France likely to ban the burka

[JudoChop]

To add a little lightness to the conversation. ;)


"French MPs vote to ban Islamic full veil in public

The bill envisages fines of 150 euros for women wearing the full veil
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 557-seat National Assembly.

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

Source BBC News - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10611398



The way I see it is that the Koran only requires women to be modestly dressed and does not say anywhere that they need to wear any type of veil/headscarf/balaclava. What if the woman is forced to wear a burka by her husband? well that's a different issue altogether and a case for domestic abuse which should be treated accordingly by the government.

I think it's a positive move for cultural integration. So what are your feelings about this?

[Tish]

What are the reasons for banning someone wearing the burka, do you know?  Can I add to the list and say no gstrings with low rise jeans, and no skinny women in tiny bikinis at any time.

[JudoChop]

"After the vote, Justice Minister Michele Alliot-Marie said it was a victory for democracy and for French values.
Values of freedom against all the oppressions which try to humiliate individuals; values of equality between men and women, against those who push for inequality and injustice."

"Democracy thrives when it is open-faced," Ms Alliot-Marie told the National Assembly when she presented the bill last week.
She stressed the bill, which makes no reference to Islam or veils, was not aimed at "stigmatising or singling out a religion".

Berengere Poletti, an MP from Mr Sarkozy's centre-right UMP party, said women in full veils wore "a sign of alienation on their faces" and had to be "liberated".

[FGOH]

My knee-jerk reaction is to say "good". It does, however, impinge on a person's right to wear what they choose. If they want people to show their faces, will they also outlaw balaclavas and full face motorcycle helmets unless the bike is actually being ridden at the time of wearing? If they want to outlaw overtly religious dress because France is a secular society then what about priests wearing dog collars outside of their place of worship? What about Jews wearing skullcaps? So when I really think about it I am not so sure it is the best of ideas. It will be very interesting to see what happens if it is ratified.

[wabbit111]

My knee-jerk reaction is to say "good". It does, however, impinge on a person's right to wear what they choose. If they want people to show their faces, will they also outlaw balaclavas and full face motorcycle helmets unless the bike is actually being ridden at the time of wearing? If they want to outlaw overtly religious dress because France is a secular society then what about priests wearing dog collars outside of their place of worship? What about Jews wearing skullcaps? So when I really think about it I am not so sure it is the best of ideas. It will be very interesting to see what happens if it is ratified.

Items covering the face are banned in many places in the UK already. It makes the use of cctv useless if they cant identify an individual by their face. you often see signs in banks and building societies telling people to remove crash helmets.

[Tish]

On a more serious note, what if some women don't actually feel oppressed by the requirement to wear the burka?   

[JudoChop]

My knee-jerk reaction is to say "good". It does, however, impinge on a person's right to wear what they choose. If they want people to show their faces, will they also outlaw balaclavas and full face motorcycle helmets unless the bike is actually being ridden at the time of wearing? If they want to outlaw overtly religious dress because France is a secular society then what about priests wearing dog collars outside of their place of worship? What about Jews wearing skullcaps? So when I really think about it I am not so sure it is the best of ideas. It will be very interesting to see what happens if it is ratified.

Wearing a motorbike helmet all the time would certainly be viewed by the general public as being antisocial to say the least. Hats and dog collars still allow for open communication as facial expressions are still visible which are an important part of the communication process. I think this will get interesting if it goes through.

[JudoChop]

On a more serious note, what if some women don't actually feel oppressed by the requirement to wear the burka?   

I think the issue is regarding the promotion of cultural integration rather than wether the uniform is oppressive. Some may argue that their rights have been oppressed by feeling fear or anxiety when seeing someone dressed this way.

[FGOH]

I think they would certainly have more grounds to justify banning it on the basis that the face should be shown and I agree that any items covering the face are generally undesirable unless needed for a specific activity.

Hubby does motor insurance and requested to see the foreign driving licence of a muslim woman who wished to drive in the UK. You guessed it - the picture was of her in her burka.

Apart from the issues of identification mentioned by Wabbit it is extremely difficult to have a properly meaningful conversation with somebody whose face is covered; as Judo said, facial expressions are an important part of the communication process.

[rickymooston]

What are the reasons for banning someone wearing the burka, do you know?  Can I add to the list and say no gstrings with low rise jeans, and no skinny women in tiny bikinis at any time.

that would kill austrailia's tourist industry.

[SkunkButt]

For one thing I ask why is it always the women who bear unnecessary burdens? Damned if you wear it, damned if you don't. Damned if you are a woman. Make the men wear panties in public and watch the doo doo fly.

This is just another move by European countries that are rightfully concerned about the increasing influence of Islamic demands that undermine democracy. European democracy is being challenged and are steping up to face the problem.

After WW II and the resultant move towards democracy Europe has become productive and peaceful though not always in agreement. I think the Islamic demands on these democracies are a definite threat to continued peace and prosperity. And presents new and challenging circumstances to work out.

Good luck.

[D M]

Hi,
I think this is a bad idea. It’s not as though every muslim woman wears this clothing because of coercion, and many may do so because of conscience. In their case, telling them to violate their conscience is in my opinion a mean thing to do to them.
Many Christians are in favour of these sorts of measures, although I think it is against what Paul instructed about not tempting someone to violate their conscience even if their conscience is misled.
Romans 14:15 If your brother is being injured by what you eat, you are no longer walking in love. Do not let what you eat cause the ruin of one for whom Christ died.
Many woman may wind up simply staying home all day since they can’t go outside wearing the facial covering, which will only alienate them even more from the surrounding society.
For passport photos, driver’s licenses or necessary security documents I think it would be acceptable to require them to remove the veil, but doing so in order to assimilate them is a bad decision.
(On a sidenote, if it is still allowed to wear motorcycle helmets, balaclavas with goggles, darth vader masks, etc. in public, what would stop the muslim women from wearing those?)
Thank for your OP,
God Bless,

[JudoChop]

I appreciate your points on this DM. If it were a religious requirement then I'm sure more people would be comfortable but as it was originally a concept used by oppressive fossils to keep their woman in line I can't defend it. Even if the woman doesn't feel oppressed, the outfit is a symbol of oppression and has no place in modern society, France has recognised that allowing it does nothing towards integrating cultures and in some cases causes fear and alienation amongst the public. I'm more bothered by what it stands for rather than how it looks, proof - I think ninjas look cool. ;)

[Tish]

... Even if the woman doesn't feel oppressed, the outfit is a symbol of oppression and has no place in modern society, France has recognised that allowing it does nothing towards integrating cultures and in some cases causes fear and alienation amongst the public...

Judo, this is eloquently put - you have changed my mind on this topic with your wise words.  Thanks.

[JudoChop]

I'm trying to convert people to Judoism. ;)

[Happy Evolute]

... a concept used by oppressive fossils to keep their woman in line I can't defend it. Even if the woman doesn't feel oppressed, the outfit is a symbol of oppression and has no place in modern society, ...

+1

If they are obliged to keep their faces hidden then they can still be sent out to get the shopping, and no-one can see the bruises.

[Sita]

I see it as a symbol of oppression as well, and what HE said is very true.  Many of the woman forced to wear the burka are routinely beaten by their husbands to keep them in line.

[wabbit111]

Another problem is identifying illegal imigrants. We have a bit of a problem with this in the UK, and there is a growing problem, especially with the young in ethnic groups, to "push the envelope" as far as school uniforms etc are concerned. The burka has become a symbol of rebellion against the etablishment.

[Captain Luke]

I agree that the burka/niqab is offensive and unacceptable. I think that the original idea was to ban it in public buildings, but that was extended to all public places. I'm not convinced that it's legal for them to push this through as is, and no doubt this will be challenged in the European Court of Human Rights.

If this were to be suggested in the UK (which I doubt), then I would only support a ban in public buildings: People should have a right to wear what they want in public. I might want to wear one myself for a fancy dress party!

[wabbit111]

I agree that the burka/niqab is offensive and unacceptable. I think that the original idea was to ban it in public buildings, but that was extended to all public places. I'm not convinced that it's legal for them to push this through as is, and no doubt this will be challenged in the European Court of Human Rights.

If this were to be suggested in the UK (which I doubt), then I would only support a ban in public buildings: People should have a right to wear what they want in public. I might want to wear one myself for a fancy dress party!

I think in some schools it is banned as contraveining the uniform code, although this isn't law, so I don't think it would be against the law to ban it in certain circumstances or places. It depends where the ban is to be enforced.

I suppose there is a precidence in law. Public nudity is illegal in area's not set aside, and clothing that exposes parts of the body is illegal in public too, although this probably comes under the public decency act.

[ZZ]

i didnt read all the replys, so i hope somebody hasnt already said this.... but just my 

france has a habit of always trying to keep its "frenchiness."  there are laws saying how much radio/tv need to be played in actual french vs any other language (esp. english).  they go to some exterme measures to make sure that people who live there respect the tradition of "France."  so while, I, in the US do not really understand the need to have people remove religious clothing... this is really the exact type of thing i would expect from them and honestly that's their country's choice. 

[D M]

Hi Judochop,
It’s very nice to meet you and have you on this forum,

I appreciate your points on this DM. If it were a religious requirement then I'm sure more people would be comfortable but as it was originally a concept used by oppressive fossils to keep their woman in line I can't defend it. Even if the woman doesn't feel oppressed, the outfit is a symbol of oppression and has no place in modern society, France has recognised that allowing it does nothing towards integrating cultures and in some cases causes fear and alienation amongst the public. I'm more bothered by what it stands for rather than how it looks, proof - I think ninjas look cool. ;)

I can’t speak for them, although if it is simply an issue of this type of facial covering as being a ‘symbol of oppression’, would it be alright for both parties if they simply wore a different type of covering?
The swastika is a symbol of racial hatred, although it is also a symbol of Hindu spirituality. Is there a way to outlaw using the symbol for one purpose but not for the other?
If the use of facial coverings as a means of oppression could be eliminated while allowing women who do it because of their consciences apart from coercion to continue it, I would be in favour, although I don’t know how that would come about.

China regulates religion in order to make a more ‘harmonious society’ and it outlaws particular forms of religious expression (eg. falun gong, pro-life activities, missionary efforts) that it considers to be harmful for the social good. I think that democratic countries may be heading in the direction of this type of system with this sort of legislation.

Thank you for your thoughts,
God Bless,

[Apotheosis]

Disagree with this. If it's not graphically indecent, you should be allowed to wear whatever you damn well please.

[JudoChop]

Disagree with this. If it's not graphically indecent, you should be allowed to wear whatever you damn well please.

That's interesting, what if it was a symbol of hatred like a KKK robe and hat? would that be publicly acceptable?

[Kerlyssa]

It's a mixed bag. It's a repugnant practice, and there are valid security concerns over having the  face covered. On the other hand, it's pretty clearly an anti muslim measure to outlaw it entirely.

[wabbit111]

i didnt read all the replys, so i hope somebody hasnt already said this.... but just my 

france has a habit of always trying to keep its "frenchiness."  there are laws saying how much radio/tv need to be played in actual french vs any other language (esp. english).  they go to some exterme measures to make sure that people who live there respect the tradition of "France."  so while, I, in the US do not really understand the need to have people remove religious clothing... this is really the exact type of thing i would expect from them and honestly that's their country's choice. 

