treat the disease, not the symptoms

[SolInvictus]

i've noticed a disheartening trend in the way we attempt to remedy social ills; we focus on treating the symptoms rather than the issues behind them. while gun/weapon control is one of the more common examples of this, its another issue that got me thinking about the absurdity of our approach.

the issue i'm referring to is that of banning burqas, and other face covering garments associated with Islam, which has been proposed by legislators in France and other European countries in an attempt to protect women's rights and freedoms. the assumption is that women wearing these garments are victims being forced into donning them when they are in public. while we can debate the degree of free will involved in wearing religious dress, i believe this simply distracts us from the superficial nature of such a ban. let us assume these women are being coerced into wearing burqas and other concealing attire by relatives, clearly an infringement of individual rights, how will letting them wear what the want help them? the burqa may be a symbol of their oppression, but it is not the source of their oppression. the ban on burqas will provide superficial relief to those claiming to care for women's rights while accomplishing absolutely nothing.

as i mentioned earlier, this concept of naively focusing ourselves on the results of our social problems is nothing new, time after time i have witnessed individuals attack irrelevant, inconsequential and/or superficial aspects of issues such as crime and violence. though weapons, such as guns and knives, are used in crimes and attacks i have never understood why we need to differentiate, focus and control specific tools used in interpersonal violence and crime as opposed to eliminating crime and violence. what makes gun violence worse than any other form of violence? violence and crime are terrible and destructive social ills and we are doing ourselves a great disfavour by thinking that disarming a gang banger is better than preventing the gang banger, in the same manner that disarming school shooters is somehow better than identifying and treating the mentally injured.

while i have no solution to this problem, realizing the ridiculously superficial nature of our current "solutions", and the limited benefits they provide us (if any), and that approaching them as a community as opposed to individuals is at least a start.

[Tancrisism]

In general I agree with your overall point, but in the case of burqas I do not think I do. Banning the most hardcore and harmful aspects of a religion while still maintaining the religion's practices otherwise to be practiced seems, if it is in actuality what is happening, an overall reasonable decision.

[SolInvictus]

At 7/12/09 07:18 PM, Tancrisism wrote: In general I agree with your overall point, but in the case of burqas I do not think I do. Banning the most hardcore and harmful aspects of a religion while still maintaining the religion's practices otherwise to be practiced seems, if it is in actuality what is happening, an overall reasonable decision.

but what makes it more harmful than arranged marriages or honour killings (though this may be a non-issue since they aren't particularly legal)? in my opinion it seems to be a dominance issue rather than one that is harmful in and of itself (assuming that the women do not freely choose to wear it, of course), and that being the case i don't quite see how having others attempt to control a person's dress would solve anything.

also; it says there are two replies but i only see yours, is that just me?

[RubberTrucky]

I tought the basic argument against burquas was that any person should be recognisable in the street, just like balaclavas are forbidden.

About the dominance over females in the Islam, the debate about veils is more relevant. But this is still a debate, as veils are not forbidden by law in public yet. People who fight for the abolishment of them argue with the position of the woman. But women in Islam claim they don't feel suppressed. So yeah, it's kind of an empty, patronising argument.

When it comes to honour murders, this is not a religious, but rather a cultural given.

A true example of a debate about curing the disease instead of treating the symptoms was apparent in the latest Belgian elections. Belgium has a problem with filled jails. So the question was whether the government should spend their money on building more prisons, or rather preventing the crime itself.

[pr0ded]

they already tell you not to eat and smoke, past that there goes my freedom

[SolInvictus]

At 7/13/09 05:52 AM, pr0ded wrote: they already tell you not to eat and smoke, past that there goes my freedom

obviously...

anyways; Rubber, the problem i'm addressing is general so whether or not its religious or cultural is irrelevant and the problem does apply to many things, such as the Belgian prison dilemma. (isn't that a problem in the US as well?)

[SolInvictus]

At 7/13/09 05:40 AM, RubberTrucky wrote: I tought the basic argument against burquas was that any person should be recognisable in the street, just like balaclavas are forbidden.

oops, forgot about that.

the claim is that this is the issue at hand (though i suspect seeing such visible reminders of a foreign religion makes some people a tad uneasy) but also seem to enjoy giving themselves the "moral high ground" by claiming to want to help these women. "In our country we cannot accept that women be prisoners behind a screen, cut off from all social life, deprived of all identity".

as for issues of recognition; there has already been some furor over this, particularly with regards to providing testimony in court, border crossing and voting, yet most of these are imagined dilemmas rather than actual ones since up to now there haven't really been any cases to indicate that the wearing of a burqa is a problem in modern Western societies (probably because the individuals wearing them aren't as unreasonable as they are being made out to be). sort of like the recent diversity hearings in Québec a little while back, where people proposed things such as banning honour killings despite the fact that these aren't a problem here and that murder already happens to be mildly illegal.

[sreggin]

you know, turkey, a muslim country, imposes that same ban in government buildings.

burkas should be banned exactly for that reason. whether or not a woman chooses to wear it, it only invites disaster for others (who are forced to wear it) and it promotes an utterly backward social institution called islam.

[Sajberhippien]

At 7/13/09 08:48 AM, sreggin wrote: burkas should be banned exactly for that reason. whether or not a woman chooses to wear it, it only invites disaster for others (who are forced to wear it) and it promotes an utterly backward social institution called islam.

Exactly that rethoric could be used to ban anyone from wearing for example a cross around their neck or whatever.

[RubberTrucky]

At 7/13/09 10:58 AM, Sajberhippien wrote:

At 7/13/09 08:48 AM, sreggin wrote: burkas should be banned exactly for that reason. whether or not a woman chooses to wear it, it only invites disaster for others (who are forced to wear it) and it promotes an utterly backward social institution called islam.

Exactly that rethoric could be used to ban anyone from wearing for example a cross around their neck or whatever.

Not only that, I can promote banning alcohol, because it only serves to get people drunk, stupd and get into car crashes, whether or not people are sensible enough to not get drunk in the first place.

[SolInvictus]

the Turkish government would like to be seen as secular, and its policies reflect that. whats being discussed here are not employment related impositions (as anyone who disagrees strongly enough with the ban on burkas in government offices can simply choose not to work there) but a complete ban due to reactionary thinking.

[SolInvictus]

another (less serious) example: "Ms. Clovis said that she hoped Mr. Ralston's death would cause federal authorities to tighten the flow of Harry Potter plot information to prevent similar tragedies from taking place."

if true, of course.

[SolInvictus]

ah, son of a whore, nix that last post.

why you should read every line when presented with unfamiliar sources.

[Korriken]

Jude Ralston, 32, of Hudson, Ohio left a suicide note indicating that since overhearing the plot spoiler at a shopping mall earlier in the day, "I no longer have a reason to live." %u2028%u2028

Darwin has spoken! If all this pathetic wretch had to live for was to see the next harry potter film, then I dare say he's done the right thing.

[SolInvictus]

At 7/14/09 07:57 PM, Korriken wrote: Darwin has spoken! If all this pathetic wretch had to live for was to see the next harry potter film, then I dare say he's done the right thing.

i believed it was true because, oddly enough, i wouldn't have been surprised if something like this had actually happened.

[Zoraxe7]

I say ban all Burqas everywhere, because we all know that's what a vampire would wear during the day.

Seriously, Its their right to wear whatever they want, except in places were your supposed to show your face because of legitimate legal/safety reasons because it covers the face.

Besides, arn't burqas the most conservative of the Muslim womens dress, with the other dresses being more common?

[SolInvictus]

i'm wondering if we should shift this back to what i was originally hoping to discuss or not since the ban on burqas is a fairly interesting and controversial one, even though not quite what i wanted the focus to be on.

[Jackrabbit-slims]

At 7/15/09 01:59 AM, SolInvictus wrote: i'm wondering if we should shift this back to what i was originally hoping to discuss or not since the ban on burqas is a fairly interesting and controversial one, even though not quite what i wanted the focus to be on.

I think the personal identity thing in public is the only real argument for this thing (the full hooded one). After all, a serial killer could be walking around posing as a Muslim woman and its unlikely anyone would confront her/him out of respect/fear. Could this get blown way out of proportion to ban large sunglasses, scarves and hats? I hope not, but it could happen.

Anyways, besides the 'national security' rationale behind it, this is just another example of legislating morality. No matter how much I agree with it - in this case i do - it is not the governments or even society's decision.

Also, I spent most of my childhood in the middle east (I'm white) and I saw the full black shroud EVERYWHERE. It's a social norm - like seeing a chick in a bikini walking a chihuahua on a US beach - but the thing I couldn't get through my head was how they could physically put up with the shroud in the heat. I mean, most of the year its above 80 in the daytime, and above 100 in the summer. So yeah, totally retarded.

[LordJaric]

At 7/14/09 08:22 PM, SolInvictus wrote:

At 7/14/09 07:57 PM, Korriken wrote: Darwin has spoken! If all this pathetic wretch had to live for was to see the next harry potter film, then I dare say he's done the right thing.

:i believed it was true because, oddly enough, i wouldn't have been surprised if something like this had actually happened.

Um, exactly how long has the 5th book been out.

[killxp]

At 7/15/09 01:59 AM, SolInvictus wrote: i'm wondering if we should shift this back to what i was originally hoping to discuss or not since the ban on burqas is a fairly interesting and controversial one, even though not quite what i wanted the focus to be on.

Sorry, Sollnvictus. Kind of looks like it is not going to happen. Besides "Treat The Disease, Not The Symptoms" is obvious. That is actually what you should do. Whether it be literally or figuratively. For medicine or social issues or whatever. The issue about burqas seems to be a lot more interesting.

My two cents:
So, they want to ban females for wearing something that they are banned against removing? Well, isn't that just as bad in the first place? Besides, outside of the real hardcore places in whatever Islamic countries, women know that if they do not want to wear something they don't have to. I mean, I doubt the arm of the homeland reaches all the way to an office building in France right? And forget about Islamic relatives or neighbors or whatever. They left that country for a reason so I do not see any real pressure on the women to keep wearing burqas from any of these people. Lastly, WHAT ABOUT THE WOMEN WHO WANT TO WEAR THEM!! For a women to wear a burqas is for her to show her subservance to god (her god I guess). Banning this opens up a whole different can of worms. Basically, I see women with burqas marching in the streets against the ban and claiming that the government/state/whatever is hating on their gender/race/religion/whatever. It just doesn't make sense to BAN the burqa as a form of attire. If I am wrong or you need any clarification from me please let me know. Late.

[morefngdbs]

At 7/12/09 06:31 PM, SolInvictus wrote: while i have no solution to this problem, realizing the ridiculously superficial nature of our current "solutions", and the limited benefits they provide us (if any), and that approaching them as a community as opposed to individuals is at least a start.

;;;
I've got a simple solution.
NO MASKS IN PUBLIC !
simple.
You cannot go out into public places, you cannot operate a motor vehicle wearing a mask.
You want to throw a sheet a towel a fucking tent over top of your clothes while wearing a purple butt plug up your ass, no problems here folks.
You want to come into my establishment wearing a mask, I'm going to throw you out.
I don't care who or what you say your wearing , covering your face is not how we in Canada act.
You don't like this, another simple solution DON'T COME HERE !

No one needs to cover their face to be dressed modestly. Wearing a hair covering, a hat, a turban, a scarf whatever does not need to cover a persons face. What they do in their own homes or their houses of worship , that's their business, but in public it is actually a chargeable offense here in Canada to be masked.

I personally believe it should stay that way.

[digitalboola]

At 7/13/09 10:58 AM, Sajberhippien wrote: Exactly that rethoric could be used to ban anyone from wearing for example a cross around their neck or whatever.

except that christian families don't FORCE their members to all wear it, whereas a lot of muslim ones do.

At 7/13/09 11:39 AM, RubberTrucky wrote: Not only that, I can promote banning alcohol, because it only serves to get people drunk, stupd and get into car crashes,

however, religion is stupid and these immigrants don't realize they're not in durkadurkastan anymore.

whether or not people are sensible enough to not get drunk in the first place.

except that's not the case here. it's not the women who are stupid for wearing the veils, it's the muslim men who beat them or throw acid in their faces or kill them if:

- they marry a non-muslim.
- they try to learn.
- they're unmarried and they're unveiled in the presence of other men who aren't family members.
- they don't listen to men.
- they're unveiled.
- they get raped, because it's their fault.

and so on. islam is traditionally very backward and misogynistic, even if there are more modern followers nowadays.