The Guardian (London): Europe Must Not Ban the Burqa

[Flaneur]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/mar/08/europe-ban-burqa-veil

Europe must not ban the burqaA proposed ban on full-face Muslim veils is alien to the European ideals of diversity and freedom of speech

Thomas Hammarberg guardian.co.uk, Monday 8 March 2010 10.00 GMT

Prohibition of the burqa and the niqab would not liberate oppressed women, but might instead lead to their further alienation in European societies. A general ban on such attire would be an ill-advised invasion of individual privacy. Depending on its precise terms, a prohibition also raises serious questions about whether such legislation would be compatible with the European convention on human rights.

Two rights in the convention are particularly relevant. One is the right to respect for one's private life and personal identity (article 8). The other is the freedom to manifest one's religion or belief "in worship, teaching, practice and observance" (article 9). Both articles specify that these human rights can only be subject to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are notably necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

Those who have argued for a general ban on the burqa and niqab have not managed to show that these garments in any way undermine democracy, public safety, order or morals. The fact that a very small number of women wear such clothing has made the proposals even less convincing. Nor has it been possible to prove that these women are victims of more gender repression than others. Those who have been interviewed in the media have presented a diversity of religious, political and personal arguments for their decision to dress themselves as they do. There may of course be cases where they are under undue pressure – but it is not shown that a ban would be welcomed by these women.

No doubt, the status of women is an acute problem within some religious communities. This needs to be discussed, but prohibiting symptoms such as clothing is not the way to do it, especially as these may not always be the reflection of religious beliefs, but of broader cultural aspects. Rightly, we react strongly against any regime ruling that women must wear these garments. This is absolutely repressive and should not be accepted. However, this is not remedied by banning the same clothing in other countries.

A serious approach requires an assessment of the consequences of decisions in this area. For instance, the suggestion to ban women dressed in the burqa or niqab from public institutions such as hospitals or government offices may only result in these women avoiding such places entirely.

The fact that public discussion in a number of European countries has almost exclusively focused on what is perceived as Muslim dress has created the impression of targeting one particular religion. Some of the arguments have been clearly Islamophobic and have certainly not built bridges or encouraged dialogue. Indeed, one effect is that full veils have become a means of protesting against intolerance in our communities. The insensitive discussion about prohibitions has provoked a polarisation.

In general, the approach should be that the state must avoid legislating on how people dress themselves. It is, however, legitimate to regulate that those who represent the state, for instance police officers and judges, do not wear clothes or carry symbols that signal a partisan religious – or party political – interest. Likewise, civil servants in contact with the public should not have their face covered. This is where the basic line should be drawn.

Beyond this, there are particular situations where there are compelling community interests that make it necessary for individuals to show themselves for the sake of safety or for identification. This is not controversial and there are no reports of serious problems in this regard in relation to the few women who normally wear a burqa or a niqab.

A related problem has come under discussion in Sweden. An unemployed Muslim man lost his subsidy from a state agency for employment support because he refused to shake the hand of a female employer when turning up for a job interview. He had claimed religious reasons. A court ruled later, after a submission from the ombudsman against discrimination, that the agency decision was discriminatory and that the man should be compensated. Though this is in line with human rights standards, it was regarded as controversial in the public debate which followed.

It is likely that more issues of this kind will surface in the coming years and it is only healthy that they should be discussed — as long as Islamophobic tendencies are avoided. However, attempts should be made to broaden the discourse to cover essential matters, including how to promote understanding of different religions, cultures and customs. Pluralism and multiculturalism are essential European values and should remain so.

This in turn may require more discussion of the meaning of respect. In the debates about the Danish cartoons from 2005 it was repeatedly stated that there was a contradiction between demonstrating respect for believers and protecting freedom of expression as stipulated in article 10 of the European convention.

The Strasbourg court analysed this dilemma in the famous case of Otto Preminger Institut v Austria in which it stated that "those who choose to exercise the freedom to manifest their religion… cannot reasonably expect to be exempt from all criticism. They must tolerate and accept the denial by others of their religious beliefs and even the propagation by others of doctrines hostile to their faith". In the same judgment the court stated that consideration should also be given to the risk that the respect for religious feelings of believers may be violated by provocative portrayals of objects of religious significance and that "such portrayals can be regarded as malicious violation of the spirit of tolerance, which must also be a feature of democratic society". In other words, tolerance is a two-way street.

The political challenge is to promote diversity and respect for the beliefs of others and at the same time protect freedom of speech. If the wearing of a full-face veil is understood as an expression of a certain opinion, we are talking here about similar or identical rights – though seen from two different angles. A prohibition of the burqa and the niqab would be as unfortunate as it would have been to criminalise the Danish cartoons. Such bans are alien to European values. Instead, we should promote multicultural dialogue and respect for human rights.

[katandmoon]

1. Right. Help keep women in the dark ages.

[Bobbieo]

3. Don't ban the burqa! Think it is a great idea until some male Muslim fanatic dons the outfit to

blow himself up and a shitload of innocent victims.

[Flaneur]

2. Right. Liberate women by telling them how they can dress.

[smirkymonkey]

11. You mean like their husbands and clerics do?

[northofdenali]

4. I really don't think a ban is the answer.

Education and making sure women understand their rights under the law is the answer. Too many of these women will never be "liberated" because of their ingrained fear of the men who run their lives.

[eShirl]

6. +1

[dugaresa]

8. if you are a woman whose husband likes the burqa and insists upon it, then you aren't going to be

allowed the opportunity to educate and liberate yourself.

When you decide to move to a country with different customs and social values but insist on keeping to your 14th century value system then why not stay back home?

personally I love blending the fun parts of culture, language, food, art, poetry, music, etc. But I prefer that the ugliness of cultures be forgotten and the muslim burqa is one that i think should not be tolerated. Look at foot binding, people could defend it at the time but today women are free of it because people said "okay let's move forward and get rid of the backward"

[northofdenali]

20. I would agree in part, dugaresa -

if the burqa caused physical damage as did foot binding.

But look at our own country. I love the cultural differences (and it is a BALL living in Alaska, with our terrific Native cultures, so vast and so vital); however, I can't see passing a ban on a particular religious (or secular) lifestyle as a means to change.

Many cultures have a lot of ugly - look at our own American Talibanesque "religious right" who never met a woman they admired - unless the woman was covered head-to-toe and in complete subservience to her "man", whether it be preacher, father, brother or husband.

