So: you say the PS is a tool of Sarkozy, despite criticizing very explicitly its announcements, and that it is a tool of Le Pen, because it follows its own long-held principles (which are distorted by Le Pen).
You're wrong on both counts. In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
Where did I say I supported the ban?
I despair of anyone outside France even bothering to acknowledge that we have a different concept of secularism, let alone, trying to understand our version of secularism. The reality here is that Sarkozy didn't dogwhistle, he threw red meat and he is widely derided for doing so here.
The reality here is that Sarkozy didn't dogwhistle, he threw red meat and he is widely derided for doing so here.
The hidden agenda and the main reason for this even coming to a possible law: Jean-Francois Copé, head of the UMP majority group at the National Assembly and, more importantly, Sarko's arch-rival who's openly angling for the French presidency once Sarkozy has completed his 2nd term (and maybe even sooner). Copé has been pushing this initiative and advocating for a complete ban in all public places, trying to out-Sarko Sarkozy, if you will (a tall order, admittedly). This is how a small number of women (400 burqa wearing and another 1500 wearing a niqab "integral" veil) become a danger to the Republic as we know it. As for a "national debate", Sarkozy has himself started a state-sponsored debate on National IdentityTM, just in time for the upcoming local elections next month. Blaming Johnny Foreigner is a time proven tactic that is no French exclusivity, as we all know.
This is how a small number of women (400 burqa wearing and another 1500 wearing a niqab "integral" veil) become a danger to the Republic as we know it.
As for a "national debate", Sarkozy has himself started a state-sponsored debate on National IdentityTM, just in time for the upcoming local elections next month. Blaming Johnny Foreigner is a time proven tactic that is no French exclusivity, as we all know.
Well, I don't know. Colman sourced the story from the BBC (with a link) and I quoted Le Figaro and Libération. What ever happened to addressing the sources quoted? En un viejo país ineficiente, algo así como España entre dos guerras civiles, poseer una casa y poca hacienda y memoria ninguna. -- Gil de Biedma
It would be gratifying to see Aubry go into attack mode and denounce the whole thing as a machination, but the considerable and capable Sarkozian communications set-up are ready with the "socialists run from debate - that's all they care about downtrodden women" line. It would take a more talented and charismatic politician than the French left has now to scorn that convincingly and carry it off. We can always dream.
It may be an expression of some women's religious beliefs or maybe even some kind of fashion statement, but let's not kid ourselves: it is first and foremost a tool of oppression.
It is as much a visible result as a tool of a general atmosphere of hostility to women. This is not unique to the French "banlieues": rappers have often been lambasted for lyrics advocating violence to women and generally speaking, even the most oppressed underclass man always has someone else to oppress: a woman.
We don't tolerate hostility to women on these pages and we don't tolerate it in other places either.
This said, I'm not convinced that a legislative ban is the best way to fight this "cancer": besides the practical aspects highlighted by M.Aubry, I don't think that in a democracy, the state can impose by law what to wear or not to wear, as I said downthread, besides the practical and security requirements: even Catholics nuns must remove their veil when posing for a passport picture -- and they do.
As everyone knows, a legal ban will actually prevent the women - the victims - from doing even whatever little they are able to do and keep them at home, even more dependent from the men who "rule" them. But hey, it will remove the unsightly veils from our beautiful streets, so the appearances are safe. Politicians will declare victory. Europeans think a hundred miles is a long way. Americans think a hundred years is a long time.
When the group in which a girl is socialised (family, peer group, religious group, community centre) insists that a headscarf should be work and the state insists that the headscarf cannot be worn in schools, harm is going to come no matter what. I am not sure a headscarf or a full-body veil can be taken as prima-facie evidence of abuse so the state may be causing a gratuitous conflict within the socialisation groups that the girl belongs to. And if there is abuse the headscarf issue is a distraction. En un viejo país ineficiente, algo así como España entre dos guerras civiles, poseer una casa y poca hacienda y memoria ninguna. -- Gil de Biedma
I am not sure a headscarf or a full-body veil can be taken as prima-facie evidence of abuse so the state may be causing a gratuitous conflict within the socialisation groups that the girl belongs to.
I see the point, of course, but you're aware this is a slippery slope: ain't that a bit too comfortable to regard the veil as merely a sign of belonging to a community/group/family?
At the extreme, some could abuse this reasoning and claim that practices such as sexual mutilations, underage girls forced weddings or honor killings are also regular part of a socialization group. Extremists do, actually.
We are discussing this from the outside and standing for the women's right to dress as they see fit. It's all fine and dandy, but I'd like to hear the point of view of the girls and women who are first and foremost affected by the situation. Europeans think a hundred miles is a long way. Americans think a hundred years is a long time.
We are discussing this from the outside and standing for the women's right to dress as they see fit. It's all fine and dandy, but I'd like to hear the point of view of the girls and women who are first and foremost affected by the situation.
Reversing the burden of the proof here, much? En un viejo país ineficiente, algo así como España entre dos guerras civiles, poseer una casa y poca hacienda y memoria ninguna. -- Gil de Biedma
A burqa is a serious impediment to communication, because it removes most of the body language and facial expression from the conversation. Not to mention the fact that one cannot visually identify the wearer.
A headscarf is a different story by far - it obscures mostly the hair, which carries a far more limited "sideband" for interaction when people communicate. And it poses no issues w.r.t. identifying the wearer.
Now, in most situations there is no law saying that one must be prepared to communicate with one's fellow citizens. And I find a requirement to be visually identifiable in public to be an odious infringement on privacy (particularly in a day and age where surveillance cameras are ever more intrusive and omnipresent). But there are cases - schools, courts, customs, etc. - where either or both identification and communication are of respectable importance, so there is a distinction to be made here on practical as well as aesthetic grounds.
- Jake If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.
Speaking of women's PoV: am I the only one having noticed that this diary and the whole comment thread so far is 100% male? What does it say about us? Europeans think a hundred miles is a long way. Americans think a hundred years is a long time.
On a serious note, this pretty much sums up my thoughts on the matter:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/28/opinion/28iht-edgopalan.html "Pretending that you already know the answer when you don't is not actually very helpful." ~Migeru.
This is not about a fashion faux pas or women's rights, but about sending a message to Muslims. Concerned with increasingly visible numbers of Muslims openly practicing their way of life while enjoying the privileges of life in the West, French citizens and politicians alike feel that they need to restore "Frenchness" to their streets.
This is stupid and ignorant. "increasingly visible numbers of Muslims"?? WTF is he talking about? In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
