Nicolas Sarkozy wants to ban the Burqa. The French National Assembly looks set to agree.
Despite all the blah about ‘Western values’, women in the West also have issues with compulsory sexualised visibility. The claim that this regulation of dress is somehow a feminist move is both ambiguous and problematic. I’ve rarely seen a better discussion of this than Liz Conor’s. Go read.
The most important issue for me is that women should be able to wear whatever they want, even if it makes me uncomfortable, which which burqa wearing does.
But another thing which makes me uncomfortable is the idea that burqa wearing is a good thing because it prevents women from being harassed in the streets. I don’t believe this for a moment. Plus it makes male behaviour a female responsibility. I think this would be a legitimate issue to discuss with Muslim feminists.
For those who want to argue that women are forces to wear a burqa – that may be true. But banning it won’t help those women. It just means they won’t be allowed to leave the house.
I also post at a horse-racing blog, frequented mainly by men; some of whom are very right-wing. Just this week there’s been a post put up about how it would be a good thing to ban the burqa here. These are blokes who could not give a damn about women’s rights, but they’ve got all feministy about this particular issue. That’s enough to tell me that this push is simply an anti-Muslim dog-whistle.
The most important issue for me is that women should be able to wear whatever they want, even if it makes me uncomfortable, which which burqa wearing does.
But another thing which makes me uncomfortable is the idea that burqa wearing is a good thing because it prevents women from being harassed in the streets. I don’t believe this for a moment. Plus it makes male behaviour a female responsibility. I think this would be a legitimate issue to discuss with Muslim feminists.
For those who want to argue that women are forces to wear a burqa – that may be true. But banning it won’t help those women. It just means they won’t be allowed to leave the house.
I also post at a horse-racing blog, frequented mainly by men; some of whom are very right-wing. Just this week there’s been a post put up about how it would be a good thing to ban the burqa here. These are blokes who could not give a damn about women’s rights, but they’ve got all feministy about this particular issue. That’s enough to tell me that this push is simply an anti-Muslim dog-whistle.
For Australia’s sake we need to ban the bikini. http://enpassant.com.au/?p=7173. It has links at the end to more serious arguments against banning the burqa.
For Australia’s sake we need to ban the bikini. http://enpassant.com.au/?p=7173. It has links at the end to more serious arguments against banning the burqa.
Funny. I thought freedom of religion was one of the corenerstones of Western democracy. I must’ve had it wrong.
Funny. I thought freedom of religion was one of the corenerstones of Western democracy. I must’ve had it wrong.
I trust we will be outlawing nuns as well?
I trust we will be outlawing nuns as well?
Come on, Paul Burns, that’s a glib response, everything’s hedged around by qualifications. We don’t accept freedom to practice a religion if it involves cutting out the hearts of virgins as a sacrifice to the god. From that extreme example we come down to a more difficult balancing act between religious expression and other rights and freedoms in the wider community. For example, my heart sinks when I see a woman in a burqua, but I’m not at all sure about banning it. However, as a teacher of English to speakers of other languages, many of them Moslem women [with whom I've never had the slightest problems], I know that I would have to refuse to teach a woman who came in wearing a full burqua. I would find it too confronting and alienating. I would feel that my cultural sensitivities were being trampled upon.
Come on, Paul Burns, that’s a glib response, everything’s hedged around by qualifications. We don’t accept freedom to practice a religion if it involves cutting out the hearts of virgins as a sacrifice to the god. From that extreme example we come down to a more difficult balancing act between religious expression and other rights and freedoms in the wider community. For example, my heart sinks when I see a woman in a burqua, but I’m not at all sure about banning it. However, as a teacher of English to speakers of other languages, many of them Moslem women [with whom I've never had the slightest problems], I know that I would have to refuse to teach a woman who came in wearing a full burqua. I would find it too confronting and alienating. I would feel that my cultural sensitivities were being trampled upon.
“But another thing which makes me uncomfortable is the idea that burqa wearing is a good thing because it prevents women from being harassed in the streets. I don’t believe this for a moment.”
It is a very silly argument. By the same logic we could ask all minority groups to wear clothing to disguise their identity also, and there would be no curry bashing etc. .
“but I’m not at all sure about banning it.”
I don’t think they should be banned either, but the idea that governments should ban things things to stop people oppressing themselves is very pervasive — it’s just not typically applied to clothing.
“But another thing which makes me uncomfortable is the idea that burqa wearing is a good thing because it prevents women from being harassed in the streets. I don’t believe this for a moment.”
It is a very silly argument. By the same logic we could ask all minority groups to wear clothing to disguise their identity also, and there would be no curry bashing etc. .
“but I’m not at all sure about banning it.”
I don’t think they should be banned either, but the idea that governments should ban things things to stop people oppressing themselves is very pervasive — it’s just not typically applied to clothing.
Hmm, I wrote a post on this a few years back on a woman who was dismissed from her job as a teaching aide because she insisted on wearing a full burqa when male teachers were present. Many of her students were of non-English speaking background and found it impossible to understand her.
I tend to think if women want to wear the burqa, that’s up to them, but I confess on occasions that I’ve spoken to women in burqas I have not been at all comfortable because I can’t read the other person’s face. I think it’s instinctive. We are primates, and we are designed to use gestures and facial expressions as well as sound to communicate with others. We shouldn’t shy away from the fact that if you cover up your face like that, you are reducing yourself to a non-person. I don’t have a problem with head-coverings in any religion, as long as I am still able to read someone’s face.
The other thing is that you can’t effectively do jobs that someone who doesn’t wear a burqa can do. You can’t climb a ladder for example, or work on a building site. You can’t have a cup of coffee with a friend in public. And you can’t communicate as well as someone who isn’t wearing a burqa. I wrote another post about a woman who was suing a judge who demanded that she remove her burqa while she was giving evidence in a lawsuit. I would have said that she DID have a right to retain her burqa if she wanted to, but I would have warned her that her evidence would be of little value as a result. In our adversarial system, judges find it important to watch people’s facial expressions while they give evidence to judge their honesty.
The question I always want to ask: if burqas are so good, why don’t the men wear one too?
Hmm, I wrote a post on this a few years back on a woman who was dismissed from her job as a teaching aide because she insisted on wearing a full burqa when male teachers were present. Many of her students were of non-English speaking background and found it impossible to understand her.
I tend to think if women want to wear the burqa, that’s up to them, but I confess on occasions that I’ve spoken to women in burqas I have not been at all comfortable because I can’t read the other person’s face. I think it’s instinctive. We are primates, and we are designed to use gestures and facial expressions as well as sound to communicate with others. We shouldn’t shy away from the fact that if you cover up your face like that, you are reducing yourself to a non-person. I don’t have a problem with head-coverings in any religion, as long as I am still able to read someone’s face.
The other thing is that you can’t effectively do jobs that someone who doesn’t wear a burqa can do. You can’t climb a ladder for example, or work on a building site. You can’t have a cup of coffee with a friend in public. And you can’t communicate as well as someone who isn’t wearing a burqa. I wrote another post about a woman who was suing a judge who demanded that she remove her burqa while she was giving evidence in a lawsuit. I would have said that she DID have a right to retain her burqa if she wanted to, but I would have warned her that her evidence would be of little value as a result. In our adversarial system, judges find it important to watch people’s facial expressions while they give evidence to judge their honesty.
The question I always want to ask: if burqas are so good, why don’t the men wear one too?
Someone (letter to an editor yesterday I think) said that wearing dark glasses is as identity-masking in some ways, as the burqa. Imagine the reaction if you wore dark glasses in front of a judge. Has it ever happened, does anyone know?
Someone (letter to an editor yesterday I think) said that wearing dark glasses is as identity-masking in some ways, as the burqa. Imagine the reaction if you wore dark glasses in front of a judge. Has it ever happened, does anyone know?
I can see how reconciling the widespread use of modern telecommunications devices and prankish calls to Seymour Butts would prove problematic to a preferential Eagle. Apparently, wiretaps are good evidence, too, unless someone is plumbing for a full coverage surveillance state. And to think they say that justice is blind.
I can see how reconciling the widespread use of modern telecommunications devices and prankish calls to Seymour Butts would prove problematic to a preferential Eagle. Apparently, wiretaps are good evidence, too, unless someone is plumbing for a full coverage surveillance state. And to think they say that justice is blind.
1. Wearing the Burqa tramples on our most dearly held civic value, freedom.
2. …
3. Ban it!
Anyone care to fill in the dots for the slow of understanding?
1. Wearing the Burqa tramples on our most dearly held civic value, freedom.
2. …
3. Ban it!
Anyone care to fill in the dots for the slow of understanding?
These are blokes who could not give a damn about women’s rights, but they’ve got all feministy about this particular issue. That’s enough to tell me that this push is simply an anti-Muslim dog-whistle…
And you’re entirely accurate, Fine. Either Casey or Laura, not sure which, linked to a great historical reference – will dig it up soon.
These are blokes who could not give a damn about women’s rights, but they’ve got all feministy about this particular issue. That’s enough to tell me that this push is simply an anti-Muslim dog-whistle…
And you’re entirely accurate, Fine. Either Casey or Laura, not sure which, linked to a great historical reference – will dig it up soon.
“But another thing which makes me uncomfortable is the idea that burqa wearing is a good thing because it prevents women from being harassed in the streets. I don’t believe this for a moment.”
Well here in Indonesia, that is certainly an aspect to be considered. A significant number of women wear the Jilbab for just that reason. Although that says more about the immaturity of the menfolk than the women I guess. Much a along the lines of the common myth that western women are all about free sex and poor mothering.
“But another thing which makes me uncomfortable is the idea that burqa wearing is a good thing because it prevents women from being harassed in the streets. I don’t believe this for a moment.”
Well here in Indonesia, that is certainly an aspect to be considered. A significant number of women wear the Jilbab for just that reason. Although that says more about the immaturity of the menfolk than the women I guess. Much a along the lines of the common myth that western women are all about free sex and poor mothering.
Arguments both for and against, more focused on freedom and choice, can be found in this excellent debate between Virginia Haussegger, Julie Posetti and Dr Shakira Hussein:
http://www.anu.edu.au/discoveranu/content/podcasts/should_we_ban_the_burka/
Arguments both for and against, more focused on freedom and choice, can be found in this excellent debate between Virginia Haussegger, Julie Posetti and Dr Shakira Hussein:
http://www.anu.edu.au/discoveranu/content/podcasts/should_we_ban_the_burka/
There are two types of feminism involved in this debate – the one that regards visibility as a problem and the one that regards invisibility as a problem. Which is the more authentic feminism?
There are two types of feminism involved in this debate – the one that regards visibility as a problem and the one that regards invisibility as a problem. Which is the more authentic feminism?
And they say gods and witches don’t exist.
So.
Why don’t you tell us more about the two feminisms Silquette?
And they say gods and witches don’t exist.
So.
Why don’t you tell us more about the two feminisms Silquette?
I don’t think it should be banned. However, I fully support any business or organisation that assesses face covering as a security risk and demand faces be uncovered on their premises.
I think they look funny and laugh at them when I see them.
I don’t think it should be banned. However, I fully support any business or organisation that assesses face covering as a security risk and demand faces be uncovered on their premises.
I think they look funny and laugh at them when I see them.
For Australia’s sake we need to ban the bikini. http://enpassant.com.au/?p=7173. It has links at the end to more serious arguments against banning the burqa.
How about we come to a reasonable compromise. We should mandate that women wear the burqa from the neck up, while wearing a bikini from the neck down. This allows women to send a message that they’re not ashamed of their sexuality, but not being able to recognise them acknowledges the wisdom of our Muslim sisters in terms of stopping exploitation by the (evil) patriarchy. This will also be a ‘king hit’ to those that say multiculturalism doesn’t work.
For Australia’s sake we need to ban the bikini. http://enpassant.com.au/?p=7173. It has links at the end to more serious arguments against banning the burqa.
How about we come to a reasonable compromise. We should mandate that women wear the burqa from the neck up, while wearing a bikini from the neck down. This allows women to send a message that they’re not ashamed of their sexuality, but not being able to recognise them acknowledges the wisdom of our Muslim sisters in terms of stopping exploitation by the (evil) patriarchy. This will also be a ‘king hit’ to those that say multiculturalism doesn’t work.
Clearly Sarko hasn’t learned the lesson of the Civil Constitution of the Clergy (1790).
Clearly Sarko hasn’t learned the lesson of the Civil Constitution of the Clergy (1790).
About a week ago, I read that in his attempts to bring Turkey into the modern world, Kemal Ataturk, knowing the backlash that a ban on the burqua would provoke, simply made it compulsory for them to be worn by all prostitutes in Turkey. This resulted in them disappearing overnight.
*
Comparison with a nun’s habit is irrelevant, because nuns show their faces. You’ll need to try harder than that.
About a week ago, I read that in his attempts to bring Turkey into the modern world, Kemal Ataturk, knowing the backlash that a ban on the burqua would provoke, simply made it compulsory for them to be worn by all prostitutes in Turkey. This resulted in them disappearing overnight.
*
Comparison with a nun’s habit is irrelevant, because nuns show their faces. You’ll need to try harder than that.
You’re such a mensch, Razor.
Someone once said – and I’m too lazy to look it up to find out who it was – that for every problem there is a wonderful, simple and obvious solution – which is always wrong.
We’ve seen the results of criminalising various things in this society and should think very hard before we go down this road.
What jail sentence would you advocate for a recidivist burqua-wearer? Would her children, if she has them, be allowed to visit her in jail?
Is it advancing the cause of migrant women to criminalise a form of clothing which, *while we might disapprove of it and find it oppresive to them*, may not be something they can just fling off willy-nilly. And I’m not just talking about the danger of reprisals from fundamentalist families; Anyone here ever suffered agoraphobia? Has anyone ever tried going out in far less clothing than they are comfortable wearing? Is it supportive of these women that we make them the target for fines and imprisonment so that the ones who aren’t ready to make the shift are effectively imprisoned indoors anyway?
When I was a young’un there were many, many nonnas from Italy and Greece in the northern inner suburbs, dressed from head to toe in black and headscarved. Fast forward a couple of generations and I almost never see one of these black Nonnas any more. Look at a restrictive and bizarre form of dress like the burqua and ask yourself: how many of the next generation will want to carry this on?
Unless, of course, you make it cool by banning it.
You’re such a mensch, Razor.
Someone once said – and I’m too lazy to look it up to find out who it was – that for every problem there is a wonderful, simple and obvious solution – which is always wrong.
We’ve seen the results of criminalising various things in this society and should think very hard before we go down this road.
What jail sentence would you advocate for a recidivist burqua-wearer? Would her children, if she has them, be allowed to visit her in jail?
Is it advancing the cause of migrant women to criminalise a form of clothing which, *while we might disapprove of it and find it oppresive to them*, may not be something they can just fling off willy-nilly. And I’m not just talking about the danger of reprisals from fundamentalist families; Anyone here ever suffered agoraphobia? Has anyone ever tried going out in far less clothing than they are comfortable wearing? Is it supportive of these women that we make them the target for fines and imprisonment so that the ones who aren’t ready to make the shift are effectively imprisoned indoors anyway?
When I was a young’un there were many, many nonnas from Italy and Greece in the northern inner suburbs, dressed from head to toe in black and headscarved. Fast forward a couple of generations and I almost never see one of these black Nonnas any more. Look at a restrictive and bizarre form of dress like the burqua and ask yourself: how many of the next generation will want to carry this on?
Unless, of course, you make it cool by banning it.
“Look at a restrictive and bizarre form of dress like the burqua and ask yourself: how many of the next generation will want to carry this on?”
Well actually it is growing in numbers in places like Indonesia where you would think the reverse would be true with the advent of democracy (of a sort)and the inclusive education system. A lot to do with the S/Kingdom export of hard line Islam to the country via Kampung mosques and schools.
“Look at a restrictive and bizarre form of dress like the burqua and ask yourself: how many of the next generation will want to carry this on?”
Well actually it is growing in numbers in places like Indonesia where you would think the reverse would be true with the advent of democracy (of a sort)and the inclusive education system. A lot to do with the S/Kingdom export of hard line Islam to the country via Kampung mosques and schools.
“Unless, of course, you make it cool by banning it.”
So you mean, all we have to do is ban the bikini, and women will wear it everywhere in reaction against the banning?
Hmmm, I’m beginning to think John Passant’s proposal has great merit!
“Unless, of course, you make it cool by banning it.”
So you mean, all we have to do is ban the bikini, and women will wear it everywhere in reaction against the banning?
Hmmm, I’m beginning to think John Passant’s proposal has great merit!
Helen @ 20, I think you are looking for H L Mencken and the quote is:
Helen @ 20, I think you are looking for H L Mencken and the quote is:
That’s it!
That’s it!
Jake at Menzies House does the same topic.
http://www.menzieshouse.com.au/2010/05/you-gotta-fight-for-your-right-to-burrrrka.html
Jake at Menzies House does the same topic.
http://www.menzieshouse.com.au/2010/05/you-gotta-fight-for-your-right-to-burrrrka.html
Women either choose or are obliged to wear a burqa. If the first, it’s her business, not yours or mine. If the second, well, this is a pretty stupid response isn’t it?
“You can’t wear what you choose. We don’t like what you’re obliged to wear. If we see you wearing it, you will be fined or imprisoned. There, that will teach you to be oppressed!”
A ban will only further marginalise a marginalied group. As such I expect it will gain plenty of political support.
Women either choose or are obliged to wear a burqa. If the first, it’s her business, not yours or mine. If the second, well, this is a pretty stupid response isn’t it?
“You can’t wear what you choose. We don’t like what you’re obliged to wear. If we see you wearing it, you will be fined or imprisoned. There, that will teach you to be oppressed!”
A ban will only further marginalise a marginalied group. As such I expect it will gain plenty of political support.
“We don’t accept freedom to practice a religion if it involves cutting out the hearts of virgins as a sacrifice to the god.”
Speak for yourself.
“We don’t accept freedom to practice a religion if it involves cutting out the hearts of virgins as a sacrifice to the god.”
Speak for yourself.
I get my bearings on matters Islamic involving women from Nawal el Saadawi who is an Egyptian feminist, doctor and author whose long standing record of opposition to repression speaks of immense courage and integrity. She is cited in an interview in support of the French ban on the burqa saying that she believes religion should be a personal matter, and approves of France’s ban on all religious symbols, including the hijab; “Education should be totally secular. I am not telling people not to believe in God, but it should be a personal matter which should be done at home.”
Moreover, French moves to ban the burqa are incomprehensible in the absence of some understanding of ‘La laicite’ by which is meant “France’s official ideology of a single and undivided republic in which all citizens are equal; religious and ethnic differences are bracketed.”
So when Liz Connor comments that “We never bother to ask Muslim women what covering up means to them” my response is that some Muslim women see it as deep repression. I am inclined to support those Muslim women like Nawal el Saadawi who want their freedom rather those women whose commitment to Islam is greater than their commitment to modern forms of democratic freedom.
I get my bearings on matters Islamic involving women from Nawal el Saadawi who is an Egyptian feminist, doctor and author whose long standing record of opposition to repression speaks of immense courage and integrity. She is cited in an interview in support of the French ban on the burqa saying that she believes religion should be a personal matter, and approves of France’s ban on all religious symbols, including the hijab; “Education should be totally secular. I am not telling people not to believe in God, but it should be a personal matter which should be done at home.”
Moreover, French moves to ban the burqa are incomprehensible in the absence of some understanding of ‘La laicite’ by which is meant “France’s official ideology of a single and undivided republic in which all citizens are equal; religious and ethnic differences are bracketed.”
So when Liz Connor comments that “We never bother to ask Muslim women what covering up means to them” my response is that some Muslim women see it as deep repression. I am inclined to support those Muslim women like Nawal el Saadawi who want their freedom rather those women whose commitment to Islam is greater than their commitment to modern forms of democratic freedom.
I wouldn’t ban it, but I’d make it fairly difficult for anyone wearing it to become an Australian citizen. They could live and work and stay here under other arrangements, but not become a full citizen while behaving in a way which is so offensive to so many Australians.
I wouldn’t ban it, but I’d make it fairly difficult for anyone wearing it to become an Australian citizen. They could live and work and stay here under other arrangements, but not become a full citizen while behaving in a way which is so offensive to so many Australians.
Adam Tucker @ 8 – speaking from personal experience, I can’t imagine any judge of my acquaintance allowing a witness to wear dark glasses on the stand, because of the difficulty in reading expression. Indeed, this NT guide to attending court tells people to take off their hats and sunglasses when entering court.
Adam Tucker @ 8 – speaking from personal experience, I can’t imagine any judge of my acquaintance allowing a witness to wear dark glasses on the stand, because of the difficulty in reading expression. Indeed, this NT guide to attending court tells people to take off their hats and sunglasses when entering court.
Sort of.
Of course, no right-minded person would ever dare to make a mockery of such sumptuary laws, thereby endangering respect for the rule of law.
Oh, wait…
Sort of.
Of course, no right-minded person would ever dare to make a mockery of such sumptuary laws, thereby endangering respect for the rule of law.
Oh, wait…
@30 – LE, do judges have any particular training in reading expression?
@30 – LE, do judges have any particular training in reading expression?
LE @30. Then witnesses giving evidence behind barriers must be highly suspect. Not only is it impossible to see their faces, it is also impossible to “read” body language.
LE @30. Then witnesses giving evidence behind barriers must be highly suspect. Not only is it impossible to see their faces, it is also impossible to “read” body language.
Paul, wearing the burqua is nothing at all to do with Islam. Mohammad only stipulated that both sexes should dress modestly. Wearing the burqua, the veil and female circumcision are purely cultural requirements.
Islam also gives women lots of freedom to run a business, borrow money and divorce her husband. Pity it’s not practiced.
There is an argument that if the burqua is banned it will stop Muslim women from interacting with the community, but it’s pretty much impossible to interact with anyone if all you can see is a curtain and if the culture dictates no interaction.
I also don’t believe wearing this garment protects anyone from harassment in the streets; if anything it would invite more harassment from idiots.
starving student @4, nuns uniforms don’t cover their faces. I also believe that most nuns wear civvies, these days.
I’ve just finished reading a book called “Living in the Land of the Invisible Women”, written by Qanta Ahmed, a young British Muslim doctor who spent several years living and working in Saudi Arabia. She hated the burqua because she sees it as a symbol of female oppression imposed by the male-dominated religious establishment; it is also hot, itchy and makes it very difficult to hear.
It’s not great literature; a bit gushy for my liking and she only writes about wealthy Saudis, an observation she also makes. However, no matter how privileged, the reality is that their lives are as controlled and restricted by male relatives as poor women.
In her opinion, young men are also victims of the extremely stifling, rigid, fractured and ultra-segregated Saudi society. Although they have far more freedom to come and go than women, they also have no say in who they marry and never have the opportunity to meet and have a relationship with young women not related to them, things that in the West everyone takes for granted.
Paul, wearing the burqua is nothing at all to do with Islam. Mohammad only stipulated that both sexes should dress modestly. Wearing the burqua, the veil and female circumcision are purely cultural requirements.
Islam also gives women lots of freedom to run a business, borrow money and divorce her husband. Pity it’s not practiced.
There is an argument that if the burqua is banned it will stop Muslim women from interacting with the community, but it’s pretty much impossible to interact with anyone if all you can see is a curtain and if the culture dictates no interaction.
I also don’t believe wearing this garment protects anyone from harassment in the streets; if anything it would invite more harassment from idiots.
starving student @4, nuns uniforms don’t cover their faces. I also believe that most nuns wear civvies, these days.
I’ve just finished reading a book called “Living in the Land of the Invisible Women”, written by Qanta Ahmed, a young British Muslim doctor who spent several years living and working in Saudi Arabia. She hated the burqua because she sees it as a symbol of female oppression imposed by the male-dominated religious establishment; it is also hot, itchy and makes it very difficult to hear.
It’s not great literature; a bit gushy for my liking and she only writes about wealthy Saudis, an observation she also makes. However, no matter how privileged, the reality is that their lives are as controlled and restricted by male relatives as poor women.
In her opinion, young men are also victims of the extremely stifling, rigid, fractured and ultra-segregated Saudi society. Although they have far more freedom to come and go than women, they also have no say in who they marry and never have the opportunity to meet and have a relationship with young women not related to them, things that in the West everyone takes for granted.
I don’t know how to solve the problem of oppression of minorities. I wish I did. But I know for a fact that the solution is not to ban an article of clothing.
Those who want the burqa banned argue that they’re trying to stand up for women’s rights. But if they were really concerned about feminist ideals, surely they’d direct their efforts and influence to education and relevant social services?
Attempts to ban the burqa, in my view, amount to little more than thinly-veiled racism. WASPS find it unfamiliar and a confronting, so want to get rid of it. How shamefully shallow and small-minded.
Personally, I don’t like the burqa, but who am I to prescribe what people may wear? What if someone wants to wear one because they think it’s cool? Like any fashion decision, there may be consequences—I don’t like your chances of getting into a night club, and I’m sure there are jobs that would be impractical. But surely that’s the wearer’s choice?
It never ceases to amaze me that Australians are so quick to ask their government to ban that which they find distasteful. A liberal, plural society indeed. I feel it’s a very sad day that we allow the state into our wardrobes.
I don’t know how to solve the problem of oppression of minorities. I wish I did. But I know for a fact that the solution is not to ban an article of clothing.
Those who want the burqa banned argue that they’re trying to stand up for women’s rights. But if they were really concerned about feminist ideals, surely they’d direct their efforts and influence to education and relevant social services?
Attempts to ban the burqa, in my view, amount to little more than thinly-veiled racism. WASPS find it unfamiliar and a confronting, so want to get rid of it. How shamefully shallow and small-minded.
Personally, I don’t like the burqa, but who am I to prescribe what people may wear? What if someone wants to wear one because they think it’s cool? Like any fashion decision, there may be consequences—I don’t like your chances of getting into a night club, and I’m sure there are jobs that would be impractical. But surely that’s the wearer’s choice?
It never ceases to amaze me that Australians are so quick to ask their government to ban that which they find distasteful. A liberal, plural society indeed. I feel it’s a very sad day that we allow the state into our wardrobes.
LE, what about blind people who need to wear dark glasses?
This idea that a judge needs to read expressions seems ludicrous. Do judges really think they can tell if people are being truthful by looking in their eyes?
LE, what about blind people who need to wear dark glasses?
This idea that a judge needs to read expressions seems ludicrous. Do judges really think they can tell if people are being truthful by looking in their eyes?
I get creeped out when people clamour for the State to regulate what citizens can wear…in the name of freedom.
Any legal experts care to explain what other articles of clothing can the French (or our own) government ban, within the Constitution?
I get creeped out when people clamour for the State to regulate what citizens can wear…in the name of freedom.
Any legal experts care to explain what other articles of clothing can the French (or our own) government ban, within the Constitution?
Probably this one Merc:
Australian Constitution Sec. 51
A state may pass a law and then handpass it to the Cwth for administration. Once that happens, it is easier for other states to come on board.
Probably this one Merc:
Australian Constitution Sec. 51
A state may pass a law and then handpass it to the Cwth for administration. Once that happens, it is easier for other states to come on board.
LE: What about people with disfigured faces (burns, for example)? Reading facial expressions would be quite difficult in those instances. Also, could you mention some general literature regarding this legal practice? As you mention in your blog posts, it seems to be a skill that’s gained from experience, rather than training.
LE: What about people with disfigured faces (burns, for example)? Reading facial expressions would be quite difficult in those instances. Also, could you mention some general literature regarding this legal practice? As you mention in your blog posts, it seems to be a skill that’s gained from experience, rather than training.
Any legal experts care to explain what other articles of clothing can the French (or our own) government ban, within the Constitution?
What on earth does the Constitution have to do with it? Pretty sure that the constitution doesn’t mandate the wearing of any clothes but equally sure walking around naked will generally get you arrested.
I wonder where I can wear board shorts and be accompanied by a female in shorts and a bikini in most middle eastern countries (or Muslim Majority for that matter). Lot to be said for adopting social mores of the society you are in.
Any legal experts care to explain what other articles of clothing can the French (or our own) government ban, within the Constitution?
What on earth does the Constitution have to do with it? Pretty sure that the constitution doesn’t mandate the wearing of any clothes but equally sure walking around naked will generally get you arrested.
I wonder where I can wear board shorts and be accompanied by a female in shorts and a bikini in most middle eastern countries (or Muslim Majority for that matter). Lot to be said for adopting social mores of the society you are in.
Because of the subjects I teach, and because I’ve made an effort to teach writing by Arab and Middle Eastern women in my courses, I’ve got to know quite a lot of Muslim women students over the last few years, all of whom wear hijab of some kind. I have three Muslim women students at the moment and one of them sometimes covers her face, though not every day. I have to say I haven’t found it at all a problem to teach her and help her learn. She is a talkative person with strong opinions and she participates as well as anybody else. She projects a strong personality in the classroom.
These women are ambitious university students and thus obviously don’t represent all Australian Muslim women, but you would only have to spend 10 minutes with any of them to see that they dress religiously entirely out of their own wish to do so – not because anyone’s telling them they have to. Usually indeed they are constantly being told not to veil – by charming people on the street who call them terrorists, barbarians etc (one girl copped this from a mother who she was helping to lift her baby stroller down off a bus) – and by their parents and older relatives, who are not as interested in religion and want their daughters to be Lebanese or Turkish first rather than Muslim (I don’t pretend to know what this means, this is how they described it to me.)
For the past year I have also taught a student who is deaf and blind and have learned from her that no, you don’t need to see people’s faces to engage with them as human beings, if you really want to you can find a way.
Because of the subjects I teach, and because I’ve made an effort to teach writing by Arab and Middle Eastern women in my courses, I’ve got to know quite a lot of Muslim women students over the last few years, all of whom wear hijab of some kind. I have three Muslim women students at the moment and one of them sometimes covers her face, though not every day. I have to say I haven’t found it at all a problem to teach her and help her learn. She is a talkative person with strong opinions and she participates as well as anybody else. She projects a strong personality in the classroom.
These women are ambitious university students and thus obviously don’t represent all Australian Muslim women, but you would only have to spend 10 minutes with any of them to see that they dress religiously entirely out of their own wish to do so – not because anyone’s telling them they have to. Usually indeed they are constantly being told not to veil – by charming people on the street who call them terrorists, barbarians etc (one girl copped this from a mother who she was helping to lift her baby stroller down off a bus) – and by their parents and older relatives, who are not as interested in religion and want their daughters to be Lebanese or Turkish first rather than Muslim (I don’t pretend to know what this means, this is how they described it to me.)
For the past year I have also taught a student who is deaf and blind and have learned from her that no, you don’t need to see people’s faces to engage with them as human beings, if you really want to you can find a way.
It might also be worth noting that lots of young Muslim women who cover are Australian citizens – because they were born here – and they are children of women who do not cover and who are not specially devout, though often very conservative socially by mainstream standards.
It might also be worth noting that lots of young Muslim women who cover are Australian citizens – because they were born here – and they are children of women who do not cover and who are not specially devout, though often very conservative socially by mainstream standards.
“I’ve got to know quite a lot of Muslim women students over the last few years, all of whom wear hijab of some kind.”
I think that there is considerable difference between the Jilbab and the Burqa. Where I work 80% of the women wear the Jilbab (100% at various times)however I would venture to say they all feel a degree of discomfort with women wearing the Burga. Most regard it as more representative of a repressive culture than a symbol of religious piety.
“I’ve got to know quite a lot of Muslim women students over the last few years, all of whom wear hijab of some kind.”
I think that there is considerable difference between the Jilbab and the Burqa. Where I work 80% of the women wear the Jilbab (100% at various times)however I would venture to say they all feel a degree of discomfort with women wearing the Burga. Most regard it as more representative of a repressive culture than a symbol of religious piety.
I’m completely unable to understand the argument that people’s feelings of discomfort or whatever have any bearing on the issue of the rights of other people to dress as they choose. I tend to think that Liz Conor is onto something when she highlights a particular cultural privilege given to the notion of visibility, and I wonder whether the amazing powers judges have of discerning truth through sight don’t reflect that as well. There are heaps of other cultures, where, for instance, there are certain situations in which looking an interlocutor in the eyes is disfavoured, and for it to be read as shiftiness or whatever in ours is just a failure to understand that our norms are very far from universal.
Also, what Laura said about communication @40. Treating people as equals precisely implies accepting their difference and attempting to find common ground on which to meet and talk. And I’m sure she’s also right about the fact that it’s more likely to be Australian citizens adopting the hijab and burqa than first generation immigrants. Which makes it even more absurd for someone to argue, as Russell did @ 29 that particular patterns of dress should be some sort of barrier to full citizenship. Again, I cannot understand the reasoning behind such a comment. Nor, for the life of me, can I get why anyone would find wearing a burqa “offensive”.
I’m completely unable to understand the argument that people’s feelings of discomfort or whatever have any bearing on the issue of the rights of other people to dress as they choose. I tend to think that Liz Conor is onto something when she highlights a particular cultural privilege given to the notion of visibility, and I wonder whether the amazing powers judges have of discerning truth through sight don’t reflect that as well. There are heaps of other cultures, where, for instance, there are certain situations in which looking an interlocutor in the eyes is disfavoured, and for it to be read as shiftiness or whatever in ours is just a failure to understand that our norms are very far from universal.
Also, what Laura said about communication @40. Treating people as equals precisely implies accepting their difference and attempting to find common ground on which to meet and talk. And I’m sure she’s also right about the fact that it’s more likely to be Australian citizens adopting the hijab and burqa than first generation immigrants. Which makes it even more absurd for someone to argue, as Russell did @ 29 that particular patterns of dress should be some sort of barrier to full citizenship. Again, I cannot understand the reasoning behind such a comment. Nor, for the life of me, can I get why anyone would find wearing a burqa “offensive”.
“We haven’t bothered to ask Muslim women what the burqa means to them, because we’ve fallen into an entrenched colonial habit of thinking ”less civilised” women are oppressed and need us to liberate them, this time with spectacular arrogance, by banning them from having any choice.”
I wonder what would happen if Liz did bother to ask “Muslim” women what the Burqa means to them? Seems very strange to refer to “spectacular arrogance” and yet she seems to be alluding that burqa is an integral part of being a Muslim woman rather than a regional aberration. Certainly if one bothered to ask the Muslim women of the largest Muslim nation in the world, you would get a very different response that suggested in the article. As an aside, the few Burqa clad women in our region are more often than not referred by other Muslim women as “Hantu” (ghosts).
Of course, there is very much a hearts and minds battle raging between the more laid back and inclusive Indonesian version of Islam and more recently imported SA variation.
That said, there is very often different attitude displayed by the men to women wearing a Jilbab as opposed to not
“We haven’t bothered to ask Muslim women what the burqa means to them, because we’ve fallen into an entrenched colonial habit of thinking ”less civilised” women are oppressed and need us to liberate them, this time with spectacular arrogance, by banning them from having any choice.”
I wonder what would happen if Liz did bother to ask “Muslim” women what the Burqa means to them? Seems very strange to refer to “spectacular arrogance” and yet she seems to be alluding that burqa is an integral part of being a Muslim woman rather than a regional aberration. Certainly if one bothered to ask the Muslim women of the largest Muslim nation in the world, you would get a very different response that suggested in the article. As an aside, the few Burqa clad women in our region are more often than not referred by other Muslim women as “Hantu” (ghosts).
Of course, there is very much a hearts and minds battle raging between the more laid back and inclusive Indonesian version of Islam and more recently imported SA variation.
That said, there is very often different attitude displayed by the men to women wearing a Jilbab as opposed to not
Somewhere on the ABC in the last few days I heard a researcher explaining why you can’t tell whether people are lying by their facial expressions. For example, she said that such people almost never twitch, fiddle, avert their gaze or display signs of nervousness. They look you straight in the eye because they are monitoring your facial expressions to see whether there is any sign that you are onto them.
Somewhere on the ABC in the last few days I heard a researcher explaining why you can’t tell whether people are lying by their facial expressions. For example, she said that such people almost never twitch, fiddle, avert their gaze or display signs of nervousness. They look you straight in the eye because they are monitoring your facial expressions to see whether there is any sign that you are onto them.
We are primates, and we are designed to use gestures and facial expressions as well as sound to communicate with others.
Which is why Alexander Graham Bell was lost to history and the telephone remains a curio known only to historians.
We are primates, and we are designed to use gestures and facial expressions as well as sound to communicate with others.
Which is why Alexander Graham Bell was lost to history and the telephone remains a curio known only to historians.
Mark: “a failure to understand that our norms are very far from universal.”
But your norms don’t have to be universal. They just have to be yours.
Someone seems to have thrown the circuit breaker on the Irony Detector. Here we have people complaining that no one can ever tell anyone else what to wear or not wear, as they themselves opine about what laws the French can or cannot make in France.
“…or it’s all different…”
–Heiner Mueller, ‘Description of a Picture’
Mark: “a failure to understand that our norms are very far from universal.”
But your norms don’t have to be universal. They just have to be yours.
Someone seems to have thrown the circuit breaker on the Irony Detector. Here we have people complaining that no one can ever tell anyone else what to wear or not wear, as they themselves opine about what laws the French can or cannot make in France.
“…or it’s all different…”
–Heiner Mueller, ‘Description of a Picture’
I’d just like to see a Photoshop of Sarkozy dressed as Trinny and Susannah from the TV show What Not To Wear
I’d just like to see a Photoshop of Sarkozy dressed as Trinny and Susannah from the TV show What Not To Wear
There is no conflict between or irony in asserting rights to personal choice in dress and criticizing government legislation to restrict those rights. Those two arguments are completely consistent. Please remove dead mouse from logic circuitry JPZ.
There is no conflict between or irony in asserting rights to personal choice in dress and criticizing government legislation to restrict those rights. Those two arguments are completely consistent. Please remove dead mouse from logic circuitry JPZ.
Japerz, no one doubts the right of the French state to pass stupid laws.
However, a few sensible folks on this very thread question the good policy of what Sarko and his enablers propose to do.
Japerz, no one doubts the right of the French state to pass stupid laws.
However, a few sensible folks on this very thread question the good policy of what Sarko and his enablers propose to do.
I do think it’s worth remembering the point that Anthony Nolan made aways up the thread: France is a state with an official secularist ideology (la laicite). It’s this that makes most people in Anglophone countries uncomfortable. Our traditions may be liberal, but they are not secular in the same way: England still has an Established Church, while the US ‘wall of separation’ remains an enormously contested part of their politics.
In France, the secular state set about (with a high degree of deliberation) breaking the power of the Catholic Church. It therefore treats any other religion with similarly large moral claims in the same way, and will if necessary set about breaking it. We may not like this, but then (as far as I am aware), none of us here are French. Philosopher A. C. Grayling has pointed out (as an Anglophone person), he finds the French system deeply unpleasant, but he also makes the point that its secular and democratic vision is a serious intellectual rival to that which we have adopted in the English speaking world. It is not an economic failure like communism was. Indeed, it has gifted its citizens considerable prosperity, a high degree of energy independence, a successful version of publicly funded medical care (it is much better than the NHS over here) and an effective route around the demographic contraction common elsewhere in Europe.
The extent to which this is tied to a unifying (and rather Aristotelian) conception of the state is a live one, and not one that can be easily ignored. We may ultimately reject French solutions to complex problems of political perfectionism and personal autonomy, but I do think it behooves us to take them seriously.
I do think it’s worth remembering the point that Anthony Nolan made aways up the thread: France is a state with an official secularist ideology (la laicite). It’s this that makes most people in Anglophone countries uncomfortable. Our traditions may be liberal, but they are not secular in the same way: England still has an Established Church, while the US ‘wall of separation’ remains an enormously contested part of their politics.
In France, the secular state set about (with a high degree of deliberation) breaking the power of the Catholic Church. It therefore treats any other religion with similarly large moral claims in the same way, and will if necessary set about breaking it. We may not like this, but then (as far as I am aware), none of us here are French. Philosopher A. C. Grayling has pointed out (as an Anglophone person), he finds the French system deeply unpleasant, but he also makes the point that its secular and democratic vision is a serious intellectual rival to that which we have adopted in the English speaking world. It is not an economic failure like communism was. Indeed, it has gifted its citizens considerable prosperity, a high degree of energy independence, a successful version of publicly funded medical care (it is much better than the NHS over here) and an effective route around the demographic contraction common elsewhere in Europe.
The extent to which this is tied to a unifying (and rather Aristotelian) conception of the state is a live one, and not one that can be easily ignored. We may ultimately reject French solutions to complex problems of political perfectionism and personal autonomy, but I do think it behooves us to take them seriously.
If only France took its own much trumpeted commitment to secularism seriously … http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_law_in_Alsace-Moselle
If only France took its own much trumpeted commitment to secularism seriously … http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_law_in_Alsace-Moselle
When French Muslims have shed as much French and German blood as the wars over Alsace, they may get some official accommodation. With an emphasis on the may.
When French Muslims have shed as much French and German blood as the wars over Alsace, they may get some official accommodation. With an emphasis on the may.
#41 Laura when I was at uni both being taught and teaching I encountered many of the same kinds of young women you’re talking about; ambitious, rather conservative, second- or third-gen migrants who wore the veil out of modesty or piety but in no other way displayed submissiveness. In Sydney it’s the muslim Lebanese and Egyptian communities who seem to send lots of their daughters to university, and a fearsome outspoken bunch they are as a rule.
As it happened I noticed the major consequence of having women dressed in scarves in the classes I was in was that the other women and men dressed and behaved better—no more singlets and sneakers or turning up to class after lunch beers. Depending on your generation a break from or return to tradition, I suppose.
#41 Laura when I was at uni both being taught and teaching I encountered many of the same kinds of young women you’re talking about; ambitious, rather conservative, second- or third-gen migrants who wore the veil out of modesty or piety but in no other way displayed submissiveness. In Sydney it’s the muslim Lebanese and Egyptian communities who seem to send lots of their daughters to university, and a fearsome outspoken bunch they are as a rule.
As it happened I noticed the major consequence of having women dressed in scarves in the classes I was in was that the other women and men dressed and behaved better—no more singlets and sneakers or turning up to class after lunch beers. Depending on your generation a break from or return to tradition, I suppose.
No, judges don’t have any training in reading expression. All I can say is that after a few years of working in a court, sitting watching people give evidence day after day, I became very, very good at reading people. You get a real sense of when they are covering something up, when they are kidding themselves (which occurs frequently) and when they are being truthful. Barristers obviously have this too – they can only be good at cross-examination if they see where the cracks in someone’s evidence are.
I once saw a documentary in which a customs officer was interviewed, and after 15 years in the job, she had a knack for picking someone who was dodgy by what she called “instinct”, but it’s really just that she’d had so much experience of what people do when they’re trying to hide something that she had become exceptionally good at reading them. It’s the same for the judiciary.
Have you ever watched a politician being interviewed on TV, and then seen the politician suddenly start blinking, glancing away from the camera, looking uncomfortable, bringing his hand up to cover his mouth? What do you think when you see that? We make these kinds of judgments ourselves all the time about people’s truthfulness, and our judgments are in large part based on non-verbal signals. Posture, body language, whether someone looks at you, how much they blink, how much they don’t blink, how much they lick their lips, how much they cover their face.
One of the most obvious witnesses I ever saw was a guy who, when he said something which he was uncomfortable with, he put his hand up over his mouth and swivelled the chair partly away from the bench. He also wouldn’t meet anyone’s eye. This was in stark contrast to his behaviour when he was giving uncontroversial evidence.
Yes, judges would have problems with people behind barriers, which is why witnesses have to sit up in the witness box in plain view. I actually believe that everyone should go and see a trial some time, from beginning to end. Incidentally, I think that if a blind person wanted to wear sunglasses, a judge would let them. I would say as a general rule that blind people tend to be more unguarded in their body language anyway, particularly if they have been blind from birth.
I think people are trying to shy away from the fact that if someone covers up their face, we find it hard to judge their veracity, and we find it much, much harder to communicate with them. It’s one of the reasons I don’t like telephones, to be honest, it’s much harder to communicate than face to face.
I still don’t think burqas should be banned. I do think we should acknowledge, however, that
(a) it is difficult to communicate with people who only have their eyes showing; (b) people who cover up their entire body can’t do jobs which require lots of physical exertion or clear communication; and
(c) in a country where all 99.9% of other people are uncovered, people who choose to only show their eyes will always be regarded with a measure of instinctive distrust.
You know, until I talked to a woman in a burqa, I thought it was fine – then when I actually had the experience of trying to communicate with someone in one of those outfits…gosh, it was a real challenge.
No, judges don’t have any training in reading expression. All I can say is that after a few years of working in a court, sitting watching people give evidence day after day, I became very, very good at reading people. You get a real sense of when they are covering something up, when they are kidding themselves (which occurs frequently) and when they are being truthful. Barristers obviously have this too – they can only be good at cross-examination if they see where the cracks in someone’s evidence are.
I once saw a documentary in which a customs officer was interviewed, and after 15 years in the job, she had a knack for picking someone who was dodgy by what she called “instinct”, but it’s really just that she’d had so much experience of what people do when they’re trying to hide something that she had become exceptionally good at reading them. It’s the same for the judiciary.
Have you ever watched a politician being interviewed on TV, and then seen the politician suddenly start blinking, glancing away from the camera, looking uncomfortable, bringing his hand up to cover his mouth? What do you think when you see that? We make these kinds of judgments ourselves all the time about people’s truthfulness, and our judgments are in large part based on non-verbal signals. Posture, body language, whether someone looks at you, how much they blink, how much they don’t blink, how much they lick their lips, how much they cover their face.
One of the most obvious witnesses I ever saw was a guy who, when he said something which he was uncomfortable with, he put his hand up over his mouth and swivelled the chair partly away from the bench. He also wouldn’t meet anyone’s eye. This was in stark contrast to his behaviour when he was giving uncontroversial evidence.
Yes, judges would have problems with people behind barriers, which is why witnesses have to sit up in the witness box in plain view. I actually believe that everyone should go and see a trial some time, from beginning to end. Incidentally, I think that if a blind person wanted to wear sunglasses, a judge would let them. I would say as a general rule that blind people tend to be more unguarded in their body language anyway, particularly if they have been blind from birth.
I think people are trying to shy away from the fact that if someone covers up their face, we find it hard to judge their veracity, and we find it much, much harder to communicate with them. It’s one of the reasons I don’t like telephones, to be honest, it’s much harder to communicate than face to face.
I still don’t think burqas should be banned. I do think we should acknowledge, however, that
(a) it is difficult to communicate with people who only have their eyes showing; (b) people who cover up their entire body can’t do jobs which require lots of physical exertion or clear communication; and
(c) in a country where all 99.9% of other people are uncovered, people who choose to only show their eyes will always be regarded with a measure of instinctive distrust.
You know, until I talked to a woman in a burqa, I thought it was fine – then when I actually had the experience of trying to communicate with someone in one of those outfits…gosh, it was a real challenge.
I am French.
And the correct English is “none of us here is French”
I am French.
And the correct English is “none of us here is French”
I’m torn about this I really am. On the one hand I find it really uncomfortable…it makes me outraged on their behalf. Then again if it’s their choice it’s their choice. Big emphasis on the if there though. And then there are the social pressures for others in their family group or social circle to comply as well.
But I have noticed that a lot of righties I know are suddenly feminists to a point. “Yer’, they should ban it, it’s bad for women….oi! Luv! Fetch me another beer pet!”
I think a lot of them either know that it would force some women to stay at home “Yay, 50% less other I have to see every day!” And others probably harbour odd revenge fantasies about ripping off veils, liberating women like some modern day Aladdin.
I’m torn about this I really am. On the one hand I find it really uncomfortable…it makes me outraged on their behalf. Then again if it’s their choice it’s their choice. Big emphasis on the if there though. And then there are the social pressures for others in their family group or social circle to comply as well.
But I have noticed that a lot of righties I know are suddenly feminists to a point. “Yer’, they should ban it, it’s bad for women….oi! Luv! Fetch me another beer pet!”
I think a lot of them either know that it would force some women to stay at home “Yay, 50% less other I have to see every day!” And others probably harbour odd revenge fantasies about ripping off veils, liberating women like some modern day Aladdin.
Yes. Its not that we can’t communicate without seeing someone else’s face. Its just that most people communicate better when they can.
Yes. Its not that we can’t communicate without seeing someone else’s face. Its just that most people communicate better when they can.
Indeed. A leading historian of France dubbed the long 19th century for France an era of “stagnation without stability”.
The swingeing attack on the Catholic Church in France instituted in the Civil Constitution of the Clergy represented the origin and the continuing fuel for both instability and stagnation.
It is perfectly within the rights of the French to be loyal to unproductive principles. There is no evidence to suggest that the relative and recent success of the political economy of France has anything at all to do with French public policy toward religion. Indeed, it took the French more than a century and two world wars to cope with the long term consequences of the Civil Constitution of the Clergy.
Moreover, the French have a dark history of massacre of aliens. As recently as 1961, the French National Police massacred dozens and perhaps hundreds of Algerians. These events were covered up for decades.
These events suggest much more than mere secularism. They suggest a deep-seated authoritarian xenophobia, especially virulent in the French Right, the tendency led by Sarko.
Indeed. A leading historian of France dubbed the long 19th century for France an era of “stagnation without stability”.
The swingeing attack on the Catholic Church in France instituted in the Civil Constitution of the Clergy represented the origin and the continuing fuel for both instability and stagnation.
It is perfectly within the rights of the French to be loyal to unproductive principles. There is no evidence to suggest that the relative and recent success of the political economy of France has anything at all to do with French public policy toward religion. Indeed, it took the French more than a century and two world wars to cope with the long term consequences of the Civil Constitution of the Clergy.
Moreover, the French have a dark history of massacre of aliens. As recently as 1961, the French National Police massacred dozens and perhaps hundreds of Algerians. These events were covered up for decades.
These events suggest much more than mere secularism. They suggest a deep-seated authoritarian xenophobia, especially virulent in the French Right, the tendency led by Sarko.
Oh thank God, I thought it was just me.
My usual take on the burqa question and all such similar head-on collisions is that women’s rights trump cultural sensitivities but one of the reasons this one is so compelling and so vexatious for feminists, I think, is that it’s about two (or three, or even more) different kinds of women’s rights even when you leave the ‘cultural sensitivities’ question right out of it. If you believe that women have the right
1) to wear whatever they like
2) to not be oppressed by their menfolk
3) to live in a society in which the oppression of women is not tolerated
4) to choose with whom they will associate, and
5) to exercise freedom of worship
it just leaves you feeling intellectually paralysed. As so often, the only way to arrive at a conclusion is to prioritise 1-5 and work out which of them are mutually exclusive, a joyless exercise if ever there was one.
Oh thank God, I thought it was just me.
My usual take on the burqa question and all such similar head-on collisions is that women’s rights trump cultural sensitivities but one of the reasons this one is so compelling and so vexatious for feminists, I think, is that it’s about two (or three, or even more) different kinds of women’s rights even when you leave the ‘cultural sensitivities’ question right out of it. If you believe that women have the right
1) to wear whatever they like
2) to not be oppressed by their menfolk
3) to live in a society in which the oppression of women is not tolerated
4) to choose with whom they will associate, and
5) to exercise freedom of worship
it just leaves you feeling intellectually paralysed. As so often, the only way to arrive at a conclusion is to prioritise 1-5 and work out which of them are mutually exclusive, a joyless exercise if ever there was one.
Just on France, I suspect that most of us are actually discussing the prospect of a ban here, recently raised by Liberal Senator Cory Bernardi, who wrote:
http://www.corybernardi.com/2010/05/ban-the-burqa.html
While he recites the usual faux-feminist justifications, I suspect this is really what’s at issue:
Just on France, I suspect that most of us are actually discussing the prospect of a ban here, recently raised by Liberal Senator Cory Bernardi, who wrote:
http://www.corybernardi.com/2010/05/ban-the-burqa.html
While he recites the usual faux-feminist justifications, I suspect this is really what’s at issue:
@61 –
Indeed, because the sorts of intellectual and political principles we would normally apply to similar questions are incommensurable with the phenomenon. There’s probably no way of reasoning one’s way out of it – in our political culture – except to go to one of the extremes – yes it’s all good, or no, it’s terrible and should be banned, because the priorities you cite resist ordering. It does expose a blind spot in the rhetoric and structure of liberalism, because liberalism is not – in practice – founded on cultural heterogeneity, and cultural heterogeneity can be about a lot more than some of the superficial aspects many Australians usually cite.
@61 –
Indeed, because the sorts of intellectual and political principles we would normally apply to similar questions are incommensurable with the phenomenon. There’s probably no way of reasoning one’s way out of it – in our political culture – except to go to one of the extremes – yes it’s all good, or no, it’s terrible and should be banned, because the priorities you cite resist ordering. It does expose a blind spot in the rhetoric and structure of liberalism, because liberalism is not – in practice – founded on cultural heterogeneity, and cultural heterogeneity can be about a lot more than some of the superficial aspects many Australians usually cite.
I don’t think it should be banned. Rather than attempting to integrate them into mainstream society, you will just encourage them to remain within their own communities. If the reasoning is that we need to protect these poor unfortunate women, I think it is problematic and offensive because you are forcing them into the home. If these women wear the burka because they are forced to by their husbands, forcing them out of the public sphere will not encourage any change in this repressive attitude.
However, there does need to be policies in place for situations where this takes place.
- Drivers license/passport photos. Should a burka be allowed to be worn. No. Those are suppose to be forms of identification. No identification can take place with a person wearing a burka. They are similar to a balaclava.
- Language classes. I’m doing my Masters in Linguistics at the moment and I do not understand how it is possible to teach the phonetics (sounds and pronunciation) to a student who has their face covered. Both from my own additional language learning and my theoretical background, I would find it inherently difficult to both learn or teach with something covering my mouth and make it impossible to see where the tongue formed sounds etc.
While the burka shouldn’t be banned, we also need to think about ways of dealing with it when it intervenes against current public policy. Quebec has an interesting concept of ‘reasonable accommodation’ that came to a head earlier this year with French classes provided by the Quebec govt to immigrants
I don’t think it should be banned. Rather than attempting to integrate them into mainstream society, you will just encourage them to remain within their own communities. If the reasoning is that we need to protect these poor unfortunate women, I think it is problematic and offensive because you are forcing them into the home. If these women wear the burka because they are forced to by their husbands, forcing them out of the public sphere will not encourage any change in this repressive attitude.
However, there does need to be policies in place for situations where this takes place.
- Drivers license/passport photos. Should a burka be allowed to be worn. No. Those are suppose to be forms of identification. No identification can take place with a person wearing a burka. They are similar to a balaclava.
- Language classes. I’m doing my Masters in Linguistics at the moment and I do not understand how it is possible to teach the phonetics (sounds and pronunciation) to a student who has their face covered. Both from my own additional language learning and my theoretical background, I would find it inherently difficult to both learn or teach with something covering my mouth and make it impossible to see where the tongue formed sounds etc.
While the burka shouldn’t be banned, we also need to think about ways of dealing with it when it intervenes against current public policy. Quebec has an interesting concept of ‘reasonable accommodation’ that came to a head earlier this year with French classes provided by the Quebec govt to immigrants
What a load of crap.
1. Aborigines were forced to conform to European dress standards.
2. Chinese gold miners were violently shorn of their pigtails.
3. Sydney beaches were patrolled by inspectors paid by the public purse to enforce a dress code.
4. Students have frequently been persecuted for having their hair cut in unapproved ways.
5. Most entertainingly, William James Chidley was certified insane for wearing a tunic.
What a load of crap.
1. Aborigines were forced to conform to European dress standards.
2. Chinese gold miners were violently shorn of their pigtails.
3. Sydney beaches were patrolled by inspectors paid by the public purse to enforce a dress code.
4. Students have frequently been persecuted for having their hair cut in unapproved ways.
5. Most entertainingly, William James Chidley was certified insane for wearing a tunic.
I’m sure Cory Bernardi is well aware that there is no current pressing problem of people running across great swaths of burqua-clad women, with whom they’re trying unsuccessfully to communicate, every day across this great continent of ours. I’m sure he is aware that burqua-wearers in Australia constitute a vanishingly tiny minority of a minority of a subgroup, and the courts to date have not ground to a halt while court officials agonise over how to solve the problem of hordes of burqua-clad burglars who can’t be tried adequately.
In other words, he’s quite aware that he’s applying the eggbeater with some gusto.
I’m sure Cory Bernardi is well aware that there is no current pressing problem of people running across great swaths of burqua-clad women, with whom they’re trying unsuccessfully to communicate, every day across this great continent of ours. I’m sure he is aware that burqua-wearers in Australia constitute a vanishingly tiny minority of a minority of a subgroup, and the courts to date have not ground to a halt while court officials agonise over how to solve the problem of hordes of burqua-clad burglars who can’t be tried adequately.
In other words, he’s quite aware that he’s applying the eggbeater with some gusto.
Exactly.
Hmm. That could be Item 6 on your list — yet another ‘rule and societal expectation’ that’s changed in recent years, viz:
6. Common civility in public discourse used to be the default position.
Exactly.
Hmm. That could be Item 6 on your list — yet another ‘rule and societal expectation’ that’s changed in recent years, viz:
6. Common civility in public discourse used to be the default position.
The most expensive crimes are committed by blokes wearing tailor-made suits and old school ties.
They all look the same to me.
The most expensive crimes are committed by blokes wearing tailor-made suits and old school ties.
They all look the same to me.
PC – I think adding a further clause to the first item on your list of desirable rights might, if not resolve, then at least tilt things towards my preferred conclusion. Viz:
“[...]women have the right
1) to wear whatever they like, and to not have the reasons for their choices made a topic for idle public speculation, nor to be accused of suffering from false consciousness or second-guessed in any way.”
Clearly there is a lot going on in a woman’s decision to burqa-up or not, different from case to case. Doubtless in some cases women say they want to do it who don’t really, but who can’t say so because their paricular family or community more or less ‘enforces’ a strong stance on modesty. Others may feel pressure to dress more liberally than they’d wish. Most are simply dressing as women in their families and communities have always done, and they quite understandably feel part of that tradition and no special need to repudiate it – much as I remember, without any particularly miserable lifetime of coercion occuring, than no I can’t wear my comfy trainers to a wedding.
[yes I am aware it's a trivial example - that's the point]
PC – I think adding a further clause to the first item on your list of desirable rights might, if not resolve, then at least tilt things towards my preferred conclusion. Viz:
“[...]women have the right
1) to wear whatever they like, and to not have the reasons for their choices made a topic for idle public speculation, nor to be accused of suffering from false consciousness or second-guessed in any way.”
Clearly there is a lot going on in a woman’s decision to burqa-up or not, different from case to case. Doubtless in some cases women say they want to do it who don’t really, but who can’t say so because their paricular family or community more or less ‘enforces’ a strong stance on modesty. Others may feel pressure to dress more liberally than they’d wish. Most are simply dressing as women in their families and communities have always done, and they quite understandably feel part of that tradition and no special need to repudiate it – much as I remember, without any particularly miserable lifetime of coercion occuring, than no I can’t wear my comfy trainers to a wedding.
[yes I am aware it's a trivial example - that's the point]
And Mark@62 there is also the Tony take on all of this. He is just observing and feels for our discomfort around the issue just like we might presumably feel if gays, aborigines, single mothers or dole bludgers cross our path.
Another nice dog whistle with plenty of barking.
http://www.theage.com.au/national/burqa-theft-prompts-abbott-to-echo-howards-concerns-20100506-ugyl.html
Oops!
Astute readers may notice I left out an important group. It wasn’t meant to be an exhaustive list, but those who genuinely wish, for religious reasons, to observe the modest dress rules/guidelines of their tradition probably deserve a mention too!
And Mark@62 there is also the Tony take on all of this. He is just observing and feels for our discomfort around the issue just like we might presumably feel if gays, aborigines, single mothers or dole bludgers cross our path.
Another nice dog whistle with plenty of barking.
http://www.theage.com.au/national/burqa-theft-prompts-abbott-to-echo-howards-concerns-20100506-ugyl.html
Oops!
Astute readers may notice I left out an important group. It wasn’t meant to be an exhaustive list, but those who genuinely wish, for religious reasons, to observe the modest dress rules/guidelines of their tradition probably deserve a mention too!
@71 – FDB, you’ve left out another possibility – viz. an active choice to wear a hijab or burqa despite parents who are indifferent, or even hostile. She’s spot on that there’s a lot of evidence that second generation folks in Western countries are more concerned with asserting a religious identity than a national/ethnic one.
@71 – FDB, you’ve left out another possibility – viz. an active choice to wear a hijab or burqa despite parents who are indifferent, or even hostile. She’s spot on that there’s a lot of evidence that second generation folks in Western countries are more concerned with asserting a religious identity than a national/ethnic one.
A wedding is a private event to which one is invited on the understanding that hte invitee will conform to consensual standards of appropriate behaviour.
No invitation is issued for participation in public life. There are limits of public decency. A naked person would rightly be detained in a shopping mall. A burqa breaches no defensible social norms of dress in public.
If the Coalition were to win the next election, would they order Australian troops in Helmand Province Afghanistan, to ban the use of the there. The burqa constitutes a much more potent threat to personal liberties in Helmand Province than in Coburg, Melbourne, Australia.
If Cory Bernardi baulks at this gesture toward his conception of liberty, and declines to support a ban on the burqa in Helmand Province, then Cory Bernardi is a hypocrite.
A wedding is a private event to which one is invited on the understanding that hte invitee will conform to consensual standards of appropriate behaviour.
No invitation is issued for participation in public life. There are limits of public decency. A naked person would rightly be detained in a shopping mall. A burqa breaches no defensible social norms of dress in public.
If the Coalition were to win the next election, would they order Australian troops in Helmand Province Afghanistan, to ban the use of the there. The burqa constitutes a much more potent threat to personal liberties in Helmand Province than in Coburg, Melbourne, Australia.
If Cory Bernardi baulks at this gesture toward his conception of liberty, and declines to support a ban on the burqa in Helmand Province, then Cory Bernardi is a hypocrite.
Sara @ 64 said:
Well that brings up an interesting question. Its getting more common for retailers to request a drivers licence/photo identification card when people make largish purchases with a credit card. Would they get into trouble with discrimination laws for requiring that a person remove a burqa so they can be positively identified before selling to them?
Sara @ 64 said:
Well that brings up an interesting question. Its getting more common for retailers to request a drivers licence/photo identification card when people make largish purchases with a credit card. Would they get into trouble with discrimination laws for requiring that a person remove a burqa so they can be positively identified before selling to them?
Recently there was talkback on this issue on local ABC radio in Brisbane. I was agreeably surprised with the dominant view which was, it’s a free country, they can dress as they please. The argument that struck home with me was that enforcing a ban will for some women virtually ensure that they stay at home most of the time.
There was one interesting case put by the father of a young woman who was a bank teller. Apparently people can be obliged to take of their sunnies when fronting up to the teller. Apparently also not often enforced. He said that women with face covering were not usually asked to uncover. But his daughter had experienced a bank holdup. When a customer so attired appeared she would excuse herself and duck out the back for a break because she couldn’t emotionally face serving the customer. Apparently this was OK with the management.
Recently there was talkback on this issue on local ABC radio in Brisbane. I was agreeably surprised with the dominant view which was, it’s a free country, they can dress as they please. The argument that struck home with me was that enforcing a ban will for some women virtually ensure that they stay at home most of the time.
There was one interesting case put by the father of a young woman who was a bank teller. Apparently people can be obliged to take of their sunnies when fronting up to the teller. Apparently also not often enforced. He said that women with face covering were not usually asked to uncover. But his daughter had experienced a bank holdup. When a customer so attired appeared she would excuse herself and duck out the back for a break because she couldn’t emotionally face serving the customer. Apparently this was OK with the management.
“…..then Cory Bernardi is a hypocrite.”
That’s a given Katz.
I am sure that I will be told if I am wrong, but full burqa wearing is still pretty unusual in Australia.
I see scarves a lot but that is common amongst all religious groups, fashion lovers and some with medical concerns.
No issue here. Cory and Tony are just trying to distract everybody from the facts that they have no policy on anything and are happy to pick up votes any dirty way they can.
“…..then Cory Bernardi is a hypocrite.”
That’s a given Katz.
I am sure that I will be told if I am wrong, but full burqa wearing is still pretty unusual in Australia.
I see scarves a lot but that is common amongst all religious groups, fashion lovers and some with medical concerns.
No issue here. Cory and Tony are just trying to distract everybody from the facts that they have no policy on anything and are happy to pick up votes any dirty way they can.
BTW, @ 72 most of the callers were men.
BTW, @ 72 most of the callers were men.
I dunno, Helen. That’s something of which I don’t think we can ever be sure.
I dunno, Helen. That’s something of which I don’t think we can ever be sure.
By contrast Brian, the 90 odd responses to a recent Newcastle Herald columnist Jeff Corbet’s blog were decidedly for a ban. I think a tabloid paper might have a more representative readership than the ABC but who knows for sure.
By contrast Brian, the 90 odd responses to a recent Newcastle Herald columnist Jeff Corbet’s blog were decidedly for a ban. I think a tabloid paper might have a more representative readership than the ABC but who knows for sure.
@79 – ABC local radio has a very different demographic from, say, Radio National.
@79 – ABC local radio has a very different demographic from, say, Radio National.
It is reasonable to assume that the only people reading Jeff Corbett’s blog would be the sort to enjoy imposing restrictions and almost anything else on women by force.
It is reasonable to assume that the only people reading Jeff Corbett’s blog would be the sort to enjoy imposing restrictions and almost anything else on women by force.
Sarkozy is a right-wing Catholic and has never been comfortable with the concept of laïcité or secularism. In December 2007 he travelled to Rome to see the Pope, and told him:
It is in the interests of the Republic that there exist also a moral reflection inspired by religious convictions. First because secular morality ["morale laïque"] always runs the risk of wearing itself out or changing into fanaticism when it isn’t backed up by hope that aspires to the infinite. And then because morality stripped of any ties to transcendence is more exposed to historic contingencies and eventually to facileness.
Sarkozy’s use of secularism to justify the proposed ban is a masquerade. His opposition to the burqa is really motivated by his deep-seated Catholicism, and of course he is dog-whistling to his own Christian conservative base.
This religious motivation (and dog-whistling) explains Abbott’s and Bernardi’s opposition to the burqa here. At least Abbott and Bernardi do not make any pretense of secularism.
Sarkozy is a right-wing Catholic and has never been comfortable with the concept of laïcité or secularism. In December 2007 he travelled to Rome to see the Pope, and told him:
It is in the interests of the Republic that there exist also a moral reflection inspired by religious convictions. First because secular morality ["morale laïque"] always runs the risk of wearing itself out or changing into fanaticism when it isn’t backed up by hope that aspires to the infinite. And then because morality stripped of any ties to transcendence is more exposed to historic contingencies and eventually to facileness.
Sarkozy’s use of secularism to justify the proposed ban is a masquerade. His opposition to the burqa is really motivated by his deep-seated Catholicism, and of course he is dog-whistling to his own Christian conservative base.
This religious motivation (and dog-whistling) explains Abbott’s and Bernardi’s opposition to the burqa here. At least Abbott and Bernardi do not make any pretense of secularism.
Yes, I’ve often thought that Tony Abbott would like to see all Australian peoples dressed in a neck-to-toe red shiny lycra garment hybridised of the burqa and the speedo.
Yes, I’ve often thought that Tony Abbott would like to see all Australian peoples dressed in a neck-to-toe red shiny lycra garment hybridised of the burqa and the speedo.
Serendipitous is it not? How we come on at the same time? Alright. Laura got in before me. But still, I swear by my ovaries, though I am but a Priestess of Avalon and am therefore slowly fading into the pagan mists, that new fandangled Catholic God made you for me Silquette, as a consolation for finishing off my kind. And now I see you say he is finishing off the Burqa too?
Well excellent. Keep it up my little gift from the Christian above.
now Laura linked to a fantastically informative piece which I’ve been waiting for Mistress of the Universe Helen to put up but I wait no longer.
Good point I think.
http://speakingoffaith.publicradio.org/programs/muslimwomen/veildiscourse1.shtml
Serendipitous is it not? How we come on at the same time? Alright. Laura got in before me. But still, I swear by my ovaries, though I am but a Priestess of Avalon and am therefore slowly fading into the pagan mists, that new fandangled Catholic God made you for me Silquette, as a consolation for finishing off my kind. And now I see you say he is finishing off the Burqa too?
Well excellent. Keep it up my little gift from the Christian above.
now Laura linked to a fantastically informative piece which I’ve been waiting for Mistress of the Universe Helen to put up but I wait no longer.
Good point I think.
http://speakingoffaith.publicradio.org/programs/muslimwomen/veildiscourse1.shtml
Chris:
I think as long its a signed/formal process that is adhered to and that other method of payments were accepted without ID, then it shouldn’t be an issue. I think if you’re selling on credit then you’re entitled to have some control over who you are issuing credit to.
Chris:
I think as long its a signed/formal process that is adhered to and that other method of payments were accepted without ID, then it shouldn’t be an issue. I think if you’re selling on credit then you’re entitled to have some control over who you are issuing credit to.
I hate to say it, but I’m with Sarko on this one. I have posted this on Elizabeth Farelly’s column in SMH a few days ago:
The ban is not the ban. The ban is the burqa itself. Woman from a certain relegion are banned from showing their face in public. They are banned by their husband, by their fathers and by their imams. Woman, and only women, fall under this ban. The ban extends from puberty to death. The ban was concieved by men and is enforced by men.
I hate to say it, but I’m with Sarko on this one. I have posted this on Elizabeth Farelly’s column in SMH a few days ago:
The ban is not the ban. The ban is the burqa itself. Woman from a certain relegion are banned from showing their face in public. They are banned by their husband, by their fathers and by their imams. Woman, and only women, fall under this ban. The ban extends from puberty to death. The ban was concieved by men and is enforced by men.
Mark:
I think that’s only the case if you don’t consider other options to reduce the oppression of women through coerced wearing of the Burqa. I think an alternative approach to banning the Burqa would be to consider legislation or social engagement aimed at discouraging people from pressuring others to conform to particular religious or cultural traditions. Of course then some people of other faiths might have to consider the ethics of pressuring their own children to adhere to a particular cultural or religious traditions, and whether it constitutes spiritual or psychological abuse.
Mark:
I think that’s only the case if you don’t consider other options to reduce the oppression of women through coerced wearing of the Burqa. I think an alternative approach to banning the Burqa would be to consider legislation or social engagement aimed at discouraging people from pressuring others to conform to particular religious or cultural traditions. Of course then some people of other faiths might have to consider the ethics of pressuring their own children to adhere to a particular cultural or religious traditions, and whether it constitutes spiritual or psychological abuse.
The issue is nailed by Things Bogans Like:
The issue is nailed by Things Bogans Like:
Katz wrote: “No invitation is issued for participation in public life. There are limits of public decency. A naked person would rightly be detained in a shopping mall. A burqa breaches no defensible social norms of dress in public”
I think the burqa does, seriously, breach our social norms of dress in public, by covering the face. No invitation may be issued to participation in public life, but you won’t have a very civil public life without people having consideration for others. I wouldn’t ban the burqa, and I would be polite to people wearing it, but if people want to become citizens of this country I expect them to make some effort to not maintain cultural practices that deeply offend their new fellow citizens.
I don’t take the Howard line of ‘we shall decide who comes here ….’ People can live, work , study or whatever here, wearing a burqa if they insist, but if we make the gesture of totally including them as part of our community, as citizens, I expect them to reciprocate by making an effort to fit in – learning the language, not wearing offensive dress.
It’s interesting how much baggage there is behind dress. If a woman wears slacks and shoes and a shirt/blouse, a scarf around her head and big black sun glasses, so that hardly any of her skin is showing, she can be perceived as stylish – Jacqui O was nearly always photographed dressed like that – but the burqa carries many more messages.
Katz wrote: “No invitation is issued for participation in public life. There are limits of public decency. A naked person would rightly be detained in a shopping mall. A burqa breaches no defensible social norms of dress in public”
I think the burqa does, seriously, breach our social norms of dress in public, by covering the face. No invitation may be issued to participation in public life, but you won’t have a very civil public life without people having consideration for others. I wouldn’t ban the burqa, and I would be polite to people wearing it, but if people want to become citizens of this country I expect them to make some effort to not maintain cultural practices that deeply offend their new fellow citizens.
I don’t take the Howard line of ‘we shall decide who comes here ….’ People can live, work , study or whatever here, wearing a burqa if they insist, but if we make the gesture of totally including them as part of our community, as citizens, I expect them to reciprocate by making an effort to fit in – learning the language, not wearing offensive dress.
It’s interesting how much baggage there is behind dress. If a woman wears slacks and shoes and a shirt/blouse, a scarf around her head and big black sun glasses, so that hardly any of her skin is showing, she can be perceived as stylish – Jacqui O was nearly always photographed dressed like that – but the burqa carries many more messages.
Skepticlawyer: I’m happy that somebody has noticed that there are considerable differnces between France and Australia when it comes to the state’s approach to multi-ethnic populations. It would appear, from an Australian perspective where we have had an official policy of multiculturalism, that France doesn’t do multiculturalism at all. They claim they do but that particular behavioural expectations of citizens override communal signifiers. In other words they claim that the matter of communal/religious practices (including clothing) are private matters not fit for the public sphere.
Skepticlawyer: I’m happy that somebody has noticed that there are considerable differnces between France and Australia when it comes to the state’s approach to multi-ethnic populations. It would appear, from an Australian perspective where we have had an official policy of multiculturalism, that France doesn’t do multiculturalism at all. They claim they do but that particular behavioural expectations of citizens override communal signifiers. In other words they claim that the matter of communal/religious practices (including clothing) are private matters not fit for the public sphere.
Casey #84:
But which Priestess are you? Viviane? Morgaine? Nimue? Raven?
Casey #84:
But which Priestess are you? Viviane? Morgaine? Nimue? Raven?
Speaking seriously, this is a very interesting thread and I’m still formulating a position which can be stated clearly and defended logically, taking into account the points that different contributors have made.
Speaking seriously, this is a very interesting thread and I’m still formulating a position which can be stated clearly and defended logically, taking into account the points that different contributors have made.
This is an issue where people (in general, I mean, everyone’s been pretty good on this thread) will attempt to wedge others of the “if you’re against Conroy’s Clean Feed then you’re pro kiddie pr0n” kind. In the same way, many of us are completely opposed to the burqua being forced onto women by their fundamentalist religion and are less than whelmed by the idea that women are keen to wear them themselves because it’s the only way to escape the male gaze (i.e. There Is No Alternative), but at the same time do *not* support coercive measures which have the greatest impact on the women we’re trying to “save”, and don’t extrapolate into general islamophobia.
This is an issue where people (in general, I mean, everyone’s been pretty good on this thread) will attempt to wedge others of the “if you’re against Conroy’s Clean Feed then you’re pro kiddie pr0n” kind. In the same way, many of us are completely opposed to the burqua being forced onto women by their fundamentalist religion and are less than whelmed by the idea that women are keen to wear them themselves because it’s the only way to escape the male gaze (i.e. There Is No Alternative), but at the same time do *not* support coercive measures which have the greatest impact on the women we’re trying to “save”, and don’t extrapolate into general islamophobia.
Finishing off your kind? Finishing off your kind?? FINISHING OFF YOUR KIND???!111!!! What the fuck are you talking about?
Finishing off your kind? Finishing off your kind?? FINISHING OFF YOUR KIND???!111!!! What the fuck are you talking about?
If this was a condemnation thread I’d be condemning my incredibly ungrammatical comment above. I was cutting and pasting and DONE IT WRONG.
Hee-hee, Silkworm, it’s only a leg-pull! I guess worms don’t have legs…
If this was a condemnation thread I’d be condemning my incredibly ungrammatical comment above. I was cutting and pasting and DONE IT WRONG.
Hee-hee, Silkworm, it’s only a leg-pull! I guess worms don’t have legs…
Huh.
I’ll be serious for a bit (acknowledging my own position’s debt to Ghassan Hage) and agree that there’s a lot of social anxiety about the garment, but that it’s less representative of concern about and for liberties and rights, than for the place of Australian, implicitly white Australian, norms.
If multiculturalism as it works is the disestablishing of cultural norms, like the taboo on face-covering and things that are seen as obvious forms of submission; it means that there’s no longer an Australianness that doesn’t require active organising and constant defence. It means that “public spaces” aren’t simply assumed to exist and aren’t any longer shared on bases of solidarity and shared national feeling, but rather have to be built, and rebuilt precariously, on respect and constant confrontation with unfamiliarity, wherever they can be found.
It’s a challenging notion for a political culture stuck so firmly on egalitarianism. No wonder there’s intellectual paralysis.
Oh and go and read this everyone.
Huh.
I’ll be serious for a bit (acknowledging my own position’s debt to Ghassan Hage) and agree that there’s a lot of social anxiety about the garment, but that it’s less representative of concern about and for liberties and rights, than for the place of Australian, implicitly white Australian, norms.
If multiculturalism as it works is the disestablishing of cultural norms, like the taboo on face-covering and things that are seen as obvious forms of submission; it means that there’s no longer an Australianness that doesn’t require active organising and constant defence. It means that “public spaces” aren’t simply assumed to exist and aren’t any longer shared on bases of solidarity and shared national feeling, but rather have to be built, and rebuilt precariously, on respect and constant confrontation with unfamiliarity, wherever they can be found.
It’s a challenging notion for a political culture stuck so firmly on egalitarianism. No wonder there’s intellectual paralysis.
Oh and go and read this everyone.
I would hazard a guess that a large proportion of women who wear the burqa in Australia aren’t immigrants but are rather native born.
Immigrants from burqa-wearing lands tend to be those who reject and fear the kind of Islam that insists on the burqa. Children of immigrant Muslims and converts to Islam, on the other hand, are inclined to adopt the garb as a talisman of their identity and perhaps of their perceived marginalisation in an increasingly suspicious and hostile land.
I would hazard a guess that a large proportion of women who wear the burqa in Australia aren’t immigrants but are rather native born.
Immigrants from burqa-wearing lands tend to be those who reject and fear the kind of Islam that insists on the burqa. Children of immigrant Muslims and converts to Islam, on the other hand, are inclined to adopt the garb as a talisman of their identity and perhaps of their perceived marginalisation in an increasingly suspicious and hostile land.
@ 79 and 80, ABC local radio is a specific demographic and in no way representative. It’s just that I listen to it quite often and would have expected a less tolerant attitude from callers.
Legal Eagle @ 56, one would have to look in detail at the researcher’s work I referred to. I don’t know to what extent she was referring to incidents of lying that concerned a single fact, like “Where were you last night?” or “Does my new hairdo look good?” To sustain a lie about an extended sequence of events as in a court case requires considerable imagination and consistency. You couldn’t do it without a very good memory, which she also mentioned. But in answer to your question
I’d say that they were a very incompetent liar and should have more practice before attempting it.
@ 79 and 80, ABC local radio is a specific demographic and in no way representative. It’s just that I listen to it quite often and would have expected a less tolerant attitude from callers.
Legal Eagle @ 56, one would have to look in detail at the researcher’s work I referred to. I don’t know to what extent she was referring to incidents of lying that concerned a single fact, like “Where were you last night?” or “Does my new hairdo look good?” To sustain a lie about an extended sequence of events as in a court case requires considerable imagination and consistency. You couldn’t do it without a very good memory, which she also mentioned. But in answer to your question
I’d say that they were a very incompetent liar and should have more practice before attempting it.
Katz – I know that there are Australians that wear it, I’m just saying what my public policy response would be: not a ban, but an expression that the burqa is offensive to most Australians and that we’d like people not to wear it. If immigration still works on a points scheme it would make it quite a bit harder, though not necessarily impossible, for burqa wearers to get the points required for citizenship.
Katz – I know that there are Australians that wear it, I’m just saying what my public policy response would be: not a ban, but an expression that the burqa is offensive to most Australians and that we’d like people not to wear it. If immigration still works on a points scheme it would make it quite a bit harder, though not necessarily impossible, for burqa wearers to get the points required for citizenship.
When reading these arguments here, I can see why the Left has been losing political ground to the Right with each passing decade. I can also understand why the Right has little trouble in portraying all the Left’s moral equivalising and censorship purity as faintly ridiculous. We’re so busy compromising and tolerating and respecting and moderating, that we never seem to be able stand for something.
Compared to other religious garments (including the Muslim headscarf), the burqa is way out on its own as a symbol of outright oppression of a particular group of people. As Sarkozy and so many others argue, the real offensiveness of the burqa is that it completely strips a woman of her public identity.
I’d prefer to see it banned in Australia, rather than just being left to ‘fade out’ of the culture. The act of banning something – anything – is not so much to protect us from the banned object; it’s an outward expression of where we morally stand as a society.
When reading these arguments here, I can see why the Left has been losing political ground to the Right with each passing decade. I can also understand why the Right has little trouble in portraying all the Left’s moral equivalising and censorship purity as faintly ridiculous. We’re so busy compromising and tolerating and respecting and moderating, that we never seem to be able stand for something.
Compared to other religious garments (including the Muslim headscarf), the burqa is way out on its own as a symbol of outright oppression of a particular group of people. As Sarkozy and so many others argue, the real offensiveness of the burqa is that it completely strips a woman of her public identity.
I’d prefer to see it banned in Australia, rather than just being left to ‘fade out’ of the culture. The act of banning something – anything – is not so much to protect us from the banned object; it’s an outward expression of where we morally stand as a society.
That would sit oddly with our commitments to freedom from religious discrimination. And as everyone’s been saying, they’re citizens; it’s their public space too.
I’ll bet I offend a lot of Muslims when I reel home from the pub stinking of BLT sandwich and beer.
That would sit oddly with our commitments to freedom from religious discrimination. And as everyone’s been saying, they’re citizens; it’s their public space too.
I’ll bet I offend a lot of Muslims when I reel home from the pub stinking of BLT sandwich and beer.
Exactly.
And I ask; if the burqa now: whose garment next?
You can take my beret off my cold, wet head.
Exactly.
And I ask; if the burqa now: whose garment next?
You can take my beret off my cold, wet head.
To Laura(41) and Liam(55)’s stories about burka, I will add that when studying Japanese at Tottori University in Japan I met muslims from across the Arab world, mostly men but some women, and all the women wore some form of head covering, but showed the same personality traits as Liam and Laura describe. Particularly, I studied alongside a Sudanese woman, an Omani man and a Bangladeshi man, and she would engage in ferocious religious debate in class, from within the cover of her headscarf. She also obeyed the rules about not being alone with a man, and thought Sudanese attitudes towards women were very good. The Omani man was generally supportive of Muslim rules about not discussing one’s family with non-intimate friends, and hated all Saudi forms of oppression of women.
Incidentally, muslim men in Japan are themselves subject to quite strict rules about, for example, entering hot springs (modesty precludes it), how they play sport (though Japan is ferociously hot, they need to wear modest clothes) and so on. In most moderate forms, I don’t think the rules about women’s clothing are much different to the rules men follow – I think I’d rather wear a headscarf than a beard in Japanese summer! I’m sure there have been periods in the history of Islam when men were subject to strict rules about headcoverings as well.
I have also worked with “moderate” Malaysian muslim women in Australia who wore headscarves and extensive make-up.
I think any response to these clothing styles based on perception of their oppressive nature or the way women are “forced” into them is usually naive, shallow and very commonly driven by racism or some sort of orientalist rescue complex. And I don’t think the problem is particularly intellectually paralysing either, a la Pavlov’s Cat at 61. Liberal multiculturalism as officially defined in Australia provides a perfectly good set of intellectual guidelines for handling this “problem,” starting with “wtf business is it of mine anyway what someone chooses to wear?”
Finally, the full-body tent thing is such a tiny proportion of our experience of Islam that we should all just get over it. There can be no positive consequence of banning it for the women in question, so why bother?
To Laura(41) and Liam(55)’s stories about burka, I will add that when studying Japanese at Tottori University in Japan I met muslims from across the Arab world, mostly men but some women, and all the women wore some form of head covering, but showed the same personality traits as Liam and Laura describe. Particularly, I studied alongside a Sudanese woman, an Omani man and a Bangladeshi man, and she would engage in ferocious religious debate in class, from within the cover of her headscarf. She also obeyed the rules about not being alone with a man, and thought Sudanese attitudes towards women were very good. The Omani man was generally supportive of Muslim rules about not discussing one’s family with non-intimate friends, and hated all Saudi forms of oppression of women.
Incidentally, muslim men in Japan are themselves subject to quite strict rules about, for example, entering hot springs (modesty precludes it), how they play sport (though Japan is ferociously hot, they need to wear modest clothes) and so on. In most moderate forms, I don’t think the rules about women’s clothing are much different to the rules men follow – I think I’d rather wear a headscarf than a beard in Japanese summer! I’m sure there have been periods in the history of Islam when men were subject to strict rules about headcoverings as well.
I have also worked with “moderate” Malaysian muslim women in Australia who wore headscarves and extensive make-up.
I think any response to these clothing styles based on perception of their oppressive nature or the way women are “forced” into them is usually naive, shallow and very commonly driven by racism or some sort of orientalist rescue complex. And I don’t think the problem is particularly intellectually paralysing either, a la Pavlov’s Cat at 61. Liberal multiculturalism as officially defined in Australia provides a perfectly good set of intellectual guidelines for handling this “problem,” starting with “wtf business is it of mine anyway what someone chooses to wear?”
Finally, the full-body tent thing is such a tiny proportion of our experience of Islam that we should all just get over it. There can be no positive consequence of banning it for the women in question, so why bother?
The act of banning something – anything – is not so much to protect us from the banned object; it’s an outward expression of where we morally stand as a society.
It’ll make you, as a member of the dominant culture, feel good. Aside from that, for women who wear it because they’re accustomed to it and would feel uncomfortable without, it would make them anxious, unhappy and perhaps less likely to get out of the house, which would make some members of the dominant culture even happier, even as they pontificate about their wonderful concern for the poor oppressed women, not like these relativist lefties.
For the younger ones who might think about adopting the burqua for reasons of identity and rebellion, banning it will make it uber-cool instead of old peoples’ stuff. Well done there Burqua banners. Even then they’ll be a vanishingly rare sight, kind of like those fully blown punks who maintain the whole look intact, but still that doesn’t prevent a good PANIC, does it!
Tatiana @ 39: Sorry – I missed your comment in my earlier response. If someone had a face which was disfigured (burns, stroke, palsy) I think a judge would try to take that into account. But unfortunately for those with facial disfigurements, I am sure that one of the problems they have to deal with is a level of instinctive recoil or distrust which arises in many of their interactions with others.
I’m not saying that all a judge does is look into someone’s eyes and work out whether they’re telling the truth (contra Fine @ 36). When you are judging a legal case, there’s many different considerations. You look at the documentary evidence, the physical evidence, you read all the written statements. There’s always situations where accounts don’t match up or there is a hole in the evidence somewhere. So then you look at the witness and try to ascertain whether his or her account is convincing. And the other side’s barrister tries to unpick inconsistencies in the evidence and to winkle out concessions or to highlight uncertainties. But when it’s one person’s word against another, the impression that person makes in the witness box is very important.
SL was reminding me that another important principle in law is the principle of confrontation. That is, the victim gets to look the perpetrator in the eye, and vice versa. Of course, that’s been a massive problem in rape trials where the perpetrator is self represented and demands to cross-examine the victim/witness, but courts have been very, very, very reluctant to stop them from doing so precisely because of the importance they place on people’s reactions when they have to face one another.
The act of banning something – anything – is not so much to protect us from the banned object; it’s an outward expression of where we morally stand as a society.
It’ll make you, as a member of the dominant culture, feel good. Aside from that, for women who wear it because they’re accustomed to it and would feel uncomfortable without, it would make them anxious, unhappy and perhaps less likely to get out of the house, which would make some members of the dominant culture even happier, even as they pontificate about their wonderful concern for the poor oppressed women, not like these relativist lefties.
For the younger ones who might think about adopting the burqua for reasons of identity and rebellion, banning it will make it uber-cool instead of old peoples’ stuff. Well done there Burqua banners. Even then they’ll be a vanishingly rare sight, kind of like those fully blown punks who maintain the whole look intact, but still that doesn’t prevent a good PANIC, does it!
Tatiana @ 39: Sorry – I missed your comment in my earlier response. If someone had a face which was disfigured (burns, stroke, palsy) I think a judge would try to take that into account. But unfortunately for those with facial disfigurements, I am sure that one of the problems they have to deal with is a level of instinctive recoil or distrust which arises in many of their interactions with others.
I’m not saying that all a judge does is look into someone’s eyes and work out whether they’re telling the truth (contra Fine @ 36). When you are judging a legal case, there’s many different considerations. You look at the documentary evidence, the physical evidence, you read all the written statements. There’s always situations where accounts don’t match up or there is a hole in the evidence somewhere. So then you look at the witness and try to ascertain whether his or her account is convincing. And the other side’s barrister tries to unpick inconsistencies in the evidence and to winkle out concessions or to highlight uncertainties. But when it’s one person’s word against another, the impression that person makes in the witness box is very important.
SL was reminding me that another important principle in law is the principle of confrontation. That is, the victim gets to look the perpetrator in the eye, and vice versa. Of course, that’s been a massive problem in rape trials where the perpetrator is self represented and demands to cross-examine the victim/witness, but courts have been very, very, very reluctant to stop them from doing so precisely because of the importance they place on people’s reactions when they have to face one another.
I would like to see a squad of full burqa wearing women (and men possibly) shadow Tony and Cory for the duration of election campaign.
I would like to see a squad of full burqa wearing women (and men possibly) shadow Tony and Cory for the duration of election campaign.
To clear this up: I never taught or shared a class with anyone who covered her face. At my uni the Muslim club’s women’s dress code seemed to be jeans, cardigan/long sleeve shirt and a scarf covering hair, neck and ears.
Add a shotgun, a cigarette and five corgis and you’d have the Queen at Balmoral.
To clear this up: I never taught or shared a class with anyone who covered her face. At my uni the Muslim club’s women’s dress code seemed to be jeans, cardigan/long sleeve shirt and a scarf covering hair, neck and ears.
Add a shotgun, a cigarette and five corgis and you’d have the Queen at Balmoral.
@103 – We’re a bit off topic here, LE, but it seems to me to be both extraordinary and wrong for judges to believe that they have some privileged insight into the veracity of witnesses based on their demeanour and expression, particularly when, as Brian suggested, a lot of the evidence from those who’ve actually researched the topic shows that the ‘common sense’ signs that someone is lying are not in fact signs of that.
@103 – We’re a bit off topic here, LE, but it seems to me to be both extraordinary and wrong for judges to believe that they have some privileged insight into the veracity of witnesses based on their demeanour and expression, particularly when, as Brian suggested, a lot of the evidence from those who’ve actually researched the topic shows that the ‘common sense’ signs that someone is lying are not in fact signs of that.
Easy my Silkworm. I agree it is a terrible thing to fall into the hands of the living Casey, but no need to go nuts.
Easy my Silkworm. I agree it is a terrible thing to fall into the hands of the living Casey, but no need to go nuts.
But the public policy outcome to enforcing this would be a tremendous disincentive to Muslim women giving evidence, making statements to Police, or pursuing legitimate claims through the courts. Shouldn’t the priority be on reducing barriers to justice?
But the public policy outcome to enforcing this would be a tremendous disincentive to Muslim women giving evidence, making statements to Police, or pursuing legitimate claims through the courts. Shouldn’t the priority be on reducing barriers to justice?
silkworm, you should know better than to criticise Catholics. Remember, this has nothing to do with Sarkozy’s religious views and that the church has dealt quite adequately with all child abuse allegations.
For daring not to recognise the above, now and previously you have incurred the wrath of the living Casey (as opposed to the dead Casey, who doesn’t have a lot to say but makes more sense) and the burka be damned!
silkworm, you should know better than to criticise Catholics. Remember, this has nothing to do with Sarkozy’s religious views and that the church has dealt quite adequately with all child abuse allegations.
For daring not to recognise the above, now and previously you have incurred the wrath of the living Casey (as opposed to the dead Casey, who doesn’t have a lot to say but makes more sense) and the burka be damned!
@111 – without wishing to reopen that can of worms, I doubt that Sarkozy’s religion has anything much to do with it. Note that the ban was first proposed by a Communist legislator, and has enjoyed overwhelming majority support among Socialist members of the National Assembly as well. The “laicite” approach to Republicanism in France represents something very close to a political consensus.
@111 – without wishing to reopen that can of worms, I doubt that Sarkozy’s religion has anything much to do with it. Note that the ban was first proposed by a Communist legislator, and has enjoyed overwhelming majority support among Socialist members of the National Assembly as well. The “laicite” approach to Republicanism in France represents something very close to a political consensus.
Helen@104: ‘For the younger ones who might think about adopting the burqua for reasons of identity and rebellion, banning it will make it uber-cool instead of old peoples’ stuff.’
The burqa? Uber-cool?? Isn’t that taking forbidden-fruit relativism a bit far?
Helen@104: ‘For the younger ones who might think about adopting the burqua for reasons of identity and rebellion, banning it will make it uber-cool instead of old peoples’ stuff.’
The burqa? Uber-cool?? Isn’t that taking forbidden-fruit relativism a bit far?
It’s got nothing to do with relativism (although I know that’s always a handy rotten egg to throw at anyone whose argument is too nuanced for you to understand, while those with even less of a handle on the subject won’t get past the buzzword.) It’s to do with young radicals loving to adopt anything that’s considered naughty and wrong by the government and mainstream culture.
It’s got nothing to do with relativism (although I know that’s always a handy rotten egg to throw at anyone whose argument is too nuanced for you to understand, while those with even less of a handle on the subject won’t get past the buzzword.) It’s to do with young radicals loving to adopt anything that’s considered naughty and wrong by the government and mainstream culture.
What are you basing that on, Helen? I’m pretty wary of speculating about motives, unless there’s some ground for it.
What are you basing that on, Helen? I’m pretty wary of speculating about motives, unless there’s some ground for it.
“Young radicals?”
Show me them.
“Young radicals?”
Show me them.
I’m saying, Mark, that banning something may lend it a measure of cool factor that it wouldn’t have had before.
I’m saying, Mark, that banning something may lend it a measure of cool factor that it wouldn’t have had before.
Mark @103: New Scientist had an article a while ago that suggested that we were actually better at picking lies over the phone than face to face. Perhaps all witnesses should wear the burqa in court?
Mark @103: New Scientist had an article a while ago that suggested that we were actually better at picking lies over the phone than face to face. Perhaps all witnesses should wear the burqa in court?
Frankly, the idea of subversive burqa-wearing strikes me as equal parts awesome (for its aesthtic possibilities, which I can always endorse) and starkly idiotic.
But that’s “young radicals” in a nutshell, really.
Frankly, the idea of subversive burqa-wearing strikes me as equal parts awesome (for its aesthtic possibilities, which I can always endorse) and starkly idiotic.
But that’s “young radicals” in a nutshell, really.
Hear hear
Hear hear
I have a question for Sceptic Lawyer, the lone classical liberal at this blog.
What would Edmund Burka say?
I have a question for Sceptic Lawyer, the lone classical liberal at this blog.
What would Edmund Burka say?
There appears to be no shortage of informed and contrary opinion on this subject and fortunately a lot of it coming from secularised women from an Arabic or Eastern background. Djemila Benhabib is against the veil and says:
There appears to be no shortage of informed and contrary opinion on this subject and fortunately a lot of it coming from secularised women from an Arabic or Eastern background. Djemila Benhabib is against the veil and says:
Am I the only one who thinks this whole argument is arse-about? It shouldn’t be about banning the burqua, but about when it is reasonable for someone to set a ‘dress code’ (for want of a better word) without facing charges of discrimination.
I don’t like the fully-enveloping face-covering black shrouds. Like others have said here, I find it disquieting and a little bit scary. But this is Australia, where we supposedly value freedom of choice and freedom of expression. If they want to wear it, that’s their choice. I need to learn to deal with my discomfort.
With regard to whether they are being coerced or pressured, that is better dealt with in the same ways as other domestic violence issues are dealt with – providing information, encouragement and support… and refuges and AVO’s if necessary. It depends on the level of coercion.
We need to start from the principle that anyone has the right to wear anything they like anytime and anywhere. The real question should revolve around when and wear it is reasonable to ask a someone to modify this behaviour.
It is reasonable for a bank to request that a motorcyclist remove their helmet or a person take off their sunglasses. It is equally reasonable for a bank to refuse entry to a woman wearing a burqua. Same for a shop owner.
The courts and other public services can probabably also mount credible cases as to why the face should be visible when you are in certain premises.
The discussion needs to have the religious element taken out of it.
(As an aside, I quite like some of the hijab headscarves. They use some beautiful fabrics and colours and can be quite a fashion statement.)
Am I the only one who thinks this whole argument is arse-about? It shouldn’t be about banning the burqua, but about when it is reasonable for someone to set a ‘dress code’ (for want of a better word) without facing charges of discrimination.
I don’t like the fully-enveloping face-covering black shrouds. Like others have said here, I find it disquieting and a little bit scary. But this is Australia, where we supposedly value freedom of choice and freedom of expression. If they want to wear it, that’s their choice. I need to learn to deal with my discomfort.
With regard to whether they are being coerced or pressured, that is better dealt with in the same ways as other domestic violence issues are dealt with – providing information, encouragement and support… and refuges and AVO’s if necessary. It depends on the level of coercion.
We need to start from the principle that anyone has the right to wear anything they like anytime and anywhere. The real question should revolve around when and wear it is reasonable to ask a someone to modify this behaviour.
It is reasonable for a bank to request that a motorcyclist remove their helmet or a person take off their sunglasses. It is equally reasonable for a bank to refuse entry to a woman wearing a burqua. Same for a shop owner.
The courts and other public services can probabably also mount credible cases as to why the face should be visible when you are in certain premises.
The discussion needs to have the religious element taken out of it.
(As an aside, I quite like some of the hijab headscarves. They use some beautiful fabrics and colours and can be quite a fashion statement.)
Liberalism 101: people can do what they like so long as they do not harm others (annoying others does not count). Problem what if people are coerced by forms of mental control so that they are not really doing what they want? Religious cults and drug addiction perhaps. I don’t see how adopting a strongly conservative religious identity falls under this category. You can disapprove of people doing something but not think they should be forced to stop doing it.
broader left problem with populist conservatism: people either want to be like common people and fail to criticize it think David Burchell here, or alternately people fall into panic and run off to the Supreme Court or the Turkish army.
Liberalism 101: people can do what they like so long as they do not harm others (annoying others does not count). Problem what if people are coerced by forms of mental control so that they are not really doing what they want? Religious cults and drug addiction perhaps. I don’t see how adopting a strongly conservative religious identity falls under this category. You can disapprove of people doing something but not think they should be forced to stop doing it.
broader left problem with populist conservatism: people either want to be like common people and fail to criticize it think David Burchell here, or alternately people fall into panic and run off to the Supreme Court or the Turkish army.
Helen: ‘… that’s always a handy rotten egg to throw at anyone whose argument is too nuanced for you to understand’
Frankly, the arguments here have nuanced the entire subject into meaninglessness. We accept the decency laws surrounding public nakedness and don’t harp on about our civil liberties being infringed, because we know the laws are dealing with extremely inappropriate nakedness, not the sight of a bit of flesh. Treating the burqa like just another religious garment is like treating FGM as just another religious practice. It’s a question of extremes.
Helen: ‘… that’s always a handy rotten egg to throw at anyone whose argument is too nuanced for you to understand’
Frankly, the arguments here have nuanced the entire subject into meaninglessness. We accept the decency laws surrounding public nakedness and don’t harp on about our civil liberties being infringed, because we know the laws are dealing with extremely inappropriate nakedness, not the sight of a bit of flesh. Treating the burqa like just another religious garment is like treating FGM as just another religious practice. It’s a question of extremes.
“Treating the burqa like just another religious garment is like treating FGM as just another religious practice. It’s a question of extremes.”
You wrote it, and you can’t un-write it.
“Treating the burqa like just another religious garment is like treating FGM as just another religious practice. It’s a question of extremes.”
You wrote it, and you can’t un-write it.
There are many, many sights in ordinary Australian life that offend me deeply – every time I put on the telly some arrogant bastard on Masterchef is shouting about the proper way to cut up a dead pig or the corpse of a duck. Jezery is absolutely right: “this is Australia, where we supposedly value freedom of choice and freedom of expression…I need to learn to deal with my discomfort.”
There are many, many sights in ordinary Australian life that offend me deeply – every time I put on the telly some arrogant bastard on Masterchef is shouting about the proper way to cut up a dead pig or the corpse of a duck. Jezery is absolutely right: “this is Australia, where we supposedly value freedom of choice and freedom of expression…I need to learn to deal with my discomfort.”
Jezery you aren’t the only one. It must be obvious that the only way to counter oppression is more oppression, but I’m stupid and can’t see it.
Jezery you aren’t the only one. It must be obvious that the only way to counter oppression is more oppression, but I’m stupid and can’t see it.
@123 –
Aside from the point made way up the thread correctly stating that it’s not a requirement, I’ve been interested to note today that Egyptian Islamic authorities are seeking a ban on the burqa to combat Salafism. So I think formulations such as “the Islamic veil” – as in the quote in @122 are misleading and probably highly ideological.
@123 –
Aside from the point made way up the thread correctly stating that it’s not a requirement, I’ve been interested to note today that Egyptian Islamic authorities are seeking a ban on the burqa to combat Salafism. So I think formulations such as “the Islamic veil” – as in the quote in @122 are misleading and probably highly ideological.
Brian @ 46 – sorry, I missed that – that’s the problem with scrolling through comments with a bad 18 month old on your lap who is shouting “Mouse! Puter!”.
Judging someone as a witness is not just about expression, it’s also about other things (posture, tone of voice, speed of speaking etc). You do have to be really careful because people avoid eye contact when they are nervous and things like that. There are also cultural issues to be aware of in the behaviour of a witness (eg, in Asian cultures, meeting people’s eyes can be rude). And being cross-examined is a terribly, terribly stressful experience. Many signs that are typically seen as “lying” may actually be nerves. Courts are aware of this. Certainly, when I worked in the court, we used to give people breaks, and glasses of water, and time to calm down and things like that to try and minimise nerves.
Here’s an interesting post about lying and body language, and the dangers of relying on it too much. You do have to make sure that you (a) factor in nervousness and (b) take other evidence into account.
The other interesting thing is how people lie to themselves. In fact this is far, far more common than lying with intent to mislead. They insist with fervour, “No I didn’t say [XYZ].” You can see that they honestly believe what they say with all their heart. Possibly they’ve rewritten history in their head. Then the opposing barrister pulls out an e-mail and puts it to them that they did say [XYZ] because there it is written on the page. And then you can see them wilt a little.
On one occasion, when it was shown to a witness that he had incontrovertibly done [XYZ] despite his protestations to the contrary, he fainted in the witness box, and had to be carried out. Given that this was central to the case, it was pretty much game over from then.
(Sorry to derail thread into considerations of truth etc).
Brian @ 46 – sorry, I missed that – that’s the problem with scrolling through comments with a bad 18 month old on your lap who is shouting “Mouse! Puter!”.
Judging someone as a witness is not just about expression, it’s also about other things (posture, tone of voice, speed of speaking etc). You do have to be really careful because people avoid eye contact when they are nervous and things like that. There are also cultural issues to be aware of in the behaviour of a witness (eg, in Asian cultures, meeting people’s eyes can be rude). And being cross-examined is a terribly, terribly stressful experience. Many signs that are typically seen as “lying” may actually be nerves. Courts are aware of this. Certainly, when I worked in the court, we used to give people breaks, and glasses of water, and time to calm down and things like that to try and minimise nerves.
Here’s an interesting post about lying and body language, and the dangers of relying on it too much. You do have to make sure that you (a) factor in nervousness and (b) take other evidence into account.
The other interesting thing is how people lie to themselves. In fact this is far, far more common than lying with intent to mislead. They insist with fervour, “No I didn’t say [XYZ].” You can see that they honestly believe what they say with all their heart. Possibly they’ve rewritten history in their head. Then the opposing barrister pulls out an e-mail and puts it to them that they did say [XYZ] because there it is written on the page. And then you can see them wilt a little.
On one occasion, when it was shown to a witness that he had incontrovertibly done [XYZ] despite his protestations to the contrary, he fainted in the witness box, and had to be carried out. Given that this was central to the case, it was pretty much game over from then.
(Sorry to derail thread into considerations of truth etc).
Mark: the quote I cited frm Djemila Benhabib was from an address she gave specifically on the proposed ban in France. I note your comment about attempts to ban the burqa in Egypt in an effort to stem Salafism and think that this development nicely illustrates the complexity of the issue. Wearing female covering appears to be defensible in some circumstances and not in others and it really does depend on the historical specificity of the case.
For the record I think (contra Ghassan Haj) that official Australian state multiculturalism has created a strong culture of acceptance of ethnic and religious diversity. I believe that women have the right to choose what they wear in Australia. However, I remain unconvinced that all Muslim women wearing coverings of all sorts are expressing absolute freedom of choice and I am equally unconvinced that some of those women are not subject to intra-communal pressure to conform to cultural accretions to Muslim practice derived from unmediated patriarchalism.
On the other hand it may also be the case that some women wearing coverings are in fact making a public political statement about their adherance to political Islam or Islamicist supremacism. This is how it is viewed in Egypt because of the association with Wahhabism.
France, of course, is always different. With a significant Muslim population, some of whom have long standing grievances against the failure of the French to comprehensively award them citizenship after the “fall” of Algeria, the French state has a substantial problem on its hands. My understanding is that wearing coverings has been identified as symbolising political Islamicism in some (but not all cases). So radical Islamicism may become the vehicle for the expression of discontent against the French state and widespread French anti-arabic speaking racism.
BTW: I read recently that the French Socialist Party is opposed to the burqa but also opposed to the legislative ban because they think it a crude tool that does not address the causes of the discontent among Arabic speaking French people.
In general in Australia it appears to me that liberal multiculturalism works well with the expression of communal identity. Up to the point, that is, when a member of any specific community lays claim to the rights and liberties of a citizen in a democratic socisety at which point liberal individualism trumps communal rights.
I’ve had recent professional experience in relation to this when a young Muslim woman requested assistance in avoiding leaving Australia (she believed she was being coerced into leaving her country of birth by her family) to take part in an arranged marriage to which she was vigorously opposed. Unfortunately I cannot say more than that she received that assistance.
Mark: the quote I cited frm Djemila Benhabib was from an address she gave specifically on the proposed ban in France. I note your comment about attempts to ban the burqa in Egypt in an effort to stem Salafism and think that this development nicely illustrates the complexity of the issue. Wearing female covering appears to be defensible in some circumstances and not in others and it really does depend on the historical specificity of the case.
For the record I think (contra Ghassan Haj) that official Australian state multiculturalism has created a strong culture of acceptance of ethnic and religious diversity. I believe that women have the right to choose what they wear in Australia. However, I remain unconvinced that all Muslim women wearing coverings of all sorts are expressing absolute freedom of choice and I am equally unconvinced that some of those women are not subject to intra-communal pressure to conform to cultural accretions to Muslim practice derived from unmediated patriarchalism.
On the other hand it may also be the case that some women wearing coverings are in fact making a public political statement about their adherance to political Islam or Islamicist supremacism. This is how it is viewed in Egypt because of the association with Wahhabism.
France, of course, is always different. With a significant Muslim population, some of whom have long standing grievances against the failure of the French to comprehensively award them citizenship after the “fall” of Algeria, the French state has a substantial problem on its hands. My understanding is that wearing coverings has been identified as symbolising political Islamicism in some (but not all cases). So radical Islamicism may become the vehicle for the expression of discontent against the French state and widespread French anti-arabic speaking racism.
BTW: I read recently that the French Socialist Party is opposed to the burqa but also opposed to the legislative ban because they think it a crude tool that does not address the causes of the discontent among Arabic speaking French people.
In general in Australia it appears to me that liberal multiculturalism works well with the expression of communal identity. Up to the point, that is, when a member of any specific community lays claim to the rights and liberties of a citizen in a democratic socisety at which point liberal individualism trumps communal rights.
I’ve had recent professional experience in relation to this when a young Muslim woman requested assistance in avoiding leaving Australia (she believed she was being coerced into leaving her country of birth by her family) to take part in an arranged marriage to which she was vigorously opposed. Unfortunately I cannot say more than that she received that assistance.
Legal Eagle, have you read James Ellroy’s “My Dark Places”?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Dark_Places_%28book%29
Ellroy details therein how in the US a Jane Doe, such as his mother, the victim of an unsolved murder that occurred when he was 10, typically prompts many heartfelt, detailed but totally confected confessions to police by men who absolutely could not’ve killed the woman in question according to key known facts.
Legal Eagle, have you read James Ellroy’s “My Dark Places”?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Dark_Places_%28book%29
Ellroy details therein how in the US a Jane Doe, such as his mother, the victim of an unsolved murder that occurred when he was 10, typically prompts many heartfelt, detailed but totally confected confessions to police by men who absolutely could not’ve killed the woman in question according to key known facts.
Yeah. That only happens with burkas doesn’t it.
I mean its not like there is intra-communal pressure to wear makeup and all that other crap in Australia. Or to diet or wear designer clothes or whatever else. When was the last time you saw a female with hairy armpits on tv?
Oppression of women only happens when the evil otha does it.
Yeah. That only happens with burkas doesn’t it.
I mean its not like there is intra-communal pressure to wear makeup and all that other crap in Australia. Or to diet or wear designer clothes or whatever else. When was the last time you saw a female with hairy armpits on tv?
Oppression of women only happens when the evil otha does it.
Moreover, I am a little bemused by your suggestion that Djemila Benhabib’s reference to the “Islamic veil” is ideological. Djemila Benhabib, like Nawal el Saadawi, is a radical feminist seeking equality for women. Worthy of support I would have thought. Djemila Benhabib’s reasons in her own words for her opposition to Muslim women covering themselves:
Moreover, I am a little bemused by your suggestion that Djemila Benhabib’s reference to the “Islamic veil” is ideological. Djemila Benhabib, like Nawal el Saadawi, is a radical feminist seeking equality for women. Worthy of support I would have thought. Djemila Benhabib’s reasons in her own words for her opposition to Muslim women covering themselves:
@131 – anthony, I agree that the different situations are both complex and specific to national traditions and cultures which are highly variable – which is why I think expressions such as “the Islamic veil” are fairly misleading and dangerous.
@131 – anthony, I agree that the different situations are both complex and specific to national traditions and cultures which are highly variable – which is why I think expressions such as “the Islamic veil” are fairly misleading and dangerous.
Anthony, the aversion isn’t in dispute. The best we can dredge up here, even in this vipers nest of relativistic pomos, is a bemused eyeroll. (The hijab, as someone else said above, can be quite practical for everyday wearing; burquas and niquabs, not so much.) What we are saaaay -ing is – don’t respond to an oppressive garment by further oppressing the wearers.
What needs to be addressed is the lower valuation of female people, which I know you don’t, but unfortunately is the default in both muslim and western societies.
Anthony, the aversion isn’t in dispute. The best we can dredge up here, even in this vipers nest of relativistic pomos, is a bemused eyeroll. (The hijab, as someone else said above, can be quite practical for everyday wearing; burquas and niquabs, not so much.) What we are saaaay -ing is – don’t respond to an oppressive garment by further oppressing the wearers.
What needs to be addressed is the lower valuation of female people, which I know you don’t, but unfortunately is the default in both muslim and western societies.
Let me start with the ritualistic acknowledgment that I don’t personally like the burqa.
Of course we limit all kinds of freedoms based on the perceived harm they may do to others. It really should be admitted, however, that prima facie choice of dress style is generally harmless to others, and some of the justifications for harm caused by the burqa are somewhat tortured.
If there is a real issue with coercion in regard to the burqa – and I am open to that possibility but haven’t seen much convincing evidence – then that is what should be addressed directly as suggested in 123: we should be explicit that it is a form of domestic violence, with legislation if necessary. (Not that legislation itself will be a final answer to that kind of domestic violence any more than it is to other forms.)
I don’t mean to be glib, and of course one can agree with the goals while disagreeing about the means, but to me that story speaks at least as much of the dangers of government coercion and violence than it does of a particular dress style. Of course the kind of violence that our government or the French one would bring to bear on this issue pale into insignificance, but I would still be wary of government coercion as the answer to intra-communal coercion.
Let me start with the ritualistic acknowledgment that I don’t personally like the burqa.
Of course we limit all kinds of freedoms based on the perceived harm they may do to others. It really should be admitted, however, that prima facie choice of dress style is generally harmless to others, and some of the justifications for harm caused by the burqa are somewhat tortured.
If there is a real issue with coercion in regard to the burqa – and I am open to that possibility but haven’t seen much convincing evidence – then that is what should be addressed directly as suggested in 123: we should be explicit that it is a form of domestic violence, with legislation if necessary. (Not that legislation itself will be a final answer to that kind of domestic violence any more than it is to other forms.)
I don’t mean to be glib, and of course one can agree with the goals while disagreeing about the means, but to me that story speaks at least as much of the dangers of government coercion and violence than it does of a particular dress style. Of course the kind of violence that our government or the French one would bring to bear on this issue pale into insignificance, but I would still be wary of government coercion as the answer to intra-communal coercion.
Jules @133: I agree with your point. Women are coerced (as are men) in many ways, especially around physical appearance. I suggest that even those who suffer the coercion may not fully or do not at all comprehend the reality of their own subordination. Funny how false consiousness keeps turning up, isn’t it?
Jules @133: I agree with your point. Women are coerced (as are men) in many ways, especially around physical appearance. I suggest that even those who suffer the coercion may not fully or do not at all comprehend the reality of their own subordination. Funny how false consiousness keeps turning up, isn’t it?
Helen: it is tricky to find a coherent point of reference within this debate so I follow the lead of radical feminist (sometimes secular)Muslim women. Happily, Australia isn’t France and we don’t have to deal with quite the same sort of paternal authority embedded within the state. Not yet anyway.
Helen: it is tricky to find a coherent point of reference within this debate so I follow the lead of radical feminist (sometimes secular)Muslim women. Happily, Australia isn’t France and we don’t have to deal with quite the same sort of paternal authority embedded within the state. Not yet anyway.
“Jezery is absolutely right: “this is Australia, where we supposedly value freedom of choice and freedom of expression…I need to learn to deal with my discomfort.”
No, Jezery is absolutely wrong. You could, as an expression of your freedom, as a protest or whatever, turn up to an Anzac dawn service in a T-shirt featuring a swastika and a rising sun, expecting that other people there could just learn to deal with their discomfort. Lots of Australians are like that – you can see them en masse in Bali. And when you do see them, you think “For goodness sake, grow up”.
“Jezery is absolutely right: “this is Australia, where we supposedly value freedom of choice and freedom of expression…I need to learn to deal with my discomfort.”
No, Jezery is absolutely wrong. You could, as an expression of your freedom, as a protest or whatever, turn up to an Anzac dawn service in a T-shirt featuring a swastika and a rising sun, expecting that other people there could just learn to deal with their discomfort. Lots of Australians are like that – you can see them en masse in Bali. And when you do see them, you think “For goodness sake, grow up”.
@16
“I think they look funny and laugh at them when I see them.”
I feel the same way about popes, they crack me up. And high ranking military officers, all those feathers, it’s comedy gold.
@16
“I think they look funny and laugh at them when I see them.”
I feel the same way about popes, they crack me up. And high ranking military officers, all those feathers, it’s comedy gold.
@140 –
It’s a completely false analogy, Russell, because there’s nothing comparable between deliberately giving offence (for whatever reason) and people taking offence (because they find your mode of dress offputting, un-Australian, uncomfortable, whatevs) when all you are trying to do is adopt a mode of attire consistent with religious and cultural traditions.
@140 –
It’s a completely false analogy, Russell, because there’s nothing comparable between deliberately giving offence (for whatever reason) and people taking offence (because they find your mode of dress offputting, un-Australian, uncomfortable, whatevs) when all you are trying to do is adopt a mode of attire consistent with religious and cultural traditions.
@29
“but not become a full citizen while behaving in a way which is so offensive to so many Australians”
But what if someone started wearing it after they became a citizen, would you have them deported? To where?
Anyway what about make burqua wearers, who’s standing up for them!
@29
“but not become a full citizen while behaving in a way which is so offensive to so many Australians”
But what if someone started wearing it after they became a citizen, would you have them deported? To where?
Anyway what about make burqua wearers, who’s standing up for them!
Can we ban the – my trousers are too short to reach all the way up to my waist look – first?
Can we ban the – my trousers are too short to reach all the way up to my waist look – first?
I’d like Movember banned.
I’d like Movember banned.
I certainly agree with the logic of banning Movember. Last time around I advanced the argument that there is a direct correlation between the moustache and male depression, and Movember was raising money for research on specifically male depression, because they make men look like shit and reduce the chances of getting laid by anyone. I always thought that if men behaved decently they mightn’t get so depressed. Anyway, a mo makes me look like a relative of Chopper.
I certainly agree with the logic of banning Movember. Last time around I advanced the argument that there is a direct correlation between the moustache and male depression, and Movember was raising money for research on specifically male depression, because they make men look like shit and reduce the chances of getting laid by anyone. I always thought that if men behaved decently they mightn’t get so depressed. Anyway, a mo makes me look like a relative of Chopper.
I’m for banning the trousers that are so low they are actually below the genitalia and the wearer has to shuffle along to prevent them actually falling.
I’m for banning the trousers that are so low they are actually below the genitalia and the wearer has to shuffle along to prevent them actually falling.
FDB ” “Treating the burqa like just another religious garment is like treating FGM as just another religious practice. It’s a question of extremes.”
You wrote it, and you can’t un-write it.”
I’ve no intention or interest in unwriting it. It’s a valid analogy. The burqa is an extremely offensive and psychologically destructive garment and it has no place in a liberal democratic society. It’s people like you who take pleasure in sneering and shaming anyone who dares to suggest that legislative controls on destructive social practices might actually do some good. Your form of censorship is far more damaging because it is so insidious.
On the subject of FGM, I’m waiting to see when someone is going to be charged and convicted in an Australian court of law. With people like you as self-appointed gatekeepers of public debate, I won’t hold my breath.
And, as for any suggestion I’m Islamphoblic in wanting the burqa banned, I have no problem with other forms of Islamic dress, like the headscarf and full-length garment. I would also gladly sign a petition to have the Christian crucifix banned. It’s by far the most grotesque piece of religious iconography in existence.
FDB ” “Treating the burqa like just another religious garment is like treating FGM as just another religious practice. It’s a question of extremes.”
You wrote it, and you can’t un-write it.”
I’ve no intention or interest in unwriting it. It’s a valid analogy. The burqa is an extremely offensive and psychologically destructive garment and it has no place in a liberal democratic society. It’s people like you who take pleasure in sneering and shaming anyone who dares to suggest that legislative controls on destructive social practices might actually do some good. Your form of censorship is far more damaging because it is so insidious.
On the subject of FGM, I’m waiting to see when someone is going to be charged and convicted in an Australian court of law. With people like you as self-appointed gatekeepers of public debate, I won’t hold my breath.
And, as for any suggestion I’m Islamphoblic in wanting the burqa banned, I have no problem with other forms of Islamic dress, like the headscarf and full-length garment. I would also gladly sign a petition to have the Christian crucifix banned. It’s by far the most grotesque piece of religious iconography in existence.
@148 – you see no contradiction between lauding a “liberal democratic society” and wanting to ban lots of things because you think they’re offensive?
Let’s also avoid analogies with FGM (which is not an “Islamic” practice, anyway); modes of dress and violent mutilations of the body are not comparable things.
@148 – you see no contradiction between lauding a “liberal democratic society” and wanting to ban lots of things because you think they’re offensive?
Let’s also avoid analogies with FGM (which is not an “Islamic” practice, anyway); modes of dress and violent mutilations of the body are not comparable things.
I’m for banning really bad Shane Warne wannabe blonde tips and too much hair product. Especially when matched with a cheap suit and ugly, white shoes. I find it really offensive.
I’m for banning really bad Shane Warne wannabe blonde tips and too much hair product. Especially when matched with a cheap suit and ugly, white shoes. I find it really offensive.
iorarua, maybe FGM hasn’t been charged and convicted in Australia because it doesn’t happen here? Or maybe the conspiracy of relatives and the women themselves prevents the police from investigating it properly? It may not actually be the fault of the nsaty po-mo left that those millions of Aussie Muslim circumcisers are going unpunished.
iorarua, maybe FGM hasn’t been charged and convicted in Australia because it doesn’t happen here? Or maybe the conspiracy of relatives and the women themselves prevents the police from investigating it properly? It may not actually be the fault of the nsaty po-mo left that those millions of Aussie Muslim circumcisers are going unpunished.
SG, I think it’s one of those things that is really hard to get an arrest and conviction for. It wouldn’t exactly happen out in the open.
And let me say AGAIN, because we can’t say it too often, it is not that the pomo left APPROVE of these practices. We dirty lefties simply disagree with “solutions” which involve bombing other countries, or legally harassing Muslim women, or putting in place other blunt legal instruments which will potentially make the problem worse or just cause a reactionary upsurge in the behaviour we are trying to modify.
SG, I think it’s one of those things that is really hard to get an arrest and conviction for. It wouldn’t exactly happen out in the open.
And let me say AGAIN, because we can’t say it too often, it is not that the pomo left APPROVE of these practices. We dirty lefties simply disagree with “solutions” which involve bombing other countries, or legally harassing Muslim women, or putting in place other blunt legal instruments which will potentially make the problem worse or just cause a reactionary upsurge in the behaviour we are trying to modify.
‘…you see no contradiction between lauding a “liberal democratic society” and wanting to ban lots of things because you think they’re offensive?’
There is nowhere in any of my comments that indicate I want to ban lots of things because I think they’re offensive. In fact, it’s this very kneejerk assumption – particularly on the Left – that I was arguing against in my first comment above.
This is a problem I have come across so many times in any discussion about taking legislative responsibility for extremes of cultural behaviour that degrade and objectify women. The topics of violent, misogynist pornography and the cultural sexualisation of women and young girls also automatically hit this same brick wall. Without exception, the topic gets hijacked and thoroughly drowned out by ‘freedom of choice/freedom of expression’ outrage – often in the form of deliberate misinterpretation, sneering, shaming and outright bullying of those who try to argue in favour of the legislative option.
There has been no leeway given to me here to consider that I am, in principle, opposed to most forms of censorship or nanny-state social control, but that I have thought long and hard about this particular topic, as well as the wider issue of censorship, and that in taking this stance on the burqa I am making a informed choice. To have my arguments thrown back at me as some kind of control-freak fundementalism is a poor substitute for debate.
The fact is that we live in a ‘liberal democratic’ society, but it is first and foremost a patriarchal one. Whenever there is a debate on the Left in which the topic of women’s oppression comes up against liberalism, women’s oppression ALWAYS loses out. And, frankly, I’m sick of it!
I believe that, in weighing up the pros and cons of a burqa ban, rather than accepting it as a woman’s choice yadayadayada, a legislative ban – either outright or limited – is the preferable option.
And, yes, I know that FGM is cultural, not Islamic. I only used the term ‘religious practice’ to keep the analogy consistent.
‘…you see no contradiction between lauding a “liberal democratic society” and wanting to ban lots of things because you think they’re offensive?’
There is nowhere in any of my comments that indicate I want to ban lots of things because I think they’re offensive. In fact, it’s this very kneejerk assumption – particularly on the Left – that I was arguing against in my first comment above.
This is a problem I have come across so many times in any discussion about taking legislative responsibility for extremes of cultural behaviour that degrade and objectify women. The topics of violent, misogynist pornography and the cultural sexualisation of women and young girls also automatically hit this same brick wall. Without exception, the topic gets hijacked and thoroughly drowned out by ‘freedom of choice/freedom of expression’ outrage – often in the form of deliberate misinterpretation, sneering, shaming and outright bullying of those who try to argue in favour of the legislative option.
There has been no leeway given to me here to consider that I am, in principle, opposed to most forms of censorship or nanny-state social control, but that I have thought long and hard about this particular topic, as well as the wider issue of censorship, and that in taking this stance on the burqa I am making a informed choice. To have my arguments thrown back at me as some kind of control-freak fundementalism is a poor substitute for debate.
The fact is that we live in a ‘liberal democratic’ society, but it is first and foremost a patriarchal one. Whenever there is a debate on the Left in which the topic of women’s oppression comes up against liberalism, women’s oppression ALWAYS loses out. And, frankly, I’m sick of it!
I believe that, in weighing up the pros and cons of a burqa ban, rather than accepting it as a woman’s choice yadayadayada, a legislative ban – either outright or limited – is the preferable option.
And, yes, I know that FGM is cultural, not Islamic. I only used the term ‘religious practice’ to keep the analogy consistent.
sg@151: ‘maybe FGM hasn’t been charged and convicted in Australia because it doesn’t happen here?’
Oh, come on now. It goes on. Trust me. In fact, back in the 1980s, Mike Willesee filmed an entire FGM ritual as a documentary, which was shown on prime time TV.
Also, back when I was a teacher in Sydney, I could always tell when a female student had had ‘the treatment’. Vague excuses for an absence from school, frequent trips to the toilet, deathly pale complexion, subdued personality change (before and after) etc. Whenever I tried to raise the subject with other teachers I was told it was a cultural thing, so just leave it alone. I was told in no uncertain terms that any attempt to report it would have put my job on the line.
Helen@152: ‘… putting in place other blunt legal instruments which will potentially make the problem worse or just cause a reactionary upsurge in the behaviour we are trying to modify.’
This is something of a myth. How often does this actually happen? Do speed limits provoke masses of people into speeding? Does compulsory voting provoke masses of people into refusing to vote? Sure, banned substances create a black market and lots of underworld crime, but responses to banned behaviours mostly don’t follow that same blueprint. And rebellion in the young is more a stage of life that we all go through, not a reaction to repression.
sg@151: ‘maybe FGM hasn’t been charged and convicted in Australia because it doesn’t happen here?’
Oh, come on now. It goes on. Trust me. In fact, back in the 1980s, Mike Willesee filmed an entire FGM ritual as a documentary, which was shown on prime time TV.
Also, back when I was a teacher in Sydney, I could always tell when a female student had had ‘the treatment’. Vague excuses for an absence from school, frequent trips to the toilet, deathly pale complexion, subdued personality change (before and after) etc. Whenever I tried to raise the subject with other teachers I was told it was a cultural thing, so just leave it alone. I was told in no uncertain terms that any attempt to report it would have put my job on the line.
Helen@152: ‘… putting in place other blunt legal instruments which will potentially make the problem worse or just cause a reactionary upsurge in the behaviour we are trying to modify.’
This is something of a myth. How often does this actually happen? Do speed limits provoke masses of people into speeding? Does compulsory voting provoke masses of people into refusing to vote? Sure, banned substances create a black market and lots of underworld crime, but responses to banned behaviours mostly don’t follow that same blueprint. And rebellion in the young is more a stage of life that we all go through, not a reaction to repression.
Let’s pose the question another way. Would anyone seriously propose a statutory ban on individuals choosing to wear skirts, stockings, stiletto heels, tight bodices or make-up, or the shaving/waxing of body hair, at least some of which forms of attire/grooming are arguably more uncomfortable, troublesome and/or constricting than the burqa?
Let’s pose the question another way. Would anyone seriously propose a statutory ban on individuals choosing to wear skirts, stockings, stiletto heels, tight bodices or make-up, or the shaving/waxing of body hair, at least some of which forms of attire/grooming are arguably more uncomfortable, troublesome and/or constricting than the burqa?
I found this amusing:
First muslim wins Miss USA
Not a burqa in sight …
Personally, I’m not a fan of beauty contests as a concept, but I might well give this a pass on an up yours to religious fundies basis.
I found this amusing:
First muslim wins Miss USA
Not a burqa in sight …
Personally, I’m not a fan of beauty contests as a concept, but I might well give this a pass on an up yours to religious fundies basis.
On the other hand, a part of me is tempted to ban men of mature years wearing shorts and a short-sleeved shirt with a tie.
On the other hand, a part of me is tempted to ban men of mature years wearing shorts and a short-sleeved shirt with a tie.
The poms tried banning kilts once didn’t they, that went well.
The poms tried banning kilts once didn’t they, that went well.
Gee, I WONDER WHY the Burkha has been singled out & considered for banning in so many places, when there are all those other things that are -supposedly- morally equivalent to it?
(buddhist monk’s robes, cosmetics, bikinis, etc, – perhaps Chaps worn by rough riders?)
Gee, I WONDER WHY the Burkha has been singled out & considered for banning in so many places, when there are all those other things that are -supposedly- morally equivalent to it?
(buddhist monk’s robes, cosmetics, bikinis, etc, – perhaps Chaps worn by rough riders?)
I detect a disingenuous tone in your comment SATP.
Just a wild guess on my part, but I suspect that you may have an answer to your own question.
From observation, I suggest that you are like the Habsburgs: you forget nothing and you learn nothing.
Or perhaps you have changed…
I detect a disingenuous tone in your comment SATP.
Just a wild guess on my part, but I suspect that you may have an answer to your own question.
From observation, I suggest that you are like the Habsburgs: you forget nothing and you learn nothing.
Or perhaps you have changed…
Perhaps SATP is really like the Bourbons.
Perhaps SATP is really like the Bourbons.
ioarura, it may be the case that willessee filmed a whole ritual, but that doesn’t constitute proof that it happens a lot, nor does your remarkable experience of high school students showing the symptoms of adolescence.
As for the claim that it would be “more than your job is worth” to report an illegal activity that would undoubtedly lead to the attention of the child protection services and a criminal conviction … please forgive my inability to believe you.
ioarura, it may be the case that willessee filmed a whole ritual, but that doesn’t constitute proof that it happens a lot, nor does your remarkable experience of high school students showing the symptoms of adolescence.
As for the claim that it would be “more than your job is worth” to report an illegal activity that would undoubtedly lead to the attention of the child protection services and a criminal conviction … please forgive my inability to believe you.
Katz & Paul Norton: Perhaps you are among those who have never noticed that Common isn’t dominant in most comment posts on this site. 160/161 point to that.
It is almost as if one is among intellectuals or lawyers. (Two occupations where commonsense is visibly absent)
Katz & Paul Norton: Perhaps you are among those who have never noticed that Common isn’t dominant in most comment posts on this site. 160/161 point to that.
It is almost as if one is among intellectuals or lawyers. (Two occupations where commonsense is visibly absent)
“It’s a completely false analogy, Russell, because there’s nothing comparable between deliberately giving offence (for whatever reason) and people taking offence (because they find your mode of dress offputting, un-Australian, uncomfortable, whatevs) when all you are trying to do is adopt a mode of attire consistent with religious and cultural traditions”
Mark, you missed my point. Whose cultural traditions is the burqa consistent with? Are we obliged to accept any and all other traditions into our own community, including those we believe to be harmful?
Do you think that each of us if entitled to go anywhere, anytime and behave consistently with what we believe or feel comfortable with?
“It’s a completely false analogy, Russell, because there’s nothing comparable between deliberately giving offence (for whatever reason) and people taking offence (because they find your mode of dress offputting, un-Australian, uncomfortable, whatevs) when all you are trying to do is adopt a mode of attire consistent with religious and cultural traditions”
Mark, you missed my point. Whose cultural traditions is the burqa consistent with? Are we obliged to accept any and all other traditions into our own community, including those we believe to be harmful?
Do you think that each of us if entitled to go anywhere, anytime and behave consistently with what we believe or feel comfortable with?
Your second paragraph shows the point you really want to make, Russell. By asking if we are “obliged to accept any and all other traditions into our own community, including those we believe to be harmful?”, you are suggesting that the ban is actually a political tool, an instrument of oppression being used to prevent what you consider to be oppression.
So it’s not that the sight of someone in a burqa makes you uncomfortable because of hidden faces, tents, secret lingerie or anything else. It’s because it indicates a person living a different cultural tradition to one you accept, in this case one you consider harmful.
The reason you take offence is that the burqa symbolises a cultural tradition you don’t want in your country.Perhaps you should think about whether the women in the burqa consider their behaviour incompatible with Australian traditions, particularly those of multiculturalism and liberalism, before you take offence at this.
If, on the other hand, you really are offended on purely feminist grounds, then you probably should just let it slide out of respect for a broader liberal agenda that benefits all women.
Your second paragraph shows the point you really want to make, Russell. By asking if we are “obliged to accept any and all other traditions into our own community, including those we believe to be harmful?”, you are suggesting that the ban is actually a political tool, an instrument of oppression being used to prevent what you consider to be oppression.
So it’s not that the sight of someone in a burqa makes you uncomfortable because of hidden faces, tents, secret lingerie or anything else. It’s because it indicates a person living a different cultural tradition to one you accept, in this case one you consider harmful.
The reason you take offence is that the burqa symbolises a cultural tradition you don’t want in your country.Perhaps you should think about whether the women in the burqa consider their behaviour incompatible with Australian traditions, particularly those of multiculturalism and liberalism, before you take offence at this.
If, on the other hand, you really are offended on purely feminist grounds, then you probably should just let it slide out of respect for a broader liberal agenda that benefits all women.
SG – I think I’ve mostly been talking about good manners really. But on your point: “Perhaps you should think about whether the women in the burqa consider their behaviour incompatible with Australian traditions, particularly those of multiculturalism and liberalism, before you take offence at this”
It’s hard to imagine that a woman wearing a burqa thinks much of our liberal tradition and its respect for the dignity of each individual, still, as I wrote previously, I don’t advocate banning the thing or being objectionable to the individual wearing it, but if that person wants to become a full citizen – really become part of our community – I expect them to make an effort to fit in.
SG – I think I’ve mostly been talking about good manners really. But on your point: “Perhaps you should think about whether the women in the burqa consider their behaviour incompatible with Australian traditions, particularly those of multiculturalism and liberalism, before you take offence at this”
It’s hard to imagine that a woman wearing a burqa thinks much of our liberal tradition and its respect for the dignity of each individual, still, as I wrote previously, I don’t advocate banning the thing or being objectionable to the individual wearing it, but if that person wants to become a full citizen – really become part of our community – I expect them to make an effort to fit in.
Doesn’t that strike you as an awesomely harsh way to judge citizenship? In some ways it’s very Australian – learn to keep your head down when they’re picking the sides, in essence – but it’s also very cruel.
Is it only your own caprice that determines this “fit in” business, or can any dominant group decide? Can Tony Abbott decide to refuse citizenships to non-Catholics who don’t “fit in”? What about people who don’t like cricket, or play “gay” sports like soccer? What about Emo kids, do they get their citizenship revoked until they grow out of it and learn to love John Farnham?
It’s fundamentally illiberal to make a claim that someone doesn’t “fit in” on the basis of a lifestyle choice they’re making that doesn’t break any laws. If you think that they’re being forced to wear these clothes, then you should either advocate for a law punishing those forcing them, or get over it. You can’t define people as non-citizens in a liberal society because they don’t fit in.
Doesn’t that strike you as an awesomely harsh way to judge citizenship? In some ways it’s very Australian – learn to keep your head down when they’re picking the sides, in essence – but it’s also very cruel.
Is it only your own caprice that determines this “fit in” business, or can any dominant group decide? Can Tony Abbott decide to refuse citizenships to non-Catholics who don’t “fit in”? What about people who don’t like cricket, or play “gay” sports like soccer? What about Emo kids, do they get their citizenship revoked until they grow out of it and learn to love John Farnham?
It’s fundamentally illiberal to make a claim that someone doesn’t “fit in” on the basis of a lifestyle choice they’re making that doesn’t break any laws. If you think that they’re being forced to wear these clothes, then you should either advocate for a law punishing those forcing them, or get over it. You can’t define people as non-citizens in a liberal society because they don’t fit in.
So, SATP, where has the burqa been banned.
And why was it banned in these places?
Was it banned for the same reasons?
Or were these reasons different, and perhaps mutually contradictory?
So, SATP, where has the burqa been banned.
And why was it banned in these places?
Was it banned for the same reasons?
Or were these reasons different, and perhaps mutually contradictory?
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/05/progress_in_saudi_arabia.php
Despite the recent relaxation of the modesty rule, the above example shows that stupid religious rules can have dire unforeseen consequences.
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/05/progress_in_saudi_arabia.php
Despite the recent relaxation of the modesty rule, the above example shows that stupid religious rules can have dire unforeseen consequences.
And, what precisely, does that have to do with the post, silkworm?
And, what precisely, does that have to do with the post, silkworm?
No silkworm, the above example shows that if you empower a bunch of brutal thugs to enforce an oppressive clothing law, they’ll do very bad things to the people they hate.
Less egregious examples of the same phenomenon would be: South African police stripping women of their headscarves in apartheid era South Africa as a form of intimidation; French colonial police forcing women out of their burqa in colonial Algeria, to “reveal their identity;” or Afghan police beating men who don’t have beards.
All good examples of why you shouldn’t give police the power to enforce clothing norms.
No silkworm, the above example shows that if you empower a bunch of brutal thugs to enforce an oppressive clothing law, they’ll do very bad things to the people they hate.
Less egregious examples of the same phenomenon would be: South African police stripping women of their headscarves in apartheid era South Africa as a form of intimidation; French colonial police forcing women out of their burqa in colonial Algeria, to “reveal their identity;” or Afghan police beating men who don’t have beards.
All good examples of why you shouldn’t give police the power to enforce clothing norms.
Jeff Sparrow on ‘pathological anti-Islam’:
http://web.overland.org.au/2010/05/18/pathological-anti-islam/
Jeff Sparrow on ‘pathological anti-Islam’:
http://web.overland.org.au/2010/05/18/pathological-anti-islam/
Since I lead a rather quiet life I’ve only seen women wearing burqas a few times. I remember the first time was in my local supermarket and I think (maybe I imagined it) there seemed to be a bit of ‘an atmosphere’ in the shop. I also have a memory that the man accompanying her was dressed as other men in pants and short sleeved shirt and I felt ‘well it’s alright for him’….
On a thread like this I’m really appreciating being able to read a variety of thoughts and in many ways I’m still trying to decide between the ‘freedom to wear what you want to’ line and the ‘don’t put pressure on women who may have their own reasons or issues for wearing the burqa’ thinking.
But I have had one thought: new migrants/refugees etc are entitled to approx 500 hrs of free tuition in English, and from my experience I’ve seen many women from various countries (and men of course) mixing together happily and working hard at improving their English. Many of the women wear different versions of headwear but I haven’t yet seen anyone wearing a burqa.
I think it would be very difficult for teachers to teach a student whose face is not visible. Body language and facial expression are a great part of communication.
There are voluntary tutors who visit women in their homes to assist them to learn English but this is typically for an hour or two a week, and it is a much slower way to forge ahead with English. The only other thing I can think of is the Distance Learning provided by TAFE but it is also probably a slower way to progress than attending TAFE up to 15 hours a week.
So is it a matter that women who wear the burqa (admittedly a small number)can’t ever avail themselves of the opportunity to learn/improve their English free of charge and alongside other newcomers?
Since I lead a rather quiet life I’ve only seen women wearing burqas a few times. I remember the first time was in my local supermarket and I think (maybe I imagined it) there seemed to be a bit of ‘an atmosphere’ in the shop. I also have a memory that the man accompanying her was dressed as other men in pants and short sleeved shirt and I felt ‘well it’s alright for him’….
On a thread like this I’m really appreciating being able to read a variety of thoughts and in many ways I’m still trying to decide between the ‘freedom to wear what you want to’ line and the ‘don’t put pressure on women who may have their own reasons or issues for wearing the burqa’ thinking.
But I have had one thought: new migrants/refugees etc are entitled to approx 500 hrs of free tuition in English, and from my experience I’ve seen many women from various countries (and men of course) mixing together happily and working hard at improving their English. Many of the women wear different versions of headwear but I haven’t yet seen anyone wearing a burqa.
I think it would be very difficult for teachers to teach a student whose face is not visible. Body language and facial expression are a great part of communication.
There are voluntary tutors who visit women in their homes to assist them to learn English but this is typically for an hour or two a week, and it is a much slower way to forge ahead with English. The only other thing I can think of is the Distance Learning provided by TAFE but it is also probably a slower way to progress than attending TAFE up to 15 hours a week.
So is it a matter that women who wear the burqa (admittedly a small number)can’t ever avail themselves of the opportunity to learn/improve their English free of charge and alongside other newcomers?
I thought it was fairly obvious. It shows that the modesty requirements of Islamic law in Saudi Arabia, which is where the niqab originated, had the effect of killing schoolgirls. If there were no requirement to wear the niqab in front of the firemen, the lives of these schoolgirls might have been saved. I think this trumps the so-called benefits that might have flowed to these young women from having the firemen stare lustily at them.
Snark aside, the bit about the religious police beating the schoolgirls and sending them back into the burning building tells us that the religious requirement to wear the niqab is deeply rooted in brutal patriarchalism.
I thought it was fairly obvious. It shows that the modesty requirements of Islamic law in Saudi Arabia, which is where the niqab originated, had the effect of killing schoolgirls. If there were no requirement to wear the niqab in front of the firemen, the lives of these schoolgirls might have been saved. I think this trumps the so-called benefits that might have flowed to these young women from having the firemen stare lustily at them.
Snark aside, the bit about the religious police beating the schoolgirls and sending them back into the burning building tells us that the religious requirement to wear the niqab is deeply rooted in brutal patriarchalism.
@174 – silkworm, I noted earlier on the thread that in Egypt, religious authorities are seeking to ban the burqa. Islamic religious authorities, that is. It’s also been observed that there is nothing in the Quran which mandates it.
@174 – silkworm, I noted earlier on the thread that in Egypt, religious authorities are seeking to ban the burqa. Islamic religious authorities, that is. It’s also been observed that there is nothing in the Quran which mandates it.
Speaking as a yank, I’d have huge, gigantic problems with government trying to ban an article of clothing, or trying to restrict religious expression via the law.
But Mark, as a simple point of reasoning… if the burqa were to be banned in France or in Australia, it would have nothing at all to do with what religious authorities in Egypt think, or with conditions in Saudi Arabia. It would have to do with conditions in France or in Australia, and with what the French in France, or the Australians in Australia, think.
Speaking as a yank, I’d have huge, gigantic problems with government trying to ban an article of clothing, or trying to restrict religious expression via the law.
But Mark, as a simple point of reasoning… if the burqa were to be banned in France or in Australia, it would have nothing at all to do with what religious authorities in Egypt think, or with conditions in Saudi Arabia. It would have to do with conditions in France or in Australia, and with what the French in France, or the Australians in Australia, think.
@176 – the point I’m trying to make, j_p_z, is that the identification of the Burqa with Islam is not a cut and dried one, by any stretch of the imagination. Silkworm’s irrelevant link shows this isn’t understood. But I at least give him credit for adding a new front in his professed creed of hatin’ on all religion generally (since, as far as I can tell, he only ever seems to diss Catholicism).
@176 – the point I’m trying to make, j_p_z, is that the identification of the Burqa with Islam is not a cut and dried one, by any stretch of the imagination. Silkworm’s irrelevant link shows this isn’t understood. But I at least give him credit for adding a new front in his professed creed of hatin’ on all religion generally (since, as far as I can tell, he only ever seems to diss Catholicism).
But it is salutary to observe who fits inside the ample tent of cultural authoritarianism.
Certainly, Egyptian authoritarians, French authoritarians, Australian authoritarians and US authoritarians express their authoritarianism in different ways for different ends.
But they are all authoritarians. And perhaps the act of pointing out the absurdity of another’s shibboleths can aid in perceiving the absurdity of one’s own shibboleths.
But it is salutary to observe who fits inside the ample tent of cultural authoritarianism.
Certainly, Egyptian authoritarians, French authoritarians, Australian authoritarians and US authoritarians express their authoritarianism in different ways for different ends.
But they are all authoritarians. And perhaps the act of pointing out the absurdity of another’s shibboleths can aid in perceiving the absurdity of one’s own shibboleths.
Agree, Katz.
Agree, Katz.
Katz — you forgot leftist authoritarians, who are famously legion. An ample tent, indeed. Maybe you better have an extension added.
Katz — you forgot leftist authoritarians, who are famously legion. An ample tent, indeed. Maybe you better have an extension added.
I’ve attempted to redress endless argument by analogy by pointing towards authoritative (ie Muslim feminist) sources opposed to the burqa so far citing Nawal el Saadawi and Djemila Benhabib. Here is a op-ed piece in the NY Times by one Mona Eltahawy who is an Egyptian-born commentator on Arab and Muslim issues. She is opposed to the burqa and believes that “The best way to debunk the burqa as an expression of Muslim faith is to listen to Muslims who oppose it.”
I think that is excellent advice and a ready counter to the Eurocentric arrogance that appears to infom those who think they know better than Muslim women what the burqa stands for.
Here is Farzana Hassan of the Muslim Canadian Congress who says that “The burka has absolutely no place in Canada,” and who argues that “In Canada we recognize the equality of men and women. We want to recognize gender equality as an absolute. The burka marginalizes women.”
Then there is the group Muslims Against Sharia who make the case that “Full face coverage is an ideological symbol of hatred for democracy, particularly the democratic value of gender equality.”
The latter is a compelling argument from women and men who have literally been in the front line opposing a form of reactionary masculinism. Those who argue for the burqa on the basis of knee jerk cultural relativism ought to ask themselves the question “whose side am I on?”
I’ve attempted to redress endless argument by analogy by pointing towards authoritative (ie Muslim feminist) sources opposed to the burqa so far citing Nawal el Saadawi and Djemila Benhabib. Here is a op-ed piece in the NY Times by one Mona Eltahawy who is an Egyptian-born commentator on Arab and Muslim issues. She is opposed to the burqa and believes that “The best way to debunk the burqa as an expression of Muslim faith is to listen to Muslims who oppose it.”
I think that is excellent advice and a ready counter to the Eurocentric arrogance that appears to infom those who think they know better than Muslim women what the burqa stands for.
Here is Farzana Hassan of the Muslim Canadian Congress who says that “The burka has absolutely no place in Canada,” and who argues that “In Canada we recognize the equality of men and women. We want to recognize gender equality as an absolute. The burka marginalizes women.”
Then there is the group Muslims Against Sharia who make the case that “Full face coverage is an ideological symbol of hatred for democracy, particularly the democratic value of gender equality.”
The latter is a compelling argument from women and men who have literally been in the front line opposing a form of reactionary masculinism. Those who argue for the burqa on the basis of knee jerk cultural relativism ought to ask themselves the question “whose side am I on?”
Historically, the burqa, or equivalent, has been willingly and consciously donned by individual women including Western travellers, writers, atheists and leftists, as well as countless Muslim women, for reasons that are more diverse, interesting and complex than simplistic notions being debated here by some that such clothing is anti-feminist, illiberal and offensive – or something – and should thus be banned.
Historically, the burqa, or equivalent, has been willingly and consciously donned by individual women including Western travellers, writers, atheists and leftists, as well as countless Muslim women, for reasons that are more diverse, interesting and complex than simplistic notions being debated here by some that such clothing is anti-feminist, illiberal and offensive – or something – and should thus be banned.
@181 – Please clarify your position, anthony. I’m unclear as to whether you’re arguing for a ban. Also, arguing against a ban is not an “[argument] for the burqua”.
@181 – Please clarify your position, anthony. I’m unclear as to whether you’re arguing for a ban. Also, arguing against a ban is not an “[argument] for the burqua”.
I support the right of the French to ban the garment regardless of the possible violation of cultural sensitivities of sections of their population. They have the right to determine the course that their particuloar civic culture follows and if that eans that certain modes of public conduct are restricted or limited in public places (like the wearing of religious identifiers in schools or while working in public positions or indeed even as FIFA has done by banning the same during matches) then so be it. Moreover, the French identify the use of the burqa as an identifier of allegiance to political Islamicism which is fundamentally opposed to even the basics of gender equality within democracy.
I have no problem at all with those who choose to wear the burqa or other garments fulfilling a similar symbolic role in Australia because our practice of official multiculturalism has created a different culture of democratic acceptance of cultural difference in this country. However, I would also support the right of any woman to not wear such garments should she have been compelled to do so. On the advice of Muslim colleagues, plenty of young women are so compelled.
My preference is for those in public spaces to show their faces. It goes to reciprocity and respect between citizens that we, as Australians, expect to be able to see the face of any of our respondents. They may choose not to show their faces but by doing so they reduce my obligations to treat them as equal citizens. Equals behave as equals. In Australian democracy that means a degree of conformity in public places to particular proprieties like speaking with an open face.
I support the right of the French to ban the garment regardless of the possible violation of cultural sensitivities of sections of their population. They have the right to determine the course that their particuloar civic culture follows and if that eans that certain modes of public conduct are restricted or limited in public places (like the wearing of religious identifiers in schools or while working in public positions or indeed even as FIFA has done by banning the same during matches) then so be it. Moreover, the French identify the use of the burqa as an identifier of allegiance to political Islamicism which is fundamentally opposed to even the basics of gender equality within democracy.
I have no problem at all with those who choose to wear the burqa or other garments fulfilling a similar symbolic role in Australia because our practice of official multiculturalism has created a different culture of democratic acceptance of cultural difference in this country. However, I would also support the right of any woman to not wear such garments should she have been compelled to do so. On the advice of Muslim colleagues, plenty of young women are so compelled.
My preference is for those in public spaces to show their faces. It goes to reciprocity and respect between citizens that we, as Australians, expect to be able to see the face of any of our respondents. They may choose not to show their faces but by doing so they reduce my obligations to treat them as equal citizens. Equals behave as equals. In Australian democracy that means a degree of conformity in public places to particular proprieties like speaking with an open face.
anthony nolan: “I’ve attempted to redress endless argument by analogy by pointing towards authoritative (ie Muslim feminist) sources”
In the context of this discussion, there is nothing, nothing at all, categorically “authoritative” about the views of Muslims, feminists, or Muslim feminists, with respect to what happens in historically non-Muslim France or historically non-Muslim Australia.
“the Eurocentric arrogance that appears to infom those who think they know better than Muslim women what the burqa stands for.”
Within a historically European country there is nothing ‘arrogant’, nothing at all, about a “Eurocentric” viewpoint; and it may well be that in a non-Muslim country and culture, a non-Muslim view of what the burqa means or might mean, trumps the Muslim understanding. There is such a thing as priorities of claims. If ‘migrants’ are uncomfortable with the norms of a foreign country which they entered freely, then it’s arguable they should consider migrating some more, until they’re satisfied with the norms around them. Last time I checked there was no shortage of Muslim-majority countries to migrate to.
Your quote from the Canadian is interesting and salient, for Canada, just as skepticlawyer’s comments about the French culture of laicite are, regarding France.
anthony nolan: “I’ve attempted to redress endless argument by analogy by pointing towards authoritative (ie Muslim feminist) sources”
In the context of this discussion, there is nothing, nothing at all, categorically “authoritative” about the views of Muslims, feminists, or Muslim feminists, with respect to what happens in historically non-Muslim France or historically non-Muslim Australia.
“the Eurocentric arrogance that appears to infom those who think they know better than Muslim women what the burqa stands for.”
Within a historically European country there is nothing ‘arrogant’, nothing at all, about a “Eurocentric” viewpoint; and it may well be that in a non-Muslim country and culture, a non-Muslim view of what the burqa means or might mean, trumps the Muslim understanding. There is such a thing as priorities of claims. If ‘migrants’ are uncomfortable with the norms of a foreign country which they entered freely, then it’s arguable they should consider migrating some more, until they’re satisfied with the norms around them. Last time I checked there was no shortage of Muslim-majority countries to migrate to.
Your quote from the Canadian is interesting and salient, for Canada, just as skepticlawyer’s comments about the French culture of laicite are, regarding France.
anthony nolan: comments crossed. Yours at #184 strikes me as having a lot of reasonableness to it, so I don’t want to seem overly critical towards you overall, though strictly speaking I’m neutral on this issue. My interest here is mainly in the modes of reasoning employed, which informed mine at #185.
anthony nolan: comments crossed. Yours at #184 strikes me as having a lot of reasonableness to it, so I don’t want to seem overly critical towards you overall, though strictly speaking I’m neutral on this issue. My interest here is mainly in the modes of reasoning employed, which informed mine at #185.
Japerz, why did you assume that my list of Authoritarians omitted leftist authoritarians? I don’t doubt for a minute that Egypt, Australia, France, and the US have their share of leftist authoritarians.
I have said it before, but perhaps it is worth repeating that I am likely to be one of the few people on this blog who has actually fought leftist authoritarians.
Japerz, why did you assume that my list of Authoritarians omitted leftist authoritarians? I don’t doubt for a minute that Egypt, Australia, France, and the US have their share of leftist authoritarians.
I have said it before, but perhaps it is worth repeating that I am likely to be one of the few people on this blog who has actually fought leftist authoritarians.
Anthony Nolan@184 “…particular proprieties like speaking with an open face.”
Of all bodily surfaces I think the “open” face is the most readily and habitually and usefully masked, by mental and material means, intentionally or not, by forms of expression and deflection that highlight surface features by means of distraction and artiface, the use of make-up, the manipulation of skin colour, texture, etc.
Anthony Nolan@184 “…particular proprieties like speaking with an open face.”
Of all bodily surfaces I think the “open” face is the most readily and habitually and usefully masked, by mental and material means, intentionally or not, by forms of expression and deflection that highlight surface features by means of distraction and artiface, the use of make-up, the manipulation of skin colour, texture, etc.
“the Eurocentric arrogance that appears to infom those who think they know better than Muslim women what the burqa stands for.”
And burqua-banners have traditionally been Eurocentric people who thought they knew better than Muslim women what the burqua stands for. Muslim/Middle eastern feminists who support authoritarian bans are given a megaphone by the Western press because they tell them what people want to hear in the current climate. I repeat, as an Australian feminist I dislike the burqua and niquab and expect them to die a natural death in our society, but there are plenty of Muslim and ME feminists who are rightfully suspicious of the western howls to rip it off.
I think a few people here might be nodding their heads in recognition of the very similar fauxminism that’s sprung up among the Blairs and Bolts and similar commenters.
“the Eurocentric arrogance that appears to infom those who think they know better than Muslim women what the burqa stands for.”
And burqua-banners have traditionally been Eurocentric people who thought they knew better than Muslim women what the burqua stands for. Muslim/Middle eastern feminists who support authoritarian bans are given a megaphone by the Western press because they tell them what people want to hear in the current climate. I repeat, as an Australian feminist I dislike the burqua and niquab and expect them to die a natural death in our society, but there are plenty of Muslim and ME feminists who are rightfully suspicious of the western howls to rip it off.
I think a few people here might be nodding their heads in recognition of the very similar fauxminism that’s sprung up among the Blairs and Bolts and similar commenters.
JPZ: certain sources are authoritative in my view such as Nawal el Saadawi (gaoled in Egypt at one point) and others to whom I’ve pointed if for no other reason than that their experience within their culture of origin informs their views in authoritative ways. Where there is a convergance between their ambitions for equality and democracy and my own interest in the same then I take the view that they are worthy of support. So, as the links above show, their understanding of women’s position within democracy is such that they see the burqa covering as antithetical to democratic civility. If those radically democratic feminist Muslim sources weren’t making that point then there wouldn’t be a case.
Vanessa: I had noticed, thanks. However, you’d have to admit a difference between a treated surface and a covered surface, woudn’t you?
JPZ: certain sources are authoritative in my view such as Nawal el Saadawi (gaoled in Egypt at one point) and others to whom I’ve pointed if for no other reason than that their experience within their culture of origin informs their views in authoritative ways. Where there is a convergance between their ambitions for equality and democracy and my own interest in the same then I take the view that they are worthy of support. So, as the links above show, their understanding of women’s position within democracy is such that they see the burqa covering as antithetical to democratic civility. If those radically democratic feminist Muslim sources weren’t making that point then there wouldn’t be a case.
Vanessa: I had noticed, thanks. However, you’d have to admit a difference between a treated surface and a covered surface, woudn’t you?
@184 – anthony, thanks for the reply. I can understand your reasoning.
However, I find this statement rather extraordinary:
While Liz Conor’s piece isn’t without its own problems, and is limited by the op/ed context, I think this idea that privileging visibility in Western culture is hardly an unambiguous one. I think we have an obligation to reflect on it. That’s not an argument, by the way, for cultural relativism. To suggest that one’s own culture needs constant criticism is core to Enlightenment rationality, I’d suggest.
@184 – anthony, thanks for the reply. I can understand your reasoning.
However, I find this statement rather extraordinary:
While Liz Conor’s piece isn’t without its own problems, and is limited by the op/ed context, I think this idea that privileging visibility in Western culture is hardly an unambiguous one. I think we have an obligation to reflect on it. That’s not an argument, by the way, for cultural relativism. To suggest that one’s own culture needs constant criticism is core to Enlightenment rationality, I’d suggest.
Anthony: “However, you’d have to admit a difference between a treated surface and a covered surface, woudn’t you?”
A difference of form only.
Anthony: “However, you’d have to admit a difference between a treated surface and a covered surface, woudn’t you?”
A difference of form only.
Katz: “Japerz, why did you assume that my list of Authoritarians omitted leftist authoritarians?”
Why? Context and (via implied signification thru omission) rhetorical value. Don’t play naive with me, bub.
Katz: “Japerz, why did you assume that my list of Authoritarians omitted leftist authoritarians?”
Why? Context and (via implied signification thru omission) rhetorical value. Don’t play naive with me, bub.
The powers of invisibility have been a constant, ubiquitous trans-historical and trans-cultural feminine yearning, reflected in literature and history and that the adoption, if not defiant embrace of the burqua by many women today is perfectly understandable and defensible for these reasons and if you don’t want to listen to what the women themselves say then why not listen to what children everywhere who have dressed this way say about how it makes them feel.
The powers of invisibility have been a constant, ubiquitous trans-historical and trans-cultural feminine yearning, reflected in literature and history and that the adoption, if not defiant embrace of the burqua by many women today is perfectly understandable and defensible for these reasons and if you don’t want to listen to what the women themselves say then why not listen to what children everywhere who have dressed this way say about how it makes them feel.
Helen: you appear to me to be conflating my views with those of Blair and Bolt or at least cautioning me against taking a stance interpretable as akin to theirs. My views don’t reflect theirs. I wouldn’t know what the motives of Blair and Bolt are but state that my motives are the advancement of participatory democracy founded on principles of equality, reciprocity and respect. I’ve no doubt that colonial forces have at different times manipulated female identity and Muslim womens’s ambitions for democratic civilities for their own purpose but I am not a part of that tradition. Short: don’t tar me with that brush. As to Iranian attempts to model Iranian public citizenship, including gendered public appearance, along Western lines … so did Attaturk. So what?
I also think that numerous forms of cultural difference in Australia will, in time, be dissolved in that great crucible the ocean. More prosaically, I have a great faith in the sensuous pleasures of the Australian outdoors and the beach to ease the anxieties of difference notwithstanding some idiots at Cronulla.
