Atomic Ross, are you trolling? You don't get rid of ideologies you dislike by oppressing them. Has that ever worked?
Worked pretty well for mainstream racism in the States.
Americans will be more up on the history than I, but I can't think of anything that was done to racists that would qualify as oppressing them. Except in the way that everyone cries out they're being oppressed when you don't let them kick their least favourite people in the teeth.
Public, institutionalized expressions of racism (segregation) were made illegal. Similarly, public, institutionalized expressions of the more sexist portions of Islam (the burqa) are looking at a ban.
Being racist, while not specifically prohibited, is now looked at as an extremely fringe ideology in the US, and career suicide for anyone in the public sphere. There's no reason to believe this would not also be the resulting case for the more oppressive versions of Islam in Belgium following the ban.
I'm not necessarily saying I agree with the move, but the historical precedent is definitely there.
Atomic Ross, are you trolling? You don't get rid of ideologies you dislike by oppressing them. Has that ever worked?
Worked pretty well for mainstream racism in the States.
Americans will be more up on the history than I, but I can't think of anything that was done to racists that would qualify as oppressing them. Except in the way that everyone cries out they're being oppressed when you don't let them kick their least favourite people in the teeth.
Public, institutionalized expressions of racism (segregation) were made illegal. Similarly, public, institutionalized expressions of the more sexist portions of Islam (the burqa) are looking at a ban.
Being racist, while not specifically prohibited, is now looked at as an extremely fringe ideology in the US, and career suicide for anyone in the public sphere. There's no reason to believe this would not also be the resulting case for the more oppressive versions of Islam in Belgium following the ban.
I'm not necessarily saying I agree with the move, but the historical precedent is definitely there.
I just don't understand this. I find it really odd the disconnect here.
Using the word expression just avoids the point. The important thing is whose activities are you curtailing?
Those of the victim or those of the oppressor?
If you ban the victim from activities because they are 'symbols' of their oppression then you are not helping them. I gave a lot of examples. Could you address them rather than ignore them?
Oh, and there's still plenty of racism in the US. Obama won, but many racists hated him and continue to do so.
Public, institutionalized expressions of racism (segregation) were made illegal. Similarly, public, institutionalized expressions of the more sexist portions of Islam (the burqa) are looking at a ban.
Hold on a moment. Are you equating segregation, being an imposition of racist beliefs onto others, with burqa-wearing, being a personal display of one's religious or cultural beliefs? It's not oppression when you're not allowed to force your beliefs on other people.
Why do these kinds of threads always become a coded attack on Yurp?
Because Europe is all one country!
Look man, I don't think you understand how big America is, very! Different States are like equaly akin to different countries, how dare you talk about America as a whole.
Hey you've been to Disneyworld/Alabama, you totally know what you're talking about and any criticism of European values is prima facie invalid because clearly there's no such thing as Western European/Continental culture.
the burqa is a tool for the oppression of women. people "wanting" to wear it doesn't mean this much in this case, as many girls who wear it are pressured by their family and friends to find it socially unacceptable to not wear one.
I for one welcome a ban, I have to say.
Atomic Ross, are you trolling? You don't get rid of ideologies you dislike by oppressing them. Has that ever worked?
Worked pretty well for mainstream racism in the States.
Americans will be more up on the history than I, but I can't think of anything that was done to racists that would qualify as oppressing them. Except in the way that everyone cries out they're being oppressed when you don't let them kick their least favourite people in the teeth.
Public, institutionalized expressions of racism (segregation) were made illegal. Similarly, public, institutionalized expressions of the more sexist portions of Islam (the burqa) are looking at a ban.
Being racist, while not specifically prohibited, is now looked at as an extremely fringe ideology in the US, and career suicide for anyone in the public sphere. There's no reason to believe this would not also be the resulting case for the more oppressive versions of Islam in Belgium following the ban.
I'm not necessarily saying I agree with the move, but the historical precedent is definitely there.
All of the civil rights laws banned activities or laws that impacted the rights of people. Laws creating segregation violate the rights of people to get an education. Refusing to hire a black person or let them rent a room at your hotel limits their rights. It's perfectly legitimate for government to pass laws to prevent such violations.
On the other hand, a woman wearing a burqa in no way harms anyone else's rights or freedoms. I don't like the burqa and I'm not happy when I see a woman wearing one around DC, but my dislike of an article of clothing isn't enough to justify allowing the government to tell women what they can and can't wear (outside of public decency and requirements that such items be removed in higher security areas, like courthouses)
Modern Man on
Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
Rigorous Scholarship
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
the burqa is a tool for the oppression of women. people "wanting" to wear it doesn't mean this much in this case, as many girls who wear it are pressured by their family and friends to find it socially unacceptable to not wear one.
I for one welcome a ban, I have to say.
In Belgium? Seriously, if you want to get rid of the Burqa, and at the same time not compromise anyone's rights, here's how you do it: Encourage immigration, let people express their religion, and then show their kids they can still be Muslim without wearing the thing. Education is much more humane and effective that alienation. Note that being forced to wear it is a completely separate problem from actually wearing it.
Atomic Ross, are you trolling? You don't get rid of ideologies you dislike by oppressing them. Has that ever worked?
Worked pretty well for mainstream racism in the States.
Americans will be more up on the history than I, but I can't think of anything that was done to racists that would qualify as oppressing them. Except in the way that everyone cries out they're being oppressed when you don't let them kick their least favourite people in the teeth.
Public, institutionalized expressions of racism (segregation) were made illegal. Similarly, public, institutionalized expressions of the more sexist portions of Islam (the burqa) are looking at a ban.
Being racist, while not specifically prohibited, is now looked at as an extremely fringe ideology in the US, and career suicide for anyone in the public sphere. There's no reason to believe this would not also be the resulting case for the more oppressive versions of Islam in Belgium following the ban.
I'm not necessarily saying I agree with the move, but the historical precedent is definitely there.
I just don't understand this. I find it really odd the disconnect here.
Using the word expression just avoids the point. The important thing is whose activities are you curtailing?
Those of the victim or those of the oppressor?
If you ban the victim from activities because they are 'symbols' of their oppression then you are not helping them. I gave a lot of examples. Could you address them rather than ignore them?
Oh, and there's still plenty of racism in the US. Obama won, but many racists hated him and continue to do so.
But if the burqa is banned, whose actions are we curtailing? Are we removing the right to wear them, or are we removing the right to make others wear them? I don't think anyone would argue that the garment is inherently sexist, being as how it's only required for one sex. That's the sticky part, though. There are some who would choose to wear them, but there are others who wear them because they are being made to. Whose rights are of greater value, those who would choose to do so or those who wouldn't? And in a wider sense, are those who are choosing to wear the burqa truly doing so having considered the options available, or are they doing it because they've always done it? And if so, how do the cultural rights of that subset of the country balance against the freedom of expression those women may not even recognize that they are giving up?
This entire conversation started because there was an assertion that oppression never marginalizes the oppressed. Which was a silly assertion. Oppression kills ideologies constantly throughout history, or pushes them far enough to the fringes that they'll never recover. Racism in the United States is a great example of this. Being openly racist in the US is akin to evangelizing for Zeus on street corners. You can still do it, but you're forfeiting any hope of being taken seriously ever again. That seems to be the hope in Belgium, with the targets being the oppressive cultural elements of Islam rather than racism.
Public, institutionalized expressions of racism (segregation) were made illegal. Similarly, public, institutionalized expressions of the more sexist portions of Islam (the burqa) are looking at a ban.
Hold on a moment. Are you equating segregation, being an imposition of racist beliefs onto others, with burqa-wearing, being a personal display of one's religious or cultural beliefs? It's not oppression when you're not allowed to force your beliefs on other people.
But the assumption that no one is being oppressed by the burqa is inherently flawed.
It's an overtly sexist symbol, and we have no way of saying whether any individual would wear it if they weren't being directly or culturally pressed into doing so.
Atomic Ross, are you trolling? You don't get rid of ideologies you dislike by oppressing them. Has that ever worked?
Worked pretty well for mainstream racism in the States.
Americans will be more up on the history than I, but I can't think of anything that was done to racists that would qualify as oppressing them. Except in the way that everyone cries out they're being oppressed when you don't let them kick their least favourite people in the teeth.
Public, institutionalized expressions of racism (segregation) were made illegal. Similarly, public, institutionalized expressions of the more sexist portions of Islam (the burqa) are looking at a ban.
Being racist, while not specifically prohibited, is now looked at as an extremely fringe ideology in the US, and career suicide for anyone in the public sphere. There's no reason to believe this would not also be the resulting case for the more oppressive versions of Islam in Belgium following the ban.
I'm not necessarily saying I agree with the move, but the historical precedent is definitely there.
I just don't understand this. I find it really odd the disconnect here.
Using the word expression just avoids the point. The important thing is whose activities are you curtailing?
Those of the victim or those of the oppressor?
If you ban the victim from activities because they are 'symbols' of their oppression then you are not helping them. I gave a lot of examples. Could you address them rather than ignore them?
Oh, and there's still plenty of racism in the US. Obama won, but many racists hated him and continue to do so.
But if the burqa is banned, whose actions are we curtailing? Are we removing the right to wear them, or are we removing the right to make others wear them? I don't think anyone would argue that the garment is inherently sexist, being as how it's only required for one sex. That's the sticky part, though. There are some who would choose to wear them, but there are others who wear them because they are being made to. Whose rights are of greater value, those who would choose to do so or those who wouldn't? And in a wider sense, are those who are choosing to wear the burqa truly doing so having considered the options available, or are they doing it because they've always done it? And if so, how do the cultural rights of that subset of the country balance against the freedom of expression those women may not even recognize that they are giving up?
This entire conversation started because there was an assertion that oppression never marginalizes the oppressed. Which was a silly assertion. Oppression kills ideologies constantly throughout history, or pushes them far enough to the fringes that they'll never recover. Racism in the United States is a great example of this. Being openly racist in the US is akin to evangelizing for Zeus on street corners. You can still do it, but you're forfeiting any hope of being taken seriously ever again. That seems to be the hope in Belgium, with the targets being the oppressive cultural elements of Islam rather than racism.
the burqa is a tool for the oppression of women. people "wanting" to wear it doesn't mean this much in this case, as many girls who wear it are pressured by their family and friends to find it socially unacceptable to not wear one.
I for one welcome a ban, I have to say.
In Belgium? Seriously, if you want to get rid of the Burqa, and at the same time not compromise anyone's rights, here's how you do it: Encourage immigration, let people express their religion, and then show their kids they can still be Muslim without wearing the thing. Education is much more humane and effective that alienation. Note that being forced to wear it is a completely separate problem from actually wearing it.
Multiculturalism as a failed experiment.
Leitner on
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
Public, institutionalized expressions of racism (segregation) were made illegal. Similarly, public, institutionalized expressions of the more sexist portions of Islam (the burqa) are looking at a ban.
Hold on a moment. Are you equating segregation, being an imposition of racist beliefs onto others, with burqa-wearing, being a personal display of one's religious or cultural beliefs? It's not oppression when you're not allowed to force your beliefs on other people.
But the assumption that no one is being oppressed by the burqa is inherently flawed.
It's an overtly sexist symbol, and we have no way of saying whether any individual would wear it if they weren't being directly or culturally pressed into doing so.
Stopping the Burqa isn't going to end whatever oppression there is. If you want to end the oppression of women, you don't start by curtailing their rights to wear whatever, even if it isn't their choice to do so. All it does is mean that now, those women in horrible relationships aren't even allowed to go outside. So you haven't even made the problem better.
Also, you don't see the problem with "We don't know if it's being done for sexist reasons, so let's be safe and ban it anyway!"
Atomic Ross, are you trolling? You don't get rid of ideologies you dislike by oppressing them. Has that ever worked?
Worked pretty well for mainstream racism in the States.
Americans will be more up on the history than I, but I can't think of anything that was done to racists that would qualify as oppressing them. Except in the way that everyone cries out they're being oppressed when you don't let them kick their least favourite people in the teeth.
Public, institutionalized expressions of racism (segregation) were made illegal. Similarly, public, institutionalized expressions of the more sexist portions of Islam (the burqa) are looking at a ban.
Being racist, while not specifically prohibited, is now looked at as an extremely fringe ideology in the US, and career suicide for anyone in the public sphere. There's no reason to believe this would not also be the resulting case for the more oppressive versions of Islam in Belgium following the ban.
I'm not necessarily saying I agree with the move, but the historical precedent is definitely there.
I just don't understand this. I find it really odd the disconnect here.
Using the word expression just avoids the point. The important thing is whose activities are you curtailing?
Those of the victim or those of the oppressor?
If you ban the victim from activities because they are 'symbols' of their oppression then you are not helping them. I gave a lot of examples. Could you address them rather than ignore them?
Oh, and there's still plenty of racism in the US. Obama won, but many racists hated him and continue to do so.
But if the burqa is banned, whose actions are we curtailing? Are we removing the right to wear them, or are we removing the right to make others wear them? I don't think anyone would argue that the garment is inherently sexist, being as how it's only required for one sex. That's the sticky part, though. There are some who would choose to wear them, but there are others who wear them because they are being made to. Whose rights are of greater value, those who would choose to do so or those who wouldn't? And in a wider sense, are those who are choosing to wear the burqa truly doing so having considered the options available, or are they doing it because they've always done it? And if so, how do the cultural rights of that subset of the country balance against the freedom of expression those women may not even recognize that they are giving up?
This entire conversation started because there was an assertion that oppression never marginalizes the oppressed. Which was a silly assertion. Oppression kills ideologies constantly throughout history, or pushes them far enough to the fringes that they'll never recover. Racism in the United States is a great example of this. Being openly racist in the US is akin to evangelizing for Zeus on street corners. You can still do it, but you're forfeiting any hope of being taken seriously ever again. That seems to be the hope in Belgium, with the targets being the oppressive cultural elements of Islam rather than racism.
Does this mean we have to outlaw sex?
We have cultural and legal ways for people who don't want to have sex to remove themselves from the relationship in which they are expected to have it. They're not perfect, but they exist and are widely culturally accepted as the norm. I would say that the subset of people who perform sexual acts because they think they should rather than out of some personal desire to do so probably cross-tab pretty well with the kind of people that wear culturally significant garments just because they "should", be they the burqa or cowboy boots or whatever is "appropriate" in their culture. And while I don't think we can necessarily save them from themselves, our cultural permissiveness when it comes to removing oneself from undesired sexual congress generally provides a better reception for that than, say, a woman raised in a strictly observing household in a sect of Islam that requires burqas would get if she suddenly stopped wearing it.
Public, institutionalized expressions of racism (segregation) were made illegal. Similarly, public, institutionalized expressions of the more sexist portions of Islam (the burqa) are looking at a ban.
Hold on a moment. Are you equating segregation, being an imposition of racist beliefs onto others, with burqa-wearing, being a personal display of one's religious or cultural beliefs? It's not oppression when you're not allowed to force your beliefs on other people.
But the assumption that no one is being oppressed by the burqa is inherently flawed.
It's an overtly sexist symbol, and we have no way of saying whether any individual would wear it if they weren't being directly or culturally pressed into doing so.
Stopping the Burqa isn't going to end whatever oppression there is. If you want to end the oppression of women, you don't start by curtailing their rights to wear whatever, even if it isn't their choice to do so. All it does is mean that now, those women in horrible relationships aren't even allowed to go outside. So you haven't even made the problem better.
Also, you don't see the problem with "We don't know if it's being done for sexist reasons, so let's be safe and ban it anyway!"
I disagree, obviously. Removing the overt symbol of something is the easiest way to move beyond it. The burqa is an obvious symbol of separateness, and will remain so as long as it is worn. Cultural integration has to start with a leveling, as they say.
I'm not personally opposed to the burqa as a garment or as a religious symbol or whatever. I just chafe at the idea that some are wearing it because they are made to, and I also recognize the historical significance of removing visual markers of difference when it comes to "westernizing" (oh how I hate that term) and liberalizing cultures.
Public, institutionalized expressions of racism (segregation) were made illegal. Similarly, public, institutionalized expressions of the more sexist portions of Islam (the burqa) are looking at a ban.
Hold on a moment. Are you equating segregation, being an imposition of racist beliefs onto others, with burqa-wearing, being a personal display of one's religious or cultural beliefs? It's not oppression when you're not allowed to force your beliefs on other people.
But the assumption that no one is being oppressed by the burqa is inherently flawed.
It's an overtly sexist symbol, and we have no way of saying whether any individual would wear it if they weren't being directly or culturally pressed into doing so.
Irrelevant. You're comparing a situation in which racists were forcing their beliefs onto others, to a situation in which women are wearing certain apparel due to cultural and religous pressures. The two have almost nothing in common. Putting on a burqa doesn't oppress anyone. It might be the result of oppression, but that's not the same thing and treating it like it is won't make it go away. I fail to see how limiting the freedom of the victims of oppression is likely to help overcome that same oppression, and I think it's up to the person in favour of the ban to make that case before I'd even consider supporting it.
Segregation was a state sponsored thing. The whole purpose of integration was to remove the effects of state sponsored integration. It did not actually stop people from acting like racist douchebags. It just stopped the government from acting like racist douchebags.
Segregation was a state sponsored thing. The whole purpose of integration was to remove the effects of state sponsored integration. It did not actually stop people from acting like racist douchebags. It just stopped the government from acting like racist douchebags.
But the legitimacy was taken away, and culturally we've largely moved beyond the ideology. I think people underestimate the shear magnitude of racism that was prevalent two generations ago. But today, thanks to the government calling a halt to the practices that legitimized and mainstreamed it, anybody that espouses racist sentiment is looked at as a throwback. That's the parallel I'm trying to draw.
