Women in face veils detained as France enforces ban

[Gerald]

At least two women have been detained in France while wearing Islamic veils across their faces, after a law banning the garment in public came into force.

Police said they were held not because of their veils but for joining an unauthorised protest against the ban.

France is the first country in Europe to publicly ban a form of dress some Muslims regard as a religious duty.

Anyone caught breaking the law will be liable to a fine of 150 euros (£133; $217) and a citizenship course.

People forcing women to wear the veil face a much larger fine and a prison sentence of up to two years.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-13031397


Note: 11 April 2011 Last updated at 11:08 GMT

[STEED]

VIVA FRANCE.

[Onkel Neal]

Go, France, go.

[Reece]

Good on em, at least one country has the balls to put their foot down!

[Tchocky]

This will certainly help everyone get along.

[Betonov]

I'm not alowed to wear a costume that covers my face or even wear sunglases in some forms of establishments. Even just having my gas tank filled requires me to show my face completely (hats are allowed of course). Why?? Because of safety reasons. Not because the goverment is betonophobic. Ordinary non-muslim french women are also prohibited from covering their faces, that's not islamophobia, that's the law.
This is my argument, but because subsim is in short supply of extreme liberal hippies and fundamental muslims, my argument is not an argument but only a statement.

[Feuer Frei!]

And here comes the 'curve ball' (in baseball terms):
Some of these reasons are valid and they would show that the French Government is indeed behaving correctly, if true. However, when one examines these reasons, they fall apart, and reveal something else entirely.

1) “Ban the Niqaab for security”

The idea here is that identification of faces is necessary for the safety of a people to be ensured. This is a valid idea, but limited to certain areas. For example, a country has a right to demand that Muslimahs (Muslimah = Muslim woman) who wear the Niqaab, show their faces in passport photos. The supposed problem is that this conflicts with the fact that a Muslimah is wearing the Niqaab for religious reasons; but in actual fact, the Niqaab is only worn so that males (who have reached puberty) cannot see the face of a Muslimah. The solution here is simple: only females in the security teams of, say, airports have the right to see the passport photo of a Muslim with her face uncovered, and demand the Muslimah unveil her face in an enclosed area (i.e. not visible to the public or others). So here, a supposed problem has actually been simply resolved.
When it comes to minor issues of security, such as walking in the street or using public transport or going to hospitals, then it would be illogical to ban the Niqaab on the basis of security:

The first idea here is that it is necessary to see one’s face so that one identify the person. However this idea is not valid. A person with the intention to harm others in a public place can easily change his or her appearance. For example, growing a beard and moustache, dying your hair, getting a haircut (or shaving it all off) and changing your hairstyle, and many other methods, are all very effective means of changing your appearance to such an extent that you are no longer recognised. In-fact, the mentioned methods are so simply that anyone could do that. So clearly it is unimportant whether one’s face is shown or not when it comes to safety in common public places, for if someone really wanted to cause harm to the people present, then one could easily change their appearance. In-fact, it is not even necessary to hide one’s identity, by changing the appearance or covering the face, for a person could go ahead and cause harm to the people present, regardless of whatever may happen to him or her. Indeed, will a suicide bomber even care if his face is exposed, since he will also be killed?
The second idea is that when a Muslimah wears a Niqaab and loose-fitting outer garments, she can conceal weapons, and this represents a risk to public safety. On the contrary, anyone, be they Muslim or not, man or woman, could conceal weapons, even if they were wearing tight-clothing. If the ban on Niqaab was truly on the basis of security, then a ban would also be set on carrying knives (in most circumstances). The fact that no discussion has been held on this issue and no ban on Sikhs carrying knives has been suggested shows that the motive behind the ban on the Niqaab is not really about safety.


2) “Ban the Niqaab so Muslim women have a choice and aren’t forced into wearing it”

This supposed reason is very ironic. However, the first issue to consider is the claim that “Muslim women are forced into wearing the Niqaab”. This myth is often propagated, and often, if never, has evidence to back it up. It would only be necessary to help women being forced to wear the Niqaab if they were actually being forced to wear it. This is only logical.
Also, the fact that only about 0.038% of the Muslim population is actually wearing Niqaab, shows that the Muslim males are not forcing Muslim women to wear Niqaab; for if they were, then the percentage of those who wear Niqaab would be very high or at least significant, whereas the opposite is the case. Clearly then there is no oppression of Muslim women in France.

3) “Ban the Niqaab because it itself is oppressive”

The funny thing is that many people who claim this can’t actually specifically explain how a Muslim woman who chooses to wear the Niqaab is somehow being oppressed by a piece of cloth. In Islam, the Niqaab is recommended to be worn as even greater act of modesty. By wearing it, it is practically impossible for a man to “rate” or judge a woman by her body. Indeed, it is interesting to see that the majority who helping or supporting the ban, who supposedly care enough about the Muslim women to not want them to be oppressed by wearing a face-veil, are actually men. It is impossible to rationalise how choosing to be very modest is somehow oppressive. How on earth is a female not wanting men to judge her by looks being oppressed? How is this somehow an insult to gender equality?
Indeed, it is hypocritical to say this when in France women are allowed to walk around in miniskirts and very low-cut tops, nearly naked. Is gender equality being helped here?

4) “Ban the Niqaab because it promotes extremism”

There is no logical connection between a woman choosing to wear a Niqaab and extremism rising. It is simply that Muslim extremists tend to be from the few countries which order all women to wear Niqaab; there is no other connection. How will a Muslim woman wearing Niqaab out of great piety and out of wanting to be modest, somehow promote extremism?
By effectively banning the Niqaab in France, French Muslims and other Muslims will increasingly have feelings of dislike towards the French Government and France in general, and some of them will move to do the opposite of this ban. I.e. some will defend it, and a few will even start to wear it. The irony is that this ban will anger the extremists and increase their hatred of the West in general, and France specifically, and so increase the risk of an extremist attack in France. So much for public safety or preventing extremism! It will also increase Islamophobia.


5) “Ban the Niqaab in the interests of secularism”

This is part of the only real reason for the ban of the Niqaab. Another part of the reason is Islamophobia. France, after having been oppressed by the Church for a few centuries, is now paranoid of religion. It is disturbing for it to see increasing numbers of French people, whether they are of French origin or immigrant descent, become religious. The headscarf and Niqaab are seen as symbols of religion (even though the former is an obligation), and so there are attempts to ‘squash’ them. And so the French Government has taken away women’s choice to wear them in the name of protecting women’s rights. The ban is nothing more than a thinly disguised attack on Muslims practising their religion and Islam itself.

Not my words, but certainly something to think about.

[mookiemookie]

I used to work in a bank. Anytime someone came in wearing sunglasses, or had a hood on a hooded sweatshirt up, we asked them to take them off, as it made us very very nervous.

Just throwin that out there.

[Feuer Frei!]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

I used to work in a bank. Anytime someone came in wearing sunglasses, or had a hood on a hooded sweatshirt up, we asked them to take them off, as it made us very very nervous.

Just throwin that out there.

As far as i'm aware, and correct me if i am wrong but here in Australia, it is law that you must remove helmets, head coverings, anything that covers your head, face and or both in banks and Credit Unions, money holding institutions and the like.

I used to work in a bank. Anytime someone came in wearing sunglasses, or had a hood on a hooded sweatshirt up, we asked them to take them off, as it made us very very nervous.

But could you ask them to remove their sunglasses if they was walking down the street?

I'm not alowed to wear a costume that covers my face or even wear sunglases in some forms of establishments.

But are you in other establishments or on the street?

Silly reactionary moves to ban something that less than 2000 women wear

[Gerald]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

But could you ask them to remove their sunglasses if they was walking down the street?


But are you in other establishments or on the street?

Silly reactionary moves to ban something that less than 2000 women wear

Out of five million Muslims in France, do you think the figure is around 2000 on women?

I don't think this is about banks however, I think this is about just walking around in public and I don't think the entirety of France is just a big bank? (I thought that was Switzerland)

Personally its just a clothing item, if they want to walk down the street wearing it then let them. If walking around in a face veil or turban makes you a Muslim Extremist then obviously I am Communist because I walk around wearing a Ushanka during the winter months.

Out of five million Muslims in France, do you think the figure is around 2000 on women?

That is the higher figure that is most frequently put out, which is of course far higher than the few hundred in Holland or the few dozen in Belgium.

[gimpy117]

Personally, I think even though France is skirting a fine line here I like their idea. It is a symbol of oppression for women, a way of objectifying and treating them like property.

also, it is something to do with security for sure. Disguising yourself properly is much harder than just putting on a mask.

plus, it's France not the middle east...things are different there.

[MH]

There is no problem in practicing Islam without burka.
France as a country has a right to make itself less attractive for nuts.