Immigration Ban the burka?

[sparkey]

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.

Such a usually reasonable forum, now agreeing that authorities should force a drug on men of a certain religion. :useless:

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.

What is with the epidemic of burka wearing in Canada, that now your courts are overloaded with these cases?!

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.

OK, and now you're saying that burkas are not an epidemic, but only "some cases." ...What was your point again?

See my last response to LeBrok for my opinion of how much a burka ban would help a domestic violence victim. As a general principle, you have to expect that making something illegal will make its underlying problems less public, and in fact more difficult to detect.

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.

This doesn't address the question of what you would have the authorities do to a free, independent Muslim convert who chooses to start wearing a burka in public. Unless you're saying that she would be given an ultimatum to have it confiscated, or be exiled to Saudi Arabia?

 

[LeBrok]

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

Seriously, burkas are wore 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.

What is your cutting point for action, 20%? Or when Islamic State is proclaimed in Canada and everyone needs to wear it?

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.

I'm sure you can imagine that Burka or any full face covering is a perfect cover for signs of abuse like bruises or cuts on woman's face. It should go even if for one reason to limit assortment of torture tools for abuser man.

I don't believe that the purpose is exclusively to "protect man's property" and 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.

Not exclusive, but main and original.

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?

To demonstrate on real life example that free women make such insane free will choice as covering full face in public places. Not having even one example out of few billion momen, makes wearing such face covering extremely unnatural and in conflict with women's natural (free will) choices.
On other hand, if we only see this phenomenon in conservative muslim families, doesn't it create in your head a doubt, that perhaps they don't have much of a choice, that their choice is very compromised by tradition, honor and man power?

Here is a clearer example of "free choice" , the "choice" of whipping in Mursi tribe. Young women joyfully volunteer and beg men to be whipped, for honor and future prosperity.

Should it be left to free will of these women when they come to live in the West but want to continue their ancient tradition?

 

[sparkey]

What is your cutting point for action, 20%? Or when Islamic State is proclaimed in Canada and everyone needs to wear it?

There has to be a convincing case to be made that government resources cannot handle it on a case-by-case basis. That's it. But western governments are equipped to handle much more common abuse cases, like date rape. So we know that forced burka wearing would need to be more common than date rape, at least. It's not close to that now.

I'm sure you can imagine that Burka or any full face covering is a perfect cover for signs of abuse like bruises or cuts on woman's face. It should go even if for one reason to limit assortment of torture tools for abuser man.

Another thing I want to avoid is assuming that a man is a physical abuser based on what his wife chooses to wear. Really, it should just prompt neighbors to keep an eye out for abuse. Besides, this point doesn't negate my point that an abused Muslim woman, absent the ability to wear a burka or niqab, is likely to be forced to stay home. This isn't necessarily better. People who feel targeted by a law are more likely to hide.

Not exclusive, but main and original.

"Exclusive" is what matters when we're talking about a ban on something that's uncommon.

To demonstrate on real life example that free women make such insane free will choice as covering full face in public places. Not having even one example out of few billion momen, makes wearing such face covering extremely unnatural and in conflict with women's natural (free will) choices.
On other hand, if we only see this phenomenon in conservative muslim families, doesn't it create in your head a doubt, that perhaps they don't have much of a choice, that their choice is very compromised by tradition, honor and man power?

You're basically arguing that if something is based on religious tradition, then it's free game for being banned. I'm not going to go down that road, sorry. It's absurd to suggest that choosing to believe a religion and practice its traditions cannot be a free choice.

Here is a clearer example of "free choice" , the "choice" of whipping in Mursi tribe. Young women joyfully volunteer and beg men to be whipped, for honor and future prosperity.

Should it be left to free will of these women when they come to live in the West but want to continue their ancient tradition?

Again, it depends on the degree to which they can opt out. There's no threat to them if they choose to opt out, is there? If not, then this is less ethically problematic than traditions that cannot be opted out of, like the Jewish tradition of circumcision.

 

[Angela]

With all due respect, neither Canada nor California is the world. Issues which may seem trivial to residents of those areas are not trivial in the Middle East, and nor are they trivial in Europe, which is home to very large, unassimilated, largely uneducated, fundamentalist, ultra-conservative, and increasingly Wahabi oriented and Islamist leaning populations. They are populations which in some countries form a voting block, and an increasingly large one, which has already, as just one example, had a major impact on the foreign policies of countries like France. I think the populace might be excused for a little trepidation about how future legislation might change the very culture of these countries.

European governments and societies have to deal with honor killings, female genital mutilation, the marriage of underage girls, and yes, the enforcement of the burka or at least the adoption of heavy veiling. There are many neighborhoods of European cities where a western dressed woman is subject to verbal and sometimes physical abuse.

Concern about these issues is not a matter for trivialization, in my opinion.

Perhaps it would also be helpful if we review briefly the issue of "religious" rights in the U.S. It's enshrined in constitutional law that such rights are not absolute. Amish children must go to school. Christian Scientist parents cannot deny medical treatment for their children. In many jurisdictions, Santeria practices are outlawed because of the cruelty to chickens.

So, I don't think it would be much of a stretch to say that laws requiring Islamist parents to send their girl children to school are constitutional. Or that laws making the marriage of a twelve year old girl illegal are constitutional. Given the health implications of wearing a burka and the restrictions it places on movement, on participation in physical education courses etc. is it a stretch to predict that restrictions on parents placing their underage girls in burkas would also be upheld? There's always the even more obvious example of female genital mutilation, which has no known medical or psychological benefits, and which, at least in its more extreme forms, leads to life long pain, infections, cysts, difficulty and danger in giving birth, as well, of course, as the inability to experience sexual pleasure, which of course is the point of the whole procedure.

So far I would think that most people could agree..

Now, let's turn to the situation where an 18 year old woman who perhaps wishes to marry an Islamist man chooses to don the burka, or in the much more extreme case, chooses to undergo one of these forms of female circumcision.

I take it that some would affirm that any such restrictions should be and would be unconstitutional?

I'm not so sure about that. The Supreme Court manages to find and define "human" rights in many culture specific contexts that were never addressed specifically in the Constitution. The famous, or infamous, depending on your point of view, finding of a "right to privacy" is only one such example. I wouldn't find it at all surprising were the Court to rule that a religious or cultural practice which severely impedes the functioning of women and which represents an attempt to marginalize them and exclude them from society is a violation of a woman's "human" rights.

However, I think such restrictions could very easily pass constitutional muster on much narrower grounds, which is always the Court's preference. Governments have always been given the right either under concerns for public health or security to restrict certain practices. Just to address the security issues, I think a very good argument could be made that a concern for pubic order and security would mandate that people don't enter public buildings like Courts, or even routinely walk around the streets, for example, completely covered in a tent, or even so heavily veiled that they are unrecognizable. Before you ask, I think an exception could be made for Halloween.

Looking at it from a health perspective, I certainly think many of these practices could be prohibited.

Ed. Oh, and who precisely is advocating that a certain religion be enforced on people...other, of course, than certain Muslims?

I must say that I find it amusing to be living in a country where attempts have been made, or legislation has at least been discussed, to prohibit smoking in one's own home, or to prevent people from buying and consuming super size sodas, but when hypothetical legislation to prohibit these cruel anti-woman practices is discussed, it raises howls of protest.

 

[LeBrok]

You're basically arguing that if something is based on religious tradition, then it's free game for being banned. I'm not going to go down that road, sorry. It's absurd to suggest that choosing to believe a religion and practice its traditions cannot be a free choice.

Actually this is absurd to suggest that people chose their religion based on free choice. What choice does a child have, raised by religious family, to opt out from religious education, participating in religious ceremonies or daily prayers? From all available religions and denominations, most people "chose" to believe in religion of their parents. Is it a logical choice or "programing", emotional attachment, following leaders and role models?

The only testable free choices in selection of religion are when person chooses a religion not affiliated with person's upbringing, or chooses not to believe at all.

Again, it depends on the degree to which they can opt out. There's no threat to them if they choose to opt out, is there?

Of course there is, in form of social alienation of dishonoured person, not finding a husband for being dishonored, expulsion from a village or even death. I'm not sure what are the consequences in this particular tribe but we can draw lessons from cases of honor killings for not following traditions and dishonoring family among some Muslims. The consequences are so serious that it baffles me why you took them out of the equation?!

Even slaves had a choice not to go to work every morning. I hope you remember what were the consequences of such choice and exercise of free will. Do you think slavery shouldn't be abolished and left to a choice of individuals?


I know your position is strictly philosophical and you stand on guard of defending free will of people, at all the cost. That blinds you to all the real life examples I'm putting here on the table pointing to sever limitation of free choices, and in discussed cases being forced choices (pardon the oxymoron), be it by physical force, honor or scare of consequences. I'm afraid we need to ruin your romantic vision of human free will.

 

[sparkey]

Now, let's turn to the situation where an 18 year old woman who perhaps wishes to marry an Islamist man chooses to, in your example, don the burka, or in the much more extreme case, chooses to undergo one of these forms of female circumcision.

I take it that some would affirm that any such restrictions should be and would be unconstitutional?

USA constitutionality is a tertiary concern to me in this debate. But for what it's worth, I believe that rights are most practically defined to extend up to the point in which they avoid violation of other rights, and that goes for freedom of religion as well.

However, I think such restrictions could very easily pass constitutional muster on much narrower grounds, which is always the Court's preference. Governments have always been given the right either under concerns for public health or security to restrict certain practices. Just to address the security issues, I think a very good argument could be made that a concern for pubic order and security would mandate that people don't enter public buildings like Courts, or even routinely walk around the streets, for example, completely covered in a tent, or even so heavily veiled that they are unrecognizable. Before you ask, I think an exception could be made for Halloween.

"Burkas are banned in court" or "burkas are banned in public schools" are different than "burkas are banned" and are more likely to pass constitutional muster. But let's be honest, whether or not any of these are deemed as constitutional by the US Supreme Court has more to do with the politics of the members of the courts than what the constitution says.

Looking at it from a health perspective, I certainly think many of these practices could be prohibited.

That would just be an excuse, and I would hope that the courts would recognize that.

I must say that I find it amusing to be living in a country where attempts have been made, or legislation has at least been discussed, to prohibit smoking in one's own home, or to prevent people from buying and consuming super size sodas, but when hypothetical legislation to prohibit these cruel anti-woman practices is discussed, it raises howls of protest.

I've never found any consistency in American liberal or conservative opinions, either. FWIW, I'm against smoking and soda bans (but that isn't the same as them being banned in court and in school... consistency!).

 

[sparkey]

Actually this is absurd to suggest that people chose their religion based on free choice. What choice does a child have, raised by religious family, to opt out from religious education, participating in religious ceremonies or daily prayers? From all available religions and denominations, most people "chose" to believe in religion of their parents. Is it a logical choice or "programing", emotional attachment, following leaders and role models?

The only testable free choices in selection of religion are when person chooses a religion not affiliated with person's upbringing, or chooses not to believe at all.

So nobody at all can choose to be conservative and keep their family's traditions? People consider these sorts of important questions all the time. Of course they can have predispositions. The existence of predispositions doesn't negate people making choices.

I agree with you, though, that conversion is the most obvious example of free choice, which is why I specified a convert in my hypothetical, which you still supported a ban for.

Of course there is, in form of social alienation of dishonoured person, not finding a husband for being dishonored, expulsion from a village or even death. I'm not sure what are the consequences in this particular tribe but we can draw lessons from cases of honor killings for not following traditions and dishonoring family among some Muslims. The consequences are so serious that it baffles me why you took them out of the equation?!

I would hope that there would be support groups for social outcasts. No amount of banning would get rid of social alienation, are you really suggesting that it would?

And death? What makes you think that I'm OK with a threat of death?

Even slaves had a choice not to go to work every morning. I hope you remember what were the consequences of such choice and exercise of free will. Do you think slavery shouldn't be abolished and left to a choice of individuals?

Slavery?! How many times do I need to say that threats of force should be banned? Obviously slavery isn't compatible with my position!

I know your position is strictly philosophical and you stand on guard of defending free will of people, at all the cost. That blinds you to all the real life examples I'm putting here on the table pointing to sever limitation of free choices, and in discussed cases being forced choices (pardon the oxymoron), be it by physical force, honor or scare of consequences. I'm afraid we need to ruin your romantic vision of human free will.

