Immigration Ban the burka?

[Mzungu mchagga]

Yes, it is a woman's free choice to decide whether she wants to fully cover her body and face, or to get insulted, beaten, raped and defamed by her relatives... The choice is her's!

 

[Gavroche]

And stoning to death

 

[LeBrok]

This is a really good demonstration of the evolution of the women's emancipation! The clothes are the best exemples...

@LeBrok:
You didn't answer my comments...
This is freedom???
This is descrimination!!!
And the full-face veil is the "public" symbol of the muslims extremists inequalities...

Try to watch "Persepolis"...

Hehe, I've answered your comment before you had joined Eupedia. Am I good of what? :grin:
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showthread.php?25743-Ban-the-burka&p=357265&viewfull=1#post357265

 

[LeBrok]

And this is an archeological reconstruction of clothes that were worn in by Baltic tribes in I-IV AD. Again the hair is covered ... and this is not the influence of Christianity which will come to these part of the world after another 1000 years.

It is amazing how these clothes are similar to clothes from middle east from same time period.

If I'm not mistaken, in Europe only unmarried women could display uncovered hair. Married women had alway some sort of hair covering. It was a symbol that this woman belongs to a man, the woman is not available. It's a sign that our societies where patriarchal in their roots. It is a sign that women in past belonged to a men, as property. Women never inherited farms, or real estates. Women didn't have right to vote, even in village gatherings.
When Christianity took helm in Europe, women situation didn't change. The church structure was always patriarchal. Women were nuns but never could become a priest, the leading part of church. Women were coved still in traditional patriarchal way, just look at nuns. They were "married" to Christ therefore had to were full covering of body and hair. Same traditional way showing that they belong to someone. Generally speaking till 20th century women were never free, they always belonged to someone. The only exceptions were few queens, few other really rich women, and occasional others lucky ones.
My mother, even today, never enters the church without head covering. It would be unbelievably improper in her mind. Also, she never accepted a communion from a nun, only from priest man.

Summarizing, it goes like this. Religions are like political entities. They are run, organized, and controlled by someone, some people. In patriarchal societies religions are run by men, never by women. They even refer to god as man. This go same for Christianity and Islam. These particular religions go in unison with patriarchal character of governments run by kings or men in parliaments (disregard 20th century Europe after emancipation), they help each other to keep population in check, with general character of patriarchal societies.
From 19 hundreds things really changed in Europe. You can thank new economy, education, science and industrialization that allowed women to find jobs and make their own money. Once they had their own means for living, without getting married, they became independent. No longer men controlled all the money, therefore women destiny.
After that it required some twisting man's arm to get equality in politics and social life, but finally here we are, even Steven.
Now, social and political life changes already happened. Unfortunately Christian religions are still catching up, some traditions too, they are always last to act. In Catholic church women still can't be priests, in orthodox faith too. Still all men's club.

 

[Dagne]

It is all true that you say LeBrok about women, the only shortcoming of liberalisation is that there are way fewer children born. This problem however is a very significant one for the society in general, because in some countries the natural growth is negative and after a short while (in historic terms) some nations like Lithuanians and Latvians are likely to disappear... Whereas the future belongs to Asia and most probably Muslim or other traditional patriarch societies where families have many children…

It is however a new topic…

So my vote regarding burkas – well, even having in mind all the right reasons that it is discrimination against women, let them be as they are, banning won’t really help those woman, so far their own communities are not accepting more flexible approaches.

 

[iapetoc]

well just information on what is Burka,

well I don't know if women like to wear it or forced,
but for me it is outrageous,
Every kind of veil or cloth that covers face must be banned.

It is another story the cover hair and another the cover face.

 

[Gavroche]

Hehe, I've answered your comment before you had joined Eupedia

Sorry LeBrok, I got you confused with Antigone...:useless:

I apologize...:ashamed2:

 

[LeBrok]

It is however a new topic…

So my vote regarding burkas – well, even having in mind all the right reasons that it is discrimination against women, let them be as they are, banning won’t really help those woman, so far their own communities are not accepting more flexible approaches.

Let's try a parallel:
Letting these women "choose" to wear burka is lake letting a slave "choose" to work for his master.

Dagne, free these slaves first, then give them a right to choose. From a good hearth of yours, you and antigone are doing this in reverse. As noble as this can be it won't work. They don't have a choice yet. They are not free women like you two.
Free the slaves first!
Banning burka won't make them free, I know. But it would give them a little bit of dignity.
It's like making sure that the slaves are not shackled anymore and locked in cellars. We are not abolishing slavery yet, but will make slaves life a bit more humane.
Just look at them again, and give them some dignity. Don't give them the choice they don't have.

 

[Gusar]

That thing is absolutely disgusting. Even if it's a minority, it absolutely shocks me to see women wearing a burka down the street. It's more offensive to me then seeing women walking around half naked. If it were up to me I would put strict controls on Islamic immigration into Europe all together. They absolutely ruin our landscape.

 

[sparkey]

Hm... so, if I understand what others have posted, banning the burka is actually enhancing freedom rather than taking it away, because the freedom to wear a burka isn't actual freedom... those women live under social pressure to wear it. Oddly, non-Muslim women live under social pressure to not wear a burka. That's a restriction on their freedom in the same sense. They could even get beaten for wearing a burka.

Therefore, we should ban burkas, and ban not wearing burkas.

Hiding their faces is also very dangerous... why would they want to do that if they aren't terrorists or planning to rob a bank? It's a public safety measure that we should all see everybody's faces. Of course, the more we can see, the safer we'll become. We never know what they'll be hiding in those crevices.

Therefore, we should require total nudity.


Or... we can just let people practice their religion as they see fit, assume that people are innocent until proven guilty, and outlaw threats of violence, not free choice.

 

[Antigone]

Good post Sparkey! Whether a women should or shouldn't wear a burqa, it is still just a bunch of men telling females what to do. Each as bad as the other, ironic isn't it?

 

[LeBrok]

Oddly, non-Muslim women live under social pressure to not wear a burka. That's a restriction on their freedom in the same sense. They could even get beaten for wearing a burka.
QUOTE]
I wish you could elaborate on this point as I'm not familiar with even one case.
And to compare apples to apples, try finding an "honor" killing for wearing burka in western countries. Heck, in the whole world.
On the other hand we can easily find contrary examples, "honor" killings for not wearing burka.


I have chosen.

For the sake of conclusion, show me one man wearing full face covering all the time in public places. Show me one man, and I'll believe it's a choice.

 

[LeBrok]

Good post Sparkey! Whether a women should or shouldn't wear a burqa, it is still just a bunch of men telling females what to do. Each as bad as the other, ironic isn't it?

If it comes to tradition and religion, as in burka situation, you will find same amount of pressure from females in muslim families as from men. When your mother wears burka, and your mother in law, and your sisters, they will be the ones to give you most pressure to wear it too. It's a tradition! They don't even need to know or care that this tradition was started by men to protect their properties. It's a tradition now, with lots of pressure from women too.
The family pressure or group pressure exists in western world too. We can't escape it, it's a human condition. The best example is fashion. If your friends wear mini skirts and you decide to wear burka, even for fun on daily bases, you'll be kicked out from the group. No question about this. But, unlike in muslim fundamentalists groups, nobody will kill you or beat you up for this.
(I know there are always a groups of hooligans in the street that will beat or kill anyone looking different, but this should count as counterargument, as they are looking for violence already, they just need to find someone different, and it might be unlucky woman in burka.)
Pressure to dress alike, and many other pressures to comply to group standards and ways, existed and will exist in every human community on this planet. That's human nature, and moreso because we are group animals.
As I stated before: The problem/situation is not a problem, the scale/intensity of a problem is a problem.

Show me one man wearing burka (full face covering in public places on daily bases) and I'll believe it's a choice. Let's make sure he doesn't have disfigured face, this won't count.

 

[sparkey]

I wish you could elaborate on this point as I'm not familiar with even one case.
And to compare apples to apples, try finding an "honor" killing for wearing burka in western countries. Heck, in the whole world.
On the other hand we can easily find contrary examples, "honor" killings for not wearing burka.

Obviously "honor killings" aren't a part of Christian, much less, European culture. Honor killings should be illegal, of course, as should threats of them.

That's not to say that things never go both ways. A quick example from Egypt. But my point wasn't about honor killings, I was saying that there is significant social pressure in western countries to not convert to Islam, which can result in isolation... certainly a restriction on freedom in the same way as social pressure to wear a burka. (Yes, violent threats are a different matter.)

For the sake of conclusion, show me one man wearing full face covering all the time in public places. Show me one man, and I'll believe it's a choice.

There isn't such a religion, but if there was one, we should be consistent and allow it. Usually the counterpart to veils for men is the requirement to wear a full beard.

If it comes to tradition and religion, as in burka situation, you will find same amount of pressure from females in muslim families as from men. When your mother wears burka, and your mother in law, and your sisters, they will be the ones to give you most pressure to wear it too. It's a tradition! They don't even need to know or care that this tradition was started by men to protect their properties. It's a tradition now, with lots of pressure from women too.

The family pressure or group pressure exists in western world too. We can't escape it, it's a human condition. The best example is fashion. If your friends wear mini skirts and you decide to wear burka, even for fun on daily bases, you'll be kicked out from the group. No question about this.

Exactly.

But, unlike in muslim fundamentalists groups, nobody will kill you or beat you up for this.

We've found the problem, and it's not the burkas...

As I stated before: The problem/situation is not a problem, the scale/intensity of a problem is a problem.

I disagree, the fact that threats exist is the problem, and it is a problem regardless of scale/intensity. Besides, very few Muslims in Western countries wear burkas, anyway.

 

[iapetoc]

Lebrok just for fun I know some men wearing Burcas,

Do you see any difference with your photo at #98

 

[LeBrok]

I disagree, the fact that threats exist is the problem, and it is a problem regardless of scale/intensity. Besides, very few Muslims in Western countries wear burkas, anyway.

Yes, of course, but I meant it as a problem for society as whole, and not for individuals or sporadic instances. Here are few examples what I meant.

- We know that obesity is a health problem. Take N Korea, it looks like there is only one OBs person in a country, Kim Jong Un. His health is not going to effect health-care system and drain country's budget. On contrary it might turn beneficial if he turns to be even a bigger monster than his father. Now, the situation will change dramatically if every second person in a country is OBs, and effect well being of whole society in many fields, from health-care ruin to extra expenses enlarging car seats and door sizes, etc.

The shift is from amusing " He has a problem" to very dramatic "We have a problem".

- We might have one foreigner in a country, and all it does is to create curiosity effect for all the people around, the different language he speaks or cloths he wears. When we have half of people speaking different language, we have to say, that it will create mega mess.
The sift is from curiosity to a big problem.

- Even the silly burka at airport security could be none issue if one person a day has to be checked in separate room. Now imagine this has to be repeated for half of passengers. We can put big dollar value on society in flight delays, bigger personnel and security risks.
Shift from annoyance to security and financial constraints at the airports.

- Corruption in Sweden is nothing more than broken careers of handful politicians. Corruption in India stands in a way of economic progress and elevating millions from poverty.
Sweden doesn't have a corruption problem, India has the corruption problem.

- Loans in moderation are amazing tool of improving lives and accelerating financial growth, or helping survive hardships. In overdose loans will hamper growth, bankrupt families, suck funds from essential services.
From blessing to destruction when scaled up.


Summing it up, many things are just annoyances or mere curiosities in single instances, but when they become rampant and ubiquitous they create problems for the whole society. Therefore a real problem is in scale of a problem/issue.

Now the trick is to notice a growing problem, name it and define, and act in time before it will cripple a society.

 

[LeBrok]

Lebrok just for fun I know some men wearing Burcas,

Do you see any difference with your photo at #98

hehe, it is a prime example that face cloth serves as a mean to disguise once identity. It creats problem in today's western world which is based on openness, freedoms, individualism, and also order-security and cooperation. Anyway, burka is a distractive element in western way of life.

One of strong aspects of human interaction is our ability to memorize people by their faces and reading emotions from faces for proper communication. To see each other face was and is very essential to human nature. That's why we are so good at it.

I have to stress again that headscarfs and burkas is nothing more than traditional way of protecting man's property in strongly patriarchal societies.

Property of Christ/church.






Property of king

Properties of well off citizens

Properties of pesants

http://www.google.ca/search?q=medie...QKyson9Cw&sqi=2&ved=0CB8QsAQ&biw=1613&bih=859


How strong is the tradition and social pressure? It is still going on in europe in native european communities:

 

[sparkey]

Summing it up, many things are just annoyances or mere curiosities in single instances, but when they become rampant and ubiquitous they create problems for the whole society. Therefore a real problem is in scale of a problem/issue.

Now the trick is to notice a growing problem, name it and define, and act in time before it will cripple a society.

The question then becomes: Do you solve the large-scale problems differently than the small-scale problems? I contend that you often do not, and the case of the burka is one in which you do not. Regardless of the scale of burka-wearing, it is only wrong when forced, and protecting women against forced burka wearing should be done on a case-by-case basis as a result. I can't think of any reason why it would be worthwhile to sacrifice freedom of religion and freedom of expression just because the scale of a tangential problem increases. I mean, airport security costs? To me, it's not even close to being on the same scale of importance...

Could you be more explicit in how you go about answering your own questions? You say: "name it and define, and act in time before it will cripple a society," how would you do those three things? I say:

Name it: Forced burka wearing (not that it's a major problem in the Western world to begin with)
Define it: When a woman is forced to wear a burka, which is always wrong
How to act: Prosecute forced burka wearing on a case-by-case basis... no reason to think that this is insufficient, especially right now in the Western world

 

[LeBrok]

The typical way so far for smaller problems is to either ignore them or leave them to individuals or close family to deal with it. Many issues are not even a problem till they get very popular. There is a certain reason for it why society ignores same problem on small scale and starts acting only when things are going really bad for the group. Probably we can describe it in energy conservation law.
There is limited amount of energy and time that society can sacrifice for its wellbeing. If most of energy will be spent tackling small problems, then we'll run out of energy and time to fix the crippling ones. Other thing worth noting is that vast majority of smaller problems never become big, and might even go away by themselves.
We might not even know that some benign things could be problematic on large scale. Take a lonely guy playing computer game all day long. We all agree, it is his life and his choice, go ahead waste it accordingly. Now imagine half of the society plays computer games all day long, and every day. I don't think that you would find even most tolerant society being able to afford freedom like this.
It doesn't need to be computer game, could be anything even productive and beneficial. The same person nets sweaters this time, a very relaxing and rather useful thing. If somehow making sweaters turns addictive and half of society only makes sweaters, we would have too many cheap sweaters but not enough and very expensive cars, homes, anything else. Sweater prohibition would be inevitable.


Burka, for the west, is an ultimate symbol of enslavement and degradation of women. But only for the west.
Burka, inside its traditional countries, is not a problem for their societies. It might have been there, together with inequality of women, for thousand years. It might have been long enough to let us conclude that this "custom" worked well for these societies, so it was beneficial, at least not destructive enough to cripple them. Heck, when talking to most women, wearing it, they will describe it as very beneficial. Protects against skin cancer, women don't waste time to "get ready to go out", and as we all know it protects women against rape. The last one is semi-sarcastic, but you get the point.
For the west, burka is this most visible tip of ultra conservative Muslim culture. It really goes against free western culture, the modern western culture that grew up on freedoms and individualism. Culture that worked its behind for last hundred years to give women equal rights. Now enslavement and submission of women is trying to get in through the back door.
We know well enough, from our past, culture of inequality is an issue, and will become a problem on larger scale if unchecked in Europe. Therefore problem is already identified, we just need to act accordingly for the good of western world.

Unlike some of us think on this forum, our freedoms are not universal for all, neither should be. Our freedoms should and must stop for the people that hate and violate our freedoms, they shouldn't be universally inclusive. Our tolerance MUST stop for intolerant individuals and groups.

PS. Maybe Ataturk was right creating base for modern Turkey, from traditional Muslim society, saying "For the people, against the people".

 

[how yes no 2]

reasons to ban burka are practical, they are not motivated "against" someone's culture, but "for" well-being of population...
thing is burka hides identity of person wearing it, which is violating need to keep security on higher level which matters especially in times we live in where terrorist attacks are not uncommon....