And, again, I'm not necessarily personally in favor of the ban. I'm responding to the idea that systematized oppression never results in the marginalization of the oppressed, which is stupid. If it wasn't effective, we wouldn't keep doing it.
We have cultural and legal ways for people who don't want to have sex to remove themselves from the relationship in which they are expected to have it. They're not perfect, but they exist and are widely culturally accepted as the norm. I would say that the subset of people who perform sexual acts because they think they should rather than out of some personal desire to do so probably cross-tab pretty well with the kind of people that wear culturally significant garments just because they "should", be they the burqa or cowboy boots or whatever is "appropriate" in their culture. And while I don't think we can necessarily save them from themselves, our cultural permissiveness when it comes to removing oneself from undesired sexual congress generally provides a better reception for that than, say, a woman raised in a strictly observing household in a sect of Islam that requires burqas would get if she suddenly stopped wearing it.
I'm going to call bullshit. You think that a woman who left her husband because she didn't want to be part of conservative Islam would be rejected by Western society in some way? And more so than if she simply didn't want to fuck him anymore? She'd be lauded for leaving the evil religion. Neither is acceptable within conservative Islam (or conservative Judaism or conservative Christianity) and both are possible in Western society.
The yarmulke is also gender specific religious attire (with the exception of a few small sects). The men are forced by cultural pressures to wear them. Should we ban them too? Or is the assumption that women are the only ones that are unable to make decisions involving their religion?
This isn't something in isolation. Minarets were banned for little purpose in Switzerland. Headscarves but not habits are banned in a number of German states. The most common Islamic garb (headscarves) are banned in public schools in France but not the most common Catholic garb (small crosses). In Holland they have debated banning the burqa and have proposed denying women wearing the burqa the social safety "it makes them unemployable."
Its about the fear of the racial/religious/cultural "Other." Western Europe is traditionally racially and religiously homogeneous. Belgium is 96% white, 88% belong to two ethnic groups, 75% (officially) Catholic. Now the largest immigrant groups are from Muslim countries (Morocco, Turkey, etc). Its the same in most of central/western continental Europe where non-Christian/non-white immigration is non-trivial in the last few generations for the first time. North Africans who started to come after WWII and Eastern Europeans who came after the fall of the Iron Curtain aren't pre-integrated by living in European colonies. The cultural fear this engenders is the basis for laws about head scarves, minarets and burqa, especially in countries where these are almost unknown phenomena
We have cultural and legal ways for people who don't want to have sex to remove themselves from the relationship in which they are expected to have it. They're not perfect, but they exist and are widely culturally accepted as the norm. I would say that the subset of people who perform sexual acts because they think they should rather than out of some personal desire to do so probably cross-tab pretty well with the kind of people that wear culturally significant garments just because they "should", be they the burqa or cowboy boots or whatever is "appropriate" in their culture. And while I don't think we can necessarily save them from themselves, our cultural permissiveness when it comes to removing oneself from undesired sexual congress generally provides a better reception for that than, say, a woman raised in a strictly observing household in a sect of Islam that requires burqas would get if she suddenly stopped wearing it.
I'm going to call bullshit. You think that a woman who left her husband because she didn't want to be part of conservative Islam would be rejected by Western society in some way? And more so than if she simply didn't want to fuck him anymore? She'd be lauded for leaving the evil religion. Neither is acceptable within conservative Islam (or conservative Judaism or conservative Christianity) and both are possible in Western society.
The yarmulke is also gender specific religious attire (with the exception of a few small sects). The men are forced by cultural pressures to wear them. Should we ban them too? Or is the assumption that women are the only ones that are unable to make decisions involving their religion?
This isn't something in isolation. Minarets were banned for little purpose in Switzerland. Headscarves but not habits are banned in a number of German states. The most common Islamic garb (headscarves) are banned in public schools in France but not the most common Catholic garb (small crosses). In Holland they have debated banning the burqa and have proposed denying women wearing the burqa the social safety "it makes them unemployable."
Its about the fear of the racial/religious/cultural "Other." Western Europe is traditionally racially and religiously homogeneous. Belgium is 96% white, 88% belong to two ethnic groups, 75% (officially) Catholic. Now the largest immigrant groups are from Muslim countries (Morocco, Turkey, etc). Its the same in most of central/western continental Europe where non-Christian/non-white immigration of is non-trivial in the last few generations for the first time. North Africans who started to come after WWII and Eastern Europeans who came after the fall of the Iron Curtain aren't pre-integrated by living in European colonies. The cultural fear this engenders is the basis for laws about head scarves, minarets and burqa, especially in countries where these are almost unknown phenomena
I think that a woman leaving her husband would be shunned pretty spectacularly by the sects of Islam that require burqas, far more so than a woman in a more westernized society would be. As you said, context is important.
I'm with you in that making laws based on religion is a bad idea, period. And fear of the other is a horrible point to be legislating from. Which is why, as I've said previously, I'm not necessarily for this ban. I'm just looking at this from a less black and white perspective than seems to be the case for the thread.
Not legislating a ban on burqas leaves women the freedom to wear them. Legislating a ban on burqas introduces the new freedom for some to go without the burqa, while prohibiting others from wearing it. There are positives and negatives to both sides. The question is whether the benefits to individuals and the culture are greater on one side or the other, and whether this is something the government should get involved in at all. As with virtually all cultural conflicts of this type, we can only hypothesize about that until we've seen it done.
I think that a woman leaving her husband would be shunned pretty spectacularly by the sects of Islam that require burqas, far more so than a woman in a more westernized society would be. As you said, context is important.
I'm with you in that making laws based on religion is a bad idea, period. And fear of the other is a horrible point to be legislating from. Which is why, as I've said previously, I'm not necessarily for this ban. I'm just looking at this from a less black and white perspective than seems to be the case for the thread.
Not legislating a ban on burqas leaves women the freedom to wear them. Legislating a ban on burqas introduces the new freedom for some to go without the burqa, while prohibiting others from wearing it. There are positives and negatives to both sides. The question is whether the benefits to individuals and the culture are greater on one side or the other, and whether this is something the government should get involved in at all. As with virtually all cultural conflicts of this type, we can only hypothesize about that until we've seen it done.
Right and within the sects of Islam that require burqas, a woman leaving her husband because she didn't want to have sex with him would be shunned pretty spectacularly. And saying you can't wear a burqa in public space doesn't mean women won't wear a burqa. If we presume they are being forced to do so, the idea that their husbands/fathers would decide the laws of the land overrule their religious convictions and "allow" their women to continue to go out in public the same amount is a leap. Conservative Islam is not crazy about women working or even running errands outside the house in the first place.
In some European sub-states you can't drive a car if you wear a burqa. Do you think that results in fewer burqas or fewer Muslim women with the mobility implied by access to automobiles?
And if she is sent out in public and punished for it, do you think that will engender greater integration or greater division between the Muslim community and the government? Will it make the Muslim man we presume is oppressive not want to show how devout he is by letting his woman sit in jail?
I have no doubt that if some one walked up to Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann, Rush Limbaugh and a dozen other of the worst hard right American figures and shot them in the head American individuals and culture as a whole would benefit. Government can not exist sole to generate the greater good regardless of means. When the means violate fundamental liberties - such as freedom of expression, freedom of religion and due process of law regardless of religious or racial characteristics - it doesn't matter if everyone would be better off if those <group> were <killed/silenced/denied their rights>.
edit
All this ignores that in Belgium the number of women who wear burqas is negligible and they are primarily legislating against the specter of Islam
I think that a woman leaving her husband would be shunned pretty spectacularly by the sects of Islam that require burqas, far more so than a woman in a more westernized society would be. As you said, context is important.
I'm with you in that making laws based on religion is a bad idea, period. And fear of the other is a horrible point to be legislating from. Which is why, as I've said previously, I'm not necessarily for this ban. I'm just looking at this from a less black and white perspective than seems to be the case for the thread.
Not legislating a ban on burqas leaves women the freedom to wear them. Legislating a ban on burqas introduces the new freedom for some to go without the burqa, while prohibiting others from wearing it. There are positives and negatives to both sides. The question is whether the benefits to individuals and the culture are greater on one side or the other, and whether this is something the government should get involved in at all. As with virtually all cultural conflicts of this type, we can only hypothesize about that until we've seen it done.
Right and within the sects of Islam that require burqas, a woman leaving her husband because she didn't want to have sex with him would be shunned pretty spectacularly. And saying you can't wear a burqa in public space doesn't mean women won't wear a burqa. If we presume they are being forced to do so, the idea that their husbands/fathers would decide the laws of the land overrule their religious convictions and "allow" their women to continue to go out in public the same amount is a leap. Conservative Islam is not crazy about women working or even running errands outside the house in the first place.
In some European sub-states you can't drive a car if you wear a burqa. Do you think that results in fewer burqas or fewer Muslim women with the mobility implied by access to automobiles?
And if she is sent out in public and punished for it, do you think that will engender greater integration or greater division between the Muslim community and the government? Will it make the Muslim man we presume is oppressive not want to show how devout he is by letting his woman sit in jail?
I have no doubt that if some one walked up to Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann, Rush Limbaugh and a dozen other of the worst hard right American figures and shot them in the head the benefits to American individuals and culture as a whole would benefit. Government can not exist sole to generate the greater good regardless of means. When the means violate fundamental liberties - such as freedom of expression, freedom of religion and due process of law regardless of religious or racial characteristics - it doesn't matter if everyone would be better off if those <group> were <killed/silenced/denied their rights>.
I think a large portion of your hypothetical examples here are ignoring the typical thawing effects on cultures that have experienced "forced" integration. I mean, the direct line you've drawn here between government action and individual suffering could easily apply to any african american who has been lynched since the civil rights act passed, or to black churches that have been burned down in the south since that time, etc. There was action taken by the government in a stated attempt to improve the lives of some of its citizens, and negative things happened because of it. Did that completely devalue the Civil Rights Act by association? I think you'd be hard pressed to find anyone who with a shred of intellectual honesty that would say it did.
So yes, if we're going to take the short view we might be looking at increased negative incidents of a few specific types. But how does that compare to the eventual positives of cultural integration and hope for greater levels of autonomy for the women in question? We can't really know until it's tried. We can hypothesize, and we can claim to have absolute knowledge of the repercussions of these actions, but really we have no grounds for that. Which is why dismissing it out of hand is silly.
Edit in response to your edit: I expect that that's probably the case, which taints the entire affair. There are some very good reasons this kind of thing is illegal in America, preventing that sort of motivation is right there among them. I'm just saying that there are potentially legitimate reasons to come at it from a different direction is all.
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.
We have cultural and legal ways for people who don't want to have sex to remove themselves from the relationship in which they are expected to have it. They're not perfect, but they exist and are widely culturally accepted as the norm.
How can you then turn around and say 'but in this case, it's different'?
You're letting your distaste of the burqa allow you to agree with a law that you usually would - and should - find abhorrent.
I dislike the religion and culture of Islam probably as much as anyone here and I think banning burqas is both immoral and completely counterproductive to its alleged purpose.
I'm sure many Muslim women wear them because they are forced to by oppressive husbands/fathers. I'm also sure many Muslim wear them because they choose to, whether because they genuinely believe in traditional Islamic ideology commanding their use or else because they simply want to be modest.
Banning a piece of clothing that many women obviously choose to wear, for whatever reason, is a gross abuse of power. If such governments are actually interested in combatting Islamic subjugation of women, banning the superficial expression of it is perhaps the stupidest fucking way to do it. Like combatting American school shootings by banning goth trench coats.
I think a large portion of your hypothetical examples here are ignoring the typical thawing effects on cultures that have experienced "forced" integration. I mean, the direct line you've drawn here between government action and individual suffering could easily apply to any african american who has been lynched since the civil rights act passed, or to black churches that have been burned down in the south since that time, etc. There was action taken by the government in a stated attempt to improve the lives of some of its citizens, and negative things happened because of it. Did that completely devalue the Civil Rights Act by association? I think you'd be hard pressed to find anyone who with a shred of intellectual honesty that would say it did.
So yes, if we're going to take the short view we might be looking at increased negative incidents of a few specific types. But how does that compare to the eventual positives of cultural integration and hope for greater levels of autonomy for the women in question? We can't really know until it's tried. We can hypothesize, and we can claim to have absolute knowledge of the repercussions of these actions, but really we have no grounds for that. Which is why dismissing it out of hand is silly.
Well maybe if the Civil/Voting Rights Act was analogous to this law. Its not. They're opposites in fact. This law says that if you are a female and choose to practice conservative Islamic faith which requires a burqa or similar attire you can not participate in public life under penalty of law. Comparing that to a law that forbade governments from prohibiting blacks from participating equally in most forms of public life is frankly just wrong-headed.
The fact that such "forced integration" probably will simply exacerbate attempts to integrate is secondary. Indeed, its tertiary because the second biggest problem with this law after its violations of free expression, freedom of religion and discrimination against a racial/cultural/religious minority is that there are almost no women wearing burqas in Belgium and its sole purpose is to attack the idea of Islam "taking over" Belgium (Islamization).
@Pants, I think there are legitimate reasons to be ... not afraid of Islam, but wary of an isolated and extremely conservative and arguably oppressive subculture, with no interest in assimilating, basically taking root and propagating in the middle of an otherwise very progressive state.
I mean, for the same reason, I am extremely wary of Dominionist Christians in America basically living a parallel, walled off life, with their own versions of secular media and services, an isolated bubble in the middle of a society they believe is essentially Satanic.
I think there are legitimate arguments to be made that such cultures are not only morally problematic in and of themselves but also can really harm society—a society which they basically despise to begin with—if they become politically active, as American theocrats have.
I also think what I said probably bears superficial similarities in some respects to anti-Semitic screeds against "Jews living amongst us," which is why people tend to have a knee-jerk reaction and dismiss such wariness as Islamophobia or bigotry whatever. Which I think is a mistake and un-nuanced.
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.
She may not be under a legal requirement, but she is under a religious requirement.
Women aren't wearing burqas becuase they enjoy it. They wear it because they are required by their extremist sect.
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.
She may not be under a legal requirement, but she is under a religious requirement.
Women aren't wearing burqas becuase they enjoy it. They wear it because they are required by their extremist sect.
How is this any different from similar retarded clothing restrictions that exist in pretty much every religion? The only difference is that this particular restriction is considered more severe but that doesn't mean a woman is more oppressed by being forced to wear it than a woman forced to wear any other form of "modest" clothing like the Mennonites wear.
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.
She may not be under a legal requirement, but she is under a religious requirement.
Women aren't wearing burqas becuase they enjoy it. They wear it because they are required by their extremist sect.
You're conflating the wearing of the burqa/niqab with extremism.
Really, as a practice it isn't any less wacky than a whole host of other religious rites and practices, which many people don't bat an eyelid at because they're familiar.
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.
She may not be under a legal requirement, but she is under a religious requirement.
Women aren't wearing burqas becuase they enjoy it. They wear it because they are required by their extremist sect.
You're conflating the wearing of the burqa/niqab with extremism.
I am pretty sure walking in public while 99% of your body is covered with a black piece of cloth is fairly extreme.
Really, as a practice it isn't any less wacky than a whole host of other religious rites and practices, which many people don't bat an eyelid at because they're familiar.
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.
She may not be under a legal requirement, but she is under a religious requirement.
Women aren't wearing burqas becuase they enjoy it. They wear it because they are required by their extremist sect.
You're conflating the wearing of the burqa/niqab with extremism.
I am pretty sure walking in public while 99% of your body is covered with a black piece of cloth is fairly extreme.
Really, as a practice it isn't any less wacky than a whole host of other religious rites and practices, which many people don't bat an eyelid at because they're familiar.
Such as?
Nuns, women wearing shirts or having long hair, skirts.
I dislike the religion and culture of Islam probably as much as anyone here and I think banning burqas is both immoral and completely counterproductive to its alleged purpose.
I'm sure many Muslim women wear them because they are forced to by oppressive husbands/fathers. I'm also sure many Muslim wear them because they choose to, whether because they genuinely believe in traditional Islamic ideology commanding their use or else because they simply want to be modest.
Banning a piece of clothing that many women obviously choose to wear, for whatever reason, is a gross abuse of power. If such governments are actually interested in combatting Islamic subjugation of women, banning the superficial expression of it is perhaps the stupidest fucking way to do it. Like combatting American school shootings by banning goth trench coats.
Why do these kinds of threads always become a coded attack on Yurp?
Because Europe is all one country!
Look man, I don't think you understand how big America is, very! Different States are like equaly akin to different countries, how dare you talk about America as a whole.
Hey you've been to Disneyworld/Alabama, you totally know what you're talking about and any criticism of European values is prima facie invalid because clearly there's no such thing as Western European/Continental culture.
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.
She may not be under a legal requirement, but she is under a religious requirement.
Women aren't wearing burqas becuase they enjoy it. They wear it because they are required by their extremist sect.
You're conflating the wearing of the burqa/niqab with extremism.
I am pretty sure walking in public while 99% of your body is covered with a black piece of cloth is fairly extreme.
Really, as a practice it isn't any less wacky than a whole host of other religious rites and practices, which many people don't bat an eyelid at because they're familiar.
Such as?
Surgical genital alteration, feeding children wine and telling them that it's blood, smearing ash on one's face as penance, etc.
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.
She may not be under a legal requirement, but she is under a religious requirement.
Women aren't wearing burqas becuase they enjoy it. They wear it because they are required by their extremist sect.
You're conflating the wearing of the burqa/niqab with extremism.
I am pretty sure walking in public while 99% of your body is covered with a black piece of cloth is fairly extreme.
Really, as a practice it isn't any less wacky than a whole host of other religious rites and practices, which many people don't bat an eyelid at because they're familiar.
Such as?
Surgical genital alteration, feeding children wine and telling them that it's blood, smearing ash on one's face as penance, etc.
Also Halal/Kosher methods of slaughtering animals.
Posts
Being racist, while not specifically prohibited, is now looked at as an extremely fringe ideology in the US, and career suicide for anyone in the public sphere. There's no reason to believe this would not also be the resulting case for the more oppressive versions of Islam in Belgium following the ban.
I'm not necessarily saying I agree with the move, but the historical precedent is definitely there.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
I just don't understand this. I find it really odd the disconnect here.
Using the word expression just avoids the point. The important thing is whose activities are you curtailing?
Those of the victim or those of the oppressor?
If you ban the victim from activities because they are 'symbols' of their oppression then you are not helping them. I gave a lot of examples. Could you address them rather than ignore them?
Oh, and there's still plenty of racism in the US. Obama won, but many racists hated him and continue to do so.
Hold on a moment. Are you equating segregation, being an imposition of racist beliefs onto others, with burqa-wearing, being a personal display of one's religious or cultural beliefs? It's not oppression when you're not allowed to force your beliefs on other people.
Hey you've been to Disneyworld/Alabama, you totally know what you're talking about and any criticism of European values is prima facie invalid because clearly there's no such thing as Western European/Continental culture. The law bans "ostentatious" displays of religion, and shockingly crosses and Stars of David are almost never considered "ostentatious" in France.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
I for one welcome a ban, I have to say.
On the other hand, a woman wearing a burqa in no way harms anyone else's rights or freedoms. I don't like the burqa and I'm not happy when I see a woman wearing one around DC, but my dislike of an article of clothing isn't enough to justify allowing the government to tell women what they can and can't wear (outside of public decency and requirements that such items be removed in higher security areas, like courthouses)
Rigorous Scholarship
In Belgium? Seriously, if you want to get rid of the Burqa, and at the same time not compromise anyone's rights, here's how you do it: Encourage immigration, let people express their religion, and then show their kids they can still be Muslim without wearing the thing. Education is much more humane and effective that alienation. Note that being forced to wear it is a completely separate problem from actually wearing it.
This entire conversation started because there was an assertion that oppression never marginalizes the oppressed. Which was a silly assertion. Oppression kills ideologies constantly throughout history, or pushes them far enough to the fringes that they'll never recover. Racism in the United States is a great example of this. Being openly racist in the US is akin to evangelizing for Zeus on street corners. You can still do it, but you're forfeiting any hope of being taken seriously ever again. That seems to be the hope in Belgium, with the targets being the oppressive cultural elements of Islam rather than racism.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
It's an overtly sexist symbol, and we have no way of saying whether any individual would wear it if they weren't being directly or culturally pressed into doing so.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
Does this mean we have to outlaw sex?
Multiculturalism as a failed experiment.
Stopping the Burqa isn't going to end whatever oppression there is. If you want to end the oppression of women, you don't start by curtailing their rights to wear whatever, even if it isn't their choice to do so. All it does is mean that now, those women in horrible relationships aren't even allowed to go outside. So you haven't even made the problem better.
Also, you don't see the problem with "We don't know if it's being done for sexist reasons, so let's be safe and ban it anyway!"
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
I'm not personally opposed to the burqa as a garment or as a religious symbol or whatever. I just chafe at the idea that some are wearing it because they are made to, and I also recognize the historical significance of removing visual markers of difference when it comes to "westernizing" (oh how I hate that term) and liberalizing cultures.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
Irrelevant. You're comparing a situation in which racists were forcing their beliefs onto others, to a situation in which women are wearing certain apparel due to cultural and religous pressures. The two have almost nothing in common. Putting on a burqa doesn't oppress anyone. It might be the result of oppression, but that's not the same thing and treating it like it is won't make it go away. I fail to see how limiting the freedom of the victims of oppression is likely to help overcome that same oppression, and I think it's up to the person in favour of the ban to make that case before I'd even consider supporting it.
And, again, I'm not necessarily personally in favor of the ban. I'm responding to the idea that systematized oppression never results in the marginalization of the oppressed, which is stupid. If it wasn't effective, we wouldn't keep doing it.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
I'm going to call bullshit. You think that a woman who left her husband because she didn't want to be part of conservative Islam would be rejected by Western society in some way? And more so than if she simply didn't want to fuck him anymore? She'd be lauded for leaving the evil religion. Neither is acceptable within conservative Islam (or conservative Judaism or conservative Christianity) and both are possible in Western society.
The yarmulke is also gender specific religious attire (with the exception of a few small sects). The men are forced by cultural pressures to wear them. Should we ban them too? Or is the assumption that women are the only ones that are unable to make decisions involving their religion?
This isn't something in isolation. Minarets were banned for little purpose in Switzerland. Headscarves but not habits are banned in a number of German states. The most common Islamic garb (headscarves) are banned in public schools in France but not the most common Catholic garb (small crosses). In Holland they have debated banning the burqa and have proposed denying women wearing the burqa the social safety "it makes them unemployable."
Its about the fear of the racial/religious/cultural "Other." Western Europe is traditionally racially and religiously homogeneous. Belgium is 96% white, 88% belong to two ethnic groups, 75% (officially) Catholic. Now the largest immigrant groups are from Muslim countries (Morocco, Turkey, etc). Its the same in most of central/western continental Europe where non-Christian/non-white immigration is non-trivial in the last few generations for the first time. North Africans who started to come after WWII and Eastern Europeans who came after the fall of the Iron Curtain aren't pre-integrated by living in European colonies. The cultural fear this engenders is the basis for laws about head scarves, minarets and burqa, especially in countries where these are almost unknown phenomena
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
I'm with you in that making laws based on religion is a bad idea, period. And fear of the other is a horrible point to be legislating from. Which is why, as I've said previously, I'm not necessarily for this ban. I'm just looking at this from a less black and white perspective than seems to be the case for the thread.
Not legislating a ban on burqas leaves women the freedom to wear them. Legislating a ban on burqas introduces the new freedom for some to go without the burqa, while prohibiting others from wearing it. There are positives and negatives to both sides. The question is whether the benefits to individuals and the culture are greater on one side or the other, and whether this is something the government should get involved in at all. As with virtually all cultural conflicts of this type, we can only hypothesize about that until we've seen it done.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
Right and within the sects of Islam that require burqas, a woman leaving her husband because she didn't want to have sex with him would be shunned pretty spectacularly. And saying you can't wear a burqa in public space doesn't mean women won't wear a burqa. If we presume they are being forced to do so, the idea that their husbands/fathers would decide the laws of the land overrule their religious convictions and "allow" their women to continue to go out in public the same amount is a leap. Conservative Islam is not crazy about women working or even running errands outside the house in the first place.
In some European sub-states you can't drive a car if you wear a burqa. Do you think that results in fewer burqas or fewer Muslim women with the mobility implied by access to automobiles?
And if she is sent out in public and punished for it, do you think that will engender greater integration or greater division between the Muslim community and the government? Will it make the Muslim man we presume is oppressive not want to show how devout he is by letting his woman sit in jail?
I have no doubt that if some one walked up to Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann, Rush Limbaugh and a dozen other of the worst hard right American figures and shot them in the head American individuals and culture as a whole would benefit. Government can not exist sole to generate the greater good regardless of means. When the means violate fundamental liberties - such as freedom of expression, freedom of religion and due process of law regardless of religious or racial characteristics - it doesn't matter if everyone would be better off if those <group> were <killed/silenced/denied their rights>.
edit
All this ignores that in Belgium the number of women who wear burqas is negligible and they are primarily legislating against the specter of Islam
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
So yes, if we're going to take the short view we might be looking at increased negative incidents of a few specific types. But how does that compare to the eventual positives of cultural integration and hope for greater levels of autonomy for the women in question? We can't really know until it's tried. We can hypothesize, and we can claim to have absolute knowledge of the repercussions of these actions, but really we have no grounds for that. Which is why dismissing it out of hand is silly.
Edit in response to your edit: I expect that that's probably the case, which taints the entire affair. There are some very good reasons this kind of thing is illegal in America, preventing that sort of motivation is right there among them. I'm just saying that there are potentially legitimate reasons to come at it from a different direction is all.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
You keep arguing that you will be enforcing a positive freedom, right? But that only works if that freedom was in danger anyway.
In fact, you actually made a very similar point:
How can you then turn around and say 'but in this case, it's different'?
You're letting your distaste of the burqa allow you to agree with a law that you usually would - and should - find abhorrent.
I'm sure many Muslim women wear them because they are forced to by oppressive husbands/fathers. I'm also sure many Muslim wear them because they choose to, whether because they genuinely believe in traditional Islamic ideology commanding their use or else because they simply want to be modest.
Banning a piece of clothing that many women obviously choose to wear, for whatever reason, is a gross abuse of power. If such governments are actually interested in combatting Islamic subjugation of women, banning the superficial expression of it is perhaps the stupidest fucking way to do it. Like combatting American school shootings by banning goth trench coats.
Well maybe if the Civil/Voting Rights Act was analogous to this law. Its not. They're opposites in fact. This law says that if you are a female and choose to practice conservative Islamic faith which requires a burqa or similar attire you can not participate in public life under penalty of law. Comparing that to a law that forbade governments from prohibiting blacks from participating equally in most forms of public life is frankly just wrong-headed.
The fact that such "forced integration" probably will simply exacerbate attempts to integrate is secondary. Indeed, its tertiary because the second biggest problem with this law after its violations of free expression, freedom of religion and discrimination against a racial/cultural/religious minority is that there are almost no women wearing burqas in Belgium and its sole purpose is to attack the idea of Islam "taking over" Belgium (Islamization).
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
I mean, for the same reason, I am extremely wary of Dominionist Christians in America basically living a parallel, walled off life, with their own versions of secular media and services, an isolated bubble in the middle of a society they believe is essentially Satanic.
I think there are legitimate arguments to be made that such cultures are not only morally problematic in and of themselves but also can really harm society—a society which they basically despise to begin with—if they become politically active, as American theocrats have.
I also think what I said probably bears superficial similarities in some respects to anti-Semitic screeds against "Jews living amongst us," which is why people tend to have a knee-jerk reaction and dismiss such wariness as Islamophobia or bigotry whatever. Which I think is a mistake and un-nuanced.
Of course, by that point they're pretty easy to recognize.
She may not be under a legal requirement, but she is under a religious requirement.
Women aren't wearing burqas becuase they enjoy it. They wear it because they are required by their extremist sect.
How is this any different from similar retarded clothing restrictions that exist in pretty much every religion? The only difference is that this particular restriction is considered more severe but that doesn't mean a woman is more oppressed by being forced to wear it than a woman forced to wear any other form of "modest" clothing like the Mennonites wear.
You're conflating the wearing of the burqa/niqab with extremism.
Really, as a practice it isn't any less wacky than a whole host of other religious rites and practices, which many people don't bat an eyelid at because they're familiar.
I am pretty sure walking in public while 99% of your body is covered with a black piece of cloth is fairly extreme.
Such as?
Nuns, women wearing shirts or having long hair, skirts.
So is walking around dressed as your favorite animated character. But it's not banned.
Limed so hard.
Women, like men, may be raised in an extremist sect, or otherwise manipulated or forced into said sect.
Women, like men, may also choose of their own volition to join extremist sects and obey the silly rules therein.
Your argument seems to imply that women are incapable of making their own decisions.
European attitudes towards religion are anything but homogenous, in this respect you can't compare Ireland to France or Spain to Sweden.
As for your second point I'd love to see some evidence for that.
Surgical genital alteration, feeding children wine and telling them that it's blood, smearing ash on one's face as penance, etc.
Also Halal/Kosher methods of slaughtering animals.