VERSAILLES, France (AFP) — President Nicolas Sarkozy said on Monday that the burka was not welcome in secular France, condemning the head-to-toe cover as a symbol of subjugation rather than the Muslim faith.
“We cannot accept to have in our country women who are prisoners behind netting, cut off from all social life, deprived of identity,” he said. “That is not the idea that the French republic has of women’s dignity.”
“The burka is not a sign of religion, it is a sign of subservience,” he told lawmakers in a major policy speech. “It will not be welcome on the territory of the French republic.”
The speech came just two weeks after Sarkozy and US President Barack Obama diverged on whether states should legislate on religious clothing, an issue which has sparked controversy in Europe.
Now here’s a slippery slope if ever there was one. France has more Muslims than any other country in Europe, in excess of 5 million. Several years ago, a muslim woman was denied french citizenship because she wore a burka and was subjugated to her husband. I guess she didn’t know the French way of doing things. Several thousand women in France wear the burka.
Somehow a burka is just not the same as a head scarf. A burka is a clothing prison. President Obama defended the head scarf and took a departure from Sarkozy’s point of view. Maybe this is one time Obama needs to butt out and let the French people decide this one for themselves.
How do contributors feel about Sarkozy’s views? Should he attempt to get the French legislature to pass them into law? Do his views, if passed in to law, intefer with religious freedom?
Full story at Google.
“Somehow a burka is just not the same as a head scarf. A burka is a clothing prison.”
Although I agree with you, I’m not sure that some muslim women would agree. Some of these women might choose the burka over a headscarf because of how they were raised. Think of spending your whole life thinking that showing any part of your body to a man not your husband is an abomination to God. Then suddenly being told you can’t wear it. It would be like me suddenly be forced to go topless at a French beach because Sarkozy said he forbid swimsuit tops. Would I panic and protest? Yes, not because I would offend God, but because I would perhaps offend anyone who’d never seen a woman who breastfed 5 kids.
I don’t know what a good solution is. Freedom seems like the answer, even if it is freedom to wear the burka but could you ever be sure that they were wearing it because they wanted to or because their husbands forced them to. I’d have to err on the side of caution and let them wear it.
I completely sympathize and think he’s doing the right thing for his country.
And we should maintain laws here that prohibit walking around all day with your face covered. Can I walk around town in a ski mask? No.
In a similar vein, I would welcome our public officials attempting to convery to people that if you aren’t a legal citizen, you’re not welcome here.
Now Rick, are you saying that if you aren’t a citizen you don’t belong, even if you have permission to be in country?
I tend to agree a little with anon but more with Rick’s first 2 paragraphs. There is something about someone walking around under what amounts to a bed sheet with eyes cut out in a free society that I find to be offensive. Why not walk around with a stocking over your face? You do that and I am going to think you are headed to a 7-11 to rob.
No one is forcing the woman to stay in France if she isn’t a citizen. When in Rome…..
Right Moon-Howler, I mean to say legal resident.
When in Rome … but by and large Muslims believe and are taught that taking over the world is their manifest destiny and that someday we’ll all cover women head to toe, flagelate ourselves with swords and bleed on public streets to show how macho we are, pray on rugs like morons, all make pilgrimiges to the same cities like lemmings, and so on and so forth. So they have limited interest in assimilating. I say, if you want to live here you play by our rules – for example, if you want to drive a taxi ina city where taxis are regulated and governed, you can’t decide that you won’t transport anyone carrying a bottle of wine. We gain nothing collectively by humoring these people’s idiotic religious beliefs.
While I cannot begin to imagine why someone would want to wear a burka, I really don’t think there should be legal repercussions for choosing to wear it. Wearing it is an expression of faith…if there was no particular reason for someone to be covered head to toe, then I could see outlawing it, but since it is part of someone’s beliefs, I don’t think it should be governed by legislation. It’s not like anyone who sees a woman in a burka doesn’t know why she is wearing it!
Here’s a little language lesson–
“The full Afghan chadri covers the wearer’s entire face except for a small region about the eyes, which is covered by a concealing net or grille. This type of covering is also common in North Western Pakistan close to the Afghan border. It is frequently referred to as “Shuttlecock Burqa” in Pakistan to differentiate it from other Burqa styles and due to its resemblance with a badminton shuttlecock. Pakistani, Bangladeshi and Indian burqas may expose the face or eyes. The garment is usually sewn from light materials, and requires many metres of material. Blue is a favourite colour for chadris. The cap from which the material hangs may be decorated with embroidery.
The chadri was created by one of Afghanistan’s rulers trying to stop anyone from seeing his wives’ faces. He came up with the chadri, which became a sign of an upper class citizen; however, as times changed, the new government decided that chadris weren’t modern enough and banned them. The upper class people then gave them to their servants. The chadris in those days were made out of silk and the mesh at the front was lace.[citation needed]
Before the Taliban took power in Afghanistan, the chadri was infrequently worn in cities. While they were in power, the Taliban treatment of women required the wearing of a chadri in public. Officially, it is not required under the present Afghan regime, but local warlords still enforce it in southern Afghanistan. Burqa use in the remainder of Afghanistan is variable and is observed to be gradually declining in Kabul. Due to political instability in these areas, women who might not otherwise be inclined to wear the chadri must do so as a matter of personal safety.”
I recently got to “model” a chadri at a League of Women Voters meeting. I have no idea how Muslim women walk in those things, but according to a guest speaker (who worked for the UN in Afghanistan) women fall and hurt themselves a lot.
There was an Afghan lady at the meeting who said the chadri used to be something young girls would look forward to wearing. It was a cultural symbol of becoming a woman. When the Taliban began to force women to wear it, however, that’s when women felt persecuted (for good reason). She also said women only wear these garbs in public.
I think it’s wrong to tell people what they can and cannot wear. Forbidding religious freedom is dangerous. Forbid one, and you might as well kiss your rights goodbye. If we wouldn’t put up with it from the Taliban, why we would we put up with it from France or anyone else?
Let’s not forget more of the hypocrisy. String bikinis are okay, but the chadri isn’t? What’s next? Are we going to tell priests they cannot wear robes? Are we going to tell nuns not to wear habits if they want? How about Jewish people? Take off the caps? Hasidic Jews? How about telling Native Americans to take off the feathers?
Most of us can wear whatever we want in this country including ski masks. We might be asked to remove it to prove identity, but other than that, it’s a free frickin’ country.
When people distort, pervert and use religion to break the law, it’s not the religion that is the problem. It is the criminals. Terrorists are criminals. Let’s not confuse that with women wearing coverings.
Some women like to wear this stuff. Like Anon says, it makes them feel comfortable and safe. They might also do it because they appreciate the tradition. So what?
On the other hand, if they feel persecuted because they are forced to wear it under penalty of death, then there is a human rights violation somewhere in there.
But you know what? Tell me to stop wearing something that shows what I believe in because if I don’t you will kill me (or deport me), and I will tell you the same thing–human rights violation. That would be part of the the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness thing. Remember those old words? Or do those rights only belong to the members of the few, proud, naked-headed cultures?
How did it happen that the immigrants to a country suddenly make the rules, as the country’s citizens stand helplessly by? After all it is France, not Istanbul, isn’t it? It’s getting so immigrants are becoming inconsiderate and ungrateful guests to the countries that allow them to settle. If this keeps up I can see the brakes being put on immigration in many countries. It’s like having some friends over and they start telling you what you can and can’t do in your own home. I’d show them the door in a heart beat, friends or not!
The problem is, if you wear a burka, no one can identify you. Intelligence has suggested that Osama Bin Laden has been aboiding capture because he has been prancing all over Afghanistan and Pakistan in a burka.
And no you can’t go into a 7-11 or walk into a mall in a ski mask or stocking mask. Try it and let me know how that works out for you. [sirens in background]
There was so to-do a year or so ago about a muslim woman who refused to show her face for a drivers license. Oh well. Then don’t drive.
I certainly don’t care if someone wears a head scarf. That’s their business. I would not want to be around someone who is in a burka. I would leave the area. Why? I don’t know who or what they are. I feel it is a security issue. What’s wrong with this picture?
SA, I doubt if people in Istanbul would be that backward. Turkey is a fairly modern country.
I think Obama needs to mind his (our) own business and leave France alone.
If it’s a security issue, like I said, by all means, check identity. That’s the law.
As for ski masks, no one can make you take one off. You probably will be checked, however. But again, let’s not confuse religious garb with the traditional garb of criminals.
This whole thing is one more argument for using fingerprints as national ID’s. Don’t show your face if you don’t want to. Show your thumb!
I don’t think that Sarkozy knows better than a muslim woman what is better for her! I am not surprised by his status against hijab, he is Jewish.
Nicolas Sarkozy is absolutely right. It is a prison and they should be banned on the entire planet Earth!
The Burka’s should all be burned!!!!! It is humiliating to women, and that’s exactly why they are required to wear them.
I think it’s wrong to tell people what they can and cannot wear. Forbidding religious freedom is dangerous. Forbid one, and you might as well kiss your rights goodbye. If we wouldn’t put up with it from the Taliban, why we would we put up with it from France or anyone else?
Let’s not forget more of the hypocrisy. String bikinis are okay, but the chadri isn’t? What’s next? Are we going to tell priests they cannot wear robes? Are we going to tell nuns not to wear habits if they want? How about Jewish people? Take off the caps? Hasidic Jews? How about telling Native Americans to take off the feathers?@Posting As Pinko
I don’t think you understand what the Burka represents. Just passing by someone wearing a burka makes another woman feel subservient! Burka’s are wrong and no one should be forced to wear them, they are a symbol of oppression. They are not a symbol of religion! GET IT STRAIGHT!
@Posting As Pinko Should the ancestors of slaves be required to wear a chain around their neck as a symbolic gesture? THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT THE BURKA REPRESENTS! SLAVERY!
Ski masks are fine on the ski slope or on a snowy day. They aren’t so fine in a 7-11. And it isn’t about ‘making’ someone take off face coverings. Here is the Virginia law.
I totally disagree that your thumb counts as your face. Very few people walk around with thumb identifiers on them.
I, as John Q Citizen, want to be able to see people’s faces who I come in to contact with. In our country, it is customary to show your face in public.
The problem is I’m starting to question whose country is it? I thought it was ours, meaning good old US citizens, but with the increase in numbers from other countries it starts to get a little confusing. Check Wal-Mart late on a weekend and you’ll suddenly feel like you’re no longer in the US!
Yes, unless everyone’s thumbprints were stored in some database, it doesn’t help to take someone’s thumbprint. Most people don’t have their thumbprints on file, unless they are either criminals or have been fingerprinted as part of getting a security clearance. That leaves the great majority of the population not in any fingerprint database. Therefore, thumbprints are useless. And I can just imagine the great outcry if everyone were made to get their thumbrpints taken.
In short, thumbprints won’t work. Somehow who hasn’t been fingerprinted and leaves behind a thumbprint, and doesn’t show their face, is going to be very difficult to trace.
Sarkozy is right about subjugation also. It is not part of French culture for men to subjugate women. Why would someone who believes in subjugation want to be a citizen of country that rejects it so adamantly?
The world isn’t a nice place. If I go to the mall and see someone in a burka, I will turn on my heel and leave. Who knows who or what is really under there. Safety radar going off. Whooooop Whooooop!!!
I sort of feel the same way about snake handlers. Their right to practice religion ends where my safety is concerned.
I know I definitely wouldn’t get on an airplane if I saw someone boarding it wearing a burka. I guess if that makes me against religious freedom, so be it. How do you even know if it is a woman under there?
By the way, as long as we’re giving “language lessons” Jewish people don’t wear “caps”. The usual spelling in English is a yarmulke. It’s funny – all sorts of terms were used in that “language lesson” yet it is odd that when it came to Jewish people they were referred to as wearing “caps”. Never heard anyone refer to it that way.
Actually, in terms of boarding a plane wearing a burka – how do they get past security? Usually you have to show a photo id and they try and match it up against your face. Hard to match up a pair of eyes to a picture.
Gaineville Resident, can you even see the eyes in the burka? I see no different in a burka and walking under a blanket….or perhaps sheets, like the kkk. Very excellent points you have made.
Here is what’s wrong with forceing religious beliefs on others who are un-willing due to “group think” rather than individual choice.
I said it before and I’ll say it again, but last time it was about HWCM, now it is about Heterosexual, Arabic, Muslim Women (HAMW), and my answer is the same as before:
For moon, I will use the word “you” again. When I use the word “you” is almost never directed at moonhowler or thge poster of the debate, simply the object of the debate as a generic “you” or someone, or some group whose ideology in the theme post I oppose. Like I’ve said many times before, my objective is to educate “at large”, not to target specific individuals unless they target me specifically with hate and discrimmination first.
AGAIN, everything above I read written about HWCM or HAMWs I find extremely offensive and racist to the core. It is disgusting. Simply switch HWCM, for HHCW, HAMW, or HBMM (you figure it out, simply pick some racial or ethnic group people have expressed hatred toward) and you will see just how maliciously hateful and openly racist, and sexist these words written above are, and you will understand my anger at those who blatently believe only others are racists and sexists while they are even worse than the worst racists of the past.
People, WE MUST start thinking, politicizing, and associating only with “individuals”, individual choice, and rights, and not racial, ethnic, gender and religious group’s dogma or doctrine, as you advocate for money and power. All people must be regarded as equal if we are to have a prayer of stopping war, conflict, poverty, or hatred.
HWCMs and HAMWs are not “old”, did not do what you are so angry at their grandfathers or grandmothers for doing, and all deserved to be treated just as fairly and equal as any of you non-HWCMs. Stop living in the past, young people of the present are being discrimminated agaist by hateful words such as these and hateful groups aligned along racial, gender, religious and ethnic group boundaries politically.
If you don’t understand what I have just said, we are doomed to repeat history. Ethnic “groups” will rise up and take control of the government, and oppress all others (this is called autocracy,institutionalized ethnic pride, and facism)
There are two types of worlds you can create with this rhetoric.
1. A world where all people are divided into “groups” racially, ethnically, religiously and by gender, where all of them must advocate for their own groups political and economic power. In such a world, the HWCM, the HAMW, and all other groups you can name, must form political and social groups just to “get their fair share”. In such a world, war between such groups and nations formed by such groups will be common.
2. A world where all people are prohibited from advocating and joining racist, discriminatory, exclusive, self-segregating political groups in the pursuit of money and political power. Rights of individuals, and indivuality are honored, respected and extolled over any group association or reference, and political power is distributed evenly between all individuals without any preference, discrimmination or political favoritism. Such a world will be a democracy where people as individuals own their government, choose their own life and religious custom (but not forced to by group law), and all individuals have equal opportunity and equal treatment under the law. This used to be the world America stood for, but not anymore. “most” people are now pursuing world number one in support of their hatred toward others, greed, malice and ethnic “diversity” as a tool to dominate and oppress all others to “get what they want”.
Religious freedom and religious oppression are easily confused. You have to look no further than Iran, and the riots and beatings in the street to understand the effect of the same “sharia” law here in the US. Religious “laws” are “group” laws and must be outlawed as a government ideology, in favor of individual laws that are religious and social laws that protect individual choice, democracy and freedom to “choose” a government or leader to represent your personal individual interests as an individual right. Religiou laws have been oppressive throughout history, that is why a democracy separates church and state.
A dictatorship or autocracy combines church and state and beats individual “people” into submission.
The secret to this is “let the individual woman” choose freely without coercian or guilt if she wants to wear a burka and do not pass a law that forces everyone else to do it if they choose not to. Very few people I think, given a free choice would wear such a contraption.
MH – I guess you are right – I can’t say I’ve ever actually seen someone in a burka. Actually, that’s a good point about it being a bit like a KKK outfit. I hadn’t thought of that, but there is some similarity.
@Muslim
Sarkozy is not Jewish. To be Jewish your mother has to be Jewish. Sarkozy’s mother is not Jewish. Her father was a Jew who married a woman who was a Christian.
So your whole line of reasoning (which is anti-semitic) fails.
I should have said “to be Jewish by birth” in my above post. One can convert to Judiasm, but Sarkozy has not done that either. Any news articles that say he is Jewish are just plain incorrect, as are lots of things in the news these days and of course often times posts on blogs posting something as “fact”.
“they are a symbol of oppression. They are not a symbol of religion!”
they are a symbol of BOTH. The root problem is the tendancy of human beings to choose to pretend that demonstrably false fairy stories are true, and to let a coterie of false prophets and priets dominate their lives.
Michael fails to note that women living under the subjugation of their husbands or other male family members have no choice at all. That is sort of the point.
Who on earth would willing consent to female circumscision which is really female genital mutilation. That barbaric practice is a socio/cultural/religious rite of passage in some parts of the world.
I am sure there are little girls many places in the world who have been culturally brainwashed into longing for the day they become ‘women’ whether it be by wearing a burka or submitting to genital mutilation.
Judy, the burka might be a symbol of oppression to many women, but to many,it isn’t, if for no other reason than that many women who believe in the burka do not believe in the Taliban which is the violent force behind subjugation of women. I don’t think it’s our place to judge someone else’s beliefs.
The fact is, not all women feel the same way about women’s issues in general. Would I want to wear a burka other than trying one on? No. But I wasn’t raised Muslim, either. Would I force it on someone else? Hell no. But do I like it that all women in burkas are suspected terrorists? Hell no.
I used to work with whole classrooms of students in burkas. They were lovely ladies, and believe me, they weren’t submissive. They were, after all, pursuing their education and their husbands supported them. This whole discussion is yet one more example of having to be around a culture in order to stop fearing the people of that culture.
If women want to remove the burka but cannot because they feel threatened, that’s another thing all together. And if they aren’t told they have choices because telling them is forbidden, then that’s wrong too. But in the end, it’s a personal decision. You can’t FORCE someone out of subjugation because they YOU are subjugating.
If women in burkas refuse to prove identity, then that’s wrong as well. Security is important, and I think most people would agree with that.
As far as fingerprinting, I think everyone should be using it as a national ID. Much of what is wrong with our immigration system is that there is no way to identify people. That was my only point about using the thumb.
MH, are you saying it’s illegal for women to wear a full burka in VA? If so, there are a hell of a lot of women who are supposed to be arrested.
GR, I wasn’t trying to be snotty about the language lesson. I just wanted to make the distinction. And yes, I know the “cap” isn’t the right name for it. So my apologies there.
@Posting As Pinko
…because they YOU are subjugating
I mean “then” not “they.”
No, I am not saying anything about what is legal and what is illegal. The state of Virginia clarifies.
There is a lot of incorrect information flowing back and fourth in this conversation and being debated over, it’s beggining to descend into the absurd.
I was a full practicing Muslim for 3 years before I settled into Enlightenment Deism and studied Islam for 4 years before that via classes at college and many objective books.
A few facts…the majority of Muslims are not Arabs.
The majority of Muslim women in the world wear a garment called the Hijab, which is a simple scarf wrapped around the head to cover the hair and cleavage of the breast. For the majority of Muslim women, the Hijab is a personal choice that reflects an embrace of modesty before strangers. As for the Scarf being a foreign barbarian concept unique to Islam, up until as late the 1940’s, Women in the United States and around the world would feel awkward being in public places without a hat or Scarf. Many traditional Cathloic women in the U.S. still wear the head covering in Mass.
Non-Muslim women wearing scarves in public for the sake of modesty can also be found today in Slavic countries,Eastern Europe, Africa and South America.
The Burka is a garment of imposition primarily, though it was around long before Islam, primarily as a tradition of Arab tribes. There is no commandment in Islam that calls for women to be covered from head to foot, but a few groups of people who embraced Islam claimed that their Pagan adherance to the Burka was part of their religious beliefs. Other converts to Islam imposed the Burka out of ignorance.
All the Quran ask for is that a Woman should guard her modesty for her husband. This can be left to wide interperatation. In Turkey, Lebanon and Egypt for example, some Muslim women do not cover their hair with anything in public, save at the Mosque on Friday.
Don’t get me wrong, there are many questions I have about the way Islam is practiced and interpreted today…I have questions about all organized religion, but please, if you are going to make difinitive statements about why something is oppressive, please try and study it a little first. Blanket statements of ignorance cover the world in flame.
The only issue here is the burka. Certainly the burka cannot be compared to the Hijab any more than we can compare full body armor to a ski jacket.
@Moon-howler
That pretty much sums it up MH. It seemed to me a few users were making statements based in the assumption that Hijab, Burka, Nigab and Chadri are all the same thing and all rooted in the full suppression of Islamic Women.
The issue is a little more complex reguarding the covering of modesty, bit generally the Burka is a tribal garment of supression that should be phased out (with the exception of desert nomadic life, where a woman would probally want a full garment to keep out of the sun and sandy wind.)
And as a branch off for mutilation (aka “female circumcision”) that is another concept that is purely tribal and has nothing to do with Islam, in fact it goes against the teaching of the Quran. Back in the days of pre-Islamic Arabia, it was common tribal ritual to bury your baby daughters in the sand as an offering to the God’s so that your wife would produce a son the next time. Muhamad was utterly appaled by this and that is reflected in the Quran warning of harsh punishments in the hereafter for people who do this.
Rob, what do you say about women who believe it is part of their religion and culture and who want to preserve their tradition?
I mean Rod. Sorry!
As far as fingerprinting everyone, I’m sure the ACLU will be at the ready to launch a whole pile of their frivolous lawsuits should the gov’t insist everyone be fingerprinted. I give the gov’t fingerprinting everyone in the USA about a 1 in 10 chance of succeeding, thanks to groups like the ACLU.
Actually, from what I have read, some of the female circumcision is semi religious, in that it has been brought into tribal religious customs. Snake handling is also a tribal custom of Christianity. Oh let me just say what I really mean…bastardization of Christianity.
Furthermore, I was not really suggesting that it was practiced or condoned by Islam. I offered it up as an example of extreme cultural/religious/tribal behavior that people often ‘consent’ to because of tribal mores and tradition. This ‘consent,’ to me, is not truly consent. It is barbaric and a form of oppression.
I cannot imagine if one removed the cultural/religious/tribal components of having to do something, that 99% of women would consent to either female circumcision or burkas.
Just saw this information: “Many Muslims believe that the Islamic holy book, the Qur’an, and the collected traditions of the life of Muhammed, or hadith, require both men and women to dress and behave modestly in public. However, this requirement, called hijab, has been interpreted in many different ways by Islamic scholars (ulema) and Muslim communities (see Women and Islam); the burqa is not specifically mentioned in the Quran.”
Apparently, whether it’s a correct interpretation or not, some people do believe the burka is part of the religious traditions in Islam. Since men are also supposed to dress modestly, you will notice they often wear long sleeves and turbans especially in the mosques.
MH I am going to see if there is any information out there on women who like vs. dislike the burka.
@Posting As Pinko
If a woman wishes to wear a Burka to perserve her cultural traditions then that is fine IMO. My only exception is if there is a public saftey issue. Driving a car while wearing a Burka is just not a good idea and should probally be banned aloung with cellphone use while driving. There were no cars arounf when Burka’s were invented so saying the driving with a Burka is a culteral tradition is BS.
Privately though, I feel things like the Burka don’t offer much to society and I hope they will quietly be phased out of existance aloung with every other extreme tribal tradition living way past it’sa prime due to blind dogma.
I actually am having a hard time believing I am participating in this conversation. How many women is Islamic countries actually drive? I seem to recall seeing widowed women and their children out begging because their husbands had been killed in one of their silly ass wars. The women weren’t allowed to work. What kind of society does that to widows? Any society that requires women to wear a burka is extremist in my world.
Pinko, how can you possibly get an honest answer? You can’t. If a woman is so downtrodden in her society that she wears a burka, then what do you think she is going to say?
Pinko, I think you are trying to be too open minded. Did you happen to see Beneath the Veil on CNN? Any chance of me ever being open minded on this topic ended with that show.
http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/presents/shows/veil/interactive/the.story/frameset.exclude.html
I am far more open minded about polygamists (and I don’t mean the Big Love kind) I mean the kind who live in those God-forsaken towns, have a million kids, and are married to some old goat. Most of the time the families are on welfare. Often the sons are thrown out of the towns because they are competition to the older men.
I have more sympathy for all these people than I do Taliban types. (as long as all ‘wives’ are adults)
MH, don’t get me wrong. I don’t sympathize with the Taliban AT ALL! I see them as a perversion of Islam. That polygamy thing grosses me out, too.
As far as driving-the woman from the UN said there was a woman taxi driver in Afghanistan! Yes, Rod, I agree that’s scary.
I also agree that the burka signifies extreme beliefs. I called a friend of mine who has lots of Muslim students who are really open to talking about this kind of thing. They said basically the amount of clothing kind of tells how traditional or strict of a Muslim you are. That’s why there are such variations.
The reason I am being open minded is that I have interacted with women of this tradition. Did it make me uncomfortable at first? Sure. In our culture, we depend quite a lot on facial expressions to communicate. We don’t trust people who cover their faces because we think that means they have something to hide. There’s a communication gap between our cultures.
But, MH, I won’t argue–a lot of these women are also abused, and THAT is a human rights violation. The burka isn’t, IMO.
One more point before I watch the video–according to a government source, embassies instruct their citizens to reveal their faces whenever they come in contact with law enforcement or are asked to do so for security reasons. It is rare that a woman would refuse to show her face to an officer. If she does, she’s in big trouble with the law and her embassy.
I say if it’s a real problem, then she would have to be taken in to the ADC to be identified by a female officer. But I doubt it would come to that unless we had a true terrorist on our hands.
Good point moon. Subjugation is only removed when the oppressive laws (religious or social) are removed to treat ALL people qually under the law. IMHO this is why religious law is so dangerous historically and so oppressive historically that it MUST be removed from government ideology and replaced with democratic produced social and religious laws that protect freedoms of the individual only, not groups, rights of the individual and liberty of the individual, while excluding any ethnic, gender, religious or racial law that groups can use to oppress all others not belonging to the racial, gender, ethnic or religious “group”. Such concepts are not Democratic, they are autocratic, socialistic, and dictatorial.
Moon, I don’t condone it, but to show you how ridiculus some religious doctrines can get, snake handling is actually in the bible, and is actually a directive scripture that will identify the faithful from the unfaithful (in some bible versions (in John, last page) I think, that have been removed from other versions of the bible, lest people think Christians are nutbags like any other doctrines of radical religious faith practices and traditions). most of these passages come from early religious concepts, passed down through history (from Hinduism, Egyptian, and from the Turkey/IRAQ/Iranian areas that originated the Torah all the way to the Quran)
@Moon-howler
Eeeshk, MH. Horrible stuff from that link. Yes, that’s what I would call human rights violations, and I hope you don’t think I am endorsing that kind of thing!
Here’s a theoretical question: if the Taliban didn’t exist, would we even be concerned about the burka?
Here’s an interesting excerpt on how some women feel when they can’t wear their veils:
http://books.google.com/books?id=mpb8gYhokTwC&pg=PA223&lpg=PA223&dq=The+Veil+in+Their+Minds+and+on+Our+Heads&source=bl&ots=HL1IgFYL3H&sig=5OuX6qD1_aoa0ueGBV7qQs_R6yg&hl=en&ei=PWlBSpHOCteJtgf51eSlCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5
I doubt that the burka would exist without something like the Taliban. Why would women do that to themselves?
Veils aren’t even close to being burkas. I can’t continue this conversation. What is the debate? Burkas are a symbol of oppression, cruelty and subjugation. I don’t think there is any thing else to say about them.