Burka ban

11-04-2011 03:05PM

pH wrote: »

I have no idea where you're getting your misinformation from.

Here's the law:
"Nul ne peut, dans l'espace public, porter une tenue destinée à dissimuler son visage."

And yes there is an exception:

"L'interdiction prévue à l'article 1er ne s'applique pas si la tenue est prescrite ou autorisée par des dispositions législatives ou réglementaires, si elle est justifiée par des raisons de santé ou des motifs professionnels, ou si elle s'inscrit dans le cadre de pratiques sportives, de fêtes ou de manifestations artistiques ou traditionnelles."

So, no, you can't walk around Paris on a wet Thursday with the 1st mask on (as your post implies), but at some sort of traditional "masqued" festival then it's permitted (as indeed would a niqab be in the context of a festival/fancy dress/halloween).
http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichTexte.do?cidTexte=JORFTEXT000022911670&categorieLien=id

But you can walk around Paris on a wet Thursday with a motorcycle helmet on. Or a ski mask. So no, the ban has nothing to do with covering the face

Morbert · 11-04-2011 03:12PM

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

Nodin wrote: »

Islam is not a monolith.

That is exactly my point. It is not islamophobic to support the ban, as some Muslims support the ban too.

Furthermore, even if islamophobes do support the ban, that is entirely incidental, and in no way related to the validity of the ban itself.

Mark Hamill · 11-04-2011 03:13PM

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

28064212 wrote: »

But you can walk around Paris on a wet Thursday with a motorcycle helmet on. Or a ski mask. So no, the ban has nothing to do with covering the face

Prove it. Because the law I read doesn't say that, it allows for helmets and masks for those in public places with a reason to use them (health and safety), but I dont see where it allows people to just walk around wearing a ski mask.

Zombrex · 11-04-2011 03:13PM

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Then give an alternative.

The alternative is easy. You provide tons of money to support services for women in abusive relationships. Call centres, shelters, social workers etc.

But that of course requires actual work and dedication to the cause of the mistreatment of women in Islamic communities, which is not the motivation behind this ban.

A woman in an abusive relationship remains in an abusive relationship with this ban in place. A woman in a community that devalues women's rights remains in a community that devalues women's rights with this ban in place.

I can't stand the idea that this ban is some how going to liberate repressed Muslim women. It is about the French making a cultural point to Muslim immigrants, and and making Islam less visible. Out of sight, out of mind.

pH · 11-04-2011 03:15PM

28064212 wrote: »

But you can walk around Paris on a wet Thursday with a motorcycle helmet on. Or a ski mask. So no, the ban has nothing to do with covering the face

No, you can motorcycle around Paris with a motorcycle helmet on, you certainly couldn't walk around Paris with full faced dark/reflective helmet on, you probably could with an open faced chin-strap only one though.

Which part of:

"Nul ne peut, dans l'espace public, porter une tenue destinée à dissimuler son visage."

makes you think that a balaclava would not be covered?

if you read the wiki link posted by Mark Hamill, you'll see that ski-masks/balaclavas are definitely prohibited.

Mark Hamill · 11-04-2011 03:18PM

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

Nodin wrote: »

...and unfortunately there are many who consider it a part of theirs. Islam is not a monolith.

So if someone thinks that something is apart of their religion they should be allowed do it?

Nodin wrote: »

....Iran, where the shah tried to ban the practice, and created a massive backlash from women themselves?

Wouldn't be the first case of brainwashed people fighting against those trying to help them. Kind of like battered wives syndrome on a large scale.

Nodin wrote: »

Hmmm. 'appeal to emotion'?

Was claiming that Sarkozy only pushed this through for votes not an appeal to emotion?

Nodin wrote: »

Anyhoo - Given the numbers who actually wear the covering, and given Sarkozys loss of votes to the far right, along with the undercurrent of Islamophobia in France in certain quarters....yes, thats the logical conclusion.

So wait, Sarkozy brings in a law that only effects a small number of women, that has lost him votes to the right and you think the logical conclusion was that he only did it to try to win votes, and not that he thought it was an important issue regardless of who might be swayed, politically, to the other side?

11-04-2011 03:19PM

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

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Then give an alternative.

The alternative would be to stop taking the lazy way out and tackling the problem of the ghettos, particularly the children who are caught between the two cultures. There are "ghettos" there where the young men are running riot:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/05/13/60minutes/main617270.shtml
Who suffers? - see for yourself in the article.
The women only feel safe if they are covered up or at home. Forcing them to stop covering up - we can see the result.
And this is only speaking of the extreme cases where they have not chosen it for themselves. There are women who convert to Islam and are happy to adopt various forms of covering from headscarf to full burqa. They make this choice themselves, and announcing that any woman who wants to wear them must be brainwashed or doesn't know any better is both patronising and untrue.
Comparisons to young children making their communion are also patronising as these women are young adults and older who may form their own opinions on the matter.

No, this ban is a very short sighted way of treating one symptom of the problems over there instead of really doing something about the cause. It's turning it into a "not my problem" situation.

I dont know Frances view on arranged marriages, but I would have assumed that assault was against the law as well.

This is a "not my problem" answer. Three women - am I correct? - have been arrested already because of this new law. How vigilant are the authorities in tracking down and arresting for assault?

Wicknight wrote:

You provide tons of money to support services for women in abusive relationships. Call centres, shelters, social workers etc.

But that of course requires actual work and dedication to the cause of the mistreatment of women in Islamic communities, which is not the motivation behind this ban.

Precisely. Couldn't have said it better myself.

Rev Hellfire · 11-04-2011 03:22PM

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

Wicknight wrote: »

It is about the French making a cultural point to Muslim immigrants, and and making Islam less visible. Out of sight, out of mind.

Its about the French taking a difficult stance and not providing implicit support for the subjection of women by turning a blind eye to practices which seek to excluded them from society as whole.

11-04-2011 03:24PM

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

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Its about the French taking a difficult stance and not providing implicit support for the subjection of women by turning a blind eye to practices which seek to excluded them from society as whole.

It's not a difficult stance, it's a popular and easy position to take. They seem happy enough to turn a blind eye to everything else

On a side note, I like this solution :pac:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kUoQMALWV7U

Mark Hamill · 11-04-2011 03:25PM

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

Wicknight wrote: »

The alternative is easy. You provide tons of money to support services for women in abusive relationships. Call centres, shelters, social workers etc.

But that of course requires actual work and dedication to the cause of the mistreatment of women in Islamic communities, which is not the motivation behind this ban.

A woman in an abusive relationship remains in an abusive relationship with this ban in place. A woman in a community that devalues women's rights remains in a community that devalues women's rights with this ban in place.

Where the tons of money come from? I dont disagree that that is something that should be done as well, but I dont think that its enough by itself. Firstly, for those women who can't recognise the subjugation they are under because of indoctrination, they aren't going to go to these places from help. Secondly, the women who do recognise the subjugation aren't going to be allowed to go to these kinds of places, the men controlling them wont allow it.

Wicknight wrote: »

I can't stand the idea that this ban is some how going to liberate repressed Muslim women. It is about the French making a cultural point to Muslim immigrants, and and making Islam less visible. Out of sight, out of mind.

There are only about 2000 women who wear burkas anyway, I dont think are particularly visible anyway.

11-04-2011 03:31PM

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Prove it. Because the law I read doesn't say that, it allows for helmets and masks for those in public places with a reason to use them (health and safety), but I dont see where it allows people to just walk around wearing a ski mask.

pH wrote: »

No, you can motorcycle around Paris with a motorcycle helmet on, you certainly couldn't walk around Paris with full faced dark/reflective helmet on, you probably could with an open faced chin-strap only one though.

Which part of:

"Nul ne peut, dans l'espace public, porter une tenue destinée à dissimuler son visage."

makes you think that a balaclava would not be covered?

if you read the wiki link posted by Mark Hamill, you'll see that ski-masks/balaclavas are definitely prohibited.

Google translate version of the exception wrote:

The prohibition in Article 1 shall not apply if the conduct is required or permitted by law or regulation, whether it is justified by reasons of health or professional reasons, or if it is part As part of sports, festivals or artistic or traditional.

"or permitted" seems to allow motorcycle helmets to be worn, regardless of whether they are on a bike or not. The latter part is an ambiguous translation, but again, it seems to imply that you can wear sports etc coverings at any time, not just when involved in the activities mentioned

Zombrex · 11-04-2011 03:35PM

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Its about the French taking a difficult stance and not providing implicit support for the subjection of women by turning a blind eye to practices which seek to excluded them from society as whole.

Anything can be used to subject women if they are forced to do it. The thing itself is rather irrelevant.

They are only banning the outward visible signs associated with Islam while ignoring the actual issue of women being forced to adhere to a standard imposed on them by others.

Rev Hellfire · 11-04-2011 03:35PM

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

In the interest of fairness I also hope to see the unmasking of the Daft Punk duo in public appearances in future

Mark Hamill · 11-04-2011 03:37PM

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

bluewolf wrote: »

They make this choice themselves, and announcing that any woman who wants to wear them must be brainwashed or doesn't know any better is both patronising and untrue.

Its not patronising and it is true. The burka is an illogical solution to a problem that doesn't exist and is exacerbated by having the burka (and the whole culture behind it) anyway. Its not even islamic, its cultural.

bluewolf wrote: »

Comparisons to young children making their communion are also patronising as these women are young adults and older who may form their own opinions on the matter.

People of all ages are able to be indoctrinated.

bluewolf wrote: »

This is a "not my problem" answer. Three women - am I correct? - have been arrested already because of this new law. How vigilant are the authorities in tracking down and arresting for assault?

How was my response a "not my problem" answer? Assault is against the law in France, so is wearing the burka. I imagine that most people dont assault others in broad daylight, during protests, so its a little harder to find the offenders.

bluewolf wrote: »

Precisely. Couldn't have said it better myself.

Then how do you account for the issue I just put to Wicknight in relation to this, the issue I raised months ago when this thread started:
I dont think that its [more money for shelters etc]enough by itself. Firstly, for those women who can't recognise the subjugation they are under because of indoctrination, they aren't going to go to these places from help. Secondly, the women who do recognise the subjugation aren't going to be allowed to go to these kinds of places, the men controlling them wont allow it.

11-04-2011 03:39PM

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

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Then how do you account for the issue I just put to Wicknight in relation to this, the issue I raised months ago when this thread started:
I dont think that its [more money for shelters etc]enough by itself. Firstly, for those women who can't recognise the subjugation they are under because of indoctrination, they aren't going to go to these places from help. Secondly, the women who do recognise the subjugation aren't going to be allowed to go to these kinds of places, the men controlling them wont allow it.

Are you really trying to argue that the women don't realise their own suffering?
As for not being allowed - at least it would give them a safe haven they could escape to. If there aren't any what point is there escaping as they have nowhere to go.

Mark Hamill · 11-04-2011 03:41PM

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

28064212 wrote: »

"or permitted" seems to allow motorcycle helmets to be worn, regardless of whether they are on a bike or not. The latter part is an ambiguous translation, but again, it seems to imply that you can wear sports etc coverings at any time, not just when involved in the activities mentioned

It says "if permitted by law or regulation", so i would imagine that if you where wearing a motorcycle helmet, it would expected that you on a motorcycle, same with the mask. I dont think they have any law or regulation that specifically permits people to walk around in ski masks in public, so I dont see the justification for you claim.

Zombrex · 11-04-2011 03:41PM

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Where the tons of money come from?

You asked what the alternative is. That is the alternative, the only one that will actually do anything.

How much money the French are prepared to allocate to it is largely going to come down to how much they genuinely care about the oppression of Islamic women.

Not all that much would be my guess.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Firstly, for those women who can't recognise the subjugation they are under because of indoctrination, they aren't going to go to these places from help.

Nor will the burka ban do anything for these women. You aren't going to convince someone they are being oppressed by oppressing them.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Secondly, the women who do recognise the subjugation aren't going to be allowed to go to these kinds of places, the men controlling them wont allow it.

That is the point. They have to escape, and they have to be given support to escape. Again this ban does nothing for these women.

It is like banning the use of the word "slave" from 18th century America and sitting back congratulating yourselves for freeing the slaves.

These women end up exactly where they were before. They are in exactly the same abusive oppressive relationships and community they were before. But now the outside world can pretend it ain't happening any more.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

There are only about 2000 women who wear burkas anyway, I dont think are particularly visible anyway.

They are more visible than the ones that don't. And the French don't like seeing them. Concern for the women in the veil comes a distant second to the annoyance of the veil itself.

robindch · 11-04-2011 03:41PM

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

Mark Hamill wrote: »

There are only about 2000 women who wear burkas anyway, I dont think are particularly visible anyway.

Well, of course they're not visible -- they're walking around the place with sacks over their flippin' heads!

The issue upon which this debate turns, lest it be forgotten, is this: at what point can the reasonable freedom to wear whatever you want be subverted by fanatics so that they can enforce a self-aggrandizing ideology which entrenches primitive and unenlightened views concerning the roles, expectations, abilities and functions of everybody within society.

The view that the state should tolerate this kind of intolerable and intolerant behaviour is naive, to say the very least.

Scotty # · 11-04-2011 03:42PM

I'm religious and support the ban

pH wrote: »

I have no idea where you're getting your misinformation from.

The Act itself. Where are you getting your

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I may be naive, but I have actually read up on the law.

Really?? I don't think you read it right. BTW The law is here not on wikipedia.

Article 2 of the act...
II. - The prohibition in section 1 st does not apply if the conduct is required or permitted by law or regulation, whether it is justified by reasons of health or professional reasons, or if it fits in the context of sports, festivals or artistic or traditional.

If the 'covering' is artistic the act does not apply. Fancy dress (ie. the photo I posted) falls under Artistic does it not?

robindch · 11-04-2011 03:46PM

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

Wicknight wrote: »

It is like banning the use of the word "slave" from 18th century America and sitting back congratulating yourselves for freeing the slaves.

No, it's a bit more like banning the public use of shackles.

Doesn't solve the full problem, and it doesn't do it perfectly, but it's a good start.

Mark Hamill · 11-04-2011 03:46PM

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

bluewolf wrote: »

Are you really trying to argue that the women don't realise their own suffering?

Yes, sometimes. Heard of the Wako siege? People are indoctrinated into hurting themselves all the time.

bluewolf wrote: »

As for not being allowed - at least it would give them a safe haven they could escape to. If there aren't any what point is there escaping as they have nowhere to go.

Why do you assume that these woman can even escape? Do you think that the ones forced to wear the burka are allowed out without a male minder? That they would escape and leave their kids behind? I do believe there should be shelters, dont get me wrong, but I dont think its enough.

Morbert · 11-04-2011 03:47PM

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

Just to be clear, I'm not supporting an either-or scenario. I don't believe the ban on its own is sufficient.

Mark Hamill · 11-04-2011 03:49PM

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

Scotty # wrote: »

The Act itself. Where are you getting your

Really?? I don't think you read it right. BTW The law is here not on wikipedia.

Article 2 of the act...
II. - The prohibition in section 1 st does not apply if the conduct is required or permitted by law or regulation, whether it is justified by reasons of health or professional reasons, or if it fits in the context of sports, festivals or artistic or traditional.

If the 'covering' is artistic the act does not apply. Fancy dress (ie. the photo I posted) falls under Artistic does it not?

If you can prove its for a real event, then no it wouldn't fall under the law. If you just were wearing the thing around town, then it would.

pH · 11-04-2011 03:51PM

Scotty # wrote: »

If the 'covering' is artistic the act does not apply. Fancy dress (ie. the photo I posted) falls under Artistic does it not?

No the act clearly allows the wearing of face covering in an artistic/cultural context. These would be things such as traditional halloween activities including masked fancy dress. Despite some reporting in the press (about an interior minister's press release) the law only allows these in context - that said the French could enforce this anyway they like, and you may speculate that the French police will allow people walk around Paris in welding masks (whilst not welding) but not in burkas, but this is speculation, and not contained in the act.

Scotty # · 11-04-2011 03:51PM

I'm religious and support the ban

Mark Hamill wrote: »

If you can prove its for a real event, then no it wouldn't fall under the law. If you just were wearing the thing around town, then it would.

]If you can prove its for a real event?? It mentions nothing of this in the act. It simply says the law does not apply if the covering is artistic. Simple as.

sensibleken · 11-04-2011 03:55PM

I'm religious and support the ban

pH wrote: »

No the act clearly allows the wearing of face covering in an artistic/cultural context. These would be things such as traditional halloween activities including masked fancy dress. Despite some reporting in the press (about an interior minister's press release) the law only allows these in context - that said the French could enforce this anyway they like, and you may speculate that the French police will allow people walk around Paris in welding masks (whilst not welding) but not in burkas, but this is speculation, and not contained in the act.

Presumably as long as its not Islamic culture.

IngazZagni · 11-04-2011 03:58PM

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

I support this ban. It doesn't matter if it's for religious purposes or not. Wearing a balaclava or other face covering pieces of clothing shouldn't be allowed when walking around in public.

Zombrex · 11-04-2011 04:00PM

robindch wrote: »

No, it's a bit more like banning the public use of shackles.

Which is like banning the word "slave". It simply removes any visible signs of slavery to the outside world, while keeping slavery alive and well.

Again I really can't see how it is a start to anything?

Can someone run me through the senario they have in their head about how an oppressed Muslim women who has just been told she will be arrested if she wears the veil is more "free" because of this ban?

sensibleken · 11-04-2011 04:03PM

I'm religious and support the ban

IngazZagni wrote: »

I support this ban. It doesn't matter if it's for religious purposes or not. Wearing a balaclava or other face covering pieces of clothing shouldn't be allowed when walking around in public.

Why not?

Zombrex · 11-04-2011 04:06PM

robindch wrote: »

Well, of course they're not visible -- they're walking around the place with sacks over their flippin' heads!

The issue upon which this debate turns, lest it be forgotten, is this: at what point can the reasonable freedom to wear whatever you want be subverted by fanatics so that they can enforce a self-aggrandizing ideology which entrenches primitive and unenlightened views concerning the roles, expectations, abilities and functions of everybody within society.

Any reasonable freedom can be subverted by fanatics if they convince you to do it or oppress you into do it. That is part of being free. Freedom does not simply mean you can only do good healthy things.

The nutty solution to that is to ban the reasonable freedom under the guise that now they can't oppress you into do in. Scientologists convince people to sign over their homes to them. Is the solution to that to stop people being able to buy homes?

The idea that these women are more free because they have had a freedom removed is ridiculous. Its killing the patient to cure the disease. I really can't support this ban in any shape or form, it is mind bogglingly bad.

Burka ban

Comments