That is a problem in France ?
Yes, I worry about that too. 
There is a strong assumption that women who want to wear these clothes are brainwashed, that is, the only reason there could be for them thinking different from what we think right for them is they are too indoctrinated to think at all. Just like the brainwashed European women (and men) who don’t want to walk around naked.
The headscarf is even more bizarre. How has this suddenly become a mark of subjection when every Catholic and Orthodox woman wore it to mark her status as an adult until maybe 20 years ago? How is it subjection when 60 years ago, men expected to wear a hat? How is it subjection for Moslems but not for the Mediterranean religious noted and for Orthodox Jewish wives shaving their head and wearing a wig?
Are nuns ‘oppressed’? Maybe they are but is that a reason to abolish nunneries, and force nuns to go naked? So why the same approach to devout Moslem women, however mad we might think they are?
Please take the time to actually think about this. How does this work, exactly? A woman is married to a man who makes her wear a burqa. He’s violent and controlling enough that she dares not remove the burqa on her own initiative, despite being free to do so under French law. One day, a new law is passed saying she’s not allowed to wear a burqa. She wakes up that morning and what does she do? Does she go outside without the burqa? What about her husband? The law hasn’t changed his mind about what his wife is allowed to wear. Does she suddenly start defying her husband’s will and following the law? Why would she do that now, when she could have defied her husband’s will at any previous time and voluntarily removed it? And when her husband gets violent with her, how does this law protect her? It’s already illegal to beat your wife under French law. If that protection wasn’t enough for her to leave the house without the burqa when it was her choice, how is it suddenly protection now that the choice has been taken out of her hands?
What practical effect will this law have on any Muslim woman, except to more savagely restrict her freedoms by making it impossible for her to even leave her house, lest she rouse the anger of the very same oppressive, mysogynistic husband this law is purportedly saving her from?
No problem. The rebellion against the Khomeni’s excesses following the revolution was formed by men and women who had tasted freedom under the Shah, not just with regards to clothing but also the types of books they can read, such as western literature. You don’t need a degree in Islamic studies to read about it. Just pick up a copy of Nafisi’s book Reading Lolita in Tehran. Nafisi, I might add, was one of those women, and she talked about her exposure to western ideals both overseas and under the Shah. Being forced to wear the veils certainly added to the indignation caused by their loss of freedom to Islamic wankers, but the protests were caused by the freedom to pursue studies of foreign cultures, not by the desire to cast off the veil.
OK, your turn. Tell me about the Mormons of Utah. Tell me how getting rid of an article of clothing liberated the women and improved their lot. Don’t forget to explain how it all ties together with Warren Jeffs.
Sigh . . . You know, Dutchman, this isn’t exactly hard. I mean, it’s not the solution isn’t out there.
Where to begin? For one thing, the French could recruit more policewomen who speak Arabic or other languages of Muslim countries, like Somalian or Urdu. The state could hire more bilingual counsellors for abused women. The legislatures could turn around and throw the book at abusive husbands, and they could enforce restraining orders. France could sponsor ads geared toward Muslim women providing abuse hotline numbers, and it could fund women’s grassroots community groups who combat abuse.
That’s just off the top of my head. If I were a French legislator, I’d just bet I could come up with more. Of course that would require money and effort, and really, why spend money and effort on those muslims. They’re barbarians, right? That word has already been used by at least one advocate for outlawing the clothing in question. Who else really cares? Better to just get rid of the problem we can see and pat ourselves on the back for a job half done.
Because it violates religious freedom, and it doesn’t fucking work. If you disagree with that statement, tell me, but please stop pretending that I didn’t even bring it up.
Yes, fuck him! I’m all for that. Fuck him in the courts, fuck him in the wallet, and fuck him all the way back to Sitdownandshuttupistan on a deportation order should it come to that.
But if you just go ahead and get rid of the veil, just so you don’t have to see evidence of that man’s oppression, then the only one who’s going to be really fucked is that man’s wife. Whether or not she actually feels like it that day.
I’m not defending or excusing that man’s actions by opposing this law. But then again, you’re not really punishing that man or protecting his wife and daughters by approving it. That’s what it really comes down to.
France is not Pakistan - there are shelters for battered women (of all colors and creeds), helplines, social programs, collective initiatives (such as the “Ni putes, ni soumises” group)… and the police will most certainly investigate a guy who burned his wife/sister/daughter to death. And throw the goddamn book at him.
Besides, as has been said before, d’you really think the husband/brother/father will magically become any less of a controling, overbearing asshole because the law bars him one tiny avenue of assholery ? And while the ghetto problem is very real for a number of reasons ; and the barbaric mentalities that thrive in the “cités” are a real concern (just as they are in US gang ghettos, BTW), will the ghetto suddenly open wide and become any less of a hell hole because at least there’s no burka in sight to offend thine eyes ?
At best, as we say in France, it’s a band-aid on a wooden leg. And at worse, it’s just yet another sleazy, populist political move from a man who’s already got an impressive record in that department.
Keep in mind as well, Honey6, that as far as slavery went, you had the Underground Railroad, runaway slaves, free blacks and whites all working together AGAINST slavery. Not some patronizing government deciding HE knew best for women.
[quote=“Linty_Fresh, post:85, topic:500699”]
I merely responded to your assertion that government interference in a tenet of religion is fruitless. The Mormans changed big time on polygamy. The fact that outlaw Mormans are still getting away with polygamy and subjugating their females is a testament to the wrongheaded idea in our society that these women are there by choice so we should refrain from intervening.
So what you are saying is that by banning the veil the wife is worse off ?
I’m not seeing that punishing the man, liberates the wife. Liberation comes from within the woman. I just see that the government can strip the religious shackes that give the woman a fucking chance.
[quote=“The_Flying_Dutchman, post:88, topic:500699”]
No. At best, her situation hasn’t changed one iota. That is, assuming she was indeed compelled to wear it by an extraneous source. She’s still in an abusive relationship, and she still has no more help getting out of it. I could also see her getting roughed up some because she’s giving lip to her husband about the law and not doing what he tells her to do, then beat up AGAIN when her wearing the burka in public in spite of the law gets the husband in trouble with the authorities.
Hurray ! Mission accomplished !
And of course, the women who do wear it by choice and think it’s peachy keen are indeed 100% worse off.
I’d have more sympathy for a “in France, live like the French or GTFO” argument - it’s not terribly nice, and it goes against what France has tried to stand for for a long time, but at least it doesn’t pretend to solve world hunger.
Yes and no. I’m not aware of any instances of those being performed on French soil, where it’s absolutely illegal and practitioners will spend the next 10 to 20 years in the gentle care of the State ; however a percentage of African immigrants (mostly first generation) do go back to the Old Country to get their daughters’ genitals cut up/sewn shut before coming back to France.
According to my Google-fu, French doctors are obligated by law to report all observed cases (or even potential cases) of FGM on minors. To whom and what the follow-up is, if any : no clue.
Getting women out of the burqa cannot be done by force. Whether it is the woman who chooses the burqa (in which case by what right do we deny her that?) or the woman’s husband/father/community who demand the burqa as has been noted, if the burqa is banned, all of these women will now be forced behind closed doors. Perhaps the more liberal can compromise on hijab and abaya, (I’m assuming a burka ban will also encompass the chador) but by and large this will serve to eliminate the ability of these women to engage public life in any way.
The only way to enhance the liberty of these women is to convince the communities where burqa are expected that it is not necessary. That’s a mission that will require winning hearts and minds, and that cannot be done by force, nor by imposition.
Not stonings exactly, but what do you think about so-called “honour killings”? These have happened in France. Not that I support a burqa ban at all.
There appears to be some debate and uncertainty on that point.
