Burqa

[Vince_Fiero]

edit: something went wrong, sorry for double post

 

[Vince_Fiero]

Anyone who has had to hire/fire people would disagree. ... But if you are relying on your testimony being taken serious then you need to look like you can be trusted.

All this is reality, I agree with that. That does not make it more correct.
It is exactly the same as some fundamentalist Muslims thinking that any woman not wearing a Burqa does not have rights since they are not respectable.

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

You are correct on this, this was expressed too short.
Complaining is OK, is the right.
The forbidding is the justice part, that follows out of the right. If nobody would complain, people would not forbid, would not legislate.
So there are different parties involved, legislative, justice and common interest. But it seems they act as one against the Burqa, the forbidding is an implementation of fighting against imposed limitation of choices (having to look at the Burqa). That it is wrong, is something else.

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.

You assume legitimacy of states. I do not think it is relevant here, nor that it is clear to me, but people hang on to private property/states and the right to restrict people access anywhere they want as obvious, it is not obvious.

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.

For me it is very similar to the Burqa and part of understanding what the difference is, is important. Wearing a swastika is no issue, it is a Luck symbol since thousands of years. That sign is no issue.

The hate comes out of the speech these people do. Which is a directed action they are responsible for that calls to infringe the rights of others. Now similar to that the French and the Dutch forbid the Burqa since it is a sign of "oppression of women", impedes "importance of an open approach in an open community", "a society without imposing religion". But the one wearing the Burqa is rarely imposing it on others, so the law targets a possible victim, not someone who infringes rights; I must say that the French law targets partially the husband of the woman wearing the Burqa.

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.

Indeed this is the point where it hurts.
What can you impose and what can you not impose.

Jamel in Germany is an example. I saw an interview with some people from the village that just avoid going there since the atmosphere is too aggressive. The whole point makes me think of Gran Torino's ending, you need to die to get justice.

Spoiler

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=waNhD1Z23M8

 

[FoolKiller]

All this is reality, I agree with that. That does not make it more correct.

This is true. I do believe that western civilization has a major image issue. However, the only way around that would be a totalitarian ruling on clothing that places everyone in the exact same clothes. But I believe that those who don't want to dress for a role and say "screw it" if that keeps them from getting a job are perpetuating the problem. People who dress in a specific way are doing so to match an image or reflect their personality. That includes the people who do not want to be judged by their clothing. Someone who tries to get a management job faded jeans and a loose T-shirt are reflecting the fact that they don't care what the hiring manager thinks of them. In essence their appearance says, "Screw you old man. I don't care what you think." Ultimately, that is not a personality any manager wishes to have on their staff.

Similarly, not dressing at least decently for a court appearance is the visual effect of telling the judge or juror, "Screw you. I don't care what you think." Humans are not some higher level beings capable of seeing beyond the message your appearance sends. And a person who doesn't care if they are judged by appearance are doing it as well, because by sending the "screw you" message they are judging the interviewer/judge/jury as someone they have no need to show respect to.

It is exactly the same as some fundamentalist Muslims thinking that any woman not wearing a Burqa does not have rights since they are not respectable.

To be honest, fundamentalist (insert group name here) is an issue everywhere. It can only be overcome with time and patience. Yelling at a racist or a religious zealot only confirms their view of you. Showing them love and compassion, taking the higher road, etc is the only way to overcome their worldview, and even then it may not take hold until the next generation.

You assume legitimacy of states. I do not think it is relevant here, nor that it is clear to me, but people hang on to private property/states and the right to restrict people access anywhere they want as obvious, it is not obvious.

His point was that non-restricted civil rights leads to anarchy. All I was doing was pointing out that there is no unrestricted rights in this example. Legitimacy or not, either the laws restrict the rights or the rights do not exist.

For me it is very similar to the Burqa and part of understanding what the difference is, is important. Wearing a swastika is no issue, it is a Luck symbol since thousands of years. That sign is no issue.

The hate comes out of the speech these people do. Which is a directed action they are responsible for that calls to infringe the rights of others.

Unfortunately that symbol was co-opted by hate-filled fascists in a very public way. That image is a long way from leaving the public perception.

 

[tribolik]

I though it was forbiden for safety issues.... anyone could be dressed in one and...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2008641/Hunt-burka-raider-Man-dressed-Muslim-woman-caught-CCTV-robbing-travel-agencies.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1209006/Jewellers-robbery-Oxfordshire-burka-clad-man--150-000-designer-watches-stolen.html

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/05/australia-armed-robbery-in-burqa-leads-to-calls-for-ban.html

But if running around all covered up with only the eyes showing up is allowed why cant I run around naked with my shades on?????

 

[FoolKiller]

I though it was forbiden for safety issues.... anyone could be dressed in one and...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2008641/Hunt-burka-raider-Man-dressed-Muslim-woman-caught-CCTV-robbing-travel-agencies.html

I guess we should ban looking like Brack Obama then.

http://www.wptv.com/dpp/news/region...arack-obama-mask-robs-riviera-beach-mcdonalds

Or crossdressing

http://www.newspusher.com/EN/post/1266352561-2/mo-crossdresser-robs-shop.html

And pantyhose

http://www.kltv.com/story/8567204/p...r-wearing-pantyhose-over-face?redirected=true



Heck, lets ban everything ever used to obscure a face during a crime. That's the ticket and absolutely not a knee-jerk reaction that risks violating the rights of individuals. We should probably also force everyone wishing to fly on an airplane to go through an x-ray and/or get patted down, including children in diapers and old people in wheelchairs, because that is the type of sneaky thing those terrorists are likely to use and if you aren't afraid of it you are being a dangerous extremist.

 

[Sach]

I say allow it.


The OP is basically suggesting that we disallow it under the premise of an irrational fear of malicious behaviour by a 'disguised' person. I don't agree with that line of thinking.


Should people not be allowed to wear all black at night?

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

So you think your boss should allow you to wear a Storm Trooper costume at work?

EDIT: Sorry for double post.

Really grasping for straws there with that argument.

The OP obviously has a black and white view on the subject, but it seems that they have some boogey man theory on this.

 

[RTSolvalou]

 

[Strittan]

I'd be totally fine with it if it was their own choice to wear them, and if the face was shown.

First of all, they wear them because they were raised to do so, and keep wearing them in fear of their husbands, brothers and fathers, and secondly, I can't see how a person not showing his/her face is functional in the western society.

EDIT: I actually found a pretty interesting comment on YouTube...

"How bout the fact you have a bunch of masked people running around. If they want to wear a burka at home...fine...In public your right to your religious freedom doesn't superseded my right to identify the people around me. I see it all as a security issue more then anything. Wear a Hijab in public...and rock that burka in your own pad..."

 

[Vince_Fiero]

I though it was forbiden for safety issues....

Repeat: That assumes that you are guilty upfront. This is not a valid reason it is against your right to be presumed innocent.

Edit:

...my right to identify the people around me...

and it is my right to know the size of your .... yeh right.
Since you do not own the people, you have no right on them; just like they do not own you and have no right on you.

 

[Strittan]

and it is my right to know the size of your .... yeh right.
Since you do not own the people, you have no right on them; just like they do not own you and have no right on you.

Oh, so showing my face is the same as showing my dick now, eh?

How about this then? A women wearing burka takes a drive and gets pulled over by a cop. He asks to see her license. What happens?

 

[Pierced Lead]

I'd be totally fine with it if it was their own choice to wear them, and if the face was shown.

First of all, they wear them because they were raised to do so, and keep wearing them in fear of their husbands, brothers and fathers, and secondly, I can't see how a person not showing his/her face is functional in the western society.

The same way you were raised with your values of what's right and wrong and the values that women in the West were raised to accept. Its pretty much the same process with everyone. The reason women in the West wear the clothes they do is ALSO for acceptance, and fear of being rejected by society if they don't do otherwise.

You also have this misconception that the women are forced to wear the veil and they don't do willingly. It may be true for some, but most women I know do so by choice, and they don't necessarily have to be raised in such values, MOST women adopt this later on and abandon their previous preferences.

It's also contradictory how you state in the first sentence that they were raised to wear such veils (i.e. such values were ingrained by their society [their family] while they were young) and then in the second sentence you imply that these women find such values unacceptable and hence only do so because of the men in their family. I feel this sort of perception is demonizing.

EDIT: I actually found a pretty interesting comment on YouTube...

"How bout the fact you have a bunch of masked people running around. If they want to wear a burka at home...fine...In public your right to your religious freedom doesn't superseded my right to identify the people around me. I see it all as a security issue more then anything. Wear a Hijab in public...and rock that burka in your own pad..."

Second misconception is that women have to wear them ALL THE TIME including indoors; the purpose of the Veil (and Hijab) is - according to those who wear it - to avoid public eye, indoors they don't cover their faces from mahram men.

 

[Vince_Fiero]

Oh, so showing my face is the same as showing my dick now, eh?

The point is who decides? You should on your body.

How about this then? A women wearing burka takes a drive and gets pulled over by a cop. He asks to see her license. What happens?

Correct this is an issue. But where is the issue, in the point of the license, the cop pulling someone over, ....
We are so used to identification that we do not think about it, we find it natural, well the woman in the Burqa does not find it correct. Who are we to say we are right and she is wrong.

There is point to say if you want to drive on our busy roads, you need to be ready to prove you have a valid license and thus remove the Burqa. But why would the lady not ask to have this done by an other lady in a private room?

 

[Strittan]

Correct this is an issue. But where is the issue, in the point of the license, the cop pulling someone over, ....
We are so used to identification that we do not think about it, we find it natural, well the woman in the Burqa does not find it correct. Who are we to say we are right and she is wrong.

Because we have a law system. Simple as that. Are you saying ID cards and driver licenses are bad? A thousand years ago we didn't need those things, but today we do.

There is point to say if you want to drive on our busy roads, you need to be ready to prove you have a valid license and thus remove the Burqa. But why would the lady not ask to have this done by an other lady in a private room?

Are you serious!?

This is one of the problems about this. The vast distance that appears between men and women. It's just her face! It's not like he asks her to remove her panties.

 

[Dennisch]

Because we have a law system. Simple as that. Are you saying ID cards and driver licenses are bad? A thousand years ago we didn't need those things, but today we do.

Are you serious!?

This is one of the problems about this. The vast distance that appears between men and women. It's just her face! It's not like he asks her to remove her panties.

This. No Burqa. Safety before religion. Want to hide your face? Stay at home, or in the mosque.

On a side note:

Here in the Netherlands your have to carry your ID with you at all time, now there is a case against a jewish guy who didn't have it with him, so he got a ticket. His defense was that it was Sabbath, and he isn't allowed to carry anything with him on that day. A judge dropped the case, and now the case is going to "supreme court". Politicians say : This is the world upside down, religion needs to abide law, and not the other way round. God above the law? No.

Link: (Dutch) Clickie

 

[Vince_Fiero]

Are you serious!?...It's just her face!

Are you serious about not showing the size of ...
What is the difference? Just your habit against theirs.

This is one of the problems about this. The vast distance that appears between men and women.

I do agree that integration is something we value and that we should protect women that do not want to wear the Burqa against pressures from their families. There is also a point why do no men wear the Burqa?
All this does not make arguments to limit someone in their choices.

It's not like he asks her to remove her panties.

There is no issue with removing panties for me, but not everyone seems to agree with me on that.

... Safety before religion. ...

What you say is, my ideas before their ideas. Think about it, be open minded yourself.

 

[sumbrownkid]

Because in the Quran it specifically says that a woman is the one that must be covered modestly. Well men too, but it's more adamant on women.

