Sarkozy says burqas are 'not welcome' in France

[mazyloron]

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D98VP85G1&show_article=1

I'm personally a little torn on this one.

I think burqas/niqabs/etc. are ridiculous - literally, worthy of ridicule. It's absurd to tell women to cover themselves up so that they don't "shame themselves" or incite a man's lust. (If a man looks at a woman and has "lustful thoughts," that's his problem to deal with, not hers.) I think they reinforce the control that religion tries to assert over even the most mundane, ordinary aspects of everyday life, in order to subtly (though not so in this case), subconsciously keep individuals from, well...being individuals, and possibly rejecting the supreme authority that religion is claiming for itself.

But, I also firmly support personal freedoms, and I don't think that the government should be able to ban a particular type of clothing, or style of dress. The government has no business telling citizens what to wear or not to wear.

I'm glad that someone's finally standing up to this burqa absurdity, and even more so that it's someone people will listen to, instead of some nutty group who only opposes it because it's "not Christian" or something - which is no better than the reason for them. I think the very concept of burqas flies in the face of women's rights and equality...yet, I can see a sort-of-legit case for claiming that banning them is religious persecution. However, religious tradition* has been cited to support things like slavery and racism in the past, so claiming it's allowed because you think your religion tells you to do it, isn't really the best argument.

I can also see an argument for it being a cultural thing, but it's only cultural because it's from a Muslim-dominated part of the world. It was started for religious reasons, and became part of the culture of a region where everyone follows that religion. So it's not really a "cultural" thing. And, even if it were, if your culture tells you it's ok to suppress the rights of someone else, and then you decide to leave your country and move to one that doesn't think that's ok, well...the new country is under no obligation to respect your tradition of oppression.

So, yeah...a little conflicted, though I'm leaning towards the "way to go France" side of things. I'm wondering what other people think about this one.

*semi-related: Burqas are supposedly traditional in many Muslim societies. But, I was under the impression that they are a more recent thing, or, had been unpopular and unused until recently. I remember hearing that they became popular again, or were invented as an extension of the veil that Mohammed's wives supposedly covered their faces with, as a response to modern Western clothing that has come to display more and more of the female body. I could be totally off base on this, but I would greatly appreciate a clarification from anyone who actually knows the history of the burqa - both recent and, well...historically.

 

[Pardalis]

Even though I agree with him on principles, it's not the job of the government to stop people from doing stupid things.

The only thing it can do is require them to show their faces when they go vote.

 

[realpaladin]

The government has no business telling citizens what to wear or not to wear.

They already are; try walking around naked.

OT: There is no good answer that will justify all parties involved.

Determine what it is that you want in your country, then let the decision on this follow from that.

The actual problem with the Burqa I think is that it makes Muslims more visible in society.

So a lot more people will react to their fears.

 

[plumjam]

Burqas are perfect for shoplifting French baguettes. Sarkozy isn't fooling anyone.

 

[mazyloron]

Burqas are perfect for shoplifting French baguettes. Sarkozy isn't fooling anyone.

Heh. But, see, this would be a legitimate public interest: reduction/prevention of crime. "Because we think they're stupid" isn't really a justification that the government is allowed to use.

 

[ddt]

What does Sarkozy want to accomplish with this? I wouldn't have been surprised if Le Pen had raised the issue. Two years ago, our own xenophobic Wilders raised the issue in Dutch Parliament. Even after the law proposal was rephrased to include all garment that covers the whole face (so also, e.g., full-face motorbike helmets), it failed. In the discussion, it turned out there were estimated whole 50 women in Holland wearing a burqa. Extrapolating to the population of France - 200? Wow - what an issue.

Is there really a compelling reason to ban such garb in general? Personally, as a trainer, I wouldn't be comfortable with a student wearing something that even covers the eyes, in a professional setting. But I note that every religious garb is already forbidden in French public schools.

With this timing, I get the impression it's a veiled critique on Iran. Though that would be wrong - the burqa is an Afghan/Pakistani thing, and the niqab a Gulf state thing.

 

[dudalb]

A,Burkas are stupid.
B. Attempts to outlaw them are even stupidier.
C.Napoleon was the last halfway decent Government France has had.

 

[ravdin]

To play devil's advocate for a moment:

1. It's unclear to me if women wearing the burqa in France are doing so willingly (i.e. if they are pressured into doing so by their pious, and violent, male family members). A ban would ensure this practice wouldn't continue.

2. The burqa has nothing, I repeat nothing, to do with Islam. Very few Muslim women wear them, and even fewer learned about them from their mothers.

3. The burqa also has nothing to do with France. It's a symbol of oppression and domination. It's antithetical to our values to display women as chattel. Perhaps France has a right to champion our Western values, in the French homeland?

 

[Cavemonster]

In most parts of America, it is illegal for women (but not men) to go out in public without wearing shirts. Those who do will be arrested and fined for indecent exposure.

How is the burqua qualitatively different?

We have drawn our own line in the sand over how much of a woman's body must be hidden for the protection of society. Ours is enforced legally with the threat of incarceration.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

I think the burqa actually predates Islam by some time.

 

[Praktik]

What does Sarkozy want to accomplish with this? I wouldn't have been surprised if Le Pen had raised the issue. Two years ago, our own xenophobic Wilders raised the issue in Dutch Parliament. Even after the law proposal was rephrased to include all garment that covers the whole face (so also, e.g., full-face motorbike helmets), it failed. In the discussion, it turned out there were estimated whole 50 women in Holland wearing a burqa. Extrapolating to the population of France - 200? Wow - what an issue.

Is there really a compelling reason to ban such garb in general? Personally, as a trainer, I wouldn't be comfortable with a student wearing something that even covers the eyes, in a professional setting. But I note that every religious garb is already forbidden in French public schools.

With this timing, I get the impression it's a veiled critique on Iran. Though that would be wrong - the burqa is an Afghan/Pakistani thing, and the niqab a Gulf state thing.

In answer to your question in bold, to a Frenchman there is: the principle of laïcité:

In French, laïcité (pronounced [la.i.siˈte]) is a French concept of a secular society, connoting the absence of religious involvement in government affairs as well as absence of government involvement in religious affairs.

...

Proponents assert laïcité is based on respect for freedom of thought and freedom of religion. Thus the absence of a state religion, and the subsequent separation of the state and Church, is considered a prerequisite for such freedom of thought. Laïcité is thus distinct from anti-clericalism, which actively opposes the influence of religion and the clergy. Laïcité relies on the division between private life, where adherents believe religion belongs, and the public sphere, in which each individual, adherents believe, should appear as a simple citizen equal to all other citizens, devoid of ethnic, religious or other particularities. According to this conception, the government must refrain from taking positions on religious doctrine and only consider religious subjects for their practical consequences on inhabitants' lives.

Supporters argue that Laïcité by itself does not necessarily imply any hostility of the government with respect to religion. It is best described as a belief that government and political issues should be kept separate from religious organizations and religious issues (as long as the latter do not have notable social consequences). This is meant to protect both the government from any possible interference from religious organizations, and to protect the religious organization from political quarrels and controversies.​

This cultural conception of separation of church and state is very strong in France, and most of the anti-hijab laws are thought to fall into this tradition.

I think it would be worthwhile to explore this in more detail though. To what degree do these laws conform to the spirit of laïcité, and how is laïcité perhaps being invoked due to pure and simple islamaphobia?

Still, this concept is a little different than what you may be used to in the states and is more strictly adhered to. Worth reading up on anyway.

 

[Phrost]

This is a non-issue.

If it's because of the religious association, then Sarkozy is in the wrong.

If it's a matter of public safety to ensure essentially masked and cloaked people aren't running around society, then he's slightly less wrong.

 

[scissorhands]

I think the burqa actually predates Islam by some time.

Source?

 

[Professor Yaffle]

It was just something I had picked up from general reading, hence the "I think", but a quick google finds stuff like this.

A Complex History of the Veil
What constitutes modest clothing has changed over time. Like most customs, what women wear has reflected the practices of a region and the social position of the wearer. The veil itself predates Islam by many centuries. In the Near East, Assyrian kings first introduced both the seclusion of women in the royal harem and the veil. Prostitutes and slaves, however, were told not to veil, and were slashed if they disobeyed this law.

Beyond the Near East, the practice of hiding one's face and largely living in seclusion appeared in classical Greece, in the Byzantine Christian world, in Persia, and in India among upper caste Rajput women. Muslims in their first century at first were relaxed about female dress. When the son of a prominent companion of the Prophet asked his wife Aisha bint Talha to veil her face, she answered, "Since the Almighty hath put on me the stamp of beauty, it is my wish that the public should view the beauty and thereby recognized His grace unto them. On no account, therefore, will I veil myself."
As Islam reached other lands, regional practices, including the covering of women, were adopted by the early Muslims. Yet it was only in the second Islamic century that the veil became common, first used among the powerful and rich as a status symbol. The Qu'ranic prescription to "draw their veils over their bosoms" became interpreted by some as an injunction to veil one's hair, neck and ears.
<snip>

http://www.womeninworldhistory.com/essay-01.html

ETA - a bit more reading suggests that the burqa in its present form (black formless garment etc) is relatively recent, but the practice of women dressing to cover their face and hair etc is pre-islamic.

 

[dudalb]

Burqas are bad, but Traditional Nun's Habits are OK.
Sort of confusing, isn't it?

 

[Alt+F4]

Burqas are bad, but Traditional Nun's Habits are OK.
Sort of confusing, isn't it?

Well it depends on the reasoning. Why do women wear burqas? Bad hair day or fear of being murdered by male relatives? It's very different than the reasons why a woman joins an order that still wears a habit.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

I found this a quite interesting article about the Burqa:

http://www.e-ariana.com/ariana/eariana.nsf/allDocs/A96E2D3C8BDFDCD687256C59005AF3CB?OpenDocument

 

[Undesired Walrus]

What a burqa!

It had to be done.

 

[scissorhands]

It was just something I had picked up from general reading, hence the "I think", but a quick google finds stuff like this.



http://www.womeninworldhistory.com/essay-01.html

ETA - a bit more reading suggests that the burqa in its present form (black formless garment etc) is relatively recent, but the practice of women dressing to cover their face and hair etc is pre-islamic.

Interesting, so the subjugation of women and treating them as private property to be forcibly hidden, predates Islam.

You would think that Allah may have told Mohamed that this was somehow unjust.

Still, as long as we accept that respect for culture and religion overrides basic human rights, then who can comment?

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

<snip>

With this timing, I get the impression it's a veiled critique on Iran. Though that would be wrong - the burqa is an Afghan/Pakistani thing, and the niqab a Gulf state thing.

Surely you mean an unveiled critique?