France Bans the Burqa

[Pangloss]

French Parliament votes almost unanimously to ban the burqa. Fox News and CTR are ranting about how this means they're less tolerant of free speech than the US, but Bill O'Reilly pointed out, as have some columnists today, and the French themselves are saying, that this is actually a move against the men who force their women to wear them. The idea seems to be that a total ban is the only way to prevent this abuse.

 

I think that's what France is doing, but I think it also lies in sync with French socialistic principles. That idea wouldn't fly in the US not because it's wrong to fight domestic abuse, but because it's wrong to place limitations on free speech even to protect a minority.

 

In other words, it's like banning the N word. You'd love to do it, but it's clearly a violation of free speech.

 

What do you all think?

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

I have read quotes from French men saying "Well, if they can't wear the burqa, I just can't let them out of the house."

 

Seems like a pretty awful unintended consequence to me. The religious aspect makes it difficult; I assume many of the women do believe that wearing the burqa is their duty, and will be as angry at the government as their spouses.

 

I don't think easy legislation would solve the perceived problem without social and religious aspects.

[DJBruce]

This seems like a ridiculous ban. First, are men really forcing women to wear burqas? I would guess that most people who follow these customs do so out of adherence of their own religion. Secondly, no matter how restricting we view a certain religion practice we should not necessarily outlaw it.

[JohnB]

I think that they may have simply chosen the most basic option.

 

Can a woman wear a Burka while driving? If they can, should they? Of what value is photographic ID if the person is veiled? Either in the photo or in person?

 

To try a partial ban for IDs and the like would be a nightmare to write as Legislation, by the time you got through with all the exceptions, wherebys and wherefores you'd have 5,000 pages. You would also be faced with rediculous contradictions. For example, motorcycle riders in most nations are required by law to wear helmets, but they are also required by law to remove these headcoverings when entering a bank to allow for identification. So you would have the situation where the person wearing a headcovering because of the law is required to remove it but the person wearing a headcovering from choice is not.

 

Far easier to have a total ban.

[PhDP]

France bans the burqa...

Switzerland bans Minarets...

Belgium, Italy and the Netherland are going the same road (some cities in Netherland are trying to cut social benefits from women wearing burqas...)...

In Quebec, you can't received government services if your face is covered (yep, a new law).

 

It's ridiculous, in part because it's a clear violation of individual rights, but also because it's completely counterproductive. It's the best way to make Muslims feel unwelcome, and I'm sure it will only slow down the inevitable downfall of the niqad/burqa. Quebec's new law have done nothing to encourage women to remove their niqab/burqa. On the other hand, because of the new law, a perfectly well-integrated women trying to learn French was kicked out of school.

[ParanoiA]

So they counter coercion with coercion. Sounds very American.

 

Yeah, it's obviously laced with "good intentions", just like murdering child molesters seems really great, until you realize you're worse than them, or at least equal. Being equal with dirt is not an impressive aspiration. I guess it's good intentions to deny the right to women who find comfort in such things - you just can't have women making their own decisions now can you? Anyone else see the double dip of hypocrisy on this one?

 

And how does society reconcile state hypocrisy like this? Nationwide cognitive dissonance management...or self delusion? Nice to verify we aren't the only ones on the planet that can't follow through on personal liberties and leave people the hell alone.

 

So yeah, it's great. Hey, how about banning long dresses and clothing designed to conceal legs and cleavage next? Men are always pressuring their women to cover up, so maybe France or even the US can save those poor girls and ban the props that make it possible. All girls like to show off their body, just like all girls hate Burqas - all of them.

[CharonY]

Considering the extremely low prevalence of burqas in France (various report estimate between 300-2000 max, out of a population of around 5 million Muslims), I would think that the main reason for this law is (as so often) score cheap points with the voters.

And I agree with the above posters that an outright ban is at best counterproductive. The only good part is the protection against forcing to wear it.

[ParanoiA]

Considering the extremely low prevalence of burqas in France (various report estimate between 300-2000 max, out of a population of around 5 million Muslims), I would think that the main reason for this law is (as so often) score cheap points with the voters.

And I agree with the above posters that an outright ban is at best counterproductive. The only good part is the protection against forcing to wear it.

 

I'm not sure how far that goes though. For one, they may not even see the light of day at all, now, if their husbands do keep them inside to refute this law. Two, how many wear them for personal comfort (and I don't mean physical comfort) and how many were forced to wear them by their husbands? (For that matter, what gives the state a right to trump the dom-sub relationship here? If my wife enjoys being subservient to me, would France destroy this interface agreement because they find it distasteful? That's what they're doing when they assume control over this very personal choice - they are assuming every woman is a helpless victim if she's wearing a Burqa, without regard to her personal choice to be subservient, or to find comfort in virtually eliminating sexual objectivity via their attire.)

 

Talking about this with folks at work, and now I'm even more offended. In the interests of women denied the right to choose their dress, the state denied their right to choose their dress. And that's...uh...better? Am I in the twilight zone?

 

This is like the guy that saves the damsel in distress that was tied to a tree, only to be tied to a chair so she can't be tied to the tree. And grown ups did this.

[PhDP]

The only good part is the protection against forcing to wear it.

 

I don't like this part, and the penalty is too high (up to 30 000 euro + 1 year in prison). I agree 100% with ParanoiA here, it's too subjective, and if the husband is threatening to kill his wife if she doesn't wear the burqa, well, it's already illegal.

 

But I must say the thing that infuriates me the most in this law is the "citizenship class" for offending women. It's just incredible to see this kind of thing in the so called "free world".

[ewmon]

In this Age of Terrorism, I have no problem with banning the wearing of masks in public for security and identity reasons. In America, government buildings and banks ban the wearing hats, hoods and sunglasses while inside. How could one ever discern whether the person fully hidden except for the eyes is a fat Muslim woman or a ninja loaded with explosives, guns etc. You can't even see if they have hairy knuckles when trying to determine gender, and anyone can whisper in a falsetto. How could the police determine their identity without undressing them?

 

What if everyone went around dressed like this?

Women can wear head scarves and sunglasses.

[ParanoiA]

In this Age of Terrorism, I have no problem with banning the wearing of masks in public for security and identity reasons. In America, government buildings and banks ban the wearing hats, hoods and sunglasses while inside. How could one ever discern whether the person fully hidden except for the eyes is a fat Muslim woman or a ninja loaded with explosives, guns etc. You can't even see if they have hairy knuckles when trying to determine gender, and anyone can whisper in a falsetto. How could the police determine their identity without undressing them?

 

What if everyone went around dressed like this?

Women can wear head scarves and sunglasses.

 

I could be wrong, but I haven't yet heard of a terrorist attack that used a Burqa to hide bombs strapped to someone's head. If you're actually serious about trading yet more freedom for the illusion of security, then you should follow through and ban clothing in public. That's where the bombs are man - strapped to their body. Not their noggin. The Burqa only conceals their gender, not their sinister plot and props to execute it. How can the police determine they have bombs without undressing them?

 

Carrying your logic, our right to wear clothes should be trumped by your apparent right to not be afraid of your own perceptions. Oh, you can still wear head scarves and sunglasses though.

 

 

 

The first thing I would do is throw a literal towel over my head, with 3 slits in it, and try to figure out just how I have to wear it before it becomes a Burqa. How far do I raise my scarf over my face before it becomes an offensive, non-person violation of law? I would cover my entire body with a bed sheet and stash a bunch of stuff underneath so you can tell I'm concealing all kinds of things, but leave my face perfectly visible - maybe even make sure some wire is hanging out where someone can see it.

 

I would mock the law for the shallow affront to liberty and common sense that it is.

[john5746]

 

Can a woman wear a Burka while driving? If they can, should they? Of what value is photographic ID if the person is veiled? Either in the photo or in person?

 

 

I see this issue as the most important. Some states and DC have laws against hiding your face in certain public areas. I would think France could generalize this to any facial covering - unless there is a function, such as helmet, extreme weather, sickness, etc. In regards to "speech", well streaking isn't allowed and it has no other ramifications other than decency, as far as I can tell. Again religion trumped by reason, I know - life is hard.

[tomgwyther]

This banning of certain items of clothing is madness gone politically correct.

The whole idea is so laughable; that there is now a Frence fashon police telling people what not to wear.

One thing I admire about the French is that if a law is introduced which they disagree with, the people simply ignor it en-masse, thus making it unenforceable. The French also have a reputation for removing the heads of those in power whom they dislike... Tread carefully French legislators.

Hopefully they'll have the common sense to ignor this law intirely.

 

While they're at it, could they ban French students who are visiting England, from clogging up buses and stairwells with their massive, multi-coloured back-packs?

[Marat]

There are two brands of liberalism, ordinary and militant. According to ordinary liberalism, everyone should be free to act as he pleases, unless he actually harms someone else. According to militant liberalism, no one may do anything which harms or threatens liberal values. The first sort of liberailsm is epitomized in the U.S., the second sort is found in France, Germany, and Canada. Thus in Germany it is illegal to establish a political party which threatens liberal values, such as Nazism, but in the U.S., freedom means being free even to found a Nazi Party. In the U.S., short of libel and shouting fire in a crowded theater, you can say what you like, but in Canada, you can't say anything that would promote hate against an identifiable group, since that would harm the atmosphere of liberal tolerance. Forbidding women to wear an outfit that implies the denial of their human dignity is typical of militant liberalism.

 

Generally, ordinary liberalism is preferable, since once the government gets in the business of deciding whose exercise of freedom is threatening to what liberal value, the exercise of that power easily becomes unfair, unreasonable, and simply expresses the government's dislike for some activities and approval of others.

[pioneer]

The French are boneheads when it comes to the Burqa. They wish to create a new victimless crime. Right now a woman may be a prisoner in her culture due to dress. But once the law is instituted she will also become also a criminal of the state, doubling her injustice. To make the math add up, the doubling of victimization implies the doubling of criminals, with the state providing new legal criminals under the subjective guise of doing good. Picture a gang of police, guns, tear gas and bullet proof vests, busting down a door, to confiscate a closet of burqa. The boneheads that came up with that, must expect to get a kickback from the black market they will help create. I would make it illegal for boneheads to create such laws. I would prefer the gang of police break into the boneheads' house. This way the black market is nipped in the bud.

 

If they form the law and a black market forms, should these leaders be placed in prison for assisting organized crime form a new branch?

[jimmydasaint]

There are two brands of liberalism, ordinary and militant. According to ordinary liberalism, everyone should be free to act as he pleases, unless he actually harms someone else. According to militant liberalism, no one may do anything which harms or threatens liberal values. The first sort of liberailsm is epitomized in the U.S., the second sort is found in France, Germany, and Canada. Thus in Germany it is illegal to establish a political party which threatens liberal values, such as Nazism, but in the U.S., freedom means being free even to found a Nazi Party. In the U.S., short of libel and shouting fire in a crowded theater, you can say what you like, but in Canada, you can't say anything that would promote hate against an identifiable group, since that would harm the atmosphere of liberal tolerance. Forbidding women to wear an outfit that implies the denial of their human dignity is typical of militant liberalism.

 

Generally, ordinary liberalism is preferable, since once the government gets in the business of deciding whose exercise of freedom is threatening to what liberal value, the exercise of that power easily becomes unfair, unreasonable, and simply expresses the government's dislike for some activities and approval of others.

 

Well described and delineated. I agree with the 'broad strokes' of what you have said. What are the freedoms for which Western countries have gone to war against the 'Axis of Evil?' If I am correct, it is ordinary liberalism. It involves:

 

a) political freedom: the right to preach and practise your political, or personal views in a party system, or out of it;

b ) economic freedom: the right to acquire money by production of goods or offering services, as long as these do not involve crime;

c) individual freedom: the right to practise, preach or propagate one's beliefs, or personal practices, no matter how unusual.

 

All of these freedoms depend on not encroaching on the rights of others. If a person wants to wear a burqa, and feels that she is free to make that choice, without being forced by a husband, then liberal democracies cannot, and should not, encroach on her rights. From what little I know of the Muslim religion, it is not an article of faith to wear a burqa at all. This passage seems quite clear:

But most Islamic interpretations make it clear that the head and body of the woman should be covered in such a manner that the hair and figure should not be displayed. The book provides guidelines that govern behavior as well. For example, the verse states, “…say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty; that they should not display their beauty and ornaments except what must ordinarily appear thereof” (Quran 24:30-31)

 

Link

 

In short, those who want their wives to wear the burqa are over zealous Muslims. Anyway, I think that Muslim women actually rule the roost at home but the men have a pretence of being the dominant partner outside the house. Human nature is really the same, the world over...

Edited July 17, 2010 by jimmydasaint

[john5746]

Syria bans the burqa at university

 

Interesting.

 

Well, a ban does place limits on freedom, which already exist. I think it is a very reasonable limit to require some attire in public, but not completely hide your identity. One can express themselves politically and spiritually without being nude, covering themselves in a sheet or wearing pornographic or obscene language on their clothing. I'm sure some people would love to fornicate on a highway. So sorry to infringe on their freedoms, but we do live in a society.

[Marat]

Since religions are not rational, it is impossible to predict what they may have to insist on being allowed to do in public in order to express themselves. The Dukobors, for example, insisted on parading around naked every now and then, and were often prosecuted for this. What is disruptive of society and what is not is usually not objectively determined. Thus even though church bells can disturb people who have to sleep late, who are ill, or are hypersensitive to loud noises or certain tones, we allow them, simply because they are so usual in our culture that we regard them as a necessary and harmless background irritation which everyone has to endure. But because women wearing a veil are so culturally unusual, the objective difficulties they cause to our use of identity cards, driver's licenses, bank security, etc., are regarded as too high a social cost to pay. However, from a purely objective perspective, is the social disruption of Islamic garb for women worse or less serious than the disruption caused by Christian ringing of church bells?

[ParanoiA]

Syria bans the burqa at university

 

Interesting.

 

Well, a ban does place limits on freedom, which already exist. I think it is a very reasonable limit to require some attire in public, but not completely hide your identity. One can express themselves politically and spiritually without being nude, covering themselves in a sheet or wearing pornographic or obscene language on their clothing. I'm sure some people would love to fornicate on a highway. So sorry to infringe on their freedoms, but we do live in a society.

 

A society that rationalizes denying one the right to wear a friggin towel or cloth over your face and actually expects to be taken seriously is a society unworthy of respect. This isn't violent animal sex in front of a children's school bus stop, this is clothing for crying out loud - more clothing, not less.

 

I know this is France, but forcing people to show their face in public? What is the function of this? Why does your right to readily identify them by facial signature trump their right to cover up their face? Why do you feel any of us have a right to see one another's face? I don't get this.

 

No, I think this is logic that works backward from your preference. You simply notice that 99.9% of all of the public shows their face and does not wish to cover it. So that has become common place and "normal" for you. The idea of anything, otherwise, simply lacks sensibility and undermines the processes you depend on and put in place that took advantage of that voluntary, universal choice of face exposure. So, you work backward to make believe you actually have a pragmatic reason, a functional appeal, in order to intervene and stop those few who don't behave so universally.

 

That's the problem with appeals to tradition, which is all this "identification" argument boils down to - they are functions of paradigm and boxed up thinking. Law abiding citizens don't need to be identified by examination of facial terrain. Why would they? And to require that law abiding citizens should alter their behavior because criminals will copy that behavior to cover up their illegal activities is short sighted and creates the short path to comedic and tyrannical legilslation. We don't ban clothes despite the drugs and weapons criminals hide in them.

 

What's next? Will shyness not be allowed? No weirdos anymore? Anybody who wears weird clothes that France thinks is holding them back as a "person" or some goofy social obligation they've deluded themselves into believing all of their citizens owe each other and more rights are edited for the precious majority?

 

It's sick. That's all there is to it. They should be ashamed of themselves. And that a joke like America notices it, ought to say more than anything else.

Edited July 20, 2010 by ParanoiA

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Apparently the French law also imposes fines and prison sentences on men who force their wives to wear burqas in public.

 

I'm happier with that, although I'm not sure I get the point: if the wife doesn't wear her burqa, what will happen? If the husband responds with abuse, that's already illegal. I suppose he and his family could shun her, but a prison sentence won't fix that. Is there another option I'm forgetting?

[john5746]

 

I know this is France, but forcing people to show their face in public? What is the function of this? Why does your right to readily identify them by facial signature trump their right to cover up their face? Why do you feel any of us have a right to see one another's face? I don't get this.

 

Why does my right not to see your genitals flopping about in public supersede your right to display them? Why have photo id cards or video surveillance?

 

No, I think this is logic that works backward from your preference. You simply notice that 99.9% of all of the public shows their face and does not wish to cover it. So that has become common place and "normal" for you. The idea of anything, otherwise, simply lacks sensibility and undermines the processes you depend on and put in place that took advantage of that voluntary, universal choice of face exposure. So, you work backward to make believe you actually have a pragmatic reason, a functional appeal, in order to intervene and stop those few who don't behave so universally.

 

I'll admit that I do this with nudity, but not with this issue. I would prefer to see less of most people. I just see the need to be able to identify people in public. It is a legitimate public safety concern. I would think banks, schools and any business or roads with video surveillance would require it, so might as well deal with the problem head on.

 

 

What's next? Will shyness not be allowed? No weirdos anymore? Anybody who wears weird clothes that France thinks is holding them back as a "person" or some goofy social obligation they've deluded themselves into believing all of their citizens owe each other and more rights are edited for the precious majority?

 

I guess next is just to go towards anarchy, since any rules will slide down the slope towards fascism. Ban nukes, next thing you know they'll come for your BB guns. Ban some drugs and the rest will follow. Rules just give the government more power and they can't enforce them anyway.

[ParanoiA]

Why does my right not to see your genitals flopping about in public supersede your right to display them? Why have photo id cards or video surveillance?

 

To your first question, honestly I don't know. I don't see how people make exceptions to freedom and liberty because they're more offended by genitals than exposed warts, pimples, liver spots - and the other dozen nasty treats people don't cover up on their bodies.

 

Photo ID cards would be good for indentifying people when they choose to be indentified - like partially removing a Burqa to prove the facial photo matches. Video Surveillance is useful for folks who don't cover up unique identifiers - like tatoos, birth marks, or faces.

 

I'll admit that I do this with nudity, but not with this issue. I would prefer to see less of most people. I just see the need to be able to identify people in public. It is a legitimate public safety concern. I would think banks, schools and any business or roads with video surveillance would require it, so might as well deal with the problem head on.

 

It's only a problem for those who built and designed their systems on a purely voluntary behavior (exposing one's face) and now wish to act all surprised that some would not wish to duplicate that voluntary behavior and now want us all to pretend like it's such a foregone conclusion that all societies require exposed faces with baseless assertions of public safety. Bottom line is law enforcement has always depended on the fairly universal reality that everyone exposes the most obviously unique indentifier about them - their face. Because of this investment, folks extending their clothing rights to their faces creates a problem for law enforcement - the state - not the people themselves.

 

To put this back on the people to alter their behavior is precisely why people like me hate the federal central government so damn much - to flippantly dismiss other's choices because the great, benevolent federal government can't be bothered. If the great statists didn't think of it or didn't plan for it, then the people are to do without. That's the federalist's answer. That's the answer we'll get on this too when it comes to the states.

 

People love tyranny here in the states. They're all charged up over themselves and their little opinions they think are so special. I hope I'm alive to watch them all choke.

Edited July 20, 2010 by ParanoiA

[PhDP]

I just see the need to be able to identify people in public. It is a legitimate public safety concern. I would think banks, schools and any business or roads with video surveillance would require it, so might as well deal with the problem head on.

 

I think it's irrelevant to the present discussion. If banks feel they can't tolerate the burqa for legitimate safety reasons, they can ban it. It's a simple as that. But if a women want to wear a burqa on the street, honestly I doubt it poses a serious threat to anybody.

 

I guess next is just to go towards anarchy, since any rules will slide down the slope towards fascism. Ban nukes, next thing you know they'll come for your BB guns. Ban some drugs and the rest will follow. Rules just give the government more power and they can't enforce them anyway.

 

There is often a trade-off between freedom X and freedom Y (of course, not always, I can't see how, for example, banning gay marriages or prostitution increase any freedom). IMO, banning nukes (and guns) is a very minor inconvenient, and significantly increase freedom. I'm very happy to live in a town where I can let my girlfriend or my teenage cousin walk absolutely anywhere, at any hour, without any worries, and this incredible freedom hasn't come at the expense of any important freedom.

Edited July 21, 2010 by PhDP