Point is that such 'choice' is not a choice at all but a mere illusion designed to mask the lack of freedom.
If I read you correctly, that is what I think about women do say they truly WANT to wear the burka. They wear it not because they are free, but because they aren't free and were not free in their upbringing with the creed of Islam fed into their minds.
I respect your point of view also sofian86, and I know I come across as a harsh bastard, close minded even, but if I could offer you some trust it would be that it is
tough love really!
HighOctane: So you are against both freedom of religion and freedom of expression?
To a certain extent yes. When religion goes too far (e.g. push homosexuals off a cliff) then yes there is a beneficial reason to curb religious freedom. The burka has enough social implications for it to be banned imo.
1)banning stuff is an act of force. People always respond defensively to force - so for example, if a parent hits their child for doing X, the child will likely continue doing X when the parent's back is turned. Its much more effective for parents to explain and persuade..
I agree it is an act of force. I agree there will be defensive reaction. I disagree that most burka wearing woman have the choice to explain and persuade to their husbands and mothers and brothers why they don't want to wear it any longer. The social pressure are huge and intricate. There are many threads on these forums alone how women are trying to persuade their family not to wear a scarf. There are girls who've been murdered for not covering themselves by their fathers. It is a real problem and it does exist. If this ban comes in place think how a young girl can say, "afraid not dad, the law prohibits it". When brought up in a family where there are plenty of shouting matches of a scarf, I think the law should defiantly be on the side of such girls and women.
2)If I only believe in some freedoms and not others, or freedoms for some people and not others, I don't actually believe in them at all.. I couldn't genuinely believe in things like democracy and human rights if I support the criminalisation of the Niqaab.
I think there has to be a, okay will sound cheesy, an ethical and moral standard by what freedoms are given to people. Although we are very free in the West, we are also not free for beneficial reasons. We must wear a seatbelt, drive under the limit, respect traffic lights. To extend on this, we are not free to insult racial hatred or sexually harass women at work. To extend it even more, religious groups or people advocating violence like Zakir Naik get banned from speaking out. My point is I am afraid there are many, many freedoms which are curtailed for beneficial reasons. The Niqqab is just another. This does not mean a nanny state or a totalitarian 1984 life, it means people with the minds who can figure out what is right and wrong implement rules that are beneficial to the whole of society. And the society as a whole can vote on this. Most British, German and other European nations would ban the burka if it wasn't for the idealism of multiculturalism or the fear by spineless MPs (like my own constituent) who thinks it will cause even more extremism.
I've also gotta say that Exmuslims against the Niqaab are kind of on the same boat as me - you can't really advocate for freedom from religion whilst wanting to curtail others' freedoms.
Hope the above point explained this point.
Glad we are not getting all personal over our PoV's.
Topic: 6 May 2011, Oxford Union Debate on multiculturalism, Oxford