As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

Banning Burqas in Belgium (oh my)

Flippy_DFlippy_D Digital ConquistadorLondonRegistered User regular
edited April 2010 in Debate and/or Discourse
Alliteration.

Yeah so they are doing that thing in the title.

Elsewhere, you have lefties beard-stroking and claiming it's a 'progressive' step, and equatable to banning nudity:
... they are simply saying that all things have limits and extremism must be addressed. The complete covering of the body and face, they rightly say, is extremist.
It might be extreme, but to me that's a very different word to extremist. I mean what if I really hate the extremity of mohicans? Anyway, here are my thoughts (C+P job I'm afraid), if you care for them:


I was discussing this last night. I think it's a bad law.

I'd like to just say here, I hate the burqa. I hate what it stands for; I find its justifications flimsy, sexist in both directions and contemptuous. I hate its cultural significations and its promotion of (as I see it) ingrained oppression.

But I still don't support banning it.

One argument you hear a lot of is that it is a 'progressive' step towards women's equality. How is curtailing what women may wear liberating? If a women does not wish to wear the burqa in Belgium or France, then she is under no legal requirement to do so. You cannot 'free' her any more than she has already been freed. Where the concern here REALLY lies is in the policing of minorities and subcultures: more precisely, that the protection for women who choose to wear what they please is guaranteed; that she will not suffer a local backlash from her cultural community. If a woman is being beaten because she does not wish to wear the burqa, the solution is not to ban the burqa.

This brings me to my second point, which is that banning the burqa will cause massive personal pain and distress to those who voluntarily wear it. It would be analagous to banning Nun's habits. Criminalizing free religious expression based on a subjective view of what is appropriate is the kind of thing, when framed in those terms, that should have progressives up in arms. They cannot then nod thoughtfully and support it just because they dislike the object in question. Once again: can you imagine what this is going to do to households? What if they are forced to move back to a more repressive state without the freedoms they currently enjoy (yes, whilst wearing a burqa)? Have you liberated them then?

Another less credible idea is that it would somehow encourage extremism. This is pretty much just islamo- or xenophobia, lightly disguised. If a criminal is going to commit a crime, they will find a means by which to obscure their identity. Whether that means is a burqa is irrelevent. You are prosecuting the criminal, not his disguise. It makes as much sense to ban hockey masks, or sacks (because you could wear them with cut-out eyeholes). To equate burqas with potential violence is a deplorable kind of prejudice.

Lastly, I find the point about nudists intellectually dishonest. The absence of clothes is different to a subset of clothes. I find the point about it being two ends of an extremist spectrum problematic. A person wishing to cover themselves fully is not harming or harrassing anyone, unlike nudity (and seriously, if you're going to equate it to nudity, you might want a reality check on how permissive the European states - esp. Fr, Bel, Ger, and Aus - actually are about that). The one grain of legitimacy in this view that I can find is the security-related objection that it is hard to ascertain identity for official purposes. But I am pretty sure we can find a means around that which stops short of banning the whole thing.

This is a typically conservative, xenophobic, anti-immigrant law which should - and, would ordinarily - have leftists of all creeds up in arms. But because we agree with the notion that it's degrading to women (or whatever variation on that theme), we stand idly by whilst other people's civic rights are unnecessarily attacked. Like I said at the start of this, the laws already afford a woman in the country all the protection she needs if she chooses not to wear the burqa. Don't trick yourselves into thinking you are making her any more free.

p8fnsZD.png
Flippy_D on
«134567

Posts

  • Flippy_DFlippy_D Digital Conquistador LondonRegistered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Oh, and I also think this will backfire like almost every other law more or less arbitrarily penalizing a minority culture does. Antagonism all up ins.

    Flippy_D on
    p8fnsZD.png
  • _J__J_ Pedant Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    edited April 2010
    Can we make a distinction between what is actually the case and what is perceived to be the case?

    Actual: It is against the law in Belgium to mask one's face.

    Perceived: ZOMG THEY HATES RELIGION!
    "We cannot allow someone to claim the right to look at others without being seen," MP Daniel Bacquelaine of the French-speaking MR liberal-values party told the Associated Press. "It is necessary that the law forbids the wearing of clothes that totally mask and encloses an individual.”
    Source

    Seems like a good idea to make persons identifiable via facial recognition.

    _J_ on
  • QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    _J_ wrote: »
    Seems like a good idea to make persons identifiable via facial recognition.

    Best ban sunglasses, beards, Halloween, etc.

