Support NeoGAF

[azyless]

Well, ill connect the two. If you just ban garments and do not address any of the issues that lead to the easy radicalisation of Muslims in Europe you are actually being counterperductive and in the eyes of Muslims just discriminating against them further. Muslims are treated like 2nd class citizens, are discriminated in the work place and refused education opportunities and more. You're ban on what some of them choose to wear is seen by all of them as you just making yourselves feel better by trying to put the onnus entirely on their community. If you did this in conjunction with laws against descrimination, and for equal opportunity you will go much further in making radicalization a lesser threat. The clothing ban is just a visual bandage that antagonizes more than anything when done alone.

You have anything concrete on that ? Talking about actual discriminatory laws here and not basic racism.
As for the second bolded part, I've already pointed out that a majority of french muslims do not support women wearing burqas and niqabs, so your claim seems pretty bizarre.

 

[Ryuuroden]

It would go over a lot better if European governments were not going hey we are enacting these laws to intigrate you but we are not going to protect you with anti descrimanation laws.

 

[ClosingADoor]

Well, ill connect the two. If you just ban garments and do not address any of the issues that lead to the easy radicalisation of Muslims in Europe you are actually being counterperductive and in the eyes of Muslims just discriminating against them further. Muslims are treated like 2nd class citizens, are discriminated in the work place and refused education opportunities and more. You're ban on what some of them choose to wear is seen by all of them as you just making yourselves feel better by trying to put the onnus entirely on their community. If you did this in conjunction with laws against descrimination, and for equal opportunity you will go much further in making radicalization a lesser threat. The clothing ban is just a visual bandage that antagonizes more than anything when done alone.

I never said we shouldn't also try to fix the other things people talked about in this thread. These are not exclusive issues where we can only deal with one.

You say it is counterproductive. But that to me just seems like you are afraid to upset people by standing up for what is right.

I agree that there is discrimination going on in some places. I disagree with refused education opportunities, since education is basically free in Germany.

Nobody here is saying that a burqa ban is a magical fix for all problems. Nobody is saying we shouldn't at the same time try to combat discrimination. Nobody is saying we shouldn't also contribute to other efforts to combat extremism.

It would go over a lot better if European governments were not going hey we are enacting these laws to intigrate you but we are not going to protect you with anti descrimanation laws.

Discrimination is illegal and has been for a long time already. Which laws would you want implemented to combat it more?

 

[Audioboxer]

The Casey Review here recently in the UK about integration of immigrants and particularly muslim communities, while heavy handed, does cut to the core of the problem: integration into a whole society.

Full veil clothing is always going to be at odds with integration into western communities at large or any community that isn't Islam. It completely shuts down any chance of Muslims and non-muslims beginning that much needed "friendly chat at the bus stop" process of 50-100 years for things to normalise. It is isolating and reflective of some of Islam's most obvious failings.

'Banning' such things then paints authorities as villains, but it really has become a push comes to shove issue. How do you speed up integration and the ol' 'coming together' process when there are un-shifting obstacles melting into "maybe things will becomes moderate 2 more generations down the line".

Yup. It's just hard to socialise with a slit of eyes. I can sense people waiting in the winds to say that makes you a bigot. No. It's hard for any human being to interact with that. When you say a friendly hello or pass some words in public you naturally smile or look to someone's facial expressions when they speak. Such outfits with the burqa on top basically just signal to stay away and leave said women in isolation. They're not "allowed" to be seen by the world and the world isn't allowed to see them.

 

[azyless]

It would go over a lot better if European governments were not going hey we are enacting these laws to intigrate you but we are not going to protect you with anti descrimanation laws.

Again, do you have any sources on any of what you're implying ? There are plenty of anti-discrimination laws, linked to either the EU or the countries themselves.

 

[Pusherman]

The Casey Review here recently in the UK about integration of immigrants and particularly muslim communities, while heavy handed, does cut to the core of the problem: integration into a whole society.

Full veil clothing is always going to be at odds with integration into western communities at large or any community that isn't Islam. It completely shuts down any chance of Muslims and non-muslims beginning that much needed "friendly chat at the bus stop" process of 50-100 years for things to normalise. It is isolating and reflective of some of Islam's most obvious failings.

'Banning' such things then paints authorities as villains, but it really has become a push comes to shove issue. How do you speed up integration and the ol' 'coming together' process when there are un-shifting obstacles melting into "maybe things will becomes moderate 2 more generations down the line".

You mean the Review that advocated for an 'integration oath'? I am always extremely skeptical off people or institutions that lay most of the blame for failed integration at the feet of the minorities instead of the government. To give you an example from the Netherlands: Our parliament has just agreed to a ban on the face-veil. It still has to go through our senate. An estimated 300 women wear a face-veil in the Netherlands, out of about a million muslims. I don't see how banning the face-veil will be of any help integrating muslims.

You know what would help integrating muslims and people from Islamic countries? A serious attempt at fighting racial/religious discrimination in the job market. The last few years there have been a series of reports on just how large of a problem it is here in the Netherlands. You want to know how our prime minister Mark Rutte responded to all those reports? 'Well, if you feel discriminated against you'll just have to fight harder for your place.' Seriously. So, excuse me if I don't take very seriously the claim that our integration is what is most important with things like a burka ban. I have never gotten the impression that European political parties, especially those on the right, have ever seriously cared about muslims/people from an Islamic background and their place in society. So I'm very suspicious of their motives for a face-veil ban.

Look I'm tired of interacting with you so I'll be short and add you to my IL. I know exactly why these women make that decision and I do not respect it. I'm done now, you can go be an extremism apologist all you want.

Great job at not responding to anything I've said throughout this thread and doing the forum equivalent of putting your fingers in your ears. I'm surprised you even managed to reach your ears with your head so far up your ass. "I know exactly why these women make that decision", yeah that sounds real feminist buddy.

 

[ClosingADoor]

Great job at not responding to anything I've said throughout this thread and doing the forum equivalent of putting your fingers in your ears. I'm surprised you even managed to reach your ears with your head so far up your ass. "I know exactly why these women make that decision", yeah that sounds real feminist buddy.

Your argument this whole thread has basically been: some women chose it themselves, so it is all OK. Me and other posters (like the quoted one) disagree with that point. You can then repeat time and time again that we need to listen to the women who do chose to wear it themselves, but this does not address the other arguments we have in favor of a ban.

The last few years there have been a series of reports on just how large of a problem it is here in the Netherlands. You want to know how our prime minister Mark Rutte responded to all those reports? 'Well, if you feel discriminated against you'll just have to fight harder for your place.' Seriously. So, excuse me if I don't take very seriously the claim that our integration is what is most important with things like a burka ban. I have never gotten the impression that European political parties, especially those on the right, have ever seriously cared about muslims/people from an Islamic background and their place in society. So I'm very suspicious of their motives for a face-veil ban.

Like said before, being in favor of a ban does not mean being against efforts to combat discrimination.

 

[Pusherman]

Your argument this whole thread has basically been: some women chose it themselves, so it is all OK. Me and other posters (like the quoted one) disagree with that point. You can then repeat time and time again that we need to listen to the women who do chose to wear it themselves, but this does not address the other arguments we have in favor of a ban.

The person who's put me on his ignore list literally said that he does not have to listen to the women wearing a face-veil because he 'already knows why they wear it'. That's what I was arguing against.

But okay, some people might believe that banning the face-veil is the right thing to do not because it helps the women wearing it but because of other reasons. Public safety for example. Well, as the ECHR said, public safety isn't a justified reason for a general ban on the face-veil because it would be far to far-reaching for what it claims to combat. It just isn't true that a face-veil endangers public safety all the time. The ECHR said the same thing about a ban on the face-veil for gender equality reasons. And as I've said, if the women wearing it can vocalize why and demonstrate that they do so freely, as I've shown throughout the thread to be the case, than a ban for gender equality would miss the mark. It would inhibit women from exercising their freedoms.

The only argument the ECHR accepted as legitimate was the argument that a face-veil endangered the conditions of living together in French society. I disagree with that. I believe the most important aspects of Western values are our civil liberties. Those liberties need to be protected, even when used for things I dislike. In that way I agree more with the American view on freedom. People can disagree with that. In fact, most people disagree with that. I know I'm on the losing side of this fight, at least in Europe. I believe it is dangerous to tie being western to things beside our constitutional rights and privileges. I believe that you can't ever be too muslim in Europe as long as you don't hurt others. In the same way that you must be able to be as jewish, christian, atheist, liberal, communist, racist, etc as you want. As long as you don't hurt other people your freedoms shouldn't be curtailed. But that is my opinion and if you disagree that's okay. My problem is mostly with people like the person I responded to who put up the appearance of caring about muslim women when their position is in fact mostly informed by other things.

Like said before, being in favor of a ban does not mean being against efforts to combat discrimination.

And just to respond to this, my example was meant to illustrate that the people proposing a ban have never shown an actual interest in working with or on behave of the muslims within their country. So when those same people claim that integration and the betterment of the muslim community is on their mind with such a ban I am naturally suspicious. Why would I believe them if they've shown in the past to dismiss the needs of the muslim community. It seems far more likely that such bans are aimed at the Islamophobic and racist voters that have moved away from establishment parties towards the far-right.

 

[Soph]

I don't see how banning the face-veil will be of any help integrating muslims.

You know what would help integrating muslims and people from Islamic countries? A serious attempt at fighting racial/religious discrimination in the job market.

.

If I had a job offer.. and two equally skilled people would respond and one of them wears a burqa, I would pick the person who wears the more normal attire.


If I had a job offer and two equally skilled people would respond, and one of them is a former burqa wearer and now wears normal attire, she'd have exactly the same % of getting the job.

Problem?

 

[Pie and Beans]

You mean the Review that advocated for an 'integration oath'? I am always extremely skeptical off people or institutions that lay most of the blame for failed integration at the feet of the minorities instead of the government. To give you an example from the Netherlands: Our parliament has just agreed to a ban on the face-veil. It still has to go through our senate. An estimated 300 women wear a face-veil in the Netherlands, out of about a million muslims. I don't see how banning the face-veil will be of any help integrating muslims.

You know what would help integrating muslims and people from Islamic countries? A serious attempt at fighting racial/religious discrimination in the job market. The last few years there have been a series of reports on just how large of a problem it is here in the Netherlands. You want to know how our prime minister Mark Rutte responded to all those reports? 'Well, if you feel discriminated against you'll just have to fight harder for your place.' Seriously. So, excuse me if I don't take very seriously the claim that our integration is what is most important with things like a burka ban. I have never gotten the impression that European political parties, especially those on the right, have ever seriously cared about muslims/people from an Islamic background and their place in society. So I'm very suspicious of their motives for a face-veil ban.

Yes the "oath" bullshit is why I said heavy handed.

The role of a country's government is to be like an always compromising parent. Like all parents, it gets stuff wrong, but on the lookout for all its kids getting along, occasionally it has to seem unfair to one child over the other. Burqa bans are that. It's making the conscious choice to speed things along rather than let strangely stockholm syndrome-esque fashion play out over another 60 years rather than maybe... 30... 40?

Everyone in this topic has probably gone over why the full-veil is isolationist and at odds with societal integration, but making an argument of "but its my decision" hasn't worked well for nudists and other clothing choices that are at odds with the general populace. When you emigrate, you pretty much have to accept that the destination county's culture is going to flow into you through osmosis. Otherwise you get isolated communities. If you want integration and less racism and equality in the job market, thats some of the stuff that will need to mellow and so governments will hopefully respond in kind. On the subject of workplace discrimination, unfortunately most places are going to hire people that are going to do as told rather than fight them on such issues even in their job interview. That tends to just be how jobs are.

As with all these things, the long game is key. None of the things you're talking about are going to be solved in our lifetimes. Whats best is making the compromises and sewing the seeds of integration now rather than putting a sword in the ground.

 

[ClosingADoor]

The person who's put me on his ignore list literally said that he does not have to listen to the women wearing a face-veil because he 'already knows why they wear it'. That's what I was arguing against.

But okay, some people might believe that banning the face-veil is the right thing to do not because it helps the women wearing it but because of other reasons. Public safety for example. Well, as the ECHR said, public safety isn't a justified reason for a general ban on the face-veil because it would be far to far-reaching for what it claims to combat. It just isn't true that a face-veil endangers public safety all the time. The ECHR said the same thing about a ban on the face-veil for gender equality reasons. And as I've said, if the women wearing it can vocalize why and demonstrate that they do so freely, as I've shown throughout the thread to be the case, than a ban for gender equality would miss the mark. It would inhibit women from exercising their freedoms.

The only argument the ECHR accepted as legitimate was the argument that a face-veil endangered the conditions of living together in French society. I disagree with that. I believe the most important aspects of Western values are our civil liberties. Those liberties need to be protected, even when used for things I dislike. In that way I agree more with the American view on freedom. People can disagree with that. In fact, most people disagree with that. I know I'm on the losing side of this fight, at least in Europe. I believe it is dangerous to tie being western to things beside our constitutional rights and privileges. I believe that you can't ever be too muslim in Europe as long as you don't hurt others. In the same way that you must be able to be as jewish, christian, atheist, liberal, communist, racist, etc as you want. As long as you don't hurt other people your freedoms shouldn't be curtailed. But that is my opinion and if you disagree that's okay. My problem is mostly with people like the person I responded to who put up the appearance of caring about muslim women when their position is in fact mostly informed by other things.

So in the end: the ECHR agreed with the ban and it is a valid thing to implemented if the country wants to.

The people in favor of the ban see the burqa as something that threatens those liberties. I don't think we can ever come to an agreement on that since your views are the total opposite. That is OK of course, but I hope you can also see why I think a ban is a valid thing to do, just as I can see why you are against it. And when people are divided on such an issue, we handle that through our votes and court systems. Of which the latter has agreed that a ban can be implemented, and some countries in the EU have gone through with it or are planning to.

And just to respond to this, my example was meant to illustrate that the people proposing a ban have never shown an actual interest in working with or on behave of the muslims within their country. So when those same people claim that integration and the betterment of the muslim community is on their mind with such a ban I am naturally suspicious. Why would I believe them if they've shown in the past to dismiss the needs of the muslim community. It seems far more likely that such bans are aimed at the Islamophobic and racist voters that have moved away from establishment parties towards the far-right.

You think that is likely. I disagree. You are free to be suspicious, but you are making the same kind of assumptions you accuse others of making also. You are painting this as a racist and Islamophobic thing, while I don't think any users in this thread can be classified as such.

 

[Shiggy]

A simple ban will not solve the issues related to the integration of immigrants from North African and Arab countries. It's a merely populist thing to say which is meant to appease the CDU and counter the AfD. It does nothing for the real issues arising from failed integration, and which are well documented in studies and police reports for years now. Politicians just seem unwilling to tackle these issues.


Integration is something that should be desired by immigrants to get better jobs and a better life. Choosing not to wear such clothes would certainly facilitate integration. Yet the question remains if integration (incl. acceptance of local rules and shared values) is actually wanted by immigrants from the aforementioned region.

 

[Morrigan Stark]

I mean, if you actually listened to those women you'd find out why they were protesting and openly defying the ban... because believe they are defending their right to wear something they deem very important. But who cares about those 'idiots', right. ¯\_(&#12484_/¯

Pretty much, yes. Their idiotic, misguided crusade to defend an oppressive tool due to their religious brainwashing does not move me whatsoever.

No one has actually tried to answer it. Just like no one has tried listening to the women already cited in this thread.

I have listened to them. I just don't agree with them.

Y'all don't care about those women

Sigh.

I guess, in a way, you're right. I care more about moderate Muslim women (who would never wear a burka), and women who are now free from the burka thanks to the law, than I care about a handful of useful idiot women who protest for the sake of protesting.

I could easily accuse you of "not caring about these women":

The representatives reported instances of some women deciding to file complaints against their husbands once informed of their rights; of some others stating that they were waiting for the law to come into force so that it would compel their husbands to release them from wearing the veil; and of some others stopping the wearing of the facial veil outright after the information meetings.

And that you care more about salafist women over those. Maybe I'd even be right.

 

[Ryuuroden]

If I had a job offer.. and two equally skilled people would respond and one of them wears a burqa, I would pick the person who wears the more normal attire.


If I had a job offer and two equally skilled people would respond, and one of them is a former burqa wearer and now wears normal attire, she'd have exactly the same % of getting the job.

Problem?

Depends on your reasons and if a person's appearance was important for that job position. It is one thing to be a pr rep and thus show your face in public. It is something entirely different to be a researcher or data analyst. Your descrimination of a Muslim woman due to what you perceptions are is no different then an employer refusing to employ a gay person due to their beliefs about homosexuality. Niether that persons sexuality or that woman's attire has any affect on how qualified they are. That's why there are laws against that sort of discrimination. This is beside the fact that woman looking for employment and being educated are the most unlikely of all burka wearers to be under the control of paternalistic men. Those woman aren't even allowed in public by their families in the first place.

Look, I understand why you guys want to ban full coverage clothing and I sympathize with it. I'm just telling you its fucking pointless and is not going to solve any of your issues. Its like the republicans in my country claimoring for voter ID laws to stop voter fraud that does not exist. The voter fraud that does happen is by methods that id's have nothing to do with. Its done by election officials or election workers, not by voters.

