Is it acceptable for non Muslims to wear burkas?

Why is it inconsistent with our views?

Because we are a modern western liberal democracy, where personal freedom is important and celebrated.

 

We are not allowed to do anything we please in this country, there are laws limiting our freedoms as there are in all civilized countries.

Of course. But there aren't many laws regarding appearance. (Nudity taboo's, but little else).

 

Motorcycle helmets? Bad example there, motorcycle helmets have to be worn when riding a motorcycle it's the law.

And what about when you get off your motorbike?

 

Infringement of your freedom to ride with the wind in your hair right there.

True, and justified by the cost to society when you smash your head on the floor.

 

As to wearing ski masks you appear to be struggling for relevant comparisons, covering your face for a limited amount of time for practical reasons can hardly be compared to wearing a face covering all day every day can it?

Yes, it entirely can.

I'm free to cover my face with a balaclava all day if I wish.

Or wear sunglasses, or a veil. Or dye my hair purple, or put a ring through my nose.

 

And the next time your skiing in France why don't you walk into the local bank wearing the mask and see what reception you get?

They will probably decline to serve me. I can probably use the cash point wearing one though.

 

---------- Post added 28-10-2014 at 11:41 ----------

 

The freedom of the majority not to feel intimated, indisposed or otherwise threatened (however rightly or wrongly) by ostentatious (proselyte) displays of faith that run entirely anti-social and counter-culture.

Since feelings can't be controlled by a 3rd party, this makes no sense to impose changes on the 3rd party.

You might as well ban wearing motorcycle leathers, having facial tatoo's or anything else that might 'scare' the majority.

Can clothing be a display of faith? It's a cultural mode of dress, not a religious one.

I can't see how making a choice about what to wear can be anti-social. But if it can, will France be banning t-shirts with rude slogans on them? Surely that's anti-social, and depending on the slogan it could well be counter-culture as well.

Since when has the law dictated that everyone must conform to the majority culture? Didn't the Germans do something similar?

That's your personal opinion. Personally, I'm quite happy for France to 'enforce' secularity and, accessorily, ban the wearing of burkas and SS uniforms. So, er...now what?

The same as you're allowed to wear a burka in the comfort of your own home

I've quite clearly acknowledged the hypocritical nature of the measure, so I'm not quite sure why you're arguing this line with me?

I'm not quite sure what point you're arguing either.

 

I don't have a problem with it whatsoever, however hypocritical it is, so again, er...now what?

I do have a problem with the state acting in a hypocritical way. Not France particularly, they're just a good example. I don't want the UK to follow them though.

 

You are misunderstanding the point entirely, so I'll belabour, for the avoidance of doubt: a state school in France is not a private property, it is a property of the State, and therefore classed as a public space (irrespective of access conditions), to the same extent as a Town hall, a Préfecture, the Social Services building, etc, <etc.> Which is how and why the ban applies to schools and all other such State premises in which people congregate at times for a purpose or another. The situation is entirely different for a private property (such as a private school), in which people can wear whatever they like.

Absolutely. These are fundamental aspects of a secular society organised under civil law: you don't want people wandering about starkers, and there's laws about that; you don't want religious proselytes about, and there's laws about that too; you don't want extremist sympathisers wandering about in SS uniforms bringing back very painful memories to old people, and there's laws about that too <etc.>

 

I haven't missed that point at all. You didn't understand what I meant by "in public", a school is not "in public", I've explain what I meant. Whether a school is public property or not is moot, it is not "in public" in the way that I meant.

 

I'd be perfectly happy with people wandering around starkers. That the state should enforce some bizarre nudity taboo is just downright odd, it should entirely stay out of the private life of people, including how they choose to dress in public.

Was it in France where women had to break the law to finally gain the right to go topless on the beach? Out of date morality being enforced by the state.

Whilst in Tangiers we were told by the local guide that women wore the burka at their husbands insistence and for no other reason.

The only religious preference was for the hair to be covered.

I think you've missed the point there mate. I've seen motorcyclists paying for petrol with their helmets on and visor up. I've seen them walking round supermarkets like this too. Surely if the burqa is unacceptable, so is this?

 

I agree,it is unacceptable, my objection to the burka is because it is completely against our customs and tradition to have to deal with anyone who is concealing their face.

 

As far as I'm concerned I have no problem with the wearing of traditional dress or hair being covered, but walking around or talking to someone whilst being unrecognisable is wrong.

 

That also applies to motorcyclists, it is extremely rude to keep a helmet on when there is no practical need for it and other people are present.

I agree,it is unacceptable, my objection to the burka is because it is completely against our customs and tradition to have to deal with anyone who is concealing their face.

 

As far as I'm concerned I have no problem with the wearing of traditional dress or hair being covered, but walking around or talking to someone whilst being unrecognisable is wrong.

 

That also applies to motorcyclists, it is extremely rude to keep a helmet on when there is no practical need for it and other people are present.

 

I suppose it depends whether a motorcyclist should be allowed to keep his helment on whilst working as a bank clerk for example.

Since feelings can't be controlled by a 3rd party, this makes no sense to impose changes on the 3rd party.

You might as well ban wearing motorcycle leathers, having facial tatoo's or anything else that might 'scare' the majority.

Sense does not come into it: that majority feeling is what was perceived by the representatives elected by that majority, and which motivated their devising and passing of the law.

Can clothing be a display of faith? It's a cultural mode of dress, not a religious one.

The burka is most closely associated with Wahhabi families. Wahhabis base and lead their life on an extreme interpretation of religious strictures. Let's not dick around with semantics here. Or what would you call a kippah? A diminutive hat? A palestinian tradition?

I can't see how making a choice about what to wear can be anti-social.

The (at least western) social norm is for people not to hide their faces or features, other than temporarily for functional (balaclava) or security (helmets) reasons - and that goes back a few centuries at least.

Since when has the law dictated that everyone must conform to the majority culture?

Since the majority decided to elect representatives constituting a legislative assembly at which laws are devised and enacted by the said representatives for governing the said majority according to evoluting social norms. So, 1789, so far as France is concerned.

Didn't the Germans do something similar?

That's quite in bad taste for you.

I'm not quite sure what point you're arguing either.

That, with reference to-

I haven't studied the French law, but will it mean I can't cover my face whilst skiing in the French alps? Because if not, then it sounds rather hypocritical.

-it would pay for you to give the French angle/context a bit more thought, so as to understand how and why France passed it, and how and why the UK is unlikely ever to.

I haven't missed that point at all. You didn't understand what I meant by "in public", a school is not "in public", I've explain what I meant. Whether a school is public property or not is moot, it is not "in public" in the way that I meant.

That's a cop-out Cyclone, and you know it. This is where the "public school" issue arose:

Whilst the majority of the French are Catholic the country bases it's policy on 'freedom of conscience' which in my opinion is admirable.

 

No religious artifacts of any religion are allowed in schools and ostentatious displays of religious icons are barred.

Schools are not public places, so not really the same.

mjw47's comment, to which you were replying, was about French schools - as were my subsequent posts. Edited October 28, 2014 by L00b

"Act prohibiting concealment of the face in public spaces"

 

The law in France also includes a ban on masks, helmets, balaclavas and niqabs. "except under specified circumstances".

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_ban_on_face_covering

Sense does not come into it: that majority feeling is what was perceived by the representatives elected by that majority, and which motivated their devising and passing of the law.

Democracy is supposed to protect the rights of minorities whilst enacting the will of the majority. Not trample on the rights of minorities because the majority are irrational.

The burka is most closely associated with Wahhabi families. Wahhabis base and lead their life on an extreme interpretation of religious strictures. Let's not dick around with semantics here. Or what would you call a kippah? A diminutive hat? A palestinian tradition?

The (at least western) social norm is for people not to hide their faces or features, other than temporarily for functional (balaclava) or security (helmets) reasons - and that goes back a few centuries at least.

So should societal norms be enforced by law then? Simply because they exist.

I say no.

Since the majority decided to elect representatives constituting a legislative assembly at which laws are devised and enacted by the said representatives for governing the said majority according to evoluting social norms. So, 1789, so far as France is concerned.

That's quite in bad taste for you.

Perhaps slightly in bad taste. But it's a slippery slope.

 

Apologies if I jumped in in the middle. By public place I DID NOT mean places which are not open to the general public. It's not a cop out. What I meant was places open to the public. Not "owned by the state and thus the public". Schools are not open to the public, even if they are owned by them ultimately.

 

---------- Post added 28-10-2014 at 13:10 ----------

 

I suppose it depends whether a motorcyclist should be allowed to keep his helment on whilst working as a bank clerk for example.

 

Not really.

 

We're talking about an absolute ban in public on this item of clothing. Not a ban whilst working in a specific environment.

Either it should be illegal to conceal your face in public or it shouldn't.

 

(I clearly think that it shouldn't).

Democracy is supposed to protect the rights of minorities whilst enacting the will of the majority. Not trample on the rights of minorities because the majority are irrational.

How are the rights of minorities 'trampled'?

 

Muslims are free to be Muslims (freedom of religion), to hold as radical an outlook on life as they wish (freedom of thought), and to conduct themselves as much in accordance with their radical beliefs as the society in which they live allows through relevant laws (anti-terror, anti-discrimination, <etc.>).

 

The extent of that permission, in a secular state like France, is best expressed by this bit of Janie's Wiki link:

The law was challenged and taken to the European Court of Human Rights which upheld the French law on 1 July 2014, accepting the argument of the French government that the law was based on "a certain idea of living together".

And to paraphrase a simplistically populist line, if they (radicals) don't like it....the UK is that-a-way --->

So should societal norms be enforced by law then?

Laws are the codified expression of societal norm, always have been. Regardless of whether in a democracy or otherwise, at whatever time period you care to look.

 

(I'd have thought that one self-evident, but in hindsight perhaps not )

Apologies if I jumped in in the middle. By public place I DID NOT mean places which are not open to the general public. It's not a cop out. What I meant was places open to the public. Not "owned by the state and thus the public". Schools are not open to the public, even if they are owned by them ultimately.

mjw47 made a point about the banning of religious symbols (all of them, not just Muslim ones) in French schools.

 

The distinction you now make is entirely pointless outside that context, since the UK has no comparable legislation, and that ban does not apply to French private schools. I explained as much in post #84

I don't know how you define state schools in the UK, but in France state schools are public (as in, the contrary of private, and that's the relevant sense in the legal context of the 'ban').

Perhaps slightly in bad taste. But it's a slippery slope.

Whenever I read 'slightly bad taste' comments like this, it always reminds me that the UK was so lucky never to have been occupied by Nazi Germany, and that this luck has long been forgotten. Edited October 28, 2014 by L00b

How are the rights of minorities 'trampled'?

By restricting their ability to wear the clothing they wish. In this particular example.

Who knows what other "societal norms" could be enforced in the future.

 

Muslims are free to be Muslims (freedom of religion), to hold as radical an outlook on life as they wish (freedom of thought), and to conduct themselves as much in accordance with their radical beliefs as the society in which they live allows through relevant laws (anti-terror, anti-discrimination, <etc.>).

But everyone, Muslim or otherwise, is prohibited from putting a cotton sheet over their head in public.

Something that the majority conveniently don't want to do, but which is apparently scary when someone else does.

 

The extent of that permission, in a secular state like France, is best expressed by this bit of Janie's Wiki link: And to paraphrase a simplistically populist line, if they (radicals) don't like it....the UK is that-a-way --->

Laws are the codified expression of societal norm, always have been. Regardless of whether in a democracy or otherwise, at whatever time period you care to look.

I like to think I live in a society that supports personal freedom. And that should include the right to dress in a silly way if you wish.

 

Edit - Am I wrong to think that Burqa is banned in public in France? Is it actually only banned in schools?

By restricting their ability to wear the clothing they wish. In this particular example.

In this particular example, I remain to be convinced that Burqa wearers in France (and elsewhere) actually wish to wear it, in public or otherwise. The evidence so far points away:

The legislators provided that, once the law was declared constitutional, a six-month period for discussion and education of the affected public would follow before the law came into force. In a program overseen by the Muslim women-led Ni Putes Ni Soumises, NGO representatives and social workers conducted individual and group information meetings with women in towns and suburbs with large Muslim populations. The representatives reported instances of some women deciding to file complaints against their husbands once informed of their rights; of some others stating that they were waiting for the law to come into force so that it would compel their husbands to release them from wearing the veil; and of some others stopping the wearing of the facial veil outright after the information meetings. While no disturbances were reported during the personal meetings with the women who could be reached, the representatives reported instances of local Islamic clerics issuing fatwās against them, of being verbally harassed, of being threatened including with implied death threats, and in one case of being physically assaulted by men. In the last preparatory phase, larger meetings and public debates were organised.

Who knows what other "societal norms" could be enforced in the future.

Well, with the form and record of French fashion to date, so far as clothing norms (at least) are concerned, I ain't worried

I like to think I live in a society that supports personal freedom. And that should include the right to dress in a silly way if you wish.

I like to think that rights additional to those fundamental 'human' ones (as couched in the French Déclaration of 1789, centuries before the EU version and by reason of which France has few lessons to receive in the field) are earned, and come hand-in-hand with duties.

 

Regrettably, the longer I live, the more oversized the general sense of entitlement of today's society appears to me.

Edit - Am I wrong to think that Burqa is banned in public in France? Is it actually only banned in schools?

No you're not wrong. Edited October 28, 2014 by L00b