From West’s Encyclopedia of American Law
Now, I’m by no means arguing this one way or another. Many people, including Lincoln, have taken the position that the DoI is a legal document through with the Constitution must be viewed. I’m just arguing that it might not be as ironclad as Marley implied.
I don’t see any direct correlation between Muslim faith and those. It’s backwards and utterly alien to me, obviously. But you’ll see the same kind of crap coming from backwards Christian, Hindu, Animist etc… countries. And find it in our own history, too.
The Human Rights Watch seems to agree with me :
(emphasis mine)
So, yeah, they’re often done in the name of Islam. And people beat gays to death in the name of Jesus. The religion may be an excuse, or even a catalyst - but it’s no cause IMO.
Most women in the USA do not wear a burka.
Is it the case that domestic violence no longer takes place? That no women is forced to stay at home by her abusive and controlling husband? That women are never, ever killed for offending some notion of male honour?
So the same abuse will take place whether or not women wear a burka. Just like it does in the “civilised” West.
Oh, such a long thread for such a simple question.
If it is wrong to force someone to wear something, than it must equally be wrong to force them not to. The force or coercion is the problem, not the specific thing worn, eaten, said or believed in.
I am not familiar with the Islam, so could someone tell me what makes the burqa an expression of religiousness and not primarily a “social” garment?
Arguably it’s not even a social garment, it’s a practical one.
When it’s blazingly hot, loose robes and a head covering are practical clothing.
If it’s dusty a face covering is also handy.
The social / religious aspect have taken over these days in many places, but friends of mine who live in Sudan wear a niqab (with face scarf) as it’s the best way to keep cool and avoid swallowing flies / dust.
They also like the fact that they can walk down the street without being leered at, which tends to happen when they are back in the UK (also a practical issue for blond females in Africa, who can attract more unwanted attention).
You might say there’s no need for that in France, which is true, but having seen Americans abroad wearing clothing utterly inapproriate for the local climate I don’t think that’s a reason to take the high ground.
[Seeking clarification]
Wallenstein, if I do understand you correctly, it’s not a religious garment, so any claim that France suppresses religious views by outlawing the burqa misses the point?
I am not saying that it’s right to do so, mind you, I just want to know if the religious aspect is valid or a sham.
That’s exactly what I’m saying. If you’re basing the fact that a Muslim woman is abused based on the burqa then all you’re doing by getting rid of that burqa is hiding the fact of her abuse. As I and others have pointed out to you, that woman will still be abused without the burqa. It’s just that you won’t have to look at it. The abuse goes from in your face to hidden in one easy stroke. And it is an easy stroke. Certainly easier than the measures I discussed in my last post.
You . . . don’t see how punishing the man does more to liberate the wife than banning an article of clothing? Really? As you’ve said, liberation comes from within. That burqa? Not a shackle. It’s a symbol. If liberation comes from within–and we agree on that to some extent–then I have to ask for . . . ohh, I don’t know for the what-th time now, how in hell outlawing a piece of cloth is going to accomplish anything!!
I’m sorry, I guess I’m just a little confused how you can see that banning an article of clothing can serve as the great liberator but not see how showing abusive husbands of *any *religion or creed that the courts mean business about punishing wife-beaters and perhaps separating them from their abused wives and offering them counselling can do the same thing. I would argue that the latter would absolutely work, and the former wouldn’t.
I think if the French and/or French muslims view it themselves as a religious garment, as some muslims undoubtedly do, then it’s a valid claim. But not all people who wear it view it in the same way. Whether or not it’s possible to separate a “social” meaning from a “religious” meaning is difficult - but it remains a fact that some (many) women wear a burka simply because they want to.
I think the French are viewing the issue from a single, narrow viewpoint… that the only reason a muslim woman would wear a veil is because she’s forced to by her religion. That causes two problems: it ignores the other reasons why a person might wear a veil - some teenagers will wear it to piss off their secular muslim parents, and it is not in itself (IMO) a good enough reason to ban it full stop (regardless of any other reason for wearing it).
(I’m not muslim)