Full face veil

[Spellbound]

No, by banning it you're saying they have to refrain from wearing it. That's got nothing to do with self determination. Giving them self determination would be saying "you have the right to wear it if you want to".

Not at all. By saying you can't wear it, it sends a message to all women that they don't have to wear it. If that makes some uncomfortable, so be it.

Look at slavery: many slaves were well looked after and resigned to their lot, and when it was abolished some starved to death. That wasn't a good reason to keep it.

[SolemnBoy]

What?

Self determination: Determination of one's own fate or course of action without compulsion; free will.

The statements "you don't have to wear this" and "we won't allow you to wear this" are not the same. The former implies freedom of choice; you don't have to wear this, but nobody's going to stop you. The latter is a straightforward command that limits the possible legal choices to 1; not wearing it.

Of course this is a complex issue and I can understand your stance, but there's no way you could possibly claim that a ban grants the right to self determination. By the very definition of the word, such a proclamation is wrong. A ban is freedom-restricting and the only relevant question is whether the restriction of freedom is justifiable since the banned item itself is used by some as a tool for restriction.

[Spellbound]

What?

Self determination: Determination of one's own fate or course of action without compulsion; free will.

The statements "you don't have to wear this" and "we won't allow you to wear this" are not the same. The former implies freedom of choice; you don't have to wear this, but nobody's going to stop you. The latter is a straightforward command that limits the possible legal choices to 1; not wearing it.

Of course this is a complex issue and I can understand your stance, but there's no way you could possibly claim that a ban grants the right to self determination. By the very definition of the word, such a proclamation is wrong. A ban is freedom-restricting and the only relevant question is whether the restriction of freedom is justifiable since the banned item itself is used by some as a tool for restriction.

Thank you for understanding my argument: the veil is a tool of subjugation of women and should be banned on that basis. If that makes some women uncomfortable, well then it is for the common good.

[VileKyle]

Thank you for understanding my argument: the veil is a tool of subjugation of women and should be banned on that basis. If that makes some women uncomfortable, well then it is for the common good.

That wasn't his point at all. Try listening to him instead of imprinting your own view on his words.

The statements "you don't have to wear this" and "we won't allow you to wear this" are not the same.

That was his point.

[SolemnBoy]

Fine, I can see why you'd think that's a reasonable price to pay. However, why exactly do you think a ban would be helpful? I'm personally convinced that it would just place the victimized muslim women in-between abusive husbands re-inforcing the necessity to wear the veil under threats of violence and the law. It won't solve the problem whatsoever. The husbands are the ones who need to be thoroughly dealt with and if that was ever taken care of there wouldn't be any need for a ban anymore.

Why are you so convinced that a ban will be meaningful?

[Spellbound]

That's exactly what I mean. You're using this to attack the religion. You don't give a damn about the women. Honestly, they have all the right in the world to wear a veil if they damn well please. Banning them from wearing their choice in clothing is downright ridiculous. You may say it's indoctrination, but banning it still bans others from wearing it. That's when the ban becomes discrimination.

I care very much about women, just as I care about everyone. Most women don't choose to wear the veil, it's a cultural or religious issue, and as such there is a good case to ban it, as it has been in France and, I believe, in some other countries.

You're close to getting rude, so don't go there.

[SolemnBoy]

Just to clarify: if there was a guarantee that a ban would peacefully lead to the liberation of oppressed muslim women then I'd be in support of it. Surely it would restrict the freedom of women who wear the veils out of their own will, but that would be a fair price to pay.

However, I think the notion that a ban would have this desired effect is incredibly naive.

[Spellbound]

Fine, I can see why you'd think that's a reasonable price to pay. However, why exactly do you think a ban would be helpful? I'm personally convinced that it would just place the victimized muslim women in-between abusive husbands re-inforcing the necessity to wear the veil under threats of violence and the law. It won't solve the problem whatsoever. The husbands are the ones who need to be thoroughly dealt with and if that was ever taken care of there wouldn't be any need for a ban anymore.

Why are you so convinced that a ban will be meaningful?

I just explained that.

[VileKyle]

I care very much about women, just as I care about everyone. Most women don't choose to wear the veil, it's a cultural or religious issue, and as such there is a good case to ban it, as it has been in France and, I believe, in some other countries.

Plenty of women do choose to wear it without being forced. You aren't taking that into account. It's not right to ban them from what they CHOOSE to wear. How about you search for another solution instead of an outright ban of a piece of clothing? Again, it's ridiculous and will only cause more problems than it solves. You can't just hide symbols of faith because you don't like the faith.

[SolemnBoy]

I just explained that.

Well, no you didn't. You haven't addressed my hypothesis that a ban would victimize muslim women from two fronts: one from the law and one from the violent husband.