Now Belgium bans burqa in public places

[Luminous]

Why not? Why should what I wear be dictated by someone else and who gets to do it and why? It's clothing. It's how I cover or not cover MY body. Why should anyone else have any say in how I cover my body or how anyone else covers their body? What's the rational behind that?

It affects me, therefore i can be involved in community decisions about how to deal with it. i.e. banning it.

 

[Caladan]

There is a very obvious comparison. Both would be cases of a society which permits more nudity, trying to force people to undress to that level of nudity. Keep thinking about it, you'll get it eventually, I'm sure.

It was a ridiculously weak argument the first time you brought it up and it still is now. any thinking human being understands the difference between walking topless on the streets and between walking covered from head to toe, face included. I'm amused that you even brought this argument, which is nothing more than a testament for the weak ground you stand on.

They were carried out by Jews against European targets during the height of European anti-Semitism.

I've asked about Jews running terror attacks in Europe VS Muslims who are doing it NOW, and you give me an example from the Jewish resistance in Palestine more than 60 years ago?
yet another weak argument, if you don't have decent information to counter my points, it is OK to acknowledge it.

No doubt the article is referencing a special class designed for very recent immigrants. I very highly doubt Turkish Muslim immigrants for instance, who've been there for several decades cannot speak German. Sounds like a very suspicious claim to me.

Perhaps you need to read the article more carefully because it also speaks about the children of immigrants.
from the article:
"Some 30 percent of Turkish immigrants and their children don't have a school leaving certificate, and only 14 percent do their Abitur, as the degree from Germany's top-level high schools is called -- that's half the average of the German population.
And because immigrants tend to have more children than the Germans, the problem is likely to get worse in the future."

and

According to one recent survey, two-thirds of immigrant children still can't read adequately at the end of their fourth year in school. The situation is especially bad in big cities with high proportions of immigrants such as Berlin, Hamburg and Bremen.

Well offering welfare to recent arrivals isn't a good idea, Muslim or otherwise. It seems you're falling into the trap of associating Muslims with immigrants. You seem to be switching between criticism of Muslims and immigrants as if the two groups are the same thing.

I can only speak for Australia, but the vast majority of immigrants here are definitely not Muslims. And the majority of Muslims were born here, and are not immigrants

If you read the article from Der Spiegel it, it makes an analysis of immigrants from different destinations.
from the article:

" Of all the immigrant groups in Germany, the southern Europeans from Spain, Portugal, Italy and Greece, who made up the first wave of so-called "guest workers" who came to Germany after World War II, have done best in terms of integrating themselves.

The so-called Aussiedler, ethnic Germans from Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union, most of whom who came to Germany in the 1990s, are the biggest single group of immigrants, and they have also done relatively well. Their sons and daughters are making good use of the education system and the proportion of them with higher education degrees is greater than that of the general German population."

Well they should be free to do whatever they like, within the confines of the law, as any other citizen of a country is. I honestly can't understand why you're claiming Muslims are a special case in this regard. All people who seek to do things outside of the law should be regarded as criminals, regardless of their religion. Those who seek to do things within the law are none of your business.

People who operate in the confines of the law pose no concerns, however people who feel that they can take the law into their own hands, or feel that their ideology is above the law of the land are my business. the fact that you imply that I may be troubled by people who follow the legal norms of Europe is laughable, especially since I list the alarming things who are not only a clear violation of the law but are wild assault on European citizenry.

Regardless of whether the information is available, it doesn't make certain styles of dress misogynistic. For the last time, I implore you to present your evidence for why you believe an article of clothing is misogynistic. You've failed miserably thus far. All you've managed to do is repeat over and over the assertion that it is, without even the slightest explanation as to why. Or to make baseless claims that because Muslims say it's sinful not to cover your body, therefore it's misogynistic. As I've mentioned, this does not make the article of clothing misogynistic, any more than panties and bras are misogynistic because Western society prescribes that they must be worn. Prescribing a level of public decency has nothing to do with misogynism.

Hilarious piece. I'll try to make it clear again. the mere fact that someone asks why this piece of clothing is misogynistic is tragic:

He's talking about both, and pants/skirts as well. Covering the hair is more than covering breasts or legs, so his speech would include those as well.

So does that make bras or pants or skirts misogynistic? Please answer. Don't avoid this one again and resort to chanting mantras.

First, let me say that par the trends you have shown so far in this thread, im yet again amazed you take the effort to be an apologist for a religious leader who has claimed that women who do not meet certain dressing standards are the cause of earthquakes. I would feel much better if the person I debate with would at least question the sanity of the persona who voiced this piece of lunacy.
second, Im yet again amazed by your lack of proportions, what is the connection between pants and skirts to the Burqa/Niqab?
the Iranian police is walking the streets and polices women who do not cover their hair, the fact that these imams are obsessed about such issues is a disturbing testament to their chauvinism and twisted world view. the point you are trying to make is vague and an enigma to me.

Well actually the more severe case of supporting Nazism actually makes my point even stronger

I'm not surprised the point of it eluded you.

Your point is weak like the rest of the points you listed in this thread. you are comparing France's most popular Muslim cleric to supporters of Nazism because he is taking part in an ongoing public debate, a debate on an issue which many Muslims themselves agree is not Qur'anic or mandatory. yet again you have managed to prove the weak ground you stand on.

 

[Draka]

It affects me, therefore i can be involved in community decisions about how to deal with it. i.e. banning it.

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.

 

[JMorris]

lets just be honest with ourselves. the reason we in the west dont like & want to ban the burqa & niqab isnt because of security concerns or because we care about the well being of the women who chose to dress this way. its because it represents islamic influence in our societies, and we dont like it. we look around the world at countries with either muslim majorities or countries with a strong muslim presence (or hell, even countries with small muslim populations like the philipines) and we see nothing but problems as a result.

 

[ShaunGoldstein]

It's rather hilarious to see the moral relativists and apologists for islamofascism to claim that this is about freedom.

Especially when women are stoned to death for NOT wearing the burka in Islamist countries. At least in the West, they had a choice of what they want to wear. At least in the West, women aren't burned at the stake like it's the 16th century for renouncing their religion. In the West, a Muslim woman is free to remain Muslim, or to become an atheist, a socialist, or an unbeliever - and free to choose who she has relationships with.

So it's not about freedom. It's about fighting backwards religious mysogyny and gender discrimination by people who are hiding behind freedom as an excuse to oppress others. It's like these neo-confederates in America who wish they could own black slaves again just because the US constitution gives you a "right to property". Get over it. Women aren't your property.

You need to stop trying to turn free Western nations into an inbred and autocratic state more like an archaic men’s club than a modern nation. We've already spent 500 years fighting off the Catholics who tried to do the same, so why are we going to put up with it when Muslims do it?

 

[Draka]

lets just be honest with ourselves. the reason we in the west dont like & want to ban the burqa & niqab isnt because of security concerns or because we care about the well being of the women who chose to dress this way. its because it represents islamic influence in our societies, and we dont like it. we look around the world at countries with either muslim majorities or countries with a strong muslim presence (or hell, even countries with small muslim populations like the philipines) and we see nothing but problems as a result.

Basically, yep. What people aren't admitting to is that they simply don't want to see it because they don't want to know there are Muslims in their presence. Like they'll "sleep better" at night if they remain ignorant or something. There is a problem within Islam and it's something that needs remedied among Muslims. That problem is obvious and it's difficult to deal with. As with Christianity, there are always zealots who interpret their scriptures to justify their horrendous actions. Unfortunately, no matter how bad Christians have it when dealing with their zealots the Muslims have it worse because their zealots go to a really dark and violent place with it. That is what people are afraid of. They aren't going to lessen that or get rid of it by banning the burqa or anything else related to Islam. The only way to do that is to support honest and peaceful Muslims in standing firm against the violence and terror perpetrated by the few and seen by the many.

 

[MSizer]

lets just be honest with ourselves. the reason we in the west dont like & want to ban the burqa & niqab isnt because of security concerns or because we care about the well being of the women who chose to dress this way. its because it represents islamic influence in our societies, and we dont like it....

Speak for yourself. It is entirely about security for me. If exposure of the face in public wasn't a matter of security, why would we have photos on driver's licenses? Why would we have security cameras? It is purely a matter of security, and I resent the implication that it is anything stemming from bigotry.

 

[JMorris]

Speak for yourself. It is entirely about security for me. If exposure of the face in public wasn't a matter of security, why would we have photos on driver's licenses? Why would we have security cameras? It is purely a matter of security, and I resent the implication that it is anything stemming from bigotry.

where is the bigotry in wanting to discourage islamic extremists to immigrate to or stay in your country? and how is the niqab or the burqa anything other than islamic extremism?

 

[Draka]

Here's another viewpoint from a Muslim woman who does not wear a burqa.

In defense of Muslim women's choice - Broadsheet - Salon.com

 

[fatima_bintu_islam]

Thanks for bringing that link Draka, I appreciate it.

 

[darkendless]

where is the bigotry in wanting to encourage islamic extremists to immigrate to or stay in your country? and how is the niqab or the burqa anything other than islamic extremism?

Whats wrong with a less visually extravagent hijab? I don't think anyone in the western world gives a damn about a hijab, but its pretty offensive on the eye the niqap and burka.

Sure choices and freedom and all the BS but go to a small town in Germany and see the influence of Islam. Its like walking into a muslim country. I have a problem with the beautiful culture of countries like Germany being loat in translation. Shrug it off as me being a bigot if you will but i'd rather not see the beauty of Europe changed whether it be good or bad.

 

[zenzero]

Friend Draka,

Yes, that is what have been trying to point out that religion is a private matter and for individuals to decide his/her own religion. One has to learn to live in tune with society and so when the legislation has been passed one has to learn to adjust wih that instead of bringing out personal religious practices outside the self as every self has their own religions.
Your article sums up on similar tones:

I believe the way Islam has been defined in certain contexts has oppressed women, and I disagree with anyone ever being forced to veil. But it isn’t the religious basis for covering up that matters most, it’s a woman’s right to choose whether to cover up because of religion. Religion is her personal domain and she should be able to navigate that realm on her own terms.

Love & rgds
n.b. could not follow your new avatar? what is it?

 

[ShaunGoldstein]

Yes, that is what have been trying to point out that religion is a private matter and for individuals to decide his/her own religion. One has to learn to live in tune with society and so when the legislation has been passed one has to learn to adjust wih that instead of bringing out personal religious practices outside the self as every self has their own religions.

Exactly. If wearing a burka is a "personal" decision then it should be kept personal, in a personal place - like a house. Personally I find it offensive to see a woman dressed that way, because of reasons I've already stated. It's anti-modern and sexist and goes against the secular ideology that we have built up here in the West since the post-war years.

In the interest of fairness, would go so far to say that any public display of organized religion...e.g. preaching rallies by ultra-conservative Christians, public prayer, wearing crucifixes/religious garments, statues, should be curtailed. Again, we live in a diverse public world which we share with others.

We should be making life-affirming decisions, not decisions based on dogma, and protect the individual's right to freedom of belief, diversity, freedom of conscience and freedom of prayer, and try establish conditions under which these freedoms can be privately exercised. How can we truly say we respect the freedom of all humans if we allow other people to be publically offended by displays of organized religion (irregardless of what that religion is)?

 

[zenzero]

Friend ShaunG,

From the beginning of this thread the idea was to bring about this awareness that we should understand that religion came much later than humans and society.
When we live in a society we make our own rules and abide by them first and then to realize god we practice religion which again is realizing other humans, animals and existence in general. If we are against the same society of which we are a product of what does it show?
Our inability to life a healthy and religious life in society. No doubt, monks always stayed out of society specially monks in India goes to the Himalayas to mediate and be with their gods and not with other human gods in society.

Love & rgds

 

[ShaunGoldstein]

Friend ShaunG,

From the beginning of this thread the idea was to bring about this awareness that we should understand that religion came much later than humans and society.
When we live in a society we make our own rules and abide by them first and then to realize god we practice religion which again is realizing other humans, animals and existence in general. If we are against the same society of which we are a product of what does it show?
Our inability to life a healthy and religious life in society. No doubt, monks always stayed out of society specially monks in India goes to the Himalayas to mediate and be with their gods and not with other human gods in society.

Love & rgds

Sometimes it's all about control. Being controlled by religion or a priest, imam, pastor or sheikh is no different than being controlled by the right-wing media (in fact they're almost one and the same). People should never let another person tell them what the absolutes are; that is why I specified organized religion.

Personally, I have never considered religions such as Judaism, Buddhism, or Unitarian Universalism to be organized.

 

[zenzero]

Friend SG,

Sometimes it's all about control. Being controlled by religion or a priest, imam, pastor or sheikh is no different than being controlled by the right-wing media (in fact they're almost one and the same).

Yes, but finally there is no control in as much as religion or the path to truth is concerned.
Humans are controlled by their own minds [thoughts which are driven by desires. The desire to be enlightened too is a desire and since that is inevitable it is topmost in most human minds and so desire for god realisation is given priority and so a path which is established is taken up for instant salvation.
We tend to forget that the persons involved in informing us about the same path are themselves not enlightened and have their own desires which control their minds and in turn controls all those who follow the same path.
Mind is in reality the Satan that Bible mentions but since those days pointers towards that was difficult as language and understanding was limited stories were used to convey the essence of what is eternal and timeless and so the tree of knowledge and satan as a serpent all these stories are simply put creating the desire in the mind as once a desire develops the gap of the individual with existence which is in harmony is broken and man falls rather turns himself away from harmony falling into disharmony following his desires and wrongly using the mind towards desire fulfillments.
Mind is to be understood by being in the middle of the pendulum which swings both ways between the dualities like day and night, good and bad, man and women, etc. finally they are not two but like perceptions through the mind and only when the mind [thoughts] are absent does the individual remain in harmony is enlightened.
Being enlightened is to live, to live is to accommodate,. adjust, and be in harmony with one's surroundings which in this case is the society one lives in and from there grow inwards evolving further towards nirvana and beyond.

Love & rgds

 

[Abu Rashid]

Draka,

but who was talking about public sex?

I was. As an analogy that just because something is deemed inappropriate to display in public doesn't automatically mean it's considered inherently dirty, wrong or evil.

