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!

[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.

[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..."

[Kermit power]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

No woman in their right mind would wear a full face veil. Those who do are either being forced to, or have had their brain addled by years of exposure to a patriarchal religion.

Tunisia is an Islamic country, and they banned the veil for years. Because they knew it was nothing to do with Islam and everything to do with the subjugation of women.

Also, we have many laws on public dress in the UK. I couldn't walk around with the c word in large letters on my t shirt, or with my cock out. Because it's offensive to the majority of people. So is the veil. Women died in the UK fighting for equality, and many men support that equality. It's offensive to the UK population to see that mocked by idiots wearing the veil.

Some of the most vociferous opponents of the veil are muslim, who don't wish to see their religion portrayed in such a negative way by a stupid ill educated minority.

France are absolutely right to ban it in public, and it's high time we followed suit.

Which doesn't avoid the oxymoron of responding to people being forced to dress a certain way by passing legislation forcing people to dress a certain way.

It's just weak and lazy legislation which attacks the symptom whilst ignoring the cause.

Do you honestly think women who were previously truly being forced to wear the sack in public are now happily trundling around bare-headed? Or do you accept that at least some proportion of them just won't be allowed out in public any more?

[Kermit power]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Society has loads of rules on what people can and can't wear, from motorcyclists wearing crash helmets to public nudity. To stop others being offended or to protect stupid people from themselves. Or in the case of the veil, both. It's not oxymoronic at all.

I'll give you an example of an oxymoron.....religious education!

Where is the law banning people from wearing crash helmets in public?

It's fair enough to ban people from wearing them in banks or other similar places where not being able to see people's faces could be a security risk, and I'd see no contradiction with banning people full face coverings of any sort in those circumstances, but that's not the same thing as banning them full stop.

In fact, if you're going to follow this line of logic through to its natural conclusion, then you'd have to ban motorcyclists from wearing full face helmets on motorbikes, surely? After all, we wouldn't want to offend people by covering our faces in public, would we?

[Kermit power]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

wolves_wanderer said:

I wonder if you would be so keen on clothing being banned to suit a religious group

We have that now. How far would I get before being arrested is I wore a T shirt proclaim "Jesus / Allah was a ****.

I would never be allowed to wear that, because it's offensive to others. So to answer your question, I have no problem with t shirts like that being banned.

And what if "others" decided that T shirts in general were offensive? Would you be happy for T shirts to be banned?