Burqa

[Keef]

If it benefited them to go without a burqa don't you think they'd be smart enough to figure that out? Or do you think they're some sort of lesser being. Maybe the European Union should pass a Three-Fifths Compromise so a Muslim individual doesn't count as a whole person, and therefore have no rights as a human being.

I personally feel all British people should lay out in the sun and get a freakin' tan, but that doesn't mean I want to ban them wearing long sleeve shirts and pants. It just makes for good whitey jokes, that's all.

 

[Joel]

Because it benefits them and it opens up a whole lot of options for them. Have you ever seen a women wearing a burkha working as an architect or doctor?

I'm not against it because I don't like burkhas, I'm against them because I just think they will have an easier experience fully integrating in our society.

Your sheer arrogance astounds me. You think you know what is right for them? This is not your decision to make. By the same logic, we should ban sweatpants and T-shirts in job interviews because it "benefits" them, and "opens up a lot of options for them". It's absurd to suggest that we should be telling these women what they can and can't wear. Just because it's for their own good (let's ignore that if they don't get to wear them, the abusive husbands will imprison them in their own houses), doesn't mean you can use force to make it so.


Should we have armed guards blocking fat people from entering Mcdonalds because it "benefits them", "opens up a lot of options for them", and makes it so "they will have an easier experience fully integrating into our society"?



Bottom line, clothing is a personal choice. Most women who wear the burka in western countries wear it by their own choice. And if they are being forced to wear it, all it means is that the abusive husband who is forcing her to wear the burqa will just imprison her in her own house. So no, it doesn't really open up a lot of options.

 

[Touring Mars]

I don't care for burqas much myself, but I'm against a ban. I do, however, think there are circumstances where a burqa might be inappropriate - in an airport during identification procedures, for example, and I think that people who choose to wear such clothing ought to be aware that they may be required to forgo the facial coverage in such circumstances, but if someone wants to wear a burqa then no-one has the right to dictate otherwise. If forcing women to wear a burqa is tantamount to oppression, then what do you call telling women they are not allowed to wear whatever they want?

 

[Vince_Fiero]

I apologize that you Europeans typically dislike Muslims and support infringing their rights, but it's not my problem.

My conclusion that Europeans dislike Muslims is based on the results of this thread and poll, but your conclusion seems to be based on nothing at all. Especially considering that whatever math equation you're trying to show isn't making much sense for me, and your expectation of mostly pro freedom is in direct opposition to the poll.

1) If you also read the arguments you would see very few Europeans stated anything against Muslims, just against Burqa´s, for security or oppression reasons.
2) I still believe your conclusion is based on nothing, but that probably is linked to point 3.
3) I do not understand your calculations either.

I did state:

3) For me a conclusion could be: Americans that think anti freedom shut their mouth. But it does not have any more basis then your conclusion.

Could is a conditional = not my opinion, but an example

Europe is nearly split on the issue, but is mostly in favor of infringing a muslim woman's rights to wear what she wants with about 60% against the burqa.

60 % of Europeans pro restriction

However, American members are overwhelmingly against this measure, with over 85% supporting the right to wear a burqa.

85% of US pro freedom

About 65% of posters are European

65% European
35% US (probably insignificant simplification)

Pro restriction = 65% * 60% + 35% * 15%
Pro freedom = 65% * 40% + 35% * 85%

This is the way I come to: expected vote of 56% pro freedom from the thread.

The poll shows an even higher percentage, which means there are a bunch of weenies out there who just like voting and not arguing. Probably European.

Can not link this to your numbers above.


Other differences: France has 10-20% Muslims (wikipedia), 5-10 where most posters live.

Compared to the world:

So there is a clear difference of the US talking about their principles (freedom) and the Europeans about their (practical) day to day experience.
Anyhow a good social specialist could find other examples where Europeans and US citizens would be radically opposed, not to bring in Asians that generally have a very different interpretation of relationships between people.

The poll shows an even higher percentage, which means there are a bunch of weenies out there who just like voting and not arguing. Probably European.

So for me the statement above is a prejudice against Europeans, with the argument used:

I apologize that you Europeans typically dislike Muslims and support infringing their rights, but it's not my problem.

Which to me seems to miss essential points of the discussion and an interpretation based on the prejudice above, not on the arguments used by Europeans in this thread.

 

[Famine]

1) If you also read the arguments you would see very few Europeans stated anything against Muslims, just against Burqa´s, for security or oppression reasons.

Making a law about the burqa is a law which, in Europe, would be exclusively be made about Islam. No other religion has a law prohibiting a behaviour associated with it in the UK.

It is easy to see why supporting a fundamentally anti-single-religion law can be seen as being fundamentally anti-single-religion. Certainly Muslims would see it that way.

 

[niky]

I'm not against it because I don't like burkhas, I'm against them because I just think they will have an easier experience fully integrating in our society.

Did I forget to mention that our one burqa-wearing student was Magna cum Laude? (Looks at older posts)... nope, I didn't. Hardcore. Full face veil. Didn't stop her from seeing the whiteboard, reading her notes, hearing the lectures or speaking up in class.

----

@Vince: I speak from a position of experience, mind you. I deal with Muslim students on a daily basis, and my assistant is Muslim. I'm still against the burqa ban.

In fact, this experience brings up an even bigger impediment to integration. Halal food.

It's the Islamic equivalent of kosher. Those students had a hard time finding a fishmonger who was acceptable.

If Europe really cares about integration, it should ban halal and kosher butchers and force everyone to eat the same meat.

