The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
France contemplates banning the niqāb (face veil)
japan
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
Alternate thread title: Are Muslims the new Jews?
Example of a niqab:
Article here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8480161.stm
There's also a link in that article to an explanatory slideshow that defines a few terms like hijab, niqab, burqa, etc.
The short version is that France has decided that the wearing of the veil is "contrary to the values of the republic", and a "symbol of radical religious practice", and is now considering barring anyone wearing a veil from accessing public services such as healthcare, social security, education, public transport, etc.
Now, France is perhaps a slightly unusual case in that it is generally pretty anti-religious, which is probably why this particular issue is coming to a head there first. It isn't the only such example, though, there is the Swiss ban on the contruction of Minarets, and other countries in Europe have contemplated taking similar steps banning face coverings.
My thinking is basically that, firstly, describing the wearing of a veil as "radical religious practice" is setting a pretty freaking low bar. Where does circumcision fit on this continuum? Or the feeding of wine to children and telling them it's blood? Or refusing to cut one's hair and instead binding it around one's head with a strip of cloth?
Second, though I can see the argument that the veil in its various forms is a symbol of oppression, I'm not convinced that any women that wears a veil is de facto being oppressed.
Lastly, even if it is granted that the wearing of veils is a cultural institution that perpetuates the oppression of women (which is a stance I'd probably agree with, for the record), it seems to me that the very worst manner in which to deal with this is by creating an environment where such women are literally turned into second class citizens, and thus rendered absolutely reliant on the support of a (probably male) benefactor.
So, veils. What say you?
Example of a niqab:
Article here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8480161.stm
There's also a link in that article to an explanatory slideshow that defines a few terms like hijab, niqab, burqa, etc.
The short version is that France has decided that the wearing of the veil is "contrary to the values of the republic", and a "symbol of radical religious practice", and is now considering barring anyone wearing a veil from accessing public services such as healthcare, social security, education, public transport, etc.
Now, France is perhaps a slightly unusual case in that it is generally pretty anti-religious, which is probably why this particular issue is coming to a head there first. It isn't the only such example, though, there is the Swiss ban on the contruction of Minarets, and other countries in Europe have contemplated taking similar steps banning face coverings.
My thinking is basically that, firstly, describing the wearing of a veil as "radical religious practice" is setting a pretty freaking low bar. Where does circumcision fit on this continuum? Or the feeding of wine to children and telling them it's blood? Or refusing to cut one's hair and instead binding it around one's head with a strip of cloth?
Second, though I can see the argument that the veil in its various forms is a symbol of oppression, I'm not convinced that any women that wears a veil is de facto being oppressed.
Lastly, even if it is granted that the wearing of veils is a cultural institution that perpetuates the oppression of women (which is a stance I'd probably agree with, for the record), it seems to me that the very worst manner in which to deal with this is by creating an environment where such women are literally turned into second class citizens, and thus rendered absolutely reliant on the support of a (probably male) benefactor.
So, veils. What say you?
japan on
0
Posts
Also the public should probably react to people wearing them much the same way they'd react to people wearing hockey masks or winter masks (whatever they call those things that pretty much only robbers wear that only shows eyes and mouth).
Fine by me.
Veils are for silly geese and brides.
Good thing to a point; we do not allow ritual sacrifice regardless of how much some religions might want it.
One can be any religion one wants. However, one cannot wear a veil.
Sounds fine to me.
You're thinking of balaclavas.
And the only places I can think of that bar face coverings are banks. However banks that offer sharia services don't do this.
Probably.
Or they could, you know, take the veil off.
Next, they'll have to ban shirts because only Abrahamic religions require them.
Man, French people do not have tact.
You realise there are other pressures at work here that may prevent that? And that such a ban is only going to strengthen them?
France: Basically The Southern US At This Point, Religion-Wise
Or the ban could spark an ontological debate on the nature of the niqāb such that they could truly discern whether or not a piece of fucking fabric actually has any bearing upon one's life or religion. Perhaps upon it being banned they will realize that it wasn't necessary anyway and did not provide any utility.
My brother married a french woman, her family doesn't accept him and none of them attended the wedding, because he's not french of course.
I endorse these rules.
So they can do whatever they want as long as they adapt Christian practices. And here I thought the Edict of Expulsion was no longer in effect.
That's because you are a silly goose.
Is he black and/or from Northern Africa and/or Muslim?
Nope he's white. It could also be a class thing, since they're hella rich and he's not. I suspect it's a combination of both.
Next they'll be making the consumption of Boudin mandatory.
On the one hand, the face veil can be used as a symbol of female oppression (your face is covered and that lessens you as an individual I think is one of the many arguments). Also, it makes it difficult to identify people, I can't even tell if the person under that veil pic is female or male, which the government generally doesn't like, what with driver's licenses and all. If it was *just* a headscarf to hide hair, I'd say France is in the wrong because that's on the same vein of hair tying/cutting.
On the other hand, I can see the arguments FOR the face veil, in that it puts less pressure on women to conform to high beauty standards (no need for makeup!) and may force people to understand her as a person rather than relying on shallow looks?
I don't know a ton about the religion it's based on, is it possible that she not wear the veil for certain activities (driving, banking, using the post office) and then she can be allowed to wear it otherwise?
I do think that France, while trying to do the right thing, is making matters worse by causing women who will not conform to the "no face veil" rule be forced to stay indoors or be arrested/harrassed.
Yes, because people routinely react to outright hostility with considered introspection.
These don't affect day to day communication in even approaching the same way. And nor are they deeply, deeply sexist in the same way.
The ban is wrong for a number of reasons (such as your aformentioned point about restricting services to muslim women), but lets not go around pretending they're anything but a terrible cultural practice.
Couldn't the same be said of a shirt?
In general, I believe that all things should be permitted unless there is a compelling state interest to restrict a particular thing. What is the compelling state interest in banning niqabs?
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Congratulations! You have literally no idea what you are talking about or are aware of the geopolitical situation in France!
Remember when the riots in France happened a coupla years ago? Cars burning etc? That was mostly minorities, mostly Muslim, mostly young, because of their treatment by the French government (and also the fact they couldn't get jobs because of the endemic racism/religious oppression in addition to France having a terrible socialistic captialist economic system set up so it's impossible to fire anyone from their jobs, creating little turnover and thus little extra jobs)
Oh, also, those riots happen all the fucking time, usually when some nonsense like this gets proposed (because a bunch of jobless screwed over minorities have literally nothing better to do than destroy shit)
They're imposed upon muslim women and serve to otherise and detach them from the rest of society.
I never understood the argument that the wearing of a veil in some way obstructs communication. If that were the case it wouldn't be as easy as it is to conduct business by phone. On top of that, I spent most of my time when outdoors during the UK's recent cold snap with my face covered. I didn't notice any particular difficulty getting anything done.
I won't deny that it is indicative of an oppressive culture, but it's a symptom, not a cause.
Yeah I'm with this.
If you're going to make it a law it has to be equally applied. Banning random things just isn't cool.
This is racism, pure and simple
Okay, so they're a symbol of the oppression of women.
What is to be accomplished through banning them? Does this, in any way, reduce female oppression?
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Just business business? Because it is much harder to communicate over a phone in regards to any kind of emotional topic then it is in person. We rely upon various subtle social clues that get lost over the phone or when your face is covered. I'm sure one of the sociologists here have a link on the effect.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8494860.stm
I'm actually OK with, assuming the facts in the article are correct. I wouldn't be as comfortable if they'd denied citizenship because someone wore a veil.
What? There are Middle Eastern French apologists? That's like being a KKK Black Apologist
Does not fucking compute
So your solution is to...take away people's rights? Man, fuck education, if we get rid of the symptom the disease is cured?