So what does everyone think about the French banning the burqa?

[The Backlash Cometh]

Cnn claims they just banned it. I'm surprised that they're riding point on this issue. Never saw that one coming.

[virgogal]

1. Doesn't bother me.

[The Backlash Cometh]

3. Here's a better thread on the matter.

I don't know what I should think. Although I truly believe that it will be banned in the US the second after someone thinks to use it to hide suicide bombs, there's another part of me that thinks it's stupid to wait for that moment, and still another who sees this as a religious right issue.

Very confusing.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4808963

[virgogal]

26. It is confusing---thanks for the link.

[Rage for Order]

182. It's France; whatever they believe works best for them

Who am I to armchair quarterback their decisions?

:shrug:

[Cleita]

2. I think it's an invasion of a woman's privacy.

If women want to wear a veil they should be able to. If they don't want to wear a veil, they should be able not to have to and have laws that back up their decision to not be forced to wear a veil by their men. Why is this so gender specific as well? I don't see any laws forbidding men from wearing beards. It seems that being forced to wear beards is also a tenant of some fundamentalist Muslim sects like the Taliban.

[The Backlash Cometh]

6. I think a person's beard is probably considered a facial feature.

Even though we all know they can shave it off.

The burga issue, I just don't see it as anything else than a national security measure.

[Cleita]

13. I really have a problem when laws are passed about

the clothing women wear no matter how much we disapprove. How long before they feel comfortable telling us we have to wear bras in public or we have to wear high heels? (Happened to me on a job decades ago, where I was told I would be fired if I didn't wear high heels to work even though I had to stand on my feet most of the day. I had no legal recourse to fight it.)

[The Backlash Cometh]

14. Your concern may be clothes, my concern is the push from a certain

segment that only wants to apply strict immigration policy to Hispanics. It's a very scary time we live in.

[Cleita]

19. I'm concerned about that too as a hispanic myself. n/t

[The Backlash Cometh]

22. It's getting crazy, Cleita.

To the point where they question your status as an American if you try to challenge their discriminatory immigration ideas.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x865427

[Cleita]

23. I know and I wasn't born in this country although I

have official papers that state I'm an American citizen from birth, due to my American father.

[Deep13]

8. The practice is gender specific. nt

[pnwmom]

35. The law is gender neutral.

It doesn't specifically ban burqas; it bans masks, ski hats, anything that covers the face and conceals identity.

And it applies to men as well.

[closeupready]

53. That's a very convenient post-facto rationale for why legislation really intended

to 'keep Islam in its place' is 'sensible and fair'. :eyes:

[pnwmom]

58. You're not respecting the French culture, with its anti-clericalism,

because they don't respect the Muslim culture, with its religiosity.

Why do you respect the Muslim culture more than the French culture? Neither one is bound by the U.S. Constitution and neither one values freedom of religion as we do.

[closeupready]

61. I'm not respecting the racism and Islamophobia of modern France, no.

Why do you celebrate the restriction of freedoms on display here? :wtf:

[pnwmom]

64. I'm just laughing at the irony of all the people who are intolerant

of another culture -- France -- because they are perceived as being intolerant of Muslims.

France doesn't share all U.S. values. Neither do Muslim cultures. And for some reason progressives -- well, at least, DUers -- are more likely to defend the Muslim cultures than they are the French.

(And I'm laughing at the irony of anyone who would celebrate the "freedom" of burqa wearing.)

[closeupready]

66. I've lived in France; have you?

? You talk like you know it so well.

[pnwmom]

69. I've spent plenty of time there, since my in-laws are French.

But you don't have to know French people to know its history. Here's a bit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-clericalism

Anti-clericalism is a historical movement that opposes religious institutional power and influence, real or alleged, in all aspects of public and political life, and the involvement of religion in the everyday life of the citizen.<1> It suggests a more active and partisan role than mere laïcité, and has at times been violent, leading to attacks and seizure of church property.
Anti-clericalism in one form or another has existed through most of Christian history. Some philosophers of the Enlightenment, including Voltaire, attacked the Catholic Church, its leadership and priests claiming moral corruption of many of its clergy.
The French Revolution, particularly in its Jacobin period, initiated one of the most violent episodes of anti-clericalism in pre-modern Europe; the church was suppressed, monasteries destroyed, desecrated and expropriated,30,000 priests were exiled and hundreds more were killed.<2> As part of a campaign to de-Christianize France in October 1793 the Christian calendar was outlawed, replaced with one reckoning from the date of the Revolution, and then an atheist Cult of Reason was inaugurated, all churches not devoted to that cult being closed.<3> In 1794, the atheistic cult was replaced with a deistic Cult of the Supreme Being.<3> When anticlericalism became a clear goal of French revolutionaries, counter-revolutionaries seeking to restore tradition and the Ancien Regime took up arms, particularly in the War in the Vendée.
When Pope Pius VI took sides against the revolution in the First Coalition, Napoleon Bonaparte invaded Italy.<4> The Pope was imprisoned by French troops the following year and died after six weeks of captivity.<4> After a change of heart, Napoleon then re-established the Catholic Church in France with the signing of the Concordat of 1801.<4> However many anti-clerical policies continued. Wherever Napoleonic armies entered a territory, monasteries were sacked and church schools and charitable institutions were secularized.
The Third Republic
A further phase of anti-clericalism occurred in the context of the French Third Republic and its dissensions with the Catholic Church. Prior to the 1905 French law on the Separation of the Churches and the State, the Catholic Church enjoyed preferential treatment from the French state (formally along with the Jewish, Lutheran and Calvinist minority religions, but in practice with much more influence than those). During the 19th century, public schools employed priests as teachers, and religion was taught in schools (teachers were also obliged to lead the class to Mass). In 1881–1882 Ferry's government passed the Jules Ferry laws, establishing free education (1881) and mandatory and lay education (1882), giving the basis of French public education. These laws were a crucial step in the grounding of the Third Republic (1871–1940), dominated until the 16 May 1877 crisis by the Catholic Legitimists who dreamed of a return to the Ancien Régime.
In 1880 and 1882 Benedictine teaching monks were effectively exiled. This was not completed until 1901.<5><6><7><8><9>
The 1905 law on separation of state and church was enacted with strength and vigor by the government of Radical-Socialist Émile Combes. Most Catholic schools and educational foundations were closed — except in Alsace-Lorraine which belonged at that time to Germany.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laïcité

In French, laïcité (pronounced ) is a concept of a secular society, denoting the absence of religious involvement in government affairs as well as absence of government involvement in religious affairs.<1><2> During the twentieth century, it evolved to mean equal treatment of all religions, although a more restrictive interpretation of the term has developed since 2004.<3> Dictionaries ordinarily translate laïcité as secularity or secularism (the latter being the political system),<4> although it is sometimes rendered in English as "laicity" or "laicism".

SNIP

Proponents maintain that laïcité is thus distinct from anti-clericalism, which actively opposes the influence of religion and the clergy. Laïcité relies on the division between private life, where adherents believe religion belongs, and the public sphere, in which each individual, adherents believe, should appear as a simple citizen equal to all other citizens, devoid of ethnic, religious or other particularities.

SNIP

French political leaders, though not prohibited from making religious remarks, generally refrain from demonstrating openly that their policies are directly inspired by religious considerations. Christine Boutin, who openly argued on religious grounds against a legal domestic partnership available regardless of the sex of the partners, including homosexual couples (see PACS), was quickly marginalized. Religious disputation is generally considered incompatible with reasoned political debate. Of course political leaders may openly practice their religion (for instance, president Nicolas Sarkozy is a Christian, specifically a Catholic), but they are expected by some to refrain from mixing their private religious life with their public functions.



_________________

So this didn't start with the Muslims! But, as you can see, the French value the idea of keeping religion -- and expressions of religion -- out of the public sphere. Wearing a burqa prevents a citizen from participating equally with other citizens in the public sphere.

[JDPriestly]

90. I've lived in France and agree that French culture's emphasis on

the equality -- remember liberte, fraternite, egalite -- makes the wearing of a burka (that covers the face so that it cannot be recognized) incompatible with their values.

A headscarf or hat or covering over the head should be permitted in my view. But something that hides a person's face should not.

The nun's habit should be as far as it goes.

Imagine if you were the owner of a convenience store and local market in a high-crime area. If you put surveillance cameras in your store, you would not want people in burkas avoiding being photographed while in your store.

[closeupready]

94. Is there a hierarchy of freedoms involved here, though?

Some freedoms are more important than others.

[Cleita]

133. The wearing of veils in the ME dates back to ancient Greece.

It's cultural. There is nothing in the Koran about it as far as I know because many devote Muslim women do not wear veils. I know I worked with a few in the past. There was not a veil in sight, yet there were religious observances that they practiced, none involving clothing that they wear.

[JDPriestly]

85. A gender-neutral law that prohibits covering the face in public to the point it is

unidentifiable is fine with me. What people wear in their homes or religious meeting places or clubs is their business. But a police officer or person in a public place should not be prevented from identifying the people around them.

Wearing a headscarf or hat is fine with me. Burkas conceal identity. I understand why the French people don't permit that.

[Cleita]

89. I don't agree. Back three or four hundred years ago

it was common for people to wear masks out in public because they didn't want to be identified while going about their business. If such a custom were to become popular again, where would you stand? Also, it's fairly easy to disguise your identity without masks or veils if you want to. I do it all the time when I don't want to talk to people who know me because I don't want to be delayed while I'm shopping or going about other business.

[riderinthestorm]

92. Where was it common for people to wear masks in public?!

I'd love to see a link to that!

[Cleita]

106. In was common in Europe before the eighteenth century.

I'm sure there are plenty of links that will turn up on Google if you are really interested in it. I really have no desire to waste my time since I'm almost certain you aren't really interested and probably wouldn't click the link anyway, something that has happened to me in the past. So you have Google. Look it up.

[riderinthestorm]

125. I did try to google it. Before I even posted asking for your links. I found nothing. nt

[Cleita]

132. Are you sure you did that? Because I

found a whole page of links.

http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=wearing+masks+in+public+in+seventeenth+century&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

[riderinthestorm]

136. Just a quick browse through the first page indicates these are all special occasions

Carnival, masquerade parties, plays and operas etc. None of them indicate that this was some kind of daily wear. You seem to be extrapolating what was a "special occasion" wearing of masks into some kind of daily clothing item. If you have links that show people wore these daily to do the laundry, or head to the market, or guarding the sheep, it would be more persuasive. As it is, your links appear to demonstrate that this was neither common nor daily.

I was searching for any kind of evidence that wearing a mask out in public doing daily activities was normal, not some kind of fancy dress party attire. Even today wearing a mask for a party isn't abnormal. But wearing one to go to the laundromat would be considered strange.

[Cleita]

138. I give up.

:shrug:

[riderinthestorm]

140. Read them yourself. They are all "special occasion" links for mask wearing, not daily usage. nt

[pnwmom]

171. Does it matter to you that Muslim men in France are far more likely to support the law

than Muslim women? Doesn't that tell us something?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=866500&mesg_id=872013

[pnwmom]

95. It's common here, too, among bank robbers. n/t

[Cleita]

105. I'm not a bank robber but there are times I would like

to wear a mask or cover my hair, when I'm having a bad face day or hair day. What do you think of the Asian custom of wearing surgical masks when they are sick so they don't infect others. I suppose you would want to ban that too because it covers their faces?

[pnwmom]

112. This law doesn't prevent anyone from covering their hair. So we're safe!

Personally, I don't care about the surgical masks -- I'd rather not catch anything I didn't have to -- and I wouldn't try to ban the burqa in the U.S., either. We have a culture that is much more pro-religion (of all types) than in France. But I don't condemn the French for being consistent. They try to keep religion out of the public sphere, and I respect that.

I wonder what the French would think about Asians in their surgical masks. The masks don't cover nearly as much of the face as some of those veils do, where there is only a lace-covered slit over the eyes. And the masks don't interfere with peripheral vision.

Maybe someone should be a test case!

[SwampG8r]

174. in fact

it is against the law (felony)to enter a fdic insured facility wearing a mask of any kind
or was years back i am not a lawyer so i do not know if this has changed

[SoCalDem]

115. My bank even forbids hats:)

No sunglasses either:)

[Cleita]

134. That's for safety. Businesses actually are allowed to

dictate rules for their clientele because it's considered private property open to the public with the owner being able to dictate what goes on inside his business.

[Xenotime]

73. Agreed.

[Wait Wut]

4. Makes me glad I don't live in France.

Not that I wear a Burqa, but as much as we complain about the state of our nation, let's hope (pray?) that we can hold off the bigotry.

[The Backlash Cometh]

7. For as long as we can.

[Deep13]

5. I'll put it this way.

A slave can be so accustomed to wearing chains that he cannot feel comfortable without them. Yet, they are still chains and he is still a slave.

[The Backlash Cometh]

9. I can see how some people will consider this a non-issue.

It just seems like the world I grew up in is over. This might be the "goes around" part of the "what comes around" formula.

[Cleita]

16. Uhm, on what authority do you know that slaves

became accustomed to wearing chains? I have never read about such a thing.

[Deep13]

30. It's a metaphore.

And people wear mental and behavioral "chains" all the time. Among them are self-enforced notions of gender propriety. One only needs to look at the learned helplessness of being "lady-like" in our own culture as an example.

[DeadEyeDyck]

126. Stockholm syndrome?

[Democracyinkind]

10. Marine is overtaking Nicky on the far right lane, so he's hitting back.

This is a totally manufactured show; mainly made for the next election.

There's a palpable anti-islamic feeling among large segments of the French population, but that never amounted to enough "bottom-up" pressure to get the gov going. This is Nicky using his presidential post in order to boost his image as a hardliner on immigration and the "culture war" - just like his moving on the Roma and Sinti was.

Personally, I have no problem with the ban; it's just that I find it i) unnecessary ii) cooked up solely to provoke people iii) probably already enforceable under different laws.

I'll bet that in a few years I'll get to vote on the issue too; just like I had to cast my opinion about minarets (the "towers" of the mosques) at the ballot - totally senseless.

[The Backlash Cometh]

11. Thanks for the information. Appreciate it.

[leftstreet]

12. People have a right to eat whatever they want! n/t

[RaleighNCDUer]

15. The burqa is not religiously mandated dress - it is purely cultural.

Banning the burqa is not infringement on religious rights any more than banning walking nude through town is. This is not equivalent to banning a Sikh's turban or a Jew's yarmukah.

I'm fine with it.

[Cleita]

18. Of course as a man you are fine with forcing women

to dress a certain way, a way she might not want to dress. What if a law gets passed stating that men have to wear ties all the time even in the pool?

[RaleighNCDUer]

25. You really think that a woman cannot dress modestly without hiding

her identity?

The burqa is a cultural construct that reinforces the wearer's role as property - property of her father, or property of her husband.

In western culture people are not property - therefore, the burqa has no place in it.

[Zorra]

31. What if a woman sincerely wants to wear a burka? If that is her choice?

I understand the whole repression/oppression thing about women having to wear burkas.

I completely agree with the law that forbids someone to force someone to wear a burka.

But I cannot agree with a law that forbids a person from wearing something that they choose to wear. Or, conversely, forcing someone to wear something.

Like a yellow star, or something like that.

Just as a woman should be able to choose what she wants to do with her body, she should be able to choose what she can wear.

A government should restrict neither.

I am not a Muslim by any stretch of the imagination, and I honestly think that burkas are just plain flat out stupid.

But if the US government declared today that I could not wear a burka if I so chose, I'd be standing on the torch of the Statue of Liberty wearing a burka tomorrow.

[pnwmom]

43. What if a man wants to walk naked through the street? And it's his choice?

There are already "public indecency" laws in most locales that prohibit this, with some modicum of clothing being required. (Vermont is a notable exception, apparently.)

France, instead, has a law that requires some modicum of un-clothing, in order to facilitate social communication.

If people can be required to wear some item of clothing, why can't they be required to not wear another?

[Zorra]

47. Two wrongs don't make a right. nt

[RaleighNCDUer]

45. Then she can move to a country wher enslavement of women is

culturally acceptable.

I really feel sorry for people who don't know the difference between liberty and libertarianism.

[Zorra]

59. That does it, I'm re-upping my membership in the ACLU tomorrow.

So someone is there that will help protect me from you. Thank god for the ACLU.

You obviously did not comprehend my post.

If abortion was illegal in the US, would you be telling me that if I want to have an abortion, I should move to someplace where abortions are legal?

I suppose I should move somewhere that gay marriage is legal too?

[Cleita]

52. So why are you arguing with me? I agree with you and

that was my point.

[Zorra]

63. My humblest apologies, Cleita. I clearly totally misunderstood your post.

And I am so glad you didn't mean what I thought you meant, I thought you were taking he opposite position and that totally shocked me.

Many of the responses on this thread have me really freaked out and worried.

Sooooo sorry!
Peace

[leftynyc]

37. The Islamic law is for women

to dress modestly. That can be done easily enough without throwing a shroud over a woman. I'm fine with the new French law.

[Deep13]

51. It's more like, what if the law said we can't wear ties.

In that case, I would take my whole collection of silk nooses and joyously burn them in the street.

[KittyWampus]

80. You don't seem to know what a burqa is.Upthread you called it a veil. It is not a veil.

It is not a veil. It is a full body mask.

[Cleita]

87. There are all kinds of words for the full veil, burqa, shador and

many others. I thought English is more appropriate here.

[JustAnotherGen]

17. It's their country

And the law was passed some time ago - so it's not like their government passed the bill in a secret meeting last night and expected everyone to be compliant this morning.

As an American who has spent a great deal of time in their country?

Middle Eastern/Muslim equals Mexican/Central American immigrant - legal or not.

In terms of those outside of the U.S. being oppressed? I'd much rather talk about blacks in Libya, Ivory Coast, DR Congo, Sudan, etc. etc. That's were the horrors are really taking place. They aren't going to throw these women into a french prison, torture them, rape them to deatch, cut off their husband's limbs, etc. etc.


I have to save the outrage for those women getting stoned to death for doing something like - being raped in the middle east.

[The Backlash Cometh]

20. Thanks for the perspective check.

[Cleita]

21. It's also the country of many of those women who are

first generation that are born there and their legal, immigrant parents. Apparently, their opinion and freedom to wear what they choose is not respected by the majority white, Christian French people.

[pnwmom]

36. They can wear anything they want at home.

This is not much different from public indecency laws that require some modicum of clothing. This law requires some modicum of un-clothing, for the purpose of social communication. And it applies to men wearing masks or ski hats just as much as it applies to women.

[closeupready]

38. Why are you taking this law out of context?

We all know its targeted at Islamic women.

[pnwmom]

46. Because the law was carefully written to apply in every context,

not just those involving women or burqas. It would also have applied, for example, to Michael Jackson and his crew.

[closeupready]

49. Intellectually disengenuous, and you know it. The rhetoric surrounding this legislation

was all about burkas and muslims.

[pnwmom]

55. That doesn't matter.

Burqas are what made people think. When they did, they realized what was wrong with covering faces; and they were right -- it interferes with a strong French value, the importance of social communication.

Two women wearing those things can pass each other on the street and not even realize they are friends -- or sisters. It isn't just a way of protecting women from the glances of unrelated men -- it is a way of cutting them off publicly from ALL other people, even other women and friends. It is a way of limiting their participation in the overall community. And that was the basis for France deciding to ban it. They don't have the U.S. Constitution, by the way, with the freedom of religion enshrined in it. They are anti-clerical, compared to the U.S. Freedom from religion is a greater value to them than freedom of religion.

It is ironic that people who want France to respect the Muslim culture are themselves not respecting the French culture.

[closeupready]

57. Nonsense.

:rofl:

[Cleita]

54. So you would be comfortable with being required to go

naked, if you lived in the Amazon, where many tribes go unashamedly naked. I myself would want to be able to wear at least shorts and a bra, and would be very offended if by law I had to go naked.

[pnwmom]

60. No. That would be an excellent reason not to move to the Amazon.

:)

[RaleighNCDUer]

70. If they are born there they are 2nd generation.

And hiding their identity in public is not the cultural norm.

When a person immigrates to a new culture he or she is expected to adapt to the cultural norm.

And it isn't not, as you say, about 'white Christian French people'. The vast majority of French Muslims agree with the law and think the burqa has no place in their culture.

[Cleita]

86. Really? And how much of a cultural norm do you

adopt if you move to a different state, like from New York to Texas. Will you be required to wear cowboy boots and Tony Lama hats? I just think legislating clothing needs to be off limits.

[riderinthestorm]

91. We already do legislate clothing. For men and women but mostly women.

Unless you are pushing for banning ALL clothing restrictions - such as testifying topless in court, or wearing a motorcycle helmet when you are at a police station for questioning, or hell, just hit the grocery store in your underwear....

Societies can and do create laws governing what is appropriate to wear in the public square. We always have and probably always will.

Why are we fighting so hard for this most misogynistic, dehumanizing garment? When we don't have hardly anyone fighting for REAL clothing liberty for everyone. It's incredibly hypocritical and indicative of how deeply patriarchal this society really is.

[pnwmom]

96. Exactly. We have laws requiring a certain minimum of clothing.

Why not laws requiring a certain amount of exposure, in order to facilitate communication? Two women wearing full face veils could pass each other and not even realize they were sisters.

[Cleita]

104. I always thought men should cover their chests in public just

like women are required to. We aren't ready to run around naked yet, but the clothing restrictions should be very few and gender equal.

[pnwmom]

113. I agree. They have breasts, too.

Either that, or both genders should be able to appear topless.

[Cleita]

117. Yes, at the beach or pool, but frankly I don't want to

work or shop side by side with either shirtless males or females.

[pnwmom]

118. Me, neither! n/t

[SwampG8r]

175. i moved to texas for 2 years

they never made wear any boots or hats i didnt want to

[Democracyinkind]

29. The law did become effective today; that is what the fuss is about - Nicky's hardliner show

Today is the first day that French cops will be on the look to fine people defiant of the law 150 Euros; it was kinda clear that Nicky and his Hacks wouldn't pass this opportunity to make a fuss about it.

Thanks for your post and don't take this as lecturing about what you wrote - I just thought I might add this info to your nice post.

[ret5hd]

24. Is this banned too:

[closeupready]

27. I think people here are okay with women prostituting their bodies, but not covering them modestly.

Okay, wearing the burka, but the point is, in neither case are those women free.

Sex trafficking is a modern-day scourge that people here do not take seriously. It is easy to condemn Islamic fundamentalism and to take it seriously, so people do.

Yet, in both sets of circumstances, women are practically enslaved.

[pnwmom]

68. The burqa isn't "modest." The burqa is suffocating.

Literally and figuratively.

[closeupready]

72. But prostitution is okay?

[snagglepuss]

107. Wouldn't be any if men weren't buying. Muslims need to start teaching

their males to control their own desires and not place that responsibility on women.

[riderinthestorm]

77. I'm not okay with prostitution either. I also believe it's degrading for women.

Consistent enough for you?

[closeupready]

84. You are being consistent, yes.

nt

[rucky]

28. This is like drugs, guns and prostitution...

in the thing we're making (or trying to make) a crime is victimless in and of itself, but the behaviors are often associated with real crime.

It's lazy and unproductive policymaking, IMO. We ban drugs and prostitution because it leads to other crimes, but the bans are not effective at all in curbing anything. In fact, it makes criminals out of people who would not be otherwise.

Same thing with the burqua ban: If the argument for the law is that it is indicative of women being oppressed - that may or may not be the case in every instance. But if you were to make a law that says, say, a husband does not have the right to force a spouse into any religious belief against her will - that totally changes the debate and gives a woman who is being victimized by this practice the legal recourse to end her oppression if she chooses. The law as it stands now, just forces the practice underground, as many here have said (just like drugs and prostitution laws do).

[FiveGoodMen]

32. "thing we're making (or trying to make) a crime is victimless"

Wearing a burqa is victimless, being forced to wear one isn't.

Just my two cents.

[rucky]

33. yes. that's the distinction I was trying to make.

make the *force* the crime, and we'd get a hell of a lot farther in solving the problem that led to this ban in the first place.

[pnwmom]

152. The "force" is by far the greater crime.

The woman would only get fined, but anyone who forced her is subject to criminal penalties.

[Kceres]

65. Good one. n/t

[pnwmom]

34. They didn't ban the burqa.

They banned anything that covered most of the face and concealed the wearer's identity, including masks, ski hats, etc.

[closeupready]

39. The context which you fail to account for is that the law is really targeting muslims.

nt

[pnwmom]

44. Muslim women may be the main group now with this practice.

But I think it would be offensive to the French if any group began to conceal their faces.

And the law, as written, is both religion and gender neutral.

[closeupready]

50. Just as The Federalist Papers are a reference point for US laws and the legal system,

so the rhetoric surrounding the development of laws in any state, not just France, inform people as to what the real impetus is behind such laws. In this case, it was all about keeping muslims down.

[pnwmom]

62. The French have a long history of anti-clericalism and their Constitution

was written to limit the power of religion in the public sphere, not to enhance it. This isn't just about Muslims.

[closeupready]

67. Context, honey; there's a context here. You can ignore it, but we know

that the law is targeted at muslims.

[pnwmom]

71. The context is that France has a long history of anti-clericalism

and a strong desire to keep religion out of the public sphere.

This is NOT just about Muslims.

See post #69 for more.

[Mz Pip]

88. What about the reverse situation?

What about women who come to a Muslim country? What cultural practices are they expected to adhere to? Are they expected to wear a veil in public even if they are not Muslim? Are they expected to abstain from alcohol, sex,or eating pork?

I suspect the restrictions imposed on women living in a place like Saudi Arabia are pretty strict.

What France is doing doesn't seem to be all that harsh.

[pnwmom]

98. But it's okay when Muslim countries require women to heavily cover themselves

because . . . because . . . . because they're not French!

:sarcasm:

[closeupready]

102. No, it's okay when they do it because, see, we let them.

No sarcasm tag needed, is there.

[closeupready]

100. Freedom of speech transcends national borders, does it not? If the Chinese don't respect

our rights to speak freely in China, does that mean we restrict their right to speak freely in the US?

And if not, why not? Is it because rights to freedom exist independent of politics? That might sound a little goofy, but the point is, it doesn't MATTER how women are treated in Muslim countries in determining how WE should treat them or how the FRENCH should treat them or how anyone should.

Rights are not privileges bestowed on certain people on an ad hoc basis depending upon whether or not certain states are good/bad depending upon who's looking.

[snagglepuss]

110. Societies have always regulated clothing. In the US even Daughters of the

American Revolution don't have a right to go naked or topless in public. Western societies values face to face interaction and therefore they have every right to restrict people wearing masks.

[closeupready]

137. Women in New York can go topless as long as

it isn't associated with commerce.

I fully expect you to ignore that fact, or to dismiss it somehow, as it doesn't confirm your argument.

[riderinthestorm]

139. "Associated with commerce" is the key clause

which means they can't do anything but walk down the street. They can't do laundry, go to the store, get stamps, go into a restaurant... I suppose they could testify in court but I highly doubt ANY NY court would allow that either.

"Associated with commerce" essentially means a woman is restricted in ways men aren't. A man can go do laundry in his shorts, but a woman can't. I'd bet that a woman walking down the street topless in NYC would be arrested for public lewdness (there are still laws on the books about that). I may be wrong but I suspect the NYC cops would find a way to ensure she was charged. Your argument is disingenuous. But you knew that.

[closeupready]

143. No, you are wrong.

Please get your facts straight. I get the feeling that snarking with people from New York City on DU is your idea of fun, but I'm tiring of it.

[riderinthestorm]

147. I looked up the law. I've read it myself because you brought it to my attention.

Clearly I'm interested in it, I've got like a brazillion threads going on this topic alone tonight. Why wouldn't I try to familiarize myself with what you posted.

I even googled images for topless women New York, and came up with street protests but nobody engaging in daily work or home caretaking activities.

[snagglepuss]

159. Doesn't disprove my argument. New Yorkers have decided that toplessness

is a value they support however they don't go so far as to permit public nudity. The thing that NY toplessness tells you is that Western countries value less clothing not more.

[closeupready]

172. No, of course when you are wrong, you are actually right.

:eyes: I'm wasting my time here.

[pnwmom]

114. But most of these women -- not all, but most -- are being

told to wear these things by their male religious leaders and family members. The burqas are miserably uncomfortable in hot weather, and plain old uncomfortable the rest of the time. And they prevent even women who know each other well from recognizing each other when they're out on the street -- an excellent way to keep women isolated and powerless. Why do we support the right of men to push "their" women into wearing these things?

And, no, this isn't the same thing as wearing high heels. I don't wear them, never have worn them, and never felt the least pressure to wear them. The women who wear them do it because they think they look good -- not because some imam told them they had to.

[MisterP]

40. google "Catherine Pederzoli"

[Taverner]

41. I think its great that the French Police will be able to identify everyone now

[pnwmom]

48. And so will everyone else. How sad for women wearing those things

that they can walk down a street and not even be able to identify their sisters, or their friends -- not unless an identifiable child or husband is along with them. Burqas don't just "protect" women from the eyes of men -- they prevent them from publicly communicating with each other.

[Nevernose]

128. Which makes me wonder:

How would you issue an APB if you were a cop trying to stop a woman from wearing a burqa and she ran away?

"Be on the lookout for someone of indeterminate race, sex, and gender wearing a lot of black!"

[pnwmom]

150. The police are already complaining about how difficult this will be to enforce. n/t

[chaska]

42. Communities have a right to make community standards....

Ban them damn baggy ass pants too.

[ismnotwasm]

56. I think if a Muslim women is following

what she considers a proper mode of dress, she should be allowed to do it. Once again, women are treated like they have no input or opinions in this matter. I don't know Islamic law, I know it's widely interpreted, but I don't see how banning burqas does anything but create animosity. Then again, if a woman feels like she is forced to wear this garment and is pleased about this law, I fully support that as well. So a little of this, a little of that from me I'm afraid.

Women forced to wear 'modesty' dress implies that men are unable to control themselves sexually, and that women need to BE controlled.




Things like FGM which--contrary to popular opinion-- is NOT 'sanctioned' or whatever by Islam should be fought tooth and nail.

[riderinthestorm]

79. Burkas are not religious either. They are cultural.

Western societies have dealt with other cultural issues that oppress women by outlawing those too. Like FGM and suttee.

[TheCanadianLiberal]

74. I have no issue with it.

I'd like the same to be honest. I NEED to be able to see someones face in public, there is simply no other way around this.

These women can wear other smiler things they just can't fully cover there faces.

[closeupready]

75. Well if you're Canadian, you also likely support prostitution, is that correct?

?

[riderinthestorm]

81. Why would you think that? About 70% of Canadians do NOT want prostitution legalized.

And for all intents and purposes, it is illegal. While you can pay for sex in Canada, everything around it is illegal, making it virtually impossible to do it without breaking the law.

The activities related to sex work that are prohibited by law include operating a premise (sexual services establishment or brothel) where such activities take place (that is more than one person involved), being found in such an establishment, procuring for such purposes, or communicating such services (soliciting) in a public place are illegal, making it difficult to engage in prostitution without breaking any law.

[closeupready]

83. I'm curious if CanadianLiberal supports it.

nt

[pnwmom]

151. Why would you say that? What an odd supposition. n/t

[RaleighNCDUer]

155. You really have a fixation on prostitution -

not getting any lately?

[deaniac21]

76. Damn Fashion Police.

[pnwmom]

99. This has nothing to do with fashion, and everything to do with

the French belief in equality, especially in the public sphere. Women wearing burqas are not able to participate as equals in French public life.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=866500&mesg_id=867357

[KamaAina]

78. What will Sarkozy use now to conceal his ugliness?

:shrug:

[hifiguy]

82. IMO it is an issue for the French and no one else.

Though I think it is probably wiser than not.

[davidthegnome]

93. I don't like it

I think they should be able to wear the burqa in public if that is what they choose to wear.

[One_Life_To_Give]

97. Burqa or just the Niqab?

The answer is not so simple. Banks in the US have a problem with people wearing masks. Yet at minus 30 we all wear them. To what extent does anyone have the right to go shopping while totally concealing their identity? What about attending other public venues? Does it matter if the covering is religious in nature?

And how much of this law is driven by racism, versus a minority engaging in a culturally unacceptable behavior?

I find I am uncomfortable with the thought of banning the Niqab here. But I am also uncomfortable with being surrounded by a bunch of indistinguishable people as well.

[pnwmom]

101. And the indistinguishable women can't tell each other apart either.

Friends can pass each other on the street and not even know to say hello.

The French have a very long history of anti-clericalism that led to a belief that religion belongs out of the public sphere. That is the true context of this. It isn't just about Muslims. It's about the French wanting to keep religion and public life strictly separate.

[SoCalDem]

120. as it should be.

I don't care what religion someone is, and I don't care who/what they worship.. If I want to see what they wear for their religion, I can go to their place of worship:)

[pnwmom]

103. I think it's interesting that DUers spend so much time condemning

the French for trying to keep women equal in the public sphere -- not isolated with face coverings; and yet we spend so little time condemning countries that blatantly oppress women.

[Liquorice]

124. +1 I was thinking the same thing. nt

[LanternWaste]

108. What precisely will it accomplish...?

What precisely will it accomplish...?

Will its banning lead to a reduction in violence against women? Has there been a rash of French nuns breaking into banks (outside of bad late nite Cinemax movies that is...).

:shrug:

[snagglepuss]

109. Nuns don't wear face masks. What is so difficult to understand that this is

about women masking themselves in a culture that has never masked women or anyone else. When Muslims start demanding nudists have the right to parade around naked, I'll reconsider.

[LanternWaste]

178. Then you believe culture should absolutely dictate our dress and fashion?

"What is so difficult to understand that this is about women masking themselves in a culture that has never masked women or anyone else. "

Then you believe culture should absolutely dictate our dress and fashion?

[Honeycombe8]

144. It's an affront and insult to women in a secular society.

Being totally covered up means you don't exist, in a way. It's something that one gender forces upon another gender in a particular culture or religion. It's not always voluntary.

We don't exist in a vacuum. They can still wear long, flowing robes, sheik like head gear, things like that. They just can't cover up their total bodies, including faces. I agree with that.

It also means they can't become fully productive citizens. They can't work in certain jobs, they can't fly fully covered up, etc.

I suspect the govt talked with a lot of muslim women privately.

[LanternWaste]

179. Then you believe the law is a good one because it denies fashions you don't like?

Then you believe the law is a good one because it denies fashions you don't like?

[Honeycombe8]

180. If that's what you see when you read my post, I feel sorry for your lack of

understanding of the muslim culture.

Watch a few documentaries on the state of women in Iran and Afghanistan. That will give you more of a full view of the meaning of the Burqa (and other forms of making women non-people).

I saw a documentary a couple of years ago about women in Afghanistan. The Burqa, contrary to what some would have you believe, is not something that muslim women clamor to wear. Just the opposite, they are forced to wear it. I saw a widow trying to buy food at a stand. She was wearing her burqa, but had opened the face. A man who was a stranger in line noticed. He turned around, yelled at her, then hit her hard in the face. Then other men gathered around to force her to cover her face.

In Iran, they don't have a burqa. They have this other very odd looking contraption that makes them look like robots or mannequins, or even monsters in a way. It's made of metal. It goes across the forehead, and thick metal piece comes down between the eyes over the nose, then it surrounds her mouth and goes around to the back around her jaw or neck. The purpose is to hide what the woman looks like. Along with the contraption (which the women are forced to wear) are other means of subjugation. They are not allowed to work outside the home. The men take full control of the children, esp the boys, when they reach a certain age. And the boy children become the bosses of the mother. She is made to work dusk to dawn. She has to walk miles to get water, and back. That's her whole life: grunt work. She also has to wear long, flowing burqa type robes.

The rate of suicide among that group of women in Iran is very high. They usu. hang themselves in the house. In Afghanistan, the women set themselves on fire. Or if they misbehave, their relatives set them on fire and tell the hospital that it was an accident.

The burqa is far from a fasion statement. It is an affront to all women around the globe. It means the same thing that shackles and chains mean to African Americans. Shackles and chains aren't a fashion statement, either.

What if instead of the burqa, it would be shackles and chains? The muslims wouldn't go for that, because you can still see the person. But the effect in a free society is close. She wouldn't be able to move well, get a good job, interact freely and fully with people...in other words..she wouldn't be able to function like a free, equal person in society.

It's the right thing to ban it. It's an affront to all free, equal people in a free society.

If you moved to a muslim country, you would not be allowed to dress as you please, or say what you please. I, as a woman, wouldn't be allowed to wear shorts or short sleeved attire, or have certain jobs. But we don't have to move there, if we don't want to do that.

[Blue_In_AK]

111. I don't think it's any of the government's business

what a woman wears or doesn't wear on her head. Burqa-wearing is something that may need to be resolved within certain factions of the Muslim religion but has nothing to do with government.

[Honeycombe8]

146. I do. It's a good law. It's an affront to women generally in a free society...

where women are supposedly equal.

It's not as if all muslims were wearing them. It's something that the muslim MEN have forced muslim WOMEN to wear. Some want to wear them. Many don't.

In any case, if they were wearing shackles and chains, it would be an affront to women in an equal society. It's the government's business, IMO.

If they TRULY are concerned about covering up, they can devise an alternate form of burqa that doesn't make the person a nonentity.

If you move to a muslim country, you'd have to be prepared to wear certain clothing and do and not do certain things. If you were a woman, you wouldn't be allowed to wear shorts, expose your head and face and arms, or work. You don't have to move to a muslim country, though, if you don't want to do those things. And vice versa. France, like America, is a secular country. They knew that when they moved there. Part of reaping the benefits of a free society is to realize that, yeah, everyone is free. Even muslim women.

They can still wear burqas in mosques...oh, wait...women aren't allowed to go into the mosques, I think.

[pnwmom]

154. This is France, not the U.S.

And it isn't about what's on a woman's head, it's about a face-veil concealing her identity as she's out in public.

The French have a long tradition of anti-clericalism -- they want religion kept strictly out of the public sphere. They say that the face-veil interferes with women taking a full and equal part in social communication. And they have a different constitution than we do, with a stronger emphasis on freedom "from" religion. The reason this new law was passed by an overwhelming number of legislators across all parties (including socialist) is that it accords with long French tradition. It's not aimed at Muslim religion as much as it's aimed at all religions being kept out of the public sphere; and it's intended to support the ability of all people, including women, to participate in society as equals.

[Blue_In_AK]

165. Well, that I can understand, I guess.

Can Christians wear crucifixes in public?

[pnwmom]

168. I remember there was some to-do about Christian symbols

being kept out of classrooms, but I doubt if anyone objects to a necklace on the street.

On the other hand, the burqa itself forms a physical barrier between the wearer and everyone else she passes by. A crucifix doesn't do that. A Muslim crescent pendant would be far more comparable than a burqa.

[RaleighNCDUer]

158. The burqa has nothing to do with religion.

There is historical documentation from the 3rd century, three centuries before the invention of Islam, of women in Arabia wearing burqas.

This is cultural, not religious.

[pnwmom]

116. I think there's something the French realize, that most people here

aren't thinking about.

It's not just that the burqa is hot and uncomfortable, and a symbol of women's oppression. It's not even that it reduces a woman's peripheral and overall vision and make it harder to walk briskly, much less drive.

It's the way the burqa sets a woman apart and makes her almost a ghost in her own community. (Think Elizabeth Smart.) This type of dress not only conceals the identity of a woman from the eyes of men, it conceals a woman's identity -- when she's out in public -- from her best friend. From her sister. From her mother. Two women can pass each other on the street and have no idea they know each other.

So the worst thing about a burqa, in my opinion, is the way it isolates women, how it prevents them from fully participating in society. This is what the French realize and that we forget. The burqa isn't just a fashion. It's a way to keep women invisible -- and powerless -- in the public sphere.

[ozone_man]

123. +1

You summarized it perfectly.

"Toleration is not the opposite of Intoleration, but is the counterfeit of it. Both are despotisms. The one assumes to itself the right of with-holding Liberty of Conscience, and the other of granting it."
-Thomas Paine

[Canuckistanian]

119. I heard there are only 2,000 burqa-wearing women in France

The chief of France's national police has declared that it's NOT a priority to his force, but will enforce it if required.

Face it, this is a political ploy by Sarkozy to play to his extremist RW supporters. It will fail.

[logosoco]

121. I guess it is a good thing they don't have a ban like this in Japan.

I've been seeing a lot of pictures of people there with "dust" masks on (not really sure if that does any good though).
I seem to recall seeing this before with the flu outbreaks (?). What if something like that happens in France and some of the people want to wear masks like that for protection?

[pnwmom]

127. I wonder how France would react to that. OTOH, those little masks

don't cover up nearly as much of the face as a burqa can (the kind with a slit for the eyes, covered by lace).

[riderinthestorm]

131. Surgical masks are a legal exception in the French law. nt

[Liquorice]

122. It's good. Burqas are a symbol of female imprisonment. nt

[emilyg]

129. No problem.

[Bragi]

130. Burka okay as a deviant act done by few

I have no problem tolerating a misogynistic deviant religious sect that demands that women hide their faces for their entire lives, provided that there are hardly any people I am exposed to actually adopting this such practices.

However, if the question is this: Would I want to live in a community where the majority of people of one gender are expected to practice subservience to the other gender, and to cover their faces and hide their selves, and refuse all intercourse with people of the other gender, in all aspects of their lives, for their whole lives?

If that's the question, then my answer is: no, I do not want to live in that kind of community, if I can avoid doing so. I will tolerate this kind of thing as a freakish sideshow, but I sure don't want it becoming the norm.

[Terra Alta]

135. I think it's a good idea.

It dehumanizes women.

[Honeycombe8]

141. I think it's a good idea.

Some women want to wear burqas. But many don't (according to a documentary I saw on Afghanistan a few years ago). This gives them "cover" not to, w/o having to defy muslim men directly (which would mean they would be at risk of being beaten, killed, or acid thrown in their faces). In the documentary I saw, I saw one Afghan woman at a food stand to buy some food; she was wearing her burqa, but her face was exposed. A man who was a stranger turned around, saw her, and hit her hard across her face, until she covered up her face. Then other men crowded around. I suspect the govt talked privately with many muslim women on this subject.

It's an offensive thing to other women. Just because a religion makes a claim that a certain garment is religious freedom doesn't make it so, or make it right. What if their religion was that their women should wear shackles & chains? It's an affront to women in a secular society, where women are equal to men.

I heard one explanation in the law, which is that the burqa sets women apart in society, and makes a woman virtually invisible, a nonentity. One of the reasons for the law is that that is viewed as not in accordance with women being equal and free. I agree with that.

They can still wear a revised garment, like other religions and cultures do, where the entire person isn't covered up.

The state has an interest in cultivating people who have the freedom to become all they can be in a free society, and become productive citizens. It's hard to function in a free society wearing a full covering of the entire body, including the face. It would mean those women would be hindered in becoming productive citizens. Just as if they were wearing shackles and chains. Only more so, in a way.

When a culture moves to another culture in another country, you have to be prepared to make some changes. You have the option of staying where you are or moving to another country where your culture is predominant. When an extreme religion moves to a secular country, especially, they should expect that they can't do everything in public that they could in their own country, where their religion ruled. Just like if we moved to a muslim country, we women wouldn't be allowed to work, wear shorts, walk in public unaccompanied by a man, appear in public with our faces and heads and arms exposed. If we don't like that, then we don't move there.

[baldguy]

142. An overreaching govt, oppressing a minority & invading their individual privacy.

If they can force a woman to expose her face, they can force her to expose her tits too. How many people would be comfortable with that?

[pnwmom]

149. If they can require people to wear a certain minimum of clothing,

why can't they require people to expose their faces, for the purposes of social inclusion and communication?

[baldguy]

156. How does the display of a particular body part enhance communication?

Anyone who makes their living talking on the telephone can tell when the person on the other end is smiling or scowling, when they're happy or angry, when they understand you and when they don't. All without seeing their face. This works in person also.

And what does "social inclusion" mean? The default status for any human being should be <i>inclusion</i> If an innocuous piece of cloth is going to force you the <i>exclude</i> someone, it's got nothing to do with the cloth, and nothing to do with the person wearing it - and everything to do with yourself & your own prejudices.

[pnwmom]

160. Is that a serious question?

When two women wearing burqas pass each other on the street, they can't even recognize each other. A woman could pass her best friend, her sister, or her mother -- and not even know it. Women wearing burqas are like ghosts drifting by -- no individual identity, no communication with each other. Burqas are a way to isolate women, not only from the "eyes of men" but from each other, and from the community in general.

[WiffenPoof]

145. Honestly...

I have mixed feelings about it.

-PLA

[pnwmom]

164. It would be easier for me to support if I didn't believe

that most burqa wearers are coerced into wearing them.

[WiffenPoof]

181. Excellent Point....

and one that I didn't consider.

-PLA

[MacNfries]

148. The French banned the burga? You gotta be kidding ...

I wonder what all those McDonalds are gonna do since the French banned the burga. I mean, fries just don't taste the same without a Big Mac and shake.
Maybe the USA ought to ban frenchfries then ...

[Kip Humphrey]

153. Stupeed!

[franzia99]

157. As someone who believes strongly in peoples' right to free expression I have to say I don't agree

with a ban on wearing Burqas. If it's true though that they've made it illegal to force someone to wear one, I support that aspect of it. I don't like the sexist notion that women should be forced to cover up though. But making it a crime to wear a Burqa? It seems like they're going a bit far.

[pnwmom]

163. They didn't specifically ban the burqa. They banned any garment

that completely covers the face (except for the eyes).

The penalty for a person dressed in that way would be a ticket and a fine. However, anyone guilty of forcing someone to wear such a veil could face criminal penalties.

[U4ikLefty]

161. What do the French think of our death penalty?

I say we are in no position to judge.

[Quantess]

162. I'm with France on this one.

[inna]

166. conflicted, don't have enough info. inclined to trust the french (vs. the us media) on this.

[ZombieHorde]

167. If women are forced to wear burkas, then France is punishing the victim.

If a woman chooses to wear a burka, then she is not being oppressed.

The law is absurd.

[pnwmom]

169. She would owe a fine. Anyone who forced her could go to jail.

[ZombieHorde]

176. Why should she have to pay a fine? She is not hurting anyone. nt

[pnwmom]

177. Because the French have decided to discourage the practice. ,

They believe that wearing the veil in public -- obscuring your identity so that even your own mother wouldn't recognize you (and you wouldn't recognize her) -- isolates women and interferes with their full and equal participation in society.

Under the law, women (or most likely, their husbands or fathers) will pay a fine and be required to take a class. Any man who forces them may face criminal charges.

Not surprisingly, Muslim women are much more likely to support the new law than are Muslim men.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=866500&mesg_id=872013

[pnwmom]

170. A plurality of Muslim women surveyed in France supported the new law.

A majority of men (about 63%) opposed the new law.

Maybe the women know something we don't about whether women are wearing the veil out of their own free choice.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_law_on_secularity_and_conspicuous_religious_symbols_in_schools

"For Muslims in France, the February survey showed 42% for and 53% against. Among surveyed Muslim women, 49% approved the proposed law, and 43% opposed it."

________________________________

Looking at the numbers, Muslim women are much more likely to favor the new law than Muslim men. This source didn't include statistics for men, but assuming they are about half of the population you can estimate their responses as follows:

If 49% of Muslim women favor the new law, but only 42% of Muslims overall, then only about 35% of men favor the new law.
If 43% of Muslim women oppose the new law, and 53% of Muslims overall oppose it, then about 63% of men oppose it.

[Dorian Gray]

173. I have a problem with it

but it's their country, and their problem to figure out.

I'd be very vocal about it if it were to happen in the US.

[moondust]

183. I don't think it's too much to ask.

On security grounds, in an age of suicide bombers and terrorism I think the public should be allowed to see from a distance if someone is carrying a weapon or wearing a suicide vest or poses some kind of threat.

On cultural grounds, the burqa is quite a radical departure from Western values/customs and a symbol of repression and marginalization to many. Would it be okay for KKK members to routinely wear their sheets around on the streets of the U.S. day and night? If you can't leave your burqa behind in the old country then maybe you should have stayed there where it's accepted/required.

The French are known for being culturally assertive/protective. Many didn't even want a Disneyland built in France. It's not surprising that they've banned the very un-French burqa. I guess they'll do whatever they democratically decide.