UK: UKIP v. the burka

I saw this on the breakfast morning show today. There was a man representing UKIP, and a woman representing the Muslim women, and they were discussing whether Muslim women should or shouldn't wear their burkas(the veils that cover their faces).

The was a woman who spoke about liking wearing the burka, and how it made her feel good about herself, and all sorts of positive things.

Personally, when I first saw women wearing them in San Diego, I thought, "Oh. What the heck?" Then, I got to know some women who do wear them, and are totally happy wearing them.

The UKIP man said that it was in the interest of security and in the interest of keeping British society undivided. But, the woman interviewed in the story said that it's not a problem removing the veil for security and identification.

I empathise with both sides of the story, but, I think that if a woman wears something, and she's not harming anyone, just going about her daily business and taking care of herself and her family, then, what's the problem?

I empathise with both sides of the story, but, I think that if a woman wears something, and she's not harming anyone, just going about her daily business and taking care of herself and her family, then, what's the problem?

That's pretty much what I think about it, too.  As long as she doesn't mind raising the veil for ID purposes (when checking her passport before boarding an airplane, for instance), it's fine with me.

I get the whole "fit in with the rest of society" argument, but I think if the society is healthy it can handle women wearing veils.

I don't think there should be a law forbidding it being worn,(with the  common sense applied for safety and ID purposes) it is my opinion  that the burka is a form of female oppression that belittles both men and women. For me, it represents the thought that men are primarily sexual animals that can't control themselves and that women aren't responsible enough to make smart decisions about men and sex.  If it was a way of dress that applied to both men and women, that might change my mind about it.

I don't think there should be a law forbidding it being worn,(with the  common sense applied for safety and ID purposes) it is my opinion  that the burka is a form of female oppression that belittles both men and women. For me, it represents the thought that men are primarily sexual animals that can't control themselves and that women aren't responsible enough to make smart decisions about men and sex.  If it was a way of dress that applied to both men and women, that might change my mind about it.

I agree with this.  However, for a woman who was brought up with this strict interpretation of her religion, I can understand how it may make her feel safe and anonymous.  I wouldn't want to take that right away from any woman. 

As an atheist, I would like to see the wearing of all religious clothing and adornments banned in public: veils, nuns habits' crucifixes, turbans, the lot. However, singling out Muslim women like this is just divisive and counter productive. UKIP is not interested in protecting women's rights (which is what I read yesterday their claim is), I never heard such a load of b****x.

As an atheist, I would like to see the wearing of all religious clothing and adornments banned in public: veils, nuns habits' crucifixes, turbans, the lot. However, singling out Muslim women like this is just divisive and counter productive. UKIP is not interested in protecting women's rights (which is what I read yesterday their claim is), I never heard such a load of b****x.

But why should everyone have to comply with your beliefs?  That's like Christians saying that only Christian symbols should be allowed. 

I see nothing wrong with people wearing symbols of their faiths on their bodies.  They're not infringing on anyone else's rights by doing that.  The burkha is a bit of a tricky thing though, and I can definitely see why people object to it on feminist grounds.  It's OK if it's the woman's choice, but the question is do women who are raised in societies that repress them ever really have the chance to make that choice? 

But why should everyone have to comply with your beliefs?  That's like Christians saying that only Christian symbols should be allowed. 

It's a dogmatic stance, yes, but in my view, freedom of religion should include freedom from religion.  I'm only asking that people practice their religion in private, not in my face. 

 It's OK if it's the woman's choice, but the question is do women who are raised in societies that repress them ever really have the chance to make that choice? 
[/quote]

This is something that the woman researcher on the show, in support of women in the UK wearing the burkhas made. That in the UK, it's really a choice made by the woman, not a repressive measure. Hm. I don't know really, I mean, it was just something that made me think and ponder this morning. I mean, all people from all religions have some sort of religious clothing or tatooing that is symbolic and important to them. We might not all agree with them, but, shouldn't they be allowed, to do as they like, when they finally are given a choice, either way?

This is something that the woman researcher on the show, in support of women in the UK wearing the burkhas made. That in the UK, it's really a choice made by the woman, not a repressive measure. Hm. I don't know really, I mean, it was just something that made me think and ponder this morning. I mean, all people from all religions have some sort of religious clothing or tatooing that is symbolic and important to them. We might not all agree with them, but, shouldn't they be allowed, to do as they like, when they finally are given a choice, either way?

They should. It's a Western Imperialistic idea that Muslim women 'secretly wish to be liberated' from the burka. Many women can interpret, for example, Western girls dressing 'slutty' as anti-feminist and repressive. The idea that women believe they need to show their bodies for male attention could be seen as repressive. Shouldn't we be free to interpret our freedoms differently? 

It's a dogmatic stance, yes, but in my view, freedom of religion should include freedom from religion.  I'm only asking that people practice their religion in private, not in my face. 

I do see your point, and if we were discussing people praying on your doorstep or waving crucifixes in your face, then I would agree with you.  But wearing an item of clothing or jewelry that is symbolic of a religion doesn't harm people of other faiths, and it doesn't harm people of no faith.  You could argue that it actually IS in private, since people's bodies are their own business.  I'm an atheist myself, more or less, and excessive public displays of religion make me uncomfortable.  But I have no problem with people wearing crosses, yarmulkes, head scarves, anarchy symbols, or any other symbol of their own personal faith.  I can't see that them expressing their beliefs affects me at all, as long as it's clearly an issue of self-expression and not an attempt to proselytise.  I think for most people, it's the former.   

They should. It's a Western Imperialistic idea that Muslim women 'secretly wish to be liberated' from the burka. Many women can interpret, for example, Western girls dressing 'slutty' as anti-feminist and repressive. The idea that women believe they need to show their bodies for male attention could be seen as repressive. Shouldn't we be free to interpret our freedoms differently? 

I completely agree!

I was raised Jewish, but see myself as pagan spiritually.  I would *hate* to see religious clothing banned in public.  I think if you want to dress up as Athena or Thor in public (not that I would!) then you should be able to. 

They should. It's a Western Imperialistic idea that Muslim women 'secretly wish to be liberated' from the burka. Many women can interpret, for example, Western girls dressing 'slutty' as anti-feminist and repressive. The idea that women believe they need to show their bodies for male attention could be seen as repressive. Shouldn't we be free to interpret our freedoms differently? 

Preach it! ^__^

Though I think it ridiculous to try an ban an item of clothing I have to admit I have mixed feelings about the bhurka. People should have the right to wear what they wish but how far should society accommodate a person's religious belief or personal preference?

Is it acceptable for a teacher to wear a bhurka to work? a doctor? a nurse? a salesperson? a police officer? I can honestly say I would object to it in those circumstances and others. And while the woman in the story had no problem removing her veil for purposes of identification or security, what about a women who does?

Wearing a bhurka in Britsih society may be a matter of choice, but for other cultures it's not and how is it supposed to be determined if a women is being forced to wear one or freely chooses to?

There are so many questions that do not have easy answers.

They should stay in the Muslim world if they want to wear a burka.  The burka is offensive to women.  Women are the most lovely beings on the planet - they do not deserve to be hidden underneath a burka just because some misogynistic desert religion requires it.  I do not want my daughter being exposed to an idea that women are inferior to men and have to be covered up.  Women are our mothers, our daughters, our wives, our sisters - why should any practice that collectively degrades them be tolerated here in the civilized Western world just to appease those who have NO intention of assimilate to our cultures, traditions, and morals and to appease the multiculturalists who will stop at nothing until they rob an entire country completely of its history and national identity?  There should be no special treatment for those who wear burkas.  The practice should be strongly discouraged and reviled by any decent human being.