Obligate 'lifting of the veil' for Muslim women if asked to by a police officer - racist?

[KarlGauss]

Please take a look at this article (http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/1022647--muslim-women-to-remove-veils-at-police-request-if-australia-law-passes?bn=1#article) from the Toronto Star. It describes a proposed new law in Australia that would compel women whose face is covered by a veil to show their face to a police officer if requested to do so by said officer. Assuming I'm correct about the salient points of the new law and its requirements, is it racist?

Personally, I think it is most definitely not racist. First, as I understand it, women covering their face in Islam is a cultural tradition not a religious dictate. Second, the woman will need to show her face only briefly, only to police, and only (like all "search and seizures") when the officer has good cause to require her identification. Third, and most importantly, is that the proposed law will avoid a repeat of the debacle that occurred to provide its impetus.

What debacle? A veiled Muslim woman accused an Australian police officer "of racism and of attempting to tear off her veil during their roadside encounter". As noted in the Star article, the woman was evidently unaware that her encounter with the officer had been filmed and showed that her allegations were baseless and false. She was subsequently convicted of deliberately making false statements to police. But, get this, her conviction was overturned because it was not certain that she was the one who lodged the false complaint. Why not - because when she signed her deposition accusing the cop, she was wearing a veil. The justice of the peace who witnessed all this had not looked beneath the veil to confirm her identity!

And now, a law which if passed would prevent the above type scenario is called racist! Please.

Am I racist? Are you?

[simster]

a) not racist , its a cultural thing - as far as I understand it 'muslim' is not a 'race' in the classic definitions.

b) not racist, as its not targeting them by race, but by the fact the face (and therefore identity) is hidden - we have no idea what 'race' is under the covers.

c) provide an alternate way to prove identity - require fingerprints to prove identitiy - they can keep the veil, but the thumb (and the prerequisite time to validate/match) may take alot longer until the biometrics catches up - when they get their license, they can provide a thumbrint where the picture would be.

[Odesio]

Personally, I think it is most definitely not racist. First, as I understand it, women covering their face in Islam is a cultural tradition not a religious dictate.


That's how you understand it, and, honestly, that's how I understand it as well. Islam does require both men and women to dress modestly but the methods by which they achieve this goal varies from culture to culture. So if a Muslim woman says she needs to wear the veil to practice her religion she is 100% correct. That's how she interprets the religious requirement for modesty. The fact that other Muslims achieve their modesty in a different manner is not relevant. By the way, how exactly does one separate religious requirement from a cultural requirement? Religion is part of a culture.


And now, a law which if passed would prevent the above type scenario is called racist! Please.


It's not racist. If during the course of their job the police need to identify someone they should be able to identify them. That means seeing their face at the very least.

[BrightNShiny]

Do orthodox jewish women have to remove their wigs or allow themselves to be touched by a male police officer? I guess that's where it hinges for me. If other religious groups are given some sort of accommodation, then similar accommodations should be made for Muslims. If other groups aren't given any accommodation, then I wouldn't view this as being racist per-se.

Of course, even if it's not racist, it may not necessarily be good policy. I tend to favor finding some sort of middle ground. Like, if there's not an emergency or shortage of resources, letting the woman wait until a female officer shows up.

[Der Trihs]

Do orthodox jewish women have to remove their wigs or allow themselves to be touched by a male police officer? I guess that's where it hinges for me. If other religious groups are given some sort of accommodation, then similar accommodations should be made for Muslims.
The problem is though, are they similar accommodations? A wig or a refusal to be touched by a man doesn't make you unidentifiable. Religious exemptions go by the wayside generally when they block enforcement of the law; you couldn't for example get out of jail time because your religion forbids imprisonment.

[gonzomax]

This was a big deal in Dearborn a couple years ago. The muslims won in court. That means they did not have to show their face in drivers license photos, which in turn allows them to not be identified when they vote. It does not feel right to me. I am sure it is ripe for abuse. If a muslim girl got a bunch of auto tickets, she could drive with her sisters license . How could the cop tell? she could vote for her as well.

[Simplicio]

Out of curiosity, how do majority Muslim countries deal with this issue?

In anycase, I agree its not necessarily racist, but they ought to put in policies to mitigate any discomfort Muslim veil wearers are likely to have. Allowing woman to just reveal their face to woman officers unless there isn't one present, and doing it in sight of just one officer if thats possible, for example.

As a practical concern, with a population of 2,000 veil wearers in a country of 20 million, most of whom probably don't drive, this is probably only going to actually come up once every couple years, if that often.

[Der Trihs]

Out of curiosity, how do majority Muslim countries deal with this issue?
Nitpick: Muslim countries that actually go for veils.

[alphaboi867]

Nitpick: Muslim countries that actually go for veils.

Well Saudi Arabia "deals with it" by not allowing women to drive. Though IIRC Saudi women are required to show their faces (& possibly hair) in passport & ID card photos (neither of which they can obtain without permission from their male guardian).

[BrightNShiny]

The problem is though, are they similar accommodations? A wig or a refusal to be touched by a man doesn't make you unidentifiable. Religious exemptions go by the wayside generally when they block enforcement of the law; you couldn't for example get out of jail time because your religion forbids imprisonment.

You've identified two categories of issues here: (1) inability to identify and (2) the larger issue of blocking enforcement of the law. Both wigs and a refusal to be touched by a man can be used to block enforcement of the law. So, if we're going with category #2, then the accommodations are similar.

If we're looking at #1, we have the technology to identify people who are veiled, if we want to (eye scanners, hand scanners, thumb print scanners, etc). So, it's not that the veil prevents identification, it's that we choose to not use alternate identification methods. In an emergency, I don't expect anyone to haul out a retinal scanner anymore than I would expect them to wait forty minutes for an officer of the appropriate gender. But if we're talking non-emergencies, then it is a choice, not a requirement, to identify people by their face.

So, the question is: in non-emergency situations, should we force people to violate their religious beliefs even though we have other options? And if that's okay, why should we make accommodations for people who don't want to be touched by a man or want to remove their wigs?

[alphaboi867]

Is purchasing & maintaing thousands of portable fingerprint machines or retinal/iris scanners (& maintaining the corresponding database) at taxpayer expense a reasonable accommodation for a subpopulation that's less that one hundredth of a percent of the total population? Most of whom don't even have driver's licences and hence would never be entered into the database in the first place.

[jjimm]

Well Saudi Arabia "deals with it" by not allowing women to drive. Though IIRC Saudi women are required to show their faces (& possibly hair) in passport & ID card photos (neither of which they can obtain without permission from their male guardian).Saudi Arabia is just one asshole Muslim country. None of the other majority Muslim countries ban women from driving, and the vast majority of Muslim countries do not require women to cover their faces.

That said, I personally think the issue is simple: it's not racist. Raise the veil if required to if it is reasonably required to identify you.

[Grumman]

"Obligate 'lifting of the veil' for Muslim women if asked to by a police officer - racist?"

Quite the opposite: the suggestion that being the member of a specific religion grants you extraordinary rights in the eyes of the law, that is discrimination. If a muslim woman was not required to reveal her identity to police, neither should anyone else.

[Argent Towers]

Muslims are not a race. Why do so many people seem to think they are? I can't even begin to count the number of times I've heard - including on this very board - people call anything anti-Muslim "racist".

[gonzomax]

If it is for ID, the veil should be off. That includes drivers licenses, state IDs, voter ID and passports . Otherwise it is not an ID at all. That is not racist.

[BrightNShiny]

Is purchasing & maintaing thousands of portable fingerprint machines or retinal/iris scanners (& maintaining the corresponding database) at taxpayer expense a reasonable accommodation for a subpopulation that's less that one hundredth of a percent of the total population? Most of whom don't even have driver's licences and hence would never be entered into the database in the first place.

I don't know what happens in Australia, but here in the US, we routinely spend tax payer money or drive up the cost of government programs to accomodate various religious groups. If you want to argue against it on cost grounds, that's fine. But the claim that it's necessary simply isn't true. That's a choice that's being made. Which is the point that I am making here.

As for not being in the database, again, I don't know how Australia does things, but in the US, almost everyone is going to be in a government database somewhere, unless they are an illegal alien. But you could also require that if you want to protection of not being able to remove the veil, then you have to go and get into the database for the protection to attach.

EDIT: I'd be curious how much finger print scanners actually cost, because it seems like cheap technology that would be useful to have in police cars anyway.

[Simplicio]

Saudi Arabia is just one asshole Muslim country. None of the other majority Muslim countries ban women from driving, and the vast majority of Muslim countries do not require women to cover their faces.

But a lot of non-asshole Muslim countries presumably still have woman who cover their faces by choice. Do they still require photo ID's to require woman to reveal their faces?

If it is for ID, the veil should be off. That includes drivers licenses, state IDs, voter ID and passports . Otherwise it is not an ID at all. That is not racist.

As of a few years ago, VT still didn't require driver licenses to have photos (and still don't so far as I know). So I question that an ID without a photo is automatically not an ID, though of course almost all do nowadays.

(and most places specifiy they need a "photo ID", which suggests that non-photo ID's are still out there).

[Ibn Warraq]

Out of curiosity, how do majority Muslim countries deal with this issue?

In anycase, I agree its not necessarily racist, but they ought to put in policies to mitigate any discomfort Muslim veil wearers are likely to have. Allowing woman to just reveal their face to woman officers unless there isn't one present, and doing it in sight of just one officer if thats possible, for example.

As a practical concern, with a population of 2,000 veil wearers in a country of 20 million, most of whom probably don't drive, this is probably only going to actually come up once every couple years, if that often.


Muslim women in Saudi Arabia have to remove their veils for IDs and passports.

I imagine if police officers ordered them to, they'd remove their veils as well.

Incidentally, the overwhelming majority of Muslim women don't wear the veil.

[gonzomax]

But a lot of non-asshole Muslim countries presumably still have woman who cover their faces by choice. Do they still require photo ID's to require woman to reveal their faces?



As of a few years ago, VT still didn't require driver licenses to have photos (and still don't so far as I know). So I question that an ID without a photo is automatically not an ID, though of course almost all do nowadays.

(and most places specifiy they need a "photo ID", which suggests that non-photo ID's are still out there).

Neither of Vermonts muslim women wear veils?
I live outside Dearborn. we have plenty of veils and habibs

[scratch llll]

Without a photo on the ID the only way to tell if the ID belonged to them would be an instant scan of fingerprints with one or more being on the ID. While I have no qualms with that sort of identification, I don't feel the cost of the equipment should be allegated to those in a society where the face is the normal mode of doing so. The OP shows the result of having no concrete ID so that is not an option.

The epithet racist gets thrown like a weapon for the mere mention of anything race related so recognition of reality makes me racist naturally.

[Argent Towers]

And again, Muslims are not a race. Although I don't expect people to ever stop accusing any criticism of Islamic-related issues as being racist. It's odd, though, that so many people thoughtlessly fling the word racism in conversations about a gigantic religion which has members from every ethnic group under the sun.

[scratch llll]

Sorry. It was stated as so in the OP and perhaps should have been theocist? Just not as satisfying to call someone that I guess as it lacks the immediate onus and dismissiveness.

[Capitaine Zombie]

That's disingenuous. You dont have to target a race (and, mind you, most Western nations dont recognize races as a legal concept) to be racist.
It's as absurd as saying Arabs can't be antisemites because they're Semites as well.

Targeting a minority group with discriminatory practices is racism. Is that the case here? Cant tell with the limited amount of info. But, for the sake of argument, let's say the OP is truthful, then this sounds completely retarded on the part of the concerned Muslims to react like that. That said I dont see why you need a law to uphold a general principle of law enforcement, that is the ability to check someone's ID (I know some democracies have restriction on that but it's usually an assumed power of police forces).

[Sierra Indigo]

The OP is truthful to a degree, however the law is in the process of being enacted in ONE Australian state, and it is under consideration in two others. It's being discussed as an issue around the nation, however at this point New South Wales (where the incident with Ms Matthews occurred) is the only state to have moved to legislate the requirement for burqha-wearing women to visually identify their faces.

Reports vary (http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/police-get-tough-on-burqas/story-e6freuy9-1226087503421) as to whether the legislation specifies removing "headdresses" or simply "face concealing veils". If it's the former, then ALL headdresses should be removed on request by a police officer - be they burkhas, niqabs, wigs, hats, hoods or small animal carcasses. If it's the latter, then the argument about wigs and so forth is pointless, because it's specifying articles of clothing that obscure the face, and a woman in a headscarf that doesn't obscure her face should no more be asked to remove that than someone wearing a beanie should be.

[Askance]

a proposed new law in Australia that would compel women whose face is covered by a veil to show their face to a police officer if requested to do so by said officer. Assuming I'm correct about the salient points of the new law and its requirements, is it racist?
Just to make it clear: it is not an Australian (Federal) law, but a New South Wales (state) law.

It affects all nature of face-coverings, including full-face helmets and balaclavas. So by the law's letter it's not anti-Muslim (although it was an incident involving a Muslim woman that brought the issue to a head). One might consider it to be motivated by anti-Muslim sentiment and just extended to other groups as there was no possible argument not to, but as enacted there's no reason to object to it on those ground IMO.

Why not - because when she signed her deposition accusing the cop, she was wearing a veil. The justice of the peace who witnessed all this had not looked beneath the veil to confirm her identity!
It was pretty decisively shown that the signature on the offending complaint was not hers (speculatively, her husband or relative wrote the complaint and forged her signature). So in fact the law seems to have come to the right answer in this case.

She was also specifically called out by the judge as a proven liar, so I don't think she exactly got off scot-free in a general sense.

[BrightNShiny]

Re: the cost issue...

I do think it's funny that people will gladly spend tons of government money on all sorts of really expensive security equipment of dubious value, but the moment you mention implementing useful security equipment that might also help with a religious accommodation, suddenly cost becomes an issue.

There has been absolutely no political effort in the US to roll back the security and surveillance state, and that stuff isn't free. So, frankly, if you're in the US and you are complaining about the cost of fingerprint scanners, I don't see any reason to think your complaint is genuine.

[Wallenstein]

It's worth noting that some (many, most?) muslim advocacy groups in Australia have no problem with the principle of this law. There have been requests for certain accommodations - lifting the veil in a private setting, or having a female police officer conduct the check - but overall it seems to be relatively uncontroversial.

[wmfellows]

And again, Muslims are not a race. Although I don't expect people to ever stop accusing any criticism of Islamic-related issues as being racist. It's odd, though, that so many people thoughtlessly fling the word racism in conversations about a gigantic religion which has members from every ethnic group under the sun.

Not odd in any way. It's fairly evident that a good bit of anti-Muslim commentary is actually racial / ethnic, aimed at "Pakis" or "Arabs" rather than genuinely at some abstract religious doctrine. As such quite a lot of it is right out racial (in a wide sense). Rag-heads, Camel Jockeys, Dirty Pakis, all that sort of thing is classic racism.

On the actual point, every time I catch a glimpse of women's ID cards from a wide variety of Islamic countries (passports or whatnot) over the years, they always have an unveiled face. Seems to be standard.

[Acid Lamp]

That's disingenuous. You dont have to target a race (and, mind you, most Western nations dont recognize races as a legal concept) to be racist.
It's as absurd as saying Arabs can't be antisemites because they're Semites as well.

Targeting a minority group with discriminatory practices is racism. Is that the case here? Cant tell with the limited amount of info. But, for the sake of argument, let's say the OP is truthful, then this sounds completely retarded on the part of the concerned Muslims to react like that. That said I dont see why you need a law to uphold a general principle of law enforcement, that is the ability to check someone's ID (I know some democracies have restriction on that but it's usually an assumed power of police forces).

/Inigo/ I don't think that word means what you think it means. /Inigo/


— n
1. the belief that races have distinctive cultural characteristics determined by hereditary factors and that this endows some races with an intrinsic superiority over others
2. abusive or aggressive behaviour towards members of another race on the basis of such a belief


Sorry, to be racist it has to be upon the basis of physical appearance, not cultural practices. The term you want is ethnocentric, or ethnocentrism. Despite popular usage of the word, racism has a narrow actual definition, and it needs to be carefully used.

As to the OP, this isn't racist in the least, and it is a very reasonable accommodation as far as I'm concerned. Police and other officials have to be able to ascertain a person's identity properly to avoid misconduct. As of now, a simple physical description, though often inaccurate as described by witnesses, is the cheapest and most efficient way to identify a person, confirm their identity to ID's or locate a fleeing suspect. There is no logical reason why a whole group of people should be given special treatment to dodge basic civil security measures due to their belief in fairy tales.

[RickJay]

And again, Muslims are not a race.
They certainly are if people perceive them as being so. "Race" is an arbitrary distinction that can be drawn along any border of human difference the observer chooses. If you don't believe me you are welcome to consult any authority on thehistory of the use of the term "race."

"Racism" is a perfectly accurate and descriptive word for bigotry against a distinct group of people.

[Ibn Warraq]

Neither of Vermonts muslim women wear veils?
I live outside Dearborn. we have plenty of veils and habibs

Habibs?:dubious:

Are you talking about hijabs?

[Acid Lamp]

They certainly are if people perceive them as being so. "Race" is an arbitrary distinction that can be drawn along any border of human difference the observer chooses. If you don't believe me you are welcome to consult any authority on thehistory of the use of the term "race."

"Racism" is a perfectly accurate and descriptive word for bigotry against a distinct group of people.

No they are not. The lack of the scientific community to establish a biological definition of "race" as it pertains to humans does not equate to being able to use the word in whatever manner you like. Racism has a specific usage, and even if applied to common speech is widely taken to refer to discrimination/ persecution on the basis of physical appearance.

By your definition, Furries could claim it's racist to make fun of them.

[wmfellows]

No they are not. The lack of the scientific community to establish a biological definition of "race" as it pertains to humans does not equate to being able to use the word in whatever manner you like. Racism has a specific usage, and even if applied to common speech is widely taken to refer to discrimination/ persecution on the basis of physical appearance.

By your definition, Furries could claim it's racist to make fun of them.

This is pretty bloody precious. Racist is an ordinary word, not some technical term and in general usage it isn't in any way "specific" as you archly pretend. Your personal preference isn't determinative. Odd nutters dressed up in costumes, by the way, doesn't in any way have anything to do with common usage, as it is quite clear common usage refers to actual physical appearance, not costumes.

[furt]

Personally, I think it is most definitely not racist. First, as I understand it, women covering their face in Islam is a cultural tradition not a religious dictate.Leaving aside that Islam is not a race as people normally think of one: listening to rap music, driving lowriders, celebrating hannukah and eating lutefisk are also cultural traditions rather than racial traits, but I have no doubt that efforts to prohibit any of those activities them would be met with cries of racism.

For good or ill, people conflate race and culture.

Mind you, I think the law is eminently sensible, and not at all racist; but I also have no problem saying some cultural traits are superior to others, and most people do. I'm not surprised to hear it called racist, though, as playing the victim-of-racism angle is quite effective.

[Acid Lamp]

This is pretty bloody precious. Racist is an ordinary word, not some technical term and in general usage it isn't in any way "specific" as you archly pretend. Your personal preference isn't determinative. Odd nutters dressed up in costumes, by the way, doesn't in any way have anything to do with common usage, as it is quite clear common usage refers to actual physical appearance, not costumes.

Hyperbole for the sake of making a point.

However, what's the difference between those nutters and the other ones who insist that women be completely covered because an invisible man in the sky might be angered? I'm tolerant of religion until in infringes on my basic rights in society to be safe. Giving people a special pass because of their particular brand of idiocy is neither fair nor in the interest of public safety.

[wmfellows]

Hyperbole for the sake of making a point.

However, what's the difference between those nutters and the other ones who insist that women be completely covered because an invisible man in the sky might be angered? I'm tolerant of religion until in infringes on my basic rights in society to be safe. Giving people a special pass because of their particular brand of idiocy is neither fair nor in the interest of public safety.

This is an entirely different point - and hyperbole didn't make a point it distracted from it. I don't see anyone being particularly sympathetic to the idea the hyper-religious ladies should get a pass at all, quite the contrary.

[Ibn Warraq]

Hyperbole for the sake of making a point.

However, what's the difference between those nutters and the other ones who insist that women be completely covered because an invisible man in the sky might be angered? I'm tolerant of religion until in infringes on my basic rights in society to be safe. Giving people a special pass because of their particular brand of idiocy is neither fair nor in the interest of public safety.

Since Muslim countries don't give veiled women a pass I'm not sure what you're talking about.

Moreover, I don't know where you live, but in the US there is no "right to be safe".


If you're going to be absurdly pedantic about the term "race" you might want to check up a bit more on what "rights" one has and doesn't have where you live.

[Acid Lamp]

This is an entirely different point - and hyperbole didn't make a point it distracted from it. I don't see anyone being particularly sympathetic to the idea the hyper-religious ladies should get a pass at all, quite the contrary.

Not really. Rickjay seems to think that racist simply means whatever he'd like it to. It doesn't. It has a proper definition that you can look up in any dictionary. Ethnocentrism is far closer to the topic as it deals with a cultural practice; one that is spread across people of many different physical races, nationalities, and local cultures.
Popular usage of the term "racist" is far too loose and often obfuscates having a proper debate about a topic. You could call it ethnocentric, bigoted, and discriminatory all you like and I'd possibly be there to agree, but racist it is not.

[Acid Lamp]

Since Muslim countries don't give veiled women a pass I'm not sure what you're talking about.

Moreover, I don't know where you live, but in the US there is no "right to be safe".


If you're going to be absurdly pedantic about the term "race" you might want to check up a bit more on what "rights" one has and doesn't have where you live.

Oh get over yourself. My comment was directly related to the OP's question, and relevant to the discussion.

You are correct that we don't have a "right" to be safe, but we do enjoy the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That implies that others cannot deprive me of those things, and to enforce them we have laws and police. To do their job and ensure my rights, they keep the public safe from harm by unidentified persons. In the course of this, we have things like ID's, etc. Religious idiocy should not exempt a person from this, nor is it racist to suggest so.

[wmfellows]

Not really. Rickjay seems to think that racist simply means whatever he'd like it to.

No, he rather seems to understand, unlike you, it is not a technical term and is used


It doesn't. It has a proper definition that you can look up in any dictionary.

Yes, indeed. And it simply indicates belief that one's own race is superior. And as race is used in quite a liberal, muddy fashion in popular speech, he's right, you're wrong.


Popular usage of the term "racist" is far too loose and often obfuscates having a proper debate about a topic. You could call it ethnocentric, bigoted, and discriminatory all you like and I'd possibly be there to agree, but racist it is not.

That you dislike popular usage is bloody well evident. But popular usage exists and you'll just have to suck it up, since racism isn't a technical term.

[Argent Towers]

If it's really true that racism is just "the targeting of a minority group for bigotry" then that means that it would be acceptable to call anti-gay bigotry "racism" too. It would also mean that sexism against women in male dominated environments is "racism." It might even mean that discrimination against atheists is also "racism" since atheists are a definite minority. Do you see where I'm going with this?

The "racism means discrimination against any minority" argument is absolute horseshit. I am not going to sit here and be called "pedantic" or any other word when it's you guys who are totally mangling the definition of "Racism" to the point where it has no meaning anymore.

[Ibn Warraq]

Oh get over yourself. My comment was directly related to the OP's question, and relevant to the discussion.

You showed extreme ignorance of both the way things are done in Muslim countries and the US.

I'm sorry if my pointing that out pissed you off but when you imply that Muslims somehow allow veiled women to not have to remove their veils when needed but they do you look extremely foolish.

Islam has always been a very practical religion.

Beyond that, after pontificating on the proper use of the term "race" you claimed that in the US you have "a right to be safe".

The Courts have never held there is such a thing. In fact, they've specifically ruled that you don't even have an expectation of the police helping you.

That's also a good thing because were the Courts ever to make such an asinine determination, that US citizens had "a right to be safe" that would lead to all sorts of problems and conflict with all sorts of rights.

It doesn't. It has a proper definition that you can look up in any dictionary.

Dictionaries don't give definitions. They just give common understandings.

If you wish to proclaim it's not racist to say "I hate Jews" on the grounds that they're "religious group", you can, but I think most would agree that doing so is classic example of "distinctions without a difference."

[Vinyl Turnip]

"Racism" is a perfectly accurate and descriptive word for bigotry against a distinct group of people.

Are Christians considered a race? How about Presbyterians? Scientologists?

I think you're on pretty shaky ground with this loose definition, and applying it in this case mainly because most Muslims tend to be some shade of brown. Black/brown --> "minority" (in the traditional U.S. sense) --> racism.

I agree that insisting on the "textbook definition" of racism is a popular dodge, but if "racism" now means whatever we want it to mean, it no longer means anything at all.

[wmfellows]

Insofar as from what I see, most anti-Muslim commentary really boils down to being anti-"Paki" or Arab (i.e. relative Northern Europeans, "of another race" in loose terms), I don't think it off to characterise much anti-sentiment as largely racist at its roots. Bigoted is doubtless a better term, but given the general popular confusion about race and religion around Muslims at least in Anglosphere, not without a solid foundation.

[Ibn Warraq]

Are Christians considered a race? How about Presbyterians? Scientologists?

I think you're on pretty shaky ground with this loose definition, and applying it in this case mainly because most Muslims tend to be some shade of brown. Black/brown --> "minority" (in the traditional U.S. sense) --> racism.

I agree that insisting on the "textbook definition" of racism is a popular dodge, but if "racism" now means whatever we want it to mean, it no longer means anything at all.

Since race is a myth I'm not sure why people are trying to argue that what does and doesn't constitute racism is set in stone.

[wmfellows]

Well, there is a valid argument. But for me it fails as on a popular level, which is where prejudice exists, many people treat Muslim and "dark 'Arab' person from Middle East" as complete synonyms. So anti-Muslim sentiment ends up being pretty much racism, even if 'technically' it would not be (much as anti-Semitism shouldn't have been racism but ended up being so because of the way Jewishness ended up being understood on a popular level).

Anyway, I think all are in agreement the whole bjection about showing the face is bollocks.

[Evil Captor]

Look, there's perfectly good reason why Islamic women wear the veil. It's because they have the tradition of not being in the company of the opposite sex except for their male relatives in many Islamic societies. Which, inevitably, means a whole lot of sibling-fucking and cousin-fucking goes on prior to marriage, which means, well, a whole lot of Islamic women look disturbingly like their male relatives. So the veil is a way to conceal that fact, and allow everybody to be a little less creeped out by their own weird sexual practices. So, let's try to be a little more tolerant and understanding of Islamic folks, all righty?

[Marley23]

Look, there's perfectly good reason why Islamic women wear the veil. It's because they have the tradition of not being in the company of the opposite sex except for their male relatives in many Islamic societies. Which, inevitably, means a whole lot of sibling-fucking and cousin-fucking goes on prior to marriage, which means, well, a whole lot of Islamic women look disturbingly like their male relatives. So the veil is a way to conceal that fact, and allow everybody to be a little less creeped out by their own weird sexual practices. So, let's try to be a little more tolerant and understanding of Islamic folks, all righty?
This is stupid and contributes nothing to the discussion. Don't do it again.

[Argent Towers]

Since race is a myth I'm not sure why people are trying to argue that what does and doesn't constitute racism is set in stone.

Race is not a "myth." It is a broad concept that may be loosely defined and very complicated, but it still has valid uses in discussions. And, in any case, if you do indeed believe it to be a myth, then you should be criticizing the people using the word "racism" to describe a religion, just like I am. If race really is a myth, then racism is also a myth.

[RickJay]

No they are not. The lack of the scientific community to establish a biological definition of "race" as it pertains to humans does not equate to being able to use the word in whatever manner you like.
Would it be okay with you if I used the word in the manner described in my Oxford Canadian Dictionary?

Are Christians considered a race? How about Presbyterians? Scientologists?
Could be. Depends when and where you are. Nobody thinks Scientologists are a race, so they're not.

But not very long ago, people referred to the English "race," German "race," and French "race" as if they were quite distinct races indeed. Many would have found it insulting to imply a person of English descent was the same "race" as someone of Irish descent.

Even more recently, Hutu and Tutsi certainly thought of each other as different races, despite the fact that most outsiders would have thought that absurd. Indeed, most Americans classify "blacks" as a race even though dark-skinned Africans include a number of biologically diverse groups that are, in fact, as genetically and physically different from each other as they are from "white" people.

"Race" and therefore racism is situational. No, I don't think Scientologists are a race, that that's because the social reality is they aren't considered a distinct race.

[Ibn Warraq]

Race is not a "myth." It is a broad concept that may be loosely defined and very complicated, but it still has valid uses in discussions. And, in any case, if you do indeed believe it to be a myth, then you should be criticizing the people using the word "racism" to describe a religion, just like I am. If race really is a myth, then racism is also a myth.


So then you think it's wrong to say that people who say "I hate Jews" are racist?

[Marley23]

If race really is a myth, then racism is also a myth.
This is ridiculous. But people often say racism when they should say bigotry or prejudice, so to some extent your initial comment was correct. The question of whether or not the veil rules are bigoted is more interesting than yet another discussion of what race means.

[Argent Towers]

This is ridiculous.

Yeah, I know it is. That's my point. Race is not a "myth." Race is an idea that mankind has created, probably because we are visual creatures and it's easier for us to classify things based on how they look than on other, more abstract qualities. It's an idea that at times can be loosely defined, and doesn't always fit into simple boxes, but the idea of race is still very much a part of human discourse. To just hand-wave any discussions of race away by saying "it's a myth" is idiotic.

[Marley23]

Yeah, I know it is. That's my point. Race is not a "myth." Race is an idea that mankind has created, probably because we are visual creatures and it's easier for us to classify things based on how they look than on other, more abstract qualities. It's an idea that at times can be loosely defined, and doesn't always fit into simple boxes, but the idea of race is still very much a part of human discourse. To just hand-wave any discussions of race away by saying "it's a myth" is idiotic.
They're saying it doesn't have a firm biological basis, and RickJay just posted an example of supposed races that really don't look different. I wouldn't argue that these laws are racist, partly because I don't want to waste time arguing about something like this and partly because I don't think you should be exempt from common-sense laws just because they conflict with your religious views. Most of us use our IDs a lot, and it's hard to make that work without photos.

[Acid Lamp]

This is ridiculous. But people often say racism when they should say bigotry or prejudice, so to some extent your initial comment was correct. The question of whether or not the veil rules are bigoted is more interesting than yet another discussion of what race means.

Agreed; but that isn't what the OP asked, hence the digression. I'm happy to let it be but if the policy IS bigoted, then it should be fair to discuss the origin of the prejudice. I maintain that it isn't bigoted so it doesn't really matter to me either way. Some posters seem to think it is for racist bigotry, rather than by necessity or reason of practicality that they are considering this policy. I"m not seeing that and I'd like them to show their work, isn't that what we DO here in GD?

[wmfellows]

... Some posters seem to think it is for racist bigotry, rather than by necessity or reason of practicality that they are considering this policy. ...

Who here in this thread? As far as I can tell, no one.

[KarlGauss]

Once on this esteemed board, I was called a "racist" on the basis of some comments I made about Quebec. At first, I laughed and asked to what 'race' the Quebecois belonged. Later, I checked the dictionary (M-W) and was chagrined to find, among others, this definition:2a : a family, tribe, people, or nation belonging to the same stock

b : a class or kind of people unified by shared interests, habits, or characteristics So, it looks like there is a definition based primarily on non-physical, non-genetic traits.

[Acid Lamp]

Who here in this thread? As far as I can tell, no one.

CapitaineZombie suggests it might be though they are careful to state later that aren't sure without further info. It was their comments I initially responded to, since their basis seemed to be defining racist as whatever the aggrieved says it is. It is quite possible I misconstrued their position, but I'd rather wait for them to return to the thread and clarify rather than nitpicking a post I have no further info on.

[simster]

it's not racist by any definition if all members of a given society are required to 'show their faces for identification purposes" - so far as I know, while the muslim women may be the largest minority group of folks that have an issue with such a rule, it is not designed to single them out. There are rules/laws against people wearing 'masks' in in-appropriate places - adults at the bank, for example.

[Folacin]

This was a big deal in Dearborn a couple years ago. The muslims won in court. That means they did not have to show their face in drivers license photos, which in turn allows them to not be identified when they vote. It does not feel right to me. I am sure it is ripe for abuse. If a muslim girl got a bunch of auto tickets, she could drive with her sisters license . How could the cop tell? she could vote for her as well.

Cite? The closest thing I can find via Google is a small claims court case (http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/courtroom_judge_has_power_to_ban_muslim_veil_top._mich._court_decides/)where a Muslim woman refused to show her face, and the judge threw out her suit. (Case just resolved to say that judge was correct).

I find it completely unbelieveable that the state of MI would allow anyone to hide their face in a DL photo - but, I've been wrong before.

[Apollyon]

it's not racist by any definition if all members of a given society are required to 'show their faces for identification purposes"...Yep. Assuming that if I'm driving around in a rubber halloween mask when pulled over and it's OK for the officer to ask me to remove it for ID purposes then any inconsistent application because the headgear is cultural / ethnic / racial / religious is inappropriate in a country that believes in equal treatment of its citizens. (IMO).

[Hypnagogic Jerk]

Once on this esteemed board, I was called a "racist" on the basis of some comments I made about Quebec.
I don't know if you were, but what I find especially interesting is that what you criticized Quebecers for in another thread is exactly what you're suggesting in this thread's OP. Make of that what you will.

[Marley23]

it's not racist by any definition if all members of a given society are required to 'show their faces for identification purposes" - so far as I know, while the muslim women may be the largest minority group of folks that have an issue with such a rule, it is not designed to single them out.
While I don't have a problem with the law being discussed in this thread, I think that's a judgment we can only make in context. If a law is written to apply to everyone but has a real impact on only a small group of people, the law can still be discriminatory. We had that discussion during some of the recent debates about same-sex marriage. A law that prevents everyone from marrying a person of the same sex applies to all citizens, but it still discriminates in a manner a lot of people consider unfair.

[Malthus]

While I don't have a problem with the law being discussed in this thread, I think that's a judgment we can only make in context. If a law is written to apply to everyone but has a real impact on only a small group of people, the law can still be discriminatory. We had that discussion during some of the recent debates about same-sex marriage. A law that prevents everyone from marrying a person of the same sex applies to all citizens, but it still discriminates in a manner a lot of people consider unfair.

I agree - the issue here is whether allowing a police officer the authority to require a veiled person (almost always going to be a Muslim woman) is okay, or whether some "reasonable accomodation" ought to be made, like (in Canada) allowing Sikhs who wish to be Mounties to wear a "regulation turban".

The first issue is whether the concern about veiled women is a real one, or if the measure is just invented to hassle Muslims - for example, I was against the French headscarf ban because it seemed to have no real concern behind it. I think this veil issue has a real concern behind it. Cops do need to know who they are interviewing.

The second is whether some middle ground - "reasonable accomodation" - can be made, that addresses the real concern but does not require removing the veil. In my opinion, the likely costs and inconveniences of "reasonable accomodation" (such as equipping cops with fingerprint scanners) are going to be so significant that it is not actually "reasonable". Other methods of positive ID require expensive equipment and also generally closer contact with the subject. They are not truly "reasonable" replacements for visual ID.

Therefore, in my opinion the measure is okay and not on its face an expression of bigotry.

[Capitaine Zombie]

The first issue is whether the concern about veiled women is a real one, or if the measure is just invented to hassle Muslims - for example, I was against the French headscarf ban because it seemed to have no real concern behind it. I think this veil issue has a real concern behind it. Cops do need to know who they are interviewing.

The French ban on burka (veil is ok out of school) started exactly the same way. With the case of a woman driving (very badly) with a burka. Not that it justifies anything about the ban, but it didnt just start out of nothing (and besides, Sarkozy's policies are very centered about newsbits).

[KarlGauss]

I don't know if you were, but what I find especially interesting is that what you criticized Quebecers for in another thread is exactly what you're suggesting in this thread's OP. Make of that what you will.Moi? I'm not playing coy, but I can't recall criticizing 'Quebecers' in another thread (the one that earned me the "racist" epithet was, maybe, 10 or 11 years ago - is that what you're referring to?)

[Malthus]

The French ban on burka (veil is ok out of school) started exactly the same way. With the case of a woman driving (very badly) with a burka. Not that it justifies anything about the ban, but it didnt just start out of nothing (and besides, Sarkozy's policies are very centered about newsbits).

The issue isn't how it started, but the actual "harm" addressed by the measure in question.

In the case of the French measure, on its face it prohibits the wearing of all symbols or garb in schools that demonstrate affiliation with a particular religion, so on its face it appears non-discriminatory. However, it was widely understood by all to be targeting the wearing of headscarves by Muslim girls. It's an example of the sort of measure described by Marley23 that is 'on its face' neutral but actually is targeted.

The "harm" in this case was expressly whatever harms may accrue from being identifiably religious in school, and had nothing whatever to do with identifying persons. To my mind, that wasn't sufficient justification for the measure.

Albeit my intent is not to hijack the thread into a headscarf discussion - merely to illustrate what I consider to be the method for analysis of the legitimacy of a particular measure.

[Capitaine Zombie]

The issue isn't how it started, but the actual "harm" addressed by the measure in question.

In the case of the French measure, on its face it prohibits the wearing of all symbols or garb in schools that demonstrate affiliation with a particular religion, so on its face it appears non-discriminatory. However, it was widely understood by all to be targeting the wearing of headscarves by Muslim girls. It's an example of the sort of measure described by Marley23 that is 'on its face' neutral but actually is targeted.

The "harm" in this case was expressly whatever harms may accrue from being identifiably religious in school, and had nothing whatever to do with identifying persons. To my mind, that wasn't sufficient justification for the measure.

Albeit my intent is not to hijack the thread into a headscarf discussion - merely to illustrate what I consider to be the method for analysis of the legitimacy of a particular measure.

I'm not sure if I understand properly what you mean.

The restriction on wearing noticeable religious symbols in school isnt something recent, it is quite tied to the concept of laicité. It clashed with some Muslims in the late eighties because there were more of them going on the recrimination and affirmation of their faith road. But school isnt the place for that.
It targeted the headscarf simply because as late entry to the laicité game, it hadnt been through the grinder yet, like Christianism or Judaism (that said, I think I had some fellow students that had kippahs).

So, if you're talking about the headscarf, it is an old thing now, and quite accepted.
I thought you were talking about the recent burka ban.

Which was it?

[Malthus]

I'm not sure if I understand properly what you mean.

