France: Ban the Burka

[Ms_Maryam]

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/06 ... index.html

PARIS, France (CNN) -- The French National Assembly announced Tuesday the creation of an inquiry into whether women in France should be allowed to wear the burka, one day after President Nicolas Sarkozy controversially told lawmakers that the traditional Muslim garment was "not welcome" in France.

A cross-party panel of 32 lawmakers will investigate whether the traditional Muslim garment poses a threat to the secular nature of the French constitution. They are due to report back with their recommendations in six months.

Last week 57 lawmakers -- led by communist legislator Andre Gerin -- signed a petition calling for a study into the feasibility of legislation to ban the burka in public places.

On Monday Sarkozy declared in a keynote parliamentary address that the burka, which covers women from head to toe, is "not welcome" in France. Watch why burkas are such a controversial issue in France

"The problem of the burka is not a religious problem. This is an issue of a woman's freedom and dignity. This is not a religious symbol. It is a sign of subservience; it is a sign of lowering. I want to say solemnly, the burka is not welcome in France," Sarkozy told lawmakers.

The right of Muslim women to cover themselves is fiercely debated in France, which has a large Muslim minority but also a staunchly secular constitution. Should Muslim women in France be banned from wearing the burka? Sound Off below

In 2004, the French parliament passed legislation banning Muslim girls from wearing headscarves in state schools, prompting widespread Muslim protests. The law also banned other conspicuous religious symbols including Sikh turbans, large Christian crucifixes and Jewish skull caps.

Last year, France's top court denied a Moroccan woman's naturalization request on the grounds that she wore a burka.

Some lawmakers have called for burkas to be banned completely, claiming they are degrading to women. They also include housing minister Fadela Amara, a Muslim-born women's rights campaigner, who has called the garment "a kind of tomb for women."

"We cannot accept in our country women trapped behind a fence, cut off from social life, deprived of any identity. This is not the idea that we have of a woman's dignity," Sarkozy said Monday.

But French Muslim leaders say that only a small minority of women wear the full veil and had previously criticized calls for the issue to be the subject of a parliamentary inquiry.

"To raise the subject like this, via a parliamentary committee, is a way of stigmatizing Islam and the Muslims of France," Mohammed Moussaoui, the head of the French Council for the Muslim Religion, told AFP last week.

"We are shocked by the idea parliament should be put to work on such a marginal issue."

According to CIA estimates, between 5 and 10 percent of France's 64 million population are Muslim. The country does not collect its own statistics on religion in accordance with laws enshrining France's status as a secular state.

France is not the only European Union country to have considered banning the burka. Dutch lawmakers voted in favor of a ban in 2005, although the government of the time was defeated in elections before it could pass legislation to outlaw the garment.

....


1. Do you agree/disagree with President Sarkozy's stance on this?

2. Would you be for/against a ban on the Burka? Other religious wear (the cross, turbans, Jewish cap)?

[Homicidal_Cherry53]

I don't like the idea of a burka, nor do I like the fact that women are oppressed in many Muslim countries, but if a Muslim woman believes she is doing the right thing by wearing a burka, it is not the government's place to tell her otherwise. This is in no way shape or form the government's business, and they should just stay out of it.

[Scottie]

It becomes the states business when "religious" clothing is being used as a weapon to oppress. people ARE being harmed by this.

I agree that it is used as a tool of oppression. Problem is, there are people, women even, that believe that by wearing said garment they are practicing their beliefs to the best of their ability. I am not one to tell them they are wrong in doing so, even if I do not understand it. Oppression can be a two-way street.

So, you would be OK with oppression as long as the people who are affected by it don't complain?
What if they are too afraid/indoctrinated to complain?

I also believe that the wearing of overt religious symbols should not be acceptable in government funded institutions, such as schools and universities (as already happens in some countries).

Define what constitutes an 'overt religious symbol'... I don't see a problem with someone wearing a small piece of jewelery or the like. They are working for the government, not representing it..

So would it be OK if I wore a swastika necklace to my job as a social worker? In western society a swastika (usually) represents the the worst excesses of man as perpetrated by the nazi party in Europe--but if I truly believe that the nazi's got some things right I should be able to wear a symbol representing those beliefs to work?
Of course not. I am aware that this is an extreme example, but some people believe the "writings" of mohammed, as interpreted by extreme islam, is also extreme.

I would accept that the wearing of headwear, jewellry and the like is OK in public; but NOT whole body coverings and NOT in publically funded institutions.
Most people are not permitted to wear garments/objects which advocate a particular political affiliation to work. Why is religion any different?

The difference is that sometimes religious convictions require their adherents to wear these garments, such as head coverings. I don't see a problem when someone is wearing something to symbolize their personal convictions. So long as they aren't vocal about it, it should be a non-issue.

Sometimes religious beliefs are oppressive, devisive and unegalitarian and as such should be challanged and sometimes even proscribed.

The big problem with all of this is the threat it presents to freedom. Freedom of speech/expression/religion applies to everyone, even those who disagree with you.

And, equally, some religious teachings are the threat to freedom. Currently the media is exposing the awful cruelty perpetrated upon children in some parts of Africa, who are seen by the community to be harbouring evil spirits. The solution is to severely "beat" the devil out of the child. This is their belief system and should be challanged and stopped as being cruel and unjust. The wearing of all body covering is similarly cruel and unjust. It's just a matter of degree.
I, too have heard Islamic women declare that they like to wear this. I would argue that they have no choise.

I apologise in advance if I have muched up the speach quotes. I'm just getting used to this board, and I don't want to lose my post by previewing as I did last time. Sorry!

[MagusYanam]

So would it be OK if I wore a swastika necklace to my job as a social worker? In western society a swastika (usually) represents the the worst excesses of man as perpetrated by the nazi party in Europe--but if I truly believe that the nazi's got some things right I should be able to wear a symbol representing those beliefs to work?
Of course not. I am aware that this is an extreme example, but some people believe the "writings" of mohammed, as interpreted by extreme islam, is also extreme.

This isn't an extreme example; it is a faulty analogy. Nazism was a philosophy grounded in hatred of the 'other', of the Jew; as an ethnic Jew, I see a swastika as a threat against my very existence. I do not see a public expression or symbol of Islam as such a threat, because Islam is (ultimately, regardless of what a few extremists believe) a religion based in compassion and social justice. Most Muslims decried 9/11 as an action wholly inconsistent with the core principles of their religion.

The wearing of all body covering is similarly cruel and unjust. It's just a matter of degree.

There has to be a distinction made, as noted earlier by goat, between form (the garment itself) and content (the reason for wearing it). Formally, a full-body covering is just a full-body covering, and wearing one in and of itself is not cruel and unjust - in arid climates with a lot of sunlight and sand which can damage the skin, exposing as little skin as possible is, in terms of content, a very valid health concern.

However, when a full-body covering is used as a cultural artefact to silence a woman and destroy her public identity, then I would agree that, content-wise, it becomes very cruel and unjust. To be honest, though, if one really wanted to stand up for the rights of Islamic women in Europe, one ought to consider better economic policies a priority rather than clothing bans.

[Homicidal_Cherry53]

What if they are too afraid/indoctrinated to complain?

If they are in fact "indoctrinated", then they think they are doing the right thing. Who am I to tell them otherwise through legislation?

If they are so afraid that they won't complain, then there is likely some kind of physical abuse also going on, abuse which is already illegal and won't be stopped by banning a piece of clothing.

So would it be OK if I wore a swastika necklace to my job as a social worker? In western society a swastika (usually) represents the the worst excesses of man as perpetrated by the nazi party in Europe--but if I truly believe that the nazi's got some things right I should be able to wear a symbol representing those beliefs to work?
Of course not. I am aware that this is an extreme example, but some people believe the "writings" of mohammed, as interpreted by extreme islam, is also extreme.

Wearing a swastika would make your job unbelievably difficult, as I doubt anyone would want to talk to you, but yes. It doesn't matter what your beliefs are. There is nothing wrong with expressing them through an article of clothing or jewelry. Acting on them is a different story, but there is nothing wrong with saying what you believe (or showing it through what you are wearing).

Sometimes religious beliefs are oppressive, devisive and unegalitarian and as such should be challanged and sometimes even proscribed.

Speak out against them all you want. I will join you, but why legislate upon the issue? Banning an article of clothing will get you nowhere. If anything, it will unify the Muslim community and encourage them to keep and defend their old ways, as they will believe them to be under attack.

And, equally, some religious teachings are the threat to freedom. Currently the media is exposing the awful cruelty perpetrated upon children in some parts of Africa, who are seen by the community to be harbouring evil spirits. The solution is to severely "beat" the devil out of the child. This is their belief system and should be challanged and stopped as being cruel and unjust. The wearing of all body covering is similarly cruel and unjust. It's just a matter of degree.

The majority of the people in those African countries fully believe that they are "beating the devil" out of these children. If you wish to change it, show them their obvious ignorance on the subject, but these people shouldn't be forced to accept western morality and beliefs just because we believe it to be superior.

[McCulloch]

To be honest, though, if one really wanted to stand up for the rights of Islamic women in Europe, one ought to consider better economic policies a priority rather than clothing bans.

MagusYanam has cut through the crap and hit on the central issue in this debate. There is a degree of hypocrisy in dealing only with the symbolic expression and not with the more substantive issues. This ban only makes sense in the context of measures to protect the economic, social, political and human rights of France's Muslim women.

[Goat]

To be honest, though, if one really wanted to stand up for the rights of Islamic women in Europe, one ought to consider better economic policies a priority rather than clothing bans.

MagusYanam has cut through the crap and hit on the central issue in this debate. There is a degree of hypocrisy in dealing only with the symbolic expression and not with the more substantive issues. This ban only makes sense in the context of measures to protect the economic, social, political and human rights of France's Muslim women.

Of course, the ban had nothing to do with the rights at all. It has to do with assimilation into the culture. In the French view, having clusters of immigrants that keep their cultural identity is detrimental to French society as a whole. Their intention is to make everyone have the same cultural identity, externally at least.

[Coyotero]

So, you would be OK with oppression as long as the people who are affected by it don't complain?
What if they are too afraid/indoctrinated to complain?

So your answer to religious oppression is political oppression?

In the western world, women aren't subjugated by law the same way they are in parts of the mideast. That is the answer to the religious oppression. The fact that they are free to get a divorce and flee abuse. Not crushing culture.

So would it be OK if I wore a swastika necklace to my job as a social worker? In western society a swastika (usually) represents the the worst excesses of man as perpetrated by the nazi party in Europe--but if I truly believe that the nazi's got some things right I should be able to wear a symbol representing those beliefs to work? Of course not. I am aware that this is an extreme example, but some people believe the "writings" of mohammed, as interpreted by extreme islam, is also extreme.

That decision should be up to your employer, not the federal government.

Aside from that, it's too far out of context to be a fair analogy. There's a vast difference between a religious symbol and a symbol of a defunct fascist political party.

Sometimes religious beliefs are oppressive, devisive and unegalitarian and as such should be challanged and sometimes even proscribed.

That's the same mentality that you're trying to fight! Trying to stop oppression with more oppression is not even an answer. If you're going to permit freedom of speech or religion, that means you have to permit all of it, even the ugly parts.

Take the Klan in America as an example. They stand for hate, oppression, and racism. Thus being said, in order for freedom to exist, they need to be permitted to spout off all the idiot-speech they want. If they weren't allowed to, it wouldn't be freedom. I hate what they say, but I'm willing to die too protect their right to say it.

And, equally, some religious teachings are the threat to freedom. Currently the media is exposing the awful cruelty perpetrated upon children in some parts of Africa, who are seen by the community to be harbouring evil spirits. The solution is to severely "beat" the devil out of the child. This is their belief system and should be challanged and stopped as being cruel and unjust.

It's cruel, no doubt, but it's their culture.You can't force a primitive culture to become enlightened (We tried this in America. It didn't work, all it did was piss everyone off and result in many, many needless deaths.) It's up to them to join true civilization on their own time, otherwise it wouldn't be true civilization.

The wearing of all body covering is similarly cruel and unjust. It's just a matter of degree.
I, too have heard Islamic women declare that they like to wear this. I would argue that they have no choise.

That's the point, in the western world, they do have a choice.

[Scottie]

So would it be OK if I wore a swastika necklace to my job as a social worker? In western society a swastika (usually) represents the the worst excesses of man as perpetrated by the nazi party in Europe--but if I truly believe that the nazi's got some things right I should be able to wear a symbol representing those beliefs to work?
Of course not. I am aware that this is an extreme example, but some people believe the "writings" of mohammed, as interpreted by extreme islam, is also extreme.

This isn't an extreme example; it is a faulty analogy. Nazism was a philosophy grounded in hatred of the 'other', of the Jew; as an ethnic Jew, I see a swastika as a threat against my very existence. I do not see a public expression or symbol of Islam as such a threat, because Islam is (ultimately, regardless of what a few extremists believe) a religion based in compassion and social justice. Most Muslims decried 9/11 as an action wholly inconsistent with the core principles of their religion.

The problem with most (mabe all) religion is the interpretation of religious texts.
Islamic teaching is based on the Koran and the hadith (which recounts the sayings and actions of mohammed).
I would argue that my (albeit limited) knowledge of Islam does not lead me to conclude that it is "a religion based in compassion and social justice".
A devout belief that this life is merely a precursor to a better heavenly life, by definition, values this life as less important.
Therefore I do see the wearing of all body covering dress as a means of subduegation and as such is abhorrent to me.

I'm sorry for the poor response, I'm really busy and posting when I get a minute.

ETA: Coyotero, I find it astounding and, frankly unbelievable, that you would accept the killing and maiming of innocent children in some Africal countries "because it's their culture"!!
I was about to post "where would this lead", however, I think the current killing and maiming of innocent children speaks for itself.
I think you are just being provocative.

[MagusYanam]

It's cruel, no doubt, but it's their culture.You can't force a primitive culture to become enlightened (We tried this in America. It didn't work, all it did was piss everyone off and result in many, many needless deaths.) It's up to them to join true civilization on their own time, otherwise it wouldn't be true civilization.

I agree with Scottie here. These things can't be excused simply because 'it's their culture' - though at the same time, it doesn't mean we have to go around forcing everyone who disagrees with us to agree with us. No - sanctions, public censure, speaking out, donating to and participating in advocacy groups are all perfectly valid ways of taking a stand against abuse and killing of children, and you don't have to say it's alright when clearly it's not. No one of my acquaintance would support stoning 12-year-olds to death for any reason.

[McCulloch]

Of course, the ban had nothing to do with the rights at all. It has to do with assimilation into the culture. In the French view, having clusters of immigrants that keep their cultural identity is detrimental to French society as a whole. Their intention is to make everyone have the same cultural identity, externally at least.

Is this simply your opinion or did someone in the French government make a statement to this effect?