ITV This Morning "Ban the burka?" poll
Discussion
mybrainhurts said:
Roman Rhodes said:
mybrainhurts said:
So, 79% of lefty poll responders want to keep the burka.
The same lefties who howl that we're leaving the EU, in which a leading country HAS banned the burka.
Funny old world, innit..?
I didn't realise it was only right-wingers that wanted to ban the burqa. How do you know that?The same lefties who howl that we're leaving the EU, in which a leading country HAS banned the burka.
Funny old world, innit..?
It was a joke.
HTH
Sorry to mess up your indignation.
HTH
Goaty Bill 2 said:
Like the cartoon 
But I don't see how one can conflate misogyny into the banning of the burka.
That misogyny word gets bandied about in the same way sexism was twenty years ago.
Misogyny strongly implies hatred which is not necessarily the same as stupid/foolish, out of touch, sexist.
The words sexism/sexist lost their power through over use and constant misuse years ago. It has become almost a badge of honour.
The word misogyny may well go the same way the way it is so casually bandied about.
If the singling out of everything that may affect women's choices is misogynistic, then everything that affects men's choices must be misandry.
For my own part, I don't like the burka. I fully agree that is has the potential to be divisive.
None of my (admittedly small) group of Muslim friends like it either; principally for the same reason.
That said, I have an even greater dislike for the idea of a government that bans articles of clothing.
But while they're at it, could they please consider banning of men wearing saggy arse jeans below the buttocks to that list?
I think sadly, that that is yet another example of the hyperbole and degradation of English. People go well over the top to make a point that eventually doesn't resemble reality.But I don't see how one can conflate misogyny into the banning of the burka.
That misogyny word gets bandied about in the same way sexism was twenty years ago.
Misogyny strongly implies hatred which is not necessarily the same as stupid/foolish, out of touch, sexist.
The words sexism/sexist lost their power through over use and constant misuse years ago. It has become almost a badge of honour.
The word misogyny may well go the same way the way it is so casually bandied about.
If the singling out of everything that may affect women's choices is misogynistic, then everything that affects men's choices must be misandry.
For my own part, I don't like the burka. I fully agree that is has the potential to be divisive.
None of my (admittedly small) group of Muslim friends like it either; principally for the same reason.
That said, I have an even greater dislike for the idea of a government that bans articles of clothing.
But while they're at it, could they please consider banning of men wearing saggy arse jeans below the buttocks to that list?
Roman Rhodes said:
mybrainhurts said:
Roman Rhodes said:
mybrainhurts said:
So, 79% of lefty poll responders want to keep the burka.
The same lefties who howl that we're leaving the EU, in which a leading country HAS banned the burka.
Funny old world, innit..?
I didn't realise it was only right-wingers that wanted to ban the burqa. How do you know that?The same lefties who howl that we're leaving the EU, in which a leading country HAS banned the burka.
Funny old world, innit..?
It was a joke.
HTH
Sorry to mess up your indignation.
HTH
mybrainhurts said:
Roman Rhodes said:
mybrainhurts said:
Roman Rhodes said:
mybrainhurts said:
So, 79% of lefty poll responders want to keep the burka.
The same lefties who howl that we're leaving the EU, in which a leading country HAS banned the burka.
Funny old world, innit..?
I didn't realise it was only right-wingers that wanted to ban the burqa. How do you know that?The same lefties who howl that we're leaving the EU, in which a leading country HAS banned the burka.
Funny old world, innit..?
It was a joke.
HTH
Sorry to mess up your indignation.
HTH
Roman Rhodes said:
mybrainhurts said:
Roman Rhodes said:
mybrainhurts said:
Roman Rhodes said:
mybrainhurts said:
So, 79% of lefty poll responders want to keep the burka.
The same lefties who howl that we're leaving the EU, in which a leading country HAS banned the burka.
Funny old world, innit..?
I didn't realise it was only right-wingers that wanted to ban the burqa. How do you know that?The same lefties who howl that we're leaving the EU, in which a leading country HAS banned the burka.
Funny old world, innit..?
It was a joke.
HTH
Sorry to mess up your indignation.
HTH
Roman Rhodes said:
That's a very odd attempt to make a link between swastikas and burqas. You feel sad about people wearing swastikas? Offended or angry I could understand.
How would a "private business" ban them? Or do you just mean they should be allowed to not employ or provide services to people for discriminatory reasons?
Offended and angry in some measure too, though I suspect anyone wearing a swastika would be seeking just that. Saddened that anyone would choose to align themselves with what it stands for or be so ignorant of what it stands for that they would do so unwittingly. How would a "private business" ban them? Or do you just mean they should be allowed to not employ or provide services to people for discriminatory reasons?
And I'm not saying that they are equivalent in terms of evil. Just that they are both symbolic of a an oppressive and intolerant ideology.
I also find it sad that some people choose to wear symbols of the USSR or communist Cuba.
On this subject I'm minded to agree with Sam Harris and his use of John Rawl's 'Veil of ignorance' argument.
I quote
In the end, trying to formulate my own views on the issue, I used John Rawls’s “veil of ignorance” argument (the pun is unintentional). It works as follows:
If we are trying to decide what laws to make, or what distributions would be just, we should envision ourselves in what Rawls calls “the original position.” In this situation we see ourselves as a group of rational minds who know about humans on Earth but don’t yet live there. These law- and moral-makers would, however, eventually become randomly-chosen humans on earth, but you make the rules not knowing which person you’d become. In such a situation you’d dispense laws and justice from behind the veil of ignorance, and this would would prevent you from giving yourself an advantage. So, for example, you wouldn’t want laws that oppress gays, women, or blacks, because you could become one of those. (Rawls also favored a completely equal distribution of goods and legal rights, with the exception that if inequalities are permitted, they must work to the good of the least advantaged people.) Based on Rawls’s idea, in which I am to make rules assuming that I could come back as anyone, including a Muslim woman, I favor the following:
All mandatory wearing of niqabs, hijabs, and burqas in Muslim countries must be rescinded immediately. There is no justification for such laws.
The wearing of niqabs and burqas should be outlawed everywhere—and everywhere in public—not just in the West and not just in schools and government offices. That won’t happen in Muslim countries, of course, but such garments should be outlawed in such places because the garments (and, actually, hijab as well) are symbols of women’s subjugation. If they are not outlawed everywhere, at the very least they should be outlawed in schools, in banks and places where they pose a security risk, in courts, on bus drivers and taxi drivers, and in official state offices such as the civil service.
I decided this because, in the “original position,” and given the social and religious pressure to wear such garments even when they’re optional, I would not want to experience such pressure. In fact, were I a woman (and, granted, I’m not one, Muslim or otherwise), I would not want to cover my face in public or experience pressure to do so. (I take that pressure as a given, not something that can be controlled in the “original position”). One of the most odious things I’ve seen—and I’ve seen it in airports throughout the world—is a man in western dress followed by a woman completely shrouded in a cloth sack and with face fully masked, inevitably with children in tow. It reeks of oppression.
I’m of mixed mind about the hijab. Although wearing it should never be mandatory, I’m not quite ready to say it should be banned everywhere, though I favor its banning in universities and public offices. By not covering a woman’s face or body, it’s harder to rationalize the hijab as a way to avoid tempting men—and thus denigrating women as temptresses. Nevertheless it, too, is a symbol of sexual oppression, but its effects on society are not as harmful as those resulting from covering the face. So here arguments about “freedom to dress as one wants” have more logic.
I quote
In the end, trying to formulate my own views on the issue, I used John Rawls’s “veil of ignorance” argument (the pun is unintentional). It works as follows:
If we are trying to decide what laws to make, or what distributions would be just, we should envision ourselves in what Rawls calls “the original position.” In this situation we see ourselves as a group of rational minds who know about humans on Earth but don’t yet live there. These law- and moral-makers would, however, eventually become randomly-chosen humans on earth, but you make the rules not knowing which person you’d become. In such a situation you’d dispense laws and justice from behind the veil of ignorance, and this would would prevent you from giving yourself an advantage. So, for example, you wouldn’t want laws that oppress gays, women, or blacks, because you could become one of those. (Rawls also favored a completely equal distribution of goods and legal rights, with the exception that if inequalities are permitted, they must work to the good of the least advantaged people.) Based on Rawls’s idea, in which I am to make rules assuming that I could come back as anyone, including a Muslim woman, I favor the following:
All mandatory wearing of niqabs, hijabs, and burqas in Muslim countries must be rescinded immediately. There is no justification for such laws.
The wearing of niqabs and burqas should be outlawed everywhere—and everywhere in public—not just in the West and not just in schools and government offices. That won’t happen in Muslim countries, of course, but such garments should be outlawed in such places because the garments (and, actually, hijab as well) are symbols of women’s subjugation. If they are not outlawed everywhere, at the very least they should be outlawed in schools, in banks and places where they pose a security risk, in courts, on bus drivers and taxi drivers, and in official state offices such as the civil service.
I decided this because, in the “original position,” and given the social and religious pressure to wear such garments even when they’re optional, I would not want to experience such pressure. In fact, were I a woman (and, granted, I’m not one, Muslim or otherwise), I would not want to cover my face in public or experience pressure to do so. (I take that pressure as a given, not something that can be controlled in the “original position”). One of the most odious things I’ve seen—and I’ve seen it in airports throughout the world—is a man in western dress followed by a woman completely shrouded in a cloth sack and with face fully masked, inevitably with children in tow. It reeks of oppression.
I’m of mixed mind about the hijab. Although wearing it should never be mandatory, I’m not quite ready to say it should be banned everywhere, though I favor its banning in universities and public offices. By not covering a woman’s face or body, it’s harder to rationalize the hijab as a way to avoid tempting men—and thus denigrating women as temptresses. Nevertheless it, too, is a symbol of sexual oppression, but its effects on society are not as harmful as those resulting from covering the face. So here arguments about “freedom to dress as one wants” have more logic.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff