What's your reaction - if any - to the possible banning of burqas in France?

The issue I have is how many women are wearing them as a free expression of their faith vs. being forced by their families or communities to do this?

Meh. It’s not a big deal, it won’t kill them (hopefully) to disrespect their Allah for a few hours while they run errands. If Allah is real (he’s not) he won’t care in the long run lol.

I think they’re missing the point.

France, for purposes of this discussion, is a nation where its citizens have individual liberty and freedom. That includes freedom of religion.

Now it may be that some women are being “forced” to wear burqas by religious mandate… but, seeing as they live in France, those women are free to leave that religion, leave their churches, even leave their families, and go wherever they want and do whatever they want. Ultimately, the choice to wear the burqa is up to the woman herself. If she chooses to stay “trapped” in this situation, it’s because she finds benefits in doing so.

So, I think the legislators there need to get their heads out of their collective asses and work on something more beneficial.

As an atheist who finds Islam ridiculous, I think the government of any nation has no right to poke their noses into the business of consenting adults.

If those adults consent to following a religion that demands they wear helicopter beanies or head scarves, so be it.

I do completely support the requirement to show your face in a public building. Your rights to wardrobe end where the safety of others begins.

Related question here.

For France to pretend this is anything other than racism is either deceitful or willfully ignorant. If France is interested in women’s rights, they should respect women’s rights to belong to any religion they choose.

Why should religion get any special respect? You wouldn’t be able to walk into a bank with a balaclava or blacked out motorcycle helmet on so why should you be able to while wearing a burqa?

Personally, I think a lot of proponents are using the security angle as a secondary point. Their primary, if misguided, goal is to help “liberate” these women from the “tyranny” of their chosen religion.

As far as covering faces goes, while halloween masks, panty hose, and balaclavas may immediately announce “bankrobber!” or “terrorist!” to you, there are plenty of other effective means to hide or disguise one’s face in a way not immediately recognized as threatening.

Heavy makeup, spectacles, facial hair (real or fake), hats, wigs, and avian flu masks can easily disguise a person’s real appearance without raising any red flags at all. Nor would anyone think to even ask a person to remove such items most of the time.

So, my point is, forget the security angle. It’s full of holes.

I find the idea intriguing; this would be one way to try to check the gradual Muslim takeover of Europe. It would also lead to more violence, but sometimes you gotta work out the kinks.

I understand the concern with some women being forced to wear them, but I’ve met women here in the States that wear them completely of their own will. I don’t think it’s the governments place to tell them they can’t (excluding only high security situations). But then again, it’s France, not the US…. so it’s not really my position to tell them how to run their country.

I think it’s coercive and repressive too.

They say it’s in furtherance of womens rights… womens right to what? Not to free choice, clearly. Security reasons? Are people also not allowed to wear baggy clothing?

I’m behind the idea of a secular state, secular governance; but not the idea of an enforced secular citizenry. To limit public expression of religion… why? I suspect the reason is fear that public expression of religion leads to corruption in the state and abuses of power, or at least to a bleed through of personal religious conviction into public legislation and discourse. Does the one necessarily lead to the other? I don’t think it has to. I think there can be a separate of church and state (so to speak).

I’m no expert on French law, but if this were in the US I would be totally opposed to it:

Although some people may think that burqas are demeaning/sexist, I believe that as long as the woman does it by choice, they’re not hurting anybody, so they can practice their religion in peace.

For safety I think it’s a good thing, I don’t really care much about the religious implications.
After all I think the Muslim community brought this upon them selves with their reign of terror and daily threats of bombings. I don’t trust a face if I don’t see a face. In Muslim controlled countries Christians have to abide by their laws, to be honest I think Muslims should abide by Christian laws in Cristian controlled countries. In Rome you do what the Romans do. In France you do do what the French do. In America you do what Americans do ext…

When the subject of scarves and other religious symbols has come up in the past in France the problem was they might be treated poorly by racists-it was all about protecting religious minorities. When that was blown away it has turned into protecting them from their parents. It is sad that France, the home of so many of the Enlightenment ideas has become so reactionary.

We have people at our school who wear scarves, turbans, burqas (without the face veil) etc. Sometimes they choose to wear them, sometimes the garb spends the day in the locker.

I remember going to school with Christian evangelicals in the south who wrist length, chin high, long dresses. We had gender segregated PE but they had to wear bloomer outfits instead of gym shorts. There never was any question of being forced.

Yes, while I am critical of so much in the Untied States and we are so far from perfect, I do think that because of our long history of immigration, we are much more of a pluralistic society. Many of the countries in Europe have been homogeneous for so long and are struggling, and to my mind, dealing very poorly. with issues around tolerance for new immigrant groups and their religious practices.

I completely agree with @robmandu and also with @Seek_Kolinahr.

I can’t help feeling that completely banning and disregarding someone’s right to wear something like this, should they wish to, is as bad as forcing someone to wear something.

Just realized that I didn’t catch an inadvertent typo in my last post. “Untied States”; I think it was really more like a Freudian slip. :-)

I think the real issue is rather simple.
Would you be cool with citizens walking around with their faces concealed all day if they did it for no given reason at all except maybe for shits and giggles? If yes, then burqas are fine too; if no, well, then no.
The fact that they do it for their religion should really not be relevant, because non-Muslims deserve the same rights as Muslims do. If that includes going incognito then you should let everyone go knock themselves out with burqas, ninja veils and Power Rangers masks if they want to, and not just the people whose priests want them to.

Freedom of religion is one right that means you may freely go believe whatever tickles your fancy. That’s it. It does not mean that any sort of non-abstract practise that comes with those ideas is automatically your constitutional right as well. Obviously there would be ridiculously easy ways to horribly exploit that sort of blank check, for example by founding a religion that requires you to ritually rob a bank every other week.

Incidentally, @nikipedia, the Islam is not a race. It’s a set of beliefs about the nature of the cosmos.

I think this takes things to far. It’s like telling people they can’t wear their crosses or Motley Crue shirt. This sort of government interest in dress code goes too far. This isn’t just limiting religious expression, it limits freespeech.

I would be more sympathetic if the concern was about being able to ID people when appropriate or concern over carrying concealed weapons in the voluminous folds of a burka. But honestly, the burka isn’t the only sort of clothing that could easily conceal weapons so singling that garment out for banning would still be very questionable.

@Fyrius Your point is a better one than the reason the French gov’t gives for wanting to ban the burka, but until wearing masks is banned or regulated it’s on shaky footing. Though most people don’t choose to there is nothing inherently wrong or criminal about concealing your face.

@fundevogel
I’d like to say roughly the same thing about free speech that I just said about freedom of religion, because I believe invoking it like you do similarly stretches a constitutional right way out of its proper context.
Free speech is the right to express any idea you want to share with the rest of the world, or at least those parts of it that can be buggered to listen. It’s there to make sure the powers that be can’t ban an idea they don’t like.
But wearing a burqa is not exercising free speech. Wearing a burqa is having a veil wrapped around your body. Surely it’s also symbol of Muslimhoodshipness, but if symbolism were what this is about, then a sign around your neck saying “I am a Muslim” should be an adequate replacement for the burqa with a lot less ado. But I doubt that’s going to fly with these ladies, and I think the reason is that that’s just not the issue. The issue is that they want to practise a tradition, not that they want to share an idea.

And for the record, I’m not in favour of or opposed to this legislation as of now. I’m just here as a proponent of consistency and an opponent of blank checks for the religious.
Personally I’d be thrilled if it would become socially acceptable to cover your face in public, it would mean I could finally get that mysterious alter ego thing off the ground and go foil evildoers’ dastardly schemes in a mask and a black cape during lunch breaks.

Im a bit confused too… I hate how Women have to wear that because of their religion/culture but it’s their right to express it.
I think France is doing it for security reasons mostly though…
But if the women came to France and left their country they should integrate more into the country’s culture…

@Fyrius I think you’re making freedom of speech overly literal. Words are not the only way people express themselves. People use none verbal expression all the time in art, music, dance and yes even clothing. Something that got people arrested during the Bush years.

If the French government is simply interested in “limit[ing] the public expression of religion” shouldn’t they also prevent nuns, priests and monks from wearing their religious attire in public spaces? You know, for consistency.

“Surely it’s also symbol of Muslimhoodshipness, but if symbolism were what this is about, then a sign around your neck saying “I am a Muslim” should be an adequate replacement for the burqa with a lot less ado.”

I find your suggestion that Muslims replace the burka with a “I am a Muslim” sign rediculous and ignorant (I hope it was merely hyperbole). It doesn’t matter if you see the burka as nothing more than a symbol of Islam, what matters is what those wearing it think and even if it is merely a symbol of Islam it is up to the Muslim to determine how to practice and demonstrate their Islamic belief, so long as it respects the rights of others. When people designate the iconography of another group it is more likely to demean the group than represent them.

“The issue is that they want to practise a tradition, not that they want to share an idea.”

I fail to see any thing wrong with that. Why should the government interfere with this sort of religious practice at all? I understand that you need to be able to ID people, that’s fine, they can remove the veil, assuming their burka has a veil, for five seconds and be done with that. Banning the garment altogether is simply unreasonable government interference.

The French are making too much of a fairly minor problem. All they need is an addition to their version of a Summary Offences Act (the kind of legislation that gets you arrested for bathing in a public fountain, spitting in public, etc.) The amendment would criminalise appearing in any public place with one’s face covered. in Trinidad and Tobago, the only time you may legally appear on the street masked is at Carnival time. Given these days of widespread crime, it is only common sense to insist that people show their faces. The religious argument impresses me not at all.

@bea2345 That would be a more justifiable way of going about it, though in my heart of hearts I would weep that it would now be illegal for people to dress up as Batman and Darth Vader and pose for pictures with tourists. Maybe this is less of an issue in France (outside of their local Disney park anyways) but it would certainly make Los Angeles a slightly less colorful place were that law passed here.

@fundevogel – and that would be a pity. But how important is it that women go about with their faces bare? The French strike me as being anti Muslim, not to mention racist.

“But how important is it that women go about with their faces bare?”

I wish this was the question they were asking, it’s easier to address this sort of problem once it as addressed in practical terms rather than cultural or religious ones.

@Fyrius: I know what Islam is. This is an excuse to be racist toward brown people, which has been increasingly acceptable among white people since 9/11.

And I think you know my position on religion. I hate it and wish it would go away. But since it’s not going anywhere, it’s crucial that we be respectful of each other.

@bea2345
As Fyrius said, Islam is not a race.
I’d say that they’re near-justified in their anti-Muslim-ness; Europe is being overrun with them, and they’re not integrating, and they’re bringing in their own laws, and that kind of thing makes people nervous.

@nikipedia
Why would France suddenly want to be racist towards brown people? They’ve had “brown people” immigrants for decades without stirring up suspicions of brown-people hate.
I think you may want to check your sources for agendas.

@Nullo: There’s nothing sudden about it. France has been racist against brown people for decades.

@Nullo “I’d say that they’re near-justified in their anti-Muslim-ness; Europe is being overrun with them, and they’re not integrating, and they’re bringing in their own laws, and that kind of thing makes people nervous.”

You can swap out “anti-Muslim-ness” for “anti-Christian” and it would apply just as well to Christian settlers of the Americas, except those settlers weren’t just overrunning America, they waged organized and official war and genocide on the original Americans. The influx of Muslims into Europe pales next to the violent Christianization of the New World. Honestly if were applying your statement to the Christianization of the Americas we ought to omit the word “near-justified”—“justified” is far more appropriate.

@fundevogel
I think that you’re thinking of the Catholics, who are… “ideologically diverse.” Moreso at the time. The Conquistadors, right?

@Nullo – I was referring to Christian Europeans in general. Including Catholics and Conquistadors, but also the Indian killing antics of American colonists and citizens. America fought one or two Indians Wars and then elected the wildly popular “hero” of the Indian Wars, Andrew Jackson, to be president. Jackson went on to orchestrate the Trail of Tears it was called the “Indian Removal Act.” Remember before Europeans got to the Americas all of the land belonged to natives, once they were here the Europeans weren’t satisfied until none of it did.

I’m not sure what diverse ideology has to do with anything. In any case the Catholic church has a hierarchy that decrees the views of the Catholic Church making them more consistent ideologically than the various pope-less Protestant churches.

What can I say? It is easy to forget oneself.
Comparing the situations again, I’d say that the situation in France and the situation in the post-Colombian New World are actually one of the many kinds of opposites.One has a group that is behaving as Muslims should, while the other has a group behaving as Christians should not.

I don’t lower or raise my standards of human behavior according to race, creed, sex or political affiliation. We should all live be the golden rule and respect each other. Muslim or Christian or anyone else, a failure to do so is no more or less reprehensible.

@fundevogel
“I find your suggestion that Muslims replace the burka with a “I am a Muslim” sign rediculous and ignorant (I hope it was merely hyperbole).”
I find you’re missing the point. Allow me to repeat myself.
Yes, that would be ridiculous, and a sign could never be an adequate replacement of the burqa, because advertising their Muslimity is not the point. Like I said, they’re not trying to express an idea, all they want is to wear a veil wrapped around them.
And I’m not saying that’s wrong. What I’m saying is that this means it’s not a matter of freedom of expression, because they’re not in it to express anything. (If expression of an idea were what they wanted, they could write it down on a sign and wear it around their neck.)

You can take any right and stretch it out of its context to justify damn near anything. You could also contort the right to bear arms to justify wearing a burqa, because you can strangle someone with it, and therefore you have a right to carry it with you and you might as well do that by wearing it. Yes, that would be ridiculous, and yes, that’s a bit of a hyperbole, but it’s no more ridiculous than how freedom of expression and freedom of religion are abused on a daily basis.
And I would very much like this madness to end. Because I care about words and want them to be happy.

The proposed legislation is motivated by religious intolerance far more than security concerns.

It is not the business of the state to restrict the wearing of religious apparel (other than items that might easily be confused for lethal weapons).

France has a long history of xenophobia and religious intolerance for minority religions.
France’s legal system (Napoleonic) has always placed the burden of proof on the accused in criminal matters. This reverse onus view lends itself to odd policies in civil law as well.

< < just thought that France was racist against all non-French. ツ

@Fyrius – I apologize for the length of this post. As simple as my stance is I had a lot I wanted to say.

I am of the opinion that apart from possibly requiring you to wear something the government has no business dictating anyone’s wardrobe (beyond their employees anyways). What I see here is the government going a step further and singling out a particular religious group for this particular intrusion on a matter that ought to be left entirely to the discretion of the individual and on work days his place of employment. The fact that that Sarcozy is defending it is an attempt to limit public religious expression is completely disingenuous since this only affects Muslim religious expression. And of course one should wonder why he should be trying to limit religious expression at all.

I would call the ability to choose you own clothes freedom of expression. Perhaps you don’t see you’re dressing habits in the same way, but I do. Not everyone dresses for the sames reasons. You can’t claim Muslims wear the burka to veil themselves or to express their religious fervor or whatnot because not all Muslims are the same. There is no one reason to wear the Burka unless the only reason any of them wear it is because they have to. And frankly, France is mostly a free country so that shouldn’t be an issue.

As far as expression goes clothes are the first clue you give to the world about who you are. I dress like myself and I like to dress like myself. I show my colors with my clothing. However for a time I was not able to do such. From the time I was in 6th grade to 8th all public schools in my county required uniforms. This was justified with the claim that wearing uniforms meant kids wouldn’t be made fun of for not wearing “cool” clothes. The fact of the matter is that before uniforms there was hardly a peep about clothing of any sort among the students. After we were forced to wear them it was the one thing that drew the loathing and hatred of every last student on campus.

It was a fixation we couldn’t get over. We all looked like preteen postal workers, and we felt a bit like postal workers too. Kids got detentions over dresscode violations and girls got stern instructions about the appropriate number of buttons to button, lest some overly imaginative boy find something overly stimulating about our polo shirts. The point is dresscode isn’t a big deal until it is so strictly mandated and that’s what this is. The grand administrative hand reaching down to tell us what to wear and earn our bitter hatred for meddling in something as personal as our closets. I heartily doubt adults will be an more pleased with their wardrobe options being dictated to them than us kids were.

What would you call the right to make personal decisions so minor and seemingly beyond interest to the government that you would never imagine anyone would ever consider legislating them? My petty rights maybe? They will include such things as my right to choose what to eat and when to go to bed and if I will wear sensible shoes or my red heels.

One of the youtube atheists I like make a video about France and the burka last summer. I recommend checking it out if you’re inclined. It’s pretty low key.

“it’s no more ridiculous than how freedom of expression and freedom of religion are abused on a daily basis.”

I’d really like an example of how freedom of expression/speech is abused. Can you actually demonstrate a situation where people got away with something otherwise unacceptable in legal terms because of freedom of speech? Freedom of speech and expression is so vital to the health of a country I’m pretty amazed you think its being abused. Remember, it’s just as valid and legal to express stupid and insulting opinions as any other sentiment, unless you’re in the UK and other places that didn’t see an issue with criminalizing certain statements.

@fundevogel
Don’t worry about post length, I’m about to top it.

Firstly let me spell out again that I’m not the one you should be trying to convince that burqas are the shit, because that’s not a point I have chosen to oppose. As such most of the things you just told me are irrelevant to me. I’m neutral on the burqa subject itself and really only here right now to object to the way you wave around the notion of free speech.
That said, I’m still not convinced that freedom of expression has anything to do with this issue. Yes, your clothes give people a shallow first impression of what you’re probably like, but I really don’t believe that’s the sort of thing freedom of expression is supposed to protect.
T-shirts saying “Bush = not really a very nice person at all” constituting the expression of an idea, that I can get. Burqas, with no explicit statements made anywhere on them, nuh uh.

“You can’t claim Muslims wear the burka to veil themselves or to express their religious fervor or whatnot because not all Muslims are the same.”
And not all Muslims wear burqas. So actually yes, I can very well say that.
Not that I want to. It’s not my point.

“There is no one reason to wear the Burka unless the only reason any of them wear it is because they have to.”
So… if there are so many possible reasons to wear a burqa that Muslim women might have, doesn’t that mean only a subset of all burqaneers give a toss about expressing anything with the thing?
I believe the answer is “yes it does” and furthermore “so there is a sizeable proportion of the burqa-clad world about which freedom of expression has fuck all to say.”
And even for those who do try to make a fashion statement, there’s still the whole sign around the neck comparison showing how ridiculous the notion is that anyone wears a burqa just to express something or other. Or less hyperbolically, they could print whatever it is they want to say on a t-shirt and wear that instead, they’d get less misunderstandings.
But they won’t do that, because that would miss the point of wearing a burqa.

“What would you call the right to make personal decisions so minor and seemingly beyond interest to the government that you would never imagine anyone would ever consider legislating them?”
I don’t know. Probably something involving the phrase “personal autonomy”.
I do know I wouldn’t go look for ways to re-interpret freedom of expression or religion to base my complaints on when the powers that be decide to put a ban on juggling lemons.

“I’d really like an example of how freedom of expression/speech is abused.”
No problem. Just look in this thread here, where I was just talking to someone tearing it out of context to apply to wearing a burqa.
Oh wait.

“Can you actually demonstrate a situation where people got away with something otherwise unacceptable in legal terms because of freedom of speech?”
Hm, I don’t know.
But anyway, I don’t have to, because that’s not what I’m saying. I’m saying people like you abuse the notion of freedom of expression by bringing them to bear on issues that have nothing to do with expression. This is improper usage, also referred to as abuse.

“Freedom of speech and expression is so vital to the health of a country I’m pretty amazed you think its being abused.”
Logical fallacy. Or actually, a complete freaking non sequitur. Vitally beneficial things can’t be abused, now?
Traffic lights are also important to our common wellbeing, but I can still abuse a traffic light by tearing it out of the ground and beating you over the head with it. Which is starting to sound like an interesting idea.
The fact that it fulfills one important function very well doesn’t mean it can be abused to do something it’s not supposed to do. That’s what “to abuse” means.

@Nullo – my objections to the burqua, the veil and all the other trappings is that they signify a subservience to religious patriarchy that I find offensive. But to forbid the wearing of these garments cannot be justified except for reasons of public safety. If those reasons do not obtain in France – and we have little reason to suppose otherwise – then the French government is giving in to some very xenophobic opinion. it has struck me for the first time, that there is more than one way to regard the wartime Resistance: xenophobia or heroic nationalism?

You want women to forswear the burqua? then give them a reason to go against their religious and cultural conditioning. The law will not be enough.

@Fyrius –
“Firstly let me spell out again that I’m not the one you should be trying to convince that burqas are the shit, because that’s not a point I have chosen to oppose. As such most of the things you just told me are irrelevant to me. I’m neutral on the burqa subject itself and really only here right now to object to the way you wave around the notion of free speech.”

Nothing I have said refers to the merit of the burka, just a person’s ability to make personal wardrobe choices rather than having them made for them. Maybe that’s a free speech issue maybe its something else, either way it’s none of the government’s business to tell you what to wear.

Look my argument isn’t really about the burka and you’re too hung up on it to see what I’m talking about. So rather than going around that again lets talk about this in more generic terms.

Imagine this. I’m a woman. It’s true. A feminist to boot. I like to dress nice and present my self according to my conception of myself. As this is my body whether or not I’m wearing a “Save the Memphis Three” shirt or the one that makes my boobs look nice it is my call. No man or government gets to tell me how short my skirt will be. There has been a long history of women being told that they had to dress for men, that there were certain ways they could and couldn’t present themselves because of how others would see them. At this point I’m one of the girls that gets to say “fuck that”. I can choose to dress sexy, but I’m not obligated to. I can choose slum it because nobody can tell me that its my duty to be sexy all the time. It’s up to me. Any government regulation that diminishes my ability to control the presentation of my body takes away a little bit of my freedom and begins to enforce a state defined version of what I am supposed to be, or at least what I’m not supposed to be. This goes for men as well.

Whether or not the clothing someone chooses to wear is considered a positive or negative statement about a person or any statement at all is irrelevant. You can’t override a statement or personal prerogative because it isn’t one you’re comfortable with or doesn’t seem significant to you. That’s just freedom of expression so long as I support what’s being expressed. Nobody needs the things that everyone’s ok with protected, it’s the ones that make us uncomfortable or don’t seem worth protecting that freedom of expression and speech are here to defend.

fundevogel – “Can you actually demonstrate a situation where people got away with something otherwise unacceptable in legal terms because of freedom of speech?”

Fyrius – “I don’t have to, because that’s not what I’m saying. I’m saying people like you abuse the notion of freedom of expression by bringing them to bear on issues that have nothing to do with expression. This is improper usage, also referred to as abuse.

Not agreeing on your version of what free speech is an abuse of freedom of speech? I’m sorry, but that’s hardly the sort of thing that pops to mind when I think of human rights being abused. (I’m far more concerned with people losing human rights than somehow wielding too many). I also made it clear that even if this wasn’t technically free speech I would still defend autonomous personal dress as something too personal and seemingly minor for the government to intrude on.

There’s something terrifying about about using the person you’re debating with as as an example (the only example you provide) of abuse of free speech. Obviously you disagree with me but claiming I abuse free speech isn’t an argument it’s an accusation and it doesn’t provide evidence of abuse.

fundevogel – “Freedom of speech and expression is so vital to the health of a country I’m pretty amazed you think its being abused.”

Fyrius – Logical fallacy. Or actually, a complete freaking non sequitur. Vitally beneficial things can’t be abused, now?

Well, I didn’t make an unsupported absolute statement did I? This is a statement of an opinion not an argument. It accompanied a request that you support your claims that freedom of speech/expression was being abused. I’m not aware of any abuses of free speech and despite my request for examples the only thing you came up with was that my definition of free speech is wrong and defending a version of free speech different form your own was an abuse of free speech. I’m sorry but you can’t just tell me I’m wrong and expect me to be impressed without evidence. Calling my understanding of free speech invalid isn’t an argument, its just contradiction.

At this point I’m just going to say ‘whatever’ to everything you say that is not related to the point we actually disagree on. That cuts down the parts I have to reply to to the following.

“Whether or not the clothing someone chooses to wear is considered a positive or negative statement about a person or any statement at all is irrelevant. You can’t override a statement or personal prerogative because it isn’t one you’re comfortable with or doesn’t seem significant to you.”
Straw man. I can honestly tell you I don’t give a flying duck about whatever it is women try to say by wrapping a veil around their bodies. I’ll repeat for the umpteenth time that my point is that this is not speech, so an argument that it must be free cannot rely on freedom of speech.
And to that actual subject, whether the burqa is any statement at all is crucial.

“I also made it clear that even if this wasn’t technically free speech I would still defend autonomous personal dress as something too personal and seemingly minor for the government to intrude on.”
Yes, please do that. I’ll probably join you in doing so.
But please find a different argument for it.

“There’s something terrifying about about using the person you’re debating with as as an example (the only example you provide) of abuse of free speech. Obviously you disagree with me but claiming I abuse free speech isn’t an argument it’s an accusation and it doesn’t provide evidence of abuse.”
It’s still an accusation backed up by arguments I find myself repeating ad nauseam, but fair enough. Sorry if I terrified you.
Truth be told, other examples of abuse of this notion of freedom in particular, I can’t give you at the moment. I do have plenty of (too many) memories of, for example, homophobic dunderheads opposing gay marriage because it would violate their freedoms, because straight people should have the freedom to have stuff that gays can’t have or whatever.

The Hunger Site, a site I generally really admire and support wholeheartedly, often has me facepalming with a Roosevelt quote saying “the freedom of man, I contend, is the freedom to eat”. No. “Freedom” is when people leave you alone. Getting food is a right, not a freedom. Yes, there is a difference. Rights and freedoms are political opposites.

What pisses me off like there’s no tomorrow about this is not only that it misses the point of how ethics work, but also that people say this sort of thing because “freedom” is redneck magic word number one. Because finding a far-fetched way to make your point seem like a point on the side of freedom is an emotional nuke on the scale of comparing your opponent to Hitler, but usually has as much rational basis as comparing your opponent to Hitler.
Like I said, it’s a pet peeve of mine.

“Well, I didn’t make an unsupported absolute statement did I?”
You did write two syntactically connected clauses that are not logically connected. I’d compare it to saying “this tower is so high that I’m amazed today is a Thursday.” That logic gave me pause.

“Calling my understanding of free speech invalid isn’t an argument, its just contradiction.”
No it isn’t.

As mentioned in the other thread I’m in favor of a ban of the chador and burqa in all western societies. There are several reasons. One is because of a human rights violation. No one has the right to confine women to a mobile prison and forcing them to renounce their individuality. These dress codes are disgusting to say the least. When crimes are being committed it’s also very difficult to identify cloaked people.

If the women are really doing it by choice, they create a dilemma because it would restrict their freedom of clothing.

I’d like to point out that I just have an issue with extreme attitudes. In western societies streakers and fully-cloaked people are not acceptable. Otherwise the dress code should be very liberal. Covering your hair is acceptable of course. Actually in the past this was done in Europe and America as well, for example during the harvest season (protection against dust because of dry and windy weather). Shampoo was a luxury 100 years ago. Nuns also cover their hair. If girls and women want to wear a headscarf that’s fine. A face without hair still gives women an identity. If they are forced to do it, it’s not acceptable. A problem arises if a headscarf sends a political message, as for example understood in Turkey. There is a growing movement which wants to dismantle the secular system and build a theocracy. Therefore there are rules about headscarves at Turkish schools and universities.

Here’s another reason. When we communicate with other people facial expressions are extremely important. A whole section in our brains is dedicated to this. There is a lot of research on mirror neurons. We are social creatures and our social brains need to connect with others. Fully cloaked faces is a perverse and hideous tradition and it contributes to the destruction of our very humanity which includes the need to look at each others faces.

Chadors and burqas are not a general Islamic tradition. They are a cultural tradition of parts of particular countries (very often with hidden political agendas). Go to Turkey or Indonesia and you will barely see them (except on a few religious zealots).

Running around naked and running around fully cloaked is not our tradition. It’s not within our liberal dress code. A ban does not restrict the freedom of religion that we need to maintain and protect.

have you seen how long these posts are getting, it’s like a pissing competition

Come on, RD, surely this can’t be the first wall of text marathon you’ve seen here.

@Fyrius no it’s not but it’s the first I could be bothered to point out

@RareDenver – You bladder shy? Judging from the tiny splash. Relax :-)

Of course we could insist that men wear the burqua.

@bea2345 – Undercover male journalists do that occasionally. So do CIA agents and other secret service personnel.

@mattbrowne – since my last post, I have been trying to imagine Sarkozy in a burqa and the best I could come up with was a shrouded figure wearing men’s shoes – black lace ups, highly polished. Could he be taken seriously?

@bea2345 I’d love to see Sarkozy in a burqa!

@mattbrowne Human rights violation? You’re suggesting taking away women’s rights here, restricting them, a la women should be protected from themselves or something. You’re like one of those so-called feminists who decry women choosing to be housewives*. The point of liberty is choice, not the replacement of one regime (theirs) with another (yours).

*This is not about bashing feminism. I am a feminist.

@nicobanks
“Dangit, I will make you be free!!!”

Sarkozy in a burqa? The thing is, we’d never know. How would we recognize him? A burqa is worse than a chador. Even the eyes are behind prison bars.

@nicobanks

Forcing women into a mobile prison and depriving them of their individuality is a human rights violation.

Forcing women not to enter a mobile prison even if they want to do this voluntarily is not a human rights violation, but it creates a dilemma. Because they are no longer free to do this.

Forcing streakers to wear clothes in inner cities even if they want to run around naked is not a human rights violation, but it creates a dilemma. Because they are no longer free not to wear clothes.

My point is, reasonable dress codes go both ways. Traditions in France or the United States matter as well. Faces are part of our societies. Ghosts are not.

It is not up to me or you or even the govt to dictate anybody’s clothing choices. Parents guide their children and adults decide for themselves. If the 8th century burqa is unacceptable then why not the 12th century nun’s habit or the 19th century Amish garb. Two decades ago I didn’t like the 12 yo Madonna wannabes dressed like street walkers.

The exceptions might be totally veiled because that may be used as a disquise for criminal activities and public nudity. As a society we have agreed when there is a clash of important rights like public safety or my right not to be exposed to your balls, we will set priorities.

Interestingly, some people don’t recognize that. Often they have mental health issues. The most well-known case was Andrew, the Naked Guy, who strolled the UCB campus for years in nothing but sandals. His supporters ranged from immature 18 yos to middle aged exhibitionists to the ACLU. Unfortunately no one paid attention to the fact that Andrew wasn’t fighting for his rights but that was a symptom of his schizophrenia, So he received support but no help and his life went into freefall and he committed suicide.

@bea2345
I lol’d. Thank you.

Dress codes do change over time. That’s fine. But faces are part of our societies. I don’t want this to change. It’s a key element of our humanity. Freedom is also part of our societies. And we should not assume that all women wearing chadors and burqas do this by choice. They are forced to do it. A tradition is not necessarily a good tradition. A related tradition is female genital cutting.

Here’s a reading tip: ‘Princess: A True Story of Life Behind the Veil in Saudi Arabia’

http://www.amazon.com/Princess-Story-Behind-Saudi-Arabia/dp/0967673747/

It discusses many issues such as forcing the full veil, forcing marriage and forcing female genital cutting.

@Nullo Exactly.

@mattbrowne Ghosts? Are you incapable of defending your position without using insults? Women in burqas are not dressed up like ghosts, like some kind of life-long Halloween party.

You say we shouldn’t assume that all women wearing burqas are doing so by choice. Fair enough: I try not to assume anything about any stranger’s reasons for his/her actions. But then you go on to say “they are forced to do it.” Now you’re generalizing.

Women being forced into doing things they don’t want to do is a serious problem and it is a human rights violation. But how does banning the burqa solve this problem or even attempt to solve it? Not only does it punish those women who chose to wear it, but it doesn’t do a thing to take away the male social power and privelege which you refer to in your arguments (and which I admit exists), nor does it do anything to empower women.

Thanks for the reading tip. I have read about these things before, though. I still disagree with you, but it’s not our disagreement that has me responding. You think the face is a part of our culture you’d like to protect. Fine; I disagree, but fine. What bothers me is your insistance that this is a human rights issue, a women’s rights issue, but I don’t see that logic following through and frankly, alongside your obvious distaste of this religion (or public religiosity or “extreme attitudes” or whatever), it sounds insincere – and it really riles me to see a man take up the cause insincerely, just to advance his own opinions. Maybe I am wrong about your sincerity, I won’t claim to know your meanings or intentions, but this is what I get from your comments.

I used ghost as a metaphor for forcibly cloaked human beings to underscore this despicable act of robbing people’s humanity. Turning them into faceless creatures.

I find it shocking how liberal minds (while enjoying the advantages of a free society) show a remarkable blindness to the impact of perverse ideologies like the ones created by the Taliban which includes enforcing burqas (for women, not men), denial of higher education for girls, as well as harboring international terrorists conducting training for the mass murders in New York City and Washington DC.

We need to fully understand the cruelty of Islamic fundamentalism and we should show solidarity with the oppressed women in countries like Saudi-Arabia and we should definitely not allow the export of their inhumane ideologies. Many fully veiled women in Europe or the US are forced to do this. Their husbands demand this. They have no right to rape their wives and they don’t have the right to tell their wives what to wear either. And we have the right to define limits of acceptable dress codes in our countries. If women want to wear a headscarf this is acceptable.

What’s so interesting to me about this question is that it brings up issues of cultural relativism vs. human rights. I think people in Eurorpe for some reason are more inclined to believe in “the right to define limits of acceptable dress codes in our countries” while many of us in America are more inclined to tolerate broad ranges of religious expression in dress. My feminism buts up against my unwillingness to impose my standards on another culture; my gut feeling is that banning the burqa is worng, but I can clearly see the other side as well.

But I don’t think you even need to get into the cultural relativism argument. Are the women happy wearing the burqas? Then let them wear them. Are the burqas being imposed on them against their will? Then banning is doing them a favor. Why can’t we just ask them what they want?

@nikipedia Aye, there’s the rub. I don’t think anyone – their husbands or Sarkozy – are considering asking what the women want. (And presumably it might vary from woman to woman.)

There was a recent article in the Economist about this. It seems that the burqa – BTW, in France that means the long sleeved dress and a veil, not the travelling fortress one sees in pictures of Afghanistan – is being worn by a number of women as a demonstration of their loyalty to Islam. Many of them are young and educated. They are standing up for their right to wear whatever they please. It is hard to quarrel with that stance.

@bea2345 Agreed.

@janbb – It really depends on the subject. In America for some reason people are more inclined to believe in “the right to define limits of acceptable behavior such as public breastfeeding or carrying a beer bottle” while many of us in Europe are more inclined to tolerate broad ranges.

Why is there no outcry when so many women have to wear the burqa forcibly? Girls don’t get educated. Treated like objects and male possessions. Look at the pictures. Shouldn’t we all be more sympathetic to all these girls and women who are being treated like cattle? And for a moment not look at the issue of the few women wearing burqas voluntarily to show pride about Islam?

http://dancingczars.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/burqa-women.jpg

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_QfVWU-2pVL4/SKNgjfiN9tI/AAAAAAAADTE/MnHrwFO6s3Q/s400/saudis-women-burqa-olympics.jpg

Please be honest, when you opened the second picture, which woman did you look at first? The one with the face, right? Why? Because it’s our nature. Our human brains allocate large sections to interpreting faces. Emotional intelligence relies on this. We need to connect. We are social creatures.

@mattbrowne You make some really valid points and I totally agree that there are many areas of social behavior in which the Europeans (lumping them clumsily together) are much more tolerant than Americans. The burqa issue is a very complicated one; but I still have difficulty with the government banning them. Maybe a better example is the Swiss banning of minaret building which seems like a clear case of religious intolerance from this side of the pond.

@janbb – I’m against the minaret ban, but I’m in favor of a burqa and chador ban. Most women are forced to do this. This is what really matters. The idea comes from the same countries which do not allow women to drive a car or deny education to girls. Outrageous to say the least. Then look at Turkey. No burqas and chadors. Deeply religious people wear headscarves and remain human beings with a face. There is education for everyone. In Germany there are about 2 million immigrants from Turkey and this is by far the largest Muslim community. Many of them have become German citizens. We don’t see burqas and chadors in Germany. New mosques with minarets are built all the time.

I thought it was to eliminate fashion faux-pas?

@mattbrowne You’re repeating yourself.

As long as they don’t ban the kilt