Danish ban on the burqa comes into effect today

[placemats]

The argument for and against seems to be

either: 'Strongly oppressive'

or: 'Discriminatory'

What's the difference between these two? Personally I welcome the ban.

www.theguardian.com/world/2018/aug/01/danish-burqa-ban-comes-into-effect-amid-protests

If we want to liberate oppressed women, threatening them with a criminal conviction doesn't seem to be a good way of going about it.

I don't know, TransplantsarePlants, but the issue surely isn't about covering arms and legs, is it? It's about covering the face. Which is peculiarly dehumanising style of dress, and a standard of modesty that goes well beyond what any of us would perceive as conservative dress codes.

transplants
Or told nuns they can't wear the habit?

It feels too often like the voices in disucssion over burquas are really interested in saying 'we white westerners know what is best for you'.

It's like when there's threads about girls of 11-12 dressing in suggestive adult clothing and people will claim how great it is and there's nothing inappropriate and if anyone sees anything wrong with a pre teen wear clothing commonly associated with trying to get laid then they are the ones with the problem.

All choices are equal apparnetly, but some are more equal than others so a pre teen dolled up having been socialised in male ideas of female sexuality is obviously being empowered and expressing her femininity but a woman in her 30s who opts to wear a headscarf must be oppressed.

Floral

Fair point. But it's bloody hot.

You could be talking about my mother Transplants She is a Catholic.

She goes out regularly.

Some women like to dress modestly. But wearing a veil means oppression is many areas, most importantly getting work and an income. Economic freedom is a step towards fighting oppression.

The problem is not the burqa.

It's more extreme than that. Girls from puberty onwards have to wear thick tights and cover their hair. Women have to wear a sheitel.

I know what this represents but it's not unique to the Muslim community, and nor do I think that criminalising women is the answer

Transplants, yup - as a conservative Christian, I dressed in a very similar manner (without the wig, I wore various styles of headcoverings instead), and it's not always especially comfortable in hot weather. But I definitely dressed like that of my own free will, albeit heavily influenced by a sense of disapproval from others in the community if I didn't.

I do think it's the face issue specifically that makes me err on the side of agreement with the ban on this story, though. I don't remotely agree with further restrictions on dress - the example upthread of forcing a woman to disrobe on a French beach was particularly unacceptable.

... sorry, married women (and women marry very early) wear a sheitel

It’s always fun to watch lefties tie themselves in knots over this issue.

Glad this is so amusing to you. This is the removal of women's ability to go outdoors you're chuckling over. Still, as long are you're entertained.

If we want to liberate oppressed women, threatening them with a criminal conviction doesn't seem to be a good way of going about it.

Yes. This is one of the problems of a ban.

Generally though I think the benefits of a ban outweigh the downsides.

I would prefer a Nordic model approach to this. But how that can be achieved I don't know.

I think there are good intentions behind this kind of ban

Not in Denmark, there aren't. Dogwhistling to placate Dansk Folkeparti and its fans.

I don't agree with the hijab or burqa etc. but totally disagree that banning is the way to go. Something more insidious is happening here to do with fundamentalism (and I think that much of what we hear from the left recently is fundamentalism) and I think this should be our main target. In the 80s I hardly heard any 'pro-modesty' voices. Now, they are the loudest.

I see this from a very different perspective. I think the presence of the niqab in public space in non-majority Muslim countries and, indeed, some majority Muslim countries breeds factional distrust between communities that has huge political implications.

The reality of the niqab is that it is a religio-political statement. You cannot get away from this, whether it is an enforced dress code or chosen. In fact, in places where it is chosen, and not mandated, the tension it creates is significant.

In Lebanon, for example, it is seen as a sign of Sunni radicalism, sponsored by Gulf states. The attitude to it in Beirut is one of suspicion and malevolence. In Turkey, it is seen as the mark of the invasion of theocratic conservatism from the hinterland and a direct challenge to the legacy of Ataturk.

My perspective is that young Muslim women who choose to wear the niqab in the West do not fully realise what they are doing. They think it is a question of religious repression and freedom to practice their religion; they do not realise how the niqab is seen by others as a mark of adherence to a particular theocratic political system and as an unwillingness to integrate.

And these two issues have a huge impact on how Western society views its unspoken contracts and how western societies work. For one, we are just not set up to deal with non-facial recognition.

I personally dislike the ban, but I think it is a crying shame it had to come into effect in the first place as it suggests there is a profound misunderstanding on the part of some migrants to western countries as to how they will best succeed in their new homes.

sorry
I'm not clear

is it the niqab - only eyes showing - that's being banned in public?

Yes. Lighthouse

There are social conventions around covering the face that I think have to be accepted by everyone. That being said, banning clothing in the full knowledge that it will mean that women will have less access to public spaces and education suggests that this was not done for those women's sake, but, as Dixie suggests, to placate populist elements in the country.

If an extreme sect said that its women were only allowed out in public in handcuffs and chained to a male, would you honestly say “Oh, we’d better let them - if we ban the chains, the women will be stuck at home”?
Because that seems to be your argument with allowing the burka.

Lighthouse, I was under the impression it was the face veil in view, yes. If that's incorrect, I will revise my opinion.

I do agree with Formerly's post - the niqab is a weighted, political item too. I have known some Muslim women to wear it with a very definite undertone of spiritual superiority over and above both other hijab wearing women, and uncovered women in general.

But, tbh, I think that's yet another issue and probably not directly related to whether it serves any useful purpose to ban it.

misleading headline
no objection to banning the niqab.

My perspective is that young Muslim women who choose to wear the niqab in the West do not fully realise what they are doing. They think it is a question of religious repression and freedom to practice their religion; they do not realise how the niqab is seen by others as a mark of adherence to a particular theocratic political system and as an unwillingness to integrate.

Muslim is a global religion that is also prevalent in the 'West'. Veil coverings are various and this ban covers only the veil that covers the face.

Which is fair enough. I don't agree that those who persist on wearing it are charged with an offence though. Fighting oppression with oppression doesn't work.

Yes a small number of women will have to stay at home if the burka is banned, but it benefits the rest of society so we have to do what’s best for the majority. If we normalise burka wearing it only makes it more likely that women will be forced to wear it.

Personally I feel uncomfortable and threatened when someone’s face is covered. Whether it’s a balaclava, a burka or some sort of mask. It’s a security risk, people’s faces need to be identifiable by others and on security cameras. Anything could be concealed under a burka. And it marks someone out as a person who doesn’t wish to integrate into our society.

There’s also the issue of communication difficulties. It’s hard to communicate when someone’s face is covered, especially if you’re a lip reader. If the wearer is in a job role which requires communication then everyone’s lives are made more difficult. There was a teacher at my brother’s college who wore a burka and the students struggled to communicate and connect with that person. And obviously it’s illegal for employers to refuse to employ someone because they wear a burka. The only way to keep the burka out of the workplace is to ban it completely.

Yes the headline in the link is misleading.

Glad this is so amusing to you. This is the removal of women's ability to go outdoors you're chuckling over. Still, as long are you're entertained.

I think you have this the wrong way round, its not the fault of the state that is preventing these women from going outdoors, rather its the oppressive cultural practices of a religion clinging on to misogynist 7th century dogma.

It seems reasonable to me as it isn't a cultural norm in the Western world and does make people very uncomfortable - this may seem unfair but when westerners are in other countries we are expected to follow their laws and norms by covering up, not drinking etc. If it isn't banned then perhaps the coercion some women no doubt face will never change. We need to get more information to those women that they can leave abusive husbands and families and not being allowed out is abusive in Europe.