French Veil Ban Passes Important Test

[Phantasee]

Quick question: Covering up with a scarf in cold weather is okay, right? So who gets to say where the cold/scarf and warm/veil line is?

[Thanas]

Quick question: Covering up with a scarf in cold weather is okay, right? So who gets to say where the cold/scarf and warm/veil line is?

A burqa is not a scarf. Also, one is dictated by health reasons, which is not the case for wearing the burqa. So the analogy is pretty bad IMO.

[Bakustra]

Okay, I have a little challenge for the people supporting the ban:

Would you support a ban on high-heeled shoes? High-heels contribute to objectification of women, and women have been coerced to wear them over more practical footwear in the past and on to today. If you wouldn't support a ban, why?

Just to preempt one particular objection, here is a video showcasing a woman who is demonstrating a loophole to the law. Surely, if she was being coerced, she would welcome this opportunity to be free of the niqab, rather than showcase a way around the new legislation. For that matter, apparently a National Assembly committee to study the veil determined that about a quarter of the niqab-wearing population (500 women) are converts to Islam. (There were no women wearing the burqa in France in 2009.) But there appears to be very little statistical evidence surrounding what percentages of women are coerced or do so solely because of social pressure.

Well, that's still of dubious benefit, though. There are only about 2000 women in France estimated to wear the burqa or niqab, according to the article. Unless their families all gather together in one place, they're still going to regularly associate with other Muslims that don't wear the veil, and the same for marriage- unless the groups that wear the veil are so insular that they only marry each other, then the kids are going to marry out of the group and if they were being coerced, would leave that coercion behind. Even if not coerced, there would still be decay from people who move away from that system of belief. So without a steady flux of ultraconservative Muslims into France, the number of people wearing the veil would still drop.

The problem here is that ultraconservatives tend to have a very high birthrate. So I am not sure the number would drop, especially not when you have the opposite trend in some European countries. (I can't remember where I read it, but apparently the burqa wearers in Germany have increased sharply over the last ten years).

They do, but without clustering, they tend to break up. The Amish and Hasidic populations in the US, just as an example, are very clustered and discourage interfaith marriages because of this. So if these groups are clustered enough to self-perpetuate (and they may be) then they might grow, but I think that they aren't numerous enough to support that- yet, at least. Immigration may provide a wider population base.

If the French government really wants to intervene for kids, they would be better to do so with the curriculum in public schools, I think. There, they could encourage free-thinking and go for a more subtle route than a ban.

Who says they don't do so already?

Even the part of the law about prosecuting people who coerce their wives into wearing the niqab/burqa would be far less controversial, since it can be framed as protecting religious freedom and diversity.

I think that part is purely cosmetic, abused and heavily indoctrinated people do not tend to come forward against attackers.

Well, I sincerely hope and believe that they do so already with education. The problem here, though, is that this induces defensiveness in both these groups and in moderate/conservative Muslims that already feel somewhat alienated from French society, while lacking in the ability to really combat repressive attitudes as far as I can see. So I think that it undermines integrative and equality efforts with no major benefit that I can see.

[Bakustra]

Quick question: Covering up with a scarf in cold weather is okay, right? So who gets to say where the cold/scarf and warm/veil line is?

A burqa is not a scarf. Also, one is dictated by health reasons, which is not the case for wearing the burqa. So the analogy is pretty bad IMO.

That shoots a hole in the public safety rationale, too, since they can't actually prevent you from covering up, just like in the video I posted. Just wear a surgeon's mask under a niqab and you're still essentially covered.

[Thanas]

Okay, I have a little challenge for the people supporting the ban:

Would you support a ban on high-heeled shoes? High-heels contribute to objectification of women, and women have been coerced to wear them over more practical footwear in the past and on to today. If you wouldn't support a ban, why?

I'll answer that challenge as soon as you cite religious leaders coming out in support of high heals and show me women who have been forced by threat of violence to wear them.

Just to preempt one particular objection, here is a video showcasing a woman who is demonstrating a loophole to the law. Surely, if she was being coerced, she would welcome this opportunity to be free of the niqab, rather than showcase a way around the new legislation. For that matter, apparently a National Assembly committee to study the veil determined that about a quarter of the niqab-wearing population (500 women) are converts to Islam. (There were no women wearing the burqa in France in 2009.) But there appears to be very little statistical evidence surrounding what percentages of women are coerced or do so solely because of social pressure.

The percentages do not really matter to the French, for them it is the principle of the thing that counts.

The problem here is that ultraconservatives tend to have a very high birthrate. So I am not sure the number would drop, especially not when you have the opposite trend in some European countries. (I can't remember where I read it, but apparently the burqa wearers in Germany have increased sharply over the last ten years).

They do, but without clustering, they tend to break up. The Amish and Hasidic populations in the US, just as an example, are very clustered and discourage interfaith marriages because of this. So if these groups are clustered enough to self-perpetuate (and they may be) then they might grow, but I think that they aren't numerous enough to support that- yet, at least. Immigration may provide a wider population base.

I am not an expert on French immigration, so I would not know anything about that. However, it is worth noting that the number of people wearing veils etc have gone up sharply in Germany - for example, I visited an immigrant quarter a few years ago and then just a few months ago. The difference was astonishing. Also, the principals of the local schools have to deal with more and more muslim girls (or their parents) refusing to take part in swimming lessons etc. Now, these are miniscule percentages compared to the total number of immigrants in Germany, but that still does not mean the problem is not worth addressing now. I suspect the same thing happens in France.

Well, I sincerely hope and believe that they do so already with education. The problem here, though, is that this induces defensiveness in both these groups and in moderate/conservative Muslims that already feel somewhat alienated from French society, while lacking in the ability to really combat repressive attitudes as far as I can see. So I think that it undermines integrative and equality efforts with no major benefit that I can see.

If they are moderate muslims, they won't wear the Burqa anyway and I think they would not feel much in common with religious fanatics. So what it really happens here is that it will impact the radicals. I mean, if one were to ban self-crucifixion or other fanatic practices I doubt it will really impact the moderate christians or make them feel alienated.

That shoots a hole in the public safety rationale, too, since they can't actually prevent you from covering up, just like in the video I posted. Just wear a surgeon's mask under a niqab and you're still essentially covered.

That is a loophole in the law. I don't think arguing from loopholes is a good idea when it comes to whether the law in general is a good or even legitimate idea or not.

[Serafina]

At the very least, that law could prevent the spread of that degrading practice - it's easier to adopt something due to religion that won't get you into trouble than to do so with something that is.
And YES, it IS degrading - if you think that wearing something that covers up your entire body (including hiding the outline) and only allows you to see the world trough a tiny little slit in front of your face is not degrading, perhaps you should reconsider your opinion.

Oh, and regarding the high-heels argument: By that logic, we could also outlaw miniskirts, short tops, push-up-bras etc. The problem with the Burqa is not that it is objectifying women by focusing on their physical traits (it is in fact doing the exact opposite) - it i degrading because it essentially makes you a non-person, mostly indistinguishable from others with no expression of your personality at all.


Of course, banning it won't be a clear solution. Some women might really be trapped at home due to the ban. But both the message it sends and the reduced spread of that practice should be worth it.

[Cecelia5578]

Well, I sincerely hope and believe that they do so already with education. The problem here, though, is that this induces defensiveness in both these groups and in moderate/conservative Muslims that already feel somewhat alienated from French society, while lacking in the ability to really combat repressive attitudes as far as I can see. So I think that it undermines integrative and equality efforts with no major benefit that I can see.

Why should moderate and the equivalent of Christmas and Easter Muslims care about the issue? If anything, they should all be appalled at it. Afterall, it provides a way to better integrate themselves into French/Western society and further marginalize the fundies who want it.

[Bakustra]

Okay, I have a little challenge for the people supporting the ban:

Would you support a ban on high-heeled shoes? High-heels contribute to objectification of women, and women have been coerced to wear them over more practical footwear in the past and on to today. If you wouldn't support a ban, why?

I'll answer that challenge as soon as you cite religious leaders coming out in support of high heals and show me women who have been forced by threat of violence to wear them.

I can't find religious arguments or force of violence, but how about cultural and on-the job dress codes in 2008? The British Trades Union Congress castigated London stores for requiring women to wear high-heeled shoes to work.

The wearing of the niqab/burqa is far more cultural than religious, anyways, since the religious groups mandating it (Salafists) are almost entirely regional to the Arabian peninsula.

But perhaps I should instead provide this example of a religious leader restricting women to wearing a small selection of clothes, on grounds of modesty. Not as restrictive as the niqab, of course, but should we use that as a reason to ban long skirts or dresses?

