France outlaws burqas, veils

[LA Ute]

Grrg…. now this thread pissed me off. I stand firmly with SU. This issue has very little to do with protecting women. It’s clearly discriminatory for the reasons SU has already laid out. All of this justifying an authoritarian legislative act because it works to protect women from authoritarian men makes my head spin. Maybe I’m just pissed off because a bunch of Mormon men are jumping into the fray to protect Muslim women from oppression when it seems to me they hardly understand what oppression of this sort is about in the first place.

News Flash: burqas, which I of course think are horrible, work as a method of subjugation only because of what the Muslim people believe. Oppression like this generally exists within the minds of both the oppressed and those doing the oppressing. Muslim women will be freed of burqas when and only when they themselves (speaking as of them as a group, not as individuals) realize that they shouldn’t be forced to wear something that covers their faces. Any authoritarian legislative attempts to change their culture from the outside will, I predict, do little more than galvanize the French Muslim people against the oppression of their government. It will have a cohesive effect on the community and the Muslim people will work to protect themselves from what they feel is an unjust attack on their liberties. Thus, the women will be little better off. Their beliefs will not change and they’ll be swept into a confusing battle of working to protect the very practice that is oppressing them. (Just as 19th century Mormon women and 21st century FLDS women worked/work to protect their rights to practice polygamy).

If you want to help Muslim women, work to assimilate them and make them aware of their options and their rights. Give them information so that their beliefs can change. Allow them to learn and change as they choose. Don’t pass a discriminatory law and then tell them that you’re doing it for their own good. Talk about insulting. Their husbands tell them what they have to wear. Their government tells them what they can’t wear. At some point or another, someone might care enough about them to just keep patiently allowing them to assimilate into the wider world culture in hopes that they’ll eventually realize that it’s natural to interact with the world without something covering their faces. At the point at which they believe this and teach it to their daughters, they’ll figure out how to get out from underneath the authoritarian control of their culture. Until then, there’s little that anyone on the outside can do.

Sorry for the rant, but Mormon men need to give up on the protecting of Muslim women. Gag.

That felt good. And yes, I lurk sometimes.

Hey, RB, a lot of us who have commented here are more worried about protecting Americans from jihadists than protecting Muslim women. So don't be too quick to assume an intent to patronize.

[UtahDan]

Hey, RB, a lot of us who have commented here are more worried about protecting Americans from jihadists than protecting Muslim women. So don't be too quick to assume an intent to patronize.

I think the idea that it is patronizing assumes a level of education and freedom that doesn't exist for women in any severely oppressive culture. No amount of education is going to save her from her husband's fists when she decides she isn't going to wear it. This is a culture in its extreme elements that murders women who bring the family shame.

[UtahDan]

So RB have you gotten over your disgust for us or were you just too disgusted to remain silent?

[beefytee]

I think the idea that it is patronizing assumes a level of education and freedom that doesn't exist for women in any severely oppressive culture. No amount of education is going to save her from her husband's fists when she decides she isn't going to wear it. This is a culture in its extreme elements that murders women who bring the family shame.

Here is an interesting read about it.

http://www.gendercide.org/case_honour.html

France isn't mentioned as one of the countries where these murders have taken place.

Obviously government sanctioning this is unacceptable, but outside these countries that sanction this, are there any unusually high levels of these killings compared to standard domestic violence murders?

It seems like an outright ban on a civil liberty is completely over the top given the scope of the problem at hand. And if anything it puts these women in more danger. They now have to chose between fearing their husband and the government.

[Jarid in Cedar]

So RB have you gotten over your disgust for us or were you just too disgusted to remain silent?

What a rhetorical question......silly UD.

[SeattleUte]

Grrg…. now this thread pissed me off. I stand firmly with SU. This issue has very little to do with protecting women. It’s clearly discriminatory for the reasons SU has already laid out. All of this justifying an authoritarian legislative act because it works to protect women from authoritarian men makes my head spin. Maybe I’m just pissed off because a bunch of Mormon men are jumping into the fray to protect Muslim women from oppression when it seems to me they hardly understand what oppression of this sort is about in the first place.

News Flash: burqas, which I of course think are horrible, work as a method of subjugation only because of what the Muslim people believe. Oppression like this generally exists within the minds of both the oppressed and those doing the oppressing. Muslim women will be freed of burqas when and only when they themselves (speaking as of them as a group, not as individuals) realize that they shouldn’t be forced to wear something that covers their faces. Any authoritarian legislative attempts to change their culture from the outside will, I predict, do little more than galvanize the French Muslim people against the oppression of their government. It will have a cohesive effect on the community and the Muslim people will work to protect themselves from what they feel is an unjust attack on their liberties. Thus, the women will be little better off. Their beliefs will not change and they’ll be swept into a confusing battle of working to protect the very practice that is oppressing them. (Just as 19th century Mormon women and 21st century FLDS women worked/work to protect their rights to practice polygamy).

If you want to help Muslim women, work to assimilate them and make them aware of their options and their rights. Give them information so that their beliefs can change. Allow them to learn and change as they choose. Don’t pass a discriminatory law and then tell them that you’re doing it for their own good. Talk about insulting. Their husbands tell them what they have to wear. Their government tells them what they can’t wear. At some point or another, someone might care enough about them to just keep patiently allowing them to assimilate into the wider world culture in hopes that they’ll eventually realize that it’s natural to interact with the world without something covering their faces. At the point at which they believe this and teach it to their daughters, they’ll figure out how to get out from underneath the authoritarian control of their culture. Until then, there’s little that anyone on the outside can do.

Sorry for the rant, but Mormon men need to give up on the protecting of Muslim women. Gag.

That felt good. And yes, I lurk sometimes.

Very well put. What she said.

[myboynoah]

Grrg…. now this thread pissed me off. I stand firmly with SU. This issue has very little to do with protecting women. It’s clearly discriminatory for the reasons SU has already laid out. All of this justifying an authoritarian legislative act because it works to protect women from authoritarian men makes my head spin. Maybe I’m just pissed off because a bunch of Mormon men are jumping into the fray to protect Muslim women from oppression when it seems to me they hardly understand what oppression of this sort is about in the first place.

News Flash: burqas, which I of course think are horrible, work as a method of subjugation only because of what the Muslim people believe. Oppression like this generally exists within the minds of both the oppressed and those doing the oppressing. Muslim women will be freed of burqas when and only when they themselves (speaking as of them as a group, not as individuals) realize that they shouldn’t be forced to wear something that covers their faces. Any authoritarian legislative attempts to change their culture from the outside will, I predict, do little more than galvanize the French Muslim people against the oppression of their government. It will have a cohesive effect on the community and the Muslim people will work to protect themselves from what they feel is an unjust attack on their liberties. Thus, the women will be little better off. Their beliefs will not change and they’ll be swept into a confusing battle of working to protect the very practice that is oppressing them. (Just as 19th century Mormon women and 21st century FLDS women worked/work to protect their rights to practice polygamy).

If you want to help Muslim women, work to assimilate them and make them aware of their options and their rights. Give them information so that their beliefs can change. Allow them to learn and change as they choose. Don’t pass a discriminatory law and then tell them that you’re doing it for their own good. Talk about insulting. Their husbands tell them what they have to wear. Their government tells them what they can’t wear. At some point or another, someone might care enough about them to just keep patiently allowing them to assimilate into the wider world culture in hopes that they’ll eventually realize that it’s natural to interact with the world without something covering their faces. At the point at which they believe this and teach it to their daughters, they’ll figure out how to get out from underneath the authoritarian control of their culture. Until then, there’s little that anyone on the outside can do.

Sorry for the rant, but Mormon men need to give up on the protecting of Muslim women. Gag.

That felt good. And yes, I lurk sometimes.

You or I or LA or SU have no idea what the results of this new law will be. You can predict all types of dire consequences (Islamic retrenchnment, blah blah), but at the same time, if applied, it can facilitate openess and assimilation for people that are subjected to demeaning mid-evil tribal customs veiled in religious belief. It can serve as a spark to men and women that the world won't end if they allow a woman's face, her very essence, to be shown in public.

Muslims make up what, 10 percent of French society? I would estimate that only a very small percentage of that 10 percent subscribe to a burqa culture. We are not talking about vast numbers here. I doubt the community as a whole will get all that exercised over this. They're probably more concerned with jobs and greater political and economic equality in France.

At some point we must draw the line as to how far we are going to tolerate practices that demean members of our society. We're talking about a cultural norm that makes certain people invisible; it erases them from the public square. You and SU are clearly on the "Burqas, okay" side of that line.

Bravo la France, bravo!

et

Bravo aux hommes mormons qui protègent les femmes musulmanes!

[LA Ute]

Very well put. What she said.

Troll.

[SeattleUte]

Muslims make up what, 10 percent of French society? I would estimate that only a very small percentage of that 10 percent subscribe to a burqa culture. We are not talking about vast numbers here.

lol the Fourteenth Amendment exists to protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority. Civil liberties is not about weighing studies about consequences like legislators do. It's a good thing you're a U.S. citizen because you'd flunk the exam!

Yes, Bravo France! Which gave us the Terror, Napoleon, Vichy France, an unapologetic social welfare state, and now the burqa ban. A wise nation and vanguard of liberty indeed!

[myboynoah]

lol the Fourteenth Amendment exists to protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority. Civil liberties is not about weighing studies about consequences like legislators do. It's a good thing you're a U.S. citizen because you'd flunk the exam!

Yes, Bravo France! Which gave us the Terror, Napoleon, Vichy France, an unapologetic social welfare state, and now the burqa ban. A wise nation and vanguard of liberty indeed!

Go back and read it again. That wasn't my point.

I'll not be baited into defending the excesses of French pragmatism and what I am sure they would call a dedication to their principles (égalité et fraternité being two additional notables). But on this one point, I'm open to the idea that they have gotten it right.

But I will continue to enjoy your defending the right to a practice that would make half our population non-entities.

[myboynoah]

Grrg…. now this thread pissed me off. I stand firmly with SU. This issue has very little to do with protecting women. It’s clearly discriminatory for the reasons SU has already laid out. All of this justifying an authoritarian legislative act because it works to protect women from authoritarian men makes my head spin. Maybe I’m just pissed off because a bunch of Mormon men are jumping into the fray to protect Muslim women from oppression when it seems to me they hardly understand what oppression of this sort is about in the first place.

News Flash: burqas, which I of course think are horrible, work as a method of subjugation only because of what the Muslim people believe. Oppression like this generally exists within the minds of both the oppressed and those doing the oppressing. Muslim women will be freed of burqas when and only when they themselves (speaking as of them as a group, not as individuals) realize that they shouldn’t be forced to wear something that covers their faces. Any authoritarian legislative attempts to change their culture from the outside will, I predict, do little more than galvanize the French Muslim people against the oppression of their government. It will have a cohesive effect on the community and the Muslim people will work to protect themselves from what they feel is an unjust attack on their liberties. Thus, the women will be little better off. Their beliefs will not change and they’ll be swept into a confusing battle of working to protect the very practice that is oppressing them. (Just as 19th century Mormon women and 21st century FLDS women worked/work to protect their rights to practice polygamy).

If you want to help Muslim women, work to assimilate them and make them aware of their options and their rights. Give them information so that their beliefs can change. Allow them to learn and change as they choose. Don’t pass a discriminatory law and then tell them that you’re doing it for their own good. Talk about insulting. Their husbands tell them what they have to wear. Their government tells them what they can’t wear. At some point or another, someone might care enough about them to just keep patiently allowing them to assimilate into the wider world culture in hopes that they’ll eventually realize that it’s natural to interact with the world without something covering their faces. At the point at which they believe this and teach it to their daughters, they’ll figure out how to get out from underneath the authoritarian control of their culture. Until then, there’s little that anyone on the outside can do.

Sorry for the rant, but Mormon men need to give up on the protecting of Muslim women. Gag.

That felt good. And yes, I lurk sometimes.

And one more thing, please check your bigotry at the virtual door when you visit.

[Tick's wife]

Who knows who is really under the burqa's so I agree. It's too eerie seeing someone like that. What if there is a gun under the burqa?

[SeattleUte]

So, what next? . . .

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/17/wo...ef=global-home

I don't think France ever properly learned civil liberties.