Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
that's going to turn out great isn't it?
Or a trumped up one by agents of the State to justify their racism?
France - the nation of gender equality!
freedom to......unless i have got this wrong too.
As far as I can see there are two main reasons why the Burqa is regarded as bad by the west
1) women are being opressed by it (even if some of them are unaware of it.
2) that it poses a security threat
and a minor other one
3) that to communicate properly in our society one might need to see the whole face to interpret how stuff is meant (but this can be discounted as many unveiled people can also not communicate.
Therefore if it is 1) that france is saying is the main motivator, then it is odd to try to impose sanctions upon the victims...i can think of the scenario where a young girl might not want to wear one but feels obliged to by her family/community.....the french government tries to oblige her to not wear it.....she is put upon the horns of a dilemma through no fault of her own, this seems a little unfair.
good one Sarkozy
then you would basically be expecting the young girl, who may be nervous/shy/timid to be able to dob her family/community in it? yeah right thats really easy for everyone to do.....see my comparrison with people bullied at school, is/was it easy for those who are bullied to always name the bullies?
that people will have the courage to report offences against them even when they're committed by members of their own family?
Like, "Who are these frog scum to tell me not to beat my wife?!"
You're right. Let's pander to their woman-hating culture instead.
i'm saying it's not a good thing to hope or expect things that are unrealistic
They changed the law to allow police to prosecute one partner for domestic abuse without the other partner saying anything for precisely the reason that people tend to side with family over logical sense. We can't always expect victims of domestic abuse to shop their abuser.
But also not never.
Just that it's a flawed system for that reason. Domestic violent abuse has some form of forensic evidence that can be used but in this case it's going to be murky.
could be potentially dangerous
do you not?
Giving them the option is surely better than not.
If you stated that your partner/father/whoever was forcing you to dress a certain way is there really no recourse to law to do anything about it?
I'm only qualified in English law, not French law.
seeing as they're in France, a relatively civilised country that has widespread opportunity for single independent-minded women (and their children).
So why don't they just walk away?
Or, now, they could also refuse to wear burqas and report their husbands for trying to force them to wear burqas. Another option.
and the Middle East recently, right?
Why didn't they just walk away before the ban?
And so are it's inhabitants.
How is a dress code going to make anything any better?
Why didn't women just walk away from their oppressive circumstance before the ban?
But that doesn't mean the ban is totally unnecessary and pointless. Otherwise, why is domestic violence illegal in free countries? There's surely no point as the victims can just walk away.
Walking away from the oppression of the home life where the veil is imposed =/= walking away from the oppression of the home life where the violence is imposed.
In the former case, the woman was still free to wear what she wants, and therefore 'suffer' the same 'crime' (until today). In the latter case the woman is (one would hope) no longer suffering.
violence is a crime. the positioning of a piece of is not a crime, per se.
the violence comparison only stands up if you say that we should ban bruises.
to wear a burqa is a form of oppression/abuse?
The clothes themselves are a massive red herring.
But the ban is aimed at stopping the oppression/abuse, as PocketMouse has said.
But you don't reach a satisfactory conclusion just because you have an aim.
The manner in which a change of clothes stops oppression/abuse has not yet been adequately explained by anyone.
This is a silly argument you're trying to make.
Take your pick.
If the former, clothing isn't really conclusive evidence (in and of itself) evidence of repression.
If the latter, as far as I'm aware Laws don't stop much. They merely act as a formal recognition of what is punishable. And that acts as a deterrent to some.
Now... can you adequately explain how this law stops oppression/abuse?
I said it is aimed at doing so. Just like all criminal laws aim to stop bad things happening.
The manner in which a change of clothes stops "bad things happening"* has not yet been adequately explained by anyone.
(*"bad things happening" is apparently not "oppression/abuse", just the wearing of a particular type of clothing)
You know what the arguments are. You've even commented on the Wikipedia entry in this thread.
I'm not the one evading giving any reasoning.
We've both taken sides.
The difference is that I've explained why.
throughout the thread, from PocketMouse, me and others.
Don't try to make out like there's been no coherent argument on the other side of the debate, Wza.
No reasoning that hasn't been exposed as hollow by Anschul or wewerewerewolvesonce. CG waded in with some supportive nonsense to stir things up a bit. That's it.
To paraphrase the profit meme:
1. Ban Burkas.
no coherent argument to support a law brought into force by a multi-partite democratic parliament.
If the multi-partite democratic parliament has given a really pertinent reason, then it's not been bought into this thread by those who are in support of it.
And I'm personally unaware of it cropping up in any coverage I've seen/read on it.
their genitals in public and to brand them criminals for their freedom of expression is a form of oppression.
that people should have no restrictions on how they choose to dress in a free society, and that to impose any restrictions is tantamount to oppression. I was pointing out the absurdity.
a change of clothes will stop oppression/abuse. And that scarves are ok, but veils are not.
I am pointing out the absurdity.
in the intricacies of French criminal law. Can you explain exactly what it is that the legislation bans?
Where I do all my best legal research. Case closed.
How you do all your best debating. Case thrown out of court.
(It's not as if the Wiki page doesn't have any references.)
and I suspect no one in this thread has either (a) read it or (b) any idea how it will be enforced.
As you point out below, the law does not specifically target muslim women. I bet if a man walked into a bank in a balaclava, he would be arrested under the new law.
Where did this straw man bank come from?
Under this new law, he should be arrested, yes.
with a pashmina?
(a) she's holding it up and (b) it's covering nowhere near her whole face.
(other than because they're religiously oppressed by men)
Most laws have grey areas.
You seem to be asking an awful lot of questions about how the law will work.
on defending something that you claim not to know much about.
And you seem to keep flipping the discussion between concentrating on either the philosophical point, or the practical point, whenever the angle you take is challenged/refuted.
when there's no actual argument there in the first place.
you seem every bit as keen on suggesting that it's a correct and proper law as plenty of others who are suggesting the opposite.
I'm just defending it a little against the liberal outrage it seems to have caused. There are defensible drivers behind it, however cynical you (and clearly tank_man) think it is.
you very much are.
."None of us really know what the law entails or what it's effects will be, so we're not properly equipped to have a valid opinion. But I'm still gonna engage with people who pointlessly try. But that's shouldn't in any way be seen as me defending any particular position. No siree."
You know me better than that.
(even thinner now)
This isn't even the thinnest subthread is this thread
I don't really know the first thing about you.
Other than that in other debates on here you've usually stated your position and offered a reasoning for it.
I'm not really seeing that at the moment.
about French laws. I just find the amount of liberal outrage disproportionate and amusing.
If instead they would visit the family of the woman and instead and tried to communally fine the family then that would take the onus off it just being the woman that has to do all the hard work to free herself from oppression (although many women do say they want to wear it (althougjh I cannot vouch for how voluntary these declarations are) )
they get far higher fines.
It seems a bit dodgy, though: if you've enough power over someone to force them to wear a burqa are you likely to have the courage to say they forced you?
Or even just a scarf wrapped around yer fizog during winter?
but is more about keeping wimminz off of freezing cold ski slopes?
Sounds like a continuum of the men only 19th hole on the gLOLf course to me.
People need to stop being so arrogant that their view is the right one. Especially as its not even our country or government that the populace voted for
Playing right into their hands. Probably not a good year to be making visits to Paris, that's for sure.
i'll put money on absolutely nothing of note happening in response to this.
I don't know, this is better than wrong things for the right reasons, isn't it?
I don't really get the attitudes of a lot of young liberal types towards this, tbh. Is it just a matter of 'the western political right is pretty racist / anti-muslim, we don't want to express similar views to them, therefore..."?
banning an article of clothing isn't the best way to persuade people to not wear it.
You don't change culture via law.
i don't think you can compare those, although i'm not totally in disagreement with you
we'll see what happens i guess
i feel; uneasy about it all
Those are examples of laws that did have a support to them. We were in favour of limit cigarettes and we were in favour, thanks to the safety information, of seatbelts being required.
