banning burqas

Hi, this is a new thread proposed for the coffee house.There is recently talk of banning the burqa in a few European countries and in Canada.In France, Parliamentarians support a ban due to their support of "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." but we discover (in the previous link) that the socialists were initially opposed to the ban but changed tune after intervention from feminists while communists were in favour.In the UK, we have a centrist commentator who threatens to start wearing a burqa if such a ban went ahead, and we have a centre-right government who agrees with him, in opposition to a more-or-less fascist party.In Canada we have Muslims themselves calling for a ban but they are opposed by the right wing National PostSo confusing! Where is a liberal humanist to stake out his position?I took a look at the website of RAWA, since this is one case where listening to the point of view of Afghan women seems sensible. They seem to be saying that the burqa is undesirable and undignified, but appears to be useful as a means of disguising one's identity. But it is clear that they are against it and see it as a wholly fundamentalist male-enforced dress. It is less clear whether they would like it banned or merely optional (I sent them this question in an email with a cash donation - I'll post their response here if it comes back).

​

I find myself torn between liberalism (let everybody wear what they say they want to wear), feminism (let no woman be socially nullified and silenced) and multiculturalism (let everybody wear what they wear, and hope it sorts itself out in the end).

​

Ultimately I am tentatively thinking that it might be a case where the majority undemocratically should tread on the lives of the minority, for a higher purpose. Burqas are inherently sexist and an assault on the dignity of both men and women, and we in free countries should ban them as an expression of antidemocratic sentiment. Bit I am uncomfortable to find myself in agreement with British nazis.

​

What do you think? Do you have any further information on what burqa-wearers themselves say? I would like to form a coherent opinion on this issue and hope for a sensible non-Islamophobic discussion.

​

Best wishes to you all,

​

Mick

Thread copied here from the banning burqas thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.

Good topic and good opening post.Normally I am against a government telling anyone how to behave, but this burka business is beyond the bounds of civilized behavior.But the rot goes much deeper than the burka. The burka is only a symptom of a deeper and more serious problem.That problem is theocracy, and theocracy by force.All civilized societies should be against that.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

A few random thoughts, in no particular order. Banning anti-democratic sentiments in the name of freedom??? Better think that one out a bit more.It seems to me that there are some parallels in this discussion and the question of legalizing prostitution. Many feminists argue it should be banned because it's demeaning to women and fosters an atmosphere of violence against women. Other feminists argue that banning deprives all women of the right to choose what to do with their own bodies.My personal position on most questions that require balancing the desires of society against the rights of the individual is to protect the rights of the individual. Society is in a much better position to take care of its own interests than is the individual. Thus, while there may be many (or even most) Muslim women who do not like it, I'm not willing to assume that none of them do. A ban would prohibit those who wish to wear one from doing so.For those who wish freedom from the burqa, it occurs to me that there are problems considerably more oppressive of women than just burqas. Perhaps a more comprehensive approach that addresses all of those oppressive features would be more effective. For example, provide women who wish to extract themselves from that culture a genuine opportunity to do so.Oftentimes, when people see a truly evil institution, their first reaction is "Do something!" Everyone jumps on the bandwagon, but nobody has any real idea what to do or how to go about it. They then all settle for some symbolic gesture that really does very little to address genuine problems. This strikes me as a example of that phenomenon. Muslim oppression of women in the 21st century boggles the mind, and it's seductive to ban burqas and feel you've at least done something, rather than create real solutions to the problem.My few cents for what it's worth....

---

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas JeffersonFor we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack ObamaWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- PhatIt has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

Couldn't agree more with these sentiments, but I disagree that they result in the conclusion that we should ban burqas. What's the difference between theocracy by force and banning certain forms of religious expression?

---

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas JeffersonFor we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack ObamaWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- PhatIt has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

Generally I am opposed to dress code type banning, but in the case of the burqas I can see where society has several compelling reasons to support banning them.The one that I think could be supported is identification. Society does have a valid interest there.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

There is a libertarian (with a lower case 'L') in me that worries when people talk about banning people from wearing certain clothes. Nobody should be forced to wear something they do not want to, but we absolutely do NOT stand in solidarity with Muslim women by taking a fanatical and fundamental stand against a simple freedom such as choice of dress. Making new laws such as this is a primitive and childish knee jerk reaction to an inability to solve a deeper problem which in my opinion is the West's base hypocrisy in how we deal with the Middle East and Africa. We cannot be "shocked" by the behavior in Sudan, Somalia, Afghanistan, etc while at the same time giving a pass to Saudi Arabia, Egypt, UAE, etc. Perhaps you should feel uncomfortable. It is that feeling that should cause to you re-evaluate your views. Its called having a conscious, its a good thing and you should listen to it.

---

If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. --Thomas Jefferson

*Blink* You did not just say that did you?Liberalism? I'm sorry, but I am at a loss for proper words.Supppose I raise my kids to to think that they are worse than dirt. And to keep reminding them of this, I make them eat off the ground. Over time, my kids will actually be happy to eat off the ground. Given the choice, they will gladly eat off the ground right at my feet.Is your liberalism suppose to keep you from interfering with this sadistic culture?I'm sure there are plenty of slaves around the world who don't know any better and thus are perfectly happy with their status as slaves. Is your liberalism suppose to keep you from interfering with how those slaves are treated?Just because we, as liberals, tolerate other cultures even though they are different doesn't mean we have to tolerate things that are inhumane in those cultures.What's next? Are you going to be torn about female genital mutilation as well because of your liberal tolerance of other people's cultures?

Please, give me a break! I am uncomfortable, have clearly stated that I am uncomfortable, and I am here to re-evaluate my views. Ok?I am left wondering if you want me to also believe in banning strip clubs and Daisy Dukes, or not. You haven't actually made your position clear.

Quite. It may be that my notion of liberalism is inadequate. I have always thought that it is best surmised by the notion that "everybody should be free to do what they like, discounted by harm caused to others". How the discounting works is an interesting question. In the case of eating dirt, I suppose the harm is quite clear.So do you think that a liberal should vote to ban burqas, on the basis that they harm the individual, or not?I am really not here for a fight, just to learn and hear the opinion of others.

I don't see any real difference between forcing women to wear the burqa and banning them from wearing it.

---

Life is like a Hot Wheels car. Sometimes it goes behind the couch and you can't find it.

Theocracy by force attempts to subert democracy by appeal to religious doctrine.If religious doctrine is inherently anti-democractic (i.e., it tells us that women should play no part in democratic policy formation, and should instead be invisible) then we need to protect democracy from religious doctrine.It is purely a value judgement - do we prefer the predominance of democracy or the predominance of religious doctrine? To me, the answer seem straightforward.in edit: Let's put it this way - democracy and religion can get on fine, as long as religion does not challenge the democratic process. By which I mean the fundamental democratic view that women and men have equal standing in society. If religion makes demands that counter this view, it seems to me that it is religion that should bend rather than democracy.Edited by mick, : No reason given.

Ok, what if the dirt is microwaved first? No, I don't think a liberal should vote to ban it. There are so many other things to worry about than the damn burqas. I think it should be down in the thousandths right after which method of eating oyster is better by the order of importance on the to-do list. Once they've solved everything from world hunger to female genital mutilation to curing homosexuality, then maybe, just maybe, the burqas could then become a real issue.In the mean time, it has no moral status, just like me walking down the street on a sunny day.

So you would vote to not ban burqas because of the existence of world hunger and female genital mutilation? I don't understand the logic, but fair enough. I guess you want to solve one problem at a time and they absolutely must be ranked in order of magnitude...

From what I have read on blogs, it seems that liberals are split on this issue.I don't mean that some liberals are going one way, and some the other. Rather, they seem to have an internal disagreement with themselves.The basic principle is that the government should not be interfering with what is really a personal decision. The conflict comes because people aren't so sure that they should count this as a personal decision given that the burquas are used for cultural oppression of women.I think that I lean to some sort of restriction on their use, but I still have that internal conflict over the issue.