Is banning the Bhurka the same as arresting suntanned women?

[Giliell]

Well, I've been thinking about this for a while now and since we have the news item and the blog entry I decided to open this thread.
Don't get me wrong, I think a Bhurka is an abominable item that stands for the most sexist version of islam.
I also fully agree that your face has to be recognizable when you enter a bank, post office or drive a car.

But the current discussion, to me, here and elsewhere, isn't about good secular reasons why a face should be visible, but about a position of cultural supremacy and of plain religious discrimination.

We complain loudly and justly if women are arrested or discriminated against if they dare to show as much as a colloarbone in Iran and elsewhere. That it is discriminating against women and that it takes away their human rights.
But why is forcing women to UNdress acceptable while forcing them to dress isn't?
One of the main arguments against the Bhurka is also, that it displays values that go against those of our western democracies.
So, does freedom of speech only apply to those who agree with us?

And another, very important point is, IMO, that banning the bhurka will not liberate these women or solve the problem. It will only make it less visible, which is only the same as go away if you're three years old.
In most cases, it will mean that those women will then not be allowed to leave the house anymore. Any chance for them to come into contact with our culture, values and society, to gove them access to education and emancipation will be gone. So in the end, those women, "in whose name" the ban is made will pay the price. The "mobile prison" bhurka will be exchanged for the stationary prison of the flat.
So how can anybody claim that such a ban is made for those women to benefit?

 

[Eidolon]

Re: Is banning the Bhurka the same as arresting suntanned wo

I don't view it as being a cultural issue so much as just a speech issue. Point being, in a free society woman should be allowed to go where ever they want without having to wear it regardless of what their husbands have to say about it. So I don't see banning it as something that would inhibit them from being out in the world. If their husbands try to prohibit them from leaving without it, then it becomes a domestic issue or some kind of spousal abuse which can be easily solved with police intervention or just beating the shit out of the guy with any household utensil.

However, I see banning it as in impediment on free speech. Regardless of how the rest of society may feel about it, there may actually be a few squirrel fucking nuts woman who actually like to wear it for whatever reason. So it would be infringing on their rights to wear what they want. I agree they should have to take off the hood when entering a public space but in the outside world it doesn't really matter.

Sticky situation, I would love to see it banned just because its one of those stupid ass impediments to the advancement of the human race things that should never have existed in the first place. But then again, there are alot of stupid ass impediments to the advancement of the human race that should be banned, but to do so would be a violation of free speech and all that neat stuff.

 

[monitoradiation]

Re: Is banning the Bhurka the same as arresting suntanned wo

I don't support banning the burqa just like I don't support banning nude beaches.

There're certain situations where it is demonstrable that people aren't taken seriously when they're dressed in a certain way. For example, showing up in your undergarments for your interview. Now, I'm not saying that the perception of you by what you wear is not subjective - it is. But appropriate attire must be in the context of the function you wish your presence to perform.

Therefore, at an interview, what you want is to show that you fit into the company's culture, and that you respect them, so you wear suit and ties accordingly if the company's dress code happens to be suit and tie. At a bank, you want to be known that you are there to do transparent business transactions and to do that you need to be identified. So you don't wear a balaclava. It's really that simple.

I'm all for choosing to wear whatever it is people want. They just shouldn't expect us to oblige when we don't treat them the way they demand of us.

 

[Case]

Re: Is banning the Bhurka the same as arresting suntanned wo

Sorry Giliell, but most of your post... I just don't get. But maybe it only seems incoherent to me because it's late and I'm tired, so...
I'll just answer what I do understand:

So how can anybody claim that such a ban is made for those women to benefit?

Ultimately, they have to free themselves. If they want to, that is. Maybe some of them like to live in islam - submission. We can't know. What we do know is that wearing the burka is breaking the law. If you have an idea on how to improve the situation though, please tell.

 

[Aught3]

Re: Is banning the Bhurka the same as arresting suntanned wo

Is banning the Bhurka the same as arresting suntanned women?

I would say there are a few relevant differences. For one a slight suntan is an indication of health, women wearing burkas can suffer from vitamin D deficiency as they never get any sun. There is also the reason for the two laws, one is to promote control and repression the other is trying for liberation and equality.