A lot of assimilation begins with education; just the fact of seeing other women and cultures move so much more quickly ahead can be a true eye-opener for those still in chains. But mandating a cultural change has never worked (look at those in Sharia cultures who refuse to bow, still.)

[EFerrari]

45. If the burqa was banned, these women would have the social support

to seek that education. As it is now, the garment itself isolates them.

I know it's right wing nutcases trying to get this ban passed but I'll be damned, I agree with the ban for different reasons.

[snagglepuss]

5. "Hammarberg's angle is entirely the wrong-headed way to consider the niqab and burqa. "

That remark is part of a brilliant rebuttal by dissidentjunk, a Guardian reader who posted in it's comments section. As I cannot say it better myself, I've copied his/her post which was entered at 1:35 pm -


Hammarberg's angle is entirely the wrong-headed way to consider the niqab and burqa.

It displays that stupid refusal to actually examine how a certain phenomenon affects society as a whole, and what the negative consequences might be to society as a whole.

Indeed, the actual article seems so dated as to be useless. When did he write it? 1986? Or is he writing it from a specific European perspective and set of circumstances that doesn't apply to Britain very well? His perspective certainly does not seem to fit the niqab phenomenon up here in the North of England.

Where I live, it isn't that recent migrants wear the niqab because that is what they did in their country of origin and, over time, they will take it off, but that many British-born Muslim women have suddenly adopted the practice in the last ten years.

The presence of the niqab in public space in our region appeared almost overnight. You just did not see a veiled woman in our region fifteen years ago, even in Muslim areas, arguably when migrants were 'newer' to British culture. It was unheard of to see a woman wearing a veil; it just did not happen.

Now there are parts of our region where almost all the women you see in public space will be wearing the niqab. Interestingly, these areas tend to be in places with a significant Jamaat Tabligh presence.

These niqabis are not recent migrants; they are women, born and brought up in Britain, schooled in Britain, who have suddenly started wearing the niqab.

Furthermore, many niqabis I see on a regular basis outside of these areas appear to be young women in their teens and twenties, and there have been a few times when I have wondered whether their decision to wear the niqab in public owes more to a desire to be socially and culturally controversial, to say a big fuck off to society around them, than anything else.

That said, they couldn't have picked a worse way.

I am now going to be blunt here.

Hammarberg's approach to this phenomenon is wrong. And it is wrong because it tiptoes around the elephant in the room, and the elephant is that the more niqabs and burkas people see in public space, the more society will fracture, the more society will become segregationist (which is already happening in my region), and the more you will see the rise of the far right.

It is as simple as that. If the niqab and burka phenomenon continues to proliferate in the way we have seen up here in the last six years, we will end with BNP MPs.

I might not like that, you might not like that, but it is the reality.

The problem is that the niqab and burka are not just simple bits of clothing that demonstrate diversity. I don't ever remember a huge outcry about people wearing saris or shalwar kameez or African brightly-coloured prints.

Oh yes, that is because there wasn't one.

In the last thirty years of Pakistani Muslim men and women walking around West Yorkshire wearing shalwar kameez, nobody has ever started foaming about "how those people shouldn't be allowed to wear baggy pants". No-one started a campaign to "ban long tunics with foreign bits of embroidery", did they?

And it is so simple to explain why the niqab and burka are so different to other forms of non-Western dress that a child could tell you why.

The real issue here is that the niqab and burka come with a very challenging set of social, cultural and political messages that refute basic notions of how the majority of British people perceive gender relations within public space, between citizens, and within society, and the principles behind citizenship, autonomy and equality within the state.

In short, the messages challenge many of the threads of the fabric on which British citizens, the state and society operate.

This is why so much of the western traditional legacy of masks and masking features individuals who wish to operate outside of society -- like highway men, or criminals, or terrorists in Northern Ireland, or at a time of carnival or festival where society is permitted to turn upside down for the day and you can go out wearing a paper-mache horse's head.

The doubly awkward thing about the niqab and burka is that the messages they convey also have a political and religious affiliation to ideological positions that have been expressed elsewhere in British society with extreme violence.

And the idea that banning the niqab or burka may "lead to their further alienation in European societies" is just so daft, I don't know where to start. These women are already alienating themselves from other communities by wearing these garments in public space.

[Fumesucker]

10. +1

[riderinthestorm]

23. Plus another 1. nt

[HeresyLives]

7. This has always been a silly idea.

First of all it only affects Muslims, which means the state can be sued for discrimination.

And secondly you're telling people how they can dress, so what clothing item is banned next?

[EFerrari]

47. We tell people they can't bind women's feet or mutilate them genitally, too.

That didn't lead to outlawing girdles or pierced ears.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

9. I too tend to think it shouldn't be banned.

But by golly, I can't bring myself to be enthusiastic about it.

[Warpy]

12. Bullshit, those garments are inhumane and endanger the wearer

because she can't look down or side to side in order to avoid hazards when she is outdoors. In addition, too little of the body surface is exposed to allow her to make enough Vitamin D to keep her bones strong.

I don't care about the hijab or even the full body robe, although the latter reduces the work the wearer can do because it's a danger around machinery. However, reducing a woman's ability to navigate her surroundings by partially blinding her should not be tolerated and I don't care what screwball religion insists on shrouding women as though they are already dead.

[HeresyLives]

13. Then ban high heels.

Expecially the 6" ones.

[eShirl]

14. oh, now you've done it

[NashVegas]

15. Wearing 6" Heels Is How I Express Myself!

Jeez ...

[HeresyLives]

19. You like screaming arrrgggghhhhh a lot?

;)

[HeresyLives]

16. LOL probably.

[Warpy]

17. I'd love to, but at least the modish young things are still

changing into sneakers if they have to walk to the subway. Still, high heels aren't coerced as part of any religion and women are only pressured to wear the stupid things if they're working in a certain variety of office job, prancing down a runway or hanging off a stripper pole.

You really can't make much of a comparison there.

[HeresyLives]

18. Lots of women wear burkkas by choice.

Some of them do it to scandalize their elders.

We can't go around banning what women wear, and the world spends far too much time worrying about it.

[Warpy]

21. Health and safety hazards have to be banned

While one can walk safely in high heeled shoes for a number of years without permanent damage, the same can't be said for a stupid garment that curtails vision.

On that ground alone, ban the damned things.

If they want to scandalize their elders, the abaya will do it nicely.

[HeresyLives]

25. Okay, so ban tobacco and cigarettes.

High heels are dangerous...not in future...but right now.

So are eyebrow and tongue studs, fake eyelashes, hair in the eyes, and some sunglasses.

[riderinthestorm]

22. We can and do dictate what women can or cannot wear in public.

For example, native Aboriginal women cannot go topless in Chicago even though that's both part of their religion and culture.

We don't allow the religious or cultural practice of FGM.

Jointly the citizens of a culture decide what's going to be allowed "in public" and we seem to do so without calling ourselves bigots all the time.

The burqa and niqab have serious societal ramifications for women, women's rights, women's equality in our society etc. Beyond that western cultures find masks to be alienating and anti-social. The British experience with the growing politicization of the burqa is just another factor that western cultures have a fair right to discuss and debate and decide whether it's right for their public sphere.

[HeresyLives]

24. Women can go topless in Ontario.

And no you can't ban the clothing of one religion

[riderinthestorm]

30. We're talking the UK and Europe. Not Ontario. And the burqa and niqab are not religiously required

garments. They are cultural and (now) political. There is nothing in the Quran or hadith to support such misogynist clothing.

You know, it's interesting that for centuries Europe and the UK (and the US and virtually every other western culture) have banned topless native women. In those cultures women are valued fairly highly, mostly because their value as mothers is so obviously on display. So strong matriarchical traditions getting the heave-ho is just fine with most people in the west.

Yet here comes one of the most misogynistic garments and everyone is up in arms that it must be preserved....

[HeresyLives]

31. We're talking burkkas

There is nothing in the bible to support the Amish or nuns either

[riderinthestorm]

34. Amish and nuns don't wear masks. No comparison. nt

[HeresyLives]

36. They wear religious clothing, which involves veils

and bonnets...covering their heads.

And in cold weather people in northern climates...or skiiers...wear skimasks.

In Canada we call em balaclavas.

[riderinthestorm]

38. But those items don't cover their faces.

I live just outside of Chicago. I'm quite familiar with balaclavas both as a skiier and as a northerner. Again, there is no comparison. Nobody wears one in public every day, winter, spring, summer and fall, doing their banking, shopping, eating at a restaurant. In many places, it's even illegal to wear one (a bank).

Still no dice.

[HeresyLives]

39. They can do, and Mary wore a veil ya know.

Sorry...you have no right to tell another human being what to wear, and you know it, so you're wasting your time playing dice.

[riderinthestorm]

42. "Mary wore a veil"? That's the best you can do?

You do know that type of veil is just the headcovering right? Not a full face covering?

And we can and do tell women what to wear all the time. With the force of law. I can no more go shopping topless in Chicago than you can go into a bank with a balaclava. It's the rules we've decided upon for our culture.

Are you working hard to change those laws? I'd love some links to your hard work....

[HeresyLives]

43. Since you haven't a leg to stand on, and you know it,

don't be using schoolground reasons. LOL

I can go topless, why can't you?

Is it bank robbery you're worried about? Well, lots of robbers do it bare-faced, so it's no guarantee.

[riderinthestorm]

53. Got it. You haven't addressed a single point and NOW want to know why women can't legally go topless

or if it's bank robbery that I'm "worried" about.

Actually, I think you've exposed yourself better than I ever could as a cultural relativist chauvinest of the worst order. You may think you aren't "racist", you're something much worse. Please continue. Sometimes people just need to see it firsthand to understand. I'm perfectly okay with you getting the last word. In fact. Please. Do.

[HeresyLives]

54. You have yet to make a point.

And I was quite clear from the beginning that you can't pick on muslims for their clothing just because you don't like muslims.

So if I've been exposed as 'anti-racism' I could have saved you the time and effort figuring that out.

[Quantess]

65. Burqas are anti-social. I fully agree.

How are women supposed to recognize one another walking down the street? My guess is that they can't. I think they are inhumane.

[HeresyLives]

66. Only to someone not used to them.

[Quantess]

67. Women who have had their genitalia sliced off get used to that, too.

[HeresyLives]

68. Well that's pretty much a christian custom,

but we aren't talking about that, or foot-binding or chastitiy belts or anything else.

[riderinthestorm]

73. Link please that FGM is a christian custom and not Islamic, cultural, tribal etc.

And it is relevant as these are also supposed "religious" or cultural practices that are now outlawed in western cultures (just like the burqa which is now undergoing it's own scrutiny as a practice western cultures will accept or reject).

Or do you think foot binding, FGM, chastity belts and other things should be allowed?

[HeresyLives]

77. Going on since ancient Egypt. Long before Islam

Male and female circumcision.

Check the countries in which it's prevalent...you'll find they are both christian and muslim

It's a cultural custom, not a relgious one.

Western cultures can neither accept nor reject the burkka, and as I'm sure you know, circumcision goes on anyway.

[riderinthestorm]

85. You made the assertion it was christian and now cannot support that.

And as a cultural and religious custom it is declining because outlawing it is gaining traction.

Or are you saying we shouldn't even try to ban FGM, since it'll just "go on anyway"?

Western cultures CAN ban the burqa and as I'm sure you know, there will be pockets where it will persist but if it's illegal it will be easier to stop just like FGM.

[HeresyLives]

95. Why am I supposed to prove your points for you??

It has no religious connotation. If you think it does, it's up to you to prove it.

And no, you can't ban the burkka.

You know very well your constitution forbids that, as does ours, as does the one in France

[riderinthestorm]

103. Are you drunk? Your very own post #68 says FGM is a religious custom.

And when I asked YOU to support it, you could not.

And while I am not familiar with Canada's or France's constitutions, the US constitution certainly does allow for banning harmful religious practices in the public square.

France has always had a strict separation of church and state. They are fanatical about their secular state. They can and have banned religious garb from the public square. From christian crosses and clerical collars in 1789 to headscarves, yamulkes, and crosses at schools just within the past ten years. Their muslim population supports this move, even now.

[HeresyLives]

You are just wasting everyone's time.

I said more christians do it than Muslims in most countries, not that it is a religious custom by itself.

And your 'side' makes several assertions here...I challenged them

You can't prove any of them...in fact you expect me to prove them!

No the US constitution doesn't allow for the banning of a garment for one religion.

France can't do that either.

They haven't banned crosses or any of the other things you mention, nor do Muslims approve.

[riderinthestorm]

France can and has.

Your post #68 says it's a christian thing.

You have yet to link any of your assertions.

Good night.

[HeresyLives]

120. Wasting my time again.

In fact you argue like a rightwinger.

:bored:

[Quantess]

74. I believe you're mistaken about that.

But my point is, just because someone is used to something doesn't mean it isn't inhumane. An animal can get used to living in a cage all its life, but it only prefers being in a cage because that's all it knows.

