Refusal to unveil scuppers French refusal-to-unveil trial A burqa-clad woman yesterday rather brilliantly exposed a fatal flaw in France's ban on the traditional Muslim garb when she attended court to face a charge of "covering her face in a public place", and then simply refused to take off her burqa for the hearing. The 31-year-old mum, identified only by her first name Hind, was …
If they refuse to attend court on the day they're summoned then surely they're in contempt and can be jailed -- then rinse and repeat?
(I'm ambivalent to the issue so this isn't a judgement for or against either side -- that post would be too long)
*I know, I know, Je suis désolé.
It depends how long both sides are prepared to go on with this tomfoolery. There's got to be a better way of avoiding people dressing as yurts in the mistaken belief it's required by their religion without getting into pointlessly confrontational situations.
And no, I do not believe you can drive safely with a bag over your head, even if it does have eyeholes poked in it.
which of the two attended court and which didn't. Because of the burqa. (Yes, I know it says in the story, but still.)
After the Second World War, French whores were stripped, shaved, and hanged, I think in more or less that order, if that sort of thing is how you're interested in seeing women treated. Given it's the Telegraph I imagine that's the main reason why the story was covered.
I've heard it said too that the burqa isn't a religious garment, but it's pretty difficult to define what is and isn't a religious practice, particularly on someone else's religion. Can you insist that they produce a pastor or teacher to support them in any disputed claim? What qualification would that person have to have, to be an expert witness?
My own conclusion is that religion is best considered as a subset of your cultural and ethnic identity. So you may have the same religion as somebody else but a different dress code and cuisine. Or maybe the other way around, but less often.
And also that people getting excited about burqa wearing, for and against, makes it an issue when it shouldn't be.
And that the French are, collectively, a bunch of bastards - of course.
"I've heard it said too that the burqa isn't a religious garment, but it's pretty difficult to define what is and isn't a religious practice"
Indeed, that's true.
Of course, the state can avoid such dilemmas by minding its OWN BLOODY BUSINESS and not trying to liberate women by telling them which clothes they are and aren't allowed to put on their body.
"Of course, the state can avoid such dilemmas by minding its OWN BLOODY BUSINESS and not trying to liberate women by telling them which clothes they are and aren't allowed to put on their body."
Actually, the State is very much minding its own business. Much of the problem stems from the fact that in a country subject to the occasional terrorist attack, there are people going round concealed from head to foot and refusing to let themselves be identified.
Then there's the much less important problem of human rights, with girls in some areas being treated like whores - literally - if they wear ordinary clothing rather than ugly sacks and scarves. Creation of ghettoes, all that stuff.
Lastly, wasn't this the bird whose "husband" turned out to be screwing social security by having 4 wives all drawing maximum single parent allowance?
If it is illegal in France to wear something, anything, which covers one's face when entering designated areas this is not anti-muslim but anti-ninja and anti-silly-voiced-IRA-spokesperson* -- if it specifies the thing that some muslim women feel it's their duty to wear, despite it not actually being in the rules set down in the quran that they do, and that some muslim men make "their women" wear then it is anti-muslim, in which case I'm not sure which the greater evil is.
*Does anyone else miss the IRA broadcasts with silly actor voices?
Religion can require you to do pretty much whatever you want it to do. Even if they do get an Iman to say that a Burqua isn't required Islam, they would just say that their particular branch of Islam is different and does require a Burqua.
As I understand it, what the Koran does say is that women should dress modestly. So going out in only a 2cm long mini-skirt, a bra and a pair of heels clearly isn't allowed, but exactly where you draw the line is open to interpretation.
Contempt of court - 1 month in the slammer.
You may wish to live by your religion dear, but the secular state machinery of France (the country you have, for the moment, chosen to live in) requires that religion is left behind when you enter the courtroom and as such, you are found in contempt of court.
Simples n'est pas - prochain.
This isn't a question of religion: it's a question of how far a state dictates what someone should, or shouldn't wear, and how much choice they can exercise in their own choice of dress. How they come to make those choices isn't the issue.
Or maybe it's really a question of how cleverly modern french racism has managed to sneak in a clearly anti-muslim law under the guise of other peoples' fear of those with their faces hidden. Odd how people manage to deal with each other on the phone (with no faces visible) quite well...
The defendant quite clearly said (quote)"... all I want to do is live according to my religion"
She is therefore making it a religious matter and not accepting the laws of the state.
Hence she is in contempt of court.
Religion is a private matter and rightly considered so in a secular, democratic state.
This is a question of peeps wishing to claim that their beliefs, in fairies and whotnot, are more important than the democratically arrived at laws of a nation state.
France does not abide by religious laws.
Should she wish to live under religious laws I suggest she attends Charles De Gualle airport and awaits the next flight out to Riad or where ever.
France has come to the democratic decision that the full-veil, or "burqa", is repressive and devisive and that it's wearing under religious grounds is demeaning women folk.
What if she is born in France? (and not "chosen to live in"?) Ok she might defend herself as maintaining cultural traditions (fuck the religion). Like the French defending their culture ?
Nothing to do with religion , then!
On another note, what if an immigrant into the UK, decides that he will not take an oath of allegiance to the Queen during the citizenship ceremony - which labour introduced as an exercise in vanity and patronising the queen( being republican in his/her belief) , despite meeting all other cirteria for eligibility and is already living here?
Will it be contempt of the Queen or State or Law? Technically, we are not Citizens, but subjects. So which law should prevail, given that we are also bound by EU legislation & Human Rights? Following UK rules would infringe on my EU guaranteed rights, then.
Who said it... the law is an ass! Contempt..... all the way.
You seem to be under the impression that I support the French law in question. I may or may not support it - that is irrelevant. What I do support is the fact that it has been adopted and is now law in that country (France), and, as such, must be adhered to - despite remonstrations that it may unfairly discriminate against minority groups, even religious groups, who see fit to place their privately held beliefs above the law.
The French State is secular but many widely held religious beliefs are allowed to be held by citizens living there. But this is not about religion - UNTIL YOU declare that your privately held beliefs are above the law. Or that they somehow exempt you from conforming to the law.
What I object to is that peeps hijack ethnic, religious and cultural sympathies to try and go against state laws. Do I have a human right to uphold state laws should I feel so inclined? I certainly don't have the right to infringe them - I understand that.
If she was born in France but cannot live like the vast majority of French people, she is free to leave and go to a country with customs which match her beliefs.
What is absurd is to have masked people driving cars or being allowed in public places, for as long as AlQueda is still alive (outside a carnaval). Photo IDs of people wearing masks do not pass ANY common sense test, and masked terrorists are not welcomed in any society. It does not matter if these two ladies have no links to terrorism - if they are allowed to walk around in burkhas, terrorists will use the disguise sooner or later, as you have no way of knowing who is inside that "traditional garb" :(
a case where a woman wearing a burka refused to show her face when asked.
This NOT about hiding your identity, it IS about thinly veiled anti-Muslim sentiment in France.
It is also about the current government playing to the extreme right in a bid to stay in power next year.
****We need a Rumpole icon, I'd LOVE to see him defend someone accused of "unlawfully wearing an item of clothing".
Well the answer is certainly yes. However, if he stopped for petrol he would likely be asked to remove his helmet when he walked into the station to pay, or use the loo. This is what happens to motorcyclists with similar crash helmets. The Stig would certainly be required to remove his helmet if he went into a police station or a court of law.
This was the situation well before the recent 'anti-burqa' legislation. Personally I don't think it will change.
By the number of downvotes on this. Can only assume the French are out in force tonight.
Whilst I think anyone who chooses to wear a sack according to their religion is a nutbag I wholeheartedly believe in their right to choose to do so.
This is precisely what the Human rights act should deal with and I eagerly await the day this silly racist, religionist law is repealed.
Gordon 10 didn't say that anyone anywhere can't be a Muslim. He said that you had to be a nutbag to wear a burqua for religious reasons. And, um, you can be a Muslim without wearing a burqua. Oh, and being anti-burqua does not equal being racist. Also, there wasn't a lot wrong with Gordon's English.
I'd go easy on calling people 'morons' . You might be risking jail for highly offensive language about the mentally challenged - though one defence does spring instantly to mind ...
I was calling Gordon a moron and a racist because he insinuated you had to be of a certain race to be a muslim. Either that, or he needs to learn English and realise that "racist" is a belief that one "race" of humans if superior to, or inferior to, another -- it does not mean a belief that one religion is, or is not, a good thing and it does not mean religious prejudice or hatred.
Perhaps I was a little harsh, but I hate the characterisation of anything anti-religious as racist. The law here is not racist it is anti-wearing-stupid-clothing or, if you must, anti-islamic and anti-religious.
"all I want to do is live according to my religion."
So, your special sky-fairy club rules outweigh the law of the land do they?
I'm glad France is at least taking a stand on this, albeit this was a mildly amusing thwarting of their court rules.
At least this should justify religious descrimination when employing people - why would you take somebody on who thought reasonable laws do not apply to them due to some erroneous belief.
Anonymous coward....for obvious reasons.
European Convention on Human Rights, Article 9, Para. 2:
"2. Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others."
Note the "and" between "prescribed by law" and "necessary in a democratic society...." That means that France can't just pass a law that restricts a religion, they have to prove that said law is necessary for one of the reasons listed thereafter. Given that many democratic societies flourish without a ridiculous law like the French one, I doubt they'll be able to prevail.
How does one show that one has the right to enter or exit a country?
How does one show that one is the relevant person in a court hearing?
If you hide your face, you become interchangeable. Am I the same AC as above? We are all the same person, yes?
France has decided that their laws ban covering your face in certain locations - it may surprise you to learn that the laws in all European countries make the same proscriptions, the only difference being the list of proscribed locations.
If you don't like that law, then by all means campaign against it - that's what Democracy *is*.
However, if you break that law then you must be prepared to face the consequences.
Personally, I'm very surprised that whoever it was that did turn up at court wasn't immediately arrested for breaking that same law again, then held in contempt of court and remanded in custody.
Contempt carries a much higher penalty than refusing to uncover your face...
And Burkhas are not compatible with photo IDs. It has nothing to do with religion - it has everything to do with public safety and and not allowing bukhas to be used as a disguise.
Just try going into ANY bank wearing a ski mask in US (or most other countries, for that matter).....
Ironically as you're posting as AC there is a "V Mask" next to your post - the film of V for Vendetta being rather clear about the use of Islamophobia in stirring up the masses.
It doesn't matter what people want to believe as long as they don't force their beliefs on others - if head/face coverings are being worn by choice the state has no right to interfere.
Well this state believes it does have a right to interfere and the tricky thing with rights is that however much we'd like them to be universal things that sprung spontaneously into existence along with human intelligence they are in fact just privileges granted and maintained by the dominant force.
If there's some force powerful and bothered enough to bully the French state into backing down then that is what will happen, otherwise it has granted itself the right to interfere and withdrawn the right of its residents to wear these clothes.
"So, your special sky-fairy club rules outweigh the law of the land do they?"
I do believe that is the point of the matter. If your special sky-fairy created all you see, hear touch taste and smell, then by the same token surely the sky-fairy clubs rules outweigh all those that the sky-fairy allows to be steward of all that the sjy-fairy allows you to see, hear touch taste and smell.
Put another way, the creator of all, outranks the creations he allows to play megalomania on his creations.
" "So, your special sky-fairy club rules outweigh the law of the land do they?"
I do believe that is the point of the matter. If your special sky-fairy created all you see, hear touch taste and smell, then by the same token surely the sky-fairy clubs rules outweigh all those that the sky-fairy allows to be steward of all that the sjy-fairy allows you to see, hear touch taste and smell.
Put another way, the creator of all, outranks the creations he allows to play megalomania on his creations."
My special sky fairy told me (in a dream, obviously) I can hang bankers and take their money: is that OK?
Fine them "in absentia".
They should also do people who refuse to take off motorcycle helmets in public, men who wear hats indoors or in a car, or numpties who wear shades when its not sunny, people who smoke in public and anyone who have unmuzzled children in public. Ohh and people who walk in the road even though there is a footpath next to them.
B-}
A more likely outcome, the Telegraph notes, is that the matter will end up before the European Court of Human Rights.
And whats the bets that WE end up footing the bill as the floodgates are opened...
They will foricibly take DNA and fingerprints in this country. Forcibly remove the burkah...
Just saying.........
...and I have to say this sounds not-entirely unfamiliar.
Just imagining a silent crowd of burqa-clad shapes peacefully approaching the French parliament.
okay, that's a stretch, but still. Arresting someone 'cos you don't like what they're wearing. Only in France could the fashion police actually exist...
I thought they banned the niqab, the face-veil? Think of burqa as the 'union set' of the three Islamic coverings ;)
That aside, her arguing it being part of her religion opens a difficult discussion:
1) Is it? I'm under the impression that even Muslims don't agree whether the niqab is a requirement
2) Should someone's religious views enable them to avoid standing trial or giving a defence?
