Burkinis interdits
August 17, 2016 11:40 AM Subscribe
Beach bans on the Burkini in France sparks widespread debate. Burkinis (or burqinis) are a type of swimwear for women that offers full coverage. They are mostly, but not exclusively, worn by Muslim women. Now three French cities have banned the burkini from their beaches: Cannes, Villeneuve-Loubet and Sisco on the island of Corsica have done so, and Le Touquet on the Atlantic coast is planning to do the same. This has understandably lead to a lot of discussion.
The French government defends these decisions, and some people agree. Muslim women in the UK give their opinions; one of them is Remona Aly. And in Sydney, Sarah Malik does the same.
The French government defends these decisions, and some people agree. Muslim women in the UK give their opinions; one of them is Remona Aly. And in Sydney, Sarah Malik does the same.
This is just oppression, plain and simple. The French government should not have the ability to control a woman's appearance any more than her husband or religious leader.
Also, how stupid do you have to be to think that this is a good idea? My neighborhood is full of muslim kids wearing hijabs out in the street playing. If a local cop went around taking their clothes off do you think that would go... well? People are insane.
posted by selfnoise at 11:46 AM on August 17, 2016 [32 favorites]
Also, how stupid do you have to be to think that this is a good idea? My neighborhood is full of muslim kids wearing hijabs out in the street playing. If a local cop went around taking their clothes off do you think that would go... well? People are insane.
posted by selfnoise at 11:46 AM on August 17, 2016 [32 favorites]
If I lived in France, I'd be tempted to wear something like this just to see what would happen.
posted by mai at 11:46 AM on August 17, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by mai at 11:46 AM on August 17, 2016 [3 favorites]
That's seriously fucked up.
posted by Annika Cicada at 11:48 AM on August 17, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by Annika Cicada at 11:48 AM on August 17, 2016 [4 favorites]
How is that not a sexist + religious discrimination? Such a law prohibits wearing a certain dress, which is used only by women, because it is a a symbol of a religion to boot (!). That is NOT how one fights against a retrograde, sexist, bigoted culture.
posted by elpapacito at 11:52 AM on August 17, 2016 [8 favorites]
posted by elpapacito at 11:52 AM on August 17, 2016 [8 favorites]
So is it just the burkini or is it anything that looks like a too much clothing for the beach? Because this feels very "Show more skin or we give you a ticket" to me.
posted by thivaia at 11:53 AM on August 17, 2016 [12 favorites]
posted by thivaia at 11:53 AM on August 17, 2016 [12 favorites]
White men sure seem obsessed with looking at Muslim womens' bodies don't they?
The sad thing is that, viewed from a certain angle, the 'burkini' is a rather liberating piece of clothing. I've spent lots of time in conservative Muslim countries over the years, and in general women (even those who don't cover their hair) face huge pressure to simply never go swim in public. In Egypt for example, all of the urban upper class 'clubs' have swimming pools, and women basically just cannot swim in them, even though they are technically allowed in the water.
The same in a way goes for women from conservative immigrant cultures in France: their men and their broader male communities force them to never go enjoy the beach or the pool, just because of the pressure of the disapproving gaze.
The burkini sort of upends that social presssure, because now she is wearing a garment that is coded as "religiously conservative," that says, "I am a good believer, don't look at me like that." So by banning the burkini they are taking away these women's freedom to enjoy the water in public.
posted by jackbrown at 11:53 AM on August 17, 2016 [89 favorites]
The sad thing is that, viewed from a certain angle, the 'burkini' is a rather liberating piece of clothing. I've spent lots of time in conservative Muslim countries over the years, and in general women (even those who don't cover their hair) face huge pressure to simply never go swim in public. In Egypt for example, all of the urban upper class 'clubs' have swimming pools, and women basically just cannot swim in them, even though they are technically allowed in the water.
The same in a way goes for women from conservative immigrant cultures in France: their men and their broader male communities force them to never go enjoy the beach or the pool, just because of the pressure of the disapproving gaze.
The burkini sort of upends that social presssure, because now she is wearing a garment that is coded as "religiously conservative," that says, "I am a good believer, don't look at me like that." So by banning the burkini they are taking away these women's freedom to enjoy the water in public.
posted by jackbrown at 11:53 AM on August 17, 2016 [89 favorites]
What's to stop someone from wearing a wetsuit (with wetsuit hoodie)?
posted by My Dad at 11:53 AM on August 17, 2016 [11 favorites]
posted by My Dad at 11:53 AM on August 17, 2016 [11 favorites]
When I talk to American Muslims, their biggest complaints are about US foreign policy and overzealous counter-terrorism efforts.
When I talk to French Muslims, their biggest complaints are about serious discrimination, similar to what black people face in the US- but at least in the US it's not so blatantly state-sanctioned, at least not anymore.
Not to imply that any nation- ever- deserves terrorism, but I wonder if that's the reason why so many recent terrorist attacks have happened in France, even though the bulk of terrorist propaganda seems aimed at the US.
If my parents' life had turned out only slightly differently, I could've been a French citizen. The social safety net and EU mobility would've been nice, but hearing about stuff like this I'm glad I'm American.
posted by perplexion at 11:55 AM on August 17, 2016 [7 favorites]
When I talk to French Muslims, their biggest complaints are about serious discrimination, similar to what black people face in the US- but at least in the US it's not so blatantly state-sanctioned, at least not anymore.
Not to imply that any nation- ever- deserves terrorism, but I wonder if that's the reason why so many recent terrorist attacks have happened in France, even though the bulk of terrorist propaganda seems aimed at the US.
If my parents' life had turned out only slightly differently, I could've been a French citizen. The social safety net and EU mobility would've been nice, but hearing about stuff like this I'm glad I'm American.
posted by perplexion at 11:55 AM on August 17, 2016 [7 favorites]
Can someone from France, or familiar with it enough to understand Local Sentiment, share their opinion on how fig-leaf-y the whole "this is an affront to French Secularism!" reasoning is in this case? For many other countries across the world it wouldn't be a reach to say that this is just a government telling women what they do and do not have the freedom to do, but not a lot of countries really take to secularism like France does.
posted by griphus at 11:56 AM on August 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by griphus at 11:56 AM on August 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
This seems really odd to me. Melanoma rates are rising, long-sleeved rash guards are a thing (and somewhat fashionable), and avoiding body shaming at the beach appeals to a lot of people. Add that to the fact that a burkini is basically a wetsuit, and I don't see how this can be seen as anything but Islamophobic. Except that I'm pretty sure most fundamentalist Muslims would say the women were still showing too much skin and shouldn't be at the beach with men anyhow - so it's essentially also a crackdown on moderates.
posted by Mchelly at 11:57 AM on August 17, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by Mchelly at 11:57 AM on August 17, 2016 [5 favorites]
I wonder if this is screwing over any albinos as a side effect, or if they don't wear sun protective clothing/swimwear that resembles burkinis.
posted by BrotherCaine at 11:57 AM on August 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by BrotherCaine at 11:57 AM on August 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
Ah, this reminds me of Quebec not too long ago when the PQ was in power. So many white French feminists declaring that Muslim women were oppressed and that they were freeing them by suggesting such restrictions as these.
Sometimes I miss Quebec and then I remember what utter bullshit that was when it was happening.
posted by Kitteh at 11:59 AM on August 17, 2016 [7 favorites]
Sometimes I miss Quebec and then I remember what utter bullshit that was when it was happening.
posted by Kitteh at 11:59 AM on August 17, 2016 [7 favorites]
Hm, I wonder if they make them with that sun-blocking material? I want one!
It's beyond ironic that it's perfectly acceptable for women to go topless on French beaches but not acceptable for them to wear something less revealing.
posted by mareli at 12:04 PM on August 17, 2016 [10 favorites]
It's beyond ironic that it's perfectly acceptable for women to go topless on French beaches but not acceptable for them to wear something less revealing.
posted by mareli at 12:04 PM on August 17, 2016 [10 favorites]
I also wonder what the difference is between a burkini and a wetsuit. It's reminiscent of the "can you be allowed to skip pork day at lunch" debate.
posted by jeather at 12:14 PM on August 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by jeather at 12:14 PM on August 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
The point of these bans is to stop peer pressure within the community to push moderates to full compliance with extremist traditions. I can't find it now, but the Economist had an article a few years back on how allowing head covers in schools pushed all girls to wear scarves even if they came from moderate Muslim families. I think the country was Germany but same principle applies here. Extremism is extremism, democracy should not give the benefit of the doubt to extremism views under "freedom of speech".
posted by costas at 12:16 PM on August 17, 2016 [8 favorites]
posted by costas at 12:16 PM on August 17, 2016 [8 favorites]
The difference between a burkini and a hooded wetsuit is the skirt portion and the slightly looser fit on the burkini. This is islamophobia, plain and simple.
Liberty, equality, fraternity indeed.
posted by dazed_one at 12:17 PM on August 17, 2016 [6 favorites]
Liberty, equality, fraternity indeed.
posted by dazed_one at 12:17 PM on August 17, 2016 [6 favorites]
This ban strikes me as discriminatory and sexist in a way that goes a little deeper than "telling women what to wear" (or what not to wear). The ban effectively makes women, their bodies, their beliefs and the spaces they occupy within their communities into tools with which to make a point. If that's not objectification, I'm not sure what is.
posted by Flipping_Hades_Terwilliger at 12:19 PM on August 17, 2016 [34 favorites]
posted by Flipping_Hades_Terwilliger at 12:19 PM on August 17, 2016 [34 favorites]
From the fourth (DW) article:
"As a man, I feel I'm being attacked and discriminated against by such articles of clothing which are worn for show. "
Ugh.
posted by suedehead at 12:19 PM on August 17, 2016 [8 favorites]
"As a man, I feel I'm being attacked and discriminated against by such articles of clothing which are worn for show. "
Ugh.
posted by suedehead at 12:19 PM on August 17, 2016 [8 favorites]
The alternative to the burkini isnt women wearing ordinary swimsuits. It's them not going swimming/to the beach at all.
democracy should not give the benefit of the doubt to extremism views under "freedom of speech".
Democracy should stay the fuck out of what women wear to feel comfortable at the seaside.
posted by threetwentytwo at 12:20 PM on August 17, 2016 [42 favorites]
democracy should not give the benefit of the doubt to extremism views under "freedom of speech".
Democracy should stay the fuck out of what women wear to feel comfortable at the seaside.
posted by threetwentytwo at 12:20 PM on August 17, 2016 [42 favorites]
The point of these bans is to stop peer pressure within the community to push moderates to full compliance with extremist traditions
How's that working out for them?
posted by griphus at 12:21 PM on August 17, 2016 [35 favorites]
How's that working out for them?
posted by griphus at 12:21 PM on August 17, 2016 [35 favorites]
My problem with the hijab, burqa, burquini - is that it seems that Muslim women have become their own oppressors. Twenty-five plus years ago, most Muslim women didn't cover themselves. Now, the policing of women's bodies by Muslim authorities (in some Muslim countries) and the idea that "modesty" means covering a woman's hair has been embraced as a means of self protection. This idea of modesty didn't originate with women.
That said, the burquini ban is another form of policing Muslim women's bodies.
posted by shoesietart at 12:21 PM on August 17, 2016 [18 favorites]
That said, the burquini ban is another form of policing Muslim women's bodies.
posted by shoesietart at 12:21 PM on August 17, 2016 [18 favorites]
The point of these bans is to stop peer pressure within the community to push moderates to full compliance with extremist traditions.
so then surely they're also banning orthodox jewish women from wearing sheitels and modest dress at the beach? no? it's just the one outfit with a foreign sounding name? how interesting.
posted by poffin boffin at 12:23 PM on August 17, 2016 [25 favorites]
so then surely they're also banning orthodox jewish women from wearing sheitels and modest dress at the beach? no? it's just the one outfit with a foreign sounding name? how interesting.
posted by poffin boffin at 12:23 PM on August 17, 2016 [25 favorites]
The point of these bans is to stop peer pressure within the community to push moderates to full compliance with extremist traditions.
I don't doubt that calling for bans like these comes from a non-malicious place for some people (I also have hard time being charitable about the motivations of others). But how do you imagine this is going to improve things? At best, you've needlessly inconvenienced a lot of women on suspiciously racial grounds. More likely, you've pushed any actual extremist cultural pressures further underground, where they're harder to detect.
posted by figurant at 12:24 PM on August 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
I don't doubt that calling for bans like these comes from a non-malicious place for some people (I also have hard time being charitable about the motivations of others). But how do you imagine this is going to improve things? At best, you've needlessly inconvenienced a lot of women on suspiciously racial grounds. More likely, you've pushed any actual extremist cultural pressures further underground, where they're harder to detect.
posted by figurant at 12:24 PM on August 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
That is an interesting counterpoint, costas. It makes the law at least comprehensible.
My dude told me recently about an effort to bring home (to a northern European city, I think) teens who had tried to volunteer for IS. It centered on the fact that they had never really been invited in to the local culture; the only connection the teens were able to form was with ethnically similar people, and they, for example, had no idea what it was like to enjoy themselves at a cafe -- and cafe culture was central to the native European residents. So, pairing these kids with someone who would mentor them and just _take them to a freakin' cafe_ had a huge effect on them, and really introduced them to the good parts of living there (rather than just feeling like outsiders all the time).
The comment about moderate muslims being pressured to wear headscarves in the absence of a total ban made me think that an approach like this might be a less totalitarian counterbalance. Programs like these seem required.
The difference between a burkini and a hooded wetsuit
I've been considering getting something _like_ this, but why are they all black? It seems like it would be unnecessarily hot...
posted by amtho at 12:26 PM on August 17, 2016 [8 favorites]
My dude told me recently about an effort to bring home (to a northern European city, I think) teens who had tried to volunteer for IS. It centered on the fact that they had never really been invited in to the local culture; the only connection the teens were able to form was with ethnically similar people, and they, for example, had no idea what it was like to enjoy themselves at a cafe -- and cafe culture was central to the native European residents. So, pairing these kids with someone who would mentor them and just _take them to a freakin' cafe_ had a huge effect on them, and really introduced them to the good parts of living there (rather than just feeling like outsiders all the time).
The comment about moderate muslims being pressured to wear headscarves in the absence of a total ban made me think that an approach like this might be a less totalitarian counterbalance. Programs like these seem required.
The difference between a burkini and a hooded wetsuit
I've been considering getting something _like_ this, but why are they all black? It seems like it would be unnecessarily hot...
posted by amtho at 12:26 PM on August 17, 2016 [8 favorites]
You really can't combat people being pressured into doing one thing by pressuring them into doing another thing. That's real dumb!
posted by selfnoise at 12:26 PM on August 17, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by selfnoise at 12:26 PM on August 17, 2016 [5 favorites]
>Twenty-five plus years ago, most Muslim women didn't cover themselves.
Most of the Muslims I've talked to would admit to that, then point out that in the time since headscarves have been (re)introduced, more Muslim women work outside the home, get divorces, represent their countries in government (Pakistan has better female representation in parliament than the US), get educated...
But sure, all of that is far less important than what those women are wearing.
posted by perplexion at 12:29 PM on August 17, 2016 [31 favorites]
Most of the Muslims I've talked to would admit to that, then point out that in the time since headscarves have been (re)introduced, more Muslim women work outside the home, get divorces, represent their countries in government (Pakistan has better female representation in parliament than the US), get educated...
But sure, all of that is far less important than what those women are wearing.
posted by perplexion at 12:29 PM on August 17, 2016 [31 favorites]
i just don't get this hilarious wild fantasy that if you just BAN the clothing then suddenly women in conservative religious communities will suddenly, magically, have more rights, more freedoms. literally all you've done is say "your kind isn't welcome here" and not the high-minded egalitarian "you have the same rights as all others in our society and are welcome wherever you choose to go! freedom!" they're pretending it is.
posted by poffin boffin at 12:30 PM on August 17, 2016 [30 favorites]
posted by poffin boffin at 12:30 PM on August 17, 2016 [30 favorites]
Any French people (and French Muslim folks) in this thread have an informed opinion? Different culture, not America, etc.
posted by My Dad at 12:31 PM on August 17, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by My Dad at 12:31 PM on August 17, 2016 [4 favorites]
I am not defending the ban, just saying that this is nowhere near as simple as "You can't wear what you want". Where is the line? How tolerant can you be as a host to intolerance? Do you ban people from eating in public places during Ramadan (true in some Gulf states)?
The French are saying that if you live in France you got to adapt to French values. Yes, it's not going great for them, but it's a valid point of view. And honestly, I haven't seen any good solution anywhere in the region, and I work and travel both in Western Europe and the Gulf.
posted by costas at 12:31 PM on August 17, 2016 [7 favorites]
The French are saying that if you live in France you got to adapt to French values. Yes, it's not going great for them, but it's a valid point of view. And honestly, I haven't seen any good solution anywhere in the region, and I work and travel both in Western Europe and the Gulf.
posted by costas at 12:31 PM on August 17, 2016 [7 favorites]
So by banning the burkini they are taking away these women's freedom to enjoy the water in public.
Which one begins to suspect is in fact the point.
posted by tobascodagama at 12:32 PM on August 17, 2016 [3 favorites]
Which one begins to suspect is in fact the point.
posted by tobascodagama at 12:32 PM on August 17, 2016 [3 favorites]
amtho: why are they all black
They really aren't. Many are colourful.
posted by Too-Ticky at 12:33 PM on August 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
They really aren't. Many are colourful.
posted by Too-Ticky at 12:33 PM on August 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
The French are saying that if you live in France you got to adapt to French values.
The "French value" in question seems to be "not appearing to be visibly Muslim".
That's a shit value.
posted by tobascodagama at 12:34 PM on August 17, 2016 [56 favorites]
The "French value" in question seems to be "not appearing to be visibly Muslim".
That's a shit value.
posted by tobascodagama at 12:34 PM on August 17, 2016 [56 favorites]
Do you ban people from eating in public places during Ramadan (true in some Gulf states)?
No! How does that in any way conflict with not banning a certain kind of swimsuit? I'm honestly asking because that comparison makes no sense to me.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 12:34 PM on August 17, 2016 [17 favorites]
No! How does that in any way conflict with not banning a certain kind of swimsuit? I'm honestly asking because that comparison makes no sense to me.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 12:34 PM on August 17, 2016 [17 favorites]
Where is the line?
With clothing? The line is between the government saying "women are not allowed to cover their body in clothing of this particular cut" and the government not saying that. I mean, it's a pretty bright line from where I'm standing, which, admittedly, is not France.
posted by griphus at 12:36 PM on August 17, 2016 [16 favorites]
With clothing? The line is between the government saying "women are not allowed to cover their body in clothing of this particular cut" and the government not saying that. I mean, it's a pretty bright line from where I'm standing, which, admittedly, is not France.
posted by griphus at 12:36 PM on August 17, 2016 [16 favorites]
The French are saying that if you live in France you got to adapt to French values.
by saying this you are saying that french society and french values should exclude muslims, jews, and sikhs, at the very least.
posted by poffin boffin at 12:37 PM on August 17, 2016 [21 favorites]
by saying this you are saying that french society and french values should exclude muslims, jews, and sikhs, at the very least.
posted by poffin boffin at 12:37 PM on August 17, 2016 [21 favorites]
The French are saying that if you live in France you got to adapt to French values.
Much like the once-proposed Quebec Charter of Values, it's amazing how the values are "if you can't be white, then act white."
posted by Kitteh at 12:37 PM on August 17, 2016 [28 favorites]
Much like the once-proposed Quebec Charter of Values, it's amazing how the values are "if you can't be white, then act white."
posted by Kitteh at 12:37 PM on August 17, 2016 [28 favorites]
The burquinis aren't that different from what most Western women wore at the beach in the late 19th century. This is a silly ban.
posted by Triplanetary at 12:38 PM on August 17, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by Triplanetary at 12:38 PM on August 17, 2016 [6 favorites]
>The French are saying that if you live in France you got to adapt to French values.
Sure, and I'm sure Saudis say that if you live in Saudi Arabia you've got to adapt to Saudi values, but I'm going to oppose their ban on female driving anyways.
France can do whatever it likes, nobody can stop it, but it doesn't get to pretend that it values liberty and equality while doing so.
posted by perplexion at 12:39 PM on August 17, 2016 [29 favorites]
Sure, and I'm sure Saudis say that if you live in Saudi Arabia you've got to adapt to Saudi values, but I'm going to oppose their ban on female driving anyways.
France can do whatever it likes, nobody can stop it, but it doesn't get to pretend that it values liberty and equality while doing so.
posted by perplexion at 12:39 PM on August 17, 2016 [29 favorites]
When I was reading about this it seemed like they were making a direct link between burqinis and terrorism. Like suddenly there was this scourge of ladies going to the beach with bombs in their bathing suits. And now it's innocent women who have to pay the price by stripping down to their underwear. This move is just backwards, cowardly, sexist, and wrong-headed and it can only backfire.
posted by bleep at 12:39 PM on August 17, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by bleep at 12:39 PM on August 17, 2016 [6 favorites]
They really aren't. Many are colourful.
I think a pale pastel or white would be more beach-y. Is that, uh, allowed?
Also, would wearing one _to keep off the sun_ (and avoid worrying about other appearance issues) be cultural appropriation?
posted by amtho at 12:39 PM on August 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
I think a pale pastel or white would be more beach-y. Is that, uh, allowed?
Also, would wearing one _to keep off the sun_ (and avoid worrying about other appearance issues) be cultural appropriation?
posted by amtho at 12:39 PM on August 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
I mean I don't think anyone would argue that this situation is about much more than women being prevented from wearing what they want, but this particular incarnation of that complex interaction of French Values, French Muslims and the tenets of democracy amounts to women being prevented from being able to wear what they want.
posted by griphus at 12:40 PM on August 17, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by griphus at 12:40 PM on August 17, 2016 [3 favorites]
when the majority gets to decide the baseline for what is an "equal" society you can damn well bet that it is a terrible fucking society for anyone who is in any way a minority.
posted by poffin boffin at 12:41 PM on August 17, 2016 [24 favorites]
posted by poffin boffin at 12:41 PM on August 17, 2016 [24 favorites]
No! How does that in any way conflict with not banning a certain kind of swimsuit? I'm honestly asking because that comparison makes no sense to me
OK, lazy way to phrase it on my part. Let me try again: you are a tolerant, liberal society that is hosting an intolerant subgroup. Do you let them subjugated their own members because it's their custom and belief? Do you let them take girls out of mandatory schooling (true for the Roma in a lot of places)? Force their women to cover up? Allow genital mutilation? Where is the line guys? Where do you say "these are inalienable rights and have to be protected"? And how do you do that, exactly? Practically speaking. I am honestly curious because I haven't seen any good answers.
posted by costas at 12:41 PM on August 17, 2016 [10 favorites]
OK, lazy way to phrase it on my part. Let me try again: you are a tolerant, liberal society that is hosting an intolerant subgroup. Do you let them subjugated their own members because it's their custom and belief? Do you let them take girls out of mandatory schooling (true for the Roma in a lot of places)? Force their women to cover up? Allow genital mutilation? Where is the line guys? Where do you say "these are inalienable rights and have to be protected"? And how do you do that, exactly? Practically speaking. I am honestly curious because I haven't seen any good answers.
posted by costas at 12:41 PM on August 17, 2016 [10 favorites]
I posted this comment about clothing laws in France vis a vis Islam five years ago, and I see that nothing has really changed since then.
posted by BuddhaInABucket at 12:41 PM on August 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by BuddhaInABucket at 12:41 PM on August 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
This ban is sexist and Islamophobic, but I don't think this--I've spent lots of time in conservative Muslim countries over the years, and in general women (even those who don't cover their hair) face huge pressure to simply never go swim in public--should pass without criticism either. Alienating the women who are subject to oppressive gendered religious rules is a terrible way to go about addressing them, though.
posted by Mavri at 12:42 PM on August 17, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by Mavri at 12:42 PM on August 17, 2016 [3 favorites]
I find this infuriating. What a mess. Condescending, patronizing, paternalistic, infantilizing garbage.
posted by prefpara at 12:42 PM on August 17, 2016 [10 favorites]
posted by prefpara at 12:42 PM on August 17, 2016 [10 favorites]
how allowing head covers in schools pushed all girls to wear scarves even if they came from moderate Muslim families.
What I've heard expressed from women who veil here is that it's not at all about being "pushed" (from within a group, at least), it's about taking ownership and making an affirmative statement of identity (and for other reasons besides). If there is a "push", it seems to be coming from a majority that rejects people, on ethnocentric grounds. (And there is going to be a response to that.)
posted by cotton dress sock at 12:42 PM on August 17, 2016 [11 favorites]
What I've heard expressed from women who veil here is that it's not at all about being "pushed" (from within a group, at least), it's about taking ownership and making an affirmative statement of identity (and for other reasons besides). If there is a "push", it seems to be coming from a majority that rejects people, on ethnocentric grounds. (And there is going to be a response to that.)
posted by cotton dress sock at 12:42 PM on August 17, 2016 [11 favorites]
...you are a tolerant, liberal society that is hosting an intolerant subgroup.
What do you mean by "hosting"? Aren't these French residents and citizens we're talking about? I suspect my good friend Ethnic Nationalism has returned.
posted by griphus at 12:45 PM on August 17, 2016 [71 favorites]
What do you mean by "hosting"? Aren't these French residents and citizens we're talking about? I suspect my good friend Ethnic Nationalism has returned.
posted by griphus at 12:45 PM on August 17, 2016 [71 favorites]
Why are people trying to equate what happens in Gulf states with France anyway? France is a democracy that holds the equality of its citizens as one of its central tenets. The Gulf states are openly racist authoritarian regimes. I mean fine if France wants to bring itself down to the level of the Gulf states that is a choice it can make but from over here it looks like the wrong choice.
posted by any portmanteau in a storm at 12:45 PM on August 17, 2016 [18 favorites]
posted by any portmanteau in a storm at 12:45 PM on August 17, 2016 [18 favorites]
Where is the line guys? Where do you say "these are inalienable rights and have to be protected"?
I personally think that freedom of expression is an inalienable right. So is freedom of religion. Banning a particular religious group from wearing a particular item of clothing is in no way comparable to banning genital mutilation.
posted by mai at 12:46 PM on August 17, 2016 [9 favorites]
I personally think that freedom of expression is an inalienable right. So is freedom of religion. Banning a particular religious group from wearing a particular item of clothing is in no way comparable to banning genital mutilation.
posted by mai at 12:46 PM on August 17, 2016 [9 favorites]
Twenty-five plus years ago, most Muslim women didn't cover themselves. Now, the policing of women's bodies by Muslim authorities (in some Muslim countries) and the idea that "modesty" means covering a woman's hair has been embraced as a means of self protection. This idea of modesty didn't originate with women.
There's a huge difference between what it means to wear a burquini in France vs. what it means to do so in a majority-muslim country, though. I wouldn't trust that the women who choose to do so are doing it for the same reasons. Being visibly Muslim in public can be a huge statement in and of itself, and not necessarily one that these women would make lightly.
posted by dinty_moore at 12:46 PM on August 17, 2016 [6 favorites]
There's a huge difference between what it means to wear a burquini in France vs. what it means to do so in a majority-muslim country, though. I wouldn't trust that the women who choose to do so are doing it for the same reasons. Being visibly Muslim in public can be a huge statement in and of itself, and not necessarily one that these women would make lightly.
posted by dinty_moore at 12:46 PM on August 17, 2016 [6 favorites]
Every time I can't figure out what to wear in the morning, I call my local mayor so he can tell me. I used to just take advice from the vox populi of men on street corners telling me to wear less clothing, but some things are really best left to the executive branch.
posted by Hypatia at 12:46 PM on August 17, 2016 [33 favorites]
posted by Hypatia at 12:46 PM on August 17, 2016 [33 favorites]
I think a pale pastel or white would be more beach-y. Is that, uh, allowed?
If you're not Muslim, how could it not be allowed? Okay, yes, you could be in certain French cities...
In any case, they exist in pink, for sure. White seems rarer, maybe because of see-through effects when they get wet?
Also, would wearing one _to keep off the sun_ (and avoid worrying about other appearance issues) be cultural appropriation?
I would think not, but I'm not the expert here.
posted by Too-Ticky at 12:47 PM on August 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
If you're not Muslim, how could it not be allowed? Okay, yes, you could be in certain French cities...
In any case, they exist in pink, for sure. White seems rarer, maybe because of see-through effects when they get wet?
Also, would wearing one _to keep off the sun_ (and avoid worrying about other appearance issues) be cultural appropriation?
I would think not, but I'm not the expert here.
posted by Too-Ticky at 12:47 PM on August 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
On the sliding scale of religious practices that can negatively impact women and children within the community, I think the wearing of modest dress is way far away from "denying an education" or "causing lifelong sexual dysfunction."
As someone who lives in a place where the people wearing distinctive religious garb is 50/50 Jewish/Muslim (with a few visiting Mennonite and Amish thrown in) count me as among the curious about how these laws impact Orthodox Jewish women. And men because it's not like religious clothing is the domain of just women.
posted by soren_lorensen at 12:48 PM on August 17, 2016 [5 favorites]
As someone who lives in a place where the people wearing distinctive religious garb is 50/50 Jewish/Muslim (with a few visiting Mennonite and Amish thrown in) count me as among the curious about how these laws impact Orthodox Jewish women. And men because it's not like religious clothing is the domain of just women.
posted by soren_lorensen at 12:48 PM on August 17, 2016 [5 favorites]
Where do you say "these are inalienable rights and have to be protected"?
You do it at each thing.
posted by Etrigan at 12:48 PM on August 17, 2016 [7 favorites]
You do it at each thing.
posted by Etrigan at 12:48 PM on August 17, 2016 [7 favorites]
surely they're also banning orthodox jewish women from wearing sheitels and modest dress at the beach?
Probably they are, actually.
posted by jeather at 12:51 PM on August 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
Probably they are, actually.
posted by jeather at 12:51 PM on August 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
it's about taking ownership and making an affirmative statement of identity (and for other reasons besides).
like my god if my gym was like "we're banning burqinis in the pool" i would show up for my workouts every single day in full on rebbe schneerson drag and fucking dare them to eject me
posted by poffin boffin at 12:53 PM on August 17, 2016 [36 favorites]
like my god if my gym was like "we're banning burqinis in the pool" i would show up for my workouts every single day in full on rebbe schneerson drag and fucking dare them to eject me
posted by poffin boffin at 12:53 PM on August 17, 2016 [36 favorites]
Do you ban people from eating in public places during Ramadan (true in some Gulf states)?
No, this is like forcing women to eat in public during Ramadan, just in case they're hungry but the men won't let them eat.
posted by that's how you get ants at 12:54 PM on August 17, 2016 [61 favorites]
No, this is like forcing women to eat in public during Ramadan, just in case they're hungry but the men won't let them eat.
posted by that's how you get ants at 12:54 PM on August 17, 2016 [61 favorites]
griphus, I am far from a Nationalist, believe me. But I am guessing we are not coming from the same place. Ten years ago when I lived in the US, I would totally agree with you. Not anymore and I am definitely not arguing for the ban here. I am still an old school liberal. But I've seen the failures of tolerant policies to intolerance. There are dozens of Roma kids who roam my neighborhood begging and picking through dumpsters when they should be in school. They will grow up and do the same thing to their kids all the while saying it was their choice as parents. Generations have been stuck in poverty because hey we are a liberal society.
