Miles Quaritch
Member
Corporate policies often written and enforced predominantly by males.
You obviously see the difference in forcing someone to wear a short skirt to forcing someone to wear a helmet for their safety.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
European Court of Human Rights: Ban on Muslim full-face veil legal
- Thread starter Occam
- Start date
Corporate policies often written and enforced predominantly by males.
You obviously see the difference in forcing someone to wear a short skirt to forcing someone to wear a helmet for their safety.
Zen_Arcade
Banned
This still doesn't mean that the clothing itself is oppressive. It just means that they wrote an oppressive policy that uses a perfectly reasonable set of clothing for a nefarious and forced purpose.
Honestly this whole line of questioning seems pretty disingenuous considering you probably understand how the history of short shorts is different from the history of something like a niqab and why the world sees them differently.
LegendofLex
Member
I mean, obviously everyone is right to criticize the practice of veiling women. That's a huge manifestation of oppressive patriarchy.
But I think it's wrong to legislate that criticism by not allowing women to wear veils. That doesn't do anything to solve the problem of oppressive patriarchy; it just punishes women.
But I think it's wrong to legislate that criticism by not allowing women to wear veils. That doesn't do anything to solve the problem of oppressive patriarchy; it just punishes women.
ken_matthews
Member
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 do not believe the arguments about normal social exceptions and interactions. The attire is alien to Western culture and probably stokes our natural tendency to reject "otherness". But for many people in Europe, and perhaps why it was rejected in court, I think the main opposition may have to due with suspicion of immigration and radical Islam. With that said, I agree with the court's ruling, but not for the reasons I just offered.
Frankly, I do not understand how anybody can defend those pictures. To me, the niqab is about patriarchy and female oppression. It is about the idea that female sexuality is a "problem" that needs to be mitigated.
I am pro sexuality (female, male, and other) and I never really understood why the Abrahamic traditions are so occupied with sex. I always wondered if it was the impulse, the instinct, that made the ecclesiastics uncomfortable. As if it recognizing it will bring them too close to our animal nature.
Audioboxer
Member
I've already stated I truly believe if it was any other of the Abrahamic religions that brought about a belief that women should (or be encouraged to) wear full-face veils and it caught on we'd be facing the same paths and challenges. It just so happens in this instance it's Islam and Islamic interpretations that have led to this. Just like in other specific examples of contention throughout history it might have been Christianity or Catholicism.
As for your remark on sexuality, very very very old understandings of sexuality were crude, somewhat idiotic and very misinformed. If they weren't steeped in mysoginy, rape acceptance and the abuse of minors, it was some other forms of control and demand over the people. Such as the Catholics vehement dislike of contraception, all of them hating homosexuality as they couldn't explain it or women to varying extents either being abused sex slaves, or sluts and whores for wanting any sort of control of their bodies/expression.
Unfortunately, oppression and abuse of sexual desires, sexual control and discrimination is rife in all religions. We just have to try as educate and drag societies forward and hope those who read the texts do not take literal understandings when current day science, biology and reasoning are far better at explaining human life and human desires. So much of the worlds upset, problems and suffering/pain/dying revolve around misconceptions around sexuality and either repression or oppression. Repression meaning spreading shame, guilt, hate and embarrassment to be a sexually active species. Oppression meaning enforcing consequences and demands over people to repress them. Oppression often being the tools used to repress.
To this day everyone brought up in Christian/Catholic majority nations probably either have direct family or friends of family who still say "God says homosexuality is a sin....". They can think that, but largely speaking most societies are legalising and moving forward whether decent numbers of Christians/Catholics want it or not. To tie back into my points earlier about societies making legislative decisions in the face of religious intolerance/criticism. Full-face veils are not the same as judgement on homosexuality, but the source of a lot of the spreading of the beliefs is the same. A religion(s) making claims, to which a society then has to weigh up the costs for freedom of religion to allow said claims/actions to go unchallenged.
Mass Effect
Member
I'm not even going to touch this from the oppression argument, but I agree with the ruling simply because people shouldn't be allowed to completely conceal their faces while in public for everyday interactions, religious reasons or not.
Zvonimir Boban
Banned
You sure? France and Belgium banned the niqab and burqa six years ago. I reckon by now those countries must be a shining beacon of multiculturalism with nobody complaining about Islam or immigrants after the ban resulted in a much more cohesive society.
Skellig Gra
Member
Ugh. I get where they are coming from but this is just punishing the people who are already being oppressed. Now these women can never leave the house.
They are doing the exact thing they are trying to remedy.
They are doing the exact thing they are trying to remedy.
I've still yet to see anyone give a good explanation for how this helps the women who are forced to wear a niqab, nor have I seen anyone counter the idea that those same women might be forced to stay at home. I'm especially concerned about how it affects daughters who don't have any real responsibility or requirement to leave the house. Once they're old enough to not need to go to school, it wouldn't be hard to just keep them locked up.
As much as the niqab is tied to religion, it's use as a tool of oppression is ultimately a cultural problem. Everyone keeps pointing back to that photo as an example of the religious oppression of Islam, while ignoring the fact that those same women were themselves muslims. People have already pointed it out: Niqabs+ aren't actually required, but people are still forced to wear them because their familly believe it to be an important aspect of their faith, which in turn ends up being an important aspect of their identities.
In no universe are people going to give up what they consider fundamental aspects of who they are because a law says that they have to so that strangers they meet in public feel comfortable around them, but I guess that's what we have the jail sentence for. It's just the price we pay for our state given right to see other people's faces/s
No matter how you slice it, to the people who are actually affected by this rulling, this will feel oppression, and any argument for social cohesion goes out the window when the person you're interacting with doesn't feel like you see them, their beliefs, or their views as valid parts of your society ('cause guess what, they're all the same thing for a lot of people). Some posters in this thread have made it explicitely clear in increasingly patronizing ways that they don't respect the thoughts and beliefs of these people. If I had to guess, a lot more of you guys feel the same way considering only one person has called them out yet.
On top of it all, this ruling opens the door for more rullings which limit religious expression during a time where a not insignificant portion of Europe would gladly ban the religion itself if they could. While I doubt anything would ever get through, I don't doubt that Muslim communities would see this ban as the first in a wave of potential threats. It's a big red sign saying that "we will not tolerate your beliefs."
My ultimate problem with the ban is that, even with all the potential downsides, I can't imagine any notable/tangible benefits. If anything, this seems like an easy way to widden the divide between Europe's Islamic and non-Islamic communities and to male it harder to help women who are oppressed by the niqab.
As much as the niqab is tied to religion, it's use as a tool of oppression is ultimately a cultural problem. Everyone keeps pointing back to that photo as an example of the religious oppression of Islam, while ignoring the fact that those same women were themselves muslims. People have already pointed it out: Niqabs+ aren't actually required, but people are still forced to wear them because their familly believe it to be an important aspect of their faith, which in turn ends up being an important aspect of their identities.
In no universe are people going to give up what they consider fundamental aspects of who they are because a law says that they have to so that strangers they meet in public feel comfortable around them, but I guess that's what we have the jail sentence for. It's just the price we pay for our state given right to see other people's faces/s
No matter how you slice it, to the people who are actually affected by this rulling, this will feel oppression, and any argument for social cohesion goes out the window when the person you're interacting with doesn't feel like you see them, their beliefs, or their views as valid parts of your society ('cause guess what, they're all the same thing for a lot of people). Some posters in this thread have made it explicitely clear in increasingly patronizing ways that they don't respect the thoughts and beliefs of these people. If I had to guess, a lot more of you guys feel the same way considering only one person has called them out yet.
On top of it all, this ruling opens the door for more rullings which limit religious expression during a time where a not insignificant portion of Europe would gladly ban the religion itself if they could. While I doubt anything would ever get through, I don't doubt that Muslim communities would see this ban as the first in a wave of potential threats. It's a big red sign saying that "we will not tolerate your beliefs."
My ultimate problem with the ban is that, even with all the potential downsides, I can't imagine any notable/tangible benefits. If anything, this seems like an easy way to widden the divide between Europe's Islamic and non-Islamic communities and to male it harder to help women who are oppressed by the niqab.
You Are Viewtiful
Member
Social conventions can be changed. There is no reason why nudity or niqab can't be a part of accepted social convention. It's made up. That's why we try to make laws not based on social convention, but on evidence and reason. Using draconian laws to affirm "social conventions" that are only excuses to curb civil liberties should concern everybody.
Then how can you enforce a ban? What happens if she doesn't pay a fine or doesn't take off her niqab? In the end, you must use violence against women to back this law up.
It seems arbitrary. You said you want to ban niqab because it goes social conventions. Valls and the FN politicians said much the same thing, but about the burkini. Do you see how the logic extends, and can be used to justify other tyrannical measures?
Well, I don't disagree with you on that. I don't want secularism to be used as an excuse for authoritarianism, though. It should be liberal secularism, it should be neutral. Banning the niqab specifically is not secular or neutral.
The argument against the ban is that you are also persecuting the women who wear it freely. You're also not helping those who don't get to wear it by choice. There is often a worse fate that awaits them (e.g. not being allowed to go outside anymore), and the situation deteriorates. That's not to mention the other negative social effects of such a law.
-----
Forcing someone to wear something under the threat of violence is illegal. Niqab, or hijab, or anything. Your freedoms and rights stop once they infringe on someone else's freedoms.
She would have to admit that it was not her choice, of course. How can you just assume she's a victim by default?
I didn't say it will solve the problem (you even admitted your niqab ban won't solve the problem either), but we can provide support, without infringing on anyone's rights to live as they please.
That's not equivalent at all. A gay person should have the right to marry the person they love, just like straight couples, period. That is their right and their freedoms. It has nothing to do with religion, it's about equality. There is nowhere where Christians come into this equation; whether gay people can marry has no effect on them either way.
With this niqab ban, you are literally persecuting Muslims for practising their faith. It's not even debatable, it's by definition. You are using state violence against a religious group that prohibits the free practice of their faith. It's not equivalent to gay marriage at all.
There should be extremely high scrutiny for any law that infringes on civil liberties. That people's logic is basically "I don't like thing; ban it" is disconcerting. There are women who are being oppressed by being forced to wear it, yes. There are other women who choose to wear it as an expression of their faith. If that makes them happy, who am I to tell they can't do that? They are not harming anyone. Their body, their rules.
ken_matthews
Member
I understand what you are saying, and I don't necessarily disagree, instead my curiosity has less to do with normal forms of societal structure and subjugation, and more to do with common religious themes. I feel as if the unwillingness to embrace sexuality for what it is (an instinct, an impulse, and something to be celebrated) coincides with religious morality and punishment, salvation theology and martyrdom, ideas about god's plan and free will. These common concepts are propped up and perpetuated, almost as a defense mechanism, because of a need to distance themselves from a reality that sits below the surface. A reality that says there is no salvation, no eternal life, no plan, no divine code, and no free will. A reality that says we are not special; I think we all intuitively understand this on some level, we just react to it differently.
It's sad but it's not a good moral argument for tolerating religiously motivated female oppression in society and an attack on social cohesion. Countries have to do some soul searching and consider whether the message they want to send out is that anything goes no matter how heinous and dehumanising as long as scripture advocates it. I never want the niqab to be considered normal and so have it be forced on even more women, we will have failed as a society if we let it.
wartama says she wears it based on her own interpretation of scripture regarding modesty but that's the same argument advocates of FGM and husbands being able to beat their wives use, of which there are many female muslim advocates of both, complicit in the oppression of their own. Like, I'm sorry that her internalised misogyny has her believing that cutting herself off from most of society like that is how she needs to express her faith but that doesn't mean people have to like and accept it as somehow compatible with female emancipation rather than a means of male supremacy and the weird double standards of modesty in Islam because it simply isn't.
You Are Viewtiful
Member
FGM and wife beating infringe on other people's rights. wartama wearing a niqab has no effect on you or anyone else, it's her personal choice. If it makes her happy then why are you so hell bent on stopping her? Why do you think it's okay to deny a woman's right to happiness, only because it upsets your personal sensibilities?
Zen_Arcade
Banned
Because it perpetuates an aspect of a culture that oppresses other women who don't feel the same as her. It absolutely effects people other than her, and if another culture doesn't want those ideals perpetuated within their culture, they have every right to not allow it. Especially if there is basis beyond simply not agreeing with their religious standpoint, like Belgium has laid out here.
Even if it didn't, no one is obligated to approve of or integrate an aspect of your religion they disagree with into their culture just because you want them to.
You Are Viewtiful
Member
That's a huge slippery slope. What if a woman feels other women wearing lipstick or makeup makes her feel oppressed because it forces her to compete? Ban cosmetics? Those women should be given the agency to choose if they want to wear a niqab or makeup or not.
People are individuals, not cultures.
You are right. Where did I say you have to like the niqab? I don't like it, but I'm not going to use state violence to get women to stop doing thing I don't like.
Audioboxer
Member
It's a decision rooted in the future outlook of how the society could be in 10/20/50/100+ years. If you want Islam to grow as a religion in many Western countries that are mostly Christian/Catholic then a question to propose to you is do you want these societies to look like Iran, Saudi Arabia or any other places with high populations of full-face veils? Not every follower of Islam believes women need to have their faces covered, but it's a correlation between increasing Islam in % share will mean an increase in full-face veils. Especially if there is little resistance to the veils. There is all to gain trying to mix cultures and see immigration into your country and all the positives that brings. That doesn't however mean your country has to diverge from values it holds highly to contradict itself and regress backwards to be tolerant of intolerance.
It can take generations for a religion to truly grow in a percentage share, so it can take time for widespread change. Living in multicultural societies does not mean needing to tolerate some of the worst offences religions can bring along with them. Out of everything questionable that follows Islam FGM and full-face veils are probably two of the worst. FGM is currently illegal (although still goes on http://www.endfgm.eu/female-genital-mutilation/fgm-in-europe/). As I've said a few times now if this was Christianity or Catholicism it would have been challenged long before now and probably legislated against if needed. We would not have accepted a majority Christian/Catholic nation where millions of women had their faces covered 24/7 in most places in Europe. We largely know and accept the importance of social cohesion and interaction in most Western societies. This does mean being accepting of those different than us and with different beliefs but as I said at the start that doesn't translate to throwing progress out of the window to support blatant intolerance. We had to battle long and hard and still are to righting things for homosexuals in many countries. Some would propose are we going to face another big battle in 30 years when more full-face veils are around? Even Germany which has done a tremendous amount to help refugees and support immigration had Merkel speak openly about full-face veils.
The sticking point for many minds appears they view anything "minority" based as being offlimits to be criticised, challenged and possibly legislated against. The irony there with treating any religion as an outright minority is not looking at the world as the sum of all its parts and noticing all of the abrahamic religions of the world have massive numbers of followers. At the end of the day it doesn't matter if an idea or belief system is proposed by a minority or a majority. If it's damaging to a society then said society may need to think it over, challenge it and then possibly act if it thinks that is best. Trying to educate and propose debate as a means to change beliefs is noble and often works, but at times it isn't enough on its own. If it was we would have less homosexuality intolerance and we wouldn't have as many millions of women who do cover their faces. Nor would we have as much evolution denying, believing the world is 6,000 years old or that it's flat, etc, etc. Dogmatic people often have a forcefield around them that is near impossible to pierce. It's just the way it is and why societies sometimes get left with little option other than to try and legally implement progressive outlooks for the future well-being of the country. Tolerating diversity of belief including all the far out stuff is done as much as possible, but if belief/actions infringe on others rights or arguably impact a society in such a negative way it's hard to ignore, then tolerating it isn't going to be as easy.
ken_matthews
Member
I think you make a really good point. I do agree that this ruling will put many Muslims on the defensive. It may undermine cultural integration in Europe an possibly further antagonize division over immigration. Those will be unfortunate negative outcomes and I do not know what would be the best approach to easing the growing tension in Europe. However, I do not think encouraging (or not banning) the niqab will help because I think you are absolutely right; this is about cultural differences.
I think your point speaks to the influence of culture and the need for commitment to big "L" Liberal values. Frankly, I am not interested in entertaining most dogmatic and conservative religious beliefs, regardless of which Abrahamic traditions it comes from. Just the same, I am not interested in fascist or anarchist paradigms. I think the promotion of Liberal values are more important than respecting incompatible conservative religions beliefs due to some misplaced sense of tolerance. If we are interested in values like freedom of speech, equality of opportunity, social welfare, sexual and racial equality, democracy, secularism, etc, then we have to be honest about irreconcilable beliefs and ideas. Again, I do not think this is about intolerance, it is about competing values and where we want to plant our flag.
Needlessly concealing your face in a society where all the other people already had to give up that liberty for
security reasons is actually an infringement on those people's rights
Zen_Arcade
Banned
People really need to stop comparing things that clearly weren't made as oppressive things to something that people wear because their religion makes them believe they have to or should.
They're all terrible comparisons. None of these things are inherently oppressive. They're all cloth and cosmetics. They only become oppressive because of the context they're used in. No one is scared to leave the house without lipstick on because they are afraid of what will happen if someone finds out they did. There is a clear difference between something neutral that can be used or seen as an oppressive thing and a thing that's constantly used to be oppressive.
Even if you believe that lipstick is oppressive to women, to compare the effect and result of that oppression is just silly.
The niqab should offend the sensibilities of any decent person who doesn't hate women and girls. I am not "hell bent on stopping her", I just don't have a problem with countries wanting to ban it.
What if a woman consents to her husband beating her because she considers it to be supported in the scripture?
Also this covers things nicely:
You normalise the niqab, more girls get forced to wear it. We don't exist in vacuums, your personal choices affect others too.
A slippery slope wrapped up in a straw man. Are we collecting logical fallacies?
You Are Viewtiful
Member
We had a discussion on "security" a few pages back. People should be allowed to wear a potato sack if they want as far as I'm concerned. If you need to identify them for security reason, then go ahead. Most (all?) women will take off their face covering for identification purposes.
What's truly an infringement on people's rights is that in some countries you need to get a government licence to wear a panda costume. That is what's truly preposterous.
I think you need to hang around feminist spaces more. Makeup and cosmetics are used by the patriarchy to enforce male's preferences onto women. If you're a woman, good luck getting a job after not wearing makeup to a job interview. Makeup is very regularly a part of dress code. Your logic can easily be extended to ban all sorts of things. Neither of which are practical or desirable.
Zen_Arcade
Banned
Again, the ability to use something in a nefarious and oppressive manner doesn't mean the thing itself is inherently oppressive. There are plenty of contexts where lipstick isn't oppressive. There are no situations where this is true of the niqab. The closest you'll get is someone who is comfortable with being oppressed because it's part of their religion and that makes them comfortable.
ken_matthews
Member
I think I generally agree with your sentiment. If the choice existed in a vacuum, then I do not think I would have any issue with an individual's choice to wear the niqab. The problem is not the cloth, but the culture that focuses on the sexuality of women and perpetuates the compulsion to hide it. I think society and culture are made better when sexuality and equality among the sexes are embraced.
No, I think you do. I have never witnessed a serious discussion about outright banning makeup in feminist spaces and I don't wear makeup but have been able to get jobs. Women wear makeup for very diverse reasons including covering up acne, scarring, not having eyebrows etc. and plenty of queer women wear it too. There is diversity of thought and expression here.
I'm not even looking at it from a moral standpoint though. I just don't think any good is going to come from this ban, and that it will only make things worse. It's the equivalent of dowsing a burning house in oil because you can't find any water nearby. Yeah, something needs to be done, but this only make the problem worse.
And like I said, to a lot of Muslims, the message isn't going to be "we won't tolerate niqabs", it's going to be "we won't tolerate you/your beliefs". A lot of religious people consider religion a part of their identity, we need to reach out and help change how they view their religion, themselves, and society at large, not tell them to cut off a part of themselves or else face jail time.
At the same time (speaking as an outsider), how can any of you expect the Muslam community to beleive you genuinely care at all when you turn around and say this?
Do you guys have any idea how disempowering comments like these are? No matter how many times she states her stance on the niqab and why she wears it, her opinion is invalid, and will forever be invalid, because she's "indoctrinated" or has internalized misogyny. Because there's no way, no how that she could somehow have that stance unless she was. I know it not because her post show signs of an abusive upbringing of mysoginistic brainwashing (they don't). Maybe experienced GAF members can just sense when a total strangers self image and world view has been warped by religion.
The part that keeps getting me is the bit about women who wear niqabs cutting themselves off from the world. That honestly seems pretty one sided. That's not how I've ever felt about it, nor how anyone I've ever talked to who wears head coverings feels. Yeah, it can serve as a barrier for a lot of people when they don't know eachother, but so do a lot of things a lot of people intentionally do in public. That shouldn't really matter with strangers, and beyond that it's entirely on the person who feels uncomfortable imo.
Also, as a side note, 2 statements justified by similar arguements, doesn't make them equal. Like, where on the list is sunday church service and kosher food relative to FGM and the niqab in this scenario?
But hey, maybe I'm just I'm missing something huge here that totally justifies all these arguements and make me look like an idiot. Who knows.
You Are Viewtiful
Member
Basically, you are okay with government using violence against her to get her to stop. You'll wrap it in righteous indignation, but that is essentially what you're saying.
You can't consent to assault for the same reason you can't consent to murder; unless it's BDSM or she's literally saying "hit me" or something. Assaulting someone means the person is dangerous and should be removed from society, because he could harm others.
Yeah, I'm not buying it. This logic could be extended to ban all sorts of other things (hijab too, amusingly). Slippery slope is not a fallacy by default, it's a fallacy if you prove how it is one, which you haven't.
ken_matthews
Member
That may be true to some extent, but let's not pretend that most women do not want to attract men. Many women use makeup because men find them more attractive when they wear it. They want to attract the opposite sex, so of course they play to male preferences; this is how sexual attraction works. Don't get me wrong, it is important be self confident and secure in how you look, but sexual attraction requires the attention of a second party. If you never consider the preferences of the opposite sex (or same sex), and if you are not genetically lucky, then you are probably going to have a difficult time finding a desirable mate.
Zen_Arcade
Banned
Yes, because religion routinely needs to be forced to change by something like the government before they'll stop being discriminatory. Otherwise they often just won't change at all.
To the anti-ban side:
Where do you draw the line? Is something like FGM defensible by muslims that practice it? I'm sure you could find a woman who said she is glad someone mutilated her as a kid. Do you permit such acts of barbarism and oppression just because someone says it's in their holy book? (It's not) so what that some people say the niqab is supported by the Quran. (It's not)
Where do you draw the line? Is something like FGM defensible by muslims that practice it? I'm sure you could find a woman who said she is glad someone mutilated her as a kid. Do you permit such acts of barbarism and oppression just because someone says it's in their holy book? (It's not) so what that some people say the niqab is supported by the Quran. (It's not)
You Are Viewtiful
Member
I can't accept your argument that niqab is oppressive in all circumstances. Yes, it is sexist, but when a woman chooses to wear it and if that's what makes her happy, then I cannot say it's oppressive and I'm freeing her by forcing her to remove it.
I did not advocate banning makeup, nor did I hear anyone else say any such thing. I was simply extending the "culture" logic. Banning makeup is as preposterous as it sounds.
Women can use makeup, even if it's tool of the patriarchy, because they want to. Covering up scars, acne, eyebrows etc. is what truly makes them happy. Who is anyone to tell them to not do it? We can only educate men and other women about behaviours we have that reinforce the patriarchy, and to be thoughtful.
It's the same logic with the niqab. Some women wear it because they believe it's an expression of their faith (or they can wear it if they have a bad hair day, I honestly don't care the reason as long as it's their choice), but it is a tool of the religious patriarchy.
The point is that you should be recognisable on the fly by authorities and witnesses while in public. The only exceptions should be approved public manifestations.
Also, I'll need some evidence for that "they mostly reveal themselves when asked from authorities" claim
Zen_Arcade
Banned
The bolded is basically stockholm syndrome on a religious level. I don't believe that's something to be supported.
You Are Viewtiful
Member
So throwing wartama in jail is what you want to see? Is that progress?
That is true, but makeup is forced or coerced on women even in non-sexual contexts, such as job dress codes or just in public.
RustyNails
Member
Why? You are denying women agency of choosing for themselves, that they can't make their own decisions.
Zen_Arcade
Banned
No. But again, no one has to integrate an aspect of your culture into theirs just because you want them to. I also don't believe it's Belgium's responsibility to spearhead the progress of someone else's culture. It's only their responsibility to worry about what they think is best for their culture.
Zen_Arcade
Banned
Because I don't believe that, or really any religious personal decision should be more important than the progress of culture.
You Are Viewtiful
Member
Why should I be recognizable? If I wear a scarf over my mouth in cold weather, am I committing some unspeakable crime? What if I'm embarrassed and put a paper bag over my head? Are you gonna put handcuffs on me?
You can ask niqabis yourself. Over here in Canada, Zunera Ishaq who is sort of the poster child for this debate says she is open to identifying herself in public if necessary.
If she's not harming anyone else, then it's not something you or anyone else can have any say about. It's her choice. This is getting a bit circular.
No? What do you think it is that law does? It throws people in jail if they wear a niqab.
Who is telling you to integrate an aspect of their culture? Who even gets to decide what culture is? If Belgium fancies itself a free society, then it will not implement such draconian laws that infringe on people's liberties.
Zen_Arcade
Banned
This is getting circular, because I've already explained that anyone wearing it perpetuates a culture that other women who don't want to adhere to it are expected to live by.
And anyone complaining about what Belgium is doing here is basically expecting them to integrate it into their culture. Otherwise why would they be condemning them for it?
Culture is decided by whoever lives in the country. They dictate the laws, general opinions and culture of the area. Which is what Belgium did here.
RustyNails
Member
What is this "progress of culture"? Does this progress involve saying to women that they're irrational and suffering from stockholm syndrome because they want to cover themselves?
You Are Viewtiful
Member
The woman who challenged the law is Belgian. It says so in the article. No one is forcing Belgium to do anything, quite the opposite. It is the Belgian government that is using government force against women to conform to rules (made by the majority male Belgian parliament).
Zen_Arcade
Banned
It's not the fact that they're women, and this isn't the only example of people having to drag other religious people away from discriminatory practices. Religion and it's influence on cultures have held back society on numerous occasions.
So? There are women in America who think we should allow discriminitory practices to other women based on religious principals, and personally I still view it as holding back culture.
I also never said anyone was forcing anyone to do anything. I said you were expecting them to.
AcademicSaucer
Member
Yep, religion slows down the progress of culture
You Are Viewtiful
Member
You have a strange view of and obsession with 'culture'. Apparently, you think culture should dictate how everyone should behave (banning the face coverings), and don't value individualism very much. Sorry, but I reject this. I don't need to be tied down by any 'culture', my culture has never done me any good. People should be free to live how they please, that is the definition of a free society.
Integrate is a rather forceful word, but I'll retract.
It most certainly does, but what outright doesn't slow it down, but makes it regress is authoritarianism. When "culture" is used an excuse for state violence and intruding into private people's lives by dictating what women should wear, that is when a culture has went backwards in time.
Zen_Arcade
Banned
No, I believe that religion often hinders individualism in society.
It's pretty ironic that you think I'm the one who thinks everyone needs to behave the same way while defending an idealism that often pushes that very way of thinking.
And again, they have a reason beyond not agreeing with them on religious grounds.
Do we really need to specify on every page why the scarf example is a goddamn false equivalence? Also, I remeber talking about needlessly concealing the face a couple of post back. Guess that needs to be repeated every time too
I'll accept the Zunera Ushaq example.
Not all infringements result in jail time. There are fines, you know.
If you can't comprehend why such a a law has been conceived and accepted maybe you don't understand how much this actually helps public security
BreezyLimbo
Banned
I've mentioned it before but, Battered Wife Syndrome. The psychological aspect of it, atleast.
In the case of Niqabs, I doubt any self-respecting woman wears one out of choice. It's either pressure from religion, from their family, from their husband...Niqabs are garments meant to oppress, not empower.
It's funny someone earlier mentioned that a person can wear it out of individual agency, whilst quoting a picture of various women wearing the NIqab, where their individuality was erased and where they all looked the same.
It's why I don't take anecdotes of 'I wear a niqab and do it out of choice' seriously. It's no different from people who self-hate themselves due to the color of their skin, or their place in society. It's just a repressed self.
Similar threads
- Locked