There's alot of going on in Europe. When people protested against the violence in Gaza in my town, they ended up injuring well over 20 policemen, destroyed police cars & ambulances, lit grass on fire and so on.
wtf. that's france? what happened?
on topic, totally reminded me of
Ang ' ela_ie
quote:
Originally posted by Goebbel Goebbel
i want to wear a ski mask to the bank today.
People in Minnesota do this all the time starting in November.
Theresa
quote:
Originally posted by Moral Hazard
Okay, by request, here's my $0.02.
First, I think we need to get away from couching this as a religion thing. Both the burqa and the niqab are customary forms of dress from nomadic Arabian tribes that pre-date Islam. The Qu'ran does state that women (and men) must dress modestly, but other then reference to covering their bosoms with their scarf (what we would now commonly refer to as a hijab) there is very little definition of what constitutes modesty. One could argue that since both the niqab and burqa were known to Muhammad (they are mentioned in the description of some women in the area and The Prophet's wives wore garments believed to be similar) he would have specifically mentioned them as constituting dressing modestly if it were intended to be required dress. To argue that this total covering is a religious requirement really only applies if the person in question is one of Muhammad's wives; all of whom I believe are presently dead.
Make no mistake, both of these clothing items are cultural customs. Granted, some believe they are required by religion; however, this is really only a recent development and largely restricted to the Salafis. The custom grew in popularity during the recent period of European colonialism, as a protest against same. In large part it continues as that; a political statement and cultural marker. Regardless of any theological support that may or may not exist for the garments they clearly have meaning to those that wear them.
I refuse to accept that in a free society it is permissable to dictate how one may express themselves in either a cultural or political sense provided that said expression does not infringe on the rights of others. So what do I mean here... if one chooses to wear these garments it should be permissable with the exception of situations in which the ability to identify a person is a matter of security for more people then the individual in question or the ability to identify the person at that given moment is intrinsic to anther person's rights. Good example; a woman in Ontario was recently forced to remove her niqab in order to give testimony in a rape trial (she was the victim). I believe it was just for her to be forced to remove the veil, as it is intrinsic to the defendant's right to face his accusor and right to a fair trial. Short of instances like these, voting, and security checks I fail to see any reason how a free and democratic society would not be acting directly against their own values by denying someone the right to dress as they choose.
I know that some will raise the argument that some women are being forced to wear these garments and I acknowledge that is likely true. Those advancing those arguments should also acknowlowledge that the majority of women who wear these garments choose to of their own free will. Of course you may not agree with the socialization that led them to believe covering themselves is appropriate, or that their choice may be influenced by deference to their husbands (who may support the custom), or that it is an expression of their cultural identity and desire to retain same; however, it is their choice and should be of no concern to the wider society except as stated earlier. So then the argument becomes that in order to protect those that are forced to wear them we must disallow the custom all together. Granted that would be one solution; however, it's an unreasonable restriction on freedoms in my view. There are many, many things that people are subjected to against their will, most of which people would never even consider outlawing. The niqab and the burqa are easy targets because they are an extreme minority that are viewed negatively by the majority.
This.
I couldn't have said it better myself.
pkcRAISTLIN
quote:
Originally posted by Theresa
I couldn't have said it better myself.
Well of course you couldn’t. 1- youre a chick and its scientifically proven that you have a smaller brain. 2-craig is god’s gift to the human intellect, so even if you were a boy and had a normal-sized brain, it is unlikely you’d compare.
Arbiter
I think that more than anything else, our disagreement boils down to finding different subjective value in the freedom to wear whatever one wants.
Suppose, for instance, that the problem was that some few women were being forcibly drugged with a substance designed to keep them docile. I don't imagine that those opposed to the burqa ban would be equally opposed to a law banning the substance, even if it also happened to be a popular perfume which some people liked using.
Now, you could certainly argue that in such a case the harm to be prevented would also be more severe, and I would tend to agree. But even if that weren't the case, my sense from reading people's posts here is that people wouldn't care as much about banning one perfume out of a broad array of options as they do about banning one garment out of a myriad of choices in that realm.
To me, though, they're pretty much indistinguishable, aside from the fact that you do have to wear something, whereas you can go without perfume entirely. In either cases, you have plenty of options, and no objective reason for choosing between them (or, at least not one that's material to burqas -- as noted above, it would be a different situation if the garment had some functional benefit).
For that matter I don't think see it as particularly different than if you had a factory emitting a chemical that didn't directly harm anyone, but interfered with the effectiveness of certain medications, and the factory could easily burn different raw materials which would be just as cheap and just as effective in every objective sense. But the factory owner just likes burning these raw materials. He doesn't have any good reason for it; it's just a personal preference. This is just what he likes to burn, and by golly life just wouldn't be the same for him if he had to burn alternatives, even though they're objectively just as good and don't lead to any indirect harms in society.
In that scenario, would anyone really advocate that his freedom to exercise his arbitrary choice among what raw materials to use at his factory should trump the government interest in preventing the indirect harms resulting from his preference? I'd imagine not.
So at the bottom, the difference in our points of view seems to have more to do with whether or not the selection of clothing is an activity which should be specially privileged over other areas of freedom. I'm not sure why it should be, so if this is indeed the source of our disagreement, I'd be interested in hearing more about the argument for why freedom in dressing oneself is so peculiarly important relative to the other arbitrary preferences we might have and want to act upon.
Jake Benson
France will have a civil war in about 30 years because Muslims won't integrate.
pkcRAISTLIN
quote:
Originally posted by Arbiter
Suppose, for instance, that the problem was that some few women were being forcibly drugged with a substance designed to keep them docile. I don't imagine that those opposed to the burqa ban would be equally opposed to a law banning the substance, even if it also happened to be a popular perfume which some people liked using.
I wouldn’t oppose the substance just because it was abused, and this would hold true for most goods that can and are misused (except firearms, which for me are an obvious exception). Obviously if a suitable alternative was available for the perfume then I could support the banning of the substance, but if we’re being pedantic the only suitable alternative to the garbage bag is, well, other types of garbage bags (niqab or chador etc).
quote:
Originally posted by Arbiter
In that scenario, would anyone really advocate that his freedom to exercise his arbitrary choice among what raw materials to use at his factory should trump the government interest in preventing the indirect harms resulting from his preference? I'd imagine not.
I feel your analogy is imperfect because there is a direct, causal relationship between the factory’s burning and harm to nearby citizens on particular medications. I do not feel that women freely choosing to wear a burqa are causing the coercion of other women, even if it makes combating/identifying that coercion more difficult.
quote:
Originally posted by Arbiter
So at the bottom, the difference in our points of view seems to have more to do with whether or not the selection of clothing is an activity which should be specially privileged over other areas of freedom. I'm not sure why it should be, so if this is indeed the source of our disagreement, I'd be interested in hearing more about the argument for why freedom in dressing oneself is so peculiarly important relative to the other arbitrary preferences we might have and want to act upon.
Because a piece of clothing, in and of itself, has no direct impact on third parties. I don’t think people owe others a duty of care insofar as we’re talking about dress codes. In countries like the US I would think that clothing would fall under free speech protections, which wouldn’t be giving clothing a special privilege above or beyond other areas of freedom, just the same level of protection available in other similar contexts.
I would prefer legislation tackled the coercion rather than the clothing; make it illegal to force your wife (or daughter) into a garbage bag the same way it’s illegal to beat your wife. Sure, it doesn’t stop men beating their wives, but there are legal avenues open to the wife if her husband is mistreating her.
Moral Hazard
quote:
Originally posted by Arbiter
I think that more than anything else, our disagreement boils down to finding different subjective value in the freedom to wear whatever one wants.
I respectfully disagree; it seems to me the disagreement is whether one's individual freedoms trump public sentiment. You are far too bright to ignore that much of the objection to the burqa and niqab is based entirely on an emotional reaction against "outsiders" and the arguments used to support calls to prohibit these garments are both weak and were manufactured to justify prohibition rathen then prohibition being the logical means to rectify the concerns. For example, if these garments were prohibited there would be relatively no effect on the subjugation of women observed in some Arabic cultural communities since in the minority of cases where the wearing of the garments is connected to subjugation rather then an individual's choice the garment is a symptom rather then a a material contributor... if you use an analgesic to relieve the pain of gout you may succeed in removing the pain but your foot is still pretty ed up. So, it seems that the objection to these garments is really based on them making the majority of western host societies uncomfortable. Discomfort is a pretty weak reason to violate someone's rights. Whether or not we agree that the wearing of these garments is a valid form of cultural or political expression is not important. What is important is that in most western democracies people have the right to express themselves in any means that does not directly negate the rights of others. We cannot simply allow anyone's rights and freedoms to be trampled simply because we don't agree with how they choose to exercise those rights and freedoms.
quote:
So at the bottom, the difference in our points of view seems to have more to do with whether or not the selection of clothing is an activity which should be specially privileged over other areas of freedom. I'm not sure why it should be, so if this is indeed the source of our disagreement, I'd be interested in hearing more about the argument for why freedom in dressing oneself is so peculiarly important relative to the other arbitrary preferences we might have and want to act upon.
Here's the thing though; not violating one's right to express themselves through choice of clothing is not giving clothing a "special privilege;" rather, it is protecting freedom of expression. It's the same freedom that allows us to discuss these issues without fear of the thought police showing up at our door. It's the same freedom that allows us hold cultural festivals, stage plays that challenge conventional norms, hold political rallies, give speaches on street corners, publish books/panphlets/papers without passing them by the government censors first, and ultimately to outwardly be individuals. Perhaps one could argue whether or not allowing individuality is beneficial to society; however, we have already agreed that it is not only beneficial but fundamental, so much so that we've enshrined that right in the highest laws that we have. The debate isn't about clothing; rather, it's about whether or not rights and freedoms are paramount to public opinion... you're supporting the latter here, which has some disturbing similarities to the subjugation problem many supporters of this ban claim it is an effort to fight.
Meat187
A lot of women in a relationship today are not allowed to wear short skirts, high heels and need to cover their because their men force this repressing clothing style on them, based on their own moral values of how a decent woman should look in public. Even the women who voluntarily dress like that indirectly support the oppression of other females in doing so.
The only solution can be to ban modest and unsexy clothing, every woman should be required by law to wear short skirts, high heels and deeply cut tops, better yet, none at all. This is the only way to protect our modern culture from this archaic and backward influence. Women who do not obey shall be fined. Except when they are fat.
No wait, that argument sounds a bit... what is the polite word...? STUPID!
Chimney
quote:
Originally posted by Jake Benson
France will have a civil war in about 30 years because Muslims won't integrate.
No, they won't. They will simply start a political party that will gain huge votes due to the majority. Then it's sharia-law time, baby!
Arbiter
quote:
Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
if we’re being pedantic the only suitable alternative to the garbage bag is, well, other types of garbage bags (niqab or chador etc).
Oh? Why is that? It seems to me that there are plenty of other articles of clothing that fulfill all the utilitarian purposes of these "garbage bags."
quote:
I feel your analogy is imperfect because there is a direct, causal relationship between the factory’s burning and harm to nearby citizens on particular medications. I do not feel that women freely choosing to wear a burqa are causing the coercion of other women, even if it makes combating/identifying that coercion more difficult.
I agree that it's not a perfect analogy, but the casual relationship is no more direct. In the case of the factory, the harm is being directly caused by whatever the underlying cause of the medical condition is, not by the factory's burning. The factory's burning is only interfering with the prevention and/or mitigation of those harms.
quote:
Because a piece of clothing, in and of itself, has no direct impact on third parties. I don’t think people owe others a duty of care insofar as we’re talking about dress codes. In countries like the US I would think that clothing would fall under free speech protections, which wouldn’t be giving clothing a special privilege above or beyond other areas of freedom, just the same level of protection available in other similar contexts.
In the US, clothing does, to some extent, receive protection as free speech (I submit, however, that it should not.) However, I would point out that we already have many restrictions that are significantly more restrictive and which are aimed at preventing much more attenuated--if even extant--harms, e.g., laws purporting to prevent "indecency."
quote:
I would prefer legislation tackled the coercion rather than the clothing; make it illegal to force your wife (or daughter) into a garbage bag the same way it’s illegal to beat your wife. Sure, it doesn’t stop men beating their wives, but there are legal avenues open to the wife if her husband is mistreating her.
If that were an effective alternative, then I agree that it would certainly be preferable.
quote:
Originally posted by Moral Hazard
I respectfully disagree; it seems to me the disagreement is whether one's individual freedoms trump public sentiment. You are far too bright to ignore that much of the objection to the burqa and niqab is based entirely on an emotional reaction against "outsiders" and the arguments used to support calls to prohibit these garments are both weak and were manufactured to justify prohibition rathen then prohibition being the logical means to rectify the concerns. For example, if these garments were prohibited there would be relatively no effect on the subjugation of women observed in some Arabic cultural communities since in the minority of cases where the wearing of the garments is connected to subjugation rather then an individual's choice the garment is a symptom rather then a a material contributor... if you use an analgesic to relieve the pain of gout you may succeed in removing the pain but your foot is still pretty ed up. So, it seems that the objection to these garments is really based on them making the majority of western host societies uncomfortable. Discomfort is a pretty weak reason to violate someone's rights. Whether or not we agree that the wearing of these garments is a valid form of cultural or political expression is not important. What is important is that in most western democracies people have the right to express themselves in any means that does not directly negate the rights of others. We cannot simply allow anyone's rights and freedoms to be trampled simply because we don't agree with how they choose to exercise those rights and freedoms.
This seems to me to be quite wrong in several respects, but I don't think it's particularly worth dissecting every error of what is amounts to nothing more than a straw man argument.
Fledz
quote:
Originally posted by Chimney
Then it's sharia-law time, baby!
In the middle of Europe? Yea good luck with that one.
