PDA

View Full Version : The French are at it again, (and the Dutch)



skuthorp
06-21-2009, 09:29 AM
From the Newswer website June 20:
"France’s parliament is making noises about banning head-to-toe Islamic women’s dress such as the burka and niqab, the Times of London reports. Opponents called the the dress “a moving prison” and a “tomb," and say it's cropping up more in big cities. If the burka is “contrary to republican principles,” a minister said, “naturally parliament would have to draw the necessary conclusions.” The nation banned headscarves from public schools a few years ago after a controversial debate. "

A few years ago they banned them (and other overt religious symbols) in schools. The Dutch contemplated such a ban on security and civil liberty grounds stating that 'sauce for the goose was sauce for the gander' seeing how Muslim men had embraced western mores so enthusiastically. The French do seem to be trying to hold on to their ideal of a secular state.

Andrew Craig-Bennett
06-21-2009, 03:58 PM
There's a move to ban the burqa in Scotland.

Its led by two sisters, both Muslim, who are fed up with their father's jewellery business in Glasgow being raided by MEN dressed as women and wearing the burqa.

bobbys
06-21-2009, 06:16 PM
The french should make it manditory to have woman dress in French Maid outfits or those CAN CAN outfits:D

skuthorp
06-21-2009, 07:56 PM
"The french should make it manditory to have woman dress in French Maid outfits or those CAN CAN outfits:D "

LOL!!

PatCox
06-21-2009, 11:17 PM
Sorry, but most US Americans who are conservative, should be celebrating the fact that the French are not shy about wanting to preserve their traditional culture, in the face of immigration by groups who want to live in France, but don't want to be French.

Here in the US, we are all immigrants, but we came with the desire, most of us, to become Americans, and those immigrants of the last 150 years in the US, they mostly wanted their children to become Americans and engage in and become a part of American society.

The French don't care a damn about political correctness, and they are straightforward in rejecting the idea that immigrants who have extreme traditions which are incompatible with traditional French culture should have some "right" to move to France, but refuse to be French.

Just as, I think rightly, we should reject immigrants who move to the USA, but who don't want to be Americans, who want to set up their own little culture here and reject our values.

BarnacleGrim
06-22-2009, 05:59 AM
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3b/Logo_de_la_R%C3%A9publique_fran%C3%A7aise.svg/400px-Logo_de_la_R%C3%A9publique_fran%C3%A7aise.svg.png

The message is crystal clear. France is a country that values freedom and they should not and will not allow anyone to erode these three values. This motto should be adopted by the rest of the EU as well.

The whole concept of a Burqa goes against all of this. It is every person's duty to look out for his or her own freedom and equality, but also the freedom of equality of all others.

Tylerdurden
06-22-2009, 06:11 AM
Vive la France! I love these guys!

James McMullen
06-22-2009, 10:43 AM
The Burqa is a traditional, cultural form of Muslim dress. . . . .that has been used to subjugate and oppress women in the traditional way for centuries! I fully support the French Government banning the black prison on humanitarian grounds. The Muslim world needs to stop its institutional oppression and treatment of women as the property of their husbands or fathers!

coelacanth2
06-22-2009, 11:17 AM
Good for them. Forced assimilation is truly awful (See some of Paladin's posts) but in this case, the end may justify the means. Oops, did I just say that? How non-culturally correct of me.:D

Kaa
06-22-2009, 11:24 AM
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3b/Logo_de_la_R%C3%A9publique_fran%C3%A7aise.svg/400px-Logo_de_la_R%C3%A9publique_fran%C3%A7aise.svg.png

The message is crystal clear. France is a country that values freedom and they should not and will not allow anyone to erode these three values. This motto should be adopted by the rest of the EU as well.

The whole concept of a Burqa goes against all of this. It is every person's duty to look out for his or her own freedom and equality, but also the freedom of equality of all others.

:eek: I am sorry, my ironymeter is pegging.

So in order to preserve freedom we must limit freedom?

Where is liberty in the government prescribing what kind of clothes one can or cannot wear?

Kaa

BarnacleGrim
06-22-2009, 11:40 AM
I know it sounds bad, but think about why these people have come here in the first place. They have come to Europe to escape from oppression, but then some of them continue to oppress their fellow refugees! We must open our borders to immigrants, but we must not open our borders to the very things they are running from.

It's not just about protecting the European culture, it's about protecting the safe haven for oppressed people.

Captain Blight
06-22-2009, 11:47 AM
Note that France officially has no racial tension. This is because racism is outlawed in France.

Unofficially, of course, things may be a little different. I would submit that outlawing the wearing of cloth in a certain way is arbitrary and repressive and regressive, certainly inimical to the idea that freedom starts at the personal level.

Kaa
06-22-2009, 11:52 AM
I know it sounds bad, but think about why these people have come here in the first place. They have come to Europe to escape from oppression, but then some of them continue to oppress their fellow refugees! We must open our borders to immigrants, but we must not open our borders to the very things they are running from.

It's not just about protecting the European culture, it's about protecting the safe haven for oppressed people.

*cough*bull*****cough*

"These people" came to Europe to find a better life for themselves. The ban on burqa is pure bigotry -- "these people are too much unlike us, let's forbid them to be unlike us". Liberty, my ass.

Can Christian monks wear their robes in the street? Why? Can priests walk around in their dog collars? That's religiously imposed clothing, isn't it?

This has nothing to do with freedom from oppression, this is pure denial of an "alien" culture. In marxist terms, that's cultural imperialism.

Kaa

Bruce Hooke
06-22-2009, 12:01 PM
I have very mixed feelings about this. On the one hand, I don't like someone's relatives forcing a person to wear particular clothes, on the other hand, I also do not like the government saying what a person can and cannot wear. Imaging a 70 year old women who has emigrated to France with her son and daughter-in-law. We may see her as oppressed because she has worn a burka all of her adult life, but at this stage in her life a burka may be what she feels most comfortable wearing in public. Saying she can't wear a burka may be even more imprisoning because she may well then avoid going outside the home if she can in any way avoid it. For that matter, a 30 year old women may be in a similar bind...no burka may mean her husband does his best to keep her from going outside the house.

From all I've seen, assimilation works best if we don't try to force it. America has shown this to be pretty effective. Most new immigrant groups, in the first generation, retain a lot of the ways of life from their native land, but within a generation or two we cannot tell whose family immigrated to the US 40 years ago and whose family came here 140 years ago. There may be small touches of cultural heritage that are retained, but this just adds a bit of richness to a generally "American" lifestyle.

I wonder if anyone has tried to ask the women who wear burka's in France what THEY want? I realize this may be hard to do and get an honest answer but I hope it has at least been tried.

Captain Blight
06-22-2009, 12:08 PM
Timespan. Stupid regressive laws almost always ignore timespan. Just give things a minute, and they'll simmer down.

mizzenman
06-22-2009, 12:23 PM
I have very mixed feelings about this. On the one hand, I don't like someone's relatives forcing a person to wear particular clothes, on the other hand, I also do not like the government saying what a person can and cannot wear. Imaging a 70 year old women who has emigrated to France with her son and daughter-in-law. We may see her as oppressed because she has worn a burka all of her adult life, but at this stage in her life a burka may be what she feels most comfortable wearing in public. Saying she can't wear a burka may be even more imprisoning because she may well then avoid going outside the home if she can in any way avoid it. For that matter, a 30 year old women may be in a similar bind...no burka may mean her husband does his best to keep her from going outside the house.

From all I've seen, assimilation works best if we don't try to force it. America has shown this to be pretty effective. Most new immigrant groups, in the first generation, retain a lot of the ways of life from their native land, but within a generation or two we cannot tell whose family immigrated to the US 40 years ago and whose family came here 140 years ago. There may be small touches of cultural heritage that are retained, but this just adds a bit of richness to a generally "American" lifestyle.

I wonder if anyone has tried to ask the women who wear burka's in France what THEY want? I realize this may be hard to do and get an honest answer but I hope it has at least been tried.

One difference between the USA and europe is that in USA all are imigrants, not so in Europe. In Sweden for example we have maybe 10% imigrants. These people have much more difficultys in finding jobs compared to ethnic swedes. Maybe since they stand out so much in an otherwise ethnicaly homogenous country like this.

Bruce Hooke
06-22-2009, 01:02 PM
One difference between the USA and europe is that in USA all are imigrants, not so in Europe. In Sweden for example we have maybe 10% imigrants. These people have much more difficultys in finding jobs compared to ethnic swedes. Maybe since they stand out so much in an otherwise ethnicaly homogenous country like this.

Yes. This is certainly a key difference. It does seem to me that trying to force people to assimilate is not likely to help this much. It seems to me that it sends an overall message that other cultures are less welcome, thus possibly encouraging more discrimination without really doing much to actually help the immigrants blend in so much that they will not face discrimination.

peter radclyffe
06-22-2009, 01:29 PM
The Burqa is a traditional, cultural form of Muslim dress. . . . .that has been used to subjugate and oppress women in the traditional way for centuries! I fully support the French Government banning the black prison on humanitarian grounds. The Muslim world needs to stop its institutional oppression and treatment of women as the property of their husbands or fathers!
damn right, thousands of years of male violence and oppression has to stop, in every country

peter radclyffe
06-22-2009, 01:47 PM
I know it sounds bad, but think about why these people have come here in the first place. They have come to Europe to escape from oppression, but then some of them continue to oppress their fellow refugees! We must open our borders to immigrants, but we must not open our borders to the very things they are running from.

It's not just about protecting the European culture, it's about protecting the safe haven for oppressed people.
very well put,

Flying Orca
06-22-2009, 01:55 PM
Timespan. Stupid regressive laws almost always ignore timespan. Just give things a minute, and they'll simmer down.

Or a generation, anyway.

carioca1232001
06-22-2009, 02:06 PM
I have very mixed feelings about this. On the one hand, I don't like someone's relatives forcing a person to wear particular clothes, on the other hand, I also do not like the government saying what a person can and cannot wear. Imaging a 70 year old women who has emigrated to France with her son and daughter-in-law. We may see her as oppressed because she has worn a burka all of her adult life, but at this stage in her life a burka may be what she feels most comfortable wearing in public. Saying she can't wear a burka may be even more imprisoning because she may well then avoid going outside the home if she can in any way avoid it. For that matter, a 30 year old women may be in a similar bind...no burka may mean her husband does his best to keep her from going outside the house.

From all I've seen, assimilation works best if we don't try to force it. America has shown this to be pretty effective. Most new immigrant groups, in the first generation, retain a lot of the ways of life from their native land, but within a generation or two we cannot tell whose family immigrated to the US 40 years ago and whose family came here 140 years ago. There may be small touches of cultural heritage that are retained, but this just adds a bit of richness to a generally "American" lifestyle.

I wonder if anyone has tried to ask the women who wear burka's in France what THEY want? I realize this may be hard to do and get an honest answer but I hope it has at least been tried.

I couldn´t agree more with you !

Having just returned some 10 hours ago from a 10-day, eye-opening trip to Turkey, I was amazed to see that 95% of Istanbul´s female population are indistinguishable from, say, Athens´ or Rome´s or whatever. 'Full Burkas' are as rare a sight as elephants are to 5 th. Ave in NYC, although around 5 % wear the khajab (long robes and a head scarf).

In the ancient city of Konya in Anatolia, home to Mevlana, a renown leader of Sufi philosophy, thought and practice in the 13 th century AD, there was a record number of women wearing khajabs and burkas. Our Muslim guide quipped that such an attitude on part of Turkish women was out of line with Konya´s Sufi past.

mizzenman
06-22-2009, 02:10 PM
I couldn´t agree more with you !

Having just returned some 10 hours ago from a 10-day, eye-opening trip to Turkey, I was amazed to see that 95% of Istanbul´s female population are indistinguishable from, say, Athens´ or Rome´s or whatever. 'Full Burkas' are as rare a sight as elephants are to 5 th. Ave in NYC, although around 5 % wear the khajab (long robes and a head scarf).

In the ancient city of Konya in Anatolia, home to Mevlana, a renown leader of Sufi philosophy, thought and practice in the 13 th century AD, there was a record number of women wearing khajabs and burkas. Our Muslim guide quipped that such an attitude on part of Turkish women was out of line with Konya´s Sufi past.

That is interesting, IIRC the amount of coverage a woman can use in Turky is restricted.

bobbys
06-22-2009, 02:14 PM
My GreatGranny and Grandma wore Babushksa.

But they made great Stuffed Cabbage and homemade piorgies, And Homemade Slovak cookies..

So im down with the hankerchiefs on the head if they can cook:)

carioca1232001
06-22-2009, 02:31 PM
That is interesting, IIRC the amount of coverage a woman can use in Turky is restricted.

Restricted by whom ?

For sure, Istanbul (12 million population) is Turkey´s principal dynamo of finance, industry and modernity.

The lesser developed regions - close to Iraq and Iran - are still locked up in their traditional ways (we were told), but it will be just a matter of time before they too see the light.

Only if Mustapha Kemal Attaturk were alive now to see the fruits of his secular state !

mizzenman
06-22-2009, 05:12 PM
Restricted by whom ?

For sure, Istanbul (12 million population) is Turkey´s principal dynamo of finance, industry and modernity.

The lesser developed regions - close to Iraq and Iran - are still locked up in their traditional ways (we were told), but it will be just a matter of time before they too see the light.

Only if Mustapha Kemal Attaturk were alive now to see the fruits of his secular state !

From Wiki:


The constitutional rule that prohibits discrimination on religious grounds is taken very seriously. Turkey, as a secular country, prohibits by law the wearing of religious headcover and theo-political symbolic garments for both genders in government buildings, schools, and universities;[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secularism_in_Turkey#cite_note-7) a law upheld by the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Court_of_Human_Rights) as "legitimate" on November 10 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_10), 2005 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005) in Leyla Şahin v. Turkey (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leyla_%C5%9Eahin_v._Turkey).[9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secularism_in_Turkey#cite_note-8)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secularism_in_Turkey

Looks to me as if they have forced them selves into secularisation. I just thought that was interesting

Osborne Russell
06-22-2009, 06:03 PM
Turkey, as a secular country, prohibits by law the wearing of religious headcover and theo-political symbolic garments for both genders in government buildings, schools, and universities;[8] a law upheld by the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights as "legitimate" on November 10, 2005 in Leyla Şahin v. Turkey.[9]

1. A plain violation of religious freedom.
2. The difference between the US and the rest of the world.

James McMullen
06-22-2009, 09:17 PM
I fully support limiting religious freedom to only allowing the non-stupid parts to be practiced.

skuthorp
06-22-2009, 09:55 PM
"Freedom" is relative, in particular relative to it's effect on others. In a secular state this applies especially. And re the migration of africans to France, Spain, Italy etc, I trhink it's more economic than political.

Kaa
06-22-2009, 11:14 PM
I fully support limiting religious freedom to only allowing the non-stupid parts to be practiced.

Would you support limiting political freedom to only allowing the non-stupid parts to be practiced?

Kaa

PatCox
06-22-2009, 11:15 PM
The one thing a free society cannot tolerate is intolerance.

The muslim world, on a large historical perspective, has been held back and damaged by fundamentalist islam. Lately, and likely in response to perceived injustice on the part of the muslim rank and file over western dominance of their countries, fudamentalism is waxing, not waning.

And I am sorry, but in some ways some aspects of muslim fundamentalism are incompatible with western notions of pluralism and tolerance.

I think it is right and appropriate for any nation to say "we welcome immigrants who wish to become a part of our nation and share in our ideals and fundamental beliefs," not religious beliefs, but beliefs about tolerance and pluralism and secularism. I beleive it is appropriate for the US to expect and demand that immigrants to the US become "americans." Those unwilling to do this have the freedom not to immigrate here, or to France.

Its a bit like "coming to the nuisance" to go to a place dedicated to equality between the sexes, for example, and complain one is not allowed to prectice inequality between the sexes.

Osborne Russell
06-22-2009, 11:16 PM
I fully support limiting religious freedom to only allowing the non-stupid parts to be practiced.


Why didn't someone think of this sooner?

skuthorp
06-22-2009, 11:19 PM
"only allowing the non-stupid parts to be practiced?"
You mean a 'political savvy' test to qualify for the vote, and a tougher one to stand for office? Difficult, maybe desirable, but I bet the voter participation rate would rocket!

Kaa
06-22-2009, 11:24 PM
The one thing a free society cannot tolerate is intolerance.

Like the intolerance of specific type of clothing..?

Kaa

Osborne Russell
06-22-2009, 11:29 PM
The one thing a free society cannot tolerate is intolerance.

True.


The muslim world, on a large historical perspective, has been held back and damaged by fundamentalist islam.

They and the rest of the world are wounded by it daily.


I beleive it is appropriate for the US to expect and demand that immigrants to the US become "americans." Those unwilling to do this have the freedom not to immigrate here, or to France.

What will you do with the ones already here, and the converts?

Your use of quotes is telling. Americans can't agree what it means to be American. Apart from immigration, if you can't define it, how will you enforce it?

skuthorp
06-22-2009, 11:30 PM
I dont like 'tolerance' myself, smacks of 'putting up with'. I prefer 'acceptance', but it has to be a 2 way street and there are plenty of non-muslim religious who are equally as intolerant of individual freedoms. Even governments are not too keen, even in the best governed societies. I refer you to your homeland legislation and it's by-blow consequences amongst low level 'security' operatives as other current threads. We have a similar problem with very loose legislation.

Osborne Russell
06-22-2009, 11:32 PM
I dont like 'tolerance' myself, smacks of 'putting up with'. I prefer 'acceptance'

I like "respect for human rights."

PatCox
06-23-2009, 10:18 AM
I believe some societies and cultures are better than others, they are less violent, more tolerant of diversity, and afford a greater degree of prosperity, freedom, and opportunity to their people. I think the US and Western Europe are near the top in all human history in all these positive qualities. I think these cultures have a right and duty to protect themselves from being overrun by people who reproduce irresponsibly, have destroyed their own countries, and will destroy ours too if they keep their old ways after coming here.

Kaa
06-23-2009, 10:25 AM
I believe some societies and cultures are better than others,

I agree.


I think these cultures have a right and duty to protect themselves from being overrun...

I agree again.

But what does this have to do with the government deciding what kind of clothing one may or may not wear? You seem to be arguing more for a restrictive immigration policy...

Besides, consider the argument from the other side. Take someone in China, for example, someone who believes that the Chinese culture is better than Western one. Accordingly he believes that China has both a right and a duty to protect itself from being overrun by Western decadence -- jeans, movies, miniskirts, all this weird focus on individuals and their rights...

Kaa

Osborne Russell
06-23-2009, 10:34 AM
I think these cultures have a right and duty to protect themselves from being overrun by people who reproduce irresponsibly, have destroyed their own countries, and will destroy ours too if they keep their old ways after coming here.

Overrun, how? Is this something that is already occurring, or something yet to come? How exactly does this process unfold?

Side note: you'll recall from two terms of the Chimp, Americans themselves have no use American principles. Denial of Habeas corpus, wiretapping, mass surveillance, politicized law enforcement, torture . . . and after coming here they have reproduced irresponsibly, big time.

BarnacleGrim
06-23-2009, 10:38 AM
Like the intolerance of specific type of clothing..?

Kaa
I don't feel good advocating that kind of intolerance, but what better ways are there to ensure equality and integration, for a healthier Europe and a healthier immigrant community?

In Sweden there have been moves to create gender-segregated gym classes and gender-segregated swimming pools. Getting rid of a piece of clothing that represents repressive politics is much better than implementing repressive politics, whether actively by creating an apartheid system, or passively by allowing ghettos to form.

Kaa
06-23-2009, 10:44 AM
I don't feel good advocating that kind of intolerance, but what better ways are there to ensure equality and integration, for a healthier Europe and a healthier immigrant community?

How about liberty? You know, freedom of speech, freedom of movement, freedom to wear what you want..?

Do you really think the underlying problem of the traditional male dominance and the culturally determined expectations of a woman are going to be solved by legislating clothing?


In Sweden there have been moves to create gender-segregated gym classes and gender-segregated swimming pools. Getting rid of a piece of clothing that represents repressive politics is much better than implementing repressive politics, whether actively by creating an apartheid system, or passively by allowing ghettos to form.

What's wrong with gender-segregated facilities if people want them? You have gender-segregated toilets, don't you? Gender-segregated changing rooms, too, right?

Do you understand that liberty is about letting people do what they want, not what you think is good for them?

Kaa

martin schulz
06-23-2009, 11:02 AM
But what does this have to do with the government deciding what kind of clothing one may or may not wear?

We have discussed this before.

Its not that France is only banning Burkhas and veils (!) they have also banned christian crosses and other kind of religious symbols.

But what some people here tend to forget is, that such symbols are only banned from those places the french government has the responsibility to protect from any non secular influence. Once you allow religious or political statements of any kind in state-controlled areas, you run the risk that people with different religious/political agendas feel oppressed.

So for real freedom of expression you (the people/government) have to create a balance that allows any group to express their ideas. Anyone can walk down the Champs-Éllysée wearing a Burkha and a sign saying "I like to be oppressed" (as long as he doesn't violate any law against public nuisance), but to tolerate this kind of demonstration in state-controlled areas has nothing to do with freedom of speech.

BarnacleGrim
06-23-2009, 11:04 AM
What's wrong with gender-segregated facilities if people want them? You have gender-segregated toilets, don't you? Gender-segregated changing rooms, too, right?

Do you understand that liberty is about letting people do what they want, not what you think is good for them?

Kaa

Gender segregation is no more acceptable than racial segregation, regardless of how many people want it. Do I go to public swimming pools, maybe not, but do I want to be stopped at the door for being male? Hell no!

The burqa and niqab isn't just an attack on the integrity of the woman. It is also an attack on the integrity of the man. I refuse to be seen as an excuse for abuse of women and children, just because of my gender and orientation and my very presence in this society.

Kaa
06-23-2009, 11:08 AM
We have discussed this before.

Its not that France is only banning Burkhas and veils (!) they have also banned christian crosses and other kind of religious symbols.

We have discussed before the banning of religious symbols in French schools. Right now we're talking about banning the burqa outright -- walking down the Champs-Éllysées in one would be illegal.

