Support NeoGAF

[nOoblet16]

Don't confuse Hijabs with Burqas. These are different things. See pic above.

I am not confusing them, I come from a country with 170 million Muslims. I included them both fully being aware of what they are, they are different but their origins are common in that they are both meant for modesty.

 

[nynt9]

I grew up in a moderate Muslim country. Some women wear the headscarf. They're told from childhood by their parents to wear it otherwise they're immodest and will go to hell, and they start wearing it around the age of 13. In areas of the country that aren't the most metropolitan areas, women get beaten for dressing "immodestly" and not wearing the headscarf. Even in metropolitan areas some people ogle women when they dress "immodestly".

Sure, it's a "choice". As much as a choice one can have when they're told all their life they'll go to hell if they don't do it, and they're pressured by family and society to do it. That being said, I don't know if banning it is the right choice either. It's a complex issue and banning only engenders an "us vs them" mentality and the problem should be addressed at its core, not at its symptom.

 

[Clefargle]

So you didn't read a word I said?

Both can be argued to be the result of cultural pressures brought on by issues of oppression(assuming I take your assertions at face value and assume they are always that 100% of the time). So yes, they do have similarities, very real ones.

They are functionally different tho. A hairstyle doesn't undermine public safety like a mask does

 

[Jonm1010]

They are functionally different tho. A hairstyle doesn't undermine public safety like a mask does

That's wasn't his argument.

In fact, in another post I said that if there was a hill I would stake my claim on to justify a ban of Burqas, public safety would of been it... Though I am still not convinced that it would be a choice I could agree with when I think about the lack of empirical data around it and thinking through other issues I have.

 

[John Dunbar]

are there exceptions to the rules against covering your face in public? can people with serious burns or other damage wear a mask if they don't want little kids staring at them and such?

 

[BKK]

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

Ha! I thought of this case whilst making my post, but decided that it wasn't really related. Technically, you can walk naked across the country, until someone asks you to cover up. But that is more about what you don't wear, rather than what you do wear. And it's more about indecency (what you do show of your body), rather than what you choose to wear. So certainly worth bringing up, but I personally thought that it was a quite different situation.

 

[Condom]

I am not confusing them, I come from a country with 170 million Muslims. I included them both fully being aware of what they are, they are different but their origins are common in that they are both meant for modesty.

What's wrong with modesty in general? In my opinion just as little as being not modest at all.

Until it turns into or is heavy patriarchal oppression of course, just like the major problems in the west (and eastern Asia, southern America) with sexualizing women in the opposite sense. Women who need to look 'hot', dress 'hot'. Or look at Kpop stars who need to hide their relationships for rabbit fanboys.

This also is something that gets overlooked, in Europe the conclusion almost ends up being: The more skin you show or the sexier you look, the more free your are. Which from what I can see goes against feminist theory and understanding of patriarchal systems.

 

[Audioboxer]

I am just pointing the double standards, while I don't think genitals should be visible in public, indecent exposure laws are just as restrictive as the burqa ban.

But I'm not for a burqa ban so I don't know why you quoted me? I merely stated something I thought was reasonable about high security areas like banks. That applies to any covering of the face, not targeting one in specific.

 

[Massive Duck. C.M.]

So, I guess we could also scrap ID cards too right? What's the point of them If I can cover my face with a piece of cloth?

Probably all of the information written on them, not to mention the fact that a cop could ask you to uncover your face if necessary.

A cop, not some random other person

 

[nOoblet16]

What's wrong with modesty in general? In my opinion just as little as being not modest at all.

Until it turns into or is heavy patriarchal oppression of course, just like the major problems in the west (and eastern Asia, southern America) with sexualizing women in the opposite sense. Women who need to look 'hot', dress 'hot'. Or look at Kpop stars who need to hide their relationships for rabbit fanboys.

I didn't say anything is wrong with being modest. My post was not to do with whether one chooses to be modest or not but rather that the definition of modesty as defined by religion which has oppressive roots. In the end, you don't particularly have to wear a burka or even a hijab to be modest anyway.

But read my post again to try to understand what I was talking about, basic outline was that eventhough it is a choice to wear it, that particular choice originates from them being told what to wear or what not to wesr... be it directly or indirectly. Like this fellow said:

I grew up in a moderate Muslim country. Some women wear the headscarf. They're told from childhood by their parents to wear it otherwise they're immodest and will go to hell, and they start wearing it around the age of 13. In areas of the country that aren't the most metropolitan areas, women get beaten for dressing "immodestly" and not wearing the headscarf. Even in metropolitan areas some people ogle women when they dress "immodestly".

Sure, it's a "choice". As much as a choice one can have when they're told all their life they'll go to hell if they don't do it, and they're pressured by family and society to do it. That being said, I don't know if banning it is the right choice either. It's a complex issue and banning only engenders an "us vs them" mentality and the problem should be addressed at its core, not at its symptom.

 

[Deleted member 18827]

People keep saying the women are choosing to wear the burqa, but how much of a choice is it really? I know in Australia there is a problem with Muslim women seeking divorces being ostracised from their family and community. I can only imagine the repercussions would be similar for shedding the burqa.

 

[Azoor]

It's absurd.

You'd be surprised by the number of women wearing these unwillingly, although some do wear it willingly.

 

[nOoblet16]

It's absurd.

I was in Dubai once and saw a bunch of women in Cheesecake factory take a selfie...they were all wearing a niqab.

I couldn't help but find that funny tbh

 

[Jonm1010]

This is exactly why I quoted you. Why banks specifically and not public spaces as well? Do you care about the security of public spaces or your only worry is that somebody might rob a bank?

He already answered this.

A bank is a private entity(most of the time) so they are free to implement a dress code. Just like a nice restaraunt won't allow shorts and sandals.

What is the empirical evidence behind burqas creating safety issues in public spaces? Just so we have the evidence on record for reference in this thread.

 

[Azoor]

I was in Dubai once and saw a bunch of women in Cheesecake factory take a selfish...they were all wearing a niqab.

I couldn't help but find that funny tbh

I live in Kuwait, so I see such scenes every day and try my best not to laugh.

 

[Shiggy]

How do you square fathers and mothers coming over and having more favorable views of their host country and their acceptance and then their sons and daughters feeling less so?

If this were a direct relationship between family values being passed down due to isolationism then we would expect to see little or no shifts right? Yet we see the newer generation feel even less welcome and more isolated. More prone to radical ideas and more extreme views then their parents.

I don't think you can hand wave away the role their society is playing in shaping them. Most Muslim immigrants in France come from former colonist countries. That too can't be ignored.

Not to mention the issue of assimilation in America vs Europe and why one has been more successful and the other much less so. Something entire academic papers are being written on.

First of all, I am not familiar with the influx of people of Muslim faith to America. Have there been similar movements as in Europe? Did they also lack a significant educational level?

Second, do you think European societies are to blame for these people to act as in Cologne? I have a hard time trying to figure out a logical argument behind that. It's rather easy to say "oh, he had a tough life" and thus justify criminal actions, but that's very naive.

For some reason, other groups, such as Vietnamese, have integrated pretty well. Also had lots of people with Chinese parents in my university classes. Somehow it worked out better for them.

For the generational shift, the internet has definitely helped to facilitate radicalisation. I won't deny that there are groups which are discriminated because of how parts of their ethnic group behave and how they are perceived; that's more than just regrettable. At this point, you need to help me however, as I am not familiar with the exact situation in France. Is there systematic discrimination in schools, universities, jobs, etc., through which people with a specific ethnic background are denied achieving something in their lives? For Germany, I would definitely say there is not.

With that in mind, there also needs to be willingness to integrate and assimilate to make integration a success. As a minority/outsider you always have to work harder, that's an unfortunate truth - anyone who has stayed in a different culture for a longer period knows that. Yet, simply saying "fuck the state" and become a criminal; that's not going to improve the situation.

/This is getting off topic

 

[Christopher]

Again I ask women who weren't born into the religion to be given a choice if they were to wear this.

Again I understand the outrage about the ban - however I truly feel it is the exact opposite of oppression on women.

 

[weekev]

I imagine in regions of extreme and fanatical sexism the clothing becomes a sign of that oppression. Meanwhile in lands of better (though not perfect) equality the same clothing may be seen as a sign of religious or cultural freedom. These are very different situations in context.

This post nailed it. In the West it's religious choice. In countries of oppression it's a vehicle to exert authority over women rather than give them the choice. At least that's my impression.

 

[orochi91]

Again I ask women who weren't born into the religion to be given a choice if they were to wear this.

I can't imagine there's much data regarding those specific parameters.

Even in France, around 2 thousand women (out of the millions of Muslim women) wear the niqab/burka.

There's no way to determine how many of those are converts that freely chose to wear it, short of interviewing every single one of them.

 

[Jonm1010]

Would you feel safe if everyday people walking in the street were wearing balaclavas?

Like if I lived in Barrow, Alaska during the heart of winter? Not in the slightest.

But I digress, that really isn't answering my question now is it? I'm just trying to find out what sort of foundation the whole "public safety" angle is actually resting on.

 

[Pusherman]

I can totally see where you're coming from and to a large extent I empathize and share your ideals. But we should probably stop and scrutinize our motives. You come from a place of strong patriarchy and extoll the virtues of free choice. I come from a place of free choice and extoll the danger of strong patriarchy.

You have a personal acquiantance willingly donning a niqab, and think, okay this is simply the other side of my will to free choice, but in the end free choice is better than my starting point which is being told what to wear. I have a personal acquiantance who is shocked that her daughters are getting bullied into wearing a hijab even before menstrual age even though she herself comes from a tradition of being free what to wear, and think, okay this has a strong negative effect on the current freedom in our society. We need to break this trend. It's about where you start and where you think it's heading. Though, I'm a social liberal so I believe some laws can be put into place to maintain the optimal freedom in our society. I don't know where you stand.

I believe that the decision to wear a hijab, niqab or burqa can be made voluntarily. I believe that people can freely choose to be devout, extremely conservative muslims, in the same way that voters of the SGP (you're dutch too, right?) can freely decide to be (extremely) conservative christians. That doesn't mean that I believe such decisions are always freely made, sometimes there is overt coercion, and I am also aware of the huge influence of culture and community in such matters, for both migrant-community muslims and biblebelt christians. I just don't think a ban on a type of clothing will help at all. Niqab and burqa wearers in the Netherlands are a very tiny group, numbering a few hundreds (can't link but it's one of the first links if you google bourka aantal nederland). In the case of a ban the women that were forced by their family will just be kept inside and the women who freely chose to wear one will be unneccesarily restricted in their freedom of expression. So no one is helped and a few women are actually harmed. In the case of a hijab ban many more women would be harmed as there are plenty of women voluntarily wearing one. So I do not believe restricting clothes can help anyone. Now, if a society would truly want to influence long ingrained cultural practices and battle patriarchy I think restricting the ability of minorities to isolate themselves would be far more helpful. I'm thinking of a ban on religious schools for example. I wouldn't neccesarily be opposed to such a ban if it weren't for the fact that I believe that the true motivation for a lot of people is in fact a strong dislike of Islam and foreign muslims. Bans on halal slaughter and circumcision for example are clearly aimed at muslims even though European jews have been doing those things for ages. Bans on Islamic clothing are just another part of a greater political discourse that questions the very right of muslims to exist in Europe at all (just read the new pamphlet of the PVV for prove of that). Populist right wing parties form a far greater risk to muslim women than oppressive fathers and I won't pretend that those people and their ideas aren't fueled by xenophobia and Islamophobia by participating in their debates on the niqab or burqa or hijab or halal slaughter etc. In my own experience, an open and inclusive society does far more to further the values of freedom and (gender-)equality than a society that tries to impose its 'western' values through heavyhanded legislation. I think I saw someone post studies that came to similar conclusions in another thread but I'm on mobile.

 

[Messofanego]

Because multiculturalism doesn't work. Simple as that. It leds to tensions, crime and discrimination.

The only exceptions are countries that were from the start multcultural and built by immigrants. But in Europe what you have are nations often thousand years old that were homogenous for most of their history. If you throw into such a homogenous mass a group of people with completely different culture and values they will be completely screwed over. They just won't be accepted as a part of society. Not fully at least.

Also..I belive country is it's society more than it's terrain. If you don't want to integrate into society why are you even coming to that country? What's the point? And you can't allow alien cultures to remain completely unchanged when moved into western society anyway. I mean..will you allow people to marry to 9 years old girls in EU just because it's part of migrant culture? Or allow female genital mutilation? Of course not. Those are extreme examples, but they show that no country, no matter how tolerant, is able to accept every part of culture of people who come in. They will have to abandon some of it.

Can you back up your argument that multiculturalism doesn't work with some facts?

Speaking of European countries, multiculturalism has been able to take hold in countries that were previously very homogeneous. And civic integration can co-exist with multiculturalism as being good things, when they're not assimilationist and forced like Denmark/Germany/Austria/Netherlands that tell you to abandon your culture/ethnicity which can lead to radicalisation (as can be seen in France) but voluntary and pluralistic like Sweden/Finland/UK/Spain/Portugal.

http://www.migrationpolicy.org/sites/default/files/publications/TCM-Multiculturalism-Web.pdf

 

[Hypnotoad]

Can you back up your argument that multiculturalism doesn't work with some facts?

Speaking of European countries, multiculturalism has been able to take hold in countries that were previously very homogeneous. And civic integration can co-exist with multiculturalism as being good things, when they're not assimilationist and forced like Denmark/Germany/Austria/Netherlands that tell you to abandon your culture/ethnicity which can lead to radicalisation (as can be seen in France) but voluntary and pluralistic like Sweden/Finland/UK/Spain/Portugal. [/url]

Finland has far less immigrants from non-adjacent countries than any of the aforementioned, and from what has been observed since last year, the backlash because of refugee/migrants has been enormous. Immigration to Portugal is also negligible compared to the "assimulationist" countries (at around 3-4% of the population compared to more than 20%) and they mostly come from Portuguese-speaking countries heavily influenced by Portugal culturally.

To cite Sweden as a positive example is also disingenous by the authors, since compared to Denmark, recent immigrants (since the 1990s) are far less integrated in the workforce and trail behind the native population by a wide margin.

UK is the definite the country where multiculturalism is applied on the widest scale, but again, the recent win of the "Leave" campaign is anything but an endorsement of that policy.

 

[Doikor]

Can you back up your argument that multiculturalism doesn't work with some facts?

Speaking of European countries, multiculturalism has been able to take hold in countries that were previously very homogeneous. And civic integration can co-exist with multiculturalism as being good things, when they're not assimilationist and forced like Denmark/Germany/Austria/Netherlands that tell you to abandon your culture/ethnicity which can lead to radicalisation (as can be seen in France) but voluntary and pluralistic like Sweden/Finland/UK/Spain/Portugal.

Speaking as a Finn I don't think the situation with refugees from middle east is going well. We have been taking refugees from that region for decades now and the unemployment is somewhere over 50% after 5+ years even with multiple job seeking/work/integration programs ran (the kind of expenses we would never even dream of spending on an unemployed native). As a result the politics has shifted quite a bit to the right on the immigration/refugee topic with classical scape coating going on with blaming the refugees for everything

As a comparison the unemployment on refugees/immigrants from asia/india is lower then native Finns without really putting any meaningful resources in trying to integrate them.

Also some people see the immigration situation in Sweden as a failure (Rosengård) due to a failed integration program.

edit: Though I think a lot of the issues on the political landscape on this in Finland come from terrible PR/management from government side. The people are asked to take cuts in education and holidays/longer work days without any extra pay/benefits with the reasoning that we just cant afford that while at the same time just summarily saying that need to put in X billion euros to handle the refugee situation.

 

[His Majesty]

Can you back up your argument that multiculturalism doesn't work with some facts?

Speaking of European countries, multiculturalism has been able to take hold in countries that were previously very homogeneous. And civic integration can co-exist with multiculturalism as being good things, when they're not assimilationist and forced like Denmark/Germany/Austria/Netherlands that tell you to abandon your culture/ethnicity which can lead to radicalisation (as can be seen in France) but voluntary and pluralistic like Sweden/Finland/UK/Spain/Portugal.

You should visit Schaarbeek, Molenbeek or Anderlecht to witness the success of voluntary integration firsthand.

What happens if you don't force people to integrate is that they often don't even learn the local language. This restricts them to their own communities with none of the values or ideals of the host country.

In the case of Belgium this lead to the creation of radicalized urban areas where imams could preach their backwards ideologies and motivate young muslims to go take up arms in Syria.

 

[Billy_Pilgrim]

I don't think it should be banned, but I do think it's oppressive, repressive and upsetting that so many women in the world feel as though they have to wear it whatever the those reasons may be.

 

[RangerX]

The general opinion in the west seems be the opposite to me. People are quite hostile to the burqa. People should be allowed to wear whatever they want. Its as simple as that.

 

[Audioboxer]

This is exactly why I quoted you. Why banks specifically and not public spaces as well? Do you care about the security of public spaces or your only worry is that somebody might rob a bank?

It is far harder in general to "target" a public space. Public spaces are just that as well, public. Banks are private buildings and therefore I don't think it's wrong for them to want to protect their private space, and as a institution with a high amount of cash, of which a lot of that could be your cash, have heightened security overall. Some transactions might even require photo ID and unless you remove your face covering how does photo ID work...

I mean if we are going to get this petty explain why I can walk all over the grass in a park, but if I go to a private building they can have a keep off the grass sign? You just have to deal with the fact public and private spaces aren't always interchangeable and private spaces can at times have more "rules".

It's also quite easy to get someone else to go to the bank for you, or do banking online. You cannot go to the beach or go to the park "online".

So really I think it is an absolutely stupid hill to die on to be getting bent out of shape at say a Bank asking for full face visibility, but hey, each to their own. I've explained why I think how I do, and you can think differently. I'm not also saying banks HAVE to do it, I'm simply stating I can see reason for full face coverings (irrespective of the Islamic variety) to be asked to be removed in certain places. If not only for security for the valid reason I gave above as well, photo identification.

Who knows though, the women probably aren't allowed to go to the bank anyway. So problem averted considering Islamic men don't tend to cover themselves from head to toe /s

 

[Llyranor]

I dislike the burqa and associate it with patriarchal oppression. Even if it is by choice, I would suspect there is a component of brainwashing, though perhaps you could say that for all kinds of choices made by the extremely religious.

My problem is that banning the burqa isn't going to suddenly free those women of that oppression. If anything, they will become even more isolated, and possibly won't even make any public appearance any more. They will become even more dependant on their husbands. It will also give even more excuse for racists and xenophobes to target them.

But what if we treated people wearing the burqa like normal people? Help them integrate into society? Have them become more independent? Have them be able to bring their kids out to the park?

I think if we're going to change that mindset/brainwashing, it needs to be through acceptance into society and giving different perspectives into how other people live. Maybe it'll give them or their kids an idea that their current lifestyle isn't necessarily the only choice.

Banning it would just be a feel-good law that does NOTHING to help those women.

 

[Dalibor68]

Banning it would just be a feel-good law that does NOTHING to help those women.

I don't think it's aimed at "helping" those women so much as to protect against islamist counter-societies in the public eye. Of course you are right, in the bigger picture this is nothing. Which in itself doesn't mean however that it should not exist. But in practice it's mostly used as sort of a placebo pill the social democrats/conversatives throw at the voters in an attempt not to lose so much to further-right parties.

 

[Aiustis]

I think the ban is okay. I'm pretty progressive by most standards.

Religion holds people hostage in a emotional black mail kind of way. More strict the religion and the requirements it makes on followers, the worse for them. Especially since these people, being less integrated, don't have much outside of their community.

