French President Sarkozy Wants to Ban Burkas

[Marley23]

@Contrapuntal

Here?

“In this case.”

If someone looks at me funny I can file a lawsuit. That doesn’t mean it has merit.

The difference being that she’d have a good case.

@Omniscient

You don’t think…

…could be argued to be in conflict with this practice and supersede the First Amendment?

No, I don’t think you’d get very far with that argument.

[villa]

@Marley23

The difference being that she’d have a good case.

Unlikely here, to be honest. The case on point is Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990).

@Justice Scalia

We have never held that an individual’s religious beliefs [494 U.S. 872, 879] excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the State is free to regulate.

@Justice Scalia

Subsequent decisions have consistently held that the right of free exercise does not relieve an individual of the obligation to comply with a “valid and neutral law of general applicability on the ground that the law proscribes (or prescribes) conduct that his religion prescribes (or proscribes).” United States v. Lee, 455 U.S. 252, 263 , n. 3 (1982) (STEVENS, J., concurring in judgment); see Minersville School Dist. Bd. of Ed. v. Gobitis, supra, at 595 (collecting cases). In Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158 (1944), we held that a mother could be prosecuted under the child labor laws [494 U.S. 872, 880] for using her children to dispense literature in the streets, her religious motivation notwithstanding. We found no constitutional infirmity in “excluding [these children] from doing there what no other children may do.” Id., at 171. In Braunfeld v. Brown, 366 U.S. 599 (1961) (plurality opinion), we upheld Sunday-closing laws against the claim that they burdened the religious practices of persons whose religions compelled them to refrain from work on other days. In Gillette v. United States, 401 U.S. 437, 461 (1971), we sustained the military Selective Service System against the claim that it violated free exercise by conscripting persons who opposed a particular war on religious grounds.

If the law were banning the wearing of Burkas generally, it would probably get struck, on the basis that, as in City of Hialeah (where a law against ritual slaughter was written in such a way that it was clearly targeted against the practitioners of Santeria), it would seem to be designed to discriminate against Muslims. A law based on a requirement that a person show their face for a driver’s license photo strikes me as open and shut. Banning masks in general will probably pass muster under Smith as the purpose is secular (and tied in with civil rights, which helps…).

[Dangerosa]

@Miller

Here’s why this is stupid. The idea of the ban is to protect the women in question, right? Okay, you’ve got a guy who insists that his wife and/or daughters wear a full burqa. To this guy, wearing anything less is tantamount to walking around nude. If France outlaws this mode of dress, does anyone really think that this guy is going to think, “Well, I guess the burqa’s out. Fadima, here’s some cash, go buy yourself some miniskirts.” No, what’s going to happen is he’s going to think, “This country is clearly too debased for my wife and daughter to live in. I’m shipping her back to Saudi Arabia, where women are properly modest.” Maybe he goes with her, maybe he stays. But this law passes, and you’ll see the burqa disappear from France, along with the women inside them. Maybe it’s just me, but I prefer a woman’s chances in a burqa in France, than in a burqa in Saudi Arabia. As long as she in France, she’s still got the option of taking the damned thing off.

Or she becomes housebound. And that doesn’t seem like a plus either. As has been said, this isn’t treating the PROBLEM, this is making the issue invisible to the French.

[miss_elizabeth]

There is a blog I read written by a formerly Muslim woman who grew up in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, who now lives in America. She wroteabout this subject and I think she has good insight into the issue because she’s grown up in this society.

She thinks that the ban is a good thing, but is worried that enforcement could be dehumanizing for the women. It’s a good read; I recommend it.

[Guinastasia]

@miss_elizabeth

There is a blog I read written by a formerly Muslim woman who grew up in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, who now lives in America. She wroteabout this subject and I think she has good insight into the issue because she’s grown up in this society.

She thinks that the ban is a good thing, but is worried that enforcement could be dehumanizing for the women. It’s a good read; I recommend it.

It’s an interesting read, but there are several flaws. Here’s one that stuck out to me:

Women’s rights simply do not include shrouds. Feminists needn’t worry about how the French ban is going to affect women’s freedom negatively, for heaven’s sake. Remind yourself how women were expected and forced to dress in the west before the influence of Christianity abated. Covered heads? Check (bonnets, anyone?). Covered legs? Check. Covered upper arms? Check. But once freedom of choice was allowed, women in the west almost universally chose “normal” human comfortable and varied clothes. Please don’t suggest that Muslim women are so different from us that they will not do the same. In fact, they DO do the same wherever allowed, because guess what? They’re like you and me. Human.

As far as I know, women were never forced to wear completely encompasing body garments. And it wasn’t influenced by religion, but by fashion. Trends went in and out. Exposed bosoms and arms were very common – at least, in evening dress. None of it was forced by law, but by custom – and again, it was fashion that dictated what women wore. Sometimes clothing was modest, sometimes not. (Everyone thinks of the Victorian hoop skirts, and yet prior to that, the Napoleonic dress was VERY revealing. And even your bustle gowns were VERY tight and very low cut in the evening).

But even those that DID dress that way out of religious beliefs – many still do. What about the Amish, or the Mennonites?

So the comparison isn’t quite the same.
It’s an interesting article – but I still don’t feel that a ban is going to do any good. Perhaps trying to educate, or lead by example? BTW, how common IS the burqa in France?

[Marley23]

@Guinastasia

BTW, how common IS the burqa in France?

According to a cite earlier in this thread, maybe the article in the OP, it’s not common at all. Which I think makes it that much clearer that this is Sarkozy trying to score easy points rather than liberate oppressed women.

[foolsguinea]

I still think that as long it’s a ban on the subcontinental mesh-mask burqa, it’s a good idea, as part of a ban on mask/drapery combos in general. I don’t think you need to completely obscure your face & body for most purposes.

I would personally tend to allow niqaab, with visible eyes. But a similar argument could be made. Actually, a better law is that one must show one’s face to law enforcement if asked.

That said, if the government of France wanted to outlaw chador, abaya, jilbaab, yada yada, yeah, it’s not my place to say. Just as Arabic countries have their cultural standards, France has its own. And who am I to tell them not to defend them?

[Dangerosa]

And that, in fact, may be the best justification for France to ban something. France is very protective of its culture and language - which like much of Europe is threatened by immigration and low “native” birthrates. For France to say “you can live here, but you must attempt to embrace French culture to have a resident visa” would be understandable. They can then define what it means to make that attempt - no burqas would presumably be part of it. Speaking (or learning to speak) French. Maybe eating a lot of brie, an appreciation of mimes and being able to paint in the Impressionist style while insisting that you don’t speak a word of English to an American tourist? But get rid of any posturing that this is about “freedom” or the oppression of women - this is about the French wanting France to stay French.

[begbert2]

@Dangerosa

And that, in fact, may be the best justification for France to ban something. France is very protective of its culture and language - which like much of Europe is threatened by immigration and low “native” birthrates. For France to say “you can live here, but you must attempt to embrace French culture to have a resident visa” would be understandable. They can then define what it means to make that attempt - no burqas would presumably be part of it. Speaking (or learning to speak) French. Maybe eating a lot of brie, an appreciation of mimes and being able to paint in the Impressionist style while insisting that you don’t speak a word of English to an American tourist? But get rid of any posturing that this is about “freedom” or the oppression of women - this is about the French wanting France to stay French.

As long as they don’t require appreciation of the comic stylings of Jerry Lewis. That would cross the line into crimes against humanity.

[Kobal2]

@Guinastasia

It’s an interesting article – but I still don’t feel that a ban is going to do any good. Perhaps trying to educate, or lead by example? BTW, how common IS the burqa in France?

Never seen one. Scarves, chadors, abayas and dupattas aplenty. And of course, many Muslim women dispense with head covering or traditional dress entirely. But I don’t think I’ve ever seen a woman without a face - she woud have made quite an impression.

I must say, I’m also somewhat concerned about *how *a ban would be enforced. I wouldn’t put it past our cops (a disturbing portion of which is openly racist, FN material) to “disrobe” Muslim women right there in the street, or at the police station - without any concern about the whys, the husbands etc… Or harass women with any kind of veil because they don’t know (or care) about the difference between a burka and the wide gamut of Muslim head garments.

PS : heh, miss elizabeth’s blogger has the same concern.

[tumbleddown]

@Dangerosa

And that, in fact, may be the best justification for France to ban something. France is very protective of its culture and language - which like much of Europe is threatened by immigration and low “native” birthrates. For France to say “you can live here, but you must attempt to embrace French culture to have a resident visa” would be understandable. They can then define what it means to make that attempt - no burqas would presumably be part of it. Speaking (or learning to speak) French. Maybe eating a lot of brie, an appreciation of mimes and being able to paint in the Impressionist style while insisting that you don’t speak a word of English to an American tourist? But get rid of any posturing that this is about “freedom” or the oppression of women - this is about the French wanting France to stay French.

But what is French culture? Isn’t the culture of France made up of the values, mores and traditions of everyone who lives in France? Or is it only native born French who qualify? How long does someone have to be in the country before what they have to offer becomes part of the larger culture? Does citizenship play a part in it? Native language? What criteria are part of the determination?

Or is simply that they can’t be a part of French culture if the things that they value aren’t valued by the majority?

Going down this road can get us very quickly and easily into xenophobic, racist or anti-[insert religion] territory.

[Oukile]

@Sarkozy

The problem of the burka is not a religious problem. This is an issue of a woman’s freedom and dignity. This is not a religious symbol. It is a sign of subservience; it is a sign of lowering. I want to say solemnly, the burka is not welcome in France"

Hey mods ! We have a troll in here !

Seriously, I would advise that one doesn’t pay too much attention to this kind of initiatives of Sarkozy. He has already made this kind of propositions in the past (this one was probably one of the most remarkable). It is quite clear that this ban is never going to be installed.

It may be that the motivation Sarkozy in making this kind of proposal is, to a certain extent, to flatter part of his supporters (that part which will approve this idea). But one cannot escape the feeling that Sarkozy uses this king of provocations in order to get people to speak about him. No matter wether he appears smart or not, any controvery focuses the attention on him, and politically this is good.

And deliberate provocations aimed at creating controversies are what… trolls use, don’t they ?

[Dangerosa]

@tumbleddown

But what is French culture? Isn’t the culture of France made up of the values, mores and traditions of everyone who lives in France? Or is it only native born French who qualify? How long does someone have to be in the country before what they have to offer becomes part of the larger culture? Does citizenship play a part in it? Native language? What criteria are part of the determination?

Or is simply that they can’t be a part of French culture if the things that they value aren’t valued by the majority?

Going down this road can get us very quickly and easily into xenophobic, racist or anti-[insert religion] territory.

Well, that sort of gets to the point made above. If we respect the right of Saudi Arabia to not let women drive, we need to respect the rights of the French to define French culture. Our American melting pot gives us a - in my opinion - under appreciation for a national culture but a huge appreciation for individual freedoms. And I think perhaps we value culture less than many places. But just because we value a national culture less and freedom more does not make those values correct and right for the French or that we should insist that they have the same values we do. That isn’t really “freedom” either.

[Dangerosa]

Or, to be illustrative:

You move into a quirky arty neighborhood. You pick the neighborhood because it has a lot of little cafes that feature folk musicians. Because when the election comes around, all your neighbors have the same lawn signs out for Obama - except for the few people supporting the Green party or the Grassroots party. The gardens surrounding the houses are quirky cottage gardens with art. The neighborhood has a very successful art crawl. People are college professors or artists or teachers - they don’t tend to be investment bankers.

You spend fifteen years living here. There are spotty exceptions - the guy who voted for McCain. The guy who is an investment banker. The person with a chemical laden weed free manicured lawn.

Then the neighborhood starts to go through a demographic shift. It gentrifies. A conservative church is built nearby and some of the congregationalists move into the neighborhood. As houses come up for sale, they are less likely to be bought by quirky young liberals and college professors. There are more investment bankers. The quirky art/music cafe can’t keep its clientele and goes out of business. The art crawl is less successful because the host homes are now blocks apart. You can no longer be assured that a political conversation with your neighbors is going to be sympathetic. The reasons you chose to live in your neighborhood are disappearing, to be replaced by things you don’t enjoy.

If you live in a place because you value what it is, you might want to work to keep it that way.

[Guinastasia]

I hardly think that compares to forbidding someone to wear what they believe their religion and culture dictates. :rolleyes:

[Shodan]

@Dangerosa

Or, to be illustrative:

You move into a quirky arty neighborhood. You pick the neighborhood because it has a lot of little cafes that feature folk musicians. Because when the election comes around, all your neighbors have the same lawn signs out for Obama - except for the few people supporting the Green party or the Grassroots party. The gardens surrounding the houses are quirky cottage gardens with art. The neighborhood has a very successful art crawl. People are college professors or artists or teachers - they don’t tend to be investment bankers.

You spend fifteen years living here. There are spotty exceptions - the guy who voted for McCain. The guy who is an investment banker. The person with a chemical laden weed free manicured lawn.

Then the neighborhood starts to go through a demographic shift. It gentrifies. A conservative church is built nearby and some of the congregationalists move into the neighborhood. As houses come up for sale, they are less likely to be bought by quirky young liberals and college professors. There are more investment bankers. The quirky art/music cafe can’t keep its clientele and goes out of business. The art crawl is less successful because the host homes are now blocks apart. You can no longer be assured that a political conversation with your neighbors is going to be sympathetic. The reasons you chose to live in your neighborhood are disappearing, to be replaced by things you don’t enjoy.

If you live in a place because you value what it is, you might want to work to keep it that way.

I don’t have anything against them - it’s just that when they move in, property values go to hell. And they don’t keep up their lawns like they should. And their children - well!

It was so much nicer before “those people” moved in. Wouldn’t they be happier with their own kind?

Regards,
Shodan

[begbert2]

As for all the mocking of the idea that France might make an argument for this on the basis of cultural preservation - wasn’t France the country with a verifiable tendency to actively preserve culture? I mean, I’m not that familiar with the country, but that’s the impression I’ve gotten. Didn’t they have an officially sanctioned group or something for the ‘preservation’ of the language, to keep it from evolving? That would seem to be exactly the thing we’re talking about here - using government action to keep their culture from changing. So, while such a thing would never fly in america, I don’t see why it’s automatically absurd to think that France might decide to implement such a thing. They would hardly be the first country to codify aspects of their culture - even america had blue laws.

[Guinastasia]

Okay, not absurd – but offensive.

[Miller]

@Dangerosa

Well, that sort of gets to the point made above. If we respect the right of Saudi Arabia to not let women drive, we need to respect the rights of the French to define French culture.

Well, lucky for me, then, because I don’t respect Saudi Arabia’s laws against women driving. Which means I don’t have to respect France’s attempts to “define” French culture.

Then the neighborhood starts to go through a demographic shift. It gentrifies. A conservative church is built nearby and some of the congregationalists move into the neighborhood. As houses come up for sale, they are less likely to be bought by quirky young liberals and college professors. There are more investment bankers. The quirky art/music cafe can’t keep its clientele and goes out of business. The art crawl is less successful because the host homes are now blocks apart. You can no longer be assured that a political conversation with your neighbors is going to be sympathetic. The reasons you chose to live in your neighborhood are disappearing, to be replaced by things you don’t enjoy.

If you live in a place because you value what it is, you might want to work to keep it that way.

Man, I hate it when people post stuff that makes me agree with Shodan

@begbert2

As for all the mocking of the idea that France might make an argument for this on the basis of cultural preservation - wasn’t France the country with a verifiable tendency to actively preserve culture? I mean, I’m not that familiar with the country, but that’s the impression I’ve gotten. Didn’t they have an officially sanctioned group or something for the ‘preservation’ of the language, to keep it from evolving? That would seem to be exactly the thing we’re talking about here - using government action to keep their culture from changing. So, while such a thing would never fly in america, I don’t see why it’s automatically absurd to think that France might decide to implement such a thing. They would hardly be the first country to codify aspects of their culture - even america had blue laws.

In terms of absurdity, it’s hard to top the Academie Francaise. I don’t think this new proposal is absurd at all. Paternalistic, counter-productive, and offensive, sure. But absurd? Not particularly, no.

[Dangerosa]

@Miller

Man, I hate it when people post stuff that makes me agree with Shodan

I’m not sure I buy that line of reasoning either (ok, I know I don’t, the French can protect their culture by refusing immigration, but if they want the cheap menial labor being provided by immigrants, they’ll need to accept these people bring in their own culture) - but I like the “protecting our culture” better than the paternalistic “protecting those women.” And I suspect its a lot truer to the real motivation.