It doesn't help when families blindly follow the burqa rule without much thought.

But interestingly enough men have been caught trying to use the burqa as disguises.

 

[Dennisch]

What you say is, my ideas before their ideas. Think about it, be open minded yourself.

Nope, our laws before their religion.

And when it come to open minded, if I would be any more open minded my brain would fall out.
I don't care about scarfs, I don't care about a cross on a necklace, a kippah and the list goes on and on.
But when it comes to something like a burqa, no, that is just a step to far. Would you see someone like that work behind the counter of a bank? Or McDonalds? No one would hire her. And most of the time the woman is forced to wear it.

And if they want to wear it, but the law forbids it, go live somewhere else, or adjust yourself to our laws.
Western society has been friendly enough.

 

[Strittan]

Are you serious about not showing the size of ...
What is the difference? Just your habit against theirs.

The difference is that showing my dick is sex related and can be offensive to some, if not most people (Plus it's illegal.) Showing my face isn't. Looking at people's faces is a natural thing, and one of the first things you learn to do after you're born. Of course, looking at naked body parts is a natural thing too, IF you're at a strip club, watching porn or having sexual intercourse. Not so much in public.

You seem to think that islamic women rather shows their vagina than their face, which I highly doubt is the case, lol.

There is no issue with removing panties for me, but not everyone seems to agree with me on that.

So, if you were a cop and had just pulled over a random women for speeding (or whatever) you would ask her to remove her panties rather than her burka?

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

The difference is that showing my dick is sex related and can be offensive to some, if not most people (Plus it's illegal.) Showing my face isn't. Looking at people's faces is a natural thing, and one of the first things you learn to do after you're born. Of course, looking at naked body parts is a natural thing too, IF you're watching porn or having sexual intercourse. Not so much in public.

Depends on where you live, for the western world that may ring true, but their are still tribes in South America and all over Africa as well as pacific islands that still do partial to full nudity, that would be natural to them. For you it is just situational to what your every day is, not for everyone though as I pointed out.

Just saying.

So, if you were a cop and had just pulled over a random women for speeding (or whatever) you would ask her to remove her panties rather than her burka?

No, obviously you didn't get the sarcastic analogy that is not remotely what he was getting at.

They are saying that they rather remove some other garment of clothing but there will be large groups of people that disagree with that, and rightly so. Same goes for burkas. He rather them walk around in that state for whatever reasons, but people don't agree with that. You rather see no burkas due to your reasons which are of a paranoid state as well as trying to liberate them from a ideal you don't agree with but have no say over.

 

[Strittan]

Depends on where you live, for the western world that may ring true, but their are still tribes in South America and all over Africa as well as pacific islands that still do partial to full nudity, that would be natural to them. For you it is just situational to what your every day is, not for everyone though as I pointed out.

Just saying.

Yes, but if they're having a discussion, are they looking at the face or at the sex organ? What did we (humans) hide first? Our body or our faces?

My point is that there is no reason to hide your face unless you're doing a B&E, a bank robbery or similar.

No, obviously you didn't get the sarcastic analogy that is not remotely what he was getting at.

They are saying that they rather remove some other garment of clothing but there will be large groups of people that disagree with that, and rightly so. Same goes for burkas. He rather them walk around in that state for whatever reasons, but people don't agree with that. You rather see no burkas due to your reasons which are of a paranoid state as well as trying to liberate them from a ideal you don't agree with but have no say over.

Wait a minute. I'm paranoid? What the hell have I done to make you say that?

I simply rather see no burkas because it's hiding the face of the one wearing it and many women are forced to wear it. Also, as an atheist who are against all religions I dislike it because it's a religious symbol.

On a side note, it's also a health issue, because the body doesn't get any vitamin D from sunlight.

Now, why is it you like the idea of women wearing burkas so much?

 

[sumbrownkid]

How come no one really thought about the fact that some women actually prefer to wear it?

And the example of a burqa in bank robberies weak. Why not ban ski masks, surgical masks and anything that covers the face?

Make a realistically example, not an asinine one

 

[FoolKiller]

How about this then? A women wearing burka takes a drive and gets pulled over by a cop. He asks to see her license. What happens?

If this were to happen it then means that this:

First of all, they wear them because they were raised to do so, and keep wearing them in fear of their husbands, brothers and fathers,

was not true in this case, as the oppression issue you point out also forbids them to drive.

Stick to one set of facts, because otherwise you have either a straw man or a fallacious situation. Either she is oppressed or it is worn purely for personal reasons. You don't get both.

However, that does remind me of a situation locally where Amish men went to jail for not putting orange, reflective triangles on their carriages. Eventually though local officials and the Amish community sat down and discussed an amicable solution. They found a dark colored reflective material to use instead.

If the French leaders truly cared about not violating rights or being offensive and this were truly about security and has zero to do with French populations playing to populist fears they would sit down with Muslim leaders and explain that there is an issue that non-Muslims could exploit the Burqa to commit crimes without being identified and they need to find a way to make that impossible. But no, they jumped the gun and showed they didn't give two spits about rights.

Here in the Netherlands your have to carry your ID with you at all time, now there is a case against a jewish guy who didn't have it with him, so he got a ticket. His defense was that it was Sabbath, and he isn't allowed to carry anything with him on that day. A judge dropped the case, and now the case is going to "supreme court". Politicians say : This is the world upside down, religion needs to abide law, and not the other way round. God above the law? No.

Really, that is a law there? I can't remember how many times I have forgotten my wallet or left it in my car when I went in somewhere or purposely left it behind because we went to the gym and my wife was driving.

Although, that kind of law does sound familiar to me:



Yeah, that would never pass in the states. The only time you must have an ID on you by law is if you are operating a vehicle that requires a license to operate it. You can not be stopped and checked without reason. That is the tactic of statist regimes on both ends of the spectrum, fascist and communist. People should not live in fear of their government, which is what happens when you can be found guilty of a crime for walking out the door without their wallet.

 

[Vince_Fiero]

The difference is that showing my dick is sex related and can be offensive to some, if not most people (Plus it's illegal.) Showing my face isn't. Looking at people's faces is a natural thing, and one of the first things you learn to do after you're born. Of course, looking at naked body parts is a natural thing too, IF you're at a strip club, watching porn or having sexual intercourse. Not so much in public.

You do not get it, your whole body is natural, the covering is what you want, but who are you to impose what you want on others?
What the masses want or law writes is not always correct, that is the whole point of the thread.

Nope, our laws before their religion.

The issue with this is clear, we are trying to increase our production in the west, but have a decrease in active population. So soon "our laws" will become "their laws", if you want to be subject to unjust laws later, the best is to make current laws unjust. However if you think and respect the other in "our laws" chance are very large that "their laws" will be based on thought and will respect you later. It is your choice.

 

[XoravaX]

Like these guys?

From a neo-Nazi rally in Nebraska.

What the...
Well, yeah, if that is allowed, I guess there is no mind trying to ban burqa.
But there isn't objective freedom of speech in EU like there is in the States.

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

They do? I didn't know that - but am I right this hasn't always been the case?

 

[Strittan]

If this were to happen it then means that this:


was not true in this case, as the oppression issue you point out also forbids them to drive.

Good point. Have you ever seen a women in burka drive?

You do not get it, your whole body is natural, the covering is what you want, but who are you to impose what you want on others?
What the masses want or law writes is not always correct, that is the whole point of the thread.

Our whole body is natural, yes, but someone who lived thousands of years ago thought it would be a good idea to hide our sexual body parts, so we started to do so. Why, I'm not entirely sure, but I guess one reason is that it makes sex more exciting, because with clothes we have something to unveil. In my opinion, hiding the face is not natural though. We use it for so many things. We use it to get contact, we use it for communication, we show expressions with it and last but not least, we use it for identification.

We've worked so hard and for so long to have the gender equality we have in the western society, and all of a sudden we're letting muslims do whatever they want only because it's according to their religion? It's like we're travelling hundreds of years back in time, and I don't want that, but that's just me I guess...

 

[FoolKiller]

What the...
Well, yeah, if that is allowed, I guess there is no mind trying to ban burqa.
But there isn't objective freedom of speech in EU like there is in the States.

I have personally witnessed a KKK march. Didn't know there would be one and left when we saw it, but they were walking down the street when I was in college. They didn't do anything but hold signs and make hate-filled speeches. It is amazing how little harm actually comes from free speech.

They do? I didn't know that - but am I right this hasn't always been the case?

With a background check. It was not always the case, you are correct. But it has done little to stop gun crime. Only the dumbest of criminals try to buy a gun legally if they have a criminal history.

And laws vary state to state but many places have outlawed carrying a concealed weapon in general, unless you have a license obtained after training.

 

[Pierced Lead]

I simply rather see no burkas because it's hiding the face of the one wearing it and many women are forced to wear it.

Will you please stop asserting that perception? Did you completely ignore my post?

Also, as an atheist who are against all religions I dislike it because it's a religious symbol.

This sentence implies your contention with the burka is alot more personal to you than concerns of a potential security breach in public.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Yes, but if they're having a discussion, are they looking at the face or at the sex organ? What did we (humans) hide first? Our body or our faces?

You nor I know that, it is a loaded question that really adds nothing to the argument but more questions.

My point is that there is no reason to hide your face unless you're doing a B&E, a bank robbery or similar.

Wait a minute. I'm paranoid? What the hell have I done to make you say that?

The part I bolded makes the wait a minute part contradicting. Ironic and quite funny. You automatically associate burka with a bank robbery. Which is a bad act thus perpetuating some type of paranoia. So in summary burka is to bank heist and thus those wearing it must have some bad intention?

By you saying it's hiding the face and the way you put things like the cop comment and so on show a sort of indirect paranoia, that is thus projected onto something else rather than personal. However, it is there whether you realize upfront or not.

I simply rather see no burkas because it's hiding the face of the one wearing it and many women are forced to wear it. Also, as an atheist who are against all religions I dislike it because it's a religious symbol.

On a side note, it's also a health issue, because the body doesn't get any vitamin D from sunlight.

Now, why is it you like the idea of women wearing burkas so much?

I never said I like them wearing them, unlike your comments mine show a sense of moral tolerance. Just because you're an atheist doesn't mean you project a sense of dislike or pass judgment upon those who practice certain things. Rather you don't believe that due to logic based reasoning that such symbols or practice heed any real scientific reasoning. I don't believe in religions myself but at the same time I'm not intolerant of them. People also have the choice to leave said life and go a different route, not all women have this so called boogey man over their shoulder making them wear it. That notion is a vague assumption and one not drenched in solid evidence.

Atheist =/= automatically hate all religious symbols. However, I digress because if I wanted to debate you religious wise I'd do so in the designated threads. I see this more as a freedom of choice issue that you've made into some religious totalitarianisms over these women.

Will you please stop asserting that perception? Did you completely ignore my post?


This sentence implies your contention with the burka is alot more personal to you than concerns of a potential security breach in public.

It also asserts that his stance should take some sort of presidence over the women who decide to wear burkas. That isn't freedom.

 

[STI9]

-So the women are forced to keep wearing the burqua for the men in their lives? And people in here are arguing that they should have the right to wear it ?
Your saying these women should have the right to be forced into something ?
-Wearing a burqua all the time and covering all of your skin leads to a lack of vitamin D which in turn causes Rickets.
-I beleive this has to do with Europe, so the americans in here who haven't been to europe or know anything about EU law: your comments about US law dont always comply over here.
-Surely it would come under some form of abuse if a man kept forcing a woman to wear something - maybe not in their native country but again in the EU ?