France bans veils in public

[fatandfast]

Balaclavas are also banned in certain places!!!! is this fair to professional bank robbers?? Crucifexes were banned in french schools some years ago, strangely there was very little media coverage then. I think its more a fear of extreamism creeping in, in 30 years time France will be more Muslim than Christian and the ruling will be overturned.

History 101. Raising retirement age, extreme competition after the EU opened all markets, super pressure on the immigration system. Why not go after the obvious, what is different from the memory of French prosperity..the people praying,acting un-French. It will get votes but it won't fix the problem. As the bombing campaign keeps the herds rolling toward Europe it will make Arabs look even more problematic when they are littering the beaches and demanding social services. Boats full of people running from war and imploding economies. The French feel like they are doing the new immigrants a favor, same mistake made in the US and Australia

 

[python]

it's not about burqa

i usually don’t bother entering political threads but here’s my opinion - rhubroma got it right - it’s about the identity crisis.

a small part of it so far, to be sure, but the early signs of grave implications for one of Europe’s greatest, proudest and most insecure nations are absolutely clear.

a few more european nations with significant muslim communities are watching intensely - the netherlands, united kingdom, denmark…

the most curious thing for this european mutt is that the united states of america ,whilst historically behind in many respect, has faced and addressed (don’t confuse with solved) it’s multi-ethnic issues decades before the western Europeans. not europe’s fault but that’s how the planet's history turns….

the traditional mono-ethnic societies will either solve the problem or become it’s victims.

i am optimistic.

 

[Moondance]

I don't really see the point of banning the burqa/niqab, and my country, the Netherlands, is planning on adopting a similar law to France in the coming years.

That's not to say I'm a fan of Islam, indeed there are elements of Islam as a political ideology which I find highly troubling would like to see as little as possible of in the Netherlands. And I would be happy, as I think many people would be, if every Muslim women who wears the burqa to take it off and store them permanently in some drawer somewhere.

However, that's the important part, the Muslim women of the world must make the decision for themselves that the burqa is no longer an acceptable element of public or private life. 'Yanking' them off with the threat of fines of whatever isn't going to solve anything. Because the end result will be that women, who wear the burqa because they're forced to or because they want it for themselves, will only isolate these women more, since they'll probably never (be allowed to) leave the house again. The 'problem' of the burqa can and will only be solved by societal forces, and the process of modern emancipation which western societies have experienced already.

When you have a good job, when have a decent place to live, when your kids go to a good school or university; when you have a stake in society, the natural evolution of things is that ancient dogmas about making your wife or daughter cover her face, or forcing her to marry someone she doesn't want to, become the pathetic and illiberal irrelevancies of years gone by. This isn't a quick process, and it isn't revolutionary, but its the only thing that will work. People like Geert Wilders or Pia Kjærsgaard don't help that process.

I think a Dutch Senator from the Green party over here put it quite well recently. He related a story from his own youth in the 1960s. Growing up in the very Catholic and economically disadvantaged south of the Netherlands, he went to a Catholic primary school where boys and girls were segregated. The solution to that problem was not for someone to come down from Amsterdam or the Hague and scream "You stupid BACKWARDS Catholic Idiots!!!!" at them to get them to stop segregating classrooms. Instead with rising prosperity, and cultural development, by the time he graduated from his Catholic high school, all Catholic schools in the Netherlands had been completely desegregated. I find that a rather pleasing story.

 

[Le breton]

I don't really see the point of banning the burqa/niqab, and my country, the Netherlands, is planning on adopting a similar law to France in the coming years.

.....

Last time I was in Shiphol(?), Amsterdam's airport, I saw two people wearing niqabs walking with a man.

This was in the public part of the airport, but I still found it outrageous when considering all the indignities you have to go thru in those same airports in the name of security.
I am a rather skinny cyclist and I remember once being so annoyed one summer in the US at the security guy who was frisking me insistently even though I was just wearing shorts, sandals and a T-shirt that I asked him if it would not be easier if I just removed my T-shirt.

