[Closed] Ban The Burka?

[quote=Junkyard ]Its blindingly obvious to anyone who can think that it is a security issue within banks due to robberies that have occurred rather than a "dress code policy".
I guess banks will do the same when hordes of Muslims keep robbing them

Or just hordes of people wearing full body covering which looks like a burka - I wouldn't want to demonise Muslims for something anybody can do.

Or will they? It may not be hordes, but there's evidence it's happening and no suggestion the banks are about to ban it. If it did become more widespread do you think the banks really would ban it just as simply as they banned motorbike helmets?

[quote=Junkyard ]There is a prescriptive dress code for males in Islam as there are for orthodox jews

Given we're purportedly discussing the burka, is there anything similar to that in what is proscribed for Jewish women, or is there rather less effective difference in what is proscribed for men and women than in Islam?

Junky you are rambling so much I think you must be drunk - no ? Up to your trolling inventing your own pantomime villan to boo and hiss again ? No one of the Jewish or Christian faith is covering their face, man or woman whilst out and about. No matter how orthodox. No one here said Jewish women where being repressed. Remember the Jewish religion predates Islam by 3000 years and its still more enlightened with regards to women and women's rights. What we are saying is that Islam and in particular more traditional forms of it absolutely do repress women.

Well, for once I find myself agreeing with Jambalaya. I massively dislike the Burqa and suspect that there are far more women either forced or culturally encouraged to wear it than actually choose to wear it.

But the way the French are dealing with Muslim community makes Trump look enlightened.

Whilst we're not in any doubt that there are factions of Islam that repress women, it's absolute nonsense to issue a blanket statement..

All muslim families that I've met have a very matriarchal set up when at home, although on the surface the family roles appear quite different to our firmly entrenched western views

I think it's fairly disengenious to argue that Islam doesn't have a woman problem though....and in fact it does a fairly large diservice to those women trying to escape religiously inspired lunacy.

The west has it issues - spousal murder etc, but there isn't a cultural acceptance of covering your women head to toe, honour killings and polygamy.

I find the denial these are an issue, so that one can engage in virtue signalling, frankly a bit sickening.

f it did become more widespread do you think the banks really would ban it just as simply as they banned motorbike helmets?

is there rather less effective difference in what is proscribed for men and women than in Islam?

Both are restrictive , and more so to women than men
I guess we could discuss which is the most repressive if we want to do
What we cannot do is pretend only one is. well we can but only ifwe dont really care about the facts.
In general I am not sure whether being forced to wear a wig and a hat is more or less repressive than wearing a veil. - do you wish to argue eithersi good ? Either is not "repressive" to women or that either dont have different rules for men as for woemn?

can also appreciate that more "orthodox" Islam operates a far more restrictive dress code for women than it does for men and in that regard there isn't a freedom of choice

can also appreciate that more "orthodox" Judaism operates a far more restrictive dress code for women than it does for men and in that regard there isn't a freedom of choice

Bioth are true. Jamby only cares about one of them- what about you?

[quote=Junkyard ]In general I am not sure whether being forced to wear a wig and a hat is more or less repressive than wearing a veil.

I'm fairly sure how I feel about that one.

Bioth are true. Jamby only cares about one of them- what about you?

I care about both if it really is true that both are true and equivalent. But it seems that only one proscribes a face covering for women, whilst both proscribe head and body covering for women, and Orthodox Judaism also proscribes head covering and specific clothing for men (I have no idea what is proscribed for men in Orthodox Islam - genuinely interested in being enlightened). ISTM that there is rather less effective difference in the clothing proscribed for men and women in Judaism simply because of the face covering issue. It is after all mainly the face covering which makes quite normal non-bigoted people uncomfortable.

Though I note that from my (limited) understanding of dress codes in Orthodox Judaism that there isn't actually a huge difference in the level of restriction between the sexes - are you suggesting that the ubiquitous black suit and head covering for men isn't proscribed, or that what the women have to wear is in some way more restrictive than that. I'll admit my ignorance of the specifics, but nothing I've seen mentioned for women seems vastly more restrictive than that.

I'm certainly no more uncomfortable about proscribed clothing for one religion than I am for any other - simply assessing it based on the specifics. The main issue here is one of face covering, something which appears to be unique to Orhtodox Islam. If there's another religion which specifies that then I'll feel just the same about that religion. Though I note that I have no interest in banning any form of clothing (or lack of it) anybody wants to wear.

[quote=jambalaya ]Junky you are rambling so much I think you must be drunk - no ? Up to your trolling inventing your own pantomime villan to boo and hiss again ?I dont drink and clealry i cannot compete with that sort of temperate and well constructed logical and robust argument#frowns- why do you keep saying pantomime villain ? no has ever called you this - why have you developed your own meme for yourself. Most odd

No one of the Jewish or Christian faith is covering their face, man or woman whilst out and about.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haredi_burqa_sect

wrong twice, impressive

No matter how orthodox. No one here said Jewish women where being repressed.

What we are saying is that Islam and in particular more traditional forms of it absolutely do repress women.

I can also appreciate that more "orthodox" Islam operates a far more restrictive dress code for women than it does for men and in that regard there isn't a freedom of choice

I think it's fairly disengenious to argue that Islam doesn't have a woman problem though.

Off course i think the treatment of woman by the religious is poor. the only point i differ on is that I think that there is very little difference between the orthodox of judaism and Islam. However one lot we demonise and the other lot you are a racist if you criticise them.

I am enjoying some of the worst dressed men in the United Kingdom discuss the rights and wrongs of what someone who has nothing to do with them wears.

Let us not forget why the burka is worn.

Not for anything to do with you, so why care?

it seems that only one proscribes a face covering for women,

to draw their cloaks (veils) over their bodies.

whilst both proscribe head and body covering for women, and Orthodox Judaism also proscribes head covering and specific clothing for men (I have no idea what is proscribed for men in Orthodox Islam - genuinely interested in being enlightened)

ISTM that there is rather less effective difference in the clothing proscribed for men and women in Judaism simply because of the face covering issue.

It is after all mainly the face covering which makes quite normal non-bigoted people uncomfortable.

[quote=Junkyard ]It comes from hadith or practice and the fact it is not universally practiced shows its usage is debatable

Sure - that's another debate though - but it's certainly something which is part of the culture of Islam but not part of the culture of any other religion (apart from a small sect only found in Israel).

ISTM that there is rather less effective difference in the clothing proscribed for men and women in Judaism simply because of the face covering issue.

possibly and yes they are different but the point is they BOTH have different rules for men as for women. I feel like this is a bit like going who is the most racist is it the EDL or the BNP.

<google search for pictures>
Lots of things have different rules for men and women. I've done a bit of research and it still seems to me that there's not a huge effective difference in the requirements for Jewish men and women. I note that there is no requirement for Orthodox women to wear a wig, simply a hair covering and hats, scarves or snoods are all used, whilst men are also required to cover their heads. In fact it appears that in some Conservative synagogues women are requested to wear a head covering simply as a gesture of equality with men who are required to wear a head covering.

If anything here, the question isn't which is worse, Islam or Judaism, but whether there's actually a big issue of repression at all in Judaism (any more than there is in any other religion without dress codes or indeed in general society - I'm really struggling to see their dress code as being the big issue). We could of course debate this, but it wouldn't advance the general point very much.

There is no doubt that in Islam the face covering is something which provides a quite clear difference in the dress codes, something which has a significant effect on the interaction with society. Is there really anything so significant in the Jewish dress code?

TBH i have no real idea why folk care, It does not bother me in the slightest re face.
Why do you care ? Genuine Q btw why is it so important we all talk here endlessly and no one sees anyones faces. Is this restricting us in some way ?

I always imagine your face when I'm typing 😉

Though I possibly phrased that wrong - it doesn't really bother me at all, but I am bothered by the repression issue and that it certainly is restrictive on those wearing that sort of dress.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/sep/01/muslim-women-veil-integrate-study

Interesting take on it that is counter intuitive

Gotta love science eh for what how it cuts through our prejudice and bias - it surprised me as well so not a dig at anyone but i suspect few of us would think empirical research would show this
Its on the front page of the guardian I was not googling for articles - I make this point only because i moan at others for confirmation bias it was simply serendipitous rather than indicative of any research in my part

A veil is seen as a genuine expression of a woman’s religiosity. Paradoxically, it is the women who are engaging with the modern world who appear to rely on the veil to signal to others that they will not succumb to the temptations of modern urban life,” he added.

Diego Gambetta, the report’s other co-author, agreed. “Contrary to the populist cant that seems now dominant in Europe, veiling could be a sign of more rather than less integration.

“Highly religious women who have more native friends and live in areas dominated by natives use the veil to keep their pious reputation while being integrated,” said Gambetta, a professor of sociology and an official fellow of Nuffield College, University of Oxford. “Banning or shunning veiling would deprive them of a means that allow them more opportunity for integration rather than marking their differences.”

You snipped this rather important bit:

We conjecture

Correlation does not imply causation and all that. All that waffle is simply their interpretation of the reasons and doesn't appear to be supported at all by the evidence, which is simply evidence of correlation.

Here's my interpretation:
"highly religious" women are subject to pressure from (male) members of their close social group to wear the veil, which increases with modernising forces. This is part of the repression, not an indication of their freedom to choose.

Of course I have no evidence that is the reason, but it's just as valid as their interpretation of the data.

Looking at the abstract, I see nothing to support the claims in the headline or sub-headline (though they do of course both include the word "may" - well muslim women may wear the veil because it blocks some of the smell of modern life, who knows?)

I always imagine your face when I'm typing

whether there's actually a big issue of repression at all in Judaism

I just struggle with the folk who think its only ISlam that is shit to women and then ignore other religions that re also discriminatory

You never explained why the face was so important - its a geunine Q

It seems that women - married- have to cover their hair and men wear a hat
you could argue these are similar or different as you see fit
I think its clear the restriction on women is greater though there are restrictions for both so its less of a difference than in Islam- who is the most sexist basically However it is DEFINITELY different rules for women than for men which was the original point way back when this side bar started.

you snipped this rather important bit:

[quote=Junkyard ]I just struggle with the folk who think its only ISlam that is shit to women and then ignore other religions that re also discriminatory

I'm certainly not suggesting that at all, but we [b]were[/b] discussing dress codes, and however much you might try and argue it I think most of us agree that in Islam the dress code is far more repressive to women (compared to that for men) than it is in any other religion once face covering comes in (I don't personally think the hijab is a big deal one way or another or significantly different to other religions).

You never explained why the face was so important - its a geunine Q

In a more general sense? Because it's a basic part of "face to face" social interaction. Sure there is a lot of non face to face interaction nowadays, but it's always missing something - you know as well as I do the limits of this place and how easy it is to get into heated pointless arguments because we lack some of the normal social cues 😉 If your face is covered in day to day life then you're always missing out on that.

It seems that women - married- have to cover their hair and men wear a hat
you could argue these are similar or different as you see fit

Indeed - as I've said a few times, I'm really not seeing a huge difference. But the point is it is debatable - is women wearing a veil and men not in any way similar? No it's not a question of which is more sexist, it's a question of one being debatably sexist and one being quite clearly sexist.

Not deliberately

I wasn't accusing you of so doing (apologies if I appeared to be) but it does somewhat change the context of those claims - I think I've sufficiently explained why those claims are built on sand. ( 🙂 - in the absence of direct face to face contact that will have to do)

TooTall - Member

Not for anything to do with you, so why care?

Because I care about other people than myself.

It's a tad ironic that women cyclists fought for the right to wear 'rational dress' over 100 years ago and we now have cyclists justifying restrictive and oppressive dress for women. What next, a bikeini?

When I've travelled to ME countries I was always amazed by how all these women seem to have made the same choice for themselves.

Who can blame the French really, all those people covering their faces causing trouble
[img] [/img]
One of the things that seperates the percieved liberal west from the oppressive nations were are complaining about is the freedom to dress how you choose
[img] http://www.christchurchonline24.co.uk/images/trextasty.jp g" target="_blank">http://www.christchurchonline24.co.uk/images/trextasty.jp g"/> [/img]
[img] [/img]

With regard to the beach those chosing not to sit and burn themselves for the entire afternoon are probably making the right choice with regard to skin cancer.

It's a tad ironic that women cyclists fought for the right to wear 'rational dress' over 100 years ago and we now have cyclists justifying restrictive and oppressive dress for women. What next, a bikeini?

The fight for Rational Dress was a fight for women to be able to wear whatever they like. The fight for burkas etc is equally a fight for women to wear whatever they like.

Sure, in some countries, women are forced to cover themselves up. But in some countries men are forced to grow beards. Does that mean in this country every man growing a beard is oppressing themselves and should be made to shave it off?

Burkini banning is just daft.
Integration both ways is highly preferable and much more likely to work.
The ability to see the face is reassuring to many westerners even if it can be assured it shouldn't be. It is.
Really tricky issue but ultimately I respect the rules of the countries I visit our I don't go. Home grown burka wearers are super tricky.

For all I know allan23 has a wealth of experience and knowledge, hence providing him with an opportunity to respond.

Quite a wealth of experience and knowledge thank you.

providing him with an opportunity to respond to the obvious troll.

Fixed it again, you missed some words out.

we now have cyclists justifying restrictive and oppressive dress for women

I wonder how many folk who pontificate on the Burka have ever actually spoken to woman about her choice to wear it ? Have you how extensive is your research?

I am wagering its less than one in a thousand who express this sort of view
This idea that every single Muslim female is a weak willed individual who is utterly under the control of a man is Just ignorant BS- its an acceptable form of racism that Jamby would not accept were Lefties to start saying it about Jews.

