France and the Burqa [Archive] - Discussion World Forum

Non Sequitur

Jul 13th 2010, 04:05 PM

(I didn't know if this was current issues or religion and morals).

France Nears a Ban on Facial Veils in Public
By STEVEN ERLANGER
Published: July 13, 2010

PARIS — France’s lower house of Parliament voted overwhelmingly on Tuesday to approve a ban on the wearing of veils that cover the face in public places. The draft law, only seven articles, passed by 335 votes to 1 in the National Assembly with the main opposition Socialist Party, which was divided over how to respond to the popular bill, largely abstaining.

New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/14/world/europe/14burqa.html?_r=1&ref=world)

CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/07/13/france.burqa.ban/index.html?hpt=T2)

All I can say is thank God for the First Amendment.

For the life of me, I cannot really understand this. It seems dangerous to the principle of liberty for the government to be deciding what symbols are ok and what are not. Perhaps I am missing something

On another note, if I was forced to choose between obeying scripture and obeying the law scripture wins hands down.

WFCY

Jul 13th 2010, 04:37 PM

There is a general trend towards xenophobia particularly against people of Muslim/Arab origin, all accross Europe. Holland is another recent example.

It's a shame really. But US is not better when you look at the treatment of Hispanics.

Michael

Jul 13th 2010, 05:40 PM

(I didn't know if this was current issues or religion and morals).
Could go both. Or even to the "Non-US Politics" too! ;)

Personally, I see this as a political issue, not a religious one.

* * *

First of all, this is only the first stage of legislation - it has to be passed by the Upper House to become law.

Secondly, we have discussed this topic previously, but not very successfully due to the presence of a certain female member here from France would not tolerate such a discussion (arguing that the topic was pure bullshit and little more than hatemongering against France). This legislation proves that the issue is very real.

Thirdly, I just spent two hours last night reading an academic paper on the topic of voter preferences regarding immigration in Europe. Unfortunately, the study was exactly the type of study that academic political science is becoming famous for: exhaustively researched studies to answer questions no one is asking or interested in. That study was entirely based upon the false dichotomy of "assimilationism" vs "multiculturalism" as if these were mutually exclusive policies, and/or functional policies. Fact is, these terms (or policies) are mostly non-functional in actual practice (or voter preferences).

That being said, it was noted that France showed up in the study with the strongest preference for "assimilation" policies, meaning that the French voters believe that immigrants ought to adopt all manner and practices of the dominant French culture (or GTFO).

This policy preference is very strong in USA and elsewhere in Europe, though perhaps not quite as strong as it is in France. It is also notable within Canada that the strongest anti-immigration views are always found in Quebec amongst the French majority there - and again, exactly the same issue appears to motivate them - they demand visual or outward displays of assimilation (and get angry when this is not forthcoming). They always speak of the issue in terms of "our culture is under seige" (which is bullshit, but a real fear).

Personally, I think the "assimiliationist" policy is a waste of time based on the fact that it just doesn't work and has never worked in any context and certainly not with the kind of numbers we're talking about here.

In this respect, and in credit to the French, there is no particular evidence that 'anti-burqa policy' is being driven by any particular xenophobia, racism or religious hatred. Fact is, it fits entirely within the French preference for forced assimilation. Indeed, this issue itself is a manifestation of the failure of French immigration policy of 'assimilation'. Essentially, large numbers of Muslims in France are not assimilating fast enough and thus, the French state is now considering legal measures to 'force' assimilation at a faster pace.

Since I think assimilation is a failed policy, 'forced' assimilation is quite likely to be even more of a policy failure. So, bottom line is that this is all about a stupid French government policy that has failed and now the Government is trying to 'double-down' on the assimilation policy with brute force of the law.

I can't imagine that any new law is going to make a failed policy perform miracles when the initial policy is the core failure.

Non Sequitur

Jul 13th 2010, 10:51 PM

Could go both. Or even to the "Non-US Politics" too! ;)

Personally, I see this as a political issue, not a religious one.

* * *

First of all, this is only the first stage of legislation - it has to be passed by the Upper House to become law.

Secondly, we have discussed this topic previously, but not very successfully due to the presence of a certain female member here from France would not tolerate such a discussion (arguing that the topic was pure bullshit and little more than hatemongering against France). This legislation proves that the issue is very real.

I noticed the other thread and read a good portion of it. Really interesting discussion. Particularly the belief that religious neutrality means enforced secularism.

However, since this subject has already been discussed I bet this thread might die quickly

Thirdly, I just spent two hours last night reading an academic paper on the topic of voter preferences regarding immigration in Europe. Unfortunately, the study was exactly the type of study that academic political science is becoming famous for: exhaustively researched studies to answer questions no one is asking or interested in. That study was entirely based upon the false dichotomy of "assimilationism" vs "multiculturalism" as if these were mutually exclusive policies, and/or functional policies. Fact is, these terms (or policies) are mostly non-functional in actual practice (or voter preferences).

That being said, it was noted that France showed up in the study with the strongest preference for "assimilation" policies, meaning that the French voters believe that immigrants ought to adopt all manner and practices of the dominant French culture (or GTFO).

This policy preference is very strong in USA and elsewhere in Europe, though perhaps not quite as strong as it is in France. It is also notable within Canada that the strongest anti-immigration views are always found in Quebec amongst the French majority there - and again, exactly the same issue appears to motivate them - they demand visual or outward displays of assimilation (and get angry when this is not forthcoming). They always speak of the issue in terms of "our culture is under seige" (which is bullshit, but a real fear).

Personally, I think the "assimiliationist" policy is a waste of time based on the fact that it just doesn't work and has never worked in any context and certainly not with the kind of numbers we're talking about here.

In this respect, and in credit to the French, there is no particular evidence that 'anti-burqa policy' is being driven by any particular xenophobia, racism or religious hatred. Fact is, it fits entirely within the French preference for forced assimilation. Indeed, this issue itself is a manifestation of the failure of French immigration policy of 'assimilation'. Essentially, large numbers of Muslims in France are not assimilating fast enough and thus, the French state is now considering legal measures to 'force' assimilation at a faster pace.

Since I think assimilation is a failed policy, 'forced' assimilation is quite likely to be even more of a policy failure. So, bottom line is that this is all about a stupid French government policy that has failed and now the Government is trying to 'double-down' on the assimilation policy with brute force of the law.

I can't imagine that any new law is going to make a failed policy perform miracles when the initial policy is the core failure.

Interesting. That does seem to tell a lot.

On the whole, the assimilation policy rings so untrue to the rhetoric surrounding immigration.

Michael

Jul 13th 2010, 11:22 PM

Interesting. That does seem to tell a lot.

On the whole, the assimilation policy rings so untrue to the rhetoric surrounding immigration.

If you look for the common elements in this issue (historically and in the present day), the key features are always the same - "they don't dress right" and they "don't talk right". Those are the two hottest issues that underlie all the other rhetoric about taking jobs away. It is the usage of non-majority language and non-majority clothing style that seems to produce a relatively high level of 'annoyance' in most populations (historically and in the present day).

It is notable that this effect seems to be strongest when the numbers are comparatively small ones, and decreases over time, even when the comparative numbers may continue to rise. In the short term, tempers can flare and large-scale violence can sometimes errupt because of this.

Greendruid

Jul 14th 2010, 01:17 AM

This issue seems akin to prohibition in many ways. It is simply cultural prohibition rather than dietary or drug prohibition. I think it will work about as well as alcohol prohibition did and as well as drug prohibition is currently working. The burqa, as I see it, is not exclusively a religious item in the sense that not all Muslim women wear it. However, I don't think that there are non-Muslim women that wear one. I will have to ask around - there may be some groups of North African Coptic Christians that do this too entirely for ethnic/cultural reasons rather than religious ones. It also reminds me of the banning of bagpipes and fiddles in Scotland. A lot of bloody good that did!

MeMyselfAndI

Jul 14th 2010, 01:47 AM

I don't know. Here in Russia, most Muslim women do not wear any veils or head scarves. In most of Muslim regions here, it is mostly elder women who do so, and they are looked at as backward and uneducated, and are pitied.

Of course, reaction here is different. Muslims, either native, like Tatars, or Bashkirs; or migrants, Azeris or Uzbeks; know all too well such 'customs' are not welcome here. And they know that if they come to a Russian city, and they do not respect local values and culture, there will be pogroms and they will get chased out of the city. There is even a word for this phenomenon: Kondopoga. It refers to the riots in city Kondopoga, in Karelia, couple years back; Muslim migrants from Caucasus killed a local young man there. Apparently they chanted Allakh Akbar while a group of them attacked him after a bar fight. Either way, us Northerners do not take lightly to this. Next day, mobs of locals, and also youth from nearby villages, went through Kondopoga, destroyed Muslim-owned businesses, beat them up, killed 4 people, burned their community center and a mosque. There are no Muslims left in Kondopoga now. It is an unfortunate way of doing things, uncivilized. But... That is how it is here.

Zarquon

Jul 14th 2010, 05:41 AM

Michael

Jul 14th 2010, 11:45 AM

Well, from I've read about this topic, only a few thousand(if not hundred) French Muslim women wear the burqa, with most preferring the headscarf or not coering their heads, and even a majprity of French Muslims support his ban. The only reason for this ban is cultural chauvinism and/or pandering to the far-right-wing on "emotive" issue, which is what Sarkozy has been doing for the last two years now, by opening a debate on French identity, asking more people to sing the anthem, and other "issues" in a bid to boost his sagging approval numbers.
Its not going to work as a multitude of scandals have undermined his claims to competence and credibility, and as the recent victory of the Socialist Party in the departmental elections have shown, he's going to be a one-term president.

I think you are getting ahead of yourself spinning French politics here. The Socialist Party is going to take a big hit on this burqa issue. They stayed silent because A) their own elite leaders don't like it, and B) the issue is MASSIVELY popular amongst the membership and the electorate. The Socialist Party is essentially trying to dodge a big political issue and that NEVER plays well with the electorate. Besides which, the Socialist party is in disarray and underperforming in several recent elections and haven't shown any sign of unity or leadership.

I also think you are underestimating Sarkozy's political skills.

All that being said, I don't think you can pretend that this burqa issue is just some little political game between the parties. It has been bubbling below the surface for a couple of years now with the politicians trying to dodge it, but this anti-burqa policy is very popular (note the vote was 335 to 1 with the Socialists abstaining).

Michael

Jul 14th 2010, 01:05 PM

Sucre

Jul 16th 2010, 02:39 PM

Secondly, we have discussed this topic previously, but not very successfully due to the presence of a certain female member here from France would not tolerate such a discussion (arguing that the topic was pure bullshit and little more than hatemongering against France). This legislation proves that the issue is very real.
Since I am the one mentioned here ("a female member from France"), I might answer as well, no ?

Actually, it was quite an informative thread with exchange of opinions at great length. From my point of view, it was an interesting thread with a lot of infomation and different viewpoints. May it be that the thread was not successful from your point of view because you did not get your point through ?

I dislike it when opinions are distorted. To write that I did not tolerate any discussion on the topic is calomnious.

If I dare say one thing on the subject, it is that there is lot more to the subject of the burqa than xenophobia or the application of the first amendment of the US constitution, which is usually the way the main stream media treat the subject. What about women's rights and the defense of western democratic values for instance ? What's the definition of public order ? What can/ you may you tolerate ? Is the burqa "religious" and if it is how much "religion" can a democratic society cope with ? Why is "assimilation" bullshit, as you say ? If it is how do you "integrate" these immigrant populations, i.e how do you make sure that they have a fair chance to get a job and a real life and don't depend on welfare? Why will a ban be effective/ not effective etc ? What is the relationship between the burqa ban and the veil ban in France ? How are the two laws different ? How does a country like the USA conciliate feminism and tolerance of the burqa ? In this regard, what's a "choice" (I mean do women "chose" to wear the burqa) etc.

Non Sequitur

Jul 16th 2010, 05:13 PM

If I dare say one thing on the subject, it is that there is lot more to the subject of the burqa than xenophobia or the application of the first amendment of the US constitution, which is usually the way the main stream media treat the subject. What about women's rights and the defense of western democratic values for instance ? What's the definition of public order ? What can/ you may you tolerate ? Is the burqa "religious" and if it is how much "religion" can a democratic society cope with ?

I know that this was not directed at me, but this is the source of my confusion as an American (note that I admit there could be an internal logic here that I am missing). I am perplexed how one reconciles the claim of protecting democratic values and then makes a law that violates those values (in this case the freedom of religion and expression)? One of the cornerstones of Western democratic values seems to me to be that even error has rights. The issue seems to boil down to either we believe that a religious practice has the right to be expressed even if we consider it wrong or else we don't believe that wrong religious practices have rights. However, I find it hard to say both (a religious practice is wrong and thus should be restricted, but we still believe in freedom of religion).

Also, the public order and vague "democratic values" argument is a dangerous argument. In the name of public order and vague "values" rights are usually taken away, not defended.

What is the relationship between the burqa ban and the veil ban in France ? How are the two laws different ? How does a country like the USA conciliate feminism and tolerance of the burqa ? In this regard, what's a "choice" (I mean do women "chose" to wear the burqa) etc.
I think here the essential idea is that it is not the Government's job to choose between feminism and the burqa. The American government really doesn't have a right to advocate either. Feminism is not official government policy nor is Islamic law.

MeMyselfAndI

Jul 17th 2010, 01:30 AM

Burqa is not a part of Islam. Muslim countries like Turkey and Egypt ban it now. Why shouldn't France?

Non Sequitur

Jul 17th 2010, 03:18 AM

Burqa is not a part of Islam. Muslim countries like Turkey and Egypt ban it now. Why shouldn't France?

So there is one definition of Islam? That certainly is not true for Christianity, Judaism, or many other faiths.

The issue here is the contradiction that I see between a belief in democratic values and what is actually happening. Egypt can not be mistaken for believing in democratic values.

Sucre

Jul 17th 2010, 09:20 AM

I know that this was not directed at me, but this is the source of my confusion as an American (note that I admit there could be an internal logic here that I am missing). I am perplexed how one reconciles the claim of protecting democratic values and then makes a law that violates those values (in this case the freedom of religion and expression)?
There is an American prejudice towards the freedom of religion as a value N° 1 taking precedence over all other values. However, you will agree that this value may conflict with other values? In the case of the burqa, freedom of religion conflicts with the principle of equality between men and women.

The burqa - we are referring here to the piece of cloth covering the entire body as well as the face, the kind worn in Afghanistan - is an instrument of oppression against women, shutting them from the rest of the world and reserving their face to their fathers and husbands.

So the logics goes, "democratic values" are at odd if they are used to protect an instrument of oppression against women.

Freedom of religion does not necessarily take precedence over other principles of right. This, by the way, is not typically "French" logics but a consequent application of law of the European Court of Human Rights as well, like in this case opposing Turkey and a Turkish national, where the principle of Secularism was considered to take precedence over the principle of the freedom of religion :
http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=789023&portal=hbkm&source=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649 (http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=789023&portal=hbkm&source=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649)

Another aspect that you might consider is that "freedom of religion" does not mean that every act motivated or inspired by a religion or belief is protected !

In the case of the burqa, it is the "practice" which is considered wrong, not the religion. The religion is fine, not the practice of shutting a woman in a piece of cloth.

One of the cornerstones of Western democratic values seems to me to be that even error has rights. The issue seems to boil down to either we believe that a religious practice has the right to be expressed even if we consider it wrong or else we don't believe that wrong religious practices have rights. However, I find it hard to say both (a religious practice is wrong and thus should be restricted, but we still believe in freedom of religion).
What you are referring to here (the right to error) is actually called "pluralism". One of those "democratic values" we cherish is "pluralism". "Pluralism" means that different opinions, ways of life and religions also are allowed the space to express themselves without prejudice for any of them. This freedom of expression though is not unlimited, but limited by all these other rights.

Also, the public order and vague "democratic values" argument is a dangerous argument. In the name of public order and vague "values" rights are usually taken away, not defended.
I don't think so. These "democratic values" are not vague but enshrined in and defined by law. In France, it would be the constitution, the declaration of human rights of 1789 and the European convention of Human rights of which France is a party. In the USA, it would be the US constitution.

I think here the essential idea is that it is not the Government's job to choose between feminism and the burqa. The American government really doesn't have a right to advocate either. Feminism is not official government policy nor is Islamic law.
Doesn't this happen in the USA too ? Isn't polygamy forbidden in the States despite an important Mormon minority ?

Besides I don't agree that government has no role to play here. Actually, it is the role of government to ensure that all these rights promulgated in various laws are achieved in practice and not just on paper. The government, or rather the State, plays the role of a referee so to say.

In a democratic society, this should be no problem as the government is issued from the will of the people.

EDit : Actually, my point in my original post was not about the role of the State. I am truely interested to hear how posters, as people with conscience, accept light heartedly that women may be shut out from the life outside their home, simply because it is a religious prescription - applying only to women.

dilettante

Jul 17th 2010, 09:53 AM

I am truely interested to hear how posters, as people with conscience, accept light heartedly that women may be shut out from the life outside their home, simply because it is a religious prescription - applying only to women.

I don't think anyone here views this is "light heartedly". The Burqa can be associated with a very tragic view of women, of God, and of the world and can be symptomatic of deeper inequalities.

That said, I have to take exception to your phrasing. You said that the women "may be shut out from life outside their home." If this is the case, if they are being forcefully shut out by others and against their will, then that's a grave injustice, an obvious infringement on their liberty, and the state should intervene. However, the actual facts of the matter seem be that these women shut themselves out, that they wear the Burqa of their own volition because they themselves believe it the right thing to do. We may disagree with them about this, but who are we to tell someone else what they can and cannot wear of their own free choice? What gives us the right to impose our view of women and morality upon them? Their choice to wear the Burqa doesn't harm us in any way, by what right do we demand that they conform to our views against their will?

I'm also curious about who the target of a ban on the burqa would be. As I understand it, it's meant to protect women. But who gets punished when a woman violates the ban, especially if the woman declares that she herself chose to wear the burqa? Do you punish the woman herself for her choice in clothing? Isn't that punishing the "victim"? Or do you just assume that her husband or religious must somehow have forced it on her, and punish them? I simply don't see how this would work with any sort of justice.

The comparison to polygamy law is an interesting one, however. That's worthy of some greater thought. BTW, nice to see you back, Sucre. :wave:

Sucre

Jul 17th 2010, 11:27 AM

I had come back here to quickly clarify my own personal position on the burqa ban in France (or in Belgium for that matter, since they issued a similar law recently) but will answer your question as well.

First, we are clear that the ban concerns the burqa (click link to see picture)
http://myminddroppings.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/burqa1.jpg (http://myminddroppings.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/burqa1.jpg)
not the muslim scarf
http://universe.sdsu.edu/sdsuniverse/images/stories/res300xy-ftr-111208-pursuitofislam1.jpg (http://universe.sdsu.edu/sdsuniverse/images/stories/res300xy-ftr-111208-pursuitofislam1.jpg)

Second, I'd like to clarify here that I personally do not support this law. I think it's a very bad idea. I think the law is unnecessary, unapplicable and contra-productive. The law, once promulgated, will only apply to 200 to 2,000 women in France. There are a few women wearing the burqa, but it is a tiny minority. It might be, as supporters of the law insist, that this is a growing minority. But since islam is in the rise in France, this is not a surprise really! This tiny minority has been polled and, as it comes out, it appears that most women wear the burqa voluntarily. Again, I don't think this is a surprise : each religion has its bunch of fanatics ; people do a lot of crazy things on "religious" grounds, why not wear the burqa ? However fanatics are usually in the minority. There is no reason to believe that the burqa fans will take over the overall moderate muslim community. People supporting the law say that the point is to make a "sign", i.e. these are the values of the community we live in ... May be, but actually, there are plenty of other "signs" everywhere : all in all women in France have the choice to do what they want, public schools are religion-free, etc. Is an additional law to the scarf ban in public schools necessary ? The law may lead to a situation where these women will not leave their home anymore. This is stupid.

I don't think anyone here views this is "light heartedly". The Burqa can be associated with a very tragic view of women, of God, and of the world and can be symptomatic of deeper inequalities.

That said, I have to take exception to your phrasing. You said that the women "may be shut out from life outside their home." If this is the case, if they are being forcefully shut out by others and against their will, then that's a grave injustice, an obvious infringement on their liberty, and the state should intervene. However, the actual facts of the matter seem be that these women shut themselves out, that they wear the Burqa of their own volition because they themselves believe it the right thing to do. We may disagree with them about this, but who are we to tell someone else what they can and cannot wear of their own free choice? What gives us the right to impose our view of women and morality upon them? Their choice to wear the Burqa doesn't harm us in any way, by what right do we demand that they conform to our views against their will?
I agree with your point. As mentioned above, it looks like these women, at least in France which is a free society, are wearing the burqa on their own will, at least they say so.

The situation in Afghanistan with the Talibans or in Iran is different of course. It is a religious and coercitive prescription and taking off the veil in public represents an act of resistance.

I think that this difference between the situation in a free society and in a religious-led society is worth mentionning.

Yet, what is "Choice" ? Even though most women answering the poll say they do it voluntarily, what do we know about the reaction of the men of their family if they had said otherwise ? What do we know about the pressures of the community they live in ?

I'm also curious about who the target of a ban on the burqa would be. As I understand it, it's meant to protect women. But who gets punished when a woman violates the ban, especially if the woman declares that she herself chose to wear the burqa? Do you punish the woman herself for her choice in clothing? Isn't that punishing the "victim"? Or do you just assume that her husband or religious must somehow have forced it on her, and punish them? I simply don't see how this would work with any sort of justice.
There are two parts in the law :

1) It is forbidden to wear a niqab or a burqa in a public space under penalty of a fine of 150 euros (200 dollars approx.) and/or a "stage de citoyenneté", some kind of course on civil rights & duties.

"Free choice" is not an issue here. It is forbidden to wear a burqa on the street as much as it is forbidden to walk naked on the street, even if you are a naturist or belong to a religious sect advocating free body culture.

2) Anybody forcing a woman to wear the burqa is punishable by one-year prison or a fine of 30.000 euros (40.000 dollars apprx.), the double if the woman is less than 18 years old.

Quite clearly, this part is the "protective part" for women (no men being ever forced to wear a burqa ...)

Non Sequitur

Jul 17th 2010, 01:05 PM

There is an American prejudice towards the freedom of religion as a value N° 1 taking precedence over all other values. However, you will agree that this value may conflict with other values? In the case of the burqa, freedom of religion conflicts with the principle of equality between men and women.

The burqa - we are referring here to the piece of cloth covering the entire body as well as the face, the kind worn in Afghanistan - is an instrument of oppression against women, shutting them from the rest of the world and reserving their face to their fathers and husbands.

So the logics goes, "democratic values" are at odd if they are used to protect an instrument of oppression against women.

Freedom of religion does not necessarily take precedence over other principles of right. This, by the way, is not typically "French" logics but a consequent application of law of the European Court of Human Rights as well, like in this case opposing Turkey and a Turkish national, where the principle of Secularism was considered to take precedence over the principle of the freedom of religion :
http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=789023&portal=hbkm&source=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649 (http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=789023&portal=hbkm&source=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649)

Another aspect that you might consider is that "freedom of religion" does not mean that every act motivated or inspired by a religion or belief is protected !

In the case of the burqa, it is the "practice" which is considered wrong, not the religion. The religion is fine, not the practice of shutting a woman in a piece of cloth.

I think you actually answered my question in a way that explains almost everything and solves my problem of contradiction. The court case there was enlightening, especially the part about the "value of secularism." This, I think, is the source of the confusion because this is not a democratic value in the United States (and a significantly large portion of the country thinks it's a bad thing). I think I understand now.

What you are referring to here (the right to error) is actually called "pluralism". One of those "democratic values" we cherish is "pluralism". "Pluralism" means that different opinions, ways of life and religions also are allowed the space to express themselves without prejudice for any of them. This freedom of expression though is not unlimited, but limited by all these other rights.

I don't think so. These "democratic values" are not vague but enshrined in and defined by law. In France, it would be the constitution, the declaration of human rights of 1789 and the European convention of Human rights of which France is a party. In the USA, it would be the US constitution.

Doesn't this happen in the USA too ? Isn't polygamy forbidden in the States despite an important Mormon minority ?

Besides I don't agree that government has no role to play here. Actually, it is the role of government to ensure that all these rights promulgated in various laws are achieved in practice and not just on paper. The government, or rather the State, plays the role of a referee so to say.

In a democratic society, this should be no problem as the government is issued from the will of the people.

EDit : Actually, my point in my original post was not about the role of the State. I am truely interested to hear how posters, as people with conscience, accept light heartedly that women may be shut out from the life outside their home, simply because it is a religious prescription - applying only to women.

At this point I am really just haggling over minutia because first part of the post was enlightening. I do admit that there is an internal logic that I was missing. However, a couple final points:

1. Part of the reason I would uncomfortable with such a law is that every time I hear a Muslim woman talking about the burqa and such things they always talk about it like it's there choice and they want to wear it. The truth of this statement is another issue, but I become uncomfortable with the State saying "we know you say that, but you don't actually believe it, here we will help you." that's a dangerous precedent.

2. the example of polygamy is a bad one because I think marriage is an institution created by and for the State. Certainly Christian dogma and scripture cannot claim possession of this institution since it existed far before Christianity and scripture is not particularly friendly to it. Therefore, the State has the backing of history and tradition (marriages in the early middle ages were forbidden from being done in the church for example) to regulate marriage as it sees fit.

3. I would probably modify your statement "freedom of religion is value number 1" and say freedom of religion and expression is value number 1 but I think you are essentially right about that. However, I will warn you I am the one studying to be clergy here so my opinion may be bias.

MeMyselfAndI

Jul 17th 2010, 09:24 PM

Look, can a woman in Saudi Arabia or Pakistan go around without covering herself haed-to-toe? No. And that is their way. Well, that is not the way in Europe. France wants to remain... well, French. And I see no wrong with that.

Sucre

Jul 18th 2010, 04:08 PM

I think you actually answered my question in a way that explains almost everything and solves my problem of contradiction. The court case there was enlightening, especially the part about the "value of secularism." This, I think, is the source of the confusion because this is not a democratic value in the United States (and a significantly large portion of the country thinks it's a bad thing). I think I understand now.
Actually, the US is also secular if you define secularism by religious neutrality. It is a democratic value enshrined in the US constitution. Legally, there is no difference between France and the US, or Turkey for that matter. If there is a difference, it is political and politics, quite clearly, influences the jurisprudence.

History may shed light on the differences. The US was born from religious emigrants, fleeing religious persecution. In this context religious neutrality of the State ensures that all these religions cohabit in an harmonious way. In France, the law of separation between the State and the Church goes back to 1905. As a legacy of the French revolution, it was formerly directed against the immense temporal influence of the Catholic church and its mingling into public matters.

1. Part of the reason I would uncomfortable with such a law is that every time I hear a Muslim woman talking about the burqa and such things they always talk about it like it's there choice and they want to wear it. The truth of this statement is another issue, but I become uncomfortable with the State saying "we know you say that, but you don't actually believe it, here we will help you." that's a dangerous precedent.
Yes, the problem of free choice is the underlying most tricky problem of the burqa ban in France. For this very reason, it might be considered anti-constitutional if it is presented to the Constitutional Council before enforcement or when a case will be filled at the European Court of Human Rights (and this will happen!).

Actually, in March 2010, the State Council advised the government against the law.
(Full text of Advice may be found here ... in English, very interresting read
http://www.conseil-etat.fr/cde/node.php?mediaid=3565 (http://www.conseil-etat.fr/cde/node.php?mediaid=3565))

What the State Council says amongst other things is that while the State has the duty to protect the dignity of the human person, the principle of "dignity" also implies respect of individual freedom. There is a conflict here and both the jurisprudence of the ECHR and French constitutional law give prevalence to personal autonomy, provided no harm is done to anybody else.

Ergo, if a woman choses to harm herself by wearing the burqa, the State has nothing to say as long as she does not harm another person.

(page 21, 24)

The French government, however, has chosen to ignore this advice.

2. the example of polygamy is a bad one because I think marriage is an institution created by and for the State. Certainly Christian dogma and scripture cannot claim possession of this institution since it existed far before Christianity and scripture is not particularly friendly to it. Therefore, the State has the backing of history and tradition (marriages in the early middle ages were forbidden from being done in the church for example) to regulate marriage as it sees fit.
Sorry ?
Marriage is an institution created by the Church and backed by the State, and only very late in history. In France, only the French revolution made a church rite secondary.
As for monogamy in its absolute form (one mate for the entire life, no concubines) is an original Christian dogma.

If America had been populated by Muslim immigrants instead of Christian immigrants, Joseph Smith would have have no trouble with his 30 wives.

3. I would probably modify your statement "freedom of religion is value number 1" and say freedom of religion and expression is value number 1 but I think you are essentially right about that. However, I will warn you I am the one studying to be clergy here so my opinion may be bias.
Yes, I agree. Freedom of religion and freedom of expression go hand in hand.

Michael

Jul 19th 2010, 09:46 AM

Sorry ?
Marriage is an institution created by the Church and backed by the State, and only very late in history. In France, only the French revolution made a church rite secondary.

As for monogamy in its absolute form (one mate for the entire life, no concubines) is an original Christian dogma.
This is a bit of a thread digression, but this is not correct about the history of marriage and the Christian Church.

Marriage originates as a state institution several thousand years ago and was long ignored by the Christian Church until the 13th century AD (as Non Sequitur alluded to) when the Church first became interested in regulating marriage.

Bottom line is that marriage originates as an entirely state-sponsored secular institution that the Christian Church has at various times sought to control it entirely as if it was their own.

Btw, the Church's support for monogamy appears to correspond to the same timing as the rise of 'chivalry' in western Europe (exactly the same time period - 13th century AD). Prior to that time, the Church appears to have considered marriages to be little more than a 'carnal pleasure' - something they barely tolerated when the Christian religious ideal was always celibacy.

Non Sequitur

Jul 19th 2010, 04:52 PM

Actually, the US is also secular if you define secularism by religious neutrality. It is a democratic value enshrined in the US constitution. Legally, there is no difference between France and the US, or Turkey for that matter. If there is a difference, it is political and politics, quite clearly, influences the jurisprudence.

History may shed light on the differences. The US was born from religious emigrants, fleeing religious persecution. In this context religious neutrality of the State ensures that all these religions cohabit in an harmonious way. In France, the law of separation between the State and the Church goes back to 1905. As a legacy of the French revolution, it was formerly directed against the immense temporal influence of the Catholic church and its mingling into public matters.

The history point is a good one. All I will say is that while the letter of the law may be similar, the application of the law is different. As many Americans have noticed, such a law would not Constitutional muster here. Also, while the state itself should be neutral that does not mean that politicians should not be religious. Much to my own chagrin, a kind of religious believe seems to be necessary for American politics.

Sorry ?
Marriage is an institution created by the Church and backed by the State, and only very late in history. In France, only the French revolution made a church rite secondary.
As for monogamy in its absolute form (one mate for the entire life, no concubines) is an original Christian dogma.

If America had been populated by Muslim immigrants instead of Christian immigrants, Joseph Smith would have have no trouble with his 30 wives.

Well Michael already covered this one for me. As I said, marriage has historically been something that the Church tolerated, but did not own. Sure Scripture and the Church had something to say about the institution of marriage, but Scripture and the Church has something to say about a lot of things. The only thing I will add is that two Bible verses off the top of my head are not particularly friendly to marriage

Matthew 22:30 "For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.

and 1 Corinthians 7:8: "To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain single as I do."

neither of those are particularly kind to marriage.

dilettante

Jul 20th 2010, 10:36 AM

Well Michael already covered this one for me. As I said, marriage has historically been something that the Church tolerated, but did not own. Sure Scripture and the Church had something to say about the institution of marriage, but Scripture and the Church has something to say about a lot of things. The only thing I will add is that two Bible verses off the top of my head are not particularly friendly to marriage

Matthew 22:30 "For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.

and 1 Corinthians 7:8: "To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain single as I do."

neither of those are particularly kind to marriage.

No doubt the Christian Church never owned marriage (obviously the concept considerably pre-dates Christianity), but I'm uncomfortable leaving it stated that the church "tolerated" marriage, as if it didn't really like it but was willing to put up with it, especially just based on one reference to the afterlife and a line written to Corinth.

The New Testament in general takes marriage seriously. Jesus forbids divorce in the sermon on the mount ("what God has joined let no man put asunder"), and elsewhere the NT compares the relationship between Christ and the church to that between husband and wife (Eph 5:22-33), and calls the church the "bride of Christ". Even Paul's letter to Corinth describes the sanctity of marriages and places his advice against getting married in the context of "for the present distress."

To the best of my knowledge, there's never been a time when the church looked upon marriage as trivial or insignificant. Though celibacy was (and in some cases is) held as the ideal for the clergy, a permanent and "Godly" marriage was always the desired norm for the laity and adultery and fornication always condemned.

Anyway, I'd never suggest that marriage is peculiarly Christian or that the Christian church invented the institution, but I don't think its accurate to characterize the church as ever looking on marriage as distasteful or irrelevant.

Sucre

Jul 21st 2010, 06:48 AM

My statement was neither to be read that the Church “owned” marriage nor that it created marriage. Marriage existed since the eve of time and I doubt its origin can be clearly traced…? However, the principles underlying the rites of marriage as we know it in our western cultures go back to the Church teaching, this is what I mean.

Which principles am I talking about? Mainly:
* Mutual consent
and
* Monogamy (in the context of our discussion)

These principles appear in the bible, in the doctrine, in particular St Augustine is often quoted, but also in the legislation (canons) of the Church all through the first millennium. Christian endeavours to regulate marriage started as early as the IInd century. What happened in the XIIIth century is that marriage was finally included as a sacrament (later refuted by Luther). A formality so to say.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09707a.htm

The Koran limits the number of wives to four and I don’t know if it says anything about mutual consent.

The “State” only took over later and simply applied these principles. If these principles do come from the State, then from which “State”, how and when? The truth is that using the term “State” in the middle-ages and until modern times is an anachronism. Until the Church stepped in, marriage was unregulated.

Going back to religious prescriptions with regards to marriage, the Church, of course, based its teaching on the interpretation of the Bible. All in all, and very much so in the New Testament, the point about marriage is that Love of God is preferable to human Love (----> therefore the disgust for sex).

This is very much how I read the two verses you cite, Non Seguitur !

St Paul clearly states somewhere that celibacy is preferable to getting married. Is it to be interpreted that marriage is a bad thing? No, rather that celibacy and sexual abstinence are better things. St Paul also defends marriage as a better-than- nothing. Better to be a monk, avoid women, yet we need women for reproduction, so get married but stick to one single woman throughout your life and until you get to heaven, divorce is forbidden, you can’t re-marry and there should be no sex outside marriage : this is called strict monogamy.

[Digression: Monogamy is not natural. This is the reason why it did not exist before Christianity, is ignored by most religions outside Christianity, and is circumvented within our own culture. It took thousands of years to the Christian Church to impose it and yet it was only a matter of a couple of centuries before the State – and here it is the State which plays a role – started to alleviate its constraints. Be it Divorce, same sex marriage or “light-marriage” (as the PACS in France), these are recent developments, no sooner than the 18th century, both in Europe and in the USA. In this case, it is the Church which, after some original resistance, follows suit and eventually adapts its teaching. One of the secrets of longevity of the Church is its power of adaptation.]

Michael

Jul 21st 2010, 11:04 AM

Sucre

Jul 22nd 2010, 05:13 AM

The ancient Babylonian Law Code provides significant supporting evidence for the assertion that 'the state' has a long history of regulating the institution of marriage. Similar references are found in the Roman legal code as well as in the law codes of most ancient Greek city-states, long before the advent of Christianity or Islam.

The state has always held (and enforced) the right to determine who can and who cannot be legally married - even going so far (in some cases) as to regulate or legislate the size (and terms) of dowries.

Is this the answer to this part of my message (below) or is it some general random comment on the role of the State with regards to the institution of Marriage ?

The “State” only took over later and simply applied these principles. If these principles do come from the State, then from which “State”, how and when? The truth is that using the term “State” in the middle-ages and until modern times is an anachronism. Until the Church stepped in, marriage was unregulated.

Michael

Jul 22nd 2010, 11:23 AM

Is this the answer to this part of my message (below) or is it some general random comment on the role of the State with regards to the institution of Marriage ?
It was a specific reply to your assertion regarding the issue of secular governance of marriage.

The “State” only took over later and simply applied these principles. If these principles do come from the State, then from which “State”, how and when? The truth is that using the term “State” in the middle-ages and until modern times is an anachronism. Until the Church stepped in, marriage was unregulated.

The Babylonian Law Code is clear example of a specific state making specific rules/laws about who can marry whom and regulates the paying of dowries, dowry-land-transfers, marriage property status of widows, etc., long before the advent of Christianity or Islam, or the medieval era.

The Roman Republic also regulated marriage quite aggressively - also long predating the advent of Christianity or the medieval era. It is also impossible to deny that the Roman Republic was very much a 'nation-state' in our modern sense of the term.

The point is that states or governments have routinely regulated marriage, particularly as it pertains to land-ownership. Generally speaking, no one usually cares about the marriages of peasants since they had no property by definition and thus their marriage doesn't really concern the state at all (hence the reason that marriage has historically been an 'upscale' institution - poor people didn't bother with it).

Btw, the general failure of governments to regulate marriage in the 7th to 12th centuries had more to do with the general failure of governance at that time than anything else. As soon as governments were able to regulate marriage, they did.

Sucre

Jul 23rd 2010, 12:30 PM

OK, in which case you answered to my message out of context. You should refer to my entire message, not just part of it. Let see ...

My statement was neither to be read that the Church “owned” marriage nor that it created marriage. Marriage existed since the eve of time and I doubt its origin can be clearly traced…? However, the principles underlying the rites of marriage as we know it in our western cultures go back to the Church teaching, this is what I mean.

Which principles am I talking about? Mainly:
* Mutual consent
and
* Monogamy (in the context of our discussion)

I am not denying that the State ever issued rules on marriage. So, I agree that :

...states or governments have routinely regulated marriage, particularly as it pertains to land-ownership.

What I am denying is that :
1) The creation of "Marriage" is to be traced back to the State
Besides I am asserting that :
2) The principles building the moral backbone and justification of "Marriage" nowadays in Western societies are principles set by the Christian Church

(I am referring to mutual consent and monogamy, as being specifically Christian, but there might be a few others)

As far as point 1) is concerned, there is little left in Europe of Roman marriage except the ring and the veil. By the time the Church stepped in, as described in my original post, there was nothing left neither of the Roman State nor of its laws.

As far as point 2) is concerned, as you rightly state, the Romans were not interested in Marriage (= working out the relationship between a man and a woman), but in Property. This is why the marriage rules you are referring too were :
* contractual rules mainly concerned with the distribution of property
* the "Plebe" (we are talking of more than 90% of the Roman population at the time) were not concerned, they had no property
* "moral" issues were not considered

In particular, the Romans completely ignored the principles of mutual consent and of monogamy which are so important for us nowadays. In fact, the custom of the Romans was to kidnap women and polygamy was the rule not the exception, and not only within the Plebe.

http://www.educnet.education.fr/louvre/rapt/sabines.jpg

It's maybe a question how to weight each factor of influence or how you define "Marriage" in the first place ? Is it more about ownership or about relationship ? The State regulates ownership, the Church relationships ?
Yet, considering that the thread is about the burqa, hence the interaction of governmental and religious prescriptions, I think it is misleading to ignore the influence of the Church as a moral backing or origin of State regulations.

Btw, the general failure of governments to regulate marriage in the 7th to 12th centuries had more to do with the general failure of governance at that time than anything else. As soon as governments were able to regulate marriage, they did.
(Again a digression, but I can't help it ...)

Charlemagne was a mighty Emperor who governed all Europe. He enforced an educational reform, setting the first primary school system, a monetary reform and even a Church reform ...

He is the most famous and there were a few uncapable Kings before and after him, but if any had been interrested in regulating marriage the way which was more suitable for them they would have.

Why not just accept that the Church had a lot of power simply by its sole existence ? It was expected from the Church to provide moral guidance. The power of the Church was welcomed. In many States around the globe, this is still the case. And our governments (I include the USA) do not escape this moral influence except if they are ideologically anti-clerical (which was the case in France at certain periods of times, or in former communist countries)

Michael

Jul 24th 2010, 12:05 PM

First of all, (as a moderator) I fail to see the relevance of a continued discussion about the history of marriage laws and customs to the thread topic of the proposed French law against the burqa. I will reply briefly to some of your points, but I'd like to see this thread remain focused upon the issue of the 'Burqa Law'. If you want to have a continued discussion about the social or cultural history of the institution of marriage, that's fine, but it shouldn't be buried or hidden inside this thread. If you would like, I can move the most relevant sequence of posts about the history of marriage to create a new thread.

As for the history of marriage as an institution, monogamy has always been an integral element of marriage law, long before the advent of Christianity. Both the Babylonian and the Roman law codes (for example) specified draconian punishments for adultery - as did medieval feudal law. Islamic law also supports some very strict rules and punishments for adultery.

Indeed, one is moved to observe that legal and religious prohibitions against adultery have been, comparatively speaking, rather lightly enforced with mild punishments in most western cultures (when compared with contemporary Islam or ancient Rome).

As for 'mutual consent' in marriages, that was never a Christian rule or law, rather it was only a cultural custom adopted in western Europe - primarily in the places of Europe where the rulership of the Church was the weakest - and primarily after the Great Plague of the 14th century which wiped out so much of the population and resulted in many new cultural liberties. In those places where historically the Church was legally strongest (ie. southern Europe or amongst the aristocracy), arranged marriages (non-consentual) remained common right up to the 19th century.

Btw, the infamous 'rape of the Sabine women' has more to do with the 'consumation' of a military victory (Roman conquest of the Sabines and establishment of Roman regional hegemony) than as a customary way to arrange marriages for Roman males.

As for the religious, social and cultural influences of the Christian Church in western history, I've consistently asserted that it is an imporant and integral part of our modern political society. I've also long argued in defense of liberty for religion in politics. I don't think anyone can seriously accuse me of religion-bashing at all. That being said, the 'facts' of history indicate that marriage originates as a legal institution for the purpose of maintaining land-ownership and property rights of the ruling elites. Religious customs and ceremonies have always been used to 'adorn' the marriage ceremony, but I would say that have always been somewhat incidental to the core principle of a legal union of two families for property inheritances up until the modern era when marriage became vastly more popular with all classes in society (and thus, even more heavily regulated by both Church and State).

Sucre

Jul 25th 2010, 05:23 PM

First of all, (as a moderator) I fail to see the relevance of a continued discussion about the history of marriage laws and customs to the thread topic of the proposed French law against the burqa.
Are you jocking ??? :rofl:

YOU, Michael, started the digression !!!

Don't be surprised if you get answers ! And since you can't expect all posters to espouse your views and bow to your knowledge, you need to accept that at the end the digression leads to an entire discussion.

:rolleyes:

I will reply briefly to some of your points, but I'd like to see this thread remain focused upon the issue of the 'Burqa Law'.
Actually, if you haven't noticed, this is exactly what I've been trying to do. :)

I clarified my original statement, trying to stay focused on the origins, not of "Marriage", but on the values underlying Marriage in the Western world , polygamy being one of them.

Michael, to speak about something, as that includes a law recently promulgated, you must clarify concepts. That does not go without digressions. Otherwise, the discussion stays superficial. In the case of the Burqa Law, you must have an understanding of many things such as French culture and history, French law and the history of concepts/ rights in law, immigration, integration, but also Coranic law v. Christian tradition. This may lead to discussions about all these points.

If you want to have a continued discussion about the social or cultural history of the institution of marriage, that's fine, but it shouldn't be buried or hidden inside this thread. If you would like, I can move the most relevant sequence of posts about the history of marriage to create a new thread.
Michael, you do what you want. I will not participate in the discussion. I exclusively came back on this forum to clarify a wrong statement, if not calomnious, made in my regard. My intention is not to stay, even though I gladly participated in this thread and enjoyed reading the different posts.

Sucre

Jul 25th 2010, 06:28 PM

As for the history of marriage as an institution, monogamy has always been an integral element of marriage law, long before the advent of Christianity. Both the Babylonian and the Roman law codes (for example) specified draconian punishments for adultery - as did medieval feudal law. Islamic law also supports some very strict rules and punishments for adultery.

Indeed, one is moved to observe that legal and religious prohibitions against adultery have been, comparatively speaking, rather lightly enforced with mild punishments in most western cultures (when compared with contemporary Islam or ancient Rome).
by both Church and State).
Your argument about the condemnation of aldutery as a proof of monogamy is not convincing. As you know, Islam expressly supports polygamy and, yet, let alduterious women stoned.

So, yes, it's a one-way street and so was the case in Ancient Rome and in all the cultures you quote : alduterous women were stoned and men had concubines.

In opposition to this practice, I gave a lengthy argumentation on the Christian strict concept of monogamy, which applies to women and to men.

As for 'mutual consent' in marriages, that was never a Christian rule or law, rather it was only a cultural custom adopted in western Europe - primarily in the places of Europe where the rulership of the Church was the weakest - and primarily after the Great Plague of the 14th century which wiped out so much of the population and resulted in many new cultural liberties. In those places where historically the Church was legally strongest (ie. southern Europe or amongst the aristocracy), arranged marriages (non-consentual) remained common right up to the 19th century.
The Church, and this starts with the early Christians, has steadily advocated mutual consent of spouses, hence the necessity of a witness at the marriage - Since the IInd century. I don't what your sources are, I cite mine below.

Btw, the infamous 'rape of the Sabine women' has more to do with the 'consumation' of a military victory (Roman conquest of the Sabines and establishment of Roman regional hegemony) than as a customary way to arrange marriages for Roman males.
I used the painting of Poussin as an illustration, not as a "proof". Although you can argue that myths originate from historical facts (besides the fact that kidnapping was in Ancient Rome a usual way of getting the woman you wanted.)

Please note that the words "rapt" in French (kidnapping) and "rape" in English have the same etymological origin, "rapere" (rapere "seize, carry off by force, abduct)
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=rape

But the usage of mythology or etymology as ways to finds historical "facts" would be another digression ;).

As for the religious, social and cultural influences of the Christian Church in western history, I've consistently asserted that it is an imporant and integral part of our modern political society. I've also long argued in defense of liberty for religion in politics. I don't think anyone can seriously accuse me of religion-bashing at all. That being said, the 'facts' of history indicate that marriage originates as a legal institution for the purpose of maintaining land-ownership and property rights of the ruling elites. Religious customs and ceremonies have always been used to 'adorn' the marriage ceremony, but I would say that have always been somewhat incidental to the core principle of a legal union of two families for property inheritances up until the modern era when marriage became vastly more popular with all classes in society (and thus, even more heavily regulated by both Church and State).
Facts of history are one thing, their interpretation another. Interpretation starts with "weighting" facts. What you say in the sentence in bold is certainly true for Ancient Rome, but I am completely unconvinced that you can generalise it to the entire human history... It's a bit presomptuous. It certainly does not apply to the Middle-Ages or to the Islamic world - there is plenty of "facts" as well to show that the moral instances in society were also worried about setting correct rules of relationships.

And by the way, my "sources" are two books,
http://www.laprocure.com/livres/jean-claude-bologne/histoire-mariage-occident_9782012792371.html
and a small book I just bought two weeks ago without knowing it would be so useful :
http://www.amazon.fr/Amours-Histoires-relations-hommes-femmes/dp/2213630100

Michael

Jul 28th 2010, 06:52 PM

I exclusively came back on this forum to clarify a wrong statement, if not calomnious, made in my regard. My intention is not to stay, even though I gladly participated in this thread and enjoyed reading the different posts.

Okay bye (again). You are of course free to come and go as you please. :)

Pestilence

Jul 31st 2010, 03:39 PM

Michael

Aug 9th 2010, 11:42 AM

Correct if me if I am wrong, but doesn't the "new law" really put into clear terms a long standing unwritten law about (for example) entering banks with a mask? Why would a person stolling through town in a "robber's mask" be viewed with suspicion but not a person with a burka - or ski mask - or motorcycle helmet?

I think that too many people focus on Islamic attire and forget that there are other good reasons for banning the veiling of one's face - not only xenophobic ones.

Perhaps because there are no such laws?

It is perfectly legal to wear a bellaclava in winter and/or a full-face motorcycle helmet inside a bank. The French law only applies to the Islamic variety of face covering, and thus, it is reasonable to point out the hypocrisy of denying this.

That being said, it is relevant to note that western states have a long history of making laws about what clothing can be worn, or must be worn (or not worn at all) at any given place or time. In this respect, this anti-burqa law is just another in a long line of state authoritarianism seeking to define and regulate human behavior.

Michael

Aug 12th 2010, 04:51 PM

Here's a couple of interesting articles that I've found on this topic.

Rutgers Journal of Law & Religion: Has France Taken Assimilation Too Far? (http://www.lawandreligion.com/sites/lawandreligion.com/files/Bienkowski%20Final.pdf)

Why France is Banning the Veil (http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/2010/07/why-france-is-banning-the-veil/)

I highly recommend the Rutger's article - it is a larger survey of the issues of immigrants, assimilation and religious symbols in France that are highly relevant to this topic.

Michael

Sep 13th 2010, 04:02 PM

Here's yet another interesting comment on the Burqa-ban in France - reflecting on France's history with dealing with "others".

This attitude reflects a tragic irony: The other side of the coin of equality in France is the refusal to acknowledge the desires of some citizens to hold on to certain religious, social, and cultural practices. That there is a wide spectrum of motivations behind these desires has been lost from sight. When we see a Christian wearing a cross, or a Jew in a skullcap, we do not assume that they all have the same motivation for signaling their religious faith, much less have been forced to do so. Why do we fail to attribute the same act of volition to wearers of the veil? Instead, the French risk representing Islam as a monolithic belief system—an ideological foil for the totalizing discourse of French republicanism.

Some historians suggest that there are deep continuities between Vichy and the republics that preceded and followed. In this regard, we might consider one consequence of the Statut des Juifs: Vichy eventually enforced the Nazi order that all Jews living in the occupied zone (roughly the northern half of France occupied by the Germans in 1940) wear the Jewish star on their outer clothing. While the differences between then and now are striking, they nevertheless reflect similar ideological and conceptual preoccupations. One group is forced to wear an article of clothing, while another group is forced to surrender an article of clothing; one group is banished from the nation, while another group is compelled to assimilate. In both cases, however, the nation refuses to tolerate otherness.

The intentions of these two sets of laws could not be any more different: A great distance has been traveled from Vichy's sartorial law to the Republic's law against the covering of faces in public. Why, then, does France seem to be standing in place?

Source (http://chronicle.com/article/Uncovering-the-French-Ban-on/124341/)

The problem here seems to be located within French politics, society, media and culture, not in the actual people wearing burqas.

The crime of the burqa wearer appears to be found in daring to be different. That apparently isn't to be permitted. :shrug:

Michael

Sep 15th 2010, 11:52 AM

Contentious veil ban sails through French Senate

PARIS: The French Senate has overwhelmingly passed a bill banning the burqa-style Islamic veil on public streets and other places, a measure that affects fewer than 2000 women but is widely seen as a symbolic defence of French values.

The Senate voted 246 to 1 in favour of the bill in a final step towards making the ban a law - though it now must pass France's constitutional watchdog.

Many Muslims believe the legislation is one more blow to France's second religion and risks raising the level of anti-Islamic feelings in a country where mosques, like synagogues, are targets of hate.

Source (http://www.smh.com.au/world/contentious-veil-ban-sails-through-french-senate-20100915-15cqo.html)

There is only one last hurdle for this legislation - review of the constitutionality of the ban. I don't see much in the way of a constitutional prohibition against this in France, so I'd expect this bill to pass that hurdle soon enough.

What does strike me as 'odd' about this is that I can easily see 2000 burqa-clad women on a Saturday afternoon, just walking through certain neighborhoods in this city - they are usually leading several small burqa-clad children with them. That's a pretty common sight around here. :shrug:

Personally, I consider their disgusting habit of spitting on the sidewalks to be far more obnoxious than the veils they wear, but that's just me I guess. We don't have a problem with letting Muslims be Muslim in this country.

dilettante

Sep 16th 2010, 09:06 AM

Michael

Sep 16th 2010, 11:07 AM

It's not at all unusual to see the burqa here in Philly either. In fact, there's a section of town a mile or so down the road where I'd be extremely surprised if I didn't see at least one person wearing a burqa every time I drive through.

However, I don't think I've ever seen a child or (someone I suspected of being) a teenager wearing one, nor have I seen any students in burquas on campus. The girls accompanying a burqa-clad mother here generally just have on some sort of head-scarf.
I've definitely seen little kiddies less than 3' tall in full black-clad and burqa. Looks odd when the little boy with them is dressed in jeans and t-shirt.

That being said, little head-scarves are far more common. We've also got thousands (and thousands) of turban wearing Sikhs here as well.

Sucre

Sep 17th 2010, 05:26 PM

Source (http://www.smh.com.au/world/contentious-veil-ban-sails-through-french-senate-20100915-15cqo.html)

There is only one last hurdle for this legislation - review of the constitutionality of the ban. I don't see much in the way of a constitutional prohibition against this in France, so I'd expect this bill to pass that hurdle soon enough.
Wrong.

The chance that the law is deemed anti-constitutional is not thin, on the contrary. As mentioned in a previous post of mine, the State Council in March 2010 spoke clearly against the law. I posted the link in this thread. Did you read it? There is an English translation of the full text :).

A direct source this time and not second-hand information from the anglo-American media, with reference to French law and practices, real stuff.

Here is some info why the law might be unconstitutional:
http://www.documentissime.fr/profil/stievet-clement/article-334-projet-de-loi-anti-burqa-le-conseil-constitutionnel-sera-saisi.html

But maybe you are more clever on the French constitution than the lawyers working for the State Council ;) and you have information we don't have here in Europe?

Besides, even if the law is deemed constitutional, it may invalidated by the European Court of Human Rights. This will come!

In any case, do not forget to remind posters here on DWF: France is a Law State (un Etat de droit/ ein Rechtsstaat). I am sure you'll find an article saying that on the Internet.

If the law is deemed constitutional, even I might change my mind. I am waiting for the decision with interest. They are studying it right now:
http://www.conseil-constitutionnel.fr/conseil-constitutionnel/francais/les-decisions/affaires-en-instance/affaires-en-instance.28377.html

Unlike you, I really don't know what the decision will be ;)!

What does strike me as 'odd' about this is that I can easily see 2000 burqa-clad women on a Saturday afternoon, just walking through certain neighborhoods in this city - they are usually leading several small burqa-clad children with them. That's a pretty common sight around here. :shrug:

Personally, I consider their disgusting habit of spitting on the sidewalks to be far more obnoxious than the veils they wear, but that's just me I guess. We don't have a problem with letting Muslims be Muslim in this country.
My first comment on this is that no religion forces to spit on the sidewalk. If the New Church of the REborn Jesus Christ were suddently saying that it is a holy thing to spit on the sidewalk, how would you feel about this?

The question is whether the religious rule to emprison women in a cloth is acceptable, not whether you think it's "nice", cool, civil or disgusting.

My second comment is that since you're a man, you probably dont care anyway: you're not concerned about these women. Oh yeah ...Bad husband, wrong religion, as long as I am doing fine ...

My third comment is that the burqa is not Muslim. It's a custom from a number of sects, but largely ignored by most Muslim countries. Have you ever been in Africa? I was: in Senegal. The population there says they are Muslim. The women don't wear any veil and some of them are half naked, without shocking anybody.

My fourth comment is that your reaction to the law illustrates what I always thought would happen: the law gives the impression that it is anti- "a certain religion" when actually it's against a certain "custom". It's a prejudiced non-informed position - But this was doomed to happen.:(

And again, let me state it clearly: I think the law is wrong - useless an unfair. If I am "speaking for the devil" on this thead, it is more to show "the other side", a side which is simply not present in the English media, completely absent, simply because they have a tradition of their own and a certain prisma - fully recognisable on this forum, not for the lack of intelligence of the posters but for the lack of alternative sources of information :).

Sucre

Sep 17th 2010, 05:35 PM

I've definitely seen little kiddies less than 3' tall in full black-clad and burqa. Looks odd when the little boy with them is dressed in jeans and t-shirt.

That being said, little head-scarves are far more common. We've also got thousands (and thousands) of turban wearing Sikhs here as well.
If you can see the Jeans and the T-shirts, Michael, this is not a burqa you are talking about ... :rolleyes: A burqa conceals EVERYTHING. Everything, the entire body, everything except the eyes.
http://www.dincao.com.br/noticias/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/burqa1.jpg

(And the hands are sometimes hidden in gloves.)

Is it that common in Canada?

Sucre

Sep 17th 2010, 05:40 PM

Here's yet another interesting comment on the Burqa-ban in France - reflecting on France's history with dealing with "others".

Source (http://chronicle.com/article/Uncovering-the-French-Ban-on/124341/)

The problem here seems to be located within French politics, society, media and culture, not in the actual people wearing burqas.

The crime of the burqa wearer appears to be found in daring to be different. That apparently isn't to be permitted. :shrug:
(Yawn)

It's so interresting to come on this forum and learn so much about one's national sub-conscience ;).

Michael, a bit of critical mind. If the law on wearing the yellow star is the predecessor of the anti-burqa law, why have the Germans and all the other States in Europe invaded by Germany during WWII not a similar law?

(Yawn again)

Michael

Sep 17th 2010, 07:17 PM

Wrong.

The chance that the law is deemed anti-constitutional is not thin, on the contrary. As mentioned in a previous post of mine, the State Council in March 2010 spoke clearly against the law. I posted the link in this thread. Did you read it? There is an English translation of the full text :).

A direct source this time and not second-hand information from the anglo-American media, with reference to French law and practices, real stuff.

Here is some info why the law might be unconstitutional:
http://www.documentissime.fr/profil/stievet-clement/article-334-projet-de-loi-anti-burqa-le-conseil-constitutionnel-sera-saisi.html

But maybe you are more clever on the French constitution than the lawyers working for the State Council ;) and you have information we don't have here in Europe?

Besides, even if the law is deemed constitutional, it may invalidated by the European Court of Human Rights. This will come!

In any case, do not forget to remind posters here on DWF: France is a Law State (un Etat de droit/ ein Rechtsstaat). I am sure you'll find an article saying that on the Internet.

If the law is deemed constitutional, even I might change my mind. I am waiting for the decision with interest. They are studying it right now:
http://www.conseil-constitutionnel.fr/conseil-constitutionnel/francais/les-decisions/affaires-en-instance/affaires-en-instance.28377.html

Unlike you, I really don't know what the decision will be ;)!
I didn't say I know it to be so. I said I believe it will pass constitutional review.

I'll spare you my reasoning since you don't seem very interested in my view of the issue at all.

My first comment on this is that no religion forces to spit on the sidewalk. If the New Church of the REborn Jesus Christ were suddently saying that it is a holy thing to spit on the sidewalk, how would you feel about this?
I don't "feel" about public policy issues at all. I consider my own subjective opinion to be mostly irrelevant to such issues. My only concern is with good public policy.

The question is whether the religious rule to emprison women in a cloth is acceptable, not whether you think it's "nice", cool, civil or disgusting.
As far as I'm concerned, the issue is about the French State seeking to regulate a specific type of behavior.

My second comment is that since you're a man, you probably dont care anyway: you're not concerned about these women. Oh yeah ...Bad husband, wrong religion, as long as I am doing fine ...
Bemused giggles. You're not very good at trolling or consistency it would seem.

Please refer to your comments in the following post:

(Yawn)

It's so interresting to come on this forum and learn so much about one's national sub-conscience ;).
Sounds like the pot is calling the kettle black.

On the one hand, you object to others making a general comment about the French political situation, but you have no problem it seems making your own general comments about the assumed motives of others (in an insulting way no less).

I think it is far more reasonable to make general comments about a political entity than it is to make assumed comments about the motives of individuals.

My third comment is that the burqa is not Muslim. It's a custom from a number of sects, but largely ignored by most Muslim countries. Have you ever been in Africa? I was: in Senegal. The population there says they are Muslim. The women don't wear any veil and some of them are half naked, without shocking anybody.
You are correct that the burqa isn't part of Muslim doctrine, though there is some dispute about that (wives of Mohammad).

As far as I understand the matter, the burqa originates as an Arabic cultural custom. It is the Saudi Muslims that have been attempting to enforce Arabic culture as the ruling culture of Islam. It is they who seek to define the burqa as required under Islam. As you point out, there are indeed many Islamic countries where the burqa is not common. All that is beside the point.

My fourth comment is that your reaction to the law illustrates what I always thought would happen: the law gives the impression that it is anti- "a certain religion" when actually it's against a certain "custom". It's a prejudiced non-informed position - But this was doomed to happen.:(
My reaction to this law is entirely predicated upon liberalism and pluralism.

I'm quite well aware of the convoluted politics of the burqa.

And I'm really getting bored and tired of your implied insults.

And again, let me state it clearly: I think the law is wrong - useless an unfair. If I am "speaking for the devil" on this thead, it is more to show "the other side", a side which is simply not present in the English media, completely absent, simply because they have a tradition of their own and a certain prisma - fully recognisable on this forum, not for the lack of intelligence of the posters but for the lack of alternative sources of information :).
This is a rather lame attempt at trolling. I'm not biting.

Michael

Sep 17th 2010, 07:22 PM

Michael, a bit of critical mind. If the law on wearing the yellow star is the predecessor of the anti-burqa law, why have the Germans and all the other States in Europe invaded by Germany during WWII not a similar law?

(Yawn again)
You mean like Vichy France's law requiring the Yellow Star? :lol:

Btw, if you review the thread, I've already posted my opinion that I believe the State has the right to regulate clothing behavior - establishing minimum standards in public. The State has a long history of such regulations. The Nazi passion for requiring ethnic-identity labels is not part of that tradition at all.

Michael

Sep 17th 2010, 07:27 PM

If you can see the Jeans and the T-shirts, Michael, this is not a burqa you are talking about ... :rolleyes: A burqa conceals EVERYTHING. Everything, the entire body, everything except the eyes.
And which part about "Looks odd when the little boy with them is dressed in jeans and t-shirt" did you not understand?

(And the hands are sometimes hidden in gloves.)

Is it that common in Canada?
Yes, that's what I irreverently call "Muslim full court dress". Seems more common around here than the head-scarf.

I think we've been over this several times. You seem to have a real difficulty in accepting the fact that burqas are very common in North American immigrant communities and no one here makes any issue of it.

There is of course lively debate within the Muslim community about wearing the burqa or even headscarves. As far as I'm concerned, that's for the Muslim community to deal with and that's pretty much official policy in Canada and USA on the topic.

WFCY

Sep 17th 2010, 07:30 PM

Quite frankly, if I were a Muslim living in the US (NYC), I'd wear a Burqa too, put some steel plating underneath the cloth.

Cause you never know who is gonna STAB YOU IN DA FACE for being a Muslim, especially if you are driving a Taxi.

Non Sequitur

Sep 17th 2010, 07:31 PM

WFCY

Sep 17th 2010, 07:35 PM

yeah it was a joke referring to the ground zero mosque stabbing incident, aimed to losen up the air a bit.

Non Sequitur

Sep 17th 2010, 07:41 PM

My third comment is that the burqa is not Muslim. It's a custom from a number of sects, but largely ignored by most Muslim countries. Have you ever been in Africa? I was: in Senegal. The population there says they are Muslim. The women don't wear any veil and some of them are half naked, without shocking anybody.

I'm not sure it's that easy to distinguish the two. While it certainly is an issue of custom, the custom is related to religion for these people. To draw a comparison, Several very conservative Christian groups don't allow women to wear anything other than dresses and they certainly justify this behavior based on theological grounds (even though the Bible really doesn't talk about the issue). The people who wear burqa's certainly believe it's a Muslim thing.

yeah it was a joke referring to the ground zero mosque stabbing incident, aimed to losen up the air a bit.

I figured, I was really just pointing out the Muslim communities in the US.

Michael

Sep 17th 2010, 09:56 PM

Michael

Sep 17th 2010, 09:59 PM

And for the record, I'm perfectly well aware that the 'official' reason for the proposed Burqa-ban in France is entirely based on a principle of women's rights.

While that argument does have some merit in principle, I think it fails entirely on political grounds. I believe that the cause of individual rights for women cannot be advanced by quashing other individual rights of women.

That being said, I believe that the proposed French burqa-ban will be deemed legal under French law. EU law might theoretically object, that that's a different story - and if that happens, that would be very interesting to see the result! :)

Michael

Sep 18th 2010, 10:23 AM

Btw, it looks like Belgium has proposed a similar law to ban burqas.

Belgium bans burkas: Women who refuse to show faces to be jailed for a week under draft law.

Belgium became the first European country to impose a full ban on wearing a burka last night.

Its parliament approved a draft law which states women can be jailed for hiding their faces in public.

The bill – which must be rubber-stamped by the Belgian senate – is set to become law by July.

Centre-Right MP Daniel Bacquelaine said last night: ‘The notion of recognising people in the street is essential to maintain public order.

‘It’s also a question of human dignity. The full face veil turns a woman into a walking prison.’

The ground-breaking legislation comes just ten days after an earlier vote on banning the burka was scuppered by the collapse of the country’s parliament and resignation of its prime minister, Yves Leterme.

Despite the political turmoil, MPs in the fragile five-party coalition managed to push through the controversial law yesterday evening.

It means anyone will be banned from covering their face in a public place, including the street, shops, offices, schools and hospitals.

Women will be fined £110 for the first offence.

If they refuse to pay or are caught a second time, they can be jailed for a week. It is estimated up to 400 of the country’s 280,000 Muslims wear the burka in public.

Source (http://www.eutimes.net/2010/04/belgium-bans-burkas-women-who-refuse-to-show-faces-to-be-jailed-for-a-week-under-draft-law/)

The article is from April of this year and says the law needed to be ratified by July. I'm looking for confirmation on whether this law was actually ratified or not. :)

Zarquon

Sep 20th 2010, 01:37 AM

Btw, it looks like Belgium has proposed a similar law to ban burqas.

Source (http://www.eutimes.net/2010/04/belgium-bans-burkas-women-who-refuse-to-show-faces-to-be-jailed-for-a-week-under-draft-law/)

The article is from April of this year and says the law needed to be ratified by July. I'm looking for confirmation on whether this law was actually ratified or not. :)
Yup, old news (http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,692212,00.html)

Michael

Sep 20th 2010, 09:57 AM

Yup, old news (http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,692212,00.html)

Your news article is reporting on the same issue as my article did (speaks of upper house confirmation due in July) - it does not provide confirmation of whether or not this has become law in Belgium yet.

The Drunk Guy

Sep 20th 2010, 01:33 PM

Your news article is reporting on the same issue as my article did (speaks of upper house confirmation due in July) - it does not provide confirmation of whether or not this has become law in Belgium yet.
Hey, no one told me we were having a pissing contest! I'll go get a six pack and be right back... :D

Michael

Sep 20th 2010, 01:50 PM

Hey, no one told me we were having a pissing contest! I'll go get a six pack and be right back... :D

I'd rather you got a current link to a Belgian news story on the topic!

I've just been searching and there doesn't seem to be any English news media reports covering this topic that are not from April/May of this year when the bill was first introduced. I'm curious if this bill has passed the Belgian upper house or not. :ummm:

Zarquon

Sep 20th 2010, 09:07 PM

I'd rather you got a current link to a Belgian news story on the topic!

I've just been searching and there doesn't seem to be any English news media reports covering this topic that are not from April/May of this year when the bill was first introduced. I'm curious if this bill has passed the Belgian upper house or not. :ummm:
Sorry fo being lazy, didn't bother reading the article..nope, can't find anything at all about the senate confirmation; its almost as if the issue has lapsed or been forgotten.
I searched our university database as well, and got nothing.

Michael

Sep 20th 2010, 09:21 PM

Sorry fo being lazy, didn't bother reading the article..nope, can't find anything at all about the senate confirmation; its almost as if the issue has lapsed or been forgotten.
I searched our university database as well, and got nothing.

Yes, seems odd. Punch "burqa ban Belgium" into google and all you get are the same list of news articles from April/May 2010 when the bill passed the lower house and nothing more recent.

Sucre

Oct 3rd 2010, 03:43 AM

I'm not sure it's that easy to distinguish the two. While it certainly is an issue of custom, the custom is related to religion for these people. To draw a comparison, Several very conservative Christian groups don't allow women to wear anything other than dresses and they certainly justify this behavior based on theological grounds (even though the Bible really doesn't talk about the issue). The people who wear burqa's certainly believe it's a Muslim thing.
Yes, sure, the people wearing the burqa think it's a Muslim thing to do.

However, it does not mean they are right:
http://www.alarabiya.net/articles/2009/06/24/76922.html

If the burqa was a religious prescription, the entire Muslim community in France would be in trouble. If it's only a minority phenomenon carried by a small group of people, they shouldn't be worried about it.

I think it's important not to make the confusion burqa = Islam or terrorism = Islam etc.

Or are you trying to say that because it is "a Muslim" thing to do, at least, for some, it falls under the principle of the freedom of religion and should be handled equally to all other religious prespcriptions ?

Sucre

Oct 3rd 2010, 04:25 AM

I didn't say I know it to be so. I said I believe it will pass constitutional review.

I'll spare you my reasoning since you don't seem very interested in my view of the issue at all.
You said: "I don't see much in the way of a constitutional prohibition against this in France, so I'd expect this bill to pass that hurdle soon enough."

So, on the contrary, I am very interested in your views: what that "not much" is that you "don't see".

On which grounds in your view will the Constitutional Council in France deem the law as constitutional? Why do you think the Constitutional Council will say the law is OK and not take the contrary advice of the State Council, considering that both institutions ground their reasoning on the same legal texts and tradition ?

On the one hand, you object to others making a general comment about the French political situation, but you have no problem it seems making your own general comments about the assumed motives of others (in an insulting way no less).
I don't object to comments on French politics: I object to French-bashing in intellectual disguise.

Your post with the Vichy allusion being a perfect example of this.

Remember I jumped in this thread because my words and my views were being distorted? If anybody, I am the one being insulted here. And with all respect to the good posters on this forum, there are many, and the friendship to some of them, this is more than I can bear most of the time and the reason why I do not wish to spend too much time on DWF.

Non Sequitur

Oct 3rd 2010, 11:21 AM

Greendruid

Oct 3rd 2010, 08:15 PM

Yes, sure, the people wearing the burqa think it's a Muslim thing to do.

However, it does not mean they are right:
http://www.alarabiya.net/articles/2009/06/24/76922.html

If the burqa was a religious prescription, the entire Muslim community in France would be in trouble. If it's only a minority phenomenon carried by a small group of people, they shouldn't be worried about it.

I think it's important not to make the confusion burqa = Islam or terrorism = Islam etc.

Or are you trying to say that because it is "a Muslim" thing to do, at least, for some, it falls under the principle of the freedom of religion and should be handled equally to all other religious prespcriptions ?

I don't think the "=" is a fair thing to use here because I don't think that Non Sequitur implied that at all. Perhaps another angle would help - are there any non-Muslims that wear burqas? If there are, then we cannot consider this a Muslim custom. If there aren't I think that Non Sequitur's comments stand. In other words, I don't think anyone in this thread is asserting that the sphere of burqas entirely encompasses the sphere of Muslims. However, I suspect the reverse is true. Certainly, the origins of the dress style/custom seems to pre-date Islam entirely but the current application of it appears to me to be restricted to Muslims.

Michael

Oct 4th 2010, 04:19 PM

We have confirmation on the Belgian situation! :banana:

Belgium's lower house of parliament approved a veil ban in April but the government collapsed before the Senate debated it. The issue is now waiting for the next government to be formed.

Source (http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6904MO20101001?pageNumber=2)

That would explain why the issue just dropped off like it did.

Michael

Oct 4th 2010, 04:21 PM

Looks like Netherlands is joining the que...

Dutch far-right party wins pledge on burqa ban

Geert Wilders's Freedom party has pivotal role supporting coalition committed to crackdown on immigration

Geert Wilders, the maverick Dutch anti-Islam campaigner, has emerged triumphant as the linchpin of a new rightwing minority government pledged to banning the burqa in the Netherlands, cracking down on immigration, strengthening the police and slashing public spending.

Almost 16 weeks after a general election in which Wilders' Freedom party almost tripled its vote but from which there was no clear winner, Liberals and Christian Democrats in the the Netherlands agreed a minority coalition pact supported in parliament in The Hague by Wilders's 24 seats.

The deal could still come unstuck this weekend, with many Christian Democrats uneasy about forming a coalition a man who goes on trial on Monday in Amsterdam on charges of hate speech and inciting racism.

The Christian Democrats are to hold a party congress tomorrow to bless or reject the coalition pact. Analysts expect a green light from the congress for what will be a fragile government, the most rightwing in the Netherlands in decades.

An opinion poll yesterday showed majority Dutch support for the new government.
Source (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/oct/01/dutch-far-right-burqa-ban)

Looks like this proposed burqa-ban was the 'price' of getting Wilder's Freedom Party to join the coalition.

The Dutch don't seem to be making any pretences that this policy is about 'protecting women's rights' at all. :shrug:

Sucre

Oct 5th 2010, 02:10 PM

Quite frankly, yes. Are you proposing that because only a small minority believe it is a religious principle the right of religious freedom doesn't apply to them? Religious freedom applies especially to minorities.
Of course, I am :)

If I were not, all human actions including man slaughtering, canibalism, human sacrifice, incest etc. would be acceptable as long as they have been deemed as "religious" by minority X.

I am refering to these because, at least at one time of history, they were considered "religious" by at least one human community.

It is therefore essential, when assessing the scope of religious freedom, to draw a line between what is so to say commonly accepted religious practice and diverted religious practice - actually not religious at all.

Sucre

Oct 5th 2010, 02:36 PM

I don't think the "=" is a fair thing to use here because I don't think that Non Sequitur implied that at all. Perhaps another angle would help - are there any non-Muslims that wear burqas? If there are, then we cannot consider this a Muslim custom. If there aren't I think that Non Sequitur's comments stand. In other words, I don't think anyone in this thread is asserting that the sphere of burqas entirely encompasses the sphere of Muslims. However, I suspect the reverse is true. Certainly, the origins of the dress style/custom seems to pre-date Islam entirely but the current application of it appears to me to be restricted to Muslims.
I appreciate the angle and I did not mean that Non Sequiture was saying this. Yet, the comparison is still valid.

I am not aware of any other religion imposing the burqa. But is it because the burqa is Muslim or because it originates from a certain part of the world who imposes it and happens to be Muslim ?

On the other hand, are you aware of other religions as Islam who practice terrorism as the interpretation of a religious duty (the Jihad) ?

Why can a Muslim African woman living in Senegal show her breasts and an Afghan woman not leave the house without being completely covered from the tip of her hair to the tip of her foot?

The difference is human interpretation of a religious principle.

On the one hand, I think it is doing a disservice to religions to put all practices in the same basket. Does "being religious" annihilate our common sense?

On the other hand, I repeat my comment that a practice should not be deemed acceptable simply because it is supposed/ said to be "religious".

Sucre

Oct 5th 2010, 02:41 PM

Michael, I am still waiting for your insights on the future decision of the Constitutional Council in France and the reasons why in your opinion they will deem the Burqa Bill as constitutional.

Michael

Oct 9th 2010, 10:56 AM

Michael, I am still waiting for your insights on the future decision of the Constitutional Council in France and the reasons why in your opinion they will deem the Burqa Bill as constitutional.

My reasoning is based upon an interpretation of the law respecting the burqa ban as being entirely predicated upon the principle of full social and political equality for all women in France.

It is my understanding that the French constitution supports, and the Constitutional Court ought to uphold, the right of the state to make and enforce such a particular law, and furthermore, there is no strong constitutional grounds for rejection of the law.

The primary basis of my position is based on Title One (Articles 1-4) of the 1958 Constitution which defines several basic principles of interpreting French Constitutional law This is the general framework that must be used by the Constitutional Council to interpret any theoretical conflict between any given legislative statute and constitutional law.

Articles 1-4 describes France as indivisible, secular and places strong emphasis upon recognizing the principle of equality of women. It is also firmly stated that the democratic principle is authoritative and sovereign.

These articles establish the right of the state to make the law in question, as it was duly passed by the legal democratic legislative process (with almost unanimous support in both houses of the legislature). These articles also empower the state to engage particular concern where the rights of the equality of women is concerned. Thus, the state has constitutional authority to legally enforce the rights of social equality of women - especially when compelled to do so by a demonstration of the will of a democratically elected majority and demonstrated through the legislative process.

On this basis, I consider it entirely rational and proper for the Constitutional Council to uphold the constitutional legality of the law, as passed by the legislative process.

Looking at the contrary position, I cannot see any rational grounds to strike down the law as being unconstitutional unless one can successfully assert that it specifically targets or interferes with the free exercise of religion (belief) - which certainly is a constitutionally protected right (see Declaration of 1789). If it can be shown that the burqa-ban targets or discriminates against a religious practice, then the law can and should be struck down. However, given that the official legal reasoning for, and defense of, the burqa-ban is entirely based on the principle of supporting social equality of women, and if the State can assert that it is respecting religious belief, then there is a reasonable expectation that this counter-argument is unlikely to be legally persuasive.

The Drunk Guy

Oct 9th 2010, 02:07 PM

My reasoning is based upon an interpretation of the law respecting the burqa ban as being entirely predicated upon the principle of full social and political equality for all women in France.

It is my understanding that the French constitution supports, and the Constitutional Court ought to uphold, the right of the state to make and enforce such a particular law, and furthermore, there is no strong constitutional grounds for rejection of the law.

The primary basis of my position is based on Title One (Articles 1-4) of the 1958 Constitution which defines several basic principles of interpreting French Constitutional law This is the general framework that must be used by the Constitutional Council to interpret any theoretical conflict between any given legislative statute and constitutional law.

Articles 1-4 describes France as indivisible, secular and places strong emphasis upon recognizing the principle of equality of women. It is also firmly stated that the democratic principle is authoritative and sovereign.

These articles establish the right of the state to make the law in question, as it was duly passed by the legal democratic legislative process (with almost unanimous support in both houses of the legislature). These articles also empower the state to engage particular concern where the rights of the equality of women is concerned. Thus, the state has constitutional authority to legally enforce the rights of social equality of women - especially when compelled to do so by a demonstration of the will of a democratically elected majority and demonstrated through the legislative process.

On this basis, I consider it entirely rational and proper for the Constitutional Council to uphold the constitutional legality of the law, as passed by the legislative process.

Looking at the contrary position, I cannot see any rational grounds to strike down the law as being unconstitutional unless one can successfully assert that it specifically targets or interferes with the free exercise of religion (belief) - which certainly is a constitutionally protected right (see Declaration of 1789). If it can be shown that the burqa-ban targets or discriminates against a religious practice, then the law can and should be struck down. However, given that the official legal reasoning for, and defense of, the burqa-ban is entirely based on the principle of supporting social equality of women, and if the State can assert that it is respecting religious belief, then there is a reasonable expectation that this counter-argument is unlikely to be legally persuasive.
That sounds like an Americanized response and is clearly an insult to France. I reject it.

Michael

Oct 10th 2010, 01:36 PM

That sounds like an Americanized response and is clearly an insult to France. I reject it.

Methinks you are being facetious! ;)

Anyway, just to 'riff on this theme', I'd like to add that I think the same 'burqa-ban' law, if passed by the British Parliament, would be entirely legal. There is no constitutional basis to challenge the legality of such a law if the British Parliament so passes it.

The same law, even if passed unanimously by the US Congress, would almost certainly be struck down by the US Supreme Court on the grounds of free expression, plain and simple.

The same law, passed by the Canadian Parliament would likely be struck down by Canada's Supreme Court on the grounds of free expression using the Oakes Test.

(i.e. the 'burqa-ban' remedy violates a right on the basis of eliminating only the potential for a violation of a right. This would likely be held to be insufficient grounds for a permitted rights violation, under the Oakes Test which is an interesting quasi-legal formula used in Canada for such issues)

Anyway, I do think it is interesting the way certain given laws could be held to be legal in one country would be deemed to be unconstitutional in another country. I'm not sure how such a law would stand in Germany or the Netherlands as I'm not entirely familiar with the their constitutions - perhaps I'll research this out of interest.

(please don't anyone ask me how "affirmative action" programs are constitutionally legal in the USA - I have no clue!!!) :lol:

Sucre

Oct 24th 2010, 03:04 PM

Good try. Chapeau. :D

This was however not the reasonning of the Constitutional Court, which was more worried about the "balance of rights" (i.e public security, equality of genders, liberty of conscience and of religion or of as with, specifically, the rights of women, and with the notion of "public space", which needed according to some a new definition (where is the State allowed to act?) than with the rights of women per se:

http://www.lesnouvellesnews.fr/index.php/component/content/article/53-nouvelles-breves/705-linterdiction-du-voile-integral-equilibree-pour-le-conseil-constitutionnel

The issue with the rights of women was mostly political, not legal.

To be very honest, I came back because I felt a duty to answer, but the burqa issue is really not that very important. According to stats there are less than 2,000 wearing a burqa in France (I've never seen one myself, not even in Marseille). It is only of these mini-Sarkozy laws which, he thought, would provide him more popularity and prevent him from hitting the bottom. The on-going strikes in France show that he failed.