Should Muslim veils be banned in public universities?

[Zulk-Dharma]

Why would someone demand to see the hair of a student? I understand the face, which is why I support the ban on face veils and masks. But a ban on headscarves is just ludicrous and a stupid audacity to have, you should demand the ban on hats, too, then.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I tend to support that. In Australia it is illegal to enter a bank or servo masked. I do not think that there should be exceptions to this most reasonable of laws, especially given that there is no directive in Islam to wear a veil

The part I've bolded illustrates one of the big dangers in giving preferential treatment to religion: when special protections are granted on the basis of a thing's religious nature, we inevitably end up with people outside that religion debating whether or not a thing is "properly" religious.

I don't want any government that represents me ruling on what is and isn't valid religious expression. This is one of the reasons why I support state secularism.

That being said, I still think a niqab ban is a bad idea, and I think that this objection in the name of security is a red herring. Compare the number of times that a criminal used a baseball hat to obscure his identity versus the number of times (if any) that a criminal hid behind a burqa or a niqab, and then tell me which one we should ban in the name of "security".

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So, hooded weatshirts should go too then, right? What about ski masks, hockey masks, pantyhoes, etc.? Were you just joking or do you really think that your reasoning is justified?

And attire like this has no place on a college campus, either.

 

[outhouse]

I will take heat but I voted yes.

My personal opinion, is that wearing this is a step towards fanaticism and fundamentalism, and promotes division from others.

Islam has a serious problem of playing nice with others due to religious practices. Its time they dropped some of the fanaticism and tried to be part of global humanity, instead of focusing on their own religious needs.

Had this religion been one of world peace and intellect and promoted education and knowledge, they could wear what they want less covering the face.

Its my opinion the religion needs reformed to less fanaticism and fundamentalism dogma. Just my opinion.

 

[outhouse]

I think that this objection in the name of security is a red herring.

Agreed it is a red herring.

 

[LuisDantas]

I still think a niqab ban is a bad idea

I take it you mean Hijab? Niqabs are much more concealing than Hijabs.

What's the difference between a hijab, niqab and burka? - CBBC Newsround

At a glance: Burqa, Niqab and Hijab | SBS News

Explainer: Why do Muslim women wear a burka, niqab or hijab? - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

From hijab to burqa - a guide to Muslim headwear - Channel 4 News

Muslim Veil Row: The Hijab, Niqab and Burqa Explained

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I take it you mean Hijab? Niqabs are much more concealing than Hijabs.

No, I mean niqab. I know the difference.

 

[LuisDantas]

Ok, but the OP sure seems to be talking about Hijab.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Ok, but the OP sure seems to be talking about Hijab.

I realize that. What I'm trying to say is that not only do I disagree with the proposed hijab ban, I also disagree with the existing niqab/burqa ban.

Also, the particular post you quoted was a reply to a post about security concerns associated with face coverings.

 

[ChristineES]

No, they should not ban them. They wear as part of their faith: We do have freedom of religion.

 

[Awoon]

So, hooded sweatshirts should go too then, right? Wht about ski masks, hockey masks, pantyhoes, etc.? Were you just joking or do you really think that your reasoning is justified?

Ban em all. If I cant carry my Glock everywhere then they cant wear that stuff anywhere.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Ban em all. If I cant carry my Glock everywhere then they cant wear that stuff anywhere.

The day that someone is strangled by someone else's niqab, that might be a valid argument.

 

[leibowde84]

Ban em all. If I cant carry my Glock everywhere then they cant wear that stuff anywhere.

lol. I am going to assume you are joking, as an article of clothing cannot rationally be compared to a firearm.

 

[Awoon]

In guess if one doesn't follow the two above, they cant do anything.

 

[leibowde84]

In guess if one doesn't follow the two above, they cant do anything.

??

 

[Bunyip]

The part I've bolded illustrates one of the big dangers in giving preferential treatment to religion: when special protections are granted on the basis of a thing's religious nature, we inevitably end up with people outside that religion debating whether or not a thing is "properly" religious.

I don't want any government that represents me ruling on what is and isn't valid religious expression. This is one of the reasons why I support state secularism.

That being said, I still think a niqab ban is a bad idea, and I think that this objection in the name of security is a red herring. Compare the number of times that a criminal used a baseball hat to obscure his identity versus the number of times (if any) that a criminal hid behind a burqa or a niqab, and then tell me which one we should ban in the name of "security".

Well yes, it is the point - face coverings have been used to break the law in Australia. How many times would it need to happen compared to other forms of disguise for it to be significant?.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Well yes, it is the point - face coverings have been used to break the law in Australia.

Muslim face-coverings specifically?

Now compare that to how often someone uses a baseball cap to shield their face from a security camera. Which do you think happens more often?

How many times would it need to happen compared to other forms of disguise for it to be significant?.

It's not a binary thing; it's a matter of prioritization. If niqabs and burqas are used as disguises to commit crimes less often than, say, Santa beards, then I would say that Santa beards are a greater security threat, and it would be disproportionate to concentrate on niqab wearers in contexts where people with Santa beards are free to go about their business.

BTW: I'd like you to explain something: one of the other posters argued that niqabs get in the wearer's way so much they're impractical for everyday life. You're arguing that they're ideal for crime. These arguments seem to conflict; how do you reconcile them?

 

[Jeff Strehlow]

...The proposals regarding the hijab are more controversial, particularly extending the ban from secondary schools to institutes of higher education that serve adults. Gender integration and secularism are cited in support of the proposal.

If that is the real reason (which I doubt), that means that they also need to require the males and females to dress the same; both sexes should wear pants, or both sexes should wear skirts. Crucifixes also need to be banned.

 

[Bunyip]

Muslim face-coverings specifically?

Now compare that to how often someone uses a baseball cap to shield their face from a security camera. Which do you think happens more often?

I'm not sure where you are going with this, what sort of proportion would you see as significant? I would think that gun deaths are more common than from swords - but would not see that as an argument to permit the bearing of swords.

It's not a binary thing; it's a matter of prioritization. If niqabs and burqas are used as disguises to commit crimes less often than, say, Santa beards, then I would say that Santa beards are a greater security threat, and it would be disproportionate to concentrate on niqab wearers in contexts where people with Santa beards are free to go about their business.

Are you positing some sort of scale of threat where at some level you arbitrarily decide that they don't count if there are Santa impersonators who outnumber them? I'm not seeing your logic.

BTW: I'd like you to explain something: one of the other posters argued that niqabs get in the wearer's way so much they're impractical for everyday life. You're arguing that they're ideal for crime. These arguments seem to conflict; how do you reconcile them?

What is the conflict there? Where did I argue that they were ideal for crime?

 

[Shad]

Vote no. Leave it up to universities to set policy for identification purposes such as student ID along with whatever benefits granted. Perhaps a clause for loose clothing, if the veil is considered loose clothing at the time, for classes which have a higher risk factor; flammables, machinery, etc.