Burka Rage

[thir]

On 'care2 causes' I found this article about proposed legislation on burkas. Some think it supresses freedom of expression, others that it supports the women, and others again have other views.

What do you think?

" Earlier today, French legislators introduced a draft law that would prevent Muslim women from veiling in public. In addition to introducing smaller fines for appearing in public in Muslim veils that cover the face, the measure creates a new offense, "inciting to hide the face," which would heavily fine anyone who forced women to veil (to the tune of just under $20,000) and could even result in jail time. The bill will go to Parliament in July.

Nicolas Sarkozy, who has been one of the most outspoken proponents of the bill, claimed that Muslims should not feel "stigmatized" by the bill. Rather, he said, it simply ensconced French values into law. "We are an old nation united around a certain idea of human dignity, and in particular of a woman's dignity, around a certain idea of how to live together," Sarkozy explained. "The full veil that hides the face completely harms those values, which are so fundamental to us, so essential to the republican compact."

Veiling has been a hot-button issue in France for some time; as the European country with the largest Muslim population, methods of integration have revolved around the extent to which immigrants must physically blend in. Some question whether the legislation is even constitutional, while organizations like Amnesty International protested that such a law would violate women's freedom of rights and expression. Whether the ban would protect Muslim women is uncertain - some point out that it might open the floodgates for more intensified racism.

Six women met with reporters yesterday to talk about the ban, and expressed their extreme disapproval. One woman said, "They are giving people the right to attack us"; another pointed out that their "sisters," other women who veil themselves, would hide out in their homes so as not to be caught breaking the law. She added that she would take her case to the European Court of Human Rights, if arrested.

The threat of physical violence seemed to be realized, also, by a violent attack against a veiled woman in a clothing store. The police refer to these incidents as "burka rage." A physical altercation occurred when a 26-year-old Muslim convert overheard an older woman making "snide remarks" about her burka; according to the Daily Mail, "the lawyer said she was not happy seeing a fellow shopper wearing a veil and wanted the ban introduced as soon as possible." The older woman then allegedly ripped the veil off, before the younger woman punched her.

I worry that incidents like this are too easily portrayed as catfights, when the reality is much more complicated. I certainly agree that the burka ban would violate religious expression in an extremely dangerous manner, and I hope that women would continue to assert their right to wear the burka. The issue of whether the men in women's lives (husbands and fathers primarily) are forcing them to veil is more complex, and ultimately not answered by a simple ban. Instead, the ban uses a faux concern for women's rights to prop up what is ultimately a racist piece of legislation. I hope that more women stand up for their rights, and that discussion of the proposed ban doesn't shy away from dealing with these complicated issues."


http://www.care2.com/causes/womens-r...nch-burka-ban/

[MMI]

What would happen if Christian Frenchwomen adopted the veil as a fashion item?

[Thorne]

A complicated issue, certainly. Should women be allowed to wear their veil in public? Absolutely. Whether it's a religious statement or a fashion statement, people have the right to wear, or not wear, whatever they please (within the limits of decency, I suppose.)

But what about security? Should merchants or banks be allowed to require women to show their faces, to protect themselves and their customers from potential harm? I think they should have that right. After all, if someone walks into your shop covered from head to toe in a burqa, you don't know if you're dealing with a customer or a crook.

Now, if they want to wear something like THIS, I can certainly get behind it! I would be HAPPY to get behind it!

[denuseri]

For me this is no different than laws requiring women to wear a burka or any such other garment in other countries or for people in general to adhere to certian dress codes in public, nude beaches not withstanding. (When in Rome as they say)

Also lets not forget that many misconceptions and misunderstandings about Islamic attire for women abound and many more women than one may think actually choose to wear what they wear and tech their children to wear it as well, just like your own parents tried to keep you dressed the way they wanted too when you were growing up.

In reality, Islam is not a monolithic geographical bloc with any one set standard and dress practices can be secular and themselves vary from country to country and even from cultural ethnic group to group within any given country.

[IAN 2411]

A complicated issue, certainly. Should women be allowed to wear their veil in public? Absolutely. Whether it's a religious statement or a fashion statement, people have the right to wear, or not wear, whatever they please (within the limits of decency, I suppose.)

But what about security? Should merchants or banks be allowed to require women to show their faces, to protect themselves and their customers from potential harm? I think they should have that right. After all, if someone walks into your shop covered from head to toe in a burqa, you don't know if you're dealing with a customer or a crook.

I can’t remember if it was made law before the end of the last parliament or not, but I do believe we have a law in the UK outlawing them from certain places. IE: - airports for one and schools for another, and it was all down to security. I also think it was rushed through parliament because a Pakistani that murdered his girl friend or wife and escaped justice for the murder for a short while by dressing in a burqa and escaping to Pakistan he was eventually found and sent back.
Women in the UK dressed in burqa's however have not been victimised because no one is allowed in nearly all indoor shopping areas and malls wearing hoods, the whole of the head must be shown at all times and that includes white English. It also law in most public houses that people wearing caps with peaks are not allowed to be worn in certain public house chains. The burqa is not a religious item or a fashion statement, and no one not even the Muslims themselves knows where it originated from. All that has been said about it by religious theorists is pure speculation. I have no worries about women wearing them but I do believe that they are a great security threat to any nation including the Muslim states. This has been seen by the suicide bombers of Israel, Afghanistan and Iraq and not all of them were women.

Regards ian 2411

[gagged_Louise]

I can see the point in outlawing it. Showing your own face, communicating by your eyes and showing that way who you are, is paramount in most parts of the world and it's long been central to the Western world. By showing your face and showing that it's really you speaking you vouch for what you think, what you're going to do, what you stand for as an individual, not just as a grey member of a group. It's a way of communicating "This is sincerely me" - and of making it easy to grasp and verify that this is the same person who signed papers, attended class, did a job, visited hospital etc at some earlier date. If you hide your face, there is always the suspicion that you're being booted around by somebody else, or that there's lying involved. Remember, the law would only apply in public, not at home, and maybe not even to passengers in a private car.

So outlawing the burqa could be a way to show, even if a bit brusquely,. that "nobody outside your little corner will listen to you if you hide your face". The question though is, how far is this going to reach those women, and how will the law be put into action? It's not a huge number of people that wear full-covering veils anyway in Europe -the estimated number in France is less than 3.000 in a country of 65 million people - and those who do often don't speak the language of the country (French, Dutch etc) so they won't really be easy to reach. Again, some women who come as tourists from, like, Saudi Arabia to Paris do wear burqas: would the police yank them in while they're walking down the Champs-Elysées in Paris buying jewellery? Not likely! So the law could become sonmething that only gets enforced in some places and gets used as a tool for making people bend by threats.

There are sound reasons I think, the aim to make these people act like true citizens and to protect their daughters from being pulled into a kind of family control, a suffocating family seclusion that really does happen - those are legitimate concerns. Modern secular school of any kind is pretty much impossible if you're wearing a burqa all the time at school, making a bid for a job becomes useless too. And then there's public safety, that's a reason that just didn't exist twenty years ago: nobody tried during the French-Algerian war or during the Palestinian assaults of the 1970s to enlist women as covert suicide bombers (at least no one was successful in staging such an attack, as far as I know) but that actually happens today. i dont think one can disregard that to many people, a woman in a burqa represents an immediate threat because she might be carrying a bomb or a gun, and that's something she cannot really disprove except by removing the garment, which is just what she doesn't want to do, or even feels forbidden to do.

Sure enough it's a restriction in the right of people to express themselves through what they choose to wear. I still feel the solid reasons in terms of community and citizenship outweigh that. Then making the law work, like I pointed out, is another matter.

[gagged_Louise]

Also lets not forget that many misconceptions and misunderstandings about Islamic attire for women abound and many more women than one may think actually choose to wear what they wear and tech their children to wear it as well, just like your own parents tried to keep you dressed the way they wanted too when you were growing up.

In reality, Islam is not a monolithic geographical bloc with any one set standard and dress practices can be secular and themselves vary from country to country and even from cultural ethnic group to group within any given country.

So true, and too often forgotten in a wind of hectoring rhetoric about every muslim being a threat and a fanatic. Most islamic veils don't cover the face, and many muslim women don't wear any kind of veil at all. Goes without saying that not nearly all muslims are hardline sharia pluggers either.

[leo9]

A friend who works a lot with the Asian communities in the North of England pointed out that it's not just women who are increasingly wearing what they consider "traditional" costume. Twenty years ago you rarely saw men in Indian-style pyjama outfits, they dressed English to try to fit in and avoid trouble. Now they feel safe asserting their cultural identity like other citizens... another part of the patchwork of styles and languages that makes our cities so fascinating.

[gagged_Louise]

Leo9, I don't have any trouble with hidjabs (veils going from the chest up and draping the head but leaving the face completely free; common in Iran and Pakistan), nor with Indian, African or Lapponian clothing. I loved it when I saw a marriage photo in the paper here with a woman who had married an Indian chief from the south-western USA; he was wearing his full chief's uniform with feather headgear and all in the pic and his wife was beaming.

But I think one has to take the fear of hidden bombs and the concerns over shrunk options of taking part in society seriously. Allowing the burqa without any questions is an easy route to allow for a murky kind of control by family or clan heads over their women and kids, and if the subject doesn't know the language of the country or doesn't move around much on her own, then they don't have much of a chance to speak up or make contact if they would be harassed by their next of kin. If they are required to wear a burqa as soon as they leave the house, they won't really get far with learning the new language anyway, so it becomes a covert prison. And that kind of control really does happen - "honouir killings" and forced marriages are much easier to engineer and to hide if the woman has never been in touch with authorities and is under the thumb of her male relatives or her parents.

[Thorne]

[B][COLOR="Pink"]many more women than one may think actually choose to wear what they wear and tech their children to wear it as well, just like your own parents tried to keep you dressed the way they wanted too when you were growing up.

Except that I could not be executed for "choosing" not to dress as my parents wished. And I could not be executed for turning away from my parents' faith. These things can, and do, happen under Sharia law. So what choice do these women really have?

[VaAugusta]

Relating to BDSM...
I would not have a problem with a woman (or man) wearing a collar into a bank, in spite of how demeaning or whatever else people may think about it. My main objection to burqas is how they do not show any distinguishing feature. I believe there was an instance of a bank robbery in N.C. where the police weren't sure if they're looking for a woman or a man. Now, I'm all for religious freedom as long as it doesn't infringe on anyone else's rights.. But burqas clearly infringe on society's ability to live our daily lives without fear the person has a gun under their cloak. :/

[Ozme52]

So will this law apply to widows at funerals?
Will this law apply to hygenic masks if one goes out in public while sick?

Is a church (or mosque) a public place?

What would on say if it applied to other head coverings of a pious nature?

Laws written as this one is reportedly written, are ridiculous.

Better to write a law that protects women from being forced by another to wear a veil in public or private.

[thir]

So will this law apply to widows at funerals?
Will this law apply to hygenic masks if one goes out in public while sick?

Is a church (or mosque) a public place?

What would on say if it applied to other head coverings of a pious nature?

Laws written as this one is reportedly written, are ridiculous.

Better to write a law that protects women from being forced by another to wear a veil in public or private.

It would be good if we could have such freedom of dress, but how would you enforce such a law?

As to the other, I do understand the difficulty of the situation, where to set the limits. I can only say that I would not want a teacher with the burka so I cannot see who she is, nor a doctor, nor a dentist. I simply need to see peoples faces. But that is beside the point as such, as I can simply choose some that do not wear it.

[Thorne]

I can only say that I would not want a teacher with the burka so I cannot see who she is, nor a doctor, nor a dentist. I simply need to see peoples faces. But that is beside the point as such, as I can simply choose some that do not wear it.

Those kinds of services are, of course, up to the individual. But what about the convenience store clerk who is confronted by someone covered from head to toe. Should he be allowed to refuse service, or even admission into the store, in such an instance? What about banks? Or airports?

Yes, the intent is as a symbol of religious belief. But those symbols, and others perhaps, must be set aside when they conflict with the safety of the public. People can claim almost anything to be a symbol of religious belief. Would you be willing to allow someone to board your plane with a shotgun, just because he claimed it to be a religious symbol?

[MMI]

The security argument is a wholly futile one. If I can't use a woman in a burka to bomb public places, I'll get a girl and hide the bomb inside her dress.

When they ban dresses, I'll shove dynamite down boys' trousers ...

[gagged_Louise]

The security argument is a wholly futile one. If I can't use a woman in a burka to bomb public places, I'll get a girl and hide the bomb inside her dress.

When they ban dresses, I'll shove dynamite down boys' trousers ...

I'm aware that anyone can hide an envelope of anthrax or some kind of small explosive device under everyday underwear and then post it in a busy place - or rip a gun out of a clip under the coat (raw nuclear devices are more problematic because stuff like bulk enriched uranium emits heat that makes it impossible to just slip under the dress or the briefs and walk throiugh a crowd without notice). I never said you could make your country fail safe against terror acts by forbidding burqas in public places, of course one can't. But if we're talking of groups and not just isolated lunatics, it's harder for a terrorist group of any kind to keep up a drive of assaults if they have to make their carriers show their faces and leave clear images of how they looked on the scene, who they were, images and data that might be used by the police. With a garment that hides the face and much of what's distinctive about the body, and which is mostly used by women - not the kind of armed militants people will expect in most places - it becomes more inviting to equip women with bombs and send them into crowds. Whether they die in the attack or they escape, they fell they can act under a shield of "I'm not going to be tracked" and if you remove that feeling of secure anonymity, recruitment for the militant groups becomes harder too. No society can protect itself 100% against isolated madmen but most political killers are not completely isolated.

[denuseri]

Anyone given any thought as to what these women are going to have to wear in lieu of burkas or how much they will themselves restirct or have their movments restricted becuase they are banned?

[Ozme52]

The security argument is a wholly futile one. If I can't use a woman in a burka to bomb public places, I'll get a girl and hide the bomb inside her dress.

When they ban dresses, I'll shove dynamite down boys' trousers ...

And I'll be happily watching women naked from the waist down!!

----------
We return you to your regularly scheduled debating.

[gagged_Louise]

When they ban dresses, I'll shove dynamite down boys' trousers

Dynamite tampons pushed up the a** is one invention I can live without, however sizzling.

[thir]

Those kinds of services are, of course, up to the individual. But what about the convenience store clerk who is confronted by someone covered from head to toe. Should he be allowed to refuse service, or even admission into the store, in such an instance? What about banks? Or airports?

yes, it is a problem in some areas, no doubt.

Yes, the intent is as a symbol of religious belief.

I think it is more of a cultural thing. I do not think it says anywhere in the Koran that women have to wear it. And that is probably why some want to do it, as an identification marker. Because in our Western world you can choose - or at least you will not be stoned if you do not wear it. Hopefully.

[angelhunter]

I am totally lost with the Islam or Arab thing. I am a member of this site by this Arab girl to get a grip on that. She talks about how the world view Arabs and so on. I have to say certain religions are to overwheming and I see why some just back off from all of that. In some religions it's a form of bondage, slavery and I am just saying. I am an Buddhist but in doubt I am not religious and I label myself as spiritual. Some just take it too far and even in Buddhism. I have asked the basic question, is there something beyond this life? Did god or the Gods create us or did we create them or he? I have to be honest, I don't know.
Nuff said on that one.

[TantricSoul]

I think it is more of a cultural thing. I do not think it says anywhere in the Koran that women have to wear it. And that is probably why some want to do it, as an identification marker. Because in our Western world you can choose - or at least you will not be stoned if you do not wear it. Hopefully.

This is true, all the Koran states regarding a womans dress code is that she must dress modestly. In fact there is a verse about not covering up the identity of females ...

[33.59] O Prophet! say to your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers that they let down upon them their over-garments; this will be more proper, that they may be known, and thus they will not be given trouble; and Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

[MMI]

How many suicide bombers will be recognised a second time?

[denuseri]

Agian I ask: Has anyone given any thought as to what these women are going to have to wear in lieu of burkas or how much they will themselves restirct or have their movments restricted becuase they are banned?

[Thorne]

Because in our Western world you can choose - or at least you will not be stoned if you do not wear it. Hopefully.

Maybe not stoned, but....

[Thorne]

How many suicide bombers will be recognised a second time?

It's not the suicide bombers that worry me, it's the criminals who will hide behind such clothing to disguise themselves, whether they are Muslim or not.

[TantricSoul]

Agian I ask: Has anyone given any thought as to what these women are going to have to wear in lieu of burkas or how much they will themselves restirct or have their movments restricted becuase they are banned?

Unfortunately the majority in France seems to be focused on their fear of getting blown up by Burka wearing terrorists or perhaps their fear of those that don't blend in, not on those actually affected by the law. They seem to be ok with the idea that many muslim women will be prisoners in their own homes because they wont want to break the law.

[Thorne]

Unfortunately the majority in France seems to be focused on their fear of getting blown up by Burka wearing terrorists or perhaps their fear of those that don't blend in, not on those actually affected by the law. They seem to be ok with the idea that many muslim women will be prisoners in their own homes because they wont want to break the law.

Is it because they won't break the law, or because their husbands/fathers won't let them? How many of those women would gladly give up those restrictive clothes if they weren't afraid of being murdered? That's what it comes down to, you know. They are taught from early childhood that they are property, Muslim women who must always obey their fathers, their brothers, their husbands. And the penalty for disobedience is death.

Aside from that, laws based on protecting the public must always be given preference over laws based on superstition and wishful thinking.

[Ozme52]

Better to write a law that protects women from being forced by another to wear a veil in public or private.

It would be good if we could have such freedom of dress, but how would you enforce such a law?

By ensuring the police take complaints seriously. It used to be the same regarding domestic violence and spousal abuse. There was a time that such complaints were basically ignored. No more. I think those who choose to wear a burka should be allowed to do so. Those who are threatening violence against those who choose not to wear a burka are the ones we need to eliminate from western societies.

As to the other, I do understand the difficulty of the situation, where to set the limits. I can only say that I would not want a teacher with the burka so I cannot see who she is, nor a doctor, nor a dentist. I simply need to see peoples faces. But that is beside the point as such, as I can simply choose some that do not wear it.

Exactly. Their choice to wear it, yours to choose other service providers who don't.

Those kinds of services are, of course, up to the individual. But what about the convenience store clerk who is confronted by someone covered from head to toe. Should he be allowed to refuse service, or even admission into the store, in such an instance? What about banks? Or airports?

Yes, the intent is as a symbol of religious belief. But those symbols, and others perhaps, must be set aside when they conflict with the safety of the public. People can claim almost anything to be a symbol of religious belief. Would you be willing to allow someone to board your plane with a shotgun, just because he claimed it to be a religious symbol?

Yet there are solutions. If it is a symbol, let a symbol suffice. Sikh men are required to carry a knife in their belly sash. It's a safety issue in the workplace. How do you bar weapons but allow for religious freedom? In the US that was resolved by compromise. The knife is less than an inch long. Less dangerous than a four inch plastic knife passed out at work luncheons.

[Ozme52]

Maybe not stoned, but....

Which is why we should target the zealots instead of eliminating choice to the other extreme.