This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

← France officially bans the burka

France officially bans the burka - Comments

huzonfurst's Avatar Comment 1 by huzonfurst

Vive la France!

Mon, 11 Apr 2011 13:35:27 UTC | #613929

green and dying's Avatar Comment 2 by green and dying

There are much more severe penalties for anyone found guilty of forcing someone else to hide his or her face "through threats, violence, constraint, abuse of authority or power for reason of their gender".

I can support this part but what I don't understand is that if they're taking the view that being made to wear a burka is abuse (which it is), why would they even think about setting a punishment for the victim?

Mon, 11 Apr 2011 13:37:15 UTC | #613930

petengeth's Avatar Comment 3 by petengeth

It could be abuse or voluntary, hence the far harsher punishment for abuse.

Mon, 11 Apr 2011 13:47:18 UTC | #613932

green and dying's Avatar Comment 4 by green and dying

Comment 3 by petengeth :

It could be abuse or voluntary, hence the far harsher punishment for abuse.

But the abuse victim is still committing a crime by being an abuse victim.

Mon, 11 Apr 2011 13:50:34 UTC | #613937

God fearing Atheist's Avatar Comment 5 by God fearing Atheist

Comment 2 by green and dying :

why would they even think about setting a punishment for the victim?

Because its cheap? Its what I call "law by correlation". You don't detect and punish the actual crime, you pick on an associated activity that correlates. I remember a news story where there was a lot of graffiti in a town centre. Rather than putting in security cameras and police patrols to catch the actual criminals they put a curfew on teenagers in the town centre at night. A teenage boy and Liberty took them to court. Unfortunately, they used the fact that he was an xtian as a indication he was an upstanding citizen!

Mon, 11 Apr 2011 13:53:04 UTC | #613938

helena!'s Avatar Comment 6 by helena!

I fully support this. Now can Canada do the same please? I am seeing everyday very young girls wearing head scarves. Almost half the school classes. It is alarming and it's ridiculous. Some of these girls are barely 5 years old what is the point of this? I support a women's right to chose. And yes I am very intolerant of intolerance and oppression against women. All women should support this.

Mon, 11 Apr 2011 13:54:10 UTC | #613939

xmaseveeve's Avatar Comment 7 by xmaseveeve

If France is now declared a target, we should all say, 'I'm Spartacus'. This rubbish isn't even in the Koran; it's a misinterpreted hadith (I think it means 'nipples', not 'face' - and we have to cover nipples anyway, unless breastfeeding). I would love to exchange smiles with my Muslim sisters. They are brainwashed into thinking they are choosing to degrade themselves. No one needs to cover his or her face in public. It's blatant subordination of women, by erasing their identities. Shame on any Auntie Thomasina woman who would choose it. They provide validation for those who enforce it.

Mon, 11 Apr 2011 13:57:17 UTC | #613940

green and dying's Avatar Comment 8 by green and dying

Comment 5 by God fearing Atheist :

Because its cheap? Its what I call "law by correlation". You don't detect and punish the actual crime, you pick on an associated activity that correlates. I remember a news story where there was a lot of graffiti in a town centre. Rather than putting in security cameras and police patrols to catch the actual criminals they put a curfew on teenagers in the town centre at night. A teenage boy and Liberty took them to court. Unfortunately, they used the fact that he was an xtian as a indication he was an upstanding citizen!

But it's like trying to solve the graffiti problem by making it illegal to have your property graffitied by someone else!

Mon, 11 Apr 2011 13:58:11 UTC | #613944

sanban's Avatar Comment 9 by sanban

I have very mixed feelings about this. I find it especially troubling that a protest over the law was banned and people arrested. This is not at all in the spirit of la liberté.

It also seems to be doubly victimising women who wear the veil under (sometimes extreme) duress and could serve to further isolate such women - the very opposite of what is needed if they are to learn French values and integrate into French society. Quebec's law banning women from receiving public services while veiled does the same thing.

Mon, 11 Apr 2011 14:02:10 UTC | #613948

xmaseveeve's Avatar Comment 10 by xmaseveeve

Comment 6,

'I am seeing everyday very young girls wearing head scarves.'

We must be very careful about which word we use. Scarves are not the issue. It's face covering that is an affront to humanity. My friend's daughter was sent home from school for wearing a headscarf. She was a cancer patient who had just lost her hair. Hats and scarves are not a problem. I wear them if I've not had time to wash my hair. There is never a reason to cover your face.

Mon, 11 Apr 2011 14:05:46 UTC | #613951

God fearing Atheist's Avatar Comment 11 by God fearing Atheist

Comment 8 by green and dying :

But it's like trying to solve the graffiti problem by making it illegal to have your property graffitied by someone else!

Yea, I could make different categories for "law by correlation". If I did, "graffiti" and "veil" would be in different categories as you point out.

I think the reason is that it is cheap. If the "veil" laws had to sort out "a woman giving a "V" sign to Western culture", from "a woman bullied by X", and then have to determine if X was her husband, father, brother, ... and prove it in court, it would cost a fortune to enforce.

... and so we get crap, penny pinching laws ...

Mon, 11 Apr 2011 14:07:35 UTC | #613953

bendigeidfran's Avatar Comment 12 by bendigeidfran

I'm biased because I think they look good, but it looks a daft law from here, for a couple of thousand odd-dressers out of sixty million, who dress stupidly themselves if you ask me. A brick-burka will be the result for the oppressed ones. Maybe an occasional peep out of the letter box at the postman allowed if they've been good.

Mon, 11 Apr 2011 14:10:02 UTC | #613957

RW Millam's Avatar Comment 13 by RW Millam

I have no problem with some wearing a head scarf in public ..... or a baseball cap, or a beret, or a Fedora, or a beanie with a propeller on top. But no one should be permitted to skulk about, fully disguised in public.

And if you're doing so because you're a victim, then stop being a victim! Hopefully, these "reeducation" classes mentioned in the article will help you do just that.

Mon, 11 Apr 2011 14:23:47 UTC | #613963

Stafford Gordon's Avatar Comment 14 by Stafford Gordon

It'll be interesting to see how this pans out. Given their track record, the village idiots will use it as an excuse for murdering someone.

Mon, 11 Apr 2011 14:30:31 UTC | #613970

Marc Country's Avatar Comment 15 by Marc Country

What about those furry mascot costumes? They cover your whole body... Are you allowed to wear them in public? Do you need a police exemption?

Mon, 11 Apr 2011 14:30:58 UTC | #613971

Peter Grant's Avatar Comment 16 by Peter Grant

There are much more severe penalties for anyone found guilty of forcing someone else to hide his or her face "through threats, violence, constraint, abuse of authority or power for reason of their gender".

Clearly aimed at fathers, husbands or religious leaders who force women to wear face veils, and applicable to offences committed in public or in private, the law imposes a fine of 30,000 euros and a year in jail.

Forget the fines, just lock the control freaks away so the ladies can go shopping for more fashionable clothes.

Mon, 11 Apr 2011 14:32:29 UTC | #613972

helena!'s Avatar Comment 17 by helena!

Comment 10.

Wrong. No I don't have to be careful about which word I use. I know exactly what I'm saying and the point I'm making. These young girls do not have cancer nor are they concerned that they didn't wash their hair. We have already had one father kill his daughter when she refused to wear her head scarf. The son helped his father kill her and they were both jailed. In another country I'm sure they would have got a pass. My point is they are being forced to cover their hair like it's shameful. What is the real reason? For men so they will not be tempted. The whole point is these are children. Religion is being forced upon by parents. When they get older they will change to the full niqab. I see it everyday.

Also these are not ordinary scarves. They are tightly wrapped around their heads and necks. I see it looks quite uncomfortable.

The larger point is that parents are forcing this on children. Given the choice I'm pretty sure they would rather be free of constricting clothing. This is also extremely divisive and teaches at an early age to discrimination of 'others'. Why are we not teaching that we are all the same and no one is special.

I would really like to see a reverse experiment where the men are forced to wear full clothing tents. Would there be the same reaction and outrage? I think not.

Let's make men walk around in blue or black sacks all day.

Mon, 11 Apr 2011 14:32:56 UTC | #613974

Steven Mading's Avatar Comment 18 by Steven Mading

It's important to take a stand against Islamic subjugation of women, but doing it by fining the victims of that subjugation (thereby making them victims twice over and also encouraging their subjugators/husbands to deny them the right to leave the house at all) is the wrong way to do it.

There are those of us who oppose Islam because (like all religions) it's built on lies, and because (like all religions but even more so) its twisted backward moral teachings make behaving like decent human beings toward each other into a crime.

Then there are those that say they oppose Islam on humanitarian grounds but they actually don't - they are nationalist bigots or religious bigots or racial bigots who have found temporarily pretending to give a damn about human rights to be a convenient proxy for their actual reasons for wanting to suppress Muslim immigration.

This law, I fear. is probably the result of the latter, not the former. I suspect this because of the way it doesn't bother distinguishing the difference between oppressor and oppressed.

Mon, 11 Apr 2011 14:47:03 UTC | #613981

skiles1's Avatar Comment 19 by skiles1

A substantial day for sexual equality..but a bad day for ninjas.

Mon, 11 Apr 2011 14:49:27 UTC | #613984

Steve Zara's Avatar Comment 20 by Steve Zara

I find this very difficult. Until recently I was very much against a ban. Then I wavered, and now I'm against a ban again. At least a ban because they are burqas.

I think the way to deal with burqas is not some silly law against face covering (since when was face covering by a few thousand women a threat to anyone?) but because of what burqas are - they are a form of sexual bondage, and surely not appropriate for public spaces.

Mon, 11 Apr 2011 14:52:20 UTC | #613986

bendigeidfran's Avatar Comment 21 by bendigeidfran

If they're being walked all over then why not sweep them under the carpet?

Now people can be force-dressed legally. Before, they couldn't. But of course they were, since the law has short arms. The law is an admission it can't work.

Mon, 11 Apr 2011 15:06:09 UTC | #613998

Sumom's Avatar Comment 22 by Sumom

I am so glad that 'we' in the west would never force anybody to wear somthing against their will.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/cover-up-or-face-life-in-jail-naked-rambler-is-warned- 1865690.html

While I do not like the burka or niqab, and so will not be wearing either, I think I dislike even more the state deciding what someone must not (or must) wear.

Mon, 11 Apr 2011 15:08:08 UTC | #614000

Czar's Avatar Comment 23 by Czar

I think this is an affront against freedom of religion rights. However, there is no way to tell if women are being forced against their will to wear these things, physically or because of social/cultural pressures. So I am in limbo about this.

Mon, 11 Apr 2011 15:09:31 UTC | #614001

Alan4discussion's Avatar Comment 24 by Alan4discussion

I think it's about right. The heavier penalty for the enforcer and a lighter one for the woman complying avoids a duck and dodge argument. ( It's not my fault, I'm the victim! - It wasn't me she did it by herself.) Terrorists have escaped wearing burkas, and it is certainly a problem where robbers wear masks.

The new law says anyone refusing to lift his or her veil to submit to an identity check can be taken to a police station.

It does not say they cannot wear scarves. It says they must identify themselves when asked. Civilized societies have every right to insist incomers leave their mediaeval mental baggage behind and fit into our culture. If they don't want to integrate, stay away in the backward areas of the world and live by their standards! Any suggestions about NUNS?

Mon, 11 Apr 2011 15:13:25 UTC | #614003

bendigeidfran's Avatar Comment 25 by bendigeidfran

Free people to wear what they like by dictating what they can wear. That must have taken some Gitanes.

Mon, 11 Apr 2011 15:14:46 UTC | #614005

Cinaed's Avatar Comment 26 by Cinaed

All forms of covering up your identity in public should be banned so good on France for doing this. I can't even walk into a shop with a hood up but because it's these women's "religion" they can totally cover up...it makes no sense.

Mon, 11 Apr 2011 15:22:50 UTC | #614010

Daz365's Avatar Comment 27 by Daz365

This is just another attack on freedom and should be opposed,

What next, a ban on beards and hoodys? When I was at school I was forced to wear a tie, I hated it and think that school uniforms are an infringement on a child's human rights; we don't tackle that by banning ties.

We need to protect our freedom which must always include freedom that we don't like.

We need encourage protest and criticism, especially where children are concerned not batten charge them on horseback as we did recently at the student protests in London.

Mon, 11 Apr 2011 15:23:37 UTC | #614011

bendigeidfran's Avatar Comment 28 by bendigeidfran

Christ look in the shop window, there's oppression. Mostly they oppress each other, as the men couldn't give a monkeys what they look like clothed.

Mon, 11 Apr 2011 15:23:39 UTC | #614012

Tronberman's Avatar Comment 29 by Tronberman

It seems to me that since France has no effective way to protect women from their families who may be (amongst other things) demanding that she wear the burqa, they've decided to go after the women themselves so that one the one side they have the state telling them they must not wear the burqa and on the other side they've got their families telling them that they must wear the burqa. It does not seem like any kind of solution to me.

And that's ignoring the few (insane as it seems) who actually choose to wear the damn things.

Also, this might seem like semantics but I'd be more receptive to a ban on covering your face in public.

Mon, 11 Apr 2011 15:24:39 UTC | #614014

SaganTheCat's Avatar Comment 30 by SaganTheCat

I'm not in favour of this ban

I believe that anyone who chooses to go around with their face covered can expect to be met with mistrust. I believe any business should have the right to refuse to deal with someone who will not show their face.

I can see this as being a case of one of two issues (or somewhere between). either women are forced into covering their faces by men, in which case this ban will give them less freedom than they had before, or women choose to cover themselves as a display of their religious piety, in which case they become political martyrs and may well seek to become arrested as a way of testing the legal system. and when you're doing something in the name of islam you can expect plenty of unquestioning political support.

this should be a social issue, not a legal one. people should feel free to be honest about what they think of people who choose to make themselves or their family invisible to society. in a world with true freedom where "islamaphobe" is just another word and didn't carry so much weight, there would be no face covering. France is part of the free world but I fear it's compromised itself in the debate by going straight for something symbolic in islam.

I will however watch with interest to see how this pans out. maybe there'll be a noticable drop in terrorist attacks in which case I wouldn't automatically change my view but it'd be a good point to put some as to what the burqua is actually there to acheive

Mon, 11 Apr 2011 15:25:41 UTC | #614015