[HeresyLives]

79. That is true of anything tho.

Something you're used to doesn't bother you, altho it may horrify others.

[Quantess]

88. Sure. But then you can't really use that line of reasoning to decide whether something is inhumane

or not.

You can disagree that they are inhumane, but saying "they are used to it" is not a valid reason.

[HeresyLives]

90. I think male circumcision is inhumane,

but it goes on in America anyway, because people are used to it.

[Scout]

204. "Lots of women wear burkkas by choice."

yes means nothing when no is not an option.

[BoneDaddy]

26. Why should the West support the the dark ages?

This is when multiculturalism meets the edge of stupidity. I find the juxtaposition of Western defense of feminism to support for misogynistic practices among archaic religions in DU hysterical.

[HeresyLives]

27. You have nuns, Amish, bridal veils....

Ban one, ban em all.

[BoneDaddy]

28. nice try

they actually have no real force as our laws do not enforce women to wear them. It is their choice to do so and that is certainly another debate. I doubt that many Muslim women, once freed from the shackles of their religion would choose to keep it, and if they do, that is fine.

[HeresyLives]

33. Their RC/Amish religion forces them to wear that.

So why you think you're about to 'liberate' devout muslims I don't know.

[riderinthestorm]

40. I'll say it again since you obviously aren't comprehending. Those items don't cover their face.

Western culture doesn't abide face-covering. Never has. Stuff on top of your head? Go nuts but cover your face and you are a criminal or worse. You can try to rationalize this misogynistic garment as something that's just always been a part of western gear but you are wrong.

And this garment has nothing to do with "devoutness". It's cultural. There's nothing in the Quran or hadith to support it at all.

[HeresyLives]

41. Doesn't matter, it's religious clothing in their view.

And you can't stop them.

[riderinthestorm]

44. But in western culture it's a misogynistic cultural affectation that deserves

discussion and debate over whether to allow it in our culture.

We don't allow FGM, we don't allow naked fertility rites in the public square, we've "stopped" a lot of stuff. Wy does the burka get a pass? Because you like to see women shrouded and invisible?

[HeresyLives]

46. LOL oh stop picking on muslim women.

Muslims have been in America since day one.

[riderinthestorm]

56. Oh that's right! I forgot! The Native Americans were Muslims! You are such a historian! nt

[HeresyLives]

58. Were they? That's amazing.

The things I learn on here. :eyes:

[dustbunnie]

206. We stop lots of religious practices. Do you think the Amish can just ride their horse --

and buggies everywhere? No, any city would have them issued tickets with ultimatums to get rid of the horses or get out of town.

That said, none of this would be an issue if the menz were required to wear a burqa. They would've been banned a LONG time ago. They wouldn't even have needed a banning. Any man denigrating himself to such a degree would face the peer pressure of knee slapping laughter and lose it but fast. But that's just an aside. Your arguments are hogwash and fall flat.

[The Midway Rebel]

107. "Western culture doesn't abide face-covering. Never has." Never say never!

Veiling the women folk in Western culture goes way back.

Greek women routinely wore the veil. That is the unexpected finding of this meticulous study, one with interesting implications for the origins of Western civilisation. `The Greeks', popularly (and rightly) credited with the invention of civic openness, are revealed as also part of a more Eastern tradition of seclusion. Llewellyn-Jones' work proceeds from literary and, notably, from iconographic evidence. In sculpture and vase painting it demonstrates the presence of the veil, often covering the head, but also more unobtrusively folded back onto the shoulders. This discreet fashion not only gave a priviledged view of the face to the ancient art consumer, but also, incidentally, allowed the veil to escape the notice of traditional modern scholarship. From Greek literary sources, the author shows that full veiling of the head and face was commonplace.

more at


http://www.amazon.com/Aphrodites-Tortoise-Veiled-Ancient-Greece/dp/0954384539

[HeresyLives]

110. Jackie Kennedy at the funeral.

[riderinthestorm]

124. Ancient culture in Greece that straddles east and west by the articles own admission.

I sponsor a Greek family here in the US (their daughter is the same age as mine and we sponsored their immigration). The father is Muslim, the mother is Christian - they grew up next door to each other in Greece. We know them intimately, share dinners and extended family vacations here in the US and in Greece. The culture in Greece is far more "eastern" than "western. Even Greek Orthodox Christianity is much more "eastern" than west.

And none of them wear a burqa. Not even headscarves.

So even if they did in ancient times, it's not common now and hasn't been for many, many generations. I just called them to check.

[HeresyLives]

125. Greek women here used to dress all in black

with a head scarf if they were widows...announcing they were widows and showing perpetual mourning.

Many other groups here hide their faces, don't have mirrors, don't allow photos.

[riderinthestorm]

135. Link to Greeks that hide their faces, don't have mirrors and don't allow photos in this day and age.

And we're talking burqa, niqab. Not headscarves for the umpteenth time.

[HeresyLives]

138. Hutterites for one

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hutterite

Anabaptists, Mennonites, Amish, depending on the sect

And THIS is what you're talking about.

http://www.users.cloud9.net/~bradmcc/GO/attire.html

[The Midway Rebel]

154. Please stop moving the goal posts!

You said never.

[BoneDaddy]

205. We are also not having the Amish

blow themselves up at crowded public events.

[Cid_B]

59. They aren't banning hats fer fucks sake,,,

I've got no problem with this. More good than bad will come of it. Seriously, I see these poor women every day and they are not doing well. I can say though that the women who aren't wearing them seem to be doing better.

[HeresyLives]

61. They aren't banning anything.

And your judgement of their health aside, Muslims will sue their sox off.

[Amonester]

29. Two burqa-clad robbers did hold up a post office near Paris

I guess Hammarberg hasn't got the news yet, so I will email him the link.

Maybe he has no clue about the many countries where the act of hiding full faces in public is illegal (except for Halloween and private masquerades).

Two burqa-clad robbers hold up post office near Paris :
http://www.france24.com/en/20100210-burqa-robbers-post-office-paris-nicolas-sarkozy-ban-national-identity-france-muslim

"keep us safe" elementaire, cher Watson :rofl:

[earth mom]

32. I'm on the fence on this one. I believe that the state shouldn't tell people how to dress yet

I also believe people should assimilate to the new culture/country they are a part of.

[HeresyLives]

35. Muslims have been in the US since the beginning.

[HeresyLives]

37. See, this is the thing...

We want to reform others, but never see it in ourselves.

[EFerrari]

48. Is that true? Remember that TX cult that dressed women in

19th century full length dresses? Those people that got their kids taken by the state? I can't remember their name. They got plenty of criticism around here.

[HeresyLives]

50. For their rightwing religion.

And they were Mormons.

[Flaneur]

63. The FLDS. And, of course, almost every one of the kids ended up back home.

There were a handful of prosecutions that came out of that. Out of more than 400 kids.

[Quantess]

49. I would applaud if they banned them.

I know, I'm a hypocrite because I approve of banning burkas, but not sex toys in Alabama. I'm entitled to my own biased opinion.

[HeresyLives]

51. Opinion yes, law no.

[EFerrari]

52. Replace burqas with sex toys!

[HeresyLives]

55. Muslims aren't anti-sex.

[EFerrari]

57. You know, I wonder what it does to children when they can't be mirrored

in their mothers' faces in pubic?

[HeresyLives]

60. Nothing.

Anymore than any other cultural custom affects them.

[EFerrari]

62. It's an interesting question. And especially with regard to little girls. n/t

[HeresyLives]

64. How does it affect little girls here

to see mom dressed like a hooker?

[EFerrari]

69. "Making someone hide their face is the oldest trick in the book for denying them empathy"

Here's an interesting blog post on the question I'm asking re covering the faces of women:

The Right to Empathy



This is not typically the kind of stuff I write about here, but it is something I feel quite strongly about, and, if nothing else, it makes for a case study in cross-cultural communication — not to mention some interesting neuroscience.

Last week, as the New York Times reported, French President Nicolas Sarkozy addressed the Parliament at Versailles with a withering critique of the burqa as an unacceptable symbol of “enslavement.”

“The issue of the burqa is not a religious issue. It is a question of freedom and of women’s dignity,” Mr. Sarkozy said. “The burqa is not a religious sign. It is a sign of the subjugation, of the submission, of women…. I want to say solemnly that it will not be welcome on our territory.”

Now, I got the link to this article from my cousin, who, it should be pointed out, shares the same history I do. We were not born in the United States, and growing up as first-generation immigrants in America we have spent our whole lives reconciling mixed, often contradictory, cultures. The fact that our families were able to leave the giant labor camp / prison that was the Soviet Union at all, is the result of one of the most successful human rights campaigns in history. So it’s no surprise that our reactions to the news of this French move were resoundingly positive. It was, however, quite surprising (though it retrospect, it shouldn’t have been) to discover many of my American-born friends expressing outright disapproval. I heard everything from straight up calling Sarkozy a “moron,” to the derisive cynicism that “Nothing says freedom like banning the burqa.”

http://social-creature.com/the-right-to-empathy

[HeresyLives]

70. Western views are irrelevant.

Guess how much they think western men respect western women?

[EFerrari]

75. Who is this "they" you are speaking of? Muslims share a borg mind?

This article gives several different opinions and none of them Western. Here are two against, although there are pro sentiments as well in the article if you care to read it:

Nadira, a psychology lecturer in her thirties at Kabul University, kept hers until last year because her family feared for her safety. But she chafed at the anonymity of the veil, which she felt deprived her of the respect her position deserved.

"No one recognised me under it. Faculty and students just called me 'khala' which made me very upset," she said. "So I used all my powers to persuade my family to let me get rid of my burqa."

And Tajwar Kakar, the former deputy minister of women's affairs, is staunchly anti-burqa. "While it is an Afghan tradition, the situation for women has now improved 100 per cent. Women, particularly those in government, should not be confined in these coverings."

http://www.peacewomen.org/news/Afghanistan/May05/burqa.html

Myself, I wouldn't like to be called "auntie" at school instead of by my name.

[HeresyLives]

82. The 'they' that are imprisoning women in burkkas

according to you.

[EFerrari]

92. The burqa is a an instrument of social control over women's bodies.

I have zero problem with France or the UK or the Netherlands banning it. We should, too.

[HeresyLives]

96. Your problem not mine, I'm the challenger.

Failed Debate class did you?

[riderinthestorm]

71. Link please for your assertion that seeing their mothers shrouded, invisible and

second class doesn't affect the children.

[HeresyLives]

72. Link please for the original assertion that it does.

[EFerrari]

76. I raised a question. n/t

[HeresyLives]

80. So the ball is in your court

[riderinthestorm]

81. You made the assertion that seeing the mothers shrouded has no effect. Back it up.

If you are going to make that assertion, then support it or retract it.

[HeresyLives]

83. It was your assertion, it's up to you to prove it.

Where did you learn to argue, anyway??

[riderinthestorm]

86. Uh, post #60 belongs to you right? It's your assertion. Try to keep up. nt

[HeresyLives]

89. # 57 makes the assertion.

i challenged it.

Stay alert.

[riderinthestorm]

93. Nope. #57 asks the question. You answered. Now back your answer up. nt

[EFerrari]

94. No. I asked a question and you dismissed it out of hand. n/t

[HeresyLives]

98. I challenged it, so now it's your problem.

Your debate classes must have sucked.

[EFerrari]

100. You have yet to address the question I raised and no, they didn't.

Thanks and have a good night.

[riderinthestorm]

106. EFerrari, peace and good will.

:hug:

[EFerrari]

198. And faces. The beautiful faces of women.

As Lewis said, "Til we all have faces". :hi:

[HeresyLives]

112. I challenged it, you are spinning your wheels.

And you either never took Debate, or you failed it.

Good night.

[Quantess]

111. Never mind.

It was kind of mean.

[HeresyLives]

113. Sorry, I always won.

[Quantess]

118. You've lost your touch, then.

Your posts tonight are very unpersuasive. And circular.

[HeresyLives]

121. No, I've been in politics

Won every time too.

[riderinthestorm]

130. LOL. Appeal to authority. Of course. So sad. nt

[HeresyLives]

133. What authority?

Please don't show off education you don't have.

And I thot you were going to bed.

[riderinthestorm]

143. LOL. Oh my. Yup, now I am going to bed. Your post just made my night.

Unfortunately I'll be chuckling for a while which will hamper getting to sleep but I think I'll manage.

Sleep tight heretic.

[HeresyLives]

146. Yup rightwing arguing.

[EFerrari]

87. I'm wondering specifically about the impact on bonding and attachment

since these are so fundamental to the health of a child.

Maybe someone with university access can find a related article. I can find general ones that discuss bonding and attachment but no luck so far + burqa.

[HeresyLives]

91. Well they only wear it when they go out.

Not at home.