What does that mean?
posted by costas at 12:55 PM on August 17, 2016 [4 favorites]
What does that mean?
posted by costas at 12:55 PM on August 17, 2016 [4 favorites]
The French are saying that if you live in France you got to adapt to French values
Such as the values espoused in Articles 8 and 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights, of which, I submit, these actions are a violation, and I don't believe that the reasoning of the European Court of Human Rights in the Case of S.A.S. v. France (application no. 43835/11) can sensibly be extended to cover this fucking horseshit - excuse me, to cover "the facts of this particular situation" - not without the Court essentially suggesting that any form of Muslim clothing may be banned anywhere in public without violating Convention rights - which would be an utterly outrageous position for the Court to take.
posted by the quidnunc kid at 12:55 PM on August 17, 2016 [18 favorites]
Such as the values espoused in Articles 8 and 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights, of which, I submit, these actions are a violation, and I don't believe that the reasoning of the European Court of Human Rights in the Case of S.A.S. v. France (application no. 43835/11) can sensibly be extended to cover this fucking horseshit - excuse me, to cover "the facts of this particular situation" - not without the Court essentially suggesting that any form of Muslim clothing may be banned anywhere in public without violating Convention rights - which would be an utterly outrageous position for the Court to take.
posted by the quidnunc kid at 12:55 PM on August 17, 2016 [18 favorites]
griphus, I am far from a Nationalist, believe me.
Oh I was not implying you were the nationalist. Sorry if it came off that way.
But let's use your example of the generational problems facing Roma kids: here's how France handled that problem. In my opinion, the ban on the burkini is pretty much the same thing: it gets the people whom the majority find Discomforting in some way out of the public eye and ... that's about it.
posted by griphus at 1:01 PM on August 17, 2016 [7 favorites]
Oh I was not implying you were the nationalist. Sorry if it came off that way.
But let's use your example of the generational problems facing Roma kids: here's how France handled that problem. In my opinion, the ban on the burkini is pretty much the same thing: it gets the people whom the majority find Discomforting in some way out of the public eye and ... that's about it.
posted by griphus at 1:01 PM on August 17, 2016 [7 favorites]
Probably they are, actually.
i mean i don't doubt that people in france are lining up to be shitty to jews in general but i definitely do not recall seeing anything about laws banning sheitels in public areas. (if there were such laws i would absolutely pitch a firey op ed to the foverts about it so if anyone has any links pls lmk.)
posted by poffin boffin at 1:02 PM on August 17, 2016 [5 favorites]
i mean i don't doubt that people in france are lining up to be shitty to jews in general but i definitely do not recall seeing anything about laws banning sheitels in public areas. (if there were such laws i would absolutely pitch a firey op ed to the foverts about it so if anyone has any links pls lmk.)
posted by poffin boffin at 1:02 PM on August 17, 2016 [5 favorites]
There are, sadly, totally different reasons why French jews often don't feel safe wearing anything visibly jewish in public.surely they're also banning orthodox jewish women from wearing sheitels and modest dress at the beach?Probably they are, actually.
posted by kickingtheground at 1:03 PM on August 17, 2016 [16 favorites]
But let's use your example of the generational problems facing Roma kids: here's how France handled that problem. In my opinion, the ban on the burkini is pretty much the same thing: it gets the people whom the majority find Discomforting in some way out of the public eye and ... that's about it.
Pretty much. A real problem exists, but France is trying to solve it in the worst way possible.
posted by kafziel at 1:07 PM on August 17, 2016 [3 favorites]
Pretty much. A real problem exists, but France is trying to solve it in the worst way possible.
posted by kafziel at 1:07 PM on August 17, 2016 [3 favorites]
Also, connecting laws about what swimsuits women are allowed to wear in public with truancy laws, which apply because kids aren't legally capable of making their own decisions about whether school is a good idea or not, isn't a great case for why this law isn't paternalistic bullshit.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 1:09 PM on August 17, 2016 [14 favorites]
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 1:09 PM on August 17, 2016 [14 favorites]
>OK, lazy way to phrase it on my part. Let me try again: you are a tolerant, liberal society that is hosting an intolerant subgroup. Do you let them subjugated their own members because it's their custom and belief? Do you let them take girls out of mandatory schooling (true for the Roma in a lot of places)? Force their women to cover up? Allow genital mutilation? Where is the line guys? Where do you say "these are inalienable rights and have to be protected"? And how do you do that, exactly? Practically speaking. I am honestly curious because I haven't seen any good answers.
Here's the thing. I'm a college student. I live with a Pakistani Muslim roommate who wears a headscarf. She's active in her mosque. She plans on getting an arranged marriage (not now, but a few years after she graduates). She took a gap year after high school for full-time study of Arabic and the Quran.
She's also planning on becoming a neurosurgeon, and she probably will, because she's the most hardworking person I know. She's actively called out sexism in her community, and will rant at you for hours about the issues her community faces when it comes to achieving true equality for women. To give an example, she participated in a vocal boycott of a yearly conference she usually attends (on, I think, Islam and the Family or something like that, it was awhile ago), because they didn't have any female speakers that year.
I think that if anyone is going to make Islam more progressive and the US -or France, or any other nation- more tolerant, it's going to be people like her.
But she's being hit from all sides. People have called security on her while she was doing homework in a public study lounge. She's been told to "go back to Saudi Arabia." And this is in very liberal Austin, Texas. Then there's pushback she faces from the more conservative (almost always older) members of her community about her feminism. And finally, among the liberal feminists who should be her allies, she's "chosen her own oppression." Basically all she has are her fellow young female Muslims, because no one else seems to be standing up for them.
The question Western countries have to ask themselves is this: do they value religious toleration? France doesn't seem to. The US, thankfully for my roommate, does. And like any other value, there are times when it's going to come into serious conflict with other values, and when you're going to have to make tough decisions. But you face those decisions. Because that value is important to you. We're taking it a step at a time. The whole birth control debate that sprung out of the Hobby Lobby case, for example. And sometimes, yes, you're going to make decisions that undercut that ideal of religious toleration and freedom. But if you truly value toleration, sometimes you're going to have to let people make decisions you don't agree with.
Considering that so much of feminism has always been about giving women agency over their own bodies, I don't see how this is a case where there's a value conflict. It seems to be about being less tolerant for the sake of being less tolerant.
And in any case, if people claim to value what happens to these women, why isn't anyone listening to them?
posted by perplexion at 1:11 PM on August 17, 2016 [123 favorites]
Here's the thing. I'm a college student. I live with a Pakistani Muslim roommate who wears a headscarf. She's active in her mosque. She plans on getting an arranged marriage (not now, but a few years after she graduates). She took a gap year after high school for full-time study of Arabic and the Quran.
She's also planning on becoming a neurosurgeon, and she probably will, because she's the most hardworking person I know. She's actively called out sexism in her community, and will rant at you for hours about the issues her community faces when it comes to achieving true equality for women. To give an example, she participated in a vocal boycott of a yearly conference she usually attends (on, I think, Islam and the Family or something like that, it was awhile ago), because they didn't have any female speakers that year.
I think that if anyone is going to make Islam more progressive and the US -or France, or any other nation- more tolerant, it's going to be people like her.
But she's being hit from all sides. People have called security on her while she was doing homework in a public study lounge. She's been told to "go back to Saudi Arabia." And this is in very liberal Austin, Texas. Then there's pushback she faces from the more conservative (almost always older) members of her community about her feminism. And finally, among the liberal feminists who should be her allies, she's "chosen her own oppression." Basically all she has are her fellow young female Muslims, because no one else seems to be standing up for them.
The question Western countries have to ask themselves is this: do they value religious toleration? France doesn't seem to. The US, thankfully for my roommate, does. And like any other value, there are times when it's going to come into serious conflict with other values, and when you're going to have to make tough decisions. But you face those decisions. Because that value is important to you. We're taking it a step at a time. The whole birth control debate that sprung out of the Hobby Lobby case, for example. And sometimes, yes, you're going to make decisions that undercut that ideal of religious toleration and freedom. But if you truly value toleration, sometimes you're going to have to let people make decisions you don't agree with.
Considering that so much of feminism has always been about giving women agency over their own bodies, I don't see how this is a case where there's a value conflict. It seems to be about being less tolerant for the sake of being less tolerant.
And in any case, if people claim to value what happens to these women, why isn't anyone listening to them?
posted by perplexion at 1:11 PM on August 17, 2016 [123 favorites]
One of my best mum friends is a Muslim woman who I met at a baby group very early on. I am one of the handful of non-Muslim people she has ever ever had a personal relationship with. Like it or not, the only way she gets to participate in the social and cultural life of this country is by dressing modestly enough.
So that's your choice. You can either permit Muslim women (and, importantly, their children) a role in public life. Or you can ensure that they are trapped in their houses, never participating and never integrating. Up to you.
posted by threetwentytwo at 1:13 PM on August 17, 2016 [14 favorites]
So that's your choice. You can either permit Muslim women (and, importantly, their children) a role in public life. Or you can ensure that they are trapped in their houses, never participating and never integrating. Up to you.
posted by threetwentytwo at 1:13 PM on August 17, 2016 [14 favorites]
perplexion: The question Western countries have to ask themselves is this: do they value religious toleration? France doesn't seem to. The US, thankfully for my roommate, does.
If that toleration includes folks calling security on her while she was doing homework in a public study lounge, I'm somewhat underwhelmed.
posted by Too-Ticky at 1:15 PM on August 17, 2016 [6 favorites]
If that toleration includes folks calling security on her while she was doing homework in a public study lounge, I'm somewhat underwhelmed.
posted by Too-Ticky at 1:15 PM on August 17, 2016 [6 favorites]
when will France do do something for these poor women forced by religious extremists to cover up
posted by palindromic at 1:15 PM on August 17, 2016 [27 favorites]
posted by palindromic at 1:15 PM on August 17, 2016 [27 favorites]
And how do you do that, exactly? Practically speaking. I am honestly curious because I haven't seen any good answers.
Create educational resources. Create hotlines and support programs for people trying to escape oppressive environments. Create community programs focused on immigrant integration and community togetherness. Empower the people the you're trying to "help". Do the work and put the resources towards it.
Instead France's solution is to oppress the oppressed.
posted by mayonnaises at 1:19 PM on August 17, 2016 [16 favorites]
Create educational resources. Create hotlines and support programs for people trying to escape oppressive environments. Create community programs focused on immigrant integration and community togetherness. Empower the people the you're trying to "help". Do the work and put the resources towards it.
Instead France's solution is to oppress the oppressed.
posted by mayonnaises at 1:19 PM on August 17, 2016 [16 favorites]
Create community programs focused on immigrant integration and community togetherness
Meant to add- the baby group we met at was specifically geared towards integrating what is one of the most ethnically diverse areas of the UK. It's absolutely the way.
posted by threetwentytwo at 1:22 PM on August 17, 2016 [3 favorites]
Meant to add- the baby group we met at was specifically geared towards integrating what is one of the most ethnically diverse areas of the UK. It's absolutely the way.
posted by threetwentytwo at 1:22 PM on August 17, 2016 [3 favorites]
>If that toleration includes getting called security on her while she was doing homework in a public study lounge, I'm somewhat underwhelmed.
There's a difference between the toleration (or lack thereof) expressed by a government and the toleration (or lack thereof) expressed by ordinary people. Ultimately I think the former is more important, because of the power the government holds. Especially since I highly doubt there's any Western country where she wouldn't have had to deal with blatant Islamophobia at least occasionally.
posted by perplexion at 1:24 PM on August 17, 2016 [5 favorites]
There's a difference between the toleration (or lack thereof) expressed by a government and the toleration (or lack thereof) expressed by ordinary people. Ultimately I think the former is more important, because of the power the government holds. Especially since I highly doubt there's any Western country where she wouldn't have had to deal with blatant Islamophobia at least occasionally.
posted by perplexion at 1:24 PM on August 17, 2016 [5 favorites]
And how do you do that, exactly? Practically speaking. I am honestly curious because I haven't seen any good answers.
Create educational resources. Create hotlines and support programs for people trying to escape oppressive environments. Create community programs focused on immigrant integration and community togetherness. Empower the people the you're trying to "help". Do the work and put the resources towards it.
Also, just be a confident and welcoming culture and people will want a piece of your shit. It doesn't always work, but it works roughly 100x better than whatever this is. There are always going to be people who want to attack what you are, and you have to accept that and still offer an open hand to newcomers.
posted by selfnoise at 1:24 PM on August 17, 2016 [6 favorites]
Create educational resources. Create hotlines and support programs for people trying to escape oppressive environments. Create community programs focused on immigrant integration and community togetherness. Empower the people the you're trying to "help". Do the work and put the resources towards it.
Also, just be a confident and welcoming culture and people will want a piece of your shit. It doesn't always work, but it works roughly 100x better than whatever this is. There are always going to be people who want to attack what you are, and you have to accept that and still offer an open hand to newcomers.
posted by selfnoise at 1:24 PM on August 17, 2016 [6 favorites]
Mayonnaise, sorry, that's a very American frame of reference. Immigrants in the US come to melt in the pot (I was one I know). In Europe, immigrant communities are self enclosed, especially non-Western ones. They mostly refuse to engage or assimilate at all. My country has absorbed about 10% of its population since the fall of the Wall of Eastern Europeans with zero problems. Yet, Roma haven't assimilated in over a millenium of living here. Not exaggerating, an actual millenium.
All I am saying is that Europe is not New York and the problems here are actually different.
posted by costas at 1:30 PM on August 17, 2016 [6 favorites]
All I am saying is that Europe is not New York and the problems here are actually different.
posted by costas at 1:30 PM on August 17, 2016 [6 favorites]
On preview, I agree with perplexion and mayonnaises in full, but.
I also appreciate the fact that costas is defending the position ze is defending. Worldwide patriarchy means culture vs. culture will almost always implicate the way that women are allowed/required/forbidden to behave.
It's easy to say "this is white guys telling women to wear less" because that's 100% true but also far easier than answering "is it better for white guys to tell women to wear less than it is for brown guys to tell women to wear more?" Plus, the intents of both groups of men both are and are not relevant to the answer to that question.
Of course, it would be best if no men told any women how much to wear, but what do we do until we have torn down the patriarchy? Etrigan probably has the best of it in saying
"You do it at each thing."
The only wrinkle is that this culture war is still going on while you are fighting each battle. Is it more important to be a brilliant tactician, winning battle after battle, or a brilliant strategist, ultimately rendering every battle moot? (France is being a poor tactician here, granted.)
What French person who does not like the repression of women's bodies would not prefer, in their heart of hearts, for this problem to solve itself by Muslim children assimilating sufficiently that they don't repress women's bodies, and their parents (who did) dying off?
Likewise, if you are a conservative imam in France, would you not prefer for this problem to solve itself by establishing a firm, defensible pocket of Muslim culture in France, such that French non-Muslims accept your repression of women's bodies, and their parents (who did not) dying off?
posted by radicalawyer at 1:31 PM on August 17, 2016 [6 favorites]
I also appreciate the fact that costas is defending the position ze is defending. Worldwide patriarchy means culture vs. culture will almost always implicate the way that women are allowed/required/forbidden to behave.
It's easy to say "this is white guys telling women to wear less" because that's 100% true but also far easier than answering "is it better for white guys to tell women to wear less than it is for brown guys to tell women to wear more?" Plus, the intents of both groups of men both are and are not relevant to the answer to that question.
Of course, it would be best if no men told any women how much to wear, but what do we do until we have torn down the patriarchy? Etrigan probably has the best of it in saying
"You do it at each thing."
The only wrinkle is that this culture war is still going on while you are fighting each battle. Is it more important to be a brilliant tactician, winning battle after battle, or a brilliant strategist, ultimately rendering every battle moot? (France is being a poor tactician here, granted.)
