How far will the rise of nationalistic populism go ?

[Halibut]

I just don't know about this. There is a cultural tradition here and a matter of freedom of expression at stake. Banning Muslim women from covering their faces is an act of intolerance and you can't get away from that.

On the other hand, we can't effectively defend women from being oppressed if we tolerate what is very obviously a symbol and a means of oppressing women, that just happens to have religious links.

Are we in fact under any obligation to tolerate the oppression of women even if they are voluntarily cooperating or even initiating that oppression?

 

It's one off those awkward lesser-evil things which I think has to be evidence based. Both options are harmful. The question is which is less so.

The bans are starting to come in across other countries now, so we should have enough evidence one way or the other before too long.

 

Even then what's higher priority? Avoiding the oppression of religion by the state or preventing the oppression of women by non-state actors.

 

There is plenty of evidence that many women cover themselves because they freely choose to do so. Again, what greater good is served by violating women's right to wear what they wish?

 

Edited to add - you can't liberate women from oppression by curtailing their freedom.

Edited December 13, 2016 by Halibut

[unbeliever]

There is plenty of evidence that many women cover themselves because they freely choose to do so. Again, what greater good is served by violating women's right to wear what they wish?

 

Edited to add - you can't liberate women from oppression by curtailing their freedom.

 

 

That sounds naive. It is clearly a possibility that banning face covering Muslim dress will prevent or st least curtail the use of such dress to oppress women.

I share your concerns but this is clearly not a simple question and there is no perfect answer.

[Justin Smith]

But she can if that is what she wants to do - and who the hell are you to say that she can't?

 

Sorry, can you quote where I said that ?

[L00b]

There is plenty of evidence that many women cover themselves because they freely choose to do so. Again, what greater good is served by violating women's right to wear what they wish?

 

Edited to add - you can't liberate women from oppression by curtailing their freedom.

Where proselytising practices are concerned that run clearly counter-culture, you most certainly can. And must, lest you let the thin end of the obscurantist wedge get a toehold in the name of liberalism.

 

The greater good in question is called cultural identity. It's a catchy name for social cohesion (and accessorily public order, after a fashion).

 

Even the ECHR agrees on that one.

 

EDIT to add: for balance, there's a small mountain of pan-european evidence in French parliamentary reports and enquiries about the coercive nature and use of the full veil, the statistical insignificance of the number of wearers (at the time), contrasted by the meteoric rise in their numbers in recent years, and within that the statistical insignificance of those who declared to wear it of their own free will. The Assemblée Nationale did not vote 'that' ban through lightly back then. Little wonder the ECHR agreed with it years later.

 

EDIT to ask: and I'd be interested to hear your take on this celeb story, which is a perfect (counter-)example of the matter at hand and of the issue you take with it. The celebrity angle is moot, as I'm extremely confident that this Western-clothing-is-haram matter transcends wealth/notoriety status and, importantly, borders and cultures.

Edited December 14, 2016 by L00b
emboldened bit in quote

[unbeliever]

It would help if all well intentioned people could, as L00b clearly does above, acknowledge at least that there is a progressive/liberal conflict here.

Does the state overlook the oppression of women or legislate against freedom of religious practise?

Having spent decades combatting both, supporters of progressive/liberal values must sure see here that that we're being asked to tolerate misogyny in the name of religious freedom.

[sgtkate]

All the people who want to continue to allow the wearing of burqas, do you also support suicide? Most of the argument which I agree with goes on about personal freedoms and how they would be curtailed if the burqa was banned, so logic goes there is nothing more oppressive than not being able to take your own life.

[El Cid]

All the people who want to continue to allow the wearing of burqas, do you also support suicide? Most of the argument which I agree with goes on about personal freedoms and how they would be curtailed if the burqa was banned, so logic goes there is nothing more oppressive than not being able to take your own life.

 

Suicide Act 1961, its not illegal to take your own life.

[L00b]

It would help if all well intentioned people could, as L00b clearly does above, acknowledge at least that there is a progressive/liberal conflict here.

Does the state overlook the oppression of women or legislate against freedom of religious practise?

Having spent decades combatting both, supporters of progressive/liberal values must sure see here that that we're being asked to tolerate misogyny in the name of religious freedom.

IMHO, the real, or "higher-plane", debate is indeed whether liberalism, as a generic form of policy, can only ever be permissive, or whether it can also -and legitimately- include a coercive component (wherein e.g. banning the burqa would fall under that notion of 'enforced' liberalism, to the same extent as e.g. banning anti-homosexuality or racist discourse as a hate crime, both examples reflecting and promoting the evolving common values of the society which promulgates these bans).

 

To my mind it does, but I'm aware of several other posters, with a free-for-all live-and-let-live approach to liberalism, to whom it likely does not.

Edited December 14, 2016 by L00b

[tinfoilhat]

All the people who want to continue to allow the wearing of burqas, do you also support suicide? Most of the argument which I agree with goes on about personal freedoms and how they would be curtailed if the burqa was banned, so logic goes there is nothing more oppressive than not being able to take your own life.

 

Most western countries are discussing assisted suicide. Does it change the make up of our country if they allowed it? I don't know.

 

On a side note, I'd suggest the wearing of full face veils is on the up. FGM is definately on the up - http://www.itv.com/news/central/2016-09-12/stark-rise-in-the-number-of-reported-cases-of-fgm-in-birmingham/. I don't think the latter is a religious thing (they all do it) but a cultural thing. I'd argue face covering is much the same.

[unbeliever]

IMHO, the real, or "higher-plane", debate is indeed whether liberalism, as a generic form of policy, can only ever be permissive, or whether it can also -and legitimately- include a coercive component (wherein e.g. banning the burqa would fall under than notion of 'enforced' liberalism, to the same extent as e.g. banning anti-homosexuality or racist discourse as a hate crime).

 

To my mind it does, but I'm aware of several other posters, with a free-for-all live-and-let-live approach to liberalism, to whom it may not.

 

 

Agreed.

t all comes down to whether one thinks it one's duty to protect people from all threats to their rights to liberty, justice and protection or just some.

Threats to liberty come from governments, and from groups and individuals not affiliated with government. Surely all such threats are equally objectionable. Sometimes one must ally with government to protect people from other people. At other times one must ally with other people to protect people from government.

It's always about balance. Focus on one threat and make yourself a slave to the others.