In Europe we are less opposed to the state intervening in people’s lives for their own good. I can certainly see why this wouldn’t fly at all in the States where freedom trumps every other concern, but Europe is quite different. I would also disagree with your argument that it’s a male/female issue, since the burqua is the result of a male authority imposing their will through religion.
You can indoctrinate people to do practically whatever you want and they will regard it as their own free will. That doesn’t mean it’s good for them or anyone else.
Indeed, it is my opinion. I suspect I am not alone in holding this opinion, many feminists in particular would agree with me. I’m happy to change my opinion, but since you haven’t provided any alternative explanation I don’t see why I should.
I don’t necessarily asssign such malicious motive to those who promote wearing it now, although I think it certainly suits them. However, given that the concept was born from a completely patriarchal society it seems likely that exerting power over their wives and daughters was at least an important motivation for it’s (the face-covering burqa) adoption. And Muslim culture isn’t unique in this either, the whole world was partiarchal and women have worn veils in public in other cultures. But in the modern world it’s predominantly Muslims who do it and in my view it’s a particularly backward custom.
I think you may have missed a rather important point here. In those cases where a woman is forced to wear a burqa, or face some form of retribution from male (or female) other family members, do you really think that the reaction of those people will be “Drat! Foiled again! I suppose she’ll just have to go out without it”? If the burqa is banned, I can guarantee you you won’t see women wearing them in the streets - because some of them will simply not be allowed to leave the house at all in such a situation.
It’s one thing to think it a reasonable idea - it’s another to think it’s an actual workable one in practice. Some women wearing the burqa or other clothing are undoubtedly hurt by doing so; but i’d say those that are will be hurt more by the ban.
How is it racist? I doesn’t matter from which ethnic origin you hail, it’s still banned.
Now, I’ll happily agree that it discriminates against certain cultures, and I think that’s a good thing too because the burqa is misogynistic and a symbol of the oppression of women in those cultures.
Pretty much this is where I’m at as well. It’s sort of like the recent thread in GD talking about whether or not pediatricians should be allowed to inflict a ritual pin prick or scar to a girl child (as opposed to the other practice of chopping off her clitoris instead). While I personally decry the practice completely, I think more harm than good is done by those TRYING to do the right thing here, because by stopping medical professionals from doing this you aren’t going to stop it…just push it into the background and have it be done by incompetent but well meaning people. By banning burkas you are going to have a similar effect, since, as RT says here, you aren’t going to stop the practice…just stop those women who COULD have at least had a bit of freedom of movement to instead be trapped in their houses. Plus, you are going to get peoples backs up and make them even more stubborn about the whole issue, instead of just going along and letting them do their thing, and (IMHO here) eventually seeing the practice die out as the next generation and the next wandering about on the streets goes ‘I would be much more comfortable wearing that tee shirt and some jeans without this stupid burka over it all’.
That’s a fair response, but perhaps you would agree that Hitchens is really no different than a fundamentalist Muslim - both are ordering women to wear something because they don’t believe women are capable of deciding for themselves what to wear.
banning veils specifically targets an ethnicity. the ban is specific to face veils, and leaves ski masks, stockings, motorcycle helmets, mascot heads, etc. wholey out of the equation. it’s analogous to banning yarmukles (but phrasing it as small, circular, brimless hats) and not headgear in general.
if it’s truly about female equality, there are other measures to do so. this action seems intentionally inflammatory and strongarmed in nature. i fully acknowledge the plight of a muslim woman in the household that upholds the burka, and agree that it is a problem but i don’t see this burka ban doing anything to alleviate it. the only consequences of this ban are negative, as far as i can see.
oh, I get it… helmets, sports wear…burkas…what’s the difference?
Because people who wear ski masks , motorcycle helmets, etc, always wear them whenever they sit in class at school, or go to the grocery store, or eat at McDonald’s.
Every single time. And refuse to remove them.
anyway, how many crimes are unsolved because of burqa’d criminals? is it a matter of national security or is it a pre-emptive strike? i’m arguing that the language of the law - facial veils - is SO specific and the targeted population is SO small that the racism is overwhelming in the face of the “security” argument.
that editorial cites that only 1,900 women in france out of a general population of 62.3 million people wear burkas.
I’m just wondering… has anyone done a book entitled “Why I love hiding my face in public - Hey, infidels, leave our veils alone!”, yet? I’m sure there’s a market for that book. ( Can they read books wrote by an infidel?)
I’m gonna try to think of a prominent niqab wearer who could promote it.
A law targeting the practices of a subset of a religion is not racist, even if all of the followers of that religion (and the subset who perform the targeted practice) were of the same race. If the French parliament passed a law that prohibited Catholics from openly wearing crucifixes, would that be racist?
By calling nearly every potentially prejudicial action or speech racist, regardless of the nature of the alleged prejudice, you dilute the meaning of the word “racism” until it doesn’t mean anything at all.
are we seriously debating the semantics of the term racism? fine it’s not technically racism since it’s not making a generalization about a specific race. however, neither were the japanese internment camps, since after all japan is a nation and not a race. neither’s homophobia.
and ivan, are you adopting a “it’s for their own good” approach with that biting sarcasm? i suppose that an argument can be made that going burka free is ultimately “for their own good” but what happened to civil liberties, yadda yadda yadda. do those not exist in france?
ultimately i’m just asking what the justifications for this burka ban entails. so far it’s:
for security reasons
for gender equality
for their own good (assimilation into mainstream european culture)
and it’s not technically racism.
What do you think about muslims in America that have refused to take off their veils for the purpose of a drivers license photograph? Is that OK in your book?
Oddly of course darn few people wear the nejamb. When you get down to it, it is basically just some Saudis and Afghanis. It simply is not a big problem.
I’d actually agree with the French ban being a bad idea. While wanting the abolishment of the burqa I can also see that baning it in law isn’t the best practical means to achieve that and would hurt more people than it would help. The French do have a right to introduce such a law if they see fit though, even if it seems to be born out of pandering to the right-wing.
The think is, the government already controls what people can where in public - I can’t walk the streets naked. Why? Because it offends people, violates cultural taboos, and has been banned. The only difference here is that Muslims have religous protection where Naturists have none, which is hardly egalitarian. As I said upthread I’m all for civil liberties, but only if the non-religious get the same rights as the religous.
Why can’t there be a nudity religion? One wear you “worship” the human body in all its forms, and believe it “sinful” to cover it up?
I just don’t like this “Our culture is better than yours” crap. People want to try to use the social contract, but that doesn’t work unless there actually is an option to leave.
I think ultimately society would be better served having several small communities, each with their own culture, grouped into towns, or even just sections of the city. These places would be private, and would be able to practice whatever culture they wanted. If you don’t like it, you can always leave. Also, outside of these small towns, we’d try the French sterile culture, to help those from various communities interact. We’d also have people going around making sure these communities remained some minimum level of equality, and that people were being allowed to leave.
I honestly think humans would be a lot happier that way. We seem to want the Star Trek idea, where every species pretty much has the same culture. I think this is a counterproductive goal.