If people by and large genuinely had felt these things were infringing on their rights then you'd have seen poll tax style unrest and a government would have reversed that law.
Obviously people will complain but it's much like the Tax Payers' Alliance where a bunch of retarded cunts pretend to speak for normal people.
Law can only rule by consent, or whatever the phrase is.
and to try to show them the benefits of muslim women being able to contribute and influence integrated french society for the positive for all french muslim and non muslim, and thus set an example to other countries as well.
the best way to get french muslim women to influence and contribute is without the barrier of the veil as this provides a barrier to taking this group seriously (by some elements of french society) it would be best to get this across....it would also be good if western society were not quite so crass when it comes to perving over slightly unclothed women, it would also be good if products and unrelated areas did not try to use s** so much, there are many ways to tackle the barriers
But how exactly do you go about changing attitudes without laws and bans? Why can't you have a ban as well as this?
do you think that because you dont think that is achievable so you wont even try it at all to see if you can get some degree of it?
but I also think that idealism unfettered by realism is pretty ineffective.
the whole thing is a big stupid mess
if there are problems with the treatment of women in religious cultures (and I would argue that it is in fact in nationlist versions of these cultures) then if the state wants to intervene it should do so by empowering women, not making them the pariah
in any case, The State proscribing what one can wear = not very liberal
for husbands/fathers/communities to proscribe what one can wear? Well, perhaps it is in a 'strictly defined' form, but I'm meaning UK liberals, who don't tend to be 'govt has no right to interfere in anything'.
didn't mean to this^that
no it is not more liberal for husbands/fathers/communities to make those decisions but husbands/fathers/communities can be defied - not so The State... or at least not so much
like I said, if France wants to help women throw off the Burqa then it should aid them in defying the social conventions around them - if indeed that is what they want to do - not flame them in the centre of a battle between male socio-religious dogma and male socio-political oportunism
How do you connect with and help these women? If there were good ideas for this, I certainly wouldn't be against it. But when fathers/husbands have so much control, I can't really see many opportunities for doing so.
And banning the veil gives women another legal right against their family. Yes, the vast majority would be too scared to use it. But that such things are there is important.
on the one hand you have women subjected to 'you HAVE to wear this' and on the other hand you have women subjected to 'you are forbidden from wearing this'
it doesn't empower women at all, it gives them a shit heap more problems
and the fact that it is political opportunism from Sarkozy is ugly
and the fact that it foments ill feeling toward Islam as a whole when in reality it is quite 'local' Islamic sects only who carry out this practice is ugly
The State really has no business in saying what people can and can't wear - it's business should only be in giving the individual the right to self-determination
for the use of bans and legal restrictions. No-one uses it of course, because bans are generally used as political capital.
Anyway, it's the steward state framework. The state strives to use the lightest possible touch to effect behaviour change, with promotional campaigns at one end (least effective, most conservation of liberty) and bans at the other (most effective, least conservation of liberty). (As an aside, bans may well be the best determinents of behaviour change, but not always: sometimes they cause unforeseen consequences.)
In short, you start at the bottom and work up. But you have to justify your actions at every stage in terms of whether the problem at hand is worth it. A public info campaign might well be pretty innocuous, but still, you should be able to justify the cost. A change in law, a much bigger deal, should be justified by a full analysis of the likely impact.
The USA/UK etc seemed happy to see it too for a fair few years, before Saddam threatened their oil supplies.
laughing. But keep on trolling.
"What is the difference between throwing 500 babies into a fire and throwing fire from aeroplanes on 500 babies?" he asked. "There is none." Captain Philip S. Mumford, a former British officer in Iraq, January 5, 1937.
and spent a lot of time getting him to do their baby killing
but your knowledge of events in the Middle East and the strings pulled historically by the west is so wafer thin that it isn't even worth engaging with you on this subject
and that has everything to do with this subject - humanitarian mission and all that
anyway, I dealt with this question in the above response to PocketMouse
in the Muslim tradition. Why is the case of the burqa so different to the treatment of forced marriages or whatever?
why is it automatically assumed muslim women are always forced to wear burqas when quite a few women have spoken out against the ban it not least Nesrine Malik -> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/7896536/Burka-ban-Why-must-I-cast-off-the-veil.html
them wimmins wot trys too thunk for thimselvs is wrong tho.
theys relly just thunking wot mens want them to thunk.
Do you not think there were probably some non-first generation slaves in the US, say, who believed it was OK and normal to be enslaved?
The kids who've grown up in Gaza in the last two decades will probably accept that their life as grim as it is is normal, this won't mean they will like it or see it as 'ok', which is why most of them try to fight against what they see as an oppressive occupying force in their country, if they thought it was ok to be bombed and shot at, they'd just stay indoors.
Same thing with any form of subjugation. Just because generations have grown up with a situation, having that normalised, doesn't mean that they'll like it.
It doesn't mean that they'll like waking up in the morning all grins and smiles as they run off to a life picking cotton, or a life in the mills, or down the pit, or up a chimney, or in a war torn part of the middle east, or joining your friends in the guerilla army, or or or...
They might not know any different but it doesn't mean that they'll automatically accept their lot.
aren't waking up in the morning all grins and smiles, barely able to wait to cover their entire faces.
What about them?
we're only talking in total about 2,000 burqa-/niqab-wearing women out of about 5 million French muslims and a total French population of about 65 million, right?
I was the only kid on the council estate that went to that school.
The school i went to gave more punishments than others for taking your uniform off whilst walking home (1.5 miles)
Ths school I went to was more ridiculed and reviled than any other. I was on the end of a two pronged dilemma too, basically WTF had I done to deserve all the aggro that i got, because two groupings liked enforcing/picking on people, I was an innocent in this, some women wearing stuff might also be innocent iin all this, DONT PICK ON THEM.
Pick on mysogeny and inequality by all means, none of us lefties, Likes that women in some cultures might have to do something that is more demeaning and indicating of something else and yet you cant seek to change it by threatening the group that is percieved to be being put upon
So it's not inconsistent.
And what would you think if the law was instead banning the wearing of swastika armbands in public, say? Oppressive?
I think you're equating arguing the other side of an issue with holding certain beliefs.
In thinking you have that opinion because you want to, you're wrong. You might believe you're right, but your beliefs are wrong.
Not least of which is: "It was a relief not to have to think about what to wear."
It's a relief not to have to think about what to wear to work.
That must mean that a shirt and tie is definitely the best thing for me to wear to work.
that espouse a view that's quite...novel but there are some good points being made too.
When was the last time you saw someone post on here while they were wearing a burqa?
france is so cool in so many ways but also so really not cool in so many ways
and uhm yeah france is pretty far to the right in a lot of ways
then the banning of it is probably more likely to result in them being pressured to just stay at home more, rather than them being allowed to wear whatever the hell they like.
Seemed a good point.
'The alternative is worse' argument is drawn up EVERY time there are changes to law. Remember "the smoking ban will mean parents will stay home and smoke in the presence of their children" one?
I'm not saying that it wouldn't happen initially, but by going with that argument, you're essentially saying that the husbands/fathers etc should be able to dictate what the state does. THEY are the ones threatening to keep their wives/children locked up, and the state is supposed to say "oh, okay, well if you're going to do that we should just leave things as they are". It's essentially a threat, and should be treated like one.
i very much don't remember that argument.
did people make that argument? that seems ridiculous
then when the police go to grab them for wearing it, the woman can run off dead fast, and the police will run away thinking that they annoyed allah into letting her run backwards dead fast.
Seeing as how this ban appears to be attempting to prevent women being forced, culturally, to wear this item, this should undermine it's use adequately.
Also, being a muslim transvestite must be really easy.
Covers up the ugly chicks, right?
made me feel very strange
(probably a really stupidly niave question)
It's religious bigotry. Not that I'm religious in the slightest, but still ... it can't be empowering if it's taking away freedom of choice.
it's largely the kind of blokes who most of us would stereotype as sexist who are most in support of this.
One would almost think that they are personally offended by women who don't make themselves look 'sexy' for their viewing pleasure.
If one were just a libertarian, then one would indeed think that it would be an offence to nature to not allow me to view its creations.
which is ridiculous, because I think that on the whole we all like it most if women (or men) werent forced (or emotionally blackmailed) into wearing something or behave a certain way.
All I mentioned was that I felt sorry for the poor person in the middle (possibly a timid young girl who might have conflicting threats from two sides, wheere she might feel she had little choice....I was trying to see it from the pov of the person who might presently feel least empowered)
Of course, apparently most women who wear this in france are 'reportedly' glad to.
Thing is that although we cannot quantify exactly how many women are co-erced into agreing that they wanted to wear it, I am sure that in western societies where s** IS cheapened and used as a commodity in areas unrelated to relationships, then there will be a few women who would be happier with the option of covering up.
Nuns cover up, quite a lot after all, its not a totally alien concept.
Although people being forced into stuff is terrible and women being treated like they're owned by their family or community, against the womans wishes is an awful thing that we should all work towards changing.
I just dont want there to be some timid person who will feel threatened 'by both sides'
Cos I need to plant my bed wetting, cardigan wearing, namby pamby flag straight into the middle of it...
to courageously throw off the oppressors' yoke themselves without the need for heavy-handed state intervention.
I'm waiting for wishpig's verdict before I decide
although they might change the language of the last word that you used.
I dont know, but this could change peoples mind either way
Especially when there's a good thread by meths about pig assault, that one about the best yoghurt, and a wonderful thread about lasers if I do say so myself. Go read those instead.
NOT what we want really
Like if they had a cloak (monk stylee)
and no one can see their burqa, which keeps the french authority side of things sweet, the women can then hang around in the shadows furtively plotting their revenge on all their oppressers
here's some thoughts:
France has a huge problem with multiculturalism. As in, it has never existed in france. Its a good sign in some ways that it took big dave to denounce it as failed, it has never even been discussed in france. Its a country that has only decolonised relatively recently, and even then theres still a pretty strong imperialist sentiment in that french culture (as it is defined by those who have the "opportunity" to define it) is fucking great and civilising, and that anyone in france has to conform to this. People simply don't have the idea that people can consider themselves as being "french/algerian". As a result the people who have ended up here as because of colonial interests feel really marginalised and in fact have a lot of contempt towards french culture simply because it doesn't make any room for their (largely muslim) culture. As a result again this just makes any "non conformist" culture even stronger. You can see this when theres an algerian wedding. They drive down the street in a cavalcade of literally about 40 cars, all of them waving algerian flags out the window and blasting the horn the whole way.
When I just got here a guy in the street asked me for a fag I guess and I didn't understand him. I said "sorry i'm not french" meaning that I couldnt speak very good french. He said, in good french "Yeah me neither i'm algerian".
Then theres the probleme of laïcité which you know ideally i'm behind but it only serves to support those in power and alienate those who came here maybe only 2 or 3 generations ago.
Basically this is a completely stupid law which will only serve to alienate further french muslims and all because sarkozy is after far right votes in the light of Le Pen's recent success in the polls.
Also, there really arn't that many people who wear the full burqa. Or if there are I havn't seen them.
France's greatest, and most widely respected, footballer 'likes' this.
the general discourse here is that he's french/french and that his success story is considered (by the general public) as rather a rags-to-riches one rather than a in-the-face-of-institutionalised-racism one.
I think it seems like the french have a relatively uniform idea of what the role of the state should be and a few other things whereby in treating evryone as equal, they alienate and marginalise certain groups who are structural outsiders. something like that.
Makes you wonder whether it's an issue that really affects enough people to deserve to take up this much parliamentary time then. Surely as Yes said, it's just a sop by Sarkozy to stop voters going towards Marine Le Pen's party who seem to be doing pretty well at the moment.