Should countries outlaw the hijab, niqab and burka?

Tangle writes:There is no other test other than individual opinion - yours against the European Court of Human Rights.

Tangle writes:Only if you wish to artificially seperate one form of female oppression from another.

ringo writes:Canadian courts have ruled that banning the niqab is not legitimate, so I'm not alone. Maybe Europe just needs to catch up.

What we're talking about here is oppression of women by dictating what they wear: oppression BY government.

Tangle writes:I'd like to read that judgement - do you have a reference?

Tangle writes:And of course it is the restriction of a freedom but it is done in order to benefit the community as a whole and to protect some women from worse oppression and subjugation.

Sharia law is still enforced in approximately 35 nations, where some form of veiling is compulsory. An estimated 83 Sharia courts operate in England today. Many Muslim families living in Western Europe use legal forms of coercion to make girls and women conform to veiling. The murder of Shafilea Ahmed, by her own parents, is a case study in how Europeans respond to these situations of family violence with an embarrassed silence, rather than the kind of outrage that would be seen as appropriate were its victims not exclusively female. The Iranian and Kurdish Women’s Rights Organisation (Ikwro) found last year that 39 out of 52 police forces across the UK had recorded at least 2,823 honour attacks over 2010. Some forces showed a jump of nearly 50 per cent in such cases from 2009. This is the backdrop against which Muslims in Europe claim that wearing the burqa is a choice.The claim that covering yourself up in public is an empowering choice insults the intelligence and dignity of women everywhere, just as the theological claim that the burqa is a necessary defence against predatory male sexuality insults Muslim men insofar as it treats them as fundamentally incapable of responsibility for their sexual behaviour.The reason Western feminists (male or female) object to seeing women in burqas is not that we can’t tolerate diversity, but that the burqa is a symbol of patriarchal Islam’s intolerance of dissent and desire to contain and repress female sexuality.

ringo writes:But it doesn't "benefit the community" any more than banning crosses or banning bindis or banning turbans would benefit the community. And it doesn't protect women from worse oppression and subjugation; it just drives them underground. Banning [arbitrary items of clothing] accomplishes no more than banning alcohol.

Tangle writes:But we know that it is not, it's a requirement which under some forms of islam is enforced.

Tangle writes:Once again, it benefits the community for the reasons that have been presented several times, just saying no it doesn't is not terribly convincing.

Tangle writes:The clothing is not arbitrary nor is it equivalent to crosses or turbans.

ringo writes:I should clarify that the specific case involved wearing the niqab at a citizenship ceremony.

Tangle writes:From what I can gather, your government introduced a law banning niqabs in 2011. There have been legal challenges which look like will result in a Supreme Court hearing.

ringo writes:How is a hijab different from a turban? How is a hijab different from a bindi?

Sharia law is still enforced in approximately 35 nations, where some form of veiling is compulsory. An estimated 83 Sharia courts operate in England today. Many Muslim families living in Western Europe use legal forms of coercion to make girls and women conform to veiling. The murder of Shafilea Ahmed, by her own parents, is a case study in how Europeans respond to these situations of family violence with an embarrassed silence, rather than the kind of outrage that would be seen as appropriate were its victims not exclusively female. The Iranian and Kurdish Women’s Rights Organisation (Ikwro) found last year that 39 out of 52 police forces across the UK had recorded at least 2,823 honour attacks over 2010. Some forces showed a jump of nearly 50 per cent in such cases from 2009. This is the backdrop against which Muslims in Europe claim that wearing the burqa is a choice.
The claim that covering yourself up in public is an empowering choice insults the intelligence and dignity of women everywhere, just as the theological claim that the burqa is a necessary defence against predatory male sexuality insults Muslim men insofar as it treats them as fundamentally incapable of responsibility for their sexual behaviour.The reason Western feminists (male or female) object to seeing women in burqas is not that we can’t tolerate diversity, but that the burqa is a symbol of patriarchal Islam’s intolerance of dissent and desire to contain and repress female sexuality.

ringo writes:I haven't seen any remotely convincing arguments that a dress code for women "benefits the community". Feel free to refresh my memory.

In a Grand Chamber judgement published today, the top rights court ruled that there had been no violation of the European Convention on Human Rights.
The ruling was based on France’s aim of living together with the court accepting the State’s argument that a barrier to other people’s human rights was created by women wearing the burqa.
This barrier centred on the fact that it could stop people from feeling they could socialise with others, breaching their human rights to live in an inclusive society.

Tangle writes: blah blah blah