 

[Vince_Fiero]

Making a law about the burqa is a law which, in Europe, would be exclusively be made about Islam.

Agree it should never be called a law against burqa and the discussions are to much about this one piece of clothing, which make it very anti Muslim. However this argument was not used by a lot by people on this forum that were anti Burqa.

Edit I checked the Belgian statement in the law (indirectly through an article in Dutch):

Het goedgekeurde voorstel bestraft evenwel niét het dragen van de boerka en de nikab op zich, maar wel “het dragen van gezichtsversluierende kleding die zover gaat dat betrokkene niet meer kan geïdentificeerd worden”.

The law does not forbit a Burqa or Nikab, but clothing that covers the face and does not allow direct identification of the person.

Similar in France:

« toute personne sur la voie publique dont on constaterait que le visage serait intégralement masqué ». De même, une « contravention aggravée pour une personne qui obligerait une femme à porter un voile intégral »

All persons on public road that have a full coverage of the face, but here a higher fine for people that would force the "fully covering veil" on persons.



About the anti Muslim feeling a quote from yet another French rapper (Ab Al Malik):

si j'n'avais pas eu la foi j'aurais eu honte d'être mouslim.

Translated, "if I did not have my faith I would be ashamed to be Muslim."

This is in a song about the 11 September an how a Muslim experiences this event and the whole world looking with fear at Muslims.
I do believe that the whole anti-Muslim movement has been given strength by the wrong communication of some of our prominent world leaders in the last decade.

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

To show these measures in France are not purely anti religion, but are also used pro-religion, this article (in French, L'independent) talks about fines for running around in town with bathing suits or even bear upper bodies for men.
Reason:

"respect de la dignité humaine, de la décence, de la moralité et de la protection de la jeunesse"

Respect of Human dignity, decency, morality and child protection.

Although it is communal, I do find the measure quite strange for this time and age in Europe.

This also made me think of "Topfreedom" as it is called on Wikipedia:

Female toplessness in public is illegal in most of the United States, on the basis that it is indecent exposure.

In many Asian and Southwest Asia countries with conservative social norms, women are prohibited from being topfree in any public place.

Beaches permitting topless swimming and sunbathing became common in Europe and Australia, where the practice mostly became uncontroversial.

In some locations, topless sunbathing is legally permitted; in others, toplessness has grown to be accepted by common consent.

So Europeans that want to go topless on the beach in the US can be restricted on that matter for "indecent exposure" but they can not restrict some forms of dressing themselves according to some on this forum without being strongly against a group of people.

There are other topics that are relevant on the Muslim discussion:

• The reaction on the Danish drawings by the Islam world.
• Migration reasons towards Europe (working in mines, colonies, etc...)
• The murder of Theo Van Gogh
• Western philosophy based on the Greek writings, which were translations of the Arab texts, which were...

@Vince: I speak from a position of experience, mind you. I deal with Muslim students on a daily basis, and my assistant is Muslim. I'm still against the burqa ban.

I did not state their could not be positive experiences for some people.
In general in my experience the Muslim culture puts the wife at the center of the family and respects the capabilities of women more then in most western visions.
2 years ago I joined in the organization of an information en "iftar" evening and worked with people that were clearly Muslim, I did not see any issues that evening.

This was the team (I'm not on the picture left early since I was traveling a lot):

Btw I love Mediterranean food, like Lebanese, Couscous, Tajines, etc...

In fact, this experience brings up an even bigger impediment to integration. Halal food.

It's the Islamic equivalent of kosher. Those students had a hard time finding a fishmonger who was acceptable.

This was a recent riot in France again, a company had decided to switch to Halal food for their large Muslim workforce. However they did not inform the not Muslim employees.
When the word came out the not Muslim employees were shocked about the food they had been given since for them it represented a violation of animal rights.

If Europe really cares about integration, it should ban halal and kosher butchers and force everyone to eat the same meat.

I do believe that integration is generally promoted to avoid conflict and xenophobe reactions. Go to the same market, bar, restaurant, etc... learn to communicate, learn to respect,... Integration should not be adapt or get out!

E.g. The Netherlands introduced a video to say to people come and live here, but accept this Netherlands Culture. I do not believe anywhere this says change and do the same.

To come back to the Burqa, I would love to live in a society where this discussion was completely irrelevant, because:

• We would know all people have good intentions
• People would not misuse habits of others to mislead
• Everyone would be living in respect of the other
• Everyone would have a free choice, free of peer and family pressure

This way you could dress the way you want.

But this does not exist a lot on this world and respect is seen different in different cultures, so we create rules and we protect and thus we create conflicts.

 

[Public'sTwin]

If telling women to wear a burqa is tantamount to oppression, then what do you call telling women they are not allowed to wear something?

This.

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

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

That.

Because it's public and is owned by everyone but the majority decides. That's democarty

No. "Democracy" is not the will of the majority:

The term used in Hellenistic Greece for corrupted democracy was ochlocracy ("mob rule"), while tyranny was the term for a corrupt monarchy.

And one of the few times I'll ever quote this woman,

"individual rights are not subject to a public vote, and the political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities (and that the smallest minority on earth is the individual)"

IAlso legislation is probably unclear on helmet wear, it is probably forbidden to cover up (in most european countries) your face in cars (not talking of cars like a arial, xbow, renault spider) if it reduces your field of view and your face is not recognizable (for radars)

There are no rules which distinguish the general conduct of road users from each other. Motorcyclists, cyclists, car drivers, bus drivers, lorry drivers must all abide by the same overall set of rules (with the recognition that the variation in speed, signing and roadworthiness may cover the different sets of users). [...] Since motorcyclists must wear a helmet for their protection, helmets are not illegal for any other road user.

To expound upon this, *ibo* S3 Racer, your hypothesis that the helmet be banned to recognise the driver for purposes of radar conviction is essentially meaningless, given that the owner of the vehicle is charged regardless of who is driving.

The owner of the vehicle is responsible for the correct and responsible operation of it on the road, not the driver. The use of non-human administered (eg breathalyzer) technology on traffic regulation (eg speed-camera) apply solely to vehicle owners. Drunk driving, for instance, is a driving offense - not a traffic offense. (These may not be differentiated in law in the EU or UK, but they are in Canada; application of law, though, I imagine, would be very similar.)

 

[Danoff]

And one of the few times I'll ever quote this woman

"individual rights are not subject to a public vote, and the political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities (and that the smallest minority on earth is the individual)"

It's a surprisingly poorly understood concept despite being a cornerstone of civilization.

 

[Public'sTwin]

It's a surprisingly poorly understood concept despite being a cornerstone of civilization.

More surprisingly, perhaps, is that was it wasn't verbalised as such until well into the 20th century.

Because it benefits them and it opens up a whole lot of options for them. Have you ever seen a women wearing a burkha working as an architect or doctor?

I'm not against it because I don't like burkhas, I'm against them because I just think they will have an easier experience fully integrating in our society.

This is reversed-tolerance. It's also known as racism.

Your rhetoric, "Have you ever seen a women wearing a burkha working as an architect or doctor?", or "I'm against them because I just think they will have an easier experience fully integrating in our society" is without justification; that's known as racism. Furthermore, the onus on society is to accept the individual, not for the individual to accept society. (This obviously has legal constraints, but culturally speaking [ie rights, and by extension, sometimes law], this still holds.)

Anyway,

Why don't we start forcing black people to dress more "white", or actually be white? Have you ever seen a black architect or doctor? Why don't we start prohibiting the obese from attaining driver's licenses—because, like banning burqas, it benefits them and it opens up a whole lot of options for them, like losing weight and becoming more fit & attractive and. . .

 

[Ibonibo]

"The owner of the vehicle is responsible for the correct and responsible operation of it on the road, not the driver. The use of non-human administered (eg breathalyzer) technology on traffic regulation (eg speed-camera) apply solely to vehicle owners. Drunk driving, for instance, is a driving offense - not a traffic offense. (These may not be differentiated in law in the EU or UK, but they are in Canada; application of law, though, I imagine, would be very similar.) "

Every European country has it own rules in this. (we are still all different countries, with different culture, origins, mentalitities). In Germany they will try to track down the driver. If they don't succed the owner must identify the owner if that's not the case charges are against the owner or will be dropped.
In Sweden the police must stop the car in order to give a fine.

And the same goes for Mot being the same than Tüv : that's simply not true. Every country has it own rules. Try to get a couch car (or the other wierd DIY cars) from uk registered in most of the others EU countries. It will not be possible. In Lux, Germany aluminium and carbon aftermarket spilers are forbidden. Lighting is very strict.
The European directives states that all manufactures cars from the EU must be registrable in other EU countries. That sums it pretty much up. That doesn't include tune ups and DIY cars

As for the main thread i will try to stay out, as there are also people here trying to confince everybody who has contractory ideas to them own to change. That is for me worse than the subject discussted. Now hit on me for having differents ideas and opinions than you

 

[DK]

Why don't we start prohibiting the obese from attaining driver's licenses?

I don't think you need a license for a mobility scooter.

 

[Vince_Fiero]

Ayn Rand

"individual rights are not subject to a public vote, and the political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities (and that the smallest minority on earth is the individual)"

Clear, human rights are valid for any homo sapiens (just some discussion remaining on from what development level you are homo sapiens).

But if I invent my own language and refuse to speak in any other language + do not follow laws (generally there to protect these human rights) since I can not read them in my language, there is a problem with me, not the others.

In this sense the Wallonians got themselves recognised French minority in Flemish communes in Belgium.
As a reaction the Flemish got themselves recognised Dutch minority in Wallonian communes in Belgium.

Both are not trying to protect minorities, but are trying to obstruct the correct functioning of the system.
E.g. through this kind of behaviour all judges need to pass 2 language exams in Brussels, not sufficiently people pass these exams, so a lot of court cases can not be treated.

This is reversed-tolerance. It's also known as racism.

Your rhetoric, "Have you ever seen a women wearing a burkha working as an architect or doctor?", or "I'm against them because I just think they will have an easier experience fully integrating in our society" is without justification; that's known as racism.

I agree that the statements are wrong. People wearing a Burqa could do anything (and they do). Integrating in society should not be about changing people, but assuring there is a dialogue and mutual respect.

However racism according to oxford advanced Learner's dictionary:

the unfair treatment of people who belong to a different race; violent behaviour towards them:

Where these laws (and statements) talk about a way of covering yourself, just as the "Topfreedom" does not exist in the US, not about races.
Anyway this article shows that we are all homo sapiens, there are no races.

on Reverse tolerance I had to go to Wikipedia:

Reverse tolerance or sensitization is the phenomenon of a reversal of the side-effects from a drug, or the reduction of insensitivity caused.

????

