Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Shuma, a jewelers got robbed by two fellas in Burkhas, and if i recall correctly, one of the London bombers apparently escaped dressed in a Burkha, if these things are happening, then how on earth is it just a "faux" security issue?

Also, do you have do be needlessly inflammatory to the (many) people who you disagree with? Put your points across without calling people names, as no doubt you are going to carry on winding people up and then another interesting thread is going to get locked.

Do you wear a Virtual Burkah? I only ask because more than anyone else on here i think you most certainly are a "Thread Bomber"

I know it is hard (SO HARD!) in the OT Forum, but NO MORE PERSONAL ATTACKS!

So here we are, at another sign post moment in a thread.

After this, people who choose to ignore the above warning will be punished...

Sad, but true.

Dogma, what was your point about veils and Turkey? IIRC, even headscarves were illegal outside of mosques until recently. I can ask my Turkish friend about this, but I wouldn't be surprised if she's never worn a veil in her life, and can't imagine she'd find it liberating. Maybe there's an urban/rural difference on that issue, but IIRC the majority of the population there is in the cities...

Shuma, a jewelers got robbed by two fellas in Burkhas, and if i recall correctly, one of the London bombers apparently escaped dressed in a Burkha, if these things are happening, then how on earth is it just a "faux" security issue?

The bomber was caught, and the Burkha doesn't hide anything a mask doesn't, and when was the last time any armed robbery was committed without something hiding the face? Are ski masks illegal now? One would think a full body burkha would make a robbery more difficult to complete and then escape from? In neither case did the article of clothing do anything extraordinary for the criminal beyond what could be accomplished with a hoody.

Also, do you have do be needlessly inflammatory to the (many) people who you disagree with?

I was only inflammatory to the guy that A. was trolling before I entered the thread, B. has me on ignore, and C. has in every thread he's ever commented towards me on proclaimed that I'm just a troll.

Forgive my lack of tact when dealing with him.

Do you wear a Virtual Burkah? I only ask because more than anyone else on here i think you most certainly are a "Thread Bomber"

Hurr.

gorgon wrote:Dogma, what was your point about veils and Turkey? IIRC, even headscarves were illegal outside of mosques until recently. I can ask my Turkish friend about this, but I wouldn't be surprised if she's never worn a veil in her life, and can't imagine she'd find it liberating. Maybe there's an urban/rural difference on that issue, but IIRC the majority of the population there is in the cities...

There are a number of Turkish cultural movements which focus on the relaxation of the anti-Islamic laws imposed by the Ataturk reforms. In particular, there is a certain segment of Turkish feminism which views the hijab and veil as a significant component of a woman's right to choose, and need not represent oppression. Its very similar to modern, Western feminism which denies the notion that femininity is intrinsically submissive, or without power. Here is an article about one, though the author is wrong to say that she is startlingly unique. Look here for a journalistic segment (unless you have JSTOR access). Also, a decent book on the issue if The veiling issue, official secularism and popular Islam in modern Turkey

synopsis wrote:
In the Turkish elections of December 1995, the Islamic Welfare Party became the biggest Party in parliament and for the first time in history, an Islamic party had come to power by means of free elections.The rise to power of the Turkish Islamists is a result of several decades of revivalism. In this process the veil has been a prominent symbol of the new religious puritanism, causing resentment among those who regard the bare-headed woman as the symbol of progress and emancipation. In the light of a century-long conflict between secularism and popular Islam, the present study describes the conflict over the veil as it became a burning issue in the decade following the military intervention of 1980 and remains to this day a matter of controversy.While focusing on the issue of veiling, the author also considers the wider picture of tension between official secularism and popular Islam in present-day Turkey. Althoughthis tension is not discounted, the author argues that the fact that the Islamic movement is on the rise does not mean that it threatens the very foundations of modern Turkish society. Whereas the controversies of the nineteenth century could be described as a 'clash of civilizations' (between Islam and the West), those of today have shrunk into conflicts over certain cultural symbols that are part of the same globally-expanding technological civilization.

Head scarves are still illegal (the amendment lifting the ban was annulled), as are veils, but the ban only applies to government buildings, schools, and universities. It is, and was, always sparsely enforced.

ShumaGorath wrote: Hurr.

Hey they cant all be good ones...

Ahem.. im off to bed.

The burkha doesn't represent the islamic faith (its not mentioned in the koran), but the downward spiral it has been taken by extremisists and oppressors, just look at footage of Iraq 50 years ago, no burkhas or very few headscarfs. Muslim countries especially in arabic and african nations have gone backwards if you compare them to islam in the past.

The main things are security and education, a passport is worthless if the picture is that of a burkha instead of the person behind it and in area of elevated security if people have to show their face at all time a burkha should not be allowed. For education, it has been show in multiple studies that face to face communication (especially for young children) plays a critical role in a childs development and learning ability, so no teacher should be allowed to cover their face.

The burkha doesn't represent the islamic faith (its not mentioned in the koran), but the downward spiral it has been taken by extremisists and oppressors, just look at footage of Iraq 50 years ago, no burkhas or very few headscarfs.

Iraq has been a secular bastion in the middle east for decades, and is only now becoming heavily islamified due to the prevalence of muslim extremist militias and many concessions made in their newly minted constitution. Before the invasion Sadaam reacted quite harshly to the growth of muslim centers of power in Iraq.

Muslim countries especially in arabic and african nations have gone backwards if you compare them to islam in the past.

It depends on how you define country, but many have reversed more recent secular movements or are in the process of doing so (Egypt for example). The secular reforms of the 20th century didn't work in many cases, and due to the influx of corrupt oil and drug money religious power centers are starting to take hold against the relatively weak governments. Throw in soviet wars of conquest and repeated American and western involvement in toppling and replacing governments and you have what is a ludicrously complicated set of problems in the region.

The main things are security and education, a passport is worthless if the picture is that of a burkha instead of the person behind it and in area of elevated security if people have to show their face at all time a burkha should not be allowed. For education, it has been show in multiple studies that face to face communication (especially for young children) plays a critical role in a childs development and learning ability, so no teacher should be allowed to cover their face.

Agreed on both counts.

Well, i honestly think this thing really passes the boundaries of just burkha.
On the same premise of forbidding the burkha (really unimportant at this point if the Quran asks it or not), as it's a real part of their culture, you could also ban the use of minorities' languages => you could ban the use of Spanish in America, Arabic in France, even practising your own religion as a minority in another country, what's REALLY the difference? it's still a cultural thing, isn't it?

Now, i don't want to fall in the other brazen extreme...i don't know if you know about the hungarian minority problem in Romania...well, there's a great hungarian minority in the north-east part of the country who demands school be taught in their own language and no be needed to learn romanian, why? They are here, they have to play by OUR rules. I'm not saying they don't have the right to use their own language, habits and cultures, but it's like spanish people in the US simply refuse to speak english and force the others to learn spanish.

Burkha, traditions, languages are all part of a nation and they have the right to be maintained, unless it's a threat to the safety and security of the others...meaning i agree with the fact that should be able to wear it, unless police asks them to identify

Hope i made myself clear

dogma wrote: Democracy is prone to tyranny of the majority. Full stop. Government by the ignorant should be inherently bothersome.

Ah, the joys of people with a superiority complex. Because making a statement like this generally implies that you believe you are smarter than the majority of people, to such an extent that you can call them 'ignorant'.

That isn't the implication there. I didn't call anyone ignorant. I said that ignorant people should not be allowed to govern. That does not imply that I should be allowed to govern, or that I am not ignorant. It only implies that, if a person is ignorant, he should not govern.

dogma wrote:That isn't the implication there. I didn't call anyone ignorant. I said that ignorant people should not be allowed to govern. That does not imply that I should be allowed to govern, or that I am not ignorant. It only implies that, if a person is ignorant, he should not govern.

