French Burka Ban Goes into Effect

[sweetea]

I understand that it is a largely outdated custom that holds little value in Western society at present...

Oh I don't know about that. Seriously...we could all learn to back away from our lookism society...which, ironically, is horribly demeaning towards women.

 

[Agapooka]

I don't see it as sinister. I think cultural conformity is more of a survival tactic. Too many outliers in the group can cause the group to weaken... and power of the group is lost. We need to band together to keep safe...fed...attend to little ones.

Actually, the idea of culture as an IDENTITY is fairly new, dating back only a few hundred years.

Religious identity is older, though.

Interestingly, various tribal systems still in existence seem to have entirely different conceptions concerning this, yet you'd think that group unity and the goal of survival is more particular to them.

Heh.


Agapooka

 

[sweetea]

I doubt that women "want" to wear it so much as they feel that they have to, considering their specific situation ...

Same could be said for underwire bras, platform sandals, 3" inch heels, nylons, thong undies, corsets, tight jeans, skirts in winter...blah blah blah...

 

[sweetea]

Actually, the idea of culture as an IDENTITY is fairly new, dating back only a few hundred years.

Eh. Sounds like someones thesis statement has taken hold of the modern theorists.

People don't change all that much.

 

[sweetea]

It's not like we're arguing about Hasidic Jews wanting to keep their beards in the workplace, a benign practice.. In that case, who cares? Let them and hooray multiculturalism!

I'd be careful with this statement. Orthodox Jews are required to keep to certain dress codes. Women too.

So are the Amish and Mennonite women....living right here in the US. I think we should ban prairie skirts...offensive things really... and quite frankly demeaning to those women. We should educate them.

 

[Agapooka]

People didn't change so much as the situation changed.

It seems people identify with something if they take part in it.

Nations were run by an elite quite overtly until people created republics. After republics, the populace at least believed that they were part of the process. In a way, feeling attached to the land gave rise to the misconception that the people who live in it (should) all act in the same way, eat the same way, follow similar dress codes, etc. It created the illusion of unity through separation from everything else.

One separates oneself from everyone else to then reunite themselves with a synthetic ideology.

Many forms of racism stem from this ideology.

And tolerance... tolerance is just passive dislike.

I wish to understand, not dislike passively.


Agapooka

 

[acd]

I'd be careful with this statement. Orthodox Jews are required to keep to certain dress codes. Women too.

So are the Amish and Mennonite women....living right here in the US. I think we should ban prairie skirts...offensive things really... and quite frankly demeaning to those women. We should educate them.

Go and re-read the post in context.

 

[Norton]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SReDcW0fokE&feature=related"]The taste of multiculturalism[/ame]

 

[Norton]

I just don't get why some people have a problem with what someone else is wearing, it doesn't make sense to me at all.

Because I, and many others, find it offensive when someone won't show his or her face. What could be more unfriendly or hostile than hiding one's face? Maybe it's a peculiarity of western culture, but I'm a Westerner and I live in the West. Yet, I've traveled extensively all over the world and, as a traveler, I try my best not to offend. I expect the same when foreigners choose to live in my country.

 

[Oranguh]

The taste of multiculturalism

He's only attacking his version of how he sees multiculturalism being executed. The very foundations of multiculturalism still stand firm. If I may, I will make my stand to prove the contrary. I do not think about the things that this person in this video is so awkwardly frustrated about. Traditions and culture being changed?! Oh the inhumanity! How could this ever happen? I have many friends that adhere to the "Islam". One prays 5 times a day. An other is extremely lax and drinks alcohol. All quite intelligent and most likely going to study at the university in the future. Nonetheless, they're all diverse, human and benefactors to the definition of the "Islam".
It's easy to dehumanize and generalize. But the core to social problems and the disintegration of cohesion are sometimes not as straight forward and simple as they seem. Yes, the problem probably lies in poor execution of the attaining of multiculturalism. But that does not discredit multiculturalism, perhaps it's more of a chance to learn from the mistakes.

The most disturbing part of this whole video in my opinion is how this person sees "Islam" as some kind of naughty entity... Whereas in my opinion it is not. It's the people that create these ideas. Not the ideas that create the people. There are huge diversities to people that help contribute to the idea of Islam. They should be addressed on a more personal level, not generalized and even perhaps dehumanized in this fashion. I mean really.

Because I, and many others, find it offensive when someone won't show his or her face. What could be more unfriendly or hostile than hiding one's face? Maybe it's a peculiarity of western culture, but I'm a Westerner and I live in the West. Yet, I've travelled extensively all over the world and, as a traveller, I try my best not to offend. I expect the same when foreigners choose to live in my country.

Because I, and many others, find it offensive when someone insists that they adhere to certain ways of life that that are purely subjective in ethical value. What could be more unfriendly or hostile than imposing value degrading regulations on others? Maybe it's a peculiarity of western culture, but I'm a westerner and I live in the West. Yet, I am a citizen of the world. As a citizen of the world I try strive to attain harmony. I realize that under everyone's actions there lies a zest to do what they believe is best for them and the world, that is noble and perhaps even the definition of what it means to be human.

 

[slant]

Two wrongs don't make a right. Taking away people's religious freedoms to prevent a perceived crime against them doesn't make it right.

That being said I pause to wonder why we are even debating this. In my country, The United States, religious freedom is protected. If such displays were to be banned it would be a major civil rights issue and eventually a case would work itself up to the supreme court where the law would be deemed unconstitutional.

I don't know enough about France's political system. Are any of you even French? If you are, on your education of your legal system, is this sort of banning against the law? If it's not, then it's sad for the French people, but the people who live there can just move to a country which understands and identifies religious rights better than France. Or they can protest [if that's legal there] in order to get that law repealed. France is a really strange country. Unlike America they plan their dictionaries and they replaced the word e-mail, blog and post box to replace them with the word 'courriel' which now represents email, 'bloc' which now represents blog, and 'boite aux letters' which now represnts post box. I wouldn't be hesitant to say that if this is a country which actually bans words- which they do- then it's almost expected for them to try to control people's religious rights. Also you have to take into account that Roman Catholicism has been dominant in this country for a long-arsed time and they have slowly been swamped by Islam after about World War II when they all started moving there. Though France claims to be a secular country they are very embedded in their culture's 'Christian' identity much like the United States is, and it's been distressing for a number of people to see Islam so rapidly taking over.

In case some of you were not aware, France has a concept called La

 

[slant]

I don't mean double post but I forgot to mention that the 2004 ban has been deemed extremely Islamophobic and it prompted a study called "Are French Muslims Discriminated Against In Their Own Country?" that was released in 2010. You can find the study here.

Unfortunately it's only available in French.

If you use google translate here is a couple of quotes from the study:

The objective of this study is
disambiguate. We compare this to the economic integration of French
Muslims and Christians from the same country: Senegal. Our results uncover
considerable discrimination against Muslims. A Test CV reveals indeed
that they are 2.5 times less likely to get a job interview that their
Christian counterparts. A survey also shows that Muslims have an income
monthly 400 euros less than the average Christian. It is possible that this
income difference is partly explained by the employment discrimination suffered by
Muslims.

II. The economic integration of French Muslims of immigrant origin:
operational testing on a CV
1. The testing on CV: definition
The testing on CV measures the degree of discrimination in hiring
based on particular characteristics such as gender, age, family name, race or
religion. The testing on the CV is the most widespread testing in pairs. It is to send in
response to an offer of employment, two CV whose contents differ significantly from
one and only one characteristic and comparing the response rates associated with each positive
application, that is to say, the call rate to a job interview. If one of
candidates for this fictional pair created by the experimenter gets a positive response rate
lower than the other, then we can attribute this difference in treatment with single
What distinguishes them.

and

If the testing goes on VC in the early 1970's
8
The number of investigations
use it to measure discrimination against candidates of immigrant background on the
French labor market is still quite limited (see especially Amadieu (2004); C

 

[myself]

smells of weird logic in here

personally, i admit to being very discriminatory

i don't eat rotten food, i don't drink dirty water

if a man beats his wife because he is angry at himself and the world, i will not praise him for expressing his humanity...

if a man uses violence and fear to manipulate others, i will not respect him or his values

based on my instincts alone, i feel that the burka is a tool of oppression

im not a fan of such technology

ban the silly things!

 

[Peppermint]

No. Wearing a burka is just one of many instruments of their oppression.

Did you notice how few women protested in Tahrir Square? Perhaps they knew something Lara Logan didn't.



Let's try an experiment. Let's substitute a few words in your bolded statement.

Forcing away the right to mutilate a girl's genitalia is just as bad as mutilating a girl's genitalia.

or

Forcing away the right to stone an adulterer is just as bad as stoning an adulterer.

or

Forcing away the right to chop off a thieve's hand is just as bad as chopping off a thieve's hand.

I do not like this argument. You've taken a part of Arsal's statement, which had a specific scope, tore it out of that context and put in an entirely new context.

What is wrong if a woman wants to undergo clitoris removal? Gential mutiliation is bad right? What about routine circumcision? What about legal AND horrifying genital piercings people can have in the West? A woman can have a rod inserted through her clitoris, as well as a men can do the same with his penis.

It's because they're informed about it I see, never mind we could argue, one would not be in their right mind to do something like that, yet it's perfectly fine for them to do it, because they are "free thinking" Westerners, right?

Now that's a notion I find hilarious. They are no more "free thinkers" than the people who trust anything with the words "science" stamped on it are "scientifically minded". Westerners are no more critically minded on average, the "free thinking" is in itself a cultural value.

In conclusion, lets just keep attire choices separate from bodily injuries and mutilations. They obviously have different consequences. Even if the burka is a symbol of oppression it is no where near amputation in terms of practical consequence for the individual.

 

[dream echo]

The burka seems to have become a symbol for everything westerners fear and loathe about Muslim communities, which includes FGM. But banning symbols doesn't fix the problem; it merely serves to widen the divide further.

 

[surrender]

.

 

[sweetea]

The burka seems to have become a symbol for everything westerners fear and loathe about Muslim communities, which includes FGM. But banning symbols doesn't fix the problem; it merely serves to widen the divide further.

Exactly... it's not a well thought out plan.

 

[Agapooka]

In addressing the notion of free thinking, I find it interesting to note that one has the right to practise their beliefs if these beliefs can be linked to a larger institution (e.g. Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, etc.), but one cannot as easily claim their freedom of beliefs to justify their actions if these beliefs are the result of their own thinking and are not bound to a larger institution.

"It is against my beliefs to submit a document, the wording of which I do not fully comprehend." is a perfectly logical response to being told that one is obligated to file a tax report. In my case, it's true.

So? Where does the right to personal belief come in if that belief is discriminated against on a basis of whether or not it conforms to a broader label?

Should it be illegal to conform to a broader label if that conclusion is not based entirely on one's own thinking? XD I'd rather not think about the violence that would ensue, but it's interesting to note this discrepancy.


Agapooka