Sarkozy says burqas have no place in France

Source: Reuters

PARIS (Reuters) - President Nicolas Sarkozy said on Monday that burqas, garments that cover women from head to toe and hide their faces, had no place in France as they were a sign of the subjugation of women.

During a solemn speech to parliament on a wide range of issues, Sarkozy backed an initiative launched by legislators last week who expressed concern over an increase in the use of burqas in France.

"The issue of the burqa is not a religious issue, it is a question of freedom and of women's dignity," Sarkozy told a joint session of both houses of parliament, held at the Palace of Versailles.

"The burqa is not a religious sign, it is a sign of the subjugation, of the submission of women. I want to say solemnly that it will not be welcome on our territory," he said to strong applause.

Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSTRE55L2YV20090622

But still , it should be a personal choice

They wear it--or else!

In their countries of origin, not so much.

open minded. under the burka is sometimes a very accomplished liberated woman. i sometimes look at the burka, volutarily worn, as acting like the weight of some western women, as it keeps men from sexualizing them. but burkas can be taken off inside, and are.

It is always destructive, whether Muslim or Christian or Jew or other.

Mohammed require women to wear a burka? Did his wife or wives wear one? Maybe you mean extremism?

That aside, I think there is danger in government deciding what is fundamental to a religion and what isn't, or what is mainstream in a religoin and what is extreme.

Are there good reasons to ban burkas, apart from religion? If so, government has every right to ban them. But please keep religon and government separate. I don't want anyone's religous belief, including my own, to become the law of the land, nor do I want government's nose in my belief system (or my TV or my womb). But, it has to go both ways.

I don't remember how it ended, with a woman in Florida, I think, who refused to take off her veil for a photo on her license, or to took it off when stopped by a police.

sexualize her is not far from saying women should wear a burka or certain other types of clothing so that they don't get raped. Why should it be up to a woman to do anything to avoid bad conduct on the part of an adult male? Why not make men who sexualize strangers wear blinders and buy seeing eye dogs?


What about 80 year old women who have to wear them, even in summer? I know that some women that age get raped, but probably a lot more are prone to death from heat. But, I guess the biddies can just stay home.

Since people here seem prone to jumping to erroneous conclusions, I hasten to add that I was sarcastic when I used the word "biddies," not ageist, and also that I have the greatest respect for religious freedom. I am simply questioning a rationale for burkas that requires a female to do something so that an adult male does not risk falling into "error." Don't read more into it.

..."After all, unless I am able to see the body of every woman in France, how am I expected to pick my next few wives?" :evilgrin:

I've thankfully never seen a woman in one in New York City and hope I never will. They're appalling. Nothing but misogyny run amok.

... in Brooklyn, to be precise.

these days. I'm assuming Atlantic Avenue?

I just want to shout at them - You're being oppressed!

my reaction as well. I can't stand the things and nobody will ever convince me that they are a religious necessity or that women wear them willingly. When I see men wearing shrouds that cover them from head to toe, I'll be willing to talk about it.

those hood are already illegal and in fact was the reason the law was written in the first place. Thanks for proving my point so well.

There are laws in certain states that make traveling or performing other activities while wearing a mask of some kind illegal. However, the mask-wearing is generally tied to some other activity, because otherwise it runs right into a First Amendment issue. And those laws are limited to particular states.

Have women in burkas been wreaking some sort of havoc in France?

It's rare. I'm near areas with high numbers of Egyptians and Morroccans, which (you'll forgive me) probably accounts for it. It unsettles me, but it's very rare. Even hijabs are fairly rare around here.

And many varieties from the basic black to beautiful multi-colored prints.

Come to think of it, hijabs can be seen daily, just not that many relative to the groups likely to be wearing them; burqas maybe twice a month. I didn't mean to compare as though these are the same, by the way.

were in Western dress. Many colored their hair, and so on. The few women I saw covered were begging. I understand things have changed considerably since then. And, on TV, I have seen Egyptian college students explain why they love covering. I find it upsetting, but there it is.

I see them quite often here in Brooklyn. Atlantic Avenue has many Islamic stores, and you can see women walking down the street relatively often with the burqa.

I guess in Manhattan it's less common than some of the ethnic neighborhoods in Brooklyn or Queens.

but that was 20 years ago. I understand things have gotten more religious in the Muslim community in Brooklyn but I've never seen a burqua in New York and have always been surprised by that.

(Park Slope) There is a couple on my block that I see walking from time to time. She wears a full chadri (sp?). It's a beautiful blue material, not the black that I've grown to expect for a burqa.

It's not all that common, though. I've seen people wear them along Atlantic Avenue between Flatbush and the Brooklyn Bridge roadway. But it's not an every day thing. I assume that the women who wear them often don't leave home without their husbands, anyhow. (But what do I know?)

Personally, I find them extraordinarily dehumanizing, but I'm extremely uncomfortable with a country making laws regarding cultural or religious dress.

It would be all I could do to stop myself from saying or doing something that would invariably cause a problem. The poster above who compared it to wearing chains was exactly right.

And I loved Park Slope - I only moved to Westchester to be closer to the rest of my family. Is the Mexican place upstairs from the street on 7th and Garfield still open? Best authentic Mexican food in Brooklyn.

But I was only about 7 then.

wear.

Culturally insensitive maybe but he clearly does not hate women. The slime that want women to cover themselves from head to toe are the women haters.

on this with no actual proof. why not pick something that actually benefits women, like economic opportunity etc. instead of deciding what she can or cant wear.

he is talking about women who do have a choice in apparal. its not ok for state to mandate clothing for women. whether to expose or cover up.

about women choosing to wear burquas - I will never believe it. As far as economic opportunity being talked about - I'm able to walk and chew gum at the same time.

??

in my office. She fasts when she's supposed to, prays when she's supposed to. She does not veil and thinks burqas are nothing more than a signal of oppression. BTW, Your question was ridiculous - one doesn't have to personally know any Muslim women to know about oppression of women.

who prefer saris etc.

i do not believe the state has a right to tell women what they should wear. whether its sarcozy or the ayatollah

I'm getting a big feeling that you have no clue what goes on in France, nor do you know any fundie French muslims. Sarkozy's comments are an agreement to allow an inquiry... one that has been championed by others, including muslim groups, and especially a couple of very outspoken muslim feminists.