It is not confined to France ZZ

BELGIUM
The lower house of Belgium's parliament has passed a bill to ban clothing that hides a person's identity in public places such as parks, buildings and on the street.
The bill still needs approval in the Senate.
Although the legislation does not specifically refer to full-face Islamic veils, it would outlaw the use of garments such as the niqab and the burka.
The bill enjoys cross-party support and is expected to be passed, which would make Belgium the first country in Europe to ban the wearing of such Islamic garments.
Currently, the burka is banned in several districts under old local laws originally designed to stop people masking their faces completely at carnival time.
In Antwerp, for example, police can now reprimand, or even imprison, offenders. They say the regulation is all about public safety.
SPAIN
Though there are no plans for a national ban in Spain, the city of Barcelona has announced a ban on full Islamic face-veils in some public spaces such as municipal offices, public markets and libraries.
At least two smaller towns in Catalonia, the north-eastern region that includes Barcelona, have also imposed bans.
Barcelona's city council said the ban there targeted any head-wear that impeded identification, including motorbike helmets and balaclavas, rather than religious belief.
It resisted calls from the conservative Popular Party (PP) to extend the ban to all public spaces, including the street.
BRITAIN
There is no ban on Islamic dress in the UK, but schools are allowed to forge their own dress code after a 2007 directive which followed several high-profile court cases.
Schools Secretary Ed Balls said in January 2010 it was "not British" to tell people what to wear in the street after the UK Independence Party called for all face-covering Muslim veils to be banned.
Ex-UKIP leader Nigel Farage, who leads UKIP's 13 MEPs in Brussels, said the veils were a symbol of an "increasingly divided Britain", that they "oppressed" women, and were a potential security threat.
UKIP is the first British party to call for a total ban, after the anti-immigration British National Party had already called called for the veil to be banned in Britain's schools.
NETHERLANDS
In 2006, the Dutch government considered but abandoned plans to impose a ban on all forms of coverings that obscured the face - from burkas to crash helmets with visors - in public places, saying they disturbed public order and safety. Lawyers said the move would likely be unconstitutional and critics said it would violate civil rights.
The government suggested it would instead seek a ban on face-covering veils in schools and state departments, but no legislation has yet been passed.
Around 5% of the Netherlands' 16 million residents are Muslims, but only around 300 are thought to wear the burka.
TURKEY
For more than 85 years Turks have lived in a secular state founded by Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, who rejected headscarves as backward-looking in his campaign to secularise Turkish society.
Scarves are banned in civic spaces and official buildings, but the issue is deeply divisive for the country's predominantly Muslim population, as two-thirds of all Turkish women - including the wives and daughters of the prime minister and president - cover their heads.
In 2008, Turkey's constitution was amended to ease a strict ban at universities, allowing headscarves that were tied loosely under the chin. Headscarves covering the neck and all-enveloping veils were still banned.
The governing party, with its roots in Islam, said the ban meant many girls were being denied an education. But the secular establishment said easing it would be a first step to allowing Islam into public life.
ITALY
The north-western town of Novara is one of several local authorities that have brought in rules to deter public use of the Islamic veil, passing a by-law in January 2010.
In 2004 local politicians in northern Italy resurrected old public order laws against the wearing of masks, to stop women from wearing the burka.
Some mayors from the anti-immigrant Northern League have also banned the use of Islamic swimsuits.
DENMARK
In 2008, the government announced it would bar judges from wearing headscarves and similar religious or political symbols - including crucifixes, Jewish skull caps and turbans - in courtrooms.
That move came after pressure from the Danish People's Party (DPP), known for its anti-Muslim rhetoric, which has since called for the ban to be extended to include school-teachers and medical personnel.
After a Danish paper published a controversial cartoon in 2005 depicting the Prophet Muhammad as a bearded man with a bomb in his turban, there were a series of protests against Denmark across the Muslim world.
GERMANY

Teacher Fereshta Ludin's case prompted states to legislate
In September 2003 the federal Constitutional Court ruled in favour of a teacher who wanted to wear an Islamic scarf to school.
However, it said states could change their laws locally if they wanted to.
At least four German states have gone on to ban teachers from wearing headscarves and in the state of Hesse the ban applies to all civil servants.
RUSSIA
Russia's Supreme Court has overturned a 1997 interior ministry ruling which forbade women from wearing headscarves in passport photos.
AUSTRIA
Austria's Women's Minister Gabriele Heinisch-Hosek has said a ban should be considered in public spaces if the number of women wearing the veil increases dramatically.
SWITZERLAND
In late 2009, Swiss Justice Minister Eveline Widmer-Schlumpf said a face-veil ban should be considered if more Muslim women begin wearing them, adding that the veils made her feel "uncomfortable".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/5414098.stm

[Apotheosis]

Disagree with this. If it's not graphically indecent, you should be allowed to wear whatever you damn well please.

That's interesting, what if it was a symbol of hatred like a KKK robe and hat? would that be publicly acceptable?

Whatever you damn well please.

No one has an inalienable right to not be offended.

[kevin]

Disagree with this. If it's not graphically indecent, you should be allowed to wear whatever you damn well please.

+1

[kevin]

. . .

That's interesting, what if it was a symbol of hatred like a KKK robe and hat? would that be publicly acceptable?

in this country, you can wear a kkk robe and hat anywhere you want, legally. you can't conceal your face in the old-style robes, but you can march in parades or wear it to work if you want.

in the united states, we have a cultural attitude that leans towards people being left alone, as long as they don't hurt other people.

this attitude is peculiarly american. for example, in france, you can't legally name your child just anything-- the government has a list of approved french names, and you must choose one of those.  in lots of other countries, the attitudes are that your personal rights and freedoms must be limited to those that other people approve of, not what doesn't hurt them, but what doesn't offend them.

here in the states, it is your legal right to be offensive, and to be offended.

[Apotheosis]

this attitude is peculiarly american. for example, in france, you can't legally name your child just anything-- the government has a list of approved french names, and you must choose one of those.  in lots of other countries, the attitudes are that your personal rights and freedoms must be limited to those that other people approve of, not what doesn't hurt them, but what doesn't offend them.

here in the states, it is your legal right to be offensive, and to be offended.

America! f**k yeah!