That's the connection most seem to be trying very hard to make here. That because Islam asks women to cover more of their bodies that Western societies do, therefore Islam hates women, and considers their bodies wrong and evil.

See, if I were to sunbathe nude in my own backyard and you were to walk down the alley and see me

Well if it were in the privacy of your own home out of view of others, then it's a different issue. I was speaking about walking down the street.

It is YOUR conditioning or CHOICE to be "affected" but the truth is, it is not ME that is affecting you...it is your own mind

These responses are instinctual, suggesting they should be ignored is not really an excuse for inciting them. I'm not saying people are not responsible for their own behaviour, but it's a two way thing. There is definitely some responsibility on the part of the inciter not to incite.

Truly, two women down the street getting married has ABSOLUTELY no affect or bearing on my life and any "effect" from that marriage upon me is just concocted in my head...regardless of reality.

Society is a group event, we are not islands. What other people do does affect you and I, this cannot be denied. You may not immediately perceived the effects, but they do occur. Our society is made up of our activities.

All in all, my argument defends both your stance and mine.

Yes it does. And I recognised that it makes more sense than most of the other views here which seem just a little hypocritical and specifically focused on attacking Muslim women (even though they ironically claim to be challenging misogynism).

 

[Abu Rashid]

Caladan,

It was a ridiculously weak argument the first time you brought it up and it still is now.

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.

any thinking human being understands the difference between walking topless on the streets and between walking covered from head to toe, face included.

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.

I've asked about Jews running terror attacks in Europe VS Muslims who are doing it NOW, and you give me an example from the Jewish resistance in Palestine more than 60 years ago?

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.

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 a proponent of collective punishment/guilt or something?

Perhaps you need to read the article more carefully because it also speaks about the children of immigrants.

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.

People who operate in the confines of the law pose no concerns, however people who feel that they can take the law into their own hands, or feel that their ideology is above the law of the land are my business.

Well then there's no debate here, because I agree.

the mere fact that someone asks why this piece of clothing is misogynistic is tragic:

<Image of woman in Niqab and woman with Western level of dress>

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?

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.

Im yet again amazed by your lack of proportions, what is the connection between pants and skirts to the Burqa/Niqab?
the Iranian police is walking the streets and polices women who do not cover their hair

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.

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.

 

[Abu Rashid]

Shaun,

Especially when women are stoned to death for NOT wearing the burka in Islamist countries.

Which country exactly stones women to death for breaching public decency laws?

You're speaking nothing but bovine faeces.

At least in the West, women aren't burned at the stake like it's the 16th century for renouncing their religion. In the West, a Muslim woman is free to remain Muslim, or to become an atheist, a socialist, or an unbeliever - and free to choose who she has relationships with.

So it's not about freedom. It's about fighting backwards religious mysogyny and gender discrimination by people who are hiding behind freedom as an excuse to oppress others.

Apostasy laws are for males and females alike. How on earth is that gender discrimination?

Exactly. If wearing a burka is a "personal" decision then it should be kept personal, in a personal place - like a house.

This ignorant comment indicates you obviously don't even realise what niqab/hijab are. They are levels of dress IN PUBLIC. Do you think Muslim women cover their hair inside the home??? It's kinda like making a law in Papua New Guinea that when Western women go there, they can cover their breasts, but only in their own homes, not out in public. What kind of ridiculous statement is this?

Personally I find it offensive to see a woman dressed that way

Then you've got some serious mental issues you should deal with. Do you find it offensive if someone wears a raincoat? Or if someone wears a scarf? Or a beanie? Or any other level of dress that comes close to Muslim women's level of dress?

In the interest of fairness, would go so far to say that any public display of organized religion...e.g. preaching rallies by ultra-conservative Christians, public prayer, wearing crucifixes/religious garments, statues, should be curtailed. Again, we live in a diverse public world which we share with others.

Even in your attempt to produce fairness you've failed miserably. How on earth can a woman covering her nakedness be compared to wearing a cross or giving a public preaching rally???? Hijab is a level of dress ONLY it is not a religious symbol at all. This is the most ludicrous claim I've ever come across.

 

[Smoke]

lets just be honest with ourselves. the reason we in the west dont like & want to ban the burqa & niqab isnt because of security concerns or because we care about the well being of the women who chose to dress this way. its because it represents islamic influence in our societies, and we dont like it. we look around the world at countries with either muslim majorities or countries with a strong muslim presence (or hell, even countries with small muslim populations like the philipines) and we see nothing but problems as a result.

I've known lots of Muslims, and I don't have a problem with Muslims as members of Western society. I have no patience with the the burqa.

All the people who support the right of women to wear the burqa: Do you support the right of Klansmen to be fully masked in public? How about teenaged gang members? Do you support the right of every person to be buck naked in public?