for dezling with them, when they affect us.

And religious people are protected by the fucking costitution. You have every right to your religion. But your religion is NOT above the secular laws, because we seperate church and state. That's not to deny you rights. Your rights are the same as everyone elses. For the law, you are equal. It's that in a society every freedom has it's limits, and when there is a reasonable argument to limit a freedom, society will.

Again, are there empirical evidence to the stated? That the niqab have a negative effect on communication and face-to-face interaction? Because if we are arguing based on anecdotes and personal feelings, then I have plenty of anecdotes where the niqab had no effect on getting to know new people and communicating my thoughts to them perfectly.

 

[Ahasverus]

So fuck you and sort out the problems we created in collisions of patriarchs and dictators because you're too different and we don't care. Thanks. But be more honest next time.

The personal solution is leave behind the oppression by acknowledging your personal worth and getting away from dangerous people. The mere concept of personal identity includes the acceptance of body image as a natural, social characteristic, not a taboo. You don't see any animals covering their bodies do you? Chances, high chances are that any complexes indoctrinated women have related to the public "worth" of their bodies is due to.. indoctrination.

As many have said in this thread, there are millions of happy Muslims, muslim women, who don't have to hide. Why should you?

In the end, I, we, can't tell you what to do, that's the whole point. We can't convince you to unveil yourself because you simply don't want to and that's fine, whatever floats your boat.

The thing is, don't expect every single woman to have a choice in that matter, and is in the full rights of a country/continent to protect its citizens, both Muslim and not, from sexist oppression. Is that not your case? Fine. But if there's a single woman on earth who is being forced to wear a full body veil, it's one woman too many.

 

[paperboywriter]

Are there any studies or statistics that show what percentile of woman wear headscarfs on there own volition? Pretty sure the answer is no to this questions, but it is a question worth asking I feel like.

 

[EmiPrime]

Yet the onus is on those who talk about us as if they know what's good for us to actually get to know those they are having opinions about. Develop empathy, I think you've heard of the word.

Do not speak about us until you have actually spoken to us. Simple.

Honestly, I don't care to do my own outreach if there's no desire from the other side who have erected a cloth wall between themselves and the rest of society. Niqab is a manifestation of misogyny and female oppression and modesty double standards and I can't seriously someone who can't recognise that.

Also you of all people are most aware of anti-LGBT bigotry among those who fancy themselves the most "devout". The odds the person under all that cloth hates me is pretty good.

 

[Osahi]

Again, are there empirical evidence to the stated? That the niqab have a negative effect on communication and face-to-face interaction? Because if we are arguing based on anecdotes and personal feelings, then I have plenty of anecdotes where the niqab had no effect on getting to know new people and communicating my thoughts to them perfectly.

There is a lot of research about non-verbal communications and facial expressions.

But there is also a cultural aspect to it. And yes, those are personal experiences by people, but in Western culture you can assume people in general feeling uncomfortable to talking to unrecognizable people.

And some practical arguments, for, for instance, identification .

May I ask, and sorry if you allready did in this topic: why do you wear a niqab? What's your argument for it. And if, for instance, a police officer asks you to remove it for identification? How is yiur pasport photo?

 

[wartama]

I think I'm lucky if I've seen a handful of women dressed in full-face veils like the pictures I posted. It's very uncommon around where I live. Headscarves, turbans, and other headwear which doesn't cover the face are far more abundant.

As for asking me to identify/ask questions/get to know, if we're talking strangers a massive consequence of ever being part of striking up a conversation with a stranger comes through social queues which lead you to

a) Have the confidence to do so yourself
b) Make eye contact of some sorts/watch someone's expressions
c) Have the confidence from how the other person looks/signals that they actually want a random to talk to them in the first place

So maybe you should think about why many random members of the public would either shy away from, avoid or feel incapable of randomly and confidently striking up a conversation with a woman who looks like the pictures I posted. Before you or anyone jumps straight to that is bigoted, there's literally more research done on social interactions/facial queues than any of us could read as to how we interact with others. All of those years of research into both humans and other animals is precisely one of the reasons the ECHR has stated they can erode social cohesion. Eye/mouth/facial interactions can be very important, and if missing by default can make people feel a lack of confidence/certainty and comfort.

I mean, you can ask someone alone how speaking to another person with sunglasses on when it's not appropriate to be wearing them can throw them off-guard (indoors). They only restrict the eyes! It's all relative to how human beings want to and expect to interact socially with each other.

And that's how you should feel before talking about experiences and thoughts as if you know us. And posting pictures of niqabis to be gawked at and thrown judgment around without knowing nothing about them.

And those researchers do not include women with niqab. Gee I wonder why there is not a single study about us and how we wear outside impedes communication and social integration. Oh nevermind, I think I know the answer.

 

[BadWolf]

Honestly, I don't care to do my own outreach if there's no desire from the other side who have erected a cloth wall between themselves and the rest of society. Niqab is a manifestation of misogyny and female oppression and modesty double standards and I can't seriously someone who can't recognise that.

Also you of all people are most aware of anti-LGBT bigotry among those who fancy themselves the most "devout". The odds the person under all that cloth hates me is pretty good.

Could be just me but if I see a person wearing that kind of garb (whether they are male or female) then the last thing to cross my mind would be to interact with them thinking that they are some super happy outgoing people looking to socialize.

 

[Audioboxer]

And that's how you should feel before talking about experiences and thoughts as if you know us. And posting pictures of niqabis to be gawked at and thrown judgment around without knowing nothing about them.

And those researchers do not include women with niqab. Gee I wonder why there is not a single study about us and how we wear outside impedes communication and social integration. Oh nevermind, I think I know the answer.

Uh, the research is done on human social interactions in general, and very extensively. We've spent generations examining ourselves and our closest ancestors to understand our behaviours and interactions. Use Google or Google Scholar to look up anything on eye contact, facial expressions, how humans socialise, socialisation/process of socialisation and so on. It's even profoundly important for babies, yes, actual babies, to be introduced to facial cues/interactions.

You're not going to be able to intellectually downplay the importance of the face, there is so much evidence against a stance like that it's precisely why modern day Governments and courts already know it is fundamentally damaging for social cohesion to have people with zero recognisable facial elements. Especially when it's continually and consistently walking around like that in public, and not for any of the whatsaboutism reasons peddled in here like mascots/clowns/when riding a motorcycle/etc. In social situations where it can be expected to see a clown, or a mascot or a costume, it is less problematic to consume that as is (although do you ever wonder why so many people are afraid of costumes/clowns/characters at Disney World? Yeah, genuinely, a part of that is often due to not being able to see who the person is under the mask). I would still say to you, how many profound conversations go on with mascots and clowns? I'm willing to bet on the job it's about entertainment and messing around and after work is when said people actually socialise profoundly.

 

[Khaz]

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?

You're spewing falsehoods after falsehoods in your victimisation process. Wearing a headscarf is not a crime in France. Its wear is regulated in specific places for specific reasons that I'm sure you know nothing about. Please continue crying wolf.

 

[wartama]

There is a lot of research about non-verbal communications and facial expressions.

But there is also a cultural aspect to it. And yes, those are personal experiences by people, but in Western culture you can assume people in general feeling uncomfortable to talking to unrecognizable people.

And some practical arguments, for, for instance, identification .

May I ask, and sorry if you allready did in this topic: why do you wear a niqab? What's your argument for it. And if, for instance, a police officer asks you to remove it for identification? How is yiur pasport photo?

1) I already mentioned that after reading extensively in islamic literature, that's the conclusion I came to. You can read more about that in my previous posts.

2) Already answered in my previous posts.

3) At uni, I take it off if someone needs to identify me and then put it on. I've never been stopped by the police because I'm still learning to drive, but if they ever need identification no problem, they can see my face.

And these researches need to be centered around muslim women who wear the niqab. I don't know how legislators can come into such a big conclusion that would warrant a ban with so little evidence to support it. I guess the sentiment is just that bad, and of course we don't warrant a research paper because who cares.

 

[You Are Viewtiful]

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.

If they need to be identified (e.g airport security) they'll be identified. No one is saying not to take it off for identification purposes. I don't need to take my scarf or hoodie off outside if I don't want to. Definitely not in train/buses. I don't feel threatened and neither does anyone else. The paranoia is completely made up and in your head.

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.

If I want to cover my face with a plastic bag out of embarrassment then that should be my choice. Why should someone be imprisoned over something so innocuous? It's my face. I get to choose who I want to show it for whatever reason. You people are acting as if someone covers their face, then there will be societal collapse. Banning Niqab for security/identity reasons is complete garbo and shameless fear tactic to justify this encroaching of civil liberties.

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?

