The reality here is that Sarkozy didn't dogwhistle, he threw red meat and he is widely derided for doing so here. In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
/obligatory Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers. - George Carlin
Even by Le Figaro and its readers, for instance? 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
At the bottom of the page there is an image with what the various parties say about the proposal:
UMP: We think that condemning the full-body veil is an excellent way to fight islamophobia PS: The PS is not in favour of a circumstantial, unenforceable law, which would not be effective and might prove contrary to constitutional principles Nouveau Centre: We propose a parliamentary resolution defining the "French [way of] living together" in a global context Le Pen: A law doesn't seem necessary to me. Police regulations would suffice MoDem: There are people in Sarkozy's entourage who dream of using this issue for electoral gain Greens: This hurts me humanely, as a woman and as a feminist. However, I don't know how to resolve this quandary PCF: A law against the Burqa would do nothing but stigmatise a community whose women are the ones who suffer pain
Otherwise, this page shows that only the UMP supports a proposed Bill that only the UMP intends (or says it intends) to put before parliament.
«On attend du courage politique» Le PS, qui, comme l'ensemble des partis représentés, a remis sa contribution sur le sujet à la mission parlementaire mi-janvier, refuse une loi d'interdiction qui serait, selon lui, «de circonstance» et, probablement, «inapplicable». Et la semaine dernière, les députés socialistes, membres de la mission, ont prévenu qu'ils ne prendraient pas part au vote de son rapport final. Tout en «condamnant absolument et fermement le port du voile intégral», ils refusent une «démarche de diversion et de manipulation» et ne «participeront pas à cette gesticulation politicienne», expliquait, jeudi, dans un entretien à Libération.fr, la députée Sandrine Mazetier. Une position qui «inquiète» Sihem Habchi: «On attend du courage politique: pas seulement condamner mais aussi agir.» Favorable à un «dispositif législatif» sur le voile intégral, la présidente de NPNS estime qu'«on ne peut pas être sur une position laxiste». Et dégaine sa formule: «Non au droit à la différence quand elle amène à la différence des droits, non au relativisme culturel, on nous met dans un ghetto ambulant», lâche-t-elle.
Le PS, qui, comme l'ensemble des partis représentés, a remis sa contribution sur le sujet à la mission parlementaire mi-janvier, refuse une loi d'interdiction qui serait, selon lui, «de circonstance» et, probablement, «inapplicable». Et la semaine dernière, les députés socialistes, membres de la mission, ont prévenu qu'ils ne prendraient pas part au vote de son rapport final. Tout en «condamnant absolument et fermement le port du voile intégral», ils refusent une «démarche de diversion et de manipulation» et ne «participeront pas à cette gesticulation politicienne», expliquait, jeudi, dans un entretien à Libération.fr, la députée Sandrine Mazetier.
Une position qui «inquiète» Sihem Habchi: «On attend du courage politique: pas seulement condamner mais aussi agir.» Favorable à un «dispositif législatif» sur le voile intégral, la présidente de NPNS estime qu'«on ne peut pas être sur une position laxiste». Et dégaine sa formule: «Non au droit à la différence quand elle amène à la différence des droits, non au relativisme culturel, on nous met dans un ghetto ambulant», lâche-t-elle.
But that capacity to divide is one reason why it's being shoved out there, like the "great debate on national identity". Cosy up to the Le Pen electorate, which Sarkozy needs; get impassioned culture-war debate going as a smokescreen for all the real problems; divide and weaken the opposition. Except that it also divides more than just the opposition, and the notion that it is all a cynical ploy has gained ground until the "national identity" thing has failed and been pulled back. That's one part of the culture-war stink bombs that didn't work, at least.
Superficially, le Pen sounds just like Aubry.
As Colman says, the PS's opposition seems predicated either on opposing whatever the UMP is doing, or on implementation (agreeing on the princple), rather than being an opposition of the principle. After all, the PS "strongly, categorically oppose the wearing of the burqa", they just don't think this is the way to go about it. 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
But I also strongly, categorically oppose telling people what they can wear on public streets.
Where I can see an issue is in those cases where one has to identify oneself - passport checks, personalised tickets, exams, courts, etc. Courts are probably the most contentious one - anonymous witnesses really are not fitting for a democracy that claims to observe the rule of law.
- Jake If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.
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. Europeans think a hundred miles is a long way. Americans think a hundred years is a long time.
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.
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.
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
