She is a slave who loves her shackles.

Of course there will be women who defend the burqa.

I'll spare you my usual long winded lecture and cut to the chase.

Woodrow Wilson I think it was, said: "We must defend the dears, even against their wishes." Or something to that effect.

''A faraway, fire-eyed Saudi cleric? No. This site is hosted in Norway. The site’s moderator is one Espen Egil Hansen, and the managing director is someone by the name of Jo Christian Oterhals. ''

One thing. Immigrants in Norway have been known to give themselves Norwegian names because it is easier for them to find jobs, etc. Hell, sometimes I have issues here because of my Anglo-Saxon surname.

The 3 guys busted recently for plotting terrorist attacks on Norwegian soil? One had a very distinct Scandinavian name. So perhaps Mr. Espen Egil Hansen has adopted a new name after arriving here. Who knows.

As for the rapes by immigrants in Oslo... I think the Norwegian authorities need to hold campaigns teaching women about how to deter a rape (self-defense, screaming fire, fighting back, osv.). They already have something called 'Night Ravens' to help escort people to cabs, except those aren't always safe either. There isn't anything in place. Just pamphlets that say call the police if you have been assaulted. It's pretty fucked up here.

Sorry to hijack the blog item.

I'm with her. I hate the burka and all it stands for. I also hate government getting in people's business so minutely that it's telling them what they can't wear. But I'm glad they're banning it, because that's the point we're at now. I hope the US follows suite post-haste.

Okay, I was lazy and didn't read the whole article. But I agree with her point that the burka must be banned to protect unveiled women 100%. In Europe, a women does not need to wear a burka unless she wants to. Therefore, I have little sympathy for those who choose to do so, as it is mostly done out of sheer provocation.

On the other hand, I have no doubt that unveiled women have trouble in some neighborhoods in Europe. I still occasionally wear a headscarf "babushka-style" to keep off the rain or snow, and I have had many of my Muslim acquaintances tell me how beautiful I look with it. They just treat me different when I am wearing a headscarf...and it pisses me off that I can't wear a headscarf and my husband can't wear a beard anymore without people getting the wrong idea.

I'm not aware that anyone is calling to ban the burka in the US, so I really don't understand what the US Constitution has to do with the matter of banning the burka in Europe or Turkey; Maybe I need to read the full article?

The top bit is mine. I give my view first, Liz -- and Berlinski's is just below it.

I've had my say. An exception for Halloween.

I guess the first question one must ask is Islam really a religion, or is it as Robert Spencer claims "a totalitarian political system masquerading as a religion?"

Children in the US are prohibited from wearing gang colors to many inner city schools because these colors represent the violence and corruption of those gangs. Couldn't a similar argument be made against the burqa which also represents repression and violence? Just a thought.

What about recent US court rulings that prohibit defendants from wearing a burqa while giving testimony because it hides facial expressions which can be crucial in determining the sincerity of the wearer's comments?

One final thought. IMHO, the only job of the government is to protect its citizens from those who would forcefully deny them their rights. Should't we protect Muslim women from Muslim men who deny them their rights by forcing them to wear the burqa? Let's not be confused by the pleas of the Muslim women who defend this practice. They are clearly suffering from the Stockholm syndrome.

I don't see the ban as an attack on religious freedom. There is the issue of crime. We don't allow men to walk around in face masks for a reason, so why allow women to be covered except for their eyes? The state clearly has the right to prevent citizens from concealing their identities. They can wear whatever they want on the rest of their bodies, but covering their faces is not in the public interest.

I hope the US follows suite post-haste.

Posted by: momof4

Please, the feds just got finnished telling arizona they had no right to enforce a law that is no the books and they efuse to enforce.

If our government wont do aything about drug smuggling, human smuggling, and the murder of american citizens who hapen across theses people - what makes you think they are going to do anything about a peice of clothing?

I'm with AllenS on this one. He said it way better than I would have.

Looking at my post, I can see that I should have clarified who I was referring to. I was referring to the story of the businesswoman described by Berlinski in her article who said she began veiling in high school, which really irritated me.

There's an interesting connected story here.

When we last had this discussion (at the blog item Amy links to at the top), I had my mind changed by some compelling arguments in the comments section. I started out on Amy's side completely - we've no right to tell people what they can/cannot wear.

But some people in the comments made the argument that we shouldn't allow full face coverings in public. I cannot recall who it was, but someone brought up the hooded KKK members. For public safety, its necessary that we see your face. There are exceptions to this (Halloween, face masks for illnesses, etc), but I'm not sure religion should be one.

If you want to get a driver's license, you need to take the veil off to have your photo taken. If you want to walk inside a bank or airport, you need to take the veil off.

If this were farther back in time, I'd say that we could let individual businesses make up their minds about whether or not to ostracize. But in a society where we can't let a restaurant ban some neo-Nazis (http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/05/28/should_business.html), I'm not sure that's the case.

My views aren't set in stone. I definitely don't think that its right to infringe upon people's clothing choices - but the covering of the face really does bother me because any asshole with two brain cells to rub together can decide they're going to go full-tent just to avoid being seen by any CCTV, security cams, or whoever before they go around committing crimes.

So I'm interested to see where this conversation heads...

Remember how "your right to swing your arm stops at my nose"?

Remember how "free speech doesn't mean you can yell fire in a crowded theater"?

So religious freedom also has limits when religious practices impinge/violate other communal values, or other people's rights.

Which is why kosher-style slaughter is prohibited in Scandinavia, and you need a note from your rabbi to circumcise your son.

So?

Each society makes its rules.

Don't like it?
GO BACK WHERE YOU CAME FROM.

This issue always brings to my mind the woman in Florida, a convert to Islam, who insisted that she should be allowed to have her driver's license photo taken with her face entirely covered. Fortunately, the courts disagreed. Besides, the thought of someone driving on a crowded urban freeway with her vision so drastically limited must surely give rise to shudders.

Idgets, idgets, and more idgets. This is not a problem with a gov't solution. The solution is property rights; I won't/will-only serve you if you wear a burqa. I won't/will-only rent to you or hire you if you wear a burqa. You want my property; money, time, whatever, then don't offend me. The REAL problem is gov't stealing my property. Stop using gov't to coerce others or others will use gov't to coerce you. Mind your own business.

"Remember how "free speech doesn't mean you can yell fire in a crowded theater"?"

Ben-David beat me to it. I would love nothing more than to allow them the freedom to wear burqua's - but not when it impacts my personal freedom and safety.

See also; "The Constitution is not a suicide pact"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Constitution_is_not_a_suicide_pact

"[a] strict observance of the written law is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to the written law, would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the ends to the means." - Thomas Jefferson

OI, lost a whole post... so I will sum up. Buried in Berlinski's piece is the REAL problem with Islam.

They don't see themselves as having full agency to make decisions. They don't possess themselves. It's all about "as Allah wills" "as it is written in the Koran" "As the Prophet did..."

This is the mindset behind:
"If you take out uncovered meat and place it outside . . . without cover, and the cats come to eat it . . . whose fault is it, the cats’ or the uncovered meat’s? The uncovered meat is the problem. If she was in her room, in her home, in her hijab, no problem would have occurred."
- Sheikh Taj el-Din al-Hilali from Berlinski's piece.

They are blaming the MEAT, for a decision the CAT makes. They are saying that the cat can't make the decision, it is just responding to it's nature. Or they could say it's the "will of Allah"

This denial of agency, makes it possible to do all sorts of nasty things, because you can't make your own decisions after all.

This problem happens a lot in various philosphies and religions that believe in some sort of external power calling the shots, without you having the ability to own yourself, or your own decisions. Call it fate, luck or kharma, or the will of some flying speghetti monster.

rather than believing that for whatever reason you were givien a brain, and higher thinking ability, it made it possible for you to make a decision. And whatever power gave you that ability, even if it was simply chance, you are meant to intentionally make a decsion.

This explains a lot about why they blow themselves up, about why they may hate, or not really care about us at all. If you never have to take responsibility for certain things, why would you?

That is much worse than headscarves or covering up. It's hard to negotiate with someone who believes their actions are not only sanctioned by religion, but are contrary to your civilization's existance. And that they DON'T have a choice in the matter.

As pointed out, you can worship ba'al. But you can't sacrifice children.

this is where the line needs to be drawn with Islam.

More Berlinski discussion here:

http://www.ricochet.com/conversations/Ban-the-Burqa

Now do we ban the burka because we hate it? (Because that's THE real reason). I also hate tattoos, and jewelry hanging from the nose. Oh and I hate all the rude people who litter my street. And the smokers too, they stink and look like sore losers. And all the religious nutbars of any brand as well. Let's have a vote and ban what we hate the most around us before they spread too much and become socially accepted. Need I say more?

The burka has nothing to do with the Koran.

It is how some Muslim sects define living by the example of Mohammed.

Therefor banning the face veil is not an affront to religious freedom.

> Banning the burqa is without doubt a terrible
> assault on the ideal of religious liberty.

Oh, I have some "doubts."

I think that when you wrap a human being like that –a grown woman– in shapeless sheets of cloth which hide her mood and her response to her environment, your purposes far exceed the religious.

Besides, "ideals" are very personal whereas ideas are often public. No matter how much admiration I could feel for a religious person, or how enthused I could get about their liberty (or mine), I just don't think you have any business hiding people that way.

So, Alan... do those stinking sore loser smokers rape you because you don't smoke? Or Blow up your children?

Way to entirely miss the point.

Need I say more?

Posted by: Alan

Yes, say how tattoos, nose jewlery and your rude neihbors who litter are a part of an ever expanding totalitarian movment hell bent on relagating mankind to the bronze age and killing anyone who gets in the way.

Alan's argument is akin to suggesting that there should be NO laws becomes some laws might be bad.

The reasoning of a child.

Yes. The Quran, which is to be taken literally by Muslims as the word of god, commands Muslims to convert or kill the infidel and install The New Caliphate around the world. Sharia law, burkas, few rights for women, stonings of homosexuals and women who are raped but don't have four male witnesses to the rape (making it "adultery"), are some of the fun in store. I can be tolerant of people who get their tongues pierced or people who believe the moon in Capricorn predicts their Wednesday, providing they don't direct others in their group to kill me because my tongue is factory original and I think people who believe in astrology are silly.

"The reasoning of a child". Ohhh, you don't know much I'm afraid. Speaking of age. That's typical internet name-calling or insulting, just because you don't agree with me. You wouldn't say it if I could see your face, would you. (Besides, you missed my point completely; try again, maybe). It's only an opinion, Robert. Yours is probably worthy of consideration, if only you would have shared it with us.

I think that wearing the Burqua is fine. And that the government does not have the ability to tell people what they should wear.

However, the other side of the coin is that if you want a photo ID of any kind, you must take it off so they can take a picture of your face. And if someone wants to confirm you are the person in the photo ID, you must show your face to prove it's you.

If you don't do these things, expect not to get a photo ID, or be able to do things that require you to display a photo ID.

It's not that complicated.

"The reasoning of a child."

Yes, same thoughtful and profound reasoning displayed on bumper stickers over here in Berkeley:

"No War for Oil"

By the way Alan, I may hate the Burqua, but I don't believe that is why it should be banned.

Alan - no matter what you say, your argument was full of fail.

This is not about banning something that is disliked. It is about banning a practice whose sole purpose is to project domination.

Same as the Swiss denying a mosque's request to put up minarets. The minaret is a symbol of domination, and allowing it to be built is an admission to having been conquered.

This is the root of the objection to the burqa. It is also the root of the objection to the Ground Zero mosque.

You doubtless think the argument is aesthetic. It is nothing of the sort. It is simply telling the muslims that they will not erect a monument to their conquest at the site of their greatest attack on our soil.

I guess the first question one must ask is Islam really a religion, or is it as Robert Spencer claims "a totalitarian political system masquerading as a religion?"

There's no distinction. In its purest form, Islam is the state and the state is Islam. When they tell you Islam is the religion of peace, that's a mistranslation. It is the religion of submission, because in order to know peace, you must submit to Allah.

There is only one God, and Mohammad is his prophet.

One is either a believer, an infidel, a Jew or an apostate. Very black & white, very few shades of grey. And if you're not a believer, your life under the glorious caliphate will not be very pleasant.

I prefer to not see the burka banned. I prefer to see my enemies declare themselves openly.

Remember how "your right to swing your arm stops at my nose"?

Remember how "free speech doesn't mean you can yell fire in a crowded theater"?

No, no, those two concepts can be combined into a shorter, pithier slogan:

Your right to speak ends where my fist begins.

You're welcome.

Your right to speak ends where my fist begins.

Who can, may.

who believe the moon in Capricorn predicts their Wednesday, - Amy

http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/weirdalyankovic/yourhoroscopefortoday.html

Given that Islam means "submission" or "surrender", and given that this is the sort of thing the Revolutionary War was fought over, I feel the first amendment would have been worded differently if sharia law had been in issue in 1791.

So maybe it's time to take a look at the first amendment and repeal it, so we could adjust it to the way things are now. Before this sharia bullshit gets too firm a grip.

I think the Founders would understand. The amendment needs adjusting. Things change, which is why the amendments are even there. Look at Prohibition.

I would not be in favor of changing the Constitution. See my post above about what Jefferson said about taking the Constitution (interpretation) word for word, where freedom and security of our nation was being threatened...

@Pricklypear: "So maybe it's time to take a look at the first amendment and repeal it, so we could adjust it to the way things are now."

No, messing with the first amendment is the LAST thing we want to do. That's the one that says there shall be NO "establishment" of religion; i.e., no religion may be promoted by the government over any other. I trust you're not suggesting we amend it to say "Only Christianity is acceptable in America"?

Curse the typo demons! That should have read: BECAUSE

"Just because you don't agree with me."

No, I disagree with lots of people, including Miss Alkon, all the bloody time, and except for the occasional bit of heated exchange with Crid, sometimes Jody, or lujlp (usually one of those 3) name calling between us is pretty rare. Though I'll concede we do occasionally get a tiny bit insulting, there are far worse things.

But no, its not because I don't agree with you. Its because your analogy made 0 sense and was the sort of comparison I made when I was about 12-16.
Perhaps I could have been a bit more diplomatic, but gentle words have never been my strength. Heh, just ask the people I work with, or for that matter, you could just see what I say to others around here.

Let me put my criticism in another way, so that you take my point more clearly:
You argued that we're banning the burqa just because we hate it. Not even a cursory reading of the article and those who have posted here in favor of its ban OBVIOUSLY have NOTHING to do with not liking the style of the burqa.

You compared it to tattoos, nose piercings, and smoking. But none of those have ANYTHING in common with the burqa. You have used the reasoning of a high school student on this argument. You've completely missed the problems people have with the burqa and why they favor banning it as the threat that it is, and are just treating it as just something people don't like. That is why I say you're using a child's reasoning here, because you are completely ignoring the part of the argument that is inconvenient to your position, and presenting it as something that it isn't. (To be fair, alot of politicians much older than myself do the same thing, so don't feel to bad about it)

And believe me, I'd have said nothing different face to face.(I tend to swear a little more in person, but that is just part of the culture in my line of work) I debate politics, policy, and economics all the time. People who are intimidated by the prospect of speaking their minds to people in front of them are NOT worth debating with. I think we can agree on that point.

If of course you have a more sound reason to oppose the banning of the burqa (and there ARE perfectly rational arguments against a ban, much as I hate to admit it), I'm all ears. But pay attention to the reasoning behind a proposal, not just the emotional content such as love, hate, dislike, and so on.

If you leave out emotion, then what is left, hopefully, is reason, and that is ideally how adults should debate.

Pleasant days.

Don't worry Steve, I'm not saying anything about Christianity at all. I don't consider myself a Christian, anyway. And it doesn't matter because I have no interest in starting a Change the First Amendment movement, either.

What I want is for people to stop moving here and dragging all their issues with them. I read an essay once from an Irishman whose relatives in the old country wanted him to carry on the fight and involve himself with Sinn Fein, and he flat out told them NO! He had come here to get away from that and wasn't bringing it with him.

When the Soviet Union collapsed, columnist Mike Royko wrote an article about the Serbs and Croats in America having problems from all the old crap in Russia starting up right where they left off once the boot was off their necks.

The idea of a religion based on dominating all other religions to the point of mass murder, working it's way in here like the worm in the wood, and using our religious freedom against us, is just infuriating.

So, yeah, I guess I do want an amendment to an amendment. One that says something like "We do not recognize any religion that teaches intolerance of other religions, or that accepts the mistreatment of certain members of that religion." Something to that effect, but better.

You may be onto something there pricklypear.

Maybe: A religion that acts as a secular government shall not be regarded as religion and hence, shall bear no protections...etc.

"We have every right, indeed an obligation, to ensure that our more enlightened conception of women and their proper place in society prevails in any cultural conflict, particularly one on Western soil"

Note that this is being expressed in the pages of National Review, rather than Ms Magazine.