The state totally tells people what to wear. My SO can't wear shorts at work. When was the last time a sexual submissive was allowed to appear at work in a black leather mask and ball gag? But emotional and religious submissives get a break?

The sari comparison is nonsense, since everyone knows that a woman in a sari clearly shows her face. Same with the Amish, Mormon crap. All of them dress to show their faces. The burqa is not about dress, it's about extreme behavior, since hiding one's face affects the interactions one will have with greater society. Would you buy life insurance from someone wearing a pig or bugs bunny mask? Have this person teach your children? Do you think polygamist mormon sects would survive outside their repressive ghettos? They would be prosecuted in a heartbeat. When was the last time an Amish horse and buggy rode down your city streets? Right. They're not allowed. These are examples of extreme behavior, same as the wearing of a slave sack that hides someone's features and expressions. Goes WAY beyond mere fashion.

France is a secular nation. They have the perfect right to live free of religion just as much as Saudi Arabia and other theocracies have the right to immerse themselves in it.

secondly, secular doesnt mean bereft of religion. it is a state that has no preference of religion. to ban something that is part of someone else's religion, is the opposite of secular.

also, just in terms of social policy change. nobody welcomes change from outside their community. sarcozy, issuing this statement very much comes off as religious intolerance and xenophobia. if sartorial change needs to be made, it has to be made by french muslims not sarcozy.

the sari used to cover the face. over time with economic freedom, hindu women in india changed this practice. not an outside force.

since women wearing confining face masks are unemployable and thus the state is responsible in many cases for providing them with the economic means to live. The state provides these funds through the taxpayer. How do you expect women to become self-sufficient enough to make choices, when they can't even find work as cleaning ladies.

The state has always been very much involved in legislating appropriate wear for the street, the place of employment, everywhere but home. A sexual submissive in a leather mask and ball gag will also be thrown out of a restaurant or store. Naked people dancing through the streets spreading joy and love are arrested.

Secular doesn't mean bereft of religion but it certainly doesn't promote it. The constitution of France allows people the freedom to privately practice whatever they please, but not foist it on others. And if you are in favor of keeping the lord's prayer out of publicly funded schools here then that's an example of OUR secular state muscling its power over freedom of religion, and your comments in this thread are hypocritical.

As I said, the people who are clamoring the loudest for the burqa inquiry include muslim as well as secular feminists, most notably one who actually grew up in the terrible housing project ghettos and probably knows far better than we what goes on within its confines. Unlike north america in its vastness, France is tiny and there is no room for ultra-religious fundies like the mormons, the amish, to live and become self-sufficient within their repressive cultures. People are required to assimilate. There are many issues we don't see. Like the practice of importing birqa-clad wives and misogynist husbands from repressive cultures for marriage. These families never move beyond first generation immigration. As someone else said, nothing will change until change is legislated.

I don't believe in religion and don't want the government involved. However, equating a religious garment with a clown mask is beyond the pale.

I know women that voluntarily wear burqas and are neither brainwashed nor clowns. No one should be forced to wear a burqa, but they also shouldn't be forced not to wear one. You don't have the right to see someone's face, if they don't want to show it to you. You have the right to take your business elsewhere, but the government baldly telling you to uncover yourself is intrusive and ridiculous.

First of all, we're not even talking about a "religious" garment, and quite frankly, if you can't see someone's face, it makes no difference what's covering it. The fact is that it interferes with the normal relations and interactions that are expected between people living in an equal society.

Do the women you "know," live in France? Do your little anecdotal experiences matter at all? I spent time in Belgium and was treated to my own experiences at the women's only health club I frequented. Not to mention the frightening misogynist attitudes I encountered simply for walking down the street. Would you like to hear my stories? Neither yours nor mine, are important.

And yes, people do have a right to see your face if the gov. says so. To think otherwise is naive.

Please do not refer me to the Koran.

And you are contradicting your own arguments in Reply 101 where you cite "foisting your religious belief on others" in support of Sarkozy's declaration against the burka.

depends upon your definition of brainwashed. Living in a culture can brainwash you. It does not have to be a formal process. For instance, which women aspired to become "a fireman" before the women's liberation movement?


Before and immediately after WWII, a lot of women "voluntarily" gave up careers when they married, or, sadder, never thought of pursuing a career. If you asked them, the majority would have said it was their free choice and heart's desire to be a housewife and nothing else and they would have fully believed it. But, we had a liberation movement and many make different "free choices' today. Has the fundamental nature of women changed, or has the social conditioning (aka brainwashing) changed?

Sexual submissiveness is not a protected activity in any country I can think of off hand. Neither is wearing a clown costume or a bugs bunny mask. In most or all Western nations, the free exercise of religion is a proteted activity.

The fact that Mormons require certain undies but not face covering is not relevant to protected activities. That would put government in the position of deciding which article of clothing a religion may or may not require, a very bad position for any governmen--and for its citizens.

As far as the burqa not being about dress, but about extreme behavior because it affect interactions with other citizens, so what? The same might be--and indeed has been said about wearing fishnet stockings or bikinis or mini skirts or plunging necklines. All may affect your interactions with other citizens. More significantly, that has nothing to do with what Sarkozy said. The issue is whether Sarkozy is being misogynistic and you are debating whether any reason can be conjured up to rationalize the banning of burkas. Those are two very different issues.

As far as buying insurance, again, so what? I may not want to buy insurance from someone wearing a clown mask, but if s/he says religion requires it and is willing to risk loss of the sale, that should be between the wearer, his or church or temple and employer, if any. hould government declare an end to all clown masks anywhere, even if religion requires them?

Equating bigamy with wearing a burka is too silly to require a response. Among many other things, bigamy raises issues of spousal and child support, which are a legitimate concern of government and bigamy laws apply equally to people of all religions, and to people of no religion. And, many of those mormons to whom you refer legally married only one wife anyway. The rest were "spirtual marriages," about which the state can do squat, besides requiring child support, as it would with any adulterer.

As far as the Amish horse and buggy, I believe you are mistaken about their not being allowed. Horse drawn carriages are all over major cities in North America, day and night. Their passengers are typically lovers or tourists. It would be an odd traffic law indeed that permitted buggies if tourists or romantics wanted them, but not if religion required them.

That's my beef with burqas. Hijabs often are very beautiful (as are saris).

the change didnt come in hinduism and india from others, the change came from within.

it changed was what?

social change occurs.

how economic changes affected the notion that a woman should cover her face? If it was due to the fact that women could vote, that does explain a lot, doesn't it?

these things cannot be done from the outside and do have to be somewhat organic.

otherwise women are twice oppressed: from their communities and by the xenophobia etc on the outside

but as far as the Muslim women in France and I assume Sarkozy is speaking of women who live in France so xenophobia doesn't really apply, if these women are going to live in a Western country, they should assimilate or what's the point of moving there? And if it pisses off the men, tough shit. I'm sorry that I have no patience for what I see as a clear indication of oppression.

I think every country has the right to decide what kind of citizen they want to join them. If this law passes, then women who wish to dress in that horrid garment can either find another country to immigrate to or stay where they are. I find it supremely ironic that it's Muslim immigrants are speaking of intolerance when in many Muslim countries, other religions cannot even be practiced.

a permanent resident or a citizen. And posters have a right to disagree with those choices and the bases for those choices. And, if the choice is saying women dressed a certain way may not enter, but to leave a male's wardrobe totally up to him, that might certainly be a valid basis for calling the law misogynistic.


Your last point is a good argument when the topic of tthe thread is whether Muslim countries are as tolerant as France. That is not the subject of the thread.

visitors?

I don't think the meaning of "xenophobia" is quite that literal or limited. Certainly, a recent immigrant can be, and often is, considered a "foreigner," even if that is not technically correct.


Even beyond that, a sub-group within your own nation can look, act or live in a different way than the majority lives. People who live in your own country can be "foreign or strangers in the sense that they are "not one of us." Isn't that the root of most bigotry, whether or not you label it xenophobia? (Conversely, someone can be and feel "one of us," even if they come from a different country. It's the "us" and "them" distinction that is relevant, not the national border.)

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/foreign

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/stranger

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/xenophobia


I respect both religious freedom and women's rights, so this post is not about either of those larger issues, only about the meaning of xenophobia.

"From the outside" is how we ended slavery and how we ended Jim Crow.

very different issues.

have slaves in the U.S., both sex slaves and domestic slaves. And, to this day, we have racial discrimination.

We did put an end to federal and state governments's mandating or being complicit in them. Actually, we did not even end that because government sometimes continues to be complicit in disccrimination.

The government of France never required wearing of a burka. If it had, it would be a very good thing to stop requiring it.


I am still mulling over, though, whether it is a good thing for the government of France to ban burkas, as a matter of law. I have not decided yet.

I have no problem, though, with Sarkozy using his bully pulpit without enacting a law, though, as long as he isn't just the flip side of Muslim patriarchalism, or patronizing or condescending, etc.

They are in France, not Afghanistan.

Do you agree that the burkhas should
be removed for Passport and Driver's
License I.D.'s and for testifying in
court?

My personal theory is that one of the
main reasons the burkha is so popular
is that men frequently don them to escape
the law in their countries, and it is
difficult to I.D. them.

I have also read that the sequestering
of women in their homes creates a sort
of natural 4th Amendment, because male law
enforcement are not permitted to search
a home where women are in residence.
Kind of a natural warrant system.

did Sarkozy cite any of those things, or did he just claim to be championing women's rights, regardless of what their religion requires?


I am not familiar with the French Constitution, except in the general sense that the French patterned their revolution on ours. However, I have read a lot of SCOTUS cases and related materials. In the US, when government infringe upon a Constitutional right, such as free exercise of religion, government must have a damn good reason. I don't think saving women from their own religious choices fits that description. And, if you have a good reason, you may infringe only to the extent absolutely necessary to serve that good reason. Saying burqas have no place in France (including your own home) is very different from saying government may require you to remove the burka under X, Y and Z circumstances, like ID, reasonable cause in pursuit of ending crime (ala our 4th Amendment cases), drivers' license, etc.

There might be a legitimate argument in specific instances, but, on a general level of who is welcome in a country, no one has the right to expect others to show their body.

But I would think you're doing it because you're afraid of what would happen if you didn't. I would consider you one step above slave.

If you consider a person little more than a slave based on their culture or religious dress, that really says a lot more about you than them.

imposed on these women.

And I think you know that.

Thank you! That is the bottom line, because giving women a real choice means realizing they may not always make the same choice that you would.

I think they believe it because they've been brainwashed by their religion and by males around them. Therefore, they are not making a truly free choice. But, they do believe they are.

They might say it's their choice, but it wouldn't be an issue if this oppressive practice hadn't been originated and pushed by men -- men who hold power over women and can make their lives living hell if they refuse to go along with this horrible practice.

See Tansy Gold's post, #11. She says it better than I could.

It's pretty obvious you don't know any Muslim women.

I do, and they don't take any shit from any man.

I have known her family and several of her Muslim friends for, oh, about 30 years now. She is adamantly opposed to burqas and calls them inhumane.

a perspective i dont think you have

that should be rejected because in themselves, they are meant to control women. The burga is one of those.

:eyes:

I am not talking about forcing women to wear religious garments of any sort, but I am disturbed by the idea that no woman is capable of making a choice to not show her body for any (including religious) reasons.

thing you have going is over the top. Why don't you write to RAWA and ask them what "choosing" to wear a burga is like? They'll respond.

on women. RAWA does work in places where clothing is enforced, like in afghanistan.

however, different issue when forcing women NOT to wear something in places where they have choice.

There are options for observant women that don't involve hampering their movement or obscuring their identity.

And if these women's chauvenistical husbands dont like it, they should get a free one way ticket to
the burkha wearing country of their choice...

About two dozen Muslim women protested Thursday outside the Dutch parliament against a proposed ban on the burqa, the head-to-toe Islamic robe.

Several protesters wore long robes and veils exposing only their eyes, known as a niqab.

"We live in a free country and the government cannot tell us what to do with our religion," protest organizer Ayse Bayrak told The Associated Press. "We don't live in a dictatorship. We don't live under the Taliban, which oppresses women."

http://www.wwrn.org/article.php?idd=23567&sec=36&cont=5

the burka, and transport it to their new country of choice... and then scream they don't live under the taliban.... i just don't get it.

didn't the taliban, or those males of like mind, come up with the burka, in the beginning? or did the females of their society collaborate on their holy writings? is it even in their holy writings?

i'm totally ignorant here, so am not trying to start a food fight.

but bottom line (as an atheist) it is my considered opinion that one of the primary PURPOSES of religion is to subjugate women. the added the nicey nice stuff to put the lipstick on the pig. (AND get great thought control of the masses.)

but that is just my opinion. and we all have one. mine is just as valid as yours.

your mileage may vary.

the fucking taliban is the height of dishonesty. Call me intolerant all you want, those women are brainwashed.

A Muslim woman who defends the burqa is brainwashed?

Unfuckingbelievable.

That's the way I feel. You may as well have them with a ball and chain locked to their ankle. Nobody should have to cover their face (and that's the objection I have - not to hijabs or any garment that does not cover the face. I find it completely dehumanizing.

for everyday life. Faces need to be exposed for security purposes.

I think they should be allowed to wear whatever they want as long as it doesn't hurt anyone. One would think that in France a woman could choose to not wear a burka if she made that choice (although she would probably have to walk away from that religion). What needs to stop is any type of enforcement of oppressive Sharia law which would conflict with French law. So...wear burkas with exposed face if you want, don't if you choose not to. Expect to not be oppressed by Sharia law when living under French rule (IOW, separate church and state).

It is a religious thing, no?

I would not excuse his slavery because his owner said it was a matter of religion and personal choice.

And if the man in chains told me he didn't mind, if he told me it made him feel safe and secure, I would not believe him. A man in chains is not free to tell the truth about his chains.


But if it's only a burka and it's only a woman. . . . . . .


:sarcasm: for those who don't know




Tansy Gold

shows the absurdity of that position very well. It's perfect.

I wish other posters here on DU would open their eyes to this.

If I see a grown man wearing chains in public and tells me he wants to wear them, I assume he's making a personal choice and don't assume he's enslaved. He's not in the context of slavery and I would assume it was a personal choice (or performance art) before I assumed he was forcibly made to pick cotton. You can assume he has no choice in the matter or you can realize some people have kinks or make choices that you don't.

Look. Do women have agency or not? Can they make the choice to be religious and wear symbols of their religion or not? Isn't the important thing to give women the choice? If I see a women wearing any kind garment in a country that requires her to wear it, I assume she has no choice and that she should have one. If I see a women in a garment where she has a choice of what to wear, I support her right to make a choice that I wouldn't make for myself.

I'm really surprised to see the bigotry and misogyny here. These women are apparently never capable of making a choice you wouldn't, because of where they come from or what they choose.

This is neither bigotry nor misogyny.

What these women wish to do in the privacy of their homes or other private places is entirely up to them.

My criticism is not of the women themselves, nor do I suggest that they have neither agency nor intelligence.

What I do take issue with is the notion that we must be tolerant of and "respect" oppressive practices based on an affirmation from the oppressed that "it's okay" with them when they really have no other choice.

They would probably not be accepted into a non-muslim environment in such garb. They could not hold a job in a non-muslim environment because they could not function -- but also they probably would not be permitted by the men who control them. Most cultures require that the face be visible for ordinary human interaction, and the veiling of the face is intended to prevent such interaction.

How many muslim women who are not compelled by their micro-society to wear such garb, voluntarily choose it? And do they choose it freely, or because they have been pressured or even threatened if they do not? How can you be sure, if they are still within that environment?

The argument that "if I see a man in chains I assume he's doing street theatre" is absurd. We know what street theater is and we know was dressing up is. There used to be a coffee shop here in my community in AZ that featured a regular who wore a wizard's outfit -- bathrobe emblazoned with celestial bodies, pointed hat, etc. Whether this was street theater, I don't know. But I know it's not something imposed against his will. He has chosen of his own free will to dress that way. I generally wear a sarong around the house and occasionally out in public, but not often. It's my choice.

But even to say that these women make their choices based on "where they come from" suggests that they do not make those choices of free will, since they are no longer there. Do their menfolk still wear the traditional garb of their home country, or have they adopted "western" styles? If so, why don't the women? Are they ALLOWED TO, or not?

What Sarkoczy is saying is that France is not Afghanistan or Yemen or Saudi; it is France. And the laws of France are different from the laws of Afghanistan or Yemen or Saudi, and those who have chosen to live in France must abide by those laws.

There is a point at which we must stop being tolerant of everything that is "different." Some things that are "different" are bad and should not be tolerated. When schoolgirls are allowed to die in a fire because it would be immodest for them to escape in front of non-relative males, that is intolerable, but it happened. When the manifestations of a similar misogyny are tolerated, then the misogyny itself is tolerated.

If a woman -- of any faith -- wishes not to be seen, not to be recognized, not to show her face, what are we to make of that? What are we to make of her attitude toward other women who do show their faces? If it is a part of her culture that she believes women should not be seen by men other than their husbands and near relatives, how can we expect her to behave in a culture that believes otherwise? Will her husband be excused if he kills her because he believes another man has seen her face and therefore impugned the husband's honor? If he believes this sincerely and SHE believed it sincerely, is that not part of their religion and their culture and is it not to be tolerated even when translated to France or Spain or Dubuque, Iowa?

It is not, after all, men's faces that may not be seen, but only women's. THAT, my friend, is misogyny. THAT is bigotry directed at a group of people solely on the basis of their gender. My quarrel is with behavior, not gender, not religion, not faith.

But I really don't expect most of the people on this thread to agree with me.



Tansy Gold

They would probably not be accepted into a non-muslim environment in such garb. They could not hold a job in a non-muslim environment because they could not function -- but also they probably would not be permitted by the men who control them. Most cultures require that the face be visible for ordinary human interaction, and the veiling of the face is intended to prevent such interaction.

You are saying that we should allow discrimination against women for their religious choices and refuse to consider that there are women with the capacity to make their own choices. There are many reasons why people may not show their faces, which include disabilities and religious choices -- both protected under the laws of this country. Your ethnocentricism is truly appalling.

"How many muslim women who are not compelled by their micro-society to wear such garb, voluntarily choose it? And do they choose it freely, or because they have been pressured or even threatened if they do not? How can you be sure, if they are still within that environment?"

How you can you be sure that they aren't? I can be sure that there are at least some women, because I personally know them. If there is any indication that they would want to make a different choice, I would support them in that also. If they were in abusive situation, I would help them, just like I'd help anyone in the same situation.

The argument that "if I see a man in chains I assume he's doing street theatre" is absurd. We know what street theater is and we know was dressing up is.

You are being absurd. When I see a woman in floor-length clothing, she is usually a nun. It is possible that she was badgered all her life and pressured into a vocation in a religion I rarely have anything nice things to say about. However, it's also possible that she made an informed choice based on years of religious study. What I am saying - and you are completely missing - is that it is not my judgment that matters. I am not going to tell my friends to take their clothes off to conform to societal pressure any more than I'm going to call another woman a slut for wearing a short skirt.

But even to say that these women make their choices based on "where they come from" suggests that they do not make those choices of free will, since they are no longer there. Do their menfolk still wear the traditional garb of their home country, or have they adopted "western" styles? If so, why don't the women? Are they ALLOWED TO, or not?

"Menfolk?" Do you live in Middle Earth? Yes, as a matter of fact some men do wear clothing they purchased in another country. I know this, because I am from a family of immigrants and because I leave my house and see other people. Your ignorance is truly astounding. Yes, there are also men that are required by their religions to wear certain garments. I notice that Sarcozy isn't speaking to those garments, though.

What Sarkoczy is saying is that France is not Afghanistan or Yemen or Saudi; it is France. And the laws of France are different from the laws of Afghanistan or Yemen or Saudi, and those who have chosen to live in France must abide by those laws.

The discriminatory laws in France should not be praised, any more than discriminatory laws in the US or anywhere. This is the same argument that America-first idiots use to persecute immigrants for maintaining their own culture.

There is a point at which we must stop being tolerant of everything that is "different." Some things that are "different" are bad and should not be tolerated. When schoolgirls are allowed to die in a fire because it would be immodest for them to escape in front of non-relative males, that is intolerable, but it happened. When the manifestations of a similar misogyny are tolerated, then the misogyny itself is tolerated.

Allowing women to choose what to wear is not that point. If it is, then where is outrage against nuns? I don't defend forcing women to do wear burqas or to sacrifice schoolgirls. So strawman is irrelevant.

If a woman -- of any faith -- wishes not to be seen, not to be recognized, not to show her face, what are we to make of that?

"We" don't have to make out anything. I'm simply horrified by your line of reasoning that you have the right to regulate how people relate to their religion and culture, because it might disturb your eyes to see how a woman dresses. What I make of that is that it is her choice.

What are we to make of her attitude toward other women who do show their faces?If it is a part of her culture that she believes women should not be seen by men other than their husbands and near relatives, how can we expect her to behave in a culture that believes otherwise? Will her husband be excused if he kills her because he believes another man has seen her face and therefore impugned the husband's honor? If he believes this sincerely and SHE believed it sincerely, is that not part of their religion and their culture and is it not to be tolerated even when translated to France or Spain or Dubuque, Iowa?

What if fairies flew out of her nose and sprinkled glitter on school children? You are making such huge assumptions. Wearing a garment doesn't mean you're frightened of other men or that your relatives are going to kill you. Allowing people to dress how they like doesn't excuse murder, whether she's wearing a burqa or hot pants.

It is not, after all, men's faces that may not be seen, but only women's. THAT, my friend, is misogyny. THAT is bigotry directed at a group of people solely on the basis of their gender. My quarrel is with behavior, not gender, not religion, not faith.

And priests don't necessarily cover their heads. I'm not defending religious organizations. I am saying that a woman has the right to choose to be a nun. She has the right to choose to be a Muslim. When she has a choice, it is none of my business to judge her for taking advantage of her freedom by making a choice I wouldn't like.

My quarrel is with ethnocentric busybodies who make assumptions based on fantasies and support discrimination.

But I really don't expect most of the people on this thread to agree with me.

And they shouldn't.

arguing that their sisters should be "allowed" to dehumanize themselves in public should they so choose.

The lack of common sense, let alone, the lack of deep logic, is astonishing.

:thumbsup:

if you're going to a costume party for progressives. You don't have to wash your hair and you'll be the center of stimulating conversation.

I'm an atheist, BTW.

I'd prefer that over what we have here anyday.

We must challenge those Muslims that have taken the command for men and women to dress modestly and turned it into an instrument of subjugation and oppression. The burqa in particular is intended to make women invisible. The same goes for Christians that deny women the priesthood or impose their rules of sexual oppression, and for those Jews that throw stones and insults at women for daring to carry a Torah to the Western Wall.

Let's see some men wearing them!!!

of women being told to be submissive to their husbands. A lot of that has been toned down in Christianity, but it's still strong in Islam. And it still goes on right here in this country in some Amish /Mormom communities. We can't regulate what private religions do (as long as people aren't being killed/raped of course).

Women who wear burqas in Western Europe are not being forced to do so. If their husband is being controlling, they can divorce him. They wear it for religious reasons, as a personal choice. It is not something forced upon them like clitorectomies. You, and many others in this thread, are simply revealing your anti-Islam chauvinist beliefs by making such absurd comments.

... but I just wanted to add a thought. :D

When you said, "If their husband is being controlling, they can divorce him"... unfortunately, it's not always that simple. As any woman who has endured an abusive spouse can attest.

I'm on record, below, as opposing the burqa, but I also realize that this idea of a government ban is not -- as you've noted -- simple or cut-and-dried, either. :hi:

The wearing of the burqa is an extreme practice of Islam. It is not a common practice in the Muslim world and is actually a symbol of extremism that is condemned by most.

It's no coincidence that reinstating the wearing of the burqa is the first thing the Taleban did when they took power in Afghanistan.

And lots of it here in the US, like Evangelicals, Pentecostals, and the Amish. However, something that often forgotten is that many people are voluntarily doing these things out of religious devotion, and not due to force. As an atheist that grew up around fundamentalist Christians, I am very well aware of this fact.

"If their husband is being controlling, they can divorce him."

How the fuck do you know that? What are the consequences for some of these women who go ahead and divorce? Homelessness? Shunning by extended families? Never seeing their children again? You think a man who would force a woman to wear a burqa is just going to go, "Oh, all right, dear. I'm sorry you feel that way. Let's sit down and work out a fair and applicable divorce agreement where I'll contribute my fair share to your well-being."

YOU should be ashamed of yourself for defending this method of oppression of women!

By the way, how do you know I'm anti-Islam? I'm actually against all practices that oppress people in the name of religion, whether it be anti-abortion bullshit by the Catholic Church, "women are to obey men" beliefs by fundie Christians, burqas, you name it. Just because something is called "religious" doesn't mean I have to accept or respect a practice. Do you know how much horror has been inflicted upon people in the name of religion? Religion in general is a system used to justify treating different types of people differently -- and women are the victims the vast majority of the time.

So spare me your holier than thou crap.

Bye.

P.S. See post #11.

I know very well how fundamentalists behave. In the vast majority most instances in the West, their behavior is voluntary. Your problem is that you have assumed that all of these women in Western Europe are being forced to wear burqas, which is not true. Western Europe is not feudal Saudi Arabia or Taliban era Afghanistan. There are no government authorities out forcing them to behave that way.

African American descent to prefer straight hair and light skin. No government authority requires African American people to call white people 'sir" when they don't do the same for other classifications. , yet quite a few still do. A few generations ago, most did. A society can teach self-loathing, subservience, helplessness, etc. In America, until relatively reccently, the culture and the outcome of court cases said it was okay to rape a woman if she flirted or dressed provocatively. And please see Reply 205.

If women had chosen the burka in the first instance, I might be more amenable to the proposition that it was the free choice of women. If I believed that women would fight for the right to wear the burka after the men of their culture declared it undesirable or anathema, I might be more amenable to the argument that it was a voluntary choice being made by women.

That said, I don't know that having a man ban burkas is a huge improvement. One way or another, men are deciding what women should or must wear. It's a tough issue.

of having power over their lives.

You should be ashamed of yourself for not realizing that. This has nothing to do with Islam and everything to do with allowing women to live freely as human beings.

And that is definitely the case in the vast majority of instances in Western Europe. This thread is about Muslim women living in Western Europe, and not in feudal Saudi Arabia or Taliban era Afghanistan.

What does it take for you to reject a practice whose sole aim is to control women?

This is a global problem, not a local one. And it is up to people who have the use of their frontal lobes to recognize these practices and reject them. You are not empowering anyone by promoting the burga. You are agreeing to yet another generation of oppression.

That is the big problem with many posts in this thread. The assumption is that all women that wear burqas in Western Europe are being forced to do so. That is definitely not the case in the vast majority of instances. There are no government authorities forcing them to wear burqas in Western Europe. It is a very different situation compared to feudal Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan.

to take root in a society, let alone, to ignore the many consequences to the women already wearing the burga.

You try wearing something like that in your daily life for two days and then, get back to me.

While I think they are medieval relics, this seems more than a little Orwellian..

:yourock:

Burqas will eventually fade out in socities like France anyways, doing this will only prolong that event while trampling on individual's rights.

about being told what to wear from outside forces.

I understand what people think of it. But people do choose to wear them. And on a religious level, they do mean a lot to a lot of women emotionally and religiously. Forcing women to wear burkas should be unacceptable in any modern society. However, forcing them not to wear them, is also invasive on their own religious freedoms.

It is torture to make a woman wear heavy garments like that constantly.
I see these women on the bus clothed from head to toe in veils and coverings and feel so sorry for them.
I bet they would give anything just once to go out in a pair of Khakis and a t-shirt.
Sarkozy is right. Burquas are a sign of subjugation and should be banned.
Afghanistan would not permit women to dare wear our Western style clothing in their country, even if it was for so called religious reasons, so why shouldn't it be the same the other way around.
If Westerners are offended by this type of dress, then I don't have a problem with it not being allowed. It's offensive to women.

And voila, that's all it takes.

I thought individual freedom and self-expression were core values of the French.

millions more who wear religious clothing

:hi:

if it is, then Sarkozy is being a hypocrite and racist, since the nun's habit is definitely a symbol of female submission to the Male God.

Catholic nuns don't cover everything. theirs is more similar to the Hijab which i believe is still allowed.

http://www.kurskroot.com/orthodox_nuns.html

This is not about the five inches of face that isn't covered. It's about targeting one religion, because of xenophobia and perpetuating the idea that women can't be allowed to make choices about dress or religion.

their faces are not covered. burqas cover the face.

That was funny.

?v=0

others. I don't like the burqa. I would never wear one... but what Sarkozy has declared is religious discrimination.

and stoning. Curbing misogyny is not bigotry.

her every public moment is a form of social death.

when some white guy decides they cant wear somethign traditional to them?

its not social death in her own community either

and to see yours. Even girl babies. How do you think it will affect girl children born to those women to see their mother's face in the world? Even white guys are right once in a while but I won't go on record with that. :)

white christian guys making laws specifically for non-white non-christians have rarely, if ever been right.

with others, faces are.

Because that's the piece that led me to conclude that the burqa is so egregious that it amounts to a human rights violation.

The face, the ability to recognize and respond to it, is one of the first capabilities we develop as infants. It is so central to the reality of being human, of existing and surviving and making the most of our experience in the world.

To my mind, the discussion should not center on whether the burqa is right or wrong, but how best to end its use. Admittedly, that sets the terms of the debate before it even begins. But I don't see any other way around it: Until a woman who wears the burqa can stop wearing it with NO disruption to her well-being, no retaliation from family or community, I honestly don't feel it can truly be considered a choice.

posters here are dismissing it.

And I will go further than you do. No Western democracy should allow the burga. Period. Because the burga is wrong. It is anti-democratic and inhumane. It is solely a means to control women. And it's far long past time that we recognize that and that we stand up and reject it.

And I don't believe any woman wears it truly out of choice.

That said, I'm a bit torn about this. Certainly, the idea of a government-mandated dress code is pretty chilling, to say the least. Lots of slippery slopes, there.

But the idea of society standing up and demanding equality and emancipation FOR ALL has some appeal, no? It could spare many women many decades of oppression.

but c'mon - he can't dictate what women can or cannot wear. I wear big sunglasses and a voluminous head scarf when I go out, to protect my skin and eyes from the wind and allergens. My face is hidden. My face, my business. If they're getting a driver's license, appearing in court, whatever - then they should have to show their face, obviously.

You can't legislate stupid. If they're being forced to wear the burqa it's one thing - but if they're choosing to dress this way, then let them be ignorant. Or educate them.

Forcing women to wear particular clothing is oppressive, but I find the generalizations here ludicrous and offensive. Forcing women not to wear burqas is also wrong. I'm an atheist, but even I know that women in various religions wear similar clothing. The issue is force, which is less of an issue in countries that aren't theocracies. This stinks of nationalism and persecuting immigrants.

generally speaking.

The disparate impact of this "concern" is telling. Bottom line: women should be able to make the choice not to show their bodies with others, just like women shouldn't be judged for showing more than religious conservatives would like. Because whose choice should it be?

are dressing to please or appease men. Besides, there is no burka in that cartoon.

It's just being oppositional.

wear them any more any way. Allowing the burga to spread to France is idiotic. What's next, clitoridectomies? Spousal immolation?

These are orthodox nuns, who apparently find the habits comforting and freeing. I know Muslim women that feel the same way about burqas. Any women should be able to decide what she wears, including making a choice to belong to a religion that I don't believe in and wouldn't choose for myself.

Allowing women to choose to wear a burqa is nothing like allowing another person to slice a woman's clitoris off, especially against her will.

during which she is constantly encouraged to examine herself and question that the choice she is making is a true calling.

It cannot be compared with the circumstances in which women "choose" to wear the burqa.

ETA: nuns are also free to leave the habit & community and resume a secular life any time they choose to do so.

The comparison would be better if ALL religious catholic women were forced or admonished to wear the habit.

It's not a good example at all.

Some where it voluntarily and some belong to cultures that don't require it.

You are so wrong about nuns taking themselves out of public life, by the way. Some orders are secluded, but most interact with public.

They aren't everyday moms and dads, nor do they go out and seek employment in the secular sector of society. They are married to Jesus and employed by the Church.

The most important difference is, and will remain, the fact that they show their faces. They have normal interactions with lay people.

If Birqa-clad women were married to a specific religious affiliation and thusly employed by them, that would be one matter. However, they must either be taken care of by their male relations or live on welfare, since they cannot be employed in the public sector. The differences are many.

She should be able to leave the religion and resume a secular life. It can be compared to a person making a free choice to be a part of a religion with parts that use similar clothing and that strongly encourages obedience, especially to male religious authorities.

Western women are not the only ones with the capacity to choose to belong to a religion.

extensive waiting periods before they "choose" the burqa? And the freedom to not wear the burqa, or take it off whenever they please?

What I am saying that there are women with the capacity to understand their religion and to make a choice to wear a burqa that isn't about being forced to do it. There are people that make that choice, just as there are nuns that choose to become nuns. I personally find it hard to believe how anyone could become a nun, but all of my suspicious thoughts about conditioning or perpetuating patriarchy in the church are my problem. At the point the government steps in to decide what women have to show, it should be everyone's problem.

The level of ignorance in this thread is really unfortunate. There is an entire fashion industry surrounding burqas and hijab, for instance. (Google burqa & fashion) Surprisingly enough, there are women that don't want to dress like me and I'm fine with that.

And the government has stepped in and rectified many practices that oppress women. That's why we can vote and own property and run for office. Good grief.

chose to wear them.

For the same reason you are suspicious of the "choice" some women make to become nuns, I am suspicious of the "choice" to wear a burqa.

As far as "fashionable" burqas go....well, chains of gold are still chains.

I don't want them to think that could happen to them. No way.

It's not like these women have ENOUGH obstacles in their path, our armchair social relativists want to keep one more on their behalf.

I want my nieces to play soccer and run in marathons and run for office and speak out on their own behalf. You can't do any of those things in a burga. But how precious of Western sisters to advocate for the continuing marginalization of women.

because I do not, for one minute, actually BELIEVE that women choose to wear the burqa.

As far as exposing your nieces to the practice, well, I actually think that could be a GOOD thing, as a cautionary tale about how women are treated in some cultures and how freedom is never to be taken for granted and oppression should be opposed. (Not that I think it's good to have women suffer to be a cautionary tale - I'd much rather see all women living free).

And imho, cautionary tales should be framed that way for young women, not simply part of their ambience. They have enough to deal with. No, I don't want my nieces to believe that it's all right for women to be erased in public and that everyone is fine with it. We already do that to ourselves without the five yards of material fabric to make it literal and official. :)

People can come and go as they please, in and out of religions. Nobody cares. It's all about the wearing of masks, which interfere with daily interactions and the ability of a woman to sustain herself economically. You're also conflating your experiences as an American with a kind of life thousands of miles away that would be totally alien to you and the views you are espousing. France is not America, and their views of secular life, which is supported by the majority, muslims included, is not your business is it?

Do you know what a "smiley-face" means in some European circles? Do you support the lord's prayer in American classrooms? Do you support the sexual submissive's right to self-determination in her wearing of leather masks and ball gags in public places? Answer those questions then get back to me about freedom of religion, the state's right to oppose clothing, and women's choices.

of a withdrawal from secular society. The burga is a message that women don't belong there.

We don't need that message to spread.

You are projecting your assumptions on all Muslim women.

to be born a woman. If only women who converted to Islam wore the burka, I'd be less conflicted about this thread. I'd still have some conflicts, though. Whenever men tell women what women must do to avoid offending God, there's an issue. And, unfortunately, that is the case with every patriarchal religion.

Women can to wear them in public





...or else.


What?
It's a fair comparison, oui ?

"The burqa is not a religious sign, it is a sign of the subjugation, of the submission of women. I want to say solemnly that it will not be welcome on our territory," he said to strong applause.

lol

:7

Natch. :D

:hi:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jun/23/sarkozy-burka-french-parliament


Just in passing, when is the last time you found a reference to a philosopher in an opinion piece in a US 'news'paper? Even if the title of the reference work is not quite correct (Grundlinien der Philosophie des Rechts = Elements of the Philosophy of Right) it is still impressive.

I am not a huge fan of German Idealism - especially considering what was built on it - but Hegel did have some good thoughts, and his idea that a person is not truly free unless able to participate in all elements of life in The State (The State being "the march of God through the world": You can see where this might lead to problems (and, yes, it might be a bit of a mistranslation)) is as good a definition of freedom as I have read.

Stuart Jeffries (not really a philosophical descendant of Hegel) goes on to make the point that "...Sarkozy is thus a modern-day Robespierre, proposing some women – whom he presumes to have been silenced by patriarchal society and whose voices he doesn't want to hear – be terrorised in the name of the kind abstract freedoms France has venerated for 210 years."

I admit that I find that I do agree with Sarko that the wearing of the burka is based upon repression - and I personally find it jarring, feeling very much at sea not being able to read expressions (except in the eyes, which does help a lot) - but I also agree with Jeffries that women should not be forced to not wear it.

I cannot find the article now, but about a year ago I read an article in the Guardian written by a Muslim woman - born in England - who chose to wear a burka for a week around London. She was shocked by the overt antagonism that it engendered, and she did not feel that the antagonism was directed at freeing her from submission, but at punishing her for being different.

In the end, I believe that people should be free to wear what they will - or will not: I have no problem with starkers OR with a suit. The state, be it Muslim, Christian, Hindi ... or Secular should not dictate what is, after all, a very personal decision about how you present yourself to the world.

is mendacious at worst, uninformed at best.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=3660502&mesg_id=3660502

Why should France take an issue as meaningless as the Paris/Milan fashion shows ?

/sarc

(by that I mean citizens of the US, I can't speak for the other American states)

don't know Hegel from a bagel. Seriously. Even the newspaper readers.

Anyway, would you object to the type that covers even a woman's eyes?

Accepting these extremely restrictive garments into Western society brings up some thorny issues.
Driver's license? How about going into their bank?
My bank branch doesn't even allow sunglasses & hats. Somehow I don't think a burqa would be smiled upon.

Okay, so maybe these women will "choose" not to get government ids or leave the banking to their male relatives. So then they are basically no better off than in their home countries. Are we going to accept a whole slave class, and yes, I call it slavery, slavery based on sex, existing in Western countries?

I'm all for personal choice, but these issues trouble me deeply.

please, a woman wearing a burka is most certainly not going to look any male who is not her brother, husband or father directly in the eyes. read expressions? try again.

Conch Widow. The Lady wears a conch or coque, a gauze veil stretched like a fig shaped balloon over a light metal frame. Worn mostly by widows in France. Bosse, ca. 1640 French


Noble Lady. The lady wears a mask to protect her face, later, in the 1660s, those vizors were fashionable to be worn indoors as well, on evening occasions. Callot, ca. 1625. French

http://www.kipar.org/period-galleries/galleries_earlye.html

I should be arguing against it but I actually find it refreshing.

Not only are burqas a symbol of oppression, they hide beauty. Fuck burqas and anyone who would tell a woman she has to wear one.

That doesn't make any sense to me.

:sarcasm:

it matters little to me whether my stance makes sense to you, but in answer to your question, YES, I'm okay with it.

But I find the idea of government-mandated dress codes revolting.

Funny that the conservative President of France is so much more progressive on this issue than many craven DUers.

to decide what women can wear :eyes:

I know it is typically used as a way to oppress women, but not necessarily, not like say stoning to death women for the "crime" of being raped. It is possible for some to wear it out of their cultures idea of modesty. Nuns don't exactly strip down, but no one is talking about banning them from wearing their very traditional and conservative garb (meant to cover up anything sexual, not that much different).

a culturally/religiously conditioned doctrine is operative or free choice. It's a little like my saying I want to wear lipstick and someone else telling me I only think I want that because men have conditioned me to think I want it. Ditto losing weight, "wanting" a nose job, "wanting" expensive clothes or certain kinds of clothes.

Given the history of the world, it's really hard to know when a woman really "wants" something, unless she is bucking what men have always taught. And maybe even then, it's hard to know.

If sexism had never existed. I'd know exactly which side of the argument I wanted to be a total asshole about, LOL. As it is, it's more complicated than most posters on this thread seem willing to consider. Of course, a woman should be able to make a free choice about what she wears. But, given the history of the world, it's hard to tell when her choice is truly free, in more than a superficial sense. On the other hand, just saying that it's hard to know when a woman is truly making a free choice is probably more than a little misogynistic, in and of itself.

What about making it against the law for anyone to dictate what people wear or don't wear, unless the dictate applies to men and women equally (e.g., no private parts showing, except on topless or nude beaches), rather than making it against the law to wear a burka?

I take it you don't approve of that, either?

especially when women are expected to cover up more than their male peers. this includes Christian sects that have women wearing those extra long skirts and long sleeves.

BUT.

I believe strongly in personal expression. as long as they genuinely WANT to wear that, then I respect their decision, as much as I hope they respect my decision to dye my hair blue and wear a tank top showing off my tattoos.