France: Ban the Burka

[Ms_Maryam]

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/06 ... index.html

PARIS, France (CNN) -- The French National Assembly announced Tuesday the creation of an inquiry into whether women in France should be allowed to wear the burka, one day after President Nicolas Sarkozy controversially told lawmakers that the traditional Muslim garment was "not welcome" in France.

A cross-party panel of 32 lawmakers will investigate whether the traditional Muslim garment poses a threat to the secular nature of the French constitution. They are due to report back with their recommendations in six months.

Last week 57 lawmakers -- led by communist legislator Andre Gerin -- signed a petition calling for a study into the feasibility of legislation to ban the burka in public places.

On Monday Sarkozy declared in a keynote parliamentary address that the burka, which covers women from head to toe, is "not welcome" in France. Watch why burkas are such a controversial issue in France

"The problem of the burka is not a religious problem. This is an issue of a woman's freedom and dignity. This is not a religious symbol. It is a sign of subservience; it is a sign of lowering. I want to say solemnly, the burka is not welcome in France," Sarkozy told lawmakers.

The right of Muslim women to cover themselves is fiercely debated in France, which has a large Muslim minority but also a staunchly secular constitution. Should Muslim women in France be banned from wearing the burka? Sound Off below

In 2004, the French parliament passed legislation banning Muslim girls from wearing headscarves in state schools, prompting widespread Muslim protests. The law also banned other conspicuous religious symbols including Sikh turbans, large Christian crucifixes and Jewish skull caps.

Last year, France's top court denied a Moroccan woman's naturalization request on the grounds that she wore a burka.

Some lawmakers have called for burkas to be banned completely, claiming they are degrading to women. They also include housing minister Fadela Amara, a Muslim-born women's rights campaigner, who has called the garment "a kind of tomb for women."

"We cannot accept in our country women trapped behind a fence, cut off from social life, deprived of any identity. This is not the idea that we have of a woman's dignity," Sarkozy said Monday.

But French Muslim leaders say that only a small minority of women wear the full veil and had previously criticized calls for the issue to be the subject of a parliamentary inquiry.

"To raise the subject like this, via a parliamentary committee, is a way of stigmatizing Islam and the Muslims of France," Mohammed Moussaoui, the head of the French Council for the Muslim Religion, told AFP last week.

"We are shocked by the idea parliament should be put to work on such a marginal issue."

According to CIA estimates, between 5 and 10 percent of France's 64 million population are Muslim. The country does not collect its own statistics on religion in accordance with laws enshrining France's status as a secular state.

France is not the only European Union country to have considered banning the burka. Dutch lawmakers voted in favor of a ban in 2005, although the government of the time was defeated in elections before it could pass legislation to outlaw the garment.

....


1. Do you agree/disagree with President Sarkozy's stance on this?

2. Would you be for/against a ban on the Burka? Other religious wear (the cross, turbans, Jewish cap)?

[micatala]

To be honest, though, if one really wanted to stand up for the rights of Islamic women in Europe, one ought to consider better economic policies a priority rather than clothing bans.

MagusYanam has cut through the crap and hit on the central issue in this debate. There is a degree of hypocrisy in dealing only with the symbolic expression and not with the more substantive issues. This ban only makes sense in the context of measures to protect the economic, social, political and human rights of France's Muslim women.

Of course, the ban had nothing to do with the rights at all. It has to do with assimilation into the culture. In the French view, having clusters of immigrants that keep their cultural identity is detrimental to French society as a whole. Their intention is to make everyone have the same cultural identity, externally at least.

As another example, what about Amish or Hutterite cultures? These are pretty well-defined, even insulated, cultures in the U.S. They typically have rather distinctive dress and, at least for women, hair styles (women put their hair up either in buns or some sort of braid). Women in these cultures also typically have very restricted roles and arguably less freedom than the men.

The distincitive appearances could be considered a symbol of "female oppression." It seems the same rationale offered in France might apply to this situation as well. Should the U.S. do anything about either the symbolic or substantive issues with respect to these cultures?

[Coyotero]

It's cruel, no doubt, but it's their culture.You can't force a primitive culture to become enlightened (We tried this in America. It didn't work, all it did was piss everyone off and result in many, many needless deaths.) It's up to them to join true civilization on their own time, otherwise it wouldn't be true civilization.

I agree with Scottie here. These things can't be excused simply because 'it's their culture' - though at the same time, it doesn't mean we have to go around forcing everyone who disagrees with us to agree with us. No - sanctions, public censure, speaking out, donating to and participating in advocacy groups are all perfectly valid ways of taking a stand against abuse and killing of children, and you don't have to say it's alright when clearly it's not. No one of my acquaintance would support stoning 12-year-olds to death for any reason.

Thank you Magus, you said it better than I could.

Let me reassure y'all, I in no way condone the beating and killing of children. In my mind, causing unwanted physical harm to another living thing is crossing the line of what is acceptable. By the same stroke, the point I was trying to make is that our culture and ideas can't simply be imposed where they're unwanted.

Back to the point I made in my first post- I think, on a philosophical level, the wearing of the Burka (when used to subjugate women) is an unjust and primitive practice ... Not nearly on par with beating children to death, but that's beside the point. What worries me about this law is that it is putting the government in control of what people can wear, and that is just as oppressive as what they are trying to defeat.

[Scottie]

Of course, the ban had nothing to do with the rights at all. It has to do with assimilation into the culture. In the French view, having clusters of immigrants that keep their cultural identity is detrimental to French society as a whole. Their intention is to make everyone have the same cultural identity, externally at least.

Is this simply your opinion or did someone in the French government make a statement to this effect?

What's so wrong with assimilation? Here in the Uk we have had decades of "respecting" different cultures and not commenting on them (unless it's totally banal comments along the lines of "don't they wear colourful clothes/nice jewellry/beautiful hairstyles?" and while I believe deeply in equality, I have some misgivings about our policy of non-assimilation, as have the government after the atrocities of 7/7 and 30/06.
When settling in another country, immigrants should respect the host countries culture. "Inclusivity" and "diversity" have led to ghettos forming.

I am very uncomfortable even saying this, as I am concerned lest my comments appear racist. I abhor racism. What I am arguing for is a little leeway on "both sides".
We must respect immigrants culture but they must accept our laws, norms and ways of life.

I do hope I'm not rambling!

[Goat]

Of course, the ban had nothing to do with the rights at all. It has to do with assimilation into the culture. In the French view, having clusters of immigrants that keep their cultural identity is detrimental to French society as a whole. Their intention is to make everyone have the same cultural identity, externally at least.

Is this simply your opinion or did someone in the French government make a statement to this effect?

There have been a number of articles on cultural assimilation in France, and the banning of religious symbols was mentioned as one of the tools.

This is an article that describe some of the process. (I remember similar articles from around the same time period, but different authors)

http://www.opendemocracy.net/faith-euro ... e_1753.jsp

[Scottie]

The bottom line, for me at least, is that there must be point at which freedoms have to be curtailed; a line in the sand drawn and I think the wearing of a burka goes over that line as the MAIN reason for its use is to opress 50% of the population.

I believe strongly that it's the states duty to interfere when cultural or religious behaviours RESTRICT people's freedom.

and the argument that the state has no right to tell its citizens how to dress is a red herring. It is already against the law in most countries to wear very revealing clothing--or no clothing at all. I can't go to the supermarket topless or swim naked in the local river (and quite right too, as I'm no spring chicken!). We had a situation in the news last year where a primary school assistant, who's job it was to help children of immigrants to learn English (she was employed specifically for this function) refused to take off her face covering as the teacher in the class was male. As a result she was sacked; there was an outcry from some that her religious freedom to wear face and head covering was being denied. She took her claim to a tribunal and lost.
Common sense prevailed.

[Coyotero]

The bottom line, for me at least, is that there must be point at which freedoms have to be curtailed; a line in the sand drawn and I think the wearing of a burka goes over that line as the MAIN reason for its use is to opress 50% of the population.

But it's not being used to oppress 50% of the population... I'd be surprised if it was being worn by 5%... You're talking about banning something that people are free to decide whether to wear or not. This is a garment being worn by a small percentage of muslim women in a country where they are free to leave their husbands if they wish to. I see no reason for the government to have to intervene.

I believe strongly that it's the states duty to interfere when cultural or religious behaviours RESTRICT people's freedom.

I believe strongly that the states duty is to preserve the personal freedom of it's inhabitants at all costs. Restricting freedom because somebody's restricting freedom (when in fact they are not) is hardly an answer.

I don't claim to know your personal political leanings, Scottie. but here in America, a lot of the freedoms we have that people have fought and died for are slowly being trimmed out of our constitution by politicians, and it disgusts me.

and the argument that the state has no right to tell its citizens how to dress is a red herring. It is already against the law in most countries to wear very revealing clothing--or no clothing at all. I can't go to the supermarket topless or swim naked in the local river (and quite right too, as I'm no spring chicken!).

Once again, you use the most extreme example you can come up with... I said the government has no business telling people what to wear... Public nudity is another matter entirely. Obviously you can't have people walking around naked everywhere.

As for revealing clothes, around here, nobody cares. As long as you have your naughty bits covered up, you're well inside the law (never understood the American aversion to boobies... But that's a whole other topic.).

We had a situation in the news last year where a primary school assistant, who's job it was to help children of immigrants to learn English (she was employed specifically for this function) refused to take off her face covering as the teacher in the class was male. As a result she was sacked; there was an outcry from some that her religious freedom to wear face and head covering was being denied. She took her claim to a tribunal and lost.
Common sense prevailed.

If, to you, common sense means the death of freedom, then I'd agree with you.

[Scottie]

But it's not being used to oppress 50% of the population... I'd be surprised if it was being worn by 5%... You're talking about banning something that people are free to decide whether to wear or not. This is a garment being worn by a small percentage of muslim women in a country where they are free to leave their husbands if they wish to. I see no reason for the government to have to intervene..

I agree that, in France, it would not constitute 50% of the population (my mistake), however it still, to me, remains a garment of oppression. It's easy to say that these womwn are "free", but in reality many islamic women living in the west are opressed by the culture of their country of origin- oppresion perpetrated by male family members. As for being free to leave their families if they wish; you have clealy never heard of "honour killings". An abominable practice to further keep women in fear and therefore in line.

I believe strongly that the states duty is to preserve the personal freedom of it's inhabitants at all costs. Restricting freedom because somebody's restricting freedom (when in fact they are not) is hardly an answer.

I don't claim to know your personal political leanings, Scottie. but here in America, a lot of the freedoms we have that people have fought and died for are slowly being trimmed out of our constitution by politicians, and it disgusts me.

I suppose we will have to agree to disagree because I do NOT believe in personal freedom "at all costs". Someone's personal freedom can be another persons oppression. I am not free to discriminate either against or in favour of gay people black people-and quite right too. I am free to dislike anyone I choose, I am not free to act upon it.

and the argument that the state has no right to tell its citizens how to dress is a red herring. It is already against the law in most countries to wear very revealing clothing--or no clothing at all. I can't go to the supermarket topless or swim naked in the local river (and quite right too, as I'm no spring chicken!).

Once again, you use the most extreme example you can come up with... I said the government has no business telling people what to wear... Public nudity is another matter entirely. Obviously you can't have people walking around naked everywhere.

Not much of an argument. I could just as easlily say that obviously you can't have people walking around in a burka!

As for revealing clothes, around here, nobody cares. As long as you have your naughty bits covered up, you're well inside the law (never understood the American aversion to boobies... But that's a whole other topic.).

some people do care. We have had the naked rambler trying to walk the length of the country in a bobble hat and nothing else. He's only managed to travel about 30 miles and it's taken him over a year to do that as he keeps getting arrested for public nakedness.
Who decides what's naughty and what's not?

[Coyotero]

I agree that, in France, it would not constitute 50% of the population (my mistake), however it still, to me, remains a garment of oppression. It's easy to say that these womwn are "free", but in reality many islamic women living in the west are opressed by the culture of their country of origin- oppresion perpetrated by male family members. As for being free to leave their families if they wish; you have clealy never heard of "honour killings". An abominable practice to further keep women in fear and therefore in line.

Yes, I have heard of honor killings. Please do not presume to know what my knowledge is, it's rude.

Honor killings don't factor into it, you're talking about the most extreme of the extremist Muslim practices. It is murder and it should be handled as such. Banning an article of clothing will have no bearing on other barbarous acts.

I suppose we will have to agree to disagree because I do NOT believe in personal freedom "at all costs". Someone's personal freedom can be another persons oppression. I am not free to discriminate either against or in favour of gay people black people-and quite right too. I am free to dislike anyone I choose, I am not free to act upon it.

Yet again, you're taking it way out of context. Let me cite my own words on page one, post six:

You're talking about the death of freedom, here. The government has no business telling people what they can and can't wear provided nobody is being harmed

provided nobody is being harmed... Discrimination implies that some kind of harm is being done. You are free to dislike anyone you want, and you should be. You should be free to speak ill of them, just as they deserve to be able to do the same to you. Freedom means freedom, not the illusion of freedom. Everyone deserves to be protected from harm, offense is another matter.

Once again, you use the most extreme example you can come up with... I said the government has no business telling people what to wear... Public nudity is another matter entirely. Obviously you can't have people walking around naked everywhere.

Not much of an argument. I could just as easlily say that obviously you can't have people walking around in a burka!

Regulating nudity and regulating a particular garment (that is of profound religious significance to some) are two entirely different issues. Apples and oranges.

As for revealing clothes, around here, nobody cares. As long as you have your naughty bits covered up, you're well inside the law (never understood the American aversion to boobies... But that's a whole other topic.).

some people do care. We have had the naked rambler trying to walk the length of the country in a bobble hat and nothing else. He's only managed to travel about 30 miles and it's taken him over a year to do that as he keeps getting arrested for public nakedness./quote]

Again, nakedness and 'revealing' are different issues. And if you want my honest opinion, I think way too many people are afraid of nudity.

Who decides what's naughty and what's not?

The public, I suppose. Over here it's been agreed that women's nipples (What's up with that?) and everyone's genitals are off-limits for public display.

[Scottie]

I'm really sorry if I have offended you, Coyotero. I really had no intention to do that and I apologise.
I think my views have been formed by my own cultural upbringing. I believe very much in a society where we care for each other and this sometimes means the loss of some freedoms for some people. The greater good must prevail.

I also don't think that we in the UK value freedom as much as citizens of some other countries.

[Coyotero]

It's not a problem Scottie.

I just want to make sure my point is clear. I don't defend the burka in any way, but I do defend someone's right to wear it if they choose to. I am philosophically strongly against the radical Muslim oppression of women, but I don't think that banning a garment is a means to an end, all it does is create the illusion of a problem solved whilst creating more animosity.

And yes, I imagine there is a cultural overtone to the argument. Living my whole life in the American west, I see the value in being able to dress, act, and speak how you want, even if it is offensive to others. I imagine a European outlook would be somewhat different.

What part of the U.K. do you live in?