But the current discussion, to me, here and elsewhere, isn't about good secular reasons why a face should be visible, but about a position of cultural supremacy and of plain religious discrimination.

The burka is banned at Cairo university (a ruling made by the top Egyptian religious authority), it is also banned in the public institutions of secular Turkey, and - the big one - banned at Mecca. Mecca is a place were non-Muslims aren't allowed to go, it's one of their holiest places and yet this so-called cloth of 'religious expression' is not allowed to be worn. Any moderate Islamic scholar would tell you that the burka does not appear in the Koran or the Hadith, there is perhaps a requirement to cover the head under a strict interpretation of 'modesty' but the feet, hands, and faces of believers are all permitted to be visible.

The burka enforcement comes from unique Saudi mix of political Islam, a mix which they are trying to export to all corners of the globe. They make their women walk around in mobile isolation units severely curtailing their freedom and opportunities to interact with other people. Of course our culture is superior to that. Equal treatment of the sexes was something many people for many years fought very hard for. I think it's worth giving up a little freedom, the freedom to wear the burka, in exchange for preserving that equality for all members of our society.

I do share your worry that some women may be kept inside rather than being allowed out. But the corollary is that some women will be allowed out without the restrictive face covering and will be able to participate more fully in society. Given time the burka may become seen as unnecessary by Muslim men, one way that won't happen is by allowing Muslim women to be isolated, even when they have to leave the house.

 

[Rivius]

Re: Is banning the Bhurka the same as arresting suntanned wo

But why is forcing women to UNdress acceptable while forcing them to dress isn't?

Seriously?





The thing is, where as being too naked isn't a potential threat to anyone really, a woman covering her entire face can be. It's that simple. We don't always have to look at things with equal rights back and forth, especially when they have different implications.

 

[Andiferous]

Re: Is banning the Bhurka the same as arresting suntanned wo

My thinking is:

How would forbidding women from wearing Bhurkas be any nobler than forcing women to hide their faces?

People can't be liberated by creating and enforcing a law that controls what they do. These women need to have opportunity to make their own decisions, and this is the issue under contention. If the law makes these choices for them, the law is no better than others who might force them to wear bhurkas in the first place. And agreed with Case, some do actually choose to wear them, as is their right.

 

[Case]

Re: Is banning the Bhurka the same as arresting suntanned wo

My thinking is:

How would forbidding women from wearing Bhurkas be any nobler than forcing women to hide their faces?

People can't be liberated by creating and enforcing a law that controls what they do. These women need to have opportunity to make their own decisions, and this is the issue under contention. If the law makes these choices for them, the law is no better than others who might force them to wear bhurkas in the first place. And agreed with Case, some do actually choose to wear them, as is their right.

Firstly, that's not what I'm saying. Some may choose to wear them, but if they do, they have to obey the law. I strongly disagree with the notion that whether or not to wear a burka wherever should be up to the potential wearer. I don't want ANYONE obstructing their view in such a way when riding a car, for instance, as it would pose a hazard to themselves and other commuters. Laws are there for a reason, and that reason is not to create for others the liberty to do as they please. Whether the laws are sensible is another issue. I could not care less what these women wear at home, or on their walk to the supermarket. But there are limits. If they need to identify themselves, they most certainly have to take off that cap. We can't wear masks as we please (for a reason), so they don't get to do it either. Integration is not about letting everyone do what they find is their tradition. That's called marginalisation.

 

[Andiferous]

Re: Is banning the Bhurka the same as arresting suntanned wo

Sure. If it's a studied and proven safety concern. And for instance, a driver's license and other identification often requires the bhurka is removed.

Banning it in schools, universities and other institutions is tantamount to religious persecution, though, and does little more for the rights of the wearer. As Giliell pointed out, this sort of thing is just more likely to force these women out of public life.

 

[Pulsar]

Re: Is banning the Bhurka the same as arresting suntanned wo

But why is forcing women to UNdress acceptable while forcing them to dress isn't?

Is it acceptable to walk completely naked down the street? No, we have a public dress code, and while naturists may protest against it if they wish (freedom of speech), it's not going to change (alas ). In short: we all follow a dress code, without even realizing it.

Some people seem to think that 'freedom of speech' means 'doing whatever the hell I please'. It doesn't. We live in a society, and our actions are limited by the law. Laws which we, by means of our politicians, create. As such, it is our right (and even our duty) to impose certain rules, which define our identity. Inevitably, some of those rules will conflict with the cultural values of others. Too bad for them. In a democracy, majority rules. I am very much a multiculturalist, but there are boundaries, and everyone has to give and take. There may be many laws I disagree with, but I have to oblige them nonetheless. That's what a society is: it's not a loose collection of individuals, it's a community wherein people interact.

In most cases, it will mean that those women will then not be allowed to leave the house anymore.

Possibly, but should that be a reason to tolerate bhurkas? In that way, you implicitly approve of this practice. As western citizens, they need to adapt. Freedom of religion? Sure. Sharia law or other extremes? No.

Unlike scarves, bhurkas are far more than an expression of religion. What bothers me is not them being a symbol of repression, but a symbol of separation. A bhurka is a statement, saying "I don't want to (or I'm not allowed to) communicate with you". In that way, women who wear bhurkas exclude themselves in a large part from our society, our community, and that cannot be tolerated.

 

[Squagnut]

Re: Is banning the Bhurka the same as arresting suntanned wo

Giliell, it isn't about forcing women to undress. It's about allowing women to choose how to dress.

 

[Giliell]

Re: Is banning the Bhurka the same as arresting suntanned wo

Sorry, didn't mean to be a hit and run, but life hit and keeps me running.
I will comment and respond when things have calmed down

 

[Worldquest]

Re: Is banning the Bhurka the same as arresting suntanned wo

People should wear what they like, and the only people who should decide what to allow on their premises or property should be the owners. Other than that, do what you like.

Besides, the reason why burkas are being banned is get the public accustomed to being told how not to dress in public, and it's not about burkas, it's about surveillence, and it's to stop anyone from covering their faces in public. If ten years ago someone was looking at a crystal ball and saw that people are even discussing this, they'd be shocked. And in another few years there will be more little laws and little bans here and there that will transform daily life. It will be the new normality.

 

[Gunboat Diplomat]

Re: Is banning the Bhurka the same as arresting suntanned wo

I'm actually quite appalled by some of the opinions expressed in this thread but it's all a little too much to respond to so I'll just start with this which seems rather representative of what I object to...

But why is forcing women to UNdress acceptable while forcing them to dress isn't?

Is it acceptable to walk completely naked down the street? No, we have a public dress code, and while naturists may protest against it if they wish (freedom of speech), it's not going to change (alas ). In short: we all follow a dress code, without even realizing it.

It's hard to generalize something like that. In Ontario, it's your constitutional right to be topless regardless of your gender. You may not like it but what's the alternative? Telling people what to wear and pretend it's a free country?

Some people seem to think that 'freedom of speech' means 'doing whatever the hell I please'. It doesn't. We live in a society, and our actions are limited by the law. Laws which we, by means of our politicians, create. As such, it is our right (and even our duty) to impose certain rules, which define our identity. Inevitably, some of those rules will conflict with the cultural values of others. Too bad for them. In a democracy, majority rules. I am very much a multiculturalist, but there are boundaries, and everyone has to give and take. There may be many laws I disagree with, but I have to oblige them nonetheless. That's what a society is: it's not a loose collection of individuals, it's a community wherein people interact.

Freedom of speech is literally that: the freedom to express whatever you like. To live in a society, we have laws so that we may live together in this society but we don't restrict speech unless it encroaches upon someone else's freedom. A famous example is that you're not allowed to yell "fire!" in a crowded unless, of course, there really is a fire in that theatre, because doing so is a weapon that hurts people...

The exceptions to freedom of speech are not about identity nor integration. There's no law against being a hermit. There's no law that forces you to even speak the language of your country. Banning the burkha is nothing less than religious discrimination...

Case mentioned that we're not allowed to wear a mask? In what country? People wear masks or the equivalent all the time. How can you ban them and pretend to live in a free society?

