France Trying To Unclothe Islamic Women... For Safety

[Seil]

These are Burqas. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burqa)

http://www.tinyrevolution.com/mt/pack%20o%20burqas.jpg

Because we really need at least one serious thread.

Now, some people - feminists and conservatives (http://www.rightsidenews.com/200906255248/global-terrorism/burqa-is-not-a-religious-sign-violation-of-womens-qdignity-and-freedomq.html) - 'dislike' the burqa in the same way that gay people make conservatives feel uncomfortable.

Anyways, France is trying to outright ban them. (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/france-split-over-plan-to-outlaw-burqa-1710747.html)

So if it's a traditional garment:

A burqa is an enveloping outer garment worn by women in some Islamic traditions for the purpose of hiding a female's body when out in public. It is worn over the usual daily clothing (often a long dress or a shalwar kameez) and removed when the woman returns to the sanctuary of the household, out of the view of men that are not their husbands, fathers, brothers, uncles, sons and grandsons.

Which remains part of the culture of a different race of persons whom, while we may not agree with their views or politics, respect as other human beings on this planet and subject to the same freedoms and rights as anyone else, why is France banning it? Or at least trying to?


Link (http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/01/26/france.burqa.ban/index.html)

Commission members began their work six months ago after French President Nicolas Sarkozy controversially told lawmakers that the full veil was "not welcome" in France.

Sarkozy said the issue is one of a woman's freedom and dignity, and did not have to do with religion...

By recommending a ban on full veils in public places such as hospitals and schools and by anyone receiving public services, the commission members said they wanted to assist those working with members of the public when asking that full veils be removed. That would include school teachers who meet children's parents or ticket agents at train stations.

So something that's part of their culture and tradition, and has been for some time, is gettin' banned in an entire country because Sarkozy... wants to see some faces?

I could see that if there was terrible accident or something like that where a burqa was the cause of a horrible decapitation or whatever, but since I'm pretty sure that French law would prohibit Islamic men forcing their wives/daughters to wear the veil without their consent, because I think that in France women have the right to choose whether or not they want to wear the veil or go without, and because in France those women that do wear it are not doing so because they're trying to subjugate an entire gender but keep their culture and tradition alive... I don't really see why an entire country has to ban them.

But maybe I'm wrong about all this and France is just ass backwards. I mean, burqas can be pretty hot (http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_kCMYXSeMiT8/ReV6cQPbfuI/AAAAAAAAADE/7B9pzpgoltM/s320/1_lil-kim-burqa.jpg).

[Viridis]

Which country was it that banned minarets?

[Loyal]

Sweden, I think? Pretty sure it began with an S.

[Amake]

France always seem to be quite progressive in their politics. If you are going to challenge Islamic traditions banning burqas would be a relatively harmless starting point I guess.

And I have been wondering about how to challenge Islamic traditions since I found that their leaders officially reject parts of the United Nations declaration of human rights because they think God is more important. I would like to be able to show them every bit of respect a human being deserves, but that's hard when they don't share the same priority.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Switzerland.
Also they've been talking about banning Burqas for like the past two years in France. Haven't done anything so far.
A lot of it is concern that women are force to wear them. The issue first came about in schools where they are banned (alongside other religious items such as skullcaps) and discussions about how legal that was lead to it being spread wider.

In response to IQ: Who does take the declaration of human rights seriously? I don't think anybody does.

[Amake]

I think everyone takes it seriously. Not to the point where it gets in the way of any actual lawmaking, but I'm pretty sure everyone is on board with the human rights being at least sound in principle, worth thinking about and something for future generations to hopefully get closer to realizing. Almost everyone that is.

[Kyanbu The Legend]

Switzerland.
Also they've been talking about banning Burqas for like the past two years in France. Haven't done anything so far.
A lot of it is concern that women are force to wear them. The issue first came about in schools where they are banned (alongside other religious items such as skullcaps) and discussions about how legal that was lead to it being spread wider.

In response to IQ: Who does take the declaration of human rights seriously? I don't think anybody does.

Sadly you might be right about that.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

I think everyone takes it seriously. Not to the point where it gets in the way of any actual lawmaking, but I'm pretty sure everyone is on board with the human rights being at least sound in principle, worth thinking about and something for future generations to hopefully get closer to realizing. Almost everyone that is.

Yeah they take it seriously in the "Yeah that's a good idea we should follow as long as it doesn't hamper the ability of us/our lobbyists fucking over everyone else". So in other worlds not at all.

[Amake]

Well, let's challenge lobbyist traditions too. Profits nor prophets should be more important than human rights!

[pochercoaster]

PS, there was a thing in the newspaper a few weeks ago about how Quebec is trying to ban the niqab.

This is nothing more than racism. If you really want to "liberate" women you don't isolate them by forcing them to change what they're wearing in order to receive public services, especially when burqas and niqabs are only worn by a very very small part of the population in these countries. (Well, I know it's a very very tiny percentage in Quebec, not so sure about France, but I suspect it's equally negligible.)

I am very weirded out when laws are passed regarding what kind of clothing women can wear. Why on earth is it wrong for someone to cover their head and face if they so chose? Isn't it insulting to automatically assume these women are repressed? They may wear a burqa because their husbands want them to. They may also wear them because it's how they grew up and anything else would feel silly even though they are educated, liberal people.

Yes, there are repressed Islamic women, but it's not fair to assume that just because they chose to wear the clothing they grew up wearing that they are- anymore than I'd be "repressed" if I chose not to go bare breasted on the beach in the Dominican Republic.

I live in an area with a significant muslim population- heck, my boss and a good portion of my co-workers are muslim- and I just want to state loud and clear that the vast majority of them, despite what the media says, are NOT back-asswards people. Even if they chose to cover up more than Westerners do. It's just what they're comfortable wearing.

There is really no way to say who is or isn't repressed until you get to know the individual, and as far as I can see this law will be useless in helping those who ARE repressed.

Edit: Also, yeah, oppressed is the right term. Derp.

[Seil]

I think you mean oppressed, dear.

[Wigmund]

And I have been wondering about how to challenge Islamic traditions since I found that their leaders officially reject parts of the United Nations declaration of human rights because they think God is more important.

Going after all of Islam for these "leaders" would be like going after all of Christianity because of the actions of the Westboro Baptist Church, the Aryan Nations and the Ku Klux Klan.

[bluestarultor]

Going after all of Islam for these "leaders" would be like going after all of Christianity because of the actions of the Westboro Baptist Church, the Aryan Nations and the Ku Klux Klan.

You have to realize that those are all smaller and less media-whipped. People in America are still often scared shitless of Islam despite having had several years to get over it and actually have the facts straightened out. The problem is that the media doesn't WANT the facts straightened out, because a frightened public is easy to sell more fear to. Where TV could be a driving educational force, the past near-decade has been completely mum on what Islam really is.

[Magus]

I was under the impression that France wanted to ban basic headscarves, too, although that may have only applied to schools and universities. It just astounds me that there aren't basic guaranteed religious freedoms in France that would cover what people wear...I wish I knew more of French history, because I'm pretty sure the French revolution created a constitution for the country and while it was then used to send people to the guillotine and then France had dictators like Napoleon and so on, etc...that the constitution would still be around. Then again, what with how anti-religious the revolutionaries were maybe it wasn't in the constitution, unless their anti-religious views only applied to secular things, like renaming holidays and months.

What we need is someone from France to clarify everything. In any case, banning religious garb is against universal human rights, anyway, since it affects their ability to maintain their religious beliefs. And banning headscarves makes no sense anyway, what if a non-Islamic woman wanted to wear a headscarf one day? They'd have to fine her, otherwise it would be a clear targeting of Islam.

[bluestarultor]

I was under the impression that France wanted to ban basic headscarves, too, although that may have only applied to schools and universities. It just astounds me that there aren't basic guaranteed religious freedoms in France that would cover what people wear...I wish I knew more of French history, because I'm pretty sure the French revolution created a constitution for the country and while it was then used to send people to the guillotine and then France had dictators like Napoleon and so on, etc...that the constitution would still be around. Then again, what with how anti-religious the revolutionaries were maybe it wasn't in the constitution, unless their anti-religious views only applied to secular things, like renaming holidays and months.

What we need is someone from France to clarify everything. In any case, banning religious garb is against universal human rights, anyway, since it affects their ability to maintain their religious beliefs. And banning headscarves makes no sense anyway, what if a non-Islamic woman wanted to wear a headscarf one day? They'd have to fine her, otherwise it would be a clear targeting of Islam.

Speaking on old information, France has traditionally been almost entirely Catholic for ages, with a smattering of other religions. The Muslim population has only really started growing relatively recently.

In a homogeneous culture, the outsiders are always going to get the short end of the stick, and Muslims are basically replacing Jews as the people to persecute with recent events.

[Magus]

It's not supposed to happen in first world post-industrial democracies, though. It does all the time, here in America we hate Mexicans for some reason, but still. It's not supposed to happen.

[Wigmund]

It's not supposed to happen in first world post-industrial democracies, though. It does all the time, here in America we hate Mexicans for some reason, but still. It's not supposed to happen.

It happens everywhere. I can't think of a country where it doesn't.

[Magus]

Canada?

[bluestarultor]

Canada?

Man, the Canadian geese just hate everything. Evil bastards.

[Archbio]

It just astounds me that there aren't basic guaranteed religious freedoms in France that would cover what people wear...

Should there be? I don't think so. I think dress codes and laws should apply across the board. I don't think that religious garments should be specifically banned or exceptionally allowed.

I also think that dress codes and laws shouldn't be as arbitrary and restrictive as they often are. Types of garments should only be banned from a space for legitimate, rational reasons. But when there is a reason, the expression of religious belief really shouldn't be reason enough to override it.

Are the measures in France motivated by xenophobia? Partly.

Is there a problem in France of girls being pressured into wearing these garments? It would seem so.

[Hanuman]

People are designed for a steady flow of sunlight intake.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

I was under the impression that France wanted to ban basic headscarves, too, although that may have only applied to schools and universities. It just astounds me that there aren't basic guaranteed religious freedoms in France that would cover what people wear...I wish I knew more of French history, because I'm pretty sure the French revolution created a constitution for the country and while it was then used to send people to the guillotine and then France had dictators like Napoleon and so on, etc...that the constitution would still be around. Then again, what with how anti-religious the revolutionaries were maybe it wasn't in the constitution, unless their anti-religious views only applied to secular things, like renaming holidays and months.
The French constitution was dismantled a lot in the Restoration of the monarchy but still mostly applies and it is avidly anti-religious. Teh revolutionaries were led by the rational thinkers of the Enlightenment and were pretty much uniformly against religion. It is expressely and strongly laid out the seperation of church and state, which is how they managed to ban religious garments in schools.
They didn't guarantee religious freedoms because they scoffed at the idea of religion.

What we need is someone from France to clarify everything. In any case, banning religious garb is against universal human rights, anyway, since it affects their ability to maintain their religious beliefs. And banning headscarves makes no sense anyway, what if a non-Islamic woman wanted to wear a headscarf one day? They'd have to fine her, otherwise it would be a clear targeting of Islam.
Then again barring my right to murder someone is also barring my freedoms. My religion doesn't believe in doctors so I'm gonna walk the streets with my contagious diseases. At some point you have to make comprimises for the goo of society and the argument goes that to protect these women they need to do this. They are marginalised sector of society who can't stand up for themselves so the government is trying to intervene. Just like hte poor or any other disadvantaged group who we expect the government to protect from discrimination.
I don'ththink it's a very good argument but the whole "Zomg, human rights" argument is not that good either.
Cause you know what you get if you actually apply human rights? Some form of anarcho-communism. And you totally don't want to go there.

[Krylo]

I thought you were ALL ABOUT the Anarcho-Communism, though, Smarty?

[Professor Smarmiarty]

I thought you were ALL ABOUT the Anarcho-Communism, though, Smarty?

Well I am. But I don't think anyone else is.

[Daimo Mac, The Blue Light of Hope]

Canada?

Incorrect my friend. I'll find some examples later, but Canada is not perfect in that regard.

[Magus]

You're supposed to be free to do whatever you want that doesn't infringe on other people's freedoms, Barrel. Wearing a burqa doesn't do anything to anyone but you. Murdering someone explicitly murders someone else, which infringes on their freedom to not get murdered.

And yeah as far as dress codes go it should be "wear whatever you want that doesn't let your dick flop around in the breeze". It might be a little fuzzy in some places but most people should be able to agree that keeping people from wearing full-length robes that cover them from toe to toe definitely lowers the chances of someone flashing their vagina around to 0%, so it's certainly not an indecent exposure issue.

Should there be? I don't think so. I think dress codes and laws should apply across the board. I don't think that religious garments should be specifically banned or exceptionally allowed.

I also think that dress codes and laws shouldn't be as arbitrary and restrictive as they often are. Types of garments should only be banned from a space for legitimate, rational reasons. But when there is a reason, the expression of religious belief really shouldn't be reason enough to override it.

Are the measures in France motivated by xenophobia? Partly.

Is there a problem in France of girls being pressured into wearing these garments? It would seem so.

Despite all the women saying they aren't pressured into it? They must be brainwashed by the patriarchal communities they live in to say that. Better remove them from those environments all together and give them some reeducation.

No reason has been proven, only established by some people in the government as supposedly being cause for concern with no real evidence being given. If they'd said the burqas might get caught in bus doors it'd be a more "legitimate" reason for banning them than that the women are supposedly forced into it in a country with laws explicitly protecting them from coercion if they don't want to be coerced. People are raised to be believe all sorts of things, I don't think governments should start mucking around in people's personal beliefs trying to determine if what they believe is "okay" to believe, or are they being "oppressed" by what is their own personal religious belief that has not been determined by a government authority that enforces it with punishment.

Basically, forcing people not to wear burqas is fundamentally the same as forcing people to wear burqas. France is attempting to become like Iran when that's what they're supposedly trying to avoid with this legislation.

Incorrect my friend. I'll find some examples later, but Canada is not perfect in that regard.

Well, right now I'm under the impression that some French Canadians hate English Canadians and vice versa. So yeah they do have that problem I guess but it's difficult to say it's as big a problem as when a clearly different racial and ethnic minority is hated on. There are language and cultural and religious hatreds at play in Canada but not racial.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

You're supposed to be free to do whatever you want that doesn't infringe on other people's freedoms, Barrel. Wearing a burqa doesn't do anything to anyone but you. Murdering someone explicitly murders someone else, which infringes on their freedom to not get murdered.
People are pressured into wearing them. They're rights are infringe.

And yeah as far as dress codes go it should be "wear whatever you want that doesn't let your dick flop around in the breeze". It might be a little fuzzy in some places but most people should be able to agree that keeping people from wearing full-length robes that cover them from toe to toe definitely lowers the chances of someone flashing their vagina around to 0%, so it's certainly not an indecent exposure issue.
Why can't I show my junk? What if I'm a cynic- it my religious belief not to wear clothes.



Despite all the women saying they aren't pressured into it? They must be brainwashed by the patriarchal communities they live in to say that. Better remove them from those environments all together and give them some reeducation.
Cause you don't hear from the ones fighting for women's rights. Cause they get imprisoned and tortured.
They used this same fucking argument for slavery as all the slaves they talked to were pretty good with slavery because if they said otherwise they were beaten.

No reason has been proven, only established by some people in the government as supposedly being cause for concern with no real evidence being given. If they'd said the burqas might get caught in bus doors it'd be a more "legitimate" reason for banning them than that the women are supposedly forced into it in a country with laws explicitly protecting them from coercion if they don't want to be coerced. People are raised to be believe all sorts of things, I don't think governments should start mucking around in people's personal beliefs trying to determine if what they believe is "okay" to believe, or are they being "oppressed" by what is their own personal religious belief that has not been determined by a government authority that enforces it with punishment.
We ban all sorts of other beliefs. That's the governments job. That is what they do.

I should say I don't really have a side in this issue but women are forced to wear it, there was article inn guardian last weak about women campaigning against it in Iran and she was beaten the shit up, arrested and only managed to talk to paper by fleeing to Britain.
But on the other hand, if you want to wear a burqa I'm down with that too. I'm generally pretty down with Islam (outside of my want to outlaw all religions, Islam one of the better ones). Fuck I don't know best way toresolve issues.

[Daimo Mac, The Blue Light of Hope]

Well, right now I'm under the impression that some French Canadians hate English Canadians and vice versa. So yeah they do have that problem I guess but it's difficult to say it's as big a problem as when a clearly different racial and ethnic minority is hated on. There are language and cultural and religious hatreds at play in Canada but not racial.

I wasn't talking about the French/English stuff in Quebec. I was referring to the way Natives have been and still are treated.

[Magus]

People are pressured into wearing them. They're rights are infringe.

Why can't I show my junk? What if I'm a cynic- it my religious belief not to wear clothes.



Cause you don't hear from the ones fighting for women's rights. Cause they get imprisoned and tortured.
They used this same fucking argument for slavery as all the slaves they talked to were pretty good with slavery because if they said otherwise they were beaten.

We ban all sorts of other beliefs. That's the governments job. That is what they do.

I should say I don't really have a side in this issue but women are forced to wear it, there was article inn guardian last weak about women campaigning against it in Iran and she was beaten the shit up, arrested and only managed to talk to paper by fleeing to Britain.
But on the other hand, if you want to wear a burqa I'm down with that too. I'm generally pretty down with Islam (outside of my want to outlaw all religions, Islam one of the better ones). Fuck I don't know best way toresolve issues.

1. Supposedly pressured by relatives, not by any French laws, into wearing burqas. You can't tell an adult what they can and cannot do because maybe they were brainwashed into it within their own community. It's not provable.

2. It's my right not see your junk if I don't want to. You're infringing on my right not see your junk. Please don't infringe on my right to not see your junk. Please.

3. No one is being imprisoned or tortured in France. I wasn't defending Iran's use of torture and the law to force people to wear burqas, I was saying that France using the law to force people not to wear burqas is a similar use of the law to infringe on people's rights.

4. It is not the government's job to ban beliefs, or at least it is not my government's job. It may be the government's job to ban actions that harm others, but once again, wearing a burqa does nothing but to the person wearing it. In the absence of legitimate proof a woman is being forced to wear a burqa via threats or violence (in which case the person doing it should be prosecuted for the crime of doing those things and incarcerated, thus freeing the woman of being forced to wear a burqa), you can't force the woman to not wear a burqa because you're infringing on her right to wear it if she wants to.

Basically, let me bring up the famed "snake god" scenario: if you believe people should be able to sacrifice babies to a snake god, it is not the government's job to ban your belief, it is their job to ban you actually going through with it. If you want to wear clothes used in the ceremony of killing babies, it is not the government's job to ban your wearing those clothes, it is the government's job to ban you actually going through with it. If you want to talk about how great it is to kill babies for a snake god, it is not the government's job to ban you from talking about how great it is to kill babies for a snake god, it is the government's job to ban you from going through with it, because it infringes on babies rights not to be sacrificed to snake gods (no matter how much you believe it is cool to sacrifice babies to snake gods).

Anyway, amongst all this talk of sacrificing babies to snake gods, burqas seem like a fairly minor religious belief if people willingly do it without coercion by the government or criminals.

5. Once again, no one has been beaten in France for not wearing a burqa, unless it's taking place behind closed doors, in which case the offenders should be prosecuted, not everyone banned from wearing burqas who wants to do it.

Anyway, right at the end there you said you don't know how to resolve this issue. The way to resolve this issue is to quit making an issue of it and focus on the actual issue of some women being forced to wear burqas with violence or threats of violence, instead of trying to say they can't make up their own minds and so the government should do it for them to protect them from themselves.

EDIT:

I wasn't talking about the French/English stuff in Quebec. I was referring to the way Natives have been and still are treated.

Oh, okay, completely forgot about Native Canadians. America has never properly redressed the wrongs done to Native Americans, either, unlike some of the (half-hearted) attempts with other minorities here.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

The problem is that you can't find the violence because it is behind closed doors. There is no magical violence detector. In addition the wearing of burqas promotes the secularisation of society which in this case is a bad thing.
If you have a way to prevent the oppression of these women while allowing them to wear the burqa out of choice I'd like to hear it.
While I agree with you in theory, I think the safety of women is more important than what clothes you are allowed to wear and there is no way to seperate them right now.

[Fifthfiend]

Because we really need at least one serious thread.

I was just thinking there was too much fun going on here.

EDIT: Burqas are terrible and forcing women to wear them is abominable but this seems less motivated by humanitarian concern than general anti-Muslim sentiment.

[Magus]

Well as an example women allow themselves to be abused, they'll even call the police in cases of domestic violence and the guy will be taken away but if they can't get her to testify against him, and can't even get her to not go back to the guy, well, that is the extent that the government can do, is attempt to prosecute him based on what the arresting officer says or whatever. That is it. I don't want them to go any further than that in attempting to protect people, because sooner or later it's going to lead to them infringing on people who have done nothing wrong.

There is no solution in the case of violence behind closed doors that the women won't report on and that can't be proved, no solution that isn't going to infringe on some innocent person's rights, that is. There are things like women's shelters but you can't force adults to do what they don't want to, it infringes on their rights.

"In addition the wearing of burqas promotes the secularisation of society which in this case is a bad thing." People can promote whatever they want, they have the right to promote their religion out in the open, I have the right to disagree/not listen, we all go home.

[Fifthfiend]

Like stuff like this is pretty terrible (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/may/05/woman-fined-burqa-italy), this woman's husband is an asshole but fining him isn't gonna do shit but have him keep his wife locked up in the house* where she has no chance to see that every other person in the world isn't retarded.

*I can't find the original news story I saw this in but the guy whose wife got fined literally said "I am going to keep her locked up in the house, I can't have other men going around looking at my wife".

[Professor Smarmiarty]

When they secularisation leads to a culture of endemic violence against women, no they don't have that right.
And one solution to closed door violence is to help intergrate these women into wider society and allow them a better understanding of their rights in this new society and how they don't have to do what their husband says and they can associate with French peoples.
Fifth makes a good point that a lot of this is mostly just anti-muslim and fuck that noise.
But in the long run, banning burqas will help womans rights and that's more fucking important than people-mostly men- concerned about their religious right to force women to wear what they want.
Sometimes you gotta compromise.

[Marc v4.0]

Shemlin woman are forced, behind closed doors, to wear jeans and t-shirts against their will. Torture and Physical/verbal abuse are common to enforce this religious dress code. So we are going to ban the wearing of jeans and t-shirts from anyone and everyone.

This fixes dick-all and we all know that. Burqas are not the problem, they are fabric and material and unable to oppress or abuse or coerce or anything other then be worn. People are more then able.

[Magus]

When they secularisation leads to a culture of endemic violence against women, no they don't have that right.
And one solution to closed door violence is to help intergrate these women into wider society and allow them a better understanding of their rights in this new society and how they don't have to do what their husband says and they can associate with French peoples.
Fifth makes a good point that a lot of this is mostly just anti-muslim and fuck that noise.

I fail to see how women willingly wearing a burqa leads to a "culture of endemic violence against women", letting people get away with domestic violence could lead to a culture of endemic violence against women, true. Said domestic violence happens to involve forcing them to wear burqas. It's a symptom, not the cause. You can't legislate against people willingly wearing burqas because you think legislating against wearing burqas at all will help these women get out of abusive relationships (note: it WON'T, they simply won't go out at all and will actually have less interaction with French culture and they will have less understanding of their rights, plus you're reducing the rights of other women who are willingly doing it).

You can't forcefully integrate people into society, women who are letting men force them to wear burqas aren't going to go against their man when he says "Fine then, you can't go out at all if you can't wear a burqa."

The part that isn't anti-Muslim sentiment is misguided nanny state-ism and/or worthless as a measure of actually helping these women.

Measures that do nothing to help are not superior to no measures, especially when they make things worse for women who want to wear burqas willingly.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Shemlin woman are forced, behind closed doors, to wear jeans and t-shirts against their will. Tirture and Physical/verbal abuse are common to enforce this dress code. So we are going to ban the wearing of jeans and t-shirts from anyone and everyone.
I don't know who these people are?

This fixes dick-all and we all know that. Burqas are not the problem, they are fabric and material and unable to oppress or abuse or coerce or anything other then be worn. People are more then able.

It is part of a set of tools used to oppress women. It seperates them from society at large which prevents them from going to the police, from seeking help from without their own community.
It's the same as making Jews wear stars- it is a tactic to seperate them for wider society to keep them oppressed.

Re Mark:
My point is that lots of these women aren't wearing it willingly. You only hear from the ones who are because the ones who aren't aren't allowed to talk to anyboy.

[Marc v4.0]

I don't know who these people are?

made up as a point

My point is that lots of these women aren't wearing it willingly. You only hear from the ones who are because the ones who aren't aren't allowed to talk to anyboy.

and forcing them NOT to wear them is going to make the ones forcing them not to talk to do...what?

RE: Stars

The stars weren't the problem. Taking up arms and forcibly removing the stars from every single Jewish man woman and child wouldn't have stopped the Nazi party in the least, not even slowed them down. Stopping the Nazi Party itself was what did the trick.

[Magus]

Obviously you didn't see my post before you posted Barrel but I reiterate that these women will not be allowed to go out at all if they are allowing their husbands or fathers or other men in their lives to force them to wear a burqa.

"It's the same as making Jews wear stars" Again, that was a governmental measure of a fascist regime, and the government forcing people to not wear stars would be tantamount to the same thing.

Plus, you brought up nazis in your argument. Poor show.

[Kim]

My point is that lots of these women aren't wearing it willingly. You only hear from the ones who are because the ones who aren't aren't allowed to talk to anyboy.

1. What about the ones who are?

2. What about the thing people keep bringing up where the husbands just won't let them out at all if the wives can't wear burkas? I'd think not being able to leave the house to any degree whatsoever is probably a bigger restraint on interaction with the outside world than wearing a burka.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

made up as a point

Bro it's election night ,I'm fucked as a shit, you need to keep it simple for me

[QUPTE]
and forcing them NOT to wear them is going to make the ones forcing them not to talk to do...what?[/QUOTE]

It's going to allow them to intergrate more, to feel less visibly seperate from society. Part of a bigger strategy.
Also it takes away a bit of thier power.
Sure it not going to fix everything but it better than doing nothing.

Obviously you didn't see my post before you posted Barrel but I reiterate that these women will not be allowed to go out at all if they are allowing their husbands or fathers or other men in their lives to force them to wear a burqa.
It's about removing their power, startig to intergrate them into state. You do what you can.

"It's the same as making Jews wear stars" Again, that was a governmental measure of a fascist regime, and the government forcing people to not wear stars would be tantamount to the same thing.

Does it matter? The end result is the same.#

1. What about the ones who are?
You gotta make compromises. Peoples safety is more important than peoples right to choose their clothes.

2. What about the thing people keep bringing up where the husbands just won't let them out at all if the wives can't wear burkas? I'd think not being able to leave the house to any degree whatsoever is probably a bigger restraint on interaction with the outside world than wearing a burka.

As I said numerous times ,you can't sit around and do nothing you needt odo whwat you can to erode their power. The power to dictate outfits is a surprisingly effective power- there is a reason totalatarian states love uniforms. Sure removing that power isn't going to solve everything overnight but it is one step.

[Julford Hajime]

Oh, okay, completely forgot about Native Canadians. America has never properly redressed the wrongs done to Native Americans, either, unlike some of the (half-hearted) attempts with other minorities here.
Allow me to interject here, as I am a Native American. The government as a whole has not made any half-assed attempt at reparations or whatever (Okay kinda maybe, shut up). However, multiple states have. In Michigan, for example, I can attend any state-funded school, and the state pays my tuition. I get a free college education, basically. Also, the state has set aside fairly large chunks of land in the frozen Upper Peninsula that the tribe is free to build residencies on; my father's half of the family all live in the UP for free because the tribe gives this land away.

Sure okay fine I can't live in a little hut and catch deer/fish all day, but I'm gonna go ahead and say I like the reparations I'm getting anyway, my ancestors misfortune be damned.

[Magus]

Bro it's election night ,I'm fucked as a shit, you need to keep it simple for me


and forcing them NOT to wear them is going to make the ones forcing them not to talk to do...what?

It's going to allow them to intergrate more, to feel less visibly seperate from society. Part of a bigger strategy.
Also it takes away a bit of thier power.
Sure it not going to fix everything but it better than doing nothing.

No no no no no no no no NO. I almost feel like starting another topic to address this logic.

Doing something that makes things worse is not superior to doing nothing.

It's not going to allow them to integrate more. It's not going to take away the power that their abusers have over them. Heck, they'll probably use it as an excuse to advance their extremist agenda. "Hey, look at these Western infidels infringing on our religious rights, you shouldn't be associating with such people, stay in the house."

[pochercoaster]

Edit: Ninja'd by a bajillion people.

Only about 400 women in France cover their faces: http://www.stylelist.com/2010/01/07/france-to-fine-women-who-wear-burqas-in-public/

Incidentally, this article makes a point that I tried to state earlier but did so less eloquently:

He can use the "it is a subjugation of women" language as much as he wants, but do we really think that Sarkozy is formulating policy to fight for the rights of Muslim women? If he was, he would factor in the issue of how many French Muslim women may not be allowed to go to schools, may be denied medical care and have their mobility curbed in general because their (sexist) male guardians may not allow them out of the house without the burqa. We are seeing women's bodies being exploited for political purposes.

The truth of the matter is, France has to address its larger issue of Muslim integration instead of making a false case about Muslim women's rights. Banning the burqa is not going to force Muslim women to wear tank tops and voila! suddenly become more French. In reality, it could have quite the opposite effect, marginalizing Muslim minorities and forcing them to become more extreme in their beliefs as they see them come under attack.

Basically France just wants to send a message to tell muslims to fuck off. It doesn't really help "liberate" anybody by telling them to stay far away in their native country. (I mean, not that I think it's really their business to go around "liberating" countries. I'm just pointing out the flawed reasoning.) I doubt anyone really cares that such a tiny population wears burqas. This law is just to make a statement, it doesn't do shit all.

If you want to better the world you do it by educating people and allowing them to come to their own conclusions, even if they're flawed. Once you step that boundary you start to get into fascism. And honestly this reminds me a little too much of facecrime.

[Wigmund]

Oh, okay, completely forgot about Native Canadians. America has never properly redressed the wrongs done to Native Americans, either, unlike some of the (half-hearted) attempts with other minorities here.

Native Americans can build casinos and are buying back their former homelands from stupid whites who go and gamble their life savings away.

The problem is that you can't find the violence because it is behind closed doors. There is no magical violence detector. In addition the wearing of burqas promotes the secularisation of society which in this case is a bad thing.
If you have a way to prevent the oppression of these women while allowing them to wear the burqa out of choice I'd like to hear it.
While I agree with you in theory, I think the safety of women is more important than what clothes you are allowed to wear and there is no way to seperate them right now.

Who's to say that if this law is passed that the more conservative Muslims women just won't leave their homes so they won't have to obey the law? Either by their own choice or due to patriarchal influence, they'd most likely just withdraw from society at large. And it's just me, but if one wants to keep a community from becoming hostile to the country at large, this law and its probable effects are a bad thing.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

I'm not seeing them locking up women if you ban the burqa. I really really don't. I don't think we are going to agree and I don't feel like arguing the point so I drop it.

But the article above raises a good piont in that Sarkozy is a slimy little racist, nationalistic fuckwit. Noway is he doing this to protect women's rights. So in that regard I'm against it.
I think the rest of the thread should be Sarkozy slurs like:
"Sarkozy? More like Farkozy!"

[Kim]

I'm not seeing them locking up women if you ban the burqa. I really really don't.

Fifth linked an article about a husband who did exactly that. WHAT

[Marc v4.0]

Yeah, I don't think this is getting anywhere at all...

[Magus]

You gotta make compromises. Peoples safety is more important than peoples right to choose their clothes.

Alright, this almost makes me think you're just playing with us. You seem like the opposite of "security is more important than freedom" in like every other topic. I think. Maybe I'm thinking of other people on the board.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Fifth linked an article about a husband who did exactly that. WHAT

Yeah cause we should forget the entirety of waht we know about psychology, oppression of minorities and how to fight it cause of one guy. Good to know.
WHAT

Alright, this almost makes me think you're just playing with us. You seem like the opposite of "security is more important than freedom" in like every other topic. I think. Maybe I'm thinking of other people on the board.

No that's me but generally security means harassing minorities and beating up poor people. And I suppose I shoul oppose this maybe but this is my one emotive spot.

[Osterbaum]

He can use the "it is a subjugation of women" language as much as he wants, but do we really think that Sarkozy is formulating policy to fight for the rights of Muslim women? If he was, he would factor in the issue of how many French Muslim women may not be allowed to go to schools, may be denied medical care and have their mobility curbed in general because their (sexist) male guardians may not allow them out of the house without the burqa. We are seeing women's bodies being exploited for political purposes.

The truth of the matter is, France has to address its larger issue of Muslim integration instead of making a false case about Muslim women's rights. Banning the burqa is not going to force Muslim women to wear tank tops and voila! suddenly become more French. In reality, it could have quite the opposite effect, marginalizing Muslim minorities and forcing them to become more extreme in their beliefs as they see them come under attack.
This. I mean this sums up my view on the subject.

[Kim]

Yeah cause we should forget the entirety of waht we know about psychology, oppression of minorities and how to fight it cause of one guy. Good to know.
WHAT

I'm just saying, when a bunch of people are like "Hey, this is probably what will happen if you do this", and somebody does it and the end result is exactly what was predicted there may be something to the argument. And why exactly would they not just keep their wives locked up? Obviously they don't give a fuck about the rights of their wives, so I'm kinda curious as to your reasoning on this one.

[Marc v4.0]

I don't see the psychology behind "Remove Burqas - Magically Liberated!".

[Magus]

Yeah cause we should forget the entirety of waht we know about psychology, oppression of minorities and how to fight it cause of one guy. Good to know.
WHAT


Explain how what we know about psychology will make these women change their subservience to men based on the rules laid down by a government they probably consider morally corrupt, and despite all the evidence of abused women continuing to allow men to abuse them.

Where has a rule like this combated the oppression of minorities before? Minorities who willingly allow themselves to be abused and oppressed? For example, desegregation worked in America because African Americans spoke up against it and wanted to be desegregated. However, those who didn't want to be desegregated probably continued to not associate with white people, and vice versa. It was still the right thing for the government to do, though, because it was giving a right to people, addressing an infringement, not taking it away.

Basically the only way to make this law work is you make burqas illegal and then forcefully make these women go out into society, and governments don't have the right to do that because unlike with say, school, going to the supermarket is not mandatory. In America you could make different races interact for 8 hours a day in schools and I guess places of work and the military, but that was it. Other than that you couldn't make races associate with one another. Desegregation was still a good thing though because yes, that forced association did eventually alleviate (some) racial tensions in America. It's not going to work in this case though because there won't be any forced association for these women.

Unless you mean over the course of like, a few generations of young girls being forced to go to school and not wearing burqas, it will probably work, maybe. But you'd still be infringing on all the women who willingly want to wear burqas right now's rights. So it would work (maybe, and over the course of a long period of time), but by taking away someone's right to do something, something which doesn't affect other people (unlike segregation), which is fundamentally unsound. Plus it will only work if those young girls don't then willingly take up the burqa like their mothers, even in the absence of violent coercion, which is entirely possible because it is happening right now with some women who are wearing burqas.

[Daimo Mac, The Blue Light of Hope]

Allow me to interject here, as I am a Native American. The government as a whole has not made any half-assed attempt at reparations or whatever (Okay kinda maybe, shut up). However, multiple states have. In Michigan, for example, I can attend any state-funded school, and the state pays my tuition. I get a free college education, basically. Also, the state has set aside fairly large chunks of land in the frozen Upper Peninsula that the tribe is free to build residencies on; my father's half of the family all live in the UP for free because the tribe gives this land away.

Sure okay fine I can't live in a little hut and catch deer/fish all day, but I'm gonna go ahead and say I like the reparations I'm getting anyway, my ancestors misfortune be damned.

Wow. In Canada, anyone of native decent get 100 000 on your 18th birthday and not much else as far as I know.

[bluestarultor]

You know, I'm going to throw the religious rule out here for a moment, because fuck it, this is religious.

So yeah, taking away a religious piece of clothing, the burqa. This could be compared to, say, making it illegal to pray in public places. Catholics and probably other Christians do this all the time, specifically by saying Grace before they eat. So pull that out from under them. Anyone praying before they eat gets a fine. Police will be watching out for it and there will be security cameras in all the restaurants and cafes that someone has to monitor. Pray too many times, you get thrown in jail. After all, the Catholic church has been known for oppressing women, too. Like forbidding birth control. Women should have control over their own bodies in this enlightened age, and we can't have any silly religion getting in the way because the church is making them pray and holding them to a set of rules that are harder on women than men.

It's a small price to pay, and against religious codes for many people, and only tangentially related to the issue, but dammit, it's gonna work!

[Magus]

About Native Americans: Man, all the white guilt is being stripped away from me as we speak--aww, shit, there's still like all that other stuff, tons of it. Dammit.

Actually paying people money for the horrific deaths of their ancestors is precisely shallow enough to maintain my dismay with humanity, anyway.

But then 100,000 sounds like an awful lot of money...even for the dearth of your entire culture. Shit. I can't live with myself anymore for thinking that.

I mean, they get that just for being born. They don't actually have to go through it themselves. But then they are everyday because they don't have the same job opportunities and they're starting so far behind. But it's not actually helping the ancestors who were tortured and butchered. But maybe it is respecting their memory by helping their descendants even in a minor way. But maybe...

Meh, I'll just quit being selfish and say, "Hey, good, someone's getting some money" since after all everybody should probably be getting 100,000 dollars from the government when they turn 18, I'm not going to rain on anyone's parade just because I should be getting a slice too. We should all be getting slices!

[Eltargrim]

This is the first time I've ever heard of the $100k thing. Maybe it's one band? I know it's not across the board. In general, the situations on the reserves I've personally been to have ranged from pretty good to downright criminal. It's a fucked up issue.

[bluestarultor]

About Native Americans: Man, all the white guilt is being stripped away from me as we speak--aww, shit, there's still like all that other stuff, tons of it. Dammit.

Actually paying people money for the horrific deaths of their ancestors is precisely shallow enough to maintain my dismay with humanity, anyway.

But then 100,000 sounds like an awful lot of money...even for the dearth of your entire culture. Shit. I can't live with myself anymore for thinking that.

I mean, they get that just for being born. They don't actually have to go through it themselves. But then they are everyday because they don't have the same job opportunities and they're starting so far behind. But it's not actually helping the ancestors who were tortured and butchered. But maybe it is respecting their memory by helping their descendants even in a minor way. But maybe...

Meh, I'll just quit being selfish and say, "Hey, good, someone's getting some money" since after all everybody should probably be getting 100,000 dollars from the government when they turn 18, I'm not going to rain on anyone's parade just because I should be getting a slice too. We should all be getting slices!

I'm of the opinion that "white guilt" is destructive to society as a whole because it continues to place a rift between whites and everyone else. We're not "making up for" jack, but it makes us feel better for all the things we did to all those poor, inferior- oh, shit, we're supposed to be equal now, so you can't say that. Only they're not "equal," because despite all the things white society is "granting" them to help them "compensate," whites still feel the need to "grant" stuff to people to help them "compensate." That's pretty much pity, if you think about it. Nobody expects the same things out of other races, either. White kids are basically implicitly expected to go to college and succeed, but when a black kid does it, it's special? They're doing the same thing. Yeah, maybe there are higher walls for a black guy compared to a white guy like myself, but I don't feel guilty about it. My problem is that the walls still exist, when there are plenty of people of every heritage just as smart as I am.

By just dumping money and quotas on everyone, you're not actually helping. You're just making yourself feel better from atop your high horse. If white society REALLY thought that everyone was equal, we'd stop giving everyone who's not white handouts and actually start fixing the problems with our own society that's putting them in such rotten positions in the first place.


TL;DR: "White guilt" amounts to a bullshit excuse that prevents us from needing to actually fix the problem.

[Daimo Mac, The Blue Light of Hope]

This is the first time I've ever heard of the $100k thing. Maybe it's one band? I know it's not across the board. In general, the situations on the reserves I've personally been to have ranged from pretty good to downright criminal. It's a fucked up issue.

Hmm, interesting. Still, 100 grand (to me at least) doesn't make up for the decades of abuse at the residential schools, forcing them onto reservations, and all around prime douchery..

[Archbio]

Despite all the women saying they aren't pressured into it? They must be brainwashed by the patriarchal communities they live in to say that. Better remove them from those environments all together and give them some reeducation.

Some women saying that they aren't pressured into it doesn't mean that some women aren't, in reality, pressured into it.

And the brainwashing/reeducation thing is just so way over the top.

[DFM]

Hmm, interesting. Still, 100 grand (to me at least) doesn't make up for the decades of abuse at the residential schools, forcing them onto reservations, and all around prime douchery..

I dunno I think I'd forgive everybody for almost anything if they gave me a hundred grand.

[Premmy]

I dunno I think I'd forgive everybody for almost anything if they gave me a hundred grand.

Yeah, but you're a whore so
http://www.fyvie.net/images/shrug_thumb.jpg

[Daimo Mac, The Blue Light of Hope]

I dunno I think I'd forgive everybody for almost anything if they gave me a hundred grand.

So you're saying that is if I:
Manipulated you from out of your ancestors lands

Raped your women

Forced you into Christian Schools and were told that your beliefs were wrong.


Sexuallly molested you at these schools


Forced you onto reservations where drug and alcohol abuse run rampant


Where (for the most part), gangs run rampant


Then gave you 100 000 dollars, you would be fine with that? Up until 2-3 years ago, the government did not acknowledge the atrocities occurred at these schools. And that had been happening up until the early 20th century.

I may crow about how great Canada is when I compare it to the states sometimes, but when race issues come up, I will be silent because Canada was just as bad, if not worse then our American counterparts.

[Wigmund]

I may crow about how great Canada is when I compare it to the states sometimes, but when race issues come up, I will be silent because Canada was just as bad, if not worse then our American counterparts.

You can say one thing at least, our countries have treated the Native tribes better than how the Australians have been treating their aboriginal populations.

[Premmy]

and I thought Oppression Olympics was bad.....

[Daimo Mac, The Blue Light of Hope]

You can say one thing at least, our countries have treated the Native tribes better than how the Australians have been treating their aboriginal populations.

I take it it is far worse then the America's?

[greed]

On the mainland we did all the stuff you did and more. And they still average a life span and quality of life closer to the third world than first. I think I read somewhere they're close to 10 000 times more likely to be gaoled than any other ethnic group in Australia.

Also in Tasmania we actually hunted them to extinction like animals. So... yeah.

[DFM]

Mac I am not three hundred years old so basically I would have to contend with growing up in a third world country in order to get a hundred thousand dollars when like I turn eighteen or something. Seeing as how most people do that without a hundred thousand dollars waiting for them at adulthood I would probably be like "Thanks for the hundred thousand dollars you've bought my acceptance of your crimes"

Yeah, but you're a whore so

Also this

[01d55]

Well I am. But I don't think anyone else is.

At UCSC there's a shop called the Kresge Co-op that's usually got a bunch of anarcho-communist pamphlets lying around. Really good customer service, a shame they don't carry any meat products.

[Magus]

Anarcho-Communism seems a bit contradictory, how can you have a communist society which I'm assuming is built around pretty strong centralized control and yet be anarchists which oppose any control over what they do? One or the other would make sense but either it's an improper label for what it represents or it's contradictory...

[Kim]

I think the idea is once you magically cure people of greed with heavy doses of communism or whatever, then there won't be any need of government and we can all live in peace or something.

[Marc v4.0]

So, to answer the question, ~*M~A~G~I~C~!~