Belgium to ban the Burka

[Myrddraal]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8597950.stm

What do you think? I haven't heard much about the motivations behind this ban, but I have heard that the reason given is to prevent terrorism.

Necessary compromise of freedoms to save lives, or bigotry?

[Fragony]

There is no need to ban the burka current laws are fine, a burka already is illegal since you aren't allowed to cover up your face in public.

[Hax]

What do you think? I haven't heard much about the motivations behind this ban, but I have heard that the reason given is to prevent terrorism.

I think I agree with Fragony here. There's no need to specifically ban burqas. What should be banned is the complete masking of your face.

[Megas Methuselah]

I guess Belgium simply doesn't have the balls to handle multiculturalism.

[Centurion1]

i hate burkas for what they represent and they just bother me. that being said this is a ridiculous withdrawal of free expression.

You Europeans all talk about how Americans are right wing loons and we stifle all expression, this would never pass here.

[Megas Methuselah]

...this would never pass here.

Really?

[Centurion1]

Really?

yah really.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Should balaclavas be made illegal? Even in cold winter?

On the other hand, if you're face is completely covered, law enforcement might have their suspicions aroused.

What does our resident Belgian lawyer say?

[InsaneApache]

If covering your face is illegal, I'm off to ring plod to dob in the mods here. :disguise:

[Fragony]

i hate burkas for what they represent and they just bother me. that being said this is a ridiculous withdrawal of free expression.

You Europeans all talk about how Americans are right wing loons and we stifle all expression, this would never pass here.

There is the security argument and it's valid, especially in Brussels. But this is all symbolism, police isn't in control in these area's. Police-vests don't stop AK47 rounds, they can do zip.

[Husar]

There is the security argument and it's valid, especially in Brussels. But this is all symbolism, police isn't in control in these area's. Police-vests don't stop AK47 rounds, they can do zip.

That's probably because the police isn't the army and your usual drug addict or small time criminal doesn't bear AK 47s.
I'm sure they're capable of stopping a terrorist, after all their handguns can kill, too.

About the ban, hmm, well, I don't wear one so I guess it wouldn't affect me, still seems a bit superfluous to me, why do they have to ban things left and right nowadays?

[Fragony]

That's probably because the police isn't the army and your usual drug addict or small time criminal doesn't bear AK 47s.


They do in the Belgium no-go zones

[tibilicus]

Don't a lot of Belgium towns ban the Burka at the moment anyway?

I don't agree with it but if a majority of Belgium's object to the Burka then ultimately they should decide whether it can or can not be worn. Yes, democracy isn't always fair but it's the way it works.

[al Roumi]

I had a massive discussion with a "real life" (Muslim) friend about this yesterday. My conclusions exiting the discussion are this law sounds rather draconian and ignorant to say the least, but is particularily pointless (especially if Belgium has any hope of integrating it's immigrants), targetting a symptom rather than a cause.

[Myrddraal]

Well I agree with the general sentiment here. I had a rather heated debate about it with my family (half of which is Belgian). The argument I got from them went something along the lines of: terrorists use Burkas to hide bombs and escape from the scenes of their crimes, sure it's a limitation of freedoms, but if it saves one life it's worth it. Using the same logic, we should ban rucksacks, because they are used by terrorists to carry bombs. In fact, I reckon banning rucksacks on pulbic transport would be much more effective than banning burkas. But that wouldn't be acceptable now would it, because banning rucksacks would be an inconvenience to your average white citizen. It's ok to 'sacrifice freedoms for safety' if it's only inconvenient for brown people, as soon as it's inconvenient for everyone, it becomes a ridiculous suggestion.

[The Celtic Viking]

Let's not play pretend here: many women are being forced to wear these hideous political statements of hate and oppression against their will. Combating that is in my opinion more important than protecting the right of others to wear clothes that legitimises the rape of a woman. (As well as, I might add, the subsequent stoning of the raped woman, for having had sex outside of marriage - all in the name of the "religion of peace", of course.)

So since I see no better way to combat this, I'm in agreement with the ban. The burka has no place in a civilized society anyway.

[Strike For The South]

A complete and utter violation of rights.

Freedom from

The pond

Freedom to

[Ja'chyra]

A draconian law to ban a draconian law, two wrongs..............

And what????? You can't have your face covered in Belgium? What about the ugly people

[Strike For The South]

A draconian law to ban a draconian law, two wrongs..............

And what????? You can't have your face covered in Belgium? What about the ugly people

That's what all that beer is for

[Louis VI the Fat]

What does our resident Belgian lawyer say?He barely dares set foot in the Backroom, what with all you childish Belgophobes forever poking fun at this cute little country that means so well.




Belgium being a French mini-me, it follows politically in the footsteps of its massive southern neighbour. For the past six months, starting with Sarkozy's adress that the burqa has no place in a free society, and followed by a great national debate on national identity, a renewed political effort has been made in France to ban the burqa from public life. However, this week, the Council of State, (the top legal body) issued an advisory opinion to the government, stating that a complete ban of the burqa has, in fact, no solid legal basis and could face a succesful challenge in the courts. This leaves the government, which wishes to push for a ban, with a problem.


Blissfully oblivious of that legal inquiry, directly the day after, Belgium voted to ban the burqa in Belgium. They shall now no doubt proceed to start a legal inquiry of their own into the legal aspects of the ban. Doing the whole thing nicely backwards and, with any luck, sometime in 2011 reaching the conclusion that a complete ban of the burqa has, in fact, no solid legal basis and could face a succesful challenge in the courts, thereby providing us with the Belgian joke of the decade.

[Myrddraal]

thereby providing us with the Belgian joke of the decade. ^

What so the lack of government wasn't enough?

[KukriKhan]

They should go the other way: "burquas may be worn, but may extend to a point no lower than 3 inches above the center of the knee." Policemen issued 6-inch rulers to insure compliance.

[Peasant Phill]

Apparently I'm the first Belgian in this thread.

Firstly, this is the first I heard of this. But apparently it isn't voted on just yet. It still needs to go through parliament.

Secondly, I'm a bit annoyed with the 'les petits belges'-attitude in Luis' post. I'm sure France is just perfect.

Thirdly, I'm uncertain how I should feel about this proposition. It can both alienate as integrate the Muslim minority in the Belgian society. Let's be honest, some of the Belgian muslims (and from most other parts in Europe) aren't willing to integrate. This week there was a sincere call for a 'sharia for Belgium' from third generation muslim Belgians. What do you make of that?
I doubt a ban on the Burka will make the Belgian society any better or worse but at least it's a signal.

[Centurion1]

Thirdly, I'm uncertain how I should feel about this proposition. It can both alienate as integrate the Muslim minority in the Belgian society. Let's be honest, some of the Belgian muslims (and from most other parts in Europe) aren't willing to integrate. This week there was a sincere call for a 'sharia for Belgium' from third generation muslim Belgians. What do you make of that?
I doubt a ban on the Burka will make the Belgian society any better or worse but at least it's a signal.

i hate people who refuse to integrate or at least accept the rules of their host nation. i respect other cultures and everything but people need to realize when they immigrate it is a allowance not a right. no double standards everyone should be treated the same. And im sorry but many of these muslim immigrants to Europe are some of the worst about this sort of thing

[Beskar]

There is no need to ban the burka current laws are fine, a burka already is illegal since you aren't allowed to cover up your face in public.

I share Fragony's post 100%. You give guidelines on dress based on things like "you aren't allowed to cover up your face in public", not "ban burka!".

There is fundamental difference between the two, even if the first one means that Burka's are basically banned.

[Fragony]

There is fundamental difference between the two, even if the first one means that Burka's are basically banned.

wow. Come over to the dark side.

[Beskar]

i hate people who refuse to integrate or at least accept the rules of their host nation. i respect other cultures and everything but people need to realize when they immigrate it is a allowance not a right. no double standards everyone should be treated the same. And im sorry but many of these muslim immigrants to Europe are some of the worst about this sort of thing

I believe we should have an open society. You can come here, you can show us your recipes, we can show you yours. We can talk and discuss about the history and all sorts of manner of things. However, in such a society, there are fundamental rights and guidelines, and coming here, you have to ascribe and live by them.


wow. Come over to the dark side.

Not really the darkside, it is just practical and aspects of security not to have your faces covered while at the bank, airport, shops and other areas. The fundamental difference is "You cannot wear them for those reasons" not because of any sort of religious dresscode. As you said yourself in another area, you are not a big fan of religion, same here with me, I see religion as the "optional extra" so if you don't want to drink alcohol because it is against your religion, I have no problems at all. If you want to wear a little cross necklace in a suitiable place, I have no problems with that. If you want to blow up a building and you are not a licenced demolition contractor following the health and safety codes, I do have a problem with that.

I know many self-confessed Muslims, some could arguably be mullah-lite, I have absolutely no problems with them, unless they obviously cross that line which everyone has to abide to, and whenever they are Muslims, Christian, crazy communist, they have to face the consequences of crossing that line. But as in the spirit of the human rights system "Innocent, unless proven otherwise".

The dark-side as you would put it, is discrimination against them simply for being Muslim and other forms of prejudice and discrimination.

[rory_20_uk]

Sounds like the law is political point scoring more than anything else.

At my school doc martin boots were banned as they did not go well with dresses. Of course, the rule could have been to ban the wearing of dresses with doc martins, but that wouldn't have achieved the desired effect.

~:smoking:

[Peasant Phill]

Again it is far from a law, just a proposal that's gotten onto the agenda of the Parliament. And as there are no important names linked to this proposal, nobody can really score with it.

[Brenus]

Ban the Burka.
Alienation of women: It is not because you had happy slaves that slavery was a good institution and had to be kept…

The people who oblige or voluntarily wear these sort of portable jails/clothes are doing it in order to be segregated of the society, not to be integrated.

By the way, do you know that you can’t see properly with this? My sister had one when working in Pakistan, you can’t see your feet, and when going down, stairs or slope, you have to manoeuvre the hood…
So even in term of health and safety it should be banned.

By definition, an integrated foreigner can’t be distinguished from a crowd. Me, nobody can tell I am French in UK until I open my mouth.
More difficult of none Europeans I know, but to add self-inflicted segregation to potential discrimination would not improve the problem…

“You give guidelines on dress based on things like "you aren't allowed to cover up your face in public", not "ban burka!"
No. That gives a clear message to the ones who want to enslave theirs daughters, sister and mothers…

“A complete and utter violation of rights”: To wear a burka? Yeap.
If a Religion would impose this to animals, we will all up to arms…
But hey, it is cultural. By the way, nope: It is a political statement. The male have to wear the afghan clothing… That is their right…
However, in order to save Muslim baby girls and to give them the right to be free to follow or not the religion of their parents (and to have a normal bones development), burn the burka!!!

[Rhyfelwyr]

So just because burkas make some people different, the government has to step in to make them the same?

I'm not a Muslim or a leftist... but I don't understand why the same people that like minimal government intervention in their lives are the same people that want it to crack down on any sort of expression of an Islamic identity.

Many women who wear burkas are forced to... OK. But what is the way to tackle this issue if we are to live by the principles of a free, western society. Do we:

A. Ban burkas outright even though it clearly violates freedom of expression
B. Tackle the underlying social problems that lead to women being forced to wear Burkas

I know the reality is a solid majority are forced to wear them. But I'm sure the women that wear them voluntarily, few though they may be, would be rightfully annoyed at being told by the government that they are being 'liberated' by having their freedom to expression inhinged upon.

[Myrddraal]

Couldn't have put it better myself Rhyfelwyr, it's like banning cars to stop car accidents. (Extreme example, same principle).

Edit: and Brenus, you should go to the Notting Hill Carnival, you'd enjoy it.

Edit 2: Peasant Phill, Louis is French remember, humour the poor man.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

A. Ban burkas outright even though it clearly violates freedom of expression

Does it violate freedom of expression or does it ban a common cultural clothing item? Might as well be specific.



I know the reality is a solid majority are forced to wear them. But I'm sure the women that wear them voluntarily, few though they may be, would be rightfully annoyed at being told by the government that they are being 'liberated' by having their freedom to expression inhinged upon.

So it's a choice between:

A: solid majority forced to cover their faces
B: minority being "annoyed"


Couldn't have put it better myself Rhyfelwyr, it's like banning cars to stop car accidents. (Extreme example, same principle).

So, problem = car accidents, solution = no more cars. I think same principle would be: Problem = women treated badly, solution = no more women.

Isn't the argument that one of the things holding women back is the burka itself?

*************

I haven't made up my mind on the issue yet. But it seems like we need a clearer framework with which to talk about it.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Burqas are like dwarf-tossing.

Yes, it's a free country and most do so of their own accord. But it is against (mainstream concept of) dignity.


There are lots of legal and social norms for appropriate dress: one must wear clothes, in parks, one can wear less clothes but must still cover certain areas up, in public areas like school, the workplace or the courtroom a very elaborate dress code applies, to be followed to the letter at pain of social exclusion. A burqa has no place in a Western society.


Secondly, I'm a bit annoyed with the 'les petits belges'-attitude in Luis' post.Amai!

B...but we all love you, our cute mini-me, this quaint miniature country where everybody speaks French. (Or some local minority dialects, in the north).

[Myrddraal]

So, problem = car accidents, solution = no more cars. I think same principle would be: Problem = women treated badly, solution = no more women.

Isn't the argument that one of the things holding women back is the burka itself?

I should have known I could rely on you to pick up on my rubbish analogy. What is holding thoses women who are forced to wear the Burka is not the item of clothing itself, but the social situation they find themselves in. The popularity of the Burka could be argued to be a symptom of that social problem, but it certainly isn't the cause of it. What effect will banning the Burka have on their social situation? On the other hand, what if there are some people who choose to wear the Burka out of personal preference.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I should have known I could rely on you to pick up on my rubbish analogy. What is holding thoses women who are forced to wear the Burka is not the item of clothing itself, but the social situation they find themselves in. The popularity of the Burka could be argued to be a symptom of that social problem, but it certainly isn't the cause of it. What effect will banning the Burka have on their social situation? On the other hand, what if there are some people who choose to wear the Burka out of personal preference.

What I have heard argued in past threads, is that women who wear the burkha have trouble finding employment. Employment seems like a booster in the gender equality area to me.

The "what if" is simply not that worrying. Most schools and workplaces here have dress codes, and we don't allow nudity despite some people probably preferring it. We are very comfortable with all kinds of organizations have strict dress rules, so why clamp down on any kind of governmental rule? Ocho Cinco was fined $10,000 for wearing an orange chin strap instead of a white one.

I don't feel I'm on solid footing with this yet though, I'd like to find a good historical comparison. But it seems like a pretty solid case of the ends justifying the means.

[Myrddraal]

What I'm not sure about, and what hasn't been explained to me very clearly, is how the means will reach the desired ends. How does banning the burka actually help those who are forced to wear it. At the end of the day, you are only removing a visible sign of opression, not the opression itself.

Dress codes are another matter. If a company has a dress code, you have to conform to it in order to work for that company. I don't think this extends to a national dress code though.

My knee jerk reaction in any case where the proposed outcome would give satisfaction to the more racist elements of society is to proceed with extreme caution; to look at whether such a law is strictly necessary, that it's aims are justifiable and achievable, whether the same aims cannot be achieved by another law which wouldn't satisfy a racist nut, etc.

I don't feel at all satisfied that this proposal meets those criteria. In this case it sounds like the defences of this law fail in two respects, I don't think they will achieve the 'desirable' effects it claims to be for, let alone that it's the best way to achieve those aims. Add to that the fact that it encourages and semi-endorses those who suggest a law like this for reasons of prejudice.

[Fragony]

Ban the Burka.
Alienation of women: It is not because you had happy slaves that slavery was a good institution and had to be kept…

The people who oblige or voluntarily wear these sort of portable jails/clothes are doing it in order to be segregated of the society, not to be integrated.

By the way, do you know that you can’t see properly with this? My sister had one when working in Pakistan, you can’t see your feet, and when going down, stairs or slope, you have to manoeuvre the hood…
So even in term of health and safety it should be banned.

By definition, an integrated foreigner can’t be distinguished from a crowd. Me, nobody can tell I am French in UK until I open my mouth.
More difficult of none Europeans I know, but to add self-inflicted segregation to potential discrimination would not improve the problem…

“You give guidelines on dress based on things like "you aren't allowed to cover up your face in public", not "ban burka!"
No. That gives a clear message to the ones who want to enslave theirs daughters, sister and mothers…

“A complete and utter violation of rights”: To wear a burka? Yeap.
If a Religion would impose this to animals, we will all up to arms…
But hey, it is cultural. By the way, nope: It is a political statement. The male have to wear the afghan clothing… That is their right…
However, in order to save Muslim baby girls and to give them the right to be free to follow or not the religion of their parents (and to have a normal bones development), burn the burka!!!

Banning it sounds like fashion-police to me, got anything better to do. We have freedom of religion, I don't think these people have a place in our society but someone thought they do, and I can't help that sadly.

[Fragony]

Ban the Burka.
Alienation of women: It is not because you had happy slaves that slavery was a good institution and had to be kept…

The people who oblige or voluntarily wear these sort of portable jails/clothes are doing it in order to be segregated of the society, not to be integrated.

By the way, do you know that you can’t see properly with this? My sister had one when working in Pakistan, you can’t see your feet, and when going down, stairs or slope, you have to manoeuvre the hood…
So even in term of health and safety it should be banned.

By definition, an integrated foreigner can’t be distinguished from a crowd. Me, nobody can tell I am French in UK until I open my mouth.
More difficult of none Europeans I know, but to add self-inflicted segregation to potential discrimination would not improve the problem…

“You give guidelines on dress based on things like "you aren't allowed to cover up your face in public", not "ban burka!"
No. That gives a clear message to the ones who want to enslave theirs daughters, sister and mothers…

“A complete and utter violation of rights”: To wear a burka? Yeap.
If a Religion would impose this to animals, we will all up to arms…
But hey, it is cultural. By the way, nope: It is a political statement. The male have to wear the afghan clothing… That is their right…
However, in order to save Muslim baby girls and to give them the right to be free to follow or not the religion of their parents (and to have a normal bones development), burn the burka!!!

