Display:
BooMan: We aren't talking about public urination or human sacrifice or public nudity.

Precisely.  Whether you agree with its justification or not, public nudity is outlawed for a specific reason: to "protect" the public from so-called "indecency".  Clearly that same reason does not apply to the wearing of burqas.  So the issue of public nudity is really not relevant here.

What is relevant is finding a reason that justifies prohibiting the wearing of burqas.  So far at least three have been brought up, with varying levels of explicitness:

  1.  Because society, formalized by the state, has determined that the burqa is a sign of female subjugation, which is incompatible with the values and principles of the society.

  2.  Because girls and women are regularly coerced to wear the burqa (whether they admit in public, or even to themselves, or not).

  3.  Because the burqa is a religious symbol which should be kept out of public spaces in a secular society.

None of these is sufficient grounds for outlawing the wearing of burqas, in my opinion.

Truth unfolds in time through a communal process.
by marco (cowannar at gmail punkt com) on Tue Jun 23rd, 2009 at 03:18:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I think you're wrong: I think the debate is precisely that the burqa is indecent - "not in keeping with accepted standards of what is right or proper in polite society".
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Tue Jun 23rd, 2009 at 03:21:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Yes, put that way, you are right.  I was referring to "indecent" in the sense of sexual (pornographic) indecency, whereas I would consider the indecency being imputed to the burqa as sociopolitical indecency, for lack of better terms.  Nevertheless, both are forms of indecency, and I don't see any a priori reason why only sexual indecency should be the grounds for outlawing certain behavior/dress, etc.

Still, somehow I feel there are indecency criteria or an indecency threshold that indecent exposure does satisfy but burqas do not.  I have to think about it more, but I believe that it has something to do with the intent of the behavior (or lack thereof).  If I understand illegal public nudity correctly, it must involve an intention to shock, offend, titillate or "upset" others in some way.  In other words, it involves a form of psychological aggression.  I think there is a key difference with burqas there: while some people may wear burqas in order to offend, shock, upset, etc., I believe that for the vast majority, that is far from the case.  People may be disturbed at the sight of burqas, but that is normally not the intention of the wearer.  Wearing a burqa, I daresay, is not a form of psychological aggression.  And for this reason, even if some people may find it "indecent", that indecency is in their (the viewers') head, not in the intent of the burqa-wearer, and so it is not a form indecency that should be made punishable by the law.

Truth unfolds in time through a communal process.

by marco (cowannar at gmail punkt com) on Tue Jun 23rd, 2009 at 04:23:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I happen to find the burqa FAR more indecent than nudity.

It speaks volumes about the contempt and domination in which those women are held by their own community. Nudity, in contrast, does not diminish anyone, only the social stigma associated to it would make it so.
That the indecency be not the intention of the Burqa-wearer only makes it worse: it is the intention of the community that forces them to become Burqa-wearer.

And it is not about religion -unless we are talking about a new religion. Islam was all over the world with not a Burqa in sight apart from Afghanistan until very recently.

It is, however, very much about the subjugation of women.

Earth provides enough to satisfy every man's need, but not every man's greed. Gandhi

by Cyrille (cyrillev domain yahoo.fr) on Wed Jun 24th, 2009 at 04:33:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I think you have the dynamic completely wrong: first you decide that you want to ban the burqa/hijab because it's indecent and you want to assert the state's power over a minority (keeping them economically isolated in crappy suburbs with aggressive policing not being sufficient to garner votes, apparently) and then you look for justifications for banning it.
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Tue Jun 23rd, 2009 at 03:39:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Occasional Series