 

[Morrigan Stark]

Depends on your reasons and if a person's appearance was important for that job position. It is one thing to be a pr rep and thus show your face in public. It is something entirely different to be a researcher or data analyst. Your descrimination of a Muslim woman due to what you perceptions are is no different then an employer refusing to employ a gay person due to their beliefs about homosexuality. Niether that persons sexuality or that woman's attire has any affect on how qualified they are.

No, that's ridiculous. A job interview isn't just about qualifications, it's about how you interact verbally and non-verbally with the person, get a feel for their personality to see if they'd be a good fit for your team. A person wearing a potato sack over their head might also be qualified, but I wouldn't hire them either, because I can't interact face-to-face with someone who fully hides their facial and body language.

Being gay has nothing to do with that, so it'd be discriminatory. Wearing a potato sack over your head does impact the human interaction aspect, and so does the burka.

And that's not even going into the dress code aspect, which (unfortunately) is still an incredibly common and important factor for many employers.

Comparing this to discriminating against LGBT is honestly asinine.

 

[pigeon]

If I had a job offer.. and two equally skilled people would respond and one of them wears a burqa, I would pick the person who wears the more normal attire.


If I had a job offer and two equally skilled people would respond, and one of them is a former burqa wearer and now wears normal attire, she'd have exactly the same % of getting the job.

Problem?

In America, that would be illegal. Even this post would be prima facie evidence of intent to discriminate on religious grounds.

One thing that's become clear to me is that I need to remember that, while America was founded on the principles of liberty and equality, European countries were founded on nationalism. So to be honest I'm not sure whether this would be illegal in Europe. But I'm comfortable arguing that, from a moral perspective, it clearly should be.

 

[Audioboxer]

In America, that would be illegal. Even this post would be prima facie evidence of intent to discriminate on religious grounds.

One thing that's become clear to me is that I need to remember that, while America was founded on the principles of liberty and equality, European countries were founded on nationalism. So to be honest I'm not sure whether this would be illegal in Europe. But I'm comfortable arguing that, from a moral perspective, it clearly should be.

If you're going to work in face to face customer service and you won't remove your burqa then no it would not be illegal if you weren't picked for a job. Many jobs have certain expectations, especially in social and face to face situations.

 

[ClosingADoor]

In America, that would be illegal. Even this post would be prima facie evidence of intent to discriminate on religious grounds.

One thing that's become clear to me is that I need to remember that, while America was founded on the principles of liberty and equality, European countries were founded on nationalism. So to be honest I'm not sure whether this would be illegal in Europe. But I'm comfortable arguing that, from a moral perspective, it clearly should be.

No, denying someone the right to wear a burqa on the job is not automatically illegal. And I doubt it would be in America also. It's called a dress code. Jobs come with certain expectations, so you can most certainly deny someone employment if the way they chose to dress will get in the way of that or does not fit the company.

And can I laugh a bit at your statement of America being founded on liberty and equality? You guys didn't want to pay high taxes to an overseas king. If it was founded on liberty and equality, you wouldn't have needed to fight a damn war over slavery.

If we are going that way, my country - Netherlands - was also founded on the principles of freedom and equality, because we didn't want to be ruled by a Spanish king that forced his faith on us.

Yet we are going to implement a burqa ban. The mayor of our second biggest city here - Rotterdam - who is a conservative Muslim has voiced his support years ago already for taking away government monetary support from women wearing a burqa because they are putting themselves out of the workforce by choice.

 

[Pusherman]

Pretty much, yes. Their idiotic, misguided crusade to defend an oppressive tool due to their religious brainwashing does not move me whatsoever.

What about the women who converted to islam from atheism or christianity as adults? That's not fucking brainwashing, that's just being religious goddammit. I get it, you think being that conservatively religious is stupid. That's completely you're right to believe and as an atheist I get that kind of thinking. Still, it's not brainwashing. It's a woman believing in something you and I don't believe in. She should have that freedom.

I have listened to them. I just don't agree with them.

And you're disagreement is grounds for curtailing their freedom? Like why the fuck should your opinion about their religion and personal expression even matter. Especially seeing as that these results:

The representatives reported instances of some women deciding to file complaints against their husbands once informed of their rights; of some others stating that they were waiting for the law to come into force so that it would compel their husbands to release them from wearing the veil; and of some others stopping the wearing of the facial veil outright after the information meetings.

Could probably also be reached through something other than a general face-veil ban. So helping these women comes at a cost to other women, a cost that could be avoided.

Sigh.

I guess, in a way, you're right. I care more about moderate Muslim women (who would never wear a burka), and women who are now free from the burka thanks to the law, than I care about a handful of useful idiot women who protest for the sake of protesting.

I could easily accuse you of "not caring about these women":



And that you care more about salafist women over those. Maybe I'd even be right.

How is me wanting to protect the freedoms of all muslim women somehow me preferring salafist women over non-salafist women. And do I really need to point out that the opinions of muslim women that don't wear a face-veil are as irrelevant as the opinions of other people not effected by this ban.

Here's a nice new Vox video about the ban:

https://www.facebook.com/Vox/videos/613811978806408/

As you can see, Justin Trudeau agrees that a face-veil ban won't do any good. And I trust Trudeau to do the right thing a lot more than the usually good Merkel trying to protect herself from losing too many votes next year to the far-right or the right-wing parties across Western-Europe also trying to impose such bans. Similarly, a ban like the one proposed in Germany would never get through the American courts because in the US civil liberties are taken very seriously.

This ban is nothing more than another sign that Islamohobia is the norm in Europe today. No one involved in creating these bans care about muslim women in the slightest.

Yet we are going to implement a burqa ban. The mayor of our second biggest city here - Rotterdam - who is a conservative Muslim has voiced his support years ago already for taking away government monetary support from women wearing a burqa because they are putting themselves out of the workforce by choice.

Aboutaleb also told muslim youths to 'get out' (of the country) if they didn't like things. I don't like using the word but Aboutaleb is pretty close to being an uncle Tom.

 

[Audioboxer]

What about the women who converted to islam from atheism or christianity as adults? That's not fucking brainwashing, that's just being religious goddammit. I get it, you think being that conservatively religious is stupid. That's completely you're right to believe and as an atheist I get that kind of thinking. Still, it's not brainwashing. It's a woman believing in something you and I don't believe in. She should have that freedom.



And you're disagreement is grounds for curtailing their freedom? Like why the fuck should your opinion about their religion and personal expression even matter. Especially seeing as that these results:



Could probably also be reached through something other than a general face-veil ban. So helping these women comes at a cost to other women, a cost that could be avoided.



How is me wanting to protect the freedoms of all muslim women somehow me preferring salafist women over non-salafist women. And do I really need to point out that the opinions of muslim women that don't wear a face-veil are as irrelevant as the opinions of other people not effected by this ban.

Here's a nice new Vox video about the ban:

https://www.facebook.com/Vox/videos/613811978806408/

As you can see, Justin Trudeau agrees that a face-veil ban won't do any good. And I trust Trudeau to do the right thing a lot more than the usually good Merkel trying to protect herself from losing too many votes next year to the far-right or the right-wing parties across Western-Europe also trying to impose such bans. Similarly, a ban like the one proposed in Germany would never get through the American courts because in the US civil liberties are taken very seriously.

This ban is nothing more than another sign that Islamohobia is the norm in Europe today. No one involved in creating these bans care about muslim women in the slightest.



Aboutaleb also told muslim youths to 'get out' (of the country) if they didn't like things. I don't like using the word but Aboutaleb is pretty close to being an uncle Tom.

Your views of freedoms just being handed out like candy to kids are exactly that, childish. This idealist ideological take on a society and government is just not reality. For many reasons already stated in this topic people are not just free to do whatever they want and societies and governments do have both formal written laws and as someone earlier in here put it, "invisible" laws. Going around with your face covered 24/7 is going to have a negative effect on how society will interact with you. Guess what, that's just how it is. Humans are social animals. We've evolved to interact with not only voice, but facial communication and cues.

I actually on a personal level find your obsessive defense over an oppressive piece of clothing for women, as a man yourself, rather disappointing to say the least. So while you want to dish out the islamophobia card like most faux-progressives like yourself do at any dissenting opinion, and also try the "you just don't care about women" retort, maybe take a look at yourself and why you want to fight so hard for some of the most oppressed women to remain as they are.

It's certainly not the moderate Muslim women lining up in droves to be jailed inside constant full face coverings. Which is the irony when people come out with this ban only affects a small % of Muslims. I wonder why? Because most women ain't going to put up with shit that minimises them to be slaves to never be seen and most likely avoided, shunned and ignored in society. A good portion of those that do "choose" this life do it because they are forced, scared, indoctrinated or worse.

