Burkas in France

[grandpa]

Ask her, not me.
Powerful argument (against) by another Muslim woman, very much at
the heart of the controversy.

At the heart of heated controversy is the idea -- the tactical view -- that policies should be imposed on others.

Grandpa h.

[The Bacon Guy]

Ask her, not me.

Powerful argument (against) by another Muslim woman, very much at the heart of the controversy. I'd love to see you pitting your best Libertarian arguments against such a formidable opponent, Bacon

Well she's not here Gem, so why don't you try exercising some intellectual effort of your own?

[GeminiBrian]

[QUOTE]

Which you haven’t proved happens in any significant number of cases.

People who routinely abuse their children are in the minority, too, but that's no excuse for ignoring the children who are victims.

I don’t believe that contravenes any legislation, Gem.

The law states that sexist and other legislation applies equally to men and women. I can't think of any exceptions. Limiting the freedom of the opposite sex (as when they are prevented from going out alone) almost certainly qualifies as an existing offence - false imprisonment certainly is. If a woman (or a man) barred from leaving her home, I think that qualifies as an offence.

Being wrong all the time?

If I thought I was wrong, Bacon, do you think I could be arsed to waste my time just plumping your ego?

Which they would most likely have to do anyway. We’ve already been though all this. Dishonestly pretending it didn’t happen isn’t going to change that.

Well, don't be so arrogant as to conclude that you have won the argument - I for one think you put up a most simplistic case for vitamins. So let's agree to disagree, pending further evidence, rather than claim premature victory as you just did.

Don’t have to. You have to prove that they do, otherwise you can’t prove that the burka deprives women of anything beneficial, in which case you have no grounds for banning it. Refuted.

The horizons of your world strike me as being depressingly narrow, Bacon, yet you accuse me of being under-informed. I try to look at the picture in the widest possible context, even if my thinking includes the exotic at times, and is therefore outside the scope of your perceptions. I make no apology for that, and think that you, too, might benefit from expanding your vision a little. (It might even make you a little more approachable, hopefully).

So your refutation, based as it is on the narrowest medical parameters, cannot be regarded as absolute.

You don’t ban masks; you don’t ban jackets. Refuted.

Masks are traditionally associated with highway robbers, burglars and executioners in this country. Anyone wearing one would immediately arouse suspicion outside of a fancy-dress party. As for jackets - do jackets in Scotland cover the face? Hoodies, as we know, are already banned where they may be worn to deliberately fool CCTV cameras and store security monitors.

And again this rests on your claim that Muslim women are coerced into wearing the burka, which we have already established you are unable to provide any proof or numbers for. Refuted.

Not at all - the statistics will be collated eventually - even if they are scarce - (at present) - so again, your refutation is premature, as I hope to prove to you after further research.

Again, allowing =/= supporting. Your lying strawmen are not fooling anyone.

Sorry if I hit a nerve - you must realise deep down that you are ultimately condoning sexism.

Uh, no. Animal experimentation ALONE, with psychosis inducing drugs thrown into the mix, is a waste of time, Refuted.

I'll remind you of that should we ever lock horns in an anti-vivisection debate. Talk about moving the goalposts!

That would be a more reasonable statement if you could explain to me why the opinions of women who don’t wear the burka should be taken as a reflection of the opinions of women who do wear the burka.

Take the suffragettes of the last century - maybe we shouldn't have listened to their grievances either? Women pioneers for the rights of All women, in other words, whom history now respects.

How can something happen consistently if it’s only happened once?

So you do admit that you used a gratuitously disparaging epithet towards at least one woman? You also called the ferociously left wing Alibhai Brown a 'reactionary' if memory serves - something she would no doubt regard as deeply insulting - Nice one, Bacon.

Ban = law. Breaking law = arrest. Again, how many times are we going to have to go over this? You can’t just wait until a few posts after an argument is made then pretend it never happened.

All you have to do is to quote me advocating arrest for wearing the burka. I have freely admitted that anything too draconian would be ill-advised, and that the procedure would require very tentative and diplomatic handling. Don't jump to unwarranted conclusions.

They’re turned away to where? If the garment is banned, they can’t be turned away to anywhere.

Look again at what I actually said - they might be turned away from privately-owned commercial premises of any description, and not have the burka confiscated on the spot. In this case, wearing it on the street would not be affected.

No problem with private stores banning anything they want. But that’s not what we’re talking about here

It is as of now.

Oh right, because I’m sure women who are pious enough to wear the burka are likely to go out shoplifting.

You are being disingenuous for effect, right? You MUST know the problems that London stores in particular have with burka-wearing shoplifters - it is notoriously commonplace, faith or no faith. The more expensive the shop, the worse the problem seems to be.

How does allowing women to wear burkas constitute turning a blind eye to Jihad?

I refer you to the link I supplied earlier, where that French Muslim woman expresses the problem far better than I could. But then, even the best-informed female opinion seems to carry little weight with you these days.

Not if the people wearing it choose to

The burka-wearing mindset is still one of deliberate non-integration. As such, it IS very much against the ethos of a free society and its limitations on sexist practices generally, just like the absence of"choice" when it comes to practice genital mutilation or forced marriages. Banning it doesn't alter that.

But you have no figures to say what this percentage is.

Like child abuse - even if it affects only one in a hundred - the apparatus must be in place to combat it. So in a sense, the actual percentage is irrelevant.

Yes, but the principle that some things are attractive to all women and some are not attractive to any women does not.

It is not for the husband to so decide on her behalf - that's where sexism comes in.

Something can be aesthetically attractive without being sexually attractive.

In this case, therefore, please supply the sort of proof you are always demanding from me. How many women, if any, find the burka aesthetically pleasing? What do these women themselves think? Good luck in your search.

Different strokes.

The burka is designed to repel - that's the bottom line.

No, but you certainly cease to see it from the point of view of those who are not rallying against the culture.

Absolute nonsense - how can you argue such a thing? Your direct personal involvement in a culture, and your immersion in it, is the best possible qualification to criticise that culture, surely?

How is anonymity relevant? If you’re going to blow yourself up, it hardly matters if people know your identity.

That's just naive. Even if the bomber doesn't simply walk away after planting a device (as happened in the London atrocity) - the suicide-bomber's face on CCTV may well be known to the anti-terrorist people, and recognition of it could very easily provide a lead to the rest of the terrorist outfit. . . surely that much is obvious?

The abuse you can’t prove is even anything close to widespread? The abuse you can’t demonstrate would be reduced by banning the burka?

According to some of the links I've sent you, YOU are the one in denial - that's probably why you feel the need to rubbish anyone who paints a picture of reality that is at variance with your rose-tinted one. . . Once again, if banning the totally useless, sexist anachronism called the burka counteracts this insidious sexism even to a small degree, it will ultimately benefit all Muslim women.

Many women despised the suffragettes in their day - but few today would criticise them or their achievement. That is where your seemingly water-tight arguments break down - they will not be validated by history, I promise you.

Anything constructive to add?

That's enough anger to be getting on with for now, Bacon.

[GeminiBrian]

Well she's not here Gem, so why don't you try exercising some intellectual effort of your own?

If I was a woman I'd come down on you like a ton of bricks for your covert sexism. As I'm not, I can only do my best to expose your many fallacies.

[GeminiBrian]

At the heart of heated controversy is the idea -- the tactical view -- that policies should be imposed on others..

Not sure of your meaning, grandpa: Imposing policies on others is at the heart of The Rule of Law, isn't it?

[grandpa]

Not sure of your meaning, grandpa: Imposing policies on others
is at the heart of The Rule of Law, isn't
it?

Exactly, be it Islamic law or the law of France.

Grandpa h.

[barnhardt2010]

If I was a woman I'd come down on you like a ton of bricks for your covert sexism. As I'm not, I can only do my best to expose your many fallacies.

I bet had they banned the wearing of Burkas by gay men, you would be screaming about the denial of their rights and liberties.

[GeminiBrian]

I bet had they banned the wearing of Burkas by gay men, you would be screaming about the denial of their rights and liberties.

I don't think so barn; how many gay men do you know who would want to hide their assets?

[Jack]

Brian, barn, can we avoid turning every topic into a personal comment fest and focus on the topic while engaging in an impersonal debate? Please?

[do not respond]

[rmnunez]

Is wearing a burka the sign of its wearer's religious devotion or of her submission to her husband?

[GeminiBrian]

Is wearing a burka the sign of its wearer's religious devotion or of her submission to her husband?

Either way, I would say it's simply a sign of people still living in the middle ages.

[The Bacon Guy]

People who routinely abuse their children are in the minority, too, but that's no excuse for ignoring the children who are victims.

No one is ignoring it; there are already laws against abusing women.

The law states that sexist and other legislation applies equally to men and women. I can't think of any exceptions. Limiting the freedom of the opposite sex (as when they are prevented from going out alone) almost certainly qualifies as an existing offence false imprisonment certainly is. If a woman (or a man) barred from leaving her home, I think that qualifies as an offence.

But you can’t prove that all of them are. Red herring.

If I thought I was wrong,

Of course you don’t think you’re wrong. But that just makes you more wrong.

Well, don't be so arrogant as to conclude that you have won the argument - I for one think you put up a most simplistic case for vitamins. So let's agree to disagree, pending further evidence

Uh, no. Let’s agree that you have been unable to prove your claims, due to the lack of further evidence.

The horizons of your world strike me as being depressingly narrow, Bacon, yet you accuse me of being under-informed. I try to look at the picture in the widest possible context, even if my thinking includes the exotic at times, and is therefore outside the scope of your perceptions. I make no apology for that, and think that you, too, might benefit from expanding your vision a little. (It might even make you a little more approachable, hopefully).

So your refutation, based as it is on the narrowest medical parameters, cannot be regarded as absolute.

Be specific or don’t bother posting. Saying “your horizons are too narrow” is not an argument, Explain in what way they are too narrow.

That's just naive. Even if the bomber doesn't simply walk away after planting a device (as happened in the London atrocity) - the suicide-bomber's face on CCTV may well be known to the anti-terrorist people, and recognition of it could very easily provide a lead to the rest of the terrorist outfit. . . surely that much is obvious?

Masks are traditionally associated with highway robbers, burglars and executioners in this country. Anyone wearing one would immediately arouse suspicion outside of a fancy-dress party. As for jackets - do jackets in Scotland cover the face? Hoodies, as we know, are already banned where they may be worn to deliberately fool CCTV cameras and store security monitors.

Yet both can be and are used in crimes, though not necessarily in the same way, and I’m willing to bet a lot more often than the burka. If banning clothing were a reasonable way of preventing crime, you would support banning these.

Not at all - the statistics will be collated eventually - even if they are scarce - (at present) - so again, your refutation is premature, as I hope to prove to you after further research.

But until then it is innocent until proven guilty.

Sorry if I hit a nerve - you must realise deep down that you are ultimately condoning sexism.

My not appreciating your lies means the lies must be true?

I'll remind you of that should we ever lock horns in an anti-vivisection debate. Talk about moving the goalposts!

Already debating it with LostinLife. Feel free to join in.

Take the suffragettes of the last century - maybe we shouldn't have listened to their grievances either? Women pioneers for the rights of All women, in other words, whom history now respects.

Because they were actually being oppressed, so they had a legitimate interest in changing things. The do not have a legitimate interest in banning the burka because if they don’t like it they don’t have to wear it.

That and the oppression they were opposing was an objective legal oppression which there was no denying existed. This oppression you speak of is, so far, purely in your head.

