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.
Posts
Actual: It is against the law in Belgium to mask one's face.
Perceived: ZOMG THEY HATES RELIGION!
Source
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.
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.
Uh, yeah, nothing to do with Islamophobia at all...
Yeah, nothing discriminatory behind this law, it's all about "facial recognition". Sure thing.
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.
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.
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.
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:
Source
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?
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
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.
It doesn't matter how common they are J. They are things that:
Why is it okay for people to look at other without being seen wearing any other kind of face covering? What is the difference?
Belgium apparently must protect against something that isn't an actual problem.
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.
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.
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.
OK, now I know you are fucking with me.
No, the issue is the manner in which the person (whose face is covered) is being seen. Since:
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.
Quick, who has the phone number for the Belgian ambassador to the US?
Face Twit Rav Gram
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".
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.
Face Twit Rav Gram
Really? And what significant difference in being able to identify a person between masks with circular holes and burqas and niqabs that
shouldn't apply to the first?
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.