 

[Messofanego]

Finland has far less immigrants from non-adjacent countries than any of the aforementioned, and from what has been observed since last year, the backlash because of refugee/migrants has been enormous. Immigration to Portugal is also negligible compared to the "assimulationist" countries (at around 3-4% of the population compared to more than 20%) and they mostly come from Portuguese-speaking countries heavily influenced by Portugal culturally.

To cite Sweden as a positive example is also disingenous by the authors, since compared to Denmark, recent immigrants (since the 1990s) are far less integrated in the workforce and trail behind the native population by a wide margin.

UK is the definite the country where multiculturalism is applied on the widest scale, but again, the recent win of the "Leave" campaign is anything but an endorsement of that policy.

Fair enough, immigrant populations do need to be taken into account. With multiculturalism, there is always a big other side that takes it as an us vs them situation, which is why radicalised parties and organisations (EDF, UKIP, BNP, etc) can ignite fears and delusions over facts about immigrants. But when campaigns like Leave appear successful, it's an even bigger reason to support multicultural/integration efforts. Policies that are inclusive of minorities and immigrants makes them feel less marginalised and so they integrate better into society rather than going more extreme in their own bubbles.

 

[Pusherman]

I dislike the burqa and associate it with patriarchal oppression. Even if it is by choice, I would suspect there is a component of brainwashing, though perhaps you could say that for all kinds of choices made by the extremely religious.

My problem is that banning the burqa isn't going to suddenly free those women of that oppression. If anything, they will become even more isolated, and possibly won't even make any public appearance any more. They will become even more dependant on their husbands. It will also give even more excuse for racists and xenophobes to target them.

But what if we treated people wearing the burqa like normal people? Help them integrate into society? Have them become more independent? Have them be able to bring their kids out to the park?

I think if we're going to change that mindset/brainwashing, it needs to be through acceptance into society and giving different perspectives into how other people live. Maybe it'll give them or their kids an idea that their current lifestyle isn't necessarily the only choice.

Banning it would just be a feel-good law that does NOTHING to help those women.

Telling grown men and women that their choices were made because of brainwashing is condescending and insulting. These women do go out and particupate in society, that's why people get so agitated. They see these women out at the park with their children, or demanding the right to keep wearing their garb at a parent-teacher meeting, or taking a stroll by the beach with their husbands, or going on TV to defend their rights and freedoms. The fact that these women participate, albeit wearing the 'wrong' thing, is why people get mad. If these women all stayed inside nobody would care. The impetus for people's revulsion regarding the niqab or burqa is often a feeling of loss, the loss of one's country or the loss of a common culture. Almost never are people moved by any actual interest in the women involved. I agree with you that an open and inclusive society is the best way to battle religious conservatism but a language of condescension and patronisation regarding the religiously conservative is one of the reasons communities of Islamic migrants (both the conservative, the moderate and even the progressive) often feel left out, insulted and denigrated. An important element for any real open and inclusive society is treating eachother as equals, even in the face of great differences.

 

[Dalibor68]

Policies that are inclusive of minorities and immigrants makes them feel less marginalised and so they integrate better into society rather than going more extreme in their own bubbles.

Correct. But we have to watch out what these policies are. Allowing burqas again in France wouldn't integrate them better into society, it would give the ideological masterminds behind this thing(ie salafists) a win.

And I also believe one interesting question to discuss is this: should certain immigrants/minorities be targeted more with accomodating policies than others? And why? As someone else mentioned, other minority groups managed to integrate just fine. Wouldn't that rather speak for the error lying in the one specific group that causes problems rather than the bad majority society not doing enough? Like if (simplified now) vietnamese, philippino, chinese, indians, eastern european, other centreal europeans all manage to integrate just fine (eventually), and only muslim communities cause huge integration problems in parts - why is the first thought to automatically assume the majority-society must've done something wrong when it worked out with all the others? Not that only one or the other is to blame, but it seems incredibly naive to me to act like this has nothing to do with islam and/or the values/views from that culture when that is the main differentiator.

Telling grown men and women that their choices were made because of brainwashing is condescending and insulting. These women do go out and particupate in society, that's why people get so agitated. They see these women out at the park with their children, or demanding the right to keep wearing their garb at a parent-teacher meeting, or taking a stroll by the beach with their husbands, or going on TV to defend their rights and freedoms. The fact that these women participate, albeit wearing the 'wrong' thing, is why people get mad. If these women all stayed inside nobody would care. The impetus for people's revulsion regarding the niqab or burqa is often a feeling of loss, the loss of one's country or the loss of a common culture. Almost never are people moved by any actual interest in the women involved. I agree with you that an open and inclusive society is the best way to battle religious conservatism but a language of condescension and patronisation regarding the religiously conservative is one of the reasons communities of Islamic migrants (both the conservative, the moderate and even the progressive) often feel left out, insulted and denigrated. An important element for any real open and inclusive society is treating eachother as equals, even in the face of great differences.