If it's your private establishment then you can ask them to leave. Telling people what they can't wear outside, in a public space that belongs to them as much as it belongs to anyone else, is wrong. You're restricting their freedom and freedom of movement. Does anyone ever ask what happens to these women after their garment becomes illegal? I doubt they're out frolicking in the gardens the next day. They're more repressed than before. And then people have the gall to say they're liberating them.

 

[ClosingADoor]

If it's your private establishment then you can ask them to leave. Telling people what they can't wear outside, in a public space that belongs to them as much as it belongs to anyone else, is wrong. You're restricting their freedom and freedom of movement. Does anyone ever ask what happens to these women after their garment becomes illegal? I doubt they're out frolicking in the gardens the next day. They're more repressed than before. And then people have the gall to say they're liberating them.

I don't think you can actually. If you enter a store with a certain religious outfit, I can not ask you to leave based on that.

We should not accept sexism and oppression under the argument that if we don't allow it, certain individual cases might get worse. We should then create a form of help for those individuals to deal with their trouble.

 

[wartama]

Uh, the research is done on human social interactions in general, and very extensively. We've spent generations examining ourselves and our closest ancestors to understand our behaviours and interactions. Use Google or Google Scholar to look up anything on eye contact, facial expressions, how humans socialise, socialisation/process of socialisation and so on. It's even profoundly important for babies, yes, actual babies, to be introduced to facial cues/interactions.

You're not going to be able to intellectually downplay the importance of the face, there is so much evidence against a stance like that it's precisely why modern day Governments and courts already know it is fundamentally damaging for social cohesion to have people with zero recognisable facial elements.

No, we have a lot of recognizable elements. Children recognize me from far, believe it or not. We have our voices, our stature, verbal ticks, body language. We are still human.

And no, until there is a research in which one group is the control group, i.e. people whose faces can be seen, and the experimented group, i.e. the niqabi, conducted over a period of time, I will be against the ban.

 

[cromofo]

"Liberal progressives" defending the worst of Islam and religion never ceases to surprise me.

We've really come full circle. Disgusting.

 

[Cyframe]

And that's how you should feel before talking about experiences and thoughts as if you know us. And posting pictures of niqabis to be gawked at and thrown judgment around without knowing nothing about them.

And those researchers do not include women with niqab. Gee I wonder why there is not a single study about us and how we wear outside impedes communication and social integration. Oh nevermind, I think I know the answer.

I added him to my ignore list for that post. Because I said to myself, white people don't talk to me because of my skin color already and I'll be damned if I'm going to take responsibility for their racism. As a Black person, my group gets told all the time to be more respectable and we get killed for it. Looking at marginalized group and blaming them and calling them the real racists, makes my blood boil.

Getting input from a community when it comes to addressing social issues should be the first thing people do instead of leaping to assumptions and mass hysteria over a small minority within a minority.

If it hasn't been posted already, someone brought up the burkini ban and a woman forced to strip off garments from her wetsuit. When a woman comes out in her veil, do people think others won't use that attempt to humiliate and degrade this woman? They absolutely will and it shouldn't take an assault before people give this type of law a second look.

Where is the study that links women in a veil to something that isn't Islamaphobia. Are women robbing banks? Are they assaulting people? I want to see a link. And of course, no one is offering any support to these women and are pretending society will give them a warm hug if they do anything and everything to assimilate. That's not how it works.

 

[wartama]

You're spewing falsehoods after falsehoods in your victimisation process. Wearing a headscarf is not a crime in France. Its wear is regulated in specific places for specific reasons that I'm sure you know nothing about. Please continue crying wolf.

Of course it's victimization, decisions like these affect me and people I know personally, therefore I am speaking against them.

Okay, answer me: in France, if I am wearing a headscarf, can go to uni? To banks? Go on public transport? Buy from all sorts of shops without being told to leave? Get a job?

Am I also able to do all of those with a niqab?

 

[Ahasverus]

Of course it's victimization, decisions like these affect me and people I know personally, therefore I am speaking against them.

Okay, answer me: in France, if I am wearing a headscarf, can go to uni? To banks? Go on public transport? Buy from all sorts of shops without being told to leave? Get a job?

Yes, unless it's a state job, then you're not allowed to wear it, but not can Christians wear crosses on there necks. You can wear whatever in your non-job life.

Am I also able to do all of those with a niqab?

No.

 

[Osahi]

1) I already mentioned that after reading extensively in islamic literature, that's the conclusion I came to. You can read more about that in my previous posts.

2) Already answered in my previous posts.

3) At uni, I take it off if someone needs to identify me and then put it on. I've never been stopped by the police because I'm still learning to drive, but if they ever need identification no problem, they can see my face.

And these researches need to be centered around muslim women who wear the niqab. I don't know how legislators can come into such a big conclusion that would warrant a ban with so little evidence to support it. I guess the sentiment is just that bad, and of course we don't warrant a research paper because who cares.

I understand that you came to this choice and conclusion completely on religious believes, and I repect that. But, as I've said before, your religious choice does not,place you above secular law.

Legislators don't base legislation on scientific research alone. It's based on culture too, on a vision on society. That vision is: people in public should be recognizable, and we don't want people to shield themselves of from others. We also don't want women supressed, which, however you look at it, still is a big part of the niqab (though not in your case). It's the same with nudism. You can argue there isn't enough research or proof of the effects of it, but the society, and the law decided that you can't be naked in public places.

As i stressed before. I don't care at all if people wear religious symbols in public, but I do believe that in our way of interacting and in our society, you expose your face, so that is where the limit of that freedom of religious expression lies. The Human Rights court, which doesn't tread lightly in cases regarding religious freedom, agrees.

 

[ClosingADoor]

Of course it's victimization, decisions like these affect me and people I know personally, therefore I am speaking against them.

Okay, answer me: in France, if I am wearing a headscarf, can go to uni? To banks? Go on public transport? Buy from all sorts of shops without being told to leave? Get a job?

Am I also able to do all of those with a niqab?

You can not wear any religious symbols in French public schools. This would be primary and secondary education, not university. This includes things like the hijab, but also Catholic crosses and other things.

You can not wear a burqa or niqab anywhere in public, except in places of worship or as a passenger in a car.

Edit: this should be a pretty good overview of the current situation regarding this in the European countries that have laws about it: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-13038095

 

[Sunster]

Hopefully this law does as intended and does not just cause these women to be kept inside.

 

[Khaz]

Of course it's victimization, decisions like these affect me and people I know personally, therefore I am speaking against them.

Okay, answer me: in France, if I am wearing a headscarf, can go to uni? To banks? Go on public transport? Buy from all sorts of shops without being told to leave? Get a job?

Am I also able to do all of those with a niqab?

You can do every of those things with a hijab. But not with your face concealed.

 

[CampbellzSoup]

Hopefully this law does as intended and does not just cause these women to be kept inside.

That's a problem that should be addressed as well.

 

[Audioboxer]

No, we have a lot of recognizable elements. Children recognize me from far, believe it or not. We have our voices, our stature, verbal ticks, body language. We are still human.

And no, until there is a research in which one group is the control group, i.e. people whose faces can be seen, and the experimented group, i.e. the niqabi, conducted over a period of time, I will be against the ban.

Audible cues and body language are important too, but arguably following the face. There are plenty of studies done on the role(s) of facial expressions in social interactions. It doesn't matter what the garb, mask or covering is, it could all be equally as detrimental if a constant daily public routine.

Take this example for thought, you brought up audible cues, but does everyone speak the same language? No. Or we sometimes speak languages to varying levels of confidence. A lot of studies done on facial cues evokes how they are signals of specific emotions (such as happiness/laughter/sadness/fear/etc) which are recognised universally, or damn well near universally around the globe. Sometimes a successful public social interaction in life is a simple lock eye and few seconds smile. I'm just trying to illustrate how important, socially, the face can be.

That's why babies have been studied as well. They aren't developed far enough to hold any sort of conversation, but you often smile at a baby and it smiles back. Laugh, and it laughs back. Frown or scold and it might cry or show fear/panic. From a young age, we lean towards the face for healthy social interaction. Audible speech and body language are mighty important too, but the point here is to illustrate the importance of the face as not to try and make claims that covering it completely doesn't lead to an erosion in social interaction.

 

[Deleted member 1235]

Hopefully this law does as intended and does not just cause these women to be kept inside.

A lot of first gen immigrants are legally obligated to go to things like integration courses and front up to immigration departments etc in person, so there is some measure of checks to make sure they aren't kept home 100% of the time. I'm speaking from dutch rules perspective here but I would guess it may be similar in Belgium.

 

[jett]

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".

I look at these pictures and it's beyond me how can someone defend this. And as a symbol of freedom and autonomy no less! It's mindboggling.

 

[wartama]

I added him to my ignore list for that post. Because I said to myself, white people don't talk to me because of my skin color already and I'll be damned if I'm going to take responsibility for their racism. As a Black person, my group gets told all the time to be more respectable and we get killed for it. Looking at marginalized group and blaming them and calling them the real racists, makes my blood boil.

Getting input from a community when it comes to addressing social issues should be the first thing people do instead of leaping to assumptions and mass hysteria over a small minority within a minority.

If it hasn't been posted already, someone brought up the burkini ban and a woman forced to strip off garments from her wetsuit. When a woman comes out in her veil, do people think others won't use that attempt to humiliate and degrade this woman? They absolutely will and it shouldn't take an assault before people give this type of law a second look.

Where is the study that links women in a veil to something that isn't Islamaphobia. Are women robbing banks? Are they assaulting people? I want to see a link. And of course, no one is offering any support to these women and are pretending society will give them a warm hug if they do anything and everything to assimilate. That's not how it works.

You know what Cyframe, I think I know who to add to my ignore list now. I'm so fucking tired of this thread and so boiling with anger because I keep posting about my experiences with hate and discrimination and people seem to gloss over it. I guess at the end of the day, one side 'winning' an argument is all that matters, not the lived experiences of actual human beings.

If there are people who genuinely want to understand more about me and background, and why I'm against this ban, that I haven't already said, I'll reply to you. If you're here to make your opinion about muslim women and how they should be saved, vent all you want. I won't be listening to it.

 

[You Are Viewtiful]

I don't think you can actually. If you enter a store with a certain religious outfit, I can not ask you to leave based on that.

I was speaking in the context of ski masks. People should be allowed to wear ski masks in public spaces (outside). For the Niqab in private, I don't want to give religion special status, but at the same time I don't want to cause senseless religious strife, so it's more tricky. I'm fiercely against banning it in public though. That's not a "free society".

We should not accept sexism and oppression under the argument that if we don't allow it, certain individual cases might get worse. We should then create a form of help for those individuals to deal with their trouble.

Absolutely we can say that. If I want to wear a Niqab it should be my choice. There will always be some women who want to wear the Niqab, that's something we have to accept as long as religion is there. We cannot ban everything we don't like, it's silly and impractical.

Yes, there are many women who do not get the choice, we should help these women by providing mkre financial, legal and educational support to truly emancipate them. Banning the Niqab in public is such a superficial and unhelpful measure. Countries like France have not become safer over the years by utilizing these authoritarian laws (banning burqa and burkini). Quite the opposite: it is feeding into a persecution complex, isolating communities, and creating distrust of government institutions.

 

[His Majesty]

A lot of first gen immigrants are legally obligated to go to things like integration courses and front up to immigration departments etc in person, so there is some measure of checks to make sure they aren't kept home 100% of the time. I'm speaking from dutch rules perspective here but I would guess it may be similar in Belgium.

In Flanders, yes. Wallonia and Brussels don't have any compulsory integration courses afaik.

 

[wartama]

You can do every of those things with a hijab. But not with your face concealed.

I can? I need to get my info up to date.

So what was the fuss of 'the religious symbols ban' I heard about in the news? When are they allowed and when are they not?

 

[Frost_Ace]

I can? I need to get my info up to date.

So what was the fuss of 'the religious symbols ban' I heard about in the news? When are they allowed and when are they not?

Only pieces of cloth that are banned are those who fully hide your face

 

[skybald]

The court ruled that the restriction sought to guarantee social cohesion, the "protection of the rights and freedoms of others" and that it was "necessary in a democratic society", a statement said.

I don't know if something like this could fly in the USA. It definitely would not be good reasoning in a USA court, I would hope. I do not know Belgiums constitution well, but it seem like citizens have less protections on their civil rights than the USA.

I hate the body-covering aspect of Islam and I cannot personally defend it on a religious basis. However, on a purely personal freedom level, I cannot condone a government body banning them. Who knows how such shaky reasoning could be used to ban other minority rights.

 

[Osahi]

If I want to cover my face with a plastic bag out of embarrassment then that should be my choice. Why should someone be imprisoned over something so innocuous? It's my face. I get to choose who I want to show it for whatever reason. You people are acting as if someone covers their face, then there will be societal collapse. Banning Niqab for security/identity reasons is complete garbo and shameless fear tactic to justify this encroaching of civil liberties.

And if I'd want to run around naked in public because I am overconfident? Should I be able to too?

