An oath of secularism should imply freedom of religion where it does not disrupt the rest of society. Maybe that's not obvious, and maybe it's open to interpretation, but that's how I see it should be.
Are you serious?
- Thread starter David
- Start date
- Status
Burkahs have been illegal in America since the anti-KKK laws. It is illegal to go around in a mask nearly everywhere in America.[/QUOTE]
That doesn't sound right. Otherwise, they could arrest the entire NYC Halloween parade. And the cast of the Lion King.
It's probably "hiding your face during the commission of a crime, or evasion of law enforcement" or something like that. Someone give O_C a ring.
Here, you cannot have any kind of full face covering, because we have to be able to view your face. Hang on...
OCGA Title 16, Chapter 11, Section 38 (16-11-38)
(a) A person is guilty of a misdemeanor when he wears a mask, hood, or device by which any portion of the face is so hidden, concealed, or covered as to conceal the identity of the wearer and is upon any public way or public property or upon the private property of another without the written permission of the owner or occupier of the property to do so.
(b) This Code section shall not apply to:
(1) A person wearing a traditional holiday costume on the occasion of the holiday;
(2) A person lawfully engaged in trade and employment or in a sporting activity where a mask is worn for the purpose of ensuring the physical safety of the wearer, or because of the nature of the occupation, trade, or profession, or sporting activity;
(3) A person using a mask in a theatrical production including use in Mardi gras celebrations and masquerade balls; or
(4) A person wearing a gas mask prescribed in emergency management drills and exercises or emergencies.
Now, I'm not AWARE of any particular case law regarding burkhas, but the literal wording of the statute would seem to cover general wear, unless it was a Muslim holiday.
OCGA Title 16, Chapter 11, Section 38 (16-11-38)
(a) A person is guilty of a misdemeanor when he wears a mask, hood, or device by which any portion of the face is so hidden, concealed, or covered as to conceal the identity of the wearer and is upon any public way or public property or upon the private property of another without the written permission of the owner or occupier of the property to do so.
(b) This Code section shall not apply to:
(1) A person wearing a traditional holiday costume on the occasion of the holiday;
(2) A person lawfully engaged in trade and employment or in a sporting activity where a mask is worn for the purpose of ensuring the physical safety of the wearer, or because of the nature of the occupation, trade, or profession, or sporting activity;
(3) A person using a mask in a theatrical production including use in Mardi gras celebrations and masquerade balls; or
(4) A person wearing a gas mask prescribed in emergency management drills and exercises or emergencies.
Now, I'm not AWARE of any particular case law regarding burkhas, but the literal wording of the statute would seem to cover general wear, unless it was a Muslim holiday.
Amy: I'm not sure your own view of the Netherlands isn't a bit too rosy and tinted, both by the past and by the circles you move in yourself. I've got quite a few Dutch friends, and they all say the same thing - the past 10 or so years, the Netherlands have changed from the open, tolerant, beacon of enlightenment it was (well, sort of - the example all left and progressive Flemish liked to sue to show how it could be) into a more right-wing, more scared, more conservative nation. Fortuyn and Wilders wouldn't have made it in '80s Netherlands.
That aside, as far as Belgium is concerned, anyway, the situation *is* deteriorating. It goes both ways, sure, but living in Brussels, and quite close to the "black" neighbourhood (Matongé) myself I'm confronted with quite a bit of anti-Western and/or christian thinking. Mind you, you won't hear me say it's anywhere near as bad as some instances of racism that still exists, but there's a big difference: a white person saying something anti-islamic is publicly crucified as a racist and bigot; when certain people start imposing religious rules on other people, there's a huge debate over how we should accept other people's views and respect them and so on.
About the burkah: first off, Niqab and similar have *not* been banned; like t he law Charon quoted, it's a law against covering the face/head, worded so that it only applies to burkahs as far as religious apparel goes. Secondly, the brouhaha started because of teachers and public servants wearing them, which, according to sme, violated the secularism of the state.
That aside, as far as Belgium is concerned, anyway, the situation *is* deteriorating. It goes both ways, sure, but living in Brussels, and quite close to the "black" neighbourhood (Matongé) myself I'm confronted with quite a bit of anti-Western and/or christian thinking. Mind you, you won't hear me say it's anywhere near as bad as some instances of racism that still exists, but there's a big difference: a white person saying something anti-islamic is publicly crucified as a racist and bigot; when certain people start imposing religious rules on other people, there's a huge debate over how we should accept other people's views and respect them and so on.
About the burkah: first off, Niqab and similar have *not* been banned; like t he law Charon quoted, it's a law against covering the face/head, worded so that it only applies to burkahs as far as religious apparel goes. Secondly, the brouhaha started because of teachers and public servants wearing them, which, according to sme, violated the secularism of the state.
The several Muslim women I know would tear a man's eyes out if he tried to put them in a burqa. Burqas fit under the subjugation of women. Why live in the free, western world, if you are going to have no freedom? Literally, go back to Afghanistan if you are going to live like you are in Afghanistan.
Necronic
Staff member
That's just it though. America is free. Some women were raised with the tradition of the burkah, and would feel very uncomfortable to not have it. Some women don't want it or feel it is offensive, they don't wear it. Guess what, everybody wins. Except for the people that think they should be able to tell somebody else what to wear or how to think.
---------- Post added at 02:28 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:24 PM ----------
Also, to that law that is quoted, I have a very hard time believing that would ever stand up in court as constitutional if it was used to go after someone wearing a burkah as that is pretty clearly protected as a religious thingie. I mean, a sikh woman was able to sue the IRS for not being able to wear a Kirpan (dagger) to work. I am not sure how that case has gone, it's clear that a dagger in a federal building is a problem, but if that one is up in the air, how could a burkah ever be an issue?
---------- Post added at 02:28 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:24 PM ----------
Also, to that law that is quoted, I have a very hard time believing that would ever stand up in court as constitutional if it was used to go after someone wearing a burkah as that is pretty clearly protected as a religious thingie. I mean, a sikh woman was able to sue the IRS for not being able to wear a Kirpan (dagger) to work. I am not sure how that case has gone, it's clear that a dagger in a federal building is a problem, but if that one is up in the air, how could a burkah ever be an issue?
It is perfectly reasonable for any nation to set rules and norms, so that it can remain stable and safe. I don't think allowing women to cover their faces is going to lead into anarchy, but a nation is certainly allowed to refuse them the right to do so, if it is on the grounds of safety, and if it is universally applied.
I accept that there are cultural and comfortability reasons for wearing a niqab, but it is unreasonable for someone to move into another culture and not expect to compromise in one regard or another. I could not move to Saudi Arabia and expect to continue drinking alcohol, for example. If that was a deal-breaker for me, I would not be able to move to Saudi Arabia, because their government has the good sense not to bend over backwards for my whims.
A certain amount of assimilation is required. It doesn't have to be complete ... hell, I'd rather it not be complete. Keep your customs and traditions where you can. But the ones that clash must be left at the door, else a nation is completely justified in not letting you enter.
I accept that there are cultural and comfortability reasons for wearing a niqab, but it is unreasonable for someone to move into another culture and not expect to compromise in one regard or another. I could not move to Saudi Arabia and expect to continue drinking alcohol, for example. If that was a deal-breaker for me, I would not be able to move to Saudi Arabia, because their government has the good sense not to bend over backwards for my whims.
A certain amount of assimilation is required. It doesn't have to be complete ... hell, I'd rather it not be complete. Keep your customs and traditions where you can. But the ones that clash must be left at the door, else a nation is completely justified in not letting you enter.
Well, see, the problem with a burkah is that it covers - everything-, and no-one's allowed to look under it. There've been court cases of women refusing to take off their burkah during check-in for airplanes, for example. There are people who insisted on having a picture with their face covered on their driver's license and ID card. You can see the security problems and such present.
Well, a scarf or haircovering I can see as a religious thing. Niqab/burkah....Yeah, no. Even if some people currently see them as religious things, that's pretty much brainwashing (ok, any religion can be considered such) into accepting a submissive and controlled role. I don't think anybody's saying they should all wear miniskirts (just the pretty ones), but one can dress unrpovocatively and cover oneself without resorting to metal frames completely hiding the body shape.
Even Hijab strikes me as a wrong thing to wear in a Western Nation. The Hijab is not so much a cultural choice, but in the nations where it is worn it is ENFORCED BY THE LAW with strict penalties. So in my eyes the Hijab is a sign of oppression. And the Burqa should be outright against the law in any free land.
Banning the Hijab would be taking things far. I have little problem with it, even if several oppressive governments mandate it. Our governments don't mandate it, so if a woman chooses to wear it here, it means a whole lot more than it would if she wore one there.
I still maintain that governments are fully justified in requiring the removal of a Niqab. I would be uncomfortable about an outright ban, but for passport purposes, identification, &c. allowing them is so counter-intuitive it's almost comical.
I still maintain that governments are fully justified in requiring the removal of a Niqab. I would be uncomfortable about an outright ban, but for passport purposes, identification, &c. allowing them is so counter-intuitive it's almost comical.
Cajungal
Staff member
I think that, when it comes to security, like Bubs said, there might need to be some allowances in seeing people's faces. But to say that they have no place is unfair. I thought the idea of coming here wasn't to abandon your heritage or religion but to know that you have the choice to practice it out of love for it and not fear of being punished.
GasBandit
Staff member
Security requires your face to be visible, perhaps even your entire head. What your religion says is irrelevant, what you think is "pretty" even less so. We criminally prosecute judeo-christian wierdoes who think it's sacrilege to give their sick children antibiotics, thereby killing them. You want to cover up your face and be pretty in the privacy of your own home? Go nuts. When you want to take a subway or airplane ride somewhere, though, off it comes.
I typically hate to make sensationalist arguments, but I somehow doubt that anybody immigrating who wanted to continue a religion that included animal sacrifice would find himself in conflict with the law if he intended to practice it fully. The fact is that guaranteeing absolute and unhindered religious freedom guarantees that they will eventually come into conflict with the laws of the land.
Niqabs should be allowed on American/Canadian soil, but if a woman insists on wearing one, they should not expect to be a full participant in this culture.
Yesss...it's this exact concern that has caused me to spend my life working on perfecting my Breast Identification Scanner. I just want to keep people safe.
They can come in from Mexico, the Federal government doesn't seem to care who comes in from there.
It astounds me how much ignorance can be shed by only a few Google searches.
The only court case I can find in North America regarding the Niqab was of an American-born citizen who converted to Islam suing the state of Florida to be allowed to have her photo-ID display her veiled face. She lost. The DMV had offered to have a female staff member take her photo privately, which she refused.
Veiled women have been flying internationally for decades with passports showing their unveiled face, and consenting to unveil in person only for female security personnel.
In Canada, the Conservative government has mandated that people showing up to vote must do so without veils. Even so, a poll in Quebec revealed that Niqab wearers do not oppose showing their faces for official purposes, although what I found made no mention of whether the 'official purposes' were assumed to be carried out by women agents of the government, or whether or not de-veiling after entering a polling station was allowed.
I'm still not sure how I feel about Niqabs in public spaces. Clearly there are workarounds for things like airports, but I assume there is nothing for mass transit systems in major cities where security is concerned. At any rate, I guess I've once again learned the value of knowing what the fuck one is talking about before one talks about it.
The only court case I can find in North America regarding the Niqab was of an American-born citizen who converted to Islam suing the state of Florida to be allowed to have her photo-ID display her veiled face. She lost. The DMV had offered to have a female staff member take her photo privately, which she refused.
Veiled women have been flying internationally for decades with passports showing their unveiled face, and consenting to unveil in person only for female security personnel.
In Canada, the Conservative government has mandated that people showing up to vote must do so without veils. Even so, a poll in Quebec revealed that Niqab wearers do not oppose showing their faces for official purposes, although what I found made no mention of whether the 'official purposes' were assumed to be carried out by women agents of the government, or whether or not de-veiling after entering a polling station was allowed.
I'm still not sure how I feel about Niqabs in public spaces. Clearly there are workarounds for things like airports, but I assume there is nothing for mass transit systems in major cities where security is concerned. At any rate, I guess I've once again learned the value of knowing what the fuck one is talking about before one talks about it.
Cajungal
Staff member
Oh, just the part where she refused to have a photo taken in private and to be seen only by a woman, Rob. (Thanks, Ame) I heard that at a sleepover years ago with a girl whose family was Muslim. She took her scarf off in her dad's presence (I knew it was ok for girls only to see her arms and hair) and explained that immediate male relatives were also acceptable.
Necronic
Staff member
Burkah = animal sacrifice. There is a reason you shouldn't make sensationalist/slippery slope arguments.
Religious freedom has its limits. Where it threatens security, or breaks pre-existing laws in such a severe way it won't fly. Rastafarians are one group that have experienced that no doubt. Same with Christian Scientists who allow their children to die because they won't medicate them. My favorite though is Scientologists claiming that the practice of 'fair game' is protected as a religious act. They have also argued that fair game is no longer a part of their scripture. lulz.
So yeah, I can totally hear where you are coming from with regards to security. There are ways to mitigate it, like having a private DMV photo and private screenings at the airport. With identification by a police officer you would pretty much have to remove it then and there.
But man, I am really shocked so many people think it should just be outright banned because it's old fashioned/not in line with western values. There are religious viewpoints that deeply disturb me. The world is 6k years old. Evolution is a myth. Women should submit to the will of their husbands (Souther Babtists in case you thought I was talking about muslims.) Pretty much anything the evangelical movement does. Raising your children as Atheists. But the fact that they can have those viewpoints, and live next door to someone who has completely different viewpoints is what I think is beautiful about America.
Case in point, I've only ever seen a woman wearing a Burkah once. It was in New Orleans on bourbon street. She was working the counter at one of those generic souvenir shops where there are all the obscene T-Shirts and other nonsense. I was simply blown away by the cognitive dissonance of that experience. Nowhere else in the world would you see that. And that is awesome.
I do think that the american muslim community should have outreach programs to make sure that wives in highly conservative marriages like that are not being mistreated by their husbands, not sure if they already have that.
Necronic
Staff member
Wow, the more I read about this subject the more disturbed I am. The French don't allow students to wear any religious symbols in schools? That is....seriously fucked up. Another eurpoean politician compared the wearing of a burkah to wearing a totalitarian symbol like a swastika or a hammer and scickle? The irony of the latter is that the most stringently non-religious nation on the planet was, you guessed it, the Soviet Union. Good stuff.
Edit: Ah, just saaw something else that makes a lot of sense. So, if we ban burkahs, we should probably ban nuns from wearing full habits right? Especially considering that the whole concept of the nun/priest dichotomy in Catholocism is incredibly sexist. I mean, that's incompatible with our modern western values.
Edit: Ah, just saaw something else that makes a lot of sense. So, if we ban burkahs, we should probably ban nuns from wearing full habits right? Especially considering that the whole concept of the nun/priest dichotomy in Catholocism is incredibly sexist. I mean, that's incompatible with our modern western values.
This may be partly due to the fact that the ones who wear those tend to rarely leave the house.
Hijabs is something I cannot see anyone have a true genuine problem with.[/QUOTE]
Nice, they can't leave the house. A lifetime of house arrest because of the man you marry. THAT DOES NOT BELONG IN EUROPE.
Hijabs are largely fine, if the woman wants to wear it, but if she does not and there is a father/brother/husband forcing her to wear it, it needs to be banned.
That pic of the girl in the bright colors and gaudy makeup... if she wore that in Afghanistan/Saudi Arabia/Iran/Indonesia... she would be beaten. Because she was not being modest enough.
Necronic
Staff member
This may be partly due to the fact that the ones who wear those tend to rarely leave the house.
Hijabs is something I cannot see anyone have a true genuine problem with.[/QUOTE]
Nice, they can't leave the house. A lifetime of house arrest because of the man you marry. THAT DOES NOT BELONG IN EUROPE.[/QUOTE]
Hell, that's spousal abuse and that doesn't belong anywhere. But does banning burkahs get them out of the house? Or does banning burkahs mean that we are just further seperating their culture from ours and giving less of a chance for their decendants to break out of it. Because that's what we are fighting for, their kids. And we get them into our culture, expose ourselves to them (well, not expose...) and you will see that in a handful of generations at the most this will not survive in a western country.
Want an example? The Chinese. The Confucian family structure is insanely heirarchical. The concept of filial piety led a lot of chinese friends of mine to go into educations that they weren't interested in, sacrificing a massive amount of their freedom for their parents (father's) benefit . There is also a sexist element to it as well. The 5 relationships/bonds don't even include the daughter, as they would not be in the family. I know at least one girl who was raised in a family where everything was given to her brother, and nothing to her, praise included.
Now, that was their parents. Them, they will never raise their children this way. Ever. Cultures that are incompatible with western norms and human nature will not survive in America.
There are plenty of Christian Sects across America that are growing and thriving, that have many view points that are reprehensible to modern, western culture. We need to look out for these kids as well.
Necronic
Staff member
We absolutely should, but like Ame said you can't force it on them. Its always about a subtle hand. With the Burkahs and whatnot give it a couple generations, their childrens' exposure to western values will reduce that culture. With the pentacostal/evangelical/etc stuff, give it a couple generations, their childrens' exposure to huffing paint will reduce that culture. Ok, cheap shot, couldn't help it (watched gummo recently.) In all seriousness we just need to get the education and economic standards back in those regions and you will see that dissapear.
Point is/was that there is a line where traditional aspects of religion cease to be acceptable, even under the banner of religious freedom/tolerance. It wasn't entirely clear to me that we all agreed such a line existed. Then it becomes a question of where that line is, or more importantly, where the Niqab falls in relation to that line.
- Status