French Senate passes ban of full Muslim veils

[onehandle]

Source: AP

PARIS – The French Senate has voted overwhelmingly for a bill banning the burqa-style Islamic veil everywhere from post offices to streets, in a final step toward a making it law.

The Senate voted 246 to 1 Tuesday in favor of the bill, which has already passed in the lower chamber, the National Assembly.

Any dissenters have 10 days to challenge the measure in the Constitutional Council watchdog, but that is considered unlikely.

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100914/ap_on_re_eu/eu_france_forbidding_the_veil_4

[cosmicone]

1. Good n/t

[Taverner]

268. +1

[get the red out]

2. It's their country

:shrug: If the people don't like it, they can vote their politicians out of office.

[pnwmom]

3. And no one is forced to immigrate there, either -- if it important

to them to subjugate the women in their families.

[louis-t]

6. Correct.

[DirkGently]

22. And the people who are there already should just leave?

... including the Muslim women who say they want this?


Sorry, but this "subjugation" is too subjective. At least, too subjective to be declaring that the choice will be taken from the individual. It wouldn't fly under the U.S. Constitution, so why would we support it abroad?

[pnwmom]

136. Their Constitution has stronger protections AGAINST religious

coercion than ours does, with very strict lines drawn between Church and State. I'm not sure our system is better, frankly.

And I don't believe that any woman who is not being coerced, however subtly, would choose to wear an all over body cover that is hot and interferes with both vision and movement.

[Chulanowa]

179. And what if they don't believe...

that any woman who is not being coerced, however subtly, would choose to wear six-inch heels, painted-on jeans, and a restrictive chest device that has the sole purpose of thrusting her breasts higher and creating more cleavage for men to admire?

Obviously they're not anglo-christian Western women, so their opinion is wholly invalid, right? :rofl:

[pnwmom]

244. Those clothes don't prevent women from participating in society.

They don't hide women's identities or restrict their vision or make it impossible to communicate through facial expression.

[Chulanowa]

249. Gotta love those mobile goalposts

The coercive, demeaning and exploitative dress code of the west is okay because I'm in the West!

[riderinthestorm]

252. But wearing those clothes means one can still work

and interface with others, and go into a bank and do business etc.

A push-up bra in no way hinders any woman's ability to function in our western culture. A burqa does. That's not moving any goalposts, it's just reality. A burqa erases a woman from society while I'll state the obvious - stiletto heels, tight jeans and a push-up bra are exactly the opposite. Since you've chosen to ignore the vast majority of women who don't wear coercive, demeaning and exploitative garb on a daily basis and instead you have chosen to create an analogy of extremes, I'll run with it.

Which do you think is more heinous for women's equality? To be shrouded, faceless and anonymous? Or to be in heels, tight jeans and a push-up bra? Go ahead. Since these are the only options you've allowed, you get to "pick" which is more empowering for women....

[Chulanowa]

294. A couple amusing things in your post

1) A woman in a burqa, or a body cast, or a snoopy mascot costume, or what have you, is 100% perfectly capable of interacting and interfacing with society. She has absolutely no deficit in this regard, she is not a stunted apelike creature lacking in human ability. The problem is YOU. YOU are incapable of interfacing and dealing with her. because your simple, pinched little mind is busy making assumptions about her humanity, her intellect, and her very nature, making you unable to treat her like a fellow human being. This is directly comparable to the opposite extreme; the woman with her thong showing above crack-riders and covered in only a skimpy baby-doll tee has no deficits in dealing with the world around her; the people who are too busy gawking at her and seeing her as a rack of meat for their personal enjoyment are the ones with the issues.

2) I have not chosen to ignore the majority of women who are not "coerced" either way. Simply that I'm pointing out that just as most women dressing skimpily are doing so of their own free will and based on a rational judgment of how they wish to comport themselves, so to do women who choose to dress in potato sacks. The irony is that you are only willing to believe that the latter is "coerced," to the point of completely disregarding the statements and opinions of the women who dress in this manner who state the direct opposite. In effect you are dismissing them as human beings and holding up a much scantier outfit as the "norm" even though an equally valid and coherent argument can be made for that to be just as coercive and debilitating. At the end of the day, your opinion is shit, and all that matters is the opinion of the women wearing either outfit.

3) I think neither is heinous for women's equality. What's heinous is when you tell women that they are brainless dupes who are too stupid to dress themselves and must instead have men dictate to them what they can and cannot wear. This applies just as much to people like you, as it does to the people forcing women to wear these garments! if htye are not free to make their own choices, then they are not free.

[riderinthestorm]

296. The woman may be capable but the rules of the garment are such that she is prohibited.

You can say she's "free" to interact but if she's wearing that garb, she accepts her culture's stipulations about it - which mean she is shackled, chained and unable to be a fully functioning member of society. I make no assumptions about her - I simply know Islamic customs about the burqa and niqab. You clearly do not.

2. Nope. I see the misogynistic intent of the garment in question. It's meant to control and demean, to diminish and disappear. I never said anything about coercion. Read my posts. I never said anything of the sort. The women who typically don these things do so of their own free will. That doesn't mean they are "free", not by any stretch of the imagination. My position is complete reality - which garb actually empowers women. You were the one who chose the extremes. Deal with it.

3. Men already dictate what we can and cannot wear. It's law. A woman lawyer can no more go into her work place topless than an Aboriginal woman can go into the bank without clothes. We can and do make laws restricting what can be worn in the public sphere (especially women). That's the part of being in a "free" society - we get to debate and discuss and decide what's going to happen there. And I'm okay with that.

Furthermore, as a society we already decide to outlaw cultural practices that offend us - things like slavery, FGM, cock fighting, pit-bull fighting etc. The burka is a misogynistic cultural practice that shouldn't be exempt from public scrutiny and a decision over whether it will or will not be included as a part of our western culture. Frankly it's despicable that anyone on DU believes they need to uphold such a misogynistic garment like the burqa as some sort of badge imho. Ensuring the disappearance of women in our society should be anathema to most progressives. I don't see anything amusing about any of it.

[Socal31]

322. Wow.

You are pretty far out there.

[defendandprotect]

271. No organized patriarchal religion dictates 6" heels, tight jeans, nor bras . . ..

However, organized patriarchal religion's do dictate the wearing of the veil/burqua.

Separation of Church & State is a higher value than subjugation of females --

RATHER, support for female equality should be acknoweledged as the highest value.

[Chulanowa]

295. Incorrect, actually

Islam calls for both sexes to cover their hair while outdoors or at worship.

everything beyond that is tribalist bullshit, and is actively being challenged by women, men, and religious scholars in each of the countries you could name. Even in Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan, there are no shortage of people who challenge these strictures as being "unislamic" - and they are making good headway, because thye are, in fact, not Islamic in nature. This is the case with many of the more abhorrent practices in the region.

Might I suggest doing a little research int othe subject, rather than just spewing Daniel Pipes bullshit? There's enough ignorant cross-burning on DU as it is.

[defendandprotect]

297. Islam is a religion which "dictates" -- as I related in my post ....

Just to refresh your memory ....

No organized patriarchal religion dictates 6" heels, tight jeans, nor bras . . ..

However, organized patriarchal religions do dictate the wearing of the veil/burqua.

Separation of Church & State is a higher value than subjugation of females --

RATHER, support for female equality should be acknoweledged as the highest value.


And, yes, I am aware that many Muslims claim -- indeed make quite clear -- that there is no such

demand within the KORAN for the wearing of the veil or burqua. However, when the "BS" appears

on the scene with dress-police who attack women with sticks if their head scarf is slightly off --

or attack women who fail to wear a burqua ... then in reality, the "BS" lives and thrives!

And certainly Islamic Fundamentalists have moved Iraq away from the freedom that men and women

there had under Sadaam and forced women into burquas. That's the reality.


Female Genital Mutiliation isn't either directly connected to Islamic teachings . . .

however, it has travelled with the Islamic religion. And that's the reality.


Who's Daniel Piepes? Forget it -- try some research yourself!

And -- also -- try actually READING the post you're responding to -- !!

[Yupster]

174. I agree with the word subjugate

I was in Europe this summer, and it was disturbing seeing the women in burques.

It basically takes the woman and removes her from the world.

While sightseeing, she can't make her opinions or reactions known to anyone but her husband whose ear she whispers into. The waiters can't hear her, so she whispers into her husband's ear and her husband tells the waiter what she needs.

I guess I'm prejudiced, but the reaction I got was this person is to be invisible. She is to have no opinions, questions, reactions, voice. She can't even smile at a child.

It disgusted me and I call it abuse.

[pnwmom]

260. I have seen them up close, too, and I agree with you.

The woman wearing one is a cipher. And one of the weirdest things is, if two women pass each other on the street, women who are actually good friends -- they won't even be able to recognize each other. Not unless they're carrying a recognizable child or following a recognizable husband.

The burqa is all about control. It's no accident that Elizabeth Smart, that kidnapped Mormon girl, was made to wear a version of one. And her captor could get away with it for so long. Elizabeth was invisible to everyone around her.

[defendandprotect]

272. Exactly . . . . it's about "disappearing" women from society ...!!

[DirkGently]

20. Do you take the same view of countries that *require* face

coverings?

There's not much qualitative difference between telling a person what MUST wear vs. what she CAN'T wear, is there?

[get the red out]

60. I didn't take a "view"

I simply stated that this is not the US, so I don't get a vote on it one way or the other. I don't see how that is a "view" on how the French should run their country?

[DirkGently]

116. I think we understand it's up to the French. Point being, they're wrong.

[pnwmom]

157. If you were hit by a car driven by a woman in a burqa,

as is pictured in the link, what would you do? You couldn't see her face. How could you identify her in Court? The witnesses in the backseat were covered, too. How would you recognize them if they turned up in the Courtroom?

I don't think anyone should be driving a car who is wearing a facial covering that obstructs vision, or who isn't willing to remove his or her facial covering after an accident. Do you?

This is just one example of how someone wearing a mask or veil is prevented from full communication and participation in society. There are many others.

[DirkGently]

172. Specious argument. She could be wearing sunglasses and a hat.

There is no compelling secular reason for such a ban. And there is no question this ban is a pander RW hysteria over Islam. Pretending that it's some kind of coincidence that right-wingers are in office in France, and worldwide anti-Muslim hysteria is at a peak, and somehow, at the same time, people just happened to notice the dangers of a whopping 2,000 Muslim women in France wearing "masks" is some kind of public safety concern is, pardon me, bullshit.

[pnwmom]

212. You've obviously never seen a woman close up wearing one of

these things. It is NOTHING like wearing a hat and sunglasses. You can't see hair; if she's wearing gloves, you can't see her skin color. You can't judge age. With the worst of these veils, you can see nothing but the faint glimmer eyes obscured behind a piece of dark netting.

You didn't answer my question. If a woman wearing one of these things hit you in a car accident, how would you identify her later? It's not as if she would take it off for you to look at her on the street.

And the main issue isn't safety -- it's the full participation of women in an egalitarian, non-sectarian society. Which the burqa interferes with.

[DirkGently]

229. I'd take the plate like I did when the same thing happened with a

drunk 'merican driving a green Ford pickup truck smashed into the back of my SO's car on I-75 at 4:00 a.m. Followed him, got the plate, noted the make, model, and color, called the cops. He got convicted of hit-and-run. I got a glimpse of him, but couldn't have identified him in court. Didn't have to. Not that difficult.

As for an "egalitatarian society," don't you think it's a little a self-defeating to propose to accomplish that by threatening women with a criminal conviction for their choice of dress? More women in jail = more equality? Really?

[pnwmom]

242. You must be worried about the criminal penalties the MEN would face

if they forced a woman to wear the burqa. Because there are no criminal penalties attached to women for wearing it.

http://www.smh.com.au/world/contentious-veil-ban-sails-through-french-senate-20100915-15cqo.html

The bill allows for fines of €150 ($200) and compulsory citizenship classes for any woman caught covering her face.

There are stiff penalties - fines of €30,000 and a year in prison - for anyone, such as husbands or brothers, convicted of forcing the veil on a woman.

_________________________________

As to your other point, there are many legal situations in which you might have to identify the driver, such as when an injury is involved. The fact that you didn't, in your particular case, is irrelevant.

[DirkGently]

245. What part of the fine levied *on the woman* do you not understand?

If the real point was to punish men for forcing women to wear them, that could easily be passed independently. The point here, therefore, is demonstrably to control and punish the Muslim *women* in question.

As to the driver identification issue, the fact is you cannot articulate any kind of unique threat posed by a woman in a veil, vs. anyone wearing a ballcap and sunglasses, or any other situation in which you can't clearly see someone's face.

[pnwmom]

259. What part of "More women in jail = more equality? Really?" did you not mean?

No woman would be put in jail for wearing a burqa -- but her husband could end up there. The civil fine owed by a woman would be tiny compared to the criminal penalty of a man who coerced her (and would be paid by her husband anyway). The point is absolutely NOT to control and punish the Muslim women -- it's to stop their coercion by the men.

And the law was carefully written not to apply only to burqas, but to any face covering, such as a mask, that obscures the features. It doesn't contain the word "veil" or "Muslim" or "woman." No reasonable person would compare a regular baseball cap and sunglasses to a burqa -- but if such a cap included a face-obscuring cloth that hung down from the eyes, then that would qualify, too.

[DirkGently]

264. No reasonable person would pretend this wasn't a religiously

motivated ban. Fines vs. jail is nice to hear, but it still punishes women for their religious choice of dress. I was a little suprised to hear of the wording, since the entire press discussion has been about veils, but it's a bit silly to pretend this is a ban intended to affect the rash of random facial coverings people other than Muslim women might be wearing in France.

Yes?

To recap,

This ban punishes Muslim women for a religious practice, based on anti-Muslim sentiment, ethnocentricity, cultural hostility and fear. There's no honest way to pretend that isn't the purpose.

This ban has nothing to do with public safety or the fear that veiled women will rob banks, or because people other than Muslim women are covering their faces.

This ban does nothing to improve equality for women or any other such worthwhile purpose.

This ban will not protect Muslim women from overbearing husbands, who will simply keep them at home.

It is not a coincidence that this ban was proposed in the midst of anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim furor, by a rightwing administration in France.

This ban would not pass U.S. Constitutional muster.

I think that about beats the horse to death. You are welcome to your opinion, of course, but I see no honest way to read this other than a paternalistic attack on a religious practice that, while understandably objectionable for a number of reasons, is well outside the scope of reasonable government intervention.

[pnwmom]

267. And no reasonable person would pretend that this "religious" requirement --

which isn't actually required anyone in the Qu'ran, by the way -- isn't really about CONTROL.

The ban is related to the French belief that all people, women and men, should have a full and equal participation in the public sphere. And that donning a garment that renders the wearer invisible prevents that.

I don't know what the U.S. Constitution has to do with this situation. In France, under their Constitution, the ban is expected to be INSIDE the scope of "reasonable government intervention."

[DirkGently]

276. Why don't you believe the women when they say otherwise?

I think it's patronizing to essentially tell the Muslim women either that that they don't understand their own religion, or aren't capable of recognizing repression when they see it. This is the heart of ethnocentrism, in my view. Direct harm to anyone is a basis for a law. A garment that someone tells you is part of their belief system, and hurts no one, is not.


We're going to have to agree to disagree on this one.

[pnwmom]

282. Because plenty of Muslim women -- I know many immigrants here --

say OTHERWISE.

Few men in the Muslim community will be able to afford keeping their wives inside the home, never doing anything useful outside. So the new law, in conjunction with the Imam's ruling that wearing the veil isn't required when Muslim women live in a non-Muslim country, will support the Muslim women who don't want to wear the awful things. The few others can wear it inside all they want.

[DirkGently]

300. It's not your call. You're not in charge of what people should think.

[riderinthestorm]

286. Because they don't understand their own religion.

and clearly they don't recognize repression when they are in the middle of it (that's very common for abused women by the way).

None of that is ethnocentrism - its battered women's syndrome. It's ignorance. It's culturally misogynistic almost on a level to FGM. It's harmful to women and societies that allow their women to be "erased" like this.

Yes, yes we are going to have to disagree on this. I won't speak for pnwmom but for me, I really disagree with you.

[DirkGently]

299. That's so patronizing it borders on misogyny. nt

[msanthrope]

301. Oh, it crossed that border....n/t

[DirkGently]

304. You are not the arbiter of what is required by someone else's religion.

And the issue is not whether this will pass French legal muster. The issue is whether it is reasonable to ban a garment some Muslim women say is part of their belief system because it insults your personal view of what is acceptable.

And it's not. There is no substantive difference between a law like this and a law banning the wearing of the cross, because of Christian sexism, or the banning of a yamulke or prayer shawl because of Jewish sexism.

All of these religions are sexist. Banning the symbols of that sexism is paternalistic nonsense and accomplishes nothing but making people who are uncomfortable with a particular Islamic practice feel better.

[defendandprotect]

274. Excellent points . . .!!

[defendandprotect]

273. It's the world . . . and female equality should be important to all --

and supported wherever female oppression rears its ugly head --

The underpinning for oppression of females and female inequality is organized patriarchy

religion --

[pnwmom]

137. I think there is a difference when the clothing women are being

told they must wear restricts their movement, their vision, and their full participation in society. As well as their sense of themselves as the equals of men.

[mjane]

35. i LOVE this double standard

if politicians tried to do this in america, everybody here would be saying "Fascists!" "freedom opponents" etc. And plenty of those people would not be Americans. More power to them.

When it's done in France, we get a -- well, it's their country, if the people don't like it, they can vote their politicians out of office.

well, duh.

but just because it's "their country" doesn't mean people who aren't French citizens are restrained from God forbid CRITICIZING them. Do people here in DU who aren't American citizens feel they can't criticize us? Not to my knowledge.

I just love the double standard.

[Name removed]

Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[get the red out]

66. What double standard?

I didn't criticize anyone. The double standard would come in if this WERE a predominantly Islamic country being discussed and someone here spoke in a way that was not properly enlightened regarding the sophisticated cultural differences regarding their views on women. Maybe the French have their cultural differences from us that require our being more enlightened about them and the laws they make?

Or it might just be "their country". The obvious.

[mjane]

86. Cultural differences

is not some kind of "get out of jail free" where policies and laws that run contrary to basic human freedoms are somehow justified. And that is especially true when we are talking about an (alleged) liberal democracy like france... or the US.

This law would not be ok in the USA, and it is no more ok in France.

[pnwmom]

140. Subjugating women is not okay in the US, and it is ESPECIALLY

not okay in France.

Good for them.

[mjane]

257. Women making free choices IS ok

in France and here.

Again, you are just doing the Simone de Beauvoir thing (no woman should be allowed to stay at home and raise the children, because if they have that choice, too many women will choose it) etc.

It is the job of govt. to treat people equally regardless of gender. It is not the job of govt. to tell a woman she can;t dress a certain way because it is suggestive to some others of being subjugated.

That goes for nuns in habits, too.

Catholicism is inarguably a religion that places women in a 2nd class status. Should they ban habits? No. It's a free choice.

You want to eliminate free choices of women. You want to make the choice FOR them. That does not empower women. It disempowers them.

[pnwmom]

261. The French government IS treating people equally.

The law says nothing about women, or veils, or religion. It merely requires people to wear clothing in public places that doesn't cover up the face -- so that all people participate fully in public life and some aren't kept invisible.

[mjane]

263. The sophistry is absurd

Nobody is claiming (although you make a poor effort) that this law was passed in response to any other type of clothing than the burqa.

The fact is that of all the religions, it is the burqa that some muslims choose to wear that inspired this law.

If you honestly think that this law was passed in response to anything but the fact that some muslim women wear burqas, then you are fooling nobody but yourself.

[pnwmom]

266. I'm not claiming it wasn't passed because of the burqa.

But it would apply equally to any other similar get-up. For example, the one that allowed Elizabeth Smart's kidnappers in Utah to drag her around in plain sight for a year. Alive, but invisible.

[get the red out]

222. "especially true when we are talking about an (alleged) liberal democracy"

Of course! In other words, exactly as I inferred, if we were discussing cultures who subjugate all women at all times the very fact that NO ONE is free in any way is supposed to be their eternal "get out of jail free card" for all liberals at all times. In other words women's human rights matter, except for those that "traditionally" say they don't. And those cultures are to be propped up and preserved against all modern advances in thought.

I have see "liberals" remark so many times about countries like Saudi Arabia that "it is their country" when women's rights, or lack of women's rights, were brought up. As I expected, "rights" only matter when the right to abuse women like property as a part of one's "culture" is concerned. Men MUST always have that right if they were born into a culture that dictates it, because of course the women that have never known rights want it that way. Liberal cultures are supposed to make whatever allowances in their own cultures necessary to accommodate these needs.

The argument is quite interesting, thankfully I have grown so accustomed to a large number of liberals not supporting women's human rights on any real level that it no longer upsets me much. It is actually humorous to see how predictable many of the responses are. The French can do what they please, I am glad to see it upset so many here though. If they had voted the other way I would not have had an emotional reaction.

[LostinVA]

87. I would agree to it in this country, too

We wouldn't allow women to be made to wear shackles in this country, and the burqua is no different, no matter how many people want to say it isn't. Women do not choose to wear it in public, they are made to, as much as the FLDS teenagers and women are made to marry men they don't want to marry. They have to.

[mjane]

115. I can respect that for consistency

even though I disagree with it. Your point sounds too Simone de Beauvoir for me (the whole thing about not allowing women to stay at home with the kids, because then too many would choose that).

I believe in choice. Have you SPOKEN to any Muslim women? Trust me, there are plenty who choose to wear it. Many convert to Islam and take up the habit, so to speak (sorry, Catholic pun)...

Many women find it empowering, etc. even. I know that seems shocking, but it's true.

Ultimately, I believe that choice is what's key. Heck, it's a choice for a woman to embrace a concept like the Southern Baptists of the woman being subservient in the relationship. I think they should be free to make that choice, as long as our legal system recognizes them as equals to men. If they choose to subjugate their opinion, etc. to their husbands, that's a choice they should be free to make.

[LostinVA]

120. Ummm -- I didn't say that at all, please point out where I did?

"our point sounds too Simone de Beauvoir for me (the whole thing about not allowing women to stay at home with the kids, because then too many would choose that)."

[mjane]

123. not for the second part

but for the first part.

paternalistically prohibiting women from making their own choices...

[pnwmom]

146. When a woman wears a burqa in public, it doesn't affect only THAT woman.

It sends a chilling message to every woman and girl in the vicinity. This woman is not the equal of men simply because she is a woman. You, by extension, are also unequal.

[mjane]

255. lots of expressions of free speech , expression, and religion

do not affect only that woman.

When a man wears long hair, that affects some people. When a man dresses in drag, it does too.

Bigots and etc. are affected by what other people say and how they appear

Tough for them

In a free society, nobody has the right not to be offended or affected (emotionally, psychologically) etc. by other's free expression.

Nobody has the right to punch you, etc. They certainly have the right to express themselves in ways that might offend you, in a free society, in public.

Two women kissing sends a message to a homophobe too. so what?

[riderinthestorm]

289. We have regulations and laws on free expression, free speech etc.

We also have laws about religious garb in public, and laws regulating what women may or may not wear in public. You cannot go topless to court (I'm guessing you are female). An Australian Aborigine cannot go into the bank to do business in her native/religious garb of nudity.

You cannot shout "fire" in a crowded theatre. etc. etc.

Sorry but I'm sure you know all this. Free societies can, and do, and have, made laws for centuries on what is and is not allowed in the public sphere. Arguing for this misogynistic garment (and not for say, legalized nudity - a far more empowering "outfit" for women) is anti-thetical to a society that strives for all parties to operate on a level playing field. This outfit is designed to erase women. It is designed to ensure they cannot operate freely in society. It is designed to ensure they are under the control of others. It's very much a "prey" outfit - a woman loses their peripheral vision, can't kick or run freely in it which is why it is designed in such a way that women who wear these must be accompanied by others.

[ldf]

173. yes, anonymity IS powering.... it is also cowardly.

just witness what people are willing to say to others from behind their anonymous keyboards. and i happen to be guilty of it myself. i should probably, at times, get my ass kicked.

and here is another example of my cowardice.

i don't give a damn if it is wrapped in religion or patriotism. if a "cultural" practice's purpose is to demean, subjugate or claim as property, another human being, it should be dealt with as just that. if a woman WANTS to be demeaned, subjugated or treated as property, then i don't give a damn. what happens to her is not of my concern.

but i don't for one second believe they want that. if they express that desire, they express it out of fear, or because they have been so psychologically abused that they THINK they want it. it is amazing how the human mind can justify the most outrageous of behaviors.

bottom line, participation in civil society requires a sacrifice.

if that is what they want, they can always go back to where they came from, or their parents came from, and LIVE THAT LIFE to its fullest. that cancer should NOT be allowed to be exported to other countries.

i will, in no way, acknowledge the legitimacy of that "cultural" tradition.

(and the rabid, rightwing fundies, or followers of any religion for that matter, trying to force their version of "the RIGHT way", on the rest of US, here in the good old u.s. of a., should also be appropriately dealt with.)

ok,now. kick my ass.

[Tansy_Gold]

221. I agree wholeheartedly, except that I don't consider it a "sacrifice"

to give up a practice that limits participation in civil society. But that's merely a matter of semantics, not philosophy. ;-)

Banning of burqas and similar all-concealing veils in no way prohibits these women or their families from practicing their religion/culture as they see fit in private places. When they enter the public sphere, however, a civil society, and especially one with a range of diverse cultures and religions and practices, demands that certain cultural/religious practices remain private and not be brought into public spaces.



TG, NTY

[amandabeech]

280. Another great post, Tansy. n/t

[riderinthestorm]

226. +1000. could not have said it better. nt

[mjane]

256. i'm not acknowledging the "legitimacy"

of any aspect of any religion, and that includes the wearing of burqas.

I am saying it is not the job of govt. to determine whether the practice is "legitimate' or should be practiced by adherents.

It is their CHOICE. In a free society, women should have the right to dress in burqas even if that makes some other people feel uncomfortable.

Get the distinction?

[riderinthestorm]

283. The government can and does regulate what women especially can wear in public

They absolutely make laws about what cultural practices will be tolerated and what will not be. African tribal women going naked are targeted - Australian Aborigines have nakedness as part of their culture and spirituality but they are not allowed by law to "practice" that in the public square.

In a free society, people decide what they will permit and what they will not. From FGM to burqas, nudity and toplessness to hate speech and crimes.

Do you get the distinction? (and welcome to DU by the way!) I actually "caught" your debut on DU and your posts are clear and lucid. Regardless of my disagreement with you on this, I welcome your "voice" here.

[Tansy_Gold]

293. Civil society is always a matter of compromises

Which means it is almost never perfect for anyone, but it strives to be as far as possible from totally imperfect for anyone. In other words, no one will get 100% of what they want, but neither will anyone else get 0% of what they want.

Invariably there will be issues where one individual or group wants an absolute in which there is no room for compromise. If those who demand the burqa in public will not be satisfied with anything less, and the functioning of the rest of the society requires the banning of the burqa, then yes, the society will get 100% and the burqa-lovers will get -0-. But only on that issue.

Their private practice of their religion is not banned. Their women (what a disgusting phrase!) are not forced to go out in public unveiled. They have the freedom to return to countries governed by institutions that either allow or in some cases require the burqa. So in fact there is a lot of room for the burqa lovers to compromise, but they refuse. They should not play the victim card in this case, whining that they have received "nothing" when in fact they have received a lot.

Many of them want all the advantages to be gained (for the men) by living in a "western" society, but they do not wish to compromise for those benefits. It is they who are being intransigent, not the French government.



TG, NTY

[gtar100]

325. +1

[Gin]

117. I agree...it is a cloth shackle...good analogy

[LostinVA]

122. Thank you

I don't know it can be seen as anything else.

[DirkGently]

126. So the women who say they want it are liars, or stupid?

Your position here is more anti-Muslim than it is pro-women. A free society works both ways. Government can neither require nor ban a symbol of a religion on the basis that the *idea behind it* is unacceptable.

[pnwmom]

143. The French live in a free society, just as we do. But one of the hallmarks

of their society is that they believe in a very strict separation of Church and State. In connection with this, they believe that the burqa prevents women from being full, equal participants in society, and so should be kept out of the public sphere.

In a conflict between "freedom of expression" and practices that subjugate women, Americans tend to lean toward freedom of expression. The French lean the other direction. But neither country can claim the mantle of the perfect "free society."

[DirkGently]

164. Those who are "banning" modes of dress have a lesser claim, IMO.

[pnwmom]

165. Yes, that's your opinion. But it is not the only liberal position

and ours is not the only free society.

[DirkGently]

171. Yes, it's an opinion. Pointing that out is not an argument.

[pnwmom]

141. Exactly. The first time I saw a man leading a woman around in her

full face and body covering, it was like seeing a man leading a woman around on a leash. Revolting.

[pnwmom]

138. The French have a constitution that has a stronger wall than

ours does between Church and State. In passing this law, they are saying that a religious garment that keeps a woman from full participation in society does not belong in the public sphere. Women are free to wear anything in the privacy of their homes or religious institutions, however.

I think the double standard is when liberals have to twist themselves into pretzels to defend, on the basis of "freedom of expression," cultural practices that exist to subjugate women.

[Quantess]

154. I would be happy if burqas were banned in the US.

So, there's no double standard on my part.

[defendandprotect]

275. This is Separation of Church & State -- and NOT any double standard ....

In fact, should this be happening in America we should protect females from this

oppression, as well.

These are dictates of organized patriarchal religion which seek to "disappear" females

from society and appropriate interaction in society.

No one's practice of their religion is dependent upon having their religious symbols/

clothing articles on display in public.

[DirkGently]

4. Gack. Not a victory for personal freedom.

It's not up to France to tell Muslims how to dress, and I see this more as a continuation of France's cultural paranoia than as anything aimed at helping women or Muslisms.


Kenza Drider, however, says she'll flirt with arrest to wear her veil as she pleases.

"It is a law that is unlawful," said Drider, a mother of four from Avignon, in southern France. "It is ... against individual liberty, freedom of religion, liberty of conscience, she said.

"I will continue to live my life as I always have with my full veil," she told Associated Press Television News.

[MissMillie]

19. agreed (n/t)

.

[louis-t]

5. I think any country has a right to say

you can't hide your identity in public.

[DirkGently]

8. Think they've banned scarves, sunglasses, snow hats?

That argument makes sense to me with a photo ID, but not on the street. And, contrary to the wording, they're not really talking about full, dive-suit style burquas, only.

[louis-t]

11. If the wording says 'full burqa only', why do you translate that as

something else? When you wear snow hats, ski masks, sunglasses, on the street, you can be asked to remove them when entering, say, A BANK, or a nightclub, or.......court. Nobody will argue that their religious rights are being challenged by not being allowed to wear their ski mask into a bank. Very weak argument on your part.

[DirkGently]

13. Because I read the article, and it doesn't say that?

Take another look. Any face covering is banned. Hijabs, etc. And the ban isn't limited to banks and nightclubs, so it's pointless to bring that up. If France's private property laws are like ours, "banks and nightclubs" can make their own requirements.

[louis-t]

32. Can they ban burquas in banks? Wouldn't a person

who chooses to wear one into a bank be just as offended if they are asked to remove it?

[DirkGently]

34. Government intrusion is not equal to private property rights.

That's the fundamental principle behind our own Bill of Rights. A restaurant can tell you not to discuss politics too loudly, or to put on a pair of shoes, or to remove your hat or sunglasses or snow mask. Ours do, and doesn't seem to have caused a national outcry.

Government banning a garment specific to a religion, without a clear non-religious purpose, directly contradicts our own Constitution. Why would we support weaker personal freedoms for French Muslims?

I'm sure this push will come here, and it will come from Fox News and the rightwing. I'd be appalled to see Democrats and liberals agree.

[louis-t]

156. No one has answered the question. Wouldn't a person

who wears a burqua into a restaurant and is refused service have a valid civil rights complaint? You're saying it's ok if a business does it, but not the government.

Rand Paul agrees with you.

[pnwmom]

158. They have their Constitution, we have ours. Theirs places greater

emphasis on freedom from religion, ours on free expression of religion.

And they do have a clear non-religious purpose to their law: to ensure the FULL and ACTIVE and EQUAL participation of all people, men as well as women, in society.

[murielm99]

Many gas stations and convenience stores around here ask

people to remove that gear when they come in. Some snowmobilers forget and they scare the clerks, who think they are being robbed.

I think this law is right for France.

[DirkGently]

17. Doesn't your example show why this law is superfluous?

It's warmer here, so our stores talk more about "No shirt, no shoes, no service." Which is legal. Telling people what they can and cannot wear on the street is overly broad.

I don't see any way around the fact that this is French cultural bias / anti-Muslim bigotry rearing its ugly little head again.

[pnwmom]

159. No, it's not superfluous. Women shouldn't be driving cars

in veils that restrict their vision and yet they do, at least they have been in France.

[Exultant Democracy]

15. Yep, a partial ban in government building banks schools could almost be justified, if evenly applied

but of course that isn't what it is about. It would be too simple to say that this is just racism, but of course that is part of it, but there is also a strong tradition in France toward keeping France authentically french. There attempt to keep their language free of foreign intrusions is particularly interesting since it is so boneheaded.

[DirkGently]

23. France has a history of this nonsense. Remember when they

went all weird about insufficiently "French" language?

[mjane]

38. They still DO

they have a govt. office (Ministry of Culture) that is authorized to (among other things) fine businesses, etc. that use "americanisms" and other non-French language in advertisement, correspondence, etc.

If our govt. put the kind of "our language only" restrictions on business that the French govt. puts on their businesses, people here would be up in arms.

[mjane]

37. How is keeping France "authentically" french

any better than English only laws or people in this country who want to keep "America for americans" etc?

Is bigotry and xenophobia ok if it's "tradition"? Or does that only apply to European countries and not for the USA.

Are racist, xenophobic etc. traditions a bad thing in America but somehow ok in France, because well... "it's tradition"?

[Exultant Democracy]

74. Well thanks for putting words in my mouth. Where is I say it was somehow OK?

no seriously how can my post be seen as a defense at all? Seems like all I did was point out that the french were doing shit like this before they were doing it to Muslim's so to simply call it all racist would miss the historical backdrop within which to interpret this event. Pointing out other instances of xenophobia is not accepting them as ok because they are tradition, in fact my post made it clear that I thought it was boneheaded.

DU is a place of discussion.

[mjane]

81. And similarly, not everybody

who is strict about immigration, enforcement, etc. is doing it because they aare xenophobic or racist. Would you extend that same understanding?

But fair enough if I misunderstood your point.

[Exultant Democracy]

106. I would absolutely extend the same understanding. Ignorance of the demographics play a huge role too...

My grand parents are not racist or xenophobic, but they don't seem to understand that the high quality of life that they have enjoyed as a wealthy westerner is far more threatened by birth rates that are in free fall then from natural migration patterns. If someone waved a magic wand and all the people here illegally were sent back to where they came from we would be screwed. If I have any hope of being able to retire and collect social security then America simply needs more Americans.

[mjane]

Then I can appreciate that

Personally, I am pretty strict about border control. It has exactly ZERO to do with race, but plenty of people will make that assumption.

I certainly don't hold anything against people who immigrate here illegally from Mexico. If I lived there, and was not an economic elite, I would probably do the same thing.

[MikeW]

145. I agree with you ... and its because on DU if you disagree you automatically get labeled by some

[pnwmom]

213. Why, in France, shouldn't the longstanding French cultural tradition of

keeping religion out of the public sphere be respected?

[mike r]

7. Très bien

Sledgehammer approach, but it's their right. Burqas give me the creeps.

[Recursion]

9. Then don't wear them

The solution to perceived oppression is not a law telling people what they can and can't wear.

[smirkymonkey]

237. What about laws in Islamic Theocracies banning women from

wearing shorts or clothing that exposes the skin. How is that any less "culturally ignorant".

[Recursion]

238. That's worse than what France is doing

But what does that have to do with anything?

[elleng]

10. Liberte, egalite, fraternite, sure.

'It is aimed at ensuring gender equality, women's dignity and security, as well as upholding France's secular values - and its way of life.

Kenza Drider, however, says she'll flirt with arrest to wear her veil as she pleases.

"It is a law that is unlawful," said Drider, a mother of four from Avignon, in southern France. "It is ... against individual liberty, freedom of religion, liberty of conscience, she said.'

[leftynyc]

12. Good

Don't like it? Planes fly both ways - into and out of France.

[onenote]

16. oooh. the love it or leave it argument

Don't see that one often on DU.

[leftynyc]

29. Not love it or leave it

If you feel you cannot abide by the societal rules of the place you live or wish to live, you can always go someplace else. That's what freedom is all about. Society is supposed to be for the greater good - not to pander to each moronic religious rule that comes along. If you wish to become a ghost and hide under a burqua (or even worse, be forced to wear one), then France obviously isn't the place for you.

[DirkGently]

31. That might sound better if it wasn't a new rule aimed at immigrants.

[leftynyc]

44. Only immigrants

that think it's okay to turn women into ghosts. I'm sure any immigrant who would be happy to be in France and follow their customs and laws will be most welcome.

[DirkGently]

46. Their religion's not your business. Nor France's. Wouldn't fly

here,so why is it okay there?

[leftynyc]

51. It obviously does fly in France

We operate under different laws. Why compare another country's laws to the US? They're entitled to their own law.

[onenote]

52. So its not legiitimate for me to criticize another country's laws, but you can praise them?

Interesting double standard you've got going there.

[leftynyc]

57. Who said you couldn't criticize?

Knock yourself out.

[Yupster]

175. If we're going to criticize, let's criticize

the countries that force their women into this type of second class status.

They seem to get a free ride.

[DirkGently]

83. For the same reason we decry laws *requiring* such garments?

We're not obligated to accept other cultures or their laws when we we feel they're wrong, correct? France is telling Muslim women they're wrong, and others are telling France that is is wrong. It's a matter of opinion, of course, but I endorse the American Constitutional approach, which would not permit this.

[leftynyc]

102. And I maintain

that France can do what it wants. I don't ask any country to follow US customs - that would be hubris.

[DirkGently]

113. Not threatening France with war. 8) Just expressing disapproval.

[onenote]

144. but you praise France for its decision

Was that praise because you were applauding the French for being so true to their customs, or because you think that what they are doing is good on a more general, not merely French-specific level.

[leftynyc]

216. I hate veils

I hate anything that turns a woman into a ghost. I've been told by scholars that the hiding of the face is in no way demanded by Islam and it's merely men deciding they want to control their women. I'll never support that. Good for France.

[MikeW]

151. actually your assuming all muslim women are ok with wearing it.

That isnt the truth.

France is offering them a way out.

[DirkGently]

278. The fact they're not required to wear them is the way out.

[LostinVA]

89. +1

[Chicago dyke]

134. yes, let's ban short skirts.

they are patriarchal and humiliating and sexualizing, right? so let's ban them, in the name of protecting women. high heels, too. do you know what it's like to walk in them? murder, i swear. so let's just make all american women wear nursing shoes and sweat pants. always. because we want them to be "equal."

/i hope i don't have to add the snark/

[mjane]

43. What utter crap

When politicians in this country pass or try to pass xenophobic, racist, nationalistic legislation - there is outrage, protest, etc.

But when France does it, it's ok because well... they can just choose another country?

NOBODY would make that argument about the USA in this website.

But it's ok... because it's France... and they have like tradition and stuff... and a right to make societal rules... rules that are punishable by govt. force... that infringe on liberty, self-expression, identity, etc... because it's France. It's "tradition"

[leftynyc]

48. We have a constitution to consider

France has no laws demanding religious freedom. Take it up with France and keep the US out of it.

[mjane]

79. I will not keep the US out of it

here's a hint. In many cases, and laws about religious freedom are one such example, laws against same are wrong BECAUSE THEY ARE WRONG. The fact is that the constitution codifies that into our system of law, but that's not WHY they are wrong. They are wrong. Period. They are not wrong BECAUSE the constitution prohibits them. Our constitution recognizes rights. It does not grant them.

Not respecting freedom of religion and expression is Malum in se so to speak.

Similarly, it is wrong that we do not have National Health Care. It is also correct that our constitution does not require national health care. It does not therefore follow that it is not WRONG that we do not provide it.

Get it?

France is ostensibly a liberal democracy. It is ENTIRELY ok for me, as an american, to criticize France, the UK, and any other country I want for failing to respect its citizens rights. And I respect the right of a French citizen (or Canadian or ...) to do the same in regards to us, and god knows they do.

[leftynyc]

90. Criticize France all you want

But you can't compare them to the US - different rules, different laws.

[mjane]

107. I most definitely CAN compare them

as do people here, except the comparison is only made facilely when it's a "france is better than us"

do you want me to search for all the posts talking about how much better their health care system is than ours? Is that comparison WRONG to make? Of course not. Health Care is a matter of policy. Theirs is BETTER

Laws are passed by legislators. French lawmakers chose to pass this law. And I can and will criticize them for it.

It's also a matter of policy. BAD policy.

We have different rules, different laws than France. So, is it ok that we don't have national health care? Of course not. But by your argument, I could say - you can't compare the Health Systems of France to the US. Different rules, different laws. That's crap. Of COURSE you can compare.

[leftynyc]

215. What I meant was

and I'm sorry my not being clear got you so upset, their laws do not have to conform to a "freedom of religion" statute. This law simply could not be made in the US - it would be labeled (rightly) unconstitutional. France has no such freedom.

[MikeW]

152. religious freedom has limits

There are lots of religious practices in other countries which would be ILLEGAL under US law.

[onenote]

45. So if the societal rules in the US banned, for example, wearing skirts above the knee

your reaction would be that those women who want to wear skirts above the knee can get on a plane to a place with a different set of societal rules?

[leftynyc]

50. The US operates under

different rules and laws than France. As I told another poster, take it up with France.

[LanternWaste]

67. Then the qualifiers are added for convenience as necessary...

"If you feel you cannot abide by the societal rules of the place you live or wish to live, you can always go someplace else...." An absolute statement in and of itself.



Then the qualifiers are added in additional posts for convenience when and as necessary...

[leftynyc]

I've read and re-read your post

I have no idea what you're trying to say.

[mjane]

41. Xenophobia, bigotry and nationalism are ok...

if it's France, you see, but not in the USA.

That's because French "tradition" is important.

[Chulanowa]

125. Sounds like the kind of mentality...

That makes some "liberals" want indians to keep living in drafty-ass tipis, or avoid things like cars, jobs, and vaccination, with the argument that such things aren't "traditional."

As if we're some museum hanging out for their personal enjoyment.

[mjane]

128. That's a good point

I have seen that attitude especially in regards to the Brazilian rainforest peoples. They are treated by these same "liberals" like some kind of game in a national reserve. There is an idea that it is wrong to introduce modern ways to them, because some might choose to embrace them. They just want to freeze them in time and not treat them like autonomous individuals.

A good contrast is the island of Niihau in Hawaii, where Kanaka Maoli live traditionally, but live there by choice.

[entanglement]

183. And what of people born in France? What of those "natives" who converted?

This is not as simple an issue as it seems. This ban is not driven by anything resembling progressive sentiment - it springs from the deepest wells of European xenophobia and nativist hysteria, which have been exacerbated by a poor economy and unprincipled politicians. Targeting religious and ethnic minorities for persecution during recessions is the oldest trick in the book of Europe's ruling class.

[DirkGently]

14. Surprising to see so may professed liberals applauding this.

The traditional American notion of religious freedom, as determined by the Supreme Court, is that you need a compelling non-religious reason to ban conduct. There's no indication any such requirement was met here, so this reads like a species of anti-Muslim bigotry, which France has a known issue with already. Note the Muslim *women* complaining.

:shrug:

[mitchum]

25. My francophilia outweighs my liberalism

but that's just me

[DirkGently]

26. Liking France means oppressing Muslims? Can't buy that. nt.

[mitchum]

135. No, France is not a "melting" pot; they are quite chauvinistic about preserving French culture...

and it is a great culture'
Apparently, liking Mohammad means oppressing Muslims...as long as those Muslims are women.

[DirkGently]

231. So, two wrongs ...?

[EFerrari]

40. I sort of weirdly find myself for this ban although I know it was sponsored

by right wing nutcase @ssholes.

I think it will give social support to women in family networks that impose the burka. That's my compelling non-religious reason. We'll see soon enough.

[DirkGently]

49. I'd like to see women "freed" as well, but isn't it up to them?

Disliking perceived oppression of women still seems like a religious argument, when we're really just talking about a piece of clothing, isn't it?

Not an expert here, but aren't heels and makeup and smooth armpits kind of "oppressive?" American women will tell you that they "choose" these things, but isn't it really our weird culture that requires these things of them, but not of men?

[onenote]

53. I know a lot of women that would like to see women "freed" from wearing spike heels,

halter tops, and other "revealing" forms of attire on the grounds that no self-respecting woman would wear such clothing. Personally, I say live and let live.

[EFerrari]

58. But the male relatives of those women never insisted

to the point of ostracism that those women go out in public only in spikes or halter tops. There is no comparison, really, unless there is a very crazy and powerful uncle in the family.

[Chulanowa]

61. There are many women who willingly wear these garments

It's stupid to assume that every woman wearing a veil is being oppressed or forced into it. But then here in America, we tend to percieve all muslims as violent idiots, and muslim women as totally mindless drones, don't we?

[EFerrari]

64. Please show me where I made that assumption. Thank you.

[Chulanowa]

72. The post I responded to seemed to be making the assumption

That these women are wearing veils because their male relatives force them.

[EFerrari]

80. To bypass the bs, my assumption is that some women who wear the burka

are wearing it because of family pressure. In fact, I've never heard anyone but American converts defend the burka.

But understanding that women in male dominated families need support doesn't equal believing they are brainless morans. And I can say that from first hand experience. :evilgrin:

[Chulanowa]

99. Some do, sure

But honestly? Most people can't tell the difference between any of these garments; are burqas really a huge problem in France? Lots of Afghan immigrants living under the thumbs of Taliban refugees? Not likely. More likely, "burqa" is being used in this law exactly the same as it's often used by the ignorant here in the states; everything from a hairscarf all the way to the full Taliban Pac-Man ghost costume. Anything a Muslim woman wears that makes her look like she might be Muslim is deemed "burqa." And make no mistake, even if they mean the most unlikely option of just the full-our burqa, they're not going to call it a day with that law. The goal of these laws is simply to repress and intimidate a minority within the country, and one law is never enough for that.

[EFerrari]

169. It's possible. It was the right wing that sponsored the law. nt

[Chulanowa]

178. it's completely probable; see my posts below

This law does nothing to liberate women, will excaberate any actual oppression going on, and basically is a handjob to France's Islamophobic right.

[DirkGently]

104. It's tricky separating free will from cultural pressure. To me,

that's an argument for keeping the government out of it without a compelling secular purpose. We shouldn't "tolerate" hurting anyone, but something like a garment seems too fuzzy to be legislating.

For example, for our earlier discussion -- listening to interviews with Muslim women (and stories about the same) some claim that it's the non-Muslim women who are in a box, forced to adhere to societal requirements to be skinny or pretty or sexy.

Not saying I completely buy that, but it's insight into another point of view, and it's not without some basis.

[onenote]

65. maybe they did and maybe they didn't . I don't know, although I bet there are more than a few

women who have felt pressured by males in their lives to dress in a manner that made them uncomfortable.

And going in the other direction, what about Amish women who dress in non-descript, identical garb, including head covering, that effectively negates their individuality--would a law barring the wearing of such headcovering in public be justifiable? Slippery, meet slope.

[EFerrari]

77. Is there any history of Amish women being stoned for immodesty?

This isn't a slippery slope. It's applying your experience to a situation.

You actually are making my argument. Women all over the world experience pressure from their male dominated societies. And it's usually social support that allows them to free themselves of those strictures.

I personally don't know anyone who prefers to wear a shroud when running errands. Do you?

[onenote]

96. I'm pretty sure France already bans stoning people.

And I personally don't know anyone who wears a burqua, so I can't answer your question. I do know this: there is a mosque near where I live and I've seen women walking by themselves across the highway to enter that mosque wearing a burqua. Five minutes away, there is a shopping center where this summer I saw a woman wearing crotch clinging shorts, black mid-thigh boots, and a two-sizes too small t-shirt that said "Hardcore" in rhinestones walking with her boyfriend/husband's hand down the back of her shorts (not in a pocket). She was actually having some difficulty walking in her get-up. Did she "prefer" to wear this outfit while running errands at the shopping center or did she wear it because of pressure from the male in her life? Don't know. I think both are extremes, but the lines are hardly black and white. The same male dominant mindset that drives the muslim woman to wear a burqua may be driving the other woman to dress the way she dresses. And if burquas are banned, what becomes the justification for allowing women to wear, say a hajib, or an amish woman to wear a nondescript dress, apron and head covering -- they may well reflect pretty much the same type of pressure, just manifested in a different way.

On the face of it, it would appear that the woman in the shopping center was no more "free" than the woman wearing the burqua (while I doubt the latter woman would be "stoned" if she tried to wear different clothes, she might find herself dumped by her boyfriend. And I'm fairly certain that the muslim men in my northern virginia neighborhood aren't going around stoning women that they see wearing garb that they don't find to be appropriate.

[mitchum]

139. This post is useless without pictures

[onenote]

142. I know. I really need to upgrade my phone to one with a camera, don't I?

[mitchum]

148. Yes!:)

[LisaM]

54. I don't know that the women do necessarily choose it

that's the sticky part of it. I think there are many paternalistic situations where women are compelled to dress a certain way (including in some American religious communities). That is what should be illegal. It's unfortunate that it gets applied to just this.

[onenote]

69. how do you propose to enforce a ban on "compelled" fashion?

Do you a tell a woman to go back inside and not come out until she changes into something other than the fashion prescribed by some group, religious or otherwise, to which she belongs? Would this apply to Amish women? Indian women? What about men? Jewish men?

[LisaM]

161. I don't know the answer

but if you wonder what makes other women uncomfortable about this kind of thing, that's what it is. I never feel sure that it's a real choice by the wearer. And I would include that to Amish women and other groups, too. Not to mention the fact that some women just aren't free enough to know choice.

[DirkGently]

76. I guess I'm giving the women, like the one quoted in the article,

the benefit of the doubt. I've never heard women subject to something like beatings or genital mutilation speaking out in defense of such, so I'm seeing a qualitative difference here.

[Chulanowa]

101. Didn't you know? Feminism means being a paternalist dick to those "subhuman" women

Heavens to betsy, they certainly can't think for themselves!

[DirkGently]

114. This is my concern. :)

[EFerrari]

55. I never had a male relative upbraid me for going out in flats.

No, I think that this is different, DG. When you are a woman in a family system that requires you to wear what is basically a shroud whenever you go out in public, what would you need to rebel?

Some social support, maybe.

I was lucky. I come from a paternalistic and authoritarian culture but the older males didn't have time to monitor me very closely. :woohoo:

[DirkGently]

73. Support, yes. The threat of being sent to jail ... maybe not?

I can see the very women such a law purports to help being punished here.


And good for you "transgressing" according to your desires, of course. :)

[EFerrari]

84. If some alpha male is making the decision in a family

then the woman in question will not be put in that position as a matter of honor.

I understand that this is a tricky question and look forward to seeing how it plays out.

[LostinVA]

92. It ISN'T up to them, that's the point

They are made to wear the burqua. It doesn't even have any scriptural/religious basis.

FGM is illegal, child brides are illegal, so why the hell shouldn't this be? No difference.

[DirkGently]

119. I think physical abuse and cultural costumes can be distinguished.

When you say they are "made" to wear the burqua / niqab, but we have interviews with Muslim women saying they choose it, not because they are subservient to their men, but because they believe it's proper, or modest, or saves them from being ogled like American and European women, on what basis do you question their intelligence or honesty?

To me, telling a Muslim woman she doesn't understand why she does what she does is paternalistic and ethnocentric. Where you see harm, she may see modesty or convenience.

If she doesn't, why is it not enough for the government to simply say she can dress as she pleases?

When you start banning things, you need a better rationale than "My culture knows better than your culture."

[totodeinhere]

95. But in many cases it's not "up to them." If they don't dress that way in public their husbands will

beat them. And their Sharia law allows husbands to beat their wives. So may this law will protect women from that sort of violent abuse.

[DirkGently]

130. The government's role is to ban the beatings, not the outfit.

You can't change a religious or cultural IDEA by banning a garment. That's just oppression. Free societies allow people to think, worship, and dress as they please, without some demonstrable need. Telling the woman she can dress as she pleases, and the man that he cannot beat her for it is a role for government.

Replacing "Sharia law" with an equal and opposite restriction is the same thinking in reverse, and it's no better for anyone.

[onenote]

147. French law doesn't allow husbands to beat their wives for religious reasons

You realize that of course, right?

[totodeinhere]

166. Of course, but this new law might help to minimize wife beatings in the first place.

And a lot of women might be afraid of their husbands and afraid to report them for beatings.

[mjane]

47. France gets a pass for stuff that would NEVER fly with them in the USA

because it's France, and it's like tradition and stuff...

They are so much more enlightened. They have national health care (an excellent system I might add), so it's ok when they act like bigots, xenophobes, etc.

France is a country where cops ROUTINELY "id" people for NO reason to check citizenship etc. in the banlieus, far worse than the proposed law in Arizona (which is also bad law I might add), but it's France. It's like tradition. Vive la France.

Disclaimer: I love France.

[leftynyc]

68. Oh, please spare me

If this concerned any religion but Islam, nobody here would give a shit.

[Nihil]

224. That's true enough.

> If this concerned any religion but Islam, nobody here would give a shit.

In addition, there are a number of posters who seem to be in the camp that
call the French "Cheese-eating surrender monkeys" but who are completely
blind to their own failings ...

[DirkGently]

232. Just the opposite. Try banning nun's habits or yamulkes and see

how far you get.

Think about this for a second.

ALL Abrahamic religions have sexist traditions, don't they? Sure, there are more radical examples in Islam right now, but take your pick from Christian or Jewish sects, and you will find most of the same nonsense, more diluted most of the time, but always there.

Submission to the husband is preached throughout American Protestant sects. Women can't be Catholic priests. Nuns wear habits that are 9/10ths burka, based on the same "reasoning." Jewish women cannot participate fully in religious ceremonies, and (as with all these religions) the more conservative the sect, the worse the discrimination.

Before you tear the veil from your neighbor's face, first remove the habit from thine own.


:)

[riderinthestorm]

235. Nuns habits and yamulkes don't obscure the face.

The west has very strong cultural taboos about covering the face. It's not allowed in many places like banks and stores for example. Like all western cultures that confront imported customs, there is a discussion going on over what is going to be allowed and what is not. African tribal women aren't allowed to go naked on public streets (although that is a far more empowering "outfit" for women and female power than any burqa). Muslim women (in France right now) aren't allowed to go shrouded including their face. FGM is banned in virtually all western countries. All of these laws impact women - who are being told what they can and cannot do with their bodies. Unless you are an active advocate for African tribal women to walk, shop, work and play naked in the public squares of America for example, you are being hypocritical (and sexist) for whinging solely about this misogynistic garment called the burqa (or niqab) and that THAT should be allowed.

We can and do make rules about what we want to see in our public squares. We have all along. The burqa isn't allowed to get some kind of pass in my opinion, it especially should get more scrutiny since it is so misogynistic.

And one more thing, a nuns habit or a yamulke don't cover the face so they aren't what's being talked about it here. You do know that right? We are talking about face covering vs. head covering?

[DirkGently]

240. Which argument are you making? Protecting Muslim women from

sexism, or protecting the public from the whopping 2,000 Muslim women in France who wear the headgear in question? Neither argument flies. People routinely cover their faces in public, with hats, sunglasses, scarves, ski masks, etc. etc. etc.

It's simply not credible to suggest that a Rightwing French government, notorious for anti-Muslim sentiment, in the middle of a wave of renewed anti-Muslim hysteria, is proposing to ban these garments out of a sudden, coincidental realization that niqabs and burquas might lead to Muslim women robbing banks with impunity.

Edit: And I think you're being disingenous spouting about which garments cover the face in the first place. My post was a reply to someone arguing that "no one would give a shit if we were talking about banning another religion's garment." As I pointed out, the opposite is true. All Abrahamic religions have sexist traditions and, often, sexist rules about clothing, and yet no one would think about a proposed "ban" to protect Catholics or Jews from "sexist clothing" being forced upon them.

Which ever foot you choose to hop on, the ban is an attack on Muslim, and Muslim women in particular, under a superficial gloss of either paternalism or a nonsensical argument about the "dangers" of Muslim women with their faces covered.

[riderinthestorm]

247. I'm making an argument against burqa full stop.

The burqa and niqab are politicized garments that are a cultural hold-over from their desert nomadic roots, same as FGM. They are misogynistic and designed to erase women from society.

1. A free and open society has the right to debate whether they want to allow this kind of open misogyny to exist. I believe France is doing just that and has overwhelmingly rejected this because of it's history, it's secularity, it's culture. There are some cultural things that just aren't tolerated in an open, secular, civil society - FGM is one of them. Burqas are (obviously for the French) another. Do you object to "protecting" Muslim women from the sexism of getting their genitals scraped off? I mean, it's only 2000 women plus or minus right?

2. It's more prominent now because it's become the issue du jour amongst radical Islamists - even Egypt is banning these types of garments. That doesn't mean that is at the root of the French issue with burqas but to deny the reality of why this garment is such a hot topic is to be putting blinders on.

And lastly, France HAS banned religious gear from it's schools and public buildings including Christian crosses and Jewish yamulkes and Muslim headgear. Guess what? The French, religious and non-religious, consistently poll as agreeing with those laws.

[pnwmom]

160. I'm surprised to see them defending a cultural practice that oppresses women.

But in America "free expression" seems to trump all else -- even the equality of the sexes.

[DirkGently]

233. You don't see a problem sending women to jail to "protect" them?

How is that not paternalistic?

[riderinthestorm]

236. Where do you see that they are going to jail to "protect" them? nt

[DirkGently]

239. Who's going to get punished for wearing "banned" headgear? The men?

[riderinthestorm]

248. I'm not understanding your "protected" comment.

The women are obviously going to get punished for wearing the headgear. But they don't wear these in a vacuum - if they are wearing it, they must be escorted (which is part of the cultural requirement that goes along with this type of shroud). That means that others are also involved in making the decision, and I would imagine, they would also be a part of paying the fine.

Do you also believe France's laws against FGM are about "protection" and "paternalistic" or are they about stopping a barbaric, unsafe, unhealthy cultural relic that needs legal action to bring the practitioners into line with western cultural, societal and health standards?

[Bragi]

18. Good on France!

The Saudi Wahabist requirement that women veil their faces and hide their bodies and their identities is despicable.

It's a horrid symbol of the suppression and subjugation of women, and should be banned everywhere.

[DirkGently]

21. What do you say to the women that object?

Kenza Drider, however, says she'll flirt with arrest to wear her veil as she pleases.

"It is a law that is unlawful," said Drider, a mother of four from Avignon, in southern France. "It is ... against individual liberty, freedom of religion, liberty of conscience, she said.

"I will continue to live my life as I always have with my full veil," she told Associated Press Television News.

[Bragi]

27. I would question if they formed their views freely /nt

[DirkGently]

28. Kind of patronizing, don't you think? White Man's Burden?

[Bragi]

33. No, I view Saudi Wahabism like a particularly dangerous cult

Enslaved cult members always defend their enslavement.

[DirkGently]

36. You don't have to be a radical Muslim to wear a hijab.

I'm no expert on Islam, but clearly you aren't either, and that's kind of the point.

Neither government, nor the public has any right telling people what they can believe, or what funny hat or scarf they can wear on the theory that their religion is unacceptable.

[Bragi]

39. It's their attire that's unacceptable

It was a good look in about 7 AD, but just doesn't work for me now.

Seriously, I do know a few things about radical Islam and Wahabism.

And I am appalled by it.

[DirkGently]

42. I get that. But again, workaday Muslims dress like this.

Not my culture, nor yours. But it's not our call. I agree the "mask" comes off for a photo ID, and banks, etc. have a right to say, "smile for the security cameras, please." But check out this thread and tell me the lady in the supermarket flossing the hijab was a Wahhabist fruitcake:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x559883

(Editted for speling)

[sledgehammer]

59. The person in the story wore a hijab

This is not what is being banned in public in France. It's the niqab and burqa.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/05/europe_muslim_veils/html/1.stm

Just clarifying.

Personally, I hate the niqab and burqa. So I don't encourage it, nor do I know anyone who wears it. But not sure if it's govt's business to ban it.

[DirkGently]

93. Fair enough. The point for me is there's not valid public purpose

in banning either.

[sledgehammer]

110. Agreed.

The best way would have been for France to work with Muslim leaders to remind French Muslims that niqab/burqa is not required, and to encourage women to wear hijab as a balance between religion and society. I'm sure many Islamic leaders would have been on board.

Because in Islam, niqab/burqa is not required at all. Hijab is required under anything less than a liberal interpretation of the Quran.

Banning just causes resentment, even among those who don't like or wear niqab/burqa.

[LanternWaste]

70. Like sandals?

"It was a good look in about 7 AD, but just doesn't work for me now...."

Like sandals?

[leftynyc]

78. Hijabs are not forbidden with this law

Only face veils whether in the form of niquab or burqua (I'm probably spelling those wrong). You can cover your hair, just not your face.

[DirkGently]

91. Okay. Niquabs aren't buquas though. And it still doesn't mean

the wearer is a radical or a terrorist, which -- let's be clear here -- is exactly what this ban implies.

[leftynyc]

98. I don't think it's implied at all

But we'll have to agree to disagree on that. Personally, I wouldn't do business with or believe the testimony of anyone whose face I couldn't see. How would I even know they are who they say they are?

[DirkGently]

109. Okay. But how do you know that about anyone without ID?

You meet someone, they tell you their name, you don't question it. If it's an ID-presenting situation, I'd say the veil must be lifted. That conflicts with conservative Muslim practices, too, but I see a valid secular purpose there. We had a case in Florida in which a Muslim woman (who happened to be a convert) refused to lift her veil for a driver's license and was denied one. That makes sense. Telling her she simply can't dress like that does not present the same logic.

[leftynyc]

217. It actually doesn't conflict with Islam

There is nothing that says a woman's face has to be covered. It's a matter of men controlling women. I was thinking more of a situation where I would have to see a person's face in order to know if they were telling the truth - like in a court of law - or if they're trying to sell me something. Then, of course, there is the problem of men dressing in burkas in order to hide something nefarious.

[LostinVA]

94. Except a hijab is legal

[DirkGently]

105. Niquabs aren't burkas, either, though.

[LostinVA]

124. No, they aren't, although they almost are

[DirkGently]

129. Neither can be banned in a free society. Shall we ban yamulkes

because most Jewish traditions don't permit women to wear them? At what point does your right to tell people what is and is not their right to wear begin and end?

[pnwmom]

162. Not if you've ever seriously considered what it is like to wear one of those

things. Stifling hot, and you have to walk carefully in order not to trip, since you can't see your feet. Your side vision is obstructed and sometimes you're only seeing the world through a fuzzy net. When you pass a friend on the street, you can't even tell it's your friend. She can't tell you're you. You're just ciphers to each other.

I can't believe that any sane woman would voluntarily wear one without some degree of male or family coercion.

But I might start to believe it the day men start to wear these things as part of their religion.

[Chulanowa]

127. So they disagree with you and are thus unable to form their own thoughts

Obviously.

You should go inform those poor drones of their lack of mental faculties!

[Dogmudgeon]

24. Lady Gaga is next.

Give it a few months.

--d!

[DirkGently]

30. And Mexican pro wrestlers. They could rob banks! 8)

[sledgehammer]

56. A guide to Muslim head wear...

This simple guide provides some clarification on women's head dress:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/05/europe_muslim_veils/html/1.stm

It's the Niqab and Burqa (second slide) that European govts have banned, or are trying to.

[Bozita]

62. Breaking: Eiffel Tower evacuated after bomb threat - Gotta wonder!

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jKZdEMdf_OSG8c9P4kCGvjs-c72Q

[LanternWaste]

63. I would imagine that the males who used the veil...

I would imagine that the males who used the veil as a form of dominance over women will simply find another form of dominance over women to use... meanwhile an article of clothing becomes outlawed.




Makes perfect sense to me.... :sarcasm:

[DirkGently]

111. Astute. This IS style over substance. You're not going to "free"

Muslim women by making them change their clothing. It's a childish approach.

[Chulanowa]

118. The funny thing is...

It's already illegal in France to force a woman to do stuff against her will. They're actually better at protecting women from that sort of thing than we are in the US.

This law does not protect women. if anything it does the exact opposite.

On the one hand it removes the right of some women to dress as they please. There are plenty of women who dress in these garments out of a simple desire to do so, and making it illegal for them to do so is simply creating a law that strips rights from women of a particular minority group; hardly protecting women's freedoms.

For those women who are being forced to dress this way... you're right. This will do nothing to help them. What will happen is that the men forcing them to dress this way will then simply force them to remain indoors at all times. it's what's happened in places like Syria and Turkey after their veil bans; the men using the garments as tools of oppression simply kept the women under strict lock and key.

All this law does is protect French people from seeing evidence of the existence of a certain religious community. It might as well be a ban on peyot.

[DirkGently]

131. The whole argument in a cogent nutshell. Well done.

[onenote]

149. +1

[RussBLib]

71. I consider myself liberal, and I support France's move

And it's not a religious issue. It's a public safety issue. There have already been some instances of men wearing full burqas to hide their identities. If you go out in public, you should not be totally covered so no one can know who you are, unless perhaps the police are already escorting you somewhere.

Besides, I have heard from many Muslims saying that a full face veil is not mandated in the Koran. It is a personal choice. I'd like to see this country ban total face coverings here too. That measure would get support from both sides of the aisle, and I don't think the ACLU would challenge it as it is not a religious mandate of any kind. Cover your body, your arms, your legs, fine, but not your face.

[DirkGently]

97. Shall we ban sunglasses, scarves, ski masks?

There's no difference, except for religion. The ban implies Muslims are dangerous, and are covering themselves in order to get away with something threatening. That's not the case, and the reasons I'm hearing batted around come across as rationalizations, not reasons.

[MikeW]

155. No it implies that their religion oppresses women

Which is in conflict with the rights France affords to all its citizens.

Im sure there are women who are compelled to wear it out of fear.

Those are the people France is protecting.

[PavePusher]

180. In some situations, yes.

You can't wear them for ID photos. Most banks and government offices prohibit them inside the premises, or you will be refused service. I'm sure there are other times/places....

[slackmaster]

75. I hope they pick appropriate uniforms for the Fashion Police

This could get good!

[DirkGently]

88. If America's going this way anyway, I say we start with Lycra

restrictions.

Long overdue, at least in Florida. Some scary abuses here. :scared:

[LostinVA]

82. Good n/t

[tabasco]

85. Vive La France!

Down with religious whack jobs!

[totodeinhere]

100. Good. Hopefully this law will protect woman from being beaten by their husbands in they don't wear

those burqa-style Islamic veils. After all, Sharia law allows husbands to beat their wives.

[DirkGently]

132. and French law presumably bans such beatings. So why is the

anti-veil law supposedly going to be effective, while the anti-beating law is not? All you're doing is punishing the woman again, from the other direction.

(editted for tipos)

[onenote]

150. how would this law protect women from being beaten any more than laws on

the books that protect women from being beaten. Do you honestly think, under French law, muslim men have a religous right to beat their wives?

[totodeinhere]

167. Not under French law they don't, but under Sharia law they do.

Remember that some radical Muslims want to have the right to practice Sharia law wherever they live. Plus, this new law is just one more step in the right direction. There is nothing wrong with having more than one law directed at avoiding wife beating.

[NCarolinawoman]

103. Vitamin D.... Do those that wear the burqa get enough vitamin D?

I am not trying to be snarky--I really do wonder about this.

I am now taking a strong vitamin D supplement because I tested very low. It is said that most people, nowadays, just don't get enough sun. :-(

[ZombieHorde]

108. Fashion police!!!! nt

[slackmaster]

153. I couldn't stop myself from searching Google Images...

[ZombieHorde]

176. Funny. nt

[pampango]

112. "There are estimated to be only about 2,000 women wearing the full veil in France."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11305033

The ban has strong public support, but critics point out that only a tiny minority of French Muslims wear the full veil.

It will be now sent immediately to France's Constitutional Council watchdog, which has a month to confirm its legality. In March, the Council of State, France's highest administrative body, warned that the law could be found unconstitutional.

Another challenge is possible at the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, where decisions are binding.

President Nicolas Sarkozy has backed the ban as part of a wider debate on French identity but opponents say the government is pandering to far-right voters.

Nicolas is good at pandering. (He's a French conservative so why shouldn't he be. :) ) He's found a hot button issue that stokes the conservatives' fire (even if it has a minimal practical effect since so few women would be effected - a classic conservative wedge issue). He's also gone after the Roma to appeal to conservatives. All this at the time that he is facing strong opposition from liberals in his attempt to raise the retirement age and he has an election coming up. Good conservatives know when to bring out the wedge issues to fire up the base.

[DirkGently]

121. Yep. Kind of seals the argument that it's RW nuttery without a

legitimate purpose. How much of a supposed "harm" are these whopping 2,000 veiled women posing to France? He's making a statement, and an ugly, xenophobic one at that.

[DonCoquixote]

133. OK, before we go off

Please specify, is what is banned the full burqa (the body veil) or the hijab (the handkerchief on the head which many models in france wear)

[pnwmom]

163. Funny that we see more criticism of France for banning face veils than we EVER do

of the countries that require them.

Cultural expression appears to trump all -- at least, if it only involves demeaning women. Even liberal DUers will defend it.

[totodeinhere]

168. +1

[Name removed]

170. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Douglas Carpenter]

181. what countries legally require wearing face veils?

Saudi Arabia and Iran do not, for example - although I would guess most Saudi women do wear them - a significant number do not and it is certainly not legally required. In fact covering their hair with the hijab is not legally required. In Iran I would guess that though most women do cover their hair - I doubt that most wear the face veil. I cannot right off hand think of ANY countries that legally require face veils and few if any legally require wearing the hijab.

[Codeine]

214. We must not offend the delicate sensibilities

of medieval buffoons who fear and loathe their own wives' individuality and freedom, so we will turn ourselves inside trying to logically justify barbarism while condemning a secular democracy.

[DirkGently]

241. The delicate sensibilities belong to the Islama-phobe paternalists.

[riderinthestorm]

253. I'm a feminist who abhors shrouding women and forcing them into being ghosts

in our society by misogynistic patriarchal shits.

That offends my sensibilities but I'm not too delicate about it.

[DirkGently]

265. Then you should speak out, not tell other women what they can

and cannot do. The primary voices objecting to this ban were Muslim women, and their arguments indicated that their reasoning had nothing to do with demeaning women. Who are you or anyone to tell that they are too stupid to know what's good for them, and to legally mandate how they may practice their religion or what they may wear?

[riderinthestorm]

291. Because this isn't religious.

FGM is also said to be a "religious requirement". It's not. And the women who do it, have it done to their daughters or granddaughters or who endorse it, are too stupid to know that.

They come from a culture that has indoctrinated them into believing they are subservient and invisible. I reject that and anyone in the west who believes they must accommodate disgusting cultural practices dragged over here from over there is a cultural relativist of the highest order.

I am someone who has already learned better. Someone had to be the first one to say that slavery was a despicable practice that subjugated humans. They also had learned better.

I've worked at and volunteered at my local rape crisis center/women's shelter for more than 3 decades. My experience also tells me better. The burqa is misogynistic. It erases women. It's designed to control women. Its unsafe.

We legally mandate what women can and cannot wear already. That's a fact I've repeated ad nauseaum in other posts on this thread. Are you speaking out since clearly you are so in favor of THIS misogynistic garment (and presumably as pro-active for empowering native Australian aborigines to go about in their cultural/religious "garb" - nakedness?) Can you point me to some of your work on behalf of all women being allowed to go about in public TRULY unfettered? I'd love to read some of your publications/activism/demonstrations etc.

[DirkGently]

303. It's not your call what someone's religious practices may be.

It is, again, patronizing and misogynistic to purport that you are somehow the arbiter of what people are permitted to believe, and how they are permitted to practice their religion. It's not possible to trust and value women and also tell them they will be criminally liable for wearing the "wrong" religious garment.

[Chulanowa]

251. Funny that you probably just choose to ignore such criticism

'Cause there's no shortage of criticism of Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan or Sudan for their treatment of women.

But i guess you're like those fucks that condemn all Muslims for "not speaking out against terrorism" - the fact that they DO is simply inconveniant for your ill-conceived assumptions, so let's ignore it, right?

Don't worry, your brainless bigotry is more than welcome on DU; keep it targeted at Muslims and their idiot-women, and you'll be fine!

[frontrange]

177. Vive la France!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TlkxlzTZc48

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/03/opinion/03iht-edeltahawy.html

[entanglement]

182. This is obvious pandering to the worst kinds of European nativists and chauvinists

I'm surprised so many people consider this a progressive step. Educating and empowering women so that they can make better choices is one thing; a legislatively enforced ban on an immigrant, ethnic and religious minority is quite another.

[SpartanDem]

211. Well even among progressive there is an streak of authoritarian

ever political extreme has people who see the ends as justifying the means. It's rather Orwellian when you think about it we must must limit your freedom to free you.

[DirkGently]

305. It always surprises and disappoints me to see that.

It also fuels the "Nanny State" criticisms thrown about by conservatives. Happily, it appears to be a small minority of "progressives" who are perfectly willing to try to punish and bludgeon people into "thinking correctly."

[Cant trust em]

184. French senate approves burqa ban

Source: CNN

Paris, France (CNN) -- The French senate approved Tuesday a law banning any veils that cover the face -- including the burqa, the full-body covering worn by some Muslim women -- making France the first European country to plan such a measure.

The law passed by a vote of 246 to 1, with about 100 abstentions coming essentially from left-leaning politicians.

The legislation was overwhelmingly approved by the lower house of parliament in July and will go into effect next spring.

French people back the ban by a margin of more than four to one, the Pew Global Attitudes Project found in a survey earlier this year.

Read more: http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/09/14/france.burqa.ban/?hpt=T1

---

Thoughts?

[ZombieHorde]

185. Fashion police!!!

Couldn't resist.

[Deep13]

186. French law is not neutral to religion like U.S. law is.

French law actively promotes a secular society. Part of that is opposing misogynistic, medieval customs like those that require women to walk around in a bag. I don't know why left-leaning politicians would abstain. I would think feminism would be among their core values. Anyway, if liberals are to be believed, the burqa is a result of the underlying Arab male-dominated culture and not the equally valid religion of Islam which promotes peace and equality.

[pampango]

187. I think the left in France thinks this is another Sarkozy stunt (like deporting the Roma) that

is meant to distract people from real problems (like the proposed rise in the retirement age). European liberals have blasted him over the Roma, while the French left have demonstrated against it.

Maybe they abstained (rather than vote against it) since they don't trust Sarkozy's pandering to the far right for votes and support in the retirement change proposal by targeting Muslims and Roma, two of the right's favorite whipping boys in France. The liberals probably agree with you on the nature and purpose of the burqu, but can't bring themselves to see the vote as a ploy of the conservatives.

[Spider Jerusalem]

191. This would be because France and indeed most of Europe (unlike the US)...

has a history of religious wars, the experience of which informed and affected the Enlightenment thinkers like Voltaire, Rousseau, de Montesquieu, and so on (whose ideas in turn were hugely influential in the French revolution and the first French Republic and down to the present day).

I suspect left-leaning politicians abstained because the overriding principle of toleration is stronger than the idea of enforcing a constructed 'Frenchness' on a very small minority. And in any case such a legal ban is only going to serve to radicalise those few conservative Muslims who do wear the burqa; attempting to enforce Western ideas of gender equality on people whose culture has no reference frame for it and indeed is actively hostile in some ways to it, rather than changing their behaviour by encouraging assimilation and integration with the larger culture, is likely to be as successful as more recent US-led efforts to impose representative democratic government on Afghanistan (and how is that going, again?).

[Steakman1989]

205. Partially correct

France indeed promotes a secular society, but at the same time they are promoting a French society. However I contend that the world the French and indeed the world the Europeans want is a world that is devoid of cultural heritage that is different then their own.

The veil is a practice that predates Islam. It was a practice that came from Near Eastern Antiquity that was practiced by nobility but also peasantry as a means of not only modesty, but practicality. In deserts cultures, one wears flowing robes to allow for greater circulation of air to cool them down. Even Christians and Jews in the near east practiced it. The practice never was wide spread in Europe because it is a cooler climate.

Ironically, Muslim feminists particularly in Syria and Egypt promote the veil as a means to protect women, especially in a world that constantly is promoting sexual promiscuity as a virtue. True female liberation would be for women to wear what they want in a society in which they are equal and not be forced to either wear a veil or a g-string by a patriarchal society (cause lets face it, the west is just as, if not more, patriarchal than Islamic culture).

[Cant trust em]

206. If the purpose of the flowing robes is to keep people cool, then why are the burqas black? nt

[Deep13]

207. Desert-dwelling men don't cover their faces.

And France is not a desert.

Yes, ideally it should be an individual choice. Nevetheless, cultural pressure is still a form of coercion.

[riderinthestorm]

225. There are far more desert cultures that go naked, than swath themselves in yards of black cloth

If wearing that much clothing keeps one cooler, than professional runners and athletes would be doing it all the time, desert cultures like in Africa, Australia, the US etc. would all have figured it out looooong ago and would also be wearing yards of cloth instead of going virtually naked. The theory that wearing that much extra clothing (and weight) makes one "cooler" is false on the face of it.

And women around the world know that what you are wearing gives you no "protection" from men. Most people who commit sexual assault cannot recall how their victim was dressed - they simply saw an easy prey (which a long flowing gown that restricts movement - that restricts the ability to kick and run, and that also restricts one's direct or peripheral vision, is tailor made to make a person prey). The "magical" protection of hijab/niqab/burqa theory has long been discredited.

And franky, I also call bullshit that western cultures are "just as, if not more, patriarchal than Islamic culture". While I am on record about western misogyny, it is in no way shape or form equivalent to the Middle East.

Back to the topic at hand, I would thoroughly agree with you however that France and Europe are resistant to other cultures than their own.

[MellowDem]

209. Well, depends on what you mean by "secular society"....

To me it seems they are promoting French culture. Maybe part of that is secularism. But it can also be hatred and intolerance. Secular societies can be pretty horrible. As for feminists, it's all relative. After all, those same French politicians don't ban clothing that objectifies women or advertising which does as well.

Regardless, it just seems like overkill considering so few people wear it in France (I think it is in the hundreds?) and will more likely cause a lot of headaches in the culture war department.

[Deep13]

220. If you are playing the Stalin card again, I will again point out that...

...it is a straw-man argument designed to change the subject.

Secular societies like those of western Europe are not "pretty horrible." As far as hatred and intolerance goes, they ought to hate and not tolerate misogyny. If this were an Evangelical sect requiring its adherents to walk around anonymously, we'd see it for what it is: male control over women. It is a cultural norm that ought to be actively discouraged by society.

"...don't ban clothing that objectifies women or advertising which does as well"

If you mean revealing clothes, then it only objectifies women if you accept the puritanical distinction between ones physical (including sexual) self and ones true "spiritual" self. It is a standard based on the false whore/Madonna dichotomy of male-dominated thinking. To put it another way, a person can be sexual and smart and moral and brave and talented and nurturing all at the same time.

Besides, even if you are right, the French government's failure to act on revealing clothes does not preclude them from acting on this more egregious example of repression.

[Newsjock]

188. If they also ban necklaces with a cross

And yarmulkes, too.

[Ruby the Liberal]

192. Neither which obscure the identity of the individual.

[Deep13]

195. Neither of those things completely hides a person.

Nor are they oppressive in and of themselves. Nevertheless, my understanding is that in French schools, children are not allowed to wear either crosses or yarmulkes.

[valerief]

189. Well, this sounds to me like one way to get fundamentalist Muslims to

move to another neighborhood.

OTOH, I don't think women should be forced to wear bags.

[Ruby the Liberal]

190. I'm mixed.

On the one hand, I support their right to observe their religion in any way they choose.

On the other, there is an issue with identity theft. If the only thing seen on a woman is her eyes (if that), what is to prevent another individual (male OR female) from impersonating her to avoid things like travel restrictions, create things like fraudulent banking activities, then you have the impaired vision safety factor - the list goes on.

That poor woman in Iran who is sentenced to stoning was given ANOTHER 99 lashes this week because a Brit paper printed a photo of an Iranian woman in the EU who was mislabeled as the imprisoned Iranian and her hair wasn't covered. 99 lashes for a mistake.

From a quick google on that incident: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-11190864

Her son reported that someone recently released from Evin prison confirmed it had happened.

ETA link

[Bitwit1234]

193. I think that if you apply for a driver's license or drive a car

that you not be allowed to wear a burga. But I see no harm it people wearing them any other time. As long as they can be identified to be the person they say they are.

[Ruby the Liberal]

196. See post above.

Sharia Law (at least as is interpreted by the Iranians) has 'issues' with being photographed without being covered.

[hlthe2b]

194. I believe strongly in (uncoerced) freedom of expression...

If women freely wish to wear a burqa, then so be it. That said, wearing one while driving, obstructing all peripheral vision, is an unacceptable risk and should be outlawed.

[jberryhill]

197. More Laws Directed To Women's Behavior Are Good

An important function of government is to decide what women can and cannot wear.

[Deep13]

219. Right, because they decided they should walk around in a bag.

:eyes:

[onenote]

227. do you think this woman decided to walk around it this get up?

I suspect a lot of folks might, for one reason or another, think that this outfit is inappropriate public garb. Should it be outlawed to protect the woman from objectifying herself or to protect prudes from being exposed to her?

[BlueJazz]

198. I agree with that Law. Most societies have laws that prohibit what a person ...

..can and cannot wear. This is just one more law.
Try walking around an American city in your underwear or g-string...it's a no-no.

[Clovis Sangrail]

200. but you can go to the beach and see more revealing swimsuits ... /nt

[onenote]

204. and based on that theory, you would be fine with a law that banned dresses that were above the knee?

Just because something can be banned, doesn't mean it should be.

[BlueJazz]

262. If in my country...NO....in somebody else's country..Yes.

[DirkGently]

243. Under the 1st Amendment, you can't ban a *religious practice*

without a compelling non-religious purpose. So supporting this ban appladus a lower level of religious freedom than we enjoy here.

[riderinthestorm]

250. The burqa is not religious. It's cultural. nt

[DirkGently]

254. Surely you're not arguing this ban isn't aimed at *Muslims*

[riderinthestorm]

292. Since the French already have laws banning ALL religious garb

in schools and public spaces, regardless of what religious wear it is - yamulkes, cross, headscarves even - I'd say this is more about preserving French culture and identity.

Is there xenophobia and racism here? Yes undeniably. But the French have a very, very different history than the US in regards to religion and their adamantly secular society. At one point the French even banned clerical collars.

Have you ever lived in France? I have. They take their secularism very seriously. They take enormous pride in being "French" and the idiosyncrasies of their "French culture". They don't care to be a melting pot and their constitution backs them up on that.

Yes, this ban IS aimed at Muslims but it could be the Catholics or the Jews or the Hindus or any other cult that dictated the wearing of bullshit patriarchal misogynistic (and not even religiously mandated) garb.

[Clovis Sangrail]

199. great ... you're intolerant so we'll be more intolerant ??

I'm no fan of burqas or of people (women or men) being forced into oppressive situations ... but what somebody decides to do as a part of their religion is none of my business so long as it doesn't impinge my rights.

[ixion]

201. proving that stupidity and fascism are not limited to the US

[Deep13]

218. Calling the French fascist is a gross misuse of that term.

And it is pretty insensitive too considering the treatment it received at the hands of fascists during the war.

[ixion]

228. If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck...

it really doesn't matter how they were treated in WWII. There was part of the French government -- the Vichy Government -- that was more than happy to help the fascists out.

[defendandprotect]

270. Separation of Church & State is the opposite of fascism...it guarantees freedom of thought,

the right to free conscience -- and religious freedom --

[ixion]

279. Indeed. And this legislation of religion is the opposite of that

is what I'm saying.

[defendandprotect]

284. No -- what you're saying is that practicing one's religion is dependent upon

having one's religious articles/symbols on display in public.

That is not true --

The guarantee to freedom of religion -- also protects the non-religious in

public areas - or even, those of different religions. Otherwise, we'd have a

battle of symbols . . .

which, Opps! is actually going on with various religons

trying to overtake one another in displaying the creche, the Star of David, the

Cross, whatever --

The public arena is not the place for religious articles -- and certainly NOT the

place for symbols of oppression of females.

[ixion]

298. And what you're saying is that

the government determines what's important about religion, rather than leaving that up to the person.

People wear religious articles in public all the time. I don't see them making a law outlawing crucifix jewelry, so your argument simply does not pass.

[defendandprotect]

310. Again, no one's religion is dependent upon having their religious symbols displayed in public....

If you support freedom of religion, the best protection for it is

Separation of Church & State --

If you support human rights, the best protection is government standing

against religious oppression of women.

Same with traditional religious oppressions based on racism and homophobia.

[ixion]

311. You talk of the Separation of Chruch and State (a concept I support) and yet you're defending a law

that violates that very separation. It's pretzel logic, at best. Nice try, though.

[defendandprotect]

312. Because you are not considering that we are talking about the PUBLIC arena....

where we all have the right to question and challenge private religious beliefs.

The wearing of the veil and burqua are symbols of oppression of women --

akin, perhaps, to displaying the Nazi flag in a public park.

It's not in the interests of public safety -- and it is an obvious attack on female equality.

That last part seems to be the toughest part for you to get.

[ixion]

318. Balderdash. Once again: I don't see them making any laws against

Xian ornaments in public. Your logic is ingenuous, at best.

[defendandprotect]

320. True, we are battling over the Christian Creche and other religious crap that

religions want to PLANT in the public pathways --

Why? Because they seek authenticity in a connection to our Town Halls and

Town Centers -- and even in some government buildings.

That's why they continue to fight to put prayer back in pubic schools!!

Without that authentication from government -- without being referenced and

acknowledged in public schools -- they have no access to our nation's children ---

unless parents introduce them to male-supremacist religions.


Now -- unless you're a male wearing a burqua -- or a male who intends to wear

a veil or burqua in France -- I don't think there's much else to say on this issue.

[ixion]

326. Well, we do agree on the "Christian Creche"

Nice phrase, by the by. :)

And it's also true that I am a male in the US, and as such this law has no effect on me.

We disagree on the motivation here, I believe. I see this as a xenophobic, quasi-racist piece of legislation, rather than defending the Separation of Church and State.

[defendandprotect]

327. You see women in burquas ... and you conclude taking them out of them is "racist" ....????

The primary enemy of male-supremacist religions are females --

Let me know when you see ANY MALE -- either someone of color or a "white" male --

wearing a veil or a burqua.

Come on, Watson!!

[ixion]

328. They choose their religion

and thus the cultural aspects that go along with it.

[defendandprotect]

329. The question was: how is taking women out of burquas "racist" ...????

And we know that for thousands of years people have NOT chosen their religion --

they have had Christianity, for one, forced upon them -- it's called . . .

"Introducing the cross with the sword" --

I'm sure you've heard of the Crusades/Inquisition ?

Ireland certainly didn't "choose" Catholicism ... it was forced upon that nation, for one.

Neither did Native Americans here "choose" Catholicism -- it was violently forced upon them.

Therefore, there is no way to say that even today, anyone isn't forced to support male-

supremacist religions out of one kind of fear or brainwashing, or another.



Oppression isn't "culture" -- it is the product of violence --

[Quantess]

202. Good.

Now the men in fundie muslim communities can't force the women to wear them, at least not in public, anymore.

[onenote]

203. No. Now the men in fundie muslim communities can force women not to go outside in public

[jberryhill]

210. Correct /nt

[DirkGently]

246. Yep. It's irrational to assume you can cure sexism with a headgear ban.

[defendandprotect]

285. If government can't or won't stand up to suppression of females, who will . . . ???

[DirkGently]

306. You don't defend someone by threatening and punishing them.

[defendandprotect]

313. Again, this is the PUBLIC arena we are discussing .. having nothing to do with

practicing one's religion --

These are PRIVATE belief systems -- and practice of one's religion is NOT dependent

upon having one's religious symbols displayed in public.

The veil and burqua are as traditionally symbols of organized patriarchal religion's

oppression of females as the Nazi flag is a symbol of fascist oppression.

I'm sure there are still women arguing for and supporting female genital mutilation --

women were those who did the "cutting." Should our government support those who still

want FGM -- or Chinese foot binding?

This is an issue of patriarchal oppression of females -- whether those females recognize

it or not. And, obviously, the few females who feel more secure in not defying family

or religious dictates will be used to argue for these methods of "disappearing" women

from society and normal human interactions.

Nonetheless -- governments should stand against female suppression.

[alp227]

208. How about a general ban on face coverings (at least outside of winter or hot weather)

rather than a targeted religious bill. What's there to stop would-be robbers from wearing ski masks in public during a mild day? If people choose to follow loony religion then so be it. Also, I'm not in favour of allowing burqas in photo IDs and such. Just too risky. The thing is that religious freedom ends once others' safety is harmed.

[DirkGently]

234. They won't do that, because the real aim here is religious.

They WANT to ban a Muslim garment, because Muslim customs bother and frighten people. It's not about protecting women or keeping "masked" people off the streets.

[defendandprotect]

287. This is organized patriarchal religion which -- couldn't more blatantly - be oppressive of females..

It would be wrong for any "democratic" government to abet that oppression ---

The veil/burqua are as much symbols of that oppression as the Nazi flag is a symbol

of fascism and oppression.

[DirkGently]

307. According to you. Others are as offended by other symbols.

[defendandprotect]

314. It would be unusual, IMO, for anyone not to be offended by the burqua ....

and I presume Muslim males are "offended" by that symbol because I don't see them

wearing burquas!

[agentS]

223. I highly doubt this is being done by France to protect Muslim women

Their rationale, which is not what they're really saying, is that they're afraid of suicide bombers using burqas to hide weapons and explosive devices. Their arguments here are lacking in depth. Not every husband is using a burqa to hide signs of spousal abuse so the "protect the women" argument is just an excuse.

Of course, if the French treated their Muslim population a little better, maybe they wouldn't riot so much?

[DirkGently]

230. Seems obvious, doesn't it? Is it supposed to be a coincidence

that Sarkozy is a RW creep, anti-Islamic rage is peaking, and suddenly, the notoriously ethnocentric French are on a "Muslim women *protection*" binge? Or, they're worried about a total estimated 2,000 "masked" Muslim women terrorizing the streets in their niqa / burka / ninja suits?

Does not compute.

[ItNerd4life]

258. Woohoo! One small step for women's rights.

Anybody who believes that women want to wear these is as foolish as a Repuke. They don't have a choice within their homes whether they can wear them or not.
It's small steps like this that will hopefully lead to women not being treated as property by their culture.

[DirkGently]

277. So, the Muslim women are lying, or stupid when they say

"It is a law that is unlawful," said Drider, a mother of four from Avignon, in southern France. "It is ... against individual liberty, freedom of religion, liberty of conscience, she said.
"I will continue to live my life as I always have with my full veil," she told Associated Press Television News.

Another woman further down in the article says she simply won't leave the house. How is this law not simply punishing her for a belief that does not harm others?

Like most Americans, I don't see eye-to-eye with this practice. But I think we overstep our authority to tell people how to behave when we make assumptions on their behalf and criminalize a religious custom without a clear secular purpose.

[defendandprotect]

288. This is highly selective... I know someone ... rather many Muslim women speak against the veil ...

and the burqua --

This is Separation of Church & State -- especially in the public arena where we are

all free to question and challenge personal religious beliefs.

This ruling is part of "keeping the peace" in public -- and acknowledging religion to

be a personal belief system.

The government is standing against the organized patriarchal religious oppression of

females which historically couldn't be more blatant.

[DirkGently]

302. Separation of Church and State requires letting people decide for themselves

what is patriarchal religious oppression. Freedom is not being required to wear a burqa. Not being allowed to is just another set of ideaologues forcing their personal philosophy on others.

Wise and freedom-minded people do not punish others "for their own good."

I would be very interested to see any of the people here taking this view have an actual conversation with an actual Muslim woman who chooses to wear a veil, and to tell her to her face that she is a weak-minded fool who must be punished for following her belief system, because it offends someone ELSE's view of equality.

This is the very worst kind of officious, self-important behavior that causes otherwise progressive people to support authoritarian practices. This notion that something is just SO right, or SO wrong, that you can ignore actual harm, ignore free will, ignore peoples' inherent right to choose to live or speak or worship the way they please, that you are entitled to FORCE PEOPLE to, in this case, literally DRESS the way you think they should.

It's a poisonous, destructive attitude of staggering arrogance. This garment is no more your business than it is anyone's business to tell Jewish people not wear their chosen "funny hats," or Mormons not to wear their "holy undergarments."

There is no substantive difference between telling Muslim women what they can wear and telling them that they simply cannot be Muslim, because -- let's be clear -- the entire religion is grotesquely sexist. So is Christianity. So is Judaism.

If this logic applies, and society has the right to forbid conduct on the theory that society finds the IDEA behind it offensive, there is no reason not to simply ban Abrahamic religions altogether.

[defendandprotect]

315. Again, Muslim women are united against the veil and burqua ... check the internet --

I'm sure you can still find Muslim women who support female genital mutilation --

or Chinese women who support foot binding.

But we all understand that these were means of suppressing and isolating females from

society -- a means of barring normal human relationships.


Separation of Church & State does not provide for religious symbols to disrupt the public

arena.

As for the rest of this . . . .


Freedom is not being required to wear a burqa. Not being allowed to is just another set of ideaologues forcing their personal philosophy on others.

Wise and freedom-minded people do not punish others "for their own good."

I would be very interested to see any of the people here taking this view have an actual conversation with an actual Muslim woman who chooses to wear a veil, and to tell her to her face that she is a weak-minded fool who must be punished for following her belief system, because it offends someone ELSE's view of equality.

This is the very worst kind of officious, self-important behavior that causes otherwise progressive people to support authoritarian practices. This notion that something is just SO right, or SO wrong, that you can ignore actual harm, ignore free will, ignore peoples' inherent right to choose to live or speak or worship the way they please, that you are entitled to FORCE PEOPLE to, in this case, literally DRESS the way you think they should.

It's a poisonous, destructive attitude of staggering arrogance. This garment is no more your business than it is anyone's business to tell Jewish people not wear their chosen "funny hats," or Mormons not to wear their "holy undergarments."

There is no substantive difference between telling Muslim women what they can wear and telling them that they simply cannot be Muslim, because -- let's be clear -- the entire religion is grotesquely sexist. So is Christianity. So is Judaism.

If this logic applies, and society has the right to forbid conduct on the theory that society finds the IDEA behind it offensive, there is no reason not to simply ban Abrahamic religions altogether.

It would be more encouraging in the sense of human rights for you to be making those very arguments

against organized patriarchal religion's long time suppressom of their enemies . . .

beginning with women -- the primary enemy. And, the closely connected enemy: the homosexual

Africans enslaved here were the "enemy" to be enslaved or murdered according to Papal Bulls.

Native Americans were the "enemy" to be enslaved or murdered according to Papal Bulls.

And the Jews, of course, the long time "enemy" -- held in Papal Ghettoes for 1,100 years --

forced to wear Yellow Stars.

Whether "yellow stars" or "Closets" -- or "veils" -- or "burquas" -- or the SCARLET LETTER "A" --

these are all ways to brand groups of people as OTHER. People not worthy of human rights.


NATURE is a primary enemy of organized patriarchal religion -- and "Manifest Destiny" and

"Man's Dominion Over Nature" the license to exploit nature!

Patriarchy and organized patriarchal religion are suicidal in their "enemies list" --

they have created great violence over millennia -- and continue to cause destruction of the

planet -- which couldn't be clearer today -- from Global Warming to destruction of our oceans.

[defendandprotect]

269. Intelligent decision -- no one's practice of their religion is dependent upon having their

religious symbols displayed in public --

[ozone_man]

281. Then there are those crosses that some wear.

;)

I guess it's a matter of degrees. Aside from the religious aspects, a burqa is seen as a symbol of oppression of women. Whether they realize they are being oppressed or not, it is the perception in the West.

[defendandprotect]

290. And, yamulkas . . .

and a number of years ago -- 7- 10/? -- in my town, suddenly the Protestants and

Catholic "Christians" took off with displaying these huge KKK type crosses outside

of their churches -- in town on Main Street, this was basically at the curb!

The Catholic Church which has more acreage, also had theirs pretty much at the curb!

After a while they were pulled in -- but it was startling and frightening!


Agree re the personal crosses that many wear -- I've noticed anchor women with them on --

again, it's to me "gang wear."

Actually, I'm a recovering Catholic -- and we all would wear them -- considering them

a "protection" of kinds! But, the more you are brainwashed by religion, the more likely

you are to be adopting such behaviors, IMO.


:)


Messages can be very subtle at times!!

I remember one occasion when a group of 4 or 5 of us had a friend who wasn't Catholic ...

don't know if she was anything. But at some point we took her off to see our priest to

have her "converted"!!


But coming back to the crosses and yamulka -- of course they don't restrict participation,

really in today's society --

Now when the Catholic Church forced Jews to wear a Yellow Star while in their

Papal ghettoes for 1,100 years, clearly that was about isolating them from society and

negatively branding them. And, of course, Hitler copied that pattern in his Third Reich!



:)

[DirkGently]

308. The difference is CHOICE. The veil is. The yellow star was not.

[defendandprotect]

316. Muslim women stand against the veil and the burqua ....

again, you're making very selective use of the few who support them --

This is like saying that homosexuals support being in the closet!

Of course they don't! Simply many still don't feel secure enough to make

their sexual orientation known!

When Muslim women feel secure, they will not "choose" to disappear themselves

from society nor handicap themselves in such a way in interacting with others.


And presumably when Islamic males are able -- if ever -- to free themselves from

the Islamic closet, we will see some uprising there!

Or -- are we suggesting that there are NO Islamic homosexuals?

[David Zephyr]

309. Good!

!

[hughee99]

317. So wearing ski masks in public is also illegal now?

I wasn't clear on this, but I know not too long ago, they could ask you to remove a ski mask, but it was not illegal to wear one in public. I'm sure, with all the support the French government is getting here, that they didn't tailor a policy specifically to attack adherents of a single religion but rather passed a broad based public safety measure. :sarcasm:

[boppers]

319. What about the ninjas?

Isn't this discriminatory against ninjas, too?

[hughee99]

321. If the ban only applies to Muslim scarfs, it wouldn't matter to them.

unless they're female Muslim ninjas, I guess.

[Socal31]

323. The fact that people on a progressive message board

can defend the complete cover of women in society...it makes me sick.

[SpartanDem]

330. Who the hell are you to tell a woman she can't do that

if she she wishes? Why do assume some women do this freely out religious observance? IMO we should always ere on the side of liberty. If you were a real progressive you won't try shoving down the throats these women your views of what they should and should not do.

[Vidar]

324. Works for me. The French actually care about their culture;

whereas in the US it just serves as another opportunity to turn a quick buck.

[HEyHEY]

331. What? You think this is about cultural protection?