Help me to understand...

Democracy in action! Two wolves and a goat deciding what's for lunch.

I believe that there is a difference in what is acceptable in society and what is acceptable to an individual. Anyone can use the argument that a social policy conflicts with their personal beliefs or religious prescriptions. Society makes rules, it's called legislation. You make personal choices to live by, its called your personal code of conduct.

France is acting to preserve what they believe to be part of their value system. You are French first, everything else is secondary and of no concern to French society. I can't say I completely disagree with this thinking.

Reading material:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La%C3%AFcit%C3%A9

IS this an act of oppression/discrimination?

France has long been a centre of society and enlightenment in the western world. For centuries France was the centre of western civilisation. The argument can be made that this policy is to preserve the rights of individuals and prevent discrimination.



Just before your nose



Here is my view on what can and cannot happen despite the constitutional guarantees in the 'Bill of Rights'.

I couldn't get the video to do what I told it to do.
http://vodpod.com/watch/2332111-an-amendment-to-be-simpsons

In the very first line of the wikipedia page says

The law that the French government is trying to pass is putting government involvement in religious affairs. I say this because to a Muslim, their religion is part of their culture and visa versa. The French cannot ban things that are part of their culture without banning things that are part of their religion.

True Secularism however is not a possibility. Morality, the concept of right and wrong is a belief system. Morality is embedded in all legal systems. Hence why murder, rape, theft are universally illegal (as well as many other). {Universal morality does exist and cannot be denied to exist because every culture has some concept of right and wrong.} So unless the French plan on getting rid of all laws, then they will never be rid of Morality which (as stated earlier) is a belief system. It may not be a formalized religion but it exists none the less.

Even a belief in nothing, is a belief in something. You cannot say "There is no God!" Without having a belief in something(that there is no God).

In the U.S. we have the 1st Amendment that, in short, states that the government cannot formally recognize or prohibit a religion (along with other things that are not relevant to this topic).

All this means is that the government must remain religiously ambiguous. It cannot make laws that officially support any one religious belief over another. This does include laws in the favor of belief systems like atheism and other such non-formalized belief systems.

I don't see why nudity is illegal. Clothes are definitely FUNCTIONAL but I think that their role in society has become devisive. People are judged by what hey were and it's all about status and social standing. Nude, people are equal, bare, "truthful". The human body is an amazing beautiful thing and I think it's sad you don't agree. From a Christian point of view (I'm not religious), Nudity was fine in the Garden of Eden and only through sin, do people become ashamed of who they are.

So yes, I believe people's right to wear what they chose should outway your right to only look at people and things you find attractive.



I'm not promoting anarchy. I simply think that if you are not hurting anyone else, then you should have a right to do that thing.



I don't agree that porn involves a lack of control. We watch movies to make ourselves happy, smarter or sad. Why not horny?
And sex trafficing isn't widely accepted by the community. Lusts ARE being controlled.



How do you believe men are treating women like objects? As I said above, I believe perving/looking is totally legitimate.

This is a fair argument. It might be fair to say it's a matter of check and balance. There are MANY examples of both interfering with one another, despite such laws. It seems to me that giving the gov. an upper hand on religion interfering with it's function is a lesson learned from the dark ages.



Yet, the US gov. has to formally recognise a religion in order for it to avoid taxation and operate as an organisation.



I think that a social value can be the same as a religious value and still be up held with ambiguity. It would be hard for any western society to separate their values from it's foundations in the 'Great Western Myth'. It will always appear that any social policy limiting religious expressions in a matter of state will favour, Atheism or Christianity in the Indo-European world.

This policy just seems to me, to be a national dress code for the public institutions. Maybe the French feel that a female neither has to be over exposed or under exposed to go into public.

Yes for tax purposes that is not what I meant, I apologize for my lack of clarity. What I meant was that the Government cannot say that one religions is better/more important/whatever, than a different religion. Nor can it make laws that favor a belief system over another.

What if the women want to be under-exposed? What if wearing the veil is something that they CHOOSE to do? Why shouldn't they be allowed to wear it in public (especially if it is acceptable for women to go around rather 'over-exposed')?

It is still interfering in matters of faith.

Title 13 of the BSA part of the Patriot Act prevents a Muslim woman from wearing a chador into financial institutions, banks, casinos, ect. and there are other parts of the Patriot Act that force them to remove them upon entering certain public institutions considered sensitive.

As for why the French national assembly passed this law, here is a great article that explains the reasons.

http://christinagoes.wordpress.com/2010/07/13/french-mps-vote-to-ban-full-islamic-veil-in-public/

Yes if you read up towards my first post I addressed the issue of a woman covering her face in a financial institution. Having worked as a teller before, I wouldn't help anyone covering their face. To a teller that is like asking to get robbed. The law also words on people wearing sunglasses and ball caps. There is a distinct difference between security and just walking down the street.

Thank you for the link it was an interesting read. I think I am understanding a bit more about what is going on in France.

But you didn't reference the law requiring this. If you look at the reasons in the BSA, you will see that it isn't for the teller or the banks protection.

I think title 13 is ridiculous! I hated filling out a FinCEN every time someone spent too much or looked funny or wanted an odd amount of change.

Thank you for taking this topic as far from the original course as you could. I guess its my fault for taking the bait.



I also wasn't quoting a law. So why would I need to reference a law?

But you're still wrong about the BSA, it has nothing to do with anti-Muslim or anti-Arab Culture. And while it may not be designed to help the specific teller it is designed to protect the financial institution, as well as protect against things like money laundering and what not. It was originally created in 1970, and augmented in 2001 after the Terrorist attacks of 9/11.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_Secrecy_Act
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_PATRIOT_Act,_Title_III

Point being, that you're just plain wrong if you are trying to suggest that these two banking regulations have anything to do with or are similar to what France is doing with their anti-veil law. Also there is no Title 13, the US Patriot act only goes up to Title 10 (Roman Numeral X).

Oh my BAD, I didn't know there was a rule against just me diverting the course by using an example.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_PATRIOT_Act
Section B - revisions to the BSA

and

http://www.occ.treas.gov/bsa/bsaregs.htm

also
Title 13 of the BSA

Any law preventing a Muslim woman from observing hijab is reliant as far as I am concerned and fair game when you involve the civil liberties of France vs. the US.

If you want to understand why France would do it ask yourself why would the US do it?

Yes in the financial institutions, I understand why the US is doing it... France however is saying that women can't wear the veils in public without facing a fine. The US is not fining women, for walking down the street with a veil on. Do you see the distinct difference? Yes the US says you cannot wear the veils into banks/CUs, State/Federal Buildings, and other such "secure" areas.

I personally don't have a problem with that and I think that a rational Muslim woman who wears a veil normally would understand that as well. It isn't against her that those laws are in place. The laws are in place against those who would use her cultural/religious style to commit a crime. The same is true for the guy wearing a ball cap. He has to take off his cap when he goes into those places and the laws are not anti-redneck (I am exaggerating to show a point).

There is a difference between what the US law(s) and this new French law is(are) going to do.

I'll quickly address the argument that this law is the government getting involved in religious and cultural affairs and therefore wrong.

I contend that the French opinion, for those that aren't being simply anti-Islamic, could be that they see religious and cultural affairs impacting on their aggressively secular society and therefore it's their duty to legislate to protect secularism & equality.

Also just because a practice or principle is based on a religion or culture doesn't mean it shouldn't be contested. We should judge how we judge and not accept what's unacceptable because it's somebody else's religion, culture or politics. And where we see injustice we should look to defeat it.

I still don't see the French plan working though. If a woman is repressed and made to wear a burka the response of that woman's husband/family if this law is enacted will be to keep that woman locked in the house, and so away from any liberating influence she might have had before.

I am not making the distinction because the harlot still rides the beast. Infringement is still infringement no matter what the reason or guise, no matter the duration, no matter the extent. Do you give up your civil liberties simply because you can be convinced it's for your own good. France feels that this law has a social imperative same as the US.

I personally believe that the article I posted explained the reasons. It is just a matter of accepting that to the French majority, this law makes perfect sense. To a Saudi, neither the US law regarding safety in financial institutions or a hijab ban in France would make any sense for countries that claim to up hold religious freedom as one of their dearest principles.

I just thought that maybe perspective might be another way to understanding. There are better examples of laws and policies in the US(eg. passport policies concerning Muslims) but I thought I could elaborate on the one already mentioned so as not to stray from the topic's original course more had already been done.

The law passed parliament. But only because nobody opposed it there doesn't mean that it's supported by the majority. I dislike this current procedure of democracy for only this matter. Politicians rule and the public has no say - just every 4 years and then only voting for a package deal - not for details.

If it were a referendum - different story.

Maybe this law reflects more of the Sarkozy government ideology than of all French... definitely it doesn't reflect that of Europe altogether... it won't stand.

I'm with Dom on this - I don't think it's right that just because something is religious it is exempt from normal criticism.

I'm not convinced they'll all be locked away if they can't go out without burkas - the men will need their shopping and chores done ("heaven" forbid they do it themselves...)

It is tricky It was on newsnight the other day. there was a very aggressive Womans rights person from Egypt where the veil is banned (I think). she was saying that making it "a choice" is no choice at all because the women will be forced to wear the veil by their husbands/fathers. Her argument was that with the ban, the women were no longer forced to hide their most communicative asset - their face. they could still wear small / half and see through veils as a way to show their respect for their religion but not the total face covering which shut them off from the world.

another thing mentioned was if you saw a man walking down the road wearing a balaclava with just eyes showing - it creates tension on the street.

I don't really care what france do they've always been odd

So you have helped me to understand. Thank you, job well done. France, who sees itself as a secular nation, views that anything religious, and in public, is a front to that secularism. The government cares nothing about people and their wishes and desires as long as the State's secularism is protected.

Equality, is a red herring, it doesn't exist. Face it equality doesn't exist anywhere under any guise. I agree that the law wont pass the EU's civil rights committee or whatever it is called.

However, my point is still relevant. If this law were to pass, how long until we are all wearing yellow jump suits (just pulling that out of thin air from Bruce Lee's "Enter the Dragon") because all other clothing is deemed "religious" in origin?

I guess all of France would be equal in dress then... so much for France being the leaders in world style and fashion then haha.

RC: I'm sorry that you do not see a difference between the two laws, (at least in the spirit of the laws, I'm sure you have no problems seeing the actual differences). No I don't think either of your articles 'explained' anything especially the spirit of the US law. I think that you are wrong, and that is where we will just have to agree to disagree. Thank you for stating your thoughts and opinions, though I do not agree with them I do hold them in the highest respect.


Dom: The only problem that I have with what you said is that different people have different vies of what is unacceptable. Which people group should have the right to judge and pass laws as to what is acceptable and what isn't?

To a certain extent injustice is also a matter of opinion. For those injustices that seem to create a grey area, who has the right to make the laws? Those who do not view the action(s) as unjust or those who view them as just?

Both justice and injustice and acceptable and unacceptable are very tricky slippery slopes.


Fire Tom: I agree with your last post 100%.

Durbs: Hehe I laughed at that last bit. However I question, if nothing is held as sacred and everything should be criticized, should your personal life be held up to public scrutiny? Should my life? If nothing is sacred, then nothing is private. Once the one has been destroyed the other will follow shortly.

Mynci: If I saw a person walking down the road covered from head to toe and wearing a veil, how would I know that it was a man? Honestly I would think it was just a large (that sounds so cold but I don't know what else to use) woman and just give her the respect "she" desires.

Strange....

What is strange? It is perfectly obvious that I was referring to this link " http://christinagoes.wordpress.com/2010/07/13/french-mps-vote-to-ban-full-islamic-veil-in-public/ " when I said that. Not any other link. And it is true, after reading that link I think I saw some insight as to why things are being done. And what I said in the previous post is also true, I am understanding things better and I thank those who have gone out of their way to be of some assistance.

the blog - to me - does not reveal much more information than the initially linked articles... :shrug.

However, it might be of interest that not only France recently, but Belgium also has a discussion regarding veils and headscarfs: link.

But even more interesting than the legislations in the two European countries it is to note that SYRIA has banned veils from its Universities - read here and that a similar ban exists in TURKEY for some time already - read here... this goes even further as in banning the headscarf.

It might be important to note that the European Court of human Rights upheld the Turkish ban at this time. The difference in this may be that the ban is enacted in public institutions - not in the general public.

Also interesting that the two muslim nations governments, Turkey and Syria oppose the veil and headscarfs under reasons of secularism.