Yasmin Alibhai-Brown on the burka

[mrsruffallo]

Have to say I agree with her. She makes an eloquent case against the burka, and the dilemma facing liberals in Europe on this issue.

The whole point of the niqab is to make sure no-one (especially no man) can look at the face of the wearer. Hence isolating (hiding) the woman's physical appearance from the gaze of the rest of society when she goes forth about her business.

For some women who choose freely to wear the niqab it is like a self governed convent restriction and not necessarily so men do not see their bodies( ok ok many women are forced to wear it but i am not talking about oppression at this point).And although i understand how in western society it can be alarming and uncomfortable to live with such women and see them everyday etc and feel as if they are a walking threat , although i understand ,i still think too much emphasis has been put into this whole issue hence giving the extremist fringes a lot of fuel. We will always find there are people out there who do or wear or say thimg we do not like but the real challenge is to accept this fact and learn to live with it and if possible to engage with them.This would alos apply to mulims who must accept they live in western society where women dress differently as Riven wisely put it above. Having said that I understand that many will say if Saudi Arabis and Iran for exmaple can impose a dress code on western women visiting them or living there why can't the west.. perhaps the answer would be it is called a democracy when you DO NOT impose dress codes and the west prides itself on being democratic.
Once again, I myself am not one bit in favour of niqab and have arged with many women against it but I have learnt that arguing as part of free speech is one thing, tolerance and co existence is another.

Why not just behave as if you were in some sort of internal convent, though, or think convent-thoughts? Why is the niqab only for women? Why the physical representation of your inner religious state? I know there are dress restrictions and prohibitions of certain kinds for Muslim men, but they don't have to cover their faces even in Saudi Arabia why? Nor do they have to cover their bodies, in the west anyway again why?

I don't see women in burqas as a walking threat of any kind, but I do wonder at what's behind it all philosophically and psychologically.

Mathanxiety - I think that the niqab is only for women because men are fearful of their inability to control their lust.

I think traditionally, in many faiths, men have blamed women for arousing their lustful responses (look at poor old Eve in the Christian creation story for example) and so want them covered.

Perhaps there is a perception that covering women curbs the likelihood of extra marital affairs, thus keeping the family unit and its 'honour' intact.

If these ideas contribute to the reasons why women are covered rather than men, I wouldn't want to do it myself but I can see why it has become a cultural tradition.

I think everyone should have the right to wear what they want to but I really struggle with men and boys wearing shorts and T shirts on hot Summer days followed by totally covered women. It is hard for a non Muslim woman to understand that this is a positive choice and not result of Patriachal pressure or tradition. Having said all that, we certainly don't need a mostly male government telling us what not to wear - whether it's a veil or a mini skirt!

Riven, I know this is exhausting for you trying to explain your point of view.

But if I may, I'd like to ask: isn't modest attire and headscarf enough to achieve the same result for the very few mature women like you who have made that choice and prevent a banalisation of the servile condition of most others?

Surely there must be a middle ground?

Yes, I do not deny YOUR choice may be positive, but you represent the very minority.

To me it seems this issue raises the fundamental problem of LACK OF CHOICE for all those women/girls who do not have their say on the particular matter of full niqab and general autonomy in their everyday life.
The way I understand this shift towards a total ban of the niqab is to protect this multitude.

Anyway, going round in circles again.

Nice talking to you!

So you argue the right to choose for yourself and sod the rest who can't chose, who remain behind closed doors?
Well if you can happily live with that....great choice!

I can, that's why I think the french are quite frankly right in discussing the possibility of sanctions against the husbands.

Just as they were quite right to ban the veil for little girls in school.

Sorry have to go but will be back later.

YAB was, imho, bang on. Specifically with regard to the brainwashing comment. Even comments here about the decision to cover being elective and positive refer, in the main to converts. It's assumed and mostly non-negotiable in indiginous muslim families.

Is it not a criminal matter to falsely imprison someone -- to keep them confined to their own home? If the alternative to wearing the burqa is to be imprisoned in their own homes, by their husbands, A) their lives sound really intolerable and B) the police have a role in putting an end to the situation.

Maybe what is really objectionable to the burqa wearing, in general, is the idea that somewhere behind it is a man who believes he has a right to make a woman wear it, and if she can't or won't, then he has a right to treat her like a piece of reproductive property and confine her to the four walls of her house.

I think YAB hit the nail on the head with this article. I would like to see the work of the Oxford (?) prof whom she quoted too.

Riven, you generally make good arguments (even though I disagree with you a lot) but skimming this quickly there seems to be a lot of grasping at straws going on.

You can't seriously compare surgeons wearing masks or brides with this?

I'm also seeing that when a muslim woman opposes it suddenly her opinion doesn't count either. It knocks a gapping hole in the idea that this is about white/male/western oppression doesn't it.

What else have we got? oh that if we stop muslim women wearing masks their husbands will abuse them? really? Are we sure they won't insist they go out anyway to get their beers?

Even if true in some cases, female shoplifters could argue that their husband/boyfriend will be furious if they don't bring something home, but we don't let that influence the law. We deal with any abuse as a seperate issue.

Someone denied further back that a mask takes away identity. Technically true since you are the same person behind it, but you have no identity to me since I can't see you. If I turn around and turn back I can't tell if you are the same person I was just talking to/serving in the shop/arresting.

"Was this your change? or is it ok if I give it to anyone wearing a mask?"

Someone also tried to include sunglasses. That is actually an argument for the other side since it's the polite thing to remove them when speaking to people.

it is not as simple as what other people wear though is it? Like jeans or a mini skirt. Is is symbolic of a tradition which subjugates Women and it covers the face which is part of communication and expression. You wouldn't walk around in a balakalava (sp?) and expect people to respond to you in a positive way.

I think an adult woman should be free to choose to wear it or not, but there should be ban on covering children. So many girls at my DDs' school wear hijab - why? A child of that age (nursery/infants) cannot have any meaningful faith, so covering must impute sexuality?

It imputes sexuality at any age, imo. Hence the sack o' potatoes shape and the covering of the face, which also hides and negates women's individuality. It emphasises the 'otherness' of women.

the french parliamentary comission is currently discussing sanctions against husbands. Eur 15,000 fines and 1 year jail if guilty of coercing a woman into wearing the burqa.

women would receive Eur150 fine.

Sounds reasonable to me.In line with existing legislation against pimping