For my part I’m kind of unwilling to accept a definition of “France” and “French” that is mired in the 1970’s or any other era. The culture of Morocco is not the same as the culture of Syria and if everyone in France converted to Islam tomorrow it would have the culture of neither. It would in fact be “French”, because that would be the new France. Why in the world would you believe that everything would become a homogeneous blob?
But no culture is static - that’s a fallacy. American culture is very different from what it was in the 1950’s, which was very different again from the 1850’s. In the early 1900’s 6% of the U.S. population got their primary education in German.
For 200 years the ruling class in England spoke French as their first language. Are you pissed off at Edward I for throwing off two centuries of established tradition and adopting English as an official language?
And lest you think the above examples silly, I offer the most direct rebuttal to the idea of preserving “France” as is - the French central government has for the last 200+ years been trying their damnedest to suppress all diversity in France and homogenize all but one purist definition of uniqueness right out of the country:
The new ideology was expounded in the Report on the necessity and means to annihilate the patois and to universalise the use of the French language. Its author, Henri Grégoire, deplored that France, the most advanced country in the world with regard to politics, had not progressed beyond the Tower of Babel as far as languages were concerned, and that only three million of the 25 million inhabitants of France spoke Parisian French as their native tongue.
Whither Alsatian German, Breton, the myriad Occitan dialects? All dieing on the vine due to the persistent attempts by the French state to snuff them. Vergonha.
Why wouldn’t you want to preserve that unique French character? Was France less “French” then? I say we should not be satisfied with France until only 10% of the population speaks Parisian French, just like it was back in the good old days :).
Thanks for that link Blue Mood. As I thought, the burqua is the one with the netting or mesh in the viewing portion.
It doesn’t look to me like the niquab or hijab obstructs the vision (the niquab reminds me of a nun’s headwear). These are the kinds of headwear that I remember some students wearing when I was at university. They never had any problems walking into things or crashing their cars.
France could have so easily avoided the whole “Muslim” part of this in the original statement of the law, by just making it illegal to cover your face.
Again- there are situations where covering your face is appropriate.
Motorcycle helmets with visors while riding
Balaclavas in cold weather
A medical face mask if you have a condition you do not wish to spread, or have a weakened immune system and do not wish to be exposed to infections
Halloween masks
Masks as part of a costume required for work (say Mickey Mouse at EuroDisney or a surgeon)
Simply have a law that you cannot drive or operate heavy machinery while your vision is obstructed and that it is an offence to keep your face covered when an official has asked you to uncover it, briefly, for the purposes of identification.
Again, a law which says that covering your face for religious purposes is illegal, but you can for entertainment, health and safety or just because you want to is rather illogical- again Fatima couldn’t wear her niqab at work, but should she be a surgeon, she could cover her face with a medical mask at work.
Bloody stupid idea. What do they imagine will happen to the women who wear the veil? Will they start walking around uncovered? No - either because of personal principles or due to family pressure they’ll end up not being able to leave the house.
And it certainly could count as racist, because the wearing of the veil is due to cultural practice, not religion. It would be a law that would primarily (almost exclusively) affect people with specific ethnic origins. I doubt it would be allowed under EU law.
That doesn’t mean the niqab is suitable for all situations, and the burqa is suitable for even fewer, but that’s a different matter.
It depends on how bad you vision is without the glasses. Many dudes I know can even drive w/o their glasses. In that case, the lack of lensed peripheral vision would not be too dangerous.
Why give even an inch to a brutally violent and intolerant religious base? Why should I exhibit tolerance, when their desire is change the US/Western Europe to meet their needs, rather than change and adapt as other immigrants have done for centuries?
That said, I don’t know the wording of France’s law. But the niquab, hijab, and burka in the US should fall under the same restrictions as the KKK have on wearing masks in public as well. If your face is fully uncovered, I don’t care what you do.
That’s the thesis of Reflections on the Revolution in Europe by Christopher Caldwell. More specifically, that by the end of this century Europe will be majority Muslim. For those interested in wikiing, the term is ‘Eurabia’. Public reception of the book has had some praise by the right/nativists, but mostly criticism for a lack of understanding of how demographics and population statistics work.
Newsweek.com, “Dispelling the Eurabia Myth: Why Fears Of A Muslim Takeover Are All Wrong”
That’s the thing about American Muslims: They already are integrated, or the vast majority anyway. They earn above median income, tend to vote conservative, eat apple pie and play Baseball.
In fact, European Muslims are actually more integrated than thought, at least according to this Gallup poll.
Where they had least confidence in the police and government? France.
As the links I’ve provided have shown, this statement isn’t accurate.
Er, there aren’t legally binding Sharia courts in the UK. They can act as arbitrators of some sorts of disputes (to do with business contracts mainly), like any arbitrators can, but they’re not ‘courts’ as we think of the word. There are legally binding Jewish courts, though - guess that means the UK is losing its identity to Jewish culture.
A few of the comments on this thread make me wonder if the writers have ever even met a single Muslim, so prejudiced and ill-informed are they. It’s stunning that people can express a view on people wearing a hijab without even bothering to find out what a hijab is - and that it’s irrelevant to this proposed law. Seriously. This site’s supposed to be about fighting ignorance, not displaying it.
The burqa’s not quite as it’s been presented on this thread, either. Only Saudi Arabian burqas have eye meshes. The black (and sometimes white) burqas I see some women wearing where I live have fairly large eye coverings. As it says on Blue Mood’s excellent link (in French, TBF), that’s the kind of burqa worn in India and Pakistan, and it’s also the Bangladeshi form, though it’s not very common for women to wear it.
Since you’re vaguely calling out potshots on those who refuse to back down toward religious extremism, I’ll take you and your boatload of shit on. I am half Kashmiri, so I’ve met plenty of Muslims in my life. (Go ahead, I’ll wait till you look at the Doper picture site to make sure I look it. Got it? Good. Moving on.)
One of my closest friends growing up is half Pakistani, and was raised Muslim. One of my suitemates (two dorm rooms that share a bathroom is a suite) at a summer pre-college program was Muslim - I believe we disclosed our ethnicities in the application process, so I wonder if our grouping was intentional. I should note that all of my close Muslim friends either have or are in the process of renouncing the religion, on the basis of its absolute absurdity and treatment of women.
But saying that a hijab is a way of a woman “expressing” herself is beyond bullshit. It’s oppressive, it’s shaming for the wearer, and it’s asinine to think otherwise.
I absolutely loathe how well-meaning “liberals” think that calling out Islam for the human rights abuse is reprehensible, while simultaneously mocking, Christianity, pointing out how the lack of birthcontrol in Catholic countries has affected their development.
Outward expressions of religion have no place in a secular society. That said, a small gold cross or a headscar are both 10000x less obtrusive than a burqua - which, just because scifisam2009 has never seen them in his corner of purgatory, doesn’t mean they don’t exist. I see them at the grocery store at least once a month, and I don’t live in Dearborn.
You put quote marks around that to say someone has said that exact thing. I don’t think anybody in this thread has said that women wear the hijab (or niqab or burqa) to express themselves.
The link Fuzzy Dunlapposted upthread suggests that several women do so willingly. This is unsettling -of course it’s unsettling, I completely agree the burqa is not a step forward for women’s rights, but I mention it for this reason: France’s proposed law is not to liberate women. It is more accurately an effort targeting a religious minority. I don’t think this will end well for either party. I think you’re going to find the Muslim community in France becoming even less integrated, more conservative, and with that more restrictive measures on women.
Is there anyone in this thread who has done that? I know I certainly have not. I don’t think anyone’s even mentioned Catholicism and birth control yet.
I never said that women were expressing themselves. I dislike burqas, but think that banning them would be worse. And I never said any of that other stuff that you’re making up, either.
However, I did say that I had seen burqas. I mentioned that the burqas I see do have eye slits (though I wrote ‘coverings’ by mistake :smack: - hope context made it clear what I actually meant), so not all burqas are Saudi-style with the mesh. It’s a bit odd to say that I’ve never seen a burqa when responding to a post where I talk about the burqas that I see.
Also, if you’re annoyed at me for not magically knowing your ethnic background, I should get mad at you for assuming that I’m male (I’m not. I’m also not going to hunt out a photo of you - you’re flattering yourself a little there). But I won’t get mad, because that’d be a daft thing to get mad about. Still, if you know so much about Islam it’s a bit odd that you’d say the hijab would be banned under a law designed to stop people covering up their face.
BTW, my ‘corner of purgatory’ is Bethnal Green, East London, England. You’re on a loser if you try to play ‘my area’s more multicultural than yours.’
Apologies for the lack of multiquoting (how do I do it again?)
I never said that you said that women were expressing themselves. It is, however, a common sentiment - as were the others I stated. I didn’t quote you, so obviously I wasn’t referring to you. ((Same goes for you, Skylark - no, you’re absolutely RIGHT (good girl/boy!) nobody spoke of Catholic birth control. It was a general sentiment about the irony of attitudes towards Muslims in Western nations.))
Actually I didn’t get that from the context; I now do. Thanks for the clarification. Incidentally, I mixed up (as I often do when I think of them, for some bizarre reason) niqab and hijab in my post. I meant niqab. Which does hide the majority of the face.
My background was stated to fight the utter ignorance of your last post. I don’t give a shit if you’re androgynous, either. I was obviously joking about the photo - my words are just dripping with sarcasm.
Let’s not get into a pissing match about who is more multicultural. “Mine is better than yours” is child’s play. Besides, living in a multicultural area doesn’t mean shit either - the KKK can live amongst minorities, right? I was stating my background so you stopped painting the thread with such a broad brush.
I type [ quote ] before the bit I want to separate and [ /quote ] after it, without the spaces of course.
Perhaps you sould save your ire for those who express those opinions. Not a lot of point in getting annoyed at them in a thread they haven’t posted in.
There was no utter ignorance. And ‘androgynous’? Wha? Where’d you get that from? And it was you who started a pissing contest about living in a multicultural area, and me who said let’s not!
boytyperanma hit it on the head. There are going to be times when people who wear veils/burquas need to uncover their faces or submit to a pat-down. I can’t run around in a ski mask 24/7 for the same security reasons.
It’s reasonable for government buildings or private businesses to lay down rules of attire for security or health reasons.
It’s not reasonable to legislate the kind of clothing people wear. It’s decidedly un-American and I’m flabbergasted that so many dopers think an anti-burqua law is a good idea or even that it falls into some sort of grey area.
And ‘androgynous’? Wha? Where’d you get that from? 