Banning the burqa

[Jaffy1]

I rarely post threads, but I've seen some interesting discussion on this topic and am curious what people here think.

 

 

Recently the law France passed in September of last year, banning the wearing of (a.o. Islamic) face-covering clothing in public places, took effect. This means that women who wear these robes and cover their faces would be taken to police stations for a so-called "identity check" and can be fined up to € 150,- (around $ 215,-) or be sentenced "civilianship classes" that are to be followed.

 

The law bans two specific pieces of clothing, the burqa and the niqab. Hijabs and headscarves are allowed as they do not cover the person's face.

 

Some of the reasons given for the ban were that those robes are a symbol of women's oppression and are a danger to general public safety (with terrorism and whatnot in mind).

Others argue that governments do not have the right to meddle with religious expression, as it violates the people's rights and is undemocratic.

 

Does it go too far or not far enough?

Is such a ban justified, necessary or undemocratic? Or something else entirely?

 

 

 

 

 

[hide=Guardian Monday 11 April 2011 10.09 BST]

France's ban on face veils, a first in Europe, went into force on Monday, and anyone wearing the niqab or burqa in public could now face a fine of €150 (£132), or lessons in French citizenship.

 

The centre-right government, which passed the law in October, has rolled out a public relations campaign to explain the ban and the rules of its application that includes posters, pamphlets and a government-hosted website.

 

Guidelines spelled out in the pamphlet forbid police from asking women to remove their burqa in the street. They will instead be escorted to a police station and asked to remove the veil there for identification.

 

Widely criticised by Muslims abroad as impinging on their religious freedom, the law has provoked a limited backlash in France where a strict separation of church and state is seen as central to maintaining a peaceful civil society.

 

A property dealer is urging women to engage in "civil disobedience" by continuing to wear the veil if they so desire and has called on supporters to hold a silent prayer in protest at the ban in front of Notre Dame cathedral. Rachid Nekkaz, who is a Muslim, said in a webcast he would help pay fines and was putting a property worth around €2m up for sale to fund his campaign.

 

"The street is the universal home of freedom and nobody should challenge that so long as these woman are not impinging on anyone else's freedom," he said. "I am calling on all free women who so wish to wear the veil in the street and engage in civil disobedience," he said.

 

In Avignon, Vaucluse, Reuters TV filmed a woman boarding a train wearing a niqab, unchallenged by police.

 

"It's not an act of provocation," said Kenza Drider. "I'm only carrying out my citizens' rights, I'm not committing a crime ... If they [police] ask me for identity papers I'll show them, no problem."

 

France has five million Muslims, but fewer than 2,000 women are believed actually to wear a face veil.

 

Many Muslim leaders have said they support neither the veil nor the law banning it.

 

On Saturday, French police arrested around 60 people who turned up for a banned protest over the veil ban which had been called by a Muslim group in Britain. One of the protesters was arrested on his arrival from Britain, a police spokesman said.

 

The timing is all the more sensitive after France's ruling UMP party called a debate on the role of Islam in French society, a forum that some criticised as unfairly singling out a portion of the population as problematic.

 

The guide sent out last week to police notes that the burqa ban does not apply inside private cars, but it reminds officers that such cases can be dealt with under road safety rules.

[/hide]

 

For clarity's sake:

-Only a relatively small minority of European Muslim women wear the niqab or burqa; most wear the hijab.

-The Islamic religion does not specifically dictate that women have to wear any of the above mentioned clothing, although it is strongly encouraged for a woman to wear at least a hijab in most Islamic interpretations.

 

 

 

[hide=This is a burqa]

 

[/hide]

 

[hide=This is a niqab]

 

[/hide]

 

[hide=This is a hijab]

[/hide]

[obfuscator]

Interesting subject. I've always stood by the position that a better course of action is allowing the full facial coverings but now allowing people who insist on wearing facial coverings to have photo id; so basically: no passport, no driver's license - no voting, can't buy alcohol, cigarettes, or lottery tickets, etc, etc. So basically give them them the ability to wear it if they want but make it very inconvenient to do so.

[foursideking]

Banning these clothes doesn't really make sense. If women wanna make themselves feel oppressed, then let them wear their robes/facemasks, and let'm watch their spike tv. And let'm listen to rap music.

[Vezon Dash]

I see it as a public safety issue. They could be hiding bombs under those things... Hell, it could be a man under one of those.

[RpgGamer]

I feel like this happened a lot longer ago than "recently" but I think it's stupid to suppress a people's freedom to express their religious beliefs. It's not like all the burqa wearing broads are forcing other chicks into them. That I'd have a problem with. But if their just minding their own business, doing their own thing, I really don't think any laws have to be involved.

[Myweponsg00d]

As much as I am opposed to religion, I think the burqa ban is stupid.

 

One of the biggest principles I live my life by is not to do anything to somebody that I wouldn't want done to myself. If I wanted to wear a head covering, I would be really really annoyed with anyone who tried to tell me not to wear it.

 

If we want to start getting into the idea of banning things that promote opression of sexes, lets start getting into magazines, movies, music, etc where opressive messages are conveyed frequently. Hell, all Western women have been brainwashed into thinking that they need to shave their arm pits.

 

Let us be serious, the reason this ban passed is because people are scared of Muslims. The stuff about womens rights is a trojan horse.

[Jaffy1]

Interesting subject. I've always stood by the position that a better course of action is allowing the full facial coverings but now allowing people who insist on wearing facial coverings to have photo id; so basically: no passport, no driver's license - no voting, can't buy alcohol, cigarettes, or lottery tickets, etc, etc. So basically give them them the ability to wear it if they want but make it very inconvenient to do so.

 

Interesting idea, however disallowing them to have a passport would technically make them illegal, which could pose a problem. In Europe every adult has the "duty" to identify him or herself when asked to by the authorities. Should an exception be made here?

 

 

Banning these clothes doesn't really make sense. If women wanna make themselves feel oppressed, then let them wear their robes/facemasks, and let'm watch their spike tv. And let'm listen to rap music.

 

Let me play the devil's advocate by asking you this: what about their impact on others?

If you had a teacher or classmate that wore a niqab or burqa, how would you respond to them when you cannot see their face? And how would that impact her in turn?

[Kimberly]

If you had a teacher or classmate that wore a niqab or burqa, how would you respond to them when you cannot see their face? And how would that impact her in turn?

 

Yet we converse and construct hierarchies on the internet and interact without seeing someone's face, or hell without even truly knowing them, without issue.

[Pinkbullet3]

I see it as a public safety issue. They could be hiding bombs under those things... Hell, it could be a man under one of those.

Bombs could also be hidden in backpacks or underneath jackets and shirts.

 

Bombs could be hiding anywhere.

 

Might as well ban clothing altogether.

 

"Oh look, that man has something taped to his body. We didn't even have to suspect anything."

 

Get my drift? :smile:

[Hamtaro]

At first I thought this was a repeat of this thread, so I went back there to look for the video that was there. I haven't studied Islam enough to know if there's any truth to this, but I found it interesting more than frightening.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OzxiHfWvBGw

 

Anyway, On-Topic: I can this being a security issue, but at the same time infringes on a religion's belief. I don't like it, but it is somewhat necessary, I guess.

 

Edit: Being several miles from the Islamic capital of the United States (Dearborn), I do know many Muslims, especially from my days playing soccer. A lot of those girls around my age do not wear head coverings of any sort, but their mothers do. Based on this, I'm assuming it's not a required part of the religion, but more of a personal choice. Maybe it's just assimilation by choice.

[Jeffwilson99]

^ I *think* it's women of age that have to wear them, so young girls aren't counted.

[Nadril]

I see it as a public safety issue. They could be hiding bombs under those things... Hell, it could be a man under one of those.

 

Really?

 

I don't think the ban is justified. I probably made my thoughts clear in the other thread we had about this. Saying it is a 'security issue' is just a way to mask the real reasons for banning something like that.

 

 

Out of curiosity, is it illegal to wear a ski-mask in france? What about a helmet that obscures your face? I probably already know the answer to this but just think about it for a moment.

[OldJoe]

I think this topic appeard some months or a year or something ago... Anyways, haven't changed my opinion on it (IE i agree with it). Admittedly not many wear them.

[marcustullius]

I think this topic appeard some months or a year or something ago... Anyways, haven't changed my opinion on it (IE i agree with it). Admittedly not many wear them.

 

What exactly is inherently dangerous about burqas that it is necessary to ban them?

 

Seems like racism to me

[mcneilp]

I'd say I'm against it (the ban that is) although it's not a common thing here at all really, most muslim women here just wear the head scarves.

 

At my old job (working as a part of the technician/maintenance team at a massive office complex) the issue about the burqa being a security threat came up as there was a muslim employee with one of the companies that had offices in our complex. Normally she just wore the head scarf, which showed her face on her id card/security pass which everyone had to have.

 

For whatever reason she turned up one day in a full burqa and a [cabbage]storm ensued when the guy at the security desk wouldn't let her in without seeing it was actually her underneath it all. The incident got taken pretty seriously by the company she worked for. Obviously she protested her case but the company (a lawyers firm I think it was) said that working with all the sensitive and personal information that is part and parcel of their job requires a certain amount of security (id cards showing faces to make people immediately identifiable) which wearing a burqa prohibited.

 

I'll see if I can find the article as it was in the local papers.

[Assume Nothing]

I don't think the problem lies within the ban itself, rather, it lies within the attitudes of the women who wear the facial masks.

 

I don't think it's absolutely necessary to cover one's whole face for religious purposes. I like the idea about allowing women to wear these masks, but making it extremely inconvenient to do so (Driver's license/Passport invalid, unable to vote, etc etc), as this would serve as a deterrent, without 'infringing their rights'.

 

Human rights always conflict though: the wearers of these masks would have a right to free speech/expression/whatever, and society has a right to good health and be free of mental anguish. If society feels uncomfortable about the masks themselves, not the religion, then society shouldn't have to put up with it. It's about deciding which right triumphs which, and anti-'discrimination' campaigns always jump the gun in protecting these people.

 

Personally, I'm absolutely fine with women wearing their religious clothing, so long as it doesn't cover their face entirely. Everyone should be identifiable for everyone else's safety. I would always opt for safety first.

[Racheya]

While I find wearing of the burqa as not the best idea in the world, I disagree with the ban because of one quite compelling reason.

 

Some Muslim women (not all, but some) are practically 'forced' to wear these clothes. I have a friend who is forced to wear the hijab and loose clothing by her dad, but when she comes to Uni she takes it all off because she doesn't want to. She wants to leave the house but can't because she doesn't want to be disowned. Therefore it's not a stretch to believe that some women HAVE to wear the burqa.

 

So, if the burqa is banned, these women aren't going to put in a hijab as replacement. They're just not going to be able to go inside. It's oppressing them under the name of ridding their oppression.

[Distracted]

I think the ban is a good thing. I see no problem with religious symbols being worn in public, so hijab to me isn't really a problem, but the fact that a burqa covers the whole body is a terrifying thing for public safety. There are basically people walking on the street and you have no idea what they look like or even what gender they are and I find this a big threat for public safety.

 

I'm all for freedom of speech and religion, but once that goes too far and threatens the safety of those around us, I think the government should step in.

[Guy]

Having been to the Middle east recently, I've seen a lot of women wearing burqas and the like. It is indeed a fundamental part of their culture, and I don't think that the women really mind (at least, the hijab). It's no different, really, to the 'western' equivilant of a suit for men. That's not to say that some people aren't forced to wear it - I have no doubt that that occours.

 

In France, I can see that they have some legitimate reasons for banning it - it really isn't part of their nationality, so to speak. It's more justifiable than banning fish and chips, for example, just because they're not French. The burqa is a more substantial thing (I agree with Fool, the hijab isn't really a problem). In the UK, at least England, it's a somewhat harder decision because we've been such a multicultural society for a long time..

[Racheya]

I get that it might be a risk to security, but it troubles me that the moment someone covers up their face we automatically assume they could be a terrorist or something. I worry that we sacrifice too much in the name of 'security'.

 

Of course this doesn't apply to sensitive places like airports, where you clearly shouldn't be able to wear such apparel.

[Guy]

I get that it might be a risk to security, but it troubles me that the moment someone covers up their face we automatically assume they could be a terrorist or something. I worry that we sacrifice too much in the name of 'security'.

 

Of course this doesn't apply to sensitive places like airports, where you clearly shouldn't be able to wear such apparel.

I don't think that most people automatically assume 'omg terrorist' when they see someone in a burqa, but there is an element of fear simply because they can see all of you, and you can see nothing but cloth - you can't even see their eyes or face.

[Distracted]

I get that it might be a risk to security, but it troubles me that the moment someone covers up their face we automatically assume they could be a terrorist or something. I worry that we sacrifice too much in the name of 'security'.

 

Of course this doesn't apply to sensitive places like airports, where you clearly shouldn't be able to wear such apparel.

I'm not saying everyone with a burqa is a terrorist, but there is a risk that comes with being completely covered. And it doesn't even have to be a terrorist for it to be a threat; if you got robbed by someone wearing a burqa, what would you tell the police?

 

If you saw a man walking on the street and he's wearing a ski mask, wouldn't you be at least a bit distrustful of him? I know there's a big difference, but in the end it boils down to the same, this is a man of which you cannot find out the identity.

 

Edit: Guy beat me to it :)

[Ginger_Warrior]

In the UK, of the 91,500 people stopped and searched in 2009-10, only two were actually arrested.

 

If I brought in a tax that only targeted 0.002% of the individuals tax officers thought it might cover, I'd be laughed out of office, yet apparently if you translate this pathetic success rate to terrorism, it's necessary for our safety because there's a tiny possiblity that a terrorist might just one day perhaps be picked up. Our past record on terrorism doesn't give me much faith that full-faced veil bans are even useful, let alone necessary. The 'oppresed' thing is a retrospect argument that has no direct relevence to terrorism. All this is without even resorting to principles of religious freedom and tolerance in a democratic society.

[Will H]

My opinion on the subject is probably the most right-wing of all of my views, but I stand by it. I support the ban and wish other countries did the same. I just mostly find it a matter of security, when you are in a space where one person is physically capable of hurting another who they do not know, being able to identify other people is paramount. I also find the whole idea of the Burqa as a purely sexist construct that has no place in this society, no matter how multicultural. I do not tolerate homophobia or racism, so why should I tolerate someone hiding their face from me purely because I'm a male?

[Piscis_Rex]

I've always been against people being able to cover their face in public, for any reason. A lot of corner shops have signs saying that no hoods are to be worn inside the shop, why should this be any different? The main problem with covering your face is the fact that so much of human communication is non-verbal and most of the emotion of what someone is saying is expressed through their facial expressions, if you can't see someone's face it can be difficult to interpret what they mean when they're speaking to you.

 

I remember a high profile case from a few years ago about a teaching assistant in a primary school who lost her job because she refused to remove her veil while teaching and tried to sue the school, which is ridiculous, because the children would have still been learning to talk properly and it's a teachers responsibility to help with that process as the children will be watching them for large amounts of the day, if the children can't the person talking's mouth, how on earth are they supposed to learn to speak from that person