Sure they can. If they just came out and said we are doing this to protect French culture and if the defenders of the law said the same I would disagree with it but give them a rhetorical pass. They are not saying just that though. They say they are standing up for freedom. A funny way of doing so by denying the free practice of religion.
For those of you opposed to head scarfs, are you also opposed to Sikh men wearing a turban? Why/why not?
I don't. The reasonable ones do it themselves, by not following radical/literal interpretations, by being moderate, by ignoring silly rules about headscarves, by integrating themselves into the society they live in, by viewing women and gays as equal, by not viewing followers of other religions or atheists as inferior "infidels", by realizing that Sharia law is flawed and cannot be applied today, by respecting the separation of church and state, etc. etc.. There are a lot of people who were brought up as muslims, but who think like I described above in many or all of the points mentioned above. They would still self-identify as muslims, but they would probably not conform to a more rigid, literal interpretation of islam as represented by those who are stuck in the dark ages.
The law applies to that as well. However, I thought about that and it is kind of a tricky one, because the turban also serves a practical purpose. I had this fellow student at UH who was a Sikh, extremely nice guy. He has never cut his hair in his entire life. I talked to him about it. He said that he still kept it that way out of respect for the wishes of his parents. I can only imagine how impractical it would be already with a turban, but I think without a turban, how would it even work at all? Also, it is different because these men actually choose freely to do so, I don't think there are oppressive women behind them who would otherwise beat them up...
Well then I think you have obviously seen through the BS then right? Do you not agree their real motivations are different from the ones i suggested?
Yeah, I agree it would be BS, but I could see people saying that. The difference is that the ban on the burqua is a govt. limiting their freedom, the other way it is a family group limiting their freedom. What a family does as far as limiting freedom is far less offensive than the govt. restricting freedoms. ATW supports the govt. telling people what to do over their own family telling them what to do.
That was a remarkably dumb statement. I know what you were trying to say, but the statement as is is really, really dumb.
Firstly, we're talking about culture, and not fashion. For example, wearing a Gucci bag is part of fashion in Dubai, but it is not part of culture in Dubai - this is ofcourse using what I understand to be your definition of culture, not mine. Secondly, I am telling you that there are two possible answers. - One is that French culture does not mutate according to its CURRENT LIVING people (seems to be your assumption), therefore only a select few French people are following French culture. Wearing a Niqab in France today is no different than joining the hip hop scene in France in the early 90's - or are we forgetting that hip hop is historically know to turn women into sexual objects? Why didn't anyone ban hip hop, which is against french culture? - The other is that there are far more foolish things in french fashion than a face cover. It's a sheet which you can see through that covers the face. Have you seen any fashion shows in Paris? I assure you, their fashion is rarely dictated by culture. While a government is responsible for protecting culture, it is also responsible for protecting people's rights. It is not acceptable to trounce on one for the other and given that no one can stop culture from constantly changing, I would imagine it is not acceptable to trounce on the rights of a couple of thousand already oppressed women out of the irrational fear that they will infect the population and dent french culture. If burqas and niqabs are in fact symbols of oppression, then these women are more likely to raise awareness about oppression by being in public than they are to convince people to ditch the oh-so-divine french culture for a face cover. It's hatred fueled with insecurity. No one loses anything if these women walk around with their face covered. French culture is under no additional danger from this specific practice. But if you insist that it is, then I must ask if you're saying that French culture is more important than women's rights in France? I ask this because France claims that this is all about defeating oppression, and has never ever claimed that this practice endangers French culture. Just that they don't like what is stands for.
No, there are not. Which is why it is great that they instituted the mobile jail ban. What kind of a twisted argument is that. Silly. Exactly. That is what is expressed by wearing or making people wear mobile jails or stupid face covers. The women lose their ability to communicate with facial expressions. Other people who try to communicate with them by reading their facial expressions are unable to do so. All your other blabla about freedoms, etc. blabla is unmasked here: The truth is, you think it is just fine to make women wear mobile jails and face covers, and that is why you vehemently argue against them being freed from it by law. Yes, it is. There is no contradiction. Women's rights are being protected by outlawing mobile jails for them.
The anti-immigrant paranoia and obsession with cultural purity pushed on this board by ATW and CaseyH is disgusting. The Nazis were right-wing nationalists, too. I don't give a **** if I'm called out on Godwin's law; it's the truth.
I think you have a very good point, they probably start by going into hiding, but perhaps that forces a change. I have said what I thought of the law, and that was that making it illegal to FORCE someone to wear it, but not outlaw it all together. DD
I'm not more concerned about the rights of women in France than in the Muslim world, but (1) this is a thread about a ban on burqas in France, (2) France claims to believe in individual freedom, (3) the odds of convincing Westerners that they shouldn't be telling women what they can/cannot wear are probably a lot higher than the odds of convincing Saudi Arabians the same thing.
As a Muslim, I think the burqa and every woman that chooses to wear it is out of her mind. The head scarf is different, IMO. While no women in my family wears a head scarf, I don't believe that those who do are doing so because they are being oppressed in any way. How do you explain a married woman who wears a head scarf, but her teenage/young adult daughter does not? If the husband was "oppressing" his wife to cover her head, wouldn't he do the same for his daughter? Or what about the teenage/young adult daughter who wears the scarf, yet her mother does not? I've seen multiple cases of both scenarios.
Wow, I've never seen such ignorance in the face of reality. Suffice to say, the fact that you are in the tiny minority with these views makes me feel comfortable that I am more right than ever. DaDakota dislikes religion, and such symbols understandably annoy him, and he he can see that an outright ban is silly, and that France's efforts should be directed at the husbands/fathers, rather than at the women. I don't know what cloud if ignorance allows you to believe that this law is something those women will be happy about. For me, nothing will make them more happy than making their own decisions, and for to make their own decisions, you have to attack the people forcing them and NOT the people who are being forced especially since it would automatically include people who are not being forced at all. It's like banning bruises on the face when you want to stop domestic violence, while there are people who tripped and bruised their own face. In reality you should be banning the act of bruising anyone's face. The level of stupidity in this law is truly legendary and, as I said, it will be looked back at in many years as a symbol of where France became irrational and idiotic, and people like you will be the "and can you believe there were actually people who claimed that they were protecting those women's rights and freedoms? How sad." Case closed. I understand your views, and you've heard everything I have to say. Let's wait till the results are in, though I'm certain you will attribute negative results to Islam, rather than to inaction against forceful husbands.
That's exactly what I'm saying, except that perhaps you're more hopeful that it will force a change. Knowing the behavior of these people, I expect that it will generate terrorism in France and the husband will just drag his wife by the hair to whichever place allows him to oppress her. The law essentially becomes a way to get them to move out of France, and it becomes someone else's problem. IMO those who support this law are happy to move the problem out of Europe rather than try to fix the problem. No matter how much I hate the burka/niqab, I am deeply saddened and sympathetic for women who are forced. Their choices are dwindling, and they are literally crying because they see their life transforming into one where they can only stay home. Those women have done nothing wrong. They are innocent, but they are being thrown around like pawns in a game between France and their husbands. They have not seen anyone reaching out to them, not their country of origin, not Europe, not their family and not their husbands. Someone has to care that these innocent people are suffering. The irony of it all is that I'm sure people would be more sympathetic if they could see the sadness on these womens' faces or in their voices. But most people subconsciously think they don't have emotions. Terrible.
Not in France, and not in Europe. Maybe on the D&D, and maybe in the Arab/Muslim world, but we all know that there are no real democracies there, and no true separation of church and state, so hardly a relevant point of reference.
