Burqas, Law And Freedom – Moon of Alabama

June 23, 2009

Burqas, Law And Freedom

I am somewhat split on this Sarkozy initiative to forbid wearing burqas:

“The issue of the burqa is not a religious issue. It is a question of freedom and of women’s dignity,” Mr. Sarkozy said. “The burqa is not a religious sign. It is a sign of the subjugation, of the submission, of women.”

He is right, the burqa is a sign of submission and not of freedom. I certainly do not support wearing a burqa or even a headscarf worn on religious grounds. But on the other side there is the freedom to wear whatever one wants or not, though most countries restrict the last with some kind of public decency law.

But how exactly does one word a law that forbids a certain attitude without also restricting legitimate attitudes? Sarkozy is also planing (in German) a law to forbid wearing masks and to cover up ones face during demonstrations.

Germany unfortunately already has such a law. It prevents people, who would otherwise like to join a demonstration, to take part out of fear of being later discriminated against. It gets abused to pick people off the street who otherwise have not done or even planed to do something wrong. People who hid there face out of fear while fleeing from Nazi thugs they had protested against were put in front of a court. People playing clowns as protest against the last G8 meeting in Germany were threatened with arrest.

It may well be that Sarkozy's jihad against the burqa is just a ploy to get the other more controversial part of masking during demonstrations through the parliament. The NYT piece linked above of course never mentions that.

So while I am against the burqa I am also against forbidding it by law. It would give freedom to a few in one sense. But it would also take away freedom from all in a different sense. If burqas get forbidden can anyone ever again cover up in public? Also such freedom restricting laws, once enacted in principle but on a small issue, often undergo a kind of mission creep over time and tend expend onto other issues too.

What is you opinion on this? Should France introduce a burqa restricting law? How would you word it?

Posted by b on June 23, 2009 at 18:22 UTC | Permalink

Comments

Just maybe…
Ask the women who wear them how they feel about it?
I suspect that your judgements and meddling are as much in error as Sarkozy’s or Mullah Omar’s.
B, you have good instincts – follow them, and never mind the burqas.
Besides, you know anything Sarko supports is designed to inflict and enslave, don’t you?

Posted by: Dr. Cornelius | Jun 23 2009 18:35 utc | 1

No woman should be forced to wear a burqa but should be free to wear one. Just like protestors should be free to wear a mask.
What we see is creeping fascism. Subtle today but will become more overt as the current economic downturn continues and people realize they have been robbed blind by their leaders both political and corporate.

Posted by: ab initio | Jun 23 2009 18:47 utc | 2

the burqa is a sign of submission and not of freedom.
that’s tricky. i believe it is submission to god or religion. so it represents freedom of worship which is submission to religion. eek.

Posted by: annie | Jun 23 2009 19:06 utc | 3

Suppose that somewhere in the world,there is a religious christian sect that forces its adepts to wear big crosses all their life. would you support banning kids wearing christian crosses on all France’s schools and universities?.

Posted by: Nabil | Jun 23 2009 19:19 utc | 4

I would never wear a burqa but you asked what my reaction is? I really wish the white man would stop worrying about what Muslims choose to wear.

Posted by: free palestine | Jun 23 2009 19:31 utc | 5

The burqa is not a religious sign. It is a sign of the subjugation, of the submission, of women.
Symbols are fun.
If Jesus had been killed twenty years ago, Catholic school children would be wearing little electric chairs around their necks instead of crosses.
Lenny Bruce

Posted by: L’Akratique | Jun 23 2009 19:32 utc | 6

annie @ #3–Unless the “choice” to wear the burqa is not really a choice, unless the choice is to be free from religious harrassment, being attacked in many ways for not toeing the line, religiously and culturally speaking.
It may indeed be submission of the self to one’s god; however, notably, all men are not required to do something similar.
Re: Christians–Male clerics were not required to cover their hair (or ast least not all of it), while women taking vows, nuns, were.
There seems to be an underlying need in some societies to make women invisible and also keep them covered, “for their own good.”
Now, making masks illegal? Control by the state of freedom of expression and protest.

Posted by: jawbone | Jun 23 2009 19:37 utc | 7

How are surveillance cameras supposed to keep track of us if we let people go around incognito? I suppose we could simply pass a law saying that all those wearing a burka or a mask would have to have a photo of themselves hung about their neck in plain view…

Posted by: ralphieboy | Jun 23 2009 19:40 utc | 8

notably, all men are not required to do something similar.
right. not being religious i think it is a whole crock of shit. as far as i am concerned in a perfect world religion would not exist. that said this reminds me of a discussion i was having when our group in gaza met w/women from the gov. they were members of hamas of course. some guys in our group were bent on asking them if they felt oppressed as women within their culture. of course i had to remind the guys that people who were religious likely didn’t feel oppressed by their religion, otherwise they wouldn’t be religious. if course the women said they didn’t feel oppressed by the men in their culture and they certainly didn’t act oppressed from what i could observe.
it also occurred to me if my family and culture was being systematically cleansed and killed off by an oppressive controlling warring entity my priority might not be women’s rights. in fact i might like some macho guys around protecting me, but that’s just me.

Posted by: annie | Jun 23 2009 19:57 utc | 9

I suspect Sarko’s wife had a hand in this. He has looked a little henpecked lately. No doubt she wants to liberate poor muslim women…even the ones who like wearing burqas as political statements.

Posted by: dh | Jun 23 2009 19:58 utc | 10

OT for what its worth. che guevara is hot shit in palestine. the hamas girls have him on computer homepage and the guys wear che tshirts. the whole place is full of che wannabes.

Posted by: annie | Jun 23 2009 20:01 utc | 11

Ralphieboy–That photo would have to be large enough for the cameras to identify the wearer and worn front and back for easy identification coming and going. Heh.
Re: the burqa question: I’m assuming the part of the burqa which defines it as such is the face covering? Or both head and face? The law surely couldn’t outlaw full length dresses or outerwear?
Otherwise, evening cloaks with hoods would also be defined as burgas, no? And what would that do the fashion industry?
In a period movie I watched recently (“Making Jane”?), an older aristocratic character wore a black full length cloak which was hooded. The hood had ruched fabric over a boning or frame which kept the hood well away from the woman’s face and hair. It was quite amazing looking and created quite an impressive presence for the character. I wasn’t sure how she managed to get in and out of her carriage, actually, but the actress managed.
But, by pulling her head back, a wearer of such a wondrous hood could indeed hide her features…. Outlawed under Sarko’s desired law?

Posted by: jawbone | Jun 23 2009 20:04 utc | 12

I hope the law gets extended to piercings. They really irritate me.

Posted by: dh | Jun 23 2009 20:12 utc | 13

By and large I agree with Free Palestine that it’s no business of white men what women in white-devastated societies choose to wear. There is this prurient interest in the whole subject of female (but not male) dress/appearance that i find really disturbing.
“Public decency” is also not a single universal standard. In western societies, men’s genitals and women’s genitals and breasts generally need to stay covered in public… but other societies have very different ideas of what constitutes public indecency. E.g. the white missionaries forcing many indigenes of African or Latin American countries to start observing western decency codes (cover those breasts!)… and by and large most Muslim decency codes mandate more cover-up– for men as well as women– than western codes.
Hence the depth of the outrage in many Muslim societies regarding the forced nudity of men at Abu Ghraib, etc.
By and large, I am happier with public decency codes that mandate more cover-up than less cover-up. Enforced nudity in front of strangers is horrendous and humiliating; and for many pious Muslims being forced NOT to wear a headscarf, as in public schools in France or Turkey, feels just as humiliating as that.

Posted by: Helena | Jun 23 2009 20:18 utc | 14

I agree with Bernhard on this. It is a thorny problem because it is restrictive to outlaw some forms of dress in society at large, to add a punitive measure. And yet dress codes are applicable at schools, I believe; and I am sympathetic with banning the veil at schools in France because the ban equally applies to symbols of other religions, not exclusively to Islam.
France’s separation of church and state at places of higher learning is a tradition for them.
The problem with the law described by Sarkozy is the prejudicial aspect, as it applies to one religion; and it would tend to further alienate a part of their society.

Posted by: Copeland | Jun 23 2009 20:18 utc | 15

It’s my opinion that anyone during their time away from work and anyone who’s working in the private sector should be free to wear (and do) anything religious they want. So I think the rule about not wearing (including doing) anything religious should only apply to those on the job working in government.

Posted by: Cynthia | Jun 23 2009 20:22 utc | 16

Up here in sauna culture we now enter a season when taking a steam and a dip in the lake is a common custom. Clothing in the sauna is considered unclean (though being from an oppressing cloth-bearing culture is an excuse, though you might be pittied for your cultures strange hang-ups). And putting clothes on before the dip in the lake is considered stupid.
Five months ago we had a season when many did not show more skin or bodily form then if they had been wearing a burqa. Then nakedness would have been wrong. And very, very cold.
Anyway, banning a sign of oppression does not remove the oppression or make it easier, it just makes it unavoidable to be punished, either by old oppressors or the new one in the form of the government. And sneaking in a no-mask law while bashing the muslems sounds like Sarkozy alright.

Posted by: a swedish kind of death | Jun 23 2009 20:36 utc | 17

Right. The “Sound of Music” should have been produced with the nuns in halter tops, bluejeans and heels.
Similarly, no priest or other clergy should wear the cassock or Roman collar.
And for heaven’s sake, make those judges stop wearing those robes and wigs.
Better to go to the opera in shorts and a T-shirt, no?
Clothing serves a purpose secondary to keeping one warm. It is a powerful symbol that defines one’s place in society. While that disturbs me, we are unlikely to change that.

Posted by: Obelix | Jun 23 2009 20:42 utc | 18

How about this for an outfit?
THEN THERE WAS THAT TIME BLANNING CAME INTO THE CANTINA WEARING NOTHING BUT A JOCK STRAP AND A FOOT-LONG DILDO WHICH HE POINTED AT COUNTY COMMISSIONERS GATHERED THERE.
The Aspen Free Press is a real publication and Greenwood is a certifiable kook – I’d even argue he’s more of a kook than me. But how about that outfit on Mr Blanning? I wonder about that “footlong” factoid? I should ask Sterling if he measured the thing or what.
But about the burkas… it seems an odd thing to ban, and I thought the French were supposed to be into freedom, and sexual freedom to boot. What’s next to be banned? Ballgags and leather handcuffs? Silk teddies and bowties?
It is another way the government enforces the “Nanny State” upon the citizens.
That’s how L.A. solved the gang crisis; simply by banning red and blue scarves everything became all peachy and nice in South Central. Yeah right.

Posted by: DavidS | Jun 23 2009 21:09 utc | 19

This sucks. These women should have the choice what to wear. Fundamentally, I don’t agree with the submissiveness the burqa represents, but these women should have the choice to wear it or not. Especially in a country where they had the choice, like France. Now, they’ve really lost a right.
This had some good sources in one place:
http://www.newsy.com/videos/freedom_from_oppression_or_oppression_of_freedom

Posted by: Ben | Jun 23 2009 21:12 utc | 20

I believe that the Koran simply states that women must “conceal their charms” from strange men. I guess that those mullahs consider their women to be completely charming from head to toe – what a compliment!

Posted by: ralphieboy | Jun 23 2009 21:13 utc | 21

My wife prays like a good Muslim, though she only covers when she prays, she’s Algerian. Her sisters are on her to cover, that’s not her personality. I am a feminist, and sometimes women wanna wear the burka.
I wonder and worry that some women are forced to do that, that is un-Islamic. The veil must be a choice, though a father believes he’ll be questioned on the sins of his daughters and other women who he has influence over.
This is natural, and I’m sure some women are forced to cover, despite my favorite Quranic verse, “there shall be no compulsion in religion.”
I know many converted Muslims, some of whom are definitely strong characters in their own right who wear the face covering. The head covering, the hijab is considered by many to be required.
The face covering irks me, as I suspect women’s arm’s are twisted. Another fun tidbit, it is forbidden to cover your face on the haj. The hijab is worn, but not the face covering. This is for many only worn in PUBLIC, in an office, and otherwise, they would simply don the hijab.

Posted by: scott | Jun 23 2009 21:16 utc | 22

Helena hits most of the high points of the arguments of my female Muslim friends. One of them, a recent convert, tells me that the burqa is actually tremendously liberating, using language similar to Helena’s comment about persistent ‘prurient interest’ of men concerning womens’form and facial appearance. I become ‘agnostic’ when arguing with her on the ‘place of women’ in Muslim culture. She wears me out and I don’t have good arguments to counter her sharp intellect and through grounding in psychology. If women actaully feel liberated and protected inside a burqu, I suppose I can keep my extreme secular resentment of this obvious religious symbol to myself. Nonetheles, I expect Sarkozy/the French to do something along the lines of the Parliament coalition’s arguments. Anti-muslim sentiment is wide-spread and deep in much of the French population, perhaps a majority (I live there part of the year). Here’s good comment from the “French Politics” blog on the subject:
http://artgoldhammer.blogspot.com/2009/06/burqa-2.html
I think Sarko is thinking about appeasing/courting voters more than looking for a way to unmask Muslim women – or demonstrators.

Posted by: ds | Jun 23 2009 21:42 utc | 23

i’m peculiar
i think faith is a profoundly intimate question which should never have a public face – whether its’s a nun or a priest’s soutane, whether it is ‘uniform’ of the hassidim, or the burqa or those funny suits mormons wear
but i live in a very fucked up world where oppression wears many faces including that of sarkozy – so the question of ‘identity’ is going to appear across the landscape of the oppressed
metaphysics – even in its atheist form is a sort of inviolable space within ourselves in a world gone wrong that wants to overwhelm us
the interiority of every person (with the exception of slothrop – i’m joking) is a rich, precious & wondrous thing & to that end – we must mourn radically the 1 million murdered in iraq & the daily slaughter of palestinians – who have names & who possessed – interiorities we can only imagine

Posted by: remembereringgiap | Jun 23 2009 21:43 utc | 24

Time honored wedge issue. Politicians use them as tools. Next?!!

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Jun 23 2009 21:52 utc | 25

Addendum:
Here’s an issue that has some depth, and I’d love to see dialogue on…

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Jun 23 2009 21:54 utc | 26

Hhhmmm–does Sarko’s mask prohibition cover the wearing of gas masks? Now that would make things easier for crowd control, but, of course, the police and miliary would be exempted, right?
Seriously, the burqa issue is a very difficult one. Here in the US, a Muslim woman in Florida refused to take off her burqa to have a driver’s license photo taken; she sued but lost. I just read in one of the Google snippets that Iran demands that women uncover their faces for identity photos.
But to say someone can’t wear traditional clothing in the name of freedom for women? Difficult question, indeed. Altho’ in the US, it’s illegal for women to go topless, and I’m sure there must be some societies where that’s the traditional dress. Heh.

Posted by: jawbone | Jun 23 2009 22:22 utc | 27

annie–I’m looking forward to your writing about your trip to Gaza. Your tidbits are intriguing.
Was NTodd in your group?

Posted by: jawbone | Jun 23 2009 22:23 utc | 28

Sarkozy courts the Catholic Right, thereby enraging the Left, which remains committed to the secular Republic. Then he bans the burka to show support for the secular Republic, and also, coincidentally, wins a few more points with the Catholic Right.
A very, very tiresome person. A man of many, many small-minded moves.

Posted by: alabama | Jun 23 2009 22:53 utc | 29

nothing appears to be beneath him

Posted by: remembereringgiap | Jun 23 2009 23:24 utc | 30

Pretty cool post. I just came across your blog and wanted to say
that I have really enjoyed reading your posts. In any case
I’ll be subscribing to your blog and I hope you write again soon!

Posted by: Maria | Jun 23 2009 23:52 utc | 31

b, I agree with you, completely. I heard this discussed on NPR the other day on my ride to work, and I had similar sentiments to you. I didn’t think about the demonstrator mask wearing angle, but now that you mention it, that seems very likely. It did strike me as odd that Sarkozy would take such a strong stand on something like this, but as you say, it may be much more than the Burka he’s after. Also, we know how Sarkozy feels about Arabs and Muslims……..he thinks they are scum, and has said as much. You know what, Sarkozy, I think you are racaille (scum).

Posted by: Obamageddon | Jun 24 2009 1:28 utc | 32

What’s next on the list to outlaw…..belly dancing? My wife will be livid since she’s becoming quite the belly dancer. Daddy’s very happy.

Posted by: Obamageddon | Jun 24 2009 1:31 utc | 33

I always laugh to myself and shake my head when I see women wearing the Burkozy here in the U.S. They do everything else like typical Murricans, i.e. big house, fancy car, buying shit for no reason, consumeristic as hell…yet they have to have that Burkozy. Seems kind of silly when you consider they have adapted materially to the extent they have.

Posted by: Obamageddon | Jun 24 2009 1:36 utc | 34

I suspect Sarko’s wife had a hand in this. He has looked a little henpecked lately. No doubt she wants to liberate poor muslim women…even the ones who like wearing burqas as political statements.
He proabably has her put one on in the bedroom so he can get his rocks off. Punish it in public, indulge it in private. They’re sexy as hell when the woman’s wearing nothing else.

Posted by: Obamageddon | Jun 24 2009 1:43 utc | 35

i think sadean narratives would be a little too complicated for the little bloke – a mixture of sex & the city hawaii 5 0 & dad’s army are more his thing
at this hour he’s most probably doing the limbo to some hungarian chubby checker

Posted by: remembereringgiap | Jun 24 2009 2:02 utc | 36

Hey, yeah —
And then, after we outlaw the Burqa, we can outlaw cannabis as well — lord knows, it’s only ever used by anti-social activists to subjugate minds and make people lazy.
And then, after that, let’s get butt-fucking. Nobody ever wants to get subjected to butt-fucking. Sodomy’s just a tool used by wealthy men to intimidate and brutalize young men into becoming their slaves.
Fuck. This post sounds like it was written by slothrop.

Posted by: china_hand2 | Jun 24 2009 3:43 utc | 37

“He is right, the burqa is a sign of submission and not of freedom.”
That’s not true. Someone might say covering of genitals is a sign of submission and not of freedom. People should be allowed to wear what they choose to wear.

Posted by: atif | Jun 24 2009 4:05 utc | 38

Tolerance is crucial to a livable society, which means that we must fight for the right of people to believe in ghosts, Santa Claus, the twelfth Imam, the Easter Bunny, whatever.
But when we open the door to irrationality, all sorts of wackos will walk through – Bush, Khomeini, Obama, Sarkozy – and we surrender a crucial tool (logic) for objecting to their anti-social behavior.
So, let’s have a compromise: no face-covering in public.

Posted by: Watson | Jun 24 2009 5:46 utc | 39

Dear b,
the law against covering up one’s face during demonstration is part of the “internal terrorist” scare Sarkozy started last november when a group of people sabotaged high speed trains (in a way that could NOT harm people). All signs point to German activists in relation to nuclear waste convoys. But Sarkozy launched a crack down on French radical left groups, inventing the “anarcho-autonomous” movement in the process. Google Julien Coupat for more on that (the guy spent 6 months in jail basically for having a train timetable on him!)
The burqa law is anover ploy aimed at re-activating islamophobia, like during the law against the veil a few years ago. As Alain Gresh analyses brilliantly (see http://blog.mondediplo.net/2009-06-21-Enfin-la-representation-nationale-se-mobilise – in French) it is mostly to distract attention from the appalling management of the global crisis by Sarkozy (huge money had outs to his friends owning the big banks, stupid “recovery plan” at odds against all things ecological, no repell of the very large tax cuts for super rich people, etc)
[cont’d below]

Posted by: f | Jun 24 2009 7:00 utc | 40

[end of message]
Discussing the burqa law, even in an intelligent manner, is already falling in Sarkozy’s trap. Especially in the way it is framed (right wing MPs already connect it with highten military engagement in Afghanistan).
As for your assumption: no the two ploys are not connected, but everyone is cracking jokes that the “anti-terror” law is enough to deal with the burqa so why bother?

Posted by: f | Jun 24 2009 7:00 utc | 41

So, let’s have a compromise: no face-covering in public.
Whiskey Tango Foxtrot!
“We don’t want wackos like Bush and Sarkozy dictating to us what to do with our private lives and ceding our personal liberties and individual responsibilities to the police — so let’s cede some more of our personal liberties and individual responsibilities to the police so we can protect ourselves!”
I like masquerades. If i want to wear a balaclava in public, i should be allowed to.
What’s next — outlawing hoodies?

Posted by: china_hand2 | Jun 24 2009 7:25 utc | 42

We are starting to mix cultural and religious issues here in a dangerous manner. Covering genitals in public is a cultural issue, although it is one that is perhaps rooted in our religious traditions.
Covering the face in public is a social issue, one of security in an those settings where personal identity is a matter of public interest.
The Germans have a ridiculous law banning schoolteachers and civil servants from wearing headscarves while still allowing nuns in public schools (yes, they have a rather different view of “separation of church and state” than we practice in America) to wear their habits.
And they have some convoluted wording to their law to rationalize why that does not constitute religious discrimination.
I will believe their arguments when the college of Cardinals and Cardinelles convenes to elect the next Pope/Popess

Posted by: ralphieboy | Jun 24 2009 8:18 utc | 43

Afaik, the law forbidding wearing masks is in. (France) It was made ‘law’ in the form of a decree. However, it will be inapplicable.
As covering the face is quite common for all kinds of reasons – religious, sporty, to do with health, protection, theater, and so on – a lot of tortuous language had to be added to the prohibition. For example (my rough): with the aim of concealing one’s identity; nearby / in a demonstration, protest, etc. Putting it all together, the first person to contest, will win. Nice case for a green lawyer. As the po-lice are not numbskulls they won’t bother. Naturally the prime offenders are the police themselves, but they are hardly likely to arrest one another. The upshot is that agent provocateurs – law ‘n order types masquerading as protestors wearing masks – will act with impunity. It is all a lot of rubbish.
On my last visit to the S. of France, Cannes, I was absolutely astonished to see the disdain, suspicion, even disgust the Good French exhibited when burqa-clad figures appeared. It was apparent to me that what was being expressed was hatred and fear of Muslims. E.g. in a busy, noisy, freewheeling restaurant, when an Arab party appeared with two ladies with invisible faces, complete silence descended. Clueless me looked about outside etc. to see what was going on. Nothing. They were seated – very gingerly – by the wait staff who behaved professionally – in a dark corner. Slowly the buzz resumed. I got into an argument and heard, particularly from the female members of my party, all the arguments about oppression of women, and how requiring virginity before marriage was barbarous.
My own position is one should not forbid, but I am not entirely happy with it. I would make some exceptions, it all becomes very difficult. The other thing I wanted to mention is that ‘le voile’ (hijab, headscarf) is already banned in France in schools, civil service, etc. – separation of church and state. Universities are undecided.
alabama – maybe the Catholic Right, whatever that is. But the French Catholic Church came out strongly against banning the ‘hijab’ in France, under the freedom of religion law. Argument used by all the other opponents as well btw except for some feminists.

Posted by: Tangerine | Jun 24 2009 10:35 utc | 44

just fi, the “law” to forbid wearing masks was already passed, althought technically it’s not a law but a “decret” (in french, dunno how it’s called in english), something that doesn’t require debate/voting.
link
the fun part ? in the great Sarkozy agitation tradition, it will be rendered …useless (supposing it could have been useful 🙂 within some days/few weeks with…another law project (“anti-bandes”) parliament is supposed to discuss this week
link

Posted by: totoro | Jun 24 2009 10:43 utc | 45

Gramsci termed it cultural hegemony. My culture -the ruling culture, that is — is right; yours — the subjugated — is wrong.
So what do you propose? Putting all Muslims who refuse to comply in prison, and denying them civil rights, creating a class of disenfranchised alienated people, which taxpayers must pay for? Or setting onerous, classist fines upon them, hurting the poor but not the rich.
Honestly, it is easy to see how German thinking led down some pretty nasty paths when even “liberals” act like National Socialists, just doing what is “right” to keep society the way they want it.
First we tear down housing rather than use it for the poor, now we begin to criminalize differences.
It is true that slothrop could have authored this post. What is frightening is that the host did, exposing his belief in the implicit cultural hegemony of his privileged way of life, and everyone else simply assents.
What is the difference between this and other “racial” laws. Jews cover their heads, symbolizing submission to god; Why not jail them too?
Fascism creeps in on little cat feet, and most liberals would be willing fascists if only they had the reins of power.
Hasn’t anyone read A.S. Neill’s Somerhill? “Freedom without License, folks. Don’t hurt anyone who is not hurting you. Criminalize their behavior, and someone will criminalize yours — unless you’re the ruling class, that is. Or wealthy willing coordinators, as most here are.

Posted by: Scorpion Warrior | Jun 24 2009 11:55 utc | 46

if everyone (male & female) wore burqa’s and a number or their necklace of choice around their neck for a month, and co-mingled at social settings and at work and then at the end of the month everyone took off their burqa’s. We would be very pleasantly stunned and fulfilled by the experiences we had shared.
its kind of ironic that people tend to see wearing a burqa as limiting both the wearer & observers interaction
the law I would pass is that men who compel their wives to wear burqa’s should wear one for a few days every month too.

Posted by: jony_b_cool | Jun 24 2009 12:50 utc | 47

alabama – maybe the Catholic Right, whatever that is. But the French Catholic Church came out strongly against banning the ‘hijab’ in France, under the freedom of religion law. Argument used by all the other opponents as well btw except for some feminists.
Tangerine, my point really concerns Sarkozy, and his claims to principled positions. He has no principles at all, and he’s highly sensitive to the ways and means of manipulating power blocs. The kind of double-play that I’m supposing here would be Sarkozy at his simplest; he becomes more and more bewildering the closer one follows his moves. Nixon on steroids, if you will.

Posted by: alabama | Jun 24 2009 16:10 utc | 48

😉
Right on, Jony-b.
BTW —
are you the same jony-b that hangs out around wikibiz?

Posted by: china_hand2 | Jun 24 2009 16:17 utc | 49

jony_b_cool_b_right.
Sort of OT.
[“staged.” sure.]

Posted by: beq | Jun 24 2009 16:43 utc | 50

@alabama
Yes indeed, Sarkozy is quite a perplexing character … though much as with Blair, the more publicly declarative the ‘Principled’ position, the more I sense the true ‘Nixon’ within …

Posted by: Outraged | Jun 24 2009 16:54 utc | 51

That should be “Summerhill” and “Freedom without License.”

Posted by: Scorpion Warrior | Jun 24 2009 16:56 utc | 52

As a Muslim, my response would be, “Mind your own business.” If you want to talk about oppressed women, we have a few examples of our own to show how western women are oppressed. Non-Muslims aren’t quite the innocents they like to pretend to be.

Posted by: JDsg | Jun 24 2009 17:42 utc | 53

Non-Muslims aren’t quite the innocents they like to pretend to be.
That’s a great point. Not too long ago, a woman in the west would be fired from a corporation for not wearing that awful invention called pantyhose. What a sick thing those things are, and unlike the burqa they are an incubator for yeast and consequent yeast infections. They were designed by some sick little man with erectile disfunction who had a particular disdain for a woman’s beautiful bare legs.

Posted by: Obamageddon | Jun 24 2009 17:56 utc | 54

when an Arab party appeared with two ladies with invisible faces, complete silence descended. Clueless me looked about outside etc. to see what was going on. Nothing.
look at porn movies. which is more harmfull for women? burqas or rocco zifredi ? ofc there is no exploitation or slavery in the porn industry.but they all would think porn is ok.as long as their kids dont watch it.
some can even argue that being forced to showing parts of women’s body in the western worldcan be the only way for women to be accepted in society.

Posted by: Nabil | Jun 24 2009 22:00 utc | 55

@49,
no and I hope he/she stays away from MOA

Posted by: jony_b_cool | Jun 24 2009 23:30 utc | 56

He is right, the burqa is a sign of submission and not of freedom.
So is the Yarmulke.
So is a wedding band.
So is a national flag.
So is listening to your parents.
So are most jobs, most careers, most licenses.
Freedom is great, but absolute freedom can get pretty lonely, Ayn Rand.
What is lacking — and what is needed — to raise this post from the level of base reaction journalism is a close examination of the trade-offs between group identity and individuality,and the effects of conflict between different but concomitantly held group identities: In this case, state and religion.
I certainly do not support wearing a burqa or even a headscarf worn on religious grounds.
How do you feel about waring the cross on religious grounds?
What is the difference, besides cultural conceit — a nice turn of phrase for racism.

Posted by: Scorpion Warrior | Jun 25 2009 3:47 utc | 57

@ alabama, point taken. Sarkozy is actually destroying the rule of law, bit by bit. French legislation is in such a mess it is beyond belief. It is hard to decide if Sark the First is just playing the populist game (ban burquas! ban criminals! ban abuse! ban nasty teens! love handicapped children! – etc.) or if the moves are more sinister and deliberate, stemming from more over-reaching goals.
Certainly, he loathes the independent judiciary and will do anything to attack or undermine them.
Pressure from professional groups (lawyers, judges, even police, etc. – politics in France is driven by these corporate divisions) has knocked out his ‘minister of justice’ (not quite equivalent to other countries, but never mind for now), Rachida Dati, a bling-bling pandering idiot, good friend of the new wife.

Posted by: Tangerine | Jun 26 2009 13:01 utc | 58

Back to Main