‘The last sane man’ in the French parliament surely?

Another ‘sane’ French man is Rachid Nekkaz who has set up a fund to pay all fines which may be imposed if this law is implemented.

“You can be fined and forced to go to citizenship classes. ”

Legally enforced political re-education. Great.

The arguments have been wll rehearsed here before and the correct conclusion is that the government should have no role in dictating what people wear.

What is surprising about this is the overwhelming nature of the vote.

Are there no principled liberals in France?

That’s hard to believe.

Is anti-Islamic feeling so strong in France that all parties felt it would be political suicide to vote against the legislation?

And why are French feminists prepared to stridently support such a ban whilst ours refuse to even discuss the issue?

It really is surprising.

@ Mr Sagar – although I am generally about as interested in religion as I am in its various ridiculous costumes, I will make a comment about this – think it’s important to remember that at least some of France interprets this an attempt to protect and promote a secular state. Although I would never support a ban myself, the idea of packing religion off to the fringe where it rightly belongs appeals to me on all two of my levels.
There is a bigger, feminist issue here, as better men than me have argued: that the veil is the physical manifestation of a cruel, power-mad, misogynist faith – in just the way that breast implants, liposuction, fanny-tightening and labia trimming here are the physical manifestations of a cruel, power-mad, misogynist advertising industry.

The challenge for feminism is to avoid distracting itself with neither-here-nor-there yahooing about veils, and to pressure for rights and legislation to the point where women round the world are perfectly happy to let it all hang out. If every man caught stoning an adulterous women had his cock cut off, we’d see a quick realigning of priorities. The hell with Islam.

…and apologies pagar, for incorrectly naming you. I had a picture of the delectable Mr Sagar in my mind when I wrote that.

@3 – some polls suggested that 82% of the French public supported the proposed ban. Interestingly, the figures for those identifying as ‘right wing’ and ‘left wing’ are not all that dissimilar: 85% (in favour of a ban) to 75%.

In Britain, apparently, the figure is 62%.

All of which rather supports the theory that: “anti-Islamic feeling [is] so strong in France that all parties felt it would be political suicide to vote against the legislation.”

Most socialists abstained (221 abstained in total, I think).

Accepted

I wish I were delectable

The French have a fundamentally different conception of the role of the state and the position of the citizen. In the UK, we take it for granted that anything is permissible unless it is expressly forbidden by statute. In France, it is often as if the reverse were true. In France, for instance, you need to queue for a permit to hand out fliers advertising a political meeting. If you don’t have the permit, you’re arrested. In Britain that would (rightly) be seen as a gross infringement of fundamental political rights.

But the authoritarianism of the French is, ironically, frequently in service of a set of lofty ideals that many would call liberal. In this case, French legislators wish to make a symbolic assertion of their feminism. Threatening women may seem a funny way to go about it, but the French see it as important to make a declaration against conservative Islamic attitudes towards the status of women. They are also canny enough to know that the measure will be largely symbolic and few women will ever be forced to pay fines etc. On a utilitarian calculation, they therefore think this is okay.

Such a law should never be passed in the UK, where we should jealously guard our freedoms and continue to refuse the state the authority to tell us what to wear. However, we shouldn’t be too self-congratulatory. The French (along with the Danish and the Dutch) are at least demonstrating some confidence in their own values and a willingness to assert them in the face of the cultural challenges posed by the importation of habits of behaviour from developing countries that are incompatible with Western values but which are endorsed, and sometimes enforced, by the more extreme Islamic clerics.

While the French play fast and loose with civil liberties, we simply cravenly appease. In both cases, the biggest losers are Muslim women. Between the two approaches – or perhaps beyond the two approaches – there is surely a better way.

@3, pagar, how hard have you searched for French feminists against the ban? A quick google found me this page: http://le-nouveau-poireau-rouge.blogspot.com/2010/07/feministes-contre-une-loi-sur-le-voile.html – which lists feminist organisations against the law, along with a very well-argued open letter decrying it.

I agree that the law is despicable, and grimly await the waves of praise from our own gutter press calling for a similar law to be introduced in the UK. *shudder*

It’s pretty easy to see why they voted the way they did

http://pewglobal.org/2010/07/08/widespread-support-for-banning-full-islamic-veil-in-western-europe/

I think that both the left and right in France are more in favour of state intervention than individualism, and more aggressively secularist than they are liberal.

“It’s also a crime (rightly) to force someone to wear a veil, including your children.”

This is slightly surprising. If it is none of the state’s business if a mother chooses to weir a veil for reasons of modesty, why is it any of the state’s business if she chooses for her child to wear one? The state does not normally have a role in deciding how parents should dress their children. If the answer is that wearing a veil is manifestly harmful and the state has a proper interest in child protection, then the argument against the state taking an interest in the veil as worn by adults is weakened: if you can support a smoking ban, say, then it is not obvious that you cannot support a ban on the veil, it is not a cut and dried civil liberties issue.

If the senate passes the law it will be illegal to wear a full face-veil

Except, of course, for the sort of full-face veils frequently worn at weddings and funerals…

#12

The implication is not “it’s right to have a law against dressing your child in a veil” – although I might think that was wrong, I wouldn’t want a law against it. The implication is “it’s right to have a law against forcing your child to wear a veil against their own wishes”, which seems a reasonable position. If the child is old enough to make their own views about how they would like to dress clear, they are old enough to have freedom of conscience and religion.

Dangerous, illiberal and anti-choice; much like the Swiss ban on minerets a few months ago. Islamophobia is now so entrenched across Europe it’s ridiculous – particularly with Europe’s bleak recent history with regards to treatment of religious minorities.
There are 5,000,000 Muslims in France, of which only 2000 wear the veil. This legislation is using a sledge-hammer to smash a peanut.

Try this news report from France in February:

“Two burqa-wearing robbers stole 4,500 euros from a post office in the suburbs of Paris Saturday. The gun toting thieves hid their handguns beneath the Islamic-style full veils. The French government is currently trying to restrict use of the burqa.”
http://www.france24.com/en/20100210-burqa-robbers-post-office-paris-nicolas-sarkozy-ban-national-identity-france-muslim

And this from March 2008 in Britain:

“An armed robber disguised as a Muslim woman has stolen jewellery from a shop in the West Midlands. Police said the man went in to the Friend Jewellers in Cape Hill, Smethwick, wearing a burka and pushing an empty children’s buggy.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_midlands/7307412.stm

And this news from Iran just a few days ago:

“Morality police are back on the job in Iran, and women could face fines of more than $1,000 if they’re judged to be too fashionable”
http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Iran+leaders+launch+crackdown+immodest+dress/3236455/story.html#ixzz0terUiFAr

Don’t we have a european human rights act for this?

I have yet to divine the pupose of your streaming news service, Bob.

Are we supposed to go: “Oh, people pretending to be Muslims did bad things, let’s ban Muslims”? Or “The Iranian state tells people how to dress, let’s emulate it”?

I don’t want to straw man you here, but it’s kinda tricky to know what your point is if you don’t actually tell us.

This is not a ban on women “choosing” what they wish to wear; this is the lifting of a ban on women leaving the home not draped in black bin-liners. The frankly ridiculous proposition that women “choose” to dress as chattle is about as insulting as a person that claims that a slave is glad of his slavery. Complete babble. And nice attempt to sow confusion between the veil and the full burka there too.

And then there’s the double standard. A friend of mine was recently in a bank and was told to take off his hat. He very politely refused, pointing to the woman further along the counter in a full burka, and was asked to leave. Why exemptions only for those who have an imaginery friend?

I see you’ve also done the default Strawberry fields multicultural thing of blurring the distinction between Islam and race. What don’t you get? The former is a choice; the latter not (although according to the Koran apostasy is punishable by death!). Does that make me “islamophobic”? And what’s wrong with islamophobia anyway? I am an atheist. I’m Cristianity-phobic, Judaism-phobic, Buddhism-phobic etc.

Why do only those criticising Islam get smeared like this, with the sly-yet-intentional blurring of religion and race?

Where is the problem?

“The fact that there is no distinction between criminalising someone who forces a woman to wear a veil and criminalising a woman who wants to wear a veil is a complete disgrace”
Obviously it is very difficult to differentiate between one and the other, (I mean, if a women is so controlled by a man that she will wear an all over body sock then is she going to grass him up for forcing her to do this?) so maybe this is a moot point.
However I believe that the penalties are very different for the two offences, 150 Euro fine for the woman choosing it, and 3000 Euro fine for a man forcing it rings a bell, (I think it was in the Guardian at the weekend), so there is a distinction between the two.
Whether it’s a good thing or not, blimey, I don’t even want to start on that one ….

@18: “I don’t want to straw man you here, but it’s kinda tricky to know what your point is if you don’t actually tell us.”

I thought it would be fairly transparent even for those with special educational needs. Obviously, I was greatly mistaken. Due apologies.

There have been many other news reports in Britain and from elsewhere in Europe of Burqas being used by robbers and other criminals, often including males, to evade detection or recognition in the course of crime or capture afterwards.

For similar reasons, some shopping centres and stores in Britain post notices banning the entry of customers wearing hoods so as to reduce theft. Many Islamic countries enforce strict public dress codes – albeit for religious reasons – so it’s not as though muslims – or pretend muslims – in France are being deprived of freedoms they would enjoy in Islamic countries.

There! Is that sufficiently clear?

France is a secular republic. I think that France brought in laws in about 1905 to reinforce the separation of the State and religion due to the influence of the Roman Catholic Church and especially the Jesuits. I think the concept is “Laicite”. During the second half of 19C there was much concern about the increasing influence if not power of the Roman Catholic Church on state affairs. When people move to a country they should be aware of the laws, traditions and customs.

The rise of a political Islam in France is in many ways similar to the political influence of the Roman Catholic Church and associated monarchists of the 19C, as they are stating their religious beliefs are more important than the laws of the secular French Republic.

@19

And what’s wrong with islamophobia anyway? I am an atheist. I’m Cristianity-phobic, Judaism-phobic, Buddhism-phobic etc.

What’s wrong with Islamophobia? Other than hating someone because of what they think or believe..?
I’m also an atheist, but I think there is greater power in rational argument than saying “Oh I don’t like that particular style of clothing therefore I shall use the force of the law to ban it”.
You do great harm to your argument by pretending there is nothing wrong with bigotry.

and this:

This is not a ban on women “choosing” what they wish to wear

is so patently untrue it beggers belief.

“There have been many other news reports in Britain and from elsewhere in Europe of Burqas being used by robbers and other criminals, often including males, to evade detection or recognition in the course of crime or capture afterwards”

I’m starting a campaign to ban tights and stripey jumpers!

“What’s wrong with Islamophobia? Other than hating someone because of what they think or believe..?
You do great harm to your argument by pretending there is nothing wrong with bigotry.”

So, ummm, it’s not “islamophobia” then is it; it’s “muslimophobia”?

Or are you really saying that if I don’t like, say, the Koran’s edicts to murder homosexuals and apostates, that I am really just a “bigot” who hates Muslims?

If not, why use the term “Islamophobia”? Because this implies I dislike Islam, rather than Muslims. What’s wrong with disliking a man-made ideology then?

“This is not a ban on women “choosing” what they wish to wear”

“is so patently untrue it beggers belief.”

Ok then. Please provide me examples of women who “choose” to wear the burka. Or perhaps you’d like some testimonies of those forced into it, of which there are a plentiful supply.

[19] “The frankly ridiculous proposition that women “choose” to dress as chattle is about as insulting as a person that claims that a slave is glad of his slavery”.

That’s how I see it – before slavery was abolished would anybody have defended the right of any slave to remain the possession of another person (assuming a minority subscribed to such a crazy idea)?

The burqa is emblematic of the subjugation of women – the law (banning it) has nothing to do with how people dress, but its iconic significance as symbol of female oppression.

Personally I do not think a ban is the right approach, but to take the burqa out of it’s cultural context, in order to depict it as merely another item in the wardrobe, is entirely disingenuous.
Like other monotheisms, many of it’s advocates are brain washed as children then subject to all sorts of pressures from either family or members of their community -in this respect the so called “freedom of choice” to wear a burqa cannot be easily separated from the cultural baggage that accompanies it.

It has been said many times before but secular-liberalism does not always sit easily with medieval fairy stories?

Charlie @22 is right to highlight the historic rationale for the hostility of secular French republicans to the power and influence exerted by the Catholic church: there is a historical and cultural background to this issue which is distinct from that elsewhere.

I tend to agree that the ban is an over reaction, irrespective of it’s popularity with the French public. I do also think however that there is something to be said for Charlie’s observation that there is a danger that in not conforming to the norms, customs etc of the country you have moved to can be seen as “stating their religious beliefs are more important than the laws of the secular French Republic”.

I’m not sure that this particular issue is the real battleground – it seems rather trivial to most people I expect. The wider issues of the tension between the dictates of islam (or indeed any other religion) and our increasingly secular societies, are likely to be in other areas – but given the heat generated by this debate, it’s not going to be easy to promote a “modus vivendi”

@23 Hatred of a religion, and hatred of the people who practice that religion, are two completely separate things. Bigotry is wrong, but hating Islam is not bigotry.

Japan is not an Islamic country and has no statutory proscriptions on clothing. However, it is often claimed that women have a inferior status to men in Japan although the realities are very complex:
http://www2.gol.com/users/friedman/writings/p1.html

What I regard as especially awful in some Islamic countries are bans on any schooling for girls (the Taliban in Afghanistan) or the ban on women driving cars on public highways (Saudi Arabia). I find that unbelievably petty.

@25

When you start nit-picking in a pseudo pedantic/semantic way, you’re already losing the argument. I’m reminded of when anti-Semitic people claim not be anti-Semitic since the “semites” consist of Arabs etc: it’s bollocks, and should be treated as such. Your hatred of Islam blinds you to the fact that Muslims are people just like everyone else and have the same contradictions and internal conflicts as everyone else with what they believe. Thus why a tiny, tiny minority of Muslim women wear the burkha. Now yes, some are forced into it, and everything should be done to stop coercion on any level. But you don’t fight coercion with further force. As for an example of someone who chooses to wear the veil, try here, for example.
I’ve got friends who are Christian, Muslim, hell one of my friends claims to be a Jain Buddhist but I don’t hate any of them, I argue my case using rational argument and evidence (and maybe a bit of Dawkins for fun). I don’t particularly like the homophobia of Christianity or the misogyny of Orthodox Judaism, but I don’t hate those who follow it and I wouldn’t ban them from following their practices – unless (and this is the key bit) it inflicts harm on others*. I fail to see how wearing a particular outfit hurts anyone which is why this legislation is pure anti-Islamic hysteria made law. I guess it detracts from Sarkozy’s current political difficulties though.

[*By same token, I fully supported the Danish cartoonists and their not-that-funny cartoons a few years back]

“I thought it would be fairly transparent even for those with special educational needs. Obviously, I was greatly mistaken. Due apologies.

There have been many other news reports in Britain and from elsewhere in Europe of Burqas being used by robbers and other criminals, often including males, to evade detection or recognition in the course of crime or capture afterwards.

For similar reasons, some shopping centres and stores in Britain post notices banning the entry of customers wearing hoods so as to reduce theft. Many Islamic countries enforce strict public dress codes – albeit for religious reasons – so it’s not as though muslims – or pretend muslims – in France are being deprived of freedoms they would enjoy in Islamic countries.

There! Is that sufficiently clear?”

Pardon me for trying to avoid a straw man attack. Next time I’ll just run on my own assumptions.

Your point about the crime potential of burkhas only applies to people who want to wear them inside shops etc. This thread is about banning them altogether. So how is it relevant?

It’s interesting to see that it’s ok to attack people’s liberties as long as similar liberties are violated by theocracies. Shall we introduce stoning too? Or do you think that UK Muslims are somehow accountable for Iranian law?

@28

Homophobic Christians use the same argument: “Love the sinner, hate the sin”. I’m not so sure that it translates very well into policy.

@24

And bags that have “SWAG” written on them of course

This article, I’m afraid, is weak insofar as it completely fails to engage with the specifically French context and history essential to getting any proper understanding of yesterday’s vote.

Yes, racism is at play. But there is far, far more to it than that, as I try to explain here:

http://badconscience.com/2010/07/14/laicite/

some fair points somewhat marred by your choice of headline. Yes, of course everyone else in France is insane. xenophobic fool

Thanks for an excellent post Jim. My thoughts exactly.

Re some of the comments on French feminists, it is true that the majority of self-defined feminists are in favour of the ban. Most also supported the 2004 banning the headscarf in state schools.

The failure of the left to effectively oppose this law has led to an upping of the stakes. Muslims are regularly scapegoated for not ‘integrating’ or for being a fundamentalist fifth column. Denouncing Muslims is a soft option for racists who have issues with anything that is considered alien to the French way of life. Muslims rather than social conditions and racism can also be held responsible for anything from riots, crime or insults to the French flag to the failure of the French football team in S Africa. Ministers and leading politicians can get away with crass islamophobic remarks (“He’s a good Muslim who drinks and eats pork”) without having to resign as I think would be the case in most countries.
‘Islamophobia’ is thus a particularly pernicious form of racism in that it hides behind liberal or progressive thinking (“the fight against religious obscurantism”).

The term ‘feminist’ covers a wide range of thnkers. Some have intellectual weight. Others are mainly interested in incriminating young black and Muslim males. Others are part of the establishment and barely try to hide their contempt for mainly working class Muslims.

I could name a number of leading French feminists who are involved in the fight against islamophobia and opposition to state bans, such as Christine Delphy, Catherine Samary, Ismahane Chouder (a Muslim feminist) and Monique Crinon.

Re secularism. Yes, it has a respectable history, originating in the fight against the influence of the Catholic church, which under the Ancien régime was effectively part of the absolutist state and throughout the 19th century a bastion of reactionary, monarchist thinking.

Today secularism is used to demonise Muslims, many of whom have to worship in makeshift premises and have little or no political representation of any kind. Even non-religious people of Arab/Muslim origin are virtually excluded from parliament and other institutions. The main role of secularism today is to provide a ‘respectable’ veneer for otherwise unacceptable, racist ideas. Some secularist groups (e.g. Riposte Laïque) have effectively merged with the far right.

[31] “Shall we introduce stoning too?” – well Islam is used to justify all sorts of crazy things (and I’ll just get in pre-emptive, so do other religions, before the usual accusations are served up).

The French authorities regard the burqa (correctly in my view) as an oppressive and sexist symbol, and something that is contrary to the wider aspirations of their culture (Liberté, égalité, fraternité).

I assume you would not agree to stoning, but can accept that women can only be seen in public if they are covered from top to toe?

I suppose the question is were do we draw the line (morally, and not just legally) and how do we go about it – most here will not agree with the ban (including myself) yet some women will suffer because of these antiquated religious beliefs, that just doesn’t seem right?

“Your hatred of Islam blinds you to the fact that Muslims are people just like everyone else and have the same contradictions and internal conflicts as everyone else with what they believe.”

Well no. My dislike (where did the “hatred” part come from?) of Islam means that I treat homosexuals, women, Jews and non-believers the same as everybody else, including Muslims; and very much unlike the Koran of course, which defines these former groups as ripe for slaughter.

Again, you don’t seem to be able to discriminate between people (Muslims) and man-made ideology (Islam). If I’ve said anything against Muslims (I haven’t) call me Muslimophobic or something. Stop trying to conflate criticism of Islam with racism by simpering about “Islamophobia” as if dislike of an ideology is a bad thing – do you cry out “discrimination” when people roll out the case against free-market capitalism?

It is indeed your indulgence of soppy and non-thinking multiculturalism which blinds you to the sexist prison that is the burka – I don’t suppose there are many where you live are there? Out of sight, out of mind eh?

[36] yes, a good post with lots of interesting responses – but to equate banning the burqa with ‘insanity’ is pushing the envelope a bit, isn’t it?

@38

Just to drag this on-topic: the banning of the burkha is an attack on personal liberty, and in particular the personal liberty of Muslim women in France. To combat an ideology you don’t ban clothes. If we want liberal democracy to be superior to theocractic regimes in Iran or Afghanistan then we shouldn’t use authoritarian measures to prove our point. And if it’s extremist attitudes that you’re concerned about then there are already laws in place to deal with such things (ie: freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, against incitement to hatred).
Islamophobia, no matter what you say or think, is a very real problem. The excuse of most racists these days is that they don’t dislike the people, they dislike the religion or the culture. Which is exactly what the more sophisticated anti-Semites have been saying for centuries (and don’t tell me that anti-Semitism hasn’t been a problem in the past, please (indeed attacks on Jews are rising again according to all sources)).
As for where I live: in a small mill town in East Lancashire where according to wikipedia the demographic is 67.79% White and 30.70% Asian or Asian British. The largest religious groups are Christian (52.07%) and Muslim (29.15%). My next-door neighbour is a Muslim (and was awarded an OBE in the recent honours list for youth work). I’ve worked, drank, danced and conversed with Muslims ranging from non-observant cultural types [similar to Church of England folk who go to Church twice a year] through to the praying five times a day, must keep beard a certain length types, and I’ve only had a serious falling out with one of them once – because he voted Tory.

Mr S Pill says that arguing over the semantics of ‘Islamophobia’ is somehow pedantic.

I disagree – it is important. We should make clear what we are talking about.

There is significant distrust of Islam and Muslims in Europe. Some criticis of Islam and Muslims are undoubtedly motivated by racism and aversion to non-Christian beliefs spreading through Europe. Populist politicians – usually from the right – feed on prejudice and try to promote reactionary responses to Islam.

However, the term ‘Islamophobia’ has also been used by Islamists, themselves engaged in reactionary politics, and their useful idiot sympathisers who seek to portray any criticism of their agenda as racism. Just look at the ridiculous ‘Islamophobia Watch’ website. The term has been lazily applied as a means of deligitimising those opposed to, for example, faith schools, halal meat, Islamic preachers who endorse political violence, etc.

I wouldn’t describe myself as ‘Islamophobic’ because the term is generally interpreted as signifying crude anti-Muslim prejudice and I wouldn’t want to associate myself with that.

However, it’s important to accept that people can be vehemently opposed to Islam as a political-religious ideology without necessarily being racist twats.

And on the French burkha ban, Flowerpower@8 makes sense to me.

If I’ve said anything against Muslims (I haven’t) call me Muslimophobic or something.

Yes you have. You’ve said that they should be singled out for discriminatory legislation to prevent them from deciding on their own clothes. You’re a Muslimophobe, or something.

“I assume you would not agree to stoning, but can accept that women can only be seen in public if they are covered from top to toe?”

I don’t accept it, I think it’s oppressive and illiberal. However, I equally cannot accept the idea that women can only be seen in public if NOT covered from head to toe.

“I suppose the question is were do we draw the line (morally, and not just legally) and how do we go about it – most here will not agree with the ban (including myself) yet some women will suffer because of these antiquated religious beliefs, that just doesn’t seem right?”

I think the thing to remember is that there is no quick-fix solution. Trying to decide at this point whether the ban will have a net positive or negative impact is a fool’s game, but to my mind the end doesn’t justify the means anyway. And I certainly don’t think the way to liberate women is to punish those who refuse to be liberated, which is what the ban does.

(Incidentally, how many people are going to get done for ‘forcing’ a woman to put on a burkha? How can you even prove that, short of photographic evidence of someone holding a woman down and dragging one over her head? Or, going the other other way, does this just mean that any time a woman gets done for wearing a burkha her parents or husband will automatically be punished too, regardless of whether they forced or even encouraged her to wear it?)

@40 Mr S Phil

There are real dangers inherent in pandering to ANY religious group, whether islamic, christian or whatever. All too often people of faith demand not only special treatment, but seek to prevent those who don’t share their faith criticising those beliefs by labelling any such criticism racist/bigoted/islamophobic/blasphemous.

I don’t think anyone in here is trying to claim that there isn’t islamophobia in French or British society, but care needs to be taken not to conflate legitimate criticism with the scary fringes of the far right.

I happen to agree with you that the ban in wrong headed and illiberal, but there is a debate to be had about what the wearing of such garments represents, and how this relates to the working of a multi-cultural society.

@31: “Your point about the crime potential of burkhas only applies to people who want to wear them inside shops etc. This thread is about banning them altogether. So how is it relevant?”

Because: (a) some news reports relate to bank robberies and jewellers as well, not just shops or stores; (b) as an all-covering garment, burqas are a convenient way for criminals (or terrorists) to inconspicuously approach banks or other public buildings on public footways etc while evading recognition by security CCTV and for evading capture later; (c) some crime reports said the all-covering burqa was especially useful for concealing larger weapons such as automatic assault guns; (d) police and bystanders are fearful of tackling anyone garbed in a burqa for fear of instigating urban riots, attacks on embassies abroad, death threats etc.

To dismiss such valid security concerns as irrelevant discredits those intent on blaming the French regardless of their context.

In all the insults heaped by the Republicans in America on the French for their refusal to back the invasion of Iraq in 2003, the Republicans were apt to overlook that the French have 5 to 6 muslims in their population of 60 millions. Try this on terrorist bombings in France – which the Republicans also overlooked:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1995_Paris_Metro_bombing

“(a) some news reports relate to bank robberies and jewellers as well, not just shops or stores”

I know. Thus ‘shops etc.’

(b) as an all-covering garment, burqas are a convenient way for criminals (or terrorists) to inconspicuously approach banks or other public buildings on public footways etc while evading recognition by security CCTV and for evading capture later

and

(c) some crime reports said the all-covering burqa was especially useful for concealing larger weapons such as automatic assault guns”

Yes, but the exact same cover can be attained in other ways, such as by wearing a low hood or motorcycle helmet, or a big coat (and bear in mind that the ban presumably only affects headgear anyway – I doubt a ‘headless burkha’ would be illegal. Also, one can approach a bank inconspicuously just by walking towards it in a normal way, and a baseball cap can be enough to defeat CCTV.

In deciding to apply double standards, the French have created a “one rule for us, one rule for the bloody Muslims” system that confirms that security is not an issue here, only the desire to attack Islam.

“(d) police and bystanders are fearful of tackling anyone garbed in a burqa for fear of instigating urban riots, attacks on embassies abroad, death threats etc.”

Yes, but do you want to litigate for that? Are we really going to tell people what to wear (despite the fact that they believe it sinful not to) on the basis that it makes other people more likely to misbehave? Also, surely the ban in itself is much more likely to cause these problems than an individual case of a Muslim being arrested.

Correction:

Should read:

” the Republicans were apt to overlook that the French have 5 to 6 million muslims in their population of 60 millions.”

Sorry.

@ 41

Flowerpower@8 makes sense to me

To me too. Amazing. What’s got into him today?

(b) as an all-covering garment, burqas are a convenient way for criminals (or terrorists) to inconspicuously approach banks or other public buildings on public footways etc while evading recognition by security CCTV and for evading capture later; (c) some crime reports said the all-covering burqa was especially useful for concealing larger weapons such as automatic assault guns;

I have a full beard, and I frequently wear both sunglasses and a broad-brimmed hat, so I’m not recognizable on CCTV either. I also sometimes wear a Badass Longcoat, ideal for concealing all manner of weaponry and gimmicks. Do you want to ban that get up too, or is it OK ‘cos I is white? Or perhaps you believe that the nose is the window of the soul?

@46: “Yes, but the exact same cover can be attained in other ways,”

Which is precisely why some shopping centres and stores in Britain post notices banning customers wearing hoods etc in order to discourage shop lifters, muggers and thieves.

There is no perfect catch-all legislation all to stop all means of concealment for criminals but the burqa ban makes sense in the context of press reports from across Europe of burqas being used by criminals, including males, in the course of their crimes.

Btw if you look at real history, the claim that Islam is a peaceful religion is just a propagated myth. Islam was spread by the sword. West China was Buddhist before muslim invaders installed Islam there. The Moors first invaded Spain in 711 – for comparison, the first of the Christian Crusades was in launched in 1095, more than 300 years later. A muslim army of the Ottoman Empire laid seiges to Vienna in 1529 and 1683:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Vienna
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Vienna

Historically, Islam has not been a peaceful religion. Anything but.

“Which is precisely why some shopping centres and stores in Britain post notices banning customers wearing hoods etc in order to discourage shop lifters, muggers and thieves.

There is no perfect catch-all legislation all to stop all means of concealment for criminals but the burqa ban makes sense in the context of press reports from across Europe of burqas being used by criminals, including males, in the course of their crimes.”

Sure, but as I said when we started talking about this, we are talking about a blanket ban in public spaces. The fact that some petrol stations have signs up saying “no motorcycle helmets”, and some pubs make you take your hat off when you go in, cannot be used as precedence for such a ban, especially as it does not apply to helmets and hats. That’s the point.

“Historically, Islam has not been a peaceful religion. Anything but.”

I wouldn’t call Islam ‘peaceful’ any more than I would Christianity. Almost agree with you here, but would like to add the caveat that, for both religions, the less peaceful parts (and eras) tend to be noisier and thus get more attention.

@ 33 – I so almost included that in my comment

[49] “I have a full beard, and I frequently wear both sunglasses and a broad-brimmed hat, so I’m not recognizable on CCTV either. I also sometimes wear a Badass Longcoat, ideal for concealing all manner of weaponry and gimmicks. Do you want to ban that get up too, or is it OK ‘cos I is white? Or perhaps you believe that the nose is the window of the soul?”

Dunc, I tip my metaphorical hat to your sartorial chutzpah, but with respect, the burqa ban is not driven by a desire to reduce esoteric choices in the wardrobe department.

Supposing huge cultural significance was attached to bearded, sunglass, broad brimmed hat and bad-ass coat wearers, so that this combi became the de rigueur (since we are thinking about France) rather than a personal choice – in fact, supposing certain sanctions were likely to be imposed for those who preferred NOT to subscribe, either to the garb, or the ideological doctrine supporting bearded, shaded, broad brimmed hat, bad ass coat wearers?

Now lets us go once stage further and assume that it is only WOMEN who are subjected to this uniform, even in sweltering conditions – can you see why some might find this problematic?

The aspect in this to notice is the extensive political and public support for the burqa ban in France. And since, as a fact, many muslim women don’t regularly (if ever) wear the all-concealing burqas, there is no general religious obligation upon muslim women to do so.

As mentioned, many Islamic countries enforce strict dress codes on their citizens and visitors are expected – or obliged – to comply so burqa banning doesn’t entail restrictions of liberties that muslims can generally enjoy in Islamic countries.

Some of the clips on YouTube show chilling examples of how the Morality Police behave in Iran to enforce dress codes on women so I’m rather bemused when a western liberal democracy bans the burqa and this encounters howls of outrage.

Btw of course Christianity isn’t a peaceful, tolerant religion – hence the 30 years war in Europe 1618-48. Galileo was sentenced to permanent house arrest in 1633 for publicising his theory that the the earth moved round the sun and he wasn’t officially exonerated until 1992. We have only to observe the continuing nasty sillyness of the Creationists in America nowadays.

I do appreciate that there are other means used by criminals for disguise besides burqas but there is no workable catch-all legislation. To use that as an argument against burqa banning is just silly – rather like saying that since the laws against murder manifestly don’t prevent it, we might as well repeal the laws banning homicide.

“Now lets us go once stage further and assume that it is only WOMEN who are subjected to this uniform, even in sweltering conditions – can you see why some might find this problematic?”

The beard would certain pose a problem.

[55] Ahh, have you forgotten this, CC?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MIaORknS1Dk

“The aspect in this to notice is the extensive political and public support for the burqa ban in France. And since, as a fact, many muslim women don’t regularly (if ever) wear the all-concealing burqas, there is no general religious obligation upon muslim women to do so.”

We’re talking about personal freedom here, though: if a Muslim woman feels she should, who are we to say otherwise? As for the public support; the phrase “tyranny of the majority” springs to mind, and do we really think this mass public support has emerged for a minor public safety law? I agree that the French government has to react to voter concerns, but appealing to the majority does not affect the moral issues at stake.

“As mentioned, many Islamic countries enforce strict dress codes on their citizens and visitors are expected – or obliged – to comply so burqa banning doesn’t entail restrictions of liberties that muslims can generally enjoy in Islamic countries.”

Once again: are you saying we should use Islamic countries as our yardstick for morality, or that Muslims the world over are somehow accountable for the laws and codes in these countries? I’m sorry, but this sounds a bit too close to the old “THEY WOULDNT LET U BUILD A CHURCH IN SAUDI ARABIA” fallacy.

“Some of the clips on YouTube show chilling examples of how the Morality Police behave in Iran to enforce dress codes on women so I’m rather bemused when a western liberal democracy bans the burqa and this encounters howls of outrage.”

You seem to be saying that we should accept authoritian and divisive policies in Europe because, so to speak, worse things happen at sea. The fact that we are ahead of the Middle East on social issues doesn’t mean we’ve somehow ‘won’ and can therefore stop pushing for civil rights.

“I do appreciate that there are other means used by criminals for disguise besides burqas but there is no workable catch-all legislation. To use that as an argument against burqa banning is just silly – rather like saying that since the laws against murder manifestly don’t prevent it, we might as well repeal the laws banning homicide.”

No, false analogy, because the French could just as easily have banned anything that covers the face (Motorbike helmets being a possible exception there). They didn’t, they explicitly banned an article of clothing that is important to certain members of a single faith. To adapt your analogy, it’s like banning the murder of everyone except Hindus.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MIaORknS1Dk

I got a server error there, but some part of me knows for a fact it’s the stoning scene from Life of Brian.

I don’t see how any reasonable person could possibly support such a law. It’s insanity and I suspect that history will judge this very harshly.

I don’t think he’s the only one opposed – yes, he’s the only one who voted against and that’s a great shame, but when I read that the Green MP François de Rugy told the government benches, “vous jetez de l’huile sur le feu, vous ravivez les tensions dans des buts strictement électoralistes” that certainly doesn’t sound to me like he’s a supporter of the law nor even complacent about its possible effects. I don’t agree with this abstentionism, but I don’t think the left could have defeated the law even if they had all voted no.

As regards the above discussion, I must agree about the idiocy of semantic nit picking.

This is truly a disgraceful law. The issue is not only about race but about whether the state should be telling people what to wear.

I’m not sure if this has been pointed out yet, but the estimated number of women wearing the burqa or niqab in France is less than 2,000, and a quarter of those are converts who were born to non-Muslim families. (See, e.g., http://savatier.blog.lemonde.fr/2010/02/10/voile-integral-les-dangers-dune-loi-12/ )

Clearly, the proportion of the total Muslim population in France who are converts to Islam is likely to be much smaller than a quarter. So I think a lot of what we’re dealing with here is the zeal of the convert.

As a young teen at school in 1953, I went on an exchange visit to a Lycée in France which, I discovered to my surprise, had no school uniform and where there was no act of worship every morning and no weekly class in RE because education in state schools in France was entirely secular. If parents wanted religious classes for their siblings, they had to make separate arrangements with the local priest for extra-curricula classes outside school hours.

To my amazement, the school also had no corporal punishment. Wednesday afternoons were left free of lessons in case anybody wanted to arrange sporting activities on a local recreation gound, although this seldom happened. The Lycée had a good academic record. The teachers had passed their agrégation – a formidable competitive examination which Lycée teachers have to pass.

All that conflicted with the regular standards and values of the selective school in London I attended at the time and – as I’ve learned as I’ve grown older – with traditional mainstream expectations about “good” English schools now. Given France’s terrible history of internal religious conflicts – like the St Bartholomew Day massacre of the Huguenots in 1572 – I can appreciate why they want to maintain the secular traditions of the French state.

“For 150 years the basilica of Notre-Dame de la Garde has dominated the skyline of Marseille. The church is situated at the highest natural point in the city, overlooking the old port. It is a reassuring sight for fisherman who head to sea past the fortress of Chateau d’If. But very soon the north side of Marseille will be dominated be a new and very different religious symbol – the new Grand Mosque.”
http://www.londonwired.co.uk/news.php/72866-Marseilles-Muslims-eye-long-awaited-mosque

Belgium seems to have adopted a similar posture.

134 voted in favour of the ban with 2 abstentions;
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8652861.stm

According to the Beeb, “Only around 30 women wear this kind of veil in Belgium, out of a Muslim population of around half a million”.

Presumably the Flem’s also object to what the burqa symbolises?

“No, false analogy, because the French could just as easily have banned anything that covers the face (Motorbike helmets being a possible exception there). They didn’t, they explicitly banned an article of clothing that is important to certain members of a single faith.”

Most muslim women don’t wear burqas so there is evidently no general religious obligation to do so. Indisputably, all-covering burqas have been used by (often male) criminals and terrorists as a disguise and to conceal weapons.

To claim that there is some deep issue of liberty involved in the banning of burqas in public places seems to me to be completely ridiculous – especially since Islamic countries often enforce far more draconian dress codes.

Bob B,

Surely you can have a secular state without banning individual citizens from wearing what they want. Are nuns prohibited from wearing their distinctive dress on the streets of France? I don’t think so!

Even the notion of banning the garment from government offices is absurd – is it really argued that someone should be refused benefits or refused hospital treatment because they happen to belong to a particular religious minority or follow a particular strain of that religion?

Pagar asked “Are there no principled liberals in France?” I think liberalism is very much a minority viewpoint in France. There is no French affiliate to the Liberal International. And the French affiliate to the European Liberals (the ALDE group in the European Parliament), Bayrou’s Democratic Movement (or Modem) don’t really have their roots in liberalism – the UDF, which they sprang from, was more of a Christian Democrat formation in reality.

I see that one of the Democratic Movement MPs, Abdoulatifou Aly, has said of the niqab ban: “This project… has evolved sensitively to become maybe not perfect but broadly consensual… This is why I don’t hesitate to say I’m in favour.” ( http://www.mouvementdemocrate.fr/actualites/aly-intervention-voile-integral-parlement-090710.html )

Other Modem members seem more cautious, but like the Socialists (who favour a ban in public buildings but not in the streets, and who seem to be barely bothering to argue with the law except to say that it’s probably unconstitutional), they’re not exactly putting up a lot of opposition.

[66] it is not just the state who objects to this type of dress code.

Yasmin Alibhai-Brown says;
“Violent enforcement is evident in Britain too. A fully veiled young chemistry graduate once came to my home, her body covered in cuts, tears, bites, bruises, all happily hidden from view. Security and social cohesion are all threatened by this trend – which is growing exponentially.
As for the pathetic excuse that covering up protects women from male lasciviousness – it hasn’t stopped rapists in the most conservative Muslim nations. And what a slur on decent Muslim men, portrayed as sexual predators who cannot look upon a woman without wanting her.
We communicate with each other with our faces. To deny that interaction is to deny our shared humanity. Unreasonable community or nationalistic expectations disconnect essential bonds. Governments should not accommodate such demands. Naturists can’t parade on the streets, go to school or take up jobs unless they cover their nakedness. Why should burqaed women get special consideration?”
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/yasmin-alibhai-brown/yasmin-alibhaibrown-wearing-the-burqa-is-neither-islamic-nor-socially-acceptable-1743375.html

She adds;
“White liberals frame this sinister development in terms of free choice and tolerance. Some write letters to this paper: What is the problem? It is all part of the rich diversity of our nation. They can rise to this challenge, show they are superhuman when it comes to liberty and forbearance.
They might not be quite so sanguine if their own daughters decided to be fully veiled or their sons became fanatic Islamicists and imposed purdah in the family. Such converts are springing up in Muslim families all over the land”.

The Dutch have also banned the burqa in their schools;
http://www.expatica.com/nl/education/school/Burqa-ban-in-Dutch-playgrounds_12961.html

Are the French, Belgiums and Dutch guilty of “Isalamaphobia”?

@65 “Most muslim women don’t wear burqas so there is evidently no general religious obligation to do so.”

Everybody’s religion is partly subjective based on interpretations. The fact remains that a significant number of women feel religiously obligated (or are forced) to wear a veil, and will not cast it off with glee in the event of a ban. Many will likely become housebound as a result, which I hope no one wants, although I imagine the “we should ban it because it’s damaging to British society” crowd wouldn’t be too bothered.

[68] “Many will likely become housebound as a result, which I hope no one wants, although I imagine the “we should ban it because it’s damaging to British society” crowd wouldn’t be too bothered”.

Housebound but only because of an oppressive form of religious chauvenism?

Here are some of the findings from the Burkha Restrictions Survey
http://www.iengage.org.uk/images/stories/comresburqapoll.pdf

The beliefs underpinning these opinions are not really elaborated but I have not heard many people say that they would like (some) Muslim women to suffer more than they already do.

“Housebound but only because of an oppressive form of religious chauvenism?”

Absolutely, either because they are forced to or feel they have to, I don’t like it one bit. I am just not convinced that a ban will solve the problem and may make the situation worse for a lot of women.

Bob B: “If parents wanted religious classes for their siblings, they had to make separate arrangements with the local priest for extra-curricula classes outside school hours.”

Indeed. They could no doubt identify the priest by his religious dress, which he had mysteriously not been banned from wearing in public in the interests of secularism. So this ban is probably not really about secularism being threatened by people wearing religious clothes in public, I think.

It’s also not really about women’s rights: if it was, they wouldn’t be criminalising the women. It must be the first law in history to attempt to eradicate a crime by criminalising the person law proponents describe as the victim of the crime.

It’s not about bank robberies or terrorism: if it was, they’d be banning all head/face coverings, not just burqas.

What it is really about is penalising Muslims, sending them a message that their culture is not welcome, putting them in their place, etc etc. That’s why the Daily Express is so keen on it. That’s why its supporters have an odd correlation with supporters of the minaret ban…

A ban will just increase mutual hostility without solving any actual problems. Banning symbols of oppression of women will not stop real oppression of women. It just gives the burqa an unwelcome additional cachet among disaffected Muslims as a symbol of resistance to Islamophobia.

“Garrigue is a former UMP (Tory) member ”

The UMP is rather different from the Conservative Party — why dumb everything down by trying to cram it into a pre-made British box. Reminds me of the Trot knuckledraggers of the SWP and their labeling everything centre right in Europe and abroad as “Tory” – presumably because they think their members are too stupid to understand different shades of political opinion.

So I think a lot of what we’re dealing with here is the zeal of the convert.

i.e., women who aren’t being forced by family into wearing the burkha at all.

What, you mean the people bullshitting about coercion are lying fucks who just hate freedom? I’m *shocked*!

flowerpower says: The French (along with the Danish and the Dutch) are at least demonstrating some confidence in their own values and
(one of the few times he’s bothered with an intelligent and considered comment)

Our values should be the protection of liberty and upholding liberal values. It’s typical right-wing idiocy to declare that upholding those values is somehow cravenly appeasing our values. That assumes our values is to hate on people who are different to us.

Jim Jepps,

The fact that there is no distinction between criminalising someone who forces a woman to wear a veil and criminalising a woman who wants to wear a veil is a complete disgrace, but the worst of it is that this law had almost no opposition in Parliament.

I think that is the cusp of the matter.

I suspect – yes, call me a doubter – that most women do not go for the full bhuna out of religious sentiment. I suspect they do it ’cause their menfolk want them to.

How easy would that be to prosecute?

Not easy at all.

So, as usual, we prosecute the victim.

I suspect they do it ’cause their menfolk want them to.

Despite the fact that there’s no evidence for this, and a fair amount against? Hmm. “Muslim ladies are delicate flowers whose actions are solely determined by compulsion from brutish Muslim men” is a popular, but rather nasty Orientalist trope…

“It’s not about bank robberies or terrorism: if it was, they’d be banning all head/face coverings, not just burqas.”

Much as I agree with most of what you’ve said, the law doesn’t just cover burqas. It actually doesn’t mention Islamic dress specifically, but is instead a generic law against “concealment of the face”. (Exceptions are given, including motorcycle helments and carnival masks.) ( http://www.vie-publique.fr/actualite/panorama/texte-discussion/projet-loi-interdisant-dissimulation-du-visage-espace-public.html ) ( http://www.assemblee-nationale.fr/13/dossiers/dissimulation_visage_espace_public.asp )

I think the reason this has been done is to try to avoid getting declared unconstitutional, and perhaps also to make a halfhearted attempt to answer opposition criticisms.

The fact remains, of course, that the law isn’t motivated by security concerns and is aimed squarely at the niqab.

[76] “Muslim ladies are delicate flowers whose actions are solely determined by compulsion from brutish Muslim men” – yes, exactly, but only SOME Muslim men, based on a religious ideology that seems to sanction second class treatment for women?

You can see that there are some very potent cultural drivers maintaining this sort of injustice, can’t you?

67. A&ECharge Nurse . Belgium and Holland were influenced by the Napoleonic separation of Church and State. A significant strand of western European history over the last 200 yrs is the reduction of the inflence of the Church on state matters. By allowing Islam to become a political force, where loyalty to a religion exceeds that to the state, is reversing an important aspect of national identity of many countries. As Bob b points out , the religious conflict which led to the 30 Years War had a massive impact on Western Europe. Some say the 30 Years War retarded the development of Germany by 100 years. The unification of Italy under Garibaldi was opposed by the Church because they would lose influence.

Jungle there is a difference between practising a religion and the religion becoming a political force which wishes to change a country. The wearing of the Burka is largely about Salaafi/Wahabi/ Muslim Bretheren inspired Islamacists wishing to impose their political order on fellow muslims and then the area in which they live. The creation of Islamic Ghettos in France run by Salaafi/Wahabi/Muslim Bretheren would be a disaster for national unity. If people feel so strongly abut the Burqa they do not have to live in a secular republic. When people decide to live in a country they need to weigh up all the pros and cons. If there aspects about a country one is not prepared to accept, then do not live there. If one looks at people who move to new countries, the most successful are those who embrace their new lives and learn to make the most of the new opportunities. Sir Gulam Noon and a muslim lady Professor of Theology at Glasgow University have been very explicit about the benefits of muslims adapting to the British way of life in order to make use of the opportunities.

@53:

Now lets us go once stage further and assume that it is only WOMEN who are subjected to this uniform, even in sweltering conditions – can you see why some might find this problematic?

Certainly, but that’s an entirely different argument to the one I was responding to in my comment @49. I would respond to the argument you’re making by referring to our culture’s predilection for imposing absurd and actively harmful footwear on women. I mean, surely nobody could actually want to wear shoes that cripple you (not to mention making it impossible to run from attackers) of their own entirely free and unconditioned will? It’s up there with Chinese foot-binding. At least the burkha or niqab isn’t actually physically harmful to its wearers, and I’ve certainly never heard of anyone having themselves surgically mutilated in order to fit into one.

So once we establish that the desire for “security” through being able to see everyone’s face clearly is rubbish, because I’m allowed to effectively conceal mine and nobody minds, and that the “women’s liberation” arguments are rubbish because we happily tolerate comparable (although considerably different) impositions by our own culture, what are we left with except fear of “the other”?

79. Charlie 2: “If people feel so strongly abut the Burqa they do not have to live in a secular republic. When people decide to live in a country they need to weigh up all the pros and cons. If there aspects about a country one is not prepared to accept, then do not live there.”

You make it sound like these are people who’ve moved to France. But many of the niqab-wearers (I am not sure that France has any burqa-wearers, but it has 1,900 niqab-wearers) are French citizens who have converted to Islam. Why should they be expected to leave? That is extremely intolerant. Are French monarchists, French neofascists, French Maoists, French Catholic integrists expected to leave the country? No, they’re not. And does the “secular republic” prevent priests and nuns from wearing religious dress on the streets? Does it prevent the French government from subsidising private Catholic schools? Does it stop Alsace-Lorraine from having an opt-out from virtually all the rules about church/state separation? No.

81. Richard P.The Pilgrim Fathers left England for the New World because they did not agree with the religious and political situation in their country of birth.

Charlie, England was not much a democracy in those days.

83. Richard P. The Pilgrim Fathers left because they wanted far more restrictions placed on Roman Catholics and a less tolerant Anglican Church. Many of the Pilgrim Fathers had religious views very similar to the most extreme Puritans who had massive influence during Cromwell’ s rule which included banning plays, music and the celebration of Christmas.

[80] “the “women’s liberation” arguments are rubbish” – I disagree entirely, why are not men expected to walk round in the same clothing.

The ancient history of such garments are driven by deep rooted male fears about their own sexuality, no more and no less – traditionally the same sort of mindset rationalised mistreatment of women through lack of educational opportunities, or lower status in the home.

Certainly the likes of Ayaan Hirsi Ali would not agree with your suggestion that there is no difference between the stiletto and the burqa
http://www.theahafoundation.org/

She states that. “The AHA Foundation works to reinforce the following basic rights: the rights of women and girls to security and control of their own bodies, the rights of women and girls to an education, the rights of women to work outside the home and to control their own income, the rights of women and girls to freedom of expression and association, and the rights of women and girls to other basic civil rights of citizens and residents defined under the laws of Western democracies and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, regardless of sexual identification”.

The burqa is a potent symbol of this kind of oppression and that is why several liberal democracies have taken issue with it.

@85: You seem to have completely missed the thrust of my argument. Let me quote and bold just to make it clear:

“the “women’s liberation” arguments are rubbish because we happily tolerate comparable … impositions by our own culture”

I’m not arguing that the burkha / niqab is not basically misogynist, I’m arguing that any objection to its misogyny that doesn’t also object to similar misogyny in our own culture is hypocritical.

However, to say that I’m suggesting “that there is no difference between the stiletto and the burqa” is a strawman. Of course there is a difference, and there is furthermore a very big difference between the sort of coercion practised in several Islamic countries and that experienced in our own.

For the sake of clarity, I have absolutely no problem with prohibiting coercion, I just object to banning women from wearing the veil of their own “free” will. If women are being forced into wearing the burkha by their male relatives, prosecute those fuckers to the fullest extent of the law.

[86] “I’m arguing that any objection to its misogyny that doesn’t also object to similar misogyny in our own culture is hypocritical” – what on earth are you talking about, there ARE objections to misogyny, many objections in fact, especially from women who are well educated and increasingly assertive, not to mention the growing number of men who are sympathetic with a great deal of the feminist agenda.

Maybe you feel that women in liberal democracies suffer exactly the same sort of pressure (or misogyny) as those inducted into wearing silly medieval clothing? Personally I don’t see it that way, but you are entitled to express such a daft opinion precisely because we live in a tolerant society; one that must seem quite at odds with those who seek to impose such a claustrophobic interpretation of Islam?

A&E nurse, so you’d be in favour of ripping clothes off women that you felt weren’t appropriate?

Seriously, fuck off.

[88] thanks for that carefully thought out comment RC – my objection is to any ideology that rationalises females who are expected to wear a tent.

I assume you are comfortable with it – but for all I know you may subscribe to a extreme interpretation of Islam.

By the way – are any of the posters going to address the reasons why certain men feel it is appropriate for women to be treated this way?

“Most muslim women don’t wear burqas so there is evidently no general religious obligation to do so.”

CERTAIN members of a religious faith, I said. These particular individuals feel it is part of their faith. So there is an obligation in that sense. Last I checked, the precepts of any particular religion weren’t decided by vote.

“Indisputably, all-covering burqas have been used by (often male) criminals and terrorists as a disguise and to conceal weapons.”

And…

“To claim that there is some deep issue of liberty involved in the banning of burqas in public places seems to me to be completely ridiculous – especially since Islamic countries often enforce far more draconian dress codes.”

There’s an echo in here.

You’ve said both those things already. I’ve addressed them, the second one twice. Why are you repeating yourself?

“It must be the first law in history to attempt to eradicate a crime by criminalising the person law proponents describe as the victim of the crime.”

*cough*narcotics*cough

A&E

> By the way – are any of the posters going to address the reasons why certain men feel it is appropriate for women to be treated this way?

Are you asking about the psychological grounds that make some men treat their women this way?

Or the theological ones?
As far as my research into Islam goes…. it’s treatment of women is basically stuck in a groove that looks hard to change.
The theology goes like this:
i) everything Mohammed did or said is good /to be emulated
ii) he had many wives
iii) he struck/beat them
iv) he goes on at length about the need for ‘modesty’ of their dress (tho’ nowhere enforcing the burqa as such)
v) he says that before a court a women’s voice is half that of a man
vi) he says that no one can go to court and claim a rape occured unless they have 4 male witnesses
vii) he says that women cannot be alone in the company of males who are not relatives
viii) to get round his above rule, he suggests to one family where the adopted son is now too old (~14) to be alone with the mother of the family – that is he breastfeeds him now, he becomes part of the proper family and then is allowed to be alone with the mother in the house

etc etc. blah blah

Because Mohammed did and said these things – it is theologically very difficult to see how Islam can ever say they are not good things to be emulated.
So eg the breastfeeding thing has come up last year and again this year in various Fatwas and speeches of prominent Islamic clerics !

Jako 41

> However, the term ‘Islamophobia’ has also been used by Islamists, themselves engaged in reactionary politics, and their useful idiot sympathisers who seek to portray any criticism of their agenda as racism…

Sadly here on LC folks have been quick to dish out the Islamophobia accusation…. but happily it seems to be less extreme than say last year.

Threads like this would have been full of ‘idiot symapthisers’ shouting ‘Islamophobe!’ to anyone even asking a question about Islam.

Well done LC – now we can debate the issues at last.

Tho sadly, the feminists here still seem in denil over Islam – they are notable by their absence in this thread, which after all is ALL about women!

Come on LC feminists – get involved!

I believe the President of Al -Azhar Univesity in Egypt has criticised muslim women when they have worn the veil.

@87:

Maybe you feel that women in liberal democracies suffer exactly the same sort of pressure (or misogyny) as those inducted into wearing silly medieval clothing?

Exactly the same? No. Similar? In many instances, yes.

Anyway, leaving all this aside, I simply don’t think that criminalising the oppressed is a good way of dealing with oppression.

[96] “Similar? In many instances, yes” – christ on a bike, so the suffering of Islington’s female chatterati is SIMILAR to those women burdened by the yoke of centuries of religious chauvenism.

The burqa might not seem out of place in countries like Saudia Arabia or Afghanistan (countries that epitomise the logical end point of certain interpretations of Islam), but in pro-democractic, and mainly liberal states like France, Belgium and Holland it has obviously jarred sufficiently for it to worry people?

I agree with JV [94] I would very much welcome the views of some of LCs more vociferous feminist commentators – they seem rather conspicuous by their absence (an observation made on other occasions regarding their apparent reticence on this thorny matter?).

@97: Who the fuck said anything about “Islington’s female chatterati”? Do you deny that there are non-Muslim women in Britain suffering under the yoke of chauvinism, religious or otherwise? Women being beaten and murdered by their partners for example? Women being forced into virtual (or indeed, actual) slavery? Women whose (non-Islamic) religion compels them to submit to their husbands under all circumstances, and to forgo certain potentially life-saving medical treatments?

I also notice that you’re decided to completely ignore my point about the futility of fighting oppression by criminalising the oppressed, which is a pretty major part of my objection to this legislation. Please address that if you want to continue this debate.

[98] “I also notice that you’re decided to completely ignore my point about the futility of fighting oppression by criminalising the oppressed” – I have stated, more than once on this thread, that I am against the ban, so surely it follows that I would NOT support further victimisation of women simply because of their clothing?

I do not dispute the mistreatment of women both here and in other, ostensibly democratic countries, but the fundamental difference is that such abuses can be redressed through law (in theory at least) while the oppression of women in some Islamic states like Iran, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan (etc, etc) is codified within the fabric of the culture, with clothing items like the burqa are physically emblematic of this unjust religious chauvenism.

If you want to talk about nonsense associated with other religions, we can, but the point of JJ’s opening piece was that support for banning of the burqa (in France) was tantamount to insanity, so most of my comments have targetted a belief system that should become increasingly untenable as society strives toward rational enlightenment?

bout time we band the veil

@99

I have stated, more than once on this thread, that I am against the ban, so surely it follows that I would NOT support further victimisation of women simply because of their clothing?

OK, I must have missed that, sorry. It seems that we’re not really in disagreement then. I apologise for having misunderstood you.

[101] No problem – it’s been a long thread (see 26 & 37 if interested)

This is a disgrace, You cannot say to one race of people you cannot wear the veil while to another you say they can.

Charlie2: “Jungle there is a difference between practising a religion and the religion becoming a political force which wishes to change a country.”

All religions are political forces that wish to change countries. Besides, banning its clothing doesn’t prevent a religion being a political force.

“The wearing of the Burka is largely about Salaafi/Wahabi/ Muslim Bretheren inspired Islamacists wishing to impose their political order on fellow muslims and then the area in which they live. The creation of Islamic Ghettos in France run by Salaafi/Wahabi/Muslim Bretheren would be a disaster for national unity.”

So, um, this threat of Islamic ghettos will somehow be totally prevented by banning pieces of clothing. Right. I see.

“If people feel so strongly abut the Burqa they do not have to live in a secular republic.”

Banning the burqa in the street has very little to do with secularism beyond the rhetoric. You can wear any other kind of religious garb you want in the streets in France.

“When people decide to live in a country they need to weigh up all the pros and cons. If there aspects about a country one is not prepared to accept, then do not live there.”

That could be used to justify absolutely anything done by a majority to a minority.*

Just because someone is in an ethnic/cultural majority doesn’t mean they have the right to impose random restrictions on everyone else and demand they leave if they complain. Of course, you’ve inadvertently hit on the real driving force behind the ban: the hope that with just a few more of these deliberately hostile laws, lots of Muslims might be persuaded to emigrate…

(*How about the laws and policies that segregate gypsies in separate schools in Eastern Europe? I’d never even considered that maybe instead of campaigning against those laws, the Gypsies should leave instead, that actually THEY are at fault for getting above their station as guests in someone else’s country and presumptuously thinking they can challenge the rules…)