Category: Let's talk
France is the latest country to work towards banning the wearing of the burqa in public. belgium have already as good as banned it.
Now, for some the burqa represents the oppression of women by men, as it essentially means that the woman is covered from head to toe, with just her eyes showing.
However, is it really for us to dictate that certain religions, and only certain religions should be dictated to wrt their manner of dress?
I don't understand why a woman would want to cover herself like that, and I appreciate that for some it makes communication difficult. However, if we have freedom in our countries, doesn't and shouldn't that mean freedom for all? If we started telling women they couldn't wear short skirts or heels or make up there would be outcry. Therefore shouldn't a woman be allowed to cover up if that is her wish?
I agree that women should be able to be free to wear what they choose, and I'm glad that some other countries are coming to this conclusion, but I don't think it's fair to dictate how other countries feel about it. As a moderate feminist, I truly believe would should encourage these countries to stop underestimating women, and start treating them as they are; human beings. However, I don't think it's fair to dictate their laws. After all, we certainly wouldn't like it if they came into our country and took away our freedoms, just because they didn't agree with them.
The only situation I know of here locally for the main regarding the complete covering of a woman in regards to her religious views being upheld and then coming into conflict with the community or in this situation, The State, was in regards to said woman obtaining a State Identification card or State Driver's Licence due to the fact that the face, not just eyes was to be able to be seen in the photo taken given to be placed on the I.D. Card/Licence and the complete covering hinders this.
Also here it will be interesting to note if any conflict comes to where now in some public school districts there are now uniform dress codes and whether or no religious pertaining wearing apparel will be allowed. Already bandanas in some districts are outlawed as from them comes "gang colors" and the like with possible violence ensuing and this as a preventative measure. Also in some areas/districts students are not allowed to wear designer leather jackets, certain forms of jewelry, and etc.. {again may be gang related or because clothing items/accessories draw attention to students and takes away from other student's learning, well, this the claim made}
Also at one time I worked in an office where a woman was not to wear sleeveless tops. If she did then a sweater was to be worn as well. Also no open-toed shoes. Clothing violation meant the first time being sent home to change clothing while a second offence could be two weeks without pay and a third would be dismissal.
Also in regards to clothing restrictions, if any, in other areas regarding men and shirts. Some stores here have a ruling that basically goes, No Shirt and No Shoes then No Service, as men are permitted to be in public without wearing a shirt.
I think the burqa bands in some countries is mostly a reaction to reaction, so to speak: If your country is starting to see an increasing number of members of a strict, conservative religious group, a nonviolent way to curb their numbers or ensure public safety is to take away one of the cornerstones of their social mores.
That said, as far as the US goes I think the burqa should be allowed, the same way the Amish and Mennonites and some Mormon sects are allowed to promote "modest dress." If you're going to change one religion's dress code, you should do the same for all of them, or none.
It is a disgrace that courts and the police are being used to police what people wear, when people are being murdered, raped, violently attacked, etc. One thing that makes the country I live in better than Saudi Arabia, is that people are free to wear what they want. I can go down the streets wearing a jumper, a t-shirt, a shirt, a pyjama top, or a burka. That is the way it should be. If for identification or security purposes it is necessary for people to show their faces, then obviously they should do so. Those rules should apply regardless of whether the face is being covered by Islamic clothing or by a hoodie.
Most Muslim men and Women I know, myself included, support the banning of the Burqa. I personally believe that it serves no useful purpose at all. However, there are three important points I must clarify: First, Most Muslim scholars do not consider the covering of the face as required by Islamic law, or even as Islamic at all. Only a small number of Scholars adhering to the Wahhabi doctrine consider it a religious obligation. The latest Cheaf of al-Azhar, the most influential seminary in the Sunni Muslim world, stirred up a controversy last spring when he admonished a seventh grade girl for wearing the Burqa and tried to bann it in all the institutions affiliated with al-Azhar. He made his famous statement that the Burqa is a social custom not an article of worship. Unfortunately, he was challenged in the court by a small group of Egyptian Wahhabis who argued that this is a matter of religious faith and the cheaf of al-Azhar has no right to impose his interpretation of Islam on everyone. They won and he lost.
secondly, this wave of Banning the Burqa in Europe is way far behind some Muslim states. Turkey banned the Burqa in the middle of the 1930’s, Tunis banned it in the 1960’s, and Syria in 1982. Needless to say, The wearing of the Burqa is not as widespread in the Muslim countries as people may think. In Europe it is only a tiny minority of Muslim women wear it.
Thirdly, most European Muslims are not against the banning of the Burqa in principle; They are mostly against using the Burqa as a political instrument to disenfranchise the European Muslim communities. Thus it is the politicization of the issue, and turning it into an excuse to put down Muslims and their faith that upsets manyMuslims. France started in the early 1990’s with imposing a bann against the wearing of the Burqa in public schools with the excuse that it is a secular country and it seperates between religion and state. Nonetheless, it did not ban Catholic girls from wearing the Cross, or Jewish Orthodox boys from wearing the Yarmulke. That was seen by the Muslims in France at the time, and for the right reasons, as an arbitrary, hypocritical, and discriminatory policy. Most of the discussions in France these days are framed in a context of threats and dangers inflicted upon the French society and culture by Muslims. The implication is very clear. The message these French activists are sending is that French Muslims are not as Frenchas others, they are intruders of some sort. Their views are similar to some of the arguments I am reading here on the boards especially regarding the plan to build an Islamic interfaith and cultural center near Ground Zero.
Having said that, I should add that there is almost a consensus among Muslim Scholars that the covering of the hair is a religious obligation. They consider it part of the modesty Islam requires the Muslims women to abide by. I believe that If Muslim states could bann the Burqa, there is no reason of why European countries could not. The most important is to be done within the legal system without any politicization or trying to use it for quick and cheap political and election gains at the expense of Islam and the Muslim Communities.
The politicisation is unavoidable, because some parties will support the ban, and others will oppose it. To gain support, each side will make claims about and demonise people on the other side. Some in favour of banning the burka will argue that Muslims may use it to conceal bombs, and that Muslims wear the burka because they don't want to integrate. Some people who are against banning the burka will argue that those who want it to be banned hat Muslims, and call them racist and Islamaphobic. There is truth in some of the claims on both sides, but neither side's demonisation tactics are helpful.
i Can't disagree with what you said. The Activists among Muslim women and their supporters should try to figure out the best strategy to use, depending on their situations. Not all countries have the same sociopolitical structure, and not all countries would generate the same dynamics.
I don't know how I feel on the burqa issue, but I am aware that it has been outlawed in several predominantly Muslim countries for years.
However, what I do think we as societies need to curb is any and all outwardly zealous behavior that restricts the rights of others. Zealots over the years have demonstrated less ability to control themselves in public than do mentally impaired wards of the state do. That being said, where is this line drawn? To me it isn't so much what they themselves do, but what they try and prevent others from doing, all in the name of protection of their individual rights.
You want to wear this device? Fine. Don't inflict it on the rest of the community where all women eventually are required to do so. And trust me, Muslim extremists aren't the only ones guilty of this zealous behavior: Christian fundamentalists who hold science programs hostage, or Hindu extremists beating up a biker who lost control and ran into a cow standing in the middle of the road, or animal rights folks burning down a mink farm roasting the mink alive in their cages to prove a point, all these folks are definite candidates for needing to have their frequent and disruptive outbursts controlled by others, if they cannot, or more likely will not, control themselves.
Just like when you were a kid and told by your father or guardian: "Either you fix it, or I'm gonna come in there and fix it for you!" These communities need to police themselves and stop their extremist members from their public outbursts / potential terrorist leanings.
I support the banning of the burqa. Western nations are getting far too many immigrants who want the native born/assimilated populations to adapt to them, but make relatively little effort to adapt to their host culture. Does that mean Muslims should start drinking or betting on Monday night football or eating roast pork with their neighbors? No, but neither should they expect mainstream Europeans to adapt to them to the point where toystore owners can't even display Winnie the Pooh's little friend, Piglet, in their own shops as it offends Muslim sensitivities. This is an article I actually read about what Muslims were expecting in Denmark.
I suspect banning the Burqa is a way of saying, look, you live here, we are a largely secular nation. It isn't just wardrobe, some young girls in these countries are also being deceptively arranged in marriages they don't want (they will be told they are being sent on a vacation when in fact they are being sent to their prospective inlaws), even killed in so called honor killings. some of these kids are also stuck forever playing interpreter for parents who don't learn the local language, and immigrants tend to make up a larger percentage of population on "the dole" in those nations. I suspect lifting the burqa is a way of forcing integration and contributing to rather than taking from the host.
But the reality is that a lot of these instances where shops are aledgedly told to stop displaying piglet/change the name of christmas lights etc in order not to offend muslims often have less to do with the wishes/sensitivities of muslims and more to do with officious burocrats who make these judgements out of ignorant perceptions of what people might think. It is similar to the banning of nursery rhymes such as ba ba black sheep because of the perceived offence this might cause to black people. As a rule, no black people have become offended by it, but someone with too much authority and time on their hands will have made that judgement call for themselves, and thus have ignited the myth that ba ba black sheep is racist.
There will of course be those who will choose to take offence where none is intended, and I do have some personal experience of someone from a certain religion requesting that changes be made in order to accommodate their own beliefs while disregarding those of others, I think that in such instances it is important to remember that on the whole these are the views of one and do not represent the majority.
As for people emigrating to other countries and expecting change, well aren't we all guilty of that? Go to mainland spain or the canary islands and you will be astounded at the number of fish and chip shops and pubs (many of them run by brits) that are there to accommodate both the large expat communities that live in these countries and the millions of tourists that flock there every summer.
Go to one of the large hotels in Dubai, or turkey (I have been to both) and witness the sheer amount of ham/bacon/sausage/associated pork products that have been put there to accommodate the western tourists, in a country where eating pork is considered offensive to the religion of that country.
It cuts both ways I'm afraid and we as westerners are by no means innocent on that score.
As for so-called "honour" killings, I think it's important to remember here that honour killings are not done in the name of islam, but more in the name of certain cultures, some of whose faith happens to be islam. As far as I'm aware, forced marriages, and "honour" killings, are generally prevalent in the pakistani communities, and has more to do with the culture than the religion. So I thik it's important that we disassociate forced marriages and honour killings from islam since the two are not linked.
In response to post 10, Just as we don't force Muslims or teetotals to get drunk, Muslims don't force us to wear burkas.
You're mixing all the bad things Islamic extremists do in our countries together, to imply they are doing something they are not.
Who is anybody to tell other people what to wear? If they successfully ban burkas, I'm going to campaign to get my football club's shirt banned as I detest their choice of sponsor, and get Leeds and Bradford shirts banned because as a Huddersfield fan I am supposed to dislike them.
How are women to be photographed for identity purposes if all that can be seen is their eyeballs? This is extreme. My local shopping mall has rules posted, and some of these rules have to do with attire, one of them being they do not want people in clothing that obscures their faces for identity purposes. I have no problem with this. Just as I don't want to attire my daughter in skinny jeans, tank tops with the bras hanging out, or extremely short skirts, neither should she be covered with only her eyes visible. Both extremes suck. And does anyone remember the complications of the Afghani burqa? These women had to be so covered it obscured their sight & hearing, and some got run over by tanks.
So perhaps a government ban is not in order, but if the burqa prevents the whole face from being shown, and malls require the whole face to show then in that particular establishment this veil would have to be removed or she couldn't go in.
For better or worse, when we were younger, it wasn't uncommon for us young guys to run around in the park with no shirts on, yet the stores say 'no shoes, no shirt, no service'. Didn't require a ban. Anyone who is pro deregulation ought to support the market's ability to regulate the situation then?
Sugarbaby, aren't you in the U K? I don't think Pakistanis settle in large numbers in France. Some girls deceptively arranged in marriage there are sent to places like Turkey & Algeria.
In Germany there was an internationally reported case of a young Turkish immigrant woman who didn't wear hijab, listened to music, & wanted to live her life like an ordinary German. She was honor killed by her prime argument in favor of the one child family brother. Brother tried to argue a cultural defense, but the German judge told him where to go, how to get there, and what to do once he got there...life in a prison full of ordinary Germans.
In my former hometown of Phoenix, a shitkicker Iraqi dad threw his teenage daughter out of a moving car because she was becoming "too Americanized". Also there a non Muslim Liberian family abandonned their 8 year old daughter to foster care for the offense of having been gang raped by a neighborhood 14 year old & his buddies. "That's ok, we don't want her anyway." A friend told me of a pathetic specimen of an Egyptian sperm donor who shot his three daughters by his American wife because they, too, were becoming too Americanized. A Palestinian asshole & his wife...wife sat on her OWN TEENAGE DAUGHTER, while asswipe stabbed her to death, and they tried to dupe the Medical Examiner, or all people, into believing this was a crime of self defense & this high achieving young woman...straight A student, part time worker, whose only crime was having a black boyfriend...was lashing out. Asshole & egg donor were originally sentenced to death in Missouri, but sentences were commuted to life in prison, where they have since done the world a favor by dying. In Los Angeles, in an unrelated to honor killing matter, Turkish parents, who were fired from their hospital jobs for misrepresenting their employment in an attempt to get free daycare, committed murder/suicide against their kids. The Palistinian shit was strongly suspected of having ties to organizations like Hamas.
These and numerous other examples beg the question of not should we ban the burqa, but should we still be accepting such large numbers of immigrants? I think not. I would not be opposed to a plan like lowering numbers altogether, or even readjusting the balance from 90% third world, 10% first, to 50/50 for both sets of applicants.
50 50 is closer to fair enough.
I agree with cris on this issue, and it's true, most forms of islam do not require women to cover their whole face and body, just their hair and to dress modestly. so I agree states should be allowed to ban it.
However I do not think that states should be able to ban the use of headscarves, as these are very important to most muslam women, especially those who come from other countries. also, as cris correctly pointed out, it does not ban other groups from wearing articles of their own religious faith, and that is hypocritical, especially for the reasons the french gave.
I'm all for private business regulating itself if they want to do like my local shopping mall, or the one everyone knows about "No shirt no shoes no service."
Wasn't that the case w this Danish woman some years back? The one in NYC who tethered her young child outside like some tether their pets outside, and she was promptly arrested & charged with child neglect? The one who tried claiming "cultural defense, that's perfectly normal in Denmark?" Well, she was in NYC & married, I believe, to an American who should have taught her better.
Anyway, turns out in Denmark, that is the norm...ONLY IF YOU ARE KNOWN TO THAT SHOPKEEPER. It is not a priviledge for any and everyone who is just visitiing a store for the first and maybe only time. So in that tiny country it looks similar to the "marketplace regulation" here. Here's a new one: "Burqa no shirt no shoes no service."
I can understand shop keepers not desiring persons to enter their shops who don't have shoes on as this oft times relates to insurance policies they carry in the sense that if someone were to step on some sharp object while in the store, there could result a possible lawsuit.
As far as the No shirt issue... No a problem for me if a guy chooses not to wear one. Once I worked in a store predominantly visited by males as military items and hunting items the main sell as well as footwear that those in the construction business would wear {metal toe work boots, etc}. The problem arose in that at one point a mother and her young child came in to make some purchases and was offended by what was to her and her child's view in that the fellows were heavily tattooed, body pierced as well as some who would have scars from hot iron brandings, and she went into a brief like shock... after that the No shirt, No shoes, No service sign went up.
Also there comes to mind in this mixed lot of views under the Burqa heading and I realized has been discussed before on a Board or two before... Not to make a point of "equality' in that if a male be allowed to go shirtless, then what about females..?? This I would be prudish on or more to say modest, with the exception of a mother feeding her child naturally in public and all the uproar that can cause seems unbelievable at times {though I am in the thot of the keeping that the mother have a lite blanket covering}
Anyhow back to the Burqa as we move forward.... Personally I have not a problem with it and don't consider that I ought to in any way. Someone want to wear one, fine. Who am I to tell someone not to wear one. Though I am in agreement regarding the security issues previously shared and so too with hoodies, again the security issues involved.
Same with a cross, the star of David, the amish modest clothing. and so on. If those articles of dress are where a person is at in their thinking, then so be it.In a season of becoming more tolerant, then the need to move away from as I understand all this situation, well there needs to be a moving away from racism and folks given to think their way of dress is the only morally/religiously correct way.
I wonder if there is any specific laws about having children on leads....
Connie to be honest I think often the rule of no shirts is probably so precisely for equality purposes. Because whether we admit it or not, most people just aren't comfortable with the idea of women wandering around topless, whereas we don't apply the same standards to men.
Loui I wouldn't imagine such a law would be enforceable, given that reins for children are fairly commonplace in many countries, although I am aware they are frowned upon in many others.
good point claire, weather you like it or not, women going around topless would basically be free pornography. and yes, lots of people wouldn't be happy with it.
Then too there is the policy of...
No Shirt No Jacket No Tie, No Service
...and yet women are not forced to
equally wear a tie and jacket...
What I don't get with the Danes, that is, those who take advantage of the law, is why not just hold the kid's hand so they don't run like a bull in a China shop thru wherever they're shopping? How are they going to learn to act being tethered outside? Where I live it isn't tie on's or tethering outside, since it isn't even thought of to do with kids in the states, but strollers that make me scratch my head. Not for infants or toddlers why may only be walking short distances, or even a handicapped child, but those who are WAY TOO BIG for the folding strollers and even the sturdier ones. Some of these have to be kindergartners & they're being transported in strollers, maybe because it's easier on the mom in particular (don't see too many men dealing with preschoolers & older like this). If gym class even still exists I doubt some poor kids will have the leg muscles to do some of the exercises.
Loui, I have a feeling, though not sure, that it is illegal in the United states to have a child on a rein. However, although we are drifting away from Claire's main posting, I find this subject so unimportant in view of much bigger problems facing the children world wide. UnCEF estimates that there are over 100 Million homeless children in the world. 18 Million of these children are in India, 30 million are in Latin America, and the remaining are skettered in the rest of the continents and countries. Although this massive problem can be understood, at least in economic terms in the poor countries, It is really mind buggling to find it so wide spread in the richest countries of the world.
Although Tethering a child is, or may be illegal in the United States, Child homelessness is perfectly legal. Here are exerpts from a report on homeless children in the U.S.
The National Center on Family Homelessness estimates more than 1.5 million children are without a home.
The report, by the National Center on Family Homelessness, analyzed data from 2005-06 and found that more than 1.5 million children were without a home.
"These numbers will grow as home foreclosures continue to rise," Ellen Bassuk, president of the center, said in a statement.
The study ranked states on their performance in four areas: the extent of child homelessness, the risk for it, child well-being and the state's policy and planning efforts.
The states that fared the poorest were Texas, Georgia, Arkansas, New Mexico and Louisiana.
Connecticut, New Hampshire, Hawaii, Rhode Island and North Dakota performed the best.
Homeless children have poor health, emotional problems and low graduation rates, the study found.
"The consequences to our society will play out for decades," Bassuk said.
Spongebob I can explain the stroller issue in very simple terms: Free shopping cart.
Sure the kiddy is sitting in it, maybe sitting on something to hold it down, but the part underneath is basically a mini cargo bay. Kinda missed that once the daughter got too big for it. She quit when she was four or so, and mostly it was just for those occasions where we were gonna tote a lot of stuff, and she went along with my humor she was the cargomaster.
it takes a second for a child to slip away into a crowd. And while I certainly do not condone the tethering of children outside of shops, I do see why some parents choose to use restraints - I did, not because I couldn't handle my child, but because it only takes a split second for him to run off, and if he couldn't get away then nothing could happen to him.
Danes do not tether their children outside of shops... And yes I know what I'm talking about, I am danish. Some may do it, but that's a minority... Just wanted to clear that up...
Actually let me correct that... Noone in their right mind would ever tie their child outside a shop, so it's not even a minority