Burqa

[Liquid]

Wanna live in our countries, gotta follow our rules. Just like we would if we went to your countries.

That's petty point scoring. Any forward thinking, modern and frankly, sane, society is bigger than that and looks past it and acknowledges to the fact that cultures of the world are overlapping. Adaptation is a key of life.

 

[Keef]

That's petty point scoring. Any forward thinking, modern and frankly, sane, society is bigger than that and looks past it and acknowledges to the fact that cultures of the world are overlapping. Adaptation is a key of life.

Don't bother him, he's from Texas.

 

[Liquid]

Need some ointment for that sick burn, Keef.

 

[Vince_Fiero]

Would women be able to go to their countries in Daisy Dukes and Bikini tops? What about staying topless at their beaches? The answer is, the people who did this, either would be jailed, or killed, so what makes it okay for them to wear them here? Wanna live in our countries, gotta follow our rules. Just like we would if we went to your countries.

Somewhere I agree, but as stated before there are other factors that play, economical, friends, family, etc... that make it difficult to move.

Why not do something like Vatican City in Italy, you get a large plot of land, declare it private property and use your rules inside of it. Next to it another big plot of land and completely different rules. But is that not the principle of countries?

I do think that countries go too far in imposing ridiculous rules and should more concentrate on realising harmony between different people then driving them apart.

 

[Joel]

My issues with banning the burqa are 1. It restricts the freedon of the women to wear it if they want to, and 2. Women who would have been forced to wear a burqa to go out will just be imprisoned in their house and not allowed to go outside. It doesn't help anyone, an abusive husband who requires his wife to wear a burqa isn't going to have an epiphany and change his mind because France decided it's illegal.

 

[photonrider]

I guess sometimes people don't want to wear what they don't have to - Ontario, Canada, passed a law that gives equal 'topless' rights to both males and females. The veil associated with the females of a very visible Muslim culture are quite visible, though, everywhere. Yet, not all the Muslim ladies I know wear it. Some wear it diligently (I know the husbands, but have never seen their faces. Others wear it on and off and yet others I know as friends or neighbors have never donned one in my presence, whether the husband was around or not. (I run my own business, which includes home renovation, so I do get around a little bit.)
This is not an easy problem to resolve - the rights of ALL are concerned. What has to be decided is how far these rights go: where exactly is the meeting point that will satisfy all the criteria needed to cover both sides without either losing face?
More communication is needed until everybody concerned can see eye to eye properly on the matter, before thumbing noses and sticking tongues out.

 

[FoolKiller]

The French state that they limit the freedom to cover your face so that they can limit murders (Human Right to live) and defend equality (Human Right to be seen as an equal individual). Limiting murders by being able to identify people quickly after a crime, defending equality by fighting suppression of women.

If you believe that backward logic... I could think of much more effective ways of doing this without picking on a single religious group. Of course, those ways would tick off more than just a minority group though and we have elections to think about.

They have a subjective reasoning, a reasoning that people that value Liberty (Human Right to your own destiny) do not appreciate. But they do not imprison you for covering your face, they just limit the places you can do it.

They don't imprison you? Is there a punishment? A fine maybe? And if you refuse to pay that fine?

We are dealing with a similar religious group vs the law issue in Kentucky. The law is one that is based on far more logic than your explanation of the Burqa law and was not targeted at any one group. They didn't put the triangle-shaped caution sign on their horse-drawn buggies that all slow moving vehicles (including motorized farm equipment) are required to have. Considering they go out at night in these black buggies that have no light other than a single, very small lantern the reflective signs were truly a matter of safety for both them and others (I leave my opinion of the law out of this discussion, and am merely presenting the reasoning behind the law). Now, when people first complained about the Amish and regulators began trying to talk with them about it no one wanted to force them to do anything, but people were getting killed. When law enforcement was given the go ahead to begin enforcement it was even said that no one wanted to lock up Amish men, and they were just being fined.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/15/police-arrest-amish-men-i_n_964682.html

But what happens when someone sticks by their ideology and even refuses the punishment? I am guessing the police are lucky the Amish are pacifists.

Why are there no men wearing Burqas? Do they not need protection? Are they not equal?

Well, you know, all those lusty women raping the men... Lets assume it was a protection issue. They come from a time when an empowered woman, especially to the degree of sexually attacking men, could possibly be killed.

