Burqa

[Liquid]

No I don't.

In fact, I find them quite offensive. They're creepy and daunting. But it's entirely up to them to wear it. I don't like smoking, but again, it's their choice to do so.

Taking away civil liberties in the name of 'security' is a dangerous road to go down.

 

[STI9]

No I don't.

In fact, I find them quite offensive. They're creepy and daunting. But it's entirely up to them to wear it. I don't like smoking, but again, it's their choice to do so.

Taking away civil liberties in the name of 'security' is a dangerous road to go down.

Ok, but do you not think if 99% of the british population find the burqas offensive then the Burqas should be banned in Britain ? Do you not think that is fair to the public ? That guests in our country should respect our feelings ?

 

[Liquid]

Ok, but do you not think if 99% of the british population find the burqas offensive then the Burqas should be banned in Britain ? Do you not think that is fair to the public ? That guests in our country should respect our feelings ?

99% is hyperbolic.

And shouldn't we be sympathetic towards our guests' feelings? They want to retain a part of their cultural and/or religious identity, much like those who wear turbans. But they come here and find that something that they hold dear is reviled by people from a supposedly better society.

 

[Zenith]

This whole business of "I make strict rules in my country, you make strict rules in your country" is outdated. In the modern world it's a necessity to coexist and cooperate with other cultures. Refusal to do so will lead to decline. Having friends is important to remaining strong on an international scale.

 

[Danisfast]

This whole business of "I make strict rules in my country, you make strict rules in your country" is outdated. In the modern world it's a necessity to coexist and cooperate with other cultures. Refusal to do so will lead to decline. Having friends is important to remaining strong on an international scale.

Well, the functionalist argument is certainly one aspect, but MazdaPrice has the finger on the pulse there, I reckon. The very thing we spend billions of pounds and thousands of lives defending is freedom: despite the rather sad fact that many people (most notably Theresa May) forget this. It would be more than a small tragedy to see it defended in Helmand, only to be lost in the 'House of Commons'. Whilst it is one thing to restrict personal freedom due to a crime carried out by an individual; it is quite another to restrict one's choice of clothing because most of us don't like it (if indeed that is reflective of public opinion and not just 'The Sun'/'Daily Mail').

 

[Keef]

Ok, but do you not think if 99% of the british population find the burqas offensive then the Burqas should be banned in Britain ? Do you not think that is fair to the public ? That guests in our country should respect our feelings ?

Rights are not subject to majority whim. If a majority can dictate what a minority wears, there is absolutely no principle difference between that and the majority dictating how many babies a minority can have, or when a minority is allowed to have sex in their own home.

 

[Joel]

Ok, but do you not think if 99% of the british population find the burqas offensive then the Burqas should be banned in Britain ? Do you not think that is fair to the public ? That guests in our country should respect our feelings ?

Then the hypothetical 99% of the british population should get over it and stop whining.

 

[TouringDevotee]

Rights are not subject to majority whim. If a majority can dictate what a minority wears, there is absolutely no principle difference between that and the majority dictating how many babies a minority can have, or when a minority is allowed to have sex in their own home.

I agree with you to a great degree and I'll add a few remarks of my own.

It takes very little courage to victimize a minority group within a society. I'd call it cowardice, but I'm afraid that the term is lacking in its contempt of such disgusting behavior.

I also think that it is very telling about the group that promotes the victimization of minority women; they evidently feel that women are weak and vulnerable. And yes, this comment is as damning of the dress code in certain Muslim countries as it is of certain European countries.

Using a minority as a red herring in order to kill liberty, and so many people allow their bigotry to blind them to the injustice they do to themselves in the process.

If you think the clothing victimizes the woman, then empower her so that she may freely make the choice, but do not victimize her by your own pursuits; primum non nocere (first, do no harm).

And I don't believe that the fight is secularism vs Islam, as the belief isn't the key, but the use of tyranny, whether that tyranny be Islamic or secular.

Displeasure at the annonymity of a veil is quite a silly thing to read on a forum cloaked in such annonymity and with rules regarding disclosing other's identities.

What is next, attacks on cross dressers?

 

[BobK]

If Western society claims to be democratic and progressive, then why the hell is the government determining what people should wear?

Indeed! How dare they stop us from wearing a mankini when responding to a court summons? How dare they to force us to wear anything at all?

 

[Danisfast]

Indeed! How dare they stop us from wearing a mankini when responding to a court summons? How dare they to force us to wear anything at all?

Well, that's another aspect (prospect) altogether, isn't it?!

 

[Vince_Fiero]

Indeed! How dare they stop us from wearing a mankini when responding to a court summons? How dare they to force us to wear anything at all?

Not clear if this was ironic, but it should not be. Nudity is a right as much as wearing the Burqa is.
When you have a conflict in opinion on how people should dress, you should find another compromise then to forbid ....

 

[Keef]

If Western society claims to be democratic and progressive, then why the hell is the government determining what people should wear?

Who claimed to be democratic and progressive? As an American libertarian, I sure didn't claim to be democratic or progressive, both of which are bad things if used irresponsibly.

 

[FoolKiller]

Well when the minority group start getting decisions in their favour, there is something wrong.

No, there isn't. That was how slavery was ended. That is why we oppose genocide. There is a term for when only the majority's rights and wants are recognized, tyranny of the majority.

When you travel to another country you are supposed to respect their laws and rules. If I went abroad I would gladly follow their laws as I am a guest. Now when people come to visit a country and all they do is complain about human rights and lack of expression, I say **** off back home. You dont like our laws or our way of running things then leave.

Are there not Muslim citizens in these countries? They aren't making anyone where their clothing, so what's the big deal?

Its a basic principal that the majority rules. Thats the whole point of voting.

And ensuring that those votes don't violate rights is why most democratic countries contain a constitution or similar document that protects the minority from the majority.

Also, never underestimate the power of idiots in large groups.

Indeed! How dare they stop us from wearing a mankini when responding to a court summons? How dare they to force us to wear anything at all?

I am unaware of any specific laws regarding court attire, but the image you project risk creating a stigma against you.

As for nudity, I am equal opportunity. If I can't see girl boobs I don't want to see man boobs.

 

[Vince_Fiero]

They aren't making anyone where their clothing, so what's the big deal?

Come again:

It is clear that what some do wrong is not excuse for you to start to do wrong as well.

 

[Danisfast]

Not clear if this was ironic, but it should not be. Nudity is a right as much as wearing the Burqa is.
When you have a conflict in opinion on how people should dress, you should find another compromise then to forbid ....

When we come to this particular aspect, a question arises in my mind. "How far are we willing to go to allow personal freedom against restricting behaviour for cultural sensitivities?" In a perfect world, strutting around in public naked is something that should be permissible because it is a part of being free, in a free and tolerant society. This could apply even when health and safety is a factor, but except for when it affects others (which is generally agreed upon to be the acceptable functional limit of personal freedom). It strikes me (and probably many people socialised in a similar way as I was) as a bit silly. But, that is surely not a reason to prohibit it, under virtually any circumstance.

In fact, as far as functionally possible, we should extend personal freedom out because at the end of the day, that's what we all want. That's the dream: self-determination: freedom.

However, we are not in a perfect world; we come up against thorns. In this case it is the perceived lack of freedom that others get by having to view, in public, such things that are considered lurid by the dominant culture (or "the right to not be offended", as Famine frequently points out). But this illuminates a hidden reality: enforcing culture as law. It (law) can also serve to protect a culture; a lack of which it could be argued that the UK is experiencing the repercussions of today... Principled correctly or not, laws often serve such a function and protect cultural identity. This is something that many people like to see (even when it contradicts itself by impeding others' rights, as the Burqa ban arguably does). Unfortunately, it is a sign that we haven't come as far as it may seem at times in practising justice, equality and freedom. In fact, I occasionally get the aching feeling of a backwards slide in some important areas. Examples of this being highlighted to me are: the now apparently never-ending "War on Terror" debacle, and the very real assertion in the US recently (by a Republican politician whose name escapes my memory) that child labour should be re-introduced.

Anyway: we have come to find the best approach is to try and please everyone by balancing freedom against mainstream norms and values (hence my question). In private, it's your gig and (at least until recently) you can do pretty much whatever you want (within the functional limits). In public, personal freedom is reigned-in somewhat further and you must conform to society's view of acceptable behaviour, as dictated by our current public stance on whatever element of choice you wish to exercise (of which dress, language and actions are all part). It seems to be the best solution thus far (even if the society in question wasn't dominated by a mainstream culture), although it is not always weighted correctly, which is the real issue at hand in this thread.

They are difficult things to balance: principles and function.

Come again:

It is clear that what some do wrong is not excuse for you to start to do wrong as well.

Couldn't have put it better myself.

 

[Vince_Fiero]

When we come to this particular aspect, a question arises in my mind. "How far are we willing to go to allow personal freedom against restricting behaviour for cultural sensitivities?"

+1
I want to start with thank you for a great post.

This could apply even when health and safety is a factor, but except for when it affects others (which is generally agreed upon to be the acceptable functional limit of personal freedom).

Had the discussion with my wife yesterday:
"Do I have the right to drive without a seat-belt": You only do yourself wrong, so why not.
"Do I have the right to drive at the maximum speed my car can do": on private terrain, why not. If you have interaction with others, you should agree on this (Germans still agree on some parts of the roads!)

However, we are not in a perfect world; we come up against thorns. In this case it is the perceived lack of freedom that others get by having to view, in public, such things that are considered lurid by the dominant culture (or "the right to not be offended", as Famine frequently points out).

That is indeed what it is about: by acting you impose something (very silly things generally) on someone else. They have a right to complain about that, but only complain, they have no right to shoot you for it. You have to right to ignore them. Then you have a conflict of rights and a subjective justice system comes in ....

But this illuminates a hidden reality: enforcing culture as law. It (law) can also serve to protect a culture; a lack of which it could be argued that the UK is experiencing the repercussions of today...

Strangely the French use the protection of freedom of Culture (etat Laique) to forbid the Burqa, Christian Crosses in schools, etc ... as well.

Unfortunately, it is a sign that we haven't come as far as it may seem at times in practising justice, equality and freedom.

I believe (if that has value) that it is just in not recognising we are protecting culture where the error is. Why not impose (sad but true) an international, no culture zone in each country, only protecting Human Rights and some property.

... and the very real assertion in the US recently (by a Republican politician whose name escapes my memory) that child labour should be re-introduced.

Strange I was thinking about this today. Would this freedom not be required in "Laissez-fair" Capitalism?

Anyway: we have come to find the best approach is to try and please everyone by balancing freedom against mainstream norms and values.

The majority is deciding then and we are getting far from protecting rights and close to protecting the general opinion.

In public, personal freedom is reigned-in somewhat further and you must conform to society's view of acceptable behaviour, as dictated by our current public stance on whatever element of choice you wish to exercise (of which dress, language and actions are all part). It seems to be the best solution thus far (even if the society in question wasn't dominated by a mainstream culture), although it is not always weighted correctly, which is the real issue at hand in this thread.

Back to Burqa; we should look at the reason for the limitations:
1) Security = seeing everyone as guilty => is against Human Rights, presumption of innocence.
2) Because you do not like it => just find a way to divide between people that want and do not want to see ... but can they not behave like adults?
3) General interest => back to child labour, if it increases the might of the country (here economically due to a better educated workforce), is it not a capitalistic/communistic/mixed economy/UN duty to enforce the rules.

So in "General interest" are there no conflicting arguments: Burqa impedes communication, might repel clients, but not discriminating makes that you can get the best talents in your country. Will the ultimate judge not be economical success?
Sad that the process takes so long (tactics to survive slow down strategic visions), but one of my current theories is that might comes out of the correct decisions. So the one respecting freedom and rights correctly will prevail.

 

[XoravaX]

We shouldn't impose sanctions on what people can and can't wear. It's an infringement of civil liberties.

