French ban on burqas - what is your take?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Don't forget that's in a WAR ZONE.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
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.

Unlikely to have been a burqa since Iraqis don't wear them. Rather, it was likely a niqab. More to the point, the target was a religious gathering and the bomber was female. It would have been impossible for a female to have entered the gathering without being fully covered. Explosives can be covered in many ways and don't require a burqa or niqab. Remember, the CIA agents recently killed in Afghanistan were killed by a bomber who most certainly was not wearing a burqa and was still able to make it all the way onto a US base with his explosives hidden. His face and body language did not alert his handlers (people who probably had even had previous contact with him).

These repeated security concerns really sound like justifications after the fact. There are any number of clothing items associated with criminal activity. Occasionally, there are efforts to ban such items. All such efforts are stupid and almost all are based on some kind of prejudice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Part of my point, though, was that you don't NEED a burqa to effectively conceal one's face/expressions/body language. Baggy clothing, beards, sunglasses, hats/hoods, coats, distractions with an accessory like an umbrella, etc. would all work. Even think of how pairs of pickpockets work where one person creates a distraction and the other can boldly reach into someone's bag for a wallet. If someone is intent on doing harm, all they need is a ploy, maybe an object or two, and the cooperation of human nature to focus on whatever is eye-catching.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Part of my point, though, was that you don't NEED a burqa to effectively conceal one's face/expressions/body language. Baggy clothing, beards, sunglasses, hats/hoods, coats, distractions with an accessory like an umbrella, etc. would all work. Even think of how pairs of pickpockets work where one person creates a distraction and the other can boldly reach into someone's bag for a wallet. If someone is intent on doing harm, all they need is a ploy, maybe an object or two, and the cooperation of human nature to focus on whatever is eye-catching.

That's true, but how can you identify someone covered by a burqa?

If you're pick-pocketed on a train with security cameras, it's possible they can identify the perp by some identifying characteristics. This would be impossible if the perp was covered head to toe.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Part of my point, though, was that you don't NEED a burqa to effectively conceal one's face/expressions/body language. Baggy clothing, beards, sunglasses, hats/hoods, coats, distractions with an accessory like an umbrella, etc. would all work. Even think of how pairs of pickpockets work where one person creates a distraction and the other can boldly reach into someone's bag for a wallet. If someone is intent on doing harm, all they need is a ploy, maybe an object or two, and the cooperation of human nature to focus on whatever is eye-catching.

That's true, but how can you identify someone covered by a burqa?

If you're pick-pocketed on a train with security cameras, it's possible they can identify the perp by some identifying characteristics. This would be impossible if the perp was covered head to toe.

I'll grant you that it could slow down an investigation somewhat, but 1) it's not an insurmountable problem, and 2) it's still not worth infringing people's liberty for. Within a day or less of 9/11, we knew the attack came from A.Q., despite that fact that most of the perpetrators weren't in the system. We didn't immediately need their identities to track down the origins of the plot and determine who to go after. Yes, it was helpful to know the identities of the men involved, but I think we would have found out that information anyway through sources other than the passenger lists. If our homeland security apparatus is going to keep us safe, it needs to be robust enough to fill in our knowledge gaps from multiple sources.

Whatever slim gains we'd make from such easy identification would be far outweighed by violation of personal liberty. Really, not being allowed to choose one's own clothing would make us frighteningly similar to the countries where the burqa is mandatory. Sure, our children might be safer if we tattooed a scarlet M on the foreheads of child molesters, but we don't, and for good reason.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'll grant you that it could slow down an investigation somewhat, but 1) it's not an insurmountable problem, and 2) it's still not worth infringing people's liberty for. Within a day or less of 9/11, we knew the attack came from A.Q., despite that fact that most of the perpetrators weren't in the system. We didn't immediately need their identities to track down the origins of the plot and determine who to go after. Yes, it was helpful to know the identities of the men involved, but I think we would have found out that information anyway through sources other than the passenger lists. If our homeland security apparatus is going to keep us safe, it needs to be robust enough to fill in our knowledge gaps from multiple sources.

Whatever slim gains we'd make from such easy identification would be far outweighed by violation of personal liberty]. Really, not being allowed to choose one's own clothing would make us frighteningly similar to the countries where the burqa is mandatory. Sure, our children might be safer if we tattooed a scarlet M on the foreheads of child molesters, but we don't, and for good reason.

Really? You cannot equate that to what's happening to women in those countries. For example, honor killings of women. Here's another story about a young girl killed by her own father. She was buried alive for some minor offense...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8501181.stm

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
Really? You cannot equate that to what's happening to women in those countries. For example, honor killings of women. Here's another story about a young girl killed by her own father. She was buried alive for some minor offense...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8501181.stm

This happened in Turkey, a country that has attempted to prevent woman from wearing the hijab, let alone burqas. So, this terrible deed did not occur in a country in which women are forced to wear burqas, but rather a country that -- like France -- attempts to restrict such dress. It is hard to say that there is cause and affect involved here, but it does pretty much deflate the point you were trying to make.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Part of the problem is that the commision's finding indicating those women who are wearing the burqa are not all wearing it purely out of conviction and choice, but by custom and the dictates of the patriarchal members of their rather closed societies. It wouldn't help to invite them wo a women's club and try to convince them of anything--in part, the French government appears to be stating they are doing it partially for their own good, partially for the good of their society as a whole, which is what they believe is the role of their government.

Anyone who has ever studied anything about France will be aware of France's colonial practices which were based on assimilation. The French have always believed that the values, traditions, and practices of France were best for everyone (little did they know that honor belongs to America ). So, the finding of the French commission that forcing people to act French is the best solution should not surprise anyone. Maybe friendly persuasion would not always work. But, it could assist in the creation of support networks, mutually beneficial dialogue, and the opportunity for change by choice. Passing laws will simply create criminals of people who are otherwise law-abiding. If the French government is worried about the plight of Muslim women, there are a host of activities it could undertake in that regard. If women are being forced to wear the burqa, squeezing them between the rock of the Government and the hard place of "patriarchal members of their rather closed societies" is hardly going to make their lives easier.

I can't think of another country which colonial practices were not based on assimilation, just like France. The issue here has nothing to do with assimilation. As a French person (moved to the US at age 22), I can tell you that French people are increasingly feeling threatened and discontent with organized religion(s) and their various practices. ANY "accessory" or attire that shows which religion a person belongs to is not well recieved at all in public places.
It is difficult for Amercian people to understand that because the values that are taught here are fundamentally different. French students are still taught the values and ideas of Voltaire and the enlightenment period which translates in to a certain disdain for religion for a lot of people, including myself.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:I can't think of another country which colonial practices were not based on assimilation, just like France.

Then, you have never studied other country's colonial practices. If you look up "assimilation" in Wikipedia, for instance, it goes directly to a page about French Colonialism:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assimilation_(French_colonial)

The British famously practiced "paternalism". Their view of the "natives" was so dismal that they saw no chance of them becoming British. Compare and contrast:

http://www.hyperhistory.net/apwh/essays/comp/cw31britishfrenchcolonies.htm

Anonymous wrote:
The issue here has nothing to do with assimilation. As a French person (moved to the US at age 22), I can tell you that French people are increasingly feeling threatened and discontent with organized religion(s) and their various practices. ANY "accessory" or attire that shows which religion a person belongs to is not well recieved at all in public places.
It is difficult for Amercian people to understand that because the values that are taught here are fundamentally different. French students are still taught the values and ideas of Voltaire and the enlightenment period which translates in to a certain disdain for religion for a lot of people, including myself.

I am a staunch proponent of secularism myself. I have no problem with the French feeling discontented about organized religion. My issue is with tactics that are self-defeating. Pushing alienated people further toward the margins will result in many more problems than a burqa-clad woman going about her business.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can't think of another country which colonial practices were not based on assimilation, just like France.

Then, you have never studied other country's colonial practices. If you look up "assimilation" in Wikipedia, for instance, it goes directly to a page about French Colonialism:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assimilation_(French_colonial)

The British famously practiced "paternalism". Their view of the "natives" was so dismal that they saw no chance of them becoming British. Compare and contrast:

http://www.hyperhistory.net/apwh/essays/comp/cw31britishfrenchcolonies.htm

Anonymous wrote:
The issue here has nothing to do with assimilation. As a French person (moved to the US at age 22), I can tell you that French people are increasingly feeling threatened and discontent with organized religion(s) and their various practices. ANY "accessory" or attire that shows which religion a person belongs to is not well recieved at all in public places.
It is difficult for Amercian people to understand that because the values that are taught here are fundamentally different. French students are still taught the values and ideas of Voltaire and the enlightenment period which translates in to a certain disdain for religion for a lot of people, including myself.

I am a staunch proponent of secularism myself. I have no problem with the French feeling discontented about organized religion. My issue is with tactics that are self-defeating. Pushing alienated people further toward the margins will result in many more problems than a burqa-clad woman going about her business.

here's what i found under "assimilation" in wikipedia : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americanization_(of_Native_Americans)
The French weren't the only one out to convert their colonies to their beliefs and customs. And for the practice of "paternalism", even the term itself describes the superiority and disdain most British people in India there treated the locals. The "paternalist" attitude was the one advocated by the governemnt but do you really think it was really the one prevailing in India?

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Really? You cannot equate that to what's happening to women in those countries. For example, honor killings of women. Here's another story about a young girl killed by her own father. She was buried alive for some minor offense...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8501181.stm

This happened in Turkey, a country that has attempted to prevent woman from wearing the hijab, let alone burqas. So, this terrible deed did not occur in a country in which women are forced to wear burqas, but rather a country that -- like France -- attempts to restrict such dress. It is hard to say that there is cause and affect involved here, but it does pretty much deflate the point you were trying to make.

PP, here. I am linking the bigger issue of lack of respect for women in those countries. Burqa, Hijab or what ever is just a symbol of that. If these values conflict with the French, then they have right to voice their opinion. If given the choice to live in France vs. Turkey,Saudi Arabia,etc. hmmm.. as a woman, I choose France, hands down!!

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
here's what i found under "assimilation" in wikipedia : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americanization_(of_Native_Americans)
The French weren't the only one out to convert their colonies to their beliefs and customs. And for the practice of "paternalism", even the term itself describes the superiority and disdain most British people in India there treated the locals. The "paternalist" attitude was the one advocated by the governemnt but do you really think it was really the one prevailing in India?

You apparently don't actually understand France's colonial policy of assimilation. If you don't understand that policy, you will have a difficult time understanding how it differed from the colonial practices of other countries. While America practiced assimilation for a short period of time with regard to a limited number of native Americans, that was not the standard practice. For example, neither Puerto Rico nor the Philippines have English as their primary language. The Catholicism is those countries is not a product of America, which would have been more likely to introduce Protestantism. US policies were closer to British paternalism mixed with a healthy dose of cultural imperialism (which has even affected a number of countries which were not subject to American colonialism).

Obviously, the term "paternalism" suggests superiority and disdain. That's a point I made myself. India is one of the best examples of British paternalism. The caste system was not subverted, but in fact strengthened. The British didn't involve themselves in religion so Indian Christians almost all come from areas colonized by other countries.

[jsteele]

Here is an example of the knots in which the French are tying themselves:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/feb/10/french-election-headscarf-candidate

A far left party, the New Anti-Capitalist party (NPA), has fielded a female candidate who wears a hijab. Now, people from across the political spectrum are up in arms. Never mind that the woman is both a feminist and secular, feminists in France are appalled by her clothing choice and painting her as a threat to secularism. The candidate, Ilham Moussaid, is an advocate of contraception and abortion rights. The NPA is traditionally seen as hostile to religion and pro-women's rights. Yet, none of that matters in the face of a simple scarf.

[Anonymous]

Colonialism was a complicated phenomenon, it is a simplification to imply that the British approach was driven purely by disdain (though there was a strong element of this). Trying to turn everyone into Frenchmen involved an element of hubris that the British did not posses, and there was at various times an element of respect for and interest in native cultures.

Paternalism also led to the abolition of some customs most posters on DCUM would now consider abhorrent, such as suttee.

[Anonymous]

A ban on these types of facial coverings can be a positive for the guys too. No need to get a pesky annulment after you find out your wife is crossed-eyed and, *gasp*, has facial hair! And it can save you all that gift money too....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8508077.stm