|
In a likely futile attempt to quarantine this awful discussion from the Europol thread lets talk about the Burqa, Niqab and, if you're a real glutton for punishment, the Hijab and the efficacy of the laws of countries like France that have tried to ban their public use. Quick recap from a lousy newspaper if you need a reminder on its status around the world: quote:Burka bans: The countries where Muslim women can't wear veils. Its probably worth noting that this shows its a bit of an issue even in countries that are mostly Muslim. Egypt and Tunisia have also had controversies surrounding the issue. So what is it goons? Is there any way to justify the government coming in and telling people what they can and cannot wear, especially when doing so mostly just victimizes downtrodden religious minorities, creates intractable conflict over the minuscule amounts of people who actually wear these garments and makes it more difficult for said minorities to integrate into society? Alternatively does the Burka warrant much of a defense in and of itself and will allowing its use just make it easy for regressive patriarchal customs to be enforced on a segment of the population?
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2016 21:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 19:35 |
|
|
Why are you forgetting the Burkini, which is the hot topic issue right now and is a much wider form of swim wear for Muslims who wear the hijab? That's a much bigger target and wider form of discrimination than the Niqab is. Also, in a free and democratic society with civil rights, people should be free to wear what they want or choose to wear. Full stop.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2016 21:43
|
|
|
Feel free to talk about it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2016 22:09
|
|
|
Al-Saqr posted:Also, in a free and democratic society with civil rights, people should be free to wear what they want or choose to wear. Full stop. How do you feel about hate speech law?
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2016 22:13
|
|
|
A woman wearing an outfit she wants is not comparable to hate speech.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2016 22:14
|
|
|
As Europe freaks out about a tiny percentage of brown people I find myself believing more and more that the United States actually IS the greatest country on Earth. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2016 22:21
|
|
|
Please don't turn this into yet another retarded USA verses Europe thread since that is always the stupidest thing in the Universe.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2016 22:28
|
|
|
I thought the passage in the Quran that is used to justify thwe things is that a "modest woman covers" her "adornments" which might have had a different meaning at the time of writting. I might be wrong though
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2016 22:31
|
|
|
Al-Saqr posted:Also, in a free and democratic society with civil rights, people should be free to wear what they want or choose to wear. Full stop. This is a good baseline I think. Banning the burqa simply isn't the path to take; even if your end goal was to squash Islam once and for all or something like that, it's not going to be achieved by bans. Religious sectarianism isn't going to be fixed by new laws. And saying one can't wear religious symbols in certain public spaces is anathema to free expression. I do think, though, that there's no reason we can't have an exception for garments that cover the face. It seems like a legitimate public safety concern, and as long as it applies with equal felicity to all citizens, I don't see the problem. I mean, if this were the KKK we were talking about, no one would be defending their right to wear the hoods simply because they claim religious exemption to face covering laws (if indeed they would claim this, I have no idea if they would). I think a big reason there's controversy is because, even if the creation of the law were 100% sincerely motivated by a concern for public safety (which is certainly debatable), a Western, secular government decreeing the allowability of religious garments of a (big generalization) largely non-Western culture will be seen as imperialistic no matter what. Don't really have an answer here. It's just by definition going to be a contentious issue.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2016 22:32
|
|
|
I could understand if they were banned as part of a blanket law against covering the face. But it doesn't look like that's the case. It's not so much women wearing it of their own volition that is a problem. The problem is places where it is required or they face punishment. And there it's a symptom, not the originator of the problem. There I solved it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2016 22:36
|
|
|
khwarezm posted:A woman wearing an outfit she wants is not comparable to hate speech. I don't think this applies to Burqas/Hijabs/Niqabs in any way, but there is definitely some clothing that maybe shouldn't be allowed. For exactly, banning clothing with bigoted/threatening language on it might be a good thing.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2016 22:43
|
|
|
khwarezm posted:A woman wearing an outfit she wants is not comparable to hate speech. Can I wear a burquini with a problematic facebook post printed on it?
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2016 22:54
|
|
|
Ban all habits!
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2016 22:55
|
|
|
I do find it amusing France is slowly introducing a form of re-education classes. How long until camp starts?
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2016 22:57
|
|
|
7c Nickel posted:As Europe freaks out about a tiny percentage of brown people I find myself believing more and more that the United States actually IS the greatest country on Earth. America is probably one of the least racist nations on earth let that sink in
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2016 22:59
|
|
|
khwarezm posted:Please don't turn this into yet another retarded USA verses Europe thread since that is always the stupidest thing in the Universe.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2016 23:01
|
|
|
I work with Muslim immigrants every day and the hijab and burqa issues are complicated. The problem is that at both extremes people are trying to politicize a woman's body. The conservative muslim sect and liberal secularist population both see a woman's appearance as a political battleground and are trying to insert themselves into it. Honestly, I do not think the issue is really one of religious liberty or religious persecution at all as much as its part of an ongoing desire to legislate the female body.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2016 23:01
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:I work with Muslim immigrants every day and the hijab and burqa issues are complicated. The problem is that at both extremes people are trying to politicize a woman's body. The conservative muslim sect and liberal secularist population both see a woman's appearance as a political battleground and are trying to insert themselves into it. Honestly, I do not think the issue is really one of religious liberty or religious persecution at all as much as its part of an ongoing desire to legislate the female body.  Liberal westerners' prescription that all female bodies should be displayed for their delectation is but another manifestation of the patriarchy.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2016 23:13
|
|
|
TomViolence posted:
There is also a very real white savior complex where western liberals think they can somehow usher in the liberalization of Islam through external mandate
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2016 23:15
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:There is also a very real white savior complex where western liberals think they can somehow usher in the liberalization of Islam through external mandate I really recommend you read a book by Joseph Massad titled 'Islam in Liberalism' which goes into GREAT detail about this very topic:- https://www.amazon.co.uk/Islam-Liberalism-Joseph-Massad/dp/022620622X
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2016 23:19
|
|
|
If you outlaw burqas then only outlaws will have burqas. The only way to stop a bad woman with a burqa is a good woman with a burqa. Burqas don't kill people, people do. Ok, more seriously, what is the argument for banning head coverings besides "brown people do it, ergo bad"?
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2016 23:23
|
|
|
Al-Saqr posted:I really recommend you read a book by Joseph Massad titled 'Islam in Liberalism' which goes into GREAT detail about this very topic:- Thanks, I will check it out. I deal with this issue every day and its something I struggle with. When I first started working with Muslim immigrants I definitely had a savior complex of "I am gonna show these Muslim women the value of Western liberalism!" but over time I realized Western liberals objectify Islamic women as much as we accuse Islamic men of doing. Currently, my position is that I think Islamic culture has toxic ideas about women, but Islamic women are also capable to fighting this battle themselves. Our role as western participants is to offer support when asked for and act as good stewards of our own ideas rather than attempting to enforce them through mandate.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2016 23:24
|
|
|
Legislating what women wear in service of feminism and liberal tolerance is loving dumb and counterproductive no matter how you slice it. Especially in France where it seems like such exercises are couched in crowdpleasing racism rather than any kind of social good.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2016 23:29
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Ok, more seriously, what is the argument for banning head coverings besides "brown people do it, ergo bad"? From their perspective it is about creating an environment as hospitable to secular ideas of women's rights as possible. The theory is that by banning hijab and burqa you are creating an environment in which women are not under social pressure from the men in their culture to cover themselves because it is, in fact, a legal impossibility. Therefore, by making it legally impermissible to cover themselves, they will force immigrant cultures to adapt to their cultural mandate on femininity. Basically they think they can drag conservative Muslim views on female sexuality into the 21st century kicking and screaming. In reality though they are simply fetishizing the female body as well and mandating male gaze onto Muslim women just as much as anyone else.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2016 23:29
|
|
|
Al-Saqr posted:I really recommend you read a book by Joseph Massad titled 'Islam in Liberalism' which goes into GREAT detail about this very topic:- I can't really trust Joseph Massad's take on this issue given his homophobia apologia. He's literally not even willing to defend gay rights groups being murdered in the middle east because they're promoting evil western imperialism. Here's a critique of his nutty views coming from a source that is not anti-Islam. http://ibishblog.com/2010/02/04/joseph_massad_homophobia_gay_rights_and_categories_modernity/ I've seen you namedrop all sorts of these supposed moderate Muslim sources and every single time it's taken like 2 minutes to google their horribly regressive views, in this case I was already aware beforehand. I know there are actual moderate Muslims you could cite which makes this even funnier. MaxxBot fucked around with this message at 23:37 on Aug 18, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2016 23:30
|
|
|
Has anyone here read Snow by Orhan Pamuk? It deals with subtext of Turkey banning hijab to advertise themselves as "european" rather than "Muslim" in international politics. I have had some great discussions with my Turkish students about the book.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2016 23:35
|
|
|
I tend to ask the following questions when I see laws like this: 1) Why is the law being introduced in the first place? 2) Is it covering something already covered by other laws? 3) How is it enforced? 4) What is the punishment for breaking it? 5) What are the indirect consequences of the law being followed? 6) How can it be intentionally misapplied by the state/law enforcement and what are the mechanisms in place to prevent it? 7) How can it be bypassed/sabotaged/loopholed by people who want to avoid its consequences? I'm worried about the interaction between 3 and 6, since it can (in Europe) easily become an avenue of racism. 5 poses a problem since the law is effectively targeting presumed victims of religious oppression. I guess you can pull the quarantine argument and say that it's preventing public acceptance of an oppressive measure, but that poses problems of its own. 4 also poses problems. If the penalty is prison, the law is utterly barbaric. However, if the punishment is monetary, that provides a pretty dangerous interaction with 7. What are the odds of a rich "benefactor" offering to pay off all the fines, de facto putting a lot of people in debt to a person with questionable intent after an arguably hostile action taken against them by the government? If the assumption is that this law is intended to fight fundamentalism, it's extremely naive to think that fundamentalism won't try to fight back in a way that attempts to make the law backfire. Honestly, I think banning the Burkini and the Hijab is utter idiocy. I'm not fond of the full body covering clothing, though, and I have no idea how to ensure that women aren't being forced to wear it due to the nature of family abuse and the extreme difficulty of getting victims to admit to being victims without putting them in danger. That having been said, the idea of the law kinda reeks of a government trying to wash its hands of its own failures through a wide-reaching measure that strikes something corellated to the problem that isn't really its cause. Not to mention the inherent paradox of trying to protect womens' rights by proscribing what women are(n't) allowed to wear.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2016 00:07
|
|
|
my dad posted:I'm not fond of the full body covering clothing, though, and I have no idea how to ensure that women aren't being forced to wear it due to the nature of family abuse and the extreme difficulty of getting victims to admit to being victims without putting them in danger. Unfortunately, there is no external way to solve this problem. Fortunately, Muslim women are gaining the self-empowerment necessary to fight against treatment they consider unfair. The issue is that we, as westerners, have no place in inserting ourselves in a specifically Muslim cultural conflict. We do more harm to the modernization of conservative Islam by interfering than we do by simply sheparding our own values.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2016 00:11
|
|
|
Let's take bans off the table and look at other ways to stop what their best intentions are meant to prevent. Presumably, this is women who don't want to wear the burqa but face domestic violence or other forms of family or community retaliation if they sneak out with regular clothing Do we have any estimates on how much this is the case? Ytlaya posted:For exactly, banning clothing with bigoted/threatening language on it might be a good thing. Like this shirt? 
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2016 00:18
|
|
|
Stinky_Pete posted:Let's take bans off the table and look at other ways to stop what their best intentions are meant to prevent. Part of the issue is that we imagine the motivation to wear burqa is entirely external. We like to think there are all these women who want to be free but their relatives keep them from it. This is a superficial understanding of cultural mandate. Part of the issue is that western culture has no method to deal with women who do not want to wear hijab or burqa but feel personal pressure to do so. We imagine the pressure is always external of the woman herself. The reality is, though, that many women pressure themselves to fit to these religious and cultural norms. Its not as easy as shutting down external forces because many Muslim women feel personal pressure to conform to their cultural expectations. Its not unique to Islam at all either. How many fundamentalist christian women internalize patriarchal mandates and hold themselves accountable to them?
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2016 00:25
|
|
|
MaxxBot posted:I can't really trust Joseph Massad's take on this issue given his homophobia apologia. He's literally not even willing to defend gay rights groups being murdered in the middle east because they're promoting evil western imperialism. Here's a critique of his nutty views coming from a source that is not anti-Islam. First off, you're wrong. and I will gladly fight you on this topic. but outside of this thread. It's really unfair to quote him on this topic without also providing his responses:- http://www.resetdoc.org/story/00000001530 And also, there's a big difference between homophobia and critiquing the missionary tactics used by western LGBT advocacy organizations on the middle east, much like how there's a big difference between hating women and critiquing the missionary tactics used by american feminists. his book isnt a screed against gay people it's a critique of how the the narrative on homosexuality in the middle east is treated and exploited by western imperialism, first when colonialism happened that's when outright homophobia and anti-gay laws was introduced to the middle east and now the situation is reversed, the same missionary tactics that introduced homosexuality as punishable by law is now seeking to impose a specific norm and identity onto gay people in the middle east. academically studying and critiquing identity politics and tactics is not the same at all as being against gays. The writer in the very same article you linked said 'it's ridiculous to say he's putting forth a homophobic argument'. also, that 'Nutty regressive homophobia' book earned him full tenure at Columbia university. So I'll take his word over yours any day. Al-Saqr fucked around with this message at 00:35 on Aug 19, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2016 00:31
|
|
|
Also Al-Saqr, how can you appeal to western liberalism at one turn and then appeal to cultural relativism at another?Al-Saqr posted:Also, in a free and democratic society with civil rights, people should be free to wear what they want or choose to wear. Full stop. I agree you should be able to wear whatever you want, and also sleep with whoever you want without persecution as long as they're a consenting adult. Joseph Massad definitely does not agree. You seem to be selectively choosing between cultural relativism and western liberalism depending on context. I could easily make a cultural relativist argument for banning the Burqa but I won't because I'm not a cultural relativist. EDIT: Do you have a specific response to the critique from Hussein Ibish? How can you defend the fact that he attacked gay rights activists in Istanbul and opposes gay rights groups in the middle east? Do you agree with his bizarre notion that same-sex attracted people did not face any persecution before the modern concept of sexual orientation? MaxxBot fucked around with this message at 00:36 on Aug 19, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2016 00:33
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:Part of the issue is that we imagine the motivation to wear burqa is entirely external. We like to think there are all these women who want to be free but their relatives keep them from it. This is a superficial understanding of cultural mandate. Part of the issue is that western culture has no method to deal with women who do not want to wear hijab or burqa but feel personal pressure to do so. We imagine the pressure is always external of the woman herself. The reality is, though, that many women pressure themselves to fit to these religious and cultural norms. Its not as easy as shutting down external forces because many Muslim women feel personal pressure to conform to their cultural expectations. Its not unique to Islam at all either. How many fundamentalist christian women internalize patriarchal mandates and hold themselves accountable to them? I imagine this is precisely the point of the people who follow the quarantine argument, though. Women who follow this mandate indirectly contribute to other women in similar circumstances gaining a sense of guilt for not following that same mandate - removing their ability to follow it in the first place could in theory prevent that. However, that, again, goes into "I know what's best for you, silly woman" teritorry, and has a number of other nasty implications.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2016 00:35
|
|
|
MaxxBot posted:I agree you should be able to wear whatever you want, and also sleep with whoever you want without persecution as long as they're a consenting adult. Joseph Massad definitely does not agree. You seem to be selectively choosing between cultural relativism and western liberalism depending on context. I could easily make a cultural relativist argument for banning the Burqa but I won't because I'm not a cultural relativist. I think you're being unfair. This is not a binary between relativism and liberalism. There is a very real issue in the fact that homosexuality as a construct of identity is very much a western invention. "Homosexual" is a cultural idea that is less than a century old. Inevitably, there are going to be issues of cultural appropriation and influence when specifically cultural concepts interact with cultures that do not share these concepts. Nothing seems to be suggest that Massad agrees with or endorses the persecution of homosexuals. He just seems to feel the delineation of homosexual identity is an alien concept. To be honest, I am not experienced enough to make a judgement about whether he is right or wrong in this declaration. However, I do not think it is fair to suggest this cultural relativism.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2016 00:39
|
|
|
MaxxBot posted:Also Al-Saqr, how can you appeal to western liberalism at one turn and then appeal to cultural relativism at another? It's really simple. I can beleive that gay people in the middle east are free to be gay and free to identify as gay while writing academic books and articles on the societal trends and forces and analyze the history of social narratives and trends and critique western missionary organizations and advocacy groups of different flavors and what impact their form of identity politics might have good or bad in relation to their target audience. there's no conflict here. quote:Joseph Massad definitely does not agree. Prove it. oh wait you cant, because that's not at all what he's arguing. If you want to take this over to the LGBT politics thread, then do that. I think we've derailed this thread.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2016 00:40
|
|
|
If you put more energy into criticizing gay rights groups in Islamic countries for their western imperialism than you do towards criticism of the governments that literally want to murder them then you're a homophobe, sorry. This shithead can sit back and make arguments about imperialism while these people are killed, that is sick.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2016 00:41
|
|
|
Al-Saqr posted:Prove it. oh wait you cant, because that's not at all what he's arguing. Do you actually believe the BS argument he makes here? He's defending a clear-cut and well known instance of homophobia by the Egyptian government. http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/2007/12/joseph-massad-thinks-gay-movement-is.html quote:As one illustration of his thesis, Massad chooses the "Queen Boat" incident of May 11, 2001, when a horde of truncheon-wielding Egyptian police officers boarded a Nile River cruise known as the Queen Boat, a floating disco for gay men. Fifty-two men were arrested, and many of them were tortured and sexually humiliated in prison.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2016 00:45
|
|
|
MaxxBot posted:If you put more energy into criticizing gay rights groups in Islamic countries for their western imperialism than you do towards criticism of the governments that literally want to murder them then you're a homophobe, sorry. This shithead can sit back and make arguments about imperialism while these people are killed, that is sick. I don't disagree, but do you recognize the difference between executing someone for a homosexual act and executing someone for being a homosexual?
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2016 00:45
|
|
|
MaxxBot posted:If you put more energy into criticizing gay rights groups in Islamic countries for their western imperialism than you do towards criticism of the governments that literally want to murder them then you're a homophobe, sorry. This shithead can sit back and make arguments about imperialism while these people are killed, that is sick. "People are dying because of politics. It's sick and wrong to politicise their deaths."
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2016 00:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 19:35 |
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:I don't disagree, but do you recognize the difference between executing someone for a homosexual act and executing someone for being a homosexual? There's really no meaningful distinction because almost everyone who has a sexual orientation eventually acts on that orientation, it's one of the most powerful biological desires out there. Either way, there's no logical reason for a government to persecute consenting adults for their sexual activity.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2016 00:52
|
|