Kaa

Kaa
06-23-2009, 11:20 AM
Gender segregation is no more acceptable than racial segregation, regardless of how many people want it. Do I go to public swimming pools, maybe not, but do I want to be stopped at the door for being male? Hell no!

Aren't you stopped at the door of the women's lockers for being male?

If I want to set up, say, a women-only spa and massage center, should it be illegal? Why?


The burqa and niqab isn't just an attack on the integrity of the woman. It is also an attack on the integrity of the man. I refuse to be seen as an excuse for abuse of women and children, just because of my gender and orientation and my very presence in this society.

You're making noise but no sense. "Attack on integrity"? Really?

How about miniskirts? Or corsets? Or hot pants? Aren't they an attack on women by male patriarchy, turning a human being into a sex object? Abuse and objectification, isn't it? And discriminatory with regard to fat and ugly people, too.

BAN THE MINISKIRTS! For equality and great justice! :D

Kaa

BarnacleGrim
06-23-2009, 11:23 AM
Here (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article6539336.ece) is the original Times article, should have been included by the thread starter.

cbcc
06-23-2009, 11:29 AM
France is a Muslim country. Why would they not want to dress what they have allowed themselves to become?

BarnacleGrim
06-23-2009, 11:31 AM
Aren't you stopped at the door of the women's lockers for being male?

Up to now that has been a matter of balance between privacy and practicality. It's a good thing to offer total privacy for everyone, but sometimes that's just not practical.



If I want to set up, say, a women-only spa and massage center, should it be illegal? Why?

Yes, that would be unlawful discrimination.



You're making noise but no sense. "Attack on integrity"? Really?

How about miniskirts? Or corsets? Or hot pants? Aren't they an attack on women by male patriarchy, turning a human being into a sex object? Abuse and objectification, isn't it? And discriminatory with regard to fat and ugly people, too.

BAN THE MINISKIRTS! For equality and great justice! :D

Kaa
I don't see women as sex objects even if they would show up naked at my front door. Would it be easier not to stare if they all wore burqas? Certainly. But that's not how you address your character flaws.

martin schulz
06-23-2009, 11:32 AM
We have discussed before the banning of religious symbols in French schools. Right now we're talking about banning the burqa outright -- walking down the Champs-Éllysées in one would be illegal.

Kaa

Yes sorry, of course you are right.
I agree that banning religious/political symbols from state.controlled areas (schools, state institutions...) is different from banning burkhas altogether. On the other hand it is clear to see that veils and burkhas are not mandatory religious items, but means to control women in a patriarchy (btw that's why Attaturk banned veils in Turkey).

To allow this kind of oppression in the name of freedom will on the other hand cause restricted freedom for a certain minority. Also we (Europeans) are currently facing the problem of parallel-societies within our society. When the first turks arrived in Germany in the 60/70s they had to establish themselves within the German society/culture. Nowadays a turk can live Germany without having to learn German or even adopt German culture (which wouldn't work the other way around).

I agree that to ban them is debatable and smells of state oppression. The better way is to use existing laws to solve the problem.


Last year, the country's highest court refused to grant French citizenship to a Moroccan woman who wears a burkha, on the grounds that her Muslim practices were incompatible with French gender equality and secularism laws.

carioca1232001
06-23-2009, 12:12 PM
Yes sorry, of course you are right.
I agree that banning religious/political symbols from state.controlled areas (schools, state institutions...) is different from banning burkhas altogether. .......

To allow this kind of oppression in the name of freedom will on the other hand cause restricted freedom for a certain minority. Also we (Europeans) are currently facing the problem of parallel-societies within our society. When the first turks arrived in Germany in the 60/70s they had to establish themselves within the German society/culture. Nowadays a turk can live Germany without having to learn German or even adopt German culture (which wouldn't work the other way around).

There are also differences between how different European nations perceive the 'acceptance' of foreign immigrant groups.

For instance, in Britain - and forgive me if my perceptions are unfounded - a Muslim or Hindu can 'do his own thing' and still be considered British.

Not so in France, where an immigrant has to forfeit his culture (virtually) to be considered French. Perhaps Germany´s position in the 60´s/70´s was not so far removed from France´s current position ?

On the other hand, although the French did stage a revolution in their history, the figure of the king was replaced with that of the bourgeiose.

While on the surface they may appear to be very open, the French are basically rather conservative and an introverted lot. Religion has played a strong role in their country - and in French communities overseas, like French Canada, for instance - so much so that in 1974, an article in The Economist stated point blank that 70% of unmarried French women were deemed to be virgins.

Perhaps a strong back-lash here in all matters related to religious influence ?

BTW, the company I worked for here in Rio was bought over by the French in the mid-90´s. I recall reading a chit from a grande ecole-trained manager to his immediate French boss, citing 'Anglo-Saxon competitors' (Ozzies !) during a tendering process !

TomF
06-23-2009, 12:29 PM
The French revolution was ideologically based - and at the time was quite radical and iconoclastic in the degree to which previous identities were thrown aside to create a new, common French identity.

In principle, one could become French by agreeing to the principles of Liberty, Equality, Fraternity ... and adopting the French identity instead of your previous regional one. France was, in that sense, the first expressly "nation state." But it was a chosen national identity, rather than an inherited one.

That's still what's playing out in French civil society, looking at this issue with immigrants. France is wanting to maintain its own revolution - which was based on ideological principles, rather than overt ethnic identity. In that, they're still saying that anyone can choose to become French, through adopting the civic values of the French republic.

Personally, I have a hard time with that sort of homogenization - and prefer the "cultural mosaic" model to the "cultural melting pot."

Andrew Craig-Bennett
06-23-2009, 12:49 PM
There are also differences between how different European nations perceive the 'acceptance' of foreign immigrant groups.

For instance, in Britain - and forgive me if my perceptions are unfounded - a Muslim or Hindu can 'do his own thing' and still be considered British.

Up to a point, Lord Copper! True for anyone coming from the Former Pink Bits, but less true for anyone genuinely foreign!

Norman Tebbit got it wrong - the actual "cricket test" is not "Which side do you support at a Test?" it is "Do you know where third slip and silly mid-on are?" Having said which, my son's best mate is utterly fed up with people assuming that, just because he is a serious Moslem and his parents came from the Sub-Continent, he must therefore be good at cricket!


Not so in France, where an immigrant has to forfeit his culture (virtually) to be considered French. Perhaps Germany´s position in the 60´s/70´s was not so far removed from France´s current position ?

On the other hand, although the French did stage a revolution in their history, the figure of the king was replaced with that of the bourgeiose.

While on the surface they may appear to be very open, the French are basically rather conservative and an introverted lot. Religion has played a strong role in their country - and in French communities overseas, like French Canada, for instance - so much so that in 1974, an article in The Economist stated point blank that 70% of unmarried French women were deemed to be virgins.

Very much so. The ferocious anti-clericalism is really just another facet of the Catholicism.


Perhaps a strong back-lash here in all matters related to religious influence ?

BTW, the company I worked for here in Rio was bought over by the French in the mid-90´s. I recall reading a chit from a grande ecole-trained manager to his immediate French boss, citing 'Anglo-Saxon competitors' (Ozzies !) during a tendering process !

BarnacleGrim
06-23-2009, 06:41 PM
The French revolution was ideologically based - and at the time was quite radical and iconoclastic in the degree to which previous identities were thrown aside to create a new, common French identity.

In principle, one could become French by agreeing to the principles of Liberty, Equality, Fraternity ... and adopting the French identity instead of your previous regional one. France was, in that sense, the first expressly "nation state." But it was a chosen national identity, rather than an inherited one.

That's still what's playing out in French civil society, looking at this issue with immigrants. France is wanting to maintain its own revolution - which was based on ideological principles, rather than overt ethnic identity. In that, they're still saying that anyone can choose to become French, through adopting the civic values of the French republic.

Personally, I have a hard time with that sort of homogenization - and prefer the "cultural mosaic" model to the "cultural melting pot."
Until you start them on a strict diet of foie gras and bordeaux wine (sign me up :p) there's no real homogenization to talk about. All you need to do is know and respect those three values. And quite frankly, is totalitarianism, discrimination and social disintegration worthy to "preserve" in the name of a cultural mosaic? Isn't it quite minor compared to the benefits of moving to Europe?

TomF
06-23-2009, 08:45 PM
Canada's done well enough with the cultural mosaic model, without needing to welcome totalitarianism, discrimination and social disintegration. It is not necessary to abandon one's own culture in order to subscribe to the rule of law in your new home.

skuthorp
06-23-2009, 08:51 PM
Australia too, in aspite of the present spate of attacks on the Indian community. So far all the perpetrators arrested have been in the 14-17 age group and some of it is inter-ethnic gang violence.
We also are mostly boat people, and in spite of the political stirring of tensions by the Howard govt, we all get along pretty well.

Osborne Russell
06-23-2009, 09:37 PM
But what some people here tend to forget is, that such symbols are only banned from those places the french government has the responsibility to protect from any non secular influence. Once you allow religious or political statements of any kind in state-controlled areas, you run the risk that people with different religious/political agendas feel . . .

Think about what you're saying. It's impossible. There can be no places protected from "any non secular influence." If I walk in the door with my religion, there's a non-secular influence even if I never open my mouth. If I do, there's no way I can say anything free of non-secular influence. So I'm disqualified to vote, speak, even be considered a citizen? They're gonna tell me what I can wear? -- Apparently they already told my parents what they could name me.

The duty of the state is to prevent the establishment of religion and not infringe the free exercise thereof. PERIOD ! ! ! !

This talk of secular space, secular state, secularist this, secularist that, is all hooey. People who don't want to be secularist can't be forced to be, legitimately. It's their behavior alone that can be regulated, and where religious freedom is involved, the strictest necessity is required. A guy standing in the street calling us to repent can be made to get out of the street. Once he's out of the street it's hands off.

Still waiting to hear how burkas are going to overthrow France.

Osborne Russell
06-23-2009, 09:39 PM
The ferocious anti-clericalism is really just another facet of the Catholicism.

Yeah. They need a new paradigm but you could never tell them because the Academy hasn't approved the word. They have a duty to protect the nation from cultural pollution.

skuthorp
06-23-2009, 11:45 PM
The American revolution is still playing out in the US, and so is the French revolution in France. Add the Nazi occupation and a collective amnesia over the extent of collaboration and you get a different reaction to change. You get South Americans, they get Africans, both threaten to alter the demographic majority.

BarnacleGrim
06-24-2009, 03:07 AM
There are those who actually believe French culture is under attack, but the Western world has good reason for wanting to protect these three values. The success of western society stands or falls on it.

The Soviet union had plenty of solidarity and some equality, but no liberty at all. None of the African countries have a single one of these. And they have all failed utterly as far as states go. We would be doing the immigrants a big disservice in the long run by allowing these values to be eroded.

PeterSibley
06-24-2009, 06:15 AM
. None of the African countries have a single one of these. And they have all failed utterly as far as states go. We would be doing the immigrants a big disservice in the long run by allowing these values to be eroded.

I think this is called a gross generalisation .

Andrew Craig-Bennett
06-24-2009, 07:11 AM
The Soviet union had plenty of solidarity and some equality, but no liberty at all. None of the African countries have a single one of these. And they have all failed utterly as far as states go. We would be doing the immigrants a big disservice in the long run by allowing these values to be eroded.

Been to Botswana lately, old chap?

No; thought not. :rolleyes:

Osborne Russell
06-24-2009, 07:15 AM
We also are mostly boat people, and in spite of the political stirring of tensions by the Howard govt, we all get along pretty well.

Will Indians slowly cause Australia to become a foreign country?

Rational Root
06-24-2009, 07:26 AM
*cough*bull*****cough*

"These people" came to Europe to find a better life for themselves. The ban on burqa is pure bigotry -- "these people are too much unlike us, let's forbid them to be unlike us". Liberty, my ass.

Can Christian monks wear their robes in the street? Why? Can priests walk around in their dog collars? That's religiously imposed clothing, isn't it?

This has nothing to do with freedom from oppression, this is pure denial of an "alien" culture. In marxist terms, that's cultural imperialism.

Kaa

Spoken like someone who has never been to the middle east ? Am I right ?

I think you will find that priests and monks have chosen their lifestyle. The Burka is not a choice for many women.

In the middle east women are treated as badly as Coloured people were treated in South Africa. In many countries they have no rights at all. They are property. They go from being their fathers property to being their husbands.

See it first hand, then comment.

skuthorp
06-24-2009, 07:29 AM
No Osborne. They, like the Poles, Greeks, Slavs, Italians, Chinese, Vietnamese, Hmongs, Cambodians, Sudanese, Liberians, Afghans and almost any nationality you like to name will, in time, become Aussies. Aussies with such a varied ancestry that the country is inestimably richer for it. The migrants are the brave ones, the best, the ones who through choice or chance or misfortune survive to reach our shores and make for a stronger nation. aAnd I haven't mentioned the English Canadian, Americans etc.
Incidentally, what is 'foreign'? Except for our original peoples we are all 'foreign' here, but all aussies just the same.

Osborne Russell
06-24-2009, 07:38 AM
It was a joke, man.

Osborne Russell
06-24-2009, 07:40 AM
The Burka is not a choice for many women.

Shall we have the police stop everyone in a Burka and ask if they are being forced to wear it?

skuthorp
06-24-2009, 07:52 AM
OK Osborne, I get a little testy on the subject. My best friends ancestors came from China in 1852. His grandfather fought with the AIF in France in WW1. At school he used to get racial slurs from anglo kids who had only just got here, as kids do. It still happens every so often he says.
As a child I remember shiploads of these brave men and women clutching a small suitcase being shipped off to ex army camps in the country for some sort of induction to Australia. A good friend also came by ship, a leaky river ferry from the Mekong. In spite of the Vietnamese army, pirates, the Indonesian army, and miles of sea with no navigator they made it. Thousands didn't.
It's what you make of it.
Re Bhurkas, a generation of Greek and Calabrian women wore black; headscarves, dresses, thick stockings and sensible shoes. Their daughters and grand daughters don't except as a fashion statement.

Rational Root
06-24-2009, 08:18 AM
Shall we have the police stop everyone in a Burka and ask if they are being forced to wear it?

By law women are not permitted to drive cars in Saudi. They require a husbands or fathers permission to leave the country. They are not educated beyond the age of puberty.

Is a given race were treated like that, there would be uproar. Of course, as long as they have oil, and US army bases, who's going to complain ?

I for one am not happy for Europe to tolerate this behaviour simply because it was they way that immigrants lived before they came here.

If you plan to ask women if the are happy to wear the Burka, perhaps you should ask the ones who have been fortunate enough to have an education, and certainly you should ask them without any Male members of their family present. Of course, that too would be illegal in Saudi.

PeterSibley
06-24-2009, 08:21 AM
Hell ,we have old Sikh men in our town wearing turbans , their sons and daughters speak with Oz accents .There are lots of new arrivals in that community though ,they like to maintain their links with the Punjab .All become Australian as time goes by .

When I think of the various nationalities I know around here ,Serb ,Romanian ,Papuan,Spanish ,Sikh ,Chinese ,Brit of course ....the Chinese lady can trace her Oz arrival to the earliest date ! Myself included .

mizzenman
06-24-2009, 08:27 AM
Hell ,we have old Sikh men in our town wearing turbans , their sons and daughters speak with Oz accents .There are lots of new arrivals in that community though ,they like to maintain their links with the Punjab .All become Australian as time goes by .

When I think of the various nationalities I know around here ,Serb ,Romanian ,Papuan,Spanish ,Sikh ,Chinese ,Brit of course ....the Chinese lady can trace her Oz arrival to the earliest date ! Myself included .

A turban does not infringe on your movement or social contact in any significant way. It's just a slightly different hat.

What can you do with a burqa on?

PeterSibley
06-24-2009, 08:27 AM
If you plan to ask women if the are happy to wear the Burka[/B], perhaps you should ask the ones who have been fortunate enough to have an education, and certainly you should ask them without any Male members of their family present. Of course, that too would be illegal in Saudi.

I think you would have to ask them individually and respect their answer .....as you would like to be ask and have your answer respected .

Lets say some authority decided that you shouldn't wear sunglasses and that they were just a cultural affectation and you should get over it ? You might protest ?? or accept the wisdom of said authority ?:D

skuthorp
06-24-2009, 08:28 AM
At Kinglake, devestated by the bushfires, a Chinese Bhuddist nun is credited by the locals with preventing a dozen suicides since. She is revered in the community as it slowly comes back together.

"What can you do with a burqa on?" ................. Not need sunscreen, but a vitamin d supplement.

PeterSibley
06-24-2009, 08:31 AM
A turban does not infringe on your movement or social contact in any significant way. It's just a slightly different hat.

What can you do with a burqa on?

I'm not equating a turban and a burqa , except that they are individual expressions of a persons culture .

It seems to come down to respecting the individuals right to dress as they see fit .

I'm used to people protesting over women wearing too little clothing on the street , it's amusing to see the opposite end of the scale opposed as well !

martin schulz
06-24-2009, 09:46 AM
I'm used to people protesting over women wearing too little clothing on the street...

Well this is certainly not an issue in France ;)

mizzenman
06-24-2009, 10:08 AM
At Kinglake, devestated by the bushfires, a Chinese Bhuddist nun is credited by the locals with preventing a dozen suicides since. She is revered in the community as it slowly comes back together.

"What can you do with a burqa on?" ................. Not need sunscreen, but a vitamin d supplement.


Good point, but I'm afraid midleastern people dont deed much sun screen in this place.Burqa will only be allowed for swedos:D

James McMullen
06-24-2009, 10:44 AM
Everybody needs to read Aayan Hirsi Ali's book Infidel (http://www.amazon.com/Infidel-Ayaan-Hirsi-Ali/dp/0743289684) to learn what it is like to grow up as a woman in a culture that requires the burqa. Ms. Ali managed to escape from a life of essentially domestic slavery, moving from being the property of her mostly absentee father, to the property of an unwanted husband from a forced marriage. Along the way as a young teen, she had her clitoris chopped out, without anaesthetic, in the traditional way of this mandatory burqa-wearing society--the goal here is to make sexual intercourse absolutely devoid of any pleasure for the woman so that she won't have any reason to have relations with anyone other than the man her father sells her to. With her father often gone, she, her sister and her mother were simply not allowed to leave the house for weeks at a time, unaccompanied by their owner--while her young brother, of course was free to do as he pleased.

The descriptions of life in a culture where women are expected to meekly submit to their own menfolk yet forbidden to even interact with males not of their own family unless under strict supervision, a culture where there is no real intimacy betweeen men and women--women are baby factories, provided by Allah to serve the desires of their husband and master, a culture where a mother must be submissive to her ten-year-old son, not being able to discipline him in the absence of the father--reading what life is like from a woman who managed to escape this horror will change your perspective forever in thinking whether or not the burqa (or even a simple hijab) is just a harmless bit of culture that should be tolerated, much less encouraged.

The burqa is a symbol and tool of female slavery, folks. It is not okay!

TomF
06-24-2009, 10:54 AM
...The burqa is a symbol and tool of female slavery, folks. It is not okay!And yet ...

I heard an interview with a young Moslem woman who's chosen to wear the burqa here in Canada. Who was quite eloquent about the freedom she felt because of wearing it. She opined that her views and opinions were taken more seriously in her university classes etc., precisely because sexuality wasn't a distracting issue.

I've got a whole raft of questions that come up as a result ... just as I have a raft of questions when I hear exotic dancers say in interviews that they find dancing naked is empowering. That they're in control, manipulating the men who pay to see them.

I think both sets of women, whose actions reflect very different views on what it means to take control of your sexuality, have it at least partly "wrong." But who am I to make that judgment, in instances where the actions are in fact the woman's own choice?

Kaa
06-24-2009, 11:01 AM
Spoken like someone who has never been to the middle east ? Am I right ?

Quite wrong :-)

I think you will find that the Middle East is different. Do you expect to find many burqas in, say, Damascus or Amman?

Kaa

I, Rowboat
06-24-2009, 11:35 AM
And yet ...

I heard an interview with a young Moslem woman who's chosen to wear the burqa here in Canada. Who was quite eloquent about the freedom she felt because of wearing it. She opined that her views and opinions were taken more seriously in her university classes etc., precisely because sexuality wasn't a distracting issue.


It certainly is a successful shackle of the mind, isn't it. The women in that culture are inculcated with the notion that men will become vicious barbarians if a woman causes sexual arousal by exposing her ankles or arms in public, and the men are given free license to be vicious barbarians if a woman is not sufficiently covered in public. Then, once the woman is raped, it is she who is responsible, and has brought shame upon her family. This leads to the honor killings, usually taken up by the male members of her immediate family. A woman brought up in that culture would find the burka liberating (in the same way that a cage "liberates" a canary from beating eaten by the cat), and for totally bizarre reasons except in the context of that brutal culture.
Islam, even moderate Islam, with its grossly distorted concept of human sexuality (among other things), fosters absolutely archaic behavior and yet claims to be superior to all that infidel trash in other parts of the world.
Ayaan Hirsi Ali was shocked to discover that, while accidently un-covered in a European city at night, she wasn't pushed to the curb and gang-raped by a horde of morally inferior Western barbarians. Her book really is worth reading.

TomF
06-24-2009, 11:58 AM
Yet it's a shackle of the mind with some truth in it. Our society treats attractive people differently than ordinary looking or ugly people. Get too attractive, and people really don't hear what you have to say, because they're having such a hard time focusing.

There's a stunning young woman who works down the hall. I mean, a world-class, 5'9" apocalyptically beautiful and almost absurdly curvaceous blonde. She's also got a pretty fair brain. Earned a master's degree in Criminology, and has adapted to write/analyse fairly well in the Government style too, despite being fairly new at the tasks. Not a barn-burner for innovation or creativity, but competent - reflective - diligent - eager to learn.

You want to bet where mens eyes go, when she's with them in a meeting? Despite dressing as conservatively as humanly possible? Despite all the men in the room trying desperately to "do the right thing" in a "professional environment"? You think she doesn't wonder if she earned the grades she got, or if they were inflated because her profs couldn't help themselves? Or if she'd have been promoted into an ongoing job once her student position was over, had she not been as pretty? The "halo effect" is well documented - attractive folks get better grades, more money, more promotions etc.

There's some truth to the notion that men can't be reliably trusted to exercise really good judgment, when their libido's engaged. Even though the "cure" proposed by traditional cultures is worse than the thing prompting it.

Andrew Craig-Bennett
06-24-2009, 11:59 AM
Ayaan Hirsi Ali:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayaan_Hirsi_Ali

Rational Root
06-24-2009, 12:01 PM
I think you would have to ask them individually and respect their answer .....as you would like to be ask and have your answer respected .

Lets say some authority decided that you shouldn't wear sunglasses and that they were just a cultural affectation and you should get over it ? You might protest ?? or accept the wisdom of said authority ?:D

I believe that the root of the problem is that some parts of the Islamic community don't respect their answer. The Muhtawah (sp?) in Saudi rigorously enforce the dress code for women. Do you think that this enforcement stops just because them women move to europe ?

BarnacleGrim
06-24-2009, 12:12 PM
Been to Botswana lately, old chap?

No; thought not.
I do know someone who has, I stand corrected.


If you plan to ask women if the are happy to wear the Burka, perhaps you should ask the ones who have been fortunate enough to have an education, and certainly you should ask them without any Male members of their family present. Of course, that too would be illegal in Saudi.
Don't forget female. Mothers have a strong influence on their daughters, and all too often they enable both this and other forms of abuse, such as genital mutilation.


A turban does not infringe on your movement or social contact in any significant way. It's just a slightly different hat.

What can you do with a burqa on?
Also consider the context a Sikh turban is worn in. It's more of a symbol of pride, and it does actually give more freedom for those with Sikh-mandated long hair.

I, Rowboat
06-24-2009, 12:23 PM
[quote=TomF;2238030]Yet it's a shackle of the mind with some truth in it. [quote]


A very small kernel of truth. The traditional Islamic approach to mitigate this truth is to subjugate all female beauty, to deny education and careers to women, to treat them as chattel for their male owners, and make them vessels of family shame.

I think the risks posed by working next to a smokin' hottie is well worth the minor injustice of her exceptional beauty vis-a-vis my, uh, "averageness."

Andrew Craig-Bennett
06-24-2009, 12:36 PM
Don't forget female. Mothers have a strong influence on their daughters, and all too often they enable both this and other forms of abuse, such as genital mutilation.

Right. And lets go one stage further, because I think this is the heart of the subject.

I think many of us are aware of the discussion of the putative role of the grandmother in human evolution - the issue that begs the question is, of course, "Why do human females live so long after ceasing to be able to reproduce, unlike the other Great Apes?"

The answer often put forward comes in two parts - first, humans are the only mammal that weans its infants before those infants can feed themselves (that one is worth thinking about for a moment!) thereby allowing the human female to reproduce much faster than female chimpanzees, gorillas or orangs do, provided someone is around to feed the weaned but not independently feeding infant. That someone is Grandma.

Second, old women are (and this is really an extension of the first point) the repositories of cultural values for a given society where that society is illiterate - they are the remembrancers.

Now consider the role of the mother in law in most cultures where daughters are sold (by acceptance of a dowry) rather than those cultures where a man is paid to take the daughter away, like ours.

What we get is a society where old women tyrannise over young women who transfer by marriage into the older woman's family.

Mothers-in-law , not men, have a powerful vested interest in keeping young females under control.

Keith Wilson
06-24-2009, 12:37 PM
There's no question that some (not all) traditional Islamic societies treat women abominably. It's also true that some (not all) recent immigrants from those countries to the west try to continue some of the less extreme of those traditions. This generally diminishes over time as Muslims absorb more of the majority culture. The question is, does this justify preventing women from wearing traditional dress in western countries? Will that help? Does it justify making laws telling people what they can and can't wear?

I, Rowboat
06-24-2009, 01:08 PM
There's no question that some (not all) traditional Islamic societies treat women abominably. It's also true that some (not all) recent immigrants from those countries to the west try to continue some of the less extreme of those traditions. This generally diminishes over time as Muslims absorb more of the majority culture. The question is, does this justify preventing women from wearing traditional dress in western countries? Will that help? Does it justify making laws telling people what they can and can't wear?

It certainly is a puzzling and lamentable predicament. Many countries in Europe are experiencing the results of allowing free reign of traditional cultural expressions within what is, apparently an exceptionally insular culture -- much more so than, for example, various European and Asian immigrant groups to the U.S. (I'm open to disagreement and a history lesson on this point).

I am very curious to see if France's approach yields different results.

mizzenman
06-24-2009, 01:49 PM
There's no question that some (not all) traditional Islamic societies treat women abominably. It's also true that some (not all) recent immigrants from those countries to the west try to continue some of the less extreme of those traditions. This generally diminishes over time as Muslims absorb more of the majority culture. The question is, does this justify preventing women from wearing traditional dress in western countries? Will that help? Does it justify making laws telling people what they can and can't wear?

With all respect.
Have you not had cases of female circumcision in the USA? In that case you have certainly achieved greater results than us in the immigration issue.

BarnacleGrim
06-24-2009, 01:54 PM
With all respect.
Have you not had cases of female circumcision in the USA? In that case you have certainly achieved greater results than us in the immigration issue.
All I know is that they have male genital mutilation en masse over there. Something to think about.

mizzenman
06-24-2009, 01:59 PM
I prefere not to:D

I, Rowboat
06-24-2009, 02:38 PM
All I know is that they have male genital mutilation en masse over there. Something to think about.

A fair point. It's definitely on the wane in this country, and the vast majority still doing it do so out of conformity issues ("I don't want my son to be singled out in the locker-room") or for discredited-but-enduring health claims. I certainly didn't subject my son to that brutality, nor to the silliness of a baptism. At least those two traditions have a very low chance of extracting almost all of the joy out of sexual relations.

The other thing about FGM (as described by Ayaan Hirsi Ali) is that it doesn't prevent lustful feelings in women, it just makes satisfaction of those feelings, in the physical sense, impossible to achieve, like an unreachable itch in the back, or ghost-sensations from an amputated limb.

Osborne Russell
06-24-2009, 05:42 PM
I for one am not happy for Europe to tolerate this behaviour simply because it was they way that immigrants lived before they came here.

But that's not why it's tolerated. It's tolerated because so long as it doesn't violate some individual's rights, or promote violent overthrow of the government, it cannot be regulated without violating the rights to freedom of speech, religion, sometimes included in an overall right to freedom of conscience. It's a not matter of policy, it's a matter of human rights, however you describe them.

Some say they wear it voluntarily. No way to find out without the police stopping them to ask. How dumb. Are you going to get after the Mennonites next and tell them to quit wearing bonnets? Or make them sign statements that it's voluntary? Check Mormon girls for sacred underwear to make sure they're not being forced into child marriage and polygamy? Religion freaks can invent symbols faster than you can suppress them.


If you plan to ask women if the are happy to wear the Burka, perhaps you should ask the ones who have been fortunate enough to have an education, and certainly you should ask them without any Male members of their family present. Of course, that too would be illegal in Saudi.

It's not the business of our law to redress here wrongs done elsewhere. There would be no end to it. Especially trying to combat symbols.

PeterSibley
06-24-2009, 06:46 PM
combat symbols.

Combat symbols ! There's another thread right there .

Osborne Russell
06-24-2009, 09:32 PM
Now consider the role of the mother in law in most cultures where daughters are sold (by acceptance of a dowry) rather than those cultures where a man is paid to take the daughter away, like ours.

What we get is a society where old women tyrannise over young women who transfer by marriage into the older woman's family.

Mothers-in-law , not men, have a powerful vested interest in keeping young females under control.


She thinks her advice is the constitution
but if she would leave it would be a solution
and don't come back no mo -- mother in law.
Mother in law!

Ernie Kador, "Mother In Law"

Rational Root
06-25-2009, 03:14 AM
But that's not why it's tolerated. It's tolerated because so long as it doesn't violate some individual's rights, or promote violent overthrow of the government, it cannot be regulated without violating the rights to freedom of speech, religion, sometimes included in an overall right to freedom of conscience. It's a not matter of policy, it's a matter of human rights, however you describe them.


My point is that if often does violate some individuals rights, typically the individual that's forced to wear it.

And in many cases, rights compete, as a result some rights are considered more important than others, and are prioritised, ie we make laws.

Osborne Russell
06-25-2009, 09:43 PM
My point is that if often does violate some individuals rights, typically the individual that's forced to wear it.

No. A burka cannot possibly violate anyone's rights. It's not a person. If a person forces another person to wear a burka, that person has committed a crime. But it has nothing to do with the burka. It would be a crime to force someone to wear a necktie.

BarnacleGrim
06-25-2009, 09:50 PM
I hate to bring up guns again on the WBF, but the issues are similar.

Guns don't kill people, and burqas don't oppress people. But guns are designed for killing and burqas are designed for oppression. Now consider all the useful and peaceful applications of guns vs. the useful and peaceful applications of the burqa. Where does that leave you?

Robert L E
06-25-2009, 11:02 PM
Can Christian monks wear their robes in the street? Why? Can priests walk around in their dog collars? That's religiously imposed clothing, isn't it?ing

Kaa

No, emphatically, no.

Monks and priests volunteer to wear the clothing. They do not get beaten, raped or killed if they then decide not to.

Muslim women cannot say the same.

In the USA you do not have a right to keep your identity a secret from authorities. The French are starting to get things right.

Some intelligent writer already pointed out that the Muslim men do not see fit to wear traditional garb.

Our own Amish and Mennonite communities at least have similar standards for all members. Their garb does not hide identity or sex.

Too many people are apologists for the religion of peace. (Actually it is the religion of submission, as in submit or die.) "Islam, the religion of peace" is an oxymoronic phrase if there eve was one.

Bob

Osborne Russell
06-26-2009, 08:48 AM
In the USA you do not have a right to keep your identity a secret from authorities.

Yes you do.

Robert L E
06-26-2009, 04:09 PM
Originally Posted by Robert L E http://www.woodenboat.com/forum/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.woodenboat.com/forum/showthread.php?p=2239802#post2239802)
In the USA you do not have a right to keep your identity a secret from authorities.



Yes you do.



No, not from legal authorities. Try to get on an airplane with that attitude. Try to tell a cop that you do not have to identify yourself if he just asks you while you are walking down the sidewalk. You do not have the right of anonymity even in the work place; how could they collect income taxes?

You are completely wrong.

Bob

Kaa
06-26-2009, 04:11 PM
Yes you do.

No you don't.

http://www.papersplease.org/hiibel/index.html

Kaa

Robert L E
06-27-2009, 12:02 AM
No you don't.

http://www.papersplease.org/hiibel/index.html

Kaa


SCOTUS Affirmed the decision of The Supreme Court of Nevada way back in 2004. Hiibel LOST his case. I'd say that this rather affirms what I wrote even though I had to find this on my own because your link was just about arguments.

Bob

P.S. Kaa- At first read I thought you were disagreeing with my position that you can be required to identify yourself. Too many "Yes, you do, No you don'ts" in a row and I lost track of who agreed and who disagreed.

I also see that my previous post was probably made while you were typing your response which made my post get in the way of yours.

Kaa
06-27-2009, 01:39 AM
P.S. Kaa- At first read I thought you were disagreeing with my position that you can be required to identify yourself. Too many "Yes, you do, No you don'ts" in a row and I lost track of who agreed and who disagreed.

No -- I agree with you -- I quoted Osborne and disagreed with him.

Kaa

oznabrag
06-27-2009, 10:42 AM
*cough*bull*****cough*

This has nothing to do with freedom from oppression, this is pure denial of an "alien" culture. In marxist terms, that's cultural imperialism.

Kaa

You're off on Marx again?

I find it difficult to see the evidence of 'imperialism' here. 'Imperialism' seems to connote a certain degree of hegemony, does it not?

If the French had conquered say, Saudi Arabia, and were then banning the burqua there, I would agree with you, but none of those conditions is met here.

Osborne Russell
06-27-2009, 04:44 PM
FROM wikipedia:


Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, 542 U.S. 177 (2004), held that statutes requiring suspects to identify themselves during police investigations did not violate either the Fourth or Fifth Amendments. Under the rubric of Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), the minimal intrusion on a suspect's privacy and the legitimate need of law enforcement officers to quickly dispel suspicion that an individual is engaged in criminal activity justified asking a suspect to identify himself.

. . . Nevada has a “stop-and-identify” law that allows a peace officer to detain any person he encounters “under circumstances which reasonably indicate that the person has committed, is committing or is about to commit a crime”; the person may be detained only to “ascertain his identity and the suspicious circumstances surrounding his presence abroad.” In turn, the law requires the person detained to “identify himself”, but does not compel the person to answer any other questions put to him by the officer.

(emphasis added)

This doesn't come within a light year of allowing a ban on burkas.

BarnacleGrim
06-27-2009, 06:35 PM
If the French had conquered say, Saudi Arabia, and were then banning the burqua there, I would agree with you, but none of those conditions is met here.
An interesting prospect, what if de Gaulle hadn't turned Algeria loose?

If you visit any remaining French colony you'll see that the Algerians got the worse end of that deal by not staying with the Republic. Perhaps a bit of imperialism is just what the world needs. ;)

Robert L E
06-28-2009, 11:35 AM
FROM wikipedia:

Quote:
Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, 542 U.S. 177 (2004), held that statutes requiring suspects to identify themselves during police investigations did not violate either the Fourth or Fifth Amendments. Under the rubric of Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), the minimal intrusion on a suspect's privacy and the legitimate need of law enforcement officers to quickly dispel suspicion that an individual is engaged in criminal activity justified asking a suspect to identify himself.

. . . Nevada has a “stop-and-identify” law that allows a peace officer to detain any person he encounters “under circumstances which reasonably indicate that the person has committed, is committing or is about to commit a crime”; the person may be detained only to “ascertain his identity and the suspicious circumstances surrounding his presence abroad.” In turn, the law requires the person detained to “identify himself”, but does not compel the person to answer any other questions put to him by the officer.

(emphasis added)



This doesn't come within a light year of allowing a ban on burkas.



And how do you figure a person who is wearing a mask identify himself? Burkas are INTENDED to be disguises; to hide the identity of the wearer. The ruling in fact comes very close to allowing police to require the removal of a burka or to detain the wearer until another determination can be made.

Bob

Osborne Russell
06-30-2009, 03:43 PM
The ruling in fact comes very close to allowing police to require the removal of a burka or to detain the wearer until another determination can be made.

I would say it does allow a police order to an individual to remove a burka, at least if there's no other ready way to ascertain identity, whatever that may mean. In any case, it's not the same thing as a law that makes it illegal to walk out your door wearing a burka.