In most cases, it will mean that those women will then not be allowed to leave the house anymore.

Possibly, but should that be a reason to tolerate bhurkas? In that way, you implicitly approve of this practice. As western citizens, they need to adapt. Freedom of religion? Sure. Sharia law or other extremes? No.

Unlike scarves, bhurkas are far more than an expression of religion. What bothers me is not them being a symbol of repression, but a symbol of separation. A bhurka is a statement, saying "I don't want to (or I'm not allowed to) communicate with you". In that way, women who wear bhurkas exclude themselves in a large part from our society, our community, and that cannot be tolerated.

What you've said here is utter nonsense...

I tolerate religion but I, in no way, "approve" of it. Tolerance is not approval. Reconsider your position!

Again, your desire for conformity from your citizenry borders on oppression! We can't "tolerate" people not wanting to be part of the community? Which community? Yours? There are many different communities in any given country and by wearing a burkha, she is part of hers... in a way that you (or even I) disapprove but in way that she and her community approves.

Again, there's no law against being a cantankerous hermit or even hating the country you live in. "Separation" is not the issue!

 

[youneac]

Re: Is banning the Bhurka the same as arresting suntanned wo

Let's make this simple (hopefully). The only places where a ban on the burka exists are in muslim countries. No country in the western hemisphere is trying to ban the burka. What is happening is that some countries are drafting or implementing laws or regulations that prohibit hiding your full body in public. This is done for a number of reasons, from the use of public cameras and face recognition software and the simple fact that people feel instinctively uncomfortable when they do not see someone's hands, to the given that the ability to recognize a person is valued in the west and the possibility for criminals to hide from pursuit by donning clothing that makes them unrecognizable. The fact that the burka is affected by this ban is circumstantial, though its increased occurrence most likely is one of the drivers behind such laws.
Dress codes have always existed, either culturally driven or legally enforced. Try walking through any city naked, wearing a bloodstained jumpsuit and balaclava, or with a T-shirt saying "Holocaust Shmolocaust" and you will find that out. The insistence to ignore this fact and claim a right to exception based on some bogus religious pretext is abominable. Just accept that when you enter a region with a different culture it is you who will have to adapt, not demand that the local culture adapts to you. That is why, even though we nag about it, we adhere to local dressing customs when we visit another culture, and it is why we may expect the same from others visiting ours.

 

[Pulsar]

Re: Is banning the Bhurka the same as arresting suntanned wo

It's hard to generalize something like that. In Ontario, it's your constitutional right to be topless regardless of your gender. You may not like it but what's the alternative? Telling people what to wear and pretend it's a free country?

You can walk naked in the streets of Ontario? We have nude beaches, but otherwise you will get arrested for public nudity. You may not like it, but here you can't do whatever you damn well please.

Banning the burkha is nothing less than religious discrimination...

Burkha's aren't even an essential part of islam. We are talking about a ban from public, what people do in their homes is their business. Right now, a law is passed to our senate.

So Gunboat, do you consider every ban religious discrimination? Do you allow female genital cutting? Or does your idea of freedom have limits too?

 

[theatheistguy]

Re: Is banning the Bhurka the same as arresting suntanned wo

It's hard to generalize something like that. In Ontario, it's your constitutional right to be topless regardless of your gender. You may not like it but what's the alternative? Telling people what to wear and pretend it's a free country?

You can walk naked in the streets of Ontario? We have nude beaches, but otherwise you will get arrested for public nudity. You may not like it, but here you can't do whatever you damn well please.

You'll note that public nudity is not mentioned, only toplessness.

 

[Gunboat Diplomat]

Re: Is banning the Bhurka the same as arresting suntanned wo

It's hard to generalize something like that. In Ontario, it's your constitutional right to be topless regardless of your gender. You may not like it but what's the alternative? Telling people what to wear and pretend it's a free country?

You can walk naked in the streets of Ontario? We have nude beaches, but otherwise you will get arrested for public nudity. You may not like it, but here you can't do whatever you damn well please.

I can tell that this is an emotional subject for you since it's clear that you didn't even read my post!

