Should the Burqa be banned in Western countries?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6
 

Should the Burqa and the like be banned? No. I don't want the law treading on anyone's religious freedom, that's their right.

That said, I do oppose such things and I do think it's morally wrong to make a woman conceal her face from being seen. I know that the government isn't making them do it, but I have a hard time believing that any sane woman would wear such a thing of her own volition. I'll admit I'm probably a bit biased - I'll be honest, I loathe Muslim culture with a deep, burning intensity, but then I have trouble separating Muslim culture from Saudi Arabian culture and the like, when I hear about all the barbarous shit going on in the Middle-East - acid attacks and stonings and whatnot - I have a tendency to give Islam in general the stink-eye. But I digress.

So anyway, my sentiment is, don't ban it. Let it go away on its own, no one in their right mind will shed a tear at its passing.

Luna:

JSF01:

Luna:
I don't like them. Its like a mask, and is visually unpleasing to me. This is not to say that I could justify them being banned altogether, simply that if it were to happen I wouldn't be sad about it.

I despise people with this line of thought. In my opinion this is worst than people that want to ban them out of racism. You basicly just said "I have no problem with infringing on the rights of others for no reason other than to suit myself." At least with wanting infinging on someones's rights because of racism that usually means there is other reasoning behind it (ie. they're all terrorists, they're too dumb to vote, ect...) Sure the reasoning is based on extreamly flawed ideas, but its still better than "because I do not like it"

If there was a public vote to ban such headwear, I would not vote against it, (I would not vote to ban it). Simply put, if it happened and it were banned I would not be very sad about it.

Please learn to read posts properly before responding.

I understand what you wrote just fine, I believe it is you who fails to understand what you wrote or more importantly exactly what your position means. In your mind you think of yourself as neutral on this topic. You do not like burqas and would have no problems with them being banned, you just would not cast a physical vote one way or another. If they happend to become banned in that hypothetical vote you would be fine with that.

There is an old quote that is appropriate here "All it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to to nothing"

Your position means that you would just standby and let other people's rights and freedoms be removed (a ban on burqas affects both freedom of religion and freedom of speech) for no other reason than you do not like burqas. Your action in this hypothetical situation would enable the ban since you would not try to prevent it. It's not much different than if you did vote for the ban.

I typed this up just before I went for a 5 mile run at a local park. Must have not have clicked the post button. So Ill just add more to this post. There is NO right not to be offended/or not to find things distasteful. The belief that your fictional rights should have any bearing on others actual rights is one scary proposition

JSF01:

There is an old quote that is appropriate here "All it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to to nothing"

The one that stuck in my head was the "First they came" poem.

Luna:

These women choose to wear these things which I find intimidating and distasteful. They are however very important to them, easily more important to them than they are important for me to want to get rid of. So I'm in the middle on this one. Hence I would not vote.

"First they came for the burqas, and I did not speak out, because I do not wear a burqa"?

The idea of religious freedom sounds nice. But if it were someone's religion to be homicidal, they'd be locked up. Hence there are limitations to religious freedom, limitations decided by common sense.

What's the common sense reason for banning the burqa?

Katatori-kun:

Luna:
The idea of religious freedom sounds nice. But if it were someone's religion to be homicidal, they'd be locked up. Hence there are limitations to religious freedom, limitations decided by common sense.

Incorrect.

The limitations on religion are not decided by common sense, because as this thread has more than adequately demonstrated what many people consider to be common sense is merely their own biases for the status quo they are familiar with. Limitations on religion are decided by the degree of impact the religious behavior has on others. One does not have the absurd religious freedom to be homicidal because homicide infringes on other people's right not to be murdered. In certain situations, such as identifying women for drivers license photos for example, a niqab infringes on other people's rights (namely their right to safely regulated travel). In general however Islamic coverings in public do not infringe on people's rights because you do not have an established right to force the person you are speaking to, to show you their face or body. Therefore niqabs must not be banned in any free society except for in specific situations where their concealment can be shown to jeopardize public safety.

'Limitations on religion are decided by the degree of impact the religious behavior has on others.'

Of which the type of effect and impact of it is decided by common sense.

Carry on.

JSF01:

Luna:

JSF01:
I despise people with this line of thought. In my opinion this is worst than people that want to ban them out of racism. You basicly just said "I have no problem with infringing on the rights of others for no reason other than to suit myself." At least with wanting infinging on someones's rights because of racism that usually means there is other reasoning behind it (ie. they're all terrorists, they're too dumb to vote, ect...) Sure the reasoning is based on extreamly flawed ideas, but its still better than "because I do not like it"

If there was a public vote to ban such headwear, I would not vote against it, (I would not vote to ban it). Simply put, if it happened and it were banned I would not be very sad about it.

Please learn to read posts properly before responding.

I understand what you wrote just fine, I believe it is you who fails to understand what you wrote or more importantly exactly what your position means. In your mind you think of yourself as neutral on this topic. You do not like burqas and would have no problems with them being banned, you just would not cast a physical vote one way or another. If they happend to become banned in that hypothetical vote you would be fine with that.

There is an old quote that is appropriate here "All it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to to nothing"

Your position means that you would just standby and let other people's rights and freedoms be removed (a ban on burqas affects both freedom of religion and freedom of speech) for no other reason than you do not like burqas. Your action in this hypothetical situation would enable the ban since you would not try to prevent it. It's not much different than if you did vote for the ban.

I typed this up just before I went for a 5 mile run at a local park. Must have not have clicked the post button. So Ill just add more to this post. There is NO right not to be offended/or not to find things distasteful. The belief that your fictional rights should have any bearing on others actual rights is one scary proposition

That quote crossed my mind as well.

BrassButtons:

JSF01:

There is an old quote that is appropriate here "All it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to to nothing"

The one that stuck in my head was the "First they came" poem.

Luna:

These women choose to wear these things which I find intimidating and distasteful. They are however very important to them, easily more important to them than they are important for me to want to get rid of. So I'm in the middle on this one. Hence I would not vote.

"First they came for the burqas, and I did not speak out, because I do not wear a burqa"?

lol

The idea of religious freedom sounds nice. But if it were someone's religion to be homicidal, they'd be locked up. Hence there are limitations to religious freedom, limitations decided by common sense.

What's the common sense reason for banning the burqa?

I'm not the one banning it. I'm simply doing nothing.

Aerodyamic:

Wolverine18:

Aerodyamic:

If those things are used to prevent identification of a person committing a crime, then most countries have laws concerning those actions, and prosecute accordingly. Maybe you should read my post above with the spoilers, and especially read the bit about the fitness centre my girlfriend goes to, and in particular, examine the bit where I describe how the female muslim patrons gain access to the facility.

If you're hoping to find something to be offended about, just keep looking hard enough, and you'll always find something.

As a note:

Most of the things you've described can actually be items which make identification easier; what's the one thing that almost everyone born in the western world in the last 60 years remembers the most about Marilyn Monroe and Cindy Crawford?

I'd say we remember their legs. So lets ban pants! Skirts only!

As for the laws in place against wearing a disguse during a robbery, yes, those laws already exist, so we don't need to ban legitimate use of ski masks, sun glasses, fake noses, and burkas.

I very clearly associate their beauty marks with the mention of either of them, but maybe that's just me.

That said, if a situation requires positive identification of an individual, then the complaint that a religious garment supersedes the rights of the legal system to demand positive identification is invalid.

I never said that a religious garment shoudl supersede the rights of a legal system when such identification is required, I've actually said the opposite. What I've said is the burqa shouldn't get special banning treatment because it can be used for naughty things, just like all the other types of perfectly legal face coverings can.

Nice strawman though.

Luna:

I'm not the one banning it. I'm simply doing nothing.

Yes, but you were drawing parallels between banning the burqa and banning religiously-motivated murder, while making the point that religious freedom is limited by common sense laws, which sure made it seem like you thought there was a good reason to ban the burqa.

PrinceOfShapeir:
Should the Burqa and the like be banned? No. I don't want the law treading on anyone's religious freedom, that's their right.

That said, I do oppose such things and I do think it's morally wrong to make a woman conceal her face from being seen. I know that the government isn't making them do it, but I have a hard time believing that any sane woman would wear such a thing of her own volition. I'll admit I'm probably a bit biased - I'll be honest, I loathe Muslim culture with a deep, burning intensity, but then I have trouble separating Muslim culture from Saudi Arabian culture and the like, when I hear about all the barbarous shit going on in the Middle-East - acid attacks and stonings and whatnot - I have a tendency to give Islam in general the stink-eye. But I digress.

So anyway, my sentiment is, don't ban it. Let it go away on its own, no one in their right mind will shed a tear at its passing.

You sir have my respect here. You dislike burqas and what they represent to you, but you understand that the rights of others are more important than your personal feelings. It's even better that you can even admit your bias and what they are based on.

Just for your consideration, there are woman that like the submissive role in hardcore BDSM. I don't understand why any woman would willingly do that to herself but they do.

Aerodyamic:

JSF01:
I am just going to interlace my coments into the post, mine will be**

I felt my response was too mashed up to try to interweave it, so I'll just bang if off.

To the other people that responded to me, I started responding to this post, and was interrupted during the process, so I apologize if I haven't responded to any other comments made, concerning my previous post.

Sorry meant to reply to this earlier but got distracted.

Alright if I am reading you right it looks like you believe that the burqa should not be banned except in situation due to security. What's throwing me off though is what I left in the quote, specifically the other countries part. Again what does it have to do with anything? If the people are leaving their country of origins to go to your country don't you think that there must be some stuff that they do not like about their country of origin? If you do not like something about a country you do not go there, if they did not like their country they left. To decide peoples rights based on where they were born means people are inherently unequal by law. If people are unequal in the eyes of the law you can never have true justice. If your country is unjust, than it is no better than those countries with strict Sharia Law.

As for the crime part all I can say is so what? People will always try to claim discrimination, just because they do does not mean there was any in reality. If your government allows the criminal to get away with a face covering than that is a problem with your government not the person that broke the law.

BrassButtons:
The one that stuck in my head was the "First they came" poem.

I thought of using that one instead but figured the quote was more direct and to the point.

Luna:

That quote crossed my mind as well.

And yet you still don't seem to comprehend what is wrong with your choice to choose nothing.

JSF01:
[quote="PrinceOfShapeir" post="528.372653.14431990"] And yet you still don't seem to comprehend what is wrong with your choice to choose nothing.

What's wrong with my choice?

BrassButtons:

Luna:

I'm not the one banning it. I'm simply doing nothing.

Yes, but you were drawing parallels between banning the burqa and banning religiously-motivated murder, while making the point that religious freedom is limited by common sense laws, which sure made it seem like you thought there was a good reason to ban the burqa.

I did that only to indicate that religion is not free and is still bound to limitations. Is seeing burquas in public places in western countries enough for it to be banned? Perhaps, perhaps not. But I like to think that the distinct culture of certain places in the world can be retained in the future. In places like America, Canada, Australia, I'm not sure it would be a good idea to ban burquas but in many European countries to not do so could take away from the culture of these countries. I don't want everywhere in the world to be the same, I want distinction. If banning burquas in Western places to prevent this means that all women in the Middle East must wear burquas then so be it in the name of preserving distinction.

I'm going to try and keep an open mind to your response and see if doing so can sway my opinion.

Aerodyamic:
If a person CHOOSES to wear a burqa, that's their prerogative, but if my girlfriend and I choose to visit Saudi Arabia, even though she's Caucasian, she'd be FORCED to wear a Sharia-mandated clothing outside of the secure western areas. Conversely, if a woman can choose to wear religious garments here, a women should be permitted to choose to NOT wear religious garments in a country she's visiting, if she does not share those religious convictions.

Think about this: if my girlfriend and I visit a local Mennonite Enclave, she would probably choose to put her hair in a pony tail and wear a light scarf over her head out of respect for the people in the enclave, but she's not REQUIRED TO DO SO. It's not a requirement of doing business with the local Mennonites that outside women conform to their religious edicts, although they are appreciative of people that are aware enough to at least give those edicts a passing nod.

That's not the case in predominantly Islamic countries that used Sharia Law; if you don't follow the Sharia Laws, you risk arrest, imprisonment, corporal punishment or death. Those same Muslims can come here and choose how to express their religious beliefs, and I'm fine with giving them that choice, provided their countries offer the same courtesy.

So what happens if the UAE says "Sure, that works for us", and Iran says "No way". Do we ban the burqa for Iranians only? You don't think that won't get annoyingly complex real fast?

You cannot base domestic policy on the domestic policy of others. There are women in these Western nations who are the daughters of daughters of residents of these nations. They are every bit as Canadian, or American, or French, or Spanish as the rest of us. To which nation, then, do we look to decide their rights? I say our own. And I cannot speak for any nation but mine, but in the US one of our core principles is

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

The burqa is clearly a part of their religious exercise, and thus to ban it is to go against one of the very things that makes up this country. No, we should not ban it.

PrinceOfShapeir:
Should the Burqa and the like be banned? No. I don't want the law treading on anyone's religious freedom, that's their right.

That said, I do oppose such things and I do think it's morally wrong to make a woman conceal her face from being seen. I know that the government isn't making them do it, but I have a hard time believing that any sane woman would wear such a thing of her own volition. I'll admit I'm probably a bit biased - I'll be honest, I loathe Muslim culture with a deep, burning intensity, but then I have trouble separating Muslim culture from Saudi Arabian culture and the like, when I hear about all the barbarous shit going on in the Middle-East - acid attacks and stonings and whatnot - I have a tendency to give Islam in general the stink-eye. But I digress.

So anyway, my sentiment is, don't ban it. Let it go away on its own, no one in their right mind will shed a tear at its passing.

Erm there is no "Muslim culture" the way you're defining it, since after all Indonesia has the most Muslims in the world and they've elected female leaders. Hell the next two nations with the most Muslims aren't in the ME either since they're Pakistan and India.

Saudi Arabia is much different than it's neighbors, in fact it's unfair marginalization you're giving them with the rest of the Arab world. Saudi Arabia arose from rural Oasis dwelling Arabs, they were never conquered by the Ottomans or by anyone else because of the inhospitable climate (yes places like Syria, Egypt and Iraq aren't entirely made up of deserts) thus its monarchy was free to set up shop and stay Conservative. Places like Syria or Egypt had more exposure to the advancing world around them (like for example Muhammed Ali) due to all the European influence in those area's (most importantly Napoleon's invasion). In fact they started up their own little Nationalist movement based off of European philosophy and remained largely secular, it's just that the governments were a bit Fascist and thus Islamists gained popularity with their defiance of them. That's why in Syria the Burqa is actually banned in schools. So no your loathing is mostly unfounded and due to marginalization and generalizations rather than actual facts and history of the region.

The Burqa is a form of expression, of free speech. You want to wear a cloth over your head, be my guest, just don't complain when women are wearing short shorts.

Luna:

JSF01:
[quote="PrinceOfShapeir" post="528.372653.14431990"] And yet you still don't seem to comprehend what is wrong with your choice to choose nothing.

What's wrong with my choice?

Your choice is your choice, there's nothing really wrong about it, but JSF01 probably thinks it's a selfish/stupid one.

Consider the following.

If a vote to take away peoples right to wear a Burqa took place, you wouldn't vote either way, telling yourself that you're not in favor of the burqa but you can't be blamed for it being banned because you didn't vote against it. That could easily be considered selfish, as it doesn't concern you that rights are being taken away from others as long as it doesn't affect you. Not voting against the ban on the burqa can be interpreted that way, especially from what you've written here.

The easiest summary I can think of to describe why he thinks your choice is wrong is this.

A vote was taken to remove somebodies rights, the same rights available to us we now made unavailable to them, and you did nothing to stop it. True you did nothing to speed up/encourage the process, but the fact that you were fine with the rights of others being taken away because it didn't affect you could be troublesome if enough people thought like that.

Zekksta:

Luna:

JSF01:
[quote="PrinceOfShapeir" post="528.372653.14431990"] And yet you still don't seem to comprehend what is wrong with your choice to choose nothing.

What's wrong with my choice?

Your choice is your choice, there's nothing really wrong about it, but JSF01 probably thinks it's a selfish/stupid one.

Consider the following.

If a vote to take away peoples right to wear a Burqa took place, you wouldn't vote either way, telling yourself that you're not in favor of the burqa but you can't be blamed for it being banned because you didn't vote against it. That could easily be considered selfish, as it doesn't concern you that rights are being taken away from others as long as it doesn't affect you. Not voting against the ban on the burqa can be interpreted that way, especially from what you've written here.

The easiest summary I can think of to describe why he thinks your choice is wrong is this.

A vote was taken to remove somebodies rights, the same rights available to us we now made unavailable to them, and you did nothing to stop it. True you did nothing to speed up/encourage the process, but the fact that you were fine with the rights of others being taken away because it didn't affect you could be troublesome if enough people thought like that.

Hmmm...

1) I'm not voting so I can stroke my ego and say, 'Not my fault the burqua is banned', I'm not voting because both arguments have points worth considering but I don't feel strongly enough about either to vote.

2)'A vote was taken to remove somebodies rights, the same rights available to us we now made unavailable to them'

I assumed nobody would be allowed to wear a burqua, regardless of if you are a Muslim or not. Is this an unreasonable assumption?

'and you did nothing to stop it. True you did nothing to speed up/encourage the process, but the fact that you were fine with the rights of others being taken away because it didn't affect you could be troublesome if enough people thought like that.'

It doesn't affect me because I'm not a Muslim, (or a woman) and see little reason to be either. They wear what they wear for specific reasons and on the basis of why they wear them, the logic doesn't hold up to me. Hence in my eyes little would be lost.

Needless to say at this point in time I don't see a problem with my way of thinking, but am open to suggestions.

PrinceOfShapeir:
Should the Burqa and the like be banned? No. I don't want the law treading on anyone's religious freedom, that's their right.

That said, I do oppose such things and I do think it's morally wrong to make a woman conceal her face from being seen. I know that the government isn't making them do it, but I have a hard time believing that any sane woman would wear such a thing of her own volition. I'll admit I'm probably a bit biased - I'll be honest, I loathe Muslim culture with a deep, burning intensity, but then I have trouble separating Muslim culture from Saudi Arabian culture and the like, when I hear about all the barbarous shit going on in the Middle-East - acid attacks and stonings and whatnot - I have a tendency to give Islam in general the stink-eye. But I digress.

So anyway, my sentiment is, don't ban it. Let it go away on its own, no one in their right mind will shed a tear at its passing.

The same question could really be asked about thing like the thong, mini bikinis, miniskirts and a plethora of other garments we have in the west that exist, in varying degrees, only to expose the female body and make it attractive to men. Which is exactly what many feminists in the middle east do too, their feminist movement reject western ideas of how a woman should look because they consider it degrading and exploiting. In the same manner, we consider the burqa or niqab oppressive and humiliating. To some ofthese feminists in middle eastern countries, the niqa and the burqa symbolizes femininity and by wearing it on their own volition they are making it their own garment, not that of the patriarchal structures around them.

What it all comes down to is what culture we grew up in. We just have to remember that the objectification of women and our bodies has taken different expressions in different parts of the world. In the west it is exploited whereas in the middle east the woman is 'protected'. Personally, I am fine with being on a beach in a bikini but couldn't wear a burqa in public. But I have every ounce of respect for those women that would rather choose the opposite.

Well, I find myself attracted to Arab, central asian, and south asian women in general.

So, for purely selfish reasons, yes.

The burqa is tricky territory for me. I don't want to limit any individual's right to choose what they wear however, the Burqa, Hijab, Niqab, are the result of calling women to subscribe to different moral standards from men. I can't accept it because of the inequality in that.

Gethsemani:

The same question could really be asked about thing like the thong, mini bikinis, miniskirts and a plethora of other garments we have in the west that exist, in varying degrees, only to expose the female body and make it attractive to men. Which is exactly what many feminists in the middle east do too, their feminist movement reject western ideas of how a woman should look because they consider it degrading and exploiting. In the same manner, we consider the burqa or niqab oppressive and humiliating. To some ofthese feminists in middle eastern countries, the niqa and the burqa symbolizes femininity and by wearing it on their own volition they are making it their own garment, not that of the patriarchal structures around them.

What it all comes down to is what culture we grew up in. We just have to remember that the objectification of women and our bodies has taken different expressions in different parts of the world. In the west it is exploited whereas in the middle east the woman is 'protected'. Personally, I am fine with being on a beach in a bikini but couldn't wear a burqa in public. But I have every ounce of respect for those women that would rather choose the opposite.

There's an important distinction to be made. The thong, bikini, etc, are all developments that came about as society changed. They are not required, or commanded.

As in verse 33:59 in al-azhab. I'll quote the verse from my quran given to me by people preaching Islam at my university it's important to note this, because those versions are the ones that tend to have the most 'western'-friendly translations to paint Islam in an attractive light.

The verse goes:

However, in the case of the Hijab, Niqab, Burqa, etc: it is commanded of women to cover themselves, and they are given a special 'moral' distinction because of it.

As in verse 33:59 in al-azhab. I'll quote the verse from my quran given to me by people soliciting Islam at my university; it's important to note this because these versions are the ones that tend to have the most 'western'-friendly translations (and omissions) to paint Islam in an attractive light.

Even this very friendly iteration reads: O Prophet! Tell your wives and your daughters and wives of believers that they should draw over themselves some of their outer garments so as to be recognised and not molested. God is most merciful. (Emphasis mine)

Some of the unedited versions have more explicit commands, but the point about drawing over themselves is significant. The head is as high as someone goes in most cases, and this verse requires something must be worn over that.

It is also the result of an inherent picture of inequality in Islam because men have to live by a different set of moral obligations. Men don't have to cover while women do.

There is nothing special about a bikini because it doesn't have any supposedly divine significance, and there are certain fashions men are pressured to wear that parallel the bikini.

Appealing to cultural relativism, while popular, isn't the solution to everything.

Luna:

1) I'm not voting so I can stroke my ego and say, 'Not my fault the burqua is banned', I'm not voting because both arguments have points worth considering but I don't feel strongly enough about either to vote.

Didn't say you were stroking your ego by doing it.

Luna:
2)'A vote was taken to remove somebodies rights, the same rights available to us we now made unavailable to them'

I assumed nobody would be allowed to wear a burqua, regardless of if you are a Muslim or not. Is this an unreasonable assumption

Scoff. I meant the right to choose what you're allowed to wear in public, or if we wanted to take it to extremes, the freedom to express oneself religiously.

This doesn't refer to you, but funnily enough a lot of people who want to ban the burqa think it's barbaric that Muslim women are *forced* to wear it. Then they go on to decide to force them to not wear it by law because "it's impolite not to be able to see someones face while talking to them".

Burqa removed for identification purposes? (License, identification, etc) Yes.
Entering a store that requires you to show your face? Neutral.
Banned in general? No.

Luna:
It doesn't affect me because I'm not a Muslim, (or a woman) and see little reason to be either. They wear what they wear for specific reasons and on the basis of why they wear them, the logic doesn't hold up to me. Hence in my eyes little would be lost.

So yes, it doesn't affect you and you don't understand why they attribute any significance to it, you don't like their reasons as to why, so you conclude that "little would be lost". Okay.

Luna:
Needless to say at this point in time I don't see a problem with my way of thinking, but am open to suggestions.

I confess, I don't actually care enough to attempt to sway your opinion. If you willingly choose to be apathetic and ignorant in this matter then that's fine, you can join the millions of people who take that approach, including myself.

It's fairly easy to understand that for some people 'doing nothing while rights are taken away will be frowned upon though. It seemed you were unsure of that when talking to JSF01, so I thought I'd use my infinite wisdom to explain it to you.

Why does it seem that people have been spending the whole weekend misinterpreting me?

I don't object to freedom of religion, freedom of choice, or freedom of expression; I object to people claiming that their religious or cultural prerogatives supersede legal precedent.

If I want to claim that wearing a given piece of clothing is religious paraphernalia, I can do so. At the same time, Amish, Mennonites, Muslims and Hebrews all have the right to dress themselves according to the relevant religious strictures, but they should not claim that it in anyway permits them to ignore or bend laws.

If a situation requires that positive identification be demonstrated, or that the immediate personal safety of an individual be considered, I believe it is fair to request that any individual comply, regardless of religious stricture. If that means that a female Muslim could only remove her veil and scarf in private to a female law officer, I'm cool with that, but I'm not cool with any claim that refusal to provide positive identification (in that situation) is anything but illegal.

Zekksta:

Luna:

1) I'm not voting so I can stroke my ego and say, 'Not my fault the burqua is banned', I'm not voting because both arguments have points worth considering but I don't feel strongly enough about either to vote.

Didn't say you were stroking your ego by doing it.

Luna:
2)'A vote was taken to remove somebodies rights, the same rights available to us we now made unavailable to them'

I assumed nobody would be allowed to wear a burqua, regardless of if you are a Muslim or not. Is this an unreasonable assumption

Scoff. I meant the right to choose what you're allowed to wear in public, or if we wanted to take it to extremes, the freedom to express oneself religiously.

This doesn't refer to you, but funnily enough a lot of people who want to ban the burqa think it's barbaric that Muslim women are *forced* to wear it. Then they go on to decide to force them to not wear it by law because "it's impolite not to be able to see someones face while talking to them".

Burqa removed for identification purposes? (License, identification, etc) Yes.
Entering a store that requires you to show your face? Neutral.
Banned in general? No.

Luna:
It doesn't affect me because I'm not a Muslim, (or a woman) and see little reason to be either. They wear what they wear for specific reasons and on the basis of why they wear them, the logic doesn't hold up to me. Hence in my eyes little would be lost.

So yes, it doesn't affect you and you don't understand why they attribute any significance to it, you don't like their reasons as to why, so you conclude that "little would be lost". Okay.

Luna:
Needless to say at this point in time I don't see a problem with my way of thinking, but am open to suggestions.

I confess, I don't actually care enough to attempt to sway your opinion. If you willingly choose to be apathetic and ignorant in this matter then that's fine, you can join the millions of people who take that approach, including myself.

It's fairly easy to understand that for some people 'doing nothing while rights are taken away will be frowned upon though. It seemed you were unsure of that when talking to JSF01, so I thought I'd use my infinite wisdom to explain it to you.

You're better at that multi quote thing than me.

I felt it was implied I was stroking my ego by doing nothing and acting like it wasn't my fault that the burqua was banned.

'Scoff.'

Don't you rustle my jimmies.

'I meant the right to choose what you're allowed to wear in public, or if we wanted to take it to extremes, the freedom to express oneself religiously.'

There has to be a line drawn somewhere. Otherwise you got naked people running around.

'This doesn't refer to you, but funnily enough a lot of people who want to ban the burqa think it's barbaric that Muslim women are *forced* to wear it. Then they go on to decide to force them to not wear it by law because "it's impolite not to be able to see someones face while talking to them".'

I don't deny the reality that many women want to wear them.

'Burqa removed for identification purposes? (License, identification, etc) Yes.
Entering a store that requires you to show your face? Neutral.
Banned in general? No.'

I think that removing the burqa/burqua for identification purposes is absolutely fucking 100% without question.

If someone owns a store they have the right to refuse service to those who refuse to show their faces.

Banned in general, well, while I might not be 100% for it, my answer is not a resounding 'no' as yours is.

'So yes, it doesn't affect you'

Not as it affects those who wear it I mean.

'...and you don't understand why they attribute any significance to it,'

yes I do.

'you don't like their reasons as to why, so you conclude that "little would be lost". Okay.'

I never said quite that but that's a general outline. From my perspective, little would be lost. I imagine it would be quite different from their perspective.

'I confess, I don't actually care enough to attempt to sway your opinion.'

Said the guy who just tried to attempt to sway my opinion.

You don't need to be scared of failing to sway my opinion, (hence you save yourself with the message - you don't care to sway me so you can't fail). This is an internet forum. I don't care if I make an ass of myself if I'm learning something along the way.

'If you willingly choose to be apathetic and ignorant in this matter then that's fine, you can join the millions of people who take that approach, including myself.'

You have no idea how good it is to be spoken to by someone who isn't a pretentious twat on here. Some people act like they're shit doesn't stink and it would appear you're not one of them. But I'm hoping to learn something here. At this stage I'm going to have to reject your claim of my ignorance on this one. An ignorant person would say that, but so would someone who genuinely isn't ignorant so this doesn't mean much either way.

'It's fairly easy to understand that for some people 'doing nothing while rights are taken away will be frowned upon though. It seemed you were unsure of that when talking to JSF01, so I thought I'd use my infinite wisdom to explain it to you.'

You were right to call me apathetic.

I don't see the value of preserving this right in this particular situation.

I think that this is somewhat relevant to the topic at hand....

Luna:

You're better at that multi quote thing than me.

You think this is a fucking game?

Luna:
I felt it was implied I was stroking my ego by doing nothing and acting like it wasn't my fault that the burqua was banned.

No worries, I often imply several implications so 9/10 of the time you'd be right in assuming I was being an ass. In this case I wasn't though.

Luna:
I don't deny the reality that many women want to wear them.

Superlative

Luna:

I think that removing the burqa/burqua for identification purposes is absolutely fucking 100% without question.

As do I.

Luna:
If someone owns a store they have the right to refuse service to those who refuse to show their faces.

If that is actually a right/rule then I'd have to agree. I thought it may have been one of those fake rules like "IF YOU ENTER THIS STORE WE CAN FORCIBLY CHECK YO BAGS".

Luna:
Banned in general, well, while I might not be 100% for it, my answer is not a resounding 'no' as yours is.

Fair enough.

Luna:

I never said quite that but that's a general outline. From my perspective, little would be lost. I imagine it would be quite different from their perspective.

Indeed

Luna:
Said the guy who just tried to attempt to sway my opinion.

You don't need to be scared of failing to sway my opinion, (hence you save yourself with the message - you don't care to sway me so you can't fail). This is an internet forum. I don't care if I make an ass of myself if I'm learning something along the way.

Don't read too much into this. I left my wallet and keys in my friends car so I've been stuck at home all day bored as shit. I'm not overly invested in you changing your opinion or anything, just thought I'd talk(post?) with you on the subject.

Then again I could just be so beta as fuck that I typed that up just to have another escape because I'm secretly afraid of failure and confrontation and you implied the former with the latter.

Luna:
You have no idea how good it is to be spoken to by someone who isn't a pretentious twat on here

Huzzah.

Luna:
You were right to call me apathetic.

I don't see the value of preserving this right in this particular situation.

Well fair enough. Others more knowledgeable/with a greater understanding of the issue than I might cause you to change your opinion, or leave it firmly intact.

Zekksta:

Luna:

You're better at that multi quote thing than me.

You think this is a fucking game?

Luna:
I felt it was implied I was stroking my ego by doing nothing and acting like it wasn't my fault that the burqua was banned.

No worries, I often imply several implications so 9/10 of the time you'd be right in assuming I was being an ass. In this case I wasn't though.

Luna:
I don't deny the reality that many women want to wear them.

Superlative

Luna:

I think that removing the burqa/burqua for identification purposes is absolutely fucking 100% without question.

As do I.

Luna:
If someone owns a store they have the right to refuse service to those who refuse to show their faces.

If that is actually a right/rule then I'd have to agree. I thought it may have been one of those fake rules like "IF YOU ENTER THIS STORE WE CAN FORCIBLY CHECK YO BAGS".

Luna:
Banned in general, well, while I might not be 100% for it, my answer is not a resounding 'no' as yours is.

Fair enough.

Luna:

I never said quite that but that's a general outline. From my perspective, little would be lost. I imagine it would be quite different from their perspective.

Indeed

Luna:
Said the guy who just tried to attempt to sway my opinion.

You don't need to be scared of failing to sway my opinion, (hence you save yourself with the message - you don't care to sway me so you can't fail). This is an internet forum. I don't care if I make an ass of myself if I'm learning something along the way.

Don't read too much into this. I left my wallet and keys in my friends car so I've been stuck at home all day bored as shit. I'm not overly invested in you changing your opinion or anything, just thought I'd talk(post?) with you on the subject.

Then again I could just be so beta as fuck that I typed that up just to have another escape because I'm secretly afraid of failure and confrontation and you implied the former with the latter.

Luna:
You have no idea how good it is to be spoken to by someone who isn't a pretentious twat on here

Huzzah.

Luna:
You were right to call me apathetic.

I don't see the value of preserving this right in this particular situation.

Well fair enough. Others more knowledgeable/with a greater understanding of the issue than I might cause you to change your opinion, or leave it firmly intact.

Perhaps. Are you a miscer?

Luna:
Perhaps. Are you a miscer?

Let's see.

Miscer
Miscers are predominatley male in the 18-34 age bracket.

Yes, 22.

Although many claim to be avid bodybuilders, a lot do not look it judging by their avatar pictures.

Do not claim to bodybuild.

Miscers tend to be a cynical, impatient and fickle lot and do not take kindly to unfunny trolling. Said trolls are often dealt with harshly and negged to oblivion.

Yes, however I'm convinced half the internet isn't aware of what trolling actually is.

Most miscers are looked down upon by other members of the forum because they post almost exclusively in the misc section

I assume that would be *offtopic* here. No. This is pretty much the only board I frequent on this site and I don't visit or post on any other forum.

To make it as a miscer your main goal should be providing entertainment to the other misc members. Probably the easiest way would be providing comedy relief or posting something informative or of an 'epic' nature.

Well I post a lot of stupid shit. Whether it's funny or not is up to interpretation.

So maybe halfmiscer.

Zekksta:

Luna:
Perhaps. Are you a miscer?

Let's see.

Miscer
Miscers are predominatley male in the 18-34 age bracket.

Yes, 22.

Although many claim to be avid bodybuilders, a lot do not look it judging by their avatar pictures.

Do not claim to bodybuild.

As it was once said, 'nobody on the misc lifts'

Miscers tend to be a cynical, impatient and fickle lot and do not take kindly to unfunny trolling. Said trolls are often dealt with harshly and negged to oblivion.

Yes, however I'm convinced half the internet isn't aware of what trolling actually is.

Most miscers are looked down upon by other members of the forum because they post almost exclusively in the misc section

Truth. I post in several sections and that is somewhat true. The misc is claimed to be the land of the forever alone socially awkward phaggots who don't even lift.

[quote]
I assume that would be *offtopic* here. No. This is pretty much the only board I frequent on this site and I don't visit or post on any other forum.

[quote]To make it as a miscer your main goal should be providing entertainment to the other misc members. Probably the easiest way would be providing comedy relief or posting something informative or of an 'epic' nature.

Well I post a lot of stupid shit. Whether it's funny or not is up to interpretation.

So maybe halfmiscer.

epic threads include when this guy called YaboyDave fucked this chick and took pics AND made a video. But what happened was he knew she had a boyfriend, sent the video to the boyfriend so he broke up with the slut and she got thrown out. I think he may even be friends with the guy now. There's also the misc memes, microsoft paint threads, 'text this to a girl for guaranteed sex' threads, call out threads, etc etc etc. One time a miscer called DoitBig went on Tosh.0.

But so that this post remains on topic I'll say that my interpretation of the situation that is the west being more legally tolerant of Islamic culture than the Islamic countries are tolerant of Western culture could potentially complicate the issue.

Pumpkin_Eater:

Kendarik:

We should ban radical beliefs? For example, everyone in the Occupy movement should be jailed? The communist party and the libertarian party should be banned?

Ban violence, not thinking you disagree with.

None of those groups use violence to achieve their ends, so I wouldn't classify them as radical.

I had no idea that wearing a burqa made you violent. Oh wait, it doesn't. For you to suggest wearing burqa's makes you violent is bigoted.

Radical BTW does not require violence. All of those listed groups can be (and have in the past) been considered radical groups.

Aerodyamic:
Why does it seem that people have been spending the whole weekend misinterpreting me?

I don't object to freedom of religion, freedom of choice, or freedom of expression; I object to people claiming that their religious or cultural prerogatives supersede legal precedent.

If I want to claim that wearing a given piece of clothing is religious paraphernalia, I can do so. At the same time, Amish, Mennonites, Muslims and Hebrews all have the right to dress themselves according to the relevant religious strictures, but they should not claim that it in anyway permits them to ignore or bend laws.

If a situation requires that positive identification be demonstrated, or that the immediate personal safety of an individual be considered, I believe it is fair to request that any individual comply, regardless of religious stricture. If that means that a female Muslim could only remove her veil and scarf in private to a female law officer, I'm cool with that, but I'm not cool with any claim that refusal to provide positive identification (in that situation) is anything but illegal.

You are arguing a point which pretty much no one in this thread disagrees with - assuming the law is there for an actual reason and that the law doesn't just exist as an unnecessary discriminatory bar.

People are arguing with you because not all your arguments followed that clear line.

People can wear whatever they want. And for whatever reason they want.

Maybe some people just like the garment? Or maybe they want their bodies to me less sexualized in public? A nerd could go around in a gigantic wizard robe in public, does that make it unempowering to men?

I kind of want to wear a burqa sometimes. Just because I would feel like a ghost~. I want to dress up as a ghost in public, don't you?

I wouldn't consider Australia a place with much freedom if they ban it.

LilithSlave:
People can wear whatever they want. And for whatever reason they want.

Maybe some people just like the garment? Or maybe they want their bodies to me less sexualized in public? A nerd could go around in a gigantic wizard robe in public, does that make it unempowering to men?

I've never understood the "sexualisation" argument. Somebody's face (or, for that matter, the hair on their head) isn't of itself sexual, and it'd be a combination of huge egotism and/or profound mistrust of men if a woman thought she had better cover her face so as to not whip every man in the vicinity into a state of uncontrolled desire.

And, even to a burqa-skeptic like me, the "Lol let's dress up as ghosts" comment seems culturally insensitive.

Batou667:
And, even to a burqa-skeptic like me, the "Lol let's dress up as ghosts" comment seems culturally insensitive.

You know, I really dislike the "politically correct", card. But in this case something at least akin to it is at play which I disagree with.

There's nothing wrong with making fun of clothing of any variety. To the people it is "culturally insensitive" to, I'm not particularly worried about offending, I don't think.

There are times when it seems like when doing such things, one is mocking another culture. But it's usually coupled with more than that. Like making a caricature.

I'm against taking clothing of any thread very seriously.

LilithSlave:
You know, I really dislike the "politically correct", card. But in this case something at least akin to it is at play which I disagree with.

There's nothing wrong with making fun of clothing of any variety. To the people it is "culturally insensitive" to, I'm not particularly worried about offending, I don't think.

There are times when it seems like when doing such things, one is mocking another culture. But it's usually coupled with more than that. Like making a caricature.

I'm against taking clothing of any thread very seriously.

Don't worry, I'm not offended, and I don't think you're being politically incorrect. What I do think is that you're lowering the tone of discussion with your LOL SO RANDUMB sub-college humour.

So you don't take clothing seriously, great, thing is that there are people who take this very seriously indeed. Try running around in a burqa going "Wooo, I'm a ghost, I'm coming for you Ebeneezer! Run away, here comes Pac Man!" and there are places - including some parts of Western countries, possibly not Australia yet - where you will be killed for mocking Islam.

[edit]

We're trying to address the legitimacy of full-face burquas in Western society, and it's a complicated and thorny enough issue.

Some people suggest that the Burqa is forced upon women, is dehumanising, and is evidence of the so-called inherent misogeny of Islam, and this bears investigating.

Others, women who wear burqas for example, insist that it's their free choice and somehow increases their spiritual ties to their faith, and we should try to understand this viewpoint.

Other people (yourself included, and I'd be interested in your justification) think that the burqa is a tool of de-sexualisation. I think this is a sentiment that requires damaging and incorrect assumptions to be made for this conclusion to make any sense, as I don't think that a person's hair or face are sexual areas, nor that showing your hair or face can be seen as "immodest".

Precisely nobody is suggesting that women wear burqas because they enjoy the feeling of being ghosts.

Batou667:
you're lowering the tone of discussion

And I think that's a good thing. I don't think that the burqa should either be banned, OR taken seriously.

A bit of humor is good.

Batou667:
you will be killed for mocking Islam.

And I'm not for giving them the benefit of taking their silly religion seriously. I am not a person who supports religion. And certainly not Abrahamic religion.

I'm not for being racist towards Arabs. But the only context I'm going to take Abrahamic religion outside of joking about it, it demeaning it. And I'm not going to give them the benefit or victory of toning it down. Only the most shallow and silly aspects of religion are even worthy of any promotion or respect.

To start with I believe that everybody should have the freedom to choose, and act acordingly to, their own beliefs as they are integral to a person's identity.

In terms of the burqa it is not mandatory for the religion of Islam and as such by removing this right would not impede on anybody's religious freedom. In western society, or at least where I live, to cover your face (e.g. with a hoody) is considered to be intimidating and removes a sense of familiarity. In this respect by banning it would serve to level the playing field in terms of all people being equal - if it's illegal for a non-religious person to cover their face in public then why should a religious person be offered that option?

A few years back there was a big hoo-ha over a Christian lady being asked to conceal her crucifix necklace. The eventual outcome was that because it was not a requirement for her faith, should she wish to wear it, it would have to be beneath her clothing. If it's acceptable to prevent the wearing of something as inoffensive as a pendant then I fail to see why banning something that clashes with our culture to the extent of the burqa would be any worse.

In a multi-cultural society the most important thing is to respect others and ammend our actions so as not cause offense. For this reason we do not display ant-gay or anti-abortion sentiments in public (and would likely be arrrested should we choose to)and equally I believe that muslims should have to bare in mind the western perspective that to conceal yourself in such a manner is threatening.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked