News French Senate Approves a Ban on Burqas

[CRGreathouse]

So, you're supporting the rights of these women by threatening them with jail time for wearing what they want to? That doesn't make sense.

Really? I oppose the ban, but the reasoning makes sense to me. It's a nanny state law: tax fast food, fine people not wearing seat belts, ban trans fats, outlaw the niqab.

 

[Gokul43201]

I find it interesting too that the general favorability for a complete ban today (82% according to CNN article cited in OP) is significantly higher than the support for the head-scarf ban in schools that passed in 2004.

http://www.csa-tmo.fr/dataset/data2004/opi20040124c.htm

 

[Office_Shredder]

So, you're supporting the rights of these women by threatening them with jail time for wearing what they want to? That doesn't make sense.

No, a fine and citizenship classes (whatever those are)

 

[Jack21222]

No, a fine and citizenship classes (whatever those are)

And if they can't pay the fine or miss a class, I'm sure it's jail.

At least with the other nanny state taxes, they don't enact them spouting the civil rights of those they're legislating against. They don't say they're raising the cigarette tax to protect the civil rights of smokers, for example.

 

[CRGreathouse]

At least with the other nanny state taxes, they don't enact them spouting the civil rights of those they're legislating against. They don't say they're raising the cigarette tax to protect the civil rights of smokers, for example.

I don't see the difference. The nanny state requires seat belts to protect the safety of the drivers who wouldn't otherwise buckle up, but do under the law. This nanny state bans burqas (ostensibly, at least) to protect the civil liberties of those who would otherwise wear them, but don't under the law.

Unless perhaps you are distinguishing between "civil rights" (that which is being protected, in theory, here) from safety, health, morality, and other things such legislation is meant to protect?

 

[Gokul43201]

I don't think the primary difference is what Jack describes it as. However, I do believe there is a difference, in that, like mheslep (correct me if I'm mistaken here), I think this law is in significant part a reaction to Muslim immigrants not integrating as much into French society as the French electorate would like. (i.e., the "ostensibly" in your post above holds the crux).

 

[CRGreathouse]

However, I do believe there is a difference, in that, like mheslep (correct me if I'm mistaken here), I think this law is in significant part a reaction to Muslim immigrants not integrating as much into French society as the French electorate would like. (i.e., the "ostensibly" in your post above holds the crux).

Indeed -- I was careful to keep that word in, even though its repetition was jarring to me. But I still have an unanswered question for mheslep on that point, and without that I'd prefer to not delve more deeply into that matter. (But don'y let my reservations stop you, by any means!)

 

[stevenb]

This is a very slippery slope. Next, long hair drapped over the face will be banned. Then long beards. Then eyepatches and big dark sunglasses. Maybe heavy makeup too.


And, if these things don't happen, what does that say about the real reason for the ban?

 

[Jack21222]

I don't see the difference. The nanny state requires seat belts to protect the safety of the drivers who wouldn't otherwise buckle up, but do under the law. This nanny state bans burqas (ostensibly, at least) to protect the civil liberties of those who would otherwise wear them, but don't under the law.

Unless perhaps you are distinguishing between "civil rights" (that which is being protected, in theory, here) from safety, health, morality, and other things such legislation is meant to protect?

I was making that distinction, yes. It just adds an element of irony to say "we're taking away your rights to protect your rights."

Contrast that with "we're taking away your rights to protect your safety."

 

[CRGreathouse]

I was making that distinction, yes. It just adds an element of irony to say "we're taking away your rights to protect your rights."

Contrast that with "we're taking away your rights to protect your safety."

I suppose there's some irony there.

As a libertarian, I tend to oppose both in general.

 

[mheslep]

So, you're supporting the rights of these women by threatening them with jail time for wearing what they want to?

"So..."? No. No I would not support such a law or penalty in the US, even if it were not unconstitutional, as it no doubt would be.

 

[Jack21222]

"So..."? No. No I would not support such a law or penalty in the US, even if it were not unconstitutional, as it no doubt would be.

But you'd support it in France. I see.

 

[CRGreathouse]

But you'd support it in France. I see.

If you look at post #22, you'll see that mheslep was explaining (as requested) the justification -- actually, his interpretation of Sarkosy's justification -- for the law, rather than expressing personal support.

 

[mheslep]

If you look at post #22, you'll see that mheslep was explaining (as requested) the justification -- actually, his interpretation of Sarkosy's justification -- for the law, rather than expressing personal support.

Yes, exactly. Also I'm not a citizen of France, so I'm slow to jump up and say what laws make sense for France, though I have no inhibition about discussing the Western liberal tradition in general terms, its benefits and the threats to it.

CRG - I'll hopefully get back to you as requested in a couple days, about to travel ...

 

[Proton Soup]

i'm having a hard time seeing this as anti-muslim. (it's not even a mainstream muslim garb.) more like a backlash against a certain political element. perhaps it would be the same as not allowing kids to come to school dressed like skinheads.

 

[JaredJames]

The school I attended recently banned the 'hoodie' jackets due to people feeling intimidated by them, and the ability to hide peoples faces when they are breaking the rules (skipping classes, running from teachers etc).

Not quite on the same scale, but still the only similar comparison I've seen.

I see no more wrong in doing that than banning the burqa. I showed paragraphs from the qu'ran which tell women to cover up, so I don't accept it is always a woman's choice to wear it, given how literal the book is taken.

As far as I'm concerned, if that's what the majority of people want in France, then I don't see a problem with it.

 

[Jack21222]

Yes, exactly. Also I'm not a citizen of France, so I'm slow to jump up and say what laws make sense for France, though I have no inhibition about discussing the Western liberal tradition in general terms, its benefits and the threats to it.

CRG - I'll hopefully get back to you as requested in a couple days, about to travel ...

I misread that then, I apologize.

 

[CRGreathouse]

CRG - I'll hopefully get back to you as requested in a couple days, about to travel ...

Take your time, no hurry.

Thanks, as always, for sharing your thoughts.

 

[CRGreathouse]

I misread that then, I apologize.

I misread it as well! I had to go back to the original posts to figure out where he was going, at which point I figured I should post so others wouldn't be confused as I was.

 

[CRGreathouse]

As far as I'm concerned, if that's what the majority of people want in France, then I don't see a problem with it.

How far would you take this justification?

 

[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.