So you do admit that you used a gratuitously disparaging epithet towards at least one woman?

I wouldn’t say gratuitously.

You also called the ferociously left wing Alibhai Brown a 'reactionary' if memory serves - something she would no doubt regard as deeply insulting - Nice one, Bacon.

If she’s insulted by being called reactionary, she should stop being so reactionary.

All you have to do is to quote me advocating arrest for wearing the burka. I have freely admitted that anything too draconian would be ill-advised, and that the procedure would require very tentative and diplomatic handling. Don't jump to unwarranted conclusions.

If it doesn’t involve arrest, it’s not a law, and if it’s not law, it’s not a ban.

Look again at what I actually said - they might be turned away from privately-owned commercial premises of any description, and not have the burka confiscated on the spot. In this case, wearing it on the street would not be affected.

In which case it’s not a legal ban.

It is as of now.

Because your original position has become untenable?

You are being disingenuous for effect, right? You MUST know the problems that London stores in particular have with burka-wearing shoplifters - it is notoriously commonplace, faith or no faith. The more expensive the shop, the worse the problem seems to be.

If a private establishment doesn’t like it, they can ban it.

And I’d like a credible source for this claim that burka-clad shoplifters are common.

I refer you to the link I supplied earlier, where that French Muslim woman expresses the problem far better than I could. But then, even the best-informed female opinion seems to carry little weight with you these days.

Already addressed your links. If you disagree with my objections, address them directly.

The burka-wearing mindset is still one of deliberate non-integration. As such, it IS very much against the ethos of a free society and its limitations on sexist practices generally,

Freedom does not mean integration. A free society does not force everyone to be part of the same social group.

just like the absence of"choice" when it comes to practice genital mutilation or forced marriages. Banning it doesn't alter that.

Uh, no, because genital mutilation and forced marriages involve force and thus eliminate choice and thus are anti-freedom. Same doesn’t apply to burkas, so it’s a dishonest comparison.

Like child abuse - even if it affects only one in a hundred - the apparatus must be in place to combat it. So in a sense, the actual percentage is irrelevant.

Again, abusing women is as illegal as abusing children. What you are proposing is to remove the rights of the harmless majority for the sake of preventing a small minority from abusing said right. What part of child abuse laws sets a precedent for this?

It is not for the husband to so decide on her behalf

Separate issue, which is already being addressed elsewhere. I’ll assume from your deflection that you are unable to prove that Muslim women who wear the burka find it hideous.

In this case, therefore, please supply the sort of proof you are always demanding from me. How many women, if any, find the burka aesthetically pleasing? What do these women themselves think? Good luck in your search.

Not my job to prove anything. You made the claim; the onus is on you. Deflecting isn’t going to change that fact.

The burka is designed to repel - that's the bottom line.

Nope. One of the original purposes was, allegedly, to make women less sexually attractive. That doesn’t necessarily mean aesthetically unattractive.

Absolute nonsense - how can you argue such a thing? Your direct personal involvement in a culture, and your immersion in it, is the best possible qualification to criticise that culture, surely?

Criticise all you want, but don’t claim you see it from the point of view of those that don’t criticise it. How can two people at opposite ends of an argument be seeing things from the same perspective?

According to some of the links I've sent you, YOU are the one in denial –

The couple of women who’ve voiced an opinion you happen to share? Finding two people who agree with you is hardly proof, Gem.

Once again, if banning the totally useless, sexist anachronism called the burka counteracts this insidious sexism even to a small degree, it will ultimately benefit all Muslim women.

But you haven’t proved that it will.

Many women despised the suffragettes in their day - but few today would criticise them or their achievement. That is where your seemingly water-tight arguments break down - they will not be validated by history, I promise you.

Until then, you have not got a leg to stand on in this debate.

Either way, I would say it's simply a sign of people still living in the middle ages.

Which a free society would allow them to do provided it is their choice.