French Veil Ban Passes Important Test

[Bakustra]

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.

Maybe you should read the article. The only other covering it banned was the balaclava. Motorcycle helmets, fencing helmets, carnival masks, ski masks, those are all exempt from the law. Either the French don't care about security, or the bill was written by morons.

[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.

Maybe you should read the article. The only other covering it banned was the balaclava. Motorcycle helmets, fencing helmets, carnival masks, ski masks, those are all exempt from the law. Either the French don't care about security, or the bill was written by morons.

Don't be so obtuse. At least three of those items are required for safety and mask laws generally have exemptions for such instances. Frankly your whole "either they have to ban everything that covers the face or not at all" approach is absurd.

[Xon]

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?

The burqa effectively prevents the human brain from recognising the individual under it as human. It hids all the major physical attributes that humans are hardwired to use to recognise each other on sight. Historically, very bad things happen to whatever group has been identified as non-human.

[Cycloneman]

The whole "it's about security!" thing is an obvious red herring. Notice how almost nobody ever discusses it as though it were about security? How the law is specifically worded in such a way that practically the only things it bans are the niqab and bank robbers? How the law punishes people who force someone to wear a face mask? How the people behind it talk as though they're striking a great blow on the behalf of women who wear the niqab? I mean, fuck, Sarkozy literally said "France is a country where there is no place for the burqa, where there is no place for the subservience of women" while the law was being drawn up. Coincidence? I doubt it.

It's hardly "reading between the lines" when the discussion is always completely about the burqa.

Yes, you are correct that this is "legal" because the law does not specifically single out the niqab or burqa and state "this is banned." But that hardly means that that banning these articles of religious identification isn't the entire point, beginning, middle, end. The Smith Act was "legal" because it did not specifically single out communism and state "this is banned," but that is exactly what the point was.

[General Zod]

The whole "it's about security!" thing is an obvious red herring. Notice how almost nobody ever discusses it as though it were about security? How the law is specifically worded in such a way that practically the only things it bans are the niqab and bank robbers? How the law punishes people who force someone to wear a face mask? How the people behind it talk as though they're striking a great blow on the behalf of women who wear the niqab? I mean, fuck, Sarkozy literally said "France is a country where there is no place for the burqa, where there is no place for the subservience of women" while the law was being drawn up. Coincidence? I doubt it.

It's hardly "reading between the lines" when the discussion is always completely about the burqa.

Yes, you are correct that this is "legal" because the law does not specifically single out the niqab or burqa and state "this is banned." But that hardly means that that banning these articles of religious identification isn't the entire point, beginning, middle, end. The Smith Act was "legal" because it did not specifically single out communism and state "this is banned," but that is exactly what the point was.

I'm not saying it's "just" about security, I'm saying security is a legitimate reason to ban it regardless of anything else. But do keep up the strawmen.

[Cycloneman]

I'm not saying it's "just" about security, I'm saying security is a legitimate reason to ban it regardless of anything else.

Not really, most secular democracies haven't found it very necessary to ban the concealment of one's face in all public places, and secular democracy is centuries old. What's the serious security concern here? That people will wear balaclavas and rob banks? They already do that, and it's already a crime.

[General Zod]

Not really, most secular democracies haven't found it very necessary to ban the concealment of one's face in all public places, and secular democracy is centuries old. What's the serious security concern here? That people will wear balaclavas and rob banks? They already do that, and it's already a crime.

It means if the clerks see you coming into a bank or a store with a mask on they can refuse service or call the police immediately instead of having to wait until their lives are at risk. There's no legitimate reason to conceal your face inside places of business. (And as I already mentioned plenty of US cities already have these kind of laws.)

[Cycloneman]

There's no legitimate reason to conceal your face inside places of business. (And as I already mentioned plenty of US cities already have these kind of laws.)

This is not about places of business - it is about any public place.

[General Zod]

This is not about places of business - it is about any public place.

Except you specifically listed banks as one example. You don't get to backpedal that easily.

