I agree. Hence I do not think the abuse of removing the right of women to choose to wear a garment you and I dislike is justified because other women wear it under duress.
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
I agree. Hence I do not think the abuse of removing the right of women to choose to wear a garment you and I dislike is justified because other women wear it under duress.
I agree that women who choose to return to or stay with abusive men (and men who do the same with their abusive partners) are not thinking clearly, or at least not thinking as I very strongly do.
But at what stage do you remove the right of the woman (or man) to make that choice?
SnidelyW
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2009
- Messages
- 486
In Canada, this issue was exacerbated by the requirement to produce photo identification at the ballot boxes on election day. Since the polling clerk must verify one is who they purport to be, a match with ones' photo ID allows a ballot to be isssued.
Voting law in Canada requires this photo ID verification process.
Women wearing burkas and /or face veils refused to remove them for this purpose, and when pressed to do so, stated there wasn't a law compelling them to do so.
In Quebec, a provincial statute has been proposed that goes further, barring the use of the face veil from government offices, schools, and other publicly funded institutions, hospital care or receiving university instruction.
A poll in Quebec found 95% of residents support the proposed law.
Here's a link to a Montreal Gazette article on the poll;
http://www.montrealgazette.com/life/Most+Canadians+agree+with+Quebec+burka/2732224/story.html
So, when the integrity of the election system is put at risk because of ones religious behaviour, the state takes action, in this case expanding it to cover almost all directly funded government activities.
Voting law in Canada requires this photo ID verification process.
Women wearing burkas and /or face veils refused to remove them for this purpose, and when pressed to do so, stated there wasn't a law compelling them to do so.
In Quebec, a provincial statute has been proposed that goes further, barring the use of the face veil from government offices, schools, and other publicly funded institutions, hospital care or receiving university instruction.
A poll in Quebec found 95% of residents support the proposed law.
Here's a link to a Montreal Gazette article on the poll;
http://www.montrealgazette.com/life/Most+Canadians+agree+with+Quebec+burka/2732224/story.html
So, when the integrity of the election system is put at risk because of ones religious behaviour, the state takes action, in this case expanding it to cover almost all directly funded government activities.
Well, saying something is so doesn't make it so.
Did someone enlighten them?
Did they get to vote, or did they choose not to?
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2005
- Messages
- 96,955
If you are a legislator, the politically correct means in the case of domestic abuse was to prosecute without the injured party's cooperation.
If you are Sarkozy, in France, you ban certain head wear because your political position and bias against Muslims in your country allows you to make such a move.
If you are in the US (and probably
If you are me, you hold the position we should be taking a stronger position against the oppression of women in certain cultures, in spite of the importance of tolerance for beliefs and cultures which don't mirror our own. In this case the cultural mandate women should cover their faces in public cannot be divorced from the culture of oppression of women, even if some women think their wearing of such head coverings is a statement of defiance of Western culture. I understand their point, but think they are misguided into seeing the Western cultural influence as being worth defying while ignoring the plight of women in the cultures they are choosing to support.
Last edited:
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2005
- Messages
- 96,955
I was curious about the voting in Canada
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2005
- Messages
- 96,955
Google is your friend.
In 2007, "Prime Minister Stephen Harper says he "profoundly disagrees" with a recent decision by Elections Canada to allow Muslim women to vote with their faces covered by burkas or niqabs."
"Chief Electoral Officer Marc Mayrand has been accused of reinterpreting the law and defying the will of Parliament, for declaring that women with veils don’t have to remove them when they vote."
That was followed with, "Veiled voters must swear oath: Elections Canada".
In more recent Canadian news reports the controversy continues regarding banning the Niqab in classes and in police mug shots.
TriangleMan
Graduate Poster
If I may take a moment to add my thoughts to the debate.
Historically, cultures and societies will at times adopt a particular custom for practical reasons, not purely driven by ideology, religion, or other human constructions. They may not even recall why exactly they did things that way, or it may have such obvious benefits that you would not even realize it unless you spent time consciously thinking about it. An example would be Navajo taboos against going anywhere near certain types of mice. Anthropologists considered the custom driven entirely by religion and superstition. It was only in the last couple of decades, once many Navajo had dismissed the custom and started dying of a strange disease, that we realized that the same mice carried a lethal hantavirus.
In the case of the Arabian Peninsula there are some physical factors at work that would encourage certain styles of clothing:
1) nearly guaranteed sunshine every day
2) significant amounts of airborne dust and sand
Many Arabs are rather light-skinned, perhaps not to the extent of a Caucasian but certainly nowhere near the darker skin tones one can find in Africa. The ability to keep oneself covered can be important given the amount of sunshine and lack of cover one finds in the desert. (If you look at the traditional Arab dress for men you will find that the gurtra also readily serves to shade the head from the sun). The ability to be able to shield your nose and mouth from the dust and sand is also important and Arabic dress, for both men and women, does just that. Women have veils or other face coverings, men will cover their face with the edge of their gurtra, or in many cases biting on it to hold it in front of their mouth, something I've seen most Qatari men do when it is dusty.
Many a dusty day here in Qatar I have been having to wander outside with either a handkerchief over my mouth or wearing a dust mask. Guess I wear a "veil" as well sometimes.
Enter Islam, and its requirements for people to dress modestly and for men to not stare at women they are not related to. It dovetailed nicely with the style of dress at the time and so people in the Arabian Peninsula covering themselves nearly head to toe became supported both culturally and religiously. It also made sense given the environment they lived in. Once entwined the society would support this mode of dress for religious reasons, despite the fact (as other posters have pointed out )that the Qur'an does not mention having to cover yourself to that extent.
As the heart of Islam, Mecca, is in the Peninsula it meant that Muslims from all over the world would inevitably be exposed to the style of dress in Arabia, and for many I suspect it influenced their societies to some degree. Yet it was not completely adopted, in most Islamic countries the majority of women do not cover their face.
Thus I do not agree with arguments that face coverings for women are solely due to reasons relating to oppression and subjugation and should not be seen purely as symbols of such. I am certainly not saying that Islamic countries are a bastion of freedom for women, but veils and other face coverings for women likely existed for reasons beyond simple misogyny.
Additionally, in many of the Arabian countries there appears to be variance in whether a woman wears a face covering or not. I have not been to Saudi Arabia, but in Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, UAE, and Oman plenty of local women did not wear a niqab (veil). Some do, some don't. In our office we have had five Qatari women working for us at one point or another, all wore the black abaya and covered their hair but none of them wore veils. One of the Emir's wives, Sheika Hamosa, recently visited the King of Saudi Arabia and did not wear a veil. In fact I don't recall her ever wearing a veil. This was in the last couple of weeks so I'm sure you can find pictures on Google News if you wish to search for it. And anyone who has lived here could probably tell you a story about flying to Europe and noticing some ladies in abayas and niqabs going to the washroom and changing into Western-style clothing before the plane landed. Some do, many don't, but it does occur. So to what extent can we argue that these women are always forced to wear veils and it is never a matter of choice? For many it is a choice, and it is not for Western society to deny them that choice.
Historically, cultures and societies will at times adopt a particular custom for practical reasons, not purely driven by ideology, religion, or other human constructions. They may not even recall why exactly they did things that way, or it may have such obvious benefits that you would not even realize it unless you spent time consciously thinking about it. An example would be Navajo taboos against going anywhere near certain types of mice. Anthropologists considered the custom driven entirely by religion and superstition. It was only in the last couple of decades, once many Navajo had dismissed the custom and started dying of a strange disease, that we realized that the same mice carried a lethal hantavirus.
In the case of the Arabian Peninsula there are some physical factors at work that would encourage certain styles of clothing:
1) nearly guaranteed sunshine every day
2) significant amounts of airborne dust and sand
Many Arabs are rather light-skinned, perhaps not to the extent of a Caucasian but certainly nowhere near the darker skin tones one can find in Africa. The ability to keep oneself covered can be important given the amount of sunshine and lack of cover one finds in the desert. (If you look at the traditional Arab dress for men you will find that the gurtra also readily serves to shade the head from the sun). The ability to be able to shield your nose and mouth from the dust and sand is also important and Arabic dress, for both men and women, does just that. Women have veils or other face coverings, men will cover their face with the edge of their gurtra, or in many cases biting on it to hold it in front of their mouth, something I've seen most Qatari men do when it is dusty.
Many a dusty day here in Qatar I have been having to wander outside with either a handkerchief over my mouth or wearing a dust mask. Guess I wear a "veil" as well sometimes.
Enter Islam, and its requirements for people to dress modestly and for men to not stare at women they are not related to. It dovetailed nicely with the style of dress at the time and so people in the Arabian Peninsula covering themselves nearly head to toe became supported both culturally and religiously. It also made sense given the environment they lived in. Once entwined the society would support this mode of dress for religious reasons, despite the fact (as other posters have pointed out )that the Qur'an does not mention having to cover yourself to that extent.
As the heart of Islam, Mecca, is in the Peninsula it meant that Muslims from all over the world would inevitably be exposed to the style of dress in Arabia, and for many I suspect it influenced their societies to some degree. Yet it was not completely adopted, in most Islamic countries the majority of women do not cover their face.
Thus I do not agree with arguments that face coverings for women are solely due to reasons relating to oppression and subjugation and should not be seen purely as symbols of such. I am certainly not saying that Islamic countries are a bastion of freedom for women, but veils and other face coverings for women likely existed for reasons beyond simple misogyny.
Additionally, in many of the Arabian countries there appears to be variance in whether a woman wears a face covering or not. I have not been to Saudi Arabia, but in Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, UAE, and Oman plenty of local women did not wear a niqab (veil). Some do, some don't. In our office we have had five Qatari women working for us at one point or another, all wore the black abaya and covered their hair but none of them wore veils. One of the Emir's wives, Sheika Hamosa, recently visited the King of Saudi Arabia and did not wear a veil. In fact I don't recall her ever wearing a veil. This was in the last couple of weeks so I'm sure you can find pictures on Google News if you wish to search for it. And anyone who has lived here could probably tell you a story about flying to Europe and noticing some ladies in abayas and niqabs going to the washroom and changing into Western-style clothing before the plane landed. Some do, many don't, but it does occur. So to what extent can we argue that these women are always forced to wear veils and it is never a matter of choice? For many it is a choice, and it is not for Western society to deny them that choice.
Your assessment is fairly accurte and sensible up to this paragraph. The origin of a tradition however, does not justify what the tradition mutates into. If women were allowed to beat men who walked out without their faces covered, you might have made a point here, but that's not the case.
So in other words, those who have the freedom to choose often exercize that choice, while those who do not have the freedom to choose remain silent on the issue?
You're speaking of relatively progressive nations there. Have you been out to the sticks in these nations? Places like Baghdad and Kabul have women walking around in western garb, often showing their calves or more, but head out from the population centers to where the tribes rule and you're in for a world of difference.
You've given a great description of where the veil comes from (dust screen), and what the veil is today (simple headpiece, like a ball cap), but you've passed over an era. Much how people forget the early era where it was a dust screen, people are now forgetting the era where it was a dog collar. Sadly, that era has not ended in many regions, but people fight for the rights of women who want to wear it like a ball cap and usher out the memory of an era which is still a reality for many women.
funk de fino
Dreaming of unicorns
You have yet to support any accusations of abuse. You have an opinion.
Yet I have been to those countries in recent times. Have you? I have never met a muslim woman in Dubai, Abu Dhabi, Iraq, Kuwait, Oman, Algeria, Libya who has told me they were forced to wear anything. In every case when I go to a muslim household in any of these countries the women are treated with the utmost respect. I have seen more abuse in households in my own country.
My mother pensions was different than my fathers. Because she was a woman. That is reality.
You have no right to tell a woman what she can wear.
gumboot
lorcutus.tolere
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2006
- Messages
- 25,327
I think the confusion here lies in understanding the sequence of things. I think both TriangleMan and Mason have raised good points, but I think Mason is latching onto the full body covering unfairly.
I'll explain why.
The issue Mason has, and that many including me have, is the poor treatment of women in some Islamic religious traditions, notably the Wahhabi and Deobandi branches which are dominant in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Afghanistan, and have been exported all over the world. I won't go over the way these women are treated - I think Mason gave a good summary earlier.
As TriangleMan explains, the covering has practical origins, has cultural origins, and was adopted by the religion mostly because the existing fashion fitted well with the religious ideology. As a result the ideology establishes another justification for the fashion, so that when in a context where the practical justification no longer applies (say, you're in Indonesia) the religious justification remains.
Neither of these has anything at all to do with oppression, sexism, women as possessions, forced marriage, or any of the other wholly legitimate criticisms of fundamentalist Islam.
Those aspects - those cultural and religious artifacts - have their own lineage, just like the veil does, that itself was once practical. It's derived from the harsh tribal codes of the pre-Islamic Bedouin (in Arabia) and Pashtuns (in Pakistan/Afghanistan). Like the covering of the body, it was absorbed into their version of Islam which gave it a new religious motivation and zeal.
where the cross-over occurs is because any group of people seeking to oppress another group will use whatever it can to do so. The full body covering, by it's nature, is a very useful tool of oppression. But like any tool, the fault lies with the intention and the way it's used, not the tool itself.
Banning the body covering doesn't address the problem. It merely tackles one of the myriad of tools being used to suppress women in these cultures. By banning such dress you're more than likely to just cause further suppression - their husbands and fathers may prohibit them from ever leaving the house or interacting with others.
The problem, and what needs to be tackled, is the strict, male-dominated and frankly evil code of "honour" that exists in these cultures. Once you've got rid of that the body coverings won't be tools of oppression and we can feel comfortable knowing those that wear them want to wear them.
I'll explain why.
The issue Mason has, and that many including me have, is the poor treatment of women in some Islamic religious traditions, notably the Wahhabi and Deobandi branches which are dominant in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Afghanistan, and have been exported all over the world. I won't go over the way these women are treated - I think Mason gave a good summary earlier.
As TriangleMan explains, the covering has practical origins, has cultural origins, and was adopted by the religion mostly because the existing fashion fitted well with the religious ideology. As a result the ideology establishes another justification for the fashion, so that when in a context where the practical justification no longer applies (say, you're in Indonesia) the religious justification remains.
Neither of these has anything at all to do with oppression, sexism, women as possessions, forced marriage, or any of the other wholly legitimate criticisms of fundamentalist Islam.
Those aspects - those cultural and religious artifacts - have their own lineage, just like the veil does, that itself was once practical. It's derived from the harsh tribal codes of the pre-Islamic Bedouin (in Arabia) and Pashtuns (in Pakistan/Afghanistan). Like the covering of the body, it was absorbed into their version of Islam which gave it a new religious motivation and zeal.
where the cross-over occurs is because any group of people seeking to oppress another group will use whatever it can to do so. The full body covering, by it's nature, is a very useful tool of oppression. But like any tool, the fault lies with the intention and the way it's used, not the tool itself.
Banning the body covering doesn't address the problem. It merely tackles one of the myriad of tools being used to suppress women in these cultures. By banning such dress you're more than likely to just cause further suppression - their husbands and fathers may prohibit them from ever leaving the house or interacting with others.
The problem, and what needs to be tackled, is the strict, male-dominated and frankly evil code of "honour" that exists in these cultures. Once you've got rid of that the body coverings won't be tools of oppression and we can feel comfortable knowing those that wear them want to wear them.
TriangleMan
Graduate Poster
You might be projecting your experiences in Afghanistan on other nations. Qatar and Bahrain do not have "sticks", and they are absolute monarchies so the countries are technically ruled by the head of a tribe. And yes they are "relatively progressive" compared to a country like Afghanistan (what country isn't?), so therefore why apply Afghani problems onto the rest of the Islamic world? What does an Afghani burqa have to do with why we in the West should enact laws banning veils on Egyptians?
Getting back to my original argument, it was due to quotes such as this:
My argument is that it cannot be viewed solely on those terms, even now. It has practical reasons for its use (which are still applicable today -- there are as many dust storms now as there were back then). We in the West may view it as symbolic oppression but it cannot be seen that way in absolute terms as it was also a practical dress code, which was further galvanized under religious ideology.
Plenty of Islamic nations are not in deserts, and veils are not commonly used there (now that I think about it there may even be a correlation between how common veils are in a society and how dry & dusty it is, but I digress), yet women in countries without veils still face significant challenges in terms of discrimination and rights.
Let's see what some Arab feminists think. I have heavily paraphrased the following article, it can be found in full here:
Article here
It would appear that Prof. Hatem feels there are far bigger issues than wearing veils.
What about in Qatar (again I have paraphrased the article, and btw she does not wear a veil):
Article here
Plenty of big issues that need dealing with, including some that were dealt with in the West up to 100 years ago.
I am not sure Prof Hatef's comments about token femocrats applies here, Ms. al-Malki has a broad range of criticisms about women's rights in Qatar and things that need changing in the country. She doesn't strike me as being "brainwashed" or "indoctrinated" to accept the culture she is in. Yet no mention about veils. And Qatar is a predominately Wahhabist nation.
I am not sure that Arab feminists see the veil in the same way that we do in the West, and thus do not really understand why the West fixates on it. I suspect that most Arab feminists would prefer the West spend its time and resources pressuring Arab governments to address the real problems women face in these countries instead of the debates on whether to ban what the West subjectively interprets as symbols of oppression or lack of freedom.
Last edited:
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2005
- Messages
- 96,955
And yet two people just lost their appeal of a conviction in Dubai for kissing in public.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=172157
Is that just cultural while speaking out against the government in China, for example, is unacceptable? I understand the issue when you say, "You have no right to tell a woman what she can wear."
The problem I have is who has the rule book which says, action [A] is cultural and action is unacceptable and should be condemned? In lots of cases it is fairly easy to argue for which end of the continuum a particular cultural behavior or expectation falls. In other cases it's more gray such as whether to charge a domestic abuser with a crime if the abused person doesn't want to prosecute and doesn't want the abuser to go to jail.
I don't think one just goes into a country where the majority or even a substantial minority adhere to a cultural practice and say, your country needs to behave like mine.
At the same time, I believe taking a position of condemning the cultural practice which amounts to oppression of women is the right position in terms of what I believe, whether people adhering to that practice feel the same or not.
SnakeTongue
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2010
- Messages
- 1,084
Officials rule France burqa ban legal
October 7th, 2010
01:35 PM ET
France's plan to ban the burqa and other Islamic face coverings in public places is legal, top constitutional authorities in France ruled Thursday, clearing the final hurdle before the ban becomes law.
In September the French senate approved the law – making France the first European country to nationally impose such a measure. The legislation was overwhelmingly approved by the lower house of parliament in July. It is scheduled to come into effect in the spring.
http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2010/10/0...a-ban-legal-law-goes-into-effect-immediately/
October 7th, 2010
01:35 PM ET
France's plan to ban the burqa and other Islamic face coverings in public places is legal, top constitutional authorities in France ruled Thursday, clearing the final hurdle before the ban becomes law.
In September the French senate approved the law – making France the first European country to nationally impose such a measure. The legislation was overwhelmingly approved by the lower house of parliament in July. It is scheduled to come into effect in the spring.
http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2010/10/0...a-ban-legal-law-goes-into-effect-immediately/
Look to Cairo. 20 years ago, girls wasn't allowed to date boys alone. Nowdays, girls can date boys alone and are deciding themselves where they want to go and what to do when outside.
The same time, while almost no one weared hijabs 20 years ago, everyone do that today.
It's a trend thing, and it obviously scares some wimps in the west that those women can do it out of pride, and it's little different from western women using shoes with high heels. Most men in cairo don't give a ****, and some even dislike it, especially burkas as their wives stink after wearing it for a day.
The same time, while almost no one weared hijabs 20 years ago, everyone do that today.
It's a trend thing, and it obviously scares some wimps in the west that those women can do it out of pride, and it's little different from western women using shoes with high heels. Most men in cairo don't give a ****, and some even dislike it, especially burkas as their wives stink after wearing it for a day.
Beerina
Sarcastic Conqueror of Notions
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2004
- Messages
- 34,825
Lessee. A legitimate voter is happy because they get to vote. A fake voter is positively peeing her(?)self with glee.
Are there masses of fake voters? Does the government run statistics as to the number of "veiled oath-takers" to see if there's a sudden spike that might indicate non-trivial fraud?
Elind
Philosopher
For most people religion is a cultural thing. It's what you grew up indoctrinated by, just like the food and music you learned to like.