Philosophy Now Forum

Should countries outlaw the hijab, niqab and burka?

http://cloudmind.info/hijab-niqab-and-burka-faq/

More and more Muslims are immigrating into western nations with varying degrees of success.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=thXCb1V ... r_embedded

Canada, not generally known as racist or intolerant, being a nation of immigrants, do not seem to have much use or tolerance for Muslim customs and having a religion dictate what women will wear, how they will be beaten and how they cannot refuse sex to their masters. Men.

http://www.therebel.media/in_quebec_the ... e=therebel

Is Canada becoming intolerant and fed up with religions or is there some other reason for Canadian hard line against the hijab, niqab and burka?

What of the U.S.?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iqAJGXI5l88
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CEHQU3w7Drc

Canada has not had a lot of problems to date. A few Honor killings when the young have refused to dress in the traditional way. I think that I would vote with the vast majority just to end Canadian Honor killings. I also see this as a safety issue in the sense that in a nation where so many do a lot of driving, to add blind spots caused by head and face wear seems like a poor idea.

To be frank though, I see Christianity and Islam as homophobic and misogynous religions and would vote for any measure that would reduce misogyny.

Are the large majority in Canada and elsewhere who would outlaw the hijab, niqab and burka wrong?

Regards
DL

Are the large majority in Canada and elsewhere who would outlaw the hijab, niqab and burka wrong?

Yes, they would be wrong.
You don't liberate women by imposing yet another legal burden on them. You don't change an oppressive culture by laying a restriction on its least powerful members. You don't tame a bear by poking it with a stick.

Of course not. They must have special privileges, in hospitals, banks, and anywhere else they wish to go. We MUST tolerate them! After all, they allow us to wander around Saudi Arabia in summery dresses and bikinis, our hair flowing freely. They wouldn't flog, stone, or behead us for that, because they are very tolerant people, to be petted and coddled and treated like the fragile and sensitive little dollies that they are.

No, the women in those countries would not do any of those things. But the women who have no choice about coming here are the easiest target for revenge by the western people who went there by choice, and flouted the local custom in expectation of deferential treatment, because... well, we are the raj.
Why not beat on the one who is already beaten?

Skip wrote:

Are the large majority in Canada and elsewhere who would outlaw the hijab, niqab and burka wrong?

Yes, they would be wrong.
You don't liberate women by imposing yet another legal burden on them. You don't change an oppressive culture by laying a restriction on its least powerful members. You don't tame a bear by poking it with a stick.

You fail to realize that the burden I would place is on Muslim men to recognize that they cannot own their women in free nations.

The law is against their ultra misogyny and not so much against women who mostly do not like being owned by their men.

Regards
DL

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:Of course not. They must have special privileges, in hospitals, banks, and anywhere else they wish to go. We MUST tolerate them! After all, they allow us to wander around Saudi Arabia in summery dresses and bikinis, our hair flowing freely. They wouldn't flog, stone, or behead us for that, because they are very tolerant people, to be petted and coddled and treated like the fragile and sensitive little dollies that they are.

I hear you and agree. Reciprocity is fair play.

Regards
DL

Skip wrote:No, the women in those countries would not do any of those things. But the women who have no choice about coming here are the easiest target for revenge by the western people who went there by choice, and flouted the local custom in expectation of deferential treatment, because... well, we are the raj.
Why not beat on the one who is already beaten?

Muslim women are beaten if they do not do as bid by Muslim men.

You would have that going on right in your face without doing anything.

Not a good policy that. What does do unto others say you should do?

"First they came for the Jews, but I did nothing because I'm not a Jew. Then they came for the socialists, but I did nothing because I'm not a socialist. Then they came for the Catholics, but I did nothing because I'm not a Catholic. Finally, they came for me, but by then there was no one left to help me." – Pastor Father Niemoller (1946)”

Regards
DL

Yes, it's supresses women, and promotes the inequality between the sexes. But in essence it's only a mere symptom of a greater problem.

HexHammer wrote:Yes, it's supresses women, and promotes the inequality between the sexes. But in essence it's only a mere symptom of a greater problem.

I agree.

Is this what you meant?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=p ... FX58#at=15

Regards
DL

HexHammer wrote:Yes, it's supresses women, and promotes the inequality between the sexes. But in essence it's only a mere symptom of a greater problem.

I thought only totalitarianists from France had your mind-set.

Greatest I am wrote: Muslim women are beaten if they do not do as bid by Muslim men.

Exactly. So, you're going to punish women in Canada for what men do in Saudi Arabia. How does that make justice - or sense?

"First they came for the Jews, but I did nothing because I'm not a Jew. Then they came for the socialists, but I did nothing because I'm not a socialist. Then they came for the Catholics, but I did nothing because I'm not a Catholic. Finally, they came for me, but by then there was no one left to help me." – Pastor Father Niemoller (1946)”

Did you mean

First they came for the Communists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Communist
Then they came for the Socialists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Socialist
Then they came for the trade unionists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a trade unionist
Then they came for the Jews
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Jew
Then they came for me
And there was no one left
To speak out for me -

?

What's this got to do with it? Who is coming for the Jews? Nobody's telling Hassidim that they're not allowed to wear a hat or tallit. Nor did they [the nazis of 1939 Germany] ever come for the Catholics [they received major financing from the Vatican and Joe Kennedy], nor is anybody proposing to make rules about what Catholics wear, or Russian or Greek Orthodox or Mormons or Sikhs or Wall Street brokers. Basically, clothing laws only apply to women who cover their face or uncover their breasts.

You want to punish Muslim women for adhering to a custom they have no power to change. By forbidding women to wear traditional garb on the street, you're confining them to the very homes where they are oppressed - but it's okay, because it's happen behind closed doors, not - as you so tactfully put it, in your face. And you go away all smug and pleased: problem solved.
If you want to change the custom, change the circumstances. But that takes time and thought and education and integration. It can't be done with the stroke of an self-righteous pen.

Why do you have two identical threads?

Skip wrote:

Greatest I am wrote: Muslim women are beaten if they do not do as bid by Muslim men.

Exactly. So, you're going to punish women in Canada for what men do in Saudi Arabia. How does that make justice - or sense?

"First they came for the Jews, but I did nothing because I'm not a Jew. Then they came for the socialists, but I did nothing because I'm not a socialist. Then they came for the Catholics, but I did nothing because I'm not a Catholic. Finally, they came for me, but by then there was no one left to help me." – Pastor Father Niemoller (1946)”

Did you mean

First they came for the Communists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Communist
Then they came for the Socialists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Socialist
Then they came for the trade unionists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a trade unionist
Then they came for the Jews
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Jew
Then they came for me
And there was no one left
To speak out for me -

?

What's this got to do with it? Who is coming for the Jews? Nobody's telling Hassidim that they're not allowed to wear a hat or tallit. Nor did they [the nazis of 1939 Germany] ever come for the Catholics [they received major financing from the Vatican and Joe Kennedy], nor is anybody proposing to make rules about what Catholics wear, or Russian or Greek Orthodox or Mormons or Sikhs or Wall Street brokers. Basically, clothing laws only apply to women who cover their face or uncover their breasts.

You want to punish Muslim women for adhering to a custom they have no power to change. By forbidding women to wear traditional garb on the street, you're confining them to the very homes where they are oppressed - but it's okay, because it's happen behind closed doors, not - as you so tactfully put it, in your face. And you go away all smug and pleased: problem solved.
If you want to change the custom, change the circumstances. But that takes time and thought and education and integration. It can't be done with the stroke of an self-righteous pen.

Wow, you really are an insincere, nauseating, smug, patronising, do-gooding, bleeding-heart wet sop aren't you?

Greatest I am wrote:
Should countries outlaw the hijab niqab and burka

No because everyone should be free to dress as they choose since it is not impacting on anyone elses freedom. So it
is ironic that a nation who apparently believes in freedom and equality should then ban them. Also the Saudi Arabia
argument is right up there with the most ridiculous ever. For what happens else where has got absolutely nothing to
do with whether they should be banned over here. Now I see them all the time and I have not my freedom curtailed

.