Burka Babes

Remove all ads!

First off, ewww. I don't even want to think of my little girl in such an outfit.

Secondly, I believe there has to be a line up and a line down. In other words, at a school there should be a line of coverage below which a student cannot go -- no miniskirts or tube tops. But there also should be a line above with they cannot go -- no full facial covering. I think that's a reasonable request. Extremist views should be listened to but that doesn't necessarily mean they should all be accomodated 100%. there has to be some give and take. Most Muslims that I know (and I know quite a few, as I teach them) have no problem with simply wearing hijab -- they do not feel the need to cover their faces.

 

Have you ever seen someone drive wearing a burka? I haven't. I really don't believe this is a major issue and I believe people are grasping at straws.

However, if the stipulation for the driver's license is the driver must be able to prove who they are (either by facial ID or fingerprint -- and I see no reason why fingerprints can't be used) then there is implicit permission for the wearer of the burka to allow positive ID when they drive. The individual must be made aware of this -- effective communication is key.

 

I don't think we even need to go this far. If a Burka Babe isn't happy with the particular way her bank does things then there is nothing stopping her from opening an account at another bank whose identity checking system she feels more comfortable with. Likewise if I don't like customer service at my bank, or their mortgage scheme, or the services they provide on my account, nothing stops me from moving my money to another with services that I prefer. It's specifically prohibiting the wearing on the streets that I take issue with.

Of course it's all about the give and take. But you do have to give in this respect. Banning the burka outright is one-sided taking. There are more diplomatic ways of going round this and the one you've suggested is actually quite good - talk to these people about the burka vs the hijab. You could easily reach a middle ground where everyone gives and takes a bit, for example the girls can walk to their school in burka if they want but they would have to take it out and replace it with a hijab when they're in class. You might not be terribly happy with it because you still can't see their faces on the street, they might not be happy with it because they have to take it off in some cases, but at least you've both gained something: you get to see your students' faces and they get to still wear their thing when they're on the streets.

 

While I have only even seen one person DRIVING while wearing a burka, I see people wearing burkas a lot more. It's not a daily occurance or anything, but it's not an absolute rarity to see them either. Then again, it's not like I notice what people are wearing while they drive, but by the number of people I have seen wearing burkas while not driving, it leads me to assume that there are a lot more burka-wearing drivers than I tend to notice.

That said, I agree that it's not a MAJOR issue. The current population of Muslims in the US is estimated at just under 3 million, meaning they account for less than 1% of the total US population. Half of those 3 million are male, who obviously do not wear burkas, and the vast majority of 1.5 million female Muslims do not wear burkas either.

 

In my opinion it has nothing to do with security, unless you consider a nation keeping its identity and culture alive an issue of national security. I for one am proud of the French for basically standing up to Islam. They have taken a stand that they don't want to see women wandering around covered in black robes. They would rather see women wandering around in dresses and for this I applaude them

The French have come to realize (possibly too late) that a nation cannot allow immigration where the immigrants do not wish to assimilate into the native culture.

 

One of the rights we do not support in Western Democracies is the right to treat your wives and female relatives a property rather than people. Sarkozy may have screwed up by targetting religious symbols in his efforts to get that through Fundamentalist Muslim skulls, but at least he is trying to get that message out there.

While there are Muslim women who want to wear the niqab, there are also a lot of them who are forced to wear one. By making it illegal, proponents of such drastic measures are trying to free these women from repression.

To be honest, Ziad's compromise seems fair -- it gives those girls and women SOME opportunity to be free of the burka and lets them know that they do have a choice when they achieve the age of majority.

Muslims aren't the only ones who seek to isolate their children from mainstream society one way or another to keep their followers in line. Thos groups too should be prohibited from curtailing the rights of others.

 

In the UK there has been, not by women, but by men dressed up in burkas so they couldnt be identified.

Burkas render CCTV useless for prosecution purposes.

Burkas are intimidating, especially to children.

I myself have had experience with a Burka wearing woman stealing, in my local Wilkinsons store, I told security, but then there were a group of 4 of them leaving the store, obviously I couldnt Identify which took the item.

Some men are attracted to women's eyes, and the burka really puts focus on that.

 

Same here. There are many circumstances in western society in which wearing a burka is entirely too impractical. In such circumstances, it is reasonable to ask the wearer to (temporarily) remove her veil.

This is reasonable...but France already banned the Hijab in schools and government buildings. I find this far more offensive than France's decision to ban burka's outright.

This isn't about standing up to Islam, Snook. It is about modesty standards. If you were to think only Muslims wear the burka, you'd be wrong. The burqa finds its origins in desert times long before Islam arrived. It had two functions. Firstly as a sand mask in windy conditions. This would be worn by men and women and is still common today...even among non-Muslims hailing from such climes. The Quran never required the wearing of the burqa, but since people in such regions were always covered in such a manner, the modesty standards of these regions came to see it as a necessity. This isn't about religion.

 

You'd be amazed. Go back and read about the high heels and full makeup Burka Babes I mentioned earlier. They were all women (or girls, for all I know) - not a man in sight.

That's precisely the point I was trying to male: they are not freeing women from repression. They are freeing them from one symbol of repression, and one that should be far, far down on the list of repressive things that need to be removed. Banning the burka will not stop repressive men from treating their women like property, from beating them, abusing them, and so on. The best thing it can achieve is make these "men" even more repressive and isolationists. The problem has to be dealt with at the core. Sarkozy isn't dealing with the problem, he's just attacking an evident symbol to give the impression that he's truly doing something about it. It's shifting away from the real issue to a much less important one.

That's the key here: as long as they are the ones making the choice (be it wearing a burka, or just a hijab, or neither), as long as they are aware of the choice, and as long as the less obvious forms of repression can be dealt with (if they can also be made aware that they shouldn't have to take any crap from their men) then everyone is better off (except the abusive husband, but we don't really care about him).

 

I bow to your superior knowledge. I had no idea that France was prone to sudden sand storms.

 

Stop being intentionally dense.

The point is that, much as our modesty standards evolved over time, that those reasons were based initially in the climates in which we lived -- and that out of tradition many of those standards persisted well after the need for them had passed -- so did theirs.

Since the aborigines lived in Australia before England started sending boatloads of people there, should the new arrivals have been required to go naked so as not to offend the natives with their repressive clothing? Modesty standards are arbitrary, and one set of arbitrary modesty standards is not inherently better than another. It's one thing to tolerate the lower modesty standards of the people around you; another to limit just how undressed one can reasonably be; but refusing to allow another person to adhere to his own higher modesty standards is something very, very different.

If you really can't see this, try telling one of your more modest female subordinates that she needs to start showing more skin if she wants to keep her job and see how that works out.

 

Some people appreciate sarcasm, others don't. I should have used my smiley.

As to your point, I can't do that as it would be illegal.

I don't buy the argument that the survival dress of a couple of hundred/thousand years ago are driving modesty. Have you ever seen the way girls from iceland dress? A recent immigrant from Algeria to France would quickly learn that they needed a different wardrobe then what they brought with them.

 

Nobody's saying that these women should be walking around in bikinis and flashing their breakfast at people, just that the burka has no place in western culture

 

Yes, but the people saying this are willfully ignoring the fact that, to many who wear the burka, asking them not to wear it (let alone asking them not to wear hijab in schools or government buildings, as France has done) will be seen in exactly that manner. If France doesn't want people who have different modesty standards than those of their mainstream flaunting their evil and repressive clothing, they probably should have considered not allowing immigration. If they really didn't like it, they shouldn't have let them in.

When they let these people in, the burka was perfectly legal in most places, and the hijab was legal everywhere. This was the understanding such immigrants entered the country with, and under that assumption they built their lives. Many of the people thus attired are now French citizens, so it isn't just immigrants that the philandering and misogynistic President of France is telling to show more skin in order to protect them from debasement.

Yes, modesty standards do evolve, and yes, they are now less about the environment in which we live and more about tradition. I thought I stated that quite plainly in my last few posts, too. This doesn't change the fact that the driving force behind most of our modesty standards was once rooted in the environmental condition under which our culture was grew. Most Australian aboriginals now wear western attire and most Arabs do not wear the burka. That isn't the point. The point is that modesty standards as they exist now are arbitrary, and one arbitrary standard is not inherently better than another.

 

Actually, here at least, they don't. Private businesses can refuse customers based on things like attire (ever seen a No Shirt, No Shoes, No Serviece sign?) and are not required to respect religion at all. Since banks are not government entities (here, for now at least), the individual's freedom of religion isn't really an issue. It's the same reason we Americans don't have freedom of expression on these boards. These boards aren't run by the gov't (unless Tal's not telling us something).

But Drew, such density is inherrantly funny. I loved it, Snook!

But the next question is: to what level should we bend our standards to meet theirs? I completely understand bending social norms, such as fashion sense or even modesty standards, but practical issues like security and the need for identification need a little more justification.

Ah, but the question is, why are they saying that? If it's for no better reason than because they don't like it, then too bad. Western culture (or at least US culture) has taken the position that social differences are to be tolerated, not crushed. If it's their tradition to tattoo their faces, and you don't like it, you can go climb a tree. If its their tradition to wear pink platform sandals, and you don't like it, then too bad. The same follows for the burka. Where there are practical concerns, such as security, identification, or safety (not that many burka wearers are likely to be doing construction work), practicality wins over tradition.

 

But these days a lot of fat people are wearing less and less clothes. No wonder my eyes are starting to go. I might have to start wearing a Burka as blinders...

 

I think we've finally found ourselves the perfect compromise!

Burka for slimmer women: BANNED!

Burka for fatter women: FORCED!

Now if we could only get something similar for the men too...

This is probably my most politically incorrect post ever