Belgium bans the burqa, chador, and hijab.

[K Douglas]

I waited to respond because I wanted to know if my stance on this was indeed "wrong" as some have stated here.

I waited to talk to my neighbour. She is a mother, married, with 3 children.

Yes she is muslim and her husband is a decent guy and friend.

I asked her about this ban and this was her response to me (not word for word as I am working from memory and you can believe me or not your choice):

"I think most muslim traditions are ridiculous. But my mother wouldn't agree. I live in Canada where I am free to be who I am. My mother is not free to be who she is. She wears a headscarf and I do not. I firmly believe that it is an antiquited and outdated tradition that has no place in the world today. Wearing traditional muslim dress for a woman is more about muslim men's insecurity and wanting to repress women in their societies. It is disgusting. If Europe banning this stupid tradition I applaud them and hope it leads to Canada doing the same."

There you have it. A muslim woman's take on the situation.

'nuf.

That's fine your neighbour is entitled to that opinion. But what about the Muslim women who want to wear the hijab? Why are we saying to them no you can't express yourself that way. For me it's not even a Muslim thing its about something bigger. Our gov't dictating more and more what we can and cannot do. Europe is notorious for this, it's a total nanny state. Individualism is being thrown out with the baby's bath water. If you think I'm overreacting let me give you a few examples here in North America.

1. NYC and California banned all trans fats from food service locations in 2008. This has caused many bakeries to shut their doors or change their processes. They are now looking at banning salt (no joke)
2. The state of NJ requires all provisional drivers license holders under the age of 21 to put reflective decals on their license plates. This is in order to make it easier for law enforcement officials to check that these drivers are obeying the terms of their license. Terms such as not having more than one passenger under 18 in the car or driving past a 11:00 pm curfew.
3. The city of SF has banned all plastic water bottles from gov't buildings. Other jurisdictions like Toronto are doing the same thing. Fucking ridiculous!
4. Here in Toronto we pay 5 cents for each plastic bag we require when spending our hard earned money on goods.
5. California banned toys from any kids meal that exceeds a certain caloric or fat count. That means happy meals no longer can give out a toy to kids.

This is just the tip of the iceberg. Why can't the authorities let people make their own decisons, good or bad?

 

[oldjones]

My story is about the Nijjab( spelling error meant Niqab (veil where only the eyes are revealed)) and the Burka ...It is not about the Hijjab( muslem head scarf).

Thanks, I caught the error in 'nijab', but assumed you like dj meant hijab, rather than niqab. To avoid such silly misunderstandings, let's just use the one term 'burqa', from the stories about the Belgian law, OK.

And frankly, it wouldn't matter if the law banned knee breeches or party hats, or you meant to type 'chastity belts'; you don't make people free by outlawing free choice.

Children and their parents all have issues over standards of behaviour, dress and belief. It's part of growing up and family life, and families mostly solve them. Where they cannot, there are agencies from helping social workers to hardline cops that can be brought in. Where else is a whole society supposed to forbid an innocent behaviour to everyone because some few parents can't control their anger?

Fixing your spelling hasn't fixed your argument, for all that you mean well by oppressed muslim women. Replacing their dictatorial husband and fathers who say they must veil with a law that says they must not still leaves them victims, still unfree.

 

[Quest4Less]

What educated modern woman would CHOOSE to wear a burqa???

Some are talking about this law taking away a choice - but again I ask - who in their right mind would choose to wear one?

 

[afterhours]

Wearing traditional muslim dress for a woman is more about muslim men's insecurity and wanting to repress women in their societies. It is disgusting. If Europe banning this stupid tradition I applaud them and hope it leads to Canada doing the same."

There you have it. A muslim woman's take on the situation.

A woman says that muslim men's insecurity and wanting to repress women is disgusting. Well, understandably so.
A man may say that seeing Western men having to live with [independent and liberated] women who are older than them (and fugly) is disgusting.

The real question is: in a situation where one gender has a commodity (vagina) and another gender desperately and regularly needs this commodity, would it be fair to make these two genders absolutely equal otherwise?
Or would that lead to inequality?

 

[Rockslinger]

Why are we even debating this? The entire civilized world and most of the uncivilized one as well do NOT cover their faces unless they are up to no good or are a hockey goalie. Sorry to be so blunt.

 

[Dougal Short]

Now just above, Dougal has turned my fictional Tom into "…the entire female portion of the population essentially enslaved". Which is ridiculous if we're talking Belgium or Canada, but perhaps relevant to Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia (which we're not)...

Fair enough, but I think of the exportation of this "custom" as nothing less than an extension of the safe BS that's being forced on these woman in Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan... You're right, changing the "dress code" isn't going to liberate anyone, but it would serve as an important "message".

 

[Rockslinger]

This is the most incompatible bunch of people in the world.

This is good in some ways because we do get a cross section of views but some things are no brainers and we still get one or more folks getting up on their soapbox lecturing us that we are violating someone's inalienable rights.

 

[oldjones]

Fair enough, but I think of the exportation of this "custom" as nothing less than an extension of the safe BS that's being forced on these woman in Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan... You're right, changing the "dress code" isn't going to liberate anyone, but it would serve as an important "message".

Trouble is the message it would send is that we're hypocrites and all our fine talk about free choice is empty BS.

Two women, one wants to wear a burka, one wants not to. How is a law that takes away the first woman's right of choice any better than a Taliban law that takes away the second woman's right?

If we believe in freedom, the only possible approach to the 'problem' of the burka is to make sure we have good strong laws that protect everyone from force used against their free choices. Forcing our choices on others and calling it freedom makes our whole democracy a stinking travesty.

To their tiny credit the France, Belgium and Quebec have made very little of the hypocritical 'save them from being forced' argument that I'm aware of. Instead their focus seems to be the sort of Hitlerian 've must all be perfect Aryans, und deviation from ze norm is hereby outlawed' which would clearly please many posters if adopted here.

They're still wrong.

 

[oldjones]

This is good in some ways because we do get a cross section of views but some things are no brainers and we still get one or more folks getting up on their soapbox lecturing us that we are violating someone's inalienable rights.

Because we are, when we pass laws like that. Drop the hypocrisy of "Liberté, égalité, fraternité" and "inalienable rights", and admit you're going fascist out of fear. At least you'd be able to still claim honesty makes you better than your enemy.

Oops, except they never pretended women were equal and able to decide for themselves. Or that anyone but the Biggest Bully had rights.

 

[red]

dec 11, 2007

A Mississauga, Ont., cab driver has been charged with the murder of his 16-year-old daughter, who was attacked in the family home after clashing with her strict Muslim family over whether or not to wear the hijab, the traditional Islamic head scarf for women.

 

[elmo]

Who's world is this normal in?

 

[Never Compromised]

dec 11, 2007

A Mississauga, Ont., cab driver has been charged with the murder of his 16-year-old daughter, who was attacked in the family home after clashing with her strict Muslim family over whether or not to wear the hijab, the traditional Islamic head scarf for women.

A straw man argument, which has nothing to do with anything. Should we ban all pick up trucks became some Christian filled a pick up truck with explosives and destroyed a US federal building? How about we ban all clerical collars because 100% of the Catholic priests that abused children wore the collar?

Some here seem to forget that some women actually find the modest dress and face covering to be a rather liberating bit of clothing. They do not have to put up with guys talking to their tits rather than look them them in the eyes. They no longer have to be compared to media images of "beautiful" women. They do not have to worry about guys treating them like fuck toys rather than thinking people. Or so I've been told by a number of Muslim women that want to wear the clothing that they chose to wear.

While I am not a fan of the Muslim dress, I can't find a single reasonable argument that supports its ban in our society.

As I said earlier, it is very easy to demand freedom for everyone that thinks like you, but much more difficult to defend the rights of people that are outside the village.

 

[Rockslinger]

admit you're going fascist out of fear.

Sure, pass one little law that the entire civilized world adopts as standard practice (not covering the face) and we are all fascists. Surprised no one has yet hurled the accusation of the "yellow star" on the forehead.

 

[Rockslinger]

but much more difficult to defend the rights of people that are outside the village.

No, actually it is very fashionable and politically correct to defend the rights of people outside the village. It also gives the so call "defenders" some self-appointed right to sit on their high moral horse and look down on the masses. These so called "defenders" also toss words like "racist" and "fascist" easily and so very casually at people who don't share their point of view.

There are people who live outside the village who believe in female genital mutilation. These "politically correct" folks will also defend that on the grounds of cultural sensitivity.

 

[red]

A straw man argument, which has nothing to do with anything. Should we ban all pick up trucks became some Christian filled a pick up truck with explosives and destroyed a US federal building? How about we ban all clerical collars because 100% of the Catholic priests that abused children wore the collar?

Some here seem to forget that some women actually find the modest dress and face covering to be a rather liberating bit of clothing. They do not have to put up with guys talking to their tits rather than look them them in the eyes. They no longer have to be compared to media images of "beautiful" women. They do not have to worry about guys treating them like fuck toys rather than thinking people. Or so I've been told by a number of Muslim women that want to wear the clothing that they chose to wear.

While I am not a fan of the Muslim dress, I can't find a single reasonable argument that supports its ban in our society.

As I said earlier, it is very easy to demand freedom for everyone that thinks like you, but much more difficult to defend the rights of people that are outside the village.

was modest dress banned? I didn't see that.

a) would such a ban protect the right of a woman who didn't want to wear the hijab, but was being pressured by her family to wear it? yes.

b) would such a ban impinge upon the right of a woman who wanted to wear the hijab? yes.

are there more of group a women than group b? I don't know. I am not sure anyone knows.

What is the harm imposed by a ban of the hijab versus the harm imposed by allowing the hijab?

 

[Never Compromised]

No, actually it is very fashionable and politically correct to defend the rights of people outside the village. It also gives the so call "defenders" some self-appointed right to sit on their high moral horse and look down on the masses. These so called "defenders" also toss words like "racist" and "fascist" easily and so very casually at people who don't share their point of view.

There are people who live outside the village who believe in female genital mutilation. These "politically correct" folks will also defend that on the grounds of cultural sensitivity.

I don't know anyone that defends genital mutilation for "cultural sensitivity", so you are doing nothing more than trying to discredit the arguments you dislike in this thread by using ad hominem attacks are that not even very well aimed.

It is actually YOU what have set yourself up as some sort of arbitrator of what is right and just, not those of us that are pointing out that we live in a liberal democratic society where individual liberty is seen as very important. You don't like the term fascist? Well, it it you that is deciding to limit the freedom of individuals because people make choices that you do not like. You are the one that seeks to impose the state upon individuals and limit freedom of religion, limiting the rights of others while extolling the virtues of your way of thinking.

One of the basic tenants of liberal thought is that the individual is free to make choices that do not harm others. Please let us know how a woman choosing what to wear limits your freedom.

While you prattle on about how I am being fashionable and politically correct, I would beg to differ. While you seem intent on suggesting that I am only defending the rights of those "outside the village", in fact I am trying to defend my right to express myself and to keep MY liberty. It is assholes like you that seem to think that limiting the rights of others to express themselves in a manner that they see fit that are a real danger to my way of life. It is close minded jerks like you that think that using the state to force people to be the same is somehow ok, that are the real danger to how I see our society evolving.

Like it or not, your paranoid rantings are a threat to everyone, not just a single minority group.

Grow up.

 

[Rockslinger]

Well, it it you that is deciding to limit the freedom of individuals because people make choices that you do not like.

First off, I didn't make any personal attacks on you. I disgree with your views and expressed my disagreement as is my right. Too bad there are no laws against personal attacks and name calling (e.g. assholes).

 

[gabeti]

Good move.

 

[oldjones]

dec 11, 2007

A Mississauga, Ont., cab driver has been charged with the murder of his 16-year-old daughter, who was attacked in the family home after clashing with her strict Muslim family over whether or not to wear the hijab, the traditional Islamic head scarf for women.

You're late to the table; already discussed. Terrible crime, but not at all relevent to a Belgian law. It proves only that a brutal father couldn't restrain himself. Same sorts of criminal behaviours from fathers (and occasionally mothers) of gay kids, girls who want to wear mini skirts, not go to church, go to a different church, … Nothing to do with hijabs, or burqas, and banning them doesn't get at the villain: A brutal man wh believe he has the right to force his ideas of proper dress on someone else.

Banning burqas is the same kind of thinking.

Is anyone really moron enough to believe if there was a law to ban hijabs—again, irrelevant to this issue, but it's in your irrelevant story—that killer dad would be all sweetness and light and never again have anything else to brutalize his kids over?

Or are you suggesting we outlaw the hijab, we won't need laws against murder?

If there's crime, you deal with the criminal.

 

[oldjones]

was modest dress banned? I didn't see that.

a) would such a ban protect the right of a woman who didn't want to wear the hijab, but was being pressured by her family to wear it? yes.

b) would such a ban impinge upon the right of a woman who wanted to wear the hijab? yes.

are there more of group a women than group b? I don't know. I am not sure anyone knows.

What is the harm imposed by a ban of the hijab versus the harm imposed by allowing the hijab?

FIRST: Will you give over about the hijab, which is very little different from the headscarf Eupropean women—like the Queen—have worn for aeons.

SECOND: Assuming, you meant burqa, which the Belgians have banned—and that's what the thread's about—let me answer your question with another question.

Two women, one wants to wear a burqa, one does not. The Afghans pass a law that forbids any woman to appear in public w/o a burqa. The Belgians pass a law that forbids any woman to appear in public in a burqa.

If they're in Kabul, one woman's freedom of choice is denied. If they're in Brussels, one woman's freedom of choice is denied

How the Belgian law is not just as repressive as the Taliban law?

The harm to the women is the same. But the Taliban never went about claiming they were democrats and stood for freedom. So they come off as religious zealots, sincerely implementing their belifs. The Belgians come off as hypocrites and give those who suspect the West doesn't practice what it preaches about freedom some real evidence.

That's the harm. They shame us all.