It is obvious that the timing of this new law against niqabs in public places is a Sarkozy ploy for far right votes, but as all such moves it will blow up in his face once more.

On the other hand I think the law sends a signal to extremists that pretend to be muslims but are really just women haters and consider them as their slaves. I rather see that signal sent NOW when at most 1000 women wear niqabs in public in France rather than when 100 000 more of them have been relegated to the dark ages.

One problem is that the law will be almost unenforceable.

Considering that only about 18% of muslims in France really practice their religion ( a far greater proportion than in the catholic faith), I tend to believe that a great majority of French muslim women will be happy at the new law even if they somewhere feel that it is a signal by Sarkozy meant to ostracize their religion.

Anyway, I pretty much like at this the same way as "Ni putes ni soumises", an organization of muslim women started by Fadela Amara. You probably can find it easily on the web.

I am bothered by niqabs and equally bothered by giant crosses hanging from people's neck or by people opening their car windows so that they can pollute the neighbouring lanes with rap or the other so-called musics they want to force-feed on you ( I don't feel like writing 10 lines to develop what I mean exactly by that)

Within 3 months, in July, all the surviving arab jetsetters from the Gulf will come to Geneva to escape, among other things, the heat and take advantage at night of the local booze, partying, red district, escort girls, etc after those good muslims will have spent the evening strolling with their kids and niqabbed wife(wives) along the lake. But surely, considering there are 3000 princes in Saudi Arabia alone, they can't be all that "religious".

 

[Buffalo Soldier]

. And I would be happy, as I think many people would be, if every Muslim women who wears the burqa to take it off and store them permanently in some drawer somewhere.

However, that's the important part, the Muslim women of the world must make the decision for themselves that the burqa is no longer an acceptable element of public or private life.

You can not force them to do something. But you can decide for them what's right or wrong?

Burqa=bad, because you say so?

 

[Moondance]

Last time I was in Shiphol(?), Amsterdam's airport, I saw two people wearing niqabs walking with a man.

This was in the public part of the airport, but I still found it outrageous when considering all the indignities you have to go thru in those same airports in the name of security.
I am a rather skinny cyclist and I remember once being so annoyed one summer in the US at the security guy who was frisking me insistently even though I was just wearing shorts, sandals and a T-shirt that I asked him if it would not be easier if I just removed my T-shirt.

It is obvious that the timing of this new law against niqabs in public places is a Sarkozy ploy for far right votes, but as all such moves it will blow up in his face once more.

On the other hand I think the law sends a signal to extremists that pretend to be muslims but are really just women haters and consider them as their slaves. I rather see that signal sent NOW when at most 1000 women wear niqabs in public in France rather than when 100 000 more of them have been relegated to the dark ages.

One problem is that the law will be almost unenforceable.

Considering that only about 18% of muslims in France really practice their religion ( a far greater proportion than in the catholic faith), I tend to believe that a great majority of French muslim women will be happy at the new law even if they somewhere feel that it is a signal by Sarkozy meant to ostracize their religion.

Anyway, I pretty much like at this the same way as "Ni putes ni soumises", an organization of muslim women started by Fadela Amara. You probably can find it easily on the web.

I am bothered by niqabs and equally bothered by giant crosses hanging from people's neck or by people opening their car windows so that they can pollute the neighbouring lanes with rap or the other so-called musics they want to force-feed on you ( I don't feel like writing 10 lines to develop what I mean exactly by that)

Within 3 months, in July, all the surviving arab jetsetters from the Gulf will come to Geneva to escape, among other things, the heat and take advantage at night of the local booze, partying, red district, escort girls, etc after those good muslims will have spent the evening strolling with their kids and niqabbed wife(wives) along the lake. But surely, considering there are 3000 princes in Saudi Arabia alone, they can't be all that "religious".

Very likely the majority of Al-Saud family are what we would consider to be "moderates." Almost all of them have been educated at western schools and universities. The problem with religion in Saudi Arabia is that it, to this day suffers from the decisions that were by (in their case British) colonizers in the beginning of the previous century. Saudi Arabia was a country created by the British drawing lines on a map, and 'creating' a country out of thin air (the same happened with what we now call Iraq) with all people living within those lines being told that they were now 'Saudis'. Needing political leadership for this new country they promoted as benevolent overlords the Al Sauds.

However, their rule needed to be legitimised, which is when the Al Saud, with British backing, essentially cut a deal with a school of Islamic teaching which originated within the Arabian peninsula which westerners refer to as Wahhabism (you may have heard the term before). Essentially the deal is is that the Al Sauds would provide politicall leadership, and leave all matters on religion to Wahhabists, who would in turn support continued Al Saud rule, while receiving free reign to practice, promote and spread their ultra-orthodox Islamic teaching in Saudi Arabia and abroad with money from the Al Sauds. And large chunks of the Saudi money which the Wahhabists distribute worldwide go to groups which sympathise with Islamic terrorism.

It therefore is a bit of a western fantasy that the Saudi princes are fighting hard to keep Islamic lunatics at bay. They are instead, willful participants in this scheme.

In short, if you place your faith in the Al Sauds, don't expect much. Most of what I know comes from an excellent book by Madawi Al-Rasheed, a Saudi-born British sociologist from her 2009 book Kingdom without Borders , which is an excellent read for anyone interested in knowing more about this most crucial of countries.

 

[Cobblestones]

I'm pretty sure if you search the collections of Dior or other fashion designers, you're going to find quite a few veils there as well (and not only on the wedding dresses).

Are they going to be all banned?

 

[Moondance]

You can not force them to do something. But you can decide for them what's right or wrong?

Burqa=bad, because you say so?

I think the burqa is misogynistic, illiberal, and cruel. So, yes I think it's a bad thing and we shouldn't want it in a western, liberal democracy where we hold as one of the central tenets of our society that men and women are equal in all matters.

However I oppose a burqa ban because I do not think it will achieve what its proponents want it to achieve, which is to emancipate those women wearing them.

 

[Cobblestones]

I think the burqa is misogynistic, illiberal, and cruel. So, yes I think it's a bad thing and we shouldn't want it in a western, liberal democracy where we hold as one of the central tenets of our society that men and women are equal in all matters.

However I oppose a burqa ban because I do not think it will achieve what its proponents want it to achieve, which is to emancipate those women wearing them.

I have a very similar view. This approach will make the most sense.

One should also not forget that the feeling of shame is cultural. If you were used to wear the burqa in public because it was the cultural norm, and you were supposed to feel shame when you didn't, then it is actually very hard to adapt.

As a comparison (not equivalency): in the western world, the cultural norm is not to be naked in public. We are supposed to feel shame when we happen to be naked in public. No law in the world is going to change that. It would take a huge step out of your comfort zone, and probably years to adapt to a new cultural norm.

These women, if you don't allow them to wear the burqa, will feel shame. The result might be that they won't be in public at all, which I think is an even worse situation.

You really have to wait for the women to emancipate themselves. For immigrants, the first generation might be lost to the cause and so it would be best to let them keep their habits. Second generation immigrants will hopefully assimilate.

The ban is frankly, stupid.

 

[Buffalo Soldier]

Do you people have the same problems with hijabs as with burqa's?

 

[Buffalo Soldier]

I have a very similar view. This approach will make the most sense.

One should also not forget that the feeling of shame is cultural. If you were used to wear the burqa in public because it was the cultural norm, and you were supposed to feel shame when you didn't, then it is actually very hard to adapt.

As a comparison (not equivalency): in the western world, the cultural norm is not to be naked in public. We are supposed to feel shame when we happen to be naked in public. No law in the world is going to change that. It would take a huge step out of your comfort zone, and probably years to adapt to a new cultural norm.

These women, if you don't allow them to wear the burqa, will feel shame. The result might be that they won't be in public at all, which I think is an even worse situation.

I completely agree with this.
And then you suddenly say this:

You really have to wait for the women to emancipate themselves. For immigrants, the first generation might be lost to the cause and so it would be best to let them keep their habits. Second generation immigrants will hopefully assimilate.

You first say to wear or not to wear a burqa is something cultural, which could be compared to wearing clothes or not (I really believe this is a very strong comparison).
Then you say these women need to 'emancipate', or worse: assimilate.

So you quite literally say 'their' culture (or this small part of the culture) is inferior to 'our culture'??
Or do you mean: they are migrants and need to adapt to the host culture?

 

[Le breton]

I'm pretty sure if you search the collections of Dior or other fashion designers, you're going to find quite a few veils there as well (and not only on the wedding dresses).

Are they going to be all banned?

Aren't you confusing burka and veil?
Anyway, France will find a compromise along the lines of this Groland parody of a burka-clad lady to the Dr. for her regular check-up

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x9mlza_groland-burka_fun

 

[Buffalo Soldier]

Aren't you confusing burka and veil?

Don't blame him, it's on the thread title...

 

[Le breton]

Very likely the majority of Al-Saud family are what we would consider to be "moderates." Almost all of them have been educated at western schools and universities.
.............
In short, if you place your faith in the Al Sauds, don't expect much. Most of what I know comes from an excellent book by Madawi Al-Rasheed, a Saudi-born British sociologist from her 2009 book Kingdom without Borders , which is an excellent read for anyone interested in knowing more about this most crucial of countries.

Very likely the majority of Al-Saud family are what we would consider to be "moderates." Almost all of them have been educated at western schools and universities.
Sure, just as moderate as Kadhafi's sons I guess.
In short, if you place your faith in the Al Sauds, don't expect much. Most of what I know comes from an excellent book by Madawi Al-Rasheed, a Saudi-born British sociologist from her 2009 book Kingdom without Borders , which is an excellent read for anyone interested in knowing more about this most crucial of countries
I don't know much about Saudi Arabia but when i wrote the paragraph ending with
But surely, considering there are 3000 princes in Saudi Arabia alone, they can't be all that "religious".
I was just poking fun at the hypocrisy of that society.
Anyway, thanks for the reference, unfortunately I already have a long list of unfinished books ahead of me.

 

[Moondance]

Very likely the majority of Al-Saud family are what we would consider to be "moderates." Almost all of them have been educated at western schools and universities.
Sure, just as moderate as Kadhafi's sons I guess.
In short, if you place your faith in the Al Sauds, don't expect much. Most of what I know comes from an excellent book by Madawi Al-Rasheed, a Saudi-born British sociologist from her 2009 book Kingdom without Borders , which is an excellent read for anyone interested in knowing more about this most crucial of countries
I don't know much about Saudi Arabia but when i wrote the paragraph ending with
But surely, considering there are 3000 princes in Saudi Arabia alone, they can't be all that "religious".
I was just poking fun at the hypocrisy of that society.
Anyway, thanks for the reference, unfortunately I already have a long list of unfinished books ahead of me.

Well, I never said they weren't autocratic, as are/were many regimes in the Arab world. However, with respect to Kadhafi's sons, or the Al Saud princes, I have no idea how orthodox their religious views are. One can be an autocratic dictator, but not be religiously orthodox (i.e. Hosni Mubarak). The two can be separated.

But my overarching point was, was that it doesn't really matter what the personal religious views of the Al Saud princes are, since they outsource their religious policies to fundamentalist Wahhabists anyway.

 

[Moondance]

Do you people have the same problems with hijabs as with burqa's?

Not these same problems, they are lesser evil, although I'm not happy about them either.

Although for me its all academic anyway, since I don't want to ban either.

 

[brianf7]

Who or what is hideing behind the dress up. we have to remove bike helmets and motorbike helmets if we go into a Post office or a Bank so should everyone else uncover their face for security.

We dont know who we are dealing with . could have a gun under the dress.

 

[auscyclefan94]

Based on this post I'd say you're a white, heterosexual male from a European, probably Anglo, Christian (even if not religious) background.

You are mostly right. But how does this change anything? Does this make me racist? As you would know, there are many hate crimes in Melbourne with the high amount of indian students coming over to australia. I am not happy about that. It seems like you are implying that I have some sort of 'thing' against gays, muslims and aboriginal people.

 

[Merckx index]

OK, thread title might be misleading. What is banned in France are Burqa's and niqabs, not all veils, certainly not hijabs or other headscarfs. With burqa's and niqabs the whole face is covered. Banning all veils would be absurd of course...

The article I referenced used “veils” and I think that is appropriate. In France, the banning is clearly motivated not by security but because of distaste for what the veil symbolizes. Sarkozy has made this very clear in his public statements. So while the fact that the Muslim veil completely covers the face is a handy rationalization, which probably makes it easier to push the ban on the public, in principle it could have been something as innocuous as a colored ribbon.

When you have a good job, when have a decent place to live, when your kids go to a good school or university; when you have a stake in society, the natural evolution of things is that ancient dogmas about making your wife or daughter cover her face, or forcing her to marry someone she doesn't want to, become the pathetic and illiberal irrelevancies of years gone by. This isn't a quick process, and it isn't revolutionary, but its the only thing that will work.

I very much agree with this. Most of the problems between the Muslim world and the West, IMO, would be solved if people of the former could be lifted out of poverty. Not entirely, there are some significant religious differences, but within the West itself, people of different religions have mostly learned to tolerate each other.

You first say to wear or not to wear a burqa is something cultural, which could be compared to wearing clothes or not (I really believe this is a very strong comparison).
Then you say these women need to 'emancipate', or worse: assimilate.

So you quite literally say 'their' culture (or this small part of the culture) is inferior to 'our culture'??
Or do you mean: they are migrants and need to adapt to the host culture?

Buffalo, I think the point here is that if Muslim women are exposed to the same social environment that most of us in the West have been exposed to, they (in the generational, not individual, sense) will eventually come to see wearing a burqa does not make sense. One can argue that no one chooses any lifestyle freely, we adapt to the social norms around us. Muslim women wear burqas because of the cultural norms they are familiar and comfortable with, and they will stop wearing them when they adapt to a different culture.

If Muslims don’t want to view Western culture as superior to their own, I have no problem with this. But then why do the emigrate to the West? Aren’t they trying to take advantage of better economic opportunities? Can these opportunities be separated completely from Western culture? Doesn’t the relatively open culture of the West, in which individual freedom and differences have traditionally been celebrated, have a lot to do with better economic opportunities? There was a time when the Muslim world was one of the most creative and inventive on the planet, and it might someday return to that prominence. But right now the West is in that position, and if people come to the West to take advantage of those opportunities, they are inevitably going to find that certain cultural norms are an intricate part of those opportunities. You really can’t suppress or change those norms without having a profound effect on the economic climate.

The most obvious aspect of this relationship is the strong support for the scientific worldview in the West, which has fueled all our technological achievements. Fundamentalist societies generally don’t accept this worldview, and therefore can obtain this technology only through what amounts to parasitism.

I am bothered by niqabs and equally bothered by giant crosses hanging from people's neck or by people opening their car windows so that they can pollute the neighbouring lanes with rap or the other so-called musics they want to force-feed on you.

I’m not bothered by what people wear, because I don’t have to look at them. I am totally with you on the music, though, because it’s unavoidable.

 

[auscyclefan94]

Can someone explain to me why muslim women have to cover themselves up(obviosuly they choose the extent of that) and men do not have to?

 

[Moondance]

Can someone explain to me why muslim women have to cover themselves up(obviosuly they choose the extent of that) and men do not have to?

It is part of Islamic theological practice, and the total devotion that an observing Muslim must have to God.

However this devotion is more than just observing the Qur'an and praying a few times a day. Elements within Islamic thinking state that this state of devotion must be permanent, and one may never break from thinking about how best to serve God. This state of devotion is a central part of the Sirat al-Mustaqim, or straight path, which all Muslims must follow in order to please God.

This state can be interrupted by impure thoughts, such as lusting after a women, especially one to whom you are not married. Therefore, the thinking goes, women must be veiled, so as not to distract men from their state of devotion. This is also why men and women must pray separately, because prayer is the highest point of this devotion, and even the mere glimpse of a woman would distract a man. If someone is distracted during prayer, he or she must begin their prayer all over again. I guess it also has something to do with the modesty of women, although the person who explained this who concept to me focused on the 'state of devotion' aspect.

Naturally this theory has some flaws, such as women breaking their devotion by lusting after the men they see, but I guess the men (and they were all men) who dreamed up Islam didn't bother to think of that.

 

[Cobblestoned]

Can someone explain to me why muslim women have to cover themselves up(obviosuly they choose the extent of that) and men do not have to?

Good question.
Perhaps because all men are ugly and can not be beautiful ?

I mean...............except Cadel of course, you know.
(Puhh, that was close. Nearly upset ACF....)

 

[The Hitch]

Last time I was in Shiphol(?), Amsterdam's airport, I saw two people wearing niqabs walking with a man.

This was in the public part of the airport, but I still found it outrageous when considering all the indignities you have to go thru in those same airports in the name of security.
I am a rather skinny cyclist and I remember once being so annoyed one summer in the US at the security guy who was frisking me insistently even though I was just wearing shorts, sandals and a T-shirt that I asked him if it would not be easier if I just removed my T-shirt.

It is obvious that the timing of this new law against niqabs in public places is a Sarkozy ploy for far right votes, but as all such moves it will blow up in his face once more.

On the other hand I think the law sends a signal to extremists that pretend to be muslims but are really just women haters and consider them as their slaves. I rather see that signal sent NOW when at most 1000 women wear niqabs in public in France rather than when 100 000 more of them have been relegated to the dark ages.

One problem is that the law will be almost unenforceable.

Considering that only about 18% of muslims in France really practice their religion ( a far greater proportion than in the catholic faith), I tend to believe that a great majority of French muslim women will be happy at the new law even if they somewhere feel that it is a signal by Sarkozy meant to ostracize their religion.

Anyway, I pretty much like at this the same way as "Ni putes ni soumises", an organization of muslim women started by Fadela Amara. You probably can find it easily on the web.

I am bothered by niqabs and equally bothered by giant crosses hanging from people's neck or by people opening their car windows so that they can pollute the neighbouring lanes with rap or the other so-called musics they want to force-feed on you ( I don't feel like writing 10 lines to develop what I mean exactly by that)

Within 3 months, in July, all the surviving arab jetsetters from the Gulf will come to Geneva to escape, among other things, the heat and take advantage at night of the local booze, partying, red district, escort girls, etc after those good muslims will have spent the evening strolling with their kids and niqabbed wife(wives) along the lake. But surely, considering there are 3000 princes in Saudi Arabia alone, they can't be all that "religious".

Very good post especially the bolded part. I hate it when people start blasting rap out, especially on public transport where the signs say not to do it. Notice how its never classical btw. 99% of the time its rap.

Who or what is hideing behind the dress up. we have to remove bike helmets and motorbike helmets if we go into a Post office or a Bank so should everyone else uncover their face for security.

We dont know who we are dealing with . could have a gun under the dress.

This is a grey area and one of the reasons it im holding back. Werent Burqas already banned from places like banks and airports.

I mean no one with half a brain cell could seriously argue that you shouldnt ban burqas from banks when helmets are banned.

 

[The Hitch]

Who or what is hideing behind the dress up. we have to remove bike helmets and motorbike helmets if we go into a Post office or a Bank so should everyone else uncover their face for security.

We dont know who we are dealing with . could have a gun under the dress.

This is a grey area and one of the reasons it im holding back. Werent Burqas already banned from places like banks and airports.

I mean no one with half a brain cell could seriously argue that you shouldnt ban burqas from banks when helmets are banned.

 

[Moondance]

This is a grey area and one of the reasons it im holding back. Werent Burqas already banned from places like banks and airports.

I mean no one with half a brain cell could seriously argue that you shouldnt ban burqas from banks when helmets are banned.

That's comparing apples and oranges though, and it could only be a Hitchens aficionado who sees it that way