Banning Muslim headscarves

[Ban my account ffs!]

No, it shouldn't be banned.

However, forcing somebody to wear one should be illegal.  If someone wants to wear a headscarf, it should be of their own accord.

But how would you know if a woman was being forced to wear it by her husband or father?

You probably wouldn't know.  But if it came to light that she was being forced against her will, then the husband should be fined.

Freedom of religion is an individual right, not a right to control others.  There isn't a non-intrusive way to ensure that it doesn't happen, but we can deter it.

[Gustaf]

No, it shouldn't be banned.

However, forcing somebody to wear one should be illegal.  If someone wants to wear a headscarf, it should be of their own accord.

But how would you know if a woman was being forced to wear it by her husband or father?

You probably wouldn't know.  But if it came to light that she was being forced against her will, then the husband should be fined.

Freedom of religion is an individual right, not a right to control others.  There isn't a non-intrusive way to ensure that it doesn't happen, but we can deter it.

How can we know anything? If you see a girl in a short skirt how do you know her boyfriend doesn't make her wear it? Or if she has a long skirt how do you know her dad isn't making her wear that? Those are prices we pay for a free society.

[Ban my account ffs!]

No, it shouldn't be banned.

However, forcing somebody to wear one should be illegal.  If someone wants to wear a headscarf, it should be of their own accord.

But how would you know if a woman was being forced to wear it by her husband or father?

You probably wouldn't know.  But if it came to light that she was being forced against her will, then the husband should be fined.

Freedom of religion is an individual right, not a right to control others.  There isn't a non-intrusive way to ensure that it doesn't happen, but we can deter it.

How can we know anything? If you see a girl in a short skirt how do you know her boyfriend doesn't make her wear it? Or if she has a long skirt how do you know her dad isn't making her wear that? Those are prices we pay for a free society.

Your argument is completely contradictory.  You claim that by allowing headscarves, it creates a more free society, and yet you would allow the suppression of a woman's religious freedom at the hand of her father or husband as a "price to pay" for a free society?

How about we empower the woman by ensuring, as best we can, that the choice to wear a headscarf is ultimately her choice and her choice alone?

How can a society be free if you can't even count on the government to protect your freedom or to back you up when you are threatened by people who claim authority over you under the guise of religious tradition?

[Gustaf]

No, it shouldn't be banned.

However, forcing somebody to wear one should be illegal.  If someone wants to wear a headscarf, it should be of their own accord.

But how would you know if a woman was being forced to wear it by her husband or father?

You probably wouldn't know.  But if it came to light that she was being forced against her will, then the husband should be fined.

Freedom of religion is an individual right, not a right to control others.  There isn't a non-intrusive way to ensure that it doesn't happen, but we can deter it.

How can we know anything? If you see a girl in a short skirt how do you know her boyfriend doesn't make her wear it? Or if she has a long skirt how do you know her dad isn't making her wear that? Those are prices we pay for a free society.

Your argument is completely contradictory.  You claim that by allowing headscarves, it creates a more free society, and yet you would allow the suppression of a woman's religious freedom at the hand of her father or husband as a "price to pay" for a free society?

How about we empower the woman by ensuring, as best we can, that the choice to wear a headscarf is ultimately her choice and her choice alone?

How can a society be free if you can't even count on the government to protect your freedom or to back you up when you are threatened by people who claim authority over you under the guise of religious tradition?

Where did I say that I "would allow the suppression of a woman's religious freedom at the hand of her father or husband as a "price to pay" for a free society"?

However, I was pointing out, more in response to Sbane than to you, that we wouldn't be able to enforce this very effectively by legal means. People are commonly abused in families in various ways. This is hard for society to prevent. Thus, its existence is a price we pay for a free society. I mean this in a very general way. Think of all relationships where one partner abuses the other. Or parents who mistreat their kids or the other way around. This is unacceptable in one sense, of course, but it is hard to combat effectively without allowing far-reaching state intrusion in peoples' private lives.

[Hash]

France

The government banned headscarves in public schools in 2004. Most people have come around to either accept it or strongly support it.

Euh, there is still in France some strong support and some strong defense of the way we practice the secularity. That's why each headscarve case has been sensitive here.

Can Sikhs wear turbans in France?

In public schools, probably not.

[Keystone Phil]

Horrific idea

I don't like the "full" headscarves (the type with just a strip for the woman's eyes) but if they want to wear them, go ahead.

[Ban my account ffs!]

No, it shouldn't be banned.

However, forcing somebody to wear one should be illegal.  If someone wants to wear a headscarf, it should be of their own accord.

But how would you know if a woman was being forced to wear it by her husband or father?

You probably wouldn't know.  But if it came to light that she was being forced against her will, then the husband should be fined.

Freedom of religion is an individual right, not a right to control others.  There isn't a non-intrusive way to ensure that it doesn't happen, but we can deter it.

How can we know anything? If you see a girl in a short skirt how do you know her boyfriend doesn't make her wear it? Or if she has a long skirt how do you know her dad isn't making her wear that? Those are prices we pay for a free society.

Your argument is completely contradictory.  You claim that by allowing headscarves, it creates a more free society, and yet you would allow the suppression of a woman's religious freedom at the hand of her father or husband as a "price to pay" for a free society?

How about we empower the woman by ensuring, as best we can, that the choice to wear a headscarf is ultimately her choice and her choice alone?

How can a society be free if you can't even count on the government to protect your freedom or to back you up when you are threatened by people who claim authority over you under the guise of religious tradition?

Where did I say that I "would allow the suppression of a woman's religious freedom at the hand of her father or husband as a "price to pay" for a free society"?

However, I was pointing out, more in response to Sbane than to you, that we wouldn't be able to enforce this very effectively by legal means. People are commonly abused in families in various ways. This is hard for society to prevent. Thus, its existence is a price we pay for a free society. I mean this in a very general way. Think of all relationships where one partner abuses the other. Or parents who mistreat their kids or the other way around. This is unacceptable in one sense, of course, but it is hard to combat effectively without allowing far-reaching state intrusion in peoples' private lives.

Sorry, I incorrectly assumed that you were arguing against having such a law simply because it was largely unenforceable. 

I agree that part of the price we pay for living in a relatively nonintrusive, free society, is that we are less able to combat instances of abuse.  My argument is simply that we, as a society, should do our best to guarantee the religious freedom of everybody, including Muslim women that choose not to wear headscarves.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

The Afghan Communist government had the right idea about stamping out those symbols of women's repression and slavery. Headscarves are an abomination of total evil.

[A18]

In order to protect women's rights, you want to fine (imprison? execute?) them for wearing headscarves?

[Frodo]

From a legal standpoint, I strongly oppose banning Muslim women from wearing headscarves, though I personally disapprove of them wearing it. 

[opebo]

I'm not surprised that Opebo and his side-kick take the fascist, freedom-hating position here and want to impose their own moral standards on other people.
...That's religious persecution unworthy of a free, democratic state.

No, it has nothing to do with religious or moral standards, just trying to protect one citizen (the female 'muslim') from victimization by another (the male 'muslim').  The religious nonsense is just some silly mumbo-jumbo the criminal uses to justify his beating of the owned woman/children/minority/etc.

I suppose that we try at all to protect one citizen from another is a kind of 'moral standard', but its a rather basic and generalized one. 

[Sbane]

No, it shouldn't be banned.

However, forcing somebody to wear one should be illegal.  If someone wants to wear a headscarf, it should be of their own accord.

But how would you know if a woman was being forced to wear it by her husband or father?

You probably wouldn't know.  But if it came to light that she was being forced against her will, then the husband should be fined.

Freedom of religion is an individual right, not a right to control others.  There isn't a non-intrusive way to ensure that it doesn't happen, but we can deter it.

How can we know anything? If you see a girl in a short skirt how do you know her boyfriend doesn't make her wear it? Or if she has a long skirt how do you know her dad isn't making her wear that? Those are prices we pay for a free society.

Your argument is completely contradictory.  You claim that by allowing headscarves, it creates a more free society, and yet you would allow the suppression of a woman's religious freedom at the hand of her father or husband as a "price to pay" for a free society?

How about we empower the woman by ensuring, as best we can, that the choice to wear a headscarf is ultimately her choice and her choice alone?

How can a society be free if you can't even count on the government to protect your freedom or to back you up when you are threatened by people who claim authority over you under the guise of religious tradition?

Where did I say that I "would allow the suppression of a woman's religious freedom at the hand of her father or husband as a "price to pay" for a free society"?

However, I was pointing out, more in response to Sbane than to you, that we wouldn't be able to enforce this very effectively by legal means. People are commonly abused in families in various ways. This is hard for society to prevent. Thus, its existence is a price we pay for a free society. I mean this in a very general way. Think of all relationships where one partner abuses the other. Or parents who mistreat their kids or the other way around. This is unacceptable in one sense, of course, but it is hard to combat effectively without allowing far-reaching state intrusion in peoples' private lives.

Mostly agree with you here. But I do think the incidences of a muslim man forcing his wife and daughters to wear a hijab or niqab are much higher than incidences of domestic violence/child abuse, even in the west. I don't think the solution is to ban the hijab but rather make it easier for women to lodge complaints and make it easier for authorities to deal with it. There are certainly millions of women out there who wear this voluntarily( and its not like there is much wrong with the hijab anyways) and we shouldn't take away their right to wear what they want.

[Gustaf]

I'm not surprised that Opebo and his side-kick take the fascist, freedom-hating position here and want to impose their own moral standards on other people.
...That's religious persecution unworthy of a free, democratic state.

No, it has nothing to do with religious or moral standards, just trying to protect one citizen (the female 'muslim') from victimization by another (the male 'muslim').  The religious nonsense is just some silly mumbo-jumbo the criminal uses to justify his beating of the owned woman/children/minority/etc.

I suppose that we try at all to protect one citizen from another is a kind of 'moral standard', but its a rather basic and generalized one. 

Oh, maybe you didn't quite understand the issue at hand.

This:



Does not equal this:



See, the first is a form of dress used by women in certain cultural traditions. The other is a form of physical abuse common all over the world.

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

France

The government banned headscarves in public schools in 2004. Most people have come around to either accept it or strongly support it.

Euh, there is still in France some strong support and some strong defense of the way we practice the secularity. That's why each headscarve case has been sensitive here.

Can Sikhs wear turbans in France?

In public schools, probably not.

I'd rather say, surely not.

In France the law says that all clear very visible signs that show you practice such or such religion is banned of all public services, so schools, hospitals, administrations, etc. So, a woman with even just a veil can't work there for example, and it's forbidden for a pupil to wear or turban or an hijab, or else visible thing at school, in that way you can wear a Christian cross or a hand of Fathma for Muslims or other things as long as they remain discrete.

Outside of this, it's fully free to wear what the hell you want in streets.

[opebo]

I'm not surprised that Opebo and his side-kick take the fascist, freedom-hating position here and want to impose their own moral standards on other people.
...That's religious persecution unworthy of a free, democratic state.

No, it has nothing to do with religious or moral standards, just trying to protect one citizen (the female 'muslim') from victimization by another (the male 'muslim').  The religious nonsense is just some silly mumbo-jumbo the criminal uses to justify his beating of the owned woman/children/minority/etc.

I suppose that we try at all to protect one citizen from another is a kind of 'moral standard', but its a rather basic and generalized one. 

Oh, maybe you didn't quite understand the issue at hand.

This:



Does not equal this:



See, the first is a form of dress used by women in certain cultural traditions. The other is a form of physical abuse common all over the world.

Apparently you don't understand a) why the women wear the headscarf, and b) what would happen to them if they didn't wear it.

They wear it because if they didn't, they would be beaten and raped by their oppressors.

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

They wear it because if they didn't, they would be beaten and raped by their oppressors.

I knew a one, and I guess she's not alone, who could have beaten you if you tried to prevent her from wearing her hijab.

[Gustaf]

I'm not surprised that Opebo and his side-kick take the fascist, freedom-hating position here and want to impose their own moral standards on other people.
...That's religious persecution unworthy of a free, democratic state.

No, it has nothing to do with religious or moral standards, just trying to protect one citizen (the female 'muslim') from victimization by another (the male 'muslim').  The religious nonsense is just some silly mumbo-jumbo the criminal uses to justify his beating of the owned woman/children/minority/etc.

I suppose that we try at all to protect one citizen from another is a kind of 'moral standard', but its a rather basic and generalized one. 

Oh, maybe you didn't quite understand the issue at hand.

This:



Does not equal this:



See, the first is a form of dress used by women in certain cultural traditions. The other is a form of physical abuse common all over the world.

Apparently you don't understand a) why the women wear the headscarf, and b) what would happen to them if they didn't wear it.

They wear it because if they didn't, they would be beaten and raped by their oppressors.

Ok, now prove that your assumption concerning about half a billion people all over the world based on your own prejudices is true and not just something you make up to comfort your own intolerance. Any studies?

Besides, I thought you were in favour of abusing women in 3rd world countries. After all, it is what you do isn't it?

[Torie]

Bad idea. I believe in many kinds of individual freedom, and sartorial freedom is one of them.

[opebo]

They wear it because if they didn't, they would be beaten and raped by their oppressors.

I knew a one, and I guess she's not alone, who could have beaten you if you tried to prevent her from wearing her hijab.

Well sure.  Nearly everyone is a participant in their own oppression.

Besides, I thought you were in favour of abusing women in 3rd world countries. After all, it is what you do isn't it?

Perhaps, but rather ordinary sex acts pale by comparison as 'abuse' compared to religion.

[DownWithTheLeft]

I personally think that places such as schools that ban hats should also ban headscarves.  I think that employers should be able to tell people they can't wear it.  Think about it, shouldn't a school be able to tell a teacher to stop wearing one if they are teaching little kids, them being scared of it isn't irrational at all.

However, I certainly oppose banning them in private instances

[Gustaf]

They wear it because if they didn't, they would be beaten and raped by their oppressors.

I knew a one, and I guess she's not alone, who could have beaten you if you tried to prevent her from wearing her hijab.

Well sure.  Nearly everyone is a participant in their own oppression.

Besides, I thought you were in favour of abusing women in 3rd world countries. After all, it is what you do isn't it?

Perhaps, but rather ordinary sex acts pale by comparison as 'abuse' compared to religion.

I didn't know you thought that one can define others as oppressed because they have different preferences. I can't say I'm surprised to see you embrace this fascist definition of freedom (freedom from "wrong" desires) though.

And how is sexual violation "pale" in comparison to having to wear a head-scarf? Or do you still not get that it is a piece of clothing? 

[Associate Justice PiT]

     That's a terrible idea.

[neun99]

no muslims inmy courts

[Antonio the Sixth]

In public buildings, that's legitimate. In the street, it makes no sense.

[The Mikado]

Why was this bumped?  Anyway, Joan Scott's fantastic Politics of the Veil speaks for me on this issue.  Excellent read, short, and more coherent than her usual.  (Of course, the only other full-length book of hers I've read is Gender and the Politics of History, so...)