Burqa ban in France goes into effect today..

[Puck Nutty]

What do you mean?

Obviously the German comment was a joke....

Well, France did help you guys gain independance. Is that not significant?

 

[innonimatu]

Fined if they are naked unless on a nudist beach. Also other items which cover the face are illegal.

Then don't see any good reason for alarm over this. It's still open to criticism, as with any ban. It doesn't offend me, but the arguments for it seems a bit weak: it amounts to two things:
1) no masking of the face allowed for security reasons;
2) no imposing of the burka on women by other people.

Obvious counter to 1: we're not about to ban carnival.
Obvious counter to 2: don't punish the alleged victim; or: we're not banning sex because some people are raped.

I'm going with the last option, slightly rephrased: a ban should be allowed in private/professional setting. And in public it should be removed whenever the wearer was asked to do it over some security concern.

 

[Camikaze]

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?

My entire point (in my previous post) revolves around the fact that fundamentalism and terrorism shouldn't be linked in such a way. But apparently discriminating against fundamentalists is acceptable? I don't mean to imply that you yourself said that the law is to prevent terrorism, but what has been made the casual link between fundamentalism and terrorism would seem to suggest that this type of discrimination is okay, because it's against terrorism. Yet it remains that it most certainly isn't effective in any fight against terrorism, nor would it be acceptable to specifically discriminate against Muslims and women (again, in the discourse, if not in the letter of the law) even if it were somehow effective against some evil.

So let's talk about that discrimination. First Muslims. How is this anything but directly discriminatory towards Muslims, even if specifically targeting fundamentalist Islam? The law was proposed, IIRC, by Sarkozy as a direct measure against the burqa (specifically stated). It cannot be denied that, even if the law itself has been dressed in language so as to make it appear non-discriminatory, it very much is so in its intent and focus, and again, in the discourse surrounding it. What makes this acceptable? Is it acceptable because it is a disagreeable part of Islam? Why specifically target that disagreeable part, and why specifically within Islam? Isn't a convent an exercise in the subjugation of females? Are they banned, or are nun's habits, symbolic of this subjugation, specifically targeted in the discourse, intent and focus? The specific Islamic focus of this law is both frightening, indicative of the political pandering at the core of the proposal, and just plain wrong. Whether or not the burqa is a symbol of the subjugation of women is rather irrelevant when the basis on which it is being attacked is a discriminatory one.

And women. How is a ban that specifically targets women anything other than anti-female? Dressing it up as taking away the tools males use to repress ignores the fact that this is targeting those women, and not those men. It would seem counterintuitive for a law ostensibly aiming to improve the rights of women to directly target them, and restrict their freedom of fashion choice. How can it be argued that this law is for the benefit of women, when it is merely making an easy target of them?

There is another tangent to go off on, far more broad and unfairly conspiratorial sounding; that the ban is a means of sustaining the hegemony of the global liberal economic order, and that the discourse dresses up what is a desire for the continuance of consumerism as a human rights concerned, loosely tied to the language of 'terrorism' (not in an 'evil mastermind is trying to repress us all' kind of way, but in a 'this is what politics tends towards' kind of way). That the burqa was been discursively shaped as being anti-freedom and anti-consumerist is quite significant in understanding how it has come to the point of being banned.

This quote I find very interesting in that regard:

Freedom to shop is one of the fundamental liberties, what [sic] terrorists want to deprive us of.

(Also, if you have access, take a lot at Pham, M, 'The Right to Fashion in the Age of Terrorism', Signs, Vol. 36, No. 2, 2011, pp. 385-410, which is intriguing regarding the relationship of the discourse (and hence ban) to the promotion of consumerism)

 

[innonimatu]

My entire point (in my previous post) revolves around the fact that fundamentalism and terrorism shouldn't be linked in such a way. But apparently discriminating against fundamentalists is acceptable?

Of course discriminating against fundamentalism is acceptable. Not because of any link between fundamentalism and terrorism, but because fundamentalism by definition discriminates itself. Fundamentalists deliberately choose to place themselves apart from others on their chosen issues. By their own choice and actions they separate themselves from others, as a community. Which obviously, inevitably, creates a symmetrical reaction from all those which they distance themselves from. No one has an absolute obligation to full tolerance and acceptance towards those who chose to be different.

 

[Camikaze]

Of course discriminating against fundamentalism is acceptable. Not because of any link between fundamentalism and terrorism, but because fundamentalism by definition discriminates itself. Fundamentalists deliberately choose to place themselves apart from others on their chosen issues. By their own choice and actions they separate themselves from others, as a community. Which obviously, inevitably, creates a symmetrical reaction from all those which they distance themselves from.

Can you please define 'fundamentalism' for me, and indicate how many individuals in France fit within this apparently clearly-defined group? Also, can you please explain to me the precisely monolithic belief held by this apparently clearly-defined group that makes them closed to the community. And then please explain why being closed to the wider community makes discrimination acceptable (or, to put it differently, why a difference of opinion as to how you should live makes discrimination acceptable).

Also, I assume you're referring to 'fundamentalist Muslims' and not 'fundamentalists', yes?

 

[EnglishEdward]

Well done Sarkovsky!!

 

[RobAnybody]

Of course discriminating against fundamentalism is acceptable. Not because of any link between fundamentalism and terrorism, but because fundamentalism by definition discriminates itself. Fundamentalists deliberately choose to place themselves apart from others on their chosen issues. By their own choice and actions they separate themselves from others, as a community.

Where I have a problem is because you used the words "choose" & "choice". If someone *chooses* to wear a burka, or a KKK hood, or a ski mask, or a Halloween mask, or a Lucha Libre mask while performing fake rasslin' moves, that's fine by me. They should be able to walk around in public wearing any of those.

France can do what they want, of course, they don't have a First Amendment, but I'd be opposed to any sort of similar ban in the United States, because we do, & that's free expression at the least, possibly Free Religion at the most. Whether or not I agree with what they are expressing has no relevance to their freedom to do so.

Also, regarding the oppression of women that has been brought up in this thread, it's impossible to know which women have been forced to wear something vs. those who choose to do so. It's like assuming *all* Mormon women have been forced to wear their magic underwear but just assuming they all have been forced to wear it & therefore banning it. Deal with the oppression, not the symptoms of it, & don't punish the whole for the transgressions of the few.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Well, France did help you guys gain independance. Is that not significant?

Yes, that is true...

 

[innonimatu]

Can you please define 'fundamentalism' for me, and indicate how many individuals in France fit within this apparently clearly-defined group? Also, can you please explain to me the precisely monolithic belief held by this apparently clearly-defined group that makes them closed to the community. And then please explain why being closed to the wider community makes discrimination acceptable (or, to put it differently, why a difference of opinion as to how you should live makes discrimination acceptable).

Also, I assume you're referring to 'fundamentalist Muslims' and not 'fundamentalists', yes?

Why should I define the term for you, who were using it before I joined the discussion?
And no, I'«m not referring specifically to 'fundamentalist Muslims'.

 

[Camikaze]

Why should I define the term for you, who were using it before I joined the discussion?
And no, I'«m not referring specifically to 'fundamentalist Muslims'.

My point is that 'fundamentalists' cannot be defined as some sort of monolithic bloc that can be discriminated against. 'Murderers', for instance, are a fairly monolithic bloc that can be discriminated against (in terms of punishing them for their murderous ways), but 'fundamentalists' are not. How can it be alright to discriminate against a group that cannot even be clearly defined? It would be like attempt to define the type of person who is generally a murderer, and then discriminating against them on the basis of possible murderous activities (probably a bad analogy, but I'll go with it).

And if you are not specifically referring to 'fundamentalist Muslims', why is the law directly targeting them?

 

[rugbyLEAGUEfan]

All's fair game in the fast food wars I reckon

America bans French fries , France bans burquas

 

[Steph]

And women. How is a ban that specifically targets women anything other than anti-female? Dressing it up as taking away the tools males use to repress ignores the fact that this is targeting those women, and not those men.

First, the fine for wearing a burqa is relatively small, while the penalty (jail + a heavy fine) for forcing someone to wear it is much higher.
So actually the law targets the men a lot more than the women. Your argument is a bit shaky here.

Second, there is also an important part about the message.

You are right that Sarkozy initially target the burqa specifically. His claim (I won't go into debate here to know if he was sincere or not, let's suppose he was) was that forcing a woman to hide her face was degrading, since it in some way create an "cloth prison", and prevent her from integrating in a society. The idea is that speaking "face to face" with someone you can identify, or you can simply see emotion and the face, is an important part of social interaction, and preventing that is going against integrating these women in a society.
A veil covering the hair and not the face is different : you can still recognize the person you are talking to, you can still see emotion, etc. Note that here, there's is not even anything related to security (this is another issue).
To sum up, Sarkozy claim was "face covering = prevent social integration = disgrace woman = anti value of the Republic with equality between men and women".

Of course, it was targeted to women, and muslim, because they were the one concerned. Finding this offending would be like saying that a statement such as "80% of the crime in a neighboroud with 80% black population are commited by black people" is racist. Or saying that anti pedophile law are anti children because they involve children.

So, now let's assume that the reason behind the ban is indeed that forcing a woman to wear a burqa is degrading, and against the value of the Republic.

We have the issue that some are forced to wear it, and some choose to wear it.

The problem here is if there is nothing banning the burqa, a man could say to a woman "you have to wear that", and make some pressure.
If there is a ban, the woman can refuse or could complain. But more importantly, since there is a law stating it is degrading and is banned, she "knows" it is.
If there is no law, she is an easier target for imposed customs.

 

[kiwitt]

What about the lack of Vitamin D ? Are they taking Vitamin D supplements, I doubt it.

 

[Camikaze]

...

It does target women in the sense that it is directly prohibiting women from doing something, even if indirectly preventing men from doing something. The focus is very clearly women. My point with this is the institutionalisation of gender-specific prohibitions such as this is hardly a step in the right direction in terms of women's rights. That is targets women and Muslim doesn't fit the analogy you offered because 80% of France's population aren't Muslim women. Even if the intent is to prevent a small amount of female subjugation, this is doing so in a very selective way discriminating against what is only a small subset of the perpetrators of female subjugation, as well as discriminating against people who are not degrading females (those that wear it out of choice). And the argument that those people who wear the burqa out of choice shouldn't be allowed to be so seems is a rather unsettling one; telling people that they are unwelcome to wear something in a particular community (and that means that, the burqa being a part of their identity perhaps, they are being excluded from the community).

And I think the logic in this protecting the woman is faulty. As it is, she cannot be forced to wear a burqa. Physically forcing a woman (or anyone) to do something is illegal already. It's not like the law doesn't already protect women anyway. This just means that if they have chosen to wear the burqa, then they can no longer do so.

(I'll reply to any bits I missed later on, but I gotta dash)

 

[Steph]

France can do what they want, of course, they don't have a First Amendment, but I'd be opposed to any sort of similar ban in the United States, because we do, & that's free expression at the least, possibly Free Religion at the most. Whether or not I agree with what they are expressing has no relevance to their freedom to do so.

Funny post. You make it sounds as if the poor French are too stupid to have freedom.
We don't need to have a first amendment because in the first "Declaration des droits de l'homme et du citoyen" freedom of thought and religion was already included.

However, freedom shouldn't be an excuse to make anything you want. It has to be balanced with other things which are part of a democracy. Including gender equality, including the right for a woman not to be forced to wear a burqa.
And also other concerns like promoting integration.

We have many laws which restrict freedom. As said before, why have age of consent at 15? Why couldn't a woman, or man, really choose to have sex at 14?
You can say that it's too young to choose. For all of them? Are you sure there is not one who is mature enough to choose? Isn't it a decision by the lawmaker that the majority is too young, and to protect them the law is applied to all?

It is something similar here. The lawmaker decided that to protect the X number of women who can better defend themselves against imposed burqa with a law, the ban would also prevent the Y women who really wanted to wear one.

The question could be what is the real value of X and Y, and what is the acceptable ratio to you.

 

[wolfigor]

Typical statist response, but not really a good one. The "Cultural sensitivity of the majority" really? The majority is irrelevant. Should "How do we know she's a witch? Because she looks like one! Can we burn her?" Be allowed if the majority wants them? What nonsense!

Freedom of all, majorities and minorities, is the most important thing. I don't give a crap about the majority, I want freedom and the majority can screw themselves, or get out.

This is a nice slogan, but what happens when the "freedoms" of two collide together or the "cultural sensitivity" collides with the law.

One could argue that arranged marriages, or under-age marriages, or female genital mutilation, or cannibalism can be considered cultural elements.
Unfortunately they clash against the values of the majority (at least in western world) and clash against the law.
Would you allow those behaviours that I quoted as (extreme) examples on cultural or religious ground?


From this point of view the burqua is felt by the greatest majority of French people as conflicting with their core values.

 

[rugbyLEAGUEfan]

What about the lack of Vitamin D ? Are they taking Vitamin D supplements, I doubt it.

And C . Must be hard to see

 

[RobAnybody]

Funny post. You make it sounds as if the poor French are too stupid to have freedom.

I didn't make it sound that way. You mis-heard it that way.

 

[Camikaze]

We have many laws which restrict freedom. As said before, why have age of consent at 15? Why couldn't a woman, or man, really choose to have sex at 14?
You can say that it's too young to choose. For all of them? Are you sure there is not one who is mature enough to choose? Isn't it a decision by the lawmaker that the majority is too young, and to protect them the law is applied to all?

There's a bit of a difference between age based discrimination and other types of discrimination, though. Society has generally agreed that age based discrimination is okay to an extent, because society really does know better than children. It's more an exception that proves the rule.

 

[Fuzzz]

It has nothing to do with Islam. It has to do with culture and trying to help women who are being oppressed by a certain culture. I'm sure it was banned in countries like Turkey and Tunisia also, just because it is a Muslim piece of clothing (how traditional it is can be discussed...)?

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.