Women who wear burkhas in public in France will be fined

[mj.scuba]

Our troops could wear Burqas on the battlefield in Afghanitan to get close to the Taliban, then when they're close enough BAM! out come the SA80s.

[tab1]

Again, suggestive of an equality that doesn't bear scrutiny.

 

The title of this thread is 'Women who wear.....', rather than 'Muslims who wear...', because, it is seen, quite understanderbly, as the woman who is bearing the brunt of this requirement.

 

John X

Indeed that is the gist of my argument that equality does exist in religion but the garb in question is not religious but cultural. The problem for me is the religion being blamed for something that is not a religious requirement. If any woman is being forced to wear such garments then indeed that would be unacceptable but the problem is the women in question have grown up with certain values and regard wearing of such garments as the norm. The change will in those cases be gradual and through a generation rather than ask Granny to change her ways in her late years. The more the issue is forced and used as a stick to beat Islam with, the more younger women will react against it wear it as a symbol of defiance, as is evidently already happening IMO.

[Kthebean]

But don't you think that there's an argument to be made that if it's made quite clear that it's frowned upon, it's more and more likely that the message will get through to even the most reactionary culturally bound men and women that it's ok to show your face? If we'd never made laws against raping and/or beating your wife, would people still be thinking it was ok, a god given right? It's the same reason that I think Parliament should have made the physical chastisement of children even by a parent illegal, to encourage those who believe they have a right to indulge in it to realise they have no such right.

 

After all, even if it's not oppressive to the wearer, it's oppressive to everyone else, men as well as women. The amount of women this ruling would apply to is tiny in comparison to the rest of the population, so it's just a matter of principle, nothing against them personally. We need to demonstrate that we're not prepared to give up our hard fought for free, equal and democratic society.

 

We should be forthrightly standing with the Muslim reformers and not tacitly supporting this cultural clothing and giving the wearers the impression that they're entitled to freedom of choice in this case. And if women are being imprisoned in their own homes, due to their choice of clothing, I'm sure someone would eventually report it and the perps suitably dealt with.

 

Yes I think there is that argument too.

 

I'm not entrenched in my views on this - just cautious. More from the perspective of not wanting the government making things illegal left right and centre on the basis that 'we dont like it'. In some respects, to me, that is as you say "to give up our hard fought for free, equal and democratic society".

 

In that way I dont think that 'not making it illegal' is the same as 'tacitly supporting'.

 

If this is really a measure of support for women I think parliamentary time and police resources could be much better spent on projects like Apna Haq or dealing with the problems of women with no recourse to public funds..

 

However as I say I dont really have a firm view and follow the debate with interest.

[Plain Talker]

An interesting question.

 

Reminds me of a recent discussion about how much should be spent to save a life, where an health authority would consider £2000 per month was too much to spend on a life prolonging drug but the navy would spend half a million pounds to rescue one person trapped in an upturned boat.

 

..or how many millions on an operation to rescue a prime minister's cretin son who was so thick he got himself lost in the Sahara?

 

(well, edited to add that back in 1982 the rescue cost an estimated £300,000 - I'm not sure what that's worth now?)

Edited January 26, 2010 by Plain Talker
£300,000

[quisquose]

If the choice to wear this uniform is removed from a few hundred women results in the freedom from misery for just one woman, is it not worth it? If not one, how about a dozen or many more? What would it take?

An interesting question.

 

Reminds me of a recent discussion about how much should be spent to save a life, where an health authority would consider £2000 per month was too much to spend on a life prolonging drug but the navy would spend half a million pounds to rescue one person trapped in an upturned boat.

 

Not really the same comparison though is it. £2000 per month spent on a life prolonging drug is £2000 less per month to spend elsewhere. Removing an individuals freedom to do something, smoke in public, drink if you are 17.9 years old, smacking your children etc doesn't cost society anything. Not in financial terms at least.

 

As Brown says we accept the erosion of our individual freedoms in all sorts of ways, but somehow we draw the line at clothing. If it reduces harm, then that's all that matters isn't it?

[quisquose]

I'm not entrenched in my views on this - just cautious. More from the perspective of not wanting the government making things illegal left right and centre on the basis that 'we dont like it'. In some respects, to me, that is as you say "to give up our hard fought for free, equal and democratic society".

 

In that way I dont think that 'not making it illegal' is the same as 'tacitly supporting'.

 

My views exactly, and on balance I think I'm still against a ban, but Brown's article has made me realise I've been rationalising it wrongly.

 

My main concern remains that one day some radical will win a court case that makes me "respect" this uniform, at least from a position of an employer. There are then plenty of unpleasant characters like

that lecture about "normalising" the wearing the niqab.

[boyfriday]

As Brown says we accept the erosion of our individual freedoms in all sorts of ways, but somehow we draw the line at clothing.

But mode of dress is a particular personal choice, like what we choose to eat.

 

Our indvidual freedoms are usually restricted where they cause harm to others or have the potential to.

[mj.scuba]

Reported today on the BBC

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8480161.stm

 

The committee's near 200-page report has proposed a ban in hospitals, schools and on public transport.

 

France has been debating whether to ban face-covering Muslim veils with President Nicolas Sarkozy recently speaking out against them.

 

In its report, the committee said: "The wearing of the full veil is a challenge to our republic. This is unacceptable. We must condemn this excess."

 

The parliamentary report also recommends that anyone showing visible signs of what it called "radical religious practice" should be refused residence cards and citizenship.

 

France has an estimated five million Muslims - the largest such population in western Europe.

 

Speaking earlier this month, Mr Sarkozy said the veil was "not welcome in France".

 

The committee suggests a ban inside public buildings, with those who defy the ban denied whatever services are on offer there - for example state benefits.

 

You have to admit, the French aren't pulling any punches on this one and don't seem to be restricted by the sort of political correctness we have in the UK.

[boyfriday]

You have to admit, the French aren't pulling any punches on this one and don't seem to be restricted by the sort of political correctness we have in the UK.

 

It's a shame they might forget the sentiments behind their national motto liberté, égalité, fraternité

[quisquose]

But mode of dress is a particular personal choice, like what we choose to eat.

 

Our indvidual freedoms are usually restricted where they cause harm to others or have the potential to.

 

Precisely.

 

We somehow accept that we are not allowed to eat, smoke or drink what we like but we draw the line at what we wear why?*

 

It's the overall harm that needs to be considered. Unfortunately the overall harm is difficult to determine with the burqa/niqab. The victims are imprisoned and silent, and most of them live in foreign lands. To see the rise of the niqab in the west will no doubt empower unpleasant men to abuse the name of Islam to excuse their abuse of women.

 

 

 

 

*This is even assuming that we are currently free to wear what we want, which we are not. Nudity and fur come to mind, even at the same time if that floats your boat.