Giliell
New Member
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?
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?