terrorist attack in Paris

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I object to the burkas with the face covered. The rest, I don't care for it, but I don't object.

Not pp, but this is the perspective of most moderate Muslims I know (I'm the pp who was raised Muslim). There is a MAJOR difference between hijab and headscarves, and a face covering. Many Muslims themselves oppose the burqa and other such coverings, and support a ban on them. But are indifferent or more "to each their own" with regards to headscarves.

I think you can object to something but still recognize the right of an individual to choose to wear it. I object to a lot of stupid t-shirts I see people wearing, but I don't see why I have the right to tell someone what to wear. And I also agree with the majority opinion that the burka/niqab are NOT actually mandated by Islam, but I still believe that women should have the right to wear them regardless.

Sure you can object to something but support the right of an individual to wear it. But still, I (and others from a moderate Muslim upbringing) see the burka/niqab as actually dangerous to women. Interestingly, the people I know who most *favor* a ban are Muslim women themselves. A lot of Muslim men are more "to each their own," but it's something that doesn't ever affect their gender.

[Anonymous]

Again, I'm not surprised by the fact that the congress supported it, but I find it incongruous with the idea that France is a democratic and free society.

[Anonymous]

The day care case was for a *private* day care... again, most French people applauded her losing her appeal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Given that the burka ban was debated, not on the grounds of security (which would have been silly), but on the grounds that wearing it "is against the values of the republic".
Given that, while a number of woman wearing it are forced by others to do so (and a ban will just result in them forced to stay trapped at home), a number of women have freely chosen to want to wear one.
Given that most women who want to wear one are not immigrants (since the countries of emigration don't have that awful tradition) but French born citizen (so the argument "if don't love it, leave it" doesn't apply.

I think we can paraphrase Voltaire and say, "I profoundly disagree and are deeply offended by your wearing the burka, but will fight for your right to wear it."

Meanwhile, France remains the only country in the West that has legislation telling people how they must or must not dress.

this is not true. I am from Italy and laws banning wearing masks or anything that conceal the face in public have been in force for centuries, and there is still a law like that, and was created for reasons of public safety. I would not be surprised is similar laws exist in other European countries. having freedom does not mean you can do whatever you want. you cannot marry three women in France (not even in the US, actually). would you say that French laws are infringing on the rights of Muslim men who come from countries where plural marriages are allowed to have more than one wife? there is no religious obligation to wear a burka whatsoever.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I think you can object to something but still recognize the right of an individual to choose to wear it. I object to a lot of stupid t-shirts I see people wearing, but I don't see why I have the right to tell someone what to wear. And I also agree with the majority opinion that the burka/niqab are NOT actually mandated by Islam, but I still believe that women should have the right to wear them regardless.

Sure you can object to something but support the right of an individual to wear it. But still, I (and others from a moderate Muslim upbringing) see the burka/niqab as actually dangerous to women. Interestingly, the people I know who most *favor* a ban are Muslim women themselves. A lot of Muslim men are more "to each their own," but it's something that doesn't ever affect their gender.

How is the burka/niqab dangerous to women? And where does this end? If girls and women wear 'inappropriate clothing', can that not dangerous to them? Who are we to say what is dangerous clothing to women or men or anyone? Let's say a grown person chooses to wear a covering of his or her own volition. Why should the government tell him or her not to?

I don't like seeing people wearing certain things. I don't like my kids seeing certain items of clothing on people in public places. But that's part of life in a democratic society.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Given that the burka ban was debated, not on the grounds of security (which would have been silly), but on the grounds that wearing it "is against the values of the republic".
Given that, while a number of woman wearing it are forced by others to do so (and a ban will just result in them forced to stay trapped at home), a number of women have freely chosen to want to wear one.
Given that most women who want to wear one are not immigrants (since the countries of emigration don't have that awful tradition) but French born citizen (so the argument "if don't love it, leave it" doesn't apply.

I think we can paraphrase Voltaire and say, "I profoundly disagree and are deeply offended by your wearing the burka, but will fight for your right to wear it."

Meanwhile, France remains the only country in the West that has legislation telling people how they must or must not dress.

Well, to be fair, you can't run naked through a theater or shopping mall in Western countries, either. Most public schools have some sort of dress code. Government employees have some sort of dress code, even agencies that have dress-down days.

C'mon. Being naked in the street vs using some type of dress in the street is not comparable. We are not talking of a student with a t-shirt saying "convert to x or go to eternal hell!" - we are talking about wearing a religious symbol like a cross, headscarf, or kippah. And government employees in the us can, for instance, wear a kippah.

But government employees in France can't wear a kippah, either. That's the point.

I don't think the US is all that relevant to Muslima's point about this french law. But FWIW, US government employees in the US can wear a veil, and as a former US government worker I've seen many veils. I also saw memos telling us not to wear midriff-bearing shirts and tights to work, because those weren't in keeping with the workplace's values. But again, that's a different debate because the US has different laws.

The debate needs to go in one or two directions:
(1) Does DCUM think it's OK for France to ban public displays of all religions in public places, as long as the laws are applied equally.
(2) Does the French law target Muslims more than other religions. I.e., is not veiling more of a burden on Muslim women than not wearing a kippah or cross is on other folks

[Anonymous]

Are you really comparing polygamy with wearing certa in type of dress? Wow.

And, does Italy have legislation banning the burka explicitly? One can debate the security issue, but the French law was aimed at wearing the burka under the grounds of "going against our values. Does Italy have laws banning certain types of dress because it violates its values?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I think you can object to something but still recognize the right of an individual to choose to wear it. I object to a lot of stupid t-shirts I see people wearing, but I don't see why I have the right to tell someone what to wear. And I also agree with the majority opinion that the burka/niqab are NOT actually mandated by Islam, but I still believe that women should have the right to wear them regardless.

Sure you can object to something but support the right of an individual to wear it. But still, I (and others from a moderate Muslim upbringing) see the burka/niqab as actually dangerous to women. Interestingly, the people I know who most *favor* a ban are Muslim women themselves. A lot of Muslim men are more "to each their own," but it's something that doesn't ever affect their gender.

How is the burka/niqab dangerous to women? And where does this end? If girls and women wear 'inappropriate clothing', can that not dangerous to them? Who are we to say what is dangerous clothing to women or men or anyone? Let's say a grown person chooses to wear a covering of his or her own volition. Why should the government tell him or her not to?

I don't like seeing people wearing certain things. I don't like my kids seeing certain items of clothing on people in public places. But that's part of life in a democratic society.

How is it actually dangerous to women? It prohibits them from working, from participating in society. Either voluntarily or involuntarily, it segregates those women.

[Anonymous]

^^but some womenew choose to wear it...

[Anonymous]

^^ but some women choose to wear it...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Are you really comparing polygamy with wearing certa in type of dress? Wow.

And, does Italy have legislation banning the burka explicitly? One can debate the security issue, but the French law was aimed at wearing the burka under the grounds of "going against our values. Does Italy have laws banning certain types of dress because it violates its values?

I think that's an apt comparison. We outlaw polygamy in the US for safety (the girls are frequently very young and indoctrinated), rather than because of complications in tax and estate law. Arguably, it is fundamental to religion, it still is in FLDS. The mainstream LDS church has disavowed it. Sounds similar to a burka.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The day care case was for a *private* day care... again, most French people applauded her losing her appeal.

So we need to know what a French employer's rights are wrt to hiring people who might turn away clients. If the appeal was denied, it sounds like the employer had certain rights under the law, but I have no clue what these were. Anybody?

FWIW, a British nurse was fired recently for wearing a cross, and many British people apparently supported that. In other words, I wonder what "most" people were supporting here, and whether they were supporting naked discrimination vs. upholding a law about employer's rights.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I think you can object to something but still recognize the right of an individual to choose to wear it. I object to a lot of stupid t-shirts I see people wearing, but I don't see why I have the right to tell someone what to wear. And I also agree with the majority opinion that the burka/niqab are NOT actually mandated by Islam, but I still believe that women should have the right to wear them regardless.

Sure you can object to something but support the right of an individual to wear it. But still, I (and others from a moderate Muslim upbringing) see the burka/niqab as actually dangerous to women. Interestingly, the people I know who most *favor* a ban are Muslim women themselves. A lot of Muslim men are more "to each their own," but it's something that doesn't ever affect their gender.

How is the burka/niqab dangerous to women? And where does this end? If girls and women wear 'inappropriate clothing', can that not dangerous to them? Who are we to say what is dangerous clothing to women or men or anyone? Let's say a grown person chooses to wear a covering of his or her own volition. Why should the government tell him or her not to?

I don't like seeing people wearing certain things. I don't like my kids seeing certain items of clothing on people in public places. But that's part of life in a democratic society.

It's dangerous to women because it negates a significant part of communication. It renders public expression by women invisible. A smile, a smirk, an eyebrow raise, a nose crinkle. These may sound small, but in fact most human communication is non-verbal. It removes a considerable part of female communication from society, and it renders that acceptable to daughters of women wearing niqab, and boys and men to think this is ok.

Face coverings are NOT just a piece of clothing. Our faces are a major part of human communication and interaction. Face coverings are a barrier and silencing mechanism to women. You may find that dramatic, but these are not insignificant things.

[Anonymous]

^^but some women choose to wear it... are we going to tell them "we know what's good for you more than you know what's good for you"?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

It's dangerous to women because it negates a significant part of communication. It renders public expression by women invisible. A smile, a smirk, an eyebrow raise, a nose crinkle. These may sound small, but in fact most human communication is non-verbal. It removes a considerable part of female communication from society, and it renders that acceptable to daughters of women wearing niqab, and boys and men to think this is ok.

Face coverings are NOT just a piece of clothing. Our faces are a major part of human communication and interaction. Face coverings are a barrier and silencing mechanism to women. You may find that dramatic, but these are not insignificant things.

I understand that argument but I don't agree with it. If a person voluntarily chooses not to go outside and instead only uses the phone or computer for communication, that may be unfortunate and not ideal but it still that person's right. No one is forced to show their face in modern society unless they want to fly on a plane or get a driver's license. I think it's our job as parents to educate boys (and why only boys, why not girls as well?) that although we may not agree with that person's choice to wear a covering, we live in a free society and it's his/her choice to do so.