Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

http://news.uk.msn.com/world/articles.aspx?cp-documentid=151891504

What say you Dakka? I find this of great interest since I believe other countries will follow France's admittedly daring path. I am torn in two by this whole debate really; on the one hand I think that no government should dictate what people can and can't wear (beyond the obvious clothing with vulgar or inflammatory slogans) and on the other hand, I think nothing represents the opression of women more than the full body veil.

Can you post the story so that people behind work filters can read it? Cheers

I'm all for identification requiring the removal of the head scarf, it's simple useless if you don't. However aside from that there's no good reason to deny these women the right to wear what they want to.

Frankly mumus and spandex over size 6 need to be banned as well, for the good of the nation, and humanity.

Text for those working:

France backs partial veil ban

French parliamentary panel will recommend Tuesday a ban on face-covering Mslim veils in public areas from hospitals to schools but will stop short of pressing for the garb to be outlawed in the street, the panel's president says.
France has backed a partial ban on the wearing of Muslim veils in public.

A parliamentary inquiry recommended they be made illegal in all places of public services, including public transport.

It also said residence cards and citizenship should be refused to anyone with visible signs of a "radical religious practice."

Its report contains a series of measures intended to dissuade women from wearing all-enveloping veils.

But there is no call to outlaw them in private areas and in the street. The 32-member, multi-party panel heeded warnings that a full ban risked being deemed unconstitutional and could even cause trouble in a country where Islam is the second-largest religion.

The language in the report is carefully chosen in an effort to avoid offending France's estimated five million Muslims -- the largest population in western Europe - and accusations of discrimination.

Muslim leaders have already complained that the debate over the full veil coupled with an ongoing discussion on French national identity has already left some Muslims feeling their religion is becoming a government target.

The topic of the all-encompassing veil is charged with passion and politics, and the panel failed to reach a consensus on whether any action was warranted, and what kind, despite universal agreement that veils covering the face are not wanted in France.

The report culminates a six-month inquiry into the wearing of veils that began after President Nicolas Sarkozy said in June that they are "not welcome" on French territory.

The veil is widely viewed in France as a gateway to extremism, an insult to gender equality and an offence to France's secular foundation. A 2004 French law bans Muslim headscarves from primary and secondary school classrooms.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@Frazzled

That made me chuckle!

I'm more shocked as isn't france usually the ones who scream for human rights and equality all the time. On more then one occassion have condemed the U.S for their actions. Just rather well shocks me thats all..

Hmm France are quite hard line and right wing when it comes to things like this as far as I know.

filbert wrote:Hmm France are quite hard line and right wing when it comes to things like this as far as I know.

you would know better then I good sir.. closer in geographical nature then I Do they still have a socialist gov't?

Empchild wrote:

filbert wrote:Hmm France are quite hard line and right wing when it comes to things like this as far as I know.

you would know better then I good sir.. closer in geographical nature then I Do they still have a socialist gov't?

I am by no means an expert in French political machinations, but according to Wikipedia, the current incumbent, Nicolas Sarkozy, is right wing and defeated the socialists in the last election.

Last I checked, France has some major race issues.

This is just stupid. Its fear-based legislation that further removes individual human rights in favor of "feeling safe" for the ethnically centered population.

Then again it is France, so I am not surprised. I guess this just helps America become less of a Jihad target now, so maybe that's a good thing.

Well, many places in the UK banned people from wearing hoodies etc in certain locations (mostly shopping centres). And as far as I recall, you have to remove all headgear and facial coverings when you have a passport picture etc (though I have seen more than a few people with just their eyes showing - which is just stupid and quite dangerous).

I say good on France to be honest.

SilverMK2 wrote:Well, many places in the UK banned people from wearing hoodies etc in certain locations (mostly shopping centres). And as far as I recall, you have to remove all headgear and facial coverings when you have a passport picture etc (though I have seen more than a few people with just their eyes showing - which is just stupid and quite dangerous).

That's for shoplifting precautions though. What France is doing is picking out a certain religious identification and BANNING it.

I think what surprises me the most is that the European Court of Human Rights haven't got their teeth into the legislation yet - or maybe that's to come?

My feelings on this from a security perspective are;

---The security motivation can be dealt with by a requirement that people such as police or those in public office be able to request the veil be removed when necessary for security and safety reasons, such as travelling on planes, or even other forms of public transports such as buses and trains. Once this is done, security requirements would allow the veil to be restored.

---Certain locations monitored by CCTV could legitimately require veils to be removed as they are passed through. Where possible there could be some degree of segregation for those who wish to remove their veil in a more private way - for example, a mainstream route and a female only route, through which women would not be required by their religion to be hidden.

---Private companies such as banks and post offices or even restaurants and bookshops should be allowed to refuse entry and/or service if someone is unwilling to remove the veil for identification purposes. Once again, security considerations alone would then allow the veil to be restored.

I believe the three considerations above are real concerns that warrant immediate legislation requiring that women remove the veil temporarily for security reasons when requested to do so. Refusal to do so, depending on who is doing the asking, could result in legal consequences, denial of access of refusal of service. This legislation would need to be carefully written to protect people's rights without compromising other people's right to feel safe.

My feelings from an oppression point of view are;

---I believe that the burka in particular and body and face coverings in general are tools of oppression of men over women, predominantly for Arabic and other Islamic cultures. I do not regard it as a religious issue, but a cultural one. My belief at this time is that banning the wearing of extreme versions of these coverings such as the burka would liberate women, not oppress them.

---However, I am alert enough to understand that this is an issue in which my opinion is not necessarily the important one. I believe indepth analysis of the situation is needed, and that the only opinions that really matter are those of the women themselves. Having said that, it also needs to be understood that many women who wear these coverings may have already been "brainwashed" into thinking it is right, and not understand the position they have bene put in by their men.

There is a clear case for security reasons that the veil should be removed when necessary.

There is not a clear case that banning the wearing of the veil is for the good of the women who wear it. Although I believe banning it would be best for them, I cannot suggest forcing this course without further evidence I am right.

What troubles me is that whenever the BBC interviews these Muslim women and asks them if wearing the Burka is oppressive to them, they are at pains to point out that they believe in it and it is their choice etc etc.

Are they saying that because they truly believe that or are they saying it because they know if they come out in public denouncing it they will get a beating from their husbands behind the scenes?

It could be the matter that they believe they want to wear it. In the same way that a couple of hundred years ago, it would have been unseemly to go out without a hat, or to show any part of the body but the face and hands etc.

Social norms often influence religion as well as the other way round. My understanding is that Islam only requires that all people "dress modestly". This is interpreted by some to mean that women should cover their heads, and even their faces.

But you then see many "modern" muslim women who dress the same as any western woman, skirts, blouse, make-up etc, believing that they are covered up enough to retain their modesty.

They should wear those chav hoodie scarf combos, that way they can cover up and avoid the law.

Hey you know me, i think we are far far too tolerant of absurd religious traditions. If any religious tradition affects the life of people who are not practicing said religion then it should be scrutinized very heavily indeed.

Forcing a woman to wear one of those fething things (yes they do get forced) is offensive to almost everyone who has some regard for women.

Well done France, Britain will never have the balls to do the same, we have too many self loathing, hand wringing liberal apologists.

filbert wrote:I think what surprises me the most is that the European Court of Human Rights haven't got their teeth into the legislation yet - or maybe that's to come?

Someone will have to bring a case.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

mattyrm wrote:Hey you know me, i think we are far far too tolerant of absurd religious traditions. If any religious tradition affects the life of people who are not practicing said religion then it should be scrutinized very heavily indeed.

Forcing a woman to wear one of those fething things (yes they do get forced) is offensive to almost everyone who has some regard for women.

Well done France, Britain will never have the balls to do the same, we have too many self loathing, hand wringing liberal apologists.

The problem is there are many religious traditions from a number of faiths which a non-co-religionist might easily say are absurd. I won't mention any as it would be inflammatory.

Once you start to pick on one specific thing from one religion, it looks like discrimination.

mattyrm wrote:Hey you know me, i think we are far far too tolerant of absurd religious traditions. If any religious tradition affects the life of people who are not practicing said religion then it should be scrutinized very heavily indeed.

Forcing a woman to wear one of those fething things (yes they do get forced) is offensive to almost everyone who has some regard for women.

Well done France, Britain will never have the balls to do the same, we have too many self loathing, hand wringing liberal apologists.

Its not religious matty-its cultural. Nothing in the Koran says that women should wear a burkkha or its derivatives.

I don't know too much about French politics... I have visited twice, and have some friends there. They've mentioned that the French people tend to be wary of outsiders... not quite the same "melting pot" mentality of America where, once you're a citizen, you're basically in (although Americans are obviously not fully tolerant, either).

I'm actually in favor of this for France... I wouldn't want it for America since it violates so many of our rights/freedoms built into the constitution, but I hate the fact that people are forced to wear head scarves and full body coverings... even though many of them believe it's holy to do so...

I hear what your saying Krazy, as always, you make a sensible comment, but i cannot for the life of me think of any other religion that treats one portion of their society with as much scorn as Islam does women.

I think many religions are innately misogynistic, being as they were founded many many years ago, but i dont think any treat them as badly.

The Taliban went back to "real" Islam, and as a result women were banned from reading, writing, or leaving the house not dressed like a ninja.

Hamid Karzai has also just passed a law basically making it legal to rape your wife. Something that had me utterly aghast, as i did two tours on the premise we were "helping"

I didnt sign up to help legitamize rape. I have no taste for almost all of their "tradition"

I am not the one to defend the Koran, but its my understanding that NONE of those things derive from the Koran itself.

Frazzled wrote:

mattyrm wrote:Hey you know me, i think we are far far too tolerant of absurd religious traditions. If any religious tradition affects the life of people who are not practicing said religion then it should be scrutinized very heavily indeed.

Forcing a woman to wear one of those fething things (yes they do get forced) is offensive to almost everyone who has some regard for women.

Well done France, Britain will never have the balls to do the same, we have too many self loathing, hand wringing liberal apologists.

Its not religious matty-its cultural. Nothing in the Koran says that women should wear a burkkha or its derivatives.

Hush, he's pretending he knows what he's talking about. Just let him have fun. I for one dislike the idea of the ban. The security reasons are at best silly, and at worst an outright copout and lie, and france has abolustely no institutions forcing women to wear these, making it a purely cosmetic and intolerant law. What's next france? Minaret's?

I have read the koran cover to cover years ago, and believe me none of that is really in their. Namely it talks about holding yourself a higher standard in everything you do. Also remember it is much like the bible in todays society, a book of guidelines that have been warped and transfigured by the modern generations. Few sit down and read their respected holy book, only derive their knowledge from others thus making the preacher the one to inforce their own will. The burkha was a way for conservatives to drive down a womens rights and will. It is no different then me beating a child( yes I know bad assoc.) in the sense that I am breaking the will of that child so it makes it easier for me to enforce my own.

This is a tough one ... on the one hand if i walked into a shop wearing a balaclava people would be within their rights to A) ask me to leave or B) remove it. (C ... i would expect to have security round me very quickly)

I think the thing that clinches the veil has to be warn being nonsense is the fact that up to about the 80's most women did not wear it.

Also there has been some evidence that the text requiring women to wear them was a mistranslation and what it actually referred to was a Male chastity belt. This is a sore subject since the Koran is not meant have changed since it was written (but we've all played chines whispers , its easy for mistakes to happen)

It is no different then me beating a child( yes I know bad assoc.) in the sense that I am breaking the will of that child so it makes it easier for me to enforce my own.

The Bhurka is just a form of clothing, and has nothing to do with the institutionalized secondary role of women in islam. That is just as prevalent in christian religions, and for two thousand years all we needed was the book and the will to make women secondary citizens. The burkha is an adherence to a form of "social modesty" which is not in and of itself a concept that reduces rights. It's a symptom of what is a series of documents that are not particularly gender equal. Banning the burkha does nothing to improve the plight of women in muslim predominant countries, nor does it do anything at all for them in france.

Fifty wrote:---I believe that the burka in particular and body and face coverings in general are tools of oppression of men over women, predominantly for Arabic and other Islamic cultures. I do not regard it as a religious issue, but a cultural one. My belief at this time is that banning the wearing of extreme versions of these coverings such as the burka would liberate women, not oppress them.

Many Muslim women are of the opposite opinion. They feel that the hijab and veil liberate them from male scrutiny; giving them the opportunity to go about their lives without sexual attention. This is particularly evident in Turkey, but has also been the subject of a number of interview projects in Western countries where the degree of open sexualization is much higher than in other parts of the world.

But yes, it is a cultural issue rather than a religious one.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

mattyrm wrote:Hey you know me, i think we are far far too tolerant of absurd religious traditions. If any religious tradition affects the life of people who are not practicing said religion then it should be scrutinized very heavily indeed.

Forcing a woman to wear one of those fething things (yes they do get forced) is offensive to almost everyone who has some regard for women.

Well done France, Britain will never have the balls to do the same, we have too many self loathing, hand wringing liberal apologists.

Its not religious matty-its cultural. Nothing in the Koran says that women should wear a burkkha or its derivatives.

Hush, he's pretending he knows what he's talking about. Just let him have fun. I for one dislike the idea of the ban. The security reasons are at best silly, and at worst an outright copout and lie, and france has abolustely no institutions forcing women to wear these, making it a purely cosmetic and intolerant law. What's next france? Minaret's?

I wasnt pretending i knew what i was talking about Shuma, the whole quote was just me saying that i thought we were to tolerant of Religious tradition. Being as this was my opinion of a cultural phenomenon as opposed to an actual fact, such as a geographical location or suchlike, how could i be "pretending" i knew what i was talking about?

You should read things properly, or just keep on topic instead of spending your time trying to "needle" people.

Oh and yeah regards the thread, i disagree with you, i think that at the end of the day, we can all agree or disagree with certain things, certainly i think i am a libertarian in general, just not with regards to Islam! But if we wish to say that we do actually function as a democracy, and the majority of the French public support a ban (they do) then how can you argue Shuma?

Its a touchy subject to be sure, banning anything generally is. But if the majority support it then, well, its hard to disagree with any conviction isnt it?

mattyrm wrote:But if we wish to say that we do actually function as a democracy, and the majority of the French public support a ban (they do)...

Tyranny of the majority is still tyranny.