French Parliamentary Committee Supports Burka Ban

[TheLastMohican]

A French parliamentary committee has recommended a partial ban on women wearing Islamic face veils.
The committee's near 200-page report has proposed a ban in hospitals, schools, government offices and on public transport.
It also recommends that anyone showing visible signs of "radical religious practice" should be refused residence cards and citizenship.

In its report, the committee said requiring women to cover their faces was against the French republican principles of secularism and equality.
"The wearing of the full veil is a challenge to our republic. This is unacceptable. We must condemn this excess," the report said.
The commission called on parliament to adopt a formal resolution stating that the face veil was "contrary to the values of the republic" and proclaiming that "all of France is saying 'no' to the full veil".
Presenting the report to the French National Assembly, speaker Bernard Accoyer said the face veil had too many negative connotations.
"It is the symbol of the repression of women, and... of extremist fundamentalism.
"This divisive approach is a denial of the equality between men and women and a rejection of co-existence side-by-side, without which our republic is nothing."
The report is expected to be followed by the drafting of a bill and a parliamentary debate on the issue.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Also, the current status of this issue throughout Europe (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.).



Is this appropriate for a self-proclaimed secular government?

[themuzicman]

Imagine that. Intolerance from the left.

No, it is not appropriate for any government that wishes to claim that it values freedom.

[Mader]

I have never seen the full coverage burka here in the US so I can't understand the issue at all. Why would anyone move to a Western country where wearing a burka is not socially acceptable/normal and why would any woman want to cover their face - it seems dangerous. Having said that, the French prohibition of religious speech in the form of wearing religious clothing or jewelry is ridiculous - you can't make God go away.

[Lucid]

If women want to wear the burka then let them. Government has no place telling people what they can and cannot wear.

To Mader: many women in Muslim countries want to wear the burka and want to continue to wear the burka even if they move to a Western country where it's not very common. Just as many Western women want to continue to wear jeans even if they move to a Muslim country where it's not very common or socially acceptable.

[Warrior]

I do not think it is appropriate to have such a ban. If women want to wear it, despite the social non-acceptability (and consequences, I guess), then let them. I might have a different opinion if it was indecent, presented a public hazard, or something similar, but none of that applies here.

[SirJac]

While I believe that freedom should be allowed wherever possible, I'm not entirely comfortable with the idea of concealed identity. There is alot of potential abuse that can stem from it and breed mistrust. I have heard of male suicide bombers wearing burkas in the middle east to help disguise their attacks. I fear that too many shady characters will take advantage of the anonymity a burka provides, and their actions will then label the innocents who wear them because there is no way to differentiate them.

It's not so much of a problem in the middle east where a man would be ashamed to wear a burka and women are subservient, but elsewhere these social safeguards against abusing burka anonymity do not exist.

[phej]

It's a burqa, not a burka. Actually, it's a niqāb that got banned in France.

[Aristocrat Porn]

It goes without saying all the naive people in the thread complaining about the ban have never been to the islamic ghettos in france.

[TheLastMohican]

It's a burqa, not a burka.
Either spelling works. "Burkha" is fine too.

Actually, it's a niqāb that got banned in France.

As far as I know, no ban has been passed yet, only a recommendation and a parliamentary committee's report. Those were dealing with face veils, so they could apply to both the burka and the niqab.

[Amphorian]

I don't know what is wrong with Europe. Some nations are back bending for Islam while others are going nuts about what people wear. They need to eat more do-nuts and become couch potatoes. :irked:

[Lucid]

It goes without saying all the naive people in the thread complaining about the ban have never been to the islamic ghettos in france.

That's true. I haven't. Why don't you tell me what it's like and why this is a reason for supporting the ban.

[ArtistTyrant]

in some neighborhoods with high Muslim populations, non-Muslim women are heckled if they don't wear burkas...thus i support the ban

[stasis]

I'm glad to hear it. The ban itself is petty and sophistic, of course, but I think it symbolizes and may help to enable / embolden a partial rejection of the import of Islamic culture in France. The nastier bits. Glad, because it appears that Europeans are still (understandably) having some post-Holocaust difficulty drawing an ethical line between measured, constructive conservatism and xenophobia. It's an important line to draw.

[Lucid]

in some neighborhoods with high Muslim populations, non-Muslim women are heckled if they don't wear burkas...thus i support the ban

I'm not sure that being heckled is much of a reason to ban people from expressing their religion. Women here are often heckled if they dress attractively, do we ban that?

[TheLastMohican]

Women here are often heckled if they dress attractively, do we ban that?
Flawed analogy: he said that women are heckled when they don't wear burkas. So really, we should ban ugly clothes.


Wait, I think we need to just ban ugly people, because some people look bad no matter what they're wearing.

[stasis]

Flawed analogy: he said that women are heckled when they don't wear burkas.
No, there isn't really a difference. They are both appeals to decency. The analogy is fine.

[TheLastMohican]

No, there isn't really a difference. They are both appeals to decency. The analogy is fine.
Calling AT's argument an appeal to decency is addressing the validity of that argument, not addressing the validity of any analogy used in response.

[True Rune]

I certainly see both sides, but it'll be a faith over government thing in the end unless that's what these women want.

[stasis]

Calling AP's argument an appeal to decency is addressing the validity of that argument, not addressing the validity of any analogy used in response.
I'm calling the heckling in ArtistTyrant's example an appeal to decency. The women who aren't wearing burkas are being heckled for being indecent. Analogously, the women who in Lucid's example are dressing attractively are being heckled for being indecent. Both examples revolve around notions of what is and is not decent creating difficulty for someone dressed contrary to those notions. Further, some of the sophistry offered in support of this ban - burkas as symbols of the repression of women, for example - is also an appeal to decency. So, no matter which way we look at the arguments being made, the analogies supplied will suffice.

[TheLastMohican]

I'm calling the heckling in ArtistTyrant's example an appeal to decency. The women who aren't wearing burkas are being heckled for being indecent. Analogously, the women who in Lucid's example are dressing attractively are being heckled for being indecent. Both examples revolve around notions of what is and is not decent creating difficulty for someone dressed contrary to those notions. Further, some of the sophistry offered in support of this ban - burkas as symbols of the repression of women, for example - is also an appeal to decency. So, no matter which way we look at the arguments being made, the analogies supplied will suffice.

To recap: ArtistTyrant said that he supports banning burkas because women are heckled for not wearing burkas.
In reply, Lucid suggested that by AT's logic, we should ban attractive clothes because women here are heckled for wearing attractive clothes.

AT's suggestion was to ban what would have prevented the heckling.
Lucid's suggestion was to ban what causes the heckling.

So how was that a fitting analogy?

[Arkeph]

In the context of other policies which restrict the operation of mosques (there was at least one other issue related to the ringing of bells to announce a time of prayer, I think) and the language of the committee, the ban doesn't seem to be based on anything but a fear of Muslims. They don't ban crosses or force the pope to wear regular clothes when he visits (do they?).

Ah well. Free expression seems to be less tolerated in France, for whatever reason.

[Coxswain]

I'm not sure that being heckled is much of a reason to ban people from expressing their religion. Women here are often heckled if they dress attractively, do we ban that?
Young boys and sometimes adult males will throw stones. A woman not covering her arms and legs will definitely be pelted with small rocks in some European Muslim neighborhoods and with lethal size rocks in places like Somalia. Seen it.

[stasis]

So how was that a fitting analogy?
You are now conflating Lucid's argument with the analogy she used to evidence the argument despite your assertion to the contrary. An analogy is sound or not sound regardless of the conclusion drawn from it; I have already demonstrated that the analogy itself is sound no matter which way one proceeds from there. But whatever:

In either example, what we have is the prospect of a ban on a type of women's clothing because it creates a decency problem. Ban burkas because legal burkas -> heckling for deviance in dress. Or ban sexy clothing because legal sexy -> heckling for deviance in dress.

Therefore, we may read Lucid as saying that reacting to an uproar over the decency of women's clothing by banning women's clothing does not actually increase the freedom of women to dress.

[Angel1]

All people should be required to identify themselves (including their faces) to the police upon legitimate (according to the laws of the respective country) request. Aside from making sure that my previous statement is incorporated into a law, I see no need for further action. I do not support a ban on burqas.

[TheLastMohican]

You are now conflating Lucid's argument with the analogy she used to evidence the argument despite your assertion to the contrary.
How am I conflating the argument and the analogy? What assertion are you talking about?

An analogy is sound or not sound regardless of the conclusion drawn from it; I have already demonstrated that the analogy itself is sound no matter which way one proceeds from there.
You have not demonstrated that. You've only made them sound equivalent by using vaguer language:

In either example, what we have is the prospect of a ban on a type of women's clothing because it creates a decency problem. Ban burkas because legal burkas -> heckling for deviance in dress. Or ban sexy clothing because legal sexy -> heckling for deviance in dress.

Therefore, we may read Lucid as saying that reacting to an uproar over the decency of women's clothing by banning women's clothing does not actually increase the freedom of women to dress.
This glosses over the fact that the heckling is in one case caused by the presence of the clothing that might be banned, while in the other case it is caused by the absence of the clothing that might be banned.

[stasis]

You should re-read the exchange carefully, TLM. Nothing is being glossed:


This glosses over the fact that the heckling is in one case caused by the presence of the clothing that might be banned, while in the other case it is caused by the absence of the clothing that might be banned.
The heckling in both cases is "caused" by women not wearing what is expected of them. The solution proposed in the burka case is to ban burkas so that women might be free of the heckling. The solution proposed in the bikini case is to ban bikinis so that women might be free of the heckling. The purpose of the contrast is to demonstrate that by banning burkas, you are restricting what women can wear. Some religiously observant women choose to wear burkas, just as some sexually observant women choose to dress attractively. The point is that one is not freeing women from constraint in the burka example by banning burkas; instead, one is constricting them in the same respect and for the same reason that one would be constricting women and not freeing them by banning bikinis.

[Lucid]

Young boys and sometimes adult males will throw stones. A woman not covering her arms and legs will definitely be pelted with small rocks in some European Muslim neighborhoods and with lethal size rocks in places like Somalia. Seen it.

I don't think this is a reason to ban the clothing. What should be banned is the stone throwing. Why is it that it's always women who have to change what they wear to accommodate the behavior of others?

And throwing small rocks isn't a reason to outlaw someone's religious expression.

What people seem to be saying is that men and boys should not have to change their behavior, but that women should have to change theirs. How is this different from the idea that men can't control their sexual urges so women should have to wear a full length robe of black cloth that covers everything but their hands, feet and eyes and never leave the company of their husband or male relative?

Therefore, we may read Lucid as saying that reacting to an uproar over the decency of women's clothing by banning women's clothing does not actually increase the freedom of women to dress.

Exactly. Based on what I've read in this thread about the issue, the women aren't the problem. What they're wearing isn't the problem. The problem is how the men are reacting to what the women are wearing. Men are rational beings capable of self control and as such they are responsible for their actions. If the problem is the heckling and stone throwing then why should the women have to change how they dress?

[TheLastMohican]

The solution proposed in the burka case is to ban burkas so that women might be free of the heckling. The solution proposed in the bikini case is to ban bikinis so that women might be free of the heckling.
That is where the difference lies: the former is supposed to end the heckling by making all of the women equally subject to it, not by getting rid of that which is prompting the heckling. The latter is supposed to end the heckling by getting rid of that which is prompting it.

[stasis]

That is where the difference lies:
The difference in what? You seem to be randomly oscillating back and forth between the analogy and the argument utilizing the analogy as evidence. First you said the analogy was flawed. In order for the analogy to be flawed, it has to be logically inconsistent. I demonstrated that it is not. Then you said the analogy didn't forward the argument. I've just explained how it does. Now you're saying that the analogy is flawed again.

Just read Lucid's last post above.

[Lucid]

Just read Lucid's last post above.

Yes, the bikini vs. burka example is an accurate summation of my point.

Analogies aside, what I'm saying is that the women are not the ones who need to change their behavior. Whether it's burkas or bikinis, they aren't causing the heckling. What's causing the heckling is that some men think such behavior is ok and are willing to engage in it. If the goal is to stop the heckling of women, why don't they ban the heckling of women?

[EricJ]

France has a different conception of religious freedom than the USA does. It's called laïcité, and, in addition to freedom of private religious practice, it includes freedom from religion within the public sphere. It is a very strict interpretation of separation of church and state. The general French populus would find the liberal use of religious language, congressional prayers, and the influence of religious denominations in US politics to be radical and unacceptable. You'll notice that all of the places listed in the article which would be affected by the ban are associated with the public sector (schools, public transportion, etc..)

I feel like this aspect of French societal values should be understood before attempting to discuss this question.

[TheLastMohican]

The difference in what? You seem to be randomly oscillating back and forth between the analogy and the argument utilizing the analogy as evidence.


When you said this the first time, I asked how I had conflated the argument and the analogy, but you didn't explain. As I understand it, I've been talking about the analogy all along, the analogy being the example of banning attractive clothing because women are heckled for it.

[stasis]

When you said this the first time, I asked how I had conflated the argument and the analogy, but you didn't explain. As I understand it, I've been talking about the analogy all along, the analogy being the example of banning attractive clothing because women are heckled for it.
Analogy: {burkas + heckling -> clothing ban} = {bikinis + heckling -> clothing ban}
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Argument (ArtistTyrant): women being heckled is bad.
Counterargument (Lucid): stripping women of freedom because they're being heckled is bad.

[TheLastMohican]

Analogy: {burkas + heckling -> clothing ban} = {bikinis + heckling -> clothing ban}
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Argument (ArtistTyrant): women being heckled is bad.
Counterargument (Lucid): stripping women of freedom because they're being heckled is bad.
So... did I somehow address the argument or counterargument? I said nothing about what is good or bad.

[stasis]

So... did I somehow address the argument or counterargument? I said nothing about what is good or bad.
In post #18, you say the analogy is flawed. In post #20, you respond to my demonstration that is not flawed by summarizing the entire exchange - argument, counterargument, and analogy. In post #28 you're back to talking about differences, which means you're on the analogy again. And throughout, you are injecting an argument that neither of them made (that banning burkas will make all women subject to heckling).

[TheLastMohican]

In post #18, you say the analogy is flawed. In post #20, you respond to my demonstration that is not flawed by summarizing the entire exchange - argument, counterargument, and analogy. In post #28 you're back to talking about differences, which means you're on the analogy again.
My summary in post #20 actually did not describe the argument and counterargument. It was meant to display the difference between AT's suggestion and Lucid's analogy, and did not examine the merits of either position.

And throughout, you are injecting an argument that neither of them made (that banning burkas will make all women subject to heckling).
I mentioned that only in post #28, and I wouldn't call it an argument on it's own; it just served to fill in the blank where AT did not fully explain the link between heckling and banning burkas. I can't think of another causal link that AT would have been thinking of.

[stasis]

My summary in post #20 actually did not describe the argument and counterargument. It was meant to display the difference between AT's suggestion and Lucid's analogy, and did not examine the merits of either position.
An analogy is the likening of two or more objects. You summarize the entire exchange and then ask how the analogy is a fitting one. An analogy that summarily fits what, if not Lucid's argument? Surely not an analogy that fits itself, since that would be a nonsensical statement.


I mentioned that only in post #28, and I wouldn't call it an argument on it's own; it just served to fill in the blank where AT did not fully explain the link between heckling and banning burkas. I can't think of another causal link that AT would have been thinking of.
You first mention it in post #20 when you say "AT's suggestion was to ban what would have prevented the heckling." As if banning burkas distributes heckling among all women - this would be an argument of your own that you inject yourself.

AT says that he is in favor of banning burkas because those women who choose not to wear them are being heckled for that choice in Muslim areas. Banning burkas removes the element of choice and thereby assails the burka-wearing norm itself. This is obviously what Lucid was responding to.

[Aristocrat Porn]

Religious freedom, even in the US, does not mean you are free to preach the destruction of the very government that provides you religion freedom, even if your religion says it is ok to kill and discipline infidels.


You have to draw the line somewhere. Absolute free speech should mean people are free to say anything, including inciting terrorist attacks that aim to take down the institution that provides free speech. Clearly, although more loyal to the pure notion of free speech, this interpretation is a self-defeating one, given that if the system allows others to take it down by force than in a short time there won't be anymore free speech for anyone.


This is about trying to get back the grounds that islam took by force in france. They have absolutely no respect for french law or culture and even enforce their own religious laws as much as they can in their ghettos.

It's easy to criticize french decisions from america, when you avoid contact with undesirables by always moving further and further into suburbs, and the people that pose a "problem" to the middle class are catholic and have somewhat similar values if different culture. If illegal mexicans were muslims that acted like the french ones do you wouldnt see any americans here claiming that banning burkas in america was outrageous.

Obviously this is a clear subversion of freedom, and banning the burka is a symbolical measure more than anything else.

[thod]

Muslim women did not wear burqas when they were little girls. They do not wear them at home. Clearly breathing through a piece of cloth is unhygienic. They wear them because of religious and cultural pressure. When they say "I want to wear one" what they are really saying is "I want to comply with the norms". Islam does not insist on this clothing. It is against idolatry at all. They do not allow statues in mosques because they would become God substitutes. So it is with the burqa. She is no less a Muslim when she takes it off. She cannot play "Now you see me, now you don't" with God according to when she wears one. Lots of religions dictate dressing modestly but practicality must also have a say.

I would equate this to that Texan Mormon case in the US. The 16 year old girls say "we want to raped by 55 year old men". A sort of Copenhagen syndrome.

[Nightsun]

Is this appropriate for a self-proclaimed secular government?

Burka ban is right. And is in name of freedom. Many Europe country (also Italy) have a law that prohibit face coverage for order purpose (if you wear any kind of mask you can't be identified). Being a secular country, is right that religion features don't make exception.

...I might have a different opinion if it was indecent, presented a public hazard, or something similar, but none of that applies here.

But it present pubblic hazard wearing a burka because you can't identify people

While I believe that freedom should be allowed wherever possible, I'm not entirely comfortable with the idea of concealed identity. There is alot of potential abuse that can stem from it and breed mistrust. I have heard of male suicide bombers wearing burkas in the middle east to help disguise their attacks. I fear that too many shady characters will take advantage of the anonymity a burka provides, and their actions will then label the innocents who wear them because there is no way to differentiate them.


Exactly

All people should be required to identify themselves (including their faces) to the police upon legitimate (according to the laws of the respective country) request. Aside from making sure that my previous statement is incorporated into a law, I see no need for further action. I do not support a ban on burqas.

People should be identified by everyone, at lest in Italy. I can't stop someone asking for documents but I should be able to see his face.

France has a different conception of religious freedom than the USA does. It's called laïcité, and, in addition to freedom of private religious practice, it includes freedom from religion within the public sphere. It is a very strict interpretation of separation of church and state. The general French populus would find the liberal use of religious language, congressional prayers, and the influence of religious denominations in US politics to be radical and unacceptable. You'll notice that all of the places listed in the article which would be affected by the ban are associated with the public sector (schools, public transportion, etc..)

I feel like this aspect of French societal values should be understood before attempting to discuss this question.

A kind of religion view that I support.

For instance in Europe the European Court have voted a motion (moved by an italian atheist) to remove the Cross from public officies and school in Italy (after the public school of his child refused to do so).

[pip]

You're not allowed to wear cycle helmets in shops here, because you could be anyone under there.
How is a veil any different?
And why should I have to take off my headwear while some other people don't?

It's a similar deal with the building site catch 22.
A Sikh fellow turns up at a building site which requires staff, he's perfectly qualified and has plenty of experience.
BUT because he's a Sikh you can't make him remove his headwear as it's central to his belief to keep it on, BUT equally you can't let him on the site without a hardhat.

You give him the job you're in breach of H&S and liable for any mishaps.
You don't give him the job and you're discriminating aginst him on the basis of religion and liable for any fluff he feels he can get away with distrubing.

Religion is something that everyone must be allowed to choose thier own path on.
BUT it CAN NOT EVER be allowed to interfere with normal societal functioning, else we degenerate into stagnant litigious furball with all our energy being spent on 'he said' vs. 'she said'.

P.S.
Freedom of expression also includes people being allowed to say 'we don't want you guys to do x because it makes us uneasy, and it's our fecking country'
Goes both ways you know... ;)

[Lucid]

So freedom of speech doesn't protect sedition, but it does protect agencies of authority, such as the government, telling the citizenry what they can and cannot wear.

And women should always have to change their behavior to accomodate the childish and violent behavior of men - rather than men being required to cease their childish and violent behavior.

Oh, and having people yell unkind things at you is reason enough to ban you from wearing clothing that you want to wear and that is a central part of your religion.

Additionally! Women don't really know what they want to wear. It's up to men and government to tell them what is good to wear and what is not good to wear.

It's sexist for women to cover their faces, but not to tell them that they can't.

And if something obscures part of your face it means you're a public hazard. So sunglasses, scarves and hats will be banned next. Certainly scarves should be banned since it's clearly unhygenic to breathe through cloth. And since personal hygene is ample reason to make laws, wearing the same shirt two days in a row should also be banned, as well as failing to wash one's hands before dinner. Also, handling money.

This is just xenophobia dressed up with justifications.

I'm glad I live in the US, where freedom of religion and speech actually mean something, where we are free to discuss the dismantling and destruction of our government without fear of censorship or retribution (relatively free at least) and where the government doesn't mandate that women can't wear bikinis or burkas. Especially not for some paternalist bullshit reason like, "Women who don't wear them are being heckled!"
What is this, fucking kindergarten?

Muslim women did not wear burqas when they were little girls. They do not wear them at home. Clearly breathing through a piece of cloth is unhygienic. They wear them because of religious and cultural pressure. When they say "I want to wear one" what they are really saying is "I want to comply with the norms".

So a ban on high heels would also be acceptable, since it's only interfering with her freedom to make choices about what women wear and they don't typically wear high heels as children or at home. When women say that they want to wear high heels, or make up, or anything else, what they're really saying is that they want to comply with the norms. They don't really know what they want, only what they're told to want.

[Ray9]

America has a rich histroy of clothing that covers the face. Lets's see, bandits covered their faces with a bandana so as not to be recognized by the law. In fact the word bandit probably came from bandana. The Ku Klux Klan covered their faces again so they would not be recognized as they burned crosses and hung blacks. Why on Earth would anyone oppose someone covering their face in public?

[ZincLysine]

If women want to wear the burka then let them. Government has no place telling people what they can and cannot wear.

To Mader: many women in Muslim countries want to wear the burka and want to continue to wear the burka even if they move to a Western country where it's not very common. Just as many Western women want to continue to wear jeans even if they move to a Muslim country where it's not very common or socially acceptable.

I just wanna add to this. There's always seems to be this assumption that these women always wear these clothes by force and that they're from a foreign culture.

I know many young Muslim women born and raised in the UK that choose to wear clothes like a burqa or a headscarve of their own free will. Often, many of these girls mother's only wear a headscarve and these girls choose themselves that is not appropriate enough for them. You even get many sisters who dress at the opposite extremes from Muslim families. Heck, you even get this with non-religious families.

Then there's opposite situation in that I know some of these women dress the opposite and do things like drink alcohol etc which contravenes their religious beliefs not because they are rebelling or want to, but because they feel they won't fit in unless they do these things and will be discriminated against.

I personally feel people should be free to make their own choices, assuming its not harmful to anyone e.g. People wishing to walk around nude around young children. As long as these women aren't forced to wear these clothes against their free will, I'm fine with it. Afterall, God will decide ultimately if the decisions they made were right or wrong.

[Satyam]

Ugh, religion. When will it cease to exist?

[thod]

and where the government doesn't mandate that women can't wear bikinis or burkas

Well I would find it amusing to walk down main street with my dick swinging freely, yet those darn pesky US laws will not let me do. I suggest the US does have its clothing restrictions too.

[Aristocrat Porn]

The word "burka" "probably" comes from "burning". It's probably a derivative of burning, don't you agree Lucid?

Thus the clothing is "probably" a reference to the burning of infidels and thus shouldn't be allowed.

[Nightsun]

@ people defending burka:

So why I can't walk naked into the street?

----

On a side note, in Italy every kind of masking is illegal, for istance you should remove the helmet in the moment you go down the motor-bike. As for sunglasses, sunglasses are used to protect your eyes from the sun.

Medicine>Security>Religion

[Lucid]

Well I would find it amusing to walk down main street with my dick swinging freely, yet those darn pesky US laws will not let me do. I suggest the US does have its clothing restrictions too.

Yes, we certainly do. However, barring absolute nudity, you can wear pretty much what you like. You can walk down the street in a thong if you want, despite the fact that you will almost certainly be heckled. The government will not prevent you from wearing clothing that causes heckling.

@ people defending burka:

So why I can't walk naked into the street?

See above. And it's certainly not to protect you from heckling. It's to protect other people from the sight of your dangly bits. In my opinion, I don't think people need this protection and it's a silly regulation, but compare that reason to the reasons those against the burka have stated above.

Additionally, this ban on nakedness applies to all people equally. Not just one particular kind of religious or cultural nakedness.

On a side note, in Italy every kind of masking is illegal, for istance you should remove the helmet in the moment you go down the motor-bike. As for sunglasses, sunglasses are used to protect your eyes from the sun.

Medicine>Security>Religion

And scarves?

Also, unless they are perscribed by a doctor, I wouldn't really call sunglasses 'medicine'. Certainly comfort is less important than security, no?

Just be honest about it. It's not heckling or security, it's not even really sexism. It's xenophobia. Like the ban on prayer towers in Holland, this is an attempt to force cultural integration on a group of new immigrants that the populace feel threatened by. The Italian ban on all masking is just rationalization for the ban on Islamic veils.

This law is the equivalent of if the US were to ban quinceaneras in an attempt to force cultural integration on immigrants from Mexico.

[ZincLysine]

There's somewhere between 1.2 to 1.57 billion Billion Muslims and about 6.8 Billion people.

Its amazing how a few terrorists can create such disproportionate fear.

Terror attacks from the Irish were far more frequent and effectivein the UK than the current terror attacks, and they lasted over 100 years, yet their was never such wide-spread panic.

The current political class has done a great job making this agenda overly significant in the minds of their people.

[Maedhi]

Additionally, this ban on nakedness applies to all people equally. Not just one particular kind of religious or cultural nakedness.


What about going bare chested?

[Nightsun]

The Italian ban on all masking is just rationalization for the ban on Islamic veils.


Actually is a hundred years old law and derive from "banditism" (they used to cover their face)

Also in Italy there is already a law that ban the use of weapon (every knife longer than 4 fingers is considered a weapon, obviously you can use them inside your home) so Sikh can't wear their ritual knife also if it is prescribed by their religion and they NEVER complained about it. I don't see the difference with burka. Also you can't compare a scarf with a burka, actually if you put your scarf around your face (instead of neck) you can go to prison here (usually mad people at the stadium during football matches do that).

I think that we simply have more strict rules about public safety than USA, but once you accept to go to a country you need to accept its law. Don't our female reporters need to cover their heads in muslim religious-country?

[Undead Bonzi]

The word "burka" "probably" comes from "burning". It's probably a derivative of burning, don't you agree Lucid?

Thus the clothing is "probably" a reference to the burning of infidels and thus shouldn't be allowed.


Assuming that isn't sarcasm or satire I'm gonna go ahead and call an etymology fail on this one.

bur·ka (bŏŏr'kə)
n. Variant of burqa.
bur·qa or bur·ka (bŏŏr'kə)
n. A loose, usually black or light blue robe that is worn by Muslim women, especially in Afghanistan, and that covers the body from head to toe.

[Hindi burqā, from Arabic burqa', veil, variant of burqu', from barqa'a, to veil.]

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Megalomania]

in some neighborhoods with high Muslim populations, non-Muslim women are heckled if they don't wear burkas...thus i support the ban


I get heckled for not wearing hollister shirts. Are you going to ban those too?

[Aristocrat Porn]

I get heckled for not wearing hollister shirts. Are you going to ban those too?



The day people start throwing rocks at you and shunning you from your entire community for not wearing them, then maybe we might.

[Megalomania]

The day people start throwing rocks at you and shunning you from your entire community for not wearing them, then maybe we might.


If people are throwing rocks then arrest them. Don't try to blame it on an article of clothing. People are shunned for how they look all the time; it's nothing new.

[Lucid]

What about going bare chested?

Legal for men. Also legal for women providing they have their nipples covered.

Actually is a hundred years old law and derive from "banditism" (they used to cover their face)

Also in Italy there is already a law that ban the use of weapon (every knife longer than 4 fingers is considered a weapon, obviously you can use them inside your home) so Sikh can't wear their ritual knife also if it is prescribed by their religion and they NEVER complained about it. I don't see the difference with burka. Also you can't compare a scarf with a burka, actually if you put your scarf around your face (instead of neck) you can go to prison here (usually mad people at the stadium during football matches do that).

Then these were rules that were already in place and apply equally to everyone and for which religious beliefs are no exception. However, this differs greatly from the situation in France. If Italy were to ban the Sikh's ritual knife only but not other knives of similar length or type this would be like the burka ban. You really don't see the difference?

And in France, to the best of my knowledge, it's still legal to wear a scarf over your face. And it's still legal for Muslim women to wear the veil. Just not the burka. There's a big difference.

I think that we simply have more strict rules about public safety than USA, but once you accept to go to a country you need to accept its law. Don't our female reporters need to cover their heads in muslim religious-country?

Yeah, I think your rules about public safety are overboard. Really? No scarfs over the face? But that's neither here nor there. The burka ban in France isn't the same as the scarf ban in Italy. I sincerely hope that I don't have to explain why to you.

And it actually depends on the country. In some they can walk about with no veil or burka and they might get heckled or get some strange looks, but they are within the law. In others they are required by law to do so. Does France want to be the same as the countries who legally require women to cover their heads? Just because they do it, that makes it ok for France to do so as well? Really? That's too bad, Europe. I thought you were better than that.

[ya lyublyu tebya]

I get heckled for not wearing hollister shirts. Are you going to ban those too?

The day people start throwing rocks at you and shunning you from your entire community for not wearing them, then maybe we might.

That's happened to me. Seriously. I was harassed by my entire school and neighborhood for not wearing Hollister and Abercrombie shirts, and especially for not wearing jeans. I actually have had rocks and other things thrown at me for no other reason than how I dress. I called the cops on the MFers. I didn't take it to the government and ask them to ban things.

As for burqas, I agree that they should be taken off for ID pictures (there was a big to-do about that in the US a while ago), but there's no reason to ban them. I wear a big hat, a scarf, and huge, black sunglasses when I go out, because I'm very sensitive to the sun. Add a headscarf to those, if I'm going to church. I don't think that makes me dangerous, even though no one would be able to identify me in all of that.

[Lucid]

As for burqas, I agree that they should be taken off for ID pictures

Yeah, they need to come off for ID pictures because, of course, the ID picture needs to be of your face.

Has it occurred to no one else, though, that if a person is already committing a crime, or planning on it, they aren't going to think much of breaking a law banning covering one's face?

[LaoTzu]

What about going bare chested?

It's legal here in Ontario...nobody does it; but it's legal.

[Rudy]

Hearing about this made me happy; I hope it passes, mainly because, as stasis said, it shows that European culture isn't just going to roll over; it's a rejection of the worst forms of cultural relativism. :)

[Nightsun]

From:

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


The ban on the "voile integrale" -- which literally means "total veil" -- would apply in public places like hospitals and schools, and on public transport, a French parliamentary commission announced.
It would also apply to anyone who attempts to receive public services, but it would not apply to people wearing the burqa on the street, the commission said.


You know, you should be identified to access a public service, isn't it?


But even some Muslims in France think the full veil goes too far.
There is nothing in the Quran that directs women to cover their faces, said Imam Hassen Chalghoumi, who runs the Islamic center in Drancy, a Paris suburb. He said it is ridiculous to do so in France.



France already has a law against Muslim girls wearing headscarves in state schools. It sparked widespread Muslim protests when the French Parliament passed the law in 2004, even though the law also bans other conspicuous religious symbols including Sikh turbans, large Christian crucifixes and Jewish skull caps.


Shouldn't law be the same for everyone?


I mean, one of the first statement of democracy (instead of anarchy) is that people freedom finish when other people freedom starts.
The main problem is that at the moment, muslim women wearing burka can refuse to remove it while they need to be identified by public officiers.

Religion freedom must not go against the law and the values of its host nation. I can embrace a religion that says that I must kill every red-head guy I meat, or that I should go in the street naked, but I can't do that.

The topic should be: is there a rational reason to ban burka? It's not a matter of religion, it's a matter of rationality and a matter of protecting others freedom.

---------- Post added 01-29-2010 at 11:22 AM ----------

From:

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. F01%2F26%2Fnews%2Ffrancia_verso_il_divieto_di_burq a_offende_i_valori_nazionali-2078627%2F&sl=it&tl=en



In strictly legal, the proposed lighthouse is the adoption of a "provision that prohibits disguising his face in public services". The report recommends "opt for a legal instrument" that can also be turned down "by administrative means." This device may in particular be applied in public transport in and around schools. "The consequence of the violation of this rule would not be criminal but to a refusal to do the requested service." The study committee did not get to suggest a "general and absolute prohibition of the full veil in public places" because "there is unanimity in this regard



The people - the text reads - will not only forced to show his face at the entrance of public services but also during the whole period of their stay. The proposal would overcome the legal objections to a ban of the burqa on all the territory that, according to several lawyers, would conflict with freedom of religion guaranteed by the Constitution. According to the drafters of the proposal, the nature of legitimate public service because "some rules particulars "relating to security.

[zibber]

Wow. New levels of ignorance. Closed-mindedness. Throwing gallons of fuel on the fire of polarization. This is utterly fucked.

It goes without saying all the naive people in the thread complaining about the ban have never been to the islamic ghettos in france.

Islamic ghettos? Do you mean ghettos that happen to have a lot of Northern African people living in them? Because their countries were colonized by France and they still don't have equal opportunities? Is that what you meant?


This is about trying to get back the grounds that islam took by force in france.

It's so funny you should mention people taking grounds by force. (Even though it doesn't apply at all here and I'm sure you don't get the joke.)

in some neighborhoods with high Muslim populations, non-Muslim women are heckled if they don't wear burkas...thus i support the ban

How is that anywhere near a logical argument?

People without burqas are heckled, so we must oppress a whole religious group.

I'm glad to hear it. The ban itself is petty and sophistic, of course, but I think it symbolizes and may help to enable / embolden a partial rejection of the import of Islamic culture in France.

What is "Islamic culture" and why should it barred from entering France?

Hearing about this made me happy; I hope it passes, mainly because, as stasis said, it shows that European culture isn't just going to roll over; it's a rejection of the worst forms of cultural relativism. :)

I didn't expect that from you, Rudy. Are you so caught up in anti-Arab propaganda that you too are starting to talk in terms of "European culture" and "Islamic culture"?

[stasis]

What is "Islamic culture" and why should it barred from entering France?
Social order derived from Islamic theocracy, such as sharia law. It should be barred from establishment in France because it is backward at best and barbaric at worst. Europe has done well to secularize itself; movement in the other direction is movement in the wrong direction. I don't want to see any of this (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.). And perhaps a few of these people (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) should be deported. But the very idea seems to make Euros queasy. So, in the interest of less queasiness (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.), it may be useful to see more symbolic acts like prominent support for this ban.

[ZincLysine]

Social order derived from Islamic theocracy, such as sharia law. It should be barred from establishment in France because it is backward at best and barbaric at worst. Europe has done well to secularize itself; movement in the other direction is movement in the wrong direction. I don't want to see any of this (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.). And perhaps a few of these people (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) should be deported. But the very idea seems to make Euros queasy. So, in the interest of less queasiness (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.), it may be useful to see more symbolic acts like prominent support for this ban.

Deported? What if those people were born in that country?
You know, there's lots of non-Muslim people living out in Arab Countries. Many of whom have gotten involved in various oil or finance work. I met many people while at college who were born and raised there and complained they couldn't drink or do drugs easily like they were doing now they were in the UK.
Maybe they should be deported for not accepting that Middle Easten/'Islamic Culture.'

As for claims these people can "go back to their people" even if they were born elsewhere. You'll usually find 'their people' have a different culture to them. They might be described as having their own mongrel culture(s).

[stasis]

SNORE.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
etc.

[Rudy]

I didn't expect that from you, Rudy. Are you so caught up in anti-Arab propaganda that you too are starting to talk in terms of "European culture" and "Islamic culture"?
I'm more anti-primitive-oppressive-misogynistic-distgusting religion, than anti-Arab. My opposition to Islamic culture is congruent with my opposition to the teaching of creationism in American schools, and my support of gay marriage in America, both of which are opposition to "Christian culture."

[zibber]

I could write about this for DAYS.

Social order derived from Islamic theocracy, such as sharia law. It should be barred from establishment in France because it is backward at best and barbaric at worst.

Are you really talking about backwards cultures? Entire cultures? Not individuals, but the whole culture? What are we, back in the 19th century? You sound like one of those old white anthropologists.

Backwards cultures. Head scarves.

Let's look inwards, shall we? Yes, let's. What do we have that can be compared to head scarves? Hmm.. Could it be.. make-up? Does western culture pressure girls into painting their face? It most certainly does. Are 9 out of 10 women too insecure to leave the house without powders, anti-wrinkle creams and mascara? Uh-huh. (Fun fact: mascara is Spanish for MASK. No! You're not short sighted and ethnocentric!) Are most western women of average, healthy weight nevertheless quite conscious of their incongruence with ruling (technically impossible) beauty norms? Furthermore, does western culture pressure girls into scraping a knife across their legs and underarms? Oh yes, that too.

Head scarves. Pieces of fabric.

That's not so bad, compared to the array of chemicals and razor blades we force upon our women. Force. Try being a western woman and going out with visibly unshaved legs/arm pits. Really, friend. Barbaric.

Europe has done well to secularize itself; movement in the other direction is movement in the wrong direction. I don't want to see any of this (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.). And perhaps a few of these people (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) should be deported. But the very idea seems to make Euros queasy. So, in the interest of less queasiness (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.), it may be useful to see more symbolic acts like prominent support for this ban.

Oh, friend.

You posted a video of three people being hung. Your country goes to far away places, murders hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians and tortures illegally imprisoned people in secret camps. Still. Right now. At this moment, this is going on. If barbarism appalls you so, why not revolt?

You posted some photos from a reactionary march. Does it surprise you that people are angry at a country that goes to far away places, murders hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians and tortures illegally imprisoned people in secret camps and the countries who support this criminal behavior? Or did you overlook that possible reason for their anger?

I'm racking my brain, but I can't figure this out. What is it that keeps you from seeing the flaws of the "European culture" you so blindly defend? Is it its "secularism"? Could that really be the only reason you overlook all the misery Europeans have been causing for over two millennia?

(ps. On the homophobia: do you consider christian culture barbaric as well? Conservative American christianity is at a high point and "gay rights" are under fire all over your country. From the inside. Would you support the banning of christian religious symbols, hoping that this would lead to the demise of that primitive culture?)

I'm more anti-primitive-oppressive-misogynistic-distgusting religion, than anti-Arab.

Yeah, that's what I thought.

I live in a country with a very high percentage of muslims/"Arabs". Out of Dutch cities, Amsterdam has one of the highest percentages of this ethnic group. Out of Amsterdam neighbourhoods, the one where I live has one of the highest percentages. I have relatives who are muslim. I know a lot of muslims. I know muslims. These are just people like you and me. There are some morons who happen to be muslims. There are some morons who happen to be judeo-christian. There are some morons who happen to be atheist.

It's incredibly offensive to me for people like you and stasis, who clearly see islam as the boogey man (and who I can't imagine actually knowing a lot of muslims), to spew this kind of crap like you are experts on the matter.

In any event, explain to me why a ban on head scarves that women choose to wear is an effective measure against islam?

If you want to talk about clitoridectomy, let's go. As with head scarves, though, any ban enforced from the outside is oppressive and will only cause people to cling to their own rituals even more. (Even those subjected to them.) Head scarves aren't supported by every single muslim. Many muslim girls choose not to wear one. (Instead replacing the niqab with a thick layer of make-up without which they can't leave the house because they have been made insecure by the shallow western consumerist culture, like European girls.) There are movements inside these cultures; people have no need for your white butt to come along and tell them: "This is what I will allow you to do and not to do. I know what is right for you. My culture is perfect and it allows me to judge all others. I have the authority to do this without knowing your context."

This is the way you should enforce your values onto others. Tell them about it. Allow them the choice to do as they want.

[stasis]

Backwards cultures. Head scarves. We are talking about those, by the way. Not hangings or 9/11. This is a thread about head scarves.
As I said in my original post, the one you quoted, the head scarf itself is hardly important. And the proposed ban is clearly being propped up by sophistry. Rather, it is the manner in which opposition to the scarves by prominent politicians may serve as a symbol against a type of cultural squeamishness, which may be some kind of lingering war-guilt, currently enabling the gradual steeping of Europe in some of Islam's nastier values in the name of "cultural sensitivity" or "enlightenment".


you posted a video of three people being hung.
Five people. For homosexuality, because being homosexual is a religious no-no in Iran.


Conservative American christianity is at a high point and "gay rights" are under fire all over your country.
A near insufferably primitive state of affairs.


You posted some photos from a reactionary march. Does it surprise you that people are angry at a country that goes to far away places, murders hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians and tortures illegally imprisoned people in secret camps and the countries who support this criminal behavior?
That march was a response to a Danish cartoonist. It isn't the anger or the protest that I find problematic, but rather the calls for violence (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) - execution, murders, beatings - on the grounds that some people find something religiously offensive. This is barbarity. Resolutely contemptible. While we're on introspection, you might do well to ask yourself why you feel the need to play apologist to it.

[TheLastMohican]

I'm more anti-primitive-oppressive-misogynistic-distgusting religion, than anti-Arab. My opposition to Islamic culture is congruent with my opposition to the teaching of creationism in American schools, and my support of gay marriage in America, both of which are opposition to "Christian culture."

We can be opposed to a lot of cultural and/or religious trends and tenets without outlawing them. Creationism in the classroom and same-sex marriage both involve equality in and under the government. The French committee's report, by contrast, brings a blatantly anti-Islamic agenda into the debate.

[ZincLysine]

If you guys are so anti-head scarves and burqas, you gonna make Nuns remove their clothes?

As for the shaving pits... shaving legs is a social pressure. Shaving pits... surely that's hygene. I'm a dude and even I shave my pits.

[Rudy]

Anti-Islamic, or anti-Christian, is fine by me, wherever "Islamic" is synonymous with sexual oppression.

---------- Post added 01-29-2010 at 02:52 PM ----------

If you guys are so anti-head scarves and burqas, you gonna make Nuns remove their clothes?

Nuns is a poor analogy, because no one is forced into becoming a nun. If there was any way for a reasonable person to believe that all women wear these scarves out of uncoerced free will, then I would be opposed to the ban.

[ZincLysine]

I know lots of Muslim women personally. Some wear the headscarves. Some don't of the ones that do, I know they do it by choice. Many even do so despite other members of their family do not. So that's 100% personal choice. The same way a nun is making that choice. Yet you wish to restrict this option to such people? Plus, I am wondering does this law (or a law like this) cover nuns. They're dressed similar and have the same religious iconography. It'd seem only fair as oppossed to targetting.

Some men are murderers and rapists. Should all men be locked away for the crimes of the few? That's what you're doing when you say its oppression.

What about the women coerced into wearing make up and plastic surgery and botox and all the other piddle and crap women seem to get involved with to maintain their superfical standards of "beauty?"

You're denying rights to individual choice for those who do wish to. Perhaps they should deny you some rights and then you'd be happier?

[RedIrish]

France has a different conception of religious freedom than the USA does. It's called laïcité, and, in addition to freedom of private religious practice, it includes freedom from religion within the public sphere. It is a very strict interpretation of separation of church and state. The general French populus would find the liberal use of religious language, congressional prayers, and the influence of religious denominations in US politics to be radical and unacceptable. You'll notice that all of the places listed in the article which would be affected by the ban are associated with the public sector (schools, public transportion, etc..)

I feel like this aspect of French societal values should be understood before attempting to discuss this question.

Eric is absolutely correct on this. France is a secular society, and yes, certain excessive Christian, Jewish and other symbols are also banned.

HOWEVER - the burqa, the niquab and other coverings which are worn by muslim women are NOT religious artifacts, but actually culturally imposed clothing styles. Nothing more. There is nothing in the Koran about covering the face, etc. The book only instructs women to dress modestly. The same can be said of most religions.

Therefore banning the burqua or niquab cannot be argued on the basis of religious freedom, since it in fact has nothing to do with it.

The question then becomes - "Is it unreasonable to expect immigrants to assimilate into the culture of the country they have chosen to live in?"

[plotthickens]

Fascinating thread, have read all the responses. The ban is USELESS. Prohibition never works.

Instead, make veils mandatory for prostitutes.

[stasis]

The ban is USELESS.
Hypothetical scenario. A large segment of the general population is afraid of pushing for something important to them because they think the gesture offensive. Some feel guilty about it, and in sum they're unsure about where the line between acceptable and unacceptable should be, so they hesitate. But then respected members of their community broach the subject anyway, going so far as to pass (or attempt to pass) a measure dealing (however indirectly) with the subject into law. This measure includes a public dialogue about the broader issue.

Hypothetical result. The aforementioned segment of the general pop is likely to become more emboldened in voicing their concerns; prominent support renders the matter less ambiguously taboo. Y/N

The proposed ban isn't nearly as important as the political implications this type of law can have. That it was proposed at all may have an effect. Switzerland's recent minaret ban was another example; the minarets themselves aren't nearly as important as the principle. These are just buildings. It's just a scarf. But also, prominent symbolism.

[plotthickens]

Legitimizing possible discussion is a good point, I agree. That's not what I spoke out against. Most, if not all legalized cultural prohibitions are useless and counter productive as they are seen as repressive.

[TheLastMohican]

HOWEVER - the burqa, the niquab and other coverings which are worn by muslim women are NOT religious artifacts, but actually culturally imposed clothing styles. Nothing more. There is nothing in the Koran about covering the face, etc. The book only instructs women to dress modestly. The same can be said of most religions.

Therefore banning the burqua or niquab cannot be argued on the basis of religious freedom, since it in fact has nothing to do with it.
Headscarves were banned from French schools in 2004 under a law prohibiting the use of "ostentatious religious symbols." The French government has chosen to deal with these items as being tied to fundamentalist Islam, and it should be consistent with that decision in its future lawmaking.

[stasis]

Legitimizing possible discussion is a good point, I agree. That's not what I spoke out against. Most, if not all legalized cultural prohibitions are useless and counter productive as they are seen as repressive.
All legal prohibitions are cultural in origin and in nature.

The establishing of a cultural value into law can have a strong legitimizing effect on that value within subcultures that develop under the precedent of such law. In the United States, the legal prohibition of segregation is one recent and prominent example. Laws can inform culture. Generally speaking, in order to be successful the value in question has to originate from a very broad or rapidly multiplying base within the parent culture. Democratic tradition and freedoms of speech and (in France's case, a public freedom from) religion are such broadly-based values in Europe. Subcultures that assail these particular values can be successfully mollified - integrated - to some extent though law. Their culturally separatist (read: antisocial) extremities can also be criminalized (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) outright.

As referenced on the last page, there are Islamic activist groups lobbying the governments of Europe, and sometimes successfully, for theocratic allowances which erode the freedom of others. This takes place under the guise of "multiculturalism" and "consideration", which seems easily sold to post-war Europeans. Exceptionalism however is anything but. So I think the French parliament would be remiss in their leadership if they did not provide the non-Muslim French majority with these symbols around which to organize. For anyone who values secular, social-democratic civilization and the trajectory it has traced, it is an important matter that gestures like these are made by mainstream personalities and institutions whenever an opposing trajectory begins to gain political inroads.

[Rudy]

I know lots of Muslim women personally. Some wear the headscarves. Some don't of the ones that do, I know they do it by choice. Many even do so despite other members of their family do not. So that's 100% personal choice. The same way a nun is making that choice. Yet you wish to restrict this option to such people? Plus, I am wondering does this law (or a law like this) cover nuns. They're dressed similar and have the same religious iconography. It'd seem only fair as oppossed to targetting.
Oh, the "I know lots of people that X" argument. :/ It's 100% personal choice for some of them, that I don't deny. It's also clearly not for many of them. Unfortunately, there is no way to determine which is which on a case by case basis. So, I think the rights of the women, who do not wish to wear them, to be free of sexual inequality and misogynistic oppression, at least in this matter, outweigh the right of others to express themselves. Nuns, as I already said, are a different matter, because there is no coercion involved in becoming a nun.

Some men are murderers and rapists. Should all men be locked away for the crimes of the few? That's what you're doing when you say its oppression.
What?

What about the women coerced into wearing make up and plastic surgery and botox and all the other piddle and crap women seem to get involved with to maintain their superfical standards of "beauty?"
Coerced? I wasn't aware that there was anywhere that women faced the threat of violence, and possibly death, for not wearing make-up. Where is this mystical land?

You're denying rights to individual choice for those who do wish to. Perhaps they should deny you some rights and then you'd be happier?
Fallacious.



Eric is absolutely correct on this. France is a secular society, and yes, certain excessive Christian, Jewish and other symbols are also banned.

HOWEVER - the burqa, the niquab and other coverings which are worn by muslim women are NOT religious artifacts, but actually culturally imposed clothing styles. Nothing more. There is nothing in the Koran about covering the face, etc. The book only instructs women to dress modestly. The same can be said of most religions.

Therefore banning the burqua or niquab cannot be argued on the basis of religious freedom, since it in fact has nothing to do with it.

The question then becomes - "Is it unreasonable to expect immigrants to assimilate into the culture of the country they have chosen to live in?"
This is a silly argument; the burqa is absolutely a symbol of Islam, it grew out of it. Whether or not it is specifically mandated by Islam is irrelevant.

[firebee]

Unfortunately, there is no way to determine which is which on a case by case basis. So, I think the rights of the women, who do not wish to wear them, to be free of sexual inequality and misogynistic oppression, at least in this matter, outweigh the right of others to express themselves.


Two things:

First of all, your proposed solution to the problem of women who face the possibility of lethal violence if they do not do X is... making it illegal for women to do X, while apparently doing nothing to deal with the "potential for lethal violence" bit. Do you really think this is going to end well?

Second, in making this argument you are invalidating the stated opinions of a group of adult women about how they want to dress and how they want to conduct their religious practices. You're disregarding the only people who are actually qualified to report on their opinions, and offering to "protect" them from being able to make that decision on their own. It seems to me that this constitutes coercion in its own right, and of a particularly odious sort.

That said, the French (as stated by other posters above) have a slightly different perspective from Americans as regards the proper role of religious expression in the public space, and I'm inclined to say that this is one of those cases where French people get to decide how France is run.

[Rudy]

First of all, your proposed solution to the problem of women who face the possibility of lethal violence if they do not do X is... making it illegal for women to do X, while apparently doing nothing to deal with the "potential for lethal violence" bit. Do you really think this is going to end well?
A fair point. My hopes would be that the French Parliament would follow this with crackdowns on religiously inspired violence, such as crimes against women for not wearing burqas, in the same way as there are special provisions for hate crimes.

Second, in making this argument you are invalidating the stated opinions of a group of adult women about how they want to dress and how they want to conduct their religious practices. You're disregarding the only people who are actually qualified to report on their opinions, and offering to "protect" them from being able to make that decision on their own. It seems to me that this constitutes coercion in its own right, and of a particularly odious sort.
How, exactly, have you solicited the opinions of these women about how they want to dress? The fact of the matter is, many of them don't currently have a choice on the matter. Unfortunately, I do not think this is a situation where the fact that women wear burqas can be used as some sort of evidence that they wish to do so.

That said, the French (as stated by other posters above) have a slightly different perspective from Americans as regards the proper role of religious expression in the public space, and I'm inclined to say that this is one of those cases where French people get to decide how France is run.
Agreed on this point, at least.


In general, my support of this measure is more for the reasons stasis has given, than the measure itself. It will, I hope, serve as a rallying point against the worst forms of cultural relativism. The main reason I want it to pass is that it will make that rallying point all the stronger.

[firebee]

A fair point. My hopes would be that the French Parliament would follow this with crackdowns on religiously inspired violence, such as crimes against women for not wearing burqas, in the same way as there are special provisions for hate crimes.

Why not simply proceed to this step directly?


How, exactly, have you solicited the opinions of these women about how they want to dress? The fact of the matter is, many of them don't currently have a choice on the matter. Unfortunately, I do not think this is a situation where the fact that women wear burqas can be used as some sort of evidence that they wish to do so.

I thought you were assuming the existence of people who had expressed such opinions, and stating that such assertions could not be credited due to the general presence of coercion. I'd venture to guess that the fact that people do wear religious garb voluntarily indicates that this group might well exist at least in some number, though.

And again, making the supposedly-coerced option illegal is not exactly an act that moves against coercion.

[Synamon]

How, exactly, have you solicited the opinions of these women about how they want to dress? The fact of the matter is, many of them don't currently have a choice on the matter. Unfortunately, I do not think this is a situation where the fact that women wear burqas can be used as some sort of evidence that they wish to do so.
What do you expect those who are forced by their families to wear burkas to do if this law is passed and going out in public in a burka is illegal? You have just made these oppressed women into prisoners in their own home in your attempt to remove the shackles of their "primitive-oppressive-misogynistic-disgusting religion". How does that help?

[Rudy]

Why not simply proceed to this step directly?
That would make me even happier, but I'm taking what I can get with this, basically. I've watched with growing unease a process of appeasement toward the import of Islamic culture into Europe, from Sharia courts in England to the criminalization of the criticism of religion throughout the continent. There's quite honestly nothing that scares me more in the world today. This proposal is like a oasis in the desert for me.

I thought you were assuming the existence of people who had expressed such opinions, and stating that such assertions could not be credited due to the general presence of coercion. I'd venture to guess that the fact that people do wear religious garb voluntarily indicates that this group might well exist at least in some number, though.
I have no doubt that there are women who wear the garb out of their own free will, and those who do not. As said, I consider the rights of the latter in this case to be more important than those of the former. Unfortunately, sometimes "rights" come into conflict, as we well know.


What do you expect those who are forced by their families to wear burkas to do if this law is passed and going out in public in a burka is illegal? You have just made these oppressed women into prisoners in their own home in your attempt to remove the shackles of their "primitive-oppressive-misogynistic-disgusting religion". How does that help?
Hmm... this actually is a very good point. I may, then, have to just take the proposal as a positive sign, and hope it leads to a more comprehensive movement against the type of barbarism that you describe.

[Nightsun]

This is a silly argument; the burqa is absolutely a symbol of Islam, it grew out of it. Whether or not it is specifically mandated by Islam is irrelevant.

You are wrong here Rudy. Burqa is islamic culture not religion. The two are different, many things like burqua or clitoridectomy were there in some form before Mohamed.

Is the culture linked to religions that we must fight, not religion themselves.

[stasis]

What do you expect those who are forced by their families to wear burkas to do if this law is passed and going out in public in a burka is illegal? You have just made these oppressed women into prisoners in their own home in your attempt to remove the shackles of their "primitive-oppressive-misogynistic-disgusting religion". How does that help?
The families are the ones taking prisoners in this example. Since false imprisonment is usually illegal, a woman finding herself in this situation should consider calling the police. We can only hope that her "family" will be good enough to refrain from committing murder in response. You know, to satisfy "honor".

I can see no reason to appease that kind of thing, which is what we do by appealing to it as a consequence in support of non-action. This isn't acceptable at all. Perhaps government resources should also be made available specifically to assist women who find themselves in this position. It is an intolerable scenario in a western country. Intolerable.



Burqa is islamic culture not religion. The two are different
Not really.

But I agree with your last statement to some extent anyway, in that it alludes to the fact that there's always a cultural exchange of some sort and that almost any tradition - including Islamic tradition - can be well integrated if this exchange is allowed. Which means the immediate problem is those who wish to supplant European host cultures in an Islamic fashion instead of blending with them in their own way. One major obstacle is that Islamic leadership (say, of the Saudi variety) seems to prefer using Islam to instruct Muslims to be religiously antisocial when living in foreign countries. Not all listen, but enough appear to.

[ZincLysine]

Reading this thread just shows how much sterotyping people do that builds ridiculous and untrue phobias in their mind.

I love the idea that we have rights for everyone now. Yet it'll be a better situation if we limit the rights for a certain group.

I'm through posting in this thread. Individuals need to become more secure in themselves and focus on the real problem being their own fears rather than controlling other people that are harmless. If anything, you're looking to breed hatred.

[Rudy]

Reading this thread just shows how much sterotyping people do that builds ridiculous and untrue phobias in their mind.

I love the idea that we have rights for everyone now. Yet it'll be a better situation if we limit the rights for a certain group.

I'm through posting in this thread. Individuals need to become more secure in themselves and focus on the real problem being their own fears rather than controlling other people that are harmless. If anything, you're looking to breed hatred.

You keep speaking of rights, and yet you're arguing that we should allow a subgroup to make women second class citizens on the basis of cultural barbarism. We cannot claim to have equal rights for everyone as long as that situation is extant within our societies.

---------- Post added 01-30-2010 at 01:18 PM ----------

I can see no reason to appease that kind of thing, which is what we do by appealing to it as a consequence in support of non-action. This isn't acceptable at all. Perhaps government resources should also be made available specifically to assist women who find themselves in this position. It is an intolerable scenario in a western country. Intolerable.
You're right. I shouldn't have acceded to that point; it is appeasement. :( *is ashamed*

[Storm]

The purpose of allowing people the right to speak as they wish and practice their faith as they wish is not limited to flowery prose about living life independently. The other power of such a freedom is preventing the formation of underground cults; it brings bad ideas and practices to the light where they can be freely scorned.

Here, the problem is that women who do not wear a religious/culturally prescribed piece of clothing are being stoned by men. The proposed solution has been to outlaw women from wearing this piece of clothing at all. The logic being if women can't wear the clothing, they can't be stoned for not wearing it. The more subtle logic is that this "will open a discourse" as to the practice and send a message that the government does not approve of such a practice. Of course, this won't work because it will only make matrys out of women "brave" enough to wear the clothing. It doesn't go to the real problem, which is stopping the oppression of women within the culture. It does the same thing that outlawing a book on Karl Marx, or White Supremacy does: it allows that idea to go underground, to fester, to be an idea of the "oppressed."

If there is an idea that is bad, it should be spoken out against, but it shouldn't be outlawed. If there is a high rate of a horrible crime, such as stoning women based on their dress, that crime should be receive harsh punishments.If there are victims of such a crime who feel they cannot speak out, there should be services made available to them. The last thing that should happen is that the victim of the crime should be made to change their behaviors.

This is not a case of clash of rights. Even if every single women wearing a burqa is doing so out of cultural pressure (not governmental pressure), outlawing the practice is still dangerous. When we start deciding that some forms of speech or religious practice are bad because we do not think people really want to speak that way or really want to practice that way, we enter dangerous territory of the government deciding what kind of speech is right. If women are being forced to do things against their will, then they should seek charges against those who impose on them. This statute does not "empower" women, nor does it start the right kind of dialogue. It only sends the message that if one group is doing things we don't like, we should just make a law mandating they do things the way we like them.

The idea that considering the dangers of allowing ideas and practices to go underground is appeasement fails to realize the point behind free practice and speech. If we used this logic, allowing civil rights at all would be "appeasement." The very idea of "appeasement" is that the government gets to decide what ideas are right and what are wrong.

Again, if there is a problem of women being forced to do things they do not want through the threat of violence, then violence should be attacked, not the victim.

[ZincLysine]

Its much as storm says in their final line. If its "cultural barbarism" that's the issue then you should be looking to stop the people forcing women to do things they do not want to. Insted you want a policy that continues the concept of forcing some women to do things they do not want to.

[Rudy]

The purpose of allowing people the right to speak as they wish and practice their faith as they wish is not limited to flowerly prose about living life independently. The other power of such a freedom is that prevents the formation of underground cults, it brings bad ideas and practices to the light where they can be freely scorned.
Sounds great in theory, but the problem with this statement is that gradual importation of things like Sharia law has *not* been freely scorned. In fact, as I said, many of the European countries have made it illegal to do so. This law, whether it passes or not, is hopefully a step to the point where it *can* be freely scorned.

Here, the problem is that women who do not wear a religous/culturally prescribed piece of clothing are being stoned by men. THe proposed solution has to been to outlaw women from wearing this piece of clothing at all. The logic being if women can't wear the clothing, they can't be stoned for not wearing it. The more sublte logic is that this "will open a discourse" as to the practice and send a message that the government does not approve of such a practice. Of course, this won't work because it will only make matrys out of women "brave" enough to wear the clothing. It doesn't go to the real problem, which is stopping the oppression of women within the culture. It does the same thing that outlawing a book on Karl Marx, or White Supermacy does: it allows that idea to go underground, to fester, to be an idea of the "oppressed."
No, the problem is the cultural barbarism in general, which most directly manifests itself through the oppression of women, and the treatment of them as second class citizens. The wearing of burqas is a symptom, not the heart of the problem itself. You're correct that this law will be insufficient, by itself, to stop this oppression. The hope is that it will raise consciousness on the issue, and steel people with a bit more courage to be openly critical of such practices.

If there is an idea that is bad, it should be spoken out against, but it shouldn't be outlawed. If there is a high rate of a praticuarlly horrible crime, such as stoning women based on their dress, that crime should be receive particularily harsh punishments.If there are victims of such a crime who feel they not speak out, there should be services made available to them. The last thing that should happen is that the victim of the crime should be made to change their behaviors.
Your first three sentences here I am in perfect agreement with. Ideas should not be outlawed, stoning women should have the highest punishment possible, and there should be services available to such women. The thing is, for those women who are victims of this crime, and are being forced to wear burqas, then the law *isn't* forcing them to change their behaviors. For those victims, it's established that they do not have a choice in the matter in any case. The law attempts to change the behavior of those who force them to wear burqas. Whether or not it will be at all successful, I do not know. My hope, again, does not lie with the law itself, but with what it may represent.

This is not a case of clash of rights. Even if every single women wearing a burqa is doing so out of cultural pressure (not governmental pressure), outlawing is still dangerous. When we start deciding that some forms of speech or religious practice are bad because we do not think people really want to speak that way or really want to practice that way, we enter dangerous territory of the government deciding what kind of speach is right. If women are being forced to do things against their will, then they should take seek charges against those who impose on them. This statute does not "empower" women, nor does it start the right kind of dialogue. It only sends the message that if one group is doing things we don't like, we should just make a law mandating they do things the way we like them.
The first part of the argument doesn't really hold in the context of France, where freedom *from* religion is an established principle. It also, I don't think, really holds in general, because there are plenty of examples of "freedom of religious practice" being restricted in order to protect other rights. Parents are not allowed to intentionally mutilate their children, for example, whether or not it is part of their religious beliefs in America. There are other examples, such as parents being allowed to keep their children out of high school due to religious reasons. In this case, the courts sided with the parents; a decision I vehemently disagree with.

You may view the law as being an attack on the "rights" of women to wear veils, but I view it as an attack on the "rights" of men to force women to wear veils.

It's all well and good to say that women should "seek charges", but we all know very well how difficult this is for victims of any kind of abuse, and how rarely it happens.

The idea that considering the dangers of allowing ideas and practices to go underground is appeasement fails to realize the point behind free practice and speech. If we used this logic, allowing civil rights at all would be "appeasement." The very idea of "appeasement" is that the government gets to decide what is right and what is wrong.
It's appeasement for the following reason. The situation is analagous to these men saying "Look, if you try and force us to stop oppressing our women, we're going to oppress them *even worse*," and then us giving into them. I fail to see how, following this logic, all civil rights are appeasement.

Again, if there is a problem of women being forced to do things they do not want through the threat of vioilence, then violence should be attacked, not the victim.
Violence should be attacked, certainly, and I don't agree that this law is attacking the "victim", for reasons already given.

[Storm]

Sounds great in theory, but the problem with this statement is that gradual importation of things like Sharia law has *not* been freely scorned. In fact, as I said, many of the European countries have made it illegal to do so. This law, whether it passes or not, is hopefully a step to the point where it *can* be freely scorned.

Two wrongs don't make a right. This a logical fallacy.

No, the problem is the cultural barbarism in general, which most directly manifests itself through the oppression of women, and the treatment of them as second class citizens. The wearing of burqas is a symptom, not the heart of the problem itself. You're correct that this law will be insufficient, by itself, to stop this oppression. The hope is that it will raise consciousness on the issue, and steel people with a bit more courage to be openly critical of such practices.

We don't fight oppresses by outlawing one form of speech. Just like we don't fight White Supremacist by outlawing their propaganda. Raising consciousness is a good idea in principle, but when you're doing so by blatantly and grossly violating other rights, its marginal benefit in raising the idea is not sufficient.

Your first three sentences here I am in perfect agreement with. Ideas should not be outlawed, stoning women should have the highest punishment possible, and there should be services available to such women. The thing is, for those women who are victims of this crime, and are being forced to wear burqas, then the law *isn't* forcing them to change their behaviors. For those victims, it's established that they do not have a choice in the matter in any case. The law attempts to change the behavior of those who force them to wear burqas. Whether or not it will be at all successful, I do not know. My hope, again, does not lie with the law itself, but with what it may represent.

It won't stop their behavior. It's not like the oppressors will wake up tomorrow and think "Oh, suddenly the women I'm oppressing can no longer dress the way I was dictating. Hu hum then. I'll stop doing that." The idea is laughable. The law represents more the spitting on rights in the name of an evil than a representation that France cares about the oppressed women. There are so many other and better ways that don't trample on right at all that the idea that this is a necessary evil has no merit.
If you want to the change the behavior of the oppressors, you must attack the oppressors, not collateral attack their victims.

The first part of the argument doesn't really hold in the context of France, where freedom *from* religion is an established principle. It also, I don't think, really holds in general, because there are plenty of examples of "freedom of religious practice" being restricted in order to protect other rights. Parents are not allowed to intentionally mutilate their children, for example, whether or not it is part of their religious beliefs in America. There are other examples, such as parents being allowed to keep their children out of high school due to religious reasons. In this case, the courts sided with the parents; a decision I vehemently disagree with.

I really don't care what France's laws are. I'm talking here about principles. I also don't know if what has been stated in this thread is a true and accurate representation of France's laws. In America, people are free from religion too - that's why there can't be a state religion. These women are not the government. They are individuals. When we start confusing individuals with government, we start having freedoms repressed backwards. (We can't tell you what to believe, we can tell you what you can't.)

You may view the law as being an attack on the "rights" of women to wear veils, but I view it as an attack on the "rights" of men to force women to wear veils.

This law does not attack that right in any real way. It use to be that women were not allowed to get jobs. Often the men in their family would prevent them from getting an education. The solution was not to make a law mandating that women go to school.

It's all well and good to say that women should "seek charges", but we all know very well how difficult this is for victims of any kind of abuse, and how rarely it happens.

This law won't address that issue. Simply because I have not proposed a solution to this problem does not mean we must go with your solution. Especially when your solution has been shown to be all kinds of bad.

It's appeasement for the following reason. The situation is analagous to these men saying "Look, if you try and force us to stop oppressing our women, we're going to oppress them *even worse*," and then us giving into them. I fail to see how, following this logic, all civil rights are appeasement.

Free speech and free religion mean we allow people to do stupid things and we allow people to hold gross and barbaric ideas. We can stop them from acting on those ideas, but holding them we can not. Using your logic that even though oppression will continue to exist with the law (wait, doesn't that mean the law isn't working), we should still pass it shows that this law isn't actually about stopping oppression - it's about dictating ideas. And that doesn't work.

[Rudy]

Two wrongs don't make a right. This a logical fallacy.
That was in response to your statement that allowing them to wear burqas "brings bad ideas and practices to the light where they can be freely scorned." It has not done so so far, which was my point.

We don't fight oppresses by outlawing one form of speech. Just like we don't fight White Supremacist by outlawing their propaganda. Raising consciousness is a good idea in principle, but when you're doing so by blatantly and grossly violating other rights, its marginal benefit in raising the idea is not sufficient.
You're trying to say that I only support this law for the "raising consciousness" issue, which is not the case. While I think that is of enormous benefit, I would not support the passage of this law, in particular, for that reason alone. Rather, I do see this situation as a conflict of rights. I think that women have the right not to be forced to wear burqas in public. I freely acknowledge that this law is insufficient to make the necessary changes, but I do think it shows a flowering of the right kind of attitude toward such oppression.

It won't stop their behavior. It's not like the oppressors will wake up tomorrow and think "Oh, suddenly the women I'm oppressing can no longer dress the way I was dictating. Hu hum then. I'll stop doing that." The idea is laughable. The law represents more the spitting on rights in the name of an evil than a representation that France cares about the oppressed women. There are so many other and better ways that don't trample on right at all that the idea that this is a necessary evil has no merit.
If you want to the change the behavior of the oppressors, you must attack the oppressors, not collateral attack their victims.
I didn't say that it was a necessary evil; I already said that there were many other paths that would have made me much happier, and some of those paths would have been better. I'm simply taking what I can get. If this is the form that the push back against such oppression starts as, then so be it. I'm happy that the push back exists, and I would much rather have this than nothing at all.

I really don't care what France's laws are. I'm talking here about principles. I also don't know if what has been stated in this thread is a true and accurate representation of France's laws. In America, people are free from religion too - that's why there can't be a state religion. These women are not the government. They are individuals. When we start confusing individuals with government, we start having freedoms repressed backwards. (We can't tell you what to believe, we can tell you what you can't.)
No, we don't have freedom from religion in the United States. If we did, politicians invoking God would not be acceptable. Not saying that I want such in the United States, just pointing out the difference in situation.

I confess that I don't know what the second half of the paragraph means. How am I conflating these women with the government? And how does that relate to certain religious practices being restricted in the US in order to protect other rights?

This law does not attack that right in any real way. It use to be that women were not allowed to get jobs. Often the men in their family would prevent them from getting an education. The solution was not to make a law mandating that women go to school.
Actually, that is exactly one of the reasons we have laws requiring all children to get an education. The fact that some people in the United States are allowed to circumvent this on the basis of religion is utterly disgusting, and something that we should be ashamed of, as a nation.

This law won't address that issue. Simply because I have not proposed a solution to this problem does not mean we must go with your solution. Especially when your solution has been shown to be all kinds of bad.
No, this law won't address this issue. I do hope, however, that it will lead to measures that will, whether or not it passes. In the United States, at least, as far as I understand, we prosecute known abuse even if a women says "No, he just does it because he loves me," or whether she says "It's part of my faith that I be abused." If I'm wrong, this *should* be the case. I hope this condition will hold true in France.

Free speech and free religion mean we allow people to do stupid things and we allow people to hold gross and barbaric ideas. We can stop them from acting on those ideas, but holding them we can not. Using your logic that even though oppression will continue to exist with the law (wait, doesn't that mean the law isn't working), we should still pass it shows that this law isn't actually about stopping oppression - it's about dictating ideas. And that doesn't work.
One can modify ideas through restriction on action. Just as, using the example stasis gave, laws against discrimination and racism have been instrumental in modifying attitudes toward it over time. If something cannot be practiced freely and without social censure, then general attitudes toward it will change.

[Storm]

I think there are a lot of ideas going around and that they are being confused.

1. Problem: Men forcing women to wear clothing they do not want to wear. Clothing also happens to be a religious practice.

2. Proposed Solution: Make it illegal for women to wear clothing they were being forced to wear with the idea that this way they can't be forced to wear it anymore.

3. Problem: Steps on the rights of women who freely want to wear the clothing. Does not actually stop women from being oppressed, but puts them in a Catch 22 between being punished by the government or punished by their family.

This proposed solution will not actually work. The fact that "appeasement" is even mentioned shows this isn't really about stopping women from being oppressed. If it was about stopping oppression, the fact that it does the opposite would be paramount. It's about making a statement against the religion at large and not the people who practice it. It's similar to the situation in which a law is passed that raises the price of cigarettes to $100 a pack with the supposed goal of stopping smoking. It is then pointed out that such a high price will actually cause cigarettes to go on the black market and may actually increase smoking since smokes will be sold for only $2 a pack. If stopping smoking was the actual goal, this would be a very good argument. If villifying smoking was the real goal, the existence of a black market would be nothing and the proponent would spew nonsense about "appeasement."

You then talk about women having the right to wear as they choose. But your solution is to force women to not wear something else. This is just trading one evil for another. It shows a flowering of the attitude that rights can be swept aside when they are a bother. It does nothing to prevent the actual problem and is a weak sham to simply do away with a religion.

My education analysis wasn't about children, which is a separate and special case. I was talking about full grown adults. No one forces anyway past a certain age to go to school.

Americans actually do have freedom from religion - the state can't force you to attend religious worship or pray or whatever. The difference is that American government sees politicians speaking as an individual thing and not a government thing. (I think part of the problem too is that there isn't really anyone that can sue politicians for invoking God) France sees it the other way (or its easier to sue there). Which is a fine interpretation that makes sense. Freedoms always deal with what the government can and can't do - not individuals. When we start telling individuals how to practice their religion, we're stepping on rights. These women are out in public as individuals. They can wear what they want.

Your argument that since victims claiming to want to be vitims doesn't mean we don't prosecute makes little sense here. If the government had a law against forcing women to wear burqas, and someone was caught throwing stones at a woman for not, they could be punished regardless of what she said. This isn't that situation. This is, we find a woman wearing a burqa, and without regard to why she's wearing it, we punish her. This is backwards. It again, does less than nothing to prevent the actual problem and is just a law sending the message that certain religious practices are, in themselves, not worthy of the same protections all other religions get.

It should never be the victim that we punish when we want to send a message to the oppressor. All you do is step on the rights of the victim and allow the oppressor to go free. It does not change anyone's mind in the matter.

[rahdam]

Is it so wrong for one culture to attempt to defend itself from the growth of another?

[Aronnax]

Is it so wrong for one culture to attempt to defend itself from the growth of another?

It depends on how one culture "defends" itself and if, in its defense, damages its own ideals.

[TheLastMohican]

Sounds great in theory, but the problem with this statement is that gradual importation of things like Sharia law has *not* been freely scorned. In fact, as I said, many of the European countries have made it illegal to do so. This law, whether it passes or not, is hopefully a step to the point where it *can* be freely scorned.
Why should one stupid, overbearing law (prohibition of speech against religion) be "balanced out" by yet another? I don't seeing the logic in justifying a restriction of one group's freedom by the restriction of an opposing group's. Inequality is not the only problem to consider here.

[Nightsun]

The first part of the argument doesn't really hold in the context of France, where freedom *from* religion is an established principle. It also, I don't think, really holds in general, because there are plenty of examples of "freedom of religious practice" being restricted in order to protect other rights. Parents are not allowed to intentionally mutilate their children, for example, whether or not it is part of their religious beliefs in America. There are other examples, such as parents being allowed to keep their children out of high school due to religious reasons. In this case, the courts sided with the parents; a decision I vehemently disagree with.

What?? Oh my... I didn't know that. I'm shocked.

By the way, all europe have "less" religion freedom than USA. Our value comes before our religions and the religions of others.
At least in Italy (but many of them are EU laws) you can't:
- wear any kind of masking (no burka or similar)
- do public conference without calling the authorities before (you can't predicate in the street)
- show religious signs in public office and personnel
- wear weapon of any kind (so no sick)
- refuse medical treatment as a child (a muslim mother can't refuse assistance to her daughter due to "modesty")
- School is mandatory till 18 years old and the same hold for "proper child care".
....

I always felt contradictory this USA style, how can you "idealize" freedom and then be filled by 3000 kind of different religions? All with the right of do what they want? I call it anarchy, not freedom. How much freedom has the young child of a mormon?

[rahdam]

It depends on how one culture "defends" itself and if, in its defense, damages its own ideals.

If a culture is unable, or unwilling, to defend itself, and subsequently falls prey to another, then I would argue that that culture was the inferior of the two cultures.

[Aronnax]

If a culture is unable, or unwilling, to defend itself, and subsequently falls prey to another, then I would argue that that culture was the inferior of the two cultures.

A culture must take it's own values into consideration when deciding on a strategy for defense. This "ban" isn't particularly effective at defending their culture from outside influence and it erodes their own value system. "He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster."

[rahdam]

A culture must take it's own values into consideration when deciding on a strategy for defense. This "ban" isn't particularly effective at defending their culture from outside influence and it erodes their own value system. "He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster."

Culture is not static and adaptive defense mechanisms might necessarily change the culture. Survival is paramount, and absolute ideological purity might encumber that. On the matter at hand, a ban in and of itself is not sufficient defense of course.

[Aronnax]

Culture is not static and adaptive defense mechanisms might necessarily change the culture. Survival is paramount, and absolute ideological purity might encumber that. On the matter at hand, a ban in and of itself is not sufficient defense of course.



There are rational limits: if your culture ends up debasing itself so thoroughly that you end up with a worse value system than the one that was "a threat" you lost. Cultural survival is not paramount, happiness, both in the long and short term, is. I'm not suggesting that this one thing will make that switch happen, merely that limits do exist.

I think you're weighing the "threat" much higher than it really is and overvaluing almost trivial actions like banning what amounts to a hat with religious connotations. A more effective defense is assimilation and there are ways to do that without violating cultural values.

[firebee]

A culture must take it's own values into consideration when deciding on a strategy for defense.

In this case, it is. The French culture disfavors public displays related to religion.

[rahdam]

Culture is a composite of the people. Presumably, culture as it exists in a population exists as it does because it maximizes the content of the collective population. When outside cultures attempt to force that culture into submission, they attempt to disrupt the content of the collective population. Ergo, cultural survival is paramount to happiness for much of the population that built that culture.

I'm not sure how I'm overvaluing anything.

Assimilation is optimal, because that actually strengthens the culture, both numerically and with respect to the content of that culture. Assimilation is organic growth; direct, violent challenge is not.

[Storm]

What?? Oh my... I didn't know that. I'm shocked.

By the way, all europe have "less" religion freedom than USA. Our value comes before our religions and the religions of others.
At least in Italy (but many of them are EU laws) you can't:
- wear any kind of masking (no burka or similar)
- do public conference without calling the authorities before (you can't predicate in the street)
- show religious signs in public office and personnel
- wear weapon of any kind (so no sick)
- refuse medical treatment as a child (a muslim mother can't refuse assistance to her daughter due to "modesty")
- School is mandatory till 18 years old and the same hold for "proper child care".
....

I always felt contradictory this USA style, how can you "idealize" freedom and then be filled by 3000 kind of different religions? All with the right of do what they want? I call it anarchy, not freedom. How much freedom has the young child of a mormon?

I'm not an expert in European law or anything. But these laws don't seem to be aimed at religion - they are laws for the public welfare that just so happen to conflict some religious practices. Laws which are passed for secular reasons and then happen to conflict with religion are very different from laws passed with religious restrictions in mind.

[Night Runner]

Here is an interesting new development (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.): France has denied citizenship to a man because he allegedly forced his French wife to wear a full Islamic veil. Seems like the tide is shifting more and more.

[Nightsun]

Here is an interesting new development (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.): France has denied citizenship to a man because he allegedly forced his French wife to wear a full Islamic veil. Seems like the tide is shifting more and more.

From your link:

This individual imposes the full veil upon his wife, does not allow her the freedom to go and come as she pleases, and bans her from going out with her face unveiled, and rejects the principles of secularism and equality between man and woman


So you are saying that it should be fine if a men impose something to a women?

[Rudy]

So you are saying that it should be fine if a men impose something to a women?
I don't believe Night Runner advanced that, or any other, opinion with regard to the article, just introduced it for further discussion.

I fully support the decision on the matter, myself.

[Night Runner]

So you are saying that it should be fine if a men impose something to a women?
Nope. I'm just a messenger - please don't shoot me. :)
I don't believe Night Runner advanced that, or any other, opinion with regard to the article, just introduced it for further discussion.

I fully support the decision on the matter, myself.
Yup, and same here. :thumbsup: