Should the veil be banned?

[mitchymo]

Except that you (presumably a non veil wearing person) would have ZERO chance of getting your cancer risk raised by being around a veiled woman/man. Totally specious analogy.

The principle remains the same. So one is for health reasons the other for social cohesion. Either being more important does not make redundant the value of the other.

I would tend to agree with you. I'm objecting out of the principle that the government has no right to tell me what I can or cannot wear (beyond setting a minimal amount of clothing required) in a public setting.

So why the hell should a nudist HAVE to wear clothes? If a person can wear whatever they like to the disgruntlement of some in society, why can't we not wear clothes to the disgruntlement of others?

Basic rules is why. Public decency, i think public decency should demand that the face of a person be visible.

 

[FRE]

How about enacting a law that makes it clear that businesses, whether public or private, have a right to ban people from entering unless their faces are exposed?

 

[Zayne]

Should the veil be lifted?

Do you they'll unveil bans on veils, or ban veils on bans?

 

[798686]

Do you they'll unveil bans on veils, or ban veils on bans?

Lol. :tongue:

 

[TomCat84]

The principle remains the same. So one is for health reasons the other for social cohesion. Either being more important does not make redundant the value of the other.


So why the hell should a nudist HAVE to wear clothes? If a person can wear whatever they like to the disgruntlement of some in society, why can't we not wear clothes to the disgruntlement of others?

Basic rules is why. Public decency, i think public decency should demand that the face of a person be visible.

Honestly, I don't think they should have to wear clothes. The laws, at least in San Diego, are that a man has to keep his genitalia from showing, and a woman her vagina and her arreolas. Not too much to ask. But to take YOUR logic to its inevitable conclusion- would it be ok for France to ban the wearing of clothing that expresses disapproval of a government that the majority of French agree with? You know, for social cohesion. Beyond the implications of restricting religous freedom- we could argue that a veil is a political statement as well.

 

[TomCat84]

Your discomfort with having a woman's face covered does not justify making it illegal...

 

[vince]

You know, for social cohesion. Beyond the implications of restricting religous freedom- we could argue that a veil is a political statement as well.

It very much is a political statement. In fact the banning turns it into a political issue. Here in Turkey it is so politicized that some women wear the scarf in public solely to make a political statement. For them it has nothing to with religion and everything to do with politics.

 

[mitchymo]

QUOTE=vince;2880430

I didn't imply it. I think I stated fairly directly. Not all are. To be sure, some are just misguided, so don't take it personally.

How can i not, you're saying either i'm a bigot or misguided.
I'm certainly not a bigot and i don't believe i'm misguided on the basis that the benefit to society and ironically to fringe elements of the muslim female community is at the heart of the thinking.
It sure does make me feel uncomfortable around veiled women. They are there, i am there, i smile out of respect and politeness and am simply stared at.....how do you read that? Should i not bother smiling next time?

Trust, Liberation by prohibition and Social cohesion by and for and of who? The majority? Because singling out one cultural group for special restrictions in their dress does not engender any of your three benefits in them.

Those rebelling against the ban on head scarves in Turkey aren't all radical. You are making assumptions here. They just don't want to be told what to do and what to believe by politicians. And the ban only makes them more rebellious and susceptible to the fundamentalist message.

Putting out a very small minority is much more preferable in my opinion than having to endure the kind of segregation that such an item of clothing can create.

I am a liberal, i am not a libertarian, going from one extreme to another is not the answer to prosperity in my book.

Trying to protect every little liberty going creates more social disorder than its worth.
In the UK, you are not allowed to smack kids because that could lead to abuse of a minority whose parents are twats but the end result is that we now have a culture of disrespect where kids cannot be disciplined properly.

In prisons, protecting rights of prisoners has led to them simply passing the time playing computer games and watching tv etc instead of focusing on why they are there and trying to change their ways.

The nudist analogy that i made before is a pointful thing too, how is it fair in any way to allow one group to live how they see fit but not allow another?
Sometimes, you can have your cake, but you just can't eat it all at once.

 

[ColoradoGuy]

It very much is a political statement. In fact the banning turns it into a political issue. Here in Turkey it is so politicized that some women wear the scarf in public solely to make a political statement. For them it has nothing to with religion and everything to do with politics.

Just as most public religious demonstrations have everything to do with politics and very little to do with religion.

 

[Sergeant_Torpedo]

There are many countries where the law requires Muslim women to cover thmselves. If French Muslims belive it should be an individuals choice do they make this known when they visit their countries of origin?

My belief is that they should have the freedom to choose in France, with the proviso that places (banks, hospitals, shops, colleges) that feel people who hide their faces may be a security risk should have the right to not have them on their premises. They chose to go to France as economic migrants and political refugees, and were welcomed; guests should have the modesty to respect their hosts.

 

[mitchymo]

Honestly, I don't think they should have to wear clothes. The laws, at least in San Diego, are that a man has to keep his genitalia from showing, and a woman her vagina and her arreolas. Not too much to ask. But to take YOUR logic to its inevitable conclusion- would it be ok for France to ban the wearing of clothing that expresses disapproval of a government that the majority of French agree with? You know, for social cohesion. Beyond the implications of restricting religous freedom- we could argue that a veil is a political statement as well.

Well firstly i am against religion totally, i'd happily ban the practice of them all and pull down all religious buildings so the idea of impeding on religious freedom naturally does'nt bother me, however, i'm not stupid and know that there are plenty of decent people who have faith in a god, for there sake i would'nt want to stop them from practicing their faith. The veil is such a small sacrifice to make in order to be sociable.
Its like the case of the girl who took her school to court because she was sent home having turned up in her full length gown rather than the uniform.
Its like a cantakerous thing to do, trying to impose a religious belief on a society which is largely secular.
Nothing is going to change my mind on that. Its not a misguided view as Jason states. If there were serious repurcussions for a minority who could'nt legally wear an item of clothing then i sure as hell would'nt be calling for a ban on it.

As for the political point about the veil, well there are some who already associate it with a political statement endorsing Sharia law.

 

[mitchymo]

Your discomfort with having a woman's face covered does not justify making it illegal...

No, but if that is how the majority feel then it should.

I can accept something i don't necessarily like if the majority agree and provided it does'nt infringe on basic human rights.

This does'nt look like liberty being protected rather than liberty being taken.

 

[mitchymo]

There are many countries where the law requires Muslim women to cover thmselves. If French Muslims belive it should be an individuals choice do they make this known when they visit their countries of origin?

My belief is that they should have the freedom to choose in France, with the proviso that places (banks, hospitals, shops, colleges) that feel people who hide their faces may be a security risk should have the right to not have them on their premises. They chose to go to France as economic migrants and political refugees, and were welcomed; guests should have the modesty to respect their hosts.

what about muslim nationals tho? they can always argue that this is their country and it is wrong to prejudice them.
I can see it now, someone taking a bank to court for violating their human rights because they were denied entrance as a security risk because she simply refused to remove her veil.
It would be much more simple to ban full facial coverings in public places.

 

[Bbucko]

Trust, Liberation by prohibition and Social cohesion by and for and of who? The majority? Because singling out one cultural group for special restrictions in their dress does not engender any of your three benefits in them.

This is probably the best summation of the issue, and its larger social consequences, in this thread.

On principle I reject any laws telling what I can and cannot wear; lucky for me, as a WASP male living in the US, there are few if any that apply to me directly. The only one that does: no nudity on the gay public beach in FtL isn't really so much of an issue. I can always choose to visit the nude beach twenty miles south of here. But if I find such laws intolerable for me, I need to find such laws intolerable for anyone.

I'm no fan of the veil (and certainly not the burka, which isn't really the subject of this thread), but it's completely out of my stream of life choices. And I have read that banning the veil will force certain women to never leave the house; not everyone who wears the veil does so voluntarily. I fail to see how this enhances her freedom in any way or fashion.

 

[Zayne]

Wouldn't such a ban interfere with wedding ceremonies? How about those with facial deformities? Should people be allowed to where sunglasses? Certain hats can obstruct half of the face. Tanning powder can be used to mislead about a person's race. Wrinkle-creams give the false-impression of youth. Wearing glasses can make you appear smart and walking with your shoulders back will make people think you are confident.

 

[TomCat84]

No, but if that is how the majority feel then it should.

I can accept something i don't necessarily like if the majority agree and provided it does'nt infringe on basic human rights.

This does'nt look like liberty being protected rather than liberty being taken.

This is crazy. Just because the majority feels a certain way doesn't make them right, and doesn't justify a law. The question shouldn't be "Is not wearing the veil a big sacrifice?" It should be "Why SHOULD veils be banned?" "What justifies the veil being banned?" When taking away something, the onus should be on the majority/government....it shouldnt be on the individuals being affected. Personal freedom should ALWAYS come first where possible.

 

[mitchymo]

T

I'm no fan of the veil (and certainly not the burka, which isn't really the subject of this thread), but it's completely out of my stream of life choices. And I have read that banning the veil will force certain women to never leave the house; not everyone who wears the veil does so voluntarily. I fail to see how this enhances her freedom in any way or fashion.

Surely such a woman who is forced is being so against her will, and so how are we to know that her wearing the veil is not also forced?

I strongly dislike the idea of supporting every little liberty a person claims based on their spiritual beliefs.

 

[TomCat84]

What's next mitchy? Will the government ban the wearing of yamakas in public? What about the wearing of star of david necklaces or crosses? How can you be sure this will stop at face-covering veils. Don't try to pretend this about public safety- this is about a deep rooted fear of the "other" in a time of economic uncertainty. It's a tale as old as time- a way of distracting the populace from the REAL problems.

 

[TomCat84]

I strongly dislike the idea of supporting every little liberty a person claims based on their spiritual beliefs.

We're not suggesting that. We're talking about allowing someone to wear whatever the fuck they wish to on PUBLIC lands. We're not for allowing, say, a Muslim taxi driver, to refuse transport to a homosexual, or a woman with a tank top on. We're not supporting Sharia law for the general populace or for Muslims even. This is about the freedom of someone to choose how they publicly express their religous beliefs.

 

[mitchymo]

This is crazy. Just because the majority feels a certain way doesn't make them right, and doesn't justify a law. The question shouldn't be "Is not wearing the veil a big sacrifice?" It should be "Why SHOULD veils be banned?" "What justifies the veil being banned?" When taking away something, the onus should be on the majority/government....it shouldnt be on the individuals being affected. Personal freedom should ALWAYS come first where possible.

You see, i think it should be balanced, taking into account social opinion.
That after all is what happens in the end right? I mean, i know i keep harping on about the nudist but,
Its not a fair deal to protect the personal freedom of one group whilst not adopting the same attitude to others.
On a case by case basis it must be determined whether the rights of the minority are more or less important than that of the majority.
I believe that the right of a minority of muslim women to wear a full face covering is less important than the social cohesion, trust and liberty (for those women forced to wear it) collectively is more important.