Support NeoGAF

[Skinpop]

This isn't convincing at all.

well I'm not entirely convinced the ban is a good thing either. my main concern is that it's too broad of an issue to combat with a blunt instrument like a ban. the risk is that some will feel entitled to point out and "punish" women who go against the ban and wear these garments anyway which absolutely isn't acceptable.

 

[BreezyLimbo]

Better funding for education, help hotlines, anonymous help groups? Off the top of my head.

And you think that people who want to enforce the Niqab will let women access education, hotlines, or help groups?

Thats a bit naive.

 

[Clefargle]

I wonder if people would be comfortable with a ban on closely cropped haircuts for white men because the look can be attributed to the skinhead movement which has radicalized white men. Perhaps one could argue that there are groups under that moniker that are anti-racist, however, taking chances with that sort of thing, I believe is too risky and prevents minorities and marginalized groups from integrating properly because they feel unsafe. Bald men, of course, would be required to have a professional wig in order to foster a more socially amicable environment.

How can a person identify if a bald white person is a racist skinhead or not unless they make an effort to integrate?

Could this type of proposal be brought forth the European Council? This example is for illustrative purposes obviously but where does the profiling of Muslim women end especially when most of these people in this thread aren't providing resources for them to use and are ignoring a Muslim woman in this thread sharing her firsthand accounts.

Are people invested in helping women or do they just want to feel good about themselves?

Does it obscure their identity? No? Then why ban it?

 

[wartama]

I think this is a good decision.

In my view, the main difference between American an Europe, is that in Europe we don't let religion dictate morals. We try to dictate our own morals as a society, and have European values that are always going to be above any religious values that you might have.

You can be a Christian but if you morals contradict European values, then your religion has to adapt to society, not the other way around. You can be a Muslim but if you morals contradicts European values, then your religion has to adapt to society, not the other way around. And so on with every religion.

As a society, we are trying to agree in what those European values are. And I think that's a good thing. American society gives too much power to religion freedom - so much, that you have billionaire priests, the ten commandments in the senate of some states, the name of good on your money, some states negating birth control or abortion based on religious beliefs...

I do think woman wearing niqab is clearly a sign of oppresion. The only reason why any person would want to wear such a thing is because they have been brainwashed to make them think that's what they are supposed to do. And they are threatened with exclusion if they don't. As a society, we can't be OK with that.

I mean, you can say they wear it because they want to, but then, why is that only some muslim women wear it? How come no other women from different religions wear them? Maybe it's because it's not that awesome wearing it, and you only do it if you are brainwashed to believe that if you don't, you are going to hell and stuff like that.

Again, let me quote this for you

I hope you don't call yourself a feminist while talking about the decisions muslim women make for themselves regarding their religious identity and expression without knowing and speaking to one yourself.

And this is for everyone talking about how our religious belief is oppressing us: we have thought long and hard about our beliefs. We thought long and hard about the meaning of our life. We have thought long and hard about what we want to do in our life. We weighed the risks and rewards and continuously do so from the moment we wake up to the moment we sleep. Each of us came into the conclusion that she deems is the right way to live, and is concerning us and each of us alone. We do not need white warriors to show us the way. We do not need your opinion of how we have internalized oppression and how we don't know better because we live through oppression day and night, inside and outside, that we recognize it in all its hideous forms. We do not have a safe space in this world, because whether we wear the niqab, the hijab or none, the sole fact that we are women, muslims and sometimes brown or black means we are not worth safety and recognition in most parts of the world (seriously, is there anywhere in this world that accepts someone like me?). And if we happen to be queer, than we are dead. Our safe space is our religion. We do not need the white colonist rhetoric of saving us from ourselves, we have already done that ourselves. Only ensure us physical and financial safety, thank you very much.

If you have no power to do that, shut up and leave us fight the good fight ourselves.

 

[Q8D3vil]

I dont think any women would want to wear this in their own free will.
But as people mentioned here it will just limit what little of freedom they have left. But i can understand why would they want to do it from security pov.

 

[Khaz]

I'm happy to be proven wrong on this.

Can you link to some programs that are currently running to provide education on the subject?

Here's a French example: http://www.fci-asso.org/index.php/association/
There are a lot of them, but you need to google in the local languages.

