For what it’s also worth, many French swimming pools have had a fairly strict dress code for at least the past decade, usually stipulating that men cannot wear loose fitting shorts, and must instead wear Speedos. This is indeed due to quoted concerns over affecting ‘water quality’ due to the possibility of someone wearing them for an extended period prior to entering the pool. While the necessity of this rule is arguable, it’s certainly not a hypocritical stance to object to the ‘burqini’ on this basis. These standards were certainly in effect before this individual chose to press the issue.
Secondly, there really is no such thing as an official ‘Islamic swimsuit’, and it is as much a political statement as it is to do with what God. France has a fundamentally distinct approach to religious expression in contrast with the USA. Within the public sphere (and in publicly owned baths), someone else’s right to a secular space takes precedence over your right to impress your own particular belief upon others. This is the case for all faiths, and whilst opinions clearly differ in how liberty and egality should approached in law, to characterise this as simply another form a crude paternalism, attempting to gain support (though inevitable) from Islamophobes, it naive and somewhat insulting to the aims of a secular state.
Clothing restrictions = bad and paternalistic
restrictions on polygamy = just roll with it
if it makes you feel better that you live in the land of the free because the government here isn’t “paternalistic” or whatever, I have a question for you: do you like pots and kettles much?
Motives for the proposed law aside (which are beside the point for this discussion), you make good points. I don’t know what the answer is. I hate to turn my back on women being so subjugated. I wouldn’t mind arresting the husband or father and sticking them in a burqa in a sauna for a couple of hours at a time though.
I would likely suddenly discover that my own education had some large discrepancies in it, which would need to be filled in, beginning with my re-enrollment in kindergarten.
And I’d be sure to always being plenty of dollar bills to school with me.
We’ve got a fairly hands-off and non-religious group on this board, and I think some people are uncomfortable acknowledging the fact that not all these women are being forced into the burqa after being beaten and threatened by their husbands. I’m sure that’s true in some cases, but there are also educated and independent women wearing these things. For that matter, there are probably plenty of uneducated, not-so-independent women who wear it because they think it’s the right thing to do and not because they are being made to. Pretending the burqa is worn only by isolated, battered wives is dodging the issue.
As a side note: the paternalism comment in my first post was a close paraphrase of something from the previous thread, which Tom Tildrum quoted from a commentator. I should have made that clearer. (I assumed people would recognize it but that didn’t make any sense.)
To answer the last question first, its justified by the fact that not every Muslim man will simply jail their wives at home, beat them, or send them back. I couldn’t speculate on the percentage that would, and maybe with more information I may change my opinion, but I am of the belief that more will relent and allow their wives to go unburqa’d than not. Thus, if it helps more than it hurts, its not that bad. Plus, 2 of the scenarios (beating and imprisonment at home) are probably already illegal in France, so having the no-burqa law wouldn’t be too much more harmful than not: the men will do illegal things anyway, and this way French Muslim women can be both liberated from their religious rules AND their criminal husbands
Taking this stance prevents abuse in the long term. It may be that less Muslims will come to France. It almost may be that more Muslim women would go to France to escape pro-burqa laws in other countries. To me, its always best to stand up for a belief and possibly suffer some consequences for it than to just acquiesce. In western countries at least, those who stand in the way of progress have always come out the wrong side of history. Thus it is worse to not take that stance because it would mean continuous abuse and oppression over the long term
I believe it would eventually have practical effects in the long term. The more women enjoy the freedoms given to them by the French government to discard burqas, the more that mindset will set into Islamic populations. In the end, these women will either leave Islam or change it, both better alternatives than the status quo.
The alternative is to do nothing, thus granting Islam an unfettered license to oppress women. That is certainly to have no practical effects in the short or long term. Tyrants do not often give rights to people of their own accord, and Islam tyrannizes women in a way that many have come to passively accept
Things sometimes get worse before they get better. I think in the history of civil rights movements, at least in the western countries and territories, there is a severe crackdown in the immediate proximity, then as society sees the oppressors’ evils, public opinion shifts and progress is made. What’s the worse the women can do? Hold up signs and not wear burqas? What’s the worse the misogynist Muslim men will do to stop that? Murder, rape, torture? I have little doubt that theirs will be on the losing side
You can’t change mindset like this without first changing the conditions. If nobody pushes back on Islam, then Muslims will think what they’re doing is fine. Why not? There’s no alternative
On the other hand, if there is a movement among Muslim women and enlightened Muslim men to get rid of burqas, then people will see that there is a better alternative to the oppression that they’ve silently endured. The burqa is not a thought in someone’s head like racism. It is a tangible piece of clothing and its wearer is real. Banning it may make Muslim men resentful in their minds, but they cannot do anything about it. Let little Aiyesha grow up without her mommy in a burqa, able to drive, hold a job, and go to school, then lets see how she deals with her fiance Mohmar who wants her to wear a sack over her head. Either she’ll change his mind or not marry him
This is unfortunately, a very Bush-esque version of freedom: for starters, it’s the opposite of freedom in that you are not granting anybody freedom, you’re preventing them from doing something you are opposed to. And second, you’re assuming a heavy handed and preemptive act will be embraced and start a revolution. Recent history shows that doesn’t always work. :rolleyes:
There is opposition to the burqa in Islam and in Muslim countries. If the thing ever goes away, that will be the reason - not because of Sarkozy’s version of the White Man’s Burden. When the U.S. government banned slavery, it was an improvement but ultimately only improved conditions by so much. The civil rights movement was much more effective because it combined an uprising by oppressed people with government efforts.
Which is why I don’t really view that particular case as a huge civil rights issue. At worst its somewhat of a “grey area”, how much should respect for religious beliefs override minor health and safety regulations.
In that some people beleive in basic human rights and some people don’t.
The case of the “Burqa ban” is really quite fundamental, and clear cut. Either you society respects the rights of people to freedom of religion in which case this the idea of banning people from wearing religious regalia in public would be thrown out without a second thought (which in the US, for all its faults, it would be, even by the most conservative, Bush-appointed judge), or your society DOES NOT respect people’s right to freedom of religion and is quantitatively LESS FREE.
Well, in that case, the women can already choose of their own free will to not wear a burqa. If there’s no element of force behind a woman wearing a burqa, what’s the justification for this law? What is it protecting women from?
And again, if the current laws in France against spousal abuse are sufficient, why the need for this additional law specifically targeting Muslims? Why not let women wear what they want, and let those who are being forced into clothes they don’t like use the existing laws to get away from their abusive husbands?
That’s a pretty silly rationalization. Women who want to escape regimes that require burqas can already go to France and not wear a burqa. How would this law make them more likely to come to France?
As a matter of fact, I agree with you there. Which is why, practical effects of this law aside, it’s still a horrendously bad idea. Much as I value the concept of gender equality, I also value the concepts of freedom of religion and freedom of choice - the latter including the right to make choices that I disagree with.
Once you factor in the real-world effects this will have on the women in question, it crosses the line from just being a bad idea, to being actively sickening.
I don’t see how your conclusion flows from your premises. Or, really, relates to it in anyway.
I don’t believe, as a practical matter, that you can increase freedom by limiting it. Muslim women in France already have the freedom to discard the burqa. Strong-arming them into it does not make them more free. Forcibly inserting the government into someone’s religious practice is not an effective way of mainstreaming that religion. To the contrary, it will further radicalize it, as members of that religion become more likely to perceive the government as an enemy that needs to be fought.
You’re creating a false dichotomy. The alternative to banning the burqa is not to do nothing. The alternative is increased education, more funding for women’s shelters, and more outreach to Muslim communities. It’s not as easy as banning burqas, but it has the twin advantages over this ban of actually doing something to help these women, and of being ethically supportable.
But you yourself have argued that most husbands of women who wear the burqa are not going to tyrannize them. So what effect does this law have, other than the government thumbing its nose at an unpopular minority?
You just said that there’s no alternative to this law… and then you offer an alternative. “Enlightened Muslim men and women” working to change the mindset of their own community is an excellent way to get rid of the burqa, and has nothing at all to do with the government stepping in and mandating religious practices to its citizenry.
If you think about it is really a pretty condescending attitude to not ask that people who immigrate to take on their adopted countries customs and norms. It sort of says “that’s ok primitive brown person, we will indulgently tolerate your silly customs”. When instead, in this sort of example, the attitude should be closer to “in this country we do not hide our faces. In fact we have a pretty strong cultural bias against masks and tend to find them somewhat unnerving, so while you are here we ask you to please observe this custom of ours”. Easy peasy!
An employer has every right to tell you how to dress if you want them to employ you. Its not a heinous violation of my rights for McDonalds to say I need to wear a McDonalds uniform if i want to work at McDonalds. It WOULD BE a heinous violation of my rights for THE GOVERNMENT to say, under pain of criminal prosectution, I have to wear a McDonalds uniform whenever I go out in public.
To add context to this discussion, I think it needs to be pointed out that we’re talking about a country that banned niqab-style headscarves from state schools as part of a ban on “signs and dress that conspicuously show the religious affiliation of students”… but made an exception for small crosses.
We tolerate equally stupid customs from non-brown people, like the headcoverings worn by orthodox Jewish women. So, to adapt the words of another famous Frenchman, “I fart in the general direction of your false equivalence.”
A basic tenet of their adopted Western society is freedom of religion. You could equal well say “in this country we are protestant. We have a pretty strong bias against celibate papist clergymen and their latin mass, so while you are here please observe this custom of ours", or for that matter "in this country women hide thier faces. In fact we have a pretty strong cultural bias against unveiled women and find them somewhat unnerving, so while you are here we ask you to please observe this custom of ours”.
Some countries have said just that in the past, and some still do. Those countries are QUANTITIVELY and DEMONSTRABLY, less FREE, and more oppressive than countries that respect the rights of their citizens.
Also as several people have pointed out, the woman in the “Burqini” case WAS NOT AN IMMIGRANT!
I’m not sure what country you live in, but the one I’m from values the idea that people should be free to follow whatever customs they want, religious or otherwise, so long as they aren’t directly hurting anyone.
Personally, I look forward to seeing weddings broken up by federal agents intent on hauling off the bride for violating this law.
