French Commission Wants Ban On Full-Face Veils

[Master of Ossus]

Just to clarify, from what I understand, the aim of the law isn't security or anything like that: it's an explicit attempt to prevent religion from creeping into the public sphere. In limited areas, France has also banned large Christian crucifixes, Jewish skullcaps, etc. on the grounds that those are religious accoutrements.

[TimothyC]

"It's a symbol of the subjugation of women and the banner of extremist fundamentalism."

I'm not sure I understand. How do veils subjugate women? Are all Muslim women extremists (or rather, their husbands)?

If you can't see someones face it is much easier to dehumanize them. All of this was covered (no pun intended) back in this thread.

[Phantasee]

In any case, around here, when you go into some banks, there are signs on the outside doors that ask customers to remove any hats before entering. That is clearly a security issue. If they can expect me to remove my hat, then I see no difference in asking someone to remove a full-face veil. Different issue of course compared to France's seemingly far more wide-ranging policy-to-be, but in some cases I think security justifiably trumps freedom to wear a feature-concealing veil.

Would you extend this to asking, say, Sikh men to remove their turbans?

[B5B7]

Yeah, but I would hardly think that giving the muslim community more ammo to attack the Europeans is a good idea. The last thing anyone should do is to make them think that they have legimite arguments to defend themselves.

Meh, I would rather have choose to campaign against women being forced to wear the burqa than an all out ban.

If someone is a permanent resident of Europe, then they also are a European.

While not defending the all-enclosing veils, leaders of the five-million-strong Muslim minority say a legal ban would be excessive since fewer than 2,000 women are said to wear them.

I find that figure hard to believe. I see locally quite a few women wearing full body covering, including the face quite often, and there would only be thousands of muslim women in total in the area.
Muslims, specifically Muslim women, are not a race. Of course if a segment of the population is discriminated against they might consider themselves a separate race, but there is less discrimination against muslims than other minority groups who generally have less cohesion and power.

[General Zod]

I find that figure hard to believe. I see locally quite a few women wearing full body covering, including the face quite often, and there would only be thousands of muslim women in total in the area.

You realize they're referring specifically to France, right? They're also talking about just the veil that covers everything; not the lesser varieties. 2,000 is perfectly believable.

[FSTargetDrone]

Would you extend this to asking, say, Sikh men to remove their turbans?

Interesting question. I don't know if a turban would be considered a "hat" as far as the bank's policy is concerned. The thing with brimmed hats (including ballcaps) is that they can be pulled down low covering one's features from bank security cameras which are usually mounted on the ceiling. Wearing a yarmulke shouldn't be much of an issue either, as it only covers the top of the skull.

[ray245]

Yeah, but I would hardly think that giving the muslim community more ammo to attack the Europeans is a good idea. The last thing anyone should do is to make them think that they have legimite arguments to defend themselves.

Meh, I would rather have choose to campaign against women being forced to wear the burqa than an all out ban.

If someone is a permanent resident of Europe, then they also are a European.

I know. What I am refering to is giving fundementalist in general (be it European Muslim or non-European Muslim) more excuse to attack the European culture.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Would you extend this to asking, say, Sikh men to remove their turbans?

Interesting question. I don't know if a turban would be considered a "hat" as far as the bank's policy is concerned. The thing with brimmed hats (including ballcaps) is that they can be pulled down low covering one's features from bank security cameras which are usually mounted on the ceiling. Wearing a yarmulke shouldn't be much of an issue either, as it only covers the top of the skull.

Actually, both are banned to some to all individuals in certain settings under the Laïcité, for example, school teachers.

[Sinewmire]

I honestly can't say I support this. While I feel that the Burka is an absurd custom, I also respect the right to freedom of religion. As far as I'm concerned, if a woman actually wants to wear the Burka, she has that right.

Thing is, how do you determine "wants to" as opposed to "forced to" either directly or by social pressure? This is one of the issues I really don't have a solid enough knowledge base for my opinion to count for anything, so I won't supply it.

Hahaha, just kidding. My uninformed worthless opinion is; Women should not be forced to wear the Burqa or a veil. It's an oppressive tool of the manocentric maleocracy. Many women claim to want to wear it, but I suspect they don't understand fully what it means and why it is regarded with discomfort by the west*. I also think it's insulting to men everewhere - the idea that the sight of a woman's naked philtrum will drive them MAD WITH LUST. On the other hand, banning it outright seems both counter-productivce and insensitive and lets Islamists feel martyred and opressed, helping the causes of extremism.


*Granted they seem to think it can be a tool of liberation (freedom from beauty-mad society) but THAT IS NOT WHAY IT IS WORN. I'm sure being forced to wear prison style orange jumpsuits would mean we wouldn't have to worry about our choices in clothing or being pooh-poohed by the fashion conscious. Doesn't mean it's a good thing.

[Darth Wong]

They could have just made an all-inclusive ban of anything that fully covers the face if they didn't want to come off as full-on bigots and give easy ammo to the extremists. But that would be sensible.

Of course that would also ban ski masks, welding helmets, and beekeeping gear.

I suppose I should have mentioned "in public", or as "essential to certain tasks" but I assumed people would be smart enough to have inferred that without being pedantic.

Laws are pedantic by nature. In normal discourse, one can say "don't be pedantic", but the nature of law is such that, if someone points out some nitpicky loophole, the law responds by saying "By George, you're right!"

[Darth Wong]

"It's a symbol of the subjugation of women and the banner of extremist fundamentalism."

I'm not sure I understand. How do veils subjugate women? Are all Muslim women extremists (or rather, their husbands)?

It's actually more of an Arab thing than a Muslim thing, and yes, the entire Middle Eastern Arab culture is pretty damned misogynist. Why the reluctance to admit the obvious? Do we need to start listing specific misogynist aspects of Middle Eastern Arab culture, complete with legal references?

If they want to pass a law against Muslim men physically abusing their wives, I'm fine with it. But barring people from expressing their religion in a non-harmful way seems like a bad idea. Same with ordering people not to wear crucifixes. Whom does it hurt?

Walking nude down the street doesn't hurt anyone either. Any country which bans that should not get all haughty about another country banning public displays of religiosity.

Besides, why is it so important for people to wear a public symbol of their private religious beliefs anyway? It's like crusaders who made a point of painting the cross on their shields; it is, in my view, inherently obnoxious to walk around with public symbols of your private beliefs. You're being confrontational for no reason.

[Simon_Jester]

Besides, why is it so important for people to wear a public symbol of their private religious beliefs anyway? It's like crusaders who made a point of painting the cross on their shields; it is, in my view, inherently obnoxious to walk around with public symbols of your private beliefs. You're being confrontational for no reason.

From curiosity: do you apply the same standard to, say, T-shirts with slogans on them?

[Darth Wong]

Besides, why is it so important for people to wear a public symbol of their private religious beliefs anyway? It's like crusaders who made a point of painting the cross on their shields; it is, in my view, inherently obnoxious to walk around with public symbols of your private beliefs. You're being confrontational for no reason.

From curiosity: do you apply the same standard to, say, T-shirts with slogans on them?

If it's political or religious, yes. If it's whimsical, no. Why the fuck do so many people think they need to turn themselves into walking billboards?

What do you think when you see someone walking around with a T-shirt that has some sort of political advertisement on it?

[General Zod]

Besides, why is it so important for people to wear a public symbol of their private religious beliefs anyway? It's like crusaders who made a point of painting the cross on their shields; it is, in my view, inherently obnoxious to walk around with public symbols of your private beliefs. You're being confrontational for no reason.

From curiosity: do you apply the same standard to, say, T-shirts with slogans on them?

How often do you actually see t-shirts with obnoxious slogans on them though? Unless it's for a political rally or some other specific event I have a hard time actually remembering anyone wearing one that stood out (signs are another issue). On the other hand a lot of people tend to be incredibly obnoxious about flaunting their religious beliefs.

[RedImperator]

It's hard to have an opinion on this subject.
On one hand, islamism is fucking stupid and even downright barabaric sometimes. On the other hand, I am not confortable with the State telling me wath I can on cannot wear.

Private companies already can tell you to wear (no shoes, no shirt, no service, dress codes for employees, uniforms, etc.). This isn't really an increase in government power.

Wait, what? How does that even follow? "Private property owners can set restrictions on dress on their own property, therefore, it's not an increase in government power if the government sets new restrictions on dress everywhere?" What does one even have to do with the other?

[Darth Wong]

Besides, why is it so important for people to wear a public symbol of their private religious beliefs anyway? It's like crusaders who made a point of painting the cross on their shields; it is, in my view, inherently obnoxious to walk around with public symbols of your private beliefs. You're being confrontational for no reason.

From curiosity: do you apply the same standard to, say, T-shirts with slogans on them?

How often do you actually see t-shirts with obnoxious slogans on them though? Unless it's for a political rally or some other specific event I have a hard time actually remembering anyone wearing one that stood out (signs are another issue). On the other hand a lot of people tend to be incredibly obnoxious about flaunting their religious beliefs.

That's a good point; you tend to see obnoxious T-shirts only at political rallies, which would suggest that even political partisanship is less pushy than religious folk. Obnoxious bumper stickers, however, are another matter. I'm no fan of them either, and they're pretty common. My own car is completely bumper sticker-free.

[Drooling Iguana]

I was a bit uncertain about this ban when I first heard about it, but after thinking about it for a little while I have to say I'm for it. If there were any reason other than religious pressures for women to wear burquas then we'd expect to see some segment of the non-Muslim population wearing them, or something similar.

Also, there seems to be a common conception that government oppression is the only kind of oppression that's really harmful, when in truth oppression can come from many different sources, whether it's your employer, your religion or even your family (although the latter two often come hand in hand.) If an organisation is both able and willing to end a particular form of oppression (as the French government seems to be) I see no reason why it shouldn't do so.

[wolveraptor]

Walking nude down the street doesn't hurt anyone either. Any country which bans that should not get all haughty about another country banning public displays of religiosity.

He never commented on his position towards public nudity, and may not necessarily support the laws of whatever country he lives in. For the record, I am not opposed to public nudity, except maybe from a public health perspective.

Besides, why is it so important for people to wear a public symbol of their private religious beliefs anyway? It's like crusaders who made a point of painting the cross on their shields; it is, in my view, inherently obnoxious to walk around with public symbols of your private beliefs. You're being confrontational for no reason.

Of course it's obnoxious. Does that have any relevance as to whether or not we should illegalize such behavior?

Honestly, this kind of legislation looks terrible in light of France's well-known reputation for anti-Arabic bigotry (see 2005 Parisian riots).

[Liberty]

From curiosity: do you apply the same standard to, say, T-shirts with slogans on them?

How often do you actually see t-shirts with obnoxious slogans on them though? Unless it's for a political rally or some other specific event I have a hard time actually remembering anyone wearing one that stood out (signs are another issue). On the other hand a lot of people tend to be incredibly obnoxious about flaunting their religious beliefs.

That's a good point; you tend to see obnoxious T-shirts only at political rallies, which would suggest that even political partisanship is less pushy than religious folk. Obnoxious bumper stickers, however, are another matter. I'm no fan of them either, and they're pretty common. My own car is completely bumper sticker-free.

You make it obvious that you don't live in the United States.

http://g.christianbook.com/g/product/3/399l.gif
http://g.christianbook.com/g/slideshow/ ... _1_adv.jpg
http://g.christianbook.com/g/product/1/1187xl.gif
http://g.christianbook.com/g/product/2/2411m.gif
http://g.christianbook.com/g/product/2/291xl.gif
http://g.christianbook.com/g/product/1/163ym.gif
http://g.christianbook.com/g/product/0/0197l.gif
http://g.christianbook.com/g/product/8/824l.gif

Where I'm from (Indiana), Christian T-shirts are INCREDIBLY popular. I've seen the second to last one pictured above several times in the last few weeks, and the last one is especially...sad? Anyway, people really REALLY wear their religion on their sleeve here.

[Mayabird]

Yeah, I was going to say, obnoxious Christian T-shirts were incredibly common in Georgia (with the most annoying and obnoxious ones to me being obvious ripoffs of other popular designs, because apparently many of them are incapable of thinking of anything original).

Also I was going to say that one good point to the burqa/full-face veil ban would be that women in those families could no longer be pressured into wearing them since they'd have the excuse, "It's illegal." This will be good if their families still let them go outside since they'll be able to mingle with other people much more easily, but may not be so good if their families respond by sticking all their females in windowless rooms in the houses and never let them outside again.

[Oskuro]

To me, arguing that women are free to wear whatever they want is not appropiate in this situation, since if they've been indoctrinated to do so by their misogynistic culture, it's not true freedom of choice when they do it.

A seemingly unfair or one-sided law can be useful to rectify unbalanced situations, as tends to be the case with racial and sexual discrimination. By banning the display of these symbols, the government is forcing these people to come to terms with the notion that religion does not have to rule their lives, and might be an eye-opener for some (specially women in this case) who never even dared consider it.

Now, I agree that there might be an anti-muslim motivation too, but the principle of the law seems sound to me.

I guess there's a lot of knee-jerking from PC crowds who are not used to laws that confront the issue so directly, instead making broader approaches (as suggested on this thread) that dilute the original intent.

[FSTargetDrone]

You make it obvious that you don't live in the United States.

http://g.christianbook.com/g/product/3/399l.gif
http://g.christianbook.com/g/slideshow/ ... _1_adv.jpg
http://g.christianbook.com/g/product/1/1187xl.gif
http://g.christianbook.com/g/product/2/2411m.gif
http://g.christianbook.com/g/product/2/291xl.gif
http://g.christianbook.com/g/product/1/163ym.gif
http://g.christianbook.com/g/product/0/0197l.gif
http://g.christianbook.com/g/product/8/824l.gif

Where I'm from (Indiana), Christian T-shirts are INCREDIBLY popular. I've seen the second to last one pictured above several times in the last few weeks, and the last one is especially...sad? Anyway, people really REALLY wear their religion on their sleeve here.

Every time I see crap like that discussed on this board it makes me glad I live where I do. Here in southeast Pennsylvania, I see Jesus bumper stickers once in awhile (typically near the shittier of the 2 local Wal*Marts, but considering the clientele there it's not surprising). But that kind of clothing is by no means popular with any of the kids around here. I know this country is heavily religious, but we just don't see much of it 'round there parts. Even the kids at the local Catholic schools don't wear stuff like that. But Catholics are somewhat more reserved with that sort of thing, I've found.

I was actually surprised to see a Muslim family a few years ago whose female members were completely covered feet to head in concealing garb. It's quite rare.

[Spekio]

Are they also banning gimp masks? They're a full mask that people wear to oppress themselves. If you're going to ban one, you might as well ban the other.

Hohohoho, I see a fallacy there, mister.

You see, I don't believe those women chose to wear the veil. They were pretty much obliged to do so.

Also, on a sidenote, if you tell me that they are happy like that, I would reccomend Aldous Huxley' "Brave New World" where it's stated that a Epsilon will never want want to be an Alpha, because he doesn't know what being an Alpha is like, and they have been conditioned to understand that they are inferior than the other castes.