You've misunderstood my position beyond comprehension. I'm the one who has been talking about the practicalities of enforcement of a ban, and the reality of how widespread burkas are in the western world. I've also enthusiastically been supportive of bans on threats of violence. My view of human free will isn't particularly romantic, either. I don't believe that rights exist independently of people, for example, but rather are constructs meant solely to let people operate more effectively in the real world. But that is perhaps a topic for another thread.

 

[Aberdeen]

................




This doesn't address the question of what you would have the authorities do to a free, independent Muslim convert who chooses to start wearing a burka in public. Unless you're saying that she would be given an ultimatum to have it confiscated, or be exiled to Saudi Arabia?

That's exactly what I would have authorities do. I also advocate quarantining those with infectious diseases.

 

[Angela]

\n

Sparkey:"Burkas are banned in court" or "burkas are banned in public schools" are different than "burkas are banned" and are more likely to pass constitutional muster.

Actually, I said burkas could be banned on public streets on security grounds, not just courthouses and public buildings. I don't know what the point of wearing a burka in your own home would be? Even in the most extreme Islamist settings, a woman wouldn't wear one in front of her male relatives, to my knowledge.

Also, although you may not mean to do so, some of your statements could be interpreted as diminishing the consequences to Muslim women of not complying with these strictures. It's not like telling mom and dad you don't want to go to Mass anymore. Muslim girls have been killed in Europe and even in the U.S. in one instance of which I'm aware for being seen talking to boys. Given what we know of the consequences for non-compliance, how on earth can a western society make any judgment as to how much freedom of choice these women have, and their real feelings about the matter? Even in your hypothetical situation of the convert, are you aware of the penalties for apostasy?

I probably shouldn't speak for him, but I think that by bringing up things like whether someone should be allowed to voluntarily offer himself up as a slave, (in the context of your discussion of the hypothetical convert) Le Brok is trying to show that there are certain practices which a society can find are so abhorrent and contrary to human rights that laws can and should be passed to prevent the practices. Again, to use his example, the amendments to the constitution didn't say that no one can force you to be a slave, they said that slavery is prohibited.

Also, I think to focus on the burka is to miss the larger point that it is part of a set of rules and practices which systematically dehumanize and brutalize women.

Furthermore, the context is larger than California. These are real issues in Europe, issues that have to be confronted.

Ed. I just want to emphasize that I do realize that not all Muslims strictly interpret the Koran or accept traditional Sharia Law as it applies to women, or these practices, which may be as much cultural as religious. I'm speaking of a specific subset of believers, not all Muslims.

 

[sparkey]

Actually, I said burkas could be banned on public streets on security grounds, not just courthouses and public buildings. I don't know what the point of wearing a burka in your own home would be? Even in the most extreme Islamist settings, a woman wouldn't wear one in front of her male relatives, to my knowledge.

Exactly, a ban on public streets isn't much different than a ban altogether, and would be less likely to be considered constitutional in the US than a ban in court or in school. There's also the question of enforcing the ban in privately owned places, like shopping malls, or even mosques.

Also, although you may not mean to do so, some of your statements could be interpreted as diminishing the consequences to Muslim women of not complying with these strictures. It's not like telling mom and dad you don't want to go to Mass anymore. Muslim girls have been killed in Europe and even in the U.S. in one instance of which I'm aware for being seen talking to boys. Given what we know of the consequences for non-compliance, how on earth can a western society make any judgment as to how much freedom of choice these women have, and their real feelings about the matter? Even in your hypothetical situation of the convert, are you aware of the penalties for apostasy?

Different communities treat people differently, as you recognize. Many burka wearers (or niqab wearers anyway; burkas are really rare in the west) assert that they are not forced to wear them and would not suffer consequences if they wore hijab instead. I would never downplay serious issues like honor killing, but to imply that honor killings are the usual consequence of a Muslim woman changing from burka to hijab needs much more evidence than you're providing.

Also, I think to focus on the burka is to miss the larger point that it is part of a set of rules and practices which systematically dehumanize and brutalize women.

YES, EXACTLY!!! Let's target the root of the problem and get some volunteer support organizations in there, give some teeth to domestic violence investigations, and give these women an opportunity to have real choices about their lives!

 

[Angela]

Exactly, a ban on public streets isn't much different than a ban altogether, and would be less likely to be considered constitutional in the US than a ban in court or in school. There's also the question of enforcing the ban in privately owned places, like shopping malls, or even mosques.

Sorry, Sparkey, but you keep on changing the parameters of the discussion. I never suggested that the burka be banned in mosques. As to the likelihood of the Supreme Court in certain situations, perhaps during periods of civil unrest or episodes of terrorism, banning the wearing of the burka in public or quasi-public spaces, we are going to have to agree to disagree.

Different communities treat people differently, as you recognize. Many burka wearers (or niqab wearers anyway; burkas are really rare in the west) assert that they are not forced to wear them and would not suffer consequences if they wore hijab instead. I would never downplay serious issues like honor killing, but to imply that honor killings are the usual consequence of a Muslim woman changing from burka to hijab needs much more evidence than you're providing.

Again, you keep changing the parameters of the discussion. Upon reflection, I would not advocate the banning of the hijab, other than if there are trailing pieces, and the woman is around machinery where it could get caught, thereby producing a health hazard. I am talking about the burka. Given that it makes identification impossible, I can absolutely see where in certain situations it would be banned for security reasons. In Israel, for example, where there is one suicide bombing after another, I think permitting it in public places is crazy. If the same thing were going on here, I would personally help to defend bans on the wearing of burkas in public. Even in less extreme circumstances, in our current security environment, do you really think it makes sense to have someone going through airport security without removing it and allowing security personnel to compare the woman's face with the name and picture on her ID and passport as just one example? Honestly, this makes absolutely no sense to me. I could also make a strong argument that it should be curtailed on health grounds. Those are all separate issues from the fact that it is inherently dehumanizing and discriminatory. You may not be aware of it, but lawyers go in armed with multiple lines of attack; you only need to win on one.

YES, EXACTLY!!! Let's target the root of the problem and get some volunteer support organizations in there, give some teeth to domestic violence investigations, and give these women an opportunity to have real choices about their lives!

If you wish to discuss honor killings, child marriage, wife beatings, etc., all of which are permitted by the interpretations of Sharia Law current in many of the teeming slums of Marseilles and Paris and some Italian cities, then I would say that "talk" is not going to convince most men to relinquish the religious and social teachings of what is in some cases a lifetime, nor might it even work with women raised to believe that if they challenge these customs they will be ostracized by their families and face eternal damnation as well. If well meaning people wish to fund such community outreach fine, but what I trust much more is strict laws and strict enforcement of those laws, not the current attitude in many places in Europe, born of fear of mass rioting, that it's best to just let the abuse go on. The only time the police get involved at all is when roaming bands of young Muslims go through other parts of these cities accosting and verbally and sometimes physically assaulting women who do not wear it. I don't need to follow Italian and French news programs to know about it; I've seen it with my own eyes.

Honestly, Sparkey, I mean no offense, but you don't seem to have much of a grasp on the nature and severity of the problem in western European countries with large masses of uneducated, ultra-conservative Muslim fundamentalists. Luckily, we don't have the same issues here, but that doesn't mean they don't exist elsewhere.

We also have very different world views, obviously. In the nice, safe confines of some American communities, people have the luxury of still believing that talk solves all problems. I assure you that in the underbelly even of American society there are a lot of behaviors which cannot be solved by people of good will "talking" to the perpetrators. You're not going to "talk" a pedophile out of his pedophilia...you have to punish the behavior, and if need be, remove him permanently from society. In most cases, the same goes for partner and child abuse. Court mandated therapy works some times, but in many cases if the man isn't punished severely enough to deter the behavior and the woman isn't removed from the situation and in a lot of cases even the community she's going to wind up dead.

 

[sparkey]

Sorry, Sparkey, but you keep on changing the parameters of the discussion. I never suggested that the burka be banned in mosques. As to the likelihood of the Supreme Court in certain situations, perhaps during periods of civil unrest or episodes of terrorism, banning the wearing of the burka in public or quasi-public spaces, we are going to have to agree to disagree.

Is there something wrong with expanding the discussion to nail down exactly what it is that you're proposing?

And don't get me wrong, I have no doubt that the Supreme Court could be perfectly willing to push aside the 1st Amendment based on some contemporary concern.

Again, you keep changing the parameters of the discussion. Upon reflection, I would not advocate the banning of the hijab, other than if there are trailing pieces, and the woman is around machinery where it could get caught, thereby producing a health hazard. I am talking about the burka.

It's not clear how you think I'm "changing the parameters of the discussion" here. I didn't mention banning hijabs. Is it an objection to considering both burkas and niqabs together? I didn't include niqabs because including them would somehow help my argument, I did so because we can't really have a discussion at all if we're limiting ourselves to people who wear true burkas in the West. Besides, when most Westerners think of the burka, they think of a full veil, or niqab, not the unusual netting-over-eye garment that is the burka. Most existing and proposed "burka bans" ban both niqabs and burkas. Studies on the subject often lump them together.

But, sure, if you want, let's talk about nothing but the burka. Let's start by finding some actual statistics that support your arguments. Unfortunately for you, it's genuinely difficult to find any examples at all of women wearing true burkas in the West, so statistics are in short supply. To give you an idea: A 2009 study found that 0.04% of French Muslim women wear niqab or burka (they were grouped together, as usual). That's not a typo, I really mean four hundredths of one percent, about 367 people total per the report. And burkas are the significantly less common of the two garments.

I mean, seriously, not even ISIS is requiring women to wear the burka, they're enforcing niqab wearing.

Given that it makes identification impossible, I can absolutely see where in certain situations it would be banned for security reasons. In Israel, for example, where there is one suicide bombing after another, I think permitting it in public places is crazy. If the same thing were going on here, I would personally help to defend bans on the wearing of burkas in public. Even in less extreme circumstances, in our current security environment, do you really think it makes sense to have someone going through airport security without removing it and allowing security personnel to compare the woman's face with the name and picture on her ID and passport as just one example? Honestly, this makes absolutely no sense to me. I could also make a strong argument that it should be curtailed on health grounds. Those are all separate issues from the fact that it is inherently dehumanizing and discriminatory. You may not be aware of it, but lawyers go in armed with multiple lines of attack; you only need to win on one.

What would make you think that Muslim women who wear burkas would be unwilling to adhere to security measures at airports? I've read multiple places that they're perfectly willing to remove their veils at security checkpoints, although oftentimes they prefer to do so in private and with only women around, if possible. Having both men and women working security checkpoints at airports is already part of standard procedure. And health reasons? It seems that you're just reaching for justification now. (And lawyers are indeed trained to throw whatever they can find against the wall to see what sticks, but I fail to see the significance of that.)

If you wish to discuss honor killings, child marriage, wife beatings, etc., all of which are permitted by the interpretations of Sharia Law current in many of the teeming slums of Marseilles and Paris and some Italian cities, then I would say that "talk" is not going to convince most men to relinquish the religious and social teachings of what is in some cases a lifetime, nor might it even work with women raised to believe that if they challenge these customs they will be ostracized by their families and face eternal damnation as well. If well meaning people wish to fund such community outreach fine, but what I trust much more is strict laws and strict enforcement of those laws, not the current attitude in many places in Europe, born of fear of mass rioting, that it's best to just let the abuse go on.

I'm not sure what makes you think that I just want to talk them out of it, I said that we should "give some teeth to domestic violence investigations." That is precisely "strict laws and strict enforcement of those laws." It's not a dumb, useless, and quite possibly counter-productive burka ban. It's an actual way to address the real problem.

The only time the police get involved at all is when roaming bands of young Muslims go through other parts of these cities accosting and verbally and sometimes physically assaulting women who do not wear it. I don't need to follow Italian and French news programs to know about it; I've seen it with my own eyes.

You've seen "roaming bands of young Muslims" enforcing burka wearing? I'm interested in hearing about it. That said, to support your argument, you'll still need to provide studies, statistics, or at least examples, although anecdotal evidence is always weak.

