Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

French MPs vote to ban Islamic full veil in public

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
dipsydoodle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-13-10 10:50 AM
Original message
French MPs vote to ban Islamic full veil in public
Source: BBC News

France's lower house of parliament has overwhelmingly approved a bill that would ban wearing the Islamic full veil in public.

There were 335 votes for the bill and only one against in the National Assembly.

It must now be ratified by the Senate in September to become law.

The ban has strong public support but critics point out that only a tiny minority of French Muslims wear the full veil.

Read more: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/10611398.stm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
MellowDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-13-10 10:54 AM
Response to Original message
1. Between this and the ban on minarets in Switzerland...
Europe looks a hell of a lot more bigoted than here. Lord knows what would happen if they had anything approaching the diversity of the US. I guess their liberalism doesn't include much tolerance.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tritsofme Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-13-10 11:15 AM
Response to Reply #1
6. Why shouldn't we be sensitive and respect France's secular culture?
France is a secular nation, something to consider before deciding to live there. I am sure our fundies would not be very happy there either.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MellowDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-13-10 11:21 AM
Response to Reply #6
7. Because they don't respect other cultures....
What is secular culture anyways? I don't think it exists. It's just culture. It's French culture. Secularism doesn't say anything about wearing a head covering. France has a secular government. That's different from having secularism as the "state religion". France is a multicultural (and religious) nation. This law doesn't reflect that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jberryhill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-13-10 12:33 PM
Response to Reply #6
16. French Carmelite Nuns - Behold:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spanza Donating Member (363 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-13-10 12:34 PM
Response to Reply #16
18. Hahah... exactly! nt
Edited on Tue Jul-13-10 12:34 PM by spanza
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
humblebum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-13-10 06:31 PM
Response to Reply #18
65. Do you remember IT on the Addams family? He/she would've
had to get a haircut.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dflprincess Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-14-10 12:31 PM
Response to Reply #16
98. The Carmelites are cloistered order and do not go out in public.
Not that I agree with the law just passed, but it does say the ban applies to wearing the veil in public.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
La Lioness Priyanka Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-13-10 12:34 PM
Response to Reply #6
19. secular means not having to do with religion. condemning religion is not necessarily secular
i may not agree with the views of the pope, but i cant make a law demanding catholics never wear a picture of him on their t-shirts. that would not be secular
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
krabigirl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-13-10 07:24 PM
Response to Reply #6
72. You can wear crosses and nun's habits wherever you please there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JackRiddler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-14-10 03:40 PM
Response to Reply #6
108. Secular doesn't come with a dress code, and if you visit Europe and listen for a while...
you'll know this and other proposals are as much due to a Christian reaction to the presence of Muslims as it is the "secular" one it clothes itself as. Which is not to make light of the problems of those women who are indeed subjugated forced to dress and behave a certain way against their will. This ban just ain't the enlightenment at work as claimed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
and-justice-for-all Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-14-10 03:49 PM
Response to Reply #6
109. I agree...nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tumbulu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-13-10 12:30 PM
Response to Reply #1
15. So allowing men to boss women into wearing uncomfortable
and ridiculous clothing in public is OK with you?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jberryhill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-13-10 12:34 PM
Response to Reply #15
17. Does it apply to these women:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
amandabeech Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-13-10 12:49 PM
Response to Reply #17
25. Their faces are visible, so it is okay.
What the law refers to is the face covering that only allows a slit for the eyes or else a screen for them, as in a burka.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jberryhill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-13-10 01:00 PM
Response to Reply #25
29. There are Christian nuns which wear a full face veil
Edited on Tue Jul-13-10 01:01 PM by jberryhill
And there are ordinary women who go out in cold weather:



So is this what you call a "screen"?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
uppityperson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-13-10 01:06 PM
Response to Reply #29
31. From Le Monde (translated), so far, yes. No ski masks.
The text of the keeper, Michele Alliot-Marie , largely inspired by a bill the patron of UMP deputies, Jean-Francois Cope , do not specifically target the full veil but prohibits "concealment of the face."

"During the meeting of the Law Committee, Mr. Glavany said that politicians from left and right, "all agreed on the ban" the full veil, but that there was "a variation on the ways and fields of the ban. "Censorship by the Constitutional Council or the European Court of Human Rights would be a priceless gift is the fundamentalists," said the member of the Hautes-Pyrenees. So in the street. "We can not limit the ban, which can only be general," replied the UMP rapporteur of the bill, Jean-Paul Garraud , who appealed to the left: "It is important to find a general agreement on this fundamental issue after the parliamentary resolution passed unanimously. The general prohibition in the bill is "legally solid," said Garraud.

So yes, it looks like people can't go around wearing ski masks either. I wonder if the wording they finalize will exclude sporting events or such.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jberryhill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-13-10 01:26 PM
Response to Reply #31
33. Sporting events? What about just plain cold weather

A woman in a wool cap with an ordinary scarf over her face is showing no more than she would if wearing a niqab.

They are going to ban that in Paris? Fashion law? Really?

There is no way around the fact that it is impossible to do this in other than a specific religious-motivated way.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
uppityperson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-13-10 01:28 PM
Response to Reply #33
35. We shall see.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
amandabeech Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-13-10 01:39 PM
Response to Reply #29
39. The law may have to be cleaned up for cold weather gear.
However, the bride in your picture is not in public. Under the law, one may cover his or her face in private.

As I'm sure you know, at the end of the wedding ceremony, the groom lifts the veil and kisses the bride in western custom. After that, the veil is turned back and lies over the back.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jberryhill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-13-10 01:53 PM
Response to Reply #39
40. And as you know, weddings are often held in public

I have seen weddings in parks in Paris regularly.

Some weeks it is like Vegas - brides and photographers running amok everywhere.

The bridal veil is the direct lineal relation to the niqab.

Time was when all "good" Catholic women covered their heads, to varying degrees, and many still do.

They already banned the hijab in schools, and that is just the next target.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
La Lioness Priyanka Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-13-10 12:37 PM
Response to Reply #15
20. what makes you think some women dont pick their clothing?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jberryhill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-13-10 12:45 PM
Response to Reply #20
23. Apparently, Women Need Laws To Tell Them What Not To Wear

...in order to avoid a system that dictates, uh, what they should wear.

The French women's ski team is screwed, however.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
La Lioness Priyanka Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-13-10 12:48 PM
Response to Reply #23
24. i can understand in saudi arabia where women dont have rights, but in france they do
if they wear chador/purdah or whatever, the state doesnt have the right to tell them what not to wear
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
uppityperson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-13-10 12:51 PM
Response to Reply #24
26. These are the 2 that are banned.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
La Lioness Priyanka Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-13-10 12:54 PM
Response to Reply #26
27. banning specific items of clothing by a specific religion is bigotry
i dont see how reposting what is banned makes your argument. i know what a niqab & a burka looks like
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
uppityperson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-13-10 12:56 PM
Response to Reply #27
28. Excuse me. I couldn't tell from your post that you did.
Edited on Tue Jul-13-10 12:58 PM by uppityperson
I was trying to give information. Excuse me for not knowing that you knew.

Edited to add this from the article (then off to read french newspapers) "It envisages fines of 150 euros (119) for women who break the law and 30,000 euros and a one-year jail term for men who force their wives to wear the burka."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tumbulu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-14-10 12:59 AM
Response to Reply #27
87. so what is making a woman wear a burka- sweet? nice? is it your idea
of how a civilized society treats the adult women.

Do you advocate allowing people of one religion to denigrate women because a religious right trumps an individual women's right to be free of awkward and restricting and even dangerous clothing?

So are you anti choice as well? Where does your women bashing end?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
La Lioness Priyanka Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-14-10 08:52 AM
Response to Reply #87
92. umm how is the state of france banning the burka allowing adult women to pick their
clothing?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tumbulu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-14-10 02:26 PM
Response to Reply #92
104. So, you think that the French should allow men to force
women to be covered in a huge sack head to toe when they go out in public?

What is your issue- that to be an open society and since in their own country men can force women to dress this way that they should be allowed to do so in France?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
La Lioness Priyanka Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-14-10 02:36 PM
Response to Reply #104
105. i think neither the state nor men should force women to wear or not wear things
no one is objecting to the second part of the law, where men are penalized for forcing women to wear a certain article of clothing, the objection is the first part when women are not allowed to weat burkas and are penalized for wearing one in public
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MellowDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-13-10 04:25 PM
Response to Reply #15
49. Not at all...
but I don't think outlawing head coverings will change the attitude of some men in that culture at all, nor help the women. And as for the women who do it out of their own choice, they are being discriminated against.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
harun Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-13-10 10:56 AM
Response to Original message
2. What if someone is disfigured and wants to cover?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
uppityperson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-13-10 12:06 PM
Response to Reply #2
12. There are ways to cover yourself that aren't burqa or niqab
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JustABozoOnThisBus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-13-10 10:58 AM
Response to Original message
3. Tyranny of the majority
Here, we just gleefully jack up the tax on cigarette smokers. Because we can, and because they are somehow subhuman.

Vive la France.

:hi:

Oh, and Happy Bastille Day Eve.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MellowDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-13-10 11:05 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. I think that analogy doesn't work...
Smokers impose a real cost on society through healthcare costs. Things that impose a cost on society as a whole should be taxed to help pay for that cost. Big Tobacco wishes it could profit off of selling death to people at cheap rates, believe me. Unless you want them to be more like the fast-food industry that is.

The ban on the head covering is nothing more than bald-faced bigotry. And the fact that it is supported so overwhelmingly just goes to show how bigoted of a place France is. It's a culture war thing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SunnySong Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-13-10 04:14 PM
Response to Reply #4
46. Once again smokers save medicare money compared to non-smokers...
facts are fun.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MellowDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-13-10 04:30 PM
Response to Reply #46
51. How so? Do you have the source?
It would be interesting to know how they save medicare money. By dying sooner I suppose? And just because they save medicare money doesn't mean they don't impose huge costs on other aspects of the healthcare industry. I have a hard time seeing how smokers are good for the economy or society at large in any way. They're good for Big Tobacco, and that's about it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SunnySong Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-13-10 04:33 PM
Response to Reply #51
53. for every pack of cigarettes smoked, the country reaps a net cost savings of 32 cents.
Vanderbilt University economist Kip Viscusi studied the net costs of smoking-related spending and savings and found that for every pack of cigarettes smoked, the country reaps a net cost savings of 32 cents.

"It looks unpleasant or ghoulish to look at the cost savings as well as the cost increases and it's not a good thing that smoking kills people," Viscusi said in an interview. "But if you're going to follow this health-cost train all the way, you have to take into account all the effects, not just the ones you like in terms of getting your bill passed."


http://skepticalob.blogspot.com/2009/04/keep-smoking-die-early-save-money.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MellowDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-13-10 04:49 PM
Response to Reply #53
54. The only source there...
linked to an MSNBC article that said that smokers MAY not cost society as a whole, but it didn't provide any solid evidence, it was just a theory based on the fact that smokers die sooner than other people. I suppose I could also make an argument that many smokers die in their working years and that their smoking can hurt their productivity if they develop illnesses from it during their working years. The blog also was talking about how preventative medicine isn't really all that great and seemed to be a rant against universal healthcare. Yet somehow the cost of healthcare in the US, where we have among the least amount of preventative care, is double that of other industrialized nations. The whole blog reads like a right-wing idea of healthcare.

Since there is no solid evidence, I would have to say that IMHO smoking does cost society as a whole, and therefore the taxes on cigarettes are justified.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SunnySong Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-13-10 04:53 PM
Response to Reply #54
55. I think the sin taxes are fine...
Still the idea that smokers cost xra money is a bit silly if you look at it... everybody dies,
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
harun Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-13-10 12:18 PM
Response to Reply #3
13. Good thing some people still know what Liberty means here in the U.S. Guess it
Edited on Tue Jul-13-10 12:19 PM by harun
isn't such a big deal in France. Well, at least as long as it is infringing on the Liberty of religious people.

Note: I am a Muslim and don't feel either practices are in the tenants of Islam (covering that much) but I am against infringing on the liberties of those who do wish to wear what they want.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Heywood J Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-13-10 10:45 PM
Response to Reply #3
83. Can I ask for clarification on the "subhuman" remark?
Are you likening voluntary consumers of a product to marginalized ethnic, racial, national, or other persecuted groups? Thanks!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OneTenthofOnePercent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-13-10 11:13 AM
Response to Original message
5. I don't know why... but I love when groups of people instigate shit.
Edited on Tue Jul-13-10 11:15 AM by OneTenthofOnePercent
Maybe it's because I was the passive-agressive "middle-child". :shrug:
I mean the french must know what they're doing is wrong on a basic level and that muslims will be pissed.
For the record, pissing off muslims requires some darwin-caliber reasoning.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
maxsolomon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-13-10 01:28 PM
Response to Reply #5
36. pissing off muslims involves the skills required
to shoot fish in a barrel.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Broke In Jersey Donating Member (247 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-13-10 11:47 AM
Response to Original message
8. well...since I don't live in France....
I won't be judgemental on a country since I don't know what its like to live there...
But a pretty overwelming vote IMHO.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Freddie Stubbs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-13-10 11:57 AM
Response to Original message
9. How long until the bombings begin?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
uppityperson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-13-10 12:01 PM
Response to Original message
10. Good.There are picts @ link of different veilings. Only FULL veil (face covered) is banned.
Edited on Tue Jul-13-10 12:05 PM by uppityperson
Only the full veil (burka or niqab) are banned. I guess they want to be able to see people's faces which is fine with me.

"The ban has strong public support but critics point out that only a tiny minority of French Muslims wear the full veil."

"The bill would make it illegal to wear garments such as the niqab or burka, which incorporate a full-face veil, anywhere in public."

I can't get theBBC pict links right, edited to take it out. Go to the link and they are there.

Niqab and Burka


Niqab


Burka (burqa)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jberryhill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-13-10 12:40 PM
Response to Reply #10
21. What about ordinary cold weather gear?

Have you ever been skiing at Chamonix or Val d'Issere?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mosby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-13-10 05:37 PM
Response to Reply #10
56. The Chador usually covers the face
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jberryhill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-13-10 06:17 PM
Response to Reply #56
62. As does the Balaclava



My daughter wears one when it is cold.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
uppityperson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-13-10 07:23 PM
Response to Reply #56
71. Chador can include a face veil.


wiki:
"Historically in urban settings the face would be covered with a long rectangular white veil (ruband, see also niqab) starting below the eyes. (The modern chador does not require this veil.) "

And, The Onion for a not very funny look at it
http://www.theonion.com/articles/woman-in-burqa-condemns-woman-in-chador,169/


The burqa-wearing Salah, who is outraged by Asaad's (far right) immodest dress.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LiberalFighter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-13-10 12:01 PM
Response to Original message
11. IMO they need to change the language of the law as it may conflict with seasons and medical.
During the winter will it also apply to those that cover their face to reduce the impact of the cold weather?
Those that have an issue with their face condition will they be impacted?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tumbulu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-13-10 12:27 PM
Response to Original message
14. Good beginning
then on my wish list is to ban patriarchy in general. But this a bit of a beginning.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jberryhill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-13-10 12:42 PM
Response to Original message
22. Well, that'll cut down the crowds on the slopes at Val d'Issere



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
totodeinhere Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-13-10 01:05 PM
Response to Original message
30. Good. It's victory against fundamentalist superstition.
We need to take the lead from the French and knock the fundamentalists down a peg or two in this country as well. This is not about discriminating against Islam. It's about fighting the evils of religious fundamentalism regardless of which religion the fundies adhere to.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Socal31 Donating Member (707 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-14-10 01:02 AM
Response to Reply #30
88. Our constitution gets in the way of what you are suggesting.
Edited on Wed Jul-14-10 01:03 AM by Socal31
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances"


<--- Athiest


France is about as Xenophobic as it gets. I don't agree with men forcing women to be covered due to some magic sky man, but there is no way to prove that they are being forced to do it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
totodeinhere Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-14-10 08:46 AM
Response to Reply #88
91. The courts have held time and time again that the 1st Amendment has it's limitations.
For instance, polygamy is illegal in every state. Yet some people want to practice polygamy as a part of their religion. The courts have held that the 1st Amendment does not prohibit outlawing polygamy. I can cite several other examples if you want me to.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
La Lioness Priyanka Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-13-10 01:11 PM
Response to Original message
32. if france really wanted to emancipate muslim women, this is not the path
they would have picked. how many muslim women were involved in this decision? did they form a committee to advise the politicians. without the input of impacted community i dont for a second believe this was done to improve their lives. it was done to perpetuate islamophobia.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jberryhill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-13-10 01:27 PM
Response to Reply #32
34. Every bit as much as the Swiss minaret ban

It's remarkable that a continent which has "hate speech" laws has forgotten how much farther actions go.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
La Lioness Priyanka Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-13-10 01:35 PM
Response to Reply #34
37. i agree. its convenient hate mongering in france, to ignore real economic issues
these nations often are appalled by racism in america, but to date have had little diversity to deal with in their own nations. now that they do, we can see their racism emerge.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
uppityperson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-13-10 01:38 PM
Response to Reply #37
38. A lot of people/politicians in France are racist against north Africans who have
come to France. It is a big problem.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-13-10 04:02 PM
Response to Reply #32
45. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
La Lioness Priyanka Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-13-10 04:14 PM
Response to Reply #45
47. this has nothing to do with sharia/taliban or tyranny. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
uppityperson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-13-10 04:18 PM
Response to Reply #47
48. I do not understand how freeing women from full veils is bad.
Please, tell me. I am serious here, do snark elsewhere but I am torn on this issue. I do not like the racism that is so prevalent in France against North Africans, and I also do not like the misogynism that is inherent in forcing women to cover themselves.

So I ask, how is this Islamaphobia, and how is banning full face veils bad?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jberryhill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-13-10 05:50 PM
Response to Reply #48
57. Well you seem to have nailed it
Edited on Tue Jul-13-10 05:53 PM by jberryhill
What you want is a ban on "forcing women to cover themselves". I doubt you would get any argument on that.

What you seem not to be able to believe is that women DO choose to express their OWN religious identity in various ways.

I would not want to "force women to wear nun's habits" or, really, to "force" women to wear anything in particular.

But what we have here is a law which will fine women for wearing what they CHOOSE to wear.

And yes, by and large they CHOOSE to wear these things. They are not living in a country which would not support them in an effort to divorce their husbands or leave their communities. France is not Saudi Arabia, or similar countries in which the government is going to force them to engage in religious practices or social situations in which they do not want to be.

This is a democratic government telling people, on the subject of a practice tied to their religion, "We know what's better for you."

That is wrong.

But, of course, if your premise is that every woman is "forced" to wear these things, you are not going to see what's wrong with the ban. However, even buying into the idea that they are being forced to wear these things, you are now going to have the government fine them for doing what you believe they were forced to do? Now isn't that just being caught between the Devil and the deep blue sea, eh?

Again, if the law banned the "forced" wearing of any garment, that would be perfectly fine.

Are Jewish men, in your view, "forced" to wear yarmulkes? Have you ever been in the wrong neighborhood in Jerusalem on a Friday evening?

By and large, we accept that Jewish men in the US choose to wear yarmulkes. I have no doubt there are probably families which raise their boys to wear them.

Islamic women interpret the concept of modesty differently, and if they choose to wear these things, why should anyone fine them 150 euro for that?

This law makes absolutely no allowance for a woman's right to wear whatever the hell she wants to wear. We do not, in Western countries, legislate from the assumption that women need to be controlled in this way.

Here are two women, wearing what they choose to wear, in public in the United States:



Now, clearly, whatever one thinks of veils, would you support a law which makes it illegal for a woman to be degraded and subjugated by wearing a collar and a leash? After all, that is certainly degrading, right?



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
uppityperson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-13-10 06:01 PM
Response to Reply #57
58. Well, you know France is a secular socialist country and all. Yup, full face veils=yarmulkes
Edited on Tue Jul-13-10 06:01 PM by uppityperson
Did you read that a man who forces his wife to wear full face veil will get more heavily fined?

"by and large they CHOOSE to wear these things. They are not living in a country which would not support them in an effort to divorce their husbands or leave their communities. France is not Saudi Arabia, or similar countries in which the government is going to force them to engage in religious practices or social situations in which they do not want to be."

Of course some women chose to wear a burqa while out in public, even in France. But how many fully veiled women living in France have you talked to? I sincerely doubt it is "by and large" unless they do so to keep the peace at home.

Do you seriously believe that by living in France, women are not forced to stay in marriages or communities or situations that they don't want to? Seriously? Not by the government, true, but by their family or communities.

No, the French government isn't "going to force them to engage in religious practices or social situations in which they do not want to be." Instead the opposite. This is meant to free them, to allow them to not engage in religious practices they don't want to.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jberryhill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-13-10 06:09 PM
Response to Reply #58
60. I support the part which fines others for forcing them to wear things
Edited on Tue Jul-13-10 06:14 PM by jberryhill
But we are specifically addressing the part which fines them for wearing something.

Let's be really clear about this -

When we are talking about a law which fines women for wearing a veil, we are defining an offense which ONLY women can commit, and for which ONLY women will be punished.

"to allow them to not engage in religious practices they don't want to"

They have that freedom. Whether they break free of social pressures is the problem of women in abusive relationships the world over, and this thing about veils does nothing to change that.

Yes, if we banned ALL religious practices, it would allow women not to engage in religious practices they don't want to. Believe me, I spent time in rural Utah - there are plenty of women in that boat. But we don't ban religious practices across the board based on that kind of calculation.

Again, will it be legal for me, a man, to wear a veil in France if I want to? Yep.

Will it be legal for a woman? Nope.

This is a law that controls what women can do, and fines them for something which harms nobody.

It is simply the larger community saying, "No, you folks in your community can't control women, only WE can!"

Replacing a community imperative that women must behave a certain way, with a state imperative that women must behave a certain way, is simply re-arranging the furniture.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
La Lioness Priyanka Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-13-10 06:16 PM
Response to Reply #60
61. yes, its simply stating white men in france can control what muslim women wear
Edited on Tue Jul-13-10 06:18 PM by La Lioness Priyanka
not muslim men. its hardly saying, women can wear whatever it is they want to wear

i think a lot of white feminists assume women in other cultures think and feel like they do. they dont. its not your place to make these rules for them. had this law come about after muslim women protested the veil and their was input from the affected community, it would be a whole different story.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jberryhill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-13-10 06:19 PM
Response to Reply #61
63. Perfect

I always admire your ability to reduce something to a few words that takes me many to express.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
uppityperson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-13-10 07:14 PM
Response to Reply #60
69. do not specifically target the full veil but prohibits "concealment of the face." Men too.
Translated from Le Monde earlier today.
The text of the keeper, Michele Alliot-Marie , largely inspired by a bill the patron of UMP deputies, Jean-Francois Cope , do not specifically target the full veil but prohibits "concealment of the face."

You wrongly say
"When we are talking about a law which fines women for wearing a veil, we are defining an offense which ONLY women can commit, and for which ONLY women will be punished."
"Again, will it be legal for me, a man, to wear a veil in France if I want to? Yep."

Wrong. Prohibiting full concealment of the face.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Turborama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-13-10 08:20 PM
Response to Reply #69
76. A VERY IMPORTANT POINT!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Violet_Crumble Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-13-10 10:35 PM
Response to Reply #58
80. Did you know that France has a right-wing government that's catering to the extreme RW?
Sorry, but forcing women not to wear something is every bit as bad as forcing them to wear something. You don't know if a woman is being forced to do something or not, and I find it incredibly patriarchal when I see people claiming that they're 'freeing' women from a practice they don't want.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
uppityperson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-14-10 12:44 AM
Response to Reply #80
86. Sarko is rw, better than Le Pen would have been.
As I have written, I am torn on this. Talking with family in France, the racism in France against North African immigrants is disgusting, as is the oppression of women by extreme fundamentalist Muslims including forcing some who don't want to to be burqa'd.

And no, I am not calling all Muslims extreme fundamentalists, any more than I call all Catholics extreme fundamentalists. Fundies of all sorts seem to thrive on oppressing women, that is all I am saying.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gormy Cuss Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-13-10 06:28 PM
Response to Reply #48
64. Do you really think this will free any woman?
Both those who are coerced into full veils and those who believe that they wear full veils as a free choice will become more isolated because they can't be out and about.

I agree with La Lioness. This isn't about women's rights, it's Islamophobia.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
La Lioness Priyanka Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-14-10 11:11 AM
Response to Reply #64
94. thats my fear, that what it will end up doing is further restrict the ability of these women
to be in public
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jberryhill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-13-10 06:36 PM
Response to Reply #48
66. Another question - do you think any woman in the US was ever coerced to have an abortion?

There'd be a real showstopper of a solution for that, you know.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
uppityperson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-13-10 07:16 PM
Response to Reply #66
70. Of course. Tell me the showstopper.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Violet_Crumble Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-13-10 10:26 PM
Response to Reply #45
78. How would you feel if someone said the term 'antisemism' is a bit overused?
Me, I'd suspect there's something as stinky about their motivation as if someone said the same thing about bigotry against Muslims. Being opposed to religious laws (though I notice many anti-Muslim bigots don't speak out about the religious laws of other religions) and the Taliban does NOT mean that one can then turn around and pretend that bigotry and intolerance towards Muslims doesn't exist. In case you hadn't noticed, there's a high level of bigotry against Muslims both in Europe and the US, and anyone who claims to be liberal should be speaking out against it. Do you support the decision by the right-wing French govt? And as a matter of curiosity, do you support the Swiss ban on minarets?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-14-10 12:39 AM
Response to Reply #78
85. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
mix Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-13-10 06:42 PM
Response to Reply #32
68. exactly nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flamingdem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-13-10 01:54 PM
Response to Original message
41. I wonder if the younger full veil wearers are glad
I would be.. maybe they have some leverage to not follow tradition now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jberryhill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-13-10 02:28 PM
Response to Reply #41
43. And they can finally lock up women like this....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
uppityperson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-13-10 03:13 PM
Response to Reply #43
44. The only one of those that would fall under the rule is the one with a sword
Being out in public with face covered and brandishing a sword might get one into trouble.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-13-10 04:31 PM
Response to Reply #41
52. The social support, exactly. Even if the formutalters of this law
are conservative assholes, the law itself will help women.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jberryhill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-13-10 06:01 PM
Response to Reply #52
59. It simply "wins the argument" about who gets to dictate what women can and cannot do
Edited on Tue Jul-13-10 06:02 PM by jberryhill
I have no problem with a law banning anyone from forcing a woman to wear anything.

I have a problem with a law that fines women for wearing whatever they want to wear.

Those are distinguishable.

Saying this "helps women" is like supporting a law which fines them 10 dollars each time they get punched.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
woo me with science Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-13-10 07:46 PM
Response to Reply #41
74. Bingo. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
proteus_lives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-13-10 02:03 PM
Response to Original message
42. Ah, kicking off this year's riot season.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Violet_Crumble Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-13-10 10:28 PM
Response to Reply #42
79. Huh? What's that supposed to mean? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-13-10 04:30 PM
Response to Original message
50. Good. I hope it passes the other house, too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Alameda Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-13-10 06:41 PM
Response to Original message
67. It should be interesting....
I guess this is not legal anymore



or this....

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Turborama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-13-10 07:43 PM
Response to Original message
73. I see this as a security issue. Hooded tops have been banned in the UK since 03
Edited on Tue Jul-13-10 07:46 PM by Turborama
and you can't go into a bank with a motorcycle helmet on.

What about the security concerns if a criminal wearing a burka to hide their identity goes into sensitive areas such as banks or terrorists wearing them to hide their identity in areas where large groups of people congregate such as shopping malls, train stations, cinemas, airports etc etc? What about when they go through immigration, how does that work?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Violet_Crumble Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-13-10 10:38 PM
Response to Reply #73
81. Hoodies have not been banned in public in the UK...
If they have, I'd like to see that bit of law coz when I was there in 06 there were shitloads of people walking round wearing hoodies. The French law in the OP covers all public areas...

Banks and government buildings where there is a security issue are completely different, but the focus is and always should be on ALL face converings, not just on one particular one...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Turborama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-13-10 10:54 PM
Response to Reply #81
84. There have been hoodie bans in the UK
Edited on Tue Jul-13-10 11:07 PM by Turborama
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NuttyFluffers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-13-10 08:08 PM
Response to Original message
75. i wonder how much consideration was given to what French muslim women think.
i have my own guesses...

i feel i can already hear the justification from these would-be legislative heroes, "We have to tell these women what to wear in order to save them and keep them free from their men -- those men telling these women what to wear in order to save them and keep them free from us. Monstrous. We know what's best for them." Good intentions, path to hell, and all that jazz...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Posteritatis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-13-10 08:45 PM
Response to Reply #75
77. In practice it'll probably sentence god knows how many of them to house arrest. (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flamingdem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-13-10 10:39 PM
Response to Reply #77
82. .. and I think that this points to the problem
sorry but that's just TOO screwed up!

Liberation now I say.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
La Lioness Priyanka Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-14-10 08:53 AM
Response to Reply #77
93. yup. which is a concern they would have heard had they consulted with muslim women
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
uppityperson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-14-10 11:43 AM
Response to Reply #93
95. Where does it say they hadn't consulted with muslim women?
Why do you keep saying this? Do you seriously think they didn't?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
La Lioness Priyanka Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-14-10 12:20 PM
Response to Reply #95
97. where does it say they have? where does it say, that french lawmakers
in conversations with muslim activists created this law?

yes, given the rising tide of islamaphobia, i dont think they have. not to mention, the law penalizes women choosing to wear the burqa which really doesnt in the least bit sound like muslim women were consulted while creating this law.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
uppityperson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-14-10 12:43 PM
Response to Reply #97
99. Here are interesting takes on it from Guardian, including French Muslims...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jul/14/tycoon-fund-to-fight-french-niqab-ban

Tycoon plans 1m fund to fight French niqab ban

Businessman Rachid Nekkaz hopes to render new law useless by paying fines for women caught wearing veil in street.
------------------
I like this op-ed article also:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2010/jul/13/france-burqa-ban-veil
A week ago the parliamentary assembly of the Council of Europe also issued a unanimous resolution condemning a general law, although it stated that legal restrictions may be justified "for security purposes, or where the public or professional functions of individuals require their religious neutrality, or that their face can be seen". It also recognised that "no woman should be compelled to wear religious apparel by her community or family" and that European governments should educate Muslim women on their rights and freedoms.
(clip)
As we know, very few Muslim women wear the burqa or the niqab; many Muslims are in fact opposed to these covering practices; and certain security issues brought up in support of the burqa ban are not totally unfounded (Yassin Omar, the 21/7 bomber allegedly fled London dressed in a burqa; several suicide bombers in Iraq including a female Belgian convert were covered; Italy has had a law banning covering your face since Red Brigades and the "years of lead"). The problem with the laws currently being discussed across Europe has a lot to do with the tone used and with the contradictory approach adopted in our countries in matters pertaining to freedom and diversity.
----------------------
Aha, here...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jul/13/french-ban-face-veils
The main body representing French Muslims says face-covering veils are not required by Islam and not suitable in France, but it has expressed concern that the law will stigmatise Muslims in general.
-------------------
Finally, "gee, look at the shiny thing" take on it, another op-ed piece.

French burqa debate is a smokescreen
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jul/08/france-burqa-ban-sarkozy-political-distraction
--------------------------------

Again, personally, I can see both sides of the issue. Banning full veils or face coverings including balaclavas, in places where security is an issue is fine with me. The Koran does not demand full face veils, but some cultures do. There is a lot of anti-north African sentiment and bigotry in France (how DARE the people in our colonies dare to come here?). Smokescreen? I can see that also.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
La Lioness Priyanka Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-14-10 12:56 PM
Response to Reply #99
100. have you read what legitimate human rights organizations feel about this?
like say amnesty or the human rights watch?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
uppityperson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-14-10 01:49 PM
Response to Reply #100
101. No. Have you? If you give me links, I'll be happy to
Did you read those articles and op-ed pieces?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
La Lioness Priyanka Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-14-10 02:13 PM
Response to Reply #101
102. yes, i have. read several of their objections to this law.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
uppityperson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-14-10 02:19 PM
Response to Reply #102
103. links? I would like to read them. Thanks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
La Lioness Priyanka Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-14-10 04:24 PM
Response to Reply #103
110. here you go
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
uppityperson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-14-10 05:16 PM
Response to Reply #110
111. Thanks, will go read them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
western mass Donating Member (718 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-14-10 01:59 AM
Response to Original message
89. Intolerent religious fanatics crying foul
when they're on the wrong end of intolerence.

Just sayin'.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JCMach1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-14-10 06:55 AM
Response to Original message
90. Nothing in the Islamic religion that calls for total cover...
Edited on Wed Jul-14-10 06:56 AM by JCMach1
The 'burqa' movement essentially was an offshoot of the work of the Islamic Brotherhood (the radical part that was the origins of bin Laden).

Sorry the religious argument does not hold.

So, is it cultural then... well yes. But, when cultural affectations offer legitimate safety concerns a government is free to do what they deem necessary... Of course they are...

I live in a Muslim country and I can tell you that there is almost 0 tolerance for some aspects of clothing that are culturally acceptable in my country...

Jewelry for men, shorts, short sleeves on women and the list goes on... The religious tolerance argument is virtually a non-starter. Other religions are BARELY tolerated here and only under very controlled circumstances.

So yeah, sometimes that openness thing should work both ways.

So why have this:


When this is perfectly acceptable:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
uppityperson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-14-10 11:46 AM
Response to Reply #90
96. Thank you for your post and pictures.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
woo me with science Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-14-10 03:22 PM
Response to Reply #90
106. Thank you. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Brooklyns_Finest Donating Member (747 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-14-10 03:37 PM
Response to Original message
107. Great News
France and the french people will have to make some very tough decisions about the direction of their country in the future. This vote was a unanimous one that is supported by the vast majority of their people. This decision should garner the respect of many Arab muslim leaders, considering that in their home country, Western women cannot dress according to their own culture. As an American, I would not presume to tell the french people how to govern their country.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Jun 18th 2021, 06:12 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC