Now Belgium bans burqa in public places

[England my lionheart]

i dont think governments should ban people wearing burkas, but neither should people be surprised if they are asked to show their faces for an identity check in certain places.

This would be a compromise and on the face of it (pun unintensional) it could work,however in an already stretched security service do they really need the extra work to pacify a very small minority of people who do not know if its neccessary to wear a face covering or not.

on a personal level, they look about as alien as you can get in my country, but as long as the women is wearing it out of choice its fine by me.

I agree they look alien here and so is the concept of moving to another Country and expecting it to adapt to your cultural practices IMO

 

[Panda]

i dont think governments should ban people wearing burkas, but neither should people be surprised if they are asked to show their faces for an identity check in certain places.

on a personal level, they look about as alien as you can get in my country, but as long as the women is wearing it out of choice its fine by me.

I agree with this. Though I would also say I think company's should be allowed not to hire people that wear face coverings while at work.

 

[Panda]

I agree they look alien here and so is the concept of moving to another Country and expecting it to adapt to your cultural practices IMO

Very strongly agree with this!

 

[ShaunGoldstein]

This is a fitting law and I hope that other countries follow suit. Europe is no longer Catholic, so they cannot claim persecution. In fact, to be fair, religious clothes of a Christian origin should also be outlawed outside of the churches and homes (aka in public places like streets, parks, or government buildings).

And can we stop being so politically correct? If the Muslims cared about freedom, they'd allow women in their own countries to choose what they want to wear. A Muslim woman in the west is allowed to drive a car, get a job, get a divorce, become an atheist, or choose to wear anything from a bikini to a business suit. In the Arab world they only have ONE choice. It's hypocritical for Muslims to think that "freedom" only applies to their religious garments.

 

[darkendless]

Is it wrong to find clothing like the Niqap offensive? If not, why not? I'm not a big fan of the whole freedom of expression because in reality it really doesn't work, at least not in this country.

As i asked before, whats wrong with a hijab? Its far less imposing. I'm not anti-muslim, i just don't feel a niqap is necessary when a hijab does the job :s

 

[Darkness]

When I read the article it sounded more that they were attempting or supposedly attempting to "liberate women". It talks about making a stand about the enslavement of women. Now, if that's the real motive behind all this...it's bullocks. How hypocritical is it that it's perfectly fine for a woman to be photographed in a bikini or nude or do porno...but wearing a burqa is "enslavement"? One is "liberating" and one is not? Is that not for the woman to decide? If a Muslim woman feels that she is being a "good Muslim" by wearing a burqa, if she CHOOSES to wear such of her own volition, then why is that anyone else's concern? I highly doubt there is a rash of Muslim women in Belgium that are physically forced or verbally threatened into wearing the burqa. If there are, then the problem isn't really the burqa anyway...it's the men who are abusing them. The abuse would continue whether or not the burqa was an issue. The burqa is besides the point as there are Muslim women who CHOOSE to wear it. And what is more liberating than to make your own decisions and present yourself exactly as you wish?

The burka is a symbol of mysogynistic oppression against females. It symbolizes that a woman's body is somehow sinful and evil; and that they must hide it so they do not corrupt the men, who just cannot help themselves. In other words, women are responsible for making men sin. Just because someone chooses something does not make it right. Do you realise how many women have convinced themselves that they deserved to be beaten by their partner? By your logic, we should accept that as a expression of women's freedom? :sarcastic

 

[Draka]

The burka is a symbol of mysogynistic oppression against females. It symbolizes that a woman's body is somehow sinful and evil; and that they must hide it so they do not corrupt the men, who just cannot help themselves. In other words, women are responsible for making men sin. Just because someone chooses something does not make it right. Do you realise how many women have convinced themselves that they deserved to be beaten by their partner? By your logic, we should accept that as a expression of women's freedom? :sarcastic

The topic is not whether an abused woman feels they deserved to be abused. Fact is, there are women who wear burqas because they feel it is something that pleases their god. Some women choose to wear it because THEY feel it is the right thing for them to do. Like I said before, if the burqa was forced on a woman as a method of abuse or side effect of abuse, then getting rid of the burqa isn't going to stop abuse. It will manifest in another way. The only thing prohibiting burqas is going to do is deny those who want to wear it themselves the freedom to express their religion as they see fit. It's not like prohibiting them is going to suddenly stop all Muslim men from abusing all Muslim women...as if they all do.

 

[Darkness]

The topic is not whether an abused woman feels they deserved to be abused. Fact is, there are women who wear burqas because they feel it is something that pleases their god. Some women choose to wear it because THEY feel it is the right thing for them to do. Like I said before, if the burqa was forced on a woman as a method of abuse or side effect of abuse, then getting rid of the burqa isn't going to stop abuse. It will manifest in another way. The only thing prohibiting burqas is going to do is deny those who want to wear it themselves the freedom to express their religion as they see fit. It's not like prohibiting them is going to suddenly stop all Muslim men from abusing all Muslim women...as if they all do.

I am not saying I assent with banning the burka, but I do understand the arguement for its illegality. Banning the Burka will undermine some of its legitimacy, especially for young Muslim girls who are growing up in a secular society.

 

[Abu Rashid]

zenzero,

Seriously speaking, is such covering required in this century?

How exactly is it related to the century? Covering the hair for a Muslim women is a simple matter of her clothing what she believes is nudity. How on earth that is anyone elses business but her own is beyond me.

Smoke,

It wouldn't bother me if they banned the burqa worldwide.

How about if they banned covering a part of your body that you considered part of your own private nakedness that you did not want to show to the opposite gender or anyone for that matter? Would that bother you?

Yeah, that's where Muslim women are oppressed. Belgium.

Well it would appear so, if they don't even have rights over clothing their own bodies any more, then quite obviously their most basic human rights are being infringed upon.

Imagine the uproar if Papua New Guinea forbade Christian women from covering their breasts, because in PNG women don't cover their breasts, therefore Christian women who move or visit there shouldn't be allowed either.

Paul Rusco,

Just the part of the Niqab/Burka which covers the face.

Although I disagree with it, I can understand this aspect. In Western countries where criminality is very widespread, the incessant need to identify people is very real, and a woman covering her face is obviously a security risk in such an environment. But I think that this is a good time to start to question why our societies are so full of criminality that we are challenged by a woman covering her face. A few centuries ago, when Western women also would often veil, this quite obviously wasn't the case... so what have we lost from Western society? Why have we ended up so paranoid and in need of constant identification of people. These are the questions I think need more pondering, rather than ones about what women choose to wear.

Caladen,

The burqa is out of place in a secular environment of the European context.

This has gotta be the most ironic statement I've ever come across. Unless there was a sudden massive semantic shift over night and secular all of a sudden changed to mean "militant atheist", then this statement just doesn't make sense at all. Secularism supposedly is about the separation of religion and state, so that people are FREE to practice, or not practice, whatever religious rituals and beliefs they so choose. By claiming that a particular religious practice is out of place, you've indicated you've got absolutely no idea what secularism means.

the idea of having people who have no concept of the historical episodes that brought the new atmosphere to Europe

There's plenty of native European converts, who wear the Niqab (Burqa is a word I've never come across, except in Western media, and which is never used by Muslims, so that's why I'm not using it) and who I'm sure have a very good concept of the history involved, not to mention the educated ones who are not natives. Your baseless claims about the supposed lack of knowledge of European history amongst Muslim women is truly appalling. I can't believe you then went on to use a word like misogynistic in your next sentence. Again, the irony is unbelievable.

and bring misogynistic ultra religious phenomena with them

Of all the people I've debated this with who I've asked to explain how women choosing to cover their bodies is misogynistic, not one of them has been able to explain it. Perhaps you're going to volunteer to try to be the first?

Please do explain how it is misogynistic for a woman to cover her body? Whilst no doubt you believe it's liberating for a woman to expose her body for males to peruse and gawk at? Liberating for her? Or for the male's sexual frustration?

 

[Abu Rashid]

Darkness,

The burka is a symbol of mysogynistic oppression against females. It symbolizes that a woman's body is somehow sinful and evil; and that they must hide it so they do not corrupt the men, who just cannot help themselves.

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.

 

[Abu Rashid]

Draka,

The rest of your post was spot on, just like to correct this part though:

The only thing prohibiting burqas is going to do is deny those who want to wear it themselves the freedom to express their religion as they see fit.

Niqab/Hijab is about covering nakedness, nothing to do with expressing religion. Islam has a stricter concept of what nakedness is than the average Western society does, just as the average Western society has a stricter concept of what nakedness is than Papua New Guinea for instance. So if a Western woman were to travel/move to PNG, the PNG government forcing her to go topless would not prevent her expressing her religion, it would contravene her basic human rights to cover the parts of her body she doesn't feel comfortable exposing.

 

[blackout]

If you don't like the way people do things in a country,
don't visit/live there.

Individuals are free to have dress preferences.

Countries are free to have dress preferences.

The two do not necessarily coincide.

No country is "free".
That's just propaganda.
Some countries afford 'freedoms'/'rights' in certain areas
that others don't.
Some afford MORE general freedom than others,
but no country is a "free" country.

I certainly would never go visit or want to live in an Islamic country.
And why would I?
They certainly wouldn't allow me to dress as I choose.
(and any number of other things)
And so what?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Question: why would a government permit something that the majority doesn't agree with, rights and freedom and all that garbage aside?

Because of an informed preference for a government that does not operate with "rights and freedom and all that garbage aside."

 

[Abu Rashid]

Ultraviolet,

If you don't like the way people do things in a country,
don't visit/live there.

That's a bit harsh don't you think? Especially for people whose country it is. My guess is you'd not be so stoic were it you whose personal space and nakedness were being infringed upon.

Countries are free to have dress preferences.
They certainly wouldn't allow me to dress as I choose.

Being required by law to cover yourself is not the same as being required to uncover yourself. One is an issue of public decency, the other is an issue of invasion of privacy and violation of personal space.

The old "They dictate how we dress in their countries, so we can do the same" mentality is not only lacking in understanding of the issues involved, it's just a little infantile.

 

[Caladan]

Caladen,

This has gotta be the most ironic statement I've ever come across. Unless there was a sudden massive semantic shift over night and secular all of a sudden changed to mean "militant atheist", then this statement just doesn't make sense at all. Secularism supposedly is about the separation of religion and state, so that people are FREE to practice, or not practice, whatever religious rituals and beliefs they so choose. By claiming that a particular religious practice is out of place, you've indicated you've got absolutely no idea what secularism means.

That's a nice piece of demagoguery, however its obvious im talking about much more than separation of church and state, im talking about preserving liberal and secular values in Europe which are a result of dramatic episodes in European history and long and hard battles, episodes such as the French revolution.

There's plenty of native European converts, who wear the Niqab (Burqa is a word I've never come across, except in Western media, and which is never used by Muslims, so that's why I'm not using it) and who I'm sure have a very good concept of the history involved, not to mention the educated ones who are not natives. Your baseless claims about the supposed lack of knowledge of European history amongst Muslim women is truly appalling. I can't believe you then went on to use a word like misogynistic in your next sentence. Again, the irony is unbelievable.

Nice appeal to an emotion. however, the FACT remains that many Muslims in Europe are still isolated from the general discourse and import with them practices which as we can see now majorities in Europe find incompatible with their nations, this is a reality, the latest debates and bans trough out Europe DID NOT spring out of nothing. to those Muslims who do integrate, I say well done. however its a reality now in Europe that those Muslims who want to have their religion above criticism, do not engage in the general social discourse, and are at great odds with the values of Europe, are now on the hottest debate tables in Europe, to say that this phenomenon does not exist is to ignore the debates about minarets, burqas, cartoons, films, honor killings, fatwas and other issues.

Of all the people I've debated this with who I've asked to explain how women choosing to cover their bodies is misogynistic, not one of them has been able to explain it. Perhaps you're going to volunteer to try to be the first?

I will let a Muslim cleric answer that for you:

“The uncovered meat is the problem.”
The sheik then said: “If she was in her room, in her home, in her hijab, no problem would have occurred.”
He said women were “weapons” used by “Satan” to control men.
​

Source: Muslim leader blames women for sex attacks | The Australian

Please do explain how it is misogynistic for a woman to cover her body? Whilst no doubt you believe it's liberating for a woman to expose her body for males to peruse and gawk at? Liberating for her? Or for the male's sexual frustration?

Classic. I find it really tragic to see how many Muslims when practices such as fully covering women are criticized accuse the West of its whorish ways.
you know what? if a woman wants to feel sexy and attractive, she should wear what she sees fit. her brother, and father or uncle should have no say in this, nor should they take her life for insluting their honor. there is nothing sinful about the female body, and I have no problem saying that I enjoy looking at and flirting with women whom I find sexy and who express the same interest in me.

 

[blackout]

Ultraviolet,



[/color][/b]That's a bit harsh don't you think? Especially for people whose country it is. My guess is you'd not be so stoic were it you whose personal space and nakedness were being infringed upon.



[/color][/b]Being required by law to cover yourself is not the same as being required to uncover yourself. One is an issue of public decency, the other is an issue of invasion of privacy and violation of personal space.

The old "They dictate how we dress in their countries, so we can do the same" mentality is not only lacking in understanding of the issues involved, it's just a little infantile.

Every'body sees "issues" from their own personal perspective.....

 

[Abu Rashid]

Caladen,

im talking about preserving liberal and secular values in Europe

Liberal and secular values? By legislating what parts of their bodies women must uncover? Yes very liberal and very secular....

My suspicion is that this is all about Europeans finally being able to let loose with their anti-Semitic sentiments, which have been bottled up since WWII. And others (including Jews) have noticed this too, that the European attitude towards Muslims today mimics very closely the attitude they had towards Jews at the turn of the 20th. century.

to those Muslims who do integrate

Perhaps you'd like the EU to adopt Maoism? They can have an official uniform and an official handbook on how best to "integrate" into the collective. The call for Muslims to "integrate" is actually contrary to everything Western European Civilisation has been claiming it holds dear. The Western European culture is about individualism and freedom of choice and personal tastes, not about conformity and uniformity and integration.

I'm sorry Caladen, but I think it is you who misunderstands the values of Western culture. Either that or you're just willing to goto any length to twist and contort the truth to justify this anti-Islamic nonsense.

I will let a Muslim cleric answer that for you:

That quote does not answer anything. The fact you think it does leads me to believe you're not up to this discussion.

you know what? if a woman wants to feel sexy and attractive, she should wear what she sees fit

Except if she's a Muslim, and wants to wear more. Then she shouldn't wear what she wants, but what the government dictates to her. Nice exposition of the hypocrisy involved here.

her brother, and father or uncle should have no say in this, nor should they take her life for insluting their honor.

I agree, and so does Islam. Such people would be murderous criminals who deserve the severest punishment.

there is nothing sinful about the female body

There's nothing sinful about urinating or having sex either, but we don't do them in public (well half-decent humanoids don't anyway). You need to make the distinction between something being sinful, and being appropriate for public display.

Islam teaches the body is beautiful, but showing it off is strictly a private matter between husband and wife.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

That's a nice piece of demagoguery, however ...

I will let a Muslim cleric answer that for you:

“The uncovered meat is the problem.”​

It's easy to slip into demagoguery. No?

 

[zenzero]

Friend Abu Rashid,

Islam teaches the body is beautiful, but showing it off is strictly a private matter between husband and wife.

Those who see nakedness, see it through their minds and they do so through bodies covered with clothes too.

Love & rgds

 

[Peace]

May Allah bless you Abu Rachid!