I know you ignored me before when I challenged you on this, but I'll finish with it again. Why not men? Why aren't men feeling this liberated and expressive of freedom to never have their face seen? There must be one hell of a reason because I can't possibly think why Muslim men don't want to be fully covered from head to toe 24/7. Who wouldn't want that?!

 

[Pusherman]

First of all, freedom isn't 'handed' to anyone. Freedom is the state every human being is born in and to be free is probably the most important aspect of being alive. Does that view correspond perfectly with reality? No, but it is what the democracies in the west at least try to achieve. It's why we have constitutions and a declaration of human rights and a bill of rights etc. No one living in the west should have to feel that their freedoms were granted by their government, like they should be thankful or something. Sure, they are protected but our freedoms arise from us all being human not because of our merciful governments. I think that philosophy of individualism is a great one to live by and it has helped us in the west to progress ever further.

It is also a basis for our values that we have never fully lived by and I am sad to see that even our flawed modern interpretation seems to be too much for some people. People who see no danger in eroding what we currently have instead of improving it.

And look, I am not defending the burka or niqab. The reason no muslim men, aside from some Tuareg tribes in North-Africa, are required to cover their head or face is because Islam, like every major religion, is a religion started by men. It is patriarchal. I've mentioned that a lot in this thread. I've also already mentioned that I discuss women's rights in Islam quite often with my muslim family. The difference between you and me is that I still respect the women deciding to be a very conservative muslim. I know some of those women. They are not crazy, they are not victims, at least not directly. They are fully realized human beings that can and do make their own decisions. And I will forever defend their right to make those decisions, even if I don't agree with the decisions themselves.

You have a certain view of the burka and niqab. You have come to this view without ever actually listening to the women wearing one. That is why you can onlysee them as victims or as crazy or as indoctrinated. I've mentioned examples throughout this thread of women from an atheist or christian background converting to Islam and deciding to wear a face-veil. What do you have to say to those women? Why are you entitled to tell those women they are making an illegitimate decision?

If you want to protest the face-veil that's fine. If you want to write articles and books about how it is a tool of oppression that is also fine. People do those things all the time. But you can't just ban something because you personally disagree with it, especially if you are not prepared to actually listen to the women affected by the ban.

 

[Audioboxer]

Actually we as societies do ban things we believe do more harm than good. That is the flaw in your perfect idealisation of "full freedom from birth". If you want to be free to do anything you're better off living on an island with no government. That is how you get some glimmer of true freedom.

Most of us accept freedom is a complex topic as there are 6 billion of us trying to get along on a planet. Not everyone can agree with everyone all the time. At times we're going to make decisions that not everyone agrees with. Especially when it comes to religions. They do not have a dictatorship over us. If they did in America for example gay marriage would never have been legalised as someone like yourself would still be hammering home "you just haven't spoken to conservative Christians who think gays are wrong". Most of the best minds do look at all opinions before trying to hash out what makes the most sense and may be the most progressive way forward.

 

[Oblivion]

I see quite a few girls at my university that wear hijabs and leggings/yoga pants.

What's up with that, yo?

 

[Pusherman]

Dude, wearing a niqab or burka is an act of personal expression. Nobody is harmed by it. If there are women forced to wear a face-veil they are the victims of abusive families/husbands. They are not the victim of a face-veil and I have shown again and again that women can in fact decide for themselves, with absolutely no outside pressure, to be salafist muslimahs and wear a face-veil.

Ideally, I believe that in the west we should need very good proof that something does more harm than good before we ban it. The only way a face-veil is harmful enough to require a general ban is if most or all of the women wearing one are forced to do so. I don't think that's the case. Plenty of women wearing a face-veil have demonstrated that they wear it voluntarily. I refer you back to the women from christian or atheist backgrounds that converted to a conservative interpretation of Islam. So if the harm a face-veil does to the freedom of women is actually ambiguous on what ground are we banning it from public places? The reasons given are usually it isn't western or it impedes these women from integrating or it is a threat to public safety. I don't think those reasons are sufficient. I don't think clothes make a person western and I think exercising your freedom of religion and freedom of expression are already signs of integration, even or perhaps especially if you use those freedoms to make decisions a majority of people dislike. And in the case of public safety, as I've said already, I can imagine a few scenarios where showing your face might be necessary. But those situations should not result in a general ban on the face-veil.

I am a progressive. I support increasing personal freedoms. So of course I don't think conservative christians should be able to keep gays from marrying or adopting. I also think prudes should not be able to keep women from baring their chest. I don't think conservatives or people with a dislike of drugs should be able to keep people from enjoying soft-drugs. It is perfectly logical, than, for me to believe that a majority of people should not be able to keep some women from covering their face. My opinion of all of the above does not matter. Maybe I personally don't like seeing nipples or maybe I think drugs are for stupid people or maybe gay couples give me the creeps. None of that should ever matter. Those people should still be able to act how they want. And the same goes for women wearing a face-veil.

And just because you called me out on ignoring you: how about you answer my questions. I asked you point blank what you'd say to a women from a christian or atheist background that converted to Islam and decided to wear a face-veil. Why do you feel entitled to decide for her what she can or cannot do? And if you don't believe such women exist here's an example from a dutch TV-show:

http://www.npo.nl/npo3/van-hagelslag-naar-halal-op-npo-3

I also want to point out that I keep using those women from an atheist or christian background as examples because I knowmost people will just dismiss women from a foreign/Islamic background as indoctrinated sheep. I know from experience those women can also wear a face-veil voluntarily but I know nobody respects those women enough to actually listen to and believe what they have to say.

 

[Audioboxer]

The face veil harms society around you as well as your possibility for interaction. Therefore I don't really care if a person believed in Santa Clause and converted to what you keep calling "conservative" Islam. My views are the same end of. It is a destructive way to erode society around you as well as your chances to ever assimilate or integrate with those around you.

People wanting to just live in little bubbles within societies is largely what many governments are trying to tackle. It's anti-social behaviour at best, and has the potential to foster bad ideas and extremism at worst. We often want to try and let people live in private as much as we can, but we have progressives going ham on saying it's the fault of the government and liberals that some Muslims aren't integrating at all whilst they hand wave what is the epitome of all oppression and suppression of human interaction.

Also if gay people really do give you the creeps then defending the burqa is the least of your concerns right now. Sexual orientation is from birth, wanting to cover your face in a mask is not. And yeah nearly anyone in any religion is indoctrinated if you personally ask me. Religion is the biggest offender of getting people to believe and do stupid shit. I can largely put up with some of that if it's totally behind closed doors and/or doesn't negatively erode a society. When it does I'll debate and challenge. Freedom of religion doesn't meant freedom from consequence in the same way freedom of speech doesn't.

 

[LUFTRAUSER]

I see quite a few girls at my university that wear hijabs and leggings/yoga pants.

What's up with that, yo?

 

[catbird]

Please define the problem that needs to be solved by banning the full face veil. It should be limited to clearly defined situations.

It is a small minority of women. Please let them find their own way ffs.

Sorry (not) that it makes you uncomfortable.

 

[Audioboxer]

Please define the problem that needs to be solved by banning the full face veil. It should be limited to clearly defined situations.

It is a small minority of women. Please let them find their own way ffs.

Sorry (not) that it makes you uncomfortable.

If you listen to Merkel she has said in defined situations. Places where it can be made illegal, such as schools, banks and government buildings. Places where you'd largely expect face to face interaction, or it should be a requirement for security reasons. No one is kicking down your front door and doing a burqa raid on your underwear drawer. Don't worry you'll still get to make the choice to wear one where you can. Unless you are yet another male who won't wear one himself, because reasons, but wants to keep fighting for those women to put them on.

 

[Pusherman]

The face veil harms society around you as well as your possibility for interaction. Therefore I don't really care if a person believed in Santa Clause and converted to what you keep calling "conservative" Islam. My views are the same end of. It is a destructive way to erode society around you as well as your chances to ever assimilate or integrate with those around you.

People wanting to just live in little bubbles within societies is largely what many governments are trying to tackle. It's anti-social behaviour at best, and has the potential to foster bad ideas and extremism at worst. We often want to try and let people live in private as much as we can, but we have progressives going ham on saying it's the fault of the government and liberals that some Muslims aren't integrating at all whilst they hand wave what is the epitome of all oppression and suppression of human interaction.

Also if gay people really do give you the creeps then defending the burqa is the least of your concerns right now. Sexual orientation is from birth, wanting to cover your face in a mask is not. And yeah nearly anyone in any religion is indoctrinated if you personally ask me. Religion is the biggest offender of getting people to believe and do stupid shit. I can largely put up with some of that if it's totally behind closed doors and/or doesn't negatively erode a society. When it does I'll debate and challenge. Freedom of religion doesn't meant freedom from consequence in the same way freedom of speech doesn't.

Holy shit... you get that the part about getting the creeps from gays was an example, right? I was trying to illustrate how the feelings of one group of people shouldn't impact the freedoms of another group. Of course I don't get the creeps because of gays or anyone else for that matter.

And people are religious, that's just a fact of live. Billions of people believe in an organized religion. I am not better than them. I do not get to decide what kind of decisions those people can make, at least when it doesn't harm others. I don't think a few women deciding to wear the face-veil erodes society. I think the rampant racism and Islamohobia does a far better job of that and this ban and the people championing it are helping those forces ruin everything good about Europe. In Canada and the US people generally agree with my view of civil liberties, in Europe they don't. That sucks but it just means I and others like me need to speak out more.

I don't care if you think a face-veil is anti-social behaviour. Something being anti-social is usually not enough reason to ban it. And as someone from an Islamic background I know, from first hand experience, that any failures in integration lie at the feet of European governments. I don't care if people think I'm playing the victim card with that statement. It's impossible to live in Europe as a muslim or even as someone with an Islamic background and not feel like a foreigner, not feel as the other, to not feel hated.

None of the political parties have ever shown that they care about people like me. They think this is somehow helping muslims? Come on. It is nakedly obvious that Merkel introduced this ban for no other reason than to improve her position in next year's election by appealing to racist voters. Feels so good to know muslims only count as political bait to appeal to fucking racists and Islamophobes.

 

[Audioboxer]

Holy shit... you get that the part about getting the creeps from gays was an example, right? I was trying to illustrate how the feelings of one group of people shouldn't impact the freedoms of another group. Of course I don't get the creeps because of gays or anyone else for that matter.

And people are religious, that's just a fact of live. Billions of people believe in an organized religion. I am not better than them. I do not get to decide what kind of decisions those people can make, at least when it doesn't harm others. I don't think a few women deciding to wear the face-veil erodes society. I think the rampant racism and Islamohobia does a far better job of that and this ban and the people championing it are helping those forces ruin everything good about Europe. In Canada and the US people generally agree with my view of civil liberties, in Europe they don't. That sucks but it just means I and others like me need to speak out more.

I don't care if you think a face-veil is anti-social behaviour. Something being anti-social is usually not enough reason to ban it. And as someone from an Islamic background I know, from first hand experience, that any failures in integration lie at the feet of European governments. I don't care if people think I'm playing the victim card with that statement. It's impossible to live in Europe as a muslim or even as someone with an Islamic background and not feel like a foreigner, not feel as the other, to not feel hated.

None of the political parties have ever shown that they care about people like me. They think this is somehow helping muslims? Come on. It is nakedly obvious that Merkel introduced this ban for no other reason than to improve her position in next year's election by appealing to racist voters. Feels so good to know muslims only count as political bait to appeal to fucking racists and Islamophobes.

As I live in Scotland I know full well anti-social behaviour can result in bans. Try and buy alcohol in a store here after 10pm. In England? Not a problem. Why? Scotland has had many issues with alcohol abuse so the government decided it would be best to regulate it, hence a ban after 10pm. Case in point, like in other countries where the burqa has been restricted it can be done.

Why are you talking about parties helping you in a topic about the burqa which you don't even wear? It seems you are doing what the left continues to do hence why it is failing as a movement. Blow up identity politics to the max and constantly make yourself a victim. It's as if if this ban goes through you cannot leave your house again and the world is over, right? Merkel is clearly the next Hitler and the police will be coming for your burqa stat. No one cares about you and you can't go on... Or wait, you don't wear one so scratch most of that. Aren't you an ex-Muslim as well? I thought you said that earlier. Also plenty of Muslims live in Europe, so guess what, you don't speak for them all. Another issue on the left, minority members thinking they speak for everyone within said minority. You don't. There are plenty of Muslims against the burqa, and plenty of Muslims who love living in the West compared to where they fleed from. I ask you, if you value "conservative" Muslim practices so much why don't you go live somewhere they are enforced? Another thing it's great to see, so called progressives railroad the West but when you challenge them to then go live somewhere truly conservative then they soon back down.

So maybe you don't care I think it's anti-social, but enough people do to have it routinely discussed for what it is. As I've said a few times there can be changes enacted not everyone likes. No individual is the centre of the universe, especially not one where multiple religions are all fighting for the head of the table. Which is why we are so often in such messes globally. I've already said this is a nuclear option, meaning it goes to try and enact change quickly rather than methodically. That's the gamble we take sometimes in societies though.

 

[Laughing Banana]

Hijab is, for me, very beautiful, and women wearing it to me looks even more beautiful.

Burka, however, is excessive, and I understand why people wouldn't be comfortable with that. Hell, I am a Muslim and I'm not comfortable with women wearing it.

Doesn't stop the (most probable) fact that this really seems like nothing more than a pre-election move by Merkel though. Oh well, it's par to the course for politics, I guess.

 

[Audioboxer]

Hijab is, for me, very beautiful, and women wearing it to me looks even more beautiful.

Burka, however, is excessive, and I understand why people wouldn't be comfortable with that. Hell, I am a Muslim and I'm not comfortable with women wearing it.

Doesn't stop the (most probable) fact that this really seems like nothing more than a pre-election move by Merkel though. Oh well, it's par to the course for politics, I guess.

Well at least you can tell it is a woman you are looking at with the Hijab. So yeah, it is fine. It doesn't demote someone to being totally refused interaction with their surroundings in a humane way. Nor is it a tool of oppression.

 

[Laughing Banana]

Well at least you can tell it is a woman you are looking at with the Hijab. So yeah, it is fine. It doesn't demote someone to being totally refused interaction with their surroundings in a humane way. Nor is it a tool of oppression.

http://i.imgur.com/3kWEDtW.jpg[img][/QUOTE]

I am a Muslim so you don't have to teach me the difference between those three, haha.

 

[Psychoward]

If I had a job offer.. and two equally skilled people would respond and one of them wears a burqa, I would pick the person who wears the more normal attire.


If I had a job offer and two equally skilled people would respond, and one of them is a former burqa wearer and now wears normal attire, she'd have exactly the same % of getting the job.

Problem?

Yes, the problem is you in that situation.

 

[Audioboxer]

I am a Muslim so you don't have to teach me the difference between those three, haha.

I wasn't meaning to teach, just illustrate your point. The hijab can be beautiful as it doesn't objectively oppress the wearer.

It's not my cup of tea but I'm obviously not Muslim and wouldn't aim to wear any religious garb I don't associate with (although the hijab isn't strictly religious). However one is not like the other. It doesn't cause societal divides by the nature of it excluding one's face completely, both practically and socially.

Imagine that though, the possibility for one to critically think about various forms of religious garb and be totally okay with one but not another, and that doesn't inherently make you a raging islamophobe who hates everything and everyone Muslim/Islamic... It's almost as if the majority of us are happy to try and hash out various freedoms for all, but can try to navigate through the realities of life sometimes having restrictions, especially if you want to try and live productively within a society. Usually tools or imagery of oppression don't tend to get as much of an easy ride, and if anywhere knows that it's Germany thanks to history and symbolism of a less than great time in their history. I don't particularly see how the burqa has some great history for us to draw inspiration from...

As said many times before Merkel has proposed banning where it can be banned. You can still wear it where permitted. That's not good enough though, is it? These women are expected to make it a 24/7 commitment, right? Because that in of itself isn't a form of oppression and control. I mean it is, it's rooted itself out of Islamic teaching that it is immodest for a woman not to be covered up... I honestly think either historians in thousands of years or an alien civilization will look at us one day and ask how on earth were there people arguing that oppression and control is actually freedom and expression?

 

[GuessMyUserName]

If you listen to Merkel she has said in defined situations. Places where it can be made illegal, such as schools, banks and government buildings. Places where you'd largely expect face to face interaction, or it should be a requirement for security reasons. No one is kicking down your front door and doing a burqa raid on your underwear drawer. Don't worry you'll still get to make the choice to wear one where you can. Unless you are yet another male who won't wear one himself, because reasons, but wants to keep fighting for those women to put them on.

You try to make it sound better by "nobody will come take it from you at home", but what you're saying is "you can't exist in society anymore". Banning from schools pushes women out of schools. Ban women from government places and wow nice so women can't go to the hospital anymore when they need medical attention?

Your ban is an awful piece of shit that does the opposite of help. It pushes women OUT of society and makes integration completely disappear. You're forcing these women to stick to their own kind that will accept them and let their believes just flourish. The only thing a ban does is help the rest of society's piece of mind without actually accomplishing anything good until you walk down a street you don't know and realize heyyy these people still exist.

 

[Audioboxer]

You try to make it sound better by "nobody will come take it from you at home", but what you're saying is "you can't exist in society anymore". Banning from schools pushes women out of schools. Ban women from government places and wow nice so women can't go to the hospital anymore when they need medical attention?

Your ban is an awful piece of shit that does the opposite of help. It pushes women OUT of society and makes integration completely disappear. You're forcing these women to stick to their own kind that will accept them and let their believes just flourish. The only thing a ban does is help the rest of society's piece of mind without actually accomplishing anything good until you walk down a street you don't know and realize heyyy these people still exist.

Well as much as you might think your argument is some great gotcha, the majority of these women already don't interact with society. They choose as it is to live in closed off communities. Or when I say choose most are probably forced. Tell me the last time a woman in a full burqa served you in any customer facing job? What about served you anywhere? What about took part in any hobby you have? What about was seen in your University? Probably very few if any. Why?

Well I think many progressives act incredibly naive about how oppressive a religion Islam can be when we are talking about the women who are forced to be dressed in a burqa 24/7. They are often told not to engage with the heathen non-believers, or worse, the Jews. They routinely are not allowed to drive, act independently, do for themselves, get an education or go anywhere on their own and so forth. So yeah, quite clearly they are all over the place right now and this ban is what may send them home, right? It's nothing to do with what has them in a burqa in the first place? Oh no. It's Germany and Merkel stopping these women from interacting with society in the abundance that they currently are. No, oppression and control is what keeps them in their place and that is how for this long certain pacts of Islam have destroyed the lives of many women.

You may be right on one thing though, the ban may just go to show off what the German society values. A move of principal and disapproval of oppression. They have a right to do that though, no one forces anyone to live in Germany. Most of where you go in the world is a "game" of choosing where you want to integrate. Hence why proper screening really should go on to try and see if people are going to make an effort to be productive members of your society. Or at the very least will try their best to settle in and go about their lives in ways which don't negatively impact on your countries values. That's how it is in life, and that is largely how it works in our imperfect but still quite decent system we try and run in most European countries.

 

[Azzanadra]

Can't say I disagree here, while I am fine with the hijab (for now, at least) the niqab and burqa need to go... this is coming from someone who's actually from that background, my only concern is something Tom Mulcair aired during the Canadian federal election last year, that is it is a case if societal pressure we should careful not to attack the victims here (in this case, the women wearing said garments). I might be a bit biased here because no females in my family or extended family wear even the hijab, and I guess I sort of held that expectation from a young age to all Muslims living in the west.

Like what Mustfafa Kemmel Ataturk did, sometimes secularism needs to be forced down from the top.

 

[ClosingADoor]

Aboutaleb also told muslim youths to 'get out' (of the country) if they didn't like things. I don't like using the word but Aboutaleb is pretty close to being an uncle Tom.

For real? An Uncle Tom? Come on now, dude.

He became the mayor of one of our biggest cities, after growing up in a tiny village in Morocco, moving here, climbing the ranks and sticking to his faith. If anything, he should be a person immigrants should look up to, as an example you can make it here as a Muslim. And we should listen to him since he's a pretty smart person who grew up as an immigrant, so might have some good experience there. Too bad he didn't run for leadership of his party, because I think it would have done a lot of good.

You are dismissing actual successful Muslim immigrants for disagreeing with your views. You're so stuck on defending the religion, that you fail to see faults in it, while many Muslims actually do. Yet you keep claiming we should listen to them, but apparently only when that fits your already established views.

You try to make it sound better by "nobody will come take it from you at home", but what you're saying is "you can't exist in society anymore". Banning from schools pushes women out of schools. Ban women from government places and wow nice so women can't go to the hospital anymore when they need medical attention?

Your ban is an awful piece of shit that does the opposite of help. It pushes women OUT of society and makes integration completely disappear. You're forcing these women to stick to their own kind that will accept them and let their believes just flourish. The only thing a ban does is help the rest of society's piece of mind without actually accomplishing anything good until you walk down a street you don't know and realize heyyy these people still exist.

It does not ban anyone from those places. But just like with a lot of things, there can be limitations on how you present yourself in certain places. We teach our kids that everyone is equal, yet you are fine with a girl in school having to wear an oppressive and misogynistic thing. Kind of conflicts with the message we want to teach.

 

[catbird]

We teach our kids that everyone is equal, yet you are fine with a girl in school having to wear an oppressive and misogynistic thing. Kind of conflicts with the message we want to teach.

I don't like the burqa, but it's really a piece a fabric. You are reading that symbolism (and I agree honestly) but someone else might not. There are articles posted in this thread authored by women who have their own take on the burqa.

The burqa is only a symptom and banning it is not going to help these women. I agree that it will make their lives more difficult and force them deeper into shadows. If they weren't going to integrate with the burqa I don't see how they are going to integrate without it.

Honestly I see it as penalizing the victim in some cases, and limiting individual expression in others.

If there was a legitimate issue where the collective was damaged by this type of expression, I can see banning it. It makes sense where seeing the face is necessary, in limited situations. But it seems like the definition of "necessary" is too loose. I also don't see evidence of this being a problem that requires this type of response. I don't see any evidence that these type of bans work. I'm in favor of making evidence based policy decisions - the evidence isn't here, in this case.

 

[Pusherman]

Can't say I disagree here, while I am fine with the hijab (for now, at least) the niqab and burqa need to go... this is coming from someone who's actually from that background, my only concern is something Tom Mulcair aired during the Canadian federal election last year, that is it is a case if societal pressure we should careful not to attack the victims here (in this case, the women wearing said garments). I might be a bit biased here because no females in my family or extended family wear even the hijab, and I guess I sort of held that expectation from a young age to all Muslims living in the west.

Like what Mustfafa Kemmel Ataturk did, sometimes secularism needs to be forced down from the top.

Ataturk's top down approach to secularization divided the country till this day. It is the reason military coups have been so common in Turkish history. It is the reason the current president of Turkey, who himself was once a political prisoner for reciting a poem, is cracking down on his opposition. Ataturk should only be used as an example of what not to do.

I also have to say that I absolutely despise your approach to religion. The hijab is good for now? Who the fuck are you to decide when something is (no longer) okay. Believe me, as an atheist in a muslim family I wish I could grab a suitcase full of fedoras and print out a few of the best posts on r/atheism and just turn my entire family into internet approved atheists. But shit doesn't work like that. I disagree with my muslim family members and discuss things with them all the time but at the end of the day I still respect them as human beings. Their decisions are just as legitimate as mine. Your expectations don't mean shit for someone else's life.

For real? An Uncle Tom? Come on now, dude.

He became the mayor of one of our biggest cities, after growing up in a tiny village in Morocco, moving here, climbing the ranks and sticking to his faith. If anything, he should be a person immigrants should look up to, as an example you can make it here as a Muslim. And we should listen to him since he's a pretty smart person who grew up as an immigrant, so might have some good experience there. Too bad he didn't run for leadership of his party, because I think it would have done a lot of good.

You are dismissing actual successful Muslim immigrants for disagreeing with your views. You're so stuck on defending the religion, that you fail to see faults in it, while many Muslims actually do. Yet you keep claiming we should listen to them, but apparently only when that fits your already established views.

Aboutaleb's response to young muslims moving to Syria to fight was, if they don't like it here they should just fuck off. My major, Van Aartsen in The Hague, responded by saying that he took the problem very serious and that he felt concerned about the parents and sibling who now had to fear for the live of their child/brother. That's the kind of emphatic response I respect. I don't care if Aboutaleb is muslim or not, he plays along in the demonization of muslims. Van Aartsen has worked together with the largest salafist mosque here in The Hague to combat youth criminality. He said he didn't care how conservative someone was as long as they were prepared to work together and follow the law. That's the kind of levelheaded leadership sorely missing in the rest of the country and on a national level. Aboutaleb has not in any way earned my respect.

And Aboutaleb does not get to speak on behave of women wearing a face-veil. As I've made abundantly clear, there are plenty of face-veil wearing women speaking for themselves. Seeing as that a ban would only harm them, I am not really interested in the opinions of others, muslim or not. Like I already said, it is up to those women to decide what the niqab or burka means to them. No one else gets to do that. Not ISIS, not Aboutaleb and not Angela Merkel.

Abuse and forcing people to do things against their will is already illegal. Forcing your child to do things against their will is already illegal. Through good education and by creating a more inclusive society we encourage women, all kinds of women, to report abuse. A ban will not logically result in abused muslim women fighting for themselves but it will logically result in some women being denied their right to wear what they feel is necessary. It will also play into the hands of those that already see Islam as some kind of dangerous and corrupting foreign menace.

Take another look at this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4KpvAtqwYbA&t=634s

How would you explain to that woman that her choices are illegitimate and should be illegal? Why do you feel entitled to make decisions for her? How can you tell me you take her seriously and respect her as an adult if you then go and deny that she can make decisions for herself. And please refrain from calling her indoctrinated or a victim or whatever. You are absolutely entitled to see her that way but you also have to acknowledge that she does not have to agree. And in that case her word supersedes yours. I believe Renee Zellweger is the victim of a culture and industry that reduces women to nothing but their looks and then shames them for feeling insecure or acting on those pressures. I think she is the victim of an industry and society that marginalizes and penalizes aging women. That doesn't mean that Zellweger sees herself like that. It doesn't mean that I can dismiss or ridicule her behaviour or punish her for it. Why can't you afford very conservative muslim women the same respect?

 

[Morrigan Stark]

What about the women who converted to islam from atheism or christianity as adults? That's not fucking brainwashing, that's just being religious goddammit. I get it, you think being that conservatively religious is stupid. That's completely you're right to believe and as an atheist I get that kind of thinking. Still, it's not brainwashing. It's a woman believing in something you and I don't believe in. She should have that freedom.

Are there really any atheist women who converted to Islam and wear the burka (not the hijab but the actual burka)? Show me that such women even exist.

And you're disagreement is grounds for curtailing their freedom? Like why the fuck should your opinion about their religion and personal expression even matter.

I don't know, why should your opinion matter? This is a discussion forum.

Especially seeing as that these results:

Could probably also be reached through something other than a general face-veil ban. So helping these women comes at a cost to other women, a cost that could be avoided.

But you don't actually know that.

How is me wanting to protect the freedoms of all muslim women somehow me preferring salafist women over non-salafist women. And do I really need to point out that the opinions of muslim women that don't wear a face-veil are as irrelevant as the opinions of other people not effected by this ban.

Are you a Muslim woman who wears a Burka? Because if not, you just said your own opinion is irrelevant.

Here's a nice new Vox video about the ban:

https://www.facebook.com/Vox/videos/613811978806408/

As you can see, Justin Trudeau agrees that a face-veil ban won't do any good. And I trust Trudeau to do the right thing a lot more than the usually good Merkel trying to protect herself from losing too many votes next year to the far-right or the right-wing parties across Western-Europe also trying to impose such bans. Similarly, a ban like the one proposed in Germany would never get through the American courts because in the US civil liberties are taken very seriously.

This ban is nothing more than another sign that Islamohobia is the norm in Europe today. No one involved in creating these bans care about muslim women in the slightest.

Aboutaleb also told muslim youths to 'get out' (of the country) if they didn't like things. I don't like using the word but Aboutaleb is pretty close to being an uncle Tom.

A politician who agrees with Pusherman = cool
A politician who is actually Muslim who doesn't agree with Pusherman = Uncle Tom

K.

 

[anaron]

Are there really any atheist women who converted to Islam and wear the burka (not the hijab but the actual burka)? Show me that such women even exist.


I don't know, why should your opinion matter? This is a discussion forum.


But you don't actually know that.


Are you a Muslim woman who wears a Burka? Because if not, you just said your own opinion is irrelevant.


A politician who agrees with Pusherman = cool
A politician who is actually Muslim who doesn't agree with Pusherman = Uncle Tom

K.

loving your posts ITT

 

[Lil'DigiOp]

Here's how I see it,

Its about freedom. Should one have the freedom to dress full veil if they choose?

Who are they hurting if they choose to do this? Is anyone physically harmed?


Or is this really a culture clash and ideologue battle?

Edit : I hit a parallel because one could argue about KKK sheets in the same manner. This stuff is so damn touchy

 

[ClosingADoor]

Ataturk's top down approach to secularization divided the country till this day. It is the reason military coups have been so common in Turkish history. It is the reason the current president of Turkey, who himself was once a political prisoner for reciting a poem, is cracking down on his opposition. Ataturk should only be used as an example of what not to do.

A lot of people will disagree. Turkey is one of the most secular nations in the Muslim world. They should be applauded for for that. Although things are heading a different direction now for a bit.

Aboutaleb's response to young muslims moving to Syria to fight was, if they don't like it here they should just fuck off. My major, Van Aartsen in The Hague, responded by saying that he took the problem very serious and that he felt concerned about the parents and sibling who now had to fear for the live of their child/brother. That's the kind of emphatic response I respect. I don't care if Aboutaleb is muslim or not, he plays along in the demonization of muslims. Van Aartsen has worked together with the largest salafist mosque here in The Hague to combat youth criminality. He said he didn't care how conservative someone was as long as they were prepared to work together and follow the law. That's the kind of levelheaded leadership sorely missing in the rest of the country and on a national level. Aboutaleb has not in any way earned my respect.

And Aboutaleb does not get to speak on behave of women wearing a face-veil. As I've made abundantly clear, there are plenty of face-veil wearing women speaking for themselves. Seeing as that a ban would only harm them, I am not really interested in the opinions of others, muslim or not. Like I already said, it is up to those women to decide what the niqab or burka means to them. No one else gets to do that. Not ISIS, not Aboutaleb and not Angela Merkel.

A conservative Muslim with an opinion is now demonizing Muslims. How does that logic work?

And the bolded says the rest. You think your way of thinking is the only correct one and everyone else should not have an opinion about it. You are set in your path of thinking, closed off to any other argument made in this thread. Your only response has been: it is their choice. But lots of things that you could classify as someones choice is illegal, because it has a wider impact on society or can be used to hurt people. We constantly give up some freedoms because it is for the greater good.

Abuse and forcing people to do things against their will is already illegal. Forcing your child to do things against their will is already illegal. Through good education and by creating a more inclusive society we encourage women, all kinds of women, to report abuse. A ban will not logically result in abused muslim women fighting for themselves but it will logically result in some women being denied their right to wear what they feel is necessary. It will also play into the hands of those that already see Islam as some kind of dangerous and corrupting foreign menace.

How does that education work if your parents can sent you to school in clothes that will close you off to any normal interaction with teachers or other kids. Or does not allow you to interact with men. When your parents already make clear to you that you are lesser then others and need to be removed from normal interaction with society.

And again with the playing into the hands of the Islamophobes, ignoring that a majority of Muslims support this ban as seen in the stats earlier posted from France, and also seen in anecdotal posts from Muslims in this very thread. Allowing it is playing into the hands of ultra-conservatives who want to do away with our values of equality and women's rights.

Take another look at this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4KpvAtqwYbA&t=634s

How would you explain to that woman that her choices are illegitimate and should be illegal? Why do you feel entitled to make decisions for her? How can you tell me you take her seriously and respect her as an adult if you then go and deny that she can make decisions for herself. And please refrain from calling her indoctrinated or a victim or whatever. You are absolutely entitled to see her that way but you also have to acknowledge that she does not have to agree. And in that case her word supersedes yours. I believe Renee Zellweger is the victim of a culture and industry that reduces women to nothing but their looks and then shames them for feeling insecure or acting on those pressures. I think she is the victim of an industry and society that marginalizes and penalizes aging women. That doesn't mean that Zellweger sees herself like that. It doesn't mean that I can dismiss or ridicule her behaviour or punish her for it. Why can't you afford very conservative muslim women the same respect?

My words don't supersede hers. But the nations law does, and everyone is equal under the law. Because I want Muslim women to be respected and able to stand up for themselves, I support banning a tool that is used to keep them down and under the influence of their family or husband.

 

[Audioboxer]

Here's how I see it,

Its about freedom. Should one have the freedom to dress full veil if they choose?

Who are they hurting if they choose to do this? Is anyone physically harmed?


Or is this really a culture clash and ideologue battle?

Edit : I hit a parallel because one could argue about KKK sheets in the same manner. This stuff is so damn touchy

Well how many people dressed in white KKK garb do we see selling us a coffee in Starbucks or strolling into a bank or jewellers? lol

 

[Helznicht]

Seems like a weird law to me. I do not really see any real difference in oppression between women having to wear a veil or having to wear a hijab. There are some women that will prefer to wear a burka, there are some that prefer to wear a hijab. There are men that force the hijab onto women that prefer not to wear a hijab, and there are men that force the burka onto women that prefer not to wear a burka.

In Germany and most democratic states, there are already laws in place that the women who feel oppressed can use to get them out of their situation. And I do not feel German government is the best party to analyze what the Quran directs to its followers.

 

[Pusherman]

Are there really any atheist women who converted to Islam and wear the burka (not the hijab but the actual burka)? Show me that such women even exist.


I don't know, why should your opinion matter? This is a discussion forum.


But you don't actually know that.


Are you a Muslim woman who wears a Burka? Because if not, you just said your own opinion is irrelevant.


A politician who agrees with Pusherman = cool
A politician who is actually Muslim who doesn't agree with Pusherman = Uncle Tom

K.

I'm absolutely amazed at how little you get my posts. Let's go through this shall we:

First of all, you got me. Most of the articles and videos I can currently find mention women converting from another religion to Islam and wearing the face-veil. In others the woman is just called a convert. So I guess I can't find an ex-atheist wearing a face-veil right now. Even the woman from the dutch TV-show was nominally a catholic before her conversion. So I guess we can just dismiss their decisions, right. No way a convert from another religion could make a legitimate decision for herself.

Next, nowhere in this thread did I say that my personal opinion mattered. My personal opinion is that modesty rules, all of 'em, are patriarchal and sexist. I think a face-veil is especially egregious in that regard. But like I said, I'm not a woman wearing a face-veil so my opinion doesn't mean shit. What I advocate in this thread is listening to the face-veil wearing women speaking out against a ban. I'm saying our opinions matter less than the opinions of women wearing a face-veil. If they demonstrate that they wear a veil voluntarily why should we be entitled to tell them differently or forbid them from making that decision?

I feel pretty secure in my assertion that education and inclusivity do more than a ban in fighting abuse but you're right. I haven't presented any evidence. You are the one supporting a ban however so you should be the one proving that such a far-reaching device is necessary in this case. So necessary in fact that it would warrant dismissing the concerns of women affected by the ban.

And finally, my point about Trudeau wasn't that people that agree with me are right and people that disagree with me are wrong. What I was trying to say was that Trudeau is not known to play along with the far-right. He is not known for cheap political tricks aimed at attracting racist voters. Compare that to Merkel who obviously introduced this ban because she was afraid the far-right would siphon off too many votes in next year's election. This ban is quite clearly a cynical attempt at denying those on the right of Merkel an avenue of attack next year. I am saying that Trudeau and his ideas seem more genuine. I have more faith in someone like Trudeau or Clinton actually being interested in minorities than politicians here in Europe, many of whom are quite ready to throw minorities under the bus to appeal to the Le Pen/Wilders/AfD voters.

A conservative Muslim with an opinion is now demonizing Muslims. How does that logic work?

And the bolded says the rest. You think your way of thinking is the only correct one and everyone else should not have an opinion about it. You are set in your path of thinking, closed off to any other argument made in this thread. Your only response has been: it is their choice. But lots of things that you could classify as someones choice is illegal, because it has a wider impact on society or can be used to hurt people. We constantly give up some freedoms because it is for the greater good.

Look, I've tried to illustrate that their are two main ways of arguing for this ban. One, people argue that this ban is about fighting oppression and misogyny and that it is mostly about the women wearing a face-veil. I've tried to show that this is a very flawed approach to supporting a ban on the face-veil. As much as we might believe the face-veil is misogynistic and oppressive we have to accept that there are women wearing a face-veil that don't see it that way. Dismissing these women as indoctrinated or crazy or 'idiots' is incredibly condescending and patronizing and not at all progressive. And ignoring those women or shoving them aside shows pretty clearly that the people using this way of arguing aren't actually all that interested or concerned about the women wearing a face-veil. To use an example, the dude that put me on his ignore list eventually admitted that he believed he knew better why those women wore a face-veil than the women themselves. He literally said 'I know why they wear it and I don't respect it.' It just goes to show that he had no real interest in those women. I think that's not a feminist or progressive way of acting.

Now in response to some of my posts people started arguing in the second main way to support a face-veil ban. They start saying that the ban isn't about the women themselves but about other things. Public safety for example or the conditions of living together. In my opinion those kinds of arguments aren't good grounds for a general ban. The French government basically used the three aforementioned arguments when their ban was brought to the ECHR. They argued it was because of gender equality, roughly what I described above, public safety and the conditions for living together. The ECHR found only the last reason sufficient enough. I happen to disagree with that argument too. And I know I'm not alone. A general ban would never survive the United States courts because they take civil liberties very seriously. And I agree with the American way of thinking when it comes to civil liberties.

A major problem in this debate is that supporters of the ban dishonestly switch between the two ways of arguing for the ban whenever the discussion gets too difficult. So people keep referring to gender equality but when I show them women demonstrating that they wear a face-veil voluntarily and defending their right to do so they quickly say that their are other reasons to support a face-veil ban. I think people are easily swayed by the first argument for a ban because they have a hard time seeing things from the viewpoint of a muslim woman voluntarily wearing one and because they might have some hidden or not so hidden biases against Islam. Then when they get confronted with such a woman they don't know how to react but are unwilling to move away from a face-veil ban.

A lot of people will disagree. Turkey is one of the most secular nations in the Muslim world. They should be applauded for for that. Although things are heading a different direction now for a bit.

Oppression is one of the defining features of Turkey from the very start. I don't want to derail the discussion too much but the main difference is that currently it is the Islamist wielding the tools of oppression while for the longest time Islamists (and communists/socialists and kurds) were mainly the victims of oppression in Turkey. Ataturk set the stage for today's problems by forcing westernization and secularization from top-down.

 

[Chairman Yang]

Turkey is only problematic by European developed-country standards. Compare it with other Muslim countries and it's still leaps and bounds ahead, specifically because of its forced secularization.

The methods may have been immoral, but I think it's clear that they weren't ineffective.

 

[ClosingADoor]

Look, I've tried to illustrate that their are two main ways of arguing for this ban. One, people argue that this ban is about fighting oppression and misogyny and that it is mostly about the women wearing a face-veil. I've tried to show that this is a very flawed approach to supporting a ban on the face-veil. As much as we might believe the face-veil is misogynistic and oppressive we have to accept that there are women wearing a face-veil that don't see it that way. Dismissing these women as indoctrinated or crazy or 'idiots' is incredibly condescending and patronizing and not at all progressive. And ignoring those women or shoving them aside shows pretty clearly that the people using this way of arguing aren't actually all that interested or concerned about the women wearing a face-veil. To use an example, the dude that put me on his ignore list eventually admitted that he believed he knew better why those women wore a face-veil than the women themselves. He literally said 'I know why they wear it and I don't respect it.' It just goes to show that he had no real interest in those women. I think that's not a feminist or progressive way of acting.

Now in response to some of my posts people started arguing in the second main way to support a face-veil ban. They start saying that the ban isn't about the women themselves but about other things. Public safety for example or the conditions of living together. In my opinion those kinds of arguments aren't good grounds for a general ban. The French government basically used the three aforementioned arguments when their ban was brought to the ECHR. They argued it was because of gender equality, roughly what I described above, public safety and the conditions for living together. The ECHR found only the last reason sufficient enough. I happen to disagree with that argument too. And I know I'm not alone. A general ban would never survive the United States courts because they take civil liberties very seriously. And I agree with the American way of thinking when it comes to civil liberties.

A major problem in this debate is that supporters of the ban dishonestly switch between the two ways of arguing for the ban whenever the discussion gets too difficult. So people keep referring to gender equality but when I show them women demonstrating that they wear a face-veil voluntarily and defending their right to do so they quickly say that their are other reasons to support a face-veil ban. I think people are easily swayed by the first argument for a ban because they have a hard time seeing things from the viewpoint of a muslim woman voluntarily wearing one and because they might have some hidden or not so hidden biases against Islam. Then when they get confronted with such a woman they don't know how to react but are unwilling to move away from a face-veil ban.

I never said that there weren't women wearing it out of choice. I never called them crazy or idiots. I just put other issues before their choice to wear this specific thing, to contribute to solving larger problems, which is something we do all the time. I think that is a progressive thing, since sometimes you have to go against what some people want in order to push forward a progressive agenda. You will get pushback and some will not be happy, but it might be for the best.

We are not talking about the United States here, so I have little interest what their Supreme Court says. The US has a different set of laws, some I agree with, some I don't. For example the KKK would never be allowed to exist in that form in current day Europe, and a ton of stuff that is being said there would fly in the face of our hate speech laws here. I'm a bit conflicted about which is better, but that is with a lot of things and overall Europe seems to be doing fine with the current set of laws surrounding that subject.

You say supporters switch "dishonestly" - whatever that may mean - but your only argument this whole thread has been "some people want to wear it." While that is true, it does not always overrule the other issues involved, of which at least one is determined to be a very valid one as ruled by the European Court as you pointed out. Others might not be enough for a total ban for the court, but are valid in a lot of circumstances, for instance where security is necessary, where you need to see someones face, and where covering your face will go against regulations.

Oppression is one of the defining features of Turkey from the very start. I don't want to derail the discussion too much but the main difference is that currently it is the Islamist wielding the tools of oppression while for the longest time Islamists (and communists/socialists and kurds) were mainly the victims of oppression in Turkey. Ataturk set the stage for today's problems by forcing westernization and secularization from top-down.

If you think that Turkey would be better off without that approach, I think we can point to a lot of other nearby countries where that didn't work out.