Help me to understand...

I'm not Muslim, I honestly do not agree with the religion so this may seem odd for a question such as this to come from me so I apologize for my forwardness and if I come across as rude. I do not mean to be be rude to anyone or any group of people.

However, why is the French government so anti-religious that they are banning Muslim women from wearing face veils?

I can understand the sanitation rules/laws about the swim wear that Muslim women wear, I can understand in certain buildings (banks and other buildings) requiring the women to take off their veils for security purposes. (I've worked in a bank for several years so I understand the desire to have everyone's faces showing.)

However out in public, on the city streets, in their own neighborhood, in shopping centers... etc. why is it an issue? I do not see it as demeaning towards the women who wear them. Do the women who wear them feel that it is demeaning?

I think that the ultra-revealing fashions of today are much more demeaning towards women than a veil could ever be. But that is just my opinion.

The reason why I ask about the French government's seemingly anti-religious stance is because this new law only targets Muslim women. No other religion wears veils like they do. (With the possible exception for a wedding veil, but that is not even close to being in the same category of veil.)

So please, help me understand what is the reasoning behind this new law?

First - in order to get a sufficient answer, you might have to contact the French government

Next - I don't know what is behind this new law, because I am neither French, nor part of the government.

Third - I can only state what is going through German media (and it would be interesting what goes through your media in order to compare flow of information).

So let me do that for a moment: French government has passed the law that Burkas in public are prohibited. Allegedly in order to protect women from oppression, allegedly in order to force people who do live in France adhere to French culture.

As far as info goes, about 5 million Muslims live in France and of them, only ~ 2.000 do wear the Burka. Meaning the law is discriminative towards a minority - and as such will not stand in front of the European High Court For Human Rights. They will take it down.

Because of the discriminative aspect of this law, the government removed all mentioning of "Burka" and "Nikab" vanished from the text. Meaning that the law now prohibits all veiling of people...

Conveniently encompassing demonstrators btw

But even without these expressions it remains:

The law is directed against a (religious) minority - the Burka is a traditional religious piece of clothing - and against the personal freedom of individuals, thus it will be dismantled by the European High Court.

Some regard this law as an attempt of the government to sympathize with the right wing voters and getting their approval. Allegedly it's been the French President himself who sparked the debate and he's receiving harsh criticism for it. The debate has been highly emotional and stigmatized women who wear the Burka and their husbands who (allegedly) force them to do so.

Fact of the matter is that some women don't even feel demeaned. Vice versa, they feel protected from men looking at them in a demeaning way. The law as it stands now might not force them to integrate themselves into the French society, but prevent them from going out on the streets "per se".

It's € 150 fine for them and € 30.000 for husbands who force them to wear a Burka in public.

Bottom line - I can't really answer your question. Sorry for having wasted your time.

hahaha

That brought joy to my very stressful day hehe. No no you didn't waste my time, you brought more information to the topic that I did not have before.

One commentator I heard talking about it related it to the Equality part of the French motto "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity".

France had previously banned all religious symbols from schools and it seems the reasoning is the same. Removing religion from schools was their way of saying "We are all equal".

Similarly the plan to ban full face veils, of which there are a handful of different varieties, is their way of ensuring equality for women. The assumption is that those wearing extreme veils are subject to extreme Islam, which isn't equal to woman.

The problem is that banning the veil doesn't ban the inequality, it just forces it out of sight.

I'm probably going to put my foot in it here, but here's my take on it.

"...the ultra-revealing fashions of today are much more demeaning towards women than a veil could ever be"
The issue being they're free to wear those clothes if they want to. Whereas niqabs/burkas are not always worn out of choice, often the opposite. I think it's also your personal view that they're demeaning, it's not a universally held opinion.

I'm not 100% certain, but I recall reading somewhere the Islam doesn't actually prescribe the wearing of veils and as such it's more of a cultural thing, as opposed to Islamic.

I personally think the whole issue of covering women up so as to avoid "men looking at them in a demeaning way" - is a fairly shameful situation. I'd suggest it's the men that need to change their attitudes. Learn to resist temptation, not cover it up.
You could even argue the veils worsen the situation, as an un-veiled woman would attract a lot more attention where it is not the norm.

Whilst I can see that the women to have a right to wear the burka, same as they have the right to wear anything else, it would be interesting to see how many actually want to - but I think it would be very hard to get an honest answer.
Essentially I think it boils down to a strange law that bans one specific item of clothing, based on the grounds of security and equal rights of women. In France's defence, I think if another religion also covered face they would still push the law through, so I don't see it as specifically anti-Islamic.

It's an interesting point that it could cover masks used in protests...

There is talk of trying to do the same in Australia, cause some idiot is going around robbing stores while wearing a Burka. THe argument is that it will be a growing trend to hide you identity when all other means except the Burka are banned.

IMO in AUs, its just a stunt to appeal to the douchebag vote.

