FRIHOST FORUMS SEARCH FAQ TOS BLOGS COMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Is Sarcozy right about the Burka?





Bikerman
Is Nicholas Sarkozi right to speak up about the Burka?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8112821.stm
There are many issues in play here - the freedom of the individual being uppermost.
Some commentators say that the right to wear what you like is the over-riding principle here. I have some sympathy with that. Against that, however, needs to be balanced;
a) The fact that many women are compelled to wear the burka - not as a matter of personal choice, but as a matter of diktat,
b) The overall social effect. As societies we decide what is acceptable and unacceptable - the law tries to keep up with this. Does society really want to 'approve' of women being hidden behind a 'shield' on the rationale that this reduces temptation and immoral actions (adultery and 'fornication')?

I am undecided. I believe that banning a particular type of dress would be a potentially very dangerous precedent, yet I understand the rationale behind the 'pro' argument. My own position is, currently, that legislating on this would be a bad idea - but I remain to be convinced....
coolclay
While I certainly don't agree with the fundamentals of wearing burka's and agree 100% with his opinion. I also find it hard to understand how banning a certain type of clothing would achieve his goals, and it most certainly would set a very dangerous precedent.
ocalhoun
Well, I do like how he's standing up to Islam...
But for all his talk about keeping Muslim women from being oppressed, he probably is just putting them under house arrest now. Since they can't go outside without wearing it, now they won't be able to go outside at all.
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:
Well, I do like how he's standing up to Islam...
But for all his talk about keeping Muslim women from being oppressed, he probably is just putting them under house arrest now. Since they can't go outside without wearing it, now they won't be able to go outside at all.
Very good point. I don't know who his advisors were, but it was really a very dumb move on his part. I wonder whether he realizes that most of those women wear the dress as something personal to them, so he is actually taking their choice to wear it away as well. Not to mention relationships with the Middle East as obviously he has shown that he has very little understanding of the culture surrounding this dress.

In addition to Ocalhoun's point of view, many women are very sensitive to be viewed in public, and have a personal preference for covering themselves up. It comes with their culture and what they are used to and comfortable with in addition to religion. One woman explained it to me once that she would feel completely naked if she could not wear this covering. So in addition to possibly not allowed to go out uncovered, there may be women who would feel most uncomfortable to go out.

Wonder what Sarkozi would say if for example in the UAE all female expats are forced to cover themselves with black dress and head scarf? Not only are they free to wear what they wish, but quite a number of expats go around in minimal dress in a country that they probably should be more covered if they had sufficient appreciation and respect for its culture. Bottomline though, with the exception of Saudi Arabia (as far as I know), all Middle East countries are very lenient towards Western expats female dress. There are no rules and regulations in effect. Except perhaps common sense ones. Sarkozi's intended rule would definitely not reciprocate that generosity.
Bikerman
Err, this is not the case. Muslim dress code is 'compulsory' in many Islamic countries, including Iran, Sudan and others. The fact that they don't always enforce the law strictly is another matter - they could if they chose, and they have done many times.
deanhills
Bikerman wrote:
Err, this is not the case. Muslim dress code is 'compulsory' in many Islamic countries, including Iran, Sudan and others. The fact that they don't always enforce the law strictly is another matter - they could if they chose, and they have done many times.
Perhaps you misunderstood what I said as I was talking about dress code for expats in those countries. I could agree that expats in Iran and Saudi Arabia could have rules like that, but not Sudan. There are some Sudanese who prefer to wear the black kabayas, but mostly they have very colourful dresses and shawls over their heads and dress to please themselves. There are no rules for expats in Sudan other than of course common sense ones.
Bikerman
deanhills wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
Err, this is not the case. Muslim dress code is 'compulsory' in many Islamic countries, including Iran, Sudan and others. The fact that they don't always enforce the law strictly is another matter - they could if they chose, and they have done many times.
Perhaps you misunderstood what I said as I was talking about dress code for expats in those countries. I could agree that expats in Iran and Saudi Arabia could have rules like that, but not Sudan. There are some Sudanese who prefer to wear the black kabayas, but mostly they have very colourful dresses and shawls over their heads and dress to please themselves. There are no rules for expats in Sudan other than of course common sense ones.

Sorry but this is just plain wrong. Islamic dress for women in Sudan is THE LAW.
http://www.everyculture.com/wc/Rwanda-to-Syria/Sudanese.html
http://www.wluml.org/english/exhibitions.shtml
Quote:
For example in Sudan (after the coup led by the National Islamic Front in 1989), the "Islamic Dress Law" effectively banned the traditional Sudanese women's dress ("Toab") in favour of 'Islamic' dress. The Sudanese state successfully imposed this new outfit onto women civil servants by prohibiting any woman dressed otherwise from entering government offices. The new dress code was identical to the Iranian 'model' and, in fact, Iran financed the mass production of these uniforms.
deanhills
Bikerman wrote:
deanhills wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
Err, this is not the case. Muslim dress code is 'compulsory' in many Islamic countries, including Iran, Sudan and others. The fact that they don't always enforce the law strictly is another matter - they could if they chose, and they have done many times.
Perhaps you misunderstood what I said as I was talking about dress code for expats in those countries. I could agree that expats in Iran and Saudi Arabia could have rules like that, but not Sudan. There are some Sudanese who prefer to wear the black kabayas, but mostly they have very colourful dresses and shawls over their heads and dress to please themselves. There are no rules for expats in Sudan other than of course common sense ones.

Sorry but this is just plain wrong. Islamic dress for women in Sudan is THE LAW.
http://www.everyculture.com/wc/Rwanda-to-Syria/Sudanese.html
http://www.wluml.org/english/exhibitions.shtml
Quote:
For example in Sudan (after the coup led by the National Islamic Front in 1989), the "Islamic Dress Law" effectively banned the traditional Sudanese women's dress ("Toab") in favour of 'Islamic' dress. The Sudanese state successfully imposed this new outfit onto women civil servants by prohibiting any woman dressed otherwise from entering government offices. The new dress code was identical to the Iranian 'model' and, in fact, Iran financed the mass production of these uniforms.
Perhaps on paper but not in real life Chris. I live with Sudanese where I am. I see them every day. A large percentage of the women dress in bright and colourful dress, which is traditional for them. Some prefer to wear Barkas. I have heard about their politics, trials and tribulations now for almost eight years. One of my best friends is Sudanese. It may be written in law, but in real life women dress as they please. And they are not persecuted for it like they would have been in Saudi Arabia for example. There is lots that is wrong with Sudan Government wise, but its people still have a voice and many times the portrayal by the media is not as representative of the whole of the country or the whole of the people as it should be.
handfleisch
deanhills wrote:
I live with Sudanese where I am. I see them every day. A large percentage of the women dress in bright and colourful dress, which is traditional for them. Some prefer to wear Barkas. I have heard about their politics, trials and tribulations now for almost eight years. One of my best friends is Sudanese. It may be written in law, but in real life women dress as they please. And they are not persecuted for it like they would have been in Saudi Arabia for example. There is lots that is wrong with Sudan Government wise, but its people still have a voice and many times the portrayal by the media is not as representative of the whole of the country or the whole of the people as it should be.


Are you in Sudan or just living near some Sudanese people in some other country? Big difference.

On the Bikerman's question -- which is a tough one -- I would lean toward favoring the ban on burqas in France. France is a land where (in theory, best case scenario) they tend to accept everyone as long as those people go along with the basic values of French society. Wearing a burqa is a major sign of not going along with the fundamentals of shared living standards. It indicates an attempt to create a closed-society-within-an-open-society, which the French do not want.

It's really a tough one, though, since the ban appears to be a prohibition on a form of observing one's religion that is technically just a harmless bit of clothing.
deanhills
handfleisch wrote:
deanhills wrote:
I live with Sudanese where I am. I see them every day. A large percentage of the women dress in bright and colourful dress, which is traditional for them. Some prefer to wear Barkas. I have heard about their politics, trials and tribulations now for almost eight years. One of my best friends is Sudanese. It may be written in law, but in real life women dress as they please. And they are not persecuted for it like they would have been in Saudi Arabia for example. There is lots that is wrong with Sudan Government wise, but its people still have a voice and many times the portrayal by the media is not as representative of the whole of the country or the whole of the people as it should be.


Are you in Sudan or just living near some Sudanese people in some other country? Big difference.

On the Bikerman's question -- which is a tough one -- I would lean toward favoring the ban on burqas in France. France is a land where (in theory, best case scenario) they tend to accept everyone as long as those people go along with the basic values of French society. Wearing a burqa is a major sign of not going along with the fundamentals of shared living standards. It indicates an attempt to create a closed-society-within-an-open-society, which the French do not want.

It's really a tough one, though, since the ban appears to be a prohibition on a form of observing one's religion that is technically just a harmless bit of clothing.
If you really know the people and understand their culture, you may see it completely different. I would not ban it outright. I may issue a statement that it is a wish, and express concern but an outright ban would not be a savvy diplomatic move. Again, if you lived over here, you would have a completely different take on it.
fx-trading-education
I don't think that forbidding any type of clothes can help against any form of oppression (in case the oppression exists because often I think that it is voluntary)
But anyway there are plenty of rules on clothes everywhere and usually nobody complains.
For instance the first rule that is almost everywhere is that it is forbidden to have no clothes (except in nude beaches !) So where would be the right to wear what you want here?
And of course in many private places like you wouldn't be allowed in some night clubs or casinos if you wear too casual clothes.
Then anyway people are requested to wear what is considered "appropriate" to the place and society where they live.
Then if burka is considered not appropriate in France I don't see a problem.

PS: by the way his name is "Sarkozy" not Sarcozi or Sarkozi
Bikerman
deanhills wrote:
If you really know the people and understand their culture, you may see it completely different. I would not ban it outright. I may issue a statement that it is a wish, and express concern but an outright ban would not be a savvy diplomatic move. Again, if you lived over here, you would have a completely different take on it.
You appear to be saying that YOU DO understand the people and the culture. Without wishing to be rude, I find that assertion impossible to take seriously.

PS - You also didn't answer the question - have you got direct experience of Sudan? Can you, in all seriousness, tell me that the advice from my own Foreign Office, plus the advice of numerous tourist guides, is wrong? Such advice is that Islamic dress is a legal requirement for women - certainly if they wish to interact with the structures and organisations within Sudanese society (such as claiming benefits, getting a driving license, cashing a cheque, getting a bus-pass..and so on).
It strikes me that you are speaking from experience of many middle-east ex-pat communities - which are frequently 'allowed' to behave in non-Islamic ways. I have some experience and knowledge of that myself - not too long ago I considered moving to the UAE when my wife was offered a teaching post. We looked into how ex-pat and immigrant workers are treated in various parts of the middle-east and North Africa. Undoubtedly the 'gated communities' of ex-pats enjoy a relaxed version of the local statutes - you are 'allowed' to drink alcohol and pretty much manage your own affairs, including dress codes. That has nothing to do with the overall culture and the everyday experience of citizens in that country however, and you have to remember that this is a special exception being made, and that any time the authorities actually think they have a reason to arrest you, then they can do so - even for a fairly minor infringement of Islamic law (including the dress laws).
deanhills
Bikerman wrote:
You appear to be saying that YOU DO understand the people and the culture. Without wishing to be rude, I find that assertion impossible to take seriously.
No, I don't, but do you?

Bikerman wrote:
PS - You also didn't answer the question - have you got direct experience of Sudan? Can you, in all seriousness, tell me that the advice from my own Foreign Office, plus the advice of numerous tourist guides, is wrong? Such advice is that Islamic dress is a legal requirement for women - certainly if they wish to interact with the structures and organisations within Sudanese society (such as claiming benefits, getting a driving license, cashing a cheque, getting a bus-pass..and so on).
The Canadian "Foreign Office" advice is different to that of the UK. And right on. Yes, it is an Islamic country in terms of rules and regulations, however, dress can be informal with common sense guidance to wear clothes that will not offend. However expats sometimes wear t-shirts with no sleeves, etc.
Quote:
By Western standards, Sudan is a traditional, conservative society. Islamic practices and beliefs are closely adhered to in the country's customs, laws, and regulations. Women should dress conservatively (i.e. no short skirts, bare arms, or low necklines); neither men nor women should wear shorts in public and they should be extremely discreet when swimming.
Source: http://www.voyage.gc.ca/countries_pays/report_rapport-eng.asp?id=277000 No, I have not lived in Sudan, but I am living with Sudanese expats in the UAE, who are close friends.

Bikerman wrote:
It strikes me that you are speaking from experience of many middle-east ex-pat communities - which are frequently 'allowed' to behave in non-Islamic ways. I have some experience and knowledge of that myself - not too long ago I considered moving to the UAE when my wife was offered a teaching post. We looked into how ex-pat and immigrant workers are treated in various parts of the middle-east and North Africa. Undoubtedly the 'gated communities' of ex-pats enjoy a relaxed version of the local statutes - you are 'allowed' to drink alcohol and pretty much manage your own affairs, including dress codes. That has nothing to do with the overall culture and the everyday experience of citizens in that country however, and you have to remember that this is a special exception being made, and that any time the authorities actually think they have a reason to arrest you, then they can do so - even for a fairly minor infringement of Islamic law (including the dress laws).
There are no gated communities in the UAE. Nor in Sudan. There are gated communities in Saudi Arabia and Libya. You should have come to the UAE. It would have been a really good experience for you. The views I had of the Middle East living in Canada and thinking that I was quite well-read, and finally settling into the UAE are radically different. I thought I was very well prepared in everything when I was on my way in 2001, but there is no preparation in the Western world that can adequately prepare you. It is very difficult to explain this to you, you have to experience it yourself. Teachers are sought after here, and it would have completely widened your horizons as you get to mix with teachers of quite a number of other countries as well. Oman however is even better, as its people are gems. It also has an incredibly beautiful coast line. Demand for good teachers is even higher than in the UAE, and perhaps better organized from an expat point of view. Muscat is awesome, and there is quite a large percentage from the UK, a thriving UK expat community, very active Embassy, and NO gated communities.
handfleisch
I take back what I said before. In these times of rising rightwing violence, Sarcozy is to be condemned for playing the burqa card. There is increasing Islamophobia in France, and days after Sarcozy made his speech, a Muslim women (in a headscarf, not a burqa) in Europe was murdered by a racist lunatic.

Apparently hardly any women wear a burqa in France anyway. Sarcozy should be ashamed.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jul/07/german-trial-hijab-murder-egypt
Quote:


The headscarf martyr: murder in German court sparks Egyptian fury

Woman was stabbed 18 times during hijab trial
Outrage at lack of media coverage fuels protests

It was while Marwa el-Sherbini was in the dock recalling how the accused had insulted her for wearing the hijab after she asked him to let her son sit on a swing last summer, that the very same man strode across the Dresden courtroom and plunged a knife into her 18 times.

Her three-year-old son Mustafa was forced to watch as his mother slumped to the courtroom floor.

Even her husband Elvi Ali Okaz could do nothing as the 28-year-old Russian stock controller who was being sued for insult and abuse took the life of his pregnant wife. As Okaz ran to save her, he too was brought down, shot by a police officer who mistook him for the attacker. He is now in intensive care in a Dresden hospital.
Kate Connolly on the death of Marwa el-Sherbini Link to this audio

While the horrific incident that took place a week ago tomorrow has attracted little publicity in Europe, and in Germany has focused more on issues of court security than the racist motivation behind the attack, 2,000 miles away in her native Egypt, the 32-year-old pharmacist has been named the "headscarf martyr".

Bannik
this sort of battle is nothing to do with islam, the frenchies are smart they are trying too control the public by using the burka..

here is how

the burka if it is allowed it would have to be allowed under religios dress wear...that means a lot of places would forbid the women from wearing them (schools in france etc) this would also show that the french pres is correct and it is oppresive(religino forcing only women too wear a particular item)

but if they dont and say its just a social thing something the society decides upon then the burka would have to be banned think about it, the burka is effectively a disguise...if a young black kid from the ghetto wore a bandana across his face and all black hoodie with black gloves etc...would you let him into your store or even talk too him...no you would ignore him...hence the burka would be banned as it is a disguise and if they are allowed too wear something like that then anyone can...

its a win win situation for the frenchies...


ALSO

just a quick question why arent men wearing a burka equivilant? i am sure western women gaze at islamic men.....its only natural right?
deanhills
Bannik wrote:
this sort of battle is nothing to do with islam, the frenchies are smart they are trying too control the public by using the burka..

here is how

the burka if it is allowed it would have to be allowed under religios dress wear...that means a lot of places would forbid the women from wearing them (schools in france etc) this would also show that the french pres is correct and it is oppresive(religino forcing only women too wear a particular item)

but if they dont and say its just a social thing something the society decides upon then the burka would have to be banned think about it, the burka is effectively a disguise...if a young black kid from the ghetto wore a bandana across his face and all black hoodie with black gloves etc...would you let him into your store or even talk too him...no you would ignore him...hence the burka would be banned as it is a disguise and if they are allowed too wear something like that then anyone can...

its a win win situation for the frenchies...


ALSO

just a quick question why arent men wearing a burka equivilant? i am sure western women gaze at islamic men.....its only natural right?
I'm no expert in this Bannik, but what about crooks, revolutionaries or terrorists using monks and nuns uniforms to disguise themselves? We've seen so many movies of crooks doing that. So if they were to ban the burka for disguise reasons, then perhaps they will have to ban other religious outfits too? Smile
Bannik
deanhills wrote:
Bannik wrote:
this sort of battle is nothing to do with islam, the frenchies are smart they are trying too control the public by using the burka..

here is how

the burka if it is allowed it would have to be allowed under religios dress wear...that means a lot of places would forbid the women from wearing them (schools in france etc) this would also show that the french pres is correct and it is oppresive(religino forcing only women too wear a particular item)

but if they dont and say its just a social thing something the society decides upon then the burka would have to be banned think about it, the burka is effectively a disguise...if a young black kid from the ghetto wore a bandana across his face and all black hoodie with black gloves etc...would you let him into your store or even talk too him...no you would ignore him...hence the burka would be banned as it is a disguise and if they are allowed too wear something like that then anyone can...

its a win win situation for the frenchies...


ALSO

just a quick question why arent men wearing a burka equivilant? i am sure western women gaze at islamic men.....its only natural right?
I'm no expert in this Bannik, but what about crooks, revolutionaries or terrorists using monks and nuns uniforms to disguise themselves? We've seen so many movies of crooks doing that. So if they were to ban the burka for disguise reasons, then perhaps they will have to ban other religious outfits too? Smile


thats the point they would have too...think about it if the burka is banned for religious reason ALL religious outfits would be banned, its all being done too make a police state world.....FIGHT THE POWER RISE UP WORSHIP INDI KILL THE QUEEN.
truespeed
They banned the hoodie (and baseball caps) at bluewater shopping centre in Essex,although they said they banned it for anti-social behaviour,i think it more likely that it was banned because the people wearing hoodies/caps can't be easily identified on CCTV.

Maybe all hoodie wearers should wear Burkas.
deanhills
truespeed wrote:
They banned the hoodie (and baseball caps) at bluewater shopping centre in Essex,although they said they banned it for anti-social behaviour,i think it more likely that it was banned because the people wearing hoodies/caps can't be easily identified on CCTV.

Maybe all hoodie wearers should wear Burkas.
Laughing Laughing Laughing I can just see it! But yes, the hoodie has to be in the way of identifying criminals, perhaps they are specially worn for that purpose.
Bannik
deanhills wrote:
truespeed wrote:
They banned the hoodie (and baseball caps) at bluewater shopping centre in Essex,although they said they banned it for anti-social behaviour,i think it more likely that it was banned because the people wearing hoodies/caps can't be easily identified on CCTV.

Maybe all hoodie wearers should wear Burkas.
Laughing Laughing Laughing I can just see it! But yes, the hoodie has to be in the way of identifying criminals, perhaps they are specially worn for that purpose.


here is something you might find interesting

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-486233/Calls-new-brand-evil-hoodies-banned.html

these hoodies are basically masks and they easily be used in criminals activities so they cant ban it because you could still wear scarf, glasses and a hooded which are all legal..
deanhills
Bannik wrote:
deanhills wrote:
truespeed wrote:
They banned the hoodie (and baseball caps) at bluewater shopping centre in Essex,although they said they banned it for anti-social behaviour,i think it more likely that it was banned because the people wearing hoodies/caps can't be easily identified on CCTV.

Maybe all hoodie wearers should wear Burkas.
Laughing Laughing Laughing I can just see it! But yes, the hoodie has to be in the way of identifying criminals, perhaps they are specially worn for that purpose.


here is something you might find interesting

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-486233/Calls-new-brand-evil-hoodies-banned.html

these hoodies are basically masks and they easily be used in criminals activities so they cant ban it because you could still wear scarf, glasses and a hooded which are all legal..
I would say what is offputting as well as confusing, is that the hoodie in the quoted article is in army colours. What is definitely for sure is that the guy in the photo looks as though he/she is hiding behind the outfit.
Vrythramax
Those would be illegal in my state (Massachusetts, US). We have an ordinance that states that full face coverings are not allowed in public...with the exception of a full face helmet for motorcycles. I am not sure what the exact penalty is, but the police will stop you, shake you down, and take your mask if your seen with one on.

We can't even use ski-masks for skiing!!! Those pesky armed robbers and gangsters have ruined it for us really ugly people who are just trying to survive. Crying or Very sad
ocalhoun
Vrythramax wrote:

We can't even use ski-masks for skiing!!! Those pesky armed robbers and gangsters have ruined it for us really ugly people who are just trying to survive. Crying or Very sad

Just keep that motorcycle helmet on... Hopefully that law will be changed soon.
Vrythramax
ocalhoun wrote:
Just keep that motorcycle helmet on... Hopefully that law will be changed soon.


If you are talking about the helmet law, it ain't going away ever around here, as a matter of fact the state of Rhode Island, that for years held out against mandatory helmet laws, finally buckled under to federal pressure (the feds threatened to withhold all highway funds) and enacted a mandatory law not long ago.

If on the other hand you were talking about the ugly part...ugly should be allowed to be hidden. Now THAT should be a mandatory law! Wink
Moonspider
After thinking on it for a while, I have to say that I agree with his decision. The burka is a form of oppression. NBC news just featured a report on it where they interviewed a female from Morocco who wears a burka and is trying to become a citizen in France. She too said that Sarcozi's decision is wrong.

However, I am sure I could have paraded slaves in the antebellum United States before the media who would defend their position in society. I could even take verses from the Old Testament of the Bible to justify slavery. Does it make slavery right? Non-oppressive?

My parent's lived in Saudi for twenty years. My father's about to depart for his fourth tour in Iraq. We love the Middle East. We love the people. But their laws are oppressive, and yes they are wrong.

Respectfully,
M
deanhills
Vrythramax wrote:
ocalhoun wrote:
Just keep that motorcycle helmet on... Hopefully that law will be changed soon.


If you are talking about the helmet law, it ain't going away ever around here, as a matter of fact the state of Rhode Island, that for years held out against mandatory helmet laws, finally buckled under to federal pressure (the feds threatened to withhold all highway funds) and enacted a mandatory law not long ago.

If on the other hand you were talking about the ugly part...ugly should be allowed to be hidden. Now THAT should be a mandatory law! Wink
When I read your posting I was reminded of the "I shouldn't be alive" episode I saw last week on MBC. Three English mountaineers climbed 20,000 ft in Alaska's highest mountain, Mount McKinley. They got trapped in their last 4,000 ft ascent in bad weather, without any water heater or their equipment. But while I was watching this show, could not help but wonder why they had not been wearing balaclavas to cover all of their faces? Both against sunburn and frostbite. So is this because of the law Laughing Laughing Laughing or is there another reason that they would only wear a hood with minimum facial covering? I battled to get some links to the story, but this is a summary in one of the TV schedules:

Quote:
FROZEN AT 20,000 FEET
The Dilemma: Could you survive a fall off North America's highest peak?


When they approach the top of Alaska's Mt. McKinley the highest mountain in North America three British climbers are caught in a terrible blizzard. They take shelter in a crevasse, but there's no escaping the freezing temperatures. Frostbite takes its toll on one climber swelling his face, forcing his eyes shut, and leaving him almost blind and when morning comes, it's clear he might not make it down the mountain alive. They realize they must get down fast or watch their friend die. With their radio broken, the team has no choice but to send one man down the mountain alone to raise the alarm. But a terrible fall leaves him close to death. With their best chance of rescue gone, the climbers can only hope they'll survive America's highest mountain.
Premiere: Friday, Nov. 17, at 10 p.m. ET/PT. Get a Reminder.

http://dsc.discovery.com/fansites/alive/episode/episode.html

If you have not seen this episode, it does have a good/bad ending from whichever way you look at it. One of the friends who left his two buddies to get help, had one of his lower legs amputated, as well as all of his fingers. He also needed facial grafts. His buddies have their legs, but some missing fingers. And guess what, they are thinking of doing it again! The guy with the missing lower leg is jogging to keep fit! I love stories like these, says so much about the human spirit, i.e. the guy who is jogging and who managed to survive overnight when he was badly badly injured, even worked on himself medically in the greatest of pain. He has to have a very strong life force in him Smile
handfleisch
Only a handful of women in France wear a burqa. Sarkozy is just using chauvinism and fear to promote himself and his agenda. In these times of far right resurgence and neo-Nazi violence against minorities, Muslims, he should be ashamed to employ this tactic.
deanhills
handfleisch wrote:
Only a handful of women in France wear a burqa. Sarkozy is just using chauvinism and fear to promote himself and his agenda. In these times of far right resurgence and neo-Nazi violence against minorities, Muslims, he should be ashamed to employ this tactic.
I have to agree with you on this one Handfleisch. Just another politician working on his poll ratings ... Smile And yes, he should be ashamed of it. I must say, he is really not my cup of tea as a politician anyway.
atul2242
The burka was a diktait and is one still. But for women who have worn it for many generations it is part of themselves. Sarkozy has no right to ban a dress. If he feels that all religious dress codes should be banned as France is a liberated country then it should be All- monks, nuns, Llamas, Sikhs... Priests in public should not were their uniform and so on.
This is not democratic function.
Bikerman
Well, if Sarkozi was trying to stir debate then I think he has done so. There are sincere opinions on both sides of the debate in this thread and neither is 'idiotic'. I remain split on the issue - I come down (very marginally) on the side of individual freedom - and thus the right of women to wear the burka. That is not a clear-cut issue though. Even on grounds of freedom one can question whether the 'freedom' of the relatively few in the West is bought at the expense of the lack of freedom of the many, and indeed contributes to a legitimisation of that tyranny....
handfleisch
Bikerman wrote:
Well, if Sarkozi was trying to stir debate then I think he has done so. There are sincere opinions on both sides of the debate in this thread and neither is 'idiotic'. I remain split on the issue - I come down (very marginally) on the side of individual freedom - and thus the right of women to wear the burka. That is not a clear-cut issue though. Even on grounds of freedom one can question whether the 'freedom' of the relatively few in the West is bought at the expense of the lack of freedom of the many, and indeed contributes to a legitimisation of that tyranny....


there was a pro and con set of opinion pieces in the International Herald Tribune a couple weeks ago, you might want to try to find it. A female Muslim was vehemently against them and showed that they are not inherently Islamic at all. Still as you can see from my posts above I think it is a thorny issue, only an easier call in this case because there aren't many burqas in France, there is far right wave of terror going on and Sarkozy is being disingenuous and unconscionably manipulative.
deanhills
handfleisch wrote:
there was a pro and con set of opinion pieces in the International Herald Tribune a couple weeks ago, you might want to try to find it. A female Muslim was vehemently against them and showed that they are not inherently Islamic at all. Still as you can see from my posts above I think it is a thorny issue, only an easier call in this case because there aren't many burqas in France, there is far right wave of terror going on and Sarkozy is being disingenuous and unconscionably manipulative.
I agree with you that Sarkozy was doing exactly that, however he is not the exception. All politicians do that. I seem to recall Obama celebrating a Jewish Holiday at the White House once. At least one can say that was a positive gesture of good will, whereas Sarkozy's stand on the Burka was negative.

Chris said this very well:

Quote:
one can question whether the 'freedom' of the relatively few in the West is bought at the expense of the lack of freedom of the many, and indeed contributes to a legitimisation of that tyranny....
I wonder how free we really are. Would probably be a good subject for a new thread in Philosophy.
Moonspider
atul2242 wrote:
The burka was a diktait and is one still. But for women who have worn it for many generations it is part of themselves. Sarkozy has no right to ban a dress. If he feels that all religious dress codes should be banned as France is a liberated country then it should be All- monks, nuns, Llamas, Sikhs... Priests in public should not were their uniform and so on.
This is not democratic function.


The religious/tradition aspect of the burka does not lie at the heart of the issue. The burka denies a woman her individual identity. One cannot tell an individual in a burka from any other individual in a burka. Talk of individual freedom becomes sort of hollow when there are publicly no individuals.

Furthermore, we talk of a woman's freedom to choose how she dresses. But can all or any of these islamic women in France choose not to wear the burka? Does their freedom extend both ways? How can we tell a liberated muslim woman on the street choosing to wear the burka from an oppressed muslim woman on the street forced to wear the burka?

We also talk as if we are otherwise free to wear whatever we want. This is not true. I cannot walk around in San Francisco naked (as liberal as the town may be), or wear clothing that exposes my genitalia. Some states here have laws against wearing a ski mask (even at a ski resort), because it conceals a persons identity. I can't even do whatever I want on religious grounds, such as smoke peyote or handle venomous snakes in ceremonies.

Finally, the burka was not born out of a choice made by women! It was (and is) a requirement dictated by men to marginalize and even vilify women in their culture. That is its origin. Yes, I understand that some women now may feel uncomfortable or even frightened by the notion of not wearing it, and therefore now would choose to wear it. But I am sure there were thousands of U.S. slaves frightened by the notion of freedom in 1865 too, who would rather stay with the security and familiarity of their life in slavery than deal with the uncertainties and risks of freedom.

Respectfully,
M
Bikerman
Moonspider wrote:
....
Furthermore, we talk of a woman's freedom to choose how she dresses. But can all or any of these islamic women in France choose not to wear the burka? Does their freedom extend both ways? How can we tell a liberated muslim woman on the street choosing to wear the burka from an oppressed muslim woman on the street forced to wear the burka?
Hmm..but that doesn't really constitute an argument against....How can we (expect to) tell ANYTHING from clothing? Should, indeed, we expect to? Clearly we can - certain styles of dress are associated with certain beliefs. One knows that a male with a big beard and a hat like a deep-crust pizza is likely to be an Hasidic Jew - just as one knows that a woman with a burka is likely to be a Muslim.
Quote:
We also talk as if we are otherwise free to wear whatever we want. This is not true. I cannot walk around in San Francisco naked (as liberal as the town may be), or wear clothing that exposes my genitalia. Some states here have laws against wearing a ski mask (even at a ski resort), because it conceals a persons identity. I can't even do whatever I want on religious grounds, such as smoke peyote or handle venomous snakes in ceremonies.
Well, if we stick with dress, then yes we have certain 'decency' laws, but other than those we are fairly free. Now, we recently had a bout of picking up on particular clothing style ('hoodies') in a negative way here in the UK. It eventually descended where it belonged - into the realms of humour. I find it difficult, however, to justify banning the burka on any 'morality' based argument such as the decency laws rely on.....
The argument about identity is superficially telling, but I think not. If a bank (to take the normal example) wishes to identify a woman in a bourka then I gather that there would be no problem 'lifting the veil' for a woman employee to check. OK - you could make the case that this is an un-necessary extra cost, but that argument leads to others...
As for the general assumption that one should be identifiable in public - no, count me with the burka wearer on that one Smile
Quote:
Finally, the burka was not born out of a choice made by women! It was (and is) a requirement dictated by men to marginalize and even vilify women in their culture. That is its origin. Yes, I understand that some women now may feel uncomfortable or even frightened by the notion of not wearing it, and therefore now would choose to wear it. But I am sure there were thousands of U.S. slaves frightened by the notion of freedom in 1865 too, who would rather stay with the security and familiarity of their life in slavery than deal with the uncertainties and risks of freedom.
Indeed, I agree with most of that....
as I say, I find the issue finely balanced - which is why I posted it as a topic to discuss.
deanhills
Moonspider wrote:
The burka denies a woman her individual identity. One cannot tell an individual in a burka from any other individual in a burka. Talk of individual freedom becomes sort of hollow when there are publicly no individuals.

Perhaps men's identity is also denied, as the men also dress the same and generally look alike:

Source: http://www.topics-mag.com/internatl/dress-saudi-ar.htm

I agree that your discussion is moving in the right direction with the reference to Westerners wearing clothing that blends in. We pick up pretty quickly on the kind of dress we have to wear for work so that we wouldn't stand out (if that is our choice), or if we want to make a certain statement. The Arabian men do the same. But much more stringently, wearing their white dish dashes and same headwear, perhaps they may vary the colour in winter, and the leaders of State also may wear different colour dish dash. The headgear may also be different in other Arab countries such as in Oman, but they are all the same in Oman.

Arabs in general wear clothing that is in accordance with their religion, customs and culture. I partially agree that it could have been men dictating that women are covered up (some women genuinely prefer to be covered up when they are among strangers). In Saudi Arabia this rule is very strictly enforced making it genuinely dictating, for example women have to completely bottom up their kabayas and cover their faces. If a dress is to be noted by a Mulah, she may be admonished for that. Arab women living in Saudi Arabia feel oppressed as a result. More so than women would feel in lesser strict countries in the Middle East. It is difficult to really get an accurate opinion from women of course, they are still in the fighting stage of getting their opinion to be counted, but they are making headways. Quite a large number of women are now serving in senior managerial positions everywhere, even CEOs and Government Ministers.
ThePolemistis
Bikerman wrote:
Is Nicholas Sarkozi right to speak up about the Burka?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8112821.stm
There are many issues in play here - the freedom of the individual being uppermost.
Some commentators say that the right to wear what you like is the over-riding principle here. I have some sympathy with that. Against that, however, needs to be balanced;
a) The fact that many women are compelled to wear the burka - not as a matter of personal choice, but as a matter of diktat,
b) The overall social effect. As societies we decide what is acceptable and unacceptable - the law tries to keep up with this. Does society really want to 'approve' of women being hidden behind a 'shield' on the rationale that this reduces temptation and immoral actions (adultery and 'fornication')?

I am undecided. I believe that banning a particular type of dress would be a potentially very dangerous precedent, yet I understand the rationale behind the 'pro' argument. My own position is, currently, that legislating on this would be a bad idea - but I remain to be convinced....


The burqa for Muslim women is NOT compulsory - not in Islam.

The Quran states:

Quran 24:30-31 wrote:

30. Say to the believing men that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty: that will make for greater purity for them: And Allah is well acquainted with all that they do.

31. And say to the believing women that they cast down their looks and guard their private parts and do not display their ornaments except what appears thereof, and let them wear their head-coverings over their bosoms, and not display their ornaments except to their husbands or their fathers, or the fathers of their husbands, or their sons, or the sons of their husbands, or their brothers, or their brothers' sons, or their sisters' sons, or their women, or those whom their right hands possess, or the male servants not having need (of women), or the children who have not attained knowledge of what is hidden of women; and let them not strike their feet so that what they hide of their ornaments may be known; and turn to Allah all of you, O believers! so that you may be successful.


Firstly, The Quran addresses the men regarding their hijab before it moves onto the women.

Secondly, the Quran states "And say to the believing women" which is evident that it is not incumbant upon women, but rather if they want to observe this dress code they can.
In another case of the Quran it says "accept not interest, double or multiplied" which is a strict command, and not an option to take.
So whoever forces women to follow a certain dresscode is wrong.

Now Sarkozi mentioned the Burka, which is not the same as hijab. Hijab is essentially a covering.
A burqa is greater than this. A burqa is an "almost" complete covering of a womens body, including most of her face.
To force the burqa on women is Bidaa - that is to introduce something new into the religion, of which has not existed before.

But does the Quran permit burqa or not?

The word "ornaments" in verse 31, in my view is to be translation as "beauty" although some may translate it at jewellery e.g. earrings - but there is also another verse in the Quran using the arabic word of which the translation of jewelery would not be proper. So you should use beauty as its translation. And in my view again, this beauty contains her private parts, face etc.
The sentence "except what appears thereof" is what is at debate regarding the extent of the hijab. Some people say that the face, hands and feet are what are naturally apparent, and therefore allowed to be seen. In my opinion, that phrase signfies that the beauty of face are excluded from the hijab (covering) because it "what appears thereof". Basically you cannot hide it.
and "let them wear their head-coverings over their bosoms". Now this talks about the hiding of hair (but doesnt say how much. it could be a simple veil over part of their hair (and not neccesarily teh front of their hair). The bosoms must of course be screened.


So basically, burqa are NOT compulsory in Islamic dress code. And secondly, the hijab is not incumbent on every Muslim women.

There are muslim women in the world who are forced to wear the burqa. That is wrong. If a women optionally wanted to wear the burqa, it would be very hard to implement in society.

Therefore, I am more or less inclined towards Sarkozy's view - that burqas shoudl be banned. My reasoning is for security reasons: it would be hard to identify women due to their clothing.

But banning the hijab for women is wrong - because it would go against freedom of expression and also because it poses no risk to security from their part.
lagoon
Its not just women, ThePolemists. Robbers escaped from the scene of their crime using burqas.
ThePolemistis
lagoon wrote:
Its not just women, ThePolemists. Robbers escaped from the scene of their crime using burqas.


Exactly. Burqas don't make sense from a security aspect.
Bikerman
ThePolemistis wrote:
lagoon wrote:
Its not just women, ThePolemists. Robbers escaped from the scene of their crime using burqas.


Exactly. Burqas don't make sense from a security aspect.

This is a very dangerous line of argument. Clearly it would be best, for security, if we were all 'chipped' at birth - just like my dogs. A simple scanner could then identify all people on the streets fairly simply and track any potential criminal. Now, we don't want that (at least I HOPE so), so why this assumption that instant identification is something desirable? Personally I am quite happy NOT to be generally identified UNLESS I am doing something where such identification is necessary (withdrawing money, entering secure areas, etc). In such cases the burka presents no insurmountable difficulties.
I think the security argument is the weakest of those that are routinely deployed.
ocalhoun
Bikerman wrote:

I think the security argument is the weakest of those that are routinely deployed.

Agreed.

Why must people grasp at such tenuous arguments?

To use the French term, "Laissez-faire."
Let them do as they please.
ThePolemistis
Bikerman wrote:
ThePolemistis wrote:
lagoon wrote:
Its not just women, ThePolemists. Robbers escaped from the scene of their crime using burqas.


Exactly. Burqas don't make sense from a security aspect.

This is a very dangerous line of argument. Clearly it would be best, for security, if we were all 'chipped' at birth - just like my dogs. A simple scanner could then identify all people on the streets fairly simply and track any potential criminal. Now, we don't want that (at least I HOPE so), so why this assumption that instant identification is something desirable? Personally I am quite happy NOT to be generally identified UNLESS I am doing something where such identification is necessary (withdrawing money, entering secure areas, etc). In such cases the burka presents no insurmountable difficulties.
I think the security argument is the weakest of those that are routinely deployed.


How does a burka present "no insurmountable difficulties" when withdrawing money, or entering secured areas?
I am not saying people should go round naked; I am saying that you must be able to see "that which is naturally apparent". At least the face should be seen - the rest is not important. If every women went around in burqas, then what good would CCTV cameras be? It would be like men in ski masks robbing a bank. The only difference would be that whilst with men wearing ski masks, you know that they will try to rob a bank with at least 90% certainty or more; women in burqas (albeit statistics showing a scarity of women in burqas robbing a bank), it would be hard to distinguish from the bystander and the criminal.
Bikerman
ThePolemistis wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
ThePolemistis wrote:
lagoon wrote:
Its not just women, ThePolemists. Robbers escaped from the scene of their crime using burqas.


Exactly. Burqas don't make sense from a security aspect.

This is a very dangerous line of argument. Clearly it would be best, for security, if we were all 'chipped' at birth - just like my dogs. A simple scanner could then identify all people on the streets fairly simply and track any potential criminal. Now, we don't want that (at least I HOPE so), so why this assumption that instant identification is something desirable? Personally I am quite happy NOT to be generally identified UNLESS I am doing something where such identification is necessary (withdrawing money, entering secure areas, etc). In such cases the burka presents no insurmountable difficulties.
I think the security argument is the weakest of those that are routinely deployed.


How does a burka present "no insurmountable difficulties" when withdrawing money, or entering secured areas?
Because you can ask the woman to lift the veil. At worst it would be inconvenient - you would have to have women available. Certainly not insurmountable.
Quote:
I am not saying people should go round naked; I am saying that you must be able to see "that which is naturally apparent".
What the heck does that mean?
Quote:
At least the face should be seen - the rest is not important. If every women went around in burqas, then what good would CCTV cameras be?
Good question to which there are several answers - including none.
Ever read 1984?
Quote:
It would be like men in ski masks robbing a bank. The only difference would be that whilst with men wearing ski masks, you know that they will try to rob a bank with at least 90% certainty or more; women in burqas (albeit statistics showing a scarity of women in burqas robbing a bank), it would be hard to distinguish from the bystander and the criminal.
This is silly. If a person is planning to rob a bank then yes they will probably disguise themselves. Using a bourka strikes me as a pretty over the top disguise and not very practical.
I ride a bike - which means I wear a full-face helmet quite regularly. Should I have to remove my helmet when walking down the street? Why? So some CCTV camera can get an image of me? I don't really think it is my duty to enable that, and I don't think it is the role of the state to say otherwise. If I walk into a bank then, yes, I remove my helmet - just as a woman in a burka could reasonably be asked to lift the 'veil' for identification.
ThePolemistis
Bikerman wrote:
ThePolemistis wrote:


How does a burka present "no insurmountable difficulties" when withdrawing money, or entering secured areas?
Because you can ask the woman to lift the veil. At worst it would be inconvenient - you would have to have women available. Certainly not insurmountable.


Consider that many women would want to visit the bank. And consider that if all women were in burqas, don't you believe that many security checks would be overlooked for as you say inconvenience sake? I mean normally, you can just look at a persons face, but then to ask them to remove their covering to reveal the face is a bit OTT is it not?


Bikerman wrote:

Quote:
I am not saying people should go round naked; I am saying that you must be able to see "that which is naturally apparent".
What the heck does that mean?
Quote:
At least the face should be seen - the rest is not important. If every women went around in burqas, then what good would CCTV cameras be?
Good question to which there are several answers - including none.
Ever read 1984?


George Orwelle presented some great points, and CCTV cameras (especially in streets) do possess some concern and questions over a nanny state.
But there are benefits in a CCTV cameras, and being dressed in burqas would destroy that benefit.


Bikerman wrote:

Quote:
It would be like men in ski masks robbing a bank. The only difference would be that whilst with men wearing ski masks, you know that they will try to rob a bank with at least 90% certainty or more; women in burqas (albeit statistics showing a scarity of women in burqas robbing a bank), it would be hard to distinguish from the bystander and the criminal.
This is silly. If a person is planning to rob a bank then yes they will probably disguise themselves. Using a bourka strikes me as a pretty over the top disguise and not very practical.


Yes, but can you see the difference? If a man with a ski-mask walked in the street, people would think he is upto something. There is a high possibility that he would rob something e..g a bank. And the reason for him wearing the ski-mask is to protect his identity.
Now consider women in burqas. The majority would be disguised in this way. Yes, the majority may not rob, but the handful minority may. And there will be no way the public would be able to distinguish the likelihood of a person robbing.

Bikerman wrote:

I ride a bike - which means I wear a full-face helmet quite regularly. Should I have to remove my helmet when walking down the street? Why? So some CCTV camera can get an image of me? I don't really think it is my duty to enable that, and I don't think it is the role of the state to say otherwise. If I walk into a bank then, yes, I remove my helmet - just as a woman in a burka could reasonably be asked to lift the 'veil' for identification.

[/quote]

But will you walk into a bank with a full-face helmet?
Bikerman
ThePolemistis wrote:
Consider that many women would want to visit the bank.
Not in many Islamic countries they wouldn't.
Quote:
And consider that if all women were in burqas, don't you believe that many security checks would be overlooked for as you say inconvenience sake? I mean normally, you can just look at a persons face, but then to ask them to remove their covering to reveal the face is a bit OTT is it not?
Well, if you can demonstrate to me that women in Burkas have been a major security threat in France then I'll be tempted to take that argument a bit more seriously.
Quote:
George Orwelle presented some great points, and CCTV cameras (especially in streets) do possess some concern and questions over a nanny state.
But there are benefits in a CCTV cameras, and being dressed in burqas would destroy that benefit.
So does wearing my crash-helmet and that gives me a warm feeling inside Smile
Quote:
Yes, but can you see the difference? If a man with a ski-mask walked in the street, people would think he is upto something.
Because it would be bizarre behaviour to wear such a mask. In the same way women in Burkas sometimes attract the same attention in parts of the UK. Do you therefore think we should ban the wearing of face coverings completely?
Quote:
There is a high possibility that he would rob something e..g a bank. And the reason for him wearing the ski-mask is to protect his identity.
Now consider women in burqas. The majority would be disguised in this way. Yes, the majority may not rob, but the handful minority may. And there will be no way the public would be able to distinguish the likelihood of a person robbing.
This is a silly argument. If I wanted to rob a bank then I sure wouldn't get dressed-up in a burka.
Quote:
But will you walk into a bank with a full-face helmet?
Yep, have done frequently. I rather like my helmet (a Simpson Bandit) and I frequently leave it on if I'm off the bike for only a few minutes. I do normally try to remember to take it off in the bank, and I have been reminded a couple of times (nicely). I repeat, though, that the idea that someone would dress up in a burka to rob a bank is rather silly - there are much easier ways of disguising your face (a simple Halloween mask seems to work well enough in many movies).
The alternative is that a genuine burka-wearing Muslim woman would rob a bank. OK, well I'd first need convincing that this is a real problem. I don't think that even Sarkosi is claiming so.
Even if it was, however, then the fact that they wear a burka is actually going to make it easier to track them down in France. Imagine, a new haircut and some dye, a bit of clever make-up and a change of clothes can transform a woman's appearance so that people would immediately rule her out. A woman wearing a burka, on the other hand is going to stand out in most places.

There are places where this might be a real issue. I'm thinking of parts of Israel/Palestine where suicide bombers operate, as an example. The issue is not identification, however, since I'm sure the bomber would love to be identified (they often, I am told, leave a video). The issue would be concealment of explosive vests/belts. Even then it doesn't really pose a clinching case. It is pretty easy to hide stuff using conventional 'western' dress.

As I said - the security argument is the least convincing of those I've considered.
I am actually in favour of a 'dress code' in certain jobs that would exclude the wearing of the burka. Such jobs would include teaching, nursing and other 'public sector' jobs where there is significant interaction with members of the public. I personally find the burka a barrier to communication and I don't like it. That doesn't mean, however, that I want a legal ban on it. I'm still not persuaded that this would be ethical.

PS - I'm going to stick with spelling it 'burka'. I know that 'burqa' and other spellings are common and I have no idea which, if any, is 'right'.
deanhills
Bikerman wrote:
ThePolemistis wrote:
Consider that many women would want to visit the bank.
Not in many Islamic countries they wouldn't.
Not entirely true Chris. They do visit Banks, but when they do, they either get their own line-up, or more generally men just make way for them, they get served first. Some banks even have separate "branches" called "Ladies Branch", i.e. separate entrance and service that is only for women. If you go to Universities, the Universities may also have separate entrances for males and females, and male and female students may be taught separately. If Islamic women should cross the street, cars will automatically stop. For others, you better watch out as you could easily become target practice and would have to run across to make it. Women wearing Burkas in the Middle East usually are respected in public and instantly served, ahead of males.
ThePolemistis
Bikerman wrote:
Not in many Islamic countries they wouldn't.


Deanhills reply to this is good.
Further I have seen it with my own eyes during my time in Saudi Arabia. There is usually two separate queues for men and women, and I've even seen women in banks.


Bikerman wrote:
Well, if you can demonstrate to me that women in Burkas have been a major security threat in France then I'll be tempted to take that argument a bit more seriously.


What about men dressing in burkas? I know a few years back, a Nigerian politician escaped his home dressed as a women before the security guards caught him. He was done in London for possessing 2 million or so cash at his London home.

Agreed though, that women in burqas have not been a major security threat not only in France, but the rest of the world too.

Bikerman wrote:

Quote:
George Orwelle presented some great points, and CCTV cameras (especially in streets) do possess some concern and questions over a nanny state.
But there are benefits in a CCTV cameras, and being dressed in burqas would destroy that benefit.
So does wearing my crash-helmet and that gives me a warm feeling inside Smile


Not for the victim though. And that should be the intention of CCTV cameras: to protect victims.


Bikerman wrote:


Quote:
There is a high possibility that he would rob something e..g a bank. And the reason for him wearing the ski-mask is to protect his identity.
Now consider women in burqas. The majority would be disguised in this way. Yes, the majority may not rob, but the handful minority may. And there will be no way the public would be able to distinguish the likelihood of a person robbing.
This is a silly argument. If I wanted to rob a bank then I sure wouldn't get dressed-up in a burka.


Why not? Is it due to personal preference (which means your argument is invalid) or is it due to the fact that a burqa may hinder your chances of success? If so, explain how.

Bikerman wrote:

Quote:
But will you walk into a bank with a full-face helmet?
Yep, have done frequently. I rather like my helmet (a Simpson Bandit) and I frequently leave it on if I'm off the bike for only a few minutes. I do normally try to remember to take it off in the bank, and I have been reminded a couple of times (nicely). I repeat, though, that the idea that someone would dress up in a burka to rob a bank is rather silly - there are much easier ways of disguising your face (a simple Halloween mask seems to work well enough in many movies).


And don't you think a Halloween mask would create alarm before you have even entered the building?

Bikerman wrote:

The alternative is that a genuine burka-wearing Muslim woman would rob a bank. OK, well I'd first need convincing that this is a real problem. I don't think that even Sarkosi is claiming so.
Even if it was, however, then the fact that they wear a burka is actually going to make it easier to track them down in France. Imagine, a new haircut and some dye, a bit of clever make-up and a change of clothes can transform a woman's appearance so that people would immediately rule her out. A woman wearing a burka, on the other hand is going to stand out in most places.


This depends entirely on the number of those who accept to wear the burqa. If the number of those wearing the burqa rises, your arguement fails.


Bikerman wrote:

There are places where this might be a real issue. I'm thinking of parts of Israel/Palestine where suicide bombers operate, as an example. The issue is not identification, however, since I'm sure the bomber would love to be identified (they often, I am told, leave a video). The issue would be concealment of explosive vests/belts. Even then it doesn't really pose a clinching case. It is pretty easy to hide stuff using conventional 'western' dress.


Regarding pretty easy to hide stuff using conventional 'western' dress : depends on size of explosives.
Although personally, I think the number of Muslim women carrying out suicide missions in the fragile region is low (if any). ANd certainly the number of Muslim men who would dress like women in order to do it, is next to nothing (no man would want to become a martyr dressed like a women - for firstly it would go against the hijab for both men and women) .

Bikerman wrote:

As I said - the security argument is the least convincing of those I've considered.
I am actually in favour of a 'dress code' in certain jobs that would exclude the wearing of the burka. Such jobs would include teaching, nursing and other 'public sector' jobs where there is significant interaction with members of the public. I personally find the burka a barrier to communication and I don't like it. That doesn't mean, however, that I want a legal ban on it. I'm still not persuaded that this would be ethical.


I agree with you on this one: that in certain jobs it is a barrier to communication - especially teaching.
I am still not so convinced on your security arguments. I accept that women in burqas are not much of a threat to society security-wise. I do feel however, that society would be slightly more safer or sense of safeness had women not dressed in the full attire. Asking for slightly less is not much harm is it?
And it's not just burqas: I would also prefer things like pubs closing earlier, and fines for drunks on streets at certain times.

Bikerman wrote:

PS - I'm going to stick with spelling it 'burka'. I know that 'burqa' and other spellings are common and I have no idea which, if any, is 'right'.


Didn't notice much on this Smile... I assume 'burka' may have turkish influence due to prominence of k in their language. But of course like with most foreign non-romanised words, there are usually many spellings for the same word.
ocalhoun
deanhills wrote:
They do visit Banks, but when they do, they either get their own line-up, or more generally men just make way for them, they get served first. Some banks even have separate "branches" called "Ladies Branch", i.e. separate entrance and service that is only for women. If you go to Universities, the Universities may also have separate entrances for males and females, and male and female students may be taught separately.



Confused

The good 'ol "separate, but equal" thing perhaps?
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:
The good 'ol "separate, but equal" thing perhaps?
Not quite like that. It's more of a cultural courteous variety. They don't want women to wait in long lines or preferably not wait at all. There could be an element in it too of not wanting to spend too much time in public or being studied by males waiting in lines as well. Usually women get served almost immediately. When they do, males usually keep a good space away, whereas when males are lining up, there is not the typical Western rule of keeping a good distance (for confidentiality sake) between the person that is being served by the Teller. You'd have one almost digging in your space immediately behind you, and even some almost next to you. In travel agencies you will find travel agents serving two clients at the same time, as well as take calls from others. The idea being that you are to spend some time there, have tea, and take it easy. Smile However if there are women with burkas, they are exclusively served and usually get served as soon as possible. Almost the equivalent of royalty but along courteous lines. I must say however that I have not seen that many women with burkas in the travel agencies I have visited. They are in Banks, super markets, department stores .... I also have not seen any in coffee shops, possibly because of these being a male dominated area. If some of the coffee shops would start up a "Ladies Section" or "Family section", then possibly that could change. Quite a number of especially successful restaurants have a "Family Section" or a section that can be used for "Families" as of course managing meals with Burkas has to be something of a self-conscious in it.
BinahZ
First of all upfront, I am very unfamiliar with French law or politics.
What I am concerned with is the lack of religious freedom being proposed
by such a ban. Islamic women are not the only ones who dress in accordance
to religious dictates and beliefs. There are Jewish women who will not leave their home with
their head uncovered. And a christian group that dictates women not wear pants or even so much
as trim their hair. I understand the security issues with the burka, but I also
agree that stats do not warrant them being treated as an alarming threat.
The wearing of a burka being forbidden is as bad as them being mandated.
Both take away the individual choice and one denies religious freedom.
And btw as far as the segregation, many women welcome it and do not see it
as a negative. When looking at this from a western perspective, the fact is that many women from
other cultures find the ways of western women, uncomfortable and often appalling.
A matter of choice , comfort, religious inclinations and what is acceptable within their societal norms.
Many people while foreigners, still move within a somewhat segregated societal venue
by choice.
ThePolemistis
deanhills wrote:
ocalhoun wrote:
The good 'ol "separate, but equal" thing perhaps?
Not quite like that. It's more of a cultural courteous variety. They don't want women to wait in long lines or preferably not wait at all. There could be an element in it too of not wanting to spend too much time in public or being studied by males waiting in lines as well. Usually women get served almost immediately. When they do, males usually keep a good space away, whereas when males are lining up, there is not the typical Western rule of keeping a good distance (for confidentiality sake) between the person that is being served by the Teller. You'd have one almost digging in your space immediately behind you, and even some almost next to you. In travel agencies you will find travel agents serving two clients at the same time, as well as take calls from others. The idea being that you are to spend some time there, have tea, and take it easy. Smile However if there are women with burkas, they are exclusively served and usually get served as soon as possible. Almost the equivalent of royalty but along courteous lines. I must say however that I have not seen that many women with burkas in the travel agencies I have visited. They are in Banks, super markets, department stores .... I also have not seen any in coffee shops, possibly because of these being a male dominated area. If some of the coffee shops would start up a "Ladies Section" or "Family section", then possibly that could change. Quite a number of especially successful restaurants have a "Family Section" or a section that can be used for "Families" as of course managing meals with Burkas has to be something of a self-conscious in it.


True.
Out of curiosity, you seem to know a lot on middleEastern affairs. Where in the middleEast have you visited?
deanhills
ThePolemistis wrote:
deanhills wrote:
ocalhoun wrote:
The good 'ol "separate, but equal" thing perhaps?
Not quite like that. It's more of a cultural courteous variety. They don't want women to wait in long lines or preferably not wait at all. There could be an element in it too of not wanting to spend too much time in public or being studied by males waiting in lines as well. Usually women get served almost immediately. When they do, males usually keep a good space away, whereas when males are lining up, there is not the typical Western rule of keeping a good distance (for confidentiality sake) between the person that is being served by the Teller. You'd have one almost digging in your space immediately behind you, and even some almost next to you. In travel agencies you will find travel agents serving two clients at the same time, as well as take calls from others. The idea being that you are to spend some time there, have tea, and take it easy. Smile However if there are women with burkas, they are exclusively served and usually get served as soon as possible. Almost the equivalent of royalty but along courteous lines. I must say however that I have not seen that many women with burkas in the travel agencies I have visited. They are in Banks, super markets, department stores .... I also have not seen any in coffee shops, possibly because of these being a male dominated area. If some of the coffee shops would start up a "Ladies Section" or "Family section", then possibly that could change. Quite a number of especially successful restaurants have a "Family Section" or a section that can be used for "Families" as of course managing meals with Burkas has to be something of a self-conscious in it.


True.
Out of curiosity, you seem to know a lot on middleEastern affairs. Where in the middleEast have you visited?
Oman, Qatar, UAE, Kuwait, Egypt. Although as you know there are differences, but they have to be some of the more prosperous ones. My favourite places are Oman and the Red Sea zone of Egypt, i.e. Sharm El Sheik for visits. How about you? Which parts of the Middle East have you visited?
dipesh
I certainly don't agree that wearing burka or any type of clothing that keeps the person in discomfort would achieve anything rather nothing . Any living being enjoys freedom.
deanhills
dipesh wrote:
I certainly don't agree that wearing burka or any type of clothing that keeps the person in discomfort would achieve anything rather nothing . Any living being enjoys freedom.
Who says that the people are in discomfort. That is the point. They should have freedom to dress as they please too? You cannot ban wearing the burka and allow other religious groups to retain their equally uncomfortable dress.
askchris
My view is that the Burka is a religious symbol like the Turban that sikhs wear and crosses that Christian's wear, but lets get one thing straight and that is that the women should be allowed the choice to wear it, part of the problem here is that people try and force their views on to others to comply with their way of life and that includes the male muslims forcing their women to comply with their views.

Unless it directly affects the way you live what problem do you have with it? Sarkozy is right to maintain the French way of life, but wrong to impose his own views on others, there is always a third way, for instance why not allow the Burka in mosques and in private, and on the way to mosques, just a suggestion.

If you believe in God, whatever religeon you are you must know that we are born with no clothes or possesions, and leave this world with nothing either. Religeous clothes are there as a symbol only of your belief, not a necessity.

Vote for change, vote for http://www.tedwinter.com
deanhills
askchris wrote:
My view is that the Burka is a religious symbol like the Turban that sikhs wear and crosses that Christian's wear, but lets get one thing straight and that is that the women should be allowed the choice to wear it, part of the problem here is that people try and force their views on to others to comply with their way of life and that includes the male muslims forcing their women to comply with their views.

Unless it directly affects the way you live what problem do you have with it? Sarkozy is right to maintain the French way of life, but wrong to impose his own views on others, there is always a third way, for instance why not allow the Burka in mosques and in private, and on the way to mosques, just a suggestion.

If you believe in God, whatever religeon you are you must know that we are born with no clothes or possesions, and leave this world with nothing either. Religeous clothes are there as a symbol only of your belief, not a necessity.

Vote for change, vote for http://www.tedwinter.com
I'm not an expert here as I've never been in a Mosque, but as far as I know there are separate places for prayer for men and women. The wearing of the burka is really to cover the women when they are in public, more so than when they are praying. For example some women may wish to completely cover their faces when they are in public, and partially cover themselves when they are in a mosque as they would only be with other women and children when they are praying.
ThePolemistis
Bikerman wrote:

I ride a bike - which means I wear a full-face helmet quite regularly. Should I have to remove my helmet when walking down the street? Why? So some CCTV camera can get an image of me? I don't really think it is my duty to enable that, and I don't think it is the role of the state to say otherwise. If I walk into a bank then, yes, I remove my helmet - just as a woman in a burka could reasonably be asked to lift the 'veil' for identification.



Okay, actually you have convinced me. Your view is correct. Burqas should be acceptable in society if are to ban them due to a security reason.

deanhills wrote:

I'm not an expert here as I've never been in a Mosque, but as far as I know there are separate places for prayer for men and women. The wearing of the burka is really to cover the women when they are in public, more so than when they are praying. For example some women may wish to completely cover their faces when they are in public, and partially cover themselves when they are in a mosque as they would only be with other women and children when they are praying.


The Quran states that it is okay for women to uncover themselves in front of children who have no sense of feminine sex, old men who lack vigour, their (womans) parents, their husbands parents, their husbands brothers, and all other women. (there maybe more also).

Yes in mosque there is a different case: they cover themselves to be closer to God. In the same manner men would wear hats in prayers. It is more out of respect than anything else.
Yes, women are (kindof) seperated in the masjid. However, this is not neccessarily by a physical partition. According to sunnah/hadith (i.e. during time of Prophet), women prayed in the same room as men, but there was a gap between the men and the women, and hadith states the best of rows for men is at the front, and the best for women is at the back (in order to be furthest away from each other).
Yes children were also at the mosque, for instanace in one hadith, the Prophet would pray slightly faster upon hearing a baby crying. Further, it was permitted for women to enter the masjid, as the Prophet says "If your wives ask you permission to enter the mosques, then do not prohibit them" and in another hadith he states: "Do not prevent the maid-servants of God from entering the masjid." According to the hadith, the women used to go at night (isha) and morning (Fajr) prayer (at least).
Bikerman
ThePolemistis wrote:
Okay, actually you have convinced me. Your view is correct. Burqas should be acceptable in society if are to ban them due to a security reason.
Well said! I appreciate it. I'm convinced, as of now, that the decision should be not to ban. I can see the argument for banning and it certainly has some validity. I just don't think that it carries the debate.
Auctus
Not to be a grammar nazi, but how many people here are going to misspell Sarkozy? Razz
Bikerman
You are quite right. My fault.
Related topics
What are you listening to RIGHT NOW ?
Jonathan Livingston Seagull
Free domain names
The downfall of american society
Sim and Sim New Relaunch!
Step right up and get your scripts
Right click and links
right and lift align on same line
What are you opinions on the United States Bill of Rights?
The History of Leftists verses Right Wingers.
Forget...
Download Manager
[OFFICIAL]What song are you listening to right now ?
main right
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Politics

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.