[Closed] Ban The Burka?

This "hypothesis" - I would call it ignorance personally- will not stand up to much analysis.

It's certainly what you'd hope for, however the ignorant & lazy will always find a way to ignore the truth.

I dont think it would be well received to suggest Muslim women need counselling due to the clothes they wear.

That's not really what I meant, it's nothing to do with clothing. Point was if they're wearing something because, say, they don't feel safe, the solution is to make them feel safe surely.

Counselling is the wrong word, I meant support really, whether that's for the woman in question or around educating the people she's attempting to integrate with.

Whenever I see a lady in western society wearing a Burka, I don't immediately connect it with religious belief and I would never associate it with modesty.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/sep/01/muslim-women-veil-integrate-study

“We conjecture that for highly religious women modernising factors raise the risk and temptation in women’s environments that imperil their reputation for modesty: veiling would then be a strategic response, a form either of commitment to prevent the breach of religious norms or of signalling women’s piety to their communities.

“Highly religious women who have more native friends and live in areas dominated by natives use the veil to keep their pious reputation while being integrated,” said Gambetta, a professor of sociology and an official fellow of Nuffield College, University of Oxford. “Banning or shunning veiling would deprive them of a means that allow them more opportunity for integration rather than marking their differences.”

“As you might expect, we found the tendency for veil wearing decreases among young, highly educated women when they are exposed to modern influences if they are ‘averagely religious’ Muslim women,” Gambetta said. “However, Muslim women who are ‘highly religious’ tend to increase their wearing of religious head coverings and use more conservative styles as the level of modernisation, or ‘risks’ they are exposed to, increase.”

So, whilst the veil helps women to integrate as it means that they are actually allowed to go outside - it does mean that sections of the Muslim community are prejudiced against their own countries culture.

This is why many people find the Veil, Burqa and Burqini offensive - it is indirectly saying that you are dirty kuffar.

Correlation does not imply causation and all that. All that waffle is simply their interpretation of the reasons and doesn't appear to be supported at all by the evidence, which is simply evidence of correlation.

Here's my interpretation:
"highly religious" women are subject to pressure from (male) members of their close social group to wear the veil, which increases with modernising forces. This is part of the repression, not an indication of their freedom to choose.

Of course I have no evidence that is the reason, but it's just as valid as their interpretation of the data.

Looking at the abstract, I see nothing to support the claims in the headline or sub-headline (though they do of course both include the word "may" - well muslim women may wear the veil because it blocks some of the smell of modern life, who knows?)

+1

Back to the OP's original post...

Is it acceptable for folks to not like it? Within reason, I think so. Some just aren't happy not being able to see someones face. That is about the only reasonable premise I can think of.

Is it in some circumstances repressive? Yes, if the wearer is being forced to wear it.

Can we tell from looking if the wearer is dressed so out of choice? No, of course not.

So what, as an evolved & (allegedly) enlightened society do we do?

If we are ban the burqa et al then we are guilty of repression - logic dictates that's a retrograde step. So, do we accept it & try to ensure that nobody is being subjugated? After all, two wrongs do not make a right.

We can argue whether Islam subjugates till we are blue in the face & I think sharper men than us (certainly me!) have done so with no clear equivocal answer. Yes, some branches do & no, some don't. Then you have to take into account there's those who have chosen to dress so..

Arguing that it should be banned is an illogical, backwards, unintelligent step. I would strongly advise to resist it.

This is why many people find the Veil, Burqa and Burqini offensive - it is indirectly saying that you are dirty kuffar.

I think there are more important things to worry about than what a complete stranger thinks of you..

Back to the OP's original post...

Is it acceptable for folks to not like it? Within reason, I think so. Some just aren't happy not being able to see someones face. That is about the only reasonable premise I can think of

Is it in some circumstances repressive? Yes, if the wearer is being forced to wear it.

Can we tell from looking if the wearer is dressed so out of choice? No, of course not.

So what, as an evolved & (allegedly) enlightened society do we do?

If we are ban the burqa et al then we are guilty of repression - logic dictates that's a retrograde step. So, do we accept it & try to ensure that nobody is being subjugated? After all, two wrongs do not make a right.

We can argue whether Islam subjugates till we are blue in the face & I think sharper men than us (certainly me!) have done so with no clear equivocal answer. Yes, some branches do & no, some don't. Then you have to take into account there's those who have chosen to dress so..

Arguing that it should be banned is an illogical, backwards, unintelligent step. I would strongly advise to resist it.

This is why many people find the Veil, Burqa and Burqini offensive - it is indirectly saying that you are dirty kuffar.

I think there are more important things to worry about than what a complete stranger thinks of you..

I agree with the first part. I don't agree with your last statement, ultra-conservative attitudes and their conflict with western ideals is what leads to Muslim alienation and radicalisation. As has been pointed out by a Muslim counter-radicalisation expert that I have linked to on here on a number of occasions. So it is important.

don't agree with your last statement, ultra-conservative attitudes and their conflict with western ideals is what leads to Muslim alienation and radicalisation.

I think I get where you're coming from - Islam isn't black & white.

I'd still say that I really couldn't care less what a total stranger thinks of me but I understand your point & accept it. Still not grounds for a ban IMHO.

I don't agree on a ban either, it's a really moronic way of going about trying to resolve differences - these things are best done by trying to engage the Muslim community in a more friendly dialogue.

We need to be denying the zealots propaganda ammunition not giving it to them.

^^^ this.

I'd much rather we ruled iend-to-end encryption illegal and gave Government the right to intercept any communications with a warrant than worry about what women are wearing.

Gonzy thanks for the comments

LOL

You work in finance as well don't you Jamby, I can't believe you want to open up buisness to corruption by giving the government amd hackers the power to see and intercept everything.

We'll be going back to type writers and ****ing carrier pigeons for secure corporate communications. Thousands of people die each year due to cars - but we accept that because "the economy" - well, how people have died indrectly due to end to end encyption this year?

I assumed J's comment was more along the lines of "if we really must do something drastic and over the top I'd rather it be banning encryption than banning clothing".

If that's the case I'd agree; at least banning encryption hits everyone rather than singling out a weak minority group, however impractical and fruitless it would be.

A bit off track - apologies

Tom we've had encryption for as long as I can remember (I studied it a bit at Uni in '81) the issue is whether it's uncrackable including that the service provider has no way of seeing the contents. we've survived happily without uncrackable personal messaging, banks have operated just fine.

Phii I have to say I don't think banning such encryption is "ridiculous" France and Germany are pressing the EU to make it EU wide law that you cannot use it.

IMO the service providers are doing 2 things - first and least important its great marketing, your messages are secret and private. Secondly and most importantly it means the service provider cannot be liable for message contents and cannot be required to monitor for keywords. Its a grand cover-your-arse excersize.

I can't help thinking if it was white blokes telling white women they couldn't go out unless they wore all that stuff, there'd be outrage. It seems that because these women aren't white (generally), different rules seem to apply.

Just because someone says they do it through choice doesn't mean we can't employ concepts like 'ideology' where someone's expressed interests don't necessarily coincide with their 'real' interests. Some turkeys will vote for Christmas.

we've survived happily without uncrackable personal messaging, banks have operated just fine.

Banks operate just fine because they had branches. Remember those?

Phii I have to say I don't think banning such encryption is "ridiculous"

On a scale of 0 to 10, where 0 is "perfectly sensible" and 10 is "full Jamba," that statement rates about 13. Strong encryption shouldn't be banned, it should be mandatory.

🙂

No app messaging system should be uncrackable by manufacturer/service provider or government security services. Whats App / Facebook / Telegram etc have no need for any encryption at all.

As I said Germany and France are working to change EU to make encryption look as I am advocating.

That's right, because no-one legitimate ever uses messenger services to transmit sensitive information.

Strong encryption shouldn't be banned, it should be mandatory.

Exactly how would you ban encryption? Isn't it a bit late?

Force whatsapp, messenger etcetera to use cleartext, then people will just use something else that's progressively harder to intercept. Then it turns into an endless game of whackamole that can't be won as encryption is out there, is easy to use and can be hidden anywhere.

It's raining outside, I'm tempted to see how long it takes to make an encrypted messaging system that works by representing encrypted messages as a series of cat pictures. Nobody would ever spot that. Hmmmm...

Stenography.

http://www.makeuseof.com/tag/4-ways-to-hide-secret-messages-in-pictures/

As a citizen of this country and I am perfectly entitled to have a personal conversation that cannot be snooped on by the government what I do is none if their ****ing business - do you think they will share everything they do with us? EVERYONE is entitled to privacy

Why Jamby is advocating an electronic North Korea or Stazi type system is completely lost on me

allan23 - Member

Not bizarrely, quite sensibly as you are not interested in discussion, education or open mindedness, you are only interested in people confirming your bias or trying to shoot down those that disagree.

You've already confirmed a lack of understanding of Islam, if you don't know where then I suggest you go back and read your comments.

Hint: All the Muslim women I've ever worked with have been able to attend Mosque.

Now you are being deliberately misleading.

My earlier comment was obviously made in reference to the gender segregation that occurs in mosques.
Are you going to try and tell me this doesn't happen?
It is pertinent to the discussion, like the reasons behind women covering up, which you don't seem to want to discuss whilst accusing me of not being interested in discussion. 😕

FWIW, I used to think Islam was just a slightly different flavour of that other silliness Christianity, but due to a friend converting to Islam I thought I'd educate myself in the religion. That's why I've attended mosques and have the opinions I have.

But then if you are going to use strawmen to try and suggest I'm a troll in a lazy effort to avoid discussion then there is no point.
Perhaps if you believe that having different views is trolling then you may have spent too much time here.

Gay ga zinta hate.

Say what you will but the EU is going to outlaw uncrackabke end to end encryption, wait and see. We got by without it for decades, we will do so again. It was always possible to tap your phone / mobile with a warrant/court order, all electronic comms should be the same.

It's easy to ban it, licence apps and if they don't comply they are not permitted. ISP and mobile companies are obliged to fall into line and VPN providers will be required to be registered also.

Trust me the providers aren't using end to end encryption for "civil rights" purposes its marketing and cover-their-arse so they can't be asked to police content or be held responsible for not doing so.

Trust me

Just follow the news then. You have never had the ability before to have a private electronic conversation before by phone or mobile without it being aubject to interception via a court order. You are asking for a new right.

No app messaging system should be uncrackable by manufacturer/service provider or government security services. Whats App / Facebook / Telegram etc have no need for any encryption at all.

The right to privacy is a somewhat enshrined right within society and I have always had the right to keep secrets from the state if i so wish They can still get the court order its just a lot less use to them because i decided to use a code they cannot decipher - again a tactic used for millennia unless you think secret codes only started in the electronic era- who knows maybe you do

tbh I dont want the state seeing what I do on whatts app not because its any threat to them but because its none of their ****ing business who I send pictures of my cock to 😉

How does the Niqab work for passports and driving licenses?

Edit: Rather, what is the law regarding the wearing of it in driving license photos etc?

You must:

face forward and look straight into the camera with your eyes open and nothing covering your face

you have to show/use your face for ID purposes

The reasons are obvious

https://www.nidirect.gov.uk/articles/photographic-criteria-your-driving-licence#toc-2

It's easy to ban it, licence apps and if they don't comply they are not permitted.

Encryption exists, you can't uninvent it, and it can always be made indistinguishable from something you can't ban like normal web traffic or email. You can make all the laws you like, it's not going away.

The only thing you can achieve is to make normal people highly susceptible to identity theft and fraud while malicious actors are left totally unaffected.

You have always had the ability to have a private conversation by electronic means; just encrypt and decrypt messages separately from the means of transmission. There is nothing you can do that can stop anyone sending a pre-encrypted message in an email.

Just follow the news then. You have never had the ability before to have a private electronic conversation before by phone or mobile without it being aubject to interception via a court order. You are asking for a new right.

Interesting if true.

[quote=jambalaya ]Just follow the news then. You have never had the ability before to have a private electronic conversation before by phone or mobile without it being aubject to interception via a court order. You are asking for a new right.

Before when? I presume you mean before you had the ability to have an electronic conversation by phone or mobile. I don't think there's ever been a time since such forms of communication were invented that it wasn't possible to make them totally private if you had the will to do so. It's a fundamental basic of using a communication pipe where you choose what to put in one end. Simply use a code book or a one time pad - which were around long, long before electronic communications.

It's just possible that there are people on here who know more about encryption and information security than you do, Jamba...

tbh I dont want the state seeing what I do on whatts app not because its any threat to them but because its none of their **** business who I send pictures of my cock to

[img] ?itok=K11zCbX5[/img]

😆

You are on the list now 😉

Does this include Apple?

Yup. The lot.

@aracer no doubt some people here know more about encryption than do I, what I do know is that the French and Germans are leading the way to ensure the EU brings in legislation that bans end-to-end uncrackable encryption. It's quite a differemt thing to have sophisticated users able to hide their activities via vpn/dark web etc and quite something else to hamd it out to the whole world via a free app.

The right to a private conversation is way way down the list versus fhe right to life amd security.

It's quite a differemt thing to have sophisticated users able to hide their activities via vpn/dark web etc and quite something else to hamd it out to the whole world via a free app

If the big players in private messaging went away tomorrow, there would be one or more easy to use replacements by the end of the week, and they wouldn't be run by some company you can stop by just sending scary letters to.

The right to a private conversation is way way down the list versus fhe right to life amd security.

Are you being funny intentionally or is it purely accidental?

[quote=jambalaya ]It's quite a differemt thing to have sophisticated users able to hide their activities via vpn/dark web etc and quite something else to hamd it out to the whole world via a free app.
The right to a private conversation is way way down the list versus fhe right to life amd security.

Yeah, because of course the bad guys who's communications you want to intercept will only think of using free apps and won't be anywhere near sophisticated enough to use other readily available means of encryption.

In reality the only people such laws will affect will be the ordinary people wanting to send private messages, not the bad guys, and if the EU are bringing in such laws then that just shows that those in power there understand information security just as poorly as you do.

BTW (I'm sure JY will rip me one for appealing to my own authority, but I can't resist), if you missed the implication of my earlier comment, I've been paid to develop and test information security software and worked alongside people who are global experts in that field (I'm not entirely sure of phiiiiiil's work experience, but suspect the same might apply to him).

Besides which, you can no more "ban encryption" that you can ban French, or fire. Say you're right and we outlaw secure web browsers and other such tools. Say we're actually successful in eradicating encryption tools (which is a pipe dream but let's roll with it). I can do a Diffe-Hellman key exchange with pen and paper, what are you going to do now, ban the Royal Mail and calculators? People have been using encryption for several [i]thousand[/i] years at least, as phiiiiiiiil says you can't just uninvent it. You can ban the technology, at least in theory, but you can't ban the knowledge.

Aracer is bang on the money. In your hypothetical encryptionless utopia, the only people affected will be regular people like you and me. Well, me less so cos I know what I'm talking about, but anyway. No more secure web; no more online banking; no more Internet shopping; no more International websites (because would you trade with a third party with such a lax approach to security? I wouldn't); no more VoIP phone systems in financial institutions (encryption is a mandatory step for PCI compliance); no means of proving machine identity so man-in-the-middle attacks will be commonplace; no more single sign-on systems, so you'll have passwords coming out of your ears; shall I go on? And the kicker is that the criminals will be unaffected, they'll still be using illegal encryption because, clue's in the name, they're ****ing criminals.

Think what would happen if we banned locks on doors. Great idea yeah, criminals use locks to hide their secrets, let's get rid of them all. What would happen? Do you think we'd bust all those terrorist and paedophile rings wide open? Or do you think that actually what might happen is that they'll barricade their doors or use illegally obtained locks, and meanwhile burglary and opportunist crimes go through the roof?

"I have nothing to hide" does not equate to "I have no need / right to privacy," not now not ever. If you disagree, let me know next time you and your missus are enjoying some horizontal jogging and I'll pop round with my video camera.

Well, me less so cos I know what I'm talking about,

😆 😆 😆

If you disagree, let me know next time you and your missus are enjoying some horizontal jogging and I'll pop round with my video camera.

I've just been sick....thanks Cougar!!

Cougar is spot on though...you cant ban encryption unless you're prepared to take society back 2 cebturies

Millennia more like.

Maybe the instruction to wear a burka comes from scrambled encryption. What could they have meant?

The threat (or perceived threat) of terrorism has been used as an excuse to abuse civil liberties throughout history and the UK and US governments are a guilty as any/many/most

We should always guard against this type of abuse

teamhurtmore

The threat (or perceived threat) of terrorism has been used as an excuse to abuse civil liberties throughout history and the UK and US governments are a guilty as any/many/most

We should always guard against this type of abuse

Yeah, we should definitely guard against this type of abuse so that people can abuse and segregate women and girls because their medieval taboos say so.

people in glass houses....