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

[steamedtreaclesponge]

Here

I'm not really sure what I think about all this. On the one hand the veil is used as a tool of oppression in many countries, and I'm generally against it on the grounds that if men can't control their lust at seeing women's faces, they should stay inside, rather than making women cover up.

But then, it doesn't sit right with me that women who wear it out of choice are being arrested. Or is it comparable to the choice to become a stripper, in that it may be an OK and not-so-harmful choice to make for the person doing it, but is something that harms other women by encouraging anti-feminist or mysogynistic attitudes?

I'd welcome some more informed views on this...

Yes, and hence the popular support for the burqa ban.

The fact that the ban is supported by the majority of French citizens does not make it right, CoteDAzur. Amnesty agrees:

"As a general rule, the rights to freedom of religion and expression entail that all people should be free to choose what - and what not - to wear. These rights cannot be restricted simply because some - even a majority -- find a form of dress objectionable or offensive."

I didn't say "majority makes right". Read my post again.

What about the right not to be subjected to sexual discrimination?

Incidentally, the right to do as one pleases is limited by the legal framework. The French debated and voted on the issue, so now it is a law, which should be respected.

Lets face it, burkha is one side of a very complex issue at the heart of which French (and British) attitude to sharia law, strict islamic dress-code, role of women in society, etc.

I have posted on the other thread yesterday, but the Dutch are going to vote on whether to ban halal and kosher meat, as animals are subjected to unacceptable suffering. Does ones right to eat such meats stand above animals right to painless death? Some think "yes", some think "no"...

Although, it is right, for the reasons I mentioned below.

AI is looking at this wrong - This is not about freedom to wear what you want, and the ban certainly isn't put in place because burqas are offensive.

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.

It is this mentality that is offensive, not some piece of cloth.

"animals are subjected to unacceptable suffering"

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

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.

"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".

"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)

Oh, right. You prefer to snipe. Shame.

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

"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.

"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.

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.

"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.

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 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.

"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.

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?

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?

Sorry, Auld!

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

Thanks, Auld. I was beginning to despair.