Oxymoronic French law on veils raises its head again...

[Kermit power]

This time, it's a Saudi woman being kicked out of the opera.

I just don't understand how any sane individual can actually look at this legislation and not see the massive logical flaw running straight through the heart of it? The whole thing is like something out of a Monty Python sketch!

Is it wrong to force a woman to wear a sack on her head in public against her will? Yes, of course, absolutely.

So how is it different to force a woman not to wear a sack on her head in public against her will?

OK, fine, this law might mean that women who were forced to wear sacks on their heads in public no longer wear them, but considering the mentality of a man who would force a woman to wear a sack on her head in the first place, does anyone really think that these women are now gamboling foot loose and fancy free through the parks and boulevards of France with the wind blowing serenely through their newly emancipated locks?

Or is it more likely that they've become even more repressed than they were before, and quite possibly aren't allowed out in public at all?

So women who did wear a sack out of choice have had that choice taken away from them, just so that misogynist pillocks now have an excuse to keep their women shut away permanently.

I'm sure that's a positive blow for the equality of women in French sack-wearing communities then!

[psgcarey]

There is no law in France specifically against wearing veils.

Muslims complained that having to look at crucifixes on the walls of schools was discrimination, so all forms of religious symbolism in public, including veils, is banned. It's called equality.

[Gargamel]

Kermit power said:

This time, it's a Saudi woman being kicked out of the opera.

I just don't understand how any sane individual can actually look at this legislation and not see the massive logical flaw running straight through the heart of it? The whole thing is like something out of a Monty Python sketch!

Is it wrong to force a woman to wear a sack on her head in public against her will? Yes, of course, absolutely.

So how is it different to force a woman not to wear a sack on her head in public against her will?

OK, fine, this law might mean that women who were forced to wear sacks on their heads in public no longer wear them, but considering the mentality of a man who would force a woman to wear a sack on her head in the first place, does anyone really think that these women are now gamboling foot loose and fancy free through the parks and boulevards of France with the wind blowing serenely through their newly emancipated locks?

Or is it more likely that they've become even more repressed than they were before, and quite possibly aren't allowed out in public at all?

So women who did wear a sack out of choice have had that choice taken away from them, just so that misogynist pillocks now have an excuse to keep their women shut away permanently.

I'm sure that's a positive blow for the equality of women in French sack-wearing communities then!

Please suggest an alternative

[BlackLabel]

psgcarey said:

There is no law in France specifically against wearing veils.

Muslims complained that having to look at crucifixes on the walls of schools was discrimination, so all forms of religious symbolism in public, including veils, is banned. It's called equality.

I think the full face veil is ridiculous but I find it hard to believe that the origin of the ban is what your describe above.

[ATG]

Gargamel said:

Please suggest an alternative

Allow people the freedom to wear whatever head gear they like. There. That wasn't very hard.

This law is idiotic populist nonsense. It had nothing whatsoever to do with equality because it clearly was nevet going to affect people equally. Taking the right to exercise a freedom away from someone who never wanted to exercise it in the first place is clearly not equal to removing it from someone who did.

[Kermit power]

Gargamel said:

Please suggest an alternative

If you can prove she's being forced to wear it against her will, then prosecute the person forcing her.

If you can't, or even more so she can prove that it's her choice, then who is the French government to interfere?

My son would claim that I force him to eat Broccoli. That doesn't mean that broccoli should be banned, as some people actually choose to eat it of their own free will.

[rohrl]

psgcarey said:

There is no law in France specifically against wearing veils.

Muslims complained that having to look at crucifixes on the walls of schools was discrimination, so all forms of religious symbolism in public, including veils, is banned. It's called equality.

Wrong on both counts.

There IS a specific law against women covering their faces in public places and it is NOT because of Muslims complaining about crucifixes but rather the French upholding the secular ideals of their revolution.

[Cheese Mechanic]

People can spout their indignant angst however much they like, but masked people in public is not good, not good at all. It causes immediate suspicion. Similar to wearing a motorcycle helmet in a public place , shop, etc. Why the secrecy? Religion is not an excuse.

[Cheese Mechanic]

People can spout their indignant angst however much they like, but masked people in public is not good, not good at all. It causes immediate suspicion. Similar to wearing a motorcycle helmet in a public place , shop, etc. Why the secrecy? Religion is not an excuse.

[JagLover]

rohrl said:

Wrong on both counts.

There IS a specific law against women covering their faces in public places and it is NOT because of Muslims complaining about crucifixes but rather the French upholding the secular ideals of their revolution.