[EFerrari]

97. Yes, I realize that. But even that has an impact on chidren

at the stage where if you leave the room, believe you have vanished forever -- children who don't have object permanence yet. I'd much rather see my mom decked out like a hooker than believe she is gone. :)

[HeresyLives]

99. Oh come now.

:rofl:

[EFerrari]

101. Let me guess, you have no children and you don't baby sit for young ones?

[HeresyLives]

114. Mother of two, grandmother of 3.

[EFerrari]

192. Then you know better than to discount the shrouding of a mother. n/t

[SimonPhoenix]

104. Um

Muslim?

Support subjugating women? Yes?

Shame on you.

[HeresyLives]

115. Um...atheist as you can clearly see by the sig.

[guardian]

78. What an idiot

I bet the article's author is in favor female genital mutilation to "promote multicultural dialogue."


SOME culture/traditions should not be maintained, encouraged, or tolerated.

[HeresyLives]

84. But they are.

Some of our culture/traditions shouldn't be maintained, encouraged or tolerated either.

[SimonPhoenix]

102. I love all the "feminists" in this thread defending the burqa

How much are you being paid?

The burqa is an antiquated, misogynistic garment. It absolutely should be banned. Britain can't ban the scourge of Islamofascism (much as I'd like to eliminate it in my own African-American community), but they can sure ban one of the instruments used by Islam to subjugate women.

We should never endorse a vile religious sect that forces women to wear these garments. The men who would do this are foreign and alien to me, and are enemies of both this country as well as Britain. Some would argue for deporting the men who support their women wearing burqas. Then maybe the women could marry some more tolerant British men, or they could remain single. Or they could emigrate. Whatever they want. At least they'd have the choice. They don't have the choice now. Feminists think the United States is a misogynistic country? Maybe we are. But shit, go to one of the theocratic Muslim countries. Then you'll see a real representation of misogyny. Don't let the savages brutalize and oppress the immigrant women in Britain any longer. These members of the Muslim sect are the new Nazis. Will we be brave and stand up to them like Churchill did?

[wuushew]

105. There is no "Islamofascism"

turn off Fox and instead use a proper dictionary.

[SimonPhoenix]

108. Oh really?

I just went to google.com and punched in the following:

site:foxnews.com islamofascism

I received 31 matches on my search string.


Then I decided to punch in the following:

site:cnn.com islamofascism

70 matches. Isn't that interesting?


I don't watch Fox News, buddy. I heard it on CNN years ago. Islamofascism definitely exists. I know that use of the term pisses people off, which is why I will continue to use it.

[HeresyLives]

119. Yes, really.

And stop using a limited search engine as some kind of ultimate authority.

[SimonPhoenix]

122. And please stop assisting in the subjugating of women.

When you stop your behavior then I will stop mine.

Until then, maybe I'll post some pictures of women in bikinis. That should really make your blood boil.

[HeresyLives]

123. I am a woman, doofus.

And a feminist probably before you were born.

I've also worn bikinis.

[SimonPhoenix]

126. Oh my god!

That's so hot!

Really?

Please tell me more.

:rofl:

[HeresyLives]

127. See? Wasting everyone's time with silliness.

You argue like rightwingers.

[SimonPhoenix]

136. Well,

http://www.altmuslim.com/a/a/a/the_burka_and_the_bikini/

Not arguing like a right-winger, honey. I'm arguing with facts. They equate the burqa with the bikini. Here's a telling quote:

"It's true that some women wear bikinis because they have pride in their bodies and don't care (or need) what men think. But a larger fraction of women wearing them are doing so because they want to influence the response of men in some way."

"The bikini and the burka are so far to the extremes that they meet again. They both serve to reduce women, from a person, to an object. In the case of the burka, that object is "slave". In the case of the bikini, that object is "sex". The burka is forced upon women, for fear of consequences, whereas women are induced to wear the bikini, out of desire for consequences. But in both cases those consequences are to please males."

Do you agree with these quotes? I object to them because they indicate a complete lack of respect for women in general. Idiotic thoughts like the one at the end of the first paragraph where the author claims that women are wearing them to influence the response of men in some way, and in the second paragraph where bikinis turn women into sex objects. It's a disgusting sentiment in my opinion.

[SimonPhoenix]

139. And I have nothing against feminists or feminism.

My most fun times were with women that held views of a feminist nature. Either that or we were both drunk. I like to think that it was the former.

[HeresyLives]

141. AHAHAHA big of you.

And spare me the bikini/burkka pop psychology.

[SimonPhoenix]

145. Why?

Look at the comments-it's an incredibly interesting an important debate because it parallels the fundamentalist Islam/Western debate proceeding today.

Here's a comment from that link:

"The bikini is not an expression of freedom, but slavery. Slavery to the idea that my value as a woman is based on my outer appearance. Any woman who choses to wear a bikini, is not doing it just because she is proud of her body independent of what men think, for she is only proud of her body because she is convinced she has one that men think is attractive, so she is still a slave to such mentality. Women who dress this way are the most insecure, not the most proud or powerful. Their whole identity is based on what others think, not of them, but of their bodies. In my opnion the bikini wearer is worse off than the one who has the burka enforced upon her because, the latter is oppressed from without, but the former is oppressed from within, she has become in her own mind, a slave. And I will say that except for the first time a woman tries to wear a bikini in public, perhaps out of ignorance, she is immoral. After wearing it once, any moderatley intelligent woman cannot deny being aware of the affects it has, not only on the men she encounters, but on her own thoughts. She either retreats to modesty, or decides to make a pact with immodestly, and that is immoral."

Do you agree or disagree with this sentiment?

[SimonPhoenix]

147. PS-what is so funny?

Let's have a discussion about this, out in the open, where everyone on DU can read it and learn from it.

[HeresyLives]

149. You have 'nothing against feminism'. Big of you.

And you actually think people want to debate bikinis v burkkas. On here. :rofl:

Nothing wrong with either of them and a woman's right to choose. The end.

[SimonPhoenix]

151. I said I have nothing against it because

I got the feeling from your posts that you thought I did.

I think it's a worthwhile debate to have because there is nothing wrong with a bikini. But there is something very wrong with a burqa. It's not that simple.

[HeresyLives]

153. It's just clothing.

And there is nothing wrong with either of them.

Different cultures, different customs.

[SimonPhoenix]

155. Ever heard of women beating beaten for going outside without their bikini?

That would be an interesting story to read, but I've never heard of it. I have heard of women being beaten for being outside the home without their burqa.

[HeresyLives]

156. You haven't heard of a lot of things,

but the fact remains that if women didn't want to wear the burkka, they wouldn't.

In fact they could 'liberate' Saudi Arabia in ten minutes if they chose.

[SimonPhoenix]

157. Really?

And their husbands would simply be cool with it? There would be no violent reaction to women removing their burqas? I disagree.

The only way I could think of to "liberate" Saudi Arabia would be with a few hundred special forces soldiers and a squadron of bombers.

[HeresyLives]

159. If Saudi women picked a date and time,

and at the appointed hour went outside and all removed their burkkas at once...it would be over with.

Too few mullahs, too many women...and women can throw stones too.

You forget with these things...the women have to go along with it for it to work. Either wearing them or tossing them off.

You just assume they want to live like women do here.

They do not.

If and when they ever do...they will.

[SimonPhoenix]

165. You're right

That must be why there are no women trying to get into Saudi Arabia while they are plenty who are trying to and would like to get out.

Your argument seems to center around the theme that if women didn't want to wear burqas, that they'd simply take them off. Could we extend that argument to spousal abuse? I think we could. If a woman doesn't like being beaten by her husband, she could just up and leave right? It's easy, especially when the abusive husband probably controls the financing and the woman's social life as well. Easy peasy. Likewise, the Saudi Arabian woman forced to wear the burqa who is also probably beaten by her husband when she gets "out of line" could up and leave to be free of the burqa is simply small potatoes, and just a simple obstacle that can be overcome in a matter of minutes. /sarc

[HeresyLives]

166. Yes, it's up to the women to change things.

And they are quite capable of doing so when they wish to.

I grew up in the 40s,50s and 60's. Life for women then was much different than it is now.

Because women changed it.

[SimonPhoenix]

167. Did we ever stone rape victims here?

Did we?

Don't compare what women went through here in the 40s, 50s and 60s to what women currently suffer through in a lot of the Muslim countries. Being paid less than men, while immoral and illegal, is nowhere near as bad as being murdered because you "dishonored" your family. If you can't come up with an equivalent American example along the lines of the horrific crimes against women (and other groups, like gays) in some of the Muslim countries, then don't attempt to make the comparison And now the honor criminals are committing their perverted crimes in our country as well.

[HeresyLives]

169. Beat them to death. Does that count?

Shot them. Does that count?

Sent them to back street butchers. Does that count?

Took away their babies. Does that count.

Kindly don't tell me how women have been treated here, and put it down to a mere matter of pay cheques.

[SimonPhoenix]

171. Beat and shot them?

Gonna have to be more specific? Was there a campaign against women?

Back street butchers I'll give to you. We were wrong to deny women the right to choose. But that was 35 years ago. It's not happening at anywhere near the same frequency today, although some teenager still does it every year because of parental consent laws.

Took away their babies? Gonna have to provide more details. If they're crack babies, fuck it, no sympathy from me. They should have aborted.

[HeresyLives]

173. Yes, and yes. Surprise!

And in those days taking away your baby meant adoption.

[Cid_B]

196. I must be tired...

.. because I feel like I'm missing something in your post.

If it is what it looks like on the face then it's just amazing ignorance. If I'm missing a subtlety then never mind.

If you think that all Muslim women, to include those in the communities who may not be that devout, choose willingly to wear that thing then you are mistaken.

You ever talk to them? Because I have...

[riderinthestorm]

200. You're not tired and you're not missing anything subtle.

The deliberate obtuseness and willful ignorance is pretty crazy.

[SimonPhoenix]

152. I also support a woman's right to choose, up until

her water breaks.

[Fumesucker]

128. Under your burqa?

:shrug:

[HeresyLives]

129. Atheists don't wear burkkas.

Or long gowns with bonnets, or habits either.

PLease pay attention.

[Fumesucker]

131. You speak for all atheists everywhere?

I did not realize that we now have an orthodoxy..

[HeresyLives]

134. LOL if you know of any atheists in burkkas or habits

or living as prairie muffins lemme know. It would make a great story.

[Fumesucker]

137. You think that no one in Saudi Arabia for instance is an atheist?

[HeresyLives]

140. If there is a female atheist in Saudi Arabia

....she'd be gone.

[Fumesucker]

142. How?

I live in the deep South and I'm careful about letting people know of my atheism, it can cost you a job or get your car vandalized.. I know this because it's happened to me..

How is a woman who is basically the property of either her father or husband going to leave Saudi Arabia?

[HeresyLives]

144. They leave the country for school and travel.

They could easily stay gone.

[Fumesucker]

148. All women in Saudi Arabia leave the country for school and travel?

[HeresyLives]

150. They can.

I doubt all of them do, anymore than all men do.

[Fumesucker]

158. Women in Saudi are closely controlled by the men..

And by no means is everyone in Saudi rich, it is actually a desperately poor country, the wealth from oil stays with the ruling class, much like America in that regard.

A Saudi woman who does not cover up will be beaten by the religious police.. Or even worse..

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/1874471.stm

Saudi Arabia's religious police stopped schoolgirls from leaving a blazing building because they were not wearing correct Islamic dress, according to Saudi newspapers.

<snip>

15 girls died in the blaze and more than 50 others were injured

According to the al-Eqtisadiah daily, firemen confronted police after they tried to keep the girls inside because they were not wearing the headscarves and abayas (black robes) required by the kingdom's strict interpretation of Islam.

One witness said he saw three policemen "beating young girls to prevent them from leaving the school because they were not wearing the abaya".

[HeresyLives]

160. And they can leave the country.

Women in Saudi Arabia could stop all this in an instant if they chose to.

They do not.

It's western arrogance to think they want to live like us.

[Fumesucker]

162. What are they gonna do, pull a Lysistrata on their men?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysistrata

I have a hard time believing that a "feminist" is sticking up for the subjugation of women that is every day life in Saudi Arabia.

Polygamy is legal and practiced there but polyandry is not..

How do you leave a country when you have no damn money, no passport and no visa? Saudi women have to go to their father, brother or husband for all of those things.

[HeresyLives]

163. If Saudi women picked a date and time,

and at the appointed hour went outside and all removed their burkkas at once...it would be over with.

Too few mullahs, too many women...and women can throw stones too.

You forget with these things...the women have to go along with it for it to work. Either wearing them or tossing them off.

You just assume they want to live like women do here.

They do not.

If and when they ever do...they will.


Edit for a PS: Saudi women often work and study abroad. They even attend fashion shows in Paris and Milan.

[Fumesucker]

168. I'm not assuming anything..

You are the one making assumptions, that Saudi women can leave the country whenever they want to, that they can throw off over a thousand years of subjugation in just a moment, that no Saudi women are atheists..

Even in Saudi women are physically weaker than men, if it comes down to stone throwing who is going to lose, men or women?

You have no idea whether all Saudi women like the way they live and I think it's extremely arrogant of you to presume to speak for them.

Do you think those schoolgirls enjoyed getting beaten back into a burning building?

[HeresyLives]

170. It's not an assumption, it's fact.

Saudi women can and do leave their country to study and work abroad.

They also go home again.

And it's extremely arrogant of you to speak for both them and me.

[Fumesucker]

174. Some Saudi women leave, a small percentage..

The wealthy and I'm sure it's not all of them..

Or do you only care about the wealthy women in Saudi?

[HeresyLives]

176. Lots of them do.

And stop arguing like a rightwinger.

[Fumesucker]

179. Saudi Arabia is a poor nation..

Poor people by and large are not world travelers..

Travel is expensive, poor people do not have the wherewithal to travel.

[HeresyLives]

181. Oh I'm sure.

:nopity:

[Fumesucker]

184. It's rightwingers that would give that reaction to poor people..

Certainly not a liberal..

[HeresyLives]

186. LOL oh puleeze.

[The Midway Rebel]

161. Yes, isn't it terrible when governments tell people how they are allowed to dress!

I love the smell of irony in the wee hours.

[HeresyLives]

164. LOL yes only our govt should be allowed to do that!

[Fumesucker]

172. Show me a country where the government doesn't tell people how to dress at all..

I'm not sure there is one, certainly not the industrialized nations..

[HeresyLives]

175. Canada for one. UK.

I have no idea if they tell you how to dress in the US, but I doubt it.

[Fumesucker]

178. So there are no laws whatsoever regarding clothing in the UK or Canada?

[HeresyLives]

180. Well we had 'decency' laws

until women said they were going to go topless in the summertime, and did.

So it became legal.

Dunno where that leaves anything else.

Oh wait...some stores have a sign saying 'no shirt, no shoes, no service' :rofl:

[Fumesucker]

182. So you can go completely nude?

[HeresyLives]

185. Like I said, I have no idea.

Everyone can go topless tho.

And Saturday at a WalMart is as close as we like to be to going parka-less. LOL

[Fumesucker]

188. Yes you do know if you can go nude or not..

And if you can't then the government is in the business of regulating clothing.

[HeresyLives]

189. No, sorry I don't.

Now whenever you wanna stop being silly...

[Fumesucker]

191. You knew you could go topless..

You're the one being silly..

And women can't go topless in the US or the UK, the government is telling people what they have to wear in both of those countries.

[Cid_B]

197. I know several personally....

Most recent example was the wife of one of my last interpretors. She didn't like the thing, he didn't like the thing.

You know what though? If she takes it off and strolls around doing the shopping she is SIGNIFICANTLY more likely to be attacked or killed or worse.

[EFerrari]

199. May I ask, what country is that in, Cid_B?

[Scout]

203. so, you're a woman, so what? you think women don't participate in the oppression

of other women?

:rofl:

some feminist

[HeresyLives]

116. Defending a woman's right to choose.

Anything they damn well please.

And the burkka isn't religious, nor yours to 'ban'

[Odin2005]

109. Oh, fuck that relativist BS. Ban them, they are tools of patriarchy.

[HeresyLives]

117. Not yours to ban.

[Liquorice]

132. +1 nt

[KonaKane]

177. So you can decide for women what they can and cannot wear now?

Sounds just like the clerics and husbands you condemn for doing so.

Can't cut that irony with an axe, can you.

[Flaneur]

183. Me, I'm for minding my own business.

Little kid is sitting on a park bench smoking a cigarette. A man watches, then asks the kid a question:

"Aren't you a little young to be smoking?"

"My granddad lived to be 107," the kid replied.

"Did your granddad smoke?" the man asked.

"No, he minded his own business."

[HeresyLives]

187. LOL words to live by.

[HeresyLives]

190. Well now you've told 1 billion people what they can wear,

I suggest we find another topic.

Cuz this one started out silly and rapidly devolved into sillier and silliest, not to mention repetitious.

[EFerrari]

193. Wrong. Apart from the women in the largely Muslim countries

who are working to discard the burqa, European countries will not promote this abuse of women.

And I congratulate them. You, on the other hand, have an axe to grind that has nothing to do with this discussion. You will have a clear view of the ATM display screen or of your grandchildren's faces in the park or of the policeman that stops you for speeding.

But nice going, defending shrouding other women.

[JCMach1]

194. We are talking complete cover here... and that is a relatively SMALL percentage of muslims

[JCMach1]

195. Burqa has become an outward sign of extreme Wahhabism

Even Egypt has moved to ban these from their universities.

All the Koran calls for is 'modesty' in behavior and dress. For most of the world, the burqa is an alien form of of dress. Unless you are from a few small villages in the Arabian peninsula such dress is not part of even the cultural norm. Abayas and shaylas (and such) allow a lot of personal freedom and expression. Some are quite beautiful.

The original article is wrong. You don't allow this because the beliefs behind such dress are contrary to European values.

And trust me this is precisely the take in the Muslim world concerning Western dress. If it goes against Islamic values, it is not allowed period.

Cultural relativity in the face of repression and extremism is idiocy!

Actually Wahhabism per se isn't precisely the problem. Most Emiratis are Wahhabi. However, their approach to it is not political or extreme. Most women just wear abaya and shayla with a very few choosing to completely cover up.

[Toasterlad]

201. Women Should Have the Right To Choose To Be Slaves If They Want

Just make sure they know they have rights in Europe that they don't have back in the barbarian lands they escaped from. If they choose to let themselves be subjugated when they're told there's an alternative, well...that's on them.

Anyone who would choose ludicrous religious oppression over dignity and respect doesn't deserve dignity and respect.

[immoderate]

202. I'm not a fan of burkas. Leaves too much to the imagination.

My problem is the ban. Burka seems like the garment of choice for those extreme bad hair days, or when you simply want to be aloof. (Does the world need more "loofs?")

I can't see the government banning them. Schools, work, and especially driving, OK. But not a gummint dress code.

--imm

[dustbunnie]

207. Of course... the article is written by a singularly unattractive, old white man.

What a shocker.

I hope the women keep fighting to get rid of that disgusting, domestic house slave garb.