OK, I’ll grant you that. I’d be willing to bet my next paycheck that it’s mostly middle-easterners wearing these things, but I’ll give you this point. It’s not racism.
You’re right, Latro. Wherever democracy fits in, it certainly doesn’t fit in with your statement here:
I say your uninformed, and I’ll go further and say that you don’t know the first thing about how democracy works, or else you would realize that it’s not just your country. It’s the country of anyone with a voice and a vote, and that includes the Muslims, pal! Unless you want to skip the burqa bullshit and just outlaw Islam altogether.
Because it’s not just your country. It’s their country, too. You don’t have to kowtow to their culture, but they don’t have to kowtow to yours, either.
Honestly? If the woman putting on the burqa for any reason were French, then sure it would. My country was settled and founded by white Protestants, but that doesn’t mean that the Chinese restaurant operated by the Buddhist Chinese family is any less American.
Funny. The only people I see forcing anything on anyone here are you and the other anti-Muslims.
I don’t think this contests his point - it just says that if you want to be running the burqa or muslims or people who don’t shake hands or whatever out of town, you’d best get your act together and do it while ‘your people’ have still got a majority. When you no longer have control of the government, it’s too late; the furriners have taken over and the only choice then is to move somewhere else.
There’s a quote by Chesterton, “Tradition is the democracy of the dead.” A nation’s culture has to be more than who just has the majority votes at the time, or else what’s the point in it? Culture and values change over time, but I think there’s some obligation for the people moving to a country, to a society to assimilate themselves into that society and adopt that society’s values, or at least to try.
I absolutely agree. But singling out Muslims by outlawing an article of clothing ostensibly in the name of false hopes of somehow ending abuse? Tell me how that solves anything.
Again, it’s an article of clothing. Not a weapon, not a safety hazard, not even a picket sign with an anti-French message. It’s a piece of cloth, one which none of the Muslims insist that anyone else wear. Why not just outlaw punk getups, with the boots and the bandanas, and the goofy hair color? What, are Muslims the next Grave Threat To Society [sup]TM[/sup]? I don’t like legislatures singling out minorities, especially when it is for very un-minority-like behavior, like abuse of women. Talking to a black American or Japanese-American can be a very educational experience when it comes to that sort of thing.
Just to clarify, by this, I meant that members of the ethnic majority are capable of abusing women just like members of the minority, not that minorities are incapable of abuse. It’s a play on words that doesnt’ quite work now that I look at it.
Really? Even for headscarfs? Do you get the same feeling when you see someone wearing a yarmulke? If not, why is one set of cultural/religious headgear different from another?
Not that I personally agree with the “defend our culture!” approach, but come on. From the “defend our culture” standpoint a peice of cloth that is viewed as challenging or threatening the culture is, in fact, viewed as challenging or threatening the culture. The argument has nothing to do with weapons or safety hazards; it’s about culture.
And I vaguely gather that there are lots more muslims flowing into europe than, say, punks. So yeah - some people probably do view Muslims as the next grave threat to society - especially if you’re sensitive enough about your culture that you’re willing to try to legislate conformity. (And yeah, after the burqa problem, those punks may be next. One thing at a time.)
So yeah - it’s all well and good to personally disagree with the anti-multicultural approach, but the way to do it isn’t to invent problems in it that aren’t really there.
Scarves are not the problem. Completely covering the hair is not the problem. Scarves over the lower face are not the problem.
Allowing anyone to cover herself completely, with the attitude that not even law enforcement can see her face because of her “culture”–that’s not OK. Not in the country where modern police forces were invented, not in the land of rationalists & revolution. Hijab is fine. Burqa is a public menace.
Actually in France the terms are used interchangably, and most of the French Islamic population is African (both North African and Sub-Saharan), not South Asian, most of the women who would have their their rights restricted by this law would NOT be wearing Burqas.
The discussion is not “should police be allowed to search women”, that is irrevelvant to the case in point. Police should have exactly the same rights to search a women in burqa, as a man in a training suit. No one is proposing changing that.
The debate is whether the state should have the right to tell you what to wear on your head, and how you express your religious beliefs.
I’m not sure whether this is a non-issue, or an issue that exists anyway, burqa or no burqa. The police can’t see the face of a guy with a big ol’ beard and sunglasses. The police couldn’t see my face back when I was Metäl and I looked like Slash - a mop of hair with a cigarette pointing out. At least they knew which side was the front :p.
Nor do I get why they woud need to see our faces at all times. When they’re checking I.D.s, they can tell her to lift the thing, just like they’ll tell you to remove your sunglasses. End of problem.
A subculture of those who refuse to let any square cm of their bodies be seen by the infidel stone-worshippers–and that’s what we’re talking about here–will be able to travel incognito anywhere. It’s a bunch of masked men. And that’s illegal for a reason.
I am sure we stole this line from our constitution from the American one or the Bill of rights, but for me it’s just one of the most beautiful thing ever written and the solution to this debate. I only wish that we could all learn to live by it:
Section 19 of Argentina’s constitution: “The private actions of men which in no way offend public order or morality, nor injure a third party, are only reserved to God and are exempted from the authority of the magistrates”
Well, it is a nice thought, but another nice thought is: *The devil is in the details. *
The “third party” being injured is, of course, the intimidated women being shut off from the outside world.
The comparison to polygamy, made earlier in this thread, is a good match in being something commonly banned that a literal reading of the U.S. Bill of Rights (or Argentina’s constitution?) would allow.
I’m no expert on polygamy, but I can imagine a few good points for it. I can also imagine that in actual practice it promotes a patriarchal society that I would find repulsive.
So I’m perfectly happy to keep polygamy illegal… even if some women proclaim that it has brought them total fulfillment.
The issue of enforcement is (as other posters have mentioned) very troubling. Where do you draw the line for when a garment is too concealing? I can see that exemptions could be specified for clothing used in protection against climate and job hazards; that way ski masks would be allowed in the dead of winter. But precise definitions of banned styles is going to be damn tricky.
I see a law of this kind as being ultimately for the next generation of women. Presumably female children are not burkafied until reaching a certain age; if a law was passed outlawing the burka it is probable that the aging fanatic fathers would let the young girls continue to go out unencumbered, rather than locking them up on their 13th birthday.
Change is easier when taken a day at a time.
But what about the present generation of women who face the possibility of being permanently shut away in a house? I’m thinking that the problems of defining prohibited garments will solve that problem. Fanatics will find some way to meet the law, and still let their wives go shopping. It’s too inconvenient not to.
And if there are people truly locking up their wives and daughters, there should be a law against that as well.
Except they AREN’T a third party. This whole thing is based around the assumption that muslim women are weak willed pawns that have no free will to express their religious believes as they see fit, and must be protect from the themselves.
Polygamy is very much an “edge” case. The fact is, rightly or wrongly, marriage is something that has always been regulated and controlled by the government. If we use that as a yard stick there is pretty much no law banning religious expression that would fall under the 1st Amendment. Ban Jewish men from wearing Kippahs ? Sure! Ban Catholics from celebrating mass ? No problem!
But no, this whole thing is not “based around the assumption that muslim women are weak willed pawns.” My viewpoint is that people isolated from society by religious extremists are generally browbeaten to the point where they do have trouble being anything but subservient. I don’t like Scientology and I’d rate this as worse than Scientology as far as psychological intimidation.
That above applies only to fanatics… the ones who think burkas aren’t just a tradition, but a good idea.
And polygamy may be an “edge” case, but I’d say covering women head to foot with no flesh showing anytime they are in public if also an “edge” case. I’m sure there are women who like it and wouldn’t feel deent any other way. And that’s a damn shame. I hope this is the last generation that ends up feeling that way.
No-one is “covering women” except the women themselves. There is no evil third party forcing women to cover up (and if there is there are plenty of laws regarding threatening behaviour and domestic violence that can be used). This is a fundamental question of women’s (and everyone elses rights).
Forcing a women **to **wear a Burqa in public is an unacceptable violation of her rights, but so is forcing a not to wear a Burqa in public. If the latter is acceptable under the first amendment, SO IS THE FORMER.
In a few generations time if demographics change and the majority of the population is Muslim would be acceptable under the 1st Amendment for them to FORCE women to wear burqas ? I can’t see how it wouldn’t be, if it was ok for the state for FORCE women not to wear them.