Banning it sounds like fashion-police to me, got anything better to do. We have freedom of religion, I don't think these people have a place in our society but someone thought they do, and I can't help that sadly.

[KukriKhan]

Were I a Belgian man, I would tomorrow - Easter Sunday - wear a Burka myself, and direct my family to do likewise.



But that's just me, a crazy american.

[InsaneApache]

Aye that'd look good. You in a burka swilling a bottle of bud, eating a bacon butty. I'm impressed.

[Centurion1]

Aye that'd look good. You in a burka swilling a bottle of bud, eating a bacon butty. I'm impressed.

Ah may the lord bless western europe and christianity. If i couldnt eat my bacon or drink my liquor.......... *shudder*


I believe we should have an open society. You can come here, you can show us your recipes, we can show you yours. We can talk and discuss about the history and all sorts of manner of things. However, in such a society, there are fundamental rights and guidelines, and coming here, you have to ascribe and live by them.

Beskar we agree!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Everyone take note this is a momentous occasion. Hip Hip Hooray for Detente.

[Megas Methuselah]

A burqa has no place in a Western society.

... You should consider reducing the frequency of your posts. My image of you is steadily getting worse over time.

[Fragony]

... You should consider reducing the frequency of your posts. My image of you is steadily getting worse over time.

Nothing wrong with disliking it and what it stands for. It's a provocation, they are testing the limits of our tolerance. I won't be provoked by this but I know what's going on, and I won't have any sympathy for the victim of a 'hate-crime' when the limits have been pushed.

[Brenus]

“you should go to the Notting Hill Carnival, you'd enjoy it”: Err, relevance with the actual debate?

The fact I have enough of the use of freedom to de facto oppress others.

The burka is not ancestral clothing and is not cultural clothing, nor a religious one.
It is a tool of oppression and safety hazard.

“We have freedom of religion”: And is this the pretext to oppress others minorities, even if the minority is the females of your family?
Do you agree of the Saint Inquisition?
Freedom of Religion is not the right to do and to impose what you want to others, even for their good…

The duty of society, of the law, is to insure freedom, dignity and rights to everybody, as much as possible, even to the more vulnerable member of society…
The burka, as openly advocate for a repressive religion and as a physically danger for individuals who wear it has to be banned wherever it is possible.

[Fragony]

I know what it stands for, but I am not going to let it get in the way of what I stand for. I did not invite these people to be here, but since they are they should enjoy the same rights and that includes freedom of expression. It's the Islamic culture as a whole that shouldn't be here in the first place, but it is sadly. These people don't belong here, time has caught up and they are centuries behind.

[The Wizard]

I used to categorically oppose banning stuff like this. Then I started reading interviews with Afghan women who wholeheartedly support just such a ban. Now, I'm not so sure anymore if it's bad to ban the burka. Not so sure in the least.

[Louis VI the Fat]

... You should consider reducing the frequency of your posts. My image of you is steadily getting worse over time.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ni_Putes_Ni_Soumises

[Sasaki Kojiro]

My knee jerk reaction in any case where the proposed outcome would give satisfaction to the more racist elements of society is to proceed with extreme caution; to look at whether such a law is strictly necessary, that it's aims are justifiable and achievable, whether the same aims cannot be achieved by another law which wouldn't satisfy a racist nut, etc.


Yes, that's a concern. But a bigger concern from me is that people are going "that's racist/islamaphobic/against freedom of expression: therefore wrong" without looking at it in more detail. Those are all absolutes that lend themselves to making a quick decision.

I think the question about what role the government has in cases like this is complicated. I don't see any plausible alternatives being offered "that wouldn't satisfy a racist nut, etc". How do you combat the root causes?

[The Wizard]

I've been reading through this thread and a lot of the opponents of this proposal to ban the burka cite freedom of religion or something related to it as the primary reason for opposing it.

Now the fun thing is, a burka is not a religious object, just like female circumcision is not a religious practice. Wearing a burka is a cultural practice (an extremely backwards and oppressive one) that wasn't even widespread in Afghanistan until the late 20th century. In fact, it was originally an obscure garment that somehow got popular amongst the Afghan elite and became a symbol of status, before being co-opted by the mujahideen and their Taliban cousins to anchor their patriarchal power and symbolize their extremist, medieval religion. The vast majority of Islamic clergy, in fact, will tell you that nowhere in the Qur'an or the hadith is there a commandment to wear a burqa or anything of the sort.

Therefore it's not a matter of religion at all. The burka is a backwards cultural practice that must be banned, just like honor killings, polygamy, feet binding, the murdering of unwanted infants, and female circumcision are banned.

[Rhyfelwyr]

But a bigger concern from me is that people are going "that's ... against freedom of expression: therefore wrong"

That is the bottom line for me. So long as that freedom of expression doesn't harm anyone else. And in the case of a burka, it doesn't. That's an absolute value for me.


Therefore it's not a matter of religion at all. The burka is a backwards cultural practice that must be banned, just like honor killings, polygamy, feet binding, the murdering of unwanted infants, and female circumcision are banned.

Freedom to expression, not just religion. Plus, it's not like all Islamic practices have to come from the Koran, they aren't Protestants with their sola scriptura. There's nothing worse than when the government starts telling people what their own beliefs are.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I've been reading through this thread and a lot of the opponents of this proposal to ban the burka cite freedom of religion or something related to it as the primary reason for opposing it.

Now the fun thing is, a burka is not a religious object, just like female circumcision is not a religious practice. Wearing a burka is a cultural practice (an extremely backwards and oppressive one) that wasn't even widespread in Afghanistan until the late 20th century. In fact, it was originally an obscure garment that somehow got popular amongst the Afghan elite and became a symbol of status, before being co-opted by the mujahideen and their Taliban cousins to anchor their patriarchal power and symbolize their extremist, medieval religion. The vast majority of Islamic clergy, in fact, will tell you that nowhere in the Qur'an or the hadith is there a commandment to wear a burqa or anything of the sort.

Therefore it's not a matter of religion at all. The burka is a backwards cultural practice that must be banned, just like honor killings, polygamy, feet binding, the murdering of unwanted infants, and female circumcision are banned.

Feet binding! Yes, that's perfect. Let's hear someone argue that women did that by choice, that banning it would go against freedom of expression, and that proposing banning it is racism/xenophobia.

Thank you :bow:


That is the bottom line for me. So long as that freedom of expression doesn't harm anyone else. And in the case of a burka, it doesn't. That's an absolute value for me.


How about nudity being banned? You can say that it harms other people. But really it just offends and disgusts them. Like many other things that are legal. How about feet binding? That's a form of expression, does it harm anyone else?

Freedom of expression is very present and very strong in western countries. It's important, in general, to have a society that is free to express itself. But a single instance of some people not being able to is trivial. If there is a good reason for banning it, and there is no slippery slope to worry about, then it should be fine.

I think there's a lot of dissonance between people claiming that strict school and business dress codes are fine, and supporting the freedom of expression absolutely. We can easily pass a law that says businesses can't refuse to hire people based on their clothes--we have many laws about on what grounds businesses can or cannot refuse to hire someone.

[Myrddraal]

Feet binding! Yes, that's perfect. Let's hear someone argue that women did that by choice, that banning it would go against freedom of expression, and that proposing banning it is racism/xenophobia.

What about high heels? They make you bleed. I'm not exagerating, I've tried to persuade my girlfriend to stop wearing them because girls literally hurt themselves to wear them. Should we ban high heels?

[Rhyfelwyr]

How about nudity being banned? You can say that it harms other people. But really it just offends and disgusts them. Like many other things that are legal. How about feet binding? That's a form of expression, does it harm anyone else?

With feet binding, isn't that something done from a young age, and harms the person themselves? If so, it should not be allowed to be practiced with minors, since they are under the protection of their parents, and they don't really have political rights until adulthood.

As for nudity... won't someone please think about the children?!

[Sasaki Kojiro]

What about high heels? They make you bleed. I'm not exagerating, I've tried to persuade my girlfriend to stop wearing them because girls literally hurt themselves to wear them. Should we ban high heels?

What about sleeveless t-shirts? They make you more likely to get skin cancer, which can kill you. Obviously they shouldn't be banned though.

Myrd, I'm not saying that there isn't a place we should draw the line. What I've been arguing is that we have to figure out where it is, and that it isn't an automatic "freedom of expression" issue. We have two examples that presumably no one disagrees with (feet binding and sleeveless t-shirts). So we have to work from there.


With feet binding, isn't that something done from a young age, and harms the person themselves? If so, it should not be allowed to be practiced with minors, since they are under the protection of their parents, and they don't really have political rights until adulthood.

But if they are under the protection of their parents, that means the parents can decide, yes? The decide diet and exercise and ear piercings.


As for nudity... won't someone please think about the children?!

What are you saying here? That societal mores are a legitimate limitation on freedom of expression?

[Brenus]

“And in the case of a burka, it doesn't”
It does.
I don’t understand why you brush away the psychological suffering of the Muslim women forced to wear this. But it is a moral problem, and you have to deal with the fact you agree that to oppress women is a human right…
But the burka have in fact a effect on bones development, so much that in Saudi Arabia, some women whose skin never see the sun (just think about this, never their skin will know the sun) are obliged to go for sunbath in order to improve the Calcium process (D vitamins) of their bones…
“Your body can make vitamin D from casual sun exposure of short duration (as little as 5 to 15 minutes of sunshine per day, two to three times per week on the face and hands)” From Department of Health, New York State.
And again, just try one... Climb a ladder with one, just for fun...

“There's nothing worse than when the government starts telling people what their own beliefs are.”
There is. People telling other people and forcing them to do want they don’t want to do or to be beaten. Or worst...
Or people refusing to rescue others in danger under “religion freedom”, "cultural difference" (in this case cultural indifference) or all other pretext to stay out and to protect the weak.

“Should we ban high heels?” Do you oblige her to wear them? If yes, just pretend it is your religion, and all will be OK.

“As for nudity... won't someone please think about the children?!” Compulsory if you want to be a Druid I am afraid… Are you against the Religious freedom of the Druids?

[Myrddraal]

I still don't understand how banning and item of clothing, albeit an item of clothing which many are forced to wear, is going to do anything to help people who live in a sub-society where there is abuse of women. Banning the Burka isn't going to magically stop the abuse. I can easily imagine an abusive husband not allowing his wife out of the house because she cannot wear the burka, therefore she cannot be seen in public.

Until I can understand what the benefits of this proposed law is, how can I say that the benefits outweigh the costs? The cost is very real. Even if some of you don't value freedom of expression very highly, this law panders to and encourages islamophobe lobbyists.

PS, the comment about Notting Hill Carnival was in response to your comment that immigrants shouldn't stand out from the crowd.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I still don't understand how banning and item of clothing, albeit an item of clothing which many are forced to wear, is going to do anything to help people who live in a sub-society where there is abuse of women. Banning the Burka isn't going to magically stop the abuse. I can easily imagine an abusive husband not allowing his wife out of the house because she cannot wear the burka, therefore she cannot be seen in public.

I agree that the benefits haven't been laid out in a clear and obvious way. It seems like it would be aimed at the slightly more moderate communities, and at slowly eliminating that feature over time. Like the thinking is that the less isolated the sub-society is, the less of a sub-society it will become.

But if louis or brenus or somebody could lay out the brass tacks it would be nice.


Until I can understand what the benefits of this proposed law is, how can I say that the benefits outweigh the costs? The cost is very real. Even if some of you don't value freedom of expression very highly, this law panders to and encourages islamophobe lobbyists.


I'm still not comfortable with this reasoning. Was a vote for hillary clinton pandering to the racists? Was a vote for obama pandering to the sexists? Isn't not passing this law pandering to an objectionable lobby as well?

[Meneldil]

Since when does religious freedom overcome dignity? People in this thread are waving the "Religious Freedom (TM)" flag as it the word "Religious" meant no other rule can and will apply.

I'm for the ban, though I can see the downside of it.

As an introduction, though I feel bad for the woman who are forced to wear it, I think - but might be wrong - that most people who do wear it actually do it on their own, to create some sort of identity against the evil imperialist, capitalist, sionist state. Which means many women who do wear burkas are not doing it under the pressure of their family. They're not "ghosts" either, as most of those interviewed in french media (TV or newspaper) actually seem well educated.
In that regard, militant islamism has more or less replaced anarchism or communism as the main "on the edge ideology".

What will happen with a ban is that these people will become victims, martyrs, abused by the oppressive state. Their fight in favor of a tool of oppression will become a fight against oppression. They will get the moral high ground. It will reinforce their idea that the state is trying to shut them off. Hence why I think banning burka specifically ain't a good idea.
Having them give up with the burka willingly would be much more nifty.

That being said, if it was up to me, anyone wearing a burka, or married to someone wearing one should be deported on some island in the pacific. No need for these people here, and trying to regulate what they're doing is a waste of time and money.

Until I can understand what the benefits of this proposed law is, how can I say that the benefits outweigh the costs? The cost is very real. Even if some of you don't value freedom of expression very highly, this law panders to and encourages islamophobe lobbyists.
Since when politics is about benefits and costs? Here was I thinking politics was about trying to make people live together in a harmonious society.

[Furunculus]

I'm not a Muslim or a leftist... but I don't understand why the same people that like minimal government intervention in their lives are the same people that want it to crack down on any sort of expression of an Islamic identity.

i am a minimal government kinda guy, and i would not support a burka ban in the UK.................... just saying.

[Rhyfelwyr]

But if they are under the protection of their parents, that means the parents can decide, yes? The decide diet and exercise and ear piercings.

I would say that children have a limited set of rights. These are things like the right to life, the right not to be harmed... but not the right to freedom of expression etc. Parents cannot violate the rights that their children do have.

That is how far the state should go into our lives... by laying down a very basic set of rights.


What are you saying here? That societal mores are a legitimate limitation on freedom of expression?

Nah, I guess really nudity should be allowed, whether for religios beliefs as Brenus pointed out, or not. But I also think that business owners should be free to ban these people from these premesis, employers should be allowed to dismiss them on the grounds of their beliefs. Why? Because it's their business.

I like minimal state intervention in social issues (not so much with economic issues). The problem is today people on both sides of this debate keep appealing to the government to get their way. The liberal secularists like those in this thread want to ban burkas to promote their own vision of society. Yet, sometimes religious folk demand that employers don't discriminate against them even when their beliefs/practices will affect their work. Both of these views are wrong IMO.

[Furunculus]

But I also think that business owners should be free to ban these people from these premesis, employers should be allowed to dismiss them on the grounds of their beliefs. Why? Because it's their business.

very much agreed.

[Myrddraal]

Since when politics is about benefits and costs? Here was I thinking politics was about trying to make people live together in a harmonious society.

Sorry but I'm talking about social benefits here, not economic ones. So I would call something which leads to living in a harmonious society 'a benefit'.

[Meneldil]

Sorry but I'm talking about social benefits here, not economic ones. So I would call something which leads to living in a harmonious society 'a benefit'.

Well, I'm willing to bet that a large part of the population of western europe finds Burka disturbing/shameful/disgusting/oppressive.
Just wait, next time you're into a subway or tramway. Whenever a burka-wearing crow enters, observe the behavior of people. Most will look away because they don't want to see it, while a few will stare angrily at said crow.
Take burkas away, and that's one less reason to feel disturbed or disgusted for many people. On the other hand, only a handful of people get screwed over - rightfully IMO - by the ban. More benefits than costs for you.

Now, I agree with you. Finding a way to make sure nobody will ever want to wear a burka is better than banning burkas. But while you're trying to find a solution, I'll just support the ban.

[Myrddraal]

More benefits than costs for you.
Don't put words into my mouth. I don't consider the discomfort of those looking at people wearing burkas to be a significant cost, but I do believe that imposing restrictions on an item of clothing to be a cost. I don't know why you're going off on this argument about terminology when we essentially agree (if I've understood your position correctly, I agree with you up to the point where you say 'we should ship them all off to an island somewhere').

Are you trying to suggest that there is no weighing up of pros and cons, only absolutes?

[Sasaki Kojiro]

But I also think that business owners should be free to ban these people from these premesis, employers should be allowed to dismiss them on the grounds of their beliefs. Why? Because it's their business.

I like minimal state intervention in social issues (not so much with economic issues). The problem is today people on both sides of this debate keep appealing to the government to get their way. The liberal secularists like those in this thread want to ban burkas to promote their own vision of society. Yet, sometimes religious folk demand that employers don't discriminate against them even when their beliefs/practices will affect their work. Both of these views are wrong IMO.

It isn't clear to me what foundational principle you are working off of.

Business owners can discriminate on the grounds of their belief. Do they have the right to not hire women or foreigners or gay people etc? Haven't we as a society decided that who business owners hire is "our business" to a certain extent? I don't understand what function the government is suppose to have in your view.

[Furunculus]

let them have their burkas, but allow other people to discriminate against people who hide themselves away from society.

"can i have a latte please?"
"no, i don't serve ominously anonymous individuals, come back when you have ditched the motorcycle helmet/burka/balaclava."

the state is a sledge hammer to crack a nut.

[Myrddraal]

How is does 'hiding from society', even if that was what they're doing, make you fair game for discrimination?

[Rhyfelwyr]

Well, I'm willing to bet that a large part of the population of western europe finds Burka disturbing/shameful/disgusting/oppressive.
Just wait, next time you're into a subway or tramway. Whenever a burka-wearing crow enters, observe the behavior of people. Most will look away because they don't want to see it, while a few will stare angrily at said crow.
Take burkas away, and that's one less reason to feel disturbed or disgusted for many people. On the other hand, only a handful of people get screwed over - rightfully IMO - by the ban. More benefits than costs for you.

Well, I'm willing to bet that a large part of the population of Islamistan finds women without the Burka disturbing/shameful/disgusting/oppressive.
Just wait, next time you're into a subway or tramway. Whenever a non-burka-wearing crow enters, observe the behavior of people. Most will look away because they don't want to see it, while a few will stare angrily at said crow.
Put a burka on, and that's one less reason to feel disturbed or disgusted for many people. On the other hand, only a handful of people get screwed over - rightfully IMO - by having to wear a burka. More benefits than costs for you.

[Furunculus]

banks are allowed to refuse to serve or admit people into their premises who hide their identity, just make sure that other businesses have the same freedom.

society is based on networks of trust, and we assess that level of trust based on being able to 'read' people, there should be nothing wrong with refusing to deal with people who deliberately remain opaque.

[Rhyfelwyr]

How is does 'hiding from society', even if that was what they're doing, make you fair game for discrimination?

While I agree discrimination isn't nice, why should the government have any say in who an employers hires in his own business? You can either give power to the people to boycott bigoted business owners, or you can give it to the government to force equality through top-down social engineering. I know which option I would prefer.

[Myrddraal]

banks are allowed to refuse to serve or admit people into their premises who hide their identity

Being the person you claim to be is an integral part of banking, but you don't need to identify youself to buy a can of baked beans.


While I agree discrimination isn't nice, why should the government have any say in who an employers hires in his own business? You can either give power to the people to boycott bigoted business owners, or you can give it to the government to force equality through top-down social engineering. I know which option I would prefer.

I guess the difference is that you find discrimination to be 'not nice', whereas I consider it to be unacceptable. Likewise I may find people wearing burkas 'not nice' but that doesn't make it unacceptable, or a candidate for banning.

[Hax]

Meneldil, I won't say this often, but you speak words filled with wisdom, friend :bow:

[Rhyfelwyr]

I guess the difference is that you find discrimination to be 'not nice', whereas I consider it to be unacceptable. Likewise I may find people wearing burkas 'not nice' but that doesn't make it unacceptable, or a candidate for banning.

If you find it morally unacceptable, why appeal to the government? If the discrimination is being carried out someone with fringe views, then let people power do its thing through boycotts. If the discrimination is being carried out by a tyrannical majority against a minority, then if the government is to play an active role in employment, you would expect it to reflect the views of that tyrannical majority anyway.

EDIT: You may say the government could simply enforce equality (arguably reasonable), but this has the practical problem, in that as soon as you expand the government beyond its role of protecting basic rights, it becomes prone to popular opinion in matter of social engineering (which is what equality empoyment laws are), and will only support the tyranny of the majority.

[Myrddraal]

You may say the government could simply enforce equality (arguably reasonable), but this has the practical problem, in that as soon as you expand the government beyond its role of protecting basic rights, it becomes prone to popular opinion in matter of social engineering (which is what equality empoyment laws are), and will only support the tyranny of the majority.
I consider freedom from prejudice close to, if not fully, a basic right. I don't think that the principle of equality employment laws is popular opinion in the matter of social engineering, but I agree that the pendulum swings both ways.

[Rhyfelwyr]

I consider freedom from prejudice close to, if not fully, a basic right.

In that case, I can understand why you might appeal to the government. However, I do not see rights as having any role in the social sphere (for me, there is no such thing as a right to education, or to equal employment opportunities - freedom means freedom from*). I guess I have the old idea of self-evident, natural rights, which should do nothing more than free us from the state of nature. They (and the government as their protectors) should allow for civilised society, but never direct it.

I know appeals are made here to freedom to religion, but that should mean nothing more than freedom from government involvement in your religion beliefs, and in no way any speicial privileges on the grounds of your beliefs

[Myrddraal]

What about the right to free speech? Or would you phrase that as freedom from government intervention is your speech? I did say freedom from prejudice :wink:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

What about the right to free speech? Or would you phrase that as freedom from government intervention is your speech? I did say freedom from prejudice :wink:

An interesting point. Personally, I am of the opinion that the government and the law should not discriminate, but that private individuals/companies/organisations should be allowed freedom of association, in the sense that the government doesn't tell them who they can and can't associate with.

[Brenus]

“The comment about Notting Hill Carnival was in response to your comment that immigrants shouldn't stand out from the crowd.”
Ah. Did I say that? I said that it was not possible to point out the French I am from a English crowd therefore not possible to discriminate (until I open my mouth and when the accent will do the job).
So to do all what you can to be different then to complain that you are treated differently (discrimination is not always aggressive) is a little bit pushed.

“Banning the Burka isn't going to magically stop the abuse. I can easily imagine an abusive husband not allowing his wife out of the house because she cannot wear the burka, therefore she cannot be seen in public.”
You are right. In all society males beat their wife as they considered them as their properties. But if the wives succeed to go to the police, at least in some countries, the husband goes to jail.
To ban the burkas will at least end one of the tools of abuse… It won’t resolve the problem of the mad men beating their wife as such..

“freedom of expression”: It is not a freedom of expression, it is a freedom of oppression…

“What will happen with a ban is that these people will become victims, martyrs, abused by the oppressive state”
For how long: Because, thanks to the ban they will be able to survive this passage and in 10 years will be able to laugh about their own stupidity.
I do remember when in order to protest against the Shah the young Iranian students did wear the burkas. They were not able to take them off and are still oblige to wear them.
And I prefer having martyrs who can demonstrate in the street and in front of TV than ones who just live a life of humiliation, deprivation and beaten.

“The liberal secularists like those in this thread want to ban burkas to promote their own vision of society”
Nope, it is to protect the individuals against the will of oppressive social machinery named religion.

“Yet, sometimes religious folk demand that employers don't discriminate against them even when their beliefs/practices will affect their work” Not the same. People like this knew what they signed for. You are not obliged to carry alcohol if you don’t apply for a job where you have to do it.
Or to marry gay couple if you are not a Civil Servant, or to rent a room to a gay couple if you are not in hotel business… Or the stop the bus for prayer, imposing YOUR religion and practises on the passengers…

“Well, I'm willing to bet that a large part of the population of Islamistan finds women without the Burka disturbing/shameful/disgusting/oppressive.”
In fact no as in the land of Islam, Burka wearers are not the majority as it is not an Islamic requirement.
And in fact the burkas just produce frustration to the male society. The only knowledge they got of female body is through porn video they bought illegally, so they got for the same price a wrong idea of western women.
At least if oppressing theirs wives sisters daughters would make them happy! But no, they are frustrated so they beat them because the poor women are guilty of their frustration.
I worked in Iraq Kurdistan after the First Gulf War. All the Kurds were making their living in selling alcohol and porn in Iran, to the Mullah’s society that imposed the Religious dictatorship

Freedom from Religion!!!!

[Andres]

First of all: I'm completely for banning the burka. It's not just a symbol of the oppression of women, it's a (very succesful) tool to oppress women. I'm against the oppression of women. Away with the burka. Not to mention that wearing a burka will make it impossible for women to find a job. As I said, it's not just a symbol, it's a very succesful tool to oppress women.

That said, the ban is not a ban on burka's, it's a ban on all pieces of clothing that cover the face (a niqab will be banned as well, as will a ninja suit) The word "burka" is not even mentioned in the proposition of the law, it applies to all clothing that covers the face. The media call it a "ban on burka's", but when you read the law, it's not a ban on burka's at all. That's what the media and some overly sensitive groups of people who like being victims (or to make victims out of others because it serves their political agenda) make of it.

So I think the law will survive any claims in court about it being discrimination (indeed, Belgians are much smarter than the French, as per usual ~;p). The ban will not be applicable during festivities , such as carnaval (no, this is not a joke, carnaval is serious business and has to be protected at all costs; Belgian carnaval should be recognised as world heritage, Halle carnaval at least); so Kukri can protest legally by drinking massive amounts of beer and smoking thousands of cigarettes while wearing a burka, but only during carnaval :grin:

The law has been voted by a commisssion of the chamber, but it hasn't been voted by Parliament yet; it probably will somewhere at the end of this month, thus making it law. As an aside: towns and cities already have the right to ban garments that cover the face and many towns and cities allready did (obvious exceptions for carnaval, you don't touch carnaval. It's the fundamental basis of our nation. Without carnaval, Belgium, and by extension the whole universe, doesn't exist. As the famous philosopher Eddy Wally sings: "In het heelal is 't alle dagen carnaval!" ("It's always carnaval in the universe")).

[Myrddraal]

I've never heard of a proposal to ban balaclavas. To pretend this isn't about the Burka is deluding yourself.

[Andres]

I've never heard of a proposal to ban balaclavas. To pretend this isn't about the Burka is deluding yourself.

The law (in making; at the moment there is no law and thus no ban) doesn't mention the word "Burka". To pretend this is just about the Burka is a misrepresentation, regardless of what politicians looking to score or media looking for sensation say about it or make of it.

Their reading skills are clearly lacking. Then again, I went to law school, so maybe I live in a different, parallel universe where reading is overrated.

[Furunculus]

I'm against the oppression of women. Away with the burka. Not to mention that wearing a burka will make it impossible for women to find a job. As I said, it's not just a symbol, it's a very succesful tool to oppress women.


that seems to me to be putting the cart before the horse.

society has norms, make it clear that people are expected to exist within those norms, and if they choose not to then to expect to be treated in an manner outside of the normal.

to paraphrase a fragony'ism, if someones CV arrived for a job position and i was aware the applicant intended to wear a burka/balaclava/motorcycle-helmet, clown-mask/etc, i would throw that CV in the bin without a seconds hesitation.

Is that discrimination?
Yes, according to the dictionary it is ineed:
a. Able to recognize or draw fine distinctions; perceptive.
b. Showing careful judgment or fine taste: a discriminating collector of rare books; a dish for the discriminating palate.
2. Separating into distinct parts or components; analytical.
3. Serving to distinguish; distinctive: a discriminating characteristic.

Why do i think it is ok?
Because I insist on being given the opportunity to read someones intentions, motivation, and attitudes before I am willing to put my trust in that person.

Why should we trust the people not to form lynch-mobs who will murder and pillage teh muslims, rather than let the government do it?
Because I trust the British populace not to do that, given that we have a history of not doing exactly that sort of thing, and we are considered legally responsible adults.

[Rhyfelwyr]

to paraphrase a fragony'ism, if someones CV arrived for a job position and i was aware the applicant intended to wear a burka/balaclava/motercycle-helmet, clown-mask/etc, i would throw that cv in the bin without a seconds hesitation.

Suddenly the reasons for my lack of employment success become apparent...

[Sasaki Kojiro]

The law (in making; at the moment there is no law and thus no ban) doesn't mention the word "Burka". To pretend this is just about the Burka is a misrepresentation, regardless of what politicians looking to score or media looking for sensation say about it or make of it.

Their reading skills are clearly lacking. Then again, I went to law school, so maybe I live in a different, parallel universe where reading is overrated.

Why would it be relevant that it doesn't mention Burka? Banning something vague when you really have something specific in mind is a common tactic.

[Andres]

Why would it be relevant that it doesn't mention Burka? Banning something vague when you really have something specific in mind is a common tactic.

I thought it would be useful to point out that the law in question does not say "no burka". Politicians may yell that it is a law against burka's. Sensation seeking press may write that it's an anti-burka law. Certain muslim groups and/or politicians looking for attention may say that this is a racist anti-burka law made by xenophobes, but in the end, the text of the law is what it is: no garments that cover the face.

Saying that this is an anti-burka law followed by outrage (oh, the evil bigots!)/triomfant sheering (finally! away with teh evil Islam!) without giving it much thought is silly. It's a law against garments that cover the face. Saying that it is an anti-burka law and nothing else is as saying "ceci n'est pas a law that forbids wearing garments that cover your face".

That said, as I said above, I don't mind burka's or niqabs being forbidden. It are tools to oppress women. I value gender equality higher than "freedom of religion", certainly when the "freedom of religion" argument is used as an excuse to happily oppress women (no, I don't think there are women who wear their burka voluntarily; such women don't exist).

[KukriKhan]

What about these people, covering up while they cut into you, based on their religious belief in germ theory?
https://jimcee.homestead.com/base_media.jpeg

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I thought it would be useful to point out that the law in question does not say "no burka". Politicians may yell that it is a law against burka's. Sensation seeking press may write that it's an anti-burka law. Certain muslim groups and/or politicians looking for attention may say that this is a racist anti-burka law made by xenophobes, but in the end, the text of the law is what it is: no garments that cover the face.

Saying that this is an anti-burka law followed by outrage (oh, the evil bigots!)/triomfant sheering (finally! away with teh evil Islam!) without giving it much thought is silly. It's a law against garments that cover the face.

I disagree Andres. I think it's quite likely the would be proposing the ban if it weren't for Burka's.

After the civil war we had a bevy of laws in the south aimed at preventing black people from voting. None of them said anything specific, but they had things like "you can only vote if your grandfather can vote". The intention was obvious however, despite the text of the law.

[Andres]

What about these people, covering up while they cut into you, based on their religious belief in germ theory?
https://jimcee.homestead.com/base_media.jpeg

1) medicine is not a religion;
2) it's forbidden to wear garments that cover the face in public places. An operation room is not a public place.

[KukriKhan]

1) medicine is not a religion;
2) it's forbidden to wear garments that cover the face in public places. An operation room is not a public place.

Very well, it is your country, so I bow to the Belgian definition of "religion" and "public place". :bow
However, does not the Belgian ID Card that everyone over 12 years old must carry, contain a head-and-shoulders photo of an uncovered face? Is that no longer sufficient for positive identification?
https://jimcee.homestead.com/300px-Eid.jpg

or do professed Muslim women take their ID Card photo with the burka on?

[Andres]

I disagree Andres. I think it's quite likely the would be proposing the ban if it weren't for Burka's.

After the civil war we had a bevy of laws in the south aimed at preventing black people from voting. None of them said anything specific, but they had things like "you can only vote if your grandfather can vote". The intention was obvious however, despite the text of the law.

The question was asked if the law could be succesfully challenged in a court of law. I think the answer to that question is no.

If the intention is to ban the burka, despite the text of the law, then I'm in favour of it. There are no women wearing that stuff voluntarily. It's a garment created for the oppression of women. If a vague law is what is needed to help muslim women to be treated as equals by their husbands, then so be it.

Wearing a burka has nothing to do with freedom of religion. A burka has nothing to do with any form of freedom at all. Defending "the right to wear a burka" and inserting "freedom" in the discussion is completely and utterly ridiculous.

Defending the right to wear a burka using the "freedom!" argument, is as defending the right to chain your children in a dark cellar and abusing them sexually until they're adults with the argument "Freedom! I raise my children like I want and the government has no business with it."

Away with the burka and any other tool of oppression. We take away "the right to wear a burka" (it is more correct to say "the right to force your woman to wear a burka") in favour of the right of each woman to be treated equally and to get equal opportunities in society.

[Andres]

However, does not the Belgian ID Card that everyone over 12 years old must carry, contain a head-and-shoulders photo of an uncovered face? Is that no longer sufficient for positive identification?
https://jimcee.homestead.com/300px-Eid.jpg

or do professed Muslim women take their ID Card photo with the burka on?

Tell me Kukri, how can I be sure that the person on the ID Card photo is the same as the person who is showing me said ID Card if that persons' face is covered?

So indeed, it is not sufficient for positive identification. A motorcyclist stopped by the police because he was speeding has to take off his helmet for that very same reason.

And before you go "aha, so a motorcyclist can no longer wear a helmet when driving on a public road": he still can. He's obliged to wear a helmet by another law; the law that forces you to wear a helmet when driving a motorcycle will be considered an exception to this general law forbidding you to cover your face. The exception for motorcyclists, while driving their motorcycle is obviously justified: safety. Once he stops driving his motorcycle, he of course has to take of his helmet.

[KukriKhan]

So I assume that like over here, your police have special search rights to demand positive identification of citizens and residents. Are you saying that burka-clad women now have the right of refusal to uncover for a police officer?

[Andres]

Are you saying that burka-clad women now have the right of refusal to uncover for a police officer?

I would be very surprised if they had. But I understand what you're trying to get at: the rationale behind the law is not safety, because the authorities already have the means to identify people. This law merely makes it easier to identify people; which is probably enough to justify it when someone challenges it in a court of law. Or maybe not, who knows.

Now, apart from the technicalities of Belgian law and law enforcement, why are you against a ban on burka's?

[KukriKhan]

Because I think it is unenforceable, in the long run, and imposing an unenforceable law (or one that people will be able to flout fairly easily) diminishes the force of law and the respect for law. And it puts government, in this case, in the position of dictating womens' fashion, without any over-arching need.

But it's your country and your government, and I've said before "It's not the US, and I see no reason that other countries have to adopt our melting pot theory of socialization. Let Belgium be Belgium, and France be France, as defined by the Belgians and the French". I only recommend non-adoption of this Burka law, because it will be more trouble to you than it's worth.

[Rhyfelwyr]

If the intention is to ban the burka, despite the text of the law, then I'm in favour of it. There are no women wearing that stuff voluntarily. It's a garment created for the oppression of women. If a vague law is what is needed to help muslim women to be treated as equals by their husbands, then so be it.

You can't prove there are no woman wearing it voluntarily. As has been pointed out, hardline Islam and the culture that comes with it often thrives in an educated environment and many women wearing the burka are well educated and choose to wear the burka.

Also, what would happen if you took your argument that pieces of clothing are tools to oppress women to it's natural conclusions? Many femenists would argue that dresses opress women and force them into certain gender roles. Maybe we should force women to wear trousers so they can't be discriminated against? Becuase until you can prove no women choose to wear the burka, this is effectively the same thing as what you are doing to these women.


Defending the right to wear a burka using the "freedom!" argument, is as defending the right to chain your children in a dark cellar and abusing them sexually until they're adults with the argument "Freedom! I raise my children like I want and the government has no business with it."

How is it like that at all? For a start, these women are adults, and have full political rights, and are not under the protection of any other individuals. With children, their care is entrusted to their parents. And the government has every right to stop parents from denying their children their human rights - which includes the right to life, and the right not to be harmed.


Away with the burka and any other tool of oppression. We take away "the right to wear a burka" (it is more correct to say "the right to force your woman to wear a burka") in favour of the right of each woman to be treated equally and to get equal opportunities in society.

Nobody would argue that it would be appropriate to take away the 'right' mentioned in bold. The problem is you are taking away the right of people to wear a certain piece of clothing, when in fact the forced wearing of the burka is just a symptom of deeper social problems. What if I decide I want to wear a burka tomorrow? Is there any good reason at all why I shouldn't be allowed to?

And I don't buy the security argument. As has been pointed out, rucksacks are much more dangerous in that respect, the only reason they aren't banned is that it would be too much trouble for the average white person.

[Andres]

You can't prove there are no woman wearing it voluntarily. As has been pointed out, hardline Islam and the culture that comes with it often thrives in an educated environment and many women wearing the burka are well educated and choose to wear the burka.

:daisy:

Women do not wear that out of their free will.


Also, what would happen if you took your argument that pieces of clothing are tools to oppress women to it's natural conclusions? Many femenists would argue that dresses opress women and force them into certain gender roles. Maybe we should force women to wear trousers so they can't be discriminated against?

Some feminists belong into the categories "extremists" and "nutjobs". Comparing a dress that accentuates some aspects of the female body to a burka and then calling said dress as oppressing as a burka is ridiculous.


Becuase until you can prove no women choose to wear the burka, this is effectively the same thing as what you are doing to these women.

I'm pretty sure that for each woman who has chosen to wear the burka because she really wants it (does she?), you can find at least 10.000 who are not wearing it voluntarily but because they are forced to.


How is it like that at all? For a start, these women are adults, and have full political rights, and are not under the protection of any other individuals. With children, their care is entrusted to their parents. And the government has every right to stop parents from denying their children their human rights - which includes the right to life, and the right not to be harmed.

I used children for the shock effect. You are right that it wasn't a fair comparison.



Nobody would argue that it would be appropriate to take away the 'right' mentioned in bold. The problem is you are taking away the right of people to wear a certain piece of clothing, when in fact the forced wearing of the burka is just a symptom of deeper social problems.

Symptoms are part of the problem. The problem is husbands oppressing their wives using "religion" as an excuse. What's wrong with taking away one of their favourite tools?


What if I decide I want to wear a burka tomorrow? Is there any good reason at all why I shouldn't be allowed to?

Because you would look very silly in it. But Rhyfelwyr wanting to wear a burka is not the issue.


And I don't buy the security argument. As has been pointed out, rucksacks are much more dangerous in that respect, the only reason they aren't banned is that it would be too much trouble for the average white person.

I don't buy the security argument either.

I'm more concerned about the women who are being forced to wear a burka by their husbands. Oh, you can go all "they don't have to wear it, they have the right to refuse, they can always divorce, they should stand up for their rights and blahblahblah", but why wouldn't we give them a hand in fighting the oppression by their husbands? Why should we look into another direction, ignore them and pretend like they are "expressing their freedom of religion" when we all know that this isn't the case? Why not helping them when we all know that it's hard enough for them already? "They should stand up for themselves" is easy when you yourself are not in their position. It's armchair general rhetoric. They need all the help they can get. Why not helping them by fighting this "symptom of a deeper social problem"?

[Myrddraal]

Some feminists belong into the categories "extremists" and "nutjobs". Comparing a dress that accentuates some aspects of the female body to a burka and then calling said dress as oppressing as a burka is ridiculous.

It's an extreme example, but isn't it the same principal? What about the high heels example? Some high heels are ridiculously painful, and break the skin. Should we impose government restrictions and minimum confort standards for shoes? As you say yourself, the problem is a social one, not a fashion one. I'm having trouble seeing how a burka is a 'tool' rather than a symptom.

[Andres]

It's an extreme example, but isn't it the same principal? What about the high heels example? Some high heels are ridiculously painful, and break the skin. Should we impose government restrictions and minimum confort standards for shoes? As you say yourself, the problem is a social one, not a fashion one. I'm having trouble seeing how a burka is a 'tool' rather than a symptom.

How many of the women wearing high heels are being forced by their partner to wear them? And how do those high heels prevent them from emancipating in society? How many women were refused for a job because they were wearing high heels when applying for the job?

What's next? Comparing the burka to a push-up bra and calling both equally oppressing for women?

What's the "being forced to wear it"/"wearing it out of their free will" ratio for high heels, push-up bra's and burka's respectively?

Really now :rolleyes:

[Sasaki Kojiro]

It's an extreme example, but isn't it the same principal? What about the high heels example? Some high heels are ridiculously painful, and break the skin. Should we impose government restrictions and minimum confort standards for shoes? As you say yourself, the problem is a social one, not a fashion one. I'm having trouble seeing how a burka is a 'tool' rather than a symptom.

What if I suggested banning heroin because it's unhealthy and addictive, and you asked if we should ban coffee because it's unhealthy and addictive? Same principle? But you can quit coffee fairly easily.

I don't think people are claiming that if an item of clothing is objectionable, it should be banned. I think they are saying that when you cross a certain (nebulous I'll grant you) line, then it should be banned.

[drone]

Just tax and regulate the burka and require a license to wear it. Come on people, this isn't rocket science. ~:rolleyes:

[Myrddraal]

I think a couple of things are being bundled together in this thread which really shouldn't be.

The first one is dress codes at work. I think most people here would agree that to work for a company with a dress code, you have to comply to that dress code. High heels may not be allowed at work, therefore you don't wear high heels. Burka's may not be allowed either, therefore you don't wear Burkas. This is a seperate issue. The logical step from "Some people have been turned down from jobs because they wear Burka's" to "Ban the Burka" is nonexistent I think.

The second and most important one is people wearing Burkas, and people being forced to wear any item of clothing. Andres asks "How many... wearing high heels are being forced ... to wear them?". Does it matter if it's one or a million? How will banning high heels help those people who find themselves in a social situation where their partners oppress them? If their abusive partners have so much power of them, they will resort to some other form of oppression. Maybe the next big thing will be to lock your wives indoors so that they don't cause shame to the family being seen outside?

You could even go so far as to say that if the only people wearing Burkas are oppressed women, then at least there is a very visible sign for social services to work with, and that without the Burka it would be much harder to help these people.

I'm playing devils advocate with this argument (I think), but do you see the principal I'm struggling with here? How is this law going to help? How is it more than simply another imposition on a minority group (that it certainly is)? If we are going to introduce restrictive laws which only affect minority groups (however carefully they are worded Andres :tongue:) then we should be sure that they are truely for their benefit, and not the product of some unbased cultural resentment. I'm not even close to being convinced that this is the case.

[Myrddraal]

What if I suggested banning heroin because it's unhealthy and addictive, and you asked if we should ban coffee because it's unhealthy and addictive? Same principle? But you can quit coffee fairly easily.

I don't think people are claiming that if an item of clothing is objectionable, it should be banned. I think they are saying that when you cross a certain (nebulous I'll grant you) line, then it should be banned.

Fair point, but this is what I mean about weighing up the costs and benefits. Both heroin and high heels are harmful. Is removing that harm, restricting peoples' choice worth the 'benefits' to society? Some people in power have obviously decided yes for one and no for the other. :shrug:

[Sasaki Kojiro]

In the case of high heels, the obvious answer seems to be that the benefit is that they can wear more comfortable shoes. Even if society/their boyfriend is still otherwise setting the standards of dress (in other words the "underlying problem" is still present), at least it isn't as actively painful. I don't agree with banning high heels mind you, but this could be extended to the burka.

Here's another example--in some tribes there is a common practice of "teeth grinding" where the women grind their teeth into points. This basically has to be done in order to find a partner. Banning it doesn't make the society less "patriarchal" or whatever the word we're looking for is, but it does prevent the extreme amount of pain that goes along with grinding your teeth into points.

I can't find a source for that because it's something I read in national geographic like 10 years ago. But here's this:


In Ancient China, a group called Ta-ya Kih-lau ("Kih-lau which beat out their teeth"[3]) had every woman about to wed knock out two of her front teeth to "prevent damage to the husband's family."[3]

I think your argument basically extends to "well, what good does it do them to not have their front teeth knocked out?" although this is perhaps a more extreme example. As I said it's about where the line should be drawn.



The first one is dress codes at work. I think most people here would agree that to work for a company with a dress code, you have to comply to that dress code. High heels may not be allowed at work, therefore you don't wear high heels. Burka's may not be allowed either, therefore you don't wear Burkas. This is a seperate issue. The logical step from "Some people have been turned down from jobs because they wear Burka's" to "Ban the Burka" is nonexistent I think.

If many women can't work because of wearing a burka, then it greatly contributes to the sexist nature of the sub-society. Many women's rights in the US came after women got jobs in factories during WWI and were more independent.

Part of the point of the dress code at job comparison is to say that for most people, it simply isn't a big deal if they can't wear a specific clothing item. This is a counterargument for people talking about the individual women who want to wear the burqa.

[KukriKhan]

https://jimcee.homestead.com/BelgNun.jpeg

And what about these Belgian citizens? Is it only the face that must be uncovered? Then maybe they're OK. And some holy guy will issue a fatwa dictating full-body burka-esque coverage, MINUS the face covering, and prescribing Muslim women in public all waer surgical masks - for their health, of course.

[Furunculus]

I think a couple of things are being bundled together in this thread which really shouldn't be.

The first one is dress codes at work. I think most people here would agree that to work for a company with a dress code, you have to comply to that dress code. High heels may not be allowed at work, therefore you don't wear high heels. Burka's may not be allowed either, therefore you don't wear Burkas. This is a seperate issue. The logical step from "Some people have been turned down from jobs because they wear Burka's" to "Ban the Burka" is nonexistent I think.

i may have framed my argument as a workplace argument, but it is much more general than that.

the reason why i would chuck that putative CV in the bin is not because they would violate the dress code, it is because i choose to actively discriminate against idiots; i would not trust them, and thus i would not want to work with them.

i don't want the state to tell me what i am allowed to wear, be it a mankini or a burka, but i really don't like the mindset enforced by a view that tries to legislate and regulate everything into its proper form, i just want to be able to discriminate (to use the dictionary definition) to my hearts content, and I think i deserve the trust from my fellow men to be allowed to do that.

basic english law principle = everything that is not specifically proscribed is allowed <negative liberty> (but use your judgement as to whether it is sensible)
basic continental principle = legislate and regulate what is acceptable within the law <positive liberty> (if only by elective affinity due to abuse of the term)

[Myrddraal]

:laugh4: @ KukriKhan


basic english law principle = everything that is not specifically proscribed is allowed <negative liberty> (but use your judgement as to whether it is sensible)
basic continental principle = legislate and regulate what is acceptable within the law <positive liberty> (if only by elective affinity due to abuse of the term)
In which case you must be against banning the Burka. For once it seems we're on the same side of the debate! (so long as we don't get into discrimination in the workplace) :wink:


In the case of high heels, the obvious answer seems to be that the benefit is that they can wear more comfortable shoes. Even if society/their boyfriend is still otherwise setting the standards of dress (in other words the "underlying problem" is still present), at least it isn't as actively painful. I don't agree with banning high heels mind you, but this could be extended to the burka.
But many people think that the pain is worth it to 'look good'. Would it be right for the state to stop them for their own good? After all, the damage done by high heels isn't great, and doesn't cost the NHS much.

Likewise with the Burka, what harm does the Burka actually do? (Note that I'm not asking what harm does opression of women do, I'm talk about the item of clothing itself, the two are quite seperate). The fact that it's dangerous to go up ladders in a Burka is not justification for an outright ban. It's dangerous to go up a ladder in high heels, but likewise that's not justification for an outright ban of high heels.

Note that I'm arguing here on the basis that I still can't see that this law will do anything to ease the oppression of women. See post #102 (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?127381-Belgium-to-ban-the-Burka&p=2464008&viewfull=1#post2464008).

[Brenus]

“Note that I'm not asking what harm does oppression of women do, I'm talk about the item of clothing itself, the two are quite separate”
They are not. That is the core of the debate.
High heels are not imposed by a religious sect (except if your considered fashion as sect) but burka and affiliates are.
So either you accept oppression and burka in the name of freedom of whatever or you fight oppression in whatever disguise.
And yes, the oppressors will try all of them, to represent themselves as victims, showing the volunteers.
Again, the fact that some gladiators were volunteers doesn’t make the Colliseum games acceptable…

“what harm does the Burka actually do”: I don’t speak of the building itself but what actually harm jail does? Or chastity belt?

[Furunculus]

:laugh4: @ KukriKhan
In which case you must be against banning the Burka. For once it seems we're on the same side of the debate! (so long as we don't get into discrimination in the workplace) :wink:

it would seem so. i am not in favour of banning anything.

[Myrddraal]

And yes, the oppressors will try all of them, to represent themselves as victims, showing the volunteers.
I'm sure they will. I'm sure the ban will cause outrage to some and satisfaction to others, both groups containing unsavoury characters. It will cause tension and resentment and will be damaging to unity and integration. What will this law do to alleviate the oppression of the women inside the Burkas? This is a cosmetic change, achieving nothing except pandering to xenophobes.

[Fragony]

This is a cosmetic change, achieving nothing except pandering to xenophobes.

Have some trouble with the term xenophobe here, the Burqa is a security risk first as a might-be terrorist has 100% freedom of movement and Brussels is the political heart of Europe so a likely target, but in general I agree. But this law isn't formulated as such, doesn't really make a difference but it does avoid certain pitfalls. But as long as the Belgium police can't take back the no-go zones everything is mere symbolism, things are getting seriously screwed up there.

[Myrddraal]

"Xenophobia is a dislike and/or fear of that which is unknown or different from oneself"

There is no doubt that xenophobes will be happy to see this law passed.

It seems to me there's two decent arguments behind this ban. One is the oppression of women. As I've said before, I fail to see how banning the Burka will help with this social problem beyond cosmetic changes. The other argument is the security argument. This one at least has some justification, but I find hugely insufficient to justify the ban. As I said in a previous post, rucksacks are much more of a security threat. All the 7/7 bombers had rucksacks if I remember correctly. A rucksack allows a terrorist to conceal a bomb easily. It doesn't even need to be a well made compact bomb. Banning rucksacks on public transport would save more lives than banning the Burka. However, as it would be inconvenient for your average white citizen, such a proposal would be met with outrage and staunch resistance.

Then there are the other, less justified reasons behind the attack: Xenophobia, racism etc (I'm not accusing anyone here, I'm just pointing out that if you allow this law you pander to and encourage this reasoning). There are also the less beneficial effects of the law: racial tension, resentment, less visibility of victims of abuse even.

Although Meneldil might object to this approach on balance the proposed law has very little in it's favour.

I'm pulling your leg Meneldil, I couldn't resist. :tongue:

[Fragony]

"Xenophobia is a dislike and/or fear of that which is unknown or different from oneself"

Irrational fear, I think it's very rational to be somewhat on my guard here.

[Myrddraal]

Don't get me wrong, I'm not calling everyone who backs this ban a xenophobe, just saying that xenophobes will certainly back tihs ban. I mean no offense to anyone here :bow:

[Andres]

It seems to me there's two decent arguments behind this ban. One is the oppression of women. As I've said before, I fail to see how banning the Burka will help with this social problem beyond cosmetic changes.

We don't know if it will help to solve the underlying issue.

But forcing your wive to hide herself under a blue carpet all the time when walking outside is a very effective way to objectify her and to make sure she never makes contact with other people and to ensure she stays your slave. The burka is in fact a prison. It's degrading. It stands for discrimination and oppression of women. Worse, it is garment designed to make sure women keep being oppressed. It's a very effective tool. Allowing it in your streets is a disgrace for a developped and civilised country.

I don't want burka's in my country. It's a garment that goes against one of our basic principles which I, as a Belgian, hold very dear: gender equality.

[Fragony]

Don't get me wrong, I'm not calling everyone who backs this ban a xenophobe, just saying that xenophobes will certainly back tihs ban. I mean no offense to anyone here :bow:

None taken, I am undecided about this ban by the way. I can see the reasoning behind it.

[Louis VI the Fat]

We don't know if it will help to solve the underlying issue.

But forcing your wive to hide herself under a blue carpet all the time when walking outside is a very effective way to objectify her and to make sure she never makes contact with other people and to ensure she stays your slave. The burka is in fact a prison. It's degrading. It stands for discrimination and oppression of women. Worse, it is garment designed to make sure women keep being oppressed. It's a very effective tool. Allowing it in your streets is a disgrace for a developped and civilised country.

I don't want burka's in my country. It's a garment that goes against one of our basic principles which I, as a Belgian, hold very dear: gender equality.Yet, Belgium has no etnic equality!!

The Walloon is kept in servitude, is forced to stay at home by making him unemployed and paying him generous benefits. Social benefits are in fact a prison. Thereby an entire people are made slaves, dependent on the generosity of the Fleming. It's degrading. It stands for discrimination and oppression of Walloons. It's a very effective tool.
This needs to end. Walloonia needs to be freed by an immediate end to this massive transfer of funds from north to south. :furious3:


Erm...wait. That argument didn't work out the way I thought it would. Let me get back to you...

[Rhyfelwyr]

But forcing your wive to hide herself under a blue carpet all the time when walking outside is a very effective way to objectify her and to make sure she never makes contact with other people and to ensure she stays your slave. The burka is in fact a prison. It's degrading. It stands for discrimination and oppression of women. Worse, it is garment designed to make sure women keep being oppressed. It's a very effective tool. Allowing it in your streets is a disgrace for a developped and civilised country.

At the end of the day that is all just your opinion. A Saudi woman might think bikinis objectify women because they look like "a peace of meat" as someone put it earlier. Nobodies opinions should be institutionalised into the law and be used to force others to conform.

So long as one woman wants to wear the burka, you will be stamping all over her freedom of expression if you ban it. Nobody here likes the fact that woman are forced to wear them, but you do not tackle such an issue by hacking away at one of the most fundamental principles of any free, western society.

An interesting point to discuss might be... how can we stop the oppression of women by their husbands, without removing other rights?

[Myrddraal]

to make sure she never makes contact with other people
That is a good point if it is true. This is definately an example of Burka as a 'tool', but is it true? I've seen people in burkas chatting away in the shops. Being forced to stay in the house might stop people making contact with others though.

