Legislation to ban burqa is liberal overkill, UK researchers claim

May 11, 2012

Banning and criminalising the Muslim face veil tests the very foundations of modern liberal society, warn researchers from Queen Mary, University of London and the University of Sussex.

The paper ‘Reasons to Ban? The Anti-Burqa Movement in Western Europe’ examines the move to legislate against, and to criminalise face-veiling which has swept across the EU recently.

The European movement against face-veiling is now widespread, with calls to implement a ban, or a ban being in place, in France, Belgium, Italy, Spain, the Netherlands, Scandinavia, and Germany.

This move from country to country makes it seem like a form of “political Swine Flu”, suggests the paper’s authors, Prakash Shah, Senior Lecturer at the School of Law, QM and Ralph Grillo, Emeritus Professor of Social Anthropology at Sussex.

Face-veiling is capable of multiple interpretations, by those who wear it and those who do not, both and non-Muslim. Dr Shah explains: “While some claim that face-veiling is a customary rather than religious practice, others condemn it as an instance of ‘quintessential radical Islam’ – a Western extreme interpretation of Islam and Muslim practice.”

The current rush to legislate, the academics note, is set in the context of a ‘backlash’ against multiculturalism that has been developing across Europe. In France and other countries, security, identification and order have been central to legislative debates since the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

Despite less than one per cent of Muslim women wearing the burqa or niqab in the West, critics also argue that the veil impedes societal integration and breeds ‘dangers inherent in self-enclosed communities’. It is seen as a symbol of the failure of the Muslim women who wear the veil to visibly declare their loyalty to the nation-state where they reside.

In Britain, and other countries too, multicultural ‘diversity’ is officially welcomed, but not when interpreted as ‘difference’. “Difference”, explains Dr Shah, “is identified as beliefs and practices which contravene principles of liberal democracy that underpin governance in much of Europe.”

Dr Shah says: “What was previously thought tolerable has now become unacceptable, and moreover, subject to the law. The legislation which has criminalised face-veiling has clearly originated with the belief, that face-veiling does not fit with European society, culture and values, and has all manner of disagreeable if not downright dangerous implications, especially for women.”

Face-veiling signifies an unwelcome racial or cultural presence, making it impossible for Muslims to be treated as ‘European’ unless they adopt ‘European’ sartorial practice.

“Face-veiling is one of those issues, like public prayers or arranged marriages, affected by a ‘repressive’ liberalism of the kind advocated by numerous European leaders, including Angela Merkel, Nicolas Sarkozy and David Cameron, often with racist undertones.

“The educative role of law is brought to bear upon ethnic and religious minorities in an effort to instruct, by force if necessary, the values of liberalism,” warns Professor Grillo.

It is also clear that many opponents sincerely believe that whether a religious or cultural symbol, face veiling is a non-liberal practice that penalises and subordinates women.

If women claim that they are not coerced into face-veiling but do so because it accords with their faith, then it is countered by saying, they have been ‘brainwashed’, notes the research.

“Freeing women from what is believed to be their submission to a patriarchal society, overrides their freedom to choose and express their religious beliefs. Anti-face-veiling discourse operates like a closed system, impervious to argument,” says Professor Grillo.

Criminalisation, the researchers argue, should always be a last resort, not least when it may harm those it is supposed to assist, for example, forcing women who voluntarily adopt the face-veil to disappear from public life.

“Legislators have sought to impose a particular narrative of the face-veil, and it is unfortunate that they have taken it upon themselves to declare a position strongly against face-veiling based on a number of narrow grounds. Leaning on the law stifles what might otherwise be a ‘natural’ dialogue among Muslims and non-Muslims, about the veil’s significance and future in Europe,” Dr Shah concludes.

The full paper, ‘Reasons to Ban? The Anti-Burqa Movement in Western Europe’, is accessible, via: www.mmg.mpg.de/publications/wo… apers/2012/wp-12-05/

Explore further: New research shows sportswomen still second best to sportsmen... in the press

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Modern society made up of all types

Nov 04, 2010

Modern society has an intense interest in classifying people into ‘types’, according to a University of Melbourne Cultural Historian, leading to potentially catastrophic life-changing outcomes for those typed – ...

Tokyo subway attack responses 'eroded freedoms'

Mar 06, 2012

The 1995 terrorist atrocity on the Tokyo Subway which killed thirteen people has led to a worrying erosion of religious freedom in Japan, according to one of Britain’s leading scholars in Japanese studies.

Recommended for you

Beyond human: Exploring transhumanism

Nov 25, 2014

What do pacemakers, prosthetic limbs, Iron Man and flu vaccines all have in common? They are examples of an old idea that's been gaining in significance in the last several decades: transhumanism. The word ...

User comments : 132

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Aryeh_Z
4.1 / 5 (13) May 11, 2012
It is interesting that the term "over kill" is used because that is exactly what can happen in most Islamic countries to someone wearing the symbols of an "infidel," i.e. none Islamic, religion, they will be killed. Hardly a month passed without a horrific story somewhere in the world of Muslims butchering and mutilating people for the crime of wearing a cross, carrying a Bible, being Jewish or Hindu. So to stop the inroads of Islam into civilized nations, it is legitimate to engage in a bit of "over kill."
rwinners
3.5 / 5 (11) May 11, 2012
If that veil didn't offer the possibility of a known terrorist or terrorist sympathizer to avoid detection, I'd agree. Unfortunately, these people are a victim of their religion and their tribes actions. I cannot think of a way of accommodating the veil without endangering the greater society in which we live. There is nothing to be done about it except eliminating the veil.
CHollman82
2.2 / 5 (11) May 11, 2012
Maximize freedom.

Let them wear their stupid face masks, no reason not to.
Lex Talonis
3.8 / 5 (12) May 11, 2012
The veil is useful, if your living in the DESERT, and walking around in the HOT sun for hours.....

Or as a way to help keep your head warm in cold climates, though I have yet to see a knitted woolen one.

Islam is just more cult based bullshit - same as any religion.

Brainwashing for Bucks, Fucks and Fun.
Jeddy_Mctedder
3 / 5 (6) May 11, 2012
keep proporganda articles like this off physorg. i mean, this isn't even 'social science' ...so what the FUCK is this doing on our fine site. ????
kaasinees
2.7 / 5 (14) May 12, 2012
Make a law that prohibits facial cover in public places, shops schools etc. no need to mention the burka explicitly.
Nik_2213
not rated yet May 12, 2012
Our local supermarket (UK) already has anti-theft policy that requires customers to bare their heads and show their faces at the entrance. There's a photo-booth for those who don't want to do this in public...
CHollman82
2.5 / 5 (11) May 12, 2012
Make a law that prohibits facial cover in public places, shops schools etc. no need to mention the burka explicitly.


Who are you to tell anyone else what articles of clothing they can or cannot wear?

I see you don't give a crap about personal freedom.
Nik_2213
5 / 5 (6) May 12, 2012
"Who are you to tell anyone else what articles of clothing they can or cannot wear?"
If you wear a ski-hood or a cap pulled down over your face, or just a hoodie, they do *not* want you as a customer. And, as the shop is private property not a public space, they can make their ban stick. Like it says, they reserve the right to exclude you.
freethinking
3.5 / 5 (8) May 12, 2012
Make the law equal for everyone. This is a conservative stance. If I cannot cover my face out in public, or going into a bank, or school, then it should not be allowed for anyone else.
Shootist
3.3 / 5 (7) May 12, 2012
Maximize freedom.

Let them wear their stupid face masks, no reason not to.


Unless they need to present Identification, for anything; driving, voting, cashing a check. Equal Protection under the Law must remain foremost. No special Rights for any group, unless every group has the same Right.
Jotaf
2.8 / 5 (9) May 12, 2012
It boggles the mind that banning is even considered. Laws that are so culturally charged have no place in our society. We're supposed to stand for freedom of choice. If they're not harming anyone, what's the problem?

Concerning the argument that hiding your face is dangerous, then either it's legal for anyone to walk around hiding their face, or not. We don't get to make a particular item of clothing special. (I highly doubt anyone will advocate banning hiding your face in public, though it's the right of the owners of a mall or bank to deny entry in this way.)
Deathclock
2 / 5 (12) May 13, 2012
"Who are you to tell anyone else what articles of clothing they can or cannot wear?"
If you wear a ski-hood or a cap pulled down over your face, or just a hoodie, they do *not* want you as a customer. And, as the shop is private property not a public space, they can make their ban stick. Like it says, they reserve the right to exclude you.


Sure, let individual shop owners determine these policies for themselves, but do not make a law regarding it. You understand the difference between the government telling you you cannot wear a specific garment EVER and an individual shop owner telling you you are not welcome in their private store if you are wearing that garment, right?
Deathclock
2 / 5 (12) May 13, 2012
It boggles the mind that banning is even considered. Laws that are so culturally charged have no place in our society. We're supposed to stand for freedom of choice. If they're not harming anyone, what's the problem?

Concerning the argument that hiding your face is dangerous, then either it's legal for anyone to walk around hiding their face, or not. We don't get to make a particular item of clothing special. (I highly doubt anyone will advocate banning hiding your face in public, though it's the right of the owners of a mall or bank to deny entry in this way.)


