French MPs vote to ban Islamic full veil in public

[bas_I_am]

Originally Posted by bryantm3

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]

Originally Posted by Strangelet

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.

[Deckard]

Originally Posted by bryantm3

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 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. 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:

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]

Originally Posted by Deckard

Chris Hitchens in Slate:
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 dress

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".

[Deckard]

Originally Posted by Strangelet

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

[stimpee]

Originally Posted by Sean

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.