In case of outcome B, perhaps women start to see they are being actively oppressed, instead of passively oppressed.
-
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
In case of outcome B, perhaps women start to see they are being actively oppressed, instead of passively oppressed.
Pankratous
Member
This sits fine with me.
Outlawing it is a tough choice and there's arguments both ways for sure, but I think this is ultimately the right decision.
Outlawing it is a tough choice and there's arguments both ways for sure, but I think this is ultimately the right decision.
Kralamoonard
Member
Yeah, that was a bad post on my part, what I meant specifically, was that your previous posts on Islam (from this thread) reeked of ignorance to say the least, so I don't think you should be the arbiter to say what's acceptable or not.
The fact you assume to know exactly why they're wearing it in the first place is hilarious but actually sad. I've talked to many women who wear it and none raised the reason you mention. Your 100% certainty and "know it all" attitude is not only sexist but disgusting tbh.
Not that what you mentioned doesn't happen, but to think you speak for all women is who wear it is ridiculous. So stop being so sheltered and willfully ignorant.
Who needs Islamic extremism to rail against freedom and liberty when parts of the West seem hell bent on destroying those very ideals it covets so dearly themselves.
The real kicker is some of those husbands will justify their abhorrent behaviour as protecting their wives from a Western culture that hates them, and it's becoming increasingly harder to argue against that with bollocks like this.
The people crying "oppression, oppression" don't think about that, because all they care about is sticking it to uppity brown people. If they truly cared about Muslim women in abusive relationships, banning an article of clothing would be one of the last things on their mind; all it will do is push those women in abusive relationships further into the arms of their partners.
The real kicker is some of those husbands will justify their abhorrent behaviour as protecting their wives from a Western culture that hates them, and it's becoming increasingly harder to argue against that with bollocks like this.
The two women involved in this case claim they wear their niqabs by choice.
This is discrimination, plain and simple.
Muffin1611
Banned
That would surely go well, I don't see any reason for the state helping in any other way at all.
Almost any other way would have been better
Kill Your Masters
Member
Define disguised?
If its snowing heavily or the wind is very strong while also cold, I pull my scarf up and put a beanie on, and look like a ninja?
So I can't do this anymore in belgium?
Society doesn't care as long as they don't see any niqabs. Thats the hipocrisy with these laws.
Nobody is being set free.
People only pretend they set someone free.
They just removed an inconvenience while feeling superior or good about themselves.
Palette Swap
Member
Yeah, the overall efficiency and practicality seems dubious to me. As much as I don't object to the basic idea of saying should be identifiable in public (with already delineated exceptions), if the end result is effectively punishing women and identified victims, it's inefficient.
This is the right decision. Religious ideas should always be second (or third, or well last) priority over other values. It doesn't matter if it's christian, islamic or hindu traditions; if they are harmful or descriminating they should be fazed out as fast as possible (possible in this referring to the fact that traditions are hard to change).
Well I hope their husbands wear a fucking cloth on their faces too, otherwise it's good old sexism.
ClosingADoor
Member
Apparently not plain and simple, considering the European Court of Human Rights, which is very well respected, disagrees with you here.
Captain Smoker
Member
I'd argue about the notion of "free choice" because they are told to behave like this / this is "right" since day 1.
Because courts have never made dumb decisions in regards to human rights /s
Muffin1611
Banned
And I'm sure the women who can't go out of the house anymore will thank you for it.
Courts aren't perfect and they're overlooking a pretty obvious effect of this law, whether the law itself is legal or not.
ClosingADoor
Member
Sure they have. And that is why it is not plain and simple as you state. There are a lot of opinions about this, and the court has now ruled this way.
If woman are being held inside the house against their will because of this, there are larger problems. If they choose to do so themselves because they value their tradition above the law of the country they live in, that is their decision.
You're told to wear underwear from day 1. Do you wear it of free will?
Sounds like their husbands are breaking laws by trapping them indoors
Change hurts. Its for the better in the long run. You think casts are good too?
This is what everything is reduced too. In the end, there are suicidal terrorists who do it "by choice" too. Fuck that. Good for Europe to stand for freedom.
Not the Court's problem. That's illegal too. That's on their pig husbands.
Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy.
Muffin1611
Banned
Maybe someone should get on that instead of banning clothing, what a crazy idea I just had!
Exactly, there are larger problems at the root. So why enforce a law that doesn't change anything about the underlying problem?
Shao Kahn Brewing a Stew
Banned
Every freedom has it's limits, and that includes freedom of religion.
I don't mind people wearing headscarfs, even in public service, but I believe your face has to be visible all the time, or, when you wear a helmet, or mask on carnaval, you should be willing to show your face when asked.
I don't mind people wearing headscarfs, even in public service, but I believe your face has to be visible all the time, or, when you wear a helmet, or mask on carnaval, you should be willing to show your face when asked.
Okay? That doesn't make it right?
DrunkShogun
Member
As long as it's niqab and burka then I'm fine. There's no reason a woman can't wear a scarf if her face is shown clearly.
cromofo
Member
Muffin1611
Banned
It looks bloody awful and is so out of place in a modern society. It acts as a self-segregating barrier to integration and makes a woman look like walking precious artifact that must be concealed from the supposed prying evil eyes of wider society. In my experience, instead of diverting attention away from the wearer it actually invites unpleasant stares thus making the wearer the focus of attention in situations where she would not be. Why must a woman conceal herself to the point where she is unidentifiable when it is perfectly possible to dress modestly in line with Western fashion sensibilities?
Look at where the niquab is enforced: Saudi Arabia - a place where women are oppressed and we want to celebrate the same complete covering of women in Europe as an expression of freedom? Utter madness.
Look at where the niquab is enforced: Saudi Arabia - a place where women are oppressed and we want to celebrate the same complete covering of women in Europe as an expression of freedom? Utter madness.
This very much looks like a limitation of freedom in the name of security to me. Don't know how you could argue this makes people more free.
ClosingADoor
Member
It does according to a lot of people though, making the issue not plain and simple.
Nah:
Ideally, they would stay at home forever. Realistically? They can't do without interacting with the outside world.
Zvonimir Boban
Banned
The ones that were forced by their husbands to cover themselves from head to toe already knew they were being oppressed.
The women who did it of their own volition now feel oppressed by the state.
cromofo
Member
I really will never understand the idea that banning what people can wear is Pro-freedom.
It's a factual limitation on freedom. If you think it's a reasonable or good one, well that's an opinion. But limiting the cloth people can place on their skin is not a stand for freedom.
Kill Your Masters
Member
And on day 10950 somebody else told them to not do it anymore. Thats the problem with these laws and situations.
To people like this, you replace one opressor with another. There is no difference unfortunately. If the "free choice" is ingrained since day 1, and you remove that "free choice" with another "free choice" a few decades later, you don't change their perception of what free choice is.
Apart from removing the inconvenience of seeing Niqabs on european streets, I don't know if this law can accomplish anything else.
Muffin1611
Banned
By choice, sure.
Forced by the husband? No, of course not. But banning the clothing will make the situation for the oppressed worse, so no, I wouldn't call this law moral.
I'm not faulting the court per se, more the lawmakers of the country who came up with the law in the first place. They knew exactly what effects this law would have, and didn't care to search for actually positive solutions.
Can someone tell me what programs are available to women in this circumstance to "integrate?" Are their specifically trained Muslim counselors coming to families? Are people checking in women who are no longer leaving the house and addressing that? Is there a hotline for Muslim women to call? Is there a step-down program where a woman can go out in this garb and transition into another one without being fined or jailed? What are things in place to help "free" Muslim women?
I have my own feelings about this kind of ban but can someone at least showcase resources for these women?
I have my own feelings about this kind of ban but can someone at least showcase resources for these women?
As long as you remove it once the snow stops then it's pretty defensible. It isn't a problem to have your face temporarily covered by clothing for weather or safety purposes. Stop acting obtuse. No motorcycle helmets are gonna be outlawed or whatever. If people need/have to wear face covering things for non-religious reasons, that's fine. I live in the Netherlands and never once had to cover my face through the winter. But if I did, I would remove it once I walked into any public space or private establishment. That isn't the case with Niquab.
cromofo
Member
What would be you ideal solution to this problem?
That is on the men and the religion that is oppressing them. Not the European Court of Human Rights.
gutter_trash
Banned
Saudi sponsored Imams should also be banned for preaching anti-Western surmons and ideology.
Self segregation based on religion has no place in secular modern society
Self segregation based on religion has no place in secular modern society
Whynotboth.gif
Muffin1611
Banned
If I knew that, I would be lawmaker myself right now. Is your standard so low that as long as "something" is done, lawmakers who are actually tasked by their people to find good solutions to problems of society don't have to come up with anything worthwile?
See my other post.
The niqab is religious institutional oppression of women. Plain and simple.
Captain Smoker
Member
Let's keep the context.
If you want to start a philosophical discussion, we can conclude that there isn't free will at all because of hard determinism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_determinism).*
There are things that we do in / as society (by free will or not) that are more beneficial than others and I really don't see any benefit if I look at the Niqab or Burka.
*I understand that there are several concepts for this particular question (soft determinism, etc.)
If I pulled that mask off, would you die?
RubberJohnny
Banned
Why are people trying to compare something that covers the whole head with a tiny slit for the eyes to a regular respirator that leaves most of the head and face uncovered?
Similar threads
- Locked