It seems a courageous decision of France to join the list of countries with sumptuary laws.

It joins such esteemed company as Iran, Saudi Arabia and North Korea.

It strikes me that women who are being forced against their will to wear veils are de facto in an abusive relationship. And there should be societal safeguards in place already to identify and protect victims of domestic abuse.

And if there’s not, strengthen them. This kind of sledgehammer-approach will achieve nothing towards eradicating the core oppressive paternalism that allows women to get trapped in this kind of abusive relationship in the first place.

… was motivated primarily by racism towards Muslims

Except for this absurd remark, the rest of your post is sensible. But this is so juvenile and way off the mark. If you really believe that pretty well the entire French parliament is racist, then you need some real racism awareness training.

Have they really nothing to say on the topic?

What would you have them say?

Oh gosh, Martin is making reasonable and intelligent comments. I need a lie-down

@Sunny:

It’s a matter of personal liberty. If the state wants to ride roughshod over one’s right to dress in public how one chooses, it had better have a bloody good reason for doing so.

“But they’re Muslims, innit” is not good enough.

But I’d be somewhat more impressed if some of those who have made clear how appalled they are with the French decision would explicitly state their solidarity with the acid victims. Have they really nothing to say on the topic?

What the fuck? OK, I will happily announce that I find the idea of throwing acid in someone’s face because of some stupid interpretation of some equally stupid religious text appalling far beyond my ability to express in words. As if that wasn’t blatantly fucking obvious…

Are there any other specific horrors, obviously abhorred by all right-thinking people, out there in this insane abattoir of a world that you’d like me to explicitly denounce before I can talk about any given topic? Because if you want me to go through the full list, we’ll be be here for a very long time… How about we just assume good faith in the absence of any evidence to the contrary? You can take it as read that I object to any and all examples of violence, murder, mutilation, oppression, bigotry or prejudice*, anywhere in the world, no matter what the motivation.

(*This list is indicative, not exhaustive. Again, we’d be here for a long time…)

“and of course the French parliament’s 355-1 decision to ban the wearing of full face covering in public was motivated primarily by racism towards Muslims.”

Islam isn’t a race, so how can it be racist ?

Firstly muslim is not a race, secondly you then contradicted yourself and said if a woman wears a burqa through her own free choice this is a sign of her oppression.

Excellent article, not much I can add.

The very idea of the niqab should be offensive to anyone of a liberal bent but that very liberalism cannot be compromised by dictating that a woman *cannot* wear the niqab. That’s only a ‘paradox’ if you make it into one.

Laws against the veil will punish the wearer, not the husband or the local cleric. What exactly should the sanctions be? Fines? Imprisonment? How could anyone reconcile laws which almost exclusively punish *women* with any form of ‘feminism’ worthy of the name?

Muslims are brown, you must have noticed…

Likewise, Muslim is very often used as a euphemism for brown people.

Genuinely, you’re saying that racism played no role in this ban?

Plus, if you concede its not racism but just another equally vile prejudice, I don’t really see the substantive difference. Is there some hierarchy of prejudice I don’t know about?

Oh, and spot on article Dave.

@ 11 “Muslims are brown, you must have noticed”

Er ir depends what country you are in. Have to say I’ve seen more than a few white and black muslims in various parts of the world – and “brown” isn’t a race either

“Likewise, Muslim is very often used as a euphemism for brown people.”

By who ? It makes no more sense to say Muslims are “brown” than to say christians are “white (when there are millions of black christians)

@11

Yes I have noticed a lot of muslims are brown, as well as a lot of christians. Perhaps you should go to Uganda and collectively call the brown people there “Muslim” and see if they are as loose with the defintion as you.

It may be about racism, I’m not entirely sure. Are you?

With regards to your last point, If somethings an apple I would call it an apple, rather than a bannana. Although they are both fruit I would like people reading what i have written to understand my point without having to guess.

@ 11 “Plus, if you concede its not racism but just another equally vile prejudice, I don’t really see the substantive difference. Is there some hierarchy of prejudice I don’t know about?”

I didn’t say it wasn’t discriminatory, but the OP was quite specific that it was racist – it’s part of the left wing narrative that any criticism of muslims (although oddly no other religion apart from jews occasionally) is racist and therefore irrational.

Next thing the French will be employing police officers with tape measures to ensure Muslim women aren’t following their husbands at a deferrential distance.

Although I might just be Francophobic.

Muslims are brown, you must have noticed…

Racism is in fact the wrong word – it is motivated by bigotry for people belonging to a particular community.

Jews can be of all colour as well, but last time I checked it was still bigoted to start churning out stereotypes and conspiracy theories about Jews.

Much as one loves the sight of spluttering leftist outrage, what about the Danish research showing that in modern Europe the burka has less to do with adherence to custom or female oppression and more to do with disaffection and the rejection of society?

@ 18 “Racism is in fact the wrong word – it is motivated by bigotry for people belonging to a particular community”.

I hate to be pedantic bit it’s not “a community” either, muslims can live anywhere – it’s a religion, that anyone of any colour, can join or be born into, just like every other religion.

Although I might just be Francophobic.

Apparently Belgium and Spain are considering similar laws, so you can indulge in pan-European-phobia.

Nah I’m still fairly comfortable calling it racism.

If it quacks like a duck its probably a duck. To all intents and purposes it looks and sounds like racism. Muslims are an “other” whereas white people are normal. Muslims have to be controlled etc.

Its incredibly similar to the treatment of other migrant groups have historically recieved (in this country actually there is a fascinating similarity with the way Catholics were treated in the early 19th century).

But I think we’re getting sidetracked by one throwaway line in the OP.

The French right (and left) being really really prejudiced is more important.

@ 22 Spare us the undergrad psychology lecture. That is offensive to at least 3 groups (white muslims, black muslims and “brown” non-muslims) and is just classic left wing manipulation of terminology to create an “ism” where there isn’t one.
The very idea that you can characterise an entire group based on your personal experience of it, is the cognitive process behind racism.

“But I think we’re getting sidetracked by one throwaway line in the OP.”

It was the basis of the enire piece, take that out and it’s just a rant about french state authoritarianism

I doubt whether all 355 are “racist”, but it’s a bad idea.

Schools, banks, airports – fine, obviously.

But a ban just on the street?
No.

Why ban them in schools but not the street?

@11: “Muslims are brown, you must have noticed”

The Uyghur people in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region of China are a Turkic ethnic group, mostly muslim:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uyghur_people

The Xinjiang region includes the Taklamarkan Desert where these mummified remains were discovered in the 1980s:

“This classical picture of ancient China will have to be modified after the recent unearthing of mummified Caucasians up to 4,000 years old in China’s northwestern province of Xinjiang.

“These dried corpses have the long noses, deep-set eyes, and long skulls typical of Caucasians. Some even have blonde hair! Some 113 such corpses have already been excavated at Qizilchoqa, one of four sites discovered so far. It is clear that we are dealing with permanent settlements and not merely a few lost Europeans.”
http://www.s8int.com/page26.html

The Islamic influence on the ancient silk road city of Samarkand in Uzbekistan is very evident but in this and other video clips of markets and bazars in Samarkand, many women can be seen going about their way without head coverings – and there are no reports of women being hassled there by morality police;
http://www.youtube.com/watch#!v=KpE1JJIavVk&feature=fvw

Curiously, in the video clips, I’ve not seen any women wearing burqas.

Another attempt to post the link to the YouTube video clip on Samarkand – which really is worth seeing:
http://www.youtube.com/watch#!v=KpE1JJIavVk&feature=fvw

I can actually see why (neo) liberals get so worked up about this, it can be interpreted as either

“Progressive” – in the sense that it is a move towards visible secularism, veils opresse women etc etc and, despite being notionally a catholic country, France is a genuine secular state – unlike the pretence of secularism we have in the UK

or

Discriminatory – In the sense that you are saying to one specific group “you may not do this in public”. The problem being that after 15 years of neo liberalism, lots of groups have been told that they may not do xyz in public – so difficult to argue this is somehow a special case.

@28: “I can actually see why (neo) liberals get so worked up about this.”

Among the many joys from reading the Guardian in the early 1960s was Michael Frayn’s column with its regular progress reports on the promotional campaigning in America of the Society for Indecency to Naked Animals (SINA) with slogans such as: “Decency today means morality tomorrow” and “A nude horse is a rude horse.”
http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/hoax/archive/permalink/the_society_for_indecency_to_naked_animals/

Some Americans took very seriously the challenging issue of whether animals have the moral right to offend some by going around without clothing.

@Dave Osler, and @ those in the above thread who think the French are being racist;

Of course the French parliament’s 355-1 decision to ban the wearing of full face covering in public was NOT motivated primarily by racism towards Muslims. Instead it shows how twisted the new epoch of politics has become; where even rightwingers like Chirac and Sarkozy are progressive enough to say that there is one law for all regarding religious garments, and their place in secular society.

Certain leftwingers, on the other hand, might kick up a fuss when a nurse or a BA worker wants to wear a crucifix, but a the burqa ban might conflict with fucking free expression.

The burqa is by no means an expression of freedom.

However I am not fully pledging my leftwing support for Chirac and Sarkozy here. I would say their act is sexist, not racist, picking on the symbol and not the exploitation proper. But don’t listen to me, Kenan Malik has it spot on:

“The burqa is a symbol of the oppression of women, not its cause. If legislators really want to help Muslim women, they could begin not by banning the burqa, but by challenging the policies and processes that marginalize migrant communities: on the one hand, the racism, social discrimination and police harassment that all too often disfigure migrant lives, and, on the other, the multicultural policies that treat minorities as members of ethnic groups rather than as citizens. Both help sideline migrant communities, aid the standing of conservative ‘community leaders’ and make life more difficult for women and other disadvantaged groups within those communities.”

[http://www.kenanmalik.com/essays/gp_burqa.html]

““Progressive” – in the sense that it is a move towards visible secularism, veils opresse women etc etc and, despite being notionally a catholic country, France is a genuine secular state – unlike the pretence of secularism we have in the UK”

I wouldn’t called enforced secularism in public spaces ‘progressive’, I’d call it ‘oppression’

“Discriminatory – In the sense that you are saying to one specific group “you may not do this in public”. The problem being that after 15 years of neo liberalism, lots of groups have been told that they may not do xyz in public – so difficult to argue this is somehow a special case.”

Yeah, but how many people have been told they can’t do xyz in public when it doesn’t hurt others? The only ones I can think of are narcotics users and nudists, and I’d sign a petition handed to me by either.

Who are these neo-liberals of whom you speak? Are they the ones who made it ok to reveal your homosexuality in public?

“Certain leftwingers, on the other hand, might kick up a fuss when a nurse or a BA worker wants to wear a crucifix, but a the burqa ban might conflict with fucking free expression. ”

Yeah, fucking free expression. What have basic fucking human rights ever done for us? Eh? Eh?

Your nurse or BA worker is presumably at work, which makes a big difference.

[22] first it was ‘insanity’
https://liberalconspiracy.org/2010/07/14/this-is-the-last-sane-man-in-france/

Now, running like an efficient train time tabe we have accusations of …….. yes, you’ve guessed it, ‘racism’.

Perhaps some people are just not ready to see an end to face burning (or more importantly the sort of intimidation this type of religious chauvenism signifies).

I think the attention drawn to the Belgium model in the OP might be a reasonable position to adopt here? – but I suppose if enough religious fundamentals aided by a cohorts of liberals complain often enough we might end up with some sort of ruling by the ECHR?

What strange bed fellows they are?

I was as shocked as you were when racism was described as racism.

28. “France is a genuine secular state”

That depends on your point of view. The French state subsidises religious private schools, and (as a result of having been part of Germany when the 1905 secularism law was passed) Alsace has public subsidies for the Catholic, Lutheran, and Calvinist churches and for Jewish synagogues (but not for Islam). The Alsatian clergy receive public salaries and the state schools in Alsace are also religious.

‘Your nurse or BA worker is presumably at work, which makes a big difference.’

Not really. If someone’s religious trinkets don’t prevent them doing their job it’s nobody’s business what they dangle from their necks or cover their hair with.

Nurse’s uniforms are quasi-religious in any case, as is the practice of calling them ‘sister’.

Yes, Malays, Turks, Albanians, Uighars are all Muslim’s, I’m aware of that. But I don’t think the French legislation is targeted at the French Uighars community.

My attitude is more shaped by the treatment Muslims get from the BNP, the Mail and the Express. Muslim is used as a euphemism for foreign. I’m not Paul Sagar or Hadleigh Roberts so I don’t know if this is as widespread in France as it is in this country, but I find it difficult to take people’s criticism of Islam seriously. “This religion is stupid…” “You don’t say!”.

For example, the same sort of “its not just immigration, its a dangerous ideology” has followed many migrant communities, it was racist then and it is racist now.

West Indians, and specifically Rastafari represented a threat to the British Way of Life. They smoked weed, corrupted the young, didn’t work hard, didn’t respect “their” women etc.

Jews: See conspiracy theories.

Enoch Powell, “the black man will have the whip hand over the white man”. He wasn’t talking about a general ideology in blackness in the same way people talk ominously about the Ummah, but its a similar bullshit formulation. They’re different: they want to control us.

So when I see people criticising “Islam” and “Muslims” using the same words, the same arguments, the same nonsense fearmongering, I don’t hear a useful and essential critique of a ludicrous religion, I hear people using Islam as an excuse for their racism.

So once more,

Genuine engagement with Islam is welcome:

For example, recognising that forcing a women to wear a burka is domestic abuse and that organisations which seek to tackle domestic abuse are under-resourced and possibly not putting enough resources into this particular problem.

Bullshit arguments which haven’t been true about any other minority group against which they’ve been deployed and are still not true are not welcome.

Also agree with the person who called this move sexist.

Most important criticism of it is that it won’t work. Unless by work you mean “help politicians get re-elected.” Reducing violence against women, and convincing Muslims they have a very silly religion are unlikely outcomes.

Carl,

You’re right that racism is probably not the main driver. The French dedication to secularism is not something I’m really capable of analysing as I’m still not Paul Sagar or Hadleigh Roberts.

The burqa has probably occasionally been worn by choice, but I don’t doubt the numbers are negligible.

There are lots of jobs you can’t do in a burqa, just as there are lots of (but less) jobs you can’t do in jewellery.

Kenan Malik is spot on, agreed.

For consistency’s sake, surely all those shopping centres and stores which post notices banning customers wearing hoods and helmets should be banned from doing so.

“For consistency’s sake, surely all those shopping centres and stores which post notices banning customers wearing hoods and helmets should be banned from doing so.”

Again, you’re missing the distinction between public and private.

“Not really. If someone’s religious trinkets don’t prevent them doing their job it’s nobody’s business what they dangle from their necks or cover their hair with. ”

I sort-of agree. At the same time, a shop has the right to tell its staff to wear a uniform.

Basically, if an employer imposes rules that either specifically bans certain religious items and not others, or clearly exist only to have this effect, it should be in trouble. If they ban all religious items but have no decent justification for doing so, they should be criticised but probably not legally vulnerable. If we have a genuine case where a cruxifix around the neck is a health hazard but a burkha is not, or vice versa, then that’s fine and dandy.

@ 32 Your nurse or BA worker is presumably at work, which makes a big difference.

Why ?? How is it any more logical to ban something at work but not in the street ? If anything work (obviously depending on what you do) is more likely to be on private property.

Semantics: “racist” is technically incorrect, but [insert technically correct but little-known word for religious discrimination here] has the same outcome as racism, and the writer wanted to convey the impact of that to his audience.

Moving on…

The law the French lower house voted in favour of bans both wearing a face covering, lightly penalised by a £120 fine, and forcing someone to wear a face covering, heavily penalised by a year in jail and/or £25,000 fine (and double that if the victim is a child). Isn’t the second bit of this law to be welcomed?

Indeed I would consider going further and making it an offence to force anyone to wear anything against their will (with sensible exemptions for workplace uniforms).

“Again, you’re missing the distinction between public and private.”

Shopping centres aren’t public places?

@42

The second part of the law is kinda welcome. But it should be covered by domestic violence, not as a particular law targeting Muslims.

@ 31 “I wouldn’t called enforced secularism in public spaces ‘progressive’, I’d call it ‘oppression’

Hence I put “progressive” in quotation marks…….. A lot of things that have been banned in public (smoking spings to mind) have been argued on LC as being progressive using a highly convoluted form of the “harm” principle

“Shopping centres aren’t public places?”

No, they’re not. The shopping district of a town, on the other hand, is, and hence neither burkhas nor skid lids should be outlawed there.

“How is it any more logical to ban something at work but not in the street ? If anything work (obviously depending on what you do) is more likely to be on private property.”

See my post at 40. And surely the fact that they’re on private property means that the owner has more authority, not less, to dictate who does (and wears) what?

“Hence I put “progressive” in quotation marks…….. A lot of things that have been banned in public (smoking spings to mind) have been argued on LC as being progressive using a highly convoluted form of the “harm” principle”

Doesn’t your stance on the smoking ban contradict your apparent stance on employers’ ability to say what their employees wear?

Anyway, I wasn’t arguing with you in this case. Just demonstrating that not all lefties rationalize like that.

@ 37 “So when I see people criticising “Islam” and “Muslims” using the same words, the same arguments, the same nonsense fearmongering, I don’t hear a useful and essential critique of a ludicrous religion, I hear people using Islam as an excuse for their racism.”

But with respect that is *your* problem. I don’t equate Islam with any particular race. Any critique I make of it is as a control system, and I would make the same criciticism of any other religion/ideology on the same basis.
You give some good examples of how that can be twisted into in/out group formation, but there are at least as many examples where people *should* have objected to a “new” ideology, and didn’t, with disastrous consequences.

@ 47 “surely the fact that they’re on private property means that the owner has more authority, not less, to dictate who does (and wears) what?”

The owner, yes. The state, no.

“The owner, yes. The state, no.”

Miscommunication, then. I’m not saying the state should be allowed to dictate what people wear at work. I’m saying its ability to dictate what employers can dictate what people can wear at work should be limited.

“But with respect that is *your* problem. I don’t equate Islam with any particular race. Any critique I make of it is as a control system, and I would make the same criciticism of any other religion/ideology on the same basis.”

And fair play to you. But many people do react negatively to Muslims in large part due to outsider-group hostility, and in those specific cases, ‘racist’ is acceptable shorthand given that ‘religionist’ and ‘faithist’ never caught on.

In other words, I’m happy with criticism of a religious group being called racist if it’s bigoted. If not, not.

I’m sorry, but this is a silly attack on the left based on nothing.

I don’t think you’re racist Matt, of course not.

But I do think a large number of people who criticise Muslims are, and simply channel their racism through their subject’s religion. The Daily Expresses of the world for example.

Ever since the revolution, France has been anti-religious, viewing religions as being anti-liberal, and certainly the catholic church was critical of the revolution and liberalism generally. ‘papal infallibility’ was the catholic church’s response to the spread of liberalism in 19th century Europe.
This ban is anti-religious not racist, and is consistent with France being a secular state, but France is also a liberal country and no-one is denied the freedom to follow their own religious leanings or be educated in a faith school, but publically, religious symbolism is not encouraged.
This is the one great advantage of liberal societies – the division between private and public. if women wish to wear their burqa they can do so in the privacy of the home/church/school.

“This ban is anti-religious not racist, and is consistent with France being a secular state, but France is also a liberal country and no-one is denied the freedom to follow their own religious leanings or be educated in a faith school, but publically, religious symbolism is not encouraged.”

Nope. It’s banned if you want to wear a burkha. Is that the sound of people being denied the freedom to follow their own religious leanings I hear?

“This is the one great advantage of liberal societies – the division between private and public. if women wish to wear their burqa they can do so in the privacy of the home/church/school.”

You need to look up ‘liberal’, mate. This is exactly what they used to say about gays.

56
No-one is being denied the right to follow their religion, the ban is about wearing religious symbols in public. And comparing this with gays is nonsense, or perhaps you can enlighten me about what gays do in public that hetreosexuals don’t.

[42] “insert technically correct but little-known word for religious discrimination here” but the problem is, if we accept what the likes of Dawkins has to say, “What has ‘theology’ ever said that is of the smallest use to anybody? When has ‘theology’ ever said anything that is demonstrably true and is not obvious? What makes you think that ‘theology’ is a subject at all?”.

And, perhaps even more pertinently in this case, “Religion is about turning untested belief into unshakable truth through the power of institutions and the passage of time”.

Now if some people still want to persist with a made up set of precepts in order to persecute women it has hardly surprising that some might take exception to it?

I’m not getting this deep significance of the distinction made between private and public places.

Evidently, it’s OK if shopping centres and stores ban customers wearing hoods and helmets because those places are private.

Now public places are owned by the public, by definition. So what’s wrong if the public, through their elected political representatives, want legislation to ban burqas or other means of concealing faces because, as a matter of fact, burqas have been used as disguise by criminals and also to hide weapons for crime?

@ 59 “I’m not getting this deep significance of the distinction made between private and public places”.

It’s about the legitimacy of the state controlling private spaces. Hence a ban on something in the street is deemed to be a ligitimate exercise of state power, whereas a ban in a private place (e.g smoking in pubs) is not that far removed from the state banning you from doing something (legal) in your own home.

‘The law the French lower house voted in favour of bans both wearing a face covering, lightly penalised by a £120 fine, and forcing someone to wear a face covering, heavily penalised by a year in jail and/or £25,000 fine (and double that if the victim is a child). Isn’t the second bit of this law to be welcomed?’

The second part is, but if you believe the woman is being coerced you can’t legitimately punish her. Put her in court and her only defence is to testify against her husband but if she really is a victim of domestic abuse she’s hardly likely to do so. You might as well make it illegal to have black eyes.

Yes – but the deabte is about whether the public – who collectively own public places – can press for legislation banning the wearing of the burqa – and other means of concealing faces – in public places.

IMO the public are fully enttitled to take that position because burqas have been used as disguise by criminals and terrorists. I’m quite unconvinced that the French, the Belgians and the Dutch are infringing important personal liberties in taking the position they have. IMO their preferences are rational and there is a factual basis for their concerns.

@57

So I assume the ban covers nuns, priests, vicars, rabbis etc as well then?

Also, what if you are going to a fancy dress party..?

“So I assume the ban covers nuns, priests, vicars, rabbis etc as well then? ”

I look at this issue pragmatically. It happens that around where I live on the fringes of the GLA area, I encounter perhaps two or three cases a month of all-covering burqas being worn whereas I hardly ever encounter nuns, priests, rabbis etc from one month to the next.

The burqas look more sinister and are a very effective way of concealing personal identity, far more so than the traditional garb of nuns, priests rabbis etc.

I think leftists like Dave Osler, Carl and others need to give serious thought and reflect upon their political positions when they find themselves in the same boat as Melanie “It’s all about our values vs their values” Phillips, Rod Liddle, and so on.

It ain’t got shit to do with “one law for garments for all” – the law has no right to tell us what the fuck to wear.

it ain’t got shit to do with “liberal values” and “feminism” – who says a democratic society should force all citizens by law to adopt the same values?

It’s about being scared of women who you can’t see. That’s your problem, shitheads, not the women’s.

I live in a town where 30% of the population is Muslim, and I see nuns quite regularly – there is a convent near by.
My point was that this law is not about enforcing secularism, it’s an attack on liberty.

The burqas look more sinister and are a very effective way of concealing personal identity

? So are goths*, no-one wants to ban them now do they.

[*This is tongue in cheek, I don't really think goths look sinister. Well, not all of them. But my mother is certainly no fan.]

(that was a reply to Bob B btw)

Oh and what about wearing veils to funerals? Are they to be banned?

[66] “My point was that this law is not about enforcing secularism, it’s an attack on liberty” – this is a bit simplistic surely?

The law must give consideration to the rights of individuals – you might disagree but some might regard this, http://www.fitz-claridge.com/images/Burqaface2th.jpg as a form of abuse (for some women).

For example I imagine you might object to forced female circumcision? – yet this sort of thing goes on every day and nobody bats an eye lid;
http://goodfellasmusic.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/circumcision1.jpg

As a matter of interest why are you so keen defend oppressive theocratic practices?

@69 Lady Gaga wears stuff like the first pic regularly on stage. Are we going to ban that too?

Or do you only want to ban it for brown people?

Seriously, what is it with people banning everything they don’t like, for no other reason than they don’t like it? What if the burqa is a symbol of some religion you viscerally hate, if it’s not interfering with what you wear then WHAT THE FUCK IS IT TO DO WITH YOU?

How would you feel if Muslims got into power and passed a ban on short skirts?

@65: “It’s about being scared of women who you can’t see. That’s your problem, shitheads, not the women’s.”

The main point of pragmatic concerns is that MALE criminals and terrorists have used burqas as a means of disguise precisely because it’s a very effective way of concealing personal identiity and hiding weapons.

[70] do I only want to ban it for ‘brown people’ – I think it may be time for your next injection?

“the a&e charge nurse”

Fuck off (that’s not just the Chateauneuf talking) comparing male circumcision and female circumcision!

They’re completely different in their execution and effects. Its disgraceful that you would consider the amputation of the clitoris and the scarring of the labia as somehow similar to the removal of the foreskin. Jeez, how do you justify that?

Plus, forcing women to wear the burqa is a form of violence against them, but the answer is not to further victimise the victim.

@69

As a matter of interest why are you so keen defend oppressive theocratic practices?

I’m not. I’m keen to defend the freedom to wear what the hell anyone wants. Now I personally disagree with the thinking behind burkha wearing and I will argue with people on those grounds, but a blanket (pun intended, I suppose) ban smacks of the arrogance and misuse of state power.
Left Outside makes my point for me re:circumcision. As a nurse you are surely aware of the huge differences involved.

I have been under the impression that the burqa and similar dress styles are more to do with cultural references than religious requirements. If so, how can they be banned in the name of ‘secularism’? Let face it folks this nothing to do with promoting a secular state or feminism, this is a thinly disguised smack in the mouth aimed at Muslims. The fact that there was a movement of ‘abstention’ in France goes more to show the Left’s cowardly attitude when faced with ‘racism’*. Few, if any, want to ban Hasidic Jews from wearing their religious dress, as a defence of the secular state. Our racist* friends on either side of the channel want to ban this to cause hassle for Muslims, it is simple as that. Be it for ‘secularism’, ‘security’, ‘social convention’, or, laughably to stop ‘female oppression’ the bigots want to press home their agenda and will use any excuse to achieve this. They want to ban the burqa and hope to come up with a suitably noble excuse.

You ‘could’ further the cause of feminist emancipation by banning high heels, stockings and suspenders, but no way will they ever advocate that, will they?

*The anti Islam movement is driven by the same hatred that drives racism.

[73] the only similarity is that certain forms of religious practice may or may not present a problem for the law, THAT was my point.

May I respectfully suggest that you wait until you have sobered up before posting such dross – I have stated repeatedly that I do not favour a ban, although unlike some posters I do not think we should be bending over backwards to appease religious theocrats for fear of being called a racist, Islamaphobe or as Jim Jepps suggests a plain old nutter?

” this is a thinly disguised smack in the mouth aimed at Muslims.”

Nonsense. In fact, very few muslim women wear burqas. The main pragmatic objection is that MALE criminals and terrorists have used burqas as a means of disguise precisely because it’s a very effective way of concealing personal identiity and hiding weapons.

[74] “As a nurse you are surely aware of the huge differences involved” – well yes, I have my opinions, but our debate here is not about male vs female circumcision, per se, but about the THRESHOLD at which the law should or should not intervene in a religious practice.

At the moment the law is sanguine about ritual circumcision of male infants even though this can be fatal for some babies;
http://www.cirp.org/library/death/

The authorities in France have taken a view about the psychological and cultural dimensions associated with the burqa – the French may have got this wrong but to argue, as some have done, that it this is simply a matter about freedom of wardrobe choice (with bizarre references to Lady GaGa in some cases) is missing the point of their objections by a country mile?

@76

I do not think we should be bending over backwards to appease religious theocrats

Disagreeing with a government banning certain outfits isn’t “bending over backwards” to appease nutjobs. If anyone was arguing for the wholescale introduction of Sharia (sp?) law then you might have a point…
The French law is directed against a few (around 2000 IIRC) Muslim women and reeks of knee-jerk racism and authoritarianism. Once you start legislating against particular religions it’s a slippery slope, and not one that Europe should be sliding down again.

[79] “Once you start legislating against particular religions it’s a slippery slope” – agreed, but neither should we afford this type of mumbo jumbo any special respect either (since it only flies in the face of both science and rational thought).

I’ve not noticed any French politician defend the ban on security grounds, Bob. That seems to be a very minor part of the debate over there, if it is even part of it. We know what this is really about anyway, whatever the pseudofeminist or pseudosecularist rationalisations. Remember this proposal was raised as part of the French government’s “national identity” debate.

As to fancy dress and funeral veils – I think they’re safe. The French law may target face concealment, but the list of exceptions is as long as your arm.

That List of Exceptions In Full:
- helmets etc prescribed by law or by regulations
- garments worn for medical purposes or medical reasons
- items worn for professional reasons (police, certain types of worker, pest control)
- garments authorised to be worm by witnesses etc to protect anonymity
- items worn for holidays and the like (carnivals, Santa costumes)
- items worn by actors etc or by cirvus performers or for other artistic reasons
- items worn as part of a traditional procession or the like, specifically imcluding (i.e. permitting) religious processions!

@78

Hmm, yes, and there is also some research that suggests male circumcision can actually prevent (or reduce the risk) of AIDS. So it’s a tricky one to handle.

Of course different religious practices should be handled differently. But this isn’t about religion per se (which I’ve no time for), it’s about to what extent should the state interfere with what people want to wear. And I take JS Mill’s position: if what one is doing hurts neither you nor anyone else then the state has no business whatsoever in demanding that I refrain from wearing certain outfits (as an atheistic male I’m unlikely to don the burkha anyway, though stranger things have happened…). Mill’s point stands for all religious practices in my opinion.

@80

Yep… in many respects I admire the French and their state endorsed securalism; I just think they’ve gone too far this time.

[81] ‘pseudo-secularist rationalisation’ – care to elaborate?

@81

That list wasn’t as big as my arm… seems like there are lots of get-out clauses there. Maybe Muslim fundies could just claim they were doing a spot of street theatre if caught wearing the burkha.

I hoped I’d misinterpreted you a&e charge nurse. Its particularly a unpleasant practice and false comparisons are something of a bugbear of mine (for example “Palestinians are Semites too” etc). I’m happy to apologise.

Now I see your broader point I understand a little more.

I’d be happy to listen to arguments for stopping parents circumcising their sons, but that is after all about stopping someone doing something to someone else, whereas the main thrust of this burqa ban is to stop people doing things to themselves.

Of course, while the ban also provides harsh penalties against men forcing “their” women to wear the burqa it still further victimises the victim.

Like I said, there is a real problem to confront, illiberal laws aimed at victims is not the way to go about solving them.

Also, you sadly have to tolerate the religious. I’m confident their days are numbered because they’re wrong and stupid, and so long as they don’t gain control of the state or a vast media empire indifferent to profit, agnostics, atheists and non-theists have it sewn up, just perhaps not in my lifetime.

[82] “there is also some research that suggests male circumcision can actually prevent (or reduce the risk) of AIDS” – few babies have sexual partners ;o)

The real issue though is that a painful and potentially fatal procedure is carried out WITHOUT CONSENT because of the febrile ramblings of a pre-enlightenment shayman – presumably this is OK if enough (indoctrinated) people believe it to be so?

a&e.

The problem is, will intervening to stop this probably unnecessary practice cause more harm than good?

Will you stop them or drive them underground?

Perhaps the child will be better off without a foreskin but with their parents rather than in care with a foreskin.

Religions are stupid. Tolerance is hard. Accepting gay people is easy, that ain’t tolerance, its the really horrible and stupid burqa wearing penis slicers you have to tolerate because doing otherwise would be worse.

Bob B @ 77

Nonsense. In fact, very few muslim women wear burqas. The main pragmatic objection is that MALE criminals and terrorists have used burqas as a means of disguise precisely because it’s a very effective way of concealing personal identiity and hiding weapons.

Then surely you should be banning MALES from wearing the burqa, then? If you want to ban stuff that criminals might wear to disguise themselves, then we might as well ban sunglasses, leather gloves, baggy coats, rucksacks, wigs and hair dyes as well?

In fact, you could even make the point, based on the same rationale, that we can also ban police uniforms because they could also be used as disquises in a robbery as well? In fact, what about all those ram raiding 4x4s? Why not ban them too?

You surely cannot be suggesting that we ban everything that can be used by terrorists, irrespective of any legitimate use?

@87

Plenty of things happen to babies without their consent. That’s the duty of parenthood, to make good choices for the child until they are able to make their own decisions. Do I agree with the practice of circumcision? No. Do I want to ban it? No. Would banning it stop it from happening? No. Would it piss off a vast sector of society? Yes.
And don’t forget in some places (the USA, for example) male circumcision is very common amongst people of no religious persuasion.

“Then surely you should be banning MALES from wearing the burqa, then?”

What a daft question!

How could the Police or security personnel determine whether a person in a burqa is male or female without the risk of creating a major incident with unforeseeable repercussions?

The fact is that few muslim women wear burqas so legislation banning burqas and other means of obscuring personal identity will hardly amount to a serious diminution of personal liberty or a detraction from the muslim religion. The potential social benefit is increased security as criminals and terrorists will not be able to use this means of disguising identity or for concealing weapons.

“No-one is being denied the right to follow their religion, the ban is about wearing religious symbols in public. And comparing this with gays is nonsense, or perhaps you can enlighten me about what gays do in public that hetreosexuals don’t.”

Banning freedom of expression in public is, by default, banning freedom of expression. Are crucifixes banned in public? Stars of David? Please think before posting.

Comparing this with gays is nonsense? That’s ridiculous. For a long time (and in many cases this still goes on) the attitude with gays was “you can do what you want in your own home, but don’t force it down my throat by kissing your boyfriend in the pub”. That is your exact approach with burkhas: “do what you want in your own home, but if you dare do it where other, decent, normal people can see it, get ready for some pretty heavy authoritarianism”.

What gay people did in public was something other people didn’t want to see. And we repressed them for it, as you’re advocating oppressing burkha-wearers now.

@91

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority

See also: Pastor Martin Niemöller.

“Now public places are owned by the public, by definition. So what’s wrong if the public, through their elected political representatives, want legislation to ban burqas or other means of concealing faces because, as a matter of fact, burqas have been used as disguise by criminals and also to hide weapons for crime?”

Firstly, that’s not why they were banned and you know it. Motorcycle helmets have been used as disguises. Coats are used to conceal weapons. Why aren’t you trying to ban those?

Secondly, what is wrong about it is that it is hugely oppressive. The ban on the burkha says “If you don’t fit into our ideal society, prepare to be punished”. The public may own public spaces, but if they start using that ownership to bully and oppress Muslim and anyone else that scares them, they can fuck off.

“How could the Police or security personnel determine whether a person in a burqa is male or female without the risk of creating a major incident with unforeseeable repercussions?”

How can anyone do anything without “unforeseeable repercussions”, unless they’re clairvoyant?

Why do you hate these people so much that you want to find excuses to oppress them, squeezing hate laws through reasonable-doubt loopholes where you feign concern about the potential for masked robbery? Seriously, what drives that?

“Banning freedom of expression in public is, by default, banning freedom of expression. Are crucifixes banned in public? Stars of David? Please think before posting.”

Self expression in public is already curtailed in many ways and the burqa is not a religious arttefact but a cultural one associated with a particular religion. A better analogy would be the banning of, say, men wearing pointy white face masks in public spaces in Alabama because of the offense they casue to the public due o their symbolic connotations. would such a ban really be obviously illiberal or oppressive?

And I wish all those people who keep glibly telling us that the state has no business interesting itself in the ways the citizenry dress would take a stroll down Whitehall in the nude for a quick lesson in legal realities.

@95: “Why do you hate these people so much that you want to find excuses to oppress them, squeezing hate laws through reasonable-doubt loopholes where you feign concern about the potential for masked robbery? Seriously, what drives that?”

Recent media reports such as these are easily retrieved by simple googling:

An armed robbery allegedly carried out by a man wearing a burka has sparked a row in Australia on whether the full-face Islamic veil should be banned.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/8667330.stm

Two burka-wearing bank robbers have pulled off a heist near Paris using a handgun concealed beneath their full Islamic veil.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/7189090/Burka-wearing-gunmen-raid-French-bank.html

A German terror suspect, clad in burqa, has been arrested by Pakistani security officials in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province’ Bannu District.
http://blog.taragana.com/sports/2010/06/22/burqa-clad-german-terror-suspect-arrested-in-pakistans-khyber-pakhtunkhwa-114367/

A robber wore a burka as a disguise to carry out a raid on a jewellery shop, police said today. The cross-dressing criminal used the black head-to-toe garment, worn by some Muslim women, to hide his identity.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1273914/Robber-wearing-burka-leads-raiders-jewellery-shop-heist.html#ixzz0tvKQ6PuQ

A pre-dawn police raid this week cracked a jewellery store heist in which a man dressed in a burqa and several accomplices made off with a million dollars in gold and diamonds. [http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/toronto/story.html?id=50de392b-41e2-4c79-b300-82d13d654425]

It’s not difficult to find many more examples.

Only a minority of muslim women resort to wearing all-covering burqas. As posted, video clips of markets and bazars in Samarkand – an ancient silk road city with pervasive Islamic influence in its historic Mosques – show many women going about their ways with no head covering at all. There is no religious obligation to wear burqas.

“Self expression in public is already curtailed in many ways and the burqa is not a religious arttefact but a cultural one associated with a particular religion. A better analogy would be the banning of, say, men wearing pointy white face masks in public spaces in Alabama because of the offense they casue to the public due o their symbolic connotations. would such a ban really be obviously illiberal or oppressive?”

Yes, it bloody well would. And it’s not a better analogy (mine wasn’t an analogy anyway, it was a statement of fact). The burkha is a symbol of oppression of the wearer. The Klan mask is a symbol of oppression of others. It still shouldn’t be banned. Why aren’t you campaigning to get that Christian fish symbol (a cultural one associated with a particular religion) banned?

“And I wish all those people who keep glibly telling us that the state has no business interesting itself in the ways the citizenry dress would take a stroll down Whitehall in the nude for a quick lesson in legal realities.”

I didn’t say the government didn’t tell people how to dress. I said it shouldn’t.

Bob, either address what I say, or stop wasting everyone’s time. Each time I answer one of your points, you repeat it ad nausuem, as if that alone will somehow win the argument. It’s a waste of internets.

Its not illegal per se to be naked, although its usually treated as such.

I don’t think we need laws against nudity, social pressures are why people wear clothes. So long as people are shoving bits at me then I don’t really mind. Might put me off my pint, but I can live with that if people want to be naked in Whitehall in winter.

If the French legislators were really chiefly driven by racism (or its religious equivalent) surely they would have passed a measure that impacted upon more than a mere 2,000 of France’s c. 6 million Muslims?

“Bob, either address what I say, or stop wasting everyone’s time. Each time I answer one of your points, you repeat it ad nausuem,”

You posed a leading question @95: “Why do you hate these people so much that you want to find excuses to oppress them, squeezing hate laws through reasonable-doubt loopholes where you feign concern about the potential for masked robbery? Seriously, what drives that?”

I responded by listing several media reports of criminals and terrorists using burqas as disguises to conceal personal identities and reported that it would be easy to retrieve many more examples from widely distributed countries. There is therefore a straight forward, sensible, pragmatic rationale for those legislative assemblies passing laws banning burqas and other means of concealing visible personal identity as a basic security measure.

Sadly, you manifestly suffer recognisable comprehension challenges.

Did you show early signs of Special Educational Needs?

“Why aren’t you campaigning to get that Christian fish symbol (a cultural one associated with a particular religion) banned?”

I am not campaigning to get anything banned, but I would like to see the burqa eradicated from the public square because I think it is obscene wheras I don’t think fish are. There is a brracing quality to naive libertariansim like yours but it is nonetheless naive. Thtre is such a thing as a public good and that needs sometimes to be legislated for. Likewise there are significant coer=cions that are not practiices by the state but which nonethless deprive peioepl of a significant amount of liberty.

Chaise Guevara
I’m at a loss to understand what your objections are, clearly you have objections. The French state is not attempting to curtail anyone from practising their own religion. As I have already stated, burqas can be worn in the private sphere, parents can send their children to faith schools and religious rituals can be carried-out.
So, we are talking about freedom of expression, perhaps you can let us all know where you would draw the line, how about people dressed in nazi uniform dancing outside Jewish cemeteries. And when can the state intervene or not at all, can anyone express themselves just as they please?
The fact is, the French, as a nation-state, are anti-religious per se, they are not discriminating against islam, and citing a fish as a symbol of christianity is nonsense, I, for one, do not associate it with christianity, but a burqa is unmistakably associated with a particular religion.
If the French were attempting to ban their citizens from following their religious beliefs per se, I would agree with you. If the French were not a secular state I would agree with you, liberalism is not a free-for-all for all individuals, this is a mistake that many make, perhaps you need to read-up about the meaning of liberalism.

“I don’t think we need laws against nudity, social pressures are why people wear clothes. So long as people are shoving bits at me then I don’t really mind. Might put me off my pint, but I can live with that if people want to be naked in Whitehall in winter.”

And if social pressure was enough to prevent people from wearing the burqa … but try walking naked down Whitehall and you will find the ‘social pressure’ involved arrives in a van with a blue light on top. And very few people think there should not be limits on the acts than can be performed in the public square, even if you personally are exceptionally tolerant. I would not like pornography to be enacted in public spaces, for example, especially pronography that involves the explicity degradation of women, and it is reasonable to think of the burqa as obscene in the same way and to the same degree.

Bob B – so you support, on the same grounds, banning the wearing of motorcycle helmets in public (used in many bank robberies, after all) and the carrying of coffee cups (fairly recently being used in petty cash robberies in various areas of the states – throw a cup of hot coffee on the cashier, nick the register drawer).Oh, and hoodies, I guess.

I’m reasonably fine with stipulating ‘we need to see your face in X, Y, Z establishment for security purposes’ – already covered by the rights of the property-owner, and not needing further legislation, incidentally – but a ban covering all public spaces is a complete no-no. If a prerequisite of being in a public space is being identifiable (the stated, if not actual, intent of this kind of bill), then I think I need to GTFO this country if one ever gets passed.

On a side note, I’m off to Morocco come November, and while the wearing of t-shirts and short trousers for me, and a revealing dress for my partner, would be looked upon very disapprovingly (and might result in some less-than-pleasant experiences), nobody there is suggesting legislating against it. Social pressure and legislative sanctions are completely different in this regard.

105 – what’s obscene about it? It’s a garment forced on women based on stupid reasoning. It’s no more obscene than the veil on a wedding dress (and I guess brides-to-be would have to keep their veils off on the way to & from the ceremony, in any not-explicitly-discriminatory-against-a-particular-religious-subgroup implementation of anti-burkha laws). Or, indeed, high heels – that modern focus of feminist rage – or bras, which are the older focus, I guess.

Bob B @ 91

How could the Police or security personnel determine whether a person in a burqa is male or female without the risk of creating a major incident with unforeseeable repercussions?

Well, they don’t. That is the point. The same with every law. We don’t stop EVERY driver lest they are drunk, nor do we stop everyone with a baggy coat, rucksack etc. We do not have roadblocks at every road to check that every car is MOT’ed, insured, taxed and owned by the driver who has passed his test, we simply wait until the police stop that car and then we check. In theory, I could steal a car, keep it on the road without any of the above, drive while drunk and never be stopped by th police, yet we don’t ban all cars.

We let people get on with their lives and arrest them when they actually do something wrong. Same with the burqa, the vast majority of them are worn by women who have no intention of bombing us or robbing banks, to ban them from wearing them on the slight chance that a man might wear one to do bad things is simply too stupid for words.

The fact is that few muslim women wear burqas so legislation banning burqas and other means of obscuring personal identity will hardly amount to a serious diminution of personal liberty or a detraction from the muslim religion.

Eh? To the person affected with this senseless law it is a 100% curtailment of their rights. What a terrible abuse of power to use the law to batter a small minority of the population to appease a seething mass of bigots.

The potential social benefit is increased security as criminals and terrorists will not be able to use this means of disguising identity or for concealing weapons.

Funny that, because thousands of people somehow manage to conceal weapons without the use of a burqa. In fact far more people use overcoats and pockets to conceal weapons than have ever have used a burqa, yet I see no-one wishing to ban pockets or overcoats? I wonder why that is?

“what’s obscene about it? It’s a garment forced on women based on stupid reasoning. It’s no more obscene than the veil on a wedding dress ”

it is nothing like the veil on a wedding dress no matter how much it may superficially resemble it. we know it isn’t because we all accept that it functions differently, it has different social uses. the social purpose of the niqab is to compel individual women to perform subserviently to the men in their lives by reducing thei capacity for social interaction outside of the family and to act as a public symbol of the obejctification and degradation of women – all of the religious traditions that favour the niqab expressly view women as inferior to men by dint of their sexuality. that is why the niqab is obscene in a similar way to pornography. just as we agree to ban pornography from public places we may want to ban the niqab, even if individual women choose to work in pornographic industries and even if some of the claim to find thei objectification in porn liberating.

high heels don’t function in this way, as far as I can see, and have never been linked with any expresly misogynistic ideology even if they have been associated with some particuar misogynistic acts or narratives (what hasn’t?).

“You posed a leading question @95: “Why do you hate these people so much that you want to find excuses to oppress them, squeezing hate laws through reasonable-doubt loopholes where you feign concern about the potential for masked robbery? Seriously, what drives that?”

I responded by listing several media reports of criminals and terrorists using burqas as disguises to conceal personal identities and reported that it would be easy to retrieve many more examples from widely distributed countries. There is therefore a straight forward, sensible, pragmatic rationale for those legislative assemblies passing laws banning burqas and other means of concealing visible personal identity as a basic security measure.”

That’s not an answer, unless you’re trying to say “I hate Muslims because people wear burkhas to conceal their identities while breaking the law”, which I doubt. So we have one irrelevant answer to a direct question and other questions ignored while you repeat yourself.

“Sadly, you manifestly suffer recognisable comprehension challenges.

Did you show early signs of Special Educational Needs?”

Bless.

“I’m at a loss to understand what your objections are, clearly you have objections. The French state is not attempting to curtail anyone from practising their own religion. As I have already stated, burqas can be worn in the private sphere, parents can send their children to faith schools and religious rituals can be carried-out.”

I explained this already. Saying it’s ok to wear certain religious or cultural items in public, when doing so harms nobody else, is like saying it’s ok to ban homosexual behaviour in public because people can do what they want in the privacy of their own homes. You’re creating a system where some people have more freedom than others. It’s biased and oppressive. As for saying “The French state is not attempting to curtail anyone from practising their own religion”, some people’s religion involves wearing a burkha when in public, so your claim is patently false.

“So, we are talking about freedom of expression, perhaps you can let us all know where you would draw the line, how about people dressed in nazi uniform dancing outside Jewish cemeteries.”

No. You’re missing the fundamental point of freedom of expression, which is that anyone should be able to express their political or quasi-political views, as long as they don’t fall foul of specific restrictions that are put in place to prevent harm to others (e.g. libel). Just because you abandon freedom of expression when it’s granted to people you don’t like doesn’t mean I do the same.

“And when can the state intervene or not at all, can anyone express themselves just as they please?”

Politically? Yes. That doesn’t extend to shouting ‘fire!’ in theaters, but you shouldn’t have your views repressed simply because others find them objectionable.

“The fact is, the French, as a nation-state, are anti-religious per se, they are not discriminating against islam, and citing a fish as a symbol of christianity is nonsense, I, for one, do not associate it with christianity, but a burqa is unmistakably associated with a particular religion.”

Um, no, there is a specific fish symbol recently adopted by some Christians. It’s a reference to ‘fishers of men’, can often be seen on car bumpers, and is sometimes shown with legs as a form of anti-Creationist satire. The fact that you haven’t heard of it doesn’t make it ‘nonsense’. I’m talking about that specific symbol, not all fish.

And no, they’re not discriminating against Islam, they’re discriminating against a specific branch of Islam. And they’re not anti-religious, at least not officially. They’re secular, which is a totally different thing.

“If the French were attempting to ban their citizens from following their religious beliefs per se, I would agree with you.”

The French are attempting to ban their citizens from following their religious beliefs, yet here you are disagreeing. Weird statement there, I think.

“If the French were not a secular state I would agree with you, liberalism is not a free-for-all for all individuals, this is a mistake that many make, perhaps you need to read-up about the meaning of liberalism.”

OK, please direct me towards the special version of liberalism that preaches the oppression of religious groups that you personally or people generally find distasteful. I know what liberalism means, and that doesn’t change just because you’re championing authoritarianism and using the wrong word to describe it.

“I am not campaigning to get anything banned, but I would like to see the burqa eradicated from the public square because I think it is obscene wheras I don’t think fish are. There is a brracing quality to naive libertariansim like yours but it is nonetheless naive. Thtre is such a thing as a public good and that needs sometimes to be legislated for. Likewise there are significant coer=cions that are not practiices by the state but which nonethless deprive peioepl of a significant amount of liberty.”

I was all ready to agree with you on the basis of your first sentence, but then you gave the lie to your claim by saying it should be legislated for. I.E. banned.

You and Steve both: if your cause is so just, why do misrepresent it by saying “I don’t want a ban” while calling for a ban (you) and “I’m supporting liberalism” while preaching authoritarianism (Steve)?

“If the French legislators were really chiefly driven by racism (or its religious equivalent) surely they would have passed a measure that impacted upon more than a mere 2,000 of France’s c. 6 million Muslims?”

In most cases, because they don’t hate all Islam, just this form of Islam. In a few cases, probably because they know that they wouldn’t get away with banning Mosques, for example, so they go after the smaller, easier target with less public support.

@ 104
So, we are talking about freedom of expression, perhaps you can let us all know where you would draw the line, how about people dressed in nazi uniform dancing outside Jewish cemeteries. And when can the state intervene or not at all, can anyone express themselves just as they please?

In terms of behaviour that might cause offence there should be no prohibition whatever. There is absolutely no right to be offended. So dancing nazis are fine, even if most people would find their behaviour reprehensible.

Laws are only ever justified to protect one person from harm or detriment caused by another. As was ably expressed by Oliver Wendell Holmes, “The right to swing my fist ends where the other man’s nose begins.”

“Laws are only ever justified to protect one person from harm or detriment caused by another. As was ably expressed by Oliver Wendell Holmes, “The right to swing my fist ends where the other man’s nose begins.””

I wouldn’t necessarily agree with this when it comes to economics (i.e. redistribution). But as far as social issues go, well said.

I’m growing annoyed with people who think that freedom of expression should only be granted to those they find acceptable, like that UAF spokesperson who said “I support freedom of speech for everyone except fascists”.

With regard to the Nazis I think there is no right not to be offended, there is a right to be free from the threat of physical violence. I think it is safe to assume that Nazis always pose a threat to Jews and therefore I have no problem with the police moving them on.

To recap, being a Nazi is a threat to Jews, Jews have the right not to be threatened.

Wearing a burqa is not a threat, therefore they should be left alone (vague “threats to our Way Of Life” don’t count). [1]

[1] By “alone” I mean not banned, of course non-coercive, “your religion is stupid” campaigns are almost mandatory.

Carl: “Certain leftwingers, on the other hand, might kick up a fuss when a nurse or a BA worker wants to wear a crucifix,”

No, actually, generally they don’t. The tabloid press pretends they do.

Carl: “but a the burqa ban might conflict with fucking free expression.”

Well, banning items of clothing just *does* conflict with free expression. How could it not?

It also wouldn’t seriously help stop oppression of Muslim women, if anything making the burqa (or even anti-feminist ideas more broadly) more popular in the Muslim world as a symbol of resistance to western anti-Muslim campaigns.

There are plenty of organisations against oppression of women in the Muslim world and within Pakistani and other Muslim-majority communities, and supporting them is where real gains will be won. That is only impeded by us making enraged demands that Muslims humbly comply with our superior culture.

The main reason I oppose the burqa ban is that the main proponents of the ban are very clearly mainly motivated by wanting to stick one in the eye of Muslims. It’s the “Muslims forced to humbly comply with arbitrary rules set by us” bit that they like, not any of the other alleged benefits of the ban. It’s all to do with redress for the years of alleged favouritism directed at Muslims that they’re told about, for the housing shortages and NHS crises and the banning of Christmas that the tabloids tell them every day are caused by the presence of Muslims.

In France, unlike here, the burqa ban has mixed in with a variety of other ideas of national identity (particularly secularism) which have made it political suicide to oppose, anti-Muslim or not, but that doesn’t make the ban any more likely to do good.

LeftOutside @116 – agree completely.

being a Nazi is a threat to Jews

Yep. Mike Godwin was a genius.

A state, led by a nazi government, killed Jews, gypsies and other categories of people. It was an extreme example of the kind of violence of which governments are capable.

There are many other examples of historical atrocities that entitle one group of people to be aggrieved at another and behaviour designed to recycle hatred based on historical atrocity will clearly be offensive to some.

But I repeat.

There is no right not to be offended and no law should be created or enforced to protect feelings. Once that principle is undermined, we are all subject to tyranny by way of our right to expression being curtailed.

Thus, it is impossible to assess the merit of the case of someone who denies the holocaust when the denier is banned from having his evidence or opinion scrutinised.

That is a BAD THING.

“The main reason I oppose the burqa ban is that the main proponents of the ban are very clearly mainly motivated by wanting to stick one in the eye of Muslims.”

Rubbish. Only a minority of muslim women wear burqas and there is no religious obligation to do so.

As the media reports with links @97 show, burqas have been used as disguise by (often male) criminals and terrorists to conceal personal identities in many, widely distributed countries.

I didn’t bring up Nazis. But you’re right, Godwin was a genius. We should probably leave it now.

But to clarfiy. Jews aren’t (just) offended by Nazis, Nazis qua Nazis pose a threat to Jews. You haven’t addressed that point, just repeated something about offence.

“There are many other examples of historical atrocities that entitle one group of people to be aggrieved at another and behaviour designed to recycle hatred based on historical atrocity will clearly be offensive to some.”

The holocaust was the worst crime ever. Things Mao and Stalin did were probably more damaging in a utilitarian sense, but they were more manslaughter whereas the holocaust was murder.

The holocaust is not just some logical extension of modernity or state power. It is in a class of its own.

Nazis shouldn’t be banned, but Jews have the right not to be intimidated and that may mean moving the Nazi dance troupe to a different part of the neighbourhood. That is fair and just.

Burqas don’t directly threaten, they might make you uncomfortable, but they are not a threat. If you find tolerance easy, you are not being tolerant.

Until a sizeable body of evidence is provided that burqas pose a threat and not just offend (sorry Bob B, but something a little more systematic than what you’ve provided, although its a start) it should not be treated in the same way as a Nazi dance troupe.

What have we learned? Burqa =/= Nazi Dance Troupe

(I repeat my longing to be able to comment and discuss things as evenhandedly and sensibly as Sunder Katwala, however this is more fun)

Bob B.

Religion is just a bunch of made up stuff. So if someone says “I have to wear the burqa as part of my religion” no close reading of the Koran can prove otherwise, because its all made up.

I think its a Wahhabi cultural thing but its not my place to say. Christians eat seafood even through its an abomination etc etc etc…

“What have we learned? Burqa =/= Nazi Dance Troupe”

To be fair to the person who brought the dancing Nazis up, it wasn’t meant as a direct comparison. Instead, it was a failed attempt at reducto ad absurdum, along the lines of “by your logic, we should let Nazis have freedom of expression too”!

The reason it fails, obviously, is that we SHOULD let Nazis have freedom of expression.

112
I do not support authoritarianism, but you (and others on this thread) appear to be concrete thinkers to the extreme. The two spheres that people operate in liberal societies enables the state to make universal laws for all and at the same time enable a large degree of individualism. Why is it so important to you, or anyone else, that the whole population is aware that you are a Muslim/Jew/Sikh or anything else, does the population care or are interested in this, why can’t making a statement like ‘I follow Islam’ not suffice, this is freedom of expression. Indeed, if you wore a billboard exclaiming your preferred religion,this would give much more information.
Or are you the type of libertarian who isn’t satisfied with your freedoms unless the rest of us have our noses rubbed in your individual choice?

“I do not support authoritarianism, but you (and others on this thread) appear to be concrete thinkers to the extreme. The two spheres that people operate in liberal societies enables the state to make universal laws for all and at the same time enable a large degree of individualism. Why is it so important to you, or anyone else, that the whole population is aware that you are a Muslim/Jew/Sikh or anything else, does the population care or are interested in this, why can’t making a statement like ‘I follow Islam’ not suffice, this is freedom of expression. Indeed, if you wore a billboard exclaiming your preferred religion,this would give much more information.”

Saying something isn’t important doesn’t justify banning it. This whole paragraph is at a complete tangent to the discussion. If you want to enter into a discussion about group mentality and why some people like to broadcast their faith while others follow it quietly, fair enough, but it’s got sweet FA to do with whether or not we should oppress burkha-wearers.

“Or are you the type of libertarian who isn’t satisfied with your freedoms unless the rest of us have our noses rubbed in your individual choice?”

My individual choice? You think I’m wearing a burkha?

In any case, I’m always suspicious of this idea of people “rubbing our noses in it”. What does this mean, exactly? Is it code for “why should I have to share the world with people different to me?” Devout Muslims might say that women in short skirts are ‘rubbing their noses in it’, and that’s no reason to ban revealing clothing.

125
OK, I’ll try and be concrete, I don’t like seeing people wearing burqas in the street, so why is the freedom to wear a burqa in the street more valid than my freedom to walk in public and not see someone wearing a burqa? As it happens I personally don’t care about seeing women wearing burqas
We can’t all have our personal choices catered for ie a dislike for people wearing short skirts leading to a ban on wearing short skirts.
If women wish to wear burqas in the private sphere, they can do, if the point of the burqa is to hide their face they could wear a white veil (as someone else suggested, this covers the face equally as well as a burqa) and if they really want the rest of us to know that they follow islam they could use a billboard proclaiming this.
I have had debates on LC before about freedom-of-choice, often we have to compromise and be flexible to achieve it, but most of the time libertarians seem to want to be spoon-fed and conduct their choices in public. I am assuming that this relates to you, because the French are not banning the practice of any religion only religious symbolism in public.
And I would be interested in hearing from you how any society could cater for the innumerable choices that people can make whereby so many can be in contradiction to each other.

“OK, I’ll try and be concrete, I don’t like seeing people wearing burqas in the street, so why is the freedom to wear a burqa in the street more valid than my freedom to walk in public and not see someone wearing a burqa? As it happens I personally don’t care about seeing women wearing burqas
We can’t all have our personal choices catered for ie a dislike for people wearing short skirts leading to a ban on wearing short skirts.
If women wish to wear burqas in the private sphere, they can do, if the point of the burqa is to hide their face they could wear a white veil (as someone else suggested, this covers the face equally as well as a burqa) and if they really want the rest of us to know that they follow islam they could use a billboard proclaiming this.
I have had debates on LC before about freedom-of-choice, often we have to compromise and be flexible to achieve it, but most of the time libertarians seem to want to be spoon-fed and conduct their choices in public. I am assuming that this relates to you, because the French are not banning the practice of any religion only religious symbolism in public.
And I would be interested in hearing from you how any society could cater for the innumerable choices that people can make whereby so many can be in contradiction to each other.”

It’s tricky, but a good start is to allow anything that doesn’t harm others. You claim (although your attitude towards the matter in general seems to contradict this) that you don’t mind seeing women in burkhas, so I assume you’re arguing on behalf of those who do. Well, to them I say: tough. If we start banning everything that someone finds offensive we’ll end up criminalizing the world. It’d be like that episode of South Park with the Christmas play.

No, you can do what you like as long as you leave me alone, and I’ll extend the same courtesy to you. As you’re lifting yet another argument from the anti-gay slate, it seems appropriate to ask: are you going to support the ban on homosexual behaviour in public due to bigots finding it offensive? And the ban on heterosexual behaviour when gays counter-claim that they find that offensive? Almost any political views offends someone, so no doubt you’re happy to ban any political speech in public. Never mind, we can stay at home and say what we like, wear what we like, be who we like, all the time protecting people who think they need their freedom from seeing things that upset them mandated in law.

Telling people how they can and can’t express their religion in public; saying that standing up for your rights is the same thing as demanding to be spoonfed (spoonfed what, exactly?); arguing for a system under which things steveb is ok with are legal because we ‘can’t all have our choices catered for’, but things he dislikes are banned lest they offend his eyes: all this from the guy who tells me that I don’t know what ‘liberal’ means…

127
Your reply is predictable and, although you accuse other posters of ignoring your questions, this is exactly what you are doing.
It is possible for thousands of people to hold views that are contradictory but it isn’t possible for two concrete and contradictory behaviours to be present at the same time. Hence, it isn’t possible to have both women wearing burqas and not wearing burqas in the public sphere. The private sphere enables all individuals (within the law) to pursue their own interests, I do not interfere with you and you don’t interfere with me unless it is a mutual agreement.
I will ask you again, what are you objecting to, burqas can be worn, citizens can pursue whatever religion they like (within the law), children can be educated in faith schools, women can hide their faces or not, people can proclaim they are a particular religion or not.
And do please tell me what gay people wish to do in public that hetrosexuals don.t (I did ask this before)

“Your reply is predictable and, although you accuse other posters of ignoring your questions, this is exactly what you are doing.”

Not deliberately. And ‘predictable’ doesn’t mean ‘wrong’. If I’d said “spam hatstand BANANAS flute”, that would have been wonderfully original, but not very helpful.

“It is possible for thousands of people to hold views that are contradictory but it isn’t possible for two concrete and contradictory behaviours to be present at the same time. Hence, it isn’t possible to have both women wearing burqas and not wearing burqas in the public sphere.”

Um, that’s patently untrue. Because some people do wear burkhas in the street and some don’t. What on earth are you talking about? Or do you think that, if one person wears a burkha, everyone should wear one for the sake of consistency?

“The private sphere enables all individuals (within the law) to pursue their own interests, I do not interfere with you and you don’t interfere with me unless it is a mutual agreement.”

Except if you, steveb, dislike what they’re wearing of course. Then you interfere with them like hell by banning their clothes.

“I will ask you again, what are you objecting to, burqas can be worn, citizens can pursue whatever religion they like (within the law), children can be educated in faith schools, women can hide their faces or not, people can proclaim they are a particular religion or not.”

I keep answering you. I object to authoritarian measures taken to prevent people doing things in public when said things don’t harm other people. Why ask the question and ignore the answer?

“And do please tell me what gay people wish to do in public that hetrosexuals don.t (I did ask this before)”

Get off with people of the same sex, broadly speaking. Also, grass is green and the sky gets darker at night. Any more tricky ones I can help you with?

129
Surely getting-off with the same sex is not hetrosexual, so don’t offer to help me with tricky questions when you can’t answer simple ones.
I hold different views to many people, not just you, and you are quite freely expressing your views on this site so what is the problem?
And you still won’t answer my question, exactly what are your objections, I have not banned anything I have merely proposed a way, within a liberal society, whereby those who follow islam can do so.

@130

No you haven’t steveb.

You’ve proposed a way to ban people from following their religion.

They want to do a thing which they consider essential to following their religion and you want to ban it because you don’t like it.

You have not “proposed a way, within a liberal society, whereby those who follow islam can do so.”

You are proposing a way to ban people from following their religion. If someone says “this is essential to my religion” we have to accept it is, because as religion is all made up anyway there’s no way of knowing.

If that “thing” involves hurting others then we rightly ban it, for the protection of others. If that thing doesn’t hurt others then I propose we tolerate it.

You are not proposing a liberal solution. That is bunk frankly.

131
You haven’t been following my arguement, and I’m not going to repeat myself, but I would ask you to explain why the French (I am not calling for a ban on anything btw) are constraining anyone from following their religion. No-one is being banned from wearing the burqa per se and if, for example, I felt strongly about any particular action or belief, I would find a way of pursuing it, even if it meant doing it in the privacy of my own space.
Making a stand for the right to wear anything in public is an entirely different argument and nothing to do with any particular religious practice.

You haven’t been following my arguement, and I’m not going to repeat myself, but I would ask you to explain why the French (I am not calling for a ban on anything btw) are constraining anyone from following their religion.

Because they’re saying that some people are prohibited from complying with their religious obligations in public!

Phew.

“Because they’re saying that some people are prohibited from complying with their religious obligations in public!”

There is no religious obligation to wear burqas and the great majority of muslim women don’t. Whatever the cultural objections, the fact is that burquas have been used by (often male) criminals and terrorists in many countries to conceal personal identitities and weapons.

The pro-burqa brigade persist in ignoring the widely reported evidence of this from many countries and then claim that banning burqas is only a means of getting at muslims when, in fact, there is no religious obligation to wear this all-concealing garment. The obvious question is: Why the persistent, demonstrably dishonest propaganda when the truth of the situation is so well documented in many different sources?

133
I’ve just watched an interview with a Muslim women discussing this subject, according to her account, the burqa is worn because it prevents women being sexualized for the way they look. Clearly wearing another garment such as a white veil and long white dress would suffice for this purpose.

In this and other YouTube clips, the Islamic architecture in the ancient silk road city of Samarkand in Uzbekistan is truly magnificient:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KpE1JJIavVk

What’s so intriguing are the various clips of scenes of markets and bazars in Samarkand showing many, often young women pedestrians going about unmolested without any heading covering:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HN8xxo85wVQ

So far, I’ve not seen any clips of women in Samarkand of women wearing burqas.

Bob B

There is no religious obligation to wear burqas …

If they say they feel obliged by their religion to wear burqas I’m not sure one can reasonably argue with them that they don’t feel obliged.

steveb,

I’ve just watched an interview with a Muslim women discussing this subject, according to her account, the burqa is worn because it prevents women being sexualized for the way they look. Clearly wearing another garment such as a white veil and long white dress would suffice for this purpose.

I think you’re having difficulty following your own argument. You wrote, “I would ask you to explain why the French (I am not calling for a ban on anything btw) are constraining anyone from following their religion.”

I wrote, “some people are prohibited from complying with their religious obligations in public”. That is a constraint is it not?

Christ on a stick, even the Tories aren’t as racist as some of the lefties here calling for a burka ban: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-10674973

“If they say they feel obliged by their religion to wear burqas I’m not sure one can reasonably argue with them that they don’t feel obliged.”

Ridiculous. Much the same could be said for the sacramental practices of Satanists and Wiccanism and most of us don’t accept that.

If I should claim a profound conviction in a private, secret religion obligating me to go about starkers except for an Arab strap that would be OK with you, would it?

Bob B,

“If they say they feel obliged by their religion to wear burqas I’m not sure one can reasonably argue with them that they don’t feel obliged.”

Ridiculous. Much the same could be said for the sacramental practices of Satanists and Wiccanism and most of us don’t accept that.

I don’t recall what they practise. Regardless, I think most if not all religions are peculiar but I’m not going to go around telling people that they don’t really feel obliged to wear funny clothes or hats or carry ceremonial daggers or drink or eat something that is supposed to represent someone’s body – I’m not a mind reader.

If I should claim a profound conviction in a private, secret religion obligating me to go about starkers except for an Arab strap that would be OK with you, would it?

I’d probably avert my eyes but I wouldn’t ban it. Why should I interfere with your freedom to express yourself in that way?

“I don’t recall what they practise”

In the early 1990s, there were mounting reports in British media of what seemed to be the start of a veritable epidemic of “satanic abuse” on a national scale:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satanic_ritual_abuse

“In 1990 and 1991, some social workers in Britain believed that children were being sexually abused and killed, in the course of Satanic rituals.

“There is no denying that sexual abuse of children occurs. And there are cases in which people dress up and perform rituals, for the purpose of sexual abuse. What concerns us here, however, is abuse for the purpose of religion—abused children as ‘fodder for the gratification of those interested not in sex itself, but in its use as a tool for the promotion of acts which could only be described as satanic’. That’s a quotation from an article in Community Care for 30 March 1989, by Judith Dawson and Christine Johnstone. Judith Dawson was the co-ordinator of Child Care Services in Nottingham and Christine Johnstone her deputy.

“An amazing number of social workers at that time believed that children were in danger from satanic rituals, and more than 50 children in England and Scotland were forcibly removed from loving homes on the grounds that their parents were practising satanists. When the cases were properly investigated they were all allowed back home, but it took time. Eight children in Ayr were deprived of their families for four years.

“An anthropologist, Professor Jean LaFontaine of the LSE, was commissioned by the Department of Health to study organised and ritual abuse in England and Wales. There is no equivalent study for Scotland, only a judicial report on the Orkney case . . . ”
http://www.whale.to/b/rooum.html

Families were broken up as professional social worker took children into care to protect them from supposed satanic abuse. As this was criminal, the curious aspect was that the ensuing police investigations led them to conclude there was no dependable evidence on which to base criminal prosecutions.

This was not the brightest hour of the pediatricians and social workers who instigated the accusations but not too many years downstream, we were faced with another, different epidemic: Muchausen’s Syndrome By Proxy.

All the libertarian garbage about defending the rights of that small minority of muslim women (as well as criminals) to wear burqas must apply also to the inalienable rights of satanists to do whatever they feel impelled to do.

Correction:

“Munchausen’s Syndrome By Proxy”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%BCnchausen_syndrome

@143

Wrong. The point about liberty is it’s cool as long as you don’t hurt others. I’m sure this point has already been made and I don’t know why you’re not getting it. A “satanic” practice that hurts others is obv not to be tolerated. But if someone wants to wear a t-shirt with a big picture of ol’ Nick in a pentagram and walk around town why the heck should anyone be able to stop them? Likewise the burka.

France banned the burkha as part of its “national identity” bullshit. It has nothing to do with criminals playing dress-up (see the exceptions list above) and everything to do with stopping a particular group of religous people from being seen.

Bob B,

All the libertarian garbage about defending the rights of that small minority of muslim women (as well as criminals) to wear burqas must apply also to the inalienable rights of satanists to do whatever they feel impelled to do.

Um, no; “the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others”. I thought you supported this view – I’m sure you’ve quoted JSM on a number of occasions on LC – and I thought you were more reasonable than to equate ‘dressing up’ with ‘sexual abuse of children’.

And why is it “garbage” to defend the rights of “small” minorities”?

Reports from many countries show that burqas have been worn by criminals and terrorists to conceal personal identities and weaponry, hence the wearing of burqas does inflict public harm.

The fact that burqas are worn by only a small minority of muslim women show that there is no religious obligation to do so – a factor also evident in the video clips of bazars and markets in Samarkand showing women going about their ways wearing no head coverings, let alone the all-concealing burqa garment.

Besides all that, I certainly feel affronted and threatened by encountering people in public places who dress to conceal their personal identities and entirely understand why some shopping centres and stores post notices banning customers wearing hoods, helmets and the like to conceal identity.

IMO legislators in France, Belgium and the Netherlands who have acted to ban burqas and other means of hiding faces should be congratulated for their good sense.

“Surely getting-off with the same sex is not hetrosexual, so don’t offer to help me with tricky questions when you can’t answer simple ones.”

Um, yes. Which is why gay people would want to do it when heterosexuals wouldn’t. Seriously, what are you on about?

“I hold different views to many people, not just you, and you are quite freely expressing your views on this site so what is the problem?”

Um, I have no problem with the fact that I can freely express my views. Again: what are you on about?

“And you still won’t answer my question, exactly what are your objections, I have not banned anything I have merely proposed a way, within a liberal society, whereby those who follow islam can do so.”

I explained my objections in the very post you replied to. You do know everyone can read both posts, not just yours, so lying is somewhat pointless?

Seriously, steveb, asking me the same question, repeatedly ignoring my answer, then demanding to know why I haven’t answered to question that I have, in fact, answered… it reminds me of a kid saying “why?” to every single statement you make.

@Bob B

Your arguments come down to three things:

1) Burkhas hide criminals. This is a crap argument because a)so do lots of outfits and b)the law in France wasn’t enacted to stop crime.

2) People who wear burkhas aren’t representative of Muslims. No, but all faiths have different interpretations eg. some Christians don’t believe that wine actually turns into blood when consumed at communian, others do. Tolerance is about accepting things we might not understand.

3)People who wear burkhas are scary. This is your personal opinion that you are entitled to have but as grounds for legislation it is utter nonsense.

I’ll repeat JSMs words on liberty as you seem to have reading difficulties today:

“The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others”.

S. Pill, I’m afraid it’s very likely that Bob will reply: “yes, but Burkhas hide criminals and aren’t a Muslim obligation and are scary”. Or words to that effect. I’m starting to wonder if he and steveb are one and the same.

Bob B,

Reports from many countries show that burqas have been worn by criminals and terrorists to conceal personal identities and weaponry, hence the wearing of burqas does inflict public harm.

There are lots of things that are used to conceal personal identities and weaponry and many of them don’t have any religious association at all. Yours is a dreadful argument.

The fact that burqas are worn by only a small minority of muslim women show that there is no religious obligation to do so

No, it shows only that the particular minority feel a religious obligation and that others don’t. I don’t understand how you presume to know what they feel obliged to do and I don’t understand why you think the number / proportion of people who do something peculiar makes a difference to whether they should be free to do it or not.

@151

yeah, I’m done with this thread I reckon

“1) Burkhas hide criminals. This is a crap argument because a)so do lots of outfits

So what? Banning burqas reduces one very effective means of concealing idenetity in order to conduct crime

b)the law in France wasn’t enacted to stop crime.”

So what? Btw you can testify as to all the motives of all those who voted for the ban, can you? Brilliant.

” No, but all faiths have different interpretations eg. some Christians don’t believe that wine actually turns into blood when consumed at communian, others do. Tolerance is about accepting things we might not understand.”

OK and Satanists have Satanic practices and Wiccanists do whatever Wiccanists do
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hellfire_Club

Consider what would ensue if the NoW discovered that the current Chancellor of the Exchequer (instead of Sir Francis Dashwood) was an attending member of a Hellfire Club nowadays.

“3)People who wear burkhas are scary. This is your personal opinion that you are entitled to have but as grounds for legislation it is utter nonsense.”

I know of others who have similar sentiments. Besides, several French legislators expressed their dislike of burqas and said wearing burqas conflicted with French values.

In addition, several MPs in Britain have announced that they will refuse to see constituents who insist on continuing to wear veils or concealing head coverings during interviews – good for them. I don’t wish to see people in public places who want to conceal their identity just as shopping centres and stores post notices banning customers wearing hoods and helmets – good for them: it makes me feel safer, too.

Bob B @ 147

Reports from many countries show that burqas have been worn by criminals and terrorists to conceal personal identities and weaponry, hence the wearing of burqas does inflict public harm.

So what? I can find reports, (I have a google and not afriad to use it) of any number of items used by criminals and terrorists to further their aims. We used to see American gangsters carry violin cases to hide guns, are violin cases going to banned too? In fact there were reports that two 747s were used to bring down the World trade centre! Yet I cannot say I have noticed that we have seen campaign against all aircraf tlest a terroist start ramming other buildings. We just use reasonable precautions.

The fact that burqas are worn by only a small minority of muslim women show that there is no religious obligation to do so – a factor also evident in the video clips of bazars and markets in Samarkand showing women going about their ways wearing no head coverings, let alone the all-concealing burqa garment.

Can you think of a single valid reason why that would be relevant? What the ‘majority’ of Muslims do is neither here nor there we are talking about the rights individuals and their beliefs, not a collective group.

Besides all that, I certainly feel affronted and threatened by encountering people in public places who dress to conceal their personal identities

Then stay in your house, then. Why should law abiding people be forced to modify their clothing whilst going about their legitimate business just to satisfy the paranoid fantasies of a few bigoted nutcases? I suggest those paranoid people should seek professional help, or at least learn that it is not always about them.

“Why should law abiding people be forced to modify their clothing whilst going about their legitimate business just to satisfy the paranoid fantasies of a few bigoted nutcases?”

Well said. The Tories posted a questionnaire through my letterbox once in an attempt to get feedback on local issues. One question was “Do you feel threatened by gangs of teenagers in your area?” Not “Have you BEEN threatened by any specific individuals?”, but “Do you FEEL threatened by kids in general?”.

Presumably, the hope was to get enough ‘yes’ answers to justify pushing these kids around for the crime of sharing the world with paranoid bigots.

“We used to see American gangsters carry violin cases to hide guns, are violin cases going to banned too?”

Don’t be silly. I’m being entirely pragmatic about this. Burqas are a very effective means of concealing identity and weapons while engaged in crime or terrorism, which is why we can find so many reports, from widely distributed countries, of cases where burqas have been used for just that purpose.

“Can you think of a single valid reason why that would be relevant?”

Many reasons. The video clips of Samarkand, an ancient silk road city with a long and illustrious Islamic heritage, show many women there going about their daily ways in markets with no head coverings, let alone burqas. Indeed, I didn’t see any burqas being worn in the clips. So much for burqas being an expression of Islamic values.

Samarkand is clear evidence that there is no religious obligation to wear burqas, which are a cultural thing. As with French, Belgian and Dutch legislators, I too think it is a ridiculous cultural obsession for a small minority which should be strongly discouraged, both as an affront to the public and because burqas are used by criminals to conceal identity while engaged in criminal activities.

The fact that it’s not practical to ban all the accessories criminals may used shouldn’t prevent us from banning those we can without inflicting too much disruption on the public at large and the public at large would benefit from banning burqas. The fact that laws banning murder don’t prevent murder altogether is not a persuasive reason for repealing laws making murder a criminal offence.

As for the silly charges of bigotry, in this context, the implication is that most of the elected legislators of France, Belgium and the Netherlands are bigots, as are, presumably, the public majorities in those countries which support the ban. You evidently don’t appreciate how silly is this sweeping condemnation of other west European nationalities.

“Don’t be silly. I’m being entirely pragmatic about this. Burqas are a very effective means of concealing identity and weapons while engaged in crime or terrorism, which is why we can find so many reports, from widely distributed countries, of cases where burqas have been used for just that purpose.”

As are masks. So why don’t you want them banned? Why are you going after one item, especially considering the effect that banning that item will have on one already pretty subjugated minority?

“So much for burqas being an expression of Islamic values.”

LOL. Bob B, the internet’s answer to the question nobody asked.

We’re not saying that the Burkha is an expression of Islamic values, Bob. We’re saying it is an expression of the values of a minority of Muslims. It’d be great if you could respond to that, but based on the last million or so comments I assume the only thing you’ll be capable of is repeating the same point, even though it’s been shown to be irrelevant to the issue. Again. There’s a word for your sort of behaviour, and that word is “trolling”.

“I too think it is a ridiculous cultural obsession for a small minority which should be strongly discouraged, both as an affront to the public and because burqas are used by criminals to conceal identity while engaged in criminal activities.”

Almost managed to address it there! I love the way you think ‘ban’ and ‘discourage’ are synomymous. “We’re not banning it! We’re just discouraging it by putting you in jail!”

“The fact that it’s not practical to ban all the accessories criminals may used shouldn’t prevent us from banning those we can without inflicting too much disruption on the public at large and the public at large would benefit from banning burqas. The fact that laws banning murder don’t prevent murder altogether is not a persuasive reason for repealing laws making murder a criminal offence.”

And none of this is a persuasive argument for the oppression you want to impose on a small minority that you happen to hate.

“As for the silly charges of bigotry, in this context, the implication is that most of the elected legislators of France, Belgium and the Netherlands are bigots, as are, presumably, the public majorities in those countries which support the ban. You evidently don’t appreciate how silly is this sweeping condemnation of other west European nationalities.”

Oh, I see. As soon as a bigotry is expressed by the majority, it ceases to be a bigotry at all and anyone calling it so are ‘silly’. Just as people fighting for emancipation were ‘silly’ back when most people in America were fine with it. Well done Bob.

You’ve actually convinced yourself, haven’t you? You’ve found weak excuses for your racist (religionist, whatever) ideology and have actually told the lie so often that you honestly believe you think burkhas should be banned because they can be used by criminals. You look in the mirror and you honestly don’t see the bigot in front of you.

139
The woman who was interviewed stated that it was her personal choice to wear a burqa (in the UK), you can’t have it both ways, it is either a compulsion of her religion or a personal choice. If you want to argue for the right to wear what you like in public, that is one argument, but according to the Muslim woman (I’m inclined to take her intepretation of wearing a burqa as being more informed than your own), the absence of the burqa does not constrain her from following her religion.
149
You probably know as much about kids as you do about liberalism
156 It seems that you have the same problem answering surveys as you do answering questions on this thread. Perhaps that’s why kids keep asking you ‘why’.

“It seems that you have the same problem answering surveys as you do answering questions on this thread. Perhaps that’s why kids keep asking you ‘why’.”

Would that be the question you’ve now asked twice and I’ve answered both times? I guess it’s easier to deny that I responded than address my response. Delusionsal, but easier.

If anyone who isn’t weird happens to be reading this: Steveb asked me what homosexuals might want to do in the street than hetereosexuals might not. I answered “get off with people of the same sex”. See above for confirmation. Steve doesn’t like the fact that he has been answered, so he’s adopting the novel tactic of pretending no answer was given, even though it’s right there in front of him.

160
You have a great gift of writing much and saying little, you did not answer my question, you merely stated that gays wished to get-off with the same sex, enlightening perhaps, but not the answer to my question.

In your own words, steveb:

“perhaps you can enlighten me about what gays do in public that hetreosexuals don’t”

Sounds like the sort of question I answered, doesn’t it?

If you’ve got a problem with my answer, then fine. But in that case you should probably explain why instead of wasting my time claiming that I haven’t answered.

steveb,

The woman who was interviewed stated that it was her personal choice to wear a burqa (in the UK), you can’t have it both ways, it is either a compulsion of her religion or a personal choice. If you want to argue for the right to wear what you like in public, that is one argument, but according to the Muslim woman (I’m inclined to take her intepretation of wearing a burqa as being more informed than your own),

ooh, handbags!

the absence of the burqa does not constrain her from following her religion.

But if other women claim they do feel obliged to wear a burqa, do you think they are constrained if they are ever prohibited from doing so?

By the way, I didn’t claim that it is a religious requirement.

Bob B,

As for the silly charges of bigotry, in this context, the implication is that most of the elected legislators of France, Belgium and the Netherlands are bigots, as are, presumably, the public majorities in those countries which support the ban. You evidently don’t appreciate how silly is this sweeping condemnation of other west European nationalities.

Millions of flies can’t be wrong.

Bob B @ 157

Burqas are a very effective means of concealing identity and weapons while engaged in crime or terrorism.

Yeah, we get this repeated phrase, but for some reason you are appear quite happy to ignore countless other items of dress and clothing that have been used to conceal weapons and drugs or hide the identity of the potential criminal or terrorists.

Can you possibly explain why, of all the kinds of jackets coats/rucksacks bags/hats/gloves or scarves that could and have been used to conceal weapons or hide the identity of a criminal, that the only thing that appears to have you exercised is a garment that is worn by Muslim women? What is unique about the burqa that singles it out, when the vast majority of criminals/terrorists carry out their acts without use of such garments? Surely, by your own ‘logic’ we should be banning ‘NY’ sweatshirts, given that one of these was actually used in the 7/7 bombing? What about banning rucksacks too? Or banning fertilizer? So a few farmers and gardeners would suffer? The security advantages would outweigh any inconvenience? Or are gardeners not our targets of such oppressive laws?

Samarkand is clear evidence that there is no religious obligation to wear burqas, which are a cultural thing

Repeating this does not give it a more relevance, Bob. No-one was suggesting this is about obligation or even about what the majority think. This is about what those who wear it think. For some, they believe (rightly or wrongly) that wearing the burqa IS part of their belief system, on the other hand, some women feel that wearing the burqa is just part of their cultural identity. In both cases these women are ‘correct’ if they feel they are making the right chioce, then no-one should gainsay that belief.

I do wonder about the point you are attempting to make here, Bob. Of all the posters on the board, why you feel able to determine the motives behind the women who choose to wear the burqa? Can you explain why you can understand the mindset of a female Muslim better than her fellow female Muslims? From where I am sitting, it looks like you are one of the least qualified to carry out this task.

The fact that it’s not practical to ban all the accessories criminals may used shouldn’t prevent us from banning those we can without inflicting too much disruption on the public at large and the public at large would benefit from banning burqas.

In other words, because such a ban would not affect you or people like you, it is perfectly acceptable? You think that because a few Muslims would have their lifestyles disrupted would be acceptable to ban a style of clothing for nothing more than to appease a few half-witted bigots? You don’t see anything wrong in the above quote? You don’t see anything that might give people the impression that you are little more than a simpleminded tosspot? You seriously think it acceptable to ban a style of clothing just because it is worn by people other than you? You cannot understand why this would make you look like a bigot? Really, Bob?

Steveb @ 159

you can’t have it both ways, it is either a compulsion of her religion or a personal choice.

Do you make room for the possibility that for SOME Muslim women, they genuinely feel that wearing these garments IS a requirement of the religion and/or cultural identity whereas for another woman, she feels, just as genuinely, that it is not a direct requirement, just a personal choice? Is it possible that two women wear the burqa for entirely different reasons?

You must find the beliefs of Christians really confusing, given the countless denominations, sects, faiths and churches that exist and the contradictions implied. Can the fundamentalist Christian who believes in the literal translation of the bible and those of a more ‘woolly’ belief system be both called Christian?

[166] “Do you make room for the possibility that for SOME Muslim women, they genuinely feel that wearing these garments IS a requirement of the religion and/or cultural identity” – yes, the ones most effectively brainwashed, or perhaps intimidated by the religious bully boys.

The really sad aspect of this thread is that it demonstrates beyond reasoned argument the complete intellectual bankruptcy of the libertarian left.

This comes across with damning clarity when dispassionate readers compare its length and the obsessive concern with protecting the right of a minute minority of muslim women to continue to wear in public the same disguise that some criminals have used in the course of robberies of banks and jewellers in widely distributed countries.

On the evidence of postings here, this cause is evidently of far greater concern to libertarian leftists than the upheaval being inflicted on the NHS or this worrying frontpage feature in today’s Mail on Sunday, both of which potentially impact on the health of thousands:

The NHS doesn’t care about the cost of medicine
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1295610/NHS-doesnt-care-cost-medicine-rugs-firms-accused-profiteering-raising-prices-ONE-THOUSAND-cent.html##ixzz0u46cjNpE

Bob B veers from logic failure to insult.

slutty red lipstick

WTF Dave?

@164: “Millions of flies can’t be wrong.”

That direct reference to the majority of legislators of France Belgium and the Netherlands – and their supporters – is incontrovertible evidence of the intellectual capacity of the libertarian left to argue its cause of protecting the right of a minute minority of muslim women to continue to wear in public the same disguise that some criminals have used in the course of robberies of banks and jewellers in widely distributed countries.

Frankly, it’s pathetic. I’ve seldom experienced such a clear manifestation of intellectual bankruptcy.

a&e @ 167

yes, the ones most effectively brainwashed, or perhaps intimidated by the religious bully boys.

The problem being, of course, is how we distinguish between her and the truly emancipated women have not been brainwashed and actively makes the choice to the wear burqa?

Sure, some people make decisions based on ‘social pressures’ (brainwashed if you will) that may be considered ‘legitimate choices’ in other contexts; I accept that is the case. However, we cannot legislate away every coerced decision.

I have no doubt that there are many people who feel the ‘social pressure’ to remain in a state of constant diets as well as people who are genuinely trying to improve their health. How do address that issue? Do we ban weightwatchers et al to ‘free’ the former whilst accepting that the latter suffer a minor curtailment of their liberties ‘for the greater good’?

Nah, that is not going to fly is it? Neither is the demand that size zero photoshopped models be removed from the pages of Vogue looks like taking off either.

Isn’t it strange that the people and columnists who howl with mock outrage at the type of clothing that these oppressed women ‘should’ be kicking against but don’t are the same people who snort with complete contempt when women DO show rage and feel oppressed at ‘media images’ they feel demean and objectify them?

Funny how when ‘real’ women actually stand up and actually tell us how they feel oppressed are derided, they are dismissed as ugly lesbians opposed to sex, yet we feel able to tell that other women that they ‘should’ feel oppressed and assume that if they do not, it must be brainwashing? If you don’t have cracking legs and even better tits then you have no right to your own opinion, it seems.

Who remembers when the TUC where discussing the compulsory wearing of high heels at work? Who remembers what the Daily Hate had to say on the subject? Who remembers their principled stance in taking up the cudgels for the feminist cause? Nope me neither. I do seem to remember a bit of ‘third form type sniggering’ though and a general ‘don’t bother your pretty little heads about it’ and make a cup of tea. Yet, for some reason, female oppression against our Muslim sisters? Shoulder to shoulder lads?

I smell a bigoted rat.

Bob B, I hope you get over your fear of items of clothing. Good night.

163
I believe that Muslim women can make personal choices (and that’s fine by me), I like to make personal choices too, but I find it very arrogant that WASPS (sorry if that’s not you) believe that you can speak-up for Muslim women. If your comment about ‘some people are contstrained’ isn’t about the debate in question why make it?
I’ve just checked on the BBC Iplayer, the interview in question can be found on ‘Sunday Morning Live’ @ 10am. The woman was quite indignant when it was put to her that she was compelled to wear a burqa.
I also wonder if Chaise is gay, probably another example of so-called libertarians making assumptions about people they have no experience of.
171 ‘I’ve seldom experienced such a clear manifestation of intellectual bankruptcy’ – hear hear.

[172] “the truly emancipated women have not been brainwashed and actively makes the choice to the wear burqa?” – sorry, that’s a contradiction in terms, ‘a truly emancipated women’ wold not make such a choice, only those sufficiently indoctrinated (or intimidated) by theocratic chauvenists.

I understand why people feel uncomfortable about fighting such injustices (in the form of a ban) but the price we have to pay is that some women will continue to be treated like inferior beings.

I smell somebody who is frightened to call a spade a spade.

“I also wonder if Chaise is gay, probably another example of so-called libertarians making assumptions about people they have no experience of.”

WTF?

Ok. You’ve asked a question. I’ve answered it. You’ve ignored the answer, asked it again, I have again answered it. You’ve bizarrely accused me of not answering it, so I’ve directed you to it. You have once again made the same accusation. I’ve answered it. You’ve decided to move on to irrelevant musings about my sexuality (and I’m confused there: are you one of those people who thinks pondering whether someone might be gay is a good insult, or do you suspect that I’m not gay and am therefore arrogant to assume that gay people like to kiss people of their own gender?).

I like the fact that we have people of all different opinions on here. It’s what makes this interesting. I know I’m getting short-tempered with Bob, but at least he’s engaging with the conversation. You’re just being ellipitical and random, seeming to be desperate to make a point but disinclined to say what that point actually is. I can therefore only assume that you are a troll. You’re displaying all of the characteristics.

Jesus wept.

Oh, one other thing: I’m not a libertarian, and don’t describe myself as one. So much for making assumptions about people.

176
What the hell does ‘getting-off with the other sex mean’, holding hands, having sex in public, wearing a pink dress or blue jeans. And if you look through some of your posts you have made quite a lot of assumptions yourself.
Why don’t you start a thread about freedom of expression and personal choice, this thread has been about the French banning the burqa with the objection that it interferes with religious expression, which patently it does not.

steveb, you appear to have addressed your comment @174 to mine @163 but you don’t appear to have written anything that’s an understandable response to my comment.

Bob B @ 171

Frankly, it’s pathetic. I’ve seldom experienced such a clear manifestation of intellectual bankruptcy.

The only pathetic intellectual bankruptcy I see here is the Right Wing nuts trying to justify their sad Islamaphobia as some kind of high minded crusade when it is fairly transparent to everyone else that it is merely a naked attack on Muslim women. You have been repeatedly asked to commend on every other bank robbery in the Country where guns have been concealed by means OTHER than a burqa, yet you are unwilling to comment, instead holding your ire for burqas. You are unable to name a single piece of clothing other than Muslim ones that you think could be used in a bank robbery. Why is that Bob?

is incontrovertible evidence of the intellectual capacity of the libertarian left to argue its cause of protecting the right of a minute minority

You know what, Bob? I am proud to be defending the rights of a ‘minute minority’ in this case.

I have no problem in being associated with a campaign that seeks to protect the rights of a minute minority of people, especially if they happen to be a benign group of people. I can think of few things more repugnant than we use legislation against certain innocuous people in such a draconian fashion. Apparently, in France, there are 2000 burqa wearers; I have no idea how many women wear the burqa in Britain, but it doesn’t really matter.

When you are using the full force of the State and the entire legislative process to attempt to legislate against individuals lives to the extent that is proposed here, then that is the time when we will know our Parliamentary democracy is completely fucked up. Once we are legislating against a group of people who we could actually count, then, with the usual caveats regarding Godwin’s law, how far are we from the fascist dictatorships of South America or the Middle Eastern theocracies?

Let me tell everyone a secret. I am not sure I approve of the burqa. I am not entirely sure I approve of what the burqa stands for. I am not going to ask everyone I meet with a burqa to find out either, so you can forget that too. However, in a free, open society I have to accept that the burqa wearer has the right to express herself in any way she feels fit. If every burqa was removed from society then I would perhaps feel better, but if the Government has forced them off the streets then we will be living in a worse society that Orwell predicted in Nineteen-Eighty-Four.

“What the hell does ‘getting-off with the other sex mean’, holding hands, having sex in public, wearing a pink dress or blue jeans.”

‘Getting off with’ means kissing, canoodling, basically all of the foreplay stuff that it’s socially acceptable to do in public. Man, if that was your problem with my answer, why on earth didn’t you just say instead of lying and sniping me for umpteen posts?

“And if you look through some of your posts you have made quite a lot of assumptions yourself.”

No, I’m not going to trawl through my posts to find something you claim is there. If it’s there, tell me. It’s possibly true, but again, why not just say what you mean instead of saying “you haven’t answered my question” over and over again even though I repeatedly did?

“Why don’t you start a thread about freedom of expression and personal choice, this thread has been about the French banning the burqa with the objection that it interferes with religious expression, which patently it does not.”

I can’t start a thread because this isn’t Facebook, it’s a site that publishes articles which we then comment on. I am, however, addressing the issue raised in this thread, which is that banning the burkha does indeed interfere with both religious expression and freedom of choice. Even if it didn’t interfere with the first, its oppression of the second would make it unacceptable.

Three cheers for Jim.

Three cheers for Jim.

Hear here.

a&e @ 172

I smell somebody who is frightened to call a spade a spade.

Oops that remark was not aimed at you. This was a general comment. I don’t think you are a racist, BTW

a truly emancipated women’ wold not make such a choice

Congratulations on being voted spokesperson for the entire female sex. I assume this remark is based entirely on a poll of every women on the planet and not merely what you hope a ‘truly emancipated women’ would choose to wear? I see where you are comming from.

Any women who makes the ‘wrong’ choice must be under duress or brainwashed, because we men know how they really feel, eh?

but the price we have to pay is that some women will continue to be treated like inferior beings.

Why start at this end of the spectrum though? Why start at the end that few women actually complain about? Why not start at the end of the clothing spectrum that women actually feel makes them feel ‘inferior beings’?

Can you explain why you appear perfectly happy to dismiss female campaigns against:

Page three
Size zero models
High heels
Low wages
Bad childcare, etc…

..yet willing to go to the gallows to ban the burqa? Why is it you are unable to hear the voices of women against any of the former, but your batlike ears can hear the silent cries of Muslim women?

You asserted earlier that women who wear burqas are brainwashed/indoctrinated and that no women would ever make a conscious decision to dress in such a fashion.

Well let me play devil’s advocate for a second. Let us assume that no burqa was ever worn in this Country. Let us assume that if your belief that clothing is a barrier to freedom is true. It could be argued that:

Women are forced to dress ‘provocatively’ in our image led society. Women are therefore being forced to wear sexualised clothing in order to be accepted and those who don’t look ultra sexy are treated as second class. Not only that, but those that do look good are not respected.

No woman would ever wear sexy clothes willingly, any saying that the did would prove that they had been indoctrinated by male culture and we should ban sexy clothes and sexy images to free all women and stop the further brainwashing.

Now, we both know that would be shot down with seconds and the likes of the Daily Hate et al would label it PC gone MAAAAAD, but it is roughly the same argument. The difference is, it is not getting at Muslim women, is it? So now women are ‘allowed’ to dress how they want and if a few ‘ugly’ women get shat on in life, well whats the harm, as long we have great looking women to oggle?

What is really fascinating (I hope you don’t mind me going meta as this thread has sorta run its course), is that pretty much everyone is arguing as a liberal.

If Laban Tall or someone was here then there’d be no problem him saying, its morally wrong thing to wear the burqa and the state should stop it as the expressed will of the community it represents (I don’t know Laban’s politics much, but I know he’s a leeeetle but right wing).

But nooooooo, banners wants to argue that their banning of the burqa is liberal because:

1) People are entitled to freedom of religion, but only as I, not they, define it. Wearing a Burqa is not a religious obligation, therefore banning it is not illiberal.

2) These women are currently more oppressed by their spouse/father/brother, therefore using the oppressive power of the state to ban their activities actually empowers them. They are being harmed, therefore banning it is not illiberal.

3) A burqa is a disguise which enables criminals. Crime should be prevented by the state to maximise freedom, that is why it has a monopoly on legitimate violence within a certain area. Burqa wearers enable criminals to commit crimes, therefore banning it is not illiberal.

Having your liberal cake and eating it!

If people are bored of arguing in circles, then perhaps you can give me some ideas on why everyone wants to be a liberal these days.

You commented here long Jim? You’re good, hang around.

“You are unable to name a single piece of clothing other than Muslim ones that you think could be used in a bank robbery. Why is that Bob?”

Jim – you really are a sad case.

Of course there are many items of clothing other than burqas used by criminals – such as shoes, socks, trousers, shirts, gloves, pants, vests, windcheaters, balaklavas, scarves etc but it’s entirely practical to ban the all-covering burqas which have been used by (usually male) criminals in many different countries to conceal personal identities and weapons in the course of crime.

As already mentioned endlessly, there is no religious obligation to wear burqas and the vast majority of muslim women don’t choose to do so. Banning burqas can’t therefore be reasonably construed to mean some sweeping attack on Islam. It isn’t.

Many people are affronted by burqas – hence the majorities of legislators in favour of banning burqas in France, Belgium and the Netherlands, which are hardly authoritarian countries and where the bans could be reversed by the usual procedures of political process. But my objections focus on the practical issue of reducing the means that criminals have for disguise and concealing identity. Burqas are especially effective as a means for concealing identity for crime and burqas are disarming to onlookers, on first appearance, in ways that many other disguises are not.

As mentioned, several British MPs have already said that they will refuse to discuss cases in interviews with constituents who insist on remaining veiled or concealed. That seems to me to be entirely proper. It is simply bad manners.

Bob, there are *also* no religious reasons for anyone to wear shoes, socks, trousers, shirts, gloves, pants, vests, windcheaters, balaklavas and scarves.

All of those are things that people are under no obligation to wear, but choose to out of some combination of individual preference, modesty, and social inclusion.

Just like the feckin’ burkha.

Re “Many people are affronted by burqas”:

Many people are also affronted by gays, scientists, liberals, heavy metal fans, blacks, whites, Chinese people, spicy food, Henry Miller, Salman Rushdie, capitalists, socialists, libertarians, the French, the Welsh, modern architecture, opera, meat-eating, vegetarianism, drinking and Puritanism. Luckily, because we live in a liberal society, all those people are told to sod off and mind their own business. This case also refers.

[184] “Congratulations on being voted spokesperson for the entire female sex. I assume this remark is based entirely on a poll of every women on the planet and not merely what you hope a ‘truly emancipated women’ would choose to wear?”

I do not claim to be a spokesperson, I am simply expressing a personal view.

A poll is not necessary by the way – I suspect there is very strong correlation between the number of women dressed in burqas and the level of oppression, lack of educational opportunities, economic freedom, etc, etc with countries like Iran or Saudi Arabia typifying these observations – it follows that there are likely to be far fewer assertive, or ‘truly emancipated’ women in these societies.

Liberal democracies have their problems as well, of corse they do, but subjugation of women is not codified within the law or embedded quite so potently within the religious culture – and this is a decisive difference, surely?

It never fails to astonish me that ancient books written by Shayman can still have such an influence on all of us, post-Darwin.

A&E, you offend me and I think you are an affront to liberal society. Does that mean, according to your logic, that it is right for the state to ban you?

No?

Well then. That’s settled.

This. (hat-tip john b)

I think the wearing of the veil by muslim women dates rom about the 10 C as result of the conquest of parts of Byzantium Empire. Some high born ladies of the Byzantium Empire used to wear the veil. Many bedu women in Saudi Arabia did not wear the veil- read Thessiger. Yasmin A B Brown has pointed out how effective the burqa is at hiding injury through domestic violence and she points out that increasingly women are being coerced into wearing the burqa.

Charlie: I think you’re conflating the concepts of “points out” and “makes up”. HTH.

News from 2006 which seems to have eluded the wider attention it merits:

“Jack Straw, the ex-foreign secretary, has angered Muslim groups by suggesting women who wear veils over their face can make community relations harder.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/5410472.stm

“One in three people would support a ban on the Muslim face-covering veil in public places, a survey suggests.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6194032.stm

From news in just the last few days:

“A Conservative MP who launched a bid to ban Muslim women from wearing the burka has said he will refuse to hold meetings with constituents wearing a face veil.”
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/21/20100717/tuk-tory-mp-bans-veils-from-surgeries-6323e80.html

Bob @194, you’re really not getting that most commenters here don’t believe the number of people who dislike something is a reason to ban it, do you?

I point you to this history of gallup polls about homosexual rights. Do you think that homosexual relations should have been made illegal between 1985 and 1988?

Are you aware of the argumentum ad numerum fallacy? (or as I call it, “[eat shit;] millions of flies can’t be wrong”)

And you do know about the tyranny of the majority? (I think you do because I know you’ve read On Liberty.)

And wot John B said @ 188.

P.S. it’s a bit ironic that you profess to be concerned about how much attention conspirators are giving this thread.

“Bob @194, you’re really not getting that most commenters here don’t believe the number of people who dislike something is a reason to ban it, do you?”

If you think about it, the large numbers and wide distribution of folks wanting to ban burqas effectively disposes of the claims here that only a few bigots want to do so.

“And you do know about the tyranny of the majority? (I think you do because I know you’ve read On Liberty.)”

I admit that I’ve been influenced by David Hume as well:

“All moral duties may be divided into two kinds. The first are those to which men are impelled by a natural instinct … which operates on them, independent of all ideas of obligation, and of all views either to public or private utility. Of this nature are love of children, gratitude to benefactors, pity to the unfortunate. … The second kind of moral duties are such as are not supported by any original instinct of man but are performed entirely from a sense of obligation, when we consider the necessities of human society, and the impossibility of supporting it, if these duties were neglected. …. We shall only observe, before we conclude, that though an appeal to general opinion may justly, in the speculative sciences of metaphysics, natural philosophy, or astronomy, be deemed unfair and inconclusive, yet in all questions with regard to morals, as well as criticism, there is really no other standard, by which any controversy can ever be decided.”
http://www.constitution.org/dh/origcont.htm

In addition to issues of common civility, there are good pragmatic reasons for wanting to ban burqas as a crime prevention measure. The fact that there is no religious obligation to wear burqas and that very few muslim women choose to do shows that a ban is not an attack on Islamic values.

Bob,

If you think about it, the large numbers and wide distribution of folks wanting to ban burqas effectively disposes of the claims here that only a few bigots want to do so.

I don’t recall anyone here claiming there were only a “few” bigots.

Do you think that homosexual relations should have been made illegal between 1985 and 1988?

“Do you think that homosexual relations should have been made illegal between 1985 and 1988?”

I wasn’t even aware that homosexual relations were illegal between 1985 and 1988. For the record – and to avoid the (usual) attribution of positions to me that I don’t subscribe to – I don’t consider that homosexual relations between consenting adults should be made illegal.

Btw how on earth does this relate to the wearing of burqas?

I can’t believe that out of nearly 200 posts, there is, apparently, not a single comment from a woman . Does LC have any women posters?

Caroline Spellman: “Wearing a burka can be empowering and dignified for Muslim women, one of the Government’s most senior female ministers said yesterday.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/7897848/Caroline-Spelman-wearing-burka-can-be-empowering.html

If so, why:

(a) do so few muslim women evidently feel sufficiently empowered and dignified by wearing burqas to do so?

(b) do mostly male criminals choose burqas as a means of concealing personal identity in the course of conducting crimes?

(c) don’t non-muslim women feel empowered and dignified by wearing burqas?

(d) have some MPs announced that they will refuse interviews with constituents who insist on continuing to wear veils to conceal their faces?

Bob,

Btw how on earth does this relate to the wearing of burqas?

It’s speaks to your argument that the number / proportion of people who are against something is a good reason to ban it.

I just wondered how far you’d take that / how consistent your approach is.

a&e @ 189

I do not claim to be a spokesperson, I am simply expressing a personal view.

I appreciate that you are expressing a ‘personal view’ and that is fair enough. It goes without saying that you are quite entitled to hold that view and express it openly. However, surely you would admit that those who actually wear the burqa are equally entitled to wear it for whatever justification they see fit too?

A poll is not necessary by the way – I suspect there is very strong correlation between the number of women dressed in burqas and the level of oppression.

Again, you can suspect away till your heart’s content, but that does not make you right (or wrong).

Here is the bottom line, a&e. Let me put all the bullshit aside and let me tell you why I think the people here want burqas banned (in the main).

They see this as a way of causing inconvenience to Muslims. They then attempt to justify this by dressing it up in some of the most spurious arguments. Once people are using the line that burqas could be used in arm robberies, and then really, that is when you know that these people have lost the plot.

But what about the claim that banning the burqa would free women from oppression? Well I have made the point several times and yet the blatantly obvious question remains unanswered. Of the entire oppressive male dominated phenomena that drive women to be second class citizens, why ignore all of them and concentrate on the one that causes least harm?

Go to any feminist website, writer, activist and MP and they will give you thousands of things that cause women real hardship and oppression, yet we seem willing to dismiss them as nonsense, but an item of clothing worn by a couple of thousand women and we need legislation to combat that evil? Thousands of women suffer anorexia that many ‘suspect’ is due to oppressive images of women being rammed down our throats 24/7. There are women who ‘suspect’ that lap dancing clubs are the reason they are objectified at work or at home and want them banned.

Of course a&e you may surprise me by telling me that you used to be a member of ‘off the shelves’ campaign and stood with the sisterhood behind every other cause. You will no doubt tell me how you demanded girlie calendars be removed from common rooms and never allowed strippers on campus either…

Or perhaps the chance to annoy Mulsim was too great?

“I just wondered how far you’d take that / how consistent your approach is.”

I don’t automatically concur with majority opinion and have been opposed to capital punishment for 50+ years, partly on the pragmatic grounds of continuing uncertainties about the likelihood of miscarriages of justice and also because there is little evidence that capital punishment is an effective deterrent against murder.

Indeed, the utilitarian argument for capital punishment is deeply suspect because it wouldn’t matter who was executed, only that most citizens should believe (as the result of propaganda or political spin) that the punishment was linked to the crime.

Not racist per se, but certainly xenophobic – it’s motivated by fear of the other, the unfamiliar.

Has anyone given much thought to teaching martial arts & self defence to women in these countries where they’re so oppressed? It strikes me (no pun intended) that people can only be pushed around where they can’t or won’t fight back. Teach them krav maga to the level of an Israeli Commando & woe betide the abusive husbands.

Bob @ 200

a) So? We are talking about chioce, no-one should be forced to wear something.

b) Get a life Bob. Really, Bob there are lots of things used in crime. It is not like there was never a crime comitted before people wore burqas, the vast majority of bank robbers do not use burqas. Just because you are blinded by your hatred of Muslims does not mean the rest of have lost half our IQs as well. What you you really think, Bob? Seriously! Are you suggesting that up and down the Country there are thousands of bank robbers who are likely to go straight if we ban burqas? What a sad little man you must be.

c) Freedom of chioce Bob. If only you were able to follow that.

d) Lots of MPs are fuckwitted, Bob. That does excuse normal people, Bob.

“I can’t believe that out of nearly 200 posts, there is, apparently, not a single comment from a woman . Does LC have any women posters?”

Most people are using psuedonyms, and of those that aren’t, there’s no way of knowing that people are who they say they are. So how do you know?

If you’re right, and there are barely any women on this thread, I have no idea why. LC probably* has more female posters than the average site. I don’t know why they’d be avoiding this thread in particular.

*As you can tell, I’m basing this on personal experience and have no data whatsoever to back it up.

Chaise – it is especially noteworthy that none of the feminists who frequent LC a fair bit, seem prepared to give ther view when it come to matters of women under Islam.

Hey feminists – would one of you like to chip in and explain the thinking that keeps you all so silent on this issue?

Others are speaking out:
Hannana Siddiqui of Southall Black Sisters, an organisation experienced in dealing with honour killings and violence, said there were still no proper statistics on the issue.

“It’s only recently that you get people trying to acknowledge there is abuse in the community, that there are issues like forced marriage, that honour can often be a motive, and in the more extreme ends can lead to murder,” she said.

“Chaise – it is especially noteworthy that none of the feminists who frequent LC a fair bit, seem prepared to give ther view when it come to matters of women under Islam.”

Is it fair to say that this is a bit of a bugbear of yours?

There IS an absence of the usual self-described feminists on this thread, I’ll give you that. Two possible reasons occur. The first is that they’re more interested in other articles; while there is definitely a feminist angle to this story, it’s not the main point, whereas that ‘It’s My Baby Too’ article is going to attract anyone who’s mainly interested in gender issues (while again gender issues go fairly deep in this story, the comments have focused more on religion and liberalism).

The second is that they don’t want to say nasty things about Islam, so they’re avoiding the topic. Probably applies to some people.

The third, kind of a nuanced version of the above, is that their liberal sensibilities are at odds with their feminist sensibilities (this is a liberal blog, after all). If you believe in personal freedoms but want to fight against the subjugation of women wherever it occurs, where DO you go on the burkha question? Well, personally, I’d say “Don’t ban it, but campaign against the attitudes that encourage it and try to address the root causes”.

In other words, I’m genuinely unsure what to draw from your observation. I’d stop digging at Sunny about it, though: he doesn’t actually order people to go and write articles as far as I know.

Feminist blogger and sometime Liberal Conspirator Laurie Penny has an article about the veil etc here.

Key quote from the above linked article:

There are hundreds of points of action that feminists across Europe would prioritise above banning the burqa, were anyone to actually ask us. What about increasing public provision of refuges and counselling for the hundreds of thousands of European victims of sexual abuse, forced marriage and domestic violence, rather than focusing state efforts on the fashion choices of a minority of women who wear the full Islamic veil? After all, it’s safe to say that any woman who is forced to wear a burqa against her will has problems that will not be solved simply by forbidding the garment.

(Emphasis added)

Ah. I think S. Pill may have you bang to rights there, Visiting.

Chaise 208

> Is it fair to say that this is a bit of a bugbear of yours?

No No No No No No No No No No No Yes (courtesy Monty Python)

> There IS an absence of the usual self-described feminists on this thread

(And on LC when it comes to things women and Islamic.)

Your 3 explanations all ring true.

In fact the third:
> their liberal sensibilities are at odds with their feminist sensibilities

Harks back to a thread Pagar started a while back – about it being too uncomfortable for those with the view that ‘our culture is not in any way better then anyone elses and so we should be tolerant’ to then have to face a cultural influence that does need debate.

> I’d stop digging at Sunny about it, though: he doesn’t actually order people to go and write articles as far as I know.

Not as such – but I assume he does go out and canvas articles.
I guess the fact that he has never come out and explained anything – is whay I keep on at him. Even in this thread, his reply to me said absolutely nothing!
Why so secretive?

Come on Sunny – tell us what you’re thinking about women, feminism and islam. Is it your concious policy to keep the issue off LC?

[202] “Or perhaps the chance to annoy Mulsim was too great?” – as far as I know nobody identifying themselves as a muslim has tried to defend the burqa on this thread (assuming they are annoyed) perhaps because there is little point in defending the indefensible?

I must admit I do generally feel vaguely suspicious when somebody is offended on somebody else’s behalf.

Even so I have stated numerous times that I do not support the ban, so I have no idea what Blanco [190] is rambling on about – it seems that in some people’s minds criticising the chauvenistic cultural drivers behind this practice is exactly the same thing as wanting to legislate against it?

We will just have to disagree about the significance of these religiously inspired injunctions – nowadays some are simply too afraid of giving offense, so that we must all learn to accept certain forms of low grade degradation simply because the task of challenging it may be misconstrued as a racism?

Such fears (about accusations of racism) may have impaired the judgement of professionals in cases like this one?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2002/mar/25/1

As I say I am at a loss as to why any rational or liberal person should be concerned about offending the sensibilities of the mad mullahs if they are insistent on promoting sexist and antiquated practices?

“No No No No No No No No No No No Yes (courtesy Monty Python)”

Isn’t that the Vicar of Dibley?

“> their liberal sensibilities are at odds with their feminist sensibilities

Harks back to a thread Pagar started a while back – about it being too uncomfortable for those with the view that ‘our culture is not in any way better then anyone elses and so we should be tolerant’ to then have to face a cultural influence that does need debate.”

Where this is true, I’m with you all the way. However, I’m wary to apply it to individuals here (and I’m not saying you are). Your principle is sound, anyway.

“Not as such – but I assume he does go out and canvas articles.
I guess the fact that he has never come out and explained anything – is whay I keep on at him. Even in this thread, his reply to me said absolutely nothing!
Why so secretive?”

I don’t think he canvasses, I think he vets. Different thing, and I really doubt he’s silencing feminist articles about women’s rights within Islamic culture.

However, I have seen that he can get a bit cagey, to say the least, when he’s proved wrong (the saga of What The Tory Never Actually Said About Poor People Putting On A Jumper proved that, if you were around for that one). Still, we’re all like that up to a point.

Howsoever: you do need to address S. Pill’s link above.

Chaise

> Ah. I think S. Pill may have you bang to rights there, Visiting.

Wouldn’t be the first or last time. : It is patriarchy rather than religion that oppresses women across the world.

Why is she so desperate to blame the ‘patriarchy’, that she is unwilling to do a compare and contrast on how religion treats women?
Why discount the fact that it may be that some religions promote patriarchy more than others?

On her blog in Jan:
http://pennyred.blogspot.com/2010/02/thinly-veiled-misogyny.html
she did quote some strong feminist views on islam:
>For secularist activists like Namazie, the veil is more than just a piece of clothing – it has become a symbol of women’s oppression under Islam, and deserves to be treated as such: “The veil, more than anything else, symbolises the bleak reality [of life for women in strictly Islamic countries]: hidden from view, bound, gagged, mutilated, murdered, without rights, and threatened and intimidated day in and day out for transgressing Islamic mores.

But ended up her piece by again denying that what women suffer may vary from to culture, writing:
“because wherever we live and whatever we wear, women are more than pawns in a cultural war between violent, intolerant men. ”

As far as coverage deeper than the veil – I found only one indepth piece on Islam in 3 years on her Blog:
http://pennyred.blogspot.com/2007/11/islam-feminism-and-false-logic-on-left.html

Where is the edit button when you need it!

Change:
Wouldn’t be the first or last time. : It is patriarchy rather than religion that oppresses women across the world.

To:
Wouldn’t be the first or last time
I see Penny’s article sub-title:
> It is patriarchy rather than religion that oppresses women across the world.

good debate on Newsnight (BBC2) right now on the veil.

Good to see a women pushing abck as she says against the ‘Islamic right wing’.

But Tariq Ramadan is always a disappointment – ever since with John Humphries he wasn’t able to decry beheadings and chopping off of hands.
Tonight he pitched himself and islam as being all about ‘let the women make their own choices’ and Islam being more female friendly than France, Belgium etc!

“Wouldn’t be the first or last time. : It is patriarchy rather than religion that oppresses women across the world.

Why is she so desperate to blame the ‘patriarchy’, that she is unwilling to do a compare and contrast on how religion treats women?
Why discount the fact that it may be that some religions promote patriarchy more than others?”

I’d say that religion and patriarchy are generally rolled into one. And that Christianity (traditionally, at least; in this time and place it’s chilled out a bit) is every bit as patriarchal as Islam. However, you’re right to draw attention to the skewed view of the article. But that doesn’t mean you can deny the fact that we do have feminist on here criticizing Islam and its treatment of women. You’re moving the goalposts there, I fancy. Now they’re not criticising Islam in the right way .

“But ended up her piece by again denying that what women suffer may vary from to culture, writing:
“because wherever we live and whatever we wear, women are more than pawns in a cultural war between violent, intolerant men. ”

Yeah. I sometimes wonder whether women are still seen as pawns because the very people who say that they aren’t pawns insist that they must be.

@215

With all due respect, that avoids the point. You said [I paraphrase] “Feminists don’t blog about Islam/burkhas” which simply isn’t true. Merely because one (Ms Penny) doesn’t write what you’d agree with doesn’t disqualify the opinion involved.

It seems like you have a set idea of what “feminists” (who aren’t a monolithic bloc, btw) should think about “Islam” (which is also as diverse in thought and practice as any religion out there) and that is your real bugbear – why not write an article yourself if you feel so strongly on the issue and no-one is making your point already?

Chaise

I’d say that religion and patriarchy are generally rolled into one. And that Christianity (traditionally, at least; in this time and place it’s chilled out a bit) is every bit as patriarchal as Islam.

This sounds abit like the folks who say ‘all religions are equally bad’.
It’s easily shot down – I can google every day and find a new act of violence isnspired by Islam – where the protagonists quote the Quran; but can’t do that for Buddhist violence, or christian violence.

But that’s why I’d be interested to read a Feminists view on that – comparing the lot of women in the west, with that under Sharia or in Muslim majory countries.

However, you’re right to draw attention to the skewed view of the article. But that doesn’t
mean you can deny the fact that we do have feminist on here criticizing Islam and its treatment of women. You’re moving the goalposts there, I fancy. Now they’re not criticising Islam in the right way .

Sorry – I’m not with you ; on LC Penny has been all but silent on Islam.
She has certainly not done any indepth compare/contrast of the lot of women under Islam / the West.

grrrr need an editor….

That should have been:

Chaise

I’d say that religion and patriarchy are generally rolled into one. And that Christianity (traditionally, at least; in this time and place it’s chilled out a bit) is every bit as patriarchal as Islam.

This sounds abit like the folks who say ‘all religions are equally bad’.
It’s easily shot down – I can google every day and find a new act of violence isnspired by Islam – where the protagonists quote the Quran; but can’t do that for Buddhist violence, or christian violence.

But that’s why I’d be interested to read a Feminists view on that – comparing the lot of women in the west, with that under Sharia or in Muslim majory countries.

However, you’re right to draw attention to the skewed view of the article. But that doesn’t
mean you can deny the fact that we do have feminist on here criticizing Islam and its treatment of women. You’re moving the goalposts there, I fancy. Now they’re not criticising Islam in the right way .

Sorry – I’m not with you ; on LC Penny has been all but silent on Islam.
She has certainly not done any indepth compare/contrast of the lot of women under Islam / the West.

Mr S Pill

With all due respect, that avoids the point. You said [I paraphrase] “Feminists don’t blog about Islam/burkhas” which simply isn’t true. Merely because one (Ms Penny) doesn’t write what you’d agree with doesn’t disqualify the opinion involved.

it’s not that they write what I don’t agree with – it’s that they don’t actually ever address the issue of Islam to any depth.

As far as my research on Penny’s blog went – there was only 3 articles under the heading Islam – 2 about the veil: 1 about an Islamic neighbour bearing food:
Only 1 article where she quoted a women with critical views of Islamic treatment of women…but even that article ended with the silly ‘the problem is all about patriachs anyway’.

Surely for a feminist there are a number of aspects of Islam that have a direct bearing on women ; and so I would have expected Penny’s blog to have a number of articles about Islam: about honour killings, issues of rape, forced marriage, the legal systm, driving in Saudi, problem of apostasy, divorce, Cairo declaration of Human Rights legal embodiment of discrimination of women etc.

Mr S Pill

Infact Penny herself in 1 piece sets such an importance on Islam and women – that it’s a shock she never goes on to follow through:

One in every three women in the world is a Muslim. Two percent of the population of the US and three percent of the population of the UK are followers of Islam. Islamic issues, for better or worse, are of deeply topical political and cultural significance… to ignore them … is not only racist, but phenomenally short-sighted.
…
Islamic women’s issues in the Western world are not of a kind with Islamic women’s issues in many extremist Middle Eastern states. Although it is, thankfully, getting easier for Muslim women in the UK and elsewhere to be self-determining, it is no less the case that many Muslim women, especially those in Arab states, do not have voices, are unable to stand up adequately for their own rights, and need the support of other men and women, both Muslim and non-Muslim. We need to be talking about the role of women in Islam, and we need to be analysing the situation of women in Islamic states, and – just as importantly – we need to be aware of the difference.

She has so far not gone on to explore any of that, IMHO.

July 19: Syria bans full Islamic face veils at universities

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100719/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_syria_islamic_veils

DAMASCUS, Syria – Syria has forbidden the country’s students and teachers from wearing the niqab — the full Islamic veil that reveals only a woman’s eyes — taking aim at a garment many see as political.

The ban shows a rare point of agreement between Syria’s secular, authoritarian government and the democracies of Europe: Both view the niqab as a potentially destabilizing threat.

“We have given directives to all universities to ban niqab-wearing women from registering,” a government official in Damascus told The Associated Press on Monday.

The order affects both public and private universities and aims to protect Syria’s secular identity, said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak publicly about the issue. Hundreds of primary school teachers who were wearing the niqab at government-run schools were transferred last month to administrative jobs, he added.

The ban, issued Sunday by the Education Ministry, does not affect the hijab, or headscarf, which is far more common in Syria than the niqab’s billowing black robes.

“The ban shows a rare point of agreement between Syria’s secular, authoritarian government and the democracies of Europe: Both view the niqab as a potentially destabilizing threat” – oh those pesky racists ……. but hang on, aren’t 75% of Syria’s population Sunni muslims?

Feminists all but silent on religiously inspired mistreatment of women?
Liberals terrified of upsetting the proponents of pre-enlightenment children’s stories?

I’m sorry, I just don’t understand it.

I find that an utterly perplexing comparison. Whether or not one agrees with the Syrian dictatorship’s policy, banning the niqab from universities or schools is something completely different from banning it in the streets.

Indeed. The French are banning the niqab because they’re racists; the Syrians are banning it because militant Islam is the most popular form of opposition to their secular-but-evil dictatorship. They’re both wrong, but for different reasons.

[226] the fact the authorities in at least x4 countries have now chosen to ban it (in one social setting or another) suggests the burqa is an inherently problematic item of clothing?

225
This debate will run forever, in part fueled by irrelevancies, the fact is, that liberalism throws up a lot of amibiguities and contradictions, those who have a naive understanding of the concept (usually those who think freedom means doing what we like) do not understand liberalism.
Those who address the issue are called ‘racist’ and feminists, I would imagine, are tending to leave this alone because they view the burqa as a symbol of oppression but at the same time, challenging a woman’s choice to wear it might also challenge her freedom to choose.
The feminists who are absent from this thread understand these contradictions, unfortunately many here do not.

225
Btw, I am not suggesting that you do not understand liberalism.

[229] ‘the fact is, that liberalism throws up a lot of amibiguities’ – indeed, such as how best to deal with illiberal practices that are emblematic of chauvenistic and outdated beliefs?

“This sounds abit like the folks who say ‘all religions are equally bad’.
It’s easily shot down – I can google every day and find a new act of violence isnspired by Islam – where the protagonists quote the Quran; but can’t do that for Buddhist violence, or christian violence.”

Sure, but that’s a Straw Man. I’m not saying that Christianity, right now, has as negative an influence on human beings as Islam. I did say it had chilled out. I’m saying that most religions seem to mandate gender inequality. I also suspect that whether or not a person follows the traditional anti-female teachings of their holy book has less to do with whether they’re Christian or Muslim than it does to do with education and the liberalism of their society in general.

“But that’s why I’d be interested to read a Feminists view on that – comparing the lot of women in the west, with that under Sharia or in Muslim majory countries.”

To what end? Genuinely interested. My worry about such an article is that it would either be full of ridiculous parallels (“the burkha of income inequality” etc.), or go too far the other way and say that Western women should feel jolly lucky that they only have to put up with reduced bigotry.

“Sorry – I’m not with you ; on LC Penny has been all but silent on Islam.
She has certainly not done any indepth compare/contrast of the lot of women under Islam / the West.”

See? You said feminists aren’t discussing Islamic oppression of women on LC. Now someone’s found you an example of a feminist doing just that, you’re now complaining that her article took the wrong angle and wasn’t ‘in depth’ (however you define that). You’re playing No True Scotsman.

@Just Visiting

Did you miss the link I posted either here or on a BNP thread about George Bush’s murderous campaign in Iraq being “inspired” by his “Christian” God? And the estimated 100,000 dead because of this divine inspiration? Does that not imply that a misreading of Christianity is just as hateful as a misreading of Islam by the mad Mullahs?

I repeat: more recent deaths have been caused by an abuse of Christianity than all recent Islamic terrorism put together.

[232] recently there have been long threads on the burqa, and by extension the treatment of women associated with certain brands of Islam – my guess would be that at most 2% of these comments have been made by female contributors?

Does this mean that a topic which has generated so much debate holds little interest for them?
Or, perhaps they are unsure what the ‘right’ answer is (leaving aside the idea of the ban itself which has been rejected by a large majority of posters)?

a&e @ 228

the fact the authorities in at least x4 countries have now chosen to ban it (in one social setting or another) suggests the burqa is an inherently problematic item of clothing?

I think for most of the Countries who ban the burqa, it is not the clothing they find problematic, but rather how to keep an Islamaphobic electorate onside inherently problematic. It seems that these Countries use the outlandish of motivations to ban it. The French have attempt to fly the ‘secular’ aspect of their culture, yet dozens of other symbols are perfectly acceptable in France.

[235] do you think there is a distinction between chauvenistic, and indeed oppressive cultural practices driven by certain brands of Islam and ‘Islamaphobia’?

If you think there is a difference do you think we should be free to comment about it without being accused of racism or Islamaphobia?

Personally I do not think the electorate of these countries are being kept ‘onside’ to appease Islamaphobes as you suggest – although I do think many are unable to comprehend why some religious nutters would want to kill Salman Rushdie for writing a book;
http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2009/jan/11/salman-rushdie-satanic-verses

Or, threaten to bomb Danish news proprietors for a few silly cartoons;
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/382

I think it is the mindset behind this form of extremism, an extremism that manifests itself in odious religious symbols like the burqa, that many rightly worry about?

It’s easily shot down – I can google every day and find a new act of violence isnspired by Islam – where the protagonists quote the Quran; but can’t do that for Buddhist violence, or christian violence.”

And IGNORANT BULLSHIT BINGO!!! is won.

Buddhists are like Australians: if you genocide early, genocide hard, and genocide pre-literate types, then you end up with a reputation as laidback chilled types.

Meanwhile, the people who invented suicide bombing were Hindus. And if you can’t find an act of Christian-inspired violence every fucking day, you’re not even trying. Even if you exclude western bombings of Muslim countries, google “gay rights in Africa”.

I see Mr S Pill’s point about Iraq and Afghanistan being Christian violence, also. I’m sceptical that really counts: GWB was primarily a front for Dick Cheney, perpetual war, and the excuse to funnel huge proportions of American wealth into military contractors and suppliers. No real Christianity involved.

This sounds abit like the folks who say ‘all religions are equally bad’.
It’s easily shot down – I can google every day and find a new act of violence isnspired by Islam – where the protagonists quote the Quran; but can’t do that for Buddhist violence, or christian violence.

One minute to Google news archive timelines:

Christian anti abortion violence

Christian anti homosexual violence

ukliberty 239

I’m afraid you make my point – your URLs are google’s archive of news.
Not the current news.

In contrast – Google has this from yesterday:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hkwpTSv6HAWivL9txDLBjTjsyE7gD9H25AD82

ISLAMABAD — Gunmen killed two Pakistani Christian brothers accused of blasphemy against Islam as they left court on Monday, a government minister and police said.
…
They were arrested a month ago after leaflets allegedly bearing their names and featuring derogatory remarks against the Prophet Muhammad were found in the town, said Shahbaz Bhatti, the minister for minority affairs. He said mosques in Faislabad had called for the men to be attacked.

So over to you ukliberty – find a similar story of accusations of blasphemy leading to killings , just as recent, linked to non-Islamic religions.

john b

<blockquote?
And if you can’t find an act of Christian-inspired violence every fucking day, you’re not even trying

Ok John, lets hear some from this last week then.

I’m afraid you make my point – your URLs are google’s archive of news.
Not the current news.

My bad – I didn’t realise you wanted it near realtime… !

[226] the fact the authorities in at least x4 countries have now chosen to ban it (in one social setting or another) suggests the burqa is an inherently problematic item of clothing?

argumentum ad numerum and appeal to authority in one sentence…

Chaise 232

I’m not saying that Christianity, right now, has as negative an influence on human beings as Islam. I did say it had chilled out.

So you’re taking a line that says religions are not all equally bad.
I’d agree. I suspect many on LC don’t.

I’m saying that most religions seem to mandate gender inequality.

You need to ask yourself the same question on this one too – do you think all religions mandate the same level of gender inequality?

I don’t think they do.
For example, I can’t find anything in the New Testament, or any christian today arguing for anything at all to compare with the Islamic view that a claim of rape requires four male witnesses.
Or that in court, a women’s evidence counts half that of a man.

I also suspect that whether or not a person follows the traditional anti-female teachings of their holy book has less to do with whether they’re Christian or Muslim than it does to do with education and the liberalism of their society in general.

But what would your evidence be?
Take the two examples I gave from Islam above.
They are mainstream Islamic viewpoints – not controversial.
They both come directly from things Mohammed said – so they are not interpretations of underlying principles, which could be expected to change over time. They are rules of behaviour he explicitly set: not principles.
So they are hard and fast.
And it’s heresy in Islam to criticise Mohammed: so no matter your education or liberalism – it’s a dangerous activity to stand up and say you don’t agree with Mohammed..not least because heresy deserves the death penalty under Islam.

@241

FFS:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/northernireland/7891536/Northern-Ireland-riots-police-attacked-in-Belfast-for-fourth-night.html

Guess what? All religions are used to justify violence, somewhere in the world, throughout history. I know that might be news to you.

BTW: Buddhism doesn’t count cos it’s more of a philosophy than religion-proper.

@238

I’m willing to bet £100 a mourning Iraqi widow would not give two shits about the power politics involved, and when reading that ol’ Dubya said his “god” told him to invade Iraq will blame it as an act of Christian violence.

ukliberty 243

Is that an apology?

My statement was pretty clear that it was about current daily violence – not sure how it could have been interpreted otherwise: I wrote:

I can google every day and find a new act of violence isnspired by Islam – where the protagonists quote the Quran; but can’t do that for Buddhist violence, or christian violence.

Is that an apology?

No, it’s not an apology it’s sarcasm.

My statement was pretty clear that it was about current daily violence – not sure how it could have been interpreted otherwise

I interpreted it to be more figurative – I didn’t release you meant “at this precise moment in time I can find more examples of this violence than that violence.

Nice goalpost moving @240 by the way.

This thread should be used as a textbook example of trolling…

Mr S. Pill – 245

Nowhere in the news story you post does anyone say they were influenced by Jesus or christianity or any religion.

So religion was not the grounds of that event.

In fact, you have chosen a very poor analogy : as it is obvious that the Irish republicans and the IRA:
i) were much more motivated by Marxism than by christianity
ii) never stated their desired outcomes in terms of religious language
iii) never quoted from the words of Jesus in their public statements
iv) never had a theological justification for violence that parallels the Islamic terrorists concept of jihad

So absolutely no grounds for comparison to Islamic terrorists – where religious motivation is explicit and foremost in their minds.

ukliberty 248

I interpreted it to be more figurative…
I didn’t release you meant “at this precise moment in time I can find more examples of this violence than that violence.

Ok – to be sure you’ve understood what I meant – what do you now think was meant by the words ‘every day’ and ‘a new act of violence’?

Mr S Pill 246

john b’s points at 238 deserves a proper response from you.

I’m willing to bet £100 a mourning Iraqi widow would not give two shits about the power politics involved, and when reading that ol’ Dubya said his “god” told him to invade Iraq will blame it as an act of Christian violence.

Yes, we likely would all bet that way.

But, as rational debaters it behooves us to stand back from this or any one victims view – to take the bigger picture.
One upset bereaved person is not an evidence-based approach to understand the motives of others that caused their bereavement.

Mr S Pill 249

This thread should be used as a textbook example of trolling…

Or maybe a textbook example that it is much less effort to accuse other of being trolls without giving any reasons at all…

.. than it is to follow through your earlier statements with evidence and rational argument

Just saying.

@Just Visiting

I have made perfectly clear my reasons for calling the violence in Iraq fundamentalist Christian inspired. George W Bush himself is on record saying God asked him to invade. Blair and Bush’s prayer sessions are well documented. The fact that the White House was infected with fundamentalists from 2000 – 2008 is well known and researched (see Tariq Ali’s Clash of Fundamentalisms).

To claim that religion is a minor part of the Troubles in Northern Ireland is to be utterly ignorant of the history and culture there. I don’t dispute there are other factors at play (British colonialism for example) but there is a very obvious divide between Protestants and Catholics and both sides use their religion to define themselves and back up their violence.

You persistantly ignore and cherry-pick all of these arguments and move the goalposts when someone calls you out your reasoning. That is not “rational debate” I’m afraid.

[243] “argumentum ad numerum and appeal to authority in one sentence… ” – if you think I am appealing to the numbers to make my argument you have simply failed to understand, or more likely ignored, the many comments made by me prior to [226]?

My position is not affected if four countries, one hundred and four, or no countries ban the burqa.

As I keep saying I do not favour a ban – but I maintain that the burqa is an affront to equality, as well as being emblematic of a particularly extreme form of Islam.

Is that clear enough for you?

Mr S Pill 254

To claim that religion is a minor part of the Troubles in Northern Ireland is to be utterly ignorant of the history and culture there.

That wasn’t my claim.
It started with your claim that violence in NI is ‘religious violence’ in the same way as islamic terrorism.
I pointed out that the IRA, the prime source of terrorism in NI over the troubles – had no parallels whatsoever to Islamic terrorism.

You didn’t deny the truth of that.

But instead seem to be shifting your view to saying that religion is a major factor of the violence in NI.

What sources do you use to claim that?

I don’t dispute there are other factors at play (British colonialism for example)

Now that sounds like a major factor…

but there is a very obvious divide between Protestants and Catholics and both sides use their religion to define themselves

The divide is real for sure. Yes, religious labels are part of the ‘badges’ of difference they use to define themselves.

But when it comes to the motivation for the violence: can you show any sources where the terrorists quoted the words of Jesus, or defined their goals in terms of religion?

Without such evidence – you are obscuring just one tribal label, with the underlying motivation.

Take the analogy with protestant/catholic tribal troubles in Glasgow – where the two sides also support dfferent football teams.
I don’t think anyone suggests that it is their football teams that motivates the Glaswegians to occasional violence! The different footbal teams are just visible labels that conveniently make visible which tribe you’re in and which you’re not in.

You persistantly ignore and cherry-pick all of these arguments and move the goalposts when someone calls you out your reasoning. That is not “rational debate” I’m afraid.

Not at all.

I simply called you up on the accuracy of the parallel you made that NI violence is an equivalent to Islam terrorism.

So far you have not raised any supporting evidence to back that claim up.