Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
What say you?
or sporting a rather dashing mohican. sure, we may disagree with them on aestethic grounds, but we wont ban them, because its their choice.
anyway, its not so much even forcing them to cover up, its what that represents.
there's always the chance of beatings if she doesnt say "YES THIS IS WHAT I WISH PLEASE LEAVE MY HOUSE SO I CAN COOK MY HUSBAND DINNER HE WILL NOT HARM ME", and with the enlightened attitudes that lead to burkas in the first place, we cant be sure that this just wont happen.
you always seem to believe in this slippery slope view, doncha?
not to get involved with an argument about where i can and can not take pictures.
no ones talking about banning any religions vikram. and yes, id whole heartedly support banning any and all practices that put women in a lesser role, i just wasnt aware of them.
i disagree with that last part. who else is going to do these things? and your wording is very very dodgey here mate, 'prosecuting' people... beacuse it doesnt approve of? thats not it. at all at all. you know why its being banned, and its not due to discrimination, stop making out that it is.
the french government is, and this thread is for discussing that
secondly, no physical harm? no ones suggested burkas physically harm the women. what the hell?
and youre arguing against an oppresive government here, right? what about opressive religions? lesser of two evils? should the state stay the feck out of things, even when some peoples are at others? im wording this poorly, so i hope you get the jist
but women should be subservient? that crosses a line man. its like teaching kids that the africans and in fact the whole 'dark continent' are only worth 4/5s of a white person, which is fairly similar, isnt it?
on the whole, yeah, state shouldnt interfere. in these cases though, yeah, the state should, i think
or is it all about anti-immigration and stuff? im not a uk citizen, so the story with them is lost on me.
i thought that theyd be equally opposed to me coming over, taking yer jerbs, stealin yer wimminz, as any asian? idk
not rly the same anyway, there's no direct result of the bnp (as far as i know, as i said, dont live there), whereas the burka is already in use
BNP London organiser is Australian and has a Brazilian gf according to the Gurardian article.
The BNP woman up north campaigning to stop a mosque being built is a recenrt immigrant from America
i didnt know that, but shirley its not the same with yanks and aussies? considering they'll probably be of anglo saxon stock anyway? and the Brazilian gf... well, have you SEEN Brazilian women? god damn
and don't call him Shirley.
lets keep this to the broad strokes, yeah?
as to women who choose to conceal themselves, no, im not saying that should be banned. however, for the reasons in this thread, id agree that burkas should be banned
I couldn't wear a balaclava into a petrol station or bank.
I couldn't wear a balaclava but someone could wear a burkha.
(no idea if this is true or what I am arguing for but 8 minutes to hometime)
I guess the question is to what extent it constitutes a "choice" of clothing, and also the extent to which it impacts on the notion of a secular country.
I certainly admire the decision to prohibit it in schools and feel the UK (and certainly UK schools with a uniform policy) should do the same. I don't know whether I think it should be banned outright but support the idea of someone looking into the pros and cons and drawing a conclusion.
but I definitely don't think the right to wear one, or indeed any religious paraphenalia, should be protected by law.
in that men of the order are required to wear similarly modest clothing
but men arn't required to cover their hair, although they may ware a hat of some sort, then again alot of muslim men ware hats.
I think its exactly the same thing.
For two main reasons; nuns don't have to cover their hair and in some denominations of Christianity, male clergy are required to cover their hair while serving. It's a total irrelevancy anyway, considering that Christian vestments are designed to cover any comminly sexualised body parts (to reflect the vows members of the Christian clergy take).
As has been pointed out, these coverings are reserved for people who choose a life in the clergy, and not just people who ascribe to a Christian faith AND are usually only compulsory during 'private' services. You'd have to be quite desperately grasping at straws to compare the two.
just without the perenthetical 'clergy' surrounding it, and it would still stand true. Because muslims on the most part or atleast to a greater extent than the christian diaspora see themselves as similar to the 'more' devote members of christianity. Nuns, clergy whatever. steming from the non beliefe in original sin where an individual is responsible for their own redemption and it not bestowed through a greater power like a priest. therefore no distinction, no highrarchy.
Im not sure that makes all the sense i want it to, forgive me. for i am shite at this.
Moreover the burka is a cultural item and nothing to do with religion.
lots and lots of things influence cultures shirely. whats your point?
why should cultural practices be sacred?
I hear what you're saying but there IS a distinction. I don't think it's healthy for people to see the Burka as a MUSLIM item because it's technically not and it only serves to fuel Islamaphobia in my view if people link the two.
Culturally, socially etc. they're entirely different.
Now you can either do some wider reading and get an informed view if you like, or you can carry on wrongly thinking it's exactly the same thing if you like. That's entirely up to you. Just as long as you're clear that your decision to carry on irrationally maintaining an incorrect belief rather than seeking out evidence to show you that belief is wrong does not in any way constitute a valid opinion.
theyre exceptional, not the standard. burkas are imposed on ALL WOMEN IRREGARDLESS OF CHOICE AND THEY ARE PUNISHED IF THEY DONT COMPLY
so, yeah, nuns? pretty hot
Sarkozy needs to bone up on his Islam studies - that the burqa is a symbol of subservience is exactly the point.
i would have made exactly this point.
and the daily show, so... could you tell me if there's a chance for compromise? like, not wearing full body burkas (or is that a hijab?), allowing colour, and making it so that girls under 18 dont have to?
Making it so that girls under 18 don't have to would make it slightly pointless. Either you have to say "these are oppressing women and should be banned" or "these are not oppressing women and should be allowed". "No oppressing women 'til they're 18" isn't really a viable strategy...
i meant that the 18 thing would get rid of the "but this what the women want how dare you" thing, you know, let the decision be made by themselves? but i spose itd be ingrained into them by that stage anyway, idk
Back when I was an angry young man I would have been all like "YEAH! BAN THE FURQA! FREE THE BITCHES!", but nowadays the following occurs to me - if we're banning head coverings, all we're doing is foisting our impression of Enlightenment on those people who have no real appreciation of the link between NOT covering your head and female emancipation. If I were a Muslim lady I'd be looking at legislation that aims to ban burqas, placing that knowledge alongside the fact that the hoodie/woollen cap combo is still allowed - not to mention that Muslims are free in our society, as everyone else is, to vote, talk shit and generally be an arsehole - and thinking 'WTF - what IS it about this cloth?'.
Personally, I see a lady wearing a Burqa and 9/10, the next thought is "man, I'd rip that shit off and MMM..." - which really proves their point.
I'm not entirely surprised though, France are pretty keen on their laïcité
in the last 20 years...it is mostly a 'fashion' amongs younger musim born agains. In a lot of cases their mothers and grandmothers do not wear burkas.
so the idea of women being 'forced' to wear it is nto true in msot cases. i'm sure it is in some. But not in most cases.
but most of you here have decided that they are forced.
I find it uncomfortablet talking to a woman in a burkha..but that;s my proeblem.
Sure agree with Sarkozy, but be aware that you are making one rule for people wearing mohawks etc and someone wearing a burkha.
It's about what the burqa represents. Wearing a mohican doesn't represent much of anything any more, never mind subservience.
you are allowed bdsm buddies ot walk aroudn with slaves in little french villages...Eurotrash says so!! ;P
it is not up to the state to regulate culture..only to prevent harm to its citizens
if a girl is forced to wear anything from her parents this is a case for the state.
someone wearing an item of clothing that 'represents subservience' to you has nothing to do with you
I mean isn't the wearing of swastikas banned in certain countries due to what it represents?
Which I guess is where this gets problematic. The only way you could ban the burkha is by basically equating it to something as dangerous and culturally damaging and divisive as a swastika, which is obviously a strong, inflammatory and potentially highly offensive statement to make.
but the UK and France are not Germany.
If you want Germany's Top-Down approach to culture feel free to start a lobbyist group to get legislation like that..but so far the UK and France do not have htis precedent
My first post in this thread says as much. I just pointed out what is a bit of a flaw in the above argument.
To be honest I think it goes beyond simple oppression. I'd agree young women aren't being forced and are doing it by choice. But then the questions rise up around what choices they're making, what those choices symbolise and what impact it has on wider society.
Your last point is a valid one - there isn't necessarily a distinction to be made between burkhas and other choices of clothing/style that make people uncomfortable. I suppose my own view really is that they shouldn't be banned outright but nor, especially given the fact they've become popular in the last twenty years, should they be afforded special circumstances.
I think there are situations where it's utterly reasonable for people to be asked to follow a certain dress code or not cover their faces up and I don't think burkha's should be exempt from those.
my knowledge if islam is fairly limited. but isnt the burka just a symptom of a wider malaise, the whole "women being worth 4/5s of a man", or something like that?
its not the garment itself, its what it repesents, and mohawks dont have a reputation of oppression, rly
you are advocating the dominant Anglo-American Legalistic argument.
It is not a minority opinion that you are expressing
you go Sarkozy
while being no fan of Islam, and being pretty much in favour of any secularising move in politics, at the end of the day, it's dictating what people can or cannot wear...
I'm completely against any special dispensation given to religion, but, in a public place? banning certain clothes on basically symbolic grounds? kinda no, mang.
I mean - If someone wanted to walk down the street with nothing but his ears showing because he believed a kangaroo called "2 Scoops" would grant him eternity with Linda Lusardi, I'd think he was a fucking idiot, and even if people who shared his viewpoint were placated and patronised despite say, them wanting to scalp you for thinking about topic bars on a second Friday of any month, just because there are enough of them,
I still wouldn't want to tell him what he can and can't wear, purely Quo the fuck Warranto
There it is agian. Soo not tired of seeing this point, for it is simply right.
Leaving aside the whole subservient argument - and many, many Muslims obviously wear it by choice - hiding your entire person in public is a pretty aggressive statement. It's essentially putting a wall up to the rest of society.
There it is. I was looking for that.
you can;t have it both ways.
either you agree that a state has the invasive right to tell you what to do to your body or it doesn't.
but i do think the state should stop people from making other people to do shit and such.
you've said its mostly a choice to wear a burka? im not so sure
are you speaking from experience?
most muslim immigrants in England are Asian and the majority in France are from Northa Africa. The burkha is not part of their cultural attire..it is completely alien. The burkh was adopted by young women from the early 90s as a political and ideological symbol.
At my uni there were quite a few girls wearing burkhas and some of htem have been kicked out of their houses for wearing them
just becuase its part of a culture doesnt make it instantly unquestionable.
i had no idea about young women adopting it as a symbol. a symbol for what? can i get some links, or some books names about this?
yoou can call them mindless subservient women all you want.
But banning something requires more than your disapproval
its been covered like 5 times in this thread
will check those out, cheers
the state has no remit on legislating individual cultural behaviour that does not harm others
i thought it was tied into this whole islam thing.
religion can be cultural like, but does that rly make it cultural behaviour? wheres the line between the two?
does not harm others? its oppressive? you say there is a choice, but if you educate a child from birth that it is sick and wrong and immoral to show your face in public, then they wont show their face in public.
AND HAS BEEN SAID its more a symptom of a wider malaise in islam, the whole women arent equal thing. man, fuck cultural relativism, thats cunty.
if you take culture to mean a system of ideas and social relations that unite a group of people.
Like I said, there are various ways peopel come ot wearing a burka, some of it may be due the reasons you outlines, others came to wearing a burkha for completely different outcomes.
You cannot police that. You cannot police people thoughts and second gues their motives.
and how would they disprove the point?
policing peoples thoughts? eh? AS HAS BEEN SAID the belief in womens inferiority is pretty sickening, and even if women wilfully participate in it... fuck it, still ban it.
im pretty tired, so i wont be able to argue this anymore
I've known women kicked out ofhteir homes and living in sheltered accom because they started wearing hijab.
hsitorically niqab/burkha was an item of clothing worn by Roman and Jewish women of nobility in Byzantium.
During the Abbasid Caliphate the courtly culture adopted Byzantine customs and wome of high birth took to wearing the Burkha/Niqab.
during the dying days of the Ottoman Empire and modernisation a landed gentry and growing middle class took to dressing their women in burkhas to elevate their status in society.
This was most common in the Middle East.
That's why the Burkha is alien to Subcontinent Muslims, because they were not governed by the Abbasids nor the Ottomans.
In the UK in the 90s Muslims of Asian origin became more political and the Bukrha is one symbol used...like the keffeya
thats very interesting stuff, never even heard about all that.
but but but that was then, and this is now. isnt it also used by the taleban and other loonies? im not throwing all muslims in with them (i sound like such a dick), but isnt that how its perceived these days? fundamentalist twaddle?
on top of the whole oppression thing that i keep flogging, fair nuff if you dont hold any stock in it though.
also, seeing as how you seem to know about islam, why is the religion called islam, but the followers called muslims? is there soem painfully obvs reason im missing
so sa-la-ma is hte root for 'salam' the noun which means peace or submission.
Islam is a verbal noun meaning 'being in a state of peace/submission'
Muslim is an active particple (I think, obv. gramma is not my strong point) 'the one who is submitting'
either we advocate legislation that tells people what they can and can't wear 'across the board' or we don't.
you can't say 'everyone can wear whatever they want apart from muslim women because we believe what they wear represents oppression despite what muslim womens groups say but we don;t care anyway because they are oppressed b ya cutlrue that they are not aware of and we know better'
Doesn't work like that
if you are willing to allow this
I see where you are coming from, and then our disagreement is regarding statism vs liberarianism, not the Burkha
its not the fact that theyre muslim women, as ive said up there^^^^ somewhere, im against stuff like this in general, its not bigotry or anything
so youre a libertarian or whatever? ok, id agree with you IN GENERAL but in cases like this, we do know better. cultural relativism can go impale itself on something sharp
read taqwacores..it;s fictional but based on real people..well the character Rabia is (who riotgrrl wearing a burkha)
i mean, however you may feel about the burka and the reasons of (parts of) islamic culture for introducing it in the first place, you can hardly say that what it represents NOW has nothing to do with religion.
as for what countzero says... it's less about each woman being literally forced to wear the burka, and more about the common or public expectations of a culture. like, no one is FORCING girls to wear makeup, but it's seen as weird if they don't. it might be a weak comparison but it's all i've got at the moment.
I'd argue that it isn't that pervasive..and I'd argue that most cultural muslim families in the UK balk at the sight of a Burkha. I'd also argue that most girls adopt a burkha to use as a stick to beat their parents with; basically to escape arranged marriages girls would often become ultra 'muslim' to show their parents that they are morally superior and shaming their parents into giving in and dropping arranged marriages etc.
HAVING SAID THAT. Even if there is a strong current in muslim cultrue making women wear a burkha..still. it has nothing to do with the state
pretty sure it's mostly in afghanistan, and then you've got niqabs in saudi etc., where they end up being a symbol of status (ie. a family goes from for example egypt where hijabs are the most common, make loads of money in saudi and see the women there wearing niqabs, go back to egypt in a niqab and then people there will see that you are both wealthy and wearing a niqab, so more people end up wearing niqabs)
so what you say about 'cultural muslim families in the UK' not approving isn't necessarily that major a point. because loads of muslims in the middle east share the same attitude.
i think you definitely have a point about younger generations using it to piss off their parents though, it's hardly a secret that youngsters are generally more radical than middle aged people, in almost any culture.
If people want to wear it for whatever reason they have chosen they should be allowed to. Surely religious self expression that is in itself optional and that doesn't impact on the freedoms of others has nothing to do with the goverment?
I'd apply the same idea to self expression of any form and not just religious self expression.
would say more but i think someone is waitng for me and i'll be in troubel
being an actual women and all, tell us howd you feel if you were under religious duties to conceal yourself? or something
I.e mesh covering over the face, makes women look like human shuttlecocks? I wouldn't have a problem if they were banned - I really don't see how they can be seen as anything other than oppressive to women. I just don't accept that any woman, given a free and fair choice, would wear it.
Banning anything less than the full chadri, such as they hijab, niqab etc, however, I'd find problematic, because I think many Muslim women do freely choose to wear them and that should be respected.
The only thing they appear to be looking to end is the wearing of the full Burqa - Hijabs and even Niqabs aren't what they're talking about.
I don't give a fuck about the subservient thing, it really comes down to a practical matter above all else - if you cover yourself entirely from view, it makes you cease to interact as a human being.
and they're talking about banning anything more than the full burqa with veil, I'd be concerned about it tbh. But a garment that covers even the eyes has no place in a civilised society.
as has been mentioned several times in this thread they are often used as symbols of power/status/ideological stuff, etc. and the thing about covering up can become less important than what the niqab/burka itself is meant to singify. for example, i once saw a woman in a niqab sit down to breastfeed, at a cafe in a muslim country. obviously you couldn't see her tits or anything, but it was still obvious what she was doing, even if she'd gone so far as to wear gloves to cover her hands.
maybe I would throw the niqab in there too. I can't see any material difference between a burqua and a niquab such as this: http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1245184899078
also, better link http://tinyurl.com/nnh2dc
none of you have evidence to show that in the majority of cases that women are forced to wear burkhas, yet doubt that the opposite could be the case.
Thge burden of proof is on you to prove that women in the west are forced to wear burkhas..not on them
this is what the kids who were sent off to the care of The Brothers in Ireland were told to do for ages, "prove that this happened, just prove it", and of course, they were in no position to go against the strongest group in the country.
its not as bad, but id say it is comparable
this is a burka?
That appears to be what Sarzoky's arguing.
and if you agree with it that's fine.
But most people here are stopping short of that, because it has implications for other alternative lifestyles.
I think it's a very interesting question and one that it's perfectly valid for Sarzoky to ask people to look into, as he has done.
And I'd be very interested to know what the conclusions were into an investigation into this manner.
As we've gone through this debate I've realised my opinion is that I do not feel it should be banned (as, as you say, it raises problmematic implications for alternative lifestyles and indeed for personal freedoms too) but at the same time I also think the decision to wear it should be judged on the same grounds as someone choosing to be a goth, get massloads of piercings and tattoos or make any other drastic decision about their appearance that sets them apart from other people i.e. it's their decision to do that if they want to do it but other people don't necessarily have to like or make allowances for their decision and that they shouldn't get special dispensation for their decision or have any dispensation from any rules on uniforms or dresscodes that apply elsewhere to everyone as seems to happen in the UK.
Can't people see that this is a fad, a fashion, and like all such things it will disappear if you leave it alone. By singling out Muslims, you risk pushing them away even further from the centre, which then in turn consolidates their views and strengthens their resolves to continue with this silly thing. DURRRRR
Megan Fox in a burka in Transformers 2,
I think I did
I've lost the plot
Vikram: THE STATE SHOULD MIND ITS OWN BIZNESS, NEXT THING YOU KNOW WE'LL ALL BE NAZIS
You: ITS THEIR CULTURE ITS FINE ITS THEIR CHOICE
ive not been fair to vikram in that.
but much of it translating as some women he knew doing it, not EVERY CASE, and i doubt thast the majority reason, otherwsie im guessing these laws wouldnt be being considered anyway
vikram, stop talking generally. the issues are oppression of women and this whole women arent equal with men thing, and these laws are a step towards stopping that
that i dont hold any stock in. if there are any other customs that are oppressive and shizz then why shouldnt they be banned? you keep saying its not.. i disagree, and so do the french government
that the only way that a government CAN DO THIS is by removing all safeguards guarding civil liberties?
ALL safegaurds? idk. theres no civil liberty to protect someone breaking off from society like that, concealing yourself in public, putting a wall between yourself and everyone else, is there? freedom if expression? who's choosing to express that there?
ive siad this before here, but isnt it a tenet of islam that women arent worth the same as a man? has the burka something to do with that?
thankfully, law takes precedence over religious/cultural views
i dont think the state should edit the bible either, i do think that the state should lock up people who try to take it srsly and stick a metal collar and chains on someone.
the same way that if women arent treated equally due to whats written in the koran, or due to culture, or whatever, they too should be sorted out
i do agree with you IN GENERAL vikram, but considering i dont hold the same stock you do in the slippery slope argument, i dont think were going to reach an agreement about this
that's a general problem wiht Islam then, not hte burkha. The Burkh is just one visual representation of this then?
So then by your arguement we should close down mosques and not allow muslims to openly display their religion by wearing beards etc because they are an outward display of a religion that hates women
is the submission of women the defining part of islam? hope not. the catholic church has changed down through the yaears, to accomadate the civil society that changed around it. why cant islam do the same?
two hunward dowwa
yeah, im cool with that. as ive said many, many times, so much even im getting sick of saying it, is that women arent equal in that religion?
and im pretty much ok with the state interfering like that, probably for different reasons tham you oppose it though
'People have the right to follow whichever misogynistic or homophobic faith they want'?
come on man, don't make me spell it out
infringes on other, arguably more important freedoms?
but will arrest you in some states for having north korean flag patch on your jacket!
In California they have developed a fingerprint id card for women wearing niqabs
but Vikram is right and I stand by that as a general comment.
And basically all sociological studies say that.
It's interesting that I have to provide all this info to 'prove' that niqab is not an symbol of oppression yet all you need ot show me is your perception and nothing else.
That betrays the standpoint you're coming from
can't see the wood for the trees
as ive said, in general, yeah, the state should mind its own bizness. times like these though, the states perfectly justified.
what sociological studies say what? not sure where that comes in
i have no idea what your last two paragraphs are.
Why do I have to provide evidence that the burka does not represent the oppression of women (and to be frank, I'm not inclined to that opinion)
but you provide no evidence to back up your conviction that the Burkha represents oppression
because it conceals them from public view, and the impression that that gives off is due to the ridiculous opinions of certain men
like, concerning the ye olde similar practices, the athenians (some greek city state anyway) had something similar. women out without veils were considered to be hookers, and the best women never left their (husbands) home. id say thats oppressive, considering it was the culture that dictated that. similar here, no?
but your perception of it this way is not the only perception...THATS THE PROBLEM. When muslim women go on about how 'liberating it is' it makes me cringe so that is not my argument. My argument is that you want to ban something because of how it makes YOU FEEL regardless of the reasons a woman wears a niqab
i'm essentially with vikram on this. essentially the original idea behind the burqa was in fact not to oppress women, but so that men would respect them for who they were rather than what they looked like. that's the principle of female islamic dress/hijab in the first place. i think this is dangerous talk from sarkozy
maybe theo hinted at that
oh no i didn't mean vikram said that..
but that's what i think anyway
and Uk and France are member states.
They don;t have to bu there is big pressure to
between men and women
"All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights."
And Article 18 says:
"Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance."
The question is, which one is more important?
besides which, they're notoriously hard to enforce and capable of multiple interpretations. i just thought it was worth bringing up since they're banging on about human rights
you know...we're all in our groups discussing the topic on uncomfortable plastic chairs and then you come and kneel at our group wearing your corduroy trousers and brown shirt wiht a mug of tea in one hand..flicking your hippy hair with the other..andthen you pose us with this problem!
but like dood said earlier on, there's being all kind of suffering inflicted on people by this whole idea of 'leave religious practices alone, it's not for the state to interfere'..not saying i have any answers
I don't think Vikram argued for any special dispensation for religion - but you can't let the state start interfering with something before a law is broken.
Family situations can be pretty nasty,humiliating, coercive and irrational without warranting state intervention.
more debates should be like this, 178 replies and very little name-calling
people have different opinions, innit
when something is REALLY NOT SAFE FOR WORK.
So, say he bans it in His New French Republic.
The next day people walk dressed in cardboard boxes, quiet, small steps, prove the point.
Deserves another Ban?
But wait, them bleed paper cuts!
Ah well, as long as it ain't... don't mention the word of a clothing item.. No! Ban the cardboard boxes too, it's cruel, them like thorns!
The Ban! The Ban! The Ban!
Or.. will they go underground? Meet in forests, exercise religion and free will, burka's flutter shame The People Of The Republic into remembering how freedom lies hidden in the woods, just like it did when they were terrorists on their own.
There was once a Prohibition.
So, say he bans it in His New French Republic.
1. Burka is a relatively new thing in France and I think it's first started less than 10 years ago with new immigrants from middle-east.
2. The women I've seen wearing it are in no way young girls as they're usually with kids.
3. Banning it would probably make even more problems :
- women supposedly forced to wear it won't be allowed to go outside anymore
- tensions with the muslim community will once again be up.
- pointing at "bad (so potentially dangerous) muslims" will only reinforced the racist views of a part of the french people (but that might be a way to consolidate his electorate...)
4. Belgium apparently chosed a much more intelligent way, by saying it's against national security to wear things that cover the face when it's not carnival.
So once again, our President decided to talk a lot about what's a non problem so far (less than 5 000 are apparently wearing it, in Paris I barely see one every month) to mask his inability to deal with the economic crisis and to rally to him the most conservatist part of France.
No wonder our situation here is so bad...
Good point about the potential for people to be forced to stay at home, and also the suggestion that it's not even a particularly big issue, but a bit of a vote winner.
I'm pretty uncomfortable about the idea of people not being able to choose how they dress, whether that's down to religious misogyny or ill thought out state power.
now that he has been talking about it, we will probably be seeing many many more, because people will show they are against that law...
And things like that will ultimately help him getting elected a second time...
but the idea that he's being cynical rather than stupid is pretty sad too.
How did the headscarf in schools ban work out?
Every religious sign was banned from school, a law which helped calm the situation.
Since then, there is even much less headscarf in the streets.
Some women are obliged by their families to wear the burka. Some choose to wear it. Some believe strongly in the values their manner of dress represents, others may have a lot less choice in the matter, and that's setting aside the differences in orthodoxy throughout the broad sweep of Islam. If Sarkozy wants to ban it in the name of upholding France's secular status, that's one debate. If he wants to ban it because of the particular connotations it carries, that's something separate and much more murky. Casting all Muslim, burka-wearing women as victims is patronising and inaccurate.
I was sat next to two teenage Muslim girls on the tube the other day and they were talking animatedly about marriage and who they'd consider acceptable marriage material. One wore a headscarf & long western clothes, and you could see her face. The other wore a full burka, you could only see her eyes. They were talking about how some of their friends were more "Shiafied" or "Sunnified", and the more covered one thought her brother was naive about marriage and what was expected. It was interesting and they both had very hearty opinions about their values.
What I heard was brief... I didn't get the impression either of them had been bullied into their headscarves/burkas; they talked like girls who were comfortable with their lives and expectant about their futures. That may be a massively blase assumption, but the assumption that all women behind a burka are miserable with their lot or too uneducated to know they're being oppressed is pretty presumptuous too. If the French choose to impose this as law on the basis of their own ideals, I think they're within their rights to do that - and I think countries SHOULD ask people to live as one society as far as possible, rather than isolating themselves culturally. But making catch-all assumptions about a fractured religion that is a very separate and global thing in itself is dodgy and, I think, the wrong way to go about it. Even if they wanted to go ahead for the reasons they've cited, they could be a bit smoother about it.