What do you think about Europe's burka banning laws.???

[dixiegrrrrl]

Background:
Belgium implemented a law on Saturday banning women from wearing the Islamic burka in public.
Penalty: Fine or 7 days in jail.
Law is being challenged.
( burka, not hajib, which is interesting)

In France, violators wearing a face covering may be fined up to 150 euros and/or required to attend citizenship classes. In contrast, anyone convicted of forcing a woman to cover her face may be fined up to 30,000 euro and jailed for one year , and the penalties double if that woman is a minor. The French ban is not exclusive to the burka, prohibiting any covering of the face in a public place.

Holes in laws that I see:
Many Muslim women CHOOSE to wear a hajib, are not forced.
Laws violate religious freedom.
The law doubling penalties for minor is nonsensical, since veiling traditionally begins when a female starts her menses.
Legal minor age has nothing to do with age of veiling.

How many know the difference between a hajib and a burka, I wonder?

I would be interested in how people see this issue.

[FSogol]

1. Are costume parties outlawed also? Have they arrested all the circus performers?

The Phantom of the Opera wears a mask. Was he arrested? Can you be arrested for wearing a full face ski mask? Or motorcycle helmet?

:shrug:

[otohara]

4. Really ???

a motorcycle helmet, circus performers?

EU takes this seriously for a reason.

[FSogol]

8. Purporting to be a free society means allowing people you disagree with to have their way also.

Women should be able to wear whatever they want.

As mentioned further down in this thread, it is possible for Muslim women in these "free" countries to leave their husbands if abuse is occurring or they are being forced to dress that way.

I fail to see what is serious as mentioned in your reply about severely overdressed women.

[christx30]

30. I was always told that

Europe was more liberal than the US, and therefore more tolerant.
Reminds me of the movie "Children of Men". Today it's banning burkas. Tomorrow it's deporting millions of 'fugees. Things are getting bad all over the place. People talk about the US becoming more facist.. But in Europe, things have been going that way for a long time.

[GoneOffShore]

35. To enter a bank in France you may not wear - Hats, headscarves,

Motorcycle helmets. I've not been let through the door wearing sunglasses.

The French, along with the Belgians are working to keep their society secular and open. The burqua is not a sign of freedom but one of oppression. It is a sign of tribalism and should not be welcomed in a liberal democracy.

[Speck Tater]

2. I think everybody should wear face covering in public.

Imagine if we all wore V masks or bandit handkerchiefs. It would put an end to intrusive video surveillance. People are always complaining about how video surveillance is cropping up everywhere, and that you can't do anything without being watched by Big Brother. Well, there is something we can do about that. As Americans we have a right to privacy, and that means we have the right to hide our identity in public. Especially when we enter banks and airline terminals.

Protect our right to be anonymous. Join the movement to always wear masks in public. Just think how much more honest we can be in our actions if we know that whatever we do in public is safely anonymous!

[dixiegrrrrl]

12. Wonder if beards and sunglasses will be banned next.

[FredStembottom]

15. Excellent point...

...that would be funny except that this law makes it a logical next step.

[jberryhill]

91. Men have beards - you aren't going to see a law against that

It's women's clothing which needs a law enforcement approach.

[riderinthestorm]

107. The law applies to both genders and is about clothing, not facial hair.

Cultural western norms for society vs. cultural norms that western cultures find disagreeable. We ban FGM because it harms women. The burka harms women in western society by effectively erasing them.

But please carry on with non-analogous comparisons.... its amusing actually.

[jberryhill]

110. About as amusing as the idea that it's "gender neutral"

...because Burka-wearing men are subject to the same penalty.

[nomb]

132. You're correct-the law sees all equal, but only the women are forced by violence to wear the veil

[jberryhill]

133. ...and I retract my comment about beards

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_uYCbg8hMFTs/TGvvAQ6KB9I/AAAAAAAABn0/YVNyUzAeJHw/s1600/beerded+lady.jpg


THE BEARDED LADY OF ELK COUNTY PA. MRS. MYERS AT AGE 23

[KittyWampus]

142. Beards and sunglasses aren't full body masks.

[dixiegrrrrl]

152. Neither is the hajib, but some European countries are banning it.

[riderinthestorm]

154. What European countries are banning the hijab? Links please.

And it's hijab, not hajib. Regardless that is a different garment than the burqa.


The only country I know that bans the hijab is France, and only for SCHOOLCHILDREN but they have a ban on ALL religious gear in schools. That ban is universally approved by the French, including overwhelmingly by the French Muslim population.

[dixiegrrrrl]

161. see here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_dress_in_Europe

[riderinthestorm]

162. Nope, your link is about niqab, burqa and face coverings. Not hijab

except France (Turkey is not in the European zone) which I mentioned myself.

Perhaps you don't know the difference between hijab, niqab, burqa and other forms of face veiling vs. headscarves?

[jberryhill]

3. Women's clothing needs to be controlled by government

And if someone is forcing them to wear one thing, then government needs to force them to wear something else.

Since women will not exercise self determination in these matters, then government needs to do it for them.

Unless, of course, they are nuns. In that case, as long as they are Christian, their clothing can be dictated to them by their religious community.

The way this discussion normally goes is along the lines of "But don't you understand? They are forced to do this by religious leaders and husbands who will abuse them if they don't!"

That sort of compulsion and abuse is, of course, illegal already. In Western countries, we operate on the basic assumption that people are free to leave their voluntary associations. Divorce and freedom of religious choice is just as available to Muslim women living in Western countries as it is to anyone else. And, yes, leaving abusive situations is as difficult for Muslim women as it is in the case of non-Muslim women in abusive situations. But only in the case of Muslim women do we have this impulse to legislate on a subject that would be considered voluntary for any other ethnic or religious group.

This is why you won't see anyone running around Lancaster County, Pennsylvania trying to get Amish women to change their clothes, even though their clothing is dictated every bit as much by a religious community in which they are, just like anyone else in the US, free to leave if they so choose.

[nomb]

17. Why no complaints about the nations that force women to wear hejab under penalty of Death?

All women have rights.

France has fought many religious battles to ensure the people are free from doctrinaire lives dictated by those who speak for god.


I hope, for the sake of womankind, they stay true to their path and remain an example of a place state will always force religion to take a back seat to liberté, égalité and fraternité.

[nomb]

18. Liberté, égalité, fraternité - Marianne.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marianne

[jberryhill]

31. Because that wasn't the question

But one can readily determine that I do not think highly of laws that require women to wear, or not to wear, anything in particular.

If the idea is that "libertie egalitie and fraternitie" does not admit the wearing of clothing dictated by a religion, then perhaps you will explain to me why you are okay with French nuns wearing the habit of their religious order.

Please try to be consistent in your explanation.

[nomb]

37. The veil is a tool for repression, death, acid in the face, beatings are used to enforce conformity

The French are quite right in forcing it.


We in the USA on the other hand have a different and equally correct cultural heritage. The French nation is founded as much on eliminating church influence from political influence as ours is founded on absolute separation.


I would oppose the French laws here - but I strongly support them in France.

[jberryhill]

57. This law is a tool for arresting women

Doesn't affect me in the least, so have at it.

All of those other things you mentioned are illegal.

This law only affects the women who wear them. If someone wants to go around arresting women in France, for whatever reason, I have no problem with it.

[nomb]

63. This law is a tool for breaking the chain of repression of Chattel held in bondage. It's equivalent

It's equivalent in many ways to Affirmative Action - it seeks to leap ahead by forcing a pro-active break with the cultural millstones that hold a class of human beings back.


We could wait for white men to grant True equality of opportunity to those who are not white - just as we could wait for Islamic men to free women.


Or we can break the chains of repression. I say break the chains.


What say you?

[jberryhill]

67. How much were African Americans fined for not going to white schools?

I missed that part of "affirmative action".

Do you think the 150 euro fine is correct?

How did you arrive at that figure.

My view is that this law doesn't go far enough. Women who wear them should be imprisoned for sentences long enough to get them away from those repressive influences.

Only by removing them from the situation by arrest and imprisonment, would anyone have the opportunity to counsel them to get out of their situation.

So, obviously, I support more aggressive measures to achieve equality.

Have you seen what they make women wear in Las Vegas?

Or your local Hooters restaurant?

The response to unlawful oppression of women is to go after their oppressors, not the women. This makes them a double victim.

But, hey, like I said, the more reasons to arrest and fine women the better, right?

[nomb]

70. "it seeks to force a pro-active break with the cultural millstones that deny a class equality."

I'm afraid you've missed the logic train. I doubt you'll find any takers to support your absurd reading of my post above.


One can debate the appropriateness of the remedy, and I myself am on record here as stating:

"We in the USA on the other hand have a different and equally correct cultural heritage. The French nation is founded as much on eliminating church influence from political influence as ours is founded on absolute separation. I would oppose the French laws here - but I strongly support them in France."


But no one should for a minute believe that a debate exists as to the the problem of women held hostage in western lands by religious edicts punishable by beatings which are themselves not only supported, but demanded by the local religious community.


Break the chain - give this generation of women sunlight, and give the men who would like to support liberalism in women's rights the excuse, and State backing, to do so.

[jberryhill]

72. It doesn't go far enough

These women need to be removed from their oppressive circumstances by imprisonment.

Fining them is not going to do the trick.

If you want to get them out of oppression, you need to forcibly remove them from it.

I don't think you understand that I support this more strongly than you do.

Lock them up for their own good and re-program them.

[nomb]

74. Can you even see the Logic Train chugging off in the distance from where you're standing? n't

[jberryhill]

77. We only differ on the penalty

I want women removed from oppressive circumstances.

You want to take money from them.

That's the only difference between us in the application of the full force of the state to penalize them for wearing unauthorized clothing.

[dixiegrrrrl]

153. So, "locking them up" is freeing them from....oppression????????

[jberryhill]

166. What is arresting and fining them?

[frogmarch]

95. +1000

[CTyankee]

45. I was in Paris on the first day that law went into effect and a woman was arrested

under it. She was at the Louvre, where there is a ton of security to begin with -- it probably wasn't the best choice of place to wear a burqua in the first place. My French/Dutch friend Jacques was agreeing with the burqua restriction, but he was also arguing on the grounds that she could have a bomb under her voluminous garment. We had a vigorous discussion about the Droit du l'homme. It was clear to me that there is a strong belief in what "the people" have decided their culture to be. We then got into another interesting discussion about France's maladventures in the Magreb and their consequences...he did agree with me that France had no one to blame but themselves for what they did in Africa...

[jberryhill]

58. Good for them for arresting that woman

Hopefully she will learn her lesson, and not wear it again.

[CTyankee]

120. Jacques would agree with you, I am not so sure...

For the French, it's OK. For Americans, not so much...we have this personal freedom thing they don't understand...but given their own experiment in revolution, maybe we should give a second look to...just sayin' ...ya know?

[jberryhill]

129. Good point

They do tend to lose their heads over these sorts of things.

[CTyankee]

131. Yes! As the Brits say, they were "shortened."

I loved my art history instructor in Paris, Malcolm. He was so much fun!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

5. Thinly veiled racism.

[dixiegrrrrl]

13. Pun-ny.

:7

[kctim]

6. How do these laws

violate the religious freedoms granted to the people in these countries?
Do they have something like a 1st Amendment like we do?

[Zorra]

7. More unreasonable repression of people's liberty by conservatives.

And anyone that forces a woman to wear a burka against her will, because of their religious beliefs, is another example of conservatives unreasonably repressing an individual's liberty.

IMHO.

[bemildred]

9. No government ought legislate how people choose to dress. nt

[piedmont]

25. I know right? I should be able to go to my bank wearing a bullet-proof vest and ski mask. nt

[X_Digger]

40. Does you government stop you from doing that now?

Since we're talking about government, not what private institutions (banks) might do, I think it important to differentiate.

[piedmont]

47. Yes, it does. And it's a pretty sensible law. Many others do the same.

http://www.anapsid.org/cnd/mcs/maskcodes.html#GEORGIA

[X_Digger]

50. Your 'many'? 10.

A minority of states, primarily due to the KKK, it appears, have some kind of 'mask' law. And 4 of those 10 stipulate something along the lines of "for the purpose of: One--Evading or escaping discovery, recognition, or identification in the commission of any public offense", "With the intent to deprive any person or class of persons of equal protection of the law or of equal privileges and immunities under the law", or "with intent to obstruct the due execution of the law, or to intimidate, hinder or interrupt an officer or other person in the lawful performance of his duty".

By which, they wouldn't apply to a religious exercise.

[riderinthestorm]

54. The burqa is not religious. It's strictly cultural. nt

[X_Digger]

56. Forgive my word choice, then. But the point stands re the poster I responded to. n/t

[etherealtruth]

145. Thank you!

So many folk do not know this. In Islam men and women are required to dress modestly (there are a few specifics, but I no longer remember them)

[piedmont]

59. You asked me a question. I answered it. It is absolutely against the law in my state

to wear a mask to the bank or anywhere else in public outside of four exceptions. Now you're on to debating the definition of "many." Good luck with that.

[bemildred]

52. Particular venues can still have particular rules.

You certainly are allowed to wear a ski mask and/or a bulletproof vest in public in most situations. People might look at you funny, but it's legal.

[bemildred]

55. You know, I think it's really a free speech issue, and ought to be addressed that way. nt

[riderinthestorm]

61. We already have laws that regulate what women can and cannot wear in public.

Very few people, and certainly nobody on DU, appears to be clamoring that they are "free speech" violations. Why is it whenever the burqa comes up, people clamor for the "freedom" to wear THIS misogynistic garment that is designed to erase women from society yet nary a peep about the other laws on what women can or cannot wear in public, ever?

Societies can and do make collective decisions on what is allowed in the public square. I have no problem with the burqa facing the same scrutiny and yes, even outright banning. Western cultures value being able to see a person's face. For many, there is an inherent recoil on the purposeful erasure of half the population from the public eye. I have no problem with a society that has a conversation about what they want to allow and then votes on it.

[rug]

10. It's unenforceable, racist, stupid, and pandering, reflexive legistation.

It makes the Arizona legislature appear enlightened.

[WinkyDink]

22. "Unenforceable"? I believe the French authorities would beg to differ.

http://www.newsytype.com/5393-burqa-ban/

[rug]

29. An arrest does not equal enforcement.

Read the statute. It is so broad as it relates to face coverings as to render a conviction difficult, if not impossible. Hence, unenforceable.

What about the other adjectives? Do you find it progressive and not racist? Do you found it thoughtful and well-reasoned and not a pandering reflex?

[Skidmore]

11. I have mixed feelings about this.

When I lived in the middle east I was forced to wear hejab even though I was not a Muslim because it was the law of the land. I did not like it, but it was the law. Viewed this way I have no problem with a country setting rules of dress.

As a person who lived in an Islamic country, I do have some grasp of the meaning of hejab and how traditional women view it. From that vantage, I understand the offensiveness of such a law.

I guess my preference would be that the nations of the world would quit focusing on the need to promote a particular religion or religious tradition and let people chose how they are observant, if they are.

[Adsos Letter]

14. Thanks for your insights. I agree wholeheartedly with your closing sentence.

I think it goes to the heart of the religious liberty we claim as a natural right in this nation.

[Bunny]

16. I'm okay with banning this:

And this:


But not this:


ETA a better picture of a burka.

[pitohui]

27. the law specificallys covers the FACE not the hair or the head scarf

you can't mask your face in public, that's what it's about

if someone wants to wear a hat or a scarf or what have you advertising their ties to one ridiculous religion or another, go for it, altho i for one think it's about as tacky as those who have to wear t-shirts or bumper stickers advertising their views...if you have a bumper sticker morality or a bumper sticker religion, fine, wear your bumper sticker and i'll get out of your way

but when you go into public wearing a mask, then i have to be concerned for my safety, because there is just no damn good and decent reason to wear a mask in public

if your religion states that a woman's face is obscene, your religion needs to be shut down in the interest of human decency, women are human beings too (and yes, some women are self hating but their self hate shouldn't be allowed to be paraded in public where it puts others at risk)

[LanternWaste]

41. I imagine we often say that about numerous types of clothing.

"just no damn good and decent reason to wear..."

Staying within your qualifiers, I imagine we often say that about numerous types of clothing-- do-rags, piercings, make-up, etc.

[uppityperson]

71. First 2 pictures are burqas, last hijab. I am ok with this also. More picts and a link

Link to an article with a couple photos and discussion http://www.religionnews.com/index.php?/rnsblog/whats_the_difference_between_hijab_burqa_etc/

[jberryhill]

81. Most attractively made-up eyes I ever saw...

On a trip to Egypt, I rode an elevator with a woman wearing a niqab who had the most beautiful eyes I have ever seen.

It's amazing what can be done with an inch wide strip of face, and some of them work that for all it's worth.

[Name removed]

82. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jberryhill]

86. She had put a lot of effort into making up those eyes

And how about "she" instead of "it", eh?

Did I say "sex toy"? No. She had very attractive eyes. There is an entire cosmetics industry based upon the desire of some to emphasize attractive features. I don't run that industry, but they do a lot more business in western countries, I'd bet.

I wasn't in Egypt to change their laws (although women dress how they want there).

I do not support laws which target women for penalties, particularly women who are being oppressed.

Another approach to oppressing women is preferable to arresting them. Rendering them double victims - of both their families and the state - strikes me as profoundly stupid.

If you want to get serious by doing it this way, you'll have to lock them up - this gets them out of the situation and in access to appropriate counseling.

Otherwise, you are just running around arresting victims. That's silly.

I don't support a law which singles out victimized women for arrest and fines. Sorry. That's just something we'll have to disagree about.

You want women arrested. I don't. It's that simple.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

96. FIRST.

Signed,
Captain Obvious.

[riderinthestorm]

85. "some of them work that for all it's worth"

:puke:

[jberryhill]

89. People of both sexes do things which they believe to enhance their attractiveness

Some muscular men wear short sleeves to show off their muscles.

Some women wear make up to accentuate features they believe to be attractive.

What I found interesting was the disconnect between the notion of wearing a veil for the ostensible purpose of religiously-dictated "modesty", and wearing makeup for purposes going in the other direction.

It's a lot like "church hats" in western culture.

This law seeks to solve a far-reaching social problem through a criminalization approach - and makes criminals of the victims of the very problem sought to be addressed.



I guess I should have said, "Arrest that woman!"

[WinkyDink]

19. I think these nations know their situations better than I. Now, my bank's not allowing hats? DNW.

Some days I have really bad hair.

[LLStarks]

20. If we could round up a 100 or so white women to do a hijab-wearing sit-in in Paris...

people would really see how ridiculous the law is.

[WinkyDink]

21. Don't bet on that. And besides, who would see their skin? (Ba-dum-bump.)

[Behind the Aegis]

23. I support the French's ban.,

[slackmaster]

24. I'm OK with banning them while driving and while having official photos taken

Otherwise, not so much.

[X_Digger]

42. Agreed. n/t

[pitohui]

26. fully supportive

if you mask your face in a public place, i have to assume that you are making that choice for a reason that is extremely harmful to my health and safety

if you're doing it because you're a woman who chooses to support religious woman-hating horseshit such as the idea that a woman's very FACE is an obscenity, that is extremely harmful to my health and safety, just as if you're doing it because you're an ass who plans to rob my local bank or pharmacy

if your face is covered, you have made a choice all right -- a very sinister choice

[X_Digger]

44. You 'have to assume'? No, you choose to do so.

Not agreeing with a person's religious tenets is quite different than denying them the exercise of those practices, or assuming nefarious purposes.

[socialshockwave]

28. Full support.

Wearing a cross and dressing up as a pilgrim is one thing.

Being forced to wear a restrictive head-scarf for fear of being beaten to death by your husband is another.

My view of Islam has worsened significantly since I started reading more about it, I'm sorry to say.

[jberryhill]

32. It is already illegal to beat wives in France

[GoneOffShore]

33. And that stops the wife beaters, yes?

[socialshockwave]

34. Exactly.

Certain laws such as "you cannot beat your wives" or "you cannot watch porn" SOUND good in theory, but no one is going to follow them.

[jberryhill]

38. As much as this law does, yes

And more so, really.

Someone in an abusive situation needs to get out of it. This law fines them 150 euro.

[jberryhill]

64. The penalty should be higher, don't you think?

A 150 euro fine is not enough.

They should be locked up for a couple of months.

[Snoutport]

36. London has seen a huge surge in shoppers from the middle east...i saw an article yesterday

London loves the French Burka ban.

I don't know where I saw the article but it was interesting.

[LanternWaste]

39. Not very comfortable with overt legislation restricting

Not very comfortable with overt legislation restricting traditional wardrobes if those wardrobes, in and of themselves pose no inherent threat.

Additionally, if the legislation was designed to prevent male on female control/violence, I would think that the male in question would simply find another source of control/violence.

[Blue_In_AK]

43. I am not in favor of banning burqas or any other type of clothing..

[boston bean]

46. I think it's fine. nt

[TheUniverse]

48. I think no women should ever be forced to wear a burka.

Any man who forces a woman to wear it should go to jail. If a woman wears it of her own free will should be allowed.I'm guessing they are in the far minority though.

[GillesDeleuze]

49. 1st amendment cuts both ways

choices, choices.

[riderinthestorm]

51. Western cultures already have laws regarding what women can wear in public.

The burqa is a misogynistic garment designed to erase women from society. I have no problem with the burqa being banned in societies that value women as equals. It's not a religious requirment at all, it's strictly cultural. We've told female Australian Aborigines they cannot go topless in the streets of Sydney for example, not can Hawaiians go topless in Honolulu - even though that "garb" is as "cultural" as the burqa.

Its already legal to tell women what they can and cannot wear in the public square, then as far as I'm concerned, ban this most disgusting cultural misogynistic garment too.

The hijab is different. Please note I am NOT talking about the hijab.

[jberryhill]

62. Precisely - Women Who Do Not Wear The Right Things Need To Be Arrested And Fined

Society needs to make these rules for women.

[riderinthestorm]

68. Society does and can and has. Even here in the US and very few/nobody objects upon arrest.

A naked black Australian Aboriginal woman wearing her "cultural" dress walking down the streets of Chicago would be arrested promptly and I'll bet you any amount of money that not a single person would try to interfere or object.

Because our society doesn't "allow" nudity, neither legally or culturally, in the public square. We as a collective society have decided that it's not something we want. Even though the naked female body is FAR more empowering and powerful than virtually any other "garb"....

Yet we're fighting for the misogynistic burqa?

yeah. Get back to me with some links on your fight for freedom for women to wear whatever they want in public and then you may possibly prove yourself consistent.

[jberryhill]

69. Prove myself consistent?

Look, this is a law, unlike nudity laws, under which only women can be arrested and fined or imprisoned.

It's no skin off my back. Have at it.

I already agreed with the proposition that women who wear unauthorized things should be arrested.

In this instance, they should probably include a month in prison, so that these women can think about getting out of their circumstances.

Lock 'em up and throw away the key if you want.

[nomb]

73. Still not consistent, the law is written gender neutral. (I'll concede it's Men that force the Veil)

n/t

[jberryhill]

75. Riiiiight

And I have as much a right to an abortion as a woman does.

[riderinthestorm]

76. The law is gender neutral. It applies to men as well. nt

[jberryhill]

78. Good. Lock them up too.

However, if the point is that we want to fine people who are being forced to wear these things, one might think that men, who would only wear them voluntarily, are not going to be beaten etc. for not wearing them.

Clearly, enforcement of the law needs to focus on penalizing the women who are forced to wear them.

Otherwise, there is no point in it.

[nomb]

53. Turkey, like France was founded on a cultural war with clergy. Turkey also bans headscarves for Wome

"On 5 June 2008, Turkey's Constitutional Court annulled the parliament's (with a new majority formed by an Islamic religious political party) proposed amendment intended to lift the headscarf ban, ruling that removing the ban was against the founding principles of the constitution. The highest court's decision to uphold the headscarf ban cannot be appealed (AP 7 June 2008).<28>"



The current party in power is seeking to reinstate Islamic dress in all manner of ways to get around the constitution, but Turkey still bans headscarves in official photo's, schools, courts and public places. Individuals may still wear a scarf in many settings not proscribed by law.

[L0oniX]

60. ...the same thing I think about banks requiring me to take off my hat and sun glasses.

[jberryhill]

65. Because there is a fact-based history of people in burkas robbing banks?

[boston bean]

88. maybe you want to google it. see what you find... nt

[L0oniX]

113. I'm sure the TSA will let them keep their burkas on...

as long as they are not covering their ass with it.

[InvisibleTouch]

66. Not in favor.

Who is a government to say how people can dress? Who does it harm for a woman to wear a burka if she wants to? And if she is "forced" to by her culture, and doesn't want to, then it's up to the women of that culture to change it from within. Sympathetic outsiders can help, of course - but it's not an issue for government or laws.

[nomb]

79. "forced"? Like peer pressure? Or like acid in the face by neighbors or honor killings by male family

Just curious what these teen and young adult women are supposed to do from their position as uneducated chattel to be sold by dowry to those they may never have met in order to produce baby's while doing as their told, beaten and walking 3 paces behind carrying the bags as the process begins again all over for the next generation ....


What's the harm? Right?

[jberryhill]

80. That's why these laws don't go far enough

Fining them 150 euro doesn't do anything.

They need to be removed from those circumstances and given access to counseling by making the penalty a prison term instead of just a fine.

[riderinthestorm]

83. Their country, their decision on what the consequences shd be. I have no opinion on the penalty.nt

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

84. They're legislating the wrong thing. They should look for instances of domestic abuse.

Husband is forcing wife to wear a burqa during a heatwave? Abuse.
Father is withdrawing female children from school? Abuse.
Husband is blocking medical care for wife or children? Abuse.
Father or mother are getting daughters' clitorises cut? Nail their asses.

Crack down on THAT.

[jberryhill]

90. This law says it's her fault, and applies the penalty accordingly

Amazing that some can't see that.

Rather than go after what really needs fixing, they want to make a double victim out of the victim.

[nomb]

92. "Husband is forcing wife to wear a burqa during a heatwave? Abuse" The oppressed Women thank you.

But they really won't be free until the chain to the middle ages is fully broken.

And that chain must, as in all these things, be broken for all at once - for no one can be free until the community allows them to be. It's not the decision of the individual women, the decision lies with the community's men.

Remove the power of the men to enforce this on all, there is no other way.

I support France on this.

[jberryhill]

94. "Remove the power of the men" - but only arrest the women

Because if we went after the men instead of the women, that would be entirely inappropriate.

[riderinthestorm]

103. Nope. The law stipulates punishment for both depending on the situation.

ie: woman forced to wear the garb, the man gets the punishment.

[jberryhill]

108. That's the only necessary part

I suppose we could arrest their neighbors too, but I usually tend toward favoring criminal laws that actually address the bad behavior sought to be eliminated.

[Rex]

87. I think it is silly to ban an article of clothing.

No matter what country or reason...unless it is a huge foam dick hat or something else as equally tasteless...just kidding.

[Ohio Joe]

93. I don't really give a shit what laws other countries decide to pass

I have enough shit to worry about in my own country.

[Initech]

97. I have it say it's totally changed my opinion on thought crimes. I'm against them.

[LadyHawkAZ]

98. A burqa/niqab covers the entire face, leaving the person

under it anonymous and unidentifiable. The hijab does not. I think it's reasonable to require anyone in a public area to be reasonably identifiable (i.e. have their facial features showing). I don't have a problem with them keeping their hair covered, but I would have issues with letting anyone into a place of business in what amounts to a disguise.

[Cleita]

99. Why is it only Muslim women that must comply.

If you choose to wear a veil on your hat as a fashion statement, are you too are in violation of the law? I doubt it.

I agree with you. I don't think the government should tell a woman how to dress. There are many other religions where the women wear certain clothes, like the Amish or Catholic nuns. Should the government tell them what to wear too?

[Fire1]

102. You won't find too many Amish communities in Europe.

Secondly, Europe is the cradle of Catholicism (1502 A.D.) so the habit is totally acceptable.

[jberryhill]

111. And Muslims have been in France since....

Does the name Charles Martel ring a bell with you?

Or shall we discuss the history of, say, Algeria?

[Fire1]

112. The post was in response to the Amish garb and Catholic

garb, specifically. Try not to derail the discussion.

[jberryhill]

128. It's pretty much all derail

The point seems to have related to what is "historically normal". That all depends on where one sticks the marker. We can roll back to pre-Roman Gaul, too, but Muslims have been in France for as long as Christians.

Catholicism in France made a significant beachhead in the fifth century, but the Moors showed up within 400 years, give or take, of that.

[Cleita]

119. Really? So you don't quite see the bias here? n/t

[Fire1]

121. Absolutely none. n/t

[Cleita]

123. Amazing! eom

[riderinthestorm]

109. Government can and does dictate what women can wear in public. And we're discussing face veiling,

not head scarves or head gear.

[Cleita]

117. It only says we can't show our lady parts. How we

dress otherwise is up to us. If I want to wear a mask or veil over my face, I can, today anyway.

[jberryhill]

130. Can we agree on polyester pantsuits?

Now if you want to talk about clothing that is demeaning....

[Cleita]

143. Funny!

:rofl:

[riderinthestorm]

135. In the US you can wear a veil or mask. But clearly not in some countries in Europe.

And for those who wear the burka, they are covering their "lady parts" - their lady faces.

Why are some body parts to be covered and others exposed? Because we as a society have decided which ones we want to see. In western cultures, that includes the face, or at least those who have made laws about it.

[Fire1]

100. I totally agree with it. It's demeaning to say the least.

If you're going to live in another culture than you are expected to assimilate into that culture. Otherwise, why leave the culture of origin in the first place?

[jberryhill]

101. There goes the St. Patrick's Day Parade

I guess we can get them to march right back to Ireland...

[riderinthestorm]

105. Yes because a 1x/year event is so analogous to a daily shrouding

designed to erase the woman from society permanently. :eyes: Got another strawman?

[jberryhill]

106. Nope, fresh out. Let's make these women criminals

And, by all means, let's leave the men oppressing them alone.

[riderinthestorm]

136. Read the law. Men would be prosecuted too. More strawmen?

:rofl:

[AsahinaKimi]

150. Would you have

Chinatown ban its New Years parade, or the Sakura Matsuri in our Japantown? I am so glad I live in San Francisco and can experience different cultural exchanges right here in my own city. Try coming to San Francisco and putting a bill to ban all Cultural practices just so the people can assimilate into the American culture! I double dawg dare you!

[grahamhgreen]

104. I'm more concerned about the ban on topless swimsuits!

[Fumesucker]

127. Reply #114 was right below yours when I read the thread..

"Drum up tensions"..

:rofl:

[Arrowhead2k1]

114. They are unnecessary and only serve to stir up tensions. nt

[Warren Stupidity]

115. Under the circumstances I think this is the right thing to do.

The repression of women in islamic society is an incontestable reality and it is incompatible with modern secular society. The burka is a prime example of this idiocy. The law is appropriate.

[izquierdista]

116. Ah, yes, religious costumes

Why do religions have to freeze fashion several centuries in the past? Maybe I should dig up some platinum plates and transcribe them and start the Church of the Buttless Chaps. In the CBC, it will be verboten to cover the buttocks except in the coldest of weather, and then only with the prescribed "Lord's Pajama Flap". New converts would be allowed to use sunblocking flaps until they developed the bronzed fesse of a true-believer. How glorious it would be to see another believer in public and greet them with the fraternal kiss on the cheeks!

[Bragi]

118. I oppose Burkas and laws banning them

I think any form of dress that includes hiding the face is anti-social and offensive.

I would like to see it actively discouraged, and would support public campaigns to shame/convince women not to wear it.

I would not support laws banning them, however, because I don't think it is a serious enough problem to justify criminalization.

[Cleita]

124. Bingo!

Things like this shouldn't be legislated. Sure, try to discourage it but please no laws.

[nomb]

134. Let's see if that attitude gets muslim women from the 1100's to say, 1340? When doyou see Equality?

n/t

[Cleita]

146. Frankly most muslim women were shedding the veil

back in the sixties. It was generational really. It's when the fundamentalist mullahs and ayatollahs got into power that they started to wear the veil and the hajib again. I really feel if left alone, the second generation will shed the veils although their mothers probably won't.

[riderinthestorm]

140. So what about the laws against public nudity? That's traditional cultural "garb" for many cultures

Should they all get a legal by-pass from observing our laws and get to wear their traditional "outfits" in the US?

We can and do legislate clothing restrictions in public, legally. Why lobby so hard for this misogynistic garment in public (when really empowering "outfits" like female nudity are banned?) To be consistent in your position, you'd have to be for ALL cultural outfits to be appropriate in public - including the right for a woman to testify in court in her "traditional" un-dress.

[Cleita]

144. There's the millenium old rule, "when in Rome".

However, both in ancient Greece and in Rome, women were often veiled in public. As to nudity, I think it's really about discretion. I live near the ocean and many beaches are unofficially nude beaches. I would like a clothing optional rule where there is a beach or a pool. On the other hand some people should just not take their clothes off.

[riderinthestorm]

149. It's not about discretion, it's the law. Decided by the people and duly voted upon.

Just like the burqa ban in Europe.

See how that works? People making a legal rule about what they want to see or not see in public. Men and women are not allowed to go about undressed in western cultures, even if that's their cultural traditional attire in their native land. Women are particularly scrutinized in our laws in that we are not allowed to go topless while men are.

Veiling is ancient, misogynistic and cultural. It's misogyny is not what western cultures value, like FGM. There are some things we NOW know are harmful to women and its well within our rights to just say no to those practices.

[Cleita]

155. So I guess if you are disfigured from an accident

and want to wear a veil to cover it, you won't be allowed to in France and Belgium. It's Just as misogynistic as requiring that a woman wear a veil.

[riderinthestorm]

156. Uhm, that's not misogyny, that's disability accomodation, a far different animal than accomodating

cultural customs. I'm not familiar with France or Belgium's disability requirements so I have no comment on that. Regardless, those countries will have to work out their own disability exemptions themselves in relation to the law. In the US, the disabled can win certain exemptions from laws the rest of us have to follow. Perhaps France and Belgium are the same.

[Cleita]

157. Well of course unless they are Muslim. eom

[riderinthestorm]

159. Or members of the KKK, because you know, they might have a facial disfigurement too. nt

[Cleita]

160. LOL! Cute. n/t

[riderinthestorm]

163. Heh. Sometimes drunk posting DOES pay off! Anyway, peace to you Cleita

I'm off for the night. Honestly, the burqa threads really bore me anymore. I am actually far more interested in kicking the Somali road of death stories than this.

Thanks for a respectful exchange. :hi:

[bluestate10]

122. I will be ok for banning burkas when the nutty hats the english women wear to

horse races and weddings are banned.

[Little Star]

125. I agree with burka banning laws. Period!

[Unvanguard]

126. I am totally against laws criminalizing people's personal religious expression. n/t

[riderinthestorm]

137. Burqas are not religious. They are cultural. nt

[Unvanguard]

148. I am against laws criminalizing people's cultural expression too.

In any case, my understanding is that some people do take the wearing of the burqa to be a religious obligation, and that's what counts.

[riderinthestorm]

151. No, legally religious expression is in a whole different category than cultural.

But even then, cultural dress can and is legally proscribed or we would have "culturally clothed" Maoris testifying naked in court.

Sorry, societies can and do regulate dress, especially for women.

[Raine]

138. Their country, their rules. Western women are expected to cover up

in a Muslim country ... "when in Rome" etc etc. :shrug:

[Ilsa]

158. This is how I look at it also.

They want to "preserve" their culture by having some degree of conformity. They don't want to be a melting pot.

[mdmc]

139. I don't support those anti-burka laws

Those burkas seem very similar to the outfits nuns wear

[Posteritatis]

141. Love some of the ridiculous arguments in these threads

Bank robbers and streakers come up every single time, like clockwork.

[jberryhill]

147. And Dominique Strauss Kahn Is A Leading French Political Thinker

[BlueJazz]

164. I don't have a problem with it. Some countries have a long tradition of the way...

... they look as a society and they want to keep it that same way.

I may not see eye to eye on such thinking but it IS their country....and in this case, Majority Rule does not truly harm anyone.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

165. They should ban the face covering while a woman is driving.

For safety's sake.

As well as identification in banks as protection against robbers.

a headscarf is different. I think they should NOT cover their faces completely or use the veil that covers all but the eyes!!

They cannot even eat, see or breathe. It's a portable prison, designed to erase the woman's presence.
Same rationale as the Christians - women are beautiful and tempting, so instead of men controlling their carnal desires, we must make the women cover up so we won't rape them. Blaming the victim for the way she dresses.

And if you are in the hot sun in a BLACK burqa -- sounds like heatstroke to me -- but then women are expendable in Muslim countries.

:banghead:

[GoneOffShore]

167. Read the New Yorker article about Elizabeth Badinter

25 July issue.

She has a great argument as to why the law makes sense.

Among other things:

"Are we so contemptible and impure in your eyes that you refuse all contact, all connection with us, down to even a little smile?"