You said it!
Lazer Headquarters
Rue André Dumont, 3
1435 Mont-Saint-Guibert
Belgium
Bank robber in San Diego, California: 
[quote]A member of staff of an old people’s home in Brussels died Monday after being allegedly shot by robbers, the Belga news agency reported. Another member of staff was injured during the holdup, which saw two armed robbers wearing motorcycle helmets run off with a loot of jewelry and 200 euros (285 dollars) in cash. Witnesses said the robbers opened fire at the facility in the Uccle neighbourhood after staffers refused to hand over the money. Police believe the suspects had targeted a similar facility only hours earlier. [/quote]-- Brussels, Belgium, August 2009
You said it![/quote]
Not quite. Most of these countries that wear a veil have few rights for women, not so in the west where women have equal rights.
What are your views on wearing the Burka in a workplace for example?
On entering a bank?
On entering a government building?
On entering a supermarket where the owners prefer to see the faces of shoppers so they can be identified by CCTV?
Testifying in court?
On kids going to school?
On a transit system, where again authorities prefer to be able to see peoples faces on CCTV?
In a voting booth?
[quote=“Mick”]As far as I know, the covering of the face is not in fact stated as a requirement in the Koran anywhere and many will point out its use predates the Koran itself. The Koran does say both women and men should dress modestly, and some branches of Islam interpret that to include the covering of the face, but many dont.
But we are talking about this in the context of cultures that have developed their own norms. Its not normal for countries to permit polygyny, which can be practiced in Islam, I don’t think anyone here would argue countries should be sensitive to Islams practices regarding polygyny and revise their laws.
The source provided named a number of reasons for arguing against the full Burqa ban and I may have missed it, but the point of this practice being so far outside the norm of the society they live in, that it makes people very uncomfortable, I didn’t see stated.
If I dressed as an orthodox jewish person, what do suppose the reaction would be in many Islamic states, or if I dressed as a transvestite or was seen swigging a bottle of rum. These are some of the states that have the lowest tolerance towards any deviation from what they see as the norm, and yet show no understanding of meeting what western countries feel is a minimum level of conforming to normal behavior in their society.[/quote]
:bravo: All the way from page one, but it’s IMO the best post of the thread. Key phrase: “minimum level of conforming to normal behaviour.” It really is a minimal expectation, a very minor exercise in aculturating/respecting the societal norms of your chosen country–and it isn’t too much to ask.
Excellent.
Care to define that minimum? In some reasonable degree of detail, if you please. (That shouldn’t be too much to ask if female attire is to have pride of place at the top of the list.)
Excellent.
Care to define that minimum? In some reasonable degree of detail, if you please. (That shouldn’t be too much to ask if female attire is to have pride of place at the top of the list.)[/quote]
Why don’t you define them? You seem to suggest that western societies don’t have any/ ought to have none.
Ha! See, that’s not how it works.
A liberal society (of the J. S. Mill variety, which roughly describes what we have) takes the ‘no harm, no foul’ line. If individual liberty is to be circumscribed, the onus is on those who would limit liberty to prove the need.
You like the line “minimum level of conforming to normal behaviour.” Very well, what’s that mean?
Mick writes: “If I dressed as an orthodox jewish person, what do suppose the reaction would be in many Islamic states, or if I dressed as a transvestite or was seen swigging a bottle of rum.”
No need to add the qualifier “in many Islamic states”: in many areas of core Western states, orthodox dress (of any sort) would not conform to minimal levels normal behaviour. (That’s kind of the point of distinctive attire: to set oneself apart from the broader community.) Ditto gay pride parades: nothing that there’s anything wrong with that… but showing up for work or class in some of the standard attire probably wouldn’t fly.
The rule in liberal societies is this: if you’re going to limit anyone’s liberty, you’d better have a damn good reason for doing so. Your reason is “minimum level of conforming to normal behaviour.” In the absence of any meaningful definition, that means: “I’m not comfortable with what you’re doing.” That’s not good enough.
If people being offended and not being comfortable is not good enough, on what grounds are nudity laws based?
Still waiting for you get back on topics such as is it acceptable to wear a burka in the workplace.
[quote=“Jaboney”]Ha! See, that’s not how it works.
A liberal society (of the J. S. Mill variety, which roughly describes what we have) takes the ‘no harm, no foul’ line. If individual liberty is to be circumscribed, the onus is on those who would limit liberty to prove the need.
You like the line “minimum level of conforming to normal behaviour.” Very well, what’s that mean?
Mick writes: “If I dressed as an orthodox jewish person, what do suppose the reaction would be in many Islamic states, or if I dressed as a transvestite or was seen swigging a bottle of rum.”
No need to add the qualifier “in many Islamic states”: in many areas of core Western states, orthodox dress (of any sort) would not conform to minimal levels normal behaviour. (That’s kind of the point of distinctive attire: to set oneself apart from the broader community.) Ditto gay pride parades: nothing that there’s anything wrong with that… but showing up for work or class in some of the standard attire probably wouldn’t fly.
The rule in liberal societies is this: if you’re going to limit anyone’s liberty, you’d better have a damn good reason for doing so. Your reason is “minimum level of conforming to normal behaviour.” In the absence of any meaningful definition, that means: “I’m not comfortable with what you’re doing.” That’s not good enough.[/quote]
There have been plenty of examples of “harm” and therefore “foul” with regards to burkas. Asking that people don’t hide their faces and otherwise treat women like chattel are “damned good” reasons for this limitation.
And, yes, cultural norms are another “damned good” reason. Do we allow Chinese cut lines and drive as they would in China when in western countries? Or do we ask them to bend to our societal expectations? Sorry, I am just not buying into the utopian liberal non-arguments/cultural relativist BS.
If people being offended and not being comfortable is not good enough, on what grounds are nudity laws based?[/quote]
None, which is why I believe anti-nudity laws should be abolished in general.
What should the minimum standard for behavior be? Easy.
Don’t harm anyone else and MYOB.
That standard precludes cutting in line, telling others how to dress in public, hiding one’s face in sensitive public areas, selective enforcement of laws, double legal standards etc.
Whether or not a burka, tatoos, piercings, t-shirts with political slogans etc. are acceptable in a workplace is entirely up to the employer in my libertarian estimation if he or she can give some minimally plausible reason why it has a negative effect on business and said standard is uniformly applied.
[quote=“politbureau”]What should the minimum standard for behavior be? Easy.
Don’t harm anyone else and MYOB.[/quote]
The core, axiomatic concept upon which any rational system of morality and law is based, in my opinion.
When I look at a law, I consider first of all, “How does this affect individual liberty?” If it causes any limitations to anyone’s liberty, I reject it.
If people being offended and not being comfortable is not good enough, on what grounds are nudity laws based?[/quote]
None, which is why I believe anti-nudity laws should be abolished in general.[/quote]
I wonder what these extremists would prefer, a society with a ban on burkas and have nudity laws or one where everyone can walk around naked but they are free to wear a burka?
[quote=“Screaming Jesus”]Has anybody noticed how many of the arguments against burqas have also been made by nudists, against clothes in general?
[/quote]
:roflmao: Have you noticed the nudists are the ones arguing for freedom to use the burka.
[quote=“Chris”][quote=“politbureau”]What should the minimum standard for behavior be? Easy.
Don’t harm anyone else and MYOB.[/quote]
The core, axiomatic concept upon which any rational system of morality and law is based, in my opinion.
When I look at a law, I consider first of all, “How does this affect individual liberty?” If it causes any limitations to anyone’s liberty, I reject it.[/quote]
Ok, so from your ideological point of view:
Anything that affects individual liberty is bad;
Burkas limit womens’ liberty (and let’s not be obtuse about it; they do);
Therefore it is reasonable to ban them in liberal societies.
[quote=“Mick”]If people being offended and not being comfortable is not good enough, on what grounds are nudity laws based?[/quote]An immodest willingness to tell people what to do.
[quote=“Mick”]Still waiting for you get back on topics such as is it acceptable to wear a burka in the workplace.[/quote]Depends on the workplace. Some time ago, in BC, there was an issue over Sikh immigrants wearing too much clothing in public pools (for reasons of modesty). They were rightly told to adopt less cumbersome attire due to the heightened risk of drowning (their own, and anyone else within grabbing distance). That’s appropriate.
The local rule on speedos in swimming pools… remember that? I can’t find the thread, but it’s referenced here:
Inappropriate.
What’s the difference? The harm/foul divide. IMO, the first example crosses that line. In your opinion, the second does as well. I think that logic behind that is suspect. As is the logic behind the burqa ban in the West. (Which is very different from a ban in Turkey, for example.)
[quote=“Toasty”]Ok, so from your ideological point of view:
Anything that affects individual liberty is bad;
Burkas limit womens’ liberty (and let’s not be obtuse about it; they do)[/quote]
Women should have the right to wear burqas if they freely choose to do so. Banning the burqa takes away the choice for them to wear it if they so choose.
If someone (a jealous husband, for example) is forcing her to wear it, in a free society she has the law to back her up when she decides to exercise her freedom not to wear one.
You see, in a truly free society, you can choose to limit your own rights if you wish, but nobody else can do that to you (save sentencing for the commission of a crime). If you want to be a slave to someone else, it’s your right to choose to do so.
[quote=“Chris”][quote=“Toasty”]Ok, so from your ideological point of view:
Anything that affects individual liberty is bad;
Burkas limit womens’ liberty (and let’s not be obtuse about it; they do)[/quote]
Women should have the right to wear burqas if they freely choose to do so. Banning the burqa takes away the choice for them to wear it if they so choose.
If someone (a jealous husband, for example) is forcing her to wear it, in a free society she has the law to back her up when she decides to exercise her freedom not to wear one.[/quote]
Ideological and completely divorced from the reality of the situation. Do you really think that is the reality for burkas and the mindset behind them? No more a-priori nonsense. Yes or no. Are the women who wear burkas in the REAL world actually free?
[quote=“Toasty”]There have been plenty of examples of “harm” and therefore “foul” with regards to burkas. Asking that people don’t hide their faces and otherwise treat women like chattel are “damned good” reasons for this limitation. [/quote]‘Don’t treat women like chattel’ is covered by other, more subtle measures, already in force. (As the article in the original post points out.)
[quote=“Toasty”]And, yes, cultural norms are another “damned good” reason. Do we allow Chinese cut lines and drive as they would in China when in western countries? Or do we ask them to bend to our societal expectations? Sorry, I am just not buying into the utopian liberal non-arguments/cultural relativist BS.[/quote]You’re confusing two kinds of convention and using one to argue for the other. The first covers necessary utilitarian interactions and safety: ie, driving. Many of the rules of the road are conventional, but must be obeyed. The other covers voluntary social interactions, and need not.
Driving in Taiwan, I don’t follow Canadian rules of the road (even the unofficial sort) because that’s a recipe for harm. I adopt local customs.
(I do, however, push back against local convention when I feel it pushes the safety envelope too far.)
On the other hand, living in Taiwan, I do not adopt many local customs because I despise the gloop served in most restaurants, feel the local booze is best used cleaning paint brushes, loath beetlenut and ktv, and would due myself injury wearing cheap plastic sandals. I don’t observe local holidays and book off my own high feast days (as do religious minority communities back home). I don’t want or need to assimilate, and respect the rights of others to do the same back home. Are you as consistent in the application of your views?
And yes, some women really do freely make that choice. (I understand that as poorly as I do multiple body piercings.) In a Western context, where there are safeguards in place for those who night be pressured to do so against their will, the choice should be there (and, hopefully, rarely acted upon).
[quote=“Jaboney”][quote=“Mick”]If people being offended and not being comfortable is not good enough, on what grounds are nudity laws based?[/quote]An immodest willingness to tell people what to do.
[quote=“Mick”]Still waiting for you get back on topics such as is it acceptable to wear a burka in the workplace.[/quote]Depends on the workplace. Some time ago, in BC, there was an issue over Sikh immigrants wearing too much clothing in public pools (for reasons of modesty). They were rightly told to adopt less cumbersome attire due to the heightened risk of drowning (their own, and anyone else within grabbing distance). That’s appropriate.
The local rule on speedos in swimming pools… remember that? I can’t find the thread, but it’s referenced here:
Inappropriate.
What’s the difference? The harm/foul divide. IMO, the first example crosses that line. In your opinion, the second does as well. I think that logic behind that is suspect. As is the logic behind the burqa ban in the West. (Which is very different from a ban in Turkey, for example.)[/quote]
I never questioned the right of the university to instigate such a rule (no speedos). It’s their university (NCCU) and their country (ROC or Taiwan). I mentioned that if their goal is to internationalize as they stated in so many government publications and student brochures, clinging to such prescriptive rules with no reasoning behind them that foreigners will automatically sense as being discriminatory, will not help them to achieve their goal.
Just like when I worked in international development in Taiwan and the country was going to deport an African scholarship recipient with AIDS (basically a death sentence to be sent back to Chad), I mentioned to an unresponsive boss that it was contradictory to the country’s so-called efforts in promoting civil society to deport her without even giving her medicine.
With regards to the burkha ban, there are certain situations where wearing any costume or extreme covering is inappropriate (bank, job interview, political rally or sports event) such as when the costume might pose a threat to public safety, hinder job performance in certain occupations, or prevent law enforcement officials trying to maintain order. So yes, that Spanish parade should probably be banned in crowded cities but perhaps not in small villages.
I think burkhas are inhumane in hot weather, repressive to the rights of women, and one could argue a public safety issue in extreme heat or in an enclosed space. People have died because of getting their fingers caught in pool drains while swimming, not properly constructing fences around pools, and pets have died because of drinking too much anti-freeze or staying in enclosed cars. Laws have probably been changed in many jurisdictions to try and prevent these tragedies. I wonder how many strokes, heat exhaustion, and other medical conditions have been brought upon my wearing burkhas in heated conditions in 40-45 degree weather. I’m willing to bet a fuck of a lot.
However, with everyday situations (work, school, uni) in moderate weather, I’m not supportive of a ban. It wins over no converts in most secular and enlightened places. In fact, it serves a reminder that women’s rights is under threat and many Western academics/cultural relativists would rather side with the aggressor than defend Western values.