Burka ban

robindch

I'm non-religious and do not support the ban

Scotty # wrote: »

Oppression has nothing to do with it. The ban is about "protecting French values" according to Sarkozy.

Er, yes. One of the french values being that you shouldn't be forced to wear something that demeans you.

Scotty # wrote: »

I think if Sarkozy had his way he'd round up the ghettos (most of which are Muslim) and ship them all off somewhere.

I think that kind of paranoia is unhelpful in this debate.

Nodin wrote: »

....that it is contended that men use to signal the successul subjugation of a woman.

Seriously, if you were forced to wear something wrapped around your head before you went out in public, would you be telling people that there's some confusion about whether it's a subjugation signal?

Nodin wrote: »

Nor do I accept, as explained earlier, any macro explanation out of this, save Sarkozys electoral plight.

Well, there's not much point in continuing this debate if you're unable to conceive that a politician might do something because it's the right thing to do, regardless of whoever else on the political spectrum might be calling for the same thing (is the NF calling for it? I wasn't aware they were; I thought they just wanted the "them" out of the country)

Nodin wrote: »

....but do many supporters of this ban in France, I wonder?

Well, the French Council of the Muslim Faith (an body elected by islamics and set up by Sarkozy himself in order to improve relations with islamics) seems happy enough with the law. The IT reports:

Irish Times wrote:

"We've already had our debate about the law and now our position is clear: we respect French law 100 per cent," said a spokesman for the French Council of the Muslim Faith.

In fact, the only people who seem to be upset about the ban are libertarians from outside of France, and a group of sixty who were organized by the UK's resident islamic nutter, Anjem Choudary.

As I said, the french public and french islamics seem generally fine with it.

Turtwig

I'm religious and support the ban

robindch wrote: »

Well, the French Council of the Muslim Faith (an body elected by islamics and set up by Sarkozy himself in order to improve relations with islamics) seems happy enough with the law. The IT reports:In fact, the only people who seem to be upset about the ban are libertarians from outside of France, and a group of sixty who were organized by the UK's resident islamic nutter, Anjem Choudary.

As I said, the french public and french islamics seem generally fine with it.

I'd love to know how many of those on the French Council were actually women?
It'd be interesting to see how much Islam has diversified in France, if at all.:)

Scotty #

I'm religious and support the ban

robindch wrote: »

Er, yes. One of the french values being that you shouldn't be forced to wear something that demeans you.

But it's perfectly reasonable to force you not to wear it. :rolleyes:

Nodin

I'm religious and support the ban

robindch wrote: »

Er, yes. One of the french values being that you shouldn't be forced to wear something that demeans you.I think that kind of paranoia is unhelpful in this debate.Seriously, if you were forced to wear something wrapped around your head before you went out in public, would you be telling people that there's some confusion about whether it's a subjugation signal?.

....and you are again assuming direct force is being applied etc. However, we are now in the position where there is direct force certainly being applied, but in the opposite direction.

robindch wrote: »

Well, there's not much point in continuing this debate if you're unable to conceive that a politician might do something because it's the right thing to do, regardless of whoever else on the political spectrum might be calling for the same thing (is the NF calling for it? I wasn't aware they were; I thought they just wanted the "them" out of the country).

It has been known to happen. Its clearly not the case here though, and its been well documented.

robindch wrote: »

Well, the French Council of the Muslim Faith (an body elected by islamics and set up by Sarkozy himself in order to improve relations with islamics) seems happy enough with the law. The IT reports:
.........

"acceptance" and "happy" would not be the same thing. The reaction should they say they reject such a law would be horrendous.

robindch wrote: »

In fact, the only people who seem to be upset about the ban are libertarians from outside of France, and a group of sixty who were organized by the UK's resident islamic nutter, Anjem Choudary.
.........

The last I checked, I was neither a libertarian, or Anjem Choudary, or one of his group of sixty.

robindch

I'm non-religious and do not support the ban

Nodin wrote: »

we are now in the position where there is direct force certainly being applied, but in the opposite direction.

There's a difference you're failing to appreciate between being forced to wear one thing, and being "forced" to wear absolutely anything except one thing.

And that's quite apart from the political message that's being sent to fundamentalists and separatists, which you're ignoring too.

Nodin wrote: »

The last I checked, I was neither a libertarian, or Anjem Choudary, or one of his group of sixty.

Good to hear it

Morbert

I'm non-religious and do not support the ban

Nodin wrote: »

[....but the fact that muslims support the ban doesn't negate the fact that its raison d'etre has nothing to do with the welfare of muslim women, and that it does nothing to address a good deal of the issues its supposed to.

I tendered the fact to highlight that the ban is not automatically "anti-muslim". Do you accept that any association with islamophobia is irrelevant to the validity of the ban?

robindch

I'm non-religious and do not support the ban

Malty_T wrote: »

Anyone else get a slight quiver of unpleasantness running through them when they saw that dead one was in agreement with them?

I'd be far more worried if I found myself agreeing with Anjem Choudary.

dead one

Wicknight wrote: »

The damage is causes by male oppression of Muslim women, and shockingly simply telling women what to do doesn't help that problem.

If she can go to the police and say she is being forced to wear the burka in the first place then this law isn't needed. Forcing someone to do anything is illegal.

Wearing a burka does not physically hurt her, and being forced to not wear the burka does nothing for the indoctrination she feels or the fear she feels due to the pressure in the Muslim community.

.

Are you women here? Or you are representatives of muslim women or you are speaking on behalf of muslim women. Women has always been victim of men's tyranny.

Let the women speak for themselves. Let see what muslim women want for them


Although the image is old but can you please tell who was forcing them in France to protest. They feel free in hijab that's why they choose it and why you are dictating against hijab. Are you tyrant

Now question arise why they are protesting. Reason is simple because it provides them protection from evils of men. It liberates them from slavery of men who wish to see women just part of their desires

dead one

Malty_T wrote: »

Anyone else get a slight quiver of unpleasantness running through them when they saw that dead one was in agreement with them?

Freedom of thoughts i guess.

Scotty #

I'm religious and support the ban

robindch wrote: »

There's a difference you're failing to appreciate between being forced to wear one thing, and being "forced" to wear absolutely anything except one thing.

Not really.

Woman A wants to wear veil - government won't allow her.
Woman B does not to wear veil - husband forces her.

Neither woman A or B is more or less oppressed than the other.

Forbidding both from wearing the veil does not solve the problem. In fact if you want to stop oppression it's a ridiculous solution.

But we all know deep down, as much as we might argue for it, that the oppression of women in France has nothing to do with this law. If you want to combat the oppression of woman surely it would make sense to start with something that effects more than 0.006% of the female population or around 1 in every 17000 French women.

The law is nothing more than an effort to stop Muslims from practising their customs and beliefs. It is Islamophobia. You are kidding yourself if you believe otherwise.

robindch

I'm non-religious and do not support the ban

Scotty # wrote: »

Forbidding both from wearing the veil does not solve the problem. In fact if you want to stop oppression it's a ridiculous solution.

As I've said before, it's one part of a solution and certainly not the most important part.

Scotty # wrote: »

But we all know deep down, as much as we might argue for it, that the oppression of women in France has nothing to do with this law. [...] The law is nothing more than an effort to stop Muslims from practising their customs and beliefs. It is Islamophobia. You are kidding yourself if you believe otherwise.

So you're telling me that even though I think I'm in favour of this ban because I believe that burkas oppress women, a belief based up on my experiences over the last fifteen years or so in the many "islamic" countries I've visited and the many people living in them with whom I've spoken. On the contrary, you're telling me that all my experiences are in fact completely false and I'm really in favour of this ban because I'm suffering from a non-evidential, irrational fear or hatred of islam and/or muslims?

Morbert

I'm non-religious and do not support the ban

The law is nothing more than an effort to stop Muslims from practising their customs and beliefs. It is Islamophobia. You are kidding yourself if you believe otherwise.

We have dealt with this before. Even if islamophobes support the law because "it stops Muslims from practicing their customs and beliefs", that is entirely irrelevant to the merits of the ban. Remember that customs and beliefs do not have to be automatically respected or tolerated. If it was customary to convince women or children to be voluntary sacrifices to God, that would not prevent legislation against it.

Nodin

I'm religious and support the ban

robindch wrote: »

There's a difference you're failing to appreciate between being forced to wear one thing, and being "forced" to wear absolutely anything except one thing.

...but there is force, and therein lies my objection. Historically, its been counter-productive.

robindch wrote: »

And that's quite apart from the political message that's being sent to fundamentalists and separatists, which you're ignoring too..

As they're already "lost" its rather irrelevant as far as they're concerned. It's the message to those who hear the fundamentalist jihadi propoganda of the west being hostile to Islam wherein lies the problem.

Morbert wrote:

Do you accept that any association with islamophobia is irrelevant to the validity of the ban? ..

It would undermine the case as seen from one who would be affected by it, certainly. It is debatable whether the law stands up to scrutiny as anything other than a reaction against muslims.

I might add that I don't think Sarkozy is personally islamophobic, merely opportunistic.

robindch

I'm non-religious and do not support the ban

Nodin wrote: »

...but there is force

Yes, it's the lesser of two evils. As I've mentioned this vital qualifying condition quite a few times before, but without it being addressed, I think it's best to agree to differ here lest we continue to go around in circles.

Nodin wrote: »

As they're already "lost" its rather irrelevant as far as they're concerned.

Again, not really. While the two situations are not entirely similar, it's worth comparing the results from the UK whose successive governments have failed to address the problem of religious separatism and supremacists (and has produced a reasonable crop of home-grown terrorists) versus France which has clearly stated the supremacy of state law over religion (and hasn't really produced any terrorists to speak of).

Make of that what you will, but I'm inclined to think that the two are not unlinked.

Scotty #

I'm religious and support the ban

robindch wrote: »

As I've said before, it's one part of a solution and certainly not the most important part.

It's not any part of a solution! Removing one woman's oppression to only place it on another is in no way, shape, or form 'a solution'. Confining these women now to their homes, criminalising the women who want to wear the burka... I think this law only makes things worse for all involved.

robindch wrote: »

So you're telling me that even though I think I'm in favour of this ban because I believe that burkas oppress women... you're telling me that all my experiences are in fact completely false and I'm really in favour of this ban because I'm suffering from a non-evidential, irrational fear or hatred of islam and/or muslims?

NO, I'm saying that's what the French government is doing. Have you seen the Paris Ghettos on your travels? The unemployment, poverty, riots, discrimination....? The gov decide they are going to do something to liberate these Islamic women so they ban the burka?? C'mon... let's see this ban for what it is.

pH

Scotty # wrote: »

It's not any part of a solution! Removing one woman's oppression to only place it on another is in no way, shape, or form 'a solution'. Confining these women now to their homes, criminalising the women who want to wear the burka... I think this law only makes things worse for all involved.

I really don't see how any of this is oppression - there are lots of things I can't do in this state - like own an Uzi, shoot heroin in my veins, walk around Dublin naked*.

I think it's a huge jump to call these things oppression though, sometimes laws ban things, you seem to be arguing that a small number of women are being oppressed in exactly the same way as nudists and wannabe gun owners are in Ireland ...

* Only two of those things are things I'd actually like to do.

Morbert

I'm non-religious and do not support the ban

Nodin wrote: »

It would undermine the case as seen from one who would be affected by it, certainly. It is debatable whether the law stands up to scrutiny as anything other than a reaction against muslims.

I might add that I don't think Sarkozy is personally islamophobic, merely opportunistic.

But we are not discussing the case as seen from one who would be affected by it. We are talking about the merits of the ban as an action against the public subjugation of women. Whether or not the action is right, islamophobia has been repeatedly brought up in this thread for reasons I don't understand.

Zombrex

Scotty # wrote: »

Not really.

Woman A wants to wear veil - government won't allow her.
Woman B does not to wear veil - husband forces her.

Neither woman A or B is more or less oppressed than the other.

Nail on the head.

People are focusing way to much on the burka, and ignoring on both sides the message behind the burka, either having to wear it or having not to wear it.

In both case a woman is being told what she can or can't do for her own good

Morbert

I'm non-religious and do not support the ban

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZdmyiVlwEDU&feature=related

An illuminating Newsnight piece and debate on the nature and history of the burka.

robindch

I'm non-religious and do not support the ban

Wicknight wrote: »

In both case a woman is being told what she can or can't do for her own good

You're still missing the point that the two instructions are not equivalent.

Looking at it another way, what's more limiting to a human being:

1. Telling somebody that the only word they can say in public is "burka"
2. Telling somebody that they can say whatever they like, except for the word "burka"

Scotty #

I'm religious and support the ban

robindch wrote: »

You're still missing the point that the two instructions are not equivalent.

Looking at it another way, what's more limiting to a human being:

1. Telling somebody that the only word they can say in public is "burka"
2. Telling somebody that they can say whatever they like, except for the word "burka"

I would say that to someone who only wants to use the word "Burka" it is just as limiting.

Zombrex

robindch wrote: »

You're still missing the point that the two instructions are not equivalent.

The actual instruction isn't, saying you have to wear X is not equivalent to saying you can wear anything but X.

But that isn't the point. As I keep saying this isn't about the burka. It is about people telling women what to do. The burka just happens to be a particular thing the Islamic religion is focused on. But the notion of women being oppressed is universal, it spans all cultures and takes many many different forms.

robindch wrote: »

Looking at it another way, what's more limiting to a human being:

1. Telling somebody that the only word they can say in public is "burka"
2. Telling somebody that they can say whatever they like, except for the word "burka"

The goal shouldn't be to oppress women less that Muslims. The goal should be to liberate women.

How would we feel if a Christian theocracy introduced a law that said you can satire anything you like so long as it wasn't Jesus. Would we be thinking "Well everything else is a lot stuff, so we really shouldn't complain about this one little thing we can't satirize"

No, we would be saying free speech is non-negotiable, they don't get to decide what we can't talk about, even if it is just limiting one small thing.

Western society lose all moral high ground to say to women Look you shouldn't listen to these oppressive Muslim notions of what you can and can't do if that is simply replaced with the idea that Muslim women should listen to our slightly less oppressive notions of what Muslim women can and can't do.

The goal should instead be to say to Muslim women you are as free as anyone else.

And yes that means you are free to act like an idiot. We haven't banned nuns, even though I'm sure some nuns entered the church out of pressure from family or society.

What is the end game here? When people think Muslim women are free to not wear the burka are we going to make the burka legal again? Or is that something we have decided no one ever has a legitmate reason to wear?

pH

Wicknight wrote: »

The goal shouldn't be to oppress women less that Muslims. The goal should be to liberate women.

And that's what's being attempted here.

Forcing women to cover up is oppressive. Islam doesn't require women to wear a full face veil, it's customary in some countries to force women to wear it, the French have decided to remove this oppression.

There are many other things which are 'customary' in other countries, which are prohibited here. Gun ownership for one.

So wick, answer this question, these women being 'oppressed' are they more or less oppressed than an American who comes here and would like to carry a handgun, but cannot?

That is even avoiding the fact that much as it's claimed that "women want it", there's very little evidence for this. Evidence suggests just the opposite, that given a free choice women don't want to go around all day in a burka, and even those who want to dress 'modestly' choose other garments.

robindch

I'm non-religious and do not support the ban

Wicknight wrote: »

It is about people telling women what to do.

Given that women are not free in the first place to make the decision to wear the burka, the point is irrelevant.

This debate is about returning to them the freedom that was stolen from them by religious nutters.

robindch

I'm non-religious and do not support the ban

Scotty # wrote: »

robindch wrote: »

1. Telling somebody that the only word they can say in public is "burka"
2. Telling somebody that they can say whatever they like, except for the word "burka"

I would say that to someone who only wants to use the word "Burka" it is just as limiting.

And by the same weird logic, somebody who was forced to sit in a prison must find the outside world so terribly confining too :rolleyes:

swampgas

I'm non-religious and do not support the ban

There was an interesting documentary a few years back (which I cannot find just now) on whether girls in French schools should be allowed to wear headscarves while at school. (Does anyone know the name of it?)

What impressed me were the number of girls from muslim families who were dreading the school allowing headscarves, as they said their families would immediately force them to do so.

Nodin

I'm religious and support the ban

robindch wrote: »

.............Again, not really. While the two situations are not entirely similar, it's worth comparing the results from the UK whose successive governments have failed to address the problem of religious separatism and supremacists (and has produced a reasonable crop of home-grown terrorists) versus France which has clearly stated the supremacy of state law over religion (and hasn't really produced any terrorists to speak of).

Make of that what you will, but I'm inclined to think that the two are not unlinked.

I'd point out that the muslim population in France is overwhelmingly north African in origin, whilst that of the UK is far more varied but features at least one million plus with origins or links to Pakistan, a hotbed of jihadism in certain areas.

Morbert wrote:

We are talking about the merits of the ban as an action against the public subjugation of women. .

...which some us don't accept as being public subjugation...

Morbert wrote:

Whether or not the action is right, islamophobia has been repeatedly brought up in this thread for reasons I don't understand. .

...because its a measure designed to cash in on an unfortunate element of islamophobia amongst some French voters.

Scotty #

I'm religious and support the ban

robindch wrote: »

And by the same weird logic, somebody who was forced to sit in a prison must find the outside world so terribly confining too :rolleyes:

Robin you are clearly in favour of the ban because you feel it frees women from oppression. For arguments sake lets imagine these women are blissfully happy now that they can freely carry out their business without having to wear a burka.

Now, what about the women who want to wear the burka or the previously 'western' women who have converted to Islam and have chosen to live by it's customs including the wearing of the burka. They could freely wear them last week but if they do so today they will be criminals.

Do you think these women now feel oppressed? I would think they do.

As I see it, the law only serves one purpose, the suppression of Islam and Islamic culture. It does nothing to free women from oppression.

Morbert

I'm non-religious and do not support the ban

Nodin wrote: »

...which some us don't accept as being public subjugation...

...because its a measure designed to cash in on an unfortunate element of islamophobia amongst some French voters.

Your post makes no sense to me. I said

"But we are not discussing the case as seen from one who would be affected by it. We are talking about the merits of the ban as an action against the public subjugation of women. Whether or not the action is right, islamophobia has been repeatedly brought up in this thread for reasons I don't understand."

I.e. I don't understand how islamophobia is relevant to a debate on the merits of the ban as an action against the public subjugation of women. You have said the ban is a measure designed to cash in on islamophobia. That response does not explain how islamophobia is relevant to a debate on the merits of the ban as an action against the public subjugation of women.

Also, it is obvious that you don't accept it as the public subjugation of women (hence, we are debating the merits of the ban). The debate is somewhat at a stalemate, and I cannot make the case more clearly than it was made in the Newsnight debate.

Improbable

I'm religious and support the ban

Scotty # wrote: »

Robin you are clearly in favour of the ban because you feel it frees women from oppression. For arguments sake lets imagine these women are blissfully happy now that they can freely carry out their business without having to wear a burka.

Now, what about the women who want to wear the burka or the previously 'western' women who have converted to Islam and have chosen to live by it's customs including the wearing of the burka. They could freely wear them last week but if they do so today they will be criminals.

Do you think these women now feel oppressed? I would think they do.

As I see it, the law only serves one purpose, the suppression of Islam and Islamic culture. It does nothing to free women from oppression.

I don't think you can view it that way though. There is no clear cut "It oppresses women to ban it" or "It oppresses them if we don't ban it". There are women who are forced to wear it through social pressures and that there are women who wear it because they identify it as part of their culture/tradition/whatever. In the case of the latter, it may also be that their view of it being a part of their culture has been ingrained in them and is another form of oppression but I can't really speak to that.

Personally, I think that it is a detrimental practice and I wish that it didn't exist.

I do find some merit in the argument though, that normal clothes in the western world are the social norm, not for reasons of functionality but for the maintenance of each particular cultures version of modesty or decency. Functionality does of course play a role when you're talking about going out in the rain or the cold but I don't think anybody can deny that there is an element of the decency/modesty issue at play as well.

Therefore, I propose that we ban all clothing unless it's necessary for protection from the elements.:D