The West Must Ban the Burqa and Nix the Niqab
The French are enjoying a debate about their cultural identity. Obviously the word “enjoying” is a euphemism, since the focus of the debate, whether or not to ban the burqa — full female coverage with an eye screen — in public, has riven the population of France, and by no means along the obvious fault line of Muslim vs. non-Muslim.
Algerian-born Fadela Amara, France’s cities minister, reinforced her view in an interview with the Financial Times: “The vast majority of Muslims are against the burqa. It is obvious why. Those who have struggled for women’s rights back home in their own countries — I’m thinking particularly of Algeria — we know what it represents and what the obscurantist political project is that lies behind it, to confiscate the most fundamental liberties.”
President Nicolas Sarkozy had called for a ban on the public wearing of the burqa altogether. But as of this writing, apparently a compromise has been struck and the burqa will be banned in public buildings only.
A partial ban is better than nothing, though, and may hopefully serve to inject some steel into the spine of other European nations who feel threatened by the rise of anti-Western radicalization amongst their own growing Muslim populations.
Some pundits argue that the numbers of women in France in full coverage are small — in the low hundreds. But more recent estimates run much higher. A report by the minister of the interior conservatively estimates there are at least 2,000, not a nugatory figure, considering that 15 years ago there were virtually no niqabs or burqas in France. If they are not banned now, it may be impossible to do so when there are critical masses of them, as there surely will be as radicalization rates trend upward, if not checked.
Critics will claim that these garments do no harm to others and nobody has the right to interfere with women’s religious choices in a free society. But President Sarkozy got it right last June in explaining to Parliament why the burqa is “not welcome in the French Republic”: “The burqa is not a sign of religion; it is a sign of subservience.”
Sarkozy understands what most people refuse to acknowledge. Full coverage is not about religion; it is about ideology. Full face coverage is an ideological symbol of hatred for democracy, particularly the democratic value of gender equality. While some converts wear full cover as a badge of religious commitment and some educated Muslim young women wear it as a political gesture, by and large full cover goes hand in hand with women leading lives of grim physical and mental deprivation, and often routine, unchallenged, lifelong abuse.
Most women wearing the niqab or burqa can never aspire to a Western model of citizenship. They have not been provided with the kind of education or upbringing that would allow them to understand the meaning of freedom as we know it. It is insulting to the intellect to speak of women in these “walking coffins” in the same breath with the words “choice” or “rights.”
But to hold such rational views is to beat against a strong current of political correctness. As is now the norm whenever hypersensitive Muslim nerves are brushed by political decisions involving perceived insults to Islam, the French debate on cover as well as the recent referendum-driven ban on the further construction of minarets in Switzerland have provoked a great deal of hand-wringing anxiety amongst Islamophobia-phobic liberals.
Unwillingness to criticize the burqa, implying a corollary willingness to abandon these imprisoned women to their fate, even within Western borders, is morally tantamount to depraved indifference to voiceless suffering. Liberals hide behind the iron rubric of non-judgmentalism of other “cultures,” but that strain of logic would have absolved slave owners in the “culture” of pre-Civil War America.
Yet even conservatives who agree that fully covered women are chattel and a walking insult to American values struggle with the issue of legislative bans against what is misleadingly considered a garment. It seems draconian to prescribe what any individual can or cannot wear in public.
They must first understand that the burqa and niqab are not articles of clothing. They are tents thrown over clothing. In their intention and their effect, they perform the function of a ball and chain. Full cover is worn as a reminder to the wearer that she is not free and to remind the observer that the wearer is a possession, something less than a full human being.
Sarkozy has it wrong.
The burka IS about religion.
Whenever religion moves out of the strictly private sphere of how the individual prays to (and thinks about) his or her God, it is no longer protected by “freedom of religion/conscience”, but is to be regarded as an ideology.
Not all religious ideologies are acceptable, and are bannable in their extreme forms.
Batting on a sticky wicket here, as the English say. Yes, the burqa is a sign of subservience. But, let’s not jump on the French bandwagon too fast. Banning the burqa, at least in France, is at heart about the defense of the new French religion, secularism. Large crosses and Jewish skullcaps have already been banned in schools (I believe). How far will this go?
Leaving aside that the person covered by a veil could be a criminal the fact is that the same way we wouldn’t accept hinduistic widow burning or Aztec human sacrifices we have no reason to tolerate something who clashes frontally with our values just because it is endorsed by a religion. The burka must go. Period. T
I guess you missed the memo from the feminists who actually think the wearing the burka is liberating. Another reason I hope my daughter rejects feminism when she grows up.
The burkha should be banned from public use for the same reason the klansman’s robe and hood are banned: it veils the wearer from view, thereby reducing the individual to an unnamed and unnameable entity, devoid of personal responsibility for actions taken. It is a garment of deceit and intimidation. The burkha makes a chattel of its wearer, a mystery of the wearer’s identity, and oppresses those who come into contact with the wearer. It can be (and has been) used as a means of hiding the identity of the wearer, allowing said individual to effect an escape from capture for criminal behavior. It allows the introduction of suicide bombers into a public area without detection. The burkha is a danger to all the underpinnings of western society – personal responsibility, freedom, social interaction, and an open and cohesive political culture. Many states ban the wearing of the klansman’s hood for what it represents, and for its purpose in shielding the wearer from public identification. The burkha serves the same purpose, and should be similarly treated.
The argument made here is pathetic. Banning the burqa is an affront to the freedoms we hold dear. The only reason given is that the author fears this garment. You may as well advocate a ban on wedding rings or high heeled shoes, which serve analogous functions. There really is no basis for abandoning the Western commitment to liberty in the case of the burqa.
It is a perverse interpretation of democracy that would let the majority proscribe such personal freedoms for minority populations. The burqa is not worthy of such a hysterical reaction.
Peace.
DS
First and most important of all, the niqab and the burqa scare the living daylights out of most of the non Moslems who see people wearing them a positive benefit. Secondly, these clothing items also arouse feelings of suspicion among non Moslems and make them feel uncomfortable among Moslems, again, a benefit. Finally the niqab and the burqa are a somewhat grotesque but highly effective method of warning non Moslems that a potentially deadly individual is in their immediate area, and thus they can still avoid a possible Islamic suicide bomber or bloodthirsty Moslem gunman by getting as far away from the people wearing these items as they still can.
I would also add that the Moslem women wearing these ugly things are largely women who enjoy being ignorant, backwards, primitive, and poor and thus Moslems societies manage to keep at least half of their populations from effectively participating in their sciences, economies, technologies, cultures, and educational institutions.
As an Israeli I prefer to see Moslem women wearing these things because I can immediately identify them and the Moslem men accompanying them as the enemy and act accordingly.
Well said, Barbara Kay.
The burqa is the outward symbol of an approach to life, a system of belief contained in Islamic law. Supporters of that belief system are the enemies we are fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen and anywhere Islamic law prevails.
Dear Ms. Kay:
I am one of those conservatives who questions the banning of clothing for political reasons. You make good points about the symbolism of the burqas for some women, but you can hardly speak for all of them. We know what the burqa means to YOU. Its like the NOW Cows telling my pro-life wife that they represent her and that Sarah Palin is trying to destroy her hard fought for rights.
I agree the dress changes how people think and interact. I work in a large hospital and there are many muslim females that work here which wear the head scarfs, but with full face exposed. I greet everyone I encounter at the hospital, except the scarf wearers. The scarfs tell me they aren’t interested in the greetings of an unknown male. I will offer to help a scarf wearer if they look lost (our hospital is a maze), but thats about it. Having said all that, I occasionally encounter a scarf wearer who defies the norm. They will make eye contact with you. I greet those individuals.
The bottomline is you can’t apply your standards to other people. What is outrageous to you is normal to them. If they live in a western world, then they can exert their individuality, but it will cost them their family and culture… its a choice they have to make for themselves. They may have to hide from “family”, but they do have that choice here.
I agree with you on many levels… but in the end… you can’t make these people see and think the way you do.
Banning their expressions of religion and culture (which covers all the bad things you brought up) is wrong.
Beauxdog
“The burqa is not a sign of religion; it is a sign of subservience.”
Agreed.
“The question of full coverage is not one of tolerance or free expression. It is a question of social and civic propriety.”
Agreed.
It is indeed curious that women’s groups who routinely berate Western men for many imagined grievances grow suddenly silent when confronted by the very real oppression and denigration that Islam forces upon women. This silence is proof that feminisms’ target isn’t really equality, but like all leftist movements, aimed at tearing down the foundation of Western civilization: the family.
A fundamental human right is at stake here. The right to subjugate Muslim women. Related to the right to own slaves/wives. It’s tough to outlaw a costume, it seems crazy, but the costume is equivalent to chains and leg irons. No Sharia in the USA. No compromise.
I liken the burqa to KKK dress. Both represent the garb of believers in evil and oppressive philosophies which enlightened people regard as illegitimate.
Having lived in Saudi Arabia 15 years ago I have seen women fully covered in black. They aren’t even allowed eye holes but must see the outside world through a layer of black cloth making them blind to the world around them. My heart goes out to these women, many of whom don’t know what it is like to walk free of the encumbering abaya and restrictive head wear. I never dreamed that ‘their’ problem would become ours in the Western world. This must be stopped and stopped now as there is absolutely no tolerance for any ideas except that of Islam in the minds of its followers. In Saudi there is no other religion allowed and possession of religious books is grounds for immediate deportation or imprisonment depending on one’s country of origin.
Allow me to report a short piece of dialogue that occurred last winter between my mother and a woman wearing a niquab.
Mom: Do you mind if I close the office’s door? It’s so cold in here today.
Woman: Is it? I can’t really feel anything dressed like this.
it is ISLAM that is the problem.
take away the burka and you still have the second class citizen issues where a woman is half the value of a man.
show me the moderate muslim and I will show you a muslim that IS NOT following the Koran.
If Islam were truly a religion, there might be some religious reason for allowing burqas. (See below.) Insofar as Islam is simply a political ideology pretending to be a religion, something akin to a wolf in sheep’s clothing, it cannot be given the same rights as a religion. So, I think I would come down on the side of Gary Ogletree @ #12 about why such dress should be banned.
But even if Islam were truly a religion and Islamic women truly wanted to wear burqas, I would still require the following of them: You want a driver’s license, you need to show your face; you want to vote, you need to show your face; you are stopped for a traffic violation and a policeman pulls you over, you need to show your face; you want to buy something and the clerk wants to check your identification, you need to show your face, etc. For Islamic women residing in the West, the burqa cannot be used as a means of shielding their identities, as much as that might impinge on their religious freedoms. If, though, they feel such requirements impinges too much, let me suggest they find other places to reside which can accommodate them. (Also, we in the West have to be certain that the person in the burqa is really a women and not something else.)
I don’t understand why the radical feminists that are so quick to decry every imagined wrong against women in today’s society are not rioting in the streets over the niqab. The few that I have seen in Toronto give me the creeps. They look like walking prisoners.
Full coverage is not about religion; it is about ideology. Full face coverage is an ideological symbol of hatred for democracy, particularly the democratic value of gender equality.
Moreover, as Pat Condell brilliantly and accurately stated on his video Apologists for Evil, the political statement intended to be made by a woman wearing a burqa is just the same as that which would be made by someone wearing a nazi swastika or a Ku Klux Klown white suit.
By the way, those who haven’t seen this video, it is to Pat Condell what Free Bird is to Lynyrd Skynyrd. It is absolutely a must-see.
Sorry, I didn’t post the link to Condell’s video correctly. Here it is, Apologists for Evil.
18. Toronto Girl:
I don’t understand why the radical feminists that are so quick to decry every imagined wrong against women in today’s society are not rioting in the streets over the niqab. The few that I have seen in Toronto give me the creeps. They look like walking prisoners.
I’m with you there, those radical feminists give me the creeps too.
regards
Burkas should be banned, period !
now we have already alaw against the full hood in manifestations, because a “citizen” must show his face and assume his acts. so in the same logic, burkas are attempts to hide one’s face, thus susceptible to act aggressively§
It’s against our republican laws, period !
Sarkozy doesn’t think otherwise !
Naturally some idiots in the socialist party are stigmatizing the ban of burka as one more vexation to the muslims community.
But the muslims, since they immigrated to France didn’t wear such outfits before, so the ones that wear it, want to make provocation, and that we let them drag more shariah into our society rules, . They never renounce, after the veil, the burka… what else next !
I live in France and the state and religion are constitutionally not allowed to mix, hence the ban on religious symbols in public buildings including schools. As a libertarian I would allow a person to wear whatever he likes but also allow any property owner to ban any dress he does not like ie. motorcycle crash helmets , hoods of any kind, clothes altogether, if its his property his rules.
I’m confused. I’m aware of the physical differences between a burkka and stiletto heels, I’m not sure of the social differences.
Both are demeaning to women, encouraged by men and a symbol of Gender bias. So why fuss over burkka’s and give the heels a pass? Why did Feminazis choose to burn their bras instead of their high heels?
Bras are at least useful. If civilization collapses, you can use a bra to take small game. Or sometimes big game.
The only hope of saving Western civilization is for western females to revolt against Islam and a return to second class status.
If the choice is between burkkas and high heels, which one wins?
BeauxDog: “You can’t apply your standards to other people”?
Jack the Ripper would be ok, then? Because he’s acting according to his own standards, and my standards don’t apply to him?
The thing about immigrants is: they are entering a host society, and exiting a birth society. The price is a change in identity: from membership in the birth society to membership in the host society. This implies accepting the standards of the host. If these standards are unacceptable – better stay “home”, then. Absent such a price: a host society accepting a large number of homogeneously born immigrants transmutes into the culture from which they came. Canadians become Bedouins.
“16. Bill Hammil:
it is ISLAM that is the problem.
take away the burka and you still have the second class citizen issues where a woman is half the value of a man.
show me the moderate muslim and I will show you a muslim that IS NOT following the Koran.”
Spot on. I might add wherever you have islam, everyone else is less than a second class citizen. It is not the burka that needs to be banned . It is islam which needs to be banned.
Whether Middle Eastern feminine attire is banned in entirety or not, the covering of the face should be, at all times, unacceptable in the face of the law.
Anyone appearing in public with any sort of face covering should be considered suspect and treated as such. Our society regards face covering as nefarious or criminal intent. Just as we would not disobey the law in the ME, they will need to reciprocate.
No special pleading.
6. David S.
“The argument made here is pathetic”
“It is a perverse interpretation of democracy that would let the majority proscribe such personal freedoms for minority populations. The burqa is not worthy of such a hysterical reaction.”
Would you object to women, from their early teens to their death, being naked wearing a choke chain with leash, being lead around in public by a close male relative or an arranged husband?
Is there is a point where cultural relativism becomes harmful?
An additional point to my previous comment: If you allow burkas then people who were born Muslims (or their children) but have emigrated to Western countries are visited by militants and said: “Why is your daughter/wife/sister wearing western clothes, are you an apostate?” all while they slide a finger over their throat. In other words by allowing the burka you take from them the excuse “It is not allowed”. By allowing the burka you send them the message: “We will not support you against your oppressors”
People like vivo who tell we should tolerate this abominstion re not different from those who hold the hands of a woman who is being raped or sexually mutilatedc.
The Shroud of Turin is up on ebay . . . current bid $5.25
30. Ooopsy Daisy:
¿ is that your argument, or just your lack of understanding ?
Sissies! All of you that would place legislative demands on our form of dress should be ashamed. I don’t find the burka on some idiot muslim any more offensive than the underwear hanging out of some dude’s pants while I’m standing in line waiting to talk to the teller at my bank. Where is your proper American ridicule? If a muslim customer doesn’t have to show their face at the bank then neither do I. Wearing a Harley Davidson emblazoned burkha with a studded belt around the middle and leather gloves is much more of a statement. I dare them to ask to see my face!
When a member of any religion seriously advocates violence, then the line is crossed from protected religious speech into criminal conspiracy. If a citizen of this country openly practices slavery, publicly displaying its onerous trappings, why is such practice of slavery to be legally protected under the guise of religious practice?
@28. Mr Lucky:
Would you object to women, from their early teens to their death, being naked wearing a choke chain with leash, being lead around in public by a close male relative or an arranged husband?
Only if they were made to do so against their will. I like having the freedom to engage in consensual activities without government interference, and believe others should enjoy the same rights.
Is there is a point where cultural relativism becomes harmful?
I think the better question is if there is a point where government regulation of private religious garb intrudes on our cherished freedom. Clearly there is.
Peace.