Honestly, Sparkey, I mean no offense, but you don't seem to have much of a grasp on the nature and severity of the problem in western European countries with large masses of uneducated, ultra-conservative Muslim fundamentalists. Luckily, we don't have the same issues here, but that doesn't mean they don't exist elsewhere.

I haven't argued that any of those things don't exist, I've argued that burka wearing is rare (true) and that a burka ban won't address the problems presented by conservative immigrant Muslim communities (also true). The burden is on you to show otherwise, if you can.

 

[Angela]

Is there something wrong with expanding the discussion to nail down exactly what it is that you're proposing?

And don't get me wrong, I have no doubt that the Supreme Court could be perfectly willing to push aside the 1st Amendment based on some contemporary concern.



It's not clear how you think I'm "changing the parameters of the discussion" here. I didn't mention banning hijabs. Is it an objection to considering both burkas and niqabs together? I didn't include niqabs because including them would somehow help my argument, I did so because we can't really have a discussion at all if we're limiting ourselves to people who wear true burkas in the West. Besides, when most Westerners think of the burka, they think of a full veil, or niqab, not the unusual netting-over-eye garment that is the burka. Most existing and proposed "burka bans" ban both niqabs and burkas. Studies on the subject often lump them together.

But, sure, if you want, let's talk about nothing but the burka. Let's start by finding some actual statistics that support your arguments. Unfortunately for you, it's genuinely difficult to find any examples at all of women wearing true burkas in the West, so statistics are in short supply. To give you an idea: A 2009 study found that 0.04% of French Muslim women wear niqab or burka (they were grouped together, as usual). That's not a typo, I really mean four hundredths of one percent, about 367 people total per the report. And burkas are the significantly less common of the two garments.

I mean, seriously, not even ISIS is requiring women to wear the burka, they're enforcing niqab wearing.



What would make you think that Muslim women who wear burkas would be unwilling to adhere to security measures at airports? I've read multiple places that they're perfectly willing to remove their veils at security checkpoints, although oftentimes they prefer to do so in private and with only women around, if possible. Having both men and women working security checkpoints at airports is already part of standard procedure. And health reasons? It seems that you're just reaching for justification now. (And lawyers are indeed trained to throw whatever they can find against the wall to see what sticks, but I fail to see the significance of that.)



I'm not sure what makes you think that I just want to talk them out of it, I said that we should "give some teeth to domestic violence investigations." That is precisely "strict laws and strict enforcement of those laws." It's not a dumb, useless, and quite possibly counter-productive burka ban. It's an actual way to address the real problem.



You've seen "roaming bands of young Muslims" enforcing burka wearing? I'm interested in hearing about it. That said, to support your argument, you'll still need to provide studies, statistics, or at least examples, although anecdotal evidence is always weak.



I haven't argued that any of those things don't exist, I've argued that burka wearing is rare (true) and that a burka ban won't address the problems presented by conservative immigrant Muslim communities (also true). The burden is on you to show otherwise, if you can.

When people start calling other people's opinions dumb I'm out of the conversation.

 

[sparkey]

When people start calling other people's opinions dumb I'm out of the conversation.

Really, out of all of that, you picked out the word "dumb" and gave up? I don't mind people having harsh words for others' proposals, as long as nothing is ad hominem and everything is justified. I think I'm well within those boundaries. Anyway, it's too bad that you're ducking out before offering anything concrete, I like to tangle with data that challenges my suppositions.

 

[Melancon]

We don't necessarily have to ban it; but any woman in a Western country wearing it; should be looked at with disdain and shamed like a silly fool.

 

[Melancon]

Really, out of all of that, you picked out the word "dumb" and gave up? I don't mind people having harsh words for others' proposals, as long as nothing is ad hominem and everything is justified. I think I'm well within those boundaries. Anyway, it's too bad that you're ducking out before offering anything concrete, I like to tangle with data that challenges my suppositions.

This is a touchy issue/post in general. I don't believe all Muslims are particularly bad; but I tend to view Islam negatively. It is my personal opinion that it (the Burka) should not be worn in public. So alternatively I say it shall be banned. I am wondering if we should take posts like this down. I understand that this board and website is meant to be neutral and for everyone to comment on.



Everyone has their opinions on everything; but we really don't want to offend or be seen as a hate site. Should Muslim men be offended by this post; or should certain people (who think the burka should be banned) keep their stance? Should we allow opinions on religion and isolate others who think differently? Or keep Eupedia neutral?

 

[Angela]

Really, out of all of that, you picked out the word "dumb" and gave up? I don't mind people having harsh words for others' proposals, as long as nothing is ad hominem and everything is justified. I think I'm well within those boundaries. Anyway, it's too bad that you're ducking out before offering anything concrete, I like to tangle with data that challenges my suppositions.

I have never found that calling someone else's opinion "dumb" is conducive to reasoned discussion.

I also find your comment that I am "ducking" out of the discussion patronizing and offensive. I "duck" nothing and no one. Anyone who spends any decent amount of time reading posts on this forum should know that.

I do not, however, have the inclination or the time to debate with people who have no background or practice in dealing with constitutional law issues, to my knowledge, but presume to be experts on the subject, and most importantly, who feel free to accuse those who disagree with them with wanting to trash the lst Amendment.

Nor do I have time to educate people in America who have absolutely no background or knowledge or experience with modern Islamism in Europe. If you want to educate yourself about it, just google the issue. Many of the articles are in French or Italian, but google translate should serve.

 

[Aberdeen]

This is a touchy issue/post in general. I don't believe all Muslims are particularly bad; but I tend to view Islam negatively. It is my personal opinion that it (the Burka) should not be worn in public. So alternatively I say it shall be banned. I am wondering if we should take posts like this down. I understand that this board and website is meant to be neutral and for everyone to comment on.



Everyone has their opinions on everything; but we really don't want to offend or be seen as a hate site. Should Muslim men be offended by this post; or should certain people (who think the burka should be banned) keep their stance? Should we allow opinions on religion and isolate others who think differently? Or keep Eupedia neutral?

The real issue, IMO, is whether any person should be able to use religion in order to conceal their identity by going masked in a public place, or to force a member of their family to do so. I don't care what the religion is. I have no issue with Mormons and their silly magic underwear because that doesn't involve people concealing their identity in a public place.

 

[Aberdeen]

I have never found that calling someone else's opinion "dumb" is conducive to reasoned discussion.

I also find your comment that I am "ducking" out of the discussion patronizing and offensive. I "duck" nothing and no one. Anyone who spends any decent amount of time reading posts on this forum should know that.

I do not, however, have the inclination or the time to debate with people who have no background or practice in dealing with constitutional law issues, to my knowledge, but presume to be experts on the subject, and most importantly, who feel free to accuse those who disagree with them with wanting to trash the lst Amendment.

Nor do I have time to educate people in America who have absolutely no background or knowledge or experience with modern Islamism in Europe. If you want to educate yourself about it, just google the issue. Many of the articles are in French or Italian, but google translate should serve.

I find most people here in Canada to be quite clueless about what's going on in the suburbs of many large European cities, and that's likely also true of most people in the US. Until people actually see it with their own eyes and hear some of the horror stories from people who have been harmed by Muslim militants living in the west, they tend not to believe that such things could happen in a secular democracy.

 

[sparkey]

This is a touchy issue/post in general. I don't believe all Muslims are particularly bad; but I tend to view Islam negatively. It is my personal opinion that it (the Burka) should not be worn in public. So alternatively I say it shall be banned. I am wondering if we should take posts like this down. I understand that this board and website is meant to be neutral and for everyone to comment on.



Everyone has their opinions on everything; but we really don't want to offend or be seen as a hate site. Should Muslim men be offended by this post; or should certain people (who think the burka should be banned) keep their stance? Should we allow opinions on religion and isolate others who think differently? Or keep Eupedia neutral?

Maciamo directly addresses what we're allowed to talk about with regard to religion in Rule 7.5:

Please refrain from actively promoting an organised religion, religious institution or copying passages from holy books (e.g. Bible, Quran...) with the aim of proselytising (use of such passages for analysis and comparison with other texts are accepted though). Rational discussion and analysis of religions and philosophies are allowed in the Philosophy subforum as long as they respect the previous guideline.

Rule 2 is probably also relevant here.