French MPs vote to ban Islamic full veil in public

[Deckard]

One of those hot issues that seems to wind everyone up.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/10611398.stm

I hate the full veil (I look dreadful in it) but I'm not sure I support it being banned. If it's going to be, then I think it should be banned along with other clothing that, depending on the ultimate reason, fall under the same criteria.

For instance, if the issue is one of security and of the need to see people's faces in public buildings (a not unreasonable one, I think), then ban anything that covers the face in those instances - low-hanging hoodies, balaclavas, Jedi masks, whatever. Or better still, just have the rule that 'faces should not be covered in public buildings'.

If it's about emphasizing the secular nature of the state, then I'm inclined to think the government should royally feck off! The point being, secularism and enforced irreligiosity are not the same thing. Yes I roll my eyes when I see women wandering around Cardiff in their niqabs and hijabs, and silently despair at how silly people are still clinging to all that nonsense in the 21st century - but secularism should surely be about people being free to express, within reasonable limits, their religious views in any way they choose; not about removing the insignia of religion (or religion-based culture) and attempting to make everyone - at least on the surface - non-religious.

Which leaves us with the big one, women's rights, and the notion of the niqab and burka as the most visible symbol of a certain view of women pervasive in much of Islamic culture. And the question is, what do you do when many of the women themselves insist that they are not oppressed and that it's their right to cover their head/face? I'm truly not sure which is worse: the government stepping in and telling women what (not) to wear, or letting it continue.

Maybe it shouldn't be banned but just needs to be challenged more vigorously.

But how, and by whom?

Thoughts?

[bryantm3]

this all boils down to the terrible racism against muslims and others of middle eastern descent in france. like it or not, the french are doing to muslims what the south did to blacks in the 50s.

[Deckard]

this all boils down to the terrible racism against muslims and others of middle eastern descent in france. like it or not, the french are doing to muslims what the south did to blacks in the 50s.
While I wouldn't personally compare it with "racism" against blacks, I do understand what you're saying and agree with you in this respect: that the motivation behind a lot of the public opposition isn't quite as rational as it's made out to be.

I know in this country (the UK) when I hear this topic being discussed, it doesn't take long to realise that women's rights and secularism aren't the overriding concerns of the anti-veilers (unless the far right parties and the great conservative British public have suddenly decided that it's time to ditch religion and fight the feminist cause :D )

No question about it, a lot of public opposition seems to boil down to little more than "these foreign looking people with their foreign ways, coming into our country... " etc etc). Really, I get the impression that narrow-mindedness and bigotry have a large but silent part in this 'debate'.

But while legitimate reasons are being bandied around, it's still worth examining whether there really is a real case to be made for a ban. As I say, I'm not convinced.

[bryantm3]

there are no legitimate reasons... it's totally barbaric to ban certain types of clothing, religious or not. i know a lot of the right over here in the states are whining about socialism, but the europeans are moving way too close to authoritarianism when the government has the power to do this type of thing. this would never happen in the united states, the laws and bureaucracy aren't even set up for this type of psychotic control over people's personal lives.

[bas_I_am]

this would never happen in the united states, the laws and bureaucracy aren't even set up for this type of psychotic control over people's personal lives.

alphretta, ga???

I suggest you check your local laws. . .

I bet that, except on halloween, mardi gras, and new years eve, wearing a mask in public is unlawful.

At least it is here, in fairfax county virginia.

I hazard a guess, the same is true in most metropolitan areas of the US.

[bas_I_am]

http://www.anapsid.org/cnd/mcs/maskcodes.html

[bas_I_am]

http://www.anapsid.org/cnd/mcs/maskcodes.html

After thinking about it. . . I am willing to bet US$100 that wearing a mask in public is illegal in Georgia.

Most likely a a measure to curb the actions of the KKK.

[bryantm3]

have you ever heard of dragoncon? wearing a masque in public is not illegal...

[Strangelet]

Maybe it shouldn't be banned but just needs to be challenged more vigorously.

But how, and by whom?

Thoughts?

My thoughts the other day were for fashion designers to start encorporating them into their fall/winter lines. PR wizards then start crafting the meme that burkhas and hijaabs are extremely sexual in nature, packed with coquettish mischief and hidden lusts. Men start whistling Tex Avery style at women wearing their black bed sheets down champs a lysee. problem solved.

[bas_I_am]

have you ever heard of dragoncon? wearing a masque in public is not illegal...
If you read the laws, masquerade parties and festivals are typically exempt.

Want to bet US$100 that Georgia has laws against wearing a mask in general public???

come on bet. . .

Its only gambling if you lose!

[bas_I_am]

have you ever heard of dragoncon? wearing a masque in public is not illegal...

been on the books in georgia since 1951.

overturned in 1990 by lower court.

reinstated 6 months later

[Deckard]

My thoughts the other day were for fashion designers to start encorporating them into their fall/winter lines. PR wizards then start crafting the meme that burkhas and hijaabs are extremely sexual in nature, packed with coquettish mischief and hidden lusts. Men start whistling Tex Avery style at women wearing their black bed sheets down champs a lysee. problem solved.
Brilliant. :D

[Deckard]

i know a lot of the right over here in the states are whining about socialism, but the europeans are moving way too close to authoritarianism
While it achieved broad cross-party support in France, it's interesting to note that the calls to ban it are coming more strongly from the right than the left, both there and here, despite the fact that it's so often the left that has the reputation for 'nanny state-ism' (no surprise to those who recognize that authoritarianism and socialism are two different concepts).

And from this, back to my questioning of motives - if Conservative MP Philip Hollobone (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10612670) has a reputation for championing women's rights or campaignign for secularism, I must have missed it.

The truth is, for a large part this is being fuelled by the typically British xenophobic, illiberal and pompous attitude of "When in Rome..." - by mean-spiritedness and tribalism. But very few in the wider public debate dares to acknowledge this (ironically ...for fear of causing offence to mean-spirited sour-faced bores! But of course we don't call it political correctness when dodging offence occurs that way round, do we?)

[Sean]

I find this kind of ban to be offensive. It's clearly not motivated by women's rights concerns, any more than opposition to the building of mosques in a number of states here in the U.S. (http://www.pe.com/localnews/inland/stories/PE_News_Local_D_sislamic12.1deeaa4.html) is.

"Mosque construction plans have encountered resistance nationwide in recent months. Proposals to build mosques in Tennessee, Wisconsin and near ground zero in New York have all been met with protests.

'When churches decide to expand or build facilities, what's the purpose behind that?' asked Affad Sheikh, civil rights manager with the Greater Los Angeles Area chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations. 'Why is this question being asked of the Muslim community?'"

and...

The mosque would be built next to Calvary Baptist Church. Pastor Bill Rench worries the mosque is too large for the site.

But he said he's particularly concerned about what he described as "the whole issue of Islam and what it stands for."

"It's certainly a religion that is not only different but contrary to Christianity," he said.

"Where it's dominant, religious freedom goes out the window ... the message of Islam is the spread of Islam by whatever means necessary."

Putting the mosque next to Calvary is "almost like trying to put oil and water together," Rench added.


The longer all these debates rage on, the more it becomes apparent to me that the opposition to Islamic veils, or mosques, or whatever else Islam-related is motivated by ignorance and flat-out bigotry. I'm getting sick to death of it.

Sorry Deckard - I don't mean to hijack the thread into mosque-protest-land. I only posted it because it seemed somewhat pertinent to the discussion. :)

[Deckard]

Not at all Sean - it's very relevant.

The other consideration of course is that by continuing to target Muslims - be it their clothing or their places of worship or hunting out all these "in case it offends Muslims" stories - we end up cultivating a siege mentality and pushing more and more Muslims into ever more conservative and extremist positions. Keep attacking an 'out group' and it makes integration and moderation that much harder. For me, as I think I've said before, this is the single most frustrating aspect of it all; this feedback loop.

[Deckard]

Chris Hitchens in Slate (http://www.slate.com/id/2253493):
The French legislators who seek to repudiate the wearing of the veil or the burqa—whether the garment covers "only" the face or the entire female body—are often described as seeking to impose a "ban." To the contrary, 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. The proposed law is in the best traditions of the French republic, which declares all citizens equal before the law and—no less important—equal in the face of one another.
Ah I see.. so all the French are proposing is "lifting" a ban?

Presumably conservative Muslims are similarly "lifting" the right of women to reveal their heads/faces?

Seriously Hitch, for all your strengths, every now and again you come out with the most shocking sophistry.

[Strangelet]

Hitchens would throw his own mother at the pope if he felt like he had a clear shot. Everything I read of hitchens suggests he would tolerate a police state if it were free of religion.

Its retarded for a government body to posture themselves as a solution to this problem and I gaurantee it will cause a dangerous precedent in western culture. Governments have absolutely no business debating such a ban.

It gets really old when the culture is jammed with the attitude that people who don't want governments enacting this ban somehow support the evil in question, in this case burqas.

[Sean]

Chris Hitchens in Slate (http://www.slate.com/id/2253493):
The French legislators who seek to repudiate the wearing of the veil or the burqa...are attempting to lift...a ban on the right of women to choose their own dressDoes he not see this inherent conflict within his stance? How exactly are you making it possible to give women the right to "choose their own dress" through telling them they aren't legally allowed to wear something? That is, by definition, limiting women's right to "choose their own dress".

[Deckard]

Its retarded for a government body to posture themselves as a solution to this problem
But which problem? That's what I'm trying to ascertain in all this.

Honestly, me personally, I wouldn't have a major problem with the government coming out with a rule about keeping faces uncovered in certain public buildings. It's just about at the limit of what I'd find acceptable in the security-liberty trade-off, but I could just about accept it if the reason was right. The problem I have is that in this instance the reasons aren't remotely convincing, or at least they're reasons that the government has no business getting involved in (effectively forced integration). And yet it has such overwhelming backing, it's disturbing.

A British newspaper carried out a poll last month and found a ban on burkhas is supported by 99 per cent of Britons

A third of Britons back an outright ban on the burkha and two-thirds believe it should be illegal to wear the full-face covering in places such as banks and airports, a poll found. The survey of 1,000 people this year also found that 60 per cent said schools should be allowed to prevent teachers wearing burkhas.
Admittedly that newspaper was the Daily Express (giving Muslims a good kicking since 2001) but there seems to be no question about it, the public are solidly behind this.

EDIT: The Islamic veil across Europe (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/5414098.stm)

[stimpee]

Does he not see this inherent conflict within his stance? How exactly are you making it possible to give women the right to "choose their own dress" through telling them they aren't legally allowed to wear something? That is, by definition, limiting women's right to "choose their own dress".this does of course assume that its the woman who chooses to wear the burka and not the wish of her husband.

[Sean]

this does of course assume that its the woman who chooses to wear the burka and not the wish of her husband.Absolutely. Surely, some women do wear it willingly as one of many expressions of their faith. And on the flipside, quotes like Hitchins' assume that every woman who wears a burqa is unwillingly compelled to do so.

If the concern is truly women's rights, then I would expect to see legislation more tailored to combating the core of the issue as opposed to what this is - simply targeting one of it's symptoms. And targeting it in such a way that will actually be harder on the women who ARE compelled to wear burqas by their husbands or clerics no less. Instead of just being forced to wear a burqa, now the woman will also be forced to pay a fine and is left stuck between a rock and a hard place - do as their misogynistic husband is telling them to do or face the consequences, or do as the country's laws are telling them to do or face the consequences?

[m.g.]

Well... the real thing behind all this is that the actual right government here is just sending a "message" to the 10% approx of extreme right voters so that they'll vote "correctly" at the next 2012 elections... the rest doesn't really exist and the women's right thing is just a pretext (studies here are talking of about less then 400 women actually wearing a burqa, in a country of 65 million with approx 5 to 6 million Muslims).

Apart from that, I have to say that I wouldn't feel very normal to meet a woman wearing a burqa in a school, a Post office or an hospital... which actually never happened to me here... (and I'm not saying that because I'm totally opposed to this government, being myself left oriented).

[myrrh]

Apart from that, I have to say that I wouldn't feel very normal to meet a woman wearing a burqa in a school, a Post office or an hospital...


This is what many people are saying but the reality to this is that if you are uncomfortable meeting a woman in a burqa, it is your problem - not the women wearing it. So why should she be forced by the law to not wear it because you are uncomfortable with it?

(That is not an attack at you directly, but rather using your comment to point out this issue)

[bryantm3]

myrrh, i rarely agree with you, but this is one thing we have in common. but i doubt you would show the same tolerance towards other issues under the sharia law system.

[Strangelet]

But which problem? That's what I'm trying to ascertain in all this.


fantastic question.

[m.g.]

This is what many people are saying but the reality to this is that if you are uncomfortable meeting a woman in a burqa, it is your problem - not the women wearing it. So why should she be forced by the law to not wear it because you are uncomfortable with it?

(That is not an attack at you directly, but rather using your comment to point out this issue)Indeed... and the fact that I feel uncomfortable with meeting a woman in a burqa doesn't mean at all that I want and/or agree with a law "forcing" a woman to be dressed in non-religious way in a country known for its secularism.

[Deckard]

Sorry to keep putting a British spin on a French vote, but another poll has just been conducted in Blighty:

Islamic Burka Ban: 67% Of Britons Agree (http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK-News/Burka-Ban-Two-Thirds-Believe-Islamic-Garment-Should-Be-Outlawed-Five-News-And-YouGov-Survey-Says/Article/201007315666275?lpos=UK_News_Carousel_Region_2&lid=ARTICLE_15666275_Burka_Ban%3A_Two-Thirds_Believe_Islamic_Garment_Should_Be_Outlawed% 2C_Five_News_And_YouGov_Survey_Says)

More than two-thirds of people believe there should be a complete ban on wearing the burka across Britain, according to a Five News and YouGov poll. The Five News and YouGov poll revealed out of more than 2,000 respondents, 67% either agreed or strongly agreed with a British ban.

One of those who thinks the burka should be outlawed is the chairman of the Muslim Educational Centre (http://www.meco.org.uk/) in Oxford. Imam Dr Taj Hargey:

We're not telling these women what they can wear. We're telling them the only thing they should do is uncover their faces...

(Orwell would be proud)

...I think this notion that somehow this is a religious symbol, a Koranic requirement, is nonsense.

Those in the North of England and Wales are most in favour of prohibiting the burka - with 71% saying they would support such a move. Those in London looked to be the most tolerant, with 32% either disagreeing or strongly disagreeing on a ban. Following the capital was Scotland, where 30% of people did not agree with outlawing the Islamic garment.

[Deckard]

Indeed... and the fact that I feel uncomfortable with meeting a woman in a burqa doesn't mean at all that I want and/or agree with a law "forcing" a woman to be dressed in non-religious way in a country known for its secularism.
Same here. I actually resent the growing prevalence of Burqas around here, for the simple reason that I think what it represents is infantile, primitive and rather pathetic. I've had a conversation with someone wearing one, and I must confess I felt something ranging from pity to light contempt for her, even though I did my best to keep those feelings in check and tried to treat her with the same respect I'd show anyone. But like you say, that doesn't mean banning it is the right thing to do.

[Deckard]

In the UK the "debate" continues.

First, the Daily Mail was apoplectic with rage (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1295665/Banning-burkas-UK-British-says-Green.html) (when is it not?) when Conservative environment secretary Caroline Spelman appeared to defend the wearing of burkas.

INTERVIEWER:
There seems to be a bit of a dispute in the government at the moment about this issue of whether or not the wearing of veils and burkhas should be banned or not, a lot of public opinion would like to see that ban, seeing it as somehow un-British. Where do you stand on that?

CAROLINE SPELMAN:
I take a strong view on this actually. I don’t, living in this country as a woman want to be told what I can and can’t wear. That is something which both myself and Sayeeda Warsi have argued very strongly that one of the things we pride ourselves on in this country is being free and being free to choose what you wear is a part of that so actually banning the burkha is absolutely contrary I think to what this country is all about.

INTERVIEWER:
You don’t see burkhas as being repressive of women? You don’t see a lot of men wearing them do you?

CAROLINE SPELMAN:
Indeed you don’t but I think it is quite interesting, I’ve been out to Afghanistan and I think I understand much better as a result of actually visiting why a lot of Muslim women want to wear the burkha. It is part of their culture, it is part of understanding that they choose to go out in the burkha and I think those that live in this country, if they choose to wear a burkha, should be free to do so.

INTERVIEWER:
You really feel that? You don’t think it is a manifestation of a culture which puts women in second place?

CAROLINE SPELMAN:
I think it is something you have to understand the actual culture and it was probably only when I went there and spent some time amongst women that I really understood that for them it’s a choice. For them the burkha confers dignity, it’s their choice, they choose to go out dressed in a burkha and I understand that it is a different culture from mine but the fact is in this country women want to be free to choose whether or not to cover their heads, whether or not to go out in the morning wearing a burkha, that’s for them. We are a free country, we attach importance to people being a free and for a woman it is empowering to be able to choose each morning when you wake up what you wear.

The Mail followed shortly after with a piece by Yasmin Alibhai-Brown headlined The burka empowering women? You must be mad, minister (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1296132/The-burka-empowering-women-You-mad-minister.html). And Brown knows her onions - she is, after all, a Muslim. Even (gasp) a left wing one. (Mail readers' heads must have popped after reading that piece)

The Conservative immigration minister Damian Green was next up, insisting that the French ban was "very unlikely" to be copied in the UK. ("Telling people what they can and can't wear, if they're just walking down the street, is a rather un-British thing to do ... we're a tolerant and mutually respectful society.")

All the while, the right wing newspapers are doing their best to faciliate a calm and rational debate on this topic:

http://i28.tinypic.com/15d00mo.jpg

I'm confused. I thought it was only "the PC brigade" that called for things to be banned?

As in "Now the PC Brigade wants to ban the veil... in case it offends.... and YOU pay.... " etc etc

Btw, isn't that photo great? Nice and direct, communicating to the dear reader the gravity of what Britain is up against. Photojournalism at its best.

[Sean]

In the UK the "debate" continues.

First, the Daily Mail was apoplectic with rage (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1295665/Banning-burkas-UK-British-says-Green.html) (when is it not?) when Conservative environment secretary Caroline Spelman appeared to defend the wearing of burkas.



The Mail followed shortly after with a piece by Yasmin Alibhai-Brown headlined The burka empowering women? You must be mad, minister (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1296132/The-burka-empowering-women-You-mad-minister.html). And Brown knows her onions - she is, after all, a Muslim. Even (gasp) a left wing one. (Mail readers' heads must have popped after reading that piece)

The Conservative immigration minister Damian Green was next up, insisting that the French ban was "very unlikely" to be copied in the UK. ("Telling people what they can and can't wear, if they're just walking down the street, is a rather un-British thing to do ... we're a tolerant and mutually respectful society.")

All the while, the right wing newspapers are doing their best to faciliate a calm and rational debate on this topic:

http://i28.tinypic.com/15d00mo.jpg

I'm confused. I thought it was only "the PC brigade" that called for things to be banned?

As in "Now the PC Brigade wants to ban the veil... in case it offends.... and YOU pay.... " etc etc

Btw, isn't that photo great? Nice and direct, communicating to the dear reader the gravity of what Britain is up against. Photojournalism at its best.
Is there no allowance in these people's minds for the fact that some women likely choose to wear the burqa, and shouldn't have doing so banned?

And off topic, I need to find that Daily Star cover to send to my friend Pete Burns. I can't seem to track it down so far - where did you get it Deckard?

[Deckard]

Sean,

It's just a thumbnail from Sky News (http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Newspaper-Front-Pages-Tuesday-July-20-2010/Media-Gallery/201007315667656?lpos=Home_News_in_Picture_UK_News_ Region_0&lid=GALLERY_15667656_Newspaper_Front_Pages_Tuesday _July_20_2010) (slide 3)

I take it your friend isn't the one who founded Dead or Alive and went on to... (well, I'll leave it there just in case ;) )

EDIT: Here's today's Daily Star:

http://i28.tinypic.com/16aa32b.jpg

This isn't the only national newspaper that's been spending years doing this sort of thing.

[Sean]

Sean,

It's just a thumbnail from Sky News (http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Newspaper-Front-Pages-Tuesday-July-20-2010/Media-Gallery/201007315667656?lpos=Home_News_in_Picture_UK_News_ Region_0&lid=GALLERY_15667656_Newspaper_Front_Pages_Tuesday _July_20_2010) (slide 3)

I take it your friend isn't the one who founded Dead or Alive and went on to... (well, I'll leave it there just in case ;)Thanks Deckard. And no, he's just my friend who's name we make fun of every chance we get. "Ouch! My peter burns!" is the general idea...

[Deckard]

Thanks Deckard. And no, he's just my friend who's name we make fun of every chance we get. "Ouch! My peter burns!" is the general idea...
Lol, poor fella! Not quite as unfortunate as little Willie Hertz, but still...

Anyway... yes, veiled Muslims...

Muslim woman wearing veil 'refused bus ride' in London (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-berkshire-10728912)

Yasmin said at first she boarded the bus by mistake when it was not in service to ask where it was going, but was told by the driver to get off. "About 10 minutes later... the passengers started getting on. When I went forward to show my ticket he said, 'Get off the bus'. I presumed he was still angry because I got on the bus before. He said, 'I am not going to take you on the bus because you two are a threat.' I realised it wasn't due to me getting on the bus, this may be a racist attack."

She asked for his contact details but when he refused she began to film him and he covered his face. "I said, 'It's OK for you to cover your face on my recording but it's not OK for my friend to cover her face out of choice?'

Good for her!