'Burqa ban' in France: housewife vows to face jail rather than submit

[Lars77]

Source: The Guardian

Kenza Drider, a respectable mother-of-four, will leave her home in Avignon's Place de la Résistance on Monday with the intention of committing a crime. If the police are waiting for her – and they have had more than enough warning – she will be cautioned, perhaps be asked to accompany officers to the local station, possibly face a fine and, perhaps, will leave with a criminal record.

It is unlikely she will end up in jail, but who knows? It is a risk she is willing to take. Drider is not only determined to become a miscreant; she sees it as her absolute duty to do so.

Read more: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/apr/10/france-burqa-law-kenza-drider

[Bosonic]

1. Woman in full face-veil is arrested at Avignon station

A WOMAN was arrested at Avignon station this morning as she tried to board a train for Paris wearing the niqab on the first day of the controversial new law on wearing the burqa and niqab.

It comes after a weekend where around 60 people were arrested in the run-up to a planned demonstration against the law in the Place de la Nation in Paris.


http://connexionfrance.com/Woman-arrested-protest-Avignon-France-veil-burqa-niqab-12662-view-article.html

[LARED]

2. Will this be the precursor to riots? nt

[ProgressiveProfessor]

3. Not clear Sarkozy will tolerate them

[harmonicon]

4. no

It will just give the left even more to campaign against Sarkozy with. The vast majority of Muslims in France would rather this type of clothing not be worn. What's at issue is less religious freedom than simple freedom of expression in general.

[pampango]

5. Euronews: Face veil protesters detained as French ban begins

http://www.euronews.net/2011/04/11/face-veil-protesters-detained-as-french-ban-begins/

France’s ban on full face veils, a first in Europe, has been marked by anger and arrests at one of the leading landmarks in Paris. Several people were detained at what was meant to be a silent protest outside Notre Dame Cathedral, with feelings running high.

“It is an attack on my freedom of conscience, my freedom of religion, my freedom to be a woman,” said activist Kenza Drider, wearing a face veil.

“In the street, you are free to practice your religion as you see fit. It is fundamental to democracy,” added another fully-veiled woman, also taking part.

Critics of Nicolas Sarkozy claim the law is aimed at boosting his poll ratings and support among far-right voters before next year’s presidential election.

includes a video report from Euronews

[jberryhill]

6. If women won't quit wearing that stuff, lock 'em up

Women are going to have to eventually recognize that government knows what's best for them.

This was predictable.

[pampango]

8. Great point. France doesn't tell women what to do with their bodies ... just what to wear.

I guess the guys on the right have to tell women something that they can't do.

[riderinthestorm]

12. Government already has laws that govern how women can dress in the public square

They can't go topless to court for example or wear a ski mask to the bank.

Why are you suddenly all supportive of this most misogynistic garment? Why is it suddenly that NOW everyone wants the freedom for women to dress as they wish when it's the fucking burka?

It's because we (you?) are inherently a misogynistic, patriarchal culture.

[onenote]

15. Who says I'm opposed to letting women go topless to court?

[trud]

23. riderinthestorm

No, it's because I'm a woman, and it's none of the government's d*mn business what I wear or what religion I follow.

[riderinthestorm]

49. Sorry trud, but the govt already has a say in what you wear, there are laws on it. nt

[jberryhill]

73. Do those laws target the clothing of an ethnic minority, or are they based on another rationale?

[closeupready]

30. I've read most of your other posts on this topic, and this is the first I agree with,

particularly the statement that we are a misogynistic, patriarchal culture. I think that is true, even though many deny it.

And isn't it funny how a burka-friendly state like Pakistan has had a woman prime minister?

And how 'woman-loving' France has not?

Gee, that's probably just a coincidence. :sarcasm:

[Laughing Mirror]

46. Except France did have a woman prime minister

Edith Cresson, during the reign of President Mitterand.

[closeupready]

58. She was just a figurehead. I mean someone like Bhutto,

who really WAS in charge.

[maxsolomon]

56. Pakistan had a female prime minister that was assassinated

by religious fundamentalists.

Are you asserting that Islam is less misogynistic and patriarchal that secular western democracies?

[closeupready]

59. Not during either her first or her second terms, sweetie.

Try again.

[maxsolomon]

87. So her assassination doesn't count because she wasn't in office?

odd reasoning, honeybunny.

[closeupready]

93. You're off on a tangent somewhere, so I get why you are confused.

Bhutto was popularly elected twice, and poised to win yet another term when she was assassinated. Further, she was popularly elected in the 1980's, in contrast to Cresson who was prime minister beginning in 1990, IIRC.

[jberryhill]

31. "Why are you suddenly all supportive of this most misogynistic garment?"

I've never supported the notion of government dictating what anyone can or cannot wear.

I have no idea what opinion you believe I have "suddenly" changed.

I have consistently argued against such laws, and consistently supported laws which address situations where an adult is compelled under unlawful influence to wear or not wear something.

[riderinthestorm]

50. Then you are consistent. Most of the other posters on this topic are not.

They are hypocritical to the max by insisting that we CANNOT have any legal restrictions on such a culturally repugnant garment like the burka, and ignore other culturally imposed restrictions on garments women may (or may not) wear in public.

[antigone382]

42. That garment is understood as a rejection of colonial oppression by many who wear it.

The bottom line is that you do not increase women's freedom or opportunity by restricting what they can wear, particularly for ideological reasons. In Turkey, women have been kicked out of medical school, they have been banned from public libraries, they have been prevented from holding duly elected political office, because the headscarf (not even the full face covering) is banned in those places. In America, as in Western Europe, no doubt, many women in traditional Jewish sects wear wigs rather than their natural hair, because they believe it is what their faith requires--and no one has a problem with it. Similarly, I don't hear France calling for a ban on nun's garb.

I can't think of a culture that does not have gendered clothing. I don't claim that that is ideal, or that efforts shouldn't be made to reconstruct our notions of what gender is, how a person acquires it, or what the requirements regarding behavior and dress should be. Sexism is one of the deepest stains on the human condition worldwide, and I will not argue against that. But if you don't understand the history of how "the liberation of women" was and is used to justify colonial exploitation, and that the wearing of the veil, and other conceptions of masculinity and femininity are a *direct* rebellion against what *both* men and women of the formerly colonized, and currently globalized regions of the world quite justly viewed as oppression, then you aren't really listening to the women you claim to want to save.

[riderinthestorm]

51. Oh FFS! It's a cultural icon of the Bedoin tribes! It has nothing to do with politics!

It's very design is to erase women from society, to ensure they are dehumanized. They certainly aren't wearing this type of garment to be political activists! Most of them that wear it also adhere to a strict code about their behavior while doing so - not touching men, looking down and not in the face etc. etc. - the burka is hardly designed to empower them but rather to ensure their full obeisance to a cultural era when women were chattel. The veil or hijab is totally separate and not anything like a burka or niqab. I agree that THAT garment is being used as a political tool but that's not what we're talking about. If you don't know the difference between these garments then I would stipulate that YOU don't understand the nuances of this discussion.

France doesn't have an restrictions on headcoverings like a nun's habit - because it doesn't obscure the face. The actual law restricts ALL face masks with minor exceptions like wearing a motorcycle helmet when on your motorcycle, or a fencing mask when you are fencing.

[antigone382]

54. But the law was nevertheless designed with the burka in mind.

It was a political move to appeal to anti-immigrant attitudes, and to pretend it is otherwise is totally disingenuous. How do you know what the women who wear the burka think about it? After the burka was no longer required in Afghanistan, many women still wore it, because they viewed it as a way of asserting their dignity and right to privacy in public. That's how many of them described it. If these women did not feel that the burka expressed something important about their identity or their worldview, they wouldn't be gathering to protest and get arrested.

That doesn't make the burka a great thing. It doesn't mean there aren't all kinds of repression against women, whether in predominanty Muslim societies or elsewhere. Nevertheless, the bottom line is that denying these women the right to appear in public in the garments of their choosing is not going to do anything to improve their rights. It is only going to lock them totally out of society, a denial of autonomy that is *definitely* not of their choosing.

And besides, isn't it pretty restrictive to ban ALL face masks in public? Why does the world have the right to know exactly who I am, at all times? How would that play out in America, with Halloween, Carnivale, and any number of other events or scenarios where people go around with their faces covered? Would Disney World have to fire all the actors in Minnie Mouse and Goofy costumes? Would business owners be banned from sending their employees out dressed up as lobsters or whatever to drum up business? Then again, that might not be such a bad thing.