 

[RustyNails]

I didnt say your examples were burqa? I mean, youre the one bringing up irrelevant pictures in a thread discussing Niqabs which are Muslim clothing. I brought up an example that is atleast relevant to Muslims, that is the burqa. You brought up an example relevant to Indian culture.

Its literally irrelevant.

What I'm bringing up is entirely relevant.

Niqab is not a noun. Anything that can cover your face is a veil. I brought up women who are not Muslim wearing a veil, and there is no religion forcing them to wear the veil. Therefore, your initial claim that niqab is entirely religious in nature is ludicrous and unfounded.

 

[Miles Quaritch]

And you think that people who want to enforce the Niqab will let women access education, hotlines, or help groups?

Thats a bit naive.

The same people some of these women are now forced to rely on for everything when before they could leave the house and try to integrate in their own way.

 

[cwmartin]

This is a discussion on a forum with both men and women. We are all relaying information, I'm not a woman and you (I guess, can be wrong) is not a muslim. And niether of us, as one person, can speak for thousands. The best we can do is listen to other people and bring their statements and opinions into this, and of course give our own take; thats the point of the message board. So yes I think I am absolutely allowed to participate, if you are; if any of us are.

And instead of discussing the points at hand or the arguments I make (all which i have not come up on my own but mostly from a female, liberal, muslim women that has written many articles in swedish press; instead you go at me for being a man. Seriously, if you dont want to discuss, dont post.

You're all for discourse except from the people this directly effects. They have no choice in this matter, thats the problem.

Remove their choice, all in the name of freedom, how wonderful.

 

[Muffin1611]

And you think that people who want to enforce the Niqab will let women access education, hotlines, or help groups?

Thats a bit naive.

Improving access to it is kind of possible if you fund it better?

What is naive is taking any possibility to access that for a whole lot of women away by essentially forcing them to stay home.

 

[Khaz]

Can you provide evidence this law will help anyone?

No, I cannot prove future events.

However I agree with the conclusions of the court, which you can find here http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-175636 (already linked in the first page).

 

[Vicetrailia]

well I'm not entirely convinced the ban is a good thing either. my main concern is that it's too broad of an issue to combat with a blunt instrument like a ban. the risk is that some will feel entitled to point out and "punish" women who go against the ban and wear these garments anyway which absolutely isn't acceptable.

Oh okay, I agree with you.

 

[Sean C]

Talking about protecting women by limiting women's religious freedom in a case that affects nobody else is a contradiction in terms.

 

[BreezyLimbo]

What I'm bringing up is entirely relevant.

Niqab is not a noun. Anything that can cover your face is a veil. I brought up women who are not Muslim wearing a veil, and there is no religion forcing them to wear the veil. Therefore, your initial claim that niqab is entirely religious in nature is ludicrous and unfounded.

The difference is, as shown in your examples, is that a Saris tends to be transparent and it isnt a requirement to cover the face, it can be styled to be draped around the head.

A Niqab on the other hand MUST always cover everything in public.

Like I said. Nice try, but your example is irrelevant.

 

[Somnid]

What about Facekinis? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facekini

 

[CSJ]

But what if we came to Europe precisely because we were persecuted because of our religious expression and when they touted Religious Freedom™ we fully believed it? I'm talking about myself here, but I fully respect a culture if they don't feel comfortable with what I'm wearing, and in cases where I feel the discomfort I try to either be super friendly or minimize the stay. But when there are laws in place saying I can't go to the local market, can't go to uni (where they're super chill around me, I love that place), can't go to the hospital and can't get a job just because of something I CHOSE to wear, and the HUMAN RIGHTS COURT OF ALL THINGS gives the okay? No, I'm not respecting that. It's hypocrisy, discriminatory and not moral at all.

You'll probably find most of us have had to follow clothing guidelines for most of our lives already. Also, choice. Isn't that the operative word here? Your choice. Are we talking about the OP's full-face veil here?

I don't get to choose what I wear at work entirely, it has to conform to a standard and because of my choice to get a tattoo I must always wear a full-sleeve'd shirt, again I'm okay with that because I knew this would be a thing getting it.

Wanting to actually cover your face and carry on as is, if that's what we are talking about where I live is pretty much a no-no; more in some places than others. I feel amongst accepting other peoples beliefs and culture from another place is a thing we should all aspire to do but some things might be against some of our own norms? Is that the right word?

 

[Shiggy]

The same people some of these women are now forced to rely on for everything when before they could leave the house and try to integrate in their own way.

"Integrate in their own way" sounds like a euphemism for not integrating at all but at least being able to go out for shopping and meeting others with a veil. Full-face veils are a major hindrance to integration in Western countries; they pretty much say "I don't want to be one of you".

Regardless of the ban, for which I see very practical issues in reality, wearing a full-face veil is certainly not beneficial to integration. I share the same concern regarding the issues arising from the ban that you mention though.

 

[Soran]

They don't care. We know it, they know it.

Muslim women should be seen (without the hijab of course; they must be beautiful under that tent, why won't their husbands and dads let us see them, dammit) but should not be heard. Shit what, did she talk?! La La La, I didn't hear, I love all women, they should have freedom, we're helping them, La La La. Did she go? Phew, now I can talk all I want.

Muslim women are oppressed and fo-

Question. Is there a reason why only one gender wear it?

 

[BreezyLimbo]

The same people some of these women are now forced to rely on for everything when before they could leave the house and try to integrate in their own way.

And like I mentioned, that is not exclusive to the Muslim religion. Husbands restricting who a wife can talk to or where they can go isnt exclusive to Islam. It happens in the west as well.

The point is, if a person is wearing a Niqab due to their current environmental pressures, chances are they never had the freedom to look for help in any meaningful capacity, and even without the ban, they still probably wouldnt be able to look for help.

 

[Matt]

Because women who wear full face veils aren't already restricted on what they can do?

okay sure

They are, by choice. If it is not by choice, that is another issue entirely.

All this decision does is remove any choice from the equation.

 

[Zvonimir Boban]

I dont think any women would want to wear this in their own free will.
But as people mentioned here it will just limit what little of freedom they have left. But i can understand why would they want to do it from security pov.

Apart from all the women who do choose to wear it of their own free will, sure.

That's quite the claim

Is it really though? It's like Tommy Robinson and his fellow EDL troglodytes being up in arms about how Sharia law oppresses women. They're not feminists, they don't give a fuck about women, it's just a convenient excuse to have a moan about Muslims.

If people were genuinely worried about the well-being of oppressed Muslim women then they'd be pouring money into ways to help them rather than introducing legislation that alienates Muslims in general.

It's not like we don't already have people whose job it is to help deal with domestic violence and abusive relationships already, why not focus on helping those people do their jobs more effectively?

But nah, we won't see niqabs on the street so well done everybody! We've ended oppression! Aren't we so progressive!

This is just a case of out of sight, out of mind.

 

[elyetis]

I agree with this.

That being said, I do think it's inherently a bad law which shouldn't exist.

What I mean by those two opposite statement is that I do think in the current context that it can help the society. But that if ( and hopefully "when" ) things get better that law shouldn't exist because at some point it would impact negatively people who wear that as an educated/personnal choice more than it bring a positive to the society.

 

[Horp]

You're all for discourse except from the people this directly effects. They have no choice in this matter, thats the problem.

Remove their choice, all in the name of freedom, how wonderful.

Seriously? Are you saying the opression that muslim women had fazed due to not even being able to show themselves in public is not people being -directly effected-? Are you kidding me?

Removing the choice is like removing the caste system. You know that many many people of the very low castes in hindu societies honestly believe they deserve to not own anything and be worth nil. The religion is designed (like most if not all religions) as a means of control; control over poor people, women and minorities.

 

[sechsterangriff]

Naive question. Why not just wear a hijab?

 

[trineo_feo]

Again, let me quote this for you

I dont' know, man. I don't agree.

First, even if you say you want to be oppressed, you are still oppressed. "No, but I want to be oppressed" is not a good enough reason to let people be oppressed. For me, having to hide your whole body just because you are a woman is a form of oppression. A person saying they want to be oppressed has been brainwashed and needs help - it's not something we should be OK with just because it's a form of religion.

I know it's not the same case, but if a woman wants to go through genital mutilation because her religion says so and she feels religion is her "safe space", we still shouldn't allow it. That person needs help and orientation. I don't give a fuck if you call it a white-centric point of view or a colonist rethoric or whatever. We, as a society have agreed that it is wrong. We limit that person's freedom to do that. Same thing that just happened with niqab.

