Wait, what?!

[Carrie12345]

Could somebody please help me sort this out in my head. France is OUTLAWING burqas?

 

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/174611.html

 

FTR, I admire the secularism of most European countries. But I do not understand why or how it is okay to make such a law.

 

(If I were to support any type of clothing ban, I would absolutely focus on outlawing things like "whale tails" and saggy pants.)

[Parrothead]

Oh yeah. The law went into effect yesterday, didn't it? I think it is strange that they went to so much trouble for a couple thousand women.

[Mejane]

I think it is strange that they went to so much trouble for a couple thousand women.

 

It's been said they are trying to "stem the tide" as the Muslim population is fast-growing in France.

[Mrs Mungo]

I think it's ironic that Iran would complain, it's not like they have religious freedom.

 

In the US we value our religious freedom. Other countries have different values and their laws reflect that, all along the spectrum.

[C_l_e_0..Q_c]

There is also a very strong racist component in France (for lack of a better term). The Muslims are moving in in large numbers, staying in ghettos, and expecting the French to conform to their beliefs. Or at the very least, that's how the traditional French person sees the current situation.

 

People like Jean-Marie Le Pen, and now his daughter, both running for President although not at the same time, raise these issues to the forefront as often as they can.

[MeaganS]

I think it is horrible and a violation of those women's rights. That is all.

[stripe]

In many Asian countries, citizens voluntarily wear face masks when they have a cold in order to avoid contaminating people, as do surgeons and other doctors (like dentists) so as to avoid the spread of germs. Clearly different perspectives on face covering.

 

In France, religion is supposed to be wholly private, and showing it is offensive. (That being said, Christmas and Easter and still state holidays.) They also have an interesting attitude towards immigration in their assimilation policy. In theory, they will accept anyone as French, and that person "only" has to become utterly French and cast off traditions and food from their ancestral land. Alas it's been shown that employers do discriminate against Africans (north and sub saharan) --they won't hire them, so they are stuck unemployed in ghettos, so the reality isn't quite so nice.

 

I hope this thread doesn't become ugly.

[enviromommy]

Could somebody please help me sort this out in my head. France is OUTLAWING burqas?

 

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/174611.html

 

FTR, I admire the secularism of most European countries. But I do not understand why or how it is okay to make such a law.

 

(If I were to support any type of clothing ban, I would absolutely focus on outlawing things like "whale tails" and saggy pants.)

 

It's because France views separation of church and state in an almost inverse way to the way the U.S. views it. In the U.S., the idea is that the government has to stay out of it so that individuals have freedom to exercise their own religions, whether in public or in private. In France, the public space itself is viewed as secular, so individuals are asked to leave their religion at home. They view it as showing favoritism to a religion to allow it to be practiced in public. They don't really understand that there are religions where you can't fully practice the religion if you leave it at home. The other problem is that they have a HUGE blind spot about the fact that what they think is "secular" is in fact Catholic, for historical reasons. For example, I had a friend who failed an entire university class because the final exam was held on a Jewish holiday and she couldn't take it. When she asked if she could take it on a different day, they said that would be showing favoritism and couldn't be done. However, they fail to notice that no Catholic student would have a problem because there are no exams on Xmas, Easter or any Sunday. But if you mention that, they stare at you blankly, because they think of that as "normal" - secular. It's like hitting your held against a brick wall trying to show the inherent bias. They just don't see it. Another example - they won't provide kosher or halal food in public schools, but until very recently, at least, they served fish on Fridays.

 

In addition to church/state being viewed differently from the way it is in America, the whole concept of diversity is also reversed. In America, at least in theory, diversity is celebrated, and we are supposed to be a "melting pot" bringing the best of all the different cultures together. In France, assimilation is supposed to repress diversity. They want immigrants to check their cultures at the door and become "French."

 

I just want to add that I don't mean to sound too negative - I adore France and many aspects of French culture. But this is an area where I've had trouble over the years!

[enviromommy]

I think it is horrible and a violation of those women's rights. That is all.

