French President Nicolas Sarkozy addressed hot potato issues such as the financial crisis and the Islamic burqa during an extraordinary speech to both houses of parliament at the Château de Versailles, the first such address in 150 years. REUTERS - President Nicolas Sarkozy said on Monday that burqas, garments that cover women from head to toe and hide their faces, had no place in France as they were a sign of the subjugation of women. During a solemn speech to parliament on a wide range of issues, Sarkozy backed an initiative launched by legislators last week who expressed concern over an increase in the use of burqas in France. "The issue of the burqa is not a religious issue, it is a question of freedom and of women's dignity," Sarkozy told a joint session of both houses of parliament, held at the Palace of Versailles. "The burqa is not a religious sign, it is a sign of the subjugation, of the submission of women. I want to say solemnly that it will not be welcome on our territory," he said to strong applause.
REUTERS - President Nicolas Sarkozy said on Monday that burqas, garments that cover women from head to toe and hide their faces, had no place in France as they were a sign of the subjugation of women.
During a solemn speech to parliament on a wide range of issues, Sarkozy backed an initiative launched by legislators last week who expressed concern over an increase in the use of burqas in France.
"The issue of the burqa is not a religious issue, it is a question of freedom and of women's dignity," Sarkozy told a joint session of both houses of parliament, held at the Palace of Versailles.
"The burqa is not a religious sign, it is a sign of the subjugation, of the submission of women. I want to say solemnly that it will not be welcome on our territory," he said to strong applause.
Since when does the state have the authority to determine what the clothing of private individuals is a "sign" of? (I am talking about in a free country.) Truth unfolds in time through a communal process.
based on my limited knowledge of the burqa and cultures in which it is worn, i do have the strong impression that it is a sign of subjugation. but it is not for me nor for the state to take that my subjective impression, my subjective interpretation, as the basis for allowing or prohibiting people from wearing it.
Jerome a Paris: do you wilfully ignore France's history of the State legitimacy being built, over the past 2 centuries, largely against religions?
what you mean by "willfully ignore"? i am basically but not sufficiently well informed about France's antagonistic historical relationship with organized religion. what is its connection here, as you see it?
Jerome a Paris: Or do you disagree with the legitimacy of a State to impose common rules of behavior upon its citizens?
no, i do not disagree with that. Truth unfolds in time through a communal process.
In my case yes and no. I know that history quite well, yet IMO it is the partisans of these sorts of policies who are willfully ignoring it. In one case we have an embattled secular state limiting the use of symbols by a powerful lobby dedicated to imposing a regression to the past, with massive support. In the current one we have an arrogant majority made up of a combination of blind 'secularists', racists, and raw opportunists who seek to mobilize the state against an embattled majority who already suffers from marginalization and racism. And yes there are the legitimate arguments about the meaning of the burqa that afew brings up, just as there were legitimate arguments about religious freedom that could be brought to bear against the Third Republic laws of the past. However, for me what is decisve in this case is the ugliness of a historically hegemonic majority imposing its will on an oppressed minority. It is not a continuation of the French secular tradition but rather akin to white communities in the US outlawing specifically black or hispanic cultural markers.
Why is everybody all the time trying to impose the American model on France, and calls any attempt to do differently, or any suggestion that there can be different ways to do things, "anti-Americanism" or "intolerance" or "arrogant"?
Amazing. In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
Now to the extent of imposing values and models, well to an extent, yes. But I'm a little surprised at your outrage at that. The majority of your output is devoted to just that - touting the superiority of the continental socio-economic model over the 'Anglo-Saxon' one. Are we Americans supposed to get all angry every single time you do that? More importantly, do you really think that 'well that's the American way' is a convincing counter-argument?
I'm not claiming the French model is better than the US one, just that it works better than is said in the English-language press, and that it is overwhelmingly supported in France.
And yes, I'm trying to push back against the US model being imposed on us on every single area of policy. I'm not trying to push the French model on anybody (well, maybe on some topics in Europe, but that's the extent of it) and I'm not making any commentary on the US model of integration, which I think also works, just differently. Why can't you return the courtesy?
Basically, any articl that talks about "Muslims" in France instead of "Arabs" and "Africans" has an agenda and yes I will fight that back.
That does not excuse racism in France, not racist or fearmongering policies, but I think I've been reasonably consistent in writing agaisnt these. So excuse me when I write that ,despite these trends, the French model is not broken and should be defended, in general if not in all its current political specifics. In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
Whether it's a Burqa or a hooded T-Shirt, those who wear it, tend to say, that they feel "better", shielded from the "hostile" outside world !
The point in France is that the outside world wouldn't be as "hostile" if each individual would participate fully instead of re-creating it's own community (the "civitas" thing). Voting laws or correcting older ones is for the people as a whole! Ok, it's no perfect, but the path seems to us better then to allow a galaxy of villages in a close knitted community.
It's not about religions mostly (even if I agree that I'm not so sure about Sarko's discourse :-) ), it's not either about a clothing style or fashion, it's about not needing any of those "gimmicks" to shield or slow down, integration in the french society... And that works with french kids as well as freshly arrived immigrants.
I do believe that this subject IS a rift in EU. The discussions already takes places in urbanism between the tenants of the "Cluster of villages" and the tenants of the "Polis"... It's insidious as the technical parts seems identical, but the end isn't...! The "greening" of our politics as of our landscapes, brings "ready to use" models from northern europe that won't fit in our southern societies, with the danger then of rejecting everything instead of adapting what's appropriate. "What can I do, What can I write, Against the fall of Night". A.E. Housman
you mean minority, surely? 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
The fact that the old jew district was in immediate neighborhood of the gay one must have had some influence maybe ? :-)
To be a bit more serious, there was some shooting in the "rue des rosiers" and a bombing at the Copernic synagogue twenty years ago. Even the orthodox went into low profile since. And many have migrated to Israel... "What can I do, What can I write, Against the fall of Night". A.E. Housman
But again, we're not talking about forbidding any dress in the street altogether.
Note that there is not significant net immigration to Israel of French Jews In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
Fer cryin' out loud... "Pretending that you already know the answer when you don't is not actually very helpful." ~Migeru.
How is a government demanding a woman dress a certain way any different than a religion demanding a woman dress a certain way?
Because, in a democracy, a full public debate can be held about it?
I didn't say I was happy with the majority dictating to the minority on rules of dress.
Hell, if there's a single anthropological universal, it might very well be that. Un roi sans divertissement est un homme plein de misères
Nudity is a very buddha kind of thing. It extends from the pacific to Europe and the US, but it is lacking in most non-buddha, non-Chrst ,-non_allah, no-single major-entity above the semi-gods (in crhistian faith called saints) culture...
I wonder why that would be? well I guess I now have to go and reread Levi-Strauss again :)
Specially toa pply the reading to nude beaches, interesting topic.
On the topic at hand, everybody knows my point of view around here.
A pleasure I therefore claim to show, not how men think in myths, but how myths operate in men's minds without their being aware of the fact. Levi-Strauss, Claude
I have the gut opinon that it is like a sacred place (I have never been done ethnology on a nude beach so I do not know, but I would love to), and it is structured like a non-monotesitic religion. Since I seem to remember that the concept of being nude is strongly linked with monoteistic (or one god above the others) religion I would bet that most people in nude beaches either are agnostic or follow other spirittual structures, and therefore they use it as a sacred place.
In any case, I do not know enough about that, I should read a bit on religion structre/space structure/and human body covering or bodies tabus...and relearn some antrhopology 201 :)
structured like a non-monotesitic religion
Some crhristian congregations, those on the left and on "god is love" who work with kids use them too. I have always wondered how they manage and why they do it.
It is difficult to translate to english , but I guess in spanish you get my point. In catalan I call it the "esplai" structure. Do you know what a "esplai" is?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esplai
http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esplai
It is similar to scouts, but completely different :)
"Kumbaya" (also spelled Kum Ba Yah) is a spiritual song from the 1930s. It enjoyed newfound popularity during the folk revival of the 1960s and became a standard campfire song in Scouting and other nature-appreciative organizations. The song was originally associated with human and spiritual unity, closeness and compassion, and it still is, but more recently it is also cited or alluded to in satirical, sarcastic or even cynical ways that suggest blind or false moralizing, hypocrisy, or naively optimistic views of the world and human nature.[1]
"Kumbaya" (also spelled Kum Ba Yah) is a spiritual song from the 1930s. It enjoyed newfound popularity during the folk revival of the 1960s and became a standard campfire song in Scouting and other nature-appreciative organizations.
The song was originally associated with human and spiritual unity, closeness and compassion, and it still is, but more recently it is also cited or alluded to in satirical, sarcastic or even cynical ways that suggest blind or false moralizing, hypocrisy, or naively optimistic views of the world and human nature.[1]
Look, you seem to have your minds made up about this, and I certainly have mine made up, so a "debate" here isn't going to accomplish much, at least on my end. I will go to my grave lamenting every time a government or religion uses the female body is used for ammunition in patriarchal power struggles. Like just leaving the house doesn't present enough opportunities to be judged on our appearance. Like women born into an oppressive culture don't have enough to worry about. Now they have to choose who they please, her family or her government. Makes me perfectly sick, to be honest. "Pretending that you already know the answer when you don't is not actually very helpful." ~Migeru.
the land of the French
Who are the French? A people of different historical roots (Celtic, Latin, Germanic) which has assimilated and continues to assimilate many varying strands of immigration. What's in question here is a ragged edge in the assimilation process.
The argument is about whether the state should intervene by setting rules. I think it may do so. But just saying "this is the land of the French" is not only substantially meaningless, it also happens to be the National Front line. :)
There is no such thing as a French person and anyone who thinks there actually is such a thing is himself an unreconstructed nazi.
Sigh. Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
Bleh.
But if you want to consider it from a social economic perspective... Societal equality requires the welfare state. The welfare state requires solidarity. There is no strong solidarity without homogenity, or at least the feeling that we are all in this together. If some group puts itself apart, the whole thing breaks down and the neolibs win.
Imagine there is an enclave populated entirely by foreigners, let's say Arabs. Chances are that this city will not be a net contributor of funds to society. How is this different from just incorporating an entire Arab city in say Syria in the social benefit system? Well, there isn't. And as we don't send money to the Arab city in Syria, why should we do it back here? Well, we shouldn't. So we should stop. But basing the welfare state on ethnicity in that way would be racist, so we'd just rather dismantle the entire welfare state instead.
We should be very happy that the forces in Europe that oppose multiculturalism and etc generally do it just because they oppose multiculturalism, and not like in the US where the Republicans used the race card to get the Southern Democrats to vote against their own economic interest, an issue Paul Krugman writes about in his excellent book The Conscience of a Liberal. Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
Well, that's how the standard right-wing argument goes, certainly.
First question: why is the enclave not a net contributor to society?
Second question: why don't we send the money to Syria?
Third question: doesn't all this just depend on the story you tell yourself about who belongs in the in-group you believe is deserving of social welfare? Seems to me that right-wingers choose to tell themselves a story that restricts deserving to a small sub-group, at the extreme restricting it to small, lucky groups of the racially and/or religiously select. The homogeneity argument is an excuse for your choice of story.
While I do agree with you and Jerome on the social value of assimilation, something valuable is lost in the process and it should be possible to integrate without erasing cultural differences.
Starvid:
Imagine there is an enclave populated entirely by foreigners, let's say Arabs. Chances are that this city will not be a net contributor of funds to society
Imagine there is an enclave populated entirely by poor people. Chances are that this city will not be a net contributor of funds to society...
In other words, the race card allows to define deserving poor and undeserving poor, and make the poor fight between themselves rather than against their common economic foe. In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
Integration just has to do with the ability/willingness to function/be accepted more or less fully in mainstream society.
Other people than just immigrants can fail to be "integrated" - they fall through the cracks, they feel alienated, etc... 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
after assimilation the resulting culture is a compromise between the mainstream culture and the assimilated ones...
We are no longer talking about France there, then. This is a country where, on the last "what is your favourite dish" study, couscous came out on top (despite a rather rich and diverse local cooking tradition), displacing gratin dauphinois.
As the husband of the daughter of a Moroccan man and a Laotian woman, I do spend quite some time within immigrants. They are quite assimilated, yet far from having had their identity erased. Earth provides enough to satisfy every man's need, but not every man's greed. Gandhi
I do spend quite some time within immigrants
Integrate means that there remain subsocieties defined by culture
A subsociety will have some - strong - amount of social segregation in the form of specific friendly interactions, a preponderance of marriage within the subsociety, etc. The geek subculture exists but is definitely not a subsociety according to this, for example.
I bet there is a "conservative catholic" subculture in France which mostly only interacts friendly and intermarries with itself. 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
And also, the problems of a subsociety for the wider demos comes not only from the fact that the subsociety exists, but also how it defines itself : Is it collectively attempting to define itself, segregate itself, and consciously improve its lot in society as opposed to the other subgroups ?
For example, typically in France, academics are defined by "having a PhD", which is more or less attemptable by everybody, although being from academic parents help ; so the maintaining of a subsociety is not conscious. Secondary school teachers in France is one of the group most adamant about not forming subsocieties, indeed.
Compare to what counts in France as the haute bourgeoisie, which consciously creates a segregated education system for it kids, enforces marriage within the class through social disapproval, and is able to get members of the class in the Elysée.
Compare to a mythical muslim subsociety which would only vote for communautarian parties, which would send the kids to private muslim schools, and whose women would be practically unable to communicate with the outside society because of the burqa.
Obvious reasons mean that Sarko denounces the mythical later subsociety rather than the earlier one... Un roi sans divertissement est un homme plein de misères
Has all of this ever been researched properly? It would make a wonderful study.
I suspect it's rather leaky
All subcultures are leaky, however you care to define them. 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
And not all subcultures are equally significant politically. No one much cares what fringe religions like paganism do or what geeks believe, because pagans have no influence on policy, and geeks only care if they change the source code.
But Islam could have an influence and Catholicism very much does have an influence - especially in the UK, where it gave us Plastic Tony.
So perhaps the issue isn't about freedom of expression as much as freedom of political influence.
Sarko's motivation is that he wants to get the far right voters to support him ; that includes the conservative christians, but quite a lot of the racist supporters are just racist and want a racially defined French society.
But he knows he won't be criticised on the burqa subject because quite a bit of the left sees the burqa as the instrument of a fundamentalist muslim subsociety and thus don't like it. Un roi sans divertissement est un homme plein de misères
your own
Compare to what counts in France as the haute bourgeoisie, which consciously creates a segregated education system for it kids, enforces marriage within the class through social disapproval, and is able to get members of the class in the Elysée. Compare to a mythical muslim subsociety which would only vote for communautarian parties, which would send the kids to private muslim schools, and whose women would be practically unable to communicate with the outside society because of the burqa. Obvious reasons mean that Sarko denounces the mythical later subsociety rather than the earlier one...
Obvious reasons mean that Sarko denounces the mythical later subsociety rather than the earlier one...
But from the other side, there's also the implication that as long as Muslims play the game by not challenging existing symbol systems head-on, they can be 'assimilated' and allowed to fit into the usual round of social aspiration and imitation - which is the true state religion, even if the state likes to pretend that it's purely secular and doesn't do any overt ritual or social management.
the usual round of social aspiration and imitation - which is the true state religion, even if the state likes to pretend that it's purely secular and doesn't do any overt ritual or social management.
I would not call it State religion, but State ideology. And I would say that in France the State does not pretend anything of the sort: the ritual and social management are definitely part of the acknowledged fabric of French society.
Again, this goes back to a point that I made earlier in this thread: that active State interventionism is something conscious, acknowledged and supported by large majorities in the country.
And that's why many on the left will support some form of action against burqas (not forbidding them in the street, because that's just impossible and silly, but forbidding them in regulated places like schools and hospitals, with the full symbolic impact of such limited measures) even though they are fully aware of his racist mongering. That's France. In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
I would not call it State religion, but State ideology
Sort of like Blair's classless society.
Whether they are recognised by the state is a different matter. All states recognise some subcultures (even France, even if it pretends not to) but no state recognises every subculture.
Political parties are examples of the subcultures that France recognises. But not every political party might be allowed - an explicitly Islamic political party might run up against institutional (and cultural) opposition. 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
she's quite capable of deciding for herself how to dress
In the case where it's religion telling her how to dress, or patriarchal family values backed up by religion, how true is that statement?
scary party
You are sometimes very silly.
Are you suggesting a woman is incapable of deciding what is best for herself simply because of her family or religion?
not incapable - npt allowed, and transgressions can be paid with their lives? What are you arguing about, exactly? In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
That is a presumption of guilt in the general case. Girls, women and their families should be presumed innocent (of coercing or submitting to such coercion) until proven guilty in a given particular case. Truth unfolds in time through a communal process.
Because the only "community" the French state recognizes is itself - no subcommunity is allowed. 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
Can't you see the difference? I'm not making any comment about other countries' choices, just supporting those made in France. In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
i am probably misunderstanding your point here. but there is absolutely nothing wrong with commenting on the policies of other countries, especially important ones like France, when one feels that they are deeply unjust. otherwise, only citizens of that country would be allowed to criticize it. Truth unfolds in time through a communal process.
In Philadelphia, for just one example, you will see women in burqas in all parts of the city, on buses and subways and in the markets, and it causes absolutely zero problems for anyone. It would be a law respecting religion (unconstitutional) to tell someone that they can dress as they see fit as part of their religion.
Anyone who feels that they are being coerced by their spouse or family into dressing a certain way has recourse under the law.
I fail to see the point of aggressive secularism from organs of the state.
Easy to say, hard to put in practice. It can be very hard to go against one's family and social group. (points to the problems the US recently had with the Mormon polygamists). Un roi sans divertissement est un homme plein de misères
As for the problem of parents coercing their children into doing things they do not want to do, that is a problem in all countries, cultures, and religions. I wish I could have a year of Sunday mornings back from all the times I was dragged to church as a child. I don't think we should pass a law making it illegal to force your child to attend religious services.
It is better to err on the side of giving families the freedom to settle such issues internally. If a child is being compelled to wear a burqa against her will, they should be able to appeal to the same authorities that protect them from physical abuse. If they are too scared to do that, it's unfortunate, but no different from the child that won't report regular beatings. You ought to keep the laws as free as is possible.
I don't think we should pass a law making illegal to force your child to attend religious services.
Some people may be able to break the conditioning. Some will rebel. But both options are only available in pluralistic cultures which can model different behaviours and belief systems.
In all honesty I'd suggest the opposite would be more effective - children should be brought up in a secular culture, and then only allowed to choose religion after 18.
The fact that this would deprive all religions of most of their followers highlight how essential indoctrination and coercion are to religious experience.
children should be brought up in a secular culture, and then only allowed to choose religion after 18.
would yo do the same for soccer games? For soccer teams? Which culture-generated identity items you would not allow adn which ones you would? Maybe there is a criteria I am missing. Make-up? Short pants? friends gathering? Language use? Book reading? TV/tale surroudned structures? Narrative self-structures (from games to "personal talks with your child"? religious gathering? Rithual gathering (as sports)? Which one out, wich one in
Can a crrteria be generated to force parents not to do any of these? We can force them to do something.. and society does it constantly, my question is about forcing not to do something. You can force parents to make their children look for the doctor but what is the criteria to prevent them to look for other alternative/non-legal/foreign/chaman structures? You cannot even force parents not to kill or beat their chidlren, only prosecute afterwards...and beating and killing does not construct the identity narrative directly, something which the three main religious and the secular all consider a good thing.
There's a difference between giving children hundreds of options and leaving them to find something that works for them, and giving them the One True and Holy Option and telling that if they try something different they will die, burn in agony for eternity, and so on.
Would I like to see tribal and caste identities being diluted in a similar way? Personally, I would - not necessarily into insignificance, but certainly to the point where they can't be used as an excuse for exclusion and physical or emotional violence. (I'm including class within caste.)
Tribal and caste identities seem to cause a lot of problems while offering very little that's useful or positive.
Of course this means making diversity an indoctrinated value. But since it probably isn't possible to avoid indoctrination altogether, I wouldn't see that as a completely bad thing.
So we should force parents to take their children to different religious gatherings, to different soccer teams.. and so on and so on.
It is forcing diversity.. more or less like my idea of forcing parents to send kids overseas (with state support). Something I have long ago advocated.
Of course you can not force parents not to attend mass regularly on a catholic church with their kids, but you can indeed force them to go to a synagogue, to a mosque and to a flying spageutti monster gathering or to a star-trek/BSG gathering.
The only problem of course is that diversity indoctrination is going to be a tough sell.. but if we can make kids and parents go to school...everything is possible.
In the case of short pants, it is not necessary for the State to intervene, as whether kids (or adults) wear short pants does not have the potential to interfere with the State's existing functions. In the case of religious dress, the potential for widespread social/religious radicalization is clear and present, and by implication, this poses a direct threat to the French State's explicitly secular role.
To put this another way, if the burqa was not associated with religion, and in particular, was not associated with foreign religious alternatives to the French State's functions (ie the Sharia in particular and also Middle Eastern customs which clash with European ideals), then it would pose no threat and be perfectly acceptable and benign.
