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.

Agree with all of this. I am not surprised that the majority of French people are in support of such a law, but I am surprised that the law was adopted. I am glad and I hope that such a law would never be created in the US.

The French law was adopted with *overwhelming* support from all factions in the French congress.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Do you think people should be allowed to wear crosses or yarmulkes in public places, including government, public hospitals and public schools?

YES, they don't hide your freaking face, do they?

Well, in France, they are not allowed...

A woman who wore a headscarf (not a burka) in a day care was asked to remove it. She refused, and got fired. She appealed, and lost her appeal. Most of the French public applauded the fact that she lost her appeal. Google baby loup for more information.

In Britain and France and Italy, people get fired for wearing yarmulkes, crosses, and posting crosses in the classroom all the time. Google it. It would be nice to hear your outrage about that.

PP. I should clarify my point, which was that France applies this law equally to all religions, as it should. To the extent that France has a law banning displays of religion in public places, it should apply these laws equally to all religions and it does, and I support that.

I'm not sure whether the French daycare in question was public or private, and what french law is in regards to private employment. It would help to have clarification on this.

FWIW, in the US we bar public school teachers from promoting their religion, or their atheism, in the classroom. That's our law, and I fully support it, and I also fully support it being applied equally to all religions and to atheists (before anybody goes nuts, I wholeheartedly support teaching evolution in the schools).

France's economy probably contributes to terrorism. The unemployment rate among teens and 20-somethings is huge, resulting in a lot of bored young men, and that's never a good thing. There's an ongoing debate about whether France's employment laws do more to protect workers or hinder hiring. I'm happy to have that debate.

So, as you can see, I'm resisting the argument that a sense of victimhood -- due to racist cartoons or the headscarf laws -- justifies terrorism. Victimhood, no matter how large or small, never justifies terrorism. There is free speech to oppose these laws, and there is democracy to vote them out.

I think the combination of French strict (overly rigid?) secularism, strong preference for uniformity and for everyone needing to fit into the "French mode" of doing things, treatment of immigrants in the past 50 years (confining them in the banlieues), rising xenophobia, economic and political sclerosis, high unemployment for low skilled youth, and rising radicalism among a (small) segment of the young Muslim population is a recipe for problems. Fortunately, we in the US are doing better (at least a little bit better) in these fronts.

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.


Agree with all of this. I am not surprised that the majority of French people are in support of such a law, but I am surprised that the law was adopted. I am glad and I hope that such a law would never be created in the US.

The French have a very brutal record in North Africa and their Intel agencies are not constrained. They have a very intense and active domestic anti terrorist operation. The things they do would shock people if they happened in the U.S. They already have the names of the shooters and will catch them soon. They have not let the country.

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.

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.

Anonymous wrote:
In Britain and France and Italy, people get fired for wearing yarmulkes, crosses, and posting crosses in the classroom all the time. Google it. It would be nice to hear your outrage about that.

I'm not very excited about the fact that people can't wear religious symbols in a classroom, although I can understand it to some extent. But I don't think that is the same as wearing a religious symbol in public.

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.

Agree with all of this. I am not surprised that the majority of French people are in support of such a law, but I am surprised that the law was adopted. I am glad and I hope that such a law would never be created in the US.

I recall a poll in the US a few years ago saying that a majority of Americans wouldn't support such a ban.

I must agree that a democratic society, based upon the principle of full participation by every member, is incompatible with the burka. In America, we allow some to separate or opt out, because we are confident. Or arrogant.

European countries are less heterogeneous, and unwilling to tolerate separateness. In Germany, homeschooling is banned, all children must be publicly indoctrinated. In France, uniformity of dress is important.

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 goverment employees in the us can, for instance, wear a kippah.

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.

Agree with all of this. I am not surprised that the majority of French people are in support of such a law, but I am surprised that the law was adopted. I am glad and I hope that such a law would never be created in the US.

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

^limb

^^ and again, the burka ban was debated as a matter of values, not as a matter of security, so we're really going on a limp.

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Why would the burka ban being debated on the grounds of security be "silly"? Burkas have been used to hide gender and weapons in multiple instances.

I'm convinced. Let's ban Halloween costumes. Halloween masks get used in bank robberies all the time (at least according to the movies I watch which is my only reference point, but probably as accurate as PP's).

Now that's silly, and basically a straw man. Moreover, your average mask-wearing bank robber also enters the bank brandishing a weapon and yelling "hands up!"

Black pants and jackets have been used more often than burkas. The terrorists will just put the mask at the moment of attack. Or they don't care about their exposed faces.

"Watch out for that little lady in a burka! She might be a terrorist! OF COURSE she doesn't want to draw attention on her -- that's why she is wearing a burka in the middle of Paris!"

I think terrorists will think of ways to disguise and draw less attention on themselves other than wearing a burka in the middle of an European capital.