Display:
Eh?  I'm so confused.  Regardless of what they're wearing, should teenage males really be given a serious role in government?  And are you seriously arguing that the hijab (not hajib, Mr. Obama) is simply too casual to be proper business attire?  Because they can be very sparkly, honest.  And anyway, I thought we were talking about the burqa.  But what's a little conflation between friends....

Seriously, I should not need to explain that there's a bit of a difference between not being invited over for supper and not being "welcome on our territory."

by the stormy present (stormypresent aaaaaaat gmail etc) on Tue Jun 23rd, 2009 at 12:26:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Excellent past diary from the stormy present, whom it's so nice to see:

Free minds, not hair.

And on terminology: as a rough reference, hijab is a style of dress where the head and neck are covered but the face free; niqab also covers the face but leaves the eyes visible; the burqa features a total head covering with a grille before the eyes. (In all versions, the body is covered down to the ground).

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Tue Jun 23rd, 2009 at 02:00:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]
No, that's exactly what you need to explain. Because I'm not seeing such a huge difference between Sarkozy's statements about either.

So far as I can recall, the people who are 'not welcome' haven't been called out en masse as thugs and criminals and haven't been subject to systematic police abuse.

As for a 'serious role in government' - of course, teen males aren't serious, by definition, and therefore not fit for government. Everyone understands this. Which is why Sarkozy and Burlesconi are such perfect models of political seriousness, carefully selected to be the acme of maturity and effectiveness from the populations they represent.

The hijab is perfectly serious business attire, and the burqa is potentially perfectly serious business attire. Teen fashions aren't, and will never be. (Except in very limited contexts like the creative industries, where a certain amount of wackiness is tolerated.)

There's no conflation - you're simply not seeing that extremely rigid kinds of discrimination are so institutionalised they're invisible.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Tue Jun 23rd, 2009 at 05:17:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]
This comment makes even less sense than the earlier one, and your last sentence is just plain insulting.

Of course there's conflation.  On the one hand, we have people who want to be able to dress however they want at work in certain types of jobs and aren't allowed to take off their tortuous ties while at work in certain types of jobs.  On the other hand, we have women who are being told by the president of the country that they may not wear a certain clothing while setting foot on French soil or YE SHALL BE CAST OUT.  This from a man who, as you pointed out, has repeatedly demonized those with the misfortune to lack the proper skin color and bear non-Muslimy names.

But yes, by all means, let's make this about ties, because that's the real discrimination.

Of course there is socio-cultural pressure on all of us to act and dress in certain "acceptable" ways.  Every society has that, and this is not about my ability or inability (thanks for that, though) to see it.  Sarkozy has chosen to throw the coercive weight of the state behind his side.

My sympathies go to those who face competing pressures from two different societies, which they inhabit simultaneously, and which expect opposing behaviors from them.  Politicizing their dilemmas does them no favors.

by the stormy present (stormypresent aaaaaaat gmail etc) on Tue Jun 23rd, 2009 at 10:23:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Actually if you read the comments you'll see that this is largely about not allowing the burka to be worn in certain jobs.

Just saying.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Tue Jun 23rd, 2009 at 10:54:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I read the comments.  But that's very clearly not what he said.
by the stormy present (stormypresent aaaaaaat gmail etc) on Tue Jun 23rd, 2009 at 10:56:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]
No, because he was pandering to the Le Pen vote, just like when he said he would clean the banlieue with a kärcher.

A man of words and not of deeds is like a garden full of weeds; a man of deeds and not of words is like a garden full of turds — Anonymous
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Jun 23rd, 2009 at 10:57:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Precisely.  And yet because he's couched his racism in terms of "helping" women, he gets a pass from the left.
by the stormy present (stormypresent aaaaaaat gmail etc) on Tue Jun 23rd, 2009 at 11:09:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]
He gets a pass from the French left because of secularism and "republican values".

A man of words and not of deeds is like a garden full of weeds; a man of deeds and not of words is like a garden full of turds — Anonymous
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Jun 23rd, 2009 at 11:11:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The veil and the burqa are great wedge issue for Sarko because it allows him to easily grab Le Pen voters while the left can't mount a clear, unified criticism about it as it is divided between multiculturalism fans and laïcards...

Un roi sans divertissement est un homme plein de misères
by linca (antonin POINT lucas AROBASE gmail.com) on Tue Jun 23rd, 2009 at 11:24:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Occasional Series