Ah, but in saying that ignorant people should not govern in regards to a democracy, you are implying that the majority of the population MUST be ignorant. In order to judge others ignorant means that you mentally must believe that you are smarter than them, otherwise you have no standard for comparison. You do not have stupid people admitting they are stupid, and then accusing the majority of the population of being stupid as well.

aka_tizz wrote:Well, i honestly think this thing really passes the boundaries of just burkha.
On the same premise of forbidding the burkha (really unimportant at this point if the Quran asks it or not), as it's a real part of their culture, you could also ban the use of minorities' languages => you could ban the use of Spanish in America, Arabic in France, even practising your own religion as a minority in another country, what's REALLY the difference? it's still a cultural thing, isn't it?

Now, i don't want to fall in the other brazen extreme...i don't know if you know about the hungarian minority problem in Romania...well, there's a great hungarian minority in the north-east part of the country who demands school be taught in their own language and no be needed to learn romanian, why? They are here, they have to play by OUR rules. I'm not saying they don't have the right to use their own language, habits and cultures, but it's like spanish people in the US simply refuse to speak english and force the others to learn spanish.

Burkha, traditions, languages are all part of a nation and they have the right to be maintained, unless it's a threat to the safety and security of the others...meaning i agree with the fact that should be able to wear it, unless police asks them to identify

Hope i made myself clear

You do, and it's barely valid, sorry.

the Bhurka/Hijab is not even close to a cultural tradition, it's in fact, anti-cultural even in many Islamic countries. It's usefull in a sandstorm, but it is in no way comparable to traditional dress. In addition, it's in no French tradition. Also, I got to know a lot of Turks last year and while some of the girls wear scarves, they are not keen on the Bhurka/Hijab. The Scarf is more of a choice, it's almost a fashion accesory. A Bhurka can never be like that, it's a prison (and traffic hazard). It might be traditional in Saudi-Arabia, perhaps, but few, if any French (or European in general) Muslims are from Saudi-Arabia. North-African, Levantine, Anatolyan and Balkan muslims have very different traditional clothing.

It's a mysoginistic, oppresive demand by madmen prudes who were frightened by their own rapist urges and decided they'd rather cover-up women entirely than to face punishment if they acted on their maniac urges. Naïve analphabetics saw these men as figures of wisdom and authority so rolled with it.

As for minority languages, I agree with you. I'm greatly annoyed even by Frisians who can't find the decency to talk standard Dutch to non-Frisians (and they learn it in school, so they're just rude b-tards). anyway, refusing to learn the national language is only harming the minority if it comes to employment and the use of public services.
In my job as telemarketeer (service-based calls to customers of the biggest Dutch Internet/phone provider) I occassionaly call Muslim families of which only the kids and husband speak Dutch, the wife barely knows the language and that must be as frustrating to me as it is for her. Anytime she needs to interact with other people not from her own ethnicity it will be a pain... What about teacher-parent meetings for example? I fear a lot of "muslim youth" troubles originate from this, and I do blame the muslim men for it, because they are the ones who tell their wifes they don't need to speak Dutch.
Truth be told, it's not general, every muslim culture differentiates in this (most Turks, Syrians and Lebanese are usually able to speak Dutch at a fair standard)

as for the Hungarian minority... Have they thought it through enough? do they want to isolate themselves from the rest of the country? Is it the entire minority or just a few "tribalists" with an inferiority complex?

That being said, I'm not against minority languages, I find them very interesting. I do oppose segegration because it isolates minorities, which will breed resentment and trouble in the future.

Firstly such a ban would be totally unenforceable. Seriously are the police going to have to arrest middle aged Muslim women for just walking down the street, minding their own business, whilst in possession of a bit of religious garb? What does that achieve apart from wasting massive amounts of police time and taxpayers money?

Secondly if the covering of the face for 'security' reasons is an issue then you can't just limit it to the hijab. You would have to ban anything that obscured the face. Scarves, Ski Masks, Stockings (in case Bank Robbers should use them) Bike Helmets, comedy plastic glasses/moustache combos. it's a right can of worms and again is unenforceable.

It would also mean arresting everyone who attended the protests below. Hows that in anyone's interest?

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/webscout/2008/02/protesters-asse.html

Finally I simply don't accept that it is the role of the State to enforce a dress code. For example courts in England recently decide that this fellow would not be prosecuted as there was no indication that his decision to wear no clothes was actually hurting anyone (though the Scots are still trying to lock this harmless eccentric up) and rightly so. If the State can't stop someone from wearing too few clothes on what grounds can they prosecute someone for wearing too many?

Yes I accept the potential misogynistic origins and movies of the hijab/burka but such issues are only resolved by progressive thought and natural changes in social attitudes. Draconian legislation does more harm than good and I think France will find this out the hard way.

Herohammernostalgia wrote:
as for the Hungarian minority... Have they thought it through enough? do they want to isolate themselves from the rest of the country? Is it the entire minority or just a few "tribalists" with an inferiority complex?

My friend, this is on for the last hundred years or so, with the crushing majority of hungarians claiming autonomy of that region from the romanian state.

As for the burkha, i beg to differ. Who forces them to wear it in public in France? or any other western country? family? don't think so, it's not like they'd be rock killed if they, don't as is the case in some arabic countries, so why do they wear it? the only logical answer remains that it's a part of them

Ketara wrote:Ah, but in saying that ignorant people should not govern in regards to a democracy, you are implying that the majority of the population MUST be ignorant. In order to judge others ignorant means that you mentally must believe that you are smarter than them, otherwise you have no standard for comparison. You do not have stupid people admitting they are stupid, and then accusing the majority of the population of being stupid as well.

"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute talk with the average voter."
-Winston Churchill

Let's knee-cap this rather pedantic argument.

Ignorance= uneducated in general; lacking knowledge or sophistication...

Stupidity= a poor ability to understand or to profit from experience

Aside the fact that Dogma was relatively clear in his meaning, and he clarified further in his response...

Ignorance and stupidity are not interchangeable, as anything more than an 'insult'.

Aside this, and more to the point, intelligence (associated with a lack of, within stupidity), and knowledge (associated with a lack of, within ignorance), are not the same thing. You can be knowledgeable, and still be considered stupid, you can also be intelligent, and have a lack of knowledge.

Processing information, and having information can be two entirely different things, and they usually are by default.

Dogma made no assertion that anyone was specifically ignorant, but to entirely miss his point, is to forget that a large majority of people, can be considered ignorant, as a natural occurrence of being alive. I have no clue about what I would do specifically, to fix the problems that I see in the world generically; this by all faults would make me ignorant to a solution. Not stupid, but most definitely ignorant for the most part.

I feel that adding a new anchor to this discussion would be appropriate as well. If people are ignorant on the whole (specifically on cultural, economic, and political issues), why is this? Is it because the economics of knowledge and intelligence (which is, within itself, a debate lacking substance without hard data as to what you are actually discussing within a 'narrow' scope) are limited in similar ways to everything physical? Not entirely impossible, though I sway more to the equity of intelligence, knowledge, and associated symbols of power.

There is/are a/many reason/s people are not educated, not least of which lays in the simple logistics of such a monumental task, as to actually provide viable and efficient education.

Is the system the reason people are hyperbolic naturally? Is hyperbole (which I consider the original post to be in essence, not the OP, but the actual source: through information distributor x, from culture b) a natural survival mechanism? Are we simply looking at a poorly thought out reaction, to a debatably non-circumstantial issue?

The main issue here, is how political this actually is, and how much of it is a result of natural processes.

I'm suprised this is still going, and to the fact that it has broken so far away from the OP. How about it gets left that france is infringing on many personal rights by their actions, but it is their right to do what they feel to make their country safe whatever the reason may be.

I think the US should ban wearing pants that are halfway down around the ass (and no not just for fat chicks). I really don't care to see some 14yo "gangsta wannabes" spongebob boxers (not to mention how the hell are you badass wearing spongebob boxer shorts)?

Ketara wrote:In order to judge others ignorant means that you mentally must believe that you are smarter than them, otherwise you have no standard for comparison.

No, it simply means that I believe they are not knowledgeable when compared to people who are knowledgeable. The knowledgeable person who serves as a standard of comparison does not have to be me.

Ketara wrote:
You do not have stupid people admitting they are stupid, and then accusing the majority of the population of being stupid as well.

Ignorance and stupidity are not interchangeable. That said, there's no reason that a stupid person could not acknowledge his stupidity, while recognizing that the majority of others are his equal. Though one might argue that the ability to do such a thing makes the hypothetical stupid person noticeably smarter.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Wrexasaur wrote:
Dogma made no assertion that anyone was specifically ignorant, but to entirely miss his point, is to forget that a large majority of people, can be considered ignorant, as a natural occurrence of being alive. I have no clue about what I would do specifically, to fix the problems that I see in the world generically; this by all faults would make me ignorant to a solution. Not stupid, but most definitely ignorant for the most part.

Wrex nailed it. In fact, I wish I would have read past Ketara before replying, as my post is now redundant.

I find Burkhas unpleasant mainly because they are symbol of unwillingness to integrate with a 'host' culture and/or adopt our values. Oppression of women within the Muslim community is a wider issue, which shouldn't be distilled down to a clothing choice (or lack thereof). Muslim women desperately need empowerment if the islamic community is to succesfully integrate (which they should, as a matter of grave importance). This empowerment will not be acheived by oppressing them further.

The burka plays a very important role in the dress of Muslim women. Faced with either removing the burka or remaining in the home, it’s likely almost all Muslim women will remain at home. Muslim women are already marginalised by Muslim men and by greater society, and now we’ve given them one more reason to stay separate from the rest of society. In terms of encouraging integration, this new French law is nothing but a big failure.

The security issues are frankly silly. It’s use in crime has been minimal at best, forcing an entire class of people out of public life when practical measures, such as limiting the bans to high profile targets like pawn shops, is plainly ridiculous.

This simply has nothing to either of those issues. The third argument put forward, France can do what they want, isn’t even an argument for the veil, it’s just an effort to deflect criticism from this law.

The issues driving this have nothing to do with the veil, just as the issues in Switzerland had nothing to do with the four minarets that had been put up. This has everything to do with people feeling threatened or intimidated by Islam, and wanting to reduce that fear by putting a control over Muslims. Of course, the only possible result is to increase the tension between the social groups, increasing the level of fear.

Ironically, this is very similar to the fear of women in many Islamic cultures that drives Muslim men to place strict dress codes on Muslim women.

Fifty wrote:Let me ask you this - when a woman chooses not to wear a burka, who is it that deals with it?

In countries under Muslim majority rule where Sharia Law or similar is in force, it is men. Men in positions of authority, mandated by the government and religious authorities, which are often the same thing. These same governments and religious authorities are dominated by men. Men punish women for not wearing a Burka.

In countries not under Muslim dominance, it is dealt with by men in the home and other men in the community they are part of.

It is entirely possible that many women like wearing a burka, but lets not pretend for a minute it is like they all have a choice in the matter. Some, maybe even most, I have no idea, but lets not pretend it is all.

You are absolutely right that the burka is not a choice for all women. Even Muslim immigrants to Western countries will generally still have social pressure to wear burkas and other traditional garb. It is a real issue, and beyond the level of discomfort these clothes have, there are far greater issues driving the need to wear a burka - the need to control the sexuality of women.

But those issues are not helped one bit by the law proposed in France. All that law will do is force Muslim women out of public, which will reduce their exposure to greater society and their access to social and economic opportunities, which in turn will reduce their power and make them less capable of choosing to wear the burka or not. The solution is to be found in greater integration, not less.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

LuciusAR wrote:It would also mean arresting everyone who attended the protests below. Hows that in anyone's interest?

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/webscout/2008/02/protesters-asse.html

It is always in everyone's interest to lock up members of Anonymous.

aka_tizz wrote:
My friend, this is on for the last hundred years or so, with the crushing majority of hungarians claiming autonomy of that region from the romanian state.

As for the burkha, i beg to differ. Who forces them to wear it in public in France? or any other western country? family? don't think so, it's not like they'd be rock killed if they, don't as is the case in some arabic countries, so why do they wear it? the only logical answer remains that it's a part of them

Really must take issue with you on this point. A recent case in the UK was of a young Muslim woman killed by her father and uncle because the guy she eloped with wasn't approved by the family. There are plenty of examples of these so called 'honour' killings. Just because Muslims do not publicly execute women for refusing to wear burkas does not mean they arent punished, beaten and coerced in private.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Albatross wrote:I find Burkhas unpleasant mainly because they are symbol of unwillingness to integrate with a 'host' culture and/or adopt our values. Oppression of women within the Muslim community is a wider issue, which shouldn't be distilled down to a clothing choice (or lack thereof). Muslim women desperately need empowerment if the islamic community is to succesfully integrate (which they should, as a matter of grave importance). This empowerment will not be acheived by oppressing them further.

I think in very real terms, a large part of this proposed ban by France is a reaction to this failure to integrate. It's simply dressed up in 'security' clothes, although there is a slight anti terrorist theme to the legislation.

filbert wrote:Really must take issue with you on this point. A recent case in the UK was of a young Muslim woman killed by her father and uncle because the guy she eloped with wasn't approved by the family. There are plenty of examples of these so called 'honour' killings. Just because Muslims do not publicly execute women for refusing to wear burkas does not mean they arent punished, beaten and coerced in private.

While the idea of someone being beaten for refusing to wear a burkha sounds a lot like a crappy tv movie, the reality is that violence isn't even necessary. To make them wear the burka you just remove all other choices. We like to pretend we're all free souls that can agree or reject anything we want, but the reality is we have that mindset because of how we've been raised and where we're placed in society.

A lot of Muslim women don't have the power to choose. This is why banning the burka is such a stupid, counter-productive thing to do.

sebster wrote:

A lot of Muslim women don't have the power to choose. This is why banning the burka is such a stupid, counter-productive thing to do.

Quite possibly, however claiming that women aren't forced and coerced into wearing Burkas is disingenuous at best.

LuciusAR wrote:
Finally I simply don't accept that it is the role of the State to enforce a dress code...

...Draconian legislation does more harm than good and I think France will find this out the hard way.

This pretty much sums up my feelings on this subject.

Also: For the record, I have thoroughly enjoyed my time on DakkaDakka. However the sheer brazen ignorance and idicotic nature of some posters here truly sickens me.

I say this every thread, opressing a minority never works. The more jimcrow laws passed the more you prove them right. A few already have said they support the law because they don't like islam. these innocent moderates you opress will be pushed into the extreme by your own actions.

There was an interview with a French official on the news last night, and he was commenting that it is not just the "security issue" surrounding the fact that full coverage allows potential criminals to move throughout society unseen (where a man wearing a mask would be stopped, or at least noticed), but the cultural issues as well.

Islam is Frances second largest religion, and constantly growing due to large numbers of immigrants, as well as low native birth rates. The full body and face coverings go directly against the relatively open nature of Frances culture, promoting the "us and them" mentality that causes problems.

It was suggested by this official that they were attempting not only to make the nation safer, but also to try and improve integration into French culture and promote a more open Islamic practice within the Muslim communities of France (although I think part of the issue is that there are "communities" to start with. Areas of total non-integration existing within another culture, as are common in the UK as well; part of the reason there is so much of an issue for so many people).

Just because you live in France doesn't mean you have to be 'French'. Who knows? Maybe in a thousand years, building Mousques and wearing Burkas will be the 'French' thing to do?