Burka Rage

[Ozme52]

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.

For which a wide brimmed hat and sunglasses will suffice. The burka is irrelevent save as a rallying point between fanatics and fearmongers who hate other religions out of hand. If not for Islam, I fear this would be about yarmulkes (sp) again.

[Thorne]

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.

I wonder, though, if they would be allowed to carry them onto planes, or into government buildings. Or even if they should. Even a one inch blade could puncture an artery, or take out an eye.

But even so, carrying such an item does not obscure ones identity. I'm not sure how you could have a "symbolic" covering that didn't cover the face, when many Muslim women are not permitted to show so much as an eyelash in public.

[Thorne]

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

Target the zealots, absolutely! But limiting where someone could wear the burqa is not the same as eliminating its use. Just as prohibiting where someone is permitted to smoke does not prevent them from smoking in private, or in acceptable public areas. Both issues are involved with public safety.

Along these lines, I wonder what would happen if a store owner refused admittance to anyone who refused to show his, or her, face to a security camera? I imagine it would cut down on robberies, if nothing else. And would showing her face to a camera violate the Muslim proscriptions? After all, she wouldn't be directly displaying her face for all to see.

[Ozme52]

I wonder, though, if they would be allowed to carry them onto planes, or into government buildings. Or even if they should. Even a one inch blade could puncture an artery, or take out an eye.

So can a plastic spoon. It's irrelevent.

But even so, carrying such an item does not obscure ones identity. I'm not sure how you could have a "symbolic" covering that didn't cover the face, when many Muslim women are not permitted to show so much as an eyelash in public.

Then those who do (voluntarily) can't fly or agree to reveal themselves privately to a female TSA agent.

Again, I argue for freedom of choice, for oneself, and not for those who would impose their will on others.

[Ozme52]

Target the zealots, absolutely! But limiting where someone could wear the burqa is not the same as eliminating its use. Just as prohibiting where someone is permitted to smoke does not prevent them from smoking in private, or in acceptable public areas. Both issues are involved with public safety.

That's a stretch imo.

[Thorne]

I argue for freedom of choice, for oneself, and not for those who would impose their will on others.

Freedom of choice is noble, certainly, but we place restrictions on people's choices every day. People are not permitted to walk around naked in public, though they may choose to do so in private. Restaurants can refuse service to anyone they deem improperly dressed ("No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service"). The speed you "choose" to drive a vehicle is limited by the law. If these choices can be restricted, why not the ability to cover ones face?

Then those who do (voluntarily) can't fly or agree to reveal themselves privately to a female TSA agent.

Exactly. They are not permitted to fly, so their choice is limited. Or they can reveal themselves to the proper authorities, under controlled conditions. That's a reasonable compromise. But that might not be an option when entering a bank or a store.

[thir]

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.

Yes, in theory I agree. That is so say, people should have a right to choose for themselves, except where it may be dangerous for others.

But it is easier said than done. A complaint over a violent spouse does not nessecarily save the person complaining, even today.

In DK we have "honour-killings" and nobody helps young girls who want to run away and live as they want.

Protecting women who are forced into the burka will not be easy.

[denuseri]

Still it doesnt seem fair to punnish the woman who eaither chooses to wear one or is forced by someone else to do so or place her in jeopardy becuase of it.

[leo9]

Freedom of choice is noble, certainly, but we place restrictions on people's choices every day. People are not permitted to walk around naked in public, though they may choose to do so in private. Restaurants can refuse service to anyone they deem improperly dressed ("No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service"). The speed you "choose" to drive a vehicle is limited by the law. If these choices can be restricted, why not the ability to cover ones face?

I would believe in this if the call were for a ban on all face-hiding costumes, such as dark-visor motorcycle helmets. Some sensitive locations, such as banks, require people to take off such helmets and pull down hoods at the entrance, and with good reason. If someone wanted to argue for extending this to all public places, I would still think it an over-reaction, but at least I would believe it was honestly about public safety.

In the Caribbean area of Leeds where I once lived, the young gangstas used to hang out on the street corners in "ninja masks" - hoods plus bandanas over the lower face (and shades too, usually). It was calculatedly intimidating, giving out the message that they could do what they liked because they couldn't be named. I never heard anyone campaign to make that illegal, though the justification would be far stronger; they weren't maybe hiding a criminal, they were known criminals.

When one particular group's freedom is restricted while other equally valid targets are ignored, that's dishonest. If the target group is ethnically defined, it's textbook racism.

[leo9]

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

It would immensely increase my respect for the French. There have been threats of just such a response.

I'm reminded of the story of the Nazis' attempt to make Jews wear the yellow star in occupied Denmark. The day after they announced the law, the King appeared in public wearing a yellow star. Gentiles all over Denmark wore yellow stars until the law was quietly allowed to die.

[Thorne]

When one particular group's freedom is restricted while other equally valid targets are ignored, that's dishonest. If the target group is ethnically defined, it's textbook racism.

You are absolutely correct, leo. My comments were, like yours, intended for places of business, such as banks or stores, not for in public places. I know here in SC you are also required to remove motorcycle helmets and hoods in banks, even sunglasses and hats which conceal the face. I have heard (although I've not experienced it personally) that Halloween-type masks are not permitted in public on adults. But again, those restrictions apply to everyone, not a particular group.

[IAN 2411]

I have a small security question that until you think about it, the question is not a stupid as first take it to be. The passport of the Burka wearer does it show a picture of the face or of the Burka? Does anyone work in passport control anywhere in the world, and please don’t tell me it’s the way they write their signature.

Regards ian 2411

[denuseri]

Note I do not work in Airport security or at a border checkpoint...but: I have happended to travel in regions of the world where the wearing of hijabs and burkas are commonplace and everyone's identification of course showed one's face and those garbed in such fashion that one couldnt just pull down the viel easily or had to have ones face obscured from the sight of all non-familial males had to go into a seperate room and have their identity confirmed by a female officer.

[MMI]

The simpest solutions are usually the best ones, den, and if non-moslems didn't make such a fuss about it, there'd be no trouble at all. There is the one drawback that there'd always have to be at least one female officer present, but that's a staffing issue, not a reason to ban the hijab or the burka.

Now, I've seen that the British Humanist Association markets t-shirts bearing their H logo, and the website of American Atheists sells, among other things pendants with their hydrogen atom symbol, worn just like a christian cross or crucifix, or a Star of David. Should those be banned in public places too? Or is that an attack on free thought and individual liberty?

[Thorne]

Now, I've seen that the British Humanist Association markets t-shirts bearing their H logo, and the website of American Atheists sells, among other things pendants with their hydrogen atom symbol, worn just like a christian cross or crucifix, or a Star of David. Should those be banned in public places too? Or is that an attack on free thought and individual liberty?

If those items could be used to hide the identity of the wearer then yes, they would have to be prohibited in some public places.

[MMI]

Ooops - I wandered off the point a bit! I forgot we were talking about the veil and was thinking of the wearing of all kinds of religious symbols.

[Thorne]

Ooops - I wandered off the point a bit! I forgot we were talking about the veil and was thinking of the wearing of all kinds of religious symbols.

LOL! Despite my being an atheist, I've never once advocated banning the display of any symbols. That would be a violation of free speech laws. Even though I understand the rationale behind it, I'm not even comfortable with the idea of Germany banning display of the swastika. And that has thousands of years of religious symbolism behind it, not just the Nazi perversion of the symbol.

[denuseri]

Why not ban ALL clothes that could be used to conseal in anyway shape or form a weapon or bomb then by the same principle?

The spandex industry would make a killing.

[Thorne]

Why not ban ALL clothes that could be used to conseal in anyway shape or form a weapon or bomb then by the same principle?

I think that would be impractical. Unless you wanted to go the "Puppet Master" route of banning all clothing completely. No, I'm only suggesting that certain clothing, which hides the identity of the wearer, be prohibited in certain areas which should maintain high security. Airports and banks come to mind, of course, perhaps sports stadiums. Train stations or subway platforms as well. And of course, private business owners should be permitted to refuse to allow anyone access to their premises if they refuse to show themselves. After all, would you allow a stranger into your home if he/she was hiding their face with a canvas sack? I doubt it!

[MMI]

Just because I can't enter your house with a bag over my head is no reason why I shouldn't be allowed to wear one.

But I agree you have the right to deny me entry

... and I think you can extend that principle as far as it will go.

[denuseri]

Now previously I said the french law is no different that other types of dress code laws and in so far as purely legal matters go its not imho until its targeted on a specific type of dressage as is the case with the burka ban.

Which in light of the overall situation to me still apears to be state sponsored bigotry plain and simple.

It makes no sence to make such a law when they allready have plenty of sufficient identity verification that works just fine for women wearing burkas or anything else that would conseal ones identity at first glance at every majior municiple airport in the world where no one has felt the need to ban anything persay conserning this type of thing.

[Thorne]

Just because I can't enter your house with a bag over my head is no reason why I shouldn't be allowed to wear one.

But I agree you have the right to deny me entry

... and I think you can extend that principle as far as it will go.

I'm not saying you can't wear a bag over your head. Just not in my house. Or in my bank. Or in my store. Or in airports, or train stations, or other areas where large groups of people are crammed together by necessity.

[MMI]

I'll go anywhere I like with my bag on my head with or without your approval. But if you deny me entrance to your own property, so be it, that's your right. If other people don't like it, they can go elsewhere. After all, isn't that liberty?

[Thorne]

I'll go anywhere I like with my bag on my head with or without your approval. But if you deny me entrance to your own property, so be it, that's your right. If other people don't like it, they can go elsewhere. After all, isn't that liberty?

Yes it is. And while you are walking around outside you have the right to wear that bag. But I can keep you from my home. I can keep you from entering my store. I can keep you from entering my bank. The same laws which allow the government to control the items one can carry into the airport and onto the planes can also control what people wear in those locations, and elsewhere. The same laws that can prohibit you from entering a bank with a loaded crossbow can prevent you from hiding your identity. Liberty does not endow anyone with the freedom to do whatever they damned well please. That would be anarchy. Limits must be in place to ensure public safety.

[MMI]

You don't need to know who I am if I have a bomb strapped to my waist, and just because you do know who I am won't stop me wearing it to the marketplace.

Whole nations move from day to day and year to year without needing to know what is under a burka, why do Western countries fret about it so?

[Thorne]

Whole nations move from day to day and year to year without needing to know what is under a burka, why do Western countries fret about it so?

Because the misogynists who require their women to wear the damned things have declared war on Western civilization! Would the British government have allowed uniformed Hitler Youth to wander freely around England in 1940? I doubt it!

[IAN 2411]

French Parliament Votes To Ban The Veil


The French parliament has voted overwhelmingly in favour of a ban on wearing veils over the face, a
There were 336 votes for the bill and just one against at the National Assembly.
Most members of the main opposition group, the Socialist Party, refused to participate in the vote.
President Nicolas Sarkozy has pushed for the law, saying the full veil "hurts the dignity of women, and is not acceptable in French society".
But government advisers warned the proposed ban could be unconstitutional.
Face-covering veils, like the burka and niqab, are worn by many Muslim women out of choice and are not required by Islamic law.
However, some critics claim that many are pressured into wearing the veil.
Although France has the largest Muslim population in Europe - an estimated five million people - the veil ban is thought to only directly affect fewer than 2,000 women.
The new legislation would forbid face-covering Muslim veils in all public places in France, including on the country's streets.
Anyone caught flouting the ban would face a £125 fine or citizenship classes, or both.
Those convicted of forcing someone else to wear a full veil would be hit with a fine of £25,000 and a one-year jail sentence.
If the ban is approved by parliament the law could come into force by September.
A similar law was passed in Belgium in April.

Regards ian 2411

[MMI]

I hear that any woman convicted for wearing an "Islamic" veil will have her €150 fine paid for her by fund set up by a moslem businessman. Hopefully other wealthy moslems such as Al Fayed, or the royal families of the Middle East will help fund it.

According to the BBC, the French Justice Minister has said the vote was a victory for democracy and for French values: "Values of freedom against all the oppressions which try to humiliate individuals; values of equality between men and women, against those who push for inequality and injustice."

It seems to me that the greatest victory here is the removal of freedom of choice. I was not aware that oppression of certain women ranked high among French values. I was not aware that France was a racist country.

However, I applaud the part of the law that will impose a €30,000 on men who force women to wear veils against their will - and I hope that the French authorities will have the balls to fine immans who preach oppression to their congregations and ostracise women who adopt European clothes.

But what abpout mothers and grandmothers who pressurise their (grand)daughters to comply with their old traditions?

[MMI]

Misogyny and terrorism are two unconnected things, even if some misogynists are also terrorists and some terrorists espouse misogyny.

The answer has nothing to do with any of that. The attack on the islamic veil is an attack on islamic society by the West for no better reason than it is different. The veil shows that the wearer has high moral standards and virtues that were last seen in the west some time before the First World War, and the West can't deal with that. Instead it sees murderers and terrorists hiding behind the veil in order to bring down Western society, when only a handful of men are known to have adopted such a disguise.

The sensible way to find out who is under a veil is to get another woman to look.

[denuseri]

According to ROD McGUIRK of the Associated Press:

Muslim women would have to remove veils and show their faces to police on request or risk a prison sentence under proposed new laws in Australia's most populous state that have drawn criticism as culturally insensitive.

A vigorous debate that the proposal has triggered reflects the cultural clashes being ignited by the growing influx of Muslim immigrants and the unease that visible symbols of Islam are causing in predominantly white Christian Australia since 1973 when the government relaxed its immigration policy.
Under the law proposed by the government of New South Wales, which includes Sydney, a woman who defies police by refusing to remove her face veil could be sentenced to a year in prison and fined 5,500 Australian dollars ($5,900).
The bill — to be voted on by the state parliament in August — has been condemned by civil libertarians and many Muslims as an overreaction to a traffic offense case involving a Muslim woman driver in a "niqab," or a veil that reveals only the eyes.
The government says the law would require motorists and criminal suspects to remove any head coverings so that police can identify them.
Critics say the bill smacks of anti-Muslim bias given how few women in Australia wear burqas. In a population of 23 million, only about 400,000 Australians are Muslim. Community advocates estimate that fewer than 2,000 women wear face veils, and it is likely that even a smaller percentage drives.
"It does seem to be very heavy handed, and there doesn't seem to be a need," said Australian Council for Civil Liberties spokesman David Bernie. "It shows some cultural insensitivity."
The controversy over the veils is similar to the debate in other Western countries over whether Muslim women should be allowed to wear garments that hide their faces in public. France and Belgium have banned face-covering veils in public. Typical arguments are that there is a need to prevent women from being forced into wearing veils by their families or that public security requires people to be identifiable.
Bernie noted that while a bandit disguised with a veil and sunglasses robbed a Sydney convenience store last year, there were no Australian crime trends involving Muslim women's clothing.
"It is a religious issue here," said Mouna Unnjinal, a mother of five who has been driving in Sydney in a niqab for 18 years and has never been booked for a traffic offense.
"We're going to feel very intimidated and our privacy is being invaded," she added.
Unnjinal said she would not hesitate to show her face to a policewoman. But she fears male police officers might misuse the law to deliberately intimidate Muslim women.
"If I'm pulled over by a policeman, I might say I want to see a female police lady and he says, 'No, I want to see your face,'" Unnjinal said. "Where does that leave me? Do I get penalized 5,000 dollars and sent to jail for 12 months because I wouldn't?"
Sydney's best-selling The Daily Telegraph newspaper declared the proposal "the world's toughest burqa laws." In France, wearing a burqa — the all-covering garment that hides the entire body except eyes and hands — in public is punishable by a 150 euro ($217) fine only.
The New South Wales state Cabinet decided to create the law on July 4 in response to Police Commissioner Andrew Scipione's call for greater police powers. Other states including Victoria and Western Australia are considering similar legislation.
"I don't care whether a person is wearing a motorcycle helmet, a burqa, niqab, face veil or anything else — the police should be allowed to require those people to make their identification clear," State Premier Barry O'Farrell said in a statement.
The laws were motivated by the bungled prosecution of Carnita Matthews, a 47-year-old Muslim mother of seven who was booked by a highway patrolman for a minor traffic violation in Sydney in June last year.
An official complaint was made in Matthews' name against Senior Constable Paul Fogarty, the policeman who gave her the ticket. The complaint accused Fogarty of racism and of attempting to tear off her veil during their roadside encounter.
Unknown to Matthews, the encounter was recorded by a camera inside Fogarty's squad car. The video footage showed her aggressively berating a restrained Fogarty and did not support her claim that he tried to grab her veil before she reluctantly and angrily lifted it to show her face.
Matthews was sentenced in November to six months in jail for making a deliberately false statement to police.
But that conviction and sentence were quashed on appeal last month without her serving any time in jail because a judge was not convinced that it was Matthews who signed the false statutory declaration. The woman who signed the document had worn a burqa and a justice of the peace who witnessed the signing had not looked beneath the veil to confirm her identity.
Bernie, the civil libertarian, said the proposed law panders to public anger against Muslims that the case generated on talk radio and in tabloid newspapers, which itself is a symptom of the suspicion with which immigrants are viewed.
Muslims are among the fastest-growing minorities in Australia and mostly live in the two largest cities, Sydney and Melbourne. There are many examples to suggest they are not entirely welcome.
Muslim and non-Muslim youths rioted for days at Sydney's Cronulla beach in 2005, drawing international attention to surging ethnic tensions. Proposals to build Islamic schools are resisted by local protest groups. The convictions of a Sydney gang of Lebanese Muslims who raped several non-Muslim women were likened by a judge to war atrocities and condemned in the media.
In 2006, then-Prime Minister John Howard published a book in which he said Muslims were Australia's first wave of immigrants to fail to assimilate with the mainstream.
Government leaders have also condemned some Muslim clerics who said husbands are entitled to smack disobedient wives, force them to have sex and for suggesting that women who don't hide their faces behind veils invite rape.
"I wouldn't like to go and say this is Muslim bashing," said Ikebal Patel, president of the Australian Federation of Islamic Councils, of the proposed New South Wales laws.
"But I think that the timing of this was really bad for Muslims," he said.