French minister calls for full ban on burka

[tocqueville]

Source: FT

French minister calls for full ban on burka

By Ben Hall in Paris

Published: August 15 2009 03:00 | Last updated: August 15 2009 03:00

An outright ban of the wearing of the burka in France would help stem the spread of the "cancer" of radical Islam, according to the country's Muslim minister for urban regeneration.

Fadela Amara, who is of Algerian descent, said the veil and headscarf combination covering everything but the eyes represented "the oppression of women, their enslavement, their humiliation".

.....

Along with sexual oppression and poverty, she said, Muslim women suffered "a third form of oppression - extreme religiosity, the presence of fundamentalist groups who continue to propagate their discourse".

.....

"The vast majority of Muslims are against the burka. It is obvious why. Those who have struggled for women's rights back home in their own countries - I'm thinking particularly of Algeria - we know what it represents and what the obscurantist political project is that lies behind it, to confiscate the most fundamental liberties."

Read more: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/6f953d3a-8933-11de-b50f-00144feabdc0.html

---

Amara should know. One of 10 children born to Algerian immigrants in a housing project near Clermont-Ferrand, she is, by her own admission, an unlikely addition to the French government. A high- school dropout, she is far removed from the power network enjoyed by graduates of the Ecole Nationale d'Administration. "I have always been an autodidact," she says. "School has never really played a role in shaping who I am." Amara credits her father for instilling her sense of solidarity. He worked as a day labourer on construction sites and sent money back to his home village in Algeria. He also set some aside for the poor in the family's neighbourhood.

Amara's political awakening came in 1978 when her five-year-old brother, Malik, was killed by a hit-and-run driver. When the police arrived, they blamed Amara's parents and sided with the driver. "The cops called us bougnoules , and treated us like dirt just because we were from the Maghreb," she says. "It was like an electric shock," she continues. "That was the moment when I decided I wanted to fight against all forms of injustice." At 16, she petitioned her local council for better local housing conditions. "The first battle for dignity is in housing," she says.

Having made her name as a militant in SOS Racisme, a civil rights group, in 2000 Amara was elected president of the Federation Nationale des Maisons des Potes, a network of non-profit associations that aims to improve the country's deprived suburbs. Along the way, in 1983, she took part in the landmark equal rights march, dubbed the marche des beurs by the French press (beur is a slang word that refers to children of North African immigrants). The march took place when many second-generation North African youths were coming of age, starting with a handful of activists in Marseilles. But by the time the participants reached Paris, there were close to 100,000 people in the streets, marching in solidarity. At the time, many people saw it as the French equivalent of Martin Luther King Jr's 1963 March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom.

.....

...Amara hasn't moved into the posh ministry flat that is a perk of the job. She lives in an immigrant cite in southern Paris. She hasn't fallen for the glitz, after all.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/58115404-5da3-11dc-8d22-0000779fd2ac.html

[Eryemil]

1. Good. I was already aware of this. n|t

[ZombieHorde]

72. What sort of punishment would you like to see for woman who disobeys this law? nt

[JonQ]

355. Force them to wear a scarlet bikini in public

[PassingFair]

2. The force is strong in this one....

she seems like a keeper!

[2Design]

3. GOOD n/t

[ZombieHorde]

75. What would be a GOOD punishment for women who chose to disobey this law in your view? nt

[2Design]

104. take it off or live somewhere else eom

[ZombieHorde]

108. Where would you send them?

[2Design]

109. back to muslim nations where women have no rights and obey their religion over common sense eom

[Critters2]

164. So, you would protect them and free them, and look for their best interests

by sending them someplace more oppressive. Burnin' down the village to save it, are we?

[2Design]

190. he is trying to protect them from themselves by saying NO since

they don't seem to be able to do that themselves - it is ingenious - they have an out for not wearing it - or they follow their religion and stay in the dark ages where women don't have rights -

[Violet_Crumble]

195. Women need protecting from themselves?

You sure you meant to come out with that?

[Critters2]

328. Protecting women from themselves--Liberty! Equality! Paternalism! nt

[snagglepuss]

125. Saudi women are imprisoned in Saudi Arabia for not submitting to

dress codes deemed appropriate by the authorities so I say that should be the consequence. If Muslim women tow line elsewhere and obey dress codes why not obey French dress codes? When in Rome....

[ZombieHorde]

141. I thought moving away from oppressive laws was the goal. nt

[snagglepuss]

144. Saudi Arabia deems it fit to imprison women who don't follow dress codes.

Do the same.

[ZombieHorde]

148. Saude Arabia deems it fit to call itself Saudi Arabia, should we do the same? nt

[snagglepuss]

152. What sparkiling wit. Such insight.

:sarcasm:

[ZombieHorde]

155. I thought your post was a joke.

What does Saudi Arabia have to do with France?

[snagglepuss]

160. Because this practice was put in place by Saudi Wabibis. The practice is not in the Koran

There is no requirement in Islam for Muslim women to cover their face. Rather, the practice reflects a mode of male control over women. Its association with Islam originates in Saudi Arabia, which seeks to export the practice of veiling — along with other elements of its austere Wahhabist brand of Islam — to Muslim communities around the world.

If readers have any doubt about this issue, they should take a look at the holiest place for Muslims — the grand mosque in Mecca. For over 1,400 years, Muslim men and women have prayed in what we believe is the House of God, and for all these centuries, female visitors have been explicitly forbidden from covering their faces .

For the better part of the 20th century, Muslim reformists, from Egypt to India, campaigned against this terrible tribal custom imposed by Wahhabi Islam.



from
Tarek Fatah: Veil of ignorance


http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/02/04/tarek-fatah-veil-of-ignorance.aspx

[ZombieHorde]

306. I still don't understand the logic behind your post, which I copied and pasted into this reply...

"Saudi Arabia deems it fit to imprison women who don't follow dress codes.

Do the same."

Why should anyone do the same as Saudi Arabia?

[snagglepuss]

360. The Wahibis are promoting this fanatical behaviour. Women who submit to

Wahibist teaching accept that they must submit to authorities outside themselves in regard to dress. My argument is that they are condoning the lack of choice women have in Saudi Arabia because they are embracing the same fanatical belief system. If lack of freedom of choice and individual freedon is okay for their sisters in Saudi Arabia and if its okay that their Saudi sisters are imprisioned for not conforming then they should not claim any freedoms for themselves in France or any other country. Nor should they chafe at the fact that other people get to dictate their clothing choices.

[Critters2]

196. That's the example you want to follow--Saudi Arabia? nt

[snagglepuss]

304. The Wahabi sect which originates in Saudi Arabia has promoted this demented

notion and they imprison women in Saudi Arabia who don't cover themselves completely. So if its acceptable to imprison women in Saudi Arabia for not conforming to dress codes, why shouldn't France be able to impose acceptable dress codes with the same consequences?




Tarek Fatah: Veil of ignorance

"There is no requirement in Islam for Muslim women to cover their face. Rather, the practice reflects a mode of male control over women. Its association with Islam originates in Saudi Arabia, which seeks to export the practice of veiling — along with other elements of its austere Wahhabist brand of Islam — to Muslim communities around the world."

[Critters2]

326. I thank any law dictating what women should wear is wong,

whether in Saudi Arabia or France.

[snagglepuss]

340. Are you familiar with Wahibism, the fanatical sect that not only has promoted full body covering

for women but also the systematic destuction of ISLAMIC historical sites. Given your support of female body covering do you also support the fanatical notion that Wahibis have the right to destroy revered historical sites under the pretext of religious freedom?

What is taking place?

Saudis have taken the Birthplace of the Prophet, which is currently a small library resting on the original home of Sayyidina Abdul Muttalib's foundations, and have covered it up in the process of demolishing the building and eradicating its foundations, after which they intend to build a very large building at the site to be the King Fahd Library.



The action is an extension of major operations by the Wahhabist rulers of that nation as they undertake a new ideological "jihad" to destroy major relics and monuments from the time of the Prophet Muhammad - upon whom be peace and blessings - as well as important historical monuments from later periods. These acts of cultural oppression are being perpetrated under the auspices of a battle against "idolatry."



Other desecrations that took place recently:

Recently, the city planning board of Medina, Saudi Arabia, which is dominated by a notoriously extreme-Wahhabist mayor and city-planning commission:

- Painted the famous green dome of the Holy Mosque of the Prophet silver, knowing that its original color is beloved by Prophet Muhammad and by all Muslims. After intense protest from the citizens of Medina the board restored the dome to its original green.

- Ordered the destruction of five of the renowned Seven Mosques initially built by Prophet Muhammad's daughter and four of his greatest Companions: Masjid Abu Bakr, Masjid Salman al-Farsi, Masjid Umar ibn al-Khattab, Masjid Sayyida Fatima bint Rasulillah and Masjid Ali ibn Abi Talib.

Our reports indicate that these ancient buildings have been covered with black tarpaulins to hide the demolition work taking place at these revered shrines.

- Ordered pulling down of "Al-mukabariyya", the elevated location for the call to prayer in the Holy Mosque of the Prophet, built by Umar bin Abdul-Aziz in the 8th century. Apparently, it too has been covered by black tarps to hide the desecration.



http://www.sunnah.org/arabic/mawldhouse/ShNazim.htm

[provis99]

353. cool! can women wear assless chaps in public, then?

[glowing]

4. Does that mean that nuns will have to stop wearing the habit too?

I personally believe it should be a woman's individual choice to wear what she wishes. I don't think it should be because a govt or a religion tells her what or what not to wear.

[jeff30997]

6. "individual choice"

Wearing burka is not a choice at all.

[pnwmom]

17. Merci!

[defendandprotect]

42. Yes . . . strange thinking is it not . . ???

[ZombieHorde]

39. Why is it not a choice in France? nt

[defendandprotect]

43. Because we also no longer give "CHOICE" re foot-binding, or female genital mutilation . . .

this is simply one more cruelty the world is getting rid of -- the burqua ..

[ZombieHorde]

47. I believe grown women have a choice of what to wear in France, well

until this ban becomes law. Those other things are done to babies.


I am against circumcisions for babies for similar reasons. I am cool with grown men getting circumcisions.

[EFerrari]

81. But this insidious practice isn't imposed on adults. It starts with the children:

[Critters2]

93. Those aren't burqas.

Do you think hijabs and abayas should also be outlawed?

[pnwmom]

95. No, but it's like giving kids candy cigarettes. Play with a serious purpose.

[EFerrari]

101. But the message to those little girls is the same.

Do you think we should train the littlest girls to hide their faces in public?

[Violet_Crumble]

151. Yeah,clearly we must ban females from ever covering any part of their face!

Sorry, but while I agree with so much of what you have to say on other topics, on this I have all sorts of problems. Covering up yr mouth and nose isn't hiding one's face in public. Seriously, don't ever come to my part of Australia if you want to see nothing but uncovered faces. I've covered up my mouth and nose a fair bit exactly like those kids in the photo do, including during dust-storms and when it's so damn cold that if I don't cover my mouth and nose with a scarf, I'm scared my nose might freeze and snap off. And to make it even more oppressive and to show my blatant disrespect for women, I also wear a beanie to cover up much of my hair! ;)

[JonQ]

356. In many cultures it is perfectly acceptable for children to run around nude

in public, adults too.

We don't think so and clothe them instead. Shorts at the very least.

No doubt those cultures look on our practices as silly and puritanical, just as we look at muslims as silly and puritanical. But I wouldn't call it child abuse.

Who cares what the parents make their kids wear? Once they are adults they should be free to dress themselves as they see fit.

I appreciate the purpose of this law, but not the wording. Radical islam is a problem and the culture of mistreating women should be stamped out.

But tell me, throughout history how successful have public bans on religious displays been at destroying those religions? Has that ever worked? Typically it convinces them to dig in their heels and make no concessions period.

[ZombieHorde]

123. Fair enough. Why punish the victim? nt

[defendandprotect]

213. But you will readily believe that women are willing to do themselves harm . . .

would you wear a burqua? Every day, all day?

This is persecution of women by organized patriarchal religion --

and obviously we need more raising of consciousness on this issue overall!

[ZombieHorde]

308. "This is persecution of women by organized patriarchal religion"

I am not referring to the lack of burqas as the punishment.

I am referring to the punishment for breaking the law as the punishment.

Laws come with a punishment, this is how they are enforced. Do you understand? If I litter, I may be fined, this fine is a punishment.

If women are being forced into wearing burqas, then they are the victim, not the transgressor.

[tomp]

312. you seem bent on establishing the punishment.

why not a fine, as you just mentioned for littering?

[ZombieHorde]

314. I am against punishing women for wearing burqas.

If wearing a burqa is not a choice, then those women who them are victims. Victims should not be fined for being victimized.

Most people who litter do so because they are too lazy to find a garbage can. Most women who wear burqas do so (I am told) because they are forced to.

[snagglepuss]

130. It could be because the French still hold to the Enlightenment precept

of critically questioning traditional institutions, customs, and morals.

[ZombieHorde]

138. So they punish the victims? Sounds weird and counterproductive to me. nt

[snagglepuss]

149. Your argument makes no sense.

If women are wearing burkas of their own free will and haven't been brain-washed or coerced then not wearing one will be simply an inconvenience since hundreds and million of Muslim women don't wear them and they get on just fine. However if a women is traumatized beyond measure by showing her face then she has been a victim of abuse/mind-control and needs counseling.

This is no different than if a Western woman went to Saudi Arabia and had to wear that noisome thing. To be there as a woman one has to put up with the inconvenience. However if a women were traumatized by that requirement then something is amiss emotionally.

[ZombieHorde]

153. Well, others have stated the burqa needs to be outlawed since it is

oppressive to women. This would mean the women are the victims in this burqa situation.

If they are not forced forced to wear them, then the burqa is not oppressive.

So either way, it makes no sense to punish women for wearing them.

[snagglepuss]

158. It may be an inconvenience to set aside old behaviours but it is not

punishment. Often we are forced by circumstance to adopt new behaviours. Changing old ways for new ways can be unpleasant and shocking but its not punishment. If a woman is punished that person must by prosecuted for abuse but simply taking off a piece of clothing isn't punishment.

[ZombieHorde]

179. If France outlaws burqas, then those who wear them will be punished by the government. nt

[snagglepuss]

192. Just as as they would if they were running naked down the street.

French law will prohibit the burka. No big deal. Getting accustomed to not wearing one might feel strange but with time that strangeness will pass.

[JonQ]

357. Doesn't make much sense to be outraged by the burka

and also leave public nudity illegal.

One is because it is indecent to see "those parts" in public, the other is because . . . well it is indecent to see "those parts" in public.

Why is the burka evil and oppressive, but prohibitions against nudity is acceptable?

[defendandprotect]

216. Right . . . probably be forced to hold themselves in higher regard -- !!!

[ZombieHorde]

305. You seem to believe the burqa wearing women are wearing the burqas against their will.

This makes the burqa wearing women victims.

Outlawing the burqa will mean those who wear a burqa will be punished.

Therefore, the victim is the one being punished.

If you are baffled or disagree with any of the above four lines, please list the line(s) in your reply in order to avoid confusion.

[ZombieHorde]

307. I am not refering to the lack of burqas as punishment, I am refeing to the punishment as punishment.

Follow this train of thought...

Laws come with punishments for those who disobey. If I litter, I may be fined. This fine is a punishment.

Women who wear burqas are victims, they do not wear them because they want to.

If a woman is forced to wear a burqa, then she is a victim AND the government will give her an additional punishment under this law.

[snagglepuss]

344. If a women is forced to do something against her wishes then charges should be

lodged against the offender.

[ZombieHorde]

350. Yes. This is what I have been trying to say. nt

[defendandprotect]

215. Are you wearing a burqua? How many males in France are wearing a burqua?

Why aren't you wearing a burqua . . . you could make that choice?

Doesn't fit your lifestyle to hide your face all day and be unable

to breathe properly? Not to be identifiable? To be invisible in public?

The burqua is oppressive which is obvious to all who are capable of seeing that --

[ZombieHorde]

311. "The burqua is oppressive which is obvious to all who are capable of seeing that"

OK, then who should the government punish if a woman wears one?

[defendandprotect]

214. Helping the women shed subordination, humiliation and brutal treatment is punishment???

Right . . . and up is down!

[Violet_Crumble]

234. Fining a woman is NOT helping her!

That's like Sarah Palin charging rape victims for their own rape kits!

[defendandprotect]

276. Again -- you're responding to wrong poster . . .

I support education, consciousness-raising and elevating self-esteem of women/females --

Calm down . . . and think.

[Violet_Crumble]

283. No, I was responding to the right poster...

You don't support anything of the sort as you think it's fine to punish a woman by fining her for being forced by a man to wear something you want to see banned.

[defendandprotect]

345. For for the sake of . . . .

your own sanity . . . and to prove to you that you are misreading and need to rethink --

show me a post where I have recommended "punishment" for women

for not following the ban?

You can't because I've only ever said that we need EDUCATION --

Bye --

[tomp]

315. fining a speeder is not helping the speeder.

it is, presumably, a deterrent to speeding.

fining a burqa-wearer is presumably a deterrent to wearing burqas. there will come a point when women will not be able to afford the fine and the practice of wearing the burqua will stop.

i submit that it helps a women who are forced to wear the burqa by prohibiting its wearing. this would leave women who are truly choosing to wear the burqua in an oppressed state. some other remedy needs to be created for those women. i feel the numbers favor the prohibition.

one possible solution to the problem of fining an oppressed woman is to assess the fine specifically to the household or even to the husband or father, not the wearer.

[Critters2]

165. Questioning of some customs, not of others.

Forcing women to dress like you is NOT questioning customs. It's xenophobia.

[snagglepuss]

175. The Wahabi sect of Islam which is fanatical beyond words has promoted this

nonsense about full body covering. It's not in the Koran which is why the majority of non-Wahibi Muslim women don't use it. If Wahabis, with their superior moral fundie wisdom, deem it accpectable to imprison Saudi women who don't conform is that xenophobia or is it custom?

[snagglepuss]

126. BINGO. nt

[ZombieHorde]

313. If wearing the burqa is not a choice, then wouldn't the French government be punishing the victim if

they fined women for wearing them?

[pnwmom]

10. No one is BORN into being a nun. It is a choice made only after years of

reflection. And the habit covers the hair, not the face.

The comparison isn't valid.

The French minister is correct; the burqua is oppressive.

[glowing]

13. Most women would probably not choose to wear a burqua. But it should be a choice.

I wouldn't wear a chastity belt either, but it should be a choice as well. I am not for limiting anybody from doing something to themselves.. as long as it doesn't harm another person, they should do what they wish.

[pnwmom]

15. How can it be a choice if you are in a fundamentalist family?

If the religion they're born into and cannot leave requires it then it isn't a choice.

[snagglepuss]

133. Hear. hear.

Well said.

[Critters2]

166. So, you punish the victim, rather than the oppressor.

Yeah, that seems fair.

[tocqueville]

16. so not preventing somebody to commit suicide is OK ?

libertarianism is about pure egoism and denial to people to organize a society. It's against human evolution. Even the most primitive tribes have rules aimed at preserving teh existence of the group.

[glowing]

19. Suicide is a completely diff. debate. I personally believe its one's choice to make.

However, if that choice is because of mental instability, I think help should come first. However, a person dying from cancer.. holding on in pain, no, they should be able to choose suicide.

[tocqueville]

21. suicide is only an example

to show the flaw in logics in your assessment

what about genital mutilation, even if "consensual" ?

the theory of "absolute personal freedom" is only valid if you live outside a society. And as I said regarding the burka or veil, it's not consensual in 99% of the cases, specially for younger women.

[glowing]

24. I agree when it is not consensual, its not a personal freedom.

But making laws on what women can and cannot wear is also a form of control. Should we make a law against the Mormons for wearing their special underwear as a form of control under this same assessment?

[tocqueville]

29. this is a pure consensual religious practice

not a political statement aimed at ultimately oppress half mankind. Or else Mormons would wearing their underwears on their heads.





well, you never know...

[defendandprotect]

49. Wow . . . that's really gone modern . .. used to be neck to ankle, wasn't it??

[defendandprotect]

48. Yes .. . it's a "control" . . . like gun laws . . intended to protect society --

Let's see now . . . are African-Americans today being prevented from making the "choice"

to be slaves?

Are homosexuals being prevented from making the "choice" to be discriminated against?

If you're a female . . . are you being prevented from making the "choice" to be a second class

citizen?



:crazy:

[PassingFair]

111. I can't walk into a bank with a mask on.

On public safety issues ALONE, burkahs should not
be allowed.

[Violet_Crumble]

129. You can, but you'll be asked to remove it or leave...

And society isn't a big bank. There's a lot more to it. While there's obviously places where safety issues do dictate that items covering a persons face need to be removed, the same doesn't apply to most other places....

[Mythsaje]

65. Bullshit.

Subjugation of the individual to society isn't the perfect model either.

[defendandprotect]

45. It's not a "choice" ... any more than foot-binding was a choice for Chinese women . . .

or Female Genital Mutilation is for other women in the world!!

If you think it's a "choice" you're indeed confused!

[Critters2]

98. Then outlaw the behaviors of those who oppress women,

not a piece of clothing, that, whether you like it or not, some women choose to wear. If the problem is violence against women, then prosecute that. This is yet another attack on women for men's behavior.

[defendandprotect]

210. Women do not chose to abuse themselves . . . would you?

Most of us recognize the immense dangers of organized patriarchal religion --

you can see that discussed quite often here at DU . . . where ya been?

And, you might have noticed, we've basically had control of Afghanistan over the

past 5-6 years now . . . what have we done to stop abuse of women there?

Nothing.

This is religious oppression . . . I'm sure you've heard of subservience of women

as taught by organized patriarchal religions?


Meanwhile, perhaps you also don't understand that we US/CIA created Taliban/Al Qaeda.

That we went into Afghanistan 6 months before the Russians came in to "bait them into

Afghanistan . . . in hopes of giving them a Vietnam-type experience."

Maybe you don't also understand that US government played a large role in creating

the feared jihad preaching and fundamentalist violence of the Taliban?


Here's the info on BOTH those subjects if you've missed it --

The CIA's Intervention in Afghanistan
Interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski,
President Jimmy Carter's National Security Adviser

Le Nouvel Observateur, Paris, 15-21 January 1998

Question: The former director of the CIA, Robert Gates, stated in his memoirs <"From the Shadows">, that American intelligence services began to aid the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan 6 months before the Soviet intervention. In this period you were the national security adviser to President Carter. You therefore played a role in this affair. Is that correct?

Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.

Q: Despite this risk, you were an advocate of this covert action. But perhaps you yourself desired this Soviet entry into war and looked to provoke it?

B: It isn't quite that. We didn't push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would.

Q: When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they intended to fight against a secret involvement of the United States in Afghanistan, people didn't believe them. However, there was a basis of truth. You don't regret anything today?

Q: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter. We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.

Q: And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic fundamentalism, having given arms and advice to future terrorists?

Q: What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?

http://www.takeoverworld.info/brzezinski_interview_shor...


AND . . .

The US spent $100's of millions shooting down Soviet helicopters yet didn't spend a penny helping Afghanis rebuild their infrastructure and institutions.

They also spent millions producing jihad preaching, fundamentalist textbooks and shipping them off to Afghanistan. These were the same text books the Western media discussed in shocked tones and told their audiences were used by fundamentalist teachers to brainwash their charges and to inculcate in young Afghanis a jihad mindset, hatred of foreigners and non-Muslims etc.


Have you heard about the Afghan Jihad schoolbook scandal?

Or perhaps I should say, "Have you heard about the Afghan Jihad schoolbook scandal that's waiting to happen?"

Because it has been almost unreported in the Western media that the US government shipped, and continues to ship, millions of Islamist textbooks into Afghanistan.

Only one English-speaking newspaper we could find has investigated this issue: the Washington Post. The story appeared March 23rd.

Washington Post investigators report that during the past twenty years the US has spent millions of dollars producing fanatical schoolbooks, which were then distributed in Afghanistan.

"The primers, which were filled with talk of jihad and featured drawings of guns, bullets, soldiers and mines, have served since then as the Afghan school system's core curriculum. Even the Taliban used the American-produced books..." -- Washington Post, 23 March 2002 (1)

According to the Post the U.S. is now "...wrestling with the unintended consequences of its successful strategy of stirring Islamic fervor to fight communism."

So the books made up the core curriculum in Afghan schools. And what were the unintended consequences? The Post reports that according to unnamed officials the schoolbooks "steeped a generation in violence."

How could this result have been unintended? Did they expect that giving fundamentalist schoolbooks to schoolchildren would make them moderate Muslims?

Nobody with normal intelligence could expect to distribute millions of violent Islamist schoolbooks without influencing school children towards violent Islamism. Therefore one would assume that the unnamed US officials who, we are told, are distressed at these "unintended consequences" must previously have been unaware of the Islamist content of the schoolbooks.

But surely someone was aware. The US government can't write, edit, print and ship millions of violent, Muslim fundamentalist primers into Afghanistan without high officials in the US government approving those primers.

http://www.tenc.net/articles/jared/jihad.htm

[defendandprotect]

44. Nuns have also generally dumped the 13th century garb . . .

and it would be helpful if Catholics would dump the 5th Century-thinking Pope!

[pnwmom]

87. He's attacking Amerian nuns now, have you heard? Putting them through the modern

day equivalent of the Inquisition -- making sure they toe the line.

He's on a mission to destroy the Church in the name of saving it.

[defendandprotect]

211. Haven't heard about that . . . but the Vatican is certainly still running Inquisition . . .

and, as far as I can see, still engaging in war on democracy, freedom of conscience --

and especially all women!

From what I heard Popey is going Evangelical . . . !!!

I'm a recovering Catholic -- this has always been a violent, deceiving church.

And now we taxpayers are financing them!!!

[pnwmom]

232. You might be interested in this.

http://ncronline.org/news/women/we-did-what-church-asked-us-do

Apostolic Visitations, unlike the visitation between Mary and Elizabeth, are not celebratory occasions. “Visitation” in this context has taken on the meaning of “investigation.” Recent Apostolic Visitations by the Holy See include the visitation of United States seminaries and houses of formation for men in response to the sexual abuse of children by priests and the question of the perceived relationship of homosexuality to that scandal, and a visitation of the Legionnaires of Christ in various countries because of sexual improprieties of the order’s founder.

According to Cardinal Franc Rode, C.M., prefect of the Vatican’s Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life, the purpose of the current visitation of the sisters is “to look into the quality of life of apostolic Congregations of women religious in the United States.” Women religious who are in contemplative or cloistered congregations are not included in the visitation; nor are male religious.

SNIP

As I consider the purpose of the Apostolic Visitation many more questions enter my mind than I have addressed here. I know that many sisters are perplexed and saddened by the action taken by the Vatican Congregation. Is it possible that Vatican authorities and some of our bishops may not know the guidelines we were asked to follow? Many of the men who are bishops today were forty-five years younger when we were given these directions.

We did what the Church asked us to do and we have been renewed in faith and hope and love. I am convinced that the quality of our lives today is more deeply rooted in Gospel values than it was in an earlier time.

The voices of many Catholics have been strong and consistent in support of the sisters. Year after year Catholics have been most generous in their financial contributions to the retirement fund for the sisters, and I do not know what we would have done or will do without their generosity. We believe they must be as puzzled by this Visitation as we are.

SNIP

[snagglepuss]

136. LOL nt

[tocqueville]

14. the nuns are the female equivalent of a monk

1) they have taken special wows. There is no comparison possible. Nobody is against that CLERICS of whatever religion couldn't wear whatever they want as a sign of their status.
2) the question of "choice" is a strawman. Except for very few extremely religious women (who coose that form of worship), it's not a choice but an obligation. Most women in the Muslim world don't even want to wear a scarf, but are forced to do so. Count about 500 millions. You obviously don't have a clue of the female condition and aspirations to liberation in the Muslim world. Start with Turkey and Tunisia.
3) in the Western world its to 99% of cases a political statement fed by extremists
4) she is a practicing Muslim, so she ought to know
5) aah "govt". Govt is a good thing in a democracy, because elected bodies are there to protect people from abuses from all kinds. That's one of the central ideas in both the French and American revolution. In a democracy separation of church and state guarantees that individuals must be protected from abusive religious practices for the COMMON good.

[Critters2]

112. Except for very few extremely religious women (who coose that form of worship), it's not a choice

How many women need to make a choice before you think it's a choice worth honoring? Do you have a specific number?

[defendandprotect]

41. Unfortunately, religious dictates are obvious . . . including in nun's garb . . .

do you think they all woke up on separate mornings with an individual design in their head

of a fashion to wear? And, coincidentally, it turned out to all be the same design?

:think:

No more than Muslim women decided to make themselves uncomfortable and anonymous in outfits

which make them less human.

[valerief]

63. I thought nuns stopped wearing habits back in the 80s. nt

[snagglepuss]

127. Nuns are part of the clergy . So just as nuns are not subject to such a law

niether are imans. Furthermore most nuns no longer wear habits.

[Critters2]

168. About 50 % of nuns wear the habit, and nuns are not clergy. nt

[defendandprotect]

212. Right -- women are not allowed any role in ritual or authority . . .

here and there they may be serving communion . . . though I think this Pope

is dead set on knocking any of that out --

But the Vatican still does not acknowledge the full personhood of women as it

acknowledges the full personhood of males.

In other words . . . still a war on women.

The Vatican is also still at war on democracy, free thought, freedom of thought,

conscience . . .

[Critters2]

325. Not really an issue for me. I'm a Protestant clergywoman. nt

[WinkyDink]

187. The French aren't that big on Catholicism anymore, either.

[AlphaCentauri]

358. as long as they don't cover their face they shouldn't

the burka problem is that they cover their face

[jeff30997]

5. Parfait !

Recommandé.Fantastic woman.

[Vidar]

7. Good for Ms. Amara.

[rollin74]

8. Awesome!

good for her.

[ZombieHorde]

70. What should the punishment be if a woman wears one? nt

[pnwmom]

82. A fine. n/t

[ZombieHorde]

103. How will taking women's money help them? nt

[defendandprotect]

217. How does wearing a burqua help them? Is it the kind of help you'd like?

[Violet_Crumble]

246. So you support fining women who are forced to wear a burqa?

I don't understand the logic in that sort of thinking. Yr supporting punishing someone because they're being abused. Why not go after the man who forced her to wear it?

[defendandprotect]

275. You're responding to the wrong post . . . I said no such thing!!!

Recheck the post you're answering --

What I have said is that we need education, education, education . . .

lifting of female self-esteem . . .

consciousness-raising of public especially re organized patriarchal religion

and its oppression of women/females!!!

Again -- the subject is religion and its attempted intrusion upon STATE and

attempts to overturn democracy.

[Libertas1776]

9. I would understand

a ban on the burka, but I think the head scarf etc is pushing it.

[pnwmom]

11. Then you agree with her, as do I. The full burqa covering the face is both restrictive

and oppressive.

[Libertas1776]

18. Yes

I absolutely do, as far as the full face covering degrading burqa thing is concerned.

[tocqueville]

20. the scarf is the "limited" symbol of religious mysoginistic oppression

what Obama missed at the entry of the Cairo University is the huge statue in granit of a woman unveiling herself.



Mukhtar came from a modest background—his parents worked the fields and could not afford to send him to school, so he enrolled in Cairo's School of Fine Arts, which offered a free education to qualified students. He received a government scholarship to study at the École des Beaux-Arts in Paris, and upon his return to Cairo joined a vast movement of nationalists and intellectuals who struggled for political independence and the emancipation of woman. Mukhtar is considered the first modern Egyptian sculptor to revive the ancient tradition of figurative sculpture, imbuing it with new symbolism.His masterpiece Egypt Awakening, which now stands at the gate of Cairo University, depicts a sphinx rising by the side of a woman throwing off her veil; the monument remains the ultimate symbol of self-determination, freedom, and women's liberation. Mukhtar's work is representative of the Neo-Pharaonic style, based on a stylization of Egyptian classical art filtered through modern techniques and influences. He produced a collection of sculptures in stone and bronze, now housed in a Cairo museum dedicated to his work, and was the first Egyptian to exhibit work outside his native country and to receive international recognition. Mukhtar had a profound influence on successive generations of Egyptian artists.

http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/egma/hd_egma.htm

what I understand it's not only Egypt that needs an awakening

[defendandprotect]

52. Excellent/interesting post . . . !!

[snagglepuss]

137. Thanks for posting info about this artist. Very interesting.

[defendandprotect]

50. No . .

head scarf is in same ball park --

Come back when the religious fanatics decide whatever Muslim women have to wear

Muslim men have to wear, as well -- !!!

:think:

[Violet_Crumble]

88. Yr wrong on that. Who are you to decide what Muslim women should and shouldn't wear?

The hijab is not at all in the same ballpark as the burqa. I've got a friend who wears a head scarf and there is no way she's forced into wearing it against her will. How do you explain women like her? She's brainwashed and should realise that wearing a bright coloured scarf over her hair is akin to FGM etc and that she should be grateful that there's brave Americans out there willing to liberate her from her headscarf in the name of freedom? It's just that while I don't really have a problem with the burqa being banned, when it comes to the same attitude towards a headscarf, then it starts to appear very much like the opposition isn't about the freedom of women and has a lot more to do with an agreement with discrimination against Muslims. I mean, what's the big deal about any woman wearing a scarf over her hair? Why is it only an issue when the woman's a Muslim?

[defendandprotect]

219. Who is an all-male "god" to decide what women wear?

Or his all male thugs?

How do I explain women who wear head scares on 90 degree days . . . ?

Let's see . . . comfort? No --

Fashion? No --

Could it be RELIGION -- and the brainwashing power of organized patriarchal religion?


ONLY YOU HAVE SAID a head scarf is akin to FGM . . .

however, they are both oppression of women by organized patriarchal religion.

The veil/headscarf is as much a symbol of oppression as the Nazi flag.

[Violet_Crumble]

241. What's so hard to understand? What women wear is none of yr business

You no more have to explain why someone would wear a scarf on a hot day than you'd have to explain why someone wears a singlet top and shorts on the coldest day in winter. It's none of yr business and you don't have to report or explain it to anyone. No woman needs to tell you or justify to you why she's wearing what she's wearing....

No, some of the comments in yr posts are really OTT and you have made out headscarves and burqas are akin to FGM. And you've done it again in this post by invoking Godwin's Law. There's a serious problem when you compare a woman's wearing a scarf to Nazism. A more apt comparison to some nasties would be to observe that you appear to have a similar fascination with dictating how women should dress as the Taliban do :)

[defendandprotect]

252. YOU . . .

have equated head scarves and burquas with FGM -- and ONLY YOU . . .

RELIGIOUS OPPRESSION IS EVERYONE'S BUSINESS . . .

And the burqua is religious oppression of females.

The long history of the oppression of women with the veil is recognized as

equal to that of the Nazi flag. That's been stated by officials looking at

these issues. And they are correct.

Now . . . why would someone wear a face covering on a 90% degree day?

Or make herself unidentifiable unless there was a problem with self-esteem?

What connections are there between low self-esteem of women/girls and the teachings

of organized patriarchal religions??????

Oh, and yes . . . I chase women down the street with a stick to make sure they're not

wearing white slacks after Labor Day!!

Let's be honest now . . . what do the Muslim fanatics do to women/girls who don't have

their hair properly covered . . . or who are not wear a burqua in Afghanistan????

What's the range of treatment? Beatings, hitting with a stick -- arrest?? More???

[Violet_Crumble]

265. No, not being a moronic twit I don't equate them...

What's that you were saying in post 221? ;)

Who recognises women wearing a headscarf as being equal to that of the Nazi flag? Sorry, but that's just so utterly offensive on so many levels to equate women choosing to wear a scarf to Nazism. What yr doing is minimising what the Nazis did by trivialising it...

I don't give a shit what yr rather extreme religious views are. I give a shit when you try to force yr views down other peoples throats and try to make them live according to how you see the world. And make no mistake. You are an extremist every bit as much as one who embraces religion. Get a grip on yrself and get used to the fact that women can dress how they choose to and there's not a damn thing you and yr ilk can do to oppress them...

[defendandprotect]

324. Okay . . .

you're getting desperate here so we're pretty close to ending our discussion . . .

what I said to you is that others have, rightly so, pointed out that the veil is to be

feared as a

symbol of oppression

as the Nazi flag is feared.

And, I presume you also think that France is "extremist" for this ban?

Bye --

[mamaleah]

207. How is it your decision what Muslim men and women wear?

Or what Jews, Catholics, or anyone else wears for that matter?

[defendandprotect]

255. It's an issue of Separation of Church & State . . .

thwarting attacks of church upon State/democracy . . .

Protecting women/girls from religious dictates which do them obvious harm --

No one's practice of their religion is dependent upon having their religious

articles on display in public.

Whether a creche -- or a burqua.

[mamaleah]

256. Yeah good luck

in getting laws passed to ban people from wearing any symbol of their religion.

That will really help the GOP get back in though, so give 'em a call!

[defendandprotect]

271. I don't think we are talking about "any" symbol . . .

in getting laws passed to ban people from wearing any symbol of their religion.

We are talking about obvious intrusions by CHURCH on STATE --

Many Americans are contesting the placement of the Christian creche on public property --

and religious interference in civil rights, such as Prop 8 . . . or Equal Rights Amendment.

Where do you stand on that?

Do you favor the RCC and the Mormon Church financing secret campaigns against the ERA

or homosexuals with tax-exempt dollars?

[defendandprotect]

51. dupe . .

head scarf is in same ball park --

Come back when the religious fanatics decide whatever Muslim women have to wear

Muslim men have to wear, as well -- !!!

:think:

[Lars39]

12. Wow...slightly OT, but France sure has come a ways since

the 1961 attack by the police that killed about 200 Algerian people.

[tocqueville]

22. yeah we didn't wait until 1968 to ban segregation

or 1946 to successfull convict lynching for the first time...

[Lars39]

23. France is light years ahead of us, tocqueville.

Probably always will be, too. I feel like we're regressing to something out of Dickens.:(

[defendandprotect]

53. Agree . . . and thanks, tocqueville -- !!

[proteus_lives]

91. Yeah, but France was still using the guillotine in the 1970s.

So no place is perfect.

[EFerrari]

25. Good!

[ZombieHorde]

71. What sort of punishment would you like to see for woman who disobeys this law? nt

[EFerrari]

77. What did we charge blacks for disobeying desegregation laws?

[ZombieHorde]

97. I don't know much about that. How were blacks disobeying desegregation laws?

How would you like to see women be punished if they disobey this law.

[EFerrari]

110. The burka has no place, none, in a democratic society and I fully trust

the French to come up with an appropriate disincentive for any family that tries to impose it on their female members. I hope that's as clear as possible.

[ZombieHorde]

116. I don't understand why a burka is anti-democratic.

Seems to me France is just coming up with another way to hurt women.

[EFerrari]

119. A burka works to put a wall between a woman and public life.

It hampers her movement, her vision, her ability to make contacts in the public sphere. That's the whole point of a burka. It's like wearing your own personal jail cell.

The French are right on this one.

[ZombieHorde]

122. If the woman is the victim, why punish her? nt

[Violet_Crumble]

131. But what if a woman freely chooses to wear one?

Do you still feel the same about those cases? See, that's where I start to feel uncomfortable about banning it, where there's women who freely choose to wear it, because who are any of us to tell another women what she should or shouldn't wear and how if she wears something that we don't approve of, that makes her an outcast from society....

[defendandprotect]

222. Are you choosing to wear a burqua . . . that question is like asking, "How dumb are you?"

If you answer is that you're not wearing one, then the next question

is why would a woman be any less smart than you are?

This isn't about telling women what to wear!!

It's about freeing them from oppression of organized patriarchal religion . . .

which, in fact, is oppression to all women in every society -- harmful to

self esteem of women/girls.

I'm sure you've noticed that?

[mamaleah]

244. Do you feel the same about hijab?

There are many women who proudly wear hijab because of people like you who think they have to dress like Paris Hilton to be truly "liberated".

I myself cover my hair with a tichel. And I dress modestly. I do not feel oppressed at all. On the contrary, I feel terrible for women who think they have to show everything to get attention.

[defendandprotect]

249. Why are you doing it ? Anything to do with religous beliefs???

Anything to do with organized patriarchal religious beliefs?

Next question . . .

Why are any women supporting organized patriarchal religions?

:think:

[mamaleah]

253. LOL.

Ah yes, the attempts to shame people into abandoning their beliefs for yours.

Yes it is for religious reasons. My husband also dresses modestly as well. Long sleeves, always a kippa and almost always a hat as well, even though we are misnagdim not chassidim, and always long pantts. Covering my hair is quite liberating, and I rather enjoy it. And if that were ever banned here, I would enjoy breaking that law daily.

Sorry, am I supposed to feel oppressed because I believe in dressing modestly? Nice try!

[defendandprotect]

258. Ah, honesty at last . . .

If you are "ashamed" that you are wearing a scarf because of your religion . . .

that's your problem.

All I asked for was the truth -- and thank you for that!

Organized patriarchal religions concern themselves with what people wear in public

in the same way that "gangs" use clothing to signal their allegiances. It is for

the benefit of the religion, not the benefit of the individual. It is advertising.

Again, it is not the clothing -- it is the symbolism and its oppressive roots in

organized patriarchal religion, specificially linked to its historical oppression of

females.

The French government is offering protection to women/girls vs oppressive religious

dictates. Presumably, they will also conduct conscious-raising for the public and

self-esteem assistance for the females.

And I can only hope that we do not see ever greater levels of religious violence by

organized patriarchal religion than we've already seen!!!!

And I include ALL organized patriarchal religions in that hope --

and new "Crusades" conducted by Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld resulting in the death of

more than a million Iraqi citizens.

[Violet_Crumble]

259. She didn't say she was ashamed to be wearing a scarf...

I've reread her post and she said nothing of the sort. She actually said she did wear one for religious reasons and she found it liberating. Or do you Americans speak some strange form of English that I'm not aware of?

[defendandprotect]

267. No . .. she suggested that I was inferring that . . .

however, it is obvious that you're kind of thrashing about on this issue,

looking for something irrelevant to hook onto --

Now . . . obviously you're unhappy with all of this --

but I think you need to rethink it.

Organized patriarchal religions are no friend of women/females.

France made a move which is intended to protect STATE and women/females.

That's from the highest perspective.

Too often people who believe in the religious teachings they've been taught

tend to think of religion as benign without looking at the historical violence

of religion and its brutal oppression of females.

There is no such thing as benign organized patriarchal religion ... it's all

based on male supremacy and is deeply embedded in violence.

[Violet_Crumble]

277. You were inferring that, so what are you going on about?

You said she'd said she was ashamed, and she didn't say that at all. That's not thrashing about, nor is my belief that yr so obsessed with yr hatred of religion that you aren't even thinking clearly. You really do hold extreme and unbending views that are every bit as repulsive as those of religious extremists.

I'm not going to waste my time rethinking revolting crap that you've popped out like equating wearing a scarf to Nazism. Mainly coz it's mindless bullshit, but also coz there's nothing to rethink, kind of the same as I'd react to one of those Birthers telling me to rethink my belief that they're idiotic twits...

Yr the sort of person who makes people falsely believe that atheists and feminists are all a bunch of unbending, militant extremists....

[defendandprotect]

337. Right . . . separation of church & state is "revolting crap" . . . !!!!

Bye --

[leftynyc]

362. Sorry to say this

But you sound as fanatical as any religious freak.

[mamaleah]

262. Where did I say I was ashamed? I mean outside of your fantasy land?

I am not at all ashamed of how I dress. I cover my hair as a married woman. I like it. Just because you do not does not mean I will EVER bend to your will.

[defendandprotect]

268. You didn't . . . you suggested that I was trying to "shame" you ....

Here it is -- from your post . . .

Ah yes, the attempts to shame people into abandoning their beliefs for yours.

OK . . . now could we kind of keep what we are both saying to one another straight???

So you cover your hair because "you are a married woman" . . . ???

Is that from the Koran?

I don't care if you're wearing tomatoes on your head --

What I care about is separation of church & state -- and preserving democracy.

Something which organized patriarchal religions aren't very fond of!!!

Oppression of women/females being but one part of their distorted beliefs!!!

:)

[mamaleah]

279. Wow. So you have no clue what you are talking about.

I'm Jewish. In Orthodox Judaism, married women cover their hair. Men cover their heads all the time, married or not, period, with a kippa.

You might do yourself some good to read up on what you like to bash.

You insist I am oppressed. I have tried to tell you I am do not feel at all oppressed, yet feel some sort of superiority it seems. Which is absolutely hysterical. Would it make you happy if I didn't cover my hair? Why would I want to make you happy?

Is your way of preserving democracy to keep people from practicing their religion? Again, best of luck.

I'm off to bed because I am getting up early to *gasp* cook breakfast for my family after *gasp* shacharis (morning prayer). When oh when will my cruel husband unchain me! Oh thank goodness for people like you! :rofl:

[defendandprotect]

342. Jewish women also shave their heads and then wear wigs -- !!!

Do Jewish males shave their heads?

This conversation is not about YOU -- believe it or not.

It is about organized patriarchal religion and its oppression of women/females.

Personally, I don't care if you wear a grapefruit on your head --

What we all care about is protecting democracy - separation of church & state --

and lifting oppression of women/females.

And those are the issues of this thred --

Bye --

[mamaleah]

359. Stop pretending to speak for all women. Yes some Chasidic women do shave their heads.

And if you have ever read any of their stories you would know that many of them do not have a problem with it and some of them found it exciting to do so.

No, men do not have to shave their heads. That doesn't bother me. It also doesn't bother me that he is required to daven 3 times a day but I am not held to that. However, I do have to do things he doesn't have to do as well.

Again, you have not been appointed to speak for any woman. Not all women who are religious are oppressed whether or not you think they are. You are not our elected spokeshole.

[defendandprotect]

365. Please show me where I claim to speak for anyone but myself . . .

rather than trying to distort what is said, give real debate a try.

Other than that -- we're finished.

[Violet_Crumble]

257. She already told you why she wears it....

And I respect her right to do so. Pity those who think women are nothing more than eye-candy for them can't cope with the fact that women dress according to how they view themselves as individuals, and in the case of religious women, the dress can reflect their religious beliefs. As long as no-one forces me to dress the way a religious woman would dress, I'm fine with that, and I think those who would force religious women to dress a way they're not comfortable with is every bit as bad as someone who'd force me to dress more, uh, conservatively....

Also, I'm a firm non-believer when it comes to religion, but one thing that pisses me off as much as religious fundies trying to force their beliefs down my throat, is non-believers who want to force their lack of belief on other people. It's so lame....

[defendandprotect]

263. Yes . .. she has just replied and I have just responded . . .

and now I'm responding to you . . . and later I'll respond to someone else.
Let me know if that's OK with you????? :evilgrin:

Meanwhile . . .

and in the case of religious women, the dress can reflect their religious beliefs.

And, we are discussing the burqa and not bikinis, of course --

When religion is brought out into the public arena -- such as here -- then we have the
right to question and challenge those beliefs. That's what we're doing here.

What France is doing is activating Separation of Church & State to protect democracy,
freedom of thought, freedom of conscience and self-determination which do not exist unless
we have separation of church & state. And thereby offering protection to females and families
who may be being pressured to conform to religious dictates -- openly or secretly dictated.

No woman is choosing to wear the burqa -- anymore than men are choosing to wear the burqa!
Nor have I heard of any Muslim men hiding their faces, either, unless we have a snowstorm.
Or is it being suggested that women make less intelligent decisions than males do?

Organized patriarchal religion can be a threat to freedom/democracy as our Founders well
knew -- and hopefully we all understand.

Also, I'm a firm non-believer when it comes to religion, but one thing that pisses me off as much as religious fundies trying to force their beliefs down my throat, is non-believers who want to force their lack of belief on other people. It's so lame....

I doubt that all of France are "non-believers" and I'm not sure that the official involved is a
"non-beiever" . . . ???

I don't see anyone here, either, trying "to force their lack of belief on other people."
They are all simply acknowledging, as I am, the threat of organized patriarchal religion to
STATE -- and especially to women/girls.

Again . . . this is about protecting democracy -- and protecting women from oppression . . .
protecting separation of church & state.

[Violet_Crumble]

273. That's lovely, Maybe you'll stop misrepresenting what people say?

As to who you reply to and when, not sure why you'd think I care. You claimed she'd said something she hadn't and that's what I was commenting on...

Bottom line is when it comes to the scarf, as long as religious folk don't start demanding that I dress to what they consider to be standards that they approve of, I'm not going to put up with non-religious wankers doing the same to them. See, we're talking about the headscarf, because you were the one who was talking about the scarf when I replied to you. You want to talk about something else, go talk to someone else, but my issue with you is that you seem to think women should be banned from wearing headscarves and you seem to have some vision of women that they don't dress to fulfil their own individualness, but they should dress to conform with what you consider to be attractive....

Sorry, but you make no sense. Could you try reading the posts you reply to more carefully? I didn't say that I thought everyone in France was a non-believer, and that's because I was specifically addressing myself to you and yr attitude to religion. Unless you've changed yr name to France or something, then I could understand the confusion...

You can't see that yr trying to force yr own beliefs onto others? I'm guessing most folk who want to do that can't see that's what they're trying to do, so don't feel bad in not seeing it. You want to force women into wearing or not wearing what you approve of. That's forcing yr belief onto others. You don't care a bit about oppression or protection. All you care about is forcing everyone to dress how you think they should.

If yr an atheist, you make me ashamed to call myself one, as yr every bit as extreme as any religious extremist....

[defendandprotect]

332. The only misrepresenting of what anyone is saying . . .

is being done by you in your attempts to try to find a footing in the

debate --

This is a discussion about the burqa and oppression of women by male religion -
a point which you want to totally avoid.

And, as well, you want to deny that the scarf/veil has also historically been
another symbol of female oppression --

As for the rest of your comments, as I've suggested to you before, your anger
is overcoming your common sense.

If head scarves are more important to you than separation of church and state
then there isn't much anyone can say to you.

Except, you need to rethink that --

Bye --

[mamaleah]

264. It's only a free choice if you choose what they would choose, for some.

On both sides.

That said, there are several modest dress forums with atheists and feminists who choose to dress in such a way because they do not wish to be eye candy.

[defendandprotect]

269. No . . . this is about RELIGION intruding on STATE .. . threats to democracy . . .

and oppression of women/females --

and if you all don't get that, then there's little point in discussing this further

with you.

This is NOT about fashion, folks --

Nor choice . . . because women aren't dumb!

[mamaleah]

280. That's right, we aren't dumb.

Capable of making our own choices, without you, your majesty.

[defendandprotect]

343. Let me point to . . ..

where you are having difficulty with debate --

This is an ISSUE -- it is not about YOU and it is not about ME --

When you can calm down and reflect on the importance of Separation of

Church & State in actually preserving everyone's right to free thought,

free choice, free conscience -- which is what protects your right to

practice any religion you wish, or NOT -- then perhaps the issue here

will be clearer to you.

Bye --

[leftynyc]

361. A fine - a large one - on the household (n/t)

[snot]

26. If it were up to me, I'd say Burkas ok so long as MEN ALSO REQUIRED to Wear Them.

[defendandprotect]

54. So true -- and veils, as well -- !!!

[totodeinhere]

68. Great idea! n/t

[Taverner]

27. Could identification be reason alone?

I mean, if Burkas are common, what's to stop a criminal on the lam from donning said burka?

[Odin2005]

28. I agree, the Burka is BS.

[twitomy]

30. Bah! just French xenephobia..

They need to appreciate diversity

[Critters2]

32. I agree. I find this a disturbing development.

Also shows poor knowledge of human nature. This will only further radicalize the radicals they're worried about.

[defendandprotect]

57. US is more responsible for "radicalizing" and "Fundie-ing" Muslims . . .

whom we used for our own purposes . . . in Afghanistan, for one, vs Russians.

Traditionally, organized patriarchal religion underpins patriarchy -- and is

a tool of patriarchy used to further its agenda --

which is always quite clearly anti-female.

[twitomy]

199. Wow thought I heard it all...

Its now Americas fault that Islam societies treat their woman like crap...who wouldve thunk?

Next up, it Americas fault for earthquakes and sunburn...

[defendandprotect]

204. Maybe you haven't heard all the things you need to know . . .

Though this information has been completely out for quite a number of years and
posted repeatedly on DU -- good luck!

Try this -- and stay tuned at the bottom for a complete rundown on this . . .

US government also spent millions producing jihad preaching, fundamentalist textbooks and shipping them off to Afghanistan. These were the same text books the Western media discussed in shocked tones and told their audiences were used by fundamentalist teachers to brainwash their charges and to inculcate in young Afghanis a jihad mindset, hatred of foreigners and non-Muslims etc.

Here's how US government created Taliban/Al Qaeda and the purpose for which it was used . . .
i.e., baiting Russians into Afghanistan --

The CIA's Intervention in Afghanistan
Interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski,
President Jimmy Carter's National Security Adviser

Le Nouvel Observateur, Paris, 15-21 January 1998

Question: The former director of the CIA, Robert Gates, stated in his memoirs <"From the Shadows">, that American intelligence services began to aid the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan 6 months before the Soviet intervention. In this period you were the national security adviser to President Carter. You therefore played a role in this affair. Is that correct?

Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.

Q: Despite this risk, you were an advocate of this covert action. But perhaps you yourself desired this Soviet entry into war and looked to provoke it?

B: It isn't quite that. We didn't push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would.

Q: When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they intended to fight against a secret involvement of the United States in Afghanistan, people didn't believe them. However, there was a basis of truth. You don't regret anything today?

Q: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter. We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.

Q: And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic fundamentalism, having given arms and advice to future terrorists?

Q: What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?

http://www.takeoverworld.info/brzezinski_interview_shor...

And here's how we helped create religious fanaticism among Muslims . . .


The US spent $100's of millions shooting down Soviet helicopters yet didn't spend a penny helping Afghanis rebuild their infrastructure and institutions.

They also spent millions producing jihad preaching, fundamentalist textbooks and shipping them off to Afghanistan. These were the same text books the Western media discussed in shocked tones and told their audiences were used by fundamentalist teachers to brainwash their charges and to inculcate in young Afghanis a jihad mindset, hatred of foreigners and non-Muslims etc.


Have you heard about the Afghan Jihad schoolbook scandal?

Or perhaps I should say, "Have you heard about the Afghan Jihad schoolbook scandal that's waiting to happen?"

Because it has been almost unreported in the Western media that the US government shipped, and continues to ship, millions of Islamist textbooks into Afghanistan.

Only one English-speaking newspaper we could find has investigated this issue: the Washington Post. The story appeared March 23rd.

Washington Post investigators report that during the past twenty years the US has spent millions of dollars producing fanatical schoolbooks, which were then distributed in Afghanistan.

"The primers, which were filled with talk of jihad and featured drawings of guns, bullets, soldiers and mines, have served since then as the Afghan school system's core curriculum. Even the Taliban used the American-produced books..." -- Washington Post, 23 March 2002 (1)

According to the Post the U.S. is now "...wrestling with the unintended consequences of its successful strategy of stirring Islamic fervor to fight communism."

So the books made up the core curriculum in Afghan schools. And what were the unintended consequences? The Post reports that according to unnamed officials the schoolbooks "steeped a generation in violence."

How could this result have been unintended? Did they expect that giving fundamentalist schoolbooks to schoolchildren would make them moderate Muslims?

Nobody with normal intelligence could expect to distribute millions of violent Islamist schoolbooks without influencing school children towards violent Islamism. Therefore one would assume that the unnamed US officials who, we are told, are distressed at these "unintended consequences" must previously have been unaware of the Islamist content of the schoolbooks.

But surely someone was aware. The US government can't write, edit, print and ship millions of violent, Muslim fundamentalist primers into Afghanistan without high officials in the US government approving those primers.

http://www.tenc.net/articles/jared/jihad.htm

[twitomy]

348. So its Jimmy Carters Fault!!!

Islamic extremism has it roots in Wahhabi ideology, not Zignew Brezinski....

[EFerrari]

80. Which are a tiny number but it will free many women who have

little support in trying to step out of their culturally imposed shroud.

[Critters2]

105. No, It will impose punishment on them.

Strange idea of "freedom".

[EFerrari]

117. Baloney. Why don't you email RAWA and ask them what they think

about the burka being banned in France?

[twitomy]

200. Actaully my statement was kinda tongue in cheek...

I feel the Burka is a tool of oppression and should be frowned upon or discouraged, but I dont quite feel comfortable with the govt dictating what one can wear. So I guess Im "torn" on the issue.

[Adsos Letter]

294. I agree Critters...

If a grown woman believes that her standing with God is obstructed by not wearing the head scarf, then who is the French GOVERNMENT to say that she cannot wear it?!

On the other hand, if a woman chooses NOT to wear the headcovering, France should support her choice not to be forced by anyone, including her male relatives, to do so.

A grown woman is certainly able to weigh the consequences of her actions for herself, and make her decisions accordingly.

[AlphaCentauri]

363. Playboy, hustler and hooters would radicalize the radicals more

that is the other extreme.

[Eryemil]

33. Diversity? I'm a relativist but my standards our western culture is superior in this regard.

Just because something is different does not make it automatically beneficial.

[tocqueville]

37. like stopping a Bollywood star at Newark because his last name is Khan ?

this has nothing to do with "diversity" but it's probably pointless to explain to some who have a surrendering attitude to religious extremism in the name of "freedom".

[Codeine]

40. Why?

The French appreciate Frenchness. That's their thing, and it works. They make no claim to being a multicultural society; the French are French.

[EFerrari]

79. Segregating and marginalizing women is not diversity. n/t

[twitomy]

202. I agree with you, really,

But thats from your pov. What is the woman doesnt think she is marginalized and segregated?
I guess this is the ugly side of freedom. Some poeple choose to be slaves.

[Beacho]

31. You don't use the force of government to ban things you don't like

or because you perceive, rightly or wrongly, them as a symbol of oppression. This is an assault on the foundation of the Enlightenment, freedom of conscience. To address the 'well, women are forced to wear them or face sanction from their family' argument all I have to say is that do you believe the government should interfere in every case where societal and/or familial pressure is applied? Are you now going to arrest families that disown their gay children? You can't answer oppression, especially when it is in the social realm, with oppression that has the weight of the law. This is going to backfire, BADLY.

[tocqueville]

56. Freedom to be a pedophile should then be granted

another strawman

there is a difference between "thought" and the right to express it - and conduct

according to you it's perfectly OK to be a pedophile, to beat your children etc.... as long as it stays in the family and motivated by religious or "philosophical" principles

That's exactly what the US fundies say

The intention of the Enligthement philosophers was to protect the exercise of religion, not to condone barbaric practices in the name of it.

"You can't answer oppression, especially when it is in the social realm, with oppression that has the weight of the law"

so beaten and malnourished, abused childeren shouldn't be taken to a social worker, parental rights cancelled and the parents not punished ?

As usual you see to text, not to the intention. It's a congenital Bible reading syndrome since Winthrop.

"to arrest families that disown their gay children"

impossible, since French law guarantees that inheritage shall be passed to children first, then to spouse. To "disown" is an impossibility here. Because disownig is based on a whim, not on the rights children or spouses may have.

The US is founded on a fallacy that elected government is evil. But good to have in case of war and road construction. What I know of it's the only democracy in the world with such a deep rooted belief. Except of course Somalia and Pashtun tribes, but they are directly "democratic".

[snagglepuss]

142. Hear. Hear. nt

[defendandprotect]

58. Yes, you do . . . Religion is banned from interference in state affairs in America . . .

that's what separation of church and state is all about --

and what we've seen over the last decades is a decided attack on that concept in

order for patriarchal religion to gain control over government.

Reflect on what the founders understood of organized patriarchal religions and their

dictates -- their violence!

[defendandprotect]

60. misplaced --

[pnwmom]

83. We ban recreational drug use because it is harmful to the body.

The burka is harmful to the soul.

[defendandprotect]

221. In the case of RELIGION . . . the answer is yes . . .

Separation of Church & State . . . remember?

Governments have banned other harms to women -- foot-binding .. .

Female Genital Mutilation --

Obviously, organized patriarchal religion does great harm to women/girls --

and not unintentionally!

[surrealAmerican]

34. This will require them to come up with a legal definition ...

... of just what constitutes a burka. It'll be interesting to see what other garments may also wind up banned, depending on what their definition is. Is a mask ok? What if you wear a just a scarf over your head? How about a long cape?

[tocqueville]

64. it's like porn

you know it is, when you see it

[surrealAmerican]

67. ... and just like porn, it will lead to selective enforcement.

[Crowman1979]

35. The Burkha is only good for being a great disguise to use in evading law enforcement.

Think about it! Say you did a few robberies and are on the lam. They can't arrest you, especially if you live in an area where police won't arrest you because they are afraid of being sued over discrimination.

[Beacho]

36. So are ski masks

Where's the outcry to ban them? How about the ban on wigs, makeup, and prosthetics which are even more effective than a burka? Besides how many robberies or other crimes have been committed by crooks wearing burkas? That argument is as bogus as the ticking time bomb scenario to justify torture.

[pnwmom]

84. Actually, there are laws in many locales that ban the wearing of masks other

than on Halloween.

[defendandprotect]

38. Good . .. burqua should be banned everywhere . . . just as foot-binding is banned . . .

[totodeinhere]

46. Chalk up one small step forward in the world wide quest for equal rights for women.

One things that I really hate about some factions (not all) of Islam is their brutal oppression of women.

[ZombieHorde]

74. In your opinion, how should the women who disobey this small step be punished? nt

[totodeinhere]

86. I would impose a warning for the first offense.

If there were a second offense, I would impose a small fine. I would treat it like a minor traffic violation.

[Violet_Crumble]

90. But why would anyone fine a woman who's wearing it against her will?

That doesn't make any sense to do that. It's punishing someone who has no control over the situation at all.

[Critters2]

96. Because attacking women is easier, more acceptable, even on the left,

than holding men accountable for their behavior.

Interesting article: http://www.savadati.com/2009/07/30/we-love-islam-so-we-wear-burqa/

"What is also ignored is the fact that the real problem where the burqa is concerned is the sexual, physical and emotional violence perpetrated against women who make the choice not to wear the burqa, as well as the fact that a large number of women are forced into the veil. Rather than banning the garment itself, what governments should be focussing on is nabbing the abusers, molesters and thugs, who would deprive women of their freedom to choose."

[Violet_Crumble]

128. Thanks for posting that article...

This really sums the whole thing up for me: 'Rather than banning the garment itself, what governments should be focussing on is nabbing the abusers, molesters and thugs, who would deprive women of their freedom to choose.' Ever since I read the post in this thread where one poster wanted the French govt to also ban headscarves, I've been starting to wonder if this has more to do with people wanting to force women not to wear what they don't consider to be appealing than it has to do with a woman having the freedom of choice to wear what she wants....

[defendandprotect]

225. I think this is a first step in the process of education . . . raising self-esteem of girls/women .

And . . . how would the government inject itself into a household to determine

who the abusers or enforcers are? Might simply be neighborhood thugs?

That would be divisive for the family and probably put more pressure on the female

at home!

What governments should be doing is enforcing female equality --

and then let the light of discrimination fall upon organized patriarchal religions --

and let followers of those religions decide what to do about it.

[snagglepuss]

146. If that is the case then her husband should be arrested for abuse.

[Critters2]

161. We'd rather arrest the oppressed victim. Le plus ca change...nt

[defendandprotect]

227. The ban shortcircuits the need for that .... unless there is actual physical harm being done . . .

I think we're all presuming that this is pressure -- from family, from

the religion -- and maybe even from neighborhood thugs?

But asking the female to turn in her religious instructor, her father,

her brother, might create even more harm at home --

BANNING the burqua leaves the religious instructor, father, brother ONLY

the government to argue with.

[totodeinhere]

205. No, I was assuming that she was voluntarily doing it in violation of the law.

(If such a law were enacted in France.) If she were forced to wear it then yes, the person who forced her to do it should be the one who is punished, not the woman herself.

[defendandprotect]

228. Women/girls do not "voluntarily" humiliate themselves, cut themselves off

from society -- make themselves invisible non-persons!

Would you?

[totodeinhere]

300. Oh come on, a lot of Muslim women voluntarily go along with the program.

They have been indoctrinated into it from day one. They have grown up in a society that doesn't question those mores.

[Critters2]

341. People make different choices than me all the time.

I don't feel the need to outlaw all those choices.

Would you?

[ZombieHorde]

100. I don't see how taking a woman's money against her will is liberating.

Even if she is not wearing the burka because she wants to, taking her money will not help her.

[Critters2]

107. Well, apparently, she's being made to do this by men who, for some odd reason, are not

going to be held accountable for their behavior. Oppressing women to end the oppression of women! Now THAT's enlightened!

[ZombieHorde]

118. This is my view of this situation. France is going to punish women in order to liberate them. nt

[defendandprotect]

229. Your view is ... liberation is punishment?

[totodeinhere]

209. No, she is not being forced to do it "by men."

It would be in reaction to a law legally passed by a duly constituted government which is made up of both women and men. The whole idea is to fight the oppression of women embodied by the wearing of the burka, not the other way around.

[Doremus]

124. .

How about a workshop in self esteem and assertiveness?

[ZombieHorde]

139. Best answer so far.

I don't understand punishing the victims.

[snagglepuss]

143. AS you well know burkas are not mandatory which is why women in non-Wahabi

countries don't wear them. They are an Arab invention that predates Islam which Wahabis latched onto to ensure women weren't going to be influenced by the West.

[ZombieHorde]

147. If women are being forced to wear them, then they are victims.

Why punish the victim?

[snagglepuss]

154. If they victimized for not wearing one then the abuser ought to be imprisoned.

[ZombieHorde]

156. I agree with this. nt

[bermudat]

55. What a great story on a remarkable woman.

One of the best things about DU is coming across stories like this that I would never

have been aware of. Makes up for the 'police enablers' that come out whenever a

policeman shoots an unarmed citizen.

[tocqueville]

66. Fadela is one of the best we have in France

in a way she is comparable to Rosa Parks or Susan B. Anthony (even if the fight was somewhat different)

[Scout]

59. good n/t

[defendandprotect]

61. Cheers for the French -- !!!

[ZombieHorde]

73. How should the women who disobey this law be punished in your view? nt

[defendandprotect]

201. Let's see. . . . what are the "punishments" for women who don't wear burqua . . .

or keep their heads properly covered in some Muslim countries - ??

Women are followed in public, poked with sticks -- even arrested if their

scarf is not on properly.

And no woman would dare to appear without a burqua on in Afghanistan, would she?

What would happen to her?

All of this is naturally kept in place by male violence.

I'm trying to recall what the punishments were in China when foot-binding was outlawed . . ?

I think the response was more education -- raising of consciousness of the women and the

community as whole.

So . . . . what should the "punishment" be in France?

Probably, more education -- raising of consciousness of the women and the community as

a whole.

Obviously, any woman subjecting herself to religious subservience of organized

patriarchal religion is either frightened of disobeying, or dedicated to doing

herself harm due to low self-esteem.

Now -- what should the rewards be for women who recognize when they are being

abused by organized patriarchal religion?

Most nations recognize that the greatest threat to democracy, self-determination, freedom

of thought and expression, freedom of conscience comes from organized patriarchal religion.

That's why our Founders separated Church & State in acknowledgment of that very real threat.

[valerief]

62. Gotta love the French! nt

[ZombieHorde]

69. I am surprised how many of us are excited over outlawing some clothing.

What should be a woman's punishment for wearing one?

[EFerrari]

78. Saying a burka is clothing is like saying the star Jews were forced to wear

was embroidery. I'm sorry, it's not just clothing. It's a means of social control over women.

[ZombieHorde]

99. Some women chose to wear burkas in the U.S. Would you like to see these women be punished?

[EFerrari]

102. That is a specious argument and I think you know that.

Were there black people that never felt comfortable after "desegretation"? Of course there were. But you can't use that to argue that segregation was wrong.

[ZombieHorde]

106. I know nothing of the sort. Are you going to answer my question? nt

[EFerrari]

114. I have answered your question. The burka is not a fashion choice

it's a sentence. I'm sure the French will come up with a fine or even time for forwarding this practice that should go the way of the rack and the Iron Maiden.

[ZombieHorde]

120. Then why punish the women if they are the victim? nt

[defendandprotect]

231. The answer continues to be education and lifting self-esteem . . .

and freeing women/girls from religious oppression --

However, a dumb question doesn't change the subject nor the

rightfulness of the ban.

[ZombieHorde]

113. Many women chose to wear burkas, I doubt many Jews wished to wear the armbands in Nazi Germany.

How would you chose to punish women who chose to wear a burka? Do you think this punishment would be liberating?

[EFerrari]

115. Show me the numbers. Thanks.

[ZombieHorde]

121. Show me the numbers for women who are forced to wear burqas.

Besides, if you believe they are mostly worn against their will, then why would you want to punish the victims?

[EFerrari]

134. There is so much wrong with that reasoning, I can't even address it.

[ZombieHorde]

135. Perhaps I used confusing language.

If the women who are wearing the burqas are the victims, then why should they be punished? Why is France punishing the victims?

[Critters2]

163. What number of women making this choice would be enough for you

to give them the freedom to do so?

[defendandprotect]

236. What number of men are making this choice who have the freedom to do so . . .???

Show me one male in France making this choice --

Just one!

Btw, are you wearing a burqua -- will you ever wear a burqua?

I'm sure that women are just as smart as men and when religious oppression

is lifted, will make the same choice as men are making.

[Critters2]

336. It's not a choice if the government or religious men are telling women what to wear.

I'd like it to be a choice.

[defendandprotect]

233. Education is liberating . . .

Women/girls do not "chose" to wear burquas any more than Jews chose to get

numbers tatooed on their arms or to wear yellow stars!

[snagglepuss]

318. BINGO. Right on the mark. nt

[pnwmom]

85. It's clothing that prevents a woman from seeing properly both when she's walking

and when she's driving. It's clothing that prevents someone else from identifying her if they needed to, as in the case of an accident.

If France is going to ban it, they will probably impose a fine.

[EFerrari]

89. It's so much more than even that. It's a barrier between women

and public life. It's like wearing a ghetto.

[pnwmom]

94. I agree. The first time I saw a woman at my local Sears wearing one,

following her husband around the store, it almost made me feel ill. I wanted to grab that husband and shake him.

[twitomy]

203. I saw one too..

Husband dressed 100% western, lookin very comfortable on a hot day, and there she is all covered up.
Wanted to kneecap him.

[pnwmom]

235. It was as if I had encountered a husband with a wife with a collar around her neck,

attached to a leash.

Revolting.

[defendandprotect]

237. I think they should be banned in America, as well -- !!!

[Critters2]

338. I can't walk safely in five inch heels. Do you support outlawing them? nt

[slackmaster]

76. K&R for the French Fashion Police doing the right thing

Liberté, égalité, fraternité.

:kick:

[Critters2]

92. If another view is welcome here, here's one:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0812/p09s02-coop.html

I particularly resonate with this paragraph:

"Sarkozy is truly concerned about the rights and dignity of these women, he ought to use high-profile speeches to discuss their needs, their concerns, and to focus on what they can contribute to and gain from French society, rather than on what they wear while doing it."

[tocqueville]

140. this is exactly what he is doing

Amara is in charge of putting millions and millions of euros to do exactly that. She will announce a package this fall to respond to their "needs, their concerns" and not only discuss them.

Symi Rom-Rymer doesn't know what she is talking about

another example :

"His refusal to admit that France is a patchwork of various religious and ethnic communities with their own history and thus their own needs, has served only to heighten tensions and create further misunderstanding."

he has already been accused of doing the contrary (refusal) bty the left. Besides France is viscerally opposed to any communautarism, a thing that she obviously doesn't understand.

"E pluribus unum", Ms Rom-Rymer, does it sound familiar ?

and :

"But to view the garment SOLELY as a prison and as a symbol of male oppression..."

who has said that ? solely ? the debate is MAINLY about political, cultural and religious oppression

open a French paper Ms Rom-Rymer, and if you don't understand, have it translated. It will will maybe result in the avoidance of quasi-palinesque innaccuracies

[defendandprotect]

238. The BAN is the first step in bringing "rights and dignity" to these women/girls . . .

it puts the public on notice that the government continues to separate religion

from state -- and continues to protect citizens from its excesses!

It also offers the women protection from religious and family pressure --

anyone pressuring them have ONLY the government to argue with!

[Thickasabrick]

132. I really disagree with this. I don't think this should be a government

mandated thing. This just doesn't feel right to me. These women need to make that choice themselves, not some government person who is assuming all Muslim women feel the same as she does.

[tocqueville]

150. she doesn't assume, she knows

Americans don't know a shit about the Muslim world. Bush probably believed as Chirac said in his last book that Sunnis and Shiites were different football teams. They don't know anything about the immense desire from the Arab world to join secular modernity. America sees everything through the prism of religion, not Enlightement. The Enlightement movement in Egypt, Turkey started already in the aftermath of WWI, one of the first measures was to ban the veil. The US opposed later the movement because they saw it as "socialistic". That's why they got the Mollahs, the Talibans and Al Quaeda and 9/11 as a reminder. They worked against Nasser and Mossadeq, but backed the whahabbite Saudi Princes.

And it's amazing to see that "government" argument show up here again and again. It's like listening to the RW mantra.

"Government" isn't a threat, it's a tool. It's the democratically delegated expression of the will of the people. Or is it only in the US it isn't accountable ?

and the "freedom of choice" is another strawman. It's exactly the same debate with abortion. Most women don't choose to abort, they have to. That's why privacy and choice weren't the MAIN argument for abortion legislation in Europe but the dire social consequences of a ban. That was why VOTED legislation was passed to guarantee the right to it and to regulate it, instead of leaving the topic to the whim of judges. But of course it was political dynamite in the US to do so, so the exegis of penumbral rights in a Constitution written 230 years ago were the "easy" solution. That's why it's still debated in the US, while in Europe it's a non-topic, because governments have decided to express the will of the majority of women and men on that issue.

[Violet_Crumble]

157. She does NOT know that all Muslim women feel the same as she does...

She's making what's known as an assumption. It doesn't matter what someone's nationality is when it comes to spotting that she's actually making an assumption....

[snagglepuss]

159. Many women opposed suffrage. Should the Suffragettes then not have pressed

forward with their demands that all women be given the vote? Should you follow or should you lead?

[Critters2]

162. Should women who don't want to vote be forced to do so? nt

[Violet_Crumble]

173. What's that got to do with some twit assuming she knows how all other Muslim women feel?

Nothing that I can see...

[snagglepuss]

177. You wrote in your previous post that Amara was making assumptions,

but all political activists do that. Progressive activists tend to assume change is good and people want change and will benefit from change whereas reactionaries assume change is bad, and that people want the status quo. I just don't think assumptions can be avoided. Given that Amara is a female Muslim her assumptions can't be entirely off base so it is not she who is the twit.

[Violet_Crumble]

178. I was actually arguing that she doesn't *know*, which is the claim another poster made...

And the woman is a twit if she's claiming to *know* how all Muslim women feel. They're as wide and diverse a group as any other group of people are, so yeah, it's a safe assumption that she's a twit if she indeed claims to *know*....

btw, I think her assumptions could be every bit as off-base as if another female Muslim made the assumption that all Muslim women choose to wear the burqa. Just coz someone's a female Muslim doesn't give them any great authority when saying they *know* how others think.....

It's interesting, but I didn't have any great argument with the burqa being banned until I hit the spot in the thread where someone was wanting not just the burqa to be banned, but the headscarf as well. That's when it dawned on me that the motivation for some in this thread has nothing to do with protecting women, and that there must be ways other than banning a piece of clothing to ensure that women aren't abused and oppressed by their partners. I've been pretty torn, coz as an Atheist, I've got no time for any religious paraphanalia, but on the other hand, I really am uncomfortable with the outright banning and telling women what they can't wear....

[tocqueville]

182. see answer in post below

you ASSUME that you have a better understanding of Arabic societal problems than we do. How do you explain that 80% of the younger or middle-age women that come from a Muslim culture and immigrate here throw the veil away (maybe half of the Moroccan/Tunisian urban women don't wear it already except for a religious service). In Tunisia its forbidden to wear the niqab (veil masking the face) in a public place since 1981 and recently the hijab. Not to talk about those immigrant daughters. Have you been to a beach in the South of France where immigrants from North Africa are overepresented and seen their daughters in minimal bikinis ? Have you ever had a glass of wine (Allah forbid) with your Moroccan neighbour and his wife ?

[Violet_Crumble]

191. I don't even know who 'we' is supposed to be, but the woman does NOT know how all Muslim women think

It's really bizarre that yr continuing to try to argue that she does. Nowhere did I claim I had any greater understanding than 'we' (whoever the hell 'we' are). What I argued was very simply that the opinion of one woman is not what every other woman thinks, despite what she would like to believe...

I don't really understand what the rest of yr questions had to do with the point I made about the difference between assuming and knowing...

[defendandprotect]

243. I presume we all have to GUESS at oppression in Muslim religon . . . ???!!!!!

Yes, there is oppression in all organized patriarchal religion --

and discrimination against females . . . which is the basis of the teachings.

She is not "assuming" . . . she has lived the reality.

And that reality is no different for other females.

[Violet_Crumble]

250. There's oppression in all religions, but she doesn't KNOW how all women feel...

And that's the thing. No individual woman can take it upon herself to say she KNOWS how all women feel about something.

Clearly you have a view of women where they're all like-thinking creatures, but the reality is very different. We all don't think the same way or agree on things, and I'm not at all sure why you'd have such a dim view of women that you'd think they do....

[defendandprotect]

274. Do you "know" how Taliban women feel in the burqa?

Or what they might be feeling when they have to prostitute themselves in

order to survive?

Or when they're setting themselves on fire?

In the case of RELIGION . . . YES, YES, YES . . . we can take it upon ourselves

to restrict religion -- that's called Separation of Church & State!!!

Again -- you keep trying to infer that this is about "choice" . . . no women are

choosing to wear the burqa!!!

If I believed that I'd certainly have a "dim view of women" . . . anyone who believes

that women are voluntarily wearing the burqa certainly has that view!

[Violet_Crumble]

286. Are you ignoring what's being said on purpose, or does it come naturally to you?

You appear to have great difficulties accepting the idea that women do not all think the same thing or hold the same opinions, and it's to such a degree that yr coming out with completely untrue stuff that's already been shown to be wrong in this thread. Despite yr claim to the contrary and my dislike of the burqa, there are women who do choose to wear it. Someone posted an article about one in this thread. Not sure how paying more attention than you to what's being posted in this thread makes me a woman-hater, but there ya go...

No offense to you, but yr views on women where you think they're just begging for you to give yr approval of what they should and shouldn't wear is downright misogynistic. And a bit creepy....

[defendandprotect]

339. No woman "chooses" to wear a burqa --

and anyone who suggests that should point to a male wearing one --

Bye --

[Petrushka]

354. "...point to a male wearing one -- " ?

Do a google.com search for "man wearing burqa" and the first thing you'll find is:

http://www.danielpipes.org/comments/140549


P.S.
Today was hot and humid -- a very bad hair day -- such a day that
if I knew where to purchase a burqa (in a fine gauzy linen, perhaps),
I'd certainly have chosen to have worn it sans undies.



:sarcasm:

[Thickasabrick]

170. She doesn't know...she assumes based on her own experiences

and realities. If it is the "will" of the people as you say, then do a poll/vote of French Muslim women. I hate when any government "assumes" they know what's best for me.

What's next....the Quakers? Do we outlaw funny hats and old fashioned dresses because we "assume" it's what they really want?

Abortion is not in any way related to this argument. The European laws are simply protecting one's right to choose. Everyone should also have the right to choose what it is they want to wear.

[Critters2]

172. Yep. Those damned Amish women and their bonnets! I say we forcibly liberate them, too!

It's the enlightened thing to do.

[Thickasabrick]

176. LOL..thank you. I totally blanked on what their hats were called.

:toast:

[tocqueville]

180. you didn't read my posts

1) the KNOWLEDGE of the aspirations of Muslim women is general in France. Have you ever watched a debate on Algerian or Tunisian TV ? Talked to an Egyptian or a Turk ? Do you read or watch what leading Arabic intellectuals are saying in medias, both men and women ? You live in a closed world without contact with the Arabic civilisation and you ASSUME that you know better. BTW there are polls, one shows that only 43% were FOR wearing a veil and BOTH women and MEN were asked. And here we don't do ethnic voting, it's unconstitutional. I bet it is in the US too.

2) As I explained, laws on abortion in Europe are primarily an expression of social welfare for women and children, the right to choose is only a PART of the problem. And we were discussing freedom of choice for women so it's very related. What do I know ? Only been living 60 years on this side of the pond.

[Thickasabrick]

189. I did read your post - but I am basing my response on my experiences

and realities. There is no law in France that forces women to wear a burka. They are free to wear what they want. A law outlawing this practice will only fuel the bigots - from the article this proposal's intent is to "help stem the spread of the "cancer" of radical Islam". How very bigoted THAT statement is!!

I would like to see a poll asking not what people's preferences were, but how they would feel about a law outlawing this mode of dress. The proposed law would leave no choice and that is what I have a problem with. When you take away my choice, you take away my freedom.

[defendandprotect]

245. Are you choosing to wear a burqua? Why not?

I'm sure we all recognize its benefits!!!

:rofl:

[Thickasabrick]

319. Your comment made zero sense. nt

[defendandprotect]

240. Does Separation of Church and state "feel right to you" . .. ??

Does the idea that your government protects you from religious intrusion into

you life and/or religious dictates over your life feel right to you?

That protection is what guarantees your right to freedom of thought, free will,

and freedom of conscience. All part of democracy which many organized patriarchal

religions continue to war upon.

The women are not making a "choice" . . . they are following religious dictates.

The government isn't dictating to these women . . . they are offering them protection.

[Owl]

145. Good.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

167. This is a blatant appeal to bigots.

Well, appeal to French bigots.

I assume they're not interested in the bigots in this thread.

[Critters2]

171. +1 nt

[kiva]

169. Good for France. K&R

[ZombieHorde]

181. If burqas victimize women, then why create a law which punishes the victim? nt

[tocqueville]

184. an interdiction isn't a punishment in itself

besides nobody is talking about fines etc... only a reminder that this is not allowed. You are not allowed to be naked in public places either. Or to smoke. And in both later cases punishment is common in the US. Then you can always pretend that your exhibitionistic tendencies or your nicotine addiction make you a victim.

[ZombieHorde]

185. If we are just pretending burqas are oppressive, then why are so many here cheering this law?

Do you personally believe burqas are oppressive?

[tocqueville]

188. I personnaly prefer potato sacks with two holes for the eyes

so I can really become a traffic hazard when I cross the road and piss off all those damned drivers.

it's called potato jihad.

Serously, do tou know the number of women overrun by cars because of lack of sight in the Muslim world ? not so few.

[ZombieHorde]

301. My point is being missed.

Why punish a person for being oppressed?

[ZombieHorde]

309. please vote in my poll.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6318537

I voted for the fine.

[defendandprotect]

248. Do you believe burquas aren't oppressive . . . ??? Are you wearing one???

Why not???

[ZombieHorde]

302. I don't even know where to get one. nt

[defendandprotect]

323. So you have no experience with wearing one . . .

but you think women -- not men -- would make such a foolish choice

to hide their identity, become invisible in society, choke off their air

supply -- and their vision??????

[ZombieHorde]

351. Have you worn one?

"to hide their identity, become invisible in society,"

Many would chose this. I would chose this.

[Critters2]

329. I think anyone telling women what we can and cannot wear is oppressive. nt

[ZombieHorde]

310. Please check out my poll.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6318537

[defendandprotect]

247. How does a ban punish the women? How do you know that?

How do you know it's not punishment for oppressive religion?

[ZombieHorde]

303. Laws are enforced by punishment, otherwise they are only suggestions. nt

[defendandprotect]

335. And what punishment is France suggesting for ignoring the ban?

Is it beating women with a stick?
Is it beheading them?
Is it beating them?
Arresting them?

These are all the "punishments" connected with organized patriarchal religion.

Rather, in countries where religion doesn't rule, it is preferable to use education,
enlightenment, conscious-raising, and elevating self-esteem -- none of which do I
consider anything but positives.

[leftynyc]

364. You've spammed this thread

with the same question at least a dozen times. Very annoying.

[Violet_Crumble]

174. What other items of clothing have been banned in France in the past?

Just curious to know whether there's any precedent for this.

[tocqueville]

183. trousers on women

the law enforcement disappeared towards the end of the 19th century.

[Violet_Crumble]

193. So that happened prior to the end of the 19th century?

The more I think about it, the more uncomfortable I am with the idea of supporting the banning of the burqa. I've seen the arguments both for and against, and I really don't think banning it addressess the real issue, which is one that goes across all groups in society, and that's how to change things so women aren't treated as a material item by their partners. Because control through forcing how a woman dresses is something that a lot of abusive and controlling men do and is in no way confined to cases where women are forced to wear a burqa....

[tocqueville]

239. trousers for women

appeared as a result of the French revolution. Before it was unthinkable mostly for religious reasons. It was a stupid Napoleonic law that was never really enforced. The French writer George Sand started to wear them in protest (she was Chopin's lover) and was never bothered. In the US you had to wait to 1972 to abolish mandatory dresses in schools.

"how to change things so women aren't treated as a material item by their partners"

yep don't do anything, it's thought control. If all men were like you, we'd still have the right to impose chastity belts. After all it's "their choice".

[Violet_Crumble]

251. If all men were like me, we'd have some trouble...

Look at my profile. I'm a woman. And since when has wanting things to change so that women aren't treated as a material item by their partners translated into 'don't do anything'?

[Critters2]

197. And you think this was an appropriate law? nt

[tocqueville]

242. see above

was the same in the US. Try to be a women 1850 in the US and to wear slacks and ask for a job. In a town. Started to be tolerated for practical purposes round 1900 on the countryside.

[Critters2]

327. Yes. We came to believe women should wear whatever they choose.

I hope France will join us in offering women such freedom.

[tocqueville]

186. Tunisia - The War over the Veil in Tunisia

Tunisia - The War over the Veil in Tunisia

Some people think there's some hypocrisy surrounding the calls for banning the burqa while defending the wearing of the cross. The difference is that the cross is a religious symbol while the burqa is a radical Islamic political statement and not a religious symbol. What's more, the burqa is banned in several Muslim countries and most Muslim scholars say it has no place in Islam.

However, the most divisive controversy erupted not in Europe, but in Tunisia, where the government launched a campaign to implement "Decree 108," first issued in 1981, which forbids not only the full veil (niqab) in public places, but also the less restrictive head covering (hijab).

The controversy began with the state-controlled Tunisian media reporting statements by President Zin Al-'Abidin Ben 'Ali and his ministers against the head covering, in which they called it an "imported form of sectarian dress" - a reference to the growing influence of Saudi-style Wahhabism in North Africa.

http://ussneverdock.blogspot.com/2006/11/tunisia-war-over-veil-in-tunisia.html

[Violet_Crumble]

194. I don't know if that blogger should be taken at face value after what they've said about Obama...

Generally it boils down to 'Obama is a flip-flopping liar' blah blah. Anyway, what they said about the burqa being a radical Islamic political statement and not being something that's part of Islam is something that I can't take at face value considering the source, and would need some credible source to confirm it.

Also, it sounds like Tunisia doesn't believe women should be free to choose what they wear. I've got a friend who wears a hijab and there's no difference between her wearing that and me wearing a hat or a scarf myself. If women want to wear a scarf over their hair, then the Tunisian govt (what's the bet they're mostly men?) should mind its own business....

[tocqueville]

218. don't assassinate the messenger

I posted that as the first only English version of this situation I found on the net. The facts are indisputable, there is a ban on the veil in Tunisia, a Muslim country.

besides

1) the burqa is a radical Islamic political statement and not something that's part of Islam

The chadri was created by one of Afghanistan's rulers trying to stop anyone from seeing his wives' faces. He came up with the chadri, which became a sign of an upper class citizen; however, as times changed, the new government decided that chadris weren't modern enough and banned them. The upper class people then gave them to their servants. The chadris in those days were made out of silk and the mesh at the front was lace.

Before the Taliban took power in Afghanistan, the chadri (burqua) was infrequently worn in cities. While they were in power, the Taliban treatment of women required the wearing of a chadri in public. Officially, it is not required under the present Afghan regime, but local warlords still enforce it in southern Afghanistan. Burqa use in the remainder of Afghanistan is variable and is observed to be gradually declining in Kabul. Due to political instability in these areas, women who might not otherwise be inclined to wear the chadri must do so as a matter of personal safety.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burqa

2) the "freedom to choose" is a luxury for Islamic religious nutcases in the Western world. It's bullshit. Either they are forced by a religious nutcase husband or they are nutcases themselves. You can argue that it's your freedom to be a nutcase, but I'll counter by saying that society has a right and even a duty to protect itself against politically dangerous religious "nutcasism".

we are going to ban Scientology in France (Germany already did it) because it's organised embezzelment disguised as religion.

We enforced separation of Church and State 1901, a thing that the USA never clearly did. Because we are aware that religion (since it considers itself mandated by God) is inherently antidemocratic and despises secular order. The Rule of Law is neutral and religion cannot claim exceptions from society. Secularism protects from abuses from religion and lets people worship PRIVATELY in peace, without interference with the public sphere. Religion has to adapt to the state, not the contrary.

If women want to wear a scarf because it rains or it's pretty, there is no problem with that. If they want to or are forced to do it as a political statement that my society ought to be ruled by religion, they are a danger to the values millions of French (and Americans) have died for since their Revolutions. They are enemies of the state or become victims of terrorists. It's as simple as that. Neda died for that right of "not to have to choose".

and Tunisia shouldn't be ashamed :

First Lady opens National Conference on " Tunisian Women: Pride in Achievements and Optimism for the Future"
Mrs. Leila Ben Ali, First Lady of Tunisia

CARTHAGE, August 8, 2009 - Mrs. Leila Ben Ali, First Lady of Tunisia, chaired, on Saturday, the opening of works of the national conference held by the National Union of Tunisian Women on the theme:” Tunisian Women: Pride in Achievements and Optimism for the Future,” on Tunisia’s celebration of Women’s Day.

The First Lady delivered a speech in which she said that it is a source of pride for Tunisia that it boasts today a pioneering system of women-related legislation that has guaranteed a set of rights that are still highly-cherished ambitions for many women in many parts of the advanced world.

Mrs. Leila Ben Ali also underlined that the pride Tunisian women take in the achievements accomplished on the ground, on the one hand, and their optimism about the shining future of Tunisia, on the other hand, reflect a deep awareness of the nature of the role that women are to play in the coming period and confirm their willingness to accomplish their role with competence and enthusiasm as full-fledged partners in terms of rights and liberties in the process of promoting national construction, consolidating the republican system, and enriching Tunisia’s gains in terms of democracy, freedom and human rights.



http://www.tunisie.gov.tn/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=732&Itemid=61〈=english

or google it

The Epoch Times | Tunisia Women Make Strides in Government and ...
In Tunisia, you can see women everywhere, in every field, in politics including ministers and ambassadors. They are very active in the government.” ...
www.theepochtimes.com/news/4-11-24/24541.html - Cached - Similar

so when you look at that, I wonder who has come the furthest in women rights 60 years after independence, the USA or Tunisia ?

[Violet_Crumble]

224. Just pointing out that the blogger hates Obama and isn't very credible...

If women want to wear a scarf because it rains or it's pretty, there is no problem with that.

Well, thank you for giving us women yr permission to wear things you approve of only in situations you approve of! Look, I'm heading out in a bit and I can't be bothered doing my hair, so who should I get to give permission to wear it? I'd hate to think some man has a problem with the reason I'm wearing my scarf! Seriously, are you aware of how misogynistic yr coming across as? It's none of yr business why any woman chooses to wear a scarf and I'm not sure who's ever mistakenly convinced you it is yr business, but they're a fucking nutcase whoever they were...

[tocqueville]

291. I am not giving any "permissions"...

you are comparing apples and oranges when you compare wearing a scarf for religious/political purposes and a hat because it's sunny. It's a complete fallacy. And I won't fall for your little trick. Talking about misogyny, I could accuse you to be the one misogynist by condemning millions of women to servitude in name of whatever fallacious "freedoms".
BTW I do.

and you know perfectly well that my post wasn't about Obama, but about Tunisia. And there was a second link to prove that.

have at least a minimum of intellectual honesty.

[Critters2]

198. A stupid proposal, made by an imbecile.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jamal-dajani/sarkozy-hiding-behind-the_b_229239.html


"What does Sarkozy think? Outlawing burqas is going to make these women walk outside in a sundress? They just won't leave home as often. He is sentencing them to prison!" Benkaran says in anger.

[tocqueville]

220. benkaran is a moron

outlawing nudity in public places has resulted in decreased fertility rate everywhere

[Violet_Crumble]

230. No, he's not. He made a very good point...

That's something that worried me too about this proposed ban. People really can't claim they're doing this for the benefit of these women when there seems to be so little concern about the aftereffects on them...

[Adsos Letter]

295. I agree.

[Critters2]

334. Which is so not relevant to this discussion.

Sarkozy is still a sexist imbecile.

[mamaleah]

206. As long as we all know the difference between hijab and niqab and a burqa, right?

Banning hijab would be absolutely disturbing. I do not have a problem with a burqa ban however.

[leftstreet]

208. HEY! Do wealthy Muslim women wear this crap?

:shrug:

[tocqueville]

223. if you only knew....

the number of private resorts in Saudi Arabia where Saudi girls go in bikinis... with their boyfriends

and the amount of Saudis that travel to Lebanon just to booze... since it's legal there

a friend of mine witnessed it in a Lebanese restaurant in Beyrouth. The group with unveiled women had a good time. Then the prayer call came from the minaret and they all stopped and prayed. Five minutes after the party was going on. My friend asked him how that was compatible with Islam. The answer was : "there is a time for prayer and there is a time for the rest"...

[Violet_Crumble]

226. Yeah, they do n/t

[UnseenUndergrad]

254. Well...

Used to, anyway.

As far as I know (which isn't much), the Abaya (with Niqab) are near mandatory for women in respectable public spaces in Saudi and the Gulf states.

As to the burqa, I believe it started out as, of all things, a toy of the idle rich. It basically acted as a more mobile version of a curtained palanquin (with the bearers replaced by bodyguards)for the wives of the wealthy to travel out of the sun in. Not to mention a status symbol.

Of course, tastes changed and the rich stopped wearing them, so the middle class adopted them to get around the cultural habit of sexual segregation. For women of the time, it seemed that experiencing the world though a lace netting beat out experiencing it through a grated window.

And then it got imposed by a group who decided that even the Abaya wasn't concealing enough for their tastes.

As to this thread, all I can say is...

Oh God, not this again!

[tocqueville]

260. on what planet do you live ? PICS HEAVY

Queen Rania of Jordan



http://www.queenrania.jo/ OFFICIAL WEBSITE



queen Salmia Morocco (left)



queen Salmia Morocco

http://arabianbeauties.blogspot.com/2007/07/royal-beauty-lalla-salma.html



First Lady of Tunisia



Suzanne Mubarak First lady Egypt




Lebanese First Lady Wafaa Suleiman (L), with Syrian First Lady Asma al-Assad, visits a Syrian organization for the disabled "Aamal" in Damascus August 14, 2008.

how many veils or burqas you see on those pictures ?

[mamaleah]

266. Last I knew

Jordan and Lebanon were not burqa only countries. In fact, Lebanon has a sizable population of Maronites.

[tocqueville]

272. burqa is practically only found in A-stan

35% of the lebanese are Christians, the rest Muslim.

[Violet_Crumble]

284. Obviously on one where reading abilities count for something...

Now, go back and point out to me where I said anything about all Muslim women wearing burquas. I didn't say that, so I've got no idea why yr going on the way you are. It's a fact that wealthy women do wear burqas in Saudi Arabia, so if you want to argue that they don't, go for it, but don't try and argue something I never claimed...

[tocqueville]

287. answer

HEY! Do wealthy Muslim women wear this crap?

"Yeah, they do n/t" Violet Crumble

BTW they don't in Saudi Arabia, they wear the niquab. On occasion. And depending on Prince.

[tocqueville]

270. this pic is good (not the guys...) and more to come

QATAR’s ANNUAL MAY QUEEN BALL 2007 IS AN EVENT OF THE YEAR IN THE GULF

browse
http://www.goa-world.com/goa/qatar/mayqueen07/index.htm


http://www3.pictures.gi.zimbio.com/3rd+Cartier+International+Dubai+Polo+Challenge+JNcGL3AWEsNl.jpg

HRH Princess Rayiah Bint Al Hussein and her sister Haya Bint Al Hussein smile during the 3rd Cartier Dubai Polo Challenge at Desert Palm Polo Ground on March 28, 2008 in Dubai, United Arab Emirates. The Challenge is the year's Most celebrated polo tournament taking place in the desert under the patronage of HRH Princess Haya Bint Al Hussein, wife of HH Sheikh Mohammed Bin Rashid Al Maktoum, Vice President and Prime Minister of Dubai.



Princess Haya of Jordan attends Cartier Polo Challenge at Dubai Polo Club in Dubai, United Arab Emirates on March 27, 2009. Photo by Ammar Abd


I guess that princesses, queens and beauty queens have a CHOICE

[aquart]

261. Could he also ban five-inch high heels while he's at it?

It won't do anything for radical Islam but it would save a lot of women from the podiatrist.

[Critters2]

331. Oppressive of women though they are, five inch heels are a Western form of oppression,

and therefore acceptable.

[UnseenUndergrad]

278. I am of mixed feelings of this.,,

On one hand, the burqa is the illogical endpoint of the call for modesty in Islam. Such a cumbersome garment that not even shelter from a corilolis storm could provide a counter and a symbol of one of the most warped strains of Islam on the religious map, it is not something many of us could imagine a woman wearing willingly.

On the other hand, if there is but one thing from the Harry Potter Phenomenon that I have learned (besides that there are sometimes very good reasons for dismissing canonical material), it is that just because a thing is banned does not make it become wholey unwanted.

Wherein the book had a forbidden allure to it during the controversies, so will this archaic garment (especially if these bans go even one step over what is absolutely necesary). If Abaya-niqabs or even the simple hijab are targeted next, the Burqa becomes an extreme form of displaying non-violent resistance (as well as an escape strategy for violent resistance), a "gotcha!" to french authorities. Plus... wouldn't it be better if the actual abusers were targeted instead of the victems? I mean seriously: fines and deportation for wearing something you've worn since the age of nine? Do some of you guys hear your own suggestions?

I believe that the proper approach to this situation is, as always, Education. Such a few number of women in Europe are said to wear these that it is more of a curiousity, so a ban might not be neccesary (or helpful). Better to educate about the Burqa: inform of it's roots as a visible sign of wealth, sunshade and societal loophole and play up the sheer anachronistic character of the garment while still treating it with anthropological respect. The Abaya and Hijab are trickier, seeing as the heartland of the former is still very rich and influential in the Muslim world (even detrimentally so), while the latter is so relatively innocuous that, with the right face, it might even be seen as downright coying by some western lads (classic case of mixed messages across cultures).

Men die, symbols survive... and knees always seem to jerk (on all sides).

[tocqueville]

285. experience shows

that in the European countries where the "soft" attitude has been dominating :

Netherlands : high-profile crime and resurgence of the extreme right, general xenophobia
Denmark, Sweden : resurgence of the extreme right, general xenophobia
UK : subway bombing, resurgence of the extreme right, general xenophobia
Spain : bombings, xenophobia

France has always clamped down with clear statements. The damages so far are minimal.

But I agree with you that the burqa in Europe is an epiphenomenon. The problem is its symbolic value.

[No Elephants]

289. Has education been the answer to Creationism? You could sit

Sarah Palin down and educate her 24/7 for a week about the history of the planet and the origins of the species and she would walk away 7 days later with her conviction that God created the world and every species in it in six twenty-four hour days.

Would you expect a different result with the burqa?

[tocqueville]

293. excellent n/t.

[snagglepuss]

322. Great point. Well said. nt

[UnseenUndergrad]

346. Depends on who is being educated...

Sarah, Bristol, Piper or Tripp?

If the Buqa is described in history lessons as I have descrtibed: a former fashion of the rich, a symbol of vanity and a presentation piece on the amusing irony between what is religiously proscribed and what is considered fashionable at the time, it may turn younger girls off of adapting it as a cloak of modesty. It's roots in the vainglorious may even encourage the extremely devout to discard it in favour of the more dour and respectable (but hopefully more fuctional) Chador or Abaya. It's a longshot, but...

Perhaps it is better to do this, even though it reeks of hypicrisy to many on this board (including me). Perhaps the french need to transform this archaic shawl from a symbol of aritrary dictate to a sign of resistance against arbitrary dictate. Maybe they need to see that women will be no more comfortable taking orders from the State than from their families and mosques, let alone their own formed concious.

But if one fears this thing as a symbol, why do something so idiotic as ban it and place the onus on the females you fear are being abused?

[tocqueville]

281. now the real thing : Saudi princesses

Miss Saudi Arabia



'I drive a car in all the countries I travel to'

Saudi princess ready to drive

Princess Amira al-Taweel ready to get behind the wheel in Saud if allowed, already does so abroad.



Princess Michille Al Faisal



two Saudi princesses, one wearing a veil

[No Elephants]

282. If you are not part of the religion/culture, you probably don't get it. Just sayin'.

The issue is not as black or white as either side of the issue seem to think.

I wonder how this thread would read if it were some Mormon sect in Utah or fundamentalist Christian sect in Kentucky requiring women to wear burkas, even in 110 degree heat?

If you are deeply religious, you do not understand that what you have been told since birth that God requires of you is not exactly "voluntary." Look at people from cults who get de-programmed and are amazed at what they used to believe and therefore do. I know nuns who have left a Protestant cult that cannot believe that they spent ten, twenty and even thirty years there being abused because they were told--and believed--it was God's will for their lives. And the older ones were not even born into the cult.

Those in Jonestown drank the Kool-Aid and gave it to their children "voluntarily." Do you really believe that was truly an act of totally free will? And none of those adults had even been born into that cult.

Being in France doesn't really have all that much to do with it. It is not a French thang versus a Saudi thang. It is a decent, God fearing Muslim woman thang versus women who are not decent God fearing Muslims. You go by the standards of your nuclear family, your extended family, your Muslim community and your mosque whether they are in Afghanistan or Marseilles.

That said, I am not entirely sure how I feel about this law because as I said, the issues are not all that easy.

[tocqueville]

288. look at the Mormon no-kiss etc... story

you give them a finger, they take the whole hand

"I wonder how this thread would read if it were some Mormon sect in Utah or fundamentalist Christian sect in Kentucky requiring women to wear burkas, even in 110 degree heat?"

some here would say it's OK as long they have portable air-conditioning in name of freedom of choice and religious freedom

you exemplify what I said about the freedom of choice, that it isn't really any. That's why society has to intervene.

How do you explain that in a country that fears more "government" than religious swindlers and regular swindlers ?

[No Elephants]

290. You are still seeing it as black and white. My post did not address the other

side of the issue, the one that you and your country espouse. However, one patriarch telling an adult woman to disobey another patriarch is equally problematic, especially when that also entails disobedience to one's conscience, family, culture and deeply held religious beliefs. Neither alternative is truly freedom of choice for the adult woman Both sets of rules are anti-female. However, other posters had covered rhose issues, so I did not repeat their points.

AGAIN, I don't see see this as black or white. The issues are not that clear and separable. What is right and wrong, what is liberation or oppression in this story is very murky.

On edit: One could also say that Western women have been brainwashed for centuries to feel that they have to dress in the latest fashion and to dress to be attractive to men. That is also very true. (And France has had quite a role in that brainwashing.)

Someone posted upthread about high heels, for instance. That is a good example. Women's shoes give them corns and bunions and shorten their calf muscles and hobble them eventually, all because they are thought to make their feet and legs appear smaller, slimmer and therefore supposedly more attractive. Corsets were "fashionable" for years, though they damaged internal organs. (At least burqas don't cause physical harm.) Does any of that indicate truly free will or brainwashing?

So, should we say that women need to wear plain, comfortable uniforms and comfortable supportive flat shoes to be truly free of tyranny?

Maybe then we could confront women's body image and outlaw anorexia and bulemia and, on the other side of the spectrum, stuffing yourself with food for viewing on the internet because that turns on some men.

As I said, no clear, easy answers to millenia of oppression of women, whether blatant or subtle.

[tocqueville]

292. no disagreement about what you wrote.

I have been killing myself here to explain that there is no freedom of choice in that case.

But the point is that Muslim women suffer. So either you are philosophical about the "intricacies" or you resort to action. This is a war against medieval obscurantism and as in any war there is to be collateral damage. But war is the only option, experience shows. Because that way we in France have so far avoided Presidents quoting Gog and Magog to motivate an illegal war, Bush style. And we are winning that war. There are millions of Muslim women supporting the French approach all over the world. And probably as many men.

To the difference from Obama, we don't propose an acceptance of current practices (Cairo speech) - leading Muslim women went ballistic about that one, including Hirsi Ali. They knew it doesn't work to pander to "moderates". A couple of weeks after the speech, Neda was slaughtered.

We offer an alternative, the one of "Enlighted Islam" which is not only based on our values but on Muslim philosophers and poets that go back to the Middle-Ages, who never won the battle we won in Europe or America two centuries ago.

[No Elephants]

297. My guess is that there are also millions of Muslim women and men opposing the French approach. This

is not only about secular v. religious, Catholic v. Muslim or West v. East. It is a feminist issue and, on both sides of this story, we have patriarchal societies, one mostly Catholic and French, the other religious and Muslim, telling adult women what they must and must not wear.

These are women who believe that God wants them to wear the burqa and that, because of that, so do their families. What gives the French government the right to decide what these women must believe and wear and to make it a crime to disobey?

Where was France's concern for the "free choice" of women when French Catholic nuns were swathed in black from coif to toe in 100 degree heat?

Let's outlaw French fashion shows then and make it a crime to wear the clothes of French designers. It makes as much sense as outlawing the burqa. The fact that pointy toed high heels are more acceptable to the French than are burqas does not make the crippling shoes in fact preferable to the burqa. And both the painful, crippling shoes and the burqa are probably worn only because women have been brainwashed by men for centuries.

Maybe society just has to evolve until all women truly do make free choices. Maybe we need fewer people trying to impose their will on women, not more. Maybe ALL men and all patriarchal societies just need to butt out of what women should and must wear, not more, regardless of whether those societies are French Catholic or Afghani Muslim.

[tocqueville]

320. it's not about Catholics etc...

1) the French society is secular (it's even written in the constitution) and the vast majority of the French (60%) are agnostics, the rest "ritual religious" by tradition more than faith. If Catholics have been involved at all, it's by siding with the Muslim extremists and rapidly reminded to STFU by popular outcry. Protestants have backed the government and Jews been very, very silent.
2) The nuns are still (depending of order) "swathed in black from coif to toe in 100 degree heat". They are CLERICS. That's completely different. It's like saying that Buddhist munks going with flip-flops in minus degrees winter France should be "constrained".
3) experience shows that there is no ground for the "millions of Muslim women opposing" at least of free will (men yes) as I showed in previous posts. Rather the contrary.
4) Our opinion is that religion (and in this case it's more a political statement than anything else) must adapt to the secular order, not the contrary.
5)"What gives the French government the right to decide... ?" Easy one : universal suffrage. "Governement" isn't an "outlandish body" but a representative of the people in a Democracy (except for libertarian fantasies). It rules by majority rule. If the French want that burqa shall be worn freely, they have to elect a new government. Fat chance.
6) The high-heel stuff is a joke. There is little ground for what you say. Women don't go tripping in high heels all day, but might wear them on festive occasions. There are no signs that it is a major health problem, not even a minor one. But fur is more and more banned, even from animal farms.
7) it's not mostly a feminist issue, it's a political issue : return to theocracy or defense of the values of Enlightement.

All bottoms in the skewed American conception of "freedom" and government. It has been perverted by libertarianism (as much as lefty as righty). It is always an excuse to do nothing because on might step on someone toes. Conservatism and Corporations are the only winners.

[Critters2]

333. +1 nt

[kiva]

316. Thank you for the links you have posted.

I agree this is a much more effective approach than relying on moderates to pressure fundamentalists...it doesn't work in the US with fundies either.

[CJCRANE]

296. How many women in France actually wear a burkha?

I can imagine quite a few French muslims wear the niqab, but I thought the burkha was mainly worn by Afghans?

:shrug:

[No Elephants]

298. Does it matter? Do the principles and issues involved change if there are

two or two million?

[CJCRANE]

299. The principles don't change but the relevance

or perceived urgency does if in fact virtually no French women wear burkhas.

[Critters2]

330. Estimates are around 400. nt

[LanternWaste]

317. I thought bans never work...?

I thought bans never work...?

Maybe we support bans and defend their effectiveness when they pertain to things we find morally repulsive, and state with an emphatic and absolute truth that bans never work when they pertain to things we ourselves enjoy.

[tocqueville]

321. well there is a ban on lynching, slavery, public nudity, smoking, alcohol in public spaces...

DUI, you name them... all enforced by evil governments.

[LanternWaste]

347. And I imagine depending on one's...

And I imagine depending on one's moral stance of the banned substance, they either work well and effectively, or simply cause black markets to pop up.

[ohio2007]

349. 350 replies? Such a hot topic item while Britain demands non muslims submit to "the code"

Swimmers are told to wear burkinis

British swimming pools are imposing Muslim dress codes in a move described as divisive by Labour MPs.


Under the rules, swimmers – including non-Muslims – are barred from entering the pool in normal swimming attire.

Instead they are told that they must comply with the "modest" code of dress required by Islamic custom, with women covered from the neck to the ankles and men, who swim separately, covered from the navel to the knees.
The phenomenon runs counter to developments in France, where last week a woman was evicted from a public pool for wearing a burkini – the headscarf, tunic and trouser outfit which allows Muslim women to preserve their modesty in the water.

The 35-year-old, named only as Carole, is threatening legal action after she was told by pool officials in Emerainville, east of Paris, that she could not wear the outfit on hygiene grounds.



snip

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/6034706/Swimmers-are-told-to-wear-burkinis.html


submit France,

They want you covered,not converted and forced to pray five times a day every day... and it's a great way to do the laundry while taking the plunge





eventually, a compromise will be reached and there will be a few "Non muslim" dress days allowed in Britain.....from December to March....



but remember, this law will only be tolerated for a short time
:sarcasm:

[Name removed]

352. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.