Yep

If you want to practice a backward, medieval, version of a religion do it outside a western secular state.

[Hooli]

JagLover said:

rohrl said:

Wrong on both counts.

There IS a specific law against women covering their faces in public places and it is NOT because of Muslims complaining about crucifixes but rather the French upholding the secular ideals of their revolution.

Yep

If you want to practice a backward, medieval, version of a religion do it outside a western secular state.

If you don't like the laws in the real world then fk off back to a third world stone age sthole.

[jesta1865]

Kermit power said:

Gargamel said:

Please suggest an alternative

My son would claim that I force him to eat Broccoli. That doesn't mean that broccoli should be banned, as some people actually choose to eat it of their own free will.

yes it should be, along with celery.

in all seriousness, why are the French people not allowed to decide what is acceptable in their country? if they decide their lives are safer and more content if people can't wear headgear or you have to wear gloves on a Thursday that's up to them.

the French didn't found their state on religious principles neither did we or the US etc, so why should religion expect to not be questioned or legislated over / against.

it annoyed me last night that someone who lives in the catchment of a particular secondary school in southend had to have an interview, along his mum, with a priest to get in, that's wrong, his place (in a state school) should not be controlled by religion.

[Soov535]

ATG said:

Gargamel said:

Please suggest an alternative

Allow people the freedom to wear whatever head gear they like. There. That wasn't very hard.

This law is idiotic populist nonsense. It had nothing whatsoever to do with equality because it clearly was nevet going to affect people equally. Taking the right to exercise a freedom away from someone who never wanted to exercise it in the first place is clearly not equal to removing it from someone who did.

Try going out in public wearing a balaclava and see how long it is before you get nicked.

But of course the veil is fine.

[TheJimi]

Cheese Mechanic said:

People can spout their indignant angst however much they like, but masked people in public is not good, not good at all. It causes immediate suspicion. Similar to wearing a motorcycle helmet in a public place , shop, etc. Why the secrecy? Religion is not an excuse.

It's not even religious - there's bugger all in the Koran about the wearing of veils (iirc)

[TKF]

Soov535 said:

Try going out in public wearing a balaclava and see how long it is before you get nicked.

But of course the veil is fine.

Any record of anyone anywhere ever being arrested for wearing a balaclava?

[BJG1]

ATG said:

Allow people the freedom to wear whatever head gear they like. There. That wasn't very hard.

Yes but the issue is that those wearing them aren't really doing so out of what I'd call 'choice' they are doing it as a result of the systematic oppression of women in their culture. How many atheists cover their faces in public?

[psgcarey]

rohrl said:

Wrong on both counts.

There IS a specific law against women covering their faces in public places and it is NOT because of Muslims complaining about crucifixes but rather the French upholding the secular ideals of their revolution.

Actually correct.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_law_on_secular...

[Soov535]

TKF said:

Soov535 said:

Try going out in public wearing a balaclava and see how long it is before you get nicked.

But of course the veil is fine.

Any record of anyone anywhere ever being arrested for wearing a balaclava?

I do know of a couple of people who tried it and got told to take them off sharpish.

[Kermit power]

jesta1865 said:

Kermit power said:

Gargamel said:

Please suggest an alternative

My son would claim that I force him to eat Broccoli. That doesn't mean that broccoli should be banned, as some people actually choose to eat it of their own free will.

yes it should be, along with celery.

in all seriousness, why are the French people not allowed to decide what is acceptable in their country? if they decide their lives are safer and more content if people can't wear headgear or you have to wear gloves on a Thursday that's up to them.

Many of the people in question are "the French people". They were born and bred there. To the best of my knowledge, there wasn't a universal referendum either, so it's more a case of some French people having decided to impose their views on other French people.

jesta1865 said:

the French didn't found their state on religious principles neither did we or the US etc, so why should religion expect to not be questioned or legislated over / against.

If we didn't found our state on religious principles, then why do we let people sit in the House of Lords as part of the policy making apparatus simply because they wear silly pointy hats?

it annoyed me last night that someone who lives in the catchment of a particular secondary school in Southend had to have an interview, along his mum, with a priest to get in, that's wrong, his place (in a state school) should not be controlled by religion.

I totally agree that no state school should be controlled by religion, but that's not the same thing as saying religious schools shouldn't be allowed.

[Kermit power]

Doh!

I've just realised that my spellchecker has ensured I've somewhat lived up to my name here!!

Please could a mod change the thread title to "Oxymoronic French law..."