The most confusing part is that then you talk about feminism and being queer, and how religion is your safe space for that. I mean....religion is going to protect you from discrimination for being queer or a feminist? What?

 

[Kinyou]

Is it really though? It's like Tommy Robinson and his fellow EDL troglodytes being up in arms about how Sharia law oppresses women. They're not feminists, they don't give a fuck about women, it's just a convenient excuse to have a moan about Muslims.

If people were genuinely worried about the well-being of oppressed Muslim women then they'd be pouring money into ways to help them rather than introducing legislation that alienates Muslims in general.

It's not like we don't already have people whose job it is to help deal with domestic violence and abusive relationships already, why not focus on helping those people do their jobs more effectively?

But nah, we won't see niqabs on the street so well done everybody! We've ended oppression! Aren't we so progressive!

This is just a case of out of sight, out of mind.

Of course are there people who'll just use this as an excuse but I have hard time believing that this goes for everyone who supports this ban. I don't recall the European Court of Human rights being anti-women for example.

 

[Tuck]

I hope you don't call yourself a feminist while talking about the decisions muslim women make for themselves regarding their religious identity and expression without knowing and speaking to one yourself.

And this is for everyone talking about how our religious belief is oppressing us: we have thought long and hard about our beliefs. We thought long and hard about the meaning of our life. We have thought long and hard about what we want to do in our life. We weighed the risks and rewards and continuously do so from the moment we wake up to the moment we sleep. Each of us came into the conclusion that she deems is the right way to live, and is concerning us and each of us alone. We do not need white warriors to show us the way. We do not need your opinion of how we have internalized oppression and how we don't know better because we live through oppression day and night, inside and outside, that we recognize it in all its hideous forms. We do not have a safe space in this world, because whether we wear the niqab, the hijab or none, the sole fact that we are women, muslims and sometimes brown or black means we are not worth safety and recognition in most parts of the world (seriously, is there anywhere in this world that accepts someone like me?). And if we happen to be queer, than we are dead. Our safe space is our religion. We do not need the white colonist rhetoric of saving us from ourselves, we have already done that ourselves. Only ensure us physical and financial safety, thank you very much.

If you have no power to do that, shut up and leave us fight the good fight ourselves.

Your post offers a solid rebuttal against the argument of "its oppressive" though frankly I think you underestimate the impact of internalized oppression over years of being told that the niqab is required. But I digress - that isn't what this post is about. Other posts have covered my stance on that well enough.

Unfortunately, this goes beyond just women, because women do not exist within a vacuum. They, like everyone else, are part of a shared society. To me it comes down to, do we want a society where certain members - specifically women - cannot be identified at all? Is that a standard we are collectively ok with? I'm not. It isn't right.

GAF likes to peddle the idea that "You can wear whatever you want without restrictions and no one can judge or tell you otherwise." This is naive nonsense. We are social creatures and we have social constructs, and they do matter. Certainly, sometimes this goes too far (like tattoos, which can be seen as counter-culture even though they are increasingly more mainstream), but Id say there is a reasonable limit and the niqab is really far beyond it. Just as how you don't see people walking around naked, you shouldn't see people covered from head to toe, with the exception of halloween or going to comic-con. The fact is, everything we are allowed to do in our society has reasonable limits.

I already know that someone will write a counter to the above argument, saying that women in our own society used to be required to cover up, and it was only over time that women pushed boundaries - making other people uncomfortable in the process. So why was that ok yet here I am arguing against a niqab? Again it comes down to reasonable boundaries. The hijab is fine - if people are uncomfortable by that then too bad. But the niqab takes things to the extreme, and thats the problem. As with many things in life, taking things to extremes is wrong.

So, I'm glad the niqab doesn't make you feel oppressed. But it does make me, and others, uncomfortable, and I think in this case our discomfort is understandable. And since we exist within a shared space, yes, I think that matters. Countries do need to bend a little to the cultures of immigrants. But immigrants also need to bend to the cultures of the countries they are moving to. This is an area I do not think western societies should be giving an inch of ground on. Modesty is fine, absurdity is not.

 

[BreezyLimbo]

Removing the choice is like removing the caste system. You know that many many people of the very low castes in hindu societies honestly believe they deserve to not own anything and be worth nil. The religion is designed (like most if not all religions) as a means of control; control over poor people, women and minorities.