Banning the burkha is nothing less than religious discrimination...

Burkha's aren't even an essential part of islam. We are talking about a ban from public, what people do in their homes is their business. Right now, a law is passed to our senate.

So Gunboat, do you consider every ban religious discrimination? Do you allow female genital cutting? Or does your idea of freedom have limits too?

Perhaps we should be clear: which senate is this?

I don't consider every ban religious discrimination. I don't allow forced female genital cutting, which includes those too young to consent to such an operation. However, if a competent adult submits herself to such a thing, I don't see how we can reasonably stop her. My idea of freedom does have limits and I've already described to you what those limits are (except, of course, that you aren't reading my posts in this thread!). My freedom is limited by your freedom. I cannot be granted the freedom to kill you because that would limit your freedom to live. Our freedoms are tempered by the fact that we're all trying to be free amongst each other...

 

[Aught3]

Re: Is banning the Bhurka the same as arresting suntanned wo

Before this flares up I'll just point out that Pulsar's original point about a dress code was in reference to being naked.

Sarcastic comments don't come across very well in writing.

 

[Gunboat Diplomat]

Re: Is banning the Bhurka the same as arresting suntanned wo

Let's make this simple (hopefully). The only places where a ban on the burka exists are in muslim countries. No country in the western hemisphere is trying to ban the burka. What is happening is that some countries are drafting or implementing laws or regulations that prohibit hiding your full body in public. This is done for a number of reasons, from the use of public cameras and face recognition software and the simple fact that people feel instinctively uncomfortable when they do not see someone's hands, to the given that the ability to recognize a person is valued in the west and the possibility for criminals to hide from pursuit by donning clothing that makes them unrecognizable. The fact that the burka is affected by this ban is circumstantial, though its increased occurrence most likely is one of the drivers behind such laws.

These are astounding apologetics for your state.

Does your government really need to know exactly where you are and what you're doing at all times? Should they have the right to this information? Are you obligated to submit such information?

People feel uncomfortable when I voice my opinion on many subjects, including the untenability of religion. Should this discomfort be reason enough to ban said speech?

Are gloves illegal?

Criminals may use knives to hurt people in unlawful ways (I certainly hope there isn't a means to hurt them in lawful ways!). Is this reason enough to ban knives?

What laws are we discussing in particular? I have trouble believing it's a ban against hiding ones body since that gets done in the dead of winter by pretty much everyone. Even if you aren't going all out and wearing a balaclava, you're doing the same thing when you cover your face with your scarf. How can this really be made illegal?

Are you not afraid of a totalitarian government?

Dress codes have always existed, either culturally driven or legally enforced. Try walking through any city naked, wearing a bloodstained jumpsuit and balaclava, or with a T-shirt saying "Holocaust Shmolocaust" and you will find that out. The insistence to ignore this fact and claim a right to exception based on some bogus religious pretext is abominable. Just accept that when you enter a region with a different culture it is you who will have to adapt, not demand that the local culture adapts to you. That is why, even though we nag about it, we adhere to local dressing customs when we visit another culture, and it is why we may expect the same from others visiting ours.

Understand that the issue is not whether I believe these laws exist for you or that you're obligated to follow said laws. I'm discussing the merits of these laws and whether your government should be enacting them. I'm not suggesting that anyone break the laws of anyone's country...

There are many cultural dress codes but very few are legally enforced (at least, where I am living). You are allowed to break from culture if you desire. How can you do otherwise and pretend to live in a free country? I know I bring up freedom a lot but it is a very important value to me and I'm shocked and awed that it's not to others on this forum!

That you find something abominable is irrelevant. Many people think it's abominable that I think religion is the dumbest thing on Earth yet I have the freedom to both hold that opinion and express it publicly. Why are you so fond of conformity?

As an aside, in the western world (that is, west of the Atlantic!), you may freely walk through the city wearing what looks like a bloodstained jumpsuit (you're not naked if you're wearing a jumpsuit) and balaclava. The police do have a right to stop and question you for suspicious behaviour but if you have a reason for doing this, like filming a movie or it being Halloween, then they can't stop you...