Burqa ban in France goes into effect today..

[nato2101]

Not very smart, guys the heck kicked out of them for a lot less by the Gendarmerie.

 

[JollyRoger]

I do not know if I agree with the veiled threats going in the last few posts.

 

[Fugitive Sisyphus]

It seems to me that this ban just masks old problems and creates new ones.

 

[RobAnybody]

I dislike the racist overtoned of this ban.

The KKK is also affected. No parades in France for them!

 

[onedreamer]

You guys are aware that human rights have nothing to do with how people should dress in public? And are you also aware you can't walk naked in the streets? How is a policy about covering your face different from one about covering your glories? You look like a bunch of 90 years old hypocritical bigots. Besides, laws that forbid fully covering your face in public already existed in the whole Europe prior to maghrebin immigration.

 

[classical_hero]

The KKK is also affected. No parades in France for them!

Great comeback.

I think that anything that covers the face in public should be banned so that you can see the face for security reasons. The wedding dress veil is hardly thick enough to properly cover the face, so it is something that is not a security risk.

 

[Masada]

No, no, no the KKK uniform would be protected as traditional French garb.

Moderator Action: Hmmm... needless agitation. please to be knocking it off.

 

[.Shane.]

It seems to me that this ban just masks old problems and creates new ones.

As Steph related it and a couple other posters have elaborated you're going to have some serious issues from the law of unintended consequences.

 

[Camikaze]

I think that anything that covers the face in public should be banned so that you can see the face for security reasons. The wedding dress veil is hardly thick enough to properly cover the face, so it is something that is not a security risk.

That's not really the point though. The ban is overtly anti-Muslim, and overtly anti-woman (it specifically targets female Muslims). Not in the letter of the law, as Steph points out, but clearly in the discourse surrounding the law. 'Security reasons' are a nice way to paint the issue as something other than about burqa's (especially given what a buzzword 'security' is), but that doesn't change the discursive intent behind the ban.

 

[GhostWriter16]

@Camikazee- I agree 100%. This hurts women, it doesn't help them.

 

[Steph]

You are missing something. The law is note anti muslim, since it doesn't ban the hijab (which is the light veil worn by the vast majority of muslim women who don't go barehaded), it is anti funadementalist muslim.

Don't you see a big difference here?

 

[GhostWriter16]

You are missing something. The law is note anti muslim, since it doesn't ban the hijab (which is the light veil worn by the vast majority of muslim women who don't go barehaded), it is anti funadementalist muslim.

Don't you see a big difference here?

Yes and no. You could argue the same thing if you banned proselyting (IIRC France hasn't done this yet) that its not anti-Christian, its anti-FUNDAMENTALIST Christian.

That's an utter crap argument.

Just wearing a face veil doesn't make you a fundamentalist. And banning it is only dealing with symptoms when there is a disease spreading. We need to deal with terrorists, not resort to silly tactics to stop them (As if that will work on fanatics.)

 

[Steph]

First, why do you put terrorist and fundamentalist just next to each other as if they were synonym?

The question here is a balance between two things:
- "religious freedom" to wear a face covering burqa (which is not even really required by religion, and the majority of muslims can go without it)
vs
- reduction of the freedom of a woman who is banned from showing her face in public.

France decided that case 2 is worse than case 1. There is no absolute truth here, but a decision by a country where to put the cursor.

@Camikazee- I agree 100%. This hurts women, it doesn't help them.

Please explain how.

 

[GhostWriter16]

First, why do you put terrorist and fundamentalist just next to each other as if they were synonym?

I assumed you meant the same thing. It was a bad assumption.

That said, it was justified based on the content of your post. If they aren't the same thing, why does France need to deal with "Fundamentalist" Islam at all? Why do you care if they want to follow the literal word of the Qur'an in their own life?

- "religious freedom" to wear a face covering burqa (which is not even really required by religion, and the majority of muslims can go without it)
vs
- reduction of the freedom of a woman who is banned from showing her face in public.

This is absolutely insane. These two things do NOT require one or the other to be true. Its perfectly possible (And logical) to allow people to wear the burka WITHOUT requiring anyone else to wear the burka being allowed.

Please explain how.

Because it restricts their right to choose how to dress.

 

[Camikaze]

You are missing something. The law is note anti muslim, since it doesn't ban the hijab (which is the light veil worn by the vast majority of muslim women who don't go barehaded), it is anti funadementalist muslim.

Don't you see a big difference here?

The difference is existent but, IMO, only slight. Assuming a connection between the burqa and a broadly defined (if defined at all) 'fundamentalist Islam' seems to be a little out of kilter. And even if we are to assume that it is specifically anti-fundamentalist-Islam, then that is still anti-Islam, just with a smaller subset. If it were anti-terrorist, then that would make sense, but then you're assuming a connection between all fundamentalist Muslims and terrorists, which would seem to be also quite misleading. I don't think discriminating against 'fundamentalist Muslims', just because it is a phrase that apparently means something significant (although I don't know what; is someone who wears a burqa a fundamentalist Muslim because they wear a burqa, and if so, how does that translate to them being a terrorist? If it doesn't translate, then you're not targeting the subset you claim to be targeting), is acceptable.

You act against people that do illegal things, not rather broad and ill-defined groups of people who apparently have some sort of implied connection to other people that do illegal things. How is wearing the burqa supportive of terrorism, and how is it anything other than anti-Muslim and anti-female (given that it specifically targets both, in discourse if not explicitly in law).

 

[Ajidica]

Because it restricts their right to choose how to dress.

Anti-nudity laws restrict your right to choose how to dress.

Why do you care if they want to follow the literal word of the Qur'an in their own life?

Just pointing out that the burqa is not mandated in the qu'ran, or even the Hadith. All that is mandated in the hadith is that a woman dresses modestly. The adoption of the burqa is generaly a cultural thing as you can see from medieval persian art. They rountinely depicted women with uncovered faces, despite being a Muslim area.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Anti-nudity laws restrict your right to choose how to dress.

Not really, they infringe upon your right to NOT dress in public since its disturbing. This is different.

Just pointing out that the burqa is not mandated in the qu'ran, or even the Hadith. All that is mandated in the hadith is that a woman dresses modestly. The adoption of the burqa is generaly a cultural thing as you can see from medieval persian art. They rountinely depicted women with uncovered faces, despite being a Muslim area.

Irrelevant, since Steph still said the goal of the law is to be anti-Fundy Islam.

 

[nato2101]

Just pointing out that the burqa is not mandated in the qu'ran, or even the Hadith. All that is mandated in the hadith is that a woman dresses modestly. The adoption of the burqa is generaly a cultural thing as you can see from medieval persian art. They rountinely depicted women with uncovered faces, despite being a Muslim area.

Moreover Tunisia and Turkey both have laws against wearing the Burqa in public buildings (government buildings, hospitals, etc.)
In fact my mom has a couple of Tunisian friends who said the Burqa is frowned on over there.

 

[Steph]

IBecause it restricts their right to choose how to dress.

Because a religion that impose them to wear a burqa doesn't retrict their right to choose how to dress?

Camikaze, you are making the same misintepretation as Domination3000. Why do you like fundamentalism with terrorism? These are two different issues.

Please try to quote in my post where I said the law was to prevent terrorism?

This is here a question about what is acceptable and what is not.

Are you for public nudity?

Or to stay with something related to some muslims : are you for polygamy? Are you for marriage at 12? Are you for stonning adultery women? All these are practised in some countries.

Why not allow it in ours?

and how is it anything other than anti-Muslim and anti-female

I think there is a wrong reasonning here. You label it as anti muslim and anti female because you think they are the most visible group of people target by the law.

But that's a symptom. Women would be the subject of these law because they are "forced" (by religion or by the husband) to wear it. The law would obviously not apply to men since they are not required to wear a face covering veil.

The analogy is not perfect, but tt would be like a little saying a law preventing children to buy alcohol at 12 is anti children because it applies only to children.

And anti muslim would be true if it was targeted at a significant proportion of muslims, but it applies to a very small minority of muslims who refuse to integrate.

 

[Steph]

Not really, they infringe upon your right to NOT dress in public since its disturbing. This is different.

What a fine example of double standard. Explain how it is different.

Both cases are limiting what level of clothing you are allowed to wear : too much or too little.

Not being to identify the face of the person who you are talking to, making her a non-person, could be seen more disturbing that seeing someone in the nude, which is afterall the natural state of mankind we are all born into.

That's just a difference of point of view, defining the acceptable standard for a culture.

You seem to consider that in your culture, nudity is disturbing, and covering the face is not. Well, in France the standard are different. Why would France be anti freedom and not you? Or do you think your own standard are the only one which are universally right?

Irrelevant, since Steph still said the goal of the law is to be anti-Fundy Islam.

It is relevant. anti fundy here means "against what is going too far". Since it is considered degrading for women AND not required by islam religion it can be seen as going to far.