Prohibition of Veils

[Ander]

This may be somewhat old news but I was discussing the issue of banning Islamic headscarves in schools this week in class. This was put into practice in France a few years ago and has since caused many arguments and controversies. While in my opinion it is wrong to force women to wear veils for any reason, does anyone believe this may be imposing on the culture of Muslims in France and other countries that decide to adopt these policies?

It does not only affect Muslims, but also Sikhs and Jews, who face similar prohibitions.

I'd like to have a discussion about this, its effectiveness, and possible consequences.

[Tommy-K]

I personally am against the prohibition of veils. Whilst I am strictly atheist and feel that religion is merely a tool to control the masses, I believe that while it still exists, every religion should have the same rights. If christian children are allowed to wear crucifix necklaces and other such articles displaying their faith, muslim girls should be allowed to wear veils. Whereas I don't neccessarily agree with the fact that they are forced to wear them, they should have the right to do so if they wish, the same as christians have the right to publicly display their faith.

Having said that, wasn't there a British teacher who got into trouble for wearing a crucifix necklace?

[An archist]

Even if you are against the wearing of veils, a ban on them isn't going to work at all, it'll make muslims feel even more singled out.
In the city of Antwerp they tried to ban the wearing of veils for people working at the city desks since they had to face people. The same night women were outside the major's office protesting. While in countries like Iran and Turkey, women are actually trying to get rid of the veil.

[Hit The North]

It can depend on the context. The French context makes it clear that there is a clear separation between public office and private belief. The ban is on all religious symbols in the public sphere of government or state services.

In the UK there is no formal separation. The rules are ambiguous and contestable and therefore it creates conflict over perceived acts of discrimination or provides the means for such discrimination.

[apathy maybe]

This was discussed in depth on this issue, though I am having trouble finding it.


Here is a discussion more generally, http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=57784

Wikipedia has an article on the issue, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_veil_...versy_in_France (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_veil_controversy_in_France)

Here is a discussion on the issue, but on Turkey,
http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=26541

[Reuben]

I oppose the right of the state in general to tell people what they can and cannot wear

[Janus]

Neither the state nor any religious institutions should be dictating what women can and cannot wear. As for banning the niqab itself, this action would only be attacking one aspect of the oppression of Muslim women; it does not attack the root of this oppression but only prohibits the superficial manifestation of the injustices and inequality that Muslim women face in order to maintain an air or semblance of progressivism.

Other threads on this topic:

Burqa ban (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=58910&hl=burqa)
Niqab (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=62544&hl=burqa)
Niqabs (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=57784&hl=burqa)

[Fodman]

Originally posted by Tommy-[email protected] 31, 2007 09:44 am
Having said that, wasn't there a British teacher who got into trouble for wearing a crucifix necklace?
no.

a muslim teacher got sacked because she refused to remove her veil for teaching.

i think the incident you were referring to here was when an airport worker in the UK was sacked (or suspended, i cant remember) for refusing to remove her crucifix. The reactionary tabloids in Britain made a right meal of it, however the airplane company said it was because the necklace obstructed her from working properly

[TC]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31, 2007 03:34 pm
I oppose the right of the state in general to tell people what they can and cannot wear
Me too.

But i reserve the right to ridicule Muslim women who wear veils for being cultural reactionaries, to refuse to associate myself with them, and ridicule people who view their anti-social socio-political statement as some sort of benign cultural difference that has to be celebrated.

Cultural institutions and traditions are not sacred, they are sometimes just reactionary.

But any impulse to try to impose on people to the extent that they are not allowed to regulate their own personal expression is even more reactionary.


The state doesn't have a right to force Muslim to take off their veils, but everyone else has a right to tell them they're pathetic for wearing them.

[BobKKKindle$]

Given the importance of the Veil to many Muslim Women, a ban could potentially alienate the Muslim community from other ethnic and cultural groups, creating the conditions that give rise to Islamic Extremism. The concept of a Multi-Cultural Society is based on free diversity and cultural interaction and exchange, and upholding this concept means oppossing a ban on the veil.


refuse to associate myself with them

So you would refuse to work or cooperate with someone on the basis of their religion or some aspect of their personal appearence such as a Veil? How does this differ from other forms of discrimination such as Racism or Homophobia? How does wearing a Veil affect one's ability to perform a task?

There is a point where Ultra-Leftism turns into reactionary absurdity. This is it.

[TC]

Originally posted by Bobkindles
Given the importance of the Veil to many Muslim Women, a ban could potentially alienate the Muslim community from other ethnic and cultural groups, creating the conditions that give rise to Islamic Extremism.

Actually, as its been pointed out before, wearing face veils is not a religious obligation in Islam (the way many feel wearing hijab is) and the vast majority of Muslim women have no interest or perceived ‘need’ to wear face veils.

Rather it’s a personal expression of religious fanaticism, not mere adherence, and a sign of existing alienation from society.

I also think its such liberal trivializing to suggest that culturally alienating the ‘muslim community’ “creates the conditions that give rise to Islamic Extremism[sic]”. I’m pretty sure occupying Al Quds and Baghdad while funding and defending corrupt arab hereditary dictatorships, buying oil without having the people see a cent of it, is what creates the conditions for Islamic extremism. Muslims weren’t complaining about insensitive cartoons and French school dress codes in the west in 1900 when the middleeast was comparatively free of western domination.


So you would refuse to work or cooperate with someone on the basis of their religion or some aspect of their personal appearence such as a Veil?

Do you think i should be deprived of my freedom of association?


and yah, in social and volunteer settings, i would. I certainly wouldn’t want to be friends with someone who felt so religious and estranged and contemptuous of society that she wanted to wear a face veil to show it.

Its not a religious requirement the way headscarves and modest dress are, it’s a statement of political alienation from secular society, creating physical distance between ones self and all of the corrupting influences of the less pure.

Likewise, I wouldn’t want to associate myself voluntarily with an evangelical Christian woman who insisted on wearing a ‘god hates fags’ t-shirt, or with a conservative Zionist who likes wearing IDF t-shirts, or a member of the World Church of the Creator generally anyone else who goes above and beyond to display their religious reaction.


How does this differ from other forms of discrimination such as Racism or Homophobia?

Because people don’t choose their race and sexual orientation, it doesn’t entail any deliberate action on their parts. Wearing a face veil is a political and religious behavior not a demographic group. No ones born in a face veil or a religious fanatic.


There is a point where Ultra-Leftism turns into reactionary absurdity. This is it.


Actually I’d say that your point is where ultra-liberalism turns into reactionary absurdity.

Would you say that Egyptian and Somali immigrants should be able practice female genital mutilation in the west too, cause who knows, “a ban could potentially alienate [their] community from other ethnic and cultural groups”

How about banning gay pride parades since I bet those alienate anyone who wants to wear a face veil.

[Forward Union]

Of course they should be allowed to wear it. People can wear what they want.

I can understand formally banning it, or any face cover in situations where it is counter-productive. If the individuals who embark on wearing, veils, hijabs or balaclavas cannot work out when it is not appropriate to wear them, then they need to be told or prevented, for pragmatic reasons.

[TheAdlerian]

They should not be allowed to wear them.

Wearing a veil or any of the headgear has a meaning about the quality of the person. It is designed to "protect the modesty" of the woman, so a woman that wears one is modest and one that doesn't, isn't.

Women that do not wear the gear are considered whorish in nature.

When you have women wearing them in countries where the the majority believes women to be equal, no matter their style, a kind of moral elite is formed. A tacit "you're a whore" message is transmitted by the headgear women. Thus, we again see the formation of a type of royality, which is based on mythology and the restriction of freedom.

It's a good policy.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2007 04:06 pm
They should not be allowed to wear them.

Wearing a veil or any of the headgear has a meaning about the quality of the person. It is designed to "protect the modesty" of the woman, so a woman that wears one is modest and one that doesn't, isn't.

Ok.

But what if I wanted to wear a veil, I mean you didn't specify who "they" are. Presumably you mean, women. And I can't be the only one seeing the irony in prohibiting women from wearing something, and not men - for their own good of course.

The veil is essentially a manifestation of an attitude toward women. We need to do something to change the attitude not the manifestations of it.

[TheAdlerian]

I you're living in a socialist (France) or communist country you cannot be allowed to set up an elite group.

France has the Liberty, Equality, Brotherhood moto, and that can't work if a group decides to violate one or any of those ideals. The headgear violates them all. Women's liberty is restricted to for the sake of "modesty" which is a nonsense subjective concept. Women that don't wear it are not equal to those that do, in the mind of the muslim. You can't have botherhood with any of that going on.

Now, if you decide to draw a flower on your forehead and say that it's a mark of purity you're just weird. However, if you get enough people doing it, then you've formed an elite, and need to be controlled.

Another way to think about it, is that these various symbols and their meaning are a form of capital. I have gathered more purity than you, and so forth.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2007 04:26 pm
Women's liberty is restricted to for the sake of "modesty" which is a nonsense subjective concept.
Nope. Because they're not forced to wear them. Not materially, or even by their own faith. No where is it demanded that the veil be worn.

You on the other hand are making demands and restrictions on a womens right to chosoe what she wears. Telling women what they must wear, is just as bad as telling them what they must not.

It's their body, and they should be free to decide, what to do with it or put on it. I do however agree that these decissions should be informed by reason, and their actions are open to scrutiny.

I agree with TC that it is socially reactionary and should face criticism.

[TheAdlerian]

Originally posted by Love Underground+April 10, 2007 04:33 pm--> (Love Underground @ April 10, 2007 04:33 pm)
[email protected]pril 10, 2007 04:26 pm
Women's liberty is restricted to for the sake of "modesty" which is a nonsense subjective concept.
Nope. Because they're not forced to wear them. Not materially, or even by their own faith. No where is it demanded that the veil be worn.

You on the other hand are making demands and restrictions on a womens right to chosoe what she wears. Telling women what they must wear, is just as bad as telling them what they must not.

It's their body, and they should be free to decide, what to do with it or put on it. I do however agree that these decissions should be informed by reason, and their actions are open to scrutiny.

I agree with TC that it is socially reactionary and should face criticism. [/b]
In Arabia i's illegal for women to even eat in public, so I don't know what you're talking about.

In Afghanistan, pre-911, several guys gained popularity and power by throwing acid in the faces of unveiled women.

There you have two different types of laws, and those are Laws passed by the government and de facto laws that are enforced by the people.

Men in the west do not wear dresses because it's a "de facto" law that they don't. Social pressures keep these behaviors intact. So, a man can wear a dress if he likes, but he will suffer a mighty social penalty if he does.

In fact, this can be a much worse form of tyrany that a law. You litter, you pay a fine, and it's over. Social pressures have no such definition or end in many cases.

So, in western countries muslims, or whomever, are attempting to spread social tyranny, even if they don't know it.


Also, if you're going to continue with me, don't just quote one sentence that fits your needs, address the whole argument.

[TheAdlerian]

Originally posted by Love Underground+April 10, 2007 04:33 pm--> (Love Underground @ April 10, 2007 04:33 pm)
[email protected] 10, 2007 04:26 pm
Women's liberty is restricted to for the sake of "modesty" which is a nonsense subjective concept.
Nope. Because they're not forced to wear them. Not materially, or even by their own faith. No where is it demanded that the veil be worn.

You on the other hand are making demands and restrictions on a womens right to chosoe what she wears. Telling women what they must wear, is just as bad as telling them what they must not.

It's their body, and they should be free to decide, what to do with it or put on it. I do however agree that these decissions should be informed by reason, and their actions are open to scrutiny.

I agree with TC that it is socially reactionary and should face criticism. [/b]
I just noticed this:

must not.


What is the point of communism if you're not going to enforce communal behavior and drive out elitism?

If you are a libertarian, then say so.

[Raúl Duke]

maybe because it would be elitist to enforce communal behaviour?

After all whos enforcing it? If you say, the entire society; than they are practicing elitism by forcing a group to do something because it is in their view the "right thing" to do.

Sure...we are always affected by societal influence, and it would be inescapable even in socialism and communism.

However, to say that resisting this societal influence is elitsm is kinda odd; after all aren't there people who want us to give up "all this communist-anarchism crap" and be like them "responsible citizens who vote, pay taxes, serve the state in war, go to churh, etc" By your logic we would be elitist pigs just because we refuse and/or resist societal influences to be like all other "citizens".

Also that logic would consider the women's and black's liberation (or Power) movement elitist because they resisted societal influence that dictated that they were subserveient and dependent on a man and, in the others case, were below the social position of whites.

You would also consider the women in Turkey and Iran asking to be able not to use the veil as elitist because they aren't comforming to society.

The only "elitist" cultural/social thing is usually that which the majority follows, unless it is that which comes from or is practiced by the ruling class. Also, sometimes the majority and the ruling classes follow the same cultural/social norm, due to "cultural hegemony", etc.



So, in western countries muslims, or whomever, are attempting to spread social tyranny, even if they don't know it.

I don't think European whites feel tyrannized by muslims unless they are part of the "white power" fash which feel threaten by anything not white. I mean people could just ignore the headband.


Also, a last thing; people's culture usually assimilates to the other culture; especially over generations.

[TheAdlerian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 02:29 am
maybe because it would be elitist to enforce communal behaviour?

After all whos enforcing it? If you say, the entire society; than they are practicing elitism by forcing a group to do something because it is in their view the "right thing" to do.

Sure...we are always affected by societal influence, and it would be inescapable even in socialism and communism.

However, to say that resisting this societal influence is elitsm is kinda odd; after all aren't there people who want us to give up "all this communist-anarchism crap" and be like them "responsible citizens who vote, pay taxes, serve the state in war, go to churh, etc" By your logic we would be elitist pigs just because we refuse and/or resist societal influences to be like all other "citizens".

Also that logic would consider the women's and black's liberation (or Power) movement elitist because they resisted societal influence that dictated that they were subserveient and dependent on a man and, in the others case, were below the social position of whites.

You would also consider the women in Turkey and Iran asking to be able not to use the veil as elitist because they aren't comforming to society.

The only "elitist" cultural/social thing is usually that which the majority follows, unless it is that which comes from or is practiced by the ruling class. Also, sometimes the majority and the ruling classes follow the same cultural/social norm, due to "cultural hegemony", etc.



So, in western countries muslims, or whomever, are attempting to spread social tyranny, even if they don't know it.

I don't think European whites feel tyrannized by muslims unless they are part of the "white power" fash which feel threaten by anything not white. I mean people could just ignore the headband.


Also, a last thing; people's culture usually assimilates to the other culture; especially over generations.
That post was pure nonsense.

Why did you write it. It's like something from a teenager.

Communism requires a strict code of ethics and constant thinking to avoid the slip into sociopathic behavior. That would require everyone to be a expert on the subject, and since that's impossible, a sort of ideological steering committee would be needed.

Anyway, it's absolutely absurd to say that anti-elitism is elitism, as that allows elitists to win.

Get rid of your slave mentality.

[Raúl Duke]

That post was pure nonsense

Is that an argument?

This doesn't cover my points, it just regards it as pure nonsense.


Why did you write it. It's like something from a teenager.

Isn't ageism a form of elitism? :huh:

Or this only applies when done in reverse?

I'm 18; but does that really matter?


Communism requires a strict code of ethics and constant thinking to avoid the slip into sociopathic behavior. That would require everyone to be a expert on the subject, and since that's impossible, a sort of ideological steering committee would be needed.

That would be your idea about what communism needs; Incidently, anti-communists think that in communism everyone is forced "to be" the same, act the same, etc and basically you are proposing an idea that comforms with that capitalist prejudice.

However, How is using a viel, or for that matter resisting societal influences in small things like dress code, mannerisms, customes, etc, sociopathic?

I understand your idea when we are in the topic of seriel killers, mass murders, people who want to start capitalism again (for no objective material reason, etc), etc.


Anyway, it's absolutely absurd to say that anti-elitism is elitism, as that allows elitists to win.

Define elitism and anti-elitism in your own words so to better understand.

I find elitist socio-culture to be those by either the majority, the ruling classes, or both. Maybe you don't understand me because we might be living in different parts of the world. Here, the majority is religious and they indirectly pressure me to be the same. I however, resisted religion and no longer religious. In Europe, its not the case; they probably have not much societal influence to be religious in Western Europe as in the US; for example. That is why communists should not resist only because its the majority idea but to examine the idea with skepticism.
For example, that would mean I accept some societal influence, yet reject others due to my examination of the world and experience.

Anti-Elitism is when you struggle against ruling class ideas, which are sometimes usually the majoritarian ideas in capitalism.


Get rid of your slave mentality.

Ok, let me understand this:

resisting societal influence is part of slave mentality? :unsure:

I suppose I need you to elaborate on this so I can get rid of my slave mentality. ;)

I undertood that communists were in favor of questioning the status quo, the ruling class ideas through materialism, questioning ideas held by most of society (i.e. skeptical); mostly through dialogue, not through bannings or regulatory bodies (however, such things have happened in the so-called socialist countries).

[TheAdlerian]

A slave mentality has to do with giving up and talking yourself into not doing anything as a method of doing something.

A: The "man" has oppressed us! Look at the man and how he organizes shit and stuff! That's crazy!

B: How're we gonna beat these bastards!?

A: Hey, don't say anything bad about about the Master! You just like him now!

B: Kay....

M: Get back to work you two!

A & B: Kaaayy!

Thus concludes our play.

I'm not going waste time explaining every little thing to you.

[Devrim]

Originally posted by JohnnyDarko+--> (JohnnyDarko)You would also consider the women in Turkey and Iran asking to be able not to use the veil as elitist because they aren't comforming to society. [/b]
Actually it is illegal to wear a headscarf in a public building (i.e. a university) in Turkey.


Originally posted by Love [email protected]
Nope. Because they're not forced to wear them. Not materially, or even by their own faith. No where is it demanded that the veil be worn.

Family presure?


Love Underground
You on the other hand are making demands and restrictions on a womens right to chosoe what she wears. Telling women what they must wear, is just as bad as telling them what they must not.

It's their body, and they should be free to decide, what to do with it or put on it. I do however agree that these decissions should be informed by reason, and their actions are open to scrutiny.

On the basic point I agree with you. It is not the state's business to decree what people can wear, or not.

In Turkey though there is a tendency to defend the ban which comes from a fear of Islamicism, for example there was a (very nationalist) demonstration of 300,000 people against the Islamicists on Saturday.

I think for us the most important thing to do is explain how this issue is being used as a tool in a fight between different factions of the ruling class.

Devrim

[TheAdlerian]

Originally posted by devrimankara+April 17, 2007 10:33 pm--> (devrimankara @ April 17, 2007 10:33 pm)
Originally posted by JohnnyDarko+--> (JohnnyDarko)You would also consider the women in Turkey and Iran asking to be able not to use the veil as elitist because they aren't comforming to society. [/b]
Actually it is illegal to wear a headscarf in a public building (i.e. a university) in Turkey.


Love [email protected]
Nope. Because they're not forced to wear them. Not materially, or even by their own faith. No where is it demanded that the veil be worn.

Family presure?


Love Underground
You on the other hand are making demands and restrictions on a womens right to chosoe what she wears. Telling women what they must wear, is just as bad as telling them what they must not.

It's their body, and they should be free to decide, what to do with it or put on it. I do however agree that these decissions should be informed by reason, and their actions are open to scrutiny.

On the basic point I agree with you. It is not the state's business to decree what people can wear, or not.

In Turkey though there is a tendency to defend the ban which comes from a fear of Islamicism, for example there was a (very nationalist) demonstration of 300,000 people against the Islamicists on Saturday.

I think for us the most important thing to do is explain how this issue is being used as a tool in a fight between different factions of the ruling class.

Devrim [/b]
I've reported the exact reason why France has decided to ban the head gear. They're doing it to defend their concept of equality. Thus, it is the state's job to do such things if necessary.

In the US, schools have dress codes. Girls can't wear mini-skirts with no underwear and boys can't walk around with no shirts. This is to keep peace and prevent attention seeking people from dominating others.

The same exact need would be in place in any truely communist society.

[RedAnarchist]

Why would it be needed in a communist society?

[TheAdlerian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 12:59 pm
Why would it be needed in a communist society?
If you go back a read what I've written, then you'll see the the need to prevent elitism. Being an "elite" is against the community and is a form od capital.

[RedAnarchist]

Originally posted by TheAdlerian+April 24, 2007 02:10 pm--> (TheAdlerian @ April 24, 2007 02:10 pm)
[email protected] 24, 2007 12:59 pm
Why would it be needed in a communist society?
If you go back a read what I've written, then you'll see the the need to prevent elitism. Being an "elite" is against the community and is a form od capital. [/b]
Being half-naked makes you elitist? :wacko:

In a post-revolutionary society, people will be able to wear as little or as much as they want. There won't be any religious morality saying that people who go around in skimpy clothes or half-naked are attention-seeking or elitist.

[TheAdlerian]

Originally posted by TAKN+April 24, 2007 01:18 pm--> (TAKN @ April 24, 2007 01:18 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 02:10 pm

[email protected] 24, 2007 12:59 pm
Why would it be needed in a communist society?
If you go back a read what I've written, then you'll see the the need to prevent elitism. Being an "elite" is against the community and is a form od capital.
Being half-naked makes you elitist? :wacko:

In a post-revolutionary society, people will be able to wear as little or as much as they want. There won't be any religious morality saying that people who go around in skimpy clothes or half-naked are attention-seeking or elitist. [/b]
Untrue.

Take a look at Hollywood. A hot sexy woman, with very little talent can show up and make millions just for existing. A fairly ugly or plain woman cannot. So, the pretty girl is placed in elite status.

In normal society a fat girl in a mini looks insane while a pretty one inspires lust. So, the pretty girl gets "paid" in the lust that she inspires, thus she is not engaging in communal behavior.

You can't have that kind of thing going on.

Side note: this is why people that move to the US are more likely to develop eating disorders.

[RedAnarchist]

Originally posted by TheAdlerian+April 24, 2007 02:25 pm--> (TheAdlerian @ April 24, 2007 02:25 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 01:18 pm

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 02:10 pm

[email protected] 24, 2007 12:59 pm
Why would it be needed in a communist society?
If you go back a read what I've written, then you'll see the the need to prevent elitism. Being an "elite" is against the community and is a form od capital.
Being half-naked makes you elitist? :wacko:

In a post-revolutionary society, people will be able to wear as little or as much as they want. There won't be any religious morality saying that people who go around in skimpy clothes or half-naked are attention-seeking or elitist.
Untrue.

Take a look at Hollywood. A hot sexy woman, with very little talent can show up and make millions just for existing. A fairly ugly or plain woman cannot. So, the pretty girl is placed in elite status.

In normal society a fat girl in a mini looks insane while a pretty one inspires lust. So, the pretty girl gets "paid" in the lust that she inspires, thus she is not engaging in communal behavior.

You can't have that kind of thing going on.

Side note: this is why people that move to the US are more likely to develop eating disorders. [/b]
What you describe is caused by capitalist society, which puts rich above poor, men above women, white above black, straight above gay etc.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 12:56 pm
The same exact need would be in place in any truely communist society.
Hoooooo boy, back the fuck up there a second. Are you seriously advocating "dress codes" throughout all of society - a kind of "grey overalls communism"? So in your society if it was too damn hot that day and I felt like taking my top off for comfort your clothes police would come round and beat me down? What else are you planning on doing away with in your society - you've already mentioned that you don't want homosexuals (yet call yourself communist :wacko: ) so what else won't I be able to do? Have a cigarette, drink liquor, have pre- or extra- marital sex? What is all this oppression in aid of exactly, why do you want dress codes, to what advantage is it to limit the freedom of the people?