Is France right to ban face veil?

[RSS News]

France is proposing a partial ban on Islamic face veils in some public places. What do you think of the proposal?

(Feed provided by BBC News | Have your Say (http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/-/2/hi/talking_point/default.stm))

[Dimentio]

If Jewish and christian symbols are banned as well, it is okay. But otherwise, it is discriminatory and therefore unacceptable.

[bricolage]

If Jewish and christian symbols are banned as well, it is okay.

Why? What right does the state have to tell anyone what they can or cannot wear?

[Comrade B]

Going to make a response of
noooooooo

This is just more xenophobia in Europe. So long as a women wants to wear the veil she can. By forcing them to not wear it is forcing them to betray their religion.

You might as well force nuns to wear bikinis.

[jake williams]

Sarkozy ran as a fanatically racist candidate and was elected as such, and his government is implementing fanatically racist policies. The most recent bill I've heard about would ban the niqab on public transit. The thing is though, what I've heard a lot from French commentators is that what "French society" wants is for (all) Muslim women to be active in public life, that they shouldn't be kept in patriarchal prisons in the home, etc. But this would be exactly the effect of these sorts of policies.

Which such commentators surely realize, it's not a complicated idea. They really are just racists.

[Dimentio]

Why? What right does the state have to tell anyone what they can or cannot wear?

It is "more" okay than if just one group is targeted. And no, the state shouldn't intervene in what people are wearing in general (but if some people are walking around naked with asparaguses in their rectal orifices, I expect someone to help me not having to see them).

[Raúl Duke]

I don't care really about what people are wearing per se. I think the law is pretty dumb and shouldn't be in effect.

But if the French want this law than they should, as Dimentio mentioned, also restrict other religious symbols just so all religions are equally treated under their law instead of signaling out muslims/islam. However, I'm not sure if the law is based on religion or if it's based on general head-covering in public areas (in which case the law would also target other forms of head-covering like putting a bandana/scarf around your face, so to hide your face, as protesters usually do).

[punisa]

Let them wear whatever they want.
But religious institutions must be stripped of the working class money.

[Nosotros]

It's wrong and it proves that democray is bullshit because with such a ban individual freedom goes out the window. Also it will be very useful for the extremists and will radicalise muslims further.

[Andropov]

TBH I dont have any major qualms about it since France applys the same secular rules to Catholics, Protestants and Jews.

[The Author]

France is proposing a partial ban on Islamic face veils in some public places. What do you think of the proposal?

I think it's a very bad one and representative of the racism and xenophobia which is growing in the European countries against people of different religious, ethnic, and racial backgrounds. People should be allowed to wear whatever their culture permits them to wear as representative of their background, as long as it doesn't encourage hatred and racism towards other peoples. Clearly, a face veil does not encourage racism towards other peoples as would say, most certainly wearing a hat with a swastika on it.

Then there is the opposite end of the perspective. Countries such as Iran should not force people to wear the veil for "cultural preservation" or national integrity, people should decide for themselves whether they want to wear a veil or not, rather than being enforced by some government decree. Because forcing someone to wear a veil only encourages them to rebel against such an oppressive system and no one should be forced at gunpoint to do something they don't want to.

[Dimentio]

It's wrong and it proves that democray is bullshit because with such a ban individual freedom goes out the window. Also it will be very useful for the extremists and will radicalise muslims further.

Democracy is not bullshit, but France is hardly a democracy at all. Neither is any other "democratic country". France has some democratic traits, but could not be considered a democracy because of the fact that the people do not have direct control over the legislation.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

The state being used as a tool of repression.

Clearly, some people don't learn from history. Equally, it is clear that some people don't want to learn from history.

This is clearly somewhat prejudice as a policy. More importantly, though, the rise of the state is something that is extremely dangerous and should be opposed very strongly.

[pastradamus]

I don't care really about what people are wearing per se. I think the law is pretty dumb and shouldn't be in effect.

But if the French want this law than they should, as Dimentio mentioned, also restrict other religious symbols just so all religions are equally treated under their law instead of signaling out muslims/islam. However, I'm not sure if the law is based on religion or if it's based on general head-covering in public areas (in which case the law would also target other forms of head-covering like putting a bandana/scarf around your face, so to hide your face, as protesters usually do).

I would agree. The actual legal ruling still allows women to cover their heads such as with the traditional hijab.

I have no problem with the banning of the burqa in public spaces. It is NOT an Islamic garment - It is a cultural one that has become linked to Islam. I cant see why the Islamic people of France are becoming outraged over something as trivial as a CULTURAL garment. Since 2004 it has been banned in Public Schools in France - and correctly so in my opinion as I believe it is simply ridiculous for an adult to walk into a Social environment such as a childerens school, covered from head to toe in such an outfit such as the burqa - especially where something like the Hijab can be worn instead. It wouldnt be acceptable for a teacher to wear a motorcycle helmet in school and I believe its not acceptable for one to wear a burqa neither. It is an oppressive garment and I dont accept that a woman would willingly wear it rather than the Hijab. That said, France's policy of the seperation of Church and State is something as a leftist I admire - Though Sarkozy is not an admirable person.

[jake williams]

I have no problem with the banning of the burqa in public spaces. It is NOT an Islamic garment - It is a cultural one that has become linked to Islam.
This is certainly true - and in fact, it helps explain how this particular move is deeply connected to the utterly appalling racism of European liberals. Laïcté my ass - this is about the Arab/Muslim enemy, the hordes from the East, how they come and they don't integrate into our society, the perpetual "outsider" that doesn't integrate into our Christian Europe - it's basically oldschool European anti-semitism redux, but this time by liberals claiming secularism rather than fascists claiming nationalism.

I should add that I do in fact believe that secularism is a really valuable principle. It's also my personal opinion that it's not a good cultural artifact to have people covering their faces whenever they're in public, I do think that it's better to have a culture where all people can equally participate in society. But this particular policy decision comes from a really really ugly place. Moreover, the fact that so few French Muslim women actually wear the niqab means that the decision is almost irrelevant in terms of outcomes, its only significance is in the racism it represents and the provocation by a major European state to a broader immigrant community.

[Comrade B]

It is NOT an Islamic garment - It is a cultural one that has become linked to Islam
And why is french clothing superior to west asian clothing?


It wouldnt be acceptable for a teacher to wear a motorcycle helmet in school and I believe its not acceptable for one to wear a burqa neither
It wouldn't? Why?


It is an oppressive garment and I dont accept that a woman would willingly wear it rather than the Hijab.
Some women believe that God wants them to wear it and do it for their own sakes.
Got to say, being naked is a lot more comfortable than wearing clothing, but I wear clothing because that is what society expects me to do.

Even for the women who are forced to wear it, this won't change a thing for them, maybe their husbands will give them even fewer liberties and keep them entirely at home now.

A misogynist is not changed by the law
neither is a pious woman

This will just keep (by their own will or by their families) women closed up in their homes.

[jake williams]

It is also a valid point that whether or not the niqab is mandated in the Quran is irrelevant if you believe that religions are social constructions and not based on the word of God.

[Tablo]

To ban any form of clothing is ridiculous. It is a little bit better that Christian symbols are also banned.

[Kléber]

If Jewish and christian symbols are banned as well, it is okay. But otherwise, it is discriminatory and therefore unacceptable.
To ban any form of clothing is ridiculous. It is a little bit better that Christian symbols are also banned. Jewish and Christian symbols are technically banned, but they really aren't. Crucifixes and Star of David necklaces etc. are only banned if they are "ostentatious (http://pufone.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/gipsy_jesus_cross_792x1056.jpg)," meaning huge. This is a racist ban that targets immigrants from the Muslim world. Most upsettingly, it has backfired and turned the veil into a symbol of national resistance for many Muslim girls, thereby forcing hundreds if not more of the most politically-minded to abandon a secular education and go to religious schools. A small number of Sikhs also had their education ruined by the previous ban. More restrictive bans are just an open attempt to marginalize them.

We can thank reactionary "Socialist" and "Communist" legislators, of Trotskyist and Stalinist stripes alike for making this law a reality (there are also rabid anti-immigrants under the anarchist label). I think the LCR (now NPA) had a slogan, "No to the ban and the veil!" which I agree with, although that group sucks. Here is a work by Lenin that explains why socialists should never participate in government attacks on particular religious minorities, while maintaining our political opposition to all religions.
The Attitude of the Workers' Party to Religion by V.I. Lenin (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1909/may/13.htm)

[The Red Next Door]

I didn't know that wearing a veil or a cross or any religious symbols kills people.:D

[the last donut of the night]

Uhm, no.

A big no, actually.

Mainstream atheists and company will argue that this an attack solely based on religion, and the supposed freeing of women -- as if the bourgeois state would want to do that.

This is based on a growing and paranoid hatred toward Muslims in France (most of them Black, actually). Anybody remotely aware of this situation notes that all these supposedly benevolent laws based on 'helping' women are just veils for racism and bigotry.

Furthermore, they will further alienate Muslim women from French society and their societies at home (husbands, family, etc). It will keep more women in the home. We should all be against it.

[BobKKKindle$]

...and Revleft's xenophobes come squirming out of the woodwork, with Dimentio leading the charge!


If Jewish and christian symbols are banned as well, it is okay. But otherwise, it is discriminatory and therefore unacceptable. No, it's not, because this isn't about secularism at all, and even if it was socialists shouldn't accept that the state has a right to tell people what they can and can't wear - what this is really about is the latest manifestation of a growing current of vicious Islamophobia and anti-immigrant sentiment which has been support by governments throughout Europe and which needs to be confronted by anyone who opposes discrimination and supports the unity of working people. That means supporting the right of Muslim women to dress in accordance with their religious and cultural traditions, not cheering on the state when it seeks to further strengthen the belief that Muslims shouldn't be entitled to the same rights as everyone else and that Muslim women only ever wear religious garments because they're being forced to by male relatives and community leaders - what is most indicative of racism on the left is the automatic assumption that Muslim women don't make choices for themselves and that they need the state and enlightened (usually white) leftists to come and teach them the error of their ways...usually the same kind of people, like the CWI, who oppose resistance movements against imperialism, and make apologies for Zionism.

[cyu]

Typical pro-capitalist politics - distract attention away from capitalist oppression with irrelevant issues.

Might as well force all women to go topless.

No one should have the right to force you to wear a veil and no one should have the right to force you to not wear a veil. Just like no one should have the right to force you to eat peanuts and no one should have the right to force you to not eat peanuts.

[pastradamus]

...and Revleft's xenophobes come squirming out of the woodwork, with Dimentio leading the charge!

What has the wearing of something people see as a religious garment got to do with xenophobia?


- what this is really about is the latest manifestation of a growing current of vicious Islamophobia and anti-immigrant sentiment which has been support by governments throughout Europe and which needs to be confronted by anyone who opposes discrimination and supports the unity of working people.

The wearing of a face veil supports the unity of working people? The veil is a cultural example of an idiotic religious doctrine that views women as possessions and objects of property that must be protected from other mens eyes. You dont unify people by promoting such ideas.


usually the same kind of people, like the CWI, who oppose resistance movements against imperialism, and make apologies for Zionism.

Well I find it discomforting that the SWP feel they should support violent religious fundamentalists and enemies of Working class solidarity such as Hamas - Completely overlooking what an organisation such as theirs is all about and also completely overlooking the large amount of working class people they have slaughtered - on both sides of the border.

[Vendetta]

Simple. No it's not right.

[Kléber]

The wearing of a face veil supports the unity of working people? The veil is a cultural example of an idiotic religious doctrine that views women as possessions and objects of property that must be protected from other mens eyes. You dont unify people by promoting such ideas.
MyKeyboardISBrokenButYouDontWinArgumentsByStuffing WordsInSomebodyElse'sMouth.NobodyHereSupportsVeili ng.

[pastradamus]

MyKeyboardISBrokenButYouDontWinArgumentsByStuffing WordsInSomebodyElse'sMouth.NobodyHereSupportsVeili ng.

andwheredidIstuffwordsintoanyonesmouth?....Moron

[Dimentio]

...and Revleft's xenophobes come squirming out of the woodwork, with Dimentio leading the charge!

No, it's not, because this isn't about secularism at all, and even if it was socialists shouldn't accept that the state has a right to tell people what they can and can't wear - what this is really about is the latest manifestation of a growing current of vicious Islamophobia and anti-immigrant sentiment which has been support by governments throughout Europe and which needs to be confronted by anyone who opposes discrimination and supports the unity of working people. That means supporting the right of Muslim women to dress in accordance with their religious and cultural traditions, not cheering on the state when it seeks to further strengthen the belief that Muslims shouldn't be entitled to the same rights as everyone else and that Muslim women only ever wear religious garments because they're being forced to by male relatives and community leaders - what is most indicative of racism on the left is the automatic assumption that Muslim women don't make choices for themselves and that they need the state and enlightened (usually white) leftists to come and teach them the error of their ways...usually the same kind of people, like the CWI, who oppose resistance movements against imperialism, and make apologies for Zionism.

:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol: :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::laug h:

I don't want to beat a dead horse which cannot defend itself, but I was saying that the law was xenophobic and therefore unacceptable.

I know you have a hard time reading, but the accusation of xenophobia was really un-called for even by your... uhm... quite wide standards. I was not cheering the French state or cheering anything at all in this thread, merely answering Newsbot's question.

By the way...

Auf Widersehen und Bon Voyage

[Edelweiss]

It's funny how conservatives/right-wingers discover their love for feminist positions when it comes to protecting women against the evils of Islam. The hypocrisy and the hidden xenophobia is quiet obvious here.

However, I agree that the Burka/face veil actually is a backward manifestation of women's oppression in certain tendencies of fundamentalist Islam. It's an absolute minority position though in Islam to interpret the Quran in a way that it justifies the wearing of a face veil. As far as I know, the Quran does not explicitly say that a women has to hide her face in public, so many Muslims see it as a plain wrong interpretation.

But, as a socialist struggling for equality such an obvious sign of women's oppression and inequality is certainly unacceptable. Fuck the "religious and cultural traditions" who allow that. Those kind of liberal bullshit, to rely on "cultural tradition", has really nothing to do with any socialist and emancipatory position. You can justify any reactionary bullshit with "cultural tradition". A true emancipatory, leftist stance is really something different...

Manifestations of cultural/religous womens oppression like the face veil should be struggled against. Not by western leftists though, not by western right-wingers, in a paternalistic way. No, emancipation has to come from within here.

[Yazman]

I am a committed atheist and even anti-theistic, but this rule crosses a line.

I don't think governments have any business telling people what they can and can't wear. Its none of their business what people wear and to be honest, I think its none of OUR business either. People should be able to wear whatever they want. Its their body, let them decide what goes on it.

[piet11111]

if the law banned all religious symbols i would be more supportive of it but its entirely directed against muslims as such its discriminatory
but we also should look at the purpose of the face veil and like Edelweiss said its an instrument of women's oppression and nobody can deny that such a thing should be banned.

unfortunately we wont be able to get rid of it through law its something the muslims must make happen for themselves and certainly not through the work of xenophobic right-wing wankers

[Revolutionary Pseudonym]

It's terrible that the French Government could get away with such a thing, they shouldn't be able to tell people what they can and can't wear. Shame really too, France always appeared to me to be pretty liberal too.
How did the government justify this desicion?
How the the French people take it?
What happens if you do get caught wearing it? Doo they call the fashion police or something?:confused:

[Black&Red]

As a french citizen myself and as a proud anti-sarkozist, I shall add my brick to this wall of useless debate.

If the Christians. the Jews, the siks, the Buddhist, the Rastafarian, the pastafarians or the all mighty order of the worshipers of the Camembert where to decide it was OK all of a sudden to cover themselves up entirely to feel closer to the all mighty imaginary friend they all worship, most of us would think it is stupid. But why is stupid? Because if you're going to the social services to get welfare because no one would hire you because you have a thick black curtain on your face, how can they be sure it is you and not someone else wanting to get it in your name? And I know that 99.99% of the women who wear it don't go anywhere without their husband and that he can testify that under that piece of fabric is his wife, why not just take it off when you are speaking to someone outside of your family to show them respect? Why not try and accept something as simple as showing people you too have eyes and a smile and therefore feelings like every other human being? Because a 14 hundreds years old book written by someone who probably never existed says so? Because that's what God wants? Because that's the only way your husband is going to love you?
That's fucking bull shit, and before you start saying I am a racist/nazi/zionist/or whatever it is that you people wish to call me, try imagining that at your workplace or school, a woman dressed like that. Can you tell me you would immediately bond with her? That you'd all start being best friends? Because most of these women are also forbidden to talk to men, and most women would find it not engaging at all.
But you are right lets keep them buried at home or behind their husband, they're probably not human at all.
Most people who oppose the burqa, oppose it because it's the fucking the 21st century, I know a few pedophiles who deserved to be beheaded or tortured, but it's not gonna happen because it's wrong, but when it touches religion everyone shuts up and suddenly becomes a defender of culture and peace and fraternity. And everyone praises Islam to be just like Christianity: a religion of peace that brings people together (set aside catholic/protestant, Shiite/Sunnite feuds that have proven to be for peace).
And I know I will be flagged as a islamophobic, racist, Zionist and other insults and my reputation will go in the red for a while because of it.
But instead of turning yourselves into liberals douche bags, start opening your eyes and understand that I don't give a crap whether it is Islam or any other religion: "It's all bullshit and it's bad for you". If you want to look like a black ghost at home, go head have fun, but you shouldn't impose it to the other people. And yeah having women completely covered from head to toe is a great way to make people accept you.

And yes my rant is an attack against religion and no it's not a support to the french government. Conclude what you want from this.

[Revolutionary Pseudonym]

I am very anti-religious and I do oppose the sexism that the Abrahamic religions impose but banning people from wearing their religious clothing is stupid, nobody should be able to tell people what they can and can't wear (and I include the stories of the husbands of Muslim women who make them wear the burqa, whether those stories are true or not I don't know) but if a women wishes to wear a burqa or go around completely naked it doesn't matter as it's their choice. Otherwise it would be like banning the swasticka but not the Nazis (not that I'm comparing Islam to Nazism)

[Dimentio]

As a french citizen myself and as a proud anti-sarkozist, I shall add my brick to this wall of useless debate.

If the Christians. the Jews, the siks, the Buddhist, the Rastafarian, the pastafarians or the all mighty order of the worshipers of the Camembert where to decide it was OK all of a sudden to cover themselves up entirely to feel closer to the all mighty imaginary friend they all worship, most of us would think it is stupid. But why is stupid? Because if you're going to the social services to get welfare because no one would hire you because you have a thick black curtain on your face, how can they be sure it is you and not someone else wanting to get it in your name? And I know that 99.99% of the women who wear it don't go anywhere without their husband and that he can testify that under that piece of fabric is his wife, why not just take it off when you are speaking to someone outside of your family to show them respect? Why not try and accept something as simple as showing people you too have eyes and a smile and therefore feelings like every other human being? Because a 14 hundreds years old book written by someone who probably never existed says so? Because that's what God wants? Because that's the only way your husband is going to love you?
That's fucking bull shit, and before you start saying I am a racist/nazi/zionist/or whatever it is that you people wish to call me, try imagining that at your workplace or school, a woman dressed like that. Can you tell me you would immediately bond with her? That you'd all start being best friends? Because most of these women are also forbidden to talk to men, and most women would find it not engaging at all.
But you are right lets keep them buried at home or behind their husband, they're probably not human at all.
Most people who oppose the burqa, oppose it because it's the fucking the 21st century, I know a few pedophiles who deserved to be beheaded or tortured, but it's not gonna happen because it's wrong, but when it touches religion everyone shuts up and suddenly becomes a defender of culture and peace and fraternity. And everyone praises Islam to be just like Christianity: a religion of peace that brings people together (set aside catholic/protestant, Shiite/Sunnite feuds that have proven to be for peace).
And I know I will be flagged as a islamophobic, racist, Zionist and other insults and my reputation will go in the red for a while because of it.
But instead of turning yourselves into liberals douche bags, start opening your eyes and understand that I don't give a crap whether it is Islam or any other religion: "It's all bullshit and it's bad for you". If you want to look like a black ghost at home, go head have fun, but you shouldn't impose it to the other people. And yeah having women completely covered from head to toe is a great way to make people accept you.

And yes my rant is an attack against religion and no it's not a support to the french government. Conclude what you want from this.

What do you propose should be done?

[Black&Red]

What do you propose should be done? Instead of attacking only Islam, all religions should be targeted. If you want to practice at home, go ahead, nobody cares what you do at home as long as it's between consenting adults. Ban all religious holidays (as well as any day that celebrates the greatness of the nation and that kind of crap) and replace them with days celebrating the people instead of celebrating some thousand years old virgin or man or woman or whatever it is that makes it a religious celebration. Ban all kind of cultural bond with religion, teach kids at school the history of murder and massacres that where undertaken by every major religion. If someone wants to open a place of cult let them make it on their own instead of having governments paying for it. Make it mandatory for every priest, imam, rabbi and guru to work a certain amount of days in the year in a real job, make them feel what it is like to work your fucking ass off day in and day out like every one of us. Forbid any one from baring any kind or religious symbol that shows explicitly the submission of one sex to another, as well as banning any religious symbol in public schools. Make a closer control by independent scholars on what is taught in private schools. And finally ban all political parties and politicians that have expressed any kind of religious fervor or approval from continuing to exercise their functions.

Not only will it lead to true laïcité, but it will put religion back to a more earth to earth contact with it followers.

[Sendo]

Here is a work by Lenin that explains why socialists should never participate in government attacks on particular religious minorities, while maintaining our political opposition to all religions.
The Attitude of the Workers' Party to Religion by V.I. Lenin (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1909/may/13.htm)

QFT. Great work. It really reminds us not to support state attacks on religion, nor to attack from an elitist ivory-tower of wisdom, nor to give religion a free pass--but rather to attack the material CAUSES of religion.

"Banning it won't stop it from happening. If they can't wear it in public, they'll stay home and wear it there." That was my thought, but I have no idea how it will turn out and I would like to hear from our French comrade, Black&Red, how this actually turns out.

[Tatarin]

I think the worst effect of this ban, should it come in use, is that it will spread throughout Europe, and that it will by and large target Muslims and Middle Easterns.

[Black&Red]

I would like to hear from our French comrade, Black&Red, how this actually turns out. One thing that a lot of people don't get is that most of the people who are in favor of this law is not because they don't like Muslims and want to "control" the most extremists in their faith - although I'm sure a certain portion of these people do think like that - but the majority of them just think that there's a limit to what religion should be and have people do. Because if you support the people who where the the burqa as part of their religious freedom, you should also in that case support Scientology who is recognized as a cult and not a religion, and who keep struggling to be accepted as though. As far as I know, if you want to dress like a black ghost at home, there's not much the government can do, for it will be illegal only in public places and institutions I believe.

Sarkozy treads on both the extreme rights politics and on the lefts as well. He has no regard towards respect, he only sees the money that he can make for his rich friends and he wants nothing more than to be accepted as a faithful servant of the US pigs(as he has proven by making France reintegrating back NATO). And he will use any means necessary to reach what he wants.

Concerning how it will affect France in the future or how it affects the people, I don't know for I am currently in Canada. But I will keep an eye open to see where it leads.

[Tatarin]

As I suspected, Swedish prime minister Freidrich Reinfeldt recently exclaimed "people shouldn't walk around dressed like that". It's already beginning folks....

[Psy]

I am a committed atheist and even anti-theistic, but this rule crosses a line.

I don't think governments have any business telling people what they can and can't wear. Its none of their business what people wear and to be honest, I think its none of OUR business either. People should be able to wear whatever they want. Its their body, let them decide what goes on it.

Yet we want proletariat Muslim women to identify with the proletariat and not embrace the chains their religion gives them (which the Burka is). We want Muslim women to join the ranks the of the industrial proletrait, can you really see them them working in factories, railways, mines, ect while wearing a Burka? It would be unsafe for Muslim women to wear the Burka in industrial workplaces thus the Burka is a obstacle to the proletrainization of Muslim women.

[Revolutionary Pseudonym]

Yet we want proletariat Muslim women to identify with the proletariat and not embrace the chains their religion gives them (which the Burka is). We want Muslim women to join the ranks the of the industrial proletrait, can you really see them them working in factories, railways, mines, ect while wearing a Burka? It would be unsafe for Muslim women to wear the Burka in industrial workplaces thus the Burka is a obstacle to the proletrainization of Muslim women.

This still does not mean that you'd need to ban them outright, it simply means that a burqa wearer would have to make the desision as to whether they wanted to risk wearing one in the working enviroment, it is not within anyones right to make that desision for them.

[(A)(_|]

I think part of where the argument against niqabs stems from is that they conceal identity. For instance, in Egypt, university students wearing niqabs wear headphones under their niqabs to cheat in exams, or men wearing niqabs to steal in crowded areas such as public buses.

However, I agree with the point that whether wearing a niqab is mandated in Islam or not is irrelevant since it still doesn't justify its illegality.

So basically, even if wearing a ninja-like suit is religiously apt. Such a point shouldn't be considered or it shouldn't be deemed disrespectful to that religion if the reasons were stemmed from an irreligious point of view and were strictly considered for societal reasons. Such reasons would then be analyzed inconsiderate of all the yakking against religious discrimination.

[Psy]

This still does not mean that you'd need to ban them outright, it simply means that a burqa wearer would have to make the desision as to whether they wanted to risk wearing one in the working enviroment, it is not within anyones right to make that desision for them.
First off they already are effectively banned in industrial workplace due to safety regulations as they are loose clothing and most industrial dress codes require clothing that can't get caught in machinery, also most codes prevent vision being limited except when it has to be for eye protection (like welder masks).

More importantly until Muslim Women get rid of the Bruka they can't join the proletariat since the whole point of the Bruka is to prevent Muslim women from entering the workforce. They become just a objectified women, not a female doctor, engineer, mechanic, electrician, motorman, ect.

[Revolutionary Pseudonym]

I can certainly see why someone wouldn't want to wear a burqa in an industrial workplace and Id regard it stupid for someone to wear one in such an eviroment Simply because of the safety however if getting your burqa caught in machinery doesn't directly affect the health and safety of others then I believe it to be their lives that they're risking and their desision whether they want to risk it.
On your point regarding the burqa objectifying women, I believe that so long as that they want to wear and it is not being forced upon by men then surely it must be ok? I mean obviously if it was being forced upon the woman then it must be stopped but those who want to wear it and it doesn't endanger others then I can't see how you can justify stopping people from wearing it.

[Psy]

I can certainly see why someone wouldn't want to wear a burqa in an industrial workplace and Id regard it stupid for someone to wear one in such an eviroment Simply because of the safety however if getting your burqa caught in machinery doesn't directly affect the health and safety of others then I believe it to be their lives that they're risking and their desision whether they want to risk it.

Industrial workers will risk their life to protect their comrades so they really don't have the right to be reckless with their own life as their coworkers will try to save them. For example would it fair for a worker to lose a finger because they saved a women wearing a burqa from a machine that grabed their burqa?



On your point regarding the burqa objectifying women, I believe that so long as that they want to wear and it is not being forced upon by men then surely it must be ok? I mean obviously if it was being forced upon the woman then it must be stopped but those who want to wear it and it doesn't endanger others then I can't see how you can justify stopping people from wearing it.
It is being forced onto them by reactionary cultrual forces that wants to stop the proletarization of Muslem women, as they don't want women to be wage slaves to the capialist class but only slaves to their husbands.

[Revolutionary Pseudonym]

For example would it fair for a worker to lose a finger because they saved a women wearing a burqa from a machine that grabed their burqa?

In such a case I would find it reasonable to restrict the wearing of a burqa.


It is being forced onto them by reactionary cultrual forces that wants to stop the proletarization of Muslem women, as they don't want women to be wage slaves to the capialist class but only slaves to their husbands.
If any clothing was being forced upon a anyone as a sign of repression then it would ofcourse be wrong and I do see your POV, however there are some women who do want to wear it and I do belive that in these circumstances it is wrong to ban them and their wearing so the French ban is wrong

[Psy]

If any clothing was being forced upon a anyone as a sign of repression then it would ofcourse be wrong and I do see your POV, however there are some women who do want to wear it and I do belive that in these circumstances it is wrong to ban them and their wearing so the French ban is wrong

But why do they want to wear it? Would they still want to wear them after becoming class conscious (I highly doubt it)? Of course the French state won't be much help since it is only interested in maximizing their exploiting for the capitalist class but supporting their right to wear a burqa won't help either, it would be better if Muslem women publically burned their bruqas in protest, demanding equality with their male counterparts (a necessary step before they can become class conscious).

[Revolutionary Pseudonym]

But why do they want to wear it?

That's like saying why does such and such a group wear jeans or hoodies, Im sure each person has their own reasons for wearing each item of clothing and their own ideas as to what is fashionable, so long as they want to wear it and it was their choice then they should wear what they want.



Would they still want to wear them after becoming class conscious (I highly doubt it)?

If they like the clothes and view it them as I do, just clothes as opposed to a symbol of anything, then why wouldn't they continue to wear them?


Of course the French state won't be much help since it is only interested in maximizing their exploiting for the capitalist class but supporting their right to wear a burqa won't help either

I know very little of French politics so I'm afraid I can't really comment on that.

[Wanted Man]

Yet we want proletariat Muslim women to identify with the proletariat and not embrace the chains their religion gives them (which the Burka is). We want Muslim women to join the ranks the of the industrial proletrait, can you really see them them working in factories, railways, mines, ect while wearing a Burka? It would be unsafe for Muslim women to wear the Burka in industrial workplaces thus the Burka is a obstacle to the proletrainization of Muslim women.

Ehh? :confused: Since when do "we" want to make all women work in heavy industry? Is this some entirely new definition of socialism that I have missed?

If so, perhaps "we" should also ban long hair (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Let%27s_trim_our_hair_in_accordance_with_the_socia list_lifestyle) and baggy clothing, they might also get in the way when "we" send everyone off to work in the coal mines and steel mills. :rolleyes:

[fatboy]

No they should be allowed to wear their veils. But I advocate destruction of religion. As Marx said "Religion is the opium of the people":cool:

[Psy]

That's like saying why does such and such a group wear jeans or hoodies, Im sure each person has their own reasons for wearing each item of clothing and their own ideas as to what is fashionable, so long as they want to wear it and it was their choice then they should wear what they want.

If they like the clothes and view it them as I do, just clothes as opposed to a symbol of anything, then why wouldn't they continue to wear them?

The burka was engineered to protect the wearer from sand storms this function is not needed in places like France also modern clothing offers better protection and maneuverability making the burka obsolete as protective clothing.

The current functionality of the burka is mostly to protect female virtue in the idea that the husband owns the sexuality of the wife and does this by hiding the female form from other men. This comes from the earlier use that was to make it harder for raiders to spot women of child bearing age.

So really the burka is engineered with patriarchy in mind where it is not it is obsolete. Also when a armed worker revolution comes women in burkas would be of no use to revolutionary armies, not only would they still have self images of inferiourity but burkas make easy targets, constricting and don't breath very well (so troops wearing burkas weares would get exuasted sooner thus why no desert army uses them anymore). Remeber there isn't much window bettwen when workers succefully kick the police out of a city and when the army shows up, so we'd mostly likely be too busy organizing our defenses from the inevitable counter-attack to do much about reactionary ideas like Muslem women still clinging to patriarchy not realizing they are free and we can't force them to fight for us.



Ehh? :confused: Since when do "we" want to make all women work in heavy industry? Is this some entirely new definition of socialism that I have missed?

Since when are all factories heavy industry?

[Revy]

France has 5 million Muslims, but only an estimated 2,000 Muslim women in France wear the veil. If we were to guess that there are 2.5 million Muslim women (half of the Muslims in France), that means only 0.08% of Muslim women in France wear the burqa.

The burqa is not part of female Muslim identity. It is a tool of fundamentalists to subjugate women. However, I don't think it should be banned (if a woman is being physically forced by a man to wear it, the blame is not on the garment but on the abusive man), but I don't think we should rush to defend the burqa. It's not an acceptable thing for a woman to feel like she can't even show her face because God doesn't want her to.

As for the "security issues", if someone is going to use a burqa to conceal themselves during a crime, they will most likely do it whether it is legal or not.

[Black Sheep]

The question itself is a paradox according to leftism.

I wont choose between state authoritarianism and restriction of freedom, and religious stupidity and chauvinism towards women.


Neither.

[Nosotros]

Crackpot UKIP and the Burqa Proposal

As those of us who keep a close eye on UKIP have noticed, in the past senior members of their party have praised Adolf Hitler, used the extremely derogatory N word to describe black people (when they thought noone was listening) and accused the EU of being a communist conspiracy! It is no suprise to those of us on the left that UKIP are a bunch of reactionary crackpots whose interests are with the rich. Unfortunetly a significant number of people are unaware of this or it is the case that they share their hysterical and ignorant beliefs.

Also very much inline with the worldview of the rich, UKIP are very fond of scapegoating minorities (a very common and misplaced tendency) which distracts people from the real social issues and provides something all too useful for people to point fingers at (not noticing the fact that the number of immigrants in this country is very low and that each year many people leave this counrty permanently). Pointing fingers while, convieniently for the rich, ,not noticing that the fundemental problems that our society suffers are due to Capitalism and the very people that are the source of this scapegoating-The Sun, The Labour Party, Tories, Daily Mail etc. Some of the working class are responsible for this by spreading racist lies or the misinformation they have digested- the rich and those who work for them are the chief culprits and certainly the beneficiaries. This scapegoating brings us upto speed with latest PR scheme from the UK Independence Party-the burqa debate (initially started by The Sun and The Labour Party in recent years).

The argument put forward by UKIP is that A. the Burqa is oppressive to women B. it separates our communtiy and B. that it is a security issue. I will now argue against all three points and reveal the true nature of UKIP's latest stunt. Firstly, it is widely believed in this country that all Muslim women have no say in the matter and are forced to cover themselves. When we think of Muslims some of tend to believe the tabloid and War of Terror hype that all Muslims are backward, bigoted heathens and further that they are taking over. For alot of people it seems, there is no such thing as a moderate and civilised Muslim and quite alot people see Islam itself as the enemy, forgetting the faults of their own culture and 'indigenous' religion and forgetting that their own country that they are presumably so proud of is an allie of other similar but Arab and Muslim countries. Most people who take this position are clearly not very aware that they are condemning Muslims who share their own political beliefs. Clearly this is not intelligent. Those who are pro-war, for example, say that the two wars we are catostrophically fighting are benefiting Iraq and Afghanistan and then contradict themselves when they damn Islam itself and even the Arabs. This ignorant thinking forgets that most Muslims are moderates and are reasonable people. The taking over mentality seems to be about two things- immigration, which I have mentioned already, and what people perceive as preferential treatment ( as if being caught up in a 'War on Terror' in a Christian state ,and with probably the tightest border controls in Europe, could actually produce such conditions!). This argument usually centres on Shari'a Law, which is apparently taking over this counrty. This view would be hilarious if it wasn't so dangerous. First, Shari'a applies only to Muslims, not the rest of us. Further- there is such a thing as a moderate Shari'a. Most Muslims who live here (and they are few in number) are moderates! This right-wing argument is totally ignorant of the Muslim community, is fuelled by tabloid hype and also is lacking the fact that if you are Muslim you are most likely to follow a Shar'ia code anyway!

Alot of people just don't realise that many Muslim women enjoy wearing the burqa or Hijab for their own cultural and religous reasons, it makes them feel safe and gives them confidence. And as I have suggested already- people are not the experts they think they are on Islam. I would also argue that most Muslims are far more tolerant than most of these 'moderate', right-wing politicians. If we are to live in a free society, it is paramount that we maintain the freedom of the individual and let people dress how they wish and and practice their religion. As an Anarchist freedom and individuality are very important to me and should be for everyone else. Individual freedom has been erroded too much as it is, if we are to take it away from Muslims, not only do we give the state the potential to do the same to us but we radicalise the Muslim community. If a Muslim women is forced to wear a burqa, hijab or veil then fair enough, that should be stopped. As a secularist I cannot tolerate any religion imposing itself on anyone but it is vital for us to realise that people have choices. Without that we do not live in a free country at all. As a Secularist and an Atheist, I am also irritated by all this talk of Britain being a Christian country and that we should respect 'British' Christian values. Do not expect me to defend religion- I am not religous, I am however a believer in freedom (unlike UKIP and their ilk) so this doesn't mean that I believe that all Bibles should be banned and that people shouldn't be allowed to wear a neckless with cross on- once again individual freedom! And for that same reason, if Muslim women want to wear a burqas then let them, Muslim husbands are not as powerful as you may think. Also if the burqa/veil/hijab is banned in public then it means that the women who wear them will not want to go out and so will stay indoors, so if this becomes law it will oppress women in that way aswell.

The truth is, we live in a Christian state not a Muslim one. A Christian state where the head of state is head of the Church of England, clergymen hold unelected positons in parliament, most schools are religous and I'm sure, most members of the any government cabinet are Christian, all these people are imposing their religion on an increasingly secular population. This is wrong- no country should be religous (especially if the majority are not followers)- a religous country always, at some point, exludes a group of society and uses it's dogma to control people. But again, this does not mean we cannot use civilised dialogue to resolve matters and it doesn't mean that we have to take away personal freedom. I am very much in favour of the decline and death of religion but not utilsing sectarian methods that make matters worse- that makes us just as bad as people like Al Qaeda and the Taliban. Are we so afraid of our supposedly democratic traditions that we are going to resort to the methods of Chairman Mao and start telling people what they can and can't wear? It's just not right and ironically telling people what they can and can't wear is something that UKIP have in common with the recently banned organisation Islam4UK- who believe that everone in Britain, Muslim or not should , by law, dress in a respectable fashion.

The next part of UKIP's dynamite revelation is that the burqa/hijab separates the Muslim and non-Muslim community. So basically they seem to want us to believe that banning the burqa will help integrate Muslims into our society when the reality is that these racists want any Muslims who are allowed to stay here subserviant to British culture while Jews, Hindus, Christians, Buddhists, Sikhs and Pagans are allowed to remain equal and appear non threatening. This whole idea is totally ignorant. It seems that Britishness aswell as freedom is too fragile to withstand a tiny minority of people! And while we're on the subject of UKIP's idea of separation, lets go through what really separates us-class! If only the religous and non religous and those of different cultures would unite under the banner of class against scheming rich politicians who divide us all and manipulate us- at each others throats while they build their power, stir their hate, expand their empires, serve their corporate bosses and indulde in an orgy of greed, selfishness and blood. It's not just rhetoric, it's true, which is why it feels angry and why if I devoted too much time and history to it here this article would never end, especially considering the countless immoral proclivities of the ruling class.

The Security part of UKIP's request to ban the burqa is totally ridiculous and is again pure scaremongering, infact it's intent maybe worse, to incite. They want us to suspect that all burqa/hijab wearing women could be concealing weapons, ready to indiscriminantly wipe out dozens of people. Security really is not an issue as already women who wear the burqa have made it clear that removing it for the purposes of security is not a problem. But if this proposal became law can you imagine the ammunition it would give to the extremists? And I can't help but think that maybe thats exactly what UKIP want, to stir tensions so much that they get their race war fantasy, their desired cultural and religous crusade- for the benefit of the right-wing. It's as if they are incredibly stupid or incredibly evil and it's as if they want more bombs, hatred, gunshots, blood and guts and fire. Perhaps what they want is a divided and therefore weak Britain, not a strong one- so they can take advantage- I wouldn't put it past them considering the extemity of their Nationalism and racism, two things that go hand in hand.

All politicians are the same and the likes of UKIP and the BNP are no different, just different faces of the same ruling class that keeps us inline. Labour are the left-wing of the Conservative Party and UKIP are the left-wing of Fascism. Every political party has it's own elite, it's own ruling class that deprives us of real democracy. Whoever holds power, we must be ungovernable! Against parliament! For Anarchy! For Freedom!

UNTIY IS STRENGTH!

[cyu]

If you want to fight male-domination, then fight male-domination. Once that's gone, then let women decide for themselves what they want to wear.

If you're deciding for women what they can't wear, how are you any better than anybody else that forces women to wear something?

What if I said that instead of fighting male-domination, we should instead force women to not wear tops and expose their breasts? Surely old conventions about women covering their breasts is male-domination. Would you see forcing women to go around topless to be giving them more or less freedom?

What if a male atheist decides he wants to wear a burqa just for the heck of it? Should that be outlawed?

[Crusade]

Umm no. I don't understand how anyone would support such a thing, especially a leftist.

[(A)(_|]

I have a more deep perspective of why people might see the necessity to ban niqabs since I live in a country where the majority identify as Muslims. Concealing identity in general, would it be by wearing a burqa or wearing a mask can pose hazardous security violations. Let's say I'm a college student and I decide one day that I want to wear a mask over my face. How would the college campus security identify me. They would require me to take off my mask to unveil my face. The same issue stands with plane flights and airport security. Society should be conscious enough to realize that, even if a person wearing niqab was supposedly by religious necessity obliged to wear it, certain security measures constitute that I see your face. It goes down as absurd that I wouldn't be able to identify a person, especially if this identification was in need, simply because he had a belief that he was divinely ordered to do so. I'm not vehemently defending here, just adding perspective.

[Psy]

I have a more deep perspective of why people might see the necessity to ban niqabs since I live in a country where the majority identify as Muslims. Concealing identity in general, would it be by wearing a burqa or wearing a mask can pose hazardous security violations. Let's say I'm a college student and I decide one day that I want to wear a mask over my face. How would the college campus security identify me. They would require me to take off my mask to unveil my face. The same issue stands with plane flights and airport security. Society should be conscious enough to realize that, even if a person wearing niqab was supposedly by religious necessity obliged to wear it, certain security measures constitute that I see your face. It goes down as absurd that I wouldn't be able to identify a person, especially if this identification was in need, simply because he had a belief that he was divinely ordered to do so. I'm not vehemently defending here, just adding perspective.
It is the same if there is another Paris commune. If a revolutionary army was defending Paris from the French army retaking Paris how can the revolutionary troops trust that those in bruqas are not French troops in disguise, as they could be hiding weapons under their bruqas, or they could be CIA sabotaging the entrenchments hiding explosives under their bruqas.

Even if they were identified as local Muslims they could be counter-revolutionaries as if they were militant they wouldn't be wearing bruqa as it is a symbol patriarchy.

[cyu]

How would the college campus security identify me. They would require me to take off my mask to unveil my face. The same issue stands with plane flights and airport security.


You are talking about bandaids on a festering wound. Coming from a country that has the right to "keep and bear arms" in its constitution, I fought against what that implied for many years as a "devout liberal" until I decided that putting bandaids on a festering wound isn't going to get you very far.

You instead have to look at what motivates people to use weapons in the "wrong" way, or to hide their identity in ways you don't like. A lot of it comes down to capitalism (that's not the only source of problems, of course, but it's a big source).

People can also hide weapons in their "cavities" - women doubly so more than men. Should we force everyone to walk around with exposed genitalia, citing security concerns?

[Tatarin]

Concealing identity in general, would it be by wearing a burqa or wearing a mask can pose hazardous security violations. Let's say I'm a college student and I decide one day that I want to wear a mask over my face. How would the college campus security identify me.

That kind of security is another sympthom of the capitalist system. Like cyu pointed out, "security concerns" can never be satisfied until every single one of us is monitored 24/7 in all kinds of ways.

[blake 3:17]

I find it slightly amusing that some Leftists rush to the defense of a security state. What are they going to do in France? Imprison women who wear the veil? Taser them? WTF?

I worked for a couple of years in an overwhelmingly poor immigrant Muslim community. Walking through the park I could understand why a woman would choose to wear a burqa and veil -- they scared the shit out of me. Not to support or promote it, but I could see why a woman might gladly wear it.

[Psy]

I worked for a couple of years in an overwhelmingly poor immigrant Muslim community. Walking through the park I could understand why a woman would choose to wear a burqa and veil -- they scared the shit out of me. Not to support or promote it, but I could see why a woman might gladly wear it.

Yet same Muslim women would also probably be scared of female revolutionaries as they threaten the patriarchy they hide behind (you know with the whole ridding ourselves of the muck of ages). We won't make any friends with the defenders of patriarchy just as we won't make any friends with the defenders of class division.

[Wanted Man]

Since when are all factories heavy industry?

All industrial labour, then. You mentioned factories, mines, and railways, and you claimed that "we" want muslim women to work in them. Later on, you came up with some scenario about "revolutionary troops" defending Paris, and a pretty funny left-wing spin on the "what if the terrorists send spies and bombers in burqas?" story.

Since both of these scenarios are highly unrealistic in the short term (there is no revolution at hand), and probably also the long term (a revolution probably won't mean that everyone has to work in the industrial sector, and it is impossible to claim with certainty that it will turn into a war of attrition), how are they relevant at all to the burqa ban in the here and now? This is just a ridiculous excuse to support the capitalist state deciding what people can and can't wear.

Here's another suggestion: let's see if we can get the capitalist state to ban high heels. Otherwise, after the revolution, women in high heels can't do railway maintenance, and they won't be able to fight the French army effectively. :rolleyes:

[Crux]

Yet same Muslim women would also probably be scared of female revolutionaries as they threaten the patriarchy they hide behind (you know with the whole ridding ourselves of the muck of ages). We won't make any friends with the defenders of patriarchy just as we won't make any friends with the defenders of class division.
Yes, exactly, and that's why you should oppose the law and try and reach out to women suffering under patriarchy rather than alienating them through supporting a law motivated by xenophobia and sexism.

[Tower of Bebel]

I think that the working class should oppose such laws. In the end it tightens state control over society.

(1) You can't simply counter a religion (from the public sphere) by banning a piece of cloth.

(2) There's no such thing as objectivity or neutrality. State and "public" institutions are not neutral, they serve a purpose. I don't need to tell you what it is.

(3) The working class should overcome devisions that arise from the current mode of production by ways of (international) unity irrespective of sex, nation, "race" or religion.

(4) Workers should learn to oppose current state of affairs by opposing the rule-of-law state. When communists demand certain laws they do so not because they believe the current state apparatus should enforce them, but because they believe they can serve as a leverage for actions taken by the working class.

[Psy]

All industrial labour, then. You mentioned factories, mines, and railways, and you claimed that "we" want muslim women to work in them. Later on, you came up with some scenario about "revolutionary troops" defending Paris, and a pretty funny left-wing spin on the "what if the terrorists send spies and bombers in burqas?" story.

Since both of these scenarios are highly unrealistic in the short term (there is no revolution at hand), and probably also the long term (a revolution probably won't mean that everyone has to work in the industrial sector, and it is impossible to claim with certainty that it will turn into a war of attrition), how are they relevant at all to the burqa ban in the here and now? This is just a ridiculous excuse to support the capitalist state deciding what people can and can't wear.

Here's another suggestion: let's see if we can get the capitalist state to ban high heels. Otherwise, after the revolution, women in high heels can't do railway maintenance, and they won't be able to fight the French army effectively. :rolleyes:
Hate to tell you this but we care about utility meaning production, so there won't be any finical sector instead we would focus on producing utility most of which is still physical goods and people's priorities would still be food, shelter and medicine.

Also how do you know revolution is unrealistic in the short term, the Russian 1917 revolutions happened after the failure of the 1905 uprisings and prior to Paris 1968 the French working class was seen as docile. You forget dialectal materialism that states instead of revolutions simply happening they slowly buildup beneath the surface of society due to class antagonisms, meaning it is hard to really predict when a revolution will happen as prior there are no signs on the surface of society. Also it is fairly certain that capitalists armies will counter attack and that the CIA will try to infiltrate sabotage a workers revolution.

As for the relevancy now, it means the burqa is a bourgeois freedom thus not our concern, as to defend it defends that capitalists has the right to sell burqas and consumers have the right to buy and wear them.