 

So this is the interesting thing. The French see it as the reverse. They think that a culture that forces its women to cover themselves is itself violating women's rights, and they see themselves as coming to the rescue of these women, whom they see as oppressed by their husbands.

[enviromommy]

In many Asian countries, citizens voluntarily wear face masks when they have a cold in order to avoid contaminating people, as do surgeons and other doctors (like dentists) so as to avoid the spread of germs. Clearly different perspectives on face covering.

 

In France, religion is supposed to be wholly private, and showing it is offensive. (That being said, Christmas and Easter and still state holidays.) They also have an interesting attitude towards immigration in their assimilation policy. In theory, they will accept anyone as French, and that person "only" has to become utterly French and cast off traditions and food from their ancestral land. Alas it's been shown that employers do discriminate against Africans (north and sub saharan) --they won't hire them, so they are stuck unemployed in ghettos, so the reality isn't quite so nice.

 

I hope this thread doesn't become ugly.

 

We were writing almost the same thing at the same time!

[Carrie12345]

 

I hope this thread doesn't become ugly.

 

So do I! My heart is actually racing right now because my aunt (also one of my best friends) just posted on FB in support of the law. I responded with *what I thought was* a gentle "Unless you actually want to wear it, in which case you have to choose between religious belief and jail :-/" with a "Bet you didn't expect that response from ME!" since my atheism is often joked about between the two of us. She responded with a screaming rant about how I should read the Koran and I have no clue!

 

I am not about to engage her on the topic, and certainly not on FB, but woah!

 

I somehow completely missed this in the news, and I'm just trying to sort it all out in my own heart and head.

[MeaganS]

So this is the interesting thing. The French see it as the reverse. They think that a culture that forces its women to cover themselves is itself violating women's rights, and they see themselves as coming to the rescue of these women, whom they see as oppressed by their husbands.

 

 

Oh, I know. I was a political science major and studied this very issue in depth. I still think that a government forcing someone to take off a head-dressing that is both religious and held by the believer to be a necessity of modesty is a violation of those women's natural rights. I personally believe that there is a universal right or wrong on this, and that in this case they are wrong. From my worldview, they are simply being racist.

[Mejane]

In America, at least in theory, diversity is celebrated, and we are supposed to be a "melting pot" bringing the best of all the different cultures together. In France, assimilation is supposed to repress diversity. They want immigrants to check their cultures at the door and become "French."

 

 

 

So the question becomes "do the French have the right to dictate how new citizens behave within the context of their long history of public secularism and with regard to preservation of their cultural heritage and values?" I believe they do. One can live there within the law or one can live elsewhere. As MM said, France is not the US.

[stripe]

We were writing almost the same thing at the same time!

I don't think I've ever had such an identical post to mine! :D How neat!

 

The whole assimilation thing is an interesting idea. I think Canada is a bit more the opposite of France than the US, since in the US, there is a moderate push to assimilate (there are many people who are genuinely furious to hear people speaking their native language, for example), but not as much as in France.

 

This was somehow liberating for some people, say in the 1940s/50s when African Americans really preferred France to segregated America. But I am not sure everyone wants to rid thems. What is the role of culture in one's identity? Must you love cheese to be French? And I wonder if some of the anger against immigrants does involve food. There is apparently a lot of anger about non-pork eating French people who are not embracing essential Frenchness as a result. But this is a group that sees cigarette smoking as somewhat vital to their self image.

 

I think France tends to see itself as superior to others. They love their language, food, and culture. They believe those moving there should too. And that their ways are just not as good as French ways. So -- ditch the old country's clothes, religion, food, language, and way of thinking, and be French. They see it as natural and a step up in the world. "Clinging" to the "old" ways is, then, a sign of defiance or a slap in the face.

 

The concept of what a country is, and how to deal with difference, is a central one to many societies. Their approach is clearly contentious.

 

I don't think this is anything new, frankly. They've been unhappy about Muslim dress for quite a number of years.

[Mrs Mungo]

Oh, I know. I was a political science major and studied this very issue in depth. I still think that a government forcing someone to take off a head-dressing that is both religious and held by the believer to be a necessity of modesty is a violation of those women's natural rights. I personally believe that there is a universal right or wrong on this, and that in this case they are wrong. From my worldview, they are simply being racist.

 

I personally know Muslims who are white and wear a headcovering. I knew them when I lived in Europe too. I don't think it has anything to do with race (culture, yes, but that's not the same as race). What *I* believe about what people's natural rights conflict with the ideas in other countries. The French have different ideas than I do about this. They do believe these women are oppressed and need a guiding hand to help them out of that culture of oppression. I disagree that it is just about racism. I *do* agree that outlawing the headcovering is wrong.

[Mrs Mungo]

So the question becomes "do the French have the right to dictate how new citizens behave within the context of their long history of public secularism and with regard to preservation of their cultural heritage and values?" I believe they do. One can live there within the law or one can live elsewhere. As MM said, France is not the US.

 

:iagree: (even if I disagree with banning it)

 

The whole assimilation thing is an interesting idea. I think Canada is a bit more the opposite of France than the US, since in the US, there is a moderate push to assimilate (there are many people who are genuinely furious to hear people speaking their native language, for example), but not as much as in France.

 

I think this really depends upon where you live in the US. Your statement is a lot more true in small town USA than it is in urban centers where diverse cultures are welcomed and celebrated.

 

I think France tends to see itself as superior to others. They love their language, food, and culture. They believe those moving there should too. And that their ways are just not as good as French ways. So -- ditch the old country's clothes, religion, food, language, and way of thinking, and be French. They see it as natural and a step up in the world. "Clinging" to the "old" ways is, then, a sign of defiance or a slap in the face.

 

The concept of what a country is, and how to deal with difference, is a central one to many societies. Their approach is clearly contentious.

 

I don't think this is anything new, frankly. They've been unhappy about Muslim dress for quite a number of years.

 

:iagree:

[Melinda in VT]

I personally know Muslims who are white and wear a headcovering. I knew them when I lived in Europe too. I don't think it has anything to do with race (culture, yes, but that's not the same as race). What *I* believe about what people's natural rights conflict with the ideas in other countries. The French have different ideas than I do about this. They do believe these women are oppressed and need a guiding hand to help them out of that culture of oppression. I disagree that it is just about racism. I *do* agree that outlawing the headcovering is wrong.

 

The article linked by the OP was about banning face-veils, not headcoverings. Have they banned headcoverings also?

[stripe]

I think this really depends upon where you live in the US. Your statement is a lot more true in small town USA than it is in urban centers where diverse cultures are welcomed and celebrated.

 

I wasn't attempting to summarize the US as a whole. But those holding anti-immigration views do seem to come from this perspective.

 

I do think there is a moderate push for everyone to assimilate. Even in Canada, one is expected to speak either French or English, even though it is understood that this doesn't mean abandoning one's language. I do hear a frustratingly high number of public discussions on bilingualism in the US that assume that bilingual means "doesn't speak English." That does not mean MOST people believe that; it means that many public discussions have to deal with the perceived threat of having Americans who speak more than one language.

 

That being said, I read a survey that surprised me, that people tend to be more racist when they interact with people of different race. I think people who see their town becoming multiracial and multiethnic, and see the Spanish/Farsi/Korean signs going up, can sometimes get very angry. This may be small town or big city.

 

People who live in a city that have had high rates of immigration from a certain place for a long time, and continue to have new immigrants from that place (say, San Francisco and immigrants from Asia), tend to be more comfortable with the concept -- maybe because they've never had a monolithic experience? Who knows.

[stripe]

The article linked by the OP was about banning face-veils, not headcoverings. Have they banned headcoverings also?

"In 2004, France banned head scarves from schools and public buildings."

 

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1908306,00.html#ixzz1JPxUn1BJ

 

It is framed as "symbols or clothes through which students conspicuously display their religious affiliation" in a generic way that suggests it applies to everyone.

 

 

However, this addresses women on the street or anywhere in public with a face covering.

[C_l_e_0..Q_c]

The article linked by the OP was about banning face-veils, not headcoverings. Have they banned headcoverings also?

 

No, just full face coverings in public. Head scarves are banned in high schools. Too many young ladies were forced to wear the scarf against their will, and some cases of honour murders were highly publicised, when brothers killed sisters for not wearing the scarf. By banning the scarf, it's no longer the fault of the girl. Her honour is safe.

However this backfired, because the girls from strict muslim familes are just taken out of lycées.

 

I personally like this video:

 

especially the policewoman near the end! Edited April 13, 2011 by CleoQc

[Mrs Mungo]

The article linked by the OP was about banning face-veils, not headcoverings. Have they banned headcoverings also?

 

Banning the veil in public is recent, but headcoverings were already banned in schools and such.

[AngelBee]

The article linked by the OP was about banning face-veils, not headcoverings. Have they banned headcoverings also?

:lurk5:

 

Edit: Just saw response. Thanks

[Tabrett]

Why would one immigrate to a country that doesn't allow you to practice your religion?

 

Honestly? Why would a Muslim move to France? France is known for not allowing public practices of religion. Why should France change to accept religious practices of immigrants?

 

As a Christian, I would not to move to a Muslim country because I know I wouldn't be accepted. Should I force a Muslim country to accept my Christian practices? NO!

 

There are so many places to immigrate that would be more accepting. Why France?

 

As a Christian, I would not want to move to France because it would limit my religious freedom.

[Ester Maria]

So the question becomes "do the French have the right to dictate how new citizens behave within the context of their long history of public secularism and with regard to preservation of their cultural heritage and values?" I believe they do. One can live there within the law or one can live elsewhere. As MM said, France is not the US.

:iagree:

 

As long as I have to cover my hair if I decide to go to Iran, because it is the law, so is the law in France not to wear clothes which covers your face. As some countries have officially sided with a religion, so some countries have opted for banning the religious symbols from the public sphere. I see no problem in it, nor in requesting from the immigrants to adhere to the norms of the society they entered. Nobody is requesting full assimilation or abandoning of one's identity - just recognizing that you live in a particular kind of secular society and that the rules of the game are such and such.

 

I also do not see it as personal rights violation. Disallowing any religious imagery or symbols in the public sphere would be so (and they in fact do not allow, or at least did not some years ago, any of that within public institutions) - but the only problem are full face coverings, and the problem is more along the lines of security (being able to identify the person) than along the lines of religion.

[Carrie12345]

:iagree:

 

As long as I have to cover my hair if I decide to go to Iran, because it is the law, so is the law in France not to wear clothes which covers your face. As some countries have officially sided with a religion, so some countries have opted for banning the religious symbols from the public sphere. I see no problem in it, nor in requesting from the immigrants to adhere to the norms of the society they entered. Nobody is requesting full assimilation or abandoning of one's identity - just recognizing that you live in a particular kind of secular society and that the rules of the game are such and such.

 

I also do not see it as personal rights violation. Disallowing any religious imagery or symbols in the public sphere would be so (and they in fact do not allow, or at least did not some years ago, any of that within public institutions) - but the only problem are full face coverings, and the problem is more along the lines of security (being able to identify the person) than along the lines of religion.

 

My COMPLETELY flippant response to the security issue is to ask why we don't outlaw plastic surgery.

[Ester Maria]

My COMPLETELY flippant response to the security issue is to ask why we don't outlaw plastic surgery.

Not a good analogy. The person is still identifiable in the crowd, even if they do not look like they used to look once (though few are the cases of a complete transformation anyway).

[chiguirre]

Here's a link to an interesting article about Turkey lifting its ban on headscarves in universities:

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/10/17/us-turkey-headscarf-idUSTRE69G0DX20101017

 

I can see both sides of the issue, and I'm not sure which I think is right yet.

[Carrie12345]

Not a good analogy. The person is still identifiable in the crowd, even if they do not look like they used to look once (though few are the cases of a complete transformation anyway).

 

I did say it was completely flippant. ;)

My mind does immediately go toward things like hoodies and baseball caps (which may be banned in some schools, but not on the street) and other examples, but I'm trying to force myself to look outside US examples. It's really hard, though!

 

I don't believe for one second that it's *actually* about security, but I am trying to entertain that perspective.

[stripe]

Why would one immigrate to a country that doesn't allow you to practice your religion?

 

Sometimes people didn't immigrate but their parents did. Or they are not immigrants at all, nor descendants of immigrants, and want to practice their religion. The other thing is that the laws of the country might change over time, and you might have felt compatible at the time you immigrate. Or you change -- you weren't religious and now are. People immigrate for other reasons than freedom or the desire to dump their identity -- for example, finances. Otherwise, I tend to agree with you that it's not a very appealing idea.

[stripe]

Not a good analogy. The person is still identifiable in the crowd, even if they do not look like they used to look once (though few are the cases of a complete transformation anyway).

How about Suaad Hagi Mohamud, a Canadian citizen, who was denied permission to return to Canada in 2009? She was in limbo in Kenya for nearly three months. The Canadian government was initially remarkably unhelpful, claiming she was an impostor and urging Kenya to prosecute her. She was close to being shipped to Somali, where they believed she was from. The basis of the denial was the shape of her lips. She apparently had lost a lot of weight. (Finally her 12 year old son's DNA (who was in Canada) was compared to hers to prove her identity.) It was really bizarre.

[FrogMom5]

I would not want that law here in the U.S. But, the law isn't here, it's in France and the French have the right to make their own laws.

 

I'm a military brat. My parents always taught us that when you're in someone else's part of the world, you need to respect their laws and customs, even if you don't like them. When we lived in Spain, we abided by Spanish rules and culture.

 

Now that we live in the southern U.S., we abide by the customs here. We didn't move here and expect the people to change to our ways. Sure, there are things we don't like, but then, we can move if we're too unhappy.

 

If the culture in the U.S. ever becomes intolerable to us, we'll move somewhere else. No, it's not easy. In fact, it's very hard but, we won't be the first or the last. It can be done.

 

Denise

[C_l_e_0..Q_c]

There was a case in Quebec where a Muslim woman refused to remove her veil during French class. She was an immigrant, learning French. However, the teacher (a woman) felt it necessary to see the lips in order to help with pronunciation. Since there were men in the classroom, the student refused to unveil. As her class was paid for by government money, she ended up being expelled.

 

There's huge talks (and I think it's passed a few steps to become law) that you cannot receive any government help if you keep your veil. The government wants to see who it's dealing with, I guess.

[unsinkable]

reminds me a bit of when the English banned Scottish clan plaids.

[mcconnellboys]

I wonder if this will help the women they believe are oppressed, or simply cause them to have to remain cloistered in the home and perhaps be thus even more oppressed?

 

And what on earth is a "whale tail", LOL?

[Mrs Mungo]

And what on earth is a "whale tail", LOL?

 

That's when the top of your thong shows over the back of your pants. That's a general your, not a specific one. :001_rolleyes:

[unsinkable]

That's when the top of your thong shows over the back of your pants. That's a general your, not a specific one. :001_rolleyes:

 

Do women do it (the whale tale/top of thong showing) do it on purpose?

 

Is it a fashion statement or an accident?

[Mrs Mungo]

Do women do it (the whale tale/top of thong showing) do it on purpose?

 

Is it a fashion statement or an accident?

 

Probably some of each. There are cases where it is *definitely* on purpose.

[unsinkable]

Probably some of each. There are cases where it is *definitely* on purpose.

 

ahh.

 

I remember the days when it was embarrassing to have a bra strap show...

[ciyates]

That's when the top of your thong shows over the back of your pants. That's a general your, not a specific one. :001_rolleyes:

 

Thanks for clearing that one up!

 

I support the French in the aspect it is their country. I feel for the women who are only trying to up hold their religious obligations. I hope it is being done for reasons other than the French are being racist.

[Barb_]

In the US we value our religious freedom. Other countries have different values and their laws reflect that, all along the spectrum.

 

That's an excellent point.

 

I think it is horrible and a violation of those women's rights.

 

Which I suppose refers back to Mrs. Mungo's point. Is it a violation of rights in France?

 

Interesting question.

[Osmosis Mom]

The article linked by the OP was about banning face-veils, not headcoverings. Have they banned headcoverings also?

 

I think you can't wear headcover in schools now in France.

 

I totally do not get how any "free" people can dictate how other citizens should dress. I am assuming that those Muslims are citizens. What about French converts? I can barely write while staying civilized in my language right now...

 

BTW, the other day I was speaking to an American convert who mostly uses niqaab (face-cover) and she was furious when I insinuated that she shouldn't feel obligated to wear it (as it is not obligatory the way hijaab is a requirement). Who said it was their men telling them to wear it??

 

It was also France who insisted you either wear spandex or don't go swimming at all (so no modest covering there).

[nd293]

They want immigrants to check their cultures at the door and become "French."

 

They think that a culture that forces its women to cover themselves is itself violating women's rights, and they see themselves as coming to the rescue of these women, whom they see as oppressed by their husbands.

 

I understand the first part. I don't agree with it, but I understand it, and it's the view that was explained to me by a Frenchman when the wearing-of-headscarves-in-schools issue broke. To him, what happened in the UK was that separate communities formed within Britain due to immigration, whereas the French wanted everyone, well, French. I suspect that's not exactly what's happened on the ground, but it was / is the goal of the policy (as he explained it).

 

It's the second part that I have a problem with because it bears absolutely no relation to what actually happens: if you view someone as isolated and repressed, then why implement a policy which confines them to their home (through either choice or "oppression")?

 

Off to corner the lovely Frenchwoman at my ds's kindergarten for a chat about the burqa :001_smile:

[Melissa in Australia]

reminds me a bit of when the English banned Scottish clan plaids.

I think that is a different kettle of fish. The Scottish were still in their own country, it had just been taken over. the muslims are in a different (non Muslim ) country.

 

Personally I thought peasant women in Europe, including France have worn a scarf for centuries, just to keep their hair tidy while working. I guess the novels I read are very old !

[Ester Maria]

I totally do not get how any "free" people can dictate how other citizens should dress.

But every people does that to an extent, Nadia. :confused: Every people has certain "red lines" regarding what is allowed in public, for whatever reasons.

 

I always bring up the example of Iran (though really, one could bring up a lot of examples from the same region) and the law to cover your hair in the public. It is about a sort of cultural reciprocity... Iran has the right to request that. So does France have the right to request - whether under the pretext of security reasons and for "other" reasons, or for actual security reasons - that one's face be not covered in public. People who have such a problem with France's public secularism, honestly, should maybe consider immigrating to different countries in the first place. There are rich and prosperous Muslim countries as well, a lot more culturally acceptable for those people, if they are not willing to give up the minimum of religious identity in the public sphere.

 

The main problem with niqab is that it makes a person unindentifiable. The law is worded in such a way that it does not ban specifically niqabs - but also drivers' helmets on the streets (when not driving) which make the person unindentifiable, for example.

 

Muslims are not the only religious minority which has to go with the majority's standards for some things. Some European countries outlaw kosher slaughter (Switzerland). I think it is a complete nonsense, but the pretext is cruelty towards animals. So what can you do? If you live in an area where majority and historical cultural sentiments are so against something, you adapt... or leave. As cruel as it sounds. Some European countries' best public schools have school six days a week, including Saturdays (Italy). Some other European countries have obligatory religious education (or close to obligatory) in schools, which usually covers more than the dominant religion, but still, not all parents are happy about it. Some European countries have obligatory taxes for religious communities, even if you are not religious. Some European countries are extremely cautious not to allow too much freedom to private schools as to what they do or do not teach. The list is endelss - and we could freely extend it to the Middle East, outlawed alcohol which is a religious duty in some other religions, etc. The world is FULL of restrictions of some kind - America being THAT free is actually a sort of "anomaly" (for the good and for the bad) with regard to the rest of the world and definitely not the majority standard.

 

This French measure which the whole world is horrified about actually exists in Italy for 45+ years already (since 1975 - the prohibition of covering one's face in public) and there has been no media fuss about it whatsoever. I do not know whether it is always implemented, though, but officially it is there.

 

Many European countries just have a different concept of rights and secularism, a strong historical national identity they are not willing to compromise for the sake fo non-essential "rights" which go against what they believe (such as seeing face in public, not killing animals "the cruel way", etc.) and a different overall sentimentality. You may not like it. But you do have to respect it if you find yourself in a position of a minority in such a place, which strives to keep its historical identity alive. It is not always fair, but on the other hand, there is much hypocrisy about complaining about this from the side of Iran, which is far from a laudably free country.

[nd293]

As a Christian, I would not to move to a Muslim country because I know I wouldn't be accepted. Should I force a Muslim country to accept my Christian practices? NO!

 

It's a complex issue, no doubt. Let's accept the fact that you probably could not permanently migrate to a Muslim country as a non-Muslim, and probably wouldn't want to. But there are many, many Christians who are temporary economic migrants to Muslim countries. In the vast majority of Muslim countries they can attend church and are only required to meet very basic rules in terms of modest dress (e.g. cover shoulders and knees, but no need to cover hair).

 

In France, I would presume that religious Muslim migrants are economic migrants rather than political or "lifestyle" migrants. What is the inverse of the rights Christians are entitled to in a Muslim country? If a Muslim woman considers wearing a burqa to be fundamental to her faith, then should that be allowed? Does it impact on the faith and beliefs of the host country? Not if you consider France Christian, but maybe yes if you look at the degree to which France is built on secularism.

 

It puts an interesting perspective on the question.

 

What bothers me about the burqa ban is that women are being sacrificed for political ends. It seems highly unlikely to me that the ban will change the minds of women who wear the burqa. What it will do is restrict them to their homes or neighbourhoods. It is contantly mentioned how this actually only applies to 2000 women. It seems to me that those women are collateral damage in a larger battle to define France's secular status and perhaps discourage a certain type of immigrant.

[Ester Maria]

are only required to meet very basic rules in terms of modest dress

What is very basic to you, might not be to somebody else.

To the French, this requirement is VERY basic, it is such a basic thing to be able to see the faces of people on the street and for the people to be identifiable, that we can harder go more basic than that.

 

Also note that the restrictions in Muslim countries may also pertain to alcohol (which is a religious obligation in, say, Judaism, in some circumstances), "illicit sexual behavior" (public display of affection, homosexuality, etc.), etc., depending on the level of religiosity. Nobody is denying that there are huge differences in the Muslim world, and quite "free" areas too, but restrictions are still considerably bigger than those in Europe.

 

Many European countries simply have different red lines, which are to us equally "basic" as those things.

[grace'smom]

I've seen signs in banks (and I think a couple gas stations) recently that say you may not have a hat, hoodie, or sunglasses on while in the bank for security reasons. I don't remember the exact wording, because my thoughts went immediately to bank robbers rather than burkas, but now I am wondering how this situation would be handled in those banks. Would these ladies still be welcome in those banks? How would they handle that here in the U.S.?

[Mrs Mungo]

Which I suppose refers back to Mrs. Mungo's point. Is it a violation of rights in France?

 

This gets tricky because in the US we see our rights as God-given rights. We see them as rights that no government should take away.

[C_l_e_0..Q_c]

Personally I thought peasant women in Europe, including France have worn a scarf for centuries, just to keep their hair tidy while working. I guess the novels I read are very old !

 

The scarves (and any of their other names) are not banned from public places, except schools. Btw, I think hoodies are also banned from those schools, so it's not just a religious thing, it's *all* head coverings. I don't remember if it applies to the kippa or not. (I think it does but don't quote me)

[enviromommy]

The scarves (and any of their other names) are not banned from public places, except schools. Btw, I think hoodies are also banned from those schools, so it's not just a religious thing, it's *all* head coverings. I don't remember if it applies to the kippa or not. (I think it does but don't quote me)

 

The kippa is a little less problematic because it's not a requirement of Jewish law (halacha), just a very strong minhag (custom). In any case, most observant Jews I know in France don't wear a kippa in public anyway because they are worried about anti-semitic attacks. :(

 

My husband was called a "dirty Jew" on the metro when wearing a kippa.