French Commission Wants Ban On Full-Face Veils

[FSTargetDrone]

Reuters:

France should denounce, ban Muslim face veils: panel

Tom Heneghan, Religion Editor

Tue Jan 26, 2010 12:51pm EST

PARIS (Reuters) - France's National Assembly should pass a resolution denouncing full Muslim face veils and then vote the strictest law possible to ban women from wearing them, a parliamentary commission proposed on Tuesday.

Presenting conclusions after six months of hearings, the panel also suggested barring foreign women from obtaining French visas or citizenship if they insisted on veiling their faces.

But it could not agree whether to opt for an absolute ban on the veils, known here as burqas or niqabs, or one restricted to public buildings because some members thought a total ban would be unconstitutional.

"The full veil represents in an extraordinary way everything that France spontaneously rejects," National Assembly President Bernard Accoyer said as the commission delivered its report.

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

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.

Jamel Debbouze, a highly popular Parisian-born comedian of Moroccan background, condemned the plan as xenophobic. "People who go down that path are racists," he told French radio.

The veil issue has become linked with another controversial debate about national identity that the government launched only months before regional elections in March. "This debate is sterile and dangerous electioneering," Debbouze said.

Supporters of a ban say civil servants need a law to allow them to turn away fully veiled women who cannot be identified when they seek municipal services such as medical care, child support or public transport.

"GURUS OF FUNDAMENTALISM"

Andre Gerin, a communist deputy from Lyon who headed the commission, said a total ban would also help combat what he called "gurus of fundamentalism" who he said were spreading radical Islamism and forcing women to wear full veils.

He said France needed "an Islam compatible with the Republic" and its values of secularism and sexual equality.

Eric Raoult, a conservative deputy and vice-chairman of the commission, said a resolution denouncing full veils should find wide support in parliament but a law banning them needed to be carefully drafted to ensure it is not overturned.

"There wouldn't be anything worse than proclaiming something and seeing it annulled by the Constitutional Council," he said.

The commission presented a draft resolution to denounce full face veils, examine the legal basis for a ban and characterize veiling as a radical religious practice that is contrary to French values and grounds to reject requests for citizenship.

The text said the state should study the motivations of veiled women, do more to combat violence against women and teach more about sexual equality at school.

Accoyer said the parliament would not have time to work out a solid law banning face veils and pass it before the regional elections in March.

The Islamic Human Rights Commission in London issued a statement calling the commission report "the latest in a line of racist policies and laws that target Muslims, and in particular Muslim women" and said it would "simply legitimize further acts of racism and discrimination."

(Editing by Janet Lawrence)

[General Zod]

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.

[Bounty]

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.

That's because they are explicitly banning it as a symbol of oppression. This doesn't use the "safety reasons" excuse; it's a head-on collision between Muslim fundamentalism and the principle of Egalité.

[CaptainChewbacca]

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.

[General Zod]

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.

[Tanasinn]

What this boils down to is a direct attack on a piece of clothing used for the oppression of women, as has been said. I'd admire the balls the French are showing on this, but then again, I don't know how much of it is an honest attempt at egalitarianism and how much is just a distaste for Islam and its related practices. It's not like western European nervousness over Muslims is some strange and radical concept.

[bobalot]

I think they should ban anything that covers the face in public barring some exceptions. Singling out the veil doesn't look good.

BTW, I couldn't help but laugh out loud when I read phrase: "The Islamic Human Rights Commission".

[FSTargetDrone]

In some US states, it is against the law to wear masks in public, with some exceptions.

Virginia:

Virginia Code § 18.2-422 - Prohibition of wearing of masks in certain places; exceptions

� 18.2-422. Prohibition of wearing of masks in certain places; exceptions.

It shall be unlawful for any person over sixteen years of age while wearing any mask, hood or other device whereby a substantial portion of the face is hidden or covered so as to conceal the identity of the wearer, to be or appear in any public place, or upon any private property in this Commonwealth without first having obtained from the owner or tenant thereof consent to do so in writing. However, the provisions of this section shall not apply to persons (i) wearing traditional holiday costumes; (ii) engaged in professions, trades, employment or other activities and wearing protective masks which are deemed necessary for the physical safety of the wearer or other persons; (iii) engaged in any bona fide theatrical production or masquerade ball; or (iv) wearing a mask, hood or other device for bona fide medical reasons upon the advice of a licensed physician or osteopath and carrying on his person an affidavit from the physician or osteopath specifying the medical necessity for wearing the device and the date on which the wearing of the device will no longer be necessary and providing a brief description of the device. The violation of any provisions of this section shall constitute a Class 6 felony.

(Code 1950, �� 18.1-364, 18.1-367; 1960, c. 358; 1975, cc. 14, 15; 1986, c. 19.)

Louisiana:

RS 14:313 — Masks or hoods, wearing in public places prohibited; penalty; exceptions; permit to conduct mardi gras festivities, how obtained

§313. Masks or hoods, wearing in public places prohibited; penalty; exceptions; permit to conduct Mardi Gras festivities, how obtained

A. No person shall use or wear in any public place of any character whatsoever, or in any open place in view thereof, a hood or mask, or anything in the nature of either, or any facial disguise of any kind or description, calculated to conceal or hide the identity of the person or to prevent his being readily recognized.

B. Whoever violates this Section shall be imprisoned for not less than six months nor more than three years.

C. This Section shall not apply:

(1) To activities of children on Halloween, to persons participating in any public parade or exhibition of an educational, religious, or historical character given by any school, church, or public governing authority, or to persons in any private residence, club, or lodge room.

(2) To persons participating in masquerade balls or entertainments, to persons participating in carnival parades or exhibitions during the period of Mardi Gras festivities, to persons participating in the parades or exhibitions of minstrel troupes, circuses, or other dramatic or amusement shows, or to promiscuous masking on Mardi Gras which are duly authorized by the governing authorities of the municipality in which they are held or by the sheriff of the parish if held outside of an incorporated municipality.

(3) To persons wearing head covering or veils pursuant to religious beliefs or customs.

D. All persons having charge or control of any of the festivities set forth in Paragraph B(2) of this Section, shall, in order to bring the persons participating therein within the exceptions contained in Paragraph B(2), make written application for and shall obtain in advance of the festivities from the mayor of the city, town, or village in which the festivities are to be held, or when the festivities are to be held outside of an incorporated city, town, or village, from the sheriff of the parish, a written permit to conduct the festivities. A general public proclamation by the mayor or sheriff authorizing the festivities shall be equivalent to an application and permit.

Acts 1999, No. 1043, §1.

Louisiana evidently has religious exemptions, but I see none in the one from Virgina above.

[Guardsman Bass]

I imagine efforts against the KKK probably were the reason those bans were initially implemented.

I think they should ban anything that covers the face in public barring some exceptions. Singling out the veil doesn't look good.

Exactly. They could have just done the same type of thing that Virginia has above, with similar exemptions. The burka with full face veil makes it very difficult to physically identify not only a potential criminal wearing one, but also potential witnesses to a crime that were present at the time.

It will still probably be obvious that it was aimed at the burka, but at least there would be another justification other than "it oppresses women and is a blight upon France".

[Thanas]

^Which is a good enough reason for many Europeans and the French.

[Guardsman Bass]

^Which is a good enough reason for many Europeans and the French.

I don't really disagree with them, either (although I don't really begrudge the women wearing them as long as it isn't the full face-veil) - I just think it's another, more politically neutral way to go about banning it.

[Thanas]

^Which is a good enough reason for many Europeans and the French.

I don't really disagree with them, either (although I don't really begrudge the women wearing them as long as it isn't the full face-veil) - I just think it's another, more politically neutral way to go about banning it.

Yeah, but honesty is refreshing, coming from politicians.

[Crown]

Food for thought for some in this thread; I'm pretty sure that France tried to (or indeed has) banned wearing a visible crucifix in state run areas (including schools). France isn't anti-Islam, it's militant-secularist second to only possibly Turkey.

[Garibaldi]

I'm pretty sure that France tried to (or indeed has) banned wearing a visible crucifix in state run areas (including schools). France isn't anti-Islam, it's militant-secularist second to only possibly Turkey.

France, like much of Europe, has an incredibly broad streak of racism and anti-Muslim sentiment which is glaringly apparent in the way they treat their immigrant population. I think this particular measure has some merit, but let's not pretend for a second that the French are only trying to develop some perfect secular egalitarian utopia.

[Crown]

I'm pretty sure that France tried to (or indeed has) banned wearing a visible crucifix in state run areas (including schools). France isn't anti-Islam, it's militant-secularist second to only possibly Turkey.

France, like much of Europe, has an incredibly broad streak of racism and anti-Muslim sentiment which is glaringly apparent in the way they treat their immigrant population. I think this particular measure has some merit, but let's not pretend for a second that the French are only trying to develop some perfect secular egalitarian utopia.

Clearly my use of the word 'militant' was to imply 'egalitarian utopia' ... want to try that again?

[Garibaldi]

Clearly my use of the word 'militant' was to imply 'egalitarian utopia' ... want to try that again?

That bit wasn't directed at you specifically. But you did say that France isn't specifically anti-Islam, which is pretty laughable.

[Crown]

Clearly my use of the word 'militant' was to imply 'egalitarian utopia' ... want to try that again?

That bit wasn't directed at you specifically. But you did say that France isn't specifically anti-Islam, which is pretty laughable.

Splitting up a two sentence point to attack the later half while totally ignoring the proceeding sentence is what's laughable in this situation.

What part of 'France also attacks public displays of other faiths' do you fail to comprehend exactly? Would it have helped if I had inserted yet another qualifier in my sentence; France isn't necessarily anti-Islam...

[The Romulan Republic]

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.

Besides, its just going to stir up religious conflict in France for little gain.

[NDR-113]

"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 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? Would we ban Orthodox Jewish married women from wearing wigs? I'm very much an atheist, but I see nothing wrong with women wearing veils. I do have a problem with religions that advocate women being household slaves, but I also feel that people need to have free choice in religion (not that they have much free choice when they're brainwashed as children...).
As The Romulan Republic said, if it doesn't hurt anybody and doesn't force a religion on anyone else, I don't see a problem with it.

[FSTargetDrone]

I imagine efforts against the KKK probably were the reason those bans were initially implemented.

Quite so. Seems likely enough.

On a personal level, I find the need to have women wear such facial covering rather offensive. Ye, some women may choose to do so on their own, but I have no doubt others feel compelled to do so.

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.

[Spekio]

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.

[Samuel]

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.

On topic, does anyone know how many people actually wear the veil?

[General Zod]

On topic, does anyone know how many people actually wear the veil?

Try reading the article.

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.

[ray245]

^Which is a good enough reason for many Europeans and the French.

I don't really disagree with them, either (although I don't really begrudge the women wearing them as long as it isn't the full face-veil) - I just think it's another, more politically neutral way to go about banning it.

Yeah, but honesty is refreshing, coming from politicians.

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.

[Rye]

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.