 

[Crispy]

Don't bother him, he's from Texas.

Great contribution there pal.

I made my point, no need to bring in what state I live in.

If they want to where Burqa's in private property that allows them too, say their homes, a temple, that's fine. There was a story hear not to long ago about a women who was complaining because a Six Flags employee asked her to take it off for the roller coaster ride due to safety. She made a big deal calling it discriminatory. It's not discriminatory, it's a safety precaution.

I personally feel discomfort when I see someone in full Burqa, nothing but slits for the eyes. Why? The reason is, I have no idea who's under that! For all we know it can be guy! Plus (Especially in Texas) I worry the person might have a stroke! It's 110 degrees outside, they're draped in clothes from head to toe, not only that but it's black, which is a conductor of heat. I truly wonder what magic those have for you not to have a stroke!

 

[Keef]

If they want to where Burqa's in private property that allows them too, say their homes, a temple, that's fine.

You made no mention of public property in this post, though you did make many excuses which seem to suggest your position...

I personally feel discomfort when I see someone in full Burqa, nothing but slits for the eyes. Why? The reason is, I have no idea who's under that!

So? Maybe they think you're being nosy.

For all we know it can be guy!

So? Maybe he likes to wear weird stuff.

Plus (Especially in Texas) I worry the person might have a stroke! It's 110 degrees outside, they're draped in clothes from head to toe, not only that but it's black, which is a conductor of heat. I truly wonder what magic those have for you not to have a stroke!

So? Maybe they're perfectly comfortable and wish you would stop nagging them about how hot a silk drape isn't.

There was a story hear not to long ago about a women who was complaining because a Six Flags employee asked her to take it off for the roller coaster ride due to safety. She made a big deal calling it discriminatory. It's not discriminatory, it's a safety precaution.

This is the only legitimate argument you've presented so far. In this case, baggy clothes may well have been against the rules for that ride.

 

[A2K78]

If a burqa, hijab, or nijab should be banned, why stop there? Why not include the wearing the religious objects such one of those hats othrodox jews wear, the same goes for crucifix, turbans, buddi**** prayer beads, star of david, etc?

 

[FoolKiller]

If a burqa, hijab, or nijab should be banned, why stop there? Why not include the wearing the religious objects such one of those hats othrodox jews wear, the same goes for crucifix, turbans, buddi**** prayer beads, star of david, etc?

Because, the (weak) argument is that it is about safety. But I think the truth lies in the number of crimes committed by people wearing Burqas.

 

[TankAss95]

I don't want to start arguing because I don't really know much about this issue and what the current stance of it is, and I'm not going to pretend I do.
Im not really sure about them. I heard on the news a while back about a primary school teacher who was wearing one and the kids (who were below 10) just wasn't comfortable.
Saying that though there's lots of other clothing that's similar which people can wear. I don't know.

 

[a6m5]

Legally, I don't know how one could even argue banning those things. If the banks don't want their clients covering their faces, I guess that can be tricky, but if it's privately owned, it's their business. Security checkpoints, I'm sure that they are already required by law to reveal themselves.

Primary school teacher wearing one, now that one is tricky. I'm not gonna lie to you, when I'm caught off-guard by women covering their faces with one of those really hardcore & really scary looking one's, all I can do is try not offending them by hiding how freaked out I am on the inside. Seriously. There are some that looks charming, pretty, even. But I've seen some that really startled me to say the least, and I'm very, very rarely startled. I have no doubt in my mind that those scarier looking ones would traumatize some younger children.

Edit:
I googled it, and came up with this page that shows this similar burqa to that one I found terrifying looking. Very similar, but scarier, even more than this(it was all black, too). I didn't read it, but it looks like a political page. link

 

[A2K78]

Because, the (weak) argument is that it is about safety. But I think the truth lies in the number of crimes committed by people wearing Burqas.

If we were to use the crime argument to justifiy a burqa ban, then governments should ban the wearing of hoodies/hooded clothing, baseball cap or just about any form of garment that might conceal ones identity. After all these types of garments are used in crimes, robberies for example.

Anyhow a burqa ban is never justified under no circumstance because its clearly a violation of ones freedom of religion and association. Overall these so-called bans on burqas, nijabs, and hibjabs are have nothing to do with preventing crimes or women rights, but everything to with the wider anti-muslim hate that emerged out of 9/11.

