Maryam Namazie interview: Ireland:

Previous page 1 2 34 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »
- Absurdist
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Re: Maryam Namazie interview: Ireland:
Reply #60 - July 21, 2010, 09:03 PM

I really don't buy the "security" reasoning. People in airports have a right to be checked by someone of the same sex anyway. How does the veil change things? A woman goes in private with a female security officer, take off her veil, and proceedings go as normal. And the same can be done with IDing for examinations and driving tests, etc.

And I don't see how wearing a veil would affect a woman's job as a teacher or nurse. Several of my aunts are both teachers and niqabis, and I don't think they've had any problems. And I've seen several niqabi nurses and they seemed to be working just fine.
- Jinn and Tonic
- My Place is the Placeless, the Trace of the Traceless
- Ex-Muslim
- aka عزرایل
- offline
Re: Maryam Namazie interview: Ireland:
Reply #61 - July 21, 2010, 09:04 PM

now see there, IA, I mentioned security (which in this day and age IS serious)
in the other thread and you guys bashed me!

When one door of happiness closes, another opens; but often we look so long at the closed door that we do not see the one which has been opened for us.
Helen Keller
- Iraqi Atheist
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Re: Maryam Namazie interview: Ireland:
Reply #62 - July 21, 2010, 09:10 PM

Quote from: HighOctane on July 21, 2010, 08:59 PM
IA, I say this in a nice way : honestly I don't see any concrete justification apart from personal acceptance .... which can extend to just having faith in an idea. While I think people have certain characteristics written in their blood (I think liberalism is part of your character, and that's not a bad thing at all), I do not think personal ideals should justify the livelihoods and welfares of thousands of people.

It's not simply having faith in a idea. These are the principles that Western liberal democracies were based on. Freedoms, civil liberties, and the bill of rights. It's not just me HO.
BTW, your stance is just an idea too.

Quote from: HighOctane on July 21, 2010, 08:59 PM
See, here you are using reason to justify the ban in specific areas.

Sure I said in certain government premises, a ban can be justified. I still stand by my stance that anything private should not be decided by the state.

Quote from: HighOctane on July 21, 2010, 08:59 PM
And here it is a personal belief. :-(

Sure it is. So is yours.
- Iraqi Atheist
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Re: Maryam Namazie interview: Ireland:
Reply #63 - July 21, 2010, 09:24 PM

Quote from: Abood on July 21, 2010, 09:03 PM
I really don't buy the "security" reasoning. People in airports have a right to be checked by someone of the same sex anyway. How does the veil change things? A woman goes in private with a female security officer, take off her veil, and proceedings go as normal. And the same can be done with IDing for examinations and driving tests, etc.

No.The state should not be required to provide a female staff in every situation.

Quote from: Abood on July 21, 2010, 09:03 PM
And I don't see how wearing a veil would affect a woman's job as a teacher or nurse. Several of my aunts are both teachers and niqabis, and I don't think they've had any problems. And I've seen several niqabi nurses and they seemed to be working just fine.

No. The state should be able to set guidelines for a dresscode for public sector employees. A child's education can be affected by a niqabi teacher.
- Jinn and Tonic
- My Place is the Placeless, the Trace of the Traceless
- Ex-Muslim
- aka عزرایل
- offline
Re: Maryam Namazie interview: Ireland:
Reply #64 - July 21, 2010, 09:32 PM

Quote from: Abood on July 21, 2010, 09:03 PM
I really don't buy the "security" reasoning. People in airports have a right to be checked by someone of the same sex anyway. How does the veil change things? A woman goes in private with a female security officer, take off her veil, and proceedings go as normal. And the same can be done with IDing for examinations and driving tests, etc.

And I don't see how wearing a veil would affect a woman's job as a teacher or nurse. Several of my aunts are both teachers and niqabis, and I don't think they've had any problems. And I've seen several niqabi nurses and they seemed to be working just fine.

actually, that was on the news recently, saying niqabs were a potential for bacteria and infection
in the surgical rooms. They couldnt be totally sterilized the way they were being worn.

When one door of happiness closes, another opens; but often we look so long at the closed door that we do not see the one which has been opened for us.
Helen Keller
- Absurdist
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Re: Maryam Namazie interview: Ireland:
Reply #65 - July 21, 2010, 09:35 PM

Quote from: Iraqi Atheist on July 21, 2010, 09:24 PM
No.The state should not be required to provide a female staff in every situation.

Like I said, it's required for certain things already--prison, airport, etc: basically things related to security. So why not extend it to other security-related issues? It'd be a better solution than banning the veil, pragmatically speaking. It pisses off much less people (it'd probably only piss off the xenophobes who think the goddamn Muslims are taking over) and doesn't oppress anyone.

Quote
A child's education can be affected by a niqabi teacher.

That's a good point, but needs studies to be done on it if there hasn't already been.
- Absurdist
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Re: Maryam Namazie interview: Ireland:
Reply #66 - July 21, 2010, 09:37 PM

Quote from: Jinn and Tonic on July 21, 2010, 09:32 PM
actually, that was on the news recently, saying niqabs were a potential for bacteria and infection
in the surgical rooms. They couldnt be totally sterilized the way they were being worn.

I wasn't talking about in surgical rooms; I was actually talking about nurses in general in a hospital. So OK, if that's true, niqabis should be banned from entering surgical rooms or any room that requires sterilization. I just don't see why it should be banned in public buildings in general, especially when it comes to the "security" argument.
- Jinn and Tonic
- My Place is the Placeless, the Trace of the Traceless
- Ex-Muslim
- aka عزرایل
- offline
Re: Maryam Namazie interview: Ireland:
Reply #67 - July 21, 2010, 09:42 PM

i dont see why they couldnt modify a surgical mask into a quasi niqab, i suppose
probably not very cost effective, unless there was a significant population.

When one door of happiness closes, another opens; but often we look so long at the closed door that we do not see the one which has been opened for us.
Helen Keller
- Iraqi Atheist
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Re: Maryam Namazie interview: Ireland:
Reply #68 - July 21, 2010, 09:44 PM

Quote from: Abood on July 21, 2010, 09:35 PM
Like I said, it's required for certain things already--prison, airport, etc: basically things related to security. So why not extend it to other security-related issues? It'd be a better solution than banning the veil, pragmatically speaking. It pisses off much less people (it'd probably only piss off the xenophobes who think the goddamn Muslims are taking over) and doesn't oppress anyone.

Didn't I say "some" ?
Niqab must be lifted in some situations. And no, the state is not required to provide female staff for the sake of the Niqabis.
- Absurdist
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Re: Maryam Namazie interview: Ireland:
Reply #69 - July 21, 2010, 09:45 PM

Since you mentioned it, yeh, I think it can be done. Some hijabis actually wear certain hats instead of a hijab in certain situations, for example if it's really cold.
- Absurdist
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Re: Maryam Namazie interview: Ireland:
Reply #70 - July 21, 2010, 09:46 PM

Quote from: Iraqi Atheist on July 21, 2010, 09:44 PM
Didn't I say "some" ?
Niqab must be lifted in some situations. And no, the state is not required to provide female staff for the sake of the Niqabis.

Then you don't believe that people have a right to practice their religions freely, or to wear whatever they want, so why not be for banning the veil altogether?
- Iraqi Atheist
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Re: Maryam Namazie interview: Ireland:
Reply #71 - July 21, 2010, 09:49 PM

Quote from: Abood on July 21, 2010, 09:46 PM
Then you don't believe that people have a right to practice their religions freely, or to wear whatever they want,

How did you reach this conclusion?!
- ateapotist
- Supermassive Black Hole
- Ex-Muslim
- Spaghettifier Extraordinaire
- offline
Re: Maryam Namazie interview: Ireland:
Reply #72 - July 21, 2010, 11:56 PM

Quote from: MrSilly on July 21, 2010, 12:10 PM
Are there any statistics on the number of children wearing burka/niqab in the UK? Or even the of the number of burka wearers as a whole in the UK?

My skepticism about all the noise about this issue is that 2 countries that have made a big fuss about this, France and Belgium, actually have such tiny numbers of women wearing them nationally, <400 and <30 respectively. True, there are different sociocultural issues relating to the UK, and I would guess that the total number of women wearing burka in the UK is a lot more, i.e in the thousands, but the number of children being being forced to wear niqab/burka is going to be very very small, irrespective of your anecdotal evidence.

Which schools enforce a policy of burka/niqab for its pupils to and from school?

In my city, Leicester, there is at least one Muslim girls school where 11 - 16 year olds have to wear the niqab to and from school. In East London there is another. In Blackburn there are two Islamic girls' schools according to this website. They don't reveal their uniform policy, but I suspect it is pretty much the same as above. I am sure there are many other schools, but I haven't got the time to go digging for this information. The AMS-UK website is great but most of the schools listed don't have the uniform policy on their websites (if they have any).
These Muslim schools might not be very big, but it does suggest an underlying demand for this kind of isolationist, puritanical lifestyle to ensure the girls are pure and chaste, and hence preserve this cult.

Quote from: MrSilly on July 21, 2010, 12:10 PM
The question of how much choice children do have with regard to not wearing designer clothes is a moot point. There is a lot of social and psychological coersion, even though they have the physical freedom not to. Just as Muslim women are often coerced into wearing burka, even though they say that its their choice and that it liberates them.

My point was that the pressure is on a different level when it comes to conservative Muslims. Religion is used as a tool to control and pressurise these teenagers, and teenagers know that saying 'no' isn't much of an option.
With western white teenagers, there are no serious repercussions for being non-conformist, apart from chuckles etc. No teenager will get kicked out of the house for refusing to wear make-up or the latest fashions. If a Muslim teenager from a conservative family consistently refuses to wear the hijab, or decides to have a boyfriend, she could even be kicked out of the house.

"Many people would sooner die than think; In fact, they do so." -- Bertrand Russell

Baloney Detection Kit
- Absurdist
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Re: Maryam Namazie interview: Ireland:
Reply #73 - July 22, 2010, 02:47 AM

Quote from: Iraqi Atheist on July 21, 2010, 09:49 PM
How did you reach this conclusion?!

Because if you believe it's a right, it should be respected at all costs. That's what rights are, after all. Once you believe you can compromise a right, it ceases to be a right and becomes a privilege, something that can be taken away.
- Iraqi Atheist
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Re: Maryam Namazie interview: Ireland:
Reply #74 - July 22, 2010, 07:05 AM

Quote from: Abood on July 22, 2010, 02:47 AM
Because if you believe it's a right, it should be respected at all costs. That's what rights are, after all. Once you believe you can compromise a right, it ceases to be a right and becomes a privilege, something that can be taken away.

Well then you probably don't understand what freedom of religion and worship is. It's a negative right¹. Nobody is preventing a Niqabi from practising her religion. Nobody is making her go to the airport or apply for a driving licence or work as a primary school teacher.

Also, a truly secular state should be neutral in matters of religion, supporting neither religion nor irreligion. A secular state also claims to treat all its citizens equally regardless of religion, and claims to avoid preferential treatment for a citizen from a particular religion/nonreligion over other religions/nonreligion².

The state should not have to accomodate a particular religion or give special treatment to its followers such as employing female staff for the sake of IDing Niqabis or making exceptions to Niqabis when it comes to dresscode of public employees.

1/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_rights
2/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_state
- Absurdist
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Re: Maryam Namazie interview: Ireland:
Reply #75 - July 22, 2010, 08:44 AM

Banning the veil in certain places takes away the negative liberty, because the women would not be free from government intervention to practice their religion. Otherwise you can ban the veil from 99% of public places and tell women it's their fault they choose to go there.
- Iraqi Atheist
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Re: Maryam Namazie interview: Ireland:
Reply #76 - July 22, 2010, 10:26 AM

Quote from: Abood on July 22, 2010, 08:44 AM
Banning the veil in certain places takes away the negative liberty, because the women would not be free from government intervention to practice their religion. Otherwise you can ban the veil from 99% of public places and tell women it's their fault they choose to go there.

Again you don't understand what a negative right is.

I'm not for banning the ~~veil~~ niqab. I'm for making women lift it in some government buildings where IDing is necessary.
- J4m3z
- Ex-Muslim
- طالب الفلسفة
- offline
Re: Maryam Namazie interview: Ireland:
Reply #77 - July 22, 2010, 10:39 AM

Quote from: Abood on July 21, 2010, 09:46 PM
Then you don't believe that people have a right to practice their religions freely, or to wear whatever they want, so why not be for banning the veil altogether?

Because in some places, security is an issue, and the whole point of security is to ensure the safety of others. You could call this the right to safety. In some buildings, banning the niqab would be the lesser of two evils, because the right to wear a cloth across your face would be compromised for the safety (which is more important) of other people (more of them aswell). However, allowing somebody to wear a niqab walking down the street isn't compromising the safety of others by enough to justify overruling the right to wear a cloth across your face, in my opinion.

The unlived life is not worth examining.
- Iraqi Atheist
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Re: Maryam Namazie interview: Ireland:
Reply #78 - July 22, 2010, 10:41 AM

Quote from: Abood on July 22, 2010, 08:44 AM
Banning the veil in certain places takes away the negative liberty, because the women would not be free from government intervention to practice their religion. Otherwise you can ban the veil from 99% of public places and tell women it's their fault they choose to go there.

Abood let me ask a question and I'm dead serious about it. What if there was a religion that dictates that its followers be nude all the time. Would you allow a nude teacher to teach kids? or to take a driving test while naked?
- J4m3z
- Ex-Muslim
- طالب الفلسفة
- offline
Re: Maryam Namazie interview: Ireland:
Reply #79 - July 22, 2010, 10:54 AM

Quote from: Iraqi Atheist on July 22, 2010, 07:05 AM

Also, a truly secular state should be neutral in matters of religion, supporting neither religion nor irreligion. A secular state also claims to treat all its citizens equally regardless of religion, and claims to avoid preferential treatment for a citizen from a particular religion/nonreligion over other religions/nonreligion².

The state should not have to accomodate a particular religion or give special treatment to its followers such as employing female staff for the sake of IDing Niqabis or making exceptions to Niqabis when it comes to dresscode of public employees.

1/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_rights
2/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_state

That's what I love about secularism. Lot's of religious believers think Secularism is the anti-thesis of religion. They're like "you think secularism is right, I think my religion is right. So let's see which one is backed by the most evidence." But it doesn't work like that. The fact that they have secularism to thank for being able to speak their religious views and not get in trouble for it invalidates all their criticisms against secularism.

The unlived life is not worth examining.
- Iraqi Atheist
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Re: Maryam Namazie interview: Ireland:
Reply #80 - July 22, 2010, 10:57 AM

A truly secular state should treat the religion of the majority just like it does that of the minority. For example if the US was a truly secular state, Buddhism should be no different than Christianity as far as the state is concerned.
- HighOctane
- Ex-Muslim
- On the flr of Tokyo, or dwn in Lndn twn to go go
- offline
Re: Maryam Namazie interview: Ireland:
Reply #81 - July 22, 2010, 01:51 PM

Quote from: Iraqi Atheist on July 21, 2010, 09:10 PM
It's not simply having faith in a idea. These are the principles that Western liberal democracies were based on. Freedoms, civil liberties, and the bill of rights.

Google - define: principle: a basic generalization that is accepted as true and that can be used as a basis for reasoning or conduct;

Principle are very good things. But I don't think it is wise to accept them forever and always. They may reflect a large part of Western democracies, but by no means should liberalism be relied upon in areas of Western life when there exists better forms of rational.

Quote from: Iraqi Atheist on July 21, 2010, 09:10 PM
Quote from: HighOctane on July 21, 2010, 08:59 PM
And here it is a personal belief. :-(

Sure it is. So is yours.

I had a premonition you'd write that.

Again, I say this nicely, no flame intended : My stance is not a belief like yours is in liberalism. I'm interested, which belief do you think it is that I have? What belief do I appear to be holding to be more accurate? Right-wing-authoritarian-statism ones? Simply put, I can assure you this is not the case but I need your answer otherwise I will just be waisting my time typing. It will be a good answer, will get right down to the crux of thinking differences between us, promise you that.

-->> DONATE TO CEMB

Relativism | Cognitive dissonance | Cognitive biases | Memeplex | Consequentialism
- HighOctane
- Ex-Muslim
- On the flr of Tokyo, or dwn in Lndn twn to go go
- offline
Re: Maryam Namazie interview: Ireland:
Reply #82 - July 22, 2010, 01:53 PM

Quote from: ateapotist on July 21, 2010, 11:56 PM
In my city, Leicester, there is at least one Muslim girls school where 11 - 16 year olds have to wear the niqab to and from school. In East London there is another. In Blackburn there are two Islamic girls' schools according to this website. They don't reveal their uniform policy, but I suspect it is pretty much the same as above. I am sure there are many other schools, but I haven't got the time to go digging for this information. The AMS-UK website is great but most of the schools listed don't have the uniform policy on their websites (if they have any).
These Muslim schools might not be very big, but it does suggest an underlying demand for this kind of isolationist, puritanical lifestyle to ensure the girls are pure and chaste, and hence preserve this cult.

My point was that the pressure is on a different level when it comes to conservative Muslims. Religion is used as a tool to control and pressurise these teenagers, and teenagers know that saying 'no' isn't much of an option.
With western white teenagers, there are no serious repercussions for being non-conformist, apart from chuckles etc. No teenager will get kicked out of the house for refusing to wear make-up or the latest fashions. If a Muslim teenager from a conservative family consistently refuses to wear the hijab, or decides to have a boyfriend, she could even be kicked out of the house.

Thanks for the links, interesting!

-->> DONATE TO CEMB

Relativism | Cognitive dissonance | Cognitive biases | Memeplex | Consequentialism
- Iraqi Atheist
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Re: Maryam Namazie interview: Ireland:
Reply #83 - July 22, 2010, 02:29 PM

@HO,

You don't need to worry about flaming me. I'm chilled.

Your beliefs seem to be more based on utilitarianism and consequentialism than it is on the concepts of inalienable rights or civil liberties.
- Absurdist
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Re: Maryam Namazie interview: Ireland:
Reply #84 - July 22, 2010, 02:33 PM

Quote from: Iraqi Atheist on July 22, 2010, 10:41 AM
Abood let me ask a question and I'm dead serious about it. What if there was a religion that dictates that its followers be nude all the time. Would you allow a nude teacher to teach kids? or to take a driving test while naked?

Like I said, studies need to be done for the negative effects a niqabi teacher has on children. I'm not dogmatic about it, I just think there needs to be strong evidence against it.

As for banning the veil in airports, driving schools, etc., I just think it's ridiculous and undermines freedom of religion when in fact the price of giving niqabis female security officers, female driving instructors, etc., would be a much easier and more just solution. Wearing the veil (I've been referring to it as the "veil" to mean the face veil) and security aren't mutually exclusive. Remember that niqabis are allowed to show their faces to female security officers.

And it's not preferential treatment; it's reasonable accommodation. Different peoples require different things in different situations. They all have a right to be treated differently where they require it. That way, they're equal. This is the norm in Canada.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_accommodation
- Iraqi Atheist
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Re: Maryam Namazie interview: Ireland:
Reply #85 - July 22, 2010, 02:43 PM

@Abood,

Let's agree to disagree then. There's no point continuing this discussion.
- Absurdist
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Re: Maryam Namazie interview: Ireland:
Reply #86 - July 22, 2010, 02:46 PM

I agree, lol.
- HighOctane
- Ex-Muslim
- On the flr of Tokyo, or dwn in Lndn twn to go go
- offline
Re: Maryam Namazie interview: Ireland:
Reply #87 - July 22, 2010, 03:00 PM

Quote from: Iraqi Atheist on July 22, 2010, 02:29 PM
@HO,

You don't need to worry about flaming me. I'm chilled.

Very well then

Quote from: Iraqi Atheist on July 22, 2010, 02:29 PM
Your beliefs seem to be more based on utilitarianism and consequentialism than it is on the concepts of inalienable rights or civil liberties.

Oh, I see. Very interesting. I shall get back to this thread a little later. Must use afternoon productive level of concentration for more urgent matters.

-->> DONATE TO CEMB

Relativism | Cognitive dissonance | Cognitive biases | Memeplex | Consequentialism
- HighOctane
- Ex-Muslim
- On the flr of Tokyo, or dwn in Lndn twn to go go
- offline
Re: Maryam Namazie interview: Ireland:
Reply #88 - July 22, 2010, 09:09 PM

Quote from: Iraqi Atheist on July 22, 2010, 02:29 PM
Your beliefs seem to be more based on utilitarianism and consequentialism than it is on the concepts of inalienable rights or civil liberties.

Right then, back to this thread.

Interesting. Well, although I pretty much agree with both of those concepts (makes sense to me), please do not think that I have a belief in them which is the underlying reasons for my opinions.

I think by rationality by looking at the data, surveys, analyse the information, forecasted preditions, then deciding on what is the best action to take in light of evidence and reason. I guess the effect of this approach is consequentialism. Taking this approach, I think civil liberties (for example) have their place and there are underlying reasons I support them. e.g. Freedom of speech: I obviously support this for many good reasons except in very specific areas e.g. releasing secretive government intelligence or inciting hatred. So, it's not that I believe in Consequentialism, more that what I think is rational ends up appearing consequential.

Hope that makes sense!

-->> DONATE TO CEMB

Relativism | Cognitive dissonance | Cognitive biases | Memeplex | Consequentialism
- Iraqi Atheist
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Re: Maryam Namazie interview: Ireland:
Reply #89 - July 22, 2010, 09:24 PM

It makes sense. And your stance is not irrational or inherently bad.

All I'm saying is that sometimes your views will lead you to advocating paternalistic illiberal measures such as fully banning the Burqa. I know you mean well and I know that such measure might have positive effects. But I just cant accept it. I hope you understand.
Previous page 1 2 34 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »