Every time the french face a genuine threat, they role onto their backs and play dead. Now they have decided to make up for this by getting tough on one of the most vulnerable groups in their society - Muslim women. They have forgotten what liberty actually means. There are many ways to protect the rights and freedoms of Muslim women in their society. Telling them what they can and cannot wear is not one of them.

Nor will this be any kind of victory against violent Jihad. Extremists will laugh in the face of this as french Muslims start to see their their alternative view of justice as not such a bad alternative.

I can certainly see the validity of the point you are making FD, but as someone who dislikes ostentatious displays of faith, I come at it from the slightly different tack, of seeing it as a step which may help to liberalise a culture which seems unwilling to make any concessions to the modern world, or where they can change to better fit in it.

There is also the fact that people can be oppressed, without actually realising it, and the mere fact of not shoving your differences down everybodies throats, every time you set foot in public, may actually benefit both muslims, and the non muslim societies they choose to share with people whose standards are so very different.

At the end of the day, it is nothing more than a uniform, which is ordered on them by a patriarchal political religion, so to say it is unfair to have a political decision on what they wear is wrong, would have to include the muslim rule that forces it on them in the first place.

Quote:

I can certainly see the validity of the point you are making FD, but as someone who dislikes ostentatious displays of faith, I come at it from the slightly different tack, of seeing it as a step which may help to liberalise a culture which seems unwilling to make any concessions to the modern world, or where they can change to better fit in it.

That doesn't make sense. How is denying women the right to wear what they choose 'liberalising'? Wouldn't liberalising involve ensuring that they had a real choice? When have people ever succeeded in freeing their fellow man by forcing them to choose what they choose?

Also, how is your dislike for their 'displays' relevant? To me it just indicates that liberalisation is not really your motive - rather it is to take away their right to do something you might not like.

And why do you see their choice of clothing as more of an outward display than clothing that displays flesh? Wouldn't it be less of a display by most reasonable measures? After all, that is the point of a burqua. It was never intended to be a display targetted at non-Muslims.  The fact that you see it as a display targetted at you indicates an inability to see the issue from another person's perspective.


Quote:

There is also the fact that people can be oppressed, without actually realising it

You mean like people who think that being denied the choice of what to wear is liberalising, provided that only people who dress differently from them are forced to change?


Quote:

and the mere fact of not shoving your differences down everybodies throats

If a muslim woman tries to shove her burqua down your throat, you can get her arrested for assault. If you are merely speaking figuratively, then you are again misunderstanding what liberty means and failing to see the issue from another person's perspective. The mere act of wearing something that you interpret as a symbol you dislike does not represent any actual harm to you. Surely a person's freedom to choose is far more important than you disliking the symbolism of their choice?


Quote:

At the end of the day, it is nothing more than a uniform, which is ordered on them by a patriarchal political religion

So you cannot accept that some women may choose to wear a burqua of their own accord? Or because of some other form of patriarchal tyranny?


Quote:

so to say it is unfair to have a political decision on what they wear is wrong, would have to include the muslim rule that forces it on them in the first place.

Of course it would. That is the crucial difference. That would be protecting their right to choose what to wear. That's what liberty is. You cannot liberate a person by telling them what to choose. You can only do it by giving them a choice. It's a lot harder to do than simply order them about, and you may not like the choices they make, but that is the price of true freedom.

freediver wrote on Jun 26^th, 2009 at 9:55pm:

Every time the french face a genuine threat, they role onto their backs and play dead. Now they have decided to make up for this by getting tough on one of the most vulnerable groups in their society - Muslim women. They have forgotten what liberty actually means. There are many ways to protect the rights and freedoms of Muslim women in their society. Telling them what they can and cannot wear is not one of them. Nor will this be any kind of victory against violent Jihad. Extremists will laugh in the face of this as french Muslims start to see their their alternative view of justice as not such a bad alternative.

Where were you when Ataturk banned not only the niqab but the hijab?  Were you posting againsst the Turkish ban, in place for decades?

Didn't think so.

I don't think they had the internet back then Soren.

freediver wrote on Jun 26^th, 2009 at 10:38pm:

[quote] Of course it would. That is the crucial difference. That would be protecting their right to choose what to wear. That's what liberty is. You cannot liberate a person by telling them what to choose. You can only do it by giving them a choice. It's a lot harder to do than simply order them about, and you may not like the choices they make, but that is the price of true freedom.

They are free to wear whatever they wish within the customary constraints of the society they live in. Covering your face in public is not a customs in France or Europe or Australia. Polynesian women are not free to go around topless like back home, Papuan men are not allowed to go about in penis sheaths.

There are obligations on them, howwever novel that idea may seem to you or them. And if they do not have the sense to perceive them unprompted, then they need to be prompted, like all rude and osteentatous people.

I am positive you would not, on a holiday in Araby or Indonesia, let your wife ignore the dress code and customs of the place.
Why?  Because you and your wife, unlike niqabis, recognise the principle of observing customs around you.

freediver wrote on Jun 26^th, 2009 at 10:40pm:

I don't think they had the internet back then Soren.

Tres amusant.


Where were you on the issue of Turkish ban on the hijab and the niqab between the start of this website and yesterday, then, smarty?

Quote:

They are free to wear whatever they wish within the customary constraints of the society they live in.

So what you are saying is that they are not actually free, but instead are bound by history? Like if Australian women still had to wear a woolen jumper from head to toe at the beach? I for one am glad that the British legacy in Australia is not their customary dress standards.

Isn't the whole point of freedom to dispose of these arbitrary historical taboos? or at least, tio no longer force them upon people through the law?


Quote:

There are obligations on them, howwever novel that idea may seem to you or them.

No there aren't. Otherwise the cowardly french would not need to consider making a new law to deny them basic freedoms.


Quote:

And if they do not have the sense to perceive them unprompted, then they need to be prompted, like all rude and osteentatous people.

So you think it is reasonable to take away a person's freedom if you interpret it as rude or ostentatious? I had no idea what an extremist you were.


Quote:

I am positive you would not, on a holiday in Araby or Indonesia, let your wife ignore the dress code and customs of the place. Why?  Because you and your wife, unlike niqabis, recognise the principle of observing customs around you.

I would gladly let someone accompanying me dress however they felt most compfortable if they were allowed to. You seem confused about the difference between obeying a law to keep out of jail and supporting a particular law.

Quote:

Where were you on the issue of Turkish ban on the hijab and the niqab between the start of this website and yesterday, then, smarty?

I beleive I have actually commented on it a few times, though I can't remember what I actually said. You are more than welcome to track it down.

freediver wrote on Jun 26^th, 2009 at 11:08pm:

Quote: Where were you on the issue of Turkish ban on the hijab and the niqab between the start of this website and yesterday, then, smarty? I beleive I have actually commented on it a few times, though I can't remember what I actually said. You are more than welcome to track it down.

I believe you actually have not. I did a search - nothing.

Never mind, mine was a rhetorical question, trying to bring into focus that you seem happy with the primitives having a dress code but not the sophisticates.

freediver wrote on Jun 26^th, 2009 at 9:55pm:

Every time the french face a genuine threat, they role onto their backs and play dead. Now they have decided to make up for this by getting tough on one of the most vulnerable groups in their society - Muslim women. They have forgotten what liberty actually means. There are many ways to protect the rights and freedoms of Muslim women in their society. Telling them what they can and cannot wear is not one of them. Nor will this be any kind of victory against violent Jihad. Extremists will laugh in the face of this as french Muslims start to see their their alternative view of justice as not such a bad alternative.

I think you must have been drinking stupid juice this week. No one 'voluntarily' wears a burkha. They do it because of the ever present threat of extreme violence. If people like you are afraid of upsetting muslims and pander to them with your unique version of leftist Stockholm Syndrome, how much harder for a muslim woman to 'voluntarily' say she is not wearing the burka?

Where women are honor killed, Islam permits muslim men to beat their wives, a dress that entirely entombs them and prevents anyone from communicating with them is medieval barbarity that has no place in a modern state.

France is a secular Republic, it has the right to say, we do not want people wearing symbols of religious repression in our streets. Women wearing burkas in the street are frankly horrifying.

I'm glad Sarkozy had the balls to finally tell Islam - No.

Boiling it down to a pretty simple question, do muslim women choose the tent, or is it imposed upon them?

I FIRMLY BELIEVE IT IS IMPOSED UPON THEM.

Now the fact that this is done by continually reinforcing the idea, from early childhood onwards, that any woman who goes uncovered, is a wanton slut, explains why muslim women say they 'Choose" the veil, because to not choose it they would have to see themselves as sluts.

This then raises another relevant issue, that of how muslim men perceive non muslim women?

We all know of examples when muslim men have assaulted women, because they were perceived by them to be sluts.
This would certainly be a less prevalent attitude, if their mums and sisters were seen by them, wearing normal western dress in public, and they could accept that having things like, hair, face, and arms, uncovered, does not then make them sluts.

As I said initially, I do see the validity in the doubts you have over ruling on what people should wear, but I think in this case, they took a more long term view, and are seriously addressing an issue, which left unresolved, will just inspire more, and greater conflict, in time to come.


I think they are curtailing one small freedom, that being the freedom of a patriarchal culture to impose a repressive code of conduct upon its' women, in the hope of seeing less sexist attitudes from these same patriarchal yobbos, when interacting with all women.

Quote:

Now the fact that this is done by continually reinforcing the idea, from early childhood onwards, that any woman who goes uncovered, is a wanton slut, explains why muslim women say they 'Choose" the veil, because to not choose it they would have to see themselves as sluts.

That, and the risk of being 'honor killed' by their relatives, or beaten to within an inch of their lives because it is a regular tenet of Islam for a man to beat his wife.

You don't have to beat or kill everyone, for everyone to be afraid.

Calanen wrote on Jun 27^th, 2009 at 2:41am:

Quote: Now the fact that this is done by continually reinforcing the idea, from early childhood onwards, that any woman who goes uncovered, is a wanton slut, explains why muslim women say they 'Choose" the veil, because to not choose it they would have to see themselves as sluts. That, and the risk of being 'honor killed' by their relatives, or beaten to within an inch of their lives because it is a regular tenet of Islam for a man to beat his wife. You don't have to beat or kill everyone, for everyone to be afraid.

I like that last line Calanen, it is very evocative.
I also think it may be overstating the case in regard to muslims in general, I doubt that they do not have their fair share of bossy women, just like we do.
I am hopelessly pussy whipped.

My dear old dad always said that you should treat a woman like a dog, and give them a beating at least once a week, to keep 'em in their place.
lol.

Actually he never said anything of the kind, mum would have taken his head off if he'd tried.

Still a bit of bravado goes a long way.

I am sure that Islam has more than it's fair share of bullies, and I believe it's women are trained, and encouraged to be submissive, but I still think that family violence would not be the norm.

Quote:

Never mind, mine was a rhetorical question, trying to bring into focus that you seem happy with the primitives having a dress code but not the sophisticates.

But I don't. I have often criticised Muslim societies for imposing this on women. I just don't think that imposing our alternative is any better.


Quote:

I think you must have been drinking stupid juice this week. No one 'voluntarily' wears a burkha.

Yes they do Calanen. There is no point oversimplifying the situation. Not all Muslim women are slaves.


Quote:

They do it because of the ever present threat of extreme violence.

But for many female Muslims that threat is simply not there. They still choose it.


Quote:

If people like you are afraid of upsetting muslims

But am I afraid of upsetting Muslims? You've been around here for a while Calanen. You should know better than that.


Quote:

Now the fact that this is done by continually reinforcing the idea, from early childhood onwards, that any woman who goes uncovered, is a wanton slut, explains why muslim women say they 'Choose" the veil

But plenty of western women choose the viel without being exposed to that kind of pressure. This also does not justify the generalisation that all women are forced into it. The fact that some middle eastern women would prefer something else does not mean that no french woman would voluntarily choose it.


Quote:

As I said initially, I do see the validity in the doubts you have over ruling on what people should wear, but I think in this case, they took a more long term view, and are seriously addressing an issue, which left unresolved, will just inspire more, and greater conflict, in time to come.

There are plenty of things about Islam that might inspire conflict. What people wear is not one of them. They are ignoring the genuine threats so they can appear tough against a non-existent threat.


Quote:

I think they are curtailing one small freedom, that being the freedom of a patriarchal culture to impose a repressive code of conduct upon its' women

It is the freedom to choose what you wear. It is hardly trivial.


Quote:

in the hope of seeing less sexist attitudes

So telling women what they can and cannot wear is now non-sexist? They are attacking the freedom of muslim women to get back at Muslim men. It is cowardly and sexist.

For starters I would love to see no face covering in France and every other non-muslim country.

Our women have to observe their rules and cover head or face in their countries, so no cover in our countries full stop.

If our women were forced to eat meat pies in their country, would it make sense to forbid them from eating meat pies here?

freediver wrote on Jun 28^th, 2009 at 5:57pm:

If our women were forced to eat meat pies in their country, would it make sense to forbid them from eating meat pies here?

If you've got a face like a dropped pie, would it make sense to still drink beer?

And no, I don't drink beer.

freediver wrote on Jun 26^th, 2009 at 10:38pm:

Quote: I can certainly see the validity of the point you are making FD, but as someone who dislikes ostentatious displays of faith, I come at it from the slightly different tack, of seeing it as a step which may help to liberalise a culture which seems unwilling to make any concessions to the modern world, or where they can change to better fit in it. That doesn't make sense. How is denying women the right to wear what they choose 'liberalising'? Wouldn't liberalising involve ensuring that they had a real choice? When have people ever succeeded in freeing their fellow man by forcing them to choose what they choose? Also, how is your dislike for their 'displays' relevant? To me it just indicates that liberalisation is not really your motive - rather it is to take away their right to do something you might not like. And why do you see their choice of clothing as more of an outward display than clothing that displays flesh? Wouldn't it be less of a display by most reasonable measures? After all, that is the point of a burqua. It was never intended to be a display targetted at non-Muslims.  The fact that you see it as a display targetted at you indicates an inability to see the issue from another person's perspective. [quote]There is also the fact that people can be oppressed, without actually realising it

You mean like people who think that being denied the choice of what to wear is liberalising, provided that only people who dress differently from them are forced to change?


Quote:

and the mere fact of not shoving your differences down everybodies throats

If a muslim woman tries to shove her burqua down your throat, you can get her arrested for assault. If you are merely speaking figuratively, then you are again misunderstanding what liberty means and failing to see the issue from another person's perspective. The mere act of wearing something that you interpret as a symbol you dislike does not represent any actual harm to you. Surely a person's freedom to choose is far more important than you disliking the symbolism of their choice?


Quote:

At the end of the day, it is nothing more than a uniform, which is ordered on them by a patriarchal political religion

So you cannot accept that some women may choose to wear a burqua of their own accord? Or because of some other form of patriarchal tyranny?


Quote:

so to say it is unfair to have a political decision on what they wear is wrong, would have to include the muslim rule that forces it on them in the first place.

Of course it would. That is the crucial difference. That would be protecting their right to choose what to wear. That's what liberty is. You cannot liberate a person by telling them what to choose. You can only do it by giving them a choice. It's a lot harder to do than simply order them about, and you may not like the choices they make, but that is the price of true freedom.[/quote]


Your silliness is exposed and explained here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TlkxlzTZc48

I could not put it better.

French 'culture'
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1255046961
French teenager kills parents, brothers in Corsica
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1250398716
Vandals hit French Muslim graves
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1229421253
france
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1253615278
Car Burning Season Kicks Off In France
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1247396465
France condemns Israel land offensive in Gaza
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1231057905
France's answer to multiculturalism and muslims
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1180214242/50#50

Good on you france.
Keep the tour de france and champagne, ban what is not french ........

[quote][Muslim women who wear the full Islamic veil in France will face a possible 750 euros ($A1175) fine, according to a draft bill unveiled on Thursday by the leader of the parliamentary majority.

Jean-Francois Cope, who heads the governing UMP party in the National Assembly, told Le Figaro newspaper's weekly magazine that men who force their wives to wear the burqa or niqab could face an even heavier fine.

"The law will address an issue of security," Cope said in an interview with the magazine.

"The proposed measure would prohibit the covering of the face in public places and on the streets, with the exception of special cultural events or carnivals."

The draft legislation will be presented in the next two weeks and should come up for debate in parliament after the March regional elections, he said.

The majority leader, who is also openly campaigning to succeed President Nicolas Sarkozy as the right-wing candidate for the presidency in 2017, said the burqa must be banned to defend women's rights.

"We can measure the modernity of a society by the way it treats and respects women," he said.

France's political establishment is divided on whether to ban the burqa, with the opposition Socialists this week saying that it opposed a law even though Muslim women must be discouraged from wearing the full veil.

The burqa debate has heated up ahead of the release at the end of the month of a much-awaited report by a parliamentary panel that has conducted six months of hearings on the issue.

Many politicians from the left and right have cautioned that a draconian law banning the head-to-toe veil would be difficult to enforce and probably face a challenge in the European rights court.

Sarkozy himself has said that the burqa is not welcome in France but has not stated publicly whether legislation should be enacted.

Critics argue that a specific law enacted to ban the full veil would be tantamount to using a sledgehammer to swat a fly. Only 1,900 women wear the full veil in France, according to the interior ministry.

In the interview, Cope argued that a law would act as a deterrent by sending a "clear message" that France will not allow women to fully cover themselves.
/quote]

http://www.smh.com.au/world/french-move-to-fine-women-for-wearing-burqa-20100108-lx3p.html

What about gorilla suits and bear suits? Are they also going to be outlawed in France because they demean the people who have to wear them?

Go France, drag those backward mohammedans kicking and screaming into the 11th century.

400 years down, a thousand to go.

Mozza,

As soren mentioned earlier in this thread, would you like being forced to walk around in nothing but a penis-sheath if you visited PNG??


Quote:

drag those backward mohammedans kicking and screaming into the 11th century

Wearing less clothes is not a sign of civility, even though it might appear so to primitive hedonists such as yourself. In fact quite the opposite seems to be true. The more civilised the society, the more they cover. Off with you to PNG.

abu_rashid wrote on Jan 8^th, 2010 at 10:24pm:

Wearing less clothes is not a sign of civility, even though it might appear so to primitive hedonists such as yourself. In fact quite the opposite seems to be true. The more civilised the society, the more they cover. Off with you to PNG.

Good one. Those burqa wearing illiterates in Afghanstan must be then the most civilised people on Earth. Bravo!


How come you are not covering yourself up completely? Instant civilisation!
Or are you special ed?

Quote:

Wearing less clothes is not a sign of civility, even though it might appear so to primitive hedonists such as yourself. In fact quite the opposite seems to be true. The more civilised the society, the more they cover. Off with you to PNG.

Yeah and the warmer you are, the more cozy you feel. So throw yourself upon the burning coals and you will be the coziest.

What a great sense of logic you have there Abu.

If he weren't a muslim I would have put that last statement from Abu down to too many late night beverages.

Here was the rest of the world thinking that clothing was adapted to make us the most comfortable in our environment, when really it is an indicator of how civilised we are, and I thought those tents dresses were just to keep the sand out, because we all know how uncomfortable sand can be when it gets to the moister regions.

mozzaok wrote on Jan 9^th, 2010 at 9:28am:

If he weren't a muslim I would have put that last statement from Abu down to too many late night beverages.

But because he is a Musulman, his mind is wobbly and intoxicated, 24/7,  as if he has had a few bevvies.