French Senate Approves a Ban on Burqas

[Gokul43201]

I don't think the primary difference is what Jack describes it as. However, I do believe there is a difference, in that, like mheslep (correct me if I'm mistaken here), I think this law is in significant part a reaction to Muslim immigrants not integrating as much into French society as the French electorate would like. (i.e., the "ostensibly" in your post above holds the crux).

 

[CRGreathouse]

However, I do believe there is a difference, in that, like mheslep (correct me if I'm mistaken here), I think this law is in significant part a reaction to Muslim immigrants not integrating as much into French society as the French electorate would like. (i.e., the "ostensibly" in your post above holds the crux).

Indeed -- I was careful to keep that word in, even though its repetition was jarring to me. But I still have an unanswered question for mheslep on that point, and without that I'd prefer to not delve more deeply into that matter. (But don'y let my reservations stop you, by any means!)

 

[stevenb]

This is a very slippery slope. Next, long hair drapped over the face will be banned. Then long beards. Then eyepatches and big dark sunglasses. Maybe heavy makeup too.


And, if these things don't happen, what does that say about the real reason for the ban?

 

[Jack21222]

I don't see the difference. The nanny state requires seat belts to protect the safety of the drivers who wouldn't otherwise buckle up, but do under the law. This nanny state bans burqas (ostensibly, at least) to protect the civil liberties of those who would otherwise wear them, but don't under the law.

Unless perhaps you are distinguishing between "civil rights" (that which is being protected, in theory, here) from safety, health, morality, and other things such legislation is meant to protect?

I was making that distinction, yes. It just adds an element of irony to say "we're taking away your rights to protect your rights."

Contrast that with "we're taking away your rights to protect your safety."

 

[CRGreathouse]

I was making that distinction, yes. It just adds an element of irony to say "we're taking away your rights to protect your rights."

Contrast that with "we're taking away your rights to protect your safety."

I suppose there's some irony there.

As a libertarian, I tend to oppose both in general.

 

[mheslep]

So, you're supporting the rights of these women by threatening them with jail time for wearing what they want to?

"So..."? No. No I would not support such a law or penalty in the US, even if it were not unconstitutional, as it no doubt would be.

 

[Jack21222]

"So..."? No. No I would not support such a law or penalty in the US, even if it were not unconstitutional, as it no doubt would be.

But you'd support it in France. I see.

 

[CRGreathouse]

But you'd support it in France. I see.

If you look at post #22, you'll see that mheslep was explaining (as requested) the justification -- actually, his interpretation of Sarkosy's justification -- for the law, rather than expressing personal support.

 

[mheslep]

If you look at post #22, you'll see that mheslep was explaining (as requested) the justification -- actually, his interpretation of Sarkosy's justification -- for the law, rather than expressing personal support.

Yes, exactly. Also I'm not a citizen of France, so I'm slow to jump up and say what laws make sense for France, though I have no inhibition about discussing the Western liberal tradition in general terms, its benefits and the threats to it.

CRG - I'll hopefully get back to you as requested in a couple days, about to travel ...

 

[Proton Soup]

i'm having a hard time seeing this as anti-muslim. (it's not even a mainstream muslim garb.) more like a backlash against a certain political element. perhaps it would be the same as not allowing kids to come to school dressed like skinheads.

 

[JaredJames]

The school I attended recently banned the 'hoodie' jackets due to people feeling intimidated by them, and the ability to hide peoples faces when they are breaking the rules (skipping classes, running from teachers etc).

Not quite on the same scale, but still the only similar comparison I've seen.

I see no more wrong in doing that than banning the burqa. I showed paragraphs from the qu'ran which tell women to cover up, so I don't accept it is always a woman's choice to wear it, given how literal the book is taken.

As far as I'm concerned, if that's what the majority of people want in France, then I don't see a problem with it.

 

[Jack21222]

Yes, exactly. Also I'm not a citizen of France, so I'm slow to jump up and say what laws make sense for France, though I have no inhibition about discussing the Western liberal tradition in general terms, its benefits and the threats to it.

CRG - I'll hopefully get back to you as requested in a couple days, about to travel ...

I misread that then, I apologize.

 

[CRGreathouse]

CRG - I'll hopefully get back to you as requested in a couple days, about to travel ...

Take your time, no hurry.

Thanks, as always, for sharing your thoughts.

 

[CRGreathouse]

I misread that then, I apologize.

I misread it as well! I had to go back to the original posts to figure out where he was going, at which point I figured I should post so others wouldn't be confused as I was.

 

[CRGreathouse]

As far as I'm concerned, if that's what the majority of people want in France, then I don't see a problem with it.

How far would you take this justification?

 

[JaredJames]

How far would you take this justification?

It's a piece of cloth used to conceal women, we're not talking about murder here (I know that's what you were going for).

There is a difference between people wanting migrants (whether new or current) to remove a rather obvious object of segregation and people demanding murder.

 

[CRGreathouse]

(I know that's what you were going for).

I wasn't 'going for' anything. I saw argument that, on the face of it, would apply to many things, and suspected that you wouldn't want to follow that slope to its logical extreme. So I asked a clarifying question in the hope that you would explain what distinguished this case from other, more extreme cases that you would (presumably) reject.

So, in essence, I'm asking what the difference (below in red) is between this law and any demand in place of blue, below. So what makes it different from murder (your example, not mine!), but also what makes it different from segregation or other things citizens might want.

There is a difference between people wanting migrants (whether new or current) to remove a rather obvious object of segregation and people demanding murder.

 

[drankin]

Hey, 80+% want to be able to see someones face and are voting to enforce it. Plenty of other places to migrate (or not migrating at all) if you don't want your face to be seen.

I have to give them this, the French won't give you the time of day if you don't speak the language (so I've heard). They are maintaining their values within their borders. If only we did the same in the US.

 

[Andre]

In an informal poll in Holland today it was stated on the TV-news that 94% of he respondents was in favor of a burqa ban. However this poll required active participation, hence it is not a representative average of the population.

 

[JaredJames]

Hey, 80+% want to be able to see someones face and are voting to enforce it. Plenty of other places to migrate (or not migrating at all) if you don't want your face to be seen.

Exactly, the people want it, why not. If the government don't do what the people want they do riot and strike rather well. Look at this years french world cup team strike... enough said.

I have to give them this, the French won't give you the time of day if you don't speak the language (so I've heard).

It's true (at least when I was there), would barely communicate, that is, until they realized I wanted to buy something (and then you find everyone speaks your language...)

They are maintaining their values within their borders. If only we did the same in the US.

And the UK!

Regarding the difference between telling people to remove their burqa and murder, that would come more under my own moral and ethical grounds I suppose.

 

[Jack21222]

I have to give them this, the French won't give you the time of day if you don't speak the language (so I've heard). They are maintaining their values within their borders. If only we did the same in the US.

If we did the same in the US, I wouldn't want to live here.

 

[Gokul43201]

In an informal poll in Holland today it was stated on the TV-news that 94% of he respondents was in favor of a burqa ban. However this poll required active participation, hence it is not a representative average of the population.

I wouldn't be surprised if the real numbers were close to that estimate. If my reading of the situation is correct (that there is a sizeable component based on opposition to Muslim immigration feeding this position on the burqa ban), then the Dutch (with their recent history involving Theo Van Gogh, and their large Muslim population - last I heard, Amsterdam and Rotterdam had more Muslims per capita than any other city in Western Europe) could be right up there harboring the strongest feelings in this regard.

 

[Gokul43201]

Regarding the difference between telling people to remove their burqa and murder, that would come more under my own moral and ethical grounds I suppose.

In other words, you offer no rational distinction - it's simply a matter of your personal taste.

 

[Ken Natton]

I live in the North West of England, and it is now a commonplace, almost daily occurrence to see a woman wearing a burqa. It is something that makes me deeply uncomfortable, but that discomfort has nothing whatever to do with any spurious notion of a terrorist threat. I know of no case, anywhere in the world, where a burqa has been actively used as a means of avoiding detection or identification in the prosecution of a criminal act.

But whatever the stated function of the burqa, and whatever the women who wear one may themselves claim about their contentment to wear it, it is abundantly clear to me that its key function is the suppression of her identity to the end of maintaining a status quo that disadvantages her. It is equally clear to me that such a thing is entirely incompatible with liberal principles.

The problem is that this issue is a minefield of hypocrisy for liberalism. It is inherently patronising for anyone to say to such a woman that you know what is good for her better than she does. Whatever doubts I may feel, if she claims that she wants to wear it, then it no less illiberal to tell her that she cannot. All a liberal society can do is vigorously defend its liberal principles by ensuring that everyone understands that no-one can force them to wear such a garment, whatever it may say in their religious text, and to hope that, in time, the habit of wearing the burqa will naturally fall into disuse.

 

[zomgwtf]

If the vast majority of French want this ban then who are we to say anything about it?

For those of you who are comparing this to govn't murder... L-O-L. I suppose the govn't telling you you can't go over 120km/h by a police officer is akin to govn't grand larcen. Or laws requiring you to not run around naked outside is govn't sponsored genocide. This is stupid burqa ban =/= murder what-so-ever. Give up the dramatic comparissons.

The people of France have spoken, they don't want people going aroudn theircountry in public wearing a burqa. SIMPLE. You want to wear this fabulous item of clothing go somewhere that cares. I for one don't support this:

as the entire body, including face and hands are considered elements of the awrah- that which should be concealed in public from males unrelated by blood or marriage.

And I think if an entire country is against this they have the democratic right to do away with it. They don't need any more rational support than the people of France do not want this here.

Just like the people of some American states don't need any more rational support than 'the people of Texas want this here.' You'd be hard pressed to find a credible source indicating it's supported for anything but rational reasons. A major one in my mind is culture. Alas 70% of Texans support the death penalty and it's their democratic right to do so. You don't like that? Don't commit a crime there. You scared you might be wrongly convicted being a bystander? Don't go there. Simple.

 

[Gokul43201]

If the vast majority of French want this ban then who are we to say anything about it?

If the vast majority of Americans were to approve of torturing detainees, does that make the topic closed to any outsider? There have been gazillions of US political issues that have been open to debate at PF among the entirety of it's membership. Why shouldn't anyone who is not French not be able to debate this issue?

Besides debating the rationale, effectiveness, morality, repercussions, etc. of such an action, there are still the legal issues of constitutionality and International (or at least EU-based) human rights concerns to be addressed. I believe the latter has been answered, and found to be free of conflict, but the question of constitutionality is still under review.

And to take up your Texas argument ... until a few years ago, consensual sodomy was illegal in Texas. Most of the people of Texas approved of the ban, but it was eventually struck down because it was found to be unconstitutional. France is also a Constitutional Democracy. It can not expect to pass and enforce laws simply because the electorate wants something.

 

[waht]

The health effects of Burqas in northern climates:

In Ireland, which is experiencing a large influx of muslim immigrants at the moment, women wearing the burqa, doctors are warning, 'are at increased risk of pelvic fractures during childbirth because of vitamin D deficiency due to a lack of sunlight. "And babies born to women with vitamin D deficiency are also more prone to seizures in their first week of life," according to Dr Miriam Casey, expert in Medicine for the Elderly at the Osteoporosis Unit in St James’s hospital in Dublin. The burqa - an all-enveloping outer garment, does not allow enough sunlight through to give women sufficient vitamin D, she warns.

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/272307

 

[JaredJames]

If the vast majority of French want this ban then who are we to say anything about it?

For those of you who are comparing this to govn't murder... L-O-L. I suppose the govn't telling you you can't go over 120km/h by a police officer is akin to govn't grand larcen. Or laws requiring you to not run around naked outside is govn't sponsored genocide. This is stupid burqa ban =/= murder what-so-ever. Give up the dramatic comparissons.

The people of France have spoken, they don't want people going aroudn theircountry in public wearing a burqa. SIMPLE. You want to wear this fabulous item of clothing go somewhere that cares. I for one don't support this:

And I think if an entire country is against this they have the democratic right to do away with it. They don't need any more rational support than the people of France do not want this here.

Just like the people of some American states don't need any more rational support than 'the people of Texas want this here.' You'd be hard pressed to find a credible source indicating it's supported for anything but rational reasons. A major one in my mind is culture. Alas 70% of Texans support the death penalty and it's their democratic right to do so. You don't like that? Don't commit a crime there. You scared you might be wrongly convicted being a bystander? Don't go there. Simple.

This is exactly how I see it. I don't consider murder equal to the burqa ban, but when I say "if the majority want it then do it", people immediately go to extremes. With all due respect, by asking "how far would you take this justification?", you are clearly looking at whether or not I would use it to justify murder or other extremes.

If the majority of people want something enough and you don't respond to it, then they'll simply switch political support to a party who will.

Constitutions can be amended.

 

[loseyourname]

When Harry Truman integrated the armed forces, he conducted a survey of soldiers first. 93% didn't want to integrate.

That's the difference between the US and France.

 

[nismaratwork]

When Harry Truman integrated the armed forces, he conducted a survey of soldiers first. 93% didn't want to integrate.

That's the difference between the US and France.

Well, to their credit the french are very accepting of raw milk products... delicious!... they just don't extend the same courtesy to people. The public is a manipulated entity in any country, and progress in a republic often has to be the result of leadership. This, is poor leadership in my view, for all that I wouldn't want any woman I know to feel the need to wear a burqa.

 

[humanino]

When Harry Truman integrated the armed forces, he conducted a survey of soldiers first. 93% didn't want to integrate.

That's the difference between the US and France.

Note that you do not know why they integrated.

 

[CRGreathouse]

This is exactly how I see it. I don't consider murder equal to the burqa ban, but when I say "if the majority want it then do it", people immediately go to extremes. With all due respect, by asking "how far would you take this justification?", you are clearly looking at whether or not I would use it to justify murder or other extremes.

I don't know why you continue with this strawman. You brought it up, I don't think anyone is suggesting it.

But I do want to know if you have an explanation for the reasons this would differ from any other populist sentiment, lest it become (as Gokul suggests) a matter of taste.

 

[JaredJames]

I don't know why you continue with this strawman. You brought it up, I don't think anyone is suggesting it.

But I do want to know if you have an explanation for the reasons this would differ from any other populist sentiment, lest it become (as Gokul suggests) a matter of taste.

Ok then, when i was asked "how far would you take this justification", what do you think it was reffering to?

 

[CRGreathouse]

Ok then, when i was asked "how far would you take this justification", what do you think it was reffering to?

I asked the question, so I know it wasn't referring to murder. (I'm not even sure how that would work.) I just wanted the justification so that I could understand why you thought that it should apply in that case, if there was some case that (presumably) you would not apply that reasoning to.

 

[fuzzyfelt]

Besides debating the rationale, effectiveness, morality, repercussions, etc. of such an action, there are still the legal issues of constitutionality and International (or at least EU-based) human rights concerns to be addressed. I believe the latter has been answered, and found to be free of conflict, but the question of constitutionality is still under review.

I've looked but haven't found where the (ECHR?) human rights concerns have been adressed and found free of conflict. I'd be interested to know the reasons given.