If your face is covered in day to day life then you're always missing out on that

we now have cyclists justifying restrictive and oppressive dress for women

It's depressing that women think that they should wear a burka (or maybe in some cases forced or pressurised), it's 2016 and they're living in Europe. As said before integration is a two way street. I'm not in agreement with it as I see it as a form of opressive control over women.

Do you not think the government, in effect, introducing a dress code is repressive in itself?

Whenever I see a lady in western society wearing a Burka, I don't immediately connect it with religious belief and I would never associate it with modesty.

I see someone shouting "look at me, look at me, I'm different!"

People have been dressing to stand out from the crowd since clothes were invented.

Perhaps we should ban clothes?

so that one can engage in virtue signalling, frankly a bit sickening

lolirony

the question is this

are women that cover their faces being forced to do so?

If they are choosing to cover their faces then we would be oppressing them by removing that freedom of choice
so before we ban anything we should be answering the first question

if you can't see this then you are as messed up as any other misogynist of any other faith

Please also remember that we have only given our own women liberty within the last century, and we did not give them liberty by [i]removing[/i] rights

Are burka wearers also banned from wearing brown shoes? Or is that form of oppression restricted to "merchant bankers"?

When I see someone in a burka I sing the song from Mos Eisley Cantina in my head and get on with my day.

see a lady in western society wearing a Burka, I don't immediately connect it with religious belief

there is literally no connection between their religious views and their attire 😕
The same is true of all the muslims you see dressed like Muslims

Tom_W1987 - Member

I find the denial these are an issue, so that one can engage in virtue signalling

You seem like one of the good guys so I think it's only fair to tell you, it's completely impossible to use the term "virtue signalling" without having everyone who sees it think you're a ****. It is an immutable law.

reading with interest some of the comments on this issue.
seems to be a misunderstanding over what a hijab/burka/niqab are:
this is a hijab
[img] [/img]
this is a burka
[img] [/img]
this is a niqab
[img] [/img]

as a muslim i dont agree with the niqab and i never will....but thats down to my interpretation on how a muslim woman should dress.
there is no text in the quran that instructs a woman to cover her face but the guidelines are for her to =dress with modesty and to cover her "adornments" to protect her modesty

And tell the believing women to reduce [some] of their vision and guard their private parts and not expose their adornment except that which [necessarily] appears thereof and to wrap [a portion of] their headcovers over their chests and not expose their adornment except to their husbands, their fathers, their husbands' fathers, their sons, their husbands' sons, their brothers, their brothers' sons, their sisters' sons, their women, that which their right hands possess, or those male attendants having no physical desire, or children who are not yet aware of the private aspects of women. And let them not stamp their feet to make known what they conceal of their adornment. And turn to Allah in repentance, all of you, O believers, that you might succeed.

it all boils down to how an individual interprets what those guidelines mean.
my wife wears a hijab and has a couple of burkas that he soemtimes wears....but i wouldnt be happy if she started wearing a niqab. she knows that but her interpretation is the same as mine and she also doesnt agree with the niqab
but if a muslim woman wants to wear a niqab through her own choice then fair enough but the problem is that its a very grey area as many feel they are doing it through free choice but really that choice is based on a misunderstood guideline
how a muslim woman dresses is no different to how a jewish woman dresses...it all depends on how moderate or orthodox you are in your religious practices and how you interpret the religious guidelines
[img] [/img]
[img] [/img]
[img] [/img]

dress with modesty and to cover her "adornments" to protect her modesty

That's one of my issues with all religions, how come women have to protect their modesty, but men don't?

It's almost as if they were all written by men to keep women in their 'place'.

allan23 - Member

Quite a wealth of experience and knowledge thank you.

Which bizarrely you are choosing to keep to yourself. 😆
Would you care to discuss the reasoning behind the burka allan?
Maybe you can teach me something. 🙂

Gonzy isnt a burqa the full face veil with a grill that covers the eyes as well?[img] [/img]

both judaism and Islam expect the men to dress modestly as well - we have covered this in the thread

sobriety - Member

That's one of my issues with all religions, how come women have to protect their modesty, but men don't?

Because the devil only works through the woman to tempt the man, not the other way around.
Don't blame religion, it's that naughty misogynist devil!

monde - your picture is semi accurate. the abaya, chador, dupata and hijab are all head scarfs.
the abaya is one piece that has a single hole for the face...you can get it in varying lengths but it is usually worn with a burka gown.
the chador is actually a shawl and women tend to use a safety pin to secure it under the chin.
the dupata is actually a loosely worn variant of the hijab.
as for the burka...it is a long gown that is work=n to cover a womans body and is worn in addition to a headscarf...usually a chador, abaya or hijab.
the niqab is just the face veil. women who tend to wear the niqab also wear the burka and the common mistake is to assume the burka and niqab are the same thing.

both judaism and Islam expect the men to dress modestly as well - we have covered this in the thread

Gonzy all the definitions I had seen (and my understanding) is that a burka covers the face with just a slit for the eyes or even less showing a mesh.

Where are the photos of the Jewish people taken ? The only places I have ever heard of Jewish women being dressed like that is in very strict Muslim countries where all women of any faith are required to be covered. I can show you millions of images of women in Israel dressed as Western women would dress. One of the advocay groups was circulating photos of Musim women in Burkinis on the beech in Tel Aviv last week. It's their choice to wear them and it's permitted.

I have arranged a business trip to Saudi where I was told a female colleague would have to wear a burka in the street and have her hair covered at all times. That's a rule of the country for religious reasons amd applied to all visitors irrespective of faith. Not surprisingly she decided not to join us

Modesty of dress in Islam for men does not include having your face and or even hair covered. A man can show his ankles too for example. A man can go out on his own. I have been on a few holidays to traditional Muslim countries/refions where you simply do not see any women out and about and certainky not in a cafe for example.

Nun's are people who have chosen to dedicate their lives to God and live in a special religious environment, the female equivalent to a monk. Muslim women in a burka are generally simply a wife or daughter trying to go about their normal life.

jambalaya - i dont know where the middle picture has been taken....looks like an airport of some sort...the top picture looks like its at the wailing wall and the bottom picture looks like it could be either israel of palestine

Gonzy all the definitions I had seen (and my understanding) is that a burka covers the face with just a slit for the eyes or even less showing a mesh.

the saudis are idiots...its only because they are custodians of our most holy sites that they are in an elevated position of power. their wahabi ideology is frowned upon by the vast majority of muslims...except the fundamentalist nutjobs who are financed by them

Modesty of dress in Islam for men does not include having your face and or even hair covered. A man can show his ankles too for example. A man can go out on his own.

like ive already said before....there is nothing in the quran that says a woman must cover her face.
as for the restriction on women going out on their own...thats is more to do with culture and less to do with religion
men are supposed to wear clothes that do not fall below the ankles. many muslim men dont but those that do are actually required to roll their garments up over the ankle especially when prying

Prying:'excessively interested in a person's private affairs; too inquisitive'
Hmm

yet some sects and many liberals allow western dress with no head scarves at all

the saudis are idiots...its only because they are custodians of our most holy sites that they are in an elevated position of power

I have arranged a business trip to Saudi where I was told a female colleague would have to wear a burka in the street and have her hair covered at all times

Interestingly at that time it did seem there was a certain amount of "testing" of the system by younger Saudi women. Although veiled, the veils were becoming very fine. Stand next to someone clad like this and their features (and makeup) were easily discernable. Oh and there are (or certainly were) areas of Saudi where local tribal custom meant women did not wear veils.

Maybe I'm pretty sanguine regarding dress standards as a result of seeing fully veiled women everywhere I went. Back in Manchester even with it's multi-cultural population, the number of women in veils is tiny, so it's not something that particularly bothers me.

Apart from that, as an atheist and liberal, I would like to see an end to all religiously based pronouncements.

What age do girls have to start wearing hijabs/burqas/niqabs? What would happen to them if they decided to reject it?

I see someone shouting "look at me, look at me, I'm different!"

Yeah & ?

Which bizarrely you are choosing to keep to yourself.
Would you care to discuss the reasoning behind the burka allan?
Maybe you can teach me something.

Not bizarrely, quite sensibly as you are not interested in discussion, education or open mindedness, you are only interested in people confirming your bias or trying to shoot down those that disagree.

You've already confirmed a lack of understanding of Islam, if you don't know where then I suggest you go back and read your comments.

Hint: All the Muslim women I've ever worked with have been able to attend Mosque.

Back under your bridge.

Or perhaps as custodians they feel certain obligations?

their only obligations is to preserve the holy sites and to ensure the safe passage of pilgrims.
in reality they abuse their position of power...this abuse led to the closure of one of the main walkways to Mina during the 2015 Hajj pilgrimage because a royal wanted to give some of his friends a tour...the closure led to a stampede which resulted in the deaths of over 2000 pilgrims
this same saudin royal family are hell bent on trying to turn mecca into some sort of arab las vegas with some of the building projects going on
this same saudi government is complicit in shady dealings with terrorist organisations and has had its hand in many of the middle eastern troubles
it also has an extensive world wide programme of trying to promote its wahabist ideology...an ideology which treats women as second class citizens, endorses capital and corporal punishment and treats non arabs with contempt
all the while they will show the muslim world that they are the beacon of islam when in reality they are hypocrites and religious zealots who gamble, live excessively, drink alcohol and fornicate at will

the question is this

are women that cover their faces being forced to do so?

If they are choosing to cover their faces then we would be oppressing them by removing that freedom of choice
so before we ban anything we should be answering the first question

+1.

Are so many folks really unable to grasp the simple concept that some of the wearers might be doing so out of choice??

The level of intolerance & ignorance here some days is really quite depressing..

[quote=mrlebowski ]Are so many folks really unable to grasp the simple concept that some of the wearers might be doing so out of choice??
The level of intolerance & ignorance here some days is really quite depressing..

Before you declare everybody intolerant, perhaps you should check exactly how many actually want to ban the burka/niqab. Questioning whether such dress codes are appropriate or repressive doesn't mean you want to ban them.

repressive

It's only repressive if the wearer is being forced.

If you force someone to stop wearing the burqa et a whose chosen tol then whose being the repressive one?

Before you declare everybody intoleran

?

Did I actually say everyone? No I said:

Are so many folks really unable to grasp the simple concept that some of the wearers might be doing so out of choice??

That's really quite different to claiming 100% of posters are against the burqa - don't try to put words in my mouth!

TL;DR, it's all about choice, yes? Forcing bad, choosing good.

Is it really that black and white?

An interesting question might be, [i]why [/i]are (some) women to dress in such a manner? I'm guessing of course but I'm fairly certain it's not simply a fashion statement. Doing it to please their husband or because they believe their religion requires it is still a "choice" but it's not really free will is it; they're not forced to wear it but there may be pressure or coercion involved.

Where I'm going with this is, people like the lady mentioned earlier who felt that hiding her face made integration easier, shouldn't we be asking why? Is there more we can do so that they wouldn't feel compelled to hide? Counselling maybe?

Banning clothing isn't the answer, because as we've discussed it just replaces one restriction with another. If we genuinely want to fight oppression then we need to tackle the root cause rather than a symptom.

All the Muslim women I've ever worked with have been able to attend Mosque.

Coincidentally, I drove past a large mosque this morning (I don't normally but had to take a detour). I noticed the front door was huge and had a big sign saying "MAIN ENTRANCE," and round the back was a smaller door signed "ENTRANCE FOR LADIES." I'm sure all the ladies use it by choice though.

The Burka ban in public spaces is to well and truly to cross the Rubicon - Equally to litigate againt private property owners' right to discretionary measures is also in direct opposition to classical liberalism which recognises the inalienable right to discrimination without persecution ..

perhaps you should check exactly how many actually want to ban the burka/niqab. Questioning whether such dress codes are appropriate or repressive doesn't mean you want to ban them.

I hate the phrase but it does seem to be white men getting offended on behalf of Muslim women because you have decide they wear it because a man has forced them to. This "hypothesis" - I would call it ignorance personally- will not stand up to much analysis.

I dont like the way some women wear lots of make up- i bet there is some society pressure there to look good as well as personal choice - can I ban it ? or is it basically none of my business how they dress?

it is still a "choice" but it's not really free will is it; they're not forced to wear it but there may be pressure or coercion involved.

Is there more we can do so that they wouldn't feel compelled to hide? Counselling maybe?

This "hypothesis" - I would call it ignorance personally- will not stand up to much analysis.

It's certainly what you'd hope for, however the ignorant & lazy will always find a way to ignore the truth.

I dont think it would be well received to suggest Muslim women need counselling due to the clothes they wear.

That's not really what I meant, it's nothing to do with clothing. Point was if they're wearing something because, say, they don't feel safe, the solution is to make them feel safe surely.

Counselling is the wrong word, I meant support really, whether that's for the woman in question or around educating the people she's attempting to integrate with.

Whenever I see a lady in western society wearing a Burka, I don't immediately connect it with religious belief and I would never associate it with modesty.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/sep/01/muslim-women-veil-integrate-study

“We conjecture that for highly religious women modernising factors raise the risk and temptation in women’s environments that imperil their reputation for modesty: veiling would then be a strategic response, a form either of commitment to prevent the breach of religious norms or of signalling women’s piety to their communities.

“Highly religious women who have more native friends and live in areas dominated by natives use the veil to keep their pious reputation while being integrated,” said Gambetta, a professor of sociology and an official fellow of Nuffield College, University of Oxford. “Banning or shunning veiling would deprive them of a means that allow them more opportunity for integration rather than marking their differences.”

“As you might expect, we found the tendency for veil wearing decreases among young, highly educated women when they are exposed to modern influences if they are ‘averagely religious’ Muslim women,” Gambetta said. “However, Muslim women who are ‘highly religious’ tend to increase their wearing of religious head coverings and use more conservative styles as the level of modernisation, or ‘risks’ they are exposed to, increase.”

So, whilst the veil helps women to integrate as it means that they are actually allowed to go outside - it does mean that sections of the Muslim community are prejudiced against their own countries culture.

This is why many people find the Veil, Burqa and Burqini offensive - it is indirectly saying that you are dirty kuffar.

Correlation does not imply causation and all that. All that waffle is simply their interpretation of the reasons and doesn't appear to be supported at all by the evidence, which is simply evidence of correlation.

Here's my interpretation:
"highly religious" women are subject to pressure from (male) members of their close social group to wear the veil, which increases with modernising forces. This is part of the repression, not an indication of their freedom to choose.

Of course I have no evidence that is the reason, but it's just as valid as their interpretation of the data.

Looking at the abstract, I see nothing to support the claims in the headline or sub-headline (though they do of course both include the word "may" - well muslim women may wear the veil because it blocks some of the smell of modern life, who knows?)

+1

Back to the OP's original post...

Is it acceptable for folks to not like it? Within reason, I think so. Some just aren't happy not being able to see someones face. That is about the only reasonable premise I can think of.

Is it in some circumstances repressive? Yes, if the wearer is being forced to wear it.

Can we tell from looking if the wearer is dressed so out of choice? No, of course not.

So what, as an evolved & (allegedly) enlightened society do we do?

If we are ban the burqa et al then we are guilty of repression - logic dictates that's a retrograde step. So, do we accept it & try to ensure that nobody is being subjugated? After all, two wrongs do not make a right.

We can argue whether Islam subjugates till we are blue in the face & I think sharper men than us (certainly me!) have done so with no clear equivocal answer. Yes, some branches do & no, some don't. Then you have to take into account there's those who have chosen to dress so..

Arguing that it should be banned is an illogical, backwards, unintelligent step. I would strongly advise to resist it.

This is why many people find the Veil, Burqa and Burqini offensive - it is indirectly saying that you are dirty kuffar.

I think there are more important things to worry about than what a complete stranger thinks of you..

Back to the OP's original post...

Is it acceptable for folks to not like it? Within reason, I think so. Some just aren't happy not being able to see someones face. That is about the only reasonable premise I can think of

Is it in some circumstances repressive? Yes, if the wearer is being forced to wear it.

Can we tell from looking if the wearer is dressed so out of choice? No, of course not.

So what, as an evolved & (allegedly) enlightened society do we do?

If we are ban the burqa et al then we are guilty of repression - logic dictates that's a retrograde step. So, do we accept it & try to ensure that nobody is being subjugated? After all, two wrongs do not make a right.

We can argue whether Islam subjugates till we are blue in the face & I think sharper men than us (certainly me!) have done so with no clear equivocal answer. Yes, some branches do & no, some don't. Then you have to take into account there's those who have chosen to dress so..

Arguing that it should be banned is an illogical, backwards, unintelligent step. I would strongly advise to resist it.

This is why many people find the Veil, Burqa and Burqini offensive - it is indirectly saying that you are dirty kuffar.

I think there are more important things to worry about than what a complete stranger thinks of you..

I agree with the first part. I don't agree with your last statement, ultra-conservative attitudes and their conflict with western ideals is what leads to Muslim alienation and radicalisation. As has been pointed out by a Muslim counter-radicalisation expert that I have linked to on here on a number of occasions. So it is important.

don't agree with your last statement, ultra-conservative attitudes and their conflict with western ideals is what leads to Muslim alienation and radicalisation.

I think I get where you're coming from - Islam isn't black & white.

I'd still say that I really couldn't care less what a total stranger thinks of me but I understand your point & accept it. Still not grounds for a ban IMHO.

I don't agree on a ban either, it's a really moronic way of going about trying to resolve differences - these things are best done by trying to engage the Muslim community in a more friendly dialogue.

We need to be denying the zealots propaganda ammunition not giving it to them.

^^^ this.

I'd much rather we ruled iend-to-end encryption illegal and gave Government the right to intercept any communications with a warrant than worry about what women are wearing.

Gonzy thanks for the comments

LOL

You work in finance as well don't you Jamby, I can't believe you want to open up buisness to corruption by giving the government amd hackers the power to see and intercept everything.

We'll be going back to type writers and ****ing carrier pigeons for secure corporate communications. Thousands of people die each year due to cars - but we accept that because "the economy" - well, how people have died indrectly due to end to end encyption this year?

I assumed J's comment was more along the lines of "if we really must do something drastic and over the top I'd rather it be banning encryption than banning clothing".

If that's the case I'd agree; at least banning encryption hits everyone rather than singling out a weak minority group, however impractical and fruitless it would be.

A bit off track - apologies

Tom we've had encryption for as long as I can remember (I studied it a bit at Uni in '81) the issue is whether it's uncrackable including that the service provider has no way of seeing the contents. we've survived happily without uncrackable personal messaging, banks have operated just fine.

Phii I have to say I don't think banning such encryption is "ridiculous" France and Germany are pressing the EU to make it EU wide law that you cannot use it.

IMO the service providers are doing 2 things - first and least important its great marketing, your messages are secret and private. Secondly and most importantly it means the service provider cannot be liable for message contents and cannot be required to monitor for keywords. Its a grand cover-your-arse excersize.

I can't help thinking if it was white blokes telling white women they couldn't go out unless they wore all that stuff, there'd be outrage. It seems that because these women aren't white (generally), different rules seem to apply.

Just because someone says they do it through choice doesn't mean we can't employ concepts like 'ideology' where someone's expressed interests don't necessarily coincide with their 'real' interests. Some turkeys will vote for Christmas.

we've survived happily without uncrackable personal messaging, banks have operated just fine.

Banks operate just fine because they had branches. Remember those?

Phii I have to say I don't think banning such encryption is "ridiculous"

On a scale of 0 to 10, where 0 is "perfectly sensible" and 10 is "full Jamba," that statement rates about 13. Strong encryption shouldn't be banned, it should be mandatory.

🙂

No app messaging system should be uncrackable by manufacturer/service provider or government security services. Whats App / Facebook / Telegram etc have no need for any encryption at all.

As I said Germany and France are working to change EU to make encryption look as I am advocating.

That's right, because no-one legitimate ever uses messenger services to transmit sensitive information.

Strong encryption shouldn't be banned, it should be mandatory.

Exactly how would you ban encryption? Isn't it a bit late?

Force whatsapp, messenger etcetera to use cleartext, then people will just use something else that's progressively harder to intercept. Then it turns into an endless game of whackamole that can't be won as encryption is out there, is easy to use and can be hidden anywhere.

It's raining outside, I'm tempted to see how long it takes to make an encrypted messaging system that works by representing encrypted messages as a series of cat pictures. Nobody would ever spot that. Hmmmm...

Stenography.

http://www.makeuseof.com/tag/4-ways-to-hide-secret-messages-in-pictures/

As a citizen of this country and I am perfectly entitled to have a personal conversation that cannot be snooped on by the government what I do is none if their ****ing business - do you think they will share everything they do with us? EVERYONE is entitled to privacy

Why Jamby is advocating an electronic North Korea or Stazi type system is completely lost on me

allan23 - Member

Not bizarrely, quite sensibly as you are not interested in discussion, education or open mindedness, you are only interested in people confirming your bias or trying to shoot down those that disagree.

You've already confirmed a lack of understanding of Islam, if you don't know where then I suggest you go back and read your comments.

Hint: All the Muslim women I've ever worked with have been able to attend Mosque.

Now you are being deliberately misleading.

My earlier comment was obviously made in reference to the gender segregation that occurs in mosques.
Are you going to try and tell me this doesn't happen?
It is pertinent to the discussion, like the reasons behind women covering up, which you don't seem to want to discuss whilst accusing me of not being interested in discussion. 😕

FWIW, I used to think Islam was just a slightly different flavour of that other silliness Christianity, but due to a friend converting to Islam I thought I'd educate myself in the religion. That's why I've attended mosques and have the opinions I have.

But then if you are going to use strawmen to try and suggest I'm a troll in a lazy effort to avoid discussion then there is no point.
Perhaps if you believe that having different views is trolling then you may have spent too much time here.

Gay ga zinta hate.

Say what you will but the EU is going to outlaw uncrackabke end to end encryption, wait and see. We got by without it for decades, we will do so again. It was always possible to tap your phone / mobile with a warrant/court order, all electronic comms should be the same.

It's easy to ban it, licence apps and if they don't comply they are not permitted. ISP and mobile companies are obliged to fall into line and VPN providers will be required to be registered also.

Trust me the providers aren't using end to end encryption for "civil rights" purposes its marketing and cover-their-arse so they can't be asked to police content or be held responsible for not doing so.

Trust me

Just follow the news then. You have never had the ability before to have a private electronic conversation before by phone or mobile without it being aubject to interception via a court order. You are asking for a new right.

No app messaging system should be uncrackable by manufacturer/service provider or government security services. Whats App / Facebook / Telegram etc have no need for any encryption at all.