NationStates Jolt Archive

A few days ago an Irish (conservative) journalist suggested that it should be illegal to wear a burqua that covers the face. The basis of his suggestion was that it symbolises the blatant and unashamed oppression of women, and that it was deeply against the culture of the west to cover one's face in public. Given these reasons, especially the first, I am inclined to agree with him. I think, despite what some people claim, that this is beyond "freedom of religion". I don't think that western governments should accept such backwards treatments of women.

Not if you believe in freedom of choice, it shouldn't.

Playboy magazine is a far greater symbol of the denegration of women and I'll be damned if I'm gonna let it be outlawed. :D

If someone wants to wear it they should be allowed to. I only have a problem with the Burqua if it's mandatory.

I agree with DC. This is truly an asinine proposition.

On the "freedom of religion" point, there's nothing about covering the face in Qur'an, so it's not part of the religion. If a woman just wants to wear one, kudos.

I may feel inclined to wear a bandana over my mouth and nose. It can be very dusty somedays.

Maybe even a halloween mask if I'm having a bad hair day.

Playboy magazine is a far greater symbol of the denegration of women and I'll be damned if I'm gonna let it be outlawed. :D

We all know anyone who gets playboy buys it for the articles. :rolleyes:

I posted this on another thread and it really seems to be more applicable to this one:

So let us try to gain some consistency. Would you not say that, in many social situations, individuals can find themselves in socially submissive positions? Preachers, for example, wield a great deal of social power, which can be used to manipulate people. Great speakers and writers can fool people into accepting corrupt ideas. Do you propose that, for the betterment and protection of those in our society, that we limit the social rights of those who may manipulate society? Should freedom of speech or religion be limited if it is used to bring people into submissive positions.

We all know anyone who gets playboy buys it for the articles. :rolleyes:

Playboy has articles?

Playboy has articles?

lmao

We all know anyone who gets playboy buys it for the articles. :rolleyes:
No, you get playboy for the higher class of models, you get Hustler for the articles.

No, you get playboy for the higher class of models, you get Hustler for the articles.


And Playboy seems to take the time to airbrush out pimples.
Hustler just gives it to you like it is.

I don't think it should be illegal, as long as it's the person's own choice to wear it.

Obviously, it should come off for driver-license and ID photos, just because otherwise taking the picture at all would be pointless, but to outlaw it is silly.

I believe that the muslim headress ought to be interdicted, it looks frankly ridiculous, and makes Muslim women appear akin to dementors, Ring Wraiths or Darth Vader. Furthermore, it serves only to exaggurate the differences between Muslim children and other ethnic youths, and to engender intolerance, misunderstanding and a lack of intergration.

If they want to cover themselves - who are we to stop them?

IF it's mandatory, then there is a problem, if it's instead by choice, what's the problem?

It's probably just some journo trying to impress an ethnic babe with his sensitivity and sympathy.

Huh, I never realized simply not doing something equated to having that thing be "deeply against the culture".

So, I guess since we don't stick roosters down our pants, we can assume it's deeply against Western culture to not stick roosters down one's pants.

I'm not really sure there's a case here for saying it's "deeply against" Western culture. Unusual by Western standards, perhaps, but not deeply against.

How about we don't ban people from wearing more clothes than the rest of us. That's what it comes down to.

I believe that the muslim headress ought to be interdicted, it looks frankly ridiculous, and makes Muslim women appear akin to dementors, Ring Wraiths or Darth Vader.

Oh, you mean kind of like wearing a crucifix makes a Christian look like Madonna circa 1986?

Oh, you mean kind of like wearing a crucifix makes a Christian look like Madonna circa 1986?
It's the Christians it makes look like Robert Smith who worry me.

and people wonder why the middle east hates the west :mad:

do you really think in highly religious nations like Iran they somehow don't have drivers licenses? if so do you think they make the women remove any religious items? (well it's not like extreme religious groups will let women drive but I'd rather have something just in case)

also do you think in the middle east they force other religions to change there customs?

Allah must be getting pretty mad right now

Oh, you mean kind of like wearing a crucifix makes a Christian look like Madonna circa 1986? Anyway, what's wrong with looking different? I passed some oddball a few days ago with two red mohicans, pale skin and an SS-style trenchcoat. If people want to look like Ringwraiths, let 'em… the world would be a much more interesting place.

Why should we prosecute people for covering their faces? I mean, look at this logically, fellas.

also do you think in the middle east they force other religions to change there customs?


Snipped original post.

I know for a fact that they do in parts of the middle east.

On the "freedom of religion" point, there's nothing about covering the face in Qur'an, so it's not part of the religion. If a woman just wants to wear one, kudos.

It isn't party of your religion, because you don't interpret the Qur'an in such a way that it is required. It is, sometimes, part of others' religions, because they interpret things differently.

From my understanding, the Qur'an asks that people dress modestly. For some, modest may mean a knee length skirt and a 3/4 length sleeve on their shirts. For some, modest may mean that the genitals and breasts are covered. For some, modesty may require covering the entire arm and the hair. For others, modesty may require covering the face. It all depends on what a person feels comfortable with calling "modest."

As for outlawing the burqua, it only makes sense if we can also outlaw Mennonites from wearing home-made clothes, or women who consider modest to mean, "wearing a bra" from wearing a bra.

Snipped original post.

I know for a fact that they do in parts of the middle east.

example (not from some crack pot nation because we all know there all mad)

Anyway, what's wrong with looking different? I passed some oddball a few days ago with two red mohicans, pale skin and an SS-style trenchcoat. If people want to look like Ringwraiths, let 'em… the world would be a much more interesting place.

Why should we prosecute people for covering their faces? I mean, look at this logically, fellas.

I never said we should. Seems rather silly to me, really. However, saying we should ban them because it makes people look like "dementors, Ringwraiths and Darth Vader" is not only vaguely offensive, but frankly hideously stupid and immature.

Snipped original post.

I know for a fact that they do in parts of the middle east. …which is a perfect example of what not to do.

I think the whole burqua idea is more than a little over-the-top - I believe in modest dress, but not THAT far. However, if women want to wear it, fine by me. It's their choice, and it's not hurting even themselves.

On the "freedom of religion" point, there's nothing about covering the face in Qur'an, so it's not part of the religion. If a woman just wants to wear one, kudos.

People aren't allowed to sell themselves into slavery, prostitution is illegl; so is suicide. You just can't do whatever you want with your own body.

I really don't know. Part of me says it should be legal because it's a choice. The other part of me says that the burqua symbolizes the very thing that the American constitution holds in contempt. It has been used to designate women as second-class citizens, less than human and is even seen as a symbol of a society that encourages the beating of women. Few women who were raised believing they were the equal of the men around them would agree (or choose!) to wear a garment that completely covered them in a world where men didn't also habitually choose to wear such garments. It is difficult for me to believe that it is honestly the (not under compulsion) choice of the wearer.

But, back to the original point, it's clothing and clothing which is not in and of itself harmful shouldn't be outlawed.

I guess you could say that I can't decide.

example (not from some crack pot nation because we all know there all mad)
Saudi Arabia, no other religion besides Islam can be practiced. Visitors aren't allowed to bring a bible or any holy book besides the Koran.

and people wonder why the middle east hates the west :mad:

do you really think in highly religious nations like Iran they somehow don't have drivers licenses? if so do you think they make the women remove any religious items? (well it's not like extreme religious groups will let women drive but I'd rather have something just in case)

also do you think in the middle east they force other religions to change there customs?

Allah must be getting pretty mad right now
In Iran, women probably don't get to drive.

It seems a number of middle eastern countries don't let women drive, or leave the house without a male escort, for that matter.

In Iran, women probably don't get to drive.

It seems a number of middle eastern countries don't let women drive, or leave the house without a male escort, for that matter.
Iran actually does allow women to drive.

In Iran, women probably don't get to drive.


In Iran, women can drive, hold positions of power, are doctors, lawyers, judges, and public servants. They don't wear the burqua in Iran except by choice.

Some of them are even Nobel Prize winners.

Shirin Ebadi (http://nobelprize.org/peace/laureates/2003/ebadi-bio.html)

and people wonder why the middle east hates the west :mad:

do you really think in highly religious nations like Iran they somehow don't have drivers licenses? if so do you think they make the women remove any religious items? (well it's not like extreme religious groups will let women drive but I'd rather have something just in case)

also do you think in the middle east they force other religions to change there customs?

Allah must be getting pretty mad right now

Well too bad. If you want to drive in the United States, or Canada, or many other places, you have to have photo ID. That's just how it works. The point of photo ID is to ascertain whether a person is who they claim they are. In case you haven't noticed, most burques (probably spelled wrong, sorry) look more or less the same, and photo ID would be useless for ID purposes if the person was wearing a burque in the picture. If women want to wear a burque (no idea why they would, but it's not my business) that's fine. But for ID purposes, facial features must be visible.

What if, for the purposes of debate, I had a religion whose rules demanded that I wear a ski mask and sunglasses around everywhere. Should I be able to take my driver's license photo attired in such a way? Or, just for the purposes of identification, should I have to take them off for the photo?

I don't think you can stop in the US. However in nations with laws that outlaw speech which encourages violence/discrimination against certian groups, I think it would be permissible as you could argue that it is an extension of that.

I would like to see the day when it is banned in western europe.

and people wonder why the middle east hates the west :mad:

do you really think in highly religious nations like Iran they somehow don't have drivers licenses? if so do you think they make the women remove any religious items? (well it's not like extreme religious groups will let women drive but I'd rather have something just in case)

also do you think in the middle east they force other religions to change there customs?

Allah must be getting pretty mad right now

Yes, if you live in the middle east, they will force you to change your customs.

Allah is not getting mad either, because he is not real. Just something a crazy old man made up. You'd be better off following the teachings of Ben Kenobi, because then at least you can have a drink.

I don't think you can stop in the US. However in nations with laws that outlaw speech which encourages violence/discrimination against certian groups, I think it would be permissible as you could argue that it is an extension of that.

I would like to see the day when it is banned in western europe. Freedom of Speech somehow translates into a ban on too much clothing? More missing links than a creationist's argument.

A few days ago an Irish (conservative) journalist suggested that it should be illegal to wear a burqua that covers the face. The basis of his suggestion was that it symbolises the blatant and unashamed oppression of women, and that it was deeply against the culture of the west to cover one's face in public. Given these reasons, especially the first, I am inclined to agree with him. I think, despite what some people claim, that this is beyond "freedom of religion". I don't think that western governments should accept such backwards treatments of women.
Are there any other mandatory fashion decisions you’d like to make for the rest of the West, since you obviously know better than the people who are actually going to ware the burquas? People can’t be trusted to make decisions for themselves. We need wise men like you and this journalist to regulate every second of our lives. Otherwise there would be chaos.

I don't think you can stop in the US. However in nations with laws that outlaw speech which encourages violence/discrimination against certian groups, I think it would be permissible as you could argue that it is an extension of that.

I would like to see the day when it is banned in western europe.
Already banned at public schools in France.

Already banned at public schools in France. Yes, well, the French aren't known for their tolerance and sensitivity. Good people, but arrogant nonetheless. Chirac, who's responsible for putting this decision in motion, is rather bigoted.

Are there any other mandatory fashion decisions you’d like to make for the rest of the West, since you obviously know better than the people who are actually going to ware the burquas? People can’t be trusted to make decisions for themselves. We need wise men like you and this journalist to regulate every second of our lives. Otherwise there would be chaos.

Yes, we will now be banning the following items of clothing because Western culture has a long history of finding them icky:

Spandex on fat chicks
Speedos on middle-aged hairy dudes
Bell bottoms on anybody
Parachute pants on anyone other than M.C. Hammer

Wow what a vile practice :p

One Muslim woman I heard on a radio program pointed out that the coverings enhance modesty, a virtue which women in Western ures, people increasingly spurn. " Wearing the burkha forces people to address as a person," she said. " And not a sex object."

Already banned at public schools in France.

Yeah, well, if France doesn't believe it's people should have any rights, that doesn't mean the rest of us should follow suit.

If someone wants to wear it they should be allowed to. I only have a problem with the Burqua if it's mandatory.
The reality is that for most of the women who wear it, the full face cover (and I'm not talking all burquas, only the ones that cover absolutely everything) is mandated by their husbands, fathers or brothers.

On the "freedom of religion" point, there's nothing about covering the face in Qur'an, so it's not part of the religion.
Correct, it's tribalism.

and people wonder why the middle east hates the west
It's their own damn fault for being so oppressive and backwards.

also do you think in the middle east they force other religions to change there customs?

No, they outlaw other religions altogether. (Which I certainly do not agree with.)

Besides, the burqua is a tribal custom, not a Muslim custom. As Keruvalia pointed out, there's nothing about it in the Qu'aran.

Why should we prosecute people for covering their faces? I mean, look at this logically, fellas.
The only thing that I want to see prosecuted here is misogyny.

Are there any other mandatory fashion decisions you’d like to make for the rest of the West, since you obviously know better than the people who are actually going to ware the burquas? People can’t be trusted to make decisions for themselves. We need wise men like you and this journalist to regulate every second of our lives. Otherwise there would be chaos.
In the real world, for most women who wear face-coering burquas, it's not a choice.

It's also about sending a message to fundamentalist Muslims that their misogyny is not acceptable in the West, so they can either change their ways to treat women as equals, or go back home. In this way it is part of the drive against the wave of "honour killings" that is happening in conservative Muslim communities in Europe. (I don't think that run-of-the-mill murder charges are enough to combat the culture which leads to them.)

I don't know what all the fuss is about. No government should have the power to regulate how people dress, period. That is something that should be left to the individual. If a woman wants to wear a bhurka, fine. The law should only step in if a woman is being forced to wear a bhurka.

The reality is that for most of the women who wear it, the full face cover (and I'm not talking all burquas, only the ones that cover absolutely everything) is mandated by their husbands, fathers or brothers.

Prove it.


It's also about sending a message to fundamentalist Muslims that their misogyny is not acceptable in the West, so they can either change their ways to treat women as equals, or go back home. In this way it is part of the drive against the wave of "honour killings" that is happening in conservative Muslim communities in Europe. (I don't think that run-of-the-mill murder charges are enough to combat the culture which leads to them.)

Ha! Now that's nice.

Western Civilization: Hey, Middle East, you're misogynistic.
Middle East: No we're not. We have standards, unlike you.
Western Civilization: Nope, you hate women.
Middle East: No we don't. You don't see them as anything other than sex objects.
Western Civilization: That's not true.
A Woman: Hey, guys, maybe...
Wesern Civilization and the Middle East: SHUT UP, THE MEN ARE TALKING!

Yah, lets "protect the rights" of someone we've effectively reduced to a talking point. Invasions have been conducted for less.

The reality is that for most of the women who wear it, the full face cover (and I'm not talking all burquas, only the ones that cover absolutely everything) is mandated by their husbands, fathers or brothers.

Nod ... what's even more sad is that those women aren't allowed to read Qur'an (except the parts their husbands or fathers allow) to find out the truth.

Nod ... what's even more sad is that those women aren't allowed to read Qur'an (except the parts their husbands or fathers allow) to find out the truth.

Yes, it is this sort of practice that should be (and is!) banned in the West, rather than a piece of clothing that is harmless in itself.

One Muslim woman I heard on a radio program pointed out that the coverings enhance modesty, a virtue which women in Western ures, people increasingly spurn. " Wearing the burkha forces people to address as a person," she said. " And not a sex object."
What does it say about Middle Eastern men that they can't view women as anything other than sex objects unless they are completely covered? Viewing women as equals, despite them not wearing excessive clothing, is something that most of we western men are actually able to do.

