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

About the 'refusing to interact' thing. That barrier to interaction is actually being put up by the niqab wearer.

I was in a small university tutorial with a niqab-wearing woman some years ago. It was about eight people in the room sat in a circle, seven of whom could see and speak to each other normally, and one faceless person shrouded in black. Everyone was uncomfortable with this - EVERYONE, except, probably the niqab wearer herself. You could feel the awkwardness in the room, especially when the tutor tried to involve her in discussions (she never spoke voluntarily).

I was a good liberal who tried to pretend I was open minded and this was all fine, but pretty soon I realised it wasn't. It was not fine, it was weird, it affected the whole dynamic of the class that one person kept their face hidden behind a veil the whole time. And this was not about OUR prejudices. This was on her. She chose to put up that barrier (literally!) between us.

I know posters will say, you should have tried talking to her, you don't know her situation, she might have been a nice person etc. All true. I am in no way implying that women who cover their faces aren't full people with rich inner lives and agency. And agency is half the point, actually. Anyone who does this is deliberately making it harder for anyone to get to know them, they are deliberately wearing a inherently alienating piece of clothing that is also sending a clear political message about women's bodies, and I'm pissed off about the gaslighting that suggests the other party is to blame if they feel uncomfortable about this.

I mean, if I tried to have conversation with you while hiding my face behind my hands and peeking out between my fingers, it's not your fault if the conversation feels awkward and you find me hard to relate to. I am the one who is making communication between us difficult.

To be honest, I think the wearing of the niqab may die out in Western Europe over the next few years. Not because of bans, but because it has become synonymous with the uniform of female Daesh units in Syria.

Who the hell wants to dress like a bunch of murderous harpies that terrorise Syrian woman and children and whose husbands burn Jordanian pilots alive?

Already I'm seeing far fewer niqabs in our region than I did four years ago, and I suspect this is why. No one can support the actions of Daesh. The rage against them in the Middle East is incendiary.

Donkey

That's not my experience, but I see that it is yours. Niqab wearers I speak to have a variety of communication styles and some are more outgoing than others. Like you I 'disapprove' of the fact that it's women whose public face is so constrained but I am interested in the individuals I meet. Some of them I worry about. Of course I do. As much as other women I meet who do not cover their face and seem cowed by their husbands.

I felt yesterday that I was being berated for not feeling something I do not feel.

The reason I brought up the Jewish community, whom I meet very regularly too, is that even though they do not cover their faces, culturally they have no interest in communication with those outside. They are very "antisocial" (though individually it does vary to some extent), and that is their choice. They are not living their lives to please me. Moreover, women are not allowed to speak to or look at men and vice versa. I find this as unsettling as others clearly do about the face veil.

... but i see I am talking about feelings and not ideology
I may be accused of 'whataboutery'. That's probably valid. But I don't think blanket bans on women's clothing is the way to challenge sexism within a culture

I was more puzzled by government regulations targeting women who wear a particular garment.
Laws against masking make perfect sense to me. Laws against a targeted segment of the population like this one seems to be is bad law.

I'm against any ban on types of clothing for adults, including face covering and nudity without sexual display, but support specific positive case law which require face showing or clothes wearing in particular circumstances. Also I support school dress codes. I think that's something we have in the UK as a rule and I'd like to keep it.

The nun's veil comparison is something I've heard brought up by Muslim women reporting that they wear hijab (not burqa or niqab) as a choice. I think it is a particularly dim comparison, partly from the obvious difference between a tiny number of adults choosing to profess monastic vows and something required of all women for sexual control, but also because it ignores the long history of anti-Catholicism and sexualised controversy about nun's veils in this country.

People should be able to wear whatever they want and follow any religious practices, until it negatively impacts on others.

We can't walk down street in a thong because it would make the general public feel uncomfortable and wouldd cross a boundary of accepted norms which most agree with.

