French Veil Ban Passes Important Test

[hongi]

Fuck France. I'd say it was unbelievable, but it's happened so...liberte my ass.

[Nieztchean Uber-Amoeba]

Now Hongi, clearly we will only achieve equality by telling these women what and what not they are allowed to wear, and punishing them for wearing clothes that don't fit with France's traditional values, since clearly they can't decide for themselves.

[Simon_Jester]

It's simplistic to reduce matter to just "culture war" or "France likes secularism". There's a whole bunch of factors at play here: sure there's laïcité and sure there's some fanatical Muslims in France, but there's also matters like failed immigration policies, labor wage disputes between nationals and migrants, the French involvement in Northern Africa over the past couple of centuries, even things like idiotic urban planning during the '60's and '70's and simple populism by French politicians eager to find a way to divert attention away from the plodding economy.

Oh absolutely. It's not simple; I'm just saying it's a... call it an unsurprising form of fake solution to a real problem. One that might not occur so quickly to someone from the English-speaking world, simply because of the different political history.

In the minds of a large fraction of the people supporting the ban, this probably promotes freedom rather than reducing it, because they don't see "freedom to express solidarity with an oppressive religious institution" as actual freedom.

[hongi]

Now Hongi, clearly we will only achieve equality by telling these women what and what not they are allowed to wear, and punishing them for wearing clothes that don't fit with France's traditional values, since clearly they can't decide for themselves.

This. A thousand times this. Forcing women to not wear something is as bad as forcing women to wear something.

[Julhelm]

This. A thousand times this. Forcing women to not wear something is as bad as forcing women to wear something.

You're a fucking moron. By looking the other way we're effectively giving the islamists free reign to radicalize the ghettoes*. Lots of women are being forced to cover up despite having fled here from just such oppression. But I suppose they're easily sacrificed for the sake of maintaining political correctness, nay?

*That was actually the focus of a report prepared by military intelligence for the government detailing how ultraislamist groups are using "cellar" mosques to spread their agenda and using mental and physical coercion against women forcing them to adher to the strict islamist standards. These people are a real and present danger and it really bothers me how people consistently underestimate the effectiveness of these groups. We'll be going to see a whole lot more burqas in the near future if nothing is done.

[loomer]

The Islamists still have free reign to radicalize the ghetto. Just because he can't cover his wife and daughter's faces isn't going to stop Jabal the Radical from trying to spread his unique blend of hateful religion. Hell, it might even make it easier for him - religions love persecution.

[Julhelm]

So because of that we shouldn't take any measures at all because they won't be 100% effective? Same idiotic reasoning the anti-ABM crowd uses.

[Thanas]

Thread locked pending mod action.


EDIT: and unlocked.

I've about had it with topics turning into nothing but emotional snarky bitchfests. We had the dog shooting thread, the firefighter thread turn into those and I'll be damned if I let this one degenerate into such a mess.

Remember, if what you wanted to say has already been said here, don't repeat it. Also, do not dogpile.

[Eternal_Freedom]

Good for France. Not just for the idea, but going though with it. And I never thought I would say that about France

Personally, I think it's rather rude wearing veils in public, rather like speaking in a forieng language in front of you. It always imples to me they have soemthing to hide. Plus, I was brought up to think it was polite to show your face when talking to people

Pity this would never work in jolly old England

[Thanas]

^I don't think arguing in favor of a ban on the basis of what you think as rude is a very smart argument to make.

[Eternal_Freedom]

Quite probably not, but it was my opinion. And as I said, I like the whole thing more for the willingness to actually do it than the idea itself

EDIT: And if you want something to base your side in an argument on, why not base it upon your ideals of politeness?

[Chaotic Neutral]

Making more victimless crimes is never the solution, even if it DOES help stop extremism. (It doesn't.)

[loomer]

So because of that we shouldn't take any measures at all because they won't be 100% effective? Same idiotic reasoning the anti-ABM crowd uses.

No, you should take measures to address the underlying issues that help make radicalism seem attractive to people. It's really not that complex a concept - don't slap a useless 'fix' on something, actually fix it!

[General Zod]

Making more victimless crimes is never the solution, even if it DOES help stop extremism. (It doesn't.)

There's already good enough reasons to ban the burqa in public on practical grounds, like if the police need to identify someone. Whining about it being a victimless crime is incredibly simple-minded.

[Lusankya]

Personally, I think it's rather rude wearing veils in public, rather like speaking in a forieng language in front of you. It always imples to me they have soemthing to hide.

I find that it's often the people with this attitude who never bother learning any language other than English, and then get surprised when they go overseas and can't have a conversation with anyone.

Plus, I was brought up to think it was polite to show your face when talking to people

That's because you were born in the west. The people wearing the burqa were obviously brought up with different ideas.

Quite probably not, but it was my opinion. And as I said, I like the whole thing more for the willingness to actually do it than the idea itself

I'm not really sure if this is really a good reason to like things. I mean, could say that I like George Bush not because of his ideas regarding Saddam Hussein, but more for his willingness to actually go and invade Iraq, but that would just make me a moron.

EDIT: And if you want something to base your side in an argument on, why not base it upon your ideals of politeness?

Because politeness is influenced by culture. You're a westerner, so you think that looking people in the eye and giving tips to waiters is polite. If you were born in China, you'd think exactly the opposite.

[Julhelm]

So because of that we shouldn't take any measures at all because they won't be 100% effective? Same idiotic reasoning the anti-ABM crowd uses.

No, you should take measures to address the underlying issues that help make radicalism seem attractive to people. It's really not that complex a concept - don't slap a useless 'fix' on something, actually fix it!

Except there are no measures that are guaranteed to fix the problem. These people already hate our guts and see themselves as soldiers fighting a holy war. You can't just blame everything on "lol white prejudice" when some groups integrate much better than others.

[loomer]

Please show where I blamed it on white prejudice, Julhelm, because I sure as fuck don't recall writing that.

[Siege]

That's because you were born in the west. The people wearing the burqa were obviously brought up with different ideas.

Clearly. However, these fundamentalists live in the west, so they can (and are) expected to conform to some of the basic principles of western society. I don't think conformation to arbitrary and ill-defined standards of politeness are a good measure of social integration, but that doesn't mean there aren't expectations to be met by immigrants and their descendants (just as the rest of society for that matter).

According to Sarkozy, "In [France], we cannot accept that women be prisoners behind a screen, cut off from all social life, deprived of all identity". According to his government, "Given the damage it produces on those rules which allow the life in community, ensure the dignity of the person and equality between sexes, this practice, even if it is voluntary, cannot be tolerated in any public place". That makes reasons the French have for the ban pretty clear. They have everything to do with social values and a perceived oppression of women. I think that banning the burqa from public spaces is not a solution of the problem of fundamentalism, but at the same time I can't say I'll be sorry to see burqas removed from the streets -- I suppose, though, that we'll have to see if the ban rid those streets of just the burqa, or also of the women that wore them.

[PainRack]

I have the impression this is less targeted at those who already have been indoctrinated their whole life, but more against children. Coupled with strict enforcement of school attendance, you might get some of them to get used to the idea of not wearing a veil.

That doesn't make sense either, since children AREN"T mandated to wear the burqa. Only women who has gone through puberty are forced to wear it.

The issue covering the burqa ban appears to focus entirely on its symbolic meaning. The closest analogy would be Nazi symbology which was banned in Germany.

Perhaps some insight might be shown here by the Germans on the board on how that turned out?

[hongi]

The law imposes a fine of 150 euros ($190) and/or a citizenship course as punishment for wearing a face-covering veil. Forcing a woman to wear a niqab or a burqa will be punishable by a year in prison or a 15,000-euro ($19,000) fine, the government said, calling it "a new form of enslavement that the republic cannot accept on its soil."

Uh. Hang on guys. If forcing a woman to wear a veil gets you a jail sentence or a fine, why do you need to ban the burqa again?

According to Sarkozy, "In [France], we cannot accept that women be prisoners behind a screen, cut off from all social life, deprived of all identity". According to his government, "Given the damage it produces on those rules which allow the life in community, ensure the dignity of the person and equality between sexes, this practice, even if it is voluntary, cannot be tolerated in any public place".

Oh that's right, because Sarkozy doesn't care whether women want to wear it or not. All this talk about freedom for women is bullshit. Read it again: the French are going to ban it even if the women want to wear the burqa. He and the French just don't like it. That's the real reason isn't it? The brown hordes won't wear what we wear, what savages!

This is despite the fact that his criticism is unfounded. Niqab and burqa wearing women still have a social life. I've met and talked to niqab wearing women in my university and classes folks. They go out to restaurants, shops, they meet their friends, they even take it off in the presence of women.

[Lusankya]

That's because you were born in the west. The people wearing the burqa were obviously brought up with different ideas.

Clearly. However, these fundamentalists live in the west, so they can (and are) expected to conform to some of the basic principles of western society. I don't think conformation to arbitrary and ill-defined standards of politeness are a good measure of social integration, but that doesn't mean there aren't expectations to be met by immigrants and their descendants (just as the rest of society for that matter).

Am I reading you right? You don't think that confirmation to standards of politeness is a good measure of social integration, but you think that people should be legislated into acting that way anyway? Am I reading you right? I'm not sure if you're just trying to explain Eternal_Freedom's thinking here, or if you actually agree with the retarded notion that things should be banned just because people think they're rude.

According to Sarkozy, "In [France], we cannot accept that women be prisoners behind a screen, cut off from all social life, deprived of all identity". According to his government, "Given the damage it produces on those rules which allow the life in community, ensure the dignity of the person and equality between sexes, this practice, even if it is voluntary, cannot be tolerated in any public place". That makes reasons the French have for the ban pretty clear. They have everything to do with social values and a perceived oppression of women. I think that banning the burqa from public spaces is not a solution of the problem of fundamentalism, but at the same time I can't say I'll be sorry to see burqas removed from the streets -- I suppose, though, that we'll have to see if the ban rid those streets of just the burqa, or also of the women that wore them.

Personally, I think it would be hilarious if these women just turned around and started wearing some face-covering garment that wasn't banned by the legislation. Imagine what it would be like if you had a few hundred Islamic women in trenchcoats and rubber Dick Cheney masks going out on the street and protesting the law.

The issue I have with the legislation is not so much the banning of burqas, but rather the fact that it specifically targets burqas. If you want to get face-covering garments off the streets, fine. Pass a law saying that x% of a person's face must be visible when walking in public, unless coverings are required for health or medical reasons. As it stands, the law just says, "We don't disagree with what you do, just your reasons for doing it," which isn't going to do anything to help the integration of Muslims into society.

[Siege]

Am I reading you right? You don't think that confirmation to standards of politeness is a good measure of social integration, but you think that people should be legislated into acting that way anyway?

You're not reading me right, because I said earlier in the thread and in fact repeated in the very post you quoted I think that banning the burqa is no solution to the problem.

Eternal_Freedom said he found wearing veils in public "rude". You then said "that's because you were born in the west". But stating that social values differ between geographic regions isn't actually doing anything except stating the obvious. These people live in the west, and I'm pointing out that just because social values are different elsewhere doesn't mean a certain degree of conformation to local values isn't still to be expected of immigrants and their descendants.

[Lusankya]

Eternal_Freedom said he found wearing veils in public "rude". You then said "that's because you were born in the west". But stating that social values differ between geographic regions isn't actually doing anything except stating the obvious. These people live in the west, and I'm pointing out that just because social values are different elsewhere doesn't mean a certain degree of conformation to local values isn't still to be expected of immigrants and their descendants.

Well, the whole point of reminding him that politeness varies by culture was to argue against his idea that people should be legislated being into being "polite", and his idea that "ideals of politeness" was a good thing to base an argument upon. And while a certain degree of conformation to local values is to be expected, the local population should also take the opportunity provided by immigration to reassess said local values and take on some of those of the immigrant population*, since adding to ones own cultural diversity is one of the reasons for having immigrants in the first place. The price of that is that people will occasionally have to deal with immigrants being "rude".

[Thanas]

I have the impression this is less targeted at those who already have been indoctrinated their whole life, but more against children. Coupled with strict enforcement of school attendance, you might get some of them to get used to the idea of not wearing a veil.

That doesn't make sense either, since children AREN"T mandated to wear the burqa. Only women who has gone through puberty are forced to wear it.

The issue covering the burqa ban appears to focus entirely on its symbolic meaning. The closest analogy would be Nazi symbology which was banned in Germany.

No, it does not. It is a symbol of inequality, which directly contradicts the french values. You might want to argue that tolerating it is a sign of tolerance, but tolerance of a symbol of inequality is nifty at best.

Perhaps some insight might be shown here by the Germans on the board on how that turned out?

Very well, it comes very handy when it comes to prosecuting neo nazis.

[VT-16]

victimless crimes

You keep using that term, but I don't think you understand what it means.

Why is it so hard to grasp that maybe, just maybe, these kinds of accessories (any clothing that isn't strictly needed to cover against the cold is an accessory, imho) have been used mainly to prevent women from interacting more freely with men outside their own family and has in reality contributed to the isolation of said individuals, to their detriment?
Again, people are free to wear head-scarfs, the difference being that you can actually see someone's face rather than the equivilant of a ski-mask. Then again, even a ski-mask usually has a hole for the mouth to speak/breathe easier. I'm sure there are other, practical benefits as well, like increasing your field of vision. Especially useful if you need to drive somewhere.