I’m not sure I understand the distinction you’re making. In most places in the US, it’s against the law for a woman to leave the house with her breasts uncovered. In some places in the Muslim world, it’s against the law for a woman to leave the house with her head uncovered. The second is slightly more onerous, in that covering your head is in addition to covering your breasts, but it still doesn’t seem like a gross imposition on someone’s civil rights.
I assuming, for practical purposes, that almost all women would be leaving the house with their breasts covered anyway. There’s not so much practical use for a burqa.
Specifically, this is about the burqa in France. So, by that standard, the issue of the legality of the burqa in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, or Afghanistan is immaterial. Yet we’ve felt the need to bring up various Muslim countries in a thread about France. I certainly don’t think informal standards are out of bounds in the discussion and I believe they can shed some light on why France chooses to ban head scarves in certain areas or the burqa in others. When France saw that their informal methods of ensuring the population behaved in an approved French manner they decided to codify it into law.
I’m sure we have a lot of customs in our culture that have their roots in things we might find offensive today. Heck, according to one scholar the veil has its roots in pre-Islamic cultures and was more about erotica than it was about modesty.
Odesio
Sorry, my attitude sometimes gets the best of me.
Yes, I do think I know better what people want more than they do, in this instance. That is neither unprecedented nor wrong, its just arrogant.
I am positing that France can and should use its sovereignty to eliminate the barbaric treatment of women by these men.
I think the French are qualified to judge what makes a woman liberated in their own country, according to standards that I just happen to accept. You may not accept those standards, which is fine. But I’m not arguing from your point of view
When half of the followers of that religion are unable to choose freely in their own lives, that makes the religion’s default position unfree. Forcing equality may not have the effect of raising every Muslim’s freedom as a rising tide lifts all ships, but if it drops the freedom of the men to the women’s level, that is something I can accept
Oops 
Tradition can be oppressive, but its harder to ban that. To answer your question, enough women are actively oppressed by their husbands and enough women are more passively accepting of oppressive traditional roles for me to think banning the burqa is a good idea. Maybe in a few generations, when the status quo is no burqas, the French should lift the ban. Until then, I dont want any new converts or baby girls caught in such a dick-waving culture. It is oppressive, but just because the husband doesnt do it, doesnt mean its not still oppressive. I would hate to be a gay person born into some ultra religious household, or a girl born into a family living in rural China, or a black person born into a black family living in the deep South 60 years ago. The culture affects people, and even if no one is yelling at you to put it on, the fact that you think doing it is normal is bad enough
I simply believe more will be allowed to go to France, or stay in France, than be forced to leave. We’ll see.
Which they are due to their religion. If burqas are not forced on a woman, then this law and this topic would be moot. As it stands, there is a problem with oppression within that religion against one gender. Therefore by definition they are less able than European women to make up their own minds.
Maybe you and Marley are afraid I’m making the classic colonial powers argument that “We know better than they do what is good for them”. If so, then I have to say that that belief is not completely wrong. Maybe there’s a slipperly slope, but as the problem exists now, I’d rather fix this and worry about that later
Apparently enough wear it in France to make this an issue
I don’t mean you guys are pro-oppression. I was talking about the ignorant Muslim men who are pro-oppression of women
You can within a context. Besides, you’re pretty much arguing like all restrictions are bad. If you are only saying that this restriction is bad, then you cannot make such a gradiose statement such as that because in smaller scales, it works. One side (Muslim men) in this case limits the freedoms of the other side (Muslim women). To make them both more equal, we take away the power of the men to limit the women on this specific issue. Because I think more women would be happier not wear it, then I see this as increasing the freedoms of the women by a lot by decreasing the men’s by a little. Thus overall, there’s an increase, and if the law stays in place for a period until such time as Muslim men dont even consider wrapping up their women, then we can remove the law and let both sides be free to not wear burqas
Look at the rest of that paragraph in which you plucked this quote from. Mainstreaming takes a backseat to increasing equality and freedom. If the religion cannot be mainstreamed, then we restrict it in a way that its followers are all equal.
Thats a loophole that I hope they’ll eventually plug. For the moment, I’m content with the government simply seizing the burqa
Worse? Dont say that like you know for certain 
I say it would be for the better, we’ll just have to see
Murder is already illegal so such honor killings are irrelevent to the debate. Maybe these nutjob family member will be arrested before they can do anything, maybe the woman with the burqa forced on her will go into protection. Who knows? You believe one thing and I believe the other, we will just have to wait and see. Meanwhile, at least the woman are not being forced to wear something harmful to them that is essentially a leash. And if you think being demeaned isnt harmful, then you dont know anything
I’m talking specifically about headscarves here, not burqas. I’m not going to defend burqas, but something like this does not strike me as particularly oppressive.
Again, it’s not “half the followers.” Only a very tiny percentage of Muslim women are forced to wear burqas.
But the burqa isn’t what’s oppressing them. It’s the husbands and fathers who are doing it. Banning the burqa isn’t going to stop them from treating their women like property.
The problem is, there’s absolutely no logical basis for this belief. If you’re talking about a culture that won’t let it’s women leave the house without a burqa, what on Earth makes you think they’ll allow a woman to go to an entirely different country without a burqa?
That is not, in fact, at all apparent. Don’t let the fact that people are talking about a problem convince you that a problem actually exists.
No, you can’t. There is no context in which “A” and “Not A” are the same thing.
No, I don’t think we can just “wait and see,” because we’re talking about people’s lives, here. There is an undeniable danger that this law will cause a direct increase in physical and emotional harm to these women. I’m not willing to allow them to be used as guinea pigs in a social experiment that, even if it worked, is already deeply offensive to the very concept of a free society.
Oppressing women is also already illegal. Guess that makes any argument about burqas being oppressive irrelevant to the debate as well, huh? Anyway, you’ve entirely missed my point about honor killings, which was to illustrate how deeply held these beliefs about female modesty are in these cultures. If someone is willing to murder their wives and sisters over these customs, then it’s foolhardy in the extreme to expect them to just roll over and accept this ban. These people believe that no one should be able to see their women. The burqa is a compromise between this belief, and allowing their women some minimal amount of functionality in society. If you remove that compromise by banning the burqa, they’re simply going to find some other way to enforce that belief, which is going to be either incarceration in the household, or deportation back to their home nation.
Yeah, you know, I’ve actually picked up on the fact that we disagree on my own. You don’t need to keep pointing it out.
I know it isn’t half as harmful as being beaten or locked up in your house. And I know that, at least as long as their in France, these women have some legal recourse for the way their husbands treat them.
Hopefully this law will make “tiny” into “almost nonexistent”
It is one less weapon they have to legally oppress their wives
Maybe she’ll trick him and tell him she’ll be a good housewife and wear it and never leave the house? Or maybe he has to go to France and there is no way he’s leaving her in another country with men he doesn’t trust? There can be a lot of reasons, be more imaginative
Its not non-existent. Do you have a statistic on how many Muslim women in France wears the burqa? Either it’ll affect people, which is good, or it wont because they dont exist, in which case its neutral. You get a net benefit either way
It can if it leads to more reformation of the tradition that allows for great freedoms later on. I already illustrated how it may work in real life
Didnt you just imply it wasnt a problem? If its not a problem, then nobody’s being affected here. Unless you are saying that Muslim women being force to wear burqas are not a problem since its ok, in which case I would disagree with you
Not in the fashion that includes forcing a burqa on them. That is why this law is needed, because people dont see that oppression. Its just as if the Chinese still forced women to wear those tiny shoes, except the scars are less visible
I believe I already addressed that. These woman can report or hide from these fundies just like people hide from the mob. Sure the mob still exists, but better to have laws that go after them than simply let them do their thing and claim its ok because they’ve always been like that. I know thats not what you’re saying, but if these horrid beliefs are so deeply held, do you really think that your alternatives of education and westernization is going to do anything? At least I’m tackling the issue head on with a ban. You think getting these women to read books is going to change their tradition when you just said there are crazies that would simply find another way to do it? What is your solution to the crazies?
Only if they get beaten or something like that. If France did things your way, there would still be nothing they could do about being forced to wear a burqa.
I had a friend who married a Saudi, and after a couple of years they went to live on his family compound. Her only problem with the thing women have to wear was that the women’s were black, while white was reserved for the men. (The women’s didn’t have to be black, but they couldn’t be white, apparently.)
She said, first of all, wearing it was like wearing a cloak of invisibility, and she kind of liked that.
She was a feminist who didn’t believe women should be judged on their looks, so she liked that about it, too.
And finally she said that in that climate, you need that kind of protection. Sunscreen just won’t cut it. There’s also wind, blowing sand. It’s hot during the day and cold at night, and the clothing keeps your body at a comfortable temperature in both extremes. Or at any rate at a tolerable temperature. (Yeah, it surprised her, too.)
That said, the reason Muslim women wear this stuff is that’s what was worn in the culture where the religion arose, and for reasons stated above. Everybody wore it. They wore something like it before the Muslim religion. It was cultural and a response to the climate.
Kind of the way nuns’ habits were pretty much the kind of dress that all women wore in the middle ages, with subtle or obvious differences to indicate various orders.
There’s a good reason to dress like that in the deserts of the middle east, but the only good reason to dress like that in France is that you’re following your tradition.
And above I mentioned a Muslim woman I know who started routinely wearing a headscarf only once she got to America. She dresses modestly, but is not overly covered up except for the headscarf, and when she plays tennis she wears shorts and a short-sleeved top and instead of a headscarf, a visor–like everybody else. Unlike everybody else, she would change clothes and not appear in her tennis outfit anywhere BUT the tennis court.
Right or wrong, the arrogance is what dooms these ideas (regardless of how well-intentioned they are) to failure.
Wait, where did this “half” figure come from? Not all Islamic women wear headscarves, and not even close to half wear burqas.
Only because that’s exactly what you’re saying. 
A scarf isn’t oppressive. I said the attitude behind it is ultimately oppressive.
I was just disappointed that the “burkini” wasn’t nearly as sexy as I’d imagined. The bathing outfit actually looked like a throwback to the modesty of the pre-Flapper era.
This is a joke, right? You don’t actually believe this is a reasonable scenario?
Sorry, part of that got cut out by mistake during an edit. I didn’t mean to say that there weren’t any women in France who wear a burqa.
The thing is, a burqa by itself is not oppressive. If I, a non-Muslim male in America, put on a burqa, I’m not being oppressed, right? I’m just wearing a silly outfit. The problem with the burqa is when women are forced to wear it, or suffer beatings or worse at the hands on their husbands. Well, the “beatings or worse” are already illegal in France. That hasn’t stopped some portion of the Muslim men in France of using them to force their wives to wear burqas. These men are already violating the law when it comes to how their women dress, so it’s absurd to think that adding another law into the mix is suddenly going to make them start treating them better.
And if they’re not beating or coercing their wives into wearing a burqa, then these women are wearing burqas because they like wearing burqas. Which makes this law even worse, because it’s depriving adult citizens of a choice for no other reason that you don’t like the choice they’ve made. Which is fucked up beyond words.
That is so not the point I’m making. You’ve been trying to argue that a little fine or some jail time is going to make these people abandon their customs. The point of bringing up honor killings is to point out the lengths they’ll go to in following their customs.
No, you aren’t. You aren’t doing anything at all about the issue. You’re attacking a symptom, and doing fuck-all about the cause. What’s worse, you’re treatment is the social equivalent of bleeding the patient. Not only is it totally ineffective in fixing anything, it’s actually causing more harm.
Yes, that’s precisely what I think. Right now, in France, no woman has to wear the burqa if she doesn’t want to. All that needs to be done is to convince them that its okay to take the damned thing off, and get away from her husband if he’s threatening her. Banning it doesn’t help with that at all. She’s still stuck with a shitheel who will beat her if she doesn’t act “right,” and she still thinks there’s nothing she can do about it. And as a plus, she’s less likely to trust the government, because the government is treating her exactly the same way her husband does.
Yes, there is. They can take the fucking thing off and leave their husband. Both of these are currently totally legal in France.
Note the word compound. She is a prisoner in her own home and does not have the ability to drive herself around town.
Western reporters describe it differently finding it exctremely uncomfortable because the black absorbs the heat and the garment traps it. The face covering forces the wearer to breath in their own stale breath which must be a joy after eating hummis.
People who mediate the rights of the individual to enact their own religious expression in the public sphere, instead of regarding the individual’s actions as paramount in all cases, still ‘beleive [sic] in basic human rights’. They simply balance the problem differently. There is no suggestion that people cannot believe what they choose to, just that there are limits on how people act on these beliefs. Implying that the French don’t believe in human rights is an absurd and crass caricature.
Yes, inevitably it will be ‘less free’ for the individual ‘choosing’ to wearing it (in contrast to those being made to wear it), however such a law would have the effect of greater egality, and would seek to maintain the secular identity of a country, where religion is preferably confined to the private sphere and not imposed on others. Since it is obvious that you cannot differentiate those who are being forced, from those who choose to wear the burqa for whatever reason, such a law would fit the lowering tide analogy suggested earlier.
Besides this, there are numerous examples of religious doctrine outlined in scripture which are incompatible with current French, and even ‘FREE’ USA law. If this were not the case then ‘religious freedom’ could be used in the ‘free execution’ of any number of otherwise illegal and often barbaric acts. People are not ‘FREE’ to stone each other to death in line with their own belief, a technical imposition on religious freedom, but not one that many people have an issue with. Not that religious dress is in any way comparable, but where it conflicts with the freedoms that the state, rather than the individual, aspires to, there are clearly going to be issues.
Actually, I’ve gathered that on the family compound things were much looser. Her MIL drove a truck around, despite not being able to get a driver’s license.
These an underlying assumption that men are the ones who make their wives wear the burqa in France. You know, it’s entirely possible that many of the women who wear them actually want to wear them. Call it internal colonization if you want but it’s a distinct possibility.
Sounds like a gilded cage. Can she sing?
Just as the people who “mediate the rights of the people” in Thailand decide to “balance” their right to free speech below the rights of the royal family not to be insulted.
So yeah, you can be as Catholic as you want, but the moment you try attending mass, your ass will be burning at the stake before you can say “star chamber”. Sounds like a perfect reasonable law to have in “free” society to me.
Were they to pass this law (which even if it were to be enacted, hopefully will be struck down by the Europe Court of Human Rights) it would be a valid statement. It would be no more “absurd and crass” as to point out that the Thai law regarding insulting the monarch was opressive, or the Saudi Laws regarding Niqab.
No, clearly I am not arguing for the above law. What I am saying is that democratic governments should have the power to prevent the negative effects of seriously harmful cultural and religious practices. Belonging to a religion should not provide you with a veto to oppress or harm women. How far this line should extend, and how you stretch the definition of ‘harmful’, is obviously contentious, but I doubt you would be willing for your government to allow something as heinous as female circumcision or other similar practices. Freedom necessarily has limits.
Yes, obviously this is what I want. Burn all Catholics. Maybe you could burn the straw man too.
Of course the French value human rights. They are simply prepared to consider religious expression in the public sphere beyond a myopic, individualistic perspective. It is because certain people regard the burqua as oppressive that this issue is being considered. Obviously enforcing one set of cultural values in favour of another is necessarily hypocritical if you view all religious and social practices as equal, or you think your rights are more important then everyone else’s. It’s not an understanding of freedom I hold.
What is the distinction? In both cases a society has judged somone’s right to freedom of speech/religion less important that your right not be upset.
If one is just a society “balancing” the problem differently to us, why is the other a heinous infringement of human rights.
If its such a straw man explain the disctinction to me ? In a Protestant country Catholics with their bigoted inflexible latin rites and perverted celibate preisthood reporting to sinister authoritarian papacy, seem a much bigger threat to our culture than a handful of muslim women wearing shawls.
If its perfectly reasanable to ban the latter, why not the former.