Speaker Geeks! discussion

I don't think they should be banned by the state in public places b/c I think the right to wear whatever you want to wear in public for whatever religious or political reason is part of the freedom of expression, which should not be compromised except in very special circumstances when there is compelling public interest, e.g. in the early years of Turkish republic. As to secularism, I think there is some difference between secularism as neutrality between faiths, and secularism as the exclusion of certain public expressions of faith.

Banning Naqab / burqa Is totally uncalled for. It is a ban on freedom of expression. Banning what one prefer to wear is not only unethical but also a crime against women. Aren't they oppressing women by deciding what they shouldn't wear which they feel comfortable in ? And for what ? Security reasons? Liberty of women ?

Ask a Muslim women who feels proud in being in veil, what is the meaning of liberalism for them. They will say to let women decide the choices of her life and not be decided by government.

What secularism one can bring when they ban someone's freedom ?
It is laughable people don't ban offensive clothes claiming its their choice if they want to wear revealing clothes but if one want to be in veil it gets banned why ? Because they are muslims.

Nah; don't think it'd be banned/outlawed. Will hail ruckus in overall religious, cultural aspects; breaching buncha rights. Gigantic sunglasses, bandanas, helmets etc also covers identity...so...I'm all against the ban..
Hell, even Batman, Spiderman, Captain 'Murica etc roam freely!

They are actually banned in few countries.
They are trying to ban it in Israel.
It is banned in Syrian schools and universities.
It is banned all over France, the ban is called: 'The bill to forbid concealing one's face in public'
In Italy and Belgium its also banned because your face has to be visible.
The Netherlands are trying to ban it also.
Australia is trying to ban it also.

They should not be banned as it is a religious necessity to some...
The thing I hate about them morally is that in some cases women are forced to wear them by their husbands against their will. That is still not reason for a ban, but just thought I'd throw my opinion out there. One of my closest friends is Muslim and she got in trouble with her father for not wearing her burqa one day (it was on homecoming). She hates it, but her father makes her wear it anyways.

Lia wrote: "If I remember correctly, they were banned because they found niqabs and burqas oppressive to women. And yes, in secular schools, professors aren't allowed to wear crosses. Some people want the veil..."

What is oppression?
op·pres·sion  
/əˈpreSHən/
Noun
Prolonged cruel or unjust treatment or control.
The state of being subject to such treatment or control.
Synonyms
pressure - tyranny - persecution

Isn't it what they are doing ? Oppressing the women by forbidding them to wear something they feel comfortable and secure in ? Here in US , my friend and her mother get nasty remarks because they choose to wear veil. It is one's own choice and no one have right to take away their choice from them.

Why do people find burqa oppressive ?
Because it hides body ? And face ? My friends goes to college and stays in burqa but removes face piece but covers head . Her face can still be seen but still she gets bullied because she does not remove her burqa.
She can very well communicate even wearing burqa.

Lia wrote: "✿.Ⓐⓟⓞⓞⓡⓥⓐ.✿ wrote: "They should not be banned as it is a religious necessity to some...
The thing I hate about them morally is that in some cases women are forced to wear them by their husbands aga..."

See, what I am trying to say is let them choose, if some Muslim wants to wear then let them. There maybe a handful of Muslims who doesn't prefer to wear burqa or naqab, so it is no problem if they don't because it is their choice. But why taking away a choice from someone who WANT to wear it.

Lia wrote: "✿.Ⓐⓟⓞⓞⓡⓥⓐ.✿ wrote: "They should not be banned as it is a religious necessity to some...
The thing I hate about them morally is that in some cases women are forced to wear them by their husbands aga..."

Yup, that's exactly what I'm saying. :) If any of you have debated me before you probably know that I am truly accepting of anything that all parties involved have consented to. The things I disagree with tend to be oppressive towards certain individuals or groups of people.

Lia wrote: "If I remember correctly, they were banned because they found niqabs and burqas oppressive to women. And yes, in secular schools, professors aren't allowed to wear crosses. Some people want the veil..."

I think the official reason given for those bans in Europe is security, which makes little sense as Som mentioned in message #4, while the real reason, imho, is xenophobia. If they really care about women's rights thet should try to take on real issues like domestic violence or forced marriage instead of a kind of cloth worn by maybe only a few hundred women in their country. In Syria it's because of the official ideology of Baathism (a type of Arab socialism), & that ban will not last much longer anyway as the current government as well as Arab socialism in general is collapsing & the next one will not be secular. In the US iirc a ban on niqab or burqa in public or in schools will be unconstitutional. Also, there is some degree of difference between the niqab or burqa ban in Europe today & the hijab ban in early 20th century, because most prominent jurists in history consider hijab to be obligatory while niqab or burqa is only recommended.

^Cheers mate; good point! :)

I believe, 'Oppression' in this case is merely perceptive...it drops down to personal choices if you're well aware of the modern diverse cultural functions...

see...



(You can write a bloody book on this picture lol)

Xdyj wrote: "Lia wrote: "If I remember correctly, they were banned because they found niqabs and burqas oppressive to women. And yes, in secular schools, professors aren't allowed to wear crosses. Some people w..."


European security is really high. I most of the landmarks require you nowadays to take proof of ID is you want to visit them and many are just closed for "security reasons" I'm still bummed out I didn't get to go into the Reichstag building (Which is a tourist place when the Germans aren't discussing politics)

Raeez wrote: "What if SHE doesn't want to wear that? Could she possibly be permitted by her social surroundings?


I think, if she likes to wear it and knows what it is and why, then it'll be okay for sure.

B..."

There are every type of people in the world, and banning Burqa will never ever solve Such things. One cannot hide this kind of oppression behind saying it is for the welfare, security and secularism or the most famous liberalization of women.

Let the women decide what she want. If she don't want to wear no one should force her to . If she wants to wear no one should force her not to.

Welfare : Beating or threatening to wear burqa only shows how immoral they are. But even then, the government does not have the right to take away freedom of expression. Do you think taking away this freedom will stop these immoral kinds. They will find different ways or reasons to beat the females of the family. Banning burqa is no solution.

Security: I read somewhere that security is one of the reason as some people got away pretending to be burqa clad women. It is laughable in countries like France and UK, when we are living in a world of high end gadgets and techs. They don't have techs to detect weapons ? And a female officer to check each and every burqa person walking in airports and check points ? How hard it is if a lady officer check a burqa person for security purposes ? They have a pass through weapon detector. How hard it will be ? If they are THAT concerned about security. And, criminals always find different ways to get away from police. And saying they are getting away cause they are wearing burqa is fo funny.

Secularism : The sheer grandiloquence of French politicians denouncing the burqa certainly suggests that many believe in the world historical importance of their mission. A law banning the veils ‘will be a law of liberation’, said a French Communist deputy, while a member of France’s ruling party called the veil ‘a threat to French values’.
What seems to have escaped the cross-party purveyors of this so-called militant secularism is that a secular state is not the enemy of religion; in many ways it is its product. In other words, the idea of the secular state – one neutral with regards to the beliefs and moral reasoning of individuals – emerged not from some period of angry atheism but from the struggle for the freedom to practise one’s chosen religion, to express one’s faith, without fear of state-endorsed persecution. The ideal of a secular state, resting on a separation of church from state, means that the state does not promote a particular religion, does not say what one can and one cannot believe. Which is precisely what the French state currently seems intent on doing by banning the burqa – all as part of some spurious attempt to realise secular values.

Liberalization: those who say banning burqa liberates the women, what is the meaning of this word ?

Does banning someone's freedom of expression liberal ? If women are being oppressed by their family members to wear burqa then other women's are being oppressed by the government by banning it. How did they got liberal ? Where is the stand of women ? Shouldn't a women decide what she wants to wear and what she doesn't ?

H99 wrote: "Purvika wrote: "Raeez wrote: "What if SHE doesn't want to wear that? Could she possibly be permitted by her social surroundings?


I think, if she likes to wear it and knows what it is and why, th..."

Bingo.... That's exactly what I am saying :)

Purvika wrote: "Raeez wrote: "What if SHE doesn't want to wear that? Could she possibly be permitted by her social surroundings?


I think, if she likes to wear it and knows what it is and why, then it'll be okay..."

I think the French laïcité & the American liberal secularism as enshrined by the first amendment follow quite different logic because those two countries have very different history. The US has never seen absolutism or dictatorship nor does it have a tradition of the state imposing some revolutionary ideals to the populace & to the whole world through force. I'm not defending it, but I think when analyzing burqa bans in countries like France we should take into account their unique histories & political traditions.

Som wrote: "^Cheers mate; good point! :)

I believe, 'Oppression' in this case is merely perceptive...it drops down to personal choices if you're well aware of the modern diverse cultural functions...

see...
..."

That. I think everyone should just wear what they want to wear. Don't ban anything and don't force anything. Within decency limits, of course.

I think there is a difference between state institutions & private institutions. In state institutions & public space there should be no restriction on religious clothing to accommodate every citizen regardless of faith & cultural background, while private institutions are allowed to be more restrictive in dress code (with reasonable accommodation to religious minorities) because accessing of them is a privilege not a right.

I think people should be free to wear what they want. Nuff said!