Burka Babes

Remove all ads!

I believe our Culture in the US only accepted them when many were under similiar religous distinctions. Basically most of the Us was following the basics of Christianity. Which a lot of our laws get their bases from. This has changed immensely with a vastly growing population of other religions and there followers, making it much harder for our courts to decide what we make exceptions for. When it comes to interfering with how our securities work, I believe it is they who have to change, not our laws.

 

All in all, society as a whole has no right to demand to see your face. Security personnel, police, etc do, but that guy I just walked past on the street doesn't. Now, bosses and companies are a different issue because they aren't even represented by the government. Joe on the street has no right to see my face, so the law has no right to demand that he can. My boss has a different relationship with me, though, and it's one that can come with special requirements. If a company demands that the guys come in wearing a suit and tie every day, and the ladies must wear dress skirts, that's something between the employer and the employees. Laws may address it if the relationship becomes abusive (i.e. a boss requiring his female employees to strip at work, etc.), but the company has no legal obligation to respect anyone's religion. It's just good business to do so (most of the time).

 

How is security compromised by a burka? It's no different than how people dress during the winter in extremely cold climates. There is no reason we cannot accomodate a burka and be sensitive to those religious beliefs.

I spent a large portion of my life defending religious freedoms -- I never believed it was only christian freedoms.

 

I'd bet dollars to doughnuts that most places have laws against people obscuring their features in public without a valid reason (ie -- weather.) I do not count any religious belief as a valid reason.

I do not believe only in Christian values being protected. But some practices, facial concealment among them, should not be permitted under the auspices of "religious freedom".

 

I agree with this and that was one of the caveats in my previous post (though I may not have come across very clearly on this point).

I hadn't thought of that and you raise a good point. In this case I would say she should have to show him his face. However, this in no way is the same as what you then said just afterwards:

Taken in the broadest general sense, I'm in full agreement with your statement. In the particular context of this thread, I have a major issues with it: "a cop has to see her face for security purposes" and "she should show her face to everyone and their dog" are not the same thing. So far you've switched between three different reasons why you think the burka should be made illegal. As a symbol of Sharia repression? I don't think it'll help in any way, but I definitely agree that there's a problem there and the repression has to go. As a security problem? I'm with you, but there are ways around it (see above). Because you don't like to see them walking on the streets? Sorry, but you've lost my metaphorical vote.

I might come across as incredibly arrogant when I say the above, considering I am an immigrant in your country. However there are reason why I left the UK (despite my undying love for Edinburgh) and came specifically to Canada (rather than, say, Saudi Arabia) and one very important one was that I wanted to live in a country where I didn't feel the government was constantly trying to spy on people and shape their lives in ways that are really none of its business. That doesn't mean I expect the country's laws to bend to my will - of course not - but it does mean that I expect freedom, in the sense that as long as what I'm doing is not hurting or affecting anyone else in any way I expect them to leave me alone. Besides, attacking the burka under the banner of "immigrants are not integrating!" is just as much avoidance of the real issue as attacking it to remove repressive Sharia. There are far more important issues with immigrants that Canada (most immigration countries really, but it's particularly bad here) needs to deal with, not least of which is language: when you've got two official languages and half of your landed immigrants, now permanent citizens (or worse, nationals) can't put togethe a single sentence in either, I'd say this is much more serious than whether women should be allowed to wear a burka.

 

It is easily compromised. But not removing it when say pulled over by a police officer for speeding, it is restricting the officers ability to due their job. When the officer asks for the ID, they need to see the face to match it to the ID. That is the whole point of the picture being on there. Or if a Burka wearer walks into a bank... what's security suppose to do? Nothing? If they do nothing and that said Burka wearer actually robs the bankl, they get sued. They have to be able to do their job within reason. The showing of who you are is within that reasonable expectation. It's not like they have to wear a sign listing their identity to the public, but to show your face to Police/Bank security should definitely be a reasonable expectation. Otherwise, people can start claiming all kinds of ridiculous reasons why the are outside of the law. The list will only get bigger and bigger. Should we expect law-enforcers to know all of these little exceptions as they surmount to exceptional purportions? No, we shouldn't. It is for the safety of the whole, which should override the needs or wants of one. If someone want to practice a on-violent religion, I fully support them, but only if it does not interfere with the daily practices of everyday society.

 

A circular argument here Blades, I already addressed that issue -- my first post:

Unless there is probable cause, there is no reason for removal of the burka.

That's exactly what they are supposed to do. When the burka comes off and a weapon is revealed the security reacts -- just as they do when someone is wear a sweatshirt covering a weapon. A weapon can be hidden under a t-shirt ... there has to be a better argument against a burka than "my gawd, you could hide a damn BAZOOKA in that."

 

That is my whole point, why should they have to move to a search facility? To me, that's is restricting the police in doing their job, using up resources that could be freed up alot faster to help serve and protect.

Being pulled over for speeding is probable cause as they need to see your face to match it to the ID. That is basic police work and why we have government issued IDs in the 1st place. Something that should be above and beyond any personal beliefs.

As for the bank, I was referring to the similarity of the ski-mask. Hiding your face when entering a bank is tantamount to causing a panic. I don't believe a gun can be hidden in there, not one that would scare me anyway.

 

Police in airports will sometimes decide this person needs to be searched more thoroughly and will move them to a search facility to do so. Why should they? It is restricting them from doing their job and using up resources. They should strip them and search them in front of everyone.

There are limits to how unrestricted the police should be in doing their job.

 

I was not referring to the airport security, i was talking about everyday police on the street. A distinct difference.

 

Why? In both cases there would be extra work and extra resources allocated specifically so that they can carry their duty while minimising inconvenience to the civilians. Why is that extra fine if it's in airports but not one the streets in the way T2 has described?

 

Nor do I, and I was mainly addressing France's refusal to allow women to wear the hijab, not the bourka, in official facilities. That said, without a reason with logic based in something other than "I don't like it and I don't want to see it," refusing to allow a woman to choose to wear a Bourka in public places where it is not a safety concern is still a serious violation. If your daughter's school decided to institute a school uniform in which she had to where a mini-skirt and a mid-riff baring spaghetti-strap tank top and your daughter wasn't comfortable dressing like that (or even if she was, for that matter), wouldn't you cry foul? Telling a woman who has different modesty standards than you do that she can't wear her bourka is pretty much the same thing. Not only does it humiliate the woman and leave her feeling violated, but it engenders hostility. Not a good idea.

EDIT: I feel its important to point out that while facial exposure really isn't viewed the same way as genital exposure in societies that employ such coverings, it isn't always for the reasons you'd think. Face and hand exposure is often viewed as being worse than genital exposure. I once saw an Arabic pregnancy video in which they showed the the baby crowning. The woman was in full hand and facial covering. It was perfectly acceptable for the doctor and cameraman to see (and film!) her genitalia, but showing her face or hands was a no-go.

 

I don't know of any public place in the US that requires the face to be exposed, even with weather conditions as an exception. I could go outside and walk around the city center (if Virginia Beach had one) in a ski mask and no one could arrest me for it. They may give me odd looks, they may watch me carefully, but they couldn't arrest me.

How about it hiding the face? That's what I'd be worried about: identification after the fact. I may be able to walk the streets in that ski-mask, but I would expect any bank to require me to remove it when I entered.

Drew, I understand and agree with your modesty arguement. Banning a Burka in public places (i.e. on the street) is, to many Muslims, tantamount to banning anything more modest than a bikini would be here in the US.

 

I would actually be surprised if any European countries would have such laws (with the possible exception of France), I know that Finland surely does not. I fail to see why obscuring features is in any way a security risk. In fact I doubt you haven't seen people with hooded clothing obscuring their features quite efficently with the hood, I fail to see how a Burka would be any different. I also don't believe that someone in a Burka is an active security risk, sure they might be forced to remove it under certain circumstances but in general I don't see a problem with it.

 

Some of these "security" arguments would be quite valid if there was a rash of crimes committed by women in burkas. Failing any evidence of such a crime spree it seems the arguments are rather superficial.

 

The security arguements come up in situations where you want special security, where you want everyone to be identifiable, such as banks and airports. I don't care what the arguement is, or who the group targeted is, a bank should always have the right to require exposed faces of their customers and employees. I don't think 7-11s have nearly the same concern, though, just for a comparison.

 

This is true - and while I agree with nearly everything else you're saying T2, if I were a female criminal or terrorist (or collaborator thereof), and I lived in a country where removing a woman's hajib or burka was prohibited, you better believe I'd be packing one around in my pocket. But I agree this is a very unlikely scenario.

 

NOG, if the bank wants that right then they need to pay extra to have someone available that can verify without violating the individual's religious rights. Education would go a long way here and it may be as simple as providing a private room and a female security officer.

DR, I'm not saying it should be prohibited -- just that every effort should be made to honor reasonable religious beliefs. I believe such a ceremonial garb is perfectly reasonable, if the ceremonial garb were to change to body armor I would deem that unreasonable.

 

I believe traffic stops should also be included in that grouping. Also, any situation wear identification is required by law. But I don't have an issue with someone wearing one in public in general, as long as the law is followed.