I'm firmly in the 'Don't Know' camp on this one and this video did a good job of highlighting the arguments without swaying my view in either direction. Given the controversial nature of the topic, I applaud you for pulling this off in such a neutral way, and even being willing to bring up the discussion in the first place.
Yeah me too, its about details and how the law is enforced that makes me swing in favour or agianst it. You need to ban some other complete head coverings too to avoid religious infringement (helmets, ski masks at inapproppiate places etc), the fine needs to be effective at prevention but also modest and where it applies needs to be described too. A lady wearing a burqa shouldnt get in trouble just because she outside gardening or throwing out trash.
I’m put firmly in the against camp on the basis that it is historically used to oppress women. Such as children below the age of 13 etc. a nun or a seek is historically been a free choosing such as becoming a nun
He makes some big mistakes about. The burqa or niqab not being within Islamic while the wives of the Prophet p.b.u.h. used to wear it, and there are plenty of sources that it is build on,, he also said the ruling about sex outside wedlock only applies to women, this is also wrong men need to marry these women even if it's multiple. Also women can pursue professional jobs if in agreement with their husband, but he said they couldn't and are not allowed to do this. Also, he claimed these practices are all exclusive to Wahabism while they are found throughout almost all strands of islam. I really feel insulted when people try to claim they know my religion with a 10 minute google it's a big insult and it's pushing of false beliefs that have consequences in society. And there are more mistakes or I don't know if i should called them misinformation. I don't know if these are all mistakes or this is his bias showing maybe because he is homosexual, but you should stay objective my friend I hope it was a mistake and you learned.
Reverend Green of course. Exempt this was religious punishment often. Lose women, morality inferior or damned unruly females could be forced to it. This is very different from the Islamic one of forcing you for being a women. Thankfuly Christianity isn’t a moral pressure in modern society.
korsol it’s all about interpretation. Some scholars refers Muhammed’s wives being covered Was exclusively for his wives. Others interpret it as the covering of the female sexual organs of the time as they where more naked in those days. And the rule of women outside of wedlock you only have to look at reality and those getting raped is sentient to lashing etc for adultery. And a man is only allowed to Mary multiple wives only if he treats them equally, this many interpret as impossible and indirectly banning multiple wives
Nope, individual liberty never goes too far it isn't harming anyone. If women choose to wear a face cover, they should have the right. Sure, for police indentification it's a bit tricky, sometimes people will have to show their face. But otherwise it's none of your business what other People choose to wear, even if it makes you uncomfortable.
I’m from the region of Switzerland that forbid the burqa. I just wanted to say that the same party who suggest the “anti burqa law” also proposed to make an exception for the main “international business city” in the region. The reason? Apparently, those burqas aren’t a problem, because those women are married to rich guys who may be offended by this law and would stop coming here for business or tourism… My point? Well, fuck populism! Jokes asides, I think that it should be illegal to force someone to wear it, rather than make illegal the burqa itself. As a cultural “dress” women should be able to wear it, if THEY want.
Drakan R yeah, probably it is, but my point is that we are looking from the wrong perspective at the issue. Probably because behind the “no burqa” idea often there’s a bit of islamophobia. Where the problem is the use to take away agency from women (or others groups in the society), the point isn’t forbid the oppression symbol, but the oppressive situation.
@@ilianceroni I agree w/ you. The only problem is the social pressures from very regressive people. The burqa's use is symbol of old traditions of repression. Should the burqa be illegal? No, it's people's freedom to chose what they want to wear or not wear. The real problem is dealing with social pressure & non-progressive mentalities
My hope is that with continuing improvement in education, especially in science, and improvement in gender equality, all religions will continue their natural decline.
I think there's a quote somewhere that goes along the lines off, "religion was a means of controling the masses and is slowly being replaced by social media"
Yes, that's my hope as well. My greatest fear is that by banning burqas, we end up alienating Muslims. I want Muslims in the West to become westernized out of their own volition, and that requires us to turn on the charm rather than being negative about everything all the time. I want them to ditch the burqa, but I don't want to force them to do so, because I fear it will hinder their integration into Western society. We will of course need to make an actual effort to integrate them -- show them how great our societies can be, educate them, and I think they'll naturally want to integrate, and eventually even ditch the burqa, and I think I speak for all men here, hopefully hop into some skinny jeans instead. But this argument actually goes further, because where do you draw the line? Here's another example: I don't want Muslims to live together in small ghettos around our nations, because I think that affords them the luxury of remaining disintegrated from Western society, but since I don't want to ban the burqa, does that mean, I also don't want to forcibly resettle people living in these ghettos? In my first paragraph, we've established a principle of freedom coupled together with a cultural charm offensive that's designed to convert non-Westerners into Westerners, but ghettos are a threat to this principle, so where does that leave us? By forcibly resettling people living in ghettos, we break with our principle, and by allowing them to live in ghettos, we effectively render our principle useless. So what's the solution? I'm not convinced that the free-choice/education/equality approach is the right one. I mean, I think it is, but I'm not convinced. Maybe you can convince me? Am I missing something, what am I missing?
@@Boomerrage32 have you been to countries like Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia? Theres your solution, and it doesnt involve "Westernizing" Muslims and vice-versa. Something called coexisting...
I've not been able to pay for fuel with a helmet on for the best part of 20 years. It's for security and I get that, they have their use and an appropriate time. All face coverings are like that imo, wether it be burka or bike helmet. They have heir place and they have their time but don't come before security
They remove it when asked by security They have no right to force women what to wear we can't oppress them Security can ask to see the face and The wemon wouldn't say no
I think its a matter of etiquette, and good manners for us bikers to remove our helmets, and it does put the cashier in a petrol station at ease for certain.
Well, that's pretty much the burqa ban in the Netherlands. It includes all face coverings in certain situations, including balaclavas and motor helmets. The fine is 150 euros, but not one fine has been given yet. People are first asked to remove their face covering or leave the bus for instance. Another practical thing is how can the police identify somebody before writing a fine?
@@czarzenana5125 in the Netherlands it's still uncertain in how the law is to be interpreted. for instance does that mean no school is allowed to let children or adults dress up for a school play or any other reason. there are a lot that is not really clear.
"There is simply far too much noise in the comment section. Honourable and rRight Honourable members must calm themselves. The prime minister" but the flying flamingo is the golden one very much indeed
Hijabs ✅ Niqabs❌ Burkas❌ If you can't see the face, it shouldn't be allowed, except for organized events where they are explicitly allowed. Same for any face-covering costume. The reason people can wear a big scarf during winter even though it covers most of their face is because if they don't, they're going to get frostbite.
So you're saying terrorism is OK in the winter? .. .. .. Oh wait, that sounds stupid doesn't it? Hmm. Its almost like making exceptions to the law where it might affect you personally can be interpreted as you just being discriminatory.
@@altrag Are you deliberately trying to twist my words? The only one implying terrorism is ok is you here. When worn during appropriate times, such as during a cold snap or blizzard, a scarf or ski mask (during skiing) means the difference between freezing your face off or not. It's purely about utility. If someone wants to dress modestly there is no reason to pick a burka over a hijab. But sure, accusing me of discrimination is easier than think about it for a second longer.
@@idratherbewithmycatrightnow > If someone wants to dress modestly there is no reason to pick a burka over a hijab. Unless you believe modesty includes covering your face. But my point wasn't to say you're being discriminatory. My point was that you're making rather arbitrary decisions as to what justifications there are for wearing a face covering. And while there's certainly no shortage of arbitrary decisions in law, each of them come with a serious decision: Do you enumerate the things that are allowed, or those that are banned? If you enumerate the ones that are allowed, you now have to come up with a list of _every single thing_ a person might ever cover their face for. You've so far only listed two (it being cold, and skiing.) OK but where does that leave motorcyclists? Alright add those. What about welders? OK add those. And doctors/nurses with their filter masks? OK lets just add "any professional use." But now anyone can just cover their face as long as they claim they're a doctor? What about people from Asian countries who normally wear those same medical masks when they get sick to avoid spreading it? OK add that.. and add that.. and add that.. The list goes on and on because there's always some reason people want to wear something. Alternatively, if you go with the list of banned items, you now have to justify why your list has a single item on it that conveniently happens to be associated with a religious group that is somewhat persecuted in the Western world right now. That's pretty much the situation with all of the extant burqa bans, and why they're called that even when they don't explicitly name the item. And few of them bother justifying it in any way that can't be easily torn apart by looking at similar examples that aren't banned.
@@altrag Covering your face hides your identity. This shouldn't be done in public unless the concequences are worse for not wearing it, like freeze your face off, or, as your example says, catching disease or inhaling extreme smog. Your examples conveniently forget that those "face coverings" all serve a utility and are worn in a specific place and context. Do you see a lot of doctors or welders cover their face while grocery shopping? I would never tell a woman in Saudi Arabia to not wear a burka, if not doing so would put her in danger. If you have no objective, practical reason for covering your face, it shouldn't be permissable. The burka is just one example of where it has no practical use. "I feel more modest in it." is not a practical reason. That doesn't stop them from wearing them at private events or at home though. Do you think I'm losing sleep over some woman wearing a burka in her own home? The only reason including the burka in such a ban is controversial in the first place is because it involves culture and religion into it, but even the Qur'an doesn't mention it or call it mandatory. It's literally a personal choice, not a religious requirement.
@@joaquinandreu8530 Its sensible to be afraid of someone in a balaklava, because people usually wear them for the express intention of committing crimes. People who wear the burqa do not. And besides, it is legal to wear a balaklava in the UK anyway
@@nerezza6517 Middle Eastern Countries which force women to wear the niqab: 3 European countries which force women to not wear the niqab: 6 But yeah, enjoy your cultural superiority high horse.
@George Baker There are exactly three middle eastern nations which have laws mandating the wearing of the niqab. A women is more likely to be arrested for wearing what she chooses in Europe than in the Middle East.
@@Cyrenetes Interesting that you would bring this up. I happen to know a lot about Japanese society. Yes, the number of people hiding at least part of their faces has increased dramatically over the past decade. But this is not a fashion statement. Facemasks started being used to avoid spreading germs to other people when you're sick. It's a very mindful gesture. But now, surveys show that more and more people use these to hide away from a society that they deem to be too agressive or invasive. Women feel safer on the train when wearing a facemask and earphones, because they feel they don't risk as much falling prey to chikan (perverts), and the same chikan also wear them not to be recognized. Hikikomori (introverts who do not dare come out of their bedrooms) when they have to go out to run errands, for example, as a way to avoid contact with society. In more ways than none, the facemask has become a way to hide away from society. Of course, there is no evidence that people are being "pressured" to wear them, which is a key difference with the burqa, but it is nonetheless symptomatic of a deep social issue. So yes, Japan, in this regard, is in "fashion trouble", and this is really not something that we collectively should aspire to. And lastly, if anyone for any reason asks them to remove the facemask, they will do so without any question, because they don't view it as a command from a totalitarian god, another key difference with the Burqa
@@damienpeladan481 that is not a "fashion problem" about the face mask, it's a much deeper cultural/social problem, and regulating face masks would do absolutely nothing to help.
@@drakan4769 The Hijab is fine, but the Burka and Niqab go too far. Comparing Japanese face masks that cover the mouth to avoid the spread of disease to a item used to control women because men back then couldn't control themselves.... now that's just plain wrong.
Burkhas should not be banned in public but businesses should be able to ask women to remove the burkha and refuse to serve them if they do not comply, especially in Banks.
Or even refuse to hire them to be honest. When you work for someone you are a representative of this company and you dont represent yourself anymore but the entity you work for
@@janosmerges4946 it probably wouldn't be deleted, but demonetized is a different matter. RU-vid seems to be demonetizing videos at a ridiculous rate, recently.
Yes, you are not allowed to go naked in public except for some designated places (nude beaches etc), no matter what your reason is for doing so. The difficult question is: how much covering is sufficient?
To my knowledge there isn't a religion that is both recognized by the government and practices nudity. You can say that you have a religion that allows you to have prime rib on death row, every day until the sentence is carried out, but because it's not recognized by the nation you are not getting prime rib. Same kind of goes for the nude religion. Even Faith has to be wrapped in red tape.
It's called Freikörperkultur (EDIT: more commonly known as FKK) and is somewhat of a atheistic cult in former socialist eastern Germany. Try banning nakedness on a east German beach and you will get literal riots.
No because we have laws against public nudity. We have no laws against covering your face in public, and we shouldn’t have to have them. So there is absolutely no issue here, UNLESS you criminalise it and then MAKE it an issue.
That is just unsanitary... topless chicks? I say fine, some places do already allow that. but keep your pants on you'll spread STD's and infections if you don't wear pants.... Doing some research it seems like a woman can't legally be arrested for going topless in most Jurisdictions in the US (which is where I live so where it is easy for me to find data on) If men can go topless in an area women mostly have the choice to aswell and you can't really stop them.
I agree with Mr Boris here. However silly or pointless wearing face coverings might be (yes I think that of the burhka), it's not the role of the government to dictate what people wear. I think it is reasonable to ban them in certain specific places, however - for example in court, where face-to-face contact is extremely important.
So try wearing your motorbike helmet and stroll into a bank and see how far you get, but that, it seems, is alright. Put a non islamic garment on your head and you expect to be the exception...
Interestingly, in Islamic jurisprudence a woman can be asked to remove her face covering when giving evidence in court. It’s not for the duration of being in the court building but while actually testifying.
I'm an Egyptian Muslim and I totally believe that only Hijab is fine because it shows all face features clearly other than hair, which makes the wearer easily identifiable and still following the teachings of the religion at the same time. Niqab and Burkas aren't stated in the Quran and are just traditions that came long after the time of the Quran. Not to mention the many problems they cause to a woman's health on the long run. Great Video!
For me, it's a matter of principle: If it's about the face-covering nature of the attire, then all face-covering attire should be banned, no exceptions (that includes all of those used in cultural festivities). If the ban only pertains to Niqabs and Hijabs, I'd view such a measure as clearly discriminatory. If taken to the extreme, long-grown face-covering beards also obstruct with easy identification of another person; also ban those? If these wouldn't be banned, as such a ban would almost certainly infringe on another's freedom of expression, how would banning Niqabs and Hijabs be possible, as such a ban would also infringe on the same rights? (Assumption: Niqab- and Hijab-wearers do so under their own volition) I agree that Niqabs and Hijabs prevent easy identification of another person, but so do masks used in many cultural festivities (Mascots, Father Christmas, etc) or because of climate-/weather-related reasons (Walking in icy temperatures without a face-mask can sometimes be too uncomfortable; doing so while riding a bike even more so). Either ban all face-covering attire (again, no exceptions) or ban none.
Face coverings where illegal in public places before muslims came along. Now its ok, but only for muslims. F.ex having a motorbike helmet on, while walking into a petrol store, is and was illegal. Face coverings had to have a purpose, purely practical one at that, to be allowed. Its still illegal to run around with a balaclava in cities/towns. You can use it in the mountains against freezing tempratures but thats it.
Horses for courses mate... Obviously on the ski slopes it's ok to wear a mask and goggles, while It's not ok to walk into a bank wearing a motorcycle helmet... If you don't have the mental capacity to comprehend which coverings are ok and which are not, you're struggling... The burqa is unnecessary at best, oppressive at worst. Ban it...
@@MelbourneMeMe If everyone bans all the attire they view as unnecessary at best and oppressive at worst, all attire would probably be banned. And then there'd be the people who'd have something against people roaming around in their birthday suit. What then?
@@MelbourneMeMe If you believe people shouldn't have the right to choose which clothes they want to wear, countries like North Korea might be more to your liking.
Just to correct one piece of info, the Burqa wasnt synonymous with wahabism until the 20th century when wahabism emerged, it was actually seen as a religious obligation by the Hanbali school of thought which is one of the 4 schools of islamic Jurisprudence. So, there are 3 schools that dont see it as an obligation and 1 that sees it as an obligation. A Muslim can follow any of these 4 schools and isnt obliged to follow one specifically. The 4 schools usually tolerate each other. However, when wahabism came out they claimed to be Hanbali (which they are not) and started opressing people, thats why most people distanced themselves from the Niqab.
in the Quran, it says the only thing that's mandatory for women to wear is the hijab (a cover for their hear and chest) everything else is cultural and does not hold in Islam.
Women r forced to wear the burqa even in the West through extreme social pressure and fear of being beaten by a relative or facing rejection by the whole family.
From an atheist from a Muslim background: Please ban all head cover including face covering. Background: 1) It is not simply an act of modesty. 2) It is not a religious symbol, religious rank or title. 3) This is a contract between the lady and the creator (detailed in Islamic jurisprudence), articles include: A) That man is incapable of self control. B) It is the duty of the lady to cover in order not to be sexually abused, she is assigned that burden. C) That society and the justice system is incapable of protecting women's rights. D) *I it an insult to any secular constitution* , because it implies the use (and idea of supremacy) of an alternative religious constitution. E) Subservient to a creator and to his representatives on earth (all being men). Note: Women are equal in uncleanness to human faeces if touched during or before prayer and requires a man to re-cleanse himself. From the Quran (Chapter) Sura Al Nissa see 42 : (42) يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا لَا تَقْرَبُوا الصَّلَاةَ وَأَنتُمْ سُكَارَىٰ حَتَّىٰ تَعْلَمُوا مَا تَقُولُونَ وَلَا جُنُبًا إِلَّا عَابِرِي سَبِيلٍ حَتَّىٰ تَغْتَسِلُوا ۚ وَإِن كُنتُم مَّرْضَىٰ أَوْ عَلَىٰ سَفَرٍ أَوْ جَاءَ أَحَدٌ مِّنكُم مِّنَ الْغَائِطِ أَوْ لَامَسْتُمُ النِّسَاءَ فَلَمْ تَجِدُوا مَاءً فَتَيَمَّمُوا صَعِيدًا طَيِّبًا فَامْسَحُوا بِوُجُوهِكُمْ وَأَيْدِيكُمْ ۗ إِنَّ اللَّهَ كَانَ عَفُوًّا غَفُورًا (43) Result: 1) Insult to civilization and society, that they are unable to provide the security and protection for women. 2) Insulat to all men that they can't see women except as sexual objects. 3) Insuring that women are constantly discriminated against and subjected to men. Edit: Didn't anyone ask why men are not asked to cover ? Edit 2: don't believe the apologist narrative that there is a significance in treatment of women and women's rights between different schools of Islam, I have been schooled in many for decades and it is all bad. They would dance around the issue and not answer any of the questions. It is normal remember it is their inductronation (emotions) that is answering not the part of the brain responsible for critical thinking. *Please stop inductronation in all religious schools it damages children's logic and reasoning.*
exactly. And let me just say, I think that it takes a lot of guts being a muslim "apostate", given the tremendous amount of pressure (and more often than none physical threats) that is put upon you, but you guys really are the people from which change will come, so stay strong, we need you !
Is it true that women are separated and sent to the back of mosques so that men don’t stare at their behinds? Serious question that came up when Treadeau went to pray in Canada.
1) If this isn't i don't know what is. 2) It is the wifes of the prophet pbuh used to wear them and also that of his students. 3)Correct A) This is plain naive, the people should also control themselves and not steal money from the bank that is not hidden in a safe and is right in front of them. A men should also control himself, but to put half naked women in front of men and act surprised when people cheat families are broken and saying they should control themself is plain naive. B) Again it goes both way in islamic law if a men does sexually abuse women there are severe punishments. The covering forces the men to see the women as a person as a personality and be treated with humility and contrary to popular practice under men in the west, they look talk and think of them as qualitative ratable pieces of meat. C) This is why heaps of women end up in forced prostitution, abuse, get played by men and get their hearts broken for sex, have to bring up kids alone because the male didn't want to take responsibility. Majority of women-only feel validated and gaining of self-esteem and respect the more they undress themselves, the big insecurity this builds within women to try to meet the standard of men where they get attention and respect so alot of women these days go under plastic surgery heavy makeup, strangling uncomfortable clothes and heels just to feel validated. D) Correct, this doesn't have to be wrong normal people make mistakes and have limited information and knowledge the creator doesn't. Result: 1) How many terrorist attacks are really been done using burqas, niqabs or how much roberies have been preformed with it? 2) Almost all of the burqa and niqab wearers do this out of themselves in the west, it is easy to go to the police or to get help protection, food, shelter and security, and attention if you are forced into it here. 3) Ask yourself what have burqas or niqabis done to you, you have been wronged by a man in a suit that lead most of the wars and stealing schemes these days , than a burqa or niqabi 4) I know you might not like the sight of it but this is often with unknown things to humans, and this hate and fear is plain illogical. I also don't like being shoved almost every womens bumbum in my face when I walk through the city, and I can also say they infringe on me. But hey we live with it.
I remember there was a woman that was denied citizenship in France because she refused to shake the hands of the guy to whom she was supposed to give the oath of citizenship, the rational was that handshakes are a part of French culture and people no matter religious beliefs are not compatible with French citizenship if they refuse to shake hands. And now we have COVID-19, facemasks are obligatory, and handshakes are forbidden. If this isn't irony, I don't know what is.
@Khaffit As we know, making something illegal or immoral doesn't stop people from doing it. Look at Trump; look at Boris Johnson. Look at all the inequality in the world :( I'd make it illegal to even pierce a child's body without a clinical need. No child should have bits shoved through it or bits lopped off at the whim of its parents.
This video is the most horrific experience of my life. I've just found out I am in total agreement about something with Boris Johnson. Burquas are most definitely oppressive to women and look ridiculous. However it's the job of the government to run the country, (or perhaps provide comedic entertainment in Parliament) not start telling citizens what they can wear.
I agree with you, BUT covering the face is not a choice of fashion, but a way to hide your identity. Even before times of government interventions like in the middle ages it would not have been acceptable to go to the marketplace wrapped up. People would have been scared and would have disposed of that person with a multitude of gruesome techniques.
Re: the idea that it's a security threat because of the concealment - I can understand the premise behind this, and kind of felt this way for a bit (it's like a ski mask, right?), but to your point on how the topic usually comes up after terrorist attacks: how many terrorist attacks have actually been carried out by someone wearing a burqa? I'm pretty sure that number is around 0%, but feel free to check me on that. And if that is indeed the case, then banning them is an entirely unfounded and pointless gut reaction based entirely in prejudice rather than reality (ergo, it's just racist).
Um pretty sure anyone can be Muslim so it's not racist its xenophobic...... no a women in burqas don't tend to be terrorists but is becoming more common for terrorists to use burqa as it covers any weapons they are carrying and most most non muslims subconsciously associate it with women so are less likely to shoot
Those who say they choose to wear the burqa or niqab are clearly suffering from Stockholm Syndrome. I'm really uncomfortable with the government dictating what can and can't be worn, though. But I think we should not allow religious exceptions to our efforts to curb sexism and so I veer towards thinking we need a burqa ban.
The answer should be simple enough. In Europe every citizen enjoys freedom of religion and the people wearing Burqas see their garment as a vital part of that. We should fight any part of religious believes that contradicts human rights as we understand them so we have to ensure that women wearing a burqa are given the choice to do so and are as free to speak their mind and live their lives as anyone else. As long as all of this is the case we have done our job. Choosing to use the law to discriminate someone because it is easier than changing our own prejudices is certainly not the kind of country I want to live in. Also, how on earth can these women endure hot summer days in these things? It's truly beyond comprehension for me.
I would say the same about Wedding shops and Gay Marriage. Although I would never not sell. I can agree that a wedding planned/cake maker/Dress Maker should have the right to refuse service on religious grounds. Yet this is not protected.
i am off two minds on this one. firstly i dislike anything that oppresses women and gives the idea they are less than men. even worse that a woman is a man's property. but it can be a choice to wear head covers and we have no right to impose on that. however how do you discern someone being forced to wear head covers vs someone choosing to? I also think the law is fine to rule on religion to a point, in the sense of making its illegal for religious practice to force their rules on people. religion and religious people dont have the right to force their rules on anyone, or infringe on someone else's rights. e.g parents can't force their daughter to hair head coverings. as this would infringe on the daughters rights to choose how she dresses. the law has to protect the rights of the people, even if that means the law has to step in and say what religious practices you have the right to be able to follow. your rights to practice your religious views ends when says to force those views on others or to harm others that dont conform.
You don't have to worry about that. Burqa has nothing to do with religion at all. Just a result of cultural beliefs mixing with religion to a point where lines are blurred. Islam only requires women to cover their hair willingly. Maybe there should be an enforcement of individual rights by helping people who are forced to wear/do something reach out to authorities easier.
It should never be legal to force someone to do something, provided the lack of doing something doesnt harm anyone. Forcing women to wear a Burqa is just as bad as banning it, and in some ways worse, because it is used as a tool by the Saudi... err.. I mean Patriarchal States to oppress and force erasure of women. This is EXACTLY why The Kashmir. How can India normalize equal rights for women when a whole province insists they're third class citizens (behind their own sons)? It has to end. Sharia law should be for the home, and the Mosque, not the government, just as Jews obey the Torah but dont expect it to become civil law (with certain exceptions *coughhasidimcough*) for everyone. This is the American interpretation of Freedom Of Religion, as it was taught to me. Nobody gets to make religion into law. Not Muslims, not Baptists, not CoE.
i know the burqa has nothing to do with islam as a religion itself however how some family can make it out to be so and teach their kids that its what expected of them if they want to be a good muslim girl/ have a good muslim wife. sometime religion and the wider culture around it are one in the same thing. its hard to draw the line at what is said in their holy book and how people truly practice that religion. i agree however their needs to be some way to better get help from the authorities but for the most part i dont think they would spend the time or money to set up something like that especially when they are underfunded and understaffed (referring to the uk police)
@@Exiled.New.Yorker A major problem with full face covers (ski masks, Burkas, et cetera) is that it makes it harder to identify a person thus it is easier to commit crimes without getting caught. So, because of this, in france they banned all full face coverings in public.
This isn't a debate that will be solved with people's emotions and political bias. I'd love to see a study on comparison of the wellbeing of oppressed women forced to wear niqab/burqa, and women who wear them by choice. Comparing the proportion of each group, there quality of life etc.
I have a friend who was raised in a Muslim household and she said if she had the choice she wouldn't wear a hijab but she's scared her parents would disown her. I'm not sure if they actually would or how strict they are but the fact that she is scared of that possibility is unnerving. I suppose it all depends on the wearer's circumstances of where they grew up and how strictly did their peers follow the Islamic doctrine. I think a hijab is literally the best option for both sides though. The face is uncovered but you can still say it's protecting 'modesty' or it's at least some form of a religious symbol.
@@Th35ix No, we shouldn't. I do feel sorry for people who are forced to cover up and people who feel immense pressure to wear religious symbols, but if it's their own personal choice to display their religion it's acceptable. I was just saying the hijab may be the best middle of the road option, since either way we swing from complete freedom of religious expression to a complete clamp down on religious symbols ends up with much more unhappy people.
As already mentioned paying for fuel or going in a shop with a helmet on can be difficult and I can imagine the response if you walked in a bank wearing a Balaclava. So in some cases I respect the need for security. However imo you cannot tell one person to remove head/face coverings while allowing another to wear the burka. It's my belief that if one person has to remove head wear it should apply to everyone. However criminals, terrorist or anyone else wishing to conceal thier identity can wear a burka and know people are unlikely to ask them to remove it. So if not worn for safety there is no legitimate need for them to be worn.
Not a fan of the burqa however its quite pathetic that its a point of focus when there are so many unethical things happening in the uk that are truly ruining peoples lives. Housing shortages, the high cost of housing due to mortgages being given for 35 years pushing prices up. Landlords profiting off housing when not being able to produce anything of actual value. Homelessness, the lack of youth centres, the stifling of young people in estates and the poorest areas where they get stuck in a roundabout of violence and drugs. And we are concerned about burqas...ffs.
Putting it out there for everyone: "PROUD" by Ibtaj Mohammed (first american olympian ever to compete wearing Hijab) is maybe the best biography I've read in years. It deals with her own struggles with how it is harder to integrate, but how it's not impossible and why to her it was important.
well outside of any party context in public I would consider a clown as suspicious! just as bank robbers also have used carnaval masks to hide their faces, clowns are to not in all public spaces acceptable! someone in full clown costume in a bussy train station I would expect to be searched for for hidden bombs by security!
Wahhabists are genuinely fucking crazy. Too bad they have millions of petrodollars propelling their cause and insist on undermining general social harmony and liberalism in countries like Bangladesh, where we've had a long tradition of secularism. Unrelated debate but it's because of Islamists that I diverge from other leftists on the death penalty issue-- terrorists and fundies don't deserve mercy.
I'm actually quite pleased with this video. I feel the fact that face coverings are not specifically prescribed in Islamic scripture is very rarely acknowledged in debates like these. I am also greteful for the mentioning of the actual origin of the burka as I think it will remind people that religion is not one big homogeneous group, as unifying as the tenets of Islam are, but it is heavily influenced by the culture who practice it.
If an item of clothing is an item of self-expression then it can be liberating. If an item of clothing is used by one person or group of people to limit the self-expression or freedom of another, then it is oppressive. So the question is not what the clothing is, but why is it being used?
No. Women should be able to wear as much or as little as they like. But they should be prepared to take them off when it makes sense. And they shouldn't impose difficult rules on their flatmates like "when you have a male visitor let me know so I can cover up". They have to understand that if a man sees their hair in a modern western country it is normal and nothing to freak out about.
I mean even though it probably sounds very strange to us I'd still respect someone's wish to be notified of a male visitor so they can cover up. Obviously I don't agree with that and it's obviously proof of institutionalised patriarchy in Islamic culture, but I still respect people's choices as long as they don't infringe on anyone elses choices.
So your argument is "women should be allowed to wear anything, but also not inconvenience us in any way". Why do you decide what's ok for someone else. Lying might be ok to you for example (white lies) but not to someone else. Do you decide what your ideals are or do others decide? Where's free speech and expression in that? It's one thing to remove the burqa to confirm identity and another to do what you're saying
@@eagle3676 Interesting questions, but I think you sum up my position correctly. I think people decide their own ideals, but groups of people can agree on conventions. I think that does support free speech and expression. "A good moral is one that one imposes on onseself. A bad moral is one that one imposes on others" is probably a good way to summarise it. I think its a fair, middle of the road approach.
@@seanegan8150 Well, its none of her business what gender identity her flatmates visitors have. Thats a more important principle to uphold. I would probably very politely say "sorry I am uncomfortable with reporting the comings and goings and gender details of my visitors to you, we don't really treat men and women that differentyl in this country. If the risk of a man, or a transgender women presumably. seeing your hair is great enough to you, then you should consider wearing it just in case. But it would be better to show some tolerance, and realise that if a man sees your hair for a second it will be ok, you can just go back in and put it on". So she has options. Its not like men are going to be running around and ripping her hijab off. Its perfectly acceptable to refuse a request we don't find reasonable or consistent with our values. Basically, I am perfectly happy with women wearign whatever headcoverings they like. I don't like or agree with the level of gender segregation such requests imply. It heavily contradicts my values and I would not be able to agree with such a request. Now it isn't me imposing those values on her so much as me preventing her from imposing her values on me or where I live.
Another great argument against is, if women are truly oppressed by the burqa (from the husbands and islam), why do we give police fines to the women themselves? That's like saying if a husband beats up and abuses his wife, and we should proceed to give the wife the police fine.
Are we also going to ban wearing a scarf to cover your face when it's cold? Thermal balaclavas? If you believe it's just a matter of security and about "head coverings" then you must also ban those.
Well not saying you should but you can draw a difference in reason for covering You can draw the line at banning face covering for purpose of concealing identity or banning face covering for purpose of concealing appearance It would be very hard and in practical but theoretically possible other then for thermal reasons you also have safety equipment Personally the only I could kind of stand behind is banning public service used for people with face covering as a blanket things. Which would include scarfs etc meaning you'd have to remove it to be served but if you just want to walk around town you can wear face covering
Yep the burqa is NOT Islamic, never has been, it is a nomadic Arabic practice only. Not required by Islam, they just need to cover their bodies and hair. End of. Also it is a security issue, no one is permitted to hide their face in public and yes the burqa has been used for crime too. BAN IT.
Harder to integrate: Yes Oppress women: Yes I feel unsafe: No (I just don't like it) Cannot integrate: Yes Militant Islam: Yes Express in any way: Definitely NO! If one should be allowed to express one's religion in any way, then ritual killings of babies and children would be legal, and this cannot be supported by law or public Self-expression: No! It is not self-expression when you do not have a choice in the matter.
And it's not "self-expression" when you purposefully hide your '"self" away from the rest of society. There's no expression of indivituallity here, it justs puts female individuals into the very broad category of "women" and deprives them of their individualities as people - which of course is the whole point
@@WestliFerZul Forcing someone to cover their face does harm that person. But the point is that, just because it falls under the label "religion" doesn't mean that we should tolerate anything
@@WestliFerZul If we allow one barbaric religious ritual, why not allow all. That's why so many are in favor of women and girls wearing burkas. We already allow a number of barbaric rituals based upon faith, such as male genital mutilation and the killing of unborn and newborn babies. So when it comes down to it, there's no reason whatsoever for society to ban the killing of grownup females for disobeying their father's will, banning the use of personal tents, female genital mutilation, or even sacrificing kids on alters. All it takes for each of these barbaric practices to be legalized is for those who practice them to scream loud enough. Western society couldn't ban Jews from practicing male genital mutilation since we ourselves practices ritual burning of women on the stake. Then when feminists screamed loud enough that they wanted to kill their unborn babies, we submitted to the mob and allowed it. Now we are submitting to the screaming mob that we should allow fathers and husbands to hide their daughters and wifes in personal tents. The next barbaric ritual to be legalized due to the screaming mob is the killing of grownup daughters who disobey their father's will. But we should ban them all! All faith based barbaric rituals should be illegal. All of them!
@@damienpeladan481 You do know that most women who wear it in the western world do it because they choose to right? How is it anyone's right to tell them not to do it?
Asking if you think a Burqa could be used to evade identification and capture by a person with malicious intent is completely different to asking if a Burqa makes you feel unsafe. The vast majority of people wearing Burqas (in my experience) have no malicious intent. I feel safe around them. I also feel that they are a security risk only in the way that they enable people to hide their identity as would any other method of disguise like a motorcycle helmet fake beard, or wig. So you can't say that "most TLDR viewers thought this wasn't the case." That's a non sequitur. "unlike the other two arguements, this is fundimentally about the wellbeing of the muslim women" is another logical leap. If 61% of people thought that wearing a hijab would make it harder to integrate then it's hard to argue that it wouldn't affect their ability to integrate into the local culture and society and form personal bonds with the locals, which is easy to argue would have a negative impact on their wellbeing at least in terms of an increased feeling of isolation. If the matter being discussed is religion related or not is irrelevant to the question as to whether people should be allowed to do it. As long as you respect other people, their property, and their time, everything else is fair game. You should be free to express yourself how ever you like, as long as that expression doesn't impinge on other people. "Face coverings make it IMPOSSIBLE for people to integrate" is an absolute term. Absolute terms are often easy to disprove because you only have to think of one counter example. Thus anyone who agreed with this has questionable logical judgment. Reletively speaking, very few things are provably impossible.
you summed up my thoughts Leo, especially on the very badly worded "feel unsafe" question which was them pushed way beyond what it could actually be used as evidence for
You've missed out an important argument against the ban. That banning burqas and other face coverings will hinder women's ability to leave their homes. The reasoning here is that a ban on burqas wouldn't result in women ditching them and going outside in a bikini. But rather that they would be forced to stay at home since it's the only place they're allowed to remove the burqa according to religious custom. This essentially makes them prisoners of their own homes.
prisoners of a religion not there own homes it is not in Islams Qumran or sultan so the only reason left is that men are using there power as a Muslim to abuse women and there rights men have to much power over women being a Muslim and its about time Muslim women stand up for themselves and be equal to Muslim man because a penis dont make a Muslim man better than a Muslim woman
Brutal stuff, yet the feminists are more concerned with a female news reader only making 100k pa when her male counterpart makes 150k and as white males, for us to even think about talking about it makes us rasis
banning burqas does not help muslim women. the security argument works best for me. however, if we want want to help muslim women, we need to treat them like doctors treat anti vac people. make them feel welcome and secure and slowly change their opinions. banning burqas or screaming terrorist at someone supports the belief that the world is against muslims and the only place these women are secure is at home. so they will withdraw from society and into their echo chambers. as a gay person, I sort of get the need to help indoctrinated victims. but using the police force is not the right way to do it.
In European culture, your face IS your identity. If you cover your face with something. That something becomes your new identity. Perfect example is "V" from "V for Vendetta". So by replacing there face with a veil, they are saying that there identity is "muslim woman." which is not a reassuring in the slightest. It is also an outwards decleration that they are not attempting to integrate with society. These are all things we understand on an instinctive level, while not knowing what exactly it is we are feeling/understanding. The solution is simply for these women to wear head scarves and western clothes... problem solved. Face on display, outward sighn of adoption of western culture, while remaining true to there religious modesty values.
European culture has nothing to do with your face. If anything that just sounds like an excuse to be racist and islamophobic. Europe does not revolve around religion. Why should they be forced to give up everything about themselves and their culture just so they can fit YOUR vision of what Europe is meant to be?
That's a pretty bad argument. Firstly, burqas are not related to integration at all. You have no idea what the women work in, who they help and how they participate in society from such a superficial analysis. Secondly, why us the identity of "Muslim woman" not reassuring? And why should it be reassuring to you? Let's flip the argument. Women showing a lot of skin might not be reassuring to a lot of people, but would you say that it matters? That's the best way to judge your own arguments is to flip it on your own biases. Plus muslims generally always carry the identity of Muslim that is "servant of God" with them. Men a d women. Or they should according to their religion. Their behavior, motivations, desires, etc are all centered around pleasing Allah. So is all that not reassuring to you? Are you gonna ban Muslims from behaving modestly, giving charity, praying, etc? Your work defines you everywhere, not your face. Whether it be western or eastern societies. Also to end this, I personally don't like the burqa but your arguments were so bad I had to say something.
@@seanegan8150 Ok... to address your points in order. 1.) ["european culture has nothing to do with your face]... wrong. Our attitudes towards the face and the inherent untrustability of people who hide there face, derrive from thousands of years of cultural experienc, where by, someone who was hiding there face, was almost certainly going to be someone you did not want to be near as a pesant. examples include... a knight coming towards you, highwaymen, bandits, thieves, executioners, pox doctors... need I go on. As such, our attitudes towards the covering of faces, is firstly informed by our shared cultural values, and then by other factors, like arguments and ideas expressed to us, followed by our own ideals. 2.) ["why should we ask them to give up everything about themselves"] ok wow... there is so much wrong with that statement, where do I start? Firstly, someones religion does not, and should not define everything someone is. Such an idea is deeply racist, fundamentally wrong and dehumanising. Not to mention, if the entirety of someones religion is there clothes, then it's a very shallow religion. And this is not the case with islam. 3.) [they should not have to give up there culture to fit in with your vision of Europe] There are some very good reasons why a country should expect people who move within it's borders to uphold certain established cultural values, even within a successfully multicultural society, as different cultures, but definition, have different cultural values. For the most part this is not an issue. But there are some differences in values that are extremely important and expecting immigrants to adopt local cultural values as the norm are necessary. For example, the UK has had issues with people continuing the cultural practice of murder. in the form of honour killings for example. While this is an extreme example. I feel it does illustrate why not all cultural values are compatible with a multi cultural society.
I mean I know you are trying to play statistics here but you should refer to way more representative studies and surveys rather than talking so much about your relatively tiny audience responses. RU-vid viewership, particularly of this type of channel, will be severely skewed to one demographic, also especially on youtube you will attract lots of rightwing agitators and even trolls - who will deliberately try and push your results one way or another (people saying they are muslim but hate/fear people who wear a burka). It's like doing an anonymous survey in one particular pub in one particular area of London - the result could hardly be described as informative, perhaps taking the temperature but that's it.
You must be insanely stupid. He just said, that 19% of his viewers are against Burka and 81% pro Burka. It is selfevident that his audience is skewed very strongly to the left. Also this channel supports every single niche of sodomy LGBTQIP+. The plus stands for yet unspecified non heterosexual groups.
I guess tgere is just a difficulty to find the kond of studies they find and think their viewers find interesting. And they did cover some polls conducted in UK for example.
He also makes some big mistakes about. The burqa or niqab not being within Islamic while the wives of the Prophet p.b.u.h. used to wear it, and there are plenty of sources that it is build on,, he also said the ruling about sex outside wedlock only applies to women, this is also wrong men need to marry these women even if it's multiple. Also women can pursue professional jobs if in agreement with their husband, but he said they couldn't and are not allowed to do this. Also, he claimed these practices are all exclusive to Wahabism while they are found throughout almost all strands of islam. I really feel insulted when people try to claim they know my religion with a 10 minute google it's a big insult and it's pushing of false beliefs that have consequences in society. I don't know if these are all mistakes or this is his bias showing maybe because he is homosexual, but you should stay objective my friend I hope it was a mistake and you learned.
I once spent a month working in Saudi Arabia, amidst a number of male and female Saudi colleagues. The thing that struck me the most about the Saudi women colleagues I met was, how very NORMAL they were. Of course they were limited in the kind of interaction they were permitted with men other than family, (I'm male btw), but they were friendly towards me, they chat, they laugh and tell jokes, they gossip, they even talk about boys. Most of them wore the hijab, showing their faces, only one among them wore the niqab, and thinking back, she was the one with whom I had virtually no interaction. I found it quite hard and disconcerting to talk to someone whose face is covered.
We had that Discussion in Denmark. And ended up with something like Any covering of the Face should be banned in the public area. You can, of course, use a helmet when you are riding a Motor Bike.
that is so much nonsense. do men have to shave their beards? How about surgical masks to cover the nose and mouth to avoid germs? That is an East Asian convention.
@@runedyrting8476 I meant, if you were wearing a surgical mask in public. And a beard conceals your face as well. Logically, the law as written, is very poor.
It's not required for a Muslim woman to cover her face. So, if it's causes a threat to other people life then the priority goes to human life. Muslim women are told to cover their hair not face. (I would not watch your comment, so don't waste your time).
*First, about clown makeup and wearing a scarf in the winter:* the former is a professional convention and is for the entertainment, the latter is worn for comfort or required for personal health and safety. You can actually right that into a law. Not a problem. *About the law:* if someone wants to wear a berkah, let them. However, they might be subject to increased scrutiny by the law, especially if its obvious that a MAN is wearing one. Also, it will tip the public and police that you are dealing with a conservative muslim and should make allowances. Wearers should be able to remove any head coverings upon demand by the police, even when on the street. That means that if the woman walked out in her pajamas, it could be embarrassing. *About hiyabs:* I know someone who wears one. My pharmacist is a Palestinian muslim. She wears a hiyab and is a stylish dresser. When there is a wedding in the family, she has henna on her hands. She is married with 4 kids. She and her husband are Americans with ethnic roots, just like my Irish forebears were. I might add, my forebears all wore crosses and swore Catholic oaths on occasion. Nothing to see here, move along . . . I trust her with my life.
I don't disagree with anything you say really. Just being a devil's advocate. No.1 your argument about comfort is relatively loose because I could argue that the burqa makes me feel comfortable. No.2 what does increased scrutiny mean? and who does it affect? I agree with showing your face when questioned by police, however, it does come into question what would warrant an officer to ask a person to remove their hijab. If a burqa is seen as a piece of clothing, why wouldn't this be considered a strip search? In addition to this, wouldn't you say that this would disproportionately affect the brown and black minorities compared to the white? So I could make an argument that you are making discriminatory laws. My profile, I am a male aithest from India living in the US right now. I have more Muslim friends than I can count. I don't know Muslim women who actively wear a burqua but I know many Muslim women.
Katana it wouldn’t t affect the brown and black more than what their proportion is in the Muslim community compared to the whole nation. It WOULD affect muslims more because 100% of burka wearer are indeed Muslim. So yes it would be discriminatory in that sense. But not racist ... To show the fallacy of your ethnic discrimination argument : would you say an increased tax on high revenue would be discriminatory against European-Americans? No it would just be targeting the rich, most of them happen to be white skinned ... Even weirder analogy (to show how much I dislike this way to look at things) : “researched showed that the majority of thieves are purple, in order to be sure that the laws of our country are t discriminatory against purple skinned people we will make thefts legal, I am sure it will make us a better, fairer and more equal society” You see my point? This path is dangerous ...
So we can use a balaclava to get into a public building? Change the question when a religion want to force others on accepting their values it don’t matter if is Cristian budista or any other believe. I can’t accept my security is deprive because some one else believes.
@@seanegan8150 religion should have nothing to do with it, in the west church and state are seperate correct? full face covering in public bad, be it a balaclava or the nikab or whatever it is called, wear whatever you want at home, pray to whatever god you wish in your religious building or in the privacy of your home. do not bring it out in public
It's the Stockholm Syndrome effect. When a person is born into a society where they constantly have to hide themselves from the eyes of sexual predators, it becomes difficult for them to stop hiding themselves even when they are living in a free and safe society..
Head coverings like the hijab are present in pretty much every world religion for more conservative practitioners. (Yes even Christianity, Nuns lol). I lean towards the "security" side of the fence, not for Burqas or Niqabs, just face coverings in general in public places for men, women, etc. (unless mandated by some obscure medical necessity). But it's still a very complex issue with multiple sides all with good arguments for themselves. The nice thing about these statistics you've obtained is that it illustrates there isn't really a clear demographic for this either, with background not having much relationship to their answer.
I'd agree in removing religion from society as it has no place in the modern world, but I also want to respect people's choices and their cultures. It's a shame that Islamic cultures are so patriarchal in nature but discriminating against them for following their religion (as long as it doesn't affect other people's choices) is unacceptable in my view.
Seán Michelangelo Charles Egan That’s exactly why I have such a hard time seeing a burka ban as a valid solution, because it’s like treating a symptom, but not the cause of the disease. Ban the burka if you want, but you’ll upset a lot of people and almost certainly won’t change their minds about religion, which is the ideal outcome and should be the focus. I suppose some would argue banning the burka is a quick and simple way for reaching that point, but I’m not convinced it’s working where the ban already exists. As the video says, some parts of Africa banned it yet they’re still deeply religious.
I never voted, but if nothing else I'm in favor of the ban simply based on a health risk, you see women wearing them in fast-food places as opose to the standard uniform and hair net when handling food and I find it quite disgusting, whilst everyone else is wearing what they are supposed to.
Belgian here. To quote our beloved politicians; we dont have a burqa ban. We banned all religious signs in public places. Which obviously includes Burqas etc
@@tamberlame27 The same way tourist who go to the UAE must respect others laws. By reading up about what you can and cant do in public. My experiance for the UAE. Never get in a taxi alone if you just left your hotel on your own. They will take you straight to a police station if they think you have had a drink. As they get bounty money. Same goes for leaving a night club. Never show public affection. Simple its not allowed. Dont take your misses to the beach unless you want to be oggled by 100's of arab men watching for the edge. If in Bahrain. Never walk through a black flag area alone. They are not up for exclusion however it is a very well know unwritten rule.
Ban, you have to cover your face as a woman travelling to their countries. You have to open your face as a woman when you are in our countries. We respect your rules and you respect ours, otherwise leave. How hard can it be?
The state shouldn't be in the business of telling people what to wear, in this I agree. But people covering their whole face should expect others to be distant and weary, and they absolutely should not be allowed in licenses or similar official documents.
Another Argument against the ban: If those women who already wear Burkas or Niqabs are in controlling abusive relationships with their husbands or in a abusive household, then they might not be "allowed" to leave the house AT ALL by their family. Meaning that they will just stay lockd up at home . Or even CHOOSE to not leave the house because the idea of leaving the house without covering the face is more terrifying to them than staying home and letting the men do their paper work and grocery shopping for them
I spend several weeks a year in Kuwait, with Kuwaiti men women and children. My impression is that is is simply a matter of a personal standard of decency. In the way same way that you wouldn't go to the shops in your swimsuit, they wouldn't go to the shops without their hair covered. Different women have different personal standards. Many women on local TV are uncovered (or at least, they appear to be... one approach to the issue is to wear a wig), many of the older women are more modest. I see women with different standards integrating together (including my wife who dresses like a Westerner) in complete comfort. Behind closed doors (my wife went to the ladies ceremony at a wedding), the standards are the same as in the West.
Men beating, raping, falsely arresting, and killing women for what they wear happens all cultures. Blame the men responsible, not the women's clothing.
Sean For the want of a better phrase: “Islam is a broad church”. In the Kuwait culture with which I am familiar, clothing choices are made by the women - there is a strong, powerful and independent woman’s social circle. Your insistence is controlling what they might wear would be culturally identical to you trying to dictate that my wife should wear her skirt shorter than she is comfortable.
I can see the desirability of banning facial coverings from a security perspective - but I've worked at designing security controls for 10 years now, and can see the desire doesn't translate to a workable solution. Any face covering is equally problematic. But some face coverings are actually required by law - safety gear, for example. Thus a gap exists which can be exploited by an adversary. Therefore it is not possible to acquire the desired sense of safety: people could still be harmed by a determined attacker, despite this control, so unless the ban was otherwise easy to implement & enforce, you're investing effort that gives little return. And I'm thinking more of time spent rather than money, for reference - imho you must find the money if it's a worthwhile control. What if the true motivation for this policy is surveillance capitalism, rather than security? Far from improbable imho. Though perhaps more likely, the source is politicians who want us arguing about anything other than their failings, synergizing with surveillance capitalism interests (and perhaps thus attracting financial incentives..?)
Like you said I see why it's desirable from a security perspective tho one way you potentially could implement it in a way to get around for example safety equipment is not to out right ban it, but instead to ban public services from being used unless it's possible to identity an individual. It would make face covering inconvenient and there by minimize it without banning it
"For security" is one of those arguments that are made assuming it will be accepted without question. I don't. Everyone could walk around fully concealed at all times and it would be fine. How hard it makes it for police: boo hoo. The argument for banning covering is the same as mandatory forehead ID number tattoos, "for security." I think religions are all wrong and these traditional practices are backwards mentally but you can't legislate enlightenment. How about a ban on crucifix necklaces in public? It's certainly oppressive and a security threat. This is very thinly veiled (ha) xenophobia and only that. Look at the other comments about "defending Western culture" straight from Ben Shapiro's manifesto.
@@hampussehlin8924thanks, and I do see your point too,. However in practice an attacker only needs as little as 10mins to commit an atrocity. The window of opportunity from donning gear that hides your features to actual act of violence is, in practice too short imho for us to expect someone to be challenged, When performing penetration tests, I & others take advantage of human nature. One day I stood lock-picking a door for 3 hours (yes, I'm pretty crap at it!) but *no-one* challenged me. I think it would be the same if someone is trying to hide behind safety gear in public. And the solution, to my mind, could only be greater surveillance & more people willing to challenge. If you take those roads, your attacker is now dictating your behaviour: this is always A Bad Thing (TM). For reference, I used to feel strongly that a ban made security sense,but these aspects made me realise that - as often is the case - more security measures could disempower you rather than empower. Peace.
@@frederf3227 I've coined Lamb's Law, which states that listening to Ben Shapiro is equivalent to a remote lobotomy. That aside - and as an "insider" on security - I totally agree that "for (national) security" is a red rag. See my original final point about surveillance capitalism. But there are times when any of us might think "how was that possible?" And in *some* of those, *some* security controls *might* be legit. But not if they come from a politician.
@@frederf3227 xenophobia?? You do realize that Muslims aren't the only group that would be affected. For me I don't want a bad but even if that wouldn't be the group I'd care about but groups such as antifa. Problem with this debate is people turn it into burqa rather then face covering
Personally, I do not believe that a ban is the right way to go. However I do not agree with what the burqa, niqab, and to an extent, the hijab represent. As has been stated in the video, it is traditionally a method of oppressing women, which is not even mandated by the religion. There is no mention of the burqa in the Quran, it was an entirely independent cultural trait. Were this clear, I believe criticism of it would be far more common as one does not risk insulting someone's religion. I also wish to add that while it is not within our ideals to force someone to conforme to our standards, it is clearly within the ideals of most cases where the burqa has been in widespread use. Be that the Islamic terrorists such as the Taliban or Isis, or to a lesser extent Saudi Arabia. They do not allow women to dress the way they wish, so I find it amusing how the same argument is used against the ban of face veils or even headscarves. Frankly I do not have the highest opinion of the culture surrounding head coverings. I find that in most cases I have come across the family either reauested its use to a degree that the girl in question associates her own self worth with pleasing them in certain aspects, which boils down to emotional blackmail, or the female dons the covering as an act of rebellion against the family given that they are of a more liberal inclination. This would put the cover in the same place as the punk hairstyles of last century. I find that there is already so little choice in the matter that some action would not greatly impede one's choice of self expression. As stated above I do not advocate for government legislation, but I do believe some action should be taken. I do not have anti-islam sentiments, though I do disagree with practices of control in any culture. Which is what the hijab and its more extreme counterparts are. When I see a woman dressed in one I do not think her an independent, strong individual. I see someone shaped and controlled by a culture of emotional blackmail and extremism. I feel pity. I surprise myself again and again at how conservative I am certain aspects. I assure you, I'm far more open minded than this comment made me out to be. Note, I am arguing from the standpoint of an international citizen currently living in Germany. I am not religious, nor does my family have a religious background.
Burka and other face covers might be security threats. I don't see any other reason to ban burkas and other face covers. Other than security reasons, I think people should wear whatever the feel confortable with
Janos Merges That’s an odd way to put it. Do you really care what two consenting adults do at home though? I don’t like the assless chaps and dildos being in a parade with children, it does them no favours. Otherwise, meh.
A balaclavas is for example illegal to wear in a bank.... which is private property and they have the right to enforce a dress code... because private property... you can walk through the streets with one on as much as you like!
@@ShopSongs If a bank chooses to do that... private enterprises have the right to make their own dresscode.... THEY CHOOSE NOT TO DO SO.... if you want to force them sure... but in a constitutional state usually people and enterprises have certain rights.... if you want to force them to ban people wearing Burqa i might suggest moving to Saudi Arabia.... they do things like that... i on the other hand enjoy Democracy over Authoritarian States....
@@qutaibaabumatar6015 Women are not some special breed of humans, who exist totally unaffected by their environment. Not everything is empowering just because it's a choice. We can't be sure that we freely choose something when the society we live in put massive pressure on us to choose one over the other.
Catholic women only put a veil on in church when praying but not 24/7 they dress modest but do not cover there face at all, out side of church our hair or face is not covered so I don’t see how it’s the same
I'm an atheist, female, and Dutch. From a religious point of view, I think all forms of headdress (be it the hijab, niqab, or burqa) are as ridiculous as wearing a crucifix, yarmulke, turban, or any type of clothing that makes someone easily identifiable as having a specific religion. Over here in the Netherlands, women who subscribe to the more strict forms of Protestantism can be spotted a mile away by their clothing and hairstyles. To me, that's exactly the same thing. As backwards as it may look to me, people are free to wear what they want. I'd like to see someone try and tell me I can no longer wear jeans, T-shirts, and hiking shoes because those are reserved for men, or something along those lines. That said, I do understand there's a different angle to this, and I thoroughly agree anyone choosing to cover their faces should be willing to meet the people they encounter halfway. If, to touch on a recent occurrence here, a woman travelling by train on a personalised travel card is requested to show her face so she can be identified, she should comply. If showing her face in public or to a man is an issue, then she should at least agree to go somewhere private (even if that means stepping into the loo) with a female train guard or a fellow passenger to prove she's using her own ID card. Likewise at airports or in any situation where a person's identity needs to be verified. If all parties can agree to that, then I really don't see a reason to ban face coverings. Oppression and sexism are valid arguments, but a growing number of women do voluntarily wear the niqab or burqa nowadays. Wouldn't it be equally oppressive to tell a woman she cannot wear something she willingly chose? Wouldn't that be exactly the same thing as forcing me to wear skirts and heels even though I feel more comfortable in jeans and flats?
1. Saying that it shouldn't be allowed because it's not in the Qur'an is wrong for two reasons: A) you're basically saying there are state sanctioned interpretations of faith. I don't think Christianity wants to go down that road again. Even through the UK has a state religion. B) the Qur'an is only part of where the Islamic faith tradition is based and there are hadeeth that can be interpreted as a full face cover. That said, you are right that only the Khawarijite sect that wahabbism falls under considers it to be a religious obligation. 2)if you truly cared about whether or not its oppressive the people who do cover themselves should be the only ones to answer that. Don't virtue signal this. I know many people who do cover their face, but nobody tells them to do it; in fact, most tell them that it isn't necessary. 3)being "incompatible with western/British values" is a non-sequiter as "western/British values" has no meaning and is a dog whistle for my culture is better than yours. 4)banning it for security reasons would need evidence that it would help security in a meaningful way. I.e. that attacks have been carried out using the burka or the niqab. To further how stupid this particular argument is: even the khawarijite wahabbis say that you should show your face and identitfication for the purpose of security and identitfication. 6) very few people actually wear the neqab or burka and wouldn't help the overall integration (read assimilation) of Muslims because this will further that they are being targeted and oppressed more than they are in Britain. This was an interesting topic, but somehow after a 12 minute video there still isn't an real depth being reached; the whole video is just a shallow read of some stats of some people in your audience. You can do better and you should do better when it comes to sensitive topics like authoritarians oppressing minorities.
Do what you want at home or in mosques but on the street, where others potentially need to be able to identify you. Please don’t wear them. It’s not a big ask, perfectly reasonable.
