Ban the Burka?

[bloodyminded]

I never said he did. If we are supposed to accept face veils in this society, what if we all walked around with them on? Would you like it... I mean outside of Halloween?

What I would or would not like about your personal choice of dress wouldn't, I hope, be too important to you.

If you do, I'm wearing one. If it is acceptable, then I'm gonna do it.

Then go for it.

I think of it as a novelty, exotically sensual. What if the fashion style catches on? How easy would it make you to see a line of cars, not one of them with faces exposed? Or every teller at the bank behind a veil? I'll bet that even if only half the women of Canada wore face veils, it would unnerve you. It would of course lead to some men wanting to do the same thing. Kinda changes the pictures doesn't it? If you wanna convince me that it is okay to walk around with a face veil on, then I AM DOING IT. Let's be fair, if it is okay for some, then let's all do it. How would you feel then?

It wouldn't happen. But as to how i feel...well, if that was the fashion trend, who am i to argue?

And it wouldn't "unnerve" me; if it were the norm, it would by definition just become normal.

[MysTerri]

just what is my argument? What ‘comparisons and judgments’ do you interpret? What beastly reactions do you speak of? Who is your ANYONE?

how have I setup western women for abuse? What belittling do you interpret? What is my fashion logic, antiquated, twisted or otherwise?

You have GOT to be kidding. Read over your statements Waldo. You make suggestive comments about the morality of Western women and their choice dress, suggesting Western women dress to please men, that is is men's reaction women are after, not that they dress to express their natures. You seem to believe there is something WRONG with expressing one's natural born nature, that it is something to be hidden. This kind of talk leads to the "Well the woman asked for it; look how she was dressed" attitude and I hope we are well passed that stage of human evolution.

[MysTerri]

What I would or would not like about your personal choice of dress wouldn't, I hope, be too important to you.

Then go for it.

It wouldn't happen. But as to how i feel...well, if that was the fashion trend, who am I to argue?

And it wouldn't "unnerve" me; if it were the norm, it would by definition just become normal.

Well it would HONESTLY unnerve me to NOT be able to see who is driving so recklessly or who miscounted my money at the bank or who I am putting into office. I bet in reality it would unnerve you too, to be hit by someone whose face you cannot see.

Edited April 20, 2010 by MysTerri

[Michael Hardner]

How is a mini-skirt a symbol of oppression? A woman having the choice to wear an article of clothing that is somewhat revealing is oppression now?

Bone up on feminism, on men defining the beauty ideal and so on.

In general, an individual should be free to wear as much or as little as they please except where it compromises the security of others. Additionally, any individual or enterprise has the right to impose whatever dress codes they want on their particular property. For example, requiring a shirt and shoes and a clearly visible face to access services.

That sounds good to me, for the most part.

[M.Dancer]

Bone up on feminism

...he said bone... tee hee

[myata]

That sounds good to me, for the most part.

Oh, so I can't claim any of those "services" while wearing sandals? Even in the dead heat of the summer?

Is my open belly t-shirt OK, masta?

And btw the "standard" didn't mention anything about the lower part of the body, does it mean that I can come in my "Speedos"? Or even without? Most certainly, with "clearly visible face" (and something else too).

Wonder what other thoughtful norms for dress, wear (and maybe read, think, vote, in the next iteration?) we'll come up with, having taken that highly rewarding path of setting (our) standards for other's personal choices.

Why I wonder every time this seemingly benevolent and thoughful argument is made, it would invariably reduce itself to either obvious stupidity, or something sinister (and on occasion, hideous)? Could it be indication of the mental state of its authors? Or some unknown fundamental law of human nature (oh yeah: don't judge and... we like to pride ourselves on that book.. sometimes.. when it serves our ends).

[Michael Hardner]

Oh, so I can't claim any of those "services" while wearing sandals? Even in the dead heat of the summer?

I have already opined on that. Charest was trying to gain political points. There's no reason why you can't offer some accommodation to women who wish to wear religious garments.

[Oleg Bach]

There should be a law. If you are going to wear a full Burka you must also wear dark wrap around sun glasses..those sexy eyes are just to appealing and I can barely control my lust..While I am at it all Muslim men should be forced to wear leather shorts with the butt cut out...and it should be mandatory civic duty to march in the gay pride thing.

[waldo]

What is so right about hiding your face Waldo?

You still haven't convinced me that hiding a woman's face is in any way something THIS society should adopt as a norm. The thought is scary. What if all women walked around covered head to toe? Would you feel safe Waldo, especially if one of them had trouble driving with the damn thing on? If those women truly love their husbands, then they would help their backward thinking husbands learn to adjust to their new country and their NEW CULTURE.

I believe this is (at least) the second time you have made this charge, so let's be clear: nowhere has Waldo indicated that our society should adopt face-covering as a norm.

In fact, I've yet to hear anyone, anyone at all, indicate that we should.

I never said he did.

mystery lady, as you're a noob, I'm prepared to cut you some slack over your obvious reading comprehensive difficulty. As you've just now heard from another member... no one... has advocated adopting "burka norms"! Duh!

[waldo]

in response to your comment, Muddy thanked you and suggested a long lost/missing appreciation for you, as a woman, recognizing the, as he described, "freedoms hard won by strong women of yesterday"? Particularly in the context of the burka discussion, I am intrigued to realize who these women of yesterday were... the one's responsible for winning you your freedom from wearing the burka?

as I said, I offered a counter suggestion that much of what influences western women's clothing has little to do with the described "women of yesterday"... as it has to do from, "societal influences/norms, from peer-pressure, from manipulative advertising, from controlling fashion trends, from materialism, from sex influenced mass media, from sexual glorification, from 'entertainment' outlets... from commercial sexploitation... from all of that and much more!"

as an aside, do you believe... do you suggest... your own, as you say, "sense of style", is independently arrived at? Subject to no external influences?

just what is my argument? What ‘comparisons and judgments’ do you interpret? What beastly reactions do you speak of? Who is your ANYONE?

how have I setup western women for abuse? What belittling do you interpret? What is my fashion logic, antiquated, twisted or otherwise?

You have GOT to be kidding. Read over your statements Waldo. You make suggestive comments about the morality of Western women and their choice dress, suggesting Western women dress to please men, that is is men's reaction women are after, not that they dress to express their natures. You seem to believe there is something WRONG with expressing one's natural born nature, that it is something to be hidden. This kind of talk leads to the "Well the woman asked for it; look how she was dressed" attitude and I hope we are well passed that stage of human evolution.

step up and quote where I've made morality based assessments? You've also ignored all the other questions posed to you in regards your baseless accusation/charges concerning, "comparisons and judgments; beastly reactions; abuse setup; belittling and antiquated/twisted fashion logic". In the first quote above, I've also bold highlighted a significant question you also failed to answer... as in, "do you believe... do you suggest... your own, as you say, "sense of style", is independently arrived at? Subject to no external influences?"

let's see... I've made multiple references to external influences western women are confronted with. I've spoken to those external influences as being, "manipulative, controlling... and oppressive". I've highlighted conformity as a significant driver in shaping women's choices. I put up a video that speaks to women's "inner beauty" with an emphasis towards enhancing self-esteen. Out of all that your pigeonholed narrow-mindedness would presume to concoct a summation that I've categorized women as some kind of "date-rape enablers"! Are you for real?

Are today's societal influences on western women as manipulative, controlling... and oppressive... as what the burka represents? Of course not... but then again, on certain levels.....

there is certainly no shortage of investigation and study behind factors that influence women to conform with the manipulative, controlling... and oppressive... societal influences coming at them. And yes, oppression is not such a misplaced characterization, particularly within the sociocultural context of women's body image. Nothing says it better than a sharp pointed video... as an example, the manufacturer Dove has had a long many years campaign aimed towards emphasizing "inner beauty", towards inspired self-esteem. Whether one views contradictions in this campaign coming from a purveyor of products for women, the series of campaign videos is powerful - one example:

[MysTerri]

mystery lady, as you're a noob, I'm prepared to cut you some slack over your obvious reading comprehensive difficulty. As you've just now heard from another member... no one... has advocated adopting "burka norms"! Duh!

And they shouldn't be worn in this country due to the security risk burkas pose.

Edited April 21, 2010 by MysTerri

[bloodyminded]

And they shouldn't be worn in this country due to the security risk burkas pose.

Couldn't they simply not be allowed only precisely when there are security issues?

For example, while driving a car, while committing some transaction that demands identification, etc.

They aren't security risks at all times.

[MysTerri]

Couldn't they simply not be allowed only precisely when there are security issues?

For example, while driving a car, while committing some transaction that demands identification, etc.

They aren't security risks at all times.

Driving a car with your face covered IS a security risk. You have no peripheral vision. and the thing can blow up over your eyes, not to mention that if your hit someone, it would be a huge mistake to not allow the victim to get a look at the person who hit them. Right? Personal Security.

Plus one never really knows WHO is under a veil; it could be someone out to do you harm. You know that's why the style is so popular with criminals.

Besides in Quebec women (and men BTW) may NOT wear a veil in a public building. It's PUBLIC, so be PUBLIC. You can still go to the beach wearing a burka, unless of course 'Allah' is against playing at the beach.

Edited April 22, 2010 by MysTerri

[Shwa]

Driving a car with your face covered IS a security risk. You have no peripheral vision. and the thing can blow up over your eyes, not to mention that if your hit someone, it would be a huge mistake to not allow the victim to get a look at the person who hit them. Right? Personal Security.

Good point.

Plus one never really knows WHO is under a veil; it could be someone out to do you harm. You know that's why the style is so popular with criminals.

Poor point. One never really knows WHO is walking toward one in a crowded street; it could be someone out to do you harm. I would hardly equate a veil with a ski mask or clown mask and it seems many criminals dispense with the face covering nowadays and go with a baseball cap instead.

Besides in Quebec women (and men BTW) may NOT wear a veil in a public building. It's PUBLIC, so be PUBLIC. You can still go to the beach wearing a burka, unless of course 'Allah' is against playing at the beach.

Confused point. What is the difference between the 'public' in 'public beach' and 'public building?' I think people can go into public builings in swimsuits can they not? And if service is refused because of some sort of rule of attire, those rules have to be posted in a visible place near the entrance to mark that place as having special considerations.

[myata]

They aren't security risks at all times.

Unless some of us want to define anybody who wouldn't fit their (arbitrarilty defined) standars as "security risk".

Edited April 22, 2010 by myata

[bloodyminded]

Driving a car with your face covered IS a security risk. You have no peripheral vision. and the thing can blow up over your eyes, not to mention that if your hit someone, it would be a huge mistake to not allow the victim to get a look at the person who hit them. Right? Personal Security.

But I agree with you. I thought I had been clear: no one should be allowed to drive when their vision is impaired by clothing.

Plus one never really knows WHO is under a veil; it could be someone out to do you harm. You know that's why the style is so popular with criminals.

I wouldn't consider this a good reason to ban it.

[MysTerri]

Poor point. One never really knows WHO is walking toward one in a crowded street; it could be someone out to do you harm. I would hardly equate a veil with a ski mask or clown mask and it seems many criminals dispense with the face covering nowadays and go with a baseball cap instead.

Yes, but at least you can see their face, what they look like, should you have to opportunity to share it with police. You can even photograph it, video tape it when it is not covered.

Confused point. What is the difference between the 'public' in 'public beach' and 'public building?' I think people can go into public builings in swimsuits can they not? And if service is refused because of some sort of rule of attire, those rules have to be posted in a visible place near the entrance to mark that place as having special considerations.

NO one CAN walk into a public building in swimwear. THAT is the LAW.

You even have to remove your sunglasses.

So women who wear veils are on "Public Notice" in Quebec: It is ILLEGAL to wear a face covering in Public Buildings. If you'd like the push the point about the beaches being public too, I would not be opposed to banning burkas on public beaches. You are right, they STILL present a security risk on the beach, if something happens, you need to be able to describe the suspect. Surely this is not beyond your comprehension. This is not a statement about whether God approves or not, it is a statement that this part of the Earth does not approve of faces being covered in public , because it makes them feel threatened as it presents a security risk.

How God feels about it, who knows and who can truly say? Certainly not Waldo or you, nor even I. It is not our place to moralize about others attire. It IS our right to secure the public.

Edited April 27, 2010 by MysTerri

[Natchuck]

It appears that Canadians want it banned. Maybe it's time for a debate in the HOC on the issue to ban it across Canada if possible. If not then lets push our provinicial governments to have debate in our provincial legislatures.

There are certainly other things that would be a higher priority for me to push my provincial legislature to address. This is a non-issue in my mind.

[MysTerri]

But I agree with you. I thought I had been clear: no one should be allowed to drive when their vision is impaired by clothing.

I wouldn't consider this a good reason to ban it.

You wouldn't? If everyone ran around covered head to toe, there would likely be more crime. Who can say what the criminal looked like? It's all about showing your face.... as if YOU HAVE NOTHING TO HIDE.

[Muddy]

Well as an old fashioned gent If I give up my seat to a lady I want to be rewarded with a smile at least.

[bloodyminded]

Well as an old fashioned gent If I give up my seat to a lady I want to be rewarded with a smile at least.

Just 'cause you can't see it doesn't mean it isn't there.

[Muddy]

Just 'cause you can't see it doesn't mean it isn't there.

It just may be there ,but I will never know. I want my bloody reward! I want that small communication with the strangers I meet. Could be I gave up my seat to a cross dressing Muslim! LOL

[Shwa]

NO one CAN walk into a public building in swimwear. THAT is the LAW.

You even have to remove your sunglasses.

This is even more confusing now. Can you provide a cite for this please?

[bjre]

Bank robbers are not allowed to wear a mask.

Bank robbers have an alternative idea other than Burka:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/americas/gun-toting-darth-vader-robs-bank/article1649787/

Gun-toting Darth Vader robs bank

Setauket, New York — The Associated Press Published on Friday, Jul. 23, 2010 1:19PM EDT

A bank robber dressed as Star Wars villain Darth Vader made off with an undetermined amount of cash after pointing a handgun at startled tellers inside a Chase bank branch on Long Island.

...

There also have been numerous reports around the country of men dressing as women, wigs, sunglasses and all, holding up banks.

A New Hampshire man robbed a bank in 2007 wearing tree branches and leaves.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny_crime/2010/07/22/2010-07-22_empire_strikes_bank_thats_no_lightsaber_vaders_carrying_in_li_stickup.html#ixzz0uha92XPL

The villain looked ready for Halloween, wearing the "Star Wars" scoundrel's signature mask and sweeping black cape.

He lost some authenticity points for a pair of camouflage pants.

The getup struck one customer as so funny that he started joshing with the Darth Robber after he strode into the Chase bank in Setauket.

"The customer thought it might have been a joke, and not a serious attempt at a robbery," said Suffolk County police Detective Sgt. William Lamb.

But Darth wasn't kidding - and he wasn't going to be stopped by a non-Jedi Knight.

He won a "shoving match" against the incredulous customer before using his piece to order him to the floor, Lamb said.

And his weapon was no joke. He was carrying a pistol instead of a lightsaber.

[dre]

I think theres certain cases where face coverings should not be allowed or should be temporarily removed for identification purposes.

But you can identify these cases and set up the rules accordingly instead of a blanket ban for all public services.

I think that its important to allow magic-sky-god enthusiasts to have their beliefs, rituals, and traditions but I have no problem with placing reasonable limits on religious freedom when theres sound reasons for doing so.

My worry though is that a lot of people support these kind of things out of ethnocentric xenophobia and not out of any real practical concerns.