Belgium to ban the Burka [Archive] - Page 2

Viking

04-16-2010, 19:04

When we say "democracy", we genereally refer to everything that makes up our system of government, like parlimentarism, rule of law, etc.

And when did I ever say that banning burkas or whatever is undemocratic? I said that we shouldn't give the mob whatever it wants, like PVC wanted.

Not when I say the word. Never. :inquisitive:

You have implied that it is undemocratic through saying

No, we live in democracies. We are not ruled by the tyranny of the majority, but of utmost respect for minority rights.

as if democracy had anything to do with minority rights. Or opposed mob rule.

I think that's a tricky analogy though. How do you know that the "illness" isn't just a big set of "symptoms"? Isn't the treatment for many diseases just a treatment of the symptoms? We aren't going to legislate thought, and wouldn't the illness in this case be misogynistic thoughts?

The illness here is people forcing other people. There's something underlying to the burka (and more than what meets the eye :laugh4:). The burka in itself is no evil - if I wore a burka, I wouldn't be oppressed just because I decided to wear that particular clothing. Though if someone forced me to wear a Zorro belt, then that wouldn't be nice.

And this goes right back the the "laws against unsafe driving" case. Public service announcements and drivers ed classes are going after the "illness". But you think we should go after the symptom too don't you? So clearly it is not that case that it is always preferable to go after the illness alone rather than the symptoms.

Where do you separate symptoms from illness(es)? As I said, a burka is no evil in itself. Red spots on your skin could mean nothing, or it could mean that you have meningitis; they aren't your source of problems.

Brenus

04-16-2010, 19:41

“Besides, in winter when its 30 below zero and the wind is blowing, I'd like to see you walk around without covering your face....” In Belgium? Beside, I can’t wait to see woman in burqua on ice and in wind…

“Utter nonsense, Brenus. How does it make me in favour of the burqa just because I don't want to ban clothing?”
Well, it is either you are for the burqua, or you are not. A half burqua is a dress or a hood…
It is like a pregnant woman, she can’t be a little bit pregnant… She is or not…
I just read what you wrote. You are in favour under the pretext of freedom to wear a piece of clothing.
You chose to ignore the symbol and the reality of the piece of clothing.
In theory, you are a better democrat than me, but in practise you support oppression in one of its worst symbol and tool.
To say that the burqua is just a piece of clothing is to say that a gun is just a piece of metal.

“And we didn't solve the housewife problem by outlawing the housewife, yet we were still able to make women work.” With laws against discrimination, and a large rewriting of existing law concerning marriage, heritage and all others aspect of daily life…

“why I should not be allowed to do things in private” Streets? Private?

Brenus

04-16-2010, 19:46

a burka is no evil in itself Try one...

rvg

04-16-2010, 19:50

It's a fabric. You can argue that people who wear it willingly are idiots, but idiocy is a God given human right. Burka does nothing to inconvenience anyone but its wearer, and that should be left to the individual to decide.

Brenus

04-16-2010, 20:04

“that should be left to the individual to decide”.
It is a tool of torture and oppression.
So what are yours intentions concerning the women forced to wear it? Collateral damages? How will you enforce their freedom?

rvg

04-16-2010, 20:10

If somebody is *forced* to wear it, normal laws can take care of that. You can not ban something on the sole grounds that it could be abused. Because *anything* can be abused. Think about regular homegrown white women who convert to islam and go religion-crazy in every szense of the word. Are *they* forced to wear the burka? And if they're not, then why are we denying them their most basic right of freedom of religion AND freedom of expression all at once?

Rhyfelwyr

04-16-2010, 20:20

Right of the kids of Cairo to rummage in the bins, waste fields and scrap yards… Yeah…..:furious3:

Irellevant, since minors are under the protection of their parents. Kids get the nanny treatment from their parents, that doesn't mean they need a nanny state to tell them what's good for them once they grow up. We've been here before in British law, factory owners appealed to the children's right to do what they want when they wanted children to work long hours, but it was pointed out that children do not have full political rights.

a burka is no evil in itself Try one...

That's your personal opinion, it has no place in the law. Personally, I love winter so I can wrap up as much as possible and be more anonymous. A lot of people in my old class liked to hide their faces behind a hoodie. Should they be banned too?

Well, it is either you are for the burqua, or you are not. A half burqua is a dress or a hood…
It is like a pregnant woman, she can’t be a little bit pregnant… She is or not…

How can you apply such absolute terms to the situation? So are you for knives or against them? Sure, some people might use them to make a sandwich, but what about all those people that get killed by them. Are you for that or against it? Why won't you ban knives? Living near Glasgow, it's not always clear which of those you would consider to be their primary use...

drone

04-16-2010, 20:21

If somebody is *forced* to wear it, normal laws can take care of that.
Well, this is the basic problem. How do you determine if a woman willingly wears the burka, or is forced into it by her husband or other family member? How do you prevent retribution against women who are forced to wear it, and say so to the authorities?

rvg

04-16-2010, 20:25

I do not see a problem here. Burka is just an article of clothing. If a woman is *forced* to wear it, the problem is not with the burka, but with whoever abuses that woman. At that point, burka is the least of her problems. You would stop a random woman with a black eye and ask her who gave it to her: it isn't any of your business. Neither is burka.

Sasaki Kojiro

04-16-2010, 20:26

Well, this is the basic problem. How do you determine if a woman willingly wears the burka, or is forced into it by her husband or other family member? How do you prevent retribution against women who are forced to wear it, and say so to the authorities?

Right...let's say you have kids working 12 hour shifts in factories. How do you tell which ones are doing it by choice and which are being forced to by their parents? Do you support their right to work for pay? Do you treat the "illness", aka magically eliminate poverty? Or do you say that kids can't work a full time job until they reach a certain job, ignoring the "by why shouldn't my kid have the right to get paid $5 to mow the neighbors lawn" type counterarguments.

Viking

04-16-2010, 20:31

Right...let's say you have kids working 12 hour shifts in factories. How do you tell which ones are doing it by choice and which are being forced to by their parents? Do you support their right to work for pay? Do you treat the "illness", aka magically eliminate poverty? Or do you say that kids can't work a full time job until they reach a certain job, ignoring the "by why shouldn't my kid have the right to get paid $5 to mow the neighbors lawn" type counterarguments.

I think the idea here is that children working to that extent is considered an evil in itself.

Sasaki Kojiro

04-16-2010, 20:35

I think the idea here is that children working to that extent is considered an evil in itself.

It's an evil because they, on the whole, really don't want to and should be doing something else. I think that applies to the burka as well.

I don't want to try and make it into a "these two scenarios are the same" type of argument though. I just think we need to get at the underlying reasoning. I think the "treat the illness not the symptom" line of thought is misleading.

drone

04-16-2010, 20:39

Right...let's say you have kids working 12 hour shifts in factories. How do you tell which ones are doing it by choice and which are being forced to by their parents? Do you support their right to work for pay? Do you treat the "illness", aka magically eliminate poverty? Or do you say that kids can't work a full time job until they reach a certain job, ignoring the "by why shouldn't my kid have the right to get paid $5 to mow the neighbors lawn" type counterarguments.

Hey, what the Chinese do is none of my business. ~;)

rvg

04-16-2010, 20:45

It's an evil because they, on the whole, really don't want to and should be doing something else. I think that applies to the burka as well.

I don't want to try and make it into a "these two scenarios are the same" type of argument though. I just think we need to get at the underlying reasoning. I think the "treat the illness not the symptom" line of thought is misleading.

The argument with children cannot be valid quite simply because they're children. Burqa is a choice for grown women.

Megas Methuselah

04-16-2010, 20:48

as if democracy had anything to do with minority rights. Or opposed mob rule.

We're taught in political science classes that democracy is much more than a vague statement such as "rule by the people." That's why so much time is spent studying democracy.

You should try taking a poli sci class sometime. You might learn something.

I just read what you wrote. You are in favour under the pretext of freedom to wear a piece of clothing.
You chose to ignore the symbol and the reality of the piece of clothing.
In theory, you are a better democrat than me, but in practise you support oppression in one of its worst symbol and tool.

You seem to be painting all Muslim women with a broad brush. You should respect individual liberty; as for those women who wear one against their will, there are certainly more effective ways to combat this. But you must realize that you're calling for a change in a people's culture, a culture that happens to be quite a few centuries old. Doing something like that won't be so quick and easy, and banning the burqa in the ignorant belief that it will end this will only cause more friction.

HoreTore doesn't deny that burqas can be used to infringe on a woman's rights. He's simply intelligent enough to realize the problems associated with this ban, and thus suggests different (and proven) methods. Read his posts, ok?

Sasaki Kojiro

04-16-2010, 21:49

The argument with children cannot be valid quite simply because they're children. Burqa is a choice for grown women.

Yes, we should try and look past the examples at the principles. You've suggested one here--although not very precisely. Should there be an age limit where burka wearing becomes legal? Does it have to be a free choice, and what constitutes that?

rvg

04-16-2010, 21:56

Children under 18 are under legal guardianship of their parents. Whatever they wear up to the age of 18 is a matter of preference of their parents. Government should stay out of the families' private business, its only concern should be prevention of child abuse. And they better have proof for that.

Viking

04-16-2010, 22:05

It's an evil because they, on the whole, really don't want to and should be doing something else. I think that applies to the burka as well.

Not necessarily, because it can in principle be worn voluntarily or without the biggest qualms.

I think the "treat the illness not the symptom" line of thought is misleading.

No it isn't. It doesn't have to be a burka, it could be a carpet. If someone would want to wear that kind of clothes, then I think it should be legal in principle. If the burka is taken off, will suddenly everything become better? Would they have been ridden from any other eventual leash?

You should try taking a poli sci class sometime. You might learn something.

You think so? So do I. History is not my favourite subject, but I had a few lessons of it back in high school; and I think history should tell you something about democracy and minority rights. Post 1950 will suffice for the point.

Louis VI the Fat

04-16-2010, 22:21

Beaten, battered, raped women are crying for your help. Sign their petition to ban their burqa prison here:

http://www.niputesnisoumises.com/blog/2010/03/06/appel-ni-voile-ni-burqa/

Strike For The South

04-16-2010, 22:24

Beaten, battered, raped women are crying for your help. Sign their petition to ban their burqa prison here:

http://www.niputesnisoumises.com/blog/2010/03/06/appel-ni-voile-ni-burqa/

A peice of clothing does not beget oppersion.

A peice of clothing is a peice of clothing.

Misguided fools, the lot of you

Brenus

04-16-2010, 22:24

“That's your personal opinion” Nope, it is his opinion. I just told him to try one.

“Irrelevant, since minors are under the protection of their parents”:
Relevant as it belongs to the same stream of speech that under disguised of freedom just is a cover-up for oppression.

You are perfectly free to defend burqua and the right for kids to work, but don’t pretend it is on the name of Freedom, Democracy and Enlightenment.
Call a cat a cat: Burqua are not only the symbol but also a tool of oppression and torture like excision and infibulations are acts of mutilation…

To pretend that they are only a piece of clothing is hypocrisy.

I can admit you prefer the freedom of Religion (in the mean time in ignoring 95% of Muslims opinion) instead for Freedom. You can choose to value the right of willing women to wear a mobile jail and reject others the right to be free, that is your choice, but don’t do it in pretending having the moral high.
You are de facto (when I say you, it is not you as a person, but people defending the burqua) siding along the oppressors…

“A lot of people in my old class liked to hide their faces behind a hoodie. Should they be banned too?”
Do you really know what is a burka? How can you even compare these two things? Are you friends obliged to wear them under fear?
As much I know, a hood protect the skull, hair, neck, back. It doesn’t cover the face, not living enough space to see what happen near your foot…

“How can you apply such absolute terms to the situation”: Easy. Reality check. Burqua, tools of oppression and torture, symbol and tool of women slavery, not a good thing in favour, except bad jokes…
I never heard of somebody beaten because refusing to have a knife…

“How do you determine if a woman willingly wears the burka, or is forced into it by her husband or other family member?”
Well, you can’t that is why you ban it. What harm it can do? The ones who were volunteers will be a little bit embarrassed, done. The ones who were obliged will be free, at least of this…

“it isn't any of your business.” Isn’t it? What next? Stoning to death is not your business?
I beg to defer. That is why I joined the Arm Forces few years ago. I do care. I do care of others. I care for others that is why I went in Charities, that is why I went in wars…
Because I don’t think that we have to accept torture, forced labour and slavery. Even when it happend km away...
Because I believe in freedom, and dignity, and equality. I can bleed for others, felling pain for their humiliations…
If your idea of women dignity is the black ghosts who are denied the right to speak without one of their owners, you and me have a different concept of Freedom.

“Burqa is a choice for grown women” Yeah, right…

How can’t you see the reality, what the burqua are? Are can you be so much indifferent? How can you defend them?

“as for those women who wear one against their will, there are certainly more effective ways to combat this”. Tell me. How? It took centuries and years of fight in Europe and affiliate… If we can avoid this to the Muslim women living in our countries, why not try it?

“But you must realize that you're calling for a change in a people's culture, a culture that happens to be quite a few centuries old. Doing something like that won't be so quick and easy, and banning the burqa in the ignorant belief that it will end this will only cause more friction.”
Nope. It is what the oppressors try to convince us. It never worked. Give the freedom to oppressors to oppress and you will have less and less people willing to fight.
I watched a very interesting documentary on French TV (TV5) about Egypt. 30 years ago, women could walk in the street without fear. Now, if they are not covered until the toes, they are beaten in the streets…
Read my post: I do not call for a crusade. I just want to give to the Muslim women the same protection than their colleagues in Democratic States. It is not a perfect solution, but it is the less damaging one.

“He's simply intelligent enough to realize the problems associated with this ban, and thus suggests different (and proven) methods.”
Well, I don’t deny his intelligence, but I will challenge his opinion.
I prefer to assess the problem associated with the burqua, as they are known.
The problem associated with the ban will be seen only if a ban become law.

As the effect of a ban quite similar, as I said (if you read my posts) we know: None. The ban of scarves in France put no pupils out of studies. They all had access to education. And they are now able to decide by themselves what they want to do. Actually on around 4 millions Muslims in France, so around 2 millions females, around 300 wear a Burqua… Impressive, no?

So, now, what are the others different and proven methods?

Furunculus

04-16-2010, 22:25

Beaten, battered, raped women are crying for your help. Sign their petition to ban their burqa prison here:

http://www.niputesnisoumises.com/blog/2010/03/06/appel-ni-voile-ni-burqa/

i would rather directly support those women who are Beaten, battered, and raped, rather than messing around with stupid clothing arrangements. :)

Brenus

04-16-2010, 22:30

Furunculus

04-16-2010, 22:36

Louis VI the Fat

04-16-2010, 22:45

A peice of clothing does not beget oppersion.

A peice of clothing is a peice of clothing.

Misguided fools, the lot of youIslamic women last month protested (http://www.lemonde.fr/societe/article/2010/03/06/ni-putes-ni-soumises-recouvre-la-statue-de-la-place-de-la-republique-d-une-burqa_1315550_3224.html#xtor=RSS-3208) in Paris, demanding the burqa be banned, covering the statue representing the République in a burqa. If it were up to me, the statue remains covered in submission until this shame of the Republic is banned.

https://img16.imageshack.us/img16/9317/300x383149136300eefill1.jpg

~~o~~o~~<<oOo>>~~o~~o~~

Islamic women will have a manifestation in Bruxelles next week. Belgian (http://www.niputesnisoumises.be/npns/?lang=fr) comité of Ni putes ni soumises.

A scathing article by a Belgian female citizen of Malinese origin. Belgium has to choose to side with totalitarian oppression, or to stand for its democratic values:

« Je déclare que le voile est le symbole d’un projet politique totalitaire »

Le 23 mars 2010

Moi, citoyenne belge de culture musulmane, originaire du Mali, un pays musulman à 90 % où la religion influence fortement les lois, règlements et différents aspects de la vie quotidienne, où certaines coutumes et traditions rétrogrades perpétuent les discriminations à l’égard des femmes, où plus de 80 % des filles sont victimes des mutilations génitales, où la polygamie est légale, où les mariages forcés sont imposés aux jeunes filles, où en matière d’héritage, les femmes sont frappées du sceau de l’inégalité, où, dès le plus jeune âge, on apprend aux petites filles que leur destin est de souffrir, de se résigner, de se soumettre, de se marier, de faire des enfants et de faire honneur à la famille,

Moi, qui suis issue d’un pays où l’intégrisme islamique gagne du terrain avec comme corollaire la prolifération du port du voile, où les avancées législatives en matière de droits des femmes se heurtent aux pressions des autorités musulmanes, au nom de la paix sociale, de l’unité nationale, de la préservation des valeurs sociales et religieuses maliennes qui confinent les femmes dans des statuts de citoyennes de seconde zone,

http://archives.lesoir.be/?action=nav&gps=760276

Viking

04-16-2010, 22:55

Je ne comprends pas.

Louis VI the Fat

04-16-2010, 23:02

Je ne comprends pas.A French Muslim voice against the ban: http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?c=Article_C&cid=1245845947279&pagename=Zone-English-Euro_Muslims%2FEMELayout

A French Muslim voice in favour of the ban: http://www.signandsight.com/features/288.html

Megas Methuselah

04-16-2010, 23:06

Je ne comprends pas.

She's talking about how she comes from Mali, where some 90% of its citizens are strong Muslims, 80% of girls suffer genital mutilation, polygamy (polygyny, more specifically?) is legal, arranged marriages are forced on young girls, where women and girls are resigned to their fate of having children and doing honour to their family.

She then talks about laws pushing for further equality for women aren't happening for the sake of social peace, national unity, and the preservation of traditional and religious values which happens to confine women as second-class citizens.

Strike For The South

04-16-2010, 23:22

“A piece of clothing does not beget oppression.
A piece of clothing is a piece of clothing.
Misguided fools, the lot of you”

Can I do very bad things on you Regimental Flag? Or Flag, if your are not in the Military?:inquisitive:
It is just a piece of cloth (silk).

Yea go ahead burn what you want. The American flag industry thanks you for your purchase.

Let me go ahead and be crystal on this

Assuming all women who wear the burka do so out of opperision assumes the majority of muslim men oppress there wives

Lets assume that the above fact is true, by banning this clothing do you expect to end this opperison and misgony?

How do you consider it freedom when the Government is giving explicit orders on what type of clothing you can wear?

I really feel like yall are simply seeing burka as opperison and that is quite a leap of faith. Simply because your culture does not put the same vaule on modesty does not mean you can dictate these things. Unless of corse you assume everyone who wears one has been beaten and raped by there husband. Which will of course stop after you ban this article of clothing.

Megas Methuselah

04-16-2010, 23:29

I really feel like yall are simply seeing burka as opperison and that is quite a leap of faith. Simply because your culture does not put the same vaule on modesty does not mean you can dictate these things.

Speaking of which, remember when your people tried to "fix" my people? That ended very nice, didn't it? Brenus would do well to read some history and understand exactly what he's preaching.

Strike For The South

04-16-2010, 23:33

Speaking of which, remember when your people tried to "fix" my people? That ended very nice, didn't it? Brenus would do well to read some history and understand exactly what he's preaching.

Dude you're an Indian?

I HAD NO IDEA

Megas Methuselah

04-16-2010, 23:36

Dude you're an Indian?

I HAD NO IDEA

:laugh4:

Hey, hey, we're spose to be on the same side here, Mr. Liberty!

right?

Andres

04-16-2010, 23:44

You are perfectly free to defend burqua and the right for kids to work, but don’t pretend it is on the name of Freedom, Democracy and Enlightenment.
Call a cat a cat: Burqua are not only the symbol but also a tool of oppression and torture like excision and infibulations are acts of mutilation…

To pretend that they are only a piece of clothing is hypocrisy.

Indeed. The amount of hypocrisy in this thread is amazing.

Using "freedom" to defend the burqa, really :rolleyes:

Assuming all women who wear the burka do so out of opperision assumes the majority of muslim men oppress there wives

Well, luckily, it's a small minority of the muslim women who wear the burqa in our country. So no, we're not assuming that the large majority of the muslim men oppress their women.

Then again, it is a reality that nowadays 50 % of the women in Belgian shelter homes are immigrants (or naturalised foreigners), most of them from Moroccan or Turkish origin. You can say now that it is not to be said that oppression of women is a real problem among these groups of immigrants, because that doesn't sound good in our era of political correctness and stigmatises certain groups of immigrants and blah blah blah; but all that political correctness and all this talk about freedom (tm) doesn't take away the sad fact that the oppression of women is a problem among these groups of immigrants.

Just look at the organisation "ni putes, ni soumises", in which organsation courageous muslim women fight for their rights not to be oppressed and not to have to wear the burqa. So much for the "but the majoritiy of them are highly educated and wear it out of their free will" whining, eh.

At law school, I had close contact with 4 muslim girls; none of them covered their heads and all 4 of them considered themselves lucky with their parents (read: fathers), because their friends had a much harder time than them. Professionaly, I've encountered quiet a few muslim girls with a law degree; none of them covered their heads either.

How many highly educated women wearing the burqa voluntarily do the people who say "high educated muslim women wear the burqa out of their free will" actually met, I've been asking myself for a couple of days now... I assume they use this :daisy: statement for rhetorical purposes only, because as far as I know, such women don't exist, at least not in Belgium.

And, unfortunately, I didn't pull these figures about the percentage of women from these groups of immigrants in shelters out my :daisy:, they come from answers on questions asked by Parliament on the competent ministers.

I for one am not willing to wait for this small minority of burqa wearing women to grow larger. Better to stop this right here and now. For far too long, we've been doing nothing and we've been pretending like it's all ok and we've been using the hypocrite argument of "freedom" and "tolerance" to justify putting our heads in the sand and being blind for the misery of our female muslim citizens.

Megas Methuselah

04-16-2010, 23:51

I for one am not willing to wait for this small minority of burqa wearing women to grow larger. Better to stop this right here and now. For far too long, we've been doing nothing and we've been pretending like it's all ok and we've been using the hypocrite argument of "freedom" and "tolerance" to justify putting our heads in the sand and being blind for the misery of our female muslim citizens.

Yeah, that's right. Banning the burqa will suddenly stop the men from beating their wives.

rvg

04-16-2010, 23:54

Yeah, that's right. Banning the burqa will suddenly stop the men from beating their wives.

who knows, it might also cure cancer.

Andres

04-16-2010, 23:55

Yeah, that's right. Banning the burqa will suddenly stop the men from beating their wives.

I suggest you read the entire thread. I've already said that a simple burqa ban won't solve all underlying problems. But it doesn't harm to take away one tool of oppression, no? Why would we keep the burqa, knowing what the burqa is?

Louis VI the Fat

04-16-2010, 23:58

I suggest you read the entire thread. I've already said that a simple burqa ban won't solve all underlying problems. But it doesn't harm to take away one tool of oppression, no? Why would we keep the burqa, knowing what the burqa is?Prohibiting antisemitic graffiti on Jewish graves is against the democratic right to freedom of expression, and neither does it solve antisemitism.

Still it is banned.

Megas Methuselah

04-16-2010, 23:58

I suggest you read the entire thread. I've already said that a simple burqa ban won't solve all underlying problems. But it doesn't harm to take away one tool of oppression, no? Why would we keep the burqa, knowing what the burqa is?

You should focus more on the "underlying problems" than their effect... (who argued for that in this thread?)

Louis VI the Fat

04-17-2010, 00:01

How do you consider it freedom Two US experts on France save me a lot of typing.

For:The Wall Street Journal: what is unthinkable in the US, makes sense in France. (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304252704575155821111511594.html?mod=WSJ_latestheadlines)
Do you realise, for example, that a vast majority of French Muslims support the ban on conspicuous religious symbols in schools?

Against: No! France has got it all wrong (http://www.salon.com/life/broadsheet/2010/04/12/burqa_ban_q_a/), says Joan Wallach Scott, an American historian of France.

Tellos Athenaios

04-17-2010, 00:08

So, uh, Louis, why not translate yourself, eh buddy? Maybe I'll start spouting out some articles in Saulteux in an effort to make you look stupid.

Eh, did you read the title? “I declare [consider] the veil to be the symbol of totalitarian politic/totalitarian policy”. That seems significant in the context of this debate.

For what it's worth, we already have plenty of law (on both sides of the Atlantic, including Britain) on what you can wear and what you cannot wear.
And a law prohibiting you from covering your face in public is quite reasonable if you live in a society where (a) you are required to be positively identifiable; (b) identification is done primarily through face recognition.

Sasaki Kojiro

04-17-2010, 00:10

Prohibiting antisemitic graffiti on Jewish graves is against the democratic right to freedom of expression, and neither does it solve antisemitism.

Still it is banned.

Yes, exactly. I don't understand the continuous "treat the underlying problem not the symptom" push. If I had to guess I'd say it stems from some combination of discomfort that the bill "panders to racists" and seeing the "rights" angle in an absolute way.

The underlying issue is people thinking misogynistic thoughts. How are you going to address that? Thought police? Public service announcements? Limited effectiveness there. And why do they think treating a symptom won't help cure the disease? Giving women the vote didn't end misogyny in the US, but it certainly helped.

Beskar

04-17-2010, 00:20

I wonder.. since no one has said it, but what about those who actually choose to wear a Burka?

Sasaki Kojiro

04-17-2010, 00:28

I wonder.. since no one has said it, but what about those who actually choose to wear a Burka?

I think it's come up a number of times...but basically...what about them? You didn't finish the thought.

It's a trivial concern compared to those who are forced to wear it when they don't want to. As an imperfect comparison, consider the draft vs having no army at all. Would you say "what about the people who wanted to join the army?"

Beskar

04-17-2010, 01:25

I think it's come up a number of times...but basically...what about them? You didn't finish the thought.

It's a trivial concern compared to those who are forced to wear it when they don't want to. As an imperfect comparison, consider the draft vs having no army at all. Would you say "what about the people who wanted to join the army?"

But in a draft, you are legally bound to join the Army, you are not legally bound to wear a Burka.

Also, anti face-covering laws are in place anyway, so in public, you can't wear a Burka publicly. There is nothing stopping muslim females in the law not to wear a Burka, thus your example is invalid.

Sasaki Kojiro

04-17-2010, 01:32

But in a draft, you are legally bound to join the Army, you are not legally bound to wear a Burka.

Also, anti face-covering laws are in place anyway, so in public, you can't wear a Burka publicly. There is nothing stopping muslim females in the law not to wear a Burka, thus your example is invalid.

It's not about the examples...that's one thing that's bogged this thread down. I include it to make sure the point is clear. I even said "imperfect" :tongue3:

Isn't the proposed law in belgium a ban on face-covering? But we are talking about the rightness of banning the burka in general anyway, so this is a tangent.

Can you finish the thought in your original post ("what about the women who choose to...")?

Furunculus

04-17-2010, 01:37

I suggest you read the entire thread. I've already said that a simple burqa ban won't solve all underlying problems. But it doesn't harm to take away one tool of oppression, no? Why would we keep the burqa, knowing what the burqa is?

what about the freedom that is removed by the state taking such an interventionst position,

i realise you may consider the act worth the cost, but i do not.

Crazed Rabbit

04-17-2010, 01:45

I agree with Sasaki.

The burqa is a tool of oppression. It's forced use is an example of practical slavery.

We may not be able to change the minds of the men who would oppress women, but we can take their tools for doing so.

You all know I find unneeded government intrusion into private lives abhorrent. To talk of banning clothing seems so odd. But that clothing is used to impose a sort of culturally accepted slavery. Like Sasaki, the loss of women who freely choose to wear the burqa I find negligible compared to removing a tool of oppression.

CR

Myrddraal

04-17-2010, 02:16

A lot of people have called the Burka a 'tool'. Could somebody explain this to me in detail, or point me to the posts where it was explained?

Crazed Rabbit

04-17-2010, 02:21

Myrddraal

04-17-2010, 02:31

Men of a certain religion and culture want to rigorously control the women in their families. The burqa is one of the things that allows them to do that, by cutting the women off from society and preventing them from interacting with others.

CR

Is it the Burka that does that? Like I said before, I've seen women in London in full body gear, buying clothes in primark, perfectly capable of interacting with the people around them.

Crazed Rabbit

04-17-2010, 02:36

As Sasaki said, not all women who wear the burqa are oppressed or controlled.

And I called it a tool of oppression because the burqa isn't the reason women are oppressed.

CR

Myrddraal

04-17-2010, 03:06

As Sasaki said, not all women who wear the burqa are oppressed or controlled.

So the Burka itself does not prevent them interacting with society. How then is it a tool of oppression, how is it more than a symptom?

Brenus

04-17-2010, 09:05

“Assuming all women who wear the burka do so out of oppression assumes the majority of Muslim men oppress their wives”: I think you should go for stat. As I said (wrongly) around 2,000,000 female Muslim (in fact 3,000,000) in France and 300 Burqa…

Let me generalise, remember you are the good side supporting the right of oppression if it is a domestic one…

“Lets assume that the above fact is true, by banning this clothing do you expect to end this opperison and misgony?” Nope.

“How do you consider it freedom when the Government is giving explicit orders on what type of clothing you can wear?” Er, it does yet. Can’t go naked, you have to be decent etc…
And judges give rightly the right to management to fire employees coming at work in short.
You have no access to pubs if you wear a certain kind of shoes (trainers).

“Unless of course you assume everyone who wears one has been beaten and raped by their husband. Which will of course stop after you ban this article of clothing.” You assume that I assume a lot of things.
No. I am a modest person. I know that you climb a mountain just walking step by step. First step, ban the jail, one tool less to oppressors/owners. Then this fence down, some of the oppressed will see that the law in their favour and some will take the fly to the light, the sun, the wind they were not allowed to feel.
It will not change the brutality and the oppression inherent to the followers of the most obscurantism stream of Islam, but if it saves ONE life, it worth it.

“Yea go ahead burn what you want”: Did I say burn? No, I said worst than that.
So we have definitively different views on things.
I think we have to fight for values and symbols. You obviously don’t.

“Simply because your culture does not put the same vaule on modesty does not mean you can dictate these things”.
You are right. My culture doesn’t value modesty for women. The values of my culture are dignity, freedom, equality and fraternity: Much harder to reach, I grant you.
Modesty imposed to women is much easier I give you that: a good beaten-up, indifference for the neighbours, segregation, job done. I near forget: all this in the name of God, of course, or cultural difference…

“Brenus would do well to read some history and understand exactly what he's preaching.”
Err, I read more, or perhaps I understand more than you do, as you actually question my intelligence twice now…
What was imposed to your people is what I want to ban. I want to free women of their oppressors. Their oppressors (who are not all bad and violent and rapist, they are nice oppressors, they do this for their good) have tools, and I want to break these tools. Is it difficult to understand? I can’t stop Nazi to want to kill Jews, Gypsies and other sub-humans but I can prevent them to built death camps. So I do.
But, for the supporters of the mobile jail, domestic violence and oppression is ok as it is a PRIVATE domain.
That was the argument to stop the law protecting wives being raped by their husbands; the State regulating the bed room, then what? But you know what? Husbands don't own their wives, and it is not legal to forced your wife to have sexe...
I know, this nanny State, this limitation of rights, when will it stop?

“Banning the burqa will suddenly stop the men from beating their wives.” I wish I could have this simple point of view.
It is like to say if you are saying that we can’t do nothing to prevent murders so no need of police, because you know, if somebody want to kill somebody the police can’t prevent it.

“You should focus more on the "underlying problems" than their effect... (who argued for that in this thread?)”
People who thing to do nothing will resolve the problem.
People pretending that the burqa is just a piece of clothing
People who think that symbols are not important.
What are the underlying problems by the way? Tell me as you fail for the moment to give the “proven” methods avoiding the ban to resolve the issue.

“How then is it a tool of oppression, how is it more than a symptom?” The burqa was wisely chosen by the Ultra as a symbol for their movement because:
It is visible and impossible to ignore.
It can’t be mixe-up with something else and every body identify it and know what is means without the need of telling.
Only women have to wear it
You can pretend it is “just” clothes. It works, considering reactions in this debate…
Then it is a physical fence preventing the victim to communicate.
So, it is a tool and a symbol of oppression…

Hosakawa Tito

04-17-2010, 10:38

God's will ? (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1264535/Muslim-woman-strangled-burkha-freak-kart-accident.html) Ban it for safety reasons.

HoreTore

04-17-2010, 15:30

Prohibiting antisemitic graffiti on Jewish graves is against the democratic right to freedom of expression

Hell no it isn't!!

Spray painting a swastika on a jewish grave is like spray painting a swastika on my car; it's destruction of private property and thus a crime.

It has zero to do with freedom of expression. If you happen to have your own jewish grave, you are free to spray paint it however you wish. But you can't spray paint another guys property.

Brenus

04-17-2010, 19:31

Rhyfelwyr

04-17-2010, 19:59

But, for the supporters of the mobile jail, domestic violence and oppression is ok as it is a PRIVATE domain.
That was the argument to stop the law protecting wives being raped by their husbands; the State regulating the bed room, then what? But you know what? Husbands don't own their wives, and it is not legal to forced your wife to have sexe...
I know, this nanny State, this limitation of rights, when will it stop?

That example doesn't work. Rape should always be illegal wherever it happens because it violates the woman's right not to be harmed, nobody here will argue against that. The burka only violates the woman's rights if she is forced to wear it.

And HoreTore pointed out why the Jewish grave example doesn't work either.

The Western idea that women are emancipated when they are uncovered, allowed to be sexy, or whatever is a false one. There are many ways to be emancipated, many ways to be subordinated and these include certain Western practices as well as Islamic ones. I'm most persuaded by a group of French feminists (Muslim and secular) who say they are for equality and against any coercion: against forced wearing of veils and against forced removal of veils.

Thank goodness, some people on the continent do value individual freedom over government visions of freedom.

Megas Methuselah

04-17-2010, 20:38

God's will ? (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1264535/Muslim-woman-strangled-burkha-freak-kart-accident.html) Ban it for safety reasons.

Oh, Jesus... Last time I went go-karting, we weren't allowed to drive whilst wearing loose-fitting clothes. Why the hell was she allowed on?

Myrddraal

04-18-2010, 00:16

@Brenus, how does it prevent communication? Like I said I have seen people in full headgear buying things in Primark in London, they seemed able to communicate, with each other and with the cashier. I agree that it's a symbol, but I'm honestly having trouble seeing how it is a tool. Women who are oppressed may refuse to communicate with the outside world for many reasons, but having a piece of cloth in front of their face isn't going to stop them.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

04-18-2010, 00:19

The thing is, I think we Europeans are disgusted by the burqa as a matter of course. It repulses us, and we refuse to believe anyone would wear it willingly, so we want to ban it.

However, I think the truth is that the majority of women who wear it have a viewpoint so alien to our own that they wear it both willingly and gladly. I think it is that viewpoint we want to ban.

Megas Methuselah

04-18-2010, 02:46

However, I think the truth is that the majority of women who wear it have a viewpoint so alien to our own that they wear it both willingly and gladly. I think it is that viewpoint we want to ban.

Beautiful and well said.

Furunculus

04-18-2010, 02:52

Oh, Jesus... Last time I went go-karting, we weren't allowed to drive whilst wearing loose-fitting clothes. Why the hell was she allowed on?

psssst, because we're too embarrassed to make an issue of what a 'brown' person chooses to do.......

Brenus

04-18-2010, 10:01

“That example doesn't work.” Yeap. Still working. As it was not considered as rape because the woman were married (owned) to husband who had the RIGHT to have sexual intercourse even with a unwilling wife.

Lets see the method for defending domestic torture, oppression and segregation:

Cultural differences under various disguises (last one: “a viewpoint so alien to our own that they wear it both willingly and gladly”)
Intrusion in private space (even this private space being the street) by a nanny state, in ignoring that clothing is regulated in our society.
Pretending to work for freedom (mostly religion) in supporting oppression (a little bit like the freedom to starve to death because you have the bad luck to be from another continent). “Thank goodness, some people on the continent do value individual freedom over government visions of freedom.”

“The burka only violates the woman's rights if she is forced to wear it”: You should really try one. If you have one, put a blanket loose on you, tie the neck and try to walk, just to try…

“how does it prevent communication” In establishing a visible and physical barrier. Of course, they have to be able to go shopping…

“HoreTore pointed out why the Jewish grave example doesn't work either.” He just point out that you have the right to be anti-Semitic if you express it on your property or common properties.

I think I understand it.
The right of oppression is one of the most valuable right you want to defend, as the State is always wrong to demand the minorities to respect their own, if they are domestic (e.g. women).
So as it is my right to beat my wife, to have sex when I want, to punish my children in my terms, to prevent them from alien education, etc…
And it is not up to a Nanny State to tell me what my wife wear, the education I give to my kids, the food I gave them etc… I am the owner of my family, so, if it suit me, and it doesn’t disturb the neighbourhood (and as I look-up my wife, it won’t) I am free to do so.

“I think it is that viewpoint we want to ban” Nope. WE want a ban on a piece of clothe which is at the same time a danger for women, a symbol of oppression and a tool of oppression. Some women will still have a burqa in their mind, but this would be a real attack on their freedom to removed it if we knew how…

Louis VI the Fat

04-18-2010, 15:10

I think I understand it.
The right of oppression is one of the most valuable right you want to defend, as the State is always wrong to demand the minorities to respect their own, if they are domestic (e.g. women).
So as it is my right to beat my wife, to have sex when I want, to punish my children in my terms, to prevent them from alien education, etc…
And it is not up to a Nanny State to tell me what my wife wear, the education I give to my kids, the food I gave them etc… I am the owner of my family, so, if it suit me, and it doesn’t disturb the neighbourhood (and as I look-up my wife, it won’t) I am free to do soMy usual formula is that anti-racism will trump anti-sexism every sungle time. For every non-white man who wants to keep 'his' women in subservience, there are a dozen white lefty men arguing it would be discriminatory to prevent this discrimination of women.

This 'no discrimination!' demand is only applied to men. When a minority wants to dicriminate against other men, then there IS a problem. That is, the visible minority can with impunity discriminate against women, but not homosexual men or Jews.

It shows we need some humility in claiming women's rights as a western accomplishement. We've got a long way to go. For every man who wants to hold a woman in subservience, there are a dozen others declaring why this is his right.

Brenus

04-18-2010, 16:49

Beskar

04-18-2010, 16:59

Louis VI the Fat

04-18-2010, 17:06

“We've got a long way to go. For every man who wants to hold a woman in subservience, there are a dozen others declaring why this is his right.”

Not only that, Louis. Women are as well willing to submit. To the burqa or to be a body without brain.
Polls in England show that young girls want to marry footballers then to divorce him. Song competitions are not any more just about songs, but you have to be sexy.
Sell you body is a accepted message. You don’t need a brain…The end of civilisation is upon us!

And the women, indeed. Gang bangs/rapes caught on mobile phones are the Saturday Night Special, the girls left wondering whether they like it or whether there is something awfully wrong about it. Still they come, their younger sister will visit the basement next saturday, her turn to give in to the curiousity...

Prevent it? Or accept it as free choice of women? You can't keep them away, they will go, they are fifteen, sixteen, they will seek out the boys.

The problem is not Islam, or even non-white. It is that brew of hatred, gang ideology, MTV / rap songs mistaken for reality, pornofication of youth culture, dissafection with 'official society'.

Brenus

04-18-2010, 22:48

Myrddraal

04-18-2010, 23:24

For every man who wants to hold a woman in subservience, there are a dozen others declaring why this is his right.
No. Honestly, this is getting tedious. Stop arguing against arguments nobody is making.

Beskar

04-19-2010, 00:17

"You find Susan Boyle sexy": Britain got Talent, not X Factor. ANYWAY, try you to deny that sexy is impotant if you want to suceed? Or will you opretend taht the girl in page 3 are ther for their intellect?

I wish I went to your University. Taught by Page 3 models.

You picked two examples of where no intellect is required, for your points, it is like comparing Footballers or male Pop Icons. How many of those males are overweight, ugly, etc.

If you are going to compare shallow and base-centric comparisons, it is the same on both sides.

Brenus

04-19-2010, 07:49

“You picked two examples of where no intellect is required, for your points, it is like comparing Footballers or male Pop Icons. How many of those males are overweight, ugly, etc.”
Nope. I was pointing out that women liberation is not only to wear or not a burqa but as well to seek more powerful mind than to accept to be only a body you can sell.
My examples of X-factor or page three were to underline than to be sexy is now very important in success and some girls are too happy to have no brain but beautiful body as tool of success.
And this is massively sold in our society

As my studies, I can inform you:
French newspapers have no page 3 girls.
We study with books. We are not entirely sure that if it is in a newspaper it is true.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

04-19-2010, 13:37

The end of civilisation is upon us!

And the women, indeed. Gang bangs/rapes caught on mobile phones are the Saturday Night Special, the girls left wondering whether they like it or whether there is something awfully wrong about it. Still they come, their younger sister will visit the basement next saturday, her turn to give in to the curiousity...

Prevent it? Or accept it as free choice of women? You can't keep them away, they will go, they are fifteen, sixteen, they will seek out the boys.

The problem is not Islam, or even non-white. It is that brew of hatred, gang ideology, MTV / rap songs mistaken for reality, pornofication of youth culture, dissafection with 'official society'.

All of this can, interestingly, be layed at the feet of sexual liberalism and feminism... as well as the breaking of the moral authority of the Church, or course. Although, before we had women going out to get raped we had men raping their wives behind closed doors, of course.

so the real question is, when are we going to try to strike a happy medium?

Louis VI the Fat

04-19-2010, 13:48

No. Honestly, this is getting tedious. Stop arguing against arguments nobody is making.I am not really arguing anybody in theis thread. I am arguing a point of view. One can view this as a dominant society imposing its will on a minority culture. One can also, and this is what I am arguing, see this as a minority culture imposing its will on another minority.
The former argues the rights of immigrant minorites, the latter those of women.

Two subsets argue that the interests of immigrants are not served by separation, or that the interests of women are more complex. What of the women who wear the burqa of their own free will? What of the argument that Western demands of modesty, looks and attire are at least as imposing on women as the burqa - which liberates women from these demands? There is not a single Western woman who has not wished at some point that she could just venture outside behind a nice blanket, free from any social demands of (keeping up) appearances.

Louis VI the Fat

04-19-2010, 13:50

All of this can, interestingly, be layed at the feet of sexual liberalism and feminism... as well as the breaking of the moral authority of the Church, or course. I do struggle with this argument.

The legacy of 1968 etc may not be singularly benefitial. Much did get lost too.

From another perspective, Sarko argued that what the sensitive areas need is not less Islam, but more Islamic discipline. He may be right too.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

04-19-2010, 14:57

I do struggle with this argument.

The legacy of 1968 etc may not be singularly benefitial. Much did get lost too.

From another perspective, Sarko argued that what the sensitive areas need is not less Islam, but more Islamic discipline. He may be right too.

I was being slightly flippant on the religious side, though the vacume has yet to be filled with anything truely positive, and the retreat of mainstream religion from politics is unlikely to have had a positive effect in terms of promoting honesty etc. (fear of God is a wonderful impetus to moral integrity).

However, in terms of Feminism I am entirely serious, to me Feminism looks to be to gender eqaulity what Marxism was to social equality. When you interogate the Feminist movement I think what you have at it's base is a profoundly negative view of women throughout history. The absurd idea that before they had the vote women were completely oppressed, without influence and miserable! It seems to me that, if anything, the 60's-80's were the worst period for women, when they were encouraged to virtually dress up in drag in disgusting clothes and behave like men, so about two notches above lower apes.

I had this argument with Scienter, and was shouted down then. While I happily support her right to work and raise her children I reject the assertion, that is still often made, that she should have to do both, or that even that is a good idea.

I think the problem we have today is that women have lost all their traditional protections, and are expected to conform to a masculine paradigm in the work place; a female broker in the City wrote about this very issue. She has a book, but there was an article about it in the Sunday Times last week. The general gist was that all the brokers were foul and sexist, (and depraved) and she had to do the same to fit in.

We've really missed a trick here, instead of liberating women and having them restrain male excess, we somehow duped them into being dragged down to our level.

the nudity thing is even silier, show a man a naked woman and he will objectify her, he won't ever see her as empowered; ever.

Furunculus

04-19-2010, 15:10

HoreTore

04-19-2010, 19:39

“Spray painting a swastika on a jewish grave is like spray painting a swastika on my car; it's destruction of private property and thus a crime.” So, is it ok to do on a commemorative monument?
And what if I spray on my car?

A commemorative monument is still another persons property(in this case usally an organization or the state), and it's of course illegal to destroy it.

It's your right to spray paint a swastika on your own property though. That's what freedom of experssion means. Gawd, you people had Voltaire, why do I need explain this to you?

Seamus Fermanagh

04-19-2010, 19:43

Good to see you standing up for property rights, Horetore.

And I agree with your argument here regarding the vandalism.

HoreTore

04-19-2010, 19:45

Good to see you standing up for property rights, Horetore.

Shall we spoil this moment of agreement by bringing up the subject of nationalisation? :laugh2:

Seamus Fermanagh

04-19-2010, 20:25

Let's just table that for another thread. Good to see you haven't changed THAT much....I'd wonder about myself then.

Scienter

04-19-2010, 21:20

The absurd idea that before they had the vote women were completely oppressed, without influence and miserable! It seems to me that, if anything, the 60's-80's were the worst period for women, when they were encouraged to virtually dress up in drag in disgusting clothes and behave like men, so about two notches above lower apes.

:inquisitive: I would argue that being relegated to a life where she cannot participate in politics, run for office, support herself, or (if we are going back to pre 1920/19th Amendment) obtain a college education, that's pretty oppressed. The fact that women had to fight for the right to own property, sign legal documents in her own name, vote, go to college, and work outside the home is pretty much the definition of overcoming oppression and discrimination. If you replace the word "woman" with "African American," people would have a hard time saying that it wasn't oppression to deny the vote, admittance to higher education institutions, and the work place.

I had this argument with Scienter, and was shouted down then. While I happily support her right to work and raise her children I reject the assertion, that is still often made, that she should have to do both, or that even that is a good idea.

Different strokes for different folks. What is a "good idea" for one family might not work for another. A lot of people share your thoughts that women working outside the home is not a good idea. Unfortunately for women like me who want to have careers and be treated like actual human beings, they can sometimes be our bosses. This is why women need feminism (and lawyers).

I think the problem we have today is that women have lost all their traditional protections, and are expected to conform to a masculine paradigm in the work place; a female broker in the City wrote about this very issue. She has a book, but there was an article about it in the Sunday Times last week. The general gist was that all the brokers were foul and sexist, (and depraved) and she had to do the same to fit in.

If women were seen as equals, then they wouldn't need "traditional protections." I'll take equal rights under the law over "traditional protections" any day of the week.

We've really missed a trick here, instead of liberating women and having them restrain male excess, we somehow duped them into being dragged down to our level.

:speechless: Please tell me that you are not saying that it is the woman's job to "restrain male excess."

Beskar

04-19-2010, 21:33

Scienter made some excellent points there, cannot be denied.

Myrddraal

04-19-2010, 23:04

On the tangent of sexism:
Can't really argue with any of Scienter's points, nor would I want to. However there are some aspects of the 'feminist' movement which irk me. These examples are where 'feminism' goes beyond gender equality. I saw an interview with a supposed 'leading feminist' who said something along the lines of: "This legislation has been devised by close cropped centurion boys in parliament". My jaw dropped. This person is supposed to be advocating gender equality! Currently in the UK there are several car insurance companies who sell insurance at lower premiums exclusively for women, on the basis that women are better drivers. If questioned on this they simply point the the statistics and say that this justifies their actions. I however, am denied this better deal, not because I have a bad driving record (my record is spotless, despite a recent narrow escape :wink:) but because I am a man. I have been judged by statistics which have nothing to do with me beyond my gender, therefore I cannot get a good deal on my car insurance. Nobody sees anything wrong with this, my girlfriend (who has actually explicitly complimented me on my driving) sees nothing wrong with this and seemed almost offended by my opposition to it.

Perhaps I am naive, perhaps I have lived a sheltered experience or perhaps I simply haven't experienced so keenly experienced misogynism by product of being male, but in my personal experience I have found sexism to be very rare, and certainly I have never knowingly encountered institutionalised misogynism. I consider these insurance companies to be institutionalised feminism though, and I don't mean that as a compliment.

On the other hand, they do have hilarious adverts:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-mG1-D81Wtg (perhaps we should start a new thread?)

Louis VI the Fat

04-19-2010, 23:19

Not enough pointless, unessecary sexism in this thread.

AWAY WITH THE BURQA STRIP IT BABY ITS LAUNDRY TIME:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZc16kqCass&feature=related

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

04-19-2010, 23:36

:inquisitive: I would argue that being relegated to a life where she cannot participate in politics, run for office, support herself, or (if we are going back to pre 1920/19th Amendment) obtain a college education, that's pretty oppressed. The fact that women had to fight for the right to own property, sign legal documents in her own name, vote, go to college, and work outside the home is pretty much the definition of overcoming oppression and discrimination. If you replace the word "woman" with "African American," people would have a hard time saying that it wasn't oppression to deny the vote, admittance to higher education institutions, and the work place.

I think you missed my point, "completely oppressed, without influence and miserable" is a darn sight more than just "oppressed". I'm not going to say that the lack of direct access to political power (in most cases) did not result in men riding roughshod over women at times. However, it is not equivilent to Black slavery, where the oppressed were viewed merely as cattle. As far as I know husbands have always strived for amiacable relationships with their wives, and wives used this to wield quite considerable influence.

They were usually able to withhold sexual congress without fear of rape, for example.

Of course, they had less protection before the law (though Classical and medieval rape cases were won by women at times), but generally most men are not complete animals, and tend away from brutality towards women. Most men are also, in the West, abhorred by it and that is a result of medieval sensibilities, when women had fewer legal rights.

Different strokes for different folks. What is a "good idea" for one family might not work for another. A lot of people share your thoughts that women working outside the home is not a good idea. Unfortunately for women like me who want to have careers and be treated like actual human beings, they can sometimes be our bosses. This is why women need feminism (and lawyers).

So women who stay at home to raise and nurture their children are of less value, less to be considered "human beings"? That's a chauvanist prejudice, if it is what underlies feminism then I am right and Feminism is essentially chauvanist, it measures women against a phallocentric value system.

If women were seen as equals, then they wouldn't need "traditional protections." I'll take equal rights under the law over "traditional protections" any day of the week.

A woman walking home at night is safer escorted, a man is, if anything, probably less safe than alone. Equal rights before the law are nice and necessary, but the average man is bigger, stronger and tougher than the average woman. Men also respond differently when confronted by another man than by a woman, exactly the same as with other primates. Woman are different that men and, I believe, should be treated differently.

Instead, we've just started treating women like men.

:speechless: Please tell me that you are not saying that it is the woman's job to "restrain male excess."

As a man I can honestly say I do not know another man who does not behave differently in female company than in male company, most behave better. It is not a woman's "job" to restrain male excess but traditionally women, even in extremely patristic societies, have.

Watchman

04-19-2010, 23:51

For some reason I'm reminded of a modern-art exhibition poster I once saw which consisted of two photgraphs. In the first there was a woman in the burqa, only a rectangular bar around her eyes visible under the cloth; in the second stood a woman stark naked, with a black rectangular bar covering her eyes...

Watchman

04-20-2010, 00:03

As far as I know husbands have always strived for amiacable relationships with their wives, and wives used this to wield quite considerable influence.I suspect this is debatable.

They were usually able to withhold sexual congress without fear of rape, for example.I suspect this is even more debatable. There's a reason spousal rape (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spousal_rape) got criminalised you know.

...but generally most men are not complete animals, and tend away from brutality towards women. Most men are also, in the West, abhorred by it and that is a result of medieval sensibilities, when women had fewer legal rights.This may be so (debatable), but I daresay it's a cold comfort indeed for the women who had a run-in with one of the expections...
Also I seem to recall reading that one of the better concrete protections Medieval (and presumably Early Modern for that matter) women had against rape was the very real prospect of their assorted male relatives going vendetta on the offender. Just sayin'...

So women who stay at home to raise and nurture their children are of less value, less to be considered "human beings"? That's a chauvanist prejudice, if it is what underlies feminism then I am right and Feminism is essentially chauvanist, it measures women against a phallocentric value system.Hyperbole much ? Also GJ ignoring the earlier bit about women previously having lacked much choice in the matter.

A woman walking home at night is safer escorted, a man is, if anything, probably less safe than alone. Equal rights before the law are nice and necessary, but the average man is bigger, stronger and tougher than the average woman. Men also respond differently when confronted by another man than by a woman, exactly the same as with other primates. Woman are different that men and, I believe, should be treated differently.Biological determinism much ? Nevermind now discounting the effects of culturally ingrained gender-normative behavioural patterns and suchlike... you know, all the little things we take in from early childhood on which tell us what is "proper" behaviour, reaction etc. ?

Instead, we've just started treating women like men.Given that "equal rights and opportunities" falls under that too, I'm having problems seeing how this is supposed to be a bad thing...

As a man I can honestly say I do not know another man who does not behave differently in female company than in male company, most behave better. It is not a woman's "job" to restrain male excess but traditionally women, even in extremely patristic societies, have.And your point is ?

Sasaki Kojiro

04-20-2010, 00:56

Seamus Fermanagh

04-20-2010, 01:01

The basis of insurance is the transfer of risk from one party to another.

Assessing the risk accurately, and charging premium accordingly is a prime tool in making this effective.

Brenus

04-20-2010, 07:41

“I always worked on the principle that it was not my place to tell other people how they should choose to be liberated.” (removed by moderator) thank you for your not so courageous point of view…

“Gawd, you people had Voltaire, why do I need explain this to you?” Perhaps because we study Voltaire?

Furunculus

04-20-2010, 08:22

“I always worked on the principle that it was not my place to tell other people how they should choose to be liberated.” (removed by moderator) thank you for your not so courageous point of view…

there is an appreciable difference between domestic matters in a liberal country with a strong tradition of justice within the law, and externally imposed repression. negative freedom brenus, that is what it is all about.

Myrddraal

04-20-2010, 13:17

@Sasaki and Seamus, surely my personal record is more important than my gender? Different rates for across different age groups makes a lot more sense. A new driver doesn't have a very long driving record, and hasn't got as much experience of the road, and older, more experienced driver does. These are factors which make judgements which, albeit statistical, are still personal to that driver and the risk that driver represents. If however (and perhaps this is the case), someone who only passes their driving test at the age of 30 is granted a better insurance deal than a 20 year old who's been driving for a couple of years, then yes this is ageist. The statistics being used don't refer to the person being prejudged.

I appreciate that statistics are all that matter to insurance brokers, but can you imagine the response if someone said something along the lines of: "Statistically less women have been good directors, therefore we aren't going to hire many women directors"? Statistics can be abused.

But the real reason this annoys me is quite simply the end result. I don't mean to boast or be rude, but I do consider myself a good (safe) driver, and my girlfriend would be the first to admit that she's not very happy driving a car. She has more choice and better rates available to her. What's the justification given? She's a woman, you're a man, end of discussion. The statistical justifications are no consolation to me.

Perhaps these last few posts should be split, we've moved far from the original topic.

Andres

04-20-2010, 13:37

Starting my own Insurance Company.

Business plan A:

Test each and every individual client with at least 10 driving tests and some tests about theoretical knowledge. Do personality and intelligence tests. Do research on the potential client. All the tests have to be created by top-notch experts, to avoid claims of the tests not being correct and designed to make people pay more. Pay swift and correctly in case one of your clients causes an accident.

Go bankrupt because a) a lot of people don't want to go through all that trouble and wouldn't like the invasion of their privacy; b) you'll need to hire a lot of people to take all those tests ; c) the competition will follow business plan B and is allowed to do so because freedom and a free market are holy and need to be worshipped.

Business plan B:

Don't even look at potential client. Act as if he's lucky he even gets an insurance. Don't hire a lot of people and use some shady statistics to justify the amount of your premiums. Forget about customer service and being friendly to your customers, that only costs money. There are no people, only walking bags filled with money. You're cheaper than the idiots following plan A. In case somebody has the nerve to think you should pay, show a 50 pages long legal document and say that it clearly says in article 154bis, §4, 1°, line three that you don't have to pay. Make profit.

:shrug:

Alternative: communism -> state insurance. Everybody pays the same amount. But that is evil. Clearly, business plan B is the way to go. Long live capitalism and freedom!

Scienter

04-20-2010, 13:54

So women who stay at home to raise and nurture their children are of less value, less to be considered "human beings"? That's a chauvanist prejudice, if it is what underlies feminism then I am right and Feminism is essentially chauvanist, it measures women against a phallocentric value system.

I was speaking in context of workplace discrimination. Some, but certainly not all, male bosses refuse to promote (or even hire!) women, or treat them poorly because they don't believe that women should be working. I expect to be treated with professional courtesy at work, the same way I treat my co-workers. I.e., like a human being. I don't want to be treated badly or discriminated against because my boss thinks I don't deserve to have my job based solely on my gender.

As a man I can honestly say I do not know another man who does not behave differently in female company than in male company, most behave better. It is not a woman's "job" to restrain male excess but traditionally women, even in extremely patristic societies, have.

Then I don't think you're giving men enough credit. Men shouldn't need women to control their "excess." They can do it themselves. Humans are animals, but most people have transcended our biology enough to not act like it. The ones who can't are criminals. Most people are perfectly capable of knowing what types of behavior are appropriate in normal society. Giving women the responsibility of making sure that men don't act up is unfair to men.

Since I'm partially responsible for derailing this tread, I'll try to get it back on track. :yes: People who support the burka argue that it is for the woman's protection (in addition to keeping her separated from male society, I think this is called purdah, but am not sure). That she must cover her body her body to protect her from the impulses of men, along the lines of what I was saying above. I think that this notion (and the idea that women are responsible for restraining male excess and that wearing a burka will help her do so) doesn't give men enough credit, really.

Men are not mindless phallo-slaves who can't control their biological urges. Every person is responsible for his or her own actions. To say otherwise is to give people an easy way out, and if we are talking about assault, a way to blame the victim, which should never happen.

Myrddraal

04-20-2010, 14:06

Back to the Burka. I don't think any of us in this thread are arguing against the ban on the basis that Burkas are good for women. The questions so far have been along the lines of: "Is the Burka so bad for women that it warrants a ban, even if some choose to wear it?" or "Will banning the burka stop (or reduce) the oppression of muslim women?" I'm not at all convinced that the Burka itself is 'bad', some have said that the Burka is a tool which prevents women communicating, but frankly from what I've understood it isn't the Burka that stops them communicating, but rather their abusive husbands. I'm also not convinced that banning the burka will do any favours to women who have abusive husbands. If anything, if Brenus, Andres and Louis are right in saying that nobody wears a Burka out of choice, then the Burka is a very visible symptom for social services to identify.

Andres

04-20-2010, 14:14

Do you sincerely think that a woman constantly covered from head to toe in rags will have the same chances and opportunities as others?

Furunculus

04-20-2010, 14:20

no i don't, but it is her choice to wear it, and it is the laws duty to intervene is she is unduly repressed into wearing it.

Andres

04-20-2010, 14:23

no i don't, but it is her choice to wear it, and it is the laws duty to intervene is she is unduly repressed into wearing it.

So, from the point of view of a husband who wishes to oppres his wife, forcing your wife to wear a burka is a good strategy, if you don't want her to have many chances and opportunities in the world outside your marriage, right?

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

04-20-2010, 14:44

I suspect this is debatable.
I suspect this is even more debatable. There's a reason spousal rape (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spousal_rape) got criminalised you know.
This may be so (debatable), but I daresay it's a cold comfort indeed for the women who had a run-in with one of the expections...

as you know, anything in history is debatable; but if you look at the literature from Homer and the Bible up to Chaucer, Shakespeare, Roman de la Rose, etc., etc.... you see three things:

1. Rape is considered bad, and not just because it can produce bastards, female sensibilitis are taken into account. Further, it is understood to be about violence and power (as today) rather than sex or lust.

2. Men are expected to have relationships with their spouses, to respond to their emotional needs and (perhaps most surprisingly) be good in bed.

3. Women are seen as more than just physically desirable, and sex is an arena where they are on a much more equal footing than elsewhere in society.

This is not to say that spousal rape did not happen, but you have to consider wether most relationships would survive the continuing brutalisation of women, or whether society as a whole would function at all. Of course, in the past, women were placed in a subserviant role, but it was not as subserviant as has been more recently suggested and, by and large, they were not miserbale with their lot. Certainly both Queen Elizabeth and Queen Victoria thought the status quo was fine, and they were in a position to change things.

Also I seem to recall reading that one of the better concrete protections Medieval (and presumably Early Modern for that matter) women had against rape was the very real prospect of their assorted male relatives going vendetta on the offender. Just sayin'...

Fair point, but note it was about going after the perpetrator, not the woman, unlike modern eastern "Honour" killings.

Another titbit, pre-marital sex did not usually "ruin" women, even if it might raise the cost of their dowry.

Hyperbole much ? Also GJ ignoring the earlier bit about women previously having lacked much choice in the matter.
Biological determinism much ? Nevermind now discounting the effects of culturally ingrained gender-normative behavioural patterns and suchlike... you know, all the little things we take in from early childhood on which tell us what is "proper" behaviour, reaction etc. ?
Given that "equal rights and opportunities" falls under that too, I'm having problems seeing how this is supposed to be a bad thing...
And your point is ?

We are what we are, pretending men and women aren't different is just silly, there's a fair bit of science behind this now. Women have been shown to have better empathy, for example, while men have better reflexes. This is to say nothing of the radically different ways we process and interpret sexual desire. I'm all for female uequality, honestly, but I think that just treating women in the same way as men is a crude and ineffective way of trying to achieve it.

Your kind of coming from an anti-male perspective it seems like, which would ironically be right in line with some parts of the feminist movement :p

You have to watch out when saying that certain changes came about because of the feminist movement, often they are only correlated, our society has changed for many reasons.

Not anti-male, just unwilling to use men as a perfect yardstick to measure women against. Men are better for some things than others, women likewise. Men, through sheer practicality, are not as good at looking after a new-born, even if they are the father. However we might direct our Free Will in terms of gender we are still constrained in our actions by our physical beings.

I was speaking in context of workplace discrimination. Some, but certainly not all, male bosses refuse to promote (or even hire!) women, or treat them poorly because they don't believe that women should be working. I expect to be treated with professional courtesy at work, the same way I treat my co-workers. I.e., like a human being. I don't want to be treated badly or discriminated against because my boss thinks I don't deserve to have my job based solely on my gender.

...which is not remotely what i said. Man, woman, don't care. If you can do the job fine, if you take time off to have kids that makes you less reliable than someone who doesn't (but might make you more emotionally stable or well rounded), if you need to leave early to pick the children up from school, take them to the doctor, etc. that has to impact how your employer views your work.

I'm for equality through a complete lack of special treatment here. Someone who splits their time between job and children is obviously less dedicated than someone focused solely on the job. I accept that both men and women should be allowed to take maternity/paternity leave, but I don't accept that a women should be allowed to take 3 months off and then be treated the same as all the people who worked those three months when she comes back. Conversely, a man if just as welcome to take the same amount of time off, and be viewed in the same way.

Then I don't think you're giving men enough credit. Men shouldn't need women to control their "excess." They can do it themselves. Humans are animals, but most people have transcended our biology enough to not act like it. The ones who can't are criminals. Most people are perfectly capable of knowing what types of behavior are appropriate in normal society. Giving women the responsibility of making sure that men don't act up is unfair to men.

I think you're taking me a little too litterally, which is probably my fault. My point is not that men need surogate mothers to look after them, but that in encouraging women to conform to a traditionally male paradigm of work does not use women to their best potential, and it unbalances society to our general detriment. I refer you to the "ladette" culture among young professional women and the female MP's in the House of Commons taking testosterone supliments.

Since I'm partially responsible for derailing this tread, I'll try to get it back on track. :yes: People who support the burka argue that it is for the woman's protection (in addition to keeping her separated from male society, I think this is called purdah, but am not sure). That she must cover her body her body to protect her from the impulses of men, along the lines of what I was saying above. I think that this notion (and the idea that women are responsible for restraining male excess and that wearing a burka will help her do so) doesn't give men enough credit, really.

Men are not mindless phallo-slaves who can't control their biological urges. Every person is responsible for his or her own actions. To say otherwise is to give people an easy way out, and if we are talking about assault, a way to blame the victim, which should never happen.

Ah, now this is actually, more or less, where I was planning to drag the thread. However, I would point out that the traditional male paradigm enshirines restraint as a masculine virtue precisely for the benefit of women, and that femenism and sexual liberation have, to a great extent, undercut this ideaology.

the concept that "we should all respect each other" is no where near as forceful as, "a man who harms a woman is no longer a man". Speaking personally, we freeze out such men among my peer group, but said peer group involves a fetish for swords, drinking too much ale and tramping over Dartmoor, havng drunk too much ale and hopefully carrying swords.

so....:juggle2:

Andres

04-20-2010, 14:56

I accept that both men and women should be allowed to take maternity/paternity leave, but I don't accept that a women should be allowed to take 3 months off and then be treated the same as all the people who worked those three months when she comes back. Conversely, a man if just as welcome to take the same amount of time off, and be viewed in the same way.

So, you don't accept a man being three months gone because of an injury or sickness being treated the same as the ones who were lucky enough to stay healthy?

Or do you think the three months rest given to women after giving birth are just a frivolity and not a necessity, because delivering a baby is like a walk in the park and doesn't require rest to recover?

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

04-20-2010, 16:19

So, you don't accept a man being three months gone because of an injury or sickness being treated the same as the ones who were lucky enough to stay healthy?

Or do you think the three months rest given to women after giving birth are just a frivolity and not a necessity, because delivering a baby is like a walk in the park and doesn't require rest to recover?

Childbirth is generally considered to be voluntary, as opposed to accidentally injuring yourself. Actually, I think most people would take issue with their conception and birth being compared to a "sickness". As to whether or not a woman needs three months rest after a normal childbirth, historically they haven't. As with everything else today, modern maternity leave is generous (and rightly so).

Rhyfelwyr

04-20-2010, 17:16

Personally, I think it is important woman remain modest in order to protect against natural disasters (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/8631775.stm).

Many women who do not dress modestly lead young men astray and spread adultery in society which increases earthquakes

IMO this is fullproof reasoning and must be taken into consideration.

Louis VI the Fat

04-20-2010, 18:12

Myrddraal - I couldn't agree more with you about sex discrimination in insurances. The excellent former European commisisoner Anna Diamantopoulou fought long and hard for gender equality in insurances. Alas, as so often, her directivess failed because of British resistance. Private profit took preference over considerations of social justice once more, blatant discrimination by insurance companies will be allowed for the foreseeable future.

I am still very frustrated she lost. In car insurance, men would've gained. In life insurance, women. Tthe winners are now are the City of London and the massive amount of money generated in the insurance industry.

As an aside, contrary to British perceptions, especially those fed by the alarmist tabloid /Murdoch press, the tendency in the past decade has been not one of continental social justice reaching the UK, but bloodthirsty Anglo capitalism forcing its way into the continent, much to the financial benefit of (a small group of people in) Britain.

Andres

04-20-2010, 19:10

Private profit took preference over considerations of social justice once more, blatant discrimination by insurance companies will be allowed for the foreseeable future.

I am still very frustrated she lost. In car insurance, men would've gained. In life insurance, women. Tthe winners are now are the City of London and the massive amount of money generated in the insurance industry.

As an aside, contrary to British perceptions, especially those fed by the alarmist tabloid /Murdoch press, the tendency in the past decade has been not one of continental social justice reaching the UK, but bloodthirsty Anglo capitalism forcing its way into the continent, much to the financial benefit of (a small group of people in) Britain.

:yes:

Social injustice in the name of freedom and free market.

As if a few corrections here and there, and a bit of strict regulations, e.g. on banks and insurance companies who play on the stock markets with other peoples' money (in the name of freedom of course) would inevitably lead to a communist Europe :rolleyes:

But that's an entirely different debate.

Rhyfelwyr

04-20-2010, 19:43

Beskar

04-20-2010, 19:51

But nobody is saying that the burqa is of itself a source of social justice, but we must allow it because that would tramp on the husband's freedoms.
Nor is anybody saying that it is a case of racial equality taking priority over gender equality.

The argument is simple - forcing women to wear the burka should be illegal, whereas the burqa itself shouldn't be.

And in return, people will say, 'well that's :daisy: because obviously these women are forced to war them'. Even if this was true, I don't think removing fundamental freedoms in order for a purely practical benefit in the promotion of a specific policy is really a good precedent to set.

Most places have dress codes, and there are laws surrounding the covering of faces as well. As such, Burka's are "not welcome" in those environments, so the women cannot wear a Burka there.

However, this comes up with another situation, about the susposed exploition of the husband. I actually think it is more to do with the fact they are Muslim and it is this Islamic "peer-pressure" which is the more the cause than a husband forcing them to wear it because he gets a kick by covering up his wife more (whereas they could show them off and make others jealous with their personalities and charm through body language). As if anything, you basically would have to do a "Social Enginneering Project" where you advertise "Islam in the West" talking about how Western Islam is done and constructed, backed by those in Muslim communities.

For example, there is an Muslim girl in one of my classes who wears a headscarf, should I go up and go "Are you being exploited and oppressed by your husband?". She would likely cause physical harm against me for me even remotely suggesting then, and talk about how I am 'ignorant' about her cultural background. Ultimately, she wears it out of choice and to also advertise the fact she is muslim, rather like a Christian wearing a Cross-necklace.

Which reminds me, I remember a big incident in Britain, where I think BAE did a strict dress code change, and a woman was complaining all over the usual 'taboids' about being unable to wear a cross, because it was persecution against her and all this stuff, even though Muslim, Hindu and other religious folk had to do the same, but these some-how wear quite conviently skipped on. (The dress code said no necklaces of any kind)

TinCow

04-20-2010, 20:45

Certainly both Queen Elizabeth and Queen Victoria thought the status quo was fine, and they were in a position to change things.

You need to study history more. Queen Elizabeth had to remain single her entire life and was unable to marry the man she loved because doing so would result in her losing the throne. Even as Queen of England, she was constrained by gender rules which she was powerless to break. Victoria is irrelevant, as by the time of her reign the monarchy was largely symbolic. Parliament made the laws, not Victoria.

Myrddraal

04-20-2010, 21:29

This is how I see it:

.
Not Banned
Banned

Woman who wears a Burka out of choice wants to work
Chooses not to work in places requiring a dress code.
If she is turned away on the basis of "we don't hire rag heads", then that is quite wrong, but covered by equal opportunity laws already.
Is not allowed to wear a Burka.

Woman who is forced to wear a Burka by her husband, wants to work, but her husband won't let her.
She can either go behind her husband's back to get work, or she can submit and stay at home. If she goes behind his back, she could also not wear the Burka at work.
If her husband doesn't let her out of the house, she can either go behind his back, as before, or submit, as before. + 1 to the problem. If her husband lets her out without a Burka, she still has to go behind his back to get work.

Woman who is forced to wear a Burka by her husband, wants to work, and her husband wants her to work as well.
Chooses not to work in places requiring a dress code.
If she is turned away on the basis of "we don't hire rag heads", then that is quite wrong, but covered by equal opportunity laws already.
If her husband doesn't let her out of the house, she can either go behind his back, as before, or submit, as before.

As far as I can see, banning the Burka achieves nothing positive, and has multiple negative points. If somebody could explictely explain to me what is wrong with this table, explaining in a bit more detail than "Burkas stop you communicating" (I want to know how please), I'd be open to changing my mind, but right now I don't see it. Even if you elliminate the entire first row, there is an added negative to the ban in that the visibility of oppressed women will drop.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

04-20-2010, 22:09

You need to study history more. Queen Elizabeth had to remain single her entire life and was unable to marry the man she loved because doing so would result in her losing the throne. Even as Queen of England, she was constrained by gender rules which she was powerless to break. Victoria is irrelevant, as by the time of her reign the monarchy was largely symbolic. Parliament made the laws, not Victoria.

I've studied history plenty, actually.

Of the two men Elizabeth desired to marry, one was low-born and also intollerable (there is a story that she had the papers drawn up to make him an Earl, only to tear them up in front of him in frustration at his behaviour), the other was said to have murdered his wife. Whether or not she was constrained by gender-relations is a bit of a red herring, especially since her sister seems to have managed well enough.

As to Victoria's power, William IV forced through the first Electoral Reform Act by threatening to flood the Lords with Liberal Peers if the Torys did not support it. Frankly, Elizabeth II is the first remotely passive monarch in our history. In any case, Victoria opposed the Suffregette movement, which explains why it got nowhere until after she died.

Seamus Fermanagh

04-20-2010, 22:24

Insurance statistics do not fit either model A) or B) as Andres presented. No business can absorb the costs of A) and B) sounds like Scrooge and Marley in its Dickensian stereotypicy.

Insurance is a competitive business. If you offer a product for price X and someone else offers it for price X-15%, THEY are going to get the business unless you can demonstrate that your product is qualitatively better in some fashion. The premium rates are calculated by actuaries who try to quantify all aspects of risk. Differentiations in premium are made whenever a significant difference is observed. Competition keeps companies from being either too picky or too greedy in their efforts.

Why should women pay the same life insurance cost as men? Assuming basic health and age are the same, they are statistically likely to live about 4 years longer. That means, on a whole life, that they will be paying premium for longer so the company can afford to reduce the premium accordingly. With term, it means that a higher percentage of them will make it to the end date of the term (70-80 depending on company) and so the company will have less to pay out and can therefore charge them less. Women living longer is not an arbitrary point of discrimination, but based in verifiable data.

Beskar

04-20-2010, 22:38

Why should women pay the same life insurance cost as men? Assuming basic health and age are the same, they are statistically likely to live about 4 years longer. That means, on a whole life, that they will be paying premium for longer so the company can afford to reduce the premium accordingly. With term, it means that a higher percentage of them will make it to the end date of the term (70-80 depending on company) and so the company will have less to pay out and can therefore charge them less. Women living longer is not an arbitrary point of discrimination, but based in verifiable data.

Would be interesting they put other data into it, it would really set off rockets. If it is statistically proven "whites" are better drivers than "blacks", you have all white car insurance companies (or the other way round), or if statistically homosexuals are better drivers than straight men, the "gay only car insurance"

Sasaki Kojiro

04-20-2010, 22:44

If her husband doesn't let her out of the house, she can either go behind his back, as before, or submit, as before.

I think Brenus said earlier that this same argument was made about the banning of headscarfs in schools--"they will just pull their children from schools"--but he said that it didn't happen. So wouldn't this be more properly worded as "her husband lets her out of the house and she gets a job"?

I think it would lead to a change in time. There are plenty of similar practices that faded out either through bans or the custom changing--don't you think a ban would lead to the custom fading away?

Strike For The South

04-20-2010, 23:01

I think it would lead to a change in time. There are plenty of similar practices that faded out either through bans or the custom changing--don't you think a ban would lead to the custom fading away?

Not when the burka is merley a tangible manifestation of the misgoyny that it's culture represents (which isn't something I agree with, however that seems to be the prevading thought here as to why the burka exsists in the first place. So I may as well run with it.)

Megas Methuselah

04-20-2010, 23:10

Man, I just can't imagine this happening in Canada. I see girls at the university who wear either simple head scarves or bhurka-like clothing that cover their faces, it's not really an uncommon sight, and neither do they have difficulty socializing. Moreover, I don't feel uneasy around them. Sometimes I even get turned on. If a political party here suggested a ban such as this, they'd be branded as racists.

Why are you guys so damn intolerant?

drone

04-20-2010, 23:15

Would be interesting they put other data into it, it would really set off rockets. If it is statistically proven "whites" are better drivers than "blacks", you have all white car insurance companies (or the other way round), or if statistically homosexuals are better drivers than straight men, the "gay only car insurance"

You don't get segregated insurance companies, you just end up with higher rates for the riskier subset. This happens already, industry-wide. Actuarial analysis is very important to the insurance companies' bottom lines, it would be fiscally irresponsible not to adjust rates for risk. For car insurance in the US, I believe unmarried males ages 16-25 pay the highest rates. The actuaries factor in all kinds of statistics, for example my grades in high school and college affected my premiums at the time. In many ways the less risky drivers subsidize the riskier ones, a company would go bankrupt if it did not diversify it's coverage demographic.

Myrddraal

04-20-2010, 23:26

@Sasaki, that's why I said 'if'. I wanted to cover all possibilities.

Having looked at every combination I can think of, I can't see the benefits of the ban at all, and I can see plenty of problems with it. I can understand how having an oppressive husband could stop you socialising/working. I wish I could see how a Burka could stop you socialising/working, except where there is a dress code (in this case, the Burka is as much a barrier as a beard is).

EDIT, post somehow got mangled, corrected now.

Sasaki Kojiro

04-20-2010, 23:29

@Sasaki, that's why I said 'if'. I wanted to cover all possibilities.

Having looked at every combination I can think of, I can't see the benefits of the ban at all, and I can see plenty of problems. With it. I can understand how having an oppressive husband. I wish I could see how a Burka could stop you socialising/working, except where there is a dress code (in this case, the Burka is as much a barrier as a beard is).

There are millions of jobs where having scruffy hair means you won't get hired.

I don't know how to say that burka wearing hinders socializing, it seems apparent. Facial cues add a lot to meaning. Isn't most of meaning expressed through non verbal cues?

Myrddraal

04-20-2010, 23:39

That does make sense, and it's the strongest argument in favour so far. OK, so I can see that an abusive husband who wanted to stop his wife socialising could use a Burka as part of this, but frankly it doesn't seem to me to be a very effective social barrier. As I've said, I've seen people in Burkas who seemed perfectly able to socialise. It seems to me that the real barrier to socialising is the husband. If a woman lives in fear of her husband, and he does not want her to talk to people, it is the fear of the husband which prevents socialising, not the Burka. I can see an accept that the Burka doesn't help in some situations, but it seems like such a small part of the problem that it doesn't seem a strong argument for an outright ban.

Louis VI the Fat

04-20-2010, 23:40

Man, I just can't imagine this happening in Canada.

Why are you guys so damn intolerant?I can not see it happening in the US any time soon. As for Canada, I can see it happen in Québec. Different societies, different customs, different peoples. (Why are you imposing your colonial, imperialisty views on my culture? :tongue2: )

As for 'why are you guys so intolerant' - I've got the impression that you see this within a scheme of 'dominant white culture being intolerant of minority coloured culture'. Not so*. The quickest way to counter this is to point out that the headscarf, and indeed other conspicuous religious symbols, are banned / discouraged from many places in, are very controversial in, the francophone but otherwise very 'brown' and Islamic countries of Morocco and Tunisia. In these countries too the headscarf is regarded a sectarian symbol. Not a product of indigenous tradition, but of foreign ideological agression, to be banned / prevented from taking over public life. Algeria is even more complex.
There is a clash in these predominantly Islamic countries between 'francophone', secular, modern, middle class society, and fundamentalist, backward, lower class society. Unfortunately, the latter have gained much ground the past two decades, and depressingly headscarfs and fundamentalism have made their way into the universities too. Those who knew modern, progressive and secular North Africa as recent as twenty, thirty years ago, are shocked at what has happened.

Turkey too, for it's part, is a fiercely secular society, where there is perennial debate about this subject too. There are many restrictions in place.

Throughout much of the other parts of the Islamic world, the hijab, the niqaab and the burqa are the subject of much debate and social unrest.

The struggle has been brought to our doorsteps to an extent perhaps not readily imaginable for North Americans. Combine it with French political traditions of secularism and equality, and all the elements for a fine clash are present!
To say that a ban would be unthinkable in North America is both true, and simultaneously as meaningless as comparing rights for Native Americans with rights for Native Europeans.

*Although this element is not absent from the debate.

HoreTore

04-20-2010, 23:54

*Although this element is not absent from the debate.

Oh come on.

Use the census from Switzerland as an example; it got around 60% yes, right? Now cut away all the people who voted yes because they are inbred racists with a fascist fetish - still believe the yes-side would have a majority?

There are three kinds of opinions on this issue:
- those who oppose a ban
- those who support a ban
- and finally, those who plain and simple hate brown people

You're kidding yourself if you think the third one is much smaller than the other two.

Louis VI the Fat

04-21-2010, 00:04

Ban the veil for women now! This symbol of a life of female subservience!

:tongue: :tongue: :tongue: :tongue: :tongue: :tongue: :tongue: :tongue: :tongue: :tongue: :tongue: :tongue: :tongue: :tongue: :tongue:

https://img13.imageshack.us/img13/5895/mariy.jpg

Louis VI the Fat

04-21-2010, 00:07

Oh come on.

Use the census from Switzerland as an example; it got around 60% yes, right? Now cut away all the people who voted yes because they are inbred racists with a fascist fetish - still believe the yes-side would have a majority?

There are three kinds of opinions on this issue:
- those who oppose a ban
- those who support a ban
- and finally, those who plain and simple hate brown people

You're kidding yourself if you think the third one is much smaller than the other two.I suppose the restrictions in Morocco and ban in Tunisia are because the 'browns' in these countries plain and simply hate 'brown' people?

Tunisian-born imam Hassen Chalghoumi, whose mosque stands in a northern Paris suburb where many Muslims live, said women who wanted to cover their faces should move to Saudi Arabia or other Muslim countries where that was a tradition.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/expat/expatnews/7053101/Paris-imam-backs-Frances-burqa-ban.html

Verily, we live in an age of miracles; thus, none other than Sheikh Mohammed Tantawi, the leading religious figure of Al-Azhar, was, just the other day, “reportedly angered” when he toured a school in Cairo and saw a girl wearing “niqab” which means that her face was masked or possibly that she was wearing a full head, face, and body covering.

“Sheikh Tantawi, regarded by many as Egypt’s Imam and Sunni Islam’s foremost spiritual authority, asked the teenage girl to remove her veil saying: “The niqab is a tradition, it has no connection with religion.” The imam instructed the girl, a pupil at a secondary school in Cairo’s Madinet Nasr suburb, never to wear the niqab again and promised to issue a fatwa, or religious edict, against its use in schools. The ruling will not affect use of the hijab, the Islamic headscarf worn by most Muslim women in Egypt.

Following the imam’s lead, Egypt’s minister of higher education is to ban female undergraduates from wearing the niqab from the country’s public universities, Cairo’s Al-Masri Al-Yom newspaper reported. “

Again, don’t rejoice too soon.

Even the very influential Sheikh Tantawi has his fundamentalist detractors who have excoriated him for supporting France’s ban on hijab in public schools and for shaking hands with Israeli President Shimon Peres. And, clearly, the Egyptian government is unhappy about the gathering forces of Islamic fundamentalism which consistently manipulate women and women’s clothing as symbolic political statements. Some have even called for more severe Islamic clothing for women in which only one eye (Algerian style) can show. The Egyptian government understands that it is at risk vis a vis Islamic fundamentalists.

Now, some European politicians understand this too.
http://pajamasmedia.com/phyllischesler/2009/10/07/egypt-to-ban-the-burqa-france-and-italy-too/

Sasaki Kojiro

04-21-2010, 00:14

I suppose the restrictions in Morocco and ban in Tunisia are because the 'browns' in these countries plain and simply hate 'brown' people?

I suppose they could still be inbred and have a fascist fetish :tongue3:

Myrddraal

04-21-2010, 00:32

The niqab is a tradition, it has no connection with religion.
How is that justification for banning the niqab?

HoreTore

04-21-2010, 00:53

I suppose the restrictions in Morocco and ban in Tunisia are because the 'browns' in these countries plain and simply hate 'brown' people?

No, that ties in nicely with the fact that those countries are run by fascists.

Something I hope we are not.

How is that justification for banning the niqab?

Indeed. Does that mean he can tell me exactly how to dress, seeing as I'm not religious? Are only religious people allowed the freedom to decide what to wear?

Louis VI the Fat

04-21-2010, 17:59

Nicolas Sarkozy (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/nicolas-sarkozy) has ordered the French government to prepare legislation paving the way for a total ban on the full Islamic veil.

The move comes despite concerns over the stigmatising effect it could have on western Europe's largest Muslim population. Government spokesman Luc Chatel said today that proposals for a full ban on the niqab and burqa would be submitted to parliament in the coming months and could theoretically be made law by summer. Plans to outlaw the garments, he added, were "in line with the wishes of the head of state", who has repeatedly made clear his aversion to face-covering veils. "The ban on the full veil must be total in all public places because women's dignity cannot be watered down," said Chatel, keeping to the official line that a ban would be in keeping with republican French values of gender equality and secularism. He added: "Everything must be done to ensure that no one feels stigmatised because of their faith or religious beliefs. The president and the prime minister have asked all members of the government to commit to this point."

The move, which comes after nearly a year of discussion and at times incendiary debate, was applauded by members of Sarkozy's right-wing UMP party and others on the left who had long made clear their support for a ban.

However it was denounced by the mediator of the French republic, Jean-Paul Delevoye, who said that a partial ban would be preferable to a more wide-ranging law. He also supported the verdict of France's highest constitutional body, which earlier this year said such a radical move could be unconstitutional.
"I think the council of state gave rather interesting advice which said that, in certain places and at certain times, it would be suitable to ban the full veil," Delevoye told French radio.

"I don't know what we're going to do with the Saudi women who come shopping on the Champs Elyseés, for example," he added.
linky (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/apr/21/france-ban-islamic-veil)

Strike For The South

04-21-2010, 18:14

I can not see it happening in the US any time soon. As for Canada, I can see it happen in Québec. Different societies, different customs, different peoples. (Why are you imposing your colonial, imperialisty views on my culture? :tongue2: )

As for 'why are you guys so intolerant' - I've got the impression that you see this within a scheme of 'dominant white culture being intolerant of minority coloured culture'. Not so*. The quickest way to counter this is to point out that the headscarf, and indeed other conspicuous religious symbols, are banned / discouraged from many places in, are very controversial in, the francophone but otherwise very 'brown' and Islamic countries of Morocco and Tunisia. In these countries too the headscarf is regarded a sectarian symbol. Not a product of indigenous tradition, but of foreign ideological agression, to be banned / prevented from taking over public life. Algeria is even more complex.
There is a clash in these predominantly Islamic countries between 'francophone', secular, modern, middle class society, and fundamentalist, backward, lower class society. Unfortunately, the latter have gained much ground the past two decades, and depressingly headscarfs and fundamentalism have made their way into the universities too. Those who knew modern, progressive and secular North Africa as recent as twenty, thirty years ago, are shocked at what has happened.

Turkey too, for it's part, is a fiercely secular society, where there is perennial debate about this subject too. There are many restrictions in place.

Throughout much of the other parts of the Islamic world, the hijab, the niqaab and the burqa are the subject of much debate and social unrest.

The struggle has been brought to our doorsteps to an extent perhaps not readily imaginable for North Americans. Combine it with French political traditions of secularism and equality, and all the elements for a fine clash are present!
To say that a ban would be unthinkable in North America is both true, and simultaneously as meaningless as comparing rights for Native Americans with rights for Native Europeans.

*Although this element is not absent from the debate.

You misunderstand the position.

I have no doubt that some women whom wear the burka would just as soon not and I have no doubt that in some cases it is being used as a tool of opperison. Clearly this would ruffle some feathers and it is only natrual to debate what moral posistion the state will take.

However, you have not shown me why or how banning the burka will ease the opperison that happens in some of these households. It's great majority muslim countries are considering this same question but I would argue they follow the French "person is the state" line of thinking rather than clearly superior American "state is the person" model. It is only natural this question would come up in such socities.

Now I'm am against banning the burka bacuase I beilive it is a stark destrcution of expression but clearly many Europeans consider that an accaptble loss in this case.

So the next question is how will this help immagrants assimalate and stop the oppersion?

It is simply a peice of cloth

Sasaki Kojiro

04-21-2010, 18:25

However, you have not shown me why or how banning the burka will ease the opperison that happens in some of these households.

Again though, I think this could easily just be a misleading mental construct. What if oppression is, when you look at it closely, just a list of things that these women are made to do against their will? As a comparison, let's say that the government is invasive of our privacy. Would you argue that requiring a warrant for a wiretap is just treating the symptom, and that we should instead take steps to ensure that the government doesn't want to be invasive anymore?

Strike For The South

04-21-2010, 18:32

Again though, I think this could easily just be a misleading mental construct. What if oppression is, when you look at it closely, just a list of things that these women are made to do against their will? As a comparison, let's say that the government is invasive of our privacy. Would you argue that requiring a warrant for a wiretap is just treating the symptom, and that we should instead take steps to ensure that the government doesn't want to be invasive anymore?

The wiretap could lead to a major break in the case and you would have to show a judge you have cause to do it. I realize establishing cause in this case is a nigh impossibility.

Now the tradeoff here seems to be a little curtailment of expression for a little inergration. I feel like that will mean the Europe is simply the other side of the coin compared to Islamic Facism as compared to having the moral high ground.

At this point France/Belgium is letting there immagrants dictate the rules when it should be the other way around.

Brenus

04-21-2010, 18:32

It is simply a peice of cloth like a cage is just a piece of metal.

Rhyfelwyr

04-21-2010, 18:40

It is simply a peice of cloth like a cage is just a piece of metal.

It's not so simple. A cage is a cage because of it's purpose.

But what is the purpose of a burqa? You say it is a tool of oppression, others say it is a symbol of their faith (even if it isn't really, it's not our place to tell them what they believe).

The fact is, many women do choose to wear it. I'm sure they would be pretty annoyed at the government telling them they are being 'liberated' by being told what to wear.

Sasaki Kojiro

04-21-2010, 18:45

It's not so simple. A cage is a cage because of it's purpose.

But what is the purpose of a burqa? You say it is a tool of oppression, others say it is a symbol of their faith (even if it isn't really, it's not our place to tell them what they believe).

What something is isn't determined by what people say it is.

The fact is, many women do choose to wear it. I'm sure they would be pretty annoyed at the government telling them they are being 'liberated' by being told what to wear.

Do you know anyone who isn't "pretty annoyed" at the government?

*****

We could almost merge this thread with the "why should religions be respected" thread. People can have strong beliefs, and be mistaken. I don't think the purpose of government is simply to allow all beliefs to flourish if people want to believe them. The fundamental problem with simply pushing for rights and freedoms is that no child is free. They don't freely choose their beliefs. If we had grown up in the aztec culture:

Aztec society viewed even the slightest tlatlacolli ('sin' or 'insult') as an extremely malevolent supernatural force. For instance, if an adulterer were to enter a house, it was believed that all turkey chicks would perish from tlazomiquiztli ('filth-death')(Sahagun Bk. 5: 29: 191-192). To avoid such calamities befalling their community, those who had erred punished themselves by extreme measures such as slitting their tongues for vices of speech or their ears for vices of listening, and 'for a slight [sin they] hanged themselves, or threw themselves down precipices, or put an end to themselves by abstinence' (Motolinia, History of the Indies, 106-107). In Classic Nahuatl (the Aztec language) the verbal form ni-c-yecoa, 'I sin', is closely related to ni-c-ye.coa, 'I finish it.' It was believed that error of any sort could quite literally 'finish' or 'ruin' everything (Francisco Clavigero, Historia antiqua de México, 7). This seems to have given Aztec society a heavy dependence on extremely violent 'penance,'of which human sacrifice was considered one form (as already mentioned, human sacrifice was often called 'penance').

We might be cutting our tongues and genitals as punishment for sinning. Would you want our society to become more like that? Isn't the whole point of agreeing to be governed to ensure a certain quality of life for the people in the country? Isn't that the WHY behind our freedoms and rights?

Rhyfelwyr

04-21-2010, 19:21

What something is isn't determined by what people say it is.

Of itself it's a piece of cloth, when it becomes something else then means that only to the person concerned. To one woman it might be a tool by which her husband opresses her, to another it might be part of living by her own beliefs. The government has no right to step all over the rights of the latter kind. The former is already banned since you can't legally force people to do anything against their will.

Right now, people are wanting to take away a fundamental freedom for some short-term gain in integrating an immigrant group. One we accept this as OK, it really is a slippery slope, and I think that argument is fair here.

I don't think the purpose of government is simply to allow all beliefs to flourish if people want to believe them. The fundamental problem with simply pushing for rights and freedoms is that no child is free. They don't freely choose their beliefs.

I'm not sure what you mean here... are you pointing to the fact that the beliefs we carry into adulthood may be a result of childhood brainwashing and so people need to be freed from them?

There are a lot of potential problems going down that road. First of all, how does the government determine what is right? In Victorian Britain, they probably would have been shocked at the way children were raised by some hippie parents back in the 60's, and so when they grow up living with free love etc, maybe the government should re-educated them and free them from this lifestyle drilled into them from youth?

Sasaki Kojiro

04-21-2010, 20:04

Of itself it's a piece of cloth, when it becomes something else then means that only to the person concerned. To one woman it might be a tool by which her husband opresses her, to another it might be part of living by her own beliefs. The government has no right to step all over the rights of the latter kind. The former is already banned since you can't legally force people to do anything against their will.

The government has a duty to prevent the oppression. We have a right to a government that does its duty. A government that bans "oppression" and doesn't do anything to stop it is trampling over the rights of its people.

Right now, people are wanting to take away a fundamental freedom for some short-term gain in integrating an immigrant group. One we accept this as OK, it really is a slippery slope, and I think that argument is fair here.

How is it "some short-term gain in integration"? Isn't it a long term gain in terms of equality? Accepting it as OK to pass over those who wear it freely in order to prevent others from being forced is not a slippery slope. You have to agree with your interpretation of it being a short-term gain just for integration purposes for it to be a slippery slope.

I'm not sure what you mean here... are you pointing to the fact that the beliefs we carry into adulthood may be a result of childhood brainwashing and so people need to be freed from them?

There are a lot of potential problems going down that road. First of all, how does the government determine what is right? In Victorian Britain, they probably would have been shocked at the way children were raised by some hippie parents back in the 60's, and so when they grow up living with free love etc, maybe the government should re-educated them and free them from this lifestyle drilled into them from youth?

Aren't you kind of washing your hands of the whole business if you take this approach? "how does the government determine what is right" etc.

Beliefs don't exist in a vacuum, they aren't their own ends. We agree that human sacrifice is not necessary to keep society functioning don't we (despite "how does the government determine that" etc)? And moreover, we believe human sacrifice is wrong. So would we allow people to do it in our society when they are only doing it because they are mistaken about why it should be done?

Let's say that people believe a certain homeopathic medicine cures illnesses. Should the government ban the medicine just because it doesn't actually cure anything? No. Should it ban the sale of it under false pretenses? Yes. Should it ban it if it actively damages health, even if people believe in it? Yes. Because the people taking it actually want to be cured, not killed.

The point about the children is this--you point to a grown woman wearing the burqa and say, she chose to wear it, she is living by her own beliefs. But that's because she believes it is necessary for certain other things to remain true. But it isn't. That is no different from the aztecs--their human sacrifice was done by "choice", but they only did it because they believed it was for a greater good. But it wasn't.

If no harm was done, then no foul, same as in the homeopathic medicine case. But harm is done. You can say, "well then--the law should say that only those who aren't choosing it freely should be banned from wearing it" but that is clearly impossible. Some 14 year olds may be mature enough to vote, but they aren't allowed because the law simply can't be that nuanced.

Rhyfelwyr

04-21-2010, 20:28

The government has a duty to prevent the oppression. We have a right to a government that does its duty. A government that bans "oppression" and doesn't do anything to stop it is trampling over the rights of its people.

Of course, but first of all, the government must treat things on a case by case basis to ensure that it's claims of tackling oppression are warranted (and we can be sure for many cases of women wearing the burqa, they would not be).

Since when was trampling on one right for a practical benefit in protecting another acceptable? So is the whole farce with Guantanamo Bay OK because even though a lot of people lost their most basic human rights, it might have protected the right to life of others by not getting blown up?

How is it "some short-term gain in integration"? Isn't it a long term gain in terms of equality? Accepting it as OK to pass over those who wear it freely in order to prevent others from being forced is not a slippery slope. You have to agree with your interpretation of it being a short-term gain just for integration purposes for it to be a slippery slope.

The practical benefits of the policy are a whole other matter from the issue with the right to expression. I don't deny banning the burqa would have a lot of positive effects. It would free many women from one means of control used by their husbands, it would help Muslims integrate into Belgian society and remove racial tensions.

Also, with the short-term thing, I meant in the broader historical perspective. At some point in history, an tiny population of immigrants with some obscure tribal customs came to Belgium, and the resulting fuss over their different customs led to people taking away the fundamental right to freedom of expression.

Let's say that people believe a certain homeopathic medicine cures illnesses. Should the government ban the medicine just because it doesn't actually cure anything? No. Should it ban the sale of it under false pretenses? Yes. Should it ban it if it actively damages health, even if people believe in it? Yes. Because the people taking it actually want to be cured, not killed.

I think this is another case where people support unecessary government intervention because they don't place enough trust in the average person. If this product damaged a person's health, why would these people believe that it is going to cure them in the first place (without false advertising)? If the people believe in the product, presumably the producers would be able to state a fair case for their claims of its curing capabilities. If the product really harmed them, then they wouldn't take them.

The point about the children is this--you point to a grown woman wearing the burqa and say, she chose to wear it, she is living by her own beliefs. But that's because she believes it is necessary for certain other things to remain true. But it isn't. That is no different from the aztecs--their human sacrifice was done by "choice", but they only did it because they believed it was for a greater good. But it wasn't.

I'm pretty sure these things didn't do much good either, but that's my opinion, not the law of the land. Should the government really promote any worldview as superior?

Sasaki Kojiro

04-21-2010, 20:36

Of course, but first of all, the government must treat things on a case by case basis to ensure that it's claims of tackling oppression are warranted (and we can be sure for many cases of women wearing the burqa, they would not be).

Since when was trampling on one right for a practical benefit in protecting another acceptable? So is the whole farce with Guantanamo Bay OK because even though a lot of people lost their most basic human rights, it might have protected the right to life of others by not getting blown up?

But this is true in either case. And since one right is much more important than the other, we choose that one. I think you agree with that sentence but just disagree about which is more important, yes?

The practical benefits of the policy are a whole other matter from the issue with the right to expression. I don't deny banning the burqa would have a lot of positive effects. It would free many women from one means of control used by their husbands, it would help Muslims integrate into Belgian society and remove racial tensions.

Also, with the short-term thing, I meant in the broader historical perspective. At some point in history, an tiny population of immigrants with some obscure tribal customs came to Belgium, and the resulting fuss over their different customs led to people taking away the fundamental right to freedom of expression.

Rights that have no practical benefits are worthless. They aren't just rules to be followed--we created them for a specific reason. We didn't create the right of freedom of expression so that women could be forced into burqa's.

I think this is another case where people support unecessary government intervention because they don't place enough trust in the average person. If this product damaged a person's health, why would these people believe that it is going to cure them in the first place (without false advertising)? If the people believe in the product, presumably the producers would be able to state a fair case for their claims of its curing capabilities. If the product really harmed them, then they wouldn't take them.

But this is false. Have you ever seen one of james randi's talks for example? He usually starts by taking an entire bottle of some homeopathic medicine, and then explains at the end of the speech that he'd taken a massive "overdose" of the supposed sleeping pills. People believe all kinds of silly things for all kinds of silly reasons. I could tell you stories about my brother, but that's a bit personal :shrug:

I'm pretty sure these things didn't do much good either, but that's my opinion, not the law of the land. Should the government really promote any worldview as superior?

I don't understand where you're coming from with this. How is it possible for them to do otherwise than promote some kind of worldview?

Megas Methuselah

04-21-2010, 20:46

As for Canada, I can see it happen in Québec.

Yeah, but they hate brown people because we rightfully undermine any sort of right to a nation they deserve. If they want to be so intolerant (look at what they did at Oka, for example), they don't deserve to live in Canada.

Louis VI the Fat

04-21-2010, 22:56

questionI don't know Strike.

What is wisdom in this matter?

Here is a beautiful picture of a man. It makes me mellow, makes me see what's inmportant. All I want is a just, dignified life for him.

"Pourquoi? Why?"

https://img59.imageshack.us/img59/8460/pourquoi.jpg

ajaxfetish

04-21-2010, 23:33

It is simply a peice of cloth like a cage is just a piece of metal.
I'm not sure whether a burka ban is a good or bad idea, but as far as this analogy goes, do we have (or need) a cage ban? Aren't people allowed to use cages? I suspect we'd even allow confinement in a cage if it was consensual. Holding someone in a cage against there will of course is, and should be, illegal. It may not be the best example to demonstrate your case.

Ajax

edit: I guess the point is that a cage is just a piece of metal. It's what's done with a cage that has moral or legal repercussions.

Rhyfelwyr

04-22-2010, 00:06

But this is true in either case. And since one right is much more important than the other, we choose that one. I think you agree with that sentence but just disagree about which is more important, yes?

I wouldn't say so, at least in this example with the burqa's. I would have no problem with the government intervening via social services if it could be proved on a case by case basis that women were being forced to wear the burqa. Until it is proved the woman is being forced to wear the burqa, no rights are in conflict. When it is proved she is being coerced, the government steps in to protect her rights from her husband.

Unless this is treated case by case, one woman's liberation will be another woman's oppression.

Rights that have no practical benefits are worthless. They aren't just rules to be followed--we created them for a specific reason. We didn't create the right of freedom of expression so that women could be forced into burqa's.

But the right concerned here - freedom of expression - is one of the most important and useful of them all. If rights were not inalienable, they would never have lasted over the centuries. Sure, it might seem a good idea to remove freedom of expression for now in order to free some Muslim women, but what then? Once rights lose their untouchable status, there will be a slippery slope and they will very quickly disappear.

If you can ban the face veil to promote integration, why not also headscarfs? They make the Muslim community stick out and prevent their integration. You coudl then ban any religious imagery, just in case people appeared to be different. And so on...

But this is false. Have you ever seen one of james randi's talks for example? He usually starts by taking an entire bottle of some homeopathic medicine, and then explains at the end of the speech that he'd taken a massive "overdose" of the supposed sleeping pills. People believe all kinds of silly things for all kinds of silly reasons. I could tell you stories about my brother, but that's a bit personal :shrug:

I've never heard of that guy, but don't watchdog groups etc tend to keep the dodgy businesses under check? If someone tries to sell something that is harmful and doesn't do what its supposed to, they shouldn't last long.

I don't understand where you're coming from with this. How is it possible for them to do otherwise than promote some kind of worldview?

By doing nothing other than protecting people's rights from each other.

It might seem reasonable at first that the government should stop people harming themselves for ideals that seem crazy to us. But then what if it was the other way around? Witches obviously need to be burnt at the stake because they harm not just themselves, but bring curses upon us all. Right?

When the government starts enforcing the ways of the majority just because they are convinced they are right, everything can go nuts pretty quickly.

Sasaki Kojiro

04-22-2010, 00:17

I wouldn't say so, at least in this example with the burqa's. I would have no problem with the government intervening via social services if it could be proved on a case by case basis that women were being forced to wear the burqa. Until it is proved the woman is being forced to wear the burqa, no rights are in conflict. When it is proved she is being coerced, the government steps in to protect her rights from her husband.

Unless this is treated case by case, one woman's liberation will be another woman's oppression.

You run into the same practicality issues I described later. Do you think citizens have the right to vote once they are mature enough? I think yes, but the current law tramples over the rights of millions who are mature enough to vote at 17. Should we on a case by case basis determine if they are mature enough? That is just as impractical as determining if the burqa wearers are being forced on a case by case basis.

You have to do the best you can within realistic constraints.

But the right concerned here - freedom of expression - is one of the most important and useful of them all. If rights were not inalienable, they would never have lasted over the centuries. Sure, it might seem a good idea to remove freedom of expression for now in order to free some Muslim women, but what then? Once rights lose their untouchable status, there will be a slippery slope and they will very quickly disappear.

I don't think so. Haven't they endured for hundreds of years despite limitations set on them? You can't yell fire in a crowded theater etc. And remember, this is a choice between two rights. Either way one of them is going to be infringed. That's reality sometimes.

And if you are inflexible with regards to one right, and don't acknowledge the others, you end up making bad choices.

If you can ban the face veil to promote integration, why not also headscarfs? They make the Muslim community stick out and prevent their integration. You coudl then ban any religious imagery, just in case people appeared to be different. And so on...

How is this about integration in general? Or religion? It is about a specific practice that oppresses women.

I've never heard of that guy, but don't watchdog groups etc tend to keep the dodgy businesses under check? If someone tries to sell something that is harmful and doesn't do what its supposed to, they shouldn't last long.

They've lasted for thousands of years.

By doing nothing other than protecting people's rights from each other.

Then they are promoting the worldview that this is what government should do.

It might seem reasonable at first that the government should stop people harming themselves for ideals that seem crazy to us. But then what if it was the other way around? Witches obviously need to be burnt at the stake because they harm not just themselves, but bring curses upon us all. Right?

When the government starts enforcing the ways of the majority just because they are convinced they are right, everything can go nuts pretty quickly.

They shouldn't enforce the ways of the majority just because they are the majority. And that's how the constitution is laid out. They should do what's right, as best they can. Since you agree that women being forced to wear the burqa is wrong...

Tellos Athenaios

04-22-2010, 00:39

At this point France/Belgium is letting there immagrants dictate the rules when it should be the other way around.

I don't entirely understand that. Are you saying the immigrants play some sort of political game that forces France/Belgium into a legislation dance? To me it looks like a majority of Belgium (as apparent from overwhelming support by their elected politicians) decided that (a) faces should not be covered and that (b) it follows Burqa's are now officially faux-pas. Which doesn't seem like a suburb of Antwerp or Brussels forcing itself onto Belgium, but more of Belgium asserting what it expects from the community in the suburb of Antwerp or Brussel.

Strike For The South

04-22-2010, 05:46

I don't know Strike.

What is wisdom in this matter?

Here is a beautiful picture of a man. It makes me mellow, makes me see what's inmportant. All I want is a just, dignified life for him.
]

LOUIS I NEED TO EXPAND MY MIND IM STILL JUST A CHILD

Tellos, I mean that we are trying to legislate behavior and by doing so we assume the only way we can intergrate these people is forceably and that is the wrong message to send.

Reenk Roink

04-22-2010, 15:57

Classic case of "European Secularism" vs "(North) American Secularism" and I believe that is where the best argument lies for any kind of ban (in Europe only, don't bring that here please).

The others such as 'safety' (possible in SOME places, not generalizable to public domain as a whole) or 'women being forced' (I'd bet all 3 dollars in my pocket that a majority of burkah wearers wear it 'willingly' - and if someone is being forced, the law does not target what is being forced but rather the act of force itself) are bordering on laughable.

Tellos Athenaios

04-22-2010, 18:02

LOUIS I NEED TO EXPAND MY MIND IM STILL JUST A CHILD
You do know, that... that is quite disturbing.

Tellos, I mean that we are trying to legislate behavior and by doing so we assume the only way we can intergrate these people is forceably and that is the wrong message to send.

I concur then. I hope for Belgium, though, that there is a sufficiently open minded culture to shift towards a new, future, Belgium in which the past issue of Burqa's in public looks like nothing but one of the inevitable few bumps in the formation of the modern Belgic society, that thankfully reasonable adults are now able to leave behind as a historical artifact. Mind you, they did have the government fall over an issue which in essence is a good 150 years older...

Louis VI the Fat

04-22-2010, 18:25

The Sicilian Belgian government collapses again.

The collapse of the Belgian government has thrown into doubt plans to pass a law that would ban Islamic veils in public.
The government, led by the prime minister, Yves Leterme, fell after the centre-right Flemish liberal party Open VLD pulled out of his five-month-old coalition. Leterme tendered his government's resignation to King Albert after an emergency cabinet meeting, but the monarch did not immediately decide whether to accept it.

"I doubt that they will debate this law as they have other things on their minds," said a Belgian official in London.
MPs had been expected to pass a law today that would have made Belgium (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/belgium) the first European country to ban the wearing of the burqa, which covers the face and body, or the niqab, which covers the face.
The bill, which has been criticised by human rights (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/human-rights) campaigners as a violation of the fundamental right to freedom of religion (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/religion), was approved unanimously by the lower chamber's home affairs committee (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/mar/31/belgium-public-ban-burqa-niqab) last month.
link (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/apr/22/belgian-government-collapses-party-quits)

Leterme lasted four months, which is three more than I had expected.

This July onwards, Belgium will chair the EU, as well as providing its president. Will there be a Belgian government? Should we just turn the entire country into a 'Belgium D.C.' ?

Myrddraal

04-22-2010, 20:00

Not again... :no:

Andres

04-22-2010, 20:08

The Sicilian Belgian government collapses again.
Leterme lasted four months, which is three more than I had expected.

We still have plenty of governments left :grin:

But yeah, again... What nonsense :shame:

And inexplainable to foreigners, I'm afraid. Absurdistan is back.

Myrddraal

04-22-2010, 20:13

Belgium, the single best argument against Proportional Representation.

But then, I guess, what else would be appropriate?

HoreTore

04-22-2010, 20:26

Belgium, the single best argument against Proportional Representation.

But then, I guess, what else would be appropriate?

.........No.

It's the best argument against requiring a majority to form a government. If Belgium had allowed parties or coalitions with, say, 25% of the vote to form the government, they wouldn't be in the mess they are in.

Once again, Norway beats you all. It's Lilyhammer all over again.

Myrddraal

04-22-2010, 20:29

EDIT: Nevermind, offtopic

Louis VI the Fat

04-22-2010, 21:35

LOUIS I NEED TO EXPAND MY MIND IM STILL JUST A CHILDUh...let's see.

Did you know that it is forbidden for women in Paris to wear pants (trousers)?

That's right. :yes:

An ancient law, it has never been repealed. Guess they were protecting the dignity of women back then as much as we are now. Men obsess about women's clothing and modesty:

Vous savez peut-être, que la loi du 26 Brumaire an IX (17 novembre 1800) interdit aux Françaises le port du pantalon. Si elle est tombée en désuétude, cette ordonnance n'a jamais été abrogée. Napoléon Bonaparte autorise néanmoins les femmes désirant se travestir en homme à se présenter à la préfecture de police pour en faire la demande. Le port du pantalon ne pouvant être accordé que pour des raisons médicales. En 1892 et 1909, deux circulaires permettent aux femmes qui pratiquent le cyclisme ou l'équitation de porter ce vêtement.

http://historizo.cafeduweb.com/lire/11698-breve-histoire-un-pantalon-hors-la-loi.html

Myrddraal

04-22-2010, 21:48

Did you know that it is forbidden for women in Paris to wear pants?

That's right. :yes:
I read that as English English, where pants means underwear! I knew Parisienne's like to party, but...

This is surely against human rights, but in this case, I will make exception: I support the ban. :wink:

Meneldil

04-23-2010, 10:43

Quite some pointless talk in here.

Who cares about all this gibberish? Europe is not Saudi Arabia, and Burkas have no place here. If they want to look cool and show the rest of the society they hate everyone and consider themselves better, they can move to Saudi Arabia and get enslaved for real by their husbands. Period.

It's about time Europe stands up and slaps militant Islam in the face.

Rhyfelwyr

04-23-2010, 10:49

Europe is not Saudi Arabia

Exactly, so it's time we stopped trying to tell people what to wear.

Sasaki Kojiro

04-23-2010, 17:49

Exactly, so it's time we stopped trying to tell people what to wear.

Telling someone to wear = bad

Telling someone that they can't "tell someone what to wear" = also bad?

Rhyfelwyr

04-23-2010, 18:00

Telling someone to wear = bad

Telling someone that they can't "tell someone what to wear" = also bad?

We are ready tell people they can't tell others what to wear.

The law is fine as it is, the main reason people wan't burqas banned is because they don't like them.

This is again I think down to the different anglosphere/continental views. For the French/Belgians, they have a very set vision of what a free society means, and to them that means western, liberal, enlightenment thought, everyone out in the open and interacting etc. Hence the burqa has no place in this vision of a free society.

In the UK/USA, a free society can be whatever you want it to be, you have the freedom to make it that way. The dream of America was about you and your fellow colonists being able to build your own society without the government imposing uniform laws/institutions/beliefs. Hence the burqa just one form of expression of the freedom granted in this vision of a free society.

I think that still lies at the heart of the disagreements in this thread.

Megas Methuselah

04-23-2010, 21:08

Europe is not Saudi Arabia, and Burkas have no place here.

The Americas are not Europe, and whites have no place here.... Oh, wait. :uhoh:

Brenus

04-23-2010, 21:20

“the main reason people wan't burqas banned is because they don't like them”: Nope. I want a ban because there are tools of oppression.
And of course the flag of religious intolerance, inferiority of women and segregation.
You can try to deny it, but it is a fact.

NEWS: A woman got a fine in France as she was driving with a burqa… Racism and discrimination, I suppose….

“you have the freedom to make it that way” and to freely oppressed your minority if it stays in door…

“your own society without the government imposing uniform laws /institutions/ beliefs.” In God We Trust”, “Dieu est mon Droit”.

“so it's time we stopped trying to tell people what to wear”.
It is time to tell the oppressors that the time of freedom to oppress is over, and the law will walk along side their victims. To tell the victims we will hear them, listen to them and protect them. Time to tell the women that free men have change.
No, we can’t change in one night; it won’t be “le grand soir” of a Revolution that will change the world. But we can do a step, we cannot only talk the talk of equality, we can start to walk the walk.
Many fences, many barriers will have to be destroyed.

“Yes, 'n' how many times can a man turn his head,
Pretending he just doesn't see?
The answer, my friend, is blowin' in the wind,
The answer is blowin' in the wind.”

KukriKhan

04-24-2010, 14:18

So, arrest and fine the husbands/fathers/imams... the oppressors of the women. Not the poor little women doing what their oppressors bid.

Brenus

04-24-2010, 18:10

For dangerous driving?

Fragony

04-25-2010, 07:37

So, arrest and fine the husbands/fathers/imams... the oppressors of the women. Not the poor little women doing what their oppressors bid.

Arrest them on what grounds, impossible. It was a bad idea from the start but we can't betray our own vallues. If that puts muslim women in a nasty position then that's something they will just have to deal with, as far as I am concerned they are on there own. And I will absolutely discriminate them.

KukriKhan

04-25-2010, 15:51

For dangerous driving?

LOL. It's like locking up the slaves, instead of the slave owners.

"Did you get paid a decent living wage today?"
"No Sir. Master said I must pick cotton, or he whip me. So I pick cotton."
"You are under arrest for working for no wage."

naut

04-25-2010, 16:01

Flying on Emirates from Aukland to Sydney there were three Muslim couples next to us. The women had the full get-up, from head-to-toe. In a stuffy uncomfortable flight, that continues on to Dubai via Sydney. That's 14ish hours of flying, in a full-body covering. When the food came out, they couldn't eat it, they all just sat there and played with it a little. That just crysalised it for me, a woman's right to wear whatever she wants > than the rules some guy made up with the assistance of his invisible friend. And if it takes banning the damn things to make people realise it, so be it.

Rhyfelwyr

04-25-2010, 17:16

Watchman

04-25-2010, 17:30

Not like all Westerners have quite adapted either, mind you...

Sasaki Kojiro

04-25-2010, 18:58

LOL. It's like locking up the slaves, instead of the slave owners.

"Did you get paid a decent living wage today?"
"No Sir. Master said I must pick cotton, or he whip me. So I pick cotton."
"You are under arrest for working for no wage."

Are they arresting them? A fine seems more likely, and I assume finances are held mutually.

Flying on Emirates from Aukland to Sydney there were three Muslim couples next to us. The women had the full get-up, from head-to-toe. In a stuffy uncomfortable flight, that continues on to Dubai via Sydney. That's 14ish hours of flying, in a full-body covering. When the food came out, they couldn't eat it, they all just sat there and played with it a little. That just crysalised it for me, a woman's right to wear whatever she wants > than the rules some guy made up with the assistance of his invisible friend. And if it takes banning the damn things to make people realise it, so be it.

Exactly :bow:

The burqa was made for a time and place, Muslims should adapt quickly enough without us having to destroy the basic priniciples of western society.

It doesn't destroy the principles. It affirms them. I agree with what you said earlier is the heart of the disagreement:

This is again I think down to the different anglosphere/continental views. For the French/Belgians, they have a very set vision of what a free society means, and to them that means western, liberal, enlightenment thought, everyone out in the open and interacting etc. Hence the burqa has no place in this vision of a free society.

In the UK/USA, a free society can be whatever you want it to be, you have the freedom to make it that way. The dream of America was about you and your fellow colonists being able to
build your own society without the government imposing uniform laws/institutions/beliefs. Hence the burqa just one form of expression of the freedom granted in this vision of a free society.

I think that still lies at the heart of the disagreements in this thread.

Without any uniform laws/institution/beliefs? That really doesn't seem true. We have federal laws, federal institutions, and many beliefs that we hold to be inviolable. You can say "ok, some laws and beliefs" but then you aren't making a distinction between europe and the US anymore. And I don't think there is a huge distinction. We both have our ideas about what a good society is, and we both want the government to aid and enforce that.

I don't think the basic principle of western society is "freedom to continue an oppressive practice if it is part of your religion".

Watchman

04-25-2010, 19:05

I'm not sure you have conclusively demonstrated that the burqa indeed is an oppressive practice in and by itself, however.

Brenus

04-25-2010, 19:19

She got a fine because driving with a burqa was considered as deangerous driving. Same as you do it with a bag on your head with 2 holes to see the road...
Not because she was wearing a burqa.

Sasaki Kojiro

04-25-2010, 19:33

I'm not sure you have conclusively demonstrated that the burqa indeed is an oppressive practice in and by itself, however.

As a starting point, what do you think of psychonauts anecdote?

I don't think coercion is a requirement for oppression. But the argument doesn't seem to hinge on the definition of oppression.

Watchman

04-25-2010, 20:50

As a starting point, what do you think of psychonauts anecdote?That the general impracticality of the burqa is pretty obvious without saying, and doubtless a major reason why it's not terribly commonly used (except in *really* puritan-revivalist sort of places) ? Also not very relevant IMO.

I don't think coercion is a requirement for oppression. But the argument doesn't seem to hinge on the definition of oppression.Then what *does* it turn on ?

Sasaki Kojiro

04-25-2010, 20:56

That the general impracticality of the burqa is pretty obvious without saying, and doubtless a major reason why it's not terribly commonly used (except in *really* puritan-revivalist sort of places) ? Also not very relevant IMO.

You see his anecdote as simply saying the burqa is impractical? Why do you think he felt differently about it?

You don't really give your own opinion on the whole thing.

Then what *does* it turn on ?

What you call it isn't that important.

Watchman

04-25-2010, 21:38

You see his anecdote as simply saying the burqa is impractical?That's what I can get out of it objectively, yeah.

Why do you think he felt differently about it?I can always make a guess (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnocentrism)...

You don't really give your own opinion on the whole thing.:confused: Am I obligated to, or something ?

What you call it isn't that important.That doesn't really answer the question, does it ?

Louis VI the Fat

04-25-2010, 22:07

I can always make a guess (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnocentrism)...Tell it to the ethnocentric self-haters in Tunesia, Morocco, Turkey. :quiet:

While the progressive Europeans / Americans side with fundamentalism*, progressive Arabs side with France/Belgium:

By recognizing the burqa as not merely an article of clothing but, in the words of French lawmaker Andre Gerin, the “tip [of] a black tide of fundamentalism,” France has signaled that it takes the threat of radical Islam seriously. Moreover, unlike the Americans under Barack Obama, the French have framed the debate not merely in terms of security, but in terms of fundamental values. In June last year, in a speech to both houses of Parliament, President Nicholas Sarkozy flatly declared that "the burqa is not a sign of religion, it is a sign of subservience." By contrast, in his Cairo address to the Muslim world barely three weeks earlier, Obama took more or less the opposite position. “I reject the view of some in the West that a woman who chooses to cover her hair is somehow less equal,” he said. Although Obama was referring to the hijab, or headscarf, the French and the Americans are poles apart in terms of the broader principle – whether to take a stand on religiously mandated attire for Muslim women.

On the face of it, the French stand is hard to defend. Fewer than 2000 women – the barest fraction of France’s five million Muslims – wear the burqa. Taking away their freedom to make that choice contradicts the respect for individual rights at the heart of liberal democracy, argue opponents of the ban. That many women appear to see their decision as a religious obligation – according to orthodox Salafist tradition, the prophet Muhammad’s wives dressed in this manner – only complicates the matter. In effect, it sets up any attack on the garment as an assault on freedom of worship. Identifying the burqa as alien to French culture, say the ban’s critics, also fans xenophobic sentiment. What will be declared un-French next? The sari? The Sikh turban? Day-Glo bicycle shorts?

However, from a broader perspective – based less on theoretical abstraction than on practical reality – the pro-active French approach to the burqa is superior to the hands-off stand taken by the United States.

Most importantly, unlike the Americans, the French recognize that both the burqa and the hijab can be as much a political statement as a personal one. Islamists around the world – from national governments in Iran and Saudi Arabia to local authorities in sharia-friendly places such as Indonesia’s Aceh province to non-governmental organizations like the Muslim Brotherhood and Pakistan’s Jamaat-e-Islami – uniformly demand that women cover their hair. For them, the sight of a burqa on a Parisian bus or in a public hospital in Lyon is a sign that their cause is gaining ground. Like all utopian movements that seek to create the perfect society – in this case by imposing God’s law on earth – radical Islam feeds on symbols that appear to signal its ultimate victory. Rolling back the burqa contradicts this triumphalist narrative.

Furthermore, the philosophical underpinnings of the burqa – and of radical Islam more broadly – genuinely threaten advances in women’s rights made over the last century. Put simply, radical Islamists everywhere make male morality the responsibility of women. In the West, this attitude was captured most vividly three years ago when Australia’s senior most Muslim cleric, Sheik Taj Din Al Hilaly, dubbed the cat meat sheik by the tabloid press, likened rape victims who dressed immodestly to “uncovered meat,” and the men who assault them to blameless “cats.” In France’s heavily Muslim banlieus, or suburbs, radical youths have at times enforced a de facto dress code by targeting women with uncovered heads for abuse and, in the most extreme cases, physical attack.

But disapproval of the burqa, and by extension the philosophy behind it, will also register with moderates across the Muslim world, and with feminists caught in a struggle against the burqa and hijab in secular-leaning Muslim countries such as Turkey, Tunisia and Indonesia.

In the end, though the French brand of in-your-face secularism may come under criticism by both Muslims and Western liberals, the country’s experience holds valuable lessons for the rest of the world. France has not suffered a major terrorist attack since a spate of bombings in the 1990s linked to the civil war in Algeria. And in a 2006 Pew poll of Muslim attitudes, France was the only major European country where nearly half of Muslims felt they were citizens of their country before being members of their faith. (In Germany, Britain and Spain, overwhelming majorities claimed a primary allegiance to Islam.) Ultimately, this record more than anything else will guide French policy on a sensitive subject.

http://www.english.globalarabnetwork.com/201002084714/World-Politics/political-garment-french-burqa-ban-culture-clash-unveiled.html:idea2:

*Except, of course, when dealing with Christians. Christians are fair game for progressives. Real religious backwardness, however, they'll defend at all costs.

Rhyfelwyr

04-25-2010, 23:34

However, from a broader perspective – based less on theoretical abstraction than on practical reality – the pro-active French approach to the burqa is superior to the hands-off stand taken by the United States.

That's more or less what I was saying earlier. Theoretically, banning the burqa is wrong, no two ways about it, free societies don't legistlate clothing. But some people are happy to do this in order for pratical benefits in tackling the oppression of women. Since both sides here in the Backroom don't like burqas, and both sides value freedom of expression, this theoretical-practical divide is the faultline of the debate I think.

Also, despite the claims in the article that liberals are opposing the ban, it's quite the opposite in this thread. Most of the left-wingers have been either supportive or indifferent, whereas all the minimal gov't folk are against it.

Without any uniform laws/institution/beliefs? That really doesn't seem true. We have federal laws, federal institutions, and many beliefs that we hold to be inviolable. You can say "ok, some laws and beliefs" but then you aren't making a distinction between europe and the US anymore. And I don't think there is a huge distinction. We both have our ideas about what a good society is, and we both want the government to aid and enforce that.

The distinction is an absolute one, there's no grey area. In the anglosphere, government exists to protect people's negative liberties from one another. Therefore burqa's are OK, forcing women to wear them is not (the difficulty is in proving when there is abuse, which is always difficult). On the Celtic Continent (17th century political-racial theory ftw), the government promotes its view of society as superior. The burqa is not part of that, hence it is banned, free choice or not.

Sasaki Kojiro

04-25-2010, 23:51

That's more or less what I was saying earlier. Theoretically, banning the burqa is wrong, no two ways about it, free societies don't legistlate clothing. But some people are happy to do this in order for pratical benefits in tackling the oppression of women.

This is what drives me crazy sometimes. What possible use is sticking to a theory if you acknowledge that it's flawed and that the alternative has practical benefits? Is it some sort of slippery slope, "principles" thing? How much farther than forced burqa wearing would you let it go before you would think that the government should step in, even if freedom of expression/religion is trampled upon?

The distinction is an absolute one, there's no grey area. In the anglosphere, government exists to protect people's negative liberties from one another. Therefore burqa's are OK, forcing women to wear them is not (the difficulty is in proving when there is abuse, which is always difficult). On the Celtic Continent (17th century political-racial theory ftw), the government promotes its view of society as superior. The burqa is not part of that, hence it is banned, free choice or not.

I think this is a separate issue really. One can fully believe that the government exists to protect people's negative liberties, and support the burqa ban. It's simply a matter of holding what you call practicality (i.e. this is the only way to stop women being forced to wear them, banning it is the way to actually get results) over idealistically sticking to a theory that you acknowledge is impractical.

You keep saying that the french have a vision of society and want to create it like that, and then you contrast it with the british/american, but you don't describe them as any different. In your description they still have a vision for society that they want to create, it's just a different vision. In many ways it's more extreme.

Rhyfelwyr

04-26-2010, 00:26

This is what drives me crazy sometimes. What possible use is sticking to a theory if you acknowledge that it's flawed and that the alternative has practical benefits? Is it some sort of slippery slope, "principles" thing? How much farther than forced burqa wearing would you let it go before you would think that the government should step in, even if freedom of expression/religion is trampled upon?

The bit in bold is precisely the issue for me. Maybe Muslim women are made to wear headscarves to prevent them integrating. Maybe Islam in any form makes immigrants stick out and causes hostility. Maybe all religion makes people think they stick out from society and has no place in the modern, enlightened world. Maybe all that is true, but it's worrying when people feel the need to engineer society accordingly.

Although from a purely practical perspective, I also question how many women are really being forced to wear the burqas, especially when it is well known that radical Islam (Wahhabism in particular) is reserved mostly for the educated elite.

I think this is a separate issue really. One can fully believe that the government exists to protect people's negative liberties, and support the burqa ban. It's simply a matter of holding what you call practicality (i.e. this is the only way to stop women being forced to wear them, banning it is the way to actually get results) over idealistically sticking to a theory that you acknowledge is impractical.

I agree, this is the issue of debate, but the above reasons are why I fall on the side I do.

You keep saying that the french have a vision of society and want to create it like that, and then you contrast it with the british/american, but you don't describe them as any different. In your description they still have a vision for society that they want to create, it's just a different vision. In many ways it's more extreme.

The difference is massive. In France, you are French, there is a set idea of what that means, and you are expected to act accordingly. You are not free unless you are an enlightened liberal. Any other ideology is obviously oppressive, a social construct, that often relies on brainwashing. Look at the racism thread here in the Backroom, some posters just will not accept any racial theories. Even if there was proof, they wouldn't accept it because it's too shocking for their worldview. Likewise, religion is the opium of the people, if you believe it you aren't free. Your kids have to be brought up in the schools with secular humanist values, otherwise you are denying them their 'freedom' that comes with believing them.

In the early Americas/USA it was very different. You could go to Chesapeake is you wanted to get rich with the tobacco trade and live in a capitalist, progressive society (well in early American history at least, I've followed the Monastery CSA thread :laugh4:). You could go to Massachussetts if you were a Puritan that wanted to build that shining city on a hill. There were seperate colonies for Quakers and other quirky Anabaptist sects that wanted to go live a communalist lifestyle. And this for me is freedom - to not have to live by the governments view of society. I can do what I like so far as I don't trample on anyone else's freedom.

Louis VI the Fat

04-26-2010, 00:37

* The boys and girls of the République will force their liberty and equality on you all!!1! *You're Scottish! You are supposed to side with France against the Anglosaxon and his perfidious ways!

You've got a French religion, Roman Law, and an Enlightenment and educational system to put any on the continent to shame! What's Anglosaxon about Scotland? You're rooting for the wrong guys!

You're not a true Scotsman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman). Hrmph. :snobby:

Sasaki Kojiro

04-26-2010, 00:47

The bit in bold is precisely the issue for me. Maybe Muslim women are made to wear headscarves to prevent them integrating. Maybe Islam in any form makes immigrants stick out and causes hostility. Maybe all religion makes people think they stick out from society and has no place in the modern, enlightened world. Maybe all that is true, but it's worrying when people feel the need to engineer society accordingly.

I don't think it's about integration or eliminating religion though. Most people are fine with cultural differences. They just feel that this is wrong enough to intervene.

Although from a purely practical perspective, I also question how many women are really being forced to wear the burqas, especially when it is well known that radical Islam (Wahhabism in particular) is reserved mostly for the educated elite.

I don't have any beef with practical objections, that's on the right playing field imo and I don't have the knowledge to agree or disagree.

The difference is massive. In France, you are French, there is a set idea of what that means, and you are expected to act accordingly. You are not free unless you are an enlightened liberal. Any other ideology is obviously oppressive, a social construct, that often relies on brainwashing. Look at the racism thread here in the Backroom, some posters just will not accept any racial theories. Even if there was proof, they wouldn't accept it because it's too shocking for their worldview. Likewise, religion is the opium of the people, if you believe it you aren't free. Your kids have to be brought up in the schools with secular humanist values, otherwise you are denying them their 'freedom' that comes with believing them.

These are valid concerns but I think this is too much of a slippery slope. Some people want too much religion, some people want too little.

In the early Americas/USA it was very different. You could go to Chesapeake is you wanted to get rich with the tobacco trade and live in a capitalist, progressive society (well in early American history at least, I've followed the Monastery CSA thread :laugh4:). You could go to Massachussetts if you were a Puritan that wanted to build that shining city on a hill. There were seperate colonies for Quakers and other quirky Anabaptist sects that wanted to go live a communalist lifestyle. And this for me is freedom - to not have to live by the governments view of society. I can do what I like so far as I don't trample on anyone else's freedom.

Ok, but in the quaker colonies could you be non-quaker, and in mass. could you be freely non puritan? I don't think so. So why isn't france the same thing, just on a larger scale?

Watchman

04-26-2010, 00:53

You know if someone could dig up a credible study that actually demonstrated the burqa was being worn due to coercion etc. and had real, demonstrable, practical correlation to factual oppression of women, I'd have a lot easier time thinking of this issue as legit rather than yet another round of "Culture Wars II: The Electric Boogaloo" and populistically lashing out against a particularly conspicious symbol of the Other...

Rhyfelwyr

04-26-2010, 01:04

You're Scottish! You are supposed to side with France against the Anglosaxon and his perfidious ways!

You've got a French religion, Roman Law, and an Enlightenment and educational system to put any on the continent to shame! What's Anglosaxon about Scotland? You're rooting for the wrong guys!

You're not a true Scotsman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman). Hrmph. :snobby:

I always knew someone was going to pull the no true Scotsman on me. :laugh4:

In any case, Louis, your Vichy France-inspiried radical racialism has only supported my claims of Germanic heritage. :clown:

https://img405.imageshack.us/img405/5520/geneticmapsco.jpg (https://img405.imageshack.us/i/geneticmapsco.jpg/)

As you can see, this confirms all that obscure 18th century racial theory I have occasionaly filled my posts with. Rememeber how I spoke against the old myth of the "Celtic Fringe" (horrid idea, a curse upon Scottish nationalists for turning their country into something it isn't, really, their whole idea of the country is based on the romanticised ramblings of a few mid 19th century aristocrats), and noted how Scots traditionally tried to rival the English for their Germanic heritage (the language example is a classic one, broad Scots was seen as the Germanic original, Enlgish was too influenced by French). The genetic map shows the Scots are well removed from the Celtic Irish, and are in fact closer to ther Germanic than Britain as a whole!

As for...

1. "French religion" - well spotted! Although lets face it, there's not much French about Calvinism. It did to well in the Netherlands though, bringing me onto the next point...
2. "Roman law" - to an extent yes, the greatest influence on our legal system came from our racial cousins the Dutch. We Scots were pioneers of the most greatly respected study of phrenology. You know what one guy in the 18th century said the ideal Scot was? Tall, blone hair and blue eyes...
3. "Enlightenment and educational system to put any on the continent to shame" - once upon a time, indeed! although don't forget we were big on contractarianism. Hume might have criticised the English for their almost superstitious claim to their ancient Anglo-Saxon constitution, but the Covenanters were using contractarian thought before Mr. Locke did, and the great Adam Smith was as minimal government as you could ask for (despite his views on the development through the stages of society with primitivism to nomadism to arable farming to commercialism etc, he sounded more like a Marxist, I guess we Scots have determinism in our blood).

Viking

04-26-2010, 16:19

*Except, of course, when dealing with Christians. Christians are fair game for progressives. Real religious backwardness, however, they'll defend at all costs.

A myth. There is no "state mosque", nor is there a Islam-inspired constitution.

An anecdote for you: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/695725.stm

Seamus Fermanagh

04-26-2010, 19:10

So, are some cultures better than others? Should certain cultures be sublimated into the better culture rather than mixed in?

Louis VI the Fat

04-26-2010, 20:55

So, are some cultures better than others? Should certain cultures be sublimated into the better culture rather than mixed in?Aye! We MUST keep the Scottish down.

Apart from this totally underestimated red menace, yes, certain cultures (cultural prcatices?) have no place in our society. Should the followers of Baal be allowed to practise human sacrifice? Maybe those being sacrificed really believe that their sacrifice is benefitial, and die of their own free will. Even so, no, it can not be tolerated.

Brenus

04-26-2010, 21:32

“You know if someone could dig up a credible study that actually demonstrated the burqa was being worn due to coercion etc. and had real, demonstrable, practical correlation to factual oppression of women, I'd have a lot easier time thinking of this issue”
Easy:
From a Algerian site, about the Burqua:
“Je me souviens de mes voyages en Algérie , les femmes étaient déja voiléés.
Certaine en blanc , d'autre en noire ; mon dernier voyage a plus de 15 ans .
Cela m'a pas choqué pour autant .
Vivant en France , je n'avais jamais vu un voile.”
I remember some of my travels in Algeria. Women were yet veiled, Some in white, some in black. My last trip is more than 15 years ago.
I was not shocked.
Living in France, I never saw one veil.”

So in a society without pressure to wear a burqua, no, or almost no women wear a burqa.
In a country with a lot of pressures to wear one almost all of them do. On their free choice and will, happy women…

It si just a question of statistic:
Not obliged to wear a portable jail, near 0%
Free choice but under pressure going from beating to rape or killed: 90 %

Myrddraal

04-26-2010, 23:30

Is that really supposed to be a credible study? An uncited passage about 'my travels in Algeria'? What a lot of rhetoric.

We're not the bad guys. I'm inviting you to convince me. I'd like to see, for example, your point of view in the table form I used in Post #358 (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?127381-Belgium-to-ban-the-Burka&p=2474778&viewfull=1#post2474778), if you would be willing to do that for me.

Beskar

04-27-2010, 00:34

In France, to stop slavery, they banned whips.

Louis VI the Fat

04-27-2010, 02:14

In France, to stop slavery, they banned whips.In socialism, instead of ending poverty, they give universal healthcare, accessible education and social benefits.

Or, as Sasaki pointed out, the symptoms are the disease.

Sasaki Kojiro

04-27-2010, 04:58

In socialism, instead of ending poverty, they give universal healthcare, accessible education and social benefits.

Or, as Sasaki pointed out, the symptoms are the disease.

Exactly. The slavery example backfires. You might say: in America, to end racism, they made slavery illegal, employed discrimination illegal, integrated the schools, and restricted the use of racial slurs on television and radio. And yet we still have racism. But things are a lot better aren't they? And it wasn't wrong to end slavery, despite it going against tradition and against the religious excuses, and despite the fact that there were black soldiers fighting for the confederates.

Beskar

04-27-2010, 05:03

You might have won this roundm but i'll shall be back, Louis!

Though, the slavery example is basically how some of those who want freedom see the ban. So it served a good purpose in eliciting a response which could see the argument from the otherside. Sasaki gets some more credit there, as 'socialism' is a swear-word in America.

Reenk Roink

04-27-2010, 05:33

Exactly. The slavery example backfires. You might say: in America, to end racism, they made slavery illegal, employed discrimination illegal, integrated the schools, and restricted the use of racial slurs on television and radio. And yet we still have racism. But things are a lot better aren't they? And it wasn't wrong to end slavery, despite it going against tradition and against the religious excuses, and despite the fact that there were black soldiers fighting for the confederates.

They didn't end slavery to end racism... :rolleyes: What kind of 4th grade history are you remembering? :laugh4:

You'd have been much better off using the segregation example to its fullest. However, even with that, they just got rid of forced and/or government LEGAL segregation and did not at all stop any kind of voluntary segregation. They had to completely base it on the argument that "separate" cannot be "equal" either. Also segregation does not analogize well to the burkah.

Again, so far the attempts to ban the burkah based on it being used to oppress women is an absolutely laughable argument, because of the twin reasons that most women (in Belgium) probably wear it willingly from a sense of religious/cultural duty, and the fact that you don't ban the thing being forced but the act of force.

Again, if people want to actually seem respectable arguing against the burkah, use the secularism route. You won't get agreement from many that way either, but it's a lot better looking.

Sasaki Kojiro

04-27-2010, 05:44

They didn't end slavery to end racism... :rolleyes: What kind of 4th grade history are you remembering? :laugh4:

Regardless, you "might say" they did :D

You'd have been much better off using the segregation example to its fullest. However, even with that, they just got rid of forced and/or government segregation and did not at all stop any kind of voluntary segregation. They had to completely base it on the argument that "seperate" cannot be "equal" either. Also segregation does not analogize well to the burkah.

Again, so far the attempts to ban the burkah based on it being used to oppress women is an absolutely laughable argument, because of the twin reasons that most women (in Belgium) probably wear it willingly from a sense of religious/cultural duty, and the fact that you don't ban the thing being forced but the act of force.

What does this mean exactly?

I ask because I don't see a reason to believe that they don't wear it willingly in the same way that gay people willingly pretend to be straight in our culture.

Reenk Roink

04-27-2010, 05:54

Regardless, you "might say" they did :D

Where is Tribesman when you need him? :wall: You "might say" but you'd be wrong. One of the reasons (still maybe not the main one though) for emancipation was shifiting moral sensibilities, but it was not tied in with intrinisic anti-racism except for some really radical fringe.

What does this mean exactly?

It's pretty obvious I thought. Go survey these women. I'd bet my now increased $35 dollars in my pocket that they say they wear the burkah willingly. When pressed, I'll bet they give those reasons. So where is the coercion?

The 2nd bit is a matter of practicality. Same basic principle as in segregation--it wasn't practical to legislate "the schools must be equal", because it wasn't working. So they forcibly integrated them. But the analogies aren't important. They are just to make the point clear. Arguing about them instead of the idea they were clarifying is :coffeenews:

Yeah, you can't practically legislate against "oppression" in the abstract sense, though you still do put laws against it which then are particularized by legal cases.

The analogies presented do basically nothing for the point, which still sucks. :shrug:

It's one thing to have a woman go to court and say that she is forced to wear the burkah, whereby you can actually use the existing laws to prevent this kind of coercion. It's another thing to ban the burkah outright under the guise of liberating women from oppression.

The domestic violence rate in our society is incredibly large. Let's go and ban marriage... :stupido: (as dumb as this idea sounds, it is on firmer ground than the analogous burkah one because the rates are higher).

I ask because I don't see a reason to believe that they don't wear it willingly in the same way that gay people willingly pretend to be straight in our culture.

I don't see a reason to believe it the other way. Also, whatever religious/cultural/societal motivations they have to wear it kinda don't matter, because if you're gonna use that as 'coercion', then you have not only strayed from any legal arena, but have opened up a huge can of worms against all kinds of societal norms.

Sasaki Kojiro

04-27-2010, 06:37

Where is Tribesman when you need him? :wall: You "might say" but you'd be wrong. One of the reasons (still maybe not the main one though) for emancipation was shifiting moral sensibilities, but it was not tied in with intrinisic anti-racism except for some really radical fringe.

Yes, and they didn't stop slavery in france by banning whips. We were talking in hypotheticals.

It's pretty obvious I thought. Go survey these women. I'd bet my now increased $35 dollars in my pocket that they say they wear the burkah willingly. When pressed, I'll bet they give those reasons. So where is the coercion?

I don't see a reason to believe it the other way. Also, whatever religious/cultural/societal motivations they have to wear it kinda don't matter, because if you're gonna use that as 'coercion', then you have not only strayed from any legal arena, but have opened up a huge can of worms against all kinds of societal norms.

I haven't been using the word coercion. And I don't see it as opening a can of worms, that can should already be open. Why on earth wouldn't all kinds of societal norms be up for questioning?

Humans are very social creatures with a huge impulse to fit in with their culture. It is not very telling to look at "willingly". We can show that by looking at history or imagining a mad scientist created society.

If I had not yet been born, and was being given a choice as to what society I would be born into (pardon me if I don't fill in the details about how babies can't think etc), I would make certain choices. I would not, for example, choose a society where human sacrifice was practiced. Even though in all likelihood, if I was born into that society I would willingly go along with it.

If history is any indication, the "willingness" that women have had towards certain practices has been something of a sham don't you think. But even if we assume a larger level of willingness in this scenario, rather than argue about a survey that we aren't going to do, I think you can still argue for the ban, although it becomes more difficult. You would have to talk more of the long term. Paternalism is a hard sell, and rightfully so, but if you reject it outright you are allowing tons of suffering so that you can feel nice and principled.

The domestic violence rate in our society is incredibly large. Let's go and ban marriage... :stupido: (as dumb as this idea sounds, it is on firmer ground than the analogous burkah one because the rates are higher)

There have been a ton of laws passed about marriage that are intended to make it more equitable. These express an effort by the government and the people to promote a certain idea of marriage. If we could ban something that would reduce the domestic violence rate with low cost, wouldn't we?

Reenk Roink

04-27-2010, 07:25

Yes, and they didn't stop slavery in france by banning whips. We were talking in hypotheticals.

Exactly! :idea2: And you are then talking about bad hypotheticals to the case in point. :shrug:

I haven't been using the word coercion. And I don't see it as opening a can of worms, that can should already be open. Why on earth wouldn't all kinds of societal norms be up for questioning?

OK, some kind of inherent 'oppression' is even harder to sell. At least with a women being coerced to put a full face veil you can get others to understand why that is bad.

It's not about us opening the norms or not. It's about the ridiculousness of the oppression idea.

Humans are very social creatures with a huge impulse to fit in with their culture. It is not very telling to look at "willingly". We can show that by looking at history or imagining a mad scientist created society.

If I had not yet been born, and was being given a choice as to what society I would be born into (pardon me if I don't fill in the details about how babies can't think etc), I would make certain choices. I would not, for example, choose a society where human sacrifice was practiced. Even though in all likelihood, if I was born into that society I would willingly go along with it.

K...

If history is any indication, the "willingness" that women have had towards certain practices has been something of a sham don't you think. But even if we assume a larger level of willingness in this scenario, rather than argue about a survey that we aren't going to do, I think you can still argue for the ban, although it becomes more difficult. You would have to talk more of the long term. Paternalism is a hard sell, and rightfully so, but if you reject it outright you are allowing tons of suffering so that you can feel nice and principled.

Nah, you won't really get me or the others who are unimpressed with this oppression argument to think that we are "allowing tons of suffering" lol...

It's not about principles. I'm against an 'European' notion of secularism for example, but at least they have a point of view that isn't outright ridiculous as the view that the burkah worn willingly is oppression.

Are high heels worn willingly (with the social and cultural backgrounds that affect this willingness because they certainly do just as much as the burkah) oppressive also? :rolleyes: Heck, you have a better (though still poor as poop) argument here because:

1) a lot more women wear them (thus if one was really against oppression they would focus on this instead of the incredibly rare burkah)
2) you can actually have more tangible ill health effects you can point to

Fight for Women's rights against oppression! Ban high heels! :furious2: Otherwise you are allowing a ton of suffering! :stare:

There have been a ton of laws passed about marriage that are intended to make it more equitable. These express an effort by the government and the people to promote a certain idea of marriage. If we could ban something that would reduce the domestic violence rate with low cost, wouldn't we?

Of course we would.

Sasaki Kojiro

04-27-2010, 13:28

Furunculus

04-27-2010, 15:24

Beskar

04-27-2010, 21:12

This is very interesting. Roughly 5:45 minutes in, she speaks about a muslim feminists and that she apparently says "It isn't about about the burka". It goes more into about feminism and equal rights for women all the way through, but for that line alone, I am posting it in this thread.

http://www.ted.com/talks/kavita_ramdas_radical_women_embracing_tradition.html

Investing in women can unlock infinite potential around the globe. But how can women walk the line between Western-style empowerment and traditional culture? Kavita Ramdas of the Global Fund for Women talks about three encounters with powerful women who fight to make the world better -- while preserving the traditions that sustain them.

LittleGrizzly

04-27-2010, 21:25

Rhyfelwyr

04-27-2010, 22:48

Can't really decide where I stand on the issue.... leaning towards allowing the burka, as a side note though I have to say I wouldn't mind if i was able to wear one and it be somewhat acceptable. In the same way I feel kind of more comfortable, a bit more confident with my hood up. So I imagine with only my eyes showing I would feel completely liberated (ironically). I suppose thats somewhat an argument for, although not much of one...

I made the same argument earlier (I'm a delinquent :shifty:), the problem is the thought police think they know people better than the people themselves do, and so have to liberate them through reeducation.

Reenk Roink

04-27-2010, 22:57

I think myrddraal brought that up on page 3. But the high heels comparison is pretty obviously bad, because the pressure is so much less. No one is saying "if there is societal pressure, it has to be banned".

The high heels comparison is pretty good actually. Both worn items (directed for women), both potentially cause discomfort (high heels more likely more so with damage to feet and back). There isn't really religious pressure for high heels as compared to the the burkah so that's a difference.

But I don't see how the pressure is "much less" for high heels than for the burkah. Given that the vast majority of Muslim women do not wear the burkah although you can find some religious legal basis for it whereas quite a bit of women do wear high heels (some explicitly resenting the fact they do), it seems the social pressures to wear high heels is definitely more. :yes:

LittleGrizzly

04-27-2010, 23:38

I think one of the problems with the high heel comparison is that those who really don't like high heels aren't going to wear them all the time, literally every time they step out the door. They may feel they have to wear them when they go for a night out or to work, but even if they wear them for nights out and to work all the time they can escape them when they are just doing the shopping or some other mundane task, whereas I imagine a woman pressured into wearing a burka would have to do so whenever she left the house...

Sasaki Kojiro

04-28-2010, 00:37

The high heels comparison is pretty good actually. Both worn items (directed for women), both potentially cause discomfort (high heels more likely more so with damage to feet and back). There isn't really religious pressure for high heels as compared to the the burkah so that's a difference.

But I don't see how the pressure is "much less" for high heels than for the burkah. Given that the vast majority of Muslim women do not wear the burkah although you can find some religious legal basis for it whereas quite a bit of women do wear high heels (some explicitly resenting the fact they do), it seems the social pressures to wear high heels is definitely more. :yes:

I don't get why you see them as very similar. And you really say the social pressure to wear them is more because more women wear them? :confused: Most people wear socks, I wouldn't conclude that the social pressure to wear them is huge.

High heels are part of a larger system where women are pressured to look nice. Some suggest we have a problem with that--pointing towards anorexia etc. People are always going to want their girlfriend/boyfriend to look nice though. That is not inherently troubling to me, so there would have to be something else important. Like we would have for feet-binding. Perhaps we could make it illegal to photoshop models on covers so that they look thinner :p

You are like, picking up on the bits that aren't important when making your comparison. The burqa is said to be a garment that the women are under heavy pressure (religious, cultural, and marital) to wear, and it is part of the idea that women are inferior. Not only is it part of it, but it helps keep it that way. High heels are just one of the inconveniences people go through to look good.

Reenk Roink

04-28-2010, 18:40

The "parts that aren't important" really actually are important, but it seems you basically link oppression with the burkah as some kind of innate thing, whereas I and others don't because it makes no sense.

Which is probably why I've had such a hard time understanding that you do this innate linking (and so I pointed to coercion, and then ill health effects, as how the burkah COULD lead to oppression (but then again the same is true of many other things), but apparently that stuff isn't important to you :juggle2: as basically you seem to be saying that the burkah is just oppression - good luck getting that point across :shrug:).

And the cultural/social/marital pressures to look good and wear high heels are obviously MUCH stronger and wider spread then the religious/social/cultural/marital pressures to wear the burkah given how few women seemed compelled to wear the latter as compared to the former. I really don't see how people can ignore this...

Although LG brings up the good point that high heels aren't worn as frequently by most women as the burkah, given the domination of the number of women who do wear high heels, there is most likely a subset that wears them almost everyday when they go outside which is still larger than the entire set of women who wear the burkah.

Brenus

04-28-2010, 18:57

Reenk Roink

04-28-2010, 18:59

I know that the ones who support the mobile jail won’t be convinced:
However:
Countries like Iran where you are free to wear Burqa: 100 % of women do it.
Countries like France were you are free not to wear Burqa, around 0% does it.
So, to freely choose to wear a Burqa is done just to avoid punishment.

But it won’t convince any of the pro-burqa…

High Heel & Burqa:
Ridiculous comparison.
How many women were beaten, raped or have throat slit for not having High Heels? How many fatwa for women refusing to wear high heels?
The only “coercion” is by fashion and you can escape from it. Unlike the real coercion for the mobile jail that is more deadly as Afghan women learned from the Taliban…

lol I probably shouldn't even bother with this post but... as for the coercion, does banning the burkah itself stop the coercion and violence the women face? Or do you actually you know, stop the coercion and violent acts themselves... :rolleyes:

Louis VI the Fat

04-28-2010, 19:11

does banning the burkah itself stop the coercion and violence the women face? Or do you actually you know, stop the coercion and violent acts themselves... :rolleyes:Yeah, I know. As a great socialist once said: Banning the burqa is a bit akin to banning the whip instead of slavery.

Then again, as some drunk once riposted: 'In socialism, instead of ending poverty, they give universal healthcare, accessible education and social benefits'.

Or, as Sasaki no doubt will point out at some point - I'm surprised he hasn't yet - the symptoms are the disease.

Reenk Roink

04-28-2010, 19:18

Yeah, I know. As a great socialist once said: Banning the burqa is a bit akin to banning the whip instead of slavery.

Then again, as some drunk once riposted: 'In socialism, instead of ending poverty, they give universal healthcare, accessible education and social benefits'.

Or, as Sasaki no doubt will point out at some point - I'm surprised he hasn't yet - the symptoms are the disease.

Take away the whip and the stick will be used. Add universal health care and educational benefits and people will still not get treatment, and education, and will starve on the streets.

EDIT: Actually thinking about this more, the poverty example you bring up is quite different from ending slavery by banning the whip or ending women's oppression by banning the burkah, as unlike say, banning homeless people from wandering the street, proactive measures are taken instead that attack the ROOT of the issue. Certainly there is a similar approach to be tried against the burkah, and in Beligium, given the extremely low rates of wearing it, it seems to have already been done, as compared to Afghanistan/Iran/Saudi Arabia. :wink:

In Afghanistan, Iran, or Saudi Arabia, I'll concede just treating the symptoms (a symptom) may even have an small effect (it could also have a major backlash), given that there is actually tangible coercion. In Belgium, not so much.

Rhyfelwyr

04-28-2010, 20:01

Countries like Iran where you are free to wear Burqa: 100 % of women do it.

The vast majority of Iranian women do not wear the full Afghan style burqa, which is itself mostly relegated to Afghanistan and Pakistan (although Saudi Arabia's form of covering is similarly extensive).

Also, according to wikipedia (yeah, I know), the rates at which these Afghan burqas are being worn has rapidly declined since the fall of the Taliban in Afghanistan, and has also dropped in the areas of Pakistan where it was worn. The only places where it continues to be enforced are in the southern Afghan areas where it is enforced by warlords.

Which seems to suggest that when women are forced to wear the burqa, it is due to political authorities, rather than domestic oppression by their husbands.

Beskar

04-28-2010, 20:07

There is also the video involving a Muslim femininist on the issue that I posted, but people ignored... I think that person has a better opinion of the situation than any of us here.

Seamus Fermanagh

04-28-2010, 20:18

I know that the ones who support the mobile jail won’t be convinced:
However:
Countries like Iran where you are free to wear Burqa: 100 % of women do it.
Countries like France were you are free not to wear Burqa, around 0% does it.
So, to freely choose to wear a Burqa is done just to avoid punishment.

But it won’t convince any of the pro-burqa…

High Heel & Burqa:
Ridiculous comparison.
How many women were beaten, raped or have throat slit for not having High Heels? How many fatwa for women refusing to wear high heels?
The only “coercion” is by fashion and you can escape from it. Unlike the real coercion for the mobile jail that is more deadly as Afghan women learned from the Taliban…

Be careful, you are conflating opposition to government restrictions on clothing with the favoring of a particular social custom. It's not as though our BR crowd are screaming for women to be confined to the kitchen barefoot.

From your tone on this, isn't your real opponent Islamic fundamentalism? If so, why not attack that rather than something that is no more than a symptom?

Brenus

04-28-2010, 21:27

“as for the coercion, does banning the burkah itself stop the coercion and violence the women face”
Of course not. I yet answered to this claim.
So you do recognise that the burqa is a tool of coercion and violence. We are making progress…
Domestic violence is unfortunately share by a lot of men who think their wives are their property.
But at least, a ban will prevent ONE abuse and even not totally… But, not so bad considering you prefer to do nothing…
Oh, no, of course, you strongly disapprove the violence to women, sorry…

“Which seems to suggest that when women are forced to wear the burqa, it is due to political authorities, rather than domestic oppression by their husbands.” Oh yeah… Under Dictatorship every body suffer… I fully agree. Burqa are a political tool and flag to impose a political agenda based on a specific lecture of the Koran.
Lecture that emphasis on a fundamental inequality and refuse the values of Democracy, etc…
We have to free the men from the burqa as well, in a sense.

“From your tone on this, isn't your real opponent Islamic fundamentalism? If so, why not attack that rather than something that is no more than a symptom?”
Yes, of course. Banning the burqa alone won’t win the war.
However, it is the first step, a signal, a strong one.
But I don’t share this point viewing the burqa as only a symptom… It is more than that. It intimidates others Muslim Women, saying, “we are here and we know where you are, we are coming for you”.
It is the Muslim Extremism equivalent of the Brown or Black shirts. Except, supreme irony, the victims wear it as warning for the future victims…

You know, about the whip and Slaves. How long a slave owner will keep his slaves without the whip, without the tools to keep the slaves at what he considered their natural level?

Wars are won with symbols, and that why we have flags. Sometimes it is more than a piece of cloth. It represents what we are fighting for.
The burqa is one. It represents a vision of a society, of a model the Ultra want to impose. As they do to their women.
So, not only the ban will save few women (as I agree that in Continental Europe most of the women wear it on free will) but also it will send a message to the ones who wants to impose beard to the men. No Pasaran.
My target is not a piece of clothing but the symbol and tool of oppression.
And I won’t mind to clearly say it is against Muslim Fundamentalism.
I don’t want to ban the burqa because it is dangerous when you drive or other real dangers for health and safety issues.
I wanted ban because it is a tool and a symbol of a dangerous ideology.
That is why the fall of the legionnaire Hutnik from the 2 REP in the Tabag Valley (Kapisa Region, Afghanistan) is about.
To free the slaves, even the happy slaves, the ones who don’t know they are slaves. And yes, freedom is a terrifying prospect and a huge challenge when you were taught you couldn’t do it, you are able to take your own decisions, you are inferior and must obey and submit.
To ban the burqa won’t resolve all the problems. But it is a start.

The French Revolution started because the French humbly asked the King to change few things… The Russian Revolution started because some women went to ask for bread. The American Revolution because they didn’t want to pay taxes without being asked…

Reenk Roink

04-29-2010, 01:23

Yeah, from what little sense I made of that post it's the same rehashed stuff but said in an EVEN less persuasive way... :juggle2:

Brenus

04-29-2010, 07:28

I didn't even try to persuade you.
There are no better blind that the ones who don't want to see.:dizzy2:

Rhyfelwyr

04-29-2010, 13:50

There are no better blind that the ones who don't want to see.:dizzy2:

You keep saying that, but it works both ways, that's why we have a discussion...

Meneldil

04-29-2010, 20:46

I made the same argument earlier (I'm a delinquent :shifty:), the problem is the thought police think they know people better than the people themselves do, and so have to liberate them through reeducation.

Oh we do. We'll liberate people à la force des bayonettes if needed.

Now, what kind of bollox are you trying to put forth? The whole modern era is charactarized by the succesful attempts of the State/the elites to have people do or accept things against their will.

Kids were sent to school against the people's will. Local languages were abandonned against the people's will. Universal healthcare was enforced against the people's will. Religion was thrown to the trash bin agains the people's will. Freedom of religion was enforced against people's will. The list goes on.

That's because all of you people are idiots and obviously need guiding and assistance.

Beskar

04-29-2010, 21:20

That's because all of you people are idiots and obviously need guiding and assistance.

Except Beskar, because he is obviously awesome and would make the right choices*

*I wish. Need to overcome my chronic procrastination first.

Brenus

04-29-2010, 21:48

“You keep saying that, but it works both ways, that's why we have a discussion...”
Well, I am a little bit tired to repeat myself::inquisitive:
The pro-burqa clan pretends it is just a piece of clothing.
As the brown Shirts, the black Shirts were…
In reducing the burqa as a simple piece of dress, they forget that uniforms as well can be seen as pieces of clothing, that flags and others symbols are not important as a cross in only 2 pieces of whatever material. They prefer to ignore the power of evocation of a simple Swastika.

Then they pretend that a ban won’t be effective but failed to provide any others options.

Then they try lateral discussions like if a ban will give all solutions, even make silly comparisons (see the high heel) or as if only the Veiled or in portable jail women are victims of male brutality.
They fail to see that to wear a burqa is a brutality imposed by an archaic vision of society. And it is not because some women agree to do so for various reasons (voluntarily or to avoid beaten-up or worst) that it changes the reality, the nature of the piece of clothing.

Then when, as you mentioned rightly, freedom was given not to wear the burqa, the rate of women wearing it fall, proof in itself that the burqa is imposed by a religious intolerant group having a political agenda, they still pretend it is a free choice to wear it.
Now, there is a choice: pretending that all is good, and every is fine, and close our eyes in front of an openly anti-democratic movement hoping it will vanish or fighting it.
Ban a burqa, if only a piece of clothing wouldn’t be much problem.
There are lot of pieces of clothes we are not allowed to wear, depending circumstances… Bermuda short at work, even rings in some professions, we agree to wear some specific clothes in some events, and follow usually the code of clothing when going in churches, Mosques, Synagogues, grave yards and other institutions…

But because it is not only a piece of clothing it is a problem.
The Ultra know it perfectly, and they will try all the tricks to avoid it.
The burqa is the benchmark of their success, of their power on the Muslim crowd, on the Country they lived in.
Burqa feed burqa.

For sure a ban won’t resolve the political/social/identity problems that gave birth to Muslim Extremism.
I even don’t have the answer on how to stop this radicalisation of minds.
In France, the men who wanted to blow up high speed trains and put bombs in Paris subway were all students in Sciences or Maths. I remember telling myself that is probably because in sciences (at their level) you’ve got all this answers, no places for doubts as in Philosophy or so called Human Sciences.
But, as experience proved in France with the veil (or mutilations), it will limit then stop the movement, and perhaps saved few of women.

Now, I am ready to have a discussion on any subject. You can tell me you are against a ban because freedom of expression, or whatever reasons.
But you will have to convince me that the freedom to oppress in more important that the individual freedom.
Why you accept that a religious group is free to oppress a minority (women) against the laws and one of the Principe that found ours democracies: Equality.:inquisitive:
And I do know that it is still not achieved in our society.
Just wear one. Try one, or if you can’t, ask somebody who did. She will explain how you become non-existent, without identity, shadow within shadow, all the same ghosts. And it is not the end my friend. Then you can’t drive, can’t speak or walk without a man from your family. You are a perpetual minor.
And yes, we have women in the 19th or early 20th century explaining why women shouldn’t vote… But now, who will take the right of vote from women except the burqist.

Beskar

04-29-2010, 22:02

The pro-burqa clan pretends it is just a piece of clothing.

:laugh4: "pro-burka".

No one here has advocated the use of the burka, they just think it is stupid to make it illegal with a blanket ban. By making it illegal, it fuels the Islamophobia and making people feel more oppressed. It is a pointless waste of time and police resources. What are you going to do? Arrest women for wearing a burka? Strip them in the street? :laugh4:

in otherwords, what can you do? You expect them to automatically follow the ban anyway?

They fail to see that to wear a burqa is a brutality imposed by an archaic vision of society. And it is not because some women agree to do so for various reasons (voluntarily or to avoid beaten-up or worst) that it changes the reality, the nature of the piece of clothing.

Yet a Muslim feminist disagreed with you. The burka is part of a non-issue.

Ban a burqa, if only a piece of clothing wouldn’t be much problem.
There are lot of pieces of clothes we are not allowed to wear, depending circumstances… Bermuda short at work, even rings in some professions, we agree to wear some specific clothes in some events, and follow usually the code of clothing when going in churches, Mosques, Synagogues, grave yards and other institutions…

So the places at work, and professions ban it and they have to follow a dress-code. There is nothing in the law which says you cannot stop some one wearing a Burka. There are laws in place so you have to reveal your face and not wear a mask or any sort of facial covering in places like banks, airports, etc already in Belguim.

In otherwords, it is again, a non-issue as basically the only place where they can freely wear the burka is in their own home, which they don't do anyway. Which leaves the trip to the Mosque.

The burqa is the benchmark of their success, of their power on the Muslim crowd, on the Country they lived in.
Burqa feed burqa.

Yet, Muslims I know disagree you, and these are muslim women who wear no burka's at all, and not even a headscarf. Wouldn't be caught dead in a burka.

In otherwords, get off your high-horse.

Megas Methuselah

04-29-2010, 22:21

In otherwords, get off your high-horse.

People like Brenus sort of freak me out...

Rhyfelwyr

04-30-2010, 00:06

Oh we do. We'll liberate people à la force des bayonettes if needed.

Now, what kind of bollox are you trying to put forth? The whole modern era is charactarized by the succesful attempts of the State/the elites to have people do or accept things against their will.

Kids were sent to school against the people's will. Local languages were abandonned against the people's will. Universal healthcare was enforced against the people's will. Religion was thrown to the trash bin agains the people's will. Freedom of religion was enforced against people's will. The list goes on.

That's because all of you people are idiots and obviously need guiding and assistance.

Well I'm glad to see the spirit of the totalitarianism of the past century lives on on the Continent. Banning local languages? Really, Franco would be proud. :inquisitive:

And if that's your take on the matter, don't complain when the oppression happens the other way.

“You keep saying that, but it works both ways, that's why we have a discussion...”
Well, I am a little bit tired to repeat myself::inquisitive:
The pro-burqa clan pretends it is just a piece of clothing.
As the brown Shirts, the black Shirts were…
In reducing the burqa as a simple piece of dress, they forget that uniforms as well can be seen as pieces of clothing, that flags and others symbols are not important as a cross in only 2 pieces of whatever material. They prefer to ignore the power of evocation of a simple Swastika.

So did they ban shirts to combat fascism? Is it right to ban the swastika even when it is a symbol used by many different cultures that have nothing to do with Nazism? And I really don't care what the burqa symbolises, so long as the woman wants to wear it (and you admitted in a previous post most women in western countries do wear them by choice).

Then they pretend that a ban won’t be effective but failed to provide any others options.

No, I am sure a ban would be effective in removing burqas. It's just not really in the spirit of a free society.

Then when, as you mentioned rightly, freedom was given not to wear the burqa, the rate of women wearing it fall, proof in itself that the burqa is imposed by a religious intolerant group having a political agenda, they still pretend it is a free choice to wear it.

No, my example proved that it was political rather than domestic oppression that caused women to wear the burqa on such a large scale. When the political oppression was removed, the women largely stopped wearing them - which is strange if their husbands are the ones making them do it.

But because it is not only a piece of clothing it is a problem.
The Ultra know it perfectly, and they will try all the tricks to avoid it.
The burqa is the benchmark of their success, of their power on the Muslim crowd, on the Country they lived in.
Burqa feed burqa.

What? This sounds more like conspiracy theory stuff than a serious point. And if "burqa feed burqa", why is it going out of fashion in Afghanistan if burqa-wearing is supposedly a self-perpetuating phenomenon, as opposed to being enforced by a few warlords?

Just wear one. Try one, or if you can’t, ask somebody who did. She will explain how you become non-existent, without identity, shadow within shadow, all the same ghosts. And it is not the end my friend. Then you can’t drive, can’t speak or walk without a man from your family. You are a perpetual minor.

Not relevant, it's personal opinion, as LittleGrizzly and myself pointed out, we feel happier with our faces hidden from the world.

Myrddraal

04-30-2010, 03:16

Kids were sent to school against the people's will.
Fine

Local languages were abandonned against the people's will.
A tragedy.

Universal healthcare was enforced against the people's will.
Not true, that depends on where you look for your examples

Religion was thrown to the trash bin agains the people's will. Freedom of religion was enforced against people's will. The list goes on.
Really? The government threw religion to the trash bin, against the people's will? Did that really happen in France? If so, that's an aberration.

Beskar

04-30-2010, 04:35

Local languages were abandonned against the people's will.
A tragedy.

Not really, what is the point in having different languages? It just brings about a breakdown of communication. You drive to a different town and they speaking a language from the Planet Zog, how are meant to manage?

I wouldn't mind seeing a World/Global language, even if it was constructed especially for that purpose, akin to esperano. Then make that language mandatory for everyone. This makes 'local language' a optional extra for those who want to learn such things.

Though i would prefer a constructed language, using something similar to the principles of the Shavian alphabet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shavian_alphabet), thus producing a modern language. Perhaps with respect to our greater understanding of semantics and pragmatics, in constructing the style and grammar.

Brenus

04-30-2010, 07:47

“So did they ban shirts to combat fascism?” No. It took wars, but if it is the way you want to go...
I prefer a soft approach…

“And I really don't care what the burqa symbolises”: Yeah, I do see this. That is obviously a point of divergence.

“and you admitted in a previous post most women in western countries do wear them by choice” Yes, for the moment as only 200 on around 3,000’000 Muslim women in France wear it.
But you admit that with the freedom to wear or not a burqa the rate do down. Both situations prove that when really free, women won’t wear it…

“It's just not really in the spirit of a free society”. Really? The spirit of a free society is to let the victims down, the let the oppressors oppress, to let the kids working at 5 years old as it is the free choice of their parents, the teenagers to sell freely their body to foreigners, and I can carry on the list of abuses you can cover under the pretext of freedom…
I have no doubt you will pretend it is different. Now, can you tell me when, how and where?

“which is strange if their husbands are the ones making them do it.” See? You do it again. I never said it was their husbands. I said it is a religious political anti-democratic movement, and yes, husbands, but brothers as well, uncles, and all the male society involved. Some do it willingly as they share this point of view, opportunism, some just to escape a political repression as your example with Afghanistan shows.

“burqa feed burqa”: Experience from the field, sorry. When a small group of women were burqa, it scare the others families. So, and because the aggressive policies of the ultra, mixture of financial reward and fear, the group increases in numbers and it power of coercion increases…
Then come the moment to impose to the non-Muslim society the rules of the Muslim, as veil at school, segregation in swimming polls, etc under the freedom of Religion and oppression to minority act…
But that is another debate. How a political movement sizes power is not actually what we discuss here…

“burqa-wearing is supposedly a self-perpetuating phenomenon”. Absolutely not. Men impose it on women. Nothing as a self-perpetuating phenomenon…

“Not relevant, it's personal opinion”: Absolutely relevant as you speak without the inside. However I can see you don’t deny the effect of the burqa on non-willing victims but you still defend the right to oppress and impose burqa…
Fair enough you are consistent…
And again, you choose to ignore the political background going with the burqa.

“we feel happier with our faces hidden from the world”
That is your personal opinion. Unfortunately, it is the proof you never wear a burqa, as you would have experiment the feeling when going down stairs with seeing you feet is making you so happy… Or having to keep maintaining the piece of clothe of your face just to be able to turn your head to see right or left, as the burqua is really a bag with 2 holes on a top of a big dress.

You say to defend freedom. Burqa is an offence to freedom

ajaxfetish

04-30-2010, 08:14

Not really, what is the point in having different languages? It just brings about a breakdown of communication. You drive to a different town and they speaking a language from the Planet Zog, how are meant to manage?

I wouldn't mind seeing a World/Global language, even if it was constructed especially for that purpose, akin to esperano. Then make that language mandatory for everyone. This makes 'local language' a optional extra for those who want to learn such things.

Though i would prefer a constructed language, using something similar to the principles of the Shavian alphabet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shavian_alphabet), thus producing a modern language. Perhaps with respect to our greater understanding of semantics and pragmatics, in constructing the style and grammar.
For a linguist, having numerous languages is critical, since that's our source for data on how language works. It's alarming how fast languages are going extinct today under the influences of larger languages like English, Spanish, or Russian. Could you imagine trying to figure out biological principles if humans were the only species? Also, I know of no constructed languages that actually work. Those that start as a construct and end up working out (like the resurrection of Hebrew in modern Israel) only develop a natural grammar after a new generation grows up with nothing else and reanalyzes the language, a process that transforms it and makes it just as messy as any other natural language. We don't understand grammar well enough yet to artificially create a fully functional one, and I'm not sure it would be a worthwhile goal anyway.

Also, the idea of a global language is pretty impractical. While something like English might become a sort of lingua franca, allowing some level of global communication, local varieties are always going to be changing and diverging. The English of Australia, India, England, Scotland, Canada, the US, and so on are not one and the same, and AFAIK the evidence suggests they're getting farther apart, not closer together.

Ajax

Viking

04-30-2010, 08:36

That's because all of you people are idiots and obviously need guiding and assistance.

That would mean idiots led by idiots.

Not really, what is the point in having different languages?

What's the point in having different identities, why are we not just all the same? What's the point in anything?

Andres

04-30-2010, 10:31

People like Brenus sort of freak me out...

Because he's European and white?

Seamus Fermanagh

04-30-2010, 13:42

BR Orgahs:

This topic appears to be at an impasse. Think carefully before posting a re-hash of your previous argument. I've noticed that this is one thing that tends to generate flaming and trolling. Let's keep those varmints under their bridge please.

Meneldil

04-30-2010, 15:13

A tragedy.
For what reason, if I may ask? Not being able to communicate with the guy who lived 30Kms away (as it was the case in most of France a century ago) must have been really practical, as well as a perfect way to created bound between people.

Not true, that depends on where you look for your examples
It certainly was. All european workers movements opposed State-sponsored healthcare. Was the case in France, Germany, the UK... The State was seen as a tool of the bourgeoisie, and Public Healthcare as a mean to keep the workers quiet. This only changed in the mid-20th.

Really? The government threw religion to the trash bin, against the people's will? Did that really happen in France? If so, that's an aberration.
Of course. Do you think catholicism fell out of flavor in France (the so-called 'daughter of the Church') just because people suddenly had a revelation? The liberal elites have been trying to get rid of the Church since the Revolution, and thanks god, their attempt was a success.

Well I'm glad to see the spirit of the totalitarianism of the past century lives on on the Continent. Banning local languages? Really, Franco would be proud.
No offense, but you're the one whose life is dictated by totalitarian religious rules that you keep bringing up in any discussion, not I.
Local languages came out of favor all over Europe because most European states, democratic or not, did their best to eradicate them. The Spanish Republic attempted to promote the use of a single language (and failed) way before Franco came to power, but meh, keep throwing buzzwords in the discussion if you like.

What you call an aberration has a term in political science: nation-building. All modern functional states had to go through this process at one point or another. I'm not saying it was perfectly democratic, or only had positive effects. What I mean is that your "oh-my-god-the-evil-state-enforces-stuff-on-nutjobs" outrage and "it's-not-the-role-of-the-state-to-liberate-me-if-I-don't-want-it" argument are a wee bit funny if you put them into historical perspective.

Louis VI the Fat

04-30-2010, 15:57

Well I'm glad to see the spirit of the totalitarianism of the past century lives on on the Continent.

No, I am sure a ban would be effective in removing burqas. It's just not really in the spirit of a free society.In the UK the government hands out ASBO's to people, forcing them not to wear a hood in public. Hoods which are banned from many places too, such as shopping malls. (British liberty ends where a low class Briton gets in the way of the middle and upper class making a few pennies)

The US, by contrast, is absolute in its rights of expression and religion. For example, KKK members can run around in their hoods* as much as they please. Not so in the UK, which is very much a part of Europe in this respect, and not part of 'Anglosaxonia'.

* 'Just a piece of cloth', that KKK outfit. Just people who prefer to be covered head-to-toe in white sheets with a pointy hat. No policital ramifications.

Rhyfelwyr

04-30-2010, 16:09

No offense, but you're the one whose life is dictated by totalitarian religious rules that you keep bringing up in any discussion, not I.

Yeah, I guess you're a "free-thinker" :rolleyes:

Also haven't mentioned my religious beliefs at all in this thread despite making a lot of posts as far as I can see.

Local languages came out of favor all over Europe because most European states, democratic or not, did their best to eradicate them. The Spanish Republic attempted to promote the use of a single language (and failed) way before Franco came to power, but meh, keep throwing buzzwords in the discussion if you like.

What you call an aberration has a term in political science: nation-building. All modern functional states had to go through this process at one point or another. I'm not saying it was perfectly democratic, or only had positive effects. What I mean is that your "oh-my-god-the-evil-state-enforces-stuff-on-nutjobs" outrage and "it's-not-the-role-of-the-state-to-liberate-me-if-I-don't-want-it" argument are a wee bit funny if you put them into historical perspective.

There is a difference between the decline of regional languages due to centralisation what with railways and customs unions and what not bringing people together; and the decline of regional languages through their being banned outright. I am glad that broad Scots is no longer in fashion, since it means I can come onto this forum and communicate easily. If I was brought up speaking broad Scots and told I was no longer allowed to speak it outside my home, well I just wouldn't accept that.

Or maybe you should try going onto the streets of Barcelona and telling the people there what you are saying here, good luck! :2thumbsup:

Rhyfelwyr

04-30-2010, 16:13

In the UK the government hands out ASBO's to people, forcing them not to wear a hood in public. Hoods which are banned from many places too, such as shopping malls. (British liberty ends where a low class Briton gets in the way of the middle and upper class making a few pennies)

The US, by contrast, is absolute in its rights of expression and religion. For example, KKK members can run around in their hoods* as much as they please. Not so in the UK, which is very much a part of Europe in this respect, and not part of 'Anglosaxonia'.

* 'Just a piece of cloth', that KKK outfit. Just people who prefer to be covered head-to-toe in white sheets with a pointy hat. No policital ramifications.

ASBO's are a joke on just about every level. Although I do not have a problem with restrictions being placed on offenders, your freedom only lasts so long as you respect that of others.

As for the KKK example, why make life complicated? Want to walk through a black neighbourhood wearing the Klan outfit? By all means, have fun!

drone

04-30-2010, 23:12

One step closer. Belgium's lower house votes to ban burqa (http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/04/29/belgium.burqa.ban/index.html?hpt=Sbin)

The vote in the Chamber of Deputies was 136 in favor, none opposed and two abstentions, according to Dominiq van Dendossche, a press officer for the Belgian parliament.

Senate passage seems likely since the Chamber of Deputies approved it.

Beskar

05-01-2010, 02:48

* 'Just a piece of cloth', that KKK outfit. Just people who prefer to be covered head-to-toe in white sheets with a pointy hat. No policital ramifications.

Actually, I wouldn't go into a ghetto with one, Louis. I would hate to lose you.

Brenus

05-01-2010, 08:37

“As for the KKK example, why make life complicated? Want to walk through a black neighbourhood wearing the Klan outfit? By all means, have fun!” Are you endorsing the use of violence just because some wear a piece of clothing/freedom of expression?
What about they feel better with their faces covered?
Or perhaps some pieces of cloth are more than fashion items and have symbolic value?

Meneldil

05-01-2010, 13:55

Yeah, I guess you're a "free-thinker" :rolleyes:

Also haven't mentioned my religious beliefs at all in this thread despite making a lot of posts as far as I can see.

I quite fancy myself as one yes. Vastly superior to all the peps whose thoughts are guided by a religious or political party/ideology.
And quite frankly, I suspect your defence of the Burka comes from two different ideological backgrounds: the traditional anglo-saxon laissez-faire mindset obviously, and the idea that an attack on religion (in that case Islam) is an attack on all religions, yours included. Christians and Jews are often the first to jump in to protect Islam against the Evil Secularism (TM), as any defeat of said secularism is a victory for religious extremists of all kind.

Or maybe I'm just making things up.

There is a difference between the decline of regional languages due to centralisation what with railways and customs unions and what not bringing people together; and the decline of regional languages through their being banned outright. I am glad that broad Scots is no longer in fashion, since it means I can come onto this forum and communicate easily. If I was brought up speaking broad Scots and told I was no longer allowed to speak it outside my home, well I just wouldn't accept that.

Or maybe you should try going onto the streets of Barcelona and telling the people there what you are saying here, good luck! :2thumbsup:
No, actually, there is no difference at all. What we call Patois nowaday was banned from school (so kids wouldn't be tempted to learn it), while efforts were also made to promote the use of a single national language among the adult population. All was part of a same policy, enforced by a democratic and liberal French state (and may I add, mostly ruled by a moderate party). Maybe you wouldn't accept that nowaday, maybe I wouldn't accept it too. Fact is, people accepted it at the time, because they had no choice.

And what's going on with Barcelona and Spain? Are you seriously contesting that idea that the Spanish Republic tried to enforce cultural unity before the Civil War? I don't care what Barcelonans and Catalans think about their so-called identity. The first Spanish democratic state did try to erase local identities too. It failed badly (and actually had to bow to the demands of regional identities, thus giving them more weight), but the attempt was made nonetheless.

Listen, I understand the reasons why you're opposing a ban on Burka. I can even find merit to some of them, even though I'm 100% in favor of such a ban. I'm just saying that getting all outraged because a State is trying to regulate the 'cultural' aspects of the life of its citizens is silly. That's what States have been doing for centuries. Just suck it up and get over it. You still have dozens of other reasons to oppose the ban. They probably weren't considered worthy of attention in Belgium, and probably won't be either in France, where ~65% (last I heard) of the population is in favor of a ban, but you're still entitled to voice them if you want.

KukriKhan

05-01-2010, 14:07

136 in favor, none opposed and two abstentions

Pretty impressive show of support and unity of thought there. Good luck Belgium - perhaps you ARE showing the way.

Rhyfelwyr

05-01-2010, 18:23

I quite fancy myself as one yes. Vastly superior to all the peps whose thoughts are guided by a religious or political party/ideology.

If you refuse outright to accept any more absolute/exclusivist systems of though, then that is an ideology in itself, and bounds your 'free-thought' within those limits in much the same way any other overarching philosophy would.

It's like the old saying we used to have in science classes, "Never talk in absolutes".

And quite frankly, I suspect your defence of the Burka comes from two different ideological backgrounds: the traditional anglo-saxon laissez-faire mindset obviously, and the idea that an attack on religion (in that case Islam) is an attack on all religions, yours included. Christians and Jews are often the first to jump in to protect Islam against the Evil Secularism (TM), as any defeat of said secularism is a victory for religious extremists of all kind.

I would say it is much more along the lines of the 'laissez-faire' route. Although I'm not sure I like the connotations of that term, I am not, for example, a market liberal. It's hard to tell if on a subconcious level my reaction may be in part due to a slightly paranoid defence of religion in general, although I will say, that if secular humanists ever adopted some sort of symbol, I would fully support the right of their children to wear it in school.

No, actually, there is no difference at all. What we call Patois nowaday was banned from school (so kids wouldn't be tempted to learn it), while efforts were also made to promote the use of a single national language among the adult population. All was part of a same policy, enforced by a democratic and liberal French state (and may I add, mostly ruled by a moderate party). Maybe you wouldn't accept that nowaday, maybe I wouldn't accept it too. Fact is, people accepted it at the time, because they had no choice.

Indeed, but that doesn't make it right. And while less language divides would be useful, I would prefer that the divides were bridged in less heavy handed terms than they have at times been. The dying out of regional languages is one of those natural processes that comes with the development and centralisation of the economy and government etc, happened in Scotland to Gaelic and then Scots without any really heavy-handed measures.

And what's going on with Barcelona and Spain? Are you seriously contesting that idea that the Spanish Republic tried to enforce cultural unity before the Civil War? I don't care what Barcelonans and Catalans think about their so-called identity. The first Spanish democratic state did try to erase local identities too. It failed badly (and actually had to bow to the demands of regional identities, thus giving them more weight), but the attempt was made nonetheless.

Of course, I am aware that such measures are not monopolised by the far-right, and the left/right associations with such issues have changed a lot over time. Marx did I believe call for the eradication of local, backward cultures that might oppose the revolution.

Louis VI the Fat

05-03-2010, 12:27

Meanwhile in Cairo (http://gulfnews.com/news/region/egypt/cairo-worried-over-growing-extremism-1.520905), Egypt is trying to halt the spread of Saudi cultural imperialism and Salafist extremism:

Cairo: Women enveloped in black from head to toe, their faces covered except for a narrow slit for their eyes, have become an increasingly familiar sight on Egyptian streets — much to the alarm of a government determined to fight the spread of extremism.
Most Egyptian women wear the hijab, or the Islamic headscarf that covers the hair and neck. But a growing minority is opting for the niqab, or face veil — a form of dress associated more with the puritan Salafi traditions of Saudi Arabia rather than with local standards of religious modesty.

The spread of the niqab in Egypt, experts say, has accompanied the rising popularity of a conservative but so far apolitical brand of Salafi Islam in the country. That is a trend that worries the government. Salafism provided the intellectual framework for Al Qaida, even if most traditional salafists steer away from politics, preferring instead to focus on issues of day-to-day morality.

Niqab row
Human-rights activists say Salafi men in Egypt are regularly detained for brief periods to be questioned about their beliefs and activities. But authorities have taken that a step further by moving against the niqab.

In recent weeks, they have banned its use in student dormitories and in the women-only classrooms at Al Azhar university.

Islamist lawyers responded by going to the courts to force Shaikh Mohammad Saeed Tantawi, the government-appointed rector of Al Azhar, to reverse the decision.
"This is an attack against personal freedom," said Abdul Moneim Abdul Maqsoud, a lawyer for the Muslim Brotherhood, the outlawed group considered the largest opposition force in the country.

Louis VI the Fat

05-03-2010, 12:27

Meanwhile in Dubai: (http://gulfnews.com/news/gulf/uae/crime/man-claims-fiancee-hid-beard-under-niqab-1.580722)

An Arab ambassador said he decided to call off his wedding immediately after he discovered that his wife-to-be, who wears a niqab, was bearded and cross-eyed.
The ambassador claimed that the bride's mother deceived his mother, when she went to see his Gulf national wife-to-be, by showing her pictures of the bride's sister.

The Arab man, who also holds the title of minister plenipotentiary, claimed to a Sharia court judge in Dubai that the bride's family showed his mother photos of the bride's sister and not the woman he was going to marry.

Sources close to the case told Gulf News that the groom only saw the woman a few times. He did not realise that she had a beard because she wore the niqab the few times he met her, added the source.

"Every time the couple met, the bride would do her best not to reveal her entire face. After the ambassador and the woman, who is a physician, signed the marriage contract, the groom was sitting with the bride… he claimed to the Sharia court officials that when he wanted to kiss his wife-to-be, he discovered that she was bearded and cross-eyed as well," claimed the source.

The ambassador then decided to call off the wedding party and lodged a divorce claim alleging that he was tricked by his parents-in-law and incurred emotional and moral damage.

In his lawsuit, the groom also asked the bride to repay him his Dh500,000, the amount which he claimed he spent on jewellery, clothes and gifts.

Dismissed
During the trial, the bride asked the judge to dismiss the groom's lawsuit and demanded him to pay her alimony after the Arab called off the wedding party.:beam: