tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post5515797446312230620..comments2023-10-26T22:06:11.166+11:00Comments on Metamagician3000: Should we ban the burka?Russell Blackfordhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12431324430596809958noreply@blogger.comBlogger99125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-25512741080180339222009-09-06T17:00:27.180+10:002009-09-06T17:00:27.180+10:00Here's a better argument for covering the pubi...Here's a better argument for covering the pubic area in public spaces: health.<br /><br />You want want someone grinding their bare ass into your chairs or rubbing their wang on everything. It's unsanitary and a threat to public health.<br /><br />If I'm checking out a book I would rather have a lower chance of someone's cock being rubbed all over it. If I'm getting food I would rather not have urine, pubic hair, and possibly semen on the counter tops.<br /><br />Maybe the answer is giving business owners the option, here, to be nude friendly or not<br /><br />I can imagine an anti-nude advocacy group called "Keep your wang off our goods."Lunchbox Cake Shopnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-20550664957026918932009-07-08T10:40:36.883+10:002009-07-08T10:40:36.883+10:00This has been a fascinating discussion. It so hap...This has been a fascinating discussion. It so happens I am in the middle of writing a post about the proposed ban and this has been inspirational.<br /><br />I would like to take issue with one thing.<br /><br />"I don't see men being forced to wear 'cultural-specific' clothing through either legislation or social pressure. Social pressure, enforced by threats of ostracism or bodily harm, is not choice."<br /><br />I'm going to have to disagree with you vehemently on that one. In many places in the U.S., it is actually illegal to dress "inappropriately" for your gender.<br /><br />If you were born with a penis and dress in what society considers womens clothing you are likely to be beaten or even killed.Melhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14570361651510490524noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-58850580365649041092009-07-06T23:14:26.873+10:002009-07-06T23:14:26.873+10:00(C'mon, guys, one more and we push Russell ove...(C'mon, guys, one more and we push Russell over the hundred comments mark!)ColinGavaghannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-62491510195762696182009-07-04T05:27:38.140+10:002009-07-04T05:27:38.140+10:00Ramsey:
You're still too hung up on the wrong...Ramsey:<br /><br />You're still too hung up on the wrong point. The fact remains we all agree that the burka specifically is wrong, illiberal, a genuine harm. It's not hard for courts to do the same. The strong case against the ban, the Millian principle, is simply that we can't think of a good reason for state intervention on harms to the self; Harms to others yes and in cases where we might question whether a person actually chooses the harm or is coerced. Quite frankly this position doesn't care a whit about the irrelevance you keep going on about. This particular point came into very harsh relief when reading about Operation Spanner for me.That Guy Montaghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10387637105335886493noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-36685917788503834332009-07-04T02:17:36.670+10:002009-07-04T02:17:36.670+10:00Athena Andreadis, you are offering a strawman, as ...Athena Andreadis, you are offering a strawman, as the justifications here for not banning the burka have neither been on the grounds of burka-wearing women being treated different but not worse nor on the grounds of the idea that it is racist or imperialist to ban the burka. What we have pretty consistently been saying is that a ban on the burka would be impractical and set precedents that would backfire.J. J. Ramseyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00763792476799485687noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-13488761053456742072009-07-04T01:41:22.611+10:002009-07-04T01:41:22.611+10:00I was just about to mention that, Athena. Terrific...I was just about to mention that, Athena. Terrific review, very well done Ophelia!ColinGavaghannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-75056475310074481222009-07-03T13:26:27.623+10:002009-07-03T13:26:27.623+10:00From the much-lauded (here and elsewhere) Johann H...From the much-lauded (here and elsewhere) Johann Hari review of "Does God Hate Women?" -- which seems to repeat some of my points.<br /><br />"Methodically, they [Benson & Stangroom] go through the excuses offered for these raw abuses of human rights by the religious, and their apologists.<br /><br />The first – especially beloved of the Vatican and Islamists – is that women are not being treated worse, just “differently”. // But this is an abuse of language. As the authors note: “Permanent consignment to a limited and lesser role in the world is not what ‘dignity’ is generally understood to mean.”<br /><br />//<br /><br />The religio-misogynists then claim that it is “racist” or “imperialist” to oppose such abuses. This merrily ignores how women within these cultures protest against their treatment – very loudly. They aren’t objecting to being imprisoned in their homes, or having their genitalia cut, or being stoned for having sex, because a white person told them to."Athena Andreadishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07650180659001228746noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-61258778068060803562009-07-03T07:41:40.723+10:002009-07-03T07:41:40.723+10:00Because I've only just become aware of this:
...Because I've only just become aware of this:<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Spanner<br /><br />And there go any hopes I could conceive of an argument to ban. Yes the judges took a line similar to the one I've been taking so far; no I'm not happy with the result.That Guy Montaghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10387637105335886493noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-68993793074446069862009-07-02T10:33:06.462+10:002009-07-02T10:33:06.462+10:00Athena Andreadis: "That is one reason why I t...Athena Andreadis: "That is one reason why I tell people to try wearing a burqa for a week -- and see how they feel and, equally important, how they are treated."<br /><br />Treated by who? Putting on a burka isn't going to make me subject to the same treatment as the women who normally wear it get day in and day out. Obviously, I would get treated differently. Coworkers may wonder what the heck I'm thinking, and I'd probably get stares from the people I pass at the grocery store, mall, etc. However, I'm not going to have the experience of having a Muslim husband, or of being my father's chattel. The burka itself is incapable of providing that experience.<br /><br />But then, as I said, on its own, the burka is an arrangement of cloth, so that makes perfect sense.J. J. Ramseyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00763792476799485687noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-23240170798826200092009-07-02T04:30:10.321+10:002009-07-02T04:30:10.321+10:00@Colin:
"I've never lived in a patriarch...@Colin:<br /><br />"I've never lived in a patriarchal muslim society like Saudi or Afghanistan (has anyone posting here?), so I'm not quite sure how things play there; maybe a ban would indeed accomplish more good than harm in those places."<br /><br />In an earlier post, I mentioned that I grew up in Greece at a time when there was de jure discrimination against women -- though mild compared to Islamic countries, let alone Wahhabist ones. Life was a constant rain of harassment and disempowerment that permeated and distorted everything -- personal, political, private, public.<br /><br />That is one reason why I tell people to try wearing a burqa for a week -- and see how they feel and, equally important, how they are treated.<br /><br />"When Sarkozy and the right-wing press are lambasting the burqa, and the far left are sticking up for it, maybe we progressives need to consider the symbolic status of our own position."<br /><br />Yes, you do. Context matters as much as absolute content.Athena Andreadishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07650180659001228746noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-40894041219539586012009-07-02T02:24:45.286+10:002009-07-02T02:24:45.286+10:00@Ophelia: yes, fair point.@Ophelia: yes, fair point.ColinGavaghannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-63121471256261918002009-07-02T02:20:03.361+10:002009-07-02T02:20:03.361+10:00Colin, sure, but on the other hand, it's neces...Colin, sure, but on the other hand, it's necessary to compare the possible harmful effects with the possible beneficial effects. It's not as if all the possible effects are automatically on the harmful side. I'm not arguing for a ban (or against one), I'm arguing for a complete discussion rather than one which paints the status quo as allgood and a ban as only potentially harmful.<br /><br />It's possible to argue that the principle - of personal freedom, religious freedom, privacy - trumps all but the most obvious and radical harms, but even then the discussion is more informative and more...more of a discussion of the <i>actual</i> issues if it isn't all weighted toward the assumption that noban is a slam dunk.Ophelia Bensonhttp://www.butterfliesandwheels.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-19937351733507128312009-07-02T00:24:10.377+10:002009-07-02T00:24:10.377+10:00@Ophelia: like Steve, I'm in the awkward posit...@Ophelia: like Steve, I'm in the awkward position of agreeing with your assessment of the burqa as replete with oppressive and misogynistic symbolism, but seeing no sensible way of responding to it through law. <br /><br />Part of the problem - as you have also recognised, I think - is that women in different situations are likely to be affected differently by any attempt to ban. I've never lived in a patriarchal muslim society like Saudi or Afghanistan (has anyone posting here?), so I'm not quite sure how things play there; maybe a ban would indeed accomplish more good than harm in those places. But I would have two or three concerns about attempting a ban here in the UK.<br /><br />One is that it may (as I've said before) make things worse for the most oppressed muslim women, for whom the alternative to shuffling about in a sack would be never to be allowed outdoors at all. Another would be the danger of 'legislative blowback'; many well-intentioned laws have ended up being employed against unforseen & unfortunate targets, and the prospect of, say, masked protestors being arrested is not far-fetched. <br /><br />But one that hasn't been mentioned, I don't think, is the danger of radicalising the burqa. Many left-wing groups in the UK (loosely aligened under banner of the Stop the War coalition) have embraced 'islamophobia' as a cause celebre in recent times.<br /><br />Some of this is justified; the response from some of our media and politicians to 7/7 and the Glasgow Airport attack was little more than thinly (ahem) veiled racism. OTOH, some of it has been naive at best, opportunitic at worst. <br /><br />In any event, an attack on the burqa is seen by some of those groups as an opportunistic attack on an already relatively powerless, besieged minority, and an opportunity to inflame 'islamophobic' attitudes. Just have a look at sites like Lenin's Tomb (unofficial blog of the Socialist Workers' Party) for an idea of what I mean.<br /><br />When Sarkozy and the right-wing press are lambasting the burqa, and the far left are sticking up for it, maybe we progressives need to consider the symbolic status of our own position. We certainly wouldn't want the burqa issue to become some sort of anti-racist rallying flag. (In case this seems unlikely, there were plentiful accounts of moderate French muslim girls wearing the hijab for the first time, in defiance, after l'affair Levy.)ColinGavaghannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-90491569574136369392009-07-01T00:21:34.130+10:002009-07-01T00:21:34.130+10:00No, I don't either. We don't disagree on m...No, I don't either. We don't disagree on much.Ophelia Bensonhttp://www.butterfliesandwheels.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-85708152045752432482009-06-30T23:32:19.395+10:002009-06-30T23:32:19.395+10:00I do hope I have not given the impression that I d...I do hope I have not given the impression that I don't consider the burqa harmful.<br /><br />I think it is a dreadful way for a woman to be treated. <br /><br />I just don't see any easy way to deal with this by laws.Steve Zarahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16867968082532563442noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-79525447710461303822009-06-30T23:22:08.556+10:002009-06-30T23:22:08.556+10:00Steve,
But I'm not necessarily trying to add ...Steve,<br /><br />But I'm not necessarily trying to add anything to the case for actually banning the burqua. I'm mostly trying to underline that it's a mistake to make the case <i>against</i> banning it by pretending it doesn't cause any real or serious harm.<br /><br />I don't see how a ban could be anything other than intrusive and coercive (coercive about things people shouldn't be coerced about). At the same time I think the burqa does very serious harm in several ways. I don't see any way out of this trap, but I think we should be clear about both parts.Ophelia Bensonhttp://www.butterfliesandwheels.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-25429820453506665822009-06-30T11:42:52.868+10:002009-06-30T11:42:52.868+10:00Ophelia-
Your contributions have been important, ...Ophelia-<br /><br />Your contributions have been important, but have, as far as I can see, added nothing to the case for actually banning the burqua. You have said (correctly) that it has a social and political message. <br /><br />I have to be honest. I have felt in a strange position on this thread. My posts have been both reacted to with intensity, but also ignored. In view of this, I will summarize my views as follows:<br /><br />1. How does one go about banning an item of clothing from being worn in public? <br /><br />2. How does banning an item of clothing from being worn in public assist women to free themselves from oppression?<br /><br />I have asked this before, but I have had no response.Steve Zarahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16867968082532563442noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-56587639437415007592009-06-30T10:59:55.897+10:002009-06-30T10:59:55.897+10:00In fact - there's another aspect. The only gir...In fact - there's another aspect. The only girls and women who will want to wear the burqa are ones who aren't in a position to choose it freely. It's what you might call overdetermined. That's not by itself a reason to ban it, of course - but given that it is an inherently degrading garment which women are killed for <i>not</i> wearing in some places, it is at least a reason not to be too blithe about rejecting the idea of a ban.Ophelia Bensonhttp://www.butterfliesandwheels.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-73619429375124808722009-06-30T10:42:56.616+10:002009-06-30T10:42:56.616+10:00Let's go back to the beginning for a second.
...Let's go back to the beginning for a second.<br /><br />"Still, the case for actually banning the burka is rather weak. Somebody who is wearing a burka does not thereby directly harm others, which would be the classic reason for banning a kind of individual conduct."<br /><br />That's true (if it is true) only in places where the burqa is a minority custom - and in fact it's not really true even there. Shabina Begum's schoolmates wanted her to lose her case, because they didn't want to face social pressure to wear the jilbab once she started wearing it. A burqa has social, political, sexual meaning, and not wearing it when wearing it is an option perforce becomes a statement, and the statement is one that a lot of people will want to prevent girls and women from making. The burqa just can't be treated as a neutral free choice - it's a garment freighted with its history of massive coercion of women. I hate to say it, but Sarkozy is right - it is degrading, and it degrades all women by its presence.<br /><br />That could in a perfect world be different - but then who would want to wear the burqa at all? It's hardly a comfortable or practical garment! So the 'right' to wear the burqa makes sense only when no one wants to avail herself of the right.<br /><br />I think this just isn't apparent to most people who live in places where the burqa is very rare.Ophelia Bensonhttp://www.butterfliesandwheels.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-61146111333420958642009-06-30T09:53:21.958+10:002009-06-30T09:53:21.958+10:00wow i go sailing for a few days and the debate rag...wow i go sailing for a few days and the debate rages on.<br /><br />"(1) the stigma of doing so would be much less if it were allowed, since no crime would be committed"<br /><br />sorry russell i have to disagree with you. you said yourself that in many places women can go topless. let's say here in north queensland is one. women topless on the beach = no one bats an eyelid. women topless walking down the street = would offend many people. it's cultural, not based on laws.<br /><br />having said that, this doesn't really support my claim strongly enough to counter your second pointUnknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05258529098696749429noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-88041530669024061542009-06-30T06:40:36.327+10:002009-06-30T06:40:36.327+10:00At no point do I need to look at the burka as an a...<i>At no point do I need to look at the burka as an article of clothing comparable to a shirt or even a mask. The point has always been that it's not.</i><br /><br />Please forgive me if I seem persistent here, but I need to emphasise that you are talking about your own view. Actually, you are describing my view too. The problem is that the law needs more objective evidence than that.<br /><br />However, I do think you may be on to something there.<br /><br /><i>To repeat the analogy, someone can wear chains/shackles as ornament but we still have laws preventing someone being put in chains and this hasn't as far as I can tell led to a major legal problem.</i><br /><br />Being put in chains against their will. But when someone is walking around in public, how do we tell for sure that this is against their will?<br /><br /><i>Could you really conceive of a defence of 'I'm sorry m'lord but as you can tell the shackles tying the victim to the wall were purely ornamental.'</i><br /><br />I see what you are saying, but I just can't see any attempt to define a burqa as equivalent to shackling someone to a wall standing up in court, even though the analogy may be pretty close.<br /><br />I think you are raising a very useful issue here. I think what needs to be considered is the difference between a simple mask and some equivalent of shackles.<br /><br />If there was sufficiently strong cultural evidence that the burqa was indeed a form of shackling, then there might be a way to make progress.<br /><br />Perhaps a better analogy is with a whip used to keep someone in line. Wearing a burqa might be considered as equivalent to walking around being whipped into line. It doesn't matter if it is consensual or not, someone walking along a public street whipping themself would still be considered inappropriate. That is best left for behind closed doors.<br /><br />The burqa as some combination of sadism or masochism. I can see some benefit to that view. I am far from convinced (yet), but I can see where you are coming from.Steve Zarahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16867968082532563442noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-3321623180347085892009-06-30T04:41:10.008+10:002009-06-30T04:41:10.008+10:00I'll try and point out what seems an important...I'll try and point out what seems an important part of our disagreement. At no point do I need to look at the burka as an article of clothing comparable to a shirt or even a mask. The point has always been that it's not. To repeat the analogy, someone can wear chains/shackles as ornament but we still have laws preventing someone being put in chains and this hasn't as far as I can tell led to a major legal problem. Could you really conceive of a defence of 'I'm sorry m'lord but as you can tell the shackles tying the victim to the wall were purely ornamental.' This is the kind of case the burka compares to, not as I said before an 'I Hate Fags' t-shirt. <br /><br />To preempt a possible objection, I'm not going to say that this is an unambiguous case. Doubt in a case such as my erstwhile chained friend comes as far as I can tell from questions of consent, not definition. I certainly don't want to stop consenting adults engaging in whatever it is that gets their rocks off: shackle away in the privacy of your own home and with a well established safe word, engage in burka parties if you wish. Out in the world however, beyond obviously sacrosanct privacies, I want the state to be providing as much of a buffer to coercion as it can.That Guy Montaghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10387637105335886493noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-40427333345819452132009-06-30T04:02:13.234+10:002009-06-30T04:02:13.234+10:00I am sorry you have to resort to ad-hominem attack...I am sorry you have to resort to ad-hominem attacks.<br /><br />I have found this a very important discussion about a subject that highlights the problems when an oppressive culture tries to exist within a democratic liberal society.<br /><br />How do we deal with the oppression without oppressing ourselves? How do we deal with a cultural problem without resorting to cultural relativistic solutions?<br /><br />There may be some way to deal with burqas, but I notice that in France a large legal team is taking a long time to research this problem, which I think indicates how difficult it is.<br /><br />So far I have heard nothing practical here; nothing that won't be a major legal problem, or that won't threaten general rights.<br /><br />But I appreciate that Russell has given space here for this discussion.Steve Zarahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16867968082532563442noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-71018494679880383742009-06-30T03:40:14.559+10:002009-06-30T03:40:14.559+10:00Steve, I've concluded (along with K. Greybe) t...Steve, I've concluded (along with K. Greybe) that either you don't get it or you don't want to get it. Your objections can be summarized by a Greek saying: "The world is burning while some people are combing their pubic hair."Athena Andreadishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07650180659001228746noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-57714649689476066572009-06-30T00:50:42.672+10:002009-06-30T00:50:42.672+10:00Laws can be nasty beasts. They can trap you in wa...Laws can be nasty beasts. They can trap you in ways that you don't expect.<br /><br />The way to highlight how dangerous laws can be is to look at edge cases; extremes. These may sound absurd, but they are important. Why? Because we tend to fall into the trap of assuming that a law will be implemented by <i>reasonable</i> people. Sometimes they are not. One new law here in the UK means that people have been arrested simply for photographing policemen, in totally harmless situations.<br /><br />Let me give just one example of how an 'anti-burqa' law could go wrong. A law stating that faces should not be covered in public sounds reasonable. I may joke about 'wearing scarves', but what about if a dissident wants to protest in front of an embassy, while remaining anonymous?<br /><br />Please believe me, I don't post here on matters like this either lightly or without considerable thought. I respect Russell too much.Steve Zarahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16867968082532563442noreply@blogger.com