They are more upset about a cartoon than people who killed thousands in the name of Islam. That says a lot.
Not all, most worldwide. The coercion certainly exists in the US in some insular communities, though.
Exactly. Banning distinctively Muslim garb is actually about banning distinctively Muslim garb, about reducing the visible presence of Muslims in public society. It is the opposite of a culture of free expression, and particularly the opposite of individual agency for women. It adds restriction to the lives of both women who may wish to wear it, and women who may be compelled to.
Here is a little story about a meeting a woman in niqab, and assumptions.
No, but rational societies do get to declare that certain forms of “expression” such as concealing one’s identity have consequences that undermine the public interest and therefore are subject to reasonable limits.
Not inherently, no. But not acceptable in situations where establishing identity is important.
I agree with that. I think the French took it way too far. I find it interesting that the separatist idiots formerly in power in Quebec tried to do something similar and now I know where they got the idea. Happily, they were soundly defeated in a subsequent election, in part because of the scorn heaped on them throughout the rest of the country; defeated so badly in fact that the party leader lost her own seat in the legislature and their popular vote was the lowest since the party’s founding almost half a century ago. The proposed legislation was by no means the only reason, but it was a factor, and helped reinforce the larger message that they were clueless.
You mean like a baseball cap expressing the idea “Go team!”? 
OK, I get it that symbols have meaning and are part and parcel of free speech. It’s just that in the scheme of things symbols are far less important than, say, the right of the media to accurately report the news, to engage in investigative reporting, and to express editorial opinions about the events of the day – and to do all the above in the interest of an informed public regardless of the powers-that-be that it may offend. You can still have a free society if you scrupulously support these principles yet ban public displays of things like swastikas and KKK cross-burnings and other flagrant symbols of hate. Sorry for yet another digression, but I just don’t buy the slippery slope argument against hate speech.
No, it is an unfounded accusation.
This is a GIANT assumption. Do you see the glaring irony here?
Then link me to an acceptably non-bigoted outspoken critic of Islamic ideology. I am very interested to see what that looks like to you.
The burqa is absolutely about bigotry, as the whole purpose is to deny women any sort of public identity.
An assertion that women are forced to wear the hijab is bigotry?
Could it be that this is more indicative of the mindset of the women you know than the status of women in Pakistan ? Just spitballin’ here.
A random crowd in Karachi. A political rally. Fighting ignorance : it’s just a Google search away.
[QUOTE=wolfpup]
Speaking of Pakistan, I note that there are currently anti-French protests going on there, with the rabble all upset about the alleged insult to Mohammed. A French journalist was shot, but apparently not seriously injured. Which certainly undermines any theory that the Charlie Hebdo terrorists had ulterior motivations.
[/QUOTE]
Some people here did a thing, some people there did a thing, they must have done the thing for the exact same reasons !
Kids from the French banlieues and Pakistani people share almost nothing. Their life experiences, their culture, the environment they grow up in, their aspirations… all of them are wildly different. But they both self-describe as Muslim, which means they must be exactly the same and that’s the end of it, right ? Because Muslims are like *this *and yadda yadda.
Do you truly not grok how prejudiced that notion is ?
What about when she went shopping?
And if a woman wants to isolate herself and not have unwanted physical contact with many men, why should she be forced to do so? I imagine some women might find the burka protective by allowing them to interact with the wider world without so much risk. We can find a compromise between security risks and forcing everyone into a dress code just to be able to leave their house.
It’s also bigoted and sexist to ignore the number of women in the West coerced into wearing less clothing than they want to or feel comfortable with because of cultural practices that dictate women must always dress in a manner to appeal to any random man she encounters.
Um, yeah, there are no men in this picture.
Right, because this one picture shows how women in Pakistan are not coerced into covering themselves in public and don’t do so for reasons of safety.
But see, that’s the thing, in this case the reasons are often the same, because they arise from the same codes of conduct, often even propagated through the same Saudi funded mosque system.
Apparently they tend to share a belief that an acceptable punishment for blasphemy is execution.
Yes a group of a billion people spread from Nigeria to China is very diverse, thanks for filling everyone in about that. You are actually arguing against yourself here, against your minimization of the ideological justifications for despicable behavior, that is, since support for these taboos appears in such wildly different cultures and environments.
What is prejudiced? Apparently even mentioning that the prohibition against blasphemy, which terrorists recently attempted to enforce in Europe, is widely supported in Pakistan.
What they apparently share with some notable minority of fellow Muslims is a propensity for religiously motivated violence.
USA Today recently ran an opinion piece under the subhead Powerful, mainstream Muslim groups must recognize they’re breeding religious intolerance.
For its part, the New York Times compiled a timeline of some recent events:
[ul]
[li]FEBRUARY 1989 Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, then the supreme leader of Iran, issues a death sentence against Salman Rushdie, author of “The Satanic Verses,” for blaspheming Islam, forcing Mr. Rushdie into hiding.[/li]
[li]JUNE 1992 Farag Fouda, a columnist for the Egyptian weekly magazine October, is fatally wounded by an assassin from a Muslim extremist group over Mr. Fouda’s outspoken opposition to religious fundamentalism.[/li]
[li]NOVEMBER 2004 Theo van Gogh, a Dutch filmmaker and television host, is killed on an Amsterdam street by a Moroccan Dutchman to avenge what the killer regarded as Mr. Van Gogh’s anti-Islamic work.[/li]
[li]SEPTEMBER 2005 The publication of cartoons lampooning the Prophet Muhammad in Jyllands-Posten, a Danish newspaper, inspire a wave of other newspapers — including Charlie Hebdo — to reprint the cartoons, provoking more death threats against the cartoonists and others deemed responsible.[/li]
[li]SEPTEMBER 2006 Masked gunmen abduct and behead Mohammed Taha Mohammed Ahmed, the editor in chief of Al Wifaq, a Sudanese newspaper, after he angered Islamists by publishing an article about the Prophet Muhammad.[/li]
[li]SEPTEMBER 2012 “Innocence of Muslims,” a vulgar American-made video about Muhammad that was spread via the Internet, leads to waves of violent protests against United States embassies around the world[/li][/ul]
Do you claim these are all disconnected events with no commonality, and that the USA Today opinion piece is just bigotry?
Well, I would never deny that is the case. Also, we still have some taboos that share roots in the same patriarchal mindset as the burqa and hijab. There are places where it is illegal to be topless only if you are a woman. All remaining gender specific laws relating to dress should be abolished.
So some of you white men believe that the best way to deal with women being forced to wear the burkha is to…force them not to wear it?
That is awesome.
What it ultimately comes down to is that a lifestyle that refuses a public identity to women is entirely incompatible with the cultures of all Western countries. Even when some number of the women within the insular communities themselves might not object to the way of life, and in fact even if some of them might prefer it. We have the ability and the moral right and duty to make these types of distinctions. If we did not, Utah would still be dominated by polygamists.
On the internet everyone is a white man.
Look again. There are actually three. Two in the top left corner, one top right.
I kind of goes against that notion, yeah. Seeing as they’re photos of women, in public, in Pakistan, who don’t cover their heads in public. Wait, do you object to the fact I linked only two pictures ? 'cause Googling “Pakistan crowd” and “Pakistan street” returned hundreds of images featuring uncovered women in public, but I figured a couple would illustrate the point well enough.
And look, I’m sure it happens, and I’m sure there is no shortage of misogynistic assholes in Pakistan. There’s no shortage of misogynistic assholes anywhere on the globe. But there’s ways between reports of such incidents happening and the notion that they’re systematic or even represent a majority view among Pakistanis (nevermind Muslims).
There are vast sections of the country where women can not be in public uncovered without being verbally harassed, at the very least. I don’t know why it is so important for you to not realize this fact, but just keep humming with your fingers in your ears, I guess.
There are vast sections of the United States (like the construction site on the corner of my neighborhood) where women cannot be in public covered or not without being verbally harassed.
…
Even when going shopping - Shit, the vast majority of women at any mall in Karachi or Lahore are uncovered. The only time I’ve ever seen her wear a hijab in Pakistan is at the mosque at prayer. Otherwise, nope.
This is bordering on ridiculous stereotyping of Pakistan.