Not easy. All eyes are on France
> I thought they banned the niqab, the face-veil?
AFAIK the way the law is phrased is to forbid anyone (male or female) from covering their face in a public place in such a way that they are unidentifable. It includes scarves, helmets and balaclavas. There is no specific mention of any cultural or religious item like a burqa or niqab.
A silly law; thought up by racists and peddled by closet racists is made to look silly. Bravo!
Now.. a law that simply defines it as 'not discrimination' if you refuse to talk/interact/deal with anyone who is hiding their face or masking their appearance; that's another thing.. It allows fuel stations to say 'no fuel until you remove your helmet'; corner grocers: 'no slouching around the shop with your hoodie up'; swimming pools: 'no' you can't go in the ladies changing in that burkqa since you could be a man' etc..
.. Ie' it's quite possible to put in place a law that makes it clear that covering ones face routinely is -your- social problem, not ours.. and has consequences in a world where trust is low.. But also send that message without pandering to the outright racists who support outright bans.
As I recall (someone please correct me if Im wrong) the burqa is not a religious garment? That being the case, the French need to grow a pair and take the thing off her. If it is a religious garment, then the French law would itself already be contradictory to EU law.
Good. Silly people with their Authoritah! complex.
Either they agree with the ECHR - Article 9 says everyone has "the freedom of thought, conscience and religion" - or they don't.
If they want to repeal that part of the law, then let them do so and be seen for what they are.
... Dave Courtney has turned up at court several times in full head to toe costume, and in once instance I recall he was dressed up as a court jester to indicate his contempt of court. In all cases he was aquitted and allowed to go free.
A free person cannot legally be forced to dress or undress in a particular way. If "innocent until proven guilty" is to stand, then likewise these people cannot be assumed guilty and judged and sentenced before the trial occurs.
This woman found a loophole in the law just like the lawyer who discovered that you can send back the form telling the police who was driving the car at the time of an infraction, but you don't have to sign it (as the police have no powers to force you to sign anything). The same happenned here. The woman could not legally be forced to undress, therefore cannot be found in contempt of court when she turns up in court dressed in a manner for which she has not been tried or found guilty of.
... there are some formal similarities to a case I read about years ago, about a young lady arrested for bathing naked in one of America's National Parks, an offence against local bye-laws. She refused to dress, but more importantly she refused to identify herself, a requirement before any charge could be brought. How the officer managed to bring the charge was not given in the account I read, though it was suggested that she might have had a distinguishing mark somewhere.
"It forces me to dress a certain way" No it doesn't, it stops you from dressing a certain way - there are countless dozens of other ways to dress that are still legal in France.
"all I want to do is live according to my religion." -you were dressed according to your culture, not your religion. The two might be related, but not the same.
Bank and petrol stations get very arsy with me if I don't remove my crash helmet, and I dare say trying to go through airport security would be "interesting" too.
It's about verifying identity, and in the case of a court of law, reading facial expressions when you are questioning them about a crime.
>> and I dare say trying to go through airport security would be "interesting" too
Actually no, no problem at all - at least according to that documentary series they did at Heathrow a while ago. A female official will take the woman to one side where she can show her face without risk of being seen by a man - identified by comparison with her passport photo, problem solved.
As for jailing this woman for contempt, I think she's love that and the publicity it would get. Her defence would be that she turned up to the court and was refused admittance - and there is ample evidence it appears that she did attempt to attend and was indeed refused access.
The burqa (or burka?) is a cultural symbol imposed by men on women in a society where men feel that they cannot control their sexual urges without making all women hide themselves.
As far as I'm concerned, those men have the problem not the women.
Every woman that stands up in public and says that it is her choice and right to wear this thing might be speaking the truth. But they are also letting their persecuted sisters down by giving the garment a legitimacy that it does not deserve. It has nothing to do with religion and certainly doesn't have anything to do with the 21st century.
"The burqa (or burka?) is a cultural symbol imposed by men on women in a society where men feel that they cannot control their sexual urges without making all women hide themselves."
So you want the state to persecute her because she's being possibly intimidated into wearing a burqa?
You want her fined and potentially jailed for fighting this because she's isn't some sort of religious activist?
How many things do you disagree with that you aren't campaigning against? how many of these lapses in motivation should you be fined for?
Racists manage to find all sorts of nonsense to justify their prejudice but contempt of court and being oppressed by their family and peers are new ones on me.
The burqa has nothing to do with religion. It is not demanded or prescribed by the koran.
Ask Queen Rania - http://uk.wrs.yahoo.com/_ylt=A7x9QV7uePtNwBUASvtLBQx.;_ylu=X3oDMTE1djUzZHRsBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMgRjb2xvA2lyZAR2dGlkA1NNRVVLMDFfNzU-/SIG=12jkipiu2/EXP=1308354926/**http%3a//www.thepunch.com.au/articles/the-truth-behind-the-burqa/ - ergo, nothing to do with religion.
It is purely cultural, and is part of a culture that castrates young girls, etc., etc. and its practitioners deserve to be castrated themselves.
"Ask Queen Rania"
You what?
I'm about as likely to be interested in Queen Rania's thoughts on interpretation of Islamic religious doctrine as in Prince Harry's thoughts on post-Soviet environmental movements. Why would anyone care what the thoughts of some posh dizzy PR girl on the issue were?
I understood it to be more like circumcision. In order to technically be castration, wouldn't it need to involve the ovaries? I don't think they cut that deep?
So ban it all then, including peircings and tatoos and branding.
But seriously, nobody should be allowed to do that shit to children, male or female.
Vomiting icon please.
why encourage sexism ?
why are these sexist females (we assume they are female; but can't see) allowed to demand special treatment based on their sex ?
Why are they allowed to commit a sexual hate crime against me - they don't know me; why are they allowed to assume based only on my sex; that I intend them harm.
No male is allowed to refuse to deal with some one else because they are female; why are these females allowed to demand that they only deal with women. The only time that is appropriate behaviour is during body and/or strip searches.
Where are all the feminists demanding equal rights ? - oh that's right - two legs good four legs bad (or two mammaries good; 2 testes bad)
... to wear a burqa for non-religious reasons?
... to wear a veil to a funeral or wedding, or because you are a beekeeper or a goth?
... to wear a carnival mask?
etc.
This is bad lawmaking because it's unenforceable, inconsistent, and repressive. The 'right' way to discourage burqa wearing (if it's even necessary to do so) is through rational discourse.
This law will fade away like those archaic statutes banning moustaches for dogs, or whatever.
So yes, it covers all of the above.
It doesn't cover everywhere or everywhen - I forget the specifics, but it's actually a simple extension of rules that exist in all European countries.
Try getting a passport in any European country without showing your face.
Also a "religion" with all the rights to appear at any occasion in their favourite outfit?.
Are these burqa women allowed to pass customs too without showing their face or is the photo in the passport a burqa face. Or are they just mentioned in their men's passport as "luggage".
Very simple really, in court you show your face, and that is not anti this or that just common sense.
It would surprise me if they are allowed to appear in burqa in every Islam state.
A disgusting thing forced upon women bye stupid men.
Surely, this would be an appropriate title?
Its Ok to go topless in Paris parks and other French beaches in the summer, but a woman (whatever the religion) isnt allowed to cover her face (in public), even to hide her blushes at these topless women?
Does she have identity card? Passport photos to identify here in some way?
Wait a minute, must be Bin Laden/Zawahri in hiding....
Forget it.... Its Friday .. beer time to drown our own sorrows.
Amusingly enough, there is a never-repealed law dating from the French revolution which does indeed forbid women from wearing trousers in public, unless they are holding the handlebars of a bicycle.
What makes it especially fun is that trousers are a required part of a gendarme's uniform, even for women...
Her showing up and refusing to remove her mask sounds like a very clear case of contempt of court, she should have been jailed immediately and stayed there until she was willing to remove her mask. Is there any historical precedent of allowing a person to wear a mask in court?
The covering of women's faces is a cultural artifact that is not a fundamental part of the religion, it is like Christians who wear a cross; does anyone really think that Jesus wore a cross or told his followers to wear one?
These people need to be re-educated by true Muslims.
The French look bloody stupid. Has the whole country got a Napoleon complex? I can understand the language paranoia in state related stuff but forcing it on private entities is ridiculous. This is much worse: "Our culture is so weak we need to ban anything we perceive to be against it."
@Michelle Knight: That's a pathetic and facile argument. The Koran is only one of a number of major religious books that define various aspects of Islam. If she says that wearing a burqa is part of her religion, who the hell are you to tell her otherwise? And what's all that bollocks about castrating girls? Again, a part of some forms of a religion at least as varied and complex as Christianity. It's got nothing to do with this argument. And I like the "castration's bad unless the state's doing it" line. Are you American?
Don't worry though, you're no more stupid, bigoted and arrogant than the other students of religion and Islamic clerics commenting on this article. (I didn't know El Reg was so popular amongst such erudite and studious people.) You just happened to be at the bottom of page 1.
Where will you all be when "they" start banning aspects of your religion? Whining, I have no doubt.
1st the Burqa is not an _Islamic_ piece of clothing, some woman -who happened to be Muslims- have taking to wearing it (very few by the way) but it doesn't mean it have been at any point of time an Islamic clothing required by the religion! Even in other religions, some women have taking to covering the bottom part of their faces, it wasn't done by _every_ woman, it just that few the feel like doing it, leaving only their eyes out. (personal note, I do find these women hot... the mystery of it!)
If you do visit the middle east, you will find that not all woman cover their faces, and for that matter not all woman walking around like a mobile black tent! Many woman will start wearing a plain black... errr whatever you call that thing... after they reach a certain age. Think of it as a woman in the west that will suddenly feel like wearing long skirt instead of a mini skirt.
The burqa is only worn by very few women who wrongly believe that it is required by Islam, it was never a requirement. And I'll challenge everyone (muslim or not) to show me the evidence that shows otherwise.
Note, many people seem to believe that Saudi Arabia is some how a representative of the Muslim world. It is not, and in fact meany people, inside of outside Saudi Arabia, disagree with the strange laws that the country have. Laws that you will only find in Saudi Arabia and no where else, even though Saudis claim that it is an Islamic law. According to many that I spoke too, the religious leaders in Saudi sometimes use those laws to distract from other issues, and to ensure their hold on the country and the people (their hold on the people is getting weaker by the way).
I hope that the above clarify few things to some of you. There are Islamic things, and then there are things done by _few_ people who happened to be Muslims. The 2 are not the same!
So why should these women be allowed to wear a full face-covering outfit? I agree that there is no harm in it in normal public life, but if I am to be treated as a criminal for wearing a cumbersome piece of apparel then why shouldn't they in certain circumstances.
> Off to don a burqa and rob the local post office.
It's wonderful that all of the truly major problems in and around France have been completely solved and they've finally gotten down to this trivial item near the bottom of the 'Société Parfaite To Do' list.
Fabulous. Just Fabulous!
Unless, of course - oh my gawd, you don't suppose? - it's just an intentional distraction designed to deflect attention away from far-more-serious matters.
Idiot public. Les moutons.
... and anyone else who insists that their faces must be covered in public at all times:
I have no problem with people doing whatever they damned well please in their own homes—and I'll even fight for your right to do so. There are, however, some very obvious incompatibilities when applying personal whims and superstitions in a public area governed by laws created by a secular government.
Does your choice of fairy story provide any exceptions for, say, CPR? What if you have an accident and that veil needs to be removed in order to save your life? This should be clarified as I doubt anyone with First Aid skills would want to be thrown in jail for attempting to save your life.
Also: wearing a full-face veil in public—and schools are included in that definition—inherently discriminates against those who rely heavily on the non-verbal elements of communication. Like the deaf and hard of hearing. Will you file a discrimination suit against me if I choose to completely and utterly ignore your attempts at engaging me in conversation. I can't help it: I won't be able to read your lips (full-face burqa, remember?), so all I'll see is a weirdo in a crap childish ghost costume mumbling unintelligibly at me and attempting to mime while knowing damned well I can't see her* arms.
* (I think it's safe to assume that only a tiny, tiny fraction of burqa wearers will be fanatical Islamic male transvestites who sincerely believe the burqa is a core element of their religion.)
Simple as.
It is up to the state to put a stop to it.
Sorry Graham, I might just have broken your irony detector.
It wasn't me doing the original AC by the way, I just happen to agree with it, and unlike the 'Hind' and 'Najet' I am not AFRAID TO EXPRESS MY VIEWS IN PUBLIC. No-one else noticed that little point... Want to wear a burqua? Why are you AFRAID to use you name? Husband might kill you for talking to another man?
Oh, and fundaMENTALS out there? Come get some; there are two people on the planet with my name, and I'm not the preist, I'm the architect. (Wouldn't want any innocents getting mugged)
It seems to me that religion and culture are just convenient smokescreens for the fact that these women are treated as chattels by their men. I believe that in England, at one time way in the past, it was legal to sell your wife in the market if you got short of beer money. For all their faults I do think both England and France have moved on a bit from those days.
We should ponder on the possibility that all the social and legal difficulties the secular French authorities are having over this is actually a reflection of a considerate and civilised society: many devoutly religious countries would simply behead or publicly stone to death anyone transgressing a vague cultural more, never mind a democratically approved law.
There are plenty of countries I would rather not be in than France if I wanted to claim that my somewhat indefinable culture was superior to their laws.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I believe that in England, at one time way in the past, it was legal to sell your wife in the market if you got short of beer money. For all their faults I do think both England and France have moved on a bit from those days.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
moved on != improved.
The French authorities evidently to take the view that opinions stated by burqua-wearers can't be relied upon, as coercion to make those statements might be involved. Thus, as they see it they are enforcing the human rights of those individuals by ingoring their protests and instead enforcing upon them what they think they actually want. Or, something.
On a similar note there could also be some comparison betweeen headscarves ahd hoodies. If wearing a hood in a mall or bank is prohibited on security grounds, should that not apply to any hood, it making no odds whether the hood is tied around the head or attached to a coat? My feelings are that people should be allowed to wear a hood if they wish, BUT I don't see why one form of hood should be granted exemption, the other not.
Wearing the burka is making a statement about men, it's not not about the woman (let alone god). It says 'I believe men are beasts and if you catch sight of my ankle, face or hair, there's no telling what you will do' .
As a man I have to say this is highly offensive to me, and has no place in a civilised society. Rock on France!
Good point, and one that hasn't been raised before.
Although I think in the Fundamentalist world it's also a question of the woman not being trusted to stick with an arranged marriage, and maybe finding a partner she prefers instead. Putting them in a black sack certainly reduces that possibility.
This is a complicated issue, so I'm not surprised that most comments that are coming down squarely on one side have a multitude of both up and down votes.
The way I see it, in an ideal society there is no reason to fear anyone covering their face out of choice, while in a police state (as in V for Vendetta), covering the face is a form of defence of the people against an oppressive government. Modern democracies still lie somewhere in between the 2 extremes. I agree that for security reasons, it should not be allowed to conceal one's identity in certain public places such as airports. Private locations such as banks or indeed any shops can set their own rules for their own security standards. That's the status quo in most western societies and we get along very nicely thank you very much.
The French law goes one step further by banning head coverings in ALL public places. I plead ignorance as to whether the law bans all head coverings in public or just specifically burqas. But in any case, if it bans all head covering in public places (including, for example motorcycle helmets), then the law is merely obtuse and ill-thought-out (since motorcyclists are obliged to wear a helmet, would that automatically make motorcycles illegal? ). On the other hand if it is specifically targeting burqas, then it is a thinly-veiled (excuse the pun) attack on muslims who choose to cover up. Yes I know that in some cases they are forced or at least pressured to do this, but ... that means that in order to prevent a section of society from being forced to behave according to a set of rules, the French are forcing a section of their society to behave according to a set of rules. And at that point it once again comes down to a "my rules are better than your rules" kids' playground game.
Incidentally, regarding spelling, it doesn't matter if you write burka, burqa or whatever, the phonetic sound in the place of the k/q is quite different from either letter and does not have an equivalent letter in any western language. In fact if you are not a native speaker of any semitic language, it is highly likely that you are incapable of pronouncing it correctly anyway. So don't worry about the spelling!
... for the Odds & Sods section, and for French politics as well.
However, my take on the subject is that the law was passed as a pre-emptive measure to limit the room for manoeuvre of the French extreme right. If it subsequently gets knocked down by the Euro Court so be it - the extreme right will still not be able to agitate for some such law (or worse).
The law matters to the French majority because covering the face appears as a deliberate insult to the onlookers.
The French like their private lives to be very private and their public lives to be very public. In public they do not like to be ignored; acknowledgement of your neighbours is required in polite society - think of all the hand shaking that goes on among friends and work colleagues each and every morning, think of the muttered (but audible) 'Bonjour Messieurs et Mesdames' addressed to the other customers as you enter a shop for your bread or whatever. They want the social interaction and it has a strict etiquette.
If this law gets quashed the resentment will continue - and all criticism that the French are a bunch of racist bastards will be ignored, not because it is untrue but because it is not the fundamental problem in this case.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
