Niqabs/Burka: What is free will and what is abuse?

[kerikiwi]

Even involving Maori? It's a serious question because there have been many occasions where aborigines have been given much lighter sentences where their crimes have been considered not as serious within their culture. Slight derail, sorry.

Absolutely not.
It is this kind of falsehood used to support any kind of bigotry that makes me very angry.

 

[ThatSoundAgain]

There's been a trainwreck of a push for a ban here recently.

The politicians pushing for it are from two camps: The genuinely mistaken and well intentioned (and, as this shows, of limited intellectual capacity and historical awareness), and the ones who see the inherent contradiction but have built their power on appearing "tough on muslims", no matter the cost to society and individuals.

It should be apparent to anyone that you can't force people to be free.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

I don't have an answer, I've often wondered that as well.

What I always think about are FLDS polygamyst compounds where the girls are married very young to much older men with many wives. Whenever authorities intercede, the women don't WANT to leave.

But the fact is, they've been raised completely shut off from society. They are indoctrinated and brainwashed. They are not basing their decisions off of the real world, but off of a world of manipulation and abuse. And they'll raise their kids the same way and the cycle continues. Whereas if these cults were just forcibly broken up, sure it would be very difficult for the current generation who will see their families split up, but it would stop the cycle of abuse. It reminds me of when Jaycee Duggard was found. Her relatives made comments that her daughters by her rapist were angry that their father had been arrested and that their family split up. They had been born into that life, it's all they ever knew.

But of course, that is a dangerous approach to make such intervention legal. Because then it's a slippery slope of what behaviors are strange enough that the government can interfere "for your own good."


I feel this is a problem which just has no easy answer.

SC, I wouldn't chalk that up as just indoctrination. I'm sure some of those women would probably actually like to be somewhere else, but there are other consequences to consider.

Being killed by your own family because of not fitting some ancient custom is sadly a fact of life, and occasionally even happens in places like Turkey (see that girl buried alive recently) or occasionally even in the western world. There have been people who came all the way to the UK to murder their emigrant daughter for some unchastity suspicion. Because apparently a woman's having sex can be that unforgivable a stain upon the honour of the whole family. (And you have to remember that depending on which part of the world it is and how rural, even being an unmarried or divorced woman makes you a _probable_ whore.)

I'm sure that a lot of those women simply would rather stay with that old polygamist than wind up dead. Not a particularly illogical choice, nor one that requires brainwashing.

Then there is also the question of income. In a lot of the more patriarchal world, women are allowed very few jobs or even none at all. It's easy to say she should leave, but leaving to sleep under a bridge and beg isn't exactly the brightest prospect, all things being considered.

Also don't underestimate that "dishonour" part. A lot of those, if they leave an abusive relationship and decide to be the independent woman type, will be received with outright hostility everywhere they go. Even if they don't get killed, it can be a PITA to live in a community who thinks you're such an evil person that you'd even deserve death.

Worse yet, that dishonour literally extends to their family. The mother of a woman who decided to not live by the rules may herself be ostracized by everyone, for example. After all, she's the one who educated that "whore." (Which is another reason why they perpetuate the injustice.)

The presence of any children further complicates all those problems. From the economic aspect of raising them to the fact that they themselves will be tainted by that "dishonour" everywhere they go. You can get a woman to comply to a lot of nasty stuff if you essentially have her children as hostages, and in some of those cultures that's really what it is, by any other name.

Etc.

Basically don't underestimate the nastiness of some cultures, and how one can theoretically have all the choice in the world, yet really have no sane choice.

It's the reason why I find cultural relativism abhorent.

 

[Drysdale]

Happened in my city.

The problem is, she is expecting people to accomodate her - she is wearing it in a french class where she is supposed to do oral presentations. She did her presentations facing the wall, her back to the other students.

She also wants to become a pharmacist, which she will shortly find is impossible here (that has nothing to do with her wardrobe - there are two pharmacy faculties in Quebec and they don't recognize scholarity from foreign countries. I have two pharmacist friends from lebanon who have given up on the idea of practicing here).

I wouldn't be comfortable asking drug advice from somebody whose face I can't see. And would she accept to speak to men ?

What people do in their own homes is their problem, but when their way of life is imposed on others through work or study in public institutions, that's where I would draw the line.

For instance, at my university, there are times where the swimming pool is not accessible to men to accomodate women wearing hijabs. And there are cases in Canada where murderers got lighter sentences because their cultural backgrounds encouraged honor killing.

I don't think it's very wise to accomodate the religious (of any religion) on fundamental rights and values of our country. The law and rules should be the same for everybody, and your religion should be left at the door if you have any business at public institutions.

I agree. It's not the wearing of such symbols in and of themself.
It's the expected acquiescence of those who dont believe likewise that's the problem.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I thought that at least in some western countries that a significant percentage of those who wear this are converts.

A woman addicted the the affection of an abusive partner can be said to be a convert by an analogy here.

I am sorry to say some women fall into dependent abusive relationships. It's hard to comprehend a grown woman finding some salvation or miracle in the teachings of Allah unless it has to do with pathologic dependency.

I suppose it is possible, but I find it improbable god beliefs are truly at the bottom of such conversions.

 

[quixotecoyote]

It's the reason why I find cultural relativism abhorent.

You realize that cultural relativism is descriptive, not normative, right?

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

You realize that cultural relativism is descriptive, not normative, right?

But it's also routinely used as a justification to basically override human rights. Basically that it becomes little more than a non-sequitur hand-waving where the conclusion is _moral_ relativism.

And I'm not even talking armchair anthropology by forum posters, but even in proper anthropology. Bedouin women in burqas was actually an example in a couple of anthropology books I've read where basically the thrust was, "well, that's their culture, they're happy in their own way." The line between not starting with preconceived notions for what culture is better than which, and actually concluding that they're in the end all equal and there are no moral problems is sometimes fairly thin.

And I'm not even talking "overriding human rights" as a hyperbole. Such, basically, "yeah, but you have to take their culture into account" reasoning did make it at least all the way to the draft of the universal declaration of human rights.

 

[Rasmus]

What if it is a parent requiring a young teen girl to wear it?

My feeling is we should define how far a parent can go in raising a child in a cult. When should we rescue adults from cults?

I'll start taking that approach seriously once someone attempts to ban the catholic church for their systematic support of the paedophiles within their ranks.

Yes, I think the point that religion is child abuse is fair - but I don't agree that one religion is necessarily worse than the other. A line needs to be drawn - but it's somewhere between Christianity and Islam; I want it to be drawn between sanity and madness.

This is a cult, defined as isolating someone from society in order to maintain control over their behavior. It isn't just the clothing. These women have strict 'rules' about communicating with men, and about leaving the house alone. I think it's rare you are going to find very many women wearing one of these costumes who isn't also unhealthily dominated by the men in her life, be it a husband or a father, or sometimes a brother.

Again, you could make the same argument about the Catholic church. No sex before marriage? No birth control? How is that less cultish?

I wonder how much myth there is to the Muslim woman freely choosing this clothing. We are so convinced it's no different from wearing a cross or choosing a life as a nun which is not based on men dominating women from childhood. It isn't similar except maybe in the rarest of cases.

No, it might not be. But the same principles are at work. If I let woman A wear a cross, then how can I forbid woman B to cover her face?

What about Jewish rules about diet and behaviour on the holy days? I think it is quite insane to refuse to operate a light switch. It would take a trumendous amount of brainwashing and control to get me to a point where I tohught it was a good idea to refuse to press a button on a weekend; or where I would not eat while the sun is up, or ... well, do anything that some stupid goat herdes's cult from several thousand years ago tells me to do.

 

[RockNroll]

I live in the province of Québec, where this incident has taken place and where hysteria over "reasonable accomodations" has been all the rage for the past couple years.

There is one thing I've been wondering, and which has never even been addressed by the local media (to my knowledge): isn't it already illegal to wear face-covering garments in public? In a secular state where the laws apply equally to everyone, couldn't we just simply apply the same laws to burquas/niquabs/etc. that we already apply to, say, ski masks or ninja costumes?

I'm asking because I really hate the tone and arguments being used by both the media and the population regarding this issue, which tend to include lots of non-sequiturs, some pretty epic fear-mongering, and constant chest-beating about "our vaaaaaaalues" and what constitutes a "real Québécois".

 

[NewtonTrino]

I'm not sure being covered in public is illegal in Quebec at all. At least I doubt it is. Doesn't mean the surete won't bother you though!

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I'll start taking that approach seriously once someone attempts to ban the catholic church for their systematic support of the paedophiles within their ranks.

So because the Catholics have been irresponsible toward children we should let the Muslims do the same?

Or do you mistakenly think I support Christian child abuse and cults and not Muslim child abuse and cults?

Yes, I think the point that religion is child abuse is fair - but I don't agree that one religion is necessarily worse than the other. A line needs to be drawn - but it's somewhere between Christianity and Islam; I want it to be drawn between sanity and madness.

Please show me where I've ever said anything remotely supportive of any god beliefs in this forum?

Again, you could make the same argument about the Catholic church. No sex before marriage? No birth control? How is that less cultish?

You should have started with asking whether I supported any of this crap before just assuming I did. Your condescending false assumptions are insulting.

No, it might not be. But the same principles are at work. If I let woman A wear a cross, then how can I forbid woman B to cover her face?

Now you are ignoring the bigger picture. Since when is wearing a cross the equivalent of isolating a woman from contact with other people?

What about Jewish rules about diet and behaviour on the holy days? I think it is quite insane to refuse to operate a light switch. It would take a trumendous amount of brainwashing and control to get me to a point where I tohught it was a good idea to refuse to press a button on a weekend; or where I would not eat while the sun is up, or ... well, do anything that some stupid goat herdes's cult from several thousand years ago tells me to do.

You are missing the important factor here, that is, forced isolation. By far the vast majority of woman wearing veils are also being controlled by the men in their lives. And that's the real issue, not simply wearing a religious symbol.

 

[kerikiwi]

By far the vast majority of woman wearing veils are also being controlled by the men in their lives.

Are the men any less indoctrinated than the women?
Should the fact that x number of women wear veils because they are 'controlled by the men in their lives' ( that is, they believe that they should be so controlled) preclude those who are not so controlled from having the freedom to choose to wear a veil?
I think wearing a cross is quite comparable: a woman can choose to wear or not wear a cross. Who is to say she does not have the right to make that choice?
If she has been indoctrinated to believe she should make that choice, how do we decide that she must be prevented from making that choice?

 

[gumboot]

It involves a thing called "cultural défense" which can be used as a sort of insanity plea - but I've found out it's not unique to Canada, it's also used in the US, UK, and NZ it seems. According to this, there has been a recent upsurge of its use in trials.

Unfortunately I could not find any link to actual cases - I had just heard of its use in a recent honor killing case in Toronto (in the news).

It certainly can't be used to get a lighter sentence here - murder has a mandatory life sentence.

 

[gumboot]

http://www.cbc.ca/arts/media/story/2010/03/12/mont-gazette-cartoon-niqab-aislin.html

Even if she claims to be wearing it out of her own free will, is there any merit to claims that she is just "brainwashed" into accepting such a dehumanizing wardrobe? Could it be considered abuse, something sort of like battered wife syndrome?

I'm just curious in general as to where the line is between free will and abuse. When should the state interfere?

I think the line can be drawn quite easily. Your entire argument seems to be based on an assumption that the clothing in question is "dehumanising", but that's a subjective call made based on your personal opinion. It's akin to calling a short skirt "slutty" and a multitude of other judgments we make on clothing, and they have no place in law.

Where you should draw the line is at illegal action. If this brainwashing is causing women to voluntarily partake in illegal action (such as underage sex, polygamy, sale of humans, honour killing) the police need to step in and stop such activity. If such activity is not illegal, and merely distasteful to others in society, there are no grounds for interference.

On the counter-side of that, I don't think special exceptions should be made for such behaviour either. Closing a public pool to allow persons of a specific gender and religious belief to have privacy is, IMHO, a human rights violation, and unacceptable. Similar actions taken to "accommodate" these differing beliefs, that disadvantage other citizens, should likewise not be tolerated.

As always, you should be free to practise whatever customs you wish as long as those customs do not impose on others.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Are the men any less indoctrinated than the women?

This is a red herring. Of course the idiots who are tricked into strapping on bombs and blowing themselves up are just as indoctrinated. You need merely look at controller and controlled.

Should the fact that x number of women wear veils because they are 'controlled by the men in their lives' ( that is, they believe that they should be so controlled) preclude those who are not so controlled from having the freedom to choose to wear a veil?
I think wearing a cross is quite comparable: a woman can choose to wear or not wear a cross. Who is to say she does not have the right to make that choice?
If she has been indoctrinated to believe she should make that choice, how do we decide that she must be prevented from making that choice?

Again, the cross and veil are incomparable.


I have been a promoter of accepting other peoples' religions and cultures my whole adult life. I was very interested in cross cultural nursing in my early career and I still promote cultural sensitivity in nursing.

But over the years a few dilemmas emerged. How does a battered woman differ from one who believes they must be a prisoner at the direction of the men in their life? The battered woman goes back again and again willfully.

What differs between the followers of Marshall Applewhite and Jim Jones and the followers of a religion which imprisons women, deprives them of their right to an education or to move about freely in the community?

There is a line there somewhere. I'm not claiming every Christian or Muslim is in an abusive religion equal to a physically abusive domestic situation or a cult which ends in its members' suicides. But what I am saying is I moved where I draw the line down a couple notches from the worst, most damaging end of the continuum. I draw the line at the religious practices which most push for restrictions on and the placing of second class citizenship rules on women.

I refuse to say it is OK to demean women with second class religious status just because those women willfully choose to accept that status. Wearing a cross and believing in god, even the Christian god which clearly places women in second class status doesn't translate into practice of making those women second class citizens. Wearing a veil does and while some people like to argue it's about modesty, its about respect or tradition or some other benign thing, I challenge that sugar coated version. I don't believe it exists, or if it does, it is only true for a very small minority of women.

Overall, allowing women to teach their daughters this same oppression does not make it OK because they are willing to do so.


I did not adopt this position lightly. It's not about intolerance for a different culture or different beliefs. It's about re-examinig where I want to draw that line. Clearly it's not OK to support a victim of domestic violence to return to her abusive mate just because she is voluntarily returning. I'm just drawing my line in a little different place than some people are drawing it. My line of 'not OK' is on the other side of veils and restrictions on women's movement and lives that go with that veil. These are not symbols of religious belief, they are symbols of the slave class.

 

[kerikiwi]

This is a red herring. Of course the idiots who are tricked into strapping on bombs and blowing themselves up are just as indoctrinated. You need merely look at controller and controlled.

Not at all a red herring.
It is a serious question about how people come to believe what they believe.
If a woman who believes a woman should wear a burqa is indoctrinated, why is a man who believes the same thing not equally indoctrinated?
I disagree that the cross and the veil cannot be compared when considering the reasons why people accept them.
Just when do we accept that people are allowed to make their own choices?
I don't like the fact that (some) women subsume their identities to their husbands' by adopting their husbands' names.
I don't like the fact that (some)women choose to wear religious clothing, whatever its degree of oppression.
I just don't know when we should decide for that woman what she should and should not be allowed to do.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I think the line can be drawn quite easily. Your entire argument seems to be based on an assumption that the clothing in question is "dehumanising", but that's a subjective call made based on your personal opinion. ...

There is evidence veils and similar clothing are by far used to control and restrict women and have nothing to do with the Islamic religion.

With the 'slutty' clothes example you cite, there is more than sufficient evidence such clothing is worn by many people with a wide range of behaviors.

I agree with your point, but not your assessment there is no evidence the clothing in question is not part of a culture of systematic oppression of women. This is where I think a lot of people have a fairy tale view as opposed to a real world view of this clothing. Perhaps a single spokeswoman or two has made some public statement how they willfully choose the veil yadda yadda yadda. I can guarantee you there are may women who will profess they willingly want to return to their abusive partner who "didn't mean it".

So how do you then determine if this is a case of one culture not understanding another, or of oppression of women being deemed acceptable because the women are willing participants?

I challenge you to find a culture that favors the veil which is not a culture oppressing women. I'm not looking for single individuals who profess they are happy camping veiled women, show me the culture that isn't unhealthily oppressing women.

If slavery were acceptable to the enslaved, would you think that culture was OK? If some single spokesperson said they were a happy camper slave, they dug it, would that make slavery OK? It's a tough call, I'm not saying it is easy. But over time, I've come to recognize "willingly" is not the only criteria for saying something is OK.

How do we determine what is wrongly oppressive and what isn't? What criteria do you use? And just who is it you think happily wears these veils besides indoctrinated women also indoctrinated they must obey the rules applied only to them and not to the males in their world? I'm not saying it is an easy call. But I am saying sometimes "willingly" is not the only criteria to say something is OK or it is not.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Not at all a red herring.
It is a serious question about how people come to believe what they believe.
If a woman who believes a woman should wear a burqa is indoctrinated, why is a man who believes the same thing not equally indoctrinated?

Indoctrination alone is not the issue. That's what makes it a red herring.

I disagree that the cross and the veil cannot be compared when considering the reasons why people accept them.
Just when do we accept that people are allowed to make their own choices?
I don't like the fact that (some) women subsume their identities to their husbands' by adopting their husbands' names.
I don't like the fact that (some)women choose to wear religious clothing, whatever its degree of oppression.
I just don't know when we should decide for that woman what she should and should not be allowed to do.

Can you draw the line anywhere? Is it OK for a woman to return to an abusive domestic partner or should we send the guy to jail even when the abused person refuses to testify against him? Is slavery OK if people who grew up under the system believe it is OK? How about apartheid? Are these things only wrong when the people stuck within these systems decide they want change?

Once you find where you draw your personal line, can you define what puts that line where it is in your view of OK, not OK?

Where we all draw the line is an individual philosophy. Just as you say, taking a husband's name would be extreme if one drew the line that far over on the continuum.

I think what differs here is I see the veil, not as some religious symbol. I see it as a mark of oppression. I understand peoples' view it is some religious garb. I think that is a naive, but common belief. We all want to be tolerant of views of other people and other cultures. I do as well.


So how do we determine if the veils are just some cultural difference or something more ominous and worrisome?

 

[kerikiwi]

Indoctrination alone is not the issue. That's what makes it a red herring

When one is considering why people believe what they believe, indoctrination is not a red herring. it is entirely relevant.

 

[Pardalis]

These are not symbols of religious belief, they are symbols of the slave class.

Going a little far off perhaps? You're talking about the full burqa, or just the veil?

I agree for the burqa, that's mental, but the veil is not a symbol of enslavement, it can be found in alot of cultures, from our European wedding dress, to some catholic women, as well as Hindu women, gypsies and orthodox Jews (to name a few).

Could this be a cultural thing?