Oh boy. This reminds me of that nonsense. I wonder if there would be defenders to the outlaw of considering others "untouchables" within the Indian society? I mean, we have to respect their beliefs right?

 

[Khaz]

But what if we came to Europe precisely because we were persecuted because of our religious expression and when they touted Religious Freedom™ we fully believed it? I'm talking about myself here, but I fully respect a culture if they don't feel comfortable with what I'm wearing, and in cases where I feel the discomfort I try to either be super friendly or minimize the stay. But when there are laws in place saying I can't go to the local market, can't go to uni (where they're super chill around me, I love that place), can't go to the hospital and can't get a job just because of something I CHOSE to wear, and the HUMAN RIGHTS COURT OF ALL THINGS gives the okay? No, I'm not respecting that. It's hypocrisy, discriminatory and not moral at all.

You're being over dramatic. You stopped at "Religious Freedom™" without reading the fine prints: you are free to believe, you can do whatever in the privacy of your own house, you are guaranteed a lack of oppression for your beliefs. However your beliefs don't grant you the right to do whatever, namely in regards of this law, covering your face entirely and concealing your identity.

This is not a negation of your religion. You are still free to believe, and have plenty of ways to express your beliefs in public. Covering your face just isn't one of them.

And there are no laws saying that Muslims can't go to uni or the hospital or whatever. Chill.

 

[SilentRob]

So those women just won't go outside anymore because it's against their religious belief. Great solution!

 

[Deepwater]

I dont' know, man. I don't agree.

First, even if you say you want to be oppressed, you are still oppressed. "No, but I want to be oppressed" is not a good enough reason to let people be oppressed. For me, having to hide your whole body just because you are a woman is a form of oppression. A person saying they want to be oppressed has been brainwashed and needs help - it's not something we should be OK with just because it's a form of religion.

I know it's not the same case, but if a woman wants to go through genital mutilation because her religion says so and she feels religion is her "safe space", we still shouldn't allow it. That person needs help and orientation. I don't give a fuck if you call it a white-centric point of view or a colonist rethoric or whatever. We, as a society have agreed that it is wrong. We limit that person's freedom to do that. Same thing that just happened with niqab.

The most confusing part is that then you talk about feminism and being queer, and how religion is your safe space for that. I mean....religion is going to protect you from discrimination for being queer or a feminist? What?

I can't imagine how full of yourself you have to be to tell someone that they don't know what's best for them

 

[cyberheater]

I'm more then okay with this. Fucking stupid religious dress laws.

 

[jugo]

Well, statistically we'd also have lots of religious women wearing it too right?

Look it's no secret that Islamically, men and women have different Awrah's i.e. areas that should be covered up and this is not an alien concept even in modern society which is why, for example, men going topless on the streets isn't as frowned upon as if it were a woman doing the same.

Men and women are obviously not the same in this regard. The Niqab isn't a religious obligation and covering the face isn't a 'Fard' thus it's no secret as to why it's only a minority of Muslim women doing so.

Anyhow, I digress. Men are expected to cover up a certain way and so are women. Whether women go 'beyond' this and feel comfortable doing so is their choice as is a Muslim woman doing less. Just because a woman doesn't wear a hijab it doesn't mean they're any less pious or less religious. People have different ways of expressing piety and everyone's on their own personal religious and spiritual journey. As I say all the time, Muslims aren't a monolith, and religiously women and men have different obligations and duties.

For example, to answer your point in a different way, if a man always go to the mosque, perhaps that would signify a level of piety - so statistically, you should expect a women to go to the mosque a lot of the time as well? Well, no because religiously women aren't obliged to go the mosque in the same way as men.

Hope you get what I'm trying to say.

I get what you're saying, but I don't see how that makes it any better. You seem rather indifferent to the fact that there are a set of rules telling women they have to cover up innocuous parts of their body for the sake of modesty. And you're indefferent because only some women choose to follow these rules? You don't question that at all?

 

[BreezyLimbo]

So those women just won't go outside anymore because it's against their religious belief. Great solution!

And whose fault is that

The ones who enforce those types of beliefs
Or the society which bans oppressive beliefs

(the fault lies in the ones enforcing those types of beliefs.)

 

[Muffin1611]

And whose fault is that

(the fault lies in the ones enforcing those types of beliefs.)

It doesn't matter whose fault it is (when looking at the effects I mean), it matters how we best prevent it from happening in the first place. This is not it.

