Support NeoGAF

[Randomizer123454444]

Seriously guys. Just because people make choices that you don't agree with or understand doesn't mean they weren't made of their own free will.

I don't like the things myself. But what I like or don't is completely irrelevant

But face veils like that are not there for women. It's there to protect others from "the beauty". I would understand something like this if face was considered a sexual object like female breasts in western culture for example. But that can't be the case, because men don't wear similar veils. Does this mean that mens faces are not as sexual as female faces? What is the rationale here?

I have very hard time seeing this as anything else than a method to control women.

A person's right to look a person in the face does not supersede that person's right to wear the clothing of their choice or freedom of movement.

That's laughable.

So, in your opinion western women should also be allowed to freely walk in islamic countries without a face veil? If they want to choose that.

 

[Jonm1010]

And I showed you how they are not similar. You can chose to ignore that of course, but I still think the two can not be compared like that.

Nothing is 100% similar otherwise they likely would be the same thing.

They share key similarities but differ in smaller details.

 

[Dalibor68]

A person's right to look a person in the face does not supersede that person's right to wear the clothing of their choice or freedom of movement.

That's laughable.

For gods sake.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S.A.S._v._France

The court did not find the French government's position that the ban was valid due to gender equality or human dignity concerns, but accepted that France's claim that a ban was necessary for "living together" harmoniously was within in law. It underlined that the states had a wide margin of appreciation in cases like this.[4]

....

the Court concluded that the ban could "be regarded as proportionate to the aim pursued, namely the preservation of the conditions of “living together” as an element of the “protection of the rights and freedoms of others”. The impugned limitation can thus be regarded as “necessary in a democratic society”." It therefore found no violation of Articles 8 and 9 of the Convention.[29]

 

[ClosingADoor]

Nothing is 100% similar otherwise they likely would be the same thing.

They share key similarities but differ in smaller details.

Those details to me are large enough to not be able to compare the two.

And you can have different opinions of things if they are happening because of religion or natural occurrence.

 

[Freshmaker]

This town gets liberated from ISIS, and the first thing the women do is remove their Niqabs. The general opinion in the west is that wearing a head veil is a matter of choice, yet these women seem to be making a very specific one.

Discuss? I wanted to make first post longer but I'm at work.

Sure... If this one instance represents a universal choice by all women who wear them.

 

[DXB-KNIGHT]

The Burqa is not religiously mandatory,
It's also should be noted that covering the face is not allowed during Umrah or Hajj

 

[spekkeh]

You are right that there is no human right to wear what you want but I think such limitations should be sufficiently justified and I don't see what justifies a ban on a niqab or a burqa. I can understand if it were to banned in a handful of specific situations but an outright ban? Why? I also question how many muslims you know, especially conservative ones, because comparing muslim women in face-covering garb to slaves is absolutely crazy. These women are not cowering, scared, submissive slaves to men. Like I said, some of the most vocal and outspoken women in niqab and burqa are white converts. These women have a minority interpretation of their new religion but that doesn't make their choices invalid. I also don't think we would ban a black man from wearing a 'slave' outfit. Besides, we do allow men and women to live in voluntary sexual slavery to others and to occasionslly wear signifiers of their slavery outside. Some d/s relationships go incredibly far and force people to be always naked inside and to wear a collar outside, or to have a name or the word slave tattooed on their body. Now, It might seem silly to compare people with an extreme sexual fetish to people with an extreme interpretation of Islam but I think it's a far more fair comparison than the one you made.

I don't think sexual fetishes are all-encompassing worldviews like religions are, to the point that the self-imposed slavery of submissive BDSMs directs their entire mode of interacting with the outside world. Once it does however, maybe we should talk about the desirability of being able to walk around a visible slave in the streets. In any case, the problem is not even that, because BDSM is a personal preference, it does not say anything about people who don't want to be a slave. Niqabs however are a superlative step in a coercive worldview that separates halal from haram practices; the worthy and the unworthy. People do not wear niqabs for themselves, any such claim is nonsense, they wear niqabs as part of a communal and forceful moral outlook on society, one that explicitly, through the act of wearing it, castigates the muslim women who are not wearing one. Yes I know quite a few muslims--though not the niqab wearing kind because I am by their own accord not allowed to know them--and some of these muslim women fondly remember the times where they weren't pressured into wearing a hijab. Look where we are now.

 

[Pusherman]

One is a hairstyle choice, the other an extreme religious mandate being largely forced by family and community with repercussions if they don't comply. They are unrelated things.

