Thoughts on the Burka (Reply to XOmniverse)

[THC1989]

(continued) Simply outlawing a public symptom of this subjugation doesn't really change anything. If a dominant husband will only allow his submissive wife to be seen in public, if she wears a certain piece of clothing, then outlawing that piece of cloth in the public space will most likely not change his mind, but instead limit her from entering the public space.

[THC1989]

Correct me if I'm wrong. Your argument seems to be that we need to impose a dress code, so that other people won't be allowed to impose a dress code. That is to say that: We as a society need to tell women what they are not allowed to wear, so that their husbands can't tell them what to wear. Doesn't it seem contradictory? If you wish to address that someone is being subjugated against his or her will, then that is what needs addressing.

[pascalyuiop]

Your argument is pretty good, at it least it seems that way to me. Ignoring the common mislabelling of female Islamic dress (the burka is not the one with the eye slit, if memory serves), it seems pretty harmless for those who choose to wear it, and unlike the ski mask, there's no real danger. What's really needed is a culture and society where those who are forced feel comfortable speaking out and seeking help. Under those conditions, making it illegal to force women to wear it would be viable.

[zippythewildone]

Nudists aren't allowed to be nude in public so they form camps. So, what do you think is going to happen with burkas? If Muslims start forming Muslim camps where their women cannot leave the camp because they have to wear burkas this will make life even harder for the women that are being forced into wearing burkas because they will be forced to be immersed in ideals that they may be starting to question. If they ever try to leave who is going to help them?

[thargor2k]

I'm not completely convinced by your argument. I see it as making the case for women not wearing the burka out of salidarity. But I don't see it providing a reason to outlaw the burka. We have many things that provide cover in that sense, even marriage can provide a framework for abuse, e.g. forced marriage, but we still don't outlaw marriage.

[MrNevertime]

The bank argument seems pretty irrelevant when outside a bank and when in a bank I very much doubt 1 in a 100 burka wears would rob it. The problem women who are being forced to wear burkas have is the misogynistic, repressive environment they're trapped in, the burka is not their real problem. Its not enough to justify restricting or blaming consensual burka wears over. France of banned the vail which of course the burka is an extreme and rare version of. I would not ban the burka.

[thargor2k]

@MrNevertime Though the burka is not the real problem, IMHO every step away from this oppressive culture is a win and helps to bring forth further change.

[amlorusso]

I'd like to thank you for your video, it offers a perspective I've never heard before. The argument is for a convenient tool to identify coercion by using coercion, presumably to help coerced women. This idea and it's opposite if implemented in all legal jurisdictions will result in a world where either women are forced to wear burkas or are forced not to wear burkas. Where do you think the male burka coercers (with their women) will move to? The cultures that are even more oppressive to women.

[amlorusso]

@amlorusso This would make it even harder for women who are coerced to wear the burka to free themselves. Personally I think this argument should be made to all women who choose to wear the burka, using persuasion not force. Once coercion is used against someone who isn't using coercion, the reason it''s being done doesn't negate the immorality of coercing the un-coerced burka wearer. I can imagine a "it's good for society" argument being used by men coercing women to wear burkas.

[amlorusso]

@amlorusso And while the burka wearing coercer's motives could be said to be unfounded it does not alter that both camps want to use force against someone who isn't using force against anybody else. Immoral actions against individuals do not become moral when multiplied by any number. It just replaces one kind of immorality with another, it doesn't take it away. 

[SisyphusRedeemed]

@amlorusso "Where do you think the male burka coercers (with their women) will move to?"

Believe it or not, as much as those men may wish to force their women to wear burkas there are other factors that will influence their decision about where they are going to live. Most people--even misogynistic Muslims--aren't 'single issue movers.'

[amlorusso]

@SisyphusRedeemed Yeah you're right it isn't that simple, some would lock their women up, but that also means there is hope to change minds without using unprovoked force against someone, resulting in resentment not changed minds.

"Although I won't, if I banned the burka would you let the women go outside without one? If you would, what does that mean for your belief?"

Sure, they would probably rationalize their choice, but they'd have to look that choice straight in the eye, at least once.

[RPFS2008]

Couldn't we just allow banks and airports etc. the right not to serve people in masks/Burkas?

[PinkEyeTowlie]

Just wondering if your opinion has changed or become more "set in stone " given the situation in France ?

[SPQRomantic]

Circumcision is much worse than the burkha, I can't see why religious-sexual enforcement of clothing is a deal at all when we have ritual religious-sexual surgery being done on children.

[Pushtrak]

I don't want to go through all the comments to see if this has been mentioned, about to go to sleep. Anyway, I'm pretty ambiguous on the decision myself, I see merits to both side.

The biggest negative that I can see is exactly how much good is being done for the women who want to take off the burka? Well, in particular, I'd think it possible that in many cases the women would be told by their husbands they couldn't leave their houses, and also that it might make a lot leave a country.

[Pushtrak]

@Pushtrak I haven't looked into what is going on with France, and maybe more time will need to pass to see its effects.

[alexkidd3d]

nice, the most solid argument i've heard for the case but i'm unconvinced. I'm of the opinion that people should be allowed wear whatever the hell they want. until it interferes with the safety of others, ie. bank. The idea that burkas do this through camouflaging real oppression is interesting and i see validity in it. however, I think the only thing a country can do is provide an environment where people who do not wish to wear it are supported and protected as much as possible.

[bdf2718]

Your normalization argument may have some merits. Your bank robber/ski mask argument does not. I can drink. I can drive (if I have a licence). Drinking and driving is illegal.

Yeah, bank robbers could use women in burqas to rob banks. The solution is to make it illegal to wear a burqa in a bank. These women are the property of men so the men could go to the bank (and probably insist that the women not go).

I don't like that solution, but I dislike the idea of illegal clothing even more.

[randomsonnet]

As it happens, I do agree that nudists should be allowed personal expression in their manner of dress or undress as the case may be.

Wearing an item that obscures your identity is another issue, agreed. However treating everyone as a criminal because of the actions of a few seems unjust.

As for oppression it seems hypocritical to oppress one group (legitimate wearers) to prevent another being oppressed.

Maybe ban it, but it's an issue we should approach with care.

I just don't know.

[SisyphusRedeemed]

I agree it should be approached with care. I don't know, either. I'm far from sold on the position I advocate here, I just think it's an argument that needed to be made.

[soultorment27]

the core issue here is coercion. prohibition would not solve the problem of coercion. women who would no longer wear burqas in public are not somehow automatically 'saved' from coercion or violence. & it's fallacious to assume the coerced women would even continue to wear burqas in public after such prohibition. this is a huge infringement upon rights...would this really solve anything? perhaps the men would instead imprison the women in their homes, keeping them from leaving...

[soultorment27]

my point is, while prohibition may indeed eliminate one very specific instance or consequence of coercion, it does not somehow solve the underlining oppression of the women...

these women will be oppressed regardless of some burqa prohibition...

so therefore, the result of such prohibition would only be a detrimental infringement on the rights of the already cultural oppressed women.

[denniskgrant]

@SisyphusRedeemed There is no single universally accepted answer to this question.

Assuming the government can't act without affecting some people negatively then the question can be rephrased as "Is it more valuable to ban the Burka or not?"

The answer to that question will vary depending on how much you value freedom vs women getting abused and possibly some security issues.

I personally value freedom a lot and would only feel comfortable with less in relatively extreme situations.

[billhicks8]

The problem I have with Pat Condell is that he loves telling such people they are oppressed. He wants women who find solace in what appears to us/him to be an oppressive dress and idea to be forced against it via the law. But what makes democracy great is that we are the example of personal freedom for all, not an enforced expression of a westernised utopian vision of what freedom is (even if it seems ethically superior). THAT is wrong.

Wow, I'm quite proud of my condensed efforts here!

[billhicks8]

Haven't the women who desire to wear a burka through their own personal choice therefore lost out to a minority that accept a forced oppression upon their dress code that THEY should resist?

Wouldn't the government be better suited to providing support for such victims, rather than intruding on personal freedoms in order to expose and free oppressed women? It seems to me that such action is contradictory and hypocritical.

[billhicks8]

These arguments could be flawed but for the sake of knowledge I'd like a response to them anyway.

To say that the many women who wear the burka are providing a cover for those who are forced seems a poor argument.

Why should the majority lose out to what the minority struggle with in their personal life?

Shouldn't the moral lesson be best learned by the oppressed individual by taking their own steps toward emancipation?

[SisyphusRedeemed]

First off, thanks for the feedback, love your name sake.

As to why the majority should loose out to help the minority: because the majority are the ones hurting the minority. Women who choose to wear a burqua are harming those who are forced to wear a burqua. Constraining someone's liberty is justified when they harm others.

[billhicks8]

Fair enough but this generalised response does not completely answer the questions raised.

I see such an outlook as being akin to banning cigarettes because of the dangers of second-hand smoke. If you don't like smoke, you deserve to have the right not to inhale such toxins. But you should not allow government the right to outlaw the idea of smoking entirely in the interests of 'constraining liberty'. Especially when a more agreeable government presence could support rather than encroach.

[billhicks8]

I think the boon of personal responsibility is an idea overlooked by many who seek government solutions to personal problems. The moral value of self-determination is marginalised when we can offer our problems absolutely to fix by 'the system' as opposed to simply accepting a helping hand and having to recognise the face and nature of our oppressors ourselves. This might sound pretentious, but we want win all these womens hearts and minds not steal them nor force them to understand...

[billhicks8]

the freedoms they are missing. This hopefully, will encourage rational thought and skepticism not just endangering the concept of the burka, but bring into question the larger concept of where most of these dangerous and foolish ideas are coming from. Government enforcement will simply alienate friends we need to appeal to. Sorry to ramble, but this topic is extremely important to me...

[STARWARRRIOR]

@SisyphusRedeemed "Women who choose to wear a burqua are harming those who are forced to wear a burqua. "

It's probably something I'm missing, but exactly how are those other women who choose to wear the burqa autonomously harming the ones who don't?

[STARWARRRIOR]

(cont)they aren't harming them physically or emotionally or directly or indirectly at all. The ones who are harming those women are obviously the actual oppressors/ patriarchal force who forced them.

[SisyphusRedeemed]

@STARWARRRIOR They make it impossible for others to tell the difference between a woman who chooses for herself to wear a burqua and a woman who is being forced to. If the only women who wore a burqua were the ones being forced to, we would easily spot them and know they need help. But because some women choose it, whenever we see a woman in a burqua we don't know if they're being forced to or not, so we don't intervene.

[SisyphusRedeemed]

I thank you, too, for challenging my opinion. I'm not completely sure what to make of this, and I appreciate hearing contradictory opinions.

[SisyphusRedeemed]

You're talking about hypotheticals that are about as far divorced from reality as can be. Meanwhile, there is a very real, non-abstract problem involving the subjection of millions of women.  If a religious community required all black people to cover their faces, would you defend that, too?

I don't know what the public would or would not accept; I'm talking about moral justification, not popular opinion.

[Zdrazy]

How about the fact that, in many parts of the world, women are subjected to legal pressure if they don't abide by the set standard of 'modesty?' You know, places like Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, etc.

I also recall a relatively recent incident in America in which a daughter was killed by her father for refusing to wear the hijab.

It's odd that you say that you're not forced to wear it and yet concede that it is a religious mandate for Muslim women. Seems like you wouldn't have a choice.

[SisyphusRedeemed]

I would never assume that a given woman was being forced to wear it. But I do judge the women who choose to wear it, because their free choice is helping to take the free choices of others away. They are complicit in the oppression of other women.

As for who complained, look into it. Start with Ayaan Hirsi Ali. She complies many stories of women who have escaped oppressive families that forced them to wear burqas and engaged in other forms of subjugation.

[SisyphusRedeemed]

As for proof, I don't know of any statistical studies (given the coercive nature of the subject, it's hard to get that kind of proof) but there is a wealth of anecdotal cases testifying to this. (The work of Ayaan Hirsi Ali, for example.)

Your point about men makes sense, but I think you're wrong in suggesting that this something that they are choosing for their own reasons. This is (in many cases) a classic case of false consciousness, akin to battered wives defending their husbands.

[teaboyaudio]

Would my wearing a baseball cap be providing cover to those who are forcing other people to wear baseball caps? Is my wearing a baseball cap hurting those who are being forced to wear baseball caps? What if a religion came along and started to force people against their will to wear a baseball cap. Should we then ban baseball caps?

[SisyphusRedeemed]

To my knowledge no one on the planet has ever been forced to wear a baseball cap. Even baseball players can quit, if they don't want to. This is not the case for many women who wear burqas; their lives are literally threatened if they try to leave. But hypothetically, if there was a huge number of people out there being forced to wear caps and you could demonstrate this, yeah, I think that would be a prima facie justification for prohibiting it.

[SisyphusRedeemed]

Indeed, I imagine that many such women (and many men) would see it as an attack on Islam, and I don't mean to be caviler either about the harm that does to them, or the harm to inter (and intra) cultural relations. At the same time, I think that harm is outweighed by harm done to women who don't want to wear a burka, and will internalize that oppression. I think many women who do see it as an attack on Islam wouldn't, if they hadn't been forced to wear one from an early age.

[SisyphusRedeemed]

This is a very good point. While I don't share religious people's motives, I must say I do respect them (in general, at least). But at the same time religious freedom is not a license to do whatever one wants. If a substantial harm is occurring in part because of a religious exercise, that is a good prima facie trump on that exercise. Moreover, while there is a religious connection to the burka, it's really more of a cultural affection, rather than religious per se.

[Zdrazy]

Ironically, a similar line of reasoning is used by some Muslims to justify the forcing of women to wear abayas, burkas, etc.

Basically, since some men will rape women because they haven't covered themselves up (so goes the argument), it therefore follows that all women must have their freedom restricted because of what some men will do in a minority of cases.

[SisyphusRedeemed]

This seems like a much better argument for restriction MEN'S freedom. Why punish women because men can't control themselves, when you could punish men?

But of course, more to the point, the evidence doesn't back up their argument. There is no correlation between rape and women being covered up. Women are raped just as much (perhaps even more, if you count spousal rape, and I see no reason not to) in abayas using cultures.

[Zdrazy]

One out of a thousand people who drink will get drunk and assault someone. One out of a thousand people who own knives will use a knife to assault someone. So should these things be banned because some people will misuse them?

Besides, many people wear burkas, and burka-clad women are not so evident a security threat as someone who wears a ski mask into a bank.

And yes, the government regulates dress code vis-a-vis indecent exposure. Still, that fact does not justify such regulation.

[DevilWomanCake]

Sorry if my comments seem a little mixed up, computer's acting funny.

[DevilWomanCake]

(continuation from last post) I think a better way to go about the issue is to find ways that would empower these women telling them that it is okay not to wear a burka and if they get raped it's the rapist's fault, not theirs. I don't think it is neccessarily fair to blame other burka wearing women for the abuse of women who don't wear it. It is the abuser's choice to abuse.

[DevilWomanCake]

I'm going to have to still agree with XOmniverse on this one. I think the argument you made is a slippery slope.

For example, you could say the same thing about gender specific clothing. Society generally says that men must wear 'men's clothing' and women must wear 'women's clothing'. People who don't wear the 'right' clothes can be subject to certain kinds of abuse, So I would say it's forced to certain extent. Does that mean gender-specific clothes should be banned?

[SisyphusRedeemed]

I'm certainly sensitive to the slippery slope, but I don't think your example works. While some people are abused for crossdressing (such as men being beaten up for wearing dresses), neither women who wear dresses, nor men who wear men's clothes are 'providing cover' for the abusers.

When you see a woman in a burqua, is there not a part of your mind that wonders 'is she being forced, via threat of violence, to wear that?' Does the same happen when you see a woman in a dress, or a man in a suit?

[SisyphusRedeemed]

That wasn't quite how I was thinking about it, but I suppose it's a reasonable way to frame it.

[Disthron]

I can see what your saying but I still think it would be better to shame the suporters of the berka and try and get the victums away from the abusers though civil means. At least at first, I'd rather not make a law about such things with out exousting all the other options. Oh, and they should be subject to the law of the land, none of this spesial sharia law BS.

[DIRTYDUNNZ]

I agree that no one should be allowed to disguise their identity in high-security places like banks, gov buildings, airports, etc. However, it's a false equivocation to suggest that all public areas require the same level of inspection.

[SisyphusRedeemed]

Didn't mean to say they were equivalent, just similar. If 90% of the people who engage in behavior X do so harmlessly, but their doing so makes it very hard to discern the 10% who engage in behavior X harmfully then a case can be made for outlawing behavior X, even though that means overriding the rights of the 90%.

[DIRTYDUNNZ]

What behavior are we trying to deter/avoid in a park, bookstore, or coffee shop? And, what evidence do we have to show that burka wearers are more likely to commit crime in such places?

[SisyphusRedeemed]

The behavior in question isn't the women who are wearing the burka, it's those who are forcing them to wear it. THAT is the crime, and it's a crime wherever it happens: park, bookstore or what have you. And it's nearly impossible to detect that crime when other women are walking around wearing a burka of their own volition. If the only women wearing a burka were those who were forced to, it would be very easy to see the victims.

[DIRTYDUNNZ]

For the sake of argument, if muslim women are being forced to wear burkas, isn't the bigger problem coercion? If so, then we already have laws on the books to address that issue. Rather than pursue the criminal, criminalize a garment? Also, many muslim women (or women in general) find a problem with a mostly male government telling women what they can't wear (i.e. burka), supposedly in the name of "women rights", especially when most muslim women state openly that it is their choice.

[SisyphusRedeemed]

There are laws against bank robbery, too, why do we need an extra law against wearing a ski mask in a bank? Because doing the later makes it harder to detect who is doing the former. That was the whole point of that analogy; the laws against coercing women to wear burkas are unenforceable because it's impossible to tell who is willing and who is forced. Hence, the women who choose to wear one are COMPLICIT in the oppression of those who don't. I'm suggesting we outlaw that complicity.

[DIRTYDUNNZ]

False analogy flag on the field. The perceived threat would be from the person wearing the ski mask, whereas, by your own admission, no direct threat is posed by the woman wearing Islamic garb. Also, the ban of the ski mask is isolated, unlike the full and complete ban of the burka that you propose. Furthermore, correlation doesn't equal causation. What facts/stats do you have that DIRECTLY links free-choice wear of Islamic garb to oppression of women throughout the Islamic community?

[SisyphusRedeemed]

I'll grant you that the threat is not direct, but it is nonetheless real.

Consider another analogy, which may be more apt. Joe makes simulated child pornography. He never uses any actual children, but through computer manipulation, he makes it LOOK like actual children. He's so good at it that no one can tell the difference. He's not directly harming anyone. Should he be allowed to make it? I say no, because he makes it harder for police to find the REAL child pornographers.

[DIRTYDUNNZ]

We should take the same approach that we do today. Many ppul photoshop images, but unless it involves actual children, it's not considered child porn. I would argue that computer manipulation doesn't make it harder to find REAL child pornographers, silence does.

[SisyphusRedeemed]

Okay, but what if it DID make it harder to find real child pornographers? What if 90% of all child porn was faked, only 10% was real and there was no way to tell the difference? Would protecting those the kids in that 10% give us a good reason to outlaw the other 90%?

[DIRTYDUNNZ]

Are you saying that 90% of Muslim women are being forced to wear Islamic garb? If not, then the analogy fails.

[SisyphusRedeemed]

No, I was saying that 90% of women who wear burqas are NOT forced to wear them; in 90% of cases there is no direct harm, but in the other 10% there are. Are you being deliberately obtuse?

[DIRTYDUNNZ]

The problem is that you have another false analogy. Unlike the undetectable faked child porn, there are ways to find out if a woman is forced to wear a burka, like simply asking her, friends, or family. Also, you have yet to establish how criminalization of one garment stops the forced dress code with regard to other garments.

[SisyphusRedeemed]

As to your point I'm NOT saying that woman A's choice to wear a burqa causes woman B to be oppressed; what I'm claiming is woman A's choice to wear a burqa makes it harder TO SEE that woman B is being oppressed.

[DIRTYDUNNZ]

Today, Crip gangs intimidate many ppul to wear blue clothing at schools, parks, etc. Therefore, we should criminalize blue clothes, statewide. The ppul who choose to wear the color blue are COMPLICIT in the oppression of those who don't. With that said, if a 72 year old Jewish lady wears a blue sweater she should be fined or arrested; after all, we can't tell if she was forced. Forget community-based crime intervention, a statewide color-ban is the solution. Are you on-board?

[SisyphusRedeemed]

Now who's using false analogies? I KNOW the Jewish lady isn't a crip. Cops can distinguish gang members from 72 year old Jewish ladies. They CAN'T distinguish between a woman who is forced to wear the burqa and one who chooses to wear it.

[DIRTYDUNNZ]

I didn't say she's a Crip, I said that she may have been forced to wear the color blue by Crips. Therefore, using your logic, she should be fined or arrested for complicity.

[SisyphusRedeemed]

What? The crips don't force people to wear blue. In fact, if you wear gang colors in gang territory and you're not part of that gang they may kill you for posing.

But even if they DID force people to wear blue the Jewish lady isn't complicit, SHE'S THE VICTIM. She's the one that is hard to find because other people choose to wear blue.

[DIRTYDUNNZ]

Many ppul wear gang colors, hang around gangs, but themselves are not gang members. If the Jewish lady wasn't forced to wear blue while others are being forced, she is complicit, according to your logic.

[SisyphusRedeemed]

NO ONE IS BEING FORCED TO WEAR BLUE! The analogy fails on it's face.

[DIRTYDUNNZ]

In the analogy, some ppul are being forced to wear a gang color, but it's next to impossible to detect . Therefore, according to your logic, that color should be banned statewide since we can't detect who's being forced from those wearing it of free-choice. I don't see how you don't get the analogy when I'm essentially using your own words and simply replaced burka with the color blue.

[DIRTYDUNNZ]

"Hence, the women who choose to wear one are COMPLICIT in the oppression of those who don't. I'm suggesting we outlaw that complicity." -SisyphusRedeemed

Now, peep the similarity...

Hence, those who choose to wear blue are COMPLICIT in the oppression of those who don't. I'm suggesting we outlaw that complicity.

[SisyphusRedeemed]

NO ONE IS BEING FORCED TO WEAR BLUE! The analogy fails on it's face.

[Crunchybear1]

There is a fundamental difference between a ski-mask in a bank and a Burqa, A bank is a bank, but if a Muslima want's to walk down the street in a Burqa it is none of your concern. Regarding "oppression of women" you could make the same kind of claim about any article of clothing.

[SisyphusRedeemed]

What is that fundamental difference, exactly? 

It is my concern, if that woman is (a) being forced to wear that Burqa against her will, or (b) she is aiding and abetting others forcing other women to wear a Burqa against their will.

Any article of clothing? Name one other article of clothing that has been forced on women, en mass, against their will.

[Crunchybear1]

Do you know any women who have a Burqa? what do they say to you.

the difference is is a bank is a bank, not wearing a ski-mask is to protect against other people, When a women wearing a BUrqa poses no danger to you.

[SisyphusRedeemed]

I spoke to a woman once about why she wore a burqa. She said it connected her to her culture and prevented her from being judged by her appearance. I respected the first point, but that wearing a burqa was more likely to make someone judge her by their appearance.

I never go into banks, so someone wearing a ski mask in one poses no danger to me. But it does pose a danger to OTHERS. As does women wearing burqas.

[Crunchybear1]

Women should not be forced to wear the Burqa, that is wrong and men who force women to wear the Burqa should be thrown in jail. Its all the same, women wearing the Burqa poses no threat to you or anyone else.

[SisyphusRedeemed]

They DO pose a threat to someone: to women who are being forced to wear a burqa against their will. Women who choose to wear it are complicit in that oppression by making it harder to distinguish which women are being victimized.

[Shezmu]

I have trouble believing that I've heard what I've just heard so one point of clarification: are you seriously suggesting that people should be thrown in a cage or killed if they resist simply for wearing a piece of cloth over their bodies?

[SisyphusRedeemed]

Well, in the sense that you'd throw someone in a cage or kill them if they resisted any law, such as jay walking, NOT wearing ANY cloth over their bodies, or wearing a ski mask in a bank. I refer back to my first point: the government already uses force to compel a dress code. Granted these aren't infringements on RELIGIOUS liberty, but you're over simplifying when you say it's just about 'a piece of cloth'; it's about oppressing women. Surely you don't condone that.

[932016]

Just a note on practicality, does anyone know what its actually like to wear a burka? i can't imagine it would be easy to hold a bank up with a giant sheet over your head...

have you seen rozeboosje's videos on the burka?

Yeah its a tool for oppression, which means we need to provide support for those who are being abused if they come forward but otherwise its a bit silly to ban a piece of clothing considering the uproar it would create in the muslim community. It would do more harm them good

[Hez0]

I don't like it how proponents of banning the burka don't distinguish between banning the burka everywhere (for whatever reason), and banning it in places where it's necessary for security reasons (banks etc).

I think it's reasonable to be consistent and ban anything that covers ones face in a bank or whatever, but what would be the reason for banning it in other places? If it doesn't pose any security threat, then what is the reason for banning it?

[Hez0]

Honestly, I see the reasons for banning the burka as stupid. I see it as the equivalent to banning people from wearing old and rugged clothing to decrease homelessness.

Do you honestly think that banning the burka will stop the woman from being treated unfairly by her husband? Do you honestly think that it would change his mind and make him into a nice person? It's just stupid in my opinion.

[SisyphusRedeemed]

Women are being forced to wear burkas against their will. You don't see that as something we should try to stop? Will it completely solve the problem of Islamic oppression of women? Of course not. Will it be a step in the right direction? Damn straight.

[Hez0]

Women are also freely choosing to wear it. You don't see it as oppression if you ban it?

A step in the right direction would be education, *not* banning clothing.

[SisyphusRedeemed]

Some women actually like being slapped and beaten, but that doesn't mean that seeing a woman being beaten isn't probable cause for stopping it.

I'm all for education, but do you really think that would be effective?

[Hez0]

Stop assuming that *all* women that wear burkas are forced to do so, that's very annoying and disingenuous of you.

Education would be a lot more effective than banning a piece of clothing.

The best way to stop this kind of oppression, without resorting to oppressing people yourself, is to uphold freedom, secularism, and criticism of religion in a democratic society.

Banning apparel is fighting fire with fire, and is no different than banning religious books for advancing an agenda.

[SisyphusRedeemed]

I'm not assuming that all women who wear burkas are forced to do so. In fact, I explicitly denied this in my video.

As to whether education or prohibition would be more effective, there is no way to know this in advance. We'd have to try both and see.

As for 'fighting fire with fire', that's an unfortunate metaphor in this context, as in fact, firefighters do, in fact, use selective controlled fires to fight fire. This aside, you have a good point.

[Hez0]

"I'm not assuming that all women who wear burkas are forced to do so."

Then why did you shy away from my question when I asked you if banning the burka would be oppressing women he freely choose to wear it?

Question: Do you believe we should ban the bible? Or religion? If you don't, then you are being inconsistent, because they both are tools for oppression just like the burka.

So, in regards to religion or the bible, what method would you use:

Prohibition or education?

; )

[SisyphusRedeemed]

Haven't been shying from it, just had a lot of questions to address. So to answer: no, banning the burka would not be oppressing women who freely choose to wear it. It does restrict their freedom, but that's not the same thing. I can't drive on the left side of the road; that restricts my freedom, but that's hardly oppression.

We've tried banning the bible (and religion). It didn't work. They're also way too general. The burka (a) hasn't been tried (b) is very specific.

[Hez0]

Crashing into another persons car because you're driving on the wrong side of the road is infringing on the other persons right to drive safely. If a women wears a burka, who's rights/freedom does she infringe on around her?

A lot of things haven't been tried and are very specific, does that give us a good reason to ban those things?

Out of interest, are you against or for banning alcohol/smoking/narcotics? All of these things do a *lot* more damage than the burka. So ban them all, right?

[SisyphusRedeemed]

I've already told you whose rights she infringes: the other women who do not freely choose to wear the burka. She is an accomplice in their oppression.

Alcohol/smoking/narcotics do cause a lot more damage than the burka, but banning them (a) hasn't worked, and more importantly (b) has actually caused more damage than the substances themselves. So, no, I'm not in favor. If you can show (a) and (b) hold for the burka then I'd change my mind.

[Cainjonm]

You've just admitted that you agree in the principle of banning the bible, but only reject to doing it because it is not practical or feasible.

What does this tell us?

It tells us that the slippery slope argument indeed *does* apply to proponents of burka prohibition. You are forced to be consistent and ban other religious items of oppression.

[SisyphusRedeemed]

I admitted no such thing, I simply pointed to a historical fact and you read into it.

Not all religious items of oppression are the same.

[Hez0]

Your reasons for not banning religion/bible/drugs were purely based on how feasible and practical banning these things would be. This implies that if banning them was in fact feasible, then you would be in favor of banning them.

Let me ask you this hypothetical:

If banning religion or the bible was feasible in stopping the oppression it causes, would you be a proponent of banning them?

If no, you're being inconsistent.

If yes, then the slippery slope argument applies.

[SisyphusRedeemed]

Slippery slope only applies when there is no clear way to stop the application of a principle from case a (burka) to case b (bible.) But there IS a very clear way of stopping the application: feasibility. Hence slippery slope does not apply.

Moreover, the bible is not an instrument of oppression as such. The vast majority of bibles will never oppress anyone. You can't say the same about the burka (of if you honestly could, then I would concede the argument.

[ahmarsidd]

Sisyphus can I sometime in the future respond to you via e-mail about my counter arguments of your your point how women who chooses to wear burqa are providing cover for those who are forced to wear burqa?

[SisyphusRedeemed]

By all means. I'll try to reply, but I can't make any promises.

[SisyphusRedeemed]

I'm not sure you can really speak of 'the' ideology of Islam. Like any religion, there are many variants. Some Islamic ideologies oppress women, others don't.

[riversonthemoon]

I think a campaign targeting Muslim men suggesting they allow their wives to make a choice would be far more effective at addressing the underlying problem than banning. What do you think the penalty should be for breach of the ban? Can you actually see yourself supporting an arrest or (more likely) a fine for someone wearing a burka? Would Muslims submit to paying a fine?

I disagree with your argument because I've heard it before in relation to prostitution, and I didn't find it convincing.

[riversonthemoon]

Should prostitution be banned on the grounds that some women are being exploited? Are the women (or men) who do it of their own free will providing cover for those who are being forced by circumstance or threat to be prostitutes?

It seems problematic to impose my will on the ones who choose to wear a burka to help those who would choose differently if they could. There are other ways to go about this.

[SisyphusRedeemed]

I, also, don't find it convincing when it comes to prostitution, but that's because my understanding of the empirical facts is that most prostitutes in jurisdictions where prostitution is legally regulated are not exploited or oppressed (or at least, not more so than any other low-skilled job).

[SisyphusRedeemed]

Good points, perhaps a harsh social sanction would be more effective than a law. I don't know if they would submit to the fine or not. Perhaps it should be like in France, where it is banned in public school, government buildings, etc. My thoughts on this are inchoate, as I said.

[laserbuddha]

Usually I agree with you, but to clarify:

1) Do you think it should be illegal everywhere or just in public places, such as schools etc?

2) Do you think other clothes should be banned eg KKK robes, nazi uniforms etc?

3) Or banning other things such as rings, crosses, tattos etc.

Or is it just the burka?

My point is, isn't it better to criminalise the practice of forcing ppl who doesn't want to wear it?

[SisyphusRedeemed]

I'm not entirely sure; like I said, I'm still working through my thoughts on this issue. But my immediate reactions to your questions:

1) Just in public places (giving government the power to go into our homes to check our clothes seems to take it too far.)

2) Possibly, I'd have to hear specific cases made, but I doubt strong cases could be made on those.

3) Only if it could be plausibly argued that the symbols were acting in an oppressive/coercive fashion.

How would you enforce your law?

[laserbuddha]

What I was trying to say is: The only objection I have against the burka is that some ppl are forced by others to wear it. Other objections about what it symbolises etc, is what I see as an attempt to limit practice of religion, personal expression and so on.

Because if you are going to ban the burka on these objections. Then why not ban high heels, catholic nuns dresses, KKK robes, political pins... I really can't see the difference.

[SisyphusRedeemed]

The point about limiting it has nothing (directly) to do with the religious significance of the burka and everything to do with the fact that it is (a) sexist and (b) coercive. The other things you list don't seem to meet both of these criteria, and most meet neither.

[pirbird14]

I know of no law that makes it illegal to force women to wear or not wear anything.

When religious freedoms affect the health and wellbeing of others, the gov't. does have a right to step in.

I agree that the burka is a relatively minor issue. But it is the issue under discussion here.

[pirbird14]

"People deprive themselves of Vitamin D all the time" When the burka is forced on a woman, she is not depriving herself of Vitamin D; she is being deprived of it. When that deprivation affects the health of the newborn, government has a right to intervene, just as it intervenes if Jehovah's Witnesses deprive their children of blood transfusions in life threatening situations. Here in Canada, that has happened.

[Antichryst666]

I really like your take on this and the view about providing cover. I've said many times in comments that when human rights are in direct conflict, it's not just the number harmed but also the degree of harm that needs to be considered. It's a judgement call, but I'm leaning, from the limited information I have to work with so far, that the oppression of women by coerced use of the burqa is far worse in degree at least, than the liberty lost in a more restrictive dress code. I need more info.

[pirbird14]

The burka is rarely a free choice in Muslim communities.

When I said "traffic" I also meant simply crossing the street. And fundamentalist Muslims forbid their women from driving.

Others insist that women wear the burka at all times, including while driving.

Vitamin D deprivation affects the child being born.

I do not suggest a total ban. Just pointing out where it should be restricted.

[Dietfreedombees]

you will probably have a hard time finding case studies on the raising of girls who were in someway destined to join a convent. You are much more likely to find the majority of papers discussing the differences nuns have with the Vatican and functions the second wave of feminism had in reshaping the roles and duties fulfilled by a nun, which is relevant in the fact nuns have felt oppressed in their own institutions.

[Dietfreedombees]

; so please do excuse my laziness. I think you might reasonably understand that there have been instances of either coercion, brainwashing, or forceful means that manipulate women into joining the convent; either it be an overbearingly religious father, etc. ( Most of the prominent reasons which we ascribe to the Muslim world, could mostly be culturally translated to our own.) If you do look for readings on this topic,

[SisyphusRedeemed]

I think this may have been a bigger issue in centuries past (I think of Hamlet's "Get thee to a nunnery!") but nowadays I suspect not so much. Being a nun requires a lot of dedication and they generally don't want people who aren't really committed to the cause. But this is just my suspicion; I have no first hand, nor any academic knowledge of what nunneries are like.

[Dietfreedombees]

Are, the robes worn by nuns a tool of oppressing women, thus should be outlawed? I believe you will point out at this moment that nuns have an active choice to either join their religious institution or not. You might point out that some Muslim women have been coerced, brainwashed, or forced in some capacity to wear burkas. Without getting into exacted historical examples or analysis of the oppressive nature put on nuns; this is because this post would become a of load work for me

[Dietfreedombees]

It is nice to see you making response videos and hopefully videos again Sisyphus.

I will try to make this response as on point as I can. The analogy to ski masks seems a bit disanalogous.

1. Ski masks are not religious symbols or culturally relevant artifacts. (A more analogous object might be the robes nuns wear, which have more in common with the burkas worn by women in European countries and moderately liberal Muslim nations such as in Iran.)

[SisyphusRedeemed]

You're right that there's a disanology here, but it's irrelevant. The argument I'm making has nothing to do with the burkas' religious significance, just it's sexist significance. If you could show that a nuns habit serves a similar oppressive function, I'd be down.

[pirbird14]

The full burka covers all skin, interfering with Vitamin D production, resulting in rickets and problems in childbearing. It also interferes with vision and is dangerous in traffic.

The hijab, however, is not so restrictive and should not be banned any more than we would ban "plain" clothes amongst the Amish, Mennonites, Hutterites, etc.

[RowanFortuneWood]

As proponents of this ban rely on Consequentialism why do justifications lack consequential nuance? Suppose there are two women, one is forced to wear a burqa and the other chooses to do so. After the ban what next? Does the oppression vanish? Will devout Muslim women decide that their religiously prescribed modesty is now trivial? What if this ingrains a feeling of persecution that segregates Muslims? What if many women stop (or are stopped from) going outside as frequently or at all? [con]

[RowanFortuneWood]

What research do your empirical claims draw from? How many women are being oppressed as opposed to choosing? What is the nature of this oppression? What are the alternative ideas as far as preventing this oppression? What if banning the burqa is at best a lazy fix to a complex problem and at worst a socially disastrous attempt to meddle in the lives of people who neither want nor necessarily need the states help?

[SisyphusRedeemed]

Good points, all. As for empirical data, not a sociologist so I can't claim to have any. But we need people to make proposals like this so others can go out there test them. If it turns out your concerns are more empirically plausible, then we don't ban/rescind it. Otherwise, fuck the women oppressing bastards.

[Greywyn7]

Next they're going to be allowing airplane pilots to wear sheets over themselves.

[Greywyn7]

The way I see it, freedom of religion/religious expression should be limited if it effects the safety of society or an individual.

What if it is your religion to wear a bullet proof vest and mask into a bank? Should we respect that?

[SisyphusRedeemed]

I think your hypothetical is too hypothetical. There is no religion that does that, nor is there anything like it. But the basic principle is right.

[Greywyn7]

I guess my example was a bit extreme. I'm just trying to say that there comes a point where religious tolerance harms those who don't adhere to it.

[XOmniverse]

I think any organization (including banks) should be allowed to set their own dress policies. If a bank wants to ban the burka, hockey masks, etc. that's fine. I don't think the bank needs the law to force them to act in their own interest.

I should note that I, in no way, sanction the burka morally as a garment. As you said, I distinguish between what is moral and what should be legally permissible.

[TurboDally]

When are we going to get men covering themselves with a burkha too? Go on guys, you know you want to.

[CousinoMacul]

I'm still a little on the fence on this issue. I'm currently leaning a little towards what you were saying (I was surprised to find out that French femenists support Sarkozy's proposed ban, but when I looked into the reasons, it kind of made sense). What I am pretty sure about is that there is no "cookie cutter" or "one size fits all" solution. Different places with different histories may or may not benefit from a ban.

[SisyphusRedeemed]

That seems like a wise position.

[migkillertwo]

ugh, why can't Islam finally contend with modernity like Christianity did 100 years ago?

[Greywyn7]

Islam doesn't want to embrace secular (see: intelligent) values.

[SisyphusRedeemed]

Many Muslims have, some haven't. The same is true of Christianity.

[mavaddat]

Although I agree with your principle, there is are pragmatical arguments against your position.

It may be that in banning the burka, we inadvertently discourage Muslims from considering moving to our countries, thus deepening the divide between us.

Or, we encourage Muslim men who live in the West to keep their wives and daughters indoors (more than they do).

Or, we deepen the animosity of Muslims toward the West, pushing more of them into extremist or sympathy for extremist positions.

[SisyphusRedeemed]

Very good points, all. At the same time, though, (a) we might not really want radical Muslims moving here, especially if they're so committed that banning the burka will be the final straw; (b) it's very hard to keep wives and daughters completely isolated; and (c) I think having military bases in their holy land is really radicalizing enough, I doubt that this would tip the balance.

Or maybe it would, I don't know.

[refuckulate420]

It's hard to see the burka as a free choice, these women were programmed to hide themselves and their femininity for thousands of years, they have been taught they are inferior and that by revealing skin they asked to be raped.

I don't believe freedom means you have to compromise normal cultural values, hiding your face and body like that isn't something we do in western life. And wether or not women choose to wear the Burka it's still a symbol of oppression and seperation.

[SisyphusRedeemed]

What you say is true for many, probably most women who wear burkas, but not for all. There are many modern, liberated Muslim women who choose the burka because they feel it prevents them from being turned into a sex object, judged by their appearance, etc. I can't claim to know any personally, but I've seen them interviewed and I trust that it is a free choice for them. But you're certainly right about it being a symbol of oppression.

[pirbird14]

When I was a teenager, my mother forbade me from wearing clothes that she thought were too sexy. She came from a very conservative Mennonite community; and I felt she was unreasonable on this point. Eventually, i discovered that "sensible shoes" do not, in fact, prevent rape. This is a hate crime based on gender bias and has nothing to do with appearance.

A full burka covers all skin, interfering with Vitamin D production. It also interferes with vision in traffic.

[Greywyn7]

I'm like the exact opposite; my dad forced me to wear sexy clothes.

I'm a guy, btw.

[Greywyn7]

As I see it, they're a sex object regardless.

Really, if they hide their looks, it only makes them that much more interesting.

I think it's rather insulting that they'd assume I'd find them attractive.

[SisyphusRedeemed]

I think they assume that all men are pigs.

[TheSameDonkey]

Well put...

I gladdens me to hear a someone else as iffy on the subject as myself.