However, the burqa is associated with Sharia and incompatible Middle Eastern social models, and therefore is an unacceptable encroachment on the French State's role and functions. As such, the State is justified in outlawing the burqa, not because of the dress itself, but solely because of the religious role it plays and the danger if it spreads. -- $E(X_t|F_s) = X_s,\quad t > s$
It is all very eurocentric anyway. A vote for PES is a vote for EPP! A vote for EPP is a vote for PES! Support the coalition, vote EPP-PES in 2009!
Again, this is a misunderstanding between those who tags those garments as religious and those who don't ! Islam is pretty well lived in France and is not segregated (I must insist). While class, and where you live is still selective !
And by the way, the "car burqa" (the tinted windows of a car) has been unlawful for quite a while... :-) "What can I do, What can I write, Against the fall of Night". A.E. Housman
BTW, I am not claiming that Muslims as a whole are not well integrated in France or that Islam must disappear, I am arguing that the minority which imposes strict rules on their women are in contradiction with the values of the fifth French Republic, and this is why there necessarily is a clash.
The State must uphold and preserve the republican values which are described in the French constitution (in the same way, the American State must preserve the American constitution, which is different, etc). If a community diverges strongly from these values (and in fact the radical Islamic interpretation not only strongly clashes with these values, but offers a completely different and well developed civilisation), then the (French) State has no choice but must take action to impose the (French) constitutional values on this community.
It is really a question of which comes first in France, the State or the religion? -- $E(X_t|F_s) = X_s,\quad t > s$
How can you claim that the head coverings are not religious?
What you need to argue is that covering a woman's head with a scarf etc does not imply values which are promoted by religion. One could start by asking if the head covering were denounced by early religious leaders as pagan, and only accepted grudgingly over time. I am not qualified to make socio-historical remarks of this precision. -- $E(X_t|F_s) = X_s,\quad t > s$
Only available at Emergency Treatment centers. You can't be me, I'm taken
-- $E(X_t|F_s) = X_s,\quad t > s$
10 Uses for a Silk Scarf : The List Maven - Lists of Beauty Tips, Fashion Advice and Shopping Suggestions
or this one?
This used to be the hight of fashion. I still have some of these scarves. :-)
How do you test for values?
Anyway, the obvious way is some sort of questionnaire. Adherence to values can be faked, of course.
You can then fall back on behaviours as evidence of values. This naturally leads to "a burqa disqualifies you for French citizenship".
On "which values?", there was a time when France and the US were Enlightened nations but nowadays even France has a Head of State who believes they're "Christian Nations" so the kinds of "values tests" that are applied to people are becoming less palatable to lefties... But still, Sarkozy will have some success in getting French leftists to support his racist policy because they agree on the "secular republican values" principle. Or at least he'll paralyse them into indecision over whether banning the Burqa is civic or racist. 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
You cannot impose values.
In rrual afgan communities it has nothing to do with religion but with gender structures in rural areas (just like in Spain nowadays).
The role of burrqas in the few urban afghan posts is... well highly debatable and I do not know enough about it.
The only place where it is clearly assocaited due to an strange symbolic imaginarium, with religion is in western countries inside non-muslim communities (which would never never in their dreams associate burqa with msulim nor arab).. burqa, for muslims, is a regional and rural symbol (well, more like evocation, like when you heard someone with a different accent and you recognize where it comes from), not a religious one.
A pleasue I therefore claim to show, not how men think in myths, but how myths operate in men's minds without their being aware of the fact. Levi-Strauss, Claude
I have no data on this change of view.
Also, don't forget that the "muslim" communities in France, at least those that are going the veil or burqa way, aren't the most knowledgeable about their version of traditional islam, and a fair share of the imams are educated in the more conservative muslim countries. Un roi sans divertissement est un homme plein de misères
Despite looking like religious, and having the stamp of religion, it is actually non-religion. The key point is gender roles which religion acts as a structure which supports the "stability" of the roles.
Same as rural Spain in the 40/50's.
My grand grand ma used cover and soemtimes face-covers even in cities when she was no longer at all religious.. it was a role marker...Not to say that the church in the town would have not protested/commented... but nothing like the non-church social control to enforce the rules
why don't you x-post a diary from the frog pond here too, once in a while?
don't happen to agree with you on this point, but you make it very well.
is it possible there is less parental control in general in the USA?
can you see that perhaps it might be a good thing to create an environment where daughters didn't have to lawyer up in order to enjoy the freedoms we do?
another factor may be geography. america is physically further, so the ties to the 'old country' are more tenuous, reducing the adherence to archaic customs.
i do think america tries to celebrate immigration in its ideal form, (with a bit of schizophrenia on the southern border!), whereas, though we europeans need immigrants about as much as you did back in the 20's and 30's to keep afloat, i somehow can't see any statue of liberty suggested for any of the usual ports of entry here.
sheer speculation, i know... however, the phrase 'melting pot' is not in common use over here either.
(should be!) ~"When an inner situation is not made conscious, it appears outside as fate." Karl Jung~
it sounds good to pass laws that expand freedom, but this law doesn't expand freedom, it takes it away.
you have the president of France saying that there is something wrong with women who choose to cover. He didn't say there is something wrong with coercing them. We could all agree on that, and even on laws that punish people for coercing others. Instead, you would become the coercers and the sanctimonious judges of other people's morality.
There is something wrong with a secularism that feels the need for coercion. It violates one of the most basic principles of Enlightenment thinking, which is that there should be no laws made respecting an establishment of religion. That means that the state should neither support or oppose the exercise of religion, including in matters of dress.
That means that the state should neither support or oppose the exercise of religion,
As a mental exercise, that's fine and can help clarify unexamined assumptions.
But none of it is applicable here. We aren't talking about public urination or human sacrifice or public nudity.
The rights of a supposedly free people are being threatened so that there might be some hypothetical gain for a subcategory of the people being impacted.
That hypothetical gain already exists and can be strengthened without bans on dress.
My advice would be to keep the state from exerting any power over people that isn't absolutely necessary. And guard that jealously.
My advice would be to keep the state from exerting any power over people that isn't absolutely necessary
As for polygamy, it's a legacy of biblical injunctions that doubles as good deal for women and their empowerment. It might not be strictly necessary, but it has its purposes.
Precisely. Whether you agree with its justification or not, public nudity is outlawed for a specific reason: to "protect" the public from so-called "indecency". Clearly that same reason does not apply to the wearing of burqas. So the issue of public nudity is really not relevant here.
What is relevant is finding a reason that justifies prohibiting the wearing of burqas. So far at least three have been brought up, with varying levels of explicitness:
Still, somehow I feel there are indecency criteria or an indecency threshold that indecent exposure does satisfy but burqas do not. I have to think about it more, but I believe that it has something to do with the intent of the behavior (or lack thereof). If I understand illegal public nudity correctly, it must involve an intention to shock, offend, titillate or "upset" others in some way. In other words, it involves a form of psychological aggression. I think there is a key difference with burqas there: while some people may wear burqas in order to offend, shock, upset, etc., I believe that for the vast majority, that is far from the case. People may be disturbed at the sight of burqas, but that is normally not the intention of the wearer. Wearing a burqa, I daresay, is not a form of psychological aggression. And for this reason, even if some people may find it "indecent", that indecency is in their (the viewers') head, not in the intent of the burqa-wearer, and so it is not a form indecency that should be made punishable by the law. Truth unfolds in time through a communal process.
It speaks volumes about the contempt and domination in which those women are held by their own community. Nudity, in contrast, does not diminish anyone, only the social stigma associated to it would make it so. That the indecency be not the intention of the Burqa-wearer only makes it worse: it is the intention of the community that forces them to become Burqa-wearer.
And it is not about religion -unless we are talking about a new religion. Islam was all over the world with not a Burqa in sight apart from Afghanistan until very recently.
It is, however, very much about the subjugation of women. Earth provides enough to satisfy every man's need, but not every man's greed. Gandhi
Unfortunately, I must deny your request to be taken seriously. My hands are tied, you understand, but without sufficient corroboration by other parties, it is very difficult. There are individuals, you see, highly unscrupulous individuals... and you will laugh at this: they pretend to have a religion! I know, I know, how could anyone believe them? Ha, ha. They are of course nothing like you, but you see, your temporary... shall we say lack of documentation... puts you, regrettably, in their company. It happens to the best of us, I could tell you stories... but I digress.
Of course, my door is always open should you come upon a reliable set of references, and I have little doubt that your present predicament cannot last. In my experience, leaders of idiosyncratic religions often pass through a period of tribulation and testing, it's in the nature of the thing, and is usually not fatal. (Well, I say it isn't fatal, but how would I know about the fatal cases, I ask you? Ha, ha.)
I trust therefore that I shall see you soon, with all the paperwork in order, and together we shall be able to put this little contretemps behind us once and for all, with all the contempt it so richly deserves. My secretary will be happy to make an appointment for you. -- $E(X_t|F_s) = X_s,\quad t > s$
the state should neither support or oppose the exercise of religion, including in matters of dress
How do you square this with
BooMan:
the Mormons abandoned polygamy as a condition of Utah becoming a state
Is there not American legislation against polygamy? Didn't Utah becoming a state entail the integration of its inhabitants into the sphere of the rule of American law?
afew:
Didn't Utah becoming a state entail the integration of its inhabitants into the sphere of the rule of American law?
minor point 1-the phrenia of racism in the States is not limited to the souther border at all, and is stirred by the same type of fearful and fearsome people who are ranting up this law, as well as most all of the wars of history.
"melting pot" isn't used here in France, but it is expected that the soup is made - all shall speak parisian french, all will be bliss if we can only get those people over there to be like these us people.
Notwithstanding the obvious counter-arguments that there are others who are forced to wear collars and habits and the like in order to show subjugation to Rome (or whatever piety demands to create a difference for the public)...these priests of our secular virtue are not fighting to lift the burden of shadow from women. Nor, presuming they were, is there any instance in history that can be pointed to which indicates that banning laws be the way to handle such subjugation.
As the Shakti Gawain quotes goes: In order to cause a shadow to disappear, you must shine light on it.
The sentence before is: You cannot cause a shadow to disappear by trying to fight it, stamp on it, by railing against it, or any other form of emotional or physical resistance.
The sentence before that is: Evil is like a shadow - it has no real substance of its own, it is simply a lack of light.
Sarkozy and his ilk are as much the epitome of an absence of light as those fellow Sujectionists that he thinks he is fighting. Never underestimate their intelligence, always underestimate their knowledge.
Frank Delaney ~ Ireland
I know France is not America. But I can guarantee you that France will continue to experience much greater difficulties integrating their Muslim population than America experiences so long as they carry on with these childish games about how people dress.
Mind you, I find the aggressive secularism counter-productive, but for different reasons: suppression of religion by force seldom produces the result you want.
It's nothing like what goes on in Europe, and the respect they are shown has a lot to do with it.
what goes on in Europe
???
What does go on in Europe?
Neighborhoods are not segregated, although there are enclaves that are very heavily Muslim.
When I was in London I spent 4 years in a "heavily Muslim enclave" (my landlord, my next-door neighbours and my hairdresser, greengrocer, newsagent, post office clerk, convenience store owner... for the last 3 years, and one of my three local Councillors, were Pakistani). However it was not a "segregated neighbourhood".
Is this a case of "I have enclaves, you have segregated neighbourhoods, he has ghettos"?
Madrid also has "heavily Muslim enclaves" but I am not aware of "segregated neighbourhoods" either. Does Paris have "segregated neighbourhoods"? 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
Apparently in Europe we have segregated neighbourhoods, whereas in the US they have "heavily Muslim enclaves".
Yes, sort of like how in Yurp you have "used cars" while in America we have "pre-owned vehicles".
;) Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers. - George Carlin
It's nothing like what goes on in Europe
France will continue to experience much greater difficulties integrating their Muslim population than America experiences
There are very few serious articles about Arabs in France in the US media. It's all about the Muslim menace, or French racism, or economic decline (or all 3, usually), mixed with stunning ignorance of facts on the ground.
Arabs in France are more secular than Christians in the US, they intermarry with other French people, and are getting integrated into the mainstream just like Italians, Poles and Portuguese were over the past 3 generations. They have the problems of low income groups and neighborhoods, plus discrimination that's been fanned by the very same rightwing politicians that use immigration and fearmongerign to push the very economic policies that make things worse for them.
Please consider that anything that's written on Muslims in Europe bears the same relations to reality as articles on "socialism." In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
I'm just waiting for a US winger to draw that conclusion ...
It seems to me that, for some reason, many in the US who wouldn't trust their media at all on domestic news think that it becomes impartial when it starts discussing Europe.
you are the media you consume.
If France didn't have communist healthcare they wouldn't have any rioting Muslims. Well known fact.
NO ONES DENIES THIS!! Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers. - George Carlin
But in fairness' sake, the government already does put constraints on how we dress. One wouldn't be allowed to run around naked or wear a t-shirt with a nazi swastika, to take two extreme examples. Though I certainly agree with you that debates of this nature often oozes with misogyny, I'm not sure that is the case here. And I'm certainly not sure where I stand on this issue, though "my religion commands me to behave in this manner" is usually an argument that holds little sway with me... "The basis of optimism is sheer terror" - Oscar Wilde
I find it offensive to try to hijack this as if it's yet another example of patriarchy, and that it's a political issue which only applies to women.
The reality is that in many situations men have to wear clothing which is neither comfortable nor freely chosen.
Try wearing a tie and a stiff-collared shirt for ten or twelve hours and see how free and liberated you feel. Try turning up to a job interview wearing whatever you feel like wearing, and watch how your decision not to play the appropriate dressing up game completely trumps your qualifications and abilities.
Is it different? Not really, no. A tie isn't quite as ridiculous as a burqa, but it's hardly the epitome of sanity, especially in hot weather.
Is it religious? Well, it's certainly ideological and entirely symbolic. It's not as if men wear ties for practical reasons.
Bizarrely, not wanting to wear a burqa is seen as rather westernised, enlightened and rebellious, while not wanting to wear a tie is framed as being adolescent, rather immature, and - most of all - unserious.
If so, I must have missed that. Last time I looked Sarkozy was claiming they were all gangsters and criminals, by definition.
Any bets on whether we'll see someone in a hajib having a serious role in government before we see someone in a hoodie?
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."
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).
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.
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.
Just saying.
it is fascianting and proves your point that specific spaces and symbolic structures are generated when particualr dress conducts want to be expres in order to satisfy the other big "western"myth, the generation of the "growing and mature" self.
When peopel gather in nude beaches (or theya re created by the government so that only nude people go), when rave parties are structured, when dress code is ubiquous in semi-pubic spaces as discos, you know that dress codes are interanlized and can become conscious caste markers or full identity and space generators.
there is no such a thing as "free" dressing or "dressing as you want". Not here.
i think that's a different issue. if Sarkozy had said
I want to say solemnly that people who coerce others [even their own family members] to wear certain types of clothing will not be welcome on our territory.
i would basically be in agreement with him (with some questions as to exception or boundary cases, such as: Presumably, parents have the right to "coerce" their children into dressing or not dressing in a certain way. At what age of the child do parents lose that right? Adulthood/majority? Adolescence?) Truth unfolds in time through a communal process.
Is public nudity a sign of anything?
Generally speaking, not that I know of. (Though I am sure for some people, public nudity is a "sign" of rebellion or resistance to authority; but that is up to them to decide, not others, much less the state.)
Public nudity is outlawed, I believe, on the principle of protecting the public from sexual (in the sense of erotic) "indecency". I think it would be hard to argue that burqas are "indecent" (at least, not in the same way as public nudity).
I think a case might be made for outlawing burqas on grounds of public safety (as in physical safety) or public security (i.e. against crime). But that would be a different debate altogether. Truth unfolds in time through a communal process.
"Free" countries may also (as you point out) outlaw masks or face coverings on security grounds (facial recognition). I'm not saying I approve of all this, just that your point above about the government making decisions about dress isn't right. Though I don't trust Sarkozy's motives, I don't see anything fundamentally reprehensible about him expressing a view on this subject. If it means he will ram legislation through without debate, without seeking consensus, then I will find that extremely reprehensible.
But I am against the state doing so based on an interpretation by the state of what the (un)dress in question is a "sign" of.
To me personally, it is of little importance whether it is Sarkozy or anyone else advocating such a policy. Truth unfolds in time through a communal process.
i think you're hitting the right notes, afew, but poemless' point is also well taken, if fact i think you're both right, and that's why this issue has been blown up out of all reasonable proportion, and is possibly being used as a political football. we as a species are too hung up on symbols, and too incurious as to why, why should we give them so much power?
just because people have in the past?
as for being objective, i think that what people in the majority consensus believe, a kind of groupthink.
it's a very thorny problem, and as i've said before, i wearily concede that europe need still to err on the side of being too secular, due to its history.
weary, because it is frustrating to be presented a choice wherein both feel passionately they're in the right, and no matter which way the legislation goes, it will leave bad blood in its wake.
these loser/losest dichotomies are a reflection of how far we still have to travel on the road to understanding, with all the real, concrete problems we have in the world, it is absurd to see valuable mental energy consumed on whether wearing a certaina head-dress is so politically destabilising an act, that it needs the state 'deciders' to wrinkle their foreheads to come up with a least worst decision, not an enviable responsibility.
i'm still reeling from poemless' description of how it must feel to be a woman in this stupid (patriarchal) bind, and urge all males here to try and put ourselves for a minute in that woman's shoes. she is being instrumentalised in a way by the state in its quest for secularisation, and she has to force her parental family to accept her 'europeanisation', or risk a fine or arrest.
we say we want to welcome immigrants, and need to, to keep our economies going, this legislation is unpalatable, but to permit burkas is regressive, from our european post-enlightenment value system, giving again more power to the symbol.
full circle...
an eddy of idiocy, in a river of rationality, heading for a world where symbols are seen as that, not confused anything else. they will always be important, because of how we're made, but we need to keep pointing out they are the pointing finger, not the moon, and looking for a deeper unity that predates such external 'designations' as choice of dress.
for example, let's look harder at why certain immigrant religious tenets impose restrictions on young europeans, why cultures have evolved so patriarchally, why the female body is turned into such an explosively, threateningly icon that men feel they cannot stand its distraction, just for a start.
after i had some moroccan massage clients in hawaii, i had to re-examine cultural attitudes a bit, because they told me how comfortable they felt behind the veil, how they felt sorry for the women who had to be exposed to the crude stares and wolf whistle types, while shopping in the supermarket, or walking past a construction site. how it empowered them and became a boundary on intimacy they felt very grateful for.
it was definitely one of the oddest moments of my massage career, working on the rest of her disrobed body, while never seeing her face. her mother was the same.
not all veiling is a response to patriarchal authoritarianism, and i think we should allow all freedoms we can, yet i am as grateful as they were for their cultural gift, that ours is that we get to see our women, glory in their comeliness, without having to be their blood family.
it's impossible to make both sides happy, which is a sign usually that the real problems are not being fully addressed, namely that our sexual mores appall many immigrant families, used to a culture where women are tucked_just_ in sight, partly out of mind.
could there be a correlation between the amount of violence in cultures that slow down feminism of culture, and desire for peace in countries where women are not put on pedestals, vestalised so much?
as men, is it our own inability to come to grips with our inner feminine side that makes us historically seek to control women?
are we possibly still over-reacting the other way, after many centuries of treating women as chattel ourselves? now women are freer, but does that mean they (and we men) are always more dignified because of it?
i suspect we will meet half way, no veils and burkas except for halloween, and less ignorance and flagrancy in our own youth about the responsibility of being sexual in today's world, where we are more likely to see hundreds of photoshopped womens' bodies selling us everything from soap to cars to chocolate, before we even attain puberty.
another 50 years ought to do it... ~"When an inner situation is not made conscious, it appears outside as fate." Karl Jung~
<sigh> It's very often women that do the controlling of women, not men. We're all in the system and influenced by it more than we believe.
It's very often women that do the controlling of women, not men.
that's certainly true, and doesn't negate what i said.
often women are as addicted to the status quo as men are, even if it is to their disadvantage. a bit of stockholm syndrome, methinks.
people often prefer a negative known, rather than an unknown. change is scary...
still it's hard to think of any matriarchal societies in recent history who laid major trips on men.
but do women collude_with men to their own undoing? yes. do women _enable men to continue with ignorant, sexist behaviour?
yes.
do women _enable
the more we men change, the better off women'll be, and less likely to want to betray their own interests to 'get along'.
our advantage in sheer muscular strength and impulsivity dictates that to get along, we need to become more sensitive, perhaps we will also learn to live longer lives, as women do. ~"When an inner situation is not made conscious, it appears outside as fate." Karl Jung~
But there is also the integration - how do you integrate these women into our society. In my opinion integration needs communications, but how to you communicate with a woman in a burka. I for one could not, being hearing impaired I would not be able to understand her - I need to see the mimik and the lipmovement to understand people.
So I would say, in privat situations let them wear the burka if they want to - but in social situations, at work, maybe there have to be other solutions.
I see also a dilemma for western countries, they are continuesly critised for not integrating other cultures, but how to you integrate a culture if you can not really communicate with these people.
I just don't know and don't have an answer for this situation and I think it is good that it is being discussed.
The Netherlands already has gone through various cycles of this discussion the past years, starting in 2005. Geert Wilders (of course) then proposed a full ban for burqas all the time, including public spaces such as streets, public transport, etc etc. Although it was first thought not feasible by law, then Integration minister Rita Verdonk noted in 2006 that a public burqa ban should be possible. However, the cabinet next fell to pieces and nothing so drastic has happened.
Notably the CDA and Labour - the two main parties in the current cabinet - have since then shifted their stance, calling instead for a general ban of any type of face covering (also hoodies) for schools and public functions. According to the present cabinet, specifically banning a burqa/niqab does not agree to conventions, including the Dutch constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights.
I believe the general ban is now in effect. From the top of my head is wearing a burqa prohibited by most Dutch universities. While I can see (and generally agree to) the practicalities for regulations in schools and public functions, the current cabinet has also urged public transport companies to adopt face covering regulations, which does leave a foul taste in my mouth.
Of course the Netherlands wouldn't be the Netherlands if the disccusion didn't spawn a new art form by popular cartoonist Peter de Wit - the Burka Babes:
This one makes fun of Wilders "Fitna" movie: 1:JIHAD!!! You're a traitor!! 2:I thought the movie was alright. I had expected more of Geert
first you decide that you want to ban the burqa/hijab because it's indecent and you want to assert the state's power over a minority (keeping them economically isolated in crappy suburbs with aggressive policing not being sufficient to garner votes, apparently) [Geert Wilders] and then you look for justifications for banning it [shifting stance to banning any type of face covering].
There's simply more context to the general ban than just Colman's analysis.
Secondly, adopting a general ban is not un-clever in the face of Wilders growing popularity: it shows Wilders again for what he is - a totalitarian who discriminates against anything that has to do with Islam.
I'm perosnally supporting a ban in government buildings, hospitals and schools but not in the street in general. In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
NouvelObs.com
"Je veux le dire solennellement: la burqa ne sera pas le bienvenue sur le territoire de la République française.
I don't see how that statement will encourage burqa-wearing girls and women: Those who wear them of their own decision and will have been explicitly told by the head of state (with "strong applause" from the national parliament) that they are "not welcome" in France. And those who are coerced to wear them are now caught between Papa at home who tells them they better wear them and Papa de la République who tells them they better not. Truth unfolds in time through a communal process.
(All the same, let's be clear that in this debate no one is defending Sarko's choice of words or his political motives.)
i did note that he was talking about the burqa itself. and it is not a quibble, but the effect is the same. i am thinking of two Chinese women (a mother and daughter) who decided this past spring to go view the cherry blossoms at Wuhan University in China wearing homemade kimonos amidst crowds of other Chinese, some of whom then started hurling abuse at them and ran them out of the park. presumably they themselves were perfectly "welcome" on Chinese territory until they put on the "indecent" clothing which was "not in keeping with accepted standards of what is right or proper in polite society". that case also supports my notion that intent to upset others is what may differentiate "indecency" that may be prohibited by law from "indecency" that is in the eye (or head) of the beholder and therefore is not acceptable for the state to proscribe (as I claim burqas are a case of). Truth unfolds in time through a communal process.
Still, resorting to the "I knows it when I sees it" rule for indecency and then invoking it to brand and ban burkas seems unsatisfying and arbitrary to say the least, and potentially dangerous. Truth unfolds in time through a communal process.
What is enforced is sexual harassment laws in public places. The main difference here is that this needs a victim for the harassment.
Actually, in Sweden a burqa is one of the safest ways to dress. After the Gothenbourg riots in 2001 a law was enacted to ban being masked in a riot, thus making sure there is always one crime a masked youth has committed if there is a riot. To not have to use this law in other circumstances, heavy clothing is allowed if needed for temperature reasons (even if there is a riot) and an excemption was also made for religious attire. A vote for PES is a vote for EPP! A vote for EPP is a vote for PES! Support the coalition, vote EPP-PES in 2009!
see also r. laing's 'knots'. ~"When an inner situation is not made conscious, it appears outside as fate." Karl Jung~
Why should I have to suffer these memories? I'm writing a letter to Sarko toute de suite. Hey, Grandma Moses started late!
I also want to say my bit, but first few words on debate I just watched on Indian TV about this question. They invited one prominent Arab and two local ladies. Arab of course denounced Sarkozi, saying it was very provocative especially in the light of Obama's overtures and turmoil in Iran. Ladies quarreled noisily. One was defending Sarkozi, saying that burqa is nowhere mentioned in Quran, it is unislamic and only imposed by men with lethal weapons. Also she said that secular democratic country like France withing its rights to impose any dress code in the same way like Islamic republic of Iran or Saudi Arabia impose dress code for foreign women even if they are not mussalmans. Second lady was against Sarkozy telling that it's totalitarian to demand from all particular dress code under any pretext.
So I have drwan conclusion that French authorities have acted in totalitarian way not dissimilar to Islamic Republic of Iran or Saudi Arabia. For example in India or even in Russia or China there are no restrictions or particular demands for dress people should wear on entering the country. Also there is no discrimination on dress code or peculiar look people adopt for religious beliefs.
It seems that Sarkozy after successful imposition ban for turbans (the decision which enraged Indian Sikhs who are not muslims at all) tries to go further with female dress prescribing how positively French women should look like.
So the big question - is France ready to become "secular Saudi Arabia"? Last time the particular dress code in Europe was imposed by Nazis and Fascist governments.
If French authorites think they are within their rights to impose particular dress code for all visitors entering the country because French journalists in Iran had to wear headscarfes why France cannot impose this ban on burqas for only citizens of these particular Islamic countries? Why Russian or Indian muslim woman should dress in way authorised by French authorities? Why sikhs cannot wear turbans in France if this is prescribed by tenth Sikh Guru?
Whole this unnecessary debate is a really shameful for France.
Sikhs cannot wear turbans in public schools. They can wear them in the street and in private schools, if that's so important to them. In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
And your point is, what exactly? 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
Like a beret ban. Or, we could outlaw speaking with a French accent. Don't take it personally, mes amis. If the French want to come to America, they have to respect our way of life and our values. Speaking with a French accent signifies submissive foreign policy and poor work ethic, which is unAmerican. We're just dong it to protect the French from themselves, really. We understand they've been coerced by the terrists and commies to behave this way. Once they become exactly like us, hard-working bullies who talk like they have a mouth full of bubblegum, they will be happier, and will thank us. There is no place in America for French accents. What? We're a sovereign nation! We do what we want! We don't have a problem with the French, per se... We just have a problem with people who don't want to be exactly like us. Who wear their ideology on their impeccably well-designed sleeves. <<shudder>>
</snark alert> "Pretending that you already know the answer when you don't is not actually very helpful." ~Migeru.
For just a taste I scanned today's main editorials from conservative Times of India:
A THOUGHT FOR TODAY It will only stigmatise and marginalise women who wear it. JEAN-MARIE FARDEAU, Paris director, Human Rights Watcli A Baffling Move President Sarkozy's proposal to ban the burqa is ill-advised For a head of state, French president Nicolas Sarkozy has displayed a public lack of diplomacy that might even make his Italian counterpart, the flamboyantly tactless Silvio Berlusconi, envious. Not content imerely with proposing a complete ban on the burqa in public life - the howls of outrage at that alone would likely have i been heard from the Arc de Triomphe to the Palais Gamier - he has gone one better by launching a startling diatribe against it. "A sign of debasement", "prisoners behind a screen", and "deprived of all identity" were some of the : phrases he threw about. If the intention was to put the wind : up a large percentage of the five million or so Muslims who call France home, doubtless he has succeeded. It is an interesting illustration of where France stands i with regard to the relationship between religion and state, At present, it bans the burqa in educational institutions, as it does other items of personal wear with religious significance such as the Sikh turban or the Jewish skullcap. Turkish secularism, too, takes after the French model. At the other extreme are countries like Saudi Arabia and Iran : where it is mandatory for women to adhere to a certain prescribed manner of dress, from the bur qa in the former to the hijab in the latter. : The crucial differences between secularism as it is understood in France and many other democracies of Western Europe and North America and the version that is practised in India become apparent here. The danger of the former is that a secularism creating too rigid a barrier between religion and public life can be perverted, at times, into a form of extremism itself. It creates an uneasy tension with other core tenets of democracies; individual liberty i and freedom of expression. The Indian version, on the other hand, despite its cynical manipulation by various political groupings, gains from its malleability, based as it is on the principle of inclusion rather than separation. It has proved repeatedly that the rights of the individual and the prerogatives of the state can overlap in this regard without cancelling each other. In some ways, it is an extension of the Middle Path philosophy that is at the heart of Buddhism. It steers clear of the extremes of a theocracy and a state where keeping religion out of the public sphere can take precedence over its citizens' liberties. Sarkozy would do well to remember that the French Revolution championed the rights of the individual.
A Baffling Move President Sarkozy's proposal to ban the burqa is ill-advised For a head of state, French president Nicolas Sarkozy has displayed a public lack of diplomacy that might even make his Italian counterpart, the flamboyantly tactless Silvio Berlusconi, envious. Not content imerely with proposing a complete ban on the burqa in public life - the howls of outrage at that alone would likely have i been heard from the Arc de Triomphe to the Palais Gamier - he has gone one better by launching a startling diatribe against it. "A sign of debasement", "prisoners behind a screen", and "deprived of all identity" were some of the : phrases he threw about. If the intention was to put the wind : up a large percentage of the five million or so Muslims who call France home, doubtless he has succeeded. It is an interesting illustration of where France stands i with regard to the relationship between religion and state, At present, it bans the burqa in educational institutions, as it does other items of personal wear with religious significance such as the Sikh turban or the Jewish skullcap. Turkish secularism, too, takes after the French model. At the other extreme are countries like Saudi Arabia and Iran : where it is mandatory for women to adhere to a certain prescribed manner of dress, from the bur qa in the former to the hijab in the latter. : The crucial differences between secularism as it is understood in France and many other democracies of Western Europe and North America and the version that is practised in India become apparent here. The danger of the former is that a secularism creating too rigid a barrier between religion and public life can be perverted, at times, into a form of extremism itself. It creates an uneasy tension with other core tenets of democracies; individual liberty i and freedom of expression. The Indian version, on the other hand, despite its cynical manipulation by various political groupings, gains from its malleability, based as it is on the principle of inclusion rather than separation. It has proved repeatedly that the rights of the individual and the prerogatives of the state can overlap in this regard without cancelling each other. In some ways, it is an extension of the Middle Path philosophy that is at the heart of Buddhism. It steers clear of the extremes of a theocracy and a state where keeping religion out of the public sphere can take precedence over its citizens' liberties. Sarkozy would do well to remember that the French Revolution championed the rights of the individual.
I hope that the wave of criticism will put brakes on fascist French state, otherwise French should be ready for reprisals elsewhere.
Specifically:
2 is a warning that is used for comments that are unnecessarily aggressive or disruptive in their tone. Such ratings should never be used to indicate that you disagree with the comment.
Thank you.
For three and a half years I used my ratings sparingly: I identified apparently Chinese troll who attacked my Tibetan diaries and me personally.
This Chinese troll did not appear since then so I think I was right, not Colman, Migeru and Jerome a Paris who disagreed with me on pretext of "free speach".
Then I used "warning" only to comments by Nomad on Zimbabwe, Jerome a Paris on defence of ban on a burqa and thirdly for afew for very rude personal comment which misinterpreted my comment.
You disagree with a ban on a burqa (it seems without distinguishing between bans pertaining to specific places and/or professions, which Jérôme seems to be favouring and which would not apply to the tourists you bring up; and general bans, which Sarko seems to have suggested). That in itself makes your warnings ones for disagreement, not misbehaviour. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
Then I used "warning" only to comments by Nomad on Zimbabwe, Jerome a Paris on defence of ban on a burqa
A point of fact: your rating of Jerome a Paris above is not a warning, it is a troll rating (1).
Specifically on European Tribune, * consider that a lot of people don't communicate with you in their first language. Even after years of study, people can err in the meaning of words, not realise that a mangled-up order of words gives a different meaning, or - very important - try to translate word combinations or concepts from their first language 'too literally' and get something else. Vice versa, if you aren't communicating in your first language, and get a 'strange' reply, the error isn't necessarily on the other side. * consider that people come with cultural differences. Some local cultural specialities will have evaded you even if you lived in that locale as an expat for years. Vice versa, if you see someone not comprehending a concept familiar to you, it's not necessarily down to obstuseness or lack of humour, it's better to explain it first. * consider that some of these differences are so deep that they touch concepts you think of as basic, concepts you have never even thought can be viewed differently.
* consider that a lot of people don't communicate with you in their first language. Even after years of study, people can err in the meaning of words, not realise that a mangled-up order of words gives a different meaning, or - very important - try to translate word combinations or concepts from their first language 'too literally' and get something else. Vice versa, if you aren't communicating in your first language, and get a 'strange' reply, the error isn't necessarily on the other side.
* consider that people come with cultural differences. Some local cultural specialities will have evaded you even if you lived in that locale as an expat for years. Vice versa, if you see someone not comprehending a concept familiar to you, it's not necessarily down to obstuseness or lack of humour, it's better to explain it first.
* consider that some of these differences are so deep that they touch concepts you think of as basic, concepts you have never even thought can be viewed differently.
In my view, the last point, about the depth of differences, pretty much sums up the situation here about the burqa. Two sets of essentially decent people whose fundamental ways of seeing the world divide sharply over this issue. ET is often at its most enlightening when this happens, and our rules of behaviour are the reason why it's one of very few places where these issues can be explored in a civilised manner.
So, I will ask you again. Please do not abuse the ratings system.
it's not only turban's ban but this burqa issue became HUGE here in India, so many talk shows, polemic articles and discussions.
maybe for the French supporters of these bans it will be interesting to know that overwhelming majority of Indian polticians, intellectuals, feminists condemned these bans as TOTALITARIAN moves. France quickly turns into fascist state where authorities want to wage war not only on Islam (which is expected) but on all religious minorities.
As Mani Shankar Ayar from the ruling Congress party said yesterday in NDTV's talk show "Left, Right and Centre": "Today they ban burqa, tomorrow they will ban sari".
It's very regretful that propaganda of totalitarian bans did not evoke any response from bloggers here, maybe their countries are not so much different from France.
There is growing pressure in India on Manmohan Singh's government to condemn and take up these bans with Sarkozy's government and demand their revocation.
