I answered that it’s an ethical gray area. While I see the utility value in banning full face coverings for security & safety reasons in some locations or situations, the kind of overall ban proposed is not being done for any other reason than chauvinism.
France offers the following reason as (one) of its justifications for the law?:
Err… since when is it the government’s job to ensure that religious people are following their faith correctly?
As for my opinion: I actually think it’d be a bad law. While I believe that it’s quite rude, disrespectful and anti-social to only ever venture out in to society in such a manner that you are to some degree unapproachable, I fundamentally believe that if someone really wishes to live their life that way, it is not the government’s business to stop them. It’s like, say, people who don’t hold a door open for the person following behind them. Dickish, yes, but should it be made illegal? No.
I’m not in favour because it bans a particular type of covering. It essentially says that yarmulkes, turbans, wigs, hats, motorcycle helmets, medical face masks and headscarves are ok, but niqabs aren’t, which targets a particular group.
Seriously- if the women who currently wear niqabs started wearing motorcycle helmets with the visors down, or a legionaire’s cap and a medical face mask instead of the niqab, the letter of the law would still be obeyed, but the spirit entirely broken.
I’m against laws regulating what can be worn in public (other than ensuring that genitals are covered).
I think banning religious head coverings is a rather difficult thing to do.
Consider the following examples;
If I want to ride in a convertible and have long hair I might wish to wear a headscarf to preserve my hair-do.
If I’m shooting grouse on a moor I might also choose to wear a headscarf.
If I have lost my hair through cancer treatment or alopecia I might choose to wear a wig or headscarf.
How exactly do you legislate so that a woman can’t wear a headscarf for religious reasons, but, should that same woman lose her hair due to chemo, she could wear a scarf or a wig?
Ridiculous.
What should be done is to ensure that no one in society is felt pressured to dress in a way that they would prefer not to and that women from immigrant and minority groups are empowered within their communities and in society as a whole.
I wouldn’t have a problem with a banning of the face covering and leave it at that. If anyone else goes about wearing a mask like that in public they will find themselves being questioned by security or police toot sweet. In the interest of simple security I don’t think that banning a facial veil or covering is too draconian.
I doubt banning them is the way forward, but the wearers should be encouraged to realise how anachronistic these things are to a more open and progressive society.
They are not safe to drive in, and as a pedestrian they are not safe to seeing obstacles or cars, so on that alone they should be banned. There is a ban on masks in my city and that has held up fine in court (it excludes little kids, it is for adults) but it is only in public. I am sure any such law here would allow them to wear whatever they want once in a church, so it is not stopping their religion at all.
If you’re only following the tenets of your religion inside a house of worship, you’re doing it wrong.
I’ve wimped out and chosen “gray area” because, well, I have a problem with burqas for the same reasons others do.
But on the other hand … for these women, this is their modesty. Imagine the country you live in suddenly decreed that stalls in bathrooms are illegal, and if you wanna take a shit, you gotta do it in front of everyone. Or that all pants and underwear are illegal, and you have to run around looking like Lindsay Lohan, flashing your hoo-ha all the time.
How would you feel?
How do you think older women, who know nothing else, would feel at being FORCED to give up something that makes them feel comfortable?
Targeting a minority group that already feels unfairly treated and is prone to retaliating with violence is … a bad idea, for sure.
Don’t you think that it’s already within the power of a LEO to fine you for driving with obstructed vision? As long as it were no more limiting than a nun’s habit it should be okay. I went to university with different Muslim ladies; I never saw any of them wear head/face coverings which would prohibit them from driving. I’m not saying such things don’t exist, but I think for the safety issue we already have recourse.
My problem with all this … people are seriously going to pass a law dictating what someone can wear?? Has France turned into a high school with a dress code? I’m really having a hard time believing this is real.
Missed the edit window. Irishgirl’s comments reminded me of something else - niquabs aren’t any more vision-obstructing than those knit masks motorcyclists wear to keep warm. Shoudn’t they be banned as well then?
Everybody in France knows that Sarkozy is only pushing this law to pander to his right-wing base, much like the Republicans were pushing the gay marriage amendment five years ago.
But regardless of the motivation, I oppose the law. Sarkozy claims that the veil signifies “subservience” and “debasement”, but in certain quarters anything can be sign of oppression. While in college I was informed of the oppressive nature of everything from separate bathrooms for the two genders to anti-pornography laws. (Because, as we all know, women find pornography empowering and uplifting, except for the ones who don’t, but their opinion doesn’t count 'cause they’re too oppressed.) So trying to ban something because it’s a sign of oppression is a bad idea in my book.
Exactly. I’m an atheist, I think the veil and the burqa are bullshit to make sure Muslim women remain ‘the other’ in western society while their husbands, brothers and sons are allowed to ‘pass’ and make strides in business and education. I’ve heard Iranian friends explain their relatives’ rationale, that women are ‘Like a pot of gold that needs to be hidden or everyone will steal it!’
But I don’t see where banning clothing comes in, as far as helping anyone conquer oppression. Can’t wear the veil? Don’t leave the house! And what about those of us who choose to wear Muumuus, or put our hair up in an Hermes scarf, Grace Kelly style? WIll we get tickets? (FTR, I fully support a government’s right to see someone’s face for identification purposes, and if someone isn’t allowed to go into a bank with a motorbike helmet on I don’t think they should get in with their face covered.)
What I’d like to know is, where do nuns who still wear headpieces fit into all of this? I imagine France still has quite a few convents.
They are when they’ve got the eye gauze. I’ve worn one, and you can pretty much only make out shapes, and breathing is difficult. But remember – pot of gold!
I reckon there are distinctions between which things have the eye screens. I thought the burquas had then but the niquabs didn’t.
To be clearer, my point is that we already have laws regarding driving with unobstructed view; banning “the veil” is unnecessary. If a person insists on wearing one then they will be prohibited from driving.
Eye mesh aside (aka “what NinetyWt said”)…
Genuine question: is this significantly different than those eyeglasses with tiny lenses that are popular nowadays? (It’s one of the reasons I wear contacts instead of glasses – the lack of peripheral vision drove me nuts.)
I think this is just a small part of a much larger issue, which is France wanting to hold onto its own cultural identity and not be overtaken by another culture. I think, existentially, they have a “right” to do this. I think all the cultures of the world are unique and I would not want the unique culture and history and architecture and art and music and food of France to just gradually erode away and be replaced by Islamic cultures from Arab and African countries (or from anywhere else, including McAmerica.) France should be “French.” But of course this is a very abstract viewpoint and not one that is in enforcable in real life in any practical way.
I guess I’m not PC for saying this; I just never believed in the “melting pot” idea. I don’t want everything to just melt and become muddled; I like for unique cultural elements to remain unique.
I will say this, too, and quite emphatically: if you like stuff like easy sex with beautiful women (or men); the right to be openly homosexual or indeed the right to be openly sexual at all; smoking pot, drinking, partying; rock and roll; and otherwise having a good time, you do not want this Islamic culture to encroach upon the traditionally socially-liberal countries of Europe. As tolerant as you all may be, you don’t want to be tolerant of people who are intolerant of you. (I am similarly confounded by Israel-bashing from self-proclaimed liberals - do you really want to bash the only place in the entire Middle East where you could have a gay pride parade?)
I am baffled by the idea that France or anywhere else in Europe is being overrun by Islamic cultures. Muslims make up less than 10% of the population in France, according to Wikipedia. I don’t think the French have to give up their berets quite yet.
Statisticians and people who study demographics have predicted that the population will increase over the next few decades, fairly dramatically. I think the native European birth rates are fairly low and the Muslim immigrant birth rates fairly high - this makes all the difference. In 30 or 40 years from now the percentage is likely to be higher than 10%.
There is the possibility that the descendants of Muslim immigrants will become gradually more assimilated into the mainstream culture, you know. It happens in the US all the time - the further you get in generations, the more “American” (whatever that means) the children will be.
Also it would take quite an effort for “the unique culture and history and architecture and art and music and food of France” to be overtaken by Islam. What are they going to do, burn down the Louvre? Tear down the Eiffel Tower? Ban escargot and accordians?
I’m not saying it would happen overnight. It would take a long time. But I’m just repeating the claims that sociologists far smarter than I have already made - that the Muslim population will increase greatly. We’re already seeing things like legally binding Sharia courts in the UK, there was the Danish cartoon controversy and the murder of Theo Van Gogh, there’s been desecration of Jewish cemeteries and synagogues, honor killings - scary stuff for a lot of people, and I think the resulting “nativist” backlash is pretty understandable. People see the European governments as caving in to Islamic groups, in the name of tolerance, even though the things they’re being tolerant of are intolerant of them. Of course there’s a possibility that the descendants of the immigrants will become more assimilated, but nobody can really say for sure. From what I’ve been reading in the news, they don’t seem too eager to do so.