Banning the Burqa?

[Jinkies]

I'm not really seeing the "it's just an article of clothing" argument here. The burqa is a tool of oppression. I admit that it's only a small part of a much larger disease, but I still thinking banning the burqa would be a positive. Any step away from a culture that denigrates and systematically oppresses women is a good step.

I saw an argument upthread about how customs and religion should be respected. Honor killings fit into both of those categories, and I'm pretty sure very few people here respect those. I have no respect for customs and religion except where they provide a solid argument as to why they are worthwhile. (Since people always tend to completely miss the point of things like this, I'm only pointing out faulty logic, not saying that the burqa is as bad as honor killings.)

[Tiberius]

Yes Tiberius...men have had "Freedom of expression" for over 2000 years dear.... No More!

---

The point being is that the insistence of the use of the "Burqa" robs women OF the 'Freedom of Expression' That is the whole point of the "burqa" ...woman=Non thing/ Possession.

With all due respect, that is not the "whole" point of the burqa. You've read the Wikipedia article (I hope), so you should know better. Further, I've already stated I do not support someone forcing the burqa onto a women who is unwilling to wear it. That is oppression, and I agree it should be illegal. However, there are plenty of cases where Muslim women wear the burqa out of choice, or who submit to their husbands and are required to wear it. Neither of those situations are oppressive, and you in fact rob them of their freedom of expression by demanding they not wear it.

I'm not really seeing the "it's just an article of clothing" argument here. The burqa is a tool of oppression. I admit that it's only a small part of a much larger disease, but I still thinking banning the burqa would be a positive. Any step away from a culture that denigrates and systematically oppresses women is a good step.

No, the burqa is not a tool of oppression. It can be used as such, but if you actually look at the history of it, you will see that it is never intended to be oppressive in the Islamic faith. This argument also fails (as I noted above) when you consider the number of Islamic women who choose to wear the burqa.

I saw an argument upthread about how customs and religion should be respected. Honor killings fit into both of those categories, and I'm pretty sure very few people here respect those. I have no respect for customs and religion except where they provide a solid argument as to why they are worthwhile. (Since people always tend to completely miss the point of things like this, I'm only pointing out faulty logic, not saying that the burqa is as bad as honor killings.)

The only faulty logic is your own. If you read my actual arguments, rather than making a strawman out of them, you'll see that I made exceptions for customs and religious acts that violated another's freedom against their will. To clarify in lieu of your example: honor killings should only be tolerated if the person being killed agrees to it. They have a right to life, but only they have the right to choose how and when to end it.

[NoMoreFaith]

I'm not really seeing the "it's just an article of clothing" argument here. The burqa is a tool of oppression. I admit that it's only a small part of a much larger disease, but I still thinking banning the burqa would be a positive. Any step away from a culture that denigrates and systematically oppresses women is a good step.

I saw an argument upthread about how customs and religion should be respected. Honor killings fit into both of those categories, and I'm pretty sure very few people here respect those. I have no respect for customs and religion except where they provide a solid argument as to why they are worthwhile. (Since people always tend to completely miss the point of things like this, I'm only pointing out faulty logic, not saying that the burqa is as bad as honor killings.)

I think perhaps, you're missing the point on faulty logic, if you admit to a strawman but still claim its a valid point.

To clarify the "just an article of clothing" argument, it would be rooted in golden rule morality.
I would not want a government dictating how I should dress, if I want to wear a ninja outfit I should be able to. From the point of view of the Burqa, while it is enforced in many households, many do so willingly also, and I would not stoop to the religious level and enforce a clothing code upon anyone.

The only question that is relevant to the debate, is whether the Burqa causes harm, and the potential relief of harm outweighs the harm of banning such items.

I dislike Burqa's, I dislike what they represent, but it is simply is none of my business what someone wears. As long as there is provision in their "tradition" to comply with security requirements where necessary, it really does not bother me.

Its a matter of perspective, if they believe showing their face denigrates women, in much the same way we feel covering it denigrates them, its more or less a stalemate in terms of relative morality.

[KichigaiNeko]

My argument is from the fact that they are not welcome in their country of origin and have no historic root in the "Western Nations". So why support them? Just as Prince Harry can wear a Nazi uniform to a party why should someone not be able to wear a 'Burqa'? Is spurious to all that the 'Burqa' implies...the abuse and subjugation of women

[kılıç_mehmet]

My argument is from the fact that they are not welcome in their country of origin and have no historic root in the "Western Nations". So why support them? Just as Prince Harry can wear a Nazi uniform to a party why should someone not be able to wear a 'Burqa'? Is spurious to all that the 'Burqa' implies...the abuse and subjugation of women

They are not welcome anywhere. Only the most bydlo of people force their wives to wear this type of thing.
And I've yet to see someone who has had made the pilgrimage to even suggest their wives to dress extra modestly.

[KichigaiNeko]

For once in your life kilic...I agree with you. These are NOT freedom of expression...they are reasons for oppression in all the countries they are LAW in. To support this behaviour is to support the oppression and subjugation of women; to reduce men to that of a base farmer or less.

No... these things must cease to be....ANYWHERE!

[Jinkies]

I'm not really seeing the "it's just an article of clothing" argument here. The burqa is a tool of oppression. I admit that it's only a small part of a much larger disease, but I still thinking banning the burqa would be a positive. Any step away from a culture that denigrates and systematically oppresses women is a good step.

No, the burqa is not a tool of oppression. It can be used as such, but if you actually look at the history of it, you will see that it is never intended to be oppressive in the Islamic faith.

Oh, I'm sorry. I forgot that we live in the past here. Guess I better break out the history books to know what the weather will be like today!

Joking aside, I could give a shit about its origins. I care about how it's used today. It's used to oppress women right now. That's what counts, not history lessons.

This argument also fails (as I noted above) when you consider the number of Islamic women who choose to wear the burqa.

Plenty of women also choose to stay with a man who beats them. Plenty of people choose to smoke crack. I don't see how some number of people making what I consider a poor choice makes my argument fail. Could you clarify how it does?

I saw an argument upthread about how customs and religion should be respected. Honor killings fit into both of those categories, and I'm pretty sure very few people here respect those. I have no respect for customs and religion except where they provide a solid argument as to why they are worthwhile. (Since people always tend to completely miss the point of things like this, I'm only pointing out faulty logic, not saying that the burqa is as bad as honor killings.)

The only faulty logic is your own. If you read my actual arguments, rather than making a strawman out of them, you'll see that I made exceptions for customs and religious acts that violated another's freedom against their will. To clarify in lieu of your example: honor killings should only be tolerated if the person being killed agrees to it. They have a right to life, but only they have the right to choose how and when to end it.

You made a declarative statement. I'll repost the posts of yours that I could find on the subject of respecting customs and relgion. I may have missed another post of yours on this subject, though, so feel free to let me know if I did (your initial claim will still be imbecilic, though):

Yes, when needed then of course face coverings should be removed, but customs and religions should be respected.

Your customs should be respected, just as anyone's should be. Obviously there are exceptions, there always are, but for the most part, people's customs are their own, and shouldn't have to be torn apart. Your attitude of "tolerance yes, respect no" doesn't conform with your final demand that the religious can "go take a hike" if their clothing is banned. That isn't at all tolerant.

Please let me know how I manufactured a straw man argument here. I'm fucking dying to know. You made a moronic statement and I called you on it. Calling you on your bullshit is not a straw man argument. I can link you to the Wikipedia article on straw man arguments if it'll help you educate yourself, though.

Customs are just things people do. The fact that something is a custom gives you absolutely no hint as to whether it is a good thing or a bad thing. When you say customs should be respected, you're stating that we should respect things people do purely because people do them. It's ridiculous, and a statement like that has no business coming from one who presumes to be logical and rational. We should weigh people customs using logic and reason, then decide which customs are worthy of respect. If you simply respect everything, your respect is worthless.

[kılıç_mehmet]

For once in your life kilic...I agree with you. These are NOT freedom of expression...they are reasons for oppression in all the countries they are LAW in. To support this behaviour is to support the oppression and subjugation of women; to reduce men to that of a base farmer or less.

No... these things must cease to be....ANYWHERE!

Well, I really can't say that any lawful action must be taken against them though.
I only oppose the wearing of such clothing, or any type of religious clothing for people who work as civil servants. Civil servants must be dressed in a way to be completely neutral in all terms.
This is what secularism requires.

In cultural terms, I oppose the wearing of such arab clothes completely. Turkish women should be dressed in modern garments, although must also take heed of the minimum standards of modesty, in accordance with the vision of a strong, and well-educated Turkish woman that our founder had in mind.
However, how strong, or how well-educated can a woman, who wears things like the new types of arab-styled headcoverings be? They cannot even participate in sports with the types of headgear they strap on themselves, nowadays called "turbans" although they are nothing like the turbans worn by our ancestors back in the days.

In religious terms, I do understand that some women do want to be in accordance with their religion, but this has traditionally been implemented as a loose headcovering that did not disturb the women in their daily lives by Turks around the globe. Only the women in urban areas have worn the whole body covering called the "jilbab" or burka(a wrong term, this term is only used for the whole body coverings in Afghanistan), as they did not work, or were required to leave the house on a daily basis.

[KichigaiNeko]

Which is another point entirely. It has very little to do with "Freedom of expression" an more to do with the oppression of females. Either way it is an archaic and backward mode of dress and those who "preferred" it should see a counsellor for agoraphobia

[kılıç_mehmet]

Which is another point entirely. It has very little to do with "Freedom of expression" an more to do with the oppression of females. Either way it is an archaic and backward mode of dress and those who "preferred" it should see a counsellor for agoraphobia

Well, I never saw clothing as a "way of expression" in the first place, given that daily clothes are in question. Only angsty teenagers do this.

It really doesn't concern me if people wear jilbabs. They only get more and more attention towards themselves when they do this. Here, in a moslem country, they're too much of a rare sight, to be honest.
Most people who oppose them do so due to them being branded as a threat to secularism. I however, disagree. Some fundamentalists with small brains can never hope to change the system with just wearing archaic arab clothing.
Whatever they do, they do to their own. Thanks to them, their wives are not able to participate in the daily life most other Turkish women can.
Although this can sometimes be a blessing for some who just don't want to leave the house, and can show their jilbabs as a reason, I'm sure that these are the products of a very troubled mind. We here believe in the morals of our women. Although again, modesty is an important issue for us, we do not feel the need to protect our women from the attentions of other men via dressing them up like these. It's best that we leave that to the women themselves, as this is what our society was envisioned to be.
Morally pure for all sexes, where no man would eye the woman of another, while no woman would return the attentions of a man while she was with another.
I guess it's only fair if we do not associate morality with dressing in a jilbab.

---

Besides, in ancient arabian society, the Jilbab had an entirely different connection.
I could state that it was something that was only available to wear by nobility.
It was made available to the common freewoman after the Moslem religion archived widespread acceptance.
It's purpose was to demonstrate women that they did not need to leave the house, and that their husbands would take care of their every need, something which was only available to the noblewomen of arabian society.
It did not gained the same acceptance for many other non-arab moslem people, as women were still required to work there, plough the fields, tend to animals, take care of other duties outside of the house. Some even were required to be able to use weapons and firearms. How can a woman move freely outside while wearing something as a jilbab?
Obviously, arab women were not required to do any of these. They only needed to tend the house, and clean it, cook food, and take care of the children.