France’s new ban on Islamic face veils was met with a burst of defiance Monday, as several women appeared veiled in front of Paris’s Notre Dame Cathedral and two were detained for taking part in an unauthorized protest.
France on Monday became the world’s first country to ban the veils anywhere in public, from outdoor marketplaces to the sidewalks and boutiques of the Champs-Elysées.
French President Nicolas Sarkozy set the wheels in motion for the ban nearly two years ago, saying the veils imprison women and contradict this secular nation’s values of dignity and equality. The ban enjoyed wide public support when it was approved by parliament last year.
Interesting. The choice of location, in front of Notre Dame, speaks volumes – it’s clear that an attempt is being made to link the ban with Christianity, and especially the Roman Catholic Church. It would have been more appropriate for those women to stand in front of government facilities – but of course the risk of being arrested would then have been much greater.
While there are rights which should allow protection of religious beliefs, this is NOT such a case. If you go to most Islamic countries, you’ll see plenty of unveiled women – all that is required is the hijab. The issue here is one of immigrants declining to become a part of the culture of their new nation, and instead attempting to change the customs of their new nation into those of their old one. Just like religions, Nations have a right to exist, and to have their own customs and traditions.
Actually, in very many Islamic countries NO woman — of any faith or no faith — is permitted to be seen in public without extensive veiling. Recently, some of our American soldiers were required to wear veils on their heads over their BDUs in Saudi Arabia, because they are (of course) women.
Here’s my question: If there are devout Muslim women living in France who will go out without a veil, are they now unable to go out their own front doors into the street?
Suggestion: Knitted cap with matching scarf? Tough in summer.
Uh Clint wrote [blockquote]The issue here is one of immigrants declining to become a part of the culture of their new nation, and instead attempting to change the customs of their new nation into those of their old one. [/blockquote] That’s not the issue at all. These women are not trying to change the culture of France; they are trying to hold on to their own religious practices. Would you feel similar if France outlawed Jewish skullcaps or crucifix necklaces?
Actually, Scott K, I think Uh Clint nailed it. If they cannot conform to the customs of the country to which they immigrated, perhaps they should reconsider their decisions, and go elsewhere.
Additionally, you might recall, that until recently, it has been a crime in most western countries to wear a mask or to otherwise attempt to conceal ones identity in public.
off2 – I think what you actually mean in your rejoinder to Scott K is that you agree with Uh Clint – you still haven’t answer the question (a perceptive one I think) that Scott asks: “Would you feel similar if France outlawed Jewish skullcaps or crucifix necklaces?” Simply saying that Uh Clint “nailed it” doesn’t make it true (it may be true – but how do you deal with this substantial objection?
Dunno about France. But certainly many American public schools have outlawed wearing Christian T-shirts at school.
5. Grant LeMarquand, you are correct inferring that I agree with Uh Clint. I did not address the question, “Would you feel similar[sic] if France outlawed Jewish skullcaps or crucifix necklaces?” because I reject the implied equivalence of a piece of jewelry or a hat with a full head covering that conceals the identity of the wearer.
I am offended by a pentagram necklace. I would not, however, be so rude as to expect the wearer to remove it. Am also offended by really gaudy, tasteless jewelry. And ugly dresses. So? If a person were to wear a tee-shirt reading, “I am a Muslim and I believe all must convert to Islam or suffer in hell,” I would be offended, but I would respect his right to wear it.
The state of the world being what it is, I am marginally threatened by an all encompassing burka, or similar attire, which serves to conceal the sex, nationality, and visible countenance of the wearer. Men – and women – have been known to wear burkas to bring explosive devices into a crowd of perceived enemies.
That is the issue, isn’t it?
Before this goes any further, we need to get our terminology correct: My understanding is that the burqa is actually the body covering. I don’t think anyone has a problem with that, anymore than they have a problem with Indian women wearing Saris or Buddhist monks wearing robes. The hijab is the head-covering like a scarf – again, many women wear this who are not muslim, and it is not an issue.
The issue is the third garmet, the niqab. This covers the face.
Someone may correct me, but I understand that the French law refers to the niqab, i.e. it is focussed on the issue of face-covering. How on earth can that be compared to jewish skullcaps or crucifix necklaces?
There is a security issue involved. Does anyone seriously think that terrorists would scruple to conceal themselves using the niqab? That doesn’t mean that every country must ipso facto ban the niqab, but neither can the French be blamed for doing so, if they have determined that it is warranted.
To give an analogous example – here in Australia, for many years the wearing of full-face motorcycle helmets has been banned in certain areas such as banks. Yes, it is an imposition on civil rights and should not be done lightly, but there was good reason for it.
In this case, the French have a good reason to ban face-covering in public. That it may cause a difficulty to some people’s religious beliefs is irrelevant. They can adjust their beliefs, or live somewhere else.