Exactly, if only everyone in the world thought as we do Jotaf... can you even imagine that society? It would be a veritable utopia.
kaasinees
1.8 / 5 (10) May 13, 2012
In a public place your identity should be public.
If you hide your face you are hiding your identity.

Yeah right, your utopia is the freedom to bash eachothers skull in.
Liberals/conservatives are pretty stupid.
Anorion
4.2 / 5 (5) May 13, 2012
"Who are you to tell anyone else what articles of clothing they can or cannot wear?"
If you wear a ski-hood or a cap pulled down over your face, or just a hoodie, they do *not* want you as a customer. And, as the shop is private property not a public space, they can make their ban stick. Like it says, they reserve the right to exclude you.


Sure, let individual shop owners determine these policies for themselves, but do not make a law regarding it. You understand the difference between the government telling you you cannot wear a specific garment EVER and an individual shop owner telling you you are not welcome in their private store if you are wearing that garment, right?

so you have no problem naturist getting around naked ? coming naked in shoppings , naked in school, naked at work, in street ?
ever imagined your teacher naked ? xD ...
why not if everyone should be so free that people get around masked, why also not be free to go naked ...
ShotmanMaslo
2 / 5 (4) May 13, 2012
so you have no problem naturist getting around naked ?


Good point. I dont agree with burqa bans and I wouldnt even have a problem with public nudity being legal. But yeah, the precedent to regulate clothing in public is there.
outcast
5 / 5 (6) May 13, 2012
I hope you people who are opposing this understand what the real purpose of the burqa and veil are: To remove women from society and oppress them. Banning them is not "testing the foundation of liberalism", it is rather affirming it by standing up and saying we value the Women's Rights Movement. Liberalism has never been about "tolerance at all costs", it's about the modernization of our society. Unfortunately today many elements of the left are infested with relativists who will sellout the accomplishments of their own movement for the sake of "tolerance".
Blakut
4.2 / 5 (6) May 13, 2012
Since they force European women who visit Iran, Saudi Arabia etc. to wear the headgear, why shouldn't we force their women not wear theirs in our countries?
MandoZink
4.3 / 5 (3) May 13, 2012
Unfortunately today many elements of the left are infested with relativists who will sellout the accomplishments of their own movement for the sake of "tolerance".

I pretty much agree with everything you espouse here. The unfortunate probability is that neither "tolerance" nor "intolerance" will change the reality those women fail to see. It is painfully plain to outsiders that they have accept a demeaning, prison-like role within their own belief system.

The problem involves the ease with which a dogma can allow you to feel righteous and comfortable restricting part of yourself to serve your supposed master. In this case it is a two-tiered master: 1)Allah 2)the community of Muslim men

Western society, in general, has learned to become tolerant and respectful of women and sexuality. We are more relaxed and not threatened by openness. Our inter-gender relationships have benefited immensely. Muslim men have little concept of this. They remained constantly threatened by it.
Terriva
1 / 5 (3) May 13, 2012
If the wearing of burqa does not violate the liberal principles, why the wearing of KKK-like cowl or SS uniforms should do? I can see very subtle boundary here at the moment, when the wearing of burqa becomes a symbol of fatwa and/or jihad, as it already happened for many radical Islamic groups. IMO the Western Europeans are repeating the very same mistake with preemptive tolerance again - we shouldn't wait for the moment, when the wearing of certain suit will become a symbol even for the rest of society.
Terriva
1 / 5 (3) May 13, 2012
the precedent to regulate clothing in public is there.
You cannot stop something, which already exists whole generations in the society. The clothing is regulated heavily already. You shouldn't (effectively cannot) wear too short or provocative dress (Lady Ga is an apparent exception), no uniforms for civil persons, no profane symbols and so on. And the dress code inside of many private companies or at many public places (train-stations, airports) is even way more stringent. For me the main problem is, the wearing of burqa apparently does the identification of persons problematic. The covering of face with fabric or black glasses has its psychological connotations too: it induces the respect if not fear in many other people. After all, the K.K.K. members wore their cowls from the some reason.
antialias_physorg
4.1 / 5 (8) May 13, 2012
If the wearing of burqa does not violate the liberal principles, why the wearing of KKK-like cowl or SS uniforms should do?

Because burquas aren't a uniform that was used exclusively for a group that wanted to identify themselves with an organization that, as a matter of principle, comitted crimes. (And we should note that there are women who WANT to wear one - just as there are e.g. orthodox jews who WANT to wear a skullcap at all times. So it's not really a black and white case)

There has not been something like a 'death commando' that used burquas as uniforms. The jihadists do not use burquas as uniforms.

While the matter of forcing someone to wear a burqua is questionable, the religion of islam is (in principle) a peaceful one, and the vast majority of muslims are peaceful.

Before it can be proven that a burqua poses a danger we should err on the side of tolerance. Preemptive bans only cause resentment.
Terriva
2.6 / 5 (5) May 13, 2012
the religion of islam is (in principle) a peaceful one
Look, if the Islamic women don't like the way, in which wearing of burqa is treated in the Western society, nobody is forcing them to travel there and to found their large families. For example, I don't like the way, in which Islamic countries handle the human or animal laws - so I don't travel and found family there. But IF I would visit the Islamic country, I would respect their existing laws and traditions in their full depth. For example, I wouldn't wear a bikini or other provocative dress at the Islamic countries, because the laws and traditions of these countries is different and every visitor should respect it. If I wouldn't, I would be expatriated with no mercy (at the best case) - and my stance regarding burqa wearing is exactly symmetrical one.
Terriva
2.3 / 5 (3) May 13, 2012
Because I know, what works for people, I can give here the example of John Pershing It happened in the Philippines about 1911, when Gen. John J. Pershing was in command of the garrison. There had been numerous Islamic terrorist attacks, so "Black Jack" told his boys to catch the perps and teach them a lesson.

Forced to dig their own graves, the terrorists were all tied to posts, execution style. The U.S. soldiers then brought in pigs and slaughtered them, rubbing their bullets in the blood and fat. Thus, the terrorists were terrorized; they saw that they would be contaminated with hogs blood. This would mean that they could not enter Heaven, even if they died as terrorist martyrs.

All but one was shot, their bodies dumped into the grave, and the hog guts dumped atop the bodies. The lone survivor was allowed to escape back to the terrorist camp and tell his brethren what happened to the others.
Terriva
1 / 5 (2) May 13, 2012
The memo is, this single example brought a stop to terrorism in the Philippines for the next 50 years. Pershing's action saved way more lives of civilians, than the number of terrorists executed. If the German people would handle the Nazi plot in the same way after putsch in Munich at 1923, they wouldn't face the million casualties of WWW II ten years later. And so on.
freethinking
1 / 5 (4) May 13, 2012
John Pershing should be tried for war crimes. How dare he terrify the terrorists. We should get the an ACLU, Marxist, Muslim Brotherhood lawyer to take him and his family to court. You should only be allowed to kill terrorists will clean bullets then burry them in ways tht honor their terrorist beliefs. How dare anyone scare terrorists with eternal damnation with pigs blood.

Just because they behead, blow up, kill innocent people, terrorsits need to be treated with honor and respect when they are killed, so that they can go to their heaven. This is progressive thought.
MandoZink
3 / 5 (2) May 13, 2012
If the wearing of burqa does not violate the liberal principles, why the wearing of KKK-like cowl or SS uniforms should do?

The one catch here is that no one wants to mess with the issue of "religious freedom".

The KKK and Nazis are not a religion. They're hate groups. Despicable "victims" of a malignant mindset.
kaasinees
2.8 / 5 (9) May 13, 2012
If the wearing of burqa does not violate the liberal principles, why the wearing of KKK-like cowl or SS uniforms should do?

The one catch here is that no one wants to mess with the issue of "religious freedom".

The KKK and Nazis are not a religion. They're hate groups. Despicable "victims" of a malignant mindset.

But some islamix groups are also hate groups.
The koran says nothing about wearing burkas or virgins in heaven.
That is just how some extremist groups portray it on stupid people in order to get followers.
Also the nazis(nationalsocialists) are a political group not neccesarily a hate group.
And the nazi germany worked together with moslims, they even had an honor badge for foreign soldiers working with the nazis.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (5) May 13, 2012
Look, if the Islamic women don't like the way, in which wearing of burqa is treated in the Western society, nobody is forcing them to travel there and to found their large families.

What does that have to do with wearing a burqua. There are thocracies out there that mandate wearing one. We are not a theocracy. We do not proscribe what you can and cannot wear (unless there's a damn good reason for it). There is really no conclusive reason why burquas are per se, evil or are associated with something evil. Unless you can show me a burqua death commando, that specifically uses the burqua as a uniform, you have no leg to stand on in this issue.

The point is not whether we CAN ban burquas in western countries (we can) but whether we SHOULD...and you are also pretty much putting yourself on the same level as the countries whose lack of rights you deplore by advocating such a ban. Either we are free(dom loving) or we aren't.
Terriva
1.8 / 5 (5) May 13, 2012
The koran says nothing about wearing burqas or virgins in heaven
Of course - we should distingish religion and mores, the original teachings of the Prophet and the religious propaganda surrounding it. We can ask, if orthodox Jews are allowed to walk along streets in halat at Saudi Arabia or Tehran streets safely. Are the Arabian women, who don't agree with wearing of burqua, allowed to walk at public without it? If not, why the same Arabian countries don't expect the same intolerance at Western countries?