Anyhow take it from someone who happen to be be a non-muslim, but I really feel for the muslim community because far too long have they been demonized, even prior 9/11.

 

[Pierced Lead]

If we were to use the crime argument to justifiy a burqa ban, then governments should ban the wearing of hoodies/hooded clothing, baseball cap or just about any form of garment that might conceal ones identity. After all these types of garments are used in crimes, robberies for example.

Anyhow a burqa ban is never justified under no circumstance because its clearly a violation of ones freedom of religion and association. Overall these so-called bans on burqas, nijabs, and hibjabs are have nothing to do with preventing crimes or women rights, but everything to with the wider anti-muslim hate that emerged out of 9/11.

Anyhow take it from someone who happen to be be a non-muslim, but I really feel for the muslim community because far too long have they been demonized, even prior 9/11.

Being a Muslim I really appreciate your empathy for our community. Thanks!

To some extent I must say that the demonization of our religion was inevitable, but it has alot more to do with the cultural elements in Muslim countries than with the religion itself. It just appears to most that the religion is the common factor and so has to do with the objections people have with Muslims.
e.g. Pedophilia and incest and subjugation of women which is very prevalent in rural Arab communities especially Afghanistan and Northwestern Pakistan and southwards from there.

 

[Vince_Fiero]

I could think of much more effective ways of doing this without picking on a single religious group.

I do believe this is a killer argument against the ones defending the buqua ban and it should be used against the governments that voted the ban in. The law is not usable anyway, just improve it!

If we were to use the crime argument to justifiy a burqa ban, then governments should ban the wearing of hoodies/hooded clothing, baseball cap or just about any form of garment that might conceal ones identity. After all these types of garments are used in crimes, robberies for example.

Again a good argument, if it is about safety the governments should go further, if it is about the freedom to wear what you want they should accept the burqa and nudity.

Anyhow a burqa ban is never justified under no circumstance because its clearly a violation of ones freedom of religion and association.

No it is not clearly against freedom of religion and association; you are allowed to call yourself Muslim in France (many do) and your allowed to go to a Mosque (no issue in that). French Imams agree with this.

I agree that a ban is only justified if it would be done to protect another right, the French claim that it is the right to security and the equality of the women that needs protection and for that they need to ban the Burqua. The discussion remains subjective if you just state you disagree.

I think we could maybe progress to prove that there is an unjust assumption of evil in the French argument and that it becomes illogical if you assume people are good. But good and evil are subjective.

There is an Objective Right to be assumed innocent until proven guilty. So by the ban they would violate this right. If they assume innocence there is no protection needed and women are not oppressed, so you should not have a ban! That is starting to be more logical for me.
In a case of high security risk they could change that reasoning? In state of Alert there is a ban on the Burqa, around banks, government buildings, but not in all public places?

your explanation of the Burqa law

This is offensive language usage, I stated the French view, you make it into my view!

 

[Keef]

This is offensive language usage, I stated the French view, you make it into my view!

He didn't say it was your view. He cited your explanation of the view. You did explain it, didn't you? That explanation is yours, though the view may not be.

 

[theotherspongey]

Go all American by saying they're terrorists? Are you an idiot?

They should be able to wear whatever they want in public.

Pretty much this.

 

[FoolKiller]

This is offensive language usage, I stated the French view, you make it into my view!

I wasn't intending to offend anyone, nor was I attempting to assign you the French view (as you are not French), but looking back I do see how the wording I used may have made it seem that way. I apologize. It was not my intent.

 

[Vince_Fiero]

I wasn't intending to offend anyone, nor was I attempting to assign you the French view (as you are not French), but looking back I do see how the wording I used may have made it seem that way. I apologize. It was not my intent.

I did not take a lot of offense and accept the apology with ease. I just had some people getting the wrong ideas in other threads through this kind of language usage.

===================

On the other hand this is still hunting me:

1) France is offending my rights by assuming I'm guilty and thus limiting the way I dress.
2) I should avoid the dark green countries for similar reasons:

In the end I think all countries violate some rights, so it comes down again to:
1) You go to a country where you accept the violations and you fight to remove the ones you really do not like.
2) You create a private property and declare it independent, a place where rights are really respected.

 

[A2K78]

Being a Muslim I really appreciate your empathy for our community. Thanks!

There is a good reason why I empathize with middle easterners(pakistanis,iranians,arabs, etc) and muslims in particular, and it stand from the fact that most of my life I have studied the history and culture of the region(s). You can also add the fact that I have not allowed myself to be caught-up in the anti-middle east/anti-islam/muslim propaganda often projected by politicians.

To some extent I must say that the demonization of our religion was inevitable, but it has alot more to do with the cultural elements in Muslim countries than with the religion itself. It just appears to most that the religion is the common factor and so has to do with the objections people have with Muslims.

As someone who is not a muslim(even though I am a religious individual), I see nothing culturally wrong with islam. As I said though, it all goes back to not allowing onself to be controlled by politics.

 

[A2K78]

while we're on the issue of the burqa, I find this image to be quite interesting...

I guess this is how some women must dress in iran

 

[Grayfox]

I say burn down the Louvre and all other museums.

The Louvre is a museum that house paintings and sculptures these are considered to be culture.

The burqa is apart of middle eastern culture.

Why ban one form of someones culture and not the rest?

 

[sumbrownkid]

The burqa is something I feel is a personal matter.

But I can't fault Europeans to feel confused and distrustful of burqa wearing women. The immigrants that usually don these come from a very different environment in which social norms in the homeland are confusing to the host nations.

But for Europeans, for being the proprietors of the renaissance, they can certainly do better to understand the newcomer.

People also have to understand that Islam is a flexible religion, not authoritarian. Burqa was meant be worn by the wives of the Prophet, not all women. The next generation of European Muslims will continue the trend of balancing the cultures of two worlds.

 

[RTSolvalou]

It's not the burqa that's the problem, it's the number of people wearing them.

Just like where there's a suburb comprised of houses built in the 70s all very similar, then people come and knock them down and build modern box houses that are awful and do not match, to say the least. Although with houses it's an aesthetic problem, whereas with burqas it's just a bit of an awkward and confronting cultural thing, a bit like if everyone was walking around with ancient egyptian headresses or samurai helmets.

 

[Vince_Fiero]

It's not the burqa that's the problem, it's the number of people wearing them.

Indeed I find people that get more advantages because they look like this:

as much an aberration of society as people that value the burqa.


However I find that the discussion is again only on "they should not forbid clothing or religious practices" and not enough on why the reasons used to justify a ban are wrong.

I grew up knowing that you can not cover your face in public, it always was like that, that it moved from municipal regulations to national law does not change a lot. There was no issue with this rule before people started to wear the burqa. Our society had no issue with that ban, now suddenly some people do. I came to the conclusion that ban is wrong, it assumes everyone guilty and for that limits them in their actions, but they are probably innocent so should be free to do what they want.

 

[Mark T]

Just a thought, I'm sure it's been talked about in this thread somewhere but just wanted to put it across again.

If I walked in to a store with a balaclava on or was strolling through a town centre with my face concealed I'm sure that someone would alert the authorities just as a precaution. I would most likely be asked by the Poilce why I'm wearing it and I would probably be told that I cannot wear it in any store. If it was someone wearing a burqa there would be no questions asked, mainly due to the fear of being discriminatory.

I don't mind burqas and where I live I don't see them at all. It's a personal choice and as far as I can tell the women who wear these are doing it voluntarily. Maybe their religion, husband or family would disown them if they refused.

Generally with religion, the punishments are dealt with personally within the family especially within Islam. I know there has been several "honour" killings in the UK where Islamic women have commited adultery or married outside the religious circle. I'm sure that there is some fear behind the wearing of the burqa, which is sad.

 

[XoravaX]

Simply, no.

For safety reasons, it should not be allowed. How the hell are you going to identify a person whose eyes are the only part seen in a CCTV tape? How is a shop assistant supposed to identify a person showing her (or his, we don't know who is hiding under the burqa unless the person says something as physical features can be faked) picture ID when the person's face is covered? Even the police have to go through the trouble of asking burqa-wearers to reveal their faces every time their ID is asked.

Some shops enforce a ban of face-covering clothing though.
In Finland businesses have a right to choose their customers.

Though, thank god burqas are really rare in Finland. I've seen only a few of them over time.

I'd go for a EU-wide law of forbidding face-covering clothing to be worn on public places due to security reasons. Those with medical conditions or a temporary work requiring safety gear should be kept outside of the ban for obvious reasons.

And you won't go wearing an ice hockey mask or skiing mask in public, or at least "public" by the definition in Finnish law. Ski centres and ice hockey fields aren't public places by our law's definition, only places like parks, streets, shopping malls and such.


Remember, banning balaclavas or any other face-covering clothing (in a shop, public places etc) while allowing burqas is discrimination.

 

[Vince_Fiero]

For safety reasons, it should not be allowed. How the hell are you going to identify a person whose eyes are the only part seen in a CCTV tape?

You are assuming they are out to do something illegal.
How do you feel when someone takes your rights away because they think your are doing something illegal? You are just doing your thing, nothing wrong, why should your be punished?

How is a shop assistant supposed to identify a person showing her (or his, we don't know who is hiding under the burqa unless the person says something as physical features can be faked) picture ID when the person's face is covered? Even the police have to go through the trouble of asking burqa-wearers to reveal their faces every time their ID is asked.Some shops enforce a ban of face-covering clothing though.
In Finland businesses have a right to choose their customers.

Private property, you can do what you want. Where I do believe you can not exclude people from common services ("Apartheid") you can have private initiative that is discriminatory. Most of society is discriminatory, you need certificates for certain jobs, you need checks to get into certain clubs, etc...

Though, thank god burqas are really rare in Finland. I've seen only a few of them over time.

Thank Allah.

And you won't go wearing an ice hockey mask or skiing mask in public, or at least "public" by the definition in Finnish law.

Look at English protesters against Islam, they are a lot more scary then woman wearing a Burqua.

Remember, banning balaclavas or any other face-covering clothing (in a shop, public places etc) while allowing burqas is discrimination.

We agree on this, if you look a bit closer we are not that different in the world anyway, why would we make something specific against one practice.

 

[XoravaX]

You are assuming they are out to do something illegal.
How do you feel when someone takes your rights away because they think your are doing something illegal? You are just doing your thing, nothing wrong, why should your be punished?

I admit that. But the local culture is more important than immigrants' culture as is adaptation to it by immigrants and tourists alike.
Should my girlfriend be allowed to walk around in bikinis were she ever to go to the Middle East?
I admit burqas aren't "offensive" in the same meaning, but they are as alien to our (European/English/Belgian/Finnish etc) culture as are bikinis in Middle East.

Private property, you can do what you want. Where I do believe you can not exclude people from common services ("Apartheid") you can have private initiative that is discriminatory. Most of society is discriminatory, you need certificates for certain jobs, you need checks to get into certain clubs, etc...

Yeah, you are right. But how are common services defined? I would define banks and shops as common services, but as private owned they have the right to do so - if it's backed up by reasons such as safety (balaclavas or other face-covering clothing in a bank or shop etc). If it's directly aimed towards a racial group it can be considered discrimination as long as it is the primary reason only.

Thank Allah.

As you wish. The internet is multicultural.
I didn't write "God" with a capital letter, but I admit it's culturally biased to say "thank god" - while writing in English those culturally biased expressions are part of the language though as a part of the culture.

But the immigrants should also respect the culture of their new homeland and not to demand the removal of (Christian) traditions from schools etc. They have to adapt over time, it mustn't be that we should adapt to their culture in our own country (apart from understanding that they are different and aren't familiar with our culture).
In my school (which is state-owned as are (nearly) all schools in Finland) Christian priests sometimes speak in the radio (as they do in all state schools). Also, we do celebrate Christmas in Finnish schools - it's an old tradition.
Now do you think these should be removed due to an immigrant minority? They have (usually) chosen the country they are going to go by themselves, so they should be aware of the cultural differences.

Look at English protesters against Islam, they are a lot more scary then woman wearing a Burqua.

Yes, they are. In Finland they would be jailed for covering their face in a demonstration - the only exception when face-covering clothing or headgear is forbidden by law.
And "against Islam". I am not against Islam myself (apparently the same God by what theologists say and such - why the similarities are never discussed but only the extreme differences, by the way), but against covering people's faces to the point they can't be identified, on behalf of safety matters and against the abuse of the burqa by non-Islamistic criminals alike.


I do recall an incident from a few years ago. A person wearing burqa (the version with net covering the eyes, not that "niqab" which leaves eyes seen - actually it isn't a burqa), apparently a man by his length and movements, robbed a shop with a gun. As he didn't speak, his sex is left unknown (although with that suspicion) to date along with his name, age, nationality and ethnic origin.
He might have been a local too.