Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

France contemplates banning the niqāb (face veil)

1356789

Posts

  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Rent wrote: »
    Most people in this thread don't seem to understand: Most Muslims living in France are African immigrants, with a huge percentage of those being illegals

    Basically the situation with them in France is very analogous to Mexicans in California, except a whole lot worse in a lot of different ways

    Would you be okay with a ban in California for overtly Catholic paraphernalia (such as crosses with Jesus on them, etc)?

    No, because Jesus on a cross on a necklace isn't oppressive or making it difficult for law enforcement to do their fucking job.

    Then why aren't they banning all clothing that obscures the face?

    tea-1.jpg
  • dispatch.odispatch.o Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    moniker wrote: »
    dispatch.o wrote: »
    japan wrote: »
    dispatch.o wrote: »
    the best shot Islam has at being taken seriously by the rest of the world as a religion, and not as a crazy bombers cult that has some shit to do with virgins in there somewhere.

    Wow.

    Just, wow.

    Don't be a silly goose. You can quote the entire sentence or nothing at all.

    "It's pretty draconian to keep your women in an executioners hood, it will take several generations but having a face to display as a normal human being is the best shot Islam has at being taken seriously by the rest of the world as a religion, and not as a crazy bombers cult that has some shit to do with virgins in there somewhere."

    Repeating it in whole doesn't make it less stupid.

    Just to be sure, though, is your primary problem with Hamas truly not its corruption of religion, but its fashion sense?

    If you think that sentence wasn't meant to be a little stupid, I'm sorry? It's pretty clearly half hyperbole / joke to me, I don't know what to tell you.

    I do believe that having a face is important, especially when it comes to communicating with others. It may not be wrong for some women to want to be subservient or simply practice some stuff that's written in an old book, but a face is one of primary ways we express emotion. You could argue emotion is a big part of being human.

    Is this good? Meh, not really. It's targeted at a single group and a single piece of garb, it's being done for the wrong reasons, but some good may eventually come out of it in the long term.

  • RentRent I'm always right Fuckin' deal with itRegistered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Rent wrote: »
    Most people in this thread don't seem to understand: Most Muslims living in France are African immigrants, with a huge percentage of those being illegals

    Basically the situation with them in France is very analogous to Mexicans in California, except a whole lot worse in a lot of different ways

    Would you be okay with a ban in California for overtly Catholic paraphernalia (such as crosses with Jesus on them, etc)?

    No, because Jesus on a cross on a necklace isn't oppressive or making it difficult for law enforcement to do their fucking job.

    Too bad I don't give a shit about how hard I make life for some racist french cop

  • Golden YakGolden Yak Burnished Bovine The PIT, level 26Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    dispatch.o wrote: »
    It's pretty draconian to keep your women in an executioners hood

    But what if they want to wear it, like the woman in that interview? She does it because it means something important to her, not because she's forced to.

    sotsgpsteam_banner.jpg
  • dispatch.odispatch.o Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    dispatch.o wrote: »
    I'm all for banning all pervasive symbols of religion. This includes people who wear huge gold chains with crosses on them and silly hats the pope wears.

    This seems fair to me.

    In what possible sense is that fair?

    In regards to the OP's question of "where does circumcision fall on this scale" my answer is that it's an utterly fucking barbaric practise that should have been banned a century ago.

    This was reference to the prior sentence. If you're going to ban something for one group, it may not be right or generally wanted but you need to ban similar items across the board. You ban the ankh or pentacle, you have to ban the cross and star of david too.

    Will it happen? Probably not.

    edit: To be clear, I think ninja hoods and ladies panties stretched over your face and whatnot that obscure your vision or make you impossible to identify are a bad idea in public as well.

  • LeitnerLeitner Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Golden Yak wrote: »
    dispatch.o wrote: »
    It's pretty draconian to keep your women in an executioners hood

    But what if they want to wear it, like the woman in that interview? She does it because it means something important to her, not because she's forced to.

    How do you think the number of women who want to wear it compare to the number who are pressured into wearing it? Or do you think those women are completely free from being subtly influenced into wanting to wear it? Either way, gendered clothing as dramatic as that strikes me as quetionable under any circumstance.

  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    dispatch.o wrote: »
    If you think that sentence wasn't meant to be a little stupid, I'm sorry? It's pretty clearly half hyperbole / joke to me, I don't know what to tell you.

    I do believe that having a face is important, especially when it comes to communicating with others. It may not be wrong for some women to want to be subservient or simply practice some stuff that's written in an old book, but a face is one of primary ways we express emotion. You could argue emotion is a big part of being human.

    Is this good? Meh, not really. It's targeted at a single group and a single piece of garb, it's being done for the wrong reasons, but some good may eventually come out of it in the long term.

    Apparently you would be incapable of interacting with people outside my home right now because a lot of people cover their face if they plan on being outdoors for a prolonged period.

    And frankly I don't see what reasoning women use in choosing how to dress the they want is any of the State's business.

    tea-1.jpg
  • Grid SystemGrid System Registered User
    edited February 2010
    japan wrote: »
    It's probably as good a time as any to point out that I really wasn't kidding with that "Are Muslims the new Jews?" comment in the OP.

    Some of the comments in here give me a serious 1930s Germany vibe.
    Pre-Nuremberg, Jews in Germany were considerably more enfranchised and established than Muslims are in France.

    The comparison is still pretty apt though.

  • TheStigTheStig Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    See if I was a Muslim woman France I would just start wearing a really thin scarf and sunglasses then I'd be all like "now what France, now what!?"

    the-place-beyond-the-pines-03_thumb_zps3d4e0ec7.jpg
    360: Sir Stiggleton PSN: Stiggy_PA GFWL: RacerStig Steam: TheStig
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Leitner wrote: »
    Golden Yak wrote: »
    dispatch.o wrote: »
    It's pretty draconian to keep your women in an executioners hood

    But what if they want to wear it, like the woman in that interview? She does it because it means something important to her, not because she's forced to.

    How do you think the number of women who want to wear it compare to the number who are pressured into wearing it? Or do you think those women are completely free from being subtly influenced into wanting to wear it? Either way, gendered clothing as dramatic as that strikes me as quetionable under any circumstance.

    How does banning the niqab confront that societal pressure? This is using a meataxe instead of a scalpel, and working under the assumption that something needs to be sliced in the first place.

    tea-1.jpg
  • dispatch.odispatch.o Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    moniker wrote: »
    dispatch.o wrote: »
    If you think that sentence wasn't meant to be a little stupid, I'm sorry? It's pretty clearly half hyperbole / joke to me, I don't know what to tell you.

    I do believe that having a face is important, especially when it comes to communicating with others. It may not be wrong for some women to want to be subservient or simply practice some stuff that's written in an old book, but a face is one of primary ways we express emotion. You could argue emotion is a big part of being human.

    Is this good? Meh, not really. It's targeted at a single group and a single piece of garb, it's being done for the wrong reasons, but some good may eventually come out of it in the long term.

    Apparently you would be incapable of interacting with people outside my home right now because a lot of people cover their face if they plan on being outdoors for a prolonged period.

    And frankly I don't see what reasoning women use in choosing how to dress the they want is any of the State's business.


    You would be less capable of showing visual facial emotion cues outside in the snow with your face covered and gloves on than you are inside with normal clothing. Strawman is nice though.

  • FeralFeral Who needs a medical license when you've got style? Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    In regards to the OP's question of "where does circumcision fall on this scale" my answer is that it's an utterly fucking barbaric practise that should have been banned a century ago.

    if an adult wants to have it done, that's fine. It's just like any other BMEZine-level severe body modification. And in infants it's occasionally medically necessary. But I agree with the point I think you're making, which is that parents shouldn't be allowed to do it to their kids without a valid medical reason any more than they should be able to do those forked-tongue bodymods to their kids as infants.

    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
    the "no true scotch, man" fallacy.
  • AegisAegis Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    France really tends towards the attempted homogenization of non-France ethnicities into their conception of the "French" identity. So this isn't terribly surprising, given past actions in line with attempting to shove minorities into being more French.

    And notwithstanding the symbol of oppression that the face-veil may represent in some instances, though I don't necessarily have an offhand source, but I keep remembering that a fair number of French Muslim women that this will affect wear it by choice.

    Currently DMing: None right now! :(
    Characters
    [5e] Myriil Amarthen - AC 17 | HP 14 | Melee +6/1d6+4 | Spell +5/DC 13
  • FeralFeral Who needs a medical license when you've got style? Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Aegis wrote: »
    I keep remembering that a fair number of French Muslim women that this will affect wear it by choice.

    "by choice" is a really sticky phrase when we're talking about sexist oppression. There are a great many things people will do "by choice" when they've been raised from birth to believe that they're something less than human.

    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
    the "no true scotch, man" fallacy.
  • japanjapan Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    dispatch.o wrote: »
    You would be less capable of showing visual facial emotion queues outside in the snow with your face covered and gloves on than you are inside with normal clothing. Strawman is nice though.

    Speaking personally, if I'm going to the effort of covering my face in the first place, I don't generally go to the trouble of removing it unless it's somewhere I'm going to be for longer than an hour. Buying train tickets? Grabbing a couple of things from the shop on the way home? Face is staying covered.

    Still, I question the importance of someone being able to pick up facial emotional cues in public life.

  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    dispatch.o wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    dispatch.o wrote: »
    If you think that sentence wasn't meant to be a little stupid, I'm sorry? It's pretty clearly half hyperbole / joke to me, I don't know what to tell you.

    I do believe that having a face is important, especially when it comes to communicating with others. It may not be wrong for some women to want to be subservient or simply practice some stuff that's written in an old book, but a face is one of primary ways we express emotion. You could argue emotion is a big part of being human.

    Is this good? Meh, not really. It's targeted at a single group and a single piece of garb, it's being done for the wrong reasons, but some good may eventually come out of it in the long term.

    Apparently you would be incapable of interacting with people outside my home right now because a lot of people cover their face if they plan on being outdoors for a prolonged period.

    And frankly I don't see what reasoning women use in choosing how to dress the they want is any of the State's business.

    You would be less capable of showing visual facial emotion queues outside in the snow with your face covered and gloves on than you are inside with normal clothing. Strawman is nice though.

    And yet I'm still able to carry on full conversations with people at the L stop.

    tea-1.jpg
  • HamHamJHamHamJ Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    After reading some articles on this in The Economist and elsewhere, I believe that:

    France, and many other countries in western Europe, have a very different perspective on religion and it's relationship to government and public life than we do here in the US, because of a different history. America was settled in large part by people seeking free expression of religion. In the founding of their government, they were worried mostly about making sure no one religion was able to use government to persecute the other ones. Frankly it's a marvel that the various Protestant sects managed to co-exist as peacefully as they did.

    But Europe has a history of religious wars and turmoils. As such I think there was and is a far greater concern that religion needs to be kept out of not only government, but public life in general. The European idea of secularism is to keep religion a private matter. Not only as a private choice (which is something that is true also in America) but as refraining as much as possible from public expression.

    While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
  • AegisAegis Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Feral wrote: »
    Aegis wrote: »
    I keep remembering that a fair number of French Muslim women that this will affect wear it by choice.

    "by choice" is a really sticky phrase when we're talking about sexist oppression. There are a great many things people will do "by choice" when they've been raised from birth to believe that they're something less than human.

    This seems to presuppose that the symbol is actually having an effect in all cases. When I say "by choice" I'm referring to women who wear it and don't think as a symbol of oppression or as something that is required, but rather because they like other cultural or aesthetic aspects it provides them.

    Currently DMing: None right now! :(
    Characters
    [5e] Myriil Amarthen - AC 17 | HP 14 | Melee +6/1d6+4 | Spell +5/DC 13
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Feral wrote: »
    Aegis wrote: »
    I keep remembering that a fair number of French Muslim women that this will affect wear it by choice.

    "by choice" is a really sticky phrase when we're talking about sexist oppression. There are a great many things people will do "by choice" when they've been raised from birth to believe that they're something less than human.

    Yes, and banning those things they would otherwise choose to do doesn't really address the underlying issue.

    tea-1.jpg
  • Grid SystemGrid System Registered User
    edited February 2010
    Feral wrote: »
    Aegis wrote: »
    I keep remembering that a fair number of French Muslim women that this will affect wear it by choice.

    "by choice" is a really sticky phrase when we're talking about sexist oppression. There are a great many things people will do "by choice" when they've been raised from birth to believe that they're something less than human.

    By the same token, we probably shouldn't assume that these women have no agency if we know nothing about them, save a few details about their wardrobe.

  • LeitnerLeitner Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    moniker wrote: »
    How does banning the niqab confront that societal pressure? This is using a meataxe instead of a scalpel, and working under the assumption that something needs to be sliced in the first place.

    I don't know. But you don't consider the usage of the niqab as problematic? Because any way I look at it strikes me as problematic. From a sexist imposition upon women, to these women feeling they need to wear it so that they are not judged by a society that puts such a heavy emphasis upon physical attractivness. Let alone the fact that this is solely aimed at and used by women, which in and of itself makes the previously mentioned issues worse.

  • GoslingGosling Looking Up Soccer In Mongolia Right Now, Probably Watertown, WIRegistered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Feral wrote: »
    Aegis wrote: »
    I keep remembering that a fair number of French Muslim women that this will affect wear it by choice.

    "by choice" is a really sticky phrase when we're talking about sexist oppression. There are a great many things people will do "by choice" when they've been raised from birth to believe that they're something less than human.

    Doesn't mean you have to force them in the other direction. What matters is that they have the opportunity to make something of themselves. Whatever they choose to wear in that pursuit shouldn't be an issue. It should be their call one way or the other.

    Banning the niqab, and forcing the niqab, are really two sides of the same coin: forcing women to dress or not dress in a certain way.

    I have a blog. Read it. Blog-reading makes you pretty and popular.
  • AegisAegis Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    After reading some articles on this in The Economist and elsewhere, I believe that:

    France, and many other countries in western Europe, have a very different perspective on religion and it's relationship to government and public life than we do here in the US, because of a different history. America was settled in large part by people seeking free expression of religion. In the founding of their government, they were worried mostly about making sure no one religion was able to use government to persecute the other ones. Frankly it's a marvel that the various Protestant sects managed to co-exist as peacefully as they did.

    But Europe has a history of religious wars and turmoils. As such I think there was and is a far greater concern that religion needs to be kept out of not only government, but public life in general. The European idea of secularism is to keep religion a private matter. Not only as a private choice (which is something that is true also in America) but as refraining as much as possible from public expression.

    There's two issue at play here, though I think the religious aspect is the less active one.

    On the one hand, yes, religion. It's France. The French Revolution, yadda yadda.

    However, France since the Revolution has always actively sought assimilation of its ethnic minorities (traditionally linguistic minorities, but in the last few decades this has morphed into racial/religious minorities through Muslim immigration mainly from Africa). I would see this as far more a move towards ethnic assimilation than trying to preserve religious separation, though I could see where the religious argument is used as a cover.

    Currently DMing: None right now! :(
    Characters
    [5e] Myriil Amarthen - AC 17 | HP 14 | Melee +6/1d6+4 | Spell +5/DC 13
  • HamHamJHamHamJ Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Aegis wrote: »
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    After reading some articles on this in The Economist and elsewhere, I believe that:

    France, and many other countries in western Europe, have a very different perspective on religion and it's relationship to government and public life than we do here in the US, because of a different history. America was settled in large part by people seeking free expression of religion. In the founding of their government, they were worried mostly about making sure no one religion was able to use government to persecute the other ones. Frankly it's a marvel that the various Protestant sects managed to co-exist as peacefully as they did.

    But Europe has a history of religious wars and turmoils. As such I think there was and is a far greater concern that religion needs to be kept out of not only government, but public life in general. The European idea of secularism is to keep religion a private matter. Not only as a private choice (which is something that is true also in America) but as refraining as much as possible from public expression.

    There's two issue at play here, though I think the religious aspect is the less active one.

    On the one hand, yes, religion. It's France. The French Revolution, yadda yadda.

    However, France since the Revolution has always actively sought assimilation of its ethnic minorities (traditionally linguistic minorities, but in the last few decades this has morphed into racial/religious minorities through Muslim immigration mainly from Africa). I would see this as far more a move towards ethnic assimilation than trying to preserve religious separation, though I could see where the religious argument is used as a cover.

    Well, the belief in a secular state is part of the culture they would be assimilating into.

    While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
  • AegisAegis Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    Aegis wrote: »
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    After reading some articles on this in The Economist and elsewhere, I believe that:

    France, and many other countries in western Europe, have a very different perspective on religion and it's relationship to government and public life than we do here in the US, because of a different history. America was settled in large part by people seeking free expression of religion. In the founding of their government, they were worried mostly about making sure no one religion was able to use government to persecute the other ones. Frankly it's a marvel that the various Protestant sects managed to co-exist as peacefully as they did.

    But Europe has a history of religious wars and turmoils. As such I think there was and is a far greater concern that religion needs to be kept out of not only government, but public life in general. The European idea of secularism is to keep religion a private matter. Not only as a private choice (which is something that is true also in America) but as refraining as much as possible from public expression.

    There's two issue at play here, though I think the religious aspect is the less active one.

    On the one hand, yes, religion. It's France. The French Revolution, yadda yadda.

    However, France since the Revolution has always actively sought assimilation of its ethnic minorities (traditionally linguistic minorities, but in the last few decades this has morphed into racial/religious minorities through Muslim immigration mainly from Africa). I would see this as far more a move towards ethnic assimilation than trying to preserve religious separation, though I could see where the religious argument is used as a cover.

    Well, the belief in a secular state is part of the culture they would be assimilating into.

    This doesn't really affect secularization though. The banning of the niqab doesn't prevent a problematic aspect of religious life affecting political life. It's only affecting aspects of religious life affecting private life.

    Currently DMing: None right now! :(
    Characters
    [5e] Myriil Amarthen - AC 17 | HP 14 | Melee +6/1d6+4 | Spell +5/DC 13
  • FeralFeral Who needs a medical license when you've got style? Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Gosling wrote: »
    Banning the niqab, and forcing the niqab, are really two sides of the same coin: forcing women to dress or not dress in a certain way.

    Whether restricting a manner of dress represents oppression depends on the context around it. In this case, the context is pretty clearly sexists on one side, and racists on the other.

    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
    the "no true scotch, man" fallacy.
  • SliderSlider Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    My bank discourages us from using cell phones, wearing sun glasses and hats while conducting business. I always push the line and text while wearing a hat. However, I noticed that it's apparently okay to wear a ski mask.

  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Slider wrote: »
    My bank discourages us from using cell phones, wearing sun glasses and hats while conducting business. I always push the line and text while wearing a hat. However, I noticed that it's apparently okay to wear a ski mask.

    I never realized that the country of France was actually just one really large bank.

    tea-1.jpg
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Leitner wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    How does banning the niqab confront that societal pressure? This is using a meataxe instead of a scalpel, and working under the assumption that something needs to be sliced in the first place.

    I don't know. But you don't consider the usage of the niqab as problematic? Because any way I look at it strikes me as problematic. From a sexist imposition upon women, to these women feeling they need to wear it so that they are not judged by a society that puts such a heavy emphasis upon physical attractivness. Let alone the fact that this is solely aimed at and used by women, which in and of itself makes the previously mentioned issues worse.

    I can certainly see how it can be problematic and in many cases probably is. However this is akin to trying to solve issues of poverty or class by banning wife beaters. There are a lot of factors involved and almost all of them are far more significant and consequential than clothing. Address those.

    tea-1.jpg
  • GoslingGosling Looking Up Soccer In Mongolia Right Now, Probably Watertown, WIRegistered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Feral wrote: »
    Gosling wrote: »
    Banning the niqab, and forcing the niqab, are really two sides of the same coin: forcing women to dress or not dress in a certain way.

    Whether restricting a manner of dress represents oppression depends on the context around it. In this case, the context is pretty clearly sexists on one side, and racists on the other.

    On one side I see people going "You can't wear this."
    On the other I see people going "You can't wear anything but this."

    I pretty much want to slap the both of them.

    I have a blog. Read it. Blog-reading makes you pretty and popular.
  • HamHamJHamHamJ Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Aegis wrote: »
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    Aegis wrote: »
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    After reading some articles on this in The Economist and elsewhere, I believe that:

    France, and many other countries in western Europe, have a very different perspective on religion and it's relationship to government and public life than we do here in the US, because of a different history. America was settled in large part by people seeking free expression of religion. In the founding of their government, they were worried mostly about making sure no one religion was able to use government to persecute the other ones. Frankly it's a marvel that the various Protestant sects managed to co-exist as peacefully as they did.

    But Europe has a history of religious wars and turmoils. As such I think there was and is a far greater concern that religion needs to be kept out of not only government, but public life in general. The European idea of secularism is to keep religion a private matter. Not only as a private choice (which is something that is true also in America) but as refraining as much as possible from public expression.

    There's two issue at play here, though I think the religious aspect is the less active one.

    On the one hand, yes, religion. It's France. The French Revolution, yadda yadda.

    However, France since the Revolution has always actively sought assimilation of its ethnic minorities (traditionally linguistic minorities, but in the last few decades this has morphed into racial/religious minorities through Muslim immigration mainly from Africa). I would see this as far more a move towards ethnic assimilation than trying to preserve religious separation, though I could see where the religious argument is used as a cover.

    Well, the belief in a secular state is part of the culture they would be assimilating into.

    This doesn't really affect secularization though. The banning of the niqab doesn't prevent a problematic aspect of religious life affecting political life. It's only affecting aspects of religious life affecting private life.

    See, I don't think they think what you wear when you are out in public is "private life". Presumably, you can continue to wear the niqab in the privacy of your own home. No one is going to raid your house to check.

    You could probably even wear it inside a mosque.

    But wearing it on the street, or inside a government institution, or whatever, is no longer "private life" it's "public life" and is supposed to be secular.

    While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    Aegis wrote: »
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    Aegis wrote: »
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    After reading some articles on this in The Economist and elsewhere, I believe that:

    France, and many other countries in western Europe, have a very different perspective on religion and it's relationship to government and public life than we do here in the US, because of a different history. America was settled in large part by people seeking free expression of religion. In the founding of their government, they were worried mostly about making sure no one religion was able to use government to persecute the other ones. Frankly it's a marvel that the various Protestant sects managed to co-exist as peacefully as they did.

    But Europe has a history of religious wars and turmoils. As such I think there was and is a far greater concern that religion needs to be kept out of not only government, but public life in general. The European idea of secularism is to keep religion a private matter. Not only as a private choice (which is something that is true also in America) but as refraining as much as possible from public expression.

    There's two issue at play here, though I think the religious aspect is the less active one.

    On the one hand, yes, religion. It's France. The French Revolution, yadda yadda.

    However, France since the Revolution has always actively sought assimilation of its ethnic minorities (traditionally linguistic minorities, but in the last few decades this has morphed into racial/religious minorities through Muslim immigration mainly from Africa). I would see this as far more a move towards ethnic assimilation than trying to preserve religious separation, though I could see where the religious argument is used as a cover.

    Well, the belief in a secular state is part of the culture they would be assimilating into.

    This doesn't really affect secularization though. The banning of the niqab doesn't prevent a problematic aspect of religious life affecting political life. It's only affecting aspects of religious life affecting private life.

    See, I don't think they think what you wear when you are out in public is "private life". Presumably, you can continue to wear the niqab in the privacy of your own home. No one is going to raid your house to check.

    You could probably even wear it inside a mosque.

    But wearing it on the street, or inside a government institution, or whatever, is no longer "private life" it's "public life" and is supposed to be secular.

    I am no longer a private citizen when I walk out my door? o_O

    tea-1.jpg
  • HamHamJHamHamJ Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    moniker wrote: »
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    Aegis wrote: »
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    Aegis wrote: »
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    After reading some articles on this in The Economist and elsewhere, I believe that:

    France, and many other countries in western Europe, have a very different perspective on religion and it's relationship to government and public life than we do here in the US, because of a different history. America was settled in large part by people seeking free expression of religion. In the founding of their government, they were worried mostly about making sure no one religion was able to use government to persecute the other ones. Frankly it's a marvel that the various Protestant sects managed to co-exist as peacefully as they did.

    But Europe has a history of religious wars and turmoils. As such I think there was and is a far greater concern that religion needs to be kept out of not only government, but public life in general. The European idea of secularism is to keep religion a private matter. Not only as a private choice (which is something that is true also in America) but as refraining as much as possible from public expression.

    There's two issue at play here, though I think the religious aspect is the less active one.

    On the one hand, yes, religion. It's France. The French Revolution, yadda yadda.

    However, France since the Revolution has always actively sought assimilation of its ethnic minorities (traditionally linguistic minorities, but in the last few decades this has morphed into racial/religious minorities through Muslim immigration mainly from Africa). I would see this as far more a move towards ethnic assimilation than trying to preserve religious separation, though I could see where the religious argument is used as a cover.

    Well, the belief in a secular state is part of the culture they would be assimilating into.

    This doesn't really affect secularization though. The banning of the niqab doesn't prevent a problematic aspect of religious life affecting political life. It's only affecting aspects of religious life affecting private life.

    See, I don't think they think what you wear when you are out in public is "private life". Presumably, you can continue to wear the niqab in the privacy of your own home. No one is going to raid your house to check.

    You could probably even wear it inside a mosque.

    But wearing it on the street, or inside a government institution, or whatever, is no longer "private life" it's "public life" and is supposed to be secular.

    I am no longer a private citizen when I walk out my door? o_O

    I believe that is how Europeans think about it, yes.

    While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
  • FeralFeral Who needs a medical license when you've got style? Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Feral wrote: »
    Aegis wrote: »
    I keep remembering that a fair number of French Muslim women that this will affect wear it by choice.

    "by choice" is a really sticky phrase when we're talking about sexist oppression. There are a great many things people will do "by choice" when they've been raised from birth to believe that they're something less than human.

    By the same token, we probably shouldn't assume that these women have no agency if we know nothing about them, save a few details about their wardrobe.

    Agreed.

    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
    the "no true scotch, man" fallacy.
  • AegisAegis Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    I think you're confusing public and private in terms of visibility and public life and private life, which are distinct forms of political action. Your being visible to other people does not move you from private life to public life in the political sphere. You have to act in some manner on the state (or its institutions) or be advocating a political message in some manner.

    Wearing a different piece of clothing, or being easily identifiable as a member of a religious (or even ethnic group for that matter) is still a part of one's private life devoid of political action. If you're wearing it and then going around advocating the overthrow of the government, or protesting, or the like, then you're now in political life but that's not the issue in this case.

    Currently DMing: None right now! :(
    Characters
    [5e] Myriil Amarthen - AC 17 | HP 14 | Melee +6/1d6+4 | Spell +5/DC 13
  • Saint MadnessSaint Madness Registered User
    edited February 2010
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    Spoiler:

    I believe that is how Europeans think about it, yes.

    ...

    What

  • japanjapan Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    Spoiler:

    I believe that is how Europeans think about it, yes.

    ...

    What

    Seconded.

  • JohannenJohannen Registered User
    edited February 2010
    I think Holland is thinking about banning this also, if this has been said already I apologise.

  • Erich ZahnErich Zahn So Wangtta~! Remember to [E]ject!Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    America was settled in large part by people seeking free expression of religion.

    AHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAhahahahahahaha oh god he actually believes that shit.

    Quakers were an oppressed minority even in America because they were an evil cult that murdered people for no fucking reason.

  • Saint MadnessSaint Madness Registered User
    edited February 2010
    Johannen wrote: »
    I think Holland is thinking about banning this also, if this has been said already I apologise.

    They banned it in schools as far as I know.

Sign In or Register to comment.