I want the right to wear a balaclava in public without any prejudices.
I want the right to carry assault rifles in public like in Israel. Or at least the Israeli should be allowed to since they can do that in their homeland.
I want the right to wear an SS uniform with the swastika hand band, no matter how much it offends someone. If someone says anything about that, he's restricting my civil liberties to dress up like I want to.


Civil liberties are anarchy if they can't be restricted.

 

[Zenith]

"Do I have the right to drive without a seat-belt": You only do yourself wrong, so why not.

I agree with most of what you're saying, but this and nudity take it a bit far.

By not wearing a seatbelt you can do a huge amount of wrong to others, whether you know it or not.

Are you not doing another person wrong by having them witness a bloody mess crash through and windshield and splatter all over the pavement? Of course.

What about another driver? If they hit you in a minor accident, you could be killed or maimed by not wearing a seatbelt, a position you put yourself in. In mutual crashes the same applies.

You're accidentally condemning others to a life of regret because you decided not to wear a seatbelt. Sure you pay more in the end, but you're not the only one who pays the price.

I'm all for personal strength and placing blame where it belongs. In a perfect world we could all say "I don't blame myself for what happened. He made a choice to take a risk and it didn't work out."

 

[FoolKiller]

Come again:

It is clear that what some do wrong is not excuse for you to start to do wrong as well.

Let's try the full quote in context, shall we?

Are there not Muslim citizens in these countries? They aren't making anyone where their clothing, so what's the big deal?

Two sentences, one subject.

Were Muslim citizens in France trying to make others where their own preference in clothing? I was pointing out that he acted as if this was just a case of visitors to these countries.

I want the right to wear a balaclava in public without any prejudices.

Like this guy?

I want the right to carry assault rifles in public like in Israel.

Like this guy?

I want the right to wear an SS uniform with the swastika hand band, no matter how much it offends someone.

Like this guy?

Well it isn't an armband, but what if it is even worse, a permanent tattoo?

If someone says anything about that, he's restricting my civil liberties to dress up like I want to.

No, he's not. If they make a law outlawing then they are restricting your civil rights. A business, such as a bank, can ask you to not wear a balaclava or carry a gun, or even wear a burqa, if you wish to do business with them. It is their private property. And while displaying a swastika is your freedom of expression, so is someone else calling you a bigot and refusing to serve you.

Civil liberties are anarchy if they can't be restricted.

All pictures from above are from America. All pictures are of legal activities. We have so much anarchy!

 

[jcm]

Meh, it doesn't affect me if they wear 'ski masks' so I say go for it.

 

[Negrumir]

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

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

But they're wearing a mask.
I frankly don't care if they do wear them. It's if someone else wears it, how in the heck are you gonna know if it's not an Islamic woman wearing it and not some possibly more dangerous (which could, in fact, be a terrorist.) More importantly, how do you tell before it's too late.

Like in America, it can be a federal offense to wear a full head covering in places like a bank of government building. It does seem kind of like a stupid law in a certain light, but it does make sense for safety reasons.

 

[FoolKiller]

Like in America, it can be a federal offense to wear a full head covering in places like a bank of government building. It does seem kind of like a stupid law in a certain light, but it does make sense for safety reasons.

Private businesses can enforce their own rules (supposedly). The bank rule ends at their property line.

 

[Joel]

You'd swear Canada was full of terrorists in the Winter. What, with all the ski masks, hats, and scarves, it's a wonder we haven't all been blown up yet!

 

[BobK]

So, what happens when TSA meets burqa?

 

[sumbrownkid]

Who claimed to be democratic and progressive? As an American libertarian, I sure didn't claim to be democratic or progressive, both of which are bad things if used irresponsibly.

I'm quite sure our media and leaders boasted that aspect of America since cable tv was invented.

So, what happens when TSA meets burqa?

I'm sorry ma'am, but you've "randomly selected" for additional screening.

 

[Liquid]

I'm quite sure our media and leaders boasted that aspect of America since cable tv was invented.

And since when do we have 100% faith in media?

 

[FoolKiller]

I'm sorry ma'am, but you've "randomly selected" for additional screening.

Oh no. That would be profiling, and we can't do that. Burqa lady goes right on through and then the granny with the walker and the toddler in diapers get a "thorough" search.

 

[Vince_Fiero]

Where a lot of people find wearing the Burqa shocking behaviour, I beleive the second most shocking behaviour is the one quote below, described in this thread.
The most shocking is that nobody (including me) reacted on this immediately. The Burqa is not that shocking as you will see below.

FoolKiller I am unaware of any specific laws regarding court attire, but the image you project risk creating a stigma against you.

The point was that you were allowed to go naked to a court.
Thinking about nudity, it is what we are it is the natural state of us.
Many philosophies follow that you are only responsible for your acts. Actually I can not see any other way myself.
Morality goes beyond that it is about choices, it might be immoral to choose not to act, but you are not responsible for what happens when you do not act.
So if you could help someone by calling the emmergency services and you do not, you did something immoral, but you are not responsible for what happened with the person, unless you acted on the person.
When you wear a mankini you did the act of wearing one, you are responsible for the result of this.
When you do not do the act of putting clothing on, people can not hold you responsible for who you are!

But the above completely goes against this, "image you project" and accepts a judgement based on this "creating a stigma against you".
In short: Someone writes a law. You are doing natural things in your natural state.
They judge you about things you are not responsible for (you did not act), but they are (they created the law, moral,... ).
In other theads I brought this forward, people judge too quickly!

Now back to the Burqa.
You are responsible for putting the Burqa on. People can judge this silly, it is them judging according to morals they created, you are not responsible.
You should be presumed innocent on all the rest (you did not act).
So if you sum this up in responsibilies and rights:
1) People wearing the Burqa are responsible for wearing the Burqa. They do not infrige any rights.
2) People forbidding the Burqa are exercising their right to complain about having to look at the Burqa (you impose a choice on them). They are responsible for imposing their moral on the other. They infringe the right of the Burqa wearing person to act without infringing the rights of others.

So the Burqa discussion for me comes down to a judgement of society if they go with:
1) Accepting that the moral that some decide; infinges the rights of others. Or
2) People that do not infringe rights (presumed innocent) are not limited in their rights.

I believe this is a final conclusion for me.

Just my judgement: I think that imposing my moral that all people should show their natural beauty and be punished for the act of hiding it, is as unjust as a law fobidding the Burqa.

 

[XoravaX]

Like this guy?

Well it isn't an armband, but what if it is even worse, a permanent tattoo?

Nah, those aren't close to the real thing, although taking a tattoo like that is idiotic. But I bet people would find dressing like Himmler more offensive. Especially if the person in case would be visiting France and were of German origin.

All pictures from above are from America. All pictures are of legal activities. We have so much anarchy!

Neo-nazism is anarchy. What about those demonstrations you have at Wall St.? Or those countless illegal immigrants? Or that amount of people killed with firearms when compared to EU(sure, it's because you don't need gun licences like here to own a gun).
To what I know, some US states have banned carrying firearms in public unconcealed, ie. outside a bag. Also, try carrying that M4 (or actually it's supposedly a semi-auto civilian variant) in a post office (public place, or at least a public place in European definition) and try to avoid getting jailed for a federal offence.

By the way, this thread is about burqa in Europe, and those swastika shirts and tattoos are banned in the UK, Germany, France, Belgium, Poland, Italy, Russia, the Netherlands, Austria etc. But are you frowned upon if you dress like that in the States? You are called a racist if you get mad at someone wearing a burqa, but people don't care if you start picking on a person wearing nazi swastikas, or any swastikas in general.

A system with no limitation of liberties leads to anarchy (tho that's almost completely irrelevant to that burqa issue, but I've got to add that).

 

[FoolKiller]

When you do not do the act of putting clothing on, people can not hold you responsible for who you are!

Anyone who has had to hire/fire people would disagree. For every situation there is an image that matches that role. An individual has to decide if they wish to match the image befitting the role or the image matching who you are. I am a T-shirt and jeans guy. I wear slacks and a buttoned shirt to work every day, sometimes a tie. On occasion my job will require a full suit. If I didn't show up for the interview in job appropriate clothing I wouldn't have gotten the job. Can they hold me responsible for who I am? No, but if I present an image that says who I am is not a person to fit the job role then it is to both our benefits if I do not get hired. But if I am a casual father and husband at home that can show up to be a hard worker that is on time and takes my tasks seriously my appearance is the first way I can show that. In business it is known as the "Rule of 12" and I have used that in all my dealings since I learned it 13 years ago in my Sociology of Sales college course.

But the above completely goes against this, "image you project" and accepts a judgement based on this "creating a stigma against you".
In short: Someone writes a law. You are doing natural things in your natural state.
They judge you about things you are not responsible for (you did not act), but they are (they created the law, moral,... ).

If the evidence is completely in your favor, then you are correct and your image will likely just annoy the judge/jury. But if you are relying on your testimony being taken serious then you need to look like you can be trusted.

2) People forbidding the Burqa are exercising their right to complain about having to look at the Burqa (you impose a choice on them).

Complaining and forbidding are two very different things. They are not exercising any right by forbidding.

Nah, those aren't close to the real thing, although taking a tattoo like that is idiotic.

Um, I found that tattoo image by Google searching white supremacist swastika tattoos. Most images had them on their chest, I chose that one simply because of the armband mention.

But I bet people would find dressing like Himmler more offensive.

Like these guys?

From a neo-Nazi rally in Nebraska.

Neo-nazism is anarchy.

No, it is not when free speech is recognized. It is just haters spewing hate.

What about those demonstrations you have at Wall St.?

Upper middle class white kids peacefully blogging on their iPhones while sitting in tents?

The closest thing to anarchy that occurred there was more like a unjust force from the law. We have a right in this country to peacefully assemble. The worst thing most of them did was possible trespass or violate some local ordinances.

Or those countless illegal immigrants?

What of them? Either their civil liberty is being restricted (hence the term illegal) or sneaking across international borders is not a civil right. Either way, illegal immigrants have little to do with your point. And people just looking for a way to feed their families by earning a wage at a legitimate job is not anarchy by any definition I know of.

Or that amount of people killed with firearms when compared to EU(sure, it's because you don't need gun licences like here to own a gun).

Um, they do require a license. Most gun crimes area result of illegally obtained guns.

To what I know, some US states have banned carrying firearms in public unconcealed, ie. outside a bag.

Different laws in different states. But as you can see some places allow it, and that picture was taken from a political rally. There was no anarchy.

Also, try carrying that M4 (or actually it's supposedly a semi-auto civilian variant) in a post office (public place, or at least a public place in European definition) and try to avoid getting jailed for a federal offence.

Yes, all federal government buildings have rules designed to prevent the functioning of government from being interrupted, even the useless, outdated and soon to be extinct functions, such as the postal service. It is also illegal for me to make a speech inside the building. But I can do all of that on the sidewalk in front of Post Office property.

And surprise, many private businesses also have rules against those things.

By the way, this thread is about burqa in Europe, and those swastika shirts and tattoos are banned in the UK, Germany, France, Belgium, Poland, Italy, Russia, the Netherlands, Austria etc. But are you frowned upon if you dress like that in the States?

By some people you are frowned upon, others agree with you, and others will just say it is free speech and ignore you.

You are called a racist if you get mad at someone wearing a burqa, but people don't care if you start picking on a person wearing nazi swastikas, or any swastikas in general.

One is a cultural/religious practice not attempting to impose its practice on others in the countries were banning it is being discussed. The other is a political/sociological movement wishing to enforce its views on everyone and oppress others.

You are free to say you don't agree with the religious reasons for wearing the burqa or even comment on its aesthetics without a word from me. But to force your choice on someone who chose to so something different from you is a problem. Neo-Nazis want to force their worldview on others and oppress those they do not like. Saying something to a Neo-Nazi is for the same reason I say something to those who wish to ban the wearing of a burqa, because it is the use of force to oppress a selected group.

A system with no limitation of liberties leads to anarchy (tho that's almost completely irrelevant to that burqa issue, but I've got to add that).[/QUOTE]