Yeah, well, if France doesn't believe it's people should have any rights, that doesn't mean the rest of us should follow suit.
Wow, that's the most hyperbolic thing you've ever said.

What does it say about Middle Eastern men that they can't view women as anything other than sex objects unless they are completely covered?

That they're more honest about it than Western men?

She was talking about Western society, rather than Middle Eastern society, I believe. As to whether or not she has a point, I don't know.

Wow, that's the most hyperbolic thing you've ever said.

Perhaps, but the French law is no different than saying, "Wearing a bra is a symbol of Christianity, therefore we are banning bras."

To a girl wearing a headscarf, wearing it is modesty - plain and simple. She would be no more comfortable without it than I would be being forced to go braless all the time.

Edit: Meanwhile, hyperbolic or not, the removal of rights generally starts with something small, and builds.

That they're more honest about it than Western men?
Well, not all western men are dishonest about it. Some genuinely do not see women as sex objects. They are gay. :p

People aren't allowed to sell themselves into slavery, prostitution is illegl; so is suicide. You just can't do whatever you want with your own body.

Depends on where you are, actually. Many a poor Asian family has sold their daughters into sexual slavery, inadvertantly or deliberately.

Prostitution and suicide aren't illegal in Canada, and I imagine that they aren't illegal in other western countries as well.

Apologies if somebody mentioned this b4,

IIRC, Italy has already banned wearing in public the full body and face covering burqa.

A few days ago an Irish (conservative) journalist suggested that it should be illegal to wear a burqua that covers the face. The basis of his suggestion was that it symbolises the blatant and unashamed oppression of women, and that it was deeply against the culture of the west to cover one's face in public. Given these reasons, especially the first, I am inclined to agree with him. I think, despite what some people claim, that this is beyond "freedom of religion". I don't think that western governments should accept such backwards treatments of women.
What do you mean, "treatment of women"? It is, I imagine, already not legal to force people into doing things such as that. So the only thing you would be banning that isn't already banned is women freely choosing to wear a burqa.
That seems a bit pointless to me.

What do you mean, "treatment of women"? It is, I imagine, already not legal to force people into doing things such as that. So the only thing you would be banning that isn't already banned is women freely choosing to wear a burqa.
That seems a bit pointless to me.

Exactly. It's not the clothes that are the problem, sillies!

A few days ago an Irish (conservative) journalist suggested that it should be illegal to wear a burqua that covers the face. The basis of his suggestion was that it symbolises the blatant and unashamed oppression of women, and that it was deeply against the culture of the west to cover one's face in public. Given these reasons, especially the first, I am inclined to agree with him. I think, despite what some people claim, that this is beyond "freedom of religion". I don't think that western governments should accept such backwards treatments of women.

I don't think they should ban them wearing the burqua, it's the women's choice, but they should make sure that they aren't forced to wear it by people. It should be something they choose to wear, not are forced to.
People say things like that because they automatically asume that they'd use it to hide their AK-47 that they of course have, because all muslims must be terrorists. If people know it's just a part of their culture then they shouldn't be so upset about it.
And it's not as offensive as some of the stuff people wear (or don't wear) these days anyway.

Apologies if i've got any facts wrong, but that's my (admittedly limited) understanding of it anyway.

You know, some woman wear it by THEIR CHOICE. Banning it is absolutely asinine.

I think the whole "the garmets are a symbol of evil oppression of their civil rights and a sign of imposed submissiveness" points are a little stupid and hypocritical. Think about it. By not allowing them to wear what they want, you're imposing your will on them and taking away at least a bit of their civil right to wear what they want. Oh, the irony...replacing one oppresion with another... :rolleyes:

Should the full face-covering burqua be outlawed in [insert Western country]?
Absolutely not. To do so would outlaw freedom for people to wear any garment they desire.

Freedom of Speech somehow translates into a ban on too much clothing? More missing links than a creationist's argument.

Absolutely not. Try reading what I said, instead of acting like a self-important popinjay. :rolleyes: