Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Sarkozy and the Burka (Page 1)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3   
Author Topic: Sarkozy and the Burka
Mynnion
Member
Member # 5287

 - posted      Profile for Mynnion   Email Mynnion   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Religious persecution or Abuse prevention?

CNN

I heard this yesterday and am glad I don't live in France. I understand Sarkozy's logic but at what point do individuals lose the right to practice their religion in a manner that they feel called to?

Is it possible to give women the choice and remove the possibility of forced acceptance? Should a government have the right to force an individual to violate their beliefs?

Posts: 1271 | Registered: Sep 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JoshCrow
Member
Member # 6048

 - posted      Profile for JoshCrow   Email JoshCrow   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I wouldn't have gone as far as to suggest legislating the matter, but I feel strongly that they should continue speaking out against the burqa and making it clear that women should not accept such a dehumanizing treatment.
Posts: 2281 | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Drake
Member
Member # 2128

 - posted      Profile for The Drake   Email The Drake   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Disallowing the burqua is just as bad as making it mandatory. At least, if you think there is actually something to this "freedom" business and it is not just an empty word.

Muslim women in france presumably have the right to trade the burqua for a short skirt and blouse, and have access to women's shelters to avoid their abusive husband/family. Just because their choice to be submissive irks you doesn't make it a social problem.

Posts: 7707 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mynnion
Member
Member # 5287

 - posted      Profile for Mynnion   Email Mynnion   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I actually wonder if this isn't more about religion and less about women's rights. Or possibly an attempt to cut down on conservative Muslim immigration?
Posts: 1271 | Registered: Sep 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
philnotfil
Member
Member # 1881

 - posted      Profile for philnotfil     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Are they going to forbid the habits that nuns wear also?
Posts: 3719 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
They tried once, but you know what they say about bad habits...
Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Doug64
Member
Member # 1044

 - posted      Profile for Doug64     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
from the article
PARIS, France (CNN) -- The French National Assembly announced Tuesday the creation of an inquiry into whether women in France should be allowed to wear the burka, one day after President Nicolas Sarkozy controversially told lawmakers that the traditional Muslim garment was "not welcome" in France.

"Allowed"? So long as a mode of dress preserves modesty, what business is it of government what people wear?
quote:
A cross-party panel of 32 lawmakers will investigate whether the traditional Muslim garment poses a threat to the secular nature of the French constitution....
[Roll Eyes]
quote:
Last week 57 lawmakers -- led by communist legislator Andre Gerin -- signed a petition calling for a study into the feasibility of legislation to ban the burka in public places.
Yeah, that's the ticket - if you don't agree with their religious beliefs, turn them into second-class citizens! What do they think is going to happen if a woman that insists on wearing a burka for religious reasons is summoned to court?
Posts: 2137 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
So long as a mode of dress preserves modesty, what business is it of government what people wear?
Is it just me, or does the first clause imply things that you wish to contradict with the second clause?
Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TommySama
Member
Member # 2780

 - posted      Profile for TommySama   Email TommySama       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I think he might have meant "So long as the women aren't running around naked, what business is it of government?"

Personally i think that ban should be lifted [Smile]

Posts: 6396 | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Doug64
Member
Member # 1044

 - posted      Profile for Doug64     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TommySama:
I think he might have meant "So long as the women aren't running around naked, what business is it of government?"

Pretty much.
quote:
Personally i think that ban should be lifted [Smile]
If that happened and enough women took advantage of it, one of two things would happen: either society would collapse because men can't keep their minds on business, or nudity would become no big deal (which would take a good deal of fun out of life).

[ June 23, 2009, 04:04 PM: Message edited by: Doug64 ]

Posts: 2137 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TommySama:
I think he might have meant "So long as the women aren't running around naked, what business is it of government?"

Well, yeah, I got that. But I am not sure why the government's interest in whether people are naked is taken for granted, while interest in what they are allowed to wear seems to be baffling.

Public nudism would be fine, except that traditions of modesty and privacy held by the majority would be undermined, and there'd be regulatory overhead (mainly involving public seating, I think).

Burkas would be fine too, except insofar as they counter the principles of sexual equality and personal freedom held by the majority, and require additional overhead in identification and other law enforcement procedures.

I'm not necessarily saying that I support the banning of burkas. I think that's a tricky question and I'm not prepared to vote one way or another (not that I can vote in France). I feel roughly the same about that as I do about banning public nudity. I understand why people want to do it, and I think they have some good points, but it doesn't seem like a cut and dried issue to me.

Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mynnion
Member
Member # 5287

 - posted      Profile for Mynnion   Email Mynnion   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
As you stated Sci public nudity would undermine the rights of others. The wearing of a burka at the most only effects those who belong to a religious culture where extreme modesty is an expectation.

Any government that acts to limit personal religious freedom scares me. Yes, there are valid arguments that attribute the wearing of a burka to sexual repression. I have heard Muslim women who are both supportive and opposed to wearing burkas so I do not have a strong opinion either way.

My concern is that when the government begins to intrude in personal religious choices how long before they start to dictate/limit any personal decisions that do not match the popular views.

Posts: 1271 | Registered: Sep 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"As you stated Sci public nudity would undermine the rights of others."

That's not what I was trying to state.

Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cherrypoptart
Member
Member # 3942

 - posted      Profile for cherrypoptart     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I didn't really agree with the rationale. If it was about public safety so you don't have people walking around essentially in ski masks maybe I could see the argument. But making it about freedom for women? Doesn't this take away some of their freedom?

As for the public nudity, I was just thinking it's kind of funny that perhaps for some fundamentalist Muslim men, women not wearing burqas basically is public nudity.

I'm not sure if it's true or not, but I hear that in some places over there if a woman is not wearing a burqa and she gets raped, she gets the blame. Men just can't be expected to restrain themselves when presented with that long flowing hair catching the light just so and blowing freely in the wind. And getting back to the naked thing, we don't hear about that being a rataionale against it, meaning that men couldn't be expected to control themselves in the face of butt naked women bouncing around all over the place, but at some level that might be part of our societal hesitance about allowing everyone to run around hanging a bit more freely.

Posts: 7675 | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"They tried once, but you know what they say about bad habits..."

[!RimShot!]

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Well, the cat's out of the bag, or at least TomySam and I wish it were.

If one can legally demand public modesty (no tits, no crotch, no bare buttocks, whatever), then one can demand the opposite.

Underneath it all, I'm sure part of the private legal chamber conversations center on the fact that it's harder to conceal a dynamite vest under average street wear than the head-to-toe drapes of a burkha.

Plus, yes: western Europe is feeling the pinch of creeping Muslim influence and isn't liking it.

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Imagine Bruce Willis the 6th Sense discovering he is one of the 'naked people' the boy sees: I see naked people...
Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The French are stupid.

I get the logic, but any serious regard for individual rights would show you just can't do it like that. What I would do is have female cops/social workers have the right to ask women (once per) to show them their faces and declare that they are wearing it of their own free will.

That can be justified under "yes it's your right to wear it, but we have overwhelming evidence that some are forced by violence and intimidation to wear this, so we're making sure."

Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Athelstan
Member
Member # 2566

 - posted      Profile for Athelstan   Email Athelstan   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Perhaps the British Government should ban wearing the burka on health grounds like they did with Hindu open air funeral pyres. Apparently rickets has resurfaced in the British Muslim community because women are not getting enough vitamin D from the sunlight available in the UK This reason would probably not work in France as they get a little more sunshine and the French tend to ban English words and ideas anyway.
Posts: 715 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Aris Katsaris
Member
Member # 888

 - posted      Profile for Aris Katsaris   Email Aris Katsaris   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
As some people indicated -- if you believe that the government has the right to disallow nudity, then logically it should also have the right to disallow other modes of dress.

Otherwise you're not taking the side of FREEDOM, you're taking the side of ENFORCED MODESTY. And if you take the side of enforced modesty, you can just as well argue that the Taliban were okay to force the burquas on women.

quote:
Disallowing the burqua is just as bad as making it mandatory.
No, it's not. In France there are more people who prefer not to wear it than there are people who prefer to wear it, therefore disallowing the burqua IN FRANCE is much better than making it mandatory (in France). Because the prohibition forces FEWER people to change their lives than making it obligatory would.

quote:
At least, if you think there is actually something to this "freedom" business and it is not just an empty word.
It's exactly because freedom is more than an empty word that we must check the circumstances every time before we easily proclaim such-and-such mandate as bad as its opposite.

Right now I don't know if the majority of burqua-wearing women in France are doing so because of intimidation or not. In those circumstances, even forbidding them something legally can be freeing them in PRACTICE - despite theory.

[ June 24, 2009, 05:14 AM: Message edited by: Aris Katsaris ]

Posts: 3318 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It's a painfully tangled issue.

There are pretty good public health reasons to say that everyone needs to at least keep pants (or what have you) on in public. While there are health issues around not enough sunlight, those are more personal and less tranmissable, so less in the scope of reasonable law.

On the more direct issue, determining what is being done of one's own free will is hard, if not outright impossible to determine. There are all manner of complicating factors, from social conditioning (if they've been trained from childhood to want it, is their expressed desire free will or brain washing?) or intimidation (if they're afraid not to wear it, they'll very likely be afraid to admit to anyone that they don't want to wear it, because such admissions can lead to future reprocussions. It's no different that any other abuse case- the very nature of abuse makes reporting it, not to mention testifying about it, nearly, if not outright impossible)

That said, their justifications and prior record seem more to favor the side that this is just attempts to rationalize discrimination against Muslims. I think there are probably better ways to go about protecting people from for oppressive systems than forcibly violating their basic beliefs; the main practical result of this I see it that it's going to end up with a lot more women confined to their homes, some even by personal choice.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Drake
Member
Member # 2128

 - posted      Profile for The Drake   Email The Drake   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
At the very least, we must demand genital coverage whilst riding the subway during rush hour. (Yeeeech!)

In principle, however, I don't see a problem with legal nudity other than the public health risk of third-degree sunburn in outrageously painful areas. Of course, you'd have to stop calling public urination a sex crime, but that should probably happen anyway and put it where it belongs under littering ordinances.

Posts: 7707 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Hygiene thongs are all that are needed to protect us from each other's lower grunginess.

Of course, if we care that much about groin grunge, we should all wear face masks in public and shake hands only wearing sterile gloves.

Put another way: far more illness is spread by a sneeze than by a fart, even a wet and juicy one.

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ironic aside: if the race between human pathogens and drugs to kill them grows much tighter (it's virtually neck and neck now) we may see a tendency toward burkhaesque fashion spread of its own.

The romance! Men fiddling their privates in the hidden shelter of their robe folds, while making titillating eye contact with that lovely lass across the aisle whose shape cannot be determined but whose sex is known by the pink of her habit.

[ June 24, 2009, 11:57 AM: Message edited by: kenmeer livermaile ]

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Transvestism would become considerably cheaper and more popular, I think.
Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
IrishTD
Member
Member # 2216

 - posted      Profile for IrishTD   Email IrishTD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Edit to add: From the linked article.

quote:
In 2004, the French parliament passed legislation banning Muslim girls from wearing headscarves in state schools, prompting widespread Muslim protests. The law also banned other conspicuous religious symbols including Sikh turbans, large Christian crucifixes and Jewish skull caps.


[ June 24, 2009, 01:18 PM: Message edited by: IrishTD ]

Posts: 825 | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
vulture
Member
Member # 84

 - posted      Profile for vulture   Email vulture   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Random thought on Sarkozy: when is he going to get around to bringing up women not being allowed to be priests in the catholic church, if he is so interested in women's rights?
Posts: 1768 | Registered: Oct 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rallan
Member
Member # 1936

 - posted      Profile for Rallan   Email Rallan   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mynnion:
As you stated Sci public nudity would undermine the rights of others.

Wait, what? We have a right not to be offended now? Awesome!
Posts: 2570 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Aris Katsaris
Member
Member # 888

 - posted      Profile for Aris Katsaris   Email Aris Katsaris   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
vulture -- it's called laicism. Means the state doesn't interfere in the church's affairs -- but neither does it allow it to interfere in the public sphere.

The call on the banning of the burka in public, same as the call on the banning of headscarves in schools falls under the principle that it's in practice used as a force of religious intrusion/coercion onto the public sphere.

Posts: 3318 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Finvarra
Member
Member # 2786

 - posted      Profile for Finvarra   Email Finvarra       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"The call on the banning of the burka in public, same as the call on the banning of headscarves in schools falls under the principle that it's in practice used as a force of religious intrusion/coercion onto the public sphere.

There's a difference between banning religious symbols in a state institution like a state-school and just the general public. There's also a difference between telling minors what they can do and telling adult women that despite the fact that they think they want to wear burkas, they really dont and they just dont understand how its a sign of degradation. (I disagree with the ban of religious symbols in schools too, but at least there's a bit more of an argument there.)

Even if it can be proven that the majority of women that wear burkas dont want to and only do it because they are intimidated under threat of violence (which I think would be a silly assumption to make) wearing a burka still shouldn't be made illegal. Threatening violence to women and forcing them to wear them should, and already is, illegal.

Individuals should have the right to practice their religion as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else, even if it seems degrading.

"And if you take the side of enforced modesty, you can just as well argue that the Taliban were okay to force the burquas on women."

I think that's a good point and you've convinced me that nudity shouldn't be banned in public.

France's position on these type of issues is completely hypocrital. Every Sunday you can still find Christian programs on public television, there are chapels in hospitals, military institutions and other state institutions. In Alsace-Lorraine (which was under German control in 1905 when the law of laïcité was enacted) they can incorporate Christian and Jewish principles into the teaching at schools (but not Muslim teachings) despite the fact that all schools are supposed to be secular.

I think this is a very clear effort by the state to Frenchify their Muslim population and to change their beliefs. While I personally agree that following a religion that forces you to wear a Burka in public is sexist and degrading, this is not the state's business.

Posts: 179 | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Aris Katsaris
Member
Member # 888

 - posted      Profile for Aris Katsaris   Email Aris Katsaris   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
"I think that's a good point and you've convinced me that nudity shouldn't be banned in public."
That's generally my own political opinion too. Don't ban burkas -- but don't ban nudity either. (Though crowded public places -- e.g. buses, subway, etc, could and should demand covering of the genitals, for public hygiene reasons.)
Posts: 3318 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Redskullvw
Member
Member # 188

 - posted      Profile for Redskullvw   Email Redskullvw   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"While I personally agree that following a religion that forces you to wear a Burka in public is sexist and degrading, this is not the state's business."

It becomes the state's business when the majority of the public as well as the very state enacted to protect the rights of the public becomes threatened. Burka's are great IED concealment devices. What is more assuming the state is empowered to protect the rights of all citizens, allowing a subculture to exist within the political boundaries controlled by the state that holds not all people have the same rights as the rest of the general public is a prescription for conflict. By allowing Muslim men to restrict their females as chattel in the manner of 1300 Medieval France, the Government is essentially agreeing that the Reformation and Enlightenment were wrong and women do not have the same inherent rights as free men. Ultimately by appeal to Sharia Law, Muslims inflict this upon their women. It is in stark contrast to French law where what you wear isn't suppossed to be a legal restriction on your rights. A woman wearing a Burka isn't concerned about French Laws or French individual rights.

She is worried about violating Sharia Law and offending Muslim male sensibilities and chattel rights.

If we as western democracies have spent the last 200 years deciding women are equal regardless of religion. And we have also agreed that servitude and chattel-hood are conditions intolerable in a free society, should we accept a sub-culture that holds women inferior, defines their roles in society based upon religion, enforces a servitude based upon religious law, and treats women as little more than breeding stock?

Ban the burka in public places. Allow it in homes, private clubs, religious places. But put out the law to the muslim comunity that Sharia law has no effect, and allowing people to don garments that totally conceal their faces and body is something we don't even allow criminals to do.

If you want your woman dressed head to toe in a burlap bag in your own home- and can convince her she should dress that way- bully for you. But you should not be able to dress her head to toe in a black sac and send her out shopping in public simply because your religious law is superior to any secular laws.

Western society learned the hard way that a secular law is best when not everyone is religious or even agrees on the religion to follow.

Posts: 6333 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Doug64
Member
Member # 1044

 - posted      Profile for Doug64     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Aris Katsaris:
vulture -- it's called laicism. Means the state doesn't interfere in the church's affairs -- but neither does it allow it to interfere in the public sphere.

Which is contrary to the millennia-long Judeo-Christian tradition that a primary duty, not just right, of religious leaders is to speak truth to power - which is by definition "interference in the public sphere."
quote:
The call on the banning of the burka in public, same as the call on the banning of headscarves in schools falls under the principle that it's in practice used as a force of religious intrusion/coercion onto the public sphere.
The problem with this that it's simply a refusal to allow a sub-group to set itself apart from the rest of society through their dress. Do you think that Jewish skull caps should be banned? And what about distinct hair styles?
quote:
Originally posted by Redskullvw:
Ban the burka in public places. Allow it in homes, private clubs, religious places. But put out the law to the Muslim community that Sharia law has no effect, and allowing people to don garments that totally conceal their faces and body is something we don't even allow criminals to do.

And in the process turn women that believe their religion requires wearing burkas when outside of private residences into second class citizens, unable to hold jobs or even shop. And what happens if such a woman is summoned to attend court? She has a choice between violating her religious beliefs or the law, and all over what she chooses to wear?
quote:
O Paddy dear, and did ye hear the news that's goin' round?
The shamrock is by law forbid to grow on Irish ground!
No more Saint Patrick's Day we'll keep, his color can't be seen
For there's a cruel law ag'in the Wearin' o' the Green."
I met with Napper Tandy, and he took me by the hand
And he said, "How's poor old Ireland, and how does she stand?"
"She's the most distressful country that ever yet was seen
For they're hanging men and women there for the Wearin' o' the Green."

"So if the color we must wear be England's cruel red
Let it remind us of the blood that Irishmen have shed
And pull the shamrock from your hat, and throw it on the sod
But never fear, 'twill take root there, though underfoot 'tis trod.

When laws can stop the blades of grass from growin' as they grow
And when the leaves in summer-time their color dare not show
Then I will change the color too I wear in my caubeen
But till that day, please God, I'll stick to the Wearin' o' the Green.


Posts: 2137 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cherrypoptart
Member
Member # 3942

 - posted      Profile for cherrypoptart     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
> Doug64

> And in the process turn women that believe their religion requires wearing burkas when outside of private residences into second class citizens, unable to hold jobs or even shop. And what happens if such a woman is summoned to attend court? She has a choice between violating her religious beliefs or the law, and all over what she chooses to wear?

I'm sure I shouldn't say this, and in fact "I" am NOT saying it, but this is such a good point, that some Islamic fundamentalists might actually find it impossible to live in France while obeying the law, that one might wonder if the whole purpose of banning the burka isn't to encourage the most devout Muslims to seek another country of residence.

And the part where I get in trouble is when I ask is that really such a bad thing?

In it's way, it's actually rather clever.

Transparent also. France is basically saying that Muslims, at least those who adhere to a strict interpretation of the Koran, are no longer welcome. Maybe it has something to do with the "youth" protests a while back.

The quandary for liberals here is kind of amusing (getting myself into more trouble probably) because in order to defend tolerance towards Muslims they have to be careful that they aren't encouraging the subjugation of women. Good luck with that.

Posts: 7675 | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Doug64
Member
Member # 1044

 - posted      Profile for Doug64     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by cherrypoptart:
I'm sure I shouldn't say this, and in fact "I" am NOT saying it, but this is such a good point, that some Islamic fundamentalists might actually find it impossible to live in France while obeying the law, that one might wonder if the whole purpose of banning the burka isn't to encourage the most devout Muslims to seek another country of residence.

Or possibly a way of disenfranchising a large part of the population of French fundamentalist Muslims, push them out of the public square. If so, it's certainly a lot more subtle than what Congress did in the later 1800s, when it eliminated the right of women to vote in then-Utah Territory.
quote:
And the part where I get in trouble is when I ask is that really such a bad thing?
Only if you have no problem with creating martyrs - I do. Not only does that turn the subgroup against the government, it's likely to radicalize Islamic French citizens. Right now, France doesn't have a true terrorism problem. But if it keeps this up, it might.
quote:
The quandary for liberals here is kind of amusing (getting myself into more trouble probably) because in order to defend tolerance towards Muslims they have to be careful that they aren't encouraging the subjugation of women. Good luck with that.
So long as the burka is a free choice for Muslim women, I'd say that the ones using the Law to subjugate women is the French state.
Posts: 2137 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Redskullvw
Member
Member # 188

 - posted      Profile for Redskullvw   Email Redskullvw   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Doug

I cant even wear a hat through the metal detector, or wear a winter jacket through the metal detector entrance to a courtroom, airport, library, or school where I live. Exactly why should a woman be allowed to be covered head to toe in a concealing garment?

At some point the right to emphatically follow your religion in a manner that places everyone in potential danger ends. We don't allow people to wear masks in public while conducting their daily public lives. There are a few states where the Governor has to specifically grant children permission to dress in masks for Halloween. Otherwise, we as open societies do not allow people to routinely obscure their faces and bodies in public.

Posts: 6333 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by cherrypoptart:
> Doug64

> And in the process turn women that believe their religion requires wearing burkas when outside of private residences into second class citizens, unable to hold jobs or even shop. And what happens if such a woman is summoned to attend court? She has a choice between violating her religious beliefs or the law, and all over what she chooses to wear?

I'm sure I shouldn't say this, and in fact "I" am NOT saying it, but this is such a good point, that some Islamic fundamentalists might actually find it impossible to live in France while obeying the law, that one might wonder if the whole purpose of banning the burka isn't to encourage the most devout Muslims to seek another country of residence.

And the part where I get in trouble is when I ask is that really such a bad thing?

It is when you confuse devout with extremist. The two are not the same, and the problem there goes only to determining whether women are truly and freely participating, or whether they are bing coerced, which is so vague a line that there's no good way to define it. (Especially where there are clearer lines, such as forced circumcision, that the government isn't stepping in to protect people from at the same time)

The argument about banning concealing garments is likewise empty, unless they're banning all skirts and dresses, robes, traditional African grab, dusters, trench coats, and the like. Targeting just one of many kinds of large loose fitting garments makes protesting public safety as the motivation clearly absurd.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Doug64
Member
Member # 1044

 - posted      Profile for Doug64     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Redskullvw:
Doug

I cant even wear a hat through the metal detector, or wear a winter jacket through the metal detector entrance to a courtroom, airport, library, or school where I live. Exactly why should a woman be allowed to be covered head to toe in a concealing garment?

At some point the right to emphatically follow your religion in a manner that places everyone in potential danger ends. We don't allow people to wear masks in public while conducting their daily public lives. There are a few states where the Governor has to specifically grant children permission to dress in masks for Halloween. Otherwise, we as open societies do not allow people to routinely obscure their faces and bodies in public.

If you want to argue the question of burkas from the standpoint of public safety I'll mostly agree with you, and even point out that it's the actions of Islamists that have gone a long way toward creating the need to to be so careful. But that isn't the reason put forward by the French government for their opposition, but rather a worry that burkas are "a threat to the secular nature of the French constitution." That I have a major problem with. Then there's Sarkozy's statement: "The problem of the burka is not a religious problem. This is an issue of a woman's freedom and dignity. This is not a religious symbol. It is a sign of subservience; it is a sign of lowering." Don't you think the question of what is and isn't a religious symbol should be decided by those that actually belong to that religion, not outsiders?
Posts: 2137 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Redskullvw
Member
Member # 188

 - posted      Profile for Redskullvw   Email Redskullvw   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Well it is a threat to the French constitution. In so far as the male muslim requirement of muslim women to submit to a religious and social law which not only precludes the authority of the secular French government but also compels the muslim male to insure that his females abide by only sharia law. By the subtrefuge of an apeal to religious rights and exceptional treatments meant to prevent a multicultural conflict, the muslimsare creating a case of social activities that inhernetly undermine the existence of the French legal authority to secular rule.

Would you tolerate a new government within your own borders which not only demanded an enforced special exception from the legitimate government but also set up its own laws and customs that explicitely declare the rule and authority of the secular government to be inherently worthless and unenforceable?

I don't know in practical terms we dont allow any one to run around in a mask for any other religion. We don't allow people to wear masks at all except at private parties or on Halloween. So why then do we not only have to permit muslim women to wear a penal uniform of head to toe concealment but also agree that a legal construct and body of interpreted laws that supports this can be allowed to exist freely and exclusively protected?

I mean Sharia essential holds any law but Sharia is invalid. And you want to promote a legal system that has as its goal the repudiation of secular laws as well as repudiate western traditions that allow our women to be something more than designated penis receptacles?

Posts: 6333 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I find the whole "don't ban nudity if you don't wanna ban the Burka" thing disingenuous, although I have no problem with it being controlled at the lowest local authority (i.e. municipal). Town wants to be nudist? Fine. But for most people, nudity is very distracting. It's not offensive (well, Rush in his bday suit would be pretty stomach-upsetting, I'm sure...) - it's simply distracting. That's how we're wired.

France, being a very centralized, top-bottom polity, is doing it that way, which is wrong. They should do it municipally.

Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1