The thing is, that goes completely against any life experience I or anyone else I know has. You can not seriously tell me the 13 year old walking around in a burqa with her mother chose to wear this. You can not tell me the chechen family as a whole is so religious that they were sandals and shorts while the mother is completely veiled. I would agree with you if we were talking only about hijabs but we are still talking about this:

 

[Hypnotoad]

Fair enough, immigrant populations do need to be taken into account. With multiculturalism, there is always a big other side that takes it as an us vs them situation, which is why radicalised parties and organisations (EDF, UKIP, BNP, etc) can ignite fears and delusions over facts about immigrants. But when campaigns like Leave appear successful, it's an even bigger reason to support multicultural/integration efforts. Policies that are inclusive of minorities and immigrants makes them feel less marginalised and so they integrate better into society rather than going more extreme in their own bubbles.

If you want a well-balanced perspective on the topic, especially in regards to the UK, I would suggest "Exodus" by Paul Collier, one of the most renowned scholars of third-world development and migration. I like the idea of the "dispora absorption rate" that he discusses therein, though he seems it determined by factors like language, while not going into the topic of religion much, though I can see why, since in that regard the UK seems much more on the "politically correct" side than for example Germany.

 

[Kill Your Masters]

Telling grown men and women that their choices were made because of brainwashing is condescending and insulting. These women do go out and particupate in society, that's why people get so agitated. They see these women out at the park with their children, or demanding the right to keep wearing their garb at a parent-teacher meeting, or taking a stroll by the beach with their husbands, or going on TV to defend their rights and freedoms. The fact that these women participate, albeit wearing the 'wrong' thing, is why people get mad. If these women all stayed inside nobody would care. The impetus for people's revulsion regarding the niqab or burqa is often a feeling of loss, the loss of one's country or the loss of a common culture. Almost never are people moved by any actual interest in the women involved. I agree with you that an open and inclusive society is the best way to battle religious conservatism but a language of condescension and patronisation regarding the religiously conservative is one of the reasons communities of Islamic migrants (both the conservative, the moderate and even the progressive) often feel left out, insulted and denigrated. An important element for any real open and inclusive society is treating eachother as equals, even in the face of great differences.

Well said.

People put their head down and walk by when someone gets robbed, mugged, attacked...and I have to suddenly believe they care about opression now? Yeah right.

A white person wearing a balaclava or motorcycle helmet while not riding probably won't get the same reactions and looks as a Burqa wearing women. Yet both things are considered illegal in France since 2010.

 

[Simplet]

I've never understood why different cultures need to be intergrated. Why cant we learn to accept the differences? If you moved to,say, India for example, would yougive up your culture?

Also, forcing people to live like you seems like it woud divide and antagonize rather then integrate.

Your argument is silly. I'm French, I leave in China, I consider myself integrated in Chinese society. It doesn't mean that I have become Chinese (good luck with that), it means that I have Chinese friends/roomates/coworkers, that I speak the language, that I don't live in a French bubble where I depend on others to survive etc...

"Integration" doesn't mean that these women need to start bathing topless and eating baguette everyday, it means that it is bad for the country to have pockets of people who are willfully creating barriers between themselves and the rest of the population. A woman who wears the Niqab in France practically condemns herself to depend on her husband/father etc for everything.

 

[Azih]

. A woman who wears the Niqab in France practically condemns herself to depend on her husband/father etc for everything.

Why exactly? I see women in niqabs every once in a while (Canada) and they seem to be doing just fine doing their shopping and driving their kids around. One even fought the state in the courts for four years to be allowed to take her citizenship oath in the niqab.

 

[Audioboxer]

Why do you so easily diminish the security concerns in public spaces? In a big privately owned space like a bank or a mall you find yourself among strangers just like in open public spaces. They might be privately owned, but they are publicly available.

Because largely in open spaces it is far easier to take people down and/or give chase, or just put them off. Or the simple fact a wide open park/beach is hardly a highly valued target area like a bank or a jewellers.

In an enclosed space it is far more likely for a hostage situation and/or CCTV to be useful as CCTV largely can't cover vast public spaces without high costs. It does tend to be used in enclosed spaces, and areas of high value, and is at times the difference between identifying someone and not finding them at all. Why do bank/jeweler robbers stereotypically wear balaclavas.... Itsfuckingobvious.gif.

I mean you and others thinking like yourself just have to deal with it. Go and try to change the world if you want and tell banks they are "racist" if they ever ask for head coverings to be removed. Most of us can give a bit of sanity to some decision making without parading around identity politics everywhere. Bans on a beach just make little sense, bans in a bank, and there is a point to at least debate. Given that crime is normally committed by those with their faces covered. I mean I've joked amongst friends before if PC does go wild and banks cannot ask for Islamic face coverings to be removed then the bank robbers should just change to Islamic attire instead of balaclavas. I mean, they could just stroll in and be like "nuh uh, I'm religious, you can't ask me to take this off!". Yeah... I'd rather live in a world where a bank can do that without a horde of civilians chucking around racist/bigot accusations!

At this point I honestly don't know what your intentions are, they might just be to be part of an argument for the sake of it. Which is fine I guess, but you can tell me if you are serious or are just trying to stir up debate with me. Largely I think my views are as liberal and open minded as you can get. I put aside my personal distaste for religion/Islam by saying I don't support bans (when it's on a fucking beach), but give an inch to the debate in saying I think it is fair play in certain areas for full face coverings regardless of them being religious or not to be asked to be removed. Like I said you can do your banking online from home, or get someone else to go for you.

Anyway, you go do your banking with your dick hanging out and your balaclava on and see how it goes (this is tongue in cheek)

 

[Angel_DvA]

Ok so a couple things.

I come from a Muslim house and even I don't think that the majority of women who wear the niqab wear it by choice. I don't know where you got the belief that most westerners consider it a matter of choice. That's not to say that they're aren't women who actually do where it because they want to, but I seriously have a hard time believe that most westerners think all Muslim who wear it do it independently. (Edit: rereading the OP I see you might've meant that westerners believe the hijab is a matter of choice, not the niqab. It's different but I don't know how most other westerns view the hijab)

Secondly, argue all you want to about whether a hijab is used to oppress women or empower them, but the niqab is definitely used as a tool to keep women down in many cases. The Qur'an never even says women are required to wear such a concealing wardrobe. The entire thing is completely unnecessary. There are literally Muslim men out there who treat their wives and daughters like objects.

Third, it just isn't practical for day-to-day life. Identifying individuals is important and the niqab basically disguises whoever wears it.

And I'm not proposing all countries ban it or something. I'm all for freedom of religion. I've known probably 200 Muslim women who've worn the hijab and I've never once questioned or criticized them for it. Ive heard many stories about how it's a symbol of modesty and was a choice. I 100% can understand that. I can't, however, believe that the women who wear the niqab do something that the religion doesn't even call for.

Sorry this is a little bit rant-y but I just feel strongly about the niqab.

And we can stop here.

 

[Azih]

And we can stop here.

Sure if we could all just agree that bans on niqabs are dumb we wouldn't be in this reactionary mess.

I can't however be comfortable with a point of view that ignores the opinions of the women who actually want to wear the blasted thing.

 

[Liamario]

If a hijab or other equivalent scarves were a symbol of modesty or empowerment, why don't male muslims wear them?

 

[Pamplemousse]

Obviously they're wrong, and it's even more ridiculous that women in the Middle East have to wear them considering how hot it is there.

The problem is banning things never works, so it must always be left as a "choice." Of course we can also debate how much of it is really a choice and not a pressure to fit into a ridiculously backward culture.

All we in the West can do is help them assimilate when they come here. Eventually the Burqa and more would go away with time as they spent time in a more practical and fair culture.

 

[Simplet]

Why exactly? I see women in niqabs every once in a while (Canada) and they seem to be doing just fine doing their shopping and driving their kids around. One even fought the state in the courts for four years to be allowed to take her citizenship oath in the niqab.

For a ton of different reasons. First it proclaims to everyone you're an extremely religious and conservative person, to the point where you won't even let people see your face. It creates a barrier that tells everyone non-muslim around you to back off, and even if they didn't, it tells them that they're probably not going to be able to interact with you anyway (being in contact with other males unaccompanied, etc...).

Second, it means that you're most probably not going to be able to find a job or do much of anything socially outside of your family and close community, thus you will depend on people around you for everything you need.

 

[Audioboxer]

You still assume crime is only committed in private spaces, it's not. CCTVs may not be extremely common, but witnesses w/ smartphones are. You seem overly defensive of the right of private entities so inter-whined with everyday life to demand a certain dress-code, while you find the same thing applied by the government/ municipality absurd. Why do private entities get a pass?

Very specific private entities, and the same reasons as they already do have the ability right now to ask for things we may not expect in public spaces. Usually for security as they are protecting something of very high value.

I'm being defensive of sane principles because like many I'm sick of identity politics when they are twisted and used in inflammatory ways simply because people are like kids to candy at the chance to incorrectly shout "racist!" these days (ironically a lot of the time at criticism of religion/ideologies which aren't a race in the first place). But please do carry on being the on the fence sitter surrounding banks and jewellers and as I said feel free to wear a balaclava when entering either and see how it largely goes down. Or any of that seemingly transparent clothing you initially mentioned to me. Preferably mix both together and get back to me on your field research to back up your arguments. I'd wage at best you're probably going to be asked to remove and/or change your clothes (or leave the premises), at worst have the police called on you. Please do tell the police of the oppression you face as a citizen entering a private space and not being allowed to wear your balaclava, or have your butt cheeks on show.

 

[NyMartin90]

I saw this online, crazy. I mean the ban is contested and has been overturned but crazy times that even such a thing as a ban was being introduced.

The image generalizes alot but a crazy comparison. If anyone wants me to take it down, I will.

 

[Audioboxer]

I saw this online, crazy. I mean the ban is contested and has been overturned but crazy times that even such a thing as a ban was being introduced.

The typical tumblr snapshot of making a point for the wrong reasons. Using Turkey and Erdogan for anything is a bit of a joke.

I mean you can find beaches like that in Dubai. Specifically possibly high tourist areas. It doesn't therefore mean Dubai (or more so the United Arab Emirates) isn't an overall shit show with a rap sheet of laws that you can fall victim to when setting foot in most areas that otherwise we'd laugh at in the West. Ironically the counter point to the France situation. A few places in France became a joke, but France on a whole wasn't affected. Where as for many of these middle Eastern countries it is a handful of places that are progressive within a country that has country wide law to make the life of individuals hell, if not lead to jail/death.

That image would be better with just taking beach A in France, and then beach B, to make the point it is comical to have two different standards within one country. As it wasn't a whole country wide law that was being enforced.

Still what to expect from Tumblr/Facebook and Twitter when the masses get involved in politics and love a good soundbite/meme.

 

[Audioboxer]

It's not a matter of selective racism. It's a matter of accepting and bending over to the demands of private entities while disagreeing at core with government regulation. You prefer to give more power to private entities than to the government. This is what economic liberalism devoid of social liberalism looks like, plain and simple. Your rights shouldn't magically change the moment you enter a mall or a bank.

As I said put your statements where you mouth is. Please do go and start wearing full face coverings in banks, and please do start bringing transparent clothing into mainstream appeal in parks where there are lots of young kids.

Not everything is some systematic fight against the government or a bogeyman or "powerful private elites". Often we just come to conclusions as humans as we think they make sense and they serve a purpose to protect and/or serve us.

Most people can accept how security in a bank or even airport can be a much more delicate matter than in your local supermarket or down the beach. Just in the same way people can respect the fact 5 year old kids do not need to be seeing mens dicks in a public park because groups of individuals think they should be able to wear what they want everywhere. Most of us allow a bit of bend here and there to overall live in a society where we can get on with each other, and you know have some security measures in place. Like it or not people do shitty things, and people rob and take things they don't deserve to have. For all those with the tinfoil hats about CCTV and big brother, there's got to be some give in certain high security areas. No that doesn't mean I now approve of phone tapping and complete invasion of privacy, but I'm largely talking about fucking banks and I've said multiple times now most banks allow you to do online banking at home where you can be completely naked with a carrot up your ass for all the banks cares.

When you leave your home and go into the public sphere/private sphere of other people's homes (or companies homes), you can't just expect to be a sane human being keeping that same I'll do what I want persona you have behind your homes closed doors without getting into bother. Deal with that, or stay in your home and never come out of it ¯\_(&#12484_/¯ The rest of us will try and strive for a balance between being able to do whatever you want all the time, and occasionally having restrictions in place.

 

[Azih]

For a ton of different reasons. First it proclaims to everyone you're an extremely religious and conservative person, to the point where you won't even let people see your face. It creates a barrier that tells everyone non-muslim around you to back off, and even if they didn't, it tells them that they're probably not going to be able to interact with you anyway (being in contact with other males unaccompanied, etc...).

Second, it means that you're most probably not going to be able to find a job or do much of anything socially outside of your family and close community, thus you will depend on people around you for everything you need.

I gave you an example of a woman who was very much not dependant on anyone to get what she wanted up to and including fighting her federal government in court.

Having a harder time finding employment is true but that's a kind of sacrifice people have been willing to make for decades in favor of self expression (long hair and visible tattoos for example)

 

[Audioboxer]

You are missing the point I've been trying to make in the past pages. If there truly are no limits to what we can wear I should be able to choose between being naked and wearing a mens Burqa. Your own conclusions point out that I am not allowed too, if not due to government regulation, due to dress-code and common sense. So why are you so defensive on the right to wear a Burqa?

I get your point, it's just rather, forgive me for saying, pointless. I've already stated even in the most liberal countries in the world we still have at the very least decency expectations of citizens. Indecent exposure is a thing, and rightfully so. You can still have topless beaches, and even some completely nude, and also nudist communities. That's what I mean with most people being willing to compromise in liberal countries, not completely restrict.

And my own conclusions were not you weren't allowed to, I just said above in satirical fashion if it's your thing to walk around naked with a carrot up your ass you can do that. Some things though are largely confined to the space you do own, your home. Outside of your home you have to "live" in a world where there are other people. You don't own the public sphere, and they don't either, so we're all trying our best to live with each other with some reasonable expectations.

I don't get how any reasonable adult can't understand that.

As for the burqa specifically, because in most public areas it is the complete opposite of something that can be indecent. It covers you up to the point where you don't even look like a human. Personally to me offensive for another reason, but a piece of clothing that like wearing a damn Slipknot hoodie with a goat and 666 written on it largely falls under our freedoms to wear almost anything. Is it going to offend someone? Probably. Fucking everything offends these days. It is not in the realms of indecent exposure though, and like I've been arguing for pages covering up in a bank is not tied to any one piece of clothing, but ANY that covers your face. Accept those reasons or don't, I honestly don't care anymore as I'm losing the will to live carrying on this debate when it seems you're either arguing for all or for nothing and most things in life are a bit more complicated and messy than a binary black/white or yes/no.