News French Senate Approves a Ban on Burqas

[BobG]

It is a ban against being unrecognizable in public, I find that a most reasonable law. We all abide to laws of decency, if you don't follow them you will find yourself being fined really quickly.

It would never pass in the US. Out of the 435 Congressmen in the House of Representatives, there would surely have to be at least one that would add a rider to this bill - a rider that would ban bras, seeing as how men only look at one thing and bras tend to make one breast look just like another.

At least I would, anyway, but I'd probably never get elected in the first place, let alone re-elected.

Charlie Wilson would have, I'll bet.

 

[Monique]

Let's say a non-binding resolution is passed which just says "Muslims are retarded". It doesn't actually do anything at all, and by the letter of the law affects nobody, but you would be hard pressed to say that this would not affect Muslims in any way.

If a law is passed for the purpose of attacking Islam, regardless of how effective it is at doing so, then yes, it's an anti-Islamic reaction. Questions of its physical effectiveness when examining the issue are secondary to questions of its intent

I don't see how this has anything to do with it. It is your idea that "a law is passed for the purpose of attacking Islam". Do you feel shaken to your core, because it is against the law to walk around in the public naked?

It would never pass in the US. Out of the 435 Congressmen in the House of Representatives, there would surely have to be at least one that would add a rider to this bill - a rider that would ban bras, seeing as how men only look at one thing and bras tend to make one breast look just like another.

Right, I'm sure you are aware that you are already bound legally to a dress code: no public exposure of genitals and/or breasts. Should we get rid of those laws as well?

 

[nismaratwork]

The attention that it is getting in the media may be disproportionate, but I still think that the basis of the law is valid.

According to the CNN article: "The French Senate approved Tuesday a law banning any veils that cover the face". It doesn't state anything about religious headgear. I'm fine with people wearing headscarves or any other headgear, covering your face is something entirely different and you cannot ignore that.

You're right about the letter of the law, but it doesn't match the reasons given by its architects. I'd add that as long as someone is willing to remove a mask, veil, scarf, etc upon demand by a law officer, there should be no threat.

“We cannot allow that, in our country, there are captive women behind bars who are shut out from social life and robbed of any identity."

Nothing to do with security.

The full veil is not a piece of clothing but a mask worn permanently that constitutes a threat to our society. We cannot let the full veil cover the face of our Republic

Again, not security, and compare with the penalty for failure to comply with this law:

"The new legislation would see violators fined a maximum of $190. Offenders would also be required to take a “citizenship” course on republican values."

I think the burqa is an absurd outfit, and the concept behind it is, in my view, demeaning to women. That doesn't mean I can accept your personal spin on the law however... it has nothing to do with public safety: it is purely cultural.

 

[Monique]

If you want to play it that way: how do other laws not have anything to do with culture? A law against public nudity is cultural. If you go to an Islamic country, do you expect to be treated like a king when you wear slippers, shorts and no shirt? How about trying to wear that outfit to church? This is not something that is exclusive for burqas: it is all around you.

 

[nismaratwork]

If you want to play it that way: how do other laws not have anything to do with culture? A law against public nudity is cultural. If you go to an Islamic country, do you expect to be treated like a king when you wear slippers, shorts and no shirt? How about trying to wear that outfit to church? This is not something that is exclusive for burqas: it is all around you.

I never said that this was the only law based on culture; I disagreed with your assertion that it was a law based on public safety. I have no need or desire to enter into a debate about other laws that aren't being discussed here.

 

[JaredJames]

A law against public nudity is cultural. If you go to an Islamic country, do you expect to be treated like a king when you wear slippers, shorts and no shirt? How about trying to wear that outfit to church?

http://www.wvec.com/news/local/INSIDE-A-NAKED-CHURCH-85062392.html

Had to be done!

 

[Monique]

I never said that this was the only law based on culture; I disagreed with your assertion that it was a law based on public safety. I have no need or desire to enter into a debate about other laws that aren't being discussed here.

Too bad, because they are related.

http://www.wvec.com/news/local/INSIDE-A-NAKED-CHURCH-85062392.html

Had to be done!

As long as they don't do it in public!

 

[nismaratwork]

http://www.wvec.com/news/local/INSIDE-A-NAKED-CHURCH-85062392.html

Had to be done!

MY EYES! THEY BURN!

I'm telling you, nudists are NEVER the people you want to see naked.

 

[nismaratwork]

Too bad, because they are related.

Yes, they are, and if you make a thread about the validity of laws meant to enforce specific cultural norms, count me in, but that's not this thread. I like to deal with one issue at a time in these situations, otherwise the debate tends to go nowhere.

 

[BobG]

http://www.wvec.com/news/local/INSIDE-A-NAKED-CHURCH-85062392.html

Had to be done!

Why didn't they have a nude Jesus?

 

[skippy1729]

I find it almost insulting to pretend this issue has anything to do with apparel. Burqas are being banned solely because of their association with Islam, not because a woman wearing a burqa might be mistaken for a bank robber.

How would you spot John Dillinger in a Burka?

 

[JaredJames]

Why didn't they have a nude Jesus?

http://www.thegoodatheist.net/2010/04/jesus-penis-abs-causes-controversy/

As close as you'll get. And they ain't happy with it!

 

[BobG]

How would you spot John Dillinger in a Burka?

Same way you'd spot him in the middle of a Wisconsin winter. In fact, he'd fit right in waiting at a bus stop.

 

[Proton Soup]

http://www.wvec.com/news/local/INSIDE-A-NAKED-CHURCH-85062392.html

Had to be done!

"Whitetail Chapel". HA!

oddly enough, tho, there are countries in europe where you can run around naked in public. Germany and Czech Republic come to mind, and nude beaches are fairly common, too, i hear.


speaking of the islam thing, tho, does anyone think this could be a reaction against not necessarily islam itself, but just this radical element of the faith ? are these people more associated with the type of believer who chooses to assassinate offending cartoonists?

 

[Monique]

Yes, they are, and if you make a thread about the validity of laws meant to enforce specific cultural norms, count me in, but that's not this thread. I like to deal with one issue at a time in these situations, otherwise the debate tends to go nowhere.

The original question was "So is it acceptable for a Western country to regulate clothing to this degree?" Cultural norms have something to do with that.

There is a law against indecent exposure, so what does indecent mean? "not conforming with generally accepted standards of behavior or propriety". It will mean something different according to the culture and the time spirit that you are looking at.

This particular law is against indecent unexposure. Why? Because it is not conforming with generally accepted standards of behavior. The face is very important for our every day communication, that is why hiding a face is culturally unacceptable. This is a sociological argument, not an anti-Islamic argument. It is not the hijab that is a problem here, it is clothing that covers the face. Hiding your identity and emotions inhibits social interactions, effectively making it an antisocial practice.

 

[Ken Natton]

First point, yes it may be reasonable to point out that standards of public decency are cultural, and thus say western laws about public displays of nudity are similar to Islamic laws on public decency and the question of where they draw the line is only cultural. But the critical point is that western laws regarding public decency apply equally to everyone. There may be differences of practicality due to different anatomy between the sexes, but essentially the principle is the same. (I recall an hilarious story about some local laws passed somewhere in Canada I think, that were supposed to ‘de-eroticise the breast’. Needless to say, they failed spectacularly and were repealed.) The key point about the burqa is that it is only women who must cover their face. That is the big clue to the truth that it isn’t really about public decency. Why are male faces less indecent than female ones?

But the other key point is about the limits of culture. I think that increasingly around the world there is genuine widespread recognition and acceptance of the broad benefits of cultural diversity. For an immigrant community to assimilate does not require them to abandon their culture. Diverse culture can co-exist quite easily and without detriment to anyone. But that no-one can force anyone else to adhere to any cultural norm against their will is a fundamental tenet of a liberal society. On that point, there should be, there can be no compromise. It is not the burqa that should be banned, but it should be clear that in a Western liberal society no-one can be forced to wear such a garment, or to be excluded from whatever society they may wish to keep, or to be forced to marry someone they do not wish to marry. Once that principle is upheld, it is only a matter of education, it seems to me, and the burqa will naturally fall into disuse.

 

[BobG]

The original question was "So is it acceptable for a Western country to regulate clothing to this degree?" Cultural norms have something to do with that.

There is a law against indecent exposure, so what does indecent mean? "not conforming with generally accepted standards of behavior or propriety". It will mean something different according to the culture and the time spirit that you are looking at.

This particular law is against indecent unexposure. Why? Because it is not conforming with generally accepted standards of behavior. The face is very important for our every day communication, that is why hiding a face is culturally unacceptable. This is a sociological argument, not an anti-Islamic argument. It is not the hijab that is a problem here, it is clothing that covers the face. Hiding your identity and emotions inhibits social interactions, effectively making it an antisocial practice.

I think this is a valid point; at least concerning the constitutionality of the law. Laws against indecent exposure are a good example of a person's liberty being restricted for no other reason than the whims of the majority. That doesn't make the restrictions bad. It just means that the reasons for the 'whims' have to be evaluated and long held cultural values are a valid reason for upholding some laws that have no real functional justification.

The reason for going against the grain and violating long held cultural values have to be evaluated, as well. Women breast feeding in swimming pools is a similar situation that often has to be evaluated. In this case, most swimming pools ban the practice based on their rules of no food or drink allowed in the pool and that holds up since it's not considered an enormous inconvenience for the mother to feed her child somewhere else as long as she isn't banned from breast feeding anywhere in the general pool area. Obviously, the no food or drink in the pool restriction wouldn't hold up at any time the baby's not feeding, since the mother can't very well remove her breasts before entering the pool. But, functionally, the breast feeding restriction should never hold up since a breast can't spill it's entire contents into the pool the way a soft drink cup could (and I kind of wonder about the logic of pools prohibiting swimmers from having a water bottle in the pool, but rules are rules). None the less, businesses can almost always legitimately find a way to restrict a person's actions even when the person has a legitimate reason for violating normal cultural attitudes about nudity.

The idea of the face being important in communication could be a valid argument in some places. Probably not a very good argument in a Scandinavian or Canadian winter, but a good argument in some places, if being able to view a person's face when communicating is a truly long held cultural value. Presumably, countries with this long held cultural value wouldn't have very many cell phone users, since telephone communication would violate those cultural values. Drive throughs at McDonalds and internet forums probably aren't very popular in this country, either.

I don't know France's constitutional laws, but I'll be real interested in seeing how this plays out in the courts or, more likely, if French politicians score a few points with voters, but no one is ever actually fined for violating the law.

 

[Monique]

What are the laws in the United States on this issue? It appears to be illegal (in all the states) two wear a mask in public after the age of 16. Here is a man in Tampa who was arrested because of it: http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/crime/sad-day-for-a-clown-tampa-man-jailed-for-wearing-illegal-mask/1075485"

Hillsborough County Sheriff's Office spokeswoman Debbie Carter said any disguise in public is illegal. Even on Halloween, adults aren't allowed to enter any businesses or stores with their faces covered.

Here is a US law that I found:

Georgia State Code

Title 16, Chapter 11, Section 38 (16-11-38)
(a) A person is guilty of a misdemeanor when he wears a mask, hood, or device by which any portion of the face is so hidden, concealed, or covered as to conceal the identity of the wearer and is upon any public way or public property or upon the private property of another without the written permission of the owner or occupier of the property to do so.

(b) This Code section shall not apply to:

(1) A person wearing a traditional holiday costume on the occasion of the holiday;

(2) A person lawfully engaged in trade and employment or in a sporting activity where a mask is worn for the purpose of ensuring the physical safety of the wearer, or because of the nature of the occupation, trade, or profession, or sporting activity;

(3) A person using a mask in a theatrical production including use in Mardi gras celebrations and masquerade balls; or

(4) A person wearing a gas mask prescribed in emergency management drills and exercises or emergencies.

http://www.lawskills.com/code/ga/16/11/38/

Conclusion: the burqa is illegal in the United States as well (at least in Florida and Georgia, most likely in other states as well). So what's the point about the French?

 

[Gokul43201]

At least part of the point is that Georgia state laws about face coverings are not justified on the basis of human dignity, knowledge of the republic, protection of women, or (for crying out loud) Laïcité. Moreover, a person that opposes this French ban could just as easily oppose similar practices in the US, even if s/he were a US citizen.

I think you have a stronger argument with other culturally imposed laws like nudity bans, etc.

 

[Jack21222]

What are the laws in the United States on this issue? It appears to be illegal (in all the states) two wear a mask in public after the age of 16. Here is a man in Tampa who was arrested because of it: http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/crime/sad-day-for-a-clown-tampa-man-jailed-for-wearing-illegal-mask/1075485"

Here is a US law that I found: Conclusion: the burqa is illegal in the United States as well (at least in Florida and Georgia, most likely in other states as well). So what's the point about the French?

I can understand the law against covering your face inside a business; it's to help prevent robberies. However, wearing a mask out in public, like the Tampa man in the story, should be 100% legal. I disagree with that law as much as I disagree with the French ban. If it were ever applied to somebody wearing a burqa, though, I'm sure the constitutionality would be challenged. The ACLU would jump all over it.

So, even if these laws do make burqas illegal, I doubt it will ever be enforced that way.

As for nudity laws, some might argue that it helps prevent sexual assault. I might disagree with that, I haven't really considered it, but I can think of a rational excuse for nudity laws. Wearing TOO MUCH clothing, though? It doesn't harm anybody. I can't support any law against something that neither harms nor endangers anybody.

 

[JaredJames]

It doesn't harm anybody.

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/272307

 

[Monique]

If it were ever applied to somebody wearing a burqa, though, I'm sure the constitutionality would be challenged.

I don't know about a burqa case, but here is a case where people appealed to law saying that it was unconstitutional, but the criminal court rejected the challenge.

RELEVANT CASE LAW
I. New York State Court – People v. Aboaf (2001)
On May 1, 2000, at least five individuals were arrested while participating in a May Day demonstration in Union Square Park. They were charged with, among other things, violating the anti-mask law by wearing bandanas that covered their faces except for their eyes and forehead. See People v. Aboaf, 187 Misc.2d 173, 175, 721 N.Y.S.2d 725, 727 (N.Y. City Crim. Ct. 2001).

The defendants argued that the anti-mask law: (1) impeded their First Amendment right to free association, (2) contained an impermissibly vague exception for permits and (3) was unconstitutionally overbroad. See id.2 The New York City Criminal Court rejected each of these challenges.

source: http://www.nlgnyc.org/pdf/MaskMemo.pdf"

 

[nismaratwork]

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/272307

"Buy the ticket, take the ride." Hunter S. Thompson

We're back to legislating health, and that's just not done. Vitamin D deficiency is a much wider problem in the west than just women with burqas, and I can't imagine mandatory sunshine-time so... where does that leave us?

We can debate relative culture, and the common sense: if you walk into a bank or business you need to be identifiable, but that's not relevant to the French law. They're not fining you 190 and teaching you about public safety, rather they fine you 190 and teach you about the "republic".

There are some very good public hygiene arguments to be made against nudism, and THAT is the kind of thing that can be legislated. If someone wants to degrade their health through a lack of sunlight, or eating a dozen hamburgers... they can do it. It's a really bad idea in my view, but some things do not deserve the "tender" hand of the legislature.

Another argument a business can make is the classic: No shirt, No shoes, No service line. A business is allowed to have standards they choose which maximize the comfort of the majority of their customers so they make money. I for one don't want to eat a nice dry-aged steak next to a naked 200 pound 5'6" hirsute man... it would put me off my steak. I don't give a damn if that same man is wearing a mumu and a veil, and the only reason I can think that someone would is that it represents a cultural/religious views that frightens them.

Lets be blunt... Islam is the issue because the terrorist who are most active these days do so in the name of that religion. Given that we're not built with IFF transponders, people see the symbols of that religion and culture and react poorly. If a person is in say, Japan, where sporting a surgical mask is far from uncommon, I would be a little put off, but that's cultural. As the Japanese are not currently in any way associated in the minds of many with major terrorist attacks or current wars... no issue.

This is, whether the French care to admit it or not, a specific cultural reaction, and not a matter of "cultural norms" and tolerance in general.

 

[nismaratwork]

I don't know about a burqa case, but here is a case where people appealed to law saying that it was unconstitutional, but the criminal court rejected the challenge.

That is what we call "throwing the book at them", and this is also in the context of a protest where law enforcement is present, and there is potential risk. This is not relevant in the least Monique.

 

[JaredJames]

"Buy the ticket, take the ride." Hunter S. Thompson...

I wasn't say it should be because of the health issues, just responding to fact someone claimed "it isn't hurting anyone" when there are health risks and so it can hurt the wearer.

I'm not saying it always does and I'm not saying the law is a good idea because of this. Just pointing out there are concerns over health and so the statement isn't correct.

 

[Monique]

That is what we call "throwing the book at them", and this is also in the context of a protest where law enforcement is present, and there is potential risk. This is not relevant in the least Monique.

You keep saying how things are not relevant, but they are. I wonder if you have anything useful to say. This thread started with a new French law against the covering of the face and whether it is "acceptable for a Western country to regulate clothing to this degree".

*surprise*, this law already exists in other countries and people have been convicted for breaking that law. The law would have to be amended in order to exclude burqas, right now they would be illegal if you read the Georgia State Code that I cited. That's the matter of fact and I rest my case.

 

[nismaratwork]

You keep saying how things are not relevant, but they are. I wonder if you have anything useful to say. This thread started with a new French law against the covering of the face and whether it is "acceptable for a Western country to regulate clothing to this degree".

*surprise*, this law already exists in other countries and people have been convicted for breaking that law. The law would have to be amended in order to exclude burqas, right now they would be illegal if you read the Georgia State Code that I cited. That's the matter of fact and I rest my case.

You keep bringing up irrelevancies... of course I keep calling them out; as Gokul pointed out your citation is not a particularly strong argument, and I'd say it offers nothing here. The consequences of the French law focus on cultural issues (see penalties I keep mentioning), not public safety which you keep returning to... bottom line. Georgia is concerned with identification and public safety; you don't have to take a course on the local cultural values for violating it.

You don't have to like it, but if you can find a similar law to the French ban, with similar justification in a western country, by all means, cite away Monique. As I've said before, if you want to make this a broader debate I'd see it as something for Philosophy, and not this particular political issue and world affair.

JarednJames: Gotcha.

 

[Gokul43201]

You keep saying how things are not relevant, but they are. I wonder if you have anything useful to say. This thread started with a new French law against the covering of the face and whether it is "acceptable for a Western country to regulate clothing to this degree".

Agreed in part, but there is also the fundamental question about the stated justification for the law. My primary complaint is with the reasoning provided by the Govt.

*surprise*, this law already exists in other countries and people have been convicted for breaking that law. The law would have to be amended in order to exclude burqas, right now they would be illegal if you read the Georgia State Code that I cited. That's the matter of fact and I rest my case.

The difference between the two examples is that in the US, the law was likely coined in the interests of public safety (I haven't read the actual bill that enacted this restriction, so I couldn't say for certain), whereas in France, the justification is instead based on claims that the burqa is a symbol of oppression and a rebuke of republican values. In essence it is banned because it symbolizes something that a lot of people find deeply unappealing. In that sense, I think this issue is closer to public nudity bans or holocaust denial bans.

If you really think the burqa ban in France is identical to the face mask ban in Georgia (etc.), why do you think some people are objecting more to the French law? Do you believe they are just being hypocrites? Or is it possible they perceive a difference?

 

[Monique]

You keep bringing up irrelevancies... of course I keep calling them out; as Gokul pointed out your citation is not a particularly strong argument, and I'd say it offers nothing here. The consequences of the French law focus on cultural issues (see penalties I keep mentioning), not public safety which you keep returning to... bottom line. Georgia is concerned with identification and public safety; you don't have to take a course on the local cultural values for violating it.

You don't have to like it, but if you can find a similar law to the French ban, with similar justification in a western country, by all means, cite away Monique. As I've said before, if you want to make this a broader debate I'd see it as something for Philosophy, and not this particular political issue and world affair.

JarednJames: Gotcha.

If I told you the US anti-mask law was instituted to specifically frustrate a Christian organization, would it be relevant?

 

[Gokul43201]

If I told you the US anti-mask law was instituted to specifically frustrate a Christian organization, would it be relevant?

To me, that would be relevant. If for instance, some state decided to prohibit the wearing of a KKK-style mask, I would want to know the basis for that prohibition.

 

[mheslep]

To me, that would be relevant. If for instance, some state decided to prohibit the wearing of a KKK-style mask, I would want to know the basis for that prohibition.

Jumping in as I think that's very illustrative of how America handles like issues. As far as I know there is no general legal prohibition on KKK masks in the US (in public). The American way of addressing KKK hoods was instead to ridicule them into oblivion, to the point that such a hood is now approximately an iconification of evil. The burqa, to the extent it is imposed by force on women, deserves a somewhat similar treatment: no legal prohibition but a strong condemnation using free speech.

 

[Monique]

The American way of addressing KKK hoods was instead to ridicule them into oblivion [..] no legal prohibition but a strong condemnation using free speech.

Um no, that was not the American way. A law was instated to prohibit the hood.

 

[mheslep]

Um no, that was not the American way. A law was instated to prohibit the hood.

You are mistaken, and overdrawing the NY case you cited. For example:

SOUTH BEND, Ind. — A federal judge has ruled a Goshen city ordinance banning masks unconstitutional because it violates Ku Klux Klan members' rights to express themselves and associate anonymously.

U.S. District Judge Robert L. Miller ruled that society affords greater weight to the value of free speech than to the dangers of its misuse in issuing a summary judgment in favor of the American Knights of the Ku Klux Klan. Miller issued the ruling on May 4, but it was made public by lawyers in the case yesterday.

[PLAIN]http://www.freedomforum.org/graphics/photos/kkk.goshen.jpg
http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/document.asp?documentID=10573

In the NY case, see in the decision:

In order to successfully challenge an application of the anti-mask law as unconstitutionally interfered with expressive conduct, the mask wearer would have to show that wearing the mask communicated a particularized message that viewers were highly likely to understand.

That test might might not stop a burqa (I don't know), but it definitely does not stop KKK hoods, a very particular message that everyone understands.

 

[Monique]

Oh no I am not mistaken. Look up the history of the law and State v. Miller (Ga 1990).

 

[mheslep]

Now I have. That's a state law, and escapes the first amendment sanction at the margin only with regard to masks, not the hood. The current law of the United States on the matter, as recent as 2004 is as decided the US 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals prompted by that NY incident:

Rather, the Circuit clarified, the First Amendment protects expressive conduct only where “[a]n intent to convey a particularized message was present, and the likelihood was great that the message would be understood by those who viewed it.” Id. (quoting Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. at 404). Applying this standard, the Circuit court held that the particularized, understandable message that the American Knights wished to portray -- i.e., that they follow the ideological tradition of the KKK and share many of the Klan’s views about racial separation and white pride -- was clearly communicated by their wearing the robe and hood. See id. at 206. As such, the court found that the mask “add[ed] no expressive force to the message portrayed by the rest of the outfit,” and was therefore “redundant.” Id.5 Consequently, the court held “where, as here, a statute banning conduct imposes a burden on the wearing of an element of an expressive uniform, which element has no independent or incremental expressive value, the First Amendment is not implicated . . ..”

http://www.nlgnyc.org/pdf/MaskMemo.pdf
Any Georgian law applies only so long as it does not offend the decision above. Hince this

and this
[PLAIN]http://m.xioustic.com/d/894-1/kkk-child-in-robe.jpg
are legal in the United States, where as this
[PLAIN]http://propellertalk.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/kkk-robe-l.jpg
is not in say, NY and Georgia.

 

[nismaratwork]

If I told you the US anti-mask law was instituted to specifically frustrate a Christian organization, would it be relevant?

Yes, it would be supremely relevant, because we'd be back at some inter-cultural squabble instead of an issue of public safety. I'm not trying to mess with you here Monique, and I've expressed my willingness to discuss the broader issues you're bringing to the table in the appropriate thread, so please don't take this the wrong way. There is a serious difference between acting in the interest of public safety vs. cultural preservation. The former is always something which must be kept in balance, the latter is inexcusable.

 

[JaredJames]

[PLAIN]http://m.xioustic.com/d/894-1/kkk-child-in-robe.jpg[/QUOTE]

Oh now this is just wrong on so many levels. There is no way you can tell me that child understands the purpose / meaning of what she's wearing.

 

[nismaratwork]

Oh now this is just wrong on so many levels. There is no way you can tell me that child knows the purpose / meaning of what she's wearing.

It's downright nauseating... and when you think of that same little girl being taught that a burqa is what a woman needs to be modest... that's nauseating too. Hell, girls who are taught that they're only attractive if they wear skimpy outfits, etc is all unfortunate (less so than the latter two examples) when in reality they should be allowed to evaluate various options once their brains are developed. Let's be honest, from a psychological perspective little kids (pre-teen) are essentially little sociopaths until their frontal lobe finishes 'gearing up'. It's a great time to teach and instill moral lessons, but does dress code and the rest REALLY need to be a part of it at such a young age?

 

[JaredJames]

It's downright nauseating... and when you think of that same little girl being taught that a burqa is what a woman needs to be modest... that's nauseating too. Hell, girls who are taught that they're only attractive if they wear skimpy outfits, etc is all unfortunate (less so than the latter two examples) when in reality they should be allowed to evaluate various options once their brains are developed. Let's be honest, from a psychological perspective little kids (pre-teen) are essentially little sociopaths until their frontal lobe finishes 'gearing up'. It's a great time to teach and instill moral lessons, but does dress code and the rest REALLY need to be a part of it at such a young age?

I think there is a key difference though. Not much, but it's there. A western girl who chooses not to wear skimpy clothes doesn't get any different treatment to one who does. Where as a girl who wears a burqa (or KKK outfit) is under pressure to. Say it's a choice all you like but the fact the scriptures say they must dress modestly (and this is their idea of modestly) means they can face persecution if they don't conform.

Although a western girl may feel pressured into wearing skimpy clothes, there isn't a 'bad reaction' to not doing so.

Like I said, it's not much of a difference and in some cases you can equate the two, but it is an essential difference.

 

[Gokul43201]

A western girl who chooses not to wear skimpy clothes doesn't get any different treatment to one who does.

Has it been so long since high school?

 

[JaredJames]

Has it been so long since high school?

3 years (from my UK perspective). Here, everyone has a school uniform so within school it's not an issue. Out of school, nobody I knew was bullied for wearing 'the wrong clothes'. In fact, so far as the local area I live goes, anyone in clothes deemed too skimpy is more likely to be called a slut for said clothing decisions.

It may come down to a culture difference between UK and US then.

In the UK, bullying so far as clothes go is more likely to be because of them not being the 'correct' brand or due to appearance (strictly speaking a reason for the burqa).

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1299664/More-half-schoolgirls-bullied-appearance.html

 

[nismaratwork]

I think there is a key difference though. Not much, but it's there. A western girl who chooses not to wear skimpy clothes doesn't get any different treatment to one who does. Where as a girl who wears a burqa (or KKK outfit) is under pressure to. Say it's a choice all you like but the fact the scriptures say they must dress modestly (and this is their idea of modestly) means they can face persecution if they don't conform.

Although a western girl may feel pressured into wearing skimpy clothes, there isn't a 'bad reaction' to not doing so.

Like I said, it's not much of a difference and in some cases you can equate the two, but it is an essential difference.

I'm not talking about peer pressure, I'm talking about parents who dress their kids up like little barbies and the like. I would add, that "not fitting in" is pretty rough (although having never been female...?), and if your expectations are shaped at a young age that you need to show T&A to get attention... it's just too bad.

 

[JaredJames]

I'm talking about parents who dress their kids up like little barbies and the like.

I find that on a similar level to the KKK child above. No idea what the clothes they wear means and just accept that to be correct. Just saw a documentary on child beauty pageants and I'm disgusted by the way parents push their children, especially when you see how upset those who don't win get.

The states seem to have laws banning public face covering or hiding your identity in other words. Now this is a very broad law and doesn't target anyone in particular. Now unless anyone can tell me otherwise (as in, does this law cover all face covering or just burqas?), I think the burqa law definitely targets Muslims (not saying this is good or bad here, just that is how it appears. I have made my views on good / bad it rather clear previously).

 

[Proton Soup]

I find that on a similar level to the KKK child above. No idea what the clothes they wear means and just accept that to be correct. Just saw a documentary on child beauty pageants and I'm disgusted by the way parents push their children, especially when you see how upset those who don't win get.

The states seem to have laws banning public face covering or hiding your identity in other words. Now this is a very broad law and doesn't target anyone in particular. Now unless anyone can tell me otherwise (as in, does this law cover all face covering or just burqas?), I think the burqa law definitely targets Muslims (not saying this is good or bad here, just that is how it appears. I have made my views on good / bad it rather clear previously).

i think this is false. it is not muslims in general that are being targeted. it is a radical political element that just happens to be muslim. it would be like claiming banning hoods in the US was an attack on christians.

i have to say also that i do enjoy the turn this thread has taken (burqa muslims = KKK). i believe this is closer to the truth of the matter.

 

[nismaratwork]

i think this is false. it is not muslims in general that are being targeted. it is a radical political element that just happens to be muslim. it would be like claiming banning hoods in the US was an attack on christians.

i have to say also that i do enjoy the turn this thread has taken (burqa muslims = KKK). i believe this is closer to the truth of the matter.

The differnence being that the getup of the KKK is a signal that there is an externalization of hate... the people in a burqa aren't declaring any such thing. In a way, a woman in a burqa is more like the target of a kind of systemic hate... or at least what I would consider to be human rights abuse.

 

[Proton Soup]

The differnence being that the getup of the KKK is a signal that there is an externalization of hate... the people in a burqa aren't declaring any such thing. In a way, a woman in a burqa is more like the target of a kind of systemic hate... or at least what I would consider to be human rights abuse.

no, the woman is not being targeted. in this case, she's more like that child dressed in the klan robe. i don't believe that the reality for the woman in this case is that she is somehow exercising her religious freedom. the reality is probably much like it was in afghanistan - she isn't given a choice. it is being forced upon her by her husband and only serves to further isolate her in french society. it is a kind of subjugation not unlike slavery. the parallels between this and the KKK are numerous.

 

[Monique]

Yes, it would be supremely relevant, because we'd be back at some inter-cultural squabble instead of an issue of public safety. I'm not trying to mess with you here Monique, and I've expressed my willingness to discuss the broader issues you're bringing to the table in the appropriate thread, so please don't take this the wrong way. There is a serious difference between acting in the interest of public safety vs. cultural preservation. The former is always something which must be kept in balance, the latter is inexcusable.

Can you show me evidence that the French law is not acting out of interest of the public safety and that the sociological argument that I put forth has nothing to do with cultural preservation? All you seem to be doing is pushing things aside, without giving argument besides something that can be interpreted as "because I say so".

The states seem to have laws banning public face covering or hiding your identity in other words. Now this is a very broad law and doesn't target anyone in particular. Now unless anyone can tell me otherwise (as in, does this law cover all face covering or just burqas?), I think the burqa law definitely targets Muslims (not saying this is good or bad here, just that is how it appears. I have made my views on good / bad it rather clear previously).

The anti-mask law was instated by Martin E. Trapp as a direct response to the Klu Klux Klan (some anti-mask laws pre-date the rise of the Klan, for instance the one in New York).

 

[BobG]

Can you show me evidence that the French law is not acting out of interest of the public safety and that the sociological argument that I put forth has nothing to do with cultural preservation? All you seem to be doing is pushing things aside, without giving argument besides something that can be interpreted as "because I say so".

Sarkozy, talking in the ornate chamber of the Château de Versailles:

In our country we cannot accept that women be prisoners behind a screen, cut off from all social life, deprived of all identity.

The burka is not a religious sign. It is a sign of subservience, a sign of debasement. It will not be welcome on the territory of the French Republic.

Many moderate Muslims also see burqas as a symbol of female subservience and two of the three women Muslims in the cabinet support the ban.

But, all through the debate, the primary issue for just about all parties focuses on two issues:

1) The religious symbolism of the burqa and the ban being an attack on Islam
2) The gender symbolism of the burqa and ban being an attack on women's inequality

And Sarkozy's self expressed motivation for the burqa ban has nothing to do with public safety.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article6557252.ece

 

[JaredJames]

The anti-mask law was instated by Martin E. Trapp as a direct response to the Klu Klux Klan (some anti-mask laws pre-date the rise of the Klan, for instance the one in New York).

Sorry, I was asking if the French ban is specifically against the burqa or does it also extend to all face covering? If it is only against the burqa and people can still walk around in a mast then I'd say the law is targeting the Muslims. Again, my opinions on the law are detailed on previous pages and as far as this post goes, in summary, I like the law. (Don't assume I think this means we should target Muslims, far from it, but because of what the burqa symbolises.)

The state laws seem rather general and don't target anyone specifically (they apply to all equally regardless of why they were set up).

 

[nismaratwork]

Can you show me evidence that the French law is not acting out of interest of the public safety and that the sociological argument that I put forth has nothing to do with cultural preservation? All you seem to be doing is pushing things aside, without giving argument besides something that can be interpreted as "because I say so".

The anti-mask law was instated by Martin E. Trapp as a direct response to the Klu Klux Klan (some anti-mask laws pre-date the rise of the Klan, for instance the one in New York).

https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2905649&postcount=203

It's one of the first things I cited, remember?