French Veil Ban Passes Important Test

[TimothyC]

Here's a woman wearing a hijab and clothes covering her entire body. Oppression?

The woman in question has her face visible, and thus triggers the 'fellow human' reaction in people.

Here, take a gander at this image:



Which one of those two women do you associate with first, the hijab wearing one, or the niqab wearing one?

As a joke option, It could be that the french don't want people to be able to slip out of France like their agent did in Dubai.

[Cycloneman]

Except the swastika is still in use in a number of Asian countries because it doesn't mean the same thing over there. The idea that it has some sort of universal meaning is pretty western-centric.

Obviously when I say "swastika" in this context, I'm referring to the right-facing black Swastika rotated 45 degrees on a white disk surrounded by a red background.

Ah yes, the old slippery slope. If I support a burqa ban than clearly I support genocide and apartheid. You've got quite the winning argument there.

please point out how, based on the FRENCH Constitution, this law is ... immoral

Please point out how, based upon the SOUTH AFRICAN Constitution, Apartheid is immoral.

Which one of those two women do you associate with first, the hijab wearing one, or the niqab wearing one?

Which of these two women do you associate with first, the one in the foreground, or the one in the background? If a woman decides to do something that (in your opinion) "dehumanizes" her, what business is that of yours?

[General Zod]

Obviously when I say "swastika" in this context, I'm referring to the right-facing black Swastika rotated 45 degrees on a white disk surrounded by a red background.

I don't see that it matters. The Nazis had more versions of the swastika than just the one you describe.

[Cycloneman]

I don't see that it matters. The Nazis had more versions of the swastika than just the one you describe.

Yeah, I know, it's a complex problem that is difficult to solve because the swastika, despite the obvious symbolism to westerners, has other equally obvious and religiously important symbolism in other cultures, and these uses should be acceptable in any modern society. However, the difficulty of properly distinguishing between "okay" and "not okay" uses of a swastika is separate from whether or not the Nazi swastika should be banned, unless meaningfully distinguishing the two is impossible.

My point was that Islam is not comparable to Nazism and even if it was, the niqab is not comparable to the Nazi swastika.

[Bakustra]

I'm sorry, but you appear to have no clue what I'm saying, so let me express myself in a slightly different way.

You are arguing that the French are right to do this because it is legal under their constitution and they feel that the freedom to express one's religion publicly is less important than allowing women to wear a garment that many other women find demeaning. So, let's apply this to other actions. The South African constitution did not forbid apartheid and the rulers of South Africa felt that the freedom of black South Africans to be treated equally by society and the law was less important than maintaining what they believed to be the natural order of things. The US Constitution specifically allowed segregation under the Plessy v. Ferguson decision and the majority of people in the US felt blacks were naturally inferior. So, how can you have a purely morally relativistic position which agrees with the first but not the next two? Either abandon moral relativism or admit that you can't object to the latter two.

I won't bother explaining that I'm not declaring the two to be equivalent, because even if you did understand that, I'm pretty sure you'd pretend not to in hopes of gathering sympathy from the illiterate.

So where is your actual refutation of my argument about how it's oppressive? I will repeat myself: by declaring that women can't choose to wear a garment, you are refusing to give them the same level of responsibility we give children. You're essentially denying that they have free will, on the sole basis of their religion, when you say that women cannot choose rationally because they're Muslims. That is what Julhelm was arguing, that the women in question were brainwashed into being unable to choose.

Now, you're arguing differently, but you finally made an argument, and came one step closer to living up to your constant torrent of invective about how horrible and stupid everybody else is, unlike you, the amazing and brilliant SanchezTheWhaler! Unfortunately, there are still about fifty thousand steps to go.

So here's my response:
Benefits: The French don't have to look at people wearing the niqab anymore. A small influx of cash from fining the 2000 or so people who wear the niqab. Might establish a trend of civil disobedience among the niqab-wearing women.

Harm: Actual abusive husbands and fathers will keep their wives and daughters in the house. Further alienates a segment of the population. Treats women who want to wear the niqab as lacking free will. Forces a religious opinion down the throats of people. Legitimizes reactionary groups.

Gee, I can't well see where the big benefits are, but I can sure see the harm!

[hongi]

The woman in question has her face visible, and thus triggers the 'fellow human' reaction in people.

Obviously. But that's not the point. I'm asking whether a hijab wearing woman is being forced into wearing it.

[Thanas]

Benefits: The French don't have to look at people wearing the niqab anymore. A small influx of cash from fining the 2000 or so people who wear the niqab. Might establish a trend of civil disobedience among the niqab-wearing women.

Defending the constitutional principles of France is another thing. One that probably overrides any of the problems you mentioned.

[Bakustra]

Benefits: The French don't have to look at people wearing the niqab anymore. A small influx of cash from fining the 2000 or so people who wear the niqab. Might establish a trend of civil disobedience among the niqab-wearing women.

Defending the constitutional principles of France is another thing. One that probably overrides any of the problems you mentioned.

I covered that under "forcing a religious opinion down the throats of people", assuming you're talking about laicite and government enforcement of that. If not, what precisely is the constitutional principle which overrides the problem of treating Islamic women as less mentally capable than children and denying their free will?

[Thanas]

Benefits: The French don't have to look at people wearing the niqab anymore. A small influx of cash from fining the 2000 or so people who wear the niqab. Might establish a trend of civil disobedience among the niqab-wearing women.

Defending the constitutional principles of France is another thing. One that probably overrides any of the problems you mentioned.

I covered that under "forcing a religious opinion down the throats of people", assuming you're talking about laicite and government enforcement of that. If not, what precisely is the constitutional principle which overrides the problem of treating Islamic women as less mentally capable than children and denying their free will?

Laicite does not only cover muslims, it covers everybody. So what is your point? The french chose this constitution in a referendum. It has been the law of the land for over 50 years. So what is your point here?

[Bakustra]

My point is that I don't consider upholding laicite to be a benefit, but rather harmful, as it essentially is the French government dictating what range of religious beliefs you are allowed to hold, and to me seems symptomatic of this whole affair; rather than deal with the actual problem, just slap a band-aid on and ignore the blood seeping around the edges.

[Thanas]

My point is that I don't consider upholding laicite to be a benefit, but rather harmful, as it essentially is the French government dictating what range of religious beliefs you are allowed to hold,

Wrong, it regulates how you may express your believes. It is the strictest form of secularism and state neutrality. People may still hold whatever beliefs they want unless they are contrary to that state neutrality.

and to me seems symptomatic of this whole affair; rather than deal with the actual problem, just slap a band-aid on and ignore the blood seeping around the edges.

Again, you are assuming they are not doing anything else. Why is that?

[Cycloneman]

If walking down the street while wearing a hijab is not contrary to the idea that France is a secular nation, neither is walking on the street in a niqab.

[Thanas]

How so? It is a matter of degrees.

[Bakustra]

My point is that I don't consider upholding laicite to be a benefit, but rather harmful, as it essentially is the French government dictating what range of religious beliefs you are allowed to hold,

Wrong, it regulates how you may express your believes. It is the strictest form of secularism and state neutrality. People may still hold whatever beliefs they want unless they are contrary to that state neutrality.

Okay, express then. It still essentially denies that certain religions are compatible with France, such as Sikhism and any branch of Islam that considers the face awrah. I don't believe that wearing a turban in school is going to cause France to become theocratic, and so I consider the current expressions of secularism in France too restrictive.

and to me seems symptomatic of this whole affair; rather than deal with the actual problem, just slap a band-aid on and ignore the blood seeping around the edges.

Again, you are assuming they are not doing anything else. Why is that?

If they are doing other things, then why is this law necessary? Since the swastika came up earlier, has the swastika ban eliminated neo-Nazism from Germany? How large of an effect did it have in suppressing Neo-Nazism?

But I doubt that they are doing anything effective because the rhetoric of the UPM since Sarkozy's inauguration has focused on assimilating immigrants and the immigrant problem, when neutral studies have determine that French Muslims are some of the best-integrated in Europe. So I feel they are too ideological to make good decisions about the question of religious integration.

[Cycloneman]

How so? It is a matter of degrees.

No, it isn't, they are both reflections of religious beliefs which are expressed through readily visible clothing. Wearing a niqab has precisely the same effect on secularism as wearing a hijab (i.e. it reminds other people that Islam exists). What is the meaningful difference supposed to be? One is ever so slightly more obvious? One reflects that the wearer is probably more devout than normal?

[Thanas]

My point is that I don't consider upholding laicite to be a benefit, but rather harmful, as it essentially is the French government dictating what range of religious beliefs you are allowed to hold,

Wrong, it regulates how you may express your believes. It is the strictest form of secularism and state neutrality. People may still hold whatever beliefs they want unless they are contrary to that state neutrality.

Okay, express then. It still essentially denies that certain religions are compatible with France, such as Sikhism and any branch of Islam that considers the face awrah. I don't believe that wearing a turban in school is going to cause France to become theocratic, and so I consider the current expressions of secularism in France too restrictive.

But that is not for you to determine, really.

If they are doing other things, then why is this law necessary?

Because if you enforce a prohibition on crosses etc, then you have to enforce a prohibition on other symbols as well. Really, it is not like France does not crack down on other things as well. Or do you think combating fundamentalists is[ wrong?

Since the swastika came up earlier, has the swastika ban eliminated neo-Nazism from Germany? How large of an effect did it have in suppressing Neo-Nazism?

Did you read my posts above where I answered that?

But I doubt that they are doing anything effective because the rhetoric of the UPM since Sarkozy's inauguration has focused on assimilating immigrants and the immigrant problem, when neutral studies have determine that French Muslims are some of the best-integrated in Europe. So I feel they are too ideological to make good decisions about the question of religious integration.

The religious rights however are a different group from the usual muslims. In fact, I find it pretty bad for you to bring up muslims in general when it was earlier established this is not even going to effect anybody but a fundamentalist minority.


quote="Cycloneman"]

How so? It is a matter of degrees.

No, it isn't, they are both reflections of religious beliefs which are expressed through readily visible clothing. Wearing a niqab has precisely the same effect on secularism as wearing a hijab (i.e. it reminds other people that Islam exists). What is the meaningful difference supposed to be? One is ever so slightly more obvious? One reflects that the wearer is probably more devout than normal?[/quote]

Did you miss the quotes earlier on in this thread? You know, the one with subjugation of women etc? Do I really have to quote them now?

[Cycloneman]

Did you miss the quotes earlier on in this thread? You know, the one with subjugation of women etc? Do I really have to quote them now?

They were wrong then, they are wrong now. Many women choose to wear the niqab without coercion, but they will be punished, because the law makes no allowances for that possibility. Both the niqab and the hijab represent belief in a religion, and it is the same religion for both.

[Bakustra]

Your posts said that it forced them to appropriate other symbols, and that it has limited their ability to spew propaganda. Yet my question was whether it had influenced the numbers of Neo-Nazis, and whether this was preeminent or the other anti-Nazi legislation was more effective. In fact, Neo-Nazi numbers increased in the 1990s with the reunification and subsequent economic hardship in East Germany. So I'm not sure that you can use that as a successful example of attacking an idea by banning a symbol.

While I may not be able to single-handedly alter the course of French society, that doesn't forbid me from bitching about it, either, if you'll pardon my, um, French. Otherwise we fall into the same trap of moral relativism that came up earlier.

When you said other things, I assumed you were talking about fundamentalist Islam. But there is a difference, because current bans on religious symbols are for within schools. This is on the streets. If France follows this up by banning the hijab, yarmulke, cross, turban, and whatever-the-name-is-for-the-red-dot-Hindu-women-sometimes-apply being worn in public, then they will at least be consistently anti-clerical.

Combating fundamentalism is not something that I think should be done by attacking them frontally, no. I think that the best way to fight fundamentalism is to erode its base of support by ensuring good education. I think that frontal attacks are counterproductive and lead to isolation, in particular when dealing with immigrant groups.

My suspicion of the effectiveness of the Sarkozy government is founded on their unusual beliefs about the Islamic population in France. I simply don't trust them to act effectively where Islam is concerned, whether it is a handful of extremists or not.

[TimothyC]

If a woman decides to do something that (in your opinion) "dehumanizes" her, what business is that of yours?

Because her choice - which I see as dehumanizing - is also a general security risk.

The woman in question has her face visible, and thus triggers the 'fellow human' reaction in people.

Obviously. But that's not the point. I'm asking whether a hijab wearing woman is being forced into wearing it.

I dislike the hijab, but I'm not supporting it's ban. I am supporting the ban of the full and full-but-an-eye-slit garment.

[hongi]

I dislike the hijab, but I'm not supporting it's ban. I am supporting the ban of the full and full-but-an-eye-slit garment.

Why?

[loomer]

It's a security risk - and in that case, he's right. I can understand not allowing it in banks, liquor stores (not like a good Muslim woman would be seen in one of those anyway!) or other places prone to violence or fraud, like balaclavas or motorbike helmets.

However, for those using security as their metric, why should that same metric not be applied to any other face concealing garment in public, e.g. hoods, gasmasks, party masks, etc?

[General Zod]

It's a security risk - and in that case, he's right. I can understand not allowing it in banks, liquor stores (not like a good Muslim woman would be seen in one of those anyway!) or other places prone to violence or fraud, like balaclavas or motorbike helmets.

However, for those using security as their metric, why should that same metric not be applied to any other face concealing garment in public, e.g. hoods, gasmasks, party masks, etc?

What makes you think it isn't? I already gave examples of full face coverings being banned in a number of parts of the US pages ago.

[loomer]

If it actually is the case in France that all full-face coverings are banned in public for security purposes, then nevermind - if not though, I think it still needs an explanation why this should be an exception from those using security as the only metric.

[General Zod]

If it actually is the case in France that all full-face coverings are banned in public for security purposes, then nevermind - if not though, I think it still needs an explanation why this should be an exception from those using security as the only metric.

So. . . you're asking people to explain why something is an exception without actually knowing whether or not it really is an exception? Oh, and it turns out the law banning the burqa included other face coverings. Really, at least google the law before flailing about.

[loomer]

Then consider the objection withdrawn.