The BBC reports:
A French parliamentary committee has recommended a partial ban on women
wearing Islamic face veils.
The committee's near 200-page report has proposed a ban in hospitals,
schools, government offices and on public transport.
It also recommends that anyone showing visible signs of "radical
religious practice" should be refused residence cards and citizenship.
* * *
"The wearing of the full veil is a challenge to our republic. This is
unacceptable. We must condemn this excess," the report said.
The commission called on parliament to adopt a formal resolution
stating that the face veil was "contrary to the values of the republic" and
proclaiming that "all of France is saying 'no' to the full veil".
They are not doing it to fight islam, they are doing it because it is not French. Remember, these are the people who refuse to you the term "e-mail."
ReplyDeleteI don't agree with banning Islamic (or any) veils unless it is for hygienic reasons, such as at a pool.
ReplyDeleteI don't personally agree with wearing them, but what I personally agree with doesn't matter. I don't think that it is (a) the government domain, or (b)something that would have any effect.
In the US, we really need to start by enforcing laws we already have. For instance - John Walker Lindh. He should have been executed for treason. Instead, he'll be out in another 10 years or less.
We have other laws on the books - we don't use them. We don't need more LAWS. We need more compliance with the laws. We need to stop being afraid to enforce them.
France seems to be into banning things: don't know if people saw this: shout at your wife, go to jail.
ReplyDeleteFrench is the language of love... or else! ;)
The actions of the French state may be seen as aimed at preservation of French culture... or as increasing the prerogatives and powers of the French state. The "verbal spouse abuse" law would suggest the latter.
That said: what the French do to preserve France is up to France. Their way is not ours, and it doesn't have to be. And a line drawn against Islamisation of culture is something I'm prepared to recognize as generally good.
I'm partial to afw's sentiments in that I'm done with the whole "war on" cultural thing. (Actual wars are another matter). And being against cultural "war on"s is really only genuine when the proposed "war on" targets something you don't like.
I don't like the chador/abaya/burqa thing, but I'b prefer not to see a "war on Islamic dress".
I'd also very much like to see the end to the "war on politically incorrect people".
I mean if I approached a woman wearing an abaya and remarked "gee, isn't that a little baggy for a ninja costume?" I'd be risking more than the ire of her husband (at least some of which I'd arguably have coming). I'd be risking my job and my standing, first amendment notwithstanding. In Britain or Canada I'd be risking my freedom.
I don't see why we should prosecute people who wear black sacs in public but I don't see why we need to make them feel welcome and why people who don't toe that line pay a price.
Jourdan, I just logged on to post about this (and I was going to include your nick in the title somehow :-)
ReplyDeleteI totally agree with RadioMattM's assessment. And, although my initial knee-jerk reaction was thumbs up, I too don't want to see a ban on veils even though I personally don't like them.
afw says: "We have other laws on the books - we don't use them. We don't need more LAWS. We need more compliance with the laws. We need to stop being afraid to enforce them."
lewy says: "I don't see why we should prosecute people who wear black sacs in public but I don't see why we need to make them feel welcome and why people who don't toe that line pay a price."
Both great points.
Obeisance to religion will be the death of us. We can't not do it... but it will kill us in the end. We will die noble in our beliefs.
ReplyDeleteAbout veils: California bans, or used to ban, any covering in public designed to hide one's identity. It didn't make any difference who was wearing it.
ReplyDelete