Drawing A Veil..

Sure. The fact that our society has its prejudices- for example, that it is unusually prude- does not excuse the injustices of another society.

 

Charlotte - you are applying a very Western definition of abuse when you make that argument. Many Muslim men insist that women dress this way because they believe that it is in keeping with the teachings of the Islamic faith.

That is not my personal opinion, btw, so don't shoot the messenger.

 

I might be kinda nervous if I was approached by a woman in a Burkha, but only in the same way I'd be scared of someone in a hoody. I like to see who I'm talking to, or else my paranoia runs wild and I imagine them concealing a knife or something. Or just being unapproachable in general. Conditions depend on this, of course - I usually see women in Burkhas pushing prams around a supermarket. Not exactly a frightening situation.

That's an irrational fear though, and nothing to do with religion. I never have, and doubt I ever will, find a group of Muslims hanging around outside a shop at night intimidating passers by. I probably won't be cornered by one in a dark alley. They're not wearing their outfits to scare people or look threatening, so the fact some people find it scary is neither here nor there. It's that person's problem.

I think banning Burkhas is a pretty stupid thing to do, but I guess I can see the logic behind it. Even still, it's crossing the line.

 

Still not sure how it is any different to the man who insists his wife can't wear a skirt up to her boobs and a neckline down to her bum because he believes it is immodest and shows him up or makes her a target for another man.

I have no bother with the Muslim male who insists his wife dress that way if SHE chooses to let him insist and that it is done through free will and not force. The moment fear and force are involved this woman calls that abuse

I am actually in this context using abuse as the removal of the decision making process from a person (arguably that could include the law).

I am actually probably applying a Mormon (I was one for 20 years) view of abuse rather than a western one - the idea that the man is head of the household is no issue but there is something called unrighteous dominion and as soon as he uses force and is not given that position by consent and earning it through his own actions it becomes abuse. He should be given that position rather than take it. Most of my Muslim female friends have a similar view of the family structure to the Mormon doctrinal one.

 

"Sure. The fact that our society has its prejudices- for example, that it is unusually prude- does not excuse the injustices of another society."

Cool! Glad you are consistent! My pants are coming down! And I’ll agree to the Burka when it’s legal to go nude…that’s fair!

I think the issue is as much about the broader question of type of society the French wish to live, in rather than purely a question about the Burka-- and this is something much of Europe is grapping with.
Many European societies are rapidly changing though immigration, and many people are not happy about that. Should they have to accept it? Should they be compelled to open their arms to the traditions of all another cultures, or should they have the right to say, “we don’t want this…”

Should a society not be permitted to preserve and protect its culture from foreign influences that it finds unacceptable?

 

Philosophical concerns aside, I think that's the heart of this problem as well. With multiculturalism, how much pressure should be placed on immigrants to adapt to their new society- or how far should the host country go to accommodate new arrivals. I'm not sure there is a quick answer to the overarching problem, but in this particular instance I'm uncomfortable with the law because it exists specifically to stifle a particular group of people.

 

It depends, I believe. Some cultural aspects can be harmful and should be avoided. This applies to all cultures, not simply ones foreign to western sensibilities. Burkas and the like should not be considered this, as a general rule. I personally know Muslim women whom wear this as an expression of faith. Why should their faith be denied? Does it hurt them? No. Can it be a practice that is abused? Yes, but there are many practices that can be abused and remain legal. This seems like a gross misuse of the law, to me.

 

"I'm uncomfortable with the law because it exists specifically to stifle a particular group of people"
But in the real world, immigrants are always particular groups of people, and any society wishing to curb the influence of immigrates will be curbing the specific influence of particular individuals.


“Why should their faith be denied? Does it hurt them? No”
If something changes a culture, some would say it hurts the culture.
Why should French society be forced to accept the practices of certain faiths if it doesn’t want to?

Should a society not be permitted to preserve and protect its culture from foreign influences that it finds unacceptable?

 

How does it hurt French culture?

 

If something changes a culture, some would say it hurts the culture.

 

Culture changes all the time. By definition, culture changes. Cultural diffusion is a natural and even essential process by which new elements are introduced into a culture via foreign influence. Those that say change hurts a culture are idiots, frankly.

This is ignoring the fact that Muslims wearing veils affects only a certain portion of the French. It's not like all the children in France are going to start wearing the hijab some day.

 

This thread worries me a bit. So far, it has been peaceful, and I hope it stays that way.

Actually, it had better stay that way.

I had a sick feeling in thej pit of my stomach when I heard this on the news. In the United States it would clearly be unconstitutional. Even so, I can picture some lawyer backed by a group of bigots arguing that it is equivalent to concealing one's identity, and bar them from entering banks, stores, and shopping malls - for "public safety".

Couldn't happen? It a country that has the likes of Qu'ran-burning Terry Jones, neo-Nazis, and the KKK, it really could.

 

I think the closest the United States has gotten is trouble issuing passports and driver's licenses to these women. It's hard to take an identifying picture when so little is shown and can be easily masked for someone else.

 

I think it's fair to say that all cultures change. I think it's also fair to say that sometimes some of those changes will be for the worse. I think resistance to change is therefore, sometimes, a good thing. Of what should that resistance consist (when that which you are resisting is not flagrantly illegal)?

If you make that thing illegal, you are acting very stupidly. If you claim to represent a better way, a way that purportedly champions tolerance, and freedom, and the rights of the individual, you spectacularly undermine and diminish your way in a trice.

In resisting in this way, you are displaying an utter lack of faith in the strength, vitality and durability of your own way. If it's better, people will flock to it: sometimes over many generations, sometimes over a few short years.

Those people in the Western nations most troubled by immigration are troubled not because they are deeply patriotic, not because they are profoundly animated by the excellences of their own culture, but because they lack meaningful patriotism and because they lack a true appreciation of their own culture.

 

Culture changes all the time.
That is not under dispute. But should a culture not have any say in how it changes, and no ability prevent changes that it is not comfortable with?
If Amazonian jungle dwellers don’t want Christian missionaries influencing their society, should have no say in preventing missionaries from entering into their society?

Those that say change hurts a culture are idiots, frankly.
Change can destroy a culture, even causing them to vanish…could you not say that the European impact on Australian Aboriginal culture was harmful to traditional Aboriginal culture?
…Of course you could argue European culture was superior to Aboriginal cultures, and individual aboriginals are better off living like Europeans – but even then it would be hard to deny that damage was done to their culture through change…so I can’t go along with a sweeping statement that would imply change never hurts a culture.
It’s not up to me to judge what other cultures deem to be harmful and contradictory to their core values and beliefs. Do you feel you can judge that for them?

In the United States it would clearly be unconstitutional.
France does not have the USA constitution, and if they do not wish to adopt it, that is their prerogative. Would you seek to impose USA values and beliefs onto all peoples and cultures of the world?

By the way, does anyone know if would it be unconstitutional to walk around naked? And if not, why can’t I do it in the USA?

It a country that has the likes of Qu'ran-burning Terry Jones, neo-Nazis, and the KKK, it really could.-burning Terry Jones, neo-Nazis, and the KKK, it really could.
If you wish to preserve freedom of expression, you have to accept the right organizations to preach intolerance. I assume you believe people should have the right to burn as many Qu’rans as they wish?

How much religious intolerance should a society tolerate?

Quran; Sura 5:51: “O you who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors”
Mohammed said, “Whoever changes his Islamic religion, kill him.” (Hadith Al Buhkari vol. 9:57)
--as these the sorts of believes a traditionally predominantly non-Muslim society should accept in the name of religious freedom?

As I said before, I think the Burka issue is really about the wider issue of what the French deem appropriate for their society, and I suspect many people in France reject much of the intolerance within the Qurans teachings. Like I said, how tolerant should others be of intolerance?

This thread worries me a bit
I think you worry too much! But of course there are limits to what you can tolerate in posts, just as there are limits to what the French feel they can tolerate within their society, and who am I to judge the limits of either?

Even those of us who like freedom of expression in principle sometimes seek to curtail it in pratice, for we recognize there are occasions in which it is best for certain modes of behavior and conversations to be silenced. Ironic isn’t it!

 

I'd like to jump in here because this sentence is really at odds with your most of what you've been saying. You're saying (and I agree) that it's wrong for other countries to force their values/beliefs/etc. on other peoples; however the French have done just that with the law.

Now I agree that cultures do have a right to protect themselves and that change can be good and bad. But the modern-day worldwide culture is beginning to shift towards a more open and tolerant enviroment. Not all people like this or agree with it, but it is happening. This ban by the French is in many ways stifling of cultural expression for their Muslim population. Cultural expression by one group is not the same as them imposing their beliefs on another. Just because a muslim woman wears a burka in France that doesnt mean she's trying to force all the french women to do the same-she is merely expressing her own beliefs.

That being said this ban is neither right nor wrong because it bans a form of cultural exression, but as noted earlier, is helpful to the many women who have been trying to fight wearing a veil. It's very hard to make a judgement call on this issue because it hurts and helps people differently depending on their situation. Overall I think I would be against it because it does hinder rights, but it's hard to make a true judgement especially from a US standpoint.

 

I agree with you. It's clearly about more than just the Veil, and French reactions to it. I don't agree with the French banning of the veil however. Aside from the fact that many Muslims fought for France during both world wars - it seems rash.

There is one verse in the Qu'ran that also says something like 'There is no argument between Jews, Christians and Muslims'. I can't remember the quote exactly, nor from with Sura it is in. Apparently - the problem with the Qu'ran and quoting from it is that it wasn't written in a single situation. . It was developed over years of differing situations for the early Muslim faith. That's where we get so many differing interpretations of it, even between two people of the Sunni minority. I'm no expert on the Qu'ran or Islam however, I do have friends who are Muslim.

And sides. Would you be ok with someone demonizing Christianity by picking the worst passages in the Bible?

Not really. Cog is just trying to keep most people happy, and respect to him for at least trying. Even if I don't think he is always successful (we have disagreed in the past) you have to remember that this is a writing forum, not a place to met people and bicker with them.

 

I'd like to jump in here because this sentence is really at odds with your most of what you've been saying.
Good post, and I go along with much of it…I merely wished to point out (perhaps not successfully) that I regard the issue in the manner of moral dilemma, and as such, I don’t think there is an absolute right or wrong to it…

like it or not, in real life, people censor the expression of others-weather it be through peer pressure, legislation or closing forum posts. Where you draw the line at how people behave, and what they may say in public, is a matter of personal preference. I believe most western cultures draw a legal line at inciting violence and hatred –are they trampling on the ‘right’ of people to express anything they want, or are there legitimate limits to how citizens of a community may behave?
And where, for instance, where would you draw a line at what constitutes an instigation of violence and hatred? At a religious document that says to kill non-believers, or at someone burning the Koran…and where do you draw the line as to what is deemed acceptable behavior and modes of expression within your culture?
yes, its all very much open to interpretation, and personal preference, and as such, I feel the French ought to be about to draw the line at the Burka, if that is their wish.

My specific Koran quotes may not illustrate my point well --yes, all religious texts are open to interpretation—but justified or not, many people in the west do not agree with numerous aspects of Islam, and if the bulk of French people wish to ban certain expressions of Islam, I defend their ‘right’ to do so. Yes, this is an ironical, contradictory situation – you stamp on the ‘rights’ of a few to promote the wishes of the majority. Is that right or wrong? Again, there is no black and white answer...
And yes, issues such as there are rife with irony and contradictions, ie it would be ironical to demand a vanquishing of an expression of intolerance in order to preserve tolerance, but in real life...

You're saying (and I agree) that it's wrong for other countries to force their values/beliefs/etc. on other peoples; however the French have done just that with the law.
Actually, I did say it was right or wrong, I mealy asked a question: Would you seek to impose USA values and beliefs onto all peoples and cultures of the world? Another moral dilemma!

That being said this ban is neither right nor wrong because it bans a form of cultural exression
I think you are kind of saying the same thing as me here? But probably I haven’t expressed my point so well….

it's hard to make a true judgement especially from a US standpoint.
I think so too. It’s up to French to decide what they deem as acceptable within their society…and whether or not I agree with their decision, I would defend their ‘right’ to decide.

But the modern-day worldwide culture is beginning to shift towards a more open and tolerant enviroment. Not all people like this or agree with it, but it is happening.Probably, but I think it is a little early to know which way it will finally go…if you’re interested, ‘The end of history’ and ‘The clash of cultures’ are two good books related to this subject, each with a different conclusion…only time will tell how this process of globalization will end up!

Would you be ok with someone demonizing Christianity by picking the worst passages in the Bible?
100% okay with it.

This ban by the French is in many ways stifling of cultural expression for their Muslim population.
Sure it is, and weather I personally agree with it or not, just as not doing it would be stifling the wished of the majority of French citizens. You cant keep everyone happy!

Cog is just trying to keep most people happy
As is the French legislation!

 

Well, just coming in at the end here, I guess! If you've looked at my profile, you may have seen I'm Muslim. Sunni Muslim (not Shia, which is what most of the fully-veiled women are).

I can't stress too strongly that the veil is a totally CULTURAL garment, not a religious one. It has never been customary to wear a full veil completely covering the face in Turkey, like the Afghanis or Saudis wear. Village women and Türkmen have always worn headscarves, but so have all Eastern European women. Muslim women do not need to wear a veil, it is NOT a requirement in Islam.

I don't think people realise how incredibly the veil restricts a woman's everyday life. It's not just about covering your hair. You have to embrace the whole second class citizen thing totally--no swimming when men are present, never getting the chance to play on the beach with your children, never take part in sports, never be seen by a male doctor/hairdresser, never be in a non-relative male's company etc etc the list goes on and on.

If you don't have the money for a cushy lifestyle like the Saudis or a Pakistani millionaire, you live a half life. It's fine if you are rich, don't want to work, and can afford to rent an entire hotel for your summer holiday, for example. I cannot believe that any woman willingly puts herself through such discomfort without STRONG brainwashing or force from outside parties like in-laws, husband or fathers--or maybe the backward people in her neighbourhood if she is unfortunate enough to live in that kind of area. Every Turkish, or other Middle Eastern girl I've personally known, has only worn a veil because of this type of relentless pressure from childhood or after marriage, when she's at her most vulnerable. Or it's her take on getting back at her modern parents. So again, nothing to do with religion.

I am only telling you what other educated Turkish women will tell you. I am not speaking as a western woman here. I have three daughters, and I would have been extremely unhappy if they had had e.g. veiled teachers at their primary school, just when kids are at an impressionable age. Girls need to be protected from this kind of insidious propaganda. Thank God, Turkey is a fully secular country, where the veil is banned, yes banned, from schools and institutions of higher education, parliament govnt buildings, state hospitals, the lawcourts and many other public places. If girls want to wear a veil they take it off at the main entrance when they arrive, and put it on again when they leave.

I could go on by giving examples of girls who have been given money incentives to wear veils just to cause problems and provocation to undermine the modern and democratic lifestyle Turkish people fought to hard to obtain, but I won't--I've taken enough of your time, I expect.

People in the west need to wake up, and protect the freedom of their daughters. There is no freedom of choice in the veil. You might just as well defend female circumcision because women operators perform it, and girls sometimes want it because otherwise they can't marry (which is what was said about another horrendous and oppressive cultural manipulation, footbinding).

Oh, and Vive La France, by the way.

P.S. Read through some other posts--it is never worth defending or allowing a backward cultural practice that has the potential to damage young women. The veil is bad, bad, bad, and like many other Muslim women I am happy to proclaim this and still remain a Muslim. For women who feel they have to because it is 'part of their faith', I am sorry for them. Look to my earlier comments above. I'm sure they will be happier once the guilt and brainwashing wears off and the feeling of freedom kicks in.

 

So you are saying that a well educated, western woman who feels it is a token and expression of religion should be refused that right ? I don't live in Turkey or a predminantly Muslim country as a result the Muslim women I meet have very different experiences.

Both the women I know are intelligent women, certainly do not behave as second class citizens. Have well educated high paying jobs. One is married to a Christian and her mother wears a hijab but not a Burkha. The decision was hers, and hers alone to do so. She personally feels more comfortable that way. Why the hell should she be denied it ? And why should anyone tell another person that their expression of religion is not justified and is undoctrinal.

As a Mormon i wore items of clothing that were an expression of my religion - an awful lot of Christians would tell me it was undoctinal etc OK it didn't cover my face but it did restrict how I changed at the swimming baths, the kinds of clothes I could wear etc. It was my free choice to wear it just as it was my free choice not to wear it.

During that time the Christians that chose to throw scripture at me and say it was undoctinal were politely told to take a long walk of a short pier into a burning vat of oil. Fact is it was none of their business.

I am not saying being compelled to cover up on any level is right - whether that is a husband telling his wife to wear more modest clothing or a Burkha. However to force someone not to wear because you do not agree with how they live their religion is just as bad.

When a law comes in forcing women not to it is no different in tone to the law that forces women to.

 

I have to make an admission here. I privately asked madhoca to look at this thread and to contribute if she felt moved to do so. I was aware of her background and felt that she would have insight beyond the rest of us.

Her post, like almost every other that she makes around this place, does not disappoint. For me, personally, in someplaces it confirms, and in others it informs, because we all know a little about Islam, and don't know a lot more. And happily, I agree almost 100% with the sentiments she has expressed.

So, I'm off to give myself a pat on the back for having the good sense to ask her in the first place.

 

Madhocas post is interesting and informative. It gives a perspective on how the Burkha can be seen in another culture. Which also may explain why the French did what they did.

However I have two friends, and I value their friendship and if it comes up in the UK it will be their rights I will be fighting for above any other Muslim because I know them. They have made their decision, I respect their decision. I am not arguing on any level that compulsion or abuse are right. My arguement is simply that choice should not be removed and compulsion not to is also wrong.

Plus taking the Mormon out of me after twenty years is not going to happen - a very basic tennant of my belief system was to allow a man or woman to worship to the dictates of their own belief. In fighting for their right to do so we protect our own rights. If all religious clothing became banned (whether you see it as religious or not), then my right to wear religious clothing assicated with being a Mormon would have been removed. There is a reason it took a long time for there to be a Mormon Temple in France. Their lack of respect for its sacred nature was part of it.

Some Mormons happilly wear a tankini, normal classic leg swimsuit for modesty purposes, others are more relaxed about other styles of clothing we have a choice about how much we 'cover' up as an expression of our religion. Other Mormon women will never even wear long shorts and will wear something approaching a wetsuit when swimming. Again some Mormon men will wear trunks to swim others will wear a tshirt or other top. The woman that wears a wetsuit is expressing her religion as she sees fit neither is right or wrong it is still part of her religion. As a UK Mormon seeing what some Utah based Mormons go to by way of lengths for modesty is eye rolling stuff but for them whilst it is cultural it is also religious. A Mormon from Saudi Arabia was shocked at the movies UK Mormons watched etc Tonga Mormons are interesting in their attitude to time keeping and dress etc

 

Honestly. I'm glad you did. Her post was really educational.

 

Laws are there to protect children and vulnerable members of our society and so sometimes they are needed.

 

Yes, Mohamed and the Koran makes no mention of the Burka, though what is or is not part of a particular religion (or branch of it) is up to the religion/branch to decide… religions, like culture change, and adopt new customs—sometimes for the better, sometimes for the worse…

As I said earlier, if healthy individuals fear others seeing their face they don’t need a Burkha, but a physiatrist...feeling like you need to hide when in public I don’t see as healthy and I don’t think any organization that installs a need to unnaturally cover up is healthy and ought to be supported.

Laws are there to protect children and vulnerable members of our society and so sometimes they are needed.
Exaclty, even if it upsets a few people who feel thier rights have been trampled on...what about the 'right' of people to be protected?