Potential French burka ban in the offing

[0iD]

When the French parliamentary commission on whether the burka or the niqab (the full veil) should be banned reports it's findings next week, it looks like it will only be a short time (after the March regional elections), before it's made law. The ban will be "absolute" in public places, with the French government claiming that nothing in Islam requires women to wear the full veil, & that only about 1900 women in France wear it any way.

Now is this a good thing or a bad thing? Well no doubt there will be a substantial backlash from the Muslim community at large. So are the French gov't putting their people in the firing line of extremist/terrorist reprisal unnecessarily?

Plus, as an aside, how will Muslim ladies cope with the advent of the clothing penetrating full body scanners, set to become de rigueur at most major airports?

[Steve]

I hope that women and men parade the streets of France in full veiled attire as a demonstration that this idea is ridiculous. This law serves to alienate an entire religion in France, regardless of whether individuals support the notion of women having to weir veils - it's certainly not a matter that should be legislated against in this way.

Of course, if a woman's rights are being taken away from her, then something must be done, but through support, education, understanding and dialogue, not through insane laws like this.

As for full-body scans, I can see this causing serious concerns for many of us, but the fact that Muslim women may have religious grounds to refuse being scanned is, in my opinion, excellent. Half the people of a religion at the heart of our current mindset of "terrorism" have a reason not to use something that is supposed to reduce terrorism. Of course, the fact is, they have every right not to be scanned, as more terror is perpetuated by our governments' knee-jerk response to one in a billion events than any terrorists could inflict upon a truly free country.

[colincliff]

I hope that women and men parade the streets of France in full veiled attire as a demonstration that this idea is ridiculous. This law serves to alienate an entire religion in France, regardless of whether individuals support the notion of women having to weir veils - it's certainly not a matter that should be legislated against in this way.

Of course, if a woman's rights are being taken away from her, then something must be done, but through support, education, understanding and dialogue, not through insane laws like this.

Fully agree with Steve. Summarised much better than i could!

[MadduckUK]

good on the French, as i said to Steve in a PM - Burka's are as necessary in France a a crash helmet is to a motorcyclist who isn't anywhere near a bike. Since the Burka doesn't have any religious significance it is akin to walking down the street dressed only in swimming trunks. swimming trunks may be fine at the swimming pool, but pretty ridiculous attire in a supermarket.

When France has a sandstorm i shall change my view, maybe - we would probably be able to come up with something more effective if it did.

[Saracen]

Given that one male terrorist is already known to have evaded capture by fleeing dressed in a burqa, and apparently, (the rather 'solid' and 6 foot 1 inch) John Simpson and his cameraman were smuggled into Taliban-controlled Afghanistan wearing burqas, I can see no justification whatever for the security of the rest of us being put at risk by exempting anyone from security measures designed to protect us all at sensitive spots like government buildings or airports.

How you do the scans is another issue - it ought to be the case that male security staff scan male visitors/passengers, and female staff scan female visitors/passengers, but that's on grounds of simple decency, not religion.

Besides, I've seen one Muslim 'spokesperson', or 'representative (though perhaps self-appointed) or another declare, time after time, that the burqa is a cultural aspect of some Muslim cultures, and emphatically not a religious requirement.

I'm not a Muslim and wouldn't presume to know what the Qur’an does or doesn't say, but when so many Muslims, including some on here, have made that point, I can only assume they know what they're talking about.

So, exempting people from standard security measures on the basis of a burqa is, in my view, an absolute non-starter. If we have scans, we have scans. Period. Live with it.

Of course, whether the scans are right or not, and even effective or not, and whether the rest of us should have to put up with them, is another matter.

And there's another thing - if we were to exempt Muslim women from security precautions because of the burqa, or because of any other 'religious' factor, how long will it be before some terrorist group blows themselves up in a plane, or train, or on a bus, or in a shopping centre, whilst wearing a burqa? And the instant that happens, every Muslim woman wearing a burqa is going to be a terrorist suspect and probably subjected to a mob-rule backlash by the great and ignorant unwashed.

Let's face it - Muslims are suspected already because these terrorists claim to be doing it in the name of Islam, despite one respected Islamic scholar after another, not to mention vast numbers of ordinary Muslims loudly proclaiming both "not in my name" and "it's anti-Islamic". Yet despite all the protestations, Muslims are viewed as suspect merely because they're Muslim. My wife isn't an IRA bomber just because she's (part) Irish, and Muslims aren't terrorists because they're Muslim.

Yet the terrorists have half-succeeded in their objectives if they get us believing they are! One of the terrorists main objectives is to create a "them and us" divide, and this burqa argument plays right into that. That we are having the debate at all is a victory for the extremists, because they've driven us to it. If we ban the burqa, the price we pay is that they will use that as 'evidence' that the UK is anti-Muslim, and persecuting Muslims. But if we don't, sooner or later, my view is that they'll use if to commit an outrage, especially now that the burqa is becoming a contentious point. And if we do ban it, the extremists will still use it, probably by committing an outrage and hoping for the backlash, because they'll then use the backlash as evidence that we're anti-Islamic.

So .... my view is that this is now an issue whether we want it to be or not. And that brings us up against the fundamental issue - we regard ourselves as a "liberal" society, and that implies certain freedoms. But .... those freedoms are not limitless. There are boundaries, and there always have been. A good principle is that we should be free to do as we please, provided there is no good reason to preclude it. i.e. the default is that whatever it is, you can do it unless good reason exists for why you can't do it.

An example is religious freedom - worship who you want, how you want, provided it doesn't harm others and doesn't conflict with general principles set down by the state.

An extension of that is that for a genuinely held religious reason by a member of a recognised and accepted religious group, the state ought to make exceptions for religious belief unless there are good reasons not to. For instance, an exception was made to motorbike crash helmet laws for Sikhs, because of the turban. My initial gut reaction was that that was wrong, and that no exceptions should be made to laws on religious grounds, but the more I thought about it, the more I changed my mind. Firstly, if we are to be "free", or as free as we can be, then there ought to be damn good reason to prevent people doing something, and I can't think how a Sikh not wearing a crash helmet on a motorbike really adversely affects anyone other than the Sikh, so why should be ban it on principle, if it causes nobody but him harm? It's his choice to take that risk, is it not?

Okay, I guess the NHS could suffer extra costs if a Sikh is hurt when a helmet would have saved him, and thus there is some cost to allowing that exception. But that's why it's a value judgement, and why I said that we should not seek to ban things without good reason, and not just do it if there's any reason at all. These things are never cut and dried, and even over the crash helmet business, you're going to find Sikhs adamant that it's reasonable and that they'll ignore any ban anyway, and others (like me, initially) that thought the exception was a mistake. You won't please all of the people, all of the time, on just about any issue, so it's always about a balance. And on crash helmets, I can see good reason why a Sikh would refuse to obey a law he regards as pointless and doing no harm to others for strong religious principle. So on balance, I can't see why that exception shouldn't be made.

Now back to the burqa. It's not like the crash helmet laws. It has great potential to provide opportunity to cause harm to others, and it's only (IMHO) a matter of time before it's used, precisely because it's so divisive. Therefore, if there's strong potential harm to others if we allow security exceptions, balanced against minimal harm to a very small number if we refuse to make an exception, then the balance comes down, IMHO, conclusively in favour of no exception being made.

Finally, what about the burqa in the street? Well, that's not as clear-cut.

Let's pretend we're talking about banning the wearing of kilts in the street. Well, I'm not Scottish and you wouldn't get me wearing a kilt in the street if you paid me (well, unless you paid me rather a lot ) , but I'd strongly object to any law banning them. Why? Why the hell should we ban them? It's a cultural icon, and it does nobody else any harm (except where there's a very strong wind ). And just imagine the backlash from the Scots if kilts were banned And rightly so.

So .... does good reason for banning the burqa in public places exist? I don't know, but I've yet to be absolutely convinced it does.

And finally, to the expected decision from the French to ban it .... as I understand it, for all that they're our closest neighbours, the French culture is different to ours, and one aspect of that is a much greater separation between Church and State. In fact, for over 100 years, it's been embedded in French law, and it states

The Republic neither recognizes, nor salaries, nor subsidizes any religion.

and the principle goes back to the French revolution when the 1789 Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen, stated

No one may be disturbed on account of his opinions, even religious ones, as long as the manifestation of such opinions does not interfere with the established Law and Order.

The bold emphasis was added by me. See Wikipedia for more info.

Note that that quote is a double-edged sword. It provides a guarantee of freedom of religious thought and expression provided it is subservient to the secular law.

Given that the French attitude is that religious matters are secondary to State matters, if they consider good reason exists for banning the burqa in public places, then that principle makes quite clear that religious issues, let alone mere cultural preferences, are no bar to the ban. And I entirely agree with that stance, and would wholly welcome it if we emulated them and adopted the same stance, by law.

It then becomes simply a matter of whether the harm done to the individual by imposing the ban is outweighed by the greater good to the body public, whether that be on security grounds, or whether it is merely banning something that is seen as being culturally divisive. One argument is that whilst some Muslims claim the burqa as a cultural right, both French and British cultures can claim it goes against our traditions and culture, and that as the vast majority, why should long-standing French of British traditions be subservient? Whenever that minority Muslim burqa-wearing culture arrived in either country, it is both relatively recent and very much a minority, even among Muslims from what I can gather.

Why should French (or British) culture adapt to accommodate the requirements of incomers, when the incomers (in this respect, at least) are making a point of refusing to acclimatise to the culture here?

So, on balance, do I agree with the French ban? Well, that's a matter for them not me, but yeah, I do. And should we do the same here? On balance, I believe the harm from doing it is less than the harm from not doing it, so again, yes. I'm not entirely happy with that conclusion, but it's where I end up. And I hope that the above makes clear I have actually thought about it a bit, and this is not just a visceral, or emotional and certainly not an anti-Islamic reaction.

[DeludedGuy]

Thanks Saracen, I was just about to post something exactly like that.

[shaithis]

I hope this goes through both in France and over here eventually.

I have nothing against Muslims but there are plenty of places where you cannot cover your face for security reasons, yet burka wearers seem to be immune to these restrictions.

Also, when people in the UK are being targeted for wearing hoodies, I fail to see why a burka wearer should be treated any differently.

I am sure if I spent all day walking into shops wearing a balaclava, sooner or later I would be treated like a criminal.....let's have some consistency!

[chadders]

Crime and Disorder Act 1998 - section 25 for what would happen to you and your balaclava, but then there's the fear of getting it wrong for a burka?

"Religion, a bunch of people arguing who's got the better imaginery friend"

[Saracen]

Thanks Saracen, I was just about to post something exactly like that.

Damn. I could have saved myself the typing time.

[IBM]

Saracan - you're a monster (nothing to do with the view's on religious attire, just because of those obscene thesis posing as posts).

To the best of my knowledge - second hand info only, my Arabic being a little rudimentary - there's nothing in the Koran which includes the veil in desirable attire for women. In fact, there are numberous interpretations which essentially state that women should take care to cover their chests (i.e. no clevage). The veil was a throwback from the various north african tribes....kinda like Christmas a Pagans ....

Personally I think it's a good idea - particularly from a supression of women point of view - , but are we going to see people wearing veils who are not doing so for religious reasons banned? What about people in fancy dress dressed as ghosts? What about for fashion reasons? Or belly dancers?

What am I going to do with my belly dancer costume?

Food for thought.

[emzallan]

So are the French gov't putting their people in the firing line of extremist/terrorist reprisal unnecessarily?

Surely that shouldn't really be a large part of it? Obviously international relations and diplomacy are important, but surely if a fear of terrorism is brought into the equation, then that simply adds legitimacy to terrorist organisations?

Personally I'm quite split on the issue. I am a strong supporter of individual freedoms, but the burka is certainly divisive and I'm not sure that there is religious justification for FULL body covering. On balance it usually relates to modesty, so it is certainly open to interpretation.

However, even if it is more cultural than religious, who is to say that anyone should impose restrictions on displaying cultural symbols. Is a woman wearing the Burka really negatively impacting on society? It can be rather intimidating (but is that not my problem?) and perhaps it may exert pressure on other Muslims to conform, but on balance at the moment I think the issue is not strong enough to warrant a ban in Britain.

In France the situation is very different with the strict separation of church and state, which is rather unique to France. Too simplistic but in America religion is protected from the state, in France the state is protected from religion. France has a long history of little toleration of overt religious symbolism, and perhaps this is exacerbated by ethnic and immigration tensions.

[TheAnimus]

isn't it just a trade off between infringing on the benefit of the community for the benefit of the individual.

For instance crash helmets can not be warn into most banks, I don't know if its a law or if they just refuse to serve you I freely admit. But there is a good reason for not letting anyone who doesn't allow them self to be easily identified have access to money it really helps deter crime with for most of us minimal inconvenience.

So as someone who normally takes of even his sun glasses when talking to someone because culturally I believe it to be very rude to hide yourself, that is an easy compromise to make.

If only we could use economic theory to give us a cost benefit analysis of these types of legislation

[Steve]

Also, when people in the UK are being targeted for wearing hoodies, I fail to see why a burka wearer should be treated any differently.

I am sure if I spent all day walking into shops wearing a balaclava, sooner or later I would be treated like a criminal.....let's have some consistency!

Well, some of us don't agree with that either. As another poster has said, banks don't serve people in motorcycle helmets. Fair enough, I can understand that completely. Is it law? In all honesty I don't know. Should it be a law, rather than policy set out within a private, commercial establishment. No way.

On the subject of airport security in general - again I'd consider that somewhere that isn't a public place, and it's "on a border" of the country, so there are rules that need to be enforced. However, they should be enforced with sensitivity towards what people choose to believe and how they conduct themselves, albeit within sensible constraints. If you must invade someone's privacy by scanning or unveiling them, do it privately and respectfully. If that person doesn't want even that level of invasion, well, they can go elsewhere. But you see, I've just detailed compromise on both sides, rather than "OMG terrorism we must all submit to this or else".

It seems most of the time, it's only the public that compromises - we give up freedoms for security, which is exactly what terrorists want - they want us to live in terror.

[MadduckUK]

Should it be a law, rather than policy set out within a private, commercial establishment. No way.

it really should, i would hope it already was

and i ask again. since there are no sandstorms in France, why would you need one except for the concealment of identity

[chadders]

Take religion and culture out of the equation, think of it as the individual's right to wear something that would, in effect conceal their identity for whatever reason.

Now think of the "issue" as whether it would be lawful to allow people/companies to require people to not conceal their identity in given locations/circumstances.

Taking the skid lid example, you would have the right to walk into a bank wearing it. Just as they should have right to refuse your custom if you don't remove it.

If the banks wish to cater for burkas & skid lids that's their choice - they could invest in appropriate seperate areas/buildings. If you get nervous around burkas etc you can change your bank.

I suppose we've got it right, the Police have the power to request removal of the burka - there's a difference between stopping a couple walking down the street, unless that streets on the way to a violent protest (they could do it in the back of a van to preserve identity).

If you walk down towards a bank in the middle of summer wearing a balaclava then it's justifiable you'd be stopped and asked to remove it. If there's a senstitive nature to revaling your identity - for whatever reason - then again they would detain you and wait for a van.

It's then coming down to your own choice of weighing up the inconvenience caused to how you go about your daily life.

As for not wearing a crash helmet on a motorbike, then perhaps insurance companies should (already are - I suspect not for discrimination?) be allowed to heavily load up their premiums, after all a head without a lid will make less damage to your car, but only do more damage to themselves.

Sometimes it's the question that needs work, not the answer.

[chadders]

MOTOR-CYCLE CRASH-HELMETS (RELIGIOUS EXEMPTION) BILL have a read through, how it would actually be more religious for a Sikh to carry a dagger than the turban.

and i ask again. since there are no sandstorms in France, why would you need one except for the concealment of identity

Because the very nature of their own belief is to hide their identity from all but their husband (I may have that wrong), and a free society would allow you to have your own thoughts & beliefs. It's not a "need", there's no need for a lot of things but that doesn't mean you should ban them (alcohol's not a need so perhaps that should be banned - i'd vote no).

Go the other way, what about having the right to be completely naked and do your weekly shop in the buff. I'm sure you wouldn't want to see the back end of some 20 stoner picking up his/her dropped shopping!