The whole problem starts with immigration itself. If we wouldn't allow economical immigration, we would have to solve the problems with minorities.

Islam is a "peace-loving" religion from beginning to end
antialias_physorg
4.2 / 5 (5) May 13, 2012
Are the Arabian women, who don't agree with wearing of burqua, allowed to walk at public without it?

Western democracies are not middle east theocracies. If you compare the way WE should make our laws with how THEY make their laws then you are no better than them.

The whole problem starts with immigration itself. If we wouldn't allow economical immigration,

Yep, because without that sort of immigration the US wouldn't even exist.
(and most other first world countries would be a LOT worse off if they haden't taken in cheap labor in the past at one time or another).

But what do I expect of you? Compassion? Not likely. You're just another one of the 1% crowd that wouldn't spare a second thought for people worse off who actrually want to better their lives. Do you think immigrants LOVE leaving friends, familiy and a country behind where they speak the language to head into the unknown?

Your world view is so warped it's scary.
outcast
5 / 5 (1) May 13, 2012

Western democracies are not middle east theocracies. If you compare the way WE should make our laws with how THEY make their laws then you are no better than them.



I think you missed the point about the purpose of the burka and the veil being to suppress women. Doesn't matter if they want to wear it, in much the same way that it doesn't matter if they want to be beaten as according to the koran. It's still wrong, and in this case it's the very symbol of the third world sexism the left has spent so much time fighting in our own countries.

Go read Foreign Policy's article titled "Why Do They Hate Us?"

Read it, read it very very carefully and think, do you REALLY want that kind of sexism imported? Because that's what's going on here.

Why do leftists, after criticizing the first world conservatives, then defend to the death (figuratively) the third worlders despite them being much more RIGHT WING than the conservatives they attack? Can anyone say "Double Think"?
kaasinees
1.9 / 5 (9) May 13, 2012
I think you missed the point about the purpose of the burka and the veil being to suppress women.

No the bruka protects against heat and sand.
ShotmanMaslo
1 / 5 (2) May 14, 2012

The one catch here is that no one wants to mess with the issue of "religious freedom".

The KKK and Nazis are not a religion. They're hate groups. Despicable "victims" of a malignant mindset.


One persons religion is another persons hate group. Islamic extremism is widespread, not just a tiny minority at all. In some ways, they are worse than nazis or KKK.

But when it comes to burqa bans, I dont agree with them. I even think we shouldnt regulate clothing by the government at all, except for nudity, and thats only for hygienic reasons.

In fact, burqa wearing could serve its purpose to highlight possible muslim extremists or their victims in society.
ShotmanMaslo
2.3 / 5 (3) May 14, 2012

The whole problem starts with immigration itself. If we wouldn't allow economical immigration, we would have to solve the problems with minorities.

http://www.youtub...ZFLxizu8


QFT. I dont think burqa ban solves anything. If significant part of muslims are fundamentalists, then it only covers up the problem anyway.

Limiting immigration is the only solution then.
kaasinees
2.5 / 5 (8) May 14, 2012
disallowing economic migrations sounds good to me
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (2) May 14, 2012
I think you missed the point about the purpose of the burka and the veil being to suppress women. ... in much the same way that it doesn't matter if they want to be beaten as according to the koran.

I think you missed the point of the article.

There is a differenc between:
a) Suppressing women by making them wear a burqua.
b) Allowing women the choice of wearing a burqua

We are not in disagreement about a). I completly agree that MAKING women wear a burqua is wrong and should be legislated against (and it already is. Any woman in a western country can go to court against someone forcing her to wear a burqua and she'll win. She can also go to court against someone who beats her - and no matter what the koran says she'll win.)

What the article is saying that we are making legislation to against b)
That is an entirely different critter. And THAT is not in line with tolerance.
Women should have the choice whether they want to wear one and the protection against having to.
kaasinees
2.1 / 5 (7) May 14, 2012
You know what i like about the burka?
On my first day of college i sat next to a girl wearing a burka(not covering her face).
I just noticed her beautiful face and i couldnt stop myself from flirting with her. She had beautiful henna markings on her hand.
Made the girl smile and it was fun. Will never forget that beautiful day.

Also i heard some dude behind me say "wtf shes a muslim" in his self. I wanted to rip his head off. People like him are what hte cause of all this religious problems in the world. People just cant see the beauty in this world and resort to hate for a person perspective on the world, causing religion to amplify in a person and become aggressive. I heard the word "tribal fear" once, fits perfectly i believe.
Anorion
3.7 / 5 (3) May 14, 2012
but AP, if she have right to get around in burqua , aka being masked in public places, do you agree that i have right to go around with an mask too ? lets say one of those masks special forces use, that see just eyes ? why she is the only one to have right to go around masked ? i want to go masked too !
question is simple, are citizen allowed to go in public places with hidden face, masked ? if yes then everyone should have right to do it, not only burqua wearing muslim women and if not , there is no reason to make exception just for them, equal laws for all citizens
kaasinees
2.1 / 5 (7) May 14, 2012
@Anorion

I fully agree with you. Banning the burka is just as bad as banning baseball caps because they come from America.

That is why i said earlier, just make a law that prohibits facial cover in public places,schools and shops etc.
Because those are the places where your identity should be public and not hidden(they are public places afterall).

But they do not want to do the law likes this because i cant think of anyone wearing a burka with facial cover in public places!
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (4) May 14, 2012
but AP, if she have right to get around in burqua , aka being masked in public places, do you agree that i have right to go around with an mask too ?

I'm not really a friend on the ban on masks in public (though I do see the rationale behind it). I've actually gone to a protest against this (masked, of course). So yes. I think people should have the right to wear masks if they want to.

There are sensible exceptions. Driving while masked is one such exception (because that means that you can't be identified when you get caught in a radar trap.) Public roads are governed by very strict laws (roads are the most reglemented space there is) and they have a definite purpose - so I can the sense in prohibiting it there. You want to drive: play by the rules.
Origin
1 / 5 (3) May 14, 2012
Women should have the choice whether they want to wear one and the protection against having to.
They have no such choice anyway. For example, our women cannot wear the cloth without bra at public. For me it's a pure asocial discrimination... :-(
Origin
3 / 5 (4) May 14, 2012
Banning the burka is just as bad as banning baseball caps because they come from America
Look, the American people cannot smoke and drink at many public places - from my perspective the drinking from sack is as silly, as the restriction of burka. But when I would move to USA, I would simply accept it as it is. Why the Islamic immigrants should have such a problem with it? The Islamic countries are intolerant to clothing way way more. The western civilization has no mechanisms, how to protect its identity, integrity and cultural traditions - and the Islamic circles know about it very well, because their civilization works and expands just by these mechanisms. The multiculturalism is advantageous for global companies as it opens the door for import of cheap labour force, which is modern version of slavery - but is it really so advantageous for native inhabitants from long-term perspective? The people, who cannot see the dual side of problems aren't partners for unbiased discussion.
Origin
1 / 5 (2) May 14, 2012
Again, for the people of formal deterministic thinking - like the antialias_po - is typical the shortseeing vision of problem. The restriction of clothing like the burqa is apparently antiliberal movement - so we should prohibit it, end of story. Easy, atemporal, simple decision. The fact, thousands of people are watched naked at the airport scanners, just because of fear of attack from the Islamic immigrants, who wear the burqa from head to toe is the silly consequence of this liberalism.
kaasinees
2.1 / 5 (7) May 14, 2012
Yeah right because everyone is going to start wearing burka's and everyone will become a terrorist when they do so. And the entire white race will be wiped out.

Lol you have too much fear dude.

Most muslims dont even wear burkas.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (2) May 14, 2012
Why the Islamic immigrants should have such a problem with it?

Smoking and drinking aren't cultural or religious activities. The US does have 'freedom of religion' in the Bill of Rights:
"Congress shall make no law ...prohibiting the free exercise thereof [religion]..."
The burqua (like the jewish skullcap) is an 'excercise of religion'. Whether we like it or not.

The Islamic countries are intolerant to clothing way way more.

Again: the US is not an islamic country. And if you justify the ban by saying "they do it, too" then you're missing the point. The yhave no provisions for tolerance in their laws. The US does. Going against those provisions makes the US no better than any backwater theocracy.

but is it really so advantageous for native inhabitants from long-term perspective?

Those that make the trip do seem to think so.

who cannot see the dual side of problems aren't partners for unbiased discussion.

Correct. Now you only need to let go of your bias.
Origin
1 / 5 (2) May 14, 2012
Most muslims dont even wear burkas
That's nice, because the ban of burqas will actually affect only small number of people after then - and it's insignificant from sociologic perspective.
..the burqua (like the jewish skullcap) is an 'excercise of religion'..
You just told, that many muslims don't wear the burqua...;-) They apparently don't need to be trained in their religion. I'd accept the burqa if it would serve for religious people only, i.e. like the cap for (Tibetan) monks or nuns. But the burqa is the cloth of civilians, not the priests. Actually it's a cloth of the lowest category of people in the Islamic countries - the women, who have nearly no rights. For men part of Arabians the burqas do play the similar role, like the labelling of Jews with David star in Nazi Germany. If you allow the wearing of burqa, then you agree with such a asocial categorization of people in quiet.
Origin
2.3 / 5 (3) May 14, 2012
The liberal proponents apparently don't realize, in Islamic countries the wearing of burqa is a tool of social repression of certain group of people - the women. Because the wearing of such uncomfortable uniform is otherwise uncomfortable for any women at the world. The burqas are nowhere used spontaneously outside of Islamic countries from good reason. At the hot climate the wearing of such a black closed habit is a sort of torture, the main purpose of which is to make the stay of women at public uncomfortable. Because the married women aren't supposed to appear at public, until it's absolutely necessary. The people, who do agree with import of such repression tools into civilized western countries into name of liberalism apparently don't realize, they do want to import the antiliberal tool. The Islamic communities at the West already require the wearing of burqa at public and schools. The absence of burqa ban would make their requirements legitimate.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (2) May 14, 2012
That's nice, because the ban of burqas will actually affect only small number of people after then - and it's insignificant from sociologic perspective.

You probably heard this one before:

First they came for the Jews and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists and I did not speak out because I was not a Communist.
...
You just told, that many muslims don't wear the burqua.

No. That was kasinees.

But how many wear it is not the point (many Jews don't wear a skullcap, either). As with any religion islam has orthodox, moderates, and any number of flavors in between.
But the burqa is the cloth of civilians

So is the skullcap.

the women, who have nearly no rights.

If they live in western nations they have all the rights those nations grant to every citizen. Wearing the burqua does not change that.

then you agree with such a asocial categorization of people

I don't categorize them by what they wear. Do you?
Anorion
1 / 5 (1) May 14, 2012
actually burqua isnt requested by islam, woman are just suposed not to exhibit their feminine parts and cover head, no where in quran is requested to hide face , its more a cultural habit from afghanistan and saudi arabia , just few muslim countrys , if you go in north africa, you will almost never see woman wear burqua.
Origin
1 / 5 (2) May 14, 2012
I don't categorize them by what they wear. Do you?
Me neither. But it allows the Islamic circles to label them so.
If they live in western nations they have all the rights those nations grant to every citizen. Wearing the burqua does not change that.
This is just the one big illusion. The women living inside of Islamic communities are subordinated the Islamic cleric and Islamic laws, like the sharia. They've no other choise, as you believe naively. The civil laws of western sociaty have only restricting impact for them, but they don't give them any additional rights. The allowance of burqua would weaken the position of Islamic women inside of these communities even more. And it will indeed enforce all tendencies, which actually prohibit the integration of Arabians into mainstream society. It opens the way for Islamic ghettoes, which already exist in all large cities at the West.
Origin
1 / 5 (2) May 14, 2012
if you go in north Africa, you will almost never see woman wear burqua
Just another reason against interpretation of burqa as a "free exercise of religion". Nobody of religious Muslims actually needs such an "exercise".
its more a cultural habit from Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia, just few muslim countrys
These countries are just most Islamic and intolerant by accient... The more burqas, the more intolerance - should we support this expansion of intolerance?
IMO the main reason, why France allowed the burqa ban is, the France is less influenced with multiculturalism of global companies. The French can better protect their cultural traditions, agriculture and cultural history. And their practical experience with immigrants from Mediterranean areas is worse.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (2) May 14, 2012
But it allows the Islamic circles to label them so.

So? Who labels whom how is none of your or my business. People have rights - no matter how they are labeled by others. People may also choose not to excercise those rights. This may be something we don't understand, but I see no reason not to tolerate such a choice.

It opens the way for Islamic ghettoes, which already exist in all large cities at the West.

So? As long as people stick to the laws of the country they live in they are free to live any way they want. Nowhere does it say that people have to integrate themselves socially. We may wish for this - and work towards it - but if you advocate tolerance you can't legislate it.

What you are advocating is "Leitkultur" and we had the discussion about it a few years back in germany.
http://en.wikiped...itkultur

"Leitkultur" was voted national "faux-pas word" of the year 2000, BTW.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (2) May 14, 2012
Nobody of religious Muslims actually needs such an "exercise".

Need? No. Want? That should be for them to decide.
No one 'needs' a flag on school walls or a cross in a church - but some want it. Should it be fobidden just because it isn't needed?

[q9The more burqas, the more intolerance -
Erm...burquas suddenly CAUSE intolerance? I think you have it completely backwards. Because by that argument TOLERATING burquas would then make the US a more INTOLERANT nation. That doesn't make sense.
kaasinees
2.1 / 5 (7) May 14, 2012
What if i decided i want to wear burkas?
Anorion
3 / 5 (2) May 14, 2012
im against that people get masked in street or work or any public place, no matter the reason. and even if you find some exceptional reason to allow someone to get masked in public place, police or any security force must be legally allowed to remove that mask at any time for ID control, and all ID documents must have pic with face visible clearly.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (1) May 14, 2012
@Anorion: That sounds very Orwellian (1984).

At least in the west we go by "innocent until proven guilty". ID checks are already iffy because you are being investigated before being charged with anything. ID control (and the rampant use of security cameras by some nations - especially the UK) have also not increased the security in those countries. It has only increased the feeling of insecurity of the people.
Fear is never a good thing to foster in the populace. While it increases governmental control short term it leads to rampant distrust and paranoia for no discernible reason (as evinced by the posts in this very thread).

A society that is largely made up of paranoid/distrustful people will not stay a stable society for long.
Anorion
1 / 5 (2) May 14, 2012
AP: make legalized face hiding in street, and ill agress you each time i see you in street and you will never prove its me. ill take your money, cut your face with knife and you will never be able to identify me. why you think robbers and terrorists and all kind of other criminals always hide face ? and that since thousands of years, not only know. there is no reason to allow masked people in public places and even if they do for some reason ( lets say you got horribly disfigured by a masked thug who agressed you ) i find normal that police and security have some authority to check ID of people, else why have police ? they useless if they don't have some authority. we live in a open society with rules, and laws equal for all, not in some wild anarchy where everyone do everything they like
Deathclock
1.9 / 5 (9) May 14, 2012
Since they force European women who visit Iran, Saudi Arabia etc. to wear the headgear, why shouldn't we force their women not wear theirs in our countries?


Maybe because we are better than they are... /rolleyes

Or maybe we aren't...
Deathclock
2.2 / 5 (10) May 14, 2012
People should be free to do as they will so long as they don't hurt others. I don't see how wearing a burqa could possibly hurt anyone else other than their delicate sensibilities, which doesn't count. Freedom should be the default position, and there should be a damn good reason to take it away. In this case there is no good reason.
antialias_physorg
3.7 / 5 (3) May 14, 2012
ill take your money, cut your face with knife and you will never be able to identify me.

Guess what: criminals usually wear masks for the purpose of hiding their identities. They do not care that there is a law forbidding masks. Such a law does not stop any crime whatsoever.

Or can you see the following thought process happen:
"I'm going to rob a bank. Oh, wait, there is a law against wearing masks. OK, so I guess I won't go rob a bank"...see how ludicrous that is?

i find normal that police and security have some authority to check ID of people

There is little wrong with that IF they have adequate cause (suspicion of a crime in progress, etc. ) but not as a matter of course. Without any cause (or gain) we should not be subject to control.
Anorion
2.3 / 5 (3) May 14, 2012
AP you say:
Guess what: criminals usually wear masks for the purpose of hiding their identities. They do not care that there is a law forbidding masks. Such a law does not stop any crime whatsoever.

Or can you see the following thought process happen:
"I'm going to rob a bank. Oh, wait, there is a law against wearing masks. OK, so I guess I won't go rob a bank"...see how ludicrous that is?

but that is false, you can say that about just anything, by your logic, there is no reason to forbid heroin trade, since criminal will still do it, there is no reason to forbid posession of explosives or firearms or combat neuro gasses since terrorist will still do it even if there is law against it....oh but thats diferent cause its dangerous ? but dangerous or not by your logic there should be no law against anything, just cause criminals will break that law. can say same about drink & drive too , why forbid drive drunken, since drunks will still drive even if its forbiden ?
Deathclock
1.8 / 5 (5) May 14, 2012
People who wear burqas aren't criminals. People who commit crimes are criminals. Why are you pre-punishing people and assuming they are guilty before they do anything wrong?
Anorion
1 / 5 (2) May 14, 2012
People who wear burqas aren't criminals. People who commit crimes are criminals. Why are you pre-punishing people and assuming they are guilty before they do anything wrong?

im talking about people being masked in public, imagine everyone is masked and you see no ones faces in streets ? nor the people you cross in street, cops masked, people who sell you stuff masked, politicians masked, teachers and kids all masked ....
as i sayd before , question is should be hideing face in public be allowed or not ? if not, burqua should be baned, if yes, then you open path to many deviations, and people will use that law who allow them to hide face in public for many illegal stuff, not only those wearing burqua
kaasinees
2.1 / 5 (7) May 14, 2012
Not all burkas provide cover to the face.
antialias_physorg
3.7 / 5 (3) May 14, 2012
there is no reason to forbid heroin trade

Using/dealing heroin automatically is a crime (because someone is hurt in the porcess).
Covering your face is not (because by simply wearing a burqua you are not hurting anyone).

there is no reason to forbid posession of explosives or firearms or combat neuro gasses
why forbid drive drunken

We regulate things that can cause grievous bodily harm by accident. Driving drunk or having a nuke in your back yard. Burquas can't be 'accidentally dangerous'.

but dangerous or not by your logic there should be no law against anything

Laws have several rationales: punishment and prevention. Banning burquas (or masks in general) prevents nothing and it punishes for a crime not comitted.
Anorion
3 / 5 (2) May 14, 2012
Not all burkas provide cover to the face.

check your definitions
burqua by definition covers all face, everything, except eyes, and sometime even eyes with semi transparent veil

the vail that covers only hair and show face is called hijab
its absolutely not same

http://www.taylor...jab1.jpg
Negative
1 / 5 (1) May 14, 2012
antialias, do you know the real reason behind wearing a burka? (and no, wearing a burka is not exercising a religion, it is obeying some rules.) I believe that should be the starting point of the debate, not the tolerance / liberalism pretexts invoked by the authors of the study.
antialias_physorg
3.7 / 5 (3) May 14, 2012
im talking about people being masked in public, imagine everyone is masked and you see no ones faces in streets ?

So? The overwhelming majority of people I meet in the streets are unknown to me. They might as well be wearing masks. Wouldn't make a difference in the world.
I'd have no problem with people wearing masks when they want to. BTW: I don't feel particularly threatened during carnival season when a lot of people do wear masks. Do you? Why would you then feel threatened any other day?

allow them to hide face in public for many illegal stuff

There's a lot of ways to identify someone other than by face recognition if need be. And as noted: criminals will not care whether you have a law against masks or not. If they feel like wearing one they will wear one.
Anorion
1 / 5 (2) May 14, 2012
Laws have several rationales: punishment and prevention. Banning burquas (or masks in general) prevents nothing and it punishes for a crime not comitted.


prevents nothing ??
as i stated before allowing everyone being masked legally without possibility for cops to check identity will profit to criminals of all kind.
most wanted criminals and most dangerous predators will be able to walk freely in street or live near you, but you wouldn't know, cause they always wear mask...
in humans society we need to be able to identify each other, humans do that by looking at face, dogs smell each other ass,...
an totally anonyme society where everyone wear a mask with no apparent identity is an aberration.
not everyone , just muslim womans you would say ? again there is no reason that some social class get more advantage before law than others, its start of segregation and apartheid.
Deathclock
1.9 / 5 (9) May 14, 2012
antialias, do you know the real reason behind wearing a burka? (and no, wearing a burka is not exercising a religion, it is obeying some rules.) I believe that should be the starting point of the debate, not the tolerance / liberalism pretexts invoked by the authors of the study.


Let's get this out of the way right now, just because we are not in favor of banning them does not mean we are in favor of women being forced to wear them. BOTH of those present a violation of freedom, and that is what we are against.
antialias_physorg
3 / 5 (2) May 14, 2012
antialias, do you know the real reason behind wearing a burka?

Yes I do, and as noted: It should be up the woman to chose to wear it or not.
If she faces reprecussions for not wearing one from her social environment then national law is on her side.

Forbidding to wear it isn't going to help. The burqua is neither a criminal act nor is it associated with an organization that commits criminal acts as a matter of course. So I see absolutely no grounds for banning it other than the government craze for observation and control.

Tolerance starts when you allow people to do stuff that doesn't harm you AND which you DON'T like.
Just allowing stuff you are comfortable with is not tolerance.

(And you know: I'm actually not comfortable with women wearing a burqua, because I also see it as a form of 'unfreedom'. But MY feeling on that doesn't count. Only THEIRS count. If THEY want to wear one: fine. It's no business of mine. They are not hurting me with it.)
Deathclock
1.5 / 5 (8) May 14, 2012
Ask yourself this question: "If I were to put on a Burqa/mask and go grocery shopping could the fact that I am wearing the mask cause someone else harm?"

If the answer is no there is no reason to create legislation that bans them.
Anorion
2.3 / 5 (3) May 14, 2012
And as noted: criminals will not care whether you have a law against masks or not. If they feel like wearing one they will wear one.

but if its illegal and they do it, they can be noticed by police and controlled their id and if they had illegal weapons on them, they already wanted or not ...
on other hand if its legal to be masked, no one can do nothing till they start to shoot at people and after can just melt in crowd where everyone is masked, good luck for checking everyone ...
Deathclock
2.1 / 5 (11) May 14, 2012
but if its illegal and they do it, they can be noticed by police and controlled their id and if they had illegal weapons on them, they already wanted or not ...
on other hand if its legal to be masked, no one can do nothing till they start to shoot at people and after can just melt in crowd where everyone is masked, good luck for checking everyone ...


The crime committed here is murder, or attempted murder... not wearing a burqa. Sure, if they weren't wearing one they would be easier to identify, but if they were wearing a GPS tracking chip implanted under their skin they would be easier to identify too, are you in favor of that as well?

How much freedom are you willing to lose for the illusion of protection from those that would do you harm?
ShotmanMaslo
2 / 5 (4) May 14, 2012
While it is true that adults voluntarily wearing burqa is a personal freedom, if someone forces others to do it, or if parents force their children to do it, thats crossing the line (its child abuse IMHO). So these families should be more closely monitored to ensure its all voluntary.

But let them wear it if its voluntary, at least we know where probable fundamentalists live.
Anorion
3 / 5 (4) May 14, 2012
oh death but that's fine me with me, all i say is that make it legal or illegal for everyone to hide face in public. not just allow muslim womans to wear burqua and then arrest me cause wearing balaclava while going in bank or grocery and walking in street.
and after that then good look to identify all the wanted criminals and sexual predators or drug dealers or whatever ... cause you can be sure that they gonna wear it all the time to avoid to be identified, and im sure you will be the first to cry when you never see the face of cops who control your car or face of your president...
Deathclock
2.2 / 5 (10) May 14, 2012
I'm sorry Anorion there is a bit of a language barrier. Do you support forcing everyone to get a GPS tracking chip implanted in their body in order to help identify criminals? You're in favor of prohibiting face masks in public in order to help identify criminals, correct? So you must also then be in favor of GPS tracking of every individual for the same reason right?
Anorion
3 / 5 (2) May 14, 2012
I'm sorry Anorion there is a bit of a language barrier. Do you support forcing everyone to get a GPS tracking chip implanted in their body in order to help identify criminals? You're in favor of prohibiting face masks in public in order to help identify criminals, correct? So you must also then be in favor of GPS tracking of every individual for the same reason right?

no im not for gps implants, GPS implants arent natural, human face is something natural that humans have , and use to recognize each other since we exist. no need technology or any implants or anything
morilindez
1 / 5 (2) May 14, 2012
It is unacceptable to restrict women from covering theirselves in a modest manner. It is akin to telling them, "Sorry, you have to wear miniskirts to work now, no knee length attire is allowed." I actually have worked in that kind of environment and it is enraging. No one in these western areas is forcing women to wear burqas. If they hate it and feel oppressed, there are plenty of agencies of support for them.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.7 / 5 (6) May 14, 2012
The REASON to cover and standardize a womans appearance is to prevent comparison to other women. The temptation for men and women to want to upgrade, and the flirting involved, creates distrust and weakens tribal cohesiveness.

A womans biological prerogative is to choose the very best possible donor for each and every child she will bear. In order to discern quality she must compel suitors to compete. A mans prerogative is to impregnate as many women as he can. These behaviors are the ultimate expression of the 'selfish gene'.

But genetic priorities often run counter to tribal dynamics. Intratribal disputes over females weakens trust and cooperation on the battlefield. Tribes which adopted cultural affectations such as the veil and mandatory beards for the same reason, could prevail over others. Culture can trump evolution in this respect.

The burqa no longer has a place in society, nor do the religions which reinforce tribal divisions. They should be banned one way or another.
Anorion
1 / 5 (2) May 14, 2012
It is unacceptable to restrict women from covering theirselves in a modest manner. It is akin to telling them, "Sorry, you have to wear miniskirts to work now, no knee length attire is allowed." I actually have worked in that kind of environment and it is enraging. No one in these western areas is forcing women to wear burqas. If they hate it and feel oppressed, there are plenty of agencies of support for them.

you compare wearing burqua aka hide the face, to wear mini squirt ? your way out of subject. woman can be covered very very decently without to have to hide the face
Deathclock
2.2 / 5 (10) May 14, 2012
I'm sorry Anorion there is a bit of a language barrier. Do you support forcing everyone to get a GPS tracking chip implanted in their body in order to help identify criminals? You're in favor of prohibiting face masks in public in order to help identify criminals, correct? So you must also then be in favor of GPS tracking of every individual for the same reason right?

no im not for gps implants, GPS implants arent natural, human face is something natural that humans have , and use to recognize each other since we exist. no need technology or any implants or anything


Oh so it's about what is and is not natural? Wearing clothing is not really natural, and it would certainly be easier to identify people without any clothing just like it would be easier to identify people without face masks, so you're in favor of banning all clothing?
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (4) May 14, 2012
but if its illegal and they do it, they can be noticed by police and controlled

Yes. But whether such a law can remain in effect is dubious. after all: It directly contradicts the Bill of Rights - which is a pretty powerful document and supercedes any state/national law before the Supreme Court.

on other hand if its legal to be masked, no one can do nothing till they start to shoot at people and after can just melt in crowd

So? You cannot stop something like that now, anyhow.

You COULD go out and set fire to someone's home with a lighter - but usually you just light a cigarette with it. Should carrying (concealed!) lighters therefore be banned?

Just because something can be abused is not an immediate ground for a ban.

if someone forces others to do it, or if parents force their children to do it, thats crossing the line

Tricky. How many parents force their kids to go to church? We need surveillance in every home! See how that doesn't work?
Anorion
1 / 5 (2) May 14, 2012
Oh so it's about what is and is not natural? Wearing clothing is not really natural, and it would certainly be easier to identify people without any clothing just like it would be easier to identify people without face masks, so you're in favor of banning all clothing?

who say it would be easier to identify people without pants ?lol
but on other hand if you agree for people to go around totaly clothed with face and all covered, then you agree to let people go totaly naked ? naked teachers and cops and politicians and vendors,... ? ;D
Origin
1 / 5 (3) May 14, 2012
We need surveillance in every home! See how that doesn't work?
The legalization of burqas could actually bring more inspections for civilians, because their wearing would serve as an evasion for random inspections and swoops.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (5) May 14, 2012
The surviving religions all seek to convert the uninitiated. Believers who wear conspicuous devises which are apparently required by their god are silently saying 'you are offending GOD by not doing what he wants.'

They are also inviting derision and the ensuing conflict. People who take issue with their devices are set upon by indignant believers who are defending their faith. This all reinforces tribal divisions and the desire to outgrow and supplant other tribes.

The burqa is therefore anathema to social integration and the struggle to instill the understanding that we are ALL members of a single tribe. The PURPOSE of religions are to divide and conquer. This was great when the world was all chaos but the need for outgrowing and overrunning to establish order, is over.

And so, obviously, are the religions Designed for the Purpose. They are doomsday weapons. They must be dismantled or they WILL destroy us.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (5) May 14, 2012
who say it would be easier to identify people without pants ?

Ask Bill Clinton.
The legalization of burqas could actually bring more inspections for civilians, because their wearing would serve as an evasion for random inspections and swoops.

the police should not have the right for random searches (and in many western countries they don't. In China and the likes that may be different. My brother, who live in China, tells me that there any police officer actually has the right for a random search of your home. From what I google random passenger searches in subways are also legal in the US...another reason for me to never travel to China or the US. I would find something like that insufferable)

Believers who wear conspicuous devises which are apparently required by their god are silently saying 'you are offending GOD by not doing what he wants.'

No. That's only in your mind.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.7 / 5 (6) May 14, 2012
I don't categorize them by what they wear. Do you?
They categorize YOU for what you wear. They think uncovered women is obscene, and they would force all women to wear veils if they could. The continued presence of the burqa is testament to this, which is why it needs to disappear. It invites abuse of all women who are not similarly covered and so impinges upon THEIR freedom.
No. That's only in your mind.
Really? Did you read about the little girl who needed to be escorted to school by police through an orthodox Jerusalem neighborhood because she was dressed like a 'slut'?? Grown men insulting her because they could see her legs. Islamists would do the same thing and they DO.
Deathclock
2 / 5 (8) May 14, 2012
From what I google random passenger searches in subways are also legal in the US..


That's surprising, I used to ride the DC metro every day and I've never seen this occur.
Origin
1 / 5 (2) May 14, 2012
The wearing of burqa in the city during heavy traffic is completely impractical and dangerous too for pedestrians. I mean, if you do it, you should have very good reason for it.

http://thesociety...2jpg.gif
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (3) May 14, 2012
They categorize YOU for what you wear.

So? Should I care? People are entitled to think of me what they want. None of my business.
and they would force all women to wear veils if they could

But they can't. That's the point. If we force everyone NOT to wear a veil then we are no better than them.

It invites abuse of all women who are not similarly covered and so impinges upon THEIR freedom.

Their freedom to act on what they see as 'shameful' behavior by others is severly limited (Read: non-existent). If they abuse women for their views 'fredom of religion' will not cover their asses.
Grown men insulting her because they could see her legs.

Perfect example. THEY thought her dress was slutty. It was in THEIR minds what somone elses dress signifies. Just like it seems to be in YOUR mind what someone else's dress seems to signify.

The girl wasn't trying to be slutty. And a woman wearing a burqua isn't trying to make you feel as if you are an infidel.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (4) May 14, 2012
I think the real confusion here stems from the fact that some see
"Not forbidding a burqua"
equivalent to
"Making women wear a burqua"

And that is just a very basic logical fallacy (false dichotomy)

That's surprising, I used to ride the DC metro every day and I've never seen this occur.

I was trying to google for "random search law" and xcame up with stuff like this
http://legallad.q...ant.aspx

and this
http://www.techdi...ay.shtml
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.7 / 5 (6) May 14, 2012
It is against the law for women to be uncovered in Islamist countries. In many more neighborhoods it invites acid attacks and rape. Islamist imports bring these attitudes with them. It is those attitudes which are unacceptable, and should be made illegal.

Islam is a religion of conquest, as are they ALL. Islamist
Leaders have expressed the intent to conquer Europe and the world through propagation, conversion, and by the gun. The burqa is only another time-tested instrument for doing this. Europe should fight back and demand emancipation as a condition of citizenship and residency.
But they can't. That's the point. If we force everyone NOT to wear a veil then we are no better than them.
Not yet. They can refuse to do business with you, and make you feel uncomfortable, right now. And because their women wear the veil they DO think they are better than you.
Origin
1 / 5 (2) May 14, 2012
"Not forbidding a burqua"
not equivalent to
"Making women wear a burqua"

Not for women living at the Muslim ghettos. Inside of these ghettos the only valid law is sharia law.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (3) May 14, 2012
It is those attitudes which are unacceptable, and should be made illegal.

And you know what? Acid attacks and rape are illegal (even in islamist countries, BTW)

But it's very hard to make an attitude illegal because it's very hard to prove that someone has an attitude when they haven't DONE anything illegal yet. That would require a "thought police". And I think everyone has thought about something illegal at one or another time in their lives - so that wouldn't be a good idea at all.
Certainly "innocent until proven guilty" would go right out the door. And I think that one is rather important in a society that calls itself "free".

Leaders have expressed the intent to conquer Europe and the world through propagation, conversion, and by the gun

So have any number of organizations (from Neonazis to god knows who). So what? Not all muslims - not even the orthodox - are fanatical warmongers. Far from it.

Punishing all because of the actions of some? Not in the cards.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (4) May 14, 2012
And you know what? Acid attacks and rape are illegal (even in islamist countries, BTW)
Except that under sharia law the rape victim has to marry her attacker or her relatives can kill her.

The burqa is not FASHION. It is not an expression of freedom but of SUBSERVIENCE to the god who REQUIRES it of every woman. The women who wear it believe it is the only way to properly respect their god, and anyone who does NOT wear it is disrespecting their god.

Uncovered women and beardless men are an insult to Islam. This takes precedence over any earthly law. Islamists want very much to change earthly laws to conform. Will they soon have the votes in your country to do so?
antialias_physorg
4 / 5 (4) May 14, 2012
The women who wear it believe it is the only way to properly respect their god

And I repeat: So is the skullcap for orthodox jews. So is probably a cross for some flavor of christians.

and anyone who does NOT wear it is disrespecting their god.

That is an opinion. And everyone is entitled to their opinion. If they think I'm an infidel or am disrespecting their god by not wearing a beard - let them.
Only when they act on such a belief then I have a problem with that. Wearing a burqua is not such an act.

Islamists want very much to change earthly laws to conform
Most every organization wants that in one way or another. From PETA to the NeoNazi party to Greenpeace to the Westboro Baptist Church. Fine. You know what? Wanting to change laws is everyone's right. That's what we call - say it with me:
d-e-m-o-c-r-a-c-y.

Will they soon have the votes in your country to do so?

If the majority wants Sharia law then that's what it will get democracy, remember?
Origin
1 / 5 (2) May 14, 2012
So is the skullcap for orthodox jews

Skullcap doesn't make you unrecognisable. There are more factors in the game. Not a simple task for proponents of deterministic solutions.
Acid attacks and rape are illegal
But not the forcing the women for wearing of burqa. This is illegal only at western countries as a violation of personal freedom. But this violation is tolerated at Muslim ghettoes. So you actually want to legalize the violation of personal freedom inside of these communities.
kaasinees
1.9 / 5 (9) May 14, 2012
How many times do i have to say that not all burkas cover the face -_- In fact there are fashion burkas that almost look like normal clothing...

I googled it and all it shows are those extreme covering burkas...
But when i set google to search local region i see normal burkas???? AIPAC propaganda? London is full of it!
antialias_physorg
3.8 / 5 (5) May 14, 2012
But not the forcing the women for wearing of burqa.

False dichotomy. Allowing a burqua is not the same as forcing someone to wear one. The former (should be) legal, the latter (is already) not.

But this violation is tolerated at Muslim ghettoes. So you actually want to legalize the violation of personal freedom inside of these communities.

This is a problem of enforcing existing laws. Not one of banning burquas or not. Existing law is perfectly adequate to deal with this. No additional ban required.

I'm also a bit confused by your argument: Could you explain how exactly a ban on burquas would change anything in these ghettos as long as they don't care about national law?

Skullcap doesn't make you unrecognisable.

What's the problem with being unrecognizable? As long as you're not doing anything illegal I don't care what mask you wear. Wearing a mask does not make you automatically a criminal.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.1 / 5 (7) May 14, 2012
False dichotomy. Allowing a burqua is not the same as forcing someone to wear one.
Not yet.
The former (should be) legal, the latter (is already) not.
At present.
Most every organization wants that in one way or another. From PETA to the NeoNazi party to Greenpeace to the Westboro Baptist Church.
You bet. The majority rules in western countries and the surviving religions are Designed to turn minorities into majorities. None of the examples you present are flooding target countries with immigrants, and desperately trying to outreproduce others. Islam IS.
My favorite wacko nutjob Yousef al Khattab. Seems like a genuinely likeable person. Like Ahmadinejad.
http://www.youtub...=related

-Their Mission at 8:06 and 9:23...
http://www.youtub...pp_video
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (4) May 14, 2012
The REASON to cover and standardize a womans appearance is to prevent comparison to other women. The temptation for men and women to want to upgrade, and the flirting involved, creates distrust and weakens tribal cohesiveness.

A womans biological prerogative is to choose the very best possible donor for each and every child she will bear. In order to discern quality she must compel suitors to compete. A mans prerogative is to impregnate as many women as he can. These behaviors are the ultimate expression of the 'selfish gene'.
Some great american philosophers have succinctly explained this mechanism:
http://www.youtub...YN-NK54Y
antialias_physorg
4.2 / 5 (5) May 14, 2012
So what's your solution?
Leitkultur?
Autocratic rule?
Constitutional claim to leadership by some group?
Apartheid?
Ban on anything that you, personally, don't like?

Or should we just make sure that people KNOW they will have freedoms if they DON'T vote for fundamentalist islamists?
Because by the bans, censorhip and repression you advocate you're playing right into their hands.

If your system is already very repressive then there's no reason why they shouldn't replace it with their repressive regime in an election.
But if you give them freedome there's no reason why they should risk that.

Contrary to what you believe most muslims in western countries do not follow Sharia law or think a theocracy is a good idea. Heck, most are as areligious as most 'christians' (almost none of which follow the ten commandments - let alone what the bible says elsewhere).
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.1 / 5 (7) May 14, 2012
Contrary to what you believe most muslims in western countries do not follow Sharia law
Not yet.
Heck, most are as areligious as most 'christians' (almost none of which follow the ten commandments - let alone what the bible says elsewhere).
At present. But they are being out-reproduced and out-imported by fundamentalists. And hard times are a good way of turning moderates into fundamentalists re; national socialism in the 20s.
So what's your solution?
Hey - Im just pointing out the problem here and its a BIG one. Banning the burqa is a meaningful step in addressing the problem and alerting the public as to its magnitude and potential.

What did it take to break the back of xian fundamentalism in eurasia? Two world wars and 50 years of communist martial law.

Islam is an improved version of xianity.

I get a real kick out of these guys. Lets watch them again.
http://www.youtub...YN-NK54Y
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (4) May 14, 2012
How many times do i have to say that not all burkas cover the face -_- In fact there are fashion burkas that almost look like normal clothing...
BurQa, niQab. Try hijab
http://en.wikiped...ki/Hijab
So what's your solution?
Let me just say this; as this is an obvious condition and as such can be fully anticipated decades in advance, I believe there IS a Solution in the works and under way.

And as the problem of fundamentalism and its associated population overgrowth appears to be more critical than that facing the world at the end of the 19th century, I can only assume that the Solution will be more drastic, more prolonged, and more conclusive as it is intimately tied to AGW and irreparable ecosystem damage.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.8 / 5 (9) May 14, 2012
Here you go AA:

"According to journalist Jane Kramer, in France, veiling among school girls became increasingly common following the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001, due to coercion by "fathers and uncles and brothers and even their male classmates" of the school girls. "Girls who did not conform were excoriated, or chased, or beaten by fanatical young men meting out Islamic justice." According to the neo-conservative American magazine The Weekly Standard, a survey conducted in France in May 2003 reportedly "found that 77% of girls wearing the hijab said they did so because of physical threats from Islamist groups."

-But - I thought you said such actions were illegal??
antialias_physorg
3 / 5 (4) May 14, 2012
So? Doe sthe presence of a crime in some way lead you to conclude that it is notillegal?

France is merely reaping the fruits of its colonialism in northern Africa. Just as the UK is reaping the fruits of its colonialism India.

Really the only way to 'avert' anything like this is to give people the opportunity to make a better life for themselves. Fundamentalism has a hard time taking foothold in an atmosphere of prospertity and equal rights.

Banning the burqua is relly not going to do diddlysquat except antagonize people even further. It would just show them even more that we're a bunch of hypocrits when it comes to tolerance - and that our system is no better than theirs.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.7 / 5 (6) May 14, 2012
"77% of girls wearing the hijab said they did so because of physical threats from Islamist groups."

-Thats a lot AA. Thats a lot of fathers and uncles and brothers and even their male classmates to arrest and prosecute. Maybe it is easier to just make the getup illegal because it promotes violence against women?
Banning the burqua is relly not going to do diddlysquat except antagonize people even further.
-So would arresting and prosecuting all those fathers and uncles and brothers and even their male classmates, for only doing what their GOD requires them to. That being to restrict their women to the sole tasks of making and raising babies.

But this is the purpose of such divisive religious symbols isnt it? To antagonize, stir up, and piss off adherents so they have cause to fight? And as their numbers grow, they win and you lose.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2 / 5 (8) May 14, 2012
France is merely reaping the fruits of its colonialism in northern Africa. Just as the UK is reaping the fruits of its colonialism India.
Uh huh. So what about denmark, the netherlands and elsewhere in europe? What about dearborn michigan or bosnia or kashmir? What are the people in these places being punished for that they must be conquered by islamist cells much like the Rot Front in the fatherland?

I'll tell you what they are being punished for. They are infidels and god has told islamists that the world rightfully belongs to THEM. Per mister Yousef al Khattab and so many others.
antialias_physorg
3 / 5 (2) May 14, 2012
But this is the purpose of such divisive religious symbols isnt it? To antagonize

No. These 'symbols' are common in the countries where they come from. There is no need to antagonize anyone there. They simply brought their custom with them.

As noted, I don't think the burqua is a good idea - but there's really such an issue as tolerance that needs to be worked out, here. A ban is going too far (and France has found such a middle ground it seems: no burquas in hospitals or schools, but they are allowed on the street and in private builings.)

They are infidels and god has told islamists that the world rightfully belongs to THEM. Per mister Yousef al Khattab and so many others.

Integrate them. Show by example that it's much better to live with freedoms than without. If we don't do that then our system isn't worth saving, anyhow. One tyranny is as good as another. Treating them as sub-humans (as you do) is not a solution.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2 / 5 (8) May 14, 2012
Integrate them.
They dont WANT to be integrated. They want to supplant and usurp. Multiculturalism has failed or havent you heard?
Show by example that it's much better to live with freedoms than without.
Islamists think freedom is in doing what god wants. This can provide freedom from death and 50 or more virgins.
If we don't do that then our system isn't worth saving, anyhow.
Sure it is.
One tyranny is as good as another. Treating them as sub-humans (as you do) is not a solution.
As usual AA has lost another argument and is resorting to petulant name-calling. So sad.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.5 / 5 (8) May 14, 2012
'Infidel' is a name. The freedoms of infidels are restricted in islamist countries. 'Apostate' is also a name. Apostates are often killed in islamist countries. 'Atheist' is another name. Fundys might hate them most of all.

These names are all used to dehumanize the enemies of god and so enable them to be dealt with appropriately. Like daniel pearl. And any mosque or church or synagogue or girls school full of them worth blowing up.
Origin
1 / 5 (6) May 15, 2012
The dense aether model handles the human society like thermodynamical system. It's because with increasing number of people the intelligent motivations of individual vanish and compensate mutually ("what is good for you is not good for me") and as the human civilisation tends to behave like random gas, driven with energy conservation laws only (actually these laws affect all rational, i.e. intelligent decisions of individuals as well). Inside of thermodynamical systems the Le Chatelier's principle is valid: "If a system at equilibrium experiences a change in concentration, temperature, volume, or partial pressure, then the equilibrium shifts to counteract the imposed change" It mean, when new asocial individuals immigrate into democratic society which lives under liberal laws, then this society will be forced to impose new laws, which will constrain these individuals. The formally thinking people like antialias_po will therefore face the problem, when they will insist on status-quo.
antialias_physorg
2 / 5 (4) May 15, 2012
They dont WANT to be integrated.

Wrong. Their leaders don't want them to be integrated. The common Joes are just that: common Joes. Without their powerbase the leaders are nothing.
People are people the world over.

Islamists think freedom is in doing what god wants. This can provide freedom from death and 50 or more virgins.

And the number of muslims who actually think that way is infinitisemally small. You're pretty much saying: "The Westboro Baptist Church is representative of all christians". Not so.
People have different problems than thinknig about furthering religious kingdoms on earth. They need to put food on the table of their families. They want to get ahead. Give them that and just watch how fast they will renounce religious extremist regimes.
Look at Iran. Look how the (educated) youth has rebelled there time and time again against the Ayatollahs. They don't want to be religious warriors. They want to study and get a good job.
ShotmanMaslo
2.6 / 5 (5) May 15, 2012
"And the number of muslims who actually think that way is infinitisemally small"

I would like some citation for this, since statistics seems to indicate otherwise:
http://img97.imag...0113.png
Source:
http://www.pewglo...2010.pdf
ShotmanMaslo
3 / 5 (4) May 15, 2012
"Nearly a third of 16 to 24-year-olds believed that those converting to another religion should be executed.."
http://www.guardi...religion

I would not call more than 50% of fundamentalists in the muslim countries and nearly a third among (second generation) western immigrants "infinitisemally small".

Fundamentalist opinions are a far more widespread problem among modern muslims than comparable fundamentalism is among modern christians. It is a serious threat, which in my opinion warrants drastically restricting immigration from muslim countries. And I say it as a liberal in practically everything else.
Origin
2.3 / 5 (3) May 15, 2012
Their leaders don't want them to be integrated. The common Joes are just that: common Joes. Without their powerbase the leaders are nothing.
From the same reason the common Joes do want to follow their leaders and we can substitute their opinion with opinions of their leaders without any lost of information. If the common Muslims are just a sheep following their leaders, then the democratic rules and laws cannot be applied to them anyway. The laws of democracy consider certain independence of thinking - without it they simply cannot work.

In addition, you're just plain wrong. For example the Gypsies in our country have no leaders: they still don't want to integrate and they want to live their way of life. The opinion of leaders is just an evasion for this inter-subjective opinion of most of Muslims from this perspective. They're all responsible for their hostile activities in the same way, like their leaders.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.5 / 5 (8) May 15, 2012
Wrong. Their leaders don't want them to be integrated. The common Joes are just that: common Joes. Without their powerbase the leaders are nothing.
People are people the world over.
You are again naive. People are not a 'blank slate' - this sociopolitical propaganda was discarded in favor of evolutionary psychology.

Humans evolved within the context of TRIBES. The tribal dynamic is simply internal cohesion vs external animosity. The tribes which were best at eliciting these traits could be expected to prevail; and so we were selected for this dynamic.

People will naturally seek out tribal affinity; gangs, clubs, religions, parties, classes, etc. Religions learned to exploit this dynamic to spread it over ever larger and disparate groups.

The west has discovered how to spread it worldwide but it takes a great deal of effort to maintain. A community of mankind. This is our only hope for a peaceful future and continued survival. Religions are a constant threat to these efforts.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.7 / 5 (6) May 15, 2012
"The Muslim Brotherhood" or "MB") is the world's most influential and one of the largest Islamist movements, and is the largest political opposition organization in many Arab states...Its most famous slogan, used worldwide, is "Islam is the solution."...The MBs stated goal is to instill the Qur'an and Sunnah as the "sole reference point for ...ordering the life of the Muslim family, individual, community ... and state"...firstly the introduction of the Islamic Shari`ah as "the basis controlling the affairs of state and society;"...[in 2011] over 1/3 [of 60 million egyptian voters] voted for the Freedom and Justice Party put forward by the MB."

"the MB is a global, not a local organization... which rejects cessation of violence in Israel, and supports violence to achieve its political objectives elsewhere too"

"...the MB was the cause of most problems in the Arab world."

-Akin to a worldwide NSDAP, or a comintern.
cont>
antialias_physorg
3 / 5 (2) May 15, 2012
Take a musliom child and raise it here. Take a western child, and raise it in a muslim country. Yes: we start off as blank slates. There is no 'genetic religion' or 'genetic fanaticism' (other than maybe some rare genetic diseases that cause anger management issues - dont know if those exits, though.)

People will naturally seek out tribal affinity

Oh boy...the 'tribal' thing again. I told you before: It's about as good a theory as neutron repulsion (and makes about as much sense).

We do not seek out 'tribal affinity'. Humans seek out what works. On an individual basis.
If that should be a tribe (which often confers a great advantage at minimal cost) then that is what an individual will gravitate to. But it's not genetic or somesuch tripe.

If we show them that having freedmos is better than sticking with a fanatic 'tribe' then that's what they will do. But banning stuff isn't going to accomplish that. Quite the contrary. It makes us seem no less fanatic to them.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.7 / 5 (6) May 15, 2012
Oh boy...the 'tribal' thing again. I told you before blahblah
Except that tribalism is well-known and accepted. I posted references, including this one
http://rechten.el...RID2.pdf

-Which you apparently never read? It includes darwin, malthus, spencer. lamarck, etcetc and written by this guy:
http://rint.recht...nnen.htm
http://en.wikiped...nepotism

-You may dismiss something but you really should become familiar with it first?
We do not seek out 'tribal affinity'. Humans seek out what works. On an individual basis...or somesuch tripe.
But I have to say this appears to be personal opinion (tripe of some sort) without any corroboration.

I do believe you are stuck in the 60s. Things have changed . Try this for starters:
http://en.wikiped...ribalism

"Humans are social animals, and ill-equipped to live on their own." Obviously. Except for Tarzan maybe.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (4) May 15, 2012
Take a musliom child and raise it here. Take a western child, and raise it in a muslim country. Yes: we start off as blank slates.
No: we are born with instincts and proclivities like any other animal.
http://en.wikiped...ychology

"Toddlers instinctively play with other young children of the same ethnicity, according to a study."
http://www.dailym...ity.html

"human beings have evolved to live in tribal society, as opposed to mass society, and thus will naturally form social networks constituting new "tribes.""
http://en.wikiped...ribalism

-Tribalism is unpopular because it implies that prejudice for instance is instinctive. But it is obviously very true.

"...the group would grow larger, stronger and more likely to survive. The chimps' waging of war is thus "adaptive...""
http://www.nytime...imp.html
outcast
5 / 5 (5) May 15, 2012
They dont WANT to be integrated.

Wrong. Their leaders don't want them to be integrated. The common Joes are just that: common Joes. Without their powerbase the leaders are nothing.


You do realize that the crown jewel of the enlightenment, rule of law and continuing secularization thereof, is actually under attack by those common joes right? It's being systematically undermined by sharia and the continued implementation of it.

Go and Google BBC Sharia Law in UK

So there you have it, even according to the BBC there's already dozens of Sharia Microcourts in the UK with more and more being setup all the time with growing numbers of "common joe" muslims flocking to them.

Let's stop pretending that they aren't interested in importing their third world "values" and blast us back through time. It's time to ask ourselves the ultimate question, is our civilization, with all its marvelous achievements, worth defending? If so, we must stand up to these theofascists now.
Origin
2.3 / 5 (3) May 17, 2012
Gawad
4.2 / 5 (5) May 17, 2012
They dont WANT to be integrated.
Wrong. Their leaders don't want them to be integrated. The common Joes are just that. People are people the world over.
Islamists think freedom is in doing what god wants. This can provide freedom from death and 50 or more virgins.

And the number of muslims who actually think that way is infinitisemally small.


Sorry AA, you're often 100% on the mark about alot of things, but you're just plain wrong about that. I wonder if you really have any idea how wrong. Half my own family is from Egypt. They essentially fled in the 60's and 70's because of both economic and religious persecution. The number of muslims who actually think that way is NOT infinitisemally small, it is COMMON. And yes, they may want to study and get a good job TOO. But the latter most certainly DOES NOT preclude the former. And MANY of them will actually let the former trump the latter in this. I speak from first hand experience. Same as Xtian fundies.
kaasinees
2.5 / 5 (8) May 17, 2012
We do not seek out 'tribal affinity'. Humans seek out what works. On an individual basis.

Not really, when poverty becomes standard and resources ever scarce, tribal survival kicks in. This includes culling the weaker of the tribe.

Certain genes kick in when your hungry, it is natural.
Gawad
3.7 / 5 (3) May 17, 2012
con't.

I also think that the comparision with an "infinitally small" denomination like Westbro is inacurate and misleading. In terms of how mentally committed these muslims are, it would have been more accurate to draw a parallel with something like 7th Day Adventists or maybe Southern Babtists.

As far religious face coverings, I'm not for outright bans, but for very different reasons. It's because I fear that any outright ban, although it might serve the purpose of putting out a very strong pro-secular message in the communities where it is adopted, might well worsen the situation of women that are hostage to the most radical of Islamic immigrants. In THOSE families the reaction to an outright ban *would* be to prevent women from going out in public at all.

This is why IMO restrictions only in explicitly secular places may actually be more helpful, along with MASSIVE additional support for women who do not want to wear it, as they would essentially be tearing their families apart.
CHollman82
1.8 / 5 (5) May 17, 2012
Certain genes kick in when your hungry, it is natural.


Uh... no, that's not how it works...
kaasinees
2.6 / 5 (5) May 18, 2012
Certain genes kick in when your hungry, it is natural.


Uh... no, that's not how it works...


http://www.ncbi.n.../8425216
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (5) May 18, 2012
Hey did anyone notice the picture? I think she is hawt except if its a man.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.