    Quid on
  • _J__J_ Pedant Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    edited April 2010
    Quid wrote: »
    _J_ wrote: »
    Seems like a good idea to make persons identifiable via facial recognition.

    Best ban sunglasses, beards, Halloween, etc.

    Sunglasses cover one's eyes, not one's face.

    Beards cover one's chin and neck, not one's face.

    I'm ok banning MASKS on Halloween.

    _J_ on
  • QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    _J_ wrote: »
    Sunglasses cover one's eyes, not one's face.

    Beards cover one's chin and neck, not one's face.

    Both can easily make one unrecognizable via facial recognition.

    Which is a pretty flimsy excuse anyway. I can look at people through tinted windows and from behind curtains too.

    Quid on
  • LawndartLawndart Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    _J_ wrote: »
    Can we make a distinction between what is actually the case and what is perceived to be the case?

    Actual: It is against the law in Belgium to mask one's face.

    Perceived: ZOMG THEY HATES RELIGION!
    "We cannot allow someone to claim the right to look at others without being seen," MP Daniel Bacquelaine of the French-speaking MR liberal-values party told the Associated Press. "It is necessary that the law forbids the wearing of clothes that totally mask and encloses an individual.”
    Source

    Seems like a good idea to make persons identifiable via facial recognition.

    Uh, yeah, nothing to do with Islamophobia at all...
    The Belgian legislation specifically targets the burqa and the niqab, both of which which cover the face, although these are not commonly seen in Belgium. "We have to act as of today to avoid (its) development," Bacquelaine said. "Wearing the burqa in public is not compatible with an open, liberal, tolerant society," he said.

    Yeah, nothing discriminatory behind this law, it's all about "facial recognition". Sure thing.

    Lawndart on
  • _J__J_ Pedant Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    edited April 2010
    Quid wrote: »
    _J_ wrote: »
    Sunglasses cover one's eyes, not one's face.

    Beards cover one's chin and neck, not one's face.

    Both can easily make one unrecognizable via facial recognition.

    So they are taking an ameliorative approach.

    _J_ on
  • DoctorArchDoctorArch Curmudgeon Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Today, I think people are incredibly comfortable discriminating against groups who are considered to hold certain beliefs uncritically. Just ask any biological scientist what they think about creationists for a perfect example, or what any intellectually critical person thinks about Scientology. The lefties distaste for something as fundamentally misogynistic as the burqa falls into this paradigm.

    DoctorArch on
    Switch Friend Code: SW-6732-9515-9697
  • QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    _J_ wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    _J_ wrote: »
    Sunglasses cover one's eyes, not one's face.

    Beards cover one's chin and neck, not one's face.

    Both can easily make one unrecognizable via facial recognition.

    So they are taking an ameliorative approach.

    Against burqas and burqas alone. No other mask. Nothing else that makes people hard to recognize, just burqas.

    Quid on
  • _J__J_ Pedant Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    edited April 2010
    Quid wrote: »
    _J_ wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    _J_ wrote: »
    Sunglasses cover one's eyes, not one's face.

    Beards cover one's chin and neck, not one's face.

    Both can easily make one unrecognizable via facial recognition.

    So they are taking an ameliorative approach.

    Against burqas and burqas alone. No other mask. Nothing else that makes people hard to recognize, just burqas.

    "burqa and the niqab"

    _J_ on
  • LawndartLawndart Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    _J_ wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    _J_ wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    _J_ wrote: »
    Sunglasses cover one's eyes, not one's face.

    Beards cover one's chin and neck, not one's face.

    Both can easily make one unrecognizable via facial recognition.

    So they are taking an ameliorative approach.

    Against burqas and burqas alone. No other mask. Nothing else that makes people hard to recognize, just burqas.

    "burqa and the niqab"

    Huzzah for nitpicking!

    But yeah, these types of laws are horrible ideas that, when actually enforced, have historically led to increases in burqa/niqab wearing amongst Muslim women.

    Lawndart on
  • PicardathonPicardathon Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    _J_ wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    _J_ wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    _J_ wrote: »
    Sunglasses cover one's eyes, not one's face.

    Beards cover one's chin and neck, not one's face.

    Both can easily make one unrecognizable via facial recognition.

    So they are taking an ameliorative approach.

    Against burqas and burqas alone. No other mask. Nothing else that makes people hard to recognize, just burqas.

    "burqa and the niqab"

    The only way you can connect these two and not connect them with others is because...they're both predominately worn by muslim women. Intriguing.
    Also, the response to this, if properly enforced, is Muslim women not being allowed to leave the home.
    Europe has it wrong. The right way to do immigration is to let the adults do whatever, and corrupt the children with evil, demonic ideas like 'tolerance' and 'freedom' in the schools.

    Picardathon on
  • QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    _J_ wrote: »
    "burqa and the niqab"

    Ah, of course. Just clothes that obscure the face common to the Muslim religion and nothing else. Your pedantry aside, that's incredibly discriminatory against a religion. If they want to ban things that cover the face they should ban things that cover the face, not just things that cover your face and are popular with Muslims.

    Quid on
  • Kane Red RobeKane Red Robe Master of Magic ArcanusRegistered User regular
    edited April 2010
    If it was about facial recognition they would have banned other things as well, balaclavas and the like. This is discrimination, pure and simple.

    Kane Red Robe on
  • _J__J_ Pedant Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    edited April 2010
    If it was about facial recognition they would have banned other things as well, balaclavas and the like.

    That is an interesting counter-factual claim.

    But it was about facial recognition.
    And they banned the burqa and the niqab.

    Because, apparently, only the burqa and the niqab obscure the face in a manner which needs to be regulated.

    Edit:
    "We cannot allow someone to claim the right to look at others without being seen," MP Daniel Bacquelaine of the French-speaking MR liberal-values party told the Associated Press. "It is necessary that the law forbids the wearing of clothes that totally mask and encloses an individual.”
    Source

    _J_ on
  • QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    _J_ wrote: »
    If it was about facial recognition they would have banned other things as well, balaclavas and the like.

    That is an interesting counter-factual claim.

    But it was about facial recognition.
    And they banned the burqa and the niqab.

    Because, apparently, only the burqa and the niqab obscure the face in a manner which needs to be regulated.

    Really? Been a bunch of bank robberies involving traditional Muslim wear?

    Edit: Yes, J, that is what they said. So if that is there concern why did they not ban things that cover people's faces?

    Quid on
  • _J__J_ Pedant Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    edited April 2010
    Quid wrote: »
    So if that is there concern why did they not ban things that cover people's faces?

    They did ban things which cover people's faces. They banned the burqa and the niqab.

    _J_ on
  • QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    _J_ wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    So if that is there concern why did they not ban things that cover people's faces?

    They did ban things which cover people's faces. They banned the burqa and the niqab.

    All things you pedantic goose. Costume masks, ski masks, balaclavas, etc.

    Quid on
  • _J__J_ Pedant Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    edited April 2010
    Quid wrote: »
    _J_ wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    So if that is there concern why did they not ban things that cover people's faces?

    They did ban things which cover people's faces. They banned the burqa and the niqab.

    All things you pedantic goose. Costume masks, ski masks, balaclavas, etc.

    Obviously there is something unique to the manner in which the burqa and the niqab cover one's face which merits its being illegal.

    _J_ on
  • QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    _J_ wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    _J_ wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    So if that is there concern why did they not ban things that cover people's faces?

    They did ban things which cover people's faces. They banned the burqa and the niqab.

    All things you pedantic goose. Costume masks, ski masks, balaclavas, etc.

    Obviously there is something unique to the manner in which the burqa and the niqab cover one's face which merits its being illegal.

    You're the one quoting
    "We cannot allow someone to claim the right to look at others without being seen"

    as if it's justification. So please, explain what about them makes them not allowable but everything else that allows you to see people without seeing your face is okay.

    Quid on
  • _J__J_ Pedant Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    edited April 2010
    Quid wrote: »
    _J_ wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    _J_ wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    So if that is there concern why did they not ban things that cover people's faces?

    They did ban things which cover people's faces. They banned the burqa and the niqab.

    All things you pedantic goose. Costume masks, ski masks, balaclavas, etc.

    Obviously there is something unique to the manner in which the burqa and the niqab cover one's face which merits its being illegal.

    You're the one quoting
    "We cannot allow someone to claim the right to look at others without being seen"

    as if it's justification. So please, explain what about them makes them not allowable but everything else that allows you to see people without seeing your face is okay.

    How about this:

    Persons walk into a bank. One person wearing each of the following:

    - Pikachu mask
    - Ski mask
    - balaclava
    - burqa
    - niqab

    My guess is that the irregularity of the wearing of a pikachu mask, ski mask, or balaclava will indicate the degree to which the bank tellers need be suspicious of the person in question. Whereas the burqa and niquab, taken to be commonplace, do not arouse suspicion.

    Of course, this takes the problem to be one of social norms, rather than a problem within the item in itself, which I think problematic. But I think an argument can be made, appealing to social norms, within which burqas and niquabs are problematic in a manner which is unique from the manner in which, say, a pikachu mask is problematic.

    _J_ on
  • QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    _J_ wrote: »
    Persons walk into a bank. One person wearing each of the following:

    - Pikachu mask
    - Ski mask
    - balaclava
    - burqa
    - niqab

    My guess is that the irregularity of the wearing of a pikachu mask, ski mask, or balaclava will indicate the degree to which the bank tellers need be suspicious of the person in question. Whereas the burqa and niquab, taken to be commonplace, do not arouse suspicion.

    It doesn't matter how common they are J. They are things that:
    "...allow someone to claim the right to look at others without being seen"

    Why is it okay for people to look at other without being seen wearing any other kind of face covering? What is the difference?

    Quid on
  • DarlanDarlan Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Are women wearing a burqas to cover up their faces while committing crimes a problem in Belgium? How often does it happen? (Pardon me if I've missed out on some horrid recent event there.)

    Darlan on
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    A colleague, Corinne De Parmentier, said: "We have to free women of this burden."
    Thank god someone is willing to take up the white man's burden.
    The BBC's Dominic Hughes reports from Brussels that there are about 500,000 Muslims in Belgium, and the Belgian Muslim Council says only a couple of dozen wear full-face veils.
    Belgium apparently must protect against something that isn't an actual problem.

    Couscous on
  • _J__J_ Pedant Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    edited April 2010
    Quid wrote: »
    Why is it okay for people to look at other without being seen wearing any other kind of face covering? What is the difference?

    Burqa and Niqab have only elongated slits for the eyes.

    Pikachu mask, ski mask, and balaclava have circular holes for the eyes.

    So, obviously, elongated slits are problematic while circular holes are not.

    _J_ on
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    _J_ wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Why is it okay for people to look at other without being seen wearing any other kind of face covering? What is the difference?

    Burqa and Niqab have only elongated slits for the eyes.

    Pikachu mask, ski mask, and balaclava have circular holes for the eyes.

    So, obviously, elongated slits are problematic while circular holes are not.

    Well, that's one conclusion you could come to.

    If you were functionally retarded.

    EDIT: Actually, it's kinda cool. I always get a kick out of people using silly pedantry to try and deny the obvious.

    mcdermott on
  • _J__J_ Pedant Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    edited April 2010
    mcdermott wrote: »
    _J_ wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Why is it okay for people to look at other without being seen wearing any other kind of face covering? What is the difference?

    Burqa and Niqab have only elongated slits for the eyes.

    Pikachu mask, ski mask, and balaclava have circular holes for the eyes.

    So, obviously, elongated slits are problematic while circular holes are not.

    Well, that's one conclusion you could come to.

    If you were functionally retarded.

    Premise 1: Belgium is not full of racist / anti-muslim silly geese.
    Premise 2: The burqa and niquab are problematic where all other manner of facial covering is not.

    Given this, the problem has to be elongated slits.

    _J_ on
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    So, obviously, elongated slits are problematic while circular holes are not.
    Yes, it is so obvious.

    Couscous on
  • QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    _J_ wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Why is it okay for people to look at other without being seen wearing any other kind of face covering? What is the difference?

    Burqa and Niqab have only elongated slits for the eyes.

    Pikachu mask, ski mask, and balaclava have circular holes for the eyes.

    So, obviously, elongated slits are problematic while circular holes are not.

    Right, so, by your and their logic allowing someone to claim the right to look at others without being seen is perfectly okay when the mask has circular holes.

    Which means that the issue isn't allowing someone to claim the right to look at others without being seen.

    Quid on
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Premise 1: Belgium is not full of racist / anti-muslim silly geese.
    Premise 2: The burqa and niquab are problematic where all other manner of facial covering is not.

    Given this, the problem has to be elongated slits.
    ...
    OK, now I know you are fucking with me.
    Daniel Bacquelaine, the driving force behind the bill, said a ban would help the integration of new immigrants, in contrast to the “bad examples” of Britain and the Netherlands.

    Couscous on
  • _J__J_ Pedant Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    edited April 2010
    Quid wrote: »
    Which means that the issue isn't allowing someone to claim the right to look at others without being seen.

    No, the issue is the manner in which the person (whose face is covered) is being seen. Since:
    "We cannot allow someone to claim the right to look at others without being seen," MP Daniel Bacquelaine of the French-speaking MR liberal-values party told the Associated Press. "It is necessary that the law forbids the wearing of clothes that totally mask and encloses an individual.”