Just to preempt one particular objection, here is a video showcasing a woman who is demonstrating a loophole to the law. Surely, if she was being coerced, she would welcome this opportunity to be free of the niqab, rather than showcase a way around the new legislation. For that matter, apparently a National Assembly committee to study the veil determined that about a quarter of the niqab-wearing population (500 women) are converts to Islam. (There were no women wearing the burqa in France in 2009.) But there appears to be very little statistical evidence surrounding what percentages of women are coerced or do so solely because of social pressure.

The percentages do not really matter to the French, for them it is the principle of the thing that counts.

But then it departs from women's rights and becomes more a tool of cultural repression, which I do not find positive in principle or in practice.

The problem here is that ultraconservatives tend to have a very high birthrate. So I am not sure the number would drop, especially not when you have the opposite trend in some European countries. (I can't remember where I read it, but apparently the burqa wearers in Germany have increased sharply over the last ten years).

They do, but without clustering, they tend to break up. The Amish and Hasidic populations in the US, just as an example, are very clustered and discourage interfaith marriages because of this. So if these groups are clustered enough to self-perpetuate (and they may be) then they might grow, but I think that they aren't numerous enough to support that- yet, at least. Immigration may provide a wider population base.

I am not an expert on French immigration, so I would not know anything about that. However, it is worth noting that the number of people wearing veils etc have gone up sharply in Germany - for example, I visited an immigrant quarter a few years ago and then just a few months ago. The difference was astonishing. Also, the principals of the local schools have to deal with more and more muslim girls (or their parents) refusing to take part in swimming lessons etc. Now, these are miniscule percentages compared to the total number of immigrants in Germany, but that still does not mean the problem is not worth addressing now. I suspect the same thing happens in France.

But what is the percentage? Is it from immigration? How well do such groups integrate? If they integrate within two or three generations, then they're an annoyance unless mass migrations start. If they integrate more slowly, then there is a problem, but inviting defensiveness isn't the answer. If they don't integrate at all, they become an amazing discovery of sociology.

Well, I sincerely hope and believe that they do so already with education. The problem here, though, is that this induces defensiveness in both these groups and in moderate/conservative Muslims that already feel somewhat alienated from French society, while lacking in the ability to really combat repressive attitudes as far as I can see. So I think that it undermines integrative and equality efforts with no major benefit that I can see.

If they are moderate muslims, they won't wear the Burqa anyway and I think they would not feel much in common with religious fanatics. So what it really happens here is that it will impact the radicals. I mean, if one were to ban self-crucifixion or other fanatic practices I doubt it will really impact the moderate christians or make them feel alienated.

France already has a bad situation with its Islamic population- endemic poverty, many Muslims feeling positive about France and integrating being followed by the right-wing parties decrying the lack of integration, so I think that some people are going to see this as France trying to crush Islamic identity. I think that this will radicalize people, and I think that if the same conditions were in place you would see this from Christians too.

That shoots a hole in the public safety rationale, too, since they can't actually prevent you from covering up, just like in the video I posted. Just wear a surgeon's mask under a niqab and you're still essentially covered.

That is a loophole in the law. I don't think arguing from loopholes is a good idea when it comes to whether the law in general is a good or even legitimate idea or not.

It's a loophole only from the perspective of a public-security argument. I doubt that the French government did this for public security reasons.

[Bakustra]

At the very least, that law could prevent the spread of that degrading practice - it's easier to adopt something due to religion that won't get you into trouble than to do so with something that is.
And YES, it IS degrading - if you think that wearing something that covers up your entire body (including hiding the outline) and only allows you to see the world trough a tiny little slit in front of your face is not degrading, perhaps you should reconsider your opinion.

Oh, and regarding the high-heels argument: By that logic, we could also outlaw miniskirts, short tops, push-up-bras etc. The problem with the Burqa is not that it is objectifying women by focusing on their physical traits (it is in fact doing the exact opposite) - it i degrading because it essentially makes you a non-person, mostly indistinguishable from others with no expression of your personality at all.


Of course, banning it won't be a clear solution. Some women might really be trapped at home due to the ban. But both the message it sends and the reduced spread of that practice should be worth it.

So you speak for all women, everywhere? There is at least one person that is willing to go to lengths to cover herself up. Perhaps she is being forced into it, but then why would she make the video? This is going to conspiratorial levels, now. Is it really so hard to accept that some people somewhere might sincerely believe the Salafist rationale and yet be female?

All objectification makes you a non-person. That is what the term means! If you want to argue that the niqab is more damaging than revealing attire, go for it. But the same arguments can be used for revealing attire- it objectifies, and in the case of high heels, people are coerced into wearing them, so the women's rights arguments are frankly weak. You don't ban other objectifying attire, you don't ban stripping, and yet you support a ban on the niqab. So you are okay with objectification as long as it's sexual? I would love it if people could admit that their support is mainly on cultural grounds, and that is why I asked my question.

What message does it send? To me, the message seems to be "conform, or we will crush you". Not a tolerant message that I can tell. I will repeat myself: how does this address the attitudes?

[Serafina]

So you speak for all women, everywhere? There is at least one person that is willing to go to lengths to cover herself up. Perhaps she is being forced into it, but then why would she make the video? This is going to conspiratorial levels, now. Is it really so hard to accept that some people somewhere might sincerely believe the Salafist rationale and yet be female?

No, it isn't. The effect is still the same.

All objectification makes you a non-person. That is what the term means! If you want to argue that the niqab is more damaging than revealing attire, go for it. But the same arguments can be used for revealing attire- it objectifies, and in the case of high heels, people are coerced into wearing them, so the women's rights arguments are frankly weak. You don't ban other objectifying attire, you don't ban stripping, and yet you support a ban on the niqab. So you are okay with objectification as long as it's sexual? I would love it if people could admit that their support is mainly on cultural grounds, and that is why I asked my question.

Aand you don't get it.
The problem with a full-body veil is that it makes you indistinguishable from any other person. It literary strips you of any physical characteristic that could distinguish you from any other person. That is objectification - but in quite a different way than revealing attire. While revealing attire can make some men objectify women in a sexual manner, a burqa makes it impossible NOT to objectify a woman - since you can not distinguish her from anyone else - regardless of your own gender or sexual attraction to her.

Furthermore, it's simply ludicrous to claim that a large number of women would choose to wear a full-body veil that would do that to them, while it's pretty obvious that women who choose to wear high-heels (or revealing attire) choose so.

What message does it send? To me, the message seems to be "conform, or we will crush you". Not a tolerant message that I can tell. I will repeat myself: how does this address the attitudes?

And OF COURSE it's on cultural grounds - it's supposed to fight a culture that suppresses women. You do not have such a culture in regards to revealing attire, but you do have such a culture with full-body veils. A culture is certainly not more precious than basic human rights!

[hongi]

Furthermore, it's simply ludicrous to claim that a large number of women would choose to wear a full-body veil that would do that to them, while it's pretty obvious that women who choose to wear high-heels (or revealing attire) choose so.

How do you know? Have you talked to French burqa wearing women?

And be honest, does freedom of expression even matter for you? Would you still ban the burqa if each and every woman chose a burqa of her own free will?

[PainRack]

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.

Oh please. Stop attacking the poster will ya?

The whole issue regarding the Burqa ban appears to be focused entirely on the symbolic meaning it represents. To the french, it represent a difference between the muslims immigrants and french citizens, along with their different social values and cultural mores. Its symbolise the repression of women and is a sign of inequality.

The problem is to the Muslims, many regard the burqa as a religious and cultural symbol, a dedication of their faith. A meaning held by both men AND women. Hence, banning the burqa is an attack upon their cultural identity and religious identification.

So, having said THAT out in the open, shouldn't any real debate focus on the price of such values, the role of the larger society on the smaller group and the reality that Muslim immigrants aren't extending equality to women?

Hence, the whole Nazi symbol aspect. Was banning Nazi symbols, meaning and other paraphenia successfully in persecuting Nazism and crushing it? If so, one would be much better able to argue that banning the symbol of repression, the burqa will be successful in extending equality to immigrant Muslim women.

[Chaotic Neutral]

Oh, and regarding the high-heels argument: By that logic, we could also outlaw miniskirts, short tops, push-up-bras etc. The problem with the Burqa is not that it is objectifying women by focusing on their physical traits (it is in fact doing the exact opposite) - it i degrading because it essentially makes you a non-person, mostly indistinguishable from others with no expression of your personality at all.

Why is one fine, but the other requires that the government fines you for doing it?

[Bakustra]

So you speak for all women, everywhere? There is at least one person that is willing to go to lengths to cover herself up. Perhaps she is being forced into it, but then why would she make the video? This is going to conspiratorial levels, now. Is it really so hard to accept that some people somewhere might sincerely believe the Salafist rationale and yet be female?

No, it isn't. The effect is still the same.

All objectification makes you a non-person. That is what the term means! If you want to argue that the niqab is more damaging than revealing attire, go for it. But the same arguments can be used for revealing attire- it objectifies, and in the case of high heels, people are coerced into wearing them, so the women's rights arguments are frankly weak. You don't ban other objectifying attire, you don't ban stripping, and yet you support a ban on the niqab. So you are okay with objectification as long as it's sexual? I would love it if people could admit that their support is mainly on cultural grounds, and that is why I asked my question.

Aand you don't get it.
The problem with a full-body veil is that it makes you indistinguishable from any other person. It literary strips you of any physical characteristic that could distinguish you from any other person. That is objectification - but in quite a different way than revealing attire. While revealing attire can make some men objectify women in a sexual manner, a burqa makes it impossible NOT to objectify a woman - since you can not distinguish her from anyone else - regardless of your own gender or sexual attraction to her.

Furthermore, it's simply ludicrous to claim that a large number of women would choose to wear a full-body veil that would do that to them, while it's pretty obvious that women who choose to wear high-heels (or revealing attire) choose so.

Large? Only 2000 women in the whole of France, at most, (the intelligence services only found about 400) wear the niqab. Nobody in France wears the burqa. Saying that it must be a large number of women who would choose ignores the problem that there's only a few women currently anyways.

The rationale that Muslim feminists who support wearing the hijab use is that it desexualizes them, which they feel is beneficial towards being treated as social and intellectual equals. The extension to the niqab is one reason why someone might wear them in public of their own free will. You can think this is backwards, stupid, or antifeminist or whatever. I agree, to an extent. But I think that this is an idiotic way to attack that, since it does nothing about the attitudes.

What message does it send? To me, the message seems to be "conform, or we will crush you". Not a tolerant message that I can tell. I will repeat myself: how does this address the attitudes?

And OF COURSE it's on cultural grounds - it's supposed to fight a culture that suppresses women. You do not have such a culture in regards to revealing attire, but you do have such a culture with full-body veils. A culture is certainly not more precious than basic human rights!

So the culture will vanish if you ban one item of clothing? You're treating this like a magic ritual- oppressive attitudes to women are not Sauron, and the niqab is not the One Ring. Banning it won't change the attitudes involved, and may well solidify them. In fact, there is a good example of efforts to wipe out a culture that the majority felt was incompatible: the US treatment of its Native American population. Those efforts involved forcible separation of children from families and targeted efforts to exterminate all of the native cultures remaining. Far more intrusive than what is being proposed, but many of the native cultures, religions, and languages survived. What makes you think that you can do any better?

[Xon]

The French are very much against any religious display being endorsed by the government. The quote;

Muslim women suffer a third form of oppression - extreme religiosity.

Really should make it very clear that the French government rightfully see religion which dominates it's follower's live as a bad thing if it infringes on anyone else's rights.

[hongi]

The French are very much against any religious display being endorsed by the government.

Wait wait what? Religious freedom is one of the greatest things about a liberal democracy.

If burqas count as a religious display akin to putting Christian crosses in courthoses, then so are Christian crosses and Sikh turbans, and if the French want to ban those too (as they have already done in public schools), then they've stopped being a liberal society and now approach those icons of liberty, Saudi Arabia and North Korea.

Really should make it very clear that the French government rightfully see religion which dominates it's follower's live as a bad thing if it infringes on anyone else's rights.

That's really ironic, since that's what the government is doing right now by infringing upon the religious people's rights to wear what they want.

[General Zod]

Quick question: Covering up with a scarf in cold weather is okay, right? So who gets to say where the cold/scarf and warm/veil line is?

A burqa is not a scarf. Also, one is dictated by health reasons, which is not the case for wearing the burqa. So the analogy is pretty bad IMO.

That shoots a hole in the public safety rationale, too, since they can't actually prevent you from covering up, just like in the video I posted. Just wear a surgeon's mask under a niqab and you're still essentially covered.

Actually, a number of stores and banks in the US already have policies against wearing full facial coverings while you're shopping there. Even if they can't prevent you from wearing a face covering in public due to circumstances like weather you're expected to take them off indoors if you expect any kind of service. (Quite a few US cities make wearing masks in public illegal except for special occasions like Halloween.)

[Xon]

Wait wait what? Religious freedom is one of the greatest things about a liberal democracy.

The French are quite militant about freedom from religion being something major in thier culture. And freedom from religion is really a logical deduction and continuation from starting with religious freedom.

That's really ironic, since that's what the government is doing right now by infringing upon the religious people's rights to wear what they want.

It's morbidly amusing that this line of thought would perfectly justify female genital mutilation because it is "traditional" and part of thier "culture". All you need todo is replace the words "wear what" with "alter thier bodies how".

[hongi]

The French are quite militant about freedom from religion being something major in thier culture. And freedom from religion is really a logical deduction and continuation from starting with religious freedom.

Freedom from religion doesn't entail restricting religious people's rights. Freedom from religion for me means that religion stays out of politics. I don't care if my next door neighbour wears a niqab, and I sure as hell won't legislate it so that she will be fined and have to take a citizenship class because she excercises the freedom to wear what she wants and practice her religion in whatever way she wants.

Then again, what more can you expect from a country that pulls off the dickish move of banning religious symbols (turbans, hijabs, kippahs) in school. If there was a law like that in Australia, many of my friends would have been expelled simply for practicing their faith.

That's really ironic, since that's what the government is doing right now by infringing upon the religious people's rights to wear what they want.

It's morbidly amusing that this line of thought would perfectly justify female genital mutilation because it is "traditional" and part of thier "culture". All you need todo is replace the words "wear what" with "alter thier bodies how".

When did I ever argue on the basis of tradition and culture? Stop constructing strawmen and address the content of my post.

By the way, I oppose female genital mutilation because it's done without the consent of those involved. If a woman wants to mutilate her genitals when she's old enough to decide for herself, I don't think that should be illegal. Same with circumcision.

[Xon]

Freedom from religion doesn't entail restricting religious people's rights.

Yes it does. Ultimately to protect someone's ability at self-determinisim you must restrict another's ability to control another which restricts what that other person can do. Even without another person involved, there are actions a person can take which compromise thier potential of self-determinisim and thus are not permitted.

A classic example is if you are under the influence of a significantly mind-altering susbstance, your ability to give legal concent can and will be stripped from you.

Freedom from religion for me means that religion stays out of politics.

"religion stays out of politics" is not "politics stays out of religion ". If you don't get that you need to take a logic course refresher.

I don't care if my next door neighbour wears a niqab, and I sure as hell won't legislate it so that she will be fined and have to take a citizenship class because she excercises the freedom to wear what she wants and practice her religion in whatever way she wants.

And in France it is perfectly fine for her todo that in a place of worship or a private residence. But once she is in a "public space"(however the hell that is defined) different rules apply.

When did I ever argue on the basis of tradition and culture? Stop constructing strawmen and address the content of my post.

Religions are nothing but a set of traditions arranged into a self-perpetuating social movement. The traditions of a culture is deeply interwined with how religion ends up being practiced, to the point where most people's religion are whatever set of local traditions they follow.

By the way, I oppose female genital mutilation because it's done without the consent of those involved. If a woman wants to mutilate her genitals, I don't think that should be illegal. Same with circumcision.

In Australia, people have been declared mentally unfit and thus incapable of granting legal consent for less.

[Thanas]

I can't find religious arguments or force of violence, but how about cultural and on-the job dress codes in 2008? The British Trades Union Congress castigated London stores for requiring women to wear high-heeled shoes to work.

C'mon here. Working in a fashion store requires dressing up? Say it ain't so.
The thing in the workplace is more serious, and I agree that if it leads to health risks, the government should get involved. I still don't see how the analogy is valid.

The wearing of the niqab/burqa is far more cultural than religious, anyways, since the religious groups mandating it (Salafists) are almost entirely regional to the Arabian peninsula.

That difference is not that important, I think, because it still represents values that are considered not acceptable in the french democracy.

But perhaps I should instead provide this example of a religious leader restricting women to wearing a small selection of clothes, on grounds of modesty. Not as restrictive as the niqab, of course, but should we use that as a reason to ban long skirts or dresses?

As soon as they become a symbol for oppressing women of a particular group, why not?

But then it departs from women's rights and becomes more a tool of cultural repression, which I do not find positive in principle or in practice.

Why? The repression of women by that cultural group is cultural and religious, no need to define it as an either or. I see no reason why that should change.

I am not an expert on French immigration, so I would not know anything about that. However, it is worth noting that the number of people wearing veils etc have gone up sharply in Germany - for example, I visited an immigrant quarter a few years ago and then just a few months ago. The difference was astonishing. Also, the principals of the local schools have to deal with more and more muslim girls (or their parents) refusing to take part in swimming lessons etc. Now, these are miniscule percentages compared to the total number of immigrants in Germany, but that still does not mean the problem is not worth addressing now. I suspect the same thing happens in France.

But what is the percentage? Is it from immigration? How well do such groups integrate? If they integrate within two or three generations, then they're an annoyance unless mass migrations start. If they integrate more slowly, then there is a problem, but inviting defensiveness isn't the answer. If they don't integrate at all, they become an amazing discovery of sociology.

In Germany, the integration problem is especially huge with young muslims born in Germany. Paralell societies have already been created here, with some quarters of cities being indistinguishable from turkish cities. You can quite easily walk through streets and not read a single German word there. It may be inconceivable to you, but that is what three generations of not caring what happens and believing it will work out just if you let the immigrants be get you.

France already has a bad situation with its Islamic population- endemic poverty, many Muslims feeling positive about France and integrating being followed by the right-wing parties decrying the lack of integration, so I think that some people are going to see this as France trying to crush Islamic identity. I think that this will radicalize people, and I think that if the same conditions were in place you would see this from Christians too.

I don't think so, not if you want to argue that the people affected by this are different from most muslims in France. For example, it is hard to figure out how Rachida Dati, Zinedine Zidane or Faudel are going to be affected by this.

It's a loophole only from the perspective of a public-security argument. I doubt that the French government did this for public security reasons.

For the record, I doubt it too.

[Bakustra]

The thing that I find unconvincing is the idea that the presence of ethnic suburbs and neighborhoods is solely because Germany and France haven't brought down the heavy hand on integration. Most American ethnic neighborhoods became established because of discrimination against and poverty within the immigrating ethnic groups, and those that have remained are because of either continuing problems, or simple inertia.

Just as an example, I live practically next door to Dearborn, Michigan, which is 33% Arabic in composition. This dates back to Lebanese migration in the first half of the twentieth century to work in the automotive industry, which falls into both poverty and a little discrimination. More recently, there has been more migration from the Middle East. Curiously enough, there haven't been problems with integration, despite the US lacking in such heavy-handed tactics. So I cannot help but think that there must be more to any problems facing Germany or France than just a lack of forceful integration.

When it comes to the question of clothing, the problem that the French want to address is the problem of values that they feel are incompatible with modern society. I agree that these attitudes are problematic. Where I disagree is in the usefulness of this tactic. Sure, the burqa and niqab are emblematic of repression and sexism. But so too are high heels emblematic of objectification and sexism.

But you have no problems with women wearing high heels of their own free will, and neither do I. The problem lies in more ephemeral attitudes, and these would not go away if high heels were banned, much like the attitudes behind coerced niqabs will not go away if the garment is banned. That is why I oppose the ban, and I suspect that this is why so many Socialists in the National Assembly abstained.

[Thanas]

The thing that I find unconvincing is the idea that the presence of ethnic suburbs and neighborhoods is solely because Germany and France haven't brought down the heavy hand on integration.

Not solely, but allowing them to get by with not integrating at all is certainly part of it.

Just as an example, I live practically next door to Dearborn, Michigan, which is 33% Arabic in composition. This dates back to Lebanese migration in the first half of the twentieth century to work in the automotive industry, which falls into both poverty and a little discrimination. More recently, there has been more migration from the Middle East. Curiously enough, there haven't been problems with integration, despite the US lacking in such heavy-handed tactics. So I cannot help but think that there must be more to any problems facing Germany or France than just a lack of forceful integration.[7quote]

You are forced in the USA to integrate simply because there is no safety net. If you don't integrate, chances are you might starve to death. The economic incentive is much larger in the USA. Also, the USA actually requires far more from its immigrants (like citizenship tests etc) than any EU country does.

When it comes to the question of clothing, the problem that the French want to address is the problem of values that they feel are incompatible with modern society. I agree that these attitudes are problematic. Where I disagree is in the usefulness of this tactic. Sure, the burqa and niqab are emblematic of repression and sexism. But so too are high heels emblematic of objectification and sexism.

With much different degrees of harmfulness, though.

But you have no problems with women wearing high heels of their own free will, and neither do I. The problem lies in more ephemeral attitudes, and these would not go away if high heels were banned, much like the attitudes behind coerced niqabs will not go away if the garment is banned. That is why I oppose the ban, and I suspect that this is why so many Socialists in the National Assembly abstained./quote]

I doubt the attitudes will go away overnight as well. But it at least sends a signal that France will not tolerate such behaviour. Of course, on its own it will accomplish little. But nothing says it is the sole instrument the French are employing here.

[Bakustra]

The thing that I find unconvincing is the idea that the presence of ethnic suburbs and neighborhoods is solely because Germany and France haven't brought down the heavy hand on integration.

Not solely, but allowing them to get by with not integrating at all is certainly part of it.

Just as an example, I live practically next door to Dearborn, Michigan, which is 33% Arabic in composition. This dates back to Lebanese migration in the first half of the twentieth century to work in the automotive industry, which falls into both poverty and a little discrimination. More recently, there has been more migration from the Middle East. Curiously enough, there haven't been problems with integration, despite the US lacking in such heavy-handed tactics. So I cannot help but think that there must be more to any problems facing Germany or France than just a lack of forceful integration.

You are forced in the USA to integrate simply because there is no safety net. If you don't integrate, chances are you might starve to death. The economic incentive is much larger in the USA. Also, the USA actually requires far more from its immigrants (like citizenship tests etc) than any EU country does.

There is still a safety net- there are welfare programs available despite the shift to the right, though they are far less powerful than in Europe. But you could point to Canada and Australia, which also lack the heavy hand and have far fewer problems with immigrant integration. I am still unconvinced that these are primarily a problem with a lack of integration, I am afraid. Also, while France doesn't have a citizenship test per se, it still requires a satisfactory interview, just as an example.

When it comes to the question of clothing, the problem that the French want to address is the problem of values that they feel are incompatible with modern society. I agree that these attitudes are problematic. Where I disagree is in the usefulness of this tactic. Sure, the burqa and niqab are emblematic of repression and sexism. But so too are high heels emblematic of objectification and sexism.

With much different degrees of harmfulness, though.

But you have no problems with women wearing high heels of their own free will, and neither do I. The problem lies in more ephemeral attitudes, and these would not go away if high heels were banned, much like the attitudes behind coerced niqabs will not go away if the garment is banned. That is why I oppose the ban, and I suspect that this is why so many Socialists in the National Assembly abstained.

I doubt the attitudes will go away overnight as well. But it at least sends a signal that France will not tolerate such behaviour. Of course, on its own it will accomplish little. But nothing says it is the sole instrument the French are employing here.

The point I'm trying to make is that the ban is not particularly helpful in that regard- just the prosecution law would have that signal and would probably have gotten broader support. It also would have sent a signal that France would not tolerate repressive attitudes towards women. For that matter, historical bans on culture have not been particularly helpful at destroying the attitudes, and have in some cases fostered revanchism and hostility towards the ruling government. See the Dawes Act and de-Indianification for the best example.

[Thanas]

There is still a safety net- there are welfare programs available despite the shift to the right, though they are far less powerful than in Europe.

Do they provide you with free housing, free cultural activities, free TV, free PC, free comfortable living?

But you could point to Canada and Australia, which also lack the heavy hand and have far fewer problems with immigrant integration. I am still unconvinced that these are primarily a problem with a lack of integration, I am afraid.

Different immigrants, different backgrounds, different willingness to integrate. Easy to sum up like that.

The point I'm trying to make is that the ban is not particularly helpful in that regard- just the prosecution law would have that signal and would probably have gotten broader support. It also would have sent a signal that France would not tolerate repressive attitudes towards women.

What do you mean by "just the prosecution" law? As it is, I see no problem with banning a symbol of the repression of women. Maybe we just have to agree to disagree - though would you be in favor of allowing a neo nazi to freely display the swastika in Germany?

For that matter, historical bans on culture have not been particularly helpful at destroying the attitudes, and have in some cases fostered revanchism and hostility towards the ruling government. See the Dawes Act and de-Indianification for the best example.

How the heck is this even remotely like the Dawes Act or de-indianification? Seems to me like you are really stretching here in terms of harmfulness to the persons affected.