What French person who does not like the repression of women's bodies would not prefer, in their heart of hearts, for this problem to solve itself by Muslim children assimilating sufficiently that they don't repress women's bodies, and their parents (who did) dying off?
Likewise, if you are a conservative imam in France, would you not prefer for this problem to solve itself by establishing a firm, defensible pocket of Muslim culture in France, such that French non-Muslims accept your repression of women's bodies, and their parents (who did not) dying off?
posted by radicalawyer at 1:31 PM on August 17, 2016 [6 favorites]
perplexion: There's a difference between the toleration (or lack thereof) expressed by a government and the toleration (or lack thereof) expressed by ordinary people.
That is a fair point, but I don't really see the US as a shining example of religious tolerance.
Maybe we should not compare? It's not a competition, and this thread is not about the US.
posted by Too-Ticky at 1:34 PM on August 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
That is a fair point, but I don't really see the US as a shining example of religious tolerance.
Maybe we should not compare? It's not a competition, and this thread is not about the US.
posted by Too-Ticky at 1:34 PM on August 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
Yet, Roma haven't assimilated in over a millenium of living here.
Must be Throwback Thursday because it's kinda incredible, in 2016, watching someone demand cultural assimilation, or at least suggesting it can be achieved by punitive action. What part of "women can wear whatever the fuck they want wherever they want and anyone stopping them is oppressing them" is confusing to you?
posted by Jimbob at 1:39 PM on August 17, 2016 [28 favorites]
Must be Throwback Thursday because it's kinda incredible, in 2016, watching someone demand cultural assimilation, or at least suggesting it can be achieved by punitive action. What part of "women can wear whatever the fuck they want wherever they want and anyone stopping them is oppressing them" is confusing to you?
posted by Jimbob at 1:39 PM on August 17, 2016 [28 favorites]
The French government seems to imagine that Muslim women are being forced or coerced or otherwise induced into wearing "modest" clothing, but you can't push people into being free (of whatever strictures you think you perceive them to be living under). It seems vastly more likely that Muslim women are mostly choosing to wear things like burkinis, not being directly pushed into it by anyone. Anyone with a sufficiently complex understanding of how culture works should realize this. Muslim women have to claim and take their own freedom, in the manner of their choosing, if they are being oppressed; all the state should do is make it safe for them to live however they choose.
posted by clockzero at 1:39 PM on August 17, 2016 [12 favorites]
posted by clockzero at 1:39 PM on August 17, 2016 [12 favorites]
Mayonnaise, sorry, that's a very American frame of reference. Immigrants in the US come to melt in the pot (I was one I know). In Europe, immigrant communities are self enclosed, especially non-Western ones. They mostly refuse to engage or assimilate at all. My country has absorbed about 10% of its population since the fall of the Wall of Eastern Europeans with zero problems. Yet, Roma haven't assimilated in over a millenium of living here. Not exaggerating, an actual millenium.
All I am saying is that Europe is not New York and the problems here are actually different.
If you want to talk about the intense racism that Roma face in Greece please make another thread.
posted by selfnoise at 1:41 PM on August 17, 2016 [4 favorites]
All I am saying is that Europe is not New York and the problems here are actually different.
If you want to talk about the intense racism that Roma face in Greece please make another thread.
posted by selfnoise at 1:41 PM on August 17, 2016 [4 favorites]
In Europe, immigrant communities are self enclosed, especially non-Western ones. They mostly refuse to engage or assimilate at all... All I am saying is that Europe is not New York and the problems here are actually different.
I've heard plenty of Americans say the exact same thing about immigrants, both Western and non-Western, and point to long-standing ethnic enclaves established as safe harbor (e.g. any particular Chinatown) as evidence.
Europe is not New York, but the problems of immigrants, their communities and their attempts to maintain their own culture in the face of demanded assimilation have a very similar flavor regardless of where they end up.
posted by griphus at 1:41 PM on August 17, 2016 [26 favorites]
I've heard plenty of Americans say the exact same thing about immigrants, both Western and non-Western, and point to long-standing ethnic enclaves established as safe harbor (e.g. any particular Chinatown) as evidence.
Europe is not New York, but the problems of immigrants, their communities and their attempts to maintain their own culture in the face of demanded assimilation have a very similar flavor regardless of where they end up.
posted by griphus at 1:41 PM on August 17, 2016 [26 favorites]
Every time I think France can't get worse in its blatant anti-Muslim racism, I am mistaken.
posted by corb at 1:46 PM on August 17, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by corb at 1:46 PM on August 17, 2016 [4 favorites]
This just seems hateful and reactionary and I'm not seeing any compelling evidence to argue otherwise.
posted by asteria at 1:46 PM on August 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by asteria at 1:46 PM on August 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
Jimbob, what bugs me is this: it's 12 year olds wearing burqas. It's their parents who justify it and teach them that it's a good thing to hide their expressions, their face from people they communicate with. I have no doubt that when they grow up, they prefer the burqa, that they think it's liberating. Well, it isn't. It stops them from interacting as equals with others. It stops them from careers, from relationships even that they may otherwise prefer.
Like I said, I am an old school liberal. Is the French ban ineffective? Of course it is. Is it obviously illiberal? It is not. It tries to ban an illiberal practice and it may backfire on some prople. But I do see where they are coming from, and it's not an obvious "the French will be French" place.
posted by costas at 1:49 PM on August 17, 2016 [5 favorites]
Like I said, I am an old school liberal. Is the French ban ineffective? Of course it is. Is it obviously illiberal? It is not. It tries to ban an illiberal practice and it may backfire on some prople. But I do see where they are coming from, and it's not an obvious "the French will be French" place.
posted by costas at 1:49 PM on August 17, 2016 [5 favorites]
Immigrants in the US come to melt in the pot (I was one I know). In Europe, immigrant communities are self enclosed, especially non-Western ones. They mostly refuse to engage or assimilate at all.
One, enclosed immigrant communities definitely exist in the US. Two, the difference between the US and Europe is that Europe's version of "assimilation" is one-way. To be considered French, you must act just like a native Frenchmen, down to what you wear, and be grateful for it. Whereas American assimilation is two-way: you're expected to absorb American values like the value for freedom and democracy, but you're also not just allowed but expected to bring your own culture to the table.
At least, that's the impression I've gotten as the daughter of immigrants. But the statistics bear it out: 68% of Americans think more diversity makes the country better as a whole, including 47% of conservatives. No other Western country surveyed even came close. Only 26% of the French, for example, thought the same.
Don't you think the difference in toleration might be the reason why American immigrants tend to eventually assimilate?
posted by perplexion at 1:51 PM on August 17, 2016 [23 favorites]
One, enclosed immigrant communities definitely exist in the US. Two, the difference between the US and Europe is that Europe's version of "assimilation" is one-way. To be considered French, you must act just like a native Frenchmen, down to what you wear, and be grateful for it. Whereas American assimilation is two-way: you're expected to absorb American values like the value for freedom and democracy, but you're also not just allowed but expected to bring your own culture to the table.
At least, that's the impression I've gotten as the daughter of immigrants. But the statistics bear it out: 68% of Americans think more diversity makes the country better as a whole, including 47% of conservatives. No other Western country surveyed even came close. Only 26% of the French, for example, thought the same.
Don't you think the difference in toleration might be the reason why American immigrants tend to eventually assimilate?
posted by perplexion at 1:51 PM on August 17, 2016 [23 favorites]
Roma haven't assimilated in over a millenium of living here.
Because some groups like to be able to keep their culture and in many locations, assimilation means you have to give up everything that is different from the prevailing culture -- language, religion, customs, dress.
posted by jeather at 1:53 PM on August 17, 2016 [5 favorites]
Because some groups like to be able to keep their culture and in many locations, assimilation means you have to give up everything that is different from the prevailing culture -- language, religion, customs, dress.
posted by jeather at 1:53 PM on August 17, 2016 [5 favorites]
Because some groups like to be able to keep their culture and in many locations, assimilation means you have to give up everything that is different from the prevailing culture -- language, religion, customs, dress.
Sometimes it means that. Sometimes it means giving up vicious sexism and predatory concepts like gadje. Neither has happened.
posted by kafziel at 1:55 PM on August 17, 2016 [3 favorites]
Sometimes it means that. Sometimes it means giving up vicious sexism and predatory concepts like gadje. Neither has happened.
posted by kafziel at 1:55 PM on August 17, 2016 [3 favorites]
I hope someone here can post in comments as to what criteria those coastal French cities are using to identify a burkini/burqini for the purpose of their bans?
And what if a woman shows up in one of these, and a swimcap?
posted by King Sky Prawn at 1:56 PM on August 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
And what if a woman shows up in one of these, and a swimcap?
posted by King Sky Prawn at 1:56 PM on August 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
Perplexion, yep I would agree with that. The US is a far more tolerant society, and yes I am not particularly proud of my own. But I also don't think it's that simple either. The US has a more malleable character. What is American changes and shifts. Not as true for my fellow Europeans. And it's also true that most non-Western immigrants in Europe are far poorer and less educated than the same would be in the US. They are thus far more conservative and insular. Not a good combination.
Like I said. Different problem.
posted by costas at 1:58 PM on August 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
Like I said. Different problem.
posted by costas at 1:58 PM on August 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
It's their parents who justify it and teach them that it's a good thing to hide their expressions, their face from people they communicate with. I have no doubt that when they grow up, they prefer the burqa, that they think it's liberating. Well, it isn't. It stops them from interacting as equals with others. It stops them from careers, from relationships even that they may otherwise prefer.
You want to talk about illiberal? it's patronizing as fuuuuck to suggest they're unaware of the consequences of what they choose to wear.
posted by juv3nal at 1:58 PM on August 17, 2016 [35 favorites]
You want to talk about illiberal? it's patronizing as fuuuuck to suggest they're unaware of the consequences of what they choose to wear.
posted by juv3nal at 1:58 PM on August 17, 2016 [35 favorites]
I've never bought the French argument for banning the headscarf and now this. Saying, "you're not allowed to wear this" is just as bad as saying, "you are required to wear this."
posted by The Underpants Monster at 1:59 PM on August 17, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by The Underpants Monster at 1:59 PM on August 17, 2016 [7 favorites]
It's their parents who justify it and teach them that it's a good thing to hide their expressions, their face from people they communicate with.
you seem to have a lot of personal knowledge about what these total strangers are telling their children.
posted by poffin boffin at 1:59 PM on August 17, 2016 [24 favorites]
you seem to have a lot of personal knowledge about what these total strangers are telling their children.
posted by poffin boffin at 1:59 PM on August 17, 2016 [24 favorites]
I've worked in the Gulf. I've no doubt that the vast majority of women that wear a burqa prefer it and think it's liberating. I guarantee you as much.
If you think it's patronizing to say that they are wrong and wrong to put a burqa on their daughter as soon as she has a period, ok I will admit as much.
I also guess that half the people here would have a huge problem if some cult in Nevada was doing the same thing. But because it's another culture, it has to be OK and be respected. Sorry, I don't agree.
posted by costas at 2:05 PM on August 17, 2016 [3 favorites]
If you think it's patronizing to say that they are wrong and wrong to put a burqa on their daughter as soon as she has a period, ok I will admit as much.
I also guess that half the people here would have a huge problem if some cult in Nevada was doing the same thing. But because it's another culture, it has to be OK and be respected. Sorry, I don't agree.
posted by costas at 2:05 PM on August 17, 2016 [3 favorites]
Raising a child in a religious tradition isn't brainwashing yo. Many, many people are raised in one faith as a child and choose something else later in life.
posted by juv3nal at 2:09 PM on August 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by juv3nal at 2:09 PM on August 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
I've worked in the Gulf. I've no doubt that the vast majority of women that wear a burqa prefer it and think it's liberating. I guarantee you as much.
But you know better than they about what they should prefer and what's authentically liberating for them?
posted by clockzero at 2:10 PM on August 17, 2016 [7 favorites]
But you know better than they about what they should prefer and what's authentically liberating for them?
posted by clockzero at 2:10 PM on August 17, 2016 [7 favorites]
>I also guess that half the people here would have a huge problem if some cult in Nevada was doing the same thing.
My stance on this is simple: I am pro women's agency. Which means I'm against parents deciding what their children should wear, and also against cultural pressure for women to cover or not to cover, and also against governments deciding a certain piece of clothing is universally banned or required. I don't see how any of that is inconsistent, as you seem to be implying.
posted by perplexion at 2:12 PM on August 17, 2016 [12 favorites]
My stance on this is simple: I am pro women's agency. Which means I'm against parents deciding what their children should wear, and also against cultural pressure for women to cover or not to cover, and also against governments deciding a certain piece of clothing is universally banned or required. I don't see how any of that is inconsistent, as you seem to be implying.
posted by perplexion at 2:12 PM on August 17, 2016 [12 favorites]
Associated Press - Are France's burkini bans sexist, or liberating?
Male officials are dictating what women can wear on French beaches — and people across a wide swath of French society say that's a good thing.posted by rosswald at 2:13 PM on August 17, 2016 [8 favorites]
[...]
"[The burkini] is not compatible with the values of France," Valls said.
Much of the French political class, from the left to the far right, agrees — including the government's proudly feminist women's affairs minister.
"The burkini is ... a particular vision of the place of the woman. It cannot be considered only as a question of fashion or individual liberty," Laurence Rossignol said on Europe-1 radio.
But Rim-Sarah Alouane, a religious freedom expert at the University of Toulouse, says the anti-burkini brigade is relying on outdated ideas about Islam to stigmatize France's No. 2 religion.
"Women's rights imply the right for a woman to cover up," said Alouane, a Muslim who was born and raised in France. The burkini "was created by Western Muslim women who wanted to conciliate their faith and desire to dress modestly with recreational activities.
"What is more French than sitting on a beach in the sand? We are telling Muslims that no matter what you do ... we don't want you here," she said.
perplexion: " 68% of Americans think more diversity makes the country better as a whole, including 47% of conservatives. No other Western country surveyed even came close. "
What's the matter Pew Research centre, afraid Canada is going to make the US look bad?
perplexion: "My stance on this is simple: I am pro women's agency. Which means I'm against parents deciding what their children should wear"
Who should be deciding if not parents? Government mandated jumpsuits for all until age 21?
posted by Mitheral at 2:17 PM on August 17, 2016 [4 favorites]
What's the matter Pew Research centre, afraid Canada is going to make the US look bad?
perplexion: "My stance on this is simple: I am pro women's agency. Which means I'm against parents deciding what their children should wear"
Who should be deciding if not parents? Government mandated jumpsuits for all until age 21?
posted by Mitheral at 2:17 PM on August 17, 2016 [4 favorites]
We are all brought up in particular cultural traditions and are influenced by it to think certain things are "normal"- the ways things should be, the decent thing to wear or do. To give you an example, it was completely and utterly normal for my teachers back home in India to bare their midriff when teaching. They wore sarees, many of them were overweight - result lots of tummy exposure, far beyond what most Western women would think appropriate for a school setting. I also had an American woman as an English teacher who never wore sarees. Should there have been a rule requiring that she do so? Should she have been required to bare her belly? Can you imagine how ridiculous that would be? Why would you think it any less ridiculous for Muslim women to be required to bare certain parts of their body because the government demands it?
posted by peacheater at 2:17 PM on August 17, 2016 [30 favorites]
posted by peacheater at 2:17 PM on August 17, 2016 [30 favorites]
it's 12 year olds wearing burqas
I'd love for you to back this up with some proof, because I'm not convinced it's true.
posted by urbanwhaleshark at 2:17 PM on August 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
I'd love for you to back this up with some proof, because I'm not convinced it's true.
posted by urbanwhaleshark at 2:17 PM on August 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
Perplexion, sorry I didn't mean to imply that. I actually completely agree with you. I just can't agree with being laissez-faire about intolerance... I know it's a paradox, I get the conflict.
posted by costas at 2:21 PM on August 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by costas at 2:21 PM on August 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
Urban whale shark: "age of puberty" AFAIK, ie first menstruation in most of the Gulf. Google it for yourself...
posted by costas at 2:25 PM on August 17, 2016
posted by costas at 2:25 PM on August 17, 2016
So is a non-Muslim wearing one of these in the US the bad kind of cultural appropriation? Because I burn so easily (including on my scalp if I forget a hat/swim cap) that I totally want one. Being at the beach in South Florida in August is pretty much like walking on the surface of the sun.
posted by Daily Alice at 2:30 PM on August 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Daily Alice at 2:30 PM on August 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
In Europe, immigrant communities are self enclosed, especially non-Western ones. They mostly refuse to engage or assimilate at all.
maybe they don't feel welcome
i'm not going to claim that americans are especially welcoming but many of them have respect for someone who has come here to make a buck - they might not like your religion, your skin, your mode of dress or your language, but if they see you taking in lots of money doing what you're doing, they're going to figure that you're probably alright anyway, because you like dollar bills and so do they
money can be a great unifier as well as a divider
posted by pyramid termite at 2:30 PM on August 17, 2016 [4 favorites]
maybe they don't feel welcome
i'm not going to claim that americans are especially welcoming but many of them have respect for someone who has come here to make a buck - they might not like your religion, your skin, your mode of dress or your language, but if they see you taking in lots of money doing what you're doing, they're going to figure that you're probably alright anyway, because you like dollar bills and so do they
money can be a great unifier as well as a divider
posted by pyramid termite at 2:30 PM on August 17, 2016 [4 favorites]
Also, just to be clear: wear whatever you want. But a face cover isn't just a piece of clothing. You get no non-verbal signals. It's like speaking to a phone, all the time. It is meant to inhibit socialization of the women. Can you imagine your doctor wearing one? Your lawyer? A judge? That's the point.
posted by costas at 2:40 PM on August 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by costas at 2:40 PM on August 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
You know what also inhibits non-verbal signals? Sunglasses. It can be super hard to get a read on someone if you can't see their eyes.
And yet.
posted by dinty_moore at 2:42 PM on August 17, 2016 [27 favorites]
And yet.
posted by dinty_moore at 2:42 PM on August 17, 2016 [27 favorites]
Also this seems like it's gone a long way from the burkini, which does not cover the face? Admittedly, I'd be a little weirded out by my doctor wearing one, but not because it's inhibiting socialization.
posted by dinty_moore at 2:44 PM on August 17, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by dinty_moore at 2:44 PM on August 17, 2016 [3 favorites]
Doctor is just such a weird example anyways, I think we're pretty accustomed to doctors covering up their faces.
posted by juv3nal at 2:47 PM on August 17, 2016 [15 favorites]
posted by juv3nal at 2:47 PM on August 17, 2016 [15 favorites]
I also guess that half the people here would have a huge problem if some cult in Nevada was doing the same thing.
Well, when Warren Jeffs and his Fundamentalist Church of Latter Day Saints decided to live in an enclave and make their daughters leave school early and dress "modestly" the state and Federal governments didn't do much. They kept an eye on them, but when reports of child molestation, the state and feds stepped in. Jeffs is in jail, as are a number of other church leaders. What got them sent to jail was the sexual abuse. We don't mind if you dress your kids funny, but when you start molesting them and call it "holy marriage"...well then something might get done.
Seriously, to act like the only way for an immigrant community to be successful is to fully assimilate is to really lose the thread in the whole thing. People don't go to a country to completely give up who they were and where they are from. They come to a new country because of the promise of a better life. Repeatedly showing them that they don't belong and should just go back isn't fulfilling that promise and it's disgraceful to act like there's only one way to a "Nationality."
I say this as American student of history, we are weaker and poorer when we tell our non-native citizens that they can't participate in society if they don't do it our way. There is no one way to be American, there is no one way to be French, and there is no one way to Muslim. Integration is a far, far better path than assimilation and the country is far better off for it. Granted, we Americans are continually fucking up on this and have epically done so in the past, but we try. And telling women to stop oppressing themselves and wear what we tell you is hurtful, blind, and only breaks down communication.
posted by teleri025 at 2:48 PM on August 17, 2016 [19 favorites]
Well, when Warren Jeffs and his Fundamentalist Church of Latter Day Saints decided to live in an enclave and make their daughters leave school early and dress "modestly" the state and Federal governments didn't do much. They kept an eye on them, but when reports of child molestation, the state and feds stepped in. Jeffs is in jail, as are a number of other church leaders. What got them sent to jail was the sexual abuse. We don't mind if you dress your kids funny, but when you start molesting them and call it "holy marriage"...well then something might get done.
Seriously, to act like the only way for an immigrant community to be successful is to fully assimilate is to really lose the thread in the whole thing. People don't go to a country to completely give up who they were and where they are from. They come to a new country because of the promise of a better life. Repeatedly showing them that they don't belong and should just go back isn't fulfilling that promise and it's disgraceful to act like there's only one way to a "Nationality."
I say this as American student of history, we are weaker and poorer when we tell our non-native citizens that they can't participate in society if they don't do it our way. There is no one way to be American, there is no one way to be French, and there is no one way to Muslim. Integration is a far, far better path than assimilation and the country is far better off for it. Granted, we Americans are continually fucking up on this and have epically done so in the past, but we try. And telling women to stop oppressing themselves and wear what we tell you is hurtful, blind, and only breaks down communication.
posted by teleri025 at 2:48 PM on August 17, 2016 [19 favorites]
Yet, Roma haven't assimilated in over a millenium of living here. Not exaggerating, an actual millenium.
Yeah, a millennium of repeatedly being enslaved, oppressed, stripped of their heritage, barred from teaching their children their language, institutionalized, and targeted for large-scale extermination will kind of do that to people. And it's not as if the current hate-on against them makes it easy to break out of poverty, either.
Can you imagine your doctor wearing one?
Gosh, who could ever imagine their doctor wearing a covering for their face?
[on preview: jinx, juv3nal!]
posted by zombieflanders at 2:48 PM on August 17, 2016 [30 favorites]
Yeah, a millennium of repeatedly being enslaved, oppressed, stripped of their heritage, barred from teaching their children their language, institutionalized, and targeted for large-scale extermination will kind of do that to people. And it's not as if the current hate-on against them makes it easy to break out of poverty, either.
Can you imagine your doctor wearing one?
Gosh, who could ever imagine their doctor wearing a covering for their face?
[on preview: jinx, juv3nal!]
posted by zombieflanders at 2:48 PM on August 17, 2016 [30 favorites]
But a face cover isn't just a piece of clothing.I don't think these garments typically cover the wearer's face, although they do typically cover her hair.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 2:49 PM on August 17, 2016
Yeah, the whole French thing started as a ban on the burqa. These guys are just expanding it. Yes, stupidly.
Anyway, I give up. I am trying to argue for defending liberal values in a liberal society and most people here are painting me as a right wing fundamentalist. Some values have to be enforced, otherwise they are not valued.
posted by costas at 2:54 PM on August 17, 2016 [7 favorites]
Anyway, I give up. I am trying to argue for defending liberal values in a liberal society and most people here are painting me as a right wing fundamentalist. Some values have to be enforced, otherwise they are not valued.
posted by costas at 2:54 PM on August 17, 2016 [7 favorites]
This is a crazy law that will just spark tensions where there were none previously. I wear one one of these on the beach.
posted by Coda Tronca at 3:01 PM on August 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Coda Tronca at 3:01 PM on August 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
Anyway, I give up. I am trying to argue for defending liberal values in a liberal society and most people here are painting me as a right wing fundamentalist. Some values have to be enforced, otherwise they are not valued.
You're arguing neither for defending liberal values nor for a particularly liberal society. Your argument has boiled down to "these wicked people who have been treated like shit for not assimilating for centuries still refuse to assimilate!" And in many ways, what you say in your second sentence is directly contradicted by what you say in your third, especially given how arbitrarily you've defined said values.
posted by zombieflanders at 3:01 PM on August 17, 2016 [18 favorites]
You're arguing neither for defending liberal values nor for a particularly liberal society. Your argument has boiled down to "these wicked people who have been treated like shit for not assimilating for centuries still refuse to assimilate!" And in many ways, what you say in your second sentence is directly contradicted by what you say in your third, especially given how arbitrarily you've defined said values.
posted by zombieflanders at 3:01 PM on August 17, 2016 [18 favorites]
Some values have to be enforced, otherwise they are not valued.
It's not either or, though. I imagine it sounds like a fudge, but people really do negotiate these things in complex ways. Is there a single way of being liberal (or a single, common understanding of it)? Does women wearing shorter dresses, or refusing to wear makeup, guarantee it? Does perplexion's roommate lack agency?
posted by cotton dress sock at 3:02 PM on August 17, 2016 [4 favorites]
It's not either or, though. I imagine it sounds like a fudge, but people really do negotiate these things in complex ways. Is there a single way of being liberal (or a single, common understanding of it)? Does women wearing shorter dresses, or refusing to wear makeup, guarantee it? Does perplexion's roommate lack agency?
posted by cotton dress sock at 3:02 PM on August 17, 2016 [4 favorites]
Some values have to be enforced, otherwise they are not valued
If you're wondering why you're being painted as a fundamentalist it's because that's indistinguishable from the justification for legislating religious orthodoxy.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 3:07 PM on August 17, 2016 [21 favorites]
If you're wondering why you're being painted as a fundamentalist it's because that's indistinguishable from the justification for legislating religious orthodoxy.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 3:07 PM on August 17, 2016 [21 favorites]
And in East Asia, covering your face for non-religious reasons is quite common due to the ubiquity of facial masks (basically the same masks doctors wear in the west). Add in sunglasses and you're not far from full face covering, certainly its hard to see expressions. But I have never found this to be a problem in Japan, for example.
posted by thefoxgod at 3:09 PM on August 17, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by thefoxgod at 3:09 PM on August 17, 2016 [3 favorites]
Mod note: Couple comments removed. costas, I feel like you had a bunch of shots to more or less state your position at this point, and leaving it at that is probably the best call around at this point, so please go ahead and follow through on that plan to take a break from the thread.
posted by cortex (staff) at 3:20 PM on August 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by cortex (staff) at 3:20 PM on August 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
Roma haven't assimilated in over a millenium of living here.
It's only been about 300 years, so I guess we have a while before we really start pushing on the Amish and their funny clothes and and the way they pull their kids out of school (in some states).
posted by dilettante at 3:21 PM on August 17, 2016 [4 favorites]
Somehow the anarcho-stalinists have the best Facebook response to this (Facebook pic).
Who knew the anarcho-stalinists could be so funny?!
posted by chapps at 3:30 PM on August 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
Who knew the anarcho-stalinists could be so funny?!
posted by chapps at 3:30 PM on August 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
Can you imagine your doctor wearing one?
The replies to this weren't a level of good faith I'm accustomed to on MeFi. Largely, people are unconscious when doctors wear masks to prevent vectors of disease. Beyond that, a doctor wearing a mask in consultation would bear more resemblance to a comedy sketch than what was asserted.
But Costas did conflate face/hair coverings regarding this ban. Yet I agree with what Costas said about the function of veils. I worked in the middle east and I've read about France's history of Muslim settlement...I've posted before my observations about conflicts of values within and between cultures. In Jordan, it was said to me a young woman leaving the house wouldn't leave without covering her hair in deference to her grandmother, but might wear tight jeans to show off her ass because it's understood she has to find a husband. Though Jordan, or Hashemites (Britain's colonization of an Arab minority), might be a convenient example to cite because of its relative progressiveness.
I don't agree with this ban, but as was said way upthread, Costas' posts made it comprehensible if nothing else.
posted by lazycomputerkids at 3:38 PM on August 17, 2016 [3 favorites]
The replies to this weren't a level of good faith I'm accustomed to on MeFi. Largely, people are unconscious when doctors wear masks to prevent vectors of disease. Beyond that, a doctor wearing a mask in consultation would bear more resemblance to a comedy sketch than what was asserted.
But Costas did conflate face/hair coverings regarding this ban. Yet I agree with what Costas said about the function of veils. I worked in the middle east and I've read about France's history of Muslim settlement...I've posted before my observations about conflicts of values within and between cultures. In Jordan, it was said to me a young woman leaving the house wouldn't leave without covering her hair in deference to her grandmother, but might wear tight jeans to show off her ass because it's understood she has to find a husband. Though Jordan, or Hashemites (Britain's colonization of an Arab minority), might be a convenient example to cite because of its relative progressiveness.
I don't agree with this ban, but as was said way upthread, Costas' posts made it comprehensible if nothing else.
posted by lazycomputerkids at 3:38 PM on August 17, 2016 [3 favorites]
These bans are shameful and I am ashamed.
A coupe of points, though:
* Although it is convenient to speak about a ban on the burqa or the burkini, the language of the laws or decrees is obviously more balanced and will state something like "ostentatious religious symbols", so it would indeed include other religions if applicable. Nevertheless, the target of the bans is clear.
* These recent bans (burkini) are likely to be invalidated by administrative tribunals or the conseil d'état. This may take some time so the political points have been scored.
* More shameful then the decrees themselves (by racist/populist local elected officials) is the reaction of the government, which should have been the one bringing these cases to the administrative tribunals, but instead is supportive. This is probably part of Valls' strategy of playing with some of the themes of the right but still pretending to be on the left, looking forward to the next presidential election. It is despicable.
* There is a strong anti-clerical tradition in France which is often hard to understand for Americans. I was raised with such a disdain for religion ("a crutch for weak-minded people") and it took me a long time to wear it off. While I believe it is an important aspect to understand when discussing France, it is ridiculous to use it to excuse these bans and other recent anti-muslim policies.
* This article describes similar questions in Morocco, so the question may indeed be more complicated than just western racism against brown people. Though in the case of Morocco it is only private places that have banned the burkini.
posted by anzen-dai-ichi at 3:51 PM on August 17, 2016 [15 favorites]
A coupe of points, though:
* Although it is convenient to speak about a ban on the burqa or the burkini, the language of the laws or decrees is obviously more balanced and will state something like "ostentatious religious symbols", so it would indeed include other religions if applicable. Nevertheless, the target of the bans is clear.
* These recent bans (burkini) are likely to be invalidated by administrative tribunals or the conseil d'état. This may take some time so the political points have been scored.
* More shameful then the decrees themselves (by racist/populist local elected officials) is the reaction of the government, which should have been the one bringing these cases to the administrative tribunals, but instead is supportive. This is probably part of Valls' strategy of playing with some of the themes of the right but still pretending to be on the left, looking forward to the next presidential election. It is despicable.
* There is a strong anti-clerical tradition in France which is often hard to understand for Americans. I was raised with such a disdain for religion ("a crutch for weak-minded people") and it took me a long time to wear it off. While I believe it is an important aspect to understand when discussing France, it is ridiculous to use it to excuse these bans and other recent anti-muslim policies.
* This article describes similar questions in Morocco, so the question may indeed be more complicated than just western racism against brown people. Though in the case of Morocco it is only private places that have banned the burkini.
posted by anzen-dai-ichi at 3:51 PM on August 17, 2016 [15 favorites]
Some values have to be enforced, otherwise they are not valued.
You can call it liberalism all you want, but that's a sterling example of social conservatism.
posted by happyroach at 3:53 PM on August 17, 2016 [20 favorites]
You can call it liberalism all you want, but that's a sterling example of social conservatism.
posted by happyroach at 3:53 PM on August 17, 2016 [20 favorites]
I think it's funny (maybe not funny) that people are explaining how Americans may not be able to understand this because it's a European problem and you can't understand it without some insight into the culture and historical background there. It's almost as if you can't label something as oppressive without making an effort to understand it in its social and cultural context - but apparently that only applies to the ban on burqinis, because it's patently obvious that the burqini itself is super oppressive, so there's clearly no reason to interrogate that assumption.
posted by teponaztli at 3:56 PM on August 17, 2016 [32 favorites]
posted by teponaztli at 3:56 PM on August 17, 2016 [32 favorites]
First generation immigrants probably cluster together everywhere, just because learning a new language as an adult is hard.
If you make it an all or nothing choice between being French and being Muslim, you shouldn't be too surprised when a lot of people choose Muslim. The more you make it all or nothing, the less exposure Muslim kids get to French culture, and the fewer opportunities they get to see things to like about it. Most people who migrate to another country don't totally give up their culture and religion- this is why there are things like expat communities.
posted by Anne Neville at 3:57 PM on August 17, 2016 [10 favorites]
If you make it an all or nothing choice between being French and being Muslim, you shouldn't be too surprised when a lot of people choose Muslim. The more you make it all or nothing, the less exposure Muslim kids get to French culture, and the fewer opportunities they get to see things to like about it. Most people who migrate to another country don't totally give up their culture and religion- this is why there are things like expat communities.
posted by Anne Neville at 3:57 PM on August 17, 2016 [10 favorites]
The only European country where I honestly felt comfortable was Bosnia. When I lived there they left people alone about religious observance for the most part.
If you have a very mixed population that is really the best way. We mostly leave each other alone about these things in the States as well.
On the Roma situation in Europe, part of why they tend to leave school early or to not attend school at all is the lack of certain basic paper-work. Another fact is Roma kids are treated badly in school in many European countries. At the time I lived in Bosnia, this was certainly the case. It may well have been worse in areas like Romania and Bulgaria. There simply are no normal jobs once Roma people grow up even if they DO make it all the way through school.
Integration and assimilation and accomadation are two way streets.
On Muslim women not covering so much 25 years ago, I think it was about the same as now. It's just that there are in fact more Muslims living in Western countries than there were 25 years ago. This is a result of immigration, and conversions. Also the Muslim people who arrived in the West 25 years ago in some cases had children who have grown up in the West.
This really is much more the case for France which had colonies in Algeria, Morocco, Chad and these are all Muslim majority areas.
I think as well that the French still have racism and Islamophobia and also resentment since they barely observe their own religious traditions. I think there are historical reasons the French fear religion in general.
Part of this fear comes from centuries of intra- Christian religious wars.
We have in the US a separation between Church and State at least partly because the founders of our country saw what religious power did for Europe. It did nothing good, except in so far as all the blood-shed fertilized the groun and fattened the vultures.
The French Revolution was very much against the very great power at that time of the Catholic Church.
Meanwhile large numbers of people with very strongly held religious views are in France. They aren't a big country like the US, which can absorb newcomers easily, and they rightly or wrongly feel threatened.
I think letting people observe their beliefs in peace would be better. These people wouldn't be in France if France had not colonized their countries.
It's not like these folks can easily go home.
On whether a non-Muslim wearing a 'burkini'constitutes cultural appropriation, I don't really think so. The earlier types of women's swimsuits common in the US for Christian women actually covered MORE.
posted by Katjusa Roquette at 4:01 PM on August 17, 2016 [9 favorites]
If you have a very mixed population that is really the best way. We mostly leave each other alone about these things in the States as well.
On the Roma situation in Europe, part of why they tend to leave school early or to not attend school at all is the lack of certain basic paper-work. Another fact is Roma kids are treated badly in school in many European countries. At the time I lived in Bosnia, this was certainly the case. It may well have been worse in areas like Romania and Bulgaria. There simply are no normal jobs once Roma people grow up even if they DO make it all the way through school.
Integration and assimilation and accomadation are two way streets.
On Muslim women not covering so much 25 years ago, I think it was about the same as now. It's just that there are in fact more Muslims living in Western countries than there were 25 years ago. This is a result of immigration, and conversions. Also the Muslim people who arrived in the West 25 years ago in some cases had children who have grown up in the West.
This really is much more the case for France which had colonies in Algeria, Morocco, Chad and these are all Muslim majority areas.
I think as well that the French still have racism and Islamophobia and also resentment since they barely observe their own religious traditions. I think there are historical reasons the French fear religion in general.
Part of this fear comes from centuries of intra- Christian religious wars.
We have in the US a separation between Church and State at least partly because the founders of our country saw what religious power did for Europe. It did nothing good, except in so far as all the blood-shed fertilized the groun and fattened the vultures.
The French Revolution was very much against the very great power at that time of the Catholic Church.
Meanwhile large numbers of people with very strongly held religious views are in France. They aren't a big country like the US, which can absorb newcomers easily, and they rightly or wrongly feel threatened.
I think letting people observe their beliefs in peace would be better. These people wouldn't be in France if France had not colonized their countries.
It's not like these folks can easily go home.
On whether a non-Muslim wearing a 'burkini'constitutes cultural appropriation, I don't really think so. The earlier types of women's swimsuits common in the US for Christian women actually covered MORE.
posted by Katjusa Roquette at 4:01 PM on August 17, 2016 [9 favorites]
The burquinis aren't that different from what most Western women wore at the beach in the late 19th century. This is a silly ban.
Burquini or Bathing Costume? You decide!
posted by BungaDunga at 4:01 PM on August 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
Burquini or Bathing Costume? You decide!
posted by BungaDunga at 4:01 PM on August 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
Actually now I think about it, this means that these beaches are another place that will kick out that Victorian cosplay couple...
posted by BungaDunga at 4:05 PM on August 17, 2016 [12 favorites]
posted by BungaDunga at 4:05 PM on August 17, 2016 [12 favorites]
If you don't like people coercing women to dress a certain way, then make it illegal to coerce women to dress a certain way. I'm certain the people who voted for this law believe strongly enough in freedom that they'd happily turn themselves in.
posted by Zalzidrax at 4:20 PM on August 17, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by Zalzidrax at 4:20 PM on August 17, 2016 [7 favorites]
Do French police arrest tourists wearing surgical masks? I assume its a non-zero occurrence, given how commonly I see it everywhere else. I checked the face covering ban info and it would seem to apply to those too (given that one article referred to Muslim women using surgical masks as a workaround, but that they required a note from a doctor(!) which they had to show when arrested(!)).
Or does the law only get applied to Muslim-appearing people in practice?
posted by thefoxgod at 4:28 PM on August 17, 2016 [3 favorites]
Or does the law only get applied to Muslim-appearing people in practice?
posted by thefoxgod at 4:28 PM on August 17, 2016 [3 favorites]
perplexion: feminism has always been about giving women agency over their own bodies
This.
If these women aren't being forced to cover themselves up why is this an issue? And, if they are being forced why not offer to support them in leaving their oppressors without criminalizing their behavior?
Also, I find the idea of banning garments that prevent skin exposure laughable considering I live in a place where it's completely normal to wear synthetic technical fabrics that completely cover the skin to prevent sun exposure and skin cancer. Maybe if the burqinis were made by PFG everything would be ok?
posted by photoslob at 4:30 PM on August 17, 2016 [7 favorites]
This.
If these women aren't being forced to cover themselves up why is this an issue? And, if they are being forced why not offer to support them in leaving their oppressors without criminalizing their behavior?
Also, I find the idea of banning garments that prevent skin exposure laughable considering I live in a place where it's completely normal to wear synthetic technical fabrics that completely cover the skin to prevent sun exposure and skin cancer. Maybe if the burqinis were made by PFG everything would be ok?
posted by photoslob at 4:30 PM on August 17, 2016 [7 favorites]
It's funny: I actually find a standard western women's swimsuit to be kind of oppressive. I don't think I would shave my bikini line if I didn't feel immense social pressure to do so. I didn't swim for a very long time because I hate swimsuits and I really hate all the torturous hair removal that I have to do to wear one of them, and it was a bit of a revelation when I finally realized that they make women's swimsuits with shorts. (I'm hoping that they'll get more popular thanks to those high-tech women's suits with shorts that the swimmers wore at the Olympics. As of now, I have to buy them online.) I would prefer a burkini to most of the swimsuits available to me, to be honest. It's bizarre to me that people think that social pressure is some exotic thing that only affects Muslim women. We're all subject to gender-related social pressure. You can't get rid of that by banning burkinis, anymore than you could get rid of it by banning bikinis.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 4:33 PM on August 17, 2016 [51 favorites]
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 4:33 PM on August 17, 2016 [51 favorites]
There is also recent history and less recent history suggesting that however assimilated you might be, you can still be marked as different enough to be not really citizens. In which case, why even bother to give up your culture in order to be semi accepted?
posted by jeather at 5:24 PM on August 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by jeather at 5:24 PM on August 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
Europe likes to pretend it's enlightened and has no racists, but this clearly shows that's not the case.
posted by 922257033c4a0f3cecdbd819a46d626999d1af4a at 5:25 PM on August 17, 2016
posted by 922257033c4a0f3cecdbd819a46d626999d1af4a at 5:25 PM on August 17, 2016
[France isn't] a big country like the US, which can absorb newcomers easily
Cough, cough, Canada has half the population of France. We love the diversity of our New Canadians.
posted by saucysault at 5:36 PM on August 17, 2016 [8 favorites]
Cough, cough, Canada has half the population of France. We love the diversity of our New Canadians.
posted by saucysault at 5:36 PM on August 17, 2016 [8 favorites]
It's bizarre to me that people think that social pressure is some exotic thing that only affects Muslim women. We're all subject to gender-related social pressure.
Not to mention that, leaving the coercion of the law aside, it seems like poor enticement to persuade Muslim women in western societies to abandon the modesty standards of their religious communities for the sexualization of women in the liberal western society. They've seen both sides, after all, and it's not as though secular western society is some gender utopia - there are days when I would be delighted that strange men were religiously compelled not to talk to me.
posted by palindromic at 5:36 PM on August 17, 2016 [7 favorites]
Not to mention that, leaving the coercion of the law aside, it seems like poor enticement to persuade Muslim women in western societies to abandon the modesty standards of their religious communities for the sexualization of women in the liberal western society. They've seen both sides, after all, and it's not as though secular western society is some gender utopia - there are days when I would be delighted that strange men were religiously compelled not to talk to me.
posted by palindromic at 5:36 PM on August 17, 2016 [7 favorites]
"You do it at each thing."
The only wrinkle is that this culture war is still going on while you are fighting each battle. Is it more important to be a brilliant tactician, winning battle after battle, or a brilliant strategist, ultimately rendering every battle moot? (France is being a poor tactician here, granted.)
Well, yeah. This is a tactical battle, pure and simple. France has -- in various codified and non- ways -- freedom of religion and expression and suchforth. Those are the strategies, and no one's really arguing them, largely because they can't be argued against except tactically. "But do our interpretations of freedom of religion and expression mean [women should be allowed to wear burkas | Muslim communities should be allowed to pressure women to wear burkas]?" is a question of tactics.
And so you fight these tactical battles without confusing them for your strategic ones. Slippery slope arguments are inherently strategic.
posted by Etrigan at 5:56 PM on August 17, 2016
The only wrinkle is that this culture war is still going on while you are fighting each battle. Is it more important to be a brilliant tactician, winning battle after battle, or a brilliant strategist, ultimately rendering every battle moot? (France is being a poor tactician here, granted.)
Well, yeah. This is a tactical battle, pure and simple. France has -- in various codified and non- ways -- freedom of religion and expression and suchforth. Those are the strategies, and no one's really arguing them, largely because they can't be argued against except tactically. "But do our interpretations of freedom of religion and expression mean [women should be allowed to wear burkas | Muslim communities should be allowed to pressure women to wear burkas]?" is a question of tactics.
And so you fight these tactical battles without confusing them for your strategic ones. Slippery slope arguments are inherently strategic.
posted by Etrigan at 5:56 PM on August 17, 2016
Not to imply that any nation- ever- deserves terrorism, but I wonder if that's the reason why so many recent terrorist attacks have happened in France, even though the bulk of terrorist propaganda seems aimed at the US.
Keep in mind that the VAST majority of terrorist attacks in France are committed not by Muslims, but are committed by Corsican separatists.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 6:09 PM on August 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
Keep in mind that the VAST majority of terrorist attacks in France are committed not by Muslims, but are committed by Corsican separatists.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 6:09 PM on August 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
I actually find a standard western women's swimsuit to be kind of oppressive.
Defining Women’s Oppression: The Burka vs. the Bikini
posted by Evilspork at 6:10 PM on August 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
Defining Women’s Oppression: The Burka vs. the Bikini
posted by Evilspork at 6:10 PM on August 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
Are there a lot of places where women are beaten if they do not wear bikinis?
I'm against this law but these are not comparable things.
posted by Justinian at 6:21 PM on August 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
I'm against this law but these are not comparable things.
posted by Justinian at 6:21 PM on August 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
I'm pretty sure there are anti-Muslim hate crimes, so.
Also, being better than an Islamist regime at tolerance is a low bar. We can set our sights a little higher.
posted by dinty_moore at 6:27 PM on August 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
Also, being better than an Islamist regime at tolerance is a low bar. We can set our sights a little higher.
posted by dinty_moore at 6:27 PM on August 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
Are there a lot of places where women are beaten if they do not wear bikinis?What does that have to do with anything? There are no places where women are beaten if they don't wear burkinis, either. Swimming is optional, generally speaking.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 6:35 PM on August 17, 2016
Are there a lot of places where women are beaten if they do not wear bikinis?
Well now there are places in France where women will be fined by the state for not wearing them.
posted by any portmanteau in a storm at 6:39 PM on August 17, 2016 [3 favorites]
Well now there are places in France where women will be fined by the state for not wearing them.
posted by any portmanteau in a storm at 6:39 PM on August 17, 2016 [3 favorites]
Women are attacked because of wearing the hijab, however.
posted by thefoxgod at 6:44 PM on August 17, 2016
posted by thefoxgod at 6:44 PM on August 17, 2016
(From that article, specifically: “All our data... shows that visible women are the ones that are targeted at a street level. This means that women who wear the hijab are the ones that are sometimes targeted for abuse and those who wear the niqab suffer more anti-Muslim hate incidents and more aggressive assaults.”)
posted by thefoxgod at 6:45 PM on August 17, 2016
posted by thefoxgod at 6:45 PM on August 17, 2016
Fixed. Barring mass castration, this will continue to be an issue. And of course there's no such thing as a white Muslim woman.
posted by Captain l'escalier at 7:35 PM on August 17, 2016
And of course there's no such thing as a white Muslim woman.
No one has contended this except you, by implication.
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 7:56 PM on August 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
No one has contended this except you, by implication.
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 7:56 PM on August 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
Barring mass castration, this will continue to be an issue.
Because men are driven solely by biological urge to... make oppressive legislation?
You seem to have some odd ideas about both men and how laws are made.
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 8:00 PM on August 17, 2016 [8 favorites]
Because men are driven solely by biological urge to... make oppressive legislation?
You seem to have some odd ideas about both men and how laws are made.
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 8:00 PM on August 17, 2016 [8 favorites]
Why bring up whiteness at all, then? My reading of the phrase is that "white" as a category of identity necessarily excludes "Muslim."
And, honestly, the answer to your second question is "yes." The Muslim custom of covering women is (among other things) at least theoretically in order to protect women from the (presumably) lustful male gaze, and a good deal of sexual harassment legislation in the west is attempting through economic, social, and legal pressure to accomplish the same thing. From this and several other threads, I've derived that neither response is entirely satisfactory from the point of view of women.
posted by Captain l'escalier at 8:10 PM on August 17, 2016
And, honestly, the answer to your second question is "yes." The Muslim custom of covering women is (among other things) at least theoretically in order to protect women from the (presumably) lustful male gaze, and a good deal of sexual harassment legislation in the west is attempting through economic, social, and legal pressure to accomplish the same thing. From this and several other threads, I've derived that neither response is entirely satisfactory from the point of view of women.
posted by Captain l'escalier at 8:10 PM on August 17, 2016
French mayors seem to be out of control:
French Mayor Bans Pokemon Go In His Town
posted by any portmanteau in a storm at 8:25 PM on August 17, 2016
French Mayor Bans Pokemon Go In His Town
posted by any portmanteau in a storm at 8:25 PM on August 17, 2016
In Europe, immigrant communities are self enclosed, especially non-Western ones. They mostly refuse to engage or assimilate at all.
They've also been systematically excluded - stuck in ban lieu, kept out of jobs. Integration is pretty damn hard when your local state school insists on serving pork.
posted by jb at 8:35 PM on August 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
They've also been systematically excluded - stuck in ban lieu, kept out of jobs. Integration is pretty damn hard when your local state school insists on serving pork.
posted by jb at 8:35 PM on August 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
If a minority group is poor and subject to discrimination and stereotyping, is it really such a mystery why a lot of their children drop out of school, and why members might engage in crime? That pattern certainly isn't unique to Roma.
posted by Anne Neville at 8:42 PM on August 17, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by Anne Neville at 8:42 PM on August 17, 2016 [6 favorites]
[France isn't] a big country like the US, which can absorb newcomers easily
Cough, cough, Canada has half the population of France. We love the diversity of our New Canadians.
Also, 1 in 5 Canadians were born in another country, compared to just over 11% in France. Smaller, larger percentage of immigrants, and with a rapidly growing Muslim population - and still less tension about it.
Yes, I agree that settler countries like Canada and the US are better about their attitudes towards immigrants. But that's not because Europe is special, but because Europeans have bought into the corrosive ideology of nationalism. Nations don't exist except in sick minds. What is French? Ille de Paris? Langue D'Oc? until recently they didn't even speak the same language. Where do the Sami fit in the Swedish nation, or the Basques in France & Spain? They are even more "indigenous" than any Indo-European.
The last time Europe got in bed with ethnic nationalism, it led directly to genocide. It's an inherently bigoted and racist ideology, and I'll have no part of it.
posted by jb at 8:52 PM on August 17, 2016 [15 favorites]
Cough, cough, Canada has half the population of France. We love the diversity of our New Canadians.
Also, 1 in 5 Canadians were born in another country, compared to just over 11% in France. Smaller, larger percentage of immigrants, and with a rapidly growing Muslim population - and still less tension about it.
Yes, I agree that settler countries like Canada and the US are better about their attitudes towards immigrants. But that's not because Europe is special, but because Europeans have bought into the corrosive ideology of nationalism. Nations don't exist except in sick minds. What is French? Ille de Paris? Langue D'Oc? until recently they didn't even speak the same language. Where do the Sami fit in the Swedish nation, or the Basques in France & Spain? They are even more "indigenous" than any Indo-European.
The last time Europe got in bed with ethnic nationalism, it led directly to genocide. It's an inherently bigoted and racist ideology, and I'll have no part of it.
posted by jb at 8:52 PM on August 17, 2016 [15 favorites]
To anyone who questioned the effectiveness of the loyalty oaths, he replied that people who really did owe allegiance to their country would be proud to pledge it as often as he forced them to. And to anyone who questioned the morality, he replied that “The Star-Spangled Banner” was the greatest piece of music ever composed. The more loyalty oaths a person signed, the more loyal he was; to Captain Black it was as simple as that, and he had Corporal Kolodny sign hundreds with his name each day so that he could always prove he was more loyal than anyone else.
posted by flabdablet at 9:32 PM on August 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by flabdablet at 9:32 PM on August 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
WaPo: The surprising Australian origin story of the ‘burkini’
posted by Joe in Australia at 10:22 PM on August 17, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by Joe in Australia at 10:22 PM on August 17, 2016 [3 favorites]
Aqaba, 2007:
I looked along the shore. People were bathing in the warm waters of the Gulf. I was tempted to go and join them. It all looked normal and pleasant as I walked along the promenade behind the beach until I realised that without exception, the bathers were all male. No women at all. A few women were scattered around the tea houses on the beach, but every one of them was covered from the top of her head to the tips of her toes despite the heat. I remembered Aysha’s flowing swimming robes. Even those modest coverings seemed to be too daring for this place.
The men and boys in the water looked like Arabs. The men mostly kept their shirts on, wading solemnly with rolled up trousers. A few were in singlets. Some of the boys were more daring, stripping right down to shorts. A very few people wore bathers or long shorts and actually swam.
The tables of the tea houses went right down the waterline. Some chairs even stood in the water. Men and a solitary woman sat in these, paddling their toes. The woman must have removed her shoes – surely – but was otherwise fully clothed.
It looked cluttered and dreary. And behind rose the disapproving minarets of the mosques, peering over the trees, loudspeakers gaping as they blared the afternoon call to prayer.
I thought of Australian beaches. Bronzed men in board shorts or togs. Brown topless women in g-strings or skimpy bikini bottoms. Wrinkly old men in g-strings, with flaccid buttocks. Plump matrons in one-piece suits or bikinis. Naked shouting children. Surfies in boardies and netting t-shirts and cut-off wetsuits. Vast expanses of sand, sand, sand, with maybe an esplanade behind where the cafés and restaurants and bars clustered. Room to move, room to breathe, and if Mrs Grundy grumbled, you could practically – not quite – ignore her.
And behind the esplanades lay Australia. Cities that spread far beyond the horizon, with just a small core of high-rises. Broad forests and prairies, broader deserts. A land where people talked about being the Lucky Country and a shrimp on the barbie and thought of themselves as laid-back and lazy, even those who worked up to sixty hours a week at jobs they hated.
I looked out over the Gulf. Somewhere over that horizon was Sinai, and on the Red Sea coast of Sinai was Dahab. The beach there was packed with sunbathers, men in shorts, women in bikinis. They even wore their swimsuits when they went for coffee at one of the cafés beside the beach. The buildings were European, and the signs mostly in English, French or German. Packed with Westerners. The only Egyptians to be seen were the people serving the food and working the cash registers. It was a little bit of the West inserted into the East.
But even there, if you walked a few metres from the shore you would find yourself in a different world, ramshackle, dusty and alien, where the signs were Arabic squiggles and the women wore headscarves. Where the notion of a forty, fifty or sixty hour working week was preposterous because if you stopped working for a waking minute your family might go hungry that night. And the mosques were there too, tucked away from the shore so as not to disturb the tourists.
Dahab was an illusion. Aqaba was real. That was what it meant to be Islamic. Beaches where people were ashamed to show skin. A neurotic, compulsive modesty that was more exhibitionistic than any nudity.
France. I can't even
posted by Autumn Leaf at 1:01 AM on August 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
I looked along the shore. People were bathing in the warm waters of the Gulf. I was tempted to go and join them. It all looked normal and pleasant as I walked along the promenade behind the beach until I realised that without exception, the bathers were all male. No women at all. A few women were scattered around the tea houses on the beach, but every one of them was covered from the top of her head to the tips of her toes despite the heat. I remembered Aysha’s flowing swimming robes. Even those modest coverings seemed to be too daring for this place.
The men and boys in the water looked like Arabs. The men mostly kept their shirts on, wading solemnly with rolled up trousers. A few were in singlets. Some of the boys were more daring, stripping right down to shorts. A very few people wore bathers or long shorts and actually swam.
The tables of the tea houses went right down the waterline. Some chairs even stood in the water. Men and a solitary woman sat in these, paddling their toes. The woman must have removed her shoes – surely – but was otherwise fully clothed.
It looked cluttered and dreary. And behind rose the disapproving minarets of the mosques, peering over the trees, loudspeakers gaping as they blared the afternoon call to prayer.
I thought of Australian beaches. Bronzed men in board shorts or togs. Brown topless women in g-strings or skimpy bikini bottoms. Wrinkly old men in g-strings, with flaccid buttocks. Plump matrons in one-piece suits or bikinis. Naked shouting children. Surfies in boardies and netting t-shirts and cut-off wetsuits. Vast expanses of sand, sand, sand, with maybe an esplanade behind where the cafés and restaurants and bars clustered. Room to move, room to breathe, and if Mrs Grundy grumbled, you could practically – not quite – ignore her.
And behind the esplanades lay Australia. Cities that spread far beyond the horizon, with just a small core of high-rises. Broad forests and prairies, broader deserts. A land where people talked about being the Lucky Country and a shrimp on the barbie and thought of themselves as laid-back and lazy, even those who worked up to sixty hours a week at jobs they hated.
I looked out over the Gulf. Somewhere over that horizon was Sinai, and on the Red Sea coast of Sinai was Dahab. The beach there was packed with sunbathers, men in shorts, women in bikinis. They even wore their swimsuits when they went for coffee at one of the cafés beside the beach. The buildings were European, and the signs mostly in English, French or German. Packed with Westerners. The only Egyptians to be seen were the people serving the food and working the cash registers. It was a little bit of the West inserted into the East.
But even there, if you walked a few metres from the shore you would find yourself in a different world, ramshackle, dusty and alien, where the signs were Arabic squiggles and the women wore headscarves. Where the notion of a forty, fifty or sixty hour working week was preposterous because if you stopped working for a waking minute your family might go hungry that night. And the mosques were there too, tucked away from the shore so as not to disturb the tourists.
Dahab was an illusion. Aqaba was real. That was what it meant to be Islamic. Beaches where people were ashamed to show skin. A neurotic, compulsive modesty that was more exhibitionistic than any nudity.
France. I can't even
posted by Autumn Leaf at 1:01 AM on August 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
I would so love to hear what Christopher Hitchens would say about this.
posted by Laotic at 1:23 AM on August 18, 2016
posted by Laotic at 1:23 AM on August 18, 2016
The expected answer was hordes of those millions muslims taking to street and proclaming "we have nothing to do with those murders". The Imams preaching "If you commit any crime in name of Allah, you will be forever banned" and so on.
"hordes" of Muslims? Really?
But this has not happened. The Imams still preach "it is your duty to kill any christian or jew" and so on.
I'd like to see some evidence on that one.
posted by sour cream at 2:17 AM on August 18, 2016 [7 favorites]
"hordes" of Muslims? Really?
But this has not happened. The Imams still preach "it is your duty to kill any christian or jew" and so on.
I'd like to see some evidence on that one.
posted by sour cream at 2:17 AM on August 18, 2016 [7 favorites]
The expected answer was hordes of those millions muslims taking to street and proclaming "we have nothing to do with those murders". The Imams preaching "If you commit any crime in name of Allah, you will be forever banned" and so on.
But this has not happened.
Muslim anti-Isis march not covered by mainstream media outlets, say organisers
British Muslims are literally paying to condemn Isis. So everyone can stop going on about it now
Nice Attacks: Muslim Council of Britain Condemns Yet Another Outrage in France
And that's just from cursory google searches.
posted by Law of Demeter at 2:21 AM on August 18, 2016 [11 favorites]
But this has not happened.
Muslim anti-Isis march not covered by mainstream media outlets, say organisers
British Muslims are literally paying to condemn Isis. So everyone can stop going on about it now
Nice Attacks: Muslim Council of Britain Condemns Yet Another Outrage in France
And that's just from cursory google searches.
posted by Law of Demeter at 2:21 AM on August 18, 2016 [11 favorites]
I am super late to this conversation but wanted to chime in since I live in France.
The name burkini is misleading, a burka covers the face and a hijab doesn't, it would be better called a hijabini.
The comments about not wanting public sector workers to have their faces covered is half-moot, since hijabs were also banned along with burkas. Even Muslim women only covering their hair are not allowed to wear these. It has stretched past public sector roles into supermarket workers, who are not allowed to cover their hair.
The stories that lead up to the ban in Corsica really depress me. I live in central Paris and work with a lot of young Muslim men who have experienced this much racism in the suburbs.
Paris is my forever home and this makes me so sad.
posted by ellieBOA at 3:00 AM on August 18, 2016 [15 favorites]
The name burkini is misleading, a burka covers the face and a hijab doesn't, it would be better called a hijabini.
The comments about not wanting public sector workers to have their faces covered is half-moot, since hijabs were also banned along with burkas. Even Muslim women only covering their hair are not allowed to wear these. It has stretched past public sector roles into supermarket workers, who are not allowed to cover their hair.
The stories that lead up to the ban in Corsica really depress me. I live in central Paris and work with a lot of young Muslim men who have experienced this much racism in the suburbs.
Paris is my forever home and this makes me so sad.
posted by ellieBOA at 3:00 AM on August 18, 2016 [15 favorites]
I'm somehow sad for our government. I've been to Nice a few days ago (my stepson works there) and thus had the opportunity to go to its beaches. There were women bathing in Burkinis, and nobody seemed to care. Even in such a place, people on the street seem to be pretty sensible, and I wonder when the government is going to think things through instead of adopting a knee-jerk reaction policy when it comes to dealing with our current socio-cultural, historical and political problems. I can't wrap my mind around such statements as "muslims have to keep a low profile" even if I can understand where the PM is coming from on this one. But it's just so f* awkward.
posted by nicolin at 3:54 AM on August 18, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by nicolin at 3:54 AM on August 18, 2016 [2 favorites]
If I were French I think I'd see a terrific double standard here. Nobody makes a fuss about not being able to wear a bikini in Saudi Arabia, but when France similarly protects its own culture there's an outcry. Anglo-Saxons may see their own culture as essentially a valueless void that passers-by are encouraged to graffiti up with whatever they like, but France has a view of its own culture as something distinct and worth defending.
Even in France itself, I'd say, muslims will not be slow to tell you that if you're visiting a primarily muslim community, you better show respect by dressing modestly. But this is France; dress like a frenchwoman or fuck off.
That's what I'd say if I were French. As an Englishman my ancestral culture requires that I not give a fuck, pretend I didn't notice, and/or mind my own business.
posted by Segundus at 3:57 AM on August 18, 2016
Even in France itself, I'd say, muslims will not be slow to tell you that if you're visiting a primarily muslim community, you better show respect by dressing modestly. But this is France; dress like a frenchwoman or fuck off.
That's what I'd say if I were French. As an Englishman my ancestral culture requires that I not give a fuck, pretend I didn't notice, and/or mind my own business.
posted by Segundus at 3:57 AM on August 18, 2016
Now we had some cases in Europe where people belonging to a group "muslims" commited terrible crimes (Nice in France).Yes because the systemic oppression of muslims and the racism started just after the terrorism attacks...
(...)
So the society decided they are a threat to the society itself as a whole, and started pushing them back in all possible manners (burkini forbidden in France, Burka in Swizerland, refused handshake gets you booted from the olympics in Brasil).
Also what is the effectiveness of banning burkini against terrorism? Fight terrorism by all legal means, don't infringe on fundamental rights and further ostracize a community.
posted by anzen-dai-ichi at 4:01 AM on August 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
This on the other hand is not correct. Most schools do serve substitution menu and the few that have changed are mostly a recent phenomenon, again to score political points with the rise of the FN and the droite décomplexée effect of Sarkozy. It's dispiriting and I would hope that we would get a law demanding substitution menus but I'm afraid no government is going to try to push that.
They've also been systematically excluded - stuck in ban lieu, kept out of jobs. Integration is pretty damn hard when your local state school insists on serving pork.
posted by anzen-dai-ichi at 4:08 AM on August 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
If I were French, I think I would be disgusted and potentially offended by the idea that my country should be some kind of mirror-image Saudi Arabia. If the Saudis execute people for having gay sex, that doesn't mean that France should execute people for failing to have gay sex. Instead, they can say that in France, who you have sex with is your own business. Similarly, they can say that what you wear to the beach is your own business. The opposite of oppressive, invasive laws can be not having oppressive laws, rather than having opposite oppressive laws.
