Veil (and Burqua) not welcome in France

[The Shadow]

French Muslims' Veils Ignite Debate On Values (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/08/AR2009080802609.html?hpid=topnews)

Full-Length Covering Subject of Inquiry

VENISSIEUX, France -- It was market day on Place Leon Sublet, the main square in this little working-class town southeast of Lyon. In the shadow of an old Catholic church, unhurried shoppers wandered the food stalls.

It could have been a portrait of France at its most traditional, except that many of the women wore robes down to their ankles and long scarves to conceal their hair.

Then along came a woman shrouded head to toe in black. Only her dark eyes were visible through a narrow slit in her veil, a portrait more reminiscent of Saudi Arabia than traditional France.

French people have long been accustomed to Muslim women wearing head scarves and long dresses. But the sight of women covered by black veils, increasingly frequent in some towns, has become the latest test of France's uneasy role as host to the largest Muslim population in Europe, nearly 6 million out of 64 million. Because of its stark distinction from the way European women dress, the full veil has generated a public outcry, becoming a symbol widely perceived as an assault on France's secular values.

[Rapscallion]

So, what's your position, Shadow? This is a debate site - come on and speak up :)

Rapscallion

[Flyndaran]

I know that I don't like banning a type of clothing.
But I wouldn't have a problem with businesses banning people wearing them as suspicious activity. It's no worse than wearing a ski mask in a 7/11.

[The Shadow]

Well since you asked... :)

I totally support freedom of religion, but this issue isn't so clear-cut to me. The Burqa and the Veil are items of clothing that represent a religious belief of female subordination. Everyone should have the freedom to make their own choices, but we also have to keep in mind that no one makes choices in a vacuum; there's always a number of factors like cultural pressures and expectations that are going to influence one's decisions and so we can't always be sure a choice is truly authentic. Personally, I find it hard to believe that there would be many women who voluntarily wear a burqa or a veil if they had any sort of *real* choice in the matter.

[Slytovhand]

I'll weigh in and suggest the women choose to wear it, as part of a religion that they choose to follow and obey. If you were to ask them if they freely choose to wear the garb, they will say 'yes'.

But... I have a work female colleague or 2, who are muslim, and they don't wear the traditional garb.

So.. who's right?


As far as French opinion is concerned... it's none of their business, really. If someone wishes to practice a religion, why bother stopping them? Well, not unless the Muslims are trying to get a political party together to change the French laws in that direction. 10% is a fairly large number, politically speaking.


So, in response to The Shadow, the real question (which is a bit more encompassing) is: Should we allow people to be sheep?

[Flyndaran]

I'll weigh in and suggest the women choose to wear it, as part of a religion that they choose to follow and obey. If you were to ask them if they freely choose to wear the garb, they will say 'yes'.

But... I have a work female colleague or 2, who are muslim, and they don't wear the traditional garb.

So.. who's right?

...
Trick question. Your colleagues follow a different form of islam. They are both right in as much as any religious follower can be.

[BroomJockey]

If you were to ask them if they freely choose to wear the garb, they will say 'yes'.

<snip>

As far as French opinion is concerned... it's none of their business, really. If someone wishes to practice a religion, why bother stopping them?

Part the first. Is it really freely chosen? Or is it that they're conditioned to want it from birth by dominating cultural pressures or brutally strict family pressures? Of course they'll say yes, because probably 95% of the time, they can't actually comprehend the idea that it's possible to not.

Part the second. Actually, it's completely their business. A sovereign country is completely free to dictate the kinds of society they want, free from outside influence, and with no need to kowtow to whatever standard you feel should be imposed. If the French want a society where no one can hide their identity for long periods of time, or to even disallow outward signs of religiousity, they're free to do that. If you don't like it, don't live there, or work to change it. You don't need to approve of it, but don't fall in to the trap of thinking that a government's job isn't to help shape the society the electorate desires, including acceptance of religion.

[Rapscallion]

Personally, I find it hard to believe that there would be many women who voluntarily wear a burqa or a veil if they had any sort of *real* choice in the matter.

There are, actually. For some it's a scary thought. However, how much different is it from a security blanket that keeps away the monsters in the night?

But... I have a work female colleague or 2, who are muslim, and they don't wear the traditional garb.

What is traditional garb? For many, the burqua isn't traditional - a simple 'hijab' (head covering) and all-covering clothes suffice to meet the strictures of the koran. There are as many shades of grey in the matter as there are in varieties of christianity.

As far as French opinion is concerned... it's none of their business, really.

It's their land. They can pass the laws they want, though it's the problem of whether or not others disagree enough with that to bring in sanctions or the troops.

If someone wishes to practice a religion, why bother stopping them? Well, not unless the Muslims are trying to get a political party together to change the French laws in that direction. 10% is a fairly large number, politically speaking.

Yes, 10% of the population is the sort of figure that would have a politician screaming after a nightmare at election time.

As to why stop people from practicing a religion, there are a few facets to consider.

1 - What are the effects of the religion? For me, the burqua is more than a device to stop raiders of desert tribes working out which of the women were attractive, or to stop mens' lusts (men are morally weaker than women? another thread). Instead, it's a visible symbol of what religion is about - them and us. "We're visibly different to you. We're the chosen of our divinity. We feel secure in this. We're better than you." The corresponding view from onlookers is that of suspicion and hostility. Them and us works both ways.

2 - What is the nature of the host country? France is a very protective country. I know of no other nation that has an institute to protect its language, nor of one that genuinely controls how much television from other countries can be watched on the grounds of culture (not on the grounds of mind control). France has continuously tried to block any more languages being recognised as being official for reporting at the European Union and its forebears - it fears English being recognised and naturally taking over. The other side of this is that France is also a very welcoming country (often on its own terms, but...) - the word 'frank' has its roots in the word meaning 'free'. France has a habit of trying to coordinate peaceful intentions (such as the EU etc). It welcomes people, and then it sees the welcomed people holding themselves visibly apart from them.

3 - Denying a religion some sort of rights will make it more attractive to those interested in being a martyr.

I'm somewhat torn on the matter. I honestly think that this is a generational thing. Back in the sixties in Britain, it wasn't uncommon to see boarding houses with signs saying 'no blacks, no irish, no dogs'. Nobody worries about the black or irish sections of the population now - we've got scary newcomers to hold our attention. Sure, they cook nice food for the most part, but you can't see their womens' faces, and a small minority like to bomb us, so they must all be bad - and look at the funny shape of their temples!

Give it a couple of generations - maybe fifty or sixty years - and the integration will have settled in both ways, and by then we'll have another population to hold our interest. Of note is that the relatively cheap price of travel means that this effect of migration is happening faster and often overlapping.

It's not something that will settle down overnight, and no measure introduced by anyone will force the pace of change. Populations can change - a boarding house putting up such a sign as above these days would be hauled up in front of a court very quickly. However, the change happened over decades. It's not glacial, but it's not far from it.

Rapscallion

[Flyndaran]

...
What is traditional garb? For many, the burqua isn't traditional - a simple 'hijab' (head covering) and all-covering clothes suffice to meet the strictures of the koran. There are as many shades of grey in the matter as there are in varieties of christianity.
...
Rapscallion

The bible does mention headware in church.
The problem with islam is that many of its followers don't pick and choose what they believe like those of other religions... yet.

[BroomJockey]

The problem with islam is that many of its followers don't pick and choose what they believe like those of other religions... yet.

Funny note, I read an article from a Quran scholar that mentioned there's no such thing as a jihad in the book. It's a complete fabrication and prop by the extremists.

[Flyndaran]

Funny note, I read an article from a Quran scholar that mentioned there's no such thing as a jihad in the book. It's a complete fabrication and prop by the extremists.

Thous shalt not suffer a witch to live. Killing is a fundamental part of every religion no matter what some of its sedentary practioners may say.

[Rapscallion]

Funny note, I read an article from a Quran scholar that mentioned there's no such thing as a jihad in the book. It's a complete fabrication and prop by the extremists.

I've heard islamic scholars on the radio before describing how 'jihad' is a word that means 'to be done properly', and it can mean something as simple as a carpenter making a table properly.

Not being islamic and not able to speak arabic, I'm not exactly sure how much of this was window dressing.

Rapscallion

[BroomJockey]

Killing is a fundamental part of every religion no matter what some of its sedentary practioners may say.

Er, no. Since major religions' holy books say specifically "Don't kill," it's not fundamental, it's extremist. Fundamental would be an essential part. Killing isn't essential to most religions. For one who insists on linguistical precision, you've got some sloppy word usage.

ETA: witch burnings was not an actual religious persecution. It was all jumped up to provide an excuse to kill certain "undesirables" or to commandeer someone's property.

I've heard islamic scholars on the radio before describing how 'jihad' is a word that means 'to be done properly', and it can mean something as simple as a carpenter making a table properly.


Ah, neat. Not heard that. "Jihad as holy war," was specifically what the article was addressing.

[Rapscallion]

Hitting google and typing in 'define: jihad' gets several interesting interpretations.

Rapscallion

[Nyoibo]

I find it hard to believe that there would be many women who voluntarily wear a burqa or a veil if they had any sort of *real* choice in the matter.

Part the first. Is it really freely chosen? Or is it that they're conditioned to want it from birth by dominating cultural pressures or brutally strict family pressures? Of course they'll say yes, because probably 95% of the time, they can't actually comprehend the idea that it's possible to not.


There are women who have freely converted to Islam who have chosen to wear the full burqa, so yes, they voluntarily chose to wear it and they weren't conditioned to want it.


Funny note, I read an article from a Quran scholar that mentioned there's no such thing as a jihad in the book. It's a complete fabrication and prop by the extremists.

That's usually the case with extremists from any religion to justify their actions.

[BroomJockey]

There are women who have freely converted to Islam who have chosen to wear the full burqa, so yes, they voluntarily chose to wear it and they weren't conditioned to want it.


95%. It's like, right there in the quote. Geez. :p

[Cat]

The whole culture/tradition of head coverings fascinates me....I don't think I could ever adhere to it (being non-reglious and all) but I do respect someone's choice for doing so.

When I get home I'll read the article so I can comment on that, just wanted throw in a thought :)

[Talon]

I won't repost what I have in my other thread on the subject. Short version: rickets disease, caused by lack of exposure to sunlight, which can happen from having the body covered up.

Perhaps the all-body-covering burkas could be subject to the same restrictions we have on cigarettes, and other destructive substances.

[Nyoibo]

Which is easily avoided by drinking Vitamin D fortified milk, cod liver oil or one of the many vitamin D suplements available. Rickets really isn't a good arguement against a Burqa, as the arguement could be made that there is less risk of skin cancer because they have less exposure to sunlight to use your words
"Perhaps the sun could be subject to the same restrictions we have on cigarettes, and other destructive substances."

[Lace Neil Singer]

Just throwing this in there:

http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/the-truth-behind-the-burqa/
Frankly, I’ve lived on both sides of this debate, and I would like to put the record straight once and for all as I was instructed during my time in a moderately strict Islamic society - to wear a burqa, hijab or headscarf during daily life is not prescribed specifically anywhere in the Koran – it is not wajib (mandatory and prescribed by the Koran), but only sunat (recommended culturally).

So the burqa is not a religious article at all; just something imposed on women culturely?

[lordlundar]

Thous shalt not suffer a witch to live. Killing is a fundamental part of every religion no matter what some of its sedentary practioners may say.

That was actually inserted into the bible (If I recall correctly, the King James version) as a justification of their actions.

[radiocerk]

As someone who works in a drugstore (frequently robbed for Oxycontin), I wouldn't want anyone in a burqa at my counter. Or a pulled up hoodie and sunglasses combo, or a ski mask. If I can't see your face, I don't consider your actions automatically trustworthy.
And how do I know that you're really just a religious girl under there, and not some sort of thief, or other untrustworthy sort. Hijab, or modesty, does not require full burqa. I understand people's rights to practice their religion, but it ends where it makes me fear for my possible safety.

*smirks* you know, like Scientologists....

[Pedersen]

I understand people's rights to practice their religion, but it ends where it makes me fear for my possible safety.

"Possible safety"??? I was ready to go off on you completely for that statement until someone else pointed out you'd been robbed. As a result, it's only a minor explosion.

Let me show you how ridiculous that statement is, though:


"I understand people are allowed to drive, but it ends where it makes me fear for my possible safety. After all, I could be in a crosswalk when they try to drive by."
"I understand people are allowed to run, but it ends where it makes me fear for my possible safety. After all, they could be running from the cops, and they might try to shoot and hit me instead."
"I understand companies are allowed to mass produce drugs, but it ends where it makes me fear for my possible safety. After all, some people get addicted to those drugs, and are willing to kill to get them."


Do you see how ridiculous that sentiment is? If you are talking about an imminent danger to your safety, that's one thing. But you're not: You're talking about a possible danger at some point that may or may not ever actually occur.

I'm not too fond of the burqua on the grounds that, to me, it seems to be a way to oppress women. But that's not enough to make me force women to stop wearing it. And here you seem to be espousing the idea that anybody who comes in dressed in such a fashion might well deserve to have their own freedoms stripped away on the grounds that you might possibly be in danger at some point.

That's wrong on so many levels. I'm going to hope I just misunderstood you.

[RecoveringKinkoid]

I'm just going to make an observation here. I'm not speaking of whether people ought to wear identity obscuring garb in public or not. I'm just saying Radiocerk isn't so ridiculous as Pedersen suggests (allthough I do see Pedersen's point.)

Halloween. A night where you know everyone's dressed up and nothing strange about it, right?

Okay, I'm closing up shop (I was giving out treats at home) at around 10, as the stream of trick or treaters is drying up. It's dark, and nobody's around anymore.

I see someone coming across my front yard in the dark. It's a giant purple dragon. No, it's not Barney, but it's someone in a big dragon fursuit.

I thought, Wow. Nice costume.

Then I thought, Uh, who the hell IS that and why don't I see a car??

I will admit a flicker of fear went through me when I realized it was late, it was dark, and I was all alone in the house with a large stranger I couldn't identify striding purposefully towards me. Purple dragon notwithstanding.

Turned out, it was a friend of mine that I wasn't expecting, coming out to show me his new suit. He'd hidden his car in order to suprise me.

Coulda been anyone, and up to anything. I'm just making an observation here. I don't think fear of a hidden stranger is such an unreasonable thing. Purple dragons don't even have the distinction of coming from a demographic known for mayhem, either.

[Boozy]

Fear of someone whose face is hidden is not necessarily unreasonable, in certain circumstances. What is unreasonable is to limit religious and individual freedom to the point where no one can wear face coverings in public. That is a massive overreaction.

[NorthernZel]

Just throwing this in there:

http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/the-truth-behind-the-burqa/


So the burqa is not a religious article at all; just something imposed on women culturely?

Technically, yes. As I understand, the Quran only suggests that women should dress "decently" and "hide the hair". How that should be done is at the worshipper's discretion, though cultural traditions and preferences do have a lot of influence on the matter.

I once had a coworker who converted to Islam, she wore a huge Rastafari hat instead of a hijab. As she said, "hey, it covers the hair, so no problem".

[Nyoibo]

Going on the personal safety issue of someone wearing a face covering, if it's going to be banned on those grounds, then ban wearing a hat and large sunglasses, that covers a fair bit of the face too. I would also have an easier time recognising someones eyes than their mouth and chin.

[radiocerk]

Our store does have a sign up front that requests people remove hoods, hats, etc. Anyone wearing large sunglasses indoors kinda weird me out too. I always remove mine when coming into a store, just out of courtesy for this reason. So, no, it's not just a burqa thing. Anyone coming up to my counter with their face obscured makes me nervy. Anywhere else, it doesn't bother me. I'd imagine people at the bank feel the same way.

[BroomJockey]

Anyone wearing large sunglasses indoors kinda weird me out too.

I've got those glasses that darken in sunlight, so I don't constantly have to switch between sunglasses/regular glasses, but I went with the narrowest lenses I could get away with, so that I could avoid that kind of thing. It's worked fairly well. I think I've been asked once to take them off in the 3+ years I've had them.

[IDrinkaRum]

I've got those glasses that darken in sunlight, so I don't constantly have to switch between sunglasses/regular glasses, but I went with the narrowest lenses I could get away with, so that I could avoid that kind of thing. It's worked fairly well. I think I've been asked once to take them off in the 3+ years I've had them.


I have the same type of glasses. I've never been asked to take them off. :confused:

[fireheart17]

Technically, yes. As I understand, the Quran only suggests that women should dress "decently" and "hide the hair". How that should be done is at the worshipper's discretion, though cultural traditions and preferences do have a lot of influence on the matter.

I once had a coworker who converted to Islam, she wore a huge Rastafari hat instead of a hijab. As she said, "hey, it covers the hair, so no problem".

I remember reading a story called "Does My Head Look Big In This?" about a Muslim girl deciding to wear the hijab full-time. (only time she wore it previously was Muslim festivals and at mosque) One of her relatives in the book wore a beanie for her hijab since it covered the hair.

But yes, you are correct. The only absolute requirements are that the head, arms and legs are covered IIRC. Faces are not required to be covered.

Also, a bit of an interesting point.

The headscarf plus facial covering is called a niqab (where you can still see the eyes)
The headscarf plus grille in front of the eyes is called a burqa.

[Dreamstalker]

I have the glasses that darken as well and have never been asked to take them off. I'd think they are common enough that one can differentiate between those lenses and full-on sunglasses.
Our store does have a sign up front that requests people remove hoods, hats, etc. Anyone wearing large sunglasses indoors kinda weird me out too.
My bank (and other banks I've passed by) have the same notice posted. Even in the middle of winter, I take my hat/hood off in the building. Mainly common courtesy; it's understandable that a bank teller might be creeped out by someone with a large part of their face/head obscured. Yes, all the tellers know me, but I'd rather they recognize me as a non-threat from fifteen feet away rather than as I'm being held by police.

[Red Panda]

http://www.fratching.com/showthread.php?t=3156


Evidently my post about France passing this law is the same as a very old topic about the law being proposed.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10611398


What a load of croc. They tried, very lazily, to make it look like its anything but an attack on Muslims by not mentioning Islamic garb specifically, but thats like saying the souther poll taxes weren't racist because poor white people also don't get to vote.

The fact is this measure is nothing but an attack on a traditionly Islamic way of dressing. What really gets me is that the Justice Minister says they are fighting oppression. Because there is no better way to fight oppression then forcing people to dress a certain way.

[Greenday]

http://www.fratching.com/showthread.php?t=3156


Evidently my post about France passing this law is the same as a very old topic about the law being proposed.

Are you saying they are unrelated events? I kinda consider a law being proposed and being passed to be one main event.

I still think an all out ban is ridiculous. But I could see how it'd make sense in certain places like government buildings, court houses, etc.

[Ree]

Evidently my post about France passing this law is the same as a very old topic about the law being proposed.Right.

And, since this "very old topic" was about the proposal of the law, then it would follow that discussion about the actual passing of the law would be related and could be continued in the thread.

It never hurts to do a search before starting a new topic, (especially when it's a current event story), and add to an existing discussion, so the board doesn't get littered with several threads on the same subject.

[Red Panda]

Except most boards punish you for necroing an old topic and I didn't see it anywhere when I looked around so I thought I would get in trouble for bumping old topics

[Ree]

Except most boards punish you for necroing an old topicIf it's the same issue, and a continuation of the discussion, we don't usually get bent out of shape if an old thread get resurrected. It happens from time to time.

On CS, threads get closed after a certain amount of time with no discussion, but as far as I know, we don't do that here.

The fact that you posted a new thread isn't all that big a deal.
It was closed as a duplicate, and since a link to this thread was provided, the discussion can continue.

There really wasn't any need to make that post about having posted the duplicate.

You obviously have feelings on the issue, so go ahead and share them here.

[Hyena Dandy]

It may have been said already, but I think it bears rementioning before I read through the thread. The idea behind this legislation is to stop people from oppressing the women in public by making them wear burqas. But if they're in a family which IS oppressing them, saying you can't wear a Burqa in public won't stop them from being oppressed. It'll just lead to more oppression. If you can only go out wearing one thing, and then you can't wear that, you won't be allowed out at all.

[Red Panda]

Ignoring family oppression, the idea that women are completly unable to decide for themselves what they want to wear and need government intervention to dress them is in itself pretty offensive to woman. Plus the entire idea that in order to fight oppression you need to oppress those who choose to dress that way is idiotic.

France should just be honest, they don't want Muslims doing a predominitly Muslim traddition.

[Rapscallion]

I think it's more that it's one culture that's very protective about its culture feeling threatened by another with similar attitudes. They're protecting themselves, as far as they see it.

Rapscallion

[Hyena Dandy]

Ignoring family oppression, the idea that women are completly unable to decide for themselves what they want to wear and need government intervention to dress them is in itself pretty offensive to woman. Plus the entire idea that in order to fight oppression you need to oppress those who choose to dress that way is idiotic.

France should just be honest, they don't want Muslims doing a predominitly Muslim traddition.

Well, yes, I suppose if we ignore the whole oppression bit the law doesn't make much sense. Not like the whole oppression thing was the reason the law was created or anything. Probably best if we just ignore anything that disagrees with our opinions. Makes it easier that way, right Panda?

[Red Panda]

Are you saying that ignoring things we disagree with is a bad idea and we should ban it instead?

[suchislife2]

We're not always going to know the situation in the womans life that has brought her to wear/not wear the burqua. However in my own opinion, it's not hurting anyone. True, it's a bit rough to tell a person to take off their helment when walking into a bank but not make a woman take off the head garb that is covering her face. And i guess that is a problem in it's self. But right now, if I want to peraid around in a skimpy bikini and someone else wants to wear something that covered them head to toe, then so be it. Who am I to judge someone on what and why they chose to wear something.

[Nyoibo]

Well, yes, I suppose if we ignore the whole oppression bit the law doesn't make much sense. Not like the whole oppression thing was the reason the law was created or anything. Probably best if we just ignore anything that disagrees with our opinions. Makes it easier that way, right Panda?

I'm going to (and I can't believe the words are coming out of my keyboard) agree with Red Panda here, this law has nothing to do with stopping oppression of women and everything to do with singling out a specific group, in one of the articles related to this only around 1600 women wear full face covering, it's been condemned by Amnesty International, at it's core it's a piece of jingoistic bull.