Now Belgium bans burqa in public places

[sandandfoam]

And it would be nice if the Muslims actually believed in that verse, instead of the verses about killing non-Muslims.

How have you determined what "the Muslims" believe?

 

[ShaunGoldstein]

How have you determined what \"the Muslims\" believe?

Yes, because I have actually read the Koran and deconstructed/done textual analyses on it. I have analyzed the Koran from a literary theoretical perspective, as should be done with all writing.

Anyhow, here is a good article on why the ban should be supported, written by an influential philosopher in France

Bernard-Henri Lévy: Why I Support a Ban on Burqas

About Mr. Levy

After attending the Lycée Louis-le-Grand in Paris, Lévy enrolled in the elite and highly selective École Normale Supérieure in 1968, from which he graduated with a degree in philosophy. Some of his professors there included prominent French intellectuals and philosophers Jacques Derrida and Louis Althusser. Lévy is also a pre-eminent journalist, having started his career as a war reporter for Combat, the famous underground newspaper founded by Camus during the Nazi occupation of France.

Returning to Paris, Lévy became famous as the young founder of the New Philosophers (Nouveaux Philosophes) school which advocated some reforms for Marxism and Socialism. He is also a signatory to the Manifesto: Together Facing the New Totalitarianism, along with other prominent figures like Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Irshad Manji, Caroline Fourest,

 

[Kilgore Trout]

If there weren't so many increasing problems with Islam in European countries, ideas like banning burqas would never have come up. If Muslims want to enjoy the religious freedoms of the countries they're emigrating to, I suggest to stop being such pains in the ***. Europeans are pretty live-and-let-live, so if you don't cause any problems, I don't think they'll give two craps what you wear.

 

[Darkness]

Darkness,

Then so too are bras, blouses, pants and any other attire that covers a woman's body. The Niqab or Hijab are just different levels of clothing to what you yourself personally are accustomed to. In some countries women wearing no top is the norm, that doesn't mean that you covering your breasts is misogynistic.

*sigh* Now, you are just being ridiculous and you know it. The arguement is not about modesty; it is about identity. Again, it all returns to the idea that women are Satan's temptresses. The whole idea of the burka is that it shuts down a girl's identity, which is located in the face; not the breasts, *** or vagina. The burka essentially dehumanises women. It is linked to a backwards ideology from the 7th century, that has no place in our modern era and it frankly scares me that so many Muslims cling to these absurd notions. Christians have liberalised their beliefs, except for the the small minority of maniacs, like Pat Robertson, but nobody pays any attention to them anyway.

 

[ShaunGoldstein]

The whole idea of the burka is that it shuts down a girl's identity, which is located in the face; not the breasts, *** or vagina. The burka essentially dehumanises women. It is linked to a backwards ideology from the 7th century, that has no place in our modern era and it frankly scares me that so many Muslims cling to these absurd notions. Christians have liberalised their beliefs, except for the the small minority of maniacs, like Pat Robertson, but nobody pays any attention to them anyway.

This has been my point exactly. Every human or humyn being has a right to self-identity in expression. Of course it seems that Abu Rashid is purposely ignoring this point in order to demonize liberalism.

Listen, if people want to live like it's the 7th century or live like some primitive, knuckle-dragging, cave-dwelling fundamentalist throwback, that's their problem. But nobody should have to put up with it, and they should be punished - not just the Muslim immigrants living in the west (and before you call me a racist, I support the right of all to immigrate where they want on the condition that they assmilate into the secular, liberal, and multicultural mainstream) but the ones in the Middle east too. Let's deprive them of the foreign aid they need. Let's pull out our foreign businessmen out of there and slap sanctions on them until they shape up.

 

[Abu Rashid]

Shaun,

If it\'s not a religious thing then how are people infringing on Islamist religious rights (as they claim) by banning it?

We claim this?? I've never claimed it's about religious identity and I've never seen other Muslims doing that either, in fact I've always claimed the complete opposite, that it's nothing at all to do with religious identity. This was a red herring created by the French during their campaign to prevent girls covering their hair at school. They cococted this nonsense, so they could claim that covering nakedness is akin to wearing a cross or a kippa.