Covering of the face of anyone in public makes me feel fearful and feels dehumanising in a way that makes others very uncomfortable.

Removing of face to face interaction undermines safety and connections for every one.

I do not see why I should have this experience forced on me.

That is not a women's issue, it's a human interaction issue.

The women's issue is the treatment and views of women by a sect within Islam.

We need to separate them out and stop beating around the bush of where the threat to women actually lies.

Baby

I agree with you on the Women's issue

I disagree on the human interaction issue. I respect that you feel this way, but I don't.

I think your post helped clarify this for me.

To be honest, I think the wearing of the niqab may die out in Western Europe over the next few years. Not because of bans, but because it has become synonymous with the uniform of female Daesh units in Syria.

Sadly I think that is a very optimistic view. The wearing of the niqab and burka in Europe has increased massively over the last decade. I do not see this phenomena and the increasing influence of Wahhabi mosques across Europe backed with Saudi money as a coincidence.

That is not a women's issue, it's a human interaction issue.

Yes, it's a societal norm for faces to be uncovered In the UK, Europe, Australia, USA and many other places. I do think these conventions need to be honoured - as I honour them when I visit other countries and cultures.

Whether or not it's a free or coerced choice of women is not the issue here for me. What is important to me is not enabling abusive men to flout boundaries by dominance behaviours. As we know, if these boundaries aren't clearly demarked and enforced, these men will dominate by breaking them - anyway they can.

tl;dr - it's all about male dominance and entitlement enforcing cultural norms that are not in keeping with convention imo. There's no progress to be had from enforcing regressive dress norms.

I find them enormously offensive and I think a ban sends out a strong message that we don't tolerate women being hidden. You cannot take any part in our society if you have your face covered.

On the choice issue, the law removes our choice to do many things that we have deemed unacceptable you can't choose to get married under 16, choose to attack another person you're angry with, walk around without any clothes on etc.

On the grounds of "human interaction" etc, including "lip reading"(!!!), a big old bah humbug from me. As someone with fairly significant hearing difficulties that does rely on lipreading, I would still NOT expect another woman to be made uncomfortable for MY ease.

Also, going into banks, still not a reason. These women are NOT committing bank robbery on any scale that needs discussion. Or even any consideration. Hell, they are probably not even permitted to go to banks by their male owners.

There are a lot of bullshit reasons on this thread, most of them anti-woman tbh.

There is no call to restrict (Islamic/men's) clothing in the same way. This all falls back onto women, again. Women, Islamic women, are bearing the brunt of many covert/overt anti-Islamic sentiments (not necessarily this thread, but burqa bans are a sign of that more broadly).

A better way to approach the entire thing is to (financially) support women's centres. There is a Muslim women's drop-in centre on Whitechapel Road E1 - get these women out of the house and gathering with other women. But don't make a law that restricts women and potentially imprisons women in the home (where, even for Western women, is the most dangerous place for women).

I have a zero-victim mentality. Even if this restricts/imprisons a few hundred women rather than a thousand - that number is still far too many to throw under the bus.

There are other ways to help this community of women, but I don't believe such a ban is it.

I agree LaSquirrel

I do not see this phenomena and the increasing influence of Wahhabi mosques across Europe backed with Saudi money as a coincidence.

Neither do I, Pan, but therein lies the nub.

Saudi is changing. And quite dramatically. There are a number of reasons for this, but the main one is they no longer have the state finances to sustain their own set up in Saudi, never mind fund mosques and madrassas in Europe. Saudi clerics are being neutered; the flood of Wahhabi theology into Europe, I suspect, will come to an end.

I also have a suspicion that Saudi has been told to rein it in. And the country is in a very sticky place with Russian involvement in Syria and largely hostile neighbours around the Gulf; they need western support and that may now come with a demand to stop the flow of ultra conservative theology into Europe.

I have hope for the situation. Things can often change quickly. And I think they are doing. As I said earlier, I live in a region with a sizeable Muslim community and the numbers of niqabs I see is noticeably less than five years ago.

La Squirrel you may not feel uneasy which is great for you but many people do, why do you dismiss their responses?

A lack of facial recognition, eye contact, ability to interpret emotion, intention, etc are all part of every interaction and conveyed through face to face contact.

The removal of this basic instinctive ability to read others in public spaces is a natural response, and the inability to do so places others in a high alert psychological state.

Therefore I feel no one, except for certain activities and times, should be deliberately covering their face in public spaces.

Do want you want at home, but in public we should have an expectation that your behaviour is not making others fearful and uncomfortable.

Face covering obviously does for many; if not for you.

It's not about fear of crime, it's an instinctive response, to a removal of our reading of others in public spaces. Without that we are placed in high alert. You may not be, or may not care, many others legitimately do.

LaSquirrel
I agree.
There are many things that need addressing. Banning an item of clothing on the grounds that 'we know what is best for you women folk and 'i don't like it when you wear X' isn't the answer.

For what it's worth, I do personally find it a little uncomfortable. But it's still not my place to tell another woman how to dress.

I was more puzzled by government regulations targeting women who wear a particular garment
Laws against masking make perfect sense to me. Laws against a targeted segment of the population like this one seems to be is bad law

The law targets face coverings. It is not targeted at a particular segment of the population or a particular garment. Were Muslim men to adopt the same standards of modesty they would be prevented from covering their faces too.

Also, going into banks, still not a reason. These women are NOT committing bank robbery on any scale that needs discussion

No. Absolutely no. No one else is allowed to enter a bank with their face covered. There is no justification for one group claiming a special exemption.

I've come to the conclusion that looking at the Burka as clothing is a category error similar to calling the shackles of slavery jewellery or concentration camp tattoos body art. The Burka makes me think of Orwell - imagine the future 'a boot stamping on a human face forever'. Just imagine a world where everyone was obliged to cover their faces, only revealing them to immediate family. It's a method of control and subjugation and I want to see the back of it. No society which respects the rights of women has ever demanded the obliteration of the female human face from public life.
However the problem is that making it law will increase the suffering of individual women, so I'm not entirely comfortable with banning it. I used to work in an area with high proportion of Pakistani Muslims and there were very few who wore the Burka, it has definitely increased. So it remains a bit of a dilemma.

LassWiADelicateAir

Are you saying the ban on the burqa is not actually a ban on the burqu and the OP lied in the title?

Are you saying the ban on the burqa is not actually a ban on the burqu and the OP lied in the title?

I could not find the exact Danish legislation but searches indicate it is a ban on face coverings or masking not a ban on the burqa or religious garments. The proposed law contains exemptions for garments such as motor cycle helmets or cold weather garments. That would not be necessary if it was simply burqas which were banned.

Why are you putting words in my mouth? I said nothing whatsoever about the OP. The OP has described it as it is reported in the popular press.

Thanks.

From Huffington Post and reported in many other sites.

The ban also prohibits balaclavas, false beards and other masks that obscure the face, according to Amnesty International. It doesn’t apply to headscarves, turbans or the kippah, the Jewish skullcap. Face coverings worn for a “recognizable purpose,” such as during cold weather or motorcycle rides, are also exempt.

I could not find the exact Danish legislation but searches indicate it is a ban on face coverings or masking not a ban on the burqa or religious garments. The proposed law contains exemptions for garments such as motor cycle helmets or cold weather garments.
That is quite different to 'ban the burqua' (although it is obvious who the targets are). It amuses me that apparnetly fake beards are also banned as part of this law so we shall see if anyone gets fined being in fancy dress.

What's telling is that the press are essentially selling a piece of legislation are doing so in a way that fans flames of islamophobia. They clearly know about public opinion and have picked that angle deliberately.

The only thing I do like in the law is that forcing someone to cover up is a criminal offence and can be prosecuted.