 

[gutter_trash]

So those women just won't go outside anymore because it's against their religious belief. Great solution!

puts into question the belief system

 

[Zvonimir Boban]

And whose fault is that

(the fault lies in the ones enforcing those types of beliefs.)

So rather than focus on going after the people doing the oppressing, we introduce laws that target the victims of oppression as well as restricting what women can choose to wear of their own free will.

Man, we are such an enlightened society.

 

[Fantastapotamus]

They are, by choice. If it is not by choice, that is another issue entirely.

All this decision does is remove any choice from the equation.

Yeah, that's what laws usually do

 

[Muffin1611]

puts into question the belief system

Dude, stop using this topic for expressing your wish of the world to be religion-free. The law will have dire, real life consequences.

 

[Deepwater]

So, I'm glad the niqab doesn't make you feel oppressed. But it does make me, and others, uncomfortable, and I think in this case our discomfort is understandable. And since we exist within a shared space, yes, I think that matters. Countries do need to bend a little to the cultures of immigrants. But immigrants also need to bend to the cultures of the countries they are moving to. This is an area I do not think western societies should be giving an inch of ground on. Modesty is fine, absurdity is not.

This line of thinking is a slippery slope. Again, you can be muslim, just not too muslim. Because your entire way of life that does not affect me but your PRESENCE makes me uncomfortable and because of that you must change yourself so that I can feel comfortable, despite how uncomfortable it makes you.

 

[Audioboxer]

there is something seriously messed up in the religion/community if the alternative to the ban is not leaving the house?

It's like a sort of reverse-victim blaming that goes on. The misogynistic man/family are demanding a woman needs to be covered to go outside, and the response from some "in favour" of the full-face veils almosts parrots that by saying "these women need to cover up to be able to go out anyway... so checkmate". Apart from taking a moral/ethical stance on a piece of oppressive garb with a bloody and cruel history, the argument of education isn't an easy one either. How many of the women who go about dressing like this are even likely to be allowed on a University course, let alone a course about feminism/equality/self-confidence/etc? Or to read books on the same notions of equality and empowerment? Or watch anything on TV? Or to take anything on board about female equality that we try to preach in our societies?

People like to say "education" at times, with their point stopping there. Saying it isn't offering any advocation for how you expect to change things. Most of these Western societies are rich with opportunity/education/freedoms backed by Government support, yet some still carry on with some of the most oppressive public displays possible. That is also why the state is getting involved. As it's public, and it's when you're out and around other citizens. Societies can and will make moral/ethical judgements on what they want to be going on in public spheres. There are advocates out there wanting to free the nipple for women to be topless everywhere men can be in public, and then there are advocates out there apparently saying full-face/body coverings are true freedom in society because of choice. You might say you can support both things, but there is some irony in wanting women to be free with their body and not victim-blamed by men, and then wanting women to do things that show the complete opposite. It's messy, complex and ultimately decisions are going to be made by Governments as there is no such thing as the weird "total free societies" some posts in here are alluding to. That's anarchy/chaos if there is absolutely zero law/Government intervention over the people's actions/decisions/choices.

These debates routinely go around in circles because of how contested they are, but ultimately different places in the world may try different things to show what they value/want to tolerant as a nation. I guess we'll just have to see as history progresses what leads to the equal societies where we do not see women behaving in ways that men do not under the guise of "true freedom". I accept the methods of a ban are not going to be agreed on unanimously, but what does cause confusion for me is how people who claim to be advocates of equality of men and women cannot even give an inch in these debates to accepting the history of the burqa/full-face veil and how it must feel physically and mentally to wear one every single day of the year. Honestly, just sit back for 5 minutes and think about your life over the last 12 months. Now think about how every one of the days for 365 days would have been in full head/body coverings. Before anyone comes back saying "I just wouldn't choose to wear it", my point is more to illustrate the mental and physical impact. This is one of the most public AND extreme forms of suppression/oppression of women, which is precisely why it garners much public debate, scepticism and is most likely ending up with nations/Governments and courts of Law acting. It's unprecedented times in some ways for many societies and nations which have spent quite a few years now trying to prop up equality and freedom for women to be the same as men, now getting challenged as more women are going about cut off from public society in a way a man never appears to be.

 

[TeddyBoy]

I can't imagine how full of yourself you have to be to tell someone that they don't know what's best for them

People do this all the time, if someone is too close to a situation to objectively view it then it is wise for someone else to give an opinion on it.

 

[GhostTrick]

So those women just won't go outside anymore because it's against their religious belief. Great solution!

Is it really though ? A hijab is enough and legal.

 

[Sean C]

Oh boy. This reminds me of that nonsense. I wonder if there would be defenders to the outlaw of considering others "untouchables" within the Indian society? I mean, we have to respect their beliefs right?

A person can choose to abide by such a religious principle if they wish. That is not the same thing as the state imposing or allowing others to impose a caste system on people who don't want to be part of it.

Thus, the veil ban hinges on the extremely patronizing construction that Muslim women can't choose for themselves and need to be forcibly deprogrammed.

 

[cwmartin]

Seriously? Are you saying the opression that muslim women had fazed due to not even being able to show themselves in public is not people being -directly effected-? Are you kidding me?

Removing the choice is like removing the caste system. You know that many many people of the very low castes in hindu societies honestly believe they deserve to not own anything and be worth nil. The religion is designed (like most if not all religions) as a means of control; control over poor people, women and minorities.

Why does the niqab wearing population of Europe have no voice in this matter? That's my concern. You are misunderstanding my position that the niqab has not been a traditional tool of oppression, and patriarchal control, that is not up for debate.

 

[Muffin1611]

A hijab is enough

The husband might disagree.

 

[Zvonimir Boban]

This line of thinking is a slippery slope. Again, you can be muslim, just not too muslim. Because your entire way of life that does not affect me but your PRESENCE makes me uncomfortable and because of that you must change yourself so that I can feel comfortable, despite how uncomfortable it makes you.

Where would women and minorities be without being constantly told how to look, act, think and behave by people who 'know better'?

 

[NewDust]

They don't care. We know it, they know it.

Muslim women should be seen (without the hijab of course; they must be beautiful under that tent, why won't their husbands and dads let us see them, dammit) but should not be heard. Shit what, did she talk?! La La La, I didn't hear, I love all women, they should have freedom, we're helping them, La La La. Did she go? Phew, now I can talk all I want.

Muslim women are oppressed and fo-

Apart from all the women who do choose to wear it of their own free will, sure.



Is it really though? It's like Tommy Robinson and his fellow EDL troglodytes being up in arms about how Sharia law oppresses women. They're not feminists, they don't give a fuck about women, it's just a convenient excuse to have a moan about Muslims.

If people were genuinely worried about the well-being of oppressed Muslim women then they'd be pouring money into ways to help them rather than introducing legislation that alienates Muslims in general.

It's not like we don't already have people whose job it is to help deal with domestic violence and abusive relationships already, why not focus on helping those people do their jobs more effectively?

But nah, we won't see niqabs on the street so well done everybody! We've ended oppression! Aren't we so progressive!

This is just a case of out of sight, out of mind.

Alright, you two at least have made me question my own "closed mindness". I realize integration is a two way street, and not just a "you come here, so assimilate" affair. I probably shouldn't speak for people who I have never spoken with. And while I consider myself progressive, no doubt I am also 'white' knighting.

It's weird to realize that even though I am for a more open society for all cultures, my personal believes about what society should be are at odds with that.

 

[BreezyLimbo]

So rather than focus on going after the people doing the oppressing, we introduce laws that target the victims of oppression as well as restricting what women can choose to wear of their own free will.

Man, we are such an enlightened society.

Because thw reality is women who were forced to wear a Niqab had very little freedom to begin with. Have you heard of battered wife syndrome? The point being that even if they could contact help, chances are they wouldnt. And that is something that cant be easily solved. That is something that even plagues western society- despite laws against harming others, its something that is hard to stop.

As for those who wear it with a choice in the matter..personally I cant see what hoops theyve jumped through to justify wearing a garment meant to oppress.

 

[daxy]

A person can choose to abide by such a religious principle if they wish. That is not the same thing as the state imposing or allowing others to impose a caste system on people who don't want to be part of it.

Thus, the veil ban hinges on the extremely patronizing construction that Muslim women can't choose for themselves and need to be forcibly deprogrammed.

I think you're being very naive believing that women can always simply choose not to abide by these customs, much like women don't choose to have their generals mutilated as is the custom in certain areas of the world.