France outlaws burqas, veils

[SeattleUte]

France says no burqas. I agree that burqas are hugely annoying and wrong. I loath the men who impose burqas on women. But I feel about the same about tatoos and piercings gone amok. I also think that people with gross tatoos and piercings commit a lot more violent crimes than people who don't have them. They do more than their share of spreading HIV. Why is France being selective in its denial of civil liberties? I also believe official Mormon teachings about women are little better than imposing burqas. They are hugely annoying for the same reason burqas are. Should there be government restraint on such teachings?

Why burqas and not other sexism and other body stuff associated with violent crimes? Hate, that's why. What's the difference between making Jews wear a yellow star and banning burqas? Nothing, fundamentally. Nazis came up with all the same public safety and morals mumbo jumbo that we hear now from France.

You have to choose what kind of a country you want to be. A country dedicated to liberty or not? America is purest in this respect, at long last. Dedication to liberty as a public virtue is hard. Anything worthile is.

[SeattleUte]

Well said.

Thus sayeth the libertarian. Liberty only for white Christians, right Venkman?

[Hallelujah]

Religious intolerance in France? No way!

The issue must have really been bad for the French to get fired up.

[UtahDan]

France says no burqas. I agree that burqas are hugely annoying and wrong. I loath the men who impose burqas on women. But I feel about the same about tatoos and piercings gone amok. I also think that people with gross tatoos and piercings commit a lot more violent crimes than people who don't have them. They do more than their share of spreading HIV. Why is France being selective in its denial of civil liberties? I also believe official Mormon teachings about women are little better than imposing burqas. They are hugely annoying for the same reason burqas are. Should there be government restraint on such teachings?

Why burqas and not other sexism and other body stuff associated with violent crimes? Hate, that's why. What's the difference between making Jews wear a yellow star and banning burqas? Nothing, fundamentally. Nazis came up with all the same public safety and morals mumbo jumbo that we hear now from France.

You have to choose what kind of a country you want to be. A country dedicated to liberty or not? America is purest in this respect, at long last. Dedication to liberty as a public virtue is hard. Anything worthile is.

I'm a little surprised at the moral relativism it appears you are holding to here. Some things are evil and vile and a culture that wants to clothe women in a symbol of their status as a chattle, just as surely as if they were wearing a choke chain, is not deserving of the protection you are speaking of, IMO. Putting a star on someone just because the are a Jew is not the same as putting a star on someone because they treat women as property. We place the symbolic star on all sorts of behaviors. The fact that this behavior springs from a religion is a red herring.

There are laws on the books in my state that make it illegal to burn a cross or to wear a mask in public. Sometimes it is necessary to attack the symbols of evil. The people who burned crosses and donned hoods tried to cloak their acts in religion too.

EDIT: I rose readily to the bait, didn't I?

[Green Lantern]

France says no burqas. I agree that burqas are hugely annoying and wrong. I loath the men who impose burqas on women. But I feel about the same about tatoos and piercings gone amok. I also think that people with gross tatoos and piercings commit a lot more violent crimes than people who don't have them.

That's a weak comparison. I'd say a better comparison is female genital mutilation, which is also practiced for religious reasons in parts of the world. Should that be allowed under freedom of religion as well?

I also believe official Mormon teachings about women are little better than imposing burqas. They are hugely annoying for the same reason burqas are. Should there be government restraint on such teachings?

Please enlighten us as to which official Mormon teachings encourage the public display of women as property and second-class citizens. Also explain which official Mormon teachings can result in a woman's death if she doesn't obey them.

[Coach McGuirk]

Belgium has outlawed Burqas. Spain's next. Swiss pass moratorium on building minarets. Europe seems to not want to become or associate itself with Islam.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...0GvSgD9H1N7MG0

[RobinFinderson]

This is a tough issue, and I have very mixed feelings about it. On the one hand, it is just an article of clothing. From a libertarian POV, it seems absolutely nuts to outlaw the use of a piece of clothing. On the other hand, women who are born into a specific cultural space, should definitely fear for their safety if they decided they wanted out of that cultural space. Within this cultural space, the burqua is a tool of subjugation from which no woman can escape without fearing for her life. If enforcement can be managed well, outlawing the burqua helps create a safe path out of this kind of subjugation. Is this a case where libertarians are oversimplifying a complex issue and denying the real extent to which the burqua is used as a tool of abuse? Or is this a situation where the libertarians have it right?

I generally side with libertarians on these kinds of issues, but really, no one is going to seriously suffer because they have been denied the right to wear a burqua. If the social trauma of being unable to wear a burqua is so great, then maybe those people who really believe in its necessity will move somewhere more burqua friendly.

[Maximus]

I look at this a little differently.

These are folks that kill if you draw a picture of Mohammed.

We are a little phanatical as LDS folks. This is craziness. There is nothing in my religion that I would kill for. NOTHING.

The Muslim Extremists are the tail wagging the dog right now.

France isn't going to be pushed around on this. I don't have a problem with it.

If you get a Drivers License, you shouldn't be allowed to have a covering on your face in the photo.

If as a police officer I pull you over, and you are wearing a Burka that covers your face, I am going to ask you to remove it so that I can verify that you are the person in the Drivers License. Me requesting this is against their religion. They can be killed by their husband for doing so. I can be killed by the husband for requiring it.

That stuff can't be tolerated. Sorry. It isn't religious bigotry, it is safety.

Talk about generalizations.

[SeattleUte]

That's a weak comparison. I'd say a better comparison is female genital mutilation, which is also practiced for religious reasons in parts of the world. Should that be allowed under freedom of religion as well?

I'm surprised at the rampant ignorance of First Amendment principles in this thread.

Wearing a burqa--or a veil--most emphatically does NOT equal genital mutilation, any more than being a card-carrying Mormon means you are a plygamist (polygamy being a horrific manifestation of barbarism and oppression of women truly comparable to genital mutilation). The very comparison ought to be deeply offensive to any true civil libartarian. This is like saying that the Supreme Court in this landmark decision issued a statement in favor of the Holocaust of European Jews by Nazis:

U.S. Supreme Court
NATIONAL SOCIALIST PARTY v. SKOKIE, 432 U.S. 43 (1977)
432 U.S. 43
NATIONAL SOCIALIST PARTY OF AMERICA ET AL. v. VILLAGE OF SKOKIE
ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS

No. 76-1786.

Decided June 14, 1977



The Illinois Supreme Court denied a stay of the trial court's injunction prohibiting petitioners from marching, walking, or parading in the uniform of the National Socialist Party of America or otherwise displaying the swastika, and from distributing pamphlets or displaying materials inciting or promoting hatred against Jews or persons of any faith, ancestry, or race, and also denied leave for an expedited appeal. Held:


1. The Illinois Supreme Court's order is a final judgment for purposes of this Court's jurisdiction, since it finally determined the merits of petitioners' claim that the injunction will deprive them of First Amendment rights during the period of appellate review.

2. The State must allow a stay where procedural safeguards, including immediate appellate review, are not provided, and the Illinois Supreme Court's order denied this right.

Certiorari granted; reversed and remanded.


PER CURIAM.

On April 29, 1977, the Circuit Court of Cook County entered an injunction against petitioners. The injunction prohibited them from performing any of the following actions within the village of Skokie, Ill.: "[m]arching, walking or parading in the uniform of the National Socialist Party of America; [m]arching, walking or parading or otherwise displaying the swastika on or off their person; [d]istributing pamphlets or displaying any materials which incite or promote hatred against persons of Jewish faith or ancestry or hatred against persons of any faith or ancestry, race or religion." The Illinois Appellate Court denied an application for stay pending appeal. Applicants then filed a petition for a stay in the Illinois Supreme Court, together with a request for [432 U.S. 43, 44] a direct expedited appeal to that court. The Illinois Supreme Court denied both the stay and leave for an expedited appeal. Applicants then filed an application for a stay with MR. JUSTICE STEVENS, as Circuit Justice, who referred the matter to the Court.

Treating the application as a petition for certiorari from the order of the Illinois Supreme Court, we grant certiorari and reverse the Illinois Supreme Court's denial of a stay. That order is a final judgment for purposes of our jurisdiction, since it involved a right "separable from, and collateral to" the merits, Cohen v. Beneficial Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 546 (1949). See Abney v. United States, 431 U.S. 651 (1977); cf. Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. Cohn, 420 U.S. 469, 476 -487 (1975). It finally determined the merits of petitioners' claim that the outstanding injunction will deprive them of rights protected by the First Amendment during the period of appellate review which, in the normal course, may take a year or more to complete. If a State seeks to impose a restraint of this kind, it must provide strict procedural safeguards, Freedman v. Maryland, 380 U.S. 51 (1965), including immediate appellate review, see Nebraska Press Assn. v. Stuart, 423 U.S. 1319, 1327 (1975) (BLACKMUN, J., in chambers). Absent such review, the State must instead allow a stay. The order of the Illinois Supreme Court constituted a denial of that right.

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.


So ordered.

You don't do women any favors abridging speech and religious freedom rights in any way. For those who don't understand, one would think it would be enough guidance that this kind of prohibition would be impossible in the United States. True civil libertarians everywhere, including Muslim women who have rejected Islam's hold to lead a Western-style secular life, are opposed to this manifestation of totalitarianism by France (no, Dan, I'm not trolling).

Please enlighten us as to which official Mormon teachings encourage the public display of women as property and second-class citizens. Also explain which official Mormon teachings can result in a woman's death if she doesn't obey them.

I think this kind of hectoring by Mormon leaders of women who seek fulfillment in a full-time career is as backward and in its own way as oppressive and morally indefensible as making women wear a burqa:

Some of you women are deciding now whether you should marry and have a family or choose a career. You are bright and qualified, and you have opportunities your grandmothers never dreamed of. The possibilities for earning credentials and making a mark for yourselves on the world stage have never been greater. But I hope you are making your decisions with the blessings of Abraham in mind. Latter-day Saint women should understand that no matter how many other people they enlist to help them with their home and children, they cannot delegate their role as the primary nurturer and teacher of their families. Righteous motherhood will always stretch every reserve they have to meet the needs of their families. As a daughter of God who has made covenants with Him, each of you carries the vital and indispensable female half of the responsibility for fulfilling the Lord’s plan. Each of you has the agency to prayerfully and humbly choose how to approach your career opportunities. Every choice has a consequence. You cannot have everything and do everything. You must choose with eternal priorities in mind. I would hope that you will understand that there are no glamorous careers. Every form of employment has its own innate challenges. Many choices available in the world today compete with eternal goals and responsibilities. Many choices could persuade you to delay or limit the number of children you invite into your family. Many choices could rob you of critical time and energy necessary to adequately care for your spouse, your children, and your responsibilities in the Lord’s kingdom. These decisions are between you and the Lord. He knows the desires of your heart and your unique situation.

This message is not even necessary for most LDS women, who do not even consider the possibility of a career because of the metaphysical burqa they are required to wear from birth. Most are raised from birth to believe their only calling and option is to be your archtypical mid-twentieth century middle-American stay at home mom.

[Green Lantern]

This message is not even necessary for most LDS women, who do not even consider the possibility of a career because of the metaphysical burqa they are required to wear from birth. Most are raised from birth to believe their only calling and option is to be your archetypal mid-twentieth century middle-American stay at home mom.

Good grief, look I know your favored evidence of the behaviors of church members tends to be anecdotal at best but, to your credit, once you've made your pronouncements, you certainly know how to run with them. "Metaphysical Burqa" sounds like either an overwrought senior thesis or the best Lilith Fair headliner EVER!

[SeattleUte]

LONDON - Britain will not follow France by introducing a law banning women from wearing the burqa, the Immigration Minister has ruled.

Mr Damian Green said such a move would be "rather un-British" and run contrary to the conventions of a "tolerant and mutually respectful society". He said it would be "undesirable" for Parliament to vote on a burqa ban in Britain and that there was no prospect of the coalition proposing it.

http://www.todayonline.com/World/EDC...s-at-burqa-ban

Ever wonder why Great Britain gave birth to the magna carta, the United States, Winston Churchill, and never found it necessary to liquidate their royal family, whereas France's democracy movement resulted in the Terror, and Napoleon, and instead of Churchill, WII France is remembered for Vichy France?

[SeattleUte]

Good grief, look I know your favored evidence of the behaviors of church members tends to be anecdotal at best but, to your credit, once you've made your pronouncements, you certainly know how to run with them. "Metaphysical Burqa" sounds like either an overwrought senior thesis or the best Lilith Fair headliner EVER!

Are you engaging me in vocabulary smack?

I have seen first hand the damage and pain caused by Mormon oppression of women. That Sis. Beck finds it necessary to make these pronouncements says it all. I think they know that women in the work place, especially in the board room or in tenured professorships, is like the Internet to Chinese totalitarianism.

[Maximus]

Are you engaging me in vocabulary smack?

I have seen first hand the damage and pain caused by Mormon oppression of women. That Sis. Beck finds it necessary to make these pronouncements says it all. I think they know that women in the work place, especially in the board room or in tenured professorships, is like the Internet to Chinese totalitarianism.

You are very predictable.

[SeattleUte]

You are very predictable.

So are you. I shouldn't be surprised that an authoritarian solution seems so natrually right to so many of you.

[Green Lantern]

http://www.todayonline.com/World/EDC...s-at-burqa-ban

Ever wonder why Great Britain gave birth to the magna carta, the United States, Winston Churchill, and never found it necessary to liquidate their royal family, whereas France's democracy movement resulted in the Terror, and Napoleon, and instead of Churchill, WII France is remembered for Vichy France?

If it weren't for Vichy France, we would never have had Claude Rains' Captain Renault in CASABLANCA. I think I've made my point.