Burqa ban in France goes into effect today..

Is this law an infringement on human rights?


  • Total voters
    91
This is indeed an issue.

But I don't think it's a sufficient counter argument.

It would be like saying "If we don't let an husband beat her wife from time to time, he can't relieve the pressure and might kill her later. It's better to let him beat her a little every day".

Granted, a little far stretching, but you get the idea.
 
I know that these women are often oppressed. By banning burqas, won't the problem of isolation just get bigger for these women? Before the ban their husbands at least let them go out in public. Now, they might become a prisoner in their own house.
That's perfectly fine. But if they appear in public, they should expect to be ogled like everybody else.

And you forget that many women choose this on their own. This article written by a female Muslim claims the majority do:

Telling Muslim Women What Not to Wear

wom_18.jpg


France has now officially outlawed the Islamic niqab or burqa in public. French President Sarkozy said in 2009, "The issue of the burqa is not a religious issue, it is a question of freedom and of women's dignity ... The burqa is not a religious sign; it is a sign of the subjugation, of the submission of women. I want to say solemnly that it will not be welcome on our territory."

This statement by Sarkozy isn't going to save any Muslim woman's self-respect or free her from her oppressor by forcing her indoors and out of public life. If a woman is being forced to wear the burqa or niqab by a dictatorial husband or father, the French have just made it more difficult for her to break free from her oppressor. However, most Muslim women choose to wear the niqab of their own free will, and with this ban France has just pushed another segment of their Muslim population further from the mainstream. France outlawed the hijab, or the simple headscarf in public schools and institutions in 2004, and it has forced girls who want an education to either compromise their religious values, or compromise their academic and professional future. Where's the liberté in that?

A small minority of Muslim women in certain parts of the world wear what is known as the abaya (black cloak) and the niqab (face veil). It is known as a burqa in South and Central Asia and seen most often as the blue full-body veil worn by Afghan women. This form of covering is the manifestation of the strictest interpretation of modesty in Islam. Women who choose this practice consider themselves seriously observant Muslims and believe this form of dress allows them to move about the outside world while protecting their dignity.

People get nervous around these women. I have often heard the refrain, "You need to see a person's face to judge their character." I disagree based on my own experience with Muslim women who wear the niqab. I have always known them as highly disciplined, and solid in their faith convictions despite society's derision. They believe in keeping their physical attributes out of the public conversation by covering. While I don't subscribe to this strict interpretation of Islamic modesty, I respect the woman who does.

Case in point: I had been corresponding with a young woman in regard to a part-time position on the behalf of one of my clients. The job would include conducting various marketing events within her local Muslim community. Because she lives in another city, I had no chance to meet her until this weekend when I traveled there. Because I am familiar with this city's Muslim community, I was not surprised to meet her wearing a black abaya and black headscarf. She and I had coffee in a café, and as the interview progressed she proved to be everything her emails and our previous phone conversations led me to believe about her without the benefit of a face-to-face meeting. She is an extremely enthusiastic and professional young woman filled with exciting ideas for marketing my client's product. Toward the end of the conversation she mentioned that she usually wore the niqab face veil but she decided that she would not don it for our meeting in case I would be uncomfortable. I told her I wouldn't have been bothered by it in the least. I felt sorry she had come out without her veil on my account -- but to be fair, she didn't know me. While she knew that I'm also a Muslim, she couldn't be sure I wouldn't discriminate against her on behalf of my client. After I assured her that her faith practices are her own business, and that my client has great respect for Muslims, she visibly relaxed and we continued our conversation.

Her character, personality and professionalism were evident long before I saw her clothing, or her face. In her American city she happily moves about her neighborhood dressed the way the French have now outlawed. She told me the Muslims are an integral part of her city's greater community, and she is very comfortable wherever she goes in her graceful, black garments.[/B] I will recommend that my client hire this young woman; I'm completely confident that she is going to far exceed the expectations we had for this position.

As I've written before, if you strip a woman of what she feels is her dignity, you'll have a lot of indignant women. We all know American women can become pretty indignant if someone tells us what not to wear.
As the article points out, France already banned the simple headscarf in schools in 2004. It is clear they simply don't care about the religious and cultural rights of Muslims. Those who do not conform to their own standards of how to dress are further examples of how "multiculturalism has failed".
 
"You need to see a person's face to judge their character."
Sure, might not be completely true. But it makes it easier though. One cannot deny the importance of facial cues in interpersonal communication.
 
As the article points out, France already banned the simple headscarf in schools in 2004. It is clear they simply don't care about the religious and cultural rights of Muslims.
The law about Laicité was in force in France long before we had an important muslim population, and was mostly aimed at catholics.
 
If it were really an issue about elevating women's rights, I wouldn't have a problem with it.

edit: Less than .06% of Muslim women in France wore face-covering veils.
So, it's ok to discriminate and oppress minorities, as long as they are a small percentage?!
 
Got about 1/2 way through the thread... have to make some comments...
Then you'll probably appreciate a part of the soon-to-take-effect law that few people know about: forcing another person to wear a face-covering thingy is punishable by one year in prison and a fine of 30,000 Euros. Forcing a minor to wear one is punishable by twice the time and twice the fine.

I really like these parts of the law. Go France. :woohoo:
I agree, this is great.

Thus affirming my belief that the French Government is a bed of morons. How can someone who chooses to wear a burka claim to be forced? (NOTE: Making a child wear it is a different issue, but that's not what the ban covers.)
Women are often forced to wear these items by the men around them... Some don't mind, some do it or get beaten. Hence, they choose to wear it, only because it is better than being beaten.

We should tots invade France and liberate the women.
I agree! They are beautiful! I call dibs on Eva Green.

I enjoy making in fun of the French as much as the next guy, but I can't help but feel that Americans seem to undermine their significance to the country.
I agree again, the French are great, their history is amazing, and I, as an American, am a big fan of theirs.
 
This is indeed an issue.

But I don't think it's a sufficient counter argument.

It would be like saying "If we don't let an husband beat her wife from time to time, he can't relieve the pressure and might kill her later. It's better to let him beat her a little every day".

Granted, a little far stretching, but you get the idea.

I understand what you're getting at here, but the analogy doesn't really fit. Wearing a burqa, in of itself, is not a dangerous act. A husband beating his wife is an act which actually does damage. Every time it occurs. Someone wearing a burqa does not cause damage every time it occurs. If someone is forced to wear it, then that is an issue, but not everyone who wears one is forced, and in case, the woman already has legal protection (however inadequate you could argue it to be; in which case the thing to do would be to bolster laws regarding men forcing women to do anything, not just wearing a burqa specifically) against being forced to do anything.
 
I know. But I don't agree with the concept "something is bad, but let's do nothing because it might get worse if we do".
Good thing Cami's not advocating that, then, oder?
 
No, it was raise by another.

Fuzzz said:
By banning burqas, won't the problem of isolation just get bigger for these women? Before the ban their husbands at least let them go out in public. Now, they might become a prisoner in their own house.
 
I don't think Fuzzz was saying that, either.
 
Perhaps not, but it can sum up to "let them wear the burqa in public it gives them some freedom to get out instead of being kept at home".

I don't think it's a good solution to women being oppressed by their husband.
 
Neither is the burqa ban, but hey, it's not as though you guys just started trying to turn these peasants into Frenchmen.
 
Can you prove that every burka wearer is forced to wear it by a male? You don't think some want to wear it due to their own religious beliefs?
 
Can you prove that every burka wearer is forced to wear it by a male? You don't think some want to wear it due to their own religious beliefs?

Then they would be idiots because it has nothing to do with the actual religion. None of the religious scripts even mentions anything that completely covers a person's face like the Burqa and at least two Muslim countries have already outlawed it in public buildings. In fact the Burqa pre-dates Islam.
 
And yet, can you imagine the uproar if the USA tried to pass a low that forbade people from having Christmas trees visible from their windows, even though the Christmas tree is mentioned nowhere in the Bible?
 
The law about Laicité was in force in France long before we had an important muslim population, and was mostly aimed at catholics.
So you are claiming that the Muslim population wasn't "important" only 7 years ago when the new law was instituted? That this ban wasn't directly aimed at Muslim school children with Sikh turbans, Jewish skullcaps, and overly large crosses added to make it look a bit more PC?

_40027688_scarves_203body_ap.jpg


French scarf ban comes into force

A law banning Islamic headscarves and other religious symbols from French state schools came into effect on Thursday, the first day of term.

So far, most pupils have been observing the law by removing the headscarf or other symbols before entering school.

The lives of two French reporters, held by Iraqi militants who want the ban scrapped, still hang in the balance.

The French government has refused to give in to the militants, who have threatened to kill the two.


But Paris is continuing a diplomatic effort to secure their release.

Forbidden items will include Muslim headscarf, Sikh turbans, Jewish skullcap and large Christian crucifixes

Schools have been told not to automatically exclude pupils who arrive wearing headscarves, but to try and avert a showdown through dialogue.
Having a secular state is a great idea. I'm all for it. But I draw the line at religious persecution.
 
And yet, can you imagine the uproar if the USA tried to pass a low that forbade people from having Christmas trees visible from their windows, even though the Christmas tree is mentioned nowhere in the Bible?

That would be slightly different. However there would certainly be an uproar if Christmas trees were banned in public.
Btw I am not in favour of the law because imo it is sort of like an attempt to crush a walnut with a sledge hammer.
 
So you are claiming that the Muslim population wasn't "important" only 7 years ago when the new law was instituted? That this ban wasn't directly aimed at Muslim school children with Sikh turbans, Jewish skullcaps, and overly large crosses added to make it look a bit more PC?

_40027688_scarves_203body_ap.jpg


French scarf ban comes into force

Having a secular state is a great idea. I'm all for it. But I draw the line at religious persecution.

Does it only ban Islamic symbols or all religious symbols in the schools? I was under the impression it was all (Jewish, Christian, Islamic, Hindu, etc.) which isn't exactly persecution rather forced secularism (which I wish they did here in Italy were we still have crucifixes in the class rooms)
 
Back
Top Bottom