France veil row sparks Trappes unrest
Source: BBC
Crowds of youths have thrown stones at French police and set fire to cars in a second night of disturbances in the Paris suburb of Trappes.
The trouble was sparked by the arrest of a man whose wife was told by police on Thursday to remove an Islamic face-covering veil, banned in public.
He has been accused of trying to strangle the officer.
Up to 300 people attacked a police station in Trappes on Friday night where the man was being held.
Read more: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-23395770
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
JaneFordA
(141 posts).. to insist that women and girls wear that stupid veil, go back to places where it's the norm. If you want to live in a civilized society, act like it.
cosmicone
(11,014 posts)They want to impose medieval and draconian rules on the hosts.
7962
(11,841 posts)Not sure what will come of it
Warpy
(111,267 posts)for any of them who can't see fit to accommodate the larger culture. After all, the French haven't banned the hijab or even the more restrictive full body veil, just the face covering niqab or burqa. That's more than fair.
If their religious scruples are that rigid, they do need to return to a place where that is the norm.
7962
(11,841 posts)When my grandparents came here from Italy, the first thing they did was try to assimilate in the US. My mom said that they spoke Italian when at home but her mother was very insistent that they only speak English when in public because "we are Americans now, so Americans speak English".
Today we bend over backwards to accommodate those who come here but never learn the language. We've even had court cases where someone argued that doing something odd (to us) was ok because it was their religious beliefs. I remember a public goat killing a few years back. There was also a female circumcision case some time back as well.
I've never thought we should have multiple language signs, if youre a private company fine. Or multiple language ballots.
Hope I dont get slammed for that, i just remember what my mom told me. Back then, you could be an Italian/Irish/German, etc, but also become an American.
Warpy
(111,267 posts)to do most things to become citizens like get their IDs, driver's licenses, green cards, and eventually citizenship and passports. While I've seen a few women out and about with the niqab, I've also seen them liberalize the longer they stay here. I live in that kind of neighborhood, a poor one with a lot of new immigrants, so I have ample observation time. They do assimilate, but shedding that veil must feel like going to a nude beach for the rest of us, just a little exposed at first.
The situation is a little different in France, where women who grew up wearing a simple head scarf have married men who fell off the deep end and the whole family goes nuts with them, the women shrouding themselves specifically to set themselves aside from the larger population. If they're that desperate to be set aside, maybe deportation to a place where it's the norm is the kindest thing for them.
Then again, I'd like to export all religious zealots, everywhere, but that's just me.
7962
(11,841 posts)jberryhill
(62,444 posts)And what, pray tell, is "the language" of the United States?
7962
(11,841 posts)but obviously almost everyone speaks english. Like my late grandmother said to my mom, we're in america they speak english. They spoke Italian at home all the time. I'm sure there will never be an "official" language, but english is the language of the govt and most of the people. My point being that the previous poster cited that many in france were not assimilating and these new laws were partially the result. And it reminded me of my ancestors who made it a point to do just that; like most other immigrants did back in the day. They never lost their heritage doing so. My grandparents came here at different times, not married to each other then. But they had to have a sponsor here who would agree to take care of them when they came if they didnt find work, had problems with a place to live etc. That too has fallen by the wayside. And my grandmother said her family actually thought the streets WERE paved with gold. Amazing. They were shocked when she write them and told them the streets were cobblestone!
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)Many African nations, from whom the immigrants in question originate, have French as an official language, and it is spoken by most people, for the very same reasons that English is dominant in the US.
French is spoken in a good deal of Africa. It is how countries got names like "Côte d'Ivoire". There are more Africans who speak French as their primary language than there are people IN France.
One cannot immigrate to France without speaking French.
7962
(11,841 posts)and as a matter of fact it hasnt been that long ago that the French even wanted to pass laws about using anglo words in France. Especially irritating were words that had no French counterpart, like recently invented words. Dont know what ever became of that though.
But I thought the main problem was with the muslim immigrants from the middle east. I know there are some african nations where women wear veils, though.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)The French are definitely picky about language, and lots of countries have official languages. It just strikes me as odd to have a national dress code. If someone is being forced against their will to wear something, there are other legal mechanisms for dealing with that. This kind of thing encourages more of an action/reaction dynamic than is helpful, IMHO.
Gormy Cuss
(30,884 posts)and quite often the immigrants didn't become fluent or even conversational in English. It was especially true of the women who didn't work outside of the home. They did insist that their children learn English because they were Americans. The immigrant generation kept the food, cultural and religious customs while expecting their children to respect same while also being externally American but they themselves clung to the old ways and it was quite easy to do when surrounded by immigrants with similar backgrounds. The grandchildren by in large have lost the language and most of the cultural references (religious preference and food tend to be the last elements to go.)
When immigrants didn't live near others from the same country they tended to acquire at least rudimentary English skills out of necessity but not always. There are many children of immigrants who can tell you that they spent years as translators for one or both parents because it's rare that the children don't acquire English language skills. IOW, the American children speak the lingua franca of their country.
awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)
Moonwalk
(2,322 posts)--veils is hardly the best bench measure for that. What if the woman is deeply religious and wants to wear said veil? How civilized is it to refuse to let her practice her religion as she sees fit?
cosmicone
(11,014 posts)Allowing fully clad people outside reduces public security. Her rights to be covered up need to be balanced with society's rights to be safe because anyone -- even a man -- can wear a woman's veil and commit terror.
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)That's just an excuse for impeding those people's ability to practice their religion as they see fit.
cosmicone
(11,014 posts)but makes it easier for someone wearing a veil to "blend in" and then escape detection once a crime has been committed because all security camera footage will show is a veiled figure.
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)of reflexive Islamophobia. An utterly brainless and embarrassing statement. There are sound reasons to object to the veil, but to imply that it facilitates terrorist attacks is INSANE. It's not even worthy of RW talk radio.
Civilization2
(649 posts)While I agree with the ban on face veils,. the cops seem to have acted rather aggressively here,. and yet the reaction of the fundamentalist is even more escalating violence. Just a bad scene really.
All fundamentalist religion should be ridiculed, and exposed for the lies and dogmatic stupidity that it is. Islam, Christian, Hindu whatever, it is all silly cults of make believe, that feed societal separation, and delusions of group superiority.
byeya
(2,842 posts)
LiberalElite
(14,691 posts)riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)and Western societies can and do ban cultural practices that harm women (like FGM). Banning a garment designed to erase women from society, a garment that cements their second class status and means they cannot fully participate in our culture would seem to be similar. YMMV.
Moonwalk
(2,322 posts)--it could be devastating to her to have to show it in public. This is not like a woman who has always shown her face and now her husband has forced her to hide it, so it would be a relief (and freedom from harm) for her to be able to remove the veil. We have to keep that in mind. You don't just rip off her veil any more than you'd tell a conservatively religious woman in our country that she had to take off her clothing and go naked...right now!
It might be better for her in the long run, but that's not for us to decide at that moment.
Now, of course, the reason for this is not to ease the harm done to the woman, but to make sure there's no hiding of faces and that's a different issue. But whatever the law or reason for it, it needs to be handled delicately for the woman's sake.
pennylane100
(3,425 posts)If a woman has been raised to hide her face in public, so be it. However, it is unreasonable for her to emigrate to a country that does not allow such a practice and expect to be granted an exception to obeying the law of the land. I think that it is the responsibility of those emigrating to make sure the are able to live under the law of the land they are moving to. If not, stay home.
Moonwalk
(2,322 posts)--from the one stated by the post I answered. The post I answered stated that the law was to stop harm to women and removing veils would do that. THAT is what I responded to. Your argument is addressed by me here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=544102
And even if the family has made the rather stupid decision to move to a place where the law won't let this woman wear her veil, removing that veil should still be done with delicacy. This is not the same as her breaking the law by driving while drunk (i.e. she is an immediate danger to others). This is her doing what she always does given her culture, etc. Ripping away the veil then and there will hardly make the law (or the country that passed that law) seem more reasonable or rational. Remember as well that many of these women wearing veils moved to France BEFORE the law was passed, so we can't say for sure that she emigrated to this place knowing the law. If a law passed tomorrow that women where you live couldn't wear bras, not every woman would immediately go bra-less. Those uncomfortable with that would probably keep wearing bras up until they got stopped by the police about it.
That there is a law against it doesn't mean that women uncomfortable with showing their faces (and or women pressured by men not to show their faces) will immediately obey that law.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)Why do some Jews wear them, and other Jews do not wear them?
Would you say that the clothing and hairstyles of these men are dictated by religious beliefs, or not:
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)This isn't about head coverings like the yarmulke, headscarf, turban etc.
Its about face coverings. They aren't the same. Western cultures do not have a cultural tradition of covering faces.
Furthermore, cultural (and or religious) traditions that tend to harm people or oppress people aren't usually tolerated in modern societies. We have a tendency to make laws prohibiting that kind of thing. Spousal abuse, FGM etc. can be held up as examples so why is it so important to defend the misogynistic niqab and burqa as having a place in modern culture?
We already have laws that dictate what women (and men) can wear in public. Its not a "new" thing. This garment is designed to erase women from society and prohibit them from fully participating as equals. France has a much more secular society with a far longer history of prohibiting religious symbols (and clothing) in their public square. They also have no 1A.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)Um... okay....
Perhaps you might explain to me the origin of this gesture:
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)where the person is erased. Do you think Jacqueline Kennedy is erased in that picture? You really want to believe that her one hour in that veil is similar to wearing a burqa or niqab every single day whenever one stepped out the door?
Now you are really stretching...
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)Then it is helpful to know the history of them.
Okay, so let's recap.... You have no objection to a woman wearing a veil, but you have a quibble over how "sheer" the fabric is.
Is that what we are on about? Thread count?
If you think there is no "Western" tradition of covering women's faces, then it would behoove you to learn something about Western culture, traditions, their histories and their variant practices.
These women, incidentally, are French Catholic nuns:
?zz=1
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)this one however will be worn for less time than Jacqueline Kennedy's mourning veil, lets say for about 30 minutes one time in a woman's life...
...vs a burqa or niqab where the woman is wearing it daily.
Uh huh. Its just the same.
Please, please do go on. You make my point with every ridiculous "comparison" you post...
I'm not sure I could do better. Please proceed.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)
Yes, modern bridal veils are sheer. They were not always in Western Christian tradition, but it is clear you do not know much about the culture you profess to stand in the vanguard against extinction.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)The Marokko Community in the Netherlands and Belgium isn't the public square. In fact, these women live completely away from the public.
Alameda
(1,895 posts)and in contemporary society (by that I mean the last 100 years) women's veils have become thinner and transparant. In the past, however, they were much thicker and obscured much more of the face.
As for the amount of time a niqab would have been worn, now tell me, what actual first hand experience do you have regarding that? From my experience, and what my women friends from places like
Afghanistan, things are very different. If course things have become perverted now with the absurd obsession over how women cover themselves. It's yet another war on women's bodies. It's just a damn piece of cloth, it's a fashion, a political statement, or a convenient method of going out with bad hair and no makeup. It's many things.
Modern brides wear strapless gowns and seem to have no idea of where or what the tradition of the veil was about. it used to be the groom only actually saw the bride when he lifted her veil.
The burqa is worn in areas where the woman would be around strangers. In other areas it's draped quite beautifully over the head. Of course, in areas where the Taliban or Salafis have taken over things are very different.
The below is, of course, an exageration of a custom that was prevelant in the West of covering the face. It was done as protection from the elements.
below is a sceen from the film Rashomon. Upper class women were veiled at that time, as they were in other parts of the world.
The following is a Hellenic stature of a dancer from 250 BC. If you will look close, you will see this type of garment is almost indentical to the contmeporary style worn in some parts of the ME. I show this here to prove there is no Islamic invention here. It was when the early Muslims met the "Westerners", they adopted the custom
then there is....http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/477333/jewish/Badeken-Veiling.htm
Alameda
(1,895 posts)
http://www.ellecanada.com/fashion/trends/style-error-how-to-wear-the-veil-fashion-trend/a/57683
I think FGM in the "West" is called cosmetic surgery...http://www.huffingtonpost.com/angela-bonavoglia/cosmetic-vaginal-surgeons_b_475929.html
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)ONCE for about an hour, is not at all analogous to the daily wearing of niqab or burqa. A sheer bridal veil that's worn for maybe 30 minutes ONCE in a woman's life is also not analogous. Cloistered nuns who don't go out in public are also not analogous to the situation in modern societies with women daily and for the rest of their lives enshrouded and disappeared on the public streets in a burqa or niqab.
Your picture in the ellecanada link doesn't demonstrate a woman in a full face veil either - its closer to a hijab but with a LOT of holes. The reference in the ellecanada article to 1930s style pillboxes with a bit of tulle draped down from the top is also not analogous to the niqab or burqa.
You do know that a hijab (or headscarf) is not what we're talking about here right? Just saying "veil" can mean several things. In this discussion its about burqa/niqab "veiling", not headscarf veiling or a bit of tulle draped from the top of a pillbox hat for a lunch date. Its about the deliberate and complete covering up of the woman. I think I've been very clear about the differences but if not, my apologies and hope this clarifies things.
You and jberryhill appear to believe that western modern societies have a long history that I've missed of women being fully enshrouded in burqas and niqabs on a daily basis. If you have evidence of that (which isn't a bridal veil worn for maybe 30 minutes ONCE in a woman's life, or a mourning veil worn ONCE for a funeral, or pics of cloistered nuns who would of course be photo averse), I'd be happy to take a look at it.
bitchkitty
(7,349 posts)same as having your clitoris cut off and your vagina sewn shut. Mmm hmmm....
It is NOT the same, and your implying that it is the same is disgusting.
Alameda
(1,895 posts)I guess you just want to vent this morning. Of course, having one's clitoris cut off, ad vagina sewn shut are abominable practices, I never advocated for them. However, I do not think looking "over there" instead of in our own backyard is helpful for anyone.
In order to save you the effort you don't appear to have the energy to read, here is an excerpt.
"A few of the presenters acknowledged that no data exist on whether a labiaplasty will burst during childbirth--a major issue since many of the women having labiaplasties are younger, including patients under 18. But not a single speaker raised the issue of the potential impact of labiaplasties on female sensation or sexual stimulation.
Asked for a comment by email on this missing question, Leonore Tiefer, clinical associate professor of psychiatry at NYU and Albert Einstein College of Medicine and a sex therapist, wrote me: "In the opinion of most sexologists, the labia are part of the arousal structures of the genitals and their loss impairs sexual experience."
Matlock and his disciples (most of the presenters) insisted that for a labiaplasty to provide "a complete aesthetic look," some of the skin around the clitoris has to be excised. Yet, this can be the cruelest cut, leaving the woman to experience pain, not pleasure, when the clitoris swells and she is sexually aroused."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/angela-bonavoglia/cosmetic-vaginal-surgeons_b_475929.html
pnwmom
(108,978 posts)Last edited Mon Jul 22, 2013, 04:31 PM - Edit history (1)
It sounds like the veil is his idea. No woman with a husband like that is truly free to make up her own mind.
JustAnotherGen
(31,827 posts)If he does that to an officer in public - imagine what that veil hides on her body. 
Alameda
(1,895 posts)just a thought...
BlueJazz
(25,348 posts)Ednahilda
(195 posts)Non-Muslim women who visit or live in some countries in the Middle East are required to wear clothing that respects the religious sentiment of that society, regardless of the women's personal beliefs - or lack thereof. The equivalent would be if Muslims in the West were required to wear the clothing and symbols of the dominant religion (in France, Catholicism, for example), but this is not the case in France. Muslims are being asked to respect the secular sentiments of the society in which they've decided to live and I just can't see this as unfair.
As for the "those people" argument, I find the 'I'm really holy', proselytizing-via-tee shirt or bumper sticker method practiced by a lot of conservative Christians equally distasteful. Overtly religious clothing and jewelry often serves to emphasize the distance between people, whether or not that was the intention.
DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)Just like every woman has to (sarcasm).
It is one thing to force women to wear headscarves, but I know many Muslim women who wear it because frankly, they think Western dress is outright misogynist. If they want to wear it, then they should be left alone.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)Alameda
(1,895 posts)Moonwalk
(2,322 posts)Imagine a husband/wife in an Islamic country where she's showing off her arms or face or hair or whatever. The police tell her she must cover up and the husband tries to strangle said policeman. The people would be all "why didn't he and his wife respect our culture and religion?"
I believe people should be allowed to wear what they want or need according to religion, but if they live in a country with certain cultural/religious rules, they have to respect those or not go there.
David__77
(23,418 posts)The veil is like incest: one can argue that it can be freely chosen, but rarely is it so. Most often, there is coercive persuasion, and much to lose by not giving in. The state must serve the interests of the woman by demanding her participation in society.
alp227
(32,025 posts)I'm also of the "my body, my choice" mindset but not when such choices threaten public safety.
Bragi
(7,650 posts)I believe she can wear anything she wants to cover her face in France - a mask, balaclava, whatever - but NOT an Islamic veil. Why? Because the French have chosen to be a secular society where defined public displays of religiosity are not allowed. They really aren't into freedom of religion the same as the U. S. That's their choice, which I respect.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)as well as burqas and niqab.
Regardless, most western cultures have laws dictating what women can and cannot wear in public. I can no more go topless in the streets of Chicago than I could in Toronto for example.
There's a long history of telling women what they can wear that nobody ever seems to have been fussed about until it comes to this most misogynistic garment and then its all about "freedom to wear this shroud designed to disappear women in society!"
Civilization2
(649 posts)"In 1991 toplessness as an indecent act was challenged by Gwen Jacob in Guelph, Ontario, who removed her shirt and was charged with indecency. Part of her defense was the double standards between men and women. Although she was convicted, this was overturned by the Court of Appeal. This case determined that being topless is not indecent within the meaning of the Criminal Code. However it did not establish any constitutional right of equality. This case subsequently led to the acquittal of women in British Columbia and Saskatchewan who faced similar charges. Although each Province and Territory technically reserves its right to interpret the law as it pleases, the Ontario case has proved influential. Since the matter has not been determined by the Supreme Court of Canada, it is still possible that a woman could be convicted elsewhere in Canada, but interpretation of moral law in Canada has become increasingly liberalised.[1] There do not appear to have been any further women charged in Canada since these cases were decided."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topfreedom_in_Canada
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)Although I'd stipulate my larger point stands - many societies across this planet typically have various types of laws regulating public dress. Its not unusual
Bragi
(7,650 posts)Huh.
Skittles
(153,164 posts)and she's with a guy wearing tank top, shorts and sandals - don't EVEN tell me that is "freedom of religion"
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)pnwmom
(108,978 posts)Posteritatis
(18,807 posts)byeya
(2,842 posts)azurnoir
(45,850 posts)forcing a women to veil is terrible but forbidding a women from veiling is just as bad, and to all the 'well meaning' folks here who seem to think it's for their own good or we're liberating them - IMO you're wrong forcing something on a women 'for her on good or in the name of liberation' denies her own right to personhood just as much as forcing a women to wear a veil
Marrah_G
(28,581 posts).... telling them they have to.
Zealotry is a blight on humanity.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)Marrah_G
(28,581 posts)And most would probably say they love it. Because they know nothing else. Because men have controlled their lives from birth. Because they know that to buck the system would isolate them from their families, at best and kill them, at worst.
Choice under coercion is not really choice.
My issue is not with muslim women, it is with forms of religion that take away people's right to choose how they want to live.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)the women themselves, it seems you would force your own beliefs on them 'for their own good' because obviously you seem not to believe they do not have the mental capacity to reason for themselves
Marrah_G
(28,581 posts)we are arguing in circles.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)first I was working in a university clinic shortly after 9/11 the U started a rule that no face coverings could be worn on campus, (this is in the US), I was working late as there were still patients in clinic receiving chemo and blood transfusions, one of the staff MD's came to me and asked about who was in an exam room the door was closed usually a sign that there is a patient in the room, she wanted to make sure she hadn't lost track of a patient, so we went to the room and knocked on the door, inside was the cleaning person a Somali woman who was relatively young and a recent immigrant, she was crying because she had been ordered to remove her niqab, something she was very uncomfortable with doing, the MD as it turned out was also Muslim she did not veil in any way her choice, but what she did was to ask the male MD's in the clinic to leave for a bit, so this woman could do her job without having to do something that made her so uncomfortable, they readily agreed and all went well a short while later the rule was relaxed
the second involves an American woman who married an Iraqi man and converted to Islam the couple owned a small store mabout a block from my house -Nancy the wife always wore an abaya (long dress that usually buttons up the front) and a hijab, one day I noticed she was wearing an abaya but not a hijab, this went on for a few days so I asked her why she had stopped wearing a hijab, what she told me was that people were making comments to her that would indicate they assumed her husband was forcing her to wear one, something that was not true-she chose to wear a hijab, so she stopped because she did not want people thinking her husband would do such a thing
Marrah_G
(28,581 posts)What did the young woman THINK would happen if someone saw her face and WHY did she think that?
Your second example explains very little either. The woman is an American and did not fear taking hers off. I would also point out that she was not veiled.
You and I are miles apart in our thinking on this and neither one of us is going to change the other's mind.
Cultures who require veils also treat their women as much less then equal. I cannot think of one culture where women decide, on their own to wear a veil and in all other ways are treated as equals. Where we see veils we see honor killings, we see sharia law, we see the oppression of women. I'm not talking about a few random people in X country. I am talking about cultures with deeply held beliefs that women are much, much less then men.
This is my opinion and it will not change. A head scarf is not a veil. A head scarf does not make you invisible. A head scarf does not remove you from society and interaction with other human beings.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)this was a young woman who had recently arrived in the US, she was unaccustomed to being in public unveiled, it made her feel sort of naked I'd imagine, this was not a matter of someone forcing her to wear a veil it was forcing her not to. An observation I've made is that many recent Muslim immigrants mainly from Somalia do wear full face veils-at first then after a time they remove them and stick with just a hijab, sometimes even further they leave off the hijab and simply wrap a scarf around their hair and some after a bit more time stop altogether, I think it has more to do with personal comfort levels and sense of modesty than anything else, the story here took place in France so I'd think social moires are similar to those in the US 
cosmicone
(11,014 posts)The first example only shows that the somali girl was so brainwashed by radicalism that she feared even a minor deviation from it. She probably got used to not wearing the veil in a few days after the brainwashing influence was removed.
The second example? I have seen many American women who don't have bodies made to flaunt prefer wearing an abaya. It hides imperfections and saves on costly plus size clothing. That is not a religious choice but a practical one. Then again, there are ultra-impressionable, brainwashed women such as Tamarlan Tsarnaev's wife -- who gave up college education in the last year, converted and worked at menial job to support that bum and his bomb-making -- all in the name of starry eyed love.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)Many western cultures can and do prohibit cultural practices that harm women (like FGM). Full face veiling "disappears" women cementing their status as second class since they cannot fully participate in our society while shrouded.
France has a very, very strong secular culture going back to their Revolution. Religious encroachments on that culture have been dealt with swiftly and firmly. The burqa or full face veil is being dealt with exactly the same as religious items being banned in schools etc. which is also well supported by the vast majority of French Muslims
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)however the issue here is choice or the right to make that choice, and believe it or not some albeit relatively few, Islamic women do choose to wear the full face veil, they are not being 'forced'
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)That doesn't mean we shouldn't have laws to prohibit that...
... right?
DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)nothing to do with Islam, that and the girls are cut when younger, which is wrong, however, if an adult woman wants to do it, it is their business, ask Chastity/Charles Bono.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)despite it being illegal in western cultures....
My larger point stands - there are different cultural norms in the west in regards to women and their treatment. Some cultural practices from other cultures will be illegal here: going naked daily like the Kalahari tribesmen, spousal abuse, "selling" children into slavery etc.
Banning the burqa because it is terribly misogynistic doesn't seem to be that much out of line imho. Besides, as has been stipulated, this is FRENCH culture which has a MUCH stronger secular society that we do and where the banning of public religious expressions has a long history.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)unlike wearing the niqab, there are serious health consequences associated with FGC starting with the conditions under which it is preformed and extending all the way through the women's life
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)Really?
No negative health consequences being enshrouded daily, literally relegated to being a second class citizen unable to fully participate in one's society?
Ooookay...
I think I'm done here.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)one already believes that because a women wears a niqab they are second class
cosmicone
(11,014 posts)where many muslim women delegates were wearing the burkha. It was middle of August and 100 degrees in Vienna. Two women had heat stroke and had to be hospitalized.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)Last edited Mon Jul 22, 2013, 02:24 AM - Edit history (1)
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)There are jobs they now cannot get (jobs that forbid loose hair or clothing that can get caught in machinery for example). There are activities they will never be able to participate in (public competitive sports). Playing a wind instrument like the flute is impossible. Etc etc etc. Wearing a garment that is designed to prevent a female from fully participating in public life is inherently sexist and most certainly keeps them from full equality in all arenas of life.
I recognize that there may be some small percentage who CHOOSE to wear the full face covering and CHOOSE to accept their secondary status but that doesn't mean some societies have to accept that choice, just as certain societies have made laws restricting other cultural and religious practices.
snagglepuss
(12,704 posts)Vitamin D deficiencies.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)and if the woman is dark skinned sunlight has little effect any way
snagglepuss
(12,704 posts)Odd that allah in his last message to humans forgot to advise women about Vitamin D.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)and supplementing dairy with vitamin D would take of that nicely as I pointed out some niqab are see through
snagglepuss
(12,704 posts)http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3327560/
Odd that allah in his last message to humans forgot to advise women about Vitamin D.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)but your dig at Islam is noted is that why?
snagglepuss
(12,704 posts)not only the dictated word of god but the last message from god to humankind. If that is so why didn't Allah see fit to set people straight on unhealthy practices. Since Allah like Yahweh places a lot of emphasis on restrictive dietary laws would he not include laws forbidding clothing that screens out rays of goodness that he as creator of the universe saw fit to create.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)
Moonwalk
(2,322 posts)...then there should be a law against women/men who want to pierce their genitals (and there are some extreme genital piercings that would be considered torture if forced on a person rather than done willingly). What we SHOULD and DO make laws against are any adult forcing another adult to cut off anything and/or doing that to their underage sons/daughters.
Male circumcision still being a big sticking point in this regard. And, funny, we still don't have laws to prohibit that, do we? 
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)who cannot as adults willingly make that decision for such a radical body modification.
Without getting too OT, my larger point is that societies have long traditions of outlawing cultural activities that are not desirable in their public square. From public sacrificing of animals to FGM and now, in France, face covering. These apply to everyone in the population regardless of their age. Its not unusual throughout history at all.
That France has decided to have a conversation about face covering in public, vote on it, and make it a law has a lot to do with their own revolutionary history.
Moonwalk
(2,322 posts)...female circumcision (or male come to that) isn't the same as a cultural or religious "uniform" worn by a certain group. We outlaw female circumcision--and should outlaw male--because it involves unnecessary mutilation of a child that can't be reversed. We would say that this sort of decision should be made by an informed adult, of their own free will. As for sacrificing animals--that's cruelty to animals and we don't allow that.
If we're going to compare Apples and Apples, shouldn't we compare this veil to other cultural/religious uniforms? Turbans and white outfits worn by certain Sikhs, yarmulkes and prayer shawls for orthodox Jews (or just the fact that orthodox jewish women cover their hair and arms and wear longish skirts?), Amish clothing, etc. These are all cultural uniforms (which might or might not have their basis in the religion). These are not outlawed by us (or by France come to that). Why not? Because they don't harm the wearer or those around him/her--it doesn't even harm their children who might have to wear them as kids of that family, but then could decide to give up wearing them as adults.
Why is the veil different? If the woman wants to wear it, but the law won't let her, then we have to ask--how is this veil harmful to the country? To others? What are we protecting people from? Especially given that she is not breaking the modesty laws of that culture, only keeping to her own.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)They don't cover the face.
Its absolutely appropriate to have a conversation about cultural traditions and their place in a different society. I'm all for that. That's what has happened in France and the overwhelming majority of that society supports a ban on face coverings.
Why? Several reasons that I've read.
1. We in the west distrust anyone whose face is covered. I don't believe its specifically religious per se (although there's certainly those within our western cultures who are against Islam), its OUR cultural tradition to mistrust those in face masks or balaclavas etc. Its axiomatic that in movies you can instantly identify whose the "bad guy" by the fact their face is covered - whether its a spaghetti western from the 50s or a balaclava in 2013....
2. Most western women (and men) recoil at the garment's inherent design - purposefully erasing a woman and ensuring she is permanently secondary.
3. Most non-believers find the garment repellent because its purpose as a modesty barrier to ensure males don't get overexcited sexually, is ugly and sexist.
4. The idea that ANYone in a modern society should grow up essentially being brainwashed that they "need" to wear this kind of garment in order to be "pure" should ring some alarm bells. Its not healthy psychologically and in hot weather areas, its not healthy physiologically. Furthermore, I'd stipulate its cruel to model this kind of behavior and/or force girls to be shrouded - its not healthy mental behavior imho. At least its certainly not healthy behavior in most modern western cultures.
5. While I personally don't hold a lot of credence with the safety aspects, there are those who feel strongly that face coverings are a security risk. Banks agree with that - you can't walk into any financial institution with your face obscured in any way.
So I don't agree at all that headscarves, turbans, yarmulke's etc are at ALL like a niqab and/or burqa. Its not apples to apples. Not in the least.
Lastly, halal or kosher slaughter is theoretically kinder and more humane than commercial slaughter so we don't ban public sacrifice because slaughtering animals in public for religious ceremonies is cruel. Its not. And an argument can be made its actually more humane. We've decided as a culture to ban it because we don't want it in our society. Funny how that's a RELIGIOUS ritual, not even a cultural relic, that nobody seems to be all up in arms being banned....
Yet when it comes to this misogynistic CULTURAL garment, suddenly everyone thinks we should be okay with it...
Moonwalk
(2,322 posts)...if we don't want women erased or brainwashed into unhealthy behavior...why do we allow ANY religion or culture in the U.S. (or France) to do so? Is it healthy for ultra-orthodox jews to curtail what women wear and can do? And isn't it cruel to tell girls they're unworthy or sinful, etc. as many conservative christian religions hold? This is my problem here. I don't disagree that all this shrouding is evidence of misogyny or emotional/psychological abuse--but why do we hold this as so much worse than what other religions/cultures force on women? Especially those within our own Western borders?
Also, we're talking about a married, adult woman who knows nothing else. We're not going to instantly free her and transform her by removing that veil out in public. So, exactly what good does this law do for the women who know nothing else and feel naked and ashamed without the veil? How does it help them from being ruled by their husbands, erased, abused, etc.?
Should this all be changed? Absolutely. But let's be real--change from the outside isn't going to be nearly as effective as change from the inside. It would help if the women were on the side of the law, however subversively. And let's not be hypocritical either. If we're going to go after cultures who use religion (religious excuses) to abuse women, then we need to go after all of them, not just the ones forcing women to cover their faces.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)But I will stipulate that sometimes legal forces from the outside can and do provoke change. Real change. Even change in the Islamic world as Attaturk demonstrated.
Laws against spousal abuse helpz people. Not all. But for those who need it, and with the right support system, its trans-formative.
Laws against FGM don't help everyone. But they ARE effective in starting to stop the tide.
Laws against child exploitation MUST be on the books or there will never be a place to even start to enact change.
I could go on and on....
I would adamantly stipulate that change "from the outside" is sometimes the only and BEST solution when it comes to these kinds of situations. Sometimes these cultures don't even realize how "bad" they are. Slavery, subjugation, child exploitation etc. seem the norm. Until someone educates them differently, or the law moves in and forces change, there will be a great deal of push-back. You don't help them by saying "go slow!"
Moonwalk
(2,322 posts)--that this is the smartest law. But it is the law and those who want shrouded women can leave and take said women elsewhere if they don't like it.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)Alameda
(1,895 posts)I have never heard of any group of people choosing to get their genitals cutroff.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)That was a facetious comment. I used the quotes to indicate that I didn't believe anyone chose that.
Civilization2
(649 posts)this simple fact should prove the "one true faith" all these religious fundamentalists claim is their own, is an idiotic proposition.
Fundamentalism is always wrong. Faith is the willful disregard of reason.
smirkymonkey
(63,221 posts)Hear, hear. 
Alameda
(1,895 posts)Here I don't even wear a headscarf, but I have out of my own free will worn a full covering with a face veil aka niqab. You know no idea how liberating that was. If I were in a situation where it was required, it would be very upsetting, but when it's my choice, it's wonderful.
Why do people assume Muslim women only cover because some man told them to?
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)and the sad part is that some really do mean well but seem to just not get it 
Alameda
(1,895 posts)cosmicone
(11,014 posts)However, some statistics to the rescue --
Less than 5% of Muslim women in Albania, Kosovo, Bosnia, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Lebanon, Turkey, India, Indonesia and Bangladesh wear the burkha or hijab.
Less than 25% of women in Pakistan wear those as well.
However, near 100% of women in Saudi Arabia and Iran wear it. The burkha/hijab use was non-existent in middle class and upper class women of Afghanistan until Taliban took over.
Furthermore, as soon as Muslim women migrate to a Western country, over 50% of them stop wearing the burkha or hijab.
Would this not lead to a statistically significant conclusion that a majority of Muslim women do not like wearing those garments unless they live in a coercive society that forces them to wear the burkha/hijab?
More recently, many Muslim women are purposely wearing those as a sign of rebellion against Islamophobia and not as an expression of faith. One of my Turkish friends who was always in a Western attire and started wearing a hijab when she went to study in Berlin after a major anti-Muslim demonstration. She is not religious at all.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)this is a picture of Iranian at the polls in the recent elections there
and the article it came from for reference
Polls close in Iran presidential election
http://english.al-akhbar.com/node/16122
also to clarify here is an illustration
cosmicone
(11,014 posts)I don't have a problem with either except the full veil in public settings where allowing it can be dangerous.
Hijab is just fine as long as a woman doesn't feel pressured to wear it. However, I have known some Iranian women who did not want to wear it but had to wear due to fear of violence by family and community. In the latter case, it is not ok.
Alameda
(1,895 posts).....of course most those women would not wear a burqa, that's because the burqa is an Afghan garment. Hijab means covering, screening, veiling. There is a style that i=is just about universal in Muslim societies, as a style worn by "some". I agree with you though, it does not indicate any particular piety.
Of course they drop it when they migrate to a "Western" country. Wearing such garments drawn unwanted attention, which some see as quite the opposite as the intent.
Now, if one is freely given the choice, without social pressures, many find them quite liberating.
MADem
(135,425 posts)goes to the feet, and the arrangement of the thing on the head is nothing but folds--there are no zippers or button closures or anything like you might see in an Iraqi abaya. In Iran they also wear something called "manteau" -- this is like a raincoat, or a "car coat" (I think they call it-- a coat that goes half way to the knee at least, sometimes longer). If they wear manteau, they also wear hijab. If the manteau is too tight, if the hijab shows too much hair, the baseej...or some stupid traffic cop...will hassle the women. They push it, though--they try to get away with as much as possible (they have an inherent sense of style IMO).
You can see some pictures in this young girl's blog--it paints a true picture of the "scene" in Iran:
http://persian-3arab-al-khaleej-al-farsi.blogspot.com/2011/01/manteau-to-chador-girls-in-iran.html
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)wouldn't do when fully exposed.
That's one of the joys of acting.
It's one of the reasons people can be so cruel on the internet.
However, there is a time and place for masks & acting anonymously in society and a place for expecting people to be identifiable.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)"favors face recognition software connected to surveillance cameras"
The other thing that is liberating is not being judged on appearance, or treated as an object on display for approval or disapproval.
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)what a bizarre statement.
As is your entire post relating to my own.
When you say "being treated as an object" I imagine you are referring to cultural conventions that force women to wear masks(veils) every day of their lives in public.
Alameda
(1,895 posts)you would be amazed at how identifiable people are even when wearing a burqa. When wearing one of these garments other aspects are seen. One sees posture, mode of movement. Put three people in the same burqa and you will see three distinct different personalities, personalities you did, would not have seen otherwise.
DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)Just like we "liberated" women in Afghanistan, Libya, and Iraq.
cosmicone
(11,014 posts)www.answering-islam.org/BehindVeil/btv5.html?
The custom was introduced so that men who were molesting women at night would not accidentally molest free Muslim women and only the slaves, the former identified by the veil.
Also read:
www.thereligionofpeace.com/Quran/007-veils.htm?
http://www.suhaibwebb.com/islam-studies/quran/hijab-fard-obligation-or-fiction/
http://www.irfi.org/articles/articles_351_400/quran_does_not_mandate_hijab.htm
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)Yarmulkes are not in the Old Testament.
cosmicone
(11,014 posts)jberryhill
(62,444 posts)Do they ban yarmulkes in France?
cosmicone
(11,014 posts)The purpose of the law is to not cover the face and thus hinder identification in the event of a crime.
So, unless one wears a yarmulke in such a way as to cover the face, it would be legal. The law is not discriminatory because it doesn't ban hijabs, face-open veils, turbans, head-scarves, hats, caps and bicycle type helmets. Anything that covers the face, such as ski masks, niqabs, full motorcycle helmets etc. is banned.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)But, hey, any law that regulates what women can or cannot do with their bodies is okay by me.
cosmicone
(11,014 posts)Any bank robber, mugger, burglar could wear a niqab and commit a crime.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)So, we should ban the wearing of ski masks by all persons at all times, yes or no?
cosmicone
(11,014 posts)and nor are ski masks.
Only in public places.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)...and ski masks are not worn in public places?
You know, I've actually spent a fair amount of time in the French Alps. Chamonix seemed pretty darned "public" to me, but I gather I must have been mistaken.
cosmicone
(11,014 posts)although they would be kind of hard to ski in ....
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)How does one know whether one is in one of the public places where a ski mask is allowed, or in one of the public places where a ski mask is not allowed?
cosmicone
(11,014 posts)face covering is essential during skiing.
It is not essential while roaming Paris, going out to dinner, working in an office etc.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)What is the "utility" of skiing, again?
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)Maybe you have a link? Here in the US we hold something equivalent 1x/year on Halloween. Other than that the DAILY masking of one's face is not a cultural part of the average American's lives.
In FRANCE, its not a part of their culture either. On the ski slopes - sure. At whatever masquerade festivals you can happen to locate in France I presume that masks are allowed for the duration of that festival. But if you can't see the distinction between a balaclava on a ski slope and a balaclava on a guy going into the bank then this conversation is pretty much dead.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)Remind me how many people have been fined for wearing balaclavas?
This law targets women for a fine if they do not dress the way they are told to by the government. You are free to pretend otherwise.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)"Some balaclava-wearing sympathisers of Pussy Riot were arrested in Marseille, France in August 2012 for being in breach of the French ban on face covering."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balaclava_%28clothing%29
MADem
(135,425 posts)...The robber, whose face was covered by a hat and a scarf, threatened to shoot the exhibitors and guests, Vique said.
http://edition.cnn.com/2013/07/28/world/europe/cannes-jewel-theft/
MADem
(135,425 posts)
Behind the Aegis
(53,959 posts)They also ban Muslim headwear and large crosses.
Behind the Aegis
(53,959 posts)The Talmud is a central text of Rabbinic Judaism and dictates a number of things that aren't actual "laws" nor mentioned in the OT.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)As a religious person I think God could care less what we ware and more if we are forcing others to follow ridiculous customs from centuries ago.
kwassa
(23,340 posts)this Episcopal thing ...
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)They look great. Love Bishop Harris in Blue. She is the first female Episcopal/Anglican Bishop.
kwassa
(23,340 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)running for bishop. Unfortunately she lost, but I like to tease her about what she would look like with a mitre on.
pnwmom
(108,978 posts)kwassa
(23,340 posts)Speaking as the Episcopalian that I am.
pnwmom
(108,978 posts)Wearing a face mask or face veil is what's illegal in France. That's what the subject of this discussion is -- not head scarves.
kwassa
(23,340 posts)I will flail my back with a whip, say 2000 Hail Marys, eat a meal of bread and water, and sleep on a cold stone floor.
Is that enough, or would you like more and harsher penance?
pnwmom
(108,978 posts)No penance is expected.
rug
(82,333 posts)pnwmom
(108,978 posts)What if a woman wearing a face-covering drove a car that hit yours? How would you be able to identify her? How would you know she was the person on the driver's license?
rug
(82,333 posts)Of course, this only concerns traffic regulations, not Islamophobia, right?
pnwmom
(108,978 posts)I've only seen this a few times, but it has made me wonder. When I've been hit in the past, I've always been able to exchange ID with the person who hit me. And I could identify them in case the matter went to court. Luckily, all three times the persons admitted fault and dealt with my insurance companies. But what if I was hit by a woman wearing a face mask? How would I be able to identify her? Would it be "Islamaphobic" for me to ask her to lift her veil so I could check her license? Would she do it for me? Would she do it for my husband or my son?
In countries that require the woman to wear the chador or the face veil, women aren't allowed to drive. So this is an issue only in countries like ours.
rug
(82,333 posts)Beyond that, I'd get all the documentation on her and the car including the license plate.
If it really came to that, and did not settle, the owner would ultimately have to explain who he loaned his car to.
But seriously, I don't think that's the motive behind these laws.
pnwmom
(108,978 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)Let's go for sleeves while we're at it. There may be hidden codes on tattoos.
pnwmom
(108,978 posts)having to trail her kidnapper around town, wearing her face veil.
And besides, a face veil is NOT an Islamic thing. It's a cultural thing. And it doesn't have to be part of our culture.
rug
(82,333 posts)pnwmom
(108,978 posts)jberryhill
(62,444 posts)It is none of your business to "check" anyone's driver's license under any circumstances.
pnwmom
(108,978 posts)He said we should exchange info from our drivers' licenses and our insurance cards.
And one of the women who hit me years ago was uninsured, so she didn't even have that to show me. Just her license with her name and contact info on it.
I gave the link below to my son when he started driving. Is the information here wrong?
http://kidshealth.org/teen/safety/driving/post_crash.html#
Take Down Driver Information
Ask to see the driver's license of the other drivers involved in the crash so that you can take down their license numbers. Also get their name, address, phone number, insurance company, insurance policy number, and license plate number. If the other driver doesn't own the vehicle involved, be sure to get the owner's info as well.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)But you are in no position to demand or verify jack squat from the other party to a car accident. If the other party doesn't want to exchange info, you call the police, wait, and get a copy of the report.
Your insurance agent told you that the other party is somehow compelled to say or give you anything? I doubt it.
A few years ago, I was in a minor fender bender with some guy (who was at fault) who became outright belligerent when we were exchanging information. My bar card is under my driver's license in my wallet and was stuck to it. When he saw that, he started flipping out about "Oh, so you are going to sue me for millions of dollars" and generally going off on a rant about lawyers. I snatched it and my license back from him and said. "I think we'll just wait for the police."
I don't hand my ID to some stranger who just hit my car. Ever. It's a bad idea. Some states now even print social security numbers on them. You give that out to strangers? Good luck with that.
pnwmom
(108,978 posts)Is there a special, legal meaning of the word "check" that I'm unaware of?
I think you're splitting hairs. I may not be able to demand or require anyone's license, but I AM supposed to be checking it, and copying information off of it, unless the police will be coming and filing a report. In my state we're required to file a collision report within 4 days of fender-benders. The police usually only come for more serious accidents.
And we don't have Social Security numbers on our licenses.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)Your insurance agent told you to make sure their face matches the picture on the license. Do you check their height, weight and eye color too?
Nobody. Nobody ever told you to question or attempt to prove the veracity of anything handed to you under those circumstances.
And there is nothing in your state law which requires ANYONE to show their driver's license to you.
pnwmom
(108,978 posts)if I never saw her face?
Putting aside from the question of a driver's license, how could I identify the other driver?
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)You actually believe, that out of tens of thousands of minor car accidents that happen each day, in each instance the driver of each car is able to identify the other driver?
I don't know if you are related to George Zimmerman, but please do take away the fact that under no circumstances is anyone required to identfy themselves to you. You can report whatever you know to your insurance company. My goodness, what do you do if someone hits your parked car on a street, drives off, and nobody gets the plate number? Do you think that doesn't happen in your state?
You are free to believe you have some legal right to compel others to identify themselves to you. You are deeply mistaken, however. You are also free to believe that the government should be able to tell women what they can and cannot wear.
By all means, keep a gun in your glove compartment, so that you can properly detain an unlicensed driver at the scene until police arrive, since your state has granted you this remarkable power to demand that others identify themselves to you.
pnwmom
(108,978 posts)jberryhill
(62,444 posts)Muslim women should not be allowed to wear veils, whether driving a vehicle or otherwise, because your state requires you to check people's driver's licenses against their visual appearance in the event of an accident.
Do I have that right?
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)How about court? You can't testify with your motorcycle helmet on - so I guess bans on face covering involves the judicial system as well...
They're all "islamophobic" eh?
rug
(82,333 posts)Saudi banks don't seem to have a problem with it.
And courts, under certain circumstances, do allow witnesses to testify with their identity covered. In fact, some courts don't even allow the public inside.
Imagine that.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)And yes, in CERTAIN circumstances, witnesses can be obscured but its rare and done with special dispensation from the judge and certainly NOT normal. Its usually because the witness needs to stay anonymous for some reason - not because they like wearing cultural garments. A Kalahari tribesman couldn't testify naked in court for the same reason, even though nakedness (or near enough) is their "cultural dress".
You haven't answered my questions though - are the banks and judicial system also "islamophobic" with these rules? Or how about those states that stipulate you can't get a driver's license unless you are willing to allow your face to be photographed? Also "islamophobic"?
rug
(82,333 posts)And from ethnocentrism stems racism and all sorts of phobias.
To answer your question, banks will do whatever makes them money. I guarantee you if a court determines it's bigotry to refuse service to a Muslim woman because of her face covering, their concerns about robberies will vanish.
And no, courts are not islamophobic if, under appropriate circumstances, a witness must reveal her face. The difference is that it's on a case-by-case basis. You assert without evidence that no Muslim woman can testify with her face covered. That's simply not the fact. In any given circumstance, on the facts of a given case, a court can order surgical removal of objects from your body, let alone removal of a face covering. But that's not on the basis of islamophobia.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)Sometimes new things are added into an existing culture and sometimes things are banned.
Public sacrifice of animals, which IS purely religious, is banned in virtually all western societies. You okay with that? That really DOES have some cognitive dissidence with the first amendment in the US at least. But we as a culture and society have determined we don't want that. Is that an anti-Semitic law?
You appear to be saying that any law that APPEARS to be aimed at Islam means its Islamophobic. But as is evident by banks, drivers license photos, testifying in court etc etc that's not the case.
Is the full face covering ban in France aimed primarily at Muslim women? Sure. I'd agree with that although it applies equally to balaclavas, motorcycle helmets etc. But you keep refusing to acknowledge that France has had a VERY long history banning ALL religious garb and symbols of ANY religion in the public square for hundreds of years - including priest frocks for a long while. That's their culture. They simply abhor that kind of overt religious display. Couple that with the inherent misogyny of the garment and the fact that it keeps that population segregated - NOT assimilated which is a deep and growing problem in France and the result is that the law is probably less about islamophobia and way more about the rest....
rug
(82,333 posts)Public sacrifice of animals happened when you had a state religion. So of course there shouldn't be any now.
But you said something disturbing. You talk about public sacrifice of animals and then mention anti-Semitism. Do you think public sacrifice of animals is part of Judaism?
And do yourself a favor and don't put words in my mouth. A law requiring by force the removal of face coverings from Moslem women is not "any law".
As to your last paragraph, well, I'll just leave it out there, untouched.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)And I have no idea why you think animal sacrifice was only practiced when a country had a state religion. Do you have a source for that? Its been a part of Jewish, Islamic, Christian, Buddhist and even Hindu religious practices as far as I can remember from a long ago class.... and not simply when those religions were the dominant ones.
Are you similarly outraged when police forcibly clothe naked women preventing them from going topless? Do you think public indecency laws are wrong when the police forcibly make a man cover his dick?
You see societies can and do make laws regulating what people can, and cannot, wear in public. And we enforce those laws. Sometimes forcibly. I'm not trying to put words into people's mouths - just trying to clarify what you think.
rug
(82,333 posts)What does that have to do wit this xenophobic French law?
And I'd love to see your source for Christian animal sacrifice.
Are you seriously equating a cop telling a woman to remove her veil with public nudity?
The only outrage I'm seeing is your blustering defense of triumphalist laws.
But to answer your question, I'm glad the police make you cover your dick. I suspect I am not alone in this.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)But that just shows how much western culture embraces (or doesn't) other cultural practices. The Kalahari tribesmen cannot walk about in any western civ naked (their cultural dress) without being arrested. We simply don't allow it. I can't testify in court in my preferred state of topless undress....
Why not laws about burqas and niqabs if we are going to enforce clothing rules on males and females in our society? These garments are sexist and misogynistic - addressing the cultural concerns of burqa/niqab are at least as valid as banning Kalahari tribesmen appearing naked in court.
Lastly, I'm drunk, tired and fed up with this convo so you get a wiki link to Christian sacrifice... its biblical doncha know...there's even a pic of a young man sacrificing an animal as recently as 2009 for a Christian ritual. In Europe no less. Where France is located.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_sacrifice
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)Just an FYI for you there about banks and strict Muslims.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)Since that was the point s/he was making.
pnwmom
(108,978 posts)Do you know if they allow unaccompanied women there?
rpannier
(24,329 posts)The French ban on face covering is an act of parliament passed by the Senate of France on 14 September 2010, resulting in the ban on the wearing of face-covering headgear, including masks, helmets, balaclava, niqābs and other veils covering the face in public places, except under specified circumstances. The ban also applies to the burqa, a full-body covering, if it covers the face.
Walk down the streets on Paris wearing a motorcycle helmet and the police will tell you to remove that as well.
rug
(82,333 posts)Personally, I think they should ban motorcycle helmets too. How else can I identify the biker who runs me over?
JustAnotherGen
(31,827 posts)A French police officer . . . isn't that reaction kind of extreme?
cosmicone
(11,014 posts)... after all, he was trying to defend the culture of peace ....
Deep13
(39,154 posts)...the police used fire hoses to repel completely peaceful citizens exercising their 1st Amendment rights. This was for the equality and freedom of all Americans, especially those persons who historically had been treated like an outcaste society in their own country.
Here we have a country that actively promotes secularism and integration into the whole of French society. To that end, there are certain religious practices that they prohibit. I will point out that far more onerous regulations of dress and conduct exist in many majority Muslim countries, but no one is rioting about that. I concede that it was boorish for that cop to physically accost that woman, regardless of the law. Having said that, however, the reaction to this ham-handed attempt to enforce actual, French law is violence and outrage.
First, I suggest to French Muslims that if you want your (in many cases adopted) countrymen to treat you as equals, this is not the way to do it. Rioting only reinforces the popular perception that you are outsiders, a threat, and that you do not belong there. Second, as stated there are far more onerous insults to Muslim people being perpetrated by Islamic governments everyday and no one is rioting over that. If, like me, you are worried about the continuing enforced inequality between men and women in those countries, I urge you to make that disapproval known more clearly than you have so far. Having cast aside theocracy, you cannot expect the rest of the French people to accept a customary segregation of sexes in that country. You may see veiling as honorable. The other French people see it as a way of dehumanizing and marginalizing women. In the Middle East, women wear veils for all sorts of reasons (among them are legal or customary requirements). In France, the only reason to cover ones face in public is because that person intends to commit a robbery. The fact that you are rioting only reinforces that perception. Finally, the French authorities will crush you.
So, these rioters are using wrong methods to pursue a dubious argument. I'm not going to worry when the state sends out the fire trucks or the tear gas.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)olddots
(10,237 posts)are women treated as property only their "owner" can see uncovered ?
The KKK wear their costumes to avoid being identified . We seem to have the right to remain in the past even though progress never stops .
jessie04
(1,528 posts)There are many people who predict France will be under Islamic law in a generation.
