News French Senate Approves a Ban on Burqas

[JaredJames]

How far would you take this justification?

It's a piece of cloth used to conceal women, we're not talking about murder here (I know that's what you were going for).

There is a difference between people wanting migrants (whether new or current) to remove a rather obvious object of segregation and people demanding murder.

 

[CRGreathouse]

(I know that's what you were going for).

I wasn't 'going for' anything. I saw argument that, on the face of it, would apply to many things, and suspected that you wouldn't want to follow that slope to its logical extreme. So I asked a clarifying question in the hope that you would explain what distinguished this case from other, more extreme cases that you would (presumably) reject.

So, in essence, I'm asking what the difference (below in red) is between this law and any demand in place of blue, below. So what makes it different from murder (your example, not mine!), but also what makes it different from segregation or other things citizens might want.

There is a difference between people wanting migrants (whether new or current) to remove a rather obvious object of segregation and people demanding murder.

 

[drankin]

Hey, 80+% want to be able to see someones face and are voting to enforce it. Plenty of other places to migrate (or not migrating at all) if you don't want your face to be seen.

I have to give them this, the French won't give you the time of day if you don't speak the language (so I've heard). They are maintaining their values within their borders. If only we did the same in the US.

 

[Andre]

In an informal poll in Holland today it was stated on the TV-news that 94% of he respondents was in favor of a burqa ban. However this poll required active participation, hence it is not a representative average of the population.

 

[JaredJames]

Hey, 80+% want to be able to see someones face and are voting to enforce it. Plenty of other places to migrate (or not migrating at all) if you don't want your face to be seen.

Exactly, the people want it, why not. If the government don't do what the people want they do riot and strike rather well. Look at this years french world cup team strike... enough said.

I have to give them this, the French won't give you the time of day if you don't speak the language (so I've heard).

It's true (at least when I was there), would barely communicate, that is, until they realized I wanted to buy something (and then you find everyone speaks your language...)

They are maintaining their values within their borders. If only we did the same in the US.

And the UK!

Regarding the difference between telling people to remove their burqa and murder, that would come more under my own moral and ethical grounds I suppose.

 

[Jack21222]

I have to give them this, the French won't give you the time of day if you don't speak the language (so I've heard). They are maintaining their values within their borders. If only we did the same in the US.

If we did the same in the US, I wouldn't want to live here.

 

[Gokul43201]

In an informal poll in Holland today it was stated on the TV-news that 94% of he respondents was in favor of a burqa ban. However this poll required active participation, hence it is not a representative average of the population.

I wouldn't be surprised if the real numbers were close to that estimate. If my reading of the situation is correct (that there is a sizeable component based on opposition to Muslim immigration feeding this position on the burqa ban), then the Dutch (with their recent history involving Theo Van Gogh, and their large Muslim population - last I heard, Amsterdam and Rotterdam had more Muslims per capita than any other city in Western Europe) could be right up there harboring the strongest feelings in this regard.

 

[Gokul43201]

Regarding the difference between telling people to remove their burqa and murder, that would come more under my own moral and ethical grounds I suppose.

In other words, you offer no rational distinction - it's simply a matter of your personal taste.

 

[Ken Natton]

I live in the North West of England, and it is now a commonplace, almost daily occurrence to see a woman wearing a burqa. It is something that makes me deeply uncomfortable, but that discomfort has nothing whatever to do with any spurious notion of a terrorist threat. I know of no case, anywhere in the world, where a burqa has been actively used as a means of avoiding detection or identification in the prosecution of a criminal act.

But whatever the stated function of the burqa, and whatever the women who wear one may themselves claim about their contentment to wear it, it is abundantly clear to me that its key function is the suppression of her identity to the end of maintaining a status quo that disadvantages her. It is equally clear to me that such a thing is entirely incompatible with liberal principles.

The problem is that this issue is a minefield of hypocrisy for liberalism. It is inherently patronising for anyone to say to such a woman that you know what is good for her better than she does. Whatever doubts I may feel, if she claims that she wants to wear it, then it no less illiberal to tell her that she cannot. All a liberal society can do is vigorously defend its liberal principles by ensuring that everyone understands that no-one can force them to wear such a garment, whatever it may say in their religious text, and to hope that, in time, the habit of wearing the burqa will naturally fall into disuse.

 

[zomgwtf]

If the vast majority of French want this ban then who are we to say anything about it?

For those of you who are comparing this to govn't murder... L-O-L. I suppose the govn't telling you you can't go over 120km/h by a police officer is akin to govn't grand larcen. Or laws requiring you to not run around naked outside is govn't sponsored genocide. This is stupid burqa ban =/= murder what-so-ever. Give up the dramatic comparissons.

The people of France have spoken, they don't want people going aroudn theircountry in public wearing a burqa. SIMPLE. You want to wear this fabulous item of clothing go somewhere that cares. I for one don't support this:

as the entire body, including face and hands are considered elements of the awrah- that which should be concealed in public from males unrelated by blood or marriage.

And I think if an entire country is against this they have the democratic right to do away with it. They don't need any more rational support than the people of France do not want this here.

Just like the people of some American states don't need any more rational support than 'the people of Texas want this here.' You'd be hard pressed to find a credible source indicating it's supported for anything but rational reasons. A major one in my mind is culture. Alas 70% of Texans support the death penalty and it's their democratic right to do so. You don't like that? Don't commit a crime there. You scared you might be wrongly convicted being a bystander? Don't go there. Simple.

 

[Gokul43201]

If the vast majority of French want this ban then who are we to say anything about it?

If the vast majority of Americans were to approve of torturing detainees, does that make the topic closed to any outsider? There have been gazillions of US political issues that have been open to debate at PF among the entirety of it's membership. Why shouldn't anyone who is not French not be able to debate this issue?

Besides debating the rationale, effectiveness, morality, repercussions, etc. of such an action, there are still the legal issues of constitutionality and International (or at least EU-based) human rights concerns to be addressed. I believe the latter has been answered, and found to be free of conflict, but the question of constitutionality is still under review.

And to take up your Texas argument ... until a few years ago, consensual sodomy was illegal in Texas. Most of the people of Texas approved of the ban, but it was eventually struck down because it was found to be unconstitutional. France is also a Constitutional Democracy. It can not expect to pass and enforce laws simply because the electorate wants something.

 

[waht]

The health effects of Burqas in northern climates:

In Ireland, which is experiencing a large influx of muslim immigrants at the moment, women wearing the burqa, doctors are warning, 'are at increased risk of pelvic fractures during childbirth because of vitamin D deficiency due to a lack of sunlight. "And babies born to women with vitamin D deficiency are also more prone to seizures in their first week of life," according to Dr Miriam Casey, expert in Medicine for the Elderly at the Osteoporosis Unit in St James’s hospital in Dublin. The burqa - an all-enveloping outer garment, does not allow enough sunlight through to give women sufficient vitamin D, she warns.

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

 

[JaredJames]

If the vast majority of French want this ban then who are we to say anything about it?

For those of you who are comparing this to govn't murder... L-O-L. I suppose the govn't telling you you can't go over 120km/h by a police officer is akin to govn't grand larcen. Or laws requiring you to not run around naked outside is govn't sponsored genocide. This is stupid burqa ban =/= murder what-so-ever. Give up the dramatic comparissons.

The people of France have spoken, they don't want people going aroudn theircountry in public wearing a burqa. SIMPLE. You want to wear this fabulous item of clothing go somewhere that cares. I for one don't support this:

And I think if an entire country is against this they have the democratic right to do away with it. They don't need any more rational support than the people of France do not want this here.

Just like the people of some American states don't need any more rational support than 'the people of Texas want this here.' You'd be hard pressed to find a credible source indicating it's supported for anything but rational reasons. A major one in my mind is culture. Alas 70% of Texans support the death penalty and it's their democratic right to do so. You don't like that? Don't commit a crime there. You scared you might be wrongly convicted being a bystander? Don't go there. Simple.

This is exactly how I see it. I don't consider murder equal to the burqa ban, but when I say "if the majority want it then do it", people immediately go to extremes. With all due respect, by asking "how far would you take this justification?", you are clearly looking at whether or not I would use it to justify murder or other extremes.

If the majority of people want something enough and you don't respond to it, then they'll simply switch political support to a party who will.

Constitutions can be amended.

 

[loseyourname]

When Harry Truman integrated the armed forces, he conducted a survey of soldiers first. 93% didn't want to integrate.

That's the difference between the US and France.

 

[nismaratwork]

When Harry Truman integrated the armed forces, he conducted a survey of soldiers first. 93% didn't want to integrate.

That's the difference between the US and France.

Well, to their credit the french are very accepting of raw milk products... delicious!... they just don't extend the same courtesy to people. The public is a manipulated entity in any country, and progress in a republic often has to be the result of leadership. This, is poor leadership in my view, for all that I wouldn't want any woman I know to feel the need to wear a burqa.

 

[humanino]

When Harry Truman integrated the armed forces, he conducted a survey of soldiers first. 93% didn't want to integrate.

That's the difference between the US and France.

Note that you do not know why they integrated.

 

[CRGreathouse]

This is exactly how I see it. I don't consider murder equal to the burqa ban, but when I say "if the majority want it then do it", people immediately go to extremes. With all due respect, by asking "how far would you take this justification?", you are clearly looking at whether or not I would use it to justify murder or other extremes.

I don't know why you continue with this strawman. You brought it up, I don't think anyone is suggesting it.

But I do want to know if you have an explanation for the reasons this would differ from any other populist sentiment, lest it become (as Gokul suggests) a matter of taste.

 

[JaredJames]

I don't know why you continue with this strawman. You brought it up, I don't think anyone is suggesting it.

But I do want to know if you have an explanation for the reasons this would differ from any other populist sentiment, lest it become (as Gokul suggests) a matter of taste.

Ok then, when i was asked "how far would you take this justification", what do you think it was reffering to?

 

[CRGreathouse]

Ok then, when i was asked "how far would you take this justification", what do you think it was reffering to?

I asked the question, so I know it wasn't referring to murder. (I'm not even sure how that would work.) I just wanted the justification so that I could understand why you thought that it should apply in that case, if there was some case that (presumably) you would not apply that reasoning to.

 

[fuzzyfelt]

Besides debating the rationale, effectiveness, morality, repercussions, etc. of such an action, there are still the legal issues of constitutionality and International (or at least EU-based) human rights concerns to be addressed. I believe the latter has been answered, and found to be free of conflict, but the question of constitutionality is still under review.

I've looked but haven't found where the (ECHR?) human rights concerns have been adressed and found free of conflict. I'd be interested to know the reasons given.

 

[nismaratwork]

Take proposition 8 in California; the fact that it's "the will of the people" is meaningless because 'the people' are still bound by the constitution. Equal protection can't be circumvented because people aren't scholars or lawyers, and that's the rub. Unless France allows for a truly democratic vote of the populace to overrule everything else, then it's just a matter people making a choice that may violate fundamental principles.

 

[Gokul43201]

I've looked but haven't found where the (ECHR?) human rights concerns have been adressed and found free of conflict. I'd be interested to know the reasons given.

I heard it on the radio just the day before yesterday. I will try to dig up a reference in case I misheard/misremembered.

 

[alt]

Stupid policy. They're throwing out BS justifications but the reality is the French don't appreciate the influx of Muslim culture even though they invite it with their guest-worker program.

No comment on whether it's a stupid policy, but I agree. The French don't appreciate the influx of Muslim culture. And it's their right, I suppose. As right as a Muslim culture not appreciating the influx of some other culture, and preventing such influx.

 

[Gokul43201]

No comment on whether it's a stupid policy, but I agree. The French don't appreciate the influx of Muslim culture. And it's their right, I suppose. As right as a Muslim culture not appreciating the influx of some other culture, and preventing such influx.

Yes. It would be exactly as right as a Muslim culture that does that, and no better.

 

[alt]

The above vid is interesting. I wonder what folk here think about the population figures stated therein (hopefully, disregarding the spooky music and the religious bits at the end).

 

[alt]

Yes. It would be exactly as right as a Muslim culture that does that, and no better.

So you agree that a Muslim culture has a right to prevent influx into it by another culture ?

 

[Gokul43201]

I neither stated nor implied it before, but I will now. Sure, any culture is free to make its rules about who can join the club and who can't.

 

[alt]

I neither stated or implied it before, but I will now. Sure, any culture is free to make its rules about who can join the club and who can't.

Your post #74 confused (me) thus my '?' at the end of my sentence in reply.

Anyhow, I agree with your above.

 

[mugaliens]

What a quagmire!

The best post I've seen here yet, however, is from https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2884039&postcount=60". Seriously! It's one of two key reasons why I decided to retire from the military where I am today. The other was family. Don't assume that was the overriding factor, though, as I have immediate family in California, as well, with whom I am very close.

 

[alt]

What a quagmire!

The best post I've seen here yet, however, is from https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2884039&postcount=60". Seriously! It's one of two key reasons why I decided to retire from the military where I am today. The other was family. Don't assume that was the overriding factor, though, as I have immediate family in California, as well, with whom I am very close.

Hadn't seen that one (zomgwtf post). Now have, and agree with it.

 

[Gokul43201]

Your post #74 confused (me) thus my '?' at the end of my sentence in reply.

I don't know where the source of the confusion is, so can't comment on that

Anyhow, I agree with your above.

I hope you also agree that:

1. If the burqa ban is an act aimed at stopping or slowing the influx of certain cultures, then it would be more honest to admit that rather than call it a humanitarian issue, and

2. You can't have your cake and eat it too: if you've joined the EU, for instance, you need to abide by the rules it has for immigration, etc.

 

[alt]

I don't know where the source of the confusion is, so can't comment on that

I hope you also agree that:

1. If the burqa ban is an act aimed at stopping or slowing the influx of certain cultures, then it would be more honest to admit that rather than call it a humanitarian issue, and

2. You can't have your cake and eat it too: if you've joined the EU, for instance, you need to abide by the rules it has for immigration, etc.

I never called it humanitarian. I agree it's a culture issue more than anything. Does a Muslim country have the right to prevent it's Muslim culture and religion from being swamped by, say, Christian or Jewish culture and religion ?

Joining the EU has been seen as a sordid boon by many Europeans.

Did you have a look at the Utube link I posted several up ? Did you see the part about France ? What do you think of it in general, and the France part in particular ? (I know, the music is spooky, and there's a pro Christian bit at the end, but aside from that).

 

[mheslep]

I don't believe France is attempting to stop/slow the influx of muslims so much as it is trying to force muslim immigrants to acknowledge the hegemony of at least certain aspects of Western culture (in the West) as a condition of immigration to the West, a goal with which I agree if not these means. Sarkozy's statement, that the burqa is "a sign of enslavement and debasement" to women seems to me in keeping with that goal.

BTW, anyone see the 1999 film East is East, a dramatic comedy staged around Pakistani muslim immigration in England? Great 90mins that I recommend.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Is_East_(film )
Hilarious when it was released, but that was several million immigrants ago in England.

 

[Gokul43201]

I never called it humanitarian.

Not you, but the French govt.

Did you have a look at the Utube link I posted several up ? Did you see the part about France ? What do you think of it in general, and the France part in particular ?

I can't say I put very much weight in the numbers, but I agree qualitatively with it, and it has been something I've found troubling for a long time now. More generally, I recall reading that there is an inverse relationship between fertility and some measure of productivity (can't recall which), which suggests that perhaps humanity might reproduce its way towards lower and lower productivity.

 

[mheslep]

I can't say I put very much weight in the numbers, but I agree qualitatively with it, and it has been something I've found troubling for a long time now.

Yes that You Tube flick cited US fertility (I assume they mean native) at 1.6. I'm fairly sure its closer to 1.9 before immigration, without checking.

 

[mheslep]

Note that you do not know why they integrated.

Humanino - As I recall you are from/in France? Any comment on either the muslim immigration issue there, or the recent actions of the French government?

 

[fuzzyfelt]

I heard it on the radio just the day before yesterday. I will try to dig up a reference in case I misheard/misremembered.

Thanks, but no matter, I was just curious. From what I’ve read of the Belgian ban the reasons are probably along the lines of health and safety for the wearer, and for public security.

 

[humanino]

Humanino - As I recall you are from/in France? Any comment on either the muslim immigration issue there, or the recent actions of the French government?

Thank you for asking, I tried to comment a few times, but every time I end up not posting. I am currently quite mad at the government, if you have heard of the crisis between the european level and the french government, you probably understand my being uncomfortable (there is something rotten in the French kingdom), especially in the context of this discussion.

It may be that 80% of the people support this law, but that does not tell me how they feel about it. From the statements of elected members of the senate and parliament, I think a number of them across the political spectrum voted by "pacte républicain" with unease. One can loosely take "pacte républicain" to mean "I do not disagree enough to loose everybody's time with that". About 2k women are concerned by this law apparently. I do not buy the justification of the law by "80% of the people support it". This government does whatever they please. Of course, if it helps with their electorate, it's even better. But take another law recently voted : moving the minimal retirement age from 60 to 62 years old. In this case, I personally think the majority of people can not be retired for 30 years, it simply does not make any sense. So in this case, I support the law ! Of course, there are more subtle adjustments to be made, and I would have written some details differently. It remains that the majority of people oppose this law in France, and the government had it passed because they (Sarkozy) already decided it would pass (some steps did not respect our constitution).

My comment on the recent actions of the French government : I do not remember growing up in this country.

 

[nismaratwork]

Thank you for asking, I tried to comment a few times, but every time I end up not posting. I am currently quite mad at the government, if you have heard of the crisis between the european level and the french government, you probably understand my being uncomfortable (there is something rotten in the French kingdom), especially in the context of this discussion.

It may be that 80% of the people support this law, but that does not tell me how they feel about it. From the statements of elected members of the senate and parliament, I think a number of them across the political spectrum voted by "pacte républicain" with unease. One can loosely take "pacte républicain" to mean "I do not disagree enough to loose everybody's time with that". About 2k women are concerned by this law apparently. I do not buy the justification of the law by "80% of the people support it". This government does whatever they please. Of course, if it helps with their electorate, it's even better. But take another law recently voted : moving the minimal retirement age from 60 to 62 years old. In this case, I personally think the majority of people can not be retired for 30 years, it simply does not make any sense. So in this case, I support the law ! Of course, there are more subtle adjustments to be made, and I would have written some details differently. It remains that the majority of people oppose this law in France, and the government had it passed because they (Sarkozy) already decided it would pass (some steps did not respect our constitution).

My comment on the recent actions of the French government : I do not remember growing up in this country.

I for one, am glad to hear from a Frenchman that this is not something all are comfortable.

 

[drizzle]

Considering Sarkozy's statement, that the burqa is "a sign of enslavement and debasement”… Seriously! What did he left for the “prostitution industry”!? [I’d like to know his knowledge/background about the religion/culture involved, or is he relying on gossips and think he’s really aware of it] This statement is clearly veering into religion or culture, either way such a statement declared by a formal person who suppose to represent a country, IMO, is stupid and irresponsible. He should be mastering politics!

Why is it that the number of people who’ve polled not revealed?



Health reasons, heh, guess they should ban high heels!

 

[nismaratwork]

Considering Sarkozy's statement, that the burqa is "a sign of enslavement and debasement”… Seriously! What did he left for the “prostitution industry”!? [I’d like to know his knowledge/background about the religion/culture involved, or is he relying on gossips and think he’s really aware of it] This statement is clearly veering into religion or culture, either way such a statement declared by a formal person who suppose to represent a country, IMO, is stupid and irresponsible. He should be mastering politics!

Why is it that the number of people who’ve polled not revealed?



Health reasons, heh, guess they should ban high heels!

And butter, pastries, oh... and smoking. I can just see that happening in France any day now, right after we give up guns in the USA and Russia takes it last shot of Vodka.

 

[Evo]

My problem with the statements from women saying that they willingly wear this disguise is that these women have been brainwashed since birth. I can give them no credibility, they didn't willingly agree to this after having been brought up knowing they should have a choice.

 

[lisab]

My problem with the statements from women saying that they willingly wear this disguise is that these women have been brainwashed since birth. I can give them no credibility, they didn't willingly agree to this after having been brought up knowing they should have a choice.

So the burqa issue may be a proxy for the root problem: an immigration population that isn't assimilating into French culture fast enough.

 

[JaredJames]

My problem with the statements from women saying that they willingly wear this disguise is that these women have been brainwashed since birth. I can give them no credibility, they didn't willingly agree to this after having been brought up knowing they should have a choice.

This is exactly what I've been saying from the start of this thread.

I have shown quotes from the quran which say they should cover up. This isn't a pure choice on their part, especially given how literally the book is taken, this would be taught as 'correct' from birth. So ending up believing it should be done and it is a willing choice on their part is going to happen.

Let's be honest, at some point someone said "women should cover up and not show themselves to other men". We know this because it is written in the quran (and in some countries the laws), which means someone has said it (let's ignore whether it was a damn good fiction writer or a god). So this is women being told, you should cover up.

It is an oppressive device, which someone has decided women should wear because they say so (again, leave the 'who said this' out of it for now). I have seen no evidence that at some point in time a woman went "you know what, I think I'll wear a bed sheet today" and somehow started a fashion trend which was then written into their holy book (perhaps some sort of old school fashion advert or catalogue page? ) and has grown to what it is today.

EDIT: lisab, I think there is definitely an edge of what you have said above in this law despite my views above. But then, is it such a bad thing? I don't see a problem with wanting people to integrate into the current population better. Otherwise you face potential segregation of immigrant groups.

 

[Proton Soup]

i think the problem you will run into with the "brainwashed since birth" argument is that you can use it to outlaw any sort of religious (or even cultural) belief.

 

[Gokul43201]

My problem with the statements from women saying that they willingly wear this disguise is that these women have been brainwashed since birth. I can give them no credibility, they didn't willingly agree to this after having been brought up knowing they should have a choice.

Playing Devil's Advocate ... with a little effort, one could perhaps argue that women (in the West) wear high heels, skimpy clothes or make-up (or get boob jobs, face-lifts, etc.) because they've been brainwashed all through their lifetime into believing that you need to do these things to feel good about yourself (or make yourself attractive or whatever).

Edit: Seems I'm not alone in this thought either.

 

[drizzle]

My problem with the statements from women saying that they willingly wear this disguise is that these women have been brainwashed since birth. I can give them no credibility, they didn't willingly agree to this after having been brought up knowing they should have a choice.

Brainwashed! Now I’m not [and won’t ] take this into a personal level, but what credibility would you give to those who’ve been following ONE KIND of school of thought, if I may say? Maybe if one starts to interact/understand/explore other cultures/religions/whatever, s/he then would learn to respect and accept, and mostly coexist.

 

[JaredJames]

i think the problem you will run into with the "brainwashed since birth" argument is that you can use it to outlaw any sort of religious (or even cultural) belief.

And there's nothing wrong with that. A child should not be subjected to religion until they are old enough to make a decision themselves. I am strongly against parents (or anyone) indoctrinating children into their faiths when they are too young to know any better (extreme example is the Westboro Baptist Church kids protesting with signs they don't understand, some calling soldiers 'fags', a word they could not define to the reporter speaking to them).

Playing Devil's Advocate ... with a little effort, one could perhaps argue that women (in the West) wear high heels, skimpy clothes or make-up (or get boob jobs, face-lifts, etc.) because they've been brainwashed all through their lifetime into believing that you need to do these things to feel good about yourself (or make yourself attractive or whatever).

They certainly are. Everything you have written is true. There are far too many young (5 to 15 year olds) who dress like adults, wearing makeup and I'd go so far as to say conditioned to believe that is how they must dress and behave.

 

[lisab]

This is exactly what I've been saying from the start of this thread.

I have shown quotes from the quran which say they should cover up. This isn't a pure choice on their part, especially given how literally the book is taken, this would be taught as 'correct' from birth. So ending up believing it should be done and it is a willing choice on their part is going to happen.

Let's be honest, at some point someone said "women should cover up and not show themselves to other men". We know this because it is written in the quran (and in some countries the laws), which means someone has said it (let's ignore whether it was a damn good fiction writer or a god). So this is women being told, you should cover up.

It is an oppressive device, which someone has decided women should wear because they say so (again, leave the 'who said this' out of it for now). I have seen no evidence that at some point in time a woman went "you know what, I think I'll wear a bed sheet today" and somehow started a fashion trend which was then written into their holy book (perhaps some sort of old school fashion advert or catalogue page? ) and has grown to what it is today.

EDIT: lisab, I think there is definitely an edge of what you have said above in this law despite my views above. But then, is it such a bad thing? I don't see a problem with wanting people to integrate into the current population better. Otherwise you face potential segregation of immigrant groups.

I don't think it's a bad thing at all, wanting immigrants to integrate quickly. If they aren't, perhaps there are barriers preventing it...that should be investigated. I don't know enough about the nitty-grittty details of French society to know if this is the case there, though.

Here in the Washington State we have a lot of Russian and Ukrainian immigrants, often families with several generations. After just a few years the typical pattern is: the kids are completely Americanized (thanks to public schools), the parents are trying (not always easy to learn English), the grandparents...not at all. These elderly immigrants will never integrate and it's not even an issue.

The women in France who wear full coverage - are they elderly, I wonder?

 

[Proton Soup]

And there's nothing wrong with that. A child should not be subjected to religion until they are old enough to make a decision themselves. I am strongly against parents (or anyone) indoctrinating children into their faiths when they are too young to know any better (extreme example is the Westboro Baptist Church kids protesting with signs they don't understand, some calling soldiers 'fags', a word they could not define to the reporter speaking to them).

everything is wrong with it. when you separate children from the teaching of their parents, you are destroying a people and its culture to replace it with your own indoctrination.