If you really want safety, we could just all go around naked, or with full body scanners lining every outside surface. Banning face masks provides an illusion of security at best, and at worst, a misplaced sense of satisfaction at the smug, thoughtless, and hypocritical oppression of a type of religious expression that some find incomprehensible or distasteful.

[riderinthestorm]

55. If I haven't made myself perfectly clear before, let me state it upfront, I know it's about burka

even more so I'll say it's a despicable garment that deserves to die a cultural death like FGM and suttee.

The women of Afghanistan continue to wear the burka because they will be KILLED if they take it off in most places. As a long time RAWA supporter, I can tell you are full of shit. Most of them don't persist in wearing it as some kind of dignified act! It's to ensure they live! Please link to your site that stipulates that the women of Afghanistan are wearing it because it makes them so empowered, please. I'd love to read it.

We (and virtually every other western country on this planet) already have clothing laws and restrictions in place, ad infinitum. I've said this at least 100x today. Please try to keep up. We already tell women (and men) what they can and cannot wear in the public sphere, legally.

No, I do not think it's restrictive to ban face masks in public. As an AA woman, I am glad that KKK hoods are banned. As a mother, I am glad that face masks are banned for Halloween at my kids' schools - they are unsafe with a lack of peripheral vision etc. But honestly, this is NOT a safety issue for me, it's a woman's rights issue. It's about being consistent about banning cultural practices that degrade our society from FGM to suttee to burkas designed to erase women from society.

[antigone382]

57. The story I refer to was from a published ethnography, and likely cannot be found online.

I will look up the title for you at some point, but I don't currently have the book in which I initially read it, and don't recall the exact title or author. I do remember that RAWA was quoted in the article. You can take that or leave it, but I haven't said anything as insulting as "full of shit" to you, please do not say it to me. In addition, I have a life outside of this discussion board. I state my opinion here as I wish, and do not feel obliged to keep up with what has already been said, as there is a wider world in which I actively participate. If you feel you have already addressed a point I make, then you don't need to repeat yourself if you don't want to. This is not a battleground, it is people talking.

All I can say about the facemasks is that I fundamentally disagree with you. Further, there is a dramatic difference between banning a type of dress in a specific public building, and totally banning it from public view. I have no problem with banning Guinness T-shirts in public school; I have a serious problem with banning Guinness T-shirts on sidewalks.

Sati and FGM are substantively different from the burka, in that they cause direct physical harm/death to women. Just because we have some clothing laws in place, it does not follow that all clothing laws are equally valid. I would resist a law that banned the wearing of stilletoes and push-up bras, highlighting their underlying purpose to restrict and degrade the bodies of women. I do, in fact, oppose laws that compel women to wear the veil or the burka. But the burka is only the most superficial symbol of what you want to see dismantled. If you don't acknowledge that these women do have some degree of agency in their lives (like I said, I'll try to get you more specific information to back this up, though it may not be for a while), and allow their empowerment to unfold on their terms, as they individually see fit, then you will only be serving to shove them even further into the background, not to liberate them as you might hope. You cannot liberate a country at gunpoint, and you cannot liberate a woman by putting her in handcuffs. That is the point you have repeatedly refused to address, and it is the most critical one if your concern is women's rights.

Edited for subject-verb agreement

[riderinthestorm]

60. You can however, liberate women via laws that regulate behavior that is unhealthy for women

and their rights. I have absolutely addressed your point. Governments can, and do, step in all the time to force behaviors upon cultural groups to ensure they adhere to our western standards of humane and equal treatment. I don't believe that suttee and FGM are substantively different - perhaps that's the point you don't want to address. While the two others may maim/harm/kill girls and women physically, burkas are an emotional and mental "death" to a woman just the same. Those of us who have worked in women's shelters and with human rights groups can demonstrate that mental abuse can often be as harmful as physical.

I apologize for the "full of shit" comment. Its been a long day and I too have a life outside this discussion board. I'm aggravated that anyone believes this garment needs to be defended, nay upheld when we have so many other laws that do restrict women. Here we are, defending the most misogynistic garment designed to erase women, to disempower them fundamentally..... We can, and do, regulate what people can wear in public. This isn't about a Guinness tee-shirt, but about a garment that's inherently destructive to a woman's place in society.

I await your evidence that Afghani women embrace the burka as a tool for empowerment and dignity.

[antigone382]

69. I found a PDF of the article online, to my surprise.

The author is a female, Palestinian-American anthropologist who has spent decades working in and writing about women in the Middle East. She is currently a professor at Columbia University.

http://www.smi.uib.no/seminars/Pensum/Abu-Lughod.pdf

"Do Muslim Women Really Need Saving" by Lila Abu-Lughod

"ABSTRACT This article explores the ethics of the current "War on Terrorism, asking whether anthropology, the discipline devoted
to understanding and dealing with cultural difference, can provide us with critical purchase on the justifications made for American
intervention in Afghanistan in terms of liberating, or saving, Afghan women. I look first at the dangers of reifying culture, apparent in the tendencies to plaster neat cultural icons like the Muslim woman over messy historical and political dynamics. Then, calling attention to the resonances of contemporary discourses on equality, freedom, and rights with earlier colonial and missionary rhetoric on Muslim women, I argue that we need to develop, instead, a serious appreciation of differences among women in the world—as products of different histories, expressions of different circumstances, and manifestations of differently structured desires. Further, I argue that rather than seeking to "save" others (with the superiority it implies and the violences it would entail) we might better think in terms of (1) working with them in situations that we recognize as always subject to historical transformation and (2) considering our own larger responsibilities to address the forms of global injustice that are powerful shapers of the worlds in which they find themselves. I develop many of these arguments about the limits of "cultural relativism" through a consideration of the burqa and the many meanings of veiling in the Muslim world."



Now, I understand that this article was written specifically to address the justification of invading Afghanistan based on a rhetoric of liberating women there, and that there are several significant differences with the situation in France, where the dominant French culture is asserting its values within its own borders, rather than exporting those values to a foreign culture under its dominion. However, it isn't quite so clear cut. Those who say that these groups should remain in their home countries if they want to maintain their cultural practices ignore that the bleakness and lack of opportunity in this places is very largely (though not entirely) the result of centuries of political and economic hegemony by the Western world, of which France is undoubtedly a part.

However, I am straying from my main point: you have defined your central concern in baning the burqa as the advancement of women's rights--a concern which I do deeply share, and in more situations than this one. I've spent a long time exploring gender hierarchies and dynamics, and am chiefly concerned with advancing autonomy and opportunity for women, and at the same time placing a higher value on the traits and roles associated with womanhood. I am not defending a garment, or even a cultural mindset. I am defending the rights of women to define their own values. I am pointing out the arrogance of Westerners expressing self-satisfied disgust at power imbalances within any group, while ignoring the much larger global power imbalances that have exacerbated those imbalances by threatening very livelihoods. I am rejecting the insulting and counterproductive dismissal of these women's own perceptions as a manifestation of "brainwashing" or fear. They are no more brainwashed than any other member of any other cultural group is brainwashed. You don't start improving women's autonomy by denying that they are in any way capable of thinking for themselves.

Banning the burqa is a crude and ineffective means of advancing women's interests, particularly because it does not solicit, and in fact actively dismisses, the input of the women affected by such a ban. It merely removes what is interpreted as a symbol of female oppression, rather than effectively addressing the oppression itself. Though you may equate them, the burqa is not in fact child marriage, is not FGM, is not beatings, disfigurements, or murder in the name of honor, and banning it will not get rid of these much more grave problems; its removal from public view does not constitute economic or educational access for women, though you may wish it so. While you may feel that the burqa symbolizes the erasure of women from society, the reality is that underneath the clothing, a woman is in fact present in society; able to do her own grocery shopping, able in some way to make her voice heard, able perhaps to walk to a police station and report physical brutality. Banning the burqa might please you by removing the symbol of women's erasure from society, but the true cost is to actually, physically erase those women from society, cutting off their only means of interacting with society on the terms that, for whatever reason, they find acceptable. Even among those who do wear the burqa solely because they feel forced to, and who do not derive any of their sense of identity from it, banning the burqa will not help them reach out to possible avenues of support, should they wish to resist. It will reduce their opportunities to interact with a culture that provides ample examples of a less proscribed, but still respectable and dignified version of gender relations, and will replace those opportunities with a perception of mutual hostility and an inability to find any kind of common ground.

Lastly, you are not the only person who has personally witnessed or experienced the effects of physical, emotional, or sexual abuse. I have personal experience with all three. Refusing to allow a woman to define and explain her own experience does not prevent or repair the damage of abuse.

[jberryhill]

71. "the most misogynistic garment"

Okay, out with it...

List all of the misogynistic garments in rank order from most to least.

Clearly, if this is #1, and has now been rendered illegal, we should be gunning for #2 now, right?

French maid outfits? Cocktail waitress uniforms?

What, in your mind, is the SECOND MOST misogynistic garment?

Why should we tolerate ANY of these misogynistic garments which, while a notch less misogynistic than a burka, are nonetheless misogynistic garments.

Your use of the phrase indicates your awareness of other such garments, so let's have the list.

[Bragi]

88. I'd nominate Catholic nun outfits

Not the fantasy sexy outfits, but the outfits that nuns actually still wear. Making women wear costumes from the 14-15th century renaissance period seems at least somewhat misogynist. Not as bad as face covering, but forcing women to wear anachronistic clownish costumes is gender abuse nonetheless.

[leftynyc]

84. Well said

That some on a supposedly progressive board are trying to twist themselves into pretzels to defend that hideous burka is astonishing. The French law outlaws covering your face. Whose fault is it that Islam is currently the only religion that requires that OF ONLY ONE GENDER? And those who want to argue it's a religious requirement, don't bother me with that bullshit. The Koran says nothing about a woman having to cover herself head to toe. Just dress modestly. The Orthodox Jews and Amish manage without throwing a shroud over themselves. Condemning patriarchy while defending the burka? Seriously?

[sendero]

45. Yeah..

... there's no chance that the majority of women in France wearing burkas are doing so because their husbands force them to. No chance.

[jberryhill]

63. Then you make a law about forcing other people - you don't freaking arrest the women

Compelling someone to wear something by force is a perfectly good thing to have a law against.

Arresting and fining the women is stupid.

"Oh, your husband beats you? Okay, you're under arrest."

Genius. Let's lock them up for their safety.

[Lost-in-FL]

64. There is already a law for that. I think the fine is 30,000 Euros...

for forcing a woman to wear a garment in opposition to the laws of a secular society.... just don't quote me on the amount, I think it was 30 grand I read.

[jberryhill]

70. Then why fine the women?

[Lost-in-FL]

83. Let's wait and see how the law is implemented.

In that case, I don't see why they would fine her.

[jberryhill]

89. 19 women have been arrested so far

Lock 'em up - a sensible approach to abuse of women.

[closeupready]

90. Right? Meanwhile, down on Rue St. Denis, love is for sale,

provided by "sex workers", but don't think about that and how it enslaves women - just think about yourself and getting your rocks off. :crazy: People can be so duplicitous. :mad:

[Lost-in-FL]

94. Their "choice" to break the law.

When in Rome...

[krabigirl]

77. ..........

[cosmicone]

7. Good for France...

Why do these people leave a land where no protests are allowed, only to recreate them in their adoptive countries?

The burqa is a barbaric tradition anyway .. I wish more and more countries ban it.

[msongs]

9. some people want freedom to dress yet deny that same freedom to others nt

[SheilaT]

10. And exactly what would happen to a woman

who tried to walk out without the burqa in the countries that insist women wear them?

[onenote]

16. So the universal standard of liberty should be based on that in fundamentalist countries?

[jberryhill]

33. Same thing that happens to any person which violates the local laws

But if Country A does not permit freedom of religion, we still do not, in Country B, "reciprocate" by banning that religion.

I don't really understand the point of the question. Are you suggesting that the countries of the world should be engaged in some sort of global "tit for tat" in how they make laws that apply to behavior within their own borders?

It's illegal to be a Nazi in Germany. It is legal to be a Nazi in the US. Should we go further and make it mandatory that all Germans in the US have to be Nazis? What's the point?

[jeremyfive]

11. Muslim Extremists have taken away many rights including this one.

Maybe they'll let her cover up in jail. Security means that some traditions have to go. Sorry. We all long for the way things were before Muslim extremists caused so much social upheaval with their violence.

[LanternWaste]

27. I imagine you believe

I imagine you believe that a nun's habit should also be denied...

If not, what is the precise and relevant security difference?

[riderinthestorm]

52. The nun's habit does not obscure the face. Burka and niqab do. That's the difference

and it's a big one.

[LanternWaste]

72. As you perceive this as a security measure...

As you perceive this as a security measure, I imagine you may of course point me to a valid source which states a dramatic increase in the number of robberies committed by women wearing this particular fashion-style in France?

[jberryhill]

34. What is the security issue with clothing?

None of the 9/11 hi-jackers were wearing burkas.

[onlyadream]

13. face covering is not in the Q'uran

it's a social thing.

One thing that no one talks about regarding the face covering is people who are hard of hearing not being able to hear these people speak. This happned to me, and I never realized how much I relied on reading lips, not to mention the woman's voice was muffled.

[Texano78704]

21. +1

It isn't a religious issue per se. It's a social/cultural one.

[jberryhill]

35. And that is relevant to what?

Crucifix wearing is not required by the Bible.

The Bible also does not require anyone to stick a Jesus fish on the back of their car.

Christians, nonetheless, do these things. Does that mean we should ban them?

[onlyadream]

40. It's relevant for two reasons

1. If everyone dressed like that, it will make identification impossible. Imagine everyone's driver's license or library card. Useless.
2. Not being able to hear the person under a all that material might not be a matter of life or death, but if everyone dressed like that (again), there would be problems. If I'm behind the counter at a store (for example) and I'm trying to understand what the person under the face veil is saying, I'll be at a loss.

I'm all for personal expression, but where safety is concerned, then one needs to think twice.

[provis99]

74. large crucifixes ARE banned in France.

[nalnn]

14. Good for those women I say!

However, I have to wonder if prison isn't a better place to be than some of them find themselves in at home with the hubby...

[truebrit71]

17. Does she not realize by wearing it she is already submitting?

What a bloody daft thing to say..

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[krabigirl]

81. As opposed to brainwashed people who think the state should control what people wear?

[FLPanhandle]

19. Release some people from their chains and they'll rush back to put them back on.

Idiot woman.

[krabigirl]

80. Lol, if you read it, you would see that she chose to wear the veil.

[goobergoober01]

20. NO BURQA... and those stinking Yarmuka... and unholy bikini... and tattoo... oh.... now i see...

So, I get it.... YOURS IS DIFFERENT.... because.... well....ahhh it is DIFFERENT.... yours is religous freedom, and theirs is OPPRESSION.
How about scarves... what if THEY ARENT BLACK ?
Turbans.... yes or no, how about a show of hands.... BUT NO GLOVES ! ! !

BRAs..... make oppression, or a good support system? How about if the bra straps are VISIBLE ?
BAGGY PANTS..... hey gangsta..... to the crack BUTT no further---- unless you are a Plumber, then it is ok because it is not a STATEMENT

How about using the ..... American Flag ..... as a rag, or a patch for your jeans ?

AHHHH..... yours is different.... i get it..... THEIRS is oppression..... yours is..... DIFFERENT

..... wearing a YELLOW STAR OF DAVID is only oppression when you are FORCED TO WEAR IT
..... wearing ORANGE DAY-GLO jumpers is only a punishment when you are in prison
..... women wearing ANYTHING is only oppression when they want to NOT wear it

in FRANCE.... if a woman is being forced to wear or do anything by her husband... she always has CHOICES.... like leave the bastard OR do what she wants and live with the creep.

The only exception that I can see which would be fair---- for identification, where a face has to be seen to compare to a photo ID

WE certainly make provisions for it with the TSA.... gender on gender groping OR private screenings.... to avoid public embarassment
AND WE SHOULD....
your religon shouldn't allow you to kill a goat in Grand Central Station... but wearing something that covers you....
I WOULD LIKE TO SEE SOME ARRESTS MADE AT THE NEXT WEDDING IN FRANCE WHERE THE BRIDE HAS DECIDED TO WEAR A VEIL

[leftynyc]

22. Your post is laughable

The law in France stops you from covering your face. A yalmulke or bikini does no such thing.

[trud]

24. good for you, Goober!

Looking forward to bridal veils and beards being banned. Say, don't male orthodox Jews obscure their faces with a lot of hair?

[Turborama]

26. Welcome to DU!

:hi:

[RaleighNCDUer]

29. You can stop with the religious garment thing, because there is NO

religious requirement for the burqa.

And you do realize that 'just leave(ing)the bastard' is a choice that can get her KILLED? Because, as symbolized by the burqa, she is her husband's, or father's, property.

And wearing a bridal veil would only be an offense if worn 24/7 - bridal veils are not worn even through the entire wedding ceremony and are not street-wear, so therefore not applicable.

Why are you arguing in favor of the slavery of women?

[skirt6]

32. If you are against women wearing a burqa because of the symbolism...

Then are you against women wearing wedding rings as well? The single gold band worn on the left ring finger is symbolism of the abduction and rape of the Sabines. What a tradition *eye roll*

I think the biggest problem is that the burqa is "different" therefore "scary". I'm tired of hearing about safety this and safety that. As the quote goes "Anyone who would trade freedom for safety deserve neither freedom nor safety." I think this international wave of hate against Islam is stemming from the United States constant bombardment of anti-terrorist (aka Islam) messages. Here's the deal- comparing all Muslims to the extremists is like comparing all Christians to the Westboro Baptist church.

I have nothing against creating steps to relieve oppression on women. I just think that banning the burqa is the wrong step and will do nothing more than create backlash for those women who believe in wearing the burqa. I wish them the best.

[RaleighNCDUer]

36. Again, this is NOT about Islam. It is about a small, repressive,

primitive slave holding society which is at odds with 90%+ of worldwide Islam. It is a cultural affect which predates Islam.

Perhaps they have convinced some of their women that this is what their god requires - it has just as much validity as the child-rapists of the FLDS. And, THAT is where the comparison is apt - the burqa wearers bear the same relationship to Islam as the FLDS bear to Christianity.

So, you've already defended enslavement of women - going to go for the rape of children?

[jberryhill]

38. We do not indict organizations or classes of people for offenses

The FLDS church still operates.

They also have rules about clothing.

If evidence is developed that a member of the FLDS church has raped a child, then that person is subject to arrest and prosecution.

[onenote]

39. next up: let's tell the Amish how to dress

Amish women typically wear solid-color dresses with long sleeves and a full skirt, covered with a cape and an apron. They never cut their hair, and wear it in a braid or bun on the back of the head concealed with a small white cap or black bonnet. Clothing is fastened with straight pins or snaps, stockings are black cotton and shoes are also black. Amish women are not permitted to wear patterned clothing or jewelry. The Ordnung of the specific Amish order may dictate matters of dress as explicit as the length of a skirt or the width of a seam.

Seems like you could make the case that these dress code restrictions are designed to deny a woman her individuality -- to repress and suppress them. So where is the outrage? Where is the demand that any grown woman going in public with her hair in a bun and wearing a cap and an apron should be arrested?

[Manifestor_of_Light]

61. any man who tells women they can't cut their hair,knows nothing about hair.

I have thick wavy hair. My hair becomes unmanageable at about shoulder length. When I was in high school, it was below my shoulders and almost impossible to shampoo.

Men have no business tellng women they can't cut their hair. Unless they are licensed hairdressers.


:banghead:

[skirt6]

41. I must be too young to remember anything about FLDS-

I honestly can't say that I agree with you on this being about oppression and not religion. Religion in general (with the exception of a few, such as Wicca) are all about the man being the figure-head and the woman is always behind her man... oppression of the female simply because she's physically weaker than the man. Take the Bible- how many women are shown in a glowing light for being anything other than submissive to their male counter-parts? Women in Pentecostal churches have a dress-code they must follow- long skirts, long hair, no make-up, wedding bands only. So, with that in mind, is religion oppression disguised as desire to ascend to heaven?

Leaders aren't doing this because it is oppressive to women- in fact, a vast majority secretly would love to see women back under a man's heel. They're doing this because King Richard wasn't successful in wiping out Islam during his Crusade.

[jberryhill]

37. There is NO religious requirement to wear crucifix jewelry either

But if you were to ban the wearing of it, you'd have a lot of people upset over how they choose to express their religious faith.

Let's ban nun's habits. There is no religious requirement for them.

The "slavery of women"? Seriously? Fining them 150 euro based on what they wear?

And, yes, in a western country, a woman can leave her husband. Whether she faces an unlawful threat from her husband in exercising that right is not confined to Muslims.

There are men who do not want their wives to wear short skirts in public. The answer to that problem is not to make it illegal for women to wear long dresses and pants, so that they will then be "free" to wear short skirts. Again, that has nothing to do with Islam, unless Mel Gibson has converted and I haven't heard about it.

You do not solve the private problems of women by making laws that restrict their ability to do as they please.

[Adsos Letter]

43. Well said!

as have been all your posts in this thread. This isn't intended to free these women, it's intended as a strike against a minority in France's culture wars.

[riderinthestorm]

53. We already have laws on the books that restrict women being able to do as they please

clothing wise. And France HAS banned crucifixes in schools, along with any other religious iconography including headscarves and the vast majority - including Muslims - agree with it.

French culture is very different than the US, and their laws are very different as well.

[jberryhill]

62. Schools are a different environment than the general public

Schools can require a uniform if they want. That has nothing to do with restrictions on adults in a free society.

[LanternWaste]

44. So then you believe the French prohibition against wearing one will result in...

So then you believe the French prohibition against wearing one will result in... precisely what? Less violence against women? :shrug:

[The Backlash Cometh]

25. I'm a little shocked myself that France would be the first.

[closeupready]

28. I applaud Ms. Drider.

:applause:

[Adsos Letter]

47. French 'Burqa ban' is simply a strike against a minority in France's culture wars.

[Lost-in-FL]

65. No... it is about protecting the principles of a secular society...

by removing symbols of oppression or anything against secularism.

[dipsydoodle]

48. Are you free to walk around naked in the US ?

.

[RedCloud]

66. We are all nekked under our clothes!

[Lost-in-FL]

67. Unlike in the US, in FR, bigots are not free to exercise their bigotry based on beliefs

Please people, stop assuming that all French citizens are protected of their right to exercise their religion of choice. Religion does not posses the privileged status that it is given in the US.

The French have NO constitutional protections such as "freedom of religion" like we have in the US. So no, bigots are not protected to exercise their bigotry freely like they do in the US. The French cannot impose creationism or intelligent design to be thought in public schools or ban gay unions/marriage just because Christianity is the de facto religion of the land because their citizens happen to belong to one of the many Christian franchises in the market. One thing is to preserve multiculturalism and another is to defend what one group believes as a religious duty (masked as a cultural issue and defended with western values of freedom), even if it goes against the entire values on the society.

I think it is arrogant to apply what is in our constitution to French society in general. It is the right of French citizens to protect their secular stance against any influences that places one segment of the population in a privilege position because of what they believe. When I say this, I think of our politicians push to create or implement a Christian Theocracy just because of the place christian religion is given in our society.

Now flame away!! :mad:

[krabigirl]

79. Well, France doesn't and probably never will have gay marriage, unions, yes, but not marriage.

[Lost-in-FL]

82. Marriage have religious origins while civil unions are legally bound???

Could that be the case maybe?

[Bragi]

68. Burka okay if just a deviant few adopt it

I have no problem tolerating a misogynistic deviant religious sect that demands that women hide their faces for their entire lives, provided that there are hardly any people I am exposed to actually adopting such practices.

However, if the question is this:

Would I want to live in a community where the majority of people of one gender are expected to practice subservience to the other gender, and to cover their faces and hide their selves, and refuse all interaction with people of the other gender, in most aspects of their lives, for their whole lives?

If that's the question, then my answer is: no, I do not want to live in that kind of community, if I can avoid doing so. While I am prepared to tolerate this kind of freakish sideshow in small numbers, I don't want it becoming the norm. If it does become the norm, I'd prefer living elsewhere.

[provis99]

so you don't mind oppression, as long as its somewhat limited.

Got it.

[Bragi]

85. I'm prepared to be tolerant, that's all

Please don't confuse my tolerance with an endorsement, it's just I'm not going to get bent up over some weird tiny sect. I'm just triaging my outrage.

[scheming daemons]

75. As a muslim woman, she has spent her entire life "submitting"

It is just a matter of what she is submitting to.... either the law in France or the 13th-century law of her backwards religion.

Either way, she's submitting.

[krabigirl]

78. If you read the article, you would see that she didn't grow up veiled. She chose this as an adult.

[krabigirl]

76. Good for her! Sarko's pandering to the racist far right is disgusting.

[zane25]

86. Bomb Turkey

I guess we need to send in the bombs to Turkey, they have a ban on the burka as well. I think they should be punished for telling women what they are allowed to wear.

[closeupready]

91. Well, the state should punish women who are doing as their keepers command.

That way, if their keepers don't make these women's lives miserable, the French state can. :woohoo: :sarcasm:

:crazy: See how liberating of women that is? :crazy: :crazy:

[babydollhead]

92. She is in jail already. The burqa is it's own prison sentence.

[WatsonT]

95. I assume she follows Islam, a word that means surrender/submission

She ought to be used to submitting to outside authorities by now.

/don't support the ban, but it was an ironic choice of words. "I won't submit to you because I'm too proud! Also because I'm already submitting to someone else"