The restriction on wearing noticeable religious symbols in school isnt something recent, it is quite tied to the concept of laicité. It clashed with some Muslims in the late eighties because there were more of them going on the recrimination and affirmation of their faith road. But school isnt the place for that.
It targeted the headscarf simply because as late entry to the laicité game, it hadnt been through the grinder yet, like Christianism or Judaism (that said, I think I had some fellow students that had kippahs).

So, if you're talking about the headscarf, it is an old thing now, and quite accepted.
I thought you were talking about the recent burka ban.

Which was it?

I'm talking about this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_law_on_secularity_and_conspicuous_religious_symbols_in_schools#Law_creation_and_interpretatio ns

It's pretty recent - 2004. It created lots of controversy, both in France and abroad.

The proposed ban was one of the most controversial political issues in France for several decades, with both sides of the political spectrum being split on the issue.

[Ibn Warraq]

I'm not sure if I understand properly what you mean.

The restriction on wearing noticeable religious symbols in school isnt something recent, it is quite tied to the concept of laicité. It clashed with some Muslims in the late eighties because there were more of them going on the recrimination and affirmation of their faith road. But school isnt the place for that.
It targeted the headscarf simply because as late entry to the laicité game, it hadnt been through the grinder yet, like Christianism or Judaism (that said, I think I had some fellow students that had kippahs).

So, if you're talking about the headscarf, it is an old thing now, and quite accepted.
I thought you were talking about the recent burka ban.

Which was it?

What are you talking about.

The bigoted banning the wearing of the Hijab from schools is less than ten years olds.

As you note, the French never had problems with Jewish student wearing Kippas but they got absurdly upset at the thought of Muslims wearing Hijabs.

[Capitaine Zombie]

I'm talking about this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_law_on_secularity_and_conspicuous_religious_symbols_in_schools#Law_creation_and_interpretatio ns

It's pretty recent - 2004. It created lots of controversy, both in France and abroad.

It seems to have created far more controversy outside of France than within. In effect, it just translates the decisions of the Conseil d'Etat (the late eighties case I was refering to) into the law. You may feel that it was entirely targeting Muslims but since it applies to all (you cant no more wear a kippah in school than a veil), at the very least, regarding how the law is applied, it applies to all in the same way. It is limited to school (no proselytism in school is definitely at the heart of the concept of laicité). The wiki page is a bit full of shit, if you dont mind me saying so. In the end all the major parties voted for it. Kind of hard to recognize that and say "It was one of the most controversial political issues in France for several decades".

The burka ban greatly expanded on this though, as the ban applies to any public place. And that's a problem in French law, bans usually need to have some restrictions either in time or space.

[simster]

While I don't have a problem with the law being discussed in this thread, I think that's a judgment we can only make in context. If a law is written to apply to everyone but has a real impact on only a small group of people, the law can still be discriminatory. We had that discussion during some of the recent debates about same-sex marriage. A law that prevents everyone from marrying a person of the same sex applies to all citizens, but it still discriminates in a manner a lot of people consider unfair.

Agreed -

[Marley23]

You may feel that it was entirely targeting Muslims but since it applies to all (you cant no more wear a kippah in school than a veil), at the very least, regarding how the law is applied, it applies to all in the same way.
Of course, there were exceptions for small religious symbols, and it couldn't be helped that some groups often use small symbols and some don't - and that the headscarf wasn't one of the small ones. C'est la vie I guess.

[Capitaine Zombie]

Of course, there were exceptions for small religious symbols, and it couldn't be helped that some groups often use small symbols and some don't - and that the headscarf wasn't one of the small ones. C'est la vie I guess.

I was wearing a hamsa when I was a kid, nobody gave me any shit about that. Laicité trumps everything.

[Marley23]

Laicité trumps everything.
That argument isn't credible when there are exceptions for some religious symbols and not others.

[Capitaine Zombie]

That argument isn't credible when there are exceptions for some religious symbols and not others.

I dont think you understood my previous post (if what you meant is some religions' symbols are authorized and that of another are not).

[Marley23]

I dont think you understood my previous post (if what you meant is some religions' symbols are authorized and that of another are not).
I fail to see the relevance. Small crosses and stars of David (and hamsas, you say) are acceptable under the law and headscarves aren't. How is that in keeping with a secular society?

[Capitaine Zombie]

I fail to see the relevance. Small crosses and stars of David (and hamsas, you say) are acceptable under the law and headscarves aren't. How is that in keeping with a secular society?

Well I really dont see how a secular society would have any problem with banning religious symbols, either discriminately or indiscriminately. But laicité isnt secularism. Laicité recognizes religions, it just bans proselytism out of the public sphere. You're allowed to have your religious opinions, not make a display of it.
That said, the concept was somehow reviewed since the start of the whole headscarf affair, there's also mixed in it now the concern that kids shouldnt be used by their parents as placards for their own religious beliefs. IIRC it is ok to wear religious symbols once you get into college.
Normally, the concern for free will isnt part of the laicité concept. It's certainly becoming one now.

[Marley23]

Well I really dont see how a secular society would have any problem with banning religious symbols, either discriminately or indiscriminately.
If some religious symbols are banned and others are allowed (such as through convenient exceptions in the law), then the society is favoring some religions and discriminating against others. That's sectarianism, not secularism. Banning all religious symbols would be heavy handed and intrusive, but if it made no exceptions and expressed no preferences it would arguably be secular.

But laicité isnt secularism. Laicité recognizes religions, it just bans proselytism out of the public sphere. You're allowed to have your religious opinions, not make a display of it.
And wearing a necklace isn't proselytizing, but covering your hair is. And the issue was just recently applied to the headscarves. I suppose we're intended to treat all that as a coincidence, but unfortunately it ends up looking a lot like the French public banned headscarves from schools because they were uncomfortable with them but didn't object so much to other religious items.

[Ibn Warraq]

I fail to see the relevance. Small crosses and stars of David (and hamsas, you say) are acceptable under the law and headscarves aren't. How is that in keeping with a secular society?

Moreover, the only reason they banned kippas was because if they banned hijabs but not kippas then the bigotry motivating the decision would be pretty blatant.

As has been admitted, the French hadn't had any problem with Jewish kids wearing Kippas for decades but started freaking out when Muslims started, in large numbers wearing hijabs.

What's especially sad is that if the French had been nicer to the Muslim immigrants rather than treating them like shit they wouldn't be having such issues.

[Marley23]

What's especially sad is that if the French had been nicer to the Muslim immigrants rather than treating them like shit they wouldn't be having such issues.
That seems to be the elephant in the room. Taking us back to the broader issue, I think we've actually gone too far in granting religious exemptions to basic rules and laws. I don't think you should be able to get out of things like vaccatinations or basic sex education for children by throwing out the R-word.

[Capitaine Zombie]

I'm afraid we're talking in circles here. The law, as it is written, bans symbols based on their visibility. You can wear some Muslim symbols (I wore one as a kid), and some non-Muslim symbols (such as the kippah) are banned. You can suspect that the whole thing springs from racism. But the law, as it is written, and as it is applied, isnt. I'm not ruling out at all that there was some xenophobia involved in the process, but the feeling that laicité was being threatened probably was a far bigger concern. You're probably going to find far more Frenches thoroughly attached to the principle of laicité that you're going to find Frenches hell bent on sticking it to the Muslims.

You said "And the issue was just recently applied to the headscarves". I dont understand. The law of 2004 just put into the law what was already the practice, at least it cleared things up and didnt restrict itself to purely Muslim symbols (the Conseil d'Etat decision was focused on a specific case, involving Muslim girls).
So, I dont really understand what you mean by saying that it just recently applied to headscarves.

[Ibn Warraq]

I'm sorry but anyone who tries to claim that this law wasn't inspired by xenophobia or only "may" have been inspired by xenophobia is in denial.

French lawmakers never had any problems with Jewish kids wearing kippas for decades. They only had problems with the idea of religious headgear when Muslim women started wearing the Hijab in large numbers.

The only reason the current law covers Kippas is because there's no way the could ban Hijabs but not Kippas without making the bigotry motivating the law blatant.

[tomndebb]

Capitaine Zombie, I am afraid that given that the issue under discussion is French, I find the words of Anatole France regarding the law in its majestic equality to be quite apropopriate. :p

[Malthus]

I'd express my conclusions differently - way I'd put it, the express "harm" allegedly being addressed (the prevention of religious postheletization in schools) isn't significant enough, or reasonably enough connected to the measure taken (in this case, effectively, banning head-scarves, or rather 'larger more obtrusive religious symbols' of which the head-scarf is the single most obvious and clearly the motivating target).

That's the difference, to me, between the french head-scarf case and the cops-and-veils case: there is more of an air of reality to the "harm" alleged, where a cop can't see the face of the person s/he's interviewing.

This method of analysis has the benefit of not requiring any conclusions concering the bigotry, or lack of bigotry, of the motives of those proposing the measures ...

[Apollyon]

That's the difference, to me, between the french head-scarf case and the cops-and-veils case: there is more of an air of reality to the "harm" alleged, where a cop can't see the face of the person s/he's interviewing.What about in the middle ground of a situational "ban" on all face obscuring wear?

NZ banks have signs that require anyone entering to remove motorcycle helmets and balaclavas. Should this apply equally to veils, whether Islamic or not?

I realise banks aren't the government; does the answer change if the signs are on a courthouse?

I do understand Marley23's concerns about apparently equal laws that are actually discriminatory... but at the same time I'm not happy with the idea that religion automatically gets a free pass.

[Malthus]

What about in the middle ground of a situational "ban" on all face obscuring wear?

NZ banks have signs that require anyone entering to remove motorcycle helmets and balaclavas. Should this apply equally to veils, whether Islamic or not?

I realise banks aren't the government; does the answer change if the signs are on a courthouse?

I do understand Marley23's concerns about apparently equal laws that are actually discriminatory... but at the same time I'm not happy with the idea that religion automatically gets a free pass.

I don't think religion should get an automatic "free pass". I think any person, religious or not, should be accomodated in their sincerely held personal choices rather than harassed for them, as long as that accomodation is "reasonable" - that is, doesn't impose unreasonable costs on the persons being asked to do the accomodation.

The inquiry really has two stages: (1) is the prohibiton or requirement whose enforcement is being sought really necessary to prevent some actual harm or problem ("actual" meaning one severe enough to justify the prohibition)? and (2) is it possible to reasonably accomodate someone's personal choices through alternative measures, if they contravene the prohibition or requirement?

[RaleighRally]

Assuming I'm correct about the salient points of the new law and its requirements, is it racist?
Yes it is according to the theories of cultural Marxism (aka political correctness).

But that said, I think that the lofty idea of "the war on racism" is gradually turning into a hideously false ideology. And this anti-racism will be for this century what communism was for the previous century.

[bengangmo]

What about in the middle ground of a situational "ban" on all face obscuring wear?

NZ banks have signs that require anyone entering to remove motorcycle helmets and balaclavas. Should this apply equally to veils, whether Islamic or not?

I realise banks aren't the government; does the answer change if the signs are on a courthouse?

I do understand Marley23's concerns about apparently equal laws that are actually discriminatory... but at the same time I'm not happy with the idea that religion automatically gets a free pass.

Yeah - and this requirement is very easy to understand from a security and identity point of view.

There are also quite easy workarounds if you understand WHY the veil is worn - the easiest is simply being served by a female personal banker in a private room and / or using the ATM.

But I'm with you in spirit - to me, faces should be shown in DL style ID, and if a cop requires it, the "suspect" must lift the veil to prove who she is. Naturally though there is a "reasonable" requirement - such as, could she wait until a female officer is there and they are in a private space, or must it be done right now?

[Hypnagogic Jerk]

Moi? I'm not playing coy, but I can't recall criticizing 'Quebecers' in another thread (the one that earned me the "racist" epithet was, maybe, 10 or 11 years ago - is that what you're referring to?)
Yes, you. In this Flying Dutchman thread from last year. The OP was complaining that Quebec women, when having their health card photo taken (a time when they need to remove their veil to ensure their identification), wouldn't be guaranteed access to a female clerk, but might have to come back at another time when one would be available. Or remove their veil in front of a male clerk. You posted this:
Correct me if I'm wrong (be gentle, please), but why does this type of 'confrontation' seem to be so much more frequent in French-speaking places? This particular one is happening in Quebec (and there are others there (http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news/story.html?id=caf95c44-735f-4ee9-b905-c3473cd31609&k=70626), too) and I'm sure you've heard about the similar brouhahas (http://www.independentcollegian.com/2.10031/france-s-new-oppression-1.1330118) in France. Is this just my imagination or is this type of intolerance genuinely more common in French-speaking areas?

My sense is that among all the more common major languages, French is the most insular. In other words, TPTB in French-speaking areas seem to make a point of resisting the inclusion of words from foreign languages into contemporary French. Instead, French equivalents are devised and their usage 'enforced'. In a similar vein, in Quebec at least, public display of foreign languages (e.g. on signs, labels) is officially prohibited or severely restricted (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_dispute_over_Quebec%27s_language_policy).

What I am getting at, of course, is that whether its language, niqabs, or yarmulkes, French speaking peoples seem unduly close-minded. YMMV.
But now in this thread's OP, you say this:
Please take a look at this article (http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/1022647--muslim-women-to-remove-veils-at-police-request-if-australia-law-passes?bn=1#article) from the Toronto Star. It describes a proposed new law in Australia that would compel women whose face is covered by a veil to show their face to a police officer if requested to do so by said officer. Assuming I'm correct about the salient points of the new law and its requirements, is it racist?

Personally, I think it is most definitely not racist. First, as I understand it, women covering their face in Islam is a cultural tradition not a religious dictate. Second, the woman will need to show her face only briefly, only to police, and only (like all "search and seizures") when the officer has good cause to require her identification. Third, and most importantly, is that the proposed law will avoid a repeat of the debacle that occurred to provide its impetus.
So now you see no problem with requiring veil-wearing women to remove it to identify themselves (presumably even if they have no immediate access to a female officer). Of course Australia isn't a "French-speaking area" to use your terminology, so perhaps you're more patient with them and more willing to concede that they're acting in good faith.

As for your being accused of racism for comments about Quebec, I don't know what that was about and I probably won't try finding it. (Oh, who am I kidding? Of course I'll search for it, as soon as I find the time. ;)) To be honest I thought you were talking about this thread from last year. But if it was 10 years ago, then I guess not.

Now as for the sub-discussion about the ban on religious symbols in France, I think Capitaine Zombie and the other participants are speaking past each other. The Capitaine and the other French posters can correct me, but as far as I know there is a big difference between how France and other countries (especially the US) view the place of religion in the public sphere. France guarantees you freedom of worship, but religion must always remain a private affair. Even wearing religious symbols when you're in a government-mandated setting (studying, or working as a public servant, etc.) is frowned upon, and (as the Capitaine's posts tell me) seen as tantamount to proselytism. This is the difference between "large" and "subtle" religious symbols: the large ones can't be missed, so you really express something to the world when you're wearing them. The subtle ones are more private. They are for you alone.

Personally, I'm more sympathetic to the American or Canadian (and I assume Australian etc.) philosophy which is that religious symbols you wear on you are a private expression of your faith. But of course this means that the government doesn't have a duty to accommodate the wearing of them. It can do so, but only if it serves the public good and doesn't cost too much upon us. If it isn't unreasonable. And I'm also not willing to condemn the French position as racist or xenophobic. It's based on a sound philosophical basis, only one that I disagree with.

(And also, Capitaine Zombie, and the other French posters I've seen use this terminology: as far as I know "Frenches" isn't a word in English. You say "Frenchmen" or "Frenchwomen", or "French people".)

Yes it is according to the theories of cultural Marxism (aka political correctness).
Aren't you tired of blaming everything you disagree with that has to do with Muslims on "cultural Marxism"? I'm starting to wonder if you're a bot.

[Malthus]

Now as for the sub-discussion about the ban on religious symbols in France, I think Capitaine Zombie and the other participants are speaking past each other. The Capitaine and the other French posters can correct me, but as far as I know there is a big difference between how France and other countries (especially the US) view the place of religion in the public sphere. France guarantees you freedom of worship, but religion must always remain a private affair. Even wearing religious symbols when you're in a government-mandated setting (studying, or working as a public servant, etc.) is frowned upon, and (as the Capitaine's posts tell me) seen as tantamount to proselytism. This is the difference between "large" and "subtle" religious symbols: the large ones can't be missed, so you really express something to the world when you're wearing them. The subtle ones are more private. They are for you alone.

Personally, I'm more sympathetic to the American or Canadian (and I assume Australian etc.) philosophy which is that religious symbols you wear on you are a private expression of your faith. But of course this means that the government doesn't have a duty to accommodate the wearing of them. It can do so, but only if it serves the public good and doesn't cost too much upon us. If it isn't unreasonable. And I'm also not willing to condemn the French position as racist or xenophobic. It's based on a sound philosophical basis, only one that I disagree with.



I don't think this accurately states the American/Canadian position, which is, essentially, that folks ought to have the freedom to wear whatever symbols they want, absent some compelling reason why they should not, which always has to be justified by the government: this is part and parcel of the freedom of self-expression, in addition to the freedom of religion.

Thus it is not the case that: "... the government doesn't have a duty to accommodate the wearing of them. It can do so, but only if it serves the public good and doesn't cost too much upon us ...". Rather, the government must make a case as to why it ought to have the power to enact the ban in the first place. The question is, what compelling reason is there to ban the thing the government wants banned? Once this question is answered, then the issue of whether some "reasonable accomodation" can be reached - one that doesn't infringe too much on individual freedom.

The French position allows the government powers to restrict individual freedom in favour of a social policy. The argument is that they are just pursuing this social policy, and are not thereby being bigoted when they require Muslims to adhere to it. The counter-argument is that the social policy wasn't triggered by non-Muslims wearing symbols, like kipahs. I make no comment on that, only to note that the whole notion of allowing this sort of government power over individuals in the first place strikes many, at least in North America, as not a good idea, whether it is triggered by bigotry or not (the point here being that it is easy to abuse - which is why the distrust of government powers over the individiual exists in the first place - and, arguably, it is being abused in this instance).

[Hypnagogic Jerk]

Thus it is not the case that: "... the government doesn't have a duty to accommodate the wearing of them. It can do so, but only if it serves the public good and doesn't cost too much upon us ...". Rather, the government must make a case as to why it ought to have the power to enact the ban in the first place.
I'm not talking about banning anything. But if, say, a woman wants to have her identity card picture taken while wearing a full-face veil, and the rules state that a person's face must be clearly visible on identity pictures, then she is the one who's asking for something special. The rules aren't "banning" her wearing her veil while having her picture taken.

[Malthus]

I'm not talking about banning anything. But if, say, a woman wants to have her identity card picture taken while wearing a full-face veil, and the rules state that a person's face must be clearly visible on identity pictures, then she is the one who's asking for something special. The rules aren't "banning" her wearing her veil while having her picture taken.

You were, I thought, talking about "... the sub-discussion about the ban on religious symbols in France ..." [emphasis added]. Were you changing the subject between paragraphs?

In any event, the same analysis applies. In the case of ID cards, the government has a clear and compelling purpose in restricting personal freedom: that the wearing of personal religious garb prohibits identification. Since no reasonable accomodation can be reached, in that case (quite unlike the example of the "ban on religious symbols in France") the restriction - removal of the veil - is justified under this analysis.

[gonzomax]

An ID photo taken in a veil is not an ID photo. The rest of us can be identified by the police. What makes them different ? If they do not want to have a drivers license photo without a veil, they should not be allowed to drive. A passport photo should have the veil removed too.
I understand religious objections, but when their belief makes an ID not an ID, a price has to be paid. A decision has to be made. If you want the right to drive a car, you need a photo ID that actually can identify you. It is your choice whether you drive or not.
Anyone in the family can wear your veil and drive illegally if they choose to. I am not saying that it happens, but it certainly can.

[Capitaine Zombie]

Now as for the sub-discussion about the ban on religious symbols in France, I think Capitaine Zombie and the other participants are speaking past each other. The Capitaine and the other French posters can correct me, but as far as I know there is a big difference between how France and other countries (especially the US) view the place of religion in the public sphere. France guarantees you freedom of worship, but religion must always remain a private affair. Even wearing religious symbols when you're in a government-mandated setting (studying, or working as a public servant, etc.) is frowned upon, and (as the Capitaine's posts tell me) seen as tantamount to proselytism. This is the difference between "large" and "subtle" religious symbols: the large ones can't be missed, so you really express something to the world when you're wearing them. The subtle ones are more private. They are for you alone.

Quick reread of the thread makes me say you summed that up right. Both in how we were talking past each other but also your last sentence is a better and more concise way of expressing laicité and the place of religion in French public sphere than my long posts were.

(And also, Capitaine Zombie, and the other French posters I've seen use this terminology: as far as I know "Frenches" isn't a word in English. You say "Frenchmen" or "Frenchwomen", or "French people".)

My Spider sense was actually tingling when I was writing "Frenches", I dismissed it, I should have known better. Duly noted. Though, I think I'm the only one making the mistake.
I'm wondering if there isnt a word used that would be close to Frenches, but not Frenchies, and meaning French people (Frenchmen/women sounds like I'm trying to highlight the genre, and French people sounds too long for me).
Any suggestions? (please, dont answer "Assholes" ;)).

[tomndebb]

Just French. Re-read the sentences with no final "-es" on the words and it scans fine in either Brit or Yank English.

[Capitaine Zombie]

No plural mark even if we are talking about multiple French (gah, just writing it without a S makes me cringe) ?

[wmfellows]

No plural mark even if we are talking about multiple French (gah, just writing it without a S makes me cringe) ?

It is plural already. You don't write "a French" - a single French person is a Frenchman or woman or person. Plural is French.

[Lust4Life]

In the U.K. after the Underground bombings two Islamic terrorists (male) disguised themselves as female Muslims (veiled) ,when on the run.

They were counting on police being shy of asking them to show their faces because of the hassle of being accused of racist or religious harassment.

Luckily they didn't get their way.

As to being asked to unveil only in emergencies, what would a shopkeeper be expected to do if they saw a veiled shoplifter who ran from the shop ?

They wouldn't even be able to give the police a description.

And you can imagine the screams of outrage from the racism industry,if shopkeepers refused entry to people wearing full face veils to their premises.

I recall that in Dublin when I last visited, banks had signs by the door saying that people needed to take off full face motorcycle helmets for that very (practical )reason.

As to culture, if you choose to live in, or emigrate to a country whose majority culture is at variance with yours then you must expect to adapt your preferences to those of the majority culture when called on to do so, not expect to have priveleges over and above those of the rest of the population.

If I go to Saudi I do not complain because I can't drink alcohol, I may not agree with, or like that law, it may not be a part of MY culture, but it is the majority culture of the country that I'm in and I can always leave.

Another point about pandering to various cultures is that the people who want extra priveleges because they're so deeply committed to their culture, is that they seem to cherry pick the parts they want (Hijabs etc.) while being quite happy to enjoy the benefits of the mainstream that suit them.

Even though these are against their supposedly deeply held cultural values.

As in drinking alcohol, driving and education.

You can't have it both ways.