banning burqas

Overlooking the motives of those who support such measures just because they're bigoted jerks, the aims of the well-meaning seem simply absurd. The scheme seems on a par with trying to put an end to rape by making it illegal for women to have sex.And what will be the upshot? If a woman goes out in a burqa, she will be liable to prosecution. If she does so freely and voluntarily, then the law is not in fact combating the evil it was supposed to prevent. If she does so under compulsion, then why should she be criminalized?Either way, any actual application of the law would be a farce.Now the French proposals also include a law introducing a one-year jail term for men who force their wives to wear the burqa. Would that not by itself address the current social evil without introducing a new one?

It's not entirely just the implied threat of ethereal force, domestic violence is very real amongst religious communities. I can only speak for myself, brought up in a very strict Christian community in the UK, but the threat of both physical force and total ostracision were very real and practiced frequently. The stories I have heard from my Muslim friends (few in number) is that the situation is quite similar there. It is hard to explain to somebody who has never been through it, how pervasive the patriarchal power system can be when relationships are backed up by a rigid social structure and an unfriendly God. Unfortunately it is precisely the kind of power relation which the government is unwilling to challenge, and it can leave children caught in a terrible situation.

The problem with this analogy is that (a) every child is influenced by their upbringing; (b) everyone has their own idea of what exactly is analogous to "eating dirt". To a fundie, it might be teaching one's children about evolution ... to a member of PETA, giving them a taste for meat ... to an atheist, instilling Catholic guilt ... to a Muslim, teaching them to expose themselves to the lascivious gaze of strangers ... to a pacifist, encouraging them to join the Army like Daddy did ... to an anti-vaxxer, having them vaccinated ...Yet it is on the whole desirable that children should be brought up by someone, and no-one can do so while also leaving the child an acultural tabula rasa.

Yes, it would be sufficient to keep me happy, as long as there were a procedure for a wife or daughter to make a complaint without having to be exposed to her husband between the complaint and the trial.

I guess that is solved then. I don't want to ban the burqa but I want to ban men from forcing women to wear the burqa.I'm not entirely sure how this could work in actual practice, that's my only concern. The outright ban would be a LOT bureaucratically easier but may harm women as Ringo and Granny Magda have suggested.

Please consider my mind changed on this issue.The comments above have been very useful to me.Thankyou to all participants.If anybody wishes to suggest how this could actually work in practice, and if the question should be broadened to include other forms of parental abuse such as circumcision (with permission of the admins) let's proceed.

Quite. I wonder how many of them want to actually ban all veils, and how many just the burqa and niqab. I think the only reason for banning the burqa and niqab type veils is identification, like Jar said, and in fact is an argument used in the debate here (well, at least by the political party I voted for, not Wilders, of course, not that I select my party on these stances anyway, but meh). Banning veils is out of the question for me. If the woman wants to wear it, she should go ahead, if she doesn't but still does, well, that's where her priorities come in I guess. Yes, I know it's not as easy for those women to "leave" if they don't want to do what their families want as it is for say, me.

I'm having trouble imagining how to work this. Shall they keep the woman in protective custody while the bureaucratic process works its way out? How about afterward?More importantly, there's a strong doctrine in Western law that the accused has the right to confront their accuser. This has been relaxed in some cases, for good reason, particularly with the sexual abuse of children. It's hard enough to get a little kid to testify that Uncle Bob or Father Guido made him do "bad things" without having the authority figure there involved in the cross-examination.One result of this relaxation has been a massive amount of misuse of these kinds of charges, in a tremendous number of custody cases as well as a shameful flurry of daycare scandals involving "hypnotic regression" and other bizarre methods of creating testimony with impunity.Will the cure be worse than the disease? Murphy's Law applies.

If I may explain my own motivations when opening this thread:The full burqa is an expression of an anti-democratic sentiment, it is an inherently authoritarian statement about the status of women and their relationships to men that is abhorrent to a secular democracy. It is not a neutrally religious piece of clothing but an expression of affiliation with extremist sects whose expressed purposes are at odds with the very nature of secular democracy in toto.As such it could be considered a form of hate speech that denigrates all other citizens.At least some moderate muslims agree with this sentiment, which I believe lends it some legitimacy (http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/...osque-in-paris-suburb-burka).

Iblis, I agree it seems somewhat unworkable. This is the appeal of the original proposal in which veiling is completely outlawed. It stops all of those problems immediately.I am, to be honest, convinced that an outright ban is not workable either, for reasons outlined above. But if it is not possible to ban the forced wearing of a veil it might at least be possible to have a law that no *children* may be veiled.in edit: and for the sake of equality, we could extend such a law to ensure that no child is circumcised or has their labia cut off. Could even have occasional checks for it by a nurse at school.Edited by mick, : No reason given.

Of course. Quite. There is no such thing as a "neutrally religious piece of clothing", I would say. So? Hmm, perhaps I should be more clear ass well. The only reason I see for banning burqa's is the identification problem. I don't think women should be forced to wear burqa's, and this should be banned, but if they want to, I see precious little I can do about it.That's why I said what I did. Banning creates a problem and precedent. The only reason for banning face covering clothing (notice, all (complete) face covering clothing mind you) is for reasons of identification. And I support it for that reason and that reason alone.

ok. I understand

This Burka issue is an interesting one.Obviously I’m totally against any culture that enforces such a restrictive and demeaning dress code.But I find it hard to see that a ban could be effective. For one thing, from a pragmatic point of view, what constitutes a Burka? If you ban the traditional black Burka outfit, what would stop the same women from wearing (or being forced to wear) a full headscarf or balaclava covering everything but their eyes, and a long baggy dress? Or what about a hat, scarf, sunglasses and a boiler suit? These would have exactly the same effect as a Burka, providing a shapeless full covering of the body.But the alternatives don’t feel quite as bad, do they? In fact, if you saw a woman walking down the street wearing a baseball cap, bandana covering her face, sunglasses and a baggy boiler suit, you’d probably think she was at the cutting edge of urban cool. She’s certainly making a statement of some kind, but then so is someone wearing a Burka.This makes me think that the main reason why so many object to the Burka is that it is so obviously alien (and therefore threatening) to Western culture. If the outfits fulfilled the same purpose of covering the whole body but had a more Western look, would they be considered such a problem? It’s no surprise that France was the first country to go for this ban. France already has a big complex about threats to its culture, not least from the pervasiveness of the English language and Anglo-American pop music, movies, etc.It was interesting that most of the arguments that came out of France against the Burka were to do with that type of dress not being part of the French culture. The only really valid argument against this type of dress must be that nobody should be forced to cover their face. But how can you discern in each case whether or not someone is being forced to do this?Anyway, I think the Burka issue is a kind of smokescreen for the squeamish to hide from the more serious issues such FGM and this:Mutilated by the Taliban: The girl of 18 who had nose and ears hacked off for trying to flee cruel in-laws | Daily Mail Online

Well, a completely dumb adherence to the exact prescriptions for a Burqa as dictated by their faith. I mean, if it really doesn;t matter what they wear, as long as their face is covered, don't you think they would've done so by now?Also, this is why I advocate a ban, not on burqa's, but on all (complete) face covering dress styles. But for identification purposes only. I'd think her a loony. I don't care what a person wears if they themselves want to wear it. I do think identification should be possible by just looking at someone, which is why I am against Burqa type style dress items. Or any other face covering dress items for that matter. Yes, idiots are everywhere. I certainly would consider that a problem. Exactly. This is why I say what I do. In theory I have no problem with somone wanting to look like a loony on their own accord. Being forced to look like a loony, or being a symbol for repression is wrong. I mean, if some woman wants to go around awering a T-shirt that says "I'm a good for nothing piece of trash, all men are my superior", I'm not going to stop her. I'll question her sanity, but I won't stop her. What should be stopped is the forceful wearing of any items like that.But for this discussion, I only think the identification issue is the one that's important here. Any other reason isn't valid for banning any piece of clothing.

So you'd ban hats, scarfs and sunglasses?There's a woman who walks through my village in the winter (in fact, even in quite mild weather) always wearing a long shapeless coat with the hood up, gloves and a scarf covering everything but her eyes. I presume that's her choice, so the only issue is one of identification. Should she be banned from dressing like that?What about if Burka type outfits were allowed provided they had individual colour schemes or a unique number on their back for identification purposes?