France Moves Toward Ban burqas

[redrumloa]

http://www.sphere.com/world/article/fra ... s/19332042

 

[Robert]

In principle I go along with this. Having said that I don't know the details.

 

[Glaucus]

I'm kinda torn. On one hand I'm against the state telling you what to wear and on the other hand, I don't like it when your religion/culture tells you what to wear. Many of those women wear it because they're forced to, but not all. Combating an extreme act with an extreme law may not be the best way to go, but is there an alternative? And I don't believe they are just picking on Muslims as some Muslim nations banned even the head scarf until recently (Turkey). So I'm leaning towards favoring the law mostly because I'd rather deal with the evils of a secular government then the evils of religion. But then, if it were up to me, I'd ban religion outright.

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

Many of those women wear it because they're forced to, but not all.

The ones who have been raised with it don't want to take it off. It's like asking a western woman to show her breasts for identification. When you are used to treating parts of your body as private and cover them up it is hard to uncover them.

Surely it is just prudery to wear clothes in warm weather. Just over a hundred and thirty years ago female ankle was considered shocking - 1920s beach gear looked rather more like pajamas. Those were Western social mores and particularly British/NA mores.

European women don't seem to mind squatting along a highway when they need to pee, and Europeans don't seem so often to hide behind towels when they change on the beach. Culturally, some societies cover more than others and find more covering silly and less covering indecent.

If you wandered onto a nudist colony and were ordered by a police officer to drop your trousers for a photograph you may find it somewhat violating despite the fact that everyone around is already naked.

I don't agree with veils and burqas but for the purposes of identification it makes sense (though I'm not even sure I like the idea that we all need to be subject to identification all the time).

Covering your face on a windy wintry day in Winnipeg is pragmatic though and more a matter of survival than morals.

 

[Glaucus]

Many of those women wear it because they're forced to, but not all.

The ones who have been raised with it don't want to take it off. It's like asking a western woman to show her breasts for identification. When you are used to treating parts of your body as private and cover them up it is hard to uncover them.

Even in Muslim communities there is a distinction between genitalia and other body parts. Young girls even in Afghanistan were free to walk around in public without covering their face until they reached a certain age. So all burqa wearing women even in the most conservative cultures have experienced walking around without it. Clothing covering sexual bits however is something girls of all ages wear. Also, covering up is not required when you're with family, just when in public or with strangers. So really, it's not a perfect analogy although I see your point.

I'm well aware that Europeans are a lot more lax about nudity - I've been there I've experienced it myself. But this issue is a lot more then just being comfortable with your body (or face) in public. It's also about those one interacts with. Do we not have a right to know who we're speaking with?

Covering your face on a windy wintry day in Winnipeg is pragmatic though and more a matter of survival than morals.

Sure, but walking around the mall with one on is gonna attract the attention of the security staff. Walk into a 7-11 with one of those on and the clerk will skip a heart beat. I've heard it's illegal to wear those indoors, but I'm not sure how true that is. But if that is true, then burqas are already illegal here.

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

Young girls even in Afghanistan were free to walk around in public without covering their face until they reached a certain age. So all burqa wearing women even in the most conservative cultures have experienced walking around without it.

And a lot of girls walked around topless as kids but wouldn't do it now.

All I can say is that for some women this is a genuinely emotional issue. They like the anonymity. They like the feeling of security. Maybe some complain loudly as an act of faith or to maintain the appearance of faith (kind of like how churches are full of closet atheists but no-one wants to be the one who rocks the boat) but I think most of the fuss is because taking the burqa off in public makes them feel exposed and vulnerable.

 

[Robert]

Many of those women wear it because they're forced to, but not all.

The ones who have been raised with it don't want to take it off. It's like asking a western woman to show her breasts for identification.

That analogy falls down due to the fact that a passport sized photograph of the face, not the breasts, is the most commonly accepted form of identification in the EU.

This is how I've taken it: If you want to cover your face, fine but don't expect to gain access to anywhere that identification is a requirement.
As far as that goes, I agree with it.

 

[cecilia]

......... So I'm leaning towards favoring the law mostly because I'd rather deal with the evils of a secular government then the evils of religion. But then, if it were up to me, I'd ban religion outright.

yeah, I hate the irrationality and worship of superstition that religion encourages.

however, i appreciate that religion is also part of some people's culture. it can give comfort to people. even if this isn't my deal I would hate to deny anyone that comfort.

unfortunately it's usually the religious group that can't make compromises. if they want to live among secular / atheists people they have to learn to respect us as well.

it's too bad the religious crowd loves to start wars over bullshit

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

The ones who have been raised with it don't want to take it off. It's like asking a western woman to show her breasts for identification.

That analogy falls down due to the fact that a passport sized photograph of the face, not the breasts, is the most commonly accepted form of identification in the EU.

Analogies don't fall on facts. That's why they are analogies. "as if" is not "is".

One could argue that fingerprinting would be more accurate and hand held fingerprint scanners and wireless technology would probably make that much more secure than visual identification by photograph. Muslim women don't need to cover their fingertips.

So, let's just go with fingerprints and a wirelessly connected database. Surely there won't be any privacy issues with that since no breasts will be bared.

This is how I've taken it: If you want to cover your face, fine but don't expect to gain access to anywhere that identification is a requirement.
As far as that goes, I agree with it.

How about voice prints? That can be stored on a card too. If it was really just about identification then we could still identify people. Muslim women are still able to identify one another. stature, gait, cadence, timbre etc.

Mostly the issue is that it is profoundly disturbing (at least to westerners but I think in general) to talk to a human being whose face you cannot read. Certain people wear big black or mirrored sunglasses for this very reason, to unsettle those they are talking to. In that respect I support the burqa ban (though not the burger barn, which is different) on the same grounds as I support a ban on big black or mirrored sunglasses and dark visors or veils in general in that it is deceptive and dishonest and generally antisocial.

 

[Glaucus]

The ones who have been raised with it don't want to take it off. It's like asking a western woman to show her breasts for identification.

That analogy falls down due to the fact that a passport sized photograph of the face, not the breasts, is the most commonly accepted form of identification in the EU.

Analogies don't fall on facts. That's why they are analogies. "as if" is not "is".

You're right, the analogy doesn't quite fall apart for that reason. It does fall apart because over millions of years of evolution the human mind has adapted to use the human face for identification. We can detect minute differences in people's face and remember them well (in fact, the face is a great communicator often capable of conveying meaning much more easily then words). Breasts, amazing as they are, don't work for identification (or communication) because we just can't detect the minute differences between them to uniquely identify people. It is because breasts can't be used to ID people that the analogy falls apart, not because we don't place photos of them in passports. However, maybe if we were to use our hands and get a really good feel... :wink:

One could argue that fingerprinting would be more accurate and hand held fingerprint scanners and wireless technology would probably make that much more secure than visual identification by photograph. Muslim women don't need to cover their fingertips.

So, let's just go with fingerprints and a wirelessly connected database. Surely there won't be any privacy issues with that since no breasts will be bared.

See I can only assume you're not very serious about this. What you suggest would require some massive, central database containing all sorts of very personal information about everyone AND it be accessible to everyone. Sounds like the sort of thing that if it were ever to be introduced as law you'd suddenly gain a keen interest in fertilizers and the inner workings of cell phones and such....

Mostly the issue is that it is profoundly disturbing (at least to westerners but I think in general) to talk to a human being whose face you cannot read. Certain people wear big black or mirrored sunglasses for this very reason, to unsettle those they are talking to. In that respect I support the burqa ban (though not the burger barn, which is different) on the same grounds as I support a ban on big black or mirrored sunglasses and dark visors or veils in general in that it is deceptive and dishonest and generally antisocial.

So you don't buy the argument about identification, but you at least sympathize with the argument that the burqa is disturbing from a social point of view. And I agree, at least with the latter, those over sized sun glasses are deceptive (actually, I consider them more intimidating as they put you at a disadvantage - they can look you in the eye but you can't look them in the eye back). I'm not sure we need to out right ban sunglasses for that reason, however as a citizen I would ban police (or other government workers who deal with the public) from wearing them. And people who wear them indoors or at night have issues (for the most part, although it is common for some people, especially Europeans, to wear sun glasses at clubs etc, but those glasses are typically not the big, dark intimidating ones you speak of).

Honestly, I think the main reason we're disturbed by the burqa is because it's a symbol of oppression - it's purpose is to isolate the wearer from everyone else. Yes, we covered the fact that many women choose to wear it, but it still represents the notion of lost freedom mostly due to the fact that historically wearing it was never a choice. Fact is, even those women who "choose" to wear it do so because their culture tells them they should - much like how Jews are told to marry Jews, something I remember you weren't too thrilled about. Here in the West we value what little individual freedom we have, we understand that freedoms can be stripped away easily and that all that is needed is some reversal of public norms. The culture we live in today is by no means the first liberal culture to exist, liberalism comes and goes. In that sense the conservative burqa represents a threat to all of us who value our liberal values mainly because we know we will need to accommodate conservatives in some way. Ultimately it's the slippery slope that is feared: If we accept that some women can be oppressed, then why not oppress them all? If you are to draw the line against oppression you draw it around everyone, not just yourself.

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

@Glaucus

You're right I'm not a fan of the "security" state and I would object to mass fingerprinting. However, you talk about slippery slopes, they go both ways.

I don't know how strongly you feel about the concept of "religious rights" in general but they are generally accepted rights, rights that a large number of people take quite seriously. If you can use the "security" argument to trump religious rights then those who supported such a thing are in a weakened position to protest "security" reasons for trampling on their rights.

If we would like to see the end of burqas then we should try to move in that direction under arguments for things we'd like to see more of rather than things we'd like to have less of (like government tracking of our every move for e.g.)

 

[faethor]

I think we've settled it. Burqas are permissible for women. Shirts are forbidden.

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

Well, THAT was timely

 

[cecilia]

well then burqas can't be worn in public places like banks and other areas where security is paramount.

this is part of living in a secular society that people will either accept or leave the country.

sorry, but that's it.