[Cycloneman]

This is not about places of business - it is about any public place.

Except you specifically listed banks as one example. You don't get to backpedal that easily.

So you have no counterpoint except to try to twist my words back on me? A person who robs a bank does not take off his balaclava the moment he leaves, and I am deeply sorry if my example confused you so much. The law concerns wearing a face mask in public, which bank robbers do - in addition to the far more important (and actual, real) crime, robbing banks, and possibly violating the bank's dress code by wearing a mask inside.

[General Zod]

So you have no counterpoint except to try to twist my words back on me? A person who robs a bank does not take off his balaclava the moment he leaves, and I am deeply sorry if my example confused you so much. The law concerns wearing a face mask in public, which bank robbers do - in addition to the far more important (and actual, real) crime, robbing banks, and possibly violating the bank's dress code by wearing a mask inside.

Did I mention France has riot problems? But I guess arresting demonstraters wearing masks in order to prevent identification if they riot isn't a good enough reason.

[Nieztchean Uber-Amoeba]

So, how many French banks have been robbed by Burqa-clad women, Zod? I'm curious about the stats.

[Bakustra]

Maybe you should read the article. The only other covering it banned was the balaclava. Motorcycle helmets, fencing helmets, carnival masks, ski masks, those are all exempt from the law. Either the French don't care about security, or the bill was written by morons.

Don't be so obtuse. At least three of those items are required for safety and mask laws generally have exemptions for such instances. Frankly your whole "either they have to ban everything that covers the face or not at all" approach is absurd.

So you need a motorcycle helmet on your face in a bank for safety reasons? What kind of bank do you go to? The point is that this law is pretty awful for the purposes of security, as it doesn't ban a number of face-coverings in areas that should be secure, but does ban cloth veils throughout all public places, so defending it on those grounds is pretty poorly-conceived. If they had passed a law requiring people to unveil/uncover their face for security purposes in places like banks and airports, I would have much less problem with it.

[Thanas]

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.

And neither can you use the increase in numbers in the 1990s as a counterpoint to that argument, seeing how the rise in the 1990s had a lot to do with easterners being thrown out of jobs and joining a radical movement that was pretty much in line with their sociology before - authority figures, the state being considered the cure to all ails, a charismatic leader cult etc.

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.

The problem is that education is not enough. Four hundred years of education have not eroded christian fundamentalism in Germany, nor have fifty years of education produced integration and less fundamentalism in France and/or Germany. At the risk of sounding like a proponent of Salisbury, sometimes you have to combat them directly, if only to see them realize the world does not end when they do not follow the teachings to the letter.

That said, I agree with you that Sarkozy is not the best guy to enforce this, but keep in mind that his party also had the first non-ethnic French ministers as well as being the first to do something about the banlieus, which is both a more honest and probably more effective approach than the "let's all hope for change" stuff the French left usually adheres to.

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.

Ah, so you are one of those Islam is a monolithic block without differences in moderation, culture and adherence to beliefs in people. In that case, I have no interest to debate you because you clearly do not know what you are talking about.

[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.

And neither can you use the increase in numbers in the 1990s as a counterpoint to that argument, seeing how the rise in the 1990s had a lot to do with easterners being thrown out of jobs and joining a radical movement that was pretty much in line with their sociology before - authority figures, the state being considered the cure to all ails, a charismatic leader cult etc.

That's my point- the reasons are complicated enough that I don't think the swastika ban can be completely held up as a powerful tool. Unfortunately, there are no good numbers that I could find on neo-nazi populations around the world and through time. It probably would be worth it to see how other nations stack up.

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.

The problem is that education is not enough. Four hundred years of education have not eroded christian fundamentalism in Germany, nor have fifty years of education produced integration and less fundamentalism in France and/or Germany. At the risk of sounding like a proponent of Salisbury, sometimes you have to combat them directly, if only to see them realize the world does not end when they do not follow the teachings to the letter.

That said, I agree with you that Sarkozy is not the best guy to enforce this, but keep in mind that his party also had the first non-ethnic French ministers as well as being the first to do something about the banlieus, which is both a more honest and probably more effective approach than the "let's all hope for change" stuff the French left usually adheres to.

Okay, but I still feel that this is misguided, but I think we may have to simply agree to disagree at this point, since I agree with pretty much everything else you say.

[Vendetta]

It means if the clerks see you coming into a bank or a store with a mask on they can refuse service or call the police immediately instead of having to wait until their lives are at risk. There's no legitimate reason to conceal your face inside places of business. (And as I already mentioned plenty of US cities already have these kind of laws.)

Except banks are actually private premises which can set their own dress requirements. Pretty much all UK banks already require the removal of face concealing headwear, and they do not need an extra law to allow them to do this.

This is a bullshit rationalisation. The new law in France does not at all enhance "security", and especially not for banks which already have such security measures.

Nor does it effectively combat fundamentalism, all it does is single out a very small number of people, most likely already a fairly insular group anyway, for state victimisation. All it will do is make the small segment of the muslim community which actually wears the Burqa even more insular and cut off from the rest of French society.

[Cycloneman]

Ah, so you are one of those Islam is a monolithic block without differences in moderation, culture and adherence to beliefs in people. In that case, I have no interest to debate you because you clearly do not know what you are talking about.

The niqab is not a symbol of "fundamentalist Islam." The idea that the niqab is obligatory is pretty fundamentalist, but many observant, non-fundamentalist Muslims chose to wear the niqab.

[Thanas]

Ah, so you are one of those Islam is a monolithic block without differences in moderation, culture and adherence to beliefs in people. In that case, I have no interest to debate you because you clearly do not know what you are talking about.

The niqab is not a symbol of "fundamentalist Islam." The idea that the niqab is obligatory is pretty fundamentalist, but many observant, non-fundamentalist Muslims chose to wear the niqab.

So what? As anybody should know, the history of the Niqab in Turkey and in other muslim countries like Syria and Tunesia makes it a fundamentalist symbol.

[Rabid]

[hope this post is not out of bound, after what happened with the topic comparing Judaism and Islam]

----------------------------------------------------------

… Skipping four pages of seemingly out-of-topic debate of discussion to jump into the heart of the subject...

The French take on religion :

The last two centuries of history in France were closely related to its anti-clericalism, when the “Fille Aînée de l’Église” [Trad. : “Eldest Daughter of the Church”] took its belonging and left home to seek greener pastures in the Republican grounds. This culminated in 1905 and the adoption of the Separation between State and ChurcheS (note the plural) and the institution of the Laïcité.
Now, I'll be clear : France does not exist per se. There is only the French Republic. The French Republic is the sum off all its people, law, government, common history and culture, etc.
With that in mind, you must know the French have an Iron Law concerning integration within its society :

“In Rome live like the Romans”

What does it means ? It means that when you seek to live in France, you have to respect its Law, its Culture, its Customs. If you don't want to, then, goodbye, come back when you want. It's what we call the “Modèle Républicain” (Trad : “Republican Model”) :

Integration by Homogenization [1] (per opposition to Communitarianism [2] )

Sure, there is a place for cultural diversity. We encourage it. We don't oppress the cultural minority, like we don't oppress 10% of our population of north-African descent (we have discrimination issues to solve, yes, it's on its way... like in every other western country for that matter), or even the absolute majority of people in France who have strangers for parents or grand-parents (like myself). Why ? Because a “pure French” does not exist. It would be the same kind of idiocy as speaking about a “Pure American”... With the fact that WE all are the Natives, and not just a great big wave of immigrants [3].
We seek cultural diversity, yes, but we won't allow crap to pass below our radar in the name of 'cultural tolerance' (wich is, in its own way, guiding the Western World right into the wall, but it's not the matter here). As I said : “In Rome live like the Romans”.

And it not a question of 'human rights', of 'religious freedom', or any other anti argument like that. No. Like I said, France does not exist, there is only the French Republic. You want to be integrated into its society ? So respect the law. Who make the law ? The Parliament. Who is the parliament ? It's the people's incarnated will.
Disrespecting the Republic's laws mean disrespecting the French People.
Our democracy isn't perfect, sure, but we are rabidly attached to it.


More specifically on the subject :

With what I previously said in mind, you'll have no difficulty to trust me when I say that a large portion of the French People support the law, even a large part of the moderate Muslims community. Yes, the Muslims themselves support the law. Why ? Because they are French, adhere to our Culture, our Values ; and because the Integral Veil is contrary to these Values, to our Culture, and, more importantly on THIS topic, they say that the Integral Veil is CONTRARY to their interpretation of the teachings of the Prophet. Is this ban just ? Is it ethical ? Is it productive ? I don't care. We don't care. We just don't want that here, on our soil.
You want an analogy ? You're non smoker. A guy come and smoke right in front of you. Do you tolerate it ? No, because there is this big sign on the wall that say “No Smoking”.
It's the same thing here : we have laws that already forbid to publicly display sign of religious faith, as it is considered proselytism and is thereby forbidden by law.


Where this law is questionable, it's not because it respect the French spirit of Laïcité. Where it is questionable, it's because there was no need to write it in the first place, because there was ALREADY laws written in the books against such case !
It was just a mediatic stunt on the part of our Dear Leader Sarkozy to gain badly needed point in the polls for him and its political party.


To ram the nail into the board of the reader consciousness : Laicité is hardwired into our Constitution and in the minds of our People. We will fight for it, even if it means making things that will make us look weird to the rest of the world.
Here is an interesting statistic : Proportion of Atheists in european countries


[1] Please note that homogenization does not mean 'lose your identity', but 'evolve your identity so it fits into the local culture' in the French view of things.

[2] In Mainland France's French, the term “Communautarisme” (Trad. : “Communitarianism”) has a very negative meaning, precisely because what it implies goes against the Republican Model. In France's political rainbow, there will be only a little fringe advocating “Communautarisme”, and they are NOT very popular, to say the least. That's just how we roll.

[3] Like an history professor of one of my sisters said once : “France is the Whore of Europe : Everyone plowed her !” (don't know if it traduce well, so I give you the original version : “La France est la Pute de l'Europe : tout le monde lui est passé dessus !”). This refer to all the different waves of migration that have gone on our soil since prehistoric time, from then to now, making us on of the most blended people, say at least of Europe. In fact, the Franks, that 'constructed' our country and gave it the foundation of a Nation, were a Germanic tribe in the first place. And our civilization come from the Romans (¾ of our language is Latin in disguise, blended with some Germanic or Celtic roots, the rest being stolen to the peoples who waged war on us, or on which we waged war, or from those we reduced to slave labor). Etc.

[hongi]

Thanks for that info, it's convinced me not to go to France. 'The French People' can go shove it.

Is this ban just ? Is it ethical ? Is it productive ? I don't care. We don't care. We just don't want that here, on our soil.

Heh. I called it way early on, you guys don't give a crap about the ethics or rights.

“In Rome live like the Romans”

Yeah, like the French did in Africa. And they sure kept to New Zealand's way of life when they blew up the Rainbow Warrior...

[Metahive]

I think the French won't lose any sleep over having lost you as a potential tourist. It's also not like the anglosphere hasn't constantly badmouthed them over at least the last 50+ years, so yours won't make any difference either.

However, explain to me why exactly the French are committing such a horrible. horrible crime against "rights and ethics" by banning the veil? I don't consider banning a practice that solely aims at dehumanizing women to be something objectionable and applaud them for doing so. You can claim to know women who like to strut around in that gear under their own volition, but one look at islamic countries who have made those clothes mandatory is tellingly enough as to what purpose really lies behind it.
Also, where do you draw the line, at which point do religious or ethnic peculiarities become something that you would find acceptable to get outlawed? Surely you aren't of the thought that such shouldn't ever be limited in any way, right?

[Big Phil]

Thanks for that info, it's convinced me not to go to France. 'The French People' can go shove it.

Is this ban just ? Is it ethical ? Is it productive ? I don't care. We don't care. We just don't want that here, on our soil.

Heh. I called it way early on, you guys don't give a crap about the ethics or rights.

Christ in a camper van, the French have a different set of ethics/rights than you think you, and rather than understand accept the cultural differences, you're throwing a hissy fit and telling "The French People" to "go shove it." You're a real tough guy, aren't you? I bet the entire nation of France is collectively shitting its pants at hongi's rage...

“In Rome live like the Romans”

Yeah, like the French did in Africa. And they sure kept to New Zealand's way of life when they blew up the Rainbow Warrior...

It seems that your issue has less to do with France and the French, and more with being pissy about their treatment of Greenpeace.

[Bakustra]

Thanks for that info, it's convinced me not to go to France. 'The French People' can go shove it.

Is this ban just ? Is it ethical ? Is it productive ? I don't care. We don't care. We just don't want that here, on our soil.

Heh. I called it way early on, you guys don't give a crap about the ethics or rights.

Christ in a camper van, the French have a different set of ethics/rights than you think you, and rather than understand accept the cultural differences, you're throwing a hissy fit and telling "The French People" to "go shove it." You're a real tough guy, aren't you? I bet the entire nation of France is collectively shitting its pants at hongi's rage...

“In Rome live like the Romans”

Yeah, like the French did in Africa. And they sure kept to New Zealand's way of life when they blew up the Rainbow Warrior...

It seems that your issue has less to do with France and the French, and more with being pissy about their treatment of Greenpeace.

So are you ever going to respond to my questions about moral relativism, or are you going to keep shrieking and projecting? You seem to be misreading what Rabid wrote, which is what hongi responded to: he specifically said that he feels his fellow French citizens don't care about the ethics, practicality, or justice of the ban. Not a difference of morality, but an irrelevance of morality. But go on, since you're drawing an amusing picture. Do you vote in national elections? If you do, then you're a hypocrite, since your vote matters little more than hongi's response, also. Your support for apathy, I suspect, only applies to other people, though. After all, got to get them nerds in line, right?

You missed the point that hongi was making yet again, which is that France doesn't follow the "When in Rome" principle, since they, you know, forced their culture down the throats of their colonies, continue to interfere heavily, and do shit like violate sovereignty. But perhaps the French way is to disregard other cultures as irrelevant, which would make your moral relativistic difference simply hysterical.

[Julhelm]

You missed the point that hongi was making yet again, which is that France doesn't follow the "When in Rome" principle, since they, you know, forced their culture down the throats of their colonies, continue to interfere heavily, and do shit like violate sovereignty. But perhaps the French way is to disregard other cultures as irrelevant, which would make your moral relativistic difference simply hysterical.

Why should you follow the "When in Rome" principle for cultures you have defeated and conquered?

[Bakustra]

You missed the point that hongi was making yet again, which is that France doesn't follow the "When in Rome" principle, since they, you know, forced their culture down the throats of their colonies, continue to interfere heavily, and do shit like violate sovereignty. But perhaps the French way is to disregard other cultures as irrelevant, which would make your moral relativistic difference simply hysterical.

Why should you follow the "When in Rome" principle for cultures you have defeated and conquered?

Because it's still not your culture and you'd be violating the idea of cultural relativism by attempting to destroy it? Because they didn't fucking defeat and conquer New God Damn Zealand, you buffoon. Because saying that your culture allows for the destruction of cultures you don't like, or that your culture is superior to theirs opens the way to other cultures doing the same thing? Well, the third at least explains why some people freak out about Muslims coming into Europe- they, deep in their almost-heart of hearts, accept this and fear that Muslims will do the same thing.