Islamic dress codes are purely that, dress codes. Islam has a concept of nakedness, and what cannot be shown publicly, and that's all. There's no special cultural style of dress whatsoever involved.

Yes, because I have actually read the Koran and deconstructed/done textual analyses on it. I have analyzed the Koran from a literary theoretical perspective, as should be done with all writing.

Obviously you didn't read it very well, and certainly not in it's historical perspective, otherwise you'd know it doesn't tell Muslims to go around killing non-Muslims.

My guess is you haven't read it at all, but have probably just gleaned some out of context passages from anti-Islamic websites.

 

[Luminous]

How does someone else's choice of clothing affect you? Please be specific on how it DIRECTLY affects your life and your body. And how you FEEL when viewing it is your own reaction based on your thoughts and emotions...not something controlled or determined by the clothing. So please, do tell how it affects you personally.

Fine, i admit it...your devious wiles affect my weak males eyes...it affects my body very visibly and thus affects my life.
many visual things affect my life, and there are many laws concerning visual things. not just the male and female body...ofcourse, i would also not like it if people would completely dress in elaborate costumes such as giant teddy bears... that show be illegal in public streets. Halloween shmalloween. :sarcastic

 

[zenzero]

Friends,

Once again attempt to bring your attention that this thread is not for agruments for or against but to understand what it means to the ACTUAL people living there.

Let us once again try and understand what the law is going to be and what are the likely adjustments to be made by the affected women.
Burqa set to be banned in Belgium

Under the new law, women are prohibited from wearing full-face Islamic garments, such as 'burqa' or 'niqab' on streets, parks, sports grounds and buildings "meant for public use or to provide services".

The offender will face a fine of 15-25 euro ($28-$47) and a prison term of up to seven days.
The ban was imposed on the grounds that the wearer is not fully identifiable and therefore could be a threat to public security.

Supporters of the law have said the new law will be useful in the fight against terrorism and also give more rights to Muslim women.

Municipalities in several cities in Belgium have already introduced a similar ban. France and Austria are also considering a similar ban on burqa.

It is clear that several municipalities had already been practicing the law and no one has objected.
Islam in Belgium - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Only 6% of the Beligium population is muslim which is 628,751 [2008 estimates0and about 10% of the Muslim population are "practicing" Muslims [study in 2005] and taking about 50% of them to be females and further 75% of it as adults we have about 24, 621 which means the affected women could be estimated to about 24, 621.

Further more, we know that wearing of *burqa* is voluntary in islam and so wearing or not wearing it has nothing to do with religious practices but a choice that those 24,621 women has to make and adjust to the new law.
Where does friend Abu Rashid who lives Downunder has a problem with this; is beyond all comprehension and now like him to present his case with statistics which he has been asking everyone to provide.

Love & rgds

 

[darkendless]

Darkendless,

As I've already pointed out to you in another thread, this kind of viewpoint (and much worse actually) is fairly stock standard amongst Australian blokes, so Sheikh Taj actually fits in quite well here. He's probably more Aussie than you or I.

He is a religious leader, not even remotely relevant comparison. I forgot to include that he suggested they deserved to be raped. Sickening, from a religious leader......

 

[JMorris]

This categorisation of perceived symbols of Islam with Nazism bothers me.

extremist Islam.

The demonisation of Islam

extremist Islam

and the creation of mythological Islamic bogeymen is disturbing.

that would indeed be disturbing, if there was anything mythological about these "bogeymen".

 

[Abu Rashid]

He is a religious leader, not even remotely relevant comparison.

He's just a man. Islam has no such thing as "religious leaders" or "clergy". He has his opinion and his opinion represents him solely. He also has very poor English skills (which is another kettle of fish altogether) and is quite obviously unable to articulate himself well.

I forgot to include that he suggested they deserved to be raped.

He did? Can you provide a quote for that one?

Sickening, from a religious leader......

If he did say that, then it is sickening, yes. But the idea he's some Muslim leader is irrelevant. He does not represent me, or most other Muslims in Australia, he's merely someone who the Lebanese Muslim Association brought to Australia to lead prayers and teach Qur'an. Doesn't make him anything really.

 

[Abu Rashid]

extremist Islam.

This is merely a means of you abstracting a 'branch' of Islam that you think you can then be legitimately hateful towards.

"Extremist Islam" is not a tangible entity. It's just a way of avoiding the implications of what you're spewing out here.

 

[Panda]

I'd be covered in women before we left the platform

Joking aside though. What is the difference between the government saying you must wear x, in this case underwear probably minimum, and you must not wear x? Both dictate what you are to wear. If anything saying you can't wear x is less oppressive than saying you MUST wear x.

 

[sandandfoam]

What is the difference between the government saying you must wear x, in this case underwear probably minimum, and you must not wear x?

There's no difference.

 

[Panda]

There's no difference.

Ok thanks. So how can you oppose a ban on the burka and not also oppose the laws that say we must wear clothes?

 

[Caladan]

Caladan,

Either you failed to comprehend it, or you're just attempting to discredit it at any cost, since it's a very valid point, and exposes the ridiculous nature of your claims. I think it's the latter, but haven't ruled out the former.

The only ridiculous thing about it is that you are equating covering the female breasts with covering the women body from head to toe with only the eyes peeking out through holes. I'll let the reader decide which side is being ridiculous.

Actually on second thoughts it seems it is the former. You've completely failed to understand the point I made, that women covering more in the West than they do in PNG is no different to Muslim women covering more than they do in the West. Nowhere did I state the levels of covering are the same, as you somehow seem to have understood.

It is an extreme case of relativism in which you are trying to maintain that nudity should be equated with the female face, your argument has no substance.

The simple fact is Jews were committing stuff that Europeans then claimed was reason to hate them. Again you seem to have missed the point, which is that a majority can NEVER be held responsible for the hate and prejudice against them which they did nothing to deserve.

If some Jews did things that caused Europeans to hate Jews, then that should not become the basis for blind hatred of all Jews, merely based on their race/religion affiliation

Wrong. the point you are so eager to divert from, is that I brought up terror attacks in the heart of Europe by Islamist terrorists today, and you brought examples from Palestine during the times of the mandate and from Egypt, in events about 60 years ago. now tell me, when did Jews bomb train stations in Europe? :no: many Jews were assimilated European citizens who served in European armies, and were transforming the face of science and psychology in Europe and the world. your argument that they were hated for the actions in Palestine is absurd and is further eliminated, when we consider that despite the hatred and persecution against them, Jews were still functioning as European citizens and have not resorted to terrorism in the heart of European cities. the tensions between Arabs, Jews and the British in Palestine are a different topic from the history of anti-Semitism in Europe.

Likewise for Muslims. If a few Muslims did something you don't like, then hating all Muslims or blaming all Muslims for the reaction to that is just plain ludicrous.

Are you claiming im hating Muslims? so now discussing and debating current events which involve Muslims is an expression of hatred simply because you do not like what is being said?
nice to know where we stand.

Are you a proponent of collective punishment/guilt or something?

Thats a nice case of excessive defensiveness. so Europeans should just cope with the social problems of today and not talk about them? criticism of violence and demographic problems is considered a taboo?
I think not. Christianity is criticized in Europe all the time, Israel is criticized in Europe all the time, like wise the problems Muslims import into Europe are criticized all the time, this is a reailty to deal with instead of ignoring. there are real problems, and real people are concerned about them.

Clear evidence you've confused Islam with immigrants. When you work out what exactly you're debating here, get back to me on this one.

In other words I have proved you have not done a decent research on my arguments and sources and are now pulling your previous arugments.
I did not invent these points and arguments, I have provided sources from some of the most well read publication in Europe about real problems that the European public is concerned about and dicusses everyday, these are problems that involve both Islam and immigrants, the fact that you are trying to swip it under the rag does not mean that these issues will not make it to the headlines again tomorrow, and the day after tomorrow.

In other words you still don't have an explanation for what supposedly makes a woman covering her hair and face misogynistic. Your image might do wonders for you, but doesn't have the same effect for me, or anyone else who refuses to take their thinking cap off. If I bring a picture of a woman in Western clothing (like the one above) next to a woman from PNG, would that all of a sudden magically make the Western level of clothing misogynistic?

I'm cracking a grin everytime I see these weak arguments. the mere fact that someone claims that the Niqab or the Burqa is normative and is comparable to covering the female breasts is grotesque.
as they say, one picture equals a thousand words.
You are making a comparison between this:

And covering a woman's breasts and it gives me chills everytime. BTW you can shrug off the photos all you like, our debate is more than between you and me, and the mere fact that you shrug off this oppressive practice becomes magnified with each picture.

And the fact is that the % difference of the body covered by the PNG woman compared to the Western woman would be much wider than the % difference compared between the Muslim woman and the Western woman. So the difference that I'm posing in my analogy is much more profound than the difference displayed there. Those two women pictured above are effectively much closer in their level of dress than the Western woman would be compared to a woman from PNG. Therefore my analogy is much more relevant than you seem to comprehend.

The more you repeat this argument the more the twisted line of thought behind it comes to light in this debate. regardless if people support the ban on the Niqab and the Burqa, the sight of them sends chills in every clear thinking human being, the fact that there's a living breathing woman behind this rag is tragic, and any thinking person understands that

So you think if they weren't wearing skirts of pants, the police wouldn't do anything? It's all about hair? Your only 'evidence' so far that covering hair/face is misogynistic is that the Iranian police enforce it, therefore by the same reasoning pants/skirts are misogynistic, since they are also enforcing them as well.

Far from it. my evidence comes from the mouth of Muslim clerics in the Muslim world and in Western nations who voice some of the most twisted rhetoric about the sinful nature of women. its quite a self evident point. there is no stronger argument then what those who condone this practice themselves say.

Again, you seem unable to comprehend the point being made. I'm not going to go into it deeper. Read it again, think about it and get back to me. I'm not in the habit of going to such lengths to explain things to people who not only don't understand, but make no effort to understand either.

Your point is only understood for what it is, and is not holding any water, you are simply trying to push it repeatedly, obviously the majority of Belgian voters disagree with you.

BTW, its nice to see that you dropped your argument of equating France's most famous Muslim cleric who criticizes the Burqa and the Niqab to collaborators with the Nazis. in time perhaps you will see the weak ground that your other arguments stand on.

 

[sandandfoam]

Ok thanks. So how can you oppose a ban on the burka and not also oppose the laws that say we must wear clothes?

If anyone is victim to the laws you refer to I'll support them, no problem.

Do you know of such a group that a European government is currently focusing on via legislation etc?

 

[Panda]

If anyone is victim to the laws you refer to I'll support them, no problem.

Do you know of such a group that a European government is currently focusing on via legislation etc?

How about nudists across the globe?

 

[sandandfoam]

How about nudists across the globe?

I was watching a program about them on BBC4 recently, there was a guy walking naked around Britain who seemed to be getting on ok. There was also a huge boatload of them went up the Thames in the nip. I think fair play to them.

I've previously agreed that nudists shouldn't be oppressed/dictated to about what to wear.
I'll support their right to be in the nip just as I'll support a muslim lady wearing whatever she chooses.
No difference.

 

[ShaunGoldstein]

I was watching a program about them on BBC4 recently, there was a guy walking naked around Britain who seemed to be getting on ok. There was also a huge boatload of them went up the Thames in the nip. I think fair play to them.

I've previously agreed that nudists shouldn't be oppressed/dictated to about what to wear.
I'll support their right to be in the nip just as I'll support a muslim lady wearing whatever she chooses.
No difference.

Nudists, however are expressing their identity through making a self-conscious life-actualizing choice not to wear clothes.

The burka is nothing by a symbol of the right-wing ideology behind radical Islamist sexism.