http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5i8ftNbatqXTg8uJ-W98iaaj31_sA
I mean, to me it’s pretty much a million times more egregious and racist than the Arizona immigration laws, and yet nobody in America is riling against it. I’m just curious legally, in Europe, what is the legal justification behind this? or even the irrational justification? i want to make life unpleasant for muslims… just because?
The justification is that the burqa is, first of all, a security risk, because it entirely covers the face and makes identification impossible, and second, that forcing a woman to cover her face in public is sexist and dehuminizing to women.
And third, it’s not an American law, so Americans aren’t going to be as worked up about it.
Actually, there were plenty of folks who were riled in the US about this when it came up a year or so ago. There were several debates on the subject on this board, in fact. And I wouldn’t say it’s a million times ore egregious or racist.
As Captain Amazing says, the justification is that it makes identification difficult if not impossible. The dehumanizing effect that CA noted is also a reasonably valid justification. I think there are other, less savory reasons for the ban in the European countries where it is banned, but I think the justification is valid. I think it’s ironic when Europeans from those countries talk harshly about the Arizona laws (and vice versa), however. 
More like ‘Conform! Conform! We are the borg…’ kind of thinking, in some cases, though as noted there are some valid justifications to go along with it. You should search out the earlier threads on this topic, as this was discussed quite a bit in the past.
-XT
how do i do that? pardon my laziness/ignorance
Click on the Search button at the top of the page (next to New Posts and Quick Links) and then type in ‘burka’. I got a ton of hits (including, interestingly enough, a thread on this subject that I did the OP for…though that one died pretty quick without a lot of replies).
-XT
Seems to me that the saying “When in Rome…” is applicable here. If you go to someone else’s house, it’s only polite to do things the way they do them. Under no circumstances would a reasonable person think that the right thing to do is to force your host to conform to you.
If they don’t like it, let them go back to the Third World.
You got it right brother! Especially send back the non-immigrant recent converts to Islam who wear veils of their own free will!
Overall I think the hierarchy of reasons to ban the burqa/veil: “Just don’t like those immigrant freaks” > “Weirdos make me feel queasy” > “They’re just weird” >>>> “Dehumanization of women” >>>> “National security”.
That time of the month huh?
Why should Americans get their knickers in a twist over such comparatively minor issues. Surely if you wish to get involved in international issues, there are human rights violations of considerable more pressing character.
Legal justification? What is it with the US obsession with petty legalities? Law has no worth in itself, it is just a tool we use to try to create the kind of conditions we want. Does legality even deal in justifications? In any case there is no legal justification, which is why they are changing the law.
Here are a few other justifications:
The burka, and similar garments, are crafted to parade once sexual fetishes in public. If you are into bondage and sexual slavery fantasies, fine – but keep it in your own home.
Feminists favours a ban because they believe the burka is outrageously misogynist.
Some people favour a ban because they perceive the burka as incompatible with the culture and ideals that the nation is founded on.
Some nations have had laws against covering up for decades, for security reasons.
Some see it is a fascist symbol on line which should be banned like other fascist symbols.
Anyway why don’t you read your own cites, because the justifications are clearly spelled out right there:
Of course the ironic thing is that when the barbarian ancestors of the French got to Rome* they didn’t conform, they wrecked the place. There is a reason we call the country France and not Gaul.
The ban is about xenophobia and ethnocentrism, the French should just go back to fighting the Germans or the English, I mean if you are going to hate a group at least pick one that can put up a good fight.
*The Empire not the city, the Franks settled mostly in western Europe.
And then there’s the majority of European countries (like mine) that haven’t banned the burka. I don’t see why I should defend this law when I’m not French.
And FTR; I wouldn’t see much point in banning it over here (the Netherlands) where burkas and veils are vanishingly rare (while head scarfs are very common). I would support a ban only if it can be proven that the majority of women wearing a burka (all 100 or so of them) are being forced to wear it.
That’s a strange argument for anything. According to you Rome was annihilated because the German immigrants didn’t follow the when-in-Rome-… adage, which should teach the Franks to not require new immigrants to do that either, supposedly – following your arguments – leading to the destruction of France. If anything it should give the Franks firsthand and personal evidence that it is a very good idea to require immigrants to do as in Rome.
What in the world are you talking about?
There you go. Another reason to pancake why some may justify a burka-ban: if the majority can be shown to have been forced to.
“How do the europeans want to justify burka (burqa?) ban?”
It’s the title of this thread. What does this burka ban have to do with me? FTR: I’m not Belgian either.
Sorry, muslim women who support having your faces hidden, but society’s safety is more important than your hurt feelings.
I know these events occurred around the Luton area, a place not too keen on the behaviour of some declared muslims, but the point still stands that anyone could be underneath one of those things.
The European nations have national cultures. France is (or was historically) a place to wear berets and eat a zillion kinds of cheese. Germany is (or was) for people to wear shorts and eat sausage. It is a generalization, but there is a kernel of truth.
People dressing like foreigners are … foreign. They are a threat to the national culture. This is hard for an American to grasp. Look how upset Europeans are (from time to time) about the latest American fad or food. Have you ever seen a reply from America? (OK, Freedom Fries, but you can remember how silly that was.)
If an American wants to dress like a devout Muslim, or Jew, or Pastafarian, Americans are no more annoyed than we are about low-riser jeans. To a European, people who are different ought to conform to the national culture.
(The Europeans may now attack.)
Well, as someone else has already noted, it’s a French, not a European law, so asking the rest of Europe to justify is like asking America to justify it.
As far as I’ve read, there’s till some debate in France about whether there is a legal justification for it - some politicians has said that it goes against the French Constitution, so presumably will get challenged in court if it passes. The argument I have read from Sarkozy is that it a symbol of oppression of women that flies in the face of French values of Citizenship, apparently.
As a security and social issue, I believe that burqas (niqabs, specifically) should not be worn in any situation where motorcycle helmets are similarly banned or discouraged. A situational ban is entirely reasonable. A blanket countrywide ban - not so much.
Chris Hitchens wrote a great piece about this law ban in France this week.
To sum up, he points out “they are attempting to lift a ban: a ban on the right of women to choose their own dress, a ban on the right of women to disagree with male and clerical authority, and a ban on the right of all citizens to look one another in the face.”
I’ll have to agree with this. Seriously, being American and totally non-religious, I’m really not sympathetic toward a faith denying freedom for women. I absolutely DO NOT see this attempt to outlaw a burqa as an attack against a faith or a race, but rather as an attempt to make all people wake up.
There is a social trust issue somewhere with this. I wouldn’t trust the immediate judgment of a person wearing only a Speedo in Iceland in winter, nor a man with a briefcase waiting for a train in a Batman costume.
How am I really not supposed to laugh or shake my head at someone who might be forced to don a full burqa while standing in between a female CEO in a Claiborne suit and a model in a thong on a hot day in New York City? That would look like a poster for repression. 
It is wrong to cover your entire body with clothing in hot weather for your faith? No. But is it weird? Yes. Is it wrong to force women to wear it for whatever reason? Yes.
It’s also wrong to flog them after accidentally revealing an ankle, because after a very short time, and enough flogging reports, your burqa may show me nothing more than a representation of uncivilized behavior.
I support a No-burqa law everywhere.
FWIW, I believe that a guest like Pancakes is unable to run searches, though I may be wrong on this. In any case, I consider it only courtesy that, if you remember something being discussed four months ago or so, you find the discussion and provide a link if possible.