[Andres]

I disagree with the assertion that the statement "The burka is a tool to oppres women" is an opinion. It's not just an opinion, it's a fact. And I fail to see how you guys can defend the "right" to keep using that tool.

I also fail to see the point of comparing the burka with bikinis, high heels, a nun with a guitar or the outfit of a surgeon. Those nonsensical comparisons are getting a bit annoying.

[al Roumi]

We don't know if it will help to solve the underlying issue.

But forcing your wive to hide herself under a blue carpet all the time when walking outside is a very effective way to objectify her and to make sure she never makes contact with other people and to ensure she stays your slave. The burka is in fact a prison. It's degrading. It stands for discrimination and oppression of women. Worse, it is garment designed to make sure women keep being oppressed. It's a very effective tool. Allowing it in your streets is a disgrace for a developped and civilised country.

I don't want burka's in my country. It's a garment that goes against one of our basic principles which I, as a Belgian, hold very dear: gender equality.

Not wishing to join the firing squad in shooting the messenger here, but the "civilised" argument is not the one I'm aware this law is designed to support. I'd understood so far that it was the hiding of bombs under it that was leading to the banning of the burqa...

[Andres]

Not wishing to join the firing squad in shooting the messenger here, but the "civilised" argument is not the one I'm aware this law is designed to support. I'd understood so far that it was the hiding of bombs under it that was leading to the banning of the burqa...

That's the fake argument because present day politicians don't have the balls to call a spade a spade. Out of a misplaced concern to stay politically correct at all costs, we get silly explanations instead of honesty and the guts to have a debate.

The cowards no longer dare to say loud and clear that a burka is a disgrace.

[Myrddraal]

The thing is Andres, I'm having trouble seeing what it is about the Burka that is wrong, apart from the fact that people are forced to wear it. To go to extremes to illustrate what I mean, what if when we banned the burka these abusive husband forced their wives to wear headscarves or translucent veils. These would then be equally wrong as the Burka, so we would ban those too. Then they might force them to wear some other item of clothing, which would also ban. We could ban a whole string of things, and it wouldn't solve the problem of the abusive husband, and leave a string of pissed off people who wanted to wear them.

[al Roumi]

I disagree with the assertion that the statement "The burka is a tool to oppres women" is an opinion. It's not just an opinion, it's a fact. And I fail to see how you guys can defend the "right" to keep using that tool.

I also fail to see the point of comparing the burka with bikinis, high heels, a nun with a guitar or the outfit of a surgeon. Those nonsensical comparisons are getting a bit annoying.

Some women do choose to wear a Burqa. Others may indeed be forced into wearing it. Banning it outright is a bit of a clumsy move.

[Rhyfelwyr]

I disagree with the assertion that the statement "The burka is a tool to oppres women" is an opinion. It's not just an opinion, it's a fact. And I fail to see how you guys can defend the "right" to keep using that tool.

Yes the burka is often used that way, but the problem doesn't lie with the burka, a piece of fabric, itself. What if some obscure sect started demanding that every wife had to wear a ski jacket whenever she left the house, even in the heat of summer? What would you do, ban ski jackets? Probably not, since that would be too annoying for the average white person that likes their skiing holidays.

Also, we are not defending the right of a huband to use it as a tool, we are defending the right of women to choose to wear it.


I also fail to see the point of comparing the burka with bikinis, high heels, a nun with a guitar or the outfit of a surgeon. Those nonsensical comparisons are getting a bit annoying.

They are the exact same thing... pieces of clothing. That's all the burka is.

[Andres]

What are you going to do against the oppression of women in your country? Pretend like the women wearing burka's are not there and waiting for eternity until they'll stand up for their rights and leave their oppressive husbands? How long will you wait for that to happen? Or will you keep pretending that they all wear it because it's beautiful and they don't mind wearing it and that they love it and they believe in it and they wear that blue carpet out of their own free will and don't mind the heat during summer, not finding a job because of it, the social insulation it creates? I refuse to pretend that I'm thát naive out of fear to be seen as a political incorrect man.

What's the motivation to defend "the right to be forced to wear a burka"? Tolerance? Freedom? Tolerance and freedom have their limits. The burka crosses the line. I say "no" to the burka. It won't solve the underlying problem? Maybe it won't. But it'll be damn good signal that our "tolerance" is not endless. We do not tolerate the oppression of women. No burka.

[Andres]

Some women do choose to wear a Burqa.

But of course. Those who don't know better and those who are brainwashed or those who :daisy: their pants or whatever they're wearing beneath it because of what might happen to them if they would say they don't like it in front of a camera.

Sure, sure, sure; most women wear the burka out of their free will. They remain jobless and un-emancipated, totally dependent of their husbands, un-educated and totally not integrated into the western society they live in out of their own free will.

Silly me for thinking otherwise.

[al Roumi]

But of course. Those who don't know better and those who are brainwashed or those who :daisy: their pants or whatever they're wearing beneath it because of what might happen to them if they would say they don't like it in front of a camera.

Sure, sure, sure; most women wear the burka out of their free will. They remain jobless and un-emancipated, totally dependent of their husbands, un-educated and totally not integrated into the western society they live in out of their own free will.

Silly me for thinking otherwise.

lol, Belgium is hardly a model of "social integration".

Your sweeping assertions on the burqa speak loudly of your assumptions about those who wear it and softly of actual knowledge.

[Furunculus]

What are you going to do against the oppression of women in your country?

nothing.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

But of course. Those who don't know better and those who are brainwashed or those who :daisy: their pants or whatever they're wearing beneath it because of what might happen to them if they would say they don't like it in front of a camera.

Sure, sure, sure; most women wear the burka out of their free will. They remain jobless and un-emancipated, totally dependent of their husbands, un-educated and totally not integrated into the western society they live in out of their own free will.

Silly me for thinking otherwise.

This is not the reality. Many young Muslim women with Liberal parents DO choose to wear the Burka, because they think it makes them better Muslims and they reject Western values.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Andres:

Belgium would be better served -- and the debate much more open and to the point -- if some of your pols would stand up and argue as you have. Disagree or not, there is no one here who can doubt your convictions or sincerity. That's probably asking a lot from a pol though....

[Fragony]

Some women do choose to wear a Burqa. Others may indeed be forced into wearing it. Banning it outright is a bit of a clumsy move.

Agreed but that but that choice to wear it is political, and it's a provocation. Not going to give a crap when someone gives them a light.

https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v494/Fragony/6a0111685b4b71970c0128771f224b970c-.jpg

[KukriKhan]

Agreed but that but that choice to wear it is political, and it's a provocation. Not going to give a crap when someone gives them a light.

https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v494/Fragony/6a0111685b4b71970c0128771f224b970c-.jpg

In my opinion (and my stupid american opinion only) a town-state-province-country-world that can't civilly handle a provocative protest statement made by the wearing of a garment, be it a burka or a miniskirt, is too weak in its foundation to stand. Best examine the concrete down there to make sure individual liberty and the greater good, both, are adequately served. Lest they fall into the morass of popular mob rule.

We have seen this before in Europe. A couple of times.

And it keeps costing us Quadrillions of dollars to help you resolve.

As you may have heard lately, we have to borrow money from Asia to keep both our own system going as well as yours' going. If the Asians ever demand immediate payment, we're all screwed.

You guys have to decide, once and for all time: will you be open to all, or will you be Belgian, Dutch, French, German, Austrian, and so on and so forth. Will you shelter Human Rights victims and integrate them, or will you be Dutch, Belgian... exclusively.

You decide. But soon please. I can't afford another war at this precise moment.

2013 = OK, out of Iraq and tehStan by then, Iran & Korea in check, I could afford to send us 20-somethings to their death again. But please: just make it worthwhile and final, this time.

[PanzerJaeger]

You guys have to decide, once and for all time: will you be open to all, or will you be Belgian, Dutch, French, German, Austrian, and so on and so forth. Will you shelter Human Rights victims and integrate them, or will you be Dutch, Belgian... exclusively.



The problem seems to be that many do not want to be integrated, and would prefer to integrate their hosts.

[KukriKhan]

The problem seems to be that many do not want to be integrated, and would prefer to integrate their hosts.

Indeed. Who decides that, the host or the guest/invader?

[miotas]

What's the motivation to defend "the right to be forced to wear a burka"? Tolerance? Freedom? Tolerance and freedom have their limits. The burka crosses the line. I say "no" to the burka. It won't solve the underlying problem? Maybe it won't. But it'll be damn good signal that our "tolerance" is not endless. We do not tolerate the oppression of women. No burka.

I like the way you think, we should also ban women from wearing clothes altogether, that way abusive husbands wont be able to give their wives bruises under their clothes. Who cares if some women actually chose to wear clothes, if some husbands are using them to hide bruises then all women must be protected.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I like the way you think, we should also ban women from wearing clothes altogether, that way abusive husbands wont be able to give their wives bruises under their clothes. Who cares if some women actually chose to wear clothes, if some husbands are using them to hide bruises then all women must be protected.

Basically all you did here is say "I disagree" in a drawn out way. Why do you disagree? We should take the steps we can to prevent abuse, even if we can't wipe it out completely, don't you think? As long as the downside is not too large.

[Furunculus]

In my opinion (and my stupid american opinion only) a town-state-province-country-world that can't civilly handle a provocative protest statement made by the wearing of a garment, be it a burka or a miniskirt, is too weak in its foundation to stand. Best examine the concrete down there to make sure individual liberty and the greater good, both, are adequately served. Lest they fall into the morass of popular mob rule.

We have seen this before in Europe. A couple of times.

And it keeps costing us Quadrillions of dollars to help you resolve.

As you may have heard lately, we have to borrow money from Asia to keep both our own system going as well as yours' going. If the Asians ever demand immediate payment, we're all screwed.

You guys have to decide, once and for all time: will you be open to all, or will you be Belgian, Dutch, French, German, Austrian, and so on and so forth. Will you shelter Human Rights victims and integrate them, or will you be Dutch, Belgian... exclusively.

You decide. But soon please. I can't afford another war at this precise moment.

2013 = OK, out of Iraq and tehStan by then, Iran & Korea in check, I could afford to send us 20-somethings to their death again. But please: just make it worthwhile and final, this time.

+1 for excellent post.

[Fragony]

You guys have to decide, once and for all time: will you be open to all, or will you be Belgian, Dutch, French, German, Austrian, and so on and so forth. Will you shelter Human Rights victims and integrate them, or will you be Dutch, Belgian... exclusively.


Good interview, ignore where it's posted http://theopinionator.typepad.com/my_weblog/2010/04/danish-psychologist-finds-integration-of-muslims-in-western-societies-not-possible.html

Non-western immigrants also cost us 6 to 10 billion a year because of welfare dependence.

[al Roumi]

Agreed but that but that choice to wear it is political, and it's a provocation. Not going to give a crap when someone gives them a light.

https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v494/Fragony/6a0111685b4b71970c0128771f224b970c-.jpg

Erm, I disagree. Those that choose to wear the Burqa are more likely to be doing so because, as Caligula says above, they think (rightly or wrongly) it makes them better Muslims. I don't think their choice to wear it is a provocation of those who don't, you must be very insecure to feel that it is.

God knows why you've put that picture there... Three Muslim girls in Niqabs (not burqas) with a placard to protest against the Police. What the hell is wrong with that? Isn't protest part of democracy? Doesn't look violent to me.

[Fragony]

Oh there are plenty of those, Islam will dominate the world, Freedom go to hell, Sharia for the UK, google is your friend

my favorite; https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v494/Fragony/images-3.jpg

Not sure you can see it so I will describe the picture for you, it's a girl in niqab with a sign with 'be prepared for the real holocaust'

[al Roumi]

Oh there are plenty of those, Islam will dominate the world, Freedom go to hell, Sharia for the UK, google is your friend

my favorite; https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v494/Fragony/images-3.jpg

Not sure you can see it so I will describe the picture for you, it's a girl in niqab with a sign with 'be prepared for the real holocaust'

Great way to start a day this: one crazy posting pictures of other crazies to justify their own craziness.

Sorry Frag's but i could find plenty of pictures of the EDL and other nice far right thugs to complement your collection. I just don't think it really helps anything except further drive a divide between groups when the exact opposite is what is needed here.

[Fragony]

Sorry Frag's but i could find plenty of pictures of the EDL and other nice far right thugs to complement your collection. I just don't think it really helps anything except further drive a divide between groups when the exact opposite is what is needed here.

Then stop downplaying the problem. And if you lot care so much about women's right then ban the sharia courts.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-nqxP2bpF7I <- these people are hostile, and openly. And it aren't just a few there are thousands.

[Louis VI the Fat]

And it keeps costing us Quadrillions of dollars to help you resolve.



I can't afford another war at this precise moment.

2013 = OK, out of Iraq and tehStan by then, Iran & Korea in check, I could afford to send us 20-somethings to their death again. But please: just make it worthwhile and final, this time.And there I was, thinking it was the Europeans who are currently spending quadrillions and sending their 20-somethings to help the Americans fight the excesses of anti-Western ideologies....

[Louis VI the Fat]

Great way to start a day this: one crazy posting pictures of other crazies to justify their own craziness.

Sorry Frag's but i could find plenty of pictures of the EDL and other nice far right thugs to complement your collection. I just don't think it really helps anything except further drive a divide between groups when the exact opposite is what is needed here.And if in another thread somebody with issues with the European far right posts pictures of neo-nazis clamouring for a new Holocaust, will this also be the tone and content of you reaction? That he is a crazy and that you've got plenty pictures of non-European extremists?

[al Roumi]

Then stop downplaying the problem. And if you lot care so much about women's right then ban the sharia courts.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-nqxP2bpF7I <- these people are hostile, and openly. And it aren't just a few there are thousands.

What now? Another change in subject? The 2009 Gaza protests against opperation cast lead? Yes they turned violent and No they shouldn't have. I don't even want to get in to asking whether you think the protestors had a reason or right to protest about what was going on.

[al Roumi]

And if in another thread somebody with issues with the European far right posts pictures of neo-nazis clamouring for a new Holocaust, will this also be the tone and content of you reaction? That he is a crazy and that you've got plenty pictures of non-European extremists?

Eh? I think Louis, your mask is obscuring your vision, or the tools of your trade as Hashishin are fogging your usual clarity.

Fragony consistently justifies his (IMO) intolerant views on Islam by saying that Muslims are "out to get him" and make him convert to their faith -or that's the idea I get. In essence, he is intolerant of them simply because he feels they are of him.

Edit:
As to the tone of my reaction, I do not condonde any views or opinions that push for conflict, violence, more extremism or, as you say another holocaust. Frag's picture was both of a women in a Niqab, and of a Muslim protesting. IMO, the associations it was making are not germane to the discussion of whether Niqab's/Burqa's or whatever should be allowed to be worn. [edit 2] It pushes the discussion into an area where all Muslims are perceived as dangerous and thereby justifies extra controls over them than on any another demographic group, and the limiting of their rights as a community.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

As Banquo has said, dear friends, play the ball, NOT the man. Keep your criticisms leveled at the post/idea and not the poster.

[Fragony]

Fragony consistently justifies his (IMO) intolerant views on Islam by saying that Muslims are "out to get him" and make him convert to their faith -or that's the idea I get. In essence, he is intolerant of them simply because he feels they are of him.


That is what your reflexes tell you I say, but I only attack a few, while you see it as your mission to defend them all. If I would tell you that I have muslim friends (who know exactly what I think about the Islam) I know what your response will be. It's a classic.

[al Roumi]

That is what your reflexes tell you I say, but I only attack a few, while you see it as your mission to defend them all. If I would tell you that I have muslim friends (who know exactly what I think about the Islam) I know what your response will be. It's a classic.

Sorry for the above man/ball confusion Fragony :embarassed:, but if you are truly concerned about a minority I'd recommend you make that clearer. "Plenty of those" and "ban Sharia courts" do not imply a small number of people or a targeted response.

As to myself, as in my answer to Louis' post, I am categoricaly not defending anyone who advocates violence or does anything to escalate conflict. I am defending the majority of Muslims: those who do not agree with Al-Qaida.

I am in conflict with you, becuase your views are fuel to the fire. I think it's all too easy to turn round and say "Muslims are the problem", when quite clearly it is some individuals who think they are Muslim, but are actually quite ignorant of the faith they purport to follow. Blanket measures against a large group of people when there is only a select minority of agitators within them is unfair and precisely the worst thing to do.

[Fragony]

Sorry for the above man/ball confusion Fragony :embarassed:, but if you are truly concerned about a minority I'd recommend you make that clearer. "Plenty of those" and "ban Sharia courts" do not imply a small number of people or a targeted response.


No offence taken don't worry. I try to make that clear but when I go to even greater lengths it only raises suspicion. People think they know what you are really thinking anyway.

[Rhyfelwyr]

I'll admit, it might be an idea to ban burkhas at the go-kart tracks (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1264535/Muslim-woman-strangled-burkha-freak-kart-accident.html). :dizzy2:

[al Roumi]

I'll admit, it might be an idea to ban burkhas at the go-kart tracks (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1264535/Muslim-woman-strangled-burkha-freak-kart-accident.html). :dizzy2:

Yep, i was thinking this before. If reasons of National Security and immigration/cultural assimilation have been used to attempt to ban Burqas or Niqabs, how long till reasons of Health and Safety have a pop at it too? :laugh2:

[rory_20_uk]

I'll admit, it might be an idea to ban burkhas at the go-kart tracks (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1264535/Muslim-woman-strangled-burkha-freak-kart-accident.html). :dizzy2:

In'shallah.

I think it was in Malaysia they found that nurses were bunking off and leaving cleaners in their place. how did they do this? Well, difficult to tell people apart when all you've got to see is their eyes.

~:smoking:

[Vladimir]

I'll admit, it might be an idea to ban burkhas at the go-kart tracks (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1264535/Muslim-woman-strangled-burkha-freak-kart-accident.html). :dizzy2:

Is that true? Sometimes I want to move to Britian just to receive print versions of daily mail. Not that I'm happy about her death, although I'm sure someone saw it coming.

[Hax]

just to receive print versions of daily mail.

No, you really don't want that.

[Gregoshi]

I think it was in Malaysia they found that nurses were bunking off and leaving cleaners in their place. how did they do this? Well, difficult to tell people apart when all you've got to see is their eyes.
I think the Org moderators do that too. That's the only possible explanation for the state of the staff toilet. :7janitor:

[Andres]

I think the Org moderators do that too. That's the only possible explanation for the state of the staff toilet. :7janitor:

Filthy lies!

[HoreTore]

Yes, spot on with the filth, I'd say....

[Tellos Athenaios]

Either way, I would advise Andres not to wear his ORG uniform at a day on the track...

[Louis VI the Fat]

Hmmm...I was going to post some tease about Andres' arguing vehemently in favour of a ban, whikle wearing a face mask himself.


But then it struck me that his niqaab touches on an important aspect of this question. A face mask looks menacing. We can not see his face, we do not know whom we are dealing with, there is an element of secrecy.
A burqa goes against an Open Society, that most cherished cornerstone of our social, economic and political order. Western societies are based on trust. On transparancy, openness, on knowing whom you are dealing with, and assuming (s)he's to be trusted, and that this trust is protected by the rule of law.

Cultures where the burqa originated, are not Open Societies. They are low-trust societies as well. In these societies, you need to get to know people before you can deal with them economically or socially.

Compare buying a carpet in a Western shop, or at, say, an Arab market. In the former, the cards are put on the table immediately - you know the price, the product, the seller. There are large glass windows, the people working there may even have name tags. In the latter, you'll be introduced, you need to drink a cup of tea together, be questioned about your family and who you know, before any direct economic information is exchanged. The two mix with great difficulty.

[HoreTore]

A burqa goes against an Open Society, that most cherished cornerstone of our social, economic and political order.

Nonsense, Louis.

I see no reason why I should have to identify myself to you. To the authorities, yes, but they can also throw me in jail, another thing I do not wish you to be able to do.

If Big Closet-Gay Al wants to hide his trips to the gay bar, I see no reason why he should have to identify himself to you. He has the right to privacy, and the right to hide his sexual preference from your prying eyes.

[Brenus]

“I see no reason why I should have to identify myself to you.” To follow your customs, to be a good neighbour, to avoid to be segregated etc… There are a lot of good reasons starting by being included and assimilated in the society…

Now, to wear a burka (or assimilated) is a POLITICAL statement of a RELIGIOUS extremist movement that openly admit it wants to destroy Democracy and call for one Religion to rule even the none believers.
This movement openly goes against equality of gender, advocate for discrimination and call for armed rebellion.
If all that doesn’t make it illegal, I don’t know what will do.
So banning such movement and their flag/symbols is in fact quite a mild answer.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Hmmm...I was going to post some tease about Andres' arguing vehemently in favour of a ban, whikle wearing a face mask himself.


But then it struck me that his niqaab touches on an important aspect of this question. A face mask looks menacing. We can not see his face, we do not know whom we are dealing with, there is an element of secrecy.
A burqa goes against an Open Society, that most cherished cornerstone of our social, economic and political order. Western societies are based on trust. On transparancy, openness, on knowing whom you are dealing with, and assuming (s)he's to be trusted, and that this trust is protected by the rule of law.

Cultures where the burqa originated, are not Open Societies. They are low-trust societies as well. In these societies, you need to get to know people before you can deal with them economically or socially.

Compare buying a carpet in a Western shop, or at, say, an Arab market. In the former, the cards are put on the table immediately - you know the price, the product, the seller. There are large glass windows, the people working there may even have name tags. In the latter, you'll be introduced, you need to drink a cup of tea together, be questioned about your family and who you know, before any direct economic information is exchanged. The two mix with great difficulty.

All true, but I think you've missed an important point about the Org policy. Our Avatars are so recognisable, and often unique, that they become a part of our identity here. With this in mind, those in Green are required to change their Avatars, hide their faces, and therefore subsume their identities beneath their responsibilities.

The mask hides the person, something that only governments in our societies are privilaged to do, be they the Org or the SAS in gas masks.

[Banquo's Ghost]

All true, but I think you've missed an important point about the Org policy. Our Avatars are so recognisable, and often unique, that they become a part of our identity here.

This is remarkably true, and speaks to the issue of trust and identity, even when represented by little pictures. Louis demonstrated this well with his recent swapping of avatar with SFTS, which led to serious confusion (at least on my part).

Equally, I still think of you as Wigferth Ironwall. I guess I'm just a bit slow. :beam:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

This is remarkably true, and speaks to the issue of trust and identity, even when represented by little pictures. Louis demonstrated this well with his recent swapping of avatar with SFTS, which led to serious confusion (at least on my part).

Equally, I still think of you as Wigferth Ironwall. I guess I'm just a bit slow. :beam:

I know, we had a bit of confusion on the EB team when Zach changed his avatar, we made him change it back! We actually have a semi-policy that we all have to look different in there. Also, I was unsettled when, during your brief hiatus you changed to the "wrong" non-mod avatar, as I still associate you with the one you had when I joined. I suppose this demonstrates the effect of the "mask" as it really does give you the impression the member is underneath.

As to me personally, I suppose I am both "Ironwall" and "Calicvla", the one represents the son of a Swedish father and English mother, raised on Alfred and Beowulf before King Arthur or Homer, the other is the university-educated scholar trying to get someone to fund his Phd who spends his weekends reading Augustine and Boethius. This room I am in right now is littered with book, and within five feet of each other are a Middle-English and a Latin Grammar book. So I suppose that also says something about identity and persona, on these boards as well as real life.

[HoreTore]

“I see no reason why I should have to identify myself to you.” To follow your customs, to be a good neighbour, to avoid to be segregated etc… There are a lot of good reasons starting by being included and assimilated in the society…

Now, to wear a burka (or assimilated) is a POLITICAL statement of a RELIGIOUS extremist movement that openly admit it wants to destroy Democracy and call for one Religion to rule even the none believers.
This movement openly goes against equality of gender, advocate for discrimination and call for armed rebellion.
If all that doesn’t make it illegal, I don’t know what will do.
So banning such movement and their flag/symbols is in fact quite a mild answer.

So....

It should be illegal to want to destroy democracy? Nonsense.

[Rhyfelwyr]

I am worried by just how much of a 'collectivist' view of freedom people have on the continent. The individual's freedom seems to be secondary to the good of society as a whole.

[Viking]

So....

It should be illegal to want to destroy democracy? Nonsense.

Yeah, it would put an extra strain on the thought crime department.

[HoreTore]

Yeah, it would put an extra strain on the thought crime department.

It's not only barbaric, but it's also ridiculous to think that people will suddenly start loving democracy if we outlaw hating it.

[Louis VI the Fat]

This is remarkably true, and speaks to the issue of trust and identity, even when represented by little pictures. Louis demonstrated this well with his recent swapping of avatar with SFTS, which led to serious confusion (at least on my part).Even I'm confused ever since I swapped names with Louis. Quite the identity crisis.


So....

It should be illegal to want to destroy democracy? Nonsense.I'm under the impression I pay to train people to kill those who want to destroy democracy.

I am worried by just how much of a 'collectivist' view of freedom people have on the continent. The individual's freedom seems to be secondary to the good of society as a whole.

There is no continent.

There are some fifty-odd European countries, each one unique. Each one, rather unrealistically, divides Europe into 'us' and 'everybody else'. The Swiss think of Europe as consisting of a continent of madmen, plus one blessed mountain fortress. The Nordics think they live in a world of their own, everything to the south Northern Aftrica. Italiy after two millenia still thinks of itself as civilisation, the lands across the Alps as barbaristan. And those who live on an island half an hour journey away from the main landmass, for their part think that they are a continent of their own.

Needless to say, they are all wrong. Europe, rather, is divided into a big blur of uncouth barbaric serfs, and the exception, France. Whose might of culture and thought sets her apart from all the rest, and which one day will set you all free.

In the French model, and by extention that of our padawan, Belgium, everybody is free and equal, and equally free:

"The burka is not a religious problem, it's a question of liberty and women's dignity. It's not a religious symbol, but a sign of subservience and debasement. I want to say solemnly, the burka is not welcome in France. In our country, we can't accept women prisoners behind a screen, cut off from all social life, deprived of all identity. That is not our idea of freedom.”



So spoke Nicolas Sarkozy in Versailles during his first state of the nation address to France's two chambers, the National Assembly and the Senate. He won rapturous applause and there is little doubt that an overwhelming majority of the French agreed with his every word. I say an overwhelming majority because this issue crosses all party lines in France. Republican principles of equality and secularism are so deeply grounded in the French mind that they belong as much to the Left as to the Right.



For someone like me, firmly on the Left, the defence of secularism is the only way to guarantee cultural diversity and national cohesion. One cannot go without the other. However, when I get on Eurostar to London, I feel totally alien. To my horror, my liberal-left British friends find such a position closer to that of the hard Right.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article6565064.ece

[Brenus]

“It should be illegal to want to destroy democracy? Nonsense.”
What? By the way, it is, at least in France!!!!

Do I understand that you are saying it should be legal to fight to impose a dictatorship (of whatever nature) and to disregard the democratic processes?
So, oppression is as legal that freedom in a democracy… Wao…
Knowing of course that per definition a dictatorship won’t allow democracy to do the same.

I really don’t understand: You are saying that is legitimate to fight for imposing an undemocratic country? That advocates of oppressing regimes and their parties shouldn’t be banned, that racism, slavery and all these things should be legal, and should be able to have the right to stand for what they want…

Well, why not?

[HoreTore]

“It should be illegal to want to destroy democracy? Nonsense.”
What? By the way, it is, at least in France!!!!

Do I understand that you are saying it should be legal to fight to impose a dictatorship (of whatever nature) and to disregard the democratic processes?
So, oppression is as legal that freedom in a democracy… Wao…
Knowing of course that per definition a dictatorship won’t allow democracy to do the same.

I really don’t understand: You are saying that is legitimate to fight for imposing an undemocratic country? That advocates of oppressing regimes and their parties shouldn’t be banned, that racism, slavery and all these things should be legal, and should be able to have the right to stand for what they want…

Well, why not?

Not exactly. I'm not saying that racism as an action should be legal, I'm saying that being a racist should be a legal.

It should be illegal to overthrow our democratic leadership, but I see absolutely no reason why we should jail every single person who would prefer a non-elected leadership of some kind. Actions can be illegal, never opinions. No matter how distasteful they are. Voltaire should be law.

In other words, I too want the burka gone. But using the legal system isn't an option. Just like we can't solve the problem with junkies by killing everyone, even though it would've solved the problem in an instant. No, we take the harder way to victory, because we're not barbarians. We'll, at least we're not, and you Frenchies should stop being barbarians too...

[rory_20_uk]

I agree with HoreTore. One can't easily alter the way one thinks, but one can alter the way one acts.

But I would say that one can desire to wear a Burka, but that the act of wearing one is illegal.

~:smoking:

[Andres]

It are us, Belgians, recently chosen as the undisputed rulers of Europe, who are the barbarians here, not our French vassals.

That said, I disagree that wearing a burka = merely expressing an opinion. I also disagree that the burka is been worn out of religious motives.

[Louis VI the Fat]

It are us, Belgians, recently chosen as the undisputed rulers of Europe, who are the barbarians here, not our French vassals.Non!

My master, you may well think that because some Teutonic dialects are spoken in the north, this bit of Belgium is part of the barbaric world. Not so. Teutonic in appearance, Gallic on the inside you are. The whole of Belgium partakes in Gallic civilisation.


Next stop, Québec:


In May 2005, the province of Quebec showed leadership when its legislature voted unanimously to pass a motion against permitting sharia law to be used in the province's legal system.
Moving the historic motion in the Quebec National Assembly, Muslim member Fatima Houda-Pepin said, "The application of sharia in Canada is part of a strategy to isolate the Muslim community, so it will submit to an archaic vision of Islam. . . . These demands are being pushed by groups in the minority that are using the Charter of Rights to attack the foundation of our democratic institutions." Four months later, Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty would ban the use of all religion-based tribunals in the province, thus ending all hopes Islamists had of creating a beachhead for sharia law in North America.

Now, Quebec has taken another bold step to stall the inroads being made by Islamists: In a bill that could soon become law, Quebec will refuse all government services, including education and non-emergency health care, to Muslim women wearing the niqab or burka. Premier Jean Charest said the bill is aimed at "drawing a line" to demonstrate that gender equality is a paramount Quebec value.
As a Muslim Canadian, I am thrilled at this development, and welcome the rescue of all Muslim-Canadian women who were being blackmailed, bullied and brainwashed into wearing attire that has no place in either Islam or the 21st century.
Read more: http://www.calgaryherald.com/technology/Quebec+bill+will+rescue+Muslim+women/2767431/story.html#ixzz0kt4Osgwn

[Furunculus]

Hmmm...I was going to post some tease about Andres' arguing vehemently in favour of a ban, whikle wearing a face mask himself.

But then it struck me that his niqaab touches on an important aspect of this question. A face mask looks menacing. We can not see his face, we do not know whom we are dealing with, there is an element of secrecy.
A burqa goes against an Open Society, that most cherished cornerstone of our social, economic and political order. Western societies are based on trust. On transparancy, openness, on knowing whom you are dealing with, and assuming (s)he's to be trusted, and that this trust is protected by the rule of law.

Cultures where the burqa originated, are not Open Societies. They are low-trust societies as well. In these societies, you need to get to know people before you can deal with them economically or socially.

Compare buying a carpet in a Western shop, or at, say, an Arab market. In the former, the cards are put on the table immediately - you know the price, the product, the seller. There are large glass windows, the people working there may even have name tags. In the latter, you'll be introduced, you need to drink a cup of tea together, be questioned about your family and who you know, before any direct economic information is exchanged. The two mix with great difficulty.
All true, but I think you've missed an important point; in that seeing someones face also allows one to judge that persons intention, weigh their trustworthiness, and see evidence of their goodwill.

This cannot be done behind a burqa.

[Louis VI the Fat]

All true, but I think you've missed an important point; in that seeing someones face also allows one to judge that persons intention, weigh their trustworthiness, and see evidence of their goodwill.

This cannot be done behind a burqa.Good points, all.

[Scienter]

First of all: I'm completely for banning the burka. It's not just a symbol of the oppression of women, it's a (very succesful) tool to oppress women. I'm against the oppression of women. Away with the burka. Not to mention that wearing a burka will make it impossible for women to find a job. As I said, it's not just a symbol, it's a very succesful tool to oppress women.

Word. :2thumbsup:



That said, the ban is not a ban on burka's, it's a ban on all pieces of clothing that cover the face (a niqab will be banned as well, as will a ninja suit) The word "burka" is not even mentioned in the proposition of the law, it applies to all clothing that covers the face. The media call it a "ban on burka's", but when you read the law, it's not a ban on burka's at all. That's what the media and some overly sensitive groups of people who like being victims (or to make victims out of others because it serves their political agenda) make of it.


Hopefully, this careful wording will help the law survive court scrutiny.



That said, as I said above, I don't mind burka's or niqabs being forbidden. It are tools to oppress women. I value gender equality higher than "freedom of religion", certainly when the "freedom of religion" argument is used as an excuse to happily oppress women (no, I don't think there are women who wear their burka voluntarily; such women don't exist).

While personally, I'd love to see the burka banned, I don't know how much of an effect the law will have on society itself. I'm in favor of the ban, but I have a hard time remaining objective due to my intense personal dislike for the burka and what it stands for.

The mindset of oppressing women will still exist, even if women forced to wear the burka are finally allowed to walk the streets with their faces uncovered. How many burka-wearing women will be threatened with physical abuse from their husbands if they try to leave the hosue without out?

I agree with you that the majority of women don't want to wear the burka. But, there are probably some women out there who want to wear it, either out of fear of their husbands, or because they've been taught all their lives that they shouldn't show themselves in public. I have no idea how to address that kind of mindset. You can't teach gender equality to people who want nothing to do with it.

There is a world of difference between arguing that the burka is a tool of oppression and that high heels, mini skirts, and dresses objectify women. There is a difference between choosing to dress modestly, or in the case of extremist feminists, to not wear dresses, and being told by your husband that you cannot show yourself in public. The burka communicates that a woman should not be seen at all. Not even her face. This is not for her 'protection.' It's to keep her as a second class citizen, to deny her an identity.

[Brenus]

“Not exactly. I'm not saying that racism as an action should be legal, I'm saying that being a racist should be a legal.
It should be illegal to overthrow our democratic leadership, but I see absolutely no reason why we should jail every single person who would prefer a non-elected leadership of some kind. Actions can be illegal, never opinions. No matter how distasteful they are.”
Yerk yerk yerk:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:, this is plain hypocrisy. You have a right to have a political agenda but no right to implement it…

The problem I have with people so found of “freedom of speech” is they forget about others rights.
And when do they take action? After the Nazi or others gathered enough people to take power? After the Mullahs jailed all women, banning them from work, health, and movements?
When do you rebel?

“Frenchies should stop being barbarians too”: If to be a Barbarian is to prefer women to feel the sun and the wind, if to be a Barbarian is accept women right to have ownership of their own body, to have the right of education and not to be beaten until they obey, if to be a Barbarian is the freedom for women to roam the streets and not to be lost at 50 meters from home because they never put a foot outside, so, let be a Frank (barbarian).
I am proud to be a French barbarian having as a National Symbol a woman half naked, hairs in the wind and leading men to freedom or death…
Marianne in Hidjab would lost of her powers…

I remember the debate about banning infibulations. Some came this the same thing (cultural difference, Euro-centrism etc) and same “it will resolve nothing” staff. And it did. The fact that one woman went to jail few months made the figures of these ritual tortures dropped according of unofficial figures…
Ban the burkas and they will disappear…

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Regarding revoluton:

All governments make it illegal to attempt to overthrow the sitting government by violence. It'd be rather silly if they didn't. It's really the same thing as the old saw about treason always being unsuccessful....


Regarding military racism:

I think Horetore has a point about self-selection into the military. However, I don't think such would-be fascists comprise enough as a percentage to distort things as much as he implies.


Regarding Belgium:

Louis, I think that Antwerpen is the heart of Belgium, and that all those Walloons are sorta quaint -- like the way we think of West Virginia.

j/k

[HoreTore]

Yerk yerk yerk:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:, this is plain hypocrisy. You have a right to have a political agenda but no right to implement it…

So you want to throw every nazi in jail...?


Regarding military racism:

I think Horetore has a point about self-selection into the military. However, I don't think such would-be fascists comprise enough as a percentage to distort things as much as he implies.

Wrong thread.

[Louis VI the Fat]

“Frenchies should stop being barbarians too”: If to be a Barbarian is to prefer women to feel the sun and the wind, if to be a Barbarian is accept women right to have ownership of their own body, to have the right of education and to be beaten until they obey, if to be a Barbarian is the freedom for women to roam the street and not to lost at 50 meters from home because you never put a foot outside, so, let be a Frank (barbarian).
I am proud to be a French barbarian having as a National Symbol a woman half naked, hairs in the wind and leading men to freedom or death…
Marianne in Hidjab would lost of her powers…:sweetheart:


https://img517.imageshack.us/img517/1962/marianne.jpg

Ni putes Ni soumises! :knight:

Neither whores, nor submissives. France will not be scarved. The whole is free, or nobody is free. La Liberté ou la mort!

*rushes to the barricades*




Louis, I think that Antwerpen is the heart of Belgium, and that all those Walloons are sorta quaint -- like the way we think of West Virginia.Bugger, he's actually been to Belgium. So much for my propaganda. :shame:

The heart of Belgium is Bruges. Cursed city, more beauty than I could bare, that twice took my love away. [/bitter resentment]

[Brenus]

So you want to throw every nazi in jail If I only could....!!!

[HoreTore]

So you want to throw every nazi in jail If I only could....!!!

Well then I can certainly see why you want to ban burkas.

We will have to agree to disagree.

[Viking]

So you want to throw every nazi in jail If I only could....!!!

Point proven - case closed. :inquisitive:

[Peasant Phill]

Regarding Belgium:

Louis, I think that Antwerpen is the heart of Belgium, and that all those Walloons are sorta quaint -- like the way we think of West Virginia.


And the whole of Antwerp will agree and the rest of Belgium will just think of them as arrogant.
You do have a point, however, that Belgium may not have a personality anymore, no driving force for improvement, ...
The motto of Belgium (Strength through unity) always cracks me up. Even at the founding of Belgium was this nothing more than wishful thinking.
But as a interesting and advanced political experiment Belgium still has it's place in the world where Flanders and Wallony would just drown amongst other dwarfs as Luxemburg, Monaco, Lichtenstein, ...

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Phil:

I was just having fun with Louis. My knowledge of Belgium is limited to military history (where Belgium rivals Poland for being between two or more bigger/more aggressive powers) and a little basic geography. I could summarize my knowledge of the Flemish-Walloon split in a short paragraph and still have plenty of extra space on the page to discuss my own mental deficiencies. Of course, THAT could run on a bit.....

[Myrddraal]

Well I've been away for a while, but I come back to read some arguments along the lines of: "Those opposing the ban hate the freedom of women, those in favour love it"

As I'm sure we are all aware, nobody in this thread is advocating the abuse of women, be it by forcing them to wear a burka or any other means, so perhaps we could stop these petty attacks? I think we all agree that oppressing women should be / already is illegal (except perhaps Furunculus, who opposes banning anything :wink:)

[Brenus]

“Well then I can certainly see why you want to ban burkas”.
The two are not related. Nazis committed mass murder and yes, Burkas and Co are instruments and symbols of oppression.
However a ban of burka should be enough.
Nazis are proven criminals in term of ideology. They don’t just want to enslave others they want to exterminate.
The most extreme Muslim Cleric will give an infidel a chance to convert.
Thing a Nazi wouldn’t.

So there is no relationship with my desire to put all nazi in jail (which is an improvement as when I was younger I wish to gather them in front of a 12.7 mm (cal 50) then give them a taste of their own medicine. I am becoming weak on my old age).

“We will have to agree to disagree.” Agree.

“Point proven - case closed”: ?

“I think we all agree that oppressing women should be / already is illegal”; Well, we all agree but some don’t want to take action to at least tackle one of the multitude of aspects/tools of female abuse under the flimsy pretext of Religion or Cultural freedom.
To do nothing against is to agree with. That is the bottom line. And I don’t speak about mounting expeditions in Africa or somewhere else to fight slavery or to impose the western way of life.
I speak to rule our countries according to our values, our way of life, the freedom that our ancestors fought for.
And to protect the defenceless is one of it, as equality in gender.
It was not, but now it is and I am sick and tired to heard that because in the Middle Ages the Muslim women had more rights than the European ones (affirmation never confirmed by fact by the way, still waiting for a Muslim Joan of Arc, Catherine de Medicis, Elisabeth, etc), we can’t lecture to the 21st century Muslim.

Well, we changed. I don’t deny it was probably a lot of fun to burn living black cats or Jews or witches and to segregate the leprosies or to throw rotten eggs/vegetables and to spit at convicts on the pillory however we ended it.

[Andres]

“I think we all agree that oppressing women should be / already is illegal”; Well, we all agree but some don’t want to take action to at least tackle one of the multitude of aspects/tools of female abuse under the flimsy pretext of Religion or Cultural freedom.
To do nothing against is to agree with. That is the bottom line. And I don’t speak about mounting expeditions in Africa or somewhere else to fight slavery or to impose the western way of life.
I speak to rule our countries according to our values, our way of life, the freedom that our ancestors fought for.
And to protect the defenceless is one of it, as equality in gender.


Et voilà.

We can't just ignore it and pretend like there is no problem. That's escaping responsibility.

[Furunculus]

I remember the debate about banning infibulations. Some came this the same thing (cultural difference, Euro-centrism etc) and same “it will resolve nothing” staff. And it did. The fact that one woman went to jail few months made the figures of these ritual tortures dropped according of unofficial figures…
Ban the burkas and they will disappear…
not the same thing at all.

[Furunculus]

As I'm sure we are all aware, nobody in this thread is advocating the abuse of women, be it by forcing them to wear a burka or any other means, so perhaps we could stop these petty attacks? I think we all agree that oppressing women should be / already is illegal (except perhaps Furunculus, who opposes banning anything :wink:)

I am not against the idea of the felony, I am just a fevent adherent of the english tradition of negative liberty, whereby anything that is not specifically proscribed you are free to do, rather than the alternative which is to legislate and regulate everything with the result that you are not supposed to do anything that is not already accommodated for within the law........ commonly termed positive liberty.

We have created 1100 new criminal offences in britain since labour came to power, this is a disgrace in and of itself.

[HoreTore]

“Well then I can certainly see why you want to ban burkas”.
The two are not related. Nazis committed mass murder and yes, Burkas and Co are instruments and symbols of oppression.
However a ban of burka should be enough.
Nazis are proven criminals in term of ideology. They don’t just want to enslave others they want to exterminate.
The most extreme Muslim Cleric will give an infidel a chance to convert.
Thing a Nazi wouldn’t.

So there is no relationship with my desire to put all nazi in jail (which is an improvement as when I was younger I wish to gather them in front of a 12.7 mm (cal 50) then give them a taste of their own medicine. I am becoming weak on my old age).

No, the two are not related, but throwing them in jail means you are willing to punish people for extreme/murderous opinions.

Something I am not.

[Viking]

“Point proven - case closed”: ?

It's a thought crime.

[Louis VI the Fat]

I am not against the idea of the felony, I am just a fevent adherent of the english tradition of negative liberty, whereby anything that is not specifically proscribed you are free to do, rather than the alternative which is to legislate and regulate everything with the result that you are not supposed to do anything that is not already accommodated for within the law........ commonly termed positive liberty.The tradition that nothing is illegal which has not been deemed illegal by law, is the principle of legality. It was invented by a German, during the Enlightenment, on the wave of it's rethinking of human rights and penal law. The principle of Nullum crimen, nulla poena sine praevia lege poenali found its way into the penal codes of the continent and North America. As with other rights and liberties, England fought it tooth and nail at home and abroad.

England did not have this principle of legality, nor is it to this very day part of English law. English law is rather unique in the Western world for allowing the state to prosecute subjects for crimes that were not a crime the moment they were 'comitted'. However, Europe has deemed this principle of legality a human right, and thus English subjects are at last protected from wanton prosecution by their government through the legal force of international law.

:book:

[Myrddraal]

Nazis are proven criminals in term of ideology.
This is the line of thinking which those quotes were objecting to Brenus. Can you have a criminal ideology? Can you arrest people for wanting something, however wrong it would be to do that thing?

Anyway this is all beside the point.


Et voilà.

We can't just ignore it and pretend like there is no problem. That's escaping responsibility.

Well I'm certainly not arguing that nothing should be done to protect women from oppression. I'm just confused about how this law is going to be helpful, whilst at the same time I am keenly aware of the negative aspects of this law. This earlier post sums up my position:

What I'm not sure about, and what hasn't been explained to me very clearly, is how the means will reach the desired ends. How does banning the burka actually help those who are forced to wear it. At the end of the day, you are only removing a visible sign of opression, not the opression itself.
...
My knee jerk reaction in any case where the proposed outcome would give satisfaction to the more racist elements of society is to proceed with extreme caution; to look at whether such a law is strictly necessary, that it's aims are justifiable and achievable, whether the same aims cannot be achieved by another law which wouldn't satisfy a racist nut, etc.

I don't feel at all satisfied that this proposal meets those criteria. In this case it sounds like the defences of this law fail in two respects, I don't think they will achieve the 'desirable' effects it claims to be for, let alone that it's the best way to achieve those aims. Add to that the fact that it encourages and semi-endorses those who suggest a law like this for reasons of prejudice.

I still don't understand how banning and item of clothing, albeit an item of clothing which many are forced to wear, is going to do anything to help people who live in a sub-society where there is abuse of women. Banning the Burka isn't going to magically stop the abuse. I can easily imagine an abusive husband not allowing his wife out of the house because she cannot wear the burka, therefore she cannot be seen in public.

Until I can understand what the benefits of this proposed law is, how can I say that the benefits outweigh the costs? The cost is very real. Even if some of you don't value freedom of expression very highly, this law panders to and encourages islamophobe lobbyists.

Since these two posts some arguments have been put forward to explain how a Burka is more than just a symptom of oppression, but I'm just not convinced that these arguments are strong enough to justify the negative aspects of this law.

[Brenus]

“Can you have a criminal ideology” Obviously yes if speaking of Nazism. It says to kill the Jews, and it started the application.
Same if a Religion movement worshipping Baal start again, do you will wait until they sacrifice few children or will you take action before? Thin line indeed…

“Can you arrest people for wanting something, however wrong it would be to do that thing”: Well, you can’t, reason I said I wish I could…

Concerning your concerns of the ban:
The one forced to wear the mobile jail will have a good reason to object to their tormentors. That potentially save some of heavy discussion as: Darling I can’t wear this because I will be arrested and you will have to pay a fine… You don’t want me to be arrested and pay a fine, do you?
It is not because Racists share or agree with some of my points that these points are per definition wrong.
Hitler was a vegetarian; it doesn’t make all vegetarians potential criminals…

The effect: Well, if France it did work. The ban of scarves at schools did stop the movement, and yes, there are still some try time to time, by not so much. When France took this ban, it was an outcry and an appeal to revenge that never happened.
If fact, France being (except Turkey) the most Muslim populated Country in Europe, some will draw the conclusion that Muslims do enjoy the protection offered by the French laws against their own extremists and the freedom of choice to follow or not their religion in a peaceful manner…

The result of the ban, because it has as well financial implication (as if you don’t sent your kids to school you lose your social benefit), and due to the fact that this emigration is based on financial basis (to work, get money and having a better life than in the country of origin) not on a desire to convert a land of the Dhimmy (sp?) (The land between the Land of Islam and the Land of war) it does work.

[Louis VI the Fat]

I don't care what the rest of the world says. I sleep better at night when people like Brenus are the officers of my army.

Nazis to be shot, mobile jails to be prevented, and Voltaire as his motto.


:Zzzz:

[KukriKhan]

So: the intended consequence of this law is that all Belgian residents shall reveal their face and hair to the public, when in public - and by extension, be freed from the dictates of their husband/father/brother/oppressor.

And the UN-intended consequence may be: zero Muslim women shall appear in public - they shall be confined to their private homes, in order to obey both Belgian law and the dictates of the man of the house.

Then what?

[Andres]

So: the intended consequence of this law is that all Belgian residents shall reveal their face and hair to the public, when in public - and by extension, be freed from the dictates of their husband/father/brother/oppressor.

And the UN-intended consequence may be: zero Muslim women shall appear in public - they shall be confined to their private homes, in order to obey both Belgian law and the dictates of the man of the house.

Then what?

Do you really think these "men of the house" will do their groceries themselves? And will bring the children to school? And do the work in the garden?

They'll have the choice: doing the work of their oppressed wives or letting them out without burqa. I think they'll opt for the latter.

[KukriKhan]

Do you really think these "men of the house" will do their groceries themselves? And will bring the children to school? And do the work in the garden?

They'll have the choice: doing the work of their oppressed wives or letting them out without burqa. I think they'll opt for the latter.

Good Luck. Really.

[Andres]

Good Luck. Really.

I'm not saying simply banning the burqa will solve all underlying issues.

But if it doesn't help, what harm will it do? At least we'll be taking away one ot the tools of oppression.

[Furunculus]

The tradition that nothing is illegal which has not been deemed illegal by law, is the principle of legality. It was invented by a German, during the Enlightenment, on the wave of it's rethinking of human rights and penal law. The principle of Nullum crimen, nulla poena sine praevia lege poenali found its way into the penal codes of the continent and North America. As with other rights and liberties, England fought it tooth and nail at home and abroad.

England did not have this principle of legality, nor is it to this very day part of English law. English law is rather unique in the Western world for allowing the state to prosecute subjects for crimes that were not a crime the moment they were 'comitted'. However, Europe has deemed this principle of legality a human right, and thus English subjects are at last protected from wanton prosecution by their government through the legal force of international law.

:book:

i believe the argument runs along the lines of runaway codification, whereby the general enthusiasm for producing civil codes that occurred in the previous centuries has led to a default position of continually expanding the civil code, something that britain, and scandinavia to a lesser extent) escaped because its common law did not require a civil-code, and thus a fetish for codification never occurred.

:book:

[Brenus]

“Officers”: Better than that, Louis, NCO.

“And the UN-intended consequence may be: zero Muslim women shall appear in public - they shall be confined to their private homes, in order to obey both Belgian law and the dictates of the man of the house.”
Yeah, heard that before when the French banned the scarf form schools, The young females Muslim won’t go to school, and so be deprived of their right of education which was a shame as they all wanted to be lawyer or doctors…
Except of course it never happened. They took of the scarves, and went to school.

[Myrddraal]

I feel I should say at this point Andres and Brenus, that even if you haven't convinced me, at the very least I will be less outraged when I next hear someone back the ban.

I have to accept the logic behind your arguments, even if I don't consider them strong enough to justify the ban. I am afraid that many of the people proposing and defending this law don't have the same good motives as you do, and the next item on the agenda is to ban minarets/mosques/brown people.

[Furunculus]

I have to accept the logic behind your arguments, even if I don't consider them strong enough to justify the ban. I am afraid that many of the people proposing and defending this law don't have the same good motives as you do, and the next item on the agenda is to ban minarets/mosques/brown people.
If there is public support for such measures it merely tells me that immigration has run faster than the native population is willing to tolerate, and that it should be scaled back to a level were seamless assimilation is achievable rather than the creation of parallel societies.

[Andres]

I have to accept the logic behind your arguments, even if I don't consider them strong enough to justify the ban. I am afraid that many of the people proposing and defending this law don't have the same good motives as you do, and the next item on the agenda is to ban minarets/mosques/brown people.

I agree with you that a ban on burqa's smells like somthing that belongs with extreme right wing nutjob parties à la our Vlaams Belang.

But fear is a bad advisor. It's bad for people to vote for the resident extreme right wing party (our infamous Vlaams Belang) out of an irrational fear for "teh Muslims", just as it is bad to dismiss a certain proposal, because it's something "teh racists" would agree with.

That's why I'm very disappointed that our politicians don't call a spade a spade and hide themselves behind the silly "it's for our safety" argument. It would be better to explain to the public why you ban the burqa and to ensure our muslim citizens that you do not have the intention to ban Islam and muslims. You simply don't want the oppression of women and the fact that this particular tool of oppression is apparently, by some, deemed to be a religiously inspired garment, made obligatory by a holy book, is regretful, but so be it: gender equality > religion, at least in this particular corner of the world.

Clear communication, open (and mature) debate, no taboos; politicians should take a look at the BR sometimes, to learn how it's done :wink:

[HoreTore]

I agree with you that a ban on burqa's smells like somthing that belongs with extreme right wing nutjob parties à la our Vlaams Belang.

But fear is a bad advisor. It's bad for people to vote for the resident extreme right wing party (our infamous Vlaams Belang) out of an irrational fear for "teh Muslims", just as it is bad to dismiss a certain proposal, because it's something "teh racists" would agree with.

That's why I'm very disappointed that our politicians don't call a spade a spade and hide themselves behind the silly "it's for our safety" argument. It would be better to explain to the public why you ban the burqa and to ensure our muslim citizens that you do not have the intention to ban Islam and muslims. You simply don't want the oppression of women and the fact that this particular tool of oppression is apparently, by some, deemed to be a religiously inspired garment, made obligatory by a holy book, is regretful, but so be it: gender equality > religion, at least in this particular corner of the world.

Clear communication, open (and mature) debate, no taboos; politicians should take a look at the BR sometimes, to learn how it's done :wink:

You're making it sound like it's ridiculous to oppsose something without wanting to ban it through law.

[Andres]

You're making it sound like it's ridiculous to oppsose something without wanting to ban it through law.

That was not my intention. Sorry if it sounds like that.

[HoreTore]

That was not my intention. Sorry if it sounds like that.

What Islam needs isn't a ban on burqas or anything like that. They need what we used to kill off the christians.




They need hippies. Lots of 'em.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I feel I should say at this point Andres and Brenus, that even if you haven't convinced me, at the very least I will be less outraged when I next hear someone back the ban.

I have to accept the logic behind your arguments, even if I don't consider them strong enough to justify the ban. I am afraid that many of the people proposing and defending this law don't have the same good motives as you do, and the next item on the agenda is to ban minarets/mosques/brown people.

Brown People?

Come on, this isn't about "Brown People" this is about people who do things completely differently, and our political establishment etc. not being willing to talk about it. Minarets were banned by Referendum. I expect that if we had a referendum on Burqas, they would be banned, as would the Niqab probably (sp?). Polite and politic discourse needs to catch up with the majority of society.

[rory_20_uk]

I asked where the requirement to cover the face was written. When I looked up the passage it referred to covering the breast.

I assume Muslims don't have breasts on their face?

~:smoking:

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Brown People?

Come on, this isn't about "Brown People" this is about people who do things completely differently, and our political establishment etc. not being willing to talk about it. Minarets were banned by Referendum. I expect that if we had a referendum on Burqas, they would be banned, as would the Niqab probably (sp?). Polite and politic discourse needs to catch up with the majority of society.

Referenda simply report the current majority sentiment of the population who bother to vote. Euro turnouts are better than the USA's but hardly 100%. Even so, referenda can lead to abuse. Remember Franklin's cautionary about democracy.

In the 1830s, a Catholic could only own property in Connecticut if they succeeded in getting a variance through the State Legislature to allow them to own said property despite the baseline law preventing ownership of real property by Catholics -- a law supported by a majority of the Connecticut population in the early 19th century. How well would a referendum have worked there?

THAT is Myrddraal's point. He's not arguing the specific intent of this law -- I suspect he finds Arabic/Muslim treatment of women's rights to be inadequate as do most of us in the West -- he's arguing that prohibiting the wearing/doing/being of anyone on the basis of their "difference" is potentially fraught with abuse. A

Was the "brown people" line a bit of a jab? Yes. But world history is simply replete with examples of racist and xenophobic laws. He's cautioning those who support such banning laws to be careful about examining their own motivations. I'm certain that Andres has done so -- he's a good chap except at carnivale and an excellent transvestite during said holiday -- but are you equally sure of the motivations of others who support this?

[Hax]

I asked where the requirement to cover the face was written. When I looked up the passage it referred to covering the breast.

I assume Muslims don't have breasts on their face?

I believe the specifics state something like "the beautiful places of one's body". Something like that, at least.


They need hippies. Lots of 'em.

People like Omar Khayyami? He liked booze and women, sounds like something of a hippie to me.

This woman (http://muslimhippie.blogspot.com/) is awesome

[Rhyfelwyr]

gender equality > religion

But that is again from the perspective of positive freedoms, as if one right is in competition with another.

Surely it is just a case of freedoms > government intervention in our private lives?

At the end of the day, in the free world, I expect to be able to wear a piece of cloth over my face.

[Andres]

But that is again from the perspective of positive freedoms, as if one right is in competition with another.

Surely it is just a case of freedoms > government intervention in our private lives?

At the end of the day, in the free world, I expect to be able to wear a piece of cloth over my face.

All societies have rules which are basically limitations of your freedom.

Unlimited freedom leads to anarchy.

[Rhyfelwyr]

All societies have rules which are basically limitations of your freedom.

Unlimited freedom leads to anarchy.

Certain freedoms are absolute, and should never be infringed for any reason. Not for security reasons, or for social engineering to integrate an immigrant group.

The Anglo-Saxon concept of freedom is not anarchy. The government exists to protect our rights, to free us from the state of nature. If you ban the burqa to prevent the oppression of women, then you are throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

[Andres]

Certain freedoms are absolute, and should never be infringed for any reason.

The Anglo-Saxon concept of freedom is not anarchy. The government exists to protect our rights, to free us from the state of nature. If you ban the burqa to prevent the oppression of women, then you are throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

I disagree that certain freedoms are absolute. None are "absolute". There will always have to be limits on freedoms.

And even if I would agree, then I'd say that you ignore the possiblity of two freedoms intervening with each other which forces you to chose which one will take priority in a certain case.

Example: If your religion says that you have to treat women as lesser beings, than your religion conflicts with the principle of equality of the sexes, which is an important (and hard fought for) value in Western societies nowadays. So those parts of exercising your freedom of religion will conflict with another basic value of your society. I prefer the equality of sexes, so your freedom of religion will have to be limited.

As an aside and off topic: You can always move to Afghanistan if you prefer a country where you can force your wife to wear a burqa. Ironically, there are freedom fighters hailing from your famous Anglo Saxon countries there to fight the evil terrorists who, among other evil things, force their women to wear burqa's. Absurd that you anglo-saxons defend the right of noble religious and FREE (tm) men to force their wives to wear a burqa in your own countries and then go fight and shoot evil terrorist religious nutjobs who do the same to their wives in their countries, isn't it? What about their freedom? But that's another topic.

[Louis VI the Fat]

As an aside and off topic: You can always move to Afghanistan if you prefer a country where you can force your wife to wear a burqa. Ironically, there are freedom fighters hailing from your famous Anglo Saxon countries there to fight the evil terrorists who, among other evil things, force their women to wear burqa's. Absurd that you anglo-saxons defend the right of noble religious and FREE (tm) men to force their wives to wear a burqa in your own countries and then go fight and shoot evil terrorist religious nutjobs who do the same to their wives in their countries, isn't it? What about their freedom? But that's another topic.http://gamescene.com/Home_Run_Derby_game.html




The Anglo-Saxon concept of freedom

The government exists to protect our rights, to free us from the state of nature'Anglosaxon freedom' belongs to 19th century amateur history. http://www.archive.org/stream/shorthistoryofan00hosmiala#page/n5/mode/2up


Moreover, I thought the usual allegation is that Anglos have natural freedoms, which they've always protected against government, whereas the continent/everybody else/martians have only rights the government grants them.

[Rhyfelwyr]

And even if I would agree, then I'd say that you ignore the possiblity of two freedoms intervening with each other which forces you to chose which one will take priority in a certain case.

I accept what you are saying, but the ban on burqas reflects too much of a generalisation. Sometimes, Muslim husbands will force their wives to wear a burqa. The 'religious' freedom is irrelevant in these cases, since it oversteps its bounds and infringes the woman's freedom to choose what she wears.

However, in many cases, the woman wearing the burqa will be a well educated, hardline Muslim who chooses to do so without being coerced in any way whatsover. In this case, no freedoms overlap, and so there are no grounds whatsover for the government to step in a infringe her freedom of expression.

Which is why I say - do not make unecessary laws that throw the baby out with the bathwater. For a Muslim man to force his wife to wear a burqa is already illegal, since it infringes her freedom. The ban on burqas adds unecessary restrictions on fundamental rights in order for the purely practical benefit of making the oppression of women a bit tougher for their husbands.


As an aside and off topic: You can always move to Afghanistan if you prefer a country where you can force your wife to wear a burqa. Ironically, there are freedom fighters hailing from your famous Anglo Saxon countries there to fight the evil terrorists who, among other evil things, force their women to wear burqa's. Absurd that you anglo-saxons defend the right of noble religious and FREE (tm) men to force their wives to wear a burqa in your own countries and then go fight and shoot evil terrorist religious nutjobs who do the same to their wives in their countries, isn't it? What about their freedom? But that's another topic.

We shouldn't be in those countries anyway IMO. And I very strongly disapprove of the burqa, I just believe that my own private opinions have no place in the law.


'Anglosaxon freedom' belongs to 19th century amateur history. http://www.archive.org/stream/shorthistoryofan00hosmiala#page/n5/mode/2up

This thread is a testament to just how real they are, just look at where the members on each side of the divide hail from. Never mind the racial element the term 'Anglo-Saxon' implies - but you have to admit that given the different concepts of freedom that have emerged in different countries, they still have an impact on the mindset of their inhabitants today.

[HoreTore]

Brown People?

Come on, this isn't about "Brown People" this is about people who do things completely differently, and our political establishment etc. not being willing to talk about it. Minarets were banned by Referendum. I expect that if we had a referendum on Burqas, they would be banned, as would the Niqab probably (sp?). Polite and politic discourse needs to catch up with the majority of society.

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

[Rhyfelwyr]

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

Yes! Just because Andres and Louis and Brenus want to see my face when I go outside doens't mean I should be made to comply.

[rvg]

Yes! Just because Andres and Louis and Brenus want to see my face when I go outside doens't mean I should be made to comply.

Couldn't have said it better myself. The government should not dictate what I can wear, as long as my attire meets the standards for public decency (which burqa obviously meets and exceeds).

[Viking]

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

Rubbish, you should look it up in a dictionary. That there is a perceived "utmost respect for minority rights" is another aspect of the society/constitution.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Couldn't have said it better myself. The government should not dictate what I can wear, as long as my attire meets the standards for public decency (which burqa obviously meets and exceeds).I keep you in a state of personal servitude. I lock you up in my basement for life. And your little brother.

Brenus and Andres haul you two out by order of the government. Is the government 'dictating who and when must be outside', or is the governemnt protecting your personal freedom?

[Rhyfelwyr]

I keep you in a state of personal servitude. I lock you up in my basement for life. And your little brother.

Brenus and Andres haul you two out by order of the government. Is the government 'dictating who and when must be outside', or is the governemnt protecting your personal freedom?

Protecting personal freedom of course, if they were locked up against their will.

But as in the case with forcing women to wear burqas, such actions already are illegal. The equivalent to banning burqas in your example would be banning basements so there's no more Joseph Fritzl's.

[Louis VI the Fat]

But as in the case with forcing women to wear burqas, such actions already are illegal. The equivalent to banning burqas in your example would be banning basements so there's no more Joseph Fritzl's.Quite.

But there are, to use your example, perfectly clear laws against violence. Even so, there are specific laws, regulations, shelters*, police officers, councillors to protect women from violence in the private sphere. Government intrusion, continental legal diarhorrea - or a much needed apparatus to protect women?


*Shelters which are, although Frenchmen are rather more, shall we euphemistically say, 'Latin' than Brits, are not overwhelmingly filled with Frenchwomen.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Protecting personal freedom of course, if they were locked up against their will.

But as in the case with forcing women to wear burqas, such actions already are illegal. The equivalent to banning burqas in your example would be banning basements so there's no more Joseph Fritzl's.

There are many cases where a general law does not suffice however. For example, instead of having a "it's illegal to drive unsafely" law, we have lots of little laws about speeding and having your lights functioning.

[Myrddraal]

Tangent ftao Sasaki: Is that actually true? I'm not very well informed here, but aren't most of those little rules just part of the highway code, whereas the actual offense which you get done for is simply called 'dangerous driving'? The highway code clarifies what constitutes 'dangerous driving'.

[Brenus]

“ Muslim husbands will force their wives to wear a burqa” Well done, you reverse the case. The truth is that sometime some wives will wear burqua on their own free will…

Well, sometimes women like to be beaten.
I can show in front of camera some women who in fact did like to be raped.
And if fact, most of the women don’t want to vote.
Some women like to be enchained, and whipped, and to kneel in front of their husband. And to wear chains...
I am sure I can find some. So it should be allowed to do so in the streets.

Well, and you know what, it is the free will to teenagers to prostitute themselves in Asia… And nobody force kids to go to work in factories in Pakistan or China. The 15 years old soldiers are quite good with the idea. You don’t want to infringe their right to work and to feed their families.

Are WE here to protect their right to be beaten, exploited, and humiliated? Well, some of them LOVE it.

“We are not ruled by the tyranny of the majority, but of utmost respect for minority rights.”
I am for the protection of minorities, but the minorities I choose are the ones forced to wear this mobile jail.
I am to protect the weakest against the strong; I am the voice of the one without voice.
The women who want to wear the burqua are listened by you, but you prefer to keep good conscience and the appearance of rightness in covering up the fact that you de facto encourage and protect oppression.

For the pro-burqua/right of oppression can give an example of what kind of damage the ban will do, except in pushing theoretical “they won’t be able to go in the streets”.
I heard so many times this kind of thinks… How they will feed their family if the kids don’t work? The right to work, the right to sell your body, the right of property, all kind of right by themselves perfectly understandable used and abused to cover up exploitation and misery…

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

[HoreTore]

Rubbish, you should look it up in a dictionary. That there is a perceived "utmost respect for minority rights" is another aspect of the society/constitution.

Yes, because a dictionary is where you'll find political definitions. :dizzy2:


The women who want to wear the burqua are listened by you, but you prefer to keep good conscience and the appearance of rightness in covering up the fact that you de facto encourage and protect oppression.

Utter nonsense, Brenus. How does it make me in favour of the burqa just because I don't want to ban clothing?

The burqa is like the housewife to me. And we didn't solve the housewife problem by outlawing the housewife, yet we were still able to make women work. We should be able to make women wear what they want without making it law.

[Viking]

Yes, because a dictionary is where you'll find political definitions. :dizzy2:

Dictionaries can't define "democracy", but you can? Now I'm curious.

[Megas Methuselah]

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

Wooooh! Hore, you'll never realize how much I luv ya, brotha!

[Furunculus]

This thread is a testament to just how real they are, just look at where the members on each side of the divide hail from. Never mind the racial element the term 'Anglo-Saxon' implies - but you have to admit that given the different concepts of freedom that have emerged in different countries, they still have an impact on the mindset of their inhabitants today.
*hums to himself; "we are all different.........."*

[HoreTore]

Dictionaries can't define "democracy", but you can? Now I'm curious.

What democracy is cannot be described in a short sentence, and that's all you get in a dictionary.

And no, I did not attempt to write a definite defintion of what a democracy is, respect for minority is just part of what makes up our system of governance that we call "democracy".

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Tangent ftao Sasaki: Is that actually true? I'm not very well informed here, but aren't most of those little rules just part of the highway code, whereas the actual offense which you get done for is simply called 'dangerous driving'? The highway code clarifies what constitutes 'dangerous driving'.


I'm not a lawyer :shrug:

I know in montana they used to have a no speed limit, "it's illegal to drive at an unsafe speed" law, that they had to get rid of when people took them to court claiming they hadn't been driving at an unsafe speed.

The purpose of the law is to prevent unsafe driving it's true, but that's so subjective as to be unenforceable. So you make the things that go with it, that are more measurable and provable, illegal. And that's precisely what the Burka law does.

[HoreTore]

I'm not a lawyer :shrug:

I know in montana they used to have a no speed limit, "it's illegal to drive at an unsafe speed" law, that they had to get rid of when people took them to court claiming they hadn't been driving at an unsafe speed.

The purpose of the law is to prevent unsafe driving it's true, but that's so subjective as to be unenforceable. So you make the things that go with it, that are more measurable and provable, illegal. And that's precisely what the Burka law does.

I can understand why I have to limit my speed, as I will be a danger to others.

I do not, however, see why, in a free democracy, I have to identify myself to others, why I should not be allowed to do things in private.

[rvg]

Indeed. You are free to kill yourself, but DONTCHA DARE cover your face.

[HoreTore]

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....

[rvg]

Hypocrisy, plain and simple.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I can't wrap my mind around how the people arguing for a free democracy, freedom of speech, and freedom of expression through clothing then go on to support a custom that denies those muslim women those freedoms.

It is a choice between banning one item of clothing, and de facto banning a million items of clothing.

[HoreTore]

I can't wrap my mind around how the people arguing for a free democracy, freedom of speech, and freedom of expression through clothing then go on to support a custom that denies those muslim women those freedoms.

Uhm.....

Why on earth do you believe that those of us who do not wish to ban everything we don't like support the burqa...?

[rvg]

Uhm.....

Why on earth do you believe that those of us who do not wish to ban everything we don't like support the burqa...?

There's a stark difference between supporting the burqa and not wishing to ban the burka.

[Viking]

What democracy is cannot be described in a short sentence, and that's all you get in a dictionary.

And no, I did not attempt to write a definite defintion of what a democracy is, respect for minority is just part of what makes up our system of governance that we call "democracy".

No, that's not a part of what we call democracy; democracy is just a part of the governance. There is nothing undemocratic banning burkas, minarets, sandals or whatever.


I can't wrap my mind around how the people arguing for a free democracy, freedom of speech, and freedom of expression through clothing then go on to support a custom that denies those muslim women those freedoms.

It is a choice between banning one item of clothing, and de facto banning a million items of clothing.

For one thing, it is an attempt to cure the symptoms rather than the actual illness. Another one is that it is something that the government should not place bans on in the principle.

[HoreTore]

No, that's not a part of what we call democracy; democracy is just a part of the governance. There is nothing undemocratic banning burkas, minarets, sandals or whatever.

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.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

There's a stark difference between supporting the burqa and not wishing to ban the burka.

Arguing against a ban is supporting the thing itself of course, though obviously in a different way than arguing it is a good thing. But this is not relevant.


For one thing, it is an attempt to cure the symptoms rather than the actual illness. Another one is that it is something that the government should not place bans on in the principle.

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?

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.

[HoreTore]

Arguing against a ban is supporting the thing itself

Nonsense.

I'm against executing thieves. Does that mean I support theft?:dizzy2:

[rvg]

In America this ban would in all likelihood be struck down as unconstitutional. Thus, it might reflect the will of the people but still be undemocratic since it contradicts the law of the land.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Nonsense.

I'm against executing thieves. Does that mean I support theft?:dizzy2:

I doesn't mean that you like theft, which is one use of "support". But a bridge also has supports. You don't say that the columns "like" the bridge. So you can support something without approving of it. It has a "give aid to, assist" meaning too it.

Of course, executing thieves doesn't do anything to stop crime so it doesn't work as an example. If you were against prosecuting thieves, don't you think you'd be supporting theft?