Should the veil be banned?

[TomCat84]

I would think that an unwanted veil would be a suffocation of sorts.

A lot of weird things fly here in the states though. We are currently in a grass roots campaign to get the "rights" of parents to irrevocably modify their male children's genitals for religious reasons, or for any reasons, cancelled or removed. Because there's no such "right." But we have to overcome several generations of precedent and campaigning by our medical associations. And this was not a Western cultural practice at all until the twentieth century. It is quite obvious that a child's rights to security in his person trump anyone's so called rights to cut off healthy body parts for social or cultural reasons, but you've all heard the howl this truth generates in some quarters. Although a lot of people hold it to be self-evident.

So once you get these things it is very difficult to remove them. Better to not get them in the first place.

Oh stop it- dont try to hijack a perfectly good thread with your anti circumcision nonsense.

 

[vince]

A person in a veil does not scare me either, it makes me feel uncomfortable, that's all. That is a non-issue however because groups of skinheads walking down the street towards me makes me uncomfortable too.

Being scared and being uncomfortable are different feelings.

Fear is the basic fuel for someone to feel uncomfortable.
With the exception of physical pain, it's really hard to feel one without the other.

Now, you see, that makes good sense if fear is the basic fuel, i don't see it as such tho, i see ignorance as the basic fuel.

I think it is a combination. Ignorance is the basic fuel which feeds the emotions of fear, or feeling "uncomfortable". Scared is just the next level fear.

Ignorance of something or someone, often becomes fear, which can lead to one taking action against that which is bothering them. Such as bannings or worse.

Does america witness amputations for theft? Does it witness imprisonment for dressing provocatively? No, this is because religious practices (law) are confined to exist within the law of the land. So freedom of religion does not exist in entirety even in your country.

Presumably if the UK or France passed a law which banned an article of clothing, there would some kind of punishment for violation. Perhaps imprisonment for repeated violations. You are proposing a law that would witness imprisonment for dressing non-provocatively. Actually, I guess it is the veil that is provoking you, so it is the same thing.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

Like your constitution protecting individual rights isn't just a teeny bit selfish too.

Selfish in what way? The Constitution is supposed to grant ALL of its citizens those rights. It may have started out as a document that didn't consider the rights of everyone, but over time it has been amended to include more and as we progress forward it will continue to do so.

I would'nt have a leg to stand on if my argument was about banning the religion. I'm not targetting a faith, i'm targeting extremist ideology that exists within a faith.

And that extreme ideology exists in ALL religions. Focusing on Islam through legislation such as banning the wearing of veils doesn't deal with the matter properly.

You are insinuating that my beliefs are bigotted using Islam as a whole. This is not true.

So, you honestly want me to believe that the banning of veils would only affect Radical Islam and not the entire religion? That's a very short-sided viewpoint. It's about as ridiculous as saying that Christians should ban the cross since some extremists used its image to scare people by placing burning ones in other people's yards.

Spreading the wrong message as you are, as readers not paying attention might infer i'm islamophobic is not a great way to gain the moral highground.

Everyone knows I can be a prick at times, so winning awards on morality will never be my strongest suit. However, it doesn't take a lawful, goody-goody cleric from D&D to see where this proposed legislation towards veils is geared to do and it's the wrong way to address the issue.

If anyone has spun anything, it's you.

Yeah, keep believing that you "freedom fighter" for women.

 

[FRE]

While I admit to being disturbed by religious extremists, I cant justify outlawing being a religious extremist- and you haven't proven that veil wearing is NECESSARILY religious extremism- until one does something like blow up (or attempt to blow up) a building or airliner, or something of that nature. Great American political philosophers have commented on the greatness of a "marketplace of ideas", where even the extremes are displayed. The advantage being that if the extremes are allowed to be displayed, they will be seen for what they are- ridiculous. You can fight them by displaying and acting your ideal...Extremes will usually only take root under certain conditions- vast disparities of resources chief among them- so preventing those disparities is key to minimizing extremism. Banning stuff- like veils- that make you uncomfortable WILL NOT minimize extremism- it will simply brush that stuff under the rug....but it will still be there.

Let me quote the 1st Amendment. Keep in mind that my words about religious rights extending only so far as someone else's rights is basically (in a very small nutshell) how the courts have determined the extent and limits of said religious freedom:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

And the 14th Amendment, which has been interpreted by the courts to extend these requirements to the states:

"Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

For instance, the courts have determined that satanic churches, while legal, may not legally conduct ritual sacrifices, just as an esoteric example. The same logic would apply to Muslims attempting to apply sharia law to other Muslims.

Quite true.

A good example here in the U.S. is the Westbro Baptist Church with its pastor, Fred Phelps. They have carried their hatred to such absurd extremes that it is having the exact opposite effect of what they intend.

The veil could be similar in effect; people quite reasonably see it as an absurd extreme. That's one reason that I believe that it should be permitted except under certain limited circumstances. For example, women called as witnesses in court should not be permitted to have their faces veiled since doing so would remove one of the means that judges and juries have to evaluate testimony. Similarly, jurors should not be permitted to have their faces veiled. Where it is necessary to compare the face with a photo on a driver's license, the face must also be exposed. And, on private property, those who control the property should be able to ban the veil on that property. But if a woman wants to walk down the street with her face covered, let her.

If future events indicate a clear and urgent need for more restrictions on veils, then more restrictions can be applied at that time, but should not be applied until then.

 

[freyasworld]

I've said it before and will say it again.....universal declaration human rights....read it, it is what protects us all! Now I wore a veil, it was not black, but white, it went with my wedding dress, now are you saying they should be banned as well! it was covering my face and one could claim it was religious attire since I attended a church!

We should be clear, we cannot dictate or imprison a person because we don't like what they are wearing! Where do we draw the line, I have (I believe) is a red hot basque, should that be banned also!

Circumcision if done for religious purposes, should that be outlawed, after all the mutilation of a child in aborhent to a lot of people!

 

[FRE]

I've said it before and will say it again.....universal declaration human rights....read it, it is what protects us all! Now I wore a veil, it was not black, but white, it went with my wedding dress, now are you saying they should be banned as well! it was covering my face and one could claim it was religious attire since I attended a church!

We should be clear, we cannot dictate or imprison a person because we don't like what they are wearing! Where do we draw the line, I have (I believe) is a red hot basque, should that be banned also!

Circumcision if done for religious purposes, should that be outlawed, after all the mutilation of a child in aborhent to a lot of people!

For many people (but not all) the objection to the veil is not that it is a religious symbol, but rather, that it obscures the face. If the objections were simply religious, then objections to other religious attire would be just as strong, such as wearing a cross, carrying a rosary, wearing a yarmulke, or wearing the kind of hat that Muslim men often wear. Although some have objected to the wearing of those religious items, there have been far fewer objections to them.

 

[Industrialsize]

I don't care how many objections there are:
Banning the veil=religious/cultural intolerance=bigotry
Simple as that.

 

[FRE]

I don't care how many objections there are:
Banning the veil=religious/cultural intolerance=bigotry
Simple as that.

Are you saying that there is no point in trying to understand bigotry? Is it even slightly possible that trying to understand bigotry might enable one to find ways to overcome it? Are there ever any circumstances in which it might be desirable to try to understand viewpoints with which one disagrees?

 

[mitchymo]

The advantage being that if the extremes are allowed to be displayed, they will be seen for what they are- ridiculous. You can fight them by displaying and acting your ideal...Extremes will usually only take root under certain conditions- vast disparities of resources chief among them- so preventing those disparities is key to minimizing extremism. Banning stuff- like veils- that make you uncomfortable WILL NOT minimize extremism- it will simply brush that stuff under the rug....but it will still be there.

This is not a bad approach, of course not. It's a way that many in Europe would support too i'm sure. That doesn't necessarily mean it is the only productive way of dealing with bad eggs.

And how do we know that this method actually works the best? With no proactive measures to discourage extremism except the morality of the mainstream, what happens if the mainstream becomes alienated? There are no legal barriers to preventing extremism from taking hold, leading to conflict.
Protecting a national identity/values by banning something associated with ideology which conflicts is at least reaffirming the kind of morality that a nation prescribes to, so even if it fails to stop people having extreme beliefs, at least it legally acknowledges that those beliefs do not belong.

Presumably if the UK or France passed a law which banned an article of clothing, there would some kind of punishment for violation. Perhaps imprisonment for repeated violations. You are proposing a law that would witness imprisonment for dressing non-provocatively. Actually, I guess it is the veil that is provoking you, so it is the same thing.

It has already been discussed over this way. It would'nt be considered a grievious crime and the same procedure for minor offences would apply, i.e. a policeman tells you to remove the veil, if you don't, you'd get arrested and fined. A second time, another fine. It would continue like that until such time as local law courts would be sick and tired of seeing repeat offenders and hands out a harsher sentence which for this would be a matter of several weeks in prison at the worst.

Selfish in what way? The Constitution is supposed to grant ALL of its citizens those rights. It may have started out as a document that didn't consider the rights of everyone, but over time it has been amended to include more and as we progress forward it will continue to do so.

It is a little selfish in the way that society as a whole is given little attention when superceded by individual rights. This is not however unique to the US, happens here too. But as an example, gun laws. You have a challenge and a half to ever change your rights to hold a firearm, constitutionally, you have that right to protect yourself with such means, yet suffer the consequences on a social level when somebody takes them rights and throws them back in the face.

And that extreme ideology exists in ALL religions. Focusing on Islam through legislation such as banning the wearing of veils doesn't deal with the matter properly.

Neither in my opinion does sitting back and letting time do the work for you.

So, you honestly want me to believe that the banning of veils would only affect Radical Islam and not the entire religion? That's a very short-sided viewpoint. It's about as ridiculous as saying that Christians should ban the cross since some extremists used its image to scare people by placing burning ones in other people's yards.

It's not as ridiculous as that at all, banning beards is as ridiculous. The banning of the veil does'nt affect the basic religious rights of followers to practice their religion freely. All it does is make harder to follow strict practices (incompatible with values of non-muslims).

Everyone knows I can be a prick at times, so winning awards on morality will never be my strongest suit. However, it doesn't take a lawful, goody-goody cleric from D&D to see where this proposed legislation towards veils is geared to do and it's the wrong way to address the issue.

In your opinion. My opinion is doing nothing at all is, whilst not wrong, cannot be considered right either as no action is taken. As such, you only have the test of time to know whether or not it is working.
Whilst there is law and order, you can be confident that personal safety is well protected from all the bigotted types, all the extremist types, but what happens if law and order collapsed for some reason. I'd prefer knowing that we had laws in place designed to make detrimental social and religious views unwelcome.

Yeah, keep believing that you "freedom fighter" for women.

'social cohesian' actually. This all started with wanting veiled women to respect traditional values, this shows mutual respect. We are not islamaphobic, even if we don't like religion, there is no harm in paying back some respect and choosing not to create division between themselves and everyone else. The fact that some women choose not to remove the veil when asked is indicative of a lack of respect for THIS nations values. Making it illegal will effectively punish that lack of respect, it will hardly ever be implemented though because most don't wear the thing anyway.

I've said it before and will say it again.....universal declaration human rights....read it, it is what protects us all! Now I wore a veil, it was not black, but white, it went with my wedding dress, now are you saying they should be banned as well! it was covering my face and one could claim it was religious attire since I attended a church!

We should be clear, we cannot dictate or imprison a person because we don't like what they are wearing! Where do we draw the line, I have (I believe) is a red hot basque, should that be banned also!

Circumcision if done for religious purposes, should that be outlawed, after all the mutilation of a child in aborhent to a lot of people!

Its not about the veil itself. Its about what it represents.

I don't care how many objections there are:
Banning the veil=religious/cultural intolerance=bigotry
Simple as that.

The intent is not bigotted. It is NOT religious intolerance even when it CAN be considered culturally so, which then bodes the question, how can being bigotted towards a negative culture be a bad thing when clearly the culture is in conflict with GOOD values.

 

[B_New End]

Prison for fashion. Sounds like Iran. Now I guess they should just call it Firance.

 

[Jason]

Prison for fashion. Sounds like Iran. Now I guess they should just call it Firance.

This is a strong argument against a ban.

Actually in the UK I don't see that it could get as far as prison. We've pretty much done away with the very short prison sentences (and are likely to do away with still more) so it would be a fine or community service as a punishment. But it is still easy to see that punishment could be problematic. You can only fine someone if they actually have some money (it is just about possible to reduce benefit payments, but the options here are severely limited). And community service is only possible for people who can be placed within community service initiatives, and wearing a veil may actually reduce opportunities.

My own view is that in the UK we shouldn't follow France with a ban, partly because of the madness of punishment. But I do think we need public acceptance that a veil (or any face covering, including a balaclava or a motorbike helmet with the visor down) is in general unacceptable for social interaction. Presumably all shops and public buildings could request removal as a condition of entry. Maybe this could be extended to public transport - after all you cannot get on a bus wearing a motorbike helmet with the visor down.

 

[freyasworld]

This is a strong argument against a ban.


My own view is that in the UK we shouldn't follow France with a ban, partly because of the madness of punishment. But I do think we need public acceptance that a veil (or any face covering, including a balaclava or a motorbike helmet with the visor down) is in general unacceptable for social interaction. Presumably all shops and public buildings could request removal as a condition of entry. Maybe this could be extended to public transport - after all you cannot get on a bus wearing a motorbike helmet with the visor down.

There's talk in my son's school that a group of boys are going to wear the full burkha to annoy the camera police.............there's even talk of putting a dog in one!......that could be interesting!

 

[B_Nick4444]

Are you saying that there is no point in trying to understand bigotry? Is it even slightly possible that trying to understand bigotry might enable one to find ways to overcome it? Are there ever any circumstances in which it might be desirable to try to understand viewpoints with which one disagrees?

no comrade ... such talk and questioning will brand you as a counter-revolutionary, a heretic, a closet bigot

you must adhere to the party line without question!

 

[B_dxjnorto]

Oh stop it- dont try to hijack a perfectly good thread with your anti circumcision nonsense.

It is a good example of once you allow a cultural precedent that doesn't fit with the culture at all, how very difficult it can be to reverse. Slippery slope.

 

[B_RedDude]

sounds like your son's schoolmates have a healthy view of life and the world, not to mention an admirable sense of humor

they should just be careful that the extremists don't retaliate against them

There's talk in my son's school that a group of boys are going to wear the full burkha to annoy the camera police.............there's even talk of putting a dog in one!......that could be interesting!

 

[vince]

sounds like your son's schoolmates have a healthy view of life and the world, not to mention an admirable sense of humor

they should just be careful that the extremists don't retaliate against them

Which ones? The extremist Muslims, or the extremist Islamophobes?

 

[TomCat84]

It is a good example of once you allow a cultural precedent that doesn't fit with the culture at all, how very difficult it can be to reverse. Slippery slope.

No, seriously. STFU. I will not allow myself and other circumcised males to be held up as indicators of cultural oppression. Either start a circumcision thread, or STFU. It's as simple as that.

 

[helgaleena]

I've said it before and will say it again.....universal declaration human rights....read it, it is what protects us all! Now I wore a veil, it was not black, but white, it went with my wedding dress, now are you saying they should be banned as well! it was covering my face and one could claim it was religious attire since I attended a church!

We should be clear, we cannot dictate or imprison a person because we don't like what they are wearing! Where do we draw the line, I have (I believe) is a red hot basque, should that be banned also!

Circumcision if done for religious purposes, should that be outlawed, after all the mutilation of a child in aborhent to a lot of people!

I am pleased to agree with Freya for a change. Mutilation of a child is abhorrent to me personally, as is wearing of too many clothes. But I do not believe it is right to outlaw things that other groups do for religious reasons, in general. There has to be a practical or humane justification for such legal strictures or we are better off without them.

Some would say it's too easy to hide bombs under the full veil. But then as I said earlier, France must also outlaw lucha-style wrestling masks and ski masks, in all fairness, and also possibly bridal veils. Will they do this?

And will there ever be legal recognition that circumcision is in fact painful? It is on a par with female infibulation and about as medically justified. I hope so, but can only express my personal dislike of hurting helpless children.

 

[TomCat84]

I am pleased to agree with Freya for a change. Mutilation of a child is abhorrent to me personally, as is wearing of too many clothes. But I do not believe it is right to outlaw things that other groups do for religious reasons, in general. There has to be a practical or humane justification for such legal strictures or we are better off without them.

Some would say it's too easy to hide bombs under the full veil. But then as I said earlier, France must also outlaw lucha-style wrestling masks and ski masks, in all fairness, and also possibly bridal veils. Will they do this?

And will there ever be legal recognition that circumcision is in fact painful? It is on a par with female infibulation and about as medically justified. I hope so, but can only express my personal dislike of hurting helpless children.

My previous posts go for you too. Start a circumcision thread, or STFU.

 

[Scot22]

In the UK there's a requirement to remove motor cycle helmets when entering all banks,airports and some shops.
Absolutely no one has screamed discriminaton re motor cyclists.
Same should apply to all face coverings,rather than people complaining of being anti Muslim.
Get real-----cool down.
Just do what is the decent thing. If you must wear it(as the motor cyclist has to),remove it when interacting,and get on with life.
There's a big wide world out there.