I think because France has “form” on these matters.
I have a number of muslim friends, and they have mentioned in the past to me that they consider france to be a hostile place for someone to be openly muslim.
One friend worked in hospital in france and could not wear her hijab while working (I’m not sure the exact sequence of events though…I think she quit her job when they brought the rule in). And on the street she would be called names and have things thrown at her often.
It’s different for America because 1. it’s the superpower and everyone looks to what it does. 2. it espouses liberty. and 3. because it has less form with this kind of crazy stunt.
LOL
My favourite example of french “culture” craziness:
They were making a museum of video game culture. I thought “Finally: some recognition of the effect that video games have had on culture”.
But what games would they feature: the mario series, GTA, street fighter?
Nope – all the “games” were actually semi-educational titles about french history :rolleyes:
False comparisons. Sporting equipment and safety gear have specific purposes and would be questioned out of context. Beards, tanning, and other such adornments can certainly radically alter the appearance of a person but they do not prevent someone from providing very general information like age, sex, height, weight, and possibly ethnicity. The burqua on the other hand makes you a small ambulatory tent. I daresay that someone walking about in a grim reaper robe with a blacked out face screen would garner considerable attention from the authorities in most cities. The same goes for people wearing masks outside of halloween, or other appropriate venues.
France is not the place to go if you want to indulge in blatant manifestations of your “faith” (tough, I believe the more blatant you are about something, the less sincere you are). Whatever the faith.
I seriously doubt that, there are many girls with the veil in the streets, never seen any trouble arising from it. Total neutrality of religion implies that civil servants dont flash their religion to everyone they come into contact with. Apparently it is considered by some as some kind of horrible slight at liberty (whatever that word may mean in this context), I think it evens out the playing field. For everyone.
What the fuck is this “form” you keep raving about?
Sounds like total bullshit, yet again. Anything I have been reading about that museum would contradict that. Museum puts a lot of emphasis on the early days of video games, especially with displays of truly ancient consoles (and they work, so you can play some really old games there). Maybe there are some educational French games in its library, but it is clear that it is not the goal of the museum.
And, if you’re that attentive to “subculture” museums, there is a famous one devoted solely to comic books, with a lot of foreign art in it. You seem desperate to push through the idea that France is in some kind of cultural autarcy. Clearly, that has not been my experience.
But let me not step in your way to prove your point with a solid helping of bias when proofs are not there.
Let’s contemplate for a moment how France got all those Muslims.
France decided the only thing that would make France better was if there was more France, so they started a colonial empire. By an accident of geography, many of the places they attacked and subjugated were predominately Muslim. Now, France’s particular strain of empire emphasizes that overseas territories are actually a part of France. Note that this is very different than other forms of colonialism. The end game here was for colonial subjects to become French citizens, and for Algeria to be as much of an “integral part of France” (language from the French constitution at the time) as Lyons. French overseas territories were governed as “overseas departments,” and run much like overseas departments today- as a part of France that just happens to be somewhere else. French citizenship was handed out willy-nilly. Remember how if you serve in the French Foreign Legion you get a new name and a French passport? That’s what that was all about.
Anyway, that obviously didn’t work out. But during the decolonization process, France agreed to play a paternalistic role, providing direct military support and generally stewarding the new countries into independence- a system now known as the Francafrique. France plays, and has played, an extremely active and direct rolein the post-colonial period, often in a way that is open and acknowledged by all parties. In the late 1990s, they said outright that they wanted to stop intervening so directly- a promise they have only marginally kept.
So, my attitude is, boo-hoo France. You go in, tell a bunch of people that they are now living in France whether they like it or not, and then you get all pissy when they come and ask to be a part of the society that were annexed into. If they hated Muslims, they should have thought about that before making a bunch of Muslims a part of France.
Forcing any stranger to wear or not wear something is wrong (within the grounds of decency and safety, of course). No one should tell anyone they don’t know what to wear or not to wear.
Saying all women should wear a burqa is wrong, as is saying no women should wear a burqa. It should be their own personal choice.
Yes, I do believe that the net effect of banning full face coverings is to drive more women into seclusion. I’m not a fan of burqas. I don’t think they convey values that are compatible with modern Western societies. I’m not willing to go out of my way to accommodate women who wear full face coverings, in situations where they would normally be expected to show their face. But actually banning the things is a major step, one which needs more justification than just not liking the significance of the garment. I mean, they’re not obscene. And even though the women who would wear burqas might be doing so officially out of their own free will, I think there’s often a more or less unstated threat that they shouldn’t go outside without one. So if they cannot wear them anymore, they just won’t go outside. Which is also not a desirable goal, if what we want is integration.
I also don’t like the idea that, even though burqa-banning laws often don’t mention the words “Muslim”, “woman” or “burqa”, I still think that I, as a male atheist, could wear one and just explain that I’m not doing so out of any religious reason, and be left alone (unless they decide I’m a protestor and fine me anyway). It’s sexist and to me it flies in the face of equality before the law.
I understand the arguments behind the idea to ban such garments, and I think ban supporters really do believe they are being progressive and are working at fostering gender equality. I don’t think (absent more evidence) that it’s racist to believe burqas should be banned. But in this case I think the French government is passing such a law not out of any progressive concern, but out of political calculations to try to avoid being passed by the extreme right. The increasing presence of Muslims in Western societies (and the perception that they aren’t integrating and are harbouring anti-Western and extremist political beliefs, and that they may even be potential terrorists) is becoming a major political issue in many countries, not just France. Even the much more individualistic United States isn’t exempt from this current. In this context, anything that’s perceived to be telling Muslims “you must integrate”, whether it’s actually well-advised or not, will be received favourably by an important portion of the electorate.
Well, it’s possible. As you said, while plenty of people wear religious symbols in public in France, there is this idea that laïcité means that not only should the government not officially support one belief system (or belief systems in general or the absence thereof) over another, but public servants, being representatives of the government, shouldn’t show anything that indicates they favour one religion over others or over irreligion. I don’t know how the French health system works exactly, but hospital workers are kind of public employees, they certainly deal with the public in the name of the state, so I could see them being forbidden to wear religious symbols.
But to me that’s going very far. We all know there’s a difference between public employees having private religious convictions even while they’re doing their jobs, and the government actually raising a religion over others, officially. We’ve got a case like this going on in Quebec right now, with the crazy mayor of some fairly large city throwing a tantrum after a court ordered he’d have to stop holding a Catholic prayer before each session of the city council, in addition to taking down the Catholic symbols on the walls of the council room. Certainly it’s a fairly easy argument to make that holding, loudly, a prayer from an actual religious group before meetings is basically saying that the city supports this particular religion, and shouldn’t be allowed. But even the bling on the walls is harder to accuse, since it’s more of a passive religious symbol and may be claimed to be there for historical reasons. And of course nobody would have a problem if the mayor would just wear some fairly discreet (but then again there’d be a lawsuit brewing over this definition ) religious jewelry and hold a minute of silence during which people can do whatever. But in any case, if my nurse is wearing a headscarf, I don’t think the government is trying to impose Islam as the state religion.
I’ve never heard of this museum (sounds interesting, really), but yeah, I think Mijin is indulging into his prejudices about “the French”, here.
I have no prejudice about the french or any other group that I’m aware of.
It is the policies aimed at preserving frenchness, and those that vote for them, that I believe are being intolerant.
WRT the games museum, I can’t find a cite. It was a few years ago, and I don’t speak french, so my googling’s not doing it for me.
I see that last year a museum was built that does feature the genuinely groundbreaking games, and that’s definitely A Good Thing.
So, whatever, forget that particular anecdote…if the government had this misguided view of games culture, they do not any more.
Do you suppose that it is possible that some french people feel the same way that you do, and that some choose to act upon it directly?
Oh for fuck sake sven go pet a panda or something and leave Africans alone.
The Second French colonial empire actually started as retribution fro attacks, not the other way around. The Barbary states were controlless. The empire started way more by accident than by design.
2)Only Algeria was a French departement. None of the other colonies had that status. In fact, there were different scales of integration into the colonial empire. I’m ready to bet Algerians and French of Algerian descent do not make up the majority of French Muslims.
3)The colonies got their independence, nobody, except economical pressure, force them to emmigrate to France. If that works that way, do Spaniards also have that right to go and declare themselves citizens of any Arab country they wish because of Arabic Andalucia? Or does it only apply to brownies?
You got paternalism right sven, right down pat.
Who gets to decide what is within the bounds of decency? If the French consider seeing a woman in a burqa as offensive to their sensitivities as an American seeing a nude person in public, why do the latter get a pass at legislating their clothing-related sensitivities but the former not?
(and if you think being nude is not a good analogy, what if someone started wearing clothes with a huge dildo strapped to his pants and went out in public? Should that be allowed because “people should be able to wear whatever they want”?)
Finally, a question for those who are against the ban: assuming, hypothetically, that 150 of the 300 burqa-wearers in France are doing it out of their own choice and the other 150 are being forced to wear it in public, do you care more about the former 150 women’s freedoms than the latter 150?
[QUOTE=Wikipedia]
The current Muslim population is mostly due to a wave of immigration after World War II, when the number of Muslims in France surged with the arrival of an increasing foreign labor force from the Maghreb. Immigrants came from nations which maintained strong ties with French language and culture (Francophonie) because of the legacy of past colonization.
[/QUOTE]
People of Algerian descent do, in fact, represent the largest bloc of French Muslims, followed by people of Moroccan descent. The goal for all colonies was always to become departments. Illegal immigrants represent a very small portion of French Muslims, so small it is not worth talking about. Another relatively small portion descends from Turkey and Asia.
The vast majority of French Muslims descend from former colonial subjects, many of whom came to France legally under the regulations that France willingly and freely set up during the colonial period. Today’s French Muslims are largely natural-born French citizens. The portion who are recent immigrants are largely coming under family-reunion codes in order to reunite with people who came here during the colonial period. Again, this is done legally under laws that France willingly set up.
“Colonialism had no effect on anything- ever! anywhere! It just passed in and out of the night without changing a single thing” fanaticism aside, France’s Muslim population is a direct result of the colonial period. When you open up the world to France, you can’t be all that surprised when France is opened up to the world. I find it pretty laughable that France goes on and on about the soverignty of French culture- how much respect did they have for the cultures of what is now the Francophonie?
Anyway, I don’t want to couch this in oppositional terms or make it seem like some sort of battle. France has a close relationship with its former colonial subjects, and that relationship- like all relationships- has become a two way street. Both sides have come out intertwined and changed by the whole experience. French has become a bit of it’s colonies, and it’s colonies have become a bit of France. It’s not a bad thing, it’s just how it is.
How exactly were they forcing France to adapt to them? They weren’t asking for anyone to be required to wear a veil. They weren’t asking for anyone to be punished for not wearing a veil. They weren’t even trying to convert people to Islam.
Seeing people wearing a different style of clothing is something they need to learn to adapt to in France? Really?
Being Muslim and being part of the West are not mutually exclusive. Can you at least acknowledge this? They are French who happen to practice Islam. Saying they should go elsewhere and leave the West alone is like saying every Jew must live in Israel or every Buddhist must live in India. They are already home in France. They can’t leave France alone any more than any other citizen of France can leave France alone. They are millions of them who were born there, grew up there, and continue to live there. What more does it take for France to be their home?
I don’t understand. The United States did not pressure France into banning veils. It hasn’t applied any economic or political pressure in order to force the removal of the ban. The United States has nothing to do with this at all.
If you’re complaining about seeing American opinions on a largely American message board, well, what were you expecting to see?
Their own country is France. Do you really not get that? They are French. And I hope you noticed that it wasn’t the non-Muslims who lost freedom or joy with this ban.
I’m glad that you aren’t frightened over your belief that Muslims will invariably turn every nation they live in into a Shariah Law, third world hellhole?
This was a law specifically designed to target Muslims. Security issue? Didn’t McCarthy say the same thing?
I agree. Consider this: A burqa is not seen as sexual assault to the onlooker. Women can walk around topless in some countries but would not be allowed to do that here. Because of societal differences, that would be considered (in most jurisdictions) a form of sexual assault.
Are you gonna run the other way cause you saw a woman in a niqab? Damn. I must be a five foot two one hundred and ten pound tough kitty!
It is NOT strangely an American thing. The French Constitution is based on the Rights of Man. It also protects people from religious persecution. The Preamble to the French Constitution gives nod to the Declaration, which declares “the natural and imprescriptible rights of man” to “liberty, property, security and resistance to oppression”.
They are not! :smack:
These are inflammatory.
Muslims in France is a point of contention for many:
I think they do - it applies to women and children.
So my stepmom shouldn’t be Jewish because she came here after WWII with her parents?
I’m pretty sure I’m 200 per cent American…my birth mother’s family has been here since the Civil War and they still speak German at home. :o
The Muslims aren’t asking that all of France become Muslim.
You imply that any “non western” religion is a bother. Hm…Christianity and Judaism were born in the East. Are you saying it is impossible to be Buddhist and American? Or Buddhist and French? Can you be both Hindu and British? Wondering, since these non-Western religions are, you know, everywhere.
I’m not even going to get into a discussion about colonialism and expansion, but dear God, do you not get what we’re telling you? I understand you probably think all Muslim countries are alike, but for the women in question, FRANCE IS THEIR COUNTRY!
If you’re willing to accept the explanation that it prevents rape and assault (an open empirical question, as far as I know) then I* really* don’t get this angle. You’d prefer Muslim women to be raped and assaulted rather than not? Or it’s better if rapists aren’t offended for thinking about their crimes and desires?
Seems there are no French clarifying the situation on this thread. I am not French, but I will add part of the reasoning here.
If I were to see someone completely covered, I would never approach a burgaclad woman. I need direction, I’d ask the topless woman.
Okay the example is extreme, but the point is, anyone covering themselves completely, exclude themselves from that society. No one wants to talk to you and if you are burqaclad you are signaling to all “stay away from me”. France is not a society like that.
Security has nothing to do with it. If you are covering yourself, you are eliminating yourself from society. And if that’s what you are doing, you may as well live in Saudi where they do this because women have no rights. In France, women have more rights and if you are against your own society, you can stay at home.
You have no idea how much someone is or is not contributing to society. There are many ways to participate in public life besides interacting with random dudes on the street. For all you know, she is a doctor who spends her free time volunteering at women’s shelters and teaching first aid classes. By your “exposed skin=contribution to society” metric, Lindsay Lohen could be contributing more than someone who has dedicated their life to charity.
So they chose to exclude themselves from society. Is there some sort of obligation to be a part of society? Care to quantify that, rather than going on gut feelings? I have a friend who literally never leaves the house and subsisted off delivered pizza while he plays World of Warcraft. Do we also need to regulate him into getting some daylight? What about other groups that limit their interactions with other groups? I’m not into Christian Identity wierdos, but if they want to stay on their compound so they never come across a black person, I guess that is their thing. As long as you aren’t actively harming someone, I don’t see why you should have to interact with any given person in any specific way.
) religious jewelry and hold a minute of silence during which people can do whatever. But in any case, if my nurse is wearing a headscarf, I don’t think the government is trying to impose Islam as the state religion.
