France is well on the way to imposing a ban on the veil; the niqab or the burqua.
France’s lower house of parliament has overwhelmingly approved a bill that would ban wearing the Islamic full veil in public.
There were 335 votes for the bill and only one against in the 557-seat National Assembly.
It must now be ratified by the Senate in September to become law.
The ban has strong public support but critics point out that only a tiny minority of French Muslims wear the full veil.
I despise Islam, wholeheartedly and completely. I do not accept the argument that fully veiled women is a necessary part of their religion. It is a cultural construct from the wahhabist Saudis. It is a way of pouring scorn on western civilisation, of being openly different and rejecting the values of the host culture. Quite apart, that is, from being an overt symbol of Islamic misogyny – a misogyny that is entrenched as much in the oppressed as the oppressors.
But… But… But… Since when did the state get to decide what people wear? Today the veil, tomorrow…? Much as I deplore Islam and everything it represents, people should have the freedom to wear whatever ridiculous clothing they wish, whether it is a marquee that hides their face or their trousers around their knees exposing their underpants. It is not the role of the state to decree dress codes.
This ban is likely to be challenged when it becomes law and, likely as not, the European court will decree that it is illegal.
After the vote, Justice Minister Michele Alliot-Marie said it was a victory for democracy and for French values.
No. What it shows us is that democracy is merely the thuggery of the majority used to crush any minority of which it disapproves. I share that disapproval, but it doesn’t make the ban right, because it isn’t.
Well said!
The only grounds I can see for bringing in a ban would be health and safety, it’s unhealthy to dress like that because of vitamin D/daylight deficiency.
I’m not a great one for banning things anyway (vuvuzela’s excepted) but Islam itself is becoming more and more a problem with its demands that we adapt to them rather than they adapt to us. Sooner or later this will cause serious problems and I suspect this ban is just the start.
I agree, we should not adapt and should not make special concessions. Allowing people to dress as they please is a basic liberal principle. When Muslims start insisting that western women dress in tents, I will oppose that as much as I oppose the French ban and for exactly the same reasons.
“When Muslims start insisting that western women dress in tents, I will oppose that”
They do already – albeit not in ‘tents’ – Iran and Saudi demand head covering from non-Muslim women and it is encouraged in parts of Pakistan.
They do indeed. My position remains exactly the same. As I cannot change this, I simply do not go to such countries. It’s a bit like those people who go to Dubai and then complain when they get prosecuted for kissing in public. Of course it’s a gross infringement of personal liberty and intrusion of the state into the personal. So don’t go there. If they try it on in our country, then that’s another matter, which was what I was implying in my response to QM.
@QM: “The only grounds I can see for bringing in a ban would be health and safety, it’s unhealthy to dress like that because of vitamin D/daylight deficiency.”
– woah there – that’s not grounds for a ban!
It’s nothing to do with a ‘dress code’, it’s because in OUR society people do not routinely go around with their faces masked. Such masking is intended as an obstacle to recognition necessary to enforce laws. If they want to do that in THEIR society they can.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1174409/Muslim-women-banned-wearing-veils-jewellery-store-robbers-use-disguise.html
(Anyone round here felt at all outraged when masked police removed their identification numbers?)
The police analogy is a flawed one. They are public servants paid for by us, so we should be able to identify them.
In the jewellery store, the owners are within their rights to insist on no veils as it is private property – just as such premises insist on no motorcycle helmets. The majority of Muslim women are not carrying out criminal raids on shops and banks, so law enforcement doesn’t apply as an excuse to ban them in public places.
The wearing of the veil is an open sign of rebellion and making it illegal simply makes more martyrs to the cause and is self-defeating.
What the French have done is impose a dress code outside of the home. That crosses a line. It means the state can decree dress codes for the rest of us if it so wishes. And it is none of the state’s business to tell us how we may dress. What next, motorcycle helmets because someone wore one during a blag?
“They are public servants paid for by us, so we should be able to identify them.”
Why? In case they break the law, irrespective of whether they are public servants or not. Or is it ok for some groups to be unrecognisable, because you think they are not law-breakers, but not others.
“It means the state can decree dress codes for the rest of us if it so wishes.”
It already does so – compulsory motorcycle helmet protection for riding a motorbike. And we may not mask our faces when going through passport control or in other situations where facial recognition is expected, such as in schools, on juries, during examinations or driving tests etc.
“The majority of Muslim women are not carrying out criminal raids on shops and banks, so law enforcement doesn’t apply as an excuse to ban them in public places.”
The majority of criminals would prefer not to be recognised so law enforcement does apply. You’re the one harking on about Muslims, I’m concerned with people who cover their face in order not to be recognised.
Derek, you are in danger of putting words into my mouth here as nothing I’ve said leads to this conclusion:
Ordinary citizens should be able to go about their business anonymously and in disguise should they wish to do so and has nothing to do with the possibility of them breaking the law. It is about the basic liberty to go about our business without interference by the state. What we do, where we go, with whom we do it and what we wear is no business of the state. The need to identify a police officer is not confined to them breaking the law and while carrying out a public duty, it is reasonable that we should be able to identify them should we need to contact them at a later stage – the number is a simple means of doing so. Off duty they can wear a paper bag over their heads, for all I care.
In such circumstances, asking someone to remove their veil would be reasonable. But this is not about specific circumstances, is it? This is about a blanket ban when in public. As such it is wholly disproportionate and an intrusion into the individual’s personal choice.
Regarding the helmet law, I am opposed to this as it is a law designed to protect us from our own actions. The law has no place doing this. So the argument does not hold – I oppose this as much as I oppose the veil ban and for the same reason – it is none of the state’s business.
I’m not harking on about Muslims, I am criticizing a state that has exceeded its remit – in that it has decided to issue a decree about what its citizens may or may not wear. I repeat; what we wear is none of the state’s business outside of very narrowly defined temporary specifics such as those you mentioned.
Well said. As usual, the freedom hating trash on CIF are unable to comprehend the distinction between approving of something and opposing the law’s suppression of it. I don’t I like the burqua but I hate the scum who want to use the law to suppress it. They are the true enemy within.
The thing is that France is a secular country. From what I understand the French State does not recognise any religion, no state employee is allowed to wear religious symbols, same with schoolchildren. Proselytism is prohibited etc etc.
There’s a fairly good article on BBC http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3325285.stm and another piece here http://www.frenchentree.com/societe-francaise/displayarticle.asp?id=20486 It’s so very different from Britain and many other European states and that’s perhaps why the ‘burqua ban’ was voted through – because it’s an overtly obvious, nobody-can-miss-it, sign advertising individual’s faith which also happens to break other laws relating to security, such as wearing bike visors, hoodies and other face coverings.
If it goes to EUHCR they might find themselves battling against the French constitution – which seems to let people be whatever they want to be, and worship whichever God they want to worship, as long as it’s in private.
France isn’t Britain!
In Britain we don’t normally cover our faces, not unless we want to protect our heads from something, and it’s easy to lift a visor or take off a bike helmet when we’re not actually on the bike. We might want to cover our face if it’s really cold, or maybe if we want to conceal our identity (sometimes for fun – fancy dress), or for a one-of occasion – getting married. Women don’t wear heavy veils to funerals any more.
Nobody religious in Britain has ever concealed their face – Nuns in western countries never have done – so we’re not even used to not being able to see the faces of the most religious of women in our society on the few occasions they might step outside their convent.
So, from our point of view we’re torn, between enjoying and encouraging religious freedom – that lets people ‘look like their religion’ if they want to, and being irritated when we learn that some people are allowed to break safety/security/identification rules the rest of us have to follow, and can do so only because of their religion – and sometimes we think it’s an excuse, done just to be different and at other times we feel very accommodating.
Then, of course, we know that if somebody’s covered up from head to foot we can’t actually tell who they are and if we can’t see their expression we can’t tell what they’re thinking – because we automatically use facial expression to communicate.
And now, in Britain, the medics are getting worried because of the incidence of rickets and other things related to Vit D deficiency – caused by lack of sunlight because of being covered in thick black fabric 365/365, and I can’t somehow imagine they’ll encourage the use of sun lamps!
“But this is not about specific circumstances, is it?”
Yes, the specific circumstance of interacting in our society; as I said, in their society they can do what they want. Even simply walking down a public street used by other people is interacting with them.
“citizens should be able to go about their business anonymously and in disguise should they wish to do so”
No, when they interact with other citizens they have to be seen to be responsible for their own actions.
“What we do, where we go, with whom we do it and what we wear is no business of the state.”
If you are going to assign that level of individual power you have to accept that a majority of French individuals do not want to interact with those who are determined to cover their faces; are you going to say the masked individuals can have their way but the others can’t?
If the state doesn’t mediate this then is it ok for those who don’t want the face masks to expel the mask-wearers from their country, as the mask-wearers were not originally from that country and brought that custom with them?
How do the customs of cannibalism, sacrifice of albinos, female genital mutilation fit in with ‘no business of the state’ when a majority of individuals in our country or France would not agree with them? Are those individuals supposed to somehow form ad hoc groups when something like this is discovered or is it better to have a consistent state policy?
DerekP,
It is really quite simple. If what I do does not interfere with or harm others or their property, then it is nobody’s business but mine and the state should certainly not get involved, even to protect me from myself. If I choose to do the above anonymously, that is my business, nobody has a right to know who I am when I’m minding my own business (if I’m on someone else’s property they clearly have a right to know who I am should they so wish).
However, I do not have the right to harm someone else or their property.
Walking down the street with face covered harms nobody else. Eating people, sacrificing them or mutilating their genitalia is harmful so nobody should have the right to carry out such acts. Simple for the state to have a consistent policy: not harmful to others or their property, state not involved; harmful to others or their property, state prohibit.
“If the state doesn’t mediate this then is it ok for those who don’t want the face masks to expel the mask-wearers from their country, as the mask-wearers were not originally from that country and brought that custom with them?” No, although you could ask Nick Griffin for a second opinion.
Derek, DocBud has beaten me to it. Walking down the street is not interacting with society – it is minding one’s own business. As an individual I can choose not to interact with those who hide their faces or ask them to remove their veil. French citizens are free to do likewise. We can choose. As it is, masked women are doing me no harm, therefore, it’s none of my concern and no concern of the state’s. The state is perfectly right to pass laws prohibiting violence against others, which is why the examples you cite are straw men.
Mrs Rigby, yes France is a secular state and I have no problem with their stance on no religious symbols in state schools for example. This is entirely within the concept of property rights. The state may, on its property, decree no overt symbols, just as the jewellery shop Derek mentioned may do likewise. The street is not private property and the state has no business making laws that dictate what people wear when going about their lawful business, secular state or not.
The state may, on its property, decree no overt symbols, just as the jewellery shop Derek mentioned may do likewise. The street is not private property …
No, the streets are more than likely owned by the state, and are therefore governed by the state – which is secular.
That’s possibly a pedants response!
The discussion is about French law, not British law – the two are very different.
The main point of this ban is that in France people are not allowed to hide their faces, same rules apply here in Britain, so why should there be exceptions?
Our problem is that we like the idea of ‘freedom’, and we quite like the idea of rebelling against petty rules, but what would happen to you if walked into a bank/building society/post office/shopping centre/government building with a cloth over your face? The latter is publicly owned – and you would probably be arrested and charged with at least causing alarm and distress, somebody might even claim you were a terrorist.
So why shouldn’t the law be applied equally and evenly?
I am well aware of the differences between English law and the code Napoleon of France – I have lived here for a couple of years now, after all 😉
The streets are a public place, which is not the same as, say, going into the tax office to talk to an official. In the latter case, asking someone to remove the veil is a reasonable thing to do as most of our communication is non-verbal. I agreed with Jack Straw when he made a similar request a couple of years back.
The law has no place decreeing that people not hide their faces when going about their lawful business, though. Providing that person is doing no harm, there is no reason for the state to interfere.
The private property rules apply – the state owns the latter so the state is perfectly within its rights to ask people to show their faces when carrying out transactions. This is not the same as walking down the street minding one’s own business.
Yes, the law should apply evenly – the state should keep its nose out of our personal lives and that includes what we wear.
Ultimately, people will be quick to cry foul when it is something that they do or wear that is in the firing line because the majority doesn’t approve. This ban, like most bans is illiberal, unnecessary and counter productive. It does France and the French people no favours.
This has just started to get REALLY interesting, as a French Muslim property tycoon has just promised to pay ALL fines imposed for wearing the burkha. Of course I realise that it now remains to be seen how long he remains a tycoon before becoming a pauper.
Wish someone would do the same over here with regard to not wearing a motorbike helmet.
As I say; counter productive.
Longrider
“masked women are doing me no harm”
First, you do not know if those are all women. Second, you do not know if they have done anyone else harm because you cannot identify them. A burka seems like a handy accessory for various criminals.
You seem to be stating that the jewellers in the article were ok for banning face covering in their store as it was private property, but surely the key point is they banned it to help prevent crime and/or identify criminals in their store?
Is there no crime on the street then?
My comments made concerning the role of the state to address issues involving a large part of the population were made to hilight that if a large part of the population wants to address the wearing of face-masks in the street, as the jewellers did in their store to prevent crime, the state can act/mediate on their behalf.
That you think “masked women are doing me no harm” does not mean that the French think that; for example they might think that their society is being harmed.
You seem to accept that parts of our society depend upon facial recognition and that in “very narrowly defined temporary specifics” face-masks should not be allowed. My contention is that this is just as important in public, as when we walk down a street we interact, naturally assessing other creatures in the street especially people. What those who wear masks or burkas are intending by importing this alien custom is preventing any such assessment, facial recognition or facial communication, and that these are pretty important aspects of our society.
I don’t care whether they are or not.
And how many burqua clad criminals are running amok? So the state should decide what we may wear just in case we may do something naughty? Not good enough.
So is a nylon stocking, so is a full-face motorcycle helmet. Perhaps we should ban those too, eh? That’ll be interesting. Just because something may be useful for a criminal does not mean that we should ban it. Again, how many burqua clad criminals are there running about?
Their reasoning is irrelevant. Their property, their rules. Same as the pubs that refused me service because I was wearing a leather motorcycle jacket.
And how much has been conducted by people wearing burquas?
No. It is not the role of the state to indulge irrational paranoia.
No. By harm, I mean violence or damage caused to the person. The French may think that; it doesn’t mean they are right, though. Don’t like the sight of a fully masked woman? Don’t look, then. The French may well be opposed to it. I share their dislike. However, I do not share their desire to use the violence of democracy to bully a minority.
You might. I tend to mind my own business and ignore other people. I couldn’t give a fig if they are wearing a mask or are stark bollock naked. It’s none of my concern.
Only when we have business dealings with them. Otherwise, it’s a non-issue.
Lots of good points but
” A burka seems like a handy accessory for various criminals.
So is a nylon stocking,”
A bloke in the street in a nylon stocking is likely to get stopped, whereas the same bloke in a burka won’t. See the burka is useful during and after a crime, much better than a mask.
Once he’s taken off the mask, he can blend with the crowd having made his getaway. If someone held up a bank wearing a Burqua, the wearer will have to discard it pretty quickly, just like the bloke with the nylon stocking and for the same reason, the police will be looking for people wearing burquas. Equally useful are motorcycle helmets – and, yes, folk do walk about in them – hooded tops, baseball caps pulled low over the face and so on. Not to mention joke masks of American presidents, Tony Blair, Micky Mouse et al. Ban ’em all, eh? Just in case, like…
“if a large part of the population wants to address the wearing of face-masks in the street, as the jewellers did in their store to prevent crime, the state can act/mediate on their behalf”
Ah, the good old tyranny of the majority. The issue is whether or not the state should have the right to interfere when someone is not causing harm, not whether or not a bigotted majority can impose their prejudices onto a minority. The notion that some may perceive the burqua to be harmful to their society is utter tosh, nobody has the right not to be offended and such a broad definition of harm would lead to open slather as to what can be banned. The army of the professionally offended would be continuously on the warpath.
You mean they aren’t already?
“The notion that some may perceive the burqua to be harmful to their society is utter tosh”
Clearly not.
Sorry.
The notion that the state is entitled or obliged to take action because some people, even a majority, perceive that the burqua is harmful to their society is utter tosh.