Shipbucket

There is a big differnce between chosing to be a nun and being born a woman.

TurretHead wrote:There is a big differnce between chosing to be a nun and being born a woman.

It strikes me that you're suggesting all Muslim women that wear the burka have been coerced into doing so.

One may choose to be a muslim, as stupid a choice as that may be. You both seem to think that being a member of a religion is ipso facto proof of physical coercion, which is nonsense. Moreover, this law would prosecute the women concerned not their presumed oppressors.

Praetonia wrote:One may choose to be a muslim, as stupid a choice as that may be. You both seem to think that being a member of a religion is ipso facto proof of physical coercion, which is nonsense. Moreover, this law would prosecute the women concerned not their presumed oppressors.

You missed the part were forcing someone to wear the Burka results in a 15-30 thousand euro fine?

TimothyC wrote:

Praetonia wrote:One may choose to be a muslim, as stupid a choice as that may be. You both seem to think that being a member of a religion is ipso facto proof of physical coercion, which is nonsense. Moreover, this law would prosecute the women concerned not their presumed oppressors.

You missed the part were forcing someone to wear the Burka results in a 15-30 thousand euro fine?

Forcing people to do anything should be illegal, theres surely already laws in France against child or spousal abuse. The article you linked says: "The law makes it illegal to wear garments such as the niqab or burka, which incorporate a full-face veil, anywhere in public." So its not only illegal to force someone to use a niqab or a burka but it is also illegal to voluntarily wear one. Therefore your actual argument and set of beliefs does not lie in the wickedness of forcing others to bend to norms, but on something else. Otherwise, you would reject a law which forces people to wear a burka, just like you would reject a law that would force people to not wear a burka.

TimothyC wrote:

Praetonia wrote:One may choose to be a muslim, as stupid a choice as that may be. You both seem to think that being a member of a religion is ipso facto proof of physical coercion, which is nonsense. Moreover, this law would prosecute the women concerned not their presumed oppressors.

You missed the part were forcing someone to wear the Burka results in a 15-30 thousand euro fine?

lol, as if forcing someone to wear something (like, threatening to beat them if they don't) isn't already a serious crime carrying a prison sentence.

Finfan wrote:Forcing people to do anything should be illegal,

Really? Are you an anarchist of a libertarian?

theres surely already laws in France against child or spousal abuse.

I belive that there are. Someone better versied in French Law would probably be able to describe what these are.

The article you linked says: "The law makes it illegal to wear garments such as the niqab or burka, which incorporate a full-face veil, anywhere in public." So its not only illegal to force someone to use a niqab or a burka but it is also illegal to voluntarily wear one.

Would you claim that the needs of security would support this ban. We don't want people to be able to completely conceal their identities in public do we? That's a very big security hole you are allowing to stay open.

Therefore your actual argument and set of beliefs does not lie in the wickedness of forcing others to bend to norms, but on something else. Otherwise, you would reject a law which forces people to wear a burka, just like you would reject a law that would force people to not wear a burka.

I would reject a law that forces people to wear a Burka on the grounds that the garment is inherently degrading and dehumanizing. We have laws in place that force people to bend to the general will all the time. These laws let us live together. Some Anti-abortionist nut doesn't get a free pass shooting abortion docs, and a left wing nut doesn't get a free pass planting bombs on hummer dealerships. In our society everyone gives up something. In France, part of living there now means no full face coverings.

Praetonia wrote:lol, as if forcing someone to wear something (like, threatening to beat them if they don't) isn't already a serious crime carrying a prison sentence.

This law provides some legal backing to women in France who don't want to be forced. Another opening for them. Don't you want to see these women have options?

My concern is that rather than convince women to remove the veil in public, such a law might actually result in them not going out at all. Possibly giving them even less freedom, as a dominant husband could very well not even allow their wife or daughters to leave the house at all without the veil.
I'm very much opposed to the oppression of women - or anybody else - and the full-face veil is a symbol of misogynistic dominance. But will prohibiting people from wearing it improve the situation of oppressed women, or worsen it?