French National Assembly vote to ban the burqa: An attack on democratic rights

[Hannah Bell]

Starting in the spring of 2011, women wearing a burqa or niqab in France will face a €150 fine and will be forced to take citizenship classes. This is proceeding under the hypocritical guise of protecting burqa-clad women from pressure from their relatives, who face draconian penalties. Anyone deemed guilty of forcing a woman to wear a full-face veil will face a €30,000 fine and one year in jail. At the suggestion of the opposition Parti Socialiste (PS), these penalties are to be doubled if the woman is a minor.

On June 23, several weeks prior to the National Assembly vote, European parliamentarians from 47 countries at the Council of Europe unanimously voted for a resolution condemning burqa bans as anti-democratic and discriminatory. Those voting for the resolution included parliamentarians from the PS and the UMP (Union pour un Mouvement Populaire), France’s ruling conservative party.

The Council of Europe resolution states that it “deplores that a growing number of political parties in Europe are stirring up fear of Islam, leading political campaigns promoting a simplistic vision and negative clichés about European Muslims, equating Islam with extremism. Incitement of intolerance and even hatred of Muslims is inadmissible”.

In an unmistakable reference to burqa bans like that pushed by French President Nicolas Sarkozy, the resolution notes, “Article 9 of the European Convention of Human Rights gives each individual the right to wear religious garments, or not, in private and in public…a broad ban on wearing the burqa and the niqab would deny the right to cover their face to women who freely wish to do so”. The lone opposing vote came from UMP deputy Daniel Garrigue, a political associate of ex-Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin, Sarkozy’s main rival on the French right. Garrigue commented that “in order to combat extremist behavior, we run the risk of sliding towards a totalitarian society”.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2010/aug2010/burq-a05.shtml

[aquart]

1. Does the Koran mention the burqa?

Is it a tenet of Islam? Because a whole lot of Muslim women do not wear it. Are they in violation of their religion?

When in Rome, do as the Romans do.

[Hannah Bell]

3. i'd laugh except it's too sad.

[bring_em_home_bush]

6. not sad, hypocritical and revolting n/t

[aquart]

8. Does it?

[Hannah Bell]

9. yes, it is.

[aquart]

11. Link?

[aquart]

12. We cover up when we go to the MidEast to respect their customs.

Why are their customs worthy of our respect but ours aren't worthy of theirs?

[Hannah Bell]

18. saudi arabia makes no pretense of religious tolerance, unlike the "democratic" governments of the

west.

that's the difference.

[aquart]

22. So you want to bring Saudi intolerance to the West?

As well as their endless discrimation against women? Impressive. Because we're tolerant so the intolerant customs win?

Feels like what the Republicans are doing to the Democrats in Congress, doesn't it?

[Hannah Bell]

26. no, but you apparently do. ps: did you read the article about the israeli women

who CHOOSE to wear burkas -- but their men don't want them to?

it's their choice -- you're all for "choice," apparently, but i guess you'd refuse them that particular one.



http://timesonline.typepad.com/faith/2008/03/religious-head.html

there are some of these burka-wearing jewish women in the ny orthodox community, too.

now is this an intolerant custom when they're choosing to wear it?

or maybe they could just wear wigs:

Like many other Orthodox women who follow Halakha, Jewish law, Mrs. Berkowitz has worn a wig since her wedding day. Women's hair exudes sensual energy, the Talmud teaches, and covering it insures a married woman's modesty. But the Talmud also obliges a wife to care for her appearance, so though a hat or scarf will do, many Orthodox women favor wigs, the more natural looking the better.

In fact, it was impossible to tell that Mrs. Berkowitz's rich, auburn hair -- bobbed chin length with soft bangs brushed off her face -- was actually a wig. Stylish Orthodox women like Mrs. Berkowitz eschew synthetic ready-made wigs for custom ones of human hair that closely approximate their own tresses.

Given the code of modesty that Orthodox women abide by, including clothes that must cover the knees, elbows and collar bone, is it a contradiction to wear a wig, especially a stylish one?

http://www.nytimes.com/1997/04/27/style/for-stylish-orthodox-women-wigs-that-aren-t-wiggy.html

& how do you know the women in france, at least some of them, aren't choosing to wear it too?

the world is bigger than your stereotypes, sorry.



Plymouth brethren church congregant in egypt



catholics in jordan

The chapel veil was the custom of all Catholic churches (eastern and western), everywhere in the world (including English-speaking nations) for nearly 2,000 years. The custom only fell out of use among western Catholic women, particularly in English-speaking nations, in just the last 30-40 years. Why is that?

http://catholicknight.blogspot.com/2007/12/chapel-veil-veiling-or-head-covering.html



http://www.scrollpublishing.com/store/head-covering-history.html

[seabeyond]

23. self deleted. not getting in this battle. nt

[Hannah Bell]

13. is sad.

head covering for women is enjoined in all judeo-christian-islamic holy texts. all of them.

how various communities have interpreted that has varied historically & regionally.

your comment is sad.

please tell these women they're in rome & should wear what the romans do:

amish women



french nuns



jewish burka (some women want to wear it, rabbis/men are against it)



While the debate over banning the burka rages on in Europe, in Israel, the cult of strange Jewish women who have taken on a face-veil is slowly becoming a full-blown community.

The Bchadrei Charedim website is now reporting that 20 families in Beit Shemesh are taking their children out of the local strictly Orthodox school, because the teachers' wives do not cover their faces. They are presumably going to open up their own institution.

Even more worryingly, the site reports that in recent days, some of the husbands of these women have sent a letter to the Edah Charedit beth din, asking the rabbinical judges to ban the face veil (as their wives are wearing it against these husbands' wishes) - so far to no avail.

http://www.thejc.com/blogpost/rabbis-refuse-ban-burka

[aquart]

14. Oh, look! A link!

http://relijournal.com/islam/the-burqa-facts-issues/http://relijournal.com/islam/the-burqa-facts-issues/

What does Quran say about the Burqa?

First of all, it depends on which Islamic scholar you ask. They are all in disagreement as to what extend Quran advocates this. However, the Quran does urge men and women to dress and behave modestly in society. The Quran does not specifically mention the Burqa or tells women to wear such extremely confining clothes. The Ulema or the Scholars do agree that the Quran says women should not wear extremely revealing clothes. Modern day muslims base their authority regarding the Burqa on the Hadith or collected traditions of life in the days of Muhammad the prophet. But a noteworthy objection is that Hadith describes 7th century Arabian life, which should not be imposed on modern day Muslims world wide. Muslim communities also argue that women are to dress modestly but should not be forced or punished to wear a Burqa. This is why many Muslim communities have different preferences regarding the application of the Burqa.

[aquart]

15. The Netherlands also banned the burqa. Who knew?

[Hannah Bell]

17. which proves the government of the netherlands is as hypocritical as the government of france.

and their "religious freedom" is a lie.

[aquart]

19. Still haven't bothered to read the Koran I see.

And there is NO reference to the burqa in the Koran which, I suppose, is why you couldn't supply a link with your false assertion.

[Hannah Bell]

24. lol. which false assertion is that? link me to it.

greek orthodox nuns

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_cQ2xhpZfenk/Sj0r5yRGDTI/AAAAAAAAHQY/xfs7eLXItg4/s400/greek+orthodox+in+vatican.JPG

greek woman



albanian women, youth & age (black is for age, not widowhood)





omg! it's chelsea clinton! in a full veil! and her father is "giving her away"! as if she were his property that he was transferring to another man!

how dare those men enforce this retrograde, sexist practice on her!

[Hannah Bell]

30. ps: like you can read classical arabic. you read the google, just like me.

& you find an "expert" who calls a chador a "chardor" & cites english, german & swedish translations of the koran.

[riderinthestorm]

38. None of your pics are of full face covering burqas or niqabs.

There is a lot of difference in western cultures between head coverings and full face coverings in terms of their meanings and context.

The west has it's own culture in regards to full face coverings (not a bridal veil which is see-through and worn for approximately 5 minutes before it's removed symbolically).

Women and men have been, and continue to be told what they can and cannot wear in western cultures in the public square. France has a long tradition of secularism and has banned religious gear and symbols many times in their past. It's their culture.

The garb is misogynistic and not religiously required at all in the Quran. It's a cultural affectation only and clearly, obviously, France has decided it doesn't want it on it's city streets.

[Hannah Bell]

44. perhaps you missed my point. in fact, i'm sure you did.

face-covering garb for islamic women has been around at least 200 years -- longer than most american customs.

so i wouldn't call it an "affectation".

and france can decide whatever the hell it wants, but it can stop calling itself a haven of religious tolerance when it decides to single out an item of clothing specific to moslem women.

[riderinthestorm]

46. It's not religious, it's cultural

as has been pointed out to you numerous times. France has no obligation to allow every misogynistic cultural practice to operate within it's secular state. They can and will legislate what is allowable and what is not, and since this is a cultural practice, it has not a single thing to do with religious tolerance regardless of your attempts to make it so.

[Hannah Bell]

49. what "culture" would that be? any non-muslims in it?

[riderinthestorm]

51. Misogynistic cultures that have taken to virtually erasing women from society via shrouding. nt

[Hannah Bell]

54. ha. you can't answer it because the answer is the "culture" = islam.

the law is exclusively directed at adherents of islam. the practice is a religious practice, not a cultural one. non-believing/practicing women don't veil.

[riderinthestorm]

58. Ha. You fail to comprehend that misogyny can transcend religion

The burqa/niqab is ONE cultural manifestation but there have certainly been variations of it in different gruesome forms that have been designed to brutally suppress women and keep them firmly in their secondary place (or in the case of the burqa/niqab, erased place).

When those practices come in contact with western values they are (usually) evaluated and discussed and banned by law as misogynistic unrelated to religion (although religion is often the guise the misogyny is shielded with). It's not bigoted to confront those practices and discuss whether they have a place in a community.

You know, I just deleted an enormous dissertation cuz it's lost on you. Good night. I've got an early start in the morning.

[Hannah Bell]

62. we're not talking about those things, though, are we. we're talking about BURQAS. worn by MUSLIMS.

[riderinthestorm]

65. Sorry but burqas are simply one in a long line of misogynistic practices

You can try to make this about Muslims or Islam as much as you want but for me (and many other feminists), the issue is larger and more encompassing with burqas just another battle along the way. I've already said it, it's not about the religion for me. France's issues are even more layered and nuanced but their arguments against the burqa are compelling, historical, constitutional and yes even religious although not in the way you want to simplistically portray. Their history is fairly egalitarian in universally rejecting religiosity in their public square. Islam is just one more rejection in their pantheon of rejected religions and the associated symbology, clothing included.

[Hannah Bell]

66. we're not talking about "a long line of misogynist practices". we're talking about burkas.

in france. being banned.

that you insist on blurring that fact into the globo-historical pool of all the "misogyny" the world has ever contained tells me there's no point in talking to you.

i thought you were going to bed.

had to have the last word, didn't you?

it's yours. go ahead, you know you want to.

[riderinthestorm]

70. Fine. I will. I feel passionate about this and it's keeping me up.

Clearly you and I aren't discussing anything. You are simply making bald statements attacking France without having any kind of discussion about WHY France (Belgium, Spain etc.) might be taking this step, virtually unanimously.

You can ignore the history of women's rights, the context, and the burqa's place within that spectrum but I won't. The burqa demands a discussion instead of carte blanche acceptance into a community imho. This IS a global discussion since we're talking about a tribal, nomadic, misogynistic costume from the Mid-East being imported into the "open", secular European and other western cultures. If that isn't global then nothing is, and that you refuse to acknowledge that says more about your narrow focus than mine.

[Hannah Bell]

73. i know why they're taking it.

1. the war on error
2. arab/muslim immigrants = convenient scapegoat for the economic squeeze

women's rights have nothing to do with it. that's fodder for the outraged muddled classes, who judge everything by their own stereotypes.

which don't admit anything but downtrodden oppressed women forced into the veil by evil domineering male relatives who'd just as soon kill them as sneeze. all veiled women secretly long for miniskirts & bikinis, symbols of freedom.

what a crock of shit.

[Karenina]

83. The ban in France must be seen separately from other initiatives.

If the 1905 law which enshrined secularism were enforced across the board this could never have become such an issue. That said, the driving force for the brouhaha is RW politics; you know, easy targets and low hanging fruit. Sarkozy is also quite busy rounding up Roma, Travellers and Africans having proclaimed them a "threaz to security." Gee, WHERE have I heard THAT before? ;-)

The whole thing is just another clusterfuck USING women as scapegoats. First of all, 2000 out of 3 MILLION wear niqab (NOT BURKHAS) and MANY OF THEM are French coverts. The ban is just another variation of whipping up "their visible presence among us is an existential threat" canard. It's like cutting butter with a chain saw...

[Hannah Bell]

95. +1oo

[Karenina]

100. This is one of many discouses I seen on the issue.

http://fora.tv/2009/03/19/Bronwyn_Winter_Uncovering_the_French_Headscarf_Debate

[Karenina]

102. OOPS!!! DISCOURSES I'VE SEEN...

:blush: How'd THAT happen? Sloppy, sloppy! :blush:

[MH1]

104. wow - "the application of the burqa"

"application"?!? yikes. Please tell me that's a language barrier issue and not what it sounds like.

any f***** wants to "apply" a burqa to me is going to have a few things "applied" to him.

what a fucked up concept.

[LostinVA]

105. No, Hannah, it doesn't

The Koran tells women AND men to cover their heads before God, but that's it. It's a tribal custom.

[27inCali]

2. just when you thought America was backwards......

don't trust the French, they smell like onions.

[MikeNY]

4. This is the same country that killed Joan of Arc for wearing mens clothes n/t

[proteus_lives]

5. Actually, the English killed Joan of Arc.

[seabeyond]

10. havent heard about killing, but males have to wear speedos at pools. must be a clothes thing

with them

[Jefferson23]

7. Wow, just sad. n/t

[aquart]

16. What the koran actually says:

http://everything2.com/title/burqa

No support in the Scriptures

However, contrary to popular belief, there is no support anywhere in the Quran (Koran) for burqas, chardors or veils. There are only three places in the Quran where dress for women is mentioned, all of them quite innocuous:

(1) Surah 7:26: "O children of Adam, we have provided you with garments to cover your bodies, as well as for luxury. But the best garment is the garment of righteousness (REMARK: 'fear of God' in some translations). These are some of God's signs, that they may take heed."

So just a "garment of righteousness" is recommended here.

(2) Surah 24:31: "And tell the believing women to subdue their eyes (REMARK: in the previous verse men are asked to subdue their eyes), and maintain their chastity. They shall not reveal any parts of their bodies, except that which is necessary. They shall cover their chests, and shall not relax this code in the presence of other than their husbands, their fathers, the fathers of their husbands, their sons, the sons of their husbands, their brothers, the sons of their brothers, the sons of their sisters, other women, the male servants or employees whose sexual drive has been nullified, or the children who have not reached puberty. They shall not strike their feet when they walk in order to shake and reveal certain details of their bodies. All of you shall repent to GOD, O you believers, that you may succeed."

OK, so here the Quran tells women to cover their breasts, hardly a spectacularly puritan advice.

(3) Surah 33:59: "O prophet, tell your wives, your daughters, and the wives of the believers that they shall lengthen their garments. Thus, they will be recognized and avoid being insulted. God is Forgiver, Most Merciful."

Lengthen, OK. But nothing is said from what starting-point. So in essence the Quran would allow the wearer of a bikini to lengthen this garment into a pair of hotpants and still be a righteous Muslim.

[defendandprotect]

21. These are books written by males . . .

Organized patriarchal religion is the underpinning for patriarchy --

You just can't proclaim yourself SPECIAL -- SUPREME -- you need a "god" to do it for you!!

[Hannah Bell]

28. it's *chador,* not *chardor*. your koranic "authority" cites english & other translations only.

Try someone who actually speaks/reads (classical) arabic & knows something of the scholarly tradition.


Let us now turn to the specific verse on hijab in the Qur’an: “And tell the believing women to lower their eyes, and guard their modesty, and that they display not their ornaments except what appears of them. And that they draw their scarves (khumurihinna) over their bosoms…” (An-Nur: 31)


The word used in this context is khumur which has been variously translated as veils or scarves; the latter is more precise for it is the plural of khimar, which has been defined as “a woman’s head covering; a piece of cloth with which a woman covers her head.” (See Ibn Manzur, Lisan al-`Arab.)

Imam Raghib al-Isfahani in his famous work, Mufradat alfadh al-Qur’an defines the terms by saying, “The root meaning of the word is to cover, and the khimar, therefore, is the cover or veil, but it has become synonymous with veil with which a woman covers her head (i.e., headscarf); the plural of the word is khumur (as used in the Qur’an: An-Nur: 31).”

Because, according to the Arabic usage, covering the head is the most important function of khimar, no scholar in the past that we know of has ever disputed the fact that women are commanded by Allah to cover their heads; they only argued whether the face and hands are also included in the above order. The majority of scholars are of the opinion that they are allowed to uncover their faces and hands.

http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?cid=1119503546760&pagename=IslamOnline-English-Ask_Scholar%2FFatwaE%2FFatwaEAskTheScholar


Women all over the middle east wore some kind of head coverings when the area's three great religions were founded.

likely something like what middle eastern peasant women have worn for generations:





This custom, predating the foundation of those religions, is what all the scriptural references are based on, and the seed of the history of women's head covering in the middle east, europe, the americas & other areas influenced by these religions.

And you understand, it doesn't matter how you or any scholar interpret the Koran or any other holy book: what matters is how COMMUNITIES OF BELIEVERS interpret it.

And if you make a great noise about religious tolerance & freedom, you don't get to pick & choose which religious dress styles are "acceptable" to your much-touted "tolerance" & "freedom".

[riderinthestorm]

39. The Quran does not indicate face covering.

The burqa and niqab are not religiously required and thus are cultural affectations only. Headcovering is completely different.

[Hannah Bell]

53. i never said it did. i said all the three middle eastern religions have scriptural

injunction for women to cover their heads, and how that has been interpreted by communities of believers has varied through time & space -- & the burka is one variant interpretation.

It doesn't matter a bit that it's not "indicated" in the Koran. The Bible doesn't tell female religious to wear penguin outfits, either. But christian nuns did, & do. No religion has ever done everything its scriptures tell it to do/or not to do.

Scriptural justification isn't what makes a religion. The actual practices of believers do.

What matters is that burka-wearing is a practice of some communities of believers, who see it as a religious duty/necessity.

France can ban whatever it wants, but it can't pretend the ban isn't a violation of freedom of religious expression.

And people can babble on about how these women are so oppressed, so we must "save" them -- and some of them probably are -- but this law is oppressive & discriminatory as well, and will do as much harm as good. If muslim women in france really are so terribly oppressed by their fathers or husbands & the burka is banned, what will those oppressive fathers/husbands do? let them walk the streets in miniskirts? or maybe keep them locked in their homes?

who knows. you don't know. you don't know anything about muslim women in france beyond what you read on internet sites that support your own views.

The ban has been legislated due to:

1. bigotry directed against muslim immigrants, one of the poorest groups in france, convenient scapegoats in the economic downturn

2. the war on terror, the supposed threat of unidentifiable burka-wearing women hiding bombs in their underwear -- though as far as that goes, some of those french catholic nuns could hide them just as easily.

it's crap, & so is this thread.

[riderinthestorm]

60. There is no scriptural or religious requirement for facial covering

that's just sheer made up shit. It doesn't need or deserve to be respected if it's just simply made up. People can cover their heads and bodies in any garb they want to satisfy their religious dogmas since they actually DO say "cover your head".

But nothing, NOTHING, requires anyone to cover their face in any of the bullshit patriarchal religions. The fact remains that in western cultures facial coverings are hugely problematic. France can and has put the ban into effect, and it's history and culture support them. This isn't coming out of the blue - France has got centuries of history behind it that demonstrate it's enforcement of it's secular culture. Since the burqa/niqab is not religious, France has even got that to weigh on it's side.

You can try to streeeetch this into something it isn't by saying a religion is anything the followers want it to be. But in the case of the law, the scriptural directives are all that matter. The burqa is indefensible on any level.

[Hannah Bell]

63. & i already explained why that's IRRELEVANT.

but please continue your discussion with the little man in your own head.

self-reference is always amusing.

[defendandprotect]

20. No -- an attack on male-supremacist religion . . . which is a good thing -- !!

[Hannah Bell]

31. here's a man "giving away" his veiled daughter to another man in a male supremacist custom:

how come you're not attacking that?

[defendandprotect]

34. Send me all on the list . . . and I'll attack every one of them for you -- !!

Was it a religious ceremony -- I have no idea -- didn't follow that "news."


Oh . . . I see from another poster's comments that you're suggesting the bridal veil

should be attacked as a "burqua" . . .

The veil is idiocy, the "white" concept is idiocy -- and, imo, the concept of "marriage"

itself is idiocy.

And I'm really surprised that if they were going to following the "giving away" concept,

that both her Mother and her Father didn't walk her down the aisle.

[Hannah Bell]

35. "from another poster's comments that you're suggesting"

the other poster misrepresents the case.

[defendandprotect]

36. Whatever the case ... I answered in all events --

[riderinthestorm]

40. You really want to equate a see-thru bridal veil, worn for about 5 minutes

one day in the life of this woman, to a burqa or niqab worn every single day?

I will grant you that both of them are cultural affectations but beyond that they have no rational comparison.

[Hannah Bell]

50. i made no such equation.

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Hannah Bell]

29. freedom of religious expression is anti-western? who knew.

[WildEyedLiberal]

32. This poster also tried to argue that female genital mutilation isn't that big of a deal

This poster consistently defends hideous practices by non-Western cultures and/or attempts to minimize their severity by bringing up some apples-to-oranges "Western" custom that supposedly is just as bad - notice how she's posting pictures of Chelsea Clinton in a wedding veil and trying to equate that to forcing women to wear a full-body burqa every time they leave the house. :eyes:

[Hannah Bell]

33. please link me to where i claim "female genital mutilation" "isn't that big of a deal". thanks.

also, link me to your source for the claim that burka-wearing women in france are universally "forced" to wear them. thanks again.

oh, & ps again: the pictures of chelsea clinton were offered as 1) a general history of women's headcovering in reference to middle eastern religions & 2) in response to a post about "patriarchal religions".

thanks.

[WildEyedLiberal]

41. Sorry, I don't bookmark threads - surely you recall the big FGM flamewar from a week or two ago

Which was only a flamewar because you and a couple of other posters were crapping all over the thread crying about how MEAN everyone was being, singling out "Muslims" for slicing off women's genitals, and showing alarmingly little concern for the actual women who are being mutilated. Obviously critiquing "non-Western" cultures bothers you more than critiquing horribly misogynistic customs. The fact that you honestly think that women wear burqas (as opposed to HEADSCARVES, which are NOT the same thing, despite your many, many attempts to obfuscate the issue, the ridiculous Chelsea Clinton red herring being just the latest example) of their own independently reasoned and uncoerced free will just proves how either a) clueless or b) deliberately dishonest you are about this entire topic. I honestly don't see how any "progressive" can be such a vociferous apologist for such blatant misogyny. It just proves once again that "progressives" will throw women under the bus in the name of "cultural tolerance" every single time.

[Hannah Bell]

48. i recall it. and you misrepresent it. as you misrepresent me here,

preferring your own stereotypes to actually entering into a real conversation with anyone who differs from you.

because here's how i remember that conversation: the usual suspects cheering because uganda (US pawn, stomping ground for rabid US cia/fundie types, home of the death to gays legislation -- still in the works, btw) -- uganda had just legislated 10 years imprisonment for anyone practicing female circumcision.

the cheerleaders didn't want to hear that the main such practioners in uganda were small groups of isolated tribespeople in disputed border territories, barely integrated into the state of uganda at all, living essentially tribal lives -- analogous to indians in the us in the 19th century.

and that the main effect of throwing such practioners (females of the tribes, the mothers & aunts of the girls) into jail for 10 years would be the destruction of the family & the tribe -- in the same way the canadian practice of separating children from their parents in the 19th century -- a kind of genocide.

and that, since it is obvious the US-sponsored government of uganda wouldn't give a good goddamn what some backward tribespeople did unless there were larger geopolitical/economic concerns, we can assume there are -- one of which would be some kind of ethnic cleansing or control of the area those tribes occupy.

there was also the usual argument about whether fgm was practiced by non-muslims (it is) or whether most muslims practice it (they don't).

no, nobody wanted to hear any of that. all they wanted to do was scream "you're anti-woman! you support the mutilation of women! bad, bad, bad! those people are murderers!muslims lock up their women and slit their clitorises! blahblahblahblahblah!"

spare me from such retrograde "feminism".

ps: religious tolerance is supposedly a deep-seated value of modern western cultures. supposedly. unless it happens to be a religion the west is currently at war with as cover for its conquest of every last space on the globe.

[WildEyedLiberal]

91. No, this was a thread about a girl in Britain being mutilated

A thread in which you were vastly more concerned with combating alleged anti-Islam sentiment than you were with addressing the problem of FGM being practiced in the West. I have never understood the vehemence in pointing out that not all Muslims practice FGM, or that people other than Muslims practice FGM, rather than summoning outrage over the fact that it's tacitly allowed in many cultures at all. I realize FGM is no more mandated by the Koran than burqas are, and that FGM is a cultural practice. That does NOT change the fact that millions of women are being abused and mutilated all around the globe under the pretense of obeying some barbaric cultural custom (which is often couched in a religious manner, be it "Islamic" or tribal or what have you). But if there is a news story of a Muslim woman undergoing FGM - the usual suspects are quick to swarm with their usual excuses - "most Muslims don't do this, lots of people who aren't Muslim do this, women are abused in the West too, blah blah blah!" Because heaven forbid we actually give a damn about the woman who just had her genitals mutilated - no, let's turn this into an apologia for the culture that did it to her. No, I'm sorry if I can't exactly summon the energy to give a damn about cultural sensitivity when it comes to crap like this. I don't CARE whether it's a Muslim or a Christian or a person who ascribes to tribal beliefs - it's barbaric and it's wrong.

And so are burqas. Burqas are repressive and indicate that the woman who is wearing it is chattel, who may only be looked upon by her owner/husband. And I don't give a good goddamn if she claims she's wearing it "willingly." If a slave accepts her chains freely, it's still slavery, and slavery is illegal in civilized countries. Frankly, I'd take your feminism a lot more seriously if you were just as willing to oppose the oppression of women in non-Western cultures as you are willing to defend said cultures from any criticism levied by those of us in "the West" from nebulous and dishonest accusations of racism and imperialism.

[Violet_Crumble]

93. I know that thread and Hannah Bell did NOT do what you accused her of...

Burqas are repressive and indicate that the woman who is wearing it is chattel, who may only be looked upon by her owner/husband. And I don't give a good goddamn if she claims she's wearing it "willingly."

Yr no different than the anti-abortionist 'feminists' who insist that women only claim to willingly have abortions but in reality they're coerced and forced into them by men.

Sorry that I can't share yr desire to tell women what they can and can't wear. I couldn't give a shit if a woman wears a burqa as long as she's making the choice to wear it...

[WildEyedLiberal]

108. I also have a hard time taking anyone who speaks in txt msg format seriously

Seriously? "Your" is too long for you to type out in full?

Your (yr) comparison is so ludicrous it doesn't even merit a response. Abortion rights are about women having autonomy over their own bodies. Burqas are absolute, iron-clad proof that the woman wearing it does NOT have autonomy over her own body. If you actually gave a damn about women instead of making excuses for 5th century cultural practices, maybe you could take off "yr" blinders and see that.

[Hannah Bell]

94. link me to this thread. i don't claim to be a "feminist". particularly the kind willing to lock

up women for 10 years for following the customs of their tribe in violation of some law promulgated by us compradors in a state they're only vaguely aware exists & feel no allegiance too & indeed are no part of, except because they live in a territory its claimed.

the racism & imperialism are quite real, much more real than your self-proclaimed omniscience about other women's lives.

[Violet_Crumble]

96. Here's the link...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=8810294

[WildEyedLiberal]

107. Dishonest claim: the law does NOT "lock up women for 10 years"

And you wonder why I have a hard time taking you seriously? You distort facts all over these threads and throw out irrelevant red herrings so frequently in an attempt to confuse any discussion about the actual issue that real debate becomes impossible.

Well, at least you're not claiming to be a feminist. I care more about women than I do about 5th century cultural practices or the supposed need of Western countries to "respect" said 5th century cultural practices. Your "racist" and "imperialist" bogeyman do nothing to change the fact that women are treated like third-class citizens in much of the world.

[Hannah Bell]

109. is that so?

Uganda bans female genital mutilation

Ugandan MPs have voted to outlaw female genital mutilation - also known as female circumcision.

Anyone convicted of the practice, which involves cutting off a girl's clitoris, will face 10 years in jail, or a life sentence if a victim dies.

The BBC's Joshua Mmali in Uganda says it is not officially condoned but is still practised in several rural areas...

Our reporter says it is still practised by the Sabiny, some Karamojong sub-groups and the Pokot in eastern Uganda and the Nubi people of West Nile.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7211924


and here's how the pokot tribe lives:




and the thread the other poster so kindly linked shows your other claim is false, too.

so who's really dishonest?

[Violet_Crumble]

89. If yr talking about the thread with the OP from the Guardian, she did nothing of the sort...

You really do owe Hannah Bell an apology, both for the abuse you've aimed at her, and for making a blatantly false accusation about her...

[krabigirl]

27. Horrible. Nt

[JCMach1]

37. The burqa is a 20th century invention first worn by the Wahabis in KSA and later

promoted as a political tool by the Islamic Brotherhood in Egypt.

It is not Koranic! or is so only in the sense that it could possibly be considered 'modest' dress.

As it is not solely religious, it is a cultural affectation. And frankly if what you are wearing is symbolic of subjugation, I think it is perfectly okay for the French to decide for themselves how to treat the issue.

Governments in the Middle-East don't think twice about telling you how to think, dress, act... So no, I don't have a problem with the French Gov's decision.

[Hannah Bell]

57. your contention is refuted by old drawings & travelers' descriptions, e.g.:

An 1842 Lithography work by James Rattray showing a Persian (Qizilbash) woman in Afghanistan with a burqa next to her



& here's the definition of "affectation": a deliberate pretense or exaggerated display; An attempt to assume or exhibit what is not natural or real; false display; artificial show; An unusual mannerism


i fail to see how burka wearing = "affectation" anymore than the wearing of high heels or nun suits.

and i must say, it's funny to see all the folks decrying these fundie customs when the american war on the middle east is the NUMBER ONE cause of the resurgence of islamic fundamentalism in that area.

some food for thought, re your contention that the burqa universally represents "oppression": the writing of a pakistani who describes the class-based dress of urban women in WW2-era pakistan. I don't hear the note of "oppression". I hear that women wore what they believed to be appropriate dress & that they donned the burqa eagerly as a sign of success & status -- indicating they weren't workers' wives:


I grew up surrounded by women wearing Burqas. In the British-ruled Lahore (a big city in Pakistan) of the 1940s, almost every middle class Muslim woman wore what is now the Afghan Burqa. My mother and aunts went for shopping, movies and picnics wearing Burqas.They would have been shocked to show their faces to men who were strangers. As women grew old, they often took off the Burqa, replacing it with a thick cotton shawl (Chadour) loosely wrapped around the head and shoulders, with the face left open.

The Burqa was a mark of respectability. Women who worked along- side their men in fields, shops and domestic settings, did not wear it. These women, numerically a majority of the population, wore the Chadour but generally stayed aloof from men who were not relatives. The Burqa was both expensive and obstructive for them.

When a family rose on the social scale, e.g. sons/ daughters became clerks, teachers, mechanics etc, or husbands /fathers were successful in business, its women started donning the Burqa. It was a symbol of their newly gained social status and class. At the top of the social ladder, the custom was different again. The women of rich and modern families, wives and daughters of political leaders, military commanders, senior civil servants and corporate executives, for example, went about in shawls and scarves without covering their bodies or faces. The Burqa was scarce among the families of the rich and modern. Almost similar social dynamics operated in Afghanistan before the Taliban.

http://iramz.wordpress.com/2006/10/05/the-evolution-of-the-burqa/

you can say it's not true. whatever. 90% of the posters on these burka threads seem to view the world through tiny, pseudo-feminist lenses that don't admit anything but a vision of downtrodden, oppressed women controlled by evil, violent fathers and husbands who keep their women from wearing the western clothing they so pine for.

so i don't care if you believe the history above or not.

but the taliban were OUR GUYS in the us-ussr conflict over afghanistan. WE brought them to power. and it's us machinations responsible for the resurgence of islamic fundamentalism.

machinations including invasion, war, assassination, secret rendition and torture.

so forgive me if i don't get a hard-on about women wearing burkas. it seems a very minor thing in the face of what the west has done.

and one more thing: you may be sincere, but 95% of the american public wouldn't know a burqa from a brassiere were it not for the unrelenting efforts of the western media to ramp up the outrage to justify our continued murdering, thieving presence in the middle east.

akin to the demonization of "the hun" & "the jap" in ww2.

what a load of crap this thread is.

[JCMach1]

72. Many religious scholars in the Muslim world would disagree with you

http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/3857.htm

Here is a really nice quote from the Egyptian Endowments Minister:


...Endowments Minister Mahmoud Hamdi Zaqzouq wrote in Al-Ahram: "While the newspapers are reporting about four women from the U.S., Israel, and Germany who have won Nobel Prizes for medicine, chemistry and economics, we and our press are preoccupied with the niqab. By doing this we reduce Islam to a piece of cloth that covers the woman's face, negates her individuality, and isolates her from society. This harms Islam and also harms women by taking them back to the jahiliyya ...

"The niqab debate in Egypt dates back to the 19th century. respectable and noble people fought to liberate women out of a correct understanding of Islam. They fought to tear down the artificial barriers that isolated women from the society, and now is repeating itself in an unfortunate of cultural regression...

"It is the right and the duty of the woman to be in contact with society, and there is no doubt that the niqab – which is only a custom, rather than a religious duty – is an obstacle to maintaining this contact. who dons the niqab is not exercising her personal freedom – she is abusing this freedom..."<15> ...


Hell, I would just say liberate women from the heat! Have you known someone that had to wear this?

[Hannah Bell]

74. i don't give a damn what such scholars say. i can evaluate the evidence -- which is copious --

for myself.

veiling predated the 20th century, contrary to your assertion. it was not the invention of the islamic brotherhood.

[JCMach1]

84. Of course, there was always veiling... but it was used for a very specific political purpose in this

Century...

How one covers oneself (i.e. modesty in Islam) has always been culturally bound.

Countries around the world, including many Muslim countries, are banning the niqab because it has become so blatantly political... i.e. Egypt and Syria recently.

It is a rejection of status to women and showing direct support to Islamist (anti-government) movements.

Like any symbol, it can mean something else... i.e. Islamic submission of a woman to the will of Allah. However, that is extremely rare among the Islamic women I meet. Although I have meet one woman who wears it precisely because she considers herself an Woman, Islamic, feminist. But yes, even that (obviously) makes a political statement.

Please note, I am specifically referring to niqab and other complete cover.

I am not talking about abaya, or other forms of veiling.


This:

Is infinitely better than this




I dunno... seems modest enough to me...

[Hannah Bell]

90. let me remind you of your claim: "The burqa is a 20th century invention first worn by the Wahabis.."

it's false.



1824 lithograph. please note the standing woman in burka (face covering). early 19th-century afghanistan. end of the (pashtun) durrani empire.

Next to the Ottoman Empire, the Durrani was the greatest Muslim Empire in the second half of the eighteenth century.<6> The Durrani Empire is often considered the origin of the state of Afghanistan...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Durrani_Empire


here's another, persian women, 1850: bottom rowm, 3rd from right

http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/3168117/Hulton-Archive


another



circa 1590. the two ghosty things in the boat at bottom are women in burka


The earliest depictions of women wearing burqa-like garments can be found in Indian Mughal miniature paintings dating back to the late sixteenth century.

Three such women, for example, are depicted sitting in a boat in a manuscript painting dating to c. 1590. The manuscript is now in the British Museum (BM 1934.1-13.01(a)).

Two of the women are totally covered by their burqas, while the third has hers tossed back over her head. A fourth woman in the boat, a servant woman, has no burqa, but her hair is covered by a large outer covering.

When exactly the term burqa became actively used in the Mughal realm is unknown. But by the 18th and 19th centuries its use was widespread in northern India and what later became Pakistan.

http://www.trc-leiden.nl/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=102%3Achadaris-and-burqas&catid=53%3Adigital-exhibitions&Itemid=130&limitstart=2&lang=en

[JCMach1]

92. I should have used the term popularize...

You can't ignore what it has meant and how it was popularized since the 20th century.

Is it used to objectify women... Ummm without a doubt

In a rare criticism of the kingdom's powerful "mutaween" police, the Saudi media has accused them of hindering attempts to save 15 girls who died in the fire on Monday... According to the al-Eqtisadiah daily, firemen confronted police after they tried to keep the girls inside because they were not wearing the headscarves and abayas (black robes) required by the kingdom's strict interpretation of Islam.

One witness said he saw three policemen "beating young girls to prevent them from leaving the school because they were not wearing the abaya".

The Saudi Gazette quoted witnesses as saying that the police - known as the Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice - had stopped men who tried to help the girls and warned "it is a sinful to approach them".

The father of one of the dead girls said that the school watchman even refused to open the gates to let the girls out... http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/1874471.stm

I live with this type of absurdity every day. Imagine 50centigrade outside and now you have to wear what out... A complete cover and in black??? :wtf: And no, it is not cooler under there... and no, they can't even switch for white because that is NOT THE CULTURAL NORM...

If France is willing to stand-up to such absurdity, then I say vive le France...

[Hannah Bell]

97. but you didn't.

you can continue the conversation here.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8901547

i'm done with this trainwreck.

[Violet_Crumble]

98. I don't think banning it is the answer...

It gets kind of stinking hot here as well at times and I've seen some people wear really heavy and hot looking stuff where it's definately not cool underneath. I don't think dictating what people should or shouldn't wear is the answer to anything. It's education and support, not doing what France is trying to do and punishing women who wear it. I'm sure there are some who feel obliged to wear it, but there's also those who wear it out of free choice, and while I wouldn't want to wear it, I don't see how they're causing harm by doing it.

btw, I just read an article elsewhere at DU about some orthodox Jewish women who chose to wear burqas as some sort of modesty thing, so they're a good example of women who are choosing to wear them...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x329838

Anyway, I'm going to say vive le France and then go to work getting items of clothing that hurt my eyes banned. I'm starting with Speedos coz it's absurd how overweight men always try to cram into them and insist on inflicting a horrific visual on all beach-goers...

[Drix]

42. Some things are just a shock to the conscience.

I don't hear many people arguing that it's a restriction of free speech if you can't display pornographic images on the covers of newspapers in news stands on a public street. Why? Because it's a shock to the conscience. The same goes for burqua in Western culture. There are many things that can consenting adults can do in a religious context or not that is just too shocking. Imagine a racist White man wants to go down to skid row and hire some homeless Black people at $20 an hour to be paraded around town on dog leashes for his personal amusement. Would it be currently legal? Probably. Would it remain legal? I doubt it. Especially if it became a trend.

The burqua is not a fashion statement. It's a tool of subjugation and should be treated as such.

[riderinthestorm]

43. "It's a tool of subjugation and should be treated as such". I like this!

Western cultures have long debated and legislated what women (and men) can and cannot wear in the public square. The burqa and niqab are no different. It's incredible that this misogynistic garment however imho is getting defended while female empowering garb (say going topless) is banned....

I'm not sure I agree with your "shock value" theory. Face covering in the west is associated with criminality and deception. It's just "our culture". Even beyond that, France's culture has a long history of secularism driven home over and over with blood and force - quite different than America's puritanical beginnings. Welcome to DU and hope you stick around!

[Drix]

45. Perhaps you've never seen this.

I saw a woman in s full face covering burqua and the man who was dominating her at the time walking down the street in my neighborhood and it was shocking. Very shocking and very upsetting. I only saw it once but if it became a trend I would understand the alarm the French feel.

[riderinthestorm]

47. As a women's rape crisis counselor, women's shelter volunteer

and professional grant writer for women's issues, nothing shocks me about how men can treat women.

The alarm the French feel is because their prized secular culture is quickly being overtaken by Islamic immigrants who are transforming the public sphere.

They have a lot of blame for the radicalization of their immigrant population. They haven't treated them well, they discriminate, and they are intolerant.

That said, the French government is elected by the people of France. They passed this overwhelmingly, it's a manifestation of the strength of the French cultural sensitivities and how they want to safeguard their country's heritage. They are not the US. They don't even want to be like us. They honestly, truly believe in their French culture and it's superiority.

[Drix]

52. No apologies for French arrogance.

And from what I've seen they treat their Muslim minorities like crap. Having said that I support them in their burqua ban. The full face covering burqua reminds of the hooded detainees at Guantanamo and the reason is obvious. The outfits serve the same purpose.

[riderinthestorm]

55. I think it's interesting that the majority French Muslim population support the ban on religious

gear in schools, which was of course primarily directed at headscarf wearing girls.

Peace and good night! I've got an early start in the morning. :hi:

[Hannah Bell]

64. link?

[riderinthestorm]

67. There are other more recent polls but they are in French.

This one is in English but is from 2004, when the opposition was running at it's highest. The concerns over the ban have been allayed by the years that have passed from what I've read.

You do know that the Quran's injunction on covering the head is for grown-ups, not children right? It's for women to cover their breasts, their crotch area, and their hair - their "jewels" as it were.

"Polls suggest that a large majority of the French favour the ban. A January 2004 survey for Agence France-Presse showed 78% of teachers in favour.<7> A February 2004 survey by CSA for Le Parisien showed 69% of the population for the ban and 29% against.... AMONG SURVEYED MUSLIM WOMEN, 49% approved the proposed law, and 43% opposed it."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_law_on_secularity_and_conspicuous_religious_symbols_in_schools

[Hannah Bell]

69. send me a french one, i read french stumblingly.

as i have no idea what "csa" is, or whether the newspaper sponsored polls were polls with valid sampling etc. or some bogus internet poll, don't know the margin of error i withhold judgement, but what i see is a more or less even split among muslim women, which is about what i'd expect.

unlike you, i don't think "religion" = scripture, but the practices of communities of believers.

& your scriptural interpretation omits a bit.

[riderinthestorm]

71. I'm done. Find your own. nt

[Hannah Bell]

76. i'm not sure why you're irritated by a civil response & request.

you said there were more recent french polls, i assumed you could link one.

i don't see 49 for, 43 against as strong preference. 6-point difference.

and the link you gave tells me nothing about the sampling & statistical validity of that poll. so as i said, i withhold judgement.

seems rather reasonable & scientific.

[Brandlon]

110. A few numbers ...

http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,706446,00.html

The War on Burqas

07/14/2010

French Ban only Latest in European Debate

Public opinion polls show that more than 80 percent of French citizens support the ban. That sentiment is echoed in other European countries, as well. A survey by the Washington-based Pew Research Center's Global Attitudes Project released in June found that in addition to 82 percent in France who would like to see bans on veils that cover the whole face, 71 percent of Germans support a prohibition, 62 percent of Britons and 59 percent of Spaniards.

[Violet_Crumble]

85. So, I take it you also support a ban on abortion?

After all, one of the main 'arguments' from you against the burka is that men force women to wear them. There's some feminists you remind me of called Feminists For Life who support a ban on abortion because men force women to have them. And neither you nor them actually have any evidence that most or all women are being forced to do anything they don't want to do. Sorry, but anyone who supports punishing women for wearing something they don't approve of is no feminist and is every bit as bad as anyone who'd force a woman to wear something she didn't want to...

[Hannah Bell]

101. lol. yeah, the french are soooo different from you & i.

2000 women in france wear the niqab, many of them french converts.

that law was passed to stop the creeping danger of 2000 women.

or maybe it was passed as easy bonus points for legislators in a sinking economy where anti-arab, anti-muslim, anti-immigrant sentiment is rising -- easy target.

[dsc]

56. I can see both sides here

I understand that many women may well be forced to wear these but I do think allowing a state to decide that an activity of a concenting adult which harms no one else is somehow able to be banned because a majority doesn't like it. That seems to be what has happened with marriage equality.

[Drix]

61. It happens all the time.

Public nudity or sexual behavior between consenting adults is strictly prohibited. It harms no one but the majority doesn't like it so it's banned by the state.

[krabigirl]

81. Yep. + 1. I don't see why people have to get into other people's business so much.

This law is as intolerant as prop 8 is IMO. But because france does it, it makes it ok. Lol

[Hannah Bell]

99. only 2000 women in france do, many of them french converts.

kind of makes it a bit ridiculous.

[DFLforever]

59. France is a secular state

They don't recognize church weddings. One has to get married in a civil ceremony to make it legal. Bishops and secular clergy of the Roman church don't ordinarily wear clerical garb in public, but dress like ordinary Frenchmen.

Freedom 'from' religion not 'of' religion is what they most value.
It's a lesson they learned the hard way as shown in their history.

I would have been amazed if they had permitted the burqa. They are hardly the type of government to be intimidated by any religion or church. I envy them that.

[Hannah Bell]

68. i saw nuns in habits & collared priests there.

Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen from the Constitution of Year I (1793)

4. Law is the free and solemn expression of the general will; it is the same for all, whether it protects or punishes; it can command only what is just and useful to society; it can forbid only what is injurious to it.

6. Liberty is the power that belongs to man to do whatever is not injurious to the rights of others; it has nature for its principle, justice for its rule, law for its defense; its moral limit is in this maxim: Do not do to another that which you do not wish should be done to you.

7. The right to express one's thoughts and opinions by means of the press or in any other manner, the right to assemble peaceably, the free pursuit of religion, cannot be forbidden.


The french headscarf ban was justified thusly:

The link between France’s immigration policy and l’affaire du foulard was emphasized in a statement by former French prime minister Michel Rocard in 1989. Reacting to the public refusal of a number of girls to remove their Islamic headscarves in class, he said that France cannot be “‘a juxtaposition of communities’, it cannot follow the Anglo-Saxon models that allowed ethnic groups to live in geographical areas and cultural ‘ghettos’, and resulted in soft forms of apartheid.”(99) Rather, he called for a policy of integration that relied on the recognition of mutual obligation and treatment of immigrants as if they were citizens. Significant to this analysis is the fact that although France has signed and incorporated the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights into its domestic laws, the government has entered a reservation to article 27. France has refused to subscribe to this provision outlining protection of minorities, because of the nation’s strong belief in the principle of equality laid out in the Declaration of the Rights of Man. In essence, France has no “minorities,” as all its citizens are considered equal.(100)

http://www2.parl.gc.ca/Content/LOP/ResearchPublications/prb0441-e.htm#efrance

But of course arabs & muslims *do* live in ghettos; they're the largest minority population in france, & they're by no means "equal".

[DFLforever]

75. I have never seen a nun in France. I did see a Dominican

priest wearing his habit soliciting donations in a side chapel at Notre Dame.

I did see the Bishop of Chartres in the cathedral the last time I was there. I only
realized he was bishop because my guide knew him and pointed him out. He and his assistants were all wearing civilian garb. But they are secular clergy so it makes perfect sense.

[Hannah Bell]

77. did you live there?

i assure you, you can see nuns in france. they're not so uncommon.

here's one:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1547146/Miracle-nun-talks-of-her-Parkinsons-cure.html

priests, i agree, are less obvious.

[Violet_Crumble]

86. I saw a few nuns in Paris, and I was only there for a few days n/t

[leftstreet]

78. +1

LOL and a Kick for 'nuns in habits and collared priests!' So many times I've wandered into these trainwreck threads and thought to mention how often I've seen those garments in other countries....but I just wander back out. :-)

[Hannah Bell]

82. lol. i love trainwreck threads. they separate the men from the boys.

or the women from the girls.

or something equally sexist.

[Hannah Bell]

88. btw, what are secular clergy?

[Liquorice]

79. That's great news! nt

[Violet_Crumble]

87. Hate to burst the bubble, but the EU will overturn it as it's a violation of the EU constitution...

It's kind of funny in a pathetic and sad way that what passes for left-wing thought in the US seems to think that actions taken by the RW French govt is great.

[Karenina]

103. That's if the French courts don't do it first.

;-)

[LostinVA]

106. I personally think it's excellent, too

[rollin74]

80. Excellent!

:thumbsup:

[WilmywoodNCparalegal]

111. As an immigrant myself, I often wonder why people would

want to emigrate to a country with radically different cultures, beliefs, etc. that contrast your own in such fundamental ways. For instance, if someone offered me a job in Saudi Arabia, I would not accept, not because I wouln't like the thrill of living in a vastly different country, but because I would have to live in a society whose beliefs on women and women's equality are totally different than my own and probably I'd have to wear apparel to cover my head or face or body. I would also be hesitant to impose my values and views on women on Saudi Arabians and I wouldn't expect them to accommodate my beliefs in their country.

Conversely, if I'm a fundamental muslim who requires females to wear full burqas (not just the niqab, which at least shows the face), I probably would not want to move to anywhere in Europe and, if I did, it shouldn't come as a big surprise if they (French, German, or otherwise) are not accommodating of my fundamentalist views and seek to impose THEIR lay/secular views upon me.

When in Rome, do as the Romans do. There is a major difference between a burqa, which covers the whole body and face except for a thin sliver of the eyes, and the garb worn by Catholic nuns and Orthodox Jew women. Neither is required to wear thick and dark clothing that covers their eyes and covers their face and, in the case of Catholic nuns, they are not being forced to wear their garb contrary to their volition. After all, nowadays you choose to be a nun.

However, many women raised in fundamentalist households do not choose to be subjugated. France, like other European countries, is a secular/lay nation. Covering a person's whole body and face in the guise of a cultural perversion of a religion flies in the face of its secular identity.

[Hannah Bell]

112. maybe because we bombed their home & town & made them refugees?

when you're in rome, do you drop bombs on people?

oh the hypocrisy.

[WinkyDink]

113. France is aggressively secular. Take it or leave it. It has banned the wearing of religious icons in

schools, also (e.g., crosses).