Should Burqas and Burkinis be banned in certain places?

[rturner76]

In April 2011, France became the first European country to ban wearing in public the burqa, a full-body covering that includes a mesh over the face, and the niqab, a full-face veil with an opening for the eyes.
And much like the recent burkini bans, opinion in the country is divided between those who see the laws as an infringement on religious freedom, and those who view the Islamic dress as inconsistent with France's rigorously enforced secularism.
Those breaking the burqa law face fines of 150 euros (about $205) or public service duties.

Some RIght-WIng European factions see this style of clothing as an assault on freedom and a symbol of the enslavement of women. Some European countries feel their ethnic identity is being overwhelmed by refugees and immigrants who are changing the face of their countries from the inside out. I know a ban like this would never work in the USA, we have the Bill of Rights but what about those countries where they don'thave free speech and a Bill of Rights the same way we do? Should they be allowed to protect their country's culture?

 

[rturner76]

I don't think they should be banned anywhere but I bet a lot of people do. In fact in France like the article said, there are a lot of people in the government and people who support them who do not want to see it in their streets. Especially in the smaller villages. Should they be allowed to tell people "hey, we don't dress our womwn like slaves here" I think it's a personal choice but what if these French women are being forced by their husband/family to wear it? There should be some recourse for them without them having to loose their children no?

 

[Armoured]

I think any society claiming to be free should allow citizens to wear whatever they want. Further, I think any society that DOES ban religious garb has to ban ALL of it, not just for certain religions that aren't in favour this particular week.

 

[Root of Jesse]

You know, I had to look up what a burkini was, and frankly, I like it. I have no problem with women dressing modestly, as long as they do so freely. If they're forced to do it, that's a different matter. My wife feels called to wear a mantilla to Mass and dress in a skirt. This is a matter of freedom. I read about the Minnesota woman who competed for Miss Universe wearing a hijab and burkini in my research, and it doesn't seem she's a radical at all, but wants to follow the tenets of her faith. As long as she doesn't go mow down a crowd of Christians, she's entitled to her beliefs.

 

[RDKirk]

I think any society claiming to be free should allow citizens to wear whatever they want. Further, I think any society that DOES ban religious garb has to ban ALL of it, not just for certain religions that aren't in favour this particular week.

 

[Aryeh Jay]

.

 

[com7fy8]

I think there could be a security issue if someone has a draping style of clothing which could hide weapons, plus if one is concealing one's face so he or she could not be identified during a crime.

When I go into a bank, I am expected to remove my hat and sunglasses which could help to hide what I look like.

So, what was the official stated purpose for banning burkas? Was it security or said to be a human rights reason? For all I know, a human rights group could have tried to use a safety measure to promote their agenda.

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

"Some Right-Wing European factions see this style of clothing as an assault on freedom"
Ah, so to remove this assault on freedom, we should assault their freedom. Nice.

 

[com7fy8]

Well, if a cult brainwashed some of their girls and then had them out in public showing by their clothing that they were slaves, this might not be taken to be what they should be free to do.

What about Catholic nuns dressing in coveralls? This, too, could be taken as a gesture of men dominating women. But if there is a large group of people accepting this, then it can go even unnoticed . . . because we have been brought up to not consider it.

And Muslims have a rather large group democratic; so they might not get the attention which a small cult might get.

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

Well, if a cult brainwashed some of their girls and then had them out in public showing by their clothing that they were slaves, this might not be taken to be what they should be free to do.

What about Catholic nuns dressing in coveralls? This, too, could be taken as a gesture of men dominating women. But if there is a large group of people accepting this, then it can go even unnoticed . . . because we have been brought up to not consider it.

And Muslims have a rather large group democratic; so they might not get the attention which a small cult might get.

If you could prove in a court of law that a particular woman was forced to wear something, then fine. Otherwise, they should have the freedom.

Since when has women displaying modesty now become men dominating women? Many women choose to cover up.

 

[com7fy8]

Thank you I didn't even think of the issue of modesty. I suppose, by the way . . . then . . . may be there are some men who want to eyeball those extravagantly gorgeous women who are under drapes.

 

[Larniavc]

In April 2011, France became the first European country to ban wearing in public the burqa, a full-body covering that includes a mesh over the face, and the niqab, a full-face veil with an opening for the eyes.
And much like the recent burkini bans, opinion in the country is divided between those who see the laws as an infringement on religious freedom, and those who view the Islamic dress as inconsistent with France's rigorously enforced secularism.
Those breaking the burqa law face fines of 150 euros (about $205) or public service duties.

Some RIght-WIng European factions see this style of clothing as an assault on freedom and a symbol of the enslavement of women. Some European countries feel their ethnic identity is being overwhelmed by refugees and immigrants who are changing the face of their countries from the inside out. I know a ban like this would never work in the USA, we have the Bill of Rights but what about those countries where they don'thave free speech and a Bill of Rights the same way we do? Should they be allowed to protect their country's culture?

I don't think it should be band in public places but it should be illegal for bank robbers to use it as a disguise.

 

[keith99]

I see a very important line that has been underrepresented on this thread.

Religious garb should not be banned. However laws should be adapted where public safety is at stake. Those laws should specify what is banned in purely secular terms. Those terms will come pretty close to the religious intent of some garb. The one case mentioned a lot is hiding the face in a bank.

As a former swimmer who technically has made one swimming rescue I want to point out that banning certain bathing attire DOES have a secular reason. Lifeguards will try to save a drowning person. Often excessively modest bathing attire increases the chance of a person having a situation that requires assistance, increases the risk to the rescuer, increases the effort required to perform a rescue (which for a while means other bathers are without anyone to save them) and increases the chance that a rescue will fail (which has an adverse impact on the would be rescuer). For these reasons it is reasonable to ban certain bathing outfits, at least for actually entering the water. That includes even ankle deep! My one swimming rescue involved 2 older ladies who were just wading. One wave and they were over their heads in more ways than one.

 

[football5680]

They are dressing modestly so I don't really have a problem with it. The only problem would be if they were forced to dress this way under the law which they are not. There are cultural pressures on them to dress like this but this is something that the government cannot really control because the pressure comes from their family and community.

 

[rturner76]

I don't think it should be band in public places but it should be illegal for bank robbers to use it as a disguise.

Agreed

 

[NorthernWarrior]

I think any society claiming to be free should allow citizens to wear whatever they want

So you have no problem with swastika armbands, or the white hoods of the KKK, or things like that?

 

[keith99]

So you have no problem with swastika armbands, or the white hoods of the KKK, or things like that?

I want to know who my enemies are. So Swastika arm bands are fine. White hoods that hide the face are not.

 

[Armoured]

So you have no problem with swastika armbands, or the white hoods of the KKK, or things like that?

I don't think they should be illegal, no.

 

[NorthernWarrior]

I don't think they should be illegal, no.

That's consistency, at least

 

[NorthernWarrior]

I want to know who my enemies are. So Swastika arm bands are fine. White hoods that hide the face are not.

If it's the face-hiding that's the problem, surely you can't accept the burqa either, then?