Belgium Bans the Burka

[Gob]

Putting the cat amongst the pigeons..

A Conservative MP today declared he would refuse to meet Muslim women wearing full Islamic dress at his constituency surgery unless they lifted their face veil.

Phillip Hollobone made the comments after launching a Private Member's Bill to ban women in the UK wearing the burka or niqab in public places.

It comes after France banned women wearing the full-face veil, making it an illegal offence.

But Muslim groups have condemned the Kettering MP and accused him of failing in his duty as a member of Parliament.

Mr Hollobone told the Independent: 'I would ask her to remove her veil. If she said: "No", I would take the view that she could see my face, I could not see hers, I am not able to satisfy myself she is who she says she is. I would invite her to communicate with me in a different way, probably in the form of a letter.'

He added that the majority of Muslim women wore dress allowing people to see their face and claimed wearing the burka or niqab was not a religious requirement.

'It is not a necessity,' he said.

'I just take what I regard as a common sense view. If you want to engage in normal, daily, interactive dialogue with your fellow human beings, you can only really do this properly by seeing each other's face.

'Seventy-five per cent of the usual communication between two human beings is done with personal experience. God gave us faces to be expressive. It is not just the words we utter but whether we are smiling, sad, angry or frustrated. You don't get any of that if your face is covered.'

His Face Coverings (Regulation) Bill is due to have its second reading on December 3 but, as it lacks the official coalition Government;s backing, is likely to run out of parliamentary time.

Shaista Gohir, executive director of the Muslim Women's Network UK, said: 'He is just being pedantic and trying to fan the flames of intolerance. He would be failing in his duty as an MP.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z0tzGhB7D4

[Scooter]

If this is really about security, then why not tailor these laws to those situations where it is not permitted to cover the face in other ways. If there are places where one cannot cover one's face with a balaclava, halloween mask, etc., then common sense would suggest that burkas cannot be worn in those places. But most of these burka laws, whether already enacted or proposed, go much further than this, and extend the ban to all public places. That's bigotry, not security.

[rubato]

I'm willing to concede the necessity argument, 'we have to ban the burkha to preserve public safety' it just that there are no examples of it ever being a problem in Europe...

So its kind of weak.

And I am sympathetic to the idea that anyone engaging in public life should have to show their face, the same as everyone else, but I can't show any examples of harm in not doing so.

So I'm back to thinking that they are as entitled to wear a burkha as I am not to get a haircut.

yrs,
rubato

[loCAtek]

but you need a haircut.

[Gob]

Scoot, do you believe it's right that a religion can allow men, in western society, to imprison women at home if they do not wear the burka?

Do you believe it's right that religious leaders can force women to conform to a type of clothing?

[rubato]

Many religions require that members conform to certain practices. Do I think it is right that religious leaders 'force' women not to eat pork? To abstain from alcohol? To not wear makeup? To imprison women at home unless they wear clothes?

Only if the practice which is in question is so egregiously bad that it is impossible to think of a person doing so as the kind of choice which an autonomous person might will, and we are thus required to respect, can we then impose the will of society at large and forbid it. This is why we can forbid an individual to kill themselves (under most circumstances) or to sell themselves into slavery but we cannot forbid them to get a tattoo (no matter how stupid it looks) or forbid them to shave their heads.

yrs,
rubato

[Gob]

Many religions require that members conform to certain practices. Do I think it is right that religious leaders 'force' women not to eat pork? To abstain from alcohol? To not wear makeup? To imprison women at home unless they wear clothes?

Are the rules against eating pork enforced with violence?

There are cases of men threatening to imprison their wives at home if the burka is banned, should that be allowed?

“Wearing of the burqa is enforced by sharia, i.e. Muslim law - the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, and is enforced in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and in the Islamic Republic of Iran. The Taliban's Islamic Emirate required women to cover not only their head but their face as well, because "the face of a woman is a source of corruption" for men not related to them.

Veiling among school girls became increasingly common following the 9/11 Attack of 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."

In Basra Iraq, "more than 100 women who didn't adhere to strict Islamic dress code" were killed between the summer of 2007 and spring of 2008 by Islamist militias (primarily the Mahdi Army) who controlled the police there, according to the CBS news program 60 Minutes.

Islamists in other countries have been accused of attacking or threatening to attack the faces of women in an effort to intimidate them from wearing of makeup or allegedly immodest dress.”

Only if the practice which is in question is so egregiously bad that it is impossible to think of a person doing so as the kind of choice which an autonomous person might will, and we are thus required to respect, can we then impose the will of society at large and forbid it.

I believe the enforcing of the wearing of the burka meets that condition.

[Gob]

Blind passengers are being ordered off buses or refused taxi rides because Muslim drivers or passengers object to their 'unclean' guide dogs.

One pensioner said he had twice been confronted by drivers and asked to get off the bus because of his guide dog, and had also faced hostility at a hospital and in a supermarket over the animal.

The problem has become so widespread that the matter was raised in the House of Lords last week, prompting transport minister Norman Baker to warn that a religious objection was not a reason to eject a passenger with a well-behaved guide dog.

National Federation of the Blind spokesman Jill Allen-King said the problem was common, and 'getting worse'.

The tension stems from a strand of Islamic teaching which considers a dog's saliva to be impure.

George Herridge, 73, a retired hospital maintenance manager, said he was 'stunned' to be twice asked by bus drivers to leave their vehicles because of his guide dog, a black labrador.

Miss Allen-King said she had been repeatedly left on the kerb by Muslim taxi drivers who refused to take her dog.

A spokesman for the Muslim Council of Britain said: 'We need to be flexible on this. Muslim drivers should have no hesitation in allowing guide dogs into their bus or car.'

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z0u5OlPC72

Fuck me pink! Take away their taxi drivers permits then.

No, hang about, that would be "discrimination" wouldn't it, and we all know that in the UK discrimination only works one way.

[Guinevere]

There is a huge difference between individuals requiring women within their religion to wear or not wear a particular piece of clothing, and the state doing the same.

[Gob]

Yep, one affects just the women, one affects society...

What if a bank banned women wearing the burka?

[Aard Vark]

Yep, one affects just the women, one affects society...

What if a bank banned women wearing the burka?

But is it illealgal to wear anything that covers the face in a bank, or any financal office. Not to mention most government buildings, court houses, police stations and (not that it is enforced for Muslems) Airports.
Not many do but bank staff have the right to have you removed if you refuse to remove your glasses, if asked to. There are signs outside all of the buildings stating the removel of fullface helmets.

I still don't see where the difference is between a burka and any mask that covers the face.

Or may be " you decided to come and live here respect our ways and laws"

[rubato]

Yep, one affects just the women, one affects society...

What if a bank banned women wearing the burka?

But is it illealgal to wear anything that covers the face in a bank, or any financal office. Not to mention most government buildings, court houses, police stations and (not that it is enforced for Muslems) Airports.
Not many do but bank staff have the right to have you removed if you refuse to remove your glasses, if asked to. There are signs outside all of the buildings stating the removel of fullface helmets.

I still don't see where the difference is between a burka and any mask that covers the face.

Or may be " you decided to come and live here respect our ways and laws"

A rule which affects only certain areas is not the same as an overall criminal prohibition.

yrs,
rubato

[loCAtek]

What's really going isn't worship, but sexism in the form of male domination over females.

...need I explain further?

[Big RR]

Lo--in some cases you are undoubtedly right, in others, I think the women make a choice to wear the burqa on their own (for whatever reason). And if they choose to wear it, it's not my business (or anyone else's for that matter) to second guess them.

[Crackpot]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100719/ap_ ... amic_veils

Syria bans full Islamic face veils at universities

By ALBERT AJI and ELIZABETH A. KENNEDY, Associated Press Writers
21 mins ago

DAMASCUS, Syria – Syria has forbidden the country's students and teachers from wearing the niqab — the full Islamic veil that reveals only a woman's eyes — taking aim at a garment many see as political.
The ban shows a rare point of agreement between Syria's secular, authoritarian government and the democracies of Europe: Both view the niqab as a potentially destabilizing threat.
"We have given directives to all universities to ban niqab-wearing women from registering," a government official in Damascus told The Associated Press on Monday.
The order affects both public and private universities and aims to protect Syria's secular identity, said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak publicly about the issue. Hundreds of primary school teachers who were wearing the niqab at government-run schools were transferred last month to administrative jobs, he added.
The ban, issued Sunday by the Education Ministry, does not affect the hijab, or headscarf, which is far more common in Syria than the niqab's billowing black robes.
Syria is the latest in a string of nations from Europe to the Middle East to weigh in on the veil, perhaps the most visible symbol of conservative Islam. Veils have spread in other secular-leaning Arab countries, such as Egypt, Jordan and Lebanon, with Jordan's government trying to discourage them by playing up reports of robbers who wear veils as masks.
Turkey bans Muslim headscarves in universities, with many saying attempts to allow them in schools amount to an attack on modern Turkey's secular laws.
The issue has been debated across Europe, where France, Spain, Belgium and the Netherlands are considering banning the niqab on the grounds it is degrading to women.
Last week, France's lower house of parliament overwhelmingly approved a ban on both the niqab and the burqa, which covers even a woman's eyes, in an effort to define and protect French values — a move that angered many in the country's large Muslim community.
The measure goes before the Senate in September; its biggest hurdle could come when France's constitutional watchdog scrutinizes it later. A controversial 2004 law in France earlier prohibited Muslim headscarves and other "ostentatious" religious symbols in the classrooms of French primary and secondary public schools.
Opponents say such bans violate freedom of religion and personal choice, and will stigmatize all Muslims.
In Damascus, a 19-year-old university student who would give only her first name, Duaa, said she hopes to continue wearing her niqab to classes when the next term begins in the fall, despite the ban.
Otherwise, she said, she will not be able to study.
"The niqab is a religious obligation," said the woman, who would not give her surname because she was uncomfortable speaking out against the ban. "I cannot go without it."
Nadia, a 44-year-old science teacher in Damascus who was reassigned last month because of her veil, said: "Wearing my niqab is a personal decision."
"It reflects my freedom," she said, also declining to give her full name.
In European countries, particularly France, the debate has turned on questions of how to integrate immigrants and balance a minority's rights with secular opinion that the garb is an affront to women.
But in the Middle East — particularly Syria and Egypt, which also has banned the niqab on campuses and in offices — experts say the issue underscores the gulf between the secular elite and largely impoverished lower classes who find solace in religion.
Some observers say the bans also stem in part from fear of dissent.
The niqab is not widespread in Syria, although it has become more common in recent years, a development that has not gone unnoticed by the authoritarian government.
"We are witnessing a rapid income gap growing in Syria — there is a wealthy ostentatious class of people who are making money and wearing European clothes," said Joshua Landis, an American professor and Syria expert who runs a blog called Syria Comment.
The lower classes are feeling the squeeze, he said.
"It's almost inevitable that there's going to be backlash. The worry is that it's going to find its expression in greater Islamic radicalism," Landis said.
Four decades of secular rule under the Baath Party have largely muted sectarian differences in Syria, although the state is quick to quash any dissent. In the 1980s, Syria crushed a bloody campaign by Sunni militants to topple the regime of then-President Hafez Assad.
The veil is linked to Salafism, a movement that models itself on early Islam with a doctrine that is similar to Saudi Arabia's. In the broad spectrum of Islamic thought, Salafism is on the extreme conservative end.
In Gaza, radical Muslim groups encourage women to cover their faces and even conceal the shape of their shoulders by using layers of drapes.
It's a mistake to view the niqab as a "personal freedom," Bassam Qadhi, a Syrian women's rights activist, told local media recently.
"It is rather a declaration of extremism," Qadhi said.
___
Kennedy reported from Beirut.

[Big RR]

Well that settles it; Belgium is now in line with Syria. What an enviable position to be in; maybe they can copy Iran next.

[Gob]

The niqab is not widespread in Syria, although it has become more common in recent years, a development that has not gone unnoticed by the authoritarian government.

"It's almost inevitable that there's going to be backlash. The worry is that it's going to find its expression in greater Islamic radicalism," Landis said.

That puts them more in line with the UK!

[loCAtek]

Lo--in some cases you are undoubtedly right, in others, I think the women make a choice to wear the burqa on their own (for whatever reason). And if they choose to wear it, it's not my business (or anyone else's for that matter) to second guess them.

From the OP;

He added that the majority of Muslim women wore dress allowing people to see their face and claimed wearing the burka or niqab was not a religious requirement.

From what I heard the burqa, wasn't that common prior to the rise of the Taliban;

Before the Taliban took power in Afghanistan, the chadri was infrequently worn in cities. While they were in power, the Taliban treatment of women required the wearing of a chadri in public. Officially, it is not required under the present Afghan regime, but local warlords still enforce it in southern Afghanistan. Burqa use in the remainder of Afghanistan is variable and is observed to be gradually declining in Kabul. Due to political instability in these areas, women who might not otherwise be inclined to wear the chadri must do so as a matter of personal safety.

The Taliban first became prominent in 1994 and took over the Afghan capital, Kabul, in 1996. The takeover followed over 20 years of civil war and political instability. Initially, some hoped that the Taliban would provide stability to the country. However, it soon imposed a strict and oppressive order based on its misinterpretation of Islamic law.

The assault on the status of women began immediately after the Taliban took power in Kabul. The Taliban closed the women's university and forced nearly all women to quit their jobs, closing down an important source of talent and expertise for the country. It restricted access to medical care for women, brutally enforced a restrictive dress code, and limited the ability of women to move about the city.

The Taliban perpetrated egregious acts of violence against women, including rape, abduction, and forced marriage. Some families resorted to sending their daughters to Pakistan or Iran to protect them.

[Lord Jim]

There are cases of men threatening to imprison their wives at home if the burka is banned, should that be allowed?

It seems to that there's a gray area here....

If someone is holding another person against their will, than clearly the state has a right to intervene....

But I can see a situation where a person has been so conditioned that the believe that they should in fact be subjugated; that their subjugation is the right and moral thing. They may have reached this conclusion because of mental manipulation, so that they don't truly have a "choice" in the sense that one would ideally like people to have a choice, but I don't see how the state can play any legitimate role in this. If they say they are happy with the way things are, no one should have right to compel them to live otherwise.

Take away their taxi drivers permits then.

Yeah, that's a great idea....

Then they can go on the dole and qualify to be put up in a 3 million dollar house at tax payer expense...

[Gob]

That's about the state of it Jim...