Islam doesn't prescribe a lot of things - including killing "non-believers" or "converting them with the sword" - but it's still being preached - and practiced.

Just recently Iran disclaimed the stoning of a woman accused and found guilty of adultery... It's not known whether she still has to face death sentence. It's not part of our culture, but in many countries, "honor killings" are part of the tradition...

If you look into the Bible, there allegedly are a few quite drastic rules (which are not getting enforced) - on the other hand you'll find Christian groups that enforce ridiculous rules, which are not part of the Bible (so I heard)

If now a European woman happens to wear a mini-skirt in the middle of Teheran... or maybe just Mekka - she may face arrest...

Now playing devil's advocate: why would France not have the same right to demand from its citizens and migrants adjustment and adaptation to the French way of life? If it is a law, democratically confirmed by parliament and as such it is representing the citizens general consensus...

Australia: the native population is not allowed to pursue their traditional way of life and is cut off from their tradition, to walk their ancestral path. These routes are blocked and this way of life is prohibited by (ownership) laws.

Imagine a group of native American Indians putting up their camp in Central Park... could they? I mean - they are nomads...

Wearing the Burka is not illegal "per se" - just not in public.

(pls note: I'm playing devil's advocate here - the above does not reflect my personal view)

Im not a muslim, so Im not really an authority but the Muslims believe that Allah will grant total and comprehensive victory to Islam over other religions. The quran talks about this promise in three different verses: 9:33; 48:28; 61:9

This will happen, according to Islamic prophesy, just before the Islamic massiah , Imam al-Mahdi, will arrive. THe destruction of other world faiths is the precurser to the coming of the messiah, and most extremists view their mission as bringing about this prophesy.


Just take a look at most of the Catholic traditions (no disrespect to Catholics)


An interesting point, but that doesnt give us an excuss for intolerence.

It is required from islam that women dress modestly and in a way that will not tempt men. So your right in saying that the veil is more a cultural interpertation of this.

However its also important to understand that religion IS there countries culture. There is no seperation of church and state, so whilst an outsider can argue its more 'culture' than 'islamic'. In reality its much of a muchness.

Oh absolutely, that is just my opinion. That is all I was saying was that my opinion was that veils are not demeaning to women, but revealing clothing is. It is easy to see that not everyone agrees with me, I don't expect them to either.



So why is France crushing this culture? I mean if the US tried to do something like this, the world community would be in an uproar about it, but France doesn't seem to face much opposition on a world scale. I could be wrong in this, but I have yet to see much outcry.



I disagree with this "solution". Thats like putting an alcoholic in a room with his/her favorite drink and telling them to just resist the temptation. But you're right men do need to change their attitude towards women, but it would be nice if women helped out some too.



That is a very valid point, and you could be right.


WoodlandApple, in the banks that I have worked at in the US they require you to take off any face covering and hat that may obstruct the face. I've never come across a woman wearing a veil so I have no clue how the two banks I've worked at before would react. It would be interesting to find out. I may just call my old branch manager and find out her opinion on the matter.


Tom the issue is, is that people should not be forced into a mold just because they immigrated to France. I know th freedoms are different between France and the US but here other cultures are not formally discriminated against like what France is doing. Now what individuals are doing is another matter all together. But that is not the topic of this discussion. In fact especially in the South West the state governments and even the Federal government protect the 'rights' of Mexican Americans and their right to celebrate Cinco de Mayo. Though it isn't a Federal holiday, nor is there any law, that I know of, that protects Mexican Americans and their celebration of their heritage and customs try doing something even remotely anti-Mexican on May 5th in the South West and you'll face some sort of action. Odd, kids have even been kicked out of school for wearing the American flag on Cinco de Mayo. Students Kicked Off Campus For Wearing American Flag

So is this law anti-religious or anti-culture? Is one worse than the other or are they equally wrong? In any case does the passing of this law have the potential to criminalize the wearing of any religious attire? Would you eventually get fined for wearing a suit and tie because that is the "religious dress of a non-denominational, restoration church Christian"? Would wearing a Yarmulke be fine-able, or turban or Priests collar, or dot on a forehead or any other symbol of religious affiliation be made illegal soon too? Could this be a pretty intense anti-religion can of worms?

@ Heed: I understand your concern and why you consider double standards being applied to US and France.

I'll not be going too deep into it (for obvious reasons and because I played devil's advocate)...

It might be quite impossible to judge on this ruling from any other than a moral point of view.

France - as any other country in the world - has all the rights to put restrictions on migration and composition of its society (i.e. other countries are using "skilled migration schemes" to ensure a certain level of education and enabling migrants to settle in society quickly). For example Australia (to my knowledge) is having certain contingents of "open migration visa" for different countries. That already is a limitation and an attempt to regulate composition of population.

On grounds of "religious attributes displayed in public" this ruling is actually quite problematic - I side you completely that this could be a landslide ruling. (what's coming next?)

But luckily it can't - because this law won't stand a chance in front of the European Court for Human Rights.

Anti-religious/ anti-culture - both are equally wrong (imo) - as long as this culture and religion leaves other people alone. For example "honor killings" are completely unacceptable for a (western) society - though being part of a religion and culture... a line needs to be drawn, no?

Would have more to say but it would make my reply lengthy.

@ WA: Thanks for pointing this out... meaning that suicide bombers should be protected under the "religious freedom act"

Helped out with what?

by wearing a Burka or handing out reflective sunglasses

With changing a suppressive culture.... or maybe your suggesting its only a males role to do this?

WA and Natasgi, I think I wasn't clear in my reply to Durbs as you have both basically asked the same question. I will try to clarify. Please remember this is just my opinion about things. I'm not trying to force it on anyone.

If the world truly wants Men to stop objectifying women, women have to stop objectifying themselves. Men are incapable of changing their attitude about women. Men shouldn't look at women in a (to quote Durbs) "shameful way". However it is nigh impossible to do so when women on a regular basis have more flesh showing than they are covering.

All I'm saying is that if men are to change, women have to change some too. They don't have to go around looking like veiled nuns... no I think that is too far on one side of the spectrum. But a little modesty in your every day life wont hurt anyone.

However this is way off topic. I apologize for sending it so.

Im a bit confused as to what question I was asking you,my last comment was directed at Natasgi for trying to bait you.

oh and I disagree with the fact that men cant change their behaviour. I agree that both sexes need to work on the issue but to say we are incapable is a cop out.

Ohh I didn't see what Natasgi said as trying to bait me, I thought you were both asking me to clarify my statement. Sorry for the confusion.

I think it is unfortunate that there is a line under our user names as natasGi sounds stupid. It's a Q.

It wasn't a total bait.. I did want an answer to it...

By looking in a shameful way, do we mean perving?.. I will take it as such.

I do not believe perving is a crime nor do I care about it stopping.
Men can think and look all they want, they just can't TOUCH.
It's all about actions. Why do Muslim men want the women to cover up? Is it because they think they can't control themselves around naked bodies? Do YOU as men believe you could not control yourselves around naked bodies? If there were no clothes in the world, do you think this would mean men would be raping right left and centre?

I think men and women should be able to wear whatever they please. I don't think it is possible to control people's thoughts. I will still look at a tight butt in leather pants and be "MMM YUM!" but I would not walk passed him and squeeze it. That's called self-control.

If you wear revealing clothes, you are ASKING to be looked at. But you do not deserve to be groped, called names or raped. Any girl who thinks that she can have her boobs half hanging out and a tiny skirt and thinks that no one should look at her is deluding herself.
Humans like looking at bodies that attract us. That will never change.

People who studied Handmaid's Tale will remember Freedom To and Freedom From.

I would prefer to err on the side of freedom to.
Freedom to wear what I want, freedom to say what I want, abortion, euthanisia etc etc
Rather than Freedom from
Freedom from rape, freedom from oppression etc etc. Freedom from babies/old people killed etc

But I know others have different opinions.

this is just mine

natasqi - w00t got it right... I'm sorry about the 'g' from earlier posts.

Define freedom. Do people who wish to wear whatever they want, be it no clothing on one end of the spectrum or covered up completely on other, have a greater right than someone who does not wish to see others naked, near naked or whatever? True if I don't want to see someone wearing something revealing I don't have to look at them, or I can avoid them but is that not infringing on my freedom to go where I want and walk around with my eyes open? At what point does your freedom to live how you want trump my freedom to live how I want?

And are you saying that you prefer that people were free to oppress, rape, steal, kill, and just do whatever they want than be free from oppression? That it is better to live a life filled with worry that someone might rape you because they are free to rape you instead of being free from that kind of violence?

That kind of world scares me. I pity a world where people are free to do whatever they want, just simply because they want. That is not freedom by any means.

If our own lusts were able to be controlled the sex industry in all its forms, from consensual pornography to illegal prostitution (sex trafficking) would either be seriously diminished or non-existent. These trades require a certain lack of control.

I agree that nobody, regardless of how they are dressed, deserve to be accosted/assaulted/raped or any of the above. Nor do they deserve to be treated as pieces of meat.

Your original question was asking what women should help out with. (That is if I understand you correctly.) It is my contention that if women want men to stop treating them like objects instead of people then they need to help men by wearing a little more clothing. I'm not saying that it has to be some crazy extreme. Yes men must strive to do all they can to not treat women as objects, but it is a two way street.

We have differing opinions and I'm not trying to force mine on anyone.

I love you so much right now WA! You are a good example to not only men, but to people who claim these things are uncontrollable because of their own lacks of vigilance, complacency, or simply cosigning their own B.S. in regards of being accountable/responsible for their behavioral choices.

The only reason this law cannot pass here is because it's unconstitutional under the first amendment. I have no idea what France's laws are concerning freedom of speech/expressions or lack there of, looking into that might provide answers on how it was able to be brought into the official books as a "law".