If they are making their own choice, then it’s not a problem. If they are being pressured or forced, that is a whole different matter, isn’t it. Has anyone bothered to ask them?
Just wanted to point out thought, that ankle-length skirts cover the same area as long pants, and skirts and shorts can also cover or reveal equal amount of leg. Whichever your grandma choose, she would still be able to choose how much leg to show or cover with either clothing option.
Not a good analogy to burqas or nijabs whose only purpose is to hide all or some of the woman’s face.
It’s their choice. The only point I can see to the French banning is for security purposes, and even that seems weak to me. I think it’s just that the things don’t fit into what the French think is their culture or whatever…IOW, the problem is that wearing the things seems to make the wearers less French.
C’est la vie. 
-XT
What if my religion requires female circumcision? Can I still enjoy my religious freedom in your country? How about child brides? Okay? Isn’t that what a burqa symbolizes, the subjugation and abuse of women?
Personally I don’t even see it as a religious issue. It’s more like walking around in a Nazi uniform. That should be legal if it’s what you really want, but it should probably also be legal to “reserve the right to refuse service to anyone.”
If it appears wearing a burqa allows criminals and/or terrorists to hide their faces, then I don’t have a problem with them being banned, any more than I’d have a problem banning ski masks, if it isn’t winter and really cold out. At any rate, if you walk indoors but you’re still in public, you should take your ski mask off.
I don’t think you’ll get much support from this board for the burqa. But “support for X” is very different from “oppose making X illegal”.
What does an item of clothing have to do with female circumcision (forced mutilation) and child brides? I was not aware it was an “all or nothing” situation where if you allow burqa you have to allow all the other things. Besides, like I said if the WOMAN chooses, of her own free will to wear it, then why should she not be allowed? If she is somehow being compelled, then obviously it is not about her freedom to choose and that is a whole different issue.
Remember, I’m the one here who is just as firmly in support of the freedom FROM religion. It’s a strangely American thing - The belief that people are free to believe or NOT believe, as they choose, without interference from government.
The difficulties in getting uncoerced answers from women who have been brought up in a culture that demands their suppression indicates the results may be unhelpful. And should they give the wrong answers and face beating or death afterwards then only the most foolhardy would not affirm their love of the burqa.
The murder of 16-year-old Canadian teen, Aqsa Parvez, by her Pakistani immigrant father for her refusal to wear a burka or hijab has shocked and saddened the nation.
…
*Whether it is for the refusal to wear the burka/hijab, or to follow other religious obligations, deaths such as Asqa’s occur in Islamic countries on a regular basis. The UK’s Sunday Times reported on December 16th that 48 women have been killed in Basra, Iraq in the last six months for “un-Islamic behavior.” The actual number of these incidents is likely to be much higher since many of them go unreported. Red graffiti in Basra warns women, “Your makeup and your decision to forgo the headscarf will bring you death.” In Pakistan, an estimated 1,500 women die from honor killings every year. People in those countries hardly make a fuss about it. *
…
On 1 November 2006, Riaz Ahmed, a British immigrant from Pakistan, burned his whole family alive (his wife, 39, and their four daughters, 3-16 years of age) for their Western lifestyle and his wife’s refusal to arrange marriages for their daughters.
But it’s not up to what muslim women want, it’s up to the French to decide what they want in their country: they are not imposing this law upon muslims in their own countries.
And even if every one of those women stated yes, they want the right to solely wear such clothes for modesty, it would not alter anything since choice is not the determinant of law. Ingesters of crystal meth if polled would declare it should be legal; habitual speeders feel they should be permitted to drive at 100mph in a built-up area; Honour Killers want the right to adjust their family differences undisturbed by busybodies. Laws may be silly, and one may decide to break those one considers silly, but the ordinary people affected by laws aren’t ever the ones who get to make them.
This is almost akin to reverse racism. We have people in France who take a glance at the muslim faith, and people in the French government(probably mostly women) are just aghast at how the muslim men are repressing women and forcing them to take part in all sorts of customs that women “despise”. They think it represents repression and fear, and yet, I doubt nearly any Muslim women(certainly those in European countries, maybe not so much in some areas of the middle east) would ever say that their burqa is a representation of fear and oppression.
It kind of makes me laugh, because generally the people spouting off about the wretchedness of customs such as the burqa will then turn around and explain to people how horrible it was for the big bad Imperilists of the Age of Exploration to show up in certain areas and tell the natives how all their customs were evil and wrong.
I thought we were talking about France, which is a fairly civilized and modern country, not Iraq or Afghanistan or any other country. Or is France now making everyone elses laws?
We were talking about France, were we not? Last I heard, they already have laws against honor killing and vendetta and murder in general.
Your agrument is like saying “we can’t have free elections in the US because elections were rigged in Stalinist Russia” or some such. It’s a false comparison. We are talking about the French, not some Shariah law third world shit hole.
Not to sound like an ignorant tea partier redneck here, but I have the distinct feeling that if the United States passed a law banning burqas, the outrage would be worldwide.
So, why isn’t the world at large screaming about France’s horrendous insensitivity and stark show of intolerance? Or am I just an unsophisticated American who can’t understand these things?
Except they are imposing this law on practicing Muslims in their own country. Unless you honestly believe it’s impossible to both believe in Islam and hold French citizenship, France is their country.
Muslims are not some great “other”, they are citizens of France, USA, Canada, UK, or where ever they happen to live.
And as an “free” country I’d think it was the right of every French citizen to decide for themselves what they want to wear. Yes, it’s terrible if they are forced to wear a burqa, but it’s just as terrible to force them not to wear a burqa if that’s their decision.
Strawmen about female circumcision or child brides are just that. As is anything comparing acts done to children to wearing a burqa. The point is that consenting adults are free to make their own choices in life, regardless of whether or not you think they are the right ones.
My point was that there are limitations on freedom of religion. “I support freedom of religion” doesn’t mean much when we get down to particulars.
I’m old enough to have been punk when it first manifested, so I naturally think people should be able to wear or not wear pretty much whatever they want. But…
The ski mask thing. I could see banning certain types of clothing, in some circumstances, just like I can see banning public nudity in places, but maybe not others.
What about the KKK white sheet look? Should it be banned? I don’t know. Could it be banned? I think if it starts causing problems, then yes.
Does anyone have a link to the actual law? I’m guessing that the only thing that really could be banned is the actual face covering. Else, how could they ban “long, flowing dresses”? I burqa with the face cut out isn’t all that different from a traditional nun’s habit.
Depends on what country you’re talking about. France has a different view of religious freedom than the US. They place the importance of secular integration above individual religious freedom. The US doesn’t. I can’t see that you could ban a KKK outfit in the US, as it’s a form of speech. You could probably prevent public school kids from wearing it on campus in the US, but not adults (or kids) wearing it in general.
And this, along with the examples you quoted before, is why this ban is such a horrible, horrible idea. If you have a man who’s willing to murder his wife, rather than allow her to appear outside without a burqa, what makes you think that outlawing the clothing is going to modify his behavior? Do you think Aqsa Parvez’s father, faced with such a law, would throw up his hands and say, “Okay, go ahead and wear a mini skirt?” Or do you think he’d either attempt to imprison her in their home, ship her back to Pakistan, or just murder her anyway?
For a great number of Muslim, France is their own country. You are aware, I hope, that “French” and “Muslim” are not mutually exclusive designations?
You also seem to be taking the position that, if the French want to have this law, it’s not the business of anyone outside of France. Which is an interesting principle. I wonder how strictly you adhere to it. If I, as an American, should not criticize a French law that says a woman may not wear a burqa, am I similarly constrained from criticizing a Saudi Arabian law that says a woman must wear a burqa? More to the point, is that a restriction you, personally, observe when it comes to discussions of laws in oppressive Islamic theocracies?
No, but if the purpose of this law is to protect these women, the fact that they do not seem to want this protection should be taken into account.
I don’t have the actually law, but you’re correct. It’s specifically face coverings and applies to both genders.
That is my understanding as well, and I don’t mind saying good for them. As far as I’m concerned, it’s nothing more than a security issue.
You know what. If someone doesn’t feel comfortable exposing part of their body, then reasonable accommodation should be made.
From my understanding showing one’s face to certain, albeit popular, schools of Islamic thought is the equivalent of western women going topless.
Now I agree topless women society would be great to behold, but it would be a jackass thing to enforce it by law. I’d go so far as to say it’d violate certain inalienable rights of dignity, and control of one’s body.
Yes I agree the covering your face thing is stupid, but that’s because I was raised among a people who don’t have those prohibitions. And by encouraging Islamic women to interact with people who don’t have those prohibitions, society encourages them to see their faces aren’t shameful.
Where as the current state ordered de facto disrobement encourages them to stay inside and never achieve that personal growth.
I agree, except in this case the garment in question prevents anyone from determining* anything at all *about the wearer. Age, sex, even basic things like height and weight (with the exception of extreme cases in either category). They cannot be indentified by anyone if they simply took off the garment. The total anonymity is simply too dangerous to be tolerated in peaceful times, much less when it is linked with a religious culture that is currently indulging in violence and terrorism. Respecting religious freedoms and tolerating others does not mean I have to place everyone else at potential risk.
Eh. You could say the same about what most people wear in Vermont in Febuary.
Plus, if you want to disguise yourself, wearing a Burka in Paris is probably not exactly the way to go. As the article says, there are some 300 wearers in a country of 60 million, if you want to actually commit some nefarious act, you’d probably want to just throw on a hoodie and some shades rather then something that would make you stick out like a sore thumb.