Belgium bans the burqa, chador, and hijab.
- Thread starter dj1470
- Start date
"if there is a crime you deal with the criminal". ok I didn't argue differently.
I didn't suggest outlawing any type of clothing or that doing so would mean we would not need laws against murder.
I disagree that the story is irrelevant though I never suggested that the father didn't have any mental problems. I would suggest however, that part (I said part not in total) of the root cause with these types of crimes, is how the family is perceived by their community- so if his daughter is not wearing the hijab (or whatever), and there is no ban on the wearing of said clothing, then his community (in his mind) will know that his daughter is not "compliant" with their customs and is doing so based on free choice. and this will contribute to his murderous rage.
"too late. already discussed." then ignore my post. no terb rule requires the reading of my posts and I am sure more ignore my posts than read them (at least I hope for the sake of the future of humanity).
hijab was used as an example. i aoplogise for not being current with islamic attire.
with respect to the rest of your post - my original post has said this:
"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?"
I never mentioned afghanistan or the taliban. I asked some questions to which I don't the answer. You indicated that you do not think there is any difference between a law which imposes the Burqa (or hijab- ha) and one which bans them. I would submit, again, that like myself you don't the answer. unless I am mistaken you are not a muslim woman and therefore have never been put into a situation like this. If (yes I said if) the majority of muslim women did not want to wear the burqa or hijab or whatever and a ban on such dress helped them, supported them in their fight in this regard- can you really equate the two laws? i think not. but again- this is is an issue to which I have no facts or submissions from those with the facts. so I am left with questions. and I submit, so are you.
Except that I answered your question: "What is the harn imposed by banning?" You'll find it in the last sentences of the post you quoted, but appear not to have read. Let me repeat:
Your explication of the murdering father doesn't make it any more persuassive, because you've now brought how he thinks his community might judge him or his daughter. Justifying a ban to because of a tragedy like this is as stupid as dealing with a bank robbery by forbidding people to put their money in banks. No. Leave the people free and catch the thieves.
Forbidding and forcing others because of your ideas is dictatorial. No one who believes in freedom should tolerate either.
You did not answer mine.
Your explication of the murdering father doesn't make it any more persuassive, because you've now brought how he thinks his community might judge him or his daughter. Justifying a ban to because of a tragedy like this is as stupid as dealing with a bank robbery by forbidding people to put their money in banks. No. Leave the people free and catch the thieves.
Forbidding and forcing others because of your ideas is dictatorial. No one who believes in freedom should tolerate either.
Your points is valid both shame us. I will mention that the Talbian law will stone the woman to death whereas the Belgan 's law will fine and jail the woman who wear the burka. In conclusion Tablian law is shameful and will kill a woman. Belgian's law is shamefull, but the woman will get fine and or go to jail but get to live.
Absolutely right. Some people still think that Islam is a religion and this type of misogynist nonsense should be tolerated under the pretext of “freedom of religion.”
Islam is more than a religion. It’s a political system, a set of laws and a religion. It is completely incompatible with the beliefs of a secular society like ours.
Let's get real. A Muslim woman who is under the thumb of her father, brother(s), husband, etc. doesn't have any freedom. The burqa is a symbol of female oppression, stop defending it.
I'm sorry, but if you think 'our' society—and am I the only one who read the OP?—is secular, there's a majority of Americans and a whole buncha Republicans, not to mention the school board that dictates the content of most American schoolbooks who would vigorously disagree. And some have killed to support their view.
But secular or not, our society professes freedom for all, and goes abroad and confronts those 'misogynist' muslims about their oppression of women. And then patronizes the sweet, helpless cutie-pies by deciding for them what they may or may not wear. 'Christian' western clothing only or else. Oh, and legally punishes those women who disobey. Doesn't sound, free, equal or secular to me. Or even respectful of women.
In spite of the knuckle-dragging rhetoric around elections that we've heard from Harper, and in spite of the disgusting Quebec law—but hey, it's bang on their Bill 101 record—I can still take some pride that Canada's living up to democratic ideals, even if Belgium and France have betrayed them.
[see diehard`s scaaarrry pic of several women above]
Same thing that`s wrong in this pic, or not…
Note: This is photo was taken during the US draft. Choice or compulsion doesn`t show in photographs. Let`s don`t waste any more of Fred`s bandwidth with bogeywomen in burqas, OK? People who are frightened by them already know who they are.
my interpetation of your post is that the harm is it undermines what the "west" preaches about freedom. There are many laws which limit freedoms - limits on freedom of speech and expression. the decision to limit those freedoms should not be taken lightly but that doesn't mean that no limits are acceptable or that those limits are "dictatorial". I believe in freedom but some limits are necessary.
The question here is whether the harm created by the ban is greater than the harm created by allowing the burqa. as i have posted a couple of times now- I don't know the answer to that question and as you are not a muslim woman living in a muslim community- I doubt you really know the answer either.
Jonesey, I'd like to thank you for engaging in the rhetorical fight on the side of freedom with eloquence and zeal. You give me some hope that maybe someone, somewhere believes in freedom. I doubt it, but you may just convince me otherwise. Keep up the good fight and Godspeed.
Denying people the freedom of expression through their clothing is no freedom at all.... First they came for the burqua then they came for the g-strings and lingerie. Best we stop while we're ahead...
Rapists used to try to defend their indefensible act, by saying, "She dressed like a whore, it aroused me. How was I to know she wasn't that kind?"
There are still men who think that way—perhaps like Murdering Mississauge Father—that men cannot control themselves, therefore women must dress like nuns, or in shrouds. But the law and the courts have made it very clear. It doesn't matter how she dresses, that's her choice, and irrelevant to the man's crime.
Imposing one standard of dress on every woman because a criminal committed murder would be the equivalent of responding to rapes by requiring burqas, chadores and the like for all women. Forcing the victims to change is no way to solve crime, or teach their victimizers anything.
Of course there is no unlimited freedom, but when you want to take away freedom, however noble your purpose, or trivial you may think your restriction is then you must justify it. Only after you have demonstrated a limit is necessary do you then get to the balancing of one possible restriction against another.
You haven't done the first part yet.
Oh, and PornAddict used the same sad case, you might just ask him for a historical summary of how we got from requiring underwear on overly shapely piano legs, bowdlerizing Shakespeare and the Bible, and banning books that used the word 'pregnant', or showed laypeople where babies came from, to enough enough rank porn available that you could joke about being addicted. And still haven't collapsed into debauchery.
What history has shown us about 'reasonable' limits to freedom, is that they are mostly unreasonable and almost always entirely unnecessary.
There are 5 billion women on this planet and less than 1% wear the barqa. The only reason that the 1% wear a barqa is because they are forced under threats of death or are brainwashed into wearing one. No rational unbrainwashed woman would willingly wear a barqa.
Women emigrate to the West to escape the Taliban and everything they stand for, including wearing the burqa. The burga dehumanizes and demeans women. Anybody that supports the burqa also supports the subjugation of women. Barqas have no place in a civilize society.
Women emigrate to the West to escape the Taliban and everything they stand for, including wearing the burqa. The burga dehumanizes and demeans women. Anybody that supports the burqa also supports the subjugation of women. Barqas have no place in a civilize society.
Googling 'world population' returns "As of 4 May 2010, the human population of the world is estimated by the United States Census Bureau to be 6,818,700,000."
The rest of the points presented as if they were facts are as unsupported and inaccurate as your population figure. But your frestanding opinion you made clear. Anytime you care to add facts, evidence or logic, so it might be discussed …
