You’re free to fly, to turn purple, and to live on Mars. How much are freedoms you can’t use worth?
But any woman in France can access the freedom to not wear a burqa. It’s not going to be easy, by any means. And the state needs to do everything it can to help with that. But it is absolutely possible, unlike your three examples above.
And banning a burqa does precisely nothing to help. The burqa is not the problem. The problem is the attitude among men, that they have the right to exercise total control over the women in their lives, and the attitude among women, that they have to submit to that control. Banning the burqa does nothing at all to change those attitudes. All it does is create a situation in which life for the women hemmed in by those attitudes becomes even more miserable.
Banning the burqa is morally indefensible, because (as you agreed above) there is no difference in the justification for either custom. But worse than that, the idea of the law is, itself, exquisitely stupid. It will make the life of every single woman in France who wears a burqa worse. It will lead to less freedom, less opportunity, less social engagement. It’s not a rational suggestion, it’s base demagoguery at it’s worst. This law is ill-conceived, counter-productive, and contrary to the basic principals of liberal democracy.
So where’s the difficult part again?
Jesus.
Oh, don’t give me that crap. Yeah, it’s going to be hard. Leaving an abusive spouse is always fucking hard. But people do it every day. So it’s just a bit different from living on Mars, no? The state should do as much as it can to make that easier, but it can’t make you leave. That’s something you have to do on your own.
Or, is it? Hey, here’s an idea. We all agree that no one should live with an abusive spouse, right? That’s a perfectly non-contentious position, I’m sure. So why don’t we make it against the law to live with an abusive spouse? If your husband is convicted of hitting you, and you go back to him, you go to jail!
That is, in effect, what this law is about, right? The burqa is a symbol of hideous patriarchal oppression, right? So what’s the solution? Arrest women for wearing the burqa! That makes absolutely wonderful sense!
You seeing how this is, in fact, a really fucking easy question yet?
Incidentally, if you want to ignore this entire post, and focus on one sentence, I suggest you pick “That’s a perfectly non-contentious position, I’m sure.”
No, only ONE side of this debate is in favour of forcing women to obey their side of the debate. And that’s side that is proposing using the power of the law to force women not to wear Burqas, and arresting them and taking away their freedom if they don’t
There may be a few bearded fanatics how thing woman should be forced TO wear the Burqa but they they aren’t represented here (as far as I know). As far as I’m concern the two opinions are indistinguishable, and that is your simple answer:
It is totally unacceptable in a democratic society, that respects the rights of women, for the law to FORCE women to wear a Burqa in public, no ifs no, no buts its plain WRONG. The reverse also holds true, it is totally unacceptable in a democratic society, that respects the rights of women, for the law to FORCE women NO TO wear a Burqa. No ifs, no buts, its plain WRONG.
Y’know, several people have outlined other ways they think Muslim women can have their freedom increased in more meaningful ways than having the state simply make their choice for them. You’re indulging in an incredibly blinkered false dilemma in insisting that the only way to protect Muslim women’s freedom is to take it away. Moreover, you’re advocating a trite and essentially meaningless gesture that will do nothing whatsoever to increase the welfare of women who are genuinely oppressed.
I also find it very difficult to believe that anyone can have read this thread (or indeed invested any time whatsoever in understanding the anti-ban view) and come away with the idea that people who oppose a ban are in favour of women being forced to wear burqas. In case you really hadn’t understood, it’s quite simple: people should be able to wear what they want. That goes for women currently forced to wear the burqa, too. What calumny! Vile oppression!
There was no case. You climbed it was unconstitutional in the U.S. I responded that laws already existing prohibited wearing masks in public. No case was referenced.
Oh good lord. Just because something is against the law doesn’t mean the penalty is automatically prison time.
Here’s how a burqa ban should work. If you’re walking around in public in a full-body mask for no good physical reason, the police would ask you either to give a good reason (like you’re a walking petri dish & can’t come into contact with people) or at least show part of your face so we have some context with which to recognize you.
If you don’t, you can at least offer your ID card & show the officer your face. If you refuse to do that, you can be detained on suspicion of being a fugitive. Which you must be assumed to be, which is my point, whatever religious folderol is being spouted on both sides.
In which case no change of the law is required. Police have the same rights when it comes to demanding ID from people in Burqas, as they do from anyone else. If they have “probable cause” they can ask you to show ID, or search you person, and if you refuse you risk arrest. No need to ban anything.
What Sarkozy is suggesting is a BAN. That means muslim women (AND ONLY WOMEN, we have no problem with what Muslim men wear in public, as its usually western looking and does not offend our sensibilities) risk ARREST for what they choose to wear in public.
Absolute rubbish. While talking about a garment that you know full well people wear for non-nefarious reasons, you are somehow insisting that the only reasonable inference is that someone wearing it is up to no good. What ludicrous sophistry. Not quite as bad as jsgoddess’s preposterous doublethink, but certainly of the same species.
Just because you can imagine a nefarious use for something does not mean it should be banned. People trying to evade capture have used hair dye, beards, dark glasses and all sorts of other methods to disguise themselves. Do you think beards should be banned? Peroxide blondes? Do you think people wearing sunglasses should automatically be assumed to be fugitives, whatever fashion folderol is spouted by style magazines?
M Sarkozy is the president of France. He is the leader of the French. If the French community takes a different line on certain issues of personal freedom than the Americans and Saudi Arabians then that is not necessarily proof that they are wrong.
In France the ideals of social solidarity are very strong. That contrasts strongly with American ideals of individual liberty. So saying that something restricts an individual right is not an irrefutable argument in France. If a greater common good is achieved, then the common good might be more important. The common good is assessed by and within the French community, not by posters on the SDMB.
So, I’m guessing that the deputies who raised the issue which M Sarkozy was responding to were thinking along the lines of:
1 It is inconsistent with French ideals for a muslim to force the women in his family to wear a burqa.
Banning the burqa deals with this. It doesn’t stop other forms of abuse. But it does do something useful - it says that it is not acceptable to wear a burqa and this aspect of a foreign culture is not welcome in France.
I understand that in America it is illegal for a citizen to beat his wife. Still some do. However, even in America it is not acceptable to beat your wife and then parade her about the streets with two black eyes proclaiming that you have done so. You would get arrested, even though the more discreet wife-beaters are not.
2 It is inconsistent with French ideals for a woman to choose to wear a burqa.
In France you have responsibilities to society as well as rights. Wearing a burqa gives a clear signal that you are not part of the French community. (“You aren’t allowed to see me or talk to me” is pretty unambiguous.)
That is offensive and unacceptable. As a French citizen you gain the advantages of the social state - education, health care, physical security, financial security, a good environment, fine food and wine(*), the society of the French people. In practice these are inalienable, except by leaving France. You stay in France then you are accepting the French social contract, and if that bans the burqa then that’s that. You don’t like it, go and join a community you do like. (Usually, you have the option to lobby to have the rules changed, but in practice if you aren’t willing to contribute to the community’s discourse then you aren’t going to be successful.)
Again, it’s different in America. Vive la difference.
3 Refusing to leave the house without being covered from head to toe and refusing to speak to anyone but your husband is actually a sign of mental illness.
Is this too harsh? Perhaps a little, but surely wearing a burqa actually does signify there is something deeply wrong with your life. Get rid of the burqa, and the French community (best health care in the world?) has a chance to help?
You may disagree with this reasoning. I may disagree with this reasoning. But the knee jerk reaction that this approach to social life is wrong is just silly. Since the proposal has been denounced as unamerican and unislamic then lots of people will assume it strikes a good balance!
Sandwich
- yeah I know
PS Oh yes, before I forget; taking the line that my granny (and every other woman I know) is a whore because she dresses like a slut does not encourage a sense of goodwill in me. So lets keep a grip on this notion of modesty, eh?
Except when la difference is close at hand, eh?
And a damn good thing too, no “Viva la difference” about it. I’m not saying the US model of running a society is perfect in every way, it has some huge issues, and many areas that the US could learn from other societies. But this is one aspect the rest of the world could learn from the US. The idea of having a SMALL list of UNALIENABLE rights that are very hard to add, remove or change, even my a democratically elected government, is a GOOD ONE.
Of course France has signed up to the EU Convention Human Rights, so this BS would just as unconsitutional in France as it would be in the US.
Al-Qaeda is now threatening to take revenge on France for it’s anti-burqa stance. Story here.
Let me make sure I understand Sandwich’s point:
-
Americans should not criticize France for not being like America. Not every culture has to be the same - there’s room for all sorts of different societies in the world, and we shouldn’t judge a different culture for having different ideas about what’s proper behavior.
-
Except for those Muslims bastards, who can all go die in a fire.
Islamic confirmation that covering the face and hands is NOT a religious requirement:
http://www.islamicweb.com/beliefs/women/Niqab_not_required.htm
http://www.muhajabah.com/scholars.htm
Worldwide Islam does not have a pope or a potentate. There is in theory the possibility of there being a Caliph, but there has not been one for nearly a hundred years. Asking which practices are and are not required is not unlike asking whether drinking/dancing is allowed to Baptists or whether head covering is mandatory for Christians. The answer is, it is if you think it is.
Two questions:
1.) Are there actually a large number of French women (or female immigrants) who wear the burqa? Is it really an issue? I thought the use of the burqa was largely restricted to Afghanistan. Even in Saudi Arabia (which many in this thread have referenced while discussing the burqa), I thought the tradition was to wear niqab, not the burqa.
2.) Is the burqa (or face veils in general) really “just” a symbol, a symptom of abuse? Or is it actually, at least in part, a cause? By covering their faces, women who wear face veils are sending the message that they do not belong in public. They speak up less in classrooms, politics, and workplaces. If the face veil discourages interaction, then perhaps treating this “symptom” would treat the underlying oppression as well.
An analogy is pain medication, which only treats the symptom of pain, not the underlying cause. But pain may cause you to tense your muscles, causing more pain. In this case, taking pain medication is a reasonable action, because it stops the cycle. In the same way, banning the burqa seems like a symbolic gesture that means nothing, but might a banning not have a role in stopping the overall cycle? (Harsh enforcement of the banning, as in the Shah’s regime in Iran, is obviously contraindicated.)
Right…because it’s the veil that people consider oppressive. I don’t think I understand your point.
No. I think it is an example of abuse, not a symptom of it.
You got any ideas yet about how punishing the victim for the abuse is any sort of help?