French police fine Muslim driver for wearing veil

A French Muslim woman has been fined for wearing a full-face veil while driving a car.

Police in the western city of Nantes said the veil - which showed only her eyes - restricted her vision and could have caused an accident.

The woman's lawyer says they will appeal against the decision, which he described as a breach of human rights.

The incident follows months of intense debate in France about whether the veils should be banned.

Earlier this week, President Nicolas Sarkozy ordered parliament to debate a law banning women from wearing full-face Islamic veils in public.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8641070.stm

a ball cap would've. Let them wear their religious garb. Why not?

it's obvious.

I'm on the side of the cops on this one.

It should be up to the women if they WANT to wear it.

with some netting. It's NOT like wearing a baseball cap.

These things interfere with vision, especially peripheral vision. They're really a dumb idea for drivers. (And in Saudia Arabia, where most women wear them, women aren't allowed to drive.)

Why not? What is wrong with that? Why outlaw it?

that is, unidentifiable?

It isn't agaisnt the law here. I see it from time to time. I notice it because it isn't that common, but I have no problem with it. I have a problem with it being forced for them to wear it, but if they WANT to wear it as part of their beliefs, I don't care.

How would you identify the driver in court? What would you do at the accident scene if she refused to take off her face veil?

That is more my concern. I don't want women forced to wear anything. Ever. But when do you stop?

that might interfere with someone's freedom in any way -- particularly someone's religious freedom -- even when the thing that's being discussed ITSELF limits a woman's freedom.

So the question is -- should women be FREE to be publicly ENSLAVED. What if a religion demanded that women wear dog collars and be lead around by men? Would we support that on the grounds of religious freedom? And on the right of the woman to choose to wear the collar and the leash?

I think we have to draw the line somewhere, so the question is where.

Yes, that's my problem, too. Where do we draw the line, and at what point is the line unacceptable, and to whom is it unacceptable to?

It certainly is a vicious cycle.

:shrug:

Self edit for spelling error!

individuals. And of course when it stops short of being an offence to public decency, but that's another question.

problems.

Bank employees don't seem to be concerned in the least.

Everyone seems to understand they likely have a cold and don't want to spread it around.

I'd also stipulate that China's misogynistic culture (foot binding) has been virtually eliminated through strict governmental control.

Wearing a mask to ensure health during H1N1 is completely different than having a history of suppressing female participation in society.

Cause I work in downtown PHX and haven't seen more than 2 people in surgical masks in the last 6 months.....

Still popular here, in most cases worn by people who have a cold. Sometimes by people working or going to school in an environment where others have colds. In a couple of recent meetings of 8-10 people, two in each meeting wore a mask. Naturally I was terrified, thinking they would be pulling out a gun and robbing me at any moment. :)

if you walked down the street or into a store or bank wearing a ski mask? The point is that a person can't be identified, if they commit a crime, if their face is covered. How do you know if that person is even a female? Plus, the face covering is not religious. It is cultural. There is nothing in Islamic law that says a woman must cover her face.

You start treading on some thin ice there when you tell people what they can or can't wear.

Find yourself in a darkened subway station with no one around except five people wearing head to toe coverings with nothing but slits for eyes. You going to feel safe? If you say yes, you're lying. Not to mention, the whole premise behind wearing these ghoulish slave costumes is to tell the world that a) men can't control their sexual urges and it's up to women to hide their bodies so men won't be driven to rape and b) that the particular woman wearing the slave costume belongs to someone. Shame on you for your disgusting backwards views on the rights and dignity of women.

I've got plenty of Arab friends, some from India, Pakistan and even Saudi Arabia(went to Purdue). I will however kill the man who tries to put a burkha on any woman in my family.

But in my little circle I don't know any man of any culture who would even THINK of denigrating a woman in such a way as to make her wear garb with such revolting connotations. Sometimes I wonder about people. The first ones to denounce the quiverfull religion and the rabid anti-choicers are the first ones to defend the exact same subjugation of women when it's done in the name of other religions they find "exotic" or something.

I never said I wanted women to be forced to wear them. Ever. I actually said the opposite.

My point was more about telling people what they can wear in general. Not just Muslim women, but ALL people.

Wonder why people take offense to others wearing them. They're just clothes. Try wearing one of those on the street then get back to us about what's appropriate and what isn't.

And maybe while you're at it, you might read up on the big "choices" the women who wear these fucking slave outfits have. The ones in France are mostly imported, uneducated hillbillies from the villages of Morocco. When they arrive they're told "here, wear this shit," and that's pretty much it for them.

High horse indeed. Better than being ignorant.

They have become so highly politicized and adopted as a symbol of radicalism that Egypt is now considering banning them. As I'm sure you know this garb isn't religious required in Islam, it's always been cultural.

It's wild that it's taken on this aspect akin to KKK sheets. Very highly charged.

I had a friend in the army who said she served in some area and was required to do this when she went to some places.

the wearing of the burka, and I have several muslim friends. That could be because while they favor burkas, they fear looking extreme if they said so. But that's unlikely as they are all pretty liberal and Western-oriented, even on issues relating to women and gay people.

SHAME ON YOU for jumping to such a ridiculous conclusion. I specifically said I don't want any women FORCED to wear anything. My point is more about telling people what they can and can't wear. Kind of like some of the more radical Muslims do. See how that goes. So, I would expect you to revise your last statement as you know nothing about my views.

then you condone the subjugation of women and are willing to deny them equality and human dignity. It's as plain and simple as that.

I don't support people being forced to wear anything. You obviously have no clue what I stand for, so please don't reply to me anymore. You make stuff up and twist it around.

But like those items, the burqa has connotations and meaning that are offensive and speak of degradation and violence. If you don't understand that things like clothing and other artifices have meaning, then there is no hope for you. And I am not twisting anything at all.

If you don't want me to reply to you, then stop posting at me. Again, simple.

veils in public schools. I think they have it in Turkey, too. If they can ban them in Turkey, a Muslim country, why not France?

I don't have the actual statutes, but here's a couple of links:

Hillsborough County Sheriff's Office spokeswoman Debbie Carter said any disguise in public is illegal. Even on Halloween, adults aren't allowed to enter any businesses or stores with their faces covered.

http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/crime/tampa-man-jailed-on-charge-of-wearing-illegal-mask/1075485



Man arrested for wearing mask in public

Incredible as it may seem, it is illegal to wear a mask in public in West Virginia. When I talk about the pervasiveness of the police industrial complex, this is exactly what I'm talking about. The police note that tinted windows are also illegal, as they hinder law enforcement.

http://publicdefenderdude.blogspot.com/2005/05/man-arrested-for-wearing-mask-in.html

There is a degree with which the tint is too dark. I wasn't aware that wearing a mask in public on Halloween was illegal in some places. Crazy.

I can understand a law that prohibits women to be forced to wear this garb, but a law that forbids it seems wrong.

There is an emphasis on preventing a state establishment of religion -- rather than protecting religious freedoms.

France has stronger restrictions against the encroachment of religion than we do.

Actually, I didn't know that. Thanks for that.

while driving. You still want to make the claim that it would be the same as a baseball cap? Sheesh

.. and just passed a group of young Afghan girls en route to school. Believe me I know.

It is sometimes awkward to say the least to see a 13 year old girl who is wrapped up with barely any eyes showing and what you can see is pointed direct at the dirt because its been burned into her brain.

Anyone who says that all Islamic women wear it because they want to can get that notion straight out of their heads.

Same topic and it stuck with me...

The jist of it was that these women wear this because they want to. While that may be the case with some it most certainly is not the case for all.

Didn't mean to imply you specifically.

And one woman in a burqa could pass by her best friend without either of them recognizing each other.

... but there is a long road leading up to our office that the locals live/walk on. If you watch you can see the young girls walking with their eyes forward and then when they pass a male the eyes zip to the ground and then go back up.

The locals here have the full burqa for the adult women and the girls have a progression of covering based on their age that range from scarves on the head for little little ones to bigger scarves that cover arms, neck, face and head but without a veil for the eyes.

I live in Shreveport, LA and we get a lot of foreign Medical students, grad students, and physicians from countries all over the world here at the Louisiana State university Health Sciences Center. Believe it or not one Friday evening I was on a date and we stopped by Barnes & Nobles. I was at the magazine aisle and through my peripheral vision right next to me was a black form flipping through magazines. Very casually I looked over to the side to see a woman in full black burqua equipped with long black gloves, low heeled black shoes and black socks. Only the slit in her eyes were showing. Ironically, her husband and young son upon fetching her were happily dressesed in WESTERN WEAR. This was LA in the SUMMER with our hell-like humidity. I felt sorry for her. No woman should have to endure that I don't care what her religion is.

Hell, I'm a Catholic and don't agree with half of what I was taught. And I must add I despise Pope Benedict as a person, his co-called infallibility, and his pederastic sex cover-ups. I don't think that makes me no less a decent Catholic. It makes me sick to the stomach to look at him.

I guess not. Reading on is helpful you know. And not all of them cover their eyes. Some cover their noses and mouths.

:sarcasm:

It TOTALLY makes up for not letting female passengers wear shoulder seatbelts because they define the breasts.

(good post)

but I feel guilty just a bit

One thing to remember is that this particular form of dress is a bastardization of Islam ... the Koran (and Sh'aria) require modest dress.

was to keep sand out of the eyes in the desert, with all the windstorms. So the purpose wasn't religious at all.

And I would support everybody covering up in those circumstances!

intentionally obstructing their vision.

The lives of everyone on the road is more important than mythology

I've had to deal with the insanity of people driving with their vision intentionally obstructed. It is absolutely a hazard that I've narrowly avoided on multiple occasions.

What kind of person shows utter disregard for the lives of everyone around them? I'd say monster applies quite well.

We adapt. I wonder if the accident rate is any higher.

If it's any consolation, I doubt she'll be involved in road races, drunk driving, or the like.

Women who wear this type of garb want to be invisible. They absolutely shun eye contact, shun contact in general. They look down to avoid eye contact because they believe to connect with anyone outside their family is haram.

When driving, often times, a person makes a visual "contract" - "we both stopped at the same time, you go first". If it's any explanation, it's that this woman in her veil is unlikely to even make that "contract" to drive cooperatively. She won't make contact, she's not going to have that interaction with strangers because she has chosen to remove herself from even basic social constructs.

As someone who has tried on her veil, I'll also stipulate - it slips. This is like wearing a silk camisole (are you female?) It slides around and requires adjustment if you want to stay covered. There's no way her garment is "stabilized" enough to be safe driving. I repeat: as someone who has tried on this garment it is NOT SAFE FOR DRIVING. TMI but I ordered one of these from KSA for a class assignment. I was trying to make a point on female empowerment but one minute in this garb demonstrated it's exact purpose: to oppress.

These are just a few of the logistics but bottom line is the garment is misogynistic in the extreme. Nuff said right?

Clearly not. Are you working as stringently to remove laws banning female toplessness in your community? Much more female empowering and a clear threat to the patriarchy. Surely you are all over that right?

If it were shades would be as much a problem.

As for the slipping, perhaps women familiar with the niqab have a way to prevent it from doing so. I don't imagine it's rocket science.

So that leaves your implication that the woman is a misogynist for insisting on her right to wear a niqab.

instead of demanding toplessness for all.

Either you agree (and actively work for) the premise that ALL garments are inherently sexist or you agree that societies can and will determine what's appropriate in our public spheres.

Can you link me to your work on behalf of sexist garments (or the lack thereof) in your community? Feel free to PM me if you just can't share publicly. I'd also like your tips on slipping burqas and niqabs to enable safe driving. Not even the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia goes that far. They just acknowledge that the garb is impossible and ban women driving altogether.

Fact is: western cultures can and do restrict what women can and do wear in public. Men too for that matter.

I don't tolerate slavery, misogyny and oppression of women.

The burqa/niqab issue is crystal clear to me.

I'm off to bed. Peace.

...you'd also probably tell me I should take a course in feminism.:)

No hard feelings I hope, rider. I understand and respect your position.

Why don't you put a hajab on and do something that requires frequently looking around but is not dangerous? Then do the exact same thing with sunglasses.

I'm confident you will see how obstructive it is.

Apply law to a nun's habit as well if already not... to stay consistent if nothing else.

trying to make, but others want to say I support slavery, the KKK, etc. Jeez freakin' Louise.

toplessness for women isn't appropriate in our public squares.

Using the same logic as those who support these misogynistic garments, banning toplessness for women is also bigoted. I mean, Aboriginal women for example are topless for cultural and religious reasons ergo they should be allowed to be topless.

But the public has spoken on what is going to be allowed or disallowed. And we all generally agree without a lot of craziness. The burqa and niqab are now facing their own scrutiny and debate on whether it will be allowed in western cultures.

It's disheartening actually that banning a strong matriarchal empowering "outfit" like toplessness is easily accepted but the cultural relativists will fight for a terribly misogynistic garment like the niqab or burqa. It's just another symbol of how deeply entrenched patriarchical/female oppression is ingrained in our psyches

The west has strong cultural taboos on covering the face.

Also a nun's habit can arguably be a religiously required garment just like the hijab has some (contradictory and hazy) plausibility as a religious garment for Muslim women. You are confusing those with the niqab and burqa. The niqab and burqa are strictly cultural and are not religiously required in any way shape or form.

I fully support banning burqas.

gin

The left should be unequivocal on this point. The calls for a ban are yet another sign of the deplorable Islamophobia so prevalent in Western Europe. Think about it - in France you have (mostly) a group of old men debating and making laws about what women should be allowed to wear! How is this not a complete travesty? That people are up in arms about what Muslim women are forced to wear and the only thing we can do in response is force them to wear something else? We should be able to see through this nonsense, folks.

To try and paint this as an attempt to 'liberate' Muslim women seems patronizing, and just more of the same old tired story of 'White Man's Burden'. I happen to agree with those who think the burqa/niqab is an artifact of a repressive, anti-feminine culture (I think the same of high heels, plastic surgery, strip clubs, and leg shaving, for that matter). But to go from that to essentially saying we need to protect these people from themselves is to see women as infants. For instance, it's not hard to imagine a woman choosing to wear the veil because of its political significance. Because of the statement it makes in a world where Western nations invade predominantly Muslim nations, and then treat Muslim immigrants like second-class citizens. It's also possible a woman chooses to veil because she feels naked and ashamed without it. Are you going to tell her to walk around 'naked'?

To make this about public safety is also a bit distressing. Look at the attempts to compare veil wearers to balaclava-ed terrorists and criminals. What is the implication here? That a Muslim woman wearing a burqa/niqab is a potential troublemaker? If we're worried about incidents of terrorism perpetrated by Muslims then fight for actual, meaningful change in the world. Does anyone believe there would be this concern for safety if we not declaring war on, and killing millions of Muslim people in Asia? Or treating the immigrants in Western Europe as some kind of invading horde?

As for the case in the OP, I hesitate to go into great detail on my opinions about how silly traffic policing is. Is it dangerous to wear a veil behind the wheel? Maybe. More dangerous than driving and talking on a cell phone, or texting, or fiddling with an ipod, or eating a sandwich? I really don't know. I'm allowed to drive a car even though I have horrific vision, wear glasses, and don't have great peripheral vision. My great grandad was driving his truck around at 87. Sometimes doctors pretty much work days at a time then drive home. These are all dangerous things. The point is they're difficult to police.

In virtually every western culture without being called bigots.

France has a strong tradition of church/state separation stemming from their own Revolution. Those "old men" even banned clerical collars in their Christian clergy in their long battle to define their own position. Their ban on religious symbols in schools and other public institutions is widely embraced and endorsed even by their Muslim patriots.

I find your analogy about walking around "naked" very enlightening in lieu of my other statements on this: Aboriginal women are banned from walking around "naked" in Western cultures even though it's their cultural and religiously mandated state of affairs. But nobody has a problem with that.

Here are the cultural relativists: denying a strong matriarchal "outfit" - toplessness. And embracing/defending the inherently patriarchal shroud: the burqa/niqab. It is a 'repressive, anti-feminine" cultural affectation and the West is right to debate it's place in our society.

The left should be unequivocal on this point: the burqa/niqab has no place in our society.

Happy?

Welcome to DU.

There are all kinds of ways of policing what we wear. There are all kinds of ways these methods of policing should trouble us and make us think. The difference in the case of banning clerical garb during the Revolution and banning the burqa/niqab is the presence of racism and paternalistic sexism I see in the latter. I find it disturbing that we are engaged in imperial projects abroad, and the people who are immigrating to Western Europe are told they are an outside invading force. That they have to conform to European culture, as if such a thing really exists in the first place. What is 'our society' anyway?

As for no one having a problem with aboriginal women not be able to walk around naked, I would be curious what the aboriginal women think. I suspect they have some problems.

:rofl: GMAFB (go ahead and ask me if you don't know what the acronym stands for).

What is it? Is it something nasty or spiteful? Do you have any opinion on my post? I'm genuinely curious. I imagine no 'weighty authority' on much of anything. Just a man with an opinion on a discussion board. Lets discuss!

It's cool that you want to discuss. That takes a lot of self reflection, for you to approach a political message board, state your unqualified opinion, and then be open to debating your statements.

I do think it's arrogant for anyone to announce that the left needs to stand against banning burqas. I also think it's arrogant for a man to decide what is sexist and what is not, based on merely imagining a woman's perspective.

...to appropriately qualify myself on (at the same time, I do find it tedious to type out 'IMO' or 'IMHO' in every sentence on a board where we're all just sharing opinions anyway). I have strong feelings about the racism I see behind veil bans. I don't see how we can separate this issue from imperialist wars in Muslim nations and the outright hostility shown to Muslim immigrants in Western Europe. Look at the traction the outright Nazi, British National Party is gaining in Britain. Look at how the Tories, and even Labour adopt some of the worst anti-immigrant language to gain votes. Look at Minaret bans in Switzerland. Look at the anti-Muslim advertising campaign they used to whip up fears. I think it's disgusting.



It's actually common to hear people talk about Muslims colonizing European cities. Colonizing! I think these issues are all related. This is not merely based on imagining what a Muslim woman might think about wearing a veil (though I don't think what I described was particularly outlandish). To just say a Muslim woman wears the veil because her culture forces it upon her ignores a lot of the complicated thought processes involved. It infantalizes her. It ignores the political significance of the veil. It also seems to ignore the sartorial regimes that operate in the West.

You seem to imagine that women in Fundamentalist Islamic cultures have the same degree of personal freedom as other industrialized nations.

You also need a little help in meeting women, probably.

"It also seems to ignore the sartorial regimes that operate in the West." What do you mean by that?

I understand women live under harsh oppression in fundamentalist cultures. I also understand Western imperial powers have been propping up those fundamentalists, and cynically playing them off one another for decades. The only assumption I make is that these women are not infants. The woman mentioned in the OP does not sound like a passive victim. She sounds like someone who believes she was wronged and is fighting back. Even if you think she's off base here, that's not always an easy thing to do.

Where does that assumption about meeting women come from? That seems unfair

What I meant about sartorial regimes is that Western women are subjected to all kinds of silly, anti-feminine rules and expectations in how they are meant to look and dress. Just think about the ideology that lies behind things like stilt-like high heels, and face lifts and aging women dying their hair. Or shaving legs and armpits! People are deciding what clothes will be produced, what the ideal body type for those clothes is, what will be exposed or concealed. People's jobs depend on these rules that exist for no good reason at all, but we just ignore that and focus on what Muslim women are doing because the sexism seems more overt.

if people started walking around your town in swastikas and kkk costumes. That's because these are more than just articles of clothing. They have meaning and symbolism behind them that is abhorrent to most people and so we don't particularly like to see these outfits and designs around us.

And yet for some reason, we're supposed to accept the misogyny, rape, enslavement and abuse that is inherent in the symbolism behind the niqab/burqa. Why would that be? Because we're "only" talking about women? Sounds about right. What right do we have to tell the feminists, the women and the men in France who find such objectionable garb outrageously sexist and don't want to see it on their streets that they should be more magnanimous, when we'd be utterly disgusted by yahoos wandering around in kkk gowns. The ignorance and hubris of Americans never fails to astound me.

Of course clothing is never just cloth draped on a body. There is a lot of ideology behind even the simplest of garments. What makes you think I'm arguing otherwise?

Where you're running into trouble is when you make assumptions about why women wear the veil. Can the veil be representative of misogyny and abuse? Of course it can. I actually explicitly acknowledged this in the post you are replying to. But it can be representative of other things as well. Look at how the Muslim woman is portrayed in the image I posted above. Can you see how a woman might wish to wear the veil when these European governments are dehumanizing her, portraying her as an invader? Or, are you capable of seeing how a pious Muslim woman might wear the veil because it is an integral part of how she interacts with the world? Again, how she might feel 'naked' without it? Of course I have issues with a sartorial regime that makes a woman feel ashamed and naked when she is not fully covered. But when you look at burqa/niqab bans within the context of imperialist aggression and the demonizing of Muslims that goes on all over Western Europe, I think you have to stand against the French government here. It is not up to Nicolas Sarkozy to change Islamic culture. Don't you see the hubris there?

Why isn't it hubris for Muslims to come to that nation state with it's determinedly secular constitution, much more so than ours, and demand the right to wear this kind of patently misogynistic garment that's also strictly cultural?

The French have the right to determine what will be acceptable in their public square. They have a history of banning religious gear in public, they have a very secular constitution and a culture that does not embrace face covering. Those who come to that country should have a reasonable expectation about what they will face in emigrating. Personally I believe France has done a terrible job integrating it's foreign population but that doesn't change the facts of French culture, history and their rules about what's appropriate dress in public. The women may feel "dehumanized", "portrayed as an invader" but frankly, none of that is new for any immigrant wave for any country. There's going to be culture shocks and discussion about what makes it into the melting pot of the blended society and what gets banned (FGM is banned for example). Virtually all immigrants feel exposed and uncomfortable - that's normal. What's not normal is to then retreat from even trying to assimilate and then blame everyone else.

Burqa/niqab bans have nothing to do with imperialism and I'm having a bit of a laugh over your stretch.I don't buy that argument for a moment. That type of shrouding is meant to make a woman disappear, faceless and anonymous. That's not imperialism - that's cultural misogyny and you can't lay that at the face of imperial aggression in any meaningful manner. It's usage predates any western imperialism or western demonization.

Right now it's taking on even more charged tension as it's being used as a political statement by radicals, so much so that even Islamic cultures are looking to ban it.

This type of clothing has meaning, context and connotations that the west is right to reject imho.

It costs him very little to scold his country's Muslim population. It's like American politicians pointing fingers at poor blacks or 'illegal' immigrants. And the idea that this is to protect French culture doesn't make sense to me. How is 'French culture' remotely threatened by a Muslim woman in a veil? What is French culture anyway? What if French culture is not a 'thing', but a fluid concept perfectly capable of incorporating veiled Muslim women? Can you see how framing the discussion in this way - where the French need to assert the superiority of their 'culture' - places Muslim women in the position of the 'outsider' from the start? It makes no sense to scold Muslims for not assimilating when they're the ones being scapegoated for the plights of Western Europe! That none of this is new is no excuse for treating people this way.

Banning veils is certainly intimately tied with Western imperialism. That veils existed before the colonizers came doesn't change that. Frantz Fanon wrote about how French soldiers used to strip women of their veils before raping them. When the Algerians rebelled the veil was seen as a symbol of assertiveness and emancipation.

And look forward to reading more posts from you on other topics.

I appreciate it.