Quote:

Original post by speciesUnknown This whole thing is a farce. Clothing is superficial and irrelevant. Nobody is going to fix the problems caused by a religion by banning certain items of clothing the religion is associated with; millions of children in Africa die every year because they don't have running water and we are killing each other left right and centre over oil or the lack of it, and you guys are arguing over what clothing people are allowed to wear? For shame.

Should we also ignore the environment, crime, the economy and whether Duke Nukem forever will be any good until we solve that problem?

Bigger problems do not mean we ignore smaller problems.

Besides, while clothing might be superficial and irrelevant it is symptomatic of the larger problem of religion. Just look at the millions of Africans dying of AIDS because the catholic church preaches against condoms. Now tell me that's not important.

Quote:

Original post by ChaosEngine Quote: Original post by speciesUnknown This whole thing is a farce. Clothing is superficial and irrelevant. Nobody is going to fix the problems caused by a religion by banning certain items of clothing the religion is associated with; millions of children in Africa die every year because they don't have running water and we are killing each other left right and centre over oil or the lack of it, and you guys are arguing over what clothing people are allowed to wear? For shame. Should we also ignore the environment, crime, the economy and whether Duke Nukem forever will be any good until we solve that problem?

Not all these problems are irrelevant (although duke nukem is entertainment) but clothing is pretty irrelevant, like I said, its completely superficial.

Quote:

Bigger problems do not mean we ignore smaller problems.

Im not talking about big and small problems, I'm talking about things which aren't really problems, but a waste of time.

Quote:

Besides, while clothing might be superficial and irrelevant it is symptomatic of the larger problem of religion. Just look at the millions of Africans dying of AIDS because the catholic church preaches against condoms. Now tell me that's not important.

You cant attack a religion or an ideology by prohibiting clothing which is associated with it.

Found this in the news and thought I'd share.

Quote:

The retired English teacher, known only as Marlene, had told police she asked the woman from the United Arab Emirates in English to remove the veil. When the woman refused, she ripped it off. When the woman put it back on again, she punched, scratched and bit her, according to the police report. “I knew I was going to crack one day,” 63-year-old Marlene said, according to police. “This burqa story was beginning to annoy me.” The incident, for which she also faces a 750 euro ($1,000) fine, occurred in a luxury Paris boutique last February. Marlene, who did not appear in court and had no legal representation, has defended her position in the media. Speaking to Le Parisien newspaper, she said it was unacceptable women wore the veil in what she called the birthplace of human rights. “I taught languages in Morocco and Saudi Arabia,” she told the newspaper. “I have seen how in those countries women are treated ... walking three metres behind their husbands.” She denied any acts of violence in the newspaper.

Seems to me that assulting a person in the name of their own human rights is the wrong way to go. It does make me wonder though, who gets to enforce this law? From the above situation it sounds to me that the public shouldn't be put into that position as it may lead to misunderstandings or abuse. So, does that mean that France now requires fashion police? That's gotta be a bad precedent for them.

Quote:

Original post by kseh Found this in the news and thought I'd share. Quote: The retired English teacher, known only as Marlene, had told police she asked the woman from the United Arab Emirates in English to remove the veil. When the woman refused, she ripped it off. When the woman put it back on again, she punched, scratched and bit her, according to the police report. “I knew I was going to crack one day,” 63-year-old Marlene said, according to police. “This burqa story was beginning to annoy me.” The incident, for which she also faces a 750 euro ($1,000) fine, occurred in a luxury Paris boutique last February. Marlene, who did not appear in court and had no legal representation, has defended her position in the media. Speaking to Le Parisien newspaper, she said it was unacceptable women wore the veil in what she called the birthplace of human rights. “I taught languages in Morocco and Saudi Arabia,” she told the newspaper. “I have seen how in those countries women are treated ... walking three metres behind their husbands.” She denied any acts of violence in the newspaper. Seems to me that assulting a person in the name of their own human rights is the wrong way to go. It does make me wonder though, who gets to enforce this law? From the above situation it sounds to me that the public shouldn't be put into that position as it may lead to misunderstandings or abuse. So, does that mean that France now requires fashion police? That's gotta be a bad precedent for them.

That this particular woman is crazy doesn't (and shouldn't) really affect any argument on policy in any way.

I agree with you that assault is the wrong way to go, but this woman "snapped"; she was not enforcing any law. As to who should enforce the law, that would be the police, as with all laws. A civilian can disapprove of someone breaking the speed limit on a road, but has no power to chase down and arrest the speeder. Police aren't anything more than normal citizens specially empowered to uphold laws. The public is absolutely not put in that position.

That being said, I'm against the ban. The crux of the problem is whether or not women are forced to wear burqas, not whether or not they do. This is very difficult to define, as some women are almost certainly overtly forced to wear them (my husband will beat me if I don't), while others are more subtley forced (it is right and proper for me to wear this, regardless of any negative effects it might have). Others may truly choose to wear them absent any coercive pressure. Banning the coercion and subjugation aspects doesn't bother me, but banning the opportunity for choice does.

Couple this with the fact that burqas aren't a fashion statement but a deeply ingrained artifact of certain cultures, and an outright ban seems impractical, intolerant/xenophobic, and all but impossible to enforce, rather than a measure to protect anyone.

Typical 'nanny state' arrogant mentality, imo.

It all depends how the law is enforced. Although I'm against the ban itself, and would favour a more supportive, cooperative approach, There are two cases imo :

1) The woman was forced to wear the burqa.
2) The woman chooses to wear the burqa on her own accord.

In both cases, I don't see any ground to punish her personally. In the case of 2), it'd be an attack on her personal freedoms, and I won't be surprised if this law will be challenged in such a way. The law is too encompassing and vague when it comes to motives.

There is a fear as well that this will set a precedent for banning other religious symbols in public. Personally, I'd be against that, as an attack against personal freedoms and the constitution. I want to be able to wear my giant Dawkins medallion proudly in public, without fear of persecution.

Honestly, I personally don't like many muslim customs. But I also see that many of my occidental neighbors seem to believe that respect for having freedom of choice is greater than any other thing.

And I believe they are right and that I might be wrong.

The ban on the burqas is wrong. Women should be free to pick up a shovel and dig their own graves, just as I am.

Quote:

Original post by oliii There is a fear as well that this will set a precedent for banning other religious symbols in public.

I certainly hope it will lead to that.

And about arguments that it's only a piece of clothing, well, it's not. Certain items of clothing represent specific things within a cultural framework. They're symbols, we associate things with them. Try to walk around in your local black neighborhood wearing a Klan outfit. And then try to explain that it's just a piece of clothing, not meaning anything. Good luck.

The burqa is similar. Our western society associates it with religious oppression, in the same way as pointy white full face hoods are associated with supremacist rednecks, swastika bearing armbands with Nazis, and so on. Wearing certain types of clothing in public is deemed highly inappropriate, not because of some weird fashion statement, but because of the associated meaning that is universally understood within the local culture.

Quote:

Original post by Yann L Our western society associates it with religious oppression, in the same way as pointy white full face hoods are associated with supremacist rednecks, swastika bearing armbands with Nazis, and so on. Wearing certain types of clothing in public is deemed highly inappropriate, not because of some weird fashion statement, but because of the associated meaning that is universally understood within the local culture.

So, we should support being wrong? Western society once associated black skin with ignorant barely human beings who weren't really 'people'.

It was "Universally understood" that Africans weren't as good or important as whites were in the US 100 years ago, but things change and people learn. Anyone claiming that now is (hopefully) going to be met with disgust/hate.

Well, for sure this law is not solving a single problem.

There are actually (according to estimations) only 300 women wearing this cloth in France, which is relatively small actually. So why promoting a ban that actually only hurts relations with the arabic world and targets such a small group of people? It is often the cloth that some women, born in France and grown up all their life in the country, adopt because it represents the most extreme sign of public exhibition of their origin culture. These persons are just showing how, in such a pathetic way France failed to integrate them.

Despite some security concerns (the relatively large cloth can be seen as a convenient mean to hide any kind of traffic or even a bomb?), there is actually nothing that this law is going to make easier.

One of the big problems in France is that actually it is the country in the world which has received the most foreign migrants in the last 10 years according to UNHCR, or close to USA, but France is a much smaller country. In terms of per people ratio France has received up to 6 times more migrants than USA. There is growing concern that the country canot welcome all the people from the world, when it can actually itself hardly anymore offer a future to its own children (yes, we, young French, are mostly running away from our own country nowadays...).

As a result it makes this law pretty useless, and it will stir tensions instead of making anything easier. But i fear some things of even worse degrees are preparing in that country...

Quote:

Original post by Yann L Quote: Original post by oliii There is a fear as well that this will set a precedent for banning other religious symbols in public. I certainly hope it will lead to that.

I'm curious, where "[don't you] necessarily agree with the supporters of this ban". Just in that they don't go far enough?

Quote:

The burqa is similar. Our western society associates it with religious oppression, in the same way as pointy white full face hoods are associated with supremacist rednecks, swastika bearing armbands with Nazis, and so on. Wearing certain types of clothing in public is deemed highly inappropriate, not because of some weird fashion statement, but because of the associated meaning that is universally understood within the local culture.

But those are only offensive when used in those contexts. For example, a kid playing at being a ghost and the swastika's use in Buddhism are only as offensive as one finds ghosts and Buddhism, not the Klan and Nazis. What makes the burqa offensive outside of domestic abuse? Why aren't other pieces of baggy clothing (which, as I pointed out, can be similarly associated with domestic abuse) offensive? "Wife beaters", regardless of etymology, are associated with wife beating, so should they be similarly fined? At least in that case it's only a punishment against the abuser, not the abused (which is what really raises eyebrows about this ban: fight oppression by oppressing the oppressed).