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)?
Only if we get posters showing a giant Jesus figure rising out of a rainbow flag.
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.
I think many people believe that secularization in public should extend beyond the expressly political.
This seems like discrimination against a specific group of people, though at the same time it is quite a terrible symbol of female opression that justifies the husband's extremely jealous and controlling behaviour towards his wife, who he treats pretty much like a possession.
Do these woman truly want such a relationship or are the simply submitted to their husbands will because that's how they were raise and "that's how things are for them". I'm not sure banning the symbol would actually be any help in freeing women from this situation.
For now I'll put my vote in "this ban is a disguised form of discrimination."
Why are you guys talking about banning Catholic paraphernalia? If anything you should ban the fiery dove. I mean, the only people saner than the Catholics are the Unitarians.
I am so glad this is being talked about here. First, a link to a site by an educated, fully-employed American Muslim convert who chooses to fully veil: Veiled 4 Allah. I do not believe she is even married (or she wasn't when I used to keep up with her blog), so I think she's a good example of someone who isn't under anybody's thumb regarding what she wears.
As for the ban? Fuck that, man. You don't get to "unoppress" women you percieve as being forced to wear something by forcing them not to wear something! If you want to ban all face-covering clothing, you do that instead, silly geese! I swear, if they ever pulled that shit in California I would buy a dozen niqabs and become the Muslimiest Muslima that ever Muslimed on the Muslim.
For example, those huge billboards with pictures of Jesus saying things like WWJD or He died for your sins! and shit? I don't think you could put up one those in France without it being protested and possibly banned.
HamHamJ on
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
This seems like discrimination against a specific group of people, though at the same time it is quite a terrible symbol of female opression that justifies the husband's extremely jealous and controlling behaviour towards his wife, who he treats pretty much like a possession.
Do these woman truly want such a relationship or are the simply submitted to their husbands will because that's how they were raise and "that's how things are for them". I'm not sure banning the symbol would actually be any help in freeing women from this situation.
For now I'll put my vote in "this ban is a disguised form of discrimination."
A lot of women who veil regard the veil as a privacy issue; that they do not wish to be ogled by men or judged based on their appearance. You might be surprised how appealing this notion is to a lot of women - heck, when the "burqini" bathing suit came out, people were mocking it, but non-Muslim women actually buy it too, especially those who are overweight or older or just self-conscious, because it enables them to go out and swim without feeling like everyone's staring at them thinking, "ew, fattie" or whatever.
There are a lot of issues behind the veil, and while some - even maybe most - of them are about male control over female sexuality, there is quite a bit that Muslim women feel is empowering, i.e. female control over who gets visual access to their faces and bodies.
Edit: full disclosure - I am not now a Muslim, but I once was a convert. I did not choose to hijab/veil, but I will vehemently defend the rights of women to do so.
It's silly to suggest that the movement of protestants to america had nothing to do with wanting to get away from Catholic authority.
WHAT!? They were looking to get away from protestant authority in England and later the don't-give-a-shit-about-your-religion authority in the Netherlands. They left the Netherlands because they were a bunch of puritanical pieces of shit worried about their children becoming too Dutch. Besides that, only relatively few religious refugees ever actually came over.
This seems like discrimination against a specific group of people, though at the same time it is quite a terrible symbol of female opression that justifies the husband's extremely jealous and controlling behaviour towards his wife, who he treats pretty much like a possession.
Do these woman truly want such a relationship or are the simply submitted to their husbands will because that's how they were raise and "that's how things are for them". I'm not sure banning the symbol would actually be any help in freeing women from this situation.
For now I'll put my vote in "this ban is a disguised form of discrimination."
A lot of women who veil regard the veil as a privacy issue; that they do not wish to be ogled by men or judged based on their appearance. You might be surprised how appealing this notion is to a lot of women - heck, when the "burqini" bathing suit came out, people were mocking it, but non-Muslim women actually buy it too, especially those who are overweight or older or just self-conscious, because it enables them to go out and swim without feeling like everyone's staring at them thinking, "ew, fattie" or whatever.
There are a lot of issues behind the veil, and while some - even maybe most - of them are about male control over female sexuality, there is quite a bit that Muslim women feel is empowering, i.e. female control over who gets visual access to their faces and bodies.
That does make sense. I'm not female but I can see how some women would enjoy the fact that they don't have to be judged or oggled by others all the time, especially horny men.
surrealitychecklonely, but not unloveddreaming of faulty keys and latchesRegistered Userregular
edited February 2010
The puritans, sadly, got their own government in the UK - that would have been Oliver Cromwell - and their general shittiness in power makes me wholly unsurprised they felt that nobody liked them very much. Banning the theatre and live music is never going to win you friends - their primary acts when in control were to take away other's freedom.
Wasn't there something about a man attempting to evade authorities by wearing his sisters niqab? Security issue right there.
Well I think that even without outright banning the veil, you should still always be required to reveal your face whenever identity is an issue like when being questionned by an officer, voting or going through airport customs.
The puritans, sadly, got their own government in the UK - that would have been Oliver Cromwell - and their general shittiness in power makes me wholly unsurprised they felt that nobody liked them very much. Banning the theatre and live music is never going to win you friends - their primary acts when in control were to take away other's freedom of religion.
You shouldn't forget about fucking over the Irish. The Irish haven't.
The puritans in America quickly proved to be jackasses.
Plymouth faced many difficulties during its first winter, the most notable being the risk of starvation and the lack of suitable shelter. From the beginning, the assistance of Indians was vital. One colonist's journal reports:[21]
We marched to the place we called Cornhill, where we had found the corn before. At another place we had seen before, we dug and found some more corn, two or three baskets full, and a bag of beans....In all we had about ten bushels, which will be enough for seed. It is with God's help that we found this corn, for how else could we have done it, without meeting some Indians who might trouble us.
Along with ransacking the food stores of Indians, the colonists also raided the houses of the few Indians who had survived the plague, as well as robbing Indian graves.[21]
This seems like discrimination against a specific group of people, though at the same time it is quite a terrible symbol of female opression that justifies the husband's extremely jealous and controlling behaviour towards his wife, who he treats pretty much like a possession.
Do these woman truly want such a relationship or are the simply submitted to their husbands will because that's how they were raise and "that's how things are for them". I'm not sure banning the symbol would actually be any help in freeing women from this situation.
For now I'll put my vote in "this ban is a disguised form of discrimination."
A lot of women who veil regard the veil as a privacy issue; that they do not wish to be ogled by men or judged based on their appearance. You might be surprised how appealing this notion is to a lot of women - heck, when the "burqini" bathing suit came out, people were mocking it, but non-Muslim women actually buy it too, especially those who are overweight or older or just self-conscious, because it enables them to go out and swim without feeling like everyone's staring at them thinking, "ew, fattie" or whatever.
There are a lot of issues behind the veil, and while some - even maybe most - of them are about male control over female sexuality, there is quite a bit that Muslim women feel is empowering, i.e. female control over who gets visual access to their faces and bodies.
That does make sense. I'm not female but I can see how some women would enjoy the fact that they don't have to be judged or oggled by others all the time, especially horny men.
Which brings us to the fact that muslims don't see it as a way to subjugate women but as a standard of decency, just like Christians have the bikini top, shirt, and skirt. I'm sure there are some Catholic families in France that still insist on their women wearing skirts, but you don't see a skirt ban.
It's silly to suggest that the movement of protestants to america had nothing to do with wanting to get away from Catholic authority.
WHAT!? They were looking to get away from protestant authority in England and later the don't-give-a-shit-about-your-religion authority in the Netherlands. They left the Netherlands because they were a bunch of puritanical pieces of shit worried about their children becoming too Dutch. Besides that, only relatively few religious refugees ever actually came over.
Charles I was considered to be too Catholic-leaning, and it was under his rule that the biggest chunk of Puritan immigration to America occurred.
Then Cromwell established Puritan control of England. But then that failed and Charles II took over. Who made a deal with France to convert to Catholicism.
The Puritans didn't believe in freedom of conscience, but they were trying to establish a place to practice their religion freely. The plan for separation of church and state could be seen as a compromise when all the different factions realized that none of them could claim a real majority or even plurality, and had to find a way to co-exist.
HamHamJ on
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
First of all, this needs to be viewed through the long-standing French tration of secularism and feminism
France already has bans on Christian/Jewish symbols in schools and government buildings. Is some of support for this law due to racism? Sure. But to suggest it is entirely motived by racism would be false, and the rationale is consistent with previous legislation on religious symbols in public.
It should be noted that all the political parties believe the viel is a problem, and only disagree on the best way to handle it.
Regarding modesty, the ban only applies to covering the face, due to the way it is used in practice to sequester women from the public sphere, and its uniquely religious cultural connotations. Muslim women can still wear headscarves and dress modestly, as many Italian women do.
Also, in Europe, we (mostly) support the idea that religion is a private matter, and should not be displayed in the public sphere.
For the record, I don't support the ban. The veil is a problem, but I just don't see how a ban will lead to anything other than pushing muslims further down the road to radicalisation.
First of all, this needs to be viewed through the long-standing French tration of secularism and feminism
France already has bans on Christian/Jewish symbols in schools and government buildings. Is some of support for this law due to racism? Sure. But to suggest it is entirely motived by racism would be false, and the rationale is consistent with previous legislation on religious symbols in public.
It should be noted that all the political parties believe the viel is a problem, and only disagree on the best way to handle it.
Regarding modesty, the ban only applies to covering the face, due to the way it is used in practice to sequester women from the public sphere, and its uniquely religious cultural connotations. Muslim women can still wear headscarves and dress modestly, as many Italian women do.
Also, in Europe, we (mostly) support the idea that religion is a private matter, and should not be displayed in the public sphere.
For the record, I don't support the ban. The veil is a problem, but I just don't see how a ban will lead to anything other than pushing muslims further down the road to radicalisation.
I can understand the secularist aspect but the feminist arguement doesn't make sense. You can't claim to support women's rights by telling them what they can and cannot wear and expect to be taken seriously.
To be honest, I think the secularist aspect is on shaky ground as well. The niqab is worn because of an interpreted standard of decency, not as a religious symbol per se.
France already has bans on Christian/Jewish symbols in schools and government buildings. Is some of support for this law due to racism? Sure. But to suggest it is entirely motivated by racism would be false, and the rationale is consistent with previous legislation on religious symbols in public.
You mean the headscarf ban that also happened to target crosses and yarmulkes?
I can understand the secularist aspect but the feminist arguement doesn't make sense. You can't claim to support women's rights by telling them what they can and cannot wear and expect to be taken seriously.
It's hardly that simple. In theory, a ban could counter-act the social pressures being placed on women. It's not just about legal rights, but the ability to exercise them.
HamHamJ on
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
I can understand the secularist aspect but the feminist arguement doesn't make sense. You can't claim to support women's rights by telling them what they can and cannot wear and expect to be taken seriously.
It's hardly that simple. In theory, a ban could counter-act the social pressures being placed on women. It's not just about legal rights, but the ability to exercise them.
how would the ban counteract the social pressures being put on women?
all it would do is place women between the vice of legislation and religion. either way, somebody's screwing them over, whether they take the veil off or not.
I can understand the secularist aspect but the feminist arguement doesn't make sense. You can't claim to support women's rights by telling them what they can and cannot wear and expect to be taken seriously.
It's hardly that simple. In theory, a ban could counter-act the social pressures being placed on women. It's not just about legal rights, but the ability to exercise them.
So would you advocate banning lipstick? What about shawls in general? Pantyhose? How about air brushed magazine models?
I can understand the secularist aspect but the feminist arguement doesn't make sense. You can't claim to support women's rights by telling them what they can and cannot wear and expect to be taken seriously.
It's hardly that simple. In theory, a ban could counter-act the social pressures being placed on women. It's not just about legal rights, but the ability to exercise them.
So would you advocate banning lipstick? What about shawls in general? Pantyhose? How about air brushed magazine models?
Why this social pressure and not others?
Exactly, this really isn't an area where the state should be getting involved.
I can understand the secularist aspect but the feminist arguement doesn't make sense. You can't claim to support women's rights by telling them what they can and cannot wear and expect to be taken seriously.
It's hardly that simple. In theory, a ban could counter-act the social pressures being placed on women. It's not just about legal rights, but the ability to exercise them.
how would the ban counteract the social pressures being put on women?
all it would do is place women between the vice of legislation and religion. either way, somebody's screwing them over, whether they take the veil off or not.
It gives them an excuse, and puts the weight of the government behind them.
I can understand the secularist aspect but the feminist arguement doesn't make sense. You can't claim to support women's rights by telling them what they can and cannot wear and expect to be taken seriously.
It's hardly that simple. In theory, a ban could counter-act the social pressures being placed on women. It's not just about legal rights, but the ability to exercise them.
So would you advocate banning lipstick? What about shawls in general? Pantyhose? How about air brushed magazine models?
Why this social pressure and not others?
Because none of those things are real threats.
HamHamJ on
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
The plan for separation of church and state could be seen as a compromise when all the different factions realized that none of them could claim a real majority or even plurality, and had to find a way to co-exist.
Or it could have been because most of the influential founding fathers were often either outspokenly against organized religion entirely or at least in the closet about it. The whole "separation of church and state" idea really came from them, having seen how much strife that organized religion caused in England and France.
The plan for separation of church and state could be seen as a compromise when all the different factions realized that none of them could claim a real majority or even plurality, and had to find a way to co-exist.
Or it could have been because most of the influential founding fathers were often either outspokenly against organized religion entirely or at least in the closet about it. The whole "separation of church and state" idea really came from them, having seen how much strife that organized religion caused in England and France.
The idea of allowing anybody to practice their (presumably Christian) religion was also fairly popular.
The concept of separating church and state is often credited to the writings of English philosopher John Locke.[3] According to his principle of the social contract, Locke argued that the government lacked authority in the realm of individual conscience, as this was something rational people could not cede to the government for it or others to control. For Locke, this created a natural right in the liberty of conscience, which he argued must therefore remain protected from any government authority. These views on religious tolerance and the importance of individual conscience, along with his social contract, became particularly influential in the American colonies and the drafting of the United States Constitution.[24] Indeed such was Locke's influence, Thomas Jefferson stated: "Bacon, Locke and Newton..I consider them as the three greatest men that have ever lived, without any exception, and as having laid the foundation of those superstructures which have been raised in the physical and moral sciences"[25][26]
Besides that, nothing in the constitution forbid the states from fucking freedom of religion in the ass until well after the Civil War, but they all quickly killed their official churches and guaranteed freedom of religion in their constitutions. For example, there was little to prevent them from forbidding any Catholics from gaining office.
Please define a "real threat". I wasn't aware that this was a category we're working with. What kind of threats do each of those examples fall under?
Something that can reasonably be said to be a threat to the equality of a large number of women.
So the way to protect the civil and legal equality of women is by subjecting them, and not men, to laws that punish them for dressing a certain way?
I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that this ban would technically also apply to men.
It's like affirmative action. Looking only at principles, giving preference to minorities would seem like the opposite of racial equality. But when dealing with the actual realities of the situation, it is a necessary pragmatic solution to the problem of unequal opportunity.
HamHamJ on
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
It's like affirmative action. Looking only at principles, giving preference to minorities would seem like the opposite of racial equality. But when dealing with the actual realities of the situation, it is a necessary pragmatic solution to the problem of unequal opportunity.
Except this law is absolutely nothing like affirmative action.
I'm still missing how legally restricting the rights of women to voluntarily choose what to wear is in any way even remotely pragmatic, or does anything to address inequality between the sexes.
Please define a "real threat". I wasn't aware that this was a category we're working with. What kind of threats do each of those examples fall under?
Something that can reasonably be said to be a threat to the equality of a large number of women.
So the way to protect the civil and legal equality of women is by subjecting them, and not men, to laws that punish them for dressing a certain way?
I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that this ban would technically also apply to men.
:roll: Just like how the Swiss minaret ban also prevents Catholic churches from constructing Islamic spires, right?
It's like affirmative action. Looking only at principles, giving preference to minorities would seem like the opposite of racial equality. But when dealing with the actual realities of the situation, it is a necessary pragmatic solution to the problem of unequal opportunity.
For one, I'm more of a fan of class based affirmative action than race based; and for two, how the hell is this anything like affirmative action? It's the State dictating to women what they can and cannot wear. Unlike religious and cultural hegemony suggesting to women what they can and cannot wear. If anything the former is worse than the latter and will only exacerbate problems rather than actually address them in a beneficial manner.
Well, I guess they won't be able to elect any Muslims in the future.
After all, you can never really trust them not to be working to undermine such laws.
Welcome to France. They keep most of the Muslims locked away in ghettos and then huff and puff angrily when the youth throw violent riots in protest of the futureless ghetto lives.
Want to understand Palestine? Look at the Parisian ghettos and multiply that by 10.
Posts
Only if we get posters showing a giant Jesus figure rising out of a rainbow flag.
It was settled by a bunch of people hoping to get rich and a few puritanical bastards who wanted to set up horrible theocratic societies.
I think many people believe that secularization in public should extend beyond the expressly political.
It's silly to suggest that the movement of protestants to america had nothing to do with wanting to get away from Catholic authority.
Do these woman truly want such a relationship or are the simply submitted to their husbands will because that's how they were raise and "that's how things are for them". I'm not sure banning the symbol would actually be any help in freeing women from this situation.
For now I'll put my vote in "this ban is a disguised form of discrimination."
Battle.net: Fireflash#1425
Steam Friend code: 45386507
EDIT:I meant nicer.
As for the ban? Fuck that, man. You don't get to "unoppress" women you percieve as being forced to wear something by forcing them not to wear something! If you want to ban all face-covering clothing, you do that instead, silly geese! I swear, if they ever pulled that shit in California I would buy a dozen niqabs and become the Muslimiest Muslima that ever Muslimed on the Muslim.
A lot of women who veil regard the veil as a privacy issue; that they do not wish to be ogled by men or judged based on their appearance. You might be surprised how appealing this notion is to a lot of women - heck, when the "burqini" bathing suit came out, people were mocking it, but non-Muslim women actually buy it too, especially those who are overweight or older or just self-conscious, because it enables them to go out and swim without feeling like everyone's staring at them thinking, "ew, fattie" or whatever.
There are a lot of issues behind the veil, and while some - even maybe most - of them are about male control over female sexuality, there is quite a bit that Muslim women feel is empowering, i.e. female control over who gets visual access to their faces and bodies.
Edit: full disclosure - I am not now a Muslim, but I once was a convert. I did not choose to hijab/veil, but I will vehemently defend the rights of women to do so.
That does make sense. I'm not female but I can see how some women would enjoy the fact that they don't have to be judged or oggled by others all the time, especially horny men.
Battle.net: Fireflash#1425
Steam Friend code: 45386507
Well I think that even without outright banning the veil, you should still always be required to reveal your face whenever identity is an issue like when being questionned by an officer, voting or going through airport customs.
Battle.net: Fireflash#1425
Steam Friend code: 45386507
As previously stated, if it was a ban on anything that covered the face, then maybe you would have a point.
That aside, just because something makes life difficult for the police doesn't mean it should be banned.
Oh yes anecdotes, what a great way to design public policy.
This sort of behaviour is hardly surprising to come from France, one of the most racist countries in Europe.
You shouldn't forget about fucking over the Irish. The Irish haven't.
The puritans in America quickly proved to be jackasses.
Which brings us to the fact that muslims don't see it as a way to subjugate women but as a standard of decency, just like Christians have the bikini top, shirt, and skirt. I'm sure there are some Catholic families in France that still insist on their women wearing skirts, but you don't see a skirt ban.
Charles I was considered to be too Catholic-leaning, and it was under his rule that the biggest chunk of Puritan immigration to America occurred.
Then Cromwell established Puritan control of England. But then that failed and Charles II took over. Who made a deal with France to convert to Catholicism.
The Puritans didn't believe in freedom of conscience, but they were trying to establish a place to practice their religion freely. The plan for separation of church and state could be seen as a compromise when all the different factions realized that none of them could claim a real majority or even plurality, and had to find a way to co-exist.
First of all, this needs to be viewed through the long-standing French tration of secularism and feminism
France already has bans on Christian/Jewish symbols in schools and government buildings. Is some of support for this law due to racism? Sure. But to suggest it is entirely motived by racism would be false, and the rationale is consistent with previous legislation on religious symbols in public.
It should be noted that all the political parties believe the viel is a problem, and only disagree on the best way to handle it.
Regarding modesty, the ban only applies to covering the face, due to the way it is used in practice to sequester women from the public sphere, and its uniquely religious cultural connotations. Muslim women can still wear headscarves and dress modestly, as many Italian women do.
Also, in Europe, we (mostly) support the idea that religion is a private matter, and should not be displayed in the public sphere.
For the record, I don't support the ban. The veil is a problem, but I just don't see how a ban will lead to anything other than pushing muslims further down the road to radicalisation.
I can understand the secularist aspect but the feminist arguement doesn't make sense. You can't claim to support women's rights by telling them what they can and cannot wear and expect to be taken seriously.
You mean the headscarf ban that also happened to target crosses and yarmulkes?
It's hardly that simple. In theory, a ban could counter-act the social pressures being placed on women. It's not just about legal rights, but the ability to exercise them.
how would the ban counteract the social pressures being put on women?
all it would do is place women between the vice of legislation and religion. either way, somebody's screwing them over, whether they take the veil off or not.
So would you advocate banning lipstick? What about shawls in general? Pantyhose? How about air brushed magazine models?
Why this social pressure and not others?
Exactly, this really isn't an area where the state should be getting involved.
It gives them an excuse, and puts the weight of the government behind them.
Because none of those things are real threats.
Something that can reasonably be said to be a threat to the equality of a large number of women.
Skirts and bikini tops, then.
So the way to protect the civil and legal equality of women is by subjecting them, and not men, to laws that punish them for dressing a certain way?
So... Barbi dolls, Bratz, air brushed magazine models, public figures with unrealistic proportions advocating women looking like them, etc?
The idea of allowing anybody to practice their (presumably Christian) religion was also fairly popular.
Besides that, nothing in the constitution forbid the states from fucking freedom of religion in the ass until well after the Civil War, but they all quickly killed their official churches and guaranteed freedom of religion in their constitutions. For example, there was little to prevent them from forbidding any Catholics from gaining office.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that this ban would technically also apply to men.
It's like affirmative action. Looking only at principles, giving preference to minorities would seem like the opposite of racial equality. But when dealing with the actual realities of the situation, it is a necessary pragmatic solution to the problem of unequal opportunity.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and point out that men don't wear the niqāb, so the law would only ever be enforced against women.
Except this law is absolutely nothing like affirmative action.
I'm still missing how legally restricting the rights of women to voluntarily choose what to wear is in any way even remotely pragmatic, or does anything to address inequality between the sexes.
:roll: Just like how the Swiss minaret ban also prevents Catholic churches from constructing Islamic spires, right?
For one, I'm more of a fan of class based affirmative action than race based; and for two, how the hell is this anything like affirmative action? It's the State dictating to women what they can and cannot wear. Unlike religious and cultural hegemony suggesting to women what they can and cannot wear. If anything the former is worse than the latter and will only exacerbate problems rather than actually address them in a beneficial manner.
After all, you can never really trust them not to be working to undermine such laws.
Welcome to France. They keep most of the Muslims locked away in ghettos and then huff and puff angrily when the youth throw violent riots in protest of the futureless ghetto lives.
Want to understand Palestine? Look at the Parisian ghettos and multiply that by 10.