The niqab

[Ben Davis]

Those that oppose it being banned, quite often hate the mechanism that will ban it, or will hate any form of control.

Yes, I hate the mechanism that would ban it because that mechanism would be 'the infringement of the right to self-expression'. I recognise the need for certain forms of control and applaud the balance of freedoms, generally, that have been achieved in the UK. That doesn't mean there aren't improvements to be made but on the whole, I think we've got it right.

'Freedom' in this society is very limited, there are more things you can't do than those you can!

In the UK, freedom's not 'very' limited but there are sensible limits. Overall, far more things are allowed than are prohibited, here. Like I said before, public nudity is generally not allowed (there are clubs and nudist beaches though) but private nudity is legislated for (if you're nude at home and someone sees you, the watcher is in the wrong not the nude person and can even face criminal prosecution!).

It may be a religious "freedom"... but so is FGM !!!

No! Female circumcision is NOT a religious freedom. It can be a religious/cultural instruction but when it's a medically unnecessary procedure, conducted without consent, it's an unconscionable violation of bodily rights. Wearing clothes and cutting bits off people are not equivalent acts.

The Niqab is a security risk. Any dress code that guarantees one group of people anonymity is unacceptable. This has nothing to do with women or religion.

It can be a security risk, in certain situations (e.g. bike helmets in banks). That's what I mentioned before. On the whole, if someone wants to be publically anonymous, they have a right to that anonymity and it's an act of oppression to remove it, equal to the insistence that someone wears particular clothing.

The niqab is a symbol that signifies a refusal to assimilate into other cultures. A symbol that says, we will not evolve or change, but will remain a constant in history.

Not necessarily. In the main, it's a symbol of either female oppression or that someone is devoted to their religious/cultural practices.

Many who try to be tolerant towards religion and Islam in particular, accept that religion gets a “free pass” on some things, but will bite as soon as it is called “cultural”. There is an unfortunate debate on whether the niqab is required by Islam or not (there is nothing in the Quran that spells that out). So the debate goes back to religion when in fact, it has little to do with it.

Religion doesn't get a free pass from me. It needs to justify itself in the same way that every other method of social interaction does and I hold religions to the same principles & standards as secular concerns. Religious face coverings need to be examined in exactly the same way as every other type of face covering, framed by considerations of the rights of individuals to self-expression, self-determination and security.

The niqab puts the other party (non-niqabi) at a great disadvantage in any conversation.One person sees all full face expressions. One party gets a full unfettered stream of communication whereas the other limits it to audio.

Your requirement for 'full communicative interaction' is a lesser consideration than someone's right to self-expression. You might consider it inappropriate but you'd just have to learn to cope. Would you ban face tattoos because they might distract you from paying attention to what the other person's saying?

[genkaus]

It may be a religious "freedom"... but so is FGM !!!

Except, FGM is imposition of your beliefs upon others. Niqab isn't.

The Niqab is a security risk. Any dress code that guarantees one group of people anonymity is unacceptable.

Only in some situations. After all, you can wear a helmet when you are out on the streets.

The niqab is a symbol that signifies a refusal to assimilate into other cultures. A symbol that says, we will not evolve or change, but will remain a constant in history. Many who try to be tolerant towards religion and Islam in particular, accept that religion gets a “free pass” on some things, but will bite as soon as it is called “cultural”.

And why does that justify its ban? Not changing your cultural values in order to fit into other cultures is perfectly acceptable. Multi-culturalism is a sign of a developed society. Assimilation is a sign of an oppressive one.

The niqab puts the other party (non-niqabi) at a great disadvantage in any conversation.One person sees all full face expressions. One party gets a full unfettered stream of communication whereas the other limits it to audio.

Then all the non-niqabi has to do is not talk to them. I've seen plenty of women wearing a niqab in my life and I've never spoken to any of them. Its not that hard.

[Mister Agenda]

I think anything that hides a person's face should be banned in public places: motorcycle helmets (when not being worn), balaclavas, niqab, etc.

At least that's a consistent position.

---

In terms of the 'cultural imperative' to wear a veil, as it roots from misogyny, I oppose it on egalitarian principles. I advocate a 'modernisation' of islam, including more enlightenment values and that's what we're seeing in the UK; fewer and fewer muslim women wear veils and fewer and fewer men 'require their women' to wear them. Efforts need to be focussed on spreading that message, worldwide while avoiding alienating muslims by legislating against their freedom to dress as they wish.

And what we were seeing in Afghanistan prior to helping the Mujahadeen overthrow the Soviet-backed government there, and supplying them with 'kill-the-atheist' children's textbooks into the nineties, which were also used in Pakistan. Modernization of Islam is possible, but we never seem to pass up an opportunity to fuck it up.

---

It has to be banned !

Those that oppose it being banned, quite often hate the mechanism that will ban it, or will hate any form of control.
'Freedom' in this society is very limited, there are more things you can't do than those you can!

But the full face veil is wrong on many fronts.

It may be a religious "freedom"... but so is FGM !!!

I wouldn't call FGM a religious freedom, but even if it is, no one is arguing that religious freedoms should be limitless.

The main reasons for a ban are...

The Niqab is a security risk. Any dress code that guarantees one group of people anonymity is unacceptable. This has nothing to do with women or religion.

Any dress code that singles out one group of people for not wearing a face covering when others are allowed to is unacceptable. Banning the niqab without banning ski masks, helmets, and Halloween costumes has everything to do with women and religion. An adequate security compromise is to requre people with covered faces to show them to police on demand. I believe police can already do so.

The niqab is a symbol that signifies a refusal to assimilate into other cultures. A symbol that says, we will not evolve or change, but will remain a constant in history.

So what business is it of yours to use force to prevent them from wearing this symbol? Why do you give the Amish a pass, they dress funny, too.

Many who try to be tolerant towards religion and Islam in particular, accept that religion gets a “free pass” on some things, but will bite as soon as it is called “cultural”.

It's not a 'free pass'. It's treating everyone as equally in the eyes of the government as possible.

There is an unfortunate debate on whether the niqab is required by Islam or not (there is nothing in the Quran that spells that out). So the debate goes back to religion when in fact, it has little to do with it.

Would it be better if the debate were not taking place?

The niqab puts the other party (non-niqabi) at a great disadvantage in any conversation.One person sees all full face expressions. One party gets a full unfettered stream of communication whereas the other limits it to audio.

And you want the cops to make sure you don't have to have any conversations with anyone that puts you at such a disadvantage?

---

The niqab and any other form of veil is not religious... it's cultural... it's geographical.
In the desert, in the blistering sun, it makes sense to cover your face and hair.
In Paris, France... it makes absolutely no sense!

If one culture, one country, doesn't want that form of face hiding, they're entitled to it.
If one culture refuses to let go of that face hiding, while attempting to become citizens of the country which doesn't want it... well then... we have a problem...
And, as it tends to be in these countries, democracy wins.

Democracy is sometimes the enemy of liberty. There's no country in the world that won't let you do things it approves of. The mark of a free country is what it will let you do things that the majority doesn't approve of.

The will of the majority of the people, represented by the government and the laws they pass, wins over the will of of a few stubborn immigrants.

Unless the country is a democratic constitutional republic that recognizes the right of minorities to not be subject to the tyranny of the majority.

They move out of their country and into the other for a reason... If they find that they must wear some stupid piece of clothing which isn't allowed in that country, then they should move out to some country where the piece of clothing is welcomed.... like, back in the home they left.

If they find themselves in a country that doesn't allow them to wear their native garb, they haven't yet reached a free country. An understandable mistake if it was legal when they got there.

And then there's a hundred different cases where things aren't like this... screw it.
If you want to do something that is illegal in one place, but legal in another, you should move to where it's legal, or face the legal consequences of your actions.

Atheists oppose the will of the majority of Americans frequently. Should we leave?

[lifesagift]

I'm taking a stand... it should be banned..
My two drivers are:
- it's inauguration is a violent, oppressive message which is designed to de-sexualise women. Wrong on many fronts.
- and in the modern world is not necessary, unless you feel pressured by a regime, or men....!!

I accept a small section of women will feel safe/comfortable in a niqab... but lets offer counselling and support for them to explore the world, and sexuality, and more importantly, basic human communication !!!!

[genkaus]

I'm taking a stand... it should be banned..
My two drivers are:
- it's inauguration is a violent, oppressive message which is designed to de-sexualise women. Wrong on many fronts.
- and in the modern world is not necessary, unless you feel pressured by a regime, or men....!!

Neither is a sufficient justification for an actual ban.

[lifesagift]

I'm taking a stand... it should be banned..
My two drivers are:
- it's inauguration is a violent, oppressive message which is designed to de-sexualise women. Wrong on many fronts.
- and in the modern world is not necessary, unless you feel pressured by a regime, or men....!!

Neither is a sufficient justification for an actual ban.

... in your opinion....

---

Neither is a sufficient justification for an actual ban.

... in your opinion....

It's a bit like being forced to have "Allah" tattooed on your forehead isn't it?

[genkaus]

Neither is a sufficient justification for an actual ban.

... in your opinion....

Nope. Actual ban requires a legitimate cause, otherwise you're just oppressing a section of society based on your opinions.