The prison food and burkini ban dual thread

[celedhring]

Are we sure it isn't working though? We obviously get fixated with the very notorious examples of when it doesn't, but my commute is full of Arab teenagers that dress like normal teenagers and listen to the same horrible music. I don't think we are doing badly - ghettoization is my biggest worry and at least our authorities seem aware of the issue given what's happened in France, for example the Barcelona city council has deliberately worked on "opening up" the immigrant quarter in the Old City and it's been largely successful - integration is just not something that's going to happen overnight.

[Valmy]

but my commute is full of Arab teenagers that dress like normal teenagers and listen to the same horrible music.

When I was in France in 1997-1999 this is pretty much what I saw. The Arabs were pretty French. But, as I said, that was the pre-9/11 world.

[LaCroix]

To both of you, perhaps it's escaped you, but there is a bit of a difference between little girls and adult women.

so, should we sanction stay-at-home mothers?

[Valmy]

To both of you, perhaps it's escaped you, but there is a bit of a difference between little girls and adult women.

so, should we sanction stay-at-home mothers?

I was about to say something like 'yes and regulating how children should be raised is more justifiable for the government to be doing'

[Eddie Teach]

Short pants shouldn't be worn in the city. Also, what the fuck is wrong with Americans? You can't wear a fucking hockey shirt outside your home as an adult!

You sure you aren't confusing us with Canadians? 

[Martinus]

To both of you, perhaps it's escaped you, but there is a bit of a difference between little girls and adult women.

so, should we sanction stay-at-home mothers?

No, because as I have said already, punishing the victim is the worst possible "solution". But, since the 1950s, we have initiated a number of educational campaigns targetted at both adult women and school girls, telling that that being a stay at home mom is just one of many life style choices available to them, and that they can realize themselves pursuing professional careers or otherwise participating in public life.

So maybe we need educational campaigns targetted at Muslim women, telling them that no man has a right to tell them what they can wear, and while they are perfectly fine to choose how they dress, if they are under any pressure or a threat, these are the places and numbers they can contact to get help etc. At the same time, we should be making it very clear that any threats against Muslim women* who choose not to wear the traditional dress will be met with an immediate and decivise response from the law enforcement (and if such threats come from family members, we will be using the same enforcement toolset we already have in place for other forms of domestic abuse). Now, I may be wrong, but I have a feeling that, in the name of multiculturalism, many Western governments are failing to do something like that, thinking it would be a violation of cultural differences or something.

*Or in fact any women - if there are people harassing them for their dress (whether the harassment is being done by men or women), the harassers should be punished with the full force of law.

[The Brain]

Short pants shouldn't be worn in the city. Also, what the fuck is wrong with Americans? You can't wear a fucking hockey shirt outside your home as an adult!

You sure you aren't confusing us with Canadians? 

Yes. Canadians are insignificant.

[Malthus]

I think part of what you guys are missing is that people have more than one reason to wear culturally-identifying clothes.

Sure, one reason is because of notions of modesty, and in some times and places those get enforced by more than just what the people wearing the clothes want. In Iran for example, you get religious cops running around enforcing hair coverings for women.

Maybe in the West you also have the men in religious families forcing the women in those families to wear religious garb, I dunno. So far, what we have is a lot of speculation and assumptions on the part of people who know nothing of the Muslim community that this is a, or the, primary motive for wearing the outfits.

However, there are other reasons to wear such outfits besides enforced modesty: for one, exactly because the outfit identifies the wearer as a member of a particular religious community. This is often a matter of personal and 'tribal' pride (let alone religious feeling), and this pride is only enhanced by stubbornness the more 'persecution' the wearer gets for wearing the outfit. Women, as much as men, sometimes *want* to identify with their religious community, as in this example from the Israeli newspaper Haaretz.

http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-1.662729

Thing is, if this is a factor in why people are wearing such outfits, cracking down in the French manner is exactly the wrong thing to do (disregarding for the moment whether it is ethical or ought to be legal and looking only at results). By doing so, the French state is setting up an opposition of loyalties between itself and the Muslim community that did not need to exist. Now, women who maybe wanted to wear "French" outfits because they are more comfortable/stylish and because they don't care much for religious notions of modesty, will think twice about it - because giving up Muslim dress in response to such coercion looks like cowardice and giving in to the majority.

In Canada, our government has taken the opposite route. The notion is that if Muslims can wear their traditional garb and still be included as "Canadians", we can better secure their loyalty for the nation, as we do with other groups such as Sikhs.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/rcmp-diversity-policy-hijab-1.3733829

Personally, I prefer this policy, and I guess time will tell which works better.

The Sikhs in Canada make an interesting case study, btw. In the '80s, it was Sikhs and not Muslims who were the scary terrorism threat. Sikhs have killed more Canadian civilians through terrorism than Muslims, as the Air India bombing was Canada's version of 9/11 - the worst mass murder in Canadian history. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_India_Flight_182

Then, in the 90s, there was a HUGE controversy over allowing Sikhs to wear turbans and beards.

Now, the Canadian Minister of Defense is a religious Sikh, who (among other things) invented, while in the Army, a gizmo that allows bearded men to wear gas masks.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harjit_Sajjan

The hope, under the current policy, is to one day perhaps have a Minister of Defense wearing a Hijab. Clash of civilizations - avoided. 

[Valmy]

Maybe in the West you also have the men in religious families forcing the women in those families to wear religious garb, I dunno. So far, what we have is a lot of speculation and assumptions on the part of people who know nothing of the Muslim community that this is a, or the, primary motive for wearing the outfits.

I only know what Islam says about the Hijab. And I fundamentally disagree with it. But I cannot possibly know what any one person thinks of the clothes they wear and I would certainly never treat any woman wearing a Hijab, or any other sort of clothing, with anything but kindness and civility. As I would do anybody else.

However, there are other reasons to wear such outfits besides enforced modesty: for one, exactly because the outfit identifies the wearer as a member of a particular religious community. This is often a matter of personal and 'tribal' pride (let alone religious feeling), and this pride is only enhanced by stubbornness the more 'persecution' the wearer gets for wearing the outfit. Women, as much as men, sometimes *want* to identify with their religious community, as in this example from the Israeli newspaper Haaretz.

Which was exactly my point. It is just stupid, and historically shown to be stupid, to crack down on shit like this.

Personally, I prefer this policy, and I guess time will tell which works better.

Time has already told which one works better.

The hope, under the current policy, is to one day perhaps have a Minister of Defense wearing a Hijab. Clash of civilizations - avoided.

Ah so I guess the UK is now beloved by Muslims everywhere because they elected a Muslim mayor of London? Not that simple.

[Martinus]

Maybe in the West you also have the men in religious families forcing the women in those families to wear religious garb, I dunno. So far, what we have is a lot of speculation and assumptions on the part of people who know nothing of the Muslim community that this is a, or the, primary motive for wearing the outfits.

The fact that these regulations in France were adopted as a direct response to two women being physically and verbally assaulted by Muslim men on the beach for being too scantily dressed suggests it's rather not a mere speculation and assumption.

[Malthus]

Ah so I guess the UK is now beloved by Muslims everywhere because they elected a Muslim mayor of London? Not that simple.

Sure, I agree we will always have problems with the ISIS types. Indeed, they will hate us all the more if we are making efforts to include Muslims within the definition of "we". They understand very well that ISIS (and groups like them) only succeed to the extent that they are able to stir up hatred between Muslims and others - so that Muslims see themselves, and are seen by others, as outside the definition of "we", and so are more ready to join with or sympathize with groups such as ISIS.

We will never appease the ISIS types. They will always be our enemies, and there is nothing we can do about that except fight them. However, we can make it less likely that other Muslims living in our countries sympathize with them.

[Malthus]

Maybe in the West you also have the men in religious families forcing the women in those families to wear religious garb, I dunno. So far, what we have is a lot of speculation and assumptions on the part of people who know nothing of the Muslim community that this is a, or the, primary motive for wearing the outfits.

The fact that these regulations in France were adopted as a direct response to two women being physically and verbally assaulted by Muslim men on the beach for being too scantily dressed suggests it's rather not a mere speculation and assumption.

You aren't parsing what I wrote.

I'm not doubting that incidents such as that have happened. I'm questioning how widespread such terrorization is as a motive for wearing the outfits.

It is a massive leap from "two women being physically and verbally assaulted by Muslim men on the beach for being too scantily dressed" to 'the motive (or at least, a substantial part of the motive) for Muslim women to wear such outfits is fear of Muslim men'. 

[Martinus]

We will never appease the ISIS types. They will always be our enemies, and there is nothing we can do about that except fight them. However, we can make it less likely that other Muslims living in our countries sympathize with them.

You don't do it, though, by turning a blind eye to victimisation of women going on in Muslim communities that we would never tolerate in the rest of the society, though.

And many Muslim women are actually speaking out against hijabs, seeing it as a symbol of oppression, like Asra Namani, for example:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2015/12/21/as-muslim-women-we-actually-ask-you-not-to-wear-the-hijab-in-the-name-of-interfaith-solidarity/

So again, if you wish, you can go beyond "speculations and assumptions" - it takes 15 minutes to research on google. But it is much easier to just ignore the problem.

[Valmy]

Sure, I agree we will always have problems with the ISIS types. Indeed, they will hate us all the more if we are making efforts to include Muslims within the definition of "we". They understand very well that ISIS (and groups like them) only succeed to the extent that they are able to stir up hatred between Muslims and others - so that Muslims see themselves, and are seen by others, as outside the definition of "we", and so are more ready to join with or sympathize with groups such as ISIS.

We will never appease the ISIS types. They will always be our enemies, and there is nothing we can do about that except fight them. However, we can make it less likely that other Muslims living in our countries sympathize with them.

Well sure. However, people in our countries join any number of crazy cults that do crazy shit. So who the hell knows if it will actually reduce the fringe minority who does crazy shit? They are statistically insignificant. The clash is a clash of ideas.

And it is the ISIS types and certain governments are the other side of the clash. Which is why simply being more tolerant and liberal is not going to avoid any such clash. After all if we didn't do those things there would be no clash. Being a fundamentalist Christian poses no threat to ISIS/Salafist types. Liberal tolerance does.

I am not necessarily disagreeing just putting in my thoughts here.

[Martinus]

Again, Malthus is playing the trick of saying that the problem with Islam or Islamism is limited to the likes of ISIS. It is not. It's denigration of women, intolerance of gays, honor killings, intolerance of apostasy and all kinds of abhorrent practices that are present not just in the likes of ISIS, but in a significant part of Muslim communities, including in the West.

Sure, we should avoid alienating other Muslims who subscribe to Western values about the role (and rule) of secular law, gender equality, freedom of religion etc. - but that does not mean we should turn a blind eye to things that are simply not compatible with the fundamental values of our societies.

Edit: And really, this is where popularity of people like Le Pen or Trump comes from. Because, whereas Le Pen and Trump propose bad solutions to the problem - the liberal elites, who think like Malthus, refuse to acknowledge the problem exists in the first place.