These bans are not and never have been for the sake of muslim women. You wanna know how I know? Because no one in favour of such bans is ever interested in the opinions of muslim women with or without face-coverig garb. Maybe, if you're so interested in how muslim women feel, you should actually talk to them. Now, I am not speaking to you specifically but to those who keep complaining about the oppression of women by muslims without ever actually being interested in those same women. A ban on burqas and the niqab could be justified for security reasons but in that case you probably wouldn't need an outright ban. A ban on face-covering clothes in specific situations would be enough. We all know though that the real motivation behind such bans is cultural. That's why there is nothing regressive about the leftists opposing these bans. Opposing the cultural oppression of muslims is not regressive in the least.

 

[Jonm1010]

Yes it does for gods sake.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S.A.S._v._France

You understand how courts work right?

For instance in America it was decided that corporate money was an extension of free speech because corporations are essentially given personhood due to American business law.

I don't agree with that either. On several aspects. Turns out I later learned that my disagreement was not in vein because the rulings of a court are in fact not divine mandates.

Though the irony of treating this ruling like the word of god while arguing that the law must ban what others feel is the word of god is not lost on me.

 

[spekkeh]

Maybe in some countries, but not really in the UK. Wearing what you want to is essentially freedom of expression.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Gough

 

[Jonm1010]

Those details to me are large enough to not be able to compare the two.

And you can have different opinions of things if they are happening because of religion or natural occurrence.

Now you are just making no sense. These smaller details are different so these other similarities are no longer similar....Yeah, ok.

 

[Azih]

but to me the idea that this is a consious political descision for most is a bit strange. and i don't understand why that narrative is pushed.

Because there exist women for whom it is a conscious political decision and who fight for the freedom to make that choice.

The perspective of women who want to wear the damn things is always missing on these GAF debates.

 

[A Link to the Past]

These bans are not and never have been for the sake of muslim women. You wanna know how I know? Because no one in favour of such bans is ever interested in the opinions of muslim women with or without face-coverig garb. Maybe, if you're so interested in how muslim women feel, you should actually talk to them. Now, I am not speaking to you specifically but to those who keep complaining about the oppression of women by muslims without ever actually being interested in those same women. A ban on burqas and the niqab could be justified for security reasons but in that case you probably wouldn't need an outright ban. A ban on face-covering clothes in specific situations would be enough. We all know though that the real motivation behind such bans is cultural. That's why there is nothing regressive about the leftists opposing these bans. Opposing the cultural oppression of muslims is not regressive in the least.

Didn't it come out recently that Muslim women receive a hugely disproportionate amount of harassment from non-Muslims? It really makes it hard to believe that these mandates have anything to do with protecting them.

 

[ClosingADoor]

Now you are just making no sense. These smaller details are different so these other similarities are no longer similar....Yeah, ok.

The "smaller details" you mentioned are to me large enough to not make the two similar. I think they are larger then the similarities you mention, thus making the comparison invalid in my view.

 

[Subpar Scrub]

..I think I rest my case.

Your case is shit and is almost entirely illogical assumptions.

 

[spekkeh]

Didn't it come out recently that Muslim women receive a hugely disproportionate amount of harassment from non-Muslims? It really makes it hard to believe that these mandates have anything to do with protecting them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy

 

[Dalibor68]

You understand how courts work right?

For instance in America it was decided that corporate money was an extension of free speech because corporations are essentially people due to American law.

I don't agree with that either. On several aspects. Turns out I later learned that my disagreement was not in vein because the rulings of a court are in fact not divine mandates.

Though the irony of treating this ruling like the word of god while arguing that the law must ban what others feel is the word of god is not lost on me.

1) The ECHR is the highest european instance in terms of human rights, maybe you don't understand how courts work.
2) No point in arguing any further with someone who puts his own pseudo-moral opinion above anyone elses and doesn't acknowledge High Court decisions and their effect.

 

[Jonm1010]

The "smaller details" you mentioned are to me large enough to not make the two similar. I think they are actually then the similarities you mention, thus making the comparison invalid in my view.

Haha Jesus Christ.

Next time work on better rationales for your arguments and positions and less times trying to win on semantics and appeals to subjective worth.

 

[BudokaiMR2]

These bans are not and never have been for the sake of muslim women. You wanna know how I know? Because no one in favour of such bans is ever interested in the opinions of muslim women with or without face-coverig garb. Maybe, if you're so interested in how muslim women feel, you should actually talk to them. Now, I am not speaking to you specifically but to those who keep complaining about the oppression of women by muslims without ever actually being interested in those same women. A ban on burqas and the niqab could be justified for security reasons but in that case you probably wouldn't need an outright ban. A ban on face-covering clothes in specific situations would be enough. We all know though that the real motivation behind such bans is cultural. That's why there is nothing regressive about the leftists opposing these bans. Opposing the cultural oppression of muslims is not regressive in the least.

This is unfortunately not as easy as it may sound. A lot of the women affected by this are not going to be allowed to talk to strangers. I have seen this with my own eyes in the past. I used to teach ESL at University as a part-time job and each year we got people from a variety of nationalities to take part in the course.

One year it was a large portion of rich spoiled young Saudi Arabian men, who brought their wives over with them.
Although they were signed up for the classes as well they would often times outright ban them from attending or make up stupid rules like they weren't allowed to talk to men in the class, etc.
It was especially sad because it was very obvious that the women were much more interested in increasing their own knowledge and language ability compared to their husbands but were constantly cut off at the knees.

I honestly got to the point of wanting to punch some of those assholes out in a few tense occasions. Especially when you see them later in the club grinding on other women like the hypocrites they were.

I really see absolutely no cultural meaning in these practices outside of patriarchal oppression and have seen it first hand.

 

[spekkeh]

Opposing the cultural oppression of muslims is not regressive in the least.

Opposing cultural oppression isn't. Opposing opposing cultural oppression is.

 

[Sh1ner]

I personally think black woman straightening their hair is often a sign of cultural pressures to adapt to white normative values that are forced through the dominate position of white people in American society.

Should we as Americans also ban black people from straightening their hair to alleviate a influenced cultural oppression? Where does this line get drawn?

Smart people use simple language to explain complex issues. If you truly believe in what your saying, you should do the same to invite discussion instead of amping up shitty word use.

 

[ClosingADoor]

Haha Jesus Christ.

Next time work on better rationales for your arguments and positions and less times trying to win on semantics and appeals to subjective worth.

Next time don't try to compare to totally unrelated things in an attempt to proof your point.

The comparisons you make between the two are to me not as large as the differences, to the point you can't compare the two. What is so strange about that? Has nothing to do with semantics.

And subjective worth? Of course the whole thing is subjective. We are talking opinions here.

 

[Jonm1010]

1) The ECHR is the highest european instance in terms of human rights, maybe you don't understand how courts work.
2) No point in arguing any further with someone who puts his own pseudo-moral opinion above anyone elses and doesn't acknowledge High Court decisions and their effect.

I do actually. You seem to be the one confused. Trying to attribute some sort of infallibility and divine right to their rulings and opinions when they were never designed to be that.

...though I can think of another construct that does assert that. One thats irony given this discussion is not lost on me with.

 

[G.ZZZ]

Good article from a muslim about the hijab that people shuld read imho:

http://www.theexmuslim.com/2013/08/03/the-hijab-suppression-and-objectification-part-one/

 

[Kettch]

The general opinion in the west is that wearing a head veil is a matter of choice

Huh? The general opinion in the west is that wearing a heal veil is whatever the person says it is. It can be a choice for many especially in open societies, and it can be forced for many especially in restrictive societies. I've never heard anyone say that wearing a veil is always a matter of choice.

 

[ClosingADoor]

I do actually. You seem to be the one confused. Trying to attribute some sort of infallibility and divine right to their rulings and opinions when they were never designed to be that.

...though I can think of another construct that does assert that. One thats irony given this discussion is not lost on me with.

Until someone puts a case in front of the court that overrules that decision, it is the highest possible authority to make a ruling about that. Nothing divine about it, just the way the court system works.

 

[Jonm1010]

Next time don't try to compare to totally unrelated things in an attempt to proof your point.

The comparisons you make between the two are to me not as large as the differences, to the point you can't compare the two. What is so strange about that?

LOL. Sure thing pal.

Until someone puts a case in front of the court that overrules that decision, it is the highest possible authority to make a ruling about that. Nothing divine about it, just the way the court system works.

Maybe next time i'll bite. In the meantime, get some better arguments together for your compelling oppression through oppression philosophy. Your semantic approach as justification isn't really cutting it.

 

[hodgy100]

No. context is key. in the example you use the burqa was being used as a tool of oppression by ISIS so in this instance the women are revelling in their new found freedom by taking off the burqa that was previously forced upon them.

This is usually not the case in western society where people in positions of authority do not force people to wear certain clothes so it is not a symbol of oppression here (nor should it be). banning garments such as the burqa or burkini is oppression through preventing freedom of expression. Now if abusive partners are being oppressive by forcing their partners to wear certain garments that must also be deal with. However banning certain garments is not how this should be done as that will ultimately just prevent the oppressed from accessing the same places as other people, further oppressing them. Instead we need to be more open and integrate closer while providing the framework for oppressed minorities to speak out so that we can effectively target the people that need help, rather than applying blanket laws that do more harm than good.

 

[paradise_circus]

I recently started to ask people if the burka and niqab are allowed during the pilgrimage, but no one could answer is clearly. I know that man und woman cover more or less the whole body in white veils for the ihram, but I never saw niqabs or burkas.
Gaf has many saudi arabian users, it would be cool if they could answer this.

 

[A Link to the Past]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy

Given the treatment we have seen of some Muslim women by law enforcement officers over their garbs - often because they were wearing something that was not banned - I do not know what the association fallacy is. It is a fair point to make that the laws may come from the same place that informs people's bias against Muslim women.

 

[Subpar Scrub]

LOL. Sure thing pal.

You've been quite obnoxious in almost every post you've made in this thread. If you're going to discuss, please don't do it in an embarrassing way.

 

[NoblesseOblige]

You've been quite obnoxious in almost every post you've made in this thread. If you're going to discuss, please don't do it in an embarrassing way.

You think you have a leg to stand on saying this when your only other contribution in the thread is ...

Your case is shit and is almost entirely illogical assumptions.

 

[Dalibor68]

I do actually. You seem to be the one confused. Trying to attribute some sort of infallibility and divine right to their rulings and opinions when they were never designed to be that.

...though I can think of another construct that does assert that. One thats irony given this discussion is not lost on me with.

LOL. Sure thing pal.
Maybe next time i'll bite. In the meantime, get some better arguments together for your compelling oppression through oppression philosophy. Your semantic approach as justification isn't really cutting it.

Ok at this point you're really just trolling. And your babby's first law lesson level drivel doesn't make you look informed either. So I'll leave you to it.

Given the treatment we have seen of some Muslim women by law enforcement officers over their garbs - often because they were wearing something that was not banned - I do not know what the association fallacy is. It is a fair point to make that the laws may come from the same place that informs people's bias against Muslim women.

Care to show me some of these treatments? I've only seen the "burkini incident" on the french beach, which somehow went from "police officers asked women to leave because she was infringing on the regulation in Nice at the time" to "muslim woman harassed and forced to leave by armed police" by some members here. (I'm asking seriously, I haven't read of any incidents where police assaulted or mistreated muslim women because of their faith around these parts).

 

[The Doc]

1) The ECHR is the highest european instance in terms of human rights, maybe you don't understand how courts work.
2) No point in arguing any further with someone who puts his own pseudo-moral opinion above anyone elses and doesn't acknowledge High Court decisions and their effect.

So you don't consider burqa discriminatory? It's just a matter of security?

 

[ClosingADoor]

LOL. Sure thing pal.


Maybe next time i'll bite. In the meantime, get some better arguments together for your compelling oppression through oppression philosophy. Your semantic approach as justification isn't really cutting it.

If you think my arguments are not enough, that is OK. That is your opinion. I think the two can't be compared and have said multiple times why now. Up to you to accept that or not, but I can't really go about comparing two things if I think that comparison is already invalid to start out with.

 

[Pusherman]

I don't think sexual fetishes are all-encompassing worldviews like religions are, to the point that the self-imposed slavery of submissive BDSMs directs their entire mode of interacting with the outside world. Once it does however, maybe we should talk about the desirability of being able to walk around a visible slave in the streets. In any case, the problem is not even that, because BDSM is a personal preference, it does not say anything about people who don't want to be a slave. Niqabs however are a superlative step in a coercive worldview that separates halal from haram practices; the worthy and the unworthy. People do not wear niqabs for themselves, any such claim is nonsense, they wear niqabs as part of a communal and forceful moral outlook on society, one that explicitly, through the act of wearing it, castigates the muslim women who are not wearing one. Yes I know quite a few muslims--though not the niqab wearing kind because I am by their own accord not allowed to know them--and some of these muslim women fondly remember the times where they weren't pressured into wearing a hijab. Look where we are now.

I know multiple muslim women that wear the hijab against the wishes of their parents. Like I said, a part of the women wearing the niqab or burqa are white women who voluntarily, as adults, accepted that communal and moral outlook you speak of. The same goes for plenty of Arab/African/Asian women. That doesn't mean pressure does not exist but we should have to prove it's existence in every individual case. And yes, a muslim woman wearing a hijab is perhaps in a way castigating muslim women not wearing it, and that same woman in hijab might feel criticized around a woman in niqab. But the same goes for a woman with shaved legs around women who haven't shaved, a woman in full make-up around women without it, a black women with straight hair around one with natural hair. All participate in a system that pressures women to look a certain way and that castigates women that don't conform. That doesn't make the individual choices wrong and we all intuitively understand that changes in this system will have to come through cultural changes, not necessarily legislative ones. And if there was to be change through legislation it would be legislation that would make women freer not less free. Laws against forcing women to wear heels in the workplace for example. Politicians are not trying to protect muslim women against pressures from inside the Islamic community. They are trying to gain votes by attacking Europe's currently favorite punching bag: muslims.

 

[Machina]

You've been quite obnoxious in almost every post you've made in this thread. If you're going to discuss, please don't do it in an embarrassing way.

Don't even bother. I'm sure that yellow liquid he's filled with is all the piss he's taking out of everyone.

Btw I don't know why people had to take what I said about seeing someone's face so literally. Doesn't the freedom of expression include body language?

 

[Sinfamy]

Opinion:

In public, your face cannot be covered for security reasons.
Meaning that you cannot wear a balaclava, mask of Bill Clinton, Burka or a Niqab.
You are free to cover your hair, or the rest of your body as you please by wearing a Hijab.

I don't like seeing them, they are 100% a result of a patriarchal religious system, but secular freedom also allows you to wear it.

 

[Christopher]

The purpose of Muslim women to wear burkas is to cover their body and face and to avoid nah-mahram (men that are not allowed to see them without hijab) men from looking at them. Burka is part of Islam, however, it is not mandatory to wear it and some women wear it as an act of virtue (to please Allah).

So in short their wearing this attire ether to not allow other men to see them - or in virtue to Allah their God who is a male.

Seems sexist to me that the sole purpose of this attire puts you as a possession to either your man or your God who is a man.

I rather hear from Muslim women who weren't born/forced into the religion at birth and hear their views on it than liberal people who think they know best for someone.

If by banning it - it gives women a chance to not be viewed as property I'm all for it.

 

[Jonm1010]

Ok at this point you're really just trolling. And your babby's first law lesson level drivel doesn't make you look informed either. So I'll leave you to it.

Im not the one that was inferring the rulings of the court are infallible and beyond reproach.

 

[A Link to the Past]

LOL. Sure thing pal.


Maybe next time i'll bite. In the meantime, get some better arguments together for your compelling oppression through oppression philosophy. Your semantic approach as justification isn't really cutting it.

I don't even disagree with you in this thread, but that tone is just distracting from your argument and just makes the discussion more stressful.

So in short their wearing this attire ether to not allow other men to see them - or in virtue to Allah their God who is a male.

Seems sexist to me that the sole purpose of this attire puts you as a possession to either your man or your God who is a man.

I rather hear from Muslim women who weren't born/forced into the religion at birth and hear their views on it than liberal people who think they know best for someone.

If by banning it - it gives women a chance to not be viewed as property I'm all for it.

Again, the issue comes from agency - while there is a conversation to be had about how many Muslim women are forced to wear burkas, the impending bans have been used to harass Muslim women - by not only the citizenry, but also by the police.

 

[spekkeh]

I know multiple muslim women that wear the hijab against the wishes of their parents. Like I said, a part of the women wearing the niqab or burqa are white women who voluntarily, as adults, accepted that communal and moral outlook you speak of. The same goes for plenty of Arab/African/Asian women. That doesn't mean pressure does not exist but we should have to prove it's existence in every individual case. And yes, a muslim woman wearing a hijab is perhaps in a way castigating muslim women not wearing it, and that same woman in hijab might feel criticized around a woman in niqab. But the same goes for a woman with shaved legs around women who haven't shaved, a woman in full make-up around women without it, a black women with straight hair around one with natural hair. All participate in a system that pressures women to look a certain way and that castigates women that don't conform. That doesn't make the individual choices wrong and we all intuitively understand that changes in this system will have to come through cultural changes, not necessarily legislative ones. And if there was to be change through legislation it would be legislation that would make women freer not less free. Laws against forcing women to wear heels in the workplace for example. Politicians are not trying to protect muslim women against pressures from inside the Islamic community. They are trying to gain votes by attacking Europe's currently favorite punching bag: muslims.

Ah yes, the age old 'but western women are forced to make themselves prettier' defense. Well I guess if you think they are both sides of the same coin there is no reason to discuss it further. However this is not generally how we see freedom and human rights.

edit: that's a bit dismissive; while I vehemently do not agree with your equation between makeup and oppressive religious morals, you bring out more points to discuss. Namely, should we check on an individual basis whether someone is being oppressed. How? Do you need to see bruises? When is it clear for you that they say one thing but think the other?

 

[Dalibor68]

So you don't consider burqa discriminatory? It's just a matter of security?

Personally I do believe that in most cases it's not voluntarily and/or because they have been brainwashed/pressured by their husbands/boyfriends.

 

[Subpar Scrub]

You think you have a leg to stand on saying this when your only other contribution in the thread is ...

Pointing out that someone's posts are shit doesn't make your posts shit, iirc.

I'm enjoying reading through most of the responses, but his are just terrible.

 

[Hypnotoad]

Some people in this thread would be well-advised to read up on the philosophy and legal tradition of human rights, because there is more to them than just trying to maximize the freedom of personal choice. While human rights are considered universal, they are never absolute, and its up to society to find a rational and viable balance between the interests of the public and personal sphere. European societies have, time and again, curbed certain practices and symbols, be it the ban on Nazi symbols in Germany, France on religious symbols in school or face veiling in public, among others.

 

[NoblesseOblige]

Pointing out that someone's posts are shit doesn't make your posts shit, iirc.

I'm enjoying reading through most of the responses, but his are just terrible.

Calling someone out for not contributing to a discussion where you have 0 contribution does though.

And yours have been even more terrible.

Some people in this thread would be well-advised to read up on the philosophy and legal tradition of human rights, because there is more to them than just trying to maximize the freedom of personal choice. While human rights are considered universal, they are never absolute, and its up to society to find a rational and viable balance between the interests of the public and personal sphere.

'Rights' should only be limited when they cause a contradiction in upholding another person's rights. You don't have the right to kill somebody, because in doing so you're degrading their right to live. You don't have the right to scream fire where there is none, because in doing so you cause panic and damage people's right to safety. You COULD argue facial covering are a safety concern, but then you have to prove that. And I must say that I'd feel pretty pathetic being scared and feeling unsafe around facial coverings. So to me there is no infringement on the rights of others by a person wearing something over their face. Or in other words, there's no logical reasoning for banning these articles of clothing as long as they are worn by a person of their own volition.

 

[Subpar Scrub]

Calling someone out for not contributing to a discussion where you have 0 contribution does though.

And yours have been even more terrible.

I didn't say he's not contributing, I said his contributions are bad... As have many other posters.

In any case, yeah, I don't think full face coverings should be allowed in public areas. My perspective is one of security for those in public areas, as well as security for shops and other buildings. There, first on-topic contribution finished.

 

[Jonm1010]

I don't even disagree with you in this thread, but that tone is just distracting from your argument and just makes the discussion more stressful.

Because TBH there is nothing left to be said. I'm only going to try and explain things so many times.

I am not going to continue going in circles as a poster continues to sidestep points I make to start a new discussion based on appeals to subjective worth while putting his fingers in his ears to whatever I say.

That response you quoted was my way of saying I have had enough of the cycle and it is no longer worth my time.

 

[Shiggy]

In Europe, wearing a burqa (and to some extent, wearing a hijab) is seen as "we don't want to integrate in your society" or "we want to be different". It's a big obstacle to integration, both due to how it's perceived by others and the message itself that it sends. For the same reason, it's also a big factor causing harassment and discrimination. It's not as simple as saying "here are the victims, there are the bad guys".

The bans of burqas in European countries might be reasoned with protecting females. But in all honesty, it's more a symbolic policy to tell citizens "we are doing something to handle this group and make them closer to what you are". In the end, it's just another piece of evidence showing that the integration of a big group of people has failed, which basically made the right wing parties all over Europe so successful as of recently.

I am very much in favor of banning religious symbols in schools, courts, and public buildings. At the same time, having a general ban on a hijab is too far-reaching. Ultimately, everyone should be able to choose whether to wear a hijab or burqa, the message sent out by that and the consequences (incl. Issues in finding a job) need to be considered by that person nonetheless.

 

[Dalibor68]

You COULD argue facial covering are a safety concern, but then you have to prove that. And I must say that I'd feel pretty pathetic being scared and feeling unsafe around facial coverings. So to me there is no infringement on the rights of others by a person wearing something over their face.

Then maybe READ THE RULING.