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

'when all American children have to sing their anthem every morning and most other countries do similar exercises in national pride? Any US citizen can name all the states, place them on a map and name their capitals.'

They do not have to sing along.

And many, many US nationals cannot name all 50 states or their capitals, unfortunately, or tell you where they are.

But that's neither here nor there.

France is a strong democracy and this regulation passed with popular support, so frankly I think people in the UK, who live in glass houses, shouldn't really hurl stones.

good points by Forkful. It is the same as our opposition to forced arranged marriages. We are imposing our cultural values on other cultures.

stripeywoollenhat - girls are expected to wear veils too!

But my comparison was more about the method used to stop behaviour (be it fully covering up or FGM) - just ban or use community education also plus I was wanting to counter some of these "choice" arguments - i.e. a woman choose's it so it must be ok.

If a Mum "chooses" FGM for her DD due to religion and culture then we (feminists) abhor that. Where is a line drawn so as to prevent individual freedom to prevent opression/harm etc?

A different religion with a different upset of values, as evidenced by the need to cover oneself head to toe.

Maybe they have scrapped the socialist bin police just to fool us that they are on the people's side. But, whatever they do, I think they will be far better than the last lot. Five more years of them and the country would have looked like East Germany under the Stasi.

"Englsih welsh, scots, irish, french, german etc etc converts who choose to wear the veil. Their values are clearly english welsh scots etc etc etc "

Absolutely not. They have chosen to live by a different set of values. That is what "convert" means.

Yes those things were introduced by the loving socialists. I think some are being repealed, but not sure.

Indymedia?

How lovely for you. -

Oh & btw, I'm not talking for them I'm talking for me.

Fortunately the Coalition has scrapped the anti civil liberty laws that New Labour introduced. So, so far, they have been a very good government, wedded to the liberty of the citizens. They even scrapped the bin police, let's hope they give us many more liberties.

Just googled it. I think there is possibly an element of truth in it. I think we are moving towards the right. I think politicians, such as Saarkozy, as blowing up minor issues out of all proportion in order to be popular. I think politicians may pick scapegoats and slowly remove the civil liberties of all citizens under the guise of the policies against the scapegoats. It is classic divide and rule. We got rid of the Big Brother socialists, but Big Brother may come back under another guise.

forkful - fgm is mainly imposed upon the bodies of children, who cannot give consent, and has an irreversible nature - it's impossible to make a simple comparison between physically mutilating a child and expecting an adult to wear a particular type of clothing.

No what is that? It sounds like that may well be the future our leaders are envisaging for us?

I understand what you are saying tethers. But policy makers in all countries are trying to work out the best way to create a harmonious society and integrate immigrants with society. It is a balance between separation and integration. Cameron, Merkel, Phillips, Sarkozy are slowly moving towards a more integrationist policy, which is a bit more like the French system. Labour introduced tests for immigrants and citizenship classes, which are relatively un-British in their coercive, forced integrationist approach. The British pride themselves on being free and don't want to bow to a flag etc., but some of these freedoms are being diminished as we move to a more state integrationist model. That is also what is happening in france with teh banning of the burqa. Freedoms are being revoked in order to achieve assimilation. It is not pleasant, because it may go to excess and lead to a Big Brother type society. We got rid of the Big Brother socialists and their bin police, but who knows we may get a Swiss system here as well, under the guise of integration.

Sorry have just realised the headscarf is a hijab not a niqab!

There's such a lot of sides to this argument aren't there?
Nobody likes to be told what to wear, and they shouldn't be, either by husband/father or by the state, but there are some double standards in here.

If any of us were to visit an eastern country we would be asked to cover up in public to some extent and not wear the clothes we might wear in the heat elsewhere in order to respect the culture of the country. Should respect for western culture extend to not covering the face?

If hoodies and crash helmets are not allowed in banks for security reasons should a burqa be? I have friends who wear the niqab (scarf covering hair) and most of them think that a burqa hinders communication, isolates the wearer, etc

I may be wrong here (I'm sure one of you will be able to tell me if I am) that wearing a burqa is not from the Qu'ran but is a cultural rule imposed by men. I don't like the state interfering in things like this but do think there comes a point where the west may have to stand up for its culture rather than allow other cultures to remain here but refuse to integrate or respect our values.

Read back up thread now - I see that some also agree with the ban.

I suspect that a ban without an education programme is a bit of a sledge hammer approach.

I hesitate to make this comparison ... but (I will do anyway) - those talking about choice for women etc - how about FGM? That is embedded in communities and often performed by women/supported by women (all be it within the patriarchial structure). Sucessful programmes to stamp this out in Africa have not just been "bans" but education programmes looking at human rights and involving and empowering communities of women. See Tostan Community Empowerment Programme.

In its purest definition, multiculturalism is simply the presence of more than one culture. We are no longer a monocultural society, therefore we are a multicultural one.

Of course, multiculturalism has acquired a slightly different meaning, one which alludes to a harmonious state of affairs where different cultures live cheek by jowl. However, to say that this has not been a success is not to say that multiculturalism does not exist- assimilation is a policy which is hard to impose on a multicultural society such as ours, where different cultures do live (relatively) harmoniously side by side.

I'm not being very clear, am I?

Sorry not read whole thread.

I was interested to see Yasmin Alibhai-Brown in the Guardian on this and also an article in the Independent.

She seems to be saying she's glad it is being banned but not happy about how/why.

This struck me:

Years ago, I warned that the simple headscarf (hijab) was but the first step to full fabric incarceration. I was mocked and disparaged then by Muslim adherents, as well as many on the left. To them, such challenges to cultural practices validate bigotry and threaten liberties. Their laudable concern makes criticism impossibly difficult. Now they are everywhere, ravens, in burka (long cloaks) and niqab (face veils), their little girls scarved and in cumbersome long coats (in training, I am told) for that big day when they too can go into prisons of black polyester.

So it seems in this country to be a new and growing phenomonen.

Personally when I see a woman in a veil I feel sad, especially when I see her with a DH and DC in western clothes.

I wonder how many women will be forced to stay at home completely now that they can't go out and cover up?

Overall I think I agree with it being banned in order to minimise the relgious and cultural pressure to wear it.