Finally, let me add that an old friend told me that she fled Iran at the end of the Iranian socialist revolution when she was stoned in a street in Tehran (appx 1978) by Mullahs who were in opposition to a left democratic movement and who successfully supported the return of the Ayatollah Khomeini. She was stoned because she was wearing jeans and fled the same day Berlin and then Australia in exile. The point being that these issues have been around for some time and we have a choice between supporting progressive elements or supporting reactionaries. I’m with the former and if that means alarming some feminists who see patriarchal Western conspiracies in a legislative process then so be it. It sure beats propping up those who stone women.
Helen: you appear to me to be conflating my views with those of Blair and Bolt or at least cautioning me against taking a stance interpretable as akin to theirs. My views don’t reflect theirs. I wouldn’t know what the motives of Blair and Bolt are but state that my motives are the advancement of participatory democracy founded on principles of equality, reciprocity and respect. I’ve no doubt that colonial forces have at different times manipulated female identity and Muslim womens’s ambitions for democratic civilities for their own purpose but I am not a part of that tradition. Short: don’t tar me with that brush. As to Iranian attempts to model Iranian public citizenship, including gendered public appearance, along Western lines … so did Attaturk. So what?
I also think that numerous forms of cultural difference in Australia will, in time, be dissolved in that great crucible the ocean. More prosaically, I have a great faith in the sensuous pleasures of the Australian outdoors and the beach to ease the anxieties of difference notwithstanding some idiots at Cronulla.
Finally, let me add that an old friend told me that she fled Iran at the end of the Iranian socialist revolution when she was stoned in a street in Tehran (appx 1978) by Mullahs who were in opposition to a left democratic movement and who successfully supported the return of the Ayatollah Khomeini. She was stoned because she was wearing jeans and fled the same day Berlin and then Australia in exile. The point being that these issues have been around for some time and we have a choice between supporting progressive elements or supporting reactionaries. I’m with the former and if that means alarming some feminists who see patriarchal Western conspiracies in a legislative process then so be it. It sure beats propping up those who stone women.
Hmm, this is going to be tricky so forgive any unintended misinterpretations:
Vanessa @194: you are right but you and I are listening to different Muslim women and apparently for different reasons. I hear those voices whose opposition to the burqa stems from their simultaneous identification of the practice of covering with subordination and oppression. I understand the logic of that. You don’t appear to want to admit the validity of those radical voices. I appreciate that there is some anxiety around “uncovering” among Muslim women and especially around coercive state measures to enforce it but those anxieties don’t resonate for me in the way that more serious forms of oppression of women do in countries subject to Sharia law. They are not of the same order. Moreover, when radical Muslims say they want democracy they can count me in on that.
Mark @191: “(the)…privileging visibility in Western culture is hardly an unambiguous one”. OK. What do you mean by this?
BTW: I really don’t care what women wear in Australia. I have a preference in so far as it is relevant to this discussion but I don’t campaign around the matter.
Vanessa @194: “The powers of invisibility have been a constant, ubiquitous trans-historical and trans-cultural feminine yearning…”. Yeah well, you don’t always get what you want, do you?
Hmm, this is going to be tricky so forgive any unintended misinterpretations:
Vanessa @194: you are right but you and I are listening to different Muslim women and apparently for different reasons. I hear those voices whose opposition to the burqa stems from their simultaneous identification of the practice of covering with subordination and oppression. I understand the logic of that. You don’t appear to want to admit the validity of those radical voices. I appreciate that there is some anxiety around “uncovering” among Muslim women and especially around coercive state measures to enforce it but those anxieties don’t resonate for me in the way that more serious forms of oppression of women do in countries subject to Sharia law. They are not of the same order. Moreover, when radical Muslims say they want democracy they can count me in on that.
Mark @191: “(the)…privileging visibility in Western culture is hardly an unambiguous one”. OK. What do you mean by this?
BTW: I really don’t care what women wear in Australia. I have a preference in so far as it is relevant to this discussion but I don’t campaign around the matter.
Vanessa @194: “The powers of invisibility have been a constant, ubiquitous trans-historical and trans-cultural feminine yearning…”. Yeah well, you don’t always get what you want, do you?
Heavens no, I wouldn’t conflate you with Blair and Bolt. But people like these – and the writers Amin and Cromer alluded to in the linked article – use the Burqua and the oppression of Muslim women to further their own agenda, as the writer says, while actively opposing feminism in their own countries (or in the case of Amin of course, the same country.) I am saying, though, *bearing in mind that I oppose the burqua too*, being the Rescuer is very seductive but it may not always be to the benefit of the people you are trying to “rescue”. You may get stuck in the hidden agendas of the Blairs and Cromers. Remember when the COW ran out of credibility re. the WMDs, the sudden discovery of women’s oppression by the Iraq war hawks, for instance.
Also, I repeat, because people keep forgetting: I do. not. support. forcing women to wear the burqua. I just don’t support a coercive solution.
Heavens no, I wouldn’t conflate you with Blair and Bolt. But people like these – and the writers Amin and Cromer alluded to in the linked article – use the Burqua and the oppression of Muslim women to further their own agenda, as the writer says, while actively opposing feminism in their own countries (or in the case of Amin of course, the same country.) I am saying, though, *bearing in mind that I oppose the burqua too*, being the Rescuer is very seductive but it may not always be to the benefit of the people you are trying to “rescue”. You may get stuck in the hidden agendas of the Blairs and Cromers. Remember when the COW ran out of credibility re. the WMDs, the sudden discovery of women’s oppression by the Iraq war hawks, for instance.
Also, I repeat, because people keep forgetting: I do. not. support. forcing women to wear the burqua. I just don’t support a coercive solution.
Anthony, like most things, Iran circa 1978 was a little more complicated and serious than liberal-leaning women in jeans being stoned. Around the same time Marxist and other leftist women who’d deliberately donned the veil in order to “fit in” and do their work were murdered in untold and unknown numbers by supporters of the leadership of the Islamic regime.
Anthony, like most things, Iran circa 1978 was a little more complicated and serious than liberal-leaning women in jeans being stoned. Around the same time Marxist and other leftist women who’d deliberately donned the veil in order to “fit in” and do their work were murdered in untold and unknown numbers by supporters of the leadership of the Islamic regime.
But that doesn’t work unless there are only two sides. Us knee-jerk cultural relativists can usually see at least four or five, and there are certainly that many in this instance.
But that doesn’t work unless there are only two sides. Us knee-jerk cultural relativists can usually see at least four or five, and there are certainly that many in this instance.
Do tell Katz. Where have you done this?
I do remember a thread where you got all cuddly about Fidel Castro, an authoritarian leftist if ever there was one.
Do tell Katz. Where have you done this?
I do remember a thread where you got all cuddly about Fidel Castro, an authoritarian leftist if ever there was one.
anthony nolan — I don’t mean to harp, but I find this troubling:
“numerous forms of (Australian) cultural difference will, in time, be dissolved in that great crucible the ocean.”
I should think it preferable, as well as just, for the ‘numerous cultural differences’ to be dissolved rather in that great crucible Australia.
Otherwise why even bother with nationhood, identity, culture? Why not simply have done, and simply designate your large land mass in the Southern Hemisphere as “Storage Area #5 for Whoever Happens To Show Up”?
It sounds, from events, like the people of France are now engaged in a pretty serious discussion of what it means to be French in France, or even what it means to be “en France.” My own hunch is that to be French probably involves somewhat more than simply standing someplace within France on any given day, whether invited to do so or not.
Perhaps Australians may someday find themselves having a similar discussion. I suppose there are many ways it could go. But it’s the sort of a situation where one should be aware that not all roads lead to Rome; some lead very far afield indeed.
anthony nolan — I don’t mean to harp, but I find this troubling:
“numerous forms of (Australian) cultural difference will, in time, be dissolved in that great crucible the ocean.”
I should think it preferable, as well as just, for the ‘numerous cultural differences’ to be dissolved rather in that great crucible Australia.
Otherwise why even bother with nationhood, identity, culture? Why not simply have done, and simply designate your large land mass in the Southern Hemisphere as “Storage Area #5 for Whoever Happens To Show Up”?
It sounds, from events, like the people of France are now engaged in a pretty serious discussion of what it means to be French in France, or even what it means to be “en France.” My own hunch is that to be French probably involves somewhat more than simply standing someplace within France on any given day, whether invited to do so or not.
Perhaps Australians may someday find themselves having a similar discussion. I suppose there are many ways it could go. But it’s the sort of a situation where one should be aware that not all roads lead to Rome; some lead very far afield indeed.
Helen @197: I don’t disagree with you but detect a tendency to to portray discussants as dupes of which I am not one. BTW, I never get entangled in rescue fantasies but am happy to help those who ask openly for assistance. There’s a difference as I’m sure you are aware.
Vanessa @198: “liberal-leaning women in jeans”…you condemn my old mate with a faintnes she doesn’t deserve as she was a member of the Iranian Communist Party.
Pavlov @199: part of the problem with relativism is seeing so many culturally valid positions that you become dizzy spinning around trying to keep them all in view. Hence the question about whose side you’re on.
That was fun but goodnight from this unrepentant post Marxist modernist
Helen @197: I don’t disagree with you but detect a tendency to to portray discussants as dupes of which I am not one. BTW, I never get entangled in rescue fantasies but am happy to help those who ask openly for assistance. There’s a difference as I’m sure you are aware.
Vanessa @198: “liberal-leaning women in jeans”…you condemn my old mate with a faintnes she doesn’t deserve as she was a member of the Iranian Communist Party.
Pavlov @199: part of the problem with relativism is seeing so many culturally valid positions that you become dizzy spinning around trying to keep them all in view. Hence the question about whose side you’re on.
That was fun but goodnight from this unrepentant post Marxist modernist
I happily admit I find the Burqa pretty offensive – a kind of walking prison. Some cultural practices are objectively bad, and should be discouraged where one can. I do accept that in its context it provides some protection from some exceptionally backward masculinist cultures. But there’s no need to make a virtue of that outside its context.
At least the French have a deep republican principle they can rely on here, which at one level is neutral (people come to the public sphere as citizens, that sphere is secular, religious views are private matters that must not impede citizen interaction toward the common good). Anglo Lib Democracies (including the US republican variant) dont really operate as strongly off notions of a public sphere for citizens, and so banning things will invariably seem like picking on the group.
Despite my own feelings, therefore, I tend to oppose it in our polity.
I happily admit I find the Burqa pretty offensive – a kind of walking prison. Some cultural practices are objectively bad, and should be discouraged where one can. I do accept that in its context it provides some protection from some exceptionally backward masculinist cultures. But there’s no need to make a virtue of that outside its context.
At least the French have a deep republican principle they can rely on here, which at one level is neutral (people come to the public sphere as citizens, that sphere is secular, religious views are private matters that must not impede citizen interaction toward the common good). Anglo Lib Democracies (including the US republican variant) dont really operate as strongly off notions of a public sphere for citizens, and so banning things will invariably seem like picking on the group.
Despite my own feelings, therefore, I tend to oppose it in our polity.
Anthony@202 -” ‘liberal-leaning women in jeans’…you condemn my old mate with a faintnes she doesn’t deserve as she was a member of the Iranian Communist Party.”
Where or how did I condemn? I did not. Prioritise perhaps but at least that is not dissembling.
Anthony@202 -” ‘liberal-leaning women in jeans’…you condemn my old mate with a faintnes she doesn’t deserve as she was a member of the Iranian Communist Party.”
Where or how did I condemn? I did not. Prioritise perhaps but at least that is not dissembling.
I would like to see the burqa disappear, but not as the result of government coercion but because islamic women neither see it as a desirable choice nor are pressured into wearing it. As I said above I think the latter of these is legitimately a subject of legislation but the former is not.
I would like to see the burqa disappear, but not as the result of government coercion but because islamic women neither see it as a desirable choice nor are pressured into wearing it. As I said above I think the latter of these is legitimately a subject of legislation but the former is not.
JPZ: OK, one more turn and then I’ll stop.
You write “Otherwise why even bother with nationhood, identity, culture?” but from my perspective one of the great successes and identifiers of Australian-ness is having sufficient confidence about who and where we are to not worry too much about who turns up because they will most likely settle in nicely over time. I don’t therefore engage with the issue of Australian identity because I don’t feel anything other than deeply and distinctively Australian. There’s always a spare seat at the table so far as I’m concerned.
JPZ: OK, one more turn and then I’ll stop.
You write “Otherwise why even bother with nationhood, identity, culture?” but from my perspective one of the great successes and identifiers of Australian-ness is having sufficient confidence about who and where we are to not worry too much about who turns up because they will most likely settle in nicely over time. I don’t therefore engage with the issue of Australian identity because I don’t feel anything other than deeply and distinctively Australian. There’s always a spare seat at the table so far as I’m concerned.
Lefty@203- “a kind of walking prison”. You think? Sorry, I think such a descriptor is a thoroughly subjective take. And by a non-Muslim man to boot. Sheesh.
By definition you can’t possibly know much let alone all about what this way of dressing might mean to women and why they should choose, endorse, enforce, condone it.
Lefty@203- “a kind of walking prison”. You think? Sorry, I think such a descriptor is a thoroughly subjective take. And by a non-Muslim man to boot. Sheesh.
By definition you can’t possibly know much let alone all about what this way of dressing might mean to women and why they should choose, endorse, enforce, condone it.
@191 – anthony, my reference was to what Conor was saying in the original linked article. If you read Conor carefully, it’s quite an interesting argument.
@201 – j_p_z -
Which “people of France”, though, and through what fora? To the degree that there’s any debate about this in Australia, it seems to be one taking place mainly between right wing politicians and talkback hosts and their interlocutors, except in some places like this one.
@191 – anthony, my reference was to what Conor was saying in the original linked article. If you read Conor carefully, it’s quite an interesting argument.
@201 – j_p_z -
Which “people of France”, though, and through what fora? To the degree that there’s any debate about this in Australia, it seems to be one taking place mainly between right wing politicians and talkback hosts and their interlocutors, except in some places like this one.
@200 – two probably predictable distractions in this thread were always going to be mentions of FGM and claims of left authoritarianism…
@200 – two probably predictable distractions in this thread were always going to be mentions of FGM and claims of left authoritarianism…
@202 –
But both Pavlov’s Cat @61 and I at @183 pointed out that this debate doesn’t easily reduce to “sides”. To the degree that feminist arguments are also liberal arguments, there’s enormous incommensurability between principles which are supposed to be complementary.
@202 –
But both Pavlov’s Cat @61 and I at @183 pointed out that this debate doesn’t easily reduce to “sides”. To the degree that feminist arguments are also liberal arguments, there’s enormous incommensurability between principles which are supposed to be complementary.
“By definition you can’t possibly know much let alone all about what this way of dressing might mean to women and why they should choose, endorse, enforce, condone it.”
True, but I have a fair idea what it means to men in those cultures: control over women’s lives, careers, education, sexuality.
I oppose that.
“By definition you can’t possibly know much let alone all about what this way of dressing might mean to women and why they should choose, endorse, enforce, condone it.”
True, but I have a fair idea what it means to men in those cultures: control over women’s lives, careers, education, sexuality.
I oppose that.
Mark: I did of course read Connor’s piece and carefully but it read to me as a disengaged piece of cultural commentary. The words of Mona Eltahawy (linked @181) by comparison resonate with authentic anger, resentment and lived experience:
Mark: I did of course read Connor’s piece and carefully but it read to me as a disengaged piece of cultural commentary. The words of Mona Eltahawy (linked @181) by comparison resonate with authentic anger, resentment and lived experience:
@212 – sure, anthony, but one can find, if one looks, equally authentic arguments for various forms of head coverings from Islamic women who also say that they are speaking from a feminist position.
@212 – sure, anthony, but one can find, if one looks, equally authentic arguments for various forms of head coverings from Islamic women who also say that they are speaking from a feminist position.
Helen’s post, 189, seems a fair summary. Consider the hidden agendas in place involving Reza Shah and his wretched son and their colluding, supportive outside interests operating as allies against the interests of a entire People and you find a ready example of what has caused such resentment in so many third world countries.
I support the call for an end to reflex-driven false dichotomies; as others have said.
Atavistic cultural throwbacks like FMG would have been well on the way to becoming cultural history by now, had the West’s dealings with third world countries had not been so duplicitous and devoid of good faith for so many generations, that the Muslim world eventually turned away in disgust and contempt from everything Western, good or bad.
Helen’s post, 189, seems a fair summary. Consider the hidden agendas in place involving Reza Shah and his wretched son and their colluding, supportive outside interests operating as allies against the interests of a entire People and you find a ready example of what has caused such resentment in so many third world countries.
I support the call for an end to reflex-driven false dichotomies; as others have said.
Atavistic cultural throwbacks like FMG would have been well on the way to becoming cultural history by now, had the West’s dealings with third world countries had not been so duplicitous and devoid of good faith for so many generations, that the Muslim world eventually turned away in disgust and contempt from everything Western, good or bad.
And couldn’t they be authentic, but wrong? Can we not make a judgement for ourselves about which side of the argument is likely to promote lives that promote dignity, choice, equality?
And couldn’t they be authentic, but wrong? Can we not make a judgement for ourselves about which side of the argument is likely to promote lives that promote dignity, choice, equality?
Anthony Nolan @206 – well put.
Anthony Nolan @206 – well put.
In that case, GregM, your memory is as faulty as your powers of comprehension.
But do feel free to show, not tell. It’s time you had another spanking.
In that case, GregM, your memory is as faulty as your powers of comprehension.
But do feel free to show, not tell. It’s time you had another spanking.
Mark @213: there are other Muslim women who identify as feminist who argue that the burqa is a legimate choice for them. However, I prioritise specific forms of self identity that reflect democratic intentions and equalitarian impulses. In the case of the burqa this means those feminist Muslims whose attitudes are partly or wholly informed by an intention to be agential democratic citizens.
Mark @213: there are other Muslim women who identify as feminist who argue that the burqa is a legimate choice for them. However, I prioritise specific forms of self identity that reflect democratic intentions and equalitarian impulses. In the case of the burqa this means those feminist Muslims whose attitudes are partly or wholly informed by an intention to be agential democratic citizens.
LeftyE and Anthony, there is no one here supporting the burqua. The argument is about whether we should impose coercive policies on women, the people we are purportedly “saving”, in Western countries and whether that is in those womens best interests. No one here is saying that the imposition of such a garmet is in womens best intersts. The trouble with this “sides” thing is that you are imposing a Manichaean “if you’re not with us you’re agin us” template on the discussion so if I don’t agree with coercing, fining or even imprisoning women who are in a discriminated-against minority then I must be in favour of fundamentalism and shooting women in jeans. This is false.
I too have read Mona Eltahawy and she’s awesome in many ways, but this kind of thing won’t affect her. She’s a relatively wealthy,successful middle-class woman who is already going bareheaded. Policies of coercion would affect lower class women and older women to whom the summary ripping off of such clothes would potentially cause distress and agoraphobia. Eltahawy is also guilty of the shock-jock cliche (I’ve heard her say it), that Western feminists are all complete cultural relativists who don’t dare criticise the burqua because “Well, it’s their culture innit” (to paraphrase.) That’s not what Western Feminists that I read are saying and just because she’s a Muslim and a woman doesnt’ mean that that kind of remark isn’t as silly as anything coming out of the keyboard of Devine or Farrelly. More than silly, really, because deliberate distortion of others’ position is usually counterproductive.
Now, this point about some Muslim women preferring to wear head to toe garments to avoid the male gaze. Of course, a feminist response to this isn’t just “Oh well, OK then fair enough”; this is symptomatic of a deeper problem: the devaluation and objectification of women coupled with a culture of male entitlement. Why don’t we start thinking about ways to work on that, instead of focusing obsessively on the burqua? We can rip all burquas off tuoday and that problem will still be there. Or is that something that’s too hard to talk about?
LeftyE and Anthony, there is no one here supporting the burqua. The argument is about whether we should impose coercive policies on women, the people we are purportedly “saving”, in Western countries and whether that is in those womens best interests. No one here is saying that the imposition of such a garmet is in womens best intersts. The trouble with this “sides” thing is that you are imposing a Manichaean “if you’re not with us you’re agin us” template on the discussion so if I don’t agree with coercing, fining or even imprisoning women who are in a discriminated-against minority then I must be in favour of fundamentalism and shooting women in jeans. This is false.
I too have read Mona Eltahawy and she’s awesome in many ways, but this kind of thing won’t affect her. She’s a relatively wealthy,successful middle-class woman who is already going bareheaded. Policies of coercion would affect lower class women and older women to whom the summary ripping off of such clothes would potentially cause distress and agoraphobia. Eltahawy is also guilty of the shock-jock cliche (I’ve heard her say it), that Western feminists are all complete cultural relativists who don’t dare criticise the burqua because “Well, it’s their culture innit” (to paraphrase.) That’s not what Western Feminists that I read are saying and just because she’s a Muslim and a woman doesnt’ mean that that kind of remark isn’t as silly as anything coming out of the keyboard of Devine or Farrelly. More than silly, really, because deliberate distortion of others’ position is usually counterproductive.
Now, this point about some Muslim women preferring to wear head to toe garments to avoid the male gaze. Of course, a feminist response to this isn’t just “Oh well, OK then fair enough”; this is symptomatic of a deeper problem: the devaluation and objectification of women coupled with a culture of male entitlement. Why don’t we start thinking about ways to work on that, instead of focusing obsessively on the burqua? We can rip all burquas off tuoday and that problem will still be there. Or is that something that’s too hard to talk about?
The Taliban compelled Afghan men to allow their beards to grow.
Am I in favour of compulsory beards? Certainly not.
Am I opposed to men choosing to grow a beard, whether for a religious or for any other reason? Certainly not.
Why is open-minded indulgence such a problematic issue in some folks’ minds?
The Taliban compelled Afghan men to allow their beards to grow.
Am I in favour of compulsory beards? Certainly not.
Am I opposed to men choosing to grow a beard, whether for a religious or for any other reason? Certainly not.
Why is open-minded indulgence such a problematic issue in some folks’ minds?
Katz #220:
For intensely personal reasons, I’m glad to hear it!
Katz #220:
For intensely personal reasons, I’m glad to hear it!
I was actually arguing it shouldnt be banned, Helen, if you go look.
But also pointing out that French republican political culture is fundamentally different to ours on just these sorts of issues.
I was actually arguing it shouldnt be banned, Helen, if you go look.
But also pointing out that French republican political culture is fundamentally different to ours on just these sorts of issues.
anthony nolan — yours at #206 was indeed well said, as someone upthread noted. Generally I agree with your principle there. But I think that where the concerns begin to arise is b/c of the fact that in on-the-ground human affairs, scale matters. Your idea of generously finding “a spare seat at the table” is I’d say the right one, but I think the French are now wondering just how many chairs they really have left in the house. Taking in 50,000 people from a very different civilization with very different mores and beliefs is not so hard in the modern world, and the edges tend to get smoothed out as you note. Taking in 5 or 10 million is a different matter altogether, creating much different feedback loops.
Banning a piece of clothing strikes me as a trivial and juvenile response to a problem of deep civilizational questions that require clear and comprehensive thought. In a more jaundiced mood I’d say that the European addiction to ideology seems to get them into an awful lot of trouble on a pretty consistent basis. But that’s it from me about this.
Mark: “which people of France?”
Well I suppose it boils down to how laws are made in France, which is something I don’t know about. Does French legislation normally reflect a general democratic sentiment, or is it all back rooms and deals with cronies?
anthony nolan — yours at #206 was indeed well said, as someone upthread noted. Generally I agree with your principle there. But I think that where the concerns begin to arise is b/c of the fact that in on-the-ground human affairs, scale matters. Your idea of generously finding “a spare seat at the table” is I’d say the right one, but I think the French are now wondering just how many chairs they really have left in the house. Taking in 50,000 people from a very different civilization with very different mores and beliefs is not so hard in the modern world, and the edges tend to get smoothed out as you note. Taking in 5 or 10 million is a different matter altogether, creating much different feedback loops.
Banning a piece of clothing strikes me as a trivial and juvenile response to a problem of deep civilizational questions that require clear and comprehensive thought. In a more jaundiced mood I’d say that the European addiction to ideology seems to get them into an awful lot of trouble on a pretty consistent basis. But that’s it from me about this.
Mark: “which people of France?”
Well I suppose it boils down to how laws are made in France, which is something I don’t know about. Does French legislation normally reflect a general democratic sentiment, or is it all back rooms and deals with cronies?
@223 – I don’t know the answer to that, j_p_z, as my acquaintance with the day to day practice of French politics is slight. But it struck me as a reasonably important question to pose given that none of us (I presume) knows to what degree this legislation actually responds to public opinion, how that public opinion is shaped, and so forth. Sure, there’s an explanation in terms of political culture but that doesn’t answer the question of why this measure is being considered at this particular point in time, what advantage politicians pushing it seek to gain (and there always is one), etc.
@223 – I don’t know the answer to that, j_p_z, as my acquaintance with the day to day practice of French politics is slight. But it struck me as a reasonably important question to pose given that none of us (I presume) knows to what degree this legislation actually responds to public opinion, how that public opinion is shaped, and so forth. Sure, there’s an explanation in terms of political culture but that doesn’t answer the question of why this measure is being considered at this particular point in time, what advantage politicians pushing it seek to gain (and there always is one), etc.
True, Mark. My hunch is that, by treating the scenario as a kind of chess position, one could infer a great deal about the forces at work in a Sherlock Holmes sort of way*; but then doing the actual leg-work and checking up on it probably would not map directly over one’s inferences.
* — btw, finally saw the S. Holmes movie. Some good scenes, and Downey and Law cracked me up, but what a crappy story, and what a crappy tone. Still, a few pleasures here and there.
True, Mark. My hunch is that, by treating the scenario as a kind of chess position, one could infer a great deal about the forces at work in a Sherlock Holmes sort of way*; but then doing the actual leg-work and checking up on it probably would not map directly over one’s inferences.
* — btw, finally saw the S. Holmes movie. Some good scenes, and Downey and Law cracked me up, but what a crappy story, and what a crappy tone. Still, a few pleasures here and there.
http://web.overland.org.au/2010/05/19/what-your-atheism-costs-you/
http://web.overland.org.au/2010/05/19/what-your-atheism-costs-you/
@226: Oh terrific. The Hirsi Alis, Eltahawys as well as the islamophobic Right have been complaining for some years now that “feminists” are in favour of maintaining the oppression of Muslim women because we’re all complete cultural relativists. Now Jacinda Woodhead is accusing “feminists” (a hivemind, apparemtly, represented in toto by Virginia Hausegger and Elizabeth Farrelly) of joining forces with Corey Bernardi and UK fascists in harassing Muslim women about their burquas…
*headdesk*
*headdesk*
I give up.
@226: Oh terrific. The Hirsi Alis, Eltahawys as well as the islamophobic Right have been complaining for some years now that “feminists” are in favour of maintaining the oppression of Muslim women because we’re all complete cultural relativists. Now Jacinda Woodhead is accusing “feminists” (a hivemind, apparemtly, represented in toto by Virginia Hausegger and Elizabeth Farrelly) of joining forces with Corey Bernardi and UK fascists in harassing Muslim women about their burquas…
*headdesk*
*headdesk*
I give up.
“Feminists” do have serious form for subsuming to left-wing politics rather than actually putting the sisterhood as priority number One.
“Feminists” do have serious form for subsuming to left-wing politics rather than actually putting the sisterhood as priority number One.
Helen #227, a more optimistic way of looking at it is that the number of women in the world identifying as feminists is now so large that virtually every silly idea of which the human imagination is capable has at some time or another been espoused by some individual who identifies as a feminist, and can therefore be adduced as “proof” that ALL TEH FEMINISTS embrace said silly idea.
Helen #227, a more optimistic way of looking at it is that the number of women in the world identifying as feminists is now so large that virtually every silly idea of which the human imagination is capable has at some time or another been espoused by some individual who identifies as a feminist, and can therefore be adduced as “proof” that ALL TEH FEMINISTS embrace said silly idea.
SATP #228 does not seem to make any sense.
SATP #228 does not seem to make any sense.
I think its very important to understand French political culture to properly debate this question. If it does happen, any ban will be way less controversial in the French context than in our Anglo Lib democratic context – it cant be generalised to our experience. French republican conceptions of the common good have always been very big on the idea of “please check your private religious identities at the door of the public realm”. Anyone can be French, prvoided they ascribe to core values of Liberty, Equality Fraternity etc , among citizens. Overt religious identities are considered to impede that – and thus should be kept private. Of coruse, various implicit and exclusionary conceptions of French civilisation lie beneath that, but it reamins true that British derived Liberal democracies do not share this ‘strong’ conception of a public realm, even where they are ‘officially’ secular.
As for the legisaltive process – much like ours. Semi-presidential means that a lot of the agenda is driven, like the US, by the Pres – but there’s also by a PM who needs the confidence of a popularly elected house. i.e. there’s no particular ‘systemic’ reason for it more or less cronyist than our systems.
Probably a bit less than the US – in which the short 2 year electoral cycles mean the lower house reps are more or constantly in election mode, and thus more or less permanently hostage to powerful lobbyists.
I think its very important to understand French political culture to properly debate this question. If it does happen, any ban will be way less controversial in the French context than in our Anglo Lib democratic context – it cant be generalised to our experience. French republican conceptions of the common good have always been very big on the idea of “please check your private religious identities at the door of the public realm”. Anyone can be French, prvoided they ascribe to core values of Liberty, Equality Fraternity etc , among citizens. Overt religious identities are considered to impede that – and thus should be kept private. Of coruse, various implicit and exclusionary conceptions of French civilisation lie beneath that, but it reamins true that British derived Liberal democracies do not share this ‘strong’ conception of a public realm, even where they are ‘officially’ secular.
As for the legisaltive process – much like ours. Semi-presidential means that a lot of the agenda is driven, like the US, by the Pres – but there’s also by a PM who needs the confidence of a popularly elected house. i.e. there’s no particular ‘systemic’ reason for it more or less cronyist than our systems.
Probably a bit less than the US – in which the short 2 year electoral cycles mean the lower house reps are more or constantly in election mode, and thus more or less permanently hostage to powerful lobbyists.
Growing of beards is not limited to the Taliban. Lots of men grow one, the Royal Australian Navy allows beards, they are appropriate in many cultural scenarios.
Until I grew one I just assumed that beards were normal (sort of like hair), however I was surprised by the number of people who upon sighting mine exclaimed that beards were only grown by “fringe” types & that I would be treated warily & with suspicion for so long as I sported one.
Growing of beards is not limited to the Taliban. Lots of men grow one, the Royal Australian Navy allows beards, they are appropriate in many cultural scenarios.
Until I grew one I just assumed that beards were normal (sort of like hair), however I was surprised by the number of people who upon sighting mine exclaimed that beards were only grown by “fringe” types & that I would be treated warily & with suspicion for so long as I sported one.
Name one.
As for your beard story, perhaps that says more about the people you associate with than it does about your beard. None of the people you associate with on this blog would turn a hair.
As it were.
Name one.
As for your beard story, perhaps that says more about the people you associate with than it does about your beard. None of the people you associate with on this blog would turn a hair.
As it were.
The reality of course is somewhat different. Indonesia has traditionally had a very laid-back and inclusive brand of Islam and one could say equally nice beaches. However, the trend is and has been for some time a retreat from the beaches and dress suited to that environment into the bland one size covers all society. Those expecting a general move towards Australian Society “norms” over time very much under estimate the issue. The question remains does Australia wish to give moderate Islam a helping hand or stand-by as middle-eastern cultural aberration continues to mutate into a religious must.
A quick review of any “tolerant” or semi-tolerant nation with a significant Muslim mix will highlight certain restrictions on the wearing of the Burga or Jilbab (or both) such as, banned from certain age groups, banned in public places, banned at high schools or university. The reoccurring theme is the commonsense rationale that the Burga isolates and insulates the wearer from society at large. Rightly or wrongly the declared purpose of the shroud is to isolate (protect?) the wearer from outsiders such as the rest of us.
The reality of course is somewhat different. Indonesia has traditionally had a very laid-back and inclusive brand of Islam and one could say equally nice beaches. However, the trend is and has been for some time a retreat from the beaches and dress suited to that environment into the bland one size covers all society. Those expecting a general move towards Australian Society “norms” over time very much under estimate the issue. The question remains does Australia wish to give moderate Islam a helping hand or stand-by as middle-eastern cultural aberration continues to mutate into a religious must.
A quick review of any “tolerant” or semi-tolerant nation with a significant Muslim mix will highlight certain restrictions on the wearing of the Burga or Jilbab (or both) such as, banned from certain age groups, banned in public places, banned at high schools or university. The reoccurring theme is the commonsense rationale that the Burga isolates and insulates the wearer from society at large. Rightly or wrongly the declared purpose of the shroud is to isolate (protect?) the wearer from outsiders such as the rest of us.
Pavlov’s: Surely you are joking? Nobody claiming to be “with it” on current affairs could have missed the “Left Wing first – Feminism Second” approach of the “Feminist” movement.
Did you completely miss Pauline Hanson, Margaret Thatcher, Sarah Palin (for starters). The “feminist” response to those ladies was hardly solidarity-of-the-sisterhood.
In particular the vice-presidential candidacy of Sarah Palin very publicly held a mirror to the feminist movement in the USA, and the reflection was very ugly.
Pavlov’s: Surely you are joking? Nobody claiming to be “with it” on current affairs could have missed the “Left Wing first – Feminism Second” approach of the “Feminist” movement.
Did you completely miss Pauline Hanson, Margaret Thatcher, Sarah Palin (for starters). The “feminist” response to those ladies was hardly solidarity-of-the-sisterhood.
In particular the vice-presidential candidacy of Sarah Palin very publicly held a mirror to the feminist movement in the USA, and the reflection was very ugly.
Re the beard: The people I associate with barely noticed, or only commented on the bushiness compared to theirs/their husband-father-whoever’s, or gave tips on growing.
It was total strangers approaching me in the less macho parts of the world (ie, on trips to the big smoke or overseas) who made the surprisingly bigoted commentary.
Excellent way to meet strangers though! Young ladies would just approach me & without a word commence stroking the beard. Never happened when I was a “smoothy”.
Re the beard: The people I associate with barely noticed, or only commented on the bushiness compared to theirs/their husband-father-whoever’s, or gave tips on growing.
It was total strangers approaching me in the less macho parts of the world (ie, on trips to the big smoke or overseas) who made the surprisingly bigoted commentary.
Excellent way to meet strangers though! Young ladies would just approach me & without a word commence stroking the beard. Never happened when I was a “smoothy”.
SATP, I think you’re a little confused. Being a feminist doesn’t mean agreeing with everything, every woman ever says. Often on feminist blogs there was great care taken to criticise someone like Palin on the substance of her policies and not indulge in woman bashing.
SATP, I think you’re a little confused. Being a feminist doesn’t mean agreeing with everything, every woman ever says. Often on feminist blogs there was great care taken to criticise someone like Palin on the substance of her policies and not indulge in woman bashing.
SATP, I notice you still haven’t named one. Given the extensive knowledge of feminism you appear to be claiming, surely you can come up with a name. Perhaps it’s got something to do with believing the sexist wingnut schtick out of the Weeties packet, always short on detail.
However. I note with interest that you put feminists you don’t like in quotation marks, which suggests to me that you do in fact think there are people out there who are real feminists and that they are Good.
Which I regard as a win.
SATP, I notice you still haven’t named one. Given the extensive knowledge of feminism you appear to be claiming, surely you can come up with a name. Perhaps it’s got something to do with believing the sexist wingnut schtick out of the Weeties packet, always short on detail.
However. I note with interest that you put feminists you don’t like in quotation marks, which suggests to me that you do in fact think there are people out there who are real feminists and that they are Good.
Which I regard as a win.
Anyone claiming the feminist response to Sarah Palin was anything like sane is pulling themselves.
Fine, you are correct. Feminists are something else first (usually left wing agitators) & feminists second. This is proved beyond doubt whenever there is a conflict between feminism & left wing politics.
Feminism in quotation marks was copying from the comment I was replying to (#227).
Your neglecting this points not to me being anti-feminist or something, but to you not paying attention.
Which I shall regard as a most definite incontravertible indisputable absolute emphatic certain fail by you.
In perpetuity.
Anyone claiming the feminist response to Sarah Palin was anything like sane is pulling themselves.
Fine, you are correct. Feminists are something else first (usually left wing agitators) & feminists second. This is proved beyond doubt whenever there is a conflict between feminism & left wing politics.
Feminism in quotation marks was copying from the comment I was replying to (#227).
Your neglecting this points not to me being anti-feminist or something, but to you not paying attention.
Which I shall regard as a most definite incontravertible indisputable absolute emphatic certain fail by you.
In perpetuity.
Helen: oh come on, now Mona Eltahawy doesn’t suit you because she is from the wrong class to act as a spokesperson for the real victims of French masculinist/statist oppression. Then we get ” just because she’s a Muslim and a woman doesnt’ mean …” whatever. Oh really?
The bare fact that you don’t want to address is that the burqa is a damn site more effective at hding bruising than makeup which is one of the reasons many reactionary men impose it on “their” subordinated subjects. As to those Muslim women who argue that wearing the burqa is an act of free choice I’d suggest that they ought to acquaint themselves with Fanon’s notion of the internalisation of oppression before they expect others to accept a crude piece of propaganda.
Later.
Helen: oh come on, now Mona Eltahawy doesn’t suit you because she is from the wrong class to act as a spokesperson for the real victims of French masculinist/statist oppression. Then we get ” just because she’s a Muslim and a woman doesnt’ mean …” whatever. Oh really?
The bare fact that you don’t want to address is that the burqa is a damn site more effective at hding bruising than makeup which is one of the reasons many reactionary men impose it on “their” subordinated subjects. As to those Muslim women who argue that wearing the burqa is an act of free choice I’d suggest that they ought to acquaint themselves with Fanon’s notion of the internalisation of oppression before they expect others to accept a crude piece of propaganda.
Later.
You can blame Mark for dredging up that crap. But don’t give up. I went into that article, and followed up the links to Virginia Hausegger’s article. Hausegger wrote:
http://virginiahaussegger.blogspot.com/2009/06/ban-burka-27-june-2009.html
This anecdote shows that the wearing of the burqa (and niqab) is not so much chosen by Islamic women as it is imposed by Islamic men. It is clearly a patriarchal imposition. That the niqab and burqa are tools of Islamic patriarchy used to oppress women is something that some of the feminists here have failed to address.
I side with feminists, like Virginia Hausegger, who say, “ban the burqa.”
I also want to follow up on something I said above @ 82 about Sarkozy’s discomfort with secularism. In 2004, the French brought in a ban on “all conspicuous” religious symbols in their public schools. Although it was targeted mainly at Muslim headscarves, the ban included crucifixes, Sikh turbans and Jewish skullcaps. The justification was clearly secular, i.e., anti-religious. However, in his justification to extend the ban to wearing the burqa in all public spaces, Sarkozy has framed the issue as a feminist one, and he has contradicted the original reason given in 2004 for the ban by declaring that the burqa is not a religious symbol. Why would he say that when religious symbols were plainly the target of the 2004 ban?
You can blame Mark for dredging up that crap. But don’t give up. I went into that article, and followed up the links to Virginia Hausegger’s article. Hausegger wrote:
http://virginiahaussegger.blogspot.com/2009/06/ban-burka-27-june-2009.html
This anecdote shows that the wearing of the burqa (and niqab) is not so much chosen by Islamic women as it is imposed by Islamic men. It is clearly a patriarchal imposition. That the niqab and burqa are tools of Islamic patriarchy used to oppress women is something that some of the feminists here have failed to address.
I side with feminists, like Virginia Hausegger, who say, “ban the burqa.”
I also want to follow up on something I said above @ 82 about Sarkozy’s discomfort with secularism. In 2004, the French brought in a ban on “all conspicuous” religious symbols in their public schools. Although it was targeted mainly at Muslim headscarves, the ban included crucifixes, Sikh turbans and Jewish skullcaps. The justification was clearly secular, i.e., anti-religious. However, in his justification to extend the ban to wearing the burqa in all public spaces, Sarkozy has framed the issue as a feminist one, and he has contradicted the original reason given in 2004 for the ban by declaring that the burqa is not a religious symbol. Why would he say that when religious symbols were plainly the target of the 2004 ban?
The two main news polls taken in Australia over the past week re banning the burqa – i.e. The Age (approx. 2200 votes) and the Sun-Herald (approx. 44,000 votes)- both showed exactly the same result: 35% Yes, 65% No. The result for another poll in the SMH re whether the burqa should be worn in public showed: 19% Yes, 81% No.
The two main news polls taken in Australia over the past week re banning the burqa – i.e. The Age (approx. 2200 votes) and the Sun-Herald (approx. 44,000 votes)- both showed exactly the same result: 35% Yes, 65% No. The result for another poll in the SMH re whether the burqa should be worn in public showed: 19% Yes, 81% No.
No, you and Hausegger both are too cowardly to engage with the husband, so you’d go for the woman instead by banning the burqua, because it’s easy and cheap – for you, you don’t have to do anything except feel a nice warm glow of superiority.
No, you and Hausegger both are too cowardly to engage with the husband, so you’d go for the woman instead by banning the burqua, because it’s easy and cheap – for you, you don’t have to do anything except feel a nice warm glow of superiority.
sg@162 ‘As for the claim that it would be “more than your job is worth” to report an illegal activity … please forgive my inability to believe you.’
I wasn’t going to re-address the FGM issue; however I take issue with being told I’m making things up. If you don’t believe me, that’s your choice. But it’s naive to ignore how the whistleblower factor would have worked against me if my accusation were right and having the school sued for slander if my accusation were wrong – especially as this was the 1980s, before the issue of FGM was of much interest to the West.
‘ioarura, it may be the case that willessee filmed a whole ritual, but that doesn’t constitute proof that it happens a lot, nor does your remarkable experience of high school students showing the symptoms of adolescence.’
Just once is ‘a lot’. And the behaviour I described occurred in lower to middle primary school females. I suggest you read this: http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/02/06/2812147.htm
sg@162 ‘As for the claim that it would be “more than your job is worth” to report an illegal activity … please forgive my inability to believe you.’
I wasn’t going to re-address the FGM issue; however I take issue with being told I’m making things up. If you don’t believe me, that’s your choice. But it’s naive to ignore how the whistleblower factor would have worked against me if my accusation were right and having the school sued for slander if my accusation were wrong – especially as this was the 1980s, before the issue of FGM was of much interest to the West.
‘ioarura, it may be the case that willessee filmed a whole ritual, but that doesn’t constitute proof that it happens a lot, nor does your remarkable experience of high school students showing the symptoms of adolescence.’
Just once is ‘a lot’. And the behaviour I described occurred in lower to middle primary school females. I suggest you read this: http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/02/06/2812147.htm
Fine — I’m certainly not going to wade into a weird feud about whether feminists are good leftists or vice versa (sounds like a thing out of Gulliver’s Travels) but I will point out, as a mere matter of record, what the observable phenomenon was re Palin, at least here in the States.
It wasn’t an issue of women criticizing Palin on policy (which they had every right to do) somehow making them “disloyal” to the “sisterhood” (I don’t see that as a touchstone of feminism).
It was the shall we say quorum of left-leaning womens’/feminists’ failure to defend Palin, qua femina, as a woman, from the vicious, grotesque, highly sexualized insults and smears hurled at her, many of which sounded almost like borderline threats.
No one had to agree with her, but few if any feminist wagons were prominently circled in her defense (that I saw)when she was attacked not on policy grounds but as a woman, as a wife and mother, and in a repulsively sexualized fashion. It was one of the creepiest things I’ve ever seen in American political life, which often gets creepy.
And anecdotally I’ve heard many left-leaning and presumptively feminist women insult Palin in conversation, and even wish her bodily harm, in grossly sexualized degrading terms that I would expect a feminist never to tolerate, let alone propagate.
I considered it a failure of decency, and the left-supporting calculus involved was not hard to discern. So there was an issue, in a negative-space sort of way. It was comparable to the way much of the African-American left stood quietly on the sidelines when Clarence Thomas was racially taunted.
Perhaps this phenomenon was not in evidence in Australia, but I can tell you it was pervasive here, and it was troubling.
Beyond that I’m not going to offer any theories.
Fine — I’m certainly not going to wade into a weird feud about whether feminists are good leftists or vice versa (sounds like a thing out of Gulliver’s Travels) but I will point out, as a mere matter of record, what the observable phenomenon was re Palin, at least here in the States.
It wasn’t an issue of women criticizing Palin on policy (which they had every right to do) somehow making them “disloyal” to the “sisterhood” (I don’t see that as a touchstone of feminism).
It was the shall we say quorum of left-leaning womens’/feminists’ failure to defend Palin, qua femina, as a woman, from the vicious, grotesque, highly sexualized insults and smears hurled at her, many of which sounded almost like borderline threats.
No one had to agree with her, but few if any feminist wagons were prominently circled in her defense (that I saw)when she was attacked not on policy grounds but as a woman, as a wife and mother, and in a repulsively sexualized fashion. It was one of the creepiest things I’ve ever seen in American political life, which often gets creepy.
And anecdotally I’ve heard many left-leaning and presumptively feminist women insult Palin in conversation, and even wish her bodily harm, in grossly sexualized degrading terms that I would expect a feminist never to tolerate, let alone propagate.
I considered it a failure of decency, and the left-supporting calculus involved was not hard to discern. So there was an issue, in a negative-space sort of way. It was comparable to the way much of the African-American left stood quietly on the sidelines when Clarence Thomas was racially taunted.
Perhaps this phenomenon was not in evidence in Australia, but I can tell you it was pervasive here, and it was troubling.
Beyond that I’m not going to offer any theories.
JPZ, as had been pointed out on this blog in many different arguments before, sentences beginning with ‘Feminists failed to …’ are usually uttered by people who don’t move, or even read, in feminist circles and so wouldn’t really know what ‘feminists’ have or have not said.
The perceived ‘failure’ of feminists to do this or that is usually either (1) the failure of the accusers to read what feminists have in fact said, in the sorts of publications and online fora where feminists have a voice, (2) the failure of the media to report it or give it space, (3) the failure of the media to refrain from running articles full of antifeminist memes and talking points about the alleged failure of feminists to do this or that. Or (4) two or more of the above.
JPZ, as had been pointed out on this blog in many different arguments before, sentences beginning with ‘Feminists failed to …’ are usually uttered by people who don’t move, or even read, in feminist circles and so wouldn’t really know what ‘feminists’ have or have not said.
The perceived ‘failure’ of feminists to do this or that is usually either (1) the failure of the accusers to read what feminists have in fact said, in the sorts of publications and online fora where feminists have a voice, (2) the failure of the media to report it or give it space, (3) the failure of the media to refrain from running articles full of antifeminist memes and talking points about the alleged failure of feminists to do this or that. Or (4) two or more of the above.
It wasn’t an issue of women criticizing Palin on policy (which they had every right to do) somehow making them “disloyal” to the “sisterhood”…
…It was the shall we say quorum of left-leaning womens’/feminists’ failure to defend Palin, qua femina, as a woman, from the vicious, grotesque, highly sexualized insults and smears hurled at her, many of which sounded almost like borderline threats.
Look through the archives of Shakesville, Feministe, Hoyden and other feminist blogs for multiple posts condemning sexualised insults to Palin from other bloggers and affirming the fact that we don’t sexually insult or threaten other women b/c we disagree with their policies – we argue with their policies. / MSM. you don’t read these people, so why pronounce on them?
No one had to agree with her, but few if any feminist wagons were prominently circled in her defense (that I saw)when she was attacked not on policy grounds but as a woman, as a wife and mother, and in a repulsively sexualized fashion. It was one of the creepiest things I’ve ever seen in American political life, which often gets creepy.
There were plenty of wagons circled in the defence of not being a douchebag and criticising her policies such as they were, not her looks or her marital / mummy status. Because as someone at Shakesville pointed out, that ain’t feminist.
And anecdotally I’ve heard many left-leaning and presumptively feminist women insult Palin in conversation, and even wish her bodily harm, in grossly sexualized degrading terms that I would expect a feminist never to tolerate, let alone propagate.
Anecdotally. But for the opinions I’ve cited above, there are archives. and don’t dare waffle about some claimed insult from a leftwinger when we see absolutely horrible, creepy, scary stuff from the Right almost daily.
I’m sorry for the derail, Brian, this has been an example of how difficult it is to function as a feminist in the blogosphere when people feel entitled to just come in and make shit up, daily. And of course the fake mud sticks, doesn’t it.
It wasn’t an issue of women criticizing Palin on policy (which they had every right to do) somehow making them “disloyal” to the “sisterhood”…
…It was the shall we say quorum of left-leaning womens’/feminists’ failure to defend Palin, qua femina, as a woman, from the vicious, grotesque, highly sexualized insults and smears hurled at her, many of which sounded almost like borderline threats.
Look through the archives of Shakesville, Feministe, Hoyden and other feminist blogs for multiple posts condemning sexualised insults to Palin from other bloggers and affirming the fact that we don’t sexually insult or threaten other women b/c we disagree with their policies – we argue with their policies. / MSM. you don’t read these people, so why pronounce on them?
No one had to agree with her, but few if any feminist wagons were prominently circled in her defense (that I saw)when she was attacked not on policy grounds but as a woman, as a wife and mother, and in a repulsively sexualized fashion. It was one of the creepiest things I’ve ever seen in American political life, which often gets creepy.
There were plenty of wagons circled in the defence of not being a douchebag and criticising her policies such as they were, not her looks or her marital / mummy status. Because as someone at Shakesville pointed out, that ain’t feminist.
And anecdotally I’ve heard many left-leaning and presumptively feminist women insult Palin in conversation, and even wish her bodily harm, in grossly sexualized degrading terms that I would expect a feminist never to tolerate, let alone propagate.
Anecdotally. But for the opinions I’ve cited above, there are archives. and don’t dare waffle about some claimed insult from a leftwinger when we see absolutely horrible, creepy, scary stuff from the Right almost daily.
I’m sorry for the derail, Brian, this has been an example of how difficult it is to function as a feminist in the blogosphere when people feel entitled to just come in and make shit up, daily. And of course the fake mud sticks, doesn’t it.
@243 – spot on, Helen.
Yeah, right, we solve inequality in gender relations between Islamic men and women in some cultural manifestations through banning women from doing something. Great!
The contradiction should be obvious.
As should the bigger contradiction of protecting liberty and equality by denying liberty unequally.
Sheesh!
Let me make another few observations:
(a) anthony nolan, while at least you’ve gone to the trouble of citing women (and some aren’t Islamic any more – cf. Hirsi Ali), your selection involves confirmation bias even if you claim that you have criteria by which to make it. It doesn’t show that these women represent any opinion other than their own; which is the whole point – women who wear Burqas are absolutely voiceless in this debate, which is one ‘we’ conduct purely among ‘us’, picking and choosing selectively, it would seem.
(b) Lefty E’s explanation of French political processes still leaves the question unanswered of precisely why this issue has arisen now. It’s risible to see bans being proposed in Denmark, for instance, where I read earlier that precisely *3* women are known to wear the burqa.
(c)… which takes me to the next point. Rather than rendering citizenship more equal, the singling out of one practice and the obsessive comment about Islam (when it is a cultural rather than a religious practice) makes being both Islamic and being a citizen problematic; there’s no doubt many Islamic people – many of whom have no truck with anti-feminism or burqas both – could rightly conclude that this stuff is just yet another manifestation of the sovereign right of Whiteness to decide on their behalf what conditions they need to fulfil so as not to “give offence”, be a citizen, assimilate, etc.
(d) Very very few people on this thread have addressed Liz Conor’s quite cogent observations about the downside of ‘visibility’ for women. I see her as having both refused to speak on behalf of Islamic women and transposed the issue into a register Australian feminists can speak in. Compulsory sexayness and the omnipresence of the male gaze are parts of our own culture that seem not to trouble the burqa banners;
(e) Which takes me back to the question of who decides? And I’d suggest that the male gaze is a pressing and present issue here.
@243 – spot on, Helen.
Yeah, right, we solve inequality in gender relations between Islamic men and women in some cultural manifestations through banning women from doing something. Great!
The contradiction should be obvious.
As should the bigger contradiction of protecting liberty and equality by denying liberty unequally.
Sheesh!
Let me make another few observations:
(a) anthony nolan, while at least you’ve gone to the trouble of citing women (and some aren’t Islamic any more – cf. Hirsi Ali), your selection involves confirmation bias even if you claim that you have criteria by which to make it. It doesn’t show that these women represent any opinion other than their own; which is the whole point – women who wear Burqas are absolutely voiceless in this debate, which is one ‘we’ conduct purely among ‘us’, picking and choosing selectively, it would seem.
(b) Lefty E’s explanation of French political processes still leaves the question unanswered of precisely why this issue has arisen now. It’s risible to see bans being proposed in Denmark, for instance, where I read earlier that precisely *3* women are known to wear the burqa.
(c)… which takes me to the next point. Rather than rendering citizenship more equal, the singling out of one practice and the obsessive comment about Islam (when it is a cultural rather than a religious practice) makes being both Islamic and being a citizen problematic; there’s no doubt many Islamic people – many of whom have no truck with anti-feminism or burqas both – could rightly conclude that this stuff is just yet another manifestation of the sovereign right of Whiteness to decide on their behalf what conditions they need to fulfil so as not to “give offence”, be a citizen, assimilate, etc.
(d) Very very few people on this thread have addressed Liz Conor’s quite cogent observations about the downside of ‘visibility’ for women. I see her as having both refused to speak on behalf of Islamic women and transposed the issue into a register Australian feminists can speak in. Compulsory sexayness and the omnipresence of the male gaze are parts of our own culture that seem not to trouble the burqa banners;
(e) Which takes me back to the question of who decides? And I’d suggest that the male gaze is a pressing and present issue here.
@245 – I’d also observe, with the greatest of respect to j_p_z, that I’m hardly surprised that this thread has enabled men (or rather they’ve enabled themselves) to pronounce on the limits of acceptable feminism. Just as they’re so unreflective about deciding what women can and cannot wear.
@245 – I’d also observe, with the greatest of respect to j_p_z, that I’m hardly surprised that this thread has enabled men (or rather they’ve enabled themselves) to pronounce on the limits of acceptable feminism. Just as they’re so unreflective about deciding what women can and cannot wear.
Crossed with Helen and Dr Cat.
Crossed with Helen and Dr Cat.
Just a few quick notes on your notes Kim, which I think are well put:
a. There might be an obvious reason women with burqas have been voiceless in this debate. Frankly, there’s an element of a patriocarchally impsoed ‘shut-up’ uniform about it. Anyway, we can t make people participate, so if there’s a debate to be had on the thread, its hardly fair to condemn it for who didnt turn up. And frankly, they might need the State to liberate them. Never ask a slave what they want when their master is looking etc.
b. I agree it doesnt answer why – I just strongly suspect there’s an Anglocentric assumption that that the political systems are broadly similar. They arent in key respects – least of all on this sort of issue.
c. I agree the views of anti-feminists with form should be viewed with suspicion when they suddenly decide they want to ‘liberate’ a certain cultural group of women. But thats a minority of folks on this thread.
d. yeah, downsides of visibility, isnt this arguably another issue – one about objectification, the other about one man controlling his wife?… I cant see the downside of women’s access to education.
e. who decides? Obviously not me, and I dont actually support a ban per se. But I have an opinion on the matter.
Just a few quick notes on your notes Kim, which I think are well put:
a. There might be an obvious reason women with burqas have been voiceless in this debate. Frankly, there’s an element of a patriocarchally impsoed ‘shut-up’ uniform about it. Anyway, we can t make people participate, so if there’s a debate to be had on the thread, its hardly fair to condemn it for who didnt turn up. And frankly, they might need the State to liberate them. Never ask a slave what they want when their master is looking etc.
b. I agree it doesnt answer why – I just strongly suspect there’s an Anglocentric assumption that that the political systems are broadly similar. They arent in key respects – least of all on this sort of issue.
c. I agree the views of anti-feminists with form should be viewed with suspicion when they suddenly decide they want to ‘liberate’ a certain cultural group of women. But thats a minority of folks on this thread.
d. yeah, downsides of visibility, isnt this arguably another issue – one about objectification, the other about one man controlling his wife?… I cant see the downside of women’s access to education.
e. who decides? Obviously not me, and I dont actually support a ban per se. But I have an opinion on the matter.
Not necessarily discussing people on this thread, Lefty E, but burqa banners more generally.
But with (d), lots of people *on this thread* seem to have seized on this as an afterthought, and primarily focused on how *they* are troubled by not seeing faces, all sorts of scenarios where women with burqas encounter authorities of various types, whether equal citizenship in public requires facial visibility, etc.
In other words, the private context of why women wear burqas has been de-emphasised, as one would expect where the public realm is at issue. But, there, we simply don’t know – except anecdotally – what private choices such women have made, whether there’s been co-ercion, or whatever.
Liberal feminism has tended to emphasise precisely the privacy of women’s choices, and their right to enter the public realm.
I would also reiterate what I said before – you don’t solve violence or coercion within relationships by acting on the female’s rights. This notion that bruises can’t be seen seems to me to be hyperbolic when I am not aware that most people readily question whether bruises that can be seen on strangers’ faces are the result of domestic violence. There are other ways of addressing coercive relationships, and the bias there also ought to be towards empowering women within them with agency, not dictating their lives. Then the state, and the burqa banners, are also violently coercive in another register.
Not necessarily discussing people on this thread, Lefty E, but burqa banners more generally.
But with (d), lots of people *on this thread* seem to have seized on this as an afterthought, and primarily focused on how *they* are troubled by not seeing faces, all sorts of scenarios where women with burqas encounter authorities of various types, whether equal citizenship in public requires facial visibility, etc.
In other words, the private context of why women wear burqas has been de-emphasised, as one would expect where the public realm is at issue. But, there, we simply don’t know – except anecdotally – what private choices such women have made, whether there’s been co-ercion, or whatever.
Liberal feminism has tended to emphasise precisely the privacy of women’s choices, and their right to enter the public realm.
I would also reiterate what I said before – you don’t solve violence or coercion within relationships by acting on the female’s rights. This notion that bruises can’t be seen seems to me to be hyperbolic when I am not aware that most people readily question whether bruises that can be seen on strangers’ faces are the result of domestic violence. There are other ways of addressing coercive relationships, and the bias there also ought to be towards empowering women within them with agency, not dictating their lives. Then the state, and the burqa banners, are also violently coercive in another register.
Irfan Yusuf makes a lot of sense:
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2895960.htm
Irfan Yusuf makes a lot of sense:
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2895960.htm
Liz Conor’s piece is very good and thought-provoking.
Today’s cultural norms and standards that girls and young women face, the fashion dictate of ultra-slimness, perfect skin tone, the kudos afforded women for wearing impossibly high heels and in-your-face cleavage even at work, and so on, imposes a form of welcome invisibility through conformity that many if not most women understandably attempt to embrace. The hideous alternative is to stand out by not having these attributes or not dressing in the successfully feminine way.
The idea that covering or concealing your body and using no artifice whatsoever is the only form of invisibility for women and that women who do so are to be pitied or condemned is very telling methinks.
The desire to be invisible is a staple of children’s literature and science fiction and therefore of human imagination. And to me it also speaks of a need or yearning to act and be within a culture, or a place, yet not totally a creature of it. And also of an urge to have the mental space to observe and act without watching oneself being watched which is the plight and curse of young women everywhere.
Liz Conor’s piece is very good and thought-provoking.
Today’s cultural norms and standards that girls and young women face, the fashion dictate of ultra-slimness, perfect skin tone, the kudos afforded women for wearing impossibly high heels and in-your-face cleavage even at work, and so on, imposes a form of welcome invisibility through conformity that many if not most women understandably attempt to embrace. The hideous alternative is to stand out by not having these attributes or not dressing in the successfully feminine way.
The idea that covering or concealing your body and using no artifice whatsoever is the only form of invisibility for women and that women who do so are to be pitied or condemned is very telling methinks.
The desire to be invisible is a staple of children’s literature and science fiction and therefore of human imagination. And to me it also speaks of a need or yearning to act and be within a culture, or a place, yet not totally a creature of it. And also of an urge to have the mental space to observe and act without watching oneself being watched which is the plight and curse of young women everywhere.
Kim, I was wondering when someone was gonna mention the subaltern, and if the subaltern could, like, speak with all this whiteness proscribing the terms upon which she speaks. Please note when I say “speak” I mean discursively, not here on this blog necessarily. And so, when you say:
shouldn’t that halt the debate in its tracks? Well yeah but no. Because the debate excludes the people being debated. It surely brings to mind one of Gassan Hage’s points about how white discourse is one where white nationalists (liberal, conservative, left, right, anti burqua, pro leave em alone let them wear it if they want – it doesn’t much matter) hold a conversation amongst themselves about the multicultural or aboriginal other – and the other is relegated to the position of object in the convo.Which brings to mind what bell hooks said, now I think of it, and wouldn’t it be good if we could imagine what the woman in the burqa is hearing in all of this white muttering about her clothes and all the tremendous things these robes signify in the white western mind:
And they say post colonialism means it’s all over. As if. As if this conversation doesn’t exhibit all the same paranoia and orientalism that Said talked about back in the day.
Kim, I was wondering when someone was gonna mention the subaltern, and if the subaltern could, like, speak with all this whiteness proscribing the terms upon which she speaks. Please note when I say “speak” I mean discursively, not here on this blog necessarily. And so, when you say:
shouldn’t that halt the debate in its tracks? Well yeah but no. Because the debate excludes the people being debated. It surely brings to mind one of Gassan Hage’s points about how white discourse is one where white nationalists (liberal, conservative, left, right, anti burqua, pro leave em alone let them wear it if they want – it doesn’t much matter) hold a conversation amongst themselves about the multicultural or aboriginal other – and the other is relegated to the position of object in the convo.Which brings to mind what bell hooks said, now I think of it, and wouldn’t it be good if we could imagine what the woman in the burqa is hearing in all of this white muttering about her clothes and all the tremendous things these robes signify in the white western mind:
And they say post colonialism means it’s all over. As if. As if this conversation doesn’t exhibit all the same paranoia and orientalism that Said talked about back in the day.
Kim,# 245, Helen etc, congrats for arguing cogently in the face of reductionist conclusions and false dichotomies proffered by the righties.
The world we live in is a consequence of what’s gone before and if one drags oneself away from the illusory safety of the front bar, one can see that real world problems exist in multiples and that requires no win choices sometimes, sort of like you’d see at a multiple car prang or house fire.
Were we less Hobbesian ourselves, it would be so much easier to help poorer countries out of chaotic situations induced by our predecessors. Fatalism encourages the replication of Hobbesian conditions that breed it, symptomised by husbands reflexively beating their wives, in non Muslim cultures too. Aborigines are not Muslim, but they too demonstrate the serious symptoms of a people under great threat
Muslim culture is not to blame. When our own western culture was put to the test in the first half of the twentieth century, did we do any better and much more to the point, have we done better since?
Honestly.
Kim,# 245, Helen etc, congrats for arguing cogently in the face of reductionist conclusions and false dichotomies proffered by the righties.
The world we live in is a consequence of what’s gone before and if one drags oneself away from the illusory safety of the front bar, one can see that real world problems exist in multiples and that requires no win choices sometimes, sort of like you’d see at a multiple car prang or house fire.
Were we less Hobbesian ourselves, it would be so much easier to help poorer countries out of chaotic situations induced by our predecessors. Fatalism encourages the replication of Hobbesian conditions that breed it, symptomised by husbands reflexively beating their wives, in non Muslim cultures too. Aborigines are not Muslim, but they too demonstrate the serious symptoms of a people under great threat
Muslim culture is not to blame. When our own western culture was put to the test in the first half of the twentieth century, did we do any better and much more to the point, have we done better since?
Honestly.
Kim, you are quite right that the one of the reasons for wearing the burqa is to stop men looking on the woman with lust, but it is not done for the benefit of the woman: it is done for the benefit of the man. If you find the male gaze problematic, you can always choose a less confrontational means of discouraging the interest of men.
Kim, you are quite right that the one of the reasons for wearing the burqa is to stop men looking on the woman with lust, but it is not done for the benefit of the woman: it is done for the benefit of the man. If you find the male gaze problematic, you can always choose a less confrontational means of discouraging the interest of men.
PC, Helen, Kim — I note your points. I’ll reply only quickly so as not to derail; maybe come back in more depth if/when the OP of this thread is winding down.
First, I’m glad if the more specialist and intellectual venues like Hoyden et al were on the case. You’re right that I don’t read a lot in those circles. But that alone hints to me that we’re talking about different things. I was speaking about mainstream currents and indeed of the general mood and public tone here, not of highly-focused platforms. I suspect when you folks say “feminist” you have in mind someone actively committed and well-steeped in feminist concerns at an intellectual level. What I meant was simply the population that has generally internalized a feminist view far more than its counters.
Maybe Kim can be the line judge here because she knows both Aus and US culture well. I’m not a deep student of Aus media or society beyond what I read on this blog; but based on what I read here, and the odd chat with Aussies I’ve known, I get the sense that there are fewer mainstream platforms in Aus where feminist ideas and assumptions are dominant, or prevalent, or something like the default setting. In the US they are plentiful, they help set the general tone. (Kim, would it be accurate to say that feminism has in general won more ground here?) Also, the population of folks, esp. the more educated and articulate, who have internalized at least a basic set of feminist assumptions, is broad and deep here.
Which means that in a mainstream sense, a certain feminist pushback was a reasonable thing to look for in a broad swathe of the discussion, in what was after all a national election and a very big deal. Had it been prevalent in a way that even Mr. Magoo could pick up on, I wouldn’t have written my comment. It was possible and normal in the national conversation, and in private, to say and write hideous things about Palin and not get slapped by a consensus objecting; indeed it often got a knowing wink and a nod. That’s a general tenor. By way of contrast, in most polite, sane, and educated circles here, people just don’t make a whole lot of racist remarks about Barack Obama, not even people like me who aren’t thrilled with him. That sort of wall of taboo was far less in evidence w/r/t Palin. You don’t have to believe me, it’s not a fight worth continuing.
Kim, I wasn’t trying to “pronounce” on anything. I was trying to describe to Fine what I saw, because it’s possible that in Aus you saw things rather differently.
Again, if deep-thinking feminist venues were on the case, that’s excellent. Teh Edn.
PC, Helen, Kim — I note your points. I’ll reply only quickly so as not to derail; maybe come back in more depth if/when the OP of this thread is winding down.
First, I’m glad if the more specialist and intellectual venues like Hoyden et al were on the case. You’re right that I don’t read a lot in those circles. But that alone hints to me that we’re talking about different things. I was speaking about mainstream currents and indeed of the general mood and public tone here, not of highly-focused platforms. I suspect when you folks say “feminist” you have in mind someone actively committed and well-steeped in feminist concerns at an intellectual level. What I meant was simply the population that has generally internalized a feminist view far more than its counters.
Maybe Kim can be the line judge here because she knows both Aus and US culture well. I’m not a deep student of Aus media or society beyond what I read on this blog; but based on what I read here, and the odd chat with Aussies I’ve known, I get the sense that there are fewer mainstream platforms in Aus where feminist ideas and assumptions are dominant, or prevalent, or something like the default setting. In the US they are plentiful, they help set the general tone. (Kim, would it be accurate to say that feminism has in general won more ground here?) Also, the population of folks, esp. the more educated and articulate, who have internalized at least a basic set of feminist assumptions, is broad and deep here.
Which means that in a mainstream sense, a certain feminist pushback was a reasonable thing to look for in a broad swathe of the discussion, in what was after all a national election and a very big deal. Had it been prevalent in a way that even Mr. Magoo could pick up on, I wouldn’t have written my comment. It was possible and normal in the national conversation, and in private, to say and write hideous things about Palin and not get slapped by a consensus objecting; indeed it often got a knowing wink and a nod. That’s a general tenor. By way of contrast, in most polite, sane, and educated circles here, people just don’t make a whole lot of racist remarks about Barack Obama, not even people like me who aren’t thrilled with him. That sort of wall of taboo was far less in evidence w/r/t Palin. You don’t have to believe me, it’s not a fight worth continuing.
Kim, I wasn’t trying to “pronounce” on anything. I was trying to describe to Fine what I saw, because it’s possible that in Aus you saw things rather differently.
Again, if deep-thinking feminist venues were on the case, that’s excellent. Teh Edn.
@255 – Casey, yep.
@258 – j_p_z, sorry, was sloppy in my comment – conflating the Palin stuff with the burqa pronuciamentos. I do recognise that you haven’t taken a position on what ought to occur, if I’ve read your comments correctly.
In a way, yes, j_p_z, at least insofar as:
(a) you rightly point out that both in some parts of the press and print media more generally, and in the existence of a lively and complex counter-public sphere online, feminist arguments have more prominence in the US than in Australia;
(b) it is true, I think, that in some states and demographics, feminism has had more of an impact in the US.
It’s worth the observation, in the context of this debate, that despite all the stuff about ‘Western values’, that Australia’s comparative position in terms of women’s rights, status and presence in the public sphere is pretty piss poor.
@255 – Casey, yep.
@258 – j_p_z, sorry, was sloppy in my comment – conflating the Palin stuff with the burqa pronuciamentos. I do recognise that you haven’t taken a position on what ought to occur, if I’ve read your comments correctly.
In a way, yes, j_p_z, at least insofar as:
(a) you rightly point out that both in some parts of the press and print media more generally, and in the existence of a lively and complex counter-public sphere online, feminist arguments have more prominence in the US than in Australia;
(b) it is true, I think, that in some states and demographics, feminism has had more of an impact in the US.
It’s worth the observation, in the context of this debate, that despite all the stuff about ‘Western values’, that Australia’s comparative position in terms of women’s rights, status and presence in the public sphere is pretty piss poor.
“Aborigines are not Muslim, but they too demonstrate the serious symptoms of a people under great threat”
Completely different symptoms, and a completely different threat, stemming from completely different Western emotional undercurrents. Aborigines mostly from our guilt, Muslims from our paranoia.
What understanding about either do we gain from the comparison?
“Muslim culture is not to blame.”
For what?
“Aborigines are not Muslim, but they too demonstrate the serious symptoms of a people under great threat”
Completely different symptoms, and a completely different threat, stemming from completely different Western emotional undercurrents. Aborigines mostly from our guilt, Muslims from our paranoia.
What understanding about either do we gain from the comparison?
“Muslim culture is not to blame.”
For what?
I would argue that Muslim culture is indeed “to blame” for women wearing burqas – indeed for a great many things that I happen not to like – but apportioning the blame’s not very helpful, is it?
Or is that what you were meaning to say?
I would argue that Muslim culture is indeed “to blame” for women wearing burqas – indeed for a great many things that I happen not to like – but apportioning the blame’s not very helpful, is it?
Or is that what you were meaning to say?
jpz you have referred on this blog in past times to Obama as a grinning monkey and Mexican immigrants as “wetbacks” so your disingenuous defence of Sarah Palin in the name of feminism doesn’t mean a hill of beans to this feminist, sonny.
jpz you have referred on this blog in past times to Obama as a grinning monkey and Mexican immigrants as “wetbacks” so your disingenuous defence of Sarah Palin in the name of feminism doesn’t mean a hill of beans to this feminist, sonny.
# 262 — no I haven’t.
# 262 — no I haven’t.
Did JPZ refer to Obama as a grinning monkey? And Mexicans as wetbacks?
Wow.
Did JPZ refer to Obama as a grinning monkey? And Mexicans as wetbacks?
Wow.
He did Casey.
If we’re in the blame game I blame Western imperialist meddling and militarism for retrograde fundamentalist Islamification of societies from Algeria to Egypt to Iran, Syria, Pakistan, Central Asia, many of which in recent decades were moving towards secularist and therefore more democratic polities but which have now been set back, by pre-modern indigenous forces through a process essentially of economic defensiveness against a malignant external threat expressed nationally and culturally.
He did Casey.
If we’re in the blame game I blame Western imperialist meddling and militarism for retrograde fundamentalist Islamification of societies from Algeria to Egypt to Iran, Syria, Pakistan, Central Asia, many of which in recent decades were moving towards secularist and therefore more democratic polities but which have now been set back, by pre-modern indigenous forces through a process essentially of economic defensiveness against a malignant external threat expressed nationally and culturally.
Moderator — do you have an archival search mechanism that can confirm or deny Vanessa’s weird accusation? If so, thanks.
Moderator — do you have an archival search mechanism that can confirm or deny Vanessa’s weird accusation? If so, thanks.
@266 – A search of the comments (all of them, since the blog started in 2005) in the backend, j_p_z, discloses that no one has ever used the term “wetbacks” with reference to Mexicans or described Obama as any sort of monkey.
@266 – A search of the comments (all of them, since the blog started in 2005) in the backend, j_p_z, discloses that no one has ever used the term “wetbacks” with reference to Mexicans or described Obama as any sort of monkey.
Vanessa, as far as I can remember jpz hasn’t said those things, and from what I know of him he wouldn’t.
In any case, he has attempted no “defence of Sarah Palin in the name of feminism”. Will you re-read what he wrote this time, or will you [again] remember it as you [mis-]interpreted it?
Vanessa, as far as I can remember jpz hasn’t said those things, and from what I know of him he wouldn’t.
In any case, he has attempted no “defence of Sarah Palin in the name of feminism”. Will you re-read what he wrote this time, or will you [again] remember it as you [mis-]interpreted it?
Kim @248: as a matter of pure coincidence I located the following transcript of an interview between Sabria Jawhar and Negus in which she provided a defense of the burqa and the niqab in both Muslim and democratic nations on the grounds of freedom of choice. She is a Saudi blogger and writer studying in the UK who appeared “unveiled” in the interview despite normally covering her face. In the course of the interview Negus challenged her about the social conditions of women in Saudi Arabia and the likely reaction to her outspoken views in the West to which she replied “It is up to them whether they are happy about it or not but I just want to correct one thing, George, that there is no oppression there.
The bold comment is such absolute rubbish that it robs every other single word she said of any credibility. Sabria Jahwar is a mouthpiece of those who want the right to pursue Sharia law in democracies. This is taking multiculturalism to the degree that it actually represents an attack on the conditions of democracy. It is why, in my view, the French are banning the burqa.
The idea that there is no oppression of women in Saudi is gobsmacking. Try the conditions of Filipina workers who are routinely sexually assaulted by their male employers and co-workers and then, as the linked story shows, are subject to further humiliations because they reside under Sharia law.
The Coalition Against the Trafficking in Women would very definitely take issue with the idea that there is no oppression of women in Saudi Arabia (under Sharia law).
Nawal el Saadawi is, to my knoweldge, is also no longer a Muslim. This, however, does not rob her of credibility in commetning about Muslim issues. It reinforces her integrity. Her opposition to religious fundamentalism is very apparent and she is singularly clear about the attack that Sharia law represent on women’s freedoms in Muslim countries. Happily, she is equally clear about the non-freedoms that the West imposes on women:
Kim @248: as a matter of pure coincidence I located the following transcript of an interview between Sabria Jawhar and Negus in which she provided a defense of the burqa and the niqab in both Muslim and democratic nations on the grounds of freedom of choice. She is a Saudi blogger and writer studying in the UK who appeared “unveiled” in the interview despite normally covering her face. In the course of the interview Negus challenged her about the social conditions of women in Saudi Arabia and the likely reaction to her outspoken views in the West to which she replied “It is up to them whether they are happy about it or not but I just want to correct one thing, George, that there is no oppression there.
The bold comment is such absolute rubbish that it robs every other single word she said of any credibility. Sabria Jahwar is a mouthpiece of those who want the right to pursue Sharia law in democracies. This is taking multiculturalism to the degree that it actually represents an attack on the conditions of democracy. It is why, in my view, the French are banning the burqa.
The idea that there is no oppression of women in Saudi is gobsmacking. Try the conditions of Filipina workers who are routinely sexually assaulted by their male employers and co-workers and then, as the linked story shows, are subject to further humiliations because they reside under Sharia law.
The Coalition Against the Trafficking in Women would very definitely take issue with the idea that there is no oppression of women in Saudi Arabia (under Sharia law).
Nawal el Saadawi is, to my knoweldge, is also no longer a Muslim. This, however, does not rob her of credibility in commetning about Muslim issues. It reinforces her integrity. Her opposition to religious fundamentalism is very apparent and she is singularly clear about the attack that Sharia law represent on women’s freedoms in Muslim countries. Happily, she is equally clear about the non-freedoms that the West imposes on women:
I put my memory over that of a machine’s any day. In important things.
And I definitely recall jpz referring heatedly – in the context of bemoaning the influx of illegal Mexican and other Latin American immigrants into the US – to “wetbacks”. This was several years ago and it shocked me so much to see that written on this blog that I distinctly remember it and will till I die. Ditto jpz’s loathsome and evidently equally heartfelt comments about Obama, before he won US Democratic presidential candidate endorsement, likening him to a simian.
If a machine doesn’t retrieve this info, then so be it, but my memory of this is quite clear. Is no-one else’s here?
I put my memory over that of a machine’s any day. In important things.
And I definitely recall jpz referring heatedly – in the context of bemoaning the influx of illegal Mexican and other Latin American immigrants into the US – to “wetbacks”. This was several years ago and it shocked me so much to see that written on this blog that I distinctly remember it and will till I die. Ditto jpz’s loathsome and evidently equally heartfelt comments about Obama, before he won US Democratic presidential candidate endorsement, likening him to a simian.
If a machine doesn’t retrieve this info, then so be it, but my memory of this is quite clear. Is no-one else’s here?
Actually, I was hoping you’d ditch the ad hominem and address what he said in this thread, which is not what you characterised it as, rather than prolong the meta-crap.
But whatevs.
Actually, I was hoping you’d ditch the ad hominem and address what he said in this thread, which is not what you characterised it as, rather than prolong the meta-crap.
But whatevs.
True — in spite of the fact that South Australia was the second place in the world to give women the vote, in the 1890s, and the first place in the world to criminalise rape within marriage, in the 1970s. Sad.
True — in spite of the fact that South Australia was the second place in the world to give women the vote, in the 1890s, and the first place in the world to criminalise rape within marriage, in the 1970s. Sad.
We apologise for letting the team down Polly.
We apologise for letting the team down Polly.
Stoopid moderation won’t let me change monikers.
Stoopid moderation won’t let me change monikers.
I’ll add to the chorus of people who’ve sparred with JPZ about multiculturalism and immigration policy, and as someone who spends far too much time on this blog, witness that he’s never been anything but civil.
I’ll add to the chorus of people who’ve sparred with JPZ about multiculturalism and immigration policy, and as someone who spends far too much time on this blog, witness that he’s never been anything but civil.
Thanks, Kim. Thanks, FDB.
Vanessa, I’ve said a few unkind things about Obama here but nothing in a racially hostile way as you describe. As I recall, the most unkind thing I said about him was offered as an ironic hypothetical in a discussion about degraded discourse. I may have the context wrong, but it still wasn’t anything racial like you recall, though it wasn’t polite, either. Also, all other considerations aside, “grinning monkey” is just so… uninteresting. If I was playing the dozens in a schoolyard, I’d be drummed out of the corps for being so dull.
Too, you may not realize this but “wetback” is an increasingly archaic word here, it’s not really a word that someone from my generation and region would use, even if they were looking to be nasty. All other things aside, probabalistically speaking, it’s just very unlikely that I would use that term. Again, I’ve said things here that were quite critical of Mexico and of illegal Mexican immigration, which, whatever you care to believe, is a serious problem in the US about which there’s a range of opinion. Reasonable criticisms, even if a bit tart, are not beyond the pale. But “wetback” of course isn’t a reasonable criticism.
I think a good piece of circumstantial evidence that I didn’t use those words is that, if I had, the collective probably would have told me to piss off a long time ago. If I used that sort of language, I think righteous folks like Kim and FDB would not be showing me much in the way of courtesy.
But I’m sorry you feel this way. Cheers.
Thanks, Kim. Thanks, FDB.
Vanessa, I’ve said a few unkind things about Obama here but nothing in a racially hostile way as you describe. As I recall, the most unkind thing I said about him was offered as an ironic hypothetical in a discussion about degraded discourse. I may have the context wrong, but it still wasn’t anything racial like you recall, though it wasn’t polite, either. Also, all other considerations aside, “grinning monkey” is just so… uninteresting. If I was playing the dozens in a schoolyard, I’d be drummed out of the corps for being so dull.
Too, you may not realize this but “wetback” is an increasingly archaic word here, it’s not really a word that someone from my generation and region would use, even if they were looking to be nasty. All other things aside, probabalistically speaking, it’s just very unlikely that I would use that term. Again, I’ve said things here that were quite critical of Mexico and of illegal Mexican immigration, which, whatever you care to believe, is a serious problem in the US about which there’s a range of opinion. Reasonable criticisms, even if a bit tart, are not beyond the pale. But “wetback” of course isn’t a reasonable criticism.
I think a good piece of circumstantial evidence that I didn’t use those words is that, if I had, the collective probably would have told me to piss off a long time ago. If I used that sort of language, I think righteous folks like Kim and FDB would not be showing me much in the way of courtesy.
But I’m sorry you feel this way. Cheers.
Let the record show, jpz and mates, Kim is the only woman or Black or Latino or Hispanic or in your words “wetback” or “monkey” defending you.
Let the record show, jpz and mates, Kim is the only woman or Black or Latino or Hispanic or in your words “wetback” or “monkey” defending you.
Hah!
I fracking knew it.
Oh GODDESS.
Long have I longed for thee!!!!
Hah!
I fracking knew it.
Oh GODDESS.
Long have I longed for thee!!!!
Vanessa, If you find “wetback” & “grinning monkey” to be the stuff of smelling salts, stuff you’ll remember till you die, then I have some excellent screenshots from this blog that would curl your hair! Wetback, Grinning & Monkey will all pass a spam filter. I have seen words used in personal abuse on this site, that are foul by the standards of even the most hardened of troopers, and by regulars who post to this day.
This blog has a most selectively applied comments policy, thus no sanction was applied, except stealthy deletion when a link is provided to disprove later claims by one of the offenders claims in a later thread that they are not prone to invective or personal abuse.
Don’t get too worked up over “wetback”, it is used almost daily to describe New South Welshmen, sometimes even people from south of the Fitzroy, or the Burdekin.
Vanessa, If you find “wetback” & “grinning monkey” to be the stuff of smelling salts, stuff you’ll remember till you die, then I have some excellent screenshots from this blog that would curl your hair! Wetback, Grinning & Monkey will all pass a spam filter. I have seen words used in personal abuse on this site, that are foul by the standards of even the most hardened of troopers, and by regulars who post to this day.
This blog has a most selectively applied comments policy, thus no sanction was applied, except stealthy deletion when a link is provided to disprove later claims by one of the offenders claims in a later thread that they are not prone to invective or personal abuse.
Don’t get too worked up over “wetback”, it is used almost daily to describe New South Welshmen, sometimes even people from south of the Fitzroy, or the Burdekin.
Vanessa, isn’t that at least a slightly unhinged statement.
First Kim hasn’t defended j_p_z at all. What she has done is fact-checked the LP archives, and found that your allegation has no substance. You could have done the same by using the search facility on the top right hand corner of the page.
Second, since your allegation against j_p_z was one of racism not sexism, what would have privileged any defence Kim, who as far as I am aware has never made any claim of being Black, Latino or Hispanic, may have made of him on the basis that she is a woman?
Third, since you have made the allegation of j_p_z’s use of the words wetback and grinning monkey, isn’t it incumbent on you to point out the use of those words by searching the LP archive yourself to find his use of those words rather than relying on:
If you won’t do that then it’s your credibility on the line, not to mention your good faith in the eyes who read this blog, not his.
Vanessa, isn’t that at least a slightly unhinged statement.
First Kim hasn’t defended j_p_z at all. What she has done is fact-checked the LP archives, and found that your allegation has no substance. You could have done the same by using the search facility on the top right hand corner of the page.
Second, since your allegation against j_p_z was one of racism not sexism, what would have privileged any defence Kim, who as far as I am aware has never made any claim of being Black, Latino or Hispanic, may have made of him on the basis that she is a woman?
Third, since you have made the allegation of j_p_z’s use of the words wetback and grinning monkey, isn’t it incumbent on you to point out the use of those words by searching the LP archive yourself to find his use of those words rather than relying on:
If you won’t do that then it’s your credibility on the line, not to mention your good faith in the eyes who read this blog, not his.
Oh you’ve been glamoured you poor creatures. She does it all the time. I’m sure Kim will be along soon to attend to things.
Meanwhile, OH Ray of Light, I have slain an Andalusian poem which I place at your defamatory little feet:
Of earth and water, daughter,
Yielding her abundance
Only if you wait
Finger licking at her castle gate
Pale she seems, her haven
Hard of access, a Greek
Virgin, who lingers
Behind a curtain of lances.
“Reflection of Wine”
Abu-‘l-Hasan ‘Ali ibn Hisn (Seville, 11th cent)
Oh you’ve been glamoured you poor creatures. She does it all the time. I’m sure Kim will be along soon to attend to things.
Meanwhile, OH Ray of Light, I have slain an Andalusian poem which I place at your defamatory little feet:
Of earth and water, daughter,
Yielding her abundance
Only if you wait
Finger licking at her castle gate
Pale she seems, her haven
Hard of access, a Greek
Virgin, who lingers
Behind a curtain of lances.
“Reflection of Wine”
Abu-‘l-Hasan ‘Ali ibn Hisn (Seville, 11th cent)
The soul, like the moon,
is new, and always new again.
And I have seen the ocean
continuously creating.
Since I scoured my mind
and my body, I too, Lalla,
am new, each moment new.
My teacher told me one thing,
“Live in the soul.”
When that was so,
I began to go naked,
and dance.
Lal Ded C14 India
The soul, like the moon,
is new, and always new again.
And I have seen the ocean
continuously creating.
Since I scoured my mind
and my body, I too, Lalla,
am new, each moment new.
My teacher told me one thing,
“Live in the soul.”
When that was so,
I began to go naked,
and dance.
Lal Ded C14 India
Ok. Enough thread derail. Thanks.
Ok. Enough thread derail. Thanks.
Oh no, Casey! Not the notorious jinmaro (and she of several other names) off her meds again?
It’s been such a long time. I’d forgotten.
Oh no, Casey! Not the notorious jinmaro (and she of several other names) off her meds again?
It’s been such a long time. I’d forgotten.
Vanessa, I believe your memory is correct over the “grinning monkey” and “wetback” comments. I ran a search on the word “monkey” and I came across a thread entitled “the good, the Maverick and the ugly: dispatches from the Straight Talk Express,” but when I went into that thread and ran a browser search on “monkey,” it came up empty, which suggests that the posts that were deemed offensive have been removed. Actually, I seem to remember going into that thread at the time and wondering at the commotion over the “monkey” remarks, but not being able to find them, meaning that they had been deleted. However, I do not recall j_p_z having made those remarks but rather one of our own homegrown trolls.
Vanessa, I believe your memory is correct over the “grinning monkey” and “wetback” comments. I ran a search on the word “monkey” and I came across a thread entitled “the good, the Maverick and the ugly: dispatches from the Straight Talk Express,” but when I went into that thread and ran a browser search on “monkey,” it came up empty, which suggests that the posts that were deemed offensive have been removed. Actually, I seem to remember going into that thread at the time and wondering at the commotion over the “monkey” remarks, but not being able to find them, meaning that they had been deleted. However, I do not recall j_p_z having made those remarks but rather one of our own homegrown trolls.
@”Vanessa”,
looking through the archives shows this 2007 comment from jinmaro accusing j_p_z of all sorts of prejudices because sie made a pun about “cracker night” & Alabama on a Halloween thread, responding to someone else’s comment about firecrackers. The commentor who brought the term “wetback” into that thread was jinmaro, not j_p_z.
@”Vanessa”,
looking through the archives shows this 2007 comment from jinmaro accusing j_p_z of all sorts of prejudices because sie made a pun about “cracker night” & Alabama on a Halloween thread, responding to someone else’s comment about firecrackers. The commentor who brought the term “wetback” into that thread was jinmaro, not j_p_z.
silkworm @ 284 thanks. And you may be right, jpz has never once here been offensive, or uncivil or intemperate let alone racist or sexist or plain repulsive to left-leaning beings and to suggest or claim otherwise is downright Orwellian and mad and irrationally…female.
silkworm @ 284 thanks. And you may be right, jpz has never once here been offensive, or uncivil or intemperate let alone racist or sexist or plain repulsive to left-leaning beings and to suggest or claim otherwise is downright Orwellian and mad and irrationally…female.
@vanessa,
there’s many things I disagree with j_p_z on, and I am on record as challenging hir many times on these over the years.
If sie had ever used the terms “wetback” re Mexicans or “monkey” re Obama or any other African-American I would have challenged hir. I would not have been the only contributor here to do so. There is no record of this, and it would certainly have been sufficient cause for hir to go on permanent automoderation. Sie has never been automoderated so far as I recall.
Find a cache in the wayback machine, and give us the link, or retract your faulty recall of who said what.
@vanessa,
there’s many things I disagree with j_p_z on, and I am on record as challenging hir many times on these over the years.
If sie had ever used the terms “wetback” re Mexicans or “monkey” re Obama or any other African-American I would have challenged hir. I would not have been the only contributor here to do so. There is no record of this, and it would certainly have been sufficient cause for hir to go on permanent automoderation. Sie has never been automoderated so far as I recall.
Find a cache in the wayback machine, and give us the link, or retract your faulty recall of who said what.
@287 n dspt yr bllyng nd hctrng f m d nt rtrct wht hv sttd. JPZ n svrl psts wxd nn-lyrcl bt Mxcn mmgrnts. H clld thm wtbcks. H ls rfrrd n trms f rcl lthng t Brck bm s bng mnk-lk. Ths ws n drng th rc btwn Hlr Clntn nd bm fr Dmcrtc ndrsmnt fr prsdntl cnddc. nd sch cmmnts b jpz wr nd r nt nsl. T dn sch s t b prtsn fr whtvr rsn r t hv flt mmr. f th rchvs hr dnt shw ths thn ll tht sys s tht sch cmmnts, mng thrs, hv bn dltd. Yr prrgtv t d nd t s s. Bt tht dsnt vr-rd thrs mmrs nd tstmn. r r dtrmntn t stt wht w knw nd rmmbr.
@287 n dspt yr bllyng nd hctrng f m d nt rtrct wht hv sttd. JPZ n svrl psts wxd nn-lyrcl bt Mxcn mmgrnts. H clld thm wtbcks. H ls rfrrd n trms f rcl lthng t Brck bm s bng mnk-lk. Ths ws n drng th rc btwn Hlr Clntn nd bm fr Dmcrtc ndrsmnt fr prsdntl cnddc. nd sch cmmnts b jpz wr nd r nt nsl. T dn sch s t b prtsn fr whtvr rsn r t hv flt mmr. f th rchvs hr dnt shw ths thn ll tht sys s tht sch cmmnts, mng thrs, hv bn dltd. Yr prrgtv t d nd t s s. Bt tht dsnt vr-rd thrs mmrs nd tstmn. r r dtrmntn t stt wht w knw nd rmmbr.
I belive that Ziba Mir-Hosseini in Muslim Women’s Quest for Equality: Between
Islamic Law and Feminism offers considerable and authoritative clarity on the issues at hand. She places the issue of dress codes within an historical context of the Iranian revolution and attempts by progressive Muslims to find a way to develop modern, democratic and representative states. One of the key factors in that project is of course the equality of women. She also notes that opposition to that project is often couched in terms of religious dogmatism that actually represents pre-Islamic, patriarchal cultural practices:
I belive that Ziba Mir-Hosseini in Muslim Women’s Quest for Equality: Between
Islamic Law and Feminism offers considerable and authoritative clarity on the issues at hand. She places the issue of dress codes within an historical context of the Iranian revolution and attempts by progressive Muslims to find a way to develop modern, democratic and representative states. One of the key factors in that project is of course the equality of women. She also notes that opposition to that project is often couched in terms of religious dogmatism that actually represents pre-Islamic, patriarchal cultural practices:
Anthony, we don’t need any more arguments against the Burqua/Sharia, because noone here is defending them.
As the US blogger and feminist ally Chris Clarke wrote
What some of us are arguing against is that women who have this inflicted on them should be criminalised by Western governments, thus adding a further layer of oppression.
Anthony, we don’t need any more arguments against the Burqua/Sharia, because noone here is defending them.
As the US blogger and feminist ally Chris Clarke wrote
What some of us are arguing against is that women who have this inflicted on them should be criminalised by Western governments, thus adding a further layer of oppression.
Legal Eagle is far too modest to tout her wares on this issue, but I think her arguments deserve wider dissemination. So here she is:
http://skepticlawyer.com.au/2010/05/18/going-burq-o/
Legal Eagle is far too modest to tout her wares on this issue, but I think her arguments deserve wider dissemination. So here she is:
http://skepticlawyer.com.au/2010/05/18/going-burq-o/
“silkworm @ 284 thanks. And you may be right, jpz has never once here been offensive, or uncivil or intemperate let alone racist or sexist or plain repulsive to left-leaning beings and to suggest or claim otherwise is downright Orwellian and mad and irrationally…female.”
Utterly disgusting. There are plenty of regular, (apparently) male commentators on LP who exhibit Orwellian instincts, madness and irrationality (separately and together) and your attempt to link such behaviour to female-ness is sickening.
BBB
“silkworm @ 284 thanks. And you may be right, jpz has never once here been offensive, or uncivil or intemperate let alone racist or sexist or plain repulsive to left-leaning beings and to suggest or claim otherwise is downright Orwellian and mad and irrationally…female.”
Utterly disgusting. There are plenty of regular, (apparently) male commentators on LP who exhibit Orwellian instincts, madness and irrationality (separately and together) and your attempt to link such behaviour to female-ness is sickening.
BBB
Helen: Agreed. The crux of the dilemma is that it appears to be an uncivil oppression by the French and the Belgians to further impose restrictions and limitations on what women who are already oppressed may wear in public.
Numerous people, however, have argued that wearing Muslim “coverings” is an act of free choice made freely. The problem is that you can’t have it both ways. Wearing a burqa is either an act of free choice made freely in which case the defence that the wearers are already oppressed cannot apply in which case they don’t need the protection of the state; or it is a sign of oppression in which case the defence applies.
To be clear the defence is that the state, in limiting the wearing of this clothing in the public sphere, is imposing further restrictions and limitations on women who are clearly and visibly already oppressed. The sign of the nature of opprerssion is the burqa itself. Note, however, that numerous Muslim women of a radical cast are utterly in support of the ban. The defence “No further oppression of the already oppressed” is a weak defence because “covering” has been identified by significant intellectuals and others from within the Muslim population as the very mechanism of oppression rather than a mere symbol of it.
The defence is further weakened because in France and Europe more generally the wearing of the burqa is seen as a sign not merely of oppression but also as a signifier that the wearer identifies with political Islam. It is therefore a signifier of support for the Islamicist supremacist thinking that energised and informed those who carried out the London and Madrid bombings. This means that burqa and niqab wearers may stand for the sort of capture of Sharia law by reactionary “tribal” elements that Ziba Mir-Hosseini refers to above. Political Islamicists, male or female, are hardly in need of defence by European state forces. In fact, the reverse is true because after the Madrid and London bombings, it is clear that it is the ordinary citizens of Europe who need defence against violent Islamicism. This is why I support the French right to impose the restrictions they propose. And the Belgian legislation as well.
Helen: Agreed. The crux of the dilemma is that it appears to be an uncivil oppression by the French and the Belgians to further impose restrictions and limitations on what women who are already oppressed may wear in public.
Numerous people, however, have argued that wearing Muslim “coverings” is an act of free choice made freely. The problem is that you can’t have it both ways. Wearing a burqa is either an act of free choice made freely in which case the defence that the wearers are already oppressed cannot apply in which case they don’t need the protection of the state; or it is a sign of oppression in which case the defence applies.
To be clear the defence is that the state, in limiting the wearing of this clothing in the public sphere, is imposing further restrictions and limitations on women who are clearly and visibly already oppressed. The sign of the nature of opprerssion is the burqa itself. Note, however, that numerous Muslim women of a radical cast are utterly in support of the ban. The defence “No further oppression of the already oppressed” is a weak defence because “covering” has been identified by significant intellectuals and others from within the Muslim population as the very mechanism of oppression rather than a mere symbol of it.
The defence is further weakened because in France and Europe more generally the wearing of the burqa is seen as a sign not merely of oppression but also as a signifier that the wearer identifies with political Islam. It is therefore a signifier of support for the Islamicist supremacist thinking that energised and informed those who carried out the London and Madrid bombings. This means that burqa and niqab wearers may stand for the sort of capture of Sharia law by reactionary “tribal” elements that Ziba Mir-Hosseini refers to above. Political Islamicists, male or female, are hardly in need of defence by European state forces. In fact, the reverse is true because after the Madrid and London bombings, it is clear that it is the ordinary citizens of Europe who need defence against violent Islamicism. This is why I support the French right to impose the restrictions they propose. And the Belgian legislation as well.
@BBB,
Although feeding the troll may be tempting, sie has derailed the thread enough, no? We’re just getting back on topic, let’s stick to it.
@BBB,
Although feeding the troll may be tempting, sie has derailed the thread enough, no? We’re just getting back on topic, let’s stick to it.
One last meta – feel free to erase mods, but I thought it was pertinent.
Vanessa is impervious to the idea that she should have to prove her accusation, and trusts her offended recollection over that of everyone else, and over digital storage.
Fine, whatever, we’ve been over all that.
But you see, that’s how people come to believe awful things about each other, and see only confirmation of them. This is a lesser example, sure, but Vanessa will come away from this exchange equally convinced of a number of other things – that JPZ was “[defending] Sarah Palin in the name of feminism” (he wasn’t) and no doubt that everyone who spoke in his defense is part of some conspiracy to foment racist intolerance at LP (nobody is).
One last meta – feel free to erase mods, but I thought it was pertinent.
Vanessa is impervious to the idea that she should have to prove her accusation, and trusts her offended recollection over that of everyone else, and over digital storage.
Fine, whatever, we’ve been over all that.
But you see, that’s how people come to believe awful things about each other, and see only confirmation of them. This is a lesser example, sure, but Vanessa will come away from this exchange equally convinced of a number of other things – that JPZ was “[defending] Sarah Palin in the name of feminism” (he wasn’t) and no doubt that everyone who spoke in his defense is part of some conspiracy to foment racist intolerance at LP (nobody is).
While I don’t support a ban in practice, I’d like to propose the provocation (in the classical sense) that you’d be doing the women in question a favour whether they currently realise it, or not.
And this is the flaw in the ‘let’s ask this slave while her master is looking’ position.
While I don’t support a ban in practice, I’d like to propose the provocation (in the classical sense) that you’d be doing the women in question a favour whether they currently realise it, or not.
And this is the flaw in the ‘let’s ask this slave while her master is looking’ position.
You can’t have it both ways??
Yes you can.
In a society as advanced and as complex as France (or for that matter, Australia) people live their lives in a diversity of ways. No doubt in France, as in Australia, there are many women who chafe under their burqas and yet are forced to wear them by virtue of their oppressed condition in a theocratic family patriarchy.
Conversely, there are doubtless many women who wear the burqa as an act of free choice.
Both of these conditions can easily co-exist in a complex, open, pluralist society.
Should the women who choose to wear their burqas under those conditions by criminalised because some women are forced to wear their burqas?
The proposition only has to be stated and it reveals the illiberal, choice-denying consequences of banning a form of dress.
Again, France has several thousand troops in Afghanistan. One is far more likely to meet oppressed women in Afghanistan than in France. If Sarkozy were truly interested in the welfare of women, he’d set his troops in Afghanistan to the task of banning the burqa there.
But he won’t because he is both cowardly and hypocritical.
You can’t have it both ways??
Yes you can.
In a society as advanced and as complex as France (or for that matter, Australia) people live their lives in a diversity of ways. No doubt in France, as in Australia, there are many women who chafe under their burqas and yet are forced to wear them by virtue of their oppressed condition in a theocratic family patriarchy.
Conversely, there are doubtless many women who wear the burqa as an act of free choice.
Both of these conditions can easily co-exist in a complex, open, pluralist society.
Should the women who choose to wear their burqas under those conditions by criminalised because some women are forced to wear their burqas?
The proposition only has to be stated and it reveals the illiberal, choice-denying consequences of banning a form of dress.
Again, France has several thousand troops in Afghanistan. One is far more likely to meet oppressed women in Afghanistan than in France. If Sarkozy were truly interested in the welfare of women, he’d set his troops in Afghanistan to the task of banning the burqa there.
But he won’t because he is both cowardly and hypocritical.
Of course you can have it both ways. Some women may be forces to wear it. for others, it maybe a free choice.
The point is – how does banning it help women wearing it?
Of course you can have it both ways. Some women may be forces to wear it. for others, it maybe a free choice.
The point is – how does banning it help women wearing it?
@ Lefty E: Where wearing the burqa is a manifestation of oppression, wouldn’t a ban simply remove the manifestation while leaving the oppression intact but manifested differently? Unless one genuinely believes that a ban would persuade oppressive men to think differently (rather than provoking resistance and anger), banning the burqa is a kind of magical thinking – if one cannot see evidence for what one takes to be oppression then that oppression must be alleviated. A ban is not an act of persuasion or debate, it forestalls both. As far as oppressive acts go, compelling someone to wear the burqa is one of the least harmful, so I am cynical about the idea that the alleviation of oppression is the primary goal.
And it bears repeating that using the bodies of women as a battleground on which to confront Islam puts those women in a dangerous position.
@ Lefty E: Where wearing the burqa is a manifestation of oppression, wouldn’t a ban simply remove the manifestation while leaving the oppression intact but manifested differently? Unless one genuinely believes that a ban would persuade oppressive men to think differently (rather than provoking resistance and anger), banning the burqa is a kind of magical thinking – if one cannot see evidence for what one takes to be oppression then that oppression must be alleviated. A ban is not an act of persuasion or debate, it forestalls both. As far as oppressive acts go, compelling someone to wear the burqa is one of the least harmful, so I am cynical about the idea that the alleviation of oppression is the primary goal.
And it bears repeating that using the bodies of women as a battleground on which to confront Islam puts those women in a dangerous position.
European poll numbers re burqa ban – from The Economist …
‘… Europeans clearly favour a ban. A recent poll found that a majority backed one in France (70%), Spain (65%), Italy (63%), Britain (57%) and Germany (50%). In America, with its stronger culture of religious freedom, only a minority (33%) was in favour.’
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=16108394
I’d like to see a definitive poll taken in Australia on the issue instead of selective newspaper polls, with established readerships. So far, only the Fairfax media have taken any polls (showing 1 in 3 approve a ban) – unless there are others I haven’t been able to find online.
European poll numbers re burqa ban – from The Economist …
‘… Europeans clearly favour a ban. A recent poll found that a majority backed one in France (70%), Spain (65%), Italy (63%), Britain (57%) and Germany (50%). In America, with its stronger culture of religious freedom, only a minority (33%) was in favour.’
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=16108394
I’d like to see a definitive poll taken in Australia on the issue instead of selective newspaper polls, with established readerships. So far, only the Fairfax media have taken any polls (showing 1 in 3 approve a ban) – unless there are others I haven’t been able to find online.
I couldn’t care less what people wear in public (within limits of decency). However no way will I ever be respecting anybody, or any cult, that will not appear in public unless masked head to toe.
I have only contempt for wearers of a burkha.
The Burkha is a confrontational & offensive political statement, and is intended to be such.
We just can’t be sure if it is the political statement of the enclosed one, or of the husband/father/owner of the wearer.
I couldn’t care less what people wear in public (within limits of decency). However no way will I ever be respecting anybody, or any cult, that will not appear in public unless masked head to toe.
I have only contempt for wearers of a burkha.
The Burkha is a confrontational & offensive political statement, and is intended to be such.
We just can’t be sure if it is the political statement of the enclosed one, or of the husband/father/owner of the wearer.
SATP, how on earth can you know the intent of the wearer is to be confrontational and offensive? do you have any evidence, or are you making it up?
SATP, how on earth can you know the intent of the wearer is to be confrontational and offensive? do you have any evidence, or are you making it up?
BTW The Circle was on SBS 2 last night, anyone else see it? It was interesting how in that film, the chador became a means of evading detection. I think this highlights Vanessa’s point about the uses of invisibility. Could banning the burqa have the side-effect of making it more difficult for oppressed women to associate in secret and subvert their oppression from within?
BTW The Circle was on SBS 2 last night, anyone else see it? It was interesting how in that film, the chador became a means of evading detection. I think this highlights Vanessa’s point about the uses of invisibility. Could banning the burqa have the side-effect of making it more difficult for oppressed women to associate in secret and subvert their oppression from within?
‘And it bears repeating that using the bodies of women as a battleground on which to confront Islam puts those women in a dangerous position.’
Thanks for the response Sue – but I find my disagreeing with this point. Leaving acts of liberation to individual women in vulnerable circumstances is far more dangerous to them than that state taking its impersonal, generic mode of action. ‘Sorry dear, illegal now – what a shame. I guess you’ll have to take it up with the state’.
I mean, really, I find some of the quite reasonable-sounding choice arguments quite weak upon inspection – let’s go back to the 1830s and interrupt a meeting of liberal revolutionaries: ‘excuse me, has anyone ASKED these serfs if they want the vote?’. After all, there probably were thousands that could be found who’d say they prefer to remain a disenfranchised subject of the crown.
Heck, maybe some freedoms do have to be imposed on the benighted.
‘And it bears repeating that using the bodies of women as a battleground on which to confront Islam puts those women in a dangerous position.’
Thanks for the response Sue – but I find my disagreeing with this point. Leaving acts of liberation to individual women in vulnerable circumstances is far more dangerous to them than that state taking its impersonal, generic mode of action. ‘Sorry dear, illegal now – what a shame. I guess you’ll have to take it up with the state’.
I mean, really, I find some of the quite reasonable-sounding choice arguments quite weak upon inspection – let’s go back to the 1830s and interrupt a meeting of liberal revolutionaries: ‘excuse me, has anyone ASKED these serfs if they want the vote?’. After all, there probably were thousands that could be found who’d say they prefer to remain a disenfranchised subject of the crown.
Heck, maybe some freedoms do have to be imposed on the benighted.
Fine, SATP did say that the intent to confront/offend could belong to husbands/fathers etc rather than necessarily to the wearer.
I still think SATP is drawing a long bow. Not caring whether one’s tradition confronts/offends others is not the same as that being the intent of the tradition.
Fine, SATP did say that the intent to confront/offend could belong to husbands/fathers etc rather than necessarily to the wearer.
I still think SATP is drawing a long bow. Not caring whether one’s tradition confronts/offends others is not the same as that being the intent of the tradition.
@305 – That’s a non sequitur, Lefty E, because the analogy fails.
The extension of suffrage or the removal of forms of institutional domination is about according rights universally – ie economic rights, political rights.
What you are talking about is restricting the civil rights of a small minority, on the presumption (not the knowledge) that it may benefit them (or some of them).
@305 – That’s a non sequitur, Lefty E, because the analogy fails.
The extension of suffrage or the removal of forms of institutional domination is about according rights universally – ie economic rights, political rights.
What you are talking about is restricting the civil rights of a small minority, on the presumption (not the knowledge) that it may benefit them (or some of them).
True tigtog.
‘The Circle’ is a great film. Its director, Jafar Panahi, is currently in gaol in Iran.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/leading_article/article7131176.ece
True tigtog.
‘The Circle’ is a great film. Its director, Jafar Panahi, is currently in gaol in Iran.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/leading_article/article7131176.ece
And my other point, about the impersonal nature of state action, and women’s safety Kim?
Perhaps you’re right re civil liberties – a better analogy might be female circumcision.
As for protection from the male gaze, I go back to my original point above: I do accept that in its context it provides some protection from some exceptionally backward masculinist cultures. But there’s no need to make a virtue of that outside its context.
And my other point, about the impersonal nature of state action, and women’s safety Kim?
Perhaps you’re right re civil liberties – a better analogy might be female circumcision.
As for protection from the male gaze, I go back to my original point above: I do accept that in its context it provides some protection from some exceptionally backward masculinist cultures. But there’s no need to make a virtue of that outside its context.
Refer back to what I said at 252, Lefty E.
Again, I am not in the slightest bit convinced that this issue is one of “women’s safety”, because that hasn’t been demonstrated except by anecdote or presumption and inference, and as Katz and others have pointed out, there is also the testimony of many women who state that they adopt these modes of dress of their own volition.
The analogy with FGM is also a poor one, as one relates to a choice regarding presentation of the body, and the other relates to violent harm done to the body.
It would only arise because there’s an assumption (wrong, btw, because FGM is not practiced in the same cultures which adopt the Burqa) that we are talking about the same phenomenon – ie a putative Islamic oppression of women. I am afraid that your conflation of the two demonstrates, despite your good intent, the way that this debate obsessively circles around Islam and the claim that the Western state needs to protect women from it.
Refer back to what I said at 252, Lefty E.
Again, I am not in the slightest bit convinced that this issue is one of “women’s safety”, because that hasn’t been demonstrated except by anecdote or presumption and inference, and as Katz and others have pointed out, there is also the testimony of many women who state that they adopt these modes of dress of their own volition.
The analogy with FGM is also a poor one, as one relates to a choice regarding presentation of the body, and the other relates to violent harm done to the body.
It would only arise because there’s an assumption (wrong, btw, because FGM is not practiced in the same cultures which adopt the Burqa) that we are talking about the same phenomenon – ie a putative Islamic oppression of women. I am afraid that your conflation of the two demonstrates, despite your good intent, the way that this debate obsessively circles around Islam and the claim that the Western state needs to protect women from it.
Well if they could criminalize the act of compulsion rather than the item of clothing then I would be more inclined to agree with you Lefty E. As it stands the woman would be the one facing either criminal sanction if she disobyed the ban or the retribution of conservative family members if she obeyed the law. The oppressor remains free to keep her in seclusion and enact any other form of oppression within that seclusion because there is no sanction against his behaviour.
You should really compare like with like, banning the burqa is not like the granting of franchise, (although if it was possible to enact a law that banned the act of compulsion then they would be more alike). There have been a number of cultural practices in Western societies designed to signal a woman’s modesty including the covering of the hair after marriage which was practiced throughout many European countries. Was it necessary to ban these practices or did they fall out of favour as the attitudes that underpinned them became obsolete? If they had been banned would it have acclerated or impeded the change in attitude?
Prohibition has paradoxical effects where the underlying behaviour goes unaddressed. The burqa is not like a handgun or a knife where its removal by prohibition prevents all associated harm.
Well if they could criminalize the act of compulsion rather than the item of clothing then I would be more inclined to agree with you Lefty E. As it stands the woman would be the one facing either criminal sanction if she disobyed the ban or the retribution of conservative family members if she obeyed the law. The oppressor remains free to keep her in seclusion and enact any other form of oppression within that seclusion because there is no sanction against his behaviour.
You should really compare like with like, banning the burqa is not like the granting of franchise, (although if it was possible to enact a law that banned the act of compulsion then they would be more alike). There have been a number of cultural practices in Western societies designed to signal a woman’s modesty including the covering of the hair after marriage which was practiced throughout many European countries. Was it necessary to ban these practices or did they fall out of favour as the attitudes that underpinned them became obsolete? If they had been banned would it have acclerated or impeded the change in attitude?
Prohibition has paradoxical effects where the underlying behaviour goes unaddressed. The burqa is not like a handgun or a knife where its removal by prohibition prevents all associated harm.
What Su said #311.
What Su said #311.
And whilst I usually agree with Lefty E on pretty much every issue, in this case I find Kim’s arguments more persuasive.
And whilst I usually agree with Lefty E on pretty much every issue, in this case I find Kim’s arguments more persuasive.
Then perhaps we should start a non-complusion oriented liberation-oriented education campaign!
‘I am afraid that your conflation of the two demonstrates, despite your good intent, the way that this debate obsessively circles around Islam and the claim that the Western state needs to protect women from it.’
Thats might be true of some commentators, but frankly, it isnt for me. I travel quite a bit in the Islamic world, as recently as a month ago, and I strongly suspect Ive spent more time with the Australian Iraqi and Afghan community than anyone else on this thread.
The Burqa is a cultural rather than relgious artefact, and only exists among a small % of the community. The correlation with ‘Islam’ per se is tangential. Nonetheless, it is a clear symbol of the enchattlement of women in those cultures, and frankly, Im not convinced we can rely on any comments to the effect that they like the ball and chain, given the circumstances.
I’d also note I wasnt conflating, I was making an analogy between like categories of group rights. Im not convicned they arent like categories just because one leads to physical harm, the other to non-physical harms.
Then perhaps we should start a non-complusion oriented liberation-oriented education campaign!
‘I am afraid that your conflation of the two demonstrates, despite your good intent, the way that this debate obsessively circles around Islam and the claim that the Western state needs to protect women from it.’
Thats might be true of some commentators, but frankly, it isnt for me. I travel quite a bit in the Islamic world, as recently as a month ago, and I strongly suspect Ive spent more time with the Australian Iraqi and Afghan community than anyone else on this thread.
The Burqa is a cultural rather than relgious artefact, and only exists among a small % of the community. The correlation with ‘Islam’ per se is tangential. Nonetheless, it is a clear symbol of the enchattlement of women in those cultures, and frankly, Im not convinced we can rely on any comments to the effect that they like the ball and chain, given the circumstances.
I’d also note I wasnt conflating, I was making an analogy between like categories of group rights. Im not convicned they arent like categories just because one leads to physical harm, the other to non-physical harms.
SATP: ‘The Burkha is a confrontational & offensive political statement, and is intended to be such.’
That point has rarely been highlighted in the 200+ comments so far, much to my exasperation. The commenters here can argue all day (and no doubt will) about the philosophical, ethical and gender-political implications, but the right to wear a burqa also depends a great deal on the socio-political system of the country in which it is being worn.
The poll figures I previously stated in 2 comments (and which subsequent commenters have chosen to ignore) clearly show that a democratic majority in France, Italy and Britain favour a ban and Germany is borderline. And in Australia over the last week, an SMH poll of over 10,000 votes showed that 81% don’t want it worn in public and 1 in 3 voters in an Age and Herald Sun poll totalling almost 50,000 favour an actual ban.
The rights of the women who choose to wear the burqa are one thing. But what about the rights of the society whose majority doesn’t want it, but has no choice other than to put up with it?
SATP: ‘The Burkha is a confrontational & offensive political statement, and is intended to be such.’
That point has rarely been highlighted in the 200+ comments so far, much to my exasperation. The commenters here can argue all day (and no doubt will) about the philosophical, ethical and gender-political implications, but the right to wear a burqa also depends a great deal on the socio-political system of the country in which it is being worn.
The poll figures I previously stated in 2 comments (and which subsequent commenters have chosen to ignore) clearly show that a democratic majority in France, Italy and Britain favour a ban and Germany is borderline. And in Australia over the last week, an SMH poll of over 10,000 votes showed that 81% don’t want it worn in public and 1 in 3 voters in an Age and Herald Sun poll totalling almost 50,000 favour an actual ban.
The rights of the women who choose to wear the burqa are one thing. But what about the rights of the society whose majority doesn’t want it, but has no choice other than to put up with it?
@314 – I don’t doubt your good faith on this, Lefty E, but why pick FGM as the comparison?
@314 – I don’t doubt your good faith on this, Lefty E, but why pick FGM as the comparison?
@315 –
There’s no protection from being annoyed or offended in a liberal society by others’ choices. And last time I looked, representative democracy isn’t the same thing as decision making via opinion poll.
@315 –
There’s no protection from being annoyed or offended in a liberal society by others’ choices. And last time I looked, representative democracy isn’t the same thing as decision making via opinion poll.
Katz: the suggestion that one can selectively apply a law to one group of women wearing a garment on one ground but apply another law to another group of women wearing the same garment and apply this other law on the basis of a difference between the two groups that depends on difference of subjectivity confounds the Kantian categorical imperative which is fundamental to liberal political culture.
So you cannot have it both ways unless you intend to throw out the test of the universalizability. Of course universalizability is an ambition rather than a reality. Nevertheless we are constrained by universalizability when imagining possibilities and desirable outcomes if we are to keep the project of liberal democracy on track.
This is why I stated above that one can stretch the principles of multiculturalism to the breaking point of a democratic polity.
At another level, to argue by analogy for a change, the scenario proposed by opponents of the burqa ban is akin to saying to an Afro-American:
“Look, we understand that you are frightened of the guy in the street wearing the Klan hood and swinging that lynch rope in his hand but you have to understand that he is oppressed by his cracker friends who will reject him and abuse him if he does not conform to their cultural requirements that he get around in that costume. And carry that noose even though he has no intention of using it. It is a part of his southern redneck culture that he is a violent and terrifying bigot and he is entitled to wear that costume as part of that cultural identity. You need to understand that he is oppressed by this back ground at the same time as he is so intersubjectively enmeshed with that background that he cannot be who he is without expressing his race hate and ignorance in this way”.
Remind yourselves of the consequiences of the Madrid and London bombings. The burqa is a sign of Islamicist intolerance of western democratic values as well as the mechanism of oppression of Muslim women.
Katz: the suggestion that one can selectively apply a law to one group of women wearing a garment on one ground but apply another law to another group of women wearing the same garment and apply this other law on the basis of a difference between the two groups that depends on difference of subjectivity confounds the Kantian categorical imperative which is fundamental to liberal political culture.
So you cannot have it both ways unless you intend to throw out the test of the universalizability. Of course universalizability is an ambition rather than a reality. Nevertheless we are constrained by universalizability when imagining possibilities and desirable outcomes if we are to keep the project of liberal democracy on track.
This is why I stated above that one can stretch the principles of multiculturalism to the breaking point of a democratic polity.
At another level, to argue by analogy for a change, the scenario proposed by opponents of the burqa ban is akin to saying to an Afro-American:
“Look, we understand that you are frightened of the guy in the street wearing the Klan hood and swinging that lynch rope in his hand but you have to understand that he is oppressed by his cracker friends who will reject him and abuse him if he does not conform to their cultural requirements that he get around in that costume. And carry that noose even though he has no intention of using it. It is a part of his southern redneck culture that he is a violent and terrifying bigot and he is entitled to wear that costume as part of that cultural identity. You need to understand that he is oppressed by this back ground at the same time as he is so intersubjectively enmeshed with that background that he cannot be who he is without expressing his race hate and ignorance in this way”.
Remind yourselves of the consequiences of the Madrid and London bombings. The burqa is a sign of Islamicist intolerance of western democratic values as well as the mechanism of oppression of Muslim women.
Because of your (reasonably fair, I admit) objection to the parallel with enfranchisement, Kim.
Strkes me as another example of certain women’s oppression – by a particular ‘cultural practice’ – that raises issues of how feminists, human rights advocates and the state might respond. Especially when you can also find women defending that practice too.
The fact that it was a more challenging example was pretty much the point of it – we ultimately cant dodge ALL these types of issues with resort to models of individual choice, voluntarism, least restrictive alternative, etc.
Because of your (reasonably fair, I admit) objection to the parallel with enfranchisement, Kim.
Strkes me as another example of certain women’s oppression – by a particular ‘cultural practice’ – that raises issues of how feminists, human rights advocates and the state might respond. Especially when you can also find women defending that practice too.
The fact that it was a more challenging example was pretty much the point of it – we ultimately cant dodge ALL these types of issues with resort to models of individual choice, voluntarism, least restrictive alternative, etc.
Really iorarua, why can’t you see where the ‘rights of society not to be offended’ argument would lead?
Only someone with serious fascist tendencies would honestly advocate such a position.
Really iorarua, why can’t you see where the ‘rights of society not to be offended’ argument would lead?
Only someone with serious fascist tendencies would honestly advocate such a position.
SATP – to preserve the potency of your contempt it’s best to save it for the perpetrators and spare the victims.
Tigtog – I see your point, and Mark made a similar point earlier “there’s nothing comparable between deliberately giving offence (for whatever reason) and people taking offence (because they find your mode of dress offputting, un-Australian, uncomfortable”. But aren’t people at least partly responsible for their actions whether deliberately intended or not?
An example: it’s midday Friday in Jakarta and a bunch of near naked young Australian tourists are happily walking down a small street, talking and laughing. Do they know that you don’t walk past a mesjid doing that, at that time? They don’t intend any offence, wouldn’t imagine anyone could take offence at their delightfully relaxed Aussie behaviour. But they give offence, and they should be aware what the customs of the place are and should try to abide by them.
SATP – to preserve the potency of your contempt it’s best to save it for the perpetrators and spare the victims.
Tigtog – I see your point, and Mark made a similar point earlier “there’s nothing comparable between deliberately giving offence (for whatever reason) and people taking offence (because they find your mode of dress offputting, un-Australian, uncomfortable”. But aren’t people at least partly responsible for their actions whether deliberately intended or not?
An example: it’s midday Friday in Jakarta and a bunch of near naked young Australian tourists are happily walking down a small street, talking and laughing. Do they know that you don’t walk past a mesjid doing that, at that time? They don’t intend any offence, wouldn’t imagine anyone could take offence at their delightfully relaxed Aussie behaviour. But they give offence, and they should be aware what the customs of the place are and should try to abide by them.
I’ve just been reminded that there’s a relevant notice of motion (PDF) in the NSW upper house.
Of course there’s a lot of other very wierd stuff there.
I’ve just been reminded that there’s a relevant notice of motion (PDF) in the NSW upper house.
Of course there’s a lot of other very wierd stuff there.
No it is not. FGM and the Burqa are both culturally controlling mechanisms which should be rejected in an open inclusive society. Whilst for some FGM brings the image of blunt and bloody knives, screaming girls but just as common is the clean “normal” procedure of small nip and tuck under general of local painkillers, and as much presentation of the body as nipple rings or other such things.
The problem once again is many women/girls are forced to undergo such things and others wish to do it for any number of reasons, therefore support for one leaves you in a bizarre position for the second. As for the violence discriminator (as flawed as it is), is anyone seriously suggesting that wearing a Burqa in an open society in Australian would not have effect on the wearer.
All customs are not equal and a open society should be prepared to take a stand on such things. FGM is not acceptable nor is the deliberate and methodical isolation of one gender from mainstream society. The argument that some woman want to wear the garment therefore it is acceptable hold no more water than some slaves were more than happy to reject freedom because their masters were good to them.
The fact that some wearers of the living shroud manage to function in mainstream society does nto change the fact that for the vast majority it is a mobile prison and is designed as such. To pretend otherwise is ignoring the reality of the situation.
Lastly, will people stop refering to the Burqa as if it part of the Islamic Religion as it is not and never has been. It is a regional piece of woman hating nonsense that should be rejected at every level, the idea that women in Australia can raise even the most basic concept of support for it beggars belief.
No it is not. FGM and the Burqa are both culturally controlling mechanisms which should be rejected in an open inclusive society. Whilst for some FGM brings the image of blunt and bloody knives, screaming girls but just as common is the clean “normal” procedure of small nip and tuck under general of local painkillers, and as much presentation of the body as nipple rings or other such things.
The problem once again is many women/girls are forced to undergo such things and others wish to do it for any number of reasons, therefore support for one leaves you in a bizarre position for the second. As for the violence discriminator (as flawed as it is), is anyone seriously suggesting that wearing a Burqa in an open society in Australian would not have effect on the wearer.
All customs are not equal and a open society should be prepared to take a stand on such things. FGM is not acceptable nor is the deliberate and methodical isolation of one gender from mainstream society. The argument that some woman want to wear the garment therefore it is acceptable hold no more water than some slaves were more than happy to reject freedom because their masters were good to them.
The fact that some wearers of the living shroud manage to function in mainstream society does nto change the fact that for the vast majority it is a mobile prison and is designed as such. To pretend otherwise is ignoring the reality of the situation.
Lastly, will people stop refering to the Burqa as if it part of the Islamic Religion as it is not and never has been. It is a regional piece of woman hating nonsense that should be rejected at every level, the idea that women in Australia can raise even the most basic concept of support for it beggars belief.
Irarua #315, I’m sure that in certain times and places (including some quite close to where some of us are currently in time and space), you would have found popular majorities opposed to men wearing long hair and women wearing trousers, and people of either gender wearing visible tattoos. As Kim noted #317, in liberal societies such issues are none of the state’s friggin’ business.
Irarua #315, I’m sure that in certain times and places (including some quite close to where some of us are currently in time and space), you would have found popular majorities opposed to men wearing long hair and women wearing trousers, and people of either gender wearing visible tattoos. As Kim noted #317, in liberal societies such issues are none of the state’s friggin’ business.
“Lastly, will people stop refering to the Burqa as if it part of the Islamic Religion as it is not and never has been. It is a regional piece of woman hating nonsense”
Yep. Seconded. This really is a key fact from which the rest of the debate should proceed. Several of us are raising objections to the Burqa which really have nought to do with any species of ‘obsessive circling around Islam’.
I acknowledge that some other objectors may not be.
“Lastly, will people stop refering to the Burqa as if it part of the Islamic Religion as it is not and never has been. It is a regional piece of woman hating nonsense”
Yep. Seconded. This really is a key fact from which the rest of the debate should proceed. Several of us are raising objections to the Burqa which really have nought to do with any species of ‘obsessive circling around Islam’.
I acknowledge that some other objectors may not be.
Oigal #323, to redux my comment at #155, there are many items of dress and/or grooming which are worn by many women and girls in Western cultures – sometimes by choice, sometimes as a result of social pressure, sometimes under threat of formal sanctions such as loss of employment or expulsion from school – which are uncomfortable and/or restrictive. Nobody seriously suggests that these things should be the subject of a statutory prohibition. Rather, feminists and their supporters argue for the right of women and girls to choose not to wear these things and to experience no discrimination as a consequence of not wearing them. I think wearing of the burqa should be seen in a similar light.
Oigal #323, to redux my comment at #155, there are many items of dress and/or grooming which are worn by many women and girls in Western cultures – sometimes by choice, sometimes as a result of social pressure, sometimes under threat of formal sanctions such as loss of employment or expulsion from school – which are uncomfortable and/or restrictive. Nobody seriously suggests that these things should be the subject of a statutory prohibition. Rather, feminists and their supporters argue for the right of women and girls to choose not to wear these things and to experience no discrimination as a consequence of not wearing them. I think wearing of the burqa should be seen in a similar light.
Paul – the styles of dress you refer to, seen as objectionable by many at the time they became visible, developed from within our tradition/values. Perhaps that’s why although you might have found a majority expressing disapproval, you probably wouldn’t have found a majority for legislating against them (I would make an exception for punk!). This case is therefore obviously different.
Paul – the styles of dress you refer to, seen as objectionable by many at the time they became visible, developed from within our tradition/values. Perhaps that’s why although you might have found a majority expressing disapproval, you probably wouldn’t have found a majority for legislating against them (I would make an exception for punk!). This case is therefore obviously different.
Adrian: ‘Really iorarua, why can’t you see where the ‘rights of society not to be offended’ argument would lead?’
Where on earth have I said anything about being offended? This is what always gets me about the Leftist freedom-of-expression argument – it assumes that every action boils down to a matter of personal taste.
The burqa is a political statement, symbolising social values and behaviours that we have worked hard as a society to put behind us.
And as for where it would lead? This whole concept that any form of legislative control over any unacceptable social behaviour will automatically push us all down the slippery road to totalitarianism is ingenuous and counterproductive. In virtually all cases, totalitarian states come about by violent overthrow of an alreay failed political system, not the reasonable checks and balances on unacceptable social behaviours within a healthy society.
Kim: ‘And last time I looked, representative democracy isn’t the same thing as decision making via opinion poll.’
Then how else do you learn about what people in a democracy want, other than through an election every 3 or 4 years? Despite their flaws, opinion polls do provide information from which legislators can govern in the best interest of their constituents. Unless there are other polls that disprove that 70% of French people support the burqa ban, then it’s safe to say that the Sarkozy government’s actions are democratically valid.
Adrian: ‘Really iorarua, why can’t you see where the ‘rights of society not to be offended’ argument would lead?’
Where on earth have I said anything about being offended? This is what always gets me about the Leftist freedom-of-expression argument – it assumes that every action boils down to a matter of personal taste.
The burqa is a political statement, symbolising social values and behaviours that we have worked hard as a society to put behind us.
And as for where it would lead? This whole concept that any form of legislative control over any unacceptable social behaviour will automatically push us all down the slippery road to totalitarianism is ingenuous and counterproductive. In virtually all cases, totalitarian states come about by violent overthrow of an alreay failed political system, not the reasonable checks and balances on unacceptable social behaviours within a healthy society.
Kim: ‘And last time I looked, representative democracy isn’t the same thing as decision making via opinion poll.’
Then how else do you learn about what people in a democracy want, other than through an election every 3 or 4 years? Despite their flaws, opinion polls do provide information from which legislators can govern in the best interest of their constituents. Unless there are other polls that disprove that 70% of French people support the burqa ban, then it’s safe to say that the Sarkozy government’s actions are democratically valid.
Correct me if I am wrong, but the Klan outfit is not legally proscribed. Of course it is sociallyunacceptable, and that is precisely the way the burqa should be addressed: through social norms rather than legislative bans.
Correct me if I am wrong, but the Klan outfit is not legally proscribed. Of course it is sociallyunacceptable, and that is precisely the way the burqa should be addressed: through social norms rather than legislative bans.
It can’t be that simple. Despite the acknowledged fact that hundreds of imams around the world will say that the burqa is not a requirement of Islam, it is clearly the case that the women who do chose to wear the burqa predominantly see it as a sign of their faith.
It can’t be that simple. Despite the acknowledged fact that hundreds of imams around the world will say that the burqa is not a requirement of Islam, it is clearly the case that the women who do chose to wear the burqa predominantly see it as a sign of their faith.
Adrian #320 has succinctly put forward the essence of the argument against Human Rights Commissions, and possibly also a Bill of Rights.
I’m not for banning of Burkhas, for a host of reasons. As much as it is the right of the owner of a woman to command her to wear one, or her own right to spend her life inside a pup tent (sans window) it is also society’s right to snub them for it.
If radical Islam (or niche cultural groups) don’t like that, tough luck. Coz that point won’t be changing.
I wear one type of clobber in my hometown, & because what is appropriate & conformist at home is starkly different to other cultures, to avoid seeming naive & making a target of myself, I wear totally different togs in culturally different places (eg Brisbane, or Malaysia, or the Bank Manager’s Office, etc)
Adrian #320 has succinctly put forward the essence of the argument against Human Rights Commissions, and possibly also a Bill of Rights.
I’m not for banning of Burkhas, for a host of reasons. As much as it is the right of the owner of a woman to command her to wear one, or her own right to spend her life inside a pup tent (sans window) it is also society’s right to snub them for it.
If radical Islam (or niche cultural groups) don’t like that, tough luck. Coz that point won’t be changing.
I wear one type of clobber in my hometown, & because what is appropriate & conformist at home is starkly different to other cultures, to avoid seeming naive & making a target of myself, I wear totally different togs in culturally different places (eg Brisbane, or Malaysia, or the Bank Manager’s Office, etc)
Paul: I am not convinced that at some point you would not find some item of clothing objectionable. The law (in Australia at least) does police appearances. A famous case in S.A. involved a young man who was charged under the obscenity laws for wearing a T-shirt in the Rundle Mall that was inscribed with the words “Too Drunk to Fuck”. The case was lost because his defence was that it was his birthday and and he felt obliged to wear the T-shirt “because my mum gave it to me”. While the droll elements of this appear to support your argument I believe that one could fashion a T-shirt of such offensive content that you would find it objectionable especially if the words fell into the category of hate speech against sexual minorities or ethnicities. It doesn’t tke much imagination to get the picture.
In 2004 the Madrid bombings killed 191 people and wounded 1,800. In 2005 the London bombings killed the four suicide bombers and 52 other people and around 700 were injured.
The burqa in Europe is seen to represent political affiliation with the sort of beliefs that inspired those bombings. The burqa, as has been noted before here and frequently, is a sign of Islamicist supremacism a significant part of which is a desire to control the bodies of all women. Claims that wearing the burqa is an individual right are propaganda and nothing more.
I’m with Oigal: “It is a regional piece of woman hating nonsense that should be rejected at every level, the idea that women in Australia can raise even the most basic concept of support for it beggars belief.”
Paul: I am not convinced that at some point you would not find some item of clothing objectionable. The law (in Australia at least) does police appearances. A famous case in S.A. involved a young man who was charged under the obscenity laws for wearing a T-shirt in the Rundle Mall that was inscribed with the words “Too Drunk to Fuck”. The case was lost because his defence was that it was his birthday and and he felt obliged to wear the T-shirt “because my mum gave it to me”. While the droll elements of this appear to support your argument I believe that one could fashion a T-shirt of such offensive content that you would find it objectionable especially if the words fell into the category of hate speech against sexual minorities or ethnicities. It doesn’t tke much imagination to get the picture.
In 2004 the Madrid bombings killed 191 people and wounded 1,800. In 2005 the London bombings killed the four suicide bombers and 52 other people and around 700 were injured.
The burqa in Europe is seen to represent political affiliation with the sort of beliefs that inspired those bombings. The burqa, as has been noted before here and frequently, is a sign of Islamicist supremacism a significant part of which is a desire to control the bodies of all women. Claims that wearing the burqa is an individual right are propaganda and nothing more.
I’m with Oigal: “It is a regional piece of woman hating nonsense that should be rejected at every level, the idea that women in Australia can raise even the most basic concept of support for it beggars belief.”
“Vanessa is impervious to the idea that she should have to prove her accusation, and trusts her offended recollection over that of everyone else, and over digital storage.”
I beg your indulgence in the matter of this slight derail, again, I’ve been thinking and the sanctification of Japerz is getting to me even more than Goddess’s moonlight eviscerations do. You will note who did not say it, but how something was said, and what was said in response, how it was said in response to what was not said but said in another manner, but still, something was said and then someone said it and why he said it is what matters. Thank you.
http://larvatusprodeo.net/2006/04/26/on-being-unaustralian-or-globalised/#comment-71262
Right. Apologies. As you were.
“Vanessa is impervious to the idea that she should have to prove her accusation, and trusts her offended recollection over that of everyone else, and over digital storage.”
I beg your indulgence in the matter of this slight derail, again, I’ve been thinking and the sanctification of Japerz is getting to me even more than Goddess’s moonlight eviscerations do. You will note who did not say it, but how something was said, and what was said in response, how it was said in response to what was not said but said in another manner, but still, something was said and then someone said it and why he said it is what matters. Thank you.
http://larvatusprodeo.net/2006/04/26/on-being-unaustralian-or-globalised/#comment-71262
Right. Apologies. As you were.
Thats doesnt make my objection to it an objection to Islam, Martin. For example, we proscribed the cutural practice of polygamy on the basis of our conception of women’s rights – and that no doubt offended some minor variants within Islam (as well as Mormonism).
Clearly, since the ‘cultural article of faith’ defence really *isn’t* considered sufficient defence in many cases of oppressive practices, in wyas that few would disagree with, I’m wondering why its a position considered to be self-evident in any way.
Thats doesnt make my objection to it an objection to Islam, Martin. For example, we proscribed the cutural practice of polygamy on the basis of our conception of women’s rights – and that no doubt offended some minor variants within Islam (as well as Mormonism).
Clearly, since the ‘cultural article of faith’ defence really *isn’t* considered sufficient defence in many cases of oppressive practices, in wyas that few would disagree with, I’m wondering why its a position considered to be self-evident in any way.
On the abc midday tv news there was a report that mention that the fine for wearing a burqa in public in France was some amount (I forget exctly) around 150 francs I think.
But the fine for a male who enforced wearing a burqa on a female was ten times that.
How you’d actually prove that is another matter.
Although in France I don’t think there is a presumption of innocence.
Anyway.
I dunno if fining a male is any better in principle, but given the circumstances there its better than nothing.
On the abc midday tv news there was a report that mention that the fine for wearing a burqa in public in France was some amount (I forget exctly) around 150 francs I think.
But the fine for a male who enforced wearing a burqa on a female was ten times that.
How you’d actually prove that is another matter.
Although in France I don’t think there is a presumption of innocence.
Anyway.
I dunno if fining a male is any better in principle, but given the circumstances there its better than nothing.
Personally I think it is. Any attempt to debate the issue as article of faith should be rejected as the falsehood it is. Just because some people fervently believe Obama was born in Kenya does not mean we must attach credence to their position “coz thats what they believe”.
The nonsense that this is about freedom of choice is just that. Acknowledging that there will always be exceptions to the rule, does anyone honestly think that the Burqa does not isolate and restrict the wearer from mainstream society?
As a matter of interest, I work in an 100% Muslim environment of which 50% (give or take) are female and all wear the Jilbab. Yet it is the women who time and again reject job applications from girls wearing the Burqa. Always with some spurious reason but the reality is they understand what is happening within their own country. At the moment they can blame the big bad company for not allowing the Burqa and are deadly frightened that should one Burqa be allowed then that excuse will be gone for ever.
So many people understimate the sheer lack of choice women have in so many places. As someone said before ask the slave a question in front of the master and you expect….
Personally I think it is. Any attempt to debate the issue as article of faith should be rejected as the falsehood it is. Just because some people fervently believe Obama was born in Kenya does not mean we must attach credence to their position “coz thats what they believe”.
The nonsense that this is about freedom of choice is just that. Acknowledging that there will always be exceptions to the rule, does anyone honestly think that the Burqa does not isolate and restrict the wearer from mainstream society?
As a matter of interest, I work in an 100% Muslim environment of which 50% (give or take) are female and all wear the Jilbab. Yet it is the women who time and again reject job applications from girls wearing the Burqa. Always with some spurious reason but the reality is they understand what is happening within their own country. At the moment they can blame the big bad company for not allowing the Burqa and are deadly frightened that should one Burqa be allowed then that excuse will be gone for ever.
So many people understimate the sheer lack of choice women have in so many places. As someone said before ask the slave a question in front of the master and you expect….
Yes, I understand that. What I am saying is that you can’t just pretend that the question has nothing to do with Islam either. Your motivations might not be based around Islam but the effect of a ban (and I acknowledge that you have not actually supported a ban) would be. Necessarily the issues will be intermixed.
And if it could be demonstrated either that the burqa was as oppressive as these other practices, or that we were prepared to ban all clothing that is equally as oppressive as the burqa then there would be a case. So long as a ban is considered against burqas but not against, say, dog-leash choker collars, then suspicions will continue to be raised that the dignity of women is not the main criterion operating.
Yes, I understand that. What I am saying is that you can’t just pretend that the question has nothing to do with Islam either. Your motivations might not be based around Islam but the effect of a ban (and I acknowledge that you have not actually supported a ban) would be. Necessarily the issues will be intermixed.
And if it could be demonstrated either that the burqa was as oppressive as these other practices, or that we were prepared to ban all clothing that is equally as oppressive as the burqa then there would be a case. So long as a ban is considered against burqas but not against, say, dog-leash choker collars, then suspicions will continue to be raised that the dignity of women is not the main criterion operating.
Whoops, sorry for bad tag closing.
Whoops, sorry for bad tag closing.
Fixed!
Fixed!
@337 –
Exactly, Martin.
That’s a very similar point to what I said above @248:
If wearing the Burqa had nothing to do with any association with Islam, or if, for that matter, it had something to do with some other religion, this whole debate would look every different indeed, if it arose at all.
@337 –
Exactly, Martin.
That’s a very similar point to what I said above @248:
If wearing the Burqa had nothing to do with any association with Islam, or if, for that matter, it had something to do with some other religion, this whole debate would look every different indeed, if it arose at all.
Oigal@323:
Look I’ve made the point THREE. TIMES. that no feminist writer on here has supported either the wearing of burquas or the imposition of them on women by any party. Could you PLEASE stop bashing this strawfeminist. We are arguing against the criminalisation of wearing burquas and the effects it will have on the women you are supposed to be so concerned about. It’s just disingenuous for you and others to keep pretending opponents of a ban are pro-burqa so you can claim some weird artificial wedgie gotcha-victory.
When you find you’re on song with Fred Nile you might just like to stop and think about what that might mean.
Oigal@323:
Look I’ve made the point THREE. TIMES. that no feminist writer on here has supported either the wearing of burquas or the imposition of them on women by any party. Could you PLEASE stop bashing this strawfeminist. We are arguing against the criminalisation of wearing burquas and the effects it will have on the women you are supposed to be so concerned about. It’s just disingenuous for you and others to keep pretending opponents of a ban are pro-burqa so you can claim some weird artificial wedgie gotcha-victory.
When you find you’re on song with Fred Nile you might just like to stop and think about what that might mean.
Again, the key point of the analogy is missed.
Birthers are wrong. We should happily argue that they are wrong publically.
But would you ban the holding of that opinion or suppress books that make that claim?
Again, the key point of the analogy is missed.
Birthers are wrong. We should happily argue that they are wrong publically.
But would you ban the holding of that opinion or suppress books that make that claim?
Jules, thanyou for that, I was ignorant of those provisions. According to CNN “Forcing a woman to wear a niqab or a burqa would be punishable by a year in prison or a 15,000-euro ($19,000) fine”. I have no trouble with the intent of that aspect of the proposed law, though, as you suggest, the question of how you prove force is a vexed one.
Jules, thanyou for that, I was ignorant of those provisions. According to CNN “Forcing a woman to wear a niqab or a burqa would be punishable by a year in prison or a 15,000-euro ($19,000) fine”. I have no trouble with the intent of that aspect of the proposed law, though, as you suggest, the question of how you prove force is a vexed one.
AN, I don’t know whose suggestion that is. It certainly isn’t mine.
I certainly do not want a selectively applied sumptuary law. I don’t want any sumptuary law.
I request that you do not try to put words into my mouth, especially patently silly words.
AN, I don’t know whose suggestion that is. It certainly isn’t mine.
I certainly do not want a selectively applied sumptuary law. I don’t want any sumptuary law.
I request that you do not try to put words into my mouth, especially patently silly words.
“Necessarily the issues will be intermixed.”
Well, sure, I wouldnt say the Burqa has ‘nothing to do’ with Islam. I was speaking about my own opposition to it, as you note. But I’d also suggest you cant – likewise – evade the point that the Burqa has about as much to do with Islam as, say, the highly unpopular minority Christian (eg 7th Day Adventist) practice of refusing blood transfusions.
Is it hard to accept that a criticism of that practice is not ‘anti-Christian”? I dont think so.
In a way, I’m having a debate with myself here: I started to look for a consistent principle among anti-ban position, and frankly, I didnt find one.
e.g. Id like to see those who oppose a Burqa ban explain why they wouldnt therefore support a revisit of our anti-polygamy laws, given they might have offended some small, unprepresentative sections of the Muslim and Mormon popultions as well, and we cant be convinced its felt as oppression.
All that said, my own position is that banning articles of clothing just *feels* illiberal. However, I have failed to convince myself that my poistion makes sense, given I do unequivocally see Burqas as oppressive, and fully support our extant bans on religious polygamy, and FGM. (If anyone else feels at home with that apparent contradiction, let me know. because I don’t!)
My view, therefore, is that as a society we should step it up a bit in terms of the ‘offence’ line. Explain to blokes (and women) in that community that in Australia this is absolutely, in no uncertain terms, considered offensive; an insult to women’s dignity. We understand it might mean a whole range of other things elsewhere, but just as we would try not to wear shorts and bikinis into a Mosque in the Middle east, you should strongly consider the offence the Burqa causes to our widely shared notions of women’s equality.
“Necessarily the issues will be intermixed.”
Well, sure, I wouldnt say the Burqa has ‘nothing to do’ with Islam. I was speaking about my own opposition to it, as you note. But I’d also suggest you cant – likewise – evade the point that the Burqa has about as much to do with Islam as, say, the highly unpopular minority Christian (eg 7th Day Adventist) practice of refusing blood transfusions.
Is it hard to accept that a criticism of that practice is not ‘anti-Christian”? I dont think so.
In a way, I’m having a debate with myself here: I started to look for a consistent principle among anti-ban position, and frankly, I didnt find one.
e.g. Id like to see those who oppose a Burqa ban explain why they wouldnt therefore support a revisit of our anti-polygamy laws, given they might have offended some small, unprepresentative sections of the Muslim and Mormon popultions as well, and we cant be convinced its felt as oppression.
All that said, my own position is that banning articles of clothing just *feels* illiberal. However, I have failed to convince myself that my poistion makes sense, given I do unequivocally see Burqas as oppressive, and fully support our extant bans on religious polygamy, and FGM. (If anyone else feels at home with that apparent contradiction, let me know. because I don’t!)
My view, therefore, is that as a society we should step it up a bit in terms of the ‘offence’ line. Explain to blokes (and women) in that community that in Australia this is absolutely, in no uncertain terms, considered offensive; an insult to women’s dignity. We understand it might mean a whole range of other things elsewhere, but just as we would try not to wear shorts and bikinis into a Mosque in the Middle east, you should strongly consider the offence the Burqa causes to our widely shared notions of women’s equality.
lefty e, russell et al, I don’t think it’s reasonable to claim that just because the burqa has its historical roots in a non-islamic tradition, you aren’t going to be seen as obssessively circling islam now, when the only women wearing it are Muslim.
Laws have been proposed in the US to ban certain sorts of clothing which, even though they aren’t racist, are obviously intended to attack blacks. You may personally support those laws on the basis of your genuine aesthetic purism, but if your laws have the effect practically of only attacking one race, you need to recognise that effect.
Separately, this idea that women in Australia are forced to wear the burqa is an interesting one. They have the right to leave home, to get protective orders against their husbands, etc. If they don’t do this, then either a) they’re making a choice or b) they’re suffering from a far worse set of difficulties than the burqa, and instead of attacking their public face, we should be finding ways to enhance their private power so that they can control their own public face.
Every time we respond to a woman’s lack of choice by banning the publicly visible consequence, rather than attacking the private power that causes it, we are missing the point. How many people commenting on LP would happily support a response to domestic violence based entirely on outlawing any form of public display of bruising?
lefty e, russell et al, I don’t think it’s reasonable to claim that just because the burqa has its historical roots in a non-islamic tradition, you aren’t going to be seen as obssessively circling islam now, when the only women wearing it are Muslim.
Laws have been proposed in the US to ban certain sorts of clothing which, even though they aren’t racist, are obviously intended to attack blacks. You may personally support those laws on the basis of your genuine aesthetic purism, but if your laws have the effect practically of only attacking one race, you need to recognise that effect.
Separately, this idea that women in Australia are forced to wear the burqa is an interesting one. They have the right to leave home, to get protective orders against their husbands, etc. If they don’t do this, then either a) they’re making a choice or b) they’re suffering from a far worse set of difficulties than the burqa, and instead of attacking their public face, we should be finding ways to enhance their private power so that they can control their own public face.
Every time we respond to a woman’s lack of choice by banning the publicly visible consequence, rather than attacking the private power that causes it, we are missing the point. How many people commenting on LP would happily support a response to domestic violence based entirely on outlawing any form of public display of bruising?
Katz, that is the meaning of your argument (cited below) but transferred from the realm of unexamined peersonal preference to that of political philsophy where rationality, as exemplified by the Kantian categorical imperative, holds sway:
Katz, that is the meaning of your argument (cited below) but transferred from the realm of unexamined peersonal preference to that of political philsophy where rationality, as exemplified by the Kantian categorical imperative, holds sway:
That is an obstinately wrong-headed reading of my argument.
Your argument isn’t kantian, it’s platonic and as such tending toward the cryptofascist.
That is an obstinately wrong-headed reading of my argument.
Your argument isn’t kantian, it’s platonic and as such tending toward the cryptofascist.
SG – please don’t do that thing of mentioning names and then ‘banning’ because I never advocated a ban. I did say that I would put something in the points system for citizenship that would make it a lot harder, but not impossible, for a burqa wearer to become a citizen.
Since I’m apparently on ‘a side’ of this discussion I wasn’t going to say this, but, after I came up with that brilliant idea I did ask myself – if I were made Minister for Immigration tomorrow would I do it? and I answered myself that I probably wouldn’t do it, now. Because a) it doesn’t seem to much of a problem here, now, and b) yes, I think we’ve given enough offence ourselves to Islamic countries lately, and the move might be seen as anti-Islamic. Still, it might be something for the future ……
SG – please don’t do that thing of mentioning names and then ‘banning’ because I never advocated a ban. I did say that I would put something in the points system for citizenship that would make it a lot harder, but not impossible, for a burqa wearer to become a citizen.
Since I’m apparently on ‘a side’ of this discussion I wasn’t going to say this, but, after I came up with that brilliant idea I did ask myself – if I were made Minister for Immigration tomorrow would I do it? and I answered myself that I probably wouldn’t do it, now. Because a) it doesn’t seem to much of a problem here, now, and b) yes, I think we’ve given enough offence ourselves to Islamic countries lately, and the move might be seen as anti-Islamic. Still, it might be something for the future ……
There is no points test for citizenship, Russell, but there is a multiple choice eaxm. Perhaps a question could be addes:
21. Is the burqa?
a) an offensive slight against humanity
b) quite nice actually in a strange sort of way
c) a hamburger with extra spice and a bit of hummus
d) none of the above.
Obviously we all know the correct answer.
There is no points test for citizenship, Russell, but there is a multiple choice eaxm. Perhaps a question could be addes:
21. Is the burqa?
a) an offensive slight against humanity
b) quite nice actually in a strange sort of way
c) a hamburger with extra spice and a bit of hummus
d) none of the above.
Obviously we all know the correct answer.
Sheesh- ‘added’ and ‘exam’. Bloody keyboards.
Sheesh- ‘added’ and ‘exam’. Bloody keyboards.
Once again, Russell, I have to be flabbergasted by the bland way in which you make quite horrific suggestions. Making it nigh-on impossible for “the burqa wearer” to become a citizen? You’re talking about denying someone the right to citizenship in what I presume you think is a better country than their homeland, on the basis of what they’re wearing. Does this not strike you, in passing moments, as just a tad extreme?
Further, if they’re being forced to wear this (as the opponents of the burqa claim here), then aren’t you penalising them doubly? Not only are they forced into their “living shroud,” but then you deny them the chance to move to a country where they have the rights to escape it. Nice. Very feminist.
And if they’re not being forced to wear it, so you’re penalising their choice, we get back to the original point – you want to deny citizenship to someone on the basis of their choice of clothing.
Once again, Russell, I have to be flabbergasted by the bland way in which you make quite horrific suggestions. Making it nigh-on impossible for “the burqa wearer” to become a citizen? You’re talking about denying someone the right to citizenship in what I presume you think is a better country than their homeland, on the basis of what they’re wearing. Does this not strike you, in passing moments, as just a tad extreme?
Further, if they’re being forced to wear this (as the opponents of the burqa claim here), then aren’t you penalising them doubly? Not only are they forced into their “living shroud,” but then you deny them the chance to move to a country where they have the rights to escape it. Nice. Very feminist.
And if they’re not being forced to wear it, so you’re penalising their choice, we get back to the original point – you want to deny citizenship to someone on the basis of their choice of clothing.
I agree with the idea that Plato was a protofascist but refute that I am, even by your unarticulated standard, a Platonist and therefore tending towards cryptofascism. I’ve laid out the bones of my position from the commencement of this thread. I suspect that you are unused to responding to people who have knowledge of political philosophy and that you are more than a trifle taken aback by someone who has presumed to correct you. Hence your rapid shift to name calling when challenged or told that you are simply wrong. Cryptofascist indeed.
Your words “Both of these conditions can easily co-exist in a complex, open, pluralist society” are correct but only in so far as you neglected to add “democratic society”. That is where the Kantian imperative comes in and it is the foundation of very significant moral logic towards the equality without which democracy cannot be said to exist.
I agree with the idea that Plato was a protofascist but refute that I am, even by your unarticulated standard, a Platonist and therefore tending towards cryptofascism. I’ve laid out the bones of my position from the commencement of this thread. I suspect that you are unused to responding to people who have knowledge of political philosophy and that you are more than a trifle taken aback by someone who has presumed to correct you. Hence your rapid shift to name calling when challenged or told that you are simply wrong. Cryptofascist indeed.
Your words “Both of these conditions can easily co-exist in a complex, open, pluralist society” are correct but only in so far as you neglected to add “democratic society”. That is where the Kantian imperative comes in and it is the foundation of very significant moral logic towards the equality without which democracy cannot be said to exist.
Left E, let me see if I can help you make a bit more sense of your dilemma.
FGM is a physical mutilation which is irreversible. Polygamy, although it isn’t irreversible, impacts on a woman’s life in every possible way.
A burqa is a garment which she puts on when she walks out he front door and removes on return.
I don’t think this last issue is commensurate with the first two.
Left E, let me see if I can help you make a bit more sense of your dilemma.
FGM is a physical mutilation which is irreversible. Polygamy, although it isn’t irreversible, impacts on a woman’s life in every possible way.
A burqa is a garment which she puts on when she walks out he front door and removes on return.
I don’t think this last issue is commensurate with the first two.
Adrain – no points test? I might introduce one then.
“you want to deny citizenship to someone on the basis of their choice of clothing.” No, as I’ve written, I would make it harder for them to become citizens on the basis that they were hanging on to a tradition, which many Australians find offensive, instead of making an effort to fit in.
I’m quite happy for people to work, live and study here, but to apply for citizenship, and to grant it, implies to me a mutual moving towards each other. Turbans and other exotic items of clothing, no problem because there is no percieved assualt on our values.
Adrain – no points test? I might introduce one then.
“you want to deny citizenship to someone on the basis of their choice of clothing.” No, as I’ve written, I would make it harder for them to become citizens on the basis that they were hanging on to a tradition, which many Australians find offensive, instead of making an effort to fit in.
I’m quite happy for people to work, live and study here, but to apply for citizenship, and to grant it, implies to me a mutual moving towards each other. Turbans and other exotic items of clothing, no problem because there is no percieved assualt on our values.
except in this case the tradition merely concerns the clothes they choose to wear. Slice it and dice it as much as you want, but that’s what it is – you don’t like their hairstyle so you don’t want them to be an Australian.
Now, if on the other hand you think they’re genuinely being oppressed by someone, and you won’t let them become a citizen on that basis, well, there’s a BNP refugee policy with your name on it.
except in this case the tradition merely concerns the clothes they choose to wear. Slice it and dice it as much as you want, but that’s what it is – you don’t like their hairstyle so you don’t want them to be an Australian.
Now, if on the other hand you think they’re genuinely being oppressed by someone, and you won’t let them become a citizen on that basis, well, there’s a BNP refugee policy with your name on it.
Russell, what about someone who is already an Australian citizen and then chooses to wear a burqa? Your example is predicated on the idea of burqa wearing women as perennial ‘outsiders’ who have to prove their right to live here. As has been stated upthread, there’s evidence to suggest that second generation children of migrants are choosing to wear it. So, retrospective revocation of citizenship then?
Russell, what about someone who is already an Australian citizen and then chooses to wear a burqa? Your example is predicated on the idea of burqa wearing women as perennial ‘outsiders’ who have to prove their right to live here. As has been stated upthread, there’s evidence to suggest that second generation children of migrants are choosing to wear it. So, retrospective revocation of citizenship then?
” the tradition merely concerns the clothes they choose to wear”
Merely? I wonder what all the fuss is about then? Your equating the burqa with hairstyles is peculiar, after all you’ve read on this thread.
” the tradition merely concerns the clothes they choose to wear”
Merely? I wonder what all the fuss is about then? Your equating the burqa with hairstyles is peculiar, after all you’ve read on this thread.
I’m not making a fuss, Russell, for all the reasons I stated, the main one being it’s none of my (political) business what someone else wears. Hence to me refusing citizenship on this basis is just the same as refusing citizenship on the basis of a hairstyle.
Others here are making a fuss because they think the burqa is oppressive, and as we have seen with the recent illegal war that killed a million muslims, muslim women are at the centre of Western human rights concerns. On that basis, these people are concerned that the women are being forced to wear the burqa. Those people are making a fuss. It would appear that the sole consequence of this fuss is to criminalise the victims of the oppression.
I’m not sure whether the fuss you’re making is simply because you don’t like these foreigners, or because you think the women are oppressed. Either way, an immigration policy based on kicking those people to the back of the queue for either reason is quite cruel, and better suited to the BNP than a modern liberal democracy.
I’m not making a fuss, Russell, for all the reasons I stated, the main one being it’s none of my (political) business what someone else wears. Hence to me refusing citizenship on this basis is just the same as refusing citizenship on the basis of a hairstyle.
Others here are making a fuss because they think the burqa is oppressive, and as we have seen with the recent illegal war that killed a million muslims, muslim women are at the centre of Western human rights concerns. On that basis, these people are concerned that the women are being forced to wear the burqa. Those people are making a fuss. It would appear that the sole consequence of this fuss is to criminalise the victims of the oppression.
I’m not sure whether the fuss you’re making is simply because you don’t like these foreigners, or because you think the women are oppressed. Either way, an immigration policy based on kicking those people to the back of the queue for either reason is quite cruel, and better suited to the BNP than a modern liberal democracy.
SG – I think you neeed to reaad through the thread again.
Fine – no, Australian citizens can wear it. I wish they wouldn’t, but we don’t live in a perfect world. That’s different to allowing people to become citizens who apparently don’t share much in common with us and because of their inability to alter their behaviour, will go on as the focus for unpleasantness in the community. If I go, even temporarily, to other countries, I modify my behaviour so as to not cause offence.
SG – I think you neeed to reaad through the thread again.
Fine – no, Australian citizens can wear it. I wish they wouldn’t, but we don’t live in a perfect world. That’s different to allowing people to become citizens who apparently don’t share much in common with us and because of their inability to alter their behaviour, will go on as the focus for unpleasantness in the community. If I go, even temporarily, to other countries, I modify my behaviour so as to not cause offence.
Get off those stilts AN. A tyro like you is likely to come a gutser.
You apparently don’t understand how to apply the Kantian imperative. Viz:
The appropriate maxim in this case is that persons should not be banned from wearing any particular, non-offensive piece of apparel. This universal applies equally to the father who forbids his daughter to wear anything but a burqa as it does to the state that presumes to forbid a person from wearing a burqa.
Get off those stilts AN. A tyro like you is likely to come a gutser.
You apparently don’t understand how to apply the Kantian imperative. Viz:
The appropriate maxim in this case is that persons should not be banned from wearing any particular, non-offensive piece of apparel. This universal applies equally to the father who forbids his daughter to wear anything but a burqa as it does to the state that presumes to forbid a person from wearing a burqa.
That makes you completely inconsistent Russell.
That makes you completely inconsistent Russell.
No Russell, I don’t need to reread the thread.
You ought to note that travelling to a country on holiday and living in a country are two different things, and it is a lot harder to just adopt local ways in the latter case, no matter that you might genuinely be interested in fitting in, particularly when those local ways involve rendering yourself what you consider to be “naked.” Failure to adopt local clothing norms doesn’t necessarily reflect a lack of respect for the local culture, particularly when the local norm involves dressing down rather than up.
I imagine that 99% of all the men in Australia who claim, like you, that these people just don’t want to fit in and shouldn’t be allowed, would be extremely uncomfortable about stripping down to just a codpiece if they were visiting some remote New Guinea tribe. They would also be very uncomfortable if they had to leave Australia with their family for some reason and the new country threatened to refuse them citizenship if they refused to make their wives and daughters wear bikinis in public.
But of course none of this is relevant, because we live in a liberal society and the suggestion that someone should be refused citizenship or any other right (or privilege) because they decided their decision not to dress like you is somehow a sign that they’re a wolf-in-sheep’s-clothing, is just preposterous.
No Russell, I don’t need to reread the thread.
You ought to note that travelling to a country on holiday and living in a country are two different things, and it is a lot harder to just adopt local ways in the latter case, no matter that you might genuinely be interested in fitting in, particularly when those local ways involve rendering yourself what you consider to be “naked.” Failure to adopt local clothing norms doesn’t necessarily reflect a lack of respect for the local culture, particularly when the local norm involves dressing down rather than up.
I imagine that 99% of all the men in Australia who claim, like you, that these people just don’t want to fit in and shouldn’t be allowed, would be extremely uncomfortable about stripping down to just a codpiece if they were visiting some remote New Guinea tribe. They would also be very uncomfortable if they had to leave Australia with their family for some reason and the new country threatened to refuse them citizenship if they refused to make their wives and daughters wear bikinis in public.
But of course none of this is relevant, because we live in a liberal society and the suggestion that someone should be refused citizenship or any other right (or privilege) because they decided their decision not to dress like you is somehow a sign that they’re a wolf-in-sheep’s-clothing, is just preposterous.
Katz: that is a partial and self-favourable reading of the test of universalizability. The correct reading is that you cannot make a law banning one group of people from an activity and then not apply that same law to others who appear to be participating in the same activity. In this case your suggestion that women who wear the burqa as an act of free choice is acceptable alongside women who wear the burqa because they are psychological slaves to a male authority is the one that fails the test of uniformity in the application of the law.
No tyro and no gutzer performed. I’ll leave you now to your ardent pursuit of being a champion to oppressed Muslim women worldwide.
Katz: that is a partial and self-favourable reading of the test of universalizability. The correct reading is that you cannot make a law banning one group of people from an activity and then not apply that same law to others who appear to be participating in the same activity. In this case your suggestion that women who wear the burqa as an act of free choice is acceptable alongside women who wear the burqa because they are psychological slaves to a male authority is the one that fails the test of uniformity in the application of the law.
No tyro and no gutzer performed. I’ll leave you now to your ardent pursuit of being a champion to oppressed Muslim women worldwide.
Incorrect.
The wearing of a burqa is merely one among many outward manifestations of the practice of Islam. Equally, all these women face Mecca when they pray. Some do it because they are compelled to by their theocratic fathers. Others do it because they are genuinely devout.
Do you also intend to ban all manifestations of Islamic identity just like you intend to ban the burqa? Are you in favour of banning people from facing in the direction of Mecca when they pray? If not, then your application of the Kantian imperative is non-universal and therefore not Kantian.
Your argument in favour of banning the burqa is therefore a parody of Kantianism and also patently ridiculous.
Incorrect.
The wearing of a burqa is merely one among many outward manifestations of the practice of Islam. Equally, all these women face Mecca when they pray. Some do it because they are compelled to by their theocratic fathers. Others do it because they are genuinely devout.
Do you also intend to ban all manifestations of Islamic identity just like you intend to ban the burqa? Are you in favour of banning people from facing in the direction of Mecca when they pray? If not, then your application of the Kantian imperative is non-universal and therefore not Kantian.
Your argument in favour of banning the burqa is therefore a parody of Kantianism and also patently ridiculous.
Fine @354, sorry, but that doesnt really help much at all it terms of seeking a consistent principle being applied in this debate. You point is merely about degrees of oppressiveness.
Fine @354, sorry, but that doesnt really help much at all it terms of seeking a consistent principle being applied in this debate. You point is merely about degrees of oppressiveness.
Katz: my argument in support for banning the burqa in France is because it represents Islamic supremacism and is an assault on French forms of democratic civility.
I raised the Kantian imperative, which has played a significant role in liberal political philosophy, as an objection to your suggestion that waering the burqa for different and apparently mutually antagonistic reasons was acceptable within a democracy.
Your attempt to test my argument against the burqa, more correctly in support of the burqa ban in France, against Kantian universality fails because my argument is not based on Kantian principles. I’ve not made any comments at all about Muslims in general that would allow you to suppose anything at all about my attitude to Muslims or directional praying.
My views on Muslims are informed only by those Muslim women I’ve cited along the length of this thread. Further dialogue between you and me on that matter would require you to acquaint yourself with their views which I suspect you’ve not yet done.
BTW: upthread somewhere, someone suggested that FGM is not practiced in countries where the burqa is worn which is factually incorrect for which see the wiki entry of Nawal el Sadaawi who experienced SDM as a child and was a resident of Egypt for most of her life. Egypt is a country where moves are currently afoot to limit the use of the burqa or its equivalent in order to weaken the impact of Salafism. Getting your facts correct helps when sifting through complex subjects. Egypt = a country where FGM was used and the burqa is worn.
Katz: my argument in support for banning the burqa in France is because it represents Islamic supremacism and is an assault on French forms of democratic civility.
I raised the Kantian imperative, which has played a significant role in liberal political philosophy, as an objection to your suggestion that waering the burqa for different and apparently mutually antagonistic reasons was acceptable within a democracy.
Your attempt to test my argument against the burqa, more correctly in support of the burqa ban in France, against Kantian universality fails because my argument is not based on Kantian principles. I’ve not made any comments at all about Muslims in general that would allow you to suppose anything at all about my attitude to Muslims or directional praying.
My views on Muslims are informed only by those Muslim women I’ve cited along the length of this thread. Further dialogue between you and me on that matter would require you to acquaint yourself with their views which I suspect you’ve not yet done.
BTW: upthread somewhere, someone suggested that FGM is not practiced in countries where the burqa is worn which is factually incorrect for which see the wiki entry of Nawal el Sadaawi who experienced SDM as a child and was a resident of Egypt for most of her life. Egypt is a country where moves are currently afoot to limit the use of the burqa or its equivalent in order to weaken the impact of Salafism. Getting your facts correct helps when sifting through complex subjects. Egypt = a country where FGM was used and the burqa is worn.
So, why raise a philosophical system you are not willing to defend?
How do we recognise “Islamic supremacism” when we trip over it?
Is the wearing of the turban and the carrying of ceremonial sword “Sikh supremacism”?
So, why raise a philosophical system you are not willing to defend?
How do we recognise “Islamic supremacism” when we trip over it?
Is the wearing of the turban and the carrying of ceremonial sword “Sikh supremacism”?
But I think degrees of oppressiveness does matter here, Lefty E. It’s important that there’s at least potential for a woman to change her mind about wearing a burqa. It’s a piece of clothing, not a mutilation. There’s no potential for that change when it comes to FGM. I think that’s why you intuitively feel the two are different.
But I think degrees of oppressiveness does matter here, Lefty E. It’s important that there’s at least potential for a woman to change her mind about wearing a burqa. It’s a piece of clothing, not a mutilation. There’s no potential for that change when it comes to FGM. I think that’s why you intuitively feel the two are different.
On scale, I quite agree re FGM, Fine. But even leaving aside the apparent lack of any principle people have here for for distinguishing the three (which I think is a problem) – I’m not 100% convinced the burqa offers ‘less’ oppression than, say, polygamy would. Which is, of course, proscribed.
I dont think issues of degree even adequately explain why people can hold two completely different attitudes at once.
On scale, I quite agree re FGM, Fine. But even leaving aside the apparent lack of any principle people have here for for distinguishing the three (which I think is a problem) – I’m not 100% convinced the burqa offers ‘less’ oppression than, say, polygamy would. Which is, of course, proscribed.
I dont think issues of degree even adequately explain why people can hold two completely different attitudes at once.
what are you talking about, Lefty E? Fine’s laid out a perfectly obvious principle for distinguishing between the three.
The burqa clearly offers less oppression than polygamy would. A woman can choose not to wear a burqa – she can duck into the railway station toilets and take it off, for example. She is perfectly free to leave her family and live by herself if she objects to their attempts to make her cover up. If she can’t do that, the problem is not the burqa, but her family relations.
Are you convinced, incidentally, that the proscription of polygamy actually has anything to do with concern for women, and not thorny inheritance issues? I suspect it was proscribed before modern no-fault divorce was instituted, and before the revolution in modern gender relations. If polygamy were reintroduced now, in an environment where women have much more free choice, it would be a very different institution.
what are you talking about, Lefty E? Fine’s laid out a perfectly obvious principle for distinguishing between the three.
The burqa clearly offers less oppression than polygamy would. A woman can choose not to wear a burqa – she can duck into the railway station toilets and take it off, for example. She is perfectly free to leave her family and live by herself if she objects to their attempts to make her cover up. If she can’t do that, the problem is not the burqa, but her family relations.
Are you convinced, incidentally, that the proscription of polygamy actually has anything to do with concern for women, and not thorny inheritance issues? I suspect it was proscribed before modern no-fault divorce was instituted, and before the revolution in modern gender relations. If polygamy were reintroduced now, in an environment where women have much more free choice, it would be a very different institution.
I am interested to discover that my Celtic forebears practised polygamy way back when. Much water has flowed under the cultural bridge since those days. I am unaware of any Celtic identity movement campaigning for the return of polygamy.
Polygamy was banned in all parts of the world that contributed to Australia’s legal and ethical cultures long before Islam was a beam in Mohammed’s eye. So far as I am aware, no Islamic identity movements are insisting on legalising polygamy in Australia.
While I can conceive of no ethical objections to polygamy or to polyandry for that matter, custom and convenience appear to be reasonable but by no means watertight arguments against legalisation of the two polys.
But on the other hand, I’m quite willing to concede that same-sex marriage is worthy of legality, so why not the two polys?
This is a worrisome one.
I am interested to discover that my Celtic forebears practised polygamy way back when. Much water has flowed under the cultural bridge since those days. I am unaware of any Celtic identity movement campaigning for the return of polygamy.
Polygamy was banned in all parts of the world that contributed to Australia’s legal and ethical cultures long before Islam was a beam in Mohammed’s eye. So far as I am aware, no Islamic identity movements are insisting on legalising polygamy in Australia.
While I can conceive of no ethical objections to polygamy or to polyandry for that matter, custom and convenience appear to be reasonable but by no means watertight arguments against legalisation of the two polys.
But on the other hand, I’m quite willing to concede that same-sex marriage is worthy of legality, so why not the two polys?
This is a worrisome one.
My partner stayed a night in the village of an ethnic minority in India, where polyandry is still practised. The woman who owned the house she stayed in had two husbands, who were brothers!!! They worshipped buffalo too.
I was very disappointed that my partner didn’t seize this once in a lifetime opportunity to inquire into the sex lives of a family where one woman had married siblings. It’s like the exact inverse of a million pr0n movies, in real life, and she just ate egg curry and went to bed… what’s the point of going on a tour off the beaten track if you pass up an opportunity like that??!!!
My partner stayed a night in the village of an ethnic minority in India, where polyandry is still practised. The woman who owned the house she stayed in had two husbands, who were brothers!!! They worshipped buffalo too.
I was very disappointed that my partner didn’t seize this once in a lifetime opportunity to inquire into the sex lives of a family where one woman had married siblings. It’s like the exact inverse of a million pr0n movies, in real life, and she just ate egg curry and went to bed… what’s the point of going on a tour off the beaten track if you pass up an opportunity like that??!!!
I spent an hour today in the company of a young woman wearing a burqa – in fact she gave her class presentation (on *Emma*) and she did a good job of it. I didn’t find it any harder to assess & evaluate her performance than with any of the other people in that tutorial group.
Much more importantly, the other students in the classes listened to her, laughed at her jokes, followed her lead in discussion and asked her questions about her paper afterwards; the only disruption and annoyance in the tutorial came from some idiot builder using an electric drill in a classroom somewhere on the floor above. Most of these students are very young but they can act with great maturity. I was really proud of them all today – with so many appalling provocations in the media to take offence at the sight of a veiled face, they decided to be adult about it.
I think the burqa itself is not an instrument or symbol of oppression; it’s certainly a challenge, though. Don’t you think Australian liberalism needs to be robust enough to withstand the challenge of a little bit of cloth? I daresay my student wears it as a sort of challenge or provocation – she doesn’t cover her face all the time – that’s my impression, anyway. It would hardly be the first time a university student has decided to dress in some way that assertively proclaims their difference.
I spent an hour today in the company of a young woman wearing a burqa – in fact she gave her class presentation (on *Emma*) and she did a good job of it. I didn’t find it any harder to assess & evaluate her performance than with any of the other people in that tutorial group.
Much more importantly, the other students in the classes listened to her, laughed at her jokes, followed her lead in discussion and asked her questions about her paper afterwards; the only disruption and annoyance in the tutorial came from some idiot builder using an electric drill in a classroom somewhere on the floor above. Most of these students are very young but they can act with great maturity. I was really proud of them all today – with so many appalling provocations in the media to take offence at the sight of a veiled face, they decided to be adult about it.
I think the burqa itself is not an instrument or symbol of oppression; it’s certainly a challenge, though. Don’t you think Australian liberalism needs to be robust enough to withstand the challenge of a little bit of cloth? I daresay my student wears it as a sort of challenge or provocation – she doesn’t cover her face all the time – that’s my impression, anyway. It would hardly be the first time a university student has decided to dress in some way that assertively proclaims their difference.
your last paragraph is so spot on, Laura. The people advocating this ban are generally very sure that our society is sooo much better than anywhere else, yet here they are afraid that our much-vaunted superior values will be undermined by a couple of women in weird clothes. I’m particularly amused that France, a country with nuclear weapons and an imperial history, and a very strong national identity, is afraid of a bunch of schoolgirls dressing differently.
It’s really hard to accept that the same people who profess our values to be so strong and superior are simultaneously so concerned that those values will be undermined by a few women covering their faces.
your last paragraph is so spot on, Laura. The people advocating this ban are generally very sure that our society is sooo much better than anywhere else, yet here they are afraid that our much-vaunted superior values will be undermined by a couple of women in weird clothes. I’m particularly amused that France, a country with nuclear weapons and an imperial history, and a very strong national identity, is afraid of a bunch of schoolgirls dressing differently.
It’s really hard to accept that the same people who profess our values to be so strong and superior are simultaneously so concerned that those values will be undermined by a few women covering their faces.
‘what are you talking about, Lefty E? Fine’s laid out a perfectly obvious principle for distinguishing between the three. ‘
No, Fine made some good arguments, bu laid out exactly no principles justifying the way we distinguish in law between three different forms of oppressive practices conducted by religious minority groups. Nor has anyone else on the thread, actually. The closest is degrees of oppressiveness. Which is obvious in the case of FGM, less so in the case of polygamy, which could – like the Burqa – have no victims or all – or a lot.
‘what are you talking about, Lefty E? Fine’s laid out a perfectly obvious principle for distinguishing between the three. ‘
No, Fine made some good arguments, bu laid out exactly no principles justifying the way we distinguish in law between three different forms of oppressive practices conducted by religious minority groups. Nor has anyone else on the thread, actually. The closest is degrees of oppressiveness. Which is obvious in the case of FGM, less so in the case of polygamy, which could – like the Burqa – have no victims or all – or a lot.
PS – what I actually think about face veiling in the ‘abstract’ (is there such a thing?) is somewhere between Jody Miller http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FyNfunqpSxc&feature=related and Nathaniel Hawthorne http://www.classicshorts.com/stories/veilhawt.html
PS – what I actually think about face veiling in the ‘abstract’ (is there such a thing?) is somewhere between Jody Miller http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FyNfunqpSxc&feature=related and Nathaniel Hawthorne http://www.classicshorts.com/stories/veilhawt.html
Casey #333: “You will note who did not say it, but how something was said, and what was said in response, how it was said in response to what was not said but said in another manner, but still, something was said and then someone said it and why he said it is what matters.”
Well despite the homage to Gertrude Stein, I can almost understand what Casey is trying to get at here. Casey, I’ve answered your “Why he said it” over at the Saturday Salon thread, so as not to derail here. Go have a look then.
Casey #333: “You will note who did not say it, but how something was said, and what was said in response, how it was said in response to what was not said but said in another manner, but still, something was said and then someone said it and why he said it is what matters.”
Well despite the homage to Gertrude Stein, I can almost understand what Casey is trying to get at here. Casey, I’ve answered your “Why he said it” over at the Saturday Salon thread, so as not to derail here. Go have a look then.
well leftye, if the argument that one is violent and one is not, and one is permanent and one is not, doesn’t cut it as a principle for treating them differently, what would? what is the principle by which we treat murder and robbery differently?
well leftye, if the argument that one is violent and one is not, and one is permanent and one is not, doesn’t cut it as a principle for treating them differently, what would? what is the principle by which we treat murder and robbery differently?
We dont treat murder and robbery differently, Sg. They’re both criminal offences. Thats my point.
We only weigh relative gravity in sentencing – not whether its considered criminal.
We dont treat murder and robbery differently, Sg. They’re both criminal offences. Thats my point.
We only weigh relative gravity in sentencing – not whether its considered criminal.
Katz @368:
“How do we recognise “Islamic supremacism” when we trip over it?
Is the wearing of the turban and the carrying of ceremonial sword “Sikh supremacism”?”
(please pardon the absence of blockquote but the damn thing wont turn off ay the end).
The questions you ask are excellent. There are key signs of Islamicism as there are for Sikkhism. Among them is the desire for a state that integrates, merges really, the “holy” law with the legal order of prosaic life. The Sikhs wanted a “Sikhistan” in northern India. By that they meant a “holy land” in the same way that the Israelis want Israel or the Kurds desire Kurdistan or the Uzbecks wanted Uzbekistan. What they have in common, repating myself, is a mergence of ethnicity, religious beliefs, religious laws and daily life. They want what all religious fundamentalists want which is a pre-lapsarian state where all sins are forgiven. Hence the struggle for Islamic wholeness in Iran, the imposition of Sharia in Saudi and Afghanistan and Algeria.
There are feminist Muslim women who counter these ambitions by arguing that these “holy states” are in fact nothing short of pre-modern (indeed tribal has been used by one author) impulses of archaic patriarchy.
The other signifier of Islamicism is violence. I’ve already referred to the price paid by democratic citizens in London and Madrid. The “other” here is not the Muslim. The “other” in the process of “othering” is the citizen of democracy. Nothing obliterates difference like a high explosive on a train or a bus. Or a plane driven into a high skyscraper for that matter. Democratic citizens are all the same in the blast. Our singularity and specificity is erased in the heat of the explosion.
The same of course applies to Muslims machined gunned from Apaches by US imperial forces but that can stand aside for the moment.
Violence characterises fundamentalism. It characterises Islamicism. It has, in the past, characterised Sikkhism as well (airplane bombings, if you recall). Our difference, the multiplicity of multiethnic democracies, is not treated with respect. We are all constructed as enemies. That is what supremicism of any kind does.
I hope that addresses your questions.
“
Katz @368:
“How do we recognise “Islamic supremacism” when we trip over it?
Is the wearing of the turban and the carrying of ceremonial sword “Sikh supremacism”?”
(please pardon the absence of blockquote but the damn thing wont turn off ay the end).
The questions you ask are excellent. There are key signs of Islamicism as there are for Sikkhism. Among them is the desire for a state that integrates, merges really, the “holy” law with the legal order of prosaic life. The Sikhs wanted a “Sikhistan” in northern India. By that they meant a “holy land” in the same way that the Israelis want Israel or the Kurds desire Kurdistan or the Uzbecks wanted Uzbekistan. What they have in common, repating myself, is a mergence of ethnicity, religious beliefs, religious laws and daily life. They want what all religious fundamentalists want which is a pre-lapsarian state where all sins are forgiven. Hence the struggle for Islamic wholeness in Iran, the imposition of Sharia in Saudi and Afghanistan and Algeria.
There are feminist Muslim women who counter these ambitions by arguing that these “holy states” are in fact nothing short of pre-modern (indeed tribal has been used by one author) impulses of archaic patriarchy.
The other signifier of Islamicism is violence. I’ve already referred to the price paid by democratic citizens in London and Madrid. The “other” here is not the Muslim. The “other” in the process of “othering” is the citizen of democracy. Nothing obliterates difference like a high explosive on a train or a bus. Or a plane driven into a high skyscraper for that matter. Democratic citizens are all the same in the blast. Our singularity and specificity is erased in the heat of the explosion.
The same of course applies to Muslims machined gunned from Apaches by US imperial forces but that can stand aside for the moment.
Violence characterises fundamentalism. It characterises Islamicism. It has, in the past, characterised Sikkhism as well (airplane bombings, if you recall). Our difference, the multiplicity of multiethnic democracies, is not treated with respect. We are all constructed as enemies. That is what supremicism of any kind does.
I hope that addresses your questions.
“
Laura @374: I want to address your experience. I’ve had similar experiences of Muslim women in tertiary courses. One in porticular stands out and she was an outspoken and lively young woman who wore a scarf and cleary identified as a Muslim Australian. She was treated with immaculate respect by her fellow students. Towards the end of the course she disclosed that her time on campus was a precsious moment of freedom becasue she had managed to dissuade the male members of her familyfrom accompanying her onto campus. She made them stop at the gate. But everywhere else she went, to the corner shop even, she was accompanied by a male relative. She even said that she would take her nine year old nephew to the shop with her in order to comply with the regime of masculine control over her movements.
This was a very significant dislcosure for her. I have no doubt that she has freed herself from that regime. She was clearly someone who would prosper in a democracy like Australia. She felt oppressed by the business, to say the least.
We can do this in Australia. But the French experience has been different. French democracy is under challenge from forces who would violently reject even the freedoms that the student I mentioned managed to find. Under Sharia she could be dead for thinking and behaving as she did.
Laura @374: I want to address your experience. I’ve had similar experiences of Muslim women in tertiary courses. One in porticular stands out and she was an outspoken and lively young woman who wore a scarf and cleary identified as a Muslim Australian. She was treated with immaculate respect by her fellow students. Towards the end of the course she disclosed that her time on campus was a precsious moment of freedom becasue she had managed to dissuade the male members of her familyfrom accompanying her onto campus. She made them stop at the gate. But everywhere else she went, to the corner shop even, she was accompanied by a male relative. She even said that she would take her nine year old nephew to the shop with her in order to comply with the regime of masculine control over her movements.
This was a very significant dislcosure for her. I have no doubt that she has freed herself from that regime. She was clearly someone who would prosper in a democracy like Australia. She felt oppressed by the business, to say the least.
We can do this in Australia. But the French experience has been different. French democracy is under challenge from forces who would violently reject even the freedoms that the student I mentioned managed to find. Under Sharia she could be dead for thinking and behaving as she did.
… and the main reason bad acts like libel are handled in the non-criminal code is what, exactly? That they’re not violent or permanent. Kind of like the burqa. Which is consistent with Fine’s principles.
… and the main reason bad acts like libel are handled in the non-criminal code is what, exactly? That they’re not violent or permanent. Kind of like the burqa. Which is consistent with Fine’s principles.
Laura #374:
I deduce from this that the hiring of incompetent and inconsiderate contractors and their inadequate supervision by university management is not confined to Bjelke-Petersen Memorial University of Suburban South-East Queenslamd and has extended to Sir Henry Bolte Memorial University of Northern Suburban Melbourne!
Now back OT.
Laura #374:
I deduce from this that the hiring of incompetent and inconsiderate contractors and their inadequate supervision by university management is not confined to Bjelke-Petersen Memorial University of Suburban South-East Queenslamd and has extended to Sir Henry Bolte Memorial University of Northern Suburban Melbourne!
Now back OT.
Crumbs!
Looks like the Ban the Burqa brigade have been silenced yet again with only the second opinion piece in a major national daily (the Age online)in the last few weeks!
When will ordinary ‘shtralians stand up against the liberal elite!1!?
Crumbs!
Looks like the Ban the Burqa brigade have been silenced yet again with only the second opinion piece in a major national daily (the Age online)in the last few weeks!
When will ordinary ‘shtralians stand up against the liberal elite!1!?
Yes Chav – “A bizarre form of political correctness is preventing us from an open discussion about what is, in fact, female subjugation…It would seem there are some things in Australia we are not allowed to discuss.”
OH YAH… We have all been prevented by our Political Correctness™ from discussing this. I’ve only seen about twenty articles in the mainstream media, several radio discussions and six or eight blog posts, oh and quotes from politicians. That’s how silenced we all are.
It would seem Virginia Hausegger’s full of it, as usual.
Yes Chav – “A bizarre form of political correctness is preventing us from an open discussion about what is, in fact, female subjugation…It would seem there are some things in Australia we are not allowed to discuss.”
OH YAH… We have all been prevented by our Political Correctness™ from discussing this. I’ve only seen about twenty articles in the mainstream media, several radio discussions and six or eight blog posts, oh and quotes from politicians. That’s how silenced we all are.
It would seem Virginia Hausegger’s full of it, as usual.
“Virginia Haussegger is a Canberra-based ABC news presenter.”
Say no more.
“Virginia Haussegger is a Canberra-based ABC news presenter.”
Say no more.
That’s for sure. She sidesteps any civil liberties objections by blathering on about hand wringing liberals.
That’s for sure. She sidesteps any civil liberties objections by blathering on about hand wringing liberals.
After 388 comments, not a single commenter has addressed the fact that a strong majority of French people want the burqa banned. It’s a similar situation in other European countries, including Britain. This strong majority (70%) of French reject the idea of non-legislative checks and balances on the wearing of the burqa, as well as the civil rights arguments. They prefer legislative control rather than trusting the issue to the forces of social checks and balances. That is the reality.
Once the French ban is passed, which is almost a certainty, the ban will most likely extend into other European countries. Yet most commenters here are ignoring these implications, and instead, are running round and round in rhetorical circles arguing about the right of women to wear a burqa and/or our obligation to learn how to deal with it. Many Europeans have gone beyond that.
Because over 80% of Australians polled are opposed to the wearing of the burqa in public, I don’t think this issue will go away simply by shaming people for not liking the practice. It’s more likely that the women who keep wearing the burqa in public will increasingly become the targets of abuse by the anti-Islamic extremists among us who don’t give a damn about civil liberties.
After 388 comments, not a single commenter has addressed the fact that a strong majority of French people want the burqa banned. It’s a similar situation in other European countries, including Britain. This strong majority (70%) of French reject the idea of non-legislative checks and balances on the wearing of the burqa, as well as the civil rights arguments. They prefer legislative control rather than trusting the issue to the forces of social checks and balances. That is the reality.
Once the French ban is passed, which is almost a certainty, the ban will most likely extend into other European countries. Yet most commenters here are ignoring these implications, and instead, are running round and round in rhetorical circles arguing about the right of women to wear a burqa and/or our obligation to learn how to deal with it. Many Europeans have gone beyond that.
Because over 80% of Australians polled are opposed to the wearing of the burqa in public, I don’t think this issue will go away simply by shaming people for not liking the practice. It’s more likely that the women who keep wearing the burqa in public will increasingly become the targets of abuse by the anti-Islamic extremists among us who don’t give a damn about civil liberties.
Iorarua #389, I think that point was very succinctly and effectly answered by Kim #317. In a liberal society there are some things which should not be subject to vulgar majoritarianism.
Iorarua #389, I think that point was very succinctly and effectly answered by Kim #317. In a liberal society there are some things which should not be subject to vulgar majoritarianism.
I don’t think this issue will go away simply by shaming people for not liking the practice.
As I’ve pointed out again and again no-one here is claiming the “like” “the practice”. They’re arguing against criminalistion. I can be for the decriminalisation of marijuana without liking the practice of daily bong hits. See the difference?
Also, disagreeing with someone is not “shaming”. We are allowed to disagree on LP.
It’s more likely that the women who keep wearing the burqa in public will increasingly become the targets of abuse by the anti-Islamic extremists among us who don’t give a damn about civil liberties.
Concern troll. Under a ban a woman who kept wearing the burqua in public would be stopped by authorities, fined or imprisoned. Unless she’d just decided not to bother to go out at all.
I don’t think this issue will go away simply by shaming people for not liking the practice.
As I’ve pointed out again and again no-one here is claiming the “like” “the practice”. They’re arguing against criminalistion. I can be for the decriminalisation of marijuana without liking the practice of daily bong hits. See the difference?
Also, disagreeing with someone is not “shaming”. We are allowed to disagree on LP.
It’s more likely that the women who keep wearing the burqa in public will increasingly become the targets of abuse by the anti-Islamic extremists among us who don’t give a damn about civil liberties.
Concern troll. Under a ban a woman who kept wearing the burqua in public would be stopped by authorities, fined or imprisoned. Unless she’d just decided not to bother to go out at all.
Yes, and thats why a ban is less likely (and in fact garners less polling support) in liberal societies.
France is not a liberal society: its a civic republican society. They are applying similar principles orginally applied to Catholic religious orders. A 70% support rate means French centrists and left wingers also support it to some degree.
Yes, and thats why a ban is less likely (and in fact garners less polling support) in liberal societies.
France is not a liberal society: its a civic republican society. They are applying similar principles orginally applied to Catholic religious orders. A 70% support rate means French centrists and left wingers also support it to some degree.
So are diamante-studded g-strings less oppressive garments in kind, or in degree?
when will the social and/or legislative campaign against such garments begin?
So are diamante-studded g-strings less oppressive garments in kind, or in degree?
when will the social and/or legislative campaign against such garments begin?
Paul Norton
‘In a liberal society there are some things which should not be subject to vulgar majoritarianism.’
So who gets to decide what is democracy and what is vulgar majoritarianism?
Paul Norton
‘In a liberal society there are some things which should not be subject to vulgar majoritarianism.’
So who gets to decide what is democracy and what is vulgar majoritarianism?
And 50 years ago a majority of the population was almost certainly in favour of criminalising homosexuality.
Tyranny of the majority is a well known problem in democracy. I don’t have a neat solution but it is easy to recaognise that while majorities might be able to get what they want, that doesn’t mean that that is always right.
And 50 years ago a majority of the population was almost certainly in favour of criminalising homosexuality.
Tyranny of the majority is a well known problem in democracy. I don’t have a neat solution but it is easy to recaognise that while majorities might be able to get what they want, that doesn’t mean that that is always right.
Hmmm, I dunno Martin. Its an interesting, if somewhat puzzling, question
Here’s my view on ‘degree’: the Burqa is a patriarchal tool if cotnrol that will have the effect of denying women affected almost 100% of job opportunities in our society, pretty much gruarantees poor social and economic interaction at every level with the host society, all so some sad-arse loser blokes what to feel superior to their women.
Even FGM wouldnt hve that effect. Nor being a victim of ‘Polygamy’. As much as the former is a more hotrrible violation.
I for one, could cosnider a ban to be a form an legislative liberation
On principle: we seem happy to ban some relgious practice that are oppressive to women, but couldnt countenace others, and sem to be unable to explain the difference, aside from ‘its not as grave’.
Hmmm, I dunno Martin. Its an interesting, if somewhat puzzling, question
Here’s my view on ‘degree’: the Burqa is a patriarchal tool if cotnrol that will have the effect of denying women affected almost 100% of job opportunities in our society, pretty much gruarantees poor social and economic interaction at every level with the host society, all so some sad-arse loser blokes what to feel superior to their women.
Even FGM wouldnt hve that effect. Nor being a victim of ‘Polygamy’. As much as the former is a more hotrrible violation.
I for one, could cosnider a ban to be a form an legislative liberation
On principle: we seem happy to ban some relgious practice that are oppressive to women, but couldnt countenace others, and sem to be unable to explain the difference, aside from ‘its not as grave’.
“So who gets to decide what is democracy and what is vulgar majoritarianism?”
How come the Right never pose this question when majorities are polled and found to support accessible and publicly funded healthcare, a cap on CEO salaries or Australian withdrawal from Iraq or Afghanistan?
“So who gets to decide what is democracy and what is vulgar majoritarianism?”
How come the Right never pose this question when majorities are polled and found to support accessible and publicly funded healthcare, a cap on CEO salaries or Australian withdrawal from Iraq or Afghanistan?
With the impact that instead of possibly causing the effects you listed you will certainly cause the effects you listed as such women choose not to leave the domestic sphere.
With the impact that instead of possibly causing the effects you listed you will certainly cause the effects you listed as such women choose not to leave the domestic sphere.
Iorarua #394:
The real question here is how do we distinguish between actions on which democratic governments can legitimately impose policy prescriptions (or proscriptions) and actions which democratic governments should leave to the discretion of individual citizens? This is an enduring theme in modern political philosophy, and one on which John Stuart Mill had some significant things to say.
Iorarua #394:
The real question here is how do we distinguish between actions on which democratic governments can legitimately impose policy prescriptions (or proscriptions) and actions which democratic governments should leave to the discretion of individual citizens? This is an enduring theme in modern political philosophy, and one on which John Stuart Mill had some significant things to say.
Helen@391: ‘As I’ve pointed out again and again no-one here is claiming the “like” “the practice”. They’re arguing against criminalistion … See the difference?’
Yes, I DO see the difference … ‘Again and again’ I see the difference. I suggest YOU can’t see the difference between supporting a ban on a practice and the capacity to acknowledge the civil liberties issues involved or the wider social consequences. These dicotomies can co-exist in the one person. The ‘shaming’ I referred to above is the constant accusation towards anyone who supports a ban on ANYTHING does so only because they don’t like it, rather than because they have thought it through and have decided it is the better option over the long term.
LeftE@392: ‘France is not a liberal society: its a civic republican society.’
Good point. I guess, when I think about it, I’m taking a civic republican stance on this – which is why I’m sympathetic to the proposed French ban. Unlike the wearing of the hijab, turban etc, antipathy to the burqa hits too many nerves in too many people to trust that the issue will go away simply by trusting to ‘wise’ and ‘tolerant’ liberalism as the ultimate regulator.
Helen@391: ‘As I’ve pointed out again and again no-one here is claiming the “like” “the practice”. They’re arguing against criminalistion … See the difference?’
Yes, I DO see the difference … ‘Again and again’ I see the difference. I suggest YOU can’t see the difference between supporting a ban on a practice and the capacity to acknowledge the civil liberties issues involved or the wider social consequences. These dicotomies can co-exist in the one person. The ‘shaming’ I referred to above is the constant accusation towards anyone who supports a ban on ANYTHING does so only because they don’t like it, rather than because they have thought it through and have decided it is the better option over the long term.
LeftE@392: ‘France is not a liberal society: its a civic republican society.’
Good point. I guess, when I think about it, I’m taking a civic republican stance on this – which is why I’m sympathetic to the proposed French ban. Unlike the wearing of the hijab, turban etc, antipathy to the burqa hits too many nerves in too many people to trust that the issue will go away simply by trusting to ‘wise’ and ‘tolerant’ liberalism as the ultimate regulator.
The issue will not “go away” as long as we obsessively focus on the symptoms of a patriarchal system and fail to address the warped notions of the female body which we have both in Western and ME societies – as well as the fatalistic attitude to men’s “uncontrollable urges” when faced with it. If you don’t think this is a problem in our society as well, good luck to you, but I do; and if we can find a way to address that, the burqa will go the same way as the all-black Italian Nonna costume once a younger generation takes over.
The issue will not “go away” as long as we obsessively focus on the symptoms of a patriarchal system and fail to address the warped notions of the female body which we have both in Western and ME societies – as well as the fatalistic attitude to men’s “uncontrollable urges” when faced with it. If you don’t think this is a problem in our society as well, good luck to you, but I do; and if we can find a way to address that, the burqa will go the same way as the all-black Italian Nonna costume once a younger generation takes over.
Lefty, this insistence of yours on some sort of “consistent principle” linking our regulatory attitude to FGM, polygamy and the burqa is obtuse nonsence. There is absolutely no need to have some sort of ‘consistent principle’ of how to regulate them, as they are entirely different sorts of behaviour. One is a form of physical violence, one is a marriage practice, and one is a mode of dress. There is absolutely no reason why violent behaviour, marriage practices and modes of dress should be regulated or dealt with in the same way. What a bizarre sidetrack.
Lefty, this insistence of yours on some sort of “consistent principle” linking our regulatory attitude to FGM, polygamy and the burqa is obtuse nonsence. There is absolutely no need to have some sort of ‘consistent principle’ of how to regulate them, as they are entirely different sorts of behaviour. One is a form of physical violence, one is a marriage practice, and one is a mode of dress. There is absolutely no reason why violent behaviour, marriage practices and modes of dress should be regulated or dealt with in the same way. What a bizarre sidetrack.
Well gee folks. If the subordination of women in the west is such a significant issue for you that (in Helen’s words) we apparently need to “to address the warped notions of the female body which we have both in Western and ME societies”, then perhaps we might consider some effective way of ensuring that children (< 16 years) are prevented from accessing on line porn. Maybe young women might be less inclined to wear diamante studded g-strings if this garb not not been normalised for them by years of exposure to online raunch. On the other hand surely these young women have the right to dress that way without being the subjects of critique for the way they shamelessly subordinate themselves for the male gaze. Or, hey, wait a minute, maybe we could see such conduct as "bad girls" feminism whereby young women take control of their sexuality and reflexively turn masculinist norms back on their oppressors by fully engaging them in an ironic play.
etc
The alterantive is to treat Muslim feminism with the respect it deserves and follow the lead of Muslim feminists. And they all support the burqa ban.
Now, before someone says that they don't all support the ban I'm going to need evidence and verification that opposition to the ban is coming from Muslim feminists and not from Sharia law Saudi mouthpieces.
Well gee folks. If the subordination of women in the west is such a significant issue for you that (in Helen’s words) we apparently need to “to address the warped notions of the female body which we have both in Western and ME societies”, then perhaps we might consider some effective way of ensuring that children (< 16 years) are prevented from accessing on line porn. Maybe young women might be less inclined to wear diamante studded g-strings if this garb not not been normalised for them by years of exposure to online raunch. On the other hand surely these young women have the right to dress that way without being the subjects of critique for the way they shamelessly subordinate themselves for the male gaze. Or, hey, wait a minute, maybe we could see such conduct as "bad girls" feminism whereby young women take control of their sexuality and reflexively turn masculinist norms back on their oppressors by fully engaging them in an ironic play.
etc
The alterantive is to treat Muslim feminism with the respect it deserves and follow the lead of Muslim feminists. And they all support the burqa ban.
Now, before someone says that they don't all support the ban I'm going to need evidence and verification that opposition to the ban is coming from Muslim feminists and not from Sharia law Saudi mouthpieces.
Well Tim, they are all, by general agreement here, issues which involve minority religious/ cultural practices that are oppressive to women.
Its hardly a ‘bizarre’ sidetrack to ask why we as a society happily proscribe some and not others.
There seems to be a very lightweight presumption here that a compulsory mode of dress is somehow by defintion too insignifacnt to attract legisalative resposnes – despite everyone agreeing it IS in fact oppressive. Im just curious as to why, and the only response I get are fairly insubstantial assertions of ‘self-evidence’ – which frankly, only reinforce my own sense that my anti-ban posiiton was ill-thought through, and possibly inconsistent.
I suspect it goes back to the presumptions of a liberal society – that the harm principle has to be material and direct, rather than indirect or symbolic. I think this also goes to our inability to address environmental pollution, for eg.
it also goes to out concetions of freedom – they are individualised ones, about choice. Whereas the French consider themeslves involved in a collective citzen projects of building a republican public sphre in which each citizne is able contribute to the common good without overt restriction.
And Martin – a ban might easily have the opposite effect. You think the blokes will suddenly start doing the shopping instead?
Well Tim, they are all, by general agreement here, issues which involve minority religious/ cultural practices that are oppressive to women.
Its hardly a ‘bizarre’ sidetrack to ask why we as a society happily proscribe some and not others.
There seems to be a very lightweight presumption here that a compulsory mode of dress is somehow by defintion too insignifacnt to attract legisalative resposnes – despite everyone agreeing it IS in fact oppressive. Im just curious as to why, and the only response I get are fairly insubstantial assertions of ‘self-evidence’ – which frankly, only reinforce my own sense that my anti-ban posiiton was ill-thought through, and possibly inconsistent.
I suspect it goes back to the presumptions of a liberal society – that the harm principle has to be material and direct, rather than indirect or symbolic. I think this also goes to our inability to address environmental pollution, for eg.
it also goes to out concetions of freedom – they are individualised ones, about choice. Whereas the French consider themeslves involved in a collective citzen projects of building a republican public sphre in which each citizne is able contribute to the common good without overt restriction.
And Martin – a ban might easily have the opposite effect. You think the blokes will suddenly start doing the shopping instead?
What kind of evidence and verification would you need Anthony? Google Muslimah Media Watch and you will read feminist voices on the burqa ban and Bill 94 in Quebec which would result in denial of services to women who wear the niqab.
What kind of evidence and verification would you need Anthony? Google Muslimah Media Watch and you will read feminist voices on the burqa ban and Bill 94 in Quebec which would result in denial of services to women who wear the niqab.
A challenge:
Proponents of banning the burqa are invited to draft the legislation that will achieve this purpose.
You need three things:
1. A watertight description of proscribed acts.
2. A mechanism of surveillance and apprehension of offenders.
3. A regime of punishments for the first and subsequent breaches of the legislation.
Good luck!
A challenge:
Proponents of banning the burqa are invited to draft the legislation that will achieve this purpose.
You need three things:
1. A watertight description of proscribed acts.
2. A mechanism of surveillance and apprehension of offenders.
3. A regime of punishments for the first and subsequent breaches of the legislation.
Good luck!
Paul Norton:
I don’t think we can, or should. If you are concerned that the views of the majority are wrong and oppressive the ethical course of action is to attempt to change those views, not subvert the democratic process with arbitrary or subjective rules.
The argument shouldn’t be about “Is it reasonable for a democratic government to ban the Burqa on the basis of majority opinion?” but rather “Is it reasonable for the majority to hold the opinion that the Burqa should be banned?”. If the answer to the second question is “no”, then arguments against the ban should be formulated and put to the people in an attempt to change their mind.
This may cause harm in the short term due to the time taken to change the majority view, however I think the harm in the long term caused by subverting the democratic process is greater. Hopefully the representative nature of democratic governments should minimise the impact of knee-jerk majority reactions.
Paul Norton:
I don’t think we can, or should. If you are concerned that the views of the majority are wrong and oppressive the ethical course of action is to attempt to change those views, not subvert the democratic process with arbitrary or subjective rules.
The argument shouldn’t be about “Is it reasonable for a democratic government to ban the Burqa on the basis of majority opinion?” but rather “Is it reasonable for the majority to hold the opinion that the Burqa should be banned?”. If the answer to the second question is “no”, then arguments against the ban should be formulated and put to the people in an attempt to change their mind.
This may cause harm in the short term due to the time taken to change the majority view, however I think the harm in the long term caused by subverting the democratic process is greater. Hopefully the representative nature of democratic governments should minimise the impact of knee-jerk majority reactions.
Nice try, Katz, but it won’t shut them up.
Nice try, Katz, but it won’t shut them up.
Well, nobody is suggesting it wouldnt be hard to draft, Katz. Would that be your primary objection to a ban?
Well, nobody is suggesting it wouldnt be hard to draft, Katz. Would that be your primary objection to a ban?
LeftyE – I just followed a link from the Grattan Institute website to this – quite interesting:
“Our national motto is e pluribus unum (“from many, one”). Whenever Democrats support policies that weaken the integrity and identity of the collective (such as multiculturalism, bilingualism, and immigration), they show that they care more about pluribus than unum… A recent study by Robert Putnam (titled E Pluribus Unum) found that ethnic diversity increases anomie and social isolation by decreasing people’s sense of belonging to a shared community. Democrats should think carefully, therefore, about why they celebrate diversity. If the purpose of diversity programs is to fight racism and discrimination (worthy goals based on fairness concerns), then these goals might be better served by encouraging assimilation and a sense of shared identity.”
LeftyE – I just followed a link from the Grattan Institute website to this – quite interesting:
“Our national motto is e pluribus unum (“from many, one”). Whenever Democrats support policies that weaken the integrity and identity of the collective (such as multiculturalism, bilingualism, and immigration), they show that they care more about pluribus than unum… A recent study by Robert Putnam (titled E Pluribus Unum) found that ethnic diversity increases anomie and social isolation by decreasing people’s sense of belonging to a shared community. Democrats should think carefully, therefore, about why they celebrate diversity. If the purpose of diversity programs is to fight racism and discrimination (worthy goals based on fairness concerns), then these goals might be better served by encouraging assimilation and a sense of shared identity.”
Yes, it is a nice try, but I think that we should approach the problem from the supply side as it were.
So if you are applying for a points tested visa: Do you intend to wear a burqa as a resident in Australia?
Yes – minus 20 points
No – as you were.
Similar questions should be asked for temporary visa. A yes answer would make you ineligible for the visa.
I think I covered the citizenship question upthread somewhere.
This would quickly wipe out this abomination to our liberal values.
Yes, it is a nice try, but I think that we should approach the problem from the supply side as it were.
So if you are applying for a points tested visa: Do you intend to wear a burqa as a resident in Australia?
Yes – minus 20 points
No – as you were.
Similar questions should be asked for temporary visa. A yes answer would make you ineligible for the visa.
I think I covered the citizenship question upthread somewhere.
This would quickly wipe out this abomination to our liberal values.
Russell, Putnam’s essay (PDF) argues nothing of the kind.
Russell, Putnam’s essay (PDF) argues nothing of the kind.
SU: thanks for the reference. I’ve managed to negotiate around the site you mention (blocked at work for inexplicable reasons) and have located an interview with a key figure at MMM who is Fatemeh Fakhraie; she has said, in relation to the burqa ban:
“For some of these women, the niqab is a religious obligation rather than a cultural one.”
Bullshit.
There is not one significant figure amongst the Muslim feminist authors and activists I’ve cited upthread who doesn’t reject entirely this claim.
SU: thanks for the reference. I’ve managed to negotiate around the site you mention (blocked at work for inexplicable reasons) and have located an interview with a key figure at MMM who is Fatemeh Fakhraie; she has said, in relation to the burqa ban:
“For some of these women, the niqab is a religious obligation rather than a cultural one.”
Bullshit.
There is not one significant figure amongst the Muslim feminist authors and activists I’ve cited upthread who doesn’t reject entirely this claim.
Very harsh Adrian. I wouldn’t bother with visas so much, but I might have to introduce the burqa question into my citizenship considerations, in a playful way perhaps, sort of like a game of snakes and ladders, where burqa wearing is one of those big snakes that sets you back quite a way.
Very harsh Adrian. I wouldn’t bother with visas so much, but I might have to introduce the burqa question into my citizenship considerations, in a playful way perhaps, sort of like a game of snakes and ladders, where burqa wearing is one of those big snakes that sets you back quite a way.
Katz,
1. No you don’t. We rely on the discretion of law enforcement and the courts in all sorts of laws. There’s no reason why we can’t with laws like this. In fact laws would be better if they were framed in a way that could shift with changing community views.
2. We already have police who enforce all criminal law, there’s no reason to require special enforcement within the law.
3. Indeed. However I suspect that confiscation of the Burqa would perhaps be sufficient enough penalty to have the desired effect.
I think the real problem with a ban is that its focused on punishing the victims. Imagine if we made it illegal for women to appear in public with a black eye because we wanted to prevent domestic violence; it’s a quite a backward way of approaching the issue. There has to be a more positive way to tackle the issue.
Katz,
1. No you don’t. We rely on the discretion of law enforcement and the courts in all sorts of laws. There’s no reason why we can’t with laws like this. In fact laws would be better if they were framed in a way that could shift with changing community views.
2. We already have police who enforce all criminal law, there’s no reason to require special enforcement within the law.
3. Indeed. However I suspect that confiscation of the Burqa would perhaps be sufficient enough penalty to have the desired effect.
I think the real problem with a ban is that its focused on punishing the victims. Imagine if we made it illegal for women to appear in public with a black eye because we wanted to prevent domestic violence; it’s a quite a backward way of approaching the issue. There has to be a more positive way to tackle the issue.
Harsh? We decide who comes into this country and what they wear when they get here.
Harsh? We decide who comes into this country and what they wear when they get here.
No it isn’t.
My primary objection is that any ban would be a denial of natural justice.
My secondary objection, as I have indicated upthread, is that any such law would be an open invitation to civil disobedience provoking all the erosive effects invented by Gandhi, and evolved by Martin Luther King, Jim Cairns, and others. Who are you going to gaol and for how long? Will protestors against these incarceration be treated as abettors of terrorism under the Sedition Act.
You could sell tickets to this bun-fight.
But at least LE is wiser than Desipis:
What, exactly, is a burqa and what, exactly, is a public place? Is a mosque a public place?
No it isn’t.
My primary objection is that any ban would be a denial of natural justice.
My secondary objection, as I have indicated upthread, is that any such law would be an open invitation to civil disobedience provoking all the erosive effects invented by Gandhi, and evolved by Martin Luther King, Jim Cairns, and others. Who are you going to gaol and for how long? Will protestors against these incarceration be treated as abettors of terrorism under the Sedition Act.
You could sell tickets to this bun-fight.
But at least LE is wiser than Desipis:
What, exactly, is a burqa and what, exactly, is a public place? Is a mosque a public place?
I really don’t know what anthony nolan et al are getting so het up about. Sexual assault is a much greater issue of concern in Australian society, and surely the only option we have left is to draw straight from the crudely-fashioned blunt tool bag and begin charging and criminalising the women who fail to report such crimes against themselves to the police. It really is the only way they’ll learn to reject the oppression they’re living under. Maybe fines for a first and second offence, and a short stay in jail for a third?
I really don’t know what anthony nolan et al are getting so het up about. Sexual assault is a much greater issue of concern in Australian society, and surely the only option we have left is to draw straight from the crudely-fashioned blunt tool bag and begin charging and criminalising the women who fail to report such crimes against themselves to the police. It really is the only way they’ll learn to reject the oppression they’re living under. Maybe fines for a first and second offence, and a short stay in jail for a third?
“In fact laws would be better if they were framed in a way that could shift with changing community views.”
What a great idea. You could measure community views through a Daily Telegraph online poll and Rupert could get a commission. It’s a good idea to keep everyone happy in our liberal democracy.
“In fact laws would be better if they were framed in a way that could shift with changing community views.”
What a great idea. You could measure community views through a Daily Telegraph online poll and Rupert could get a commission. It’s a good idea to keep everyone happy in our liberal democracy.
Yep.
“I don’t know what
pronographya burqa is, but I know it when I see it.”Well, that worked a treat, didn’t it?
Yep.
“I don’t know what
pronographya burqa is, but I know it when I see it.”Well, that worked a treat, didn’t it?
I’m not sure what to say Anthony, you asked for references to muslim feminists who oppose the ban, if you are going to reject them all as not feminist enough or not smart or not something enough then you are really just acting from confirmation bias and are not truly interested in what feminist muslim women, in their diversity, think. Another writer from MMW, Krista says, on the niqab:
I don’t know if you will be able to access it from work but there is a video of a discussion about Bill 94 at Vimeo (linking won’t work for some reason so you will have to do a search) called “NO to Quebec Provinical Bill 94″.
I’m not sure what to say Anthony, you asked for references to muslim feminists who oppose the ban, if you are going to reject them all as not feminist enough or not smart or not something enough then you are really just acting from confirmation bias and are not truly interested in what feminist muslim women, in their diversity, think. Another writer from MMW, Krista says, on the niqab:
I don’t know if you will be able to access it from work but there is a video of a discussion about Bill 94 at Vimeo (linking won’t work for some reason so you will have to do a search) called “NO to Quebec Provinical Bill 94″.
I think we can say with near certainty that a ban would cause some burqa-wearers to abandon the burqa, and would cause some burqa-wearers to retreat to domestic spaces only. Estimating numbers might be hard – and remember we are already talking tiny numbers to start with – but it is being entirely deceptive not to acknowledge that it is exceedingly likely that such a legislative ban would have that effect for some fraction of the intended target.
I think we can say with near certainty that a ban would cause some burqa-wearers to abandon the burqa, and would cause some burqa-wearers to retreat to domestic spaces only. Estimating numbers might be hard – and remember we are already talking tiny numbers to start with – but it is being entirely deceptive not to acknowledge that it is exceedingly likely that such a legislative ban would have that effect for some fraction of the intended target.
According to the SMH today the French Bill declares that “no-one can wear a garment in public which is aimed at hiding their face”. Any woman wearing a niqab or burqa will be fined appx A$215 and/or made to undertake a course in the values of French citizenship. Men who make a woman wear a full veil face a fine of 15,000 Euro or a year in prison.
Universalizability appears to be satisfied by banning anyone wearing a garment designed (presumably primarily) to obscure the face. Full face helmets and balaclavas therby are exempted (presumably) because their primary purpose is other than obscuring the face.
Sarkozy is quoted as saying that “We are an old country anchored in a certain idea of how to live together. A full veil which completely hides the face is an attack on those values which for us are so fundamental. Citizenship has to be lived with an uncovered face. There can therefore be no solution other than a ban in all public places”.
They appear to have covered their bases.
According to the SMH today the French Bill declares that “no-one can wear a garment in public which is aimed at hiding their face”. Any woman wearing a niqab or burqa will be fined appx A$215 and/or made to undertake a course in the values of French citizenship. Men who make a woman wear a full veil face a fine of 15,000 Euro or a year in prison.
Universalizability appears to be satisfied by banning anyone wearing a garment designed (presumably primarily) to obscure the face. Full face helmets and balaclavas therby are exempted (presumably) because their primary purpose is other than obscuring the face.
Sarkozy is quoted as saying that “We are an old country anchored in a certain idea of how to live together. A full veil which completely hides the face is an attack on those values which for us are so fundamental. Citizenship has to be lived with an uncovered face. There can therefore be no solution other than a ban in all public places”.
They appear to have covered their bases.
Katz,
I wouldn’t target the legislation specifically at Burqas. I would think it should be defined in legislation, as any device that significantly adds to the oppression of a protected group. The point is that the legislation doesn’t have to be specific. From a purely legislation point of view in some states you could be charged for walking around in the streets at night with a screw driver in your pocket, as it can be argued to be implement for the purposes of burglary.
Katz,
I wouldn’t target the legislation specifically at Burqas. I would think it should be defined in legislation, as any device that significantly adds to the oppression of a protected group. The point is that the legislation doesn’t have to be specific. From a purely legislation point of view in some states you could be charged for walking around in the streets at night with a screw driver in your pocket, as it can be argued to be implement for the purposes of burglary.
I have said before that where there is compulsion/coercion I am completely happy with addressing that legislatively.
I am not happy addressing the symptom legislatively, not least because it will also catch the women who – while they may will be making what I regard as bad choices – are clearly not being compelled or coerced. I would ultimately like to change these peoples minds and decisions but I see legislative coercion as being one of the techniques for so doing that is least likely to be successful.
I have said before that where there is compulsion/coercion I am completely happy with addressing that legislatively.
I am not happy addressing the symptom legislatively, not least because it will also catch the women who – while they may will be making what I regard as bad choices – are clearly not being compelled or coerced. I would ultimately like to change these peoples minds and decisions but I see legislative coercion as being one of the techniques for so doing that is least likely to be successful.
Lefty, I still find your point obtuse. Why do you think the commonality you identify is the most salient factor in determining how society should address these things? Why shouldn’t the equally obvious differences between them, or their similarities to other behaviours unrelated to “minority religious/cultural practices” or the oppression of women, be more salient? Or the question of what form of sanction will best achieve the social good that is the particular aim of the regulation? Why is the fact that they are “minority religious/cultural practices” even relevant to the way they are regulated?
I agree that it isn’t a sidetrack to ask questions about why we approach these things the way we do, but that isn’t really what you were doing – you were implying that people who agree with the criminalisation of FGM but oppose a ban on the burqa are being inconsistent in some salient way. I dispute that such a position is meaningfully inconsistent.
Lefty, I still find your point obtuse. Why do you think the commonality you identify is the most salient factor in determining how society should address these things? Why shouldn’t the equally obvious differences between them, or their similarities to other behaviours unrelated to “minority religious/cultural practices” or the oppression of women, be more salient? Or the question of what form of sanction will best achieve the social good that is the particular aim of the regulation? Why is the fact that they are “minority religious/cultural practices” even relevant to the way they are regulated?
I agree that it isn’t a sidetrack to ask questions about why we approach these things the way we do, but that isn’t really what you were doing – you were implying that people who agree with the criminalisation of FGM but oppose a ban on the burqa are being inconsistent in some salient way. I dispute that such a position is meaningfully inconsistent.
Desipis@415: ‘Imagine if we made it illegal for women to appear in public with a black eye because we wanted to prevent domestic violence.’
In a thread that’s already produced a long litany of whacky analogies, that’s a doozey.
Adrian@411: ‘So if you are applying for a points tested visa: Do you intend to wear a burqa as a resident in Australia? Yes – minus 20 points No – as you were.’
Next question: Is Donald Bradman
a) Australia’s first saint
b) greatest cricketer ever
c) John Howard’s favourite person
d) all of the above?
Those who answer (d) get their 20 points back and keep their burqa on.
Desipis@415: ‘Imagine if we made it illegal for women to appear in public with a black eye because we wanted to prevent domestic violence.’
In a thread that’s already produced a long litany of whacky analogies, that’s a doozey.
Adrian@411: ‘So if you are applying for a points tested visa: Do you intend to wear a burqa as a resident in Australia? Yes – minus 20 points No – as you were.’
Next question: Is Donald Bradman
a) Australia’s first saint
b) greatest cricketer ever
c) John Howard’s favourite person
d) all of the above?
Those who answer (d) get their 20 points back and keep their burqa on.
Picture of a person whose “primary purpose is other than obscuring the face”.
Picture of a person whose “primary purpose is other than obscuring the face”.
“Here’s my view on ‘degree’: the Burqa is a patriarchal tool if cotnrol that will have the effect of denying women affected almost 100% of job opportunities in our society, pretty much gruarantees poor social and economic interaction at every level with the host society, all so some sad-arse loser blokes what to feel superior to their women.”
But Lefty E, what your view does is further punish women who you see as being harmed by wearing the burqa. Again, I ask what do you think would happen to those women?
The reason it may guarantee poor social and economic interaction is because of our inability to handle the burqa. Why should women be punished for that?
“Here’s my view on ‘degree’: the Burqa is a patriarchal tool if cotnrol that will have the effect of denying women affected almost 100% of job opportunities in our society, pretty much gruarantees poor social and economic interaction at every level with the host society, all so some sad-arse loser blokes what to feel superior to their women.”
But Lefty E, what your view does is further punish women who you see as being harmed by wearing the burqa. Again, I ask what do you think would happen to those women?
The reason it may guarantee poor social and economic interaction is because of our inability to handle the burqa. Why should women be punished for that?
Katz: is that how you really feel about me?
In fact the balaclava and the knife both go to criminal intention. The primary purpose is a threat with a knife but the primary purpose of the balaclava is to obscure the face in order to avoid identification.
Wrong again.
Katz: is that how you really feel about me?
In fact the balaclava and the knife both go to criminal intention. The primary purpose is a threat with a knife but the primary purpose of the balaclava is to obscure the face in order to avoid identification.
Wrong again.
Desipis:
AN
Huh?
You burqa banners ought to huddle up and get your stories straight.
Desipis:
AN
Huh?
You burqa banners ought to huddle up and get your stories straight.
“I dispute that such a position is meaningfully inconsistent.”
I accept that’s your position, but I’m just wondering exactly why people think so. I do notice that I’m resorting more to the comparison with polygamy in this – and others to the comparison with FGM – which suggests one is easier to argue than the other, depending on one’s side.
For the purposes of any further debate (if anyone cares to) I have always conceded above that FGM is clearly far more grave – even if a similar type of issue. Not sure about polygamy, myself. A ‘victim’ of polygamy might still enjoy full access to public sphere social and economic opportunities in a western host countries. I dont thnk we can really say that as confidently for ‘victims’ of the Burqa culture.
So, I do reject the idea that this query about inconsistency is inconsequential or redundant.
I’ve tried to address that by examining our lib-dem ideas of freedom (as opposed, eg, to civic republcan ones) which focus on individual choice. I suspect there’s some anomalous categorising going on: this issue is about ‘dress’, therefore personal expression, threfore choice, therefore individual responsibility, therefore not properly a matter for state action.
Anomalous, because though its about ‘dress’, the dress is in fact compulsory. Also, because we tend to presume that our society doesnt regulate such things, when in fact it does, constantly – standards of dress for entry, no thongs or shorts etc etc, aorund relatively unimportant issues like ‘decency’ or ‘acceptable style’. But not for more serious ones like subjugation of women?
“I dispute that such a position is meaningfully inconsistent.”
I accept that’s your position, but I’m just wondering exactly why people think so. I do notice that I’m resorting more to the comparison with polygamy in this – and others to the comparison with FGM – which suggests one is easier to argue than the other, depending on one’s side.
For the purposes of any further debate (if anyone cares to) I have always conceded above that FGM is clearly far more grave – even if a similar type of issue. Not sure about polygamy, myself. A ‘victim’ of polygamy might still enjoy full access to public sphere social and economic opportunities in a western host countries. I dont thnk we can really say that as confidently for ‘victims’ of the Burqa culture.
So, I do reject the idea that this query about inconsistency is inconsequential or redundant.
I’ve tried to address that by examining our lib-dem ideas of freedom (as opposed, eg, to civic republcan ones) which focus on individual choice. I suspect there’s some anomalous categorising going on: this issue is about ‘dress’, therefore personal expression, threfore choice, therefore individual responsibility, therefore not properly a matter for state action.
Anomalous, because though its about ‘dress’, the dress is in fact compulsory. Also, because we tend to presume that our society doesnt regulate such things, when in fact it does, constantly – standards of dress for entry, no thongs or shorts etc etc, aorund relatively unimportant issues like ‘decency’ or ‘acceptable style’. But not for more serious ones like subjugation of women?
Liam – thanks for that link. The article is not so encouraging really, though it’s superficial enough to be disregarded anyway. Putnam seems to find evidence that ethnic diversity is in the short term a negative thing for the community, and that long term it has advantages.
But there are assumptions, such as “Most immigrants want to acculturate” whereas we’re talking about immigrants who maybe don’t want to. Once again, he says “Thus,
adapting over time, dynamically, to immigration and diversity requires the
reconstruction of social identities, not merely of the immigrants themselves (though assimilation is important), but also of the newly more diverse society
as a whole (including the native born).” I guess I’m looking for the sign that the immigrant is indeed open to reconstructing their identity. Wearing a burqa look like a straightout rejection to ‘reconstruct’.
“Immigration policy is not just about numbers and borders. It is also about
fostering a sense of shared citizenship.” That’s what I had in mind when I said that the offering and acceptance of citizenship was a kind of moving towards each other. But we can’t move towards the burqa and what it stands for, and apparently the burqa wearer can’t move very far towards us.
All in all, I think that the Putnam article is about more easily bridgeable differences: he talks of the success story in America of European immigration, but that was a success story here too, the differences were so much less.
Liam – thanks for that link. The article is not so encouraging really, though it’s superficial enough to be disregarded anyway. Putnam seems to find evidence that ethnic diversity is in the short term a negative thing for the community, and that long term it has advantages.
But there are assumptions, such as “Most immigrants want to acculturate” whereas we’re talking about immigrants who maybe don’t want to. Once again, he says “Thus,
adapting over time, dynamically, to immigration and diversity requires the
reconstruction of social identities, not merely of the immigrants themselves (though assimilation is important), but also of the newly more diverse society
as a whole (including the native born).” I guess I’m looking for the sign that the immigrant is indeed open to reconstructing their identity. Wearing a burqa look like a straightout rejection to ‘reconstruct’.
“Immigration policy is not just about numbers and borders. It is also about
fostering a sense of shared citizenship.” That’s what I had in mind when I said that the offering and acceptance of citizenship was a kind of moving towards each other. But we can’t move towards the burqa and what it stands for, and apparently the burqa wearer can’t move very far towards us.
All in all, I think that the Putnam article is about more easily bridgeable differences: he talks of the success story in America of European immigration, but that was a success story here too, the differences were so much less.
There should be a ban placed on its sale, not on its wearing.
There should be a ban placed on its sale, not on its wearing.
Katz: you are being mischievous. But that is ok because that sort of cut and paste mischief goes to the desire to be right rather than the desire to get it right. There’s a difference.
Katz: you are being mischievous. But that is ok because that sort of cut and paste mischief goes to the desire to be right rather than the desire to get it right. There’s a difference.
But AN, what chance is there of an enforceable law that excites universal respect if the drafters can’t even agree about the function of a burqa in relation to a balaclava.
This will be a bun-fight and a lawyers’ picnic.
In some ways, mischievously, I hope the burqa banners get their way and have a law passed. It’ll be more fun than the London Oz Trial.
But AN, what chance is there of an enforceable law that excites universal respect if the drafters can’t even agree about the function of a burqa in relation to a balaclava.
This will be a bun-fight and a lawyers’ picnic.
In some ways, mischievously, I hope the burqa banners get their way and have a law passed. It’ll be more fun than the London Oz Trial.
Katz@431:
A) Someone else said that.
B) I don’t support a ban on the Burqa. I merely support the right of democracies to ban it, if they so chose.
Katz@431:
A) Someone else said that.
B) I don’t support a ban on the Burqa. I merely support the right of democracies to ban it, if they so chose.
And I support the right of democracies to pass dumb laws too.
And I support the right of democracies to pass dumb laws too.
Well said Rachel J@418
BTW the primary purpose of the balaclava is actually to keep your face warm. But anyway.
Well said Rachel J@418
BTW the primary purpose of the balaclava is actually to keep your face warm. But anyway.
Lefty @432: I agree with you about polygamy. Personally, I question whether polygamy, or any other marital arrangement that involves consenting adults, should be illegal. I tend to think marital laws should be a lot more liberal than they are. However, I think the reason that no-one else is using a comparison with polygamy is that it was you who raised the issue – as far as I can tell, no-one on this thread has actually endorsed the ban on polygamy on the basis that it oppresses women. So that particular inconsistency is your own creation.
This issue is not unusual in invoking an apparent conflict between different liberal values. Identifying one or more of those values isn’t ‘anomalous categorising’. Clearly both women’s oppression and self expression are issues in the discussion. I don’t recall anyone on this thread actually arguing that the principle of self expression should trump women’s autonomy. OTOH, quite a few people have argued that banning the burqa will do little or nothing other than to punish the affected women.
Yes, but we regulate dress through custom, which varies according to circumstance, not via state coercion. Isn’t that the essence of the debate?
Lefty @432: I agree with you about polygamy. Personally, I question whether polygamy, or any other marital arrangement that involves consenting adults, should be illegal. I tend to think marital laws should be a lot more liberal than they are. However, I think the reason that no-one else is using a comparison with polygamy is that it was you who raised the issue – as far as I can tell, no-one on this thread has actually endorsed the ban on polygamy on the basis that it oppresses women. So that particular inconsistency is your own creation.
This issue is not unusual in invoking an apparent conflict between different liberal values. Identifying one or more of those values isn’t ‘anomalous categorising’. Clearly both women’s oppression and self expression are issues in the discussion. I don’t recall anyone on this thread actually arguing that the principle of self expression should trump women’s autonomy. OTOH, quite a few people have argued that banning the burqa will do little or nothing other than to punish the affected women.
Yes, but we regulate dress through custom, which varies according to circumstance, not via state coercion. Isn’t that the essence of the debate?
“But Lefty E, what your view does is further punish women who you see as being harmed by wearing the burqa. Again, I ask what do you think would happen to those women?”
Well, you say that as if its been established as a fact, Fine. It hasn’t. I suspect the opposite would be true.
“The reason it may guarantee poor social and economic interaction is because of our inability to handle the burqa. Why should women be punished for that?”
Come now – this one’s much easier. Its clearly *designed* to prevent women’s interaction with others. That’s its evident and primary purpose. People react to precisely as they are intended to. If others can get over that – great – but its makers are clearly hoping they dont.
“But Lefty E, what your view does is further punish women who you see as being harmed by wearing the burqa. Again, I ask what do you think would happen to those women?”
Well, you say that as if its been established as a fact, Fine. It hasn’t. I suspect the opposite would be true.
“The reason it may guarantee poor social and economic interaction is because of our inability to handle the burqa. Why should women be punished for that?”
Come now – this one’s much easier. Its clearly *designed* to prevent women’s interaction with others. That’s its evident and primary purpose. People react to precisely as they are intended to. If others can get over that – great – but its makers are clearly hoping they dont.
‘as far as I can tell, no-one on this thread has actually endorsed the ban on polygamy on the basis that it oppresses women’
They would if it was reintroduced! I think its a fair comparison. What other modern value prevents us revisiting this for law reform?
‘Yes, but we regulate dress through custom, which varies according to circumstance, not via state coercion. Isn’t that the essence of the debate?’
Well, you CAN be refused entry by any licensed establishment that decides you dont meet its dress codes. I’ve never been 100% clear about the source of enforceability there, but I’ll wager it has greater legal weight than ‘custom’ or social norms. My bet’s on licensing regs, combined with simple owner’s right to regulate entry to a premises.
Just an example.
‘as far as I can tell, no-one on this thread has actually endorsed the ban on polygamy on the basis that it oppresses women’
They would if it was reintroduced! I think its a fair comparison. What other modern value prevents us revisiting this for law reform?
‘Yes, but we regulate dress through custom, which varies according to circumstance, not via state coercion. Isn’t that the essence of the debate?’
Well, you CAN be refused entry by any licensed establishment that decides you dont meet its dress codes. I’ve never been 100% clear about the source of enforceability there, but I’ll wager it has greater legal weight than ‘custom’ or social norms. My bet’s on licensing regs, combined with simple owner’s right to regulate entry to a premises.
Just an example.
The burqa may well be substantially an article of social control, but I don’t think you should overstate the case. Women in burqas can still speak. Or are blind people incapable of having social interactions?
The burqa may well be substantially an article of social control, but I don’t think you should overstate the case. Women in burqas can still speak. Or are blind people incapable of having social interactions?
You’d agree its a deliberate constructed hurdle though, Martin?
You’d agree its a deliberate constructed hurdle though, Martin?
Left E dress codes … well the only ones that really apply in public are one’s that say you have to cover various bits, depending I spose on how far you are from the nearest beach.
Private premises dress codes may actually be their own business. There is a difference between private space and public space. And walking down the street as opposed to being in a bar (where for instance your feet may be at risk from broken glass if you are wearing thongs,) owners of private premises may have legal responsibilities they must be aware of.
Public space is different.
And since its come up, legalise all marriage. Same sex, poly whatever.
Polygamy and Polyandry were practiced in Australia for thousands of years apparently. They were wiped out partly by European Christan oppression and aversion to the practice.
Left E dress codes … well the only ones that really apply in public are one’s that say you have to cover various bits, depending I spose on how far you are from the nearest beach.
Private premises dress codes may actually be their own business. There is a difference between private space and public space. And walking down the street as opposed to being in a bar (where for instance your feet may be at risk from broken glass if you are wearing thongs,) owners of private premises may have legal responsibilities they must be aware of.
Public space is different.
And since its come up, legalise all marriage. Same sex, poly whatever.
Polygamy and Polyandry were practiced in Australia for thousands of years apparently. They were wiped out partly by European Christan oppression and aversion to the practice.
The sort of restriction you’re describing is an aspect of property and/or contract law (i.e. the right of the owner/occupier to exclude persons from the premises, or the right to impose conditions of entry). But it’s very different from a sumptuary law which prescribes or proscribes particular modes of dress (which is what a burqa ban would be). The actual dress codes, etc, are determined by custom and/or the choices or preferences of venue owners, associations and individuals. I would very surprised if the liquor laws around Australia contain specific dress provisions – the WA ones certainly don’t. I’m not disputing that our Parliaments could pass sumptuary laws BTW, just that sumptuary laws are a common way our society regulates dress. They’re not. We predominantly regulate dress through custom, and looking at society as a whole, we tend to be very liberal.
The sort of restriction you’re describing is an aspect of property and/or contract law (i.e. the right of the owner/occupier to exclude persons from the premises, or the right to impose conditions of entry). But it’s very different from a sumptuary law which prescribes or proscribes particular modes of dress (which is what a burqa ban would be). The actual dress codes, etc, are determined by custom and/or the choices or preferences of venue owners, associations and individuals. I would very surprised if the liquor laws around Australia contain specific dress provisions – the WA ones certainly don’t. I’m not disputing that our Parliaments could pass sumptuary laws BTW, just that sumptuary laws are a common way our society regulates dress. They’re not. We predominantly regulate dress through custom, and looking at society as a whole, we tend to be very liberal.
As long as we ignore the real world and wish it so. The burqa amongst other little nasties is gaining in fashion (?) amongst the younger generation not fading away as moderates are pushed to one side by the twin evils of ME cash and people in open societies bending over backwards to accept the unacceptable to prove how noble and tolerant they are.
As long as we ignore the real world and wish it so. The burqa amongst other little nasties is gaining in fashion (?) amongst the younger generation not fading away as moderates are pushed to one side by the twin evils of ME cash and people in open societies bending over backwards to accept the unacceptable to prove how noble and tolerant they are.
“But Lefty E, what your view does is further punish women who you see as being harmed by wearing the burqa. Again, I ask what do you think would happen to those women?”
Well, you say that as if its been established as a fact, Fine. It hasn’t. I suspect the opposite would be true. ”
C’mon, Lefty E. Here’s a couple of scenarios.
(a) Woman chooses to wear burqa, but is no longer allowed to do so. It could be that she feels she can no longer step outside her house and interact socially. At the least, she would feel highly uncomfortable.
(b) Woman is forced to wear burqa by husband/father, but is no longer allowed to do so. Quite possibly she’s not allowed to step outside her house.
It’s punishing the woman.
Yes, it’s invented to prevent women’s interaction with broader society. So logically the way to circumvent that would be to accept it and to choose to interact with the woman as an equal. It then won’t serve its purpose anymore. Hopefully, women would also more confident about not wearing it.
You still haven’t put forward an argument as to how banning it would benefit women.
“But Lefty E, what your view does is further punish women who you see as being harmed by wearing the burqa. Again, I ask what do you think would happen to those women?”
Well, you say that as if its been established as a fact, Fine. It hasn’t. I suspect the opposite would be true. ”
C’mon, Lefty E. Here’s a couple of scenarios.
(a) Woman chooses to wear burqa, but is no longer allowed to do so. It could be that she feels she can no longer step outside her house and interact socially. At the least, she would feel highly uncomfortable.
(b) Woman is forced to wear burqa by husband/father, but is no longer allowed to do so. Quite possibly she’s not allowed to step outside her house.
It’s punishing the woman.
Yes, it’s invented to prevent women’s interaction with broader society. So logically the way to circumvent that would be to accept it and to choose to interact with the woman as an equal. It then won’t serve its purpose anymore. Hopefully, women would also more confident about not wearing it.
You still haven’t put forward an argument as to how banning it would benefit women.
Is a mosque a public place?
Interesting, of course we do know that it is not allowed to perform solat with face and hands covered don’t we? Once again we are confusing the issue of Burqa with Islam and it is not as much as some rely upon the link the justify dressing their women as shuttlecocks.
Is a mosque a public place?
Interesting, of course we do know that it is not allowed to perform solat with face and hands covered don’t we? Once again we are confusing the issue of Burqa with Islam and it is not as much as some rely upon the link the justify dressing their women as shuttlecocks.
“You still haven’t put forward an argument as to how banning it would benefit women.”
I don’t think it should be banned, because I believe a little cultural conflict here and there is part of the human condition and not necessarily to be legislated against, but I’m also a hungry sophist, so I’ll bite.
The female child of a woman who has lived as a forced shut-in due to burqa banning will be less likely to conform to the misogynist dictates of their religion, (whether just from witnessing their mother’s alienation or from said mum being less enthusiastic about helping pass the oppression on) which is always and ever a Good Thing.
But please note – this is not enough for me to think a ban is a good idea. It is not, for reasons explained already.
“You still haven’t put forward an argument as to how banning it would benefit women.”
I don’t think it should be banned, because I believe a little cultural conflict here and there is part of the human condition and not necessarily to be legislated against, but I’m also a hungry sophist, so I’ll bite.
The female child of a woman who has lived as a forced shut-in due to burqa banning will be less likely to conform to the misogynist dictates of their religion, (whether just from witnessing their mother’s alienation or from said mum being less enthusiastic about helping pass the oppression on) which is always and ever a Good Thing.
But please note – this is not enough for me to think a ban is a good idea. It is not, for reasons explained already.
“Any woman wearing a niqab or burqa will be fined appx A$215 and/or made to undertake a course in the values of French citizenship.”
Oh, so, so sick!
The French values that saw hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese and Algerian civilians tortured, wounded and killed, the Polynesians denied their ‘Liberte`, Egalite` and Fraterite` and French involvement in the bloodbaths of the first Gulf War and Afghanistan.
Not to mention French involvement in the genocide in Rwanda in the 1990s and further meddling in western Africa up to the present day.
“Any woman wearing a niqab or burqa will be fined appx A$215 and/or made to undertake a course in the values of French citizenship.”
Oh, so, so sick!
The French values that saw hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese and Algerian civilians tortured, wounded and killed, the Polynesians denied their ‘Liberte`, Egalite` and Fraterite` and French involvement in the bloodbaths of the first Gulf War and Afghanistan.
Not to mention French involvement in the genocide in Rwanda in the 1990s and further meddling in western Africa up to the present day.
Chav, you deluded nincompoop. It’s a course in the values of French citizenship,, not a course in the reality of French history!
Instant fail, young man. Back to Burbigab for you.
Chav, you deluded nincompoop. It’s a course in the values of French citizenship,, not a course in the reality of French history!
Instant fail, young man. Back to Burbigab for you.
True, we’re liberal, Tim. That said, as Jules notes, being nude (provided it leads to the indecent exposure of genitals) in a public place is a criminal offence in every Australian jurisdiction. So, of course we do regulate the issue legislatively at some levels.
Fine, I’m warming to the view that as it is – clearly – a deliberately constructed barrier to the full political, social and economic participation of a certain group of women, which involves being treated less favourably because of one’s sex, the Burqa could well be considered the proper subject of legislation: with loose parallels to other anti-discrimination legislation.
Of course, you’d need to establish it was ‘imposed’ (it is no doubt lawful to willingly deport oneself in a mode that leads to discrimination against you); and identify a respondent.
Wearing a burqa could remain perfectly lawful, but forcing a woman to wear one against her will could be the subject of an offence. Send the right message to the blokes, even if it led to few prosecutions.
How a ban would benefit women: compare women’s rights in any Islamic country with secular constitution (eg Turkey, which banned it in 1923) with one that allows or encourages traditional practices such as Burqa-wearing. Its not even a close contest. Daylight between them.
I have also argued (above) that would benefit women by taking the element of struggle away from their indiviudal lives, and homes, to the level of the state. ‘Sorry dear, illegal now, take it up with the govt’.
As for ‘staying at home’ as a result, well, if that leads to a domestic revolution in which blokes starting doing all the shopping and child pick-ups after the passage of a law – I for one would be bloody surprised.
That said, my own policy preference was outlined at 345: ‘My view, therefore, is that as a society we should step it up a bit in terms of the ‘offence’ line. Explain to blokes (and women) in that community that in Australia this is absolutely, in no uncertain terms, considered offensive; an insult to women’s dignity. We understand it might mean a whole range of other things elsewhere, but just as we would try not to wear shorts and bikinis into a Mosque in the Middle east, you should strongly consider the offence the Burqa causes to our widely shared notions of women’s equality.’
True, we’re liberal, Tim. That said, as Jules notes, being nude (provided it leads to the indecent exposure of genitals) in a public place is a criminal offence in every Australian jurisdiction. So, of course we do regulate the issue legislatively at some levels.
Fine, I’m warming to the view that as it is – clearly – a deliberately constructed barrier to the full political, social and economic participation of a certain group of women, which involves being treated less favourably because of one’s sex, the Burqa could well be considered the proper subject of legislation: with loose parallels to other anti-discrimination legislation.
Of course, you’d need to establish it was ‘imposed’ (it is no doubt lawful to willingly deport oneself in a mode that leads to discrimination against you); and identify a respondent.
Wearing a burqa could remain perfectly lawful, but forcing a woman to wear one against her will could be the subject of an offence. Send the right message to the blokes, even if it led to few prosecutions.
How a ban would benefit women: compare women’s rights in any Islamic country with secular constitution (eg Turkey, which banned it in 1923) with one that allows or encourages traditional practices such as Burqa-wearing. Its not even a close contest. Daylight between them.
I have also argued (above) that would benefit women by taking the element of struggle away from their indiviudal lives, and homes, to the level of the state. ‘Sorry dear, illegal now, take it up with the govt’.
As for ‘staying at home’ as a result, well, if that leads to a domestic revolution in which blokes starting doing all the shopping and child pick-ups after the passage of a law – I for one would be bloody surprised.
That said, my own policy preference was outlined at 345: ‘My view, therefore, is that as a society we should step it up a bit in terms of the ‘offence’ line. Explain to blokes (and women) in that community that in Australia this is absolutely, in no uncertain terms, considered offensive; an insult to women’s dignity. We understand it might mean a whole range of other things elsewhere, but just as we would try not to wear shorts and bikinis into a Mosque in the Middle east, you should strongly consider the offence the Burqa causes to our widely shared notions of women’s equality.’
Lefty E,
How are you defining “force” there?
Dear, I think wearing a burqa is a good idea.
Dear, please wear a burqa when you go out out in public.
Wear a burqa when you’re out in public.
Wear a burqa when you’re out in public or I’ll be mad at you.
Wear a burqa or I won’t [insert supportive action to be withdrawn here].
Wear a burqa or I’ll [insert punative action here].
Wear a burqa or I’ll divorse you/kick you out of home/cut off contact.
Wear a burqa or I’ll hit you.
Wear a burqa or I’ll kill you.
Where do you draw the line at when it becomes illegal?
Lefty E,
How are you defining “force” there?
Dear, I think wearing a burqa is a good idea.
Dear, please wear a burqa when you go out out in public.
Wear a burqa when you’re out in public.
Wear a burqa when you’re out in public or I’ll be mad at you.
Wear a burqa or I won’t [insert supportive action to be withdrawn here].
Wear a burqa or I’ll [insert punative action here].
Wear a burqa or I’ll divorse you/kick you out of home/cut off contact.
Wear a burqa or I’ll hit you.
Wear a burqa or I’ll kill you.
Where do you draw the line at when it becomes illegal?
Simple test is ‘against her will’, Oigal. Then all it requires is testimony of the complainant; provided it convinces a jury of her peers.
The main thing is sending a message to those who benefit from the subordination of Burqa- wearing women. If it doesnt lead to many prosecutions, so what.
Simple test is ‘against her will’, Oigal. Then all it requires is testimony of the complainant; provided it convinces a jury of her peers.
The main thing is sending a message to those who benefit from the subordination of Burqa- wearing women. If it doesnt lead to many prosecutions, so what.
Oops,@ Desipis, not Oigal.
Oops,@ Desipis, not Oigal.
“(eg Turkey, which banned it in 1923)”
Reference, please?
“(eg Turkey, which banned it in 1923)”
Reference, please?
Thanks Lefty, I get accused of enough without wearing others..
There are a number of valids points being raised (leaving off some of the more exterme and silly ones).
It would indeed be hard to prove but as LE seems to indicate, a law would at least provide some sort of defacto support to a woman who did not want to wear it but was “forced” by whatever means. A “simple” “I would love to obey you dear but its the law and I have to go out ..gasp..uncovered” A bit like the “get out and save face” rule from peer pressure as a teenager “Look guys, I would really love to come out all night binge drinking but the ol man says I have to be home by 11 and he will kill me if I don’t.”
Would it work in all situations no it would not, is it a start ..probably
Thanks Lefty, I get accused of enough without wearing others..
There are a number of valids points being raised (leaving off some of the more exterme and silly ones).
It would indeed be hard to prove but as LE seems to indicate, a law would at least provide some sort of defacto support to a woman who did not want to wear it but was “forced” by whatever means. A “simple” “I would love to obey you dear but its the law and I have to go out ..gasp..uncovered” A bit like the “get out and save face” rule from peer pressure as a teenager “Look guys, I would really love to come out all night binge drinking but the ol man says I have to be home by 11 and he will kill me if I don’t.”
Would it work in all situations no it would not, is it a start ..probably
lefty e:
This is also true of a “victim” of burqa. Why are these women doing what they’re told in a society with no-fault divorce? We offer them full escape rights, so what’s the issue?
If the problem is that they can’t leave, why force them to stay at home by banning burqa?
lefty e:
This is also true of a “victim” of burqa. Why are these women doing what they’re told in a society with no-fault divorce? We offer them full escape rights, so what’s the issue?
If the problem is that they can’t leave, why force them to stay at home by banning burqa?
We could try it the way Turkey did back then – locally, only in certain regions, where the police and military were instructed to simply beat the women into compliance. Or, maybe Uzbekistan, right about the same time, where it was tried by the Russians and resulted in over 1000 women being slaughtered. Best of intentions, indeed!
In Australia, in the here and now, I’d sincerely hope wife (oh look, don’t worry about her, she always stays at home now) beatings didn’t go through the roof, men being men (and statistics being statistics). There’s loads of ways to cover up physical abuse in the home. Number one being you just send your kids to the shops.
That era of Turkish history is interesting (ignoring the extreme violence) in fact for its modernisation of women’s wants and ideals voluntarily through the widespread use of positive propaganda – advertisements of female doctors and professionals happily at work, attractively healthy, impeccably dressed ladies foregrounded against crusty, dusty old archaic Istanbul etc. None of that ever had much effect rurally, but when you thought about it, since when were a bunch of peasant women a threat to your grand designs.
I’m going to go out on a limb and say it’s probably not a coincidence that particular 50-60 years of modern history is currently being erased and rewritten all across the English-speaking internet and news media as a one line meme in which Turkey fallaciously “banned the birqa in 1923”.
If the aim is to convert these women to our fashion sense, why not work on our fashion sense. If these women want to change, why not promote what they want to change towards. Offer university scholarships to Muslim girls to study fashion and textiles. Put some energy into the thing and move it along. Or, do we just prefer plain old Mandatory Civic Integration in this country too?
We could try it the way Turkey did back then – locally, only in certain regions, where the police and military were instructed to simply beat the women into compliance. Or, maybe Uzbekistan, right about the same time, where it was tried by the Russians and resulted in over 1000 women being slaughtered. Best of intentions, indeed!
In Australia, in the here and now, I’d sincerely hope wife (oh look, don’t worry about her, she always stays at home now) beatings didn’t go through the roof, men being men (and statistics being statistics). There’s loads of ways to cover up physical abuse in the home. Number one being you just send your kids to the shops.
That era of Turkish history is interesting (ignoring the extreme violence) in fact for its modernisation of women’s wants and ideals voluntarily through the widespread use of positive propaganda – advertisements of female doctors and professionals happily at work, attractively healthy, impeccably dressed ladies foregrounded against crusty, dusty old archaic Istanbul etc. None of that ever had much effect rurally, but when you thought about it, since when were a bunch of peasant women a threat to your grand designs.
I’m going to go out on a limb and say it’s probably not a coincidence that particular 50-60 years of modern history is currently being erased and rewritten all across the English-speaking internet and news media as a one line meme in which Turkey fallaciously “banned the birqa in 1923”.
If the aim is to convert these women to our fashion sense, why not work on our fashion sense. If these women want to change, why not promote what they want to change towards. Offer university scholarships to Muslim girls to study fashion and textiles. Put some energy into the thing and move it along. Or, do we just prefer plain old Mandatory Civic Integration in this country too?
So she’s forced to wear the burqa, but if she doesn’t then magically nothing happens to her? Her husband just gives up and throws his hands in the air? Yeah, I’m sure the law will be of great comfort to her when her husband beats her up and locks her in the house.
So she’s forced to wear the burqa, but if she doesn’t then magically nothing happens to her? Her husband just gives up and throws his hands in the air? Yeah, I’m sure the law will be of great comfort to her when her husband beats her up and locks her in the house.
Su, I thought something like that would happen if anyone did the obvious re: taking on anthony nolan.
I’ve missed the moment but all the same it might be worth saying that contra Lefty E, not everyone here agrees and accepts that a burqa is self-evidently an oppressive garment. I don’t think it is. I don’t much care for it, but I truly can’t regard it as any different from all the other items of clothing that seem like perversions of some sort.
The bottom line for me is that there is no difference between prescribing and proscribing a garment. They are both absolutely blunt and coercive gestures.
I do agree that it’s very confronting to see person with their face veiled. The reason for this seems to me to be the one Hawthorne is getting at in the short story I linked to some time ago. It’s confronting because what it makes visible is the absolute opacity of other people. Seeing someone’s face makes us believe, comfortingly, that we can see *them*. The truth is we can’t. Other people are unknown to us and it *always* requires an extraordinary combination of effort and luck to get past this at all. Hawthorne found this horrifying, but it’s also clarifying, I think.
Face veiling makes human opacity visible…but it also makes other things visible….racism and sexism…the preconditions we place on participation in the public sphere… As many have pointed out already, the principle of hijab exposes the flaws and tensions in liberalism. I don’t presume to know how to mend these flaws but surely banning stuff is not the way to go.
Su, I thought something like that would happen if anyone did the obvious re: taking on anthony nolan.
I’ve missed the moment but all the same it might be worth saying that contra Lefty E, not everyone here agrees and accepts that a burqa is self-evidently an oppressive garment. I don’t think it is. I don’t much care for it, but I truly can’t regard it as any different from all the other items of clothing that seem like perversions of some sort.
The bottom line for me is that there is no difference between prescribing and proscribing a garment. They are both absolutely blunt and coercive gestures.
I do agree that it’s very confronting to see person with their face veiled. The reason for this seems to me to be the one Hawthorne is getting at in the short story I linked to some time ago. It’s confronting because what it makes visible is the absolute opacity of other people. Seeing someone’s face makes us believe, comfortingly, that we can see *them*. The truth is we can’t. Other people are unknown to us and it *always* requires an extraordinary combination of effort and luck to get past this at all. Hawthorne found this horrifying, but it’s also clarifying, I think.
Face veiling makes human opacity visible…but it also makes other things visible….racism and sexism…the preconditions we place on participation in the public sphere… As many have pointed out already, the principle of hijab exposes the flaws and tensions in liberalism. I don’t presume to know how to mend these flaws but surely banning stuff is not the way to go.
Good to see Saudi women are fighting back, though probably at the risk of the lash.
http://www.smh.com.au/world/saudi-women-open-fire-and-punch-virtue-police-20100523-w3dr.html
Good to see Saudi women are fighting back, though probably at the risk of the lash.
http://www.smh.com.au/world/saudi-women-open-fire-and-punch-virtue-police-20100523-w3dr.html
Further to Laura, it’s also possible to believe that the Burqa IS oppressive, and still oppose criminalisation / fines / jail as a solution, both because it’s further oppression and because I suspect it won’t be effective. But I’ve said this about 4-5 times already without being understood, so I’ll stop now.
Further to Laura, it’s also possible to believe that the Burqa IS oppressive, and still oppose criminalisation / fines / jail as a solution, both because it’s further oppression and because I suspect it won’t be effective. But I’ve said this about 4-5 times already without being understood, so I’ll stop now.
Great comment Laura. I don’t believe the burqa is necessarily oppressive either nor definitive of the lives of women who wear it publicly.
And I agree absolutely with your comments about faces which I think people experience most of the time, whether conscious of that or not, as impenetrable masks.
Great comment Laura. I don’t believe the burqa is necessarily oppressive either nor definitive of the lives of women who wear it publicly.
And I agree absolutely with your comments about faces which I think people experience most of the time, whether conscious of that or not, as impenetrable masks.
I’m sure everyone understood your argument Helen. People here might be disagreeing with it, rather than confused by what you’re saying.
I met a young Saudi woman while waiting for the plane at Heathrow, Paul. She was bracing herself for the return, and the limitations on her public activities. She said there’s an entire substrata of modern, progressive people who basically live in hiding and aren’t remotely supportive of the regime’s values.
Personally, I don’t have a lot of sympathy for the view that we musn’t attempt to liberate women in case in angers their husbands.
I’m sure everyone understood your argument Helen. People here might be disagreeing with it, rather than confused by what you’re saying.
I met a young Saudi woman while waiting for the plane at Heathrow, Paul. She was bracing herself for the return, and the limitations on her public activities. She said there’s an entire substrata of modern, progressive people who basically live in hiding and aren’t remotely supportive of the regime’s values.
Personally, I don’t have a lot of sympathy for the view that we musn’t attempt to liberate women in case in angers their husbands.
su @421 and laura @462: your assumption is that women are victims of a trans-historical male conspiracy. In so assuming you fail to register the contingency and specifity of regimes of authority and the opportunities that democracy offers. I’ve been arguing that the defence of democracy takes priority over what Wollstonecraft descibes as “local manners”. You will see some authority in her words, I am sure, but find evidence for male transhistorical conspiracy in her depiction of the power of “tyrranic kings and venal ministers”.
A bographical note I located states that ” … A Vindication of the Rights of Woman, considered the first feminist document … argues vigorously not only for women’s rights but for the virtue of reason above organized religion and superstition.”
Still a sound argument in my view.
su @421 and laura @462: your assumption is that women are victims of a trans-historical male conspiracy. In so assuming you fail to register the contingency and specifity of regimes of authority and the opportunities that democracy offers. I’ve been arguing that the defence of democracy takes priority over what Wollstonecraft descibes as “local manners”. You will see some authority in her words, I am sure, but find evidence for male transhistorical conspiracy in her depiction of the power of “tyrranic kings and venal ministers”.
A bographical note I located states that ” … A Vindication of the Rights of Woman, considered the first feminist document … argues vigorously not only for women’s rights but for the virtue of reason above organized religion and superstition.”
Still a sound argument in my view.
If only life in all its messy detail was so simple, predictable and clear, AN.
If only life in all its messy detail was so simple, predictable and clear, AN.
Lefty, you haven’t understood my point at all.
OK, I’ll leave you to it.
As you were.
Lefty, you haven’t understood my point at all.
OK, I’ll leave you to it.
As you were.
I think that I have Helen. Nothing personal (since you aren’t the only person to put the view outlined at 464 – unless you’re referring to something else) but as must be obvious, I don’t personally find it persuasive, and hold another point of view on this issue. I assume that’s a permissible response in a debate.
I think that I have Helen. Nothing personal (since you aren’t the only person to put the view outlined at 464 – unless you’re referring to something else) but as must be obvious, I don’t personally find it persuasive, and hold another point of view on this issue. I assume that’s a permissible response in a debate.
Maybe, but the effects of domestic violence that these women may face are hardly going to impact on you either are they. Are there really that many burka wearing women out there that it needs to be banned? Isn’t it more likely to stir up cultural differences and make women who previously shunned it take it up so that they can demand their cultural integrity? Wouldn’t it be better to let it die a slow quiet death of its own accord? Oh hang on, that’s Helen’s argument.
Maybe, but the effects of domestic violence that these women may face are hardly going to impact on you either are they. Are there really that many burka wearing women out there that it needs to be banned? Isn’t it more likely to stir up cultural differences and make women who previously shunned it take it up so that they can demand their cultural integrity? Wouldn’t it be better to let it die a slow quiet death of its own accord? Oh hang on, that’s Helen’s argument.
Oh yes, “Let not men in the pride of power….”
My niece lives in a psychological burka, thanks mostly to every leering male she encounters daily. Being a thin, blonde-haired, blue-eyed, perky-nosed young woman it is impossible for her to be in public without being subjected to the constant gaze and commentary of men who think she should be flattered by the attention. As a consequence she does not take public transport by herself; she tries to arrange to have someone walk with her between her car and her office; she would rather live alone, but feels compelled to share her house, which she owns herself, with her boyfriend, even though she thinks it’s too soon to move in with him. The last time I went anywhere with her – she was driving – we had to put up with two blokes leaning out of their car, asking for a fuck, as they hooned up beside her at the traffic lights – she scowled and swung the sun visor around to block them, in what seemed like a well practiced ritual. Amazing the life this free and independent woman lives.
I notice it’s mostly blokes who have said they find the burka “confrontational”. How very strange that a garment could be so powerful.
Anyhow, what I want to know is, when are we gonna ban ‘emo’?:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/05/23/2906785.htm?section=justin
Oh yes, “Let not men in the pride of power….”
My niece lives in a psychological burka, thanks mostly to every leering male she encounters daily. Being a thin, blonde-haired, blue-eyed, perky-nosed young woman it is impossible for her to be in public without being subjected to the constant gaze and commentary of men who think she should be flattered by the attention. As a consequence she does not take public transport by herself; she tries to arrange to have someone walk with her between her car and her office; she would rather live alone, but feels compelled to share her house, which she owns herself, with her boyfriend, even though she thinks it’s too soon to move in with him. The last time I went anywhere with her – she was driving – we had to put up with two blokes leaning out of their car, asking for a fuck, as they hooned up beside her at the traffic lights – she scowled and swung the sun visor around to block them, in what seemed like a well practiced ritual. Amazing the life this free and independent woman lives.
I notice it’s mostly blokes who have said they find the burka “confrontational”. How very strange that a garment could be so powerful.
Anyhow, what I want to know is, when are we gonna ban ‘emo’?:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/05/23/2906785.htm?section=justin
It’s interesting that this thread studiously avoids this topic, furious, that we should be looking at the male gaze and male behaviour – not just male behaviour of Muslims/ME immigrants, either. After all, this all gets back to the fact that two of the reasons (though not all the reasons) some women cover up is to avoid the male gaze or because a patriarchal culture thinks that men are incapable of controlling themselves. Wouldn’t it be something if all the cheost beating burqa banners said “Hang on, I think this is men’s business. Hang in there while we sort this out – I think maybe we need to get in the ear of some of our citizens and change the way we live, cos if you women can change the way you do things over a few decades, I’m sure there are some things we can fix, too.” I guess that would just be too confronting.
It’s interesting that this thread studiously avoids this topic, furious, that we should be looking at the male gaze and male behaviour – not just male behaviour of Muslims/ME immigrants, either. After all, this all gets back to the fact that two of the reasons (though not all the reasons) some women cover up is to avoid the male gaze or because a patriarchal culture thinks that men are incapable of controlling themselves. Wouldn’t it be something if all the cheost beating burqa banners said “Hang on, I think this is men’s business. Hang in there while we sort this out – I think maybe we need to get in the ear of some of our citizens and change the way we live, cos if you women can change the way you do things over a few decades, I’m sure there are some things we can fix, too.” I guess that would just be too confronting.
I guess my bottom line, and (probably) final word in all this, is that I’d like to think we could – as a society – come up with something slightly more proactive than a sort of collective liberal shrug about ‘choice’ and ‘coercion’, when confronted with deeply patriarchal, life-limiting, minority cultural practices.
I don’t support a ban, but I do support more proactive action – one possibility for which which I outlined at 345, and again at 453 (and despite being repeatedly referred to as a ‘banner’, I haven’t complained about being ‘misunderstood’ – Ive simply reiterated my arguments). Ive made some parallels which I genuinely believe point to – albeit, perhaps, with varying degrees of persuasiveness – some inconsistencies in the way we treat comparable issues of ‘harmful’ cultural practices.
My final point is throughout I have found the ‘consequentialist’ argument (that women will somehow suffer more if action were taken) by far the least convincing of all. It seems to me that every feminist-inspired intervention in the private sphere over the the last 40 years has come up against that argument – that if the state takes actions, blokes will only take it out on women later – cops and social workers cant be there all the time.
e.g They’ll beat women harder after the cops leave if the state barges in, divorce laws will destroy families, employers wont hire women if they have to pay mat leave, etc etc. in fact it goes all the way back to women wont get the benefit of the ‘pedestal’ and the protection of chivalry – if they get the vote. Fortunately those arguments didnt prevail.
I guess my bottom line, and (probably) final word in all this, is that I’d like to think we could – as a society – come up with something slightly more proactive than a sort of collective liberal shrug about ‘choice’ and ‘coercion’, when confronted with deeply patriarchal, life-limiting, minority cultural practices.
I don’t support a ban, but I do support more proactive action – one possibility for which which I outlined at 345, and again at 453 (and despite being repeatedly referred to as a ‘banner’, I haven’t complained about being ‘misunderstood’ – Ive simply reiterated my arguments). Ive made some parallels which I genuinely believe point to – albeit, perhaps, with varying degrees of persuasiveness – some inconsistencies in the way we treat comparable issues of ‘harmful’ cultural practices.
My final point is throughout I have found the ‘consequentialist’ argument (that women will somehow suffer more if action were taken) by far the least convincing of all. It seems to me that every feminist-inspired intervention in the private sphere over the the last 40 years has come up against that argument – that if the state takes actions, blokes will only take it out on women later – cops and social workers cant be there all the time.
e.g They’ll beat women harder after the cops leave if the state barges in, divorce laws will destroy families, employers wont hire women if they have to pay mat leave, etc etc. in fact it goes all the way back to women wont get the benefit of the ‘pedestal’ and the protection of chivalry – if they get the vote. Fortunately those arguments didnt prevail.
Anthony Nolan, people have been arguing against your presumption that the adoption of the niqab can only perform two functions, either as an antidemocratic political statement or a marker of oppression. You continue to assert this over the voices of muslim women who do not see it in such narrow terms, and over the voices of women who themselves wear the niqab, in fact you seem to have preemptively closed off any space for those voices to be heard by suggesting that they are probably all Saudi stooges. Very convenient to ignore the women who confirm what Helen and Laura have said, that they wear a veil so that people cannot conflate their identity, themselves, with a few square centimetres of skin and hair.
And just like the Sarkozy regime, you are cherrypicking the voices of women that suit your agenda. Ni Putes ni Soumises may be a movement for the liberation of (some)women but its title alone tells you something about the depth and extent of its feminism and I think the criticisms of it as performing an ideological function for the right wing regime are self evidently true, since their founder took up a position with the French government and has been a prominent promoter of this ban.
Apparently there are 367 or so women who wear the niqab in France and some of those are converts who adopted it over the objections of their husbands, and some of them are single, so perhaps there is more going on here than oppression and the march of Political Islam. Quebec is making a law to discipline the behaviour of 27 women. Pretty powerful women, these ones who wear the niqab, to so shake democracy with nothing more than a veil of fabric. We are casting them as Delilahs, a story which I have always found redolent of fear and hatred of women.
Anthony Nolan, people have been arguing against your presumption that the adoption of the niqab can only perform two functions, either as an antidemocratic political statement or a marker of oppression. You continue to assert this over the voices of muslim women who do not see it in such narrow terms, and over the voices of women who themselves wear the niqab, in fact you seem to have preemptively closed off any space for those voices to be heard by suggesting that they are probably all Saudi stooges. Very convenient to ignore the women who confirm what Helen and Laura have said, that they wear a veil so that people cannot conflate their identity, themselves, with a few square centimetres of skin and hair.
And just like the Sarkozy regime, you are cherrypicking the voices of women that suit your agenda. Ni Putes ni Soumises may be a movement for the liberation of (some)women but its title alone tells you something about the depth and extent of its feminism and I think the criticisms of it as performing an ideological function for the right wing regime are self evidently true, since their founder took up a position with the French government and has been a prominent promoter of this ban.
Apparently there are 367 or so women who wear the niqab in France and some of those are converts who adopted it over the objections of their husbands, and some of them are single, so perhaps there is more going on here than oppression and the march of Political Islam. Quebec is making a law to discipline the behaviour of 27 women. Pretty powerful women, these ones who wear the niqab, to so shake democracy with nothing more than a veil of fabric. We are casting them as Delilahs, a story which I have always found redolent of fear and hatred of women.
My brother-in-law informs me that he teaches two sisters.
One wears a burqa. The other does not.
In light of the fact that their family appears to accept the clothing choice of each of these two girls with good grace, who should be punished for the choice made by the burqa-wearing sister?
My brother-in-law informs me that he teaches two sisters.
One wears a burqa. The other does not.
In light of the fact that their family appears to accept the clothing choice of each of these two girls with good grace, who should be punished for the choice made by the burqa-wearing sister?
I am arguing against *criminalisation*. Not against *taking action*.
You and Nolan are trying to wedge people into position B when we are actually at position C or D but you refuse to see that they exist.
And I reiterated my position several times before observing that I wasn’t being heard. Gah. Off now. Really.
I am arguing against *criminalisation*. Not against *taking action*.
You and Nolan are trying to wedge people into position B when we are actually at position C or D but you refuse to see that they exist.
And I reiterated my position several times before observing that I wasn’t being heard. Gah. Off now. Really.
Why assume everything written is addressed to you, Helen? There are other people on this thread.
Why assume everything written is addressed to you, Helen? There are other people on this thread.
Yes I was pleased when you finally started to echo my 137
Yes I was pleased when you finally started to echo my 137
I’m sorry LE, I was under the impression you were replying to me. My bad.
I’m sorry LE, I was under the impression you were replying to me. My bad.
If anybody is still interested in this issue and hasn’t made up their minds, I can sincerely recommend Emma Tarlo’s very recent book, Visibly Muslim. It is about British Muslim dress and the personal reasons have for wearing it. It’s full of interviews. The only reservation I have is she hasn’t talked to women who cover because they are told to. I’m sure these women exist but possibly are very difficult to get interviews with. Anyhow it’s an education hearing about the multitude of reasons women cover themselves, and Tarlo does an excellent job doing what usually doesn;t happen in these interminable debates, that is setting the pro/anti veiling discourses in a full social and politicla context, and observing what interests those discourses serve. (Because as Su’s remarkable figures about the minuscule number of niqabi women in Quebec and France attest, these battles are not actually about the women involved.)
If anybody is still interested in this issue and hasn’t made up their minds, I can sincerely recommend Emma Tarlo’s very recent book, Visibly Muslim. It is about British Muslim dress and the personal reasons have for wearing it. It’s full of interviews. The only reservation I have is she hasn’t talked to women who cover because they are told to. I’m sure these women exist but possibly are very difficult to get interviews with. Anyhow it’s an education hearing about the multitude of reasons women cover themselves, and Tarlo does an excellent job doing what usually doesn;t happen in these interminable debates, that is setting the pro/anti veiling discourses in a full social and politicla context, and observing what interests those discourses serve. (Because as Su’s remarkable figures about the minuscule number of niqabi women in Quebec and France attest, these battles are not actually about the women involved.)
Anthony Nolan: “su @421 and laura @462: your assumption is that women are victims of a trans-historical male conspiracy. ”
no. no it isn’t. WTF?? My only assumption is that nothing I say will make you get your hand off it.
Anthony Nolan: “su @421 and laura @462: your assumption is that women are victims of a trans-historical male conspiracy. ”
no. no it isn’t. WTF?? My only assumption is that nothing I say will make you get your hand off it.
I hadn’t previously seen your 137, Martin, but I pretty much agree with it!
I hadn’t previously seen your 137, Martin, but I pretty much agree with it!
No sweat, Helen.
No sweat, Helen.
Laura:
“no. no it isn’t. WTF?? My only assumption is that nothing I say will make you get your hand off it.”
Non-offensive argument is alays so much more convincing wouldn’t you say.
Notwithstanding that minor lapse on your part thanks for the reference in your post above. I’ll take a look because this issue clearly isn’t going away and raises significant problems within liberal democratic societies.
Laura:
“no. no it isn’t. WTF?? My only assumption is that nothing I say will make you get your hand off it.”
Non-offensive argument is alays so much more convincing wouldn’t you say.
Notwithstanding that minor lapse on your part thanks for the reference in your post above. I’ll take a look because this issue clearly isn’t going away and raises significant problems within liberal democratic societies.
Lefty E I think you are conflating things which benefited all women with things that will only affect a vanishingly small number of women. Your analogy doesn’t stand up.
Lefty E I think you are conflating things which benefited all women with things that will only affect a vanishingly small number of women. Your analogy doesn’t stand up.
486 comments and no mention of banning foot binding ….
From Wikipedia:
“after the fall of the Qing Dynasty, the new Republic of China government banned foot binding. Women were told to unwrap their feet lest they be killed. Some women’s feet grew a half-inch to an inch after the unwrapping, though some found the new growth process extremely painful as well as emotionally and culturally devastating. Still, societies were founded to support the abolition of foot binding, with contractual agreements made between families who would promise an infant son in marriage to an infant daughter who did not have bound feet. When the Communists took power in 1949, they were able to maintain the strict prohibition on foot-binding, which is still in effect today”
486 comments and no mention of banning foot binding ….
From Wikipedia:
“after the fall of the Qing Dynasty, the new Republic of China government banned foot binding. Women were told to unwrap their feet lest they be killed. Some women’s feet grew a half-inch to an inch after the unwrapping, though some found the new growth process extremely painful as well as emotionally and culturally devastating. Still, societies were founded to support the abolition of foot binding, with contractual agreements made between families who would promise an infant son in marriage to an infant daughter who did not have bound feet. When the Communists took power in 1949, they were able to maintain the strict prohibition on foot-binding, which is still in effect today”
FFS. Foot binding involved breaking bones. You can take a burka off if you want to. Analogy fail.
FFS. Foot binding involved breaking bones. You can take a burka off if you want to. Analogy fail.
Mindy – the words I bolded is the relevant part to this discussion, where people are quoting Muslim women as being both for and against the burqa. I remember reading that there was resistance from women to giving up foot binding: foot binding had become part of the cultural tradition of being a woman – from inside the tradition it was hard to imagine a life outside that tradition. But comparing it with other ways of being, it was possible for some people to declare the practice harmful to women and think it better to ban it. I’m not referring to the tradition, but of ways of thinking about traditions.
Mindy – the words I bolded is the relevant part to this discussion, where people are quoting Muslim women as being both for and against the burqa. I remember reading that there was resistance from women to giving up foot binding: foot binding had become part of the cultural tradition of being a woman – from inside the tradition it was hard to imagine a life outside that tradition. But comparing it with other ways of being, it was possible for some people to declare the practice harmful to women and think it better to ban it. I’m not referring to the tradition, but of ways of thinking about traditions.
Well apparently not
You can’t have it both ways.
Well apparently not
You can’t have it both ways.
So you admit that women might find banning the burka emotionally and culturally devastating, but you still want to do it because you know best. Is that right?
So you admit that women might find banning the burka emotionally and culturally devastating, but you still want to do it because you know best. Is that right?
Saint Furious @472:
Have you suggested to her that she wear a burqa? If so, what was her response? If not, why not?
Saint Furious @472:
Have you suggested to her that she wear a burqa? If so, what was her response? If not, why not?
Mindy, for the umpteenth time, I don’t want to ban the burqa, but as Pauline would say, ‘I don’t like it’, and I don’t think it’s good for anyone. Of course it might be emotionally difficult for burqa wearing women to stop wearing it, but, in western countries we’re entitled to encourage them to do so. We can state clearly how the burqa offends our values.
Mindy, for the umpteenth time, I don’t want to ban the burqa, but as Pauline would say, ‘I don’t like it’, and I don’t think it’s good for anyone. Of course it might be emotionally difficult for burqa wearing women to stop wearing it, but, in western countries we’re entitled to encourage them to do so. We can state clearly how the burqa offends our values.
Anthony says
Anthony, this problem will go away overnight if supporters of liberalism stop being patsies for the right wing cultural warriors. A bunch of right-wing trogs have decided to declare a brief truce in their cultural war against multiculturalism so they can redefine it temporarily as an “aussie value,” accuse a new minority of undermining it, and thus wedge liberal supporters of that value. It’s a transparent trick. The burqa is not a “significant problem” within liberal democratic societies until some troublemaker decides to propose banning it, at which point we all have to pretend they have a valid point and bleat and beat our chests about the 10 women who might be being oppressed by it.
Here’s a simple way to neutralise this significant problem: have some faith in the robustness of your own society and tell these right-wing troublemakers to fuck off.
Anthony says
Anthony, this problem will go away overnight if supporters of liberalism stop being patsies for the right wing cultural warriors. A bunch of right-wing trogs have decided to declare a brief truce in their cultural war against multiculturalism so they can redefine it temporarily as an “aussie value,” accuse a new minority of undermining it, and thus wedge liberal supporters of that value. It’s a transparent trick. The burqa is not a “significant problem” within liberal democratic societies until some troublemaker decides to propose banning it, at which point we all have to pretend they have a valid point and bleat and beat our chests about the 10 women who might be being oppressed by it.
Here’s a simple way to neutralise this significant problem: have some faith in the robustness of your own society and tell these right-wing troublemakers to fuck off.
Than you silkworm for highlighting the absurdity of exactly the position exemplified by with toe comment that saint-furious:
“My niece lives in a psychological burka…”
Oh really? What colour is it?
In other words what unites women across the divide of culture and geography is their universal status as victims of the male gaze.
I shall buy an even blacker pair of sun glasses then.
Than you silkworm for highlighting the absurdity of exactly the position exemplified by with toe comment that saint-furious:
“My niece lives in a psychological burka…”
Oh really? What colour is it?
In other words what unites women across the divide of culture and geography is their universal status as victims of the male gaze.
I shall buy an even blacker pair of sun glasses then.
@ Oigal – foot binding is a physical process that involves injury to the foot. The burka is an item of clothing that the wearer can remove in the privacy of her own home. See the difference? Perhaps you’d like to stop twisting my words now?
@ Oigal – foot binding is a physical process that involves injury to the foot. The burka is an item of clothing that the wearer can remove in the privacy of her own home. See the difference? Perhaps you’d like to stop twisting my words now?
anthony, I think the clue to how your opinions are being used by the right-wing trogs here is in your use of the phrase “as Pauline would say.”
anthony, I think the clue to how your opinions are being used by the right-wing trogs here is in your use of the phrase “as Pauline would say.”
SG pay attention, I don’t think Anthony would ever quote Pauline.
SG pay attention, I don’t think Anthony would ever quote Pauline.
You’ve really no idea, have you anthony nolan?
You’ve really no idea, have you anthony nolan?
The recommended treatment for psychological burqa syndrome is Dialectical Burqa Therapy (DBT).
The recommended treatment for psychological burqa syndrome is Dialectical Burqa Therapy (DBT).
thanks for the pointer, Russell, but the same logic applies to you!
thanks for the pointer, Russell, but the same logic applies to you!
I do, actually Adrian, have quite an idea.
But equating street level bullying and harrassment of women by men in Australia with the sorts of behaviours that Muslim women do in some cases must in others endure depending on whether they are in Europe or in countries under Sharia law is so vast a stretch that it loses theoretical credibility.
I’m now looking forward to you parading parading your own Snow White gender credibility in response as you admonish me further for failure to conform to the rules of your Relativism 101 consciousness.
I do, actually Adrian, have quite an idea.
But equating street level bullying and harrassment of women by men in Australia with the sorts of behaviours that Muslim women do in some cases must in others endure depending on whether they are in Europe or in countries under Sharia law is so vast a stretch that it loses theoretical credibility.
I’m now looking forward to you parading parading your own Snow White gender credibility in response as you admonish me further for failure to conform to the rules of your Relativism 101 consciousness.
it.
Are you serious?? Only ten ..you think?
Here’s a simple way to neutralise this significant problem: have some faith in the robustness of your own society and tell these right-wing troublemakers to fuck off.
Ah yes the essence of reasoned debate, agree with me or F/O.
Mindy, how on earth could I twist your words, they were both direct quotes from you.
it.
Are you serious?? Only ten ..you think?
Here’s a simple way to neutralise this significant problem: have some faith in the robustness of your own society and tell these right-wing troublemakers to fuck off.
Ah yes the essence of reasoned debate, agree with me or F/O.
Mindy, how on earth could I twist your words, they were both direct quotes from you.
Take them completely out of context Oigal. Which you did.
Take them completely out of context Oigal. Which you did.
SG – that’s a strange idea of logic – if any of my opinions have something in common with those of ‘right-wing trogs’ then I must be under their influence? I wouldn’t assume that women who write to defend the burqa are the tools of men who might kill women who refuse to wear one.
I’m making this link again. Food for thought for latte-sipping-ivory-towered-left-wing-cultural-elites who take a discussion on a topic like this into abuse and irrelevance.
SG – that’s a strange idea of logic – if any of my opinions have something in common with those of ‘right-wing trogs’ then I must be under their influence? I wouldn’t assume that women who write to defend the burqa are the tools of men who might kill women who refuse to wear one.
I’m making this link again. Food for thought for latte-sipping-ivory-towered-left-wing-cultural-elites who take a discussion on a topic like this into abuse and irrelevance.
Oigal, I said those things, not Mindy, and yes, I think there are very few women in Australia wearing the burqa, and even fewer of them being oppressed by it, or mainly oppressed by that as opposed to, say, the family conditions in which they live.
My comment about telling right-wing troublemakers to fuck off is aimed at helping people like Anthony understand where this political wedge is coming from. It’s not intended as a blanket rhetorical device for left-wingers and/or feminists who are concerned (legitimately, in my view) about what the individual experiences of those women might be.
Being concerned about the impact of burqa on individual women is very different to thinking it is a “significant problem for liberal democratic societies,” or some kind of weird paradox for multiculturalism. It’s not, but some unpleasant right-wing people want us to act like it is, so that they can simultaneously garner our support in passing laws aimed at muslim women, and undermine the validity of multiculturalism and liberalism as a philosophy.
This trick is patently obvious, and I’m confused why we got past 2 comments on this thread trying to thrash this out.
Oigal, I said those things, not Mindy, and yes, I think there are very few women in Australia wearing the burqa, and even fewer of them being oppressed by it, or mainly oppressed by that as opposed to, say, the family conditions in which they live.
My comment about telling right-wing troublemakers to fuck off is aimed at helping people like Anthony understand where this political wedge is coming from. It’s not intended as a blanket rhetorical device for left-wingers and/or feminists who are concerned (legitimately, in my view) about what the individual experiences of those women might be.
Being concerned about the impact of burqa on individual women is very different to thinking it is a “significant problem for liberal democratic societies,” or some kind of weird paradox for multiculturalism. It’s not, but some unpleasant right-wing people want us to act like it is, so that they can simultaneously garner our support in passing laws aimed at muslim women, and undermine the validity of multiculturalism and liberalism as a philosophy.
This trick is patently obvious, and I’m confused why we got past 2 comments on this thread trying to thrash this out.
No Russell, the logic is fine. I pointed out to you a “clue” as to “how your opinions are being used”. I’m not saying you’re under their influence, I’m suggesting that when you find yourself using Hansonisms, you need to just stop and check to see whether you’re being manipulated or wedged – hence the word “clue” rather than a claim to have “proof.” The same goes for when you suddenly find yourself latching onto cliches like “latte-sipping-blahblahblah,” which I hope was an attempt at sarcasm.
No Russell, the logic is fine. I pointed out to you a “clue” as to “how your opinions are being used”. I’m not saying you’re under their influence, I’m suggesting that when you find yourself using Hansonisms, you need to just stop and check to see whether you’re being manipulated or wedged – hence the word “clue” rather than a claim to have “proof.” The same goes for when you suddenly find yourself latching onto cliches like “latte-sipping-blahblahblah,” which I hope was an attempt at sarcasm.
SG wrote: ” this problem will go away overnight if supporters of liberalism stop being patsies for the right wing cultural warriors ….” Then “I’m not saying you’re under their influence ..”
SG, the definition of a patsy: “A person who is easily taken advantage of, esp. by being deceived, cheated, or blamed for something; a dupe, a scapegoat.”
SG wrote: ” this problem will go away overnight if supporters of liberalism stop being patsies for the right wing cultural warriors ….” Then “I’m not saying you’re under their influence ..”
SG, the definition of a patsy: “A person who is easily taken advantage of, esp. by being deceived, cheated, or blamed for something; a dupe, a scapegoat.”
Yeah Russell, and I’m saying that being tricked or deceived is a little different to being “under the influence of” a bunch of right-wing trogs, which I always think more of some kind of brain-washing or cult. But by all means, define yourself as under the influence of the trogs if the language suits you.
The fact is that this whole beat-up is a trick by the anti-muslim right to wedge the left on a women’s rights issue, and even if you think the issue itself is important, there are ramifications beyond the 10 women who might need “saving” by heroic white western leftists which we need to consider. Particularly, if we cave in on this kind of irrelevant shit, we’re going to have a great deal of difficulty keeping the screaming monkeys of chaos from constructing a general theory that multiculturalism and liberal democracy are incompatible, on the backs of the rights of muslim women, which we saw them protect so well when they slaughtered half a million of them in Iraq. Wedding parties in Afghanistan also strike me as a fine example of the way in which those righties bleating about the veil care very very much about what happens to veiled women. There might be a clue there, too, as to who is willing to use who for what political ends.
If you’re happy to strip 10 women publicly to protect their right to “free choice,” I suppose you could equally well say that I’m willing to abandon those 10 women to their evil muslim families in order to preserve the sanctity of liberalism, and stick it to the right-wing noise machine.
Alternatively, I could be making a reasonable judgement that multicultural liberal democracies are robust enough to handle small matters like this without resort to special laws, and refusing to cave in to silly right-wing fear mongering.
Yeah Russell, and I’m saying that being tricked or deceived is a little different to being “under the influence of” a bunch of right-wing trogs, which I always think more of some kind of brain-washing or cult. But by all means, define yourself as under the influence of the trogs if the language suits you.
The fact is that this whole beat-up is a trick by the anti-muslim right to wedge the left on a women’s rights issue, and even if you think the issue itself is important, there are ramifications beyond the 10 women who might need “saving” by heroic white western leftists which we need to consider. Particularly, if we cave in on this kind of irrelevant shit, we’re going to have a great deal of difficulty keeping the screaming monkeys of chaos from constructing a general theory that multiculturalism and liberal democracy are incompatible, on the backs of the rights of muslim women, which we saw them protect so well when they slaughtered half a million of them in Iraq. Wedding parties in Afghanistan also strike me as a fine example of the way in which those righties bleating about the veil care very very much about what happens to veiled women. There might be a clue there, too, as to who is willing to use who for what political ends.
If you’re happy to strip 10 women publicly to protect their right to “free choice,” I suppose you could equally well say that I’m willing to abandon those 10 women to their evil muslim families in order to preserve the sanctity of liberalism, and stick it to the right-wing noise machine.
Alternatively, I could be making a reasonable judgement that multicultural liberal democracies are robust enough to handle small matters like this without resort to special laws, and refusing to cave in to silly right-wing fear mongering.
Without comment: France has first burqa rage incident except to note that the issue is significant for democracy and our ideas of multiculturamlism. And that the protagonists were all women.
sg: I am totally mystified by your attribution to me of the words “as Pauline Hanson said”….I am sure this is incorrect.
As to your comment @509: the left needs to get its head around the issue and fast in order not to be wedged. Solidarity in defence of freedoms already won is necessary. Someitmes that means alliance with fractions of the right in defence of room to manouevre. Capitulating to Sheiks isn’t my idea of how to advance democracy. What all of the Muslim women cited by me so far have in common is a commitment to secular democracy which has so far not even reached sqaure one in countries where civil rights have to contest legitimacy against Sharia law.
Without comment: France has first burqa rage incident except to note that the issue is significant for democracy and our ideas of multiculturamlism. And that the protagonists were all women.
sg: I am totally mystified by your attribution to me of the words “as Pauline Hanson said”….I am sure this is incorrect.
As to your comment @509: the left needs to get its head around the issue and fast in order not to be wedged. Solidarity in defence of freedoms already won is necessary. Someitmes that means alliance with fractions of the right in defence of room to manouevre. Capitulating to Sheiks isn’t my idea of how to advance democracy. What all of the Muslim women cited by me so far have in common is a commitment to secular democracy which has so far not even reached sqaure one in countries where civil rights have to contest legitimacy against Sharia law.
Sorry anthony, I misattributed, the attribution has now been firmly kicked over to russell.
You haven’t presented any evidence of how this is a problem for modern democracies or how a few women wearing burqa is an attack on our freedoms, and you are currently being wedged – telling the right to fuck off is your best way to not be wedged. When we let a woman in Australia wear what she wants we aren’t “capitulating to sheikhs” and any claim we are is just silly. Just because a few loony rightists claim that this clothing choice is an attack on our freedoms doesn’t make it so. These women can choose to wear this, and their sisters in Islam can choose not to, and no-one’s family can force them to in a liberal democracy like Australia. We aren’t talking about a country where “civil rights have to contest legitimacy against sharia law,” we’re talking about modern Australia, and it’s ridiculous to conflate the two, no matter that Alan Jones thinks that because he saw a burqa-clad woman in Campsie one sunday we’re all going to be veiled by tomorrow.
Sorry anthony, I misattributed, the attribution has now been firmly kicked over to russell.
You haven’t presented any evidence of how this is a problem for modern democracies or how a few women wearing burqa is an attack on our freedoms, and you are currently being wedged – telling the right to fuck off is your best way to not be wedged. When we let a woman in Australia wear what she wants we aren’t “capitulating to sheikhs” and any claim we are is just silly. Just because a few loony rightists claim that this clothing choice is an attack on our freedoms doesn’t make it so. These women can choose to wear this, and their sisters in Islam can choose not to, and no-one’s family can force them to in a liberal democracy like Australia. We aren’t talking about a country where “civil rights have to contest legitimacy against sharia law,” we’re talking about modern Australia, and it’s ridiculous to conflate the two, no matter that Alan Jones thinks that because he saw a burqa-clad woman in Campsie one sunday we’re all going to be veiled by tomorrow.
Yes, anthony nolan – that story you linked to shows just how so, so useful this going to be in the on-going battle to liberate Muslim women from their burqas.
Yes, anthony nolan – that story you linked to shows just how so, so useful this going to be in the on-going battle to liberate Muslim women from their burqas.
“telling the right to fuck off is your best way to not be wedged”
Yes, that’s worked well in the past ……
“telling the right to fuck off is your best way to not be wedged”
Yes, that’s worked well in the past ……
what Russell, and your alternative is to cave in to them? The Beazley approach? That worked well too, didn’t it?
what Russell, and your alternative is to cave in to them? The Beazley approach? That worked well too, didn’t it?
Well at least we have avoided the need to be over dramatic about the while thing.
Just wondering where we stand on firebombed girls schools in Aghanistan. You probably are aware that every terrorist arrested in Indonesia can draw direct training links back to Afghanistan well before 9/11 aren’t you?
Well at least we have avoided the need to be over dramatic about the while thing.
Just wondering where we stand on firebombed girls schools in Aghanistan. You probably are aware that every terrorist arrested in Indonesia can draw direct training links back to Afghanistan well before 9/11 aren’t you?
and I’m sure every Indonesian parent thinks that the solution is to burn Afghan children too, Oigal. Are you lining up alongside the right in support of that particular method of “protecting” women?
My approach is rather more prosaic and a lot less muscular, I’ll grant you. I figure that if we set up a society where women can own their own property, earn their own money, divorce their husbands at will and live and drive alone, and we provide child protection services to prevent physical abuse of children, and information services so women know these things exist, they’ll be able to make their own choices about what sort of man they hang out with, and whether they prefer the oppression of sheltering from or being a victim of the male gaze. Then we won’t have to ban anything much, will we?
Now, I wonder where on this green earth we could find such a utopian society…?
and I’m sure every Indonesian parent thinks that the solution is to burn Afghan children too, Oigal. Are you lining up alongside the right in support of that particular method of “protecting” women?
My approach is rather more prosaic and a lot less muscular, I’ll grant you. I figure that if we set up a society where women can own their own property, earn their own money, divorce their husbands at will and live and drive alone, and we provide child protection services to prevent physical abuse of children, and information services so women know these things exist, they’ll be able to make their own choices about what sort of man they hang out with, and whether they prefer the oppression of sheltering from or being a victim of the male gaze. Then we won’t have to ban anything much, will we?
Now, I wonder where on this green earth we could find such a utopian society…?
“what Russell, and your alternative is to cave in to them?”
No, some alternative thinking might be a start (see link offered previously), it’s surely better than name-calling.
I can’t continue this discussion – my computer can’t handle LP threads this long!
“what Russell, and your alternative is to cave in to them?”
No, some alternative thinking might be a start (see link offered previously), it’s surely better than name-calling.
I can’t continue this discussion – my computer can’t handle LP threads this long!
I’ll repeat myself: democrats ought to support those forces intent upon occupying the civil space of a secular democracy as a priority. We ought to support those forces wherever they are. The least worthy of support are those forces that represent quite literally pre-modern tribal affiliations whether those affiliations are religious or cultural. Those citizens enjoying the benefits or residing in a secular democracy owe their first loyalty to that state that creates those conditions. This, it appears to me, is the logic of the French legislation. Those citizens whose first loyalty is to religious authority or cultural identity that is intrinsically opposed to democratic equality have already defaulted their claim to equality of respect within a democratic polity. Democracy: don’t expect to inhabit it if you don’t defend it.
I’ll repeat myself: democrats ought to support those forces intent upon occupying the civil space of a secular democracy as a priority. We ought to support those forces wherever they are. The least worthy of support are those forces that represent quite literally pre-modern tribal affiliations whether those affiliations are religious or cultural. Those citizens enjoying the benefits or residing in a secular democracy owe their first loyalty to that state that creates those conditions. This, it appears to me, is the logic of the French legislation. Those citizens whose first loyalty is to religious authority or cultural identity that is intrinsically opposed to democratic equality have already defaulted their claim to equality of respect within a democratic polity. Democracy: don’t expect to inhabit it if you don’t defend it.
anthony, that reading of secular democracy is fundamentally at odds with the multicultural principles of countries like Australia and Canada. These people aren’t undermining our democracy by choosing to wear a veil, and the onus is on you to prove they are.
anthony, that reading of secular democracy is fundamentally at odds with the multicultural principles of countries like Australia and Canada. These people aren’t undermining our democracy by choosing to wear a veil, and the onus is on you to prove they are.
I don’t have time to trawl thru five hundred odd comments, but as a Muslim woman who has actually worn a face-veil from time to time, may I politely say bugger off.
You can ban my religious veil when I can ban your beers and ham sandwiched.
I don’t have time to trawl thru five hundred odd comments, but as a Muslim woman who has actually worn a face-veil from time to time, may I politely say bugger off.
You can ban my religious veil when I can ban your beers and ham sandwiched.
Sandwiched = sandwiches (blame the iPhone)
P.S. I’m a Muslim feminist and my chapter on veiling and the contest for authority is about to be released in an academic book on sociology of Islam.
Sandwiched = sandwiches (blame the iPhone)
P.S. I’m a Muslim feminist and my chapter on veiling and the contest for authority is about to be released in an academic book on sociology of Islam.
Thank you Umm Yasmin, I was going to ask you to outline your thoughts on the veil and feminism, but perhaps I’ll just read the book!
Thank you Umm Yasmin, I was going to ask you to outline your thoughts on the veil and feminism, but perhaps I’ll just read the book!
I just find it incredible that people will be aghast at the notion of Muslims imposing “their” laws on non-Muslims (particularly humorous in a tragic sort of way when they mean the less than 2% of Australians who are Muslim) and in the same breath feel perfectly fine to impose whatever they like on Muslims.
Plus, as a feminist there is nothing more irritating than sanctimonious pity from other feminists who think we Muslim women are oppressed because we are Muslim. As Leila Ahmed pointed out in _Women and Islam_, Western women were never asked to give up their culture and religion to for liberation, why should we?
I just find it incredible that people will be aghast at the notion of Muslims imposing “their” laws on non-Muslims (particularly humorous in a tragic sort of way when they mean the less than 2% of Australians who are Muslim) and in the same breath feel perfectly fine to impose whatever they like on Muslims.
Plus, as a feminist there is nothing more irritating than sanctimonious pity from other feminists who think we Muslim women are oppressed because we are Muslim. As Leila Ahmed pointed out in _Women and Islam_, Western women were never asked to give up their culture and religion to for liberation, why should we?
sg @522
Always happy for a bit of shameless self-promotion (it’s not out yet tho):
http://www.ithacapress.co.uk/epages/es109086.sf/?ObjectPath=/Shops/es109086_es120187592164/Products/9780863723711
sg @522
Always happy for a bit of shameless self-promotion (it’s not out yet tho):
http://www.ithacapress.co.uk/epages/es109086.sf/?ObjectPath=/Shops/es109086_es120187592164/Products/9780863723711
sg: somewhere w-a-y upthread I noted that all my comments bore on the French situation and did not apply to Australia. Australia has a vastly different approach to multiculturalism than France.
umm yasmin: civil discourse is highly valued as is, of course, franckness of expression . So you can engage with the substantive content of comments or buggar off yourself.
sg: somewhere w-a-y upthread I noted that all my comments bore on the French situation and did not apply to Australia. Australia has a vastly different approach to multiculturalism than France.
umm yasmin: civil discourse is highly valued as is, of course, franckness of expression . So you can engage with the substantive content of comments or buggar off yourself.
Last comment auto-sinbinned. Never mind.
Sg: you are correct to identify substantial differences between Canadaian and Australian approaches to multiculturalism on the one hand and France on the other. But these things aren’t static. This discussion can further inform Australian multiculturalism without us having to follow the French lead. I get my bearings on this from James Tully’s magisterial examination of the matter in “Strange Multiplicity” (1994). Worth a look.
Last comment auto-sinbinned. Never mind.
Sg: you are correct to identify substantial differences between Canadaian and Australian approaches to multiculturalism on the one hand and France on the other. But these things aren’t static. This discussion can further inform Australian multiculturalism without us having to follow the French lead. I get my bearings on this from James Tully’s magisterial examination of the matter in “Strange Multiplicity” (1994). Worth a look.
Gee anthony nolan, you really aren’t that interested in the opinion of a woman who’s a Muslim feminist (and a frequesnt contributor to LP) are you?
You’ve just conveniently ignored what Umm Yasmin had to say, because it doesn’t fit with your idea that Muslim feminists want the burqa banned. Plus, she was rude to you! The cheek of her. But you blokes just have your conversation by yourselves in the corner.
Gee anthony nolan, you really aren’t that interested in the opinion of a woman who’s a Muslim feminist (and a frequesnt contributor to LP) are you?
You’ve just conveniently ignored what Umm Yasmin had to say, because it doesn’t fit with your idea that Muslim feminists want the burqa banned. Plus, she was rude to you! The cheek of her. But you blokes just have your conversation by yourselves in the corner.
They look substantive enough to me Anthony Nolan and if I was about to rip your trews off because they cover your delightful calves and replace them with a kilt, I’m sure “bugger off” would be the mildest expression you would use. Your comment @518 is a prime example of begging the question. You repeatedly assert that the veil is antidemocratic without substantiation. It is because it is, apparently.
If your only criteria for determining whether a piece of clothing is in and of itself dangerous to the democratic principles of the day is that it signifies a “pre-modern tribal affiliations whether those affiliations are religious or cultural”, then perhaps the English should revisit that kilt ban dylwah mentioned. After all, we know for certain there is a Scottish Nationalist movement.
They look substantive enough to me Anthony Nolan and if I was about to rip your trews off because they cover your delightful calves and replace them with a kilt, I’m sure “bugger off” would be the mildest expression you would use. Your comment @518 is a prime example of begging the question. You repeatedly assert that the veil is antidemocratic without substantiation. It is because it is, apparently.
If your only criteria for determining whether a piece of clothing is in and of itself dangerous to the democratic principles of the day is that it signifies a “pre-modern tribal affiliations whether those affiliations are religious or cultural”, then perhaps the English should revisit that kilt ban dylwah mentioned. After all, we know for certain there is a Scottish Nationalist movement.
Anthony, you weren’t talking about just France when you said it was a significant problem for western liberal democracies, or in your follow-up comments about pre-tribal ideas.
Actually, given that Islam was a movement that came after the Bedouin tribes and at least partially reformed them (as I understand it, anyway), surely this language of “pre-tribalism” is factually incorrect? Though it still has strong rhetorical value for the political right.
Which is my point – reciting this crap is not getting us anywhere closer to civil. It’s just helping the right in its use of Muslim women to attack multiculturalism. Nto so nice.
Anthony, you weren’t talking about just France when you said it was a significant problem for western liberal democracies, or in your follow-up comments about pre-tribal ideas.
Actually, given that Islam was a movement that came after the Bedouin tribes and at least partially reformed them (as I understand it, anyway), surely this language of “pre-tribalism” is factually incorrect? Though it still has strong rhetorical value for the political right.
Which is my point – reciting this crap is not getting us anywhere closer to civil. It’s just helping the right in its use of Muslim women to attack multiculturalism. Nto so nice.
I absolutely agree that this has very little to do with any real and deep-seated concern with Muslim women’s rights, and everything to do with the visibility of Muslim religiosity in Western societies. It’s an issue for the very same reason that building mosques with minarets is an issue in Switzerland.
No niqabi I’ve ever known has ever had a male person in her life impose face-veiling on her, and a good many have men who are opposed to it.
Now, you *might* have a legitimate discussion on your hands if you want to talk about who gets the right to interpret and speak “for” Islam (including prescriptions for Islamic dress) and why is it that this has largely been (although not always) the preserve of men.
But as for criminalising the tiny proportion of women who veil, I gave it the response it deserves in Australia: bugger off.
I absolutely agree that this has very little to do with any real and deep-seated concern with Muslim women’s rights, and everything to do with the visibility of Muslim religiosity in Western societies. It’s an issue for the very same reason that building mosques with minarets is an issue in Switzerland.
No niqabi I’ve ever known has ever had a male person in her life impose face-veiling on her, and a good many have men who are opposed to it.
Now, you *might* have a legitimate discussion on your hands if you want to talk about who gets the right to interpret and speak “for” Islam (including prescriptions for Islamic dress) and why is it that this has largely been (although not always) the preserve of men.
But as for criminalising the tiny proportion of women who veil, I gave it the response it deserves in Australia: bugger off.
su:
“You repeatedly assert that the veil is antidemocratic without substantiation”.
I’ve made a point of citing Muslim women – Nawal el Saadawi, Djemila Benhabib and Ziba Mir-Hosseini who argue that “the veil” is undemocratic. It was the latter who described Sharia law as premodern patriarchal tribalism.
They are all intellectually credible sources especially Nawal el Saadawi who I’ve been reading for more than thirty years. Her personal; history as an activist for democracy and women’s rights in egypt and elsewqhere I suggest gives her credibility you’ll never even be able to aspire to. She’s a gutzy old lefty. Maybe that is the problem, eh? Real left as opposed to shake and bake opinion.
su:
“You repeatedly assert that the veil is antidemocratic without substantiation”.
I’ve made a point of citing Muslim women – Nawal el Saadawi, Djemila Benhabib and Ziba Mir-Hosseini who argue that “the veil” is undemocratic. It was the latter who described Sharia law as premodern patriarchal tribalism.
They are all intellectually credible sources especially Nawal el Saadawi who I’ve been reading for more than thirty years. Her personal; history as an activist for democracy and women’s rights in egypt and elsewqhere I suggest gives her credibility you’ll never even be able to aspire to. She’s a gutzy old lefty. Maybe that is the problem, eh? Real left as opposed to shake and bake opinion.
Crikey. I’ve watched this thread grow like topsy, without the conversation doing the same thing. What Umm Yasmin said.
I work in a multi-cultural university and the burqa is worn by a noticeable few, the head scarf by many more. If this is a problem for the by-stander, it’s their problem, not the wearer.
I’ve been on the flight out of Teheran, and seen the majority of scarves jettisoned in the first fifteen minutes. This is a demographic, the most cosmopolitan group of Iranians, so not surprising. It wouldn’t happen in the villages.
OTOH, you also see the small lines of women in the middle east following a be-tented gentleman smuggling a bowling ball beneath his robes in the stomachey region. The body language (of comfort etc) between these groups of women garbed only in black with gauze covering the eyes, is very different to the groups of women at the university in Melbourne, the latter who dress with expression and carry themselves with ease.
Liberal societies provide choice, they don’t take it away.
Crikey. I’ve watched this thread grow like topsy, without the conversation doing the same thing. What Umm Yasmin said.
I work in a multi-cultural university and the burqa is worn by a noticeable few, the head scarf by many more. If this is a problem for the by-stander, it’s their problem, not the wearer.
I’ve been on the flight out of Teheran, and seen the majority of scarves jettisoned in the first fifteen minutes. This is a demographic, the most cosmopolitan group of Iranians, so not surprising. It wouldn’t happen in the villages.
OTOH, you also see the small lines of women in the middle east following a be-tented gentleman smuggling a bowling ball beneath his robes in the stomachey region. The body language (of comfort etc) between these groups of women garbed only in black with gauze covering the eyes, is very different to the groups of women at the university in Melbourne, the latter who dress with expression and carry themselves with ease.
Liberal societies provide choice, they don’t take it away.
Fine@527: ‘Gee anthony nolan, you really aren’t that interested in the opinion of a woman who’s a Muslim feminist…’
That’s not exactly fair, as Anthony gave several links to Muslim pro-ban feminists further up the thread – see comments 122 and 181 for starters. It goes without saying that Muslim feminists are as divided on the issue as are Western feminists, many of the latter arguing that a burqa ban is simply using one form of patriarchal domination to get rid of another.
And speaking of feminists, I found another burqa ban poll result at an Australian feminist blogsite. This one, taken by the The Andrew Bolt Times (aka Herald Sun), drew approx. 11,100 votes – Yes 85%; No 15%.
http://newswithnipples.wordpress.com/2010/05/07/bernardis-burqa-bullshit/
Now that result shocks even ME! Using condescending liberalism to fight this level of white-knuckle antipathy is just pissing in the proverbial wind.
Fine@527: ‘Gee anthony nolan, you really aren’t that interested in the opinion of a woman who’s a Muslim feminist…’
That’s not exactly fair, as Anthony gave several links to Muslim pro-ban feminists further up the thread – see comments 122 and 181 for starters. It goes without saying that Muslim feminists are as divided on the issue as are Western feminists, many of the latter arguing that a burqa ban is simply using one form of patriarchal domination to get rid of another.
And speaking of feminists, I found another burqa ban poll result at an Australian feminist blogsite. This one, taken by the The Andrew Bolt Times (aka Herald Sun), drew approx. 11,100 votes – Yes 85%; No 15%.
http://newswithnipples.wordpress.com/2010/05/07/bernardis-burqa-bullshit/
Now that result shocks even ME! Using condescending liberalism to fight this level of white-knuckle antipathy is just pissing in the proverbial wind.
Umm Yasmin, is it possible to contact you off-blog? my email address is l.carroll@latrobe.edu.au
Umm Yasmin, is it possible to contact you off-blog? my email address is l.carroll@latrobe.edu.au
“Maybe that is the problem, eh? Real left as opposed to shake and bake opinion.”
No the problem is that you have taken a viewpoint that is the subject of contention and presented it as if it were unequivocally true. If the meaning of the niqab were so settled then there would not be this great swirl of critical thought and study and academic inquiry into this very subject. You want to play favourites- fair enough, just don’t pretend that you have the imprimatur of muslim feminism, because it is not that simple.
“Maybe that is the problem, eh? Real left as opposed to shake and bake opinion.”
No the problem is that you have taken a viewpoint that is the subject of contention and presented it as if it were unequivocally true. If the meaning of the niqab were so settled then there would not be this great swirl of critical thought and study and academic inquiry into this very subject. You want to play favourites- fair enough, just don’t pretend that you have the imprimatur of muslim feminism, because it is not that simple.
“Western women were never asked to give up their culture and religion for liberation”
I appreciate your views Yasmin, but the above statement is *completely* unsupportable. ALl sorts of Church-inspired (or Church-supported restrictions) of women’s freedoms and notions of their ‘proper role’ have been challenged over the last century. Divorce was illegal in Catholic Ireland until the 1990s! Try contraception, destigmatising unmarried mothers, the whole of having a career, the entire oevre called feminism in the 1960s and 70s – all these were achieved in the face of Church opposition.
As for culture, well thats a harder struggle, and harder to shift – but its my understanding that feminism has certainly tried, and succeeded to some degree: from gendered conceptions of child-rearing (especially where they are considered limiting for girls) to notion of women’s “sphere” – its all been slow and patient against the culture that the women in question grew up with.
“Western women were never asked to give up their culture and religion for liberation”
I appreciate your views Yasmin, but the above statement is *completely* unsupportable. ALl sorts of Church-inspired (or Church-supported restrictions) of women’s freedoms and notions of their ‘proper role’ have been challenged over the last century. Divorce was illegal in Catholic Ireland until the 1990s! Try contraception, destigmatising unmarried mothers, the whole of having a career, the entire oevre called feminism in the 1960s and 70s – all these were achieved in the face of Church opposition.
As for culture, well thats a harder struggle, and harder to shift – but its my understanding that feminism has certainly tried, and succeeded to some degree: from gendered conceptions of child-rearing (especially where they are considered limiting for girls) to notion of women’s “sphere” – its all been slow and patient against the culture that the women in question grew up with.
I don’t in fact present my views as unequivocal truth and have consistently acknowledged significant differneces between, for example, French multiculturalism and Australia as well as within and between Muslim populations. If it appears to you that I have overstated the strength of any case that I’ve made then that is a case of having to defend those (unpopular) views against wilful misreading and misrepresentation. I’d rather have serious and considered dialogue from which I can learn any day over fixed positional debate. As it is this thread has been terrific for refining my views and gaining greater understanding of what the issues are not so much in relation to Muslim religion and cultures but around theories of democracy.
I don’t in fact present my views as unequivocal truth and have consistently acknowledged significant differneces between, for example, French multiculturalism and Australia as well as within and between Muslim populations. If it appears to you that I have overstated the strength of any case that I’ve made then that is a case of having to defend those (unpopular) views against wilful misreading and misrepresentation. I’d rather have serious and considered dialogue from which I can learn any day over fixed positional debate. As it is this thread has been terrific for refining my views and gaining greater understanding of what the issues are not so much in relation to Muslim religion and cultures but around theories of democracy.
Laura @534 Sure – I’ll pop you off an email
There are different types of feminism in the Muslim world as there are different types in the Western world.
Nawal El-Sadaawi represents the “secular feminist” orientation, that presents Islam as inherently patriarchal and therefore for Muslim women to achieve liberation they need to reject religion.
On the other hand, someone like me who is religious argues that Islam does not inherently prescribe patriarchy, but that by and large the people who interpret Islam have come (and still come) from patriarchal cultures and thus they view Islam through a patriarchal lens. As a feminist who is a Muslim I critique this and argue that Islam can be, and indeed *should* be read through an egalitarian-minded lens as that is the underlying thrust of the scripture. I follow Fazlur Rahman’s methodology of looking at the Qur’anic Weltanschauung to derive eternal principles, but as Farid Esack points out, Islam also recognises that idealism aside, there is the reality that women still have to bargain with patriarchy and provides limited, temporal and contextual means for doing so (but these should not become eternal prescriptions at the cost of the egalitarian Weltanschauung).
Laura @534 Sure – I’ll pop you off an email
There are different types of feminism in the Muslim world as there are different types in the Western world.
Nawal El-Sadaawi represents the “secular feminist” orientation, that presents Islam as inherently patriarchal and therefore for Muslim women to achieve liberation they need to reject religion.
On the other hand, someone like me who is religious argues that Islam does not inherently prescribe patriarchy, but that by and large the people who interpret Islam have come (and still come) from patriarchal cultures and thus they view Islam through a patriarchal lens. As a feminist who is a Muslim I critique this and argue that Islam can be, and indeed *should* be read through an egalitarian-minded lens as that is the underlying thrust of the scripture. I follow Fazlur Rahman’s methodology of looking at the Qur’anic Weltanschauung to derive eternal principles, but as Farid Esack points out, Islam also recognises that idealism aside, there is the reality that women still have to bargain with patriarchy and provides limited, temporal and contextual means for doing so (but these should not become eternal prescriptions at the cost of the egalitarian Weltanschauung).
Umm Yasmin:
As much as I agree with the bulk of your arguments, I find it amusingly ironic that you talk of Muslims not being able to ban things they don’t like while using a South Park style Gravitar.
Umm Yasmin:
As much as I agree with the bulk of your arguments, I find it amusingly ironic that you talk of Muslims not being able to ban things they don’t like while using a South Park style Gravitar.
su: @ above. You are correct that I “play favourites”, ie, have preferences, and these are for secular pro-democratic forces. Umm Yasmin (immediately above) is correct to so identify Nawal el Saadawi as a secularist. I make no apologies for my prefernce for modernist, secularist democratic voices because secularism is the absolute guarantor of democratic equalitarianism and religious freedom; without secularism democracy risks falling prey to capture by extremely reactionary elements amongst whom I wouldn’t differentiate between Wahhabism and Christian fundamentalism.
su: @ above. You are correct that I “play favourites”, ie, have preferences, and these are for secular pro-democratic forces. Umm Yasmin (immediately above) is correct to so identify Nawal el Saadawi as a secularist. I make no apologies for my prefernce for modernist, secularist democratic voices because secularism is the absolute guarantor of democratic equalitarianism and religious freedom; without secularism democracy risks falling prey to capture by extremely reactionary elements amongst whom I wouldn’t differentiate between Wahhabism and Christian fundamentalism.
anthony nolan, haven’t you noticed that you still haven’t managed to address Umm Yasmin directly, but instead talk about her views to su?
Do you think there is a problem with you ignoring the only Muslim feminist directly addressing the issue here, whether you agree with her, or not?
anthony nolan, haven’t you noticed that you still haven’t managed to address Umm Yasmin directly, but instead talk about her views to su?
Do you think there is a problem with you ignoring the only Muslim feminist directly addressing the issue here, whether you agree with her, or not?
Oh, and I might add, the feminist movement has certainly addressed cultural issues of ‘appropriate’ garb for women. Including patriarchal conceptions of what a women’s dress in public might mean.
In fact, these issues have been addressed constantly! Lets keep it real. Women have had to confront just about all religions. They’re not generally progressive forces.
Oh, and I might add, the feminist movement has certainly addressed cultural issues of ‘appropriate’ garb for women. Including patriarchal conceptions of what a women’s dress in public might mean.
In fact, these issues have been addressed constantly! Lets keep it real. Women have had to confront just about all religions. They’re not generally progressive forces.
Fine: cheap tutorial level hectoring about matters of courtesy as exemplified by your comment “haven’t you noticed that you still haven’t managed to address Umm Yasmin directly, but instead talk about her views to su?” is what makes it difficult to have an engaged dialogue and is exactly what I meant when I wrote above about the difficulties presented by “wilful misreading and misrepresentation” of posts.
As a matter of interest Umm Yasmin appears to me to be entirely capable of looking after herself in conversational mode and, if you have not noticed, we have already met and greeted each other using the traditional Walgett mode of saying “buggar off”.
Fine: cheap tutorial level hectoring about matters of courtesy as exemplified by your comment “haven’t you noticed that you still haven’t managed to address Umm Yasmin directly, but instead talk about her views to su?” is what makes it difficult to have an engaged dialogue and is exactly what I meant when I wrote above about the difficulties presented by “wilful misreading and misrepresentation” of posts.
As a matter of interest Umm Yasmin appears to me to be entirely capable of looking after herself in conversational mode and, if you have not noticed, we have already met and greeted each other using the traditional Walgett mode of saying “buggar off”.
I’m interested to your response to the question I asked you, anthony nolan, because I think it’s germane to the discussion.
But I guess you probably answered it in your own way.
I’m interested to your response to the question I asked you, anthony nolan, because I think it’s germane to the discussion.
But I guess you probably answered it in your own way.
With respect, that was not Yasmin’s argument.
Irish Catholics can still decide for themselves whether their marriage vows are unbreakable. And the same argument applies to the other examples.
Until the 1990s the Irish state imposed Catholic doctrine on all. This prohibition is logically identical to the French or Australian state imposing dress standards on all.
Thus your argument supports opposition to such proscriptions enforced by the terror of criminal law.
With respect, that was not Yasmin’s argument.
Irish Catholics can still decide for themselves whether their marriage vows are unbreakable. And the same argument applies to the other examples.
Until the 1990s the Irish state imposed Catholic doctrine on all. This prohibition is logically identical to the French or Australian state imposing dress standards on all.
Thus your argument supports opposition to such proscriptions enforced by the terror of criminal law.
“The least worthy of support are those forces that represent quite literally pre-modern tribal affiliations whether those affiliations are religious or cultural. Those citizens enjoying the benefits or residing in a secular democracy owe their first loyalty to that state that creates those conditions.”
Quite right Anthony.
Obviously if Australia’s indigenous population had followed this example they wouldn’t be in the mess they are in now. And if we had had followed your advice instead of listening to bleeding heart leftists and put some pressure on them to live like civilised people we wouldn’t have the chronic abuse problems (substance abuse, physical and sexual abuse etc etc.) in indigenous communities that we have today.
“The least worthy of support are those forces that represent quite literally pre-modern tribal affiliations whether those affiliations are religious or cultural. Those citizens enjoying the benefits or residing in a secular democracy owe their first loyalty to that state that creates those conditions.”
Quite right Anthony.
Obviously if Australia’s indigenous population had followed this example they wouldn’t be in the mess they are in now. And if we had had followed your advice instead of listening to bleeding heart leftists and put some pressure on them to live like civilised people we wouldn’t have the chronic abuse problems (substance abuse, physical and sexual abuse etc etc.) in indigenous communities that we have today.
I think you’re pinning on an argument relating directly to ‘bans’ there Katz (and since I dont support one, I cant really respond). I was reacting to the view (which is apparently Leila Ahmed’s) ‘Western women were never asked to give up their culture and religion for liberation, why should we?’, which is demonstrably false.
Feminism has always encouraged women to question all the religious and cultural inspired limitations, including ideas of what is appropriate to wear. Sometimes the state has supported the religious view, sometimes not. The struggle remained.
Oh, I resent any implication that I’m targeting Islam by raising any of these points. I condemn all religions equally.
I think you’re pinning on an argument relating directly to ‘bans’ there Katz (and since I dont support one, I cant really respond). I was reacting to the view (which is apparently Leila Ahmed’s) ‘Western women were never asked to give up their culture and religion for liberation, why should we?’, which is demonstrably false.
Feminism has always encouraged women to question all the religious and cultural inspired limitations, including ideas of what is appropriate to wear. Sometimes the state has supported the religious view, sometimes not. The struggle remained.
Oh, I resent any implication that I’m targeting Islam by raising any of these points. I condemn all religions equally.
Umm Yasmin: your initial post linked to a book whose editor appears to be Tugrul Keskin so is it an edited collection in which you have a chapter?
Now to the substantive content (notwithstanding that this reply to your point isn’t timely enough for associated readers): I understnd that there a feminist developments within Islam (the term here used to denote the faithful) to develop a feminist critique that is an authentic expression of Muslim faith at the same time as advancing women’s interests. Perfectly valid to do so. It is analogous, in my view, to attempts to get the Catholic and other Christian churches to ordain women or to adopt social policies favourable to women that remain authentically faithful to the teachings of Christ. Doing so obviously requires theological knowledge. I don’t have any so the only comment I can make is good luck and to hope that you have greater success than women in the Catholic Church have had.
I’m interested to know where you stand on the secular state. We could start easy on this and look at the French banning on the wearing of religious apparel in school (1994?) which, to my knowledge at least, applied equally to Christian crosses, the yarmulke and the hijab. Presumably this applied to the “turban” of the siks as well. How does this legislation rest with you?
Umm Yasmin: your initial post linked to a book whose editor appears to be Tugrul Keskin so is it an edited collection in which you have a chapter?
Now to the substantive content (notwithstanding that this reply to your point isn’t timely enough for associated readers): I understnd that there a feminist developments within Islam (the term here used to denote the faithful) to develop a feminist critique that is an authentic expression of Muslim faith at the same time as advancing women’s interests. Perfectly valid to do so. It is analogous, in my view, to attempts to get the Catholic and other Christian churches to ordain women or to adopt social policies favourable to women that remain authentically faithful to the teachings of Christ. Doing so obviously requires theological knowledge. I don’t have any so the only comment I can make is good luck and to hope that you have greater success than women in the Catholic Church have had.
I’m interested to know where you stand on the secular state. We could start easy on this and look at the French banning on the wearing of religious apparel in school (1994?) which, to my knowledge at least, applied equally to Christian crosses, the yarmulke and the hijab. Presumably this applied to the “turban” of the siks as well. How does this legislation rest with you?
leftyE, I think you’re being a bit hard on Umm Yasmin’s first comment with your interpretation of Western feminist history. Women in the west confronted and changed elements of their culture and religion, but they never attempted to ban the voluntary aspects like clothing – they just tried to change attitudes to that clothing and widen choice. A feminist movement within Islam can do the same, but banning a style of clothing can’t, and is equivalent to demanding a group of women drop their culture in a way that western feminists haven’t had to do.
Also, the general discourse of western critiques of the way Islam “treats” “its” women leans pretty strongly towards the idea that Islam is incompatible with women’s rights, and I’m sure a lot of Muslim women do feel they are being asked to give up one or the other, a “choice” Umm Yasmin can address even if you think people on this thread aren’t making it – and I would argue that Anthony Nolan’s comments come pretty close to that demand.
Anthony, you can’t claim that “secularism is the absolute guarantor of democratic equalitarianism and religious freedom” while also demanding a ban on an important mode of religious expression. Also, that French ban on all religious apparel was originally envisaged as a ban on headscarfs only, and was extended to all religions as an after-thought, to deflect claims of discrimination. It’s hardly a pure representation of the secularist aims of modern French democracy, which has a pretty sordid history of attacking Muslim women as representatives of political Islam (think Algeria).
I think it’s reasonable for Muslim feminists who consider things like the ban on the veil to assess them in the wider context of (in the current environment):
a) a war on Islam
b) a general discourse on women’s rights (not necessarily by feminists) which demands (or implies) that women must choose between Islam and feminism
c) a history of colonial aggression against Muslims by both Britain and France, key actors in the war or in the move against public displays of faith
And I think it behooves the rest of us to consider that climate (in my opinion particularly a)) when assessing the validity of the demands we make of Muslims within our own communities.
leftyE, I think you’re being a bit hard on Umm Yasmin’s first comment with your interpretation of Western feminist history. Women in the west confronted and changed elements of their culture and religion, but they never attempted to ban the voluntary aspects like clothing – they just tried to change attitudes to that clothing and widen choice. A feminist movement within Islam can do the same, but banning a style of clothing can’t, and is equivalent to demanding a group of women drop their culture in a way that western feminists haven’t had to do.
Also, the general discourse of western critiques of the way Islam “treats” “its” women leans pretty strongly towards the idea that Islam is incompatible with women’s rights, and I’m sure a lot of Muslim women do feel they are being asked to give up one or the other, a “choice” Umm Yasmin can address even if you think people on this thread aren’t making it – and I would argue that Anthony Nolan’s comments come pretty close to that demand.
Anthony, you can’t claim that “secularism is the absolute guarantor of democratic equalitarianism and religious freedom” while also demanding a ban on an important mode of religious expression. Also, that French ban on all religious apparel was originally envisaged as a ban on headscarfs only, and was extended to all religions as an after-thought, to deflect claims of discrimination. It’s hardly a pure representation of the secularist aims of modern French democracy, which has a pretty sordid history of attacking Muslim women as representatives of political Islam (think Algeria).
I think it’s reasonable for Muslim feminists who consider things like the ban on the veil to assess them in the wider context of (in the current environment):
a) a war on Islam
b) a general discourse on women’s rights (not necessarily by feminists) which demands (or implies) that women must choose between Islam and feminism
c) a history of colonial aggression against Muslims by both Britain and France, key actors in the war or in the move against public displays of faith
And I think it behooves the rest of us to consider that climate (in my opinion particularly a)) when assessing the validity of the demands we make of Muslims within our own communities.
I’m not sure I know what this means.
On one level, western women were never asked. For example the French Revolution took christianity away by compulsion.
Catholic women in Britain were systematically persecuted for their religion for three centuries, as were their menfolk.
Is there a necessary tension between culture and liberation? I think not.
Does a culture sometimes delegitimise claims for liberation and autonomy? Sometimes.
The above slogan is mere blather.
I’m not sure I know what this means.
On one level, western women were never asked. For example the French Revolution took christianity away by compulsion.
Catholic women in Britain were systematically persecuted for their religion for three centuries, as were their menfolk.
Is there a necessary tension between culture and liberation? I think not.
Does a culture sometimes delegitimise claims for liberation and autonomy? Sometimes.
The above slogan is mere blather.
I think I sorta get what Leila Ahmed is driving at, Katz – I just think its totally ahistorical and basically, well: facutally incorrect. I agree it isnt the clearest formulation – maybe I should go read Leila herself.
Sg – part of the problem of this whole thread/debate is implicit in this line of yours “…they never attempted to ban the voluntary aspects like clothing”.
The fact is we’re dealing with a much more complex issue: because it *isn’t* voluntary for some, and clearly is for others. How do we liberate the former?
And moreover, if we oppose the state imposing a compulsory dress, how do we justify allowing a religious community to do it? This is a serious inconsistency in the so-called ‘liberal’ position.
So: How do we separate those who need liberating, from those who don’t – obviously thats complex. I oppose a straight ban, but equally, I oppose a sort of liberal shrug pose , which effectively say ‘lets forget the other group’.
there’s no point either side here sticking their heads in the sand and pretending it ‘all voluntary’, or ‘a uniform case of compulsion’.
I think I sorta get what Leila Ahmed is driving at, Katz – I just think its totally ahistorical and basically, well: facutally incorrect. I agree it isnt the clearest formulation – maybe I should go read Leila herself.
Sg – part of the problem of this whole thread/debate is implicit in this line of yours “…they never attempted to ban the voluntary aspects like clothing”.
The fact is we’re dealing with a much more complex issue: because it *isn’t* voluntary for some, and clearly is for others. How do we liberate the former?
And moreover, if we oppose the state imposing a compulsory dress, how do we justify allowing a religious community to do it? This is a serious inconsistency in the so-called ‘liberal’ position.
So: How do we separate those who need liberating, from those who don’t – obviously thats complex. I oppose a straight ban, but equally, I oppose a sort of liberal shrug pose , which effectively say ‘lets forget the other group’.
there’s no point either side here sticking their heads in the sand and pretending it ‘all voluntary’, or ‘a uniform case of compulsion’.
sg:
“Anthony, you can’t claim that “secularism is the absolute guarantor of democratic equalitarianism and religious freedom” while also demanding a ban on an important mode of religious expression.”
You are missing the essential point of the French ban which is that it is a ban on forms of religious expression in public placesin support of what the French see as the particularity of their brand of secularism.
Besides which there are shifting sands here regarding whether the burqa is a religious or cultural statement. If we could settle on one interpretaion of the garment, at least for the sake of discussion, it would make things clearer.
Yr points a. through c. are good ones.
However:
a) while there may be the appearances of a war on Islam there is no such declared war; if any such war exists then it is being waged by reactionary forces mobilising xenophobia and racism as a smokescreen behind which coporations such as Halliwell seek profits and the US seeks oil. This doesn’t mean that any person expressing reservations about Muslim religious/cultural practices is either taking part in that war and nor does it mean that the same people are dupes of Fox news propaganda.
b) such general discourse (choose between Islam or feminism)applies equally to any other discourse in which women find themselves at odds with pursuing their interests as women and the institutional repression of women commonly associated with men’s hierarchical authority within churches (or mosques). I only care about these sorts of struggles in so far as they apply to my own practices and have fought out those issues (on womens’ side) within institutions to which I’m attached (but they are atheistic anyway).
c)I’m pleased you raised the history of colonialism: my understanding is that a significant number of the Muslims in France came from or are descended from post-independence Algerians who aligned themselves with colonial forces against the Algerian independence movement but had to flee at the end of the war. Ironic isn’t it? The French then short changed them on promises of full citizenship but then that’s what’s happens to rats, isn’t it?
“Behooves” – that’s archaic – “necessary, fit or proper”.
sg:
“Anthony, you can’t claim that “secularism is the absolute guarantor of democratic equalitarianism and religious freedom” while also demanding a ban on an important mode of religious expression.”
You are missing the essential point of the French ban which is that it is a ban on forms of religious expression in public placesin support of what the French see as the particularity of their brand of secularism.
Besides which there are shifting sands here regarding whether the burqa is a religious or cultural statement. If we could settle on one interpretaion of the garment, at least for the sake of discussion, it would make things clearer.
Yr points a. through c. are good ones.
However:
a) while there may be the appearances of a war on Islam there is no such declared war; if any such war exists then it is being waged by reactionary forces mobilising xenophobia and racism as a smokescreen behind which coporations such as Halliwell seek profits and the US seeks oil. This doesn’t mean that any person expressing reservations about Muslim religious/cultural practices is either taking part in that war and nor does it mean that the same people are dupes of Fox news propaganda.
b) such general discourse (choose between Islam or feminism)applies equally to any other discourse in which women find themselves at odds with pursuing their interests as women and the institutional repression of women commonly associated with men’s hierarchical authority within churches (or mosques). I only care about these sorts of struggles in so far as they apply to my own practices and have fought out those issues (on womens’ side) within institutions to which I’m attached (but they are atheistic anyway).
c)I’m pleased you raised the history of colonialism: my understanding is that a significant number of the Muslims in France came from or are descended from post-independence Algerians who aligned themselves with colonial forces against the Algerian independence movement but had to flee at the end of the war. Ironic isn’t it? The French then short changed them on promises of full citizenship but then that’s what’s happens to rats, isn’t it?
“Behooves” – that’s archaic – “necessary, fit or proper”.
Egads: sorry about the massive italicisation. Any mods willing to correct please?
Egads: sorry about the massive italicisation. Any mods willing to correct please?
Lefty E, I think we liberate the former by treating them just as we treat every other example of familial or cultural forcing in our liberal society – give them adequate exit rights, educate them as to their rights (the same way we educate everyone else as to their rights), implement compulsory education (without introducing silly religious-specific laws which might prevent the very girls we want to protect from coming to school), and ensure that breaches of the law are punished. Then, we accept that some people can be bastards, and that therefore some dads are going to treat their daughters badly, etc.
The problem here is with the recognition of Muslims as “something special,” the idea that the pose a “special problem” for our liberal democratic society demanding of special solutions. This is the rhetoric of anti-immigration and intolerance, recast as fear for our fragile multicultural society. We have the rule of law, tolerance of difference, and a welfare system aimed at eliminating the worst excesses of abusive familial behaviour. Even the most stereotypical Muslim family can be handled by that system, and that’s that.
I don’t see western women as having given up their culture to achieve liberation. What bit did they give up, rather than modify? What clothing did they have to give up, what cultural practice? No-one banned women from wearing full-length skirts and corsets in order to liberate women from them. Why should we expect any different of Muslim women?
Lefty E, I think we liberate the former by treating them just as we treat every other example of familial or cultural forcing in our liberal society – give them adequate exit rights, educate them as to their rights (the same way we educate everyone else as to their rights), implement compulsory education (without introducing silly religious-specific laws which might prevent the very girls we want to protect from coming to school), and ensure that breaches of the law are punished. Then, we accept that some people can be bastards, and that therefore some dads are going to treat their daughters badly, etc.
The problem here is with the recognition of Muslims as “something special,” the idea that the pose a “special problem” for our liberal democratic society demanding of special solutions. This is the rhetoric of anti-immigration and intolerance, recast as fear for our fragile multicultural society. We have the rule of law, tolerance of difference, and a welfare system aimed at eliminating the worst excesses of abusive familial behaviour. Even the most stereotypical Muslim family can be handled by that system, and that’s that.
I don’t see western women as having given up their culture to achieve liberation. What bit did they give up, rather than modify? What clothing did they have to give up, what cultural practice? No-one banned women from wearing full-length skirts and corsets in order to liberate women from them. Why should we expect any different of Muslim women?
No Anthony, the essential point of the French ban is that the right needed to steal the far right’s thunder, and they clothed their attack on Muslim women in the language of secularism – and only then when it was made clear to them that they couldn’t get away with a naked racist attack. It’s not the first time the French have done this to Muslim women either, stripping them in Algeria was a pretty popular activity “to identify them.” What is it Monsieur le Frenchie Homme says, “plus ce change”?
Yes, invading two predominantly muslim nations, killing a million in a war of choice, imprisoning them without trial on an island, water-boarding them and establishing no-fly lists on the basis only of similar names, then talking up sanctions and war against a third; publishing comics showing their prophet as a pig or a suicide bomber; it certainly gives “the impression of” a war on Islam, doesn’t it? If the tables were turned I don’t think you’d be asking that we separate the noble intentions of the nation banning western dress (what would they ban? shite tattoos?) from the general effort they’ve put in to slaughtering millions of democratic secularists.
I don’t think you’ll find the general discourse on women in the catholic church from outside the church is quite as vociferous as the language of “disinterested” observers of Islam. I don’t think Western feminists ever demanded the disrobing of nuns, and if a few of them did it certainly never made the mainstream pages of daily newspapers, did it? And the discourse didn’t happen in a situation where the women were also being openly talked about as outsiders and a threat to the body politic (as these women are often depicted). FFS, we have people in France claiming that the robustness of the French state is at risk if some 14 year old girl somewhere in the country dares to go to school with her face covered. I’m sorry, but that’s not a reasonable discourse about women’s rights or secular democracy, it’s paranoid racism.
Perhaps your point at c) would give you pause to wonder why, exactly, these French muslim women have any reason to believe that the state is acting in their own interests? And why muslim women here would believe that a ban exported from that country to here would represent a good-faith measure in their own interests?
No Anthony, the essential point of the French ban is that the right needed to steal the far right’s thunder, and they clothed their attack on Muslim women in the language of secularism – and only then when it was made clear to them that they couldn’t get away with a naked racist attack. It’s not the first time the French have done this to Muslim women either, stripping them in Algeria was a pretty popular activity “to identify them.” What is it Monsieur le Frenchie Homme says, “plus ce change”?
Yes, invading two predominantly muslim nations, killing a million in a war of choice, imprisoning them without trial on an island, water-boarding them and establishing no-fly lists on the basis only of similar names, then talking up sanctions and war against a third; publishing comics showing their prophet as a pig or a suicide bomber; it certainly gives “the impression of” a war on Islam, doesn’t it? If the tables were turned I don’t think you’d be asking that we separate the noble intentions of the nation banning western dress (what would they ban? shite tattoos?) from the general effort they’ve put in to slaughtering millions of democratic secularists.
I don’t think you’ll find the general discourse on women in the catholic church from outside the church is quite as vociferous as the language of “disinterested” observers of Islam. I don’t think Western feminists ever demanded the disrobing of nuns, and if a few of them did it certainly never made the mainstream pages of daily newspapers, did it? And the discourse didn’t happen in a situation where the women were also being openly talked about as outsiders and a threat to the body politic (as these women are often depicted). FFS, we have people in France claiming that the robustness of the French state is at risk if some 14 year old girl somewhere in the country dares to go to school with her face covered. I’m sorry, but that’s not a reasonable discourse about women’s rights or secular democracy, it’s paranoid racism.
Perhaps your point at c) would give you pause to wonder why, exactly, these French muslim women have any reason to believe that the state is acting in their own interests? And why muslim women here would believe that a ban exported from that country to here would represent a good-faith measure in their own interests?
ssg:
“No Anthony, the essential point of the French ban is that the right needed to steal the far right’s thunder, and they clothed their attack on Muslim women in the language of secularism – and only then when it was made clear to them that they couldn’t get away with a naked racist attack.No Anthony, the essential point of the French ban is that the right needed to steal the far right’s thunder, and they clothed their attack on Muslim women in the language of secularism – and only then when it was made clear to them that they couldn’t get away with a naked racist attack.”
As ideological interpretation this is just fine but there is no evidence to support it. Without evidence it reads like the sort of entrail reading interpretation of current affairs that Trots used to specialise in years ago.
ssg:
“No Anthony, the essential point of the French ban is that the right needed to steal the far right’s thunder, and they clothed their attack on Muslim women in the language of secularism – and only then when it was made clear to them that they couldn’t get away with a naked racist attack.No Anthony, the essential point of the French ban is that the right needed to steal the far right’s thunder, and they clothed their attack on Muslim women in the language of secularism – and only then when it was made clear to them that they couldn’t get away with a naked racist attack.”
As ideological interpretation this is just fine but there is no evidence to support it. Without evidence it reads like the sort of entrail reading interpretation of current affairs that Trots used to specialise in years ago.
Lefty E, you said: “The fact is we’re dealing with a much more complex issue: because it *isn’t* voluntary for some, and clearly is for others. How do we liberate the former?
And moreover, if we oppose the state imposing a compulsory dress, how do we justify allowing a religious community to do it? This is a serious inconsistency in the so-called ‘liberal’ position.”
Lefty, I don’t agree it is a case of a religious community imposing a compulsory dress. In Iran and Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan it’s the state, co-opting religion for its purposes in ways that are inimical both to ‘our’ belief that religion is a private matter, and, as people whose intelligence and intellectual honesty can’t be doubted have explained, is also inimical to the teachings of Islam.
I do think Leila Ahmed’s book (Women and Gender in Islam) is something you would appreciate. Generally speaking I’m not a fan of Spivak, but the more I’ve read in this area, the more I’ve appreciated the persuasiveness her argument about the discourses of ‘liberating’ in ‘Can the Subaltern Speak?’
Lefty E, you said: “The fact is we’re dealing with a much more complex issue: because it *isn’t* voluntary for some, and clearly is for others. How do we liberate the former?
And moreover, if we oppose the state imposing a compulsory dress, how do we justify allowing a religious community to do it? This is a serious inconsistency in the so-called ‘liberal’ position.”
Lefty, I don’t agree it is a case of a religious community imposing a compulsory dress. In Iran and Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan it’s the state, co-opting religion for its purposes in ways that are inimical both to ‘our’ belief that religion is a private matter, and, as people whose intelligence and intellectual honesty can’t be doubted have explained, is also inimical to the teachings of Islam.
I do think Leila Ahmed’s book (Women and Gender in Islam) is something you would appreciate. Generally speaking I’m not a fan of Spivak, but the more I’ve read in this area, the more I’ve appreciated the persuasiveness her argument about the discourses of ‘liberating’ in ‘Can the Subaltern Speak?’
Lefty E:
There’s no inconsistency there as long as people are free to leave the religious community whenever they chose. Freedom of association (and freedom to choose why one associates or not) is an important part of the liberal philosophy.
Lefty E:
There’s no inconsistency there as long as people are free to leave the religious community whenever they chose. Freedom of association (and freedom to choose why one associates or not) is an important part of the liberal philosophy.
‘Lefty, I don’t agree it is a case of a religious community imposing a compulsory dress’
Well, call it a minority cultural community if you prefer Laura, but the point remains the same: in some instances its clearly a form of dress imposed against the will; in other cases its a voluntary choice – and there’s probably a grey area in between where subjects have become self-policing.
I’m concerned about the first and third categories. I really dont have an issue with any person’s voluntary embrace of any garment.
And Desipis, I think we’ve seen more than enough examples (most of which are to do with Christian sects) to know that easy presumptions of ‘freedom to leave’ are frequently dubious ones.
Call me an unreconstructed enlightenment radical – but I do think the state has a role in investigating and regulating any rotten boroughs of unchecked private sphere power over the vulnerable. I dont say that the stigmatise any one group (in fact, if you must know, my first choice would be the Exclusive Brethren) – but as a general statement of political principle.
‘Lefty, I don’t agree it is a case of a religious community imposing a compulsory dress’
Well, call it a minority cultural community if you prefer Laura, but the point remains the same: in some instances its clearly a form of dress imposed against the will; in other cases its a voluntary choice – and there’s probably a grey area in between where subjects have become self-policing.
I’m concerned about the first and third categories. I really dont have an issue with any person’s voluntary embrace of any garment.
And Desipis, I think we’ve seen more than enough examples (most of which are to do with Christian sects) to know that easy presumptions of ‘freedom to leave’ are frequently dubious ones.
Call me an unreconstructed enlightenment radical – but I do think the state has a role in investigating and regulating any rotten boroughs of unchecked private sphere power over the vulnerable. I dont say that the stigmatise any one group (in fact, if you must know, my first choice would be the Exclusive Brethren) – but as a general statement of political principle.
anthony, it’s a matter of public record. The French tried to institute a ban on the veil in schools, there was uproar, and so they extended the ban to include all religious symbols. They started from the position that the veil specifically was an attack on the separation of church and state, but had to change tack when it was pointed out that religious students might be doing the same thing.
I don’t think this kind of risible racist attack deserves a defence, and I’m sure there are lots of French lefties who would agree with me that it belittles the principles of the revolution.
anthony, it’s a matter of public record. The French tried to institute a ban on the veil in schools, there was uproar, and so they extended the ban to include all religious symbols. They started from the position that the veil specifically was an attack on the separation of church and state, but had to change tack when it was pointed out that religious students might be doing the same thing.
I don’t think this kind of risible racist attack deserves a defence, and I’m sure there are lots of French lefties who would agree with me that it belittles the principles of the revolution.
I’m going to start a religion that requires all the men to dress as Imperial Storm Troopers.
Oh, wait… it already exists, at the Con.
Never mind.
I’m going to start a religion that requires all the men to dress as Imperial Storm Troopers.
Oh, wait… it already exists, at the Con.
Never mind.
http://dustbowl.files.wordpress.com/2008/02/riotpolice350.jpg
http://dustbowl.files.wordpress.com/2008/02/riotpolice350.jpg
jules — hee hee. Good grief.
Oh no, now I can’t resist…
Greetings, brothers and sisters. Our opening hymn can be found on page 217 in your hymnal. Sung in four-part doo-wop harmony, to the tune of “At the Hop.”
Ready, everyone? Oremus:
Oh, you can binge on diet soda, can be Luke or Han or Yoda, at the Con.
You can be the sexy Cylon, or a Catwoman in nylon, at the Con.
You can be “Ran” from Kurosawa, if you’re shy just be a Jawa at the Con.
Let’s go to the Con.
Let’s go to the Con.
There’s that guy from “Tron.”
A-no-ther Obi-wan!
Aahh, aahhhh… let’s go to the Con.
Oh you can get all Jethro Tull-y, can be Mulder or be Scully at the Con.
You can tantalize a weenie in your metal slave-bikini at the Con.
You can dress up in a see-through, you can dress like R2-D2 at the Con.
Let’s go to the Con!
Let’s go to the Con!
Ricardo Mon-tal-ban!
He was in the “Wrath of Khan”!
Aahh, aaahhh… let’s go to the Con!
One more time!
Let’s go to the Con!
Let’s go to the Con!
Leave at home your pr0n!
All phasers set to “Ston”!
Aaahh, aaahh… let’s go to the Con!
jules — hee hee. Good grief.
Oh no, now I can’t resist…
Greetings, brothers and sisters. Our opening hymn can be found on page 217 in your hymnal. Sung in four-part doo-wop harmony, to the tune of “At the Hop.”
Ready, everyone? Oremus:
Oh, you can binge on diet soda, can be Luke or Han or Yoda, at the Con.
You can be the sexy Cylon, or a Catwoman in nylon, at the Con.
You can be “Ran” from Kurosawa, if you’re shy just be a Jawa at the Con.
Let’s go to the Con.
Let’s go to the Con.
There’s that guy from “Tron.”
A-no-ther Obi-wan!
Aahh, aahhhh… let’s go to the Con.
Oh you can get all Jethro Tull-y, can be Mulder or be Scully at the Con.
You can tantalize a weenie in your metal slave-bikini at the Con.
You can dress up in a see-through, you can dress like R2-D2 at the Con.
Let’s go to the Con!
Let’s go to the Con!
Ricardo Mon-tal-ban!
He was in the “Wrath of Khan”!
Aahh, aaahhh… let’s go to the Con!
One more time!
Let’s go to the Con!
Let’s go to the Con!
Leave at home your pr0n!
All phasers set to “Ston”!
Aaahh, aaahh… let’s go to the Con!
The more I read this surreal, bizarre and ultra-long thread, the more I realise it’s not about the burqa at all – it’s about Australia’s culture wars.
Neither is it about the freedom of minorities – religious or otherwise. It’s about the left-wing obsession with feeling its traditional lofty superiority to the vulgar populism of the right – especially when the right dares to tread on the left’s traditional turf, like the rights of women and minorities.
This might come as a shock to many here, but respect for cultural sensitivities is a two-way street. Like it or not, an overwhelming majority (80%+) of Australians do not want the burqa worn in public. That is their right. Not only that, on some polls an overwhelming majority actually want it banned. That is also their right.
But who cares? They’re just the majority – that pesky democratic irritant. Or, to quote the one female Muslim here, they can just ‘bugger off’. Isn’t tolerance wonderful?
The more I read this surreal, bizarre and ultra-long thread, the more I realise it’s not about the burqa at all – it’s about Australia’s culture wars.
Neither is it about the freedom of minorities – religious or otherwise. It’s about the left-wing obsession with feeling its traditional lofty superiority to the vulgar populism of the right – especially when the right dares to tread on the left’s traditional turf, like the rights of women and minorities.
This might come as a shock to many here, but respect for cultural sensitivities is a two-way street. Like it or not, an overwhelming majority (80%+) of Australians do not want the burqa worn in public. That is their right. Not only that, on some polls an overwhelming majority actually want it banned. That is also their right.
But who cares? They’re just the majority – that pesky democratic irritant. Or, to quote the one female Muslim here, they can just ‘bugger off’. Isn’t tolerance wonderful?
It’s ok iorarua: JPZ has clearly cracked under the strain and there may be others as well. It has been about Australian left culture wars in my view and it has illustrated the dominance of a particular form of cultural left discourse that gets tewwibwy upset when its orthodoxies are subject to scrutiny. Nevertheless, a reasonably civil and informative thread sustained up to 564 posts which is an almighty squabble. It is what the left does best of all, of course. Squabble, that is. And suggest that others are sexist ‘n’ racist and so on. I’m not sure if being accused of “othering” is worse than being called a lackey and a running dog or not yet. The biggest ever stoush in the old CPA was provoked by the actions of the wonderfully named ‘Workers’ Cultural Action Committe’. However, some other time.
It’s ok iorarua: JPZ has clearly cracked under the strain and there may be others as well. It has been about Australian left culture wars in my view and it has illustrated the dominance of a particular form of cultural left discourse that gets tewwibwy upset when its orthodoxies are subject to scrutiny. Nevertheless, a reasonably civil and informative thread sustained up to 564 posts which is an almighty squabble. It is what the left does best of all, of course. Squabble, that is. And suggest that others are sexist ‘n’ racist and so on. I’m not sure if being accused of “othering” is worse than being called a lackey and a running dog or not yet. The biggest ever stoush in the old CPA was provoked by the actions of the wonderfully named ‘Workers’ Cultural Action Committe’. However, some other time.
Properly out at last. Only took you 565 comments.
I think you’d find that similar figures pertain for those style icons who favour the visible bum crack. And yet, behold: in this society you will tear their lo-rise nether gear from their cold dead cheeks, because nobody is ever going to ban their pants. And rightly so.
Just don’t try to breastfeed in a public place. Because it’s always women’s bodies over which these wars that pretend to be about clothes are fought.
Properly out at last. Only took you 565 comments.
I think you’d find that similar figures pertain for those style icons who favour the visible bum crack. And yet, behold: in this society you will tear their lo-rise nether gear from their cold dead cheeks, because nobody is ever going to ban their pants. And rightly so.
Just don’t try to breastfeed in a public place. Because it’s always women’s bodies over which these wars that pretend to be about clothes are fought.
hahaha! Yes, the caring way in which George Bush, John Howard and Tony Blair showed their concern for the muslim women of Iraq has really made me uncomfortable in my left wing ivory tower, and upset my sensibilities.
Good that you’ve finally admitted what this is about – using muslim women to attack multiculturalism and liberalism from the left.
hahaha! Yes, the caring way in which George Bush, John Howard and Tony Blair showed their concern for the muslim women of Iraq has really made me uncomfortable in my left wing ivory tower, and upset my sensibilities.
Good that you’ve finally admitted what this is about – using muslim women to attack multiculturalism and liberalism from the left.
Scotty, prepare to make the jump to Hyper-Nerd…
You can act like just like the Borg Queen, or an aasimov-dot-org queen, at the Con.
You can put the Darth in Vader, HAL can open the pod-bay-door, at the Con.
You can do the “George Romero” in a Dusk-Til-Dawn sombrero at the Con.
Let’s go to the Con!
Let’s go to the Con!
Get your Ripley on!
Paul Winters dressed as Swan!
Aahh, aaaahh… let’s go to the Con!
Scotty, prepare to make the jump to Hyper-Nerd…
You can act like just like the Borg Queen, or an aasimov-dot-org queen, at the Con.
You can put the Darth in Vader, HAL can open the pod-bay-door, at the Con.
You can do the “George Romero” in a Dusk-Til-Dawn sombrero at the Con.
Let’s go to the Con!
Let’s go to the Con!
Get your Ripley on!
Paul Winters dressed as Swan!
Aahh, aaaahh… let’s go to the Con!
No and that is an equally silly journey of logic(?) to take. The point I am making is to suddenly refer this issue back to pet peeves pro or for US presence in Iraq/Afganistan is nonsense for any number of reasons. If someone wishes to make that kind hysterical but non relevent point about the banning of the Burqa then the reverse must also be acceptable.
Fortunately most people would recognise nonsense for nonsense and move on.
No and that is an equally silly journey of logic(?) to take. The point I am making is to suddenly refer this issue back to pet peeves pro or for US presence in Iraq/Afganistan is nonsense for any number of reasons. If someone wishes to make that kind hysterical but non relevent point about the banning of the Burqa then the reverse must also be acceptable.
Fortunately most people would recognise nonsense for nonsense and move on.
“Not only that, on some polls an overwhelming majority actually want it banned. That is also their right. But who cares? They’re just the majority – that pesky democratic irritant.”
iorarua,
The idea that Muslims should not wear something that is prescribed by their religion because it offends the ‘cultural sensitivities’ of the majority (in your metaphor, the other way of the street), and accordingly the State should criminalise it, is essentially totalitarian. And so the real democratic irritant here – and it is one apparently felt by you – is the right of all individuals to live free from vulgar majoritarianism (i.e. false democracy) and from fascist nonsense about banning a type of clothing.
BBB
“Not only that, on some polls an overwhelming majority actually want it banned. That is also their right. But who cares? They’re just the majority – that pesky democratic irritant.”
iorarua,
The idea that Muslims should not wear something that is prescribed by their religion because it offends the ‘cultural sensitivities’ of the majority (in your metaphor, the other way of the street), and accordingly the State should criminalise it, is essentially totalitarian. And so the real democratic irritant here – and it is one apparently felt by you – is the right of all individuals to live free from vulgar majoritarianism (i.e. false democracy) and from fascist nonsense about banning a type of clothing.
BBB
This whole tawdry mess has been worth it just for #561-#563 and #568.
This whole tawdry mess has been worth it just for #561-#563 and #568.
Pavlov’s Cat: what on earth do you mean ‘properly out?’ Did I say I was gay? Queer? If I disntinguish between ‘cultural left discourse’and other forms of leftism in Australia – does that have a malign meaning or intent for you? have you never heard people speak of the ‘industrial left’ or the ‘union movement’? So, when I say ‘cultural left discourse’ I do in fact mean a form of leftism that is educated, influenced by post-modernist philosophy and that generally doesn’t have a great deal in the way of activist experience/commitment either in unions or the social movements. But it sure does know best.
iorarua: your critics are correct. Crude majoritarianism is not democratic.
Pavlov’s Cat: what on earth do you mean ‘properly out?’ Did I say I was gay? Queer? If I disntinguish between ‘cultural left discourse’and other forms of leftism in Australia – does that have a malign meaning or intent for you? have you never heard people speak of the ‘industrial left’ or the ‘union movement’? So, when I say ‘cultural left discourse’ I do in fact mean a form of leftism that is educated, influenced by post-modernist philosophy and that generally doesn’t have a great deal in the way of activist experience/commitment either in unions or the social movements. But it sure does know best.
iorarua: your critics are correct. Crude majoritarianism is not democratic.
Right BBB.
I sometimes wonder if folks like Iorarua know what fascism is, and that it’s not exactly democracy.
It seems so simple to me.
Right BBB.
I sometimes wonder if folks like Iorarua know what fascism is, and that it’s not exactly democracy.
It seems so simple to me.
Now there’s a false dichotomy, anthony nolan.
Educated people have no experience in the in unions or social movements? We are fast moving into the territory of latte-sipping, inner city elites, as opposed to the good old common-sensical proletariat. Absolute nonsense.
Now there’s a false dichotomy, anthony nolan.
Educated people have no experience in the in unions or social movements? We are fast moving into the territory of latte-sipping, inner city elites, as opposed to the good old common-sensical proletariat. Absolute nonsense.
What Liam said! Thanks VERY MUCH for the earworm, j_p_z….
What Liam said! Thanks VERY MUCH for the earworm, j_p_z….
Fine: misconstrued (again). Of course educated people are in the unions and more often than not these days as a white collar proletariat. My own experience in tertiary education, now thankfully over, is of exactly this process of casualisation/proletarianisation by bean counters. However, distinguishing between fractions of the working class doesn’t mean valorising proletarianism. We used to call that a ‘prolier than thou’ attitude and it was usually characterised by blue collar masculinism. Nevertheless, it is possible to differentiate a specific form of pomo leftism with a dominant set of cultural values which is all I’ve suggested. Too much education around habitus and discourse and not enough sociology and history. EP Thompson was onto something when he decried ‘the poverty of theory’.
Fine: misconstrued (again). Of course educated people are in the unions and more often than not these days as a white collar proletariat. My own experience in tertiary education, now thankfully over, is of exactly this process of casualisation/proletarianisation by bean counters. However, distinguishing between fractions of the working class doesn’t mean valorising proletarianism. We used to call that a ‘prolier than thou’ attitude and it was usually characterised by blue collar masculinism. Nevertheless, it is possible to differentiate a specific form of pomo leftism with a dominant set of cultural values which is all I’ve suggested. Too much education around habitus and discourse and not enough sociology and history. EP Thompson was onto something when he decried ‘the poverty of theory’.
Lol, I have no idea who Paul Winters is but if he’s in my favourite dress in the universe he’s all win.
Anthony @552- According to Le Monde, the French government has taken care not to link this legislation to the principle of secularism and instead invoke plurality (?Vivre-ensemble), fraternity and gender equity. This makes me wonder whether they were attempting to forestall criticisms of an inherent conflict with the guarantee of religious freedom.
Lol, I have no idea who Paul Winters is but if he’s in my favourite dress in the universe he’s all win.
Anthony @552- According to Le Monde, the French government has taken care not to link this legislation to the principle of secularism and instead invoke plurality (?Vivre-ensemble), fraternity and gender equity. This makes me wonder whether they were attempting to forestall criticisms of an inherent conflict with the guarantee of religious freedom.
Oigal, do you think the war on Islam is a “pet peeve” (oh how cute!) for the majority of Muslims in still-peaceful countries? Do you think maybe the Muslim view of what’s happening in Afghanistan might be a little more complicated than just “oh, they’re shipping their burqas over here so let’s burn the fuckers”?
Which happens to be pretty much the view of the major right-wing proponents of the war and the burqa ban. At best it’s “this is a convenient crew to burn, and women’s rights is a convenient excuse.”
Ignoring context is lazy. Continually trying to ignore context leaves you in the position Anthony is in, rapidly sliding towards latte left stereotypes. And presenting false contexts like “oh they do it in Afghanistan” or “the burqa is a terrible thing in Saudi Arabia” is disingenuous.
Oigal, do you think the war on Islam is a “pet peeve” (oh how cute!) for the majority of Muslims in still-peaceful countries? Do you think maybe the Muslim view of what’s happening in Afghanistan might be a little more complicated than just “oh, they’re shipping their burqas over here so let’s burn the fuckers”?
Which happens to be pretty much the view of the major right-wing proponents of the war and the burqa ban. At best it’s “this is a convenient crew to burn, and women’s rights is a convenient excuse.”
Ignoring context is lazy. Continually trying to ignore context leaves you in the position Anthony is in, rapidly sliding towards latte left stereotypes. And presenting false contexts like “oh they do it in Afghanistan” or “the burqa is a terrible thing in Saudi Arabia” is disingenuous.
BBB:
Because it’s not democracy if it passes laws you don’t like?
BBB:
Because it’s not democracy if it passes laws you don’t like?
I just did a very brief internet search and have discovered this article in the Figaro which puts the number of burqa clad women in France at between 400 and 2000, so surely it’s just a matter of days before their entire society collapses.
I also checked the wiki on the law which gives some interesting facts:
a) separation of church and state in french schools dates back to 1905, not the revolution
b)in the 80s and 90s the Conseil d’Etat consistently ruled that there was no conflict between laicite and the wearing of visible religious symbols
c) the final law passed in schools in 2004 clearly aimed at “ostentatious” symbols, so essentially could not target mainstream christian symbols
so in effect the law dilutes the separation of church and state by targetting only some religions.
These articles also throw up some handy contradictions for those of you who think the burqa is always and everywhere oppressive. The Figaro article describes the case of a woman in burqa who held a press conference to discuss what she considered an unjust law; the wiki describes a woman in burqa who was the parents’ representative for the school. Ah, the invisibility of the “shrouded” woman, eh? By the Figaro’s stats that suggests at least 1 in every 1000 and at most 1 in every 200 women in “the shroud” are publicly highly visible figures. Does anyone think these rates are that different to the rates for their bikini-clad and thoroughly liberated christian contemporaries?
I just did a very brief internet search and have discovered this article in the Figaro which puts the number of burqa clad women in France at between 400 and 2000, so surely it’s just a matter of days before their entire society collapses.
I also checked the wiki on the law which gives some interesting facts:
a) separation of church and state in french schools dates back to 1905, not the revolution
b)in the 80s and 90s the Conseil d’Etat consistently ruled that there was no conflict between laicite and the wearing of visible religious symbols
c) the final law passed in schools in 2004 clearly aimed at “ostentatious” symbols, so essentially could not target mainstream christian symbols
so in effect the law dilutes the separation of church and state by targetting only some religions.
These articles also throw up some handy contradictions for those of you who think the burqa is always and everywhere oppressive. The Figaro article describes the case of a woman in burqa who held a press conference to discuss what she considered an unjust law; the wiki describes a woman in burqa who was the parents’ representative for the school. Ah, the invisibility of the “shrouded” woman, eh? By the Figaro’s stats that suggests at least 1 in every 1000 and at most 1 in every 200 women in “the shroud” are publicly highly visible figures. Does anyone think these rates are that different to the rates for their bikini-clad and thoroughly liberated christian contemporaries?
“So, when I say ‘cultural left discourse’ I do in fact mean a form of leftism that is educated, influenced by post-modernist philosophy and that generally doesn’t have a great deal in the way of activist experience/commitment either in unions or the social movements. But it sure does know best.”
Actually, that’s what you wrote, so I don’t think I’m misconstruing, I think you’re back-pedaling.
My attitude to this issue is primarily shaped by feminism. Feminism doesn’t have a history of forcing women to do something for their own good. It has history of forcing change which creates opportunity and equality for women. It doesn’t make women take up this opportunity.
Several feminist have asked here what about the rights of the women who choose to wear the burqa. I don’t think this question has been answered clearly by people who wish to ban it. To me, this is the key question.
“So, when I say ‘cultural left discourse’ I do in fact mean a form of leftism that is educated, influenced by post-modernist philosophy and that generally doesn’t have a great deal in the way of activist experience/commitment either in unions or the social movements. But it sure does know best.”
Actually, that’s what you wrote, so I don’t think I’m misconstruing, I think you’re back-pedaling.
My attitude to this issue is primarily shaped by feminism. Feminism doesn’t have a history of forcing women to do something for their own good. It has history of forcing change which creates opportunity and equality for women. It doesn’t make women take up this opportunity.
Several feminist have asked here what about the rights of the women who choose to wear the burqa. I don’t think this question has been answered clearly by people who wish to ban it. To me, this is the key question.
Fine: no back pedalling here.
You write of feminism that “It has history of forcing change which creates opportunity and equality for women.” True enough, but feminism isn’t monolithic and some variants of feminism have chosen a path to the outcome of ‘opportunity and equality for women’ that also advances the struggle for democracy. Not all feminisms do this which is why, in the absence of an adequate political orientation to democracy, some feminisms appear to have aligned themselves with defending the right of religious fundamentalists to undermine the conditions of democracy by publically identifying themselves as “communalists” (cf the article in Le Monde linked by su above) whose purposes are antithetical to democratic equalitariansm.
Fine: no back pedalling here.
You write of feminism that “It has history of forcing change which creates opportunity and equality for women.” True enough, but feminism isn’t monolithic and some variants of feminism have chosen a path to the outcome of ‘opportunity and equality for women’ that also advances the struggle for democracy. Not all feminisms do this which is why, in the absence of an adequate political orientation to democracy, some feminisms appear to have aligned themselves with defending the right of religious fundamentalists to undermine the conditions of democracy by publically identifying themselves as “communalists” (cf the article in Le Monde linked by su above) whose purposes are antithetical to democratic equalitariansm.
No, some feminists have chosen to align themselves with the rights of women to dress as they please. If the burqa displeases you, bad luck. AS well, I think it’s completely antithetical to democracy to start legislating dress codes.
You still haven’t answered my question about the rights of women who choose to wear the burqa. Or are their rights just a casualty on the road to democracy?
No, some feminists have chosen to align themselves with the rights of women to dress as they please. If the burqa displeases you, bad luck. AS well, I think it’s completely antithetical to democracy to start legislating dress codes.
You still haven’t answered my question about the rights of women who choose to wear the burqa. Or are their rights just a casualty on the road to democracy?
anthony, those women who identify themselves as communalists aren’t a threat to democracy – they’re challenging one aspect of French secular society, its lack of a form of multiculturalism and unwillingness to admit Muslim members of the diaspora fully into French society. They’re trying to change French society to make it more respectful of those parts of the world it conquered in the last century.
I would have thought that we lefties could have some respect for that project, and perhaps be offering our white French counterparts some education in better ways of handling racial difference, rather than drawing unnecessary parallels between there and here.
anthony, those women who identify themselves as communalists aren’t a threat to democracy – they’re challenging one aspect of French secular society, its lack of a form of multiculturalism and unwillingness to admit Muslim members of the diaspora fully into French society. They’re trying to change French society to make it more respectful of those parts of the world it conquered in the last century.
I would have thought that we lefties could have some respect for that project, and perhaps be offering our white French counterparts some education in better ways of handling racial difference, rather than drawing unnecessary parallels between there and here.
583 comments just prove that length doesn’t always provide enlightenment.
FDB is right – this is really so very simple. No government should be in the business of dictating what people should wear.
583 comments just prove that length doesn’t always provide enlightenment.
FDB is right – this is really so very simple. No government should be in the business of dictating what people should wear.
“No government should be in the business of dictating what people should wear.”
Agreed. And entirely consistent with that principle, should the state be in the business of providing freedom of choice where there is unchecked compulsion by non-state actors?
I do wish people would stop pretending this is simply an issue about people’s ‘choices’.
Or at least be consistent about it – why wouldnt we defend a woman’s right to choose where there is compulsion?
“No government should be in the business of dictating what people should wear.”
Agreed. And entirely consistent with that principle, should the state be in the business of providing freedom of choice where there is unchecked compulsion by non-state actors?
I do wish people would stop pretending this is simply an issue about people’s ‘choices’.
Or at least be consistent about it – why wouldnt we defend a woman’s right to choose where there is compulsion?
But that is the point. The simple wearing of the burqa does not prove or even indicate compulsion.
If there is compulsion, this can be dealt with through existing laws.
And do you really think that banning it is going to deal with the issues that lead to the compulsion in the first place?
But that is the point. The simple wearing of the burqa does not prove or even indicate compulsion.
If there is compulsion, this can be dealt with through existing laws.
And do you really think that banning it is going to deal with the issues that lead to the compulsion in the first place?
that’s been covered here extensively lefty e, our existing laws give a lot of options for women to exercise choice.
that’s been covered here extensively lefty e, our existing laws give a lot of options for women to exercise choice.
Just to clarify, Stephanie Le Bars, the religion correspondent in the Le Monde article says that she believes the ban would conceivably reinforce communitarianism, and would not dismantle it. That is what I meant about the paradoxical effects of prohibition: where it is used in a ham fisted manner to address problems that are really not intrinsic to the prohibited article it can do worse than be ineffective – it can make that problem worse.
Just to clarify, Stephanie Le Bars, the religion correspondent in the Le Monde article says that she believes the ban would conceivably reinforce communitarianism, and would not dismantle it. That is what I meant about the paradoxical effects of prohibition: where it is used in a ham fisted manner to address problems that are really not intrinsic to the prohibited article it can do worse than be ineffective – it can make that problem worse.
“If there is compulsion, this can be dealt with through existing laws.”
Such as?
“If there is compulsion, this can be dealt with through existing laws.”
Such as?
“And do you really think that banning it is going to deal with the issues that lead to the compulsion in the first place?”
I dont know how many times I have to say I dont support a ban – it really is getting a tiny bit tiresome. I support freedom of choice for women. I believe the state has a role in ensuring that.
I beleive the liberal shrug position misses that group completly, and is inconsistent with its purported aims of allowing choice – and ends up either denying a group subject to compulsion exists, or imagining that there’s an existing set of laws to deal with the problem.
“And do you really think that banning it is going to deal with the issues that lead to the compulsion in the first place?”
I dont know how many times I have to say I dont support a ban – it really is getting a tiny bit tiresome. I support freedom of choice for women. I believe the state has a role in ensuring that.
I beleive the liberal shrug position misses that group completly, and is inconsistent with its purported aims of allowing choice – and ends up either denying a group subject to compulsion exists, or imagining that there’s an existing set of laws to deal with the problem.
So if you don’t support a ban what do you support then? What is your solution to this ‘problem’?
So if you don’t support a ban what do you support then? What is your solution to this ‘problem’?
I’m genuinely curious, Lefty E. What do you want to have happen?
As someone who has spent quite a lot of time in France, I have to say a huge problem with French communitarianism is exactly its lack of recognition of and respect for difference and the histories which have created those differences. Saying ‘we’re all French now’ elides a lot of history and deals poorly with a great many problems.
I’m genuinely curious, Lefty E. What do you want to have happen?
As someone who has spent quite a lot of time in France, I have to say a huge problem with French communitarianism is exactly its lack of recognition of and respect for difference and the histories which have created those differences. Saying ‘we’re all French now’ elides a lot of history and deals poorly with a great many problems.
Fine@581: ‘Several feminist have asked here what about the rights of the women who choose to wear the burqa. I don’t think this question has been answered clearly by people who wish to ban it. To me, this is the key question.’
The question has been answered several times. The general consensus is that it may either cause such women to not venture out in public and generally feel persecuted. Or, on the hand, a formal ban may actually give such woman official legislative backing to challenge any private pressure put on her to keep wearing it. There is nothing in history to prove that bans on social behaviours automatically create destructive outcomes for the people affected.
The question I would ask is: ‘Why does a woman – knowing full well that the society in which she is currently living, contains an overwhelming majority of citizens who do not want the burqa worn in public, and a strong majority of citizens who actually want it banned – go ahead and choose to wear a burqa anyway?’ Or, as Ummm Yasmin would say to this majority: ‘Bugger off!’
No one on the anti-ban side of the argument here seems to be at all concerned that such confrontational behaviour in public is in itself socially destructive. It is the extreme confrontationality of the burqa that I believe qualifies it for a ban rather than just leaving it to normal behavioural checks and balances. (And again, I emphasise that my pro-ban argument does NOT apply to non-confrontational styles of religious dress like the Muslim headscarf, Jewish yarmulka, Sikh turban, Buddhist shaven head or Catholic nun’s habit.)
I also believe that, until anyone can come up with a rational argument as to why full nakedness in public places should be made legal, then the dress-bans-are-incompatible-with-democracy argument is meaningless.
Fine@581: ‘Several feminist have asked here what about the rights of the women who choose to wear the burqa. I don’t think this question has been answered clearly by people who wish to ban it. To me, this is the key question.’
The question has been answered several times. The general consensus is that it may either cause such women to not venture out in public and generally feel persecuted. Or, on the hand, a formal ban may actually give such woman official legislative backing to challenge any private pressure put on her to keep wearing it. There is nothing in history to prove that bans on social behaviours automatically create destructive outcomes for the people affected.
The question I would ask is: ‘Why does a woman – knowing full well that the society in which she is currently living, contains an overwhelming majority of citizens who do not want the burqa worn in public, and a strong majority of citizens who actually want it banned – go ahead and choose to wear a burqa anyway?’ Or, as Ummm Yasmin would say to this majority: ‘Bugger off!’
No one on the anti-ban side of the argument here seems to be at all concerned that such confrontational behaviour in public is in itself socially destructive. It is the extreme confrontationality of the burqa that I believe qualifies it for a ban rather than just leaving it to normal behavioural checks and balances. (And again, I emphasise that my pro-ban argument does NOT apply to non-confrontational styles of religious dress like the Muslim headscarf, Jewish yarmulka, Sikh turban, Buddhist shaven head or Catholic nun’s habit.)
I also believe that, until anyone can come up with a rational argument as to why full nakedness in public places should be made legal, then the dress-bans-are-incompatible-with-democracy argument is meaningless.
lefty E, I told you above – women in Australia can work, own their own property, drive a car, be seen in public alone, are required to attend school till 15 (and their parents suffer if they don’t), can choose who to marry and can divorce at will, and have access to free, anonymous sexual health and contraceptive services (except in some rural areas). There are child protection services to investigate violence against children, and extensive social work and welfare information for those who need it. The system is continually monitoring its own behaviour in case it misses anyone.
So if in that complex system someone is still being compelled to wear a burqa, and doesn’t want to take any of the available options to do something about it, there really is little that can be done. Women stay with psychologically abusive partners and no law can fix that – they have the option to leave, their friends encourage them to leave, but they stay.
What can liberal societies do about people who choose not to take their exit rights? I think all they can really do at some point is, as you say, shrug.
lefty E, I told you above – women in Australia can work, own their own property, drive a car, be seen in public alone, are required to attend school till 15 (and their parents suffer if they don’t), can choose who to marry and can divorce at will, and have access to free, anonymous sexual health and contraceptive services (except in some rural areas). There are child protection services to investigate violence against children, and extensive social work and welfare information for those who need it. The system is continually monitoring its own behaviour in case it misses anyone.
So if in that complex system someone is still being compelled to wear a burqa, and doesn’t want to take any of the available options to do something about it, there really is little that can be done. Women stay with psychologically abusive partners and no law can fix that – they have the option to leave, their friends encourage them to leave, but they stay.
What can liberal societies do about people who choose not to take their exit rights? I think all they can really do at some point is, as you say, shrug.
Anyone would think that there were masses of burqa wearing women on the street bringing down society iorarua. Which is complete rubbish.
Anyone would think that there were masses of burqa wearing women on the street bringing down society iorarua. Which is complete rubbish.
Again, another false analogy.
Nakedness is not being clothed.
Wearing a face covering is a variety of ‘being clothed’.
Again, another false analogy.
Nakedness is not being clothed.
Wearing a face covering is a variety of ‘being clothed’.
“The question I would ask is: ‘Why does a woman – knowing full well that the society in which she is currently living, contains an overwhelming majority of citizens who do not want the burqa worn in public, and a strong majority of citizens who actually want it banned – go ahead and choose to wear a burqa anyway?’”
Because she wants to – which is her right in a democracy.
“The question I would ask is: ‘Why does a woman – knowing full well that the society in which she is currently living, contains an overwhelming majority of citizens who do not want the burqa worn in public, and a strong majority of citizens who actually want it banned – go ahead and choose to wear a burqa anyway?’”
Because she wants to – which is her right in a democracy.
I think we should ban punk and any clothes with offensive language on them too, because why would anyone want to dress like that in a society where they know it offends people?
I mean, these people are 18 or 20 years old. They should surely know better!
I think we should ban punk and any clothes with offensive language on them too, because why would anyone want to dress like that in a society where they know it offends people?
I mean, these people are 18 or 20 years old. They should surely know better!
Mark: ‘Again, another false analogy./ Nakedness is not being clothed./Wearing a face covering is a variety of ‘being clothed’.
Excuse me?? You could also argue that not being clothed is a variety of being clothed. You could also argue that until the final brick is placed in the wall it’s not fully a wall. So until the face is covered, a woman’s identity has not been made fully invisible – especially as one’s face is one’s personality,
Ah … who cares. I just wanted to be the 600th comment!
Mark: ‘Again, another false analogy./ Nakedness is not being clothed./Wearing a face covering is a variety of ‘being clothed’.
Excuse me?? You could also argue that not being clothed is a variety of being clothed. You could also argue that until the final brick is placed in the wall it’s not fully a wall. So until the face is covered, a woman’s identity has not been made fully invisible – especially as one’s face is one’s personality,
Ah … who cares. I just wanted to be the 600th comment!
Mark:
So replace “naked” with wearing nothing but socks and a hat. Why isn’t that legal?
Mark:
So replace “naked” with wearing nothing but socks and a hat. Why isn’t that legal?
also not being alive is a variety of being alive, and not being muslim is a variety of being muslim – right?
also not being alive is a variety of being alive, and not being muslim is a variety of being muslim – right?
“Because she wants to – which is her right in a democracy.”
Ah, so that’s what democracy is – the right to do whatever we want.
“Because she wants to – which is her right in a democracy.”
Ah, so that’s what democracy is – the right to do whatever we want.
I think both sides of this debate need to dial down on the hyperbole.
The Burqa is neither antithetical nor a threat to liberal democracies. Neither are laws banning the Burqa antithetical or a threat to liberal democracies.
Must have beat me by mere seconds.
I think both sides of this debate need to dial down on the hyperbole.
The Burqa is neither antithetical nor a threat to liberal democracies. Neither are laws banning the Burqa antithetical or a threat to liberal democracies.
Must have beat me by mere seconds.
No Russell, the right to do whatever you want when it’s legal to do so.
I was answering the question of why a woman would wear a burqa if the majority of people disapprove. *Sigh*
No Russell, the right to do whatever you want when it’s legal to do so.
I was answering the question of why a woman would wear a burqa if the majority of people disapprove. *Sigh*
@601 –
Err, um. I hardly need to point out why this is another false analogy, surely… “Clothed” normally implies that one’s genitalia are covered. Does it not?
@601 –
Err, um. I hardly need to point out why this is another false analogy, surely… “Clothed” normally implies that one’s genitalia are covered. Does it not?
So democracy is “the right to do whatever you want when it’s legal to do so.” ?
I don’t like that definition either, Fine. You should have just answered “Because she wants to” and left out the democracy bit.
So democracy is “the right to do whatever you want when it’s legal to do so.” ?
I don’t like that definition either, Fine. You should have just answered “Because she wants to” and left out the democracy bit.
All you leftist secularist feminists should abandon your opposition to the burqa because the ban has been proposed by right-wing Christian Islamophobes.
Conversely, all you leftist Christian feminists should abandon your support of the freedom to wear the burqa because wearing it is demanded by right-wing patriarchal imams.
All you leftist secularist feminists should abandon your opposition to the burqa because the ban has been proposed by right-wing Christian Islamophobes.
Conversely, all you leftist Christian feminists should abandon your support of the freedom to wear the burqa because wearing it is demanded by right-wing patriarchal imams.
No Russell, that isn’t the definition of democracy. But one of the features of a democracy is the rule of law which operates fairly and transparently.
And really, you’re very boringly splitting hairs, when you know perfectly well what I mean.
No Russell, that isn’t the definition of democracy. But one of the features of a democracy is the rule of law which operates fairly and transparently.
And really, you’re very boringly splitting hairs, when you know perfectly well what I mean.
Fine, I think you want words to mean what you want them to mean, but these are all complex areas. This is one more aspect of the discussion, which the Le Monde article raised: communitarian and liberal conceptions of freedom and individuality.
I got lost in the hat and socks discussion, but wasn’t the original point that if we can ban nudity in public places because many people find it offensive, and still call ourselves a democracy, then why can’t we ban the burqa, because many people find it offensive, and still call ourselves a democracy?
Fine, I think you want words to mean what you want them to mean, but these are all complex areas. This is one more aspect of the discussion, which the Le Monde article raised: communitarian and liberal conceptions of freedom and individuality.
I got lost in the hat and socks discussion, but wasn’t the original point that if we can ban nudity in public places because many people find it offensive, and still call ourselves a democracy, then why can’t we ban the burqa, because many people find it offensive, and still call ourselves a democracy?
Not really.
The ban on public pubic display is based on the notion (erroneous or at least unexamined) that the sight of pubes is somehow offensive, obscene, and/or traumatising. Pubes, according to this logic, must be concealed.
But there is nothing inherently offensive, obscene, and/or traumatising in one’s inability to see someone’s face. We sit behind hundreds of people on public transport or at public performances and never see their faces. We are not traumatised by that fact. If we were, we would spend our entire lives in public gazing obsessively into the faces of all we encounter. Sane people don’t do that.
Thus, when someone chooses to wear a burqa, or a balaclava, or a surgical mask in public we simply accept that fact as a case of one of countless faces we don’t see in the course of any average day. Faces don’t have to be revealed.
Not really.
The ban on public pubic display is based on the notion (erroneous or at least unexamined) that the sight of pubes is somehow offensive, obscene, and/or traumatising. Pubes, according to this logic, must be concealed.
But there is nothing inherently offensive, obscene, and/or traumatising in one’s inability to see someone’s face. We sit behind hundreds of people on public transport or at public performances and never see their faces. We are not traumatised by that fact. If we were, we would spend our entire lives in public gazing obsessively into the faces of all we encounter. Sane people don’t do that.
Thus, when someone chooses to wear a burqa, or a balaclava, or a surgical mask in public we simply accept that fact as a case of one of countless faces we don’t see in the course of any average day. Faces don’t have to be revealed.
Kim:
“Clothed” also doesn’t “normally” imply ones face is covered. Why is exposing ones genitalia any more or less appropriate than covering ones face to the extent that one should be illegal, given that presumably nudity would face similar levels of opposition as the Burqa would in surveys of the public?
Kim:
“Clothed” also doesn’t “normally” imply ones face is covered. Why is exposing ones genitalia any more or less appropriate than covering ones face to the extent that one should be illegal, given that presumably nudity would face similar levels of opposition as the Burqa would in surveys of the public?
Fine, thanks for your question. I did outline that at 345, 453, and again at 474, but I do appreciate its now quite a long thread.
I’d now add to that – on top of that, I have no in-principle problem with the state intervening to ensure people have these choices we all seem to want to defend. It seems to be that a lot of people here only want to defend choice if it already exists. Its the classic difference between positive and negative liberty. Just as the left has always been concerned with private sphere economic power – I make a parallel argument here.
I appreciate your thoughtful, non-rhetorical response there Sg – but I think its an acknowledgement that we *dont* really have the laws, or shelters that would cater for these issues – as we do for, say, DV. I think that we should.
I accept that you no doubt see your position as causing less harm – but I also appreciate the acknowledgement that it is a postion that just shrugs at a certain point.
And thats what Ive been saying: I dont think we should just shrug in the case of non-state compulsion to wear garments that isolate and stigmatise you – any more than I think we should leave damaging quasi-Christian cults to operate carte blanche on vulnerable people udner the guise of some uncritical – and totally misplaced – committment to freedom of association. When by definition, a concern over coercion automatically makes it a completely different issue.
This is why I am disagreeing – despite, like many of you, not supporting a ban. I note that most people have been arguing with me as if I do support one – which of course, is easier. I appreciate that a couple of you havent.
Concerns over this issue are not just limited to slavering RWDBs who fear multilculturalism. I like multiculturalism – but let it not ever be a shield for caste or gender inequality – cos I like equality even better.
Fine, thanks for your question. I did outline that at 345, 453, and again at 474, but I do appreciate its now quite a long thread.
I’d now add to that – on top of that, I have no in-principle problem with the state intervening to ensure people have these choices we all seem to want to defend. It seems to be that a lot of people here only want to defend choice if it already exists. Its the classic difference between positive and negative liberty. Just as the left has always been concerned with private sphere economic power – I make a parallel argument here.
I appreciate your thoughtful, non-rhetorical response there Sg – but I think its an acknowledgement that we *dont* really have the laws, or shelters that would cater for these issues – as we do for, say, DV. I think that we should.
I accept that you no doubt see your position as causing less harm – but I also appreciate the acknowledgement that it is a postion that just shrugs at a certain point.
And thats what Ive been saying: I dont think we should just shrug in the case of non-state compulsion to wear garments that isolate and stigmatise you – any more than I think we should leave damaging quasi-Christian cults to operate carte blanche on vulnerable people udner the guise of some uncritical – and totally misplaced – committment to freedom of association. When by definition, a concern over coercion automatically makes it a completely different issue.
This is why I am disagreeing – despite, like many of you, not supporting a ban. I note that most people have been arguing with me as if I do support one – which of course, is easier. I appreciate that a couple of you havent.
Concerns over this issue are not just limited to slavering RWDBs who fear multilculturalism. I like multiculturalism – but let it not ever be a shield for caste or gender inequality – cos I like equality even better.
Help! Someone at work is wearing a surgical mask and I can’t see his face. I know he is just trying to protect me from catching his cold, but I can’t see his face and am deeply offended.
When is the govermin going to ban surgical masks? Except when worn by surgeons. I even saw these masks for sale in my local chemist. When is this outrage going to staop.
Help! Someone at work is wearing a surgical mask and I can’t see his face. I know he is just trying to protect me from catching his cold, but I can’t see his face and am deeply offended.
When is the govermin going to ban surgical masks? Except when worn by surgeons. I even saw these masks for sale in my local chemist. When is this outrage going to staop.
Step it up how, Lefty E? How does this avoid the tiny minority of women who actually wear a burqua from being punished by being unable to leave their homes, whether because they aren’t allowed or whether they feel ‘naked’ without their burqa?
Step it up how, Lefty E? How does this avoid the tiny minority of women who actually wear a burqua from being punished by being unable to leave their homes, whether because they aren’t allowed or whether they feel ‘naked’ without their burqa?
except when one gets married, or wears a motorbike helmet, or protective clothing on a worksite, or a surgical mask in public, or a 20s-style hat, or any skiing related clothing, or sports gear, or …
except when one gets married, or wears a motorbike helmet, or protective clothing on a worksite, or a surgical mask in public, or a 20s-style hat, or any skiing related clothing, or sports gear, or …
Lefty E, I agree about the possibility that the state might have to step in in some situations to enable choice, but I just don’t see how it can apply in a context of a few women possibly being forced to wear an extremely rarely-seen item of clothing. If we were talking about a widespread religious cult forcing people to do stuff, I can see the role of the state; but here we are referring to a small number of people, many of whom seem to be adopting the clothing by free choice, in a circumstance where they are generally able to take advantage of a wide range of exit rights.
I would guess that the main reason women can’t take these exit rights is because they are strongly wedded to the other cultural aspects of the subcommunity that is forcing them to wear the burqa, and will be forced to give it all up if they drop the veil. That seems like an internal debate for Islam, if that’s happening, and it’s hard to characterise that as a lack of proper free choice.
The other possibility is that they lack adequate language skills and job skills to leave their abusive husband who can force them to do stuff they don’t want to do. This is not a problem of the burqa and there are many other such situations every day in Australia that we also can’t step in to prevent. Sure, we can do our best to ensure young women are well schooled and capable of working (that’s why I mentioned the compulsory schooling), but ultimately there’s a limit to what the state can do about this, or what non-state organisations can do, and at this point we just have to shrug and say “the world’s not yet perfect, and bad people will do bad things to weak people” while continuing to try and weaken the economic inequalities which enable bad people to do bad things to weak people. I’ve no doubt that is one of the main benefits of compulsory schooling, in fact.
Lefty E, I agree about the possibility that the state might have to step in in some situations to enable choice, but I just don’t see how it can apply in a context of a few women possibly being forced to wear an extremely rarely-seen item of clothing. If we were talking about a widespread religious cult forcing people to do stuff, I can see the role of the state; but here we are referring to a small number of people, many of whom seem to be adopting the clothing by free choice, in a circumstance where they are generally able to take advantage of a wide range of exit rights.
I would guess that the main reason women can’t take these exit rights is because they are strongly wedded to the other cultural aspects of the subcommunity that is forcing them to wear the burqa, and will be forced to give it all up if they drop the veil. That seems like an internal debate for Islam, if that’s happening, and it’s hard to characterise that as a lack of proper free choice.
The other possibility is that they lack adequate language skills and job skills to leave their abusive husband who can force them to do stuff they don’t want to do. This is not a problem of the burqa and there are many other such situations every day in Australia that we also can’t step in to prevent. Sure, we can do our best to ensure young women are well schooled and capable of working (that’s why I mentioned the compulsory schooling), but ultimately there’s a limit to what the state can do about this, or what non-state organisations can do, and at this point we just have to shrug and say “the world’s not yet perfect, and bad people will do bad things to weak people” while continuing to try and weaken the economic inequalities which enable bad people to do bad things to weak people. I’ve no doubt that is one of the main benefits of compulsory schooling, in fact.
Katz@611:
I think the evidence from France is that it is at least one of those, and possibly not due to the simplistic fact of not being able to see the face but rather the cultural meanings behind it. I’m not sure you can ignore the cultural meanings related to the Burqa and simply analyse just its mechanical nature.
Katz@611:
I think the evidence from France is that it is at least one of those, and possibly not due to the simplistic fact of not being able to see the face but rather the cultural meanings behind it. I’m not sure you can ignore the cultural meanings related to the Burqa and simply analyse just its mechanical nature.
‘I’ve no doubt that is one of the main benefits of compulsory schooling, in fact.’
Indeed, in fact thats the one thing in your list at 595 that could impact on these issues. I dont think its enough.
And by defintion, we dont know how many people are in this category – so you’re really only speculating when you assert its a very small number. I kinda dont care if its only 30 – my opinion remains the same, precisely because any state response could also address the myriad of pseudo-Christian cults from which we have seen any number of other complaints of coercion: exclusive brethren, scientologists, Children of God, Kenja etc.
Mindy – I dont have a problem with civic education about women’s equality for new arrivals – especially if they come from a country with a poor record of gender equality. And lets face it, the Burqa aint exactly a sign of a vanguard society on women rights. I certainly dont think the women in question should be berated – after all, in cases of coercion, they arent the problem.
‘I’ve no doubt that is one of the main benefits of compulsory schooling, in fact.’
Indeed, in fact thats the one thing in your list at 595 that could impact on these issues. I dont think its enough.
And by defintion, we dont know how many people are in this category – so you’re really only speculating when you assert its a very small number. I kinda dont care if its only 30 – my opinion remains the same, precisely because any state response could also address the myriad of pseudo-Christian cults from which we have seen any number of other complaints of coercion: exclusive brethren, scientologists, Children of God, Kenja etc.
Mindy – I dont have a problem with civic education about women’s equality for new arrivals – especially if they come from a country with a poor record of gender equality. And lets face it, the Burqa aint exactly a sign of a vanguard society on women rights. I certainly dont think the women in question should be berated – after all, in cases of coercion, they arent the problem.
Lefty E I completely understand what you are saying, and have consistently said throughout this thread. I respect it too. It would be hypocritical not to, because it’s almost exactly what I thought when I first began to see niqabis around Melbourne, although not expressed so clearly in my case.
Why I have changed my mind is not because I think the number of women made to cover their faces is too small to do more than ‘shrug’ about. It’s because I’ve had to swallow some pride about the self-evident validity of some of my (white) (anglo) feminist opinions and listen to what Muslim women say. And what they say that matters to me is this:
Muslim women in Australia who cover are *not* forced to cover their faces by men, family members, or religious authorities. It just doesn’t happen. I’ve been told that, I’ve read it, I have to accept it’s true.
Muslim women in Australia encounter *significant* barriers to social participation from community harrassment, discrimination, inappropriate facilities, unaccommodating rules and requirements that disallow religious dress in sports clubs, schools, and government services. This really, really makes me cross, and I think it means Australia has to bloody well pull its socks up and get over this pathetic fright about headscarves and loose coats. Information about the scale of the problem in this Department of Immigration report by Helen McCue, http://www.immi.gov.au/living-in-australia/a-diverse-australia/national-action-plan/_attach/participation-muslim-women.pdf
Lefty E I completely understand what you are saying, and have consistently said throughout this thread. I respect it too. It would be hypocritical not to, because it’s almost exactly what I thought when I first began to see niqabis around Melbourne, although not expressed so clearly in my case.
Why I have changed my mind is not because I think the number of women made to cover their faces is too small to do more than ‘shrug’ about. It’s because I’ve had to swallow some pride about the self-evident validity of some of my (white) (anglo) feminist opinions and listen to what Muslim women say. And what they say that matters to me is this:
Muslim women in Australia who cover are *not* forced to cover their faces by men, family members, or religious authorities. It just doesn’t happen. I’ve been told that, I’ve read it, I have to accept it’s true.
Muslim women in Australia encounter *significant* barriers to social participation from community harrassment, discrimination, inappropriate facilities, unaccommodating rules and requirements that disallow religious dress in sports clubs, schools, and government services. This really, really makes me cross, and I think it means Australia has to bloody well pull its socks up and get over this pathetic fright about headscarves and loose coats. Information about the scale of the problem in this Department of Immigration report by Helen McCue, http://www.immi.gov.au/living-in-australia/a-diverse-australia/national-action-plan/_attach/participation-muslim-women.pdf
“Because it’s not democracy if it passes laws you don’t like?”
No, it’s just that there are some laws which, even if passed by a representative assembly, are incompatible with democracy, unless your concept of democracy encompasses only majority rule, in which case I fear you have all your thinking ahead of you.
BBB
“Because it’s not democracy if it passes laws you don’t like?”
No, it’s just that there are some laws which, even if passed by a representative assembly, are incompatible with democracy, unless your concept of democracy encompasses only majority rule, in which case I fear you have all your thinking ahead of you.
BBB
You’re not required to ignore it. You are requested to tolerate it, like dyslexics tolerate FCUK t-shirts.
You’re not required to ignore it. You are requested to tolerate it, like dyslexics tolerate FCUK t-shirts.
BBB,
I don’t see how a law banning the burqa is incompatible with democracy. If it were a law banning discussion of the burqa or a belief in the tennents of Islam then I might be able to understand. I just don’t see how banning the burqa could negatively impact the functioning of a democracy.
BBB,
I don’t see how a law banning the burqa is incompatible with democracy. If it were a law banning discussion of the burqa or a belief in the tennents of Islam then I might be able to understand. I just don’t see how banning the burqa could negatively impact the functioning of a democracy.
There is a problem with the burqa for non-burqa wearers which is that it changes the nature of the social dynamics when communicating with someone who has their face covered. This is so self evident but it has not, so far as I can recall, been raised yet. It goes to the fundamentals of how humans communicate, Muslim or otherwise.
It may be the case that in a community where facial coverings are commonplace the voice carries more meaning than it needs to in a community where facial coverings are rare. This of course raises the question of imagining one’s self into such a communicative community. The exercise reminded me of LeGuins “Left Hand of Darkness”.
For what it is worth, and the tubes have myriad sites on the topic, here is from one pop-pschology site:
There is a problem with the burqa for non-burqa wearers which is that it changes the nature of the social dynamics when communicating with someone who has their face covered. This is so self evident but it has not, so far as I can recall, been raised yet. It goes to the fundamentals of how humans communicate, Muslim or otherwise.
It may be the case that in a community where facial coverings are commonplace the voice carries more meaning than it needs to in a community where facial coverings are rare. This of course raises the question of imagining one’s self into such a communicative community. The exercise reminded me of LeGuins “Left Hand of Darkness”.
For what it is worth, and the tubes have myriad sites on the topic, here is from one pop-pschology site:
Legal Eagle @7 made a related comment. I had the experience of dealing with burqa wearers when I worked on the enquiry desk at the State Library, and I found it very awkward, even confronting. You are without the clues you need to establish some rapport with the person, and to see if they’re following what you’re showing/telling them.
The discomfort is related to other meanings that many of us have associated with a particular brand of Islam since the fatwa on Salman Rushdie.
There’s also the weird feeling (powerlessness?) that being seen, but not being able to see, gives you – kind of the reverse of the feeling described in an earlier comment about why children enjoy hiding.
Which adds up to a several violations of our codes of politeness. Only a few weeks ago I met some friends for lunch but had forgotten to take my ordinary glasses. I just had the dark, prescription, glasses I was wearing. I would have loved to keep them on, and not spend the 3 hours feeling like I was underwater, but I know how unpleasant it is to have a conversation with someone wearing dark glasses, so I didn’t wear them. The considerate thing was to take the discomfort on myself, not to displace it on to my friends.
Legal Eagle @7 made a related comment. I had the experience of dealing with burqa wearers when I worked on the enquiry desk at the State Library, and I found it very awkward, even confronting. You are without the clues you need to establish some rapport with the person, and to see if they’re following what you’re showing/telling them.
The discomfort is related to other meanings that many of us have associated with a particular brand of Islam since the fatwa on Salman Rushdie.
There’s also the weird feeling (powerlessness?) that being seen, but not being able to see, gives you – kind of the reverse of the feeling described in an earlier comment about why children enjoy hiding.
Which adds up to a several violations of our codes of politeness. Only a few weeks ago I met some friends for lunch but had forgotten to take my ordinary glasses. I just had the dark, prescription, glasses I was wearing. I would have loved to keep them on, and not spend the 3 hours feeling like I was underwater, but I know how unpleasant it is to have a conversation with someone wearing dark glasses, so I didn’t wear them. The considerate thing was to take the discomfort on myself, not to displace it on to my friends.
Is this thread still steaming on, 625 or so posts after it began?
I actually find myself a little perplexed at that.
The only other issue I can recall making this much of an impression on the blogoshere was Bill (nearly wrote Jim) Henson and the photos.
Is this thread still steaming on, 625 or so posts after it began?
I actually find myself a little perplexed at that.
The only other issue I can recall making this much of an impression on the blogoshere was Bill (nearly wrote Jim) Henson and the photos.
So many comments and outraged condemnation of burqa wearers and their culture and/or religion, yet so little to no curiosity by many about *why* Muslim women might in the face of all the odds, willing even enthusiastically wear it.
So many comments and outraged condemnation of burqa wearers and their culture and/or religion, yet so little to no curiosity by many about *why* Muslim women might in the face of all the odds, willing even enthusiastically wear it.
“I had the experience of dealing with burqa wearers when I worked on the enquiry desk at the State Library, and I found it very awkward, even confronting.”
I have had experience dealing with uniform wearers at demonstrations and occasionally in everyday life. It was very awkward, confronting even.
I propose they be banned.
“I had the experience of dealing with burqa wearers when I worked on the enquiry desk at the State Library, and I found it very awkward, even confronting.”
I have had experience dealing with uniform wearers at demonstrations and occasionally in everyday life. It was very awkward, confronting even.
I propose they be banned.
It was touched on when the matter of covered women giving evidence in court was raised but this apparently self-evident problem is non-existent IMO. Most of the salient information in facial expression can be read from the eye area alone. If you want to know how easy it is to read facial expression from eyes go to http://www.autismresearchcentre.com/tests/eyes_test_adult.asp and download the adult eyes test (3 parts, the answers are in the instructions section). Despite having a couple of good reasons for thinking I would totally suck at this I scored 32/36 and we are not talking happy/angry/sad but much more subtle distinctions in emotional expression.
It was touched on when the matter of covered women giving evidence in court was raised but this apparently self-evident problem is non-existent IMO. Most of the salient information in facial expression can be read from the eye area alone. If you want to know how easy it is to read facial expression from eyes go to http://www.autismresearchcentre.com/tests/eyes_test_adult.asp and download the adult eyes test (3 parts, the answers are in the instructions section). Despite having a couple of good reasons for thinking I would totally suck at this I scored 32/36 and we are not talking happy/angry/sad but much more subtle distinctions in emotional expression.
“There is a problem with the burqa for non-burqa wearers which is that it changes the nature of the social dynamics when communicating with someone who has their face covered. This is so self evident but it has not, so far as I can recall, been raised yet.”
I have the same problem with people who wear dark glasses. I can’t even recognise who they are when I know them really well. Should we ban dark glasses?
“There is a problem with the burqa for non-burqa wearers which is that it changes the nature of the social dynamics when communicating with someone who has their face covered. This is so self evident but it has not, so far as I can recall, been raised yet.”
I have the same problem with people who wear dark glasses. I can’t even recognise who they are when I know them really well. Should we ban dark glasses?
Would it be rude to ask someone to remove their dark glasses/surgical face-mask/whatever if they want to talk to you?
Would it be rude to ask someone to remove their dark glasses/surgical face-mask/whatever if they want to talk to you?
“Most of the salient information in facial expression can be read from the eye area alone”
The only burqas I’ve seen had mesh over the eyes – I couldn’t see any part of the person.
“Most of the salient information in facial expression can be read from the eye area alone”
The only burqas I’ve seen had mesh over the eyes – I couldn’t see any part of the person.
Yes but as estabished very early on, the ban applies to niqabs as well, the burqa is worn by a few hundred French women, the niqab by ~ 1-2000.
Yes but as estabished very early on, the ban applies to niqabs as well, the burqa is worn by a few hundred French women, the niqab by ~ 1-2000.
Paul Walter ‘The only other issue I can recall making this much of an impression on the blogoshere was Bill (nearly wrote Jim) Henson and the photos.’
Because they cover all the same ethical issues – i.e. the freedom of patriarchies to express their subjugation of women and the freedom of women to choose the methods by which the patriarchy subjugates them. While the Henson photos were of both sexes (who ‘chose’ to be photographed with the blessing of their parents), the media controversy focussed almost entirely on the female child to the virtual exclusion of the male child – so the media controversy was as much about artistic objectification and sexualisation of women and girls than just vulgar populist hysteria about alleged artistic pedophilia.
Also, regarding the burqa ban, it’s now a fait accompli in France and about 70% of French people endorse it. So from now on it’s a case of the proof of the pudding and all that. If there is a sharp increase in burqa’d French women gulping down anti-depressants or committing suicide or being deported by their husbands to burqa-friendly countries, then I guess we can call the whole thing Sarkozy’s folly. If not, then – as with economics – a bit of governmental regulation of social practices that degrade and invisiblise women may not be such a bad idea.
Paul Walter ‘The only other issue I can recall making this much of an impression on the blogoshere was Bill (nearly wrote Jim) Henson and the photos.’
Because they cover all the same ethical issues – i.e. the freedom of patriarchies to express their subjugation of women and the freedom of women to choose the methods by which the patriarchy subjugates them. While the Henson photos were of both sexes (who ‘chose’ to be photographed with the blessing of their parents), the media controversy focussed almost entirely on the female child to the virtual exclusion of the male child – so the media controversy was as much about artistic objectification and sexualisation of women and girls than just vulgar populist hysteria about alleged artistic pedophilia.
Also, regarding the burqa ban, it’s now a fait accompli in France and about 70% of French people endorse it. So from now on it’s a case of the proof of the pudding and all that. If there is a sharp increase in burqa’d French women gulping down anti-depressants or committing suicide or being deported by their husbands to burqa-friendly countries, then I guess we can call the whole thing Sarkozy’s folly. If not, then – as with economics – a bit of governmental regulation of social practices that degrade and invisiblise women may not be such a bad idea.
desipis, so the State should not criminalise (a.) believing in Islam or (b.) preaching Islam, but it should criminalise (c.) wearing Islam? I don’t want to put words in your mouth but that is one way of interpreting your comments.
As for democracy, what can I say? I have an expansive view of what is required for a fully-functioning democracy. And of what damages and undermines and is incompatible with democracy. Clearly some damage might not be fatal to a democratic project; it will be diminished nontheless. Perhaps you are not starting from the right point, i.e. that democracy must be founded on the principle that each person has certain inalienable rights which are bounded only by those same inalienable rights in the hands of others?
A final observation: it’s shocking how many here are apparently willing to criminalise conduct on the basis that such conduct makes them or others feel uncomfortable, or renders communication more difficult. Is that the test for imposing the will of the majority through the coercive and essentially violent – because make no mistake at the end of a burka ban there is only the threat of prison – powers of the State? If so then we have fallen further than I thought. This is the bit where I descend into an objectivist monologue and What Happened to Socrates… so anyway can we please re-run the Enlightenment?
BBB
desipis, so the State should not criminalise (a.) believing in Islam or (b.) preaching Islam, but it should criminalise (c.) wearing Islam? I don’t want to put words in your mouth but that is one way of interpreting your comments.
As for democracy, what can I say? I have an expansive view of what is required for a fully-functioning democracy. And of what damages and undermines and is incompatible with democracy. Clearly some damage might not be fatal to a democratic project; it will be diminished nontheless. Perhaps you are not starting from the right point, i.e. that democracy must be founded on the principle that each person has certain inalienable rights which are bounded only by those same inalienable rights in the hands of others?
A final observation: it’s shocking how many here are apparently willing to criminalise conduct on the basis that such conduct makes them or others feel uncomfortable, or renders communication more difficult. Is that the test for imposing the will of the majority through the coercive and essentially violent – because make no mistake at the end of a burka ban there is only the threat of prison – powers of the State? If so then we have fallen further than I thought. This is the bit where I descend into an objectivist monologue and What Happened to Socrates… so anyway can we please re-run the Enlightenment?
BBB
BBB:
I think the interpretation should be something like this:
Personally I don’t support the ban, however I guess I just don’t see freedom of fashion as such an inalienable right as to override the will of the democratic majority.
I wonder if people are fearing that if it’s not made illegal, they’ll be forced to accept it and not have the freedom to act on or even express any negative feelings towards someone for wearing a burqa as to do so would be “discrimination”.
BBB:
I think the interpretation should be something like this:
Personally I don’t support the ban, however I guess I just don’t see freedom of fashion as such an inalienable right as to override the will of the democratic majority.
I wonder if people are fearing that if it’s not made illegal, they’ll be forced to accept it and not have the freedom to act on or even express any negative feelings towards someone for wearing a burqa as to do so would be “discrimination”.
you changed BBB’s words very subtly there, desipis. Also, describing a person’s choice to cover parts of their body as freedom of fashion is a little patronising.
iorarua, your comment at 634 very carefully and cruelly denigrates Muslim women. Are we to think that if they don’t try to kill themselves, or their husbands don’t try to deport them, that they aren’t suffering from being publicly stripped, humiliated or told by the state and/or the majority of Frenchies that their public display of their religious belief is unwelcome? Perhaps we should extend the same callousness to all women? We could remove laws about sexual harrassment and figure that if women aren’t killing themselves or leaving the country, no problem?
Or is it only Muslim women who have to suck it up? And only hysterical Muslim women who can be expected to respond to a legal change by committing suicide, rather than hiding, being ashamed, not speaking out, retreating to the domestic sphere, etc?
Lefty E, I’m not sure what definition you have that makes these women unidentifiable – apparently part of “the problem” with these women is that they stick out like dogs balls, and a wave of discomfort flows behind them, so surely it ain’t so hard to assign the problem a magnitude. Or is it again the case that there is a bigger problem attendant on the burqa, of women not being allowed out of the private space? Because I think that’s either a crime, or bad choices by the women, and in either case our society has methods for handling that stuff already.
Note I have quoted a figure for the number of Frenchies who wear burqa – 400 to 2000. In Australia that would amount to between 130 and 650, except of course France has a larger Muslim population from North Africa than we do (probably). This means we’re probably getting our knickers in a twist over 200 women in all of Australia.
I reckon Australian society can handle that. Just a guess, and all, but I think we’re up to it. Let them do what they want, and witness their daughters growing up showing off bumcrack and running nasty juvenile facebook groups.
you changed BBB’s words very subtly there, desipis. Also, describing a person’s choice to cover parts of their body as freedom of fashion is a little patronising.
iorarua, your comment at 634 very carefully and cruelly denigrates Muslim women. Are we to think that if they don’t try to kill themselves, or their husbands don’t try to deport them, that they aren’t suffering from being publicly stripped, humiliated or told by the state and/or the majority of Frenchies that their public display of their religious belief is unwelcome? Perhaps we should extend the same callousness to all women? We could remove laws about sexual harrassment and figure that if women aren’t killing themselves or leaving the country, no problem?
Or is it only Muslim women who have to suck it up? And only hysterical Muslim women who can be expected to respond to a legal change by committing suicide, rather than hiding, being ashamed, not speaking out, retreating to the domestic sphere, etc?
Lefty E, I’m not sure what definition you have that makes these women unidentifiable – apparently part of “the problem” with these women is that they stick out like dogs balls, and a wave of discomfort flows behind them, so surely it ain’t so hard to assign the problem a magnitude. Or is it again the case that there is a bigger problem attendant on the burqa, of women not being allowed out of the private space? Because I think that’s either a crime, or bad choices by the women, and in either case our society has methods for handling that stuff already.
Note I have quoted a figure for the number of Frenchies who wear burqa – 400 to 2000. In Australia that would amount to between 130 and 650, except of course France has a larger Muslim population from North Africa than we do (probably). This means we’re probably getting our knickers in a twist over 200 women in all of Australia.
I reckon Australian society can handle that. Just a guess, and all, but I think we’re up to it. Let them do what they want, and witness their daughters growing up showing off bumcrack and running nasty juvenile facebook groups.
” My view, therefore, is that as a society we should step it up a bit in terms of the ‘offence’ line. Explain to blokes (and women) in that community that in Australia this is absolutely, in no uncertain terms, considered offensive; an insult to women’s dignity.”
Following on from Laura @620 – LeftyE, what do you say to a woman who tells you that you misunderstand the meaning of to veil to her and she doesn’t want to give it up, even though she understands your argument?
” My view, therefore, is that as a society we should step it up a bit in terms of the ‘offence’ line. Explain to blokes (and women) in that community that in Australia this is absolutely, in no uncertain terms, considered offensive; an insult to women’s dignity.”
Following on from Laura @620 – LeftyE, what do you say to a woman who tells you that you misunderstand the meaning of to veil to her and she doesn’t want to give it up, even though she understands your argument?
sg@637: ‘iorarua, your comment at 634 very carefully and cruelly denigrates Muslim women. Are we to think that if they don’t try to kill themselves, or their husbands don’t try to deport them, that they aren’t suffering from being publicly stripped, humiliated or told by the state and/or the majority of Frenchies that their public display of their religious belief is unwelcome?’
You’re a bit irony-challenged, aren’t you? Are you so blindsided by the ‘but what about the poor veiled wimmenz’ factor that you can’t perceive I was being satirical about the very kind of paternalism that your response displays in spades?
I mean … ‘stripped’?, ‘humiliated’? That’s laying on the pity a bit. And ‘public display of religious belief’? For goodness sake! It’s a public display of women’s inferiority to men – i.e. men have the right to show their identities in public but women don’t.
I appreciate the situation of the women involved, but they’re wrapped up enough as it is. They don’t need an extra layer of cotton wool. If they’re strong enough to publicly wear burqas in a society that doesn’t want them to, then they’re strong enough to deal with the consequences of a legal ban.
sg@637: ‘iorarua, your comment at 634 very carefully and cruelly denigrates Muslim women. Are we to think that if they don’t try to kill themselves, or their husbands don’t try to deport them, that they aren’t suffering from being publicly stripped, humiliated or told by the state and/or the majority of Frenchies that their public display of their religious belief is unwelcome?’
You’re a bit irony-challenged, aren’t you? Are you so blindsided by the ‘but what about the poor veiled wimmenz’ factor that you can’t perceive I was being satirical about the very kind of paternalism that your response displays in spades?
I mean … ‘stripped’?, ‘humiliated’? That’s laying on the pity a bit. And ‘public display of religious belief’? For goodness sake! It’s a public display of women’s inferiority to men – i.e. men have the right to show their identities in public but women don’t.
I appreciate the situation of the women involved, but they’re wrapped up enough as it is. They don’t need an extra layer of cotton wool. If they’re strong enough to publicly wear burqas in a society that doesn’t want them to, then they’re strong enough to deal with the consequences of a legal ban.
‘… what do you say to a woman who tells you that you misunderstand the meaning of to veil to her and she doesn’t want to give it up, even though she understands your argument?’
How about Dorothy’s line in The Wizard of Oz: ‘Toto, we’re not in Kansas anymore!’
‘… what do you say to a woman who tells you that you misunderstand the meaning of to veil to her and she doesn’t want to give it up, even though she understands your argument?’
How about Dorothy’s line in The Wizard of Oz: ‘Toto, we’re not in Kansas anymore!’
that’s right, iorarua, we aren’t in kansas anymore. We’re in multicultural australia (well, actually, I’m not, I’m in multicultural Japan). You don’t get to say “you don’t live in country X anymore, so you don’t get to do Y” unless “Y” is illegal. And you don’t get to propose laws about “Y” just because they come from country X, you need a reason.
“I don’t like it” and “It’s sexist” aren’t sufficient reasons to pass a law banning something. But your comment at 640 seems to suggest you haven’t grasped the fundamental principles of multiculturalism or liberalism, so maybe you don’t realise that the law isn’t their to prosecute on behalf of your whims, your particular political views or, as Oigal so cutely put it, your “pet peeves.”
that’s right, iorarua, we aren’t in kansas anymore. We’re in multicultural australia (well, actually, I’m not, I’m in multicultural Japan). You don’t get to say “you don’t live in country X anymore, so you don’t get to do Y” unless “Y” is illegal. And you don’t get to propose laws about “Y” just because they come from country X, you need a reason.
“I don’t like it” and “It’s sexist” aren’t sufficient reasons to pass a law banning something. But your comment at 640 seems to suggest you haven’t grasped the fundamental principles of multiculturalism or liberalism, so maybe you don’t realise that the law isn’t their to prosecute on behalf of your whims, your particular political views or, as Oigal so cutely put it, your “pet peeves.”
ioraru, perhaps you’d be more comfortable with the Israeli style of interacting with Muslim women..?
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/.a/6a00d83451c45669e20134813bbf05970c-popup
ioraru, perhaps you’d be more comfortable with the Israeli style of interacting with Muslim women..?
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/.a/6a00d83451c45669e20134813bbf05970c-popup
Thanks everyone for the respones. Laura @620, I’m glad you dont think that ‘size matters’ in this debate – I couldnt agree more: justice is about principle not some some aggregate harm equation, in which “crimes against small minorities = meh’. Thankfully we dont run the criminal law that way.
But you’d have to concede the possibility, I think, there could be a bias to your sample (people who have talked to a lecturer at uni) – in favour of those who choose to wear it, and suffer relatively few life-limiting restrictions from family or community.
I agree people’s reaction to the Burqa will be a key factor, but again, isnt that the point of the outfit – to reduce social interaction with ‘their’ women? Isnt that in fact what its *designed* for? Minimising the social political and economic particpation of its bearers? And since we’ve been told over and over that it isnt a key article of faith – well, lets encourage the alternatives that facilitate women’s participation in society (eg the hijab).
Sg @637,”Or is it again the case that there is a bigger problem attendant on the burqa, of women not being allowed out of the private space? Because I think that’s either a crime, or bad choices by the women, and in either case our society has methods for handling that stuff already.” Sg, you could literally drive a bus between our legal definition of false imprisonment/ kidnap and the imposition of life-limiting cultural practices . As for “bad” choices”, if you substitute the work “limited” we might be getting to an appreciation of the problem.
So, people in cults are either imprisoned aganst their will, or making ‘bad’ choices’ for which there’s no one to blame but themselves? Come on. If feminism generally had taken this approach to invisibility and the ‘private’ nature of domestic oppression being no business of the ‘public’ state, it’d literally be set back 40 years.
Fine @638, I would say ‘no problem’. You may be misunderstanding what I’ve written above. What would you say if she said she didnt feel comfortable talking about it with her father or brothers around?
Maybe she wouldnt be wearing it if dad et al had got the message we dont believe women have to be made invisible to be respected. In fact, we require men to control themselves, and no, my daughter showing her face in public is not an invitation, mate. Get with the program dude, etc.
Thanks everyone for the respones. Laura @620, I’m glad you dont think that ‘size matters’ in this debate – I couldnt agree more: justice is about principle not some some aggregate harm equation, in which “crimes against small minorities = meh’. Thankfully we dont run the criminal law that way.
But you’d have to concede the possibility, I think, there could be a bias to your sample (people who have talked to a lecturer at uni) – in favour of those who choose to wear it, and suffer relatively few life-limiting restrictions from family or community.
I agree people’s reaction to the Burqa will be a key factor, but again, isnt that the point of the outfit – to reduce social interaction with ‘their’ women? Isnt that in fact what its *designed* for? Minimising the social political and economic particpation of its bearers? And since we’ve been told over and over that it isnt a key article of faith – well, lets encourage the alternatives that facilitate women’s participation in society (eg the hijab).
Sg @637,”Or is it again the case that there is a bigger problem attendant on the burqa, of women not being allowed out of the private space? Because I think that’s either a crime, or bad choices by the women, and in either case our society has methods for handling that stuff already.” Sg, you could literally drive a bus between our legal definition of false imprisonment/ kidnap and the imposition of life-limiting cultural practices . As for “bad” choices”, if you substitute the work “limited” we might be getting to an appreciation of the problem.
So, people in cults are either imprisoned aganst their will, or making ‘bad’ choices’ for which there’s no one to blame but themselves? Come on. If feminism generally had taken this approach to invisibility and the ‘private’ nature of domestic oppression being no business of the ‘public’ state, it’d literally be set back 40 years.
Fine @638, I would say ‘no problem’. You may be misunderstanding what I’ve written above. What would you say if she said she didnt feel comfortable talking about it with her father or brothers around?
Maybe she wouldnt be wearing it if dad et al had got the message we dont believe women have to be made invisible to be respected. In fact, we require men to control themselves, and no, my daughter showing her face in public is not an invitation, mate. Get with the program dude, etc.
SG, “I’m in multicultural Japan”, really? Last time I visited it was about the least multicultural developed country in the world …..
““I don’t like it” and “It’s sexist” aren’t sufficient reasons to pass a law banning something.” Nobody in this discussion has proposed banning something just because they don’t like it. However you might find a few who think sexist practices are worth banning.
“the law isn’t their to prosecute on behalf of your whims, your particular political views or, as Oigal so cutely put it, your “pet peeves” – no whims have surfaced either, and really given the polls cited, the viewpoints expressed here aren’t ‘particular’ but common.
There’s been so much mis-reading on this thread eg BBB wrote: “it’s shocking how many here are apparently willing to criminalise conduct on the basis that such conduct makes them or others feel uncomfortable, or renders communication more difficult.” Who?, I can’t think of one, let alone a shocking number.
Or Vanessa: “So many comments and outraged condemnation of burqa wearers and their culture and/or religion” – where are the comments condemning burqa wearers or Islam?
SG, “I’m in multicultural Japan”, really? Last time I visited it was about the least multicultural developed country in the world …..
““I don’t like it” and “It’s sexist” aren’t sufficient reasons to pass a law banning something.” Nobody in this discussion has proposed banning something just because they don’t like it. However you might find a few who think sexist practices are worth banning.
“the law isn’t their to prosecute on behalf of your whims, your particular political views or, as Oigal so cutely put it, your “pet peeves” – no whims have surfaced either, and really given the polls cited, the viewpoints expressed here aren’t ‘particular’ but common.
There’s been so much mis-reading on this thread eg BBB wrote: “it’s shocking how many here are apparently willing to criminalise conduct on the basis that such conduct makes them or others feel uncomfortable, or renders communication more difficult.” Who?, I can’t think of one, let alone a shocking number.
Or Vanessa: “So many comments and outraged condemnation of burqa wearers and their culture and/or religion” – where are the comments condemning burqa wearers or Islam?
Lefty E, I may be misunderstanding what you’ve written above. As to your latter question, it’s a problem. I’m not sure how I’d handle it. But neither do I think that banning it helps those women. And yes , I realise and appreciate that isn’t your position either.
Iorurua, your response seems predicated on the idea that this is our country, and they should fit in with what we want. But that isn’t true. This is their country as well. These women are Australian citizens. Often they’re born here. There is no Kansas for them to return to.
Lefty E, I may be misunderstanding what you’ve written above. As to your latter question, it’s a problem. I’m not sure how I’d handle it. But neither do I think that banning it helps those women. And yes , I realise and appreciate that isn’t your position either.
Iorurua, your response seems predicated on the idea that this is our country, and they should fit in with what we want. But that isn’t true. This is their country as well. These women are Australian citizens. Often they’re born here. There is no Kansas for them to return to.
Once again, for you kids in the cheap seats:
1) We live on planet earth, not on an imaginary planet.
2) On the non-imaginary planet earth, which is where we live, (see #1), context matters, courtesy matters, and scale matters.
Once again, for you kids in the cheap seats:
1) We live on planet earth, not on an imaginary planet.
2) On the non-imaginary planet earth, which is where we live, (see #1), context matters, courtesy matters, and scale matters.
leftye, there is a huge difference between the kinds of things that feminism had to deal with 40 years ago and people being falsely imprisoned by cults or making bad relationship choices. And I don’t think feminists 40 years ago enhanced choice in cohabitation styles by banning marriage; or enhancing choice in women’s clothes by banning skirts. In fact, most of the mechanisms I’ve shown for how we can deal with people’s bad choices today are the product of feminist activism to widen choice 40 years ago.
And by “bad choices” here I mean: choosing to stick with your husband/family despite bad things they want you to do, when you have many options to leave. That’s a bad choice. I have yet to see anyone on this thread yet explaining how these women are prevented from taking their exit options, and until they do I don’t see why we should consider additional interventions for a problem that the existing options appear to be able to handle.
Russell, I meant that kind of jokily, because I live in an unusual town of 140000 people that has 98 different nationalities, which I think puts it in the top 20 internationally. I think currently the general Japanese conception of multiculturalism is “let’s enjoy international exchange together!!!” but it’s changing, and faster than I expected – Osaka is starting to propagate the idea, for example, amongst its citizens, starting from about 2 years ago. And remember – just because a lot of people you see in the big cities of Japan look Asian, doesn’t mean they’re all Japanese…
leftye, there is a huge difference between the kinds of things that feminism had to deal with 40 years ago and people being falsely imprisoned by cults or making bad relationship choices. And I don’t think feminists 40 years ago enhanced choice in cohabitation styles by banning marriage; or enhancing choice in women’s clothes by banning skirts. In fact, most of the mechanisms I’ve shown for how we can deal with people’s bad choices today are the product of feminist activism to widen choice 40 years ago.
And by “bad choices” here I mean: choosing to stick with your husband/family despite bad things they want you to do, when you have many options to leave. That’s a bad choice. I have yet to see anyone on this thread yet explaining how these women are prevented from taking their exit options, and until they do I don’t see why we should consider additional interventions for a problem that the existing options appear to be able to handle.
Russell, I meant that kind of jokily, because I live in an unusual town of 140000 people that has 98 different nationalities, which I think puts it in the top 20 internationally. I think currently the general Japanese conception of multiculturalism is “let’s enjoy international exchange together!!!” but it’s changing, and faster than I expected – Osaka is starting to propagate the idea, for example, amongst its citizens, starting from about 2 years ago. And remember – just because a lot of people you see in the big cities of Japan look Asian, doesn’t mean they’re all Japanese…
Also Russell, people have been saying they “don’t like it” on this thread. Anthony has, and others have said that covering the face makes them uncomfortable, etc. This is “I don’t like it.” We also have claims that “we aren’t in Kansas anymore,” which I think counts as “I don’t like it because it’s foreign.” You yourself said that you can’t believe that these people value our democracy, which is just another code for “I don’t like it” or “I find it offensive,” unless you have some kind of evidence…? Then there’s the claim that they are doing it to be deliberately provocative, thus requiring a provokee, right? There’s a lot of this stuff on this thread, and at least some of it from you!
Also Russell, people have been saying they “don’t like it” on this thread. Anthony has, and others have said that covering the face makes them uncomfortable, etc. This is “I don’t like it.” We also have claims that “we aren’t in Kansas anymore,” which I think counts as “I don’t like it because it’s foreign.” You yourself said that you can’t believe that these people value our democracy, which is just another code for “I don’t like it” or “I find it offensive,” unless you have some kind of evidence…? Then there’s the claim that they are doing it to be deliberately provocative, thus requiring a provokee, right? There’s a lot of this stuff on this thread, and at least some of it from you!
SG – here you are again:
“I don’t like it” and “It’s sexist” aren’t sufficient reasons to pass a law banning something.”
I said I didn’t like, and I said, repeatedly, that I didn’t want to ban it.
Anthony gave very detailed, reasoned comments, he didn’t offer “because I don’t like it” as justification for his stance. Who made the claim that people wear burqas to be ‘deliberatively provocative’? I made the point a couple of times that people’s behaviour can be confronting/offensive to others without it being deliberate.
SG – here you are again:
“I don’t like it” and “It’s sexist” aren’t sufficient reasons to pass a law banning something.”
I said I didn’t like, and I said, repeatedly, that I didn’t want to ban it.
Anthony gave very detailed, reasoned comments, he didn’t offer “because I don’t like it” as justification for his stance. Who made the claim that people wear burqas to be ‘deliberatively provocative’? I made the point a couple of times that people’s behaviour can be confronting/offensive to others without it being deliberate.
.
There is a big difference between a headscarfe (Jilbab) and a Burqa.
Still just to confuse the issue some more..
….
Its always nice sometimes when bleating and wailing about how repressive and mean spirited Australia is, to take a deep breath and see how life is in some of the other “democracies” around the region.
.
There is a big difference between a headscarfe (Jilbab) and a Burqa.
Still just to confuse the issue some more..
….
Its always nice sometimes when bleating and wailing about how repressive and mean spirited Australia is, to take a deep breath and see how life is in some of the other “democracies” around the region.
Oigal! I was pushing this along to get the 650th comment myself!
Oigal! I was pushing this along to get the 650th comment myself!
It’s not the qaulity but the timing
It’s not the qaulity but the timing
Interesting..Well it’s certainly a a widespread religious cult (more correctly a spreading regional/ethnic cult but it seems pointless to continue to point out the Burqa is not Islam). It is certainly exterme clothing and certainly people are forced.
So we are just talking about numbers before the state should act? I wonder how that works? Something is acceptable to society unless lots of people do it, 10-20-200?
I would suggest that is what happened in France, rather than implementing such regulations from the start in the name of the false gods “tolerance and of all aspects of all cultures must be equal” they waited…and waited
Interesting..Well it’s certainly a a widespread religious cult (more correctly a spreading regional/ethnic cult but it seems pointless to continue to point out the Burqa is not Islam). It is certainly exterme clothing and certainly people are forced.
So we are just talking about numbers before the state should act? I wonder how that works? Something is acceptable to society unless lots of people do it, 10-20-200?
I would suggest that is what happened in France, rather than implementing such regulations from the start in the name of the false gods “tolerance and of all aspects of all cultures must be equal” they waited…and waited
comedy gold oigal, you’ve cited an example of a repressive law to ban clothing in a Muslim country in defense of a claim that we wouldn’t be as bad as them if we introduced a repressive law to ban clothing here. Note that Aceh’s law is exactly the same as ours: swapping jeans for birqa. I would love you to explain how it’s bad there but good here.
Russell, I was simply pointing out that quite a few commenters here are basing their position on what they “don’t like.” I had forgotten you don’t support a ban, but you’ve definitely said you don’t trust the wearer and don’t like what it signifies, so whatever action you do support, I takeit to be on that basis.
I’m sorry, although it’s clear Anthony has some feminist objections to the birqa (“It’s sexist”) he also makes clear he doesn’t like it. I don’t think “it’s sexist” is sufficient reason to ban something.
comedy gold oigal, you’ve cited an example of a repressive law to ban clothing in a Muslim country in defense of a claim that we wouldn’t be as bad as them if we introduced a repressive law to ban clothing here. Note that Aceh’s law is exactly the same as ours: swapping jeans for birqa. I would love you to explain how it’s bad there but good here.
Russell, I was simply pointing out that quite a few commenters here are basing their position on what they “don’t like.” I had forgotten you don’t support a ban, but you’ve definitely said you don’t trust the wearer and don’t like what it signifies, so whatever action you do support, I takeit to be on that basis.
I’m sorry, although it’s clear Anthony has some feminist objections to the birqa (“It’s sexist”) he also makes clear he doesn’t like it. I don’t think “it’s sexist” is sufficient reason to ban something.
Lefty e, yes I agree that women who’ve talked to a lecturer at uni are not fully representative and not likely to be people who wear religious face coverings against their will. But they’ve told me that they don’t know or know of any women in Australia who cover because they are made to, and I don’t think it would be right to doubt them. Umm Yasmin said the same thing back at 530. “No niqabi I’ve ever known has ever had a male person in her life impose face-veiling on her, and a good many have men who are opposed to it.”
Oigal, I am well aware of the difference between headscarves and burqas. You didn’t read my comment properly. I was talking about the harassment, exclusion, and denial of service reported by Muslim women in Australia when they try to access normal social services and activities wearing headscarves.
Lefty e, yes I agree that women who’ve talked to a lecturer at uni are not fully representative and not likely to be people who wear religious face coverings against their will. But they’ve told me that they don’t know or know of any women in Australia who cover because they are made to, and I don’t think it would be right to doubt them. Umm Yasmin said the same thing back at 530. “No niqabi I’ve ever known has ever had a male person in her life impose face-veiling on her, and a good many have men who are opposed to it.”
Oigal, I am well aware of the difference between headscarves and burqas. You didn’t read my comment properly. I was talking about the harassment, exclusion, and denial of service reported by Muslim women in Australia when they try to access normal social services and activities wearing headscarves.
Gee.. we peer into the darkness and see what we want to see! I didn’t defend or support anything except perhaps suggest a little less self flagellation at the state of Australian Society. Thanks for biting tho, fun to although predictable to watch.
Oh we do talk such nonsense and that hardly contributes to rational debate. If you must draw a conclusion from the comment how about it would be right for a open and tolerant society to object to a situation where women are required dress in a fashion that only applies to a single gender.
Laura, the reference “headscarves and loose coats rather than referring to Burqa tended to indicate a move to downplay or move the discussion from the central issue. You are probably quite correct there is some reaction towards women wearing Jilbabs etc for a number of reasons but the issue being discussed is the Burqa not a loose coat. Again to take the broader view (I know its easy and fun to cry foul at Australian society), have you ever considered a comparison with any of the Muslim majority nations with regard to Christians, non-believers, refugees etc.
Sorry but I do tire of the constant “evil racist xenophobic (insert word of you choice)anti -Australia chorus. When the reality is comparably speaking we don’t do so bad and ask far less in the way of concessions to society by minority cultures than 95% of nations around the world (100% less within the region).
Gee.. we peer into the darkness and see what we want to see! I didn’t defend or support anything except perhaps suggest a little less self flagellation at the state of Australian Society. Thanks for biting tho, fun to although predictable to watch.
Oh we do talk such nonsense and that hardly contributes to rational debate. If you must draw a conclusion from the comment how about it would be right for a open and tolerant society to object to a situation where women are required dress in a fashion that only applies to a single gender.
Laura, the reference “headscarves and loose coats rather than referring to Burqa tended to indicate a move to downplay or move the discussion from the central issue. You are probably quite correct there is some reaction towards women wearing Jilbabs etc for a number of reasons but the issue being discussed is the Burqa not a loose coat. Again to take the broader view (I know its easy and fun to cry foul at Australian society), have you ever considered a comparison with any of the Muslim majority nations with regard to Christians, non-believers, refugees etc.
Sorry but I do tire of the constant “evil racist xenophobic (insert word of you choice)anti -Australia chorus. When the reality is comparably speaking we don’t do so bad and ask far less in the way of concessions to society by minority cultures than 95% of nations around the world (100% less within the region).
Sg@641: ‘… your comment at 640 seems to suggest you haven’t grasped the fundamental principles of multiculturalism or liberalism…’
I grasp them. However, I maintaim that it’s sloppy to apply them to all cultural and political contexts. Frankly, my take on those purists who defend liberalism and multiculturalism at all costs is that they are the cultural equivalent of free market zealots.
Multiculturalism and liberalism are not automatically desirable in all contexts. There are both responsible and irresponsible examples of each.
Affirmative action is an example of responsible legal interference with liberalism and multiculturalism. Conversely, the massively increased objectification of women and sexualisation of young girls in the public domain in recent decades is an example or irresponsible liberalism.
Chav@642: ‘ioraru, perhaps you’d be more comfortable with the Israeli style of interacting with Muslim women..?’
Cheap shot, mate. Apart from the fact that I’ve probably been in more Free Gaza marches and rallies than you’ve had hot dinners, the guys in that nasty photo were yelling at the woman for being a Palestinian. I doubt if they gave a damn about what she was wearing.
Sg@641: ‘… your comment at 640 seems to suggest you haven’t grasped the fundamental principles of multiculturalism or liberalism…’
I grasp them. However, I maintaim that it’s sloppy to apply them to all cultural and political contexts. Frankly, my take on those purists who defend liberalism and multiculturalism at all costs is that they are the cultural equivalent of free market zealots.
Multiculturalism and liberalism are not automatically desirable in all contexts. There are both responsible and irresponsible examples of each.
Affirmative action is an example of responsible legal interference with liberalism and multiculturalism. Conversely, the massively increased objectification of women and sexualisation of young girls in the public domain in recent decades is an example or irresponsible liberalism.
Chav@642: ‘ioraru, perhaps you’d be more comfortable with the Israeli style of interacting with Muslim women..?’
Cheap shot, mate. Apart from the fact that I’ve probably been in more Free Gaza marches and rallies than you’ve had hot dinners, the guys in that nasty photo were yelling at the woman for being a Palestinian. I doubt if they gave a damn about what she was wearing.
I see my comments are being violated in their citation. It is not that I don’t like the burqa but that I think there is reason to give the French legislation consideration for what it means in France. And not as a model for Australia but for what it means in general about liberal democracy and different approaches to multiculturalism. There is a general atmosphere here whereby genuine examination of an issue gets recast so as to to portray those doing the examination as racist xenophobes. This is uncivil and a hindrance to expressing exploratory views.
I see my comments are being violated in their citation. It is not that I don’t like the burqa but that I think there is reason to give the French legislation consideration for what it means in France. And not as a model for Australia but for what it means in general about liberal democracy and different approaches to multiculturalism. There is a general atmosphere here whereby genuine examination of an issue gets recast so as to to portray those doing the examination as racist xenophobes. This is uncivil and a hindrance to expressing exploratory views.
Huh?
Australia can’t be called mean-spirited or anything else with negative connotations unless and until we pass some repressive legislation.
And if you wish to be judged by Indonesian standards, you set a very low standard for yourself.
Huh?
Australia can’t be called mean-spirited or anything else with negative connotations unless and until we pass some repressive legislation.
And if you wish to be judged by Indonesian standards, you set a very low standard for yourself.
Whilst the comment was directed at me, I shall blunder in anyway. Firstly, it my case, I am married to one and have two daughters who for all purposes Muslim as well. Secondly I work in a 99% muslim workplace (that one Hindu screws the percentage).
So yes, I am concerned about the obnoxious and repressive Burga being described as both religious and part of choice. It may well be a choice (at the moment) for many in Australia but that is not the case in more and more Muslim dominated nations as the hard line desert cultists take over from the more open and inclusive Muslim traditions in SE Asia. Every time a open and somewhat envied country like Australia turns its back on what is essentially the exterme visual representation of the desert cultists, you make it that much harder for the moderates to hold ground.
I concur it will be many years before Australian Muslim children will be coerced into such radical dress and rule, just a shame the rest of us may not/do not have that luxury.
I
Whilst the comment was directed at me, I shall blunder in anyway. Firstly, it my case, I am married to one and have two daughters who for all purposes Muslim as well. Secondly I work in a 99% muslim workplace (that one Hindu screws the percentage).
So yes, I am concerned about the obnoxious and repressive Burga being described as both religious and part of choice. It may well be a choice (at the moment) for many in Australia but that is not the case in more and more Muslim dominated nations as the hard line desert cultists take over from the more open and inclusive Muslim traditions in SE Asia. Every time a open and somewhat envied country like Australia turns its back on what is essentially the exterme visual representation of the desert cultists, you make it that much harder for the moderates to hold ground.
I concur it will be many years before Australian Muslim children will be coerced into such radical dress and rule, just a shame the rest of us may not/do not have that luxury.
I
Okay Oigal, I’ll bite: how is a law forcing women to swap jeans for long dresses different to a law forcing women to swap burqa for jeans? I mean, besides the obvious fact that under the former law I see less bumcrack?
And where is anyone “self-flagellating” about evil racist xenophobic Australia? I thought most opponents of the ban here were more likely to be chest-beating about relaxed, easy-going, we-can-handle-a-few-chicks-in-veils Australia. No frightened secularist Frenchies here, hiding behind the gendarme lest that “shrouded” 14 year old schoolgirl bring our nuclear-armed state tumbling down around our heads.
iorarua, multiculturalism and liberalism is our cultural context. It’s kind of hard not to apply those cultures in all contexts inside Australia, given that they’re, like, our culture and stuff.
Your last paragraph is just another example of proponents of the ban deliberately eliding the role of anti-Islamic ideals in its development. Pretending its about being able to see the face, culture rather than religion, the timing of the laws has nothing to do with the war on Islam, Israeli soldiers are all blissfully unaware of the majority religion in Gaza and never conflate the political and religious views of its occupants, etc. If a right-winger were being equally disingenuous over some other racist dog-whistle you’d be all over them for it.
Okay Oigal, I’ll bite: how is a law forcing women to swap jeans for long dresses different to a law forcing women to swap burqa for jeans? I mean, besides the obvious fact that under the former law I see less bumcrack?
And where is anyone “self-flagellating” about evil racist xenophobic Australia? I thought most opponents of the ban here were more likely to be chest-beating about relaxed, easy-going, we-can-handle-a-few-chicks-in-veils Australia. No frightened secularist Frenchies here, hiding behind the gendarme lest that “shrouded” 14 year old schoolgirl bring our nuclear-armed state tumbling down around our heads.
iorarua, multiculturalism and liberalism is our cultural context. It’s kind of hard not to apply those cultures in all contexts inside Australia, given that they’re, like, our culture and stuff.
Your last paragraph is just another example of proponents of the ban deliberately eliding the role of anti-Islamic ideals in its development. Pretending its about being able to see the face, culture rather than religion, the timing of the laws has nothing to do with the war on Islam, Israeli soldiers are all blissfully unaware of the majority religion in Gaza and never conflate the political and religious views of its occupants, etc. If a right-winger were being equally disingenuous over some other racist dog-whistle you’d be all over them for it.
@sg (upthread)
Me neither. If it were I’d be far more interested in banning high heels before banning the burqa/niqab. They do far more damage to actual flesh and bone. How many men do you ever hear of needing to have bunion surgery so that they can walk without agony?
There has to be a point where people’s decisions to do what other people consider harmful and/or disturbing but which objectively do no harm to anybody else have to be respected.
@sg (upthread)
Me neither. If it were I’d be far more interested in banning high heels before banning the burqa/niqab. They do far more damage to actual flesh and bone. How many men do you ever hear of needing to have bunion surgery so that they can walk without agony?
There has to be a point where people’s decisions to do what other people consider harmful and/or disturbing but which objectively do no harm to anybody else have to be respected.
“It may well be a choice (at the moment) for many in Australia but that is not the case in more and more Muslim dominated nations as the hard line desert cultists take over from the more open and inclusive Muslim traditions in SE Asia. Every time a open and somewhat envied country like Australia turns its back on what is essentially the exterme visual representation of the desert cultists, you make it that much harder for the moderates to hold ground.”
I do get what you are saying but it also goes against the whole idea of “our” way of doing things to take the position you advocate. Limiting the freedom of people in Australia to wear what they want cos of the message it sends in other parts of the world just seems … I’m getting cognitive dissonance thinking about it.
But it may be a fair point in some ways.
But by the same token it could also have the opposite effect in Australia – radicalising people who see it as yet another assault on them and aspects of their culture.
Really if people want to get rid of the burka there is only one way.
Colonise it.
Embrace it, and have trendy non Muslim people wear it on red carpets. Make them for strip clubs. Make them the item of choice at next years Mardi Gras parade in Sydney.
Use them to sell beer.
AS lingere in porn movies.
Get Christians to wear them specially for Church.
Etc etc.
Even this thread just perpetuates the status quo.
“It may well be a choice (at the moment) for many in Australia but that is not the case in more and more Muslim dominated nations as the hard line desert cultists take over from the more open and inclusive Muslim traditions in SE Asia. Every time a open and somewhat envied country like Australia turns its back on what is essentially the exterme visual representation of the desert cultists, you make it that much harder for the moderates to hold ground.”
I do get what you are saying but it also goes against the whole idea of “our” way of doing things to take the position you advocate. Limiting the freedom of people in Australia to wear what they want cos of the message it sends in other parts of the world just seems … I’m getting cognitive dissonance thinking about it.
But it may be a fair point in some ways.
But by the same token it could also have the opposite effect in Australia – radicalising people who see it as yet another assault on them and aspects of their culture.
Really if people want to get rid of the burka there is only one way.
Colonise it.
Embrace it, and have trendy non Muslim people wear it on red carpets. Make them for strip clubs. Make them the item of choice at next years Mardi Gras parade in Sydney.
Use them to sell beer.
AS lingere in porn movies.
Get Christians to wear them specially for Church.
Etc etc.
Even this thread just perpetuates the status quo.
sg: I’d respond to your last post. But I honestly don’t understand anything you said. Would you mind writing in English?
(I’m not being sarcastic to score points. I honestly don’t understand what you’re saying.)
tigtog: ‘If it were I’d be far more interested in banning high heels before banning the burqa/niqab. They do far more damage to actual flesh and bone.’
You can also argue that women wearing burqas in public all their lives invite health problems as well. Lack of sunlight, restricted movement, lack of exercise etc. It’s not the main reason I support a burqa ban, but I’m just addressing your argument.
‘I don’t think “it’s sexist” is sufficient reason to ban something.’
OK. So let’s return to legally forcing women to resign on marriage; legally criminalising abortion; legally paying women 70% of what we pay men for the same work; legally depriving women of the vote; legally preventing justice or recourse for women whose husbands beat them up and/or rape them; legally preventing women from entering certain university courses, professions and trades; legally stopping them from entering public bars, and so on.
I’m playing devil’s advocate here, to show that addressing sexism by banning a behaviour is not that different from addressing sexism by banning undesirable sexist practices like forcing women to resign on marriage etc. You could also argue that many women back then wanted things to continue as they were. Many bitterly complained about, and fought hard to stop, these legal interventions into their personal life ‘choices’.
sg: I’d respond to your last post. But I honestly don’t understand anything you said. Would you mind writing in English?
(I’m not being sarcastic to score points. I honestly don’t understand what you’re saying.)
tigtog: ‘If it were I’d be far more interested in banning high heels before banning the burqa/niqab. They do far more damage to actual flesh and bone.’
You can also argue that women wearing burqas in public all their lives invite health problems as well. Lack of sunlight, restricted movement, lack of exercise etc. It’s not the main reason I support a burqa ban, but I’m just addressing your argument.
‘I don’t think “it’s sexist” is sufficient reason to ban something.’
OK. So let’s return to legally forcing women to resign on marriage; legally criminalising abortion; legally paying women 70% of what we pay men for the same work; legally depriving women of the vote; legally preventing justice or recourse for women whose husbands beat them up and/or rape them; legally preventing women from entering certain university courses, professions and trades; legally stopping them from entering public bars, and so on.
I’m playing devil’s advocate here, to show that addressing sexism by banning a behaviour is not that different from addressing sexism by banning undesirable sexist practices like forcing women to resign on marriage etc. You could also argue that many women back then wanted things to continue as they were. Many bitterly complained about, and fought hard to stop, these legal interventions into their personal life ‘choices’.
Mon cherries
Mon cherries
666 is mine! and you have all been valiant but its all down here from here!
666 is mine! and you have all been valiant but its all down here from here!
sg: by my count, and I may be wrong on this, but your post @661 is the third mention you’ve made of how repulsive (alright, offensive then) you find the public display of “bumcrack”. Perhaps the subject needs a separate thread but to divert this one for just a moment it is clearly high time that we paid attention to this pressing aesthetic issue.
This demands a fairly detailed examination of the matter and perhaps even a typology. The first distinction I’d draw is the gendered nature of bumcrack. There appears to me to be a distinct difference in the display of the upper aspect of the lower globes between men and women. For reasons I can’t really understand I find the public display of female natal cleft or part therefore less alarming than the male version. But that is a highly subjective matter as we would all understand.
Another distinction would be the weight, general appearance and general demeanour of the owner of the aforesaid bum crack. I’ve noticed far better quality examples in the eastern suburbs of Sydney than in Penrith, say. In Penrith the state of crack is almost a public health issue while in Bondi it could, in some cases, be described as voluptuously enticing. Then again, in some cases, not.
So you see class enters into the issue as well. Bum crack, a microcosm of class, gender and aesthetics. Amazing what sociology can do for your approach to the world.
Then there is generalised culture around the display. I always know I’m in Qld, for example, because of the preponderance of beefy males wearing elastic topped shorts too low. They don’t display bum crack so much as what as what I call “bicycle rack” due to their ampleness. Things have improved since the seventies, of course, when carting around a bicycle rack in Qld was so commonplace that the casual visitor could be excused for thinking that the men of Qld were doing a public service for cyclists. “Park it here, mate” they seemed to be saying. That’s what I said to the desk sarge anyway.
By comparison I’ve never seen any at all in Victoria where they are clearly more refined or less publically spirited. I’ve not had enough experience of other states to venture comment. I’ve had ample experience in NZ but am fearful of expressing an honest opinion lest I be called a racist.
In general, though, I’m opposed to male bumcrack on a hot and sweaty day but not at all averse to it if the owner is female and sveldt. I would prefer that it not be displayed with a thong hooked high over the hip bones but hey, you can’t have everything you want.
Burqas, of course, would solve the problem of your distaste but would spoil the opportunities for the particpant observation that I’ve been doing.
sg: by my count, and I may be wrong on this, but your post @661 is the third mention you’ve made of how repulsive (alright, offensive then) you find the public display of “bumcrack”. Perhaps the subject needs a separate thread but to divert this one for just a moment it is clearly high time that we paid attention to this pressing aesthetic issue.
This demands a fairly detailed examination of the matter and perhaps even a typology. The first distinction I’d draw is the gendered nature of bumcrack. There appears to me to be a distinct difference in the display of the upper aspect of the lower globes between men and women. For reasons I can’t really understand I find the public display of female natal cleft or part therefore less alarming than the male version. But that is a highly subjective matter as we would all understand.
Another distinction would be the weight, general appearance and general demeanour of the owner of the aforesaid bum crack. I’ve noticed far better quality examples in the eastern suburbs of Sydney than in Penrith, say. In Penrith the state of crack is almost a public health issue while in Bondi it could, in some cases, be described as voluptuously enticing. Then again, in some cases, not.
So you see class enters into the issue as well. Bum crack, a microcosm of class, gender and aesthetics. Amazing what sociology can do for your approach to the world.
Then there is generalised culture around the display. I always know I’m in Qld, for example, because of the preponderance of beefy males wearing elastic topped shorts too low. They don’t display bum crack so much as what as what I call “bicycle rack” due to their ampleness. Things have improved since the seventies, of course, when carting around a bicycle rack in Qld was so commonplace that the casual visitor could be excused for thinking that the men of Qld were doing a public service for cyclists. “Park it here, mate” they seemed to be saying. That’s what I said to the desk sarge anyway.
By comparison I’ve never seen any at all in Victoria where they are clearly more refined or less publically spirited. I’ve not had enough experience of other states to venture comment. I’ve had ample experience in NZ but am fearful of expressing an honest opinion lest I be called a racist.
In general, though, I’m opposed to male bumcrack on a hot and sweaty day but not at all averse to it if the owner is female and sveldt. I would prefer that it not be displayed with a thong hooked high over the hip bones but hey, you can’t have everything you want.
Burqas, of course, would solve the problem of your distaste but would spoil the opportunities for the particpant observation that I’ve been doing.
Dagnabbit! Can you believe that?
DOWNHILL not ‘down here’
And what kind of freudian is that? A STUPID ONE.
I have been waiting for another moment such as this and I fuck it up AGAIN.
I’m never gonna get this thread collapsing thing right not ever. I’m getting to old for this shit.
As you all frackin were. The thread lives.
Dagnabbit! Can you believe that?
DOWNHILL not ‘down here’
And what kind of freudian is that? A STUPID ONE.
I have been waiting for another moment such as this and I fuck it up AGAIN.
I’m never gonna get this thread collapsing thing right not ever. I’m getting to old for this shit.
As you all frackin were. The thread lives.
Moderation, shmoderation.
What’s a sin bin to me after that disappointment.
Moderation, shmoderation.
What’s a sin bin to me after that disappointment.
For me, really really easy.
when it stops being about an interesting experiment at “look how culturally aware I am compared to those evil right wingers” and starts being about your own kids and the environment they have to grow up (endure) in.
Of course, the academics points do tend become somewhat moot under those circumstances.
You see, you are taking the position that banning Burqa is the same as banning jeans (apples n pears spring to mind). Where as I see banning Burqa, is maybe one way to prevent the banning of jeans and other mindless cult regulations. Let’s not pretend the Burqa does not generally come with all sorts of other little nasties, like women must be not be alone with a male, no going out after dark, must have males permission to go out..
It’s fraudlent to suggest in anyway the Burqa represents or is symbol of freedom or choice. At best it is a compromise by society to mindset and ethnic tradition the world would be better off without. What is not clear is the price to paid by banning or not.
Is banning the shroud the best idea, I dont know. However, you will have to excuse me if I take any opportunity to reject it and all it represents at every opportunity. Now the usual rejoiners, racist, ignorant xenophobic won’t make a lot of sense in my case so best if we pass on those.
For me, really really easy.
when it stops being about an interesting experiment at “look how culturally aware I am compared to those evil right wingers” and starts being about your own kids and the environment they have to grow up (endure) in.
Of course, the academics points do tend become somewhat moot under those circumstances.
You see, you are taking the position that banning Burqa is the same as banning jeans (apples n pears spring to mind). Where as I see banning Burqa, is maybe one way to prevent the banning of jeans and other mindless cult regulations. Let’s not pretend the Burqa does not generally come with all sorts of other little nasties, like women must be not be alone with a male, no going out after dark, must have males permission to go out..
It’s fraudlent to suggest in anyway the Burqa represents or is symbol of freedom or choice. At best it is a compromise by society to mindset and ethnic tradition the world would be better off without. What is not clear is the price to paid by banning or not.
Is banning the shroud the best idea, I dont know. However, you will have to excuse me if I take any opportunity to reject it and all it represents at every opportunity. Now the usual rejoiners, racist, ignorant xenophobic won’t make a lot of sense in my case so best if we pass on those.
sorry iorarua, but I’m not going to try to explain anything if you’re going to be rude.
well done casey! Your comment was prescient too, given what followed…
anthony, while I think there is definitely grant money in a cross-cultural study of bumcrack, I can’t participate. Here in Japan it’s essentially non-existent, and the only study that could be done is of the very strict way in which people of both sexes act to exclude all forms of bumcrack-ual representation from the public sphere. I can only suppose that there is, as a consequence, increased fetishization of this phenomenon in the private sphere; perhaps it is called kurakkupurei, or “crackplay” in typical Japanese English style. No visual benefits of burqafication here!
sorry iorarua, but I’m not going to try to explain anything if you’re going to be rude.
well done casey! Your comment was prescient too, given what followed…
anthony, while I think there is definitely grant money in a cross-cultural study of bumcrack, I can’t participate. Here in Japan it’s essentially non-existent, and the only study that could be done is of the very strict way in which people of both sexes act to exclude all forms of bumcrack-ual representation from the public sphere. I can only suppose that there is, as a consequence, increased fetishization of this phenomenon in the private sphere; perhaps it is called kurakkupurei, or “crackplay” in typical Japanese English style. No visual benefits of burqafication here!
Alternatively, Oigal:
then maybe it is the same thing? You can’t keep comparing your Indonesian experience with Australia, particularly this ridiculous slippery slope that if we allow a few people to wear burqa today they’ll be forcing everyone’s kids to do it tomorrow.
You also can’t keep bleating on about being called a racist when noone is. The defense of choice to wear a burqa here is almost entirely based on a discussion of liberalism and multiculturalism, not accusations of racism.
Feel free to reject it and all it represents at every opportunity. Just don’t ask Australians to pass laws against the character of our social fabric in order to push your political program.
Alternatively, Oigal:
then maybe it is the same thing? You can’t keep comparing your Indonesian experience with Australia, particularly this ridiculous slippery slope that if we allow a few people to wear burqa today they’ll be forcing everyone’s kids to do it tomorrow.
You also can’t keep bleating on about being called a racist when noone is. The defense of choice to wear a burqa here is almost entirely based on a discussion of liberalism and multiculturalism, not accusations of racism.
Feel free to reject it and all it represents at every opportunity. Just don’t ask Australians to pass laws against the character of our social fabric in order to push your political program.
heh. yes sg, very amusing really!
heh. yes sg, very amusing really!
Actually I said “racist, ignorant xenophobic” and if you can provide another intent of your own paragragh below then do tell.
No just the everygrowing ones caught up in the damable cult, never mind got a break a few eggs to maintain the illusion of a progessive society hey?
Still sorry all, I know you will miss me but real world calls see you in a few weeks..I know you will all still be here.
Actually I said “racist, ignorant xenophobic” and if you can provide another intent of your own paragragh below then do tell.
No just the everygrowing ones caught up in the damable cult, never mind got a break a few eggs to maintain the illusion of a progessive society hey?
Still sorry all, I know you will miss me but real world calls see you in a few weeks..I know you will all still be here.
sg: ‘sorry iorarua, but I’m not going to try to explain anything if you’re going to be rude.’
Well … when you write this sort of stuff, can you blame me?
‘Your last paragraph is just another example of proponents of the ban deliberately eliding the role of anti-Islamic ideals in its development. Pretending its about being able to see the face, culture rather than religion, the timing of the laws has nothing to do with the war on Islam, Israeli soldiers are all blissfully unaware of the majority religion in Gaza and never conflate the political and religious views of its occupants, etc. If a right-winger were being equally disingenuous over some other racist dog-whistle you’d be all over them for it’
Oigal: Your last post indicated that you understood what SG was saying above. Congratulations, because I don’t seem to be smart enough.
However, the ‘real world’ is calling me too. Unless tigtog decides to reply to my previous post, I think I’ll take my exit as well. Despite the fact that, other then you, absolutely no one here seemed to share my view on the conundrum of a ban versus liberal tolerance of this grotesquely misogynistic cultural practice, I have enjoyed myself. I guess it’s boring to be in a discussion where everyone agrees with you.
sg: ‘sorry iorarua, but I’m not going to try to explain anything if you’re going to be rude.’
Well … when you write this sort of stuff, can you blame me?
‘Your last paragraph is just another example of proponents of the ban deliberately eliding the role of anti-Islamic ideals in its development. Pretending its about being able to see the face, culture rather than religion, the timing of the laws has nothing to do with the war on Islam, Israeli soldiers are all blissfully unaware of the majority religion in Gaza and never conflate the political and religious views of its occupants, etc. If a right-winger were being equally disingenuous over some other racist dog-whistle you’d be all over them for it’
Oigal: Your last post indicated that you understood what SG was saying above. Congratulations, because I don’t seem to be smart enough.
However, the ‘real world’ is calling me too. Unless tigtog decides to reply to my previous post, I think I’ll take my exit as well. Despite the fact that, other then you, absolutely no one here seemed to share my view on the conundrum of a ban versus liberal tolerance of this grotesquely misogynistic cultural practice, I have enjoyed myself. I guess it’s boring to be in a discussion where everyone agrees with you.
SG wrote: “Russell, I was simply pointing out that quite a few commenters here are basing their position on what they “don’t like.” I had forgotten you don’t support a ban, but you’ve definitely said you don’t trust the wearer ..”
SG I earlier said some people were misreading the comments on this thread. But I think you simply have the habit of making things up – where did I say that I don’t trust people who wear burqas? It’s impossible to discuss a topic like this with people who won’t listen, and just invent some rubbish which they attribute to you.
SG wrote: “Russell, I was simply pointing out that quite a few commenters here are basing their position on what they “don’t like.” I had forgotten you don’t support a ban, but you’ve definitely said you don’t trust the wearer ..”
SG I earlier said some people were misreading the comments on this thread. But I think you simply have the habit of making things up – where did I say that I don’t trust people who wear burqas? It’s impossible to discuss a topic like this with people who won’t listen, and just invent some rubbish which they attribute to you.
Russell, these are all you.
comment 360: That’s different to allowing people to become citizens who apparently don’t share much in common with us and because of their inability to alter their behaviour,
comment 433: But we can’t move towards the burqa and what it stands for, and apparently the burqa wearer can’t move very far towards us
comment 29: They could … not become a full citizen while behaving in a way which is so offensive to so many Australians
I take that as meaning that you don’t trust them, you don’t think they can fit in, and you find them offensive. Although the last part could be just a claim about everyone else, right? (Nudge nudge).
You’re the one who proposed the citizenship test for people who don’t match your version of Aussie life.
Oigal, when referring to the “anti-islamic ideas involved in its development” I’m referring to the background of the right-wingers who put this forward, not to you. There seem to be a lot of lefties willing to ignore the atmosphere in which it developed, and I don’t think you can do that and have an honest discussion about it.
Russell, these are all you.
comment 360: That’s different to allowing people to become citizens who apparently don’t share much in common with us and because of their inability to alter their behaviour,
comment 433: But we can’t move towards the burqa and what it stands for, and apparently the burqa wearer can’t move very far towards us
comment 29: They could … not become a full citizen while behaving in a way which is so offensive to so many Australians
I take that as meaning that you don’t trust them, you don’t think they can fit in, and you find them offensive. Although the last part could be just a claim about everyone else, right? (Nudge nudge).
You’re the one who proposed the citizenship test for people who don’t match your version of Aussie life.
Oigal, when referring to the “anti-islamic ideas involved in its development” I’m referring to the background of the right-wingers who put this forward, not to you. There seem to be a lot of lefties willing to ignore the atmosphere in which it developed, and I don’t think you can do that and have an honest discussion about it.
Russell: I wasn’t going to post again, but just want to make one further comment re this comment of yours to sg:
For what it’s worth, you have been one of the only lateral, divergent thinkers on this thread. You didn’t blindly follow either a liberal or a conservative script, but tried to think through the issue on its own merits. This made you fair game for ideologically narrow thinkers to project onto your comments whatever they feel they’re not allowed to agree with. (I hope that makes sense.)
Russell: I wasn’t going to post again, but just want to make one further comment re this comment of yours to sg:
For what it’s worth, you have been one of the only lateral, divergent thinkers on this thread. You didn’t blindly follow either a liberal or a conservative script, but tried to think through the issue on its own merits. This made you fair game for ideologically narrow thinkers to project onto your comments whatever they feel they’re not allowed to agree with. (I hope that makes sense.)
Thanks Iorarua – these LP discussions can be a salutary experience: I’ve always had the idea that left is more intelligent than the right, but when you see how many people here can’t listen or understand, fling about mis-attributions and abuse … well you have to accept that intelligence isn’t distributed along a left/right continuum.
Thanks Iorarua – these LP discussions can be a salutary experience: I’ve always had the idea that left is more intelligent than the right, but when you see how many people here can’t listen or understand, fling about mis-attributions and abuse … well you have to accept that intelligence isn’t distributed along a left/right continuum.
678 comments must be some kind of record for LP. Unfortunately when I observe a burqa wearer, particularly in the company of husband(?) my curiosity as to how they view their presence carries with it the disappointment that they largely lie outside ‘western’ media influences. They don’t blog here. LP is not on their radar. If anyone knows different please enlighten this thread.
678 comments must be some kind of record for LP. Unfortunately when I observe a burqa wearer, particularly in the company of husband(?) my curiosity as to how they view their presence carries with it the disappointment that they largely lie outside ‘western’ media influences. They don’t blog here. LP is not on their radar. If anyone knows different please enlighten this thread.
that’s pretty rich coming from someone who tells their interlocutors to “Please speak English,” iorarua. I agree that banning burqa wearers from citizenship because they “can’t move very far towards us” is a case of “divergent” thinking, just maybe not the divergence that is best for Australian society right now.
Claims of misattribution are all very well, Russell, but your claims are written there, feel free to point out how they don’t indicate distrust of and offense at burqa wearers.
that’s pretty rich coming from someone who tells their interlocutors to “Please speak English,” iorarua. I agree that banning burqa wearers from citizenship because they “can’t move very far towards us” is a case of “divergent” thinking, just maybe not the divergence that is best for Australian society right now.
Claims of misattribution are all very well, Russell, but your claims are written there, feel free to point out how they don’t indicate distrust of and offense at burqa wearers.
SG – you wrote “I had forgotten you don’t support a ban, but you’ve definitely said you don’t trust the wearer ..”
Nowhere did I say that I distrust burqa wearers because in fact I don’t have any feelings of distrust towards burqa wearers. I could therefore believe that you are dishonest, but I’ll take the more charitable view and just believe that you have trouble with English.
SG – you wrote “I had forgotten you don’t support a ban, but you’ve definitely said you don’t trust the wearer ..”
Nowhere did I say that I distrust burqa wearers because in fact I don’t have any feelings of distrust towards burqa wearers. I could therefore believe that you are dishonest, but I’ll take the more charitable view and just believe that you have trouble with English.
Some elderley folk would find it hard to cast off the burqa and that would be understandable, but young people surely would want to become westernised and enjoy life. It is probably the menfolk who want to keep control which is what their cult is all about. Send them back. Don’t come here and bring bad habits with them.
Some elderley folk would find it hard to cast off the burqa and that would be understandable, but young people surely would want to become westernised and enjoy life. It is probably the menfolk who want to keep control which is what their cult is all about. Send them back. Don’t come here and bring bad habits with them.
What about joining this program http://www.mencanstoprape.org/ and help other men spread the word. Because if you’ve picked up a newspaper any time in the last few years, or glanced for even a day at online comments or listened to talkback, you’d be aware that “showing her face in public” has been replaced in Western society by “showing too much of her legs, torso, or decolletage, to a point which I the commenter/observer/rapist get to determine arbitrarily depending on my internalised level of woman-blaming.” Or just being “at the wrong place at the wrong time” (being female in a public place.)
Yes, there is a problem when some women feel they need to cover up to that extent to avoid the male gaze, but this idea that the reason they should conform to our norms is that Oz and other Western countries are some kind of postfeminist paradise really shits me.
What I’m saying Lefty E, is that what you’re describing is still an ideal we’re working towards in Australian society, not reality yet. Just look at the character assasination of the victim that takes place every time a rape’s reported. Look at what she was wearing! She got into a car with them! etc. We don’t expect “our” men to control themselves, yet, at all. We still have the notion of a woman’s sexual “purity” and expect women and girls to the the ones to police it.
What about joining this program http://www.mencanstoprape.org/ and help other men spread the word. Because if you’ve picked up a newspaper any time in the last few years, or glanced for even a day at online comments or listened to talkback, you’d be aware that “showing her face in public” has been replaced in Western society by “showing too much of her legs, torso, or decolletage, to a point which I the commenter/observer/rapist get to determine arbitrarily depending on my internalised level of woman-blaming.” Or just being “at the wrong place at the wrong time” (being female in a public place.)
Yes, there is a problem when some women feel they need to cover up to that extent to avoid the male gaze, but this idea that the reason they should conform to our norms is that Oz and other Western countries are some kind of postfeminist paradise really shits me.
What I’m saying Lefty E, is that what you’re describing is still an ideal we’re working towards in Australian society, not reality yet. Just look at the character assasination of the victim that takes place every time a rape’s reported. Look at what she was wearing! She got into a car with them! etc. We don’t expect “our” men to control themselves, yet, at all. We still have the notion of a woman’s sexual “purity” and expect women and girls to the the ones to police it.
I quite agree wiht your comments Helen, and as Brisbane co-founder of a group called MASA in the early 1990s – I dont feel I have much to prove in this area, and certainly dont need a precis of the basics.
Less obvious to me is how this can somehow be employed as an argument for accepting entirely cognate – and lets be frank, even worse – masculinist attitudes prevailing in commjunities that adopt the Burqa. Being seen at all will be policed by men, who own the streets.
Thats make no sense to me at all, and seems to me entirely inconsistent with your wider point.
Again, let not our support for multiculturalism become a shield for bad cultural practices, enshrining bad masculine power.
I quite agree wiht your comments Helen, and as Brisbane co-founder of a group called MASA in the early 1990s – I dont feel I have much to prove in this area, and certainly dont need a precis of the basics.
Less obvious to me is how this can somehow be employed as an argument for accepting entirely cognate – and lets be frank, even worse – masculinist attitudes prevailing in commjunities that adopt the Burqa. Being seen at all will be policed by men, who own the streets.
Thats make no sense to me at all, and seems to me entirely inconsistent with your wider point.
Again, let not our support for multiculturalism become a shield for bad cultural practices, enshrining bad masculine power.
“Again, let not our support for multiculturalism become a shield for bad cultural practices, enshrining bad masculine power.”
FGM harm minimisation in Aust?
Wow. Tricky.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/05/28/2911991.htm?section=justin
“Again, let not our support for multiculturalism become a shield for bad cultural practices, enshrining bad masculine power.”
FGM harm minimisation in Aust?
Wow. Tricky.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/05/28/2911991.htm?section=justin
@657. “Cheap shot, mate. Apart from the fact that I’ve probably been in more Free Gaza marches and rallies than you’ve had hot dinners, the guys in that nasty photo were yelling at the woman for being a Palestinian. I doubt if they gave a damn about what she was wearing.”
I seriously, seriously doubt you have been to more pro-Palestinian rallies than I have, but, like, whatever…
The guys were only yelling at the women in the photo for being Palestinian? And pray tell, what to the Western eye, is the defining characteristic of Palestinian women?
Here’s the photo again, take a long hard look…
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/.a/6a00d83451c45669e20134813bbf05970c-popup
@657. “Cheap shot, mate. Apart from the fact that I’ve probably been in more Free Gaza marches and rallies than you’ve had hot dinners, the guys in that nasty photo were yelling at the woman for being a Palestinian. I doubt if they gave a damn about what she was wearing.”
I seriously, seriously doubt you have been to more pro-Palestinian rallies than I have, but, like, whatever…
The guys were only yelling at the women in the photo for being Palestinian? And pray tell, what to the Western eye, is the defining characteristic of Palestinian women?
Here’s the photo again, take a long hard look…
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/.a/6a00d83451c45669e20134813bbf05970c-popup
Apologies for the segue on FGM ( not trying to conflate the two issues) its just that LE’s last sentence brought the topic to mind. For what its worth I note the Americans have retracted their position statement.
http://blogs.wsj.com/health/2010/05/27/pediatricians-group-reverses-female-genital-cutting-policy/
RE Burqa’s – thoroughly dislike them. Dont want to ban them.
Apologies for the segue on FGM ( not trying to conflate the two issues) its just that LE’s last sentence brought the topic to mind. For what its worth I note the Americans have retracted their position statement.
http://blogs.wsj.com/health/2010/05/27/pediatricians-group-reverses-female-genital-cutting-policy/
RE Burqa’s – thoroughly dislike them. Dont want to ban them.
That’s great, but don’t you think continuing that kind of thing is a better reaponse to (1) Muslim men wanting “their” women to cover or (2) Muslim women voluntarily covering because the Male Gaze stuff is just all too much?
I can understand if you’re burned out and can’t do it any more. I’m less sympathetic to the idea that we should just arrest or fine the burqa-wearers, if we are genuinely concerned about their oppression.
This assumes that Australian masculinists don’t think that they “own the streets”. And the rooms in the houses, if the rate of rape by rapists known to the victim is anything to go by. Anyhow, I’m glad it *isn’t* obvious to you that an opposition to crimninalisation of wearing the burqa can be accepted as an argument for masculinist attitudes, since it isn’t.
That’s great, but don’t you think continuing that kind of thing is a better reaponse to (1) Muslim men wanting “their” women to cover or (2) Muslim women voluntarily covering because the Male Gaze stuff is just all too much?
I can understand if you’re burned out and can’t do it any more. I’m less sympathetic to the idea that we should just arrest or fine the burqa-wearers, if we are genuinely concerned about their oppression.
This assumes that Australian masculinists don’t think that they “own the streets”. And the rooms in the houses, if the rate of rape by rapists known to the victim is anything to go by. Anyhow, I’m glad it *isn’t* obvious to you that an opposition to crimninalisation of wearing the burqa can be accepted as an argument for masculinist attitudes, since it isn’t.
Helen@684,
I agree with what you’re saying about how western society also tends to view a woman’s sexual attitude on the basis of what she wears, and that it’s only a matter of degrees of clothing. However, I do think there’s a key difference, western women have the rights to make choices about what they wear, while still holding responsibility for the messages they send by their choice of clothing.
But again we have a healthy dose of hyperbole:
Laws we have against rape, sexual harassment and sexual discrimination are all clear examples of how we expect “our” men to control themselves.
Helen@684,
I agree with what you’re saying about how western society also tends to view a woman’s sexual attitude on the basis of what she wears, and that it’s only a matter of degrees of clothing. However, I do think there’s a key difference, western women have the rights to make choices about what they wear, while still holding responsibility for the messages they send by their choice of clothing.
But again we have a healthy dose of hyperbole:
Laws we have against rape, sexual harassment and sexual discrimination are all clear examples of how we expect “our” men to control themselves.
We have a layer of legislation over a very thick bedrock of “she asked for it” and “no means yes”. Only weeks ago we had an assertion in a court of law that a rapist was less culpable because a woman was wearing skinny jeans, the idea being that such jeans were easy to remove. the corollary to that appears to be that it’s mandatory for women and girls to wear some kind of modified chastity belt, at all times.
YOu only have to listen to comments from people outside relativey well-educated fora like LP to understand that this thinking is still alive and well in the “West”.
We have a layer of legislation over a very thick bedrock of “she asked for it” and “no means yes”. Only weeks ago we had an assertion in a court of law that a rapist was less culpable because a woman was wearing skinny jeans, the idea being that such jeans were easy to remove. the corollary to that appears to be that it’s mandatory for women and girls to wear some kind of modified chastity belt, at all times.
YOu only have to listen to comments from people outside relativey well-educated fora like LP to understand that this thinking is still alive and well in the “West”.
Helen, I thought it was that the defence argued that skinny jeans were hard to remove, implying they were in fact impossible to remove without the assistance of the wearer? And since that argument was not treated as the utter rubbish it so obviously is, the court has effectively deemed all girls wearing skinny jeans unrapeable.
Helen, I thought it was that the defence argued that skinny jeans were hard to remove, implying they were in fact impossible to remove without the assistance of the wearer? And since that argument was not treated as the utter rubbish it so obviously is, the court has effectively deemed all girls wearing skinny jeans unrapeable.
Oh yes Su, I’m failing to keep up with Magnificent Morphing “girls are to blame for their own rape” story in all its changing glory.
Another element of the ‘West is a feminist paradise’ story is that we don’t notice so much when our own religions are complicit in women losing their lives – we think that only happens under Islam, or if anyone notices, it’s only the feminist/leftish media – I don’t see the Herald Sun or Alan JOnes getting exercised about it.
Oh yes Su, I’m failing to keep up with Magnificent Morphing “girls are to blame for their own rape” story in all its changing glory.
Another element of the ‘West is a feminist paradise’ story is that we don’t notice so much when our own religions are complicit in women losing their lives – we think that only happens under Islam, or if anyone notices, it’s only the feminist/leftish media – I don’t see the Herald Sun or Alan JOnes getting exercised about it.
And again with the hyperbole. That case showed that the prosecution failed to show evidence or present argument to eliminate enough doubt in the juries mind that the removing the jeans was possible in the scope of the rest of the case. I haven’t seen any reports about the credibility of the rest of the case; the jeans could have been just the straw that broke the camels back.
The outcome of case represents no judgement on the woman, rather a judgement of what level of certainty we, as a society of rights and laws, require in order to take a significant portion of a persons life away from them. There’s a big difference between the “We don’t completely trust everything you’ve said” from this case and the “You deserved it you dirty whore” sentiment you’re proposing.
For what it’s worth I agree with your point about the Catholic church and western religion in general.
And again with the hyperbole. That case showed that the prosecution failed to show evidence or present argument to eliminate enough doubt in the juries mind that the removing the jeans was possible in the scope of the rest of the case. I haven’t seen any reports about the credibility of the rest of the case; the jeans could have been just the straw that broke the camels back.
The outcome of case represents no judgement on the woman, rather a judgement of what level of certainty we, as a society of rights and laws, require in order to take a significant portion of a persons life away from them. There’s a big difference between the “We don’t completely trust everything you’ve said” from this case and the “You deserved it you dirty whore” sentiment you’re proposing.
For what it’s worth I agree with your point about the Catholic church and western religion in general.
‘This assumes that Australian masculinists don’t think that they “own the streets”.’ With respect Helen, it may in some people’s mind, but when I said it, very clearly didn’t assume that. It assumed its all part of one and the same problem.
I’m not for exempting certain communities, which I regard as inconsistent. In fact (and maybe this is a topic for another thread), i think there’s a genuine risk of patronising people by effectively saying to them “this liberation agenda I otherwise firmly believe in is obviously not for you lot, so don’t worry about it and Ill talk to my own culture”.
In my case, if I tell you what I think should change, its because I regard you as a potential brother or sister in that project. You can tell me to get knotted, of course, but Im never going to assume a priori we cant talk.
Look, I know its hard to have a nuanced debate on a public thread like this – I’m trying to outline what I personally consider a left position – and all it does is trigger the same old left-liberal v conservative citizenship debates. I do appreciate the risk of flame war from RWDBs on these issues – so maybe there’s just no point in this environment. But if it wasnt already clear, I actually hold to neither view on this issue.
‘This assumes that Australian masculinists don’t think that they “own the streets”.’ With respect Helen, it may in some people’s mind, but when I said it, very clearly didn’t assume that. It assumed its all part of one and the same problem.
I’m not for exempting certain communities, which I regard as inconsistent. In fact (and maybe this is a topic for another thread), i think there’s a genuine risk of patronising people by effectively saying to them “this liberation agenda I otherwise firmly believe in is obviously not for you lot, so don’t worry about it and Ill talk to my own culture”.
In my case, if I tell you what I think should change, its because I regard you as a potential brother or sister in that project. You can tell me to get knotted, of course, but Im never going to assume a priori we cant talk.
Look, I know its hard to have a nuanced debate on a public thread like this – I’m trying to outline what I personally consider a left position – and all it does is trigger the same old left-liberal v conservative citizenship debates. I do appreciate the risk of flame war from RWDBs on these issues – so maybe there’s just no point in this environment. But if it wasnt already clear, I actually hold to neither view on this issue.
Desipissaid:
Well if it’s evidence your after: Google “Sheikh Hilali had a Point”, it’s at Online Opinion and I can’t link to it for some reason.
Desipissaid:
Well if it’s evidence your after: Google “Sheikh Hilali had a Point”, it’s at Online Opinion and I can’t link to it for some reason.
Oi crappy spelling above is the result of having to dig through sh*t again to produce evidence for the bleeding obvious. Here’s a link to the Father Dave’s own site: http://www.fatherdave.org/article/article_602.html
Oi crappy spelling above is the result of having to dig through sh*t again to produce evidence for the bleeding obvious. Here’s a link to the Father Dave’s own site: http://www.fatherdave.org/article/article_602.html
I’m not sure what you’re intending that to be evidence of su.
I’m not sure what you’re intending that to be evidence of su.
Evidence for the victim blaming attitudes mentioned by Helen: The attitude that a woman just by her state of dress can be partly responsible for her assault, and the attitude that men can’t control themselves. Both mentioned by Helen and both attitudes that surveys have been found to be common.
Evidence for the victim blaming attitudes mentioned by Helen: The attitude that a woman just by her state of dress can be partly responsible for her assault, and the attitude that men can’t control themselves. Both mentioned by Helen and both attitudes that surveys have been found to be common.
I wasn’t disagree with that, although perhaps I’d phrase it as “a small portion of men don’t control themselves”. I was disagreeing with the assertion that we don’t hold men responsible for their actions, or that we implicitly force women to conform to some extreme form a dress, or make claims that they deserve what they got.
The Father Dave article is talking about risk taking. If someone swims at a beach outside the flagged area and drowns, we don’t say they deserved to die but we do consider the role they had in their own demise and advise others of that risk. There’s a commonly held perception that regardless of what we do as a society, there will always be a few individuals who are triggered to attack women who dress in a certain way (I’m not sure if this is statistically the case). The article is about acknowledging that unfortunately reality and the current attitudes towards balancing freedom and risk, not making moral judgements on women for their choices or absolving the individuals who perpetrate the crime.
I wasn’t disagree with that, although perhaps I’d phrase it as “a small portion of men don’t control themselves”. I was disagreeing with the assertion that we don’t hold men responsible for their actions, or that we implicitly force women to conform to some extreme form a dress, or make claims that they deserve what they got.
The Father Dave article is talking about risk taking. If someone swims at a beach outside the flagged area and drowns, we don’t say they deserved to die but we do consider the role they had in their own demise and advise others of that risk. There’s a commonly held perception that regardless of what we do as a society, there will always be a few individuals who are triggered to attack women who dress in a certain way (I’m not sure if this is statistically the case). The article is about acknowledging that unfortunately reality and the current attitudes towards balancing freedom and risk, not making moral judgements on women for their choices or absolving the individuals who perpetrate the crime.
The issue in France is played out against the development of a political movement that desires the imposition of Sharia law on Muslims within European multicultural democracy. Wearing a niqab or burqa thereby becomes not merely a matter of personal preference but can be interpreted as a political statement of allegiance to Wahhabism which in no measure can be understood as pro-democracy because it is resolutely opposed to even the mildest objective forms of gender equity.
In France there have been severe repercussions for young women wanting to exercise the demcratic rights of freedom of movement and association:
The group Ni Putes Ni Soumises organised a public discussion of the issues surrounding the burqa banning legislation including the treatment of women by regressive Muslim elements. The meeting was violently disrupted. So much for freedom of speech.
Meanwhile, advocates of Sharia law want co-existence within the Australian legal system co-existence within the Australian legal system of Sharia law divorce, property settlements and family law arrangements.
It is difficult to survey exaclty the state of play in Muslim countries with regard to compulsion to wear the niqab, burq or hijab. This article from The Economist gives a quick surveynoting that Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan appear to be the only countries wear wearing burqa is enforced. There is, however, evidence provided by the site Women Living Under Muslim Laws Women Living Under Muslim Laws to suggest that women’s garb is sometimes a matter of life and death depending on the strength at any moment of Wahhabist movements in Muslim countries. The terrain shifts often.
Despite this there is widespread acceptance among progressive Muslims that the niqab and burqa are “political symbols of Saudi-inspired Islamic extremism.” This was certainly the case made by Muslims in Canada for whom I’ve already posted links upthread. In Europe popular support for generalising the ban is driven in part by an understanding the people responsible for the bombing of Madrid and London enforce the subordination of women with the same ruthlessness that they slaughtered people on the trains and buses of those countries.
In Australia, the left such as it is, cannpot seem to grasp that widespread distaste at the wearing of such garments is fuelled by an understanding of the ideological motivations of those who carried out the Bali bombings and multiple others
In the meantime respondents at LP seem to have taken too well to heart the Rawlsian injunction to make ethical decisions behind a veil of ignorance.
The issue in France is played out against the development of a political movement that desires the imposition of Sharia law on Muslims within European multicultural democracy. Wearing a niqab or burqa thereby becomes not merely a matter of personal preference but can be interpreted as a political statement of allegiance to Wahhabism which in no measure can be understood as pro-democracy because it is resolutely opposed to even the mildest objective forms of gender equity.
In France there have been severe repercussions for young women wanting to exercise the demcratic rights of freedom of movement and association:
The group Ni Putes Ni Soumises organised a public discussion of the issues surrounding the burqa banning legislation including the treatment of women by regressive Muslim elements. The meeting was violently disrupted. So much for freedom of speech.
Meanwhile, advocates of Sharia law want co-existence within the Australian legal system co-existence within the Australian legal system of Sharia law divorce, property settlements and family law arrangements.
It is difficult to survey exaclty the state of play in Muslim countries with regard to compulsion to wear the niqab, burq or hijab. This article from The Economist gives a quick surveynoting that Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan appear to be the only countries wear wearing burqa is enforced. There is, however, evidence provided by the site Women Living Under Muslim Laws Women Living Under Muslim Laws to suggest that women’s garb is sometimes a matter of life and death depending on the strength at any moment of Wahhabist movements in Muslim countries. The terrain shifts often.
Despite this there is widespread acceptance among progressive Muslims that the niqab and burqa are “political symbols of Saudi-inspired Islamic extremism.” This was certainly the case made by Muslims in Canada for whom I’ve already posted links upthread. In Europe popular support for generalising the ban is driven in part by an understanding the people responsible for the bombing of Madrid and London enforce the subordination of women with the same ruthlessness that they slaughtered people on the trains and buses of those countries.
In Australia, the left such as it is, cannpot seem to grasp that widespread distaste at the wearing of such garments is fuelled by an understanding of the ideological motivations of those who carried out the Bali bombings and multiple others
In the meantime respondents at LP seem to have taken too well to heart the Rawlsian injunction to make ethical decisions behind a veil of ignorance.
So, it’s still refusal to criminalise = approval?
OK, I’ll let you talk amongst yourselves.
Desipis, you just articulated the very meme Su and I are talking about. Very unfortunate what happened to little Janie the other night, but you couldn’t really call it rape, could you… After all she was drinking, she had such a short skirt on, once she’d agreed to bonk one of them of course she was up for bonking the lot of them…These girls really ought to be more careful…
etc.
So, it’s still refusal to criminalise = approval?
OK, I’ll let you talk amongst yourselves.
Desipis, you just articulated the very meme Su and I are talking about. Very unfortunate what happened to little Janie the other night, but you couldn’t really call it rape, could you… After all she was drinking, she had such a short skirt on, once she’d agreed to bonk one of them of course she was up for bonking the lot of them…These girls really ought to be more careful…
etc.
FTFY. Emphasis added to highlight the argument that can actually be found in the Father Dave article.
FTFY. Emphasis added to highlight the argument that can actually be found in the Father Dave article.
Or Desipis we could BELIEVE her when she said she didn’t consent! You have nicely articulated Helen’s argument, again. Maybe the hypothetical boys involved could be more fucking careful to ensure that they have consent before assuming that any drunk girl is up for it. These boys ought to be more careful…
Or Desipis we could BELIEVE her when she said she didn’t consent! You have nicely articulated Helen’s argument, again. Maybe the hypothetical boys involved could be more fucking careful to ensure that they have consent before assuming that any drunk girl is up for it. These boys ought to be more careful…
Desipis:
.
No it isn’t. That is why they are called rape myths, the clue is in the name. So since there is no connection then there is no “risky behaviour” to tut-tut over.
Desipis:
.
No it isn’t. That is why they are called rape myths, the clue is in the name. So since there is no connection then there is no “risky behaviour” to tut-tut over.
Mindy,
While it’s reasonable to believe her when considering care and support of a victim, when it comes to the legal process we can’t just believe her. People lie. We can’t just throw people in jail on the basis of a single persons word, particularly when it contradicts someone else’s testimony. No matter how grave the allegations.
Yes, boys ought to be more careful too. Of course just as a woman being careful doesn’t guarantee not being raped, neither does a man being careful guarantee against not being accused of rape (or vice versa). So when we’re faced with assessing an allegation we have to judge the quality of the testimony of the accuser along with the other evidence, and not just take their word for it.
Mindy,
While it’s reasonable to believe her when considering care and support of a victim, when it comes to the legal process we can’t just believe her. People lie. We can’t just throw people in jail on the basis of a single persons word, particularly when it contradicts someone else’s testimony. No matter how grave the allegations.
Yes, boys ought to be more careful too. Of course just as a woman being careful doesn’t guarantee not being raped, neither does a man being careful guarantee against not being accused of rape (or vice versa). So when we’re faced with assessing an allegation we have to judge the quality of the testimony of the accuser along with the other evidence, and not just take their word for it.
su,
Then the research proving that its not a risk factor should be cited to refute the claims that clothing influences rape, instead of a straw man argument that refutes a claim no one made, about how the victim deserved it.
su,
Then the research proving that its not a risk factor should be cited to refute the claims that clothing influences rape, instead of a straw man argument that refutes a claim no one made, about how the victim deserved it.
The burqa was just a teaser, and now that’s finished with we can move to the meatier topic of whether we should follow Switzerland’s example and ban minarets. If you think dress codes are troublesome you haven’t heard what building applications can do to relations between neighbours.
Issues with minarets include privacy, overshadowing, whether they can fit in with the treasured architecture of our arcadian suburbs, if they might be used as platforms for snipers (possibly wearing burqas) etc.
Just ask yourself: did the Italian migrants run up leaning towers everywhere, have the Chinese peppered the suburbs with pagodas …. what’s the plan behind these minarets?
The burqa was just a teaser, and now that’s finished with we can move to the meatier topic of whether we should follow Switzerland’s example and ban minarets. If you think dress codes are troublesome you haven’t heard what building applications can do to relations between neighbours.
Issues with minarets include privacy, overshadowing, whether they can fit in with the treasured architecture of our arcadian suburbs, if they might be used as platforms for snipers (possibly wearing burqas) etc.
Just ask yourself: did the Italian migrants run up leaning towers everywhere, have the Chinese peppered the suburbs with pagodas …. what’s the plan behind these minarets?
I was hoping anyone posting on this thread might know where to go for statistics on women actually wearing a burqa in western countries. Since I never happen to have the luck meeting them in such masses that to me it might start to seem a problem. I only read about people having all kinds of opinions about the subject (but than again , probably almost no one with opinions wearing the burqa herself?).
I hope one day the people close to the activity (living it as female or male) will start or might start share their thoughts with people like me. Hope it will not be banned from Europe before.
I was hoping anyone posting on this thread might know where to go for statistics on women actually wearing a burqa in western countries. Since I never happen to have the luck meeting them in such masses that to me it might start to seem a problem. I only read about people having all kinds of opinions about the subject (but than again , probably almost no one with opinions wearing the burqa herself?).
I hope one day the people close to the activity (living it as female or male) will start or might start share their thoughts with people like me. Hope it will not be banned from Europe before.