France’s Big Step Backward
Tweet
Amazingly stupid.
The French government decided Wednesday to impose a $185 fine on women who wear a full-face Islamic veil in public, pushing ahead with a controversial ban despite signs of tension between France’s Muslims and the Christian-tradition majority.
President Nicolas Sarkozy said his government was forwarding the legislation to parliament because it had a ‘moral responsibility’ to uphold traditional European values in the face of an increasingly visible Muslim population, estimated at more than 5 million, the largest in Western Europe. He called the course chosen by his government ‘demanding’ but ‘just,’ and he insisted that the law was not intended to stigmatize the country’s Muslims.
I love that I live in a country where this sort of law is clearly against the rules in an unambiguous sort of way:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
61 Responses to “France’s Big Step Backward”
GOP Rep. Spencer Bachus Facing House Ethics Probe For Insider Trading
Jennifer Aniston Reportedly Pregnant With Twins
PHOTOS: Tamara Ecclestone At The Langham Hotel
Red Front? “Center For American Freedom” Logo Echoes Communist Style
Romney Calls For Defunding Planned Parenthood, Wife Was A Donor
GOP Fundraising Email Asks Supporters To “Knock Out” Obama
Romney Comes Up Limp In Nevada
Obama Opens Lead On Romney In New Poll
Latest Entries
Why Do Liberals Support Drone Strikes?
Weekly Standard Rolls Out The Iraq Argument For Iran
Equal Polarization, My Ass
Some Crazy Stuff That Happened In World War II
Maryland Republican Campaign Funds Used To Defend Voter Suppression
The Obama Jobs Record In One Graph
Martin O’Malley All In For Marriage Equality
Newt Gingrich, Filled With More Excrement Than Your Average Politician
New Year, Powerline Still Stupid
Thanks Again
Meta
Blogroll
Disclaimer
The views on this site are mine and mine alone, and do not reflect the views of my employer, Media Matters for America
© 2000-2011 Oliver Willis
I honestly do not understand France’s fear of Muslim women’s attire.
I love how France is now so concerned about preserving “European values” in the face of a growing Muslim population. Yet they fought so hard for so long to keep Algeria, Morocco and Tunisia in the “French Union.”
C’est karma.
Can men wear an Islamic veil? Quote says only women.
And what about wearing it as a costume. When I visit France, I’ll buy one and wear it, see what they say.
“Mark Williams is my favorite blogger”-Sarkozy
It’s not always about religious freedom, Oliver. Would you want to protect the freedom of a church that said women had to be beaten? How about spit upon? Or just publicly ridiculed? Women are free in this country. That’s protected by the Constitution, too.
Not saying I have an easy solution, but it doesn’t seem as simple as you say. It IS subjugation – which goes against our constitution -and it is not always voluntary.
If wearing a veil is voluntary, it’s not subjugation. If it’s involuntary, all the state has a moral right to do is protect women who refuse to wear it, and punish whoever tries to force them to.
I try to be careful about transposing American values into other nations. And I can see why you’d want restrictions on veils for, say, a driver’s license photo. But an outright ban and fines is just going too far, IMO.
I wish people,such as LT,would keep their asinine contentions to themselves.
Choosing to wear the veil,just as a nun chooses to wear a ‘habit’, is not subjugation.
Muslim women are not animals who need to be protected by the West or the East – we are free to do as we like and will go against any system which attempts to strip us from this inherent truth (ex. Recently a woman in Saudi Arabia beat one member of the monarchical pigs ‘Morality Police’ after he attempted to harm her).
“Would you want to protect the freedom of a church that said women had to be beaten? How about spit upon? Or just publicly ridiculed? Women are free in this country. That’s protected by the Constitution, too.”
You are making an invalid,blatantly idiotic statement here. If we do not choose to dress as others this means we are being subjugated and oppressed? Are you bloody joking or is your world simply that small?
Muslim women can defend themselves and anyone who opens their mouth in defense of us needs to double-check what blatant idiocy they have in mind before they spout it.
How about clitoredictomy, should a western country allow that based on religious freedoms? I think not. Same goes with the vestments of repression. Freedom fries indeed.
@CanadianBacon
Apparently culture and religion are one and the same for those who refuse to study either.
No where in the Qur’an does it permit such atrocious behavior and to compare this with a woman choosing to wear the Hijab/Burqa/Niqab et al is fallacious.
LT: Would you want to protect the freedom of a church that said women had to be beaten?
Yes. Absolutely. The freedom of members of such a church to believe what they want should be sacrosanct. Their freedom to express those views in speech should (largely * ) be protected. However, they should not be allowed to actually beat someone. That would be illegal under already existing laws that forbid assaults.
( * OK, I am gonna back away from that “absolutely” and muddy the waters just a bit to say that their speech can be limited to the extent that they actually call for violence. But the point remains, you should not legislate against what people believe, only against what they do. And then only to the extent that what they do is harmful to an unwilling participant.)
What if the woman wants the clitoredictomy? (Yeah, I can’t imagine why one would, but I’m following up on your hypothetical.) Should she be forbidden from doing so because someone else believes it’s a sign of oppression?
I’d agree she shouldn’t be forced to have one against her will, but what if it’s something she chooses to do? Override her right to self expression and control of her own body because someone else finds it bothersome?
How do you define “she shouldn’t be forced to have one against her will?” That’s the real question. Cultural norms coax us to do many things, some terrible, that we believe we carry out with the freedom of choice.
There is a HUGE difference between a surgical procedure and wearing clothes, no matter if the motivation behind each is repressive.
I’m completely opposed to the practice of female circumcision but should France also pass a law banning male circumcision, a surgical procedure that is also based in religious tradition?
At the same time, shouldn’t France also ban the use of wigs and other hair coverings by Orthodox Jewish married women?
Or how about Mormon underwear?
The bottom line is that all of these practices are rooted in subjugation, first and foremost, a subjugation to God.
To the extent that they are voluntary, the state should have little to say in their practice, beyond ensuring the health and safety of its citizens.
In the case of female circumcision, there is ample evidence that procedure itself poses greatly increased health risks to the girls that undergo it and so it should be illegal for that reason alone.
It would not be appropriate, however to ban it because you don’t like its cultural/religious implications because you would then have to justify why you are not banning bris.
Wearing a veil, as far as I know, poses no immediate physical danger to women who wear them, so it’s radically different from female circumcision.
France is banning veils for strictly cultural reasons. So why not ban Orthodox Jewish head coverings or Mormon underwear, both of which are signs of subjugation before god and religious authority?
canadian bacon: How do you define “she shouldn’t be forced to have one against her will?”
I’m not sure. Especially if you’re going to bring in following cultural norms as an example of one being “forced against their will” to do something. By that standard, only sociopaths are likely to be truly exercising free will.
It’s obviously a difficult call to make. I’d say it really comes down to letting the person claim they’re being oppressed. You make every avenue reasonable available to them to get out of a bad situation (when domestic violence is reported to police the accused offender WILL be removed from the scene so the victim can be spoken with in a safer environment, for example) but ultimately people are responsible for their own lives and decisions. And if they say they want to wear a veil (or be circumcised or return to their abuser) then you have to let them, no matter what you think would be better for them.
Yeah. Wearing a veil is totally the same as physical abuse.
WTF.
It’s not the same – but subjugation of women, a very real thing, as you know, and one that happened in this country legally for a very long time, *is* a form of abuse. is your argument that only physical abuse counts? We know it doesn’t, so it makes your statement pretty weak.
And what about freedom, simply? What if you were told you had to be covered head to toe every day of your adult life? Honeslty – what if you were? Would you be so blase about this?
In modern American society, many women (and increasingly men) choose to mutilate themselves for fashion. There aren’t a lot of women in America who don’t have at least a couple of holes punched in their body somewhere.
I dated a girl who was almost 30 and had never had so much as an ear pierced in her entire life. To her, the idea of letting somebody punch a hole in her so she could mount jewelry on her body was absolutely insane. I totally agreed with her and found her to be far more of an individual and rebel than all these little girls trying to prove something by punching holes through the most intense concentrations of nerve endings they could find on their bodies.
So should we make piercing illegal? Makes sense to me. But I’m sure the overwhelming majority of women in America would disagree, and resent having the choice taken away from them. And I’m sure the girl I dated would disagree along with them. She was proud of the choice she made, which wouldn’t be possible if she’d never had the choice.
No, that’s not the real question. You’re actually skirting the real question. The real question is why should we let the government decide whether adherence to a religious custom is voluntary or “forced” based on vague ideas about cultural norms or peer pressure.
For adults, we assume they’ve made a choice of their own volition unless there is an argument that illegal pressures, physical or mental, have been applied. Then the question becomes the truth of such claims of illegal pressure and the possible criminal conduct involved, not the choice itself. That’s the way it should be.
Who’s being blase? Truth to tell, I can’t follow your point. You seem to be arguing for freedom (?) but you’re in favor of a law that people can’t wear what they choose?
Quite so. I almost used the tattoo or pierced navel example in my previous post.
Someone wants to get a tattoo? Their choice. It shouldn’t be illegal.
Someone wants to wear a veil? Their choice. It shouldn’t be illegal.
I find it a little but unsettling when a person is in a store, out in public, etc with something completely hiding their face. Burglars and robbers do this when they rob homes or banks. The veil being banned in public is not only a stand against muslim oppression of women, but it is a common sense safety issue. Really…….who in their right fucking mind walks around in public in a disguise, regardless of religion???
In many states there are anti klan laws that prohibit the wearing of any mask, viel etc that hides the identity of the person.
These laws were passed for obvious reasons to strip the anounmity of scum who were intimidating and terrorizing any who disagreed with them.
How can one differiantiate why a mask, veil or is being worn?
Many in the klan maintained that the hood was a “religious” accroutement. This didn’t hold water so how does one write a law that allows different standards to be applied depending upon a supposedly relevent difference in motivation?
No face masks, no full veils, no hoods.
Why do you hide your face?
Extreme examples of religious oppression need to be stricken from the public square.
In our society, the Bible was interpreted (correctly*) to keep Blacks (and others) in slavery. *(There’s no way you can be a fundamentalist reader of the Bible and make a RELIGIOUS argument against slavery).
Anti-slavery law is a prime example that you are NOT FREE to practice your religion in the US if you still embrace slavery. Nor are you allowed the liberty of sacrificing virgins anymore. I’m sure you’re happy with our government limiting religious freedoms in those cases.
Western society has no obligation to respect or promote bronze age superstitions that overtly discriminate against any citizen. Muslim misogyny isn’t any more ‘sacred’ than Christian slavery.
In a culture where Dad’s often kill their daughters when the daughter is raped (and with broad community support I might add) any discussion of female ‘free will’ in regard to their choice of apparel is laughable.
Enjoy.
The real question is why should we let the government decide whether adherence to a religious custom is voluntary or “forced” based on vague ideas about cultural norms or peer pressure.
———-
Will no one rid me of this troublesome priest?
Enjoy.
Thank you for saving me the trouble of arguing on behalf of the public safety of infidels. Spot on.
Enjoy.
The freedom to wear what they want? Tell that to the women forced to wear the burqa. Are there many that choose to do it? sure. Makes no difference.
Say it as loud and offensively as you like, it doesn’t change a thing. Men decided to put women in burqas. Not women. At it’s onset it was subjugation, pure and simple and very obvious. That you now accept it – the way many Christians accept the subjugation of women that originates in true, obvious subjugation by men long ago – doesn’t change that.
LT, the same could be said of any religious tradition and a lot of cultural practices: They were established by men to the benefit of men. If you want to ban every cultural practice or stricture rooted in the subjugation of women, you start writing those letters to your legislator. You’ve got your work cut out for you.
The bottom line though is that many, many women do choose to wear veils etc. for cultural and religious reasons.
Do you have the same problem with Orthodox Judaism, which prescribes a whole set of codes and behaviors for women that are different from men, but which were established by men, including the requirement that married Orthodox women must cover their hair with a wig or a scarf?
Shorter LOL!: I’m scared of people that are different.
Other than one side being political and the other having something to do with religion, I don’t see how a power struggle between Henry and Becket relates to this situation.
LOL: I find it a little but unsettling when a person is in a store, out in public, etc with something completely hiding their face. Burglars and robbers do this when they rob homes or banks. The veil being banned in public is not only a stand against muslim oppression of women, but it is a common sense safety issue. Really…….who in their right fucking mind walks around in public in a disguise, regardless of religion???
So you’re in favor of banning not just the veils, but also the whole-body-covering burqa, abayas, jilbābs and thawbs. Who knows what they may have hidden under there?!
Also, winter jackets (who knows what’s hiding under that bulk), overcoats (long enough to hide all manner of rifles), Hallowe’en costumes (walking around in public in disguise! OMG!!), cars (they’ve been known to carry bombs), etc.
Plus shoes and underwear. Don’t forget those. If we’re to ban veils and face coverings for everyone “Burglars and robbers do this when they rob homes or banks”, then we’d better ban shoes and underwear because terrorists have done this when they’ve carried bombs.
Right?
Anti-slavery law is a prime example that you are NOT FREE to practice your religion in the US if you still embrace slavery.
Let’s be clear here. If your religion embraces slavery (or bigamy or drug use (peyote) or any number of illegal activities) that alone does not mean you’re not free to practice your religion. Only where a person actually acts on those beliefs, and therefore violates a criminal statute, does their freedom to practice a religion get curtailed. And then only for that particular part of it.
Why do Jews cover their heads?
Why do Christians put ash on their foreheads?
Why do brides wear white?
Got problems with any of those?
LT: Makes no difference.
No difference between a someone being forced to do something and someone doing it by choice?
Nope, your logic is still not making any sense.
I do have the same problem with them, although I think it’s fair to measure extremes.
Look – I said in my first comment that I don’t have an easy solution, or any solution. I’m just pointing out that it’s not as clearly wrong to propose banning something simply because it’s based in religion as some make it out to be.
It is my understanding that the French view this lowering the profile of Muslims. This is simply an act against the arrival of (what they view as) too many Muslims in France.
Is it right? No
Is it legal in France? It may turn out that it is not.
But the people of Europe are beginning to fear the outcome of their lenient immigration / guest worker laws. They are waking up.
“Islam is the second religion in France by number of worshippers, totaling about 6% of the national population.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_France
Fear. Always a good basis for public policy.
Nobody in America remembers the battle at Poitiers
You have got to be fucking kidding.
Battle of Tours
Later Christian chroniclers and pre-20th century historians praised Charles Martel as the champion of Christianity, characterizing the battle as the decisive turning point in the struggle against Islam, a struggle which preserved Christianity as the religion of Europe; according to modern military historian Victor Davis Hanson, “most of the 18th and 19th century historians, like Gibbon, saw Poitiers (Tours), as a landmark battle that marked the high tide of the Muslim advance into Europe.”[9] Leopold von Ranke felt that “Poitiers was the turning point of one of the most important epochs in the history of the world.”[10]
Modern historians, by contrast, are divided over the battle’s importance, and considerable disagreement exists as to whether or not the victory was responsible — as Gibbon and his generation of historians claimed, and which is echoed by many modern historians — for saving Christianity and halting the conquest of Europe by Islam. However, there is little dispute that the battle helped lay the foundations of the Carolingian Empire and Frankish domination of Europe for the next century; most historians agree that “The establishment of Frankish power in western Europe shaped that continent’s destiny and the Battle of Tours confirmed that power.”[11]
Yes, we’re in a similar situation where we face forces similar in resources and technology to our own.
Or not.
Frank DiS: But the people of Europe are beginning to fear the outcome of their lenient immigration / guest worker laws. They are waking up.
And responding to the situation by oppressing the immigrants?
Frank DiS: It is my understanding that the French view this lowering the profile of Muslims.
And why is that necessary? Why make them less visible? Is France ashamed to have them and feels some need to hide them away like some red-headed stepchild?
The reason why there is a controversy is because there are two sides – as in one side, and another.
I was not pointing to the significance of Poitiers for historians, but, rather, for the French. I remember hearing, years ago, a quote from a Muslim in London,”We may have won the Battle of Vienna.”
Oh, and D A , I read that* before I posted the comment, but thanks.
* Believe it or not, my browser accesses WikiPedia, too. I just don’t rely on THAT collection of links, when my browser with the Surf Canyon add on, finds them all, without their help.
Oh, and fafaroo: Excellent rejoinder: Well thought out, well constructed, well documented. Someday you and I should chat about what it means to be a Friend of Bill’s – if you even know what that is.
It’s about as well thought and well constructed as arguing that lingering resentment over a battle fought in the 700s is a justification for public policy in the 21st century.
I suppose the Arizona immigration law is okay because of the Alamo.
What’s amazing is that you’re not even arguing that the actual historical facts matter here.
What you’re arguing is that popular misconceptions of the battle’s significance combined with contemporary fears of cultural difference justify public policies aimed directly at 6 percent of the French population.
You say that the law is wrong and then you make the case that it’s being driven solely by irrationality, misconceptions and fear. I couldn’t agree more.
But then you go one to write something like this:
Frank, if you believe that the law is wrong and motivated by irrationality, misconceptions and fear what are the French waking up from if that’s what they’re waking up to?
Can you untangle any of this “well thought out” and “well constructed” line of argument, Frank?
Believe it or not, my browser accesses WikiPedia, too. I just don’t rely on THAT collection of links, when my browser with the Surf Canyon add on, finds them all, without their help.
Yes, well I use Mozilla Firefox with a search bar that allows me to use a variety of search engines, Search Canyon does the old “recommendations based on your searches”.
And BTW, you can see that I used a number of sources on the thread about financial services reform passing the Senate yesterday, I merely
used Google to locate the information I neede but
Nice crack to make it sound like I only depend on the Wiki for a resource, I suppose you wouldn’t know how to use Google aside from searching the Fox News website if your life depended on it.
Sunglasses. Scarves. Sombreros.
And what’s the deal with makeup? Why are women applying pigments to their faces, trying to hide their true appearance? Why the disguise? What are they up to?
I suppose you wouldn’t know how to use Google aside from searching the Fox News website if your life depended on it.
I receive an email from the co-author of the Google Pocket Guide five days a week. I don’t suppose you know her name; I have corresponded with her personally on several occasions. I have been using Google since it was a College project. I will match my skills with Google with yours any day of the week.
I receive an email from the co-author of the Google Pocket Guide five days a week. I don’t suppose you know her name; I have corresponded with her personally on several occasions.
And she took a long, cleansing, purifying bath after each occasion.
I will match my skills with Google with yours any day of the week.
Look up the latest research on high-fructose syrup and animal experiments involving members of the Order Rodentia, the species in question is usually used to fill the blank in the expression “lab- “.
Knock yourself out Tiger!
It took me about a minute to discover that high fructose sugars makes lab rats fat. Was there some other amazing data I was supposed to find?
Here’s a challenge: Find two Revolutionary War battles fought within 20 miles of my home. Are you honest enough to tell me how long it took ?
Yes, discuss the significance of weight gain on high fructose syrup vs. no gain on sucrose, and what is the scientific name for lab rats.
Are you honest enough to tell me how long it took ?
It’s not a matter of honesty, Olivers ISP log should show when I hit the main page a few minutes ago, along when I landed on this page and of course when this comment was posted.
It was only 20 seconds, it was the X of the first 10 choices from Google, and if I told you my search parameters I’d have to kill myself and then you.
Does this answer your question?:
I have fulfilled your demand, I merely can’t tell which of the battles mentioned are 20 miles or closer
Now, here’s one for you: The town I was born in is w
est of the Mississippi River and it is also the location of the westernmost point of banditry in service of the Confederacy on the North American continent.
Where was I born?
Major Sherod Hunter, an Arizona Confederate who had commanded the Confederate force which occupied Tucson in the Spring of 1862 and fought the westernmost battle of the war at Picacho Pass, April 15, 1862.
I found Long Island, Harlem Heights,and White Plains in three minutes …
So you didn’t do it …
And I’ll be glad to tell you how in an email fd10801@gmail.com
Or should I tell you how in a comment on your hate blog?
Or better yet on a new blog I could make up in 10 minutes called ISchooledTheDarkAvengerInGoogle”?
So you didn’t do it
Actually, I believe I did, from my link:
See, Frank, they are all there in my link, so technically, I met your first challenge.
Too bad you couldn’t meet mine:
Remember my challenge?:
it is also the location of the westernmost point of banditry in service of the Confederacy on the North American continent.
Not the westernmost battle, the westernmost point of banditry. There is a difference.
Thanks for playing!
I did make a new blog post about the above, Frank, you can find it here.
a) You did not find the answer : You accidentally found a page that happened to contain the answer. So you didn’t do it.
b) Your question was trick question, not a challenge to searching skills. You might as well have given me a “brain teaser”, for the irrelevance of Google in finding the answer.
In this contest you were the loser – and you are a loser.
I have no interest in your jejune blog, or any of your other sophomoric endeavors. See ya round the Quad!
You did not find the answer : You accidentally found a page that happened to contain the answer. So you didn’t do it.
Let’s be fair, I don’t and don’t want to know where in the vicinity of NYC you live, so I went and found an account of all battles in that area which included the ones you mentioned.
You asked for battles 20 miles or so from where you live in your hovel, and I had them in my link.
Your question was trick question, not a challenge to searching skills.
Nope, it was quite clear that I asked for “banditry in the service of the Confederacy”, not the “westernmost battle of the Civil War”. I deliberately made it difficult to see if your prating about your abilities at using teh Google were consistent with your actual talents.
Here’s banditry from dictionary.reference.com:
banditry
– 2 dictionary results
ban·dit·ry
/ˈbændɪtri/ Show Spelled[ban-di-tree] Show IPA
–noun
1.
the activities or practices of bandits.
2.
bandits collectively; banditti
I was very specific about what I asked, and since there weren’t that many states west of the Mississippi River at that time, all you had to do was to use Google using one of the States that existed west of the Mississippi at the time of the Civil War and you’d have had a better chance of finding the correct answer.
Tell yah what: E-mail that Google expert you mentioned, see if she can meet my challenge on the Civil War banditry, see if she agrees with you or I about it being a ‘trick question’, along with her opinion of how I met your challenge about where you live and get back to us.
Deal?
In this contest you were the loser – and you are a loser.
I accept her verdict over yours, unless you’re too chicken-hearted to learn what your Google expert really thinks of how you and I responded to each other’s challenges.
I have no interest in your jejune blog, or any of your other sophomoric endeavors.
Ohhh, look folks Frank used sophomoric and jejune in the same sentence.
Can you feel the burn?
I sure don’t.
We’re all French now.
Chicken costumes banned at Nev. polling places.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2010/05/22/politics/p173008D58.DTL&tsp=1
Enjoy.
If you can’t duplicate the search, it means you can only find the answer if you know it in advance, which you did.
I can tell you how I did my search, and you can duplicate that search in the exact same amount as I did.
If you can do the same with your search, then I will believe you have bested me. Because, as you said you “deliberately made it difficult to see if [my] prating about your abilities at using teh Google were consistent with [my] actual talents.” However, as I pointed out, what you tested were my puzzle solving abilities, not my Google searching abilities.
You did a crappy search, and did not find the answers you were challenged to find, period. You could have found the city I lived in on search one, and the communities on search two, and if you didn’t know where they were, search three would have told you that White Plains, Harlem and Long Island were all within 20 miles of New Rochelle.
Now, direct me through your search, as if you have no knowledge of the outcome.
You are a fraud, a phony , and a fake, and like every other liberal Democrat, you can only win in one of two ways: Pretending you won, when you didn’t; or cheating.
You can’t use Google, so you cheated.
Frank, again, contact your fancy-schmanzy “Google expert”, describe the situation and our respective challenges, and I’ll abide by what ever her verdict is.
I earlier made that suggestion as a compromise, but you would have none of it, so act like an adult for a change, a 16-year old would be ashamed to act like you have on this thread, let along a supposedly grown man in his seventh decade of life.
You’re the one who started it, but because it didn’t go the way you wanted, you are all indignant and whining like a 4 year old who had their lollypop taken away unexpectedly.
Any suggestions as to what the title of my post about your inability to complete my challenge?
I’m leaning towards “The Sorest Loser”, or “Baby needs his bottle again”.
Toodle-loo, Frank, I’ll be posting on my blog in a few minutes and you will have the chance to reply, just like last time.