France- Burkas Not Welcomed says President

[Postergeist]

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/06/23/france.burkas/index.html?iref=mpstoryview

In a speech before a joint session of parliament, Sarkozy said, "The problem of the burka is not a religious problem. This is an issue of a woman's freedom and dignity. This is not a religious symbol. It is a sign of subservience; it is a sign of lowering. I want to say solemnly, the burka is not welcome in France."

Sarkozy's statement comes as debate rages in France about Muslim women wearing the covering, with some French lawmakers calling for a ban on them.

[doctor_J]

I certainly agree with his comments about the burka and his reasons for wanting it banned. However, I have reservations.

By denying Muslim women the right to wear the garment publicly, I fear they will lose what little freedom they have. They may then be imprisoned in their homes for fear of exposing their body to the public.

Also, I'm a big believer in women taking responsibility for their circumstances in life. A Muslim woman in France must be wearing the burka voluntarily. It's not the same as the women in Afghanistan. I'm assuming she married into a fundamentalist Muslim family of her own free will, knowing the burka requirement and agreeing with it. If that was not the case, she is living in a free country now and there is help for women who want out of such a situation. I realize that's an oversimplification, but, as I said, my belief is that a woman can be no more oppressed or abused than she allows herself to be (unless she's in one of those countries with religious totalitarian misogynistic governments).

[Details]

I don't see much difference between forcing someone TO wear a piece of clothing, and forcing them NOT TO wear a piece of clothing. And the fact that religious clothing is being singled out sounds bad to me.

It's not about freedom for women - the women are in a free country - they can leave their husbands, walk out wearing whatever they like, the police and the courts will back them up on all of that. So - it's their choice. Not necessarily an entirely free choice for some no doubt - but changing the clothes they wear won't change that one little tiny bit. And there are some who come out saying they like the burqua (because it means men don't annoy them with pickup lines, treating them as sex objects, and such - I've had times in my life when I could very well understand that).

I could see a requirement that a person walking around show a reasonable bit of their face as a safety rule - so we can identify you if need be, etc. - applying to ALL clothing. But to say these traditional cultural clothes (they're really cultural - not part of Islam) are banned - smells like xenophobia.

[Details]

In Afghanistan, a woman can be beaten for not wearing it. But then again - a man can be beaten for not having a beard. To me, this regulation sounds like a reaction to the first statement in no small part - but should beards then be banned for French men?

So long as the police would respond to a woman being held against her will for not wearing a burqua - I don't see that as a reason to ban it. Safety - that I could see. But that would apply to ski masks and the like too. It shouldn't be about one group, one culture, one race, one religion.

[doctor_J]

Did everyone notice the article mentions attempts to outlaw ALL religious symbols in public, including Sikh turbans, cruxifics, and skull caps. There is a move afoot to totally secularize all public places. No religious expression allowed.

Pretty extreme. To deny a nation the right to ALL religious expression is going to far in the other direction----forced secularism.

[Details]

Did everyone notice the article mentions attempts to outlaw ALL religious symbols in public, including Sikh turbans, cruxifics, and skull caps. There is a move afoot to totally secularize all public places. No religious expression allowed.

Pretty extreme. To deny a nation the right to ALL religious expression is going to far in the other direction----forced secularism.State schools only - not all public places.



The goal is laudable - to prevent the cliques and picking on the kid who doesn't wear the crucifix, or does wear the Jewish star, etc. - methods may be too extreme - but it is only for schools, when children are so impressionable, and the child in the minority religion may feel pressured to join the majority for acceptance.

This is different - this is talking about anywhere in public - quite a different thing.

[doctor_J]

Details, you are correct. I read a different article and it did not specify public schools. I see the differentiation in the CNN article.

[Casecase]

I know someone who is a converted Muslim. If she was told she could not wear her hijab or clothing that fully covered her, she would not feel free and empowered . . . she would feel exactly the opposite. She would feel extremely uncomfortable and exposed. For many women, being covered is not so much a matter of male oppression as it is a personal part of their worship and adhering to standards of modesty. When they're in private with their husband, other women, or certain male relatives, they are more relaxed and don't wear the same things, such as the head coverings, that they would wear in public.

I'm not defending burkas . . . I'm just trying to present the other side of the picture to consider, particularly for women who live in "free" countries where they won't go to jail for what they wear in public.

I think that telling someone that they can't wear something strips them of their rights just as much as telling something that they have to wear something.


IMO

[Brentwood]

I know someone who is a converted Muslim. If she was told she could not wear her hijab or clothing that fully covered her, she would not feel free and empowered . . . she would feel exactly the opposite. She would feel extremely uncomfortable and exposed. For many women, being covered is not so much a matter of male oppression as it is a personal part of their worship and adhering to standards of modesty. When they're in private with their husband, other women, or certain male relatives, they are more relaxed and don't wear the same things, such as the head coverings, that they would wear in public.

I'm not defending burkas . . . I'm just trying to present the other side of the picture to consider, particularly for women who live in "free" countries where they won't go to jail for what they wear in public.

I think that telling someone that they can't wear something strips them of their rights just as much as telling something that they have to wear something.


IMO

My 2 cents...Many women embrace the subservient role. Too bad it has to be perpetuated in the name of religion. In centuries past, slave owners believed that the people they owned were happy to be their slaves. And many slaves resigned themselves to being enslaved.

The culture and religion where woman wear those type coverings are taught to be servants of a man.....the mans slave, IMO.