Hana

i'm with you.. that yellow one is amazing!! Although like you i'm for dumping the underskirt floral print for something simplier.. or for nothing at all

__________________

CaleVinson

Claims have been made in this thread about what a person (in, I stress, a western democracy) can and can't do whilst wearing a Burqa, and I'd like to look at the factual basis of such claims.

Psyke wrote the following:

Forgive me for being pedantic Psyke, but accuracy is important here, so let me double-check. Am I to understand that by "full burqa" above you meant clothing that included face-covering, in the form of a semi-transparent veil that covered the entire face, or an opaque veil that left only the eyes showing?

A different case:

(http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2...23/2606236.htm)

Now, I want to be very upfront about this - Ms Ibrahim's picture on the site does *not* show her wearing any sort of face-covering. But its possible that was an editorial decision. I say this because she said:

Ramonna Villota

rustic Burqa

__________________
Ramonna
Enginn er verri þótt hann sé perri.

http://www.plurk.com/Ramonna
http://thepeoplescube.com/

CaleVinson

(Burqa - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

I'm aware of the limitations of Wikipedia, so I'm putting those definitions up for discussion here.

Pussycat Catnap

I have such mixed feelings about this one, it drives me up the wall...

One the one hand, people expressing their religion or culture without harming others or themselves is nobody's business to legislate.

Then again, when that expression involves using something iconic of oppression to others in your society, it gets complicated.

On the other hand, what right does A have getting offended over what B does to herself?

On the other hand, every society establishes certain basic rules of public conduct; I can't go outside nude - and actually, as an Amazon indian, that -IS- a tradition of my cultural heritage. Likewise, I can't marry more than one person, and that's even a tradition of many global societies, including at least 1 major religion in my country...

Now, I see that keeping them out of burqas is designed to keep them from being oppressed, but how to then keep them from getting locked away in private homes? That happens even in the USA - witness those ultra-traditional mormon sects. My sister married into a family that came from a segment of Gautemalan society that kept women locked away; and we spent a few years fighting with their family over it until she divorced...
- So I do understand that these things will happen if you ban the Burqa...

I frankly don't like any of the options on the table on this one.

I can see that the French want to have an open liberal secular society, and they are facing a cultural war with conservative islam. That is in part their own failing though: they went for an assimilationist model: act like us or stay out of society. That's a failing strategy, people will not give up everything about who and what they are. You need multi-culturalism or you end up in cultural warfare.

Multi-culturalism is a simple concept: Take a little of the mainstream, and a little of the old country, and be your ethnicity within the framework of a larger society, as we all take and give pieces over time. The French didn't want it; they pushed the immigrants out into housing projects on the fringes of society - unless they became French enough.
- Now they face the ultimate mess of that. In an all or nothing solution, people will choose nothing: they will live outside your culture, even while in your country.

But their goal: an open liberal secular society... is a very noble one. They just went about achieving it the wrong way, and left too many of their newer members behind in the process.

Now, they have no easy way out of their mess...

Ban the Burqa, or don't - I don't like either answer...

Psyke Phaeton

Everything was covered but the eyes. The eyes seem clear bright and sharp. No signs of difficulty or distress.

__________________

Psyke Phaeton

Brilliant

Psyke Phaeton

I am going to tackle this in a different direction. A personal direction.

The Aimee/Io/Others perspective is that the burqua and alike clothing is both a symbol and a real form of oppression. To be forcibly covered is to place a woman in a closed, dark, restricted place. We can all agree this is not a pleasant idea. Obviously anyone being forced into such a cage needs rescuing then counseling to remove the psychological oppression.

But I examine all of this a bit further:
Does she automatically become educated? No
Does she automatically become employed? No
Does she automatically leave an abusive relationship? No
Does she automatically become an equal in her own culture? No

What got fixed? It seems nothing got fixed.

We all want the oppression fixed but the fix has to come from within the society not from the external symbols.

The degree of women being covered could instead be used as a indicator of how free women are (probably a poor indicator but bear with me) to see how successful actual social programs are. Rather than ban the burqua how about post leaflets for support, counseling and legal advice - web addresses, telephone numbers. How about offer free education in those communities to women. How about sponsoring women's get-togethers to discuss the issues they face?

The change needs to happen from within and not without.

I guess within this argument is an assumption. Some will assume that a covered woman is a western women waiting to be freed. This comes from assuming everyone is like "me". What if some like it? What if they would feel too exposed, too sexual, could we harm them by forcefully liberating them before they are psychologically ready?

The change has to come from within not without and the French government should plant the seeds of change and see if they take root not hack at the fringes of the problem.

Lucifer Baphomet

Agreed, and this is why banning the Burqa is a good idea.

By removing that symbol it plants the seed of the idea that the way these women have been treated is wrong.

See?

__________________

Bard Jameson

You don't see the banning of the burka as more of "ripping the weed out by the roots" than "planting a seed"?

My idea earlier was that this move was more confrontational, and therefore could entrench even those who marginally support the cultural status quo. The "planting a seed" approach that Psyke advocates is, to me, more of a cultural and education move - more subtle, more long term - instead of creating a specific and immediate conflict.

__________________

Photogenix Flickr Stream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/34885797@N08/

Photogenix Blog - http://photogenixstudios.blogspot.com/

Psyke Phaeton

At what cost? Suddenly exposing women to things they have never faced? The govt tells people what is right? Or should they offer freedom. Can an order be freedom?

Lucifer Baphomet

More than one type of seed.

Already ALL religious symbols are banned in schools in France, and for public employees.

This approach is the norm in France, and it seems to work for them

Psyke Phaeton

Why is a woman told what to do by government better than a woman told what to do by society? Do we assume a woman showing more skin is free? Should not the women themselves decide what freedom is to THEM?

Are these government rule makers men?? Is it their cultural (and biological) preference to see skin?

Bard Jameson

Understood - didn't France pass laws a year or so ago to ban all religious symbols? The yarmulke, hajib, Star of David, crucifix, etc.?

Is it consistent? Is it non-discriminatory? Is it across the board without exception, like a "Jesus Saves" T-Shirt?

Unless it is, then there are loads of landmines out there for this.

Lucifer Baphomet

AFAIK, yes it's consistent.

CaleVinson

If I was the strategy-planner for a fundamentalist group within a western democracy, although I'd tell my PR colleagues to scream loudly about it, privately I'd be very pleased if the symbols of my group were banned.

CaleVinson

I assumed that the call to ban the Burqa in France was meant to apply to its wearing in *any* public context. Very happy to be corrected of course.

Assuming the above is right, are there also plans to ban *all* religious symbols from *all* public display, not just schools and by public employees?

Bard Jameson

Yes, this is an important point, Cale. Luc says it is consistent - well, it needs to be consistent across the board. If it is, it side-steps the question of discrimination. Otherwise...?

CaleVinson

Yes, but they are seeds of different natures.

Saying "every citizen of this country has a right to an effective education", is an *inclusive* statement, and one that reflects one of the underlying principles of our western democracies. We remain true to ourselves if we say that. It then follows as a result, that no-one has the right to, for example, withdraw their child from schooling, simply because what the child is taught at school is at odds with the parent's religious beliefs. This is a "seed" that reinforces our values, not compromise them.

However, saying "you may wear anything you like in public, except *that*" is an *exclusive* statement, and one that runs counter to our principles of personal freedom, and it is personal freedom that supposedly is one of the main differences between us and the fundamentalists.

I want to plant ten kazillion seeds of the first type, and none of the second.

Psyke Phaeton

Maybe the solution is simple. Don't ban the wearing of a burqua, ban the forcing of a person into wearing a burqua. A woman could then simply* report her distress to the authorities. Can we all live with that?

* hopefully!

Psyke Phaeton

P.S. What happens if a man wears a burqua??

CaleVinson

I don't think you could frame such a ban in practice. "Force" is both too vague, and exists in too many different guises. The "easy" cases to identify (direct physical violence) are already covered by existing laws.

In a western democratic society, I don't think you can truly force anyone to do anything, *once* you've ensured their physical safety *and* economic independence. And if we enthusiastically support current laws, and continue to support principles we currently take as cornerstones of our societies (like access/right to health-care, access/right to education, etc, etc), people will, eventually at least, have this degree of safety and independence.

The argument was made earlier in this thread, that another form of force was also present, the "our community will disown you if you refuse to do this" pressure. But, as much as I find such pressure, and the communities that apply it, reprehensible, I don't think you can, nor should want to, legislate against that. People have a legal right to be idiots, bigots, or arseholes in general. They simply don't have a right to *action* their idiocy/bigotry/arseholeness against others. If a Mormon refuses to talk to me because I'm an atheist, I'm not going to campaign to have Mormonism declared illegal just for that.

=============

As an aside, this entire thread is not a "this-is-right", "that-is-wrong" discussion IMHO. For me at least, its a very tricky question of trying to find the lesser of two evils. The education/etc approach will take time, and Aimee (and others) are perfectly right to ask "what happens to those women being oppressed right now?". My fear is that although banning the Burqa may help in the short-term, such a cause of action may cause greater harm in the long-term.

Chantal

Yes. France is constitutionally religion-neutral. Which means that wearing really obvious signs of your religion in public or putting up a picture of a saint in an office, for instance, are a 'no' - so wearing a crucifix at school or in the workplace would be seen as equally provocative as a veil. However, the law doesn't forbid the wearing of these things in private: at home, at a place of worship.

Obviously, it's a thorny issue. A tiny gold cross is a whole lot less obvious than a burkha! So 'enforcing' the whole thing obviously leads to a lot of strife. Naturally, some people are going to want to wear their cross, their veil, their kippa just because they're told they can't rather than because of deep religious conviction, and make it more of a political issue than a religious one. Human nature, I guess.

Like any legislation that has grey areas, it's often a mess because it's hard to draw the line, even if the idea behind it is to avoid 'provocation' among other things. It's just that some people like to 'provoke' more than others.

What's the alternative? Let everybody go around in public in veils, crucifixes, kippas? Not sure that this would be any better. Or try to bring out legislation on which 'bit' of which religion is allowable, size of crosses, full burkha or simple veil? Tricky.

Until you get human being to respect each other's religion, politics, or cultures, nothing is going to change. France decided this would be a 'solution'. Not sure that it is.

Some parts of the world have an 'official' religion that doesn't exactly 'work' either. If I was a practising muslim or jew, I wouldn't appreciate having Christian prayers imposed on me. I was horrified to see that, for example, a lot of Lions clubs in the US actually incorporate prayer into their meetings despite their assertion of 'serving' the community.

__________________

Decor with a difference
A great new Mediterranean setting
Original, beautiful things for your home
Classy fashion
Contact Ariadne Korda

http://slurl.com/secondlife/Graces/128/198/22

Chantal

I like the idea, but I don't think it's workable because women wearing burkhas aren't likely to either report it or even know where to start. Sadly.

Playing devil's advocate a little... people who move to, or travel to, another country, another culture - do they respect that country or culture's 'ways' (I'm not talking about legislation, but their customs, etc.), or do they act like they do at home, or establish their own sub-culture, even if this is shocking, or hurtful, to their 'host' country?

I like to wear shorts and a sleeveless tee if it's hot. I wouldn't do it wandering around a small Moroccan town. Some women do and wonder why the locals don't appreciate it. People sometimes yell at tourists who do, and that's probably highly unpleasant for those who just want to be cooler. A Moroccan friend told me 'it makes us feel uneasy - so why can't they just cover a BIT more flesh'.
It's not FORBIDDEN there to walk around in skimpy clothes, I should add, as it is in some Arab countries. But it doesn't do much for mutual respect.

CaleVinson

Chantal, if memory serves, you're currently living in France. Thus, you're very well placed to provide us with factual information on this topic. But I will say I found the above a little confusing, so let me try and get things straight.

My, possibly very wrong, understanding is that *right now* in France you can't have any religious symbols in schools, or worn by public-employees during work hours. But I had assumed that an adult walking down the street could wear what ever they liked, subject only to decency/modesty laws. Is that right?

And I thought that the recent proposal was that wearing of the Burqa would be banned in public, including if the wearer was just walking down the street. And that such a ban would apply only to the Burqa, not other religious symbols. Do I have that right?

Why not?

People don't have to respect other's religion, politics, or culture. And its very hard (I suspect impossible) to legislate here, because we're dealing with people's thoughts. As an atheist, I could care two hoots that a religious fundamentalist believes I'm going to burn for all eternity. I only care when they *action* those beliefs, and actions are things that are much easier to legislate for (and indeed, in many cases, we already have the laws in place). Eg., Violence against women is wrong and illegal, and the defendant saying "but my honour/religion demanded it" is not going to get them very far in our current legal system (and, as I keep saying, its in the protection of these systems that the true battle lies).