|
|
Post by phludowin on Mar 7, 2021 23:48:59 GMT
If women want to wear a Burqa in the privacy of their home, they can do so. But in a secular society, you are supposed to show your face (unless you have to wear a mask to prevent a virus from spreading). Not being allowed to hide your face is common in central Europe; in Germany it's called "Vermummungsverbot". And not being allowed to wear a Burqa is not a discrimination of women; men are equally prohibited from wearing it in public in Switzerland. But for them, it's a matter of modesty and following their faith. They actually don't wear their burkas inside their homes. I still think this ban is mostly about fear of the Other. Is there any practical reason why women shouldn't be allowed to wear a burka? Is it about surveillance and security concerns? I believe it has to do with the fact that many people believe that women are not wearing the Burqa because they want to; they wear it because their male relatives make them. So far, I have no reason to not believe this.
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,708
Likes: 1,348
|
Post by The Lost One on Mar 7, 2021 23:57:14 GMT
Bit of a difference surely? Really? You think a woman wearing a face covering is equal to someone sporting a symbol associated with a group that wanted to wipe out all that they deemed weak and impure? Not saying there aren't issues with face coverings but the answer is to remove the pressures that make women feel they have to wear face coverings, not to just force them the other way. |
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Mar 8, 2021 0:15:23 GMT
You think a woman wearing a face covering is equal to someone sporting a symbol associated with a group that wanted to wipe out all that they deemed weak and impure? The Burqa is associated with fundamentalist Islam, and some of these want to "wipe out all that they deemed weak and impure". Just ask Buddhists in Afghanistan, or Christians in Iran. So no, I don't see much of a difference. Abrahamistic fundamentalism believes in theocratic enforcement of gender roles, and supremacy of one group over the others. Just like Nazis.
|
|
|
|
Post by goz on Mar 8, 2021 0:25:51 GMT
You think a woman wearing a face covering is equal to someone sporting a symbol associated with a group that wanted to wipe out all that they deemed weak and impure? The Burqa is associated with fundamentalist Islam, and some of these want to "wipe out all that they deemed weak and impure". Just ask Buddhists in Afghanistan, or Christians in Iran. So no, I don't see much of a difference. Abrahamistic fundamentalism believes in theocratic enforcement of gender roles, and supremacy of one group over the others. Just like Nazis.  I knew your pseudo intellectual argument would soon descend into anti-Muslim rhetoric. What a shame.
|
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Mar 8, 2021 8:54:02 GMT
The Burqa is associated with fundamentalist Islam, and some of these want to "wipe out all that they deemed weak and impure". Just ask Buddhists in Afghanistan, or Christians in Iran. So no, I don't see much of a difference. Abrahamistic fundamentalism believes in theocratic enforcement of gender roles, and supremacy of one group over the others. Just like Nazis. I knew your pseudo intellectual argument would soon descend into anti-Muslim rhetoric. Where?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 8, 2021 9:29:08 GMT
A victory for xenophobia, not secularism.
If it was about secularism, why have the Swiss banned the building of minarets, but not church spires or synagogues?
Why do they still allow Jews to legally mutilate the genitals of small children in the name of religion?
It is an anti-muslim move, not a secular one... The only person you are fooling by pretending otherwise is yourself.
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,708
Likes: 1,348
|
Post by The Lost One on Mar 8, 2021 9:42:52 GMT
The Burqa is associated with fundamentalist Islam, and some of these want to "wipe out all that they deemed weak and impure". Just ask Buddhists in Afghanistan, or Christians in Iran. I would say many (and perhaps most) of those women who wear burqas don't support violent Muslim extremism. However, skinheads wearing swatztikas absolutely do support Hitler and Pals. Of course, some people like Jains display the swatstika for purposes completely unrelated to Nazis and that should absolutely be allowed in that context. In banning Burqas though, the Swiss are attacking the symptom rather than the cause. If a woman is still expected to do all the domestic chores and submit to her husband's/father's/brother's opinion in all things, demanding she don't wear a burqa when she does all these things isn't going to do much for her. It will just make a bunch of westerners feel better. If women are fully liberated, they they can choose whether they want to wear the burqa or not. I suspect most will choose not, but for those who want to continue doing so, they absolutely should have that right.
|
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Mar 8, 2021 11:42:52 GMT
In banning Burqas though, the Swiss are attacking the symptom rather than the cause. If a woman is still expected to do all the domestic chores and submit to her husband's/father's/brother's opinion in all things, demanding she don't wear a burqa when she does all these things isn't going to do much for her. It will just make a bunch of westerners feel better. If women are fully liberated, they they can choose whether they want to wear the burqa or not. I suspect most will choose not, but for those who want to continue doing so, they absolutely should have that right. I agree a bit with the bolded part. But I believe that if women are told that their husbands, fathers or brothers are not the ultimate authority when it comes to making decisions, it might give the women a bit of leverage against them. So being forced to show their faces might make women realize that they have a head of their own. As for being allowed to wear any clothes: If the Burqa is associated with suppression of women, then I'm ok with no one wearing it. Just like I would be ok with white pointed caps being banned, because they are associated with the KKK.
|
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Mar 8, 2021 11:57:11 GMT
In banning Burqas though, the Swiss are attacking the symptom rather than the cause. If a woman is still expected to do all the domestic chores and submit to her husband's/father's/brother's opinion in all things, demanding she don't wear a burqa when she does all these things isn't going to do much for her. It will just make a bunch of westerners feel better. If women are fully liberated, they they can choose whether they want to wear the burqa or not. I suspect most will choose not, but for those who want to continue doing so, they absolutely should have that right. I agree a bit with the bolded part. But I believe that if women are told that their husbands, fathers or brothers are not the ultimate authority when it comes to making decisions, it might give the women a bit of leverage against them. So being forced to show their faces might make women realize that they have a head of their own. If you are going to fine a woman, as they did in Denmark, for a face covering, you're not doing her any good. The law should protect her right to make her own decision, and should deal with the husband who uses physical force on her. www.dw.com/en/denmark-fines-first-woman-for-violating-burqa-ban/a-44951813
|
|
|
|
Post by goz on Mar 8, 2021 21:18:16 GMT
I knew your pseudo intellectual argument would soon descend into anti-Muslim rhetoric. Where? The hidden agenda and progressof this thread.
|
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Mar 8, 2021 21:48:47 GMT
The hidden agenda and progressof this thread. What hidden agenda?
|
|
|
|
Post by goz on Mar 9, 2021 2:32:25 GMT
The hidden agenda and progressof this thread. What hidden agenda? Attacks on Muslims.
|
|
|
|
Post by tickingmask on Mar 11, 2021 9:35:15 GMT
A victory for secularism. How so? According to the National Secular Society, secularism is the freedom to practice one's faith or belief (or disbelief) without harming others. Whether or not you approve of facial coverings, how is banning anything an expression of freedom?
|
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Mar 11, 2021 11:11:19 GMT
A victory for secularism. How so? According to the National Secular Society, secularism is the freedom to practice one's faith or belief (or disbelief) without harming others. Whether or not you approve of facial coverings, how is banning anything an expression of freedom? Muslims still have the freedom to practise their religion in the privacy of their homes, and Muslim men do not have the right to harm Muslim women's freedom to not wear a Burqa. And public spaces must not be dominated by religions. Especially not clothings. That's also in accordance with secularism. And Switzerland is not part of the UK.
|
|
|
|
Post by tickingmask on Mar 11, 2021 12:11:08 GMT
Muslims still have the freedom to practise their religion in the privacy of their homes, and Muslim men do not have the right to harm Muslim women's freedom to not wear a Burqa. And public spaces must not be dominated by religions. Especially not clothings. That's also in accordance with secularism. And Switzerland is not part of the UK. 1. Secularism doesn't just allow people the freedom to practise their religion in their own homes, behind closed doors; it allows them to practise their religion anywhere they like, provided they are not doing harm.
2. True, Muslim men do not have the right to harm Muslim women's freedom to not wear a Burqa. Neither does any practitioner of Secularism have the right to "harm" Muslim women's freedom to wear a Burqa if that is their choice.
3. Wearing a Burqa does not "dominate" public space "by religions". Unless you want to argue that wearing a Burqa causes harm to others - and if you do, you will need to give a very careful and detailed explanation why you think that, since it is light years away from any notion of harm that most normal people would consider - you are fundamentally wrong in your assertion that banning Burquas is "in accordance with secularism".
4. WTF? Are you trying to say that Secularism in Switzerland is different from Secularism in the UK? That the definition of Secularism changes depending on what country you are in?
Look, I get that you don't like seeing people wearing Burqas in public, that it offends your sensitivities, that you think they should be banned. I can even respect the reasons why you think that, even if I might not agree with them. But don't even think about hiding behind Secularism and pretending that this is a reason in itself to ban them. That is not what Secularism is about, in Switzerland, or in the UK, or anywhere else on this planet.
|
|
|
|
Post by notoriousnobbi on Mar 23, 2021 12:03:43 GMT
I agree, that Danish law was more symbol politics (as it is in Switzerland) Driving these laws to the full extent may lead to women's liberation in some rare cases, but far more often to the opposite: "Home as a Prison" - and then we are back in the 70ies/80ies. This here is a review of "40 square metres of Germany" / "40 Quadratmeter Deutschland" It's an indie classic from the mid 80ies and I quote here a newer Turkish movie review to show that it has a long-lasting quality to it - as it shows what not being allowed to leave the house means in real life.
|
|