However somewhere I do agree with your statements that a lot of the Burqa discussion in the media and for a lesser part in politics is linked to Xenophobism and the issue is not of the one that is wearing some other religious sign, but the one that is not open to respect the other for what they are.

Btw this does not change anything on my vote or previously expressed opinion.

I thought this relijournal.com article on the Burqa is quite well balanced and supports the pro/contra arguments in this forum.

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

Edit: found on wikipedia that the issue is from both sides:

Dress guidelines in Banda Aceh (Indonesia). The text at the bottom reads: "Following the leading Islam principles according to article 13, paragraph 1, every Muslim has to wear Islamic clothing. Whosoever does not follow these accepted Islamic customs will be punished with Tazir crime."

You get whipped for wearing a t-shirt that does not cover your arms.

Also when in Rome and visiting a Church I also do pay attention to my dress code.

 

[Public'sTwin]

However racism according to oxford advanced Learner's dictionary:

the unfair treatment of people who belong to a different race; violent behaviour towards them:

Where these laws (and statements) talk about a way of covering yourself, just as the "Topfreedom" does not exist in the US, not about races.

Actually, 'topfreedom' is a moral conviction - to protect the public from moral corruption; banning religious headwear is institutionalized prejudice.

Anyway this article shows that we are all homo sapiens[/URL], there are no races.

Race and species are not the same things.

However somewhere I do agree with your statements that a lot of the Burqa discussion in the media and for a lesser part in politics is linked to Xenophobism and the issue is not of the one that is wearing some other religious sign, but the one that is not open to respect the other for what they are.

I'll lay out my position clear: you should be able to wear whatever you want in public & in private.

"Public" does not include:
Shops/stores/malls etc, government or administrative buildings, the workplace, or other designated places of industry, commerce, justice, governance, etc.

This provides us with:
The street, parks, common gathering spaces - virtually anywhere outdoors not on private property or requiring permission to occupy that space. And, obviously, private dwellings.

My opinion is thus:

Everybody should be required to remove any articles of clothing obstructing identification if and when necessary. A large sun hat would never be left over your mother's face if being processed through security - neither should a burqa. Once identified, simply replace it.

Time and generation will "repair" the issue of the burqa, if I am to [falsely] concede that the issue is a broken one in the first place. First generation immigrants will always have adaptive difficulties; successive generations usually shed the stricter traditions of their lineage once in a new culture.

In short, France's banning of the burqa is both needless, and needlessly discriminatory. How "liberated" do you think the women feel now that they are bound by law to undress for the demands of a government? (Ironically, that practice is likely to have occurred in the opposite fashion from their home country—which they've clearly fled.)

 

[NissanSkylineN1]

A perspective from a Muslim here,
I think that the women SHOULD be allowed. Many people got it wrong. The women don't HATE it and its not the men imposing it. Hell! Men want the clothes off! just because were muslim doesn't mean we don't like women. For example in Iran, guys and girl go outside with strict coverings (cover hair etc.) ir do it the "slack" way which is to wear your head dress far back. Does the Police care? Not much. They catch someone once in a while to scare them but it doesn't matter. Now to BAN them is a different thing. Why the hell would you do that? That is OFFENSIVE in some people's views. Thats like not allowing Christians wear a cross on their necklace or proudly say they're Christian. Or make Jews not wear their caps and shave their beards and don't wear the hats. Now if you're gonna be like "its for security reasons" and troll about that, well why don't they create jobs while in this god damn recession and hire some Muslim women to search them? If you think its scary, go ahead and wear a god damn Haloween mask and piss OUR pants. Also isn't it a RIGHT to believe in your own religion? Its definitely not hurting anyone's feelings so it should be allowed. I think that Sarkozy deserved that pie in his god damn face when he was first elected.

That's quite a broad-stroke statement.

How many women do you personally know who are forced? Not what you've read, or heard. The world is full of sources with their own agendas.

I can easily name tens and tens of muslim women I've met/known IN PERSON, even in a relatively liberal Arab city, that wear a full veil with pride and with no pressure. They've told me it's liberating for them not to have to adhere to social fashions/sterotypes that women here have to adhere to. Also, they don't want men staring at them and/or approaching them as they walk about in public. Please think before using such general sterotypes again, it makes you appear ignorant, and de-values your argument.

As others have said, heels, bras and miniskirts can be seen as just as oppressive. I guess you couldn't see that for yourself, so I'll speel it out for you.

Have you ever talked to a woman? Do you realise how much some of them they hate wearing heels? If I had a half penny for every girl I've heard complain to me about high heels, and yet still wear them...
But some feel an imposition because of society.

This 10000000000000x.
OP of the quote is awesome. May Allah bless you.

Also to GT5_Prologue. I actually like Americans... quite ironically. They're better than Canadians, I have to admit. Americans are polite, clean, mostly friendly and very organized.

 

[niky]

Edit: found on wikipedia that the issue is from both sides:

Dress guidelines in Banda Aceh (Indonesia). The text at the bottom reads: "Following the leading Islam principles according to article 13, paragraph 1, every Muslim has to wear Islamic clothing. Whosoever does not follow these accepted Islamic customs will be punished with Tazir crime."

You get whipped for wearing a t-shirt that does not cover your arms.

Also when in Rome and visiting a Church I also do pay attention to my dress code.

Goes both ways. I don't believe in forcing people to wear more clothes than they want, either.

The Vatican? Awesome place to walk around in a floral T-shirt and bermuda shorts. (Damn Americans!)

(yes, I know... the pic is from an article about clothing bans in the Vatican)

Inside a church, a religion can impose whatever code it wants. A church is not a public place. You are visiting by consent of the priest or rabbi or whatever who presides. Outside, you should be free to wear whatever you want.

 

[Vince_Fiero]

Race and species are not the same things.
[/I]

Please read the article:

DNA studies do not indicate that separate classifiable subspecies (races) exist within modern humans.

Actually, 'topfreedom' is a moral conviction - to protect the public from moral corruption; banning religious headwear is institutionalized prejudice.

I'm used to "tofreedom" and you are forbidding it.
We believe a person should be identifiable, so we forbid wearing clothing that fully covers your face.
See my previous posts, media and politics are making the discussion into "religious headwear", the law states simply that you can not wear clothing that impedes identification. A law against religious headware would probably be unconstitutional in most European countries!

Just to make a point:

• The laws voted in Europe are there for the identification of people and security of the population. Indirectly this concerns the Burqa. Mainly this concerns the human rights of every person in Europe: "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person."
• The topfreedom is a moral question, inspired by religious background. And indeed it is your human right to impose it as well: "In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society."

So it is all rules of certain regions in their interpretation of protecting human rights. Live by the rules!

 

[FoolKiller]

The laws voted in Europe are there for the identification of people and security of the population. Indirectly this concerns the Burqa. Mainly this concerns the human rights of every person in Europe: "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person."

Is this really some sort of quoted guaranteed right in your country? In the US it is "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Heck, one of our founders is quoted as saying, "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

I bring this up because you can only guarantee security of person if you lock everyone up in padded cells. It is impossible to guarantee both liberty and security.

So it is all rules of certain regions in their interpretation of protecting human rights. Live by the rules!

The debate is about disagreeing with the rules, not saying that it isn't the rule. When someone says a rule is wrong responding with, "live by the rules," is not a response that makes any sense whatsoever.

 

[Scaff]

We believe a person should be identifiable, so we forbid wearing clothing that fully covers your face.

Two questions spring to mind with this.

The first is why should I (or anyone for that matter) be identifiable?

Secondly why are people still able to wear crashhelmets, or for that matter what about people sking?

These two are quite clearly covering the majority of their faces and as such must be up to no good.

Add into that brides and women at funerals who want to wear a veil, hope you are fine with the police banging a few people up at these events.


Oh wait that's not going to happen is it. Why? Glad you ask as that leads onto your next point.

See my previous posts, media and politics are making the discussion into "religious headwear", the law states simply that you can not wear clothing that impedes identification.

Quite simply can agree with this at all.

If this was not about religious headwear then why was it not brought in decades ago? After all people have covered the face with scarves, helmets, goggles, veils, balaclavas, etc for hundreds of years.

No the law has been brought in to score cheap political points regarding an (unrealistic) fear of Islam, however European governments know full well that they can't get away with a ban of that nature. So they ensure that its worded in a manner that allows them to claim its for the good of all.

Let me know as soon as someone skiing gets locked up and I will freely come back here and recant this entire post.

Personally I'm a damn sight more worried about this lot covering up....

...than anyone wearing one of these....

...then again it could be because my wife and kids (who are Anglo-Indian) have never been subjected to racial abuse by anyone in a burqa. Can't say the same for EDL/BNP/NF supporters however.

Even given that I have no problem with them covering up, rather with the narrow-minded attitude they have.

Funny isn't it that as a family we can go to a Muslim shop and be treated with respect and courtesy (despite me being white and my wife a Catholic Anglo-Indian), yet a politician at the door-step can actually take a step back when my wife answered the door.

A law against religious headware would probably be unconstitutional in most European countries!

So they 'tweak' the wording to get in on the books, as I say once our first Skier/bride/greaving widow gets locked up, come and let me know.



Scaff

 

[Vince_Fiero]

The first is why should I (or anyone for that matter) be identifiable?

Secondly why are people still able to wear crashhelmets, or for that matter what about people sking?

This is a matter of appreciation by the law makers/executioners, I as a motorcyclist, need to ware my helmet on the bike, but I'm not allowed to keep it on when I enter a shop or when I enter a bank.

The issue seemed to have been on security cameras. But as stated by many here and I support this view, there is a lot of xenophobe motivation behind the laws that is not justified.

Sadly enough when you start to write laws you will start to contradict yourself. So I remain that the best way is to avoid laws.
But policy makers might decided it is needed to write something.
Your experience with Muslims proofs that this might not be needed in Asia, your experience with Hooligans shows it might be needed in Europe.

Sad is that the rule based on the experience with Hooligans and the sorts... , backfires to Muslims and saddles them with moral questions.

So they 'tweak' the wording to get in on the books, as I say once our first Skier/bride/greaving widow gets locked up, come and let me know.
Scaff

I agree that the politicians seem to be inconsistent in their message and this does seem to be a law that will have many practical issues.
By the way, nobody should be getting locked up over this, there are penalties, no incarceration as far as I understood.

FoolKiller
Is this really some sort of quoted guaranteed right in your country? In the US it is "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Heck, one of our founders is quoted as saying, "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

I'm upset about this one, since I feared it would happen. I quote the UN Declaration of human rights and you come back with putting the founders of the US above this.

It is clear that the Europeans, US and Asians have different appreciation of what restrictions are needed to guarantee liberty. (I only leave Africans, South Americans and others out of this, because I'm less accustomed to their view)

Live by the rules!

Does not indicate you can not discuss them, I'm in a function that needs to be very clear on this, "Live by the rules!" is what I defend as well as criticize the rules, there is no contradiction in that.

It does not matter if it are the rules of Iran when in Iran or the US rules when in the US, you need to live with them.

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

Edit: Sorry I forgot:

As you noticed some Europeans are also convinced that the Burqa is equal with oppression of women.
The rules they make are supposed to be against this oppression (also inconsistently worded by most politicians, but still).

It is an appreciation to counter oppression.
We need your arguments to show that this appreciation might be wrong,
In the mean time live by the rules (I'll include it in my signature might be easier).

I did not see this in the law, it only talks about identification, but politics go further then what is written.

I found on wikipedia:

In the United States, the Glass Ceiling Commission, a government-funded group, stated: "Over half of all Master’s degrees are now awarded to women, yet 95% of senior-level managers, of the top Fortune 1000 industrial and 500 service companies are men. Of them, 97% are white." In its report, it recommended reverse discrimination, which is the consideration of an employee's gender and race in hiring and promotion decisions, as a means to end this form of discrimination.

Sadly I'm a white male and deeply ashamed about the above (also since I do not believe Europe is a lot better). Oppression is a reality and policy makers need to act on it, we all need to act on it.

However I'm opposed to reverse discrimination, things should be done the right way.
I do understand that "reverse discrimination" will accelerate correction of the wrong that has been done in the past and I certainly promote it when there are 2 equivalent candidates, but if one is the best; this person should get the rewards of being the best.

 

[FoolKiller]

I'm upset about this one, since I feared it would happen. I quote the UN Declaration of human rights and you come back with putting the founders of the US above this.

Considering that I am using a quote from a founder that was designed to point out that guaranteed liberty and safety at the same time are completely impossible, yes.

I am sure the UN goes on to explain how they believe I can have a guarantee of safety and a guarantee of liberty. If so, I am very willing to hear it.

Of course, on the issue of a burqa, that same declaration guarantees the freedom of religion and "to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance." (article 18). Seems to me like banning the wearing of a burqa (as an observance or practice of the Muslim faith) conflicts with that.

Does not indicate you can not discuss them, I'm in a function that needs to be very clear on this, "Live by the rules!" is what I defend as well as criticize the rules, there is no contradiction in that.

It does not matter if it are the rules of Iran when in Iran or the US rules when in the US, you need to live with them.

But no one is arguing for civil disobedience by breaking the rules, so why bring it up?

 

[Scaff]

This is a matter of appreciation by the law makers/executioners, I as a motorcyclist, need to ware my helmet on the bike, but I'm not allowed to keep it on when I enter a shop or when I enter a bank.

Sorry but none of that makes a bit of difference.

First a shop or bank is a private building, they have a right to set the dress code they pick for people who enter, just as they have a right to refuse entry.

That doesn't change the fact that we are talking about public places here (which shops, banks, etc are not).

Now a motorcyclist that is riding his/her bike may get a 'pass' as its safety equipment at that point, however that does not change the fact that the second you stop you should immediately remove it. To not do so would put you in breach of this law. Its arguably not the 'on the bike' or 'in the shop' parts at issue here, rather the walk between the two, a point at which you are breaking the law if you do not remove your helmet immediately.

The same is true for anyone covering their face with a veil, helmet, scarf, goggles, etc.

Be it arrest, a fine or a good telling off makes no difference. When you hear of it being used against a skier, motorcyclist, bride, etc; then come let us know.

Sadly enough when you start to write laws you will start to contradict yourself. So I remain that the best way is to avoid laws.
But policy makers might decided it is needed to write something.
Your experience with Muslims proofs that this might not be needed in Asia, your experience with Hooligans shows it might be needed in Europe.

Sad is that the rule based on the experience with Hooligans and the sorts... , backfires to Muslims and saddles them with moral questions.

My experiences in both instances were in the UK, in the very town that I live, location has nothing at all to do with this. Nor does the headwear in question, its the actions of a person that should be judged and not the clothing they are wearing.

Helmets, scarves, goggles, ski hats, and for that matter the Burqa do not 'make' someone criminal so why do we need to identify them in public?

We need only to identify someone who has carried out an act that requires we know who they are and that has nothing to do with if they are wearing a Burqa or a Barney the Dinosaur head.

As for the argument that it is to make us safe, well that is total nonsense.

Did any of the people involved in 9/11, Madrid or London mask their face? No, not at all, so exactly how this will make us more secure and safer is beyond me.

This law is simply a knee-jerk reaction and rather than making us safer is far more likely to make matters worse.

If you want to know why, then download and read the following....


Understanding Terrorism Lessons of the Past - Indicators for the Future

....its a very large document but covers in detail exactly why a law like this will not make us safer, but actually drive more towards the causes that lead to it being put in place to begin with.

I will quote the most important bit for you....

Summary of Critical Factors - Recruitment
The underlying causes that motivate terrorists - socioeconomic conditions, political exclusion and authoritative excesses - were the primary drivers for recruitment

....or in plain English. If you make laws that seemingly target a specific social group then don't be surprised if they take matters in a direction that will harm you.

Read it, trust me its worth it.



Scaff

 

[Vince_Fiero]

Actions of a person that should be judged and not the clothing they are wearing.

Completely agree with this one sentence.
Any judgment of an individual based on them belonging to a group is wrong.

Never understood this private discussion.
e.g. I'm standing in the street at a money machine => I need to take my helmet off. I'm not on private property, I'm on the street.

Quite convinced that there is some rule on general service and that blocking people out of banks and shops is difficult.

So why do we need to identify them in public?

Totally different attitude in the UK and US then in most of Europe.
I'm brought up that when I'm walking on the street and do not have my papers with me I can be put in jail for this, we even needed to have a minimum amount of money on us in the past.
Identification of people is of highest importance to attribute responsibility.

As for the argument that it is to make us safe, well that is total nonsense.

It is a matter of appreciation, you do not believe in it.
I'm not convinced how you want to create safety.

We need only to identify someone who has carried out an act that requires we know who they are and that has nothing to do with if they are wearing a Burqa or a Barney the Dinosaur head.

You kill your own arguments here, if I see on a camera your face and not a Burqa or Barney the Dinosaur identification will be a lot easier.
Your convinced me your want a ban against "Barney the Dinosaur", guess what this is already included in the legislation we are talking about. Neat not!

Did any of the people involved in 9/11, Madrid or London mask their face? No, not at all, so exactly how this will make us more secure and safer is beyond me.

There is more in life then terrorism, but these 3 examples might be difficult to fight with any laws.

Read it, trust me its worth it.
Scaff

Very quick scan and indeed a very good read! I'll take more time for it later.

It states for example:

Short-term tactical successes can actually have a negative impact on the longterm strategy to defeat or eliminate the terrorist threat and may even reinvigorate the terrorist movement if the use of force is disproportionate.

Maybe Politicians should think about society and not their votes, but that is yet another aspect of policy making.

FoolKiller
Of course, on the issue of a burqa, that same declaration guarantees the freedom of religion and "to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance." (article 18). Seems to me like banning the wearing of a burqa (as an observance or practice of the Muslim faith) conflicts with that.

As stated before, as soon as you make laws you will contradict yourself.
Safety for the one, religious practice for the other.

FoolKiller
But no one is arguing for civil disobedience by breaking the rules, so why bring it up?

I do believe this is leading a separate life:
1) Rules in Europe you do not cover your face = obay, do not wear a Burqa
2) Rules in US do not go topless = obay, put a top on
3) Rules in Indonesia cover your arms = obay, put a long sleaved t-shirt on

Just to put it to the level of redicule that I'm used to in Belgium.

Just as example:
I declare myself god of vince_fieroism a new religion. (this post is proof of my religion).
My religion has one rule: "Clothing is a waste of resources, your skin is sufficient to protect you, do not wear clothing".

Now I go naked on a world tour to spread my word: I will be arrested in most countries. All I did was "manifest my religion in practice".

I fail to see the difference with the Burqa.

So again: There are laws in countries to defend the human rights of the population, and when you are there "Live by the rules!".

==========

So what we really need is a proof that in the European context a law that forbids covering your face is useless.

Conclusion till now, Europeans think it is not useless.
The quick scan of the :
Understanding Terrorism Lessons of the Past - Indicators for the Future

did not give any points on this either.

 

[NissanSkylineN1]

^ The thing is, Islam came BEFORE France. "Vince-fieroism" came AFTER France.

 

[FoolKiller]

As stated before, as soon as you make laws you will contradict yourself.
Safety for the one, religious practice for the other.

Thus backing up my point: You cannot have a guarantee of liberty and security. A point made in the US 150+ years before the UN tried to say otherwise. This "law" managed to contradict itself within the same sentence.

You were using the UN Declaration of human rights as justification for a ban on face coverings, including burqas. My point is that the same document you use to defend your argument also defeats your argument. Shrugging your shoulders that when you write laws you will eventually contradict yourself is no excuse. You are either violating a basic human right or you aren't, there is no contradiction "oh well" clause on human rights.

I do believe this is leading a separate life:
1) Rules in Europe you do not cover your face = obay, do not wear a Burqa
2) Rules in US do not go topless = obay, put a top on
3) Rules in Indonesia cover your arms = obay, put a long sleaved t-shirt on

Just to put it to the level of redicule that I'm used to in Belgium.

Just as example:
I declare myself god of vince_fieroism a new religion. (this post is proof of my religion).
My religion has one rule: "Clothing is a waste of resources, your skin is sufficient to protect you, do not wear clothing".

Now I go naked on a world tour to spread my word: I will be arrested in most countries. All I did was "manifest my religion in practice".

I fail to see the difference with the Burqa.

So again: There are laws in countries to defend the human rights of the population, and when you are there "Live by the rules!".

None of this answers my question:

But no one is arguing for civil disobedience by breaking the rules, so why bring it up?

If you truly did have a religion that had a strange practice, and wasn't created by you simply to attempt to use a loophole in a very poorly written UN document (thus proving my earlier point, and reasoning for not taking that UN Declaration very seriously), I would defend your right to practice that religion so long as your practices did not infringe on the rights of others. In other words, I would argue, as I am doing here in regard to a ban on burqas, that the rules should be changed. Just saying, "Live by the rules," gives the unintended implication that you support those rules purely because they exist.

 

[Joel]

"Liberty and security of person" is an oxymoron.

 

[Vince_Fiero]

^ The thing is, Islam came BEFORE France. "Vince-fieroism" came AFTER France.

Makes absolutely no sense to me.

It is not about who was first.
I have the right on my religious practices.
The country I´m in has the right to protect the moral of others.

You will always have conflict.

France will see through discussion that Vince-fieroism is not that crazy.

FoolKiller
You cannot have a guarantee of liberty and security.

Never stated anything opposite I believe.
Just stated US will prefer liberty, Europe prefers security.

FoolKiller
None of this answers my question:
but no one is arguing for civil disobedience by breaking the rules, so why bring it up?

I apologise, I probably do not understand your question.

I can not change my arguments, I can just express them differently.
The rules in the country are there to protect, you first of all have to obey these.
There is a priority in rules, because of the point below.
The rules take into account local practices.
I do not agree with the rules in Indonesia, but when there I will respect it.
Practice in Europe is not to cover your face. So Live by the rules!

= the title of the thread is wrong. It should be should Europe create rules that forbid to cover your face.

FoolKillerShrugging your shoulders that when you write laws you will eventually contradict yourself is no excuse.

It is not an excuse it is a fact.

FoolKiller strange practice

You just offended my religion.

FoolKiller very poorly written UN document

You just offended the UN Declaration of human rights.

FoolKiller I would defend your right to practice that religion so long as your practices did not infringe on the rights of others.

You got my point. Europe sees the need to identify everyone, so not to cover your face for general interest.

FoolKiller unintended implication

For me this means an interpretation, not what is written.


So what we really need is a proof that in the European context a law that forbids covering your face is useless.

 

[Danoff]

So what we really need is a proof that in the European context a law that forbids covering your face is useless.

Nope.

Laws can be useful and still violate human rights. And the UN declaration of human rights is a joke - don't even bother referring to it. The fact that it contradicts itself means that it's not talking about "rights", but instead talking about "nice things that people might like".

Let's say for a moment that white people tended to be poor, uneducated, and living off the government dole. It would be easy to show that a law requiring the execution of all white people would be useful - but that law would violate human rights. Similarly, the law banning covering your face (which doesn't exist in reality, Europe doesn't have it and doesn't want it), might be useful but would violate human rights. It is the use of force against someone who is not doing harm to others.

 

[FoolKiller]

Never stated anything opposite I believe.

I thought that when you quoted it as a defense of these laws that you were implying you agreed with it.

PThe laws voted in Europe are there for the identification of people and security of the population. Indirectly this concerns the Burqa. Mainly this concerns the human rights of every person in Europe: "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person."

I apologize if I misunderstood that to mean that you agree with the UN and believe that you can have both.

Just stated US will prefer liberty, Europe prefers security.

However, if you believe them to both be human rights then you can not protect human rights if you choose one over another. Thus, these rules will violate human rights.

I apologise, I probably do not understand your question.

Did anyone propose not living by the rules? No.
So, my question is, why did you say to live by the rules? No one is saying otherwise.

The discussion is whether the rules are just and telling people to live by the rules brings nothing to the conversation.

To put it in another context: If you said, "I think the speed limit on this road is too slow," and I responded with, "Follow the speed limit," we aren't having the same conversation.

I can not change my arguments, I can just express them differently.

I'm not asking you to change them. I am just saying that "Follow the rules" is not an argument to anything we are discussing.

The rules in the country are there to protect, you first of all have to obey these.

Has anyone proposed not following the rules?

It is not an excuse it is a fact.

But it does not excuse a bad law.

You just offended my religion.

Good thing there isn't a right to not be offended.

You just offended the UN Declaration of human rights.

Good, maybe they will learn how to not be self-contradictory.

You got my point. Europe sees the need to identify everyone, so not to cover your face for general interest.

How does covering my face infringe on anyone else's rights?

For me this means an interpretation, not what is written.

OK, to make it clear: Do you personally support laws banning face coverings? Why or why not?

So what we really need is a proof that in the European context a law that forbids covering your face is useless.

Would it have stopped any terrorist attack that you can think of? None of the big ones I know of involved terrorists hiding their faces. Will outlawing face coverings prevent a robber from covering his face? Do you really think a guy getting ready to commit robbery, or worse, will care about a face covering law?

 

[Vince_Fiero]

Europe doesn't have it.

On 31 March 2010 the Belgian Chamber Committee on the Interior unanimously approved legislation instating a nation-wide ban on wearing face covering clothing in public.

FoolKiller Do you personally support laws banning face coverings?

Yes, although I agree it is a total overkill, I think that concealing your identity is not a right and that since our society is a society of silence and not of social correction that the force of order needs to be given the possibility to identify people that were on the site of a crime.

It would probably be better to limit it to certain places that have high risk.

Best is that you can guide the society to not tolerate crime and self correct, without these very impractical laws.

I (Belgian) always was told you could not cover your face, by communal law, so for me nothing changed recently.


Just to be clear again: I´convinced that when you write laws they will contradict each other. Also when you write human rights.

You might be idealists, in the declaration of Human rights I read:

Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.

I believe they understood that you will contradict yourself in rules.

Danoff
the UN declaration of human rights is a joke

That is your opinion. Honestly it shocks me.
It seems to me one of the best references on the domain, if you have a better one please share.

-------------------------------------------
I think we do agree:
1) Europe has the right to assure the security of the people on their territory. Pro-restriction.
2) People should have the right to wear what they want. Pro-freedom.


The discussion is just between people that prefer 1 or 2. It is a preference, you can discuss, but I do not see a wrong in any of the choices.

FoolKiller Do you really think a guy getting ready to commit robbery, or worse, will care about a face covering law?

It gives you a support to take actions when you see something is wrong.
Does death penalty stop crime?
Do speed limits stop speeding?
Does covering yourself stop rape?

Rules are there to help, they are seldom all covering.
As freedom and security can not be combined (not a bad reference after all), it is a matter of appreciation.