No one should be anything they don't want to be, yes they would have to accept and respect that they live in a western country, but that doesn't mean they should become westernised.
French Burka Ban Goes into Effect
- Thread starter TheLastMohican
- Start date
No one should be anything they don't want to be, yes they would have to accept and respect that they live in a western country, but that doesn't mean they should become westernised.
I understood you. I was saying that these people carry the same attitude even in Muslim countries such as Pakistan, because there are varying degrees of open-mindedness within Muslims. Muslims in western counties that are scared of "westernization" are exactly the same here in Pakistan. It's not the environment that's the problem for them, it's everyone who isn't exactly like them.
- Mar 17, 2010
- 4,872
- 1,225
- 766
- MBTI
- ????
- Enneagram
- 9w1
I think thats a terrible thing to say
Everyone should be able to wear whatever they like, esp if its something that means so much to them.
You misunderstand me. If people go around wearing burquas around here we are all encouraged to accept it unthinkingly. I think this is wrong. We should be allowed to protest against it, and businesses should even be allowed to ban them on their premises.
If you believe me to be racist or extremist in my views then that's exactly the problem I'm talking about.
The burqua isn't a Muslim requirement, and if it was this isn't a Muslim country. I wouldn't expect to be served alcohol in Qatar.
- Mar 17, 2010
- 4,872
- 1,225
- 766
- MBTI
- ????
- Enneagram
- 9w1
Tolerence doesn't mean you have to like something. Something our government could do with being reminded of.
Why do you think it is wrong?
I don't think any buisnesses should bad anything religious, hijabs, burkas, crosses, christmas cards. I dont see why people cant just respect each other.
I don't believe you are racist or anything horrible, I just don't get why some people have a problem with what someone else is wearing, it doesn't make sense to me at all.
- Mar 17, 2010
- 4,872
- 1,225
- 766
- MBTI
- ????
- Enneagram
- 9w1
So somebody walks into a store wearing a burqua, steals something, then walks out. The CCTV camera is made useless, as are eye witnesses.
This is a problem.
If a store wants to ban burquas they should be perfectly able to. It's not impeding religious freedom as the burqua isn't a religious requirement. I can't even walk into my local Tesco with my hood up.
I see where you are coming from there, its a shame that something like that might happen. So I can see why buisnesses would like to ban them. But is there more to it as to why you said you think they are wrong?
burka is extreme and offensive by nature
it's not pretty
not warm and fuzzy
doesnt allow for any eye contact
france doesnt like it, so they ban it
seems to me a reasonable and sensible thing to do
if i were king i'd be inclined to do the same.
ew...burkas give me the creeps. good riddance.
i just dont like em.
I don't think its offensive, whats offensive about it? The fact that you cant see the persons face?
the pretty and warm and fuzzy comments made me giggle lol, surely you don't dress in pretty warm and fuzzy clothes hahahaha.
If I was a muslim woman and wanted to wear a burka, I sure as hell would and I also wouldn't care what other people thought of my views and my clothes, because frankly it's non of their buisness anyway.
but at the very least, you let them be?
As for safety reason, I'm -sure- there should be other rules that could be enforced that doesn't require an instant full ban on burqa.
The issue is when the allowances for immigrants are considered more important than western customs in the society they are moving into. Difficult for someone to object to without the term "bigot" thrown at them. Western society is expected to accept different cultures, whatever the cost.
@Arsal
I do not agree on the banning. I don't think that the women who wear burkas should be criminalized..
I think that Islam's institutionalized sexist practices should be cast off by the women themselves--which would only happen through educating them. And I don't think that the men in their lives should exercise ownership of them so that the women are able to be educated and free their minds... but I'm not sure how to alleviate that problem.
I do however, agree that in a lot of cases, like this one multiculturalism, in regards to oppressive practices and ideologies is absurd.
"Cover yourselves otherwise men will want to sleep with you, and if they do it is your fault."
It's about shaming women and keeping them separate.
I think it's absurd that outsiders are willing to defend it by saying that the practice brings "happiness."
Why are you not questioning the meaning of it?
It's not like we're arguing about Hasidic Jews wanting to keep their beards in the workplace, a benign practice.. In that case, who cares? Let them and hooray multiculturalism!
But the practice of women having to cover themselves has much darker implications. Why don't you go and look into how it all started?
Do you have anything of substance to say to me?
I do not agree on the banning. I don't think that the women who wear burkas should be criminalized..
I think that Islam's institutionalized sexist practices should be cast off by the women themselves--which would only happen through educating them. And I don't think that the men in their lives should exercise ownership of them so that the women are able to be educated and free their minds... but I'm not sure how to alleviate that problem.
I do however, agree that in a lot of cases, like this one multiculturalism, in regards to oppressive practices and ideologies is absurd.
"Cover yourselves otherwise men will want to sleep with you, and if they do it is your fault."
It's about shaming women and keeping them separate.
I think it's absurd that outsiders are willing to defend it by saying that the practice brings "happiness."
Why are you not questioning the meaning of it?
It's not like we're arguing about Hasidic Jews wanting to keep their beards in the workplace, a benign practice.. In that case, who cares? Let them and hooray multiculturalism!
But the practice of women having to cover themselves has much darker implications. Why don't you go and look into how it all started?
If you'd think about it instead of worrying about being P.C. you'd get it.
Last edited:
No. Wearing a burka is just one of many instruments of their oppression.
Did you notice how few women protested in Tahrir Square? Perhaps they knew something Lara Logan didn't.
Let's try an experiment. Let's substitute a few words in your bolded statement.
Forcing away the right to mutilate a girl's genitalia is just as bad as mutilating a girl's genitalia.
or
Forcing away the right to stone an adulterer is just as bad as stoning an adulterer.
or
Forcing away the right to chop off a thieve's hand is just as bad as chopping off a thieve's hand.
The problem with "multiculturalism" is that it has engendered often unquestioned, politically correct tactics that lead to "group think" and disparage the independent judgment of dissenting individuals. It now seems that it is immoral and unjust to have any negative opinion about, and criticize, any culture other one's own western culture, which is open to attack from all sides.
eh...I think everyone should be mid-westernised.
All the fashionistas here in the cities will have to switch over to Fleet Farm overalls and long underwear shirts...even the women. I find all that glamorous CA and NYC fashion to be offensive to my eyes.
Those offensive "new comers", if they have not noticed, are living in the mid-west now...and need to follow local customs.
And they should also eat lutefisk... and come to think of it... it will be mandatory for all males over 12 to show up at "barn raising" for every new neighbor...and women over the age of 6 must attend all quilting gatherings.
It's local custom. Therefore it's right.
All the fashionistas here in the cities will have to switch over to Fleet Farm overalls and long underwear shirts...even the women. I find all that glamorous CA and NYC fashion to be offensive to my eyes.
Those offensive "new comers", if they have not noticed, are living in the mid-west now...and need to follow local customs.
And they should also eat lutefisk... and come to think of it... it will be mandatory for all males over 12 to show up at "barn raising" for every new neighbor...and women over the age of 6 must attend all quilting gatherings.
It's local custom. Therefore it's right.
It very well could be.
The French have always been very fashion conscious. Seriously. I just wouldn't put it past them to ... have that notion lurking around unconsciously about this decision...
*oh...sense irony*
Nah. Thank goodness for the immigrants. Otherwise we'd be eating bangers and mash... and spaetzle.
I'm a foodie.
The only law should be that religious dogma be illegal whenever it does not tolerate intellectual inquiry.
That is all.
As for the burka, I can see the pragmatic reasons for its prohibition. I wouldn't specifically target it, though. I'd argue that any mask that covers a particular portion of the face should not be immune to restrictions in particular activities. Furthermore, because we recognise individual freedom, I must agree that a husband should be incarcerated if he forces his wife to wear a burka (or anything that the woman would not consent to without fear being used to apply external pressure on her).
I doubt that women "want" to wear it so much as they feel that they have to, considering their specific situation (external pressure from family and religion, the latter of which depends largely on the particular interpretation of her immediate social context. That said, society is also restricted from walking around naked in public - a state that is much more natural to humans, as we are all born thus, and one which may also be a tenet of particular beliefs. It is restricted on similar grounds: people in that society agree that it's not something they wish to see in the streets.
Concerning assimilation, I've recently posed a similar question: should the immigrant be assimilated or should they be allowed to assimilate?
A false dichotomy, perhaps. Essentially, the crux of the problem seems to lie in the idea of identity and, more specifically, the synthetic existence of culture and its application towards the formation of an identity. In all cases, I see basing one's own identity on such things to stunt individual growth and limit that which one is capable of. If anything, it is what prevents us from being free agents. Culture, as a part personal identity, just encourages conformity. In this case, the French wish for conformity on their territory, but immigrants wish to conform to the norms of their home country. This creates a clash. We talk about individual freedoms, but we don't realise that this is has very little to do with individual freedom. If anything, this clash is a wonderful example of what happens when two systems wishing to establish mutually exclusive conformity norms collide. Nobody is being an individual.
That said, the choice was made to immigrate. If I invite myself to someone's house, it would not be right for me to flaunt the manner in which I do things in my own home. My instinct is to observe, understand and seek to be understood and then assert my individuality. In a way, it should become possible for an individual to respect something without conforming to it, but not conforming does not mean threaten. By being consistently different in the same way, it will gave the impression of a threat. It becomes an "us vs them". In that regard, let the French govern themselves and the Arab world govern itself. The Arab countries might feel threatened if Americans emigrated en masse and asserted "American values" blatantly. In many Arabic countries, as I understand it, it is already illegal to assert many of those values, regardless of the immigration situation.
In the end, let us recognise that both examples of cultural conformity are just ploys to control people. This is just a situation where two different systems collide.
Agapooka
That is all.
As for the burka, I can see the pragmatic reasons for its prohibition. I wouldn't specifically target it, though. I'd argue that any mask that covers a particular portion of the face should not be immune to restrictions in particular activities. Furthermore, because we recognise individual freedom, I must agree that a husband should be incarcerated if he forces his wife to wear a burka (or anything that the woman would not consent to without fear being used to apply external pressure on her).
I doubt that women "want" to wear it so much as they feel that they have to, considering their specific situation (external pressure from family and religion, the latter of which depends largely on the particular interpretation of her immediate social context. That said, society is also restricted from walking around naked in public - a state that is much more natural to humans, as we are all born thus, and one which may also be a tenet of particular beliefs. It is restricted on similar grounds: people in that society agree that it's not something they wish to see in the streets.
Concerning assimilation, I've recently posed a similar question: should the immigrant be assimilated or should they be allowed to assimilate?
A false dichotomy, perhaps. Essentially, the crux of the problem seems to lie in the idea of identity and, more specifically, the synthetic existence of culture and its application towards the formation of an identity. In all cases, I see basing one's own identity on such things to stunt individual growth and limit that which one is capable of. If anything, it is what prevents us from being free agents. Culture, as a part personal identity, just encourages conformity. In this case, the French wish for conformity on their territory, but immigrants wish to conform to the norms of their home country. This creates a clash. We talk about individual freedoms, but we don't realise that this is has very little to do with individual freedom. If anything, this clash is a wonderful example of what happens when two systems wishing to establish mutually exclusive conformity norms collide. Nobody is being an individual.
That said, the choice was made to immigrate. If I invite myself to someone's house, it would not be right for me to flaunt the manner in which I do things in my own home. My instinct is to observe, understand and seek to be understood and then assert my individuality. In a way, it should become possible for an individual to respect something without conforming to it, but not conforming does not mean threaten. By being consistently different in the same way, it will gave the impression of a threat. It becomes an "us vs them". In that regard, let the French govern themselves and the Arab world govern itself. The Arab countries might feel threatened if Americans emigrated en masse and asserted "American values" blatantly. In many Arabic countries, as I understand it, it is already illegal to assert many of those values, regardless of the immigration situation.
In the end, let us recognise that both examples of cultural conformity are just ploys to control people. This is just a situation where two different systems collide.
Agapooka
The thing is that while it holds no value for me and you, it holds value for certain other groups of people. I understand that it is a largely outdated custom that holds little value in Western society at present, but it holds value for those groups of people who reside in the Western world, and while you may disagree with it, it needs to respected in order to maintain neutrality.
I agree with you in that these people need to be educated better, so they can make up their own minds about which values to keep and which ones to discard. However, (like you) banning I do not agree with, because the criteria is entirely arbitrary and seems to be biased.
I don't see it as sinister. I think cultural conformity is more of a survival tactic. Too many outliers in the group can cause the group to weaken... and power of the group is lost. We need to band together to keep safe...fed...attend to little ones.