Support NeoGAF

[ClosingADoor]

Like the bathing suit ban, isn't there a risk that the result won't be women out in public without covering, but instead it will result in women just not going out in public, as it now conflicts with their religious convictions?

If you want them to westernize or secularize, I think it's far more desirable to have them interacting with people in public, rather than pushing them toward social isolation.

How does interacting with wider society go if the very thing you wear is closing you off from that society?

 

[gutter_trash]

It is sad that this debate either ends on polarizing takes with name calling.

It is perfectly fine to want gender equality and being weary of ultra Conservative religious beliefs that are misogynistic

defending minority rights is one thing, defending equality.

but that equality is broken when ultra-religious beliefs are in conflict with gender equality

there are many secular Muslims who are against full face coverings,

there are many secular Muslims who fled to Europe to get away from oppressive ultra religious regimes

these secular Muslims don't want to see those ultra religious conservative factions follow them in Europe

 

[JP_]

You're asking for evidence as to why a person concealing their identity may aid them in committing a crime?

Yeah, I'm asking for evidence of these religious coverings actually being used in crimes. You can justify bans on pretty much anything if you're basing it on hypotheticals. Pencils are pretty sharp, are you part of an effort that promotes the idea that pencils can be used to murder and we should ban them? Do you support baseless voter id laws?

Generally, western societies have a higher bar to meet -- I want empirical data to back up these concerns.

 

[JP_]

You mean like covering their identity and segregating them in communities amongst which they are oppressed more often than not?

How does interacting with wider society go if the very thing you wear is closing you off from that society?

Are you guys being intentionally obtuse? Bad reading comprehension? Total lack of understanding of basic human interactions? What's the deal?

 

[ant_]

Support for women who want to stop?

Burqas and more extreme coverings are not religious in nature, they are deliberate forms of cultural oppression of relatively recent introduction and reintroduction. They are often introduced in childhood. These women won't see or know about "support."

Ideas that were introduced by extremists to hide women and drag them out of society bear extreme scrutiny.

I don't mean hijabs.

The Burqa and the veil are absolutely inspired from religious doctrine. They are completely religious in nature. I'm not using this to justify them; I think they should be stopped. But we should be honest about its origins.

 

[azyless]

Like the bathing suit ban, isn't there a risk that the result won't be women out in public without covering, but instead it will result in women just not going out in public, as it now conflicts with their religious convictions?

If you want them to westernize or secularize, I think it's far more desirable to have them interacting with people in public, rather than pushing them toward social isolation.

If you think the women who wear burqas in western societies have any interest in interacting with people who don't share their extremist views you've never met one.
And everyone agreed the bathing suit ban was stupid and it's been rejected by the courts. Not comparable to full face coverings at all.

Yeah, I'm asking for evidence of these religious coverings actually being used in crimes.

Yes there have been cases, just google "braqueurs burqa" or something if you speak french.

 

[JP_]

If you think the women who wear burqas in western societies have any interest in interacting with people who don't share their extremist views you've never met one.
And everyone agreed the bathing suit ban was stupid and it's been rejected by the courts. Not comparable to full face coverings at all.

Ha, go back and read those threads. Basically the same arguments we see here.

 

[ClosingADoor]

Are you guys being intentionally obtuse? Bad reading comprehension? What's the deal?

Not at all. You said:

If you want them to westernize or secularize, I think it's far more desirable to have them interacting with people in public, rather than pushing them toward social isolation.

I'm wondering how that goes when the thing you wear will close you off to normal interaction with the people surrounding you. I don't think that in a European society that goes very well. This type of clothing is used to enforce social isolation already.

 

[JP_]

Not at all. You said:



I'm wondering how that goes when the thing you wear will close you off to normal interaction with the people surrounding you. I don't think that in a European society that goes very well. This type of clothing is used to enforce social isolation already.

Maybe this'll make it easier for you:

A. Going shopping with your face covered
B. Not going shopping

Which one involves more social interaction?

 

[azyless]

Ha, go back and read those threads.

I don't care about threads on the internet, I'm talking about actual people in France, apart from a few Front National lunatics everyone in the public found it ridiculous. And again, it did not stand in courts and it's illegal to ban it now so I'm not sure why it's even brought up.
Burkinis, hijabs, etc. are not representative of religious extremism, it's ridiculous to compare them.

 

[You Are Viewtiful]

I don't care about threads on the internet, I'm talking about actual people in France, apart from a few Front National lunatics everyone in the public found it ridiculous. And again, it did not stand in courts and it's illegal to ban it now so I'm not sure why it's even brought up.
Burkinis, hijabs, etc. are not representative of religious extremism, it's ridiculous to compare them.

Wasn't it a Socialist who banned it?

 

[ClosingADoor]

Maybe this'll make it easier for you:

A. Going shopping with your face covered
B. Not going shopping

Which one involves more social interaction?

The hostile tone is a bit uncalled for I think, but alright.

How about we do C. Shopping without your face covered? Because I would not qualify shopping with your face covered is much of social interaction.

If people are then locked away in their homes and become socially isolated because of pressure from their family or husband, we can look into support for that and help those people.

You are already assuming that those people will not go out anymore. If it is that bad, then their current oppression is bad enough already that something needs to be done!

And next to that, Merkel calls for a ban where legally possible. I don't know exactly where that would be in Germany, but government buildings and schools would be a good start.

 

[azyless]

Wasn't it a Socialist who banned it?

No, I think there was one or two socialist towns who did, the vast majority were very right wing. It was definitely a right wing mayor (in Cannes) who started the whole insanity. Some "left wing" politicians (like Valls) did somehow support it though but the left are clowns are things like this are the reason no one's gonna vote for them.

 

[Kinyou]

Maybe this'll make it easier for you:

A. Going shopping with your face covered
B. Not going shopping

Which one involves more social interaction?

I don't think anyone in Germany is proposing to ban people from going shopping while wearing a burqa. The outlined law in the OP speaks pretty clearly about government institutions or instances where you're not allowed to cover your face anyway

 

[gutter_trash]

Maybe this'll make it easier for you:

A. Going shopping with your face covered
B. Not going shopping

Which one involves more social interaction?

the whole point of the face coverings is to separate women from men, that is why it is a misogynistic practice

 

[Pusherman]

Why is nobody supporting this ban actually interested in what the women involved think of this? If you really are concerned for these women how about you engage them? As I've said three times already, there are multiple interviews available online with women defending their right to wear a face-veil. And, as I've also mentioned multiple times now, some of those women are white and were born into christian or atheist families. They converted in their late teens or adulthood. Nobody is or was forcing them to wear a face-veil. Why is nobody actually interested in the women wearing a face-veil. Feminism is about letting women speak for themselves, about giving a voice to women's experiences. How is a ban on face-veils without ever actually engaging with the women wearing them empowering for those women? It just doesn't make any sense. Of course some will say that the women speaking out are the exceptions and not actually representative of all face-veil wearing muslims but how then can we possibly know that it isn't just a convenient boogeyman? And if you're only answer is: 'well have you seen a burka' please take a moment to think about how patronizing that really is.

These kinds of bans aren't done out of some concern for muslim women. I mean, a lot of the people supporting bans like these are also opposed to progressive and feminist movements within their own culture (Bill Maher, Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins are prime examples of this). If you can't stand with the women closest to you how can I possible believe you actually care about muslim women. If you cared, you'd talk to them.

These bans just are part of a larger discourse on muslims that tries to paint them as dangerous, foreign, other and inferior. It isn't about actual Western values like freedom of choice and religion but about asserting Western cultural dominance and superiority. And as we've seen pretty damn clearly this year the West and white are often interchangeable in these kinds of discussions. It's all a game the far-right is winning right now and the only way for the left to change that is by not playing at all. Instead, at least in Europe, the left just plays along like suckers. Like I said, I'm a progressive and if tomorrow I could change the world so that everyone was progressive as well I'd do it but the world doesn't work like that. Conservatives of all kinds deserve to live in the west just as much as we do. If we want them to change we can only do so by offering another, better worldview. And how could any Islamic conservative ever listen to a group of people them paints him or her as a dangerous eastern menace. Is anyone surprised that young muslims aren't integrating into European societies as much as some would like. Those societies make it abundantly clear that they hate or fear us. We're not dumb, we know how that works. In those kinds of societies you're never fully integrated, at best you become 'one of the good ones'.

I don't think everyone supporting this ban is ill-intentioned but they still end up supporting Islamophobia and contributing to the marginalization and oppression of muslims.

 

[JP_]

The hostile tone is a bit uncalled for I think, but alright.

How about we do C. Shopping without your face covered? Because I would not qualify shopping with your face covered is much of social interaction.

If people are then locked away in their homes and become socially isolated because of pressure from their family or husband, we can look into support for that and help those people.

You are already assuming that those people will not go out anymore. If it is that bad, then their current oppression is bad enough already that something needs to be done!

And next to that, Merkel calls for a ban where legally possible. I don't know exactly where that would be in Germany, but government buildings and schools would be a good start.

My point is we need to consider possible unintended consequences. I agree burqas should be less common, but more importantly I think the religious conservatism behind the burqas should be less common -- outright banning burqas could very well backfire and do the exact opposite by creating unnecessary strife between these communities that makes it worse. Instead of coming together, both sides could dig in. It's like we've learned nothing from the endless history of oppression and radicalization.

You dismiss any possible consequences under the weird assumption that we can somehow force people to interact in public after banning the clothing they feel is necessary to interact with people in public. You seem to have this cartoony image in your head of a religious patriarch dictating when their women can leave the home and how they're dressed, as if these women really want to go out dressing in short skirts and crop tops but aren't allowed. People have already pointed out in this thread that it is often the women making these choices. Talk all you want about harmful traditions and brainwashing, but you're being extremely foolish thinking that banning their clothing will convince them to drop their deeply held religious convictions that have been formed over a lifetime.

I think the goal of secularization is great. But if you actually look at the research, the best way to do that is to be inviting. Oppressive bans like these only contribute to further isolation, segregation, and religious extremism. How's it been working out for France?

I don't think anyone in Germany is proposing to ban people from going shopping while wearing a burqa. The outlined law in the OP speaks pretty clearly about government institutions or instances where you're not allowed to cover your face anyway

“It should be banned wherever it’s legally possible.” is potentially pretty far reaching. First it's only in government buildings, then it's only outside the home (like France).

 

[azyless]

...

Someone did ask muslims what they thought and here are the results. So many islamophobic muslims in france I am honestly shook :

("Are you supportive of a woman wearing the niqab or burqa" "yes" "no" "everyone does what they want" "does not want to respond" "does not know")

 

[pigeon]

Religious freedom is not on the same level as human rights.

Once upon a time, religious freedom was considered a human right. That's why it's in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the German constitution.

There have certainly been times in the past where Germany, among other countries, decided that religious freedom was not a human right. They did not necessarily go great though!

 

[ClosingADoor]

My point is we need to consider possible unintended consequences. I agree burqas should be less common, but more importantly I think the religious conservatism behind the burqas should be less common -- outright banning burqas could very well backfire and do the exact opposite by creating unnecessary strife between these communities that makes it worse. Instead of coming together, both sides could dig in. It's like we've learned nothing from the endless history of oppression and radicalization.

You dismiss any possible consequences under the weird assumption that we can somehow force people to interact in public after banning the clothing they feel is necessary to interact with people in public. You seem to have this cartoony image in your head of a religious patriarch dictating when their women can leave the home and how they're dressed, as if these women really want to go out dressing in short skirts and crop tops but aren't allowed. People have already pointed out in this thread that it is often the women making these choices. Talk all you want about harmful traditions and brainwashing, but you're being extremely foolish thinking that banning their clothing will convince them to drop their deeply held religious convictions that have been formed over a lifetime.

I think the goal of secularization is great. But if you actually look at the research, the best way to do that is to be inviting. Oppressive bans like these only contribute to further isolation, segregation, and religious extremism.

“It should be banned wherever it’s legally possible.” is potentially pretty far reaching. First it's only in government buildings, then it's only outside the home (like France).

You make a lot of assumption about what I think here that are not really the case. I am totally in support of combating radicalization and oppression, for example by cutting off foreign money that goes into religious groups and throwing out extremist religious leaders to prevent them spreading hate and intolerant views.

But I consider the burqa and what it stands for to be such an extremist and intolerant thing, that is being used to oppress people. That is why I would be happy if it was getting rid of. Feminism has fought hard and long to get rid of a lot of oppression, but now we are supposed to let that slide because some people think a tool of oppression is part of a culture or religion. It doesn't make any sense to me.

Next to that, you can be inviting to the people who want to, while at the same moment condemn the views that are not aligned with a tolerant and open society we in the Western world envision.

Once upon a time, religious freedom was considered a human right. That's why it's in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the German constitution.

There have certainly been times in the past where Germany, among other countries, decided that religious freedom was not a human right. They did not necessarily go great though!

Religious freedom is not a free pass to do whatever you want. If your religion says to do something that is in violation of the countries laws, then those come before your religion.

 

[gutter_trash]

Religious freedom is not a free pass to do whatever you want. If your religion says to do something that is in violation of the countries laws, then those come before your religion.

I full agree,
gender equality should always prevail over conservative religious ''freedoms''

 

[Pusherman]

Someone did ask muslims what they thought and here are the results. So many islamophobic muslims in france I am honestly shook :

("Are you supportive of a woman wearing the niqab or burqa" "yes" "no" "everyone does what they want" "does not want to respond" "does not know")

I was talking about engaging with the women wearing face-veils, not all muslims. And just because a majority of muslims support a ban does not mean that I think the minority of face-veil wearing women should be denied their freedom to wear it. And yes, even though they may not intend for it those muslims are still playing into the hands of far-right parties and thereby aiding Islamophobia.

But still, great job at not engaging with anything I actually wrote.

 

[pigeon]

Religious freedom is not a free pass to do whatever you want. If your religion says to do something that is in violation of the countries laws, then those come before your religion.

I mean, this is an argument that Islamic republics are totally fine pluralistic democracies, right? Sure, you can't practice non-Islamic religions, but that's because the country's laws take precedence. Since we all agree that national laws are more important than the human right to freedom of religion, everything is fine.

 

[JP_]

You make a lot of assumption about what I think here that are not really the case. I am totally in support of combating radicalization and oppression, for example by cutting off foreign money that goes into religious groups and throwing out extremist religious leaders to prevent them spreading hate and intolerant views.

But I consider the burqa and what it stands for to be such an extremist and intolerant thing, that is being used to oppress people. That is why I would be happy if it was getting rid of. Feminism has fought hard and long to get rid of a lot of oppression, but now we are supposed to let that slide because some people think a tool of oppression is part of a culture or religion. It doesn't make any sense to me.

Next to that, you can be inviting to the people who want to, while at the same moment condemn the views that are not aligned with a tolerant and open society we in the Western world envision.

I'm not accusing you (or the many others in this thread blindly supporting this effort) of being in favor of religious extremism, I'm accusing you of ignoring the potential consequences that may lead to increased religious extremism. The ban has largely backfired in France. They were warned, they stubbornly ignored how it could potentially backfire, it backfired.

http://www.thelocal.fr/20151012/france-burqa-ban-five-years-on-we-create-a-monster

While public opinion polls suggest most French are in favour of the so-called 2010 burqa ban, as is the Socialist government, some experts who have studied its impact tell a different story.

Agnès de Féo, a sociologist and filmmaker who has explored the subject for ten years and studied the impact of the 2010 law, says it has been “a total failure”.

She argues it has both encouraged Islamophobia as well as given Muslim extremists more cause to feel the need to rise up against the French state.

“We created a monster," De Féo tells The Local.

"Those who have left to go and fight in Syria say that this law is one of things that encouraged them. They saw it as a law against Islam. It had the effect of sending a message that Islam was not welcome in France,” she says.

The 2,000 or so women who wore the niqab before 2010, “were hardly a threat to French culture or society” De Feo says, unlike the home-grown jihadists who represent a real menace to social cohesion in the country.

“These are people who want to kill, they want to be martyrs,” she says.

In May last year the French government said there were 137 French women fighting in the Middle East, including 45 teenagers.

Defenders of the 2010 law, brought in under the presidency of Nicolas Sarkozy, argued that its main aim as part of a security measure to bar anyone from being able to hide their identity in public.

Secondly supporters said it would help promote freedom and respect for women. Those who flout the ban are subject to €150 fines, while some undergo citizenship courses.

But critics, like De Féo argued at the time that the law was simply brought in to win votes and pander to Islamophobes.

“Islamophobia works very well in France,” she says. “Both on the right and the left”.

“People had the impression that the women wearing the veil were abused by men. But in ten years I have never met a woman who was forced to wear the veil by a man,” she says.

“People presented this cliché that Muslim women needed to be saved from men.”

De Féo says the 2010 ban has only helped to normalise and encourage Islamophobia in France.

“We now live in a society where people think it’s normal to insult Muslim women wearing the full veil just because they are disobeying the law,” she says, pointing to several unsavoury incidents in recent years including women being attacked and having their veils pulled off their faces.

“The more these women are insulted, the more they feel they are not accepted in France. It’s a total rupture with society.”

She argues the law has encouraged the kind of “communitarianism”, which France is ever desperate to avoid, because those who insist on wearing the niqab stay in the housing estates where they live.

"The don’t leave for fear of being insulted or stopped by police," de Féo says.

Before 2010 there were considered to be only around 2,000 Muslim women wearing the veil in France, but according to De Féo the motivation for many women who wear the veil now has altered.

Many niqab wearers are young converts, single women and often divorced.

“Before the ban most Muslim women wore the veil for religious reasons,” she says. “Now a lot of the women who wear the niqab, started doing so after the law was introduced. They converted to Islam and began wearing the veil because it became an identity to them.

“For them it’s an act of resistance against the state, just like the punk or skinhead movements. That’s why they are happy to pay their €150 fines.”

Nicolas Cadenne from France Secularism Observatory agreed.

“Certain women who wear the veil just want to provoke. They wear it in public to cause annoyance or fear and they are not scared of the police,” he told The Local.


(Women protesting the burqa ban in 2010 show identity cards to police. Photo: AFP)

One niqab-wearing woman in France confirmed that view to Le Monde newspaper.

“It’s my way of fighting, to say no to the government, who took away my liberty,” said a woman named Leila who began wearing the veil after 2010.

Story continues below…


That view is backed up by the figures released from France’s interior ministry to coincide with the five year anniversary since the law was brought in.

Since the burqa-ban came into force a total of 1,623 stops have been made by police and 1,546 fines of €150 given out, but only against 908 women.

That’s because many of those controls have involved stopping repeat offenders. Indeed one woman has been fined 33 times and five women have been fined more than 14 times each.

And the number of fines being handed out is on the rise, with 234 being issued in 2011 compared to 397 in 2014.

 

[ClosingADoor]

I mean, this is an argument that Islamic republics are totally fine pluralistic democracies, right? Sure, you can't practice non-Islamic religions, but that's because the country's laws take precedence. Since we all agree that national laws are more important than the human right to freedom of religion, everything is fine.

I am baffled how you manage to twist my words into such a strange view. I haven't said anything of the sort.

I'm not accusing you (or the many others in this thread blindly supporting this effort) of being in favor of religious extremism, I'm accusing you of ignoring the potential consequences that may lead to increased religious extremism. The ban has largely backfired in France. They were warned, they stubbornly ignored how it could potentially backfire, it backfired.

http://www.thelocal.fr/20151012/france-burqa-ban-five-years-on-we-create-a-monster

This is basically saying that we should not fight for equality out of fear that some might not like it. Above another poster said a majority of Muslims in France support the ban. How do we need to take that then?

 

[Ulysses 31]

I am genuinely shocked by how much people wave away extremist, oppressive and intolerant things because they see it as freedom of religion.

Those people generally don't appreciate western values and don't really grasp what the situation's like in many islamic countries.

 

[azyless]

I was talking about engaging with the women wearing face-veils, not all muslims. And just because a majority of muslims support a ban does not mean that I think the minority of face-veil wearing women should be denied their freedom to wear it. And yes, even though they may not intend for it those muslims are still playing into the hands of far-right parties and thereby aiding Islamophobia.

But still, great job at not engaging with anything I actually wrote.

You don't think there's anything wrong when the practice of burqa/niqab wearing is condemned by most other members of the supposedly same religion ?
I have engaged with women wearing face veils. I regularly do actually as I have close ties to a majorly muslim neighbourhood where radicalisation has been rising for the past 10 years. You want anecdotal evidence, my experience "engaging" with these women and their families ? Being called a "miscreant", being asked why my husband doesnt drive me to work everyday, being called an atrocity whenever I dare say I'm gay, watching other muslim moms get harassed by these families for not letting their 6 yo children do ramadan, having to constantly sign off on bogus "doctors notes" because somehow all their little girls are inapt at the practice of swimming, etc.
This is my experience and it's obviously far different from the neo-feminism dream you're high on where somehow wearing a burqa is fighting oppression.
But yeah I'm not engaging with you as well, your positions on salafism made it pretty clear where you stand.

 

[You Are Viewtiful]

“It’s my way of fighting, to say no to the government, who took away my liberty,” said a woman named Leila who began wearing the veil after 2010.

Wow, we should throw her in jail to free her from this oppressive veil.

 

[JP_]

This is basically saying that we should not fight for equality out of fear that some might not like it. Above another poster said a majority of Muslims in France support the ban. How do we need to take that then?

So you are saying we should be opposed to banning something oppressive in secure settings because if we don't we may be victims of extremism?

I guess that's the best way of dealing with every single problem in the world then? Let's just allow oppression to continue or we may upset someone and make them commit crimes against humanity.

No, I'm saying we should be smart about it instead of recklessly banning things that probably don't need to be banned and then being surprised when it pisses people off and makes things worse.

Instead, we should use empirical data and research to guide our efforts: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/religious-diversity-may-be-making-america-less-religious/

Efforts to increase religious diversity in communities, in terms of housing and immigration policies, would be fighting for equality because it brings people together and has been shown to reduce religious extremism. Do you people have ANY data to suggest burqa bans actually do what they're intended to do? Show me white papers demonstrating their positive effects outweigh the negative effects. At this point you guys are basically mimicking the voter ID proponents.

 

[ant_]

Those people generally don't appreciate western values and don't really grasp what the situation's like in many islamic countries.

I think herein lies a huge problem. It's easy to be from the US and be kind of... jaded with how the world works. We have our problems in the US, but we're largely ignorant to the realities of other countries and cultures, ESPECIALLY in Islam-dominant countries.

The veil is an assault on liberal ideals. Anyone in support of progress, feminism, and equality should be disgusted with the idea of a burqa. Defending its useage because a small segment of outspoken females "choose" to wear the burqa is ridiculous. It seems to me that a lot of posters in here think that most Muslim women who wear a burqa are "choosing" to do so. As if it would be a rational and empowering statement to choose to cover your entire body from head-to-toe whenever you are exposed to another human being.

 

[pigeon]

I am baffled how you manage to twist my words into such a strange view. I haven't said anything of the sort.

I think maybe you're just not thinking carefully about your words.

Religious freedom is not a free pass to do whatever you want. If your religion says to do something that is in violation of the countries laws, then those come before your religion.

This says, pretty explicitly, that the laws of your country override your right to religious freedom, right?

So if I live in a country that passes laws that abrogate my religious freedom, that is fine, right? If it is okay for national laws to override religious freedom, then presumably countries that do so are fine.

So that means that Islamic republics that ban religions other than Islam are fine, right? Those are national laws that override religious freedom. But we've already agreed those are okay.

 

[ClosingADoor]

No, I'm saying we should be smart about it instead of recklessly banning things that probably don't need to be banned and then being surprised when it pisses people off and makes things worse.

Instead, we should use empirical data and research to guide our efforts: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/religious-diversity-may-be-making-america-less-religious/

Efforts to increase religious diversity in communities, in terms of housing and immigration policies, would be fighting for equality because it brings people together and has been shown to reduce religious extremism. Do you people have ANY data to suggest burqa bans actually do what they're intended to do? Show me white papers demonstrating their positive effects outweigh the negative effects. At this point you guys are basically mimicking the voter ID proponents.

Turkey did pretty well with cracking down on these types of religious extremist things until recently and was one of the most open societies in the Muslim world.

I think maybe you're just not thinking carefully about your words.



This says, pretty explicitly, that the laws of your country override your right to religious freedom, right?

So if I live in a country that passes laws that abrogate my religious freedom, that is fine, right? If it is okay for national laws to override religious freedom, then presumably countries that do so are fine.

So that means that Islamic republics that ban religions other than Islam are fine, right? Those are national laws that override religious freedom. But we've already agreed those are okay.

You are twisting my words to unreasonable and extreme examples trying to make your point.

 

[pigeon]

You are twisting my words to unreasonable and extreme examples trying to make your point.

It's not my fault you wrote bad words! Write words that express your feelings more correctly.

 

[Onemic]

It's a banning of the burka, which I honestly have no problem with.

 

[ant_]

It's not my fault you wrote bad words! Write words that express your feelings more correctly.

You're clearly twisting his words and creating scarecrow arguments because you can't address the points he's making.

 

[Frankfurter]

I think maybe you're just not thinking carefully about your words.



This says, pretty explicitly, that the laws of your country override your right to religious freedom, right?

So if I live in a country that passes laws that abrogate my religious freedom, that is fine, right? If it is okay for national laws to override religious freedom, then presumably countries that do so are fine.

So that means that Islamic republics that ban religions other than Islam are fine, right? Those are national laws that override religious freedom. But we've already agreed those are okay.

Is this still about Germany? If so, that's not the case. Freedom of religion is a human right, protected by article four of the German constitution.

 

[Irminsul]

So that means that Islamic republics that ban religions other than Islam are fine, right? Those are national laws that override religious freedom. But we've already agreed those are okay.

Okay, we can easily turn your word twisting in the opposite direction. How far does your "religious freedom" go? Misogyny is a-ok as long as it's religiously motivated? I.e., if some religion decides that women basically are property and that's due to some "holy" texts you can't do anything against that because religious freedom?

 

[You Are Viewtiful]

Okay, we can easily turn your word twisting in the opposite direction. How far does your "religious freedom" go? Misogyny is a-ok as long as it's religiously motivated? I.e., if some religion decides that women basically are property and that's due to some "holy" texts you can't do anything against that because religious freedom?

Religious freedom stops once you start infringing on other people's rights, it's pretty simple.

 

[pigeon]

You're clearly twisting his words and creating scarecrow arguments because you can't address the points he's making.

I think I addressed it pretty clearly. Saying that "national laws override religious freedom" is saying, explicitly, that either you don't think religious freedom is a human right (Germany officially does), or that you don't think human rights are very important.

If you don't think religious freedom is important, then you have literally thrown out the entire argument for pluralistic democracy. I'm not saying this lightly. Why should Muslims come to Germany at all if Germany does not believe in religious freedom? Having come, why should they integrate into a society that does not believe their religion should be respected?

Saying I'm "twisting his words" when he literally wrote that national laws override religious freedom is just refusing to acknowledge the consequences of your actual position and beliefs.

 

[Irminsul]

Religious freedom stops once you start infringing on other people's rights, it's pretty simple.

Oh, it is? So, is the burqa infringing women's rights or is it not?

 

[ClosingADoor]

I think I addressed it pretty clearly. Saying that "national laws override religious freedom" is saying, explicitly, that either you don't think religious freedom is a human right (Germany officially does), or that you don't think human rights are very important.

If you don't think religious freedom is important, then you have literally thrown out the entire argument for pluralistic democracy. I'm not saying this lightly. Why should Muslims come to Germany at all if Germany does not believe in religious freedom? Having come, why should they integrate into a society that does not believe their religion should be respected?

Because religion is not a static and absolute thing, you can not say: everything my religion says to do falls under freedom of religion. There are limitations to that, which the government and the courts will decide on. That is not the same as taking away your freedom of religion, since you are not being stopped from believing or worshiping your faith of choice.

Some interpretations of religion tells their followers to kill gay people. I'm sure such a thing does not fall under freedom of religion then. Same with a ton of other examples. And this burqa ban might be on also, as the EU courts have ruled such a ban is not against human rights.

 

[Pusherman]

You don't think there's anything wrong when the practice of burqa/niqab wearing is condemned by most other members of the supposedly same religion ?
I have engaged with women wearing face veils. I regularly do actually as I have close ties to a majorly muslim neighbourhood where radicalisation has been rising for the past 10 years. You want anecdotal evidence, my experience "engaging" with these women and their families ? Being called a "miscreant", being asked why my husband doesnt drive me to work everyday, being called an atrocity whenever I dare say I'm gay, watching other muslim moms get harassed by these families for not letting their 6 yo children do ramadan, having to constantly sign off on bogus "doctors notes" because somehow all their little girls are inapt at the practice of swimming, etc.
This is my experience and it's obviously far different from the neo-feminism dream you're high on where somehow wearing a burqa is fighting oppression.
But yeah I'm not engaging with you as well, your positions on salafism made it pretty clear where you stand.

Let's just focus on that last sentence shall we. My position on salafism is that it is a conservative strain of Islam. It can be apolitical, very political and even radical. That spectrum of salafism is something the dutch intelligence agency agrees with me on btw. The largest salafist organization in the Netherlands is housed in The Hague, where I live, and has worked together with our mayor on issues like young criminals and school dropouts. These are just the fucking facts. Salafism is a minority strain within Western muslims and is often apolitical. So I do not believe it to be a threat to western civilization. Especially considering the fact that the people you want to work with on a burka ban involve people that are genuinely threatening the EU, as is the case with La Pen, or are seriously proposing to change the constitution and ban books and religious institutions, as is the case with Geert Wilders. Those people actually threaten western civilization yet no one seems all that concerned about it. Hell, here in the Netherlands our conservative christian party, who gets 2 to 3 out of 150 seats in parliament every election, seems intent on making abortion a topic of discussion again this election year. And yet, everyone seems more concerned about this tiny group of mostly apolitical muslim conservatives.

Oh and I can cite dozens of examples of harassment for both myself and my family and friends because we are black or because we're muslim. That's my anecdotal evidence of living in the west as a muslim or muslim-looking person.

Those people generally don't appreciate western values and don't really grasp what the situation's like in many islamic countries.

And as someone with family in Sudan and Eritrea and who has been in Islamic countries and around Islamic people: I know pretty damn well how shit works abroad which is why I feel extra strongly about defending the freedoms of everyone living in the west and working towards an ever more inclusive society.

 

[You Are Viewtiful]

Oh, it is? So, is the burqa infringing women's rights or is it not?

No. Women can wear whatever they want.

 

[pigeon]

Oh, it is? So, is the burqa infringing women's rights or is it not?

Forcing people to wear the burka clearly infringes on their rights. Luckily, as I understand it, Germany has freedom of religion, so people cannot be forced legally to wear the burka. If they're being coerced with violence or threats, that's already illegal. If they're being coerced with loss of social support, that is a problem that Germans should work to solve by making sure that women who want to stop wearing the burka have organizations and people to reach out to in order to get that social support.

Banning the burka does nothing to help the people who are being coerced to wear it. It just adds coercion on the other side, in the form of state power and implicitly condoning attacks on Muslims, as has already happened in France. That makes life worse for these people, not better.

Obviously, in the general case, the burka is reactionary and misogynistic. I would certainly prefer if nobody were to wear it. But freedom of religion means that it would be unconscionable to ban it. I have confidence that cosmopolitan pluralism and the march of generations will moderate religious extremists, as it historically does. I believe in the moral imperative and practical superiority of liberalism! I don't think we need to compromise it out of fear.

 

[Derwind]

I'd be okay with the statement of banning burqa's, if it wasn't tied to the bullshit that it somehow solves oppression.

Just because you identify a possible factor, doesn't mean you found your answer.

The women that are oppressed and forced to wear burqa's are suddenly not going to stop being oppressed because of this but I doubt many would bother themselves to reach any deeper into these women's lives and find a solution that isn't as shallow as this.

I'm completely skeptical of this as anything other than to pacify the far-right/xenophobic movements that the western world seems to be submerged in, rather than an honest attempt to better these women's lives.

I hope I'm wrong though.

 

[paskowitz]

Taken in isolation, I am against this. However I don't think the path of an absolute ideologue is a smart one. If Merkel does this and wins the election vs. a far right candidate, who would logically implement far worse, then I am sorry not sorry but this is a necessary one step back to go two forward move.

I would also argue, a line has to be drawn somewhere. Perhaps it is further down the road, but religious freedom must have a fence somewhere.

Finally, it is really important not to frame this as a cultural issue but as one of security. Look, we have a safe country, we keep it safe by keeping track of people and knowing who people are, so if they hurt others justice can be served. If you obfuscate this, then you are endangering the safety of our society, which comes before any particular religion. Don't like a safe society, go somewhere else. While that isn't "idea", it is a lot better than the cultural argument which just pissed people off and makes it us vs them.

 

[JP_]

“It’s my way of fighting, to say no to the government, who took away my liberty,” said a woman named Leila who began wearing the veil after 2010.

Wow, we should throw her in jail to free her from this oppressive veil.

.

 

[Stinkles]

The Burqa and the veil are absolutely inspired from religious doctrine. They are completely religious in nature. I'm not using this to justify them; I think they should be stopped. But we should be honest about its origins.

Religion is absolutely used as a tool to justify them. And the Quran and Hadiths are quoted in broad terms to justify it at a detailed and often argumentative level. There's no sura I'm aware of that says head to toe covering of an entire woman is required.

I have only read it once and I am part senile, so I assume someone's gonna quote my face off in a minute.

 

[Slackbladder]

The problem with throwing racists a bone is that it makes you a bit racist. Fact of the matter is for Governments to quell the far-right in their countries they're going to be a bit (or very) racist/bigoted.

Now. is this ban racist/bigoted? Yes if it affects only one group. On one side I too dislike the full face veil, but then I dislike religion in general. But I also dislike the use of law to force people to change for spurious, irrational reasons. Ultimately if the full face veil is religious clothing then ALL religious clothing should be banned.

And the greatest irony pf all; this is what extremist Islamic terror groups have been after all along. They want the West to demonize and hate Muslims so that they can be the recruitment for their "holy war". We are giving them EXACTLY what they want. Isis aren't interested in killing x amount of people with their terrorism. They are trying to undermine Western liberal values. And they are succeeding. It is creating the perfect atmospheres for their recruitment. All that will happen is that terror, hate and anger will continue. Nothing will change for the better, only for the worse.

 

[ClosingADoor]

The problem with throwing racists a bone is that it makes you a bit racist. Fact of the matter is for Governments to quell the far-right in their countries they're going to be a bit (or very) racist/bigoted.

Now. is this ban racist/bigoted? Yes if it affects only one group. On one side I too dislike the full face veil, but then I dislike religion in general. But I also dislike the use of law to force people to change for spurious, irrational reasons. Ultimately if the full face veil is religious clothing then ALL religious clothing should be banned.

And the greatest irony pf all; this is what extremist Islamic terror groups have been after all along. They want the West to demonize and hate Muslims so that they can be the recruitment for their "holy war". We are giving them EXACTLY what they want. Isis aren't interested in killing x amount of people with their terrorism. They are trying to undermine Western liberal values. And they are succeeding. It is creating the perfect atmospheres for their recruitment. All that will happen is that terror, hate and anger will continue. Nothing will change for the better, only for the worse.

With this whole debate, there is no perfect answer. You say it throws racist a bone. But you can also say that by allowing a misogynist and oppressive religious tool, we are throwing religious fanatics a bone, just to not get them upset.