So, in those places that have decided to ban the burqas...

[Duer 157099]

will the women then just be forced to never go outside in public then?

Because I can't see them just saying "oh well honey, I guess you can wear whatever you want when you go out now."

Won't this just result in even further oppression of the women??

:shrug:

[JI7]

1. but they have some protections from the state unlike places like Saudi arabia

[uncommon]

19. Protection from the state doesn't mean jack shit when your husband puts his fist in your face.

Just sayin'. Women die every day even though they are supposed to be "protected by the state."

[Skip Intro]

2. I don't see anything wrong with taking a stand against the subjugation of women.

Or any people, for that matter. If a nation believes in equality, then it believes in equality, and should act according.

[Duer 157099]

3. I agree. But practically speaking

don't you think that the folks who are so committed to their religious will just then forbid the women from going in public?

I honestly am just wondering what this really will mean, in practical terms for the women.

[dkf]

4. By folks do you mean men?

[Duer 157099]

6. Or whoever makes these decisions in those families.

I suppose it might be the men, but then I suppose it may also be some women, I just don't know.

[dkf]

10. Whoever makes the decisions? Like one person does all the deciding?

Wow are you listening to yourself? The idea is so repulsive I feel sick.

[LostinVA]

24. Well, one person most probably does make the decisions in those families

Burqua-wearing households aren't usually know for gender equality.

[Skip Intro]

9. It will mean that their men cannot force them into subservience in France.

I applaud this move by the French government.

[jobycom]

13. So which is equality? Forbidding women from wearing the religious garb of their choice

or forcing them to wear the religious garb of someone else's choice?

If someone banned women in America from wearing high heels and bras, would that be liberating women from forms of modesty and fashion dictated by a prudish paternalistic past, or would it be just more of men telling women how to dress?

[JCMach1]

14. The Koran only requires 'modest' dress... burqa and niqab are cultural artifacts

That happen to work against women and may pose security threats in public.

It might be your religion, but should you be allowed to wear an animist mask into a bank? Federal Court?

[jobycom]

15. I understand that, but some still consider it a religious obligation.

I don't know the law in France, but if this country tried to ban veils by saying that the Qur'an didn't really require them, that would most likely violate the law against government establishing (in this case, interpreting) a religion.

But I guess my real point is more this: We tend to assume that women are forced to wear the burqa or veil or even the hijab, and that by outlawing those we are enlightening them and removing a tool of male domination--at least, that's an assumption I see around here. I sympathize to a large degree with that, being about as radically feminist as a male can be (actually, I'm radically egalitarian, which covers feminism), but at the same time passing a law banning a garment because we feel that it is oppressive to women is still pretty much telling a woman how she has to dress, and for what reasons. For women who feel an obligation, or even just a fancy, to wear these cultural artifacts, we would be violating their rights to choose them.

I understand the bank argument, but think of the full consequences of banning a full mask in a bank. It would prevent women who feel obligated to wear it from entering a bank, making them further dependent on the men around them. As to whether it would make a bank any safer, I have my doubts. I don't think people are allowed to wear ski masks into banks here, but somehow robbers still manage to do it. One could argue that since a bank robber can't wear the mask on the street without attracting attention (at least where I live), there's a better chance of identifying him from an outside camera before he puts on the mask, but then we get into the whole question of how much surveillance is really appropriate. To watch the bad guys, we have to also watch the good guys. Similarly, to ban the burqa (no idea of the plural) or niqab from bank robbers, we have to ban them from everyone, and that starts to get oppressive. We could probably greatly reduce crime by making everyone go shirtless and have identifying numbers tattooed on their chest and face, but the added security wouldn't be worth the cost. Is it therefore fair to increase bank security by forcing someone to violate a religious belief (even if there's no consensus on that belief)?

I'm just have trouble accepting any form of dress requirement from a government. Whether they are forcing people to wear stars or veils, or forcing them to go bare-faced, it just doesn't seem like something government should dictate. I'm not even big on the whole "Women must cover their boobies" laws, since men don't have to cover theirs.

[Fumesucker]

17. Can you name a government that has no dress requirement at all?

For men or for women?

Honestly I cannot think of one.

[JCMach1]

37. What if it were my religious belief/obligation to go completely nude in public?

Obviously doesn't harm anyone... Yet, government feels obligated to apply rules that govern behavior... which is what they are doing here.

[jobycom]

40. Is it?

I know of no religion which requires someone to be naked all the time. You could also argue that government can force kids to pray in school because someone's religion might support murder, and therefore we really can't have freedom of religion, anyway.

Government does try to govern behavior, but shouldn't be encouraged in that attempt.

[JCMach1]

42. Just an example, I could have said smoke marijuana...

which is part of a religion.

Don't believe it when they are telling you they MUST wear niqab. What cover women wears in the muslim world has always been fluid with social conventions of the day.

Come to the mall with me and I will gladly point out the vacationing Saudis.

While it is not something I support enforcing, the French are clearly within their bounds to do so.

[jobycom]

47. Again, I know all that.

I had a lot of Muslim friends in grad school. I don't think anyone even wore a head covering, much less a veil. And I've argued many times around here that it's a cultural and not a completely religious thing, that it's not Islam that forces women to wear complete coverings.

But some still feel like it's a religious requirement, or at least a religious practice that makes them feel better. It's not equivalent to appearing nude (although I'm not really against that, anyway, so it wasn't a good example for me) or smoking marijuana, or polygamy, where the actions were outlawed completely independent of religion. The ban comes from it being a religious practice that the French government feels uncomfortable with. I could argue that fasting might be a bad idea because it weakens a person and makes them a bad driver, and therefore it is okay to ban religious fasting (for any faith). The reasoning might be somewhat sound (at least as sound as bans on drugs and nudity), but it would clearly be motivated by a religious bias.

I'm sure the French can do what they want. It's becoming an issue here, too, though, and we both know it's going to be used to persecute and discriminate, no matter what excuses are given, just like English-only laws or laws against baggy pants or "gang" clothing. Just seems to me it goes in the opposite direction of what we should be trying to achieve, in general.

[Threedifferentones]

39. They just can't cover their face.

It is a very reasonable rule. Long dresses and scarves that make you think Islam are legal, you just must keep your face visible.

[jobycom]

41. Why? Why not make women keep their boobs visible?

There's no real reason for them to cover them up. Some are just hung up on cultural traditions, and they can still wear long pants, which make people think "Clothing," as long as they keep their boobs visible. That's a very reasonable rule--well, for anyone who doesn't believe she should keep her boobs covered, anyway.

Still didn't answer my question. Just said "It's only a little eroding of freedom."

[lukasahero]

45. Because their boobs don't help them cross the street safely.

The reason for keeping the face visible is partly for safety's sake.

[jobycom]

46. Like anyone looks before crossing the street nowadays anyway.

We both know it has nothing to do with safety.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

18. And you'll gladly subjugate any woman who disagrees with you.

Do you realize that this anti-muslim movement in France is the same crazy RW movement that's trying to force out the Gypsies?

[LostinVA]

23. Agree 100%

[pnwmom]

5. That would be my fear. However, some Imams in Saudia Arabia

have already issued decrees saying that women are not required by religion to wear the coverings when they live in non-Muslim cultures that ban them.

[Duer 157099]

8. I didn't know that. That puts it into a different perspective for me, thanks n/t

[Echotrail]

7. Allowing one group to be treated as less equal

could undermine a nation's commitment to equality and secularism.

If the Muslim men beat their wives or daughters for going out in public without a burqa, arrest them and throw their asses in jail. No special exceptions for cultural mores. Either a country abides by equality for all or it does not.

Laws covering equality are in each country's constitution. These are things one must accept when immigrating. If I went to Saudi Arabia I would expect to wear a burqa because under their laws that's what women must do.

I can't believe I am saying this but if they don't want to live in a country that holds equality as the supreme law of the land maybe they should try another country.

I fully back the European parliaments on this issue and I wish the US was committed enough to human rights to do the right thing also.

[dkf]

11. Thank goodness...a voice of reason!

"freedom of religion" ends at societal norms.

[LostinVA]

25. Thank you -- I always feel a bit alone in these threads

[azurnoir]

12. what if some of those women want to wear them?

there seems to a well meaning or perhaps naive belief here that all or most women who wear veils do so because they are forced to, I can say for sure that is simply not true and have known at least one Muslim women who stopped because of the fact people assumed that her husband was forcing her to wear it, she was aghast at this she said her husband with whom I was also acquainted would never do such a thing at I believe her but still she felt compelled to stop
I always think of this when I read these stories and read the replies

[Lance_Boyle]

16. What if naturists want to go nude?

The answer is easy, and the same. Wear it (or not) in the privacy of your own home, and in other private places designed to accommodate your choice. Not in public.

[azurnoir]

21. think I've heard that one before

the difference is that there are laws against nudity for which there are truly health code reasons and they are not aimed at one particular group

[riderinthestorm]

27. What health code reason is there to prohibit an African tribal woman going naked into a bank?

Cuz I can think of a lot of reasons why a burqa in a bank is a problem, but not a single health code issue for a naked woman (or man) in the bank....

[azurnoir]

28. LOL n/t

[Lance_Boyle]

31. They are aimed squarely at nudists/naturists, same as

the no-burqa laws are aimed squarely at people who would wear burqas.

If you were trying to have a point somewhere in there it got unpointed.

[LostinVA]

26. What if FLDS 18-year-olds want to "marry" a 60-year-old who is tehir uncle?

And who already has ten wives?

No difference.

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

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

[LostinVA]

30. I am an excellent speller, and why are you saying I listen to Fox News?

I've have it blocked for years.

And, it is very amusing you are assuming I am anti-Muslim, when I am nothing of the sort, and my posts on issues such as Park51 show that.

Your post is very amusing, because you are saying:

--I watch Fox News and thus are implying I'm a RWer
--Are saying I am anti-Muslim, when I'm not at all. I am, however, the institutionalized subjugation of women.
--Are saying I know nothing about Islam, when I know a hell of a lot, including the history and culture of the tribal sects.
-- You didn't answer my question: how is it any different?
-- You don't want to actually answer a serious question, and instead go Typo Nazi and accuse someone of "watching Faux News."

Oh, learn to use punctuation before you go Typo Nazi on someone.

[azurnoir]

32. The 10 wives claim was enough n/t

[LostinVA]

33. Um... many have well over ten wives

Warren Jeffs is supposed to have between 100-300 wives. Links claiming I'm mistaken? Because I absolutely know I am right. Do your research before you tell someone they are wrong about something they are actually right about. Many very young girls, 11 and 12, are forced to marry elderly men. Some have been forced to marry their stepfathers, Are you claiming these women are lying, or that they wanted to do any of this?stepbrothers, uncles, etal. These are all facts.

Thanks for reinforcing that I watch "Faux News" and am a Freeper.

:rofl:

[azurnoir]

34. In the Mormon sect you mention the age at which these girls marry is

more like 13 or 14 at 18 one is considered an old maid and the conversation was about Islam neat switch up there

ETA if this is really about freedom of religion then why would you be against under the circumstances you mention the women involved being of legal age?

[LostinVA]

35. No, my post was about the FLDS

And comparing it to Islam. Which you know, since you answered my FLDS post.I don't know how I tricked you by a "neat switch up" when I had FLDS in my post header. :rofl:

Quite a few young women get married at 18 or 19. That is not unusual, although the forced marriages usually happen sooner.

You still have never answered the question. Women who are raised from childhood to be subservient, to be taught they are lesser, who are taught and thus believe that not obeying their husband is a terrible sin, and who are abused in whatever way, do not choose the burqua freely.

Just like the FLDS "celestial brides."

[azurnoir]

36. we are all raised from childhood with certain beliefs right or wrong

by 18 or 19 most of us are able to question those beliefs if a women of legal age chooses polygamy as her lifestyle then she should be free to do so albeit I do not personally agree with that

[woo me with science]

20. Sounds kinda like the argument for a "ritual nick" instead of full female genital mutilation. nt

[azurnoir]

22. ah so "female circumscion " is part of Islam? n/t

[AnArmyVeteran]

38. Did you know they can wear anything under their burqas, even bikinis?

That's how I try to imagine them...

[JCMach1]

43. You can't be equal wearing one of those-- come visit Dubai and try it in 40C+ heat

It is tantamount to torture. And, NO, they are not freaking cool at all.

[EFerrari]

44. I've looked in vain for a picture shot in Afghanistan just after

Kabul fell to the Americans. It was of two girls in some crowded street and they had just taken off their burkas. They were about 14 or so and their faces were radiant.