French ban on burqas - what is your take?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:While I am always somewhat shocked to see a fully-veiled woman, it's hard to see that this law is anything other than an attack on Muslims.

http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/the-monitors-view/2010/0127/What-s-hiding-behind-France-s-proposed-burqa-ban

French authorities say that only about 1,900 women wear the burqa or the niqab, two versions of the full covering with a mesh or slit for the eyes. That’s .038 percent of France’s Muslim population of about 5 million that’s now deemed a threat to the French Republic and its values.

The burqa does not fit comfortably with Western sentiments. It’s closed; Westerners are open. They want to see people’s faces. It’s also viewed as a prison for women – even if Muslim women are free to choose it. And it symbolizes fundamentalist Islam, which conjures up images of terrorism. That’s perhaps why the Dutch and Austrians are also discussing a burqa ban.

But sentiments shouldn’t be confused with bedrock freedoms, including the right to practice one’s religion. Being uncomfortable with another’s faith or even dress – and encoding that discomfort in law – puts one on the slippery slope to official discrimination. Will Sikh turbans be next?

Yes. In fact, along with crucifixes and hijab, they have been banned in schools. France is a secular state and does not promise freedom of religion. They are concerned by the symbolism of the fundamental (and radical) nature of Islam represented by the small population of Muslims who choose or are required to wear a burqa. That is why they are considering banning it. It is their country, and their right to ban it in their country. The US promises freedom of religion. Frankly, prevailing French sentiment seems to be along the lines of "if you want to wear a burqa, either go home or piss off to the US, they'll let you do it there". ANd frankly, I wish we wouldn't either.

PPs have talked about it being the choice for many Muslim women who do it. Really? If that's what you're taught from cradle onwards, is it a true choice? Or are you essentially brainwashed into it?

It is up to each person to speak for themselves about what they believe. There is no logical alternative. You can't see into their minds and represent their true, innermost thoughts. And you cannot presume to tell them what they "should" want.

The moment that you become the arbiter of whose beliefs are genuine or coerced, you nullify their speech and put your own words into their mouths. And that makes you just like the men you accuse of brainwashing them.

[Anonymous]

Who was looking for examples of crimes committed by people in burqas? Here you go:

http://97.74.65.51/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=36144

22:05 - while I agree with you in theory, in practice if we become such milk-toast as a society that we stand by and allow everyone to do anything they like because we don't want to infringe on their civil liberties, we will surely become an increasingly easier mark for terrorists.

I still like the blindfold and white canes for the men if they cannot stand the temptation of a woman's face, neck, or wrists. Jeez!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Who was looking for examples of crimes committed by people in burqas? Here you go:

http://97.74.65.51/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=36144

22:05 - while I agree with you in theory, in practice if we become such milk-toast as a society that we stand by and allow everyone to do anything they like because we don't want to infringe on their civil liberties, we will surely become an increasingly easier mark for terrorists.

I still like the blindfold and white canes for the men if they cannot stand the temptation of a woman's face, neck, or wrists. Jeez!

Sheesh, could you find a source that's a little more mainstream? That one is scary conservative, bordering on Stormfront IMO.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Who was looking for examples of crimes committed by people in burqas? Here you go:

http://97.74.65.51/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=36144

22:05 - while I agree with you in theory, in practice if we become such milk-toast as a society that we stand by and allow everyone to do anything they like because we don't want to infringe on their civil liberties, we will surely become an increasingly easier mark for terrorists.

Well, in this case, hoodies should be outlawed as well. Check this out:

http://www.fox10tv.com/dpp/news/Hooded_sweatshirt_fashion_trend_could_become_dangerous

"Mobile Police say hoodies can make for a dangerous outfit...want proof? A still shot from a security camera of two robbery suspects...or surveillance video of an armed robbery at CD Warehouse. All three are wearing hooded sweatshirts."

I am simply astonished that seemingly well-educated adults will actually have a serious conversation about outlawing an article of clothing.

[Anonymous]

Curious--if Burqa wearing folks are very conservative, why would they want to live outside of their country of origin, especially in the West? Doesn't it cause more temptation? The men can see womens' necks and wrists all the time. And the women might get ideas about freedom and equality. If it's for the opportunities, then isn't that materialistic ideas of the Western world?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Curious--if Burqa wearing folks are very conservative, why would they want to live outside of their country of origin, especially in the West? Doesn't it cause more temptation? The men can see womens' necks and wrists all the time. And the women might get ideas about freedom and equality. If it's for the opportunities, then isn't that materialistic ideas of the Western world?

There's nothing wrong with that. Making money is not un-Islamic. The Prophet Muhammad's first wife was a strong, independent businesswoman.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Curious--if Burqa wearing folks are very conservative, why would they want to live outside of their country of origin, especially in the West? Doesn't it cause more temptation? The men can see womens' necks and wrists all the time. And the women might get ideas about freedom and equality. If it's for the opportunities, then isn't that materialistic ideas of the Western world?

why some stupid people think that you can be a Muslim and born in Colombia or Sweden? just because their religion it doesn't mean they're not a citizen of the country they were born in. should we send all Catholics back to Europe? this is ridiculous!!!

[Anonymous]

can't I meant

[Anonymous]

I didn't read all 10 pages, just the first and last. Pardon me if this has already been said, but why is it OK to outlaw something that women feel it is their religious duty to wear when out and about? I am not going to assume that all these women are being beaten every morning and forced to wear them. Can we please give these women a little more consideration? They are thinking beings just as much as the rest of us. It is their choice to follow their religion and it is appalling that a country wants to outlaw it.

I'm an atheist and feel strongly that everyone should be able to make their own personal choices about religion. This idea that it is somehow alright because they are oppressing their women is even more shocking. It is not OK, not under any circumstances. We are not talking about anything that is harmful to someone else. This is a basic human right, folks.

[Anonymous]

If you do a search on the term "Burqa" on the site below you'll find some interesting ideas - from feminists - on why the Burqa should NOT be banned:

http://www.feministing.com/

Basically it boils down to, who does the ban help?

If the woman is forced to wear a burqa, a ban will only further isolate and exclude her from society.

If she is not forced to wear the burqa, we are interfering in her free choice.

So whom does a ban help?

[Anonymous]

France has 4% muslim population, they immigrated in the -60s and -70s
Part of it was briefly muslim for a very small amount of time

Burgha has nothing to do with French culture or identity. The new immigrants cannot assimilate because of it

[Anonymous]

Eh, this whole discussion will probably be moot in about 50 years.

I was just listening to NPR and they did a story on how the Afghan and Pakistani Taliban have now started to work together (before, they were rivals) meaning now they are able to plan better and more destructive attacks.

Someday we might all be wearing burqas.

[Anonymous]

Eh, this whole discussion will probably be moot in about 50 years.

I was just listening to NPR and they did a story on how the Afghan and Pakistani Taliban have now started to work together (before, they were rivals) meaning now they are able to plan better and more destructive attacks.

Someday we might all be wearing burqas.

Hysterical much?

[Anonymous]

Any legitimate security concerns about individuals wearing burqas are extremely narrow and so should be addressed in a commensurately narrow way. For example: anywhere one needs to show an ID for security purposes, i.e. flying, entering a govt building, could easily have a procedure where the burqa is not banned, but women wearing a burqa could be taken aside to a private area to show her face and ID card to a female security agent. The burqa wearer could then pass through and continue wearing the burqa. Problem solved. We assume that once people are through the security screening at the airport, that they pose no threat. There could also be a procedure for police officers making a traffic stop, for instance, to call for backup with a female officer to verify ID. Not a big deal.

Sure, someone could wear a burqa onto the metro to conceal a bomb, but they could also just carry the bomb in a backpack or under a large overcoat. And for those think the underwear bomber justifies tighter scrutiny of people's clothing and restrictions on burqas, I think your logic is backwards. If all you need is underwear to hide your bomb, a burqa is pretty irrelevant.

Except in these very narrow instances of security, the state really doesn't have an interest compelling enough to justify such an intrusion in citizens' personal liberty. And even in those situations, an effective solution doesn't demand banning burqas.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Any legitimate security concerns about individuals wearing burqas are extremely narrow and so should be addressed in a commensurately narrow way. For example: anywhere one needs to show an ID for security purposes, i.e. flying, entering a govt building, could easily have a procedure where the burqa is not banned, but women wearing a burqa could be taken aside to a private area to show her face and ID card to a female security agent. The burqa wearer could then pass through and continue wearing the burqa. Problem solved. We assume that once people are through the security screening at the airport, that they pose no threat. There could also be a procedure for police officers making a traffic stop, for instance, to call for backup with a female officer to verify ID. Not a big deal.

Sure, someone could wear a burqa onto the metro to conceal a bomb, but they could also just carry the bomb in a backpack or under a large overcoat. And for those think the underwear bomber justifies tighter scrutiny of people's clothing and restrictions on burqas, I think your logic is backwards. If all you need is underwear to hide your bomb, a burqa is pretty irrelevant.

Except in these very narrow instances of security, the state really doesn't have an interest compelling enough to justify such an intrusion in citizens' personal liberty. And even in those situations, an effective solution doesn't demand banning burqas.

I believe a bomb went off in Baghdad yesterday - carried under a burqa. If a face isn't showing and it is impossible to read body language then subtle tools or moments of potential danger can be missed in any situation.