DS
To behave as if the presence of a covered woman doesn’t affect the treatment of other women is willful ignorance. In places where women are treated like whores by covering their (sin-provoking) bodies entirely, or are whores, displaying their bodies for consumption, other women are reduced to whores merely for being women. Any woman who has worked in a job site where strippers occasionally get bussed in, or lived on a city block where prostitutes turn tricks, or experienced the abuse uncovered women experience in places where women are forced to cover themselves, knows this. As usual, Gary Ogletree hits the target. The burqa is a proactive statement of inferiority. Women choosing to wear high heels has nothing to do with it. Beauxdog, you sound thoughtful in your efforts to read other people’s cues, and medical settings are unique, but I don’t have to “know” what all people think when they’re advertising the inferiority of women using great big unavoidable walking cloth advertisements for that inferiority. It’s hard not to get the message.
A women in the US military in Iraq is more likely to be raped by a fellow soldier than she is to be killed by an insurgent:
The number of complaints, though, is rising. Across the military, there were 2,908 reported cases of sexual abuse involving service members as victims or assailants, in the fiscal year that ended in September 2008, the last year for which the Pentagon made numbers available. That was an 8 percent increase from the previous year, when there were 2,688.
In the turbulent regions from Egypt to Afghanistan where most American combat troops are now deployed, the increase in reported cases was even sharper: 251 cases, compared with 174 the year before, a 44 percent increase. The number in Iraq rose to 143, from 112 the year before. Everyone agrees that those represent only a fraction of the instances of assault, let alone harassment.
“A woman in the military is more likely to be raped by a fellow soldier than killed by enemy fire in Iraq,” Representative Jane Harman, a Democrat from California, said at a Congressional hearing this year, repeating an assertion she has made a refrain in a campaign of hers to force the military to do more to address abuses.
This indicates that there is systemic violence against women in our own culture, burka or no. As usual those who claim to be conservative are engaged in fingerpointing at other countries with other sets of problems. Those problems must look awfully tempting as excuses to ignore gender violence and oppression spawned from America’s culture. You people have no integrity.
People have the right to wear what they please. I’m offended by people with ten earrings in their face. Why don’t we ban that too? Piercings are an offense to the body, and (insert same burka condemnations here) …
Mr Lucky;
Would you object to women, from their early teens to their death, being naked wearing a choke chain with leash, being lead around in public by a close male relative or an arranged husband?
If it’s completely consensual and done by adults, what business is it of yours? May I point out the some people are perfectly happy to wear leases and chains. Persuading them to act differently is one thing, using the force of law is a violation of our freedom.
“Those problems must look awfully tempting as excuses to ignore gender violence and oppression spawned from America’s culture. You people have no integrity.”
Who says anyone is ignoring those things? You Alice, have no integrity in saying we should import such gender “violence” as the burqa and niqab.
“If it’s completely consensual and done by adults, what business is it of yours?”
None it if is done privately, but we are speaking about what is done in public, in circumstances that make consensualness dubious, and something that is done to minors. Were you paying any attention?
I assure you that you will not be allowed to wear whatever you want in public and yes, you can be arrested for indecency.
Libraries, shops, restaurants, public buildings require you to be shod as well as dressed.
You can be refused service in a restaurant that requires a tie, if not wearing one, one will be provided. Otherwise some one will assist your exit.
I also insist that you will not be allowed to conclude the transaction of a purchase without revealing your identity-visually.
No, no one should be allowed to wear whatever in public, or we would have fatsos in speedos and nothing else.
Our rights only extend to where we don’t infringe on anyone else’s rights.
In the US, any restrictions on clothing would be a matter for each state to consider separately. States do require that any person wearing a face covering take it off for their official picture for their drivers license. Other than that, I know of no restrictions on burkas. States do forbid wearing masks in public, including KKK hoods. Women I see wearing the headscarf do look very unhappy.
Alice, #36, you blithering ninny: Anyone raping (or even “harrassing”) a woman in the military will be — and is — severely punished for these crimes. That is our law, and it is regularly, systematically and strictly enforced.
How on earth is that situation even remotely analogous to the forcing of women (either by Sharia or by peer/family pressure, under threat of “honor” killing) to wear these de-humanizing “garments”?
And what “other countries with other sets of problems” are you babbling about? Sarkozy is trying to do something about the mistreatment of women by their savage ideo/religion in his own country — the country he was elected to lead.
Are you insane, woman? Has your blind hatred for all things American and/or Western driven you to such complete mental incoherence?
Really — your half-compos inanities would be laughable if they weren’t so sad.
Freeq –
“People have the right to wear what they please.”
What would you think of legislation (i) providing for immunity from religious discrimination lawsuits for owners of private businesses who enact policies stating that a persons attire must be such that it renders them identifiable in to be allowed to patronize their establishments and (b) applying a standard of identifiability to government offices and other facilities?
Freeq: What always makes me laugh at these pearl clutching moments of hysteria [oh my god, soon our men will be wearing burqas and fellating brown people], is how conveniently our own moors are overlooked. Apparently, there’s nothing wrong with allowing a system of peer pressure to make our pre-pubescent girls dress like prostitutes. Indeed, we should go to Gap kids, where they can accentuate their pre-teen sexuality, and learn the lesson that what matters most for women is their sexual attraction, not their brains or character. But don’t let them wear burkas, that’s obviously awful.
36. Alice Nolin: There are a couple of logic problems here.
First, at present it’s just not that likely, statistically speaking for an american soldier to get killed in Iraq because the Surge worked.
Second, it’s not that hard to deduce that a woman in a majority male organization is at a greater risk of rape than a woman in a non male majority organization.
Now if you are going to posit that others have no integrity, you should start from a position of at very least, understanding the purpose of this article was not to ignore or diminish the impact of gender violence in our culture.
Alice is a classic example of the lefty who argues that we have not achieved perfection in our own culture, and therefore we have not earned the right to defend said culture.
Alice, do you think that our military did not investigate each of these complaints and discipline/prosecute where necessary?
If there are rules/laws against that form of behavior, what is your point? Just because we have laws against murder does not imply that we have none.
Who says anyone is ignoring those things?
LOL. I’ve yet to see a PJM article discussing such issues. Please post your link to it, and your comments on same. Your post is a perfect example of what I’m talking about. Oh, its not that we’re ignoring our own problem, thought it must look like that, since we never talk about them, filling our minds with paranoid delusions about how Islam is conquering our culture.
Second, it’s not that hard to deduce that a woman in a majority male organization is at a greater risk of rape than a woman in a non male majority organization.
Hilarious. Oh, its not our fault that our men rape women. The obvious solution is to segregate the genders.
I remember that a complain from such a woman who made an apply for a flat by the HLM (council inhabitations with moderated rents)The office refused her the right to make such a request, allegating that were not the use in France, and that these inhabitations can only be inhabited by normal citizens , also a mayor refused to marry a burka woman, with the same allegations that she had no intention to integrate
Well we usely complain of our administration being too “tatillone” (nit-picking) and touchy about its privileges, but I must say I’m glad they are stubborn republicans !
No article on banning the burqa should fail to mention that Turkey and Tunisia (both Muslim countries) allow nothing more than a headscarf. This policy drives out the madmen and encourages tourism and prosperity. Other reasons to ban the burqa are to shame any man who bruises his wife or marries his nieces, which promotes gender equality while discouraging inbreeding and polygamy.
Islam is the answer.
Your grandchildren will be Muslim.
Allahu akbar!
“The obvious solution is to segregate the genders”. And there you have it=another accomplishment of the aforementioned burqa.
9 beauxdog – Unfortunately, we haven’t the luxury of such thinking. We’re under seige. The Islamic world has declared war against the west and all infidels. And though most Muslims aren’t terrorists, most terrorists are Muslims. While we’re trying to sort out who’s who, we are being overrun by this “religion.” Read Phyllis Chesler, None Darwish and others, then come back and see if you feel the same way you do now. (And, by the way, from a medical perspective, wearing anything with extra, baggy fabric has been well established and not hygeinic. There is even a growing movement for doctors not to wear ties for this same reason. Needless material falls against skin, into wounds, brushes against surfaces and transfers pathogens from patient to patient.)
Ms. Barbara Kay: I think a total ban is wrong. as males we like to be and get creative. Go to this site and check it out..
sometime it is nice to have burqa and sometimes not!!!! see whaat I mean?
http://www.babeland.com
#36 Alice Nolan, according to the Justice department, black males raping white women is what you should be complaining about, if you want to pinpoint the troubles of women in America. Per year;37,000 black on white vs. 10 white on black. An amazing example of racial/gender apartheid committed by 6% of the population isn’t it? Even further amazing, liberal women are too PC to face this, like every other REAL culture torturing women.
mr, you’re an idiot, get your fantasy for Halloween
Elliot:“The obvious solution is to segregate the genders”. And there you have it=another accomplishment of the aforementioned burqa.”
Well, in the first place you have no understanding of irony. In the second place, the burqa’s purpose is to allow women to enter into male dominated worlds with freedom of movement. Islam is segregated by gender, just as Baal would like our American armed forces to be, I think for similar reasons–i.e., that men can’t be trusted to not rape women if they have the opportunity. That’s what Baal thinks, that’s what traditional Islam thought. In fact, that’s what every traditional culture and religion thought or thinks. The burqa, the hijab, niqab etcetera, allow women to interact with men, rather than the other way around. If you’re going to condemn the culture, at least understand it.
Why do we twist ourselves into such knots worrying about skullcaps and crucifixes? It’s our country. If we want to allow these particular religious symbols and ban the niqab and burka then why can’t we? It’s our country. Western democracies are built on Judeo-Christian values. When we dilute it in the name of multiculturalism then we have a problem because the leftists think that all cultures and religions are equal and they’re not. Want proof? Why do muslim countries not allow any new synagogues or churches to be built – after all, in the name of multiculturalism, we’re all equal aren’t we? So until this double standard is addressed by the leftist apologists then we should continue to enact whatever legislation we want, regardless of how discriminatory it may seem to the muslims. After all, it is our country.
Alice, we are all just a bunch of slow-witted mopes aroundhere. So thanks for sharing your brilliant observations with us, particularly your appreciation for the Religion of Peace.
And thanks so much for voting for Obama; he’s doing a fantastic job.
#56 Marie Claude. I am assuming you just visited that site how did you like it?
M
A women in the US military in Iraq is more likely to be raped by a fellow soldier than she is to be killed by an insurgent:
Given the number of women serving in Irak she is less likely to be raped than a woman attending one of Polanski’s litle parties, aka the guy you libs petitioned for.
This indicates that there is systemic violence against women in our own culture, burka or no. As usual those who claim to be conservative are engaged in fingerpointing at other countries with other sets of problems
In our culture women have equality of rights and rapers are not only prosecuted but once in jail have to be protected from other criminals who would seveerly beat or even kill them if given an opportunity. And we have all the right to fingerpoint cultures where women are thrown acid in the face if they dare not to wear the burka, their word is worth half a man’s, the fine for killing them is again haf than for killing a man, where men are told “beat your wife even if you don’t know why, she knows”, where sexual mutiliation is legitimate, judicial rape is normal in certain areas and rape of infidel captives is a Good Thing (TM) since the example was given by the man who can do no wrong aka Muhammad himself.
Anf for you, you couldn’t care less about women’s fate as soon as it does not allow you to bash the civilizzation who gacve you freedom and in the process show how wide minded you are. In your racist Weltanscaung, To you these non-white women aren’t real people but untermenchen.
34. David S.
“I think the better question is if there is a point where government regulation of private religious garb intrudes on our cherished freedom.”
Can the imposition of private religious garb intrude on a person’s cherished freedoms? Isn’t one of the basic tenets of western political systems based on individual’s freedom to choose? Is this idea promoted as a consequence of the burka?
37. Freeq.
“People have the right to wear what they please. I’m offended by people with ten earrings in their face. Why don’t we ban that too? Piercings are an offense to the body, and (insert same burka condemnations here) …”
Being “lead around” in the original question implies the use of coercion.
The burka and the leash/choke chain nakedness are not the issues. The political/cultural forces that cause the leash/choke chain nakedness and burka to manifest monolithically for an entire gender in cultures is the issue.
Whether or not a person freely decides to wear the leash/choke chain or burka is of little consequence in a culture. The imposition of coercion, beatings, terror and murder because of non-compliance, wherever it happens in any case, is the issue, whether imposed culturally and/or by a government.
The blog name of ‘Alice Nolan’ is just another name used by a man who often writes under the name of ‘Moho’. His signature posts are always to state that everyone is stupid and ignorant, and, a profound ignorance of any and all religions and of history. Oh, and he uses questionable data sources – since he doesn’t understand statistics.
The statement by Jane Harman is statistically empty, because the definitions of ‘sexual abuse’ are missing. I’ve seen feminist touted ‘studies’ where such abuse was defined, not as a physical action, but as ‘insulting your girlfriend in public’.
As for the burqa and niqab, neither have anything to do with a religion, obviously, for they have no role in enabling one to deal with the metaphysical. They are purely cultural attributes and can refer only to a patriarchal culture in which women are subservient and invisible as individual agents.
David S, #6 arrives here with his usual superficial and ignorant opinion, that the burka is analagous to a wedding ring or high heels. No it is not. The wedding ring, worn by both genders, does not hide, merge or inhibit individual identity; high heels are a matter of taste -and can be quite comfortable.
As a symbol of non-identity, the burka has no role in a culture that promotes individual identity and individual accomplishments and has no role for group-ism, or collective identities. We reject defining ALL males as X, ALL Jews as Y, and therefore, mus object to an article of dress that sets up the same logical format of ALL Muslim Women are without individual identity.
Screw the burqa, ban the evil cult of islam.
the more trolls there are the more the piece is effective and correct.
“Weltanscaung” uh, your fingers missed some letters !
and probably that the Dame doesn’t understand german !
say it in english
Mr you’re an idiot for the 2nd time, your site isn’t significative for the topic
#67 Marie Claude: it sure is.
Men’s and women’s showers, toilets and sleeping quarters should be segregated by gender, because this will mitigate the risk of sexual misconduct (not only sexual assault, but also consensual sexual deviancy- adultery and fornication are crimes under the UCMJ, as is fraternization: unduly familiar interaction between service members of significantly different ranks).
That said, it shouldn’t surprise anyone that a woman serving in Iraq is more likely to be raped than to be killed by hostile fire- women don’t see much hostile fire because they don’t serve on the front lines. Add to that the fact that over 97% of casualties survive their injuries, and you have the result that very few women are going to die from hostile fire.
57. Alice Nolin.
“In the second place, the burqa’s purpose is to allow women to enter into male dominated worlds with freedom of movement.”
“The burqa, the hijab, niqab etcetera, allow women to interact with men, rather than the other way around.”
This is the thinking of Pee Wee moho – Anon – Shawn Ondeen Whatever’s Alice Nolin Twilight Zone Dummy. I suppose that without the proper clothing, women and men would simply not be able to interact with each other. Women are unfree without chains. Men are not allowed to initiate interaction, they only stand by like dumb drones waiting for the properly attired women to… do what Malice Droolin?
What a prude.
“If you’re going to condemn the culture, at least understand it.” Like westerm culture?
Check your mirror. It’s nodding yes.
Van Jones wants to stain your blue burka. Kevin Lennings was seen in the area. And those muggers, did your “Courage and Intelligence” burka repel them too? Roman sends his love, but only if your 13.
Don’t catch your pants on fire.
Happy New Year! Whatever.
the more trolls there are the more the piece is effective and correct.
That’s the logic you putzes used for the last eight years. Thanks.
For Marie-Claude
Weltanschaung: Literally “vision of the world”. Yes I know this lady(?) probably doesn’t understand German but well before I learned German I stumbled upon this word in a book about Nazism and I was angry.
For those socialists defending the burka, weel, some people don’t deserve being French.
As for the burqa and niqab, neither have anything to do with a religion, obviously, for they have no role in enabling one to deal with the metaphysical.
It must hurt to be so stupid.
David S – you made my point in your last post (34) – one you yourself seem to have missed. The principal reason that the burka must be banned is that the burka almost never voluntary. The burka is imposed. The women imprisoned in the burka are not usually in a position to resist it. A burka ban does not “deny” women the burka – it defends women from the burka.
That said, it shouldn’t surprise anyone that a woman serving in Iraq is more likely to be raped than to be killed by hostile fire- women don’t see much hostile fire because they don’t serve on the front lines.
Hilarious. I coudn’t make this up. Rape is apparently completely normal and acceptable according to Myth Buster and Baal. For mythbuster, the fact that army rape rates are at least equal, if not almost certainly greater than the general population is offset by the fact that woman are less likely to be killed in Iraq than raped. To mythbuster, that is apparently a good thing. Rape is also a good thing in the states too, because women are more likely to be raped than murdered. That just shows you that our murder rate is lower than rape, and therefore everything is as it should be. According to Baal, if you want to stop rape, simply seperate the men from the women, as you would roosters from one another. Western men aren’t capable of cohabitating with women without raping them. And again, that’s perfectly ok. If you actually wanted to lower the rape rate in the military–and of course, who would want to focus on that, when we can chatter our teeth to the dangers of the burka–then you could simply ban women. Hurray for America, the only country in the world with no social problems.
If a country bans the burqa in hopes of liberating women, they have done just the opposite. Women who moved freely in the community will then be kept at home, separated from all aspects of Western culture. The Muslim woman being abused at home will then never have access to a police officer or information about how to get help (posted on a bulletin board, for example).
Brilliant plan.
57. Alice Nolin: No, I don’t think our armed forced should be segregated. I know several women in the services and they are fantastic.
The principal reason that the burka must be banned is that the burka almost never voluntary. The burka is imposed.
LOL. I assume your daughter is running around wearing whatever she wants, staying out until hours of the night and screwing any guy, birth control or no. Thank heaven we don’t impose things on our daughters in this country. We’re civilized!
Baal now–No, I don’t think our armed forced should be segregated. I know several women in the services and they are fantastic.
Baal before–Second, it’s not that hard to deduce that a woman in a majority male organization is at a greater risk of rape than a woman in a non male majority organization.
I didn’t ask you waht you thought of women or how many women you think are “fantastic”. I told you that rape is a huge problem in our military. You shrugged it off as being a natural outcome of having women in a “majority male” organization. Its quite obvious that women wearing burkas is a huge concern to you, but women being raped in the armed forces is a minor one. In fact, one you’d take no pains to address or ameliorate. I assume your solution to the problem, given your complete acceptance of it as normal, would be for women to be segregated from the men. That would be the only solution you could come to given your response. That is if you were even interested in a solution. And you’re not; its much more fun to pretend to be afraid of burkas.
Don’t stop with the Burqua – ban the whole damn death cult!
http://pedestrianinfidel.blogspot.com/2007/02/proposed-constitutional-amendment.html
Thursday, February 08, 2007
A Proposed Constitutional Amendment
Background and justification to Amendment 28
Whereas Religion is defined as an institution dedicated to improving social conscience and promoting individual and societal spiritual growth in a way that is harmless to others not participating in or practicing the same;
Whereas the United States of America was founded on the ideals of individual rights, including the individual right to practice one’s religion of choice, or no religion, and that there would be no compulsion of religion, nor state sanctioned religion, nor a “religious test” for participation in the body politic;
Whereas Islam includes a complete political and social structure, encompassed by its religious law, Sharia, that supersedes any civil law and that Islam mandates that no secular or democratic institutions are to be superior to Islamic law;
Whereas Islam preaches that it and it alone is the true religion and that Islam will dominate the world and supplant all other religions and democratic institutions;
Whereas Saudi Arabia, the spiritual home of Islam does not permit the practice of any other religion on its soil and even “moderate” Muslims states such as Turkey and Malaysia actively suppress other religions;
Whereas Islam includes as its basic tenet the spread of the faith by any and all means necessary, including violent conquest of non-believers, and demands of its followers that they implement violent jihad (holy war) against those un-willing to convert or submit to Islam, including by deception and subversion of existing institutions;
Whereas on 9/11/2001 19 Muslim hijackers acting in the name of Islam killed 3,000 Americans, and numerous other acts of terrorism have been directed at the American people around the world;
Whereas representatives of Islam around the world including Osama Bin Laden (architect of 9/11), the government of Iran including Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, HAMAS, Hezbollah, and other Islamic groups have declared jihad (war) on America, and regularly declare that America should cease to exist;
Whereas there is no organized Islamic opposition to violent proponents of Islam;
Therefore: Islam is not a religion, but a political ideology more akin to Fascism and totally in opposition to the ideals of freedom as described in the United States Constitution, especially the Bill of Rights.
Be it resolved that the following Amendment to the Constitution be adopted:
Article I
The social/political/ideological system known around the world as Islam is not recognized in the United States as a religion.
The practice of Islam is therefore not protected under the 1st Amendment as to freedom of religion and speech.
Article II
As representatives of Islam around the world have declared war, and committed acts of war, against the United States and its democratic allies around the world, Islam is hereby declared an enemy of the United States and its practice within the United States is now prohibited.
Article III
Immediately upon passage of this Amendment all Mosques, schools and Muslim places of worship and religious training are to be closed, converted to other uses, or destroyed. Proceeds from sales of such properties may be distributed to congregations of said places but full disclosure of all proceeds shall be made to an appropriate agency as determined by Congress. No compensation is to be offered by Federal or State agencies for losses on such properties however Federal funding is to be available for the demolishing of said structures if other disposition cannot be made.
The preaching of Islam in Mosques, Schools, and other venues is prohibited. The subject of Islam may be taught in a post high school academic environment provided that instruction include discussion of Islam’s history of violence, conquest, and its ongoing war on democratic and other non-Islamic values.
The preaching or advocating of Islamic ideals of world domination, destruction of America and democratic institutions, jihad against Judaism, Christianity and other religions, and advocating the implementation of Sharia law shall in all cases be punishable by fines, imprisonment, deportation, and death as prescribed by Congress. Violent expressions of these and other Muslim goals, or the material support of those both in the United States and around the world who seek to advance these Islamic goals shall be punishable by death.
Muslims will be denied the opportunity to immigrate to the United States.
Article IV
Nothing in this amendment shall be construed as authorizing the discrimination against, of violence upon, nor repudiation of the individual rights of those Americans professing to be Muslim. The individual right of conscience is sacrosanct and the practice of Islam within the privacy of home and self is strictly protected to the extent that such individuals do not violate the prohibitions described in Article III.
Alice: don’t waste too much time with these people. they are mostly high school drop out simpletons! Read my comments #54. That site that I mentioned is their only hope. Marie Claude #66 has already agreed…
Moho/Alice Nolan:
In reply to my comment of: “As for the burqa and niqab, neither have anything to do with a religion, obviously, for they have no role in enabling one to deal with the metaphysical.”
You wrote: “It must hurt to be so stupid.”
No, moho/alice nolan – your reply, which I know is your trademark ‘Signature’ is unacceptable. You see, that reply is your opinion, but you have to provide the REASONS that led you to that opinion. Otherwise your comment is simply..er..stupid.
GDT- I don’t think that the lack of the voluntary nature of the burqa is the reason it should be banned. After all, all societies throughout time have cultural dress codes; in our society men are required to wear suits and ties; there’s black dress, formal dress, informal..and the same with women.
I think there’s a different reason for the banning of the burqa and it is its relevance as a cultural symbol. As a cultural Sign, the burqa has a specific societal meaning: no-individual-identity. Women in societies who wear the burqa are societally defined as members of a collective, which has rigid rules of behavior and a rigid low status level in the society. It is the MEANING of the burqa that must be rejected, and a first step in denying this meaning is to reject the Sign of that meaning.
Not every issue in life or in the world can be resolved with laws and regulations (I wish our US politicians realized this). I think this is one of them.
Many women in our own country voluntarily accept behavioral constraints imposed by their husbands or by their community or their church. We have all seen them. Most are innocuous enough but others are borderline abusive. But what is important is that the Western civilizations not tolerate any form of emotional or physical battery in retaliation against women who decide they do not wish to conform to any formal or informal gender-unique behavioral requirements. The full force and protection of the law must come vigorously to their aid in such cases. Then any transplanted radical Islamic culture can evolve as it will – perhaps nudged in the direction of freedom by women’s movements and other advocacy groups. But to pass a law denying this form of dress – however awful and demeaning to women – is just fighting the battle from the wrong hill.
Not every issue in life or in the world can be resolved with laws and regulations (I wish our US politicians realized this). I think this is one of them.
Many women in our own country voluntarily accept behavioral constraints imposed by their husbands or by their community or their church. We have all seen them. Most are innocuous enough but others are borderline abusive. But what is important is that the Western civilizations not tolerate any form of retaliatory emotional or physical battery should any women decide that she does not wish to conform to any gender-unique behavioral requirement that is placed upon her. The full force and protection of the law must come vigorously to her aid in such cases.
Then any transplanted radical Islamic culture can evolve as it will – perhaps nudged in the direction of gender equality by women’s movements and other advocacy groups. But to pass a law denying this form of dress – however awful and demeaning to women – is just fighting the battle from the wrong hill.
Whereas Religion is defined as an institution dedicated to improving social conscience and promoting individual and societal spiritual growth in a way that is harmless to others not participating in or practicing the same;
If you actually understood anything about the constitution, you’d realize that this is a false premise. Religion is not identified in any way by the constitution; indeed, having a government define what is religion is EXACTLY THE KIND OF CHURCH STATE CONFLICT THAT THE FOUNDERS FEARED. Its why it leaves the definition of religion to others and why it STATES QUITE CLEARLY “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..”. You might as well wipe your a## with this document, you don’t have any knowledge of it or respect for it.
By the way, your amendment would also outlaw the mormons and the Amish.
Until some muslims stop their evil murderous ways, all muslims are enemies. It is like being a Democrat. There is no such thing as a patriotic Democrat. They are all neo-communists and enemies of America.
Hold on, there! There is a lot to be said for putting women back in their proper subservient place! Proof is found in the silence of the US women who screamed about the Atlanta golf club that would not let women become members. The feminists bitched then but are silent now so they MUST approve of the hood and veil (and, above all, SILENCE!)
#86, Right on target. Texas secession now!!!!
“you see, that reply is your opinion, but you have to provide the REASONS that led you to that opinion.”
You’ve got to be kidding me. Here’s some advice, i’ll take you seriously when you can come back and defend your arguments with something other than, “religion is what I say it is”. That’s so self evidently silly–its like having a child insist that you engagge in good faith in a discourse about Thor versus Superman. If you can come back and explain how the burka is less associated with spirituality than giving Jimmy Swaggart a thousand dollars or funding the papacy while christians starve all over the world, or having a five million dollar or ten million dollar mega-church,then you’ll enter into the realm of frontal lobe argument.
That’s why I asked you if it hurt you to be so stupid. The answer is obviously that you are so stupid that you have no idea how absurdly idiotic you appear to reasoning adults. There’s more for you if you want, dumba##, just keep asking.
There is no way to ban the burka or other symbols of Islamic misogyny from our society. This cure is worse than the disease to my mind.
The real problem is radical Islam. Ban that. Identify radical mosques as cults and shut them down. Malik Hasan’s Muslim Community Center in MD would be a great start. Halt all muslim immigration. Eliminate or dramatically reduce visas of all types for muslims. Engage in proactive profiling of muslims in all government positions–particularly those involved in transportation and defense.
But until Islam has its own Reformation and Enlightenment it isn’t fit for the modern world.
79. Alice Nolin:Well, really Alice, there are persons doing a better job of twisting the statements of others…but you’re not one of them.
No, rape is not OK in the military or anywhere else.
“Rape is apparently completely normal and acceptable according to Myth Buster and Baal”
Really? Seriously?
BTW…the topic today is not rape in the US military…but you’re welcome to keep blathering.
Re: # 55 “…black males raping white women is what you should be complaining about, if you want to pinpoint the troubles of women in America…”
Re: # 70: “…Van Jones wants to stain your blue burka…”
Pretty ironic to see some Klansmen on here criticizing the burqa. Nobody here is going to criticize these outrageous statements? That’s some mighty tall hypocrisy, “multi-cultis.”
I enjoy giving people wearing the burka, and the men with them the evil eye. It also keeps me on my toes, as all I see is terrorists, or supporters of same.
Yes, I profile.
moho/alice nolan. Nope. You have to provide reasonsfor your conclusions. It’s trivial to just state an opinion and expect others to accept it as valid…ie., that ‘rape is what I say it is’ and ‘the burqa is what I say it is’. Without argument, without data, without analysis.
Your signature posts are always the same: constantly calling others stupid, rather than engaging in factual, data base and logical analysis.
Your comparisons of the burqa to Swaggart is logically invalid; the burqa is a cultural dress code that is a SIGN of group-ism and a rejection of individual freedom. This meaning has nothing to do with funding Swaggart. Equally, your equation of funding the papacy vs Christians starving is also logically invalid, for it is an invalid Either-Or frame.
Now moho/alice…post yet another ‘you are stupid’comment. You seem unable to do anything else.
Baal. None so blind…your response to my comment about rape in the military is that ITS NORMAL AND TO BE EXPECTED. I’m still shaking my head about that, but what’s worse is that you refuse to even consider how your acceptance of the fact that rape is a logical outcome of having men and women together creates a logical space for it. Yes, by all means whine about burkas, even while you claim to feel ambivalent about abuse of women in your own armed forces. Trust me, no one could twist your words to make you look more disgusting that you already do.
92. Anonymous.
Re: # 70: “…Van Jones wants to stain your blue burka…”
“Pretty ironic to see some Klansmen on here criticizing the burqa. Nobody here is going to criticize these outrageous statements? That’s some mighty tall hypocrisy, ‘multi-cultis.’
My gosh, a black person and a sexual reference! Let’s go Klansman right now! Heaven forbid. Call Jesse and Al.
57. Alice Nolin.
“Well, in the first place you have no understanding of irony.”
Sure… Alice.
Alice/moho and Van are personal friends, by moho’s own word. Since when does satire about a fake relationship qualify one for Klanship? Pee Wee moho – Anon – Shawn Ondeen – Alice Nolin Whatever is presenting itself here as a women in attempt to avoid the results of it’s past/preset behavior. Irony? Yeah…
If the burka fits, wear it moho.
Nothing new here.
How’s Van doing? What’s that cool talk, again? Pwnage? LOL? Stupid? Break some out, humor is the best medicine. But by all means, be Anonymous. Whatever.
Happy New Year!
JFM
l’ennui, c’est qu’ils se reproduisent
You americans… always so f… scared.
You know why these people wear the burqa? To demonstrate clearly and visibly to you that they are fed up with your lack of moral values, your sick society and your lack of human understanding. That you should NOT tell them how to look or behave, and that they dont give a damn about your sick depraved morals in which a woman is noting but a sex symbol.
But anytime you see anything that isn’t wht you’re sed to you get scared in stead of getting curious. “Uh-oh that person there has her face covered.. that just gotta be a terrorist” – that seems to be the way you think.
I feel sorry for you. I hope you will some day grow strong enough to put down the fear, and accept that all people are not the same, and that others deserve equally as much respect from you as you demand respect from them.
The West
Must Ban the Burqa
and Nix the Niqab
The discussion
goes round and round,
and it comes out here:
Will the multicultural madness
of the West seduce it to suicide
by embracing the misogynistic
madness of the East ?
A man who treats his women as
something between child and chattle
is no friend of mine.
A man who sends his extra sons out
to secure their place in Paradise
by smiting the Infidel is my enemy.
When the world was wide and men were weak,
incompatible societies could exist in isolation.
Soon no place on earth will be more than
a 30 minute suborbital flight away from
a Weapon of World Destruction;
By then there must be one world society,
or soon thereafter there will be none.
Mr Lucky. Someday I’ll brave your lack of punctuation and seussian syntax and try to derive whatever meaning–if any–there are in your posts. Until then, I doubt anyone could blame me for telling you that I have no idea what you’re talking about.
98. john smith:
You americans… always so f… scared.
You know why these people wear the burqa? To demonstrate clearly and visibly to you that they are fed up with your lack of moral values, your sick society and your lack of human understanding. That you should NOT tell them how to look or behave, and that they dont give a damn about your sick depraved morals in which a woman is noting but a sex symbol.
.
.
.
the burqa is the ultimate symbol of sex. the muslim religion has perverted the relationship between men and women to such a level that there are a lot of men who are so confused that they will blow themselves up to meet 72 virgins.
don’t kid yourself. the burqa is all about sex
John Smith- Muslim men are so weak they have to cover their women from head to toe. They can’t control themselves enough if they see a woman’s bare ankle or wrist. What happens if a Muslim woman decides she doesn’t want to wear a burka anymore? The libs say the Burka gives women freedom. But if they try to remove the burka and leave islam, they are signing a death sentance.
You call us a sick society, yet look at the poverty stricken, backwards societies that Islam produces. They hate the West because we produce goods and services that make life better. We believe in freedom and liberty. They want life like it was 1000 years ago.
By the way, what “moral values” do Muslim societies possess? Do they not still practice slavery? Do they not practice the bombing of innocents and piracy? Do Muslim countries not allow for men to marry children, and within their own family? Which morals are your referring to?
Serious or not John Smith…you made me laugh thx!!
If that really is how you think i laugh and shake my head. Muslim religion isnt so peaceful, either is christianity..however look at the 100 yrs…who has been the more violent, even against their own people?
Anywho…keep thinking the way you do, make me laugh and thank god we live in country where we can be out spoken about things, even for you!
As a side issue from the burqa, but relevant to laws prohibiting completely covering up… I wear long sleeved shirts and a complete face covering, and dark sunglasses, to protect my skin from the sun. I find it much more convenient than putting on sunscreen every time I go out. But I usually uncover my face when I exit my car and walk across the parking lot to a store, and I take off my hat and gloves as soon as I get under the shade or enter a building. I am conscious of making others uncomfortable, and moderate my behavior to suit my environment. When I leave a store, I pause in the shade to put on my sun gear, and I get my share of curious looks, but I can then cover my face entirely without causing other difficulty. Folks figure that I just came from a public place so I must not be a threat, especially as I push my grocery cart to my car. It’s all a matter of context, and being sensitive to my fellow human.
I’m not sure it’s a good idea. I can think of two good reasons to ban burkas in public places:
The first is for security reasons – if I can’t wear a motorcycle helmet into a shopping center or a bank, why should I be allowed to wear a burka? One reasonable response is that very few (dare I say “no”?) criminal attacks have been perpetrated with the assistance of a burka in any western countries – whereas motorcycle helmets are still a very popular piece of attire for armed robberies. But it’s still a sensible reason overall.
The second reason is that by forcing the issue, we liberate muslim women in western societies. But that comes with some problems as well: the first being that we’re “liberating” women by attacking their (likely) choices (which will backfire), and the second being that a lot of women from the more oppressive muslim families will suffer further, by simply being forced by circumstances to (a) break the law, or (b) just never leave the house. Is anyone here suggesting that women should REALLY be arrested and dragged away for wearing a piece of clothing? What if they just keep doing it – are we going to ban them from leaving the house, imprison them, or fine them until they’re forced to default? Get real – it’s only going to take a few hard cases to make that policy look diabolically stupid, and eventually the more intelligent feminists are going to realize what’s wrong with that picture and you’ll see a much wider backlash.
All up, I think banning the burka for the right reasons is problematic. Banning it for the wrong reasons (i.e. xenophobia – the reason most people want to ban it – particularly “liberal” european bozos who thought 4 minarets in the whole of switzerland was just way too many) is a REALLY bad idea.
Here’s a better idea – make the west a safe place for muslim women to make their own choices. The muslim reformation is going to take place in places like the US and australia – where muslims have the space to make their own choices, have access to alternative lifestyles and where they’re not constantly attacked at an official level just for being funny-looking and foreign (and hence a safe political target for cretins). Forget the current generation – it’s the NEXT generation that matters. Lets claim those.
Or you can stomp and wave your fists – that’s surely going to convince a billion people to see things your way. It’s working a treat so far.
steve4libertyinSC:
“Muslim religion isnt so peaceful, either is christianity”
Even buddhists have been known to pick up weapons. But if we’re ever attacked by jains … I reckon we can take ‘em.
“however look at the 100 yrs…who has been the more violent, even against their own people?”
World war I, world war II, the boer war? There’s no competition, I’m afraid – christians have put muslims in the shade for organized violence in the last 100 years. You could go further and argue that atheists (i.e. various sorts of communists) have made all religions look like amateurs at large-scale killing (particularly their own people).
And yes, I know that some of the people fighting in those wars were good guys, but so were some of the muslims killed in their various punch-ups (and ours, too). And I also know that those wars were not primarily about religion too – but most violence in the middle east isn’t actually about religion either (although you have to be paying attention to understand that).
Lets stop trying to make out that everything to do with muslims is necessarily about religion – like the normal motivations for violence (security, greed, grievance, fear, identity, outrage, coercion) just don’t apply. It’s a ridiculous way to see the world.
John, in most places, they wear the burka because they’re slaves, it’s their law. Wake up. Here, of course, they wear the burka because they’re nuts.
I do not agree with this. It is a slippery slope.
It is also going after the easy target, women, rather than the root of the problem.
Don’t ban women wearing (or not wearing) something.
Ban the people who make others wear (or not wear) something.
Loriane, if you had listen to the discourse that these western Burka women, then you’ll change your mind, they are not these poor weak women, they are making proselytism, and spit on our laws
Thank you Matthew for that brief respite from hair on fire stupidity on this site.
Now we have the man named Alice Nolan putting the crimes of Nazism (an atheistic doctrine whose founder actually regretted Germans not being Muslims), Communism and Shintoism laid at the feet of Christianty while Islam is being whitewashed conveniently ignoring that main reason Islam didn’t perpetrate that many crimes in XXth century is that it was in realtive impotency not even being able to wipe out Israel (but sill killing millions in Algeria, Bangla Desh and al). Things haven’t changed that much since the people who tried their best to help Nazis win the war either by direct sabotage or by weakening the will to fight of their opponents.
Thank you, Ms Kay! What an inspiring read!
“The face is the soul of the body”-Ludwig Wittgenstein.
No one can argue against the fact: that being able to recognise one another is an essential requirement to our humanity and co-existence. The human face is the main medium for social interaction. Facial expressions go far beyond the spoken word. Consider the power of a smile in our social interactions! It is the lack of responsiveness, which makes normal communication virtually impossible.
More much more than its negative social effects, consequences for the health and well being of the individual, it is what it burqa/niqab actually symbolizes and stands for. Namely: the attitude of political Islam towards women, which are in any event,incompatible with the principles of democracy. Suffice it to say, that according to the Islamists if women are not covered from head to toe in a shapeless, sack, they are sluts throwing themselves open to the sexual predators. According to this logic, men in general are so undisciplined their behaviour is determined by instinct as opposed intellect. Intellect: that human attribute which distinguishes, man from the lower animal driven only by their instincts! Pathetic!
The burqa/niqab is a dehumanizing garb, a symbol of political Islam and the subjugation of women. Ban it along with all other racist, misogynist and sexist symbols hidden away under the banner of a so called religion! Freedoms are not absolute!
29. JFM:
“People like vivo who tell we should tolerate this abomin(s)tion”
Did you READ what I wrote?
You owe me an apology.
51. American Muslim:
“Islam is the answer.”
When people get educated and use their powers of reasoning, religion disappears and freedom starts.
100. Alice Nolin.
“Mr Lucky. Someday I’ll brave your lack of punctuation and seussian syntax and try to derive whatever meaning–if any–there are in your posts. Until then, I doubt anyone could blame me for telling you that I have no idea what you’re talking about.”
Sure. Hint. It’s called Libonics.
Someday you’ll be “brave”? Someday you’ll be… “brave”?
Your funhouse mirror is puzzled.
Yeah, it’s always someday isn’t it? Wait for that grand and wonderful day when men everywhere can tell woman what to wear and what to think, beat them into submission if they don’t obey, and kill them at a whim as long as no proper witnesses are present. Then you can be “brave” and coerce a defenseless woman to obey your whims, with the full backing of the powers that be. You did have that Modern Liberal Turkey Now the Hen basted, but even a Modern Liberal Turkey knows enough when to get out.
Someday you may be “brave” and recognize this burka brutality and oppose it.
And by all means be “brave” Pee Wee moho – Anon – Shawn Ondeen Whatever’s Alice Nolin Twilight Zone Dummy. You did disarm those muggers with your “Courage and Intelligence”, right?
And be “brave” and catch your pants on fire. That would qualify you for real Jihad rather than Wannabe Jihad. That would give the planned video “Onan the Wannnabe Jihadist” a much better plot line. Rather than the original idea of teenage girls being burkaized into a life of slavery.
Van Jones didn’t get the gig with Mr. President? Well, you can always protest by catching your pants on fire in front of the White House. Modern Liberals have a history of doing such things. Be all you can be!
Come on now, break it out moho, lol, squirreling, pwnage, whatever. By all means be hip. Lay it out.
Be “brave”. Call someone stupid! Be cool. That’s all that matters.
Happy New Year! Whatever.
Vivo
I apologize. I am so used to you siding with the likes of Alice Nolan that I automatically thought you had sided with them again. I was wrong. Sorry
There is no difference between telling a woman what to wear from telling her what not to wear. Either way, it’s still bossing women around.
Easy target.
This is not attacking the root of the problem.
oh I am so sorry, I didn’t know you were such a feminist, enjoy your soon shariah !
anon, I’m going to talk of Wittgenstein to my deputees, very good approach, that and our constitutionnal laws, I think we are imparable
#57,
What bull. Firstly, irony isn’t at issue in this discussion and no one other than a writer, or a Brit, would be bringing it up here.I’m not all that interested in your non-sequitur.
“the burqa’s purpose is to allow women to enter into male dominated worlds with freedom of movement”
Oh yeah ? Well here’s a news flash-women have been doing just that thing since time out of mind-sans burga and without fear of rape .Furthermore, women have been ruling great empires since time immemorial as well and, in male dominated worlds.
That women have to be segregated from men in some cultures in an indication there is a terrible psychological problem undermining that culture. The vast majority of men just aren’t rapists and never have been/never will be. That vast majority of men actually like women, adore them a lot of the time. So, no, quite a few cultures have thrived without the fear of rape being a major, life-altering priority.
The burqa obviously isn’t that much of a deterrent anyway. Women are raped in the Middle East and that will continue to happen. I suspect it has something to do with males who have serious problems and lack self discipline, or any discipline for that matter. Also, people of either sex just don’t develope with normal scruples.We write laws to deal with this in mind.
95. Alice Nolin:You are psychotic.
Baal. Hilarious. You think rape is a perfectly logical and acceptable circumstance of men and women serving together in the military and you call me psychotic.
Loraine #108 and Alice #121: look don’t waste too much time with these people here. here is the advice I gave to Marie Claude and the rest of them. they should go and do some shopping on this site. they would then have a different view of life.
http://www.babeland.com
Happy New year!!!!
Propriety is all in the eyes of the beholder. For some its inappropriate for women to even wear a bikini. For others, bikinis on women are OK while mankinis aren’t….i.e thongs. The shape of a breast scantily covered with material seems to be acceptable, while the shape of a man’s genitals are not. But burqas go beyond propriety. They interfere with identification. But If Muslim women want to be slaves to men, they should knock themselves out. Unfortunately that won’t work in a country where freedom and liberty are celebrated. So go be a slave somewhere else. As for beachwear, lets leave “propriety” out of it, since we’ll never all agree. MrBill
Yet more proof ALL religions are stupid. Tax and regulate them like any corporation. Then burqas can be just another tangible good to boost the economy.
@ #34
“I like having the freedom to engage in consensual activities without government interference, and believe others should enjoy the same rights.”
That statement is made by a free man currently enjoying said rights. What you perhaps fail to recognize is that the burqa, sharia compliant finance, hate laws for speech deemed offensive to muslims – it all amounts to several camel noses through the proverbial tent door. Eventually the question of exercising any personal predilections will quite simply be moot.
Ack! My hair’s on fire!
In Italy the burka and the nikab are not allowed by the laws about public security enacted in the ’70 to prevent violence in public.
As people stop and dismount a motorbikes they must take out an helment, if it cover the full face.
A few months ago, a journalist put a burka on and walked around Verona faking to be an integralist Muslim woman (they elected a new major of Lega Nord party) and the reaction were not warm from the common people.
There are not many burka wearers in Italy and we try to keep it so.
Ann:
What’s wrong with “sharia compliant finance”? So some muslims have a religious objection to charging interest on loans to other muslims, and they find a way around it. So what?
#126,
Well, as long as it isn’t your burqa.
ann #125: please share some of what you are smoking with us…
secularism is not a “religion” but the rational stance that state and all the curches and creeds of its inhabitants should not interfere with each other. indee – as ac grayling points out – religious people should embrace secularism. it is the best protection for competing faiths which can discuss their relative positions in a ideologically neutral public space warranted by publicly guaranteed civil liberties.
and burka ans niqab have no religious foundation. they are symbols of political ideologies that are based on gender segregation and the disfranchisement of women. in this discussion is no place for liberal or religious sensibilities. it calls for a clearheaded defense of western democratic values.
I agree with the author’s position that the burka and other similar garb should be banned. This is not an unreasonable restriction of someone’s freedom. The practice is inherently demeaning towards women. It deprives them from communicating with anyone they encounter. And just because some women might in theory elect to don such garb doesn’t mean we cannot lawfully ban it, at least in public places. There are some things that society prohibits people from doing no matter what the justification. We prohibit people from working for less than the minimum wage or for more than 40 hours a week without overtime pay. It’s called social legisltion in the U.S.
Telling a woman what she can and can’t wear is inherenlty demeaning towards women. It reinforces and extends the patriarchal precedent of women being told what to do … for their own good of course.
How about we tell MEN what they can and can’t do for a few centuries and leave women alone?
“This indicates that there is systemic violence against women in our own culture, burka or no.”
Alice, I don’t think that word means what you think it does;
systemic
adj.
1. Of or relating to systems or a system.
2.
1. Relating to or affecting the entire body or an entire organism: systemic symptoms; a systemic poison.
2. Relating to or affecting a particular body system, especially the nervous system: a systemic lesion.
3. Physiology. Of or relating to systemic circulation.
systemically sys·tem’i·cal·ly adv.
I think you were trying to say that violence directed toward females is a part of Western civilization.
First you need to define what category of violence. Physical, emotional or financial. Then within those categories you need to figure out which of the 4 types of violence it is;
1) Territorial
2) Behavioral Correction
3) Criminal
4) Predatorial
Most people think physical when they think violence. Studies show that emotional violence is in most respects more damaging then physical violence. The most prevalent violence is financial.
Governments use financial violence to control the masses. They call it taxes.
Anyway your argument is easily countered by pointing out the “system” make physical violence against any citizen illegal except under certain, very rare conditions. Since the violence is punished by the system ( with more violence! ), it can not be argued that the violence is part of the system (systemic). You are unhappy with the violence used against males ( I assume) by the system in an attempt at Behavioral Correction. I am unhappy that females can get away with using emotional violence against males without ANY attempt at punishment.
So when Tom’s wife Suzi Revenge fook’s his best friend Bob because Tom refuses to trade in her 2 year old Audi for a new Lexus Tom is a victim of emotional violence. If Tom uses Financial violence (divorce) in response, he could very well suffer more then Suzi does. So he beats her a$$ in the front yard, using physical violence in response to emotional violence. None of these uses of violence is systemic, except possibly the financial one.
The system depends on stable, heterosexual marriages to survive. Without them it collapses. So non-governmental violence is forbidden by the system. It happens anyway because people are people. But that isn’t the system’s fault. You cannot fault the system for something the system forbids.
Maybe you meant “systematic”? Look it up.
John “birther” Samford:
Got a few issues to work out, have we?
it it illegal to wear a face mask while driving a car a burka qualifies as a face mask backs have signs prohibiting face covering when entering a bank the constitution is not a suicide pack we are at war with a cult stated by a crazy pedophile over 1,000 years ago fortunately they are so bad at it we rarely notice where are many religious rites a rules that are illegal
So funny how a womans choice of clothing gets everybodys knickers in a twist. Everybody but the muslim woman who chooses to wear the burqa has a say in the matter – so much for freedom for her. And that extinct argument that these women are forced to wear the burkha is absolute rubbish, the bburkha is enforced in some countries like saudi arabia. The first muslim immigrants to say the UK never wore burqa it has evolved in time to be an accepted part of muslim dresscode for muslims living here. I dont particularly like it but i will defend to the death a persons right to wear what they want
Bravo Barbara–you got it RIGHT!! Wearing a burka or niqab now is like wearing a Nazi uniform in the middle of WWII! Headscarves are good enough for truly religious reasons, I say! I also say to American Muslim, it is your grandchildren that will be Christian because unmodernized Islam is on the verge of imploding and it deserves to be unless you get rid of Sharia–NOW!!
The moment the burqua and niqab were used in suicide bombings, anyone who continues to wear it or is forced to wear it is directly participating in the acts of terror. Fellow muslims of terrorist persuasions, although crassly mislead, have denigrated any claim of such dress being symbol of female modesty. Western societies have to revise the laissez-faire attitude toward individual choices in dress in this case. Truly devout Muslims must themselves relinguish the choice of burqua or niqab as a result of its misuse by Terrorists among the muslim populations.