What is the limit of western freedom of expresion?

Remove all ads!

I'm, uh, not really at liberty to talk about that part. Use your imagination.

 

Ohhhh - so you really do have to intercept foreign transmissions and translate them to see if they represent threats to world peace.

I thought it might have been something really mundane like making sure that any Arabs in the Navy had access to Arab books or translating the menu for them or something.

 

The Navy also has German, Danish, Italian, Spanish, Chinese, Korean, Russian, Serbian, Croatian, Hindi, Persian, Pakistani, French, Portuguese, Japanese, Thai, and Swahili linguists, in addition to many others I'm sure I forgot to list.. So, what's your point?

 

What you are suggesting is oppressing an entire group of people in order to stop some of it's number from oppressing it's own. That's kind of hippocritical, don't you think? We can find a better solution.

 

Oppressors rarely judge themselves as such, Taluntain. It doesn't matter if you don't feel it's opression. It matters if they do. You having to look at it doesn't qualify as oppression.

Many Slavic nations customarily wear headscarves as well. There is no religous significance to that, so your "religous symbol" argument (about head scarves) is out. As mentioned earlier, headscarves are also commonly worn by some Jewish sects and even some conservative christians maintain the practice as well. Even the use of the Chidoor or Hijab has a cultural, not religous, basis.

Islam states that women (and men, too) must be modest, but doesn't get too terribly specific about what "modesty" is. Countries like Saudi Arabia and Iran have a very different definition of modesty than Iraq or Egypt. (Before anyone asks, I am not trying to defend the Saudi definition of modesty.) If full coverage were a religous issue, usage of the Hijab and Chidoor would be standard throughout the entire muslim world, but most Arab nations (all of which are predominantly muslim) don't even require the wear of a head scarf.

 

The hypocritical thing is to demand cultural tolerance of Europeans when not enough respect is shown to our sensitivities by certain muslims living here. The equality of men and women is a holy cow. The scarf is understood as the symbol of imbalance in that realtionship; it does not matter how some muslima feel it is proper for a woman to wear one, for it clashes with our views. They are not in the societies which support these traditions anymore, but in a community with rules of its own. That has to be taken into account when expecting a warm welcome. Ignoring the local rules has consequences.

It will never be accepted, and is at best tolerated.

Sure, we are not hurt or restricted in our freedoms as such by women wearing the scarf. No one in an Arab or other muslim nation is hurt as such either should Westerners come along and behave as is their undisputed right in Europe. Showing a lot of skin, on beaches or elsewhere, public displays of tenderness, for example. When you think us oppressors, what do you think of the taboos of their nations? Oppressive towards Westerners, too? Or are you just awfully one-sided in your argumentation?

 

Men are allowed to go shirtless in western society and women are not. Some would argue that this is a symbol of inequality between men and women. I fail to see the difference between men not wearing a headscarf (although in nations that generally wear headscarves, men customarily wear a head covering as well......) while women do, and men being able to go shirtless when women can't.

 

You skipped my point, which is sad.

So... is this recognition that the scarf is representative of an oppressive tendency among muslims? I mean, why else would some (you?) argue the injustices of Western culture, pointing out analogies.

 

I have not been fortunate enough to be in the thick of this discussion, though I have made a few comments. So if what I am saying is overly repetitive of anything that has been said by others, please forgive me.

I have no problem with grand, ostentatious or "in your face" expressions of religious belief. In that sense, I have no problem with big honking headscarves (or hijabs, chadors, or whatever term is used for the various headgear items.) I mean, some Jewish sects have been wearing very distinctive clothing styles for ages, and at the moment I do not believe that there is a call for them to remove their yarmulkes in schools. The limit that should be set is one that is supported by the VAST majority of the populace. Example:

Standards of decency regarding the covering of breasts, genitalia and (in general) vast amounts of skin are in place in most societies -- you do not go to work at a classy office in a mini skirt (for women) or a Speedo (for men). It's just not done. The vast majority of societies agrees with this idea, making it into a "societal norm". Therefore, anyone who tries to claim that their religion permits them to go around topless is not going to get very far in most societies.

Extra clothing, however, does not tend to engender a similar response, and while it may be a slight deviation from the norm to cover one's head, it is not a deviation that makes the vast majority uncomfortable (as bare breasts would be). It certainly doesn't have much of an effect on me how big a cross you have dangling around your neck, how much of your face is covered by your hijab, or how long you wear your sidelocks (some of those Jewish folks have those long locks of hair, forgot the technical term). My response is "knock yourself out!" But, if your apparelk somehow causes me an inconvenience (tall hat in a movie theatre, taking up 3 seats on an airplane with your yards of clothes) then in the interests of cooperation, the hat comes off and the clothes get piled. Most people are willing to "give and take" but if it's all "take" on the one side then eventually those who have been taken from are going to stop giving.

In addition to this, the idea that some women ARE forced to wear these things by violent coercion (acid in the face for women who dare to show their face, it has happened, no denying that) and the Western society responds with revulsion. The headscarf issue is met with Westerners saying "it may be acceptable to you to throw acid in the face of a woman whose face is visible, but it is NOT ACCEPTED HERE! Here, the vast majority of us believe that if she desires to show her face she can without being acid splashed, beaten to a pulp, or drowned in the family swimming pool (I got that last one from a book called "Princess" by a Saudi woman who escaped Saudi Arabia, but not before one of her friends was drowned by a family member.)

The issue is no longer "are you allowed to wear this scarf?" but "is your culture allowed to force, via violence, norms that the vast majority of us do not agree with?" The answer to this last question seems to be "no", at least as symbolized by headscarf bans.

I have much more to say, but I'll save it for another post -- this puppy is already WAY too long!

 

@Dendri: I did adress your point. I don't think it is Gender Based discrimination that women have to wear shirts. In other words, I'm considering the assertion that women being required to cover their breasts and women being allowed to wear a head scarf both being symbolic of an inequality between men and women to be equally absurd.

@Taluntain: Having to look at someone wearing a head scarf is not opression, since you aren't, uh, the one wearing it. No western court will ever agree with a statement like this. Thank God. And, while we are on the subject, there is no such thing as a "Muslim Religous Headscarf". Some headscarves may have religous symbolism on them (in much the same way that we put religous symbols on our T-shirts), but most do not. They are the same as those worn by Jews, Slavic Nations, and some Christians. You are still confusing religion and culture, here.

 

Drew, I don't think anyone is confusing religion and culture here -- the fact is that when the issue is brought up, some Muslims themselves will address the topic as being religious. if they do, then it behooves us to treat the issue as a religious one, at least partly. To do otherwise would be not to listen to those speaking, a bad move in any logical argument.

In any event, it's time for my next point -- the RCMP in my own beloved country. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police have had a dress code for over a century. A Hindu (IIRC, perhaps he was a Sikh) wanted to join but they wanted him to take off his turban. He said "no" and took it to court. Eventually the courts said he could wear his turban even if that meant he could not wear the headgear portion of the RCMP uniform. This was over 15 years ago. Canada is still here. So are the proud traditions that make the RCMP a national and historic icon. In this case, really, the issue was a waste of time - to my knowledge, this officer has done a great job, and no one was hurt because of his turban.

That's a narrow situation -- in a case wherein the clothing item in question is not an issue of personal expression but rather one of force, intimidation, and violence against a particular group, then the courts should ban or limit that piece of clothing.

 

The headscarf is a religious symbol according to courts all over Europe. It's the leading legal opinion.

Actually, people that argue that the scarf is merely a cultural symbol do so to make restrictions a non-issue. They're argument is: If it's only cultural, it's not religious and therefore no matter of religious freedom and therefore a ban on wearing scarves is no infriction of religious freedom.

The scarf is various things: Cultural, Religious and extremely political.

Again the great variety among different countries and cultures. There is no issue with women going to universities in Turkey. The state explicitly encourages women to pursue higher education.

Turkey offically breaks with traditions that keep women away form education, work and govermental positions. And sees banning the scarf as a important step to it. And guess what the political opinion of the parties that support those woman for the right to wear scaves in universites? They think education for women is highly questionable.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4424776.stm

 

In this case, I'd like to see if these Turkish universities ban smaller items of religious faith -- prayer beads, crosses, copies of the Bible, Koran, Talmud, etc. It looks to me in this case that possibly the pendulum has gone too far -- you shouldn't have to choose between higher education and the peaceful exercise of your religion.

Obviously, though, there is a LOT more going on under the surface. I'd guess they are trying to curtail the vast power of some entrenched Islamic groups.

 

In the US, the reason one feels a thing is irrelevant. I am a vegan, and have no religious reason for being vegan. However, my ethos is, for legal intents and purposes, given the same stature as religion. The government cannot force me to violate my ethos. In other words, if a woman feels, for any reason (due to religion or personal ethos without regards to a religion), that she is immodest when not wearing a head covering, forbiding her from wearing it is a violation of her constitutional rights. Her religion does not matter.

 

A mind of her own does however.

 

Exactly. And some women use their own minds to elect to wear a head scarf.

 

But most wear one to prevent molestation. The idea behind the scarf, or veil, is pure oppression. I know there are plenty muslima's who don't mind wearing one, after a while you get used to everything, but it still doesn't hide the fact that's it's first and foremost meant to strip women from their appearance.