European Court upholds French full veil ban

[muriel_volestrangler]

Source: BBC

The European Court of Human Rights has upheld a ban by France on wearing the Muslim full-face veil - the niqab.
...
French law says nobody can wear in a public space clothing intended to conceal the face. The penalty for doing so can be a 150-euro fine (£120; $205).
...
The court ruled that the ban "was not expressly based on the religious connotation of the clothing in question but solely on the fact that it concealed the face".
...
"The Court was also able to understand the view that individuals might not wish to see, in places open to all, practices or attitudes which would fundamentally call into question the possibility of open interpersonal relationships, which, by virtue of an established consensus, formed an indispensable element of community life within the society in question."

Read more: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-28106900

[Surya Gayatri]

1. Well done, European Court of HR...and I think similar

legislation should be voted on in the UK. As a resident of France, I find it very disconcerting in British streets and public transport to be face to face with a "ghost"--very unnerving in a western setting.
In the Middle East, it's another culture, another context, and thus not so jarring.

[malthaussen]

2. Seems like a pretty blatent affront to personal liberty to me.

Are they going to prohibit "I hate the European Council" T-shirts next?

-- Mal

[Tetris_Iguana]

3. Good on them.

There's no room in our civil society for such misogyny.

I recently passed by a family where the mom was in full burka and the daughter was wearing the nijab.

What kind of family teaches their young daughters to be ashamed of their bodies like that?

[leftynyc]

4. Good

Those things are disgusting and only an effort to disappear women.

[Warpy]

26. Have you ever talked to Saudi or Yemeni women?

I have, everybody gets quite chatty at 2 AM in the hospital and if they can afford a US hospital, they can speak either French or Italian, if not English.

They tell me it protects the skin in the desert. They also enjoy the total anonymity it confers and feel quite exposed in the west, although they were all wearing western style clothing.

However, France is not the desert and they need to adapt, although I'm sure they feel quite naked without that thing. Their anonymity is gone and that is the point.

So there is an alternative point of view on the shroud. I think it's highly inappropriate in western countries, all that flapping material can be damned dangerous around machinery. I also think it's good to let them decide how much of it they want to wear except for the niqab. I've watched women in my area go from the full body veil to the head scarf and once in a while, dropping the whole business.

I figure if I could cope with nuns in my youth, I can cope with new immigrants in abayas.

[leftynyc]

27. I don't think anyone

objects to abayas or headscarves (I certainly don't) but when it comes to covering the face, that's simply trying to make someone invisible and I'll never believe it's being done voluntarily. I've noticed it's common only in countries that treat their women like shit so I hate the fucking things.

To answer your question, I've never met anyone from Yemen but yes on Saudi Arabia and they didn't cover their faces. They see the hypocrisy of wearing the burqua while the mean parade around in western wear but have no desire to be beaten and jeered at in the streets of Riyadh. It's the American women who have moved there (usually due to their husband's job) who really have tales to tell. The clash of civilizations really smacked them in the face.

[Warpy]

28. Yes, I know about the clash over there

Last edited Thu Jul 3, 2014, 04:51 PM - Edit history (1)

I wisely turned down an invitation to be a nurse for over $100K a year, tax free in the late 80s. I knew my big mouth would get me in trouble and the idea that I'd have to euchre some man to take me grocery shopping just made the whole enterprise look ridiculous.

However,they do look at the face covering as protection from the sun. They say they never wear it indoors unless the press show up with cameras.

[riderinthestorm]

29. There are so many more desert tribes in Africa, Australia etc who wear nothing at all

I think its interesting that only in these desert tribal areas that conveniently have misogynistic, patriarchal religious bullshit that full shrouding is offered up as "sun protection"....

I'm not disagreeing with you Warpy, I don't know the women you were speaking with. I've never heard any fully shrouded Muslim woman offer up the excuse that they did it as protection against the sun - its always mentioned as a "religious requirement" - especially those who wear it here in Western cultures.

Just things that make you go hmmmm

[Warpy]

31. Well, most of the women in the Arab world, especially those in Saudi Arabia, are

quite a bit fairer than their sisters in less prudish areas. Makes a difference.

Also, the getup is not a religious requirement, Mohammad only specified "modest" dress, which in his time meant sleeves and a long skirt but was ambiguous enough to allow barely clothed sub Saharan Africans to stay that way, adhering to local custom but not flaunting the pink bits.

That's the problem with Saudi Arabia, it predates Islam and has now become a part of Wahab Islam. Still, the women rationalize it by saying it protects the skin, which is likely how it all got started back in antiquity. It's also useful in sand storms. Men go around with covered faces in those, too.

Most veiled ladies here use the pashmina, something which drapes beautifully while covering up bad hair days. Once they've acclimated to the US, they wear any color but black.

[riderinthestorm]

5. Good. This is a misogynistic cultural relic that has no place in Western societies imo

Its designed to erase women from society, ensuring they are second class citizens.

[840high]

6. Good.

[Coventina]

7. Good.

The complete covering of women is cultural misogyny, and not required by Islam.

It bugs the heck out of me when I see families where the males are dressed in up-to-date Western fashions and the women are swathed in cultural relics.

Can you say double-standard?

[Jim Lane]

8. It's horrifying that so many DUers applaud this decision.

Summing up comments: "I personally find this clothing choice to be offensive, so I'm glad that the government banned it."

Is it really that hard to see where this could go? Some governments would ban veils but others would prohibit women from wearing pantsuits or jeans. Some would ban members of either sex from wearing shorts.

Nor does it stop with clothing. Some people are offended by the sight of blacks wearing Afros or dreadlocks, or by two men walking down the street holding hands.

I'm just glad this decision has no effect in jurisdictions still covered by the First Amendment. I shudder to think what Kansas or North Carolina would do if they were part of the EU.

[muriel_volestrangler]

9. There's 2 things bound up in this: the sexism of a face veil, and the prevention

of mutual recognition. The latter is a problem for societal understanding - anyone wearing a veil is cutting themselves off from society, and I would advise no-one to do it - they are saying "I'll never trust you", and so they, and their husband, will never be trusted.

But the more pressing problem with a veil is the dehumanisation of the woman; normal people cannot really imagine they would do it without coercion or brainwashing. If you think this is equivalent to pantsuits or jeans, I suspect you've never thought about this issue before.

[Jim Lane]

10. Your concept of "normal" is too limited.

You're assuming that "normal" means "what my friends and I do." Some devout Muslims would presumably say that it's normal for women in public to dress modestly (that's how they'd describe it), and that Western women are showing the effects of coercion or brainwashing. (I'm not religious but I do believe that our mass media establish cultural norms, including the sexualization of women's bodies, in a way that could with some justice be described as brainwashing.)

Some people think it's normal to go to church on Sunday. Some think it's normal to go to synagogue on Saturday. Some think it's normal to operate on a reality-based belief system that rejects all religion and superstition, and that worshiping an invisible sky-being is the product of coercion or brainwashing.

My bottom line is that I don't want government deciding what's normal and criminalizing deviations from the official definition.

I would join you in advising women not to wear a veil, but I would respect their autonomy if they chose otherwise.

[muriel_volestrangler]

11. The vast majority of devout Muslims think it's normal for women to show their faces in public

let alone the vast majority of devout or secular Christians, Hindus, Buddhists and so on. My concept of 'normal' is global in this. It's the most extreme patriarchal version of Islam, plus a vanishingly small few others, that think women should be made to hide their faces or to think they are a second class citizen that should voluntarily hide their faces.

Use of the face to convey emotions and meaning is a fundamental part of being a primate. It predates spoken language. It's child abuse to make someone think they shouldn't do it.

[Jim Lane]

25. I'm no expert on Muslim sartorial standards but I do think there are variations among countries.

Didn't the Taliban and the Iranian mullahs prohibit certain kinds of dress for women? Maybe requiring the headscarf?

My point is that, if you accept the general principle of a government using criminal law to override individual choice about matters of dress, some governments will use that power in ways you like (prohibiting the veil) but others will use it in ways you presumably dislike (prohibiting the uncovered female head, or prohibiting the wearing of shorts by either sex).

[riderinthestorm]

12. "Governments" do that all the time. There are restrictions on what women can wear in public

(they must have a top on for example that covers their breasts - even nominally). Men too (they have to wear something that covers their own dangly bits). Nor could either sex could go into a western court wearing the "cultural dress" of a Kalahari tribal member, even if we were actual Kalahari tribal members.

As a society, we decide and make laws about what we want in our "public square". We have decided as a community that some cultural aspects aren't acceptable within our public square - the full nudity of the Australian Aborigine for example has been weighed and dismissed as a public norm in virtually every western society.

If the niqab or burqa were religious that MIGHT have some potential bearing on any discussion about whether to allow it legally or not in our communities.

It doesn't however. Its strictly cultural just like FGM which we also have decided to legally ban as a community. They are misogynistic practices designed to harm women. The niqab and burqa are designed to erase women from society and I reject any attempts to "respect" that kind of cultural relativism.

[Rhinodawg]

13. When this passed in 2010 there were riots.

If they keep oppressing them, don't be surprised what's going to happen.

Of course I'm against any violence.

[freshwest]

14. Most interesting part was here:

...in places open to all, practices or attitudes which would fundamentally call into question the possibility of open interpersonal relationships, which, by virtue of an established consensus, formed an indispensable element of community life within the society in question...

Beats the SCOTUS hands down for getting to the heart of the matter.

[christx30]

15. If we go to their countries,

we have to adapt to their cultural norms. Any woman on this board would be expected to cover their hair. Go to Saudi Arabia and the cultural police will force you to comply.
I don't see what is wrong with forcing to adapt to our culture. They moved here for a reason. To either get away from something there, or for some kind of opportunity here that wasn't available to them there. And that opportunity owes itself, in part, to our culture. Respect it.

[Mz Pip]

42. This is what it is about, I think.

If someone is going to immigrate to France, France expects some attempt be made at accepting and assimilating into the culture.

I don't have a problem with it.

[madville]

16. The facial recognition cameras won't work on them

I'm dead serious, how can the government compile data through facial recognition when it is covered? And if someone wants to move around the streets without a record of it all they would have to do is cover up.

I'm against the practice of forcing the women to cover up but I believe the government was concerned their cameras would be less effective.

[riderinthestorm]

19. This has nothing to do with surveillance cameras and more to do with French history

which has a strong secular tradition from their Revolution days.

Religious figures were strongly associated with the French aristocracy and were summarily executed along with them.

Since then, any overt public religiosity has met with very strong resistance. Their constitution is not like ours and this kind of ban is entirely plausible and is even strongly supported by French Muslims themselves who understand the niqab/burqa are cultural, not religious.

Besides, France does not have the nationwide surveillance camera plague of the US or the UK.

[madville]

17. Do most US states

Make women wearing a veil remove it for a drivers license photo? Probably a silly question since if they are wearing a veil their husbands probably don't allow them to drive anyway.

[riderinthestorm]

20. I don't know about France but in the UK and the US its illegal to wear a full face covering

for a DL photo.

Seems reasonable so people and cops know that the person they're dealing with is ACTUALLY the person they're dealing with under that garment...

[Ash_F]

18. Any facial covering?

So I guess I'll have to give up my hobby:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/04/17/heres-japans-latest-trend-zentai/


Oh and this too, I guess. But I'm really going to miss the first one.



And isn't masquerade a French thing?

[riderinthestorm]

21. Your examples only prove the point - these are party/one-off events. Not daily wear

like those who wear niqab/burqa every single time they step out their door, and for their entire dealing with people during their daily life.

[Ash_F]

22. But they would still be illegal. /nt

[riderinthestorm]

23. Ok. So?

Even on Halloween, none of those would be acceptable in any convenience store.

None of them are acceptable in banks or courts or....

The fact of the matter is in Western culture, masking oneself is problematic and outright prohibited in many areas of life. Its not our culture.

I see and hear that you participate in these activities but surely you know that kind of costuming is not normative in our culture.

And its not a burqa, designed to erase and disappear women so they cannot participate in western society. Ever. Except as second class citizens.

[Ash_F]

24. Don't get me wrong, I am not fan of the burqa

But this is heavy handed targeted racism.

France's abortion laws are more restrictive than the US. So is this veil law suppose to prove that they are ahead of America on women's rights or something? It doesn't seem like it.

Oh and BTW I don't actually enjoy wearing full body leotards, but I'm not saying I won't.

[lilaliu]

33. Are these full body suits from bonhoo.com?

I am curious about these full body suits a lot, and I have seen the similiar ones at bonhoo.com, so are these suits from here?

[Ash_F]

37. Jury results: The average juror is not that bright.

On Thu Aug 21, 2014, 12:23 PM you sent an alert on the following post:

Are these full body suits from bonhoo.com?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=876076

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

YOUR COMMENTS

This is a spammer for a web shop. Don't be fooled.

JURY RESULTS

A randomly-selected Jury of DU members completed their review of this alert at Thu Aug 21, 2014, 12:34 PM, and voted 2-5 to LEAVE IT ALONE.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: And how does the alerter know this is spam? Not obvious to me. Let it stand. If the poster is spamming, it will become obvious soon enough.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Second post ever and it sounds a lot like a spammer. If I'm wrong I'm sorry.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given

Thank you.



Bumped a 2 month old thread to hock your wears and they still can't figure it out? Well played spammer. Well played.
































BTW this is why juries let people like Zimmerman off, and will let off the cop who killed that young man in Ferguson.

[lilaliu]

38. No, I am not.

I saw the picture on google, and when I clicked the picture, it leaded me to this page! I am just interested in the bodysuits that they wear.

[Ash_F]

40. For DUer's edification:

By searching for pictures related to 'zentai' and then following links to discussion boards, they can give a boost to their web shop's google rankings by entering the discussion and dropping the URL.

This is much more effective then random spamming, because of the way Google's algorithms work. They are optimized to look for real discussions. The link they made between the picture I posted from that news article and their own webpage also gave the website a huge boost.

I also gave them another boost by just now posting the word 'zentai' in this thread, which no one else had previously written.









The more you know!

[rollin74]

30. Good

[lilaliu]

32. No idea

Can not do it even for fashion?

[leftynyc]

34. Good for France

It's been a weird week for me. All these years I had never seen someone in a face veil in NYC. Never. This week I saw two - one on Tues on 52nd and Madison and one Wed on 34th and Park. I find the fucking things unnerving and think their only use is to disappear women.

[littlemissmartypants]

35. Excellent catch.

Interesting thread. Symbols matter.

Thanks, muriel_volestrangler.

Love, Peace and the Righteous Fight.
Lmsp

[davidpdx]

36. Interesting decision

The ruling specifically mentioned a niqab and a burqa, so I take it the other types of dress that are pictured in the BBC article are permitted in France given they don't cover the face.

I took a class on EU law through Coursera just for the heck of it. The way they settle a member country's law and EU law is fascinating.

The areas I agree is having someone's face visible so that you can interact with them. One can not be part of a community in a plural society when their face is hidden. I also agree on the public safety concern of people not concealing their face.

At the same time, I think tolerance for different cultures has to be weighed.

For instance Malala Yousafzai's stance is compelling:

..said she is of the view that a woman should not cover her face in court or in other places "where it's necessary to show your identity".

"I don't cover my face because I want to show my identity," Malala, who considers herself a believing Muslim said.

Asked what she thinks of the burqa in the UK, Malala told the Guardian, "I believe it's a woman's right to decide what she wants to wear and if a woman can go to the beach and wear nothing, then why can't she also wear everything?"

source

I haven't followed the case at all, so I'm just seeing the article and decision for the first time.

[ripcord]

39. I support this decision for another reason

So many peaceful protests have been destroyed by so called anarchists wearing masks, I'm tired of that kind of crap that allows RWNs to marginalize protests.

[Rhinodawg]

41. Some people might consider this..

vile anti-muslim racism.