Women arrested for wearing burqas in France... what do you think?

Good luck to any government that allows the production of foie gras, or that dish involving a blinded live bird, or indeed the way Dutch pork farms are allowed to keep pigs (far lower welfare standards than UK pig farms), with making a logical case for banning halal or kosher slaughter on humane grounds!

I'm not in favour of banning things. But if the French really want to ban something, could they please ban President boxed Camembert. It tastes like cardboard and we've had one in my family for three generations and it still hasn't ripened.

Just watched the last bit of 'The Victorians' on BBC2 which mentioned the 'Dress reform' campaigns at the turn of the 20th century so that women did not feel obliged to wear crushing corsetry which prevented them from fully taking part in society. Interesting parallels.

I've watched more than one ritual slaughter (children were seen as considerably less delicate back then) and can't say I've witnessed any prolonged suffering.

Basically, animal is hung upside down and a single deep gash is done to it's throat. It bleeds out in under a minute.

My one experience of excessive bleeding left me with the impression that bleeding out feels like going to sleep. I can't be sure, of course, but I'm a bit skeptical about "excessive suffering".

My brother who, although male, is ever so ever so clever, and politically active and has lived in France says this:

I suppose both sides have a point. It must be remembered that France is not, and never has been, a liberal society. It doesn't have a Liberal party, and what the French call 'libéralisme' we would call Thatcherism, which is not the same thing at all. /Laïcité/ is an important part of French identity: Christians have for years been subject to curbs on their freedom of expression and assembly in France. The French government is only being consistent...

He also says this:

Germany, for example, does prohibit covering one's face under certain circumstances, such as when attending a demonstration. Sure, we all wrap up warm in cold weather: but if, say, a police officer asked me to remove my scarf for identification, I would happily do so. The sort of people who cover their faces for religious reasons would probably make a fuss and call it harassment. These are not stupid rules. Igor's point about security is well made. Why should motorcyclists have to take their crash helmets off before entering a bank if Muslim women don't have to take off their veils? Indeed, who is to say that it's a Muslim woman behind that veil? It could be a white atheist man in disguise (indeed, the BBC correspondent John Simpson got into Kabul disguised in a burqa).

Good points I feel.

"Sigh?"

Is that you 'letting go'?

How incredibly childish.

I am baffled as to why you are still so wound up. Let go, it's over. Sorry to disappoint, but the only thing I'll be sleeping on tonight is (French-ha!) bedlinen- I'm afraid I won't be giving you or this thread a second thought.

Cote, regarding Halal slaughter, I understand some animal right organizations are supporting the ban on the basis that the is no pre-killing stunning that makes death painless. The animal is essentially left dying from blood loss. I am frankly not qualified to discuss the detail as I am very uneasy about killing of any kind, but I am sure you can find arguments pro and against with ease yourself. I am not making the stance on halal btw.

Thanks, Auld. I was beginning to despair.

Sleep on it tonight. Maybe you will understand tomorrow. Sigh.

Sorry, Auld!

Gosh, I wish I was quoted this often in professional spheres.

The law reflects the secular nature of French society rather than being intended to preserve it.

Does that help?

Just say you posted your views in a way that made you sound like you were justifying the ban with its popularity.

Only you're clearly not going to say that. And I'm not going to back down either.

I'm giving you an 'agree to disagree' option, and you're refusing it until I say I was wrong. Why? Where does that leave us?

In an endless cycle of pedantry, that's where.

I agree that this is a waste of time- which is why I am keen to move on.

Do you think you can?

"This is about the medieval mentality that says women should be hidden from view lest men see a knee or a nose and are aroused beyond reason. The French don't want this mentality in their midst and rightly so as it goes against the very fibre of Frenchness, firmly secular and built on the tenet of Equality. "

Apart from yours, there have been many posts over the course of the thread which have attributed this ban to the preservation of the secular state.

I am getting a bit short on patience, especially since you are still insisting that what I said could be interpreted in the nonsensical and illogical way that you misunderstood it to mean.

Just say you misunderstood and move on. This is a waste of time.

Cote, you are coming across quite aggressively. Did you mean to?

I had thoroughly enjoyed this debate. I am genuinely sad that it has become this snippy over one sentence.

You referring to majority support for the ban "because there are right reasons for it" in the way that you did is just as easily read as "the ban is right because it is well supported".

Even if that were not the case, a simple "That's not what I meant" would have done, rather than "Read my posts again". I accept that that was not what you meant, but I am disappointed by the way you told me.

Rather than spend the next fifty pages discussing that sentence or flouncing from what had been a very enjoyable thread, perhaps we could just agree to leave it and continue discussing the issue?

"I am disputing the assertion that this ban was borne of concern for the preservation of the secular state"

And why exactly would you want to dispute an assertion that nobody made?

We didn't say Sarkozy came up with the idea of the burqa ban because he is an idealist. We are not denying that he is angling to win votes. What we said is that the French people overwhelmingly support this burqa ban because they don't want this medieval mentality in their midst.

I'm still not sure you understand what "secular" means. "Preservation of the secular state" has very little to do with the burqa ban. Some women with bin liners over their head does not threaten to bring religion into the government.

I see the confusion. My last sentence:

If France were as secular as it is trying to make out over the niqab issue, then Sarkozy would not need to canvass Catholic votes in such a transparent way.

was referring to France's population and was really not clear. In fact, I should not have used the word "secular" there at all, but perhaps "as committed to secularism"

Apologies.

"Snipe"?

I used very simple English and am frankly flabbergasted that you refuse to understand it.

Auld: Sarkozy had wrong reasons but there are also right reasons
CDA: Yes, that is why most people support this ban

Clearly, meaning majority supported ban because there are right reasons for it.

And you are acting like I've said ban must be right because majority supported it.

I have not said that.

So yes, do read those very simple sentences again.

"Those examples you gave were actually Sarkozy going after nationalist & anti-immigrant Le Pen electorate, rather than Catholic votes, but anyway..."

In France, those votes are very closely linked- in many areas, they are one and the same. It is well known that Sarkozy courts the Catholic vote- I gave examples of him doing so. It's bizarre that you would try and say that they aren't

He woos the non-Catholic far right voters by dismantling Roma camps.

I am well aware of the meaning of 'secular', thanks all the same. I am disputing the assertion that this ban was borne of concern for the preservation of the secular state.

Oh, right. You prefer to snipe. Shame.

FWIW, I didn't get any of that from your post.

"France, in its secular wisdom, continues to allow nuns to dress as my link above"

I don't see how nuns' attire is comparable to this at all, for many reasons.

You do realize that not all religiously significant clothing is banned in France? There are many women wearing the Muslim headscarf, for example.

"If France were as secular as it is trying to make out over the niqab issue, then Sarkozy would not need to canvass Catholic votes in such a transparent way."

Those examples you gave were actually Sarkozy going after nationalist & anti-immigrant Le Pen electorate, rather than Catholic votes, but anyway...

Sarkozy going after these votes does not mean France is not secular. A candidate facing election will court many different interest groups, that is normal and expected. France is secular because state has no religion (unlike the UK) and religion is left to individuals with no state encouragement. The only place you see religion is in places like churches, synagogues, and mosques. (This is one of many instances when I have felt on this thread that some people don't really know what the word "secular" means)

"Your post "Yes, and hence the popular support for the burqa ban." coming after Auld's "Sarko is indeed not doing it for the right reasons. That doesn't mean there are no right reasons.", does imply that you think that the fact that the ban is so well supported justifies it."

No, actually it doesn't.

It means "Yes Auld, I agree with you. There are indeed right reasons for this ban. That is why the vast majority of French citizens, including many Muslims, have supported this ban - for the right reasons. Not because they love Sarkozy so much. In fact, as you know, Auld, Sarkozy's approval ratings are so low at the moment that he is lagging behind Le Pen".

Cote, one of the best things about this thread is that the debate has been reasoned and civil on both sides- some of the arguments for the ban have very nearly convinced me- but not quite

Your post "Yes, and hence the popular support for the burqa ban." coming after Auld's "Sarko is indeed not doing it for the right reasons. That doesn't mean there are no right reasons.", does imply that you think that the fact that the ban is so well supported justifies it. I am disappointed that you felt the need to tell me to read your post again. I wasn't being hostile towards you, and I'm sorry if that's how I came across. I think it would be a shame if we began to snipe at one another...

I agree with you about the medieval mentality. I abhor the niqab and the burkha for the very same reasons as you. I just disagree with a ban.

And France, in its secular wisdom, continues to allow nuns to dress as my link above, even though the cornette may be a little out of fashion

As for this ban coming from secular sensibilities, Sarkozy does go pretty far to woo the catholic electorate for somebody so concerned with preserving France's secular principles; he launched his 2007 election at the Breton island abbey of Mont Saint-Michel, said Pope John Paul III was the figure he ?admired the most? and that ?the roots of France are essentially Christian?.

He has criticised France?s ?aggressive and sectarian secularism? and called for a ?positive secularism? that recognises the value of religion without favouring one faith over another.

If France were as secular as it is trying to make out over the niqab issue, then Sarkozy would not need to canvass Catholic votes in such a transparent way.

"animals are subjected to unacceptable suffering"

How so? My understanding is that halal killing of animals is meant to be swift, minimizing suffering.