    So, there has to be something in the manner in which elongated slits prevent one from being seen which is seperate and distinct from the manner in which circular holes allow one to be seen.

    _J_ on
  • PasserbyePasserbye I am much older than you. in Beach CityRegistered User regular
    edited April 2010
    The solution is obvious! Burkas are out (since they can't be made with eye holes), but niqabs with circular holes are just fine!

    Quick, who has the phone number for the Belgian ambassador to the US?

    Passerbye on
  • _J__J_ Pedant Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    edited April 2010
    Couscous wrote: »
    Premise 1: Belgium is not full of racist / anti-muslim silly geese.
    Premise 2: The burqa and niquab are problematic where all other manner of facial covering is not.

    Given this, the problem has to be elongated slits.
    ...
    OK, now I know you are fucking with me.

    I'm just trying to figure out if an argument can be made within which Belgium's specifying burqas and niquabs is not anti-muslim, but rather is a manifestation of a unique quality to these garments.

    And the only thing I can think of is "elongated slits".

    _J_ on
  • _J__J_ Pedant Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    edited April 2010
    Passerbye wrote: »
    The solution is obvious! Burkas are out (since they can't be made with eye holes), but niqabs with circular holes are just fine!

    Quick, who has the phone number for the Belgian ambassador to the US?

    Are there niquabs with circular holes? I am not a fashion expert.

    But all of the information I can find on burkas and niquabs indicate that they have elongated slits, rather than circular holes.

    _J_ on
  • PasserbyePasserbye I am much older than you. in Beach CityRegistered User regular
    edited April 2010
    _J_ wrote: »
    Passerbye wrote: »
    The solution is obvious! Burkas are out (since they can't be made with eye holes), but niqabs with circular holes are just fine!

    Quick, who has the phone number for the Belgian ambassador to the US?

    Are there niquabs with circular holes? I am not a fashion expert.

    But all of the information I can find on burkas and niquabs indicate that they have elongated slits, rather than circular holes.

    Niqabs come in a variety of styles. Some tend to curve down around the eyes, some are the slit-style. It really varies.

    That, and your thought experiment is rather spectacularly backfiring.

    Passerbye on
  • QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    _J_ wrote: »
    So, there has to be something in the manner in which elongated slits prevent one from being seen which is seperate and distinct from the manner in which circular holes allow one to be seen.

    Really? And what significant difference in being able to identify a person between masks with circular holes and burqas and niqabs that
    We cannot allow someone to claim the right to look at others without being seen

    shouldn't apply to the first?

    Quid on
  • QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    _J_ wrote: »
    Couscous wrote: »
    Premise 1: Belgium is not full of racist / anti-muslim silly geese.
    Premise 2: The burqa and niquab are problematic where all other manner of facial covering is not.

    Given this, the problem has to be elongated slits.
    ...
    OK, now I know you are fucking with me.

    I'm just trying to figure out if an argument can be made within which Belgium's specifying burqas and niquabs is not anti-muslim, but rather is a manifestation of a unique quality to these garments.

    And the only thing I can think of is "elongated slits".

    So you have been trolling. Fantastic.

    Quid on
  • _J__J_ Pedant Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    edited April 2010
    Quid wrote: »
    _J_ wrote: »
    Couscous wrote: »
    Premise 1: Belgium is not full of racist / anti-muslim silly geese.
    Premise 2: The burqa and niquab are problematic where all other manner of facial covering is not.

    Given this, the problem has to be elongated slits.
    ...
    OK, now I know you are fucking with me.

    I'm just trying to figure out if an argument can be made within which Belgium's specifying burqas and niquabs is not anti-muslim, but rather is a manifestation of a unique quality to these garments.

    And the only thing I can think of is "elongated slits".

    So you have been trolling. Fantastic.

    No. The premise of the OP is that the only explanation is anti-muslim sentiment.

    But that is not the ONLY explanation. I have provided another explanation.

    now we need to discern which is correct.

    _J_ on
  • miscellaneousinsanitymiscellaneousinsanity grass grows, birds fly, sun shines, and brother, i hurt peopleRegistered User regular
    edited April 2010
    This situation reminds me heavily of this.

    miscellaneousinsanity on
    uc3ufTB.png
  • DarlanDarlan Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Does anyone have information on how many crimes (if any) in Belgium have been committed while wearing a burqa to conceal the person's face? Has there been a somewhat high profile one recently?

    Darlan on
Sign In or Register to comment.