Immigration Ban the burka?

[Sile]

Traumatizing young children is clearly not a reasonable expectation for almost any form of dress, burka included. Ban clown noses too because some children are scared of them? Burka opponents are really reaching now.

Considering children at that age do not "fake" a reason and cannot be manipulated, i suspect the mother is looking at the issue in the long term. She will need to deal with an issue for years upon years. She is covering herself................I would do the same.

As we see many/all TV shows or news programs show that cowboys with face coverings are bandits, or terrorists, or bank robbers all wearing some form of mask with only the eyes showing, clearly this is viewed by the very young as BAD people, we cannot escape this...........they do not see this as some "angelic", "fairy" goodness!
Clearly also children see women that show ALL their face as a trusted, friendly, kind person ( men are seen in a different light)......................don't you agree?.................have you never seen any survey like this where you live?

 

[sparkey]

Most importantly, the health, safety, educational, professional, and economic rights of women cannot be sacrificed to the neurosis or psychosis of damaged men who can control neither their thoughts nor their actions.

This is true, but doesn't connect directly to the question presented by this thread. Abuse of women should be banned. Forcing women to wear burkas is a type of abuse of women. But forcing women to wear burkas is only a subset of wearing burkas so it doesn't follow that wearing burkas should be banned.

Ed. After listening to all of this, I have changed my mind ...the wearing of the burka should be banned in all western countries as a human rights violation. Anything other than a simple head scarf should be absolutely prohibited, and even then, safety concerns would limit where it can be worn.

Way to address "human rights" by removing rights and adding none.

Furthermore, any country which enforces it should never be permitted into the European Union, and perhaps all immigrants who hail from countries which practice it and other inhumane and anti-woman practices, like female genital mutilation, should be denied entry even under refugee status. Let them be taken in by countries with similar world views.

Please tell me this is hyperbole. No concern about different ethnic groups within those countries or anything?

 

[sparkey]

Considering children at that age do not "fake" a reason and cannot be manipulated, i suspect the mother is looking at the issue in the long term. She will need to deal with an issue for years upon years. She is covering herself................I would do the same.

As we see many/all TV shows or news programs show that cowboys with face coverings are bandits, or terrorists, or bank robbers all wearing some form of mask with only the eyes showing, clearly this is viewed by the very young as BAD people, we cannot escape this...........they do not see this as some "angelic", "fairy" goodness!
Clearly also children see women that show ALL their face as a trusted, friendly, kind person ( men are seen in a different light)......................don't you agree?.................have you never seen any survey like this where you live?

You're moving the goalposts. Sure, someone who shows more of their face is more likely to be viewed as trustworthy in a western society. That's different than causing trauma, which must be viewed as exceptional, and wouldn't be reasonable to sue for damages.

 

[Sile]

You're moving the goalposts. Sure, someone who shows more of their face is more likely to be viewed as trustworthy in a western society. That's different than causing trauma, which must be viewed as exceptional, and wouldn't be reasonable to sue for damages.

I don't see it as suing for damages, but placing the health authorities on notice ( covering your backside) . It up to them to decide what to do and if it goes pear shaped, then the health authorities ( depending on their decision ) would be liable

 

[Aberdeen]

This is true, but doesn't connect directly to the question presented by this thread. Abuse of women should be banned. Forcing women to wear burkas is a type of abuse of women. But forcing women to wear burkas is only a subset of wearing burkas so it doesn't follow that wearing burkas should be banned.



Way to address "human rights" by removing rights and adding none.



Please tell me this is hyperbole. No concern about different ethnic groups within those countries or anything?

So you want to defend the right of moslem women living in the west to be able to choose between wearing a burka or facing violence from male relatives, and you don't think we should interfere with that right? Okaaay. (backs away slowly from the crazy person)

 

[sparkey]

So you want to defend the right of moslem women living in the west to be able to choose between wearing a burka or facing violence from male relatives, and you don't think we should interfere with that right? Okaaay. (backs away slowly from the crazy person)

That's exactly the opposite of what I said, which was: "Forcing women to wear burkas is a type of abuse of women," and "Abuse of women should be banned."

You may want to address this point instead: "But forcing women to wear burkas is only a subset of wearing burkas so it doesn't follow that wearing burkas should be banned."

 

[Aberdeen]

That's exactly the opposite of what I said, which was: "Forcing women to wear burkas is a type of abuse of women," and "Abuse of women should be banned."

You may want to address this point instead: "But forcing women to wear burkas is only a subset of wearing burkas so it doesn't follow that wearing burkas should be banned."

In other words, you're assuming wearing a burka is something that most of these women do voluntarily, and that they do have sufficient personal independence to make that choice or to make a different choice. Why would you assume that? Why?

 

[sparkey]

In other words, you're assuming wearing a burka is something that most of these women do voluntarily, and that they do have sufficient personal independence to make that choice or to make a different choice. Why would you assume that? Why?

I'm making no such assumption. It seems rather an assumption on your part that every burka wearer is being forced to do so. Whereas supporting a ban on burkas necessitates demonstrating that burka wearers are effectively all being forced to do so in order to justify it, the ratio of current forced vs. voluntary burka wearing in western countries does not affect my logic. Both numbers are so small that they wouldn't be worth much in the way of statistics, anyway. That also means that dealing with the issue on a case-by-case basis is something that any western country should have the resources to do.

That's what the west should stand for, in my opinion: the rights of individuals to believe what they choose, and pursue what they will, as long as it doesn't restrict the rights of others. Burka ban supporters have similar goals, hoping that a ban on burkas will allow these women greater freedom, but that would really only apply in certain cases, which can be dealt with without causing less freedom in other cases.

 

[Diocletian]

No, it is they who only see women as sexual objects,

It's too naive to say that. You don't seem to have even a little grasp of evoulutionary psychology. There's nothing wrong with seeing women as sexual objects, that's a natural way for men to find motivation in reproduction. The wrong part is treating women as sexual objects. You should have been able to tell the difference.

If this is a true representation of their mindset, then they are suffering from a psycho sexual disorder for which they need psychological or perhaps psychiatric intervention. Perhaps there is something in the culture which has arrested the sexual development of these men. They should be concentrating on their studies, their work, the care and protection of their families, and the well-being and future of their country, not lost in a perpetual adolescent sexual reverie.

It has a lot to do with the culture. Sexuality is considered as a shameful and disgraceful phenomenon in public. Children are not educated by their parents or the society about sexuality, because it is almost a taboo to speak with your parents about sex. That makes them sexually insecure. Since the concept of sexuality is considered shameful, and fornication is morally wrong, most people fear the public opinion about themselves even if they didn't believe in such cultural codes. They do not believe a better world could be built with a carefree attitude towards these issues.

Is there sometimes a sexual element to some degree in relationships between men and women when they are interacting on a social or even professional level? I would say yes, in certain, although absolutely not all situations, and it varies by individual.

For instance, when the boss of a muslim man is a beautiful, charming lady. As natural conditions insist, the lady as an input, gets received by the man's brain and causes a series of neurochemical reactions and stimulates the neurons in the brain. If all of these porcesses led the man to think how beautiful the lady is, this means the lady meets the aesthetical expectations of the man in some way or another. So, there occurs this possibility of our guy being sexually attracted to his boss. The second the man thinks of the woman in a sexual context, he commits sin according to Islam. That's why these oppressive veiling practices have developed among the muslim societies, as one cannot hide his ideas from himself.

Most importantly, the health, safety, educational, professional, and economic rights of women cannot be sacrificed to the neurosis or psychosis of damaged men who can control neither their thoughts nor their actions.

True.

Ed. After listening to all of this, I have changed my mind ...the wearing of the burka should be banned in all western countries as a human rights violation.

Agreed.

Anything other than a simple head scarf should be absolutely prohibited, and even then, safety concerns would limit where it can be worn. Furthermore, any country which enforces it should never be permitted into the European Union, and perhaps all immigrants who hail from countries which practice it and other inhumane and anti-woman practices, like female genital mutilation, should be denied entry even under refugee status. Let them be taken in by countries with similar world views.

I don't think there is any country demanding accession from EU that does what you described. I'm not sure why you brought this up, though. If you are referring to Turkey in that sense, even a little head scarf was banned in public institutions until a few years ago. According to a basic principle that people should have the freedom to wear whatever they want, lobbyist activities of the liberals made the government remove the ban. What they don't understand is that veiling is a practice of oppression. So, it's really not the freedom of wearing whatever one wants, but the freedom of receiving oppression.

 

[LeBrok]

What they don't understand is that veiling is a practice of oppression. So, it's really not the freedom of wearing whatever one wants, but the freedom of receiving oppression.

Very elegant logic. Thank you.

 

[Angela]

It's too naive to say that. You don't seem to have even a little grasp of evoulutionary psychology. There's nothing wrong with seeing women as sexual objects, that's a natural way for men to find motivation in reproduction. The wrong part is treating women as sexual objects. You should have been able to tell the difference.



It has a lot to do with the culture. Sexuality is considered as a shameful and disgraceful phenomenon in public. Children are not educated by their parents or the society about sexuality, because it is almost a taboo to speak with your parents about sex. That makes them sexually insecure. Since the concept of sexuality is considered shameful, and fornication is morally wrong, most people fear the public opinion about themselves even if they didn't believe in such cultural codes. They do not believe a better world could be built with a carefree attitude towards these issues.



For instance, when the boss of a muslim man is a beautiful, charming lady. As natural conditions insist, the lady as an input, gets received by the man's brain and causes a series of neurochemical reactions and stimulates the neurons in the brain. If all of these porcesses led the man to think how beautiful the lady is, this means the lady meets the aesthetical expectations of the man in some way or another. So, there occurs this possibility of our guy being sexually attracted to his boss. The second the man thinks of the woman in a sexual context, he commits sin according to Islam. That's why these oppressive veiling practices have developed among the muslim societies, as one cannot hide his ideas from himself.



True.



Agreed.



I don't think there is any country demanding accession from EU that does what you described. I'm not sure why you brought this up, though. If you are referring to Turkey in that sense, even a little head scarf was banned in public institutions until a few years ago. According to a basic principle that people should have the freedom to wear whatever they want, lobbyist activities of the liberals made the government remove the ban. What they don't understand is that veiling is a practice of oppression. So, it's really not the freedom of wearing whatever one wants, but the freedom of receiving oppression.

If you go over my post, I think you will see that I said that the problem is when men see women "only" as sexual objects, and not, by implication, as human beings like themselves, with other things to offer to society.

Yes, I was talking about Turkey. I have been reading some things that indicate that there is a swing toward Islamist fundamentalism in that country. Were that to happen, I would indeed oppose their entrance into the EU. I am glad to hear that this is not the case.

As to your posts in general, I appreciate the rationality and thoughtfulness of your responses.

Ed. You may not be aware of it, but "lusting in the heart" is also considered a sin in the west, as one of our Presidents articulated. For Catholics, I think that would come under the category of "venial" sins. Regardless, we don't punish the people who arouse that lust by locking them away.

 

[Aberdeen]

I'm making no such assumption. It seems rather an assumption on your part that every burka wearer is being forced to do so. Whereas supporting a ban on burkas necessitates demonstrating that burka wearers are effectively all being forced to do so in order to justify it, the ratio of current forced vs. voluntary burka wearing in western countries does not affect my logic. Both numbers are so small that they wouldn't be worth much in the way of statistics, anyway. That also means that dealing with the issue on a case-by-case basis is something that any western country should have the resources to do.

That's what the west should stand for, in my opinion: the rights of individuals to believe what they choose, and pursue what they will, as long as it doesn't restrict the rights of others. Burka ban supporters have similar goals, hoping that a ban on burkas will allow these women greater freedom, but that would really only apply in certain cases, which can be dealt with without causing less freedom in other cases.

So you're saying, I think, that if a moslem woman living in a moslem ghetto in some western country is told "you can choose to wear the burka or you can choose to be an apostate", she has the capacity to make either choice of her own free will. Okaay. That's a libertarian perception of how free will works, I guess.

What I think liberal democracy should stand for is the humanistic ideal of what it means to be a free citizen, and that doesn't mean that everyone has unlimited free dumbs. I think that both Aristotle and Eisenhower would have agreed that the state is entitled to have certain expectations of its citizens if we want to retain certain cherished freedoms, such as having a population that's able to govern itself. Allowing extremist behaviour or failing to have public education of the young threatens western ideals, IMO. I also think it's important to set a good example for the young by not turning women into walking tents, for example.

 

[Sile]

If moslem men cannot contain their urges like other men in society, then some form of drug needs to be invented for them.

why do women need to suffer this form of " imprisonment "from society.

 

[Diocletian]

If you go over my post, I think you will see that I said that the problem is when men see women "only" as sexual objects, and not, by implication, as human beings like themselves, with other things to offer to society.

Yeah, sorry. I missed out that part.

Yes, I was talking about Turkey. I have been reading some things that indicate that there is a swing toward Islamist fundamentalism in that country. Were that to happen, I would indeed oppose their entrance into the EU. I am glad to hear that this is not the case.

What you've been reading is true. The government is fundamentally Islamist, so their removing the ban makes perfect sense. I oppose the accession of Turkey into the EU, too, under the circumstances.

As to your posts in general, I appreciate the rationality and thoughtfulness of your responses.

Ed. You may not be aware of it, but "lusting in the heart" is also considered a sin in the west, as one of our Presidents articulated. For Catholics, I think that would come under the category of "venial" sins. Regardless, we don't punish the people who arouse that lust by locking them away.

I guess the main reason that conservative/religious/fundamentalist muslims live in the medieval standards is that, there did not occur a Renaissance of a muslim kind.

 

[sparkey]

So you're saying, I think, that if a moslem woman living in a moslem ghetto in some western country is told "you can choose to wear the burka or you can choose to be an apostate", she has the capacity to make either choice of her own free will. Okaay. That's a libertarian perception of how free will works, I guess.

Now you're talking about the specifics of a particular case, which is exactly what I was arguing we should be talking about. But your case needs a few more specifics to clarify it--namely, what is behind the threat of apostasy? If there's an implicit threat of violence, then of course the woman should have recourse. What the law would then be addressing is not what the woman chooses to wear but the threat of violence. But countries already have laws against threats of violence. So what is the burka ban for?!

So now that we're taking things on a case-by-case basis as I was arguing we should, how would you deal with this case?: Suppose a single woman, living alone in your neighborhood, decides to covert to conservative Islam, and furthermore decides that wearing a burka is an appropriate expression of her newfound faith. She begins to wear a burka in public. What would you want the authorities to do? Arrest her? Confiscate her clothing?

 

[LeBrok]

Now you're talking about the specifics of a particular case, which is exactly what I was arguing we should be talking about. But your case needs a few more specifics to clarify it--namely, what is behind the threat of apostasy? If there's an implicit threat of violence, then of course the woman should have recourse. What the law would then be addressing is not what the woman chooses to wear but the threat of violence. But countries already have laws against threats of violence. So what is the burka ban for?!

Many will take this abuse and quietly suffer for the good of family relationship, community and religion. First we have to break this tradition by legislation. When it is gone and its influence is no more, I'm ok with giving people a true choice in couple of generations.

So now that we're taking things on a case-by-case basis as I was arguing we should, how would you deal with this case?: Suppose a single woman, living alone in your neighborhood, decides to covert to conservative Islam, and furthermore decides that wearing a burka is an appropriate expression of her newfound faith. She begins to wear a burka in public. What would you want the authorities to do? Arrest her? Confiscate her clothing?

Yes. And for the same reason we don't allow voluntary slavery, just for the heck of a lifestyle. We want to get rid of it once and forever. Do you agree that purpose of this clothing is to protect man's property?

To convince us that to wear burka is a true women choice, you just need to present one case (of 3.5 billion women on earth) choosing to wear it on daily bases, granted she is non muslim nor covers face or body disfigurement.

 

[Aberdeen]

If moslem men cannot contain their urges like other men in society, then some form of drug needs to be invented for them.

why do women need to suffer this form of " imprisonment "from society.

I'm shocked to find myself agreeing with you about anything, Sile, but in this case you have explained the issue very well.

 

[Aberdeen]

Now you're talking about the specifics of a particular case, which is exactly what I was arguing we should be talking about. But your case needs a few more specifics to clarify it--namely, what is behind the threat of apostasy? If there's an implicit threat of violence, then of course the woman should have recourse. What the law would then be addressing is not what the woman chooses to wear but the threat of violence. But countries already have laws against threats of violence. So what is the burka ban for?!

So now that we're taking things on a case-by-case basis as I was arguing we should, how would you deal with this case?: Suppose a single woman, living alone in your neighborhood, decides to covert to conservative Islam, and furthermore decides that wearing a burka is an appropriate expression of her newfound faith. She begins to wear a burka in public. What would you want the authorities to do? Arrest her? Confiscate her clothing?

What I'm talking about is the need for a general law, because our governments don't in fact have the resources to treat each case separately, and because it's never helpful, IMO, to be naïve about how people make decisions in the context of the family and society they live in. For example, if a young woman growing up in a muslim neighbourhood in a distant suburb of Paris decided to ignore whatever clothing rules were being imposed by her family or her neighbours, she would likely be the victim of domestic violence at home or sexual violence on the street, so most young women never risk challenging such rules. That doesn't mean they're exercising free will. In most cases involving moslems in western countries, those rules don't yet require the wearing of burkas, but it does happen in some cases.

If a woman who grows up in a more liberal and typically western environment decides she wants to wear a burka, she can choose to move to Saudi Arabia and become human chattel, but if a young woman growing up in Saudi Arabia decides she wants a more western lifestyle, she doesn't have the option of leaving the country without her father's permission. We should not allow islamists to build colonies in the west where those who refuse to accept an abusive way of life are at risk.

 

[Eldritch]

In Europe yes, our rules after all.

In their country they can do as they please, sovereignity.

 

[sparkey]

Many will take this abuse and quietly suffer for the good of family relationship, community and religion. First we have to break this tradition by legislation. When it is gone and its influence is no more, I'm ok with giving people a true choice in couple of generations.

"Many" are being forced to wear burkas in the West? I didn't realize it was such an epidemic in Canada!

Seriously, burkas are worn at rates of about 10% in Saudi Arabia, and nearly 0% everywhere else. They are not a particularly influential tradition. Maybe if you include niqabs, you'd have a point, but even then we're mostly just talking about Saudis, who are one of the least common Muslim immigrant groups in the West. North Africans wear burkas and niqabs at rates in the single digits put together.

Listen, I can understand the concern that often, women will not come to the authorities, even when they ought to be able to. This is a problem with many crimes, plenty of them more atrocious than the burka. So it's a question of enforcement. But think about how enforcement may proceed with and without a burka ban. Wearing a burka in public in the West basically shouts "Look at me! My male relatives might be abusive!" Without a ban, wearing a burka won't immediately prompt an arrest, but it could prompt neighbors being more watchful, and other signs of abuse to be reported. On the other hand, with a ban, women who would otherwise be forced to wear a burka could either wear similar, but less suspicious, clothing, or worse and perhaps more likely, they could be prevented from going into public at all. Both cases mean that a ban is less likely to target the underlying abuse.

Yes. And for the same reason we don't allow voluntary slavery, just for the heck of a lifestyle. We want to get rid of it once and forever. Do you agree that purpose of this clothing is to protect man's property?

I don't believe that the purpose is exclusively to "protect man's property" any more than any modest dress is, although I'll grant you that it has been justified that way, and women can be abused with that justification in mind. That's what I'm hoping to prevent as well. I've yet to see anything so far that would convince me that a burka ban is helpful toward that end.

To convince us that to wear burka is a true women choice, you just need to present one case (of 3.5 billion women on earth) choosing to wear it on daily bases, granted she is non muslim nor covers face or body disfigurement.

Why would I need to present such an absurdly specific and unusual case (non-Muslim burka wearing, every day???) to justify not taking away a right? Taking away rights should be subject to intense scrutiny in the West, and all of the burden of proof should be on those who propose such laws! Rather, the proof is on you to establish either that burkas are necessarily forced, and therefore wearing them isn't a right at all (hint: this won't be possible), or you need to show that an underlying problem is so pervasive, that taking away the right is a necessary shortcut to address it (hint: it's not pervasive in the West, so this won't be possible either).