Again, as a society, by law, we have decided that it's not desirable to cover your face in public, whatever the reason is. It is where we draw a certain line in the way we interact with each other. And there is the undeniable aspect of the niqab as a tool of oppression, which doesn't rhyme with how our society views women's rights.

And don't lay words in my mouth. Offcourse society won't collapse. You are exagerating without any fundation to do so. But rules and laws decide how we organise our society. Also, it will take a lot before a judge will place a woman in prison for this in Belgium. Trust me. I don't think there is precedent in the 6 years this law is in effect.

And also don't turn this in a fear tactic. Please. That's obnoxious and besides the case. I also don't want to be asociated with that at all. I have been vocally against laws proposing the ban of the hijab in public functions. I have been vocally oposed to lots of measures we in Belgium took after the attacks in Paris (like putting soldiers on our streets). I have been vocally oposed against proposed laws lengthening the time someone can be jailed without orders from a judge (it's 24 now, they tried to make it 72). I've been vocally oposed against the law that states that foreigners living here can lose their right to live here on the mere suspicion of terroristic activities or sympathies. I found the burqini ban in France laughable, and vocally oposed when Belgian politicians wanted to follow. Hell, I've been very vocal in my opinion that the terror attacks are abused to push laws that limit our freedoms.

Just like I am vocal that religion does not exempt someone from laws, and that we have certain limites, rules and ways that form our society, like the fact that in interacting with one another in real life, you don't cover your face. And though I'm very left on the political spectrum, I don't want to defend practices like the Niqab just because it's a practice of a minority of which I believe they need to be protected against discrimination and need to have absolute equal rights as everyone else.

 

[Sunster]

I don't know if something like this could fly in the USA. It definitely would not be good reasoning in a USA court, I would hope. I do not know Belgiums constitution well, but it seem like citizens have less protections on their civil rights than the USA.

I hate the body-covering aspect of Islam and I cannot personally defend it on a religious basis. However, on a purely personal freedom level, I cannot condone a government body banning them. Who knows how such shaky reasoning could be used to ban other minority rights.

yea, the murican' in me feels the same way.

 

[reckless]

The whole banning due to social cohesion reason seems weird and open to abuse.

Banning them as an extension of a general can't cover your face with masks law and just not creating an exception seems fine and reasonable though.

 

[ClosingADoor]

I was speaking in the context of ski masks. People should be allowed to wear ski masks in public spaces (outside). For the Niqab in private, I don't want to give religion special status, but at the same time I don't want to cause senseless religious strife, so it's more tricky. I'm fiercely against banning it in public though. That's not a "free society".

Absolutely we can say that. If I want to wear a Niqab it should be my choice. There will always be some women who want to wear the Niqab, that's something we have to accept as long as religion is there. We cannot ban everything we don't like, it's silly and impractical.

Yes, there are many women who do not get the choice, we should help these women by providing mkre financial, legal and educational support to truly emancipate them. Banning the Niqab in public is such a superficial and unhelpful measure. Countries like France have not become safer over the years by utilizing these authoritarian laws (banning burqa and burkini). Quite the opposite: it is feeding into a persecution complex, isolating communities, and creating distrust of government institutions.

I don't think they fit inside our society and the ideals we should strife for, so I agree with banning them. The public and private places overlap a bit when talking about businesses here. If you are able to wear it in public, but stores are going to ban you from entering, it creates the same effect for the most part.

I can? I need to get my info up to date.

So what was the fuss of 'the religious symbols ban' I heard about in the news? When are they allowed and when are they not?

There are a few cases overlapping here.

France has banned religious symbols 10 years ago or something in public schools and for public servants.

Later on they banned the burqa and niqab in all public places. That ban does not apply to the hijab.

However, a recent EU court ruling does say that an employer can under some conditions ban their employees from wearing one, for example because they don't want their public representatives showing any religious or political signs. More here: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-39272231

 

[Osahi]

I can? I need to get my info up to date.

So what was the fuss of 'the religious symbols ban' I heard about in the news? When are they allowed and when are they not?

Religious symbols are banned when you hold public office. For instance, a jewish police officer can't wear a jewish headgear. A Muslim judge can't wear a headscarf. A christian teacher in a public school can't wear a cross. Just like public offices (town hall, schools, ...) can't have religious symbols at the walls.

If you work in a private company, your boss can decide the rules. But I think (should read up on it) he has to have a sound argument (for instance, security reasons while working with machinery)

I am against this law for people by the way.

Edit: to be clear: the niqab is banned in general