News French Senate Approves a Ban on Burqas

[lisab]

I think, if we all try very hard , we can discuss this issue without veering into religion.

The French senate voted today to ban clothing that covers the face - burqas and naqabs are included in the ban.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/09/14/france.burqa.ban/index.html?hpt=T2

French people back the ban by a margin of more than four to one, the Pew Global Attitudes Project found in a survey earlier this year.

Some 82 percent of people polled approved of a ban, while 17 percent disapproved. That was the widest support the Washington-based think tank found in any of the five countries it surveyed

I wonder, is there a middle ground on this issue? What might a compromise look like? Maybe a recent immigrant could be excused, with the understanding that baring her face for the first time as an adult may be too distressing.

Most countries have some laws addressing the minimum clothing allowed, because of social norms. However, there is also a social norm in most Western countries against covering one's face. For example, in the US, it's not a good idea to walk into a convenience store, or a bank, wearing a ski mask.

So is it acceptable for a Western country to regulate clothing to this degree?

 

[Hepth]

While I don't necessarily feel I have the right to identity privacy in all public areas, especially as security technologies advance with more easily implemented facial recognition, I can not see how it would deter would-be criminals or criminal activity. Those that are planning on robbing a business with a mask will do so anyway, and avoiding identity recognition by wearing a mask currently will only make you more suspicious.

I think it should possibly (if voted on) be regulated in public properties (governmental buildings) as it would help keep track of who entered/exited. And I believe businesses are entitled to deny patrons who cover their faces as it poses a security problem. (I don't have the right to be allowed into a grocery store dressed like a storm trooper...but I SHOULD be allowed to walk down the street as one)

 

[Gokul43201]

What is the argument for the ban?

"Given the damage it produces on those rules which allow the life in community, ensure the dignity of the person and equality between sexes, this practice, even if it is voluntary, cannot be tolerated in any public place," the French government said when it sent the measure to parliament in May.

What damage does it produce? Until someone points me to a reasonably complete argument behind this legislation, my opinion is that it is a gross over-reach by the French Govt.This is interesting:

French people back the ban by a margin of more than four to one, the Pew Global Attitudes Project found in a survey earlier this year.

Some 82 percent of people polled approved of a ban, while 17 percent disapproved. That was the widest support the Washington-based think tank found in any of the five countries it surveyed.

Clear majorities also backed burqa bans in Germany, Britain and Spain, while two out of three Americans opposed it, the survey found.

The difference, I think, is strongly related to the attitudes of people in these countries towards having government tell them what they can do.

 

[waht]

Burqas are nothing but a total ownage, and control of a woman. Burqas are a way of openly subjugating a woman by man. The western society has come far on humans rights, and feminism. And so the rise of Islamic population, most of which is resistant to assimilation, poses a threat to the freedom which allowed them in the first place.

 

[loseyourname]

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.

 

[waht]

This is interesting:

The difference, I think, is strongly related to the attitudes of people in these countries towards having government tell them what they can do.

I think it's more related to the fact that majority of Americans are religious, and they have a tendency to accept other religions as long it's not atheism. Europe on the other hand is more atheistic.

 

[Cyrus]

What is the argument for the ban?
What damage does it produce? Until someone points me to a reasonably complete argument behind this legislation, my opinion is that it is a gross over-reach by the French Govt.

Really? How about basic things, like a photo-ID, drivers license, passport - to name a few.

If Muslims do not like the policy of France, they should not move there.

 

[JaredJames]

Even when I hear people say they are happy to wear it, I wonder whether they are doing it because they feel they should due to religious / cultural pressure. I mean, if you live in a country where you are expected to wear it are you really going to rebel when the punishment for not doing so can be severe?

I don't see a problem with banning it, all it does is hide who a person is, which may not affect most people, but the fact is you don't know who is under it (male or female). If you wish to wear it in private, fair enough, but in public I don't see why anyone should be allowed to hide themselves. In the UK most businesses won't allow you to enter with a crash helmet on so why is the burqa any different?

EDIT: Couldn't agree more cyrus.

 

[Gokul43201]

Really? How about basic things, like a photo-ID, drivers license, passport - to name a few.

A much less intrusive law, requiring that face coverings be temporarily removed for the purpose of generating and verifying photo identification ought to take care of that, no?

If Muslims do not like the policy of France, they should not move there.

Ninjas too.

 

[Cyrus]

A much less intrusive law, requiring that face coverings be temporarily removed for the purpose of generating and verifying photo identification ought to take care of that, no?

You really think a person religious to the point of covering her face is going to submit to such a law? ...Good luck with that. As far as I'm aware, they don't even take it off in such a situation in their native country.

Ninjas too.

Surrendering + Ninjas don't go together too well. HIyooo.

 

[Office_Shredder]

You really think a person religious to the point of covering her face is going to submit to such a law? ...Good luck with that. As far as I'm aware, they don't even take it off in such a situation in their native country.

So... you're suggesting it will be easier to get them to submit to a law wherein the burqa is illegal all together?

 

[lisab]

You really think a person religious to the point of covering her face is going to submit to such a law? ...Good luck with that. As far as I'm aware, they don't even take it off in such a situation in their native country.

But wait a minute - if I understand properly, the religion doesn't require any particular clothing. The requirement is to be "modest", and it's interpreted by various cultures in different ways (facial coverings aren't universal in Islamic countries).

It's a curious interpretation of "modest" to attract attention to yourself by wearing clothing so peculiar, IMO.

 

[Cyrus]

So... you're suggesting it will be easier to get them to submit to a law wherein the burqa is illegal all together?

No, I'm suggesting not to live in France if you don't like western culture. I thought that was painfully clear.

 

[Evo]

I wonder why you don't see Muslim women in America out in public with their faces veiled? All I've ever seen is the head scarf.

 

[BobG]

I think, if we all try very hard , we can discuss this issue without veering into religion.

The French senate voted today to ban clothing that covers the face - burqas and naqabs are included in the ban.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/09/14/france.burqa.ban/index.html?hpt=T2




I wonder, is there a middle ground on this issue? What might a compromise look like? Maybe a recent immigrant could be excused, with the understanding that baring her face for the first time as an adult may be too distressing.

Most countries have some laws addressing the minimum clothing allowed, because of social norms. However, there is also a social norm in most Western countries against covering one's face. For example, in the US, it's not a good idea to walk into a convenience store, or a bank, wearing a ski mask.

So is it acceptable for a Western country to regulate clothing to this degree?

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.

This is a question of how far a government should go in restricting practice of religion. This is France, so you're not talking about principles protected by the Constitution. In other words, it becomes a question of what actions would be right for a government to take against religions if the government weren't encumbered by the US Constitution.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

I wonder why you don't see Muslim women in America out in public with their faces veiled? All I've ever seen is the head scarf.

I saw a full out Burqa in Philadelphia over labor day weekend. I'm sure you can find plenty in Dearborn MI too. And lisab is right, it's not religious, it's cultural.

 

[Evo]

I read in another article that it was a political move to gain favor in the growing anti-imigration sentiment in France. Not really a religious issue.

 

[BobG]

I wonder why you don't see Muslim women in America out in public with their faces veiled? All I've ever seen is the head scarf.

It's also very rare in France (less than 1%?). The ban is more symbolic than practical. It's a ban that makes a statement without creating a large government expense to enforce the ban.

Wearing a burqa is mandatory in a few theocratic states, but it's not a very popular choice for women with a choice.

Edit: According to this USA Today article, out of around 6 million Muslims in France, about 2,000 wear burqas.

Belgium has similar legislation. An estimate 30 to 100 women wear burqas in Belgium, but the legislator that co-authored the bill is concerned that that number could balloon to 2,000 Belgian women wearing burqas in 10 years.

The legislation in both countries is a symbolic statement against Islam or at least a gross waste of money chasing down and solving non-existent problems.

 

[JaredJames]

I was under the impression the burqa was worn because only husbands should see their wives. Cultural or religious is irrelevant. Either one can create pressure to wear it.

EDIT: The wiki article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burqa) shows two passages from the quran telling women to cover up. Given how strictly people take that particular religious book I'd say it is certainly a pressure point in getting women to wear it.

 

[Evo]

It's also very rare in France (less than 1%?). The ban is more symbolic than practical. It's a ban that makes a statement without creating a large government expense to enforce the ban.

Exactly.

 

[BobG]

It's also very rare in France (less than 1%?). The ban is more symbolic than practical. It's a ban that makes a statement without creating a large government expense to enforce the ban.

Exactly.

It would have been more honest to pass a non-binding resolution stating that France hates Muslims.

 

[mheslep]

What is the argument for the ban?
What damage does it produce? Until someone points me to a reasonably complete argument behind this legislation, my opinion is that it is a gross over-reach by the French Govt.

Openly, Sarkozy states the damage is http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...11925494780.html?mod=WSJ_hps_MIDDLEFifthNews", that the burqa is "a sign of enslavement and debasement" to women. Google 'muslim honor killing' of women both in the US and other western countries for realized examples.

The difference, I think, is strongly related to the attitudes of people in these countries towards having government tell them what they can do.

Strongly agree.

 

[mheslep]

France's muslim population is now at least 6%, perhaps 10%, the largest share in Western Europe. For comparison that would be 30 million people in the US. In the US we have a strong immigrant tradition, but immigrants who more or less jumped willing into the melting pot. However, when and if an immigrant population refuses most of the culture and philosophical of its adopted nation, seeking instead to supplant it, the host country has a legitimate interest to my mind in raising objection to that migration, giving due credit to the Western liberal tradition for the prosperity and liberty the country enjoyed to make it what it is. The burqa is a symbol, maybe in a small way, not of a slowness to absorb that liberal tradition, but rather its outright rejection. If I prefer the US approach blocking prohibitions on free expression, I also concede it would be foolish to ignore the issue and to wait around for larger steps, such as sharia law.

 

[mheslep]

It's also very rare in France (less than 1%?).

That figure, reported by "an association muslims" may be grossly underreported, given women are highly restricted from leaving the home without a male escort.
http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?HD=1&ID=1993&CATE=143

 

[CRGreathouse]

However, when and if an immigrant population refuses most of the culture and philosophical of its adopted nation, seeking instead to supplant it, the host country has a legitimate interest to my mind in raising objection to that migration, giving due credit to the Western liberal tradition for the prosperity and liberty the country enjoyed to make it what it is.

Would you expand your reasoning on this point? My intuition is opposite yours.

 

[Chewy0087]

I'd be interested to see a french persons views on this.

Having been to France quite a few times I have another sort of take on the ban. A huge part of the French culture anywhere I've been in france (britanny, basque, mainland and south east) is being able to see someone, greet them (double kiss with women, hand shake with men) and talk with them openly. This is commonplace among even slight friends/neighbours. Not to do so is quite rude. French culture is also quite related to being smartly/fashionably dressed etc. Obviously the burqa or any face concealing item is at ends with the large majority of those ideas.

That said, I'm not sure it warrants a country-wide ban, so i suppose there is some political motivation aswell.

 

[lisab]

I'd be interested to see a french persons views on this.

Me too. Although the article I linked in the OP shows there is wide support for it - around 80%.

I'd also like to ask how the law making process works. This ban was passed by the French Senate; how does it become law now, and what is the timeline, typically? Does the President have to sign it, like in the US?

 

[CRGreathouse]

Does the President have to sign it, like in the US?

Yes, though that's surely just a formality in this case, given Sarkosy's support of the proposal.

This ban was passed by the French Senate; how does it become law now, and what is the timeline, typically?

In this case, the bill now goes to a Constitutional Council to ensure that it's legal. That will take about a month.

 

[Gokul43201]

Me too. Although the article I linked in the OP shows there is wide support for it - around 80%.

I'd also like to ask how the law making process works. This ban was passed by the French Senate; how does it become law now, and what is the timeline, typically? Does the President have to sign it, like in the US?

Yes, the President has to sign it, and I see no reason that Sarkozy will not. Before the President's signature, the statute could be sent to the Constitutional Council to verify constitutionality - and this has just happened. While it usually takes a strong opposition in the Senate to send something to the CC, in this case, it is being done as a procedural precaution to ward off any judicial challenges that would almost certainly follow were the statute to be signed without a constitutional review. The Conseil d'État has warned that it might not pass such a review. The CC has a month to complete the review.

Edit: CRG got in faster.

PS: IMO, the French have totally warped their own concept of Laïcité in these last few years (especially since 2004). Voltaire must be turning in his grave!

 

[Jack21222]

Openly, Sarkozy states the damage is http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...11925494780.html?mod=WSJ_hps_MIDDLEFifthNews", that the burqa is "a sign of enslavement and debasement" to women. Google 'muslim honor killing' of women both in the US and other western countries for realized examples.

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.

 

[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?