There's a lot of stupid on this thread, guys. I think we can do better than this.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 4:14 AM on August 18, 2016 [44 favorites]
There's a lot of stupid on this thread, guys. I think we can do better than this.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 4:14 AM on August 18, 2016 [44 favorites]
I would be disgusted and potentially offended by the idea that my country should be some kind of mirror-image Saudi Arabia.
Beat that straw man! If you were French you might be a bit peeved by the general assumption here that French culture is just a junior branch of anglo-saxon culture with no positive values of its own, requiring no special effort of imagination or empathy. I may be getting it wrong but if so I'm failing in a worthy attempt.
posted by Segundus at 4:36 AM on August 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
Beat that straw man! If you were French you might be a bit peeved by the general assumption here that French culture is just a junior branch of anglo-saxon culture with no positive values of its own, requiring no special effort of imagination or empathy. I may be getting it wrong but if so I'm failing in a worthy attempt.
posted by Segundus at 4:36 AM on August 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
French secularism is not at all American secularism. In theory I would like it; in practice it comes from a culture with such a history with religion that laïcité mostly means "no visible religion except slightly watered down Roman Catholicism" -- just check out those totally non-religious public holidays.
posted by jeather at 4:42 AM on August 18, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by jeather at 4:42 AM on August 18, 2016 [7 favorites]
The opposite of oppressive, invasive laws can be not having oppressive laws, rather than having opposite oppressive laws.
This.
posted by Autumn Leaf at 4:46 AM on August 18, 2016
This.
posted by Autumn Leaf at 4:46 AM on August 18, 2016
"Don't enforce your cultural norms at gunpoint" is not the same as "your cultural norms suck."
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 4:47 AM on August 18, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 4:47 AM on August 18, 2016 [6 favorites]
The trouble is that in half the world, cultural norms ARE enforced at gunpoint, or by the fists of male relatives, and while I would hope that these women's granddaughters will feel free to wear bikinis, this feels like the thin end of a wedge in the other direction, a wedge that will continue to be pushed on so long as the Saudis have oil money to finance clerics in the west. (we could have a long and wildly uninformed conversation about modern Saudi cultural imperialism in the Islamic world and the West, but I digress.) If it truly is a personal choice on the part of the woman, so be it. I've heard plenty of anecdotes from Western women feeling relief from their experience of constantly being judged on their looks in Islamic dress, but the salient difference is having the option to do one or the other, and it's no secret that if modern Saudi-influenced Sunni Islam had its way, that choice would be eliminated, just as it already is effectively eliminated by the absolute social disapproval that these women would experience from their own families if they did dress more in line with the norms of the society in which they live and (presumably) desire to live for the rest of their lives. It's a shitty tangle, and a tangle with a long future ahead of it.
posted by Captain l'escalier at 5:12 AM on August 18, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Captain l'escalier at 5:12 AM on August 18, 2016 [2 favorites]
Nobody makes a fuss about not being able to wear a bikini in Saudi Arabia, but when France similarly protects its own culture there's an outcry.
Liberals do actually make a significant fuss about it being illegal to wear a bikini in Saudi Arabia (not to mention drive, or vote, or commit adultery). Liberalism implies that, while cultural norms may be important and valuable, they can't trump the autonomy of the individual; jailing or fining people for wearing the burkini in France is as illiberal as jailing or fining them for drinking alcohol in Saudi or eating beef in India or trying to have more than one child in China. It's illiberal, full-stop. The only important difference between France and Saudi Arabia in this context is that the Saudis don't lay claim to liberté as a founding ideal of their country. France does. This means that France is a much better place to live than Saudi Arabia, but it also means that they are not only wrong but hypocritical when they decide to ban private citizens wearing items of clothing that express their religious beliefs for such thin reasons.
posted by Aravis76 at 5:21 AM on August 18, 2016 [16 favorites]
Liberals do actually make a significant fuss about it being illegal to wear a bikini in Saudi Arabia (not to mention drive, or vote, or commit adultery). Liberalism implies that, while cultural norms may be important and valuable, they can't trump the autonomy of the individual; jailing or fining people for wearing the burkini in France is as illiberal as jailing or fining them for drinking alcohol in Saudi or eating beef in India or trying to have more than one child in China. It's illiberal, full-stop. The only important difference between France and Saudi Arabia in this context is that the Saudis don't lay claim to liberté as a founding ideal of their country. France does. This means that France is a much better place to live than Saudi Arabia, but it also means that they are not only wrong but hypocritical when they decide to ban private citizens wearing items of clothing that express their religious beliefs for such thin reasons.
posted by Aravis76 at 5:21 AM on August 18, 2016 [16 favorites]
If it truly is a personal choice on the part of the woman, so be it.
Except that there is no "personal choice" exception in the actual rules enacted in these places. That's the problem.
posted by Aravis76 at 5:21 AM on August 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
Except that there is no "personal choice" exception in the actual rules enacted in these places. That's the problem.
posted by Aravis76 at 5:21 AM on August 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
Also, I don't want to come over all culturally chauvinist or anything, but this article by David Mitchell captures the common sense position on these stupid clothing bans, and it makes me proud to be British that even David Cameron understood that.
posted by Aravis76 at 5:28 AM on August 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Aravis76 at 5:28 AM on August 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
Much tl;dr but I just want to say a combination of long-sleeved shirt and pants in no way resembles a bikini (which covers ss little as possible) so this is one of the dumbest labels I've seen in a long time. And banning such a bathing costume? Also dumb.
posted by Rash at 6:17 AM on August 18, 2016
posted by Rash at 6:17 AM on August 18, 2016
If I were French I think I'd see a terrific double standard here. Nobody makes a fuss about not being able to wear a bikini in Saudi Arabia, but when France similarly protects its own culture there's an outcry.
It's not a double standard, it's a standard - and both France and Saudi are failing, but Saudi is failing so badly it doesn't just need summer school, it needs to start at kindergarten. No one fusses about bikinis in Saudi because we're trying to get them to stop killing people first. We expect more from France because they are better than Saudi, but not as good as they could be.
posted by jb at 6:33 AM on August 18, 2016 [5 favorites]
It's not a double standard, it's a standard - and both France and Saudi are failing, but Saudi is failing so badly it doesn't just need summer school, it needs to start at kindergarten. No one fusses about bikinis in Saudi because we're trying to get them to stop killing people first. We expect more from France because they are better than Saudi, but not as good as they could be.
posted by jb at 6:33 AM on August 18, 2016 [5 favorites]
The "-ini" suffix has become a way of signaling that something is a swimsuit, as in tankini (a two-piece swimsuit with full coverage, like a one-piece) or shortini (a tankini in which the bottom piece is shorts.) It's a little silly, but a lot of things about women's clothes are a little silly.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 6:33 AM on August 18, 2016
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 6:33 AM on August 18, 2016
Segundus: are you saying that liberalism and religious toleration are not French values?
Personally, religious toleration should be a human value, and international institutions (like the UN) agree.
posted by jb at 6:38 AM on August 18, 2016 [2 favorites]
Personally, religious toleration should be a human value, and international institutions (like the UN) agree.
posted by jb at 6:38 AM on August 18, 2016 [2 favorites]
actually: I would like to take liberalism out of my previous comment; I am not a liberal.
But toleration (and reasonable religious accommodation) is separate from liberalism - it predates it, and is one of the best human values. We should always protest when toleration is threatened.
posted by jb at 6:39 AM on August 18, 2016
But toleration (and reasonable religious accommodation) is separate from liberalism - it predates it, and is one of the best human values. We should always protest when toleration is threatened.
posted by jb at 6:39 AM on August 18, 2016
Any French people (and French Muslim folks) in this thread have an informed opinion? Different culture, not America, etc.
Mine is that it's really tiresome to always be asked to exist as an opinion-holder for something everyone with a conscience knows is wrong. "Look! These people did something we disagree with! Let's ask people we assume are associated with them to have an opinion!"
It's like, I grew up in an evangelical Christian household in the States, but I don't go around asking Americans who didn't grow up in that background to explain the culture of evangelical Americans. They're still Americans, they live with evangelicals too, but that doesn't mean they'll have informed explanations.
As for the burkini bans in these racist cities (their governments have strong ties to the Front National, and the national government is playing with fire trying to be racist-but-not-overtly-racist so the FN doesn't win too many votes in upcoming elections): it's thinly-veiled racism and it sucks. I don't have to put on my French citizen hat to say that. The whole "secularism" argument is nonsense, too. It's misogyny on top of racism with a veil of "well it's not religious so it's rational". You don't see any laws against men wearing jeans and t-shirts to the beach. Nor do you see any articles against Muslim headwear on boys. These are things you do not need to be French or live in France to recognize. In fact it even widens your perspective, because then the natural question arises: why are the media playing on covert misogyny across different countries? Is it because they know it grabs people? Why does it grab people?
The best comic (a French one) I've seen for this sucky racist misogynist nonsense is a woman cut in half, one in burkini, the other in bikini.
posted by fraula at 7:15 AM on August 18, 2016 [32 favorites]
Mine is that it's really tiresome to always be asked to exist as an opinion-holder for something everyone with a conscience knows is wrong. "Look! These people did something we disagree with! Let's ask people we assume are associated with them to have an opinion!"
It's like, I grew up in an evangelical Christian household in the States, but I don't go around asking Americans who didn't grow up in that background to explain the culture of evangelical Americans. They're still Americans, they live with evangelicals too, but that doesn't mean they'll have informed explanations.
As for the burkini bans in these racist cities (their governments have strong ties to the Front National, and the national government is playing with fire trying to be racist-but-not-overtly-racist so the FN doesn't win too many votes in upcoming elections): it's thinly-veiled racism and it sucks. I don't have to put on my French citizen hat to say that. The whole "secularism" argument is nonsense, too. It's misogyny on top of racism with a veil of "well it's not religious so it's rational". You don't see any laws against men wearing jeans and t-shirts to the beach. Nor do you see any articles against Muslim headwear on boys. These are things you do not need to be French or live in France to recognize. In fact it even widens your perspective, because then the natural question arises: why are the media playing on covert misogyny across different countries? Is it because they know it grabs people? Why does it grab people?
The best comic (a French one) I've seen for this sucky racist misogynist nonsense is a woman cut in half, one in burkini, the other in bikini.
"You're wearing a headscarf! Argh, my eyes! You're being oppressed for sure!"It's really freaking tiresome to be used as the object onto which fears are projected and then consulted about the people who have those fears rather than as a human being with agency.
"Your makeup makes you look like a slut.
"You're not wearing any makeup, you should take care of yourself."
"Burkini?! A wetsuit but it has 'burk' in it so it's forbidden. Get undressed!"
"OH MY GOD a nipple! (a woman's) Hide that, for shame. Have some self-respect!"
(yes, women get this when they go topless on French beaches where everyone is topless, go on, ask me how I know. There are also movements to outlaw topless beaches.)
"A long skirt? That has religious overtones! You have no place in [public] school"
"A short skirt? Sexual overtones, don't be surprised if you get raped.
"Ugh, leg hair (on a woman), disgusting, you should feel ashamed, go shave"
posted by fraula at 7:15 AM on August 18, 2016 [32 favorites]
I'm surprised that there are so many deeply uniformed and ignorant comments in this thread. It's a disappointment, to say the least. If they weren't so common, the patronizing, paternalistic attitudes towards Muslims displayed by some people in this thread would be even more shocking than they already are. But this is sadly bog standard for this kind of conversation, to casually discuss "helping" Muslims as if all Muslims are simply incapable of making their own decisions, as if they're not even present in this conversation.
And look, people need to stop saying "this is necessary because in Saudi Arabia..." as if SA is the "pure" form of Islamic society every Muslim is hoping for - if not for those lousy Europeans and their liberal values! It's just dumb and ignorant, and it tells me you don't know what you're talking about.
posted by teponaztli at 8:55 AM on August 18, 2016 [24 favorites]
And look, people need to stop saying "this is necessary because in Saudi Arabia..." as if SA is the "pure" form of Islamic society every Muslim is hoping for - if not for those lousy Europeans and their liberal values! It's just dumb and ignorant, and it tells me you don't know what you're talking about.
posted by teponaztli at 8:55 AM on August 18, 2016 [24 favorites]
I think defending this thing is so funny because regardless of the (silly) principle arguments, in practice it's just a dumbshit idea. Even if everyone agreed that we needed to legislate women's clothing even more, going hard after a large minority group that already thinks you're out to get them? How does that possibly end well?
posted by selfnoise at 10:15 AM on August 18, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by selfnoise at 10:15 AM on August 18, 2016 [2 favorites]
In the interests of inter-religious harmony, gender equity, and peace, why don't we all agree simply never to go to the beach anymore? We clearly can't handle it.
posted by Captain l'escalier at 10:21 AM on August 18, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Captain l'escalier at 10:21 AM on August 18, 2016 [2 favorites]
Csn I drive to the pool after church in my bikini in Jeddah?
posted by A189Nut at 12:40 PM on August 18, 2016
posted by A189Nut at 12:40 PM on August 18, 2016
Csn I drive to the pool after church in my bikini in Jeddah?
Probably not. If you want to know about that, here is Amnesty's page on Saudi Arabia; here is where you can donate to their work on attempting some defence of fundamental rights in that country and others where the human rights situation is almost as bad. What does that have to do with French law? Limiting the rights of Frenchwomen will not help Saudi women in any way and there's something a little ugly about making the comparison at this point.
posted by Aravis76 at 12:49 PM on August 18, 2016 [17 favorites]
Probably not. If you want to know about that, here is Amnesty's page on Saudi Arabia; here is where you can donate to their work on attempting some defence of fundamental rights in that country and others where the human rights situation is almost as bad. What does that have to do with French law? Limiting the rights of Frenchwomen will not help Saudi women in any way and there's something a little ugly about making the comparison at this point.
posted by Aravis76 at 12:49 PM on August 18, 2016 [17 favorites]
I am actually feeling super-hesitant to offer the following, because even judging from this thread alone, the not-even-implicit bias, racism and Islamophobia from people living in the West, what more in France, makes any kind of attempt to talk about counterpoints within the Muslim community itself open to being taken advantage of in the service of systemic discrimination against Western Muslims. But fwiw, there are fatwas or religious legal advice that the hijab is not required for women living in the West, because it was meant to protect women from harm, which is not at all what is happening in the West. So, since it exposes them to harm, then the hijab would not be a good idea. Mind you, such fatwas also comes from the legal opinion that the whole practice is not a core expression of Islamic faith to begin with, so if a Muslim already disagree with that premise then that is a moot point.
Regardless, France's (legislative) obsession with the hijab is just as bad as Muslim-majority countries that would actually legislate on the matter, imho. Women are just being compelled by the law, isn't it, however way it is?
posted by cendawanita at 10:37 PM on August 18, 2016 [8 favorites]
Regardless, France's (legislative) obsession with the hijab is just as bad as Muslim-majority countries that would actually legislate on the matter, imho. Women are just being compelled by the law, isn't it, however way it is?
posted by cendawanita at 10:37 PM on August 18, 2016 [8 favorites]
French secularism is not at all American secularism. In theory I would like it; in practice it comes from a culture with such a history with religion that laïcité mostly means "no visible religion except slightly watered down Roman Catholicism" -- just check out those totally non-religious public holidays.
posted by jeather at 4:42 AM on August 18
I live in a very catholic part of the south of France. Most of the people regard Protestants as a sort of sect here. Anyway, the village my family is from has elected a communist mayor. When the local priest came to get introduced to her, she refused to shake hands and told him that she aimed at terminating all private schooling (i.e. with religious background) in the village in favor of public schooling. Very Don Camillo style. Such antagonisms are real comfort to me nowadays. Guess why.
posted by nicolin at 3:42 AM on August 19, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by jeather at 4:42 AM on August 18
I live in a very catholic part of the south of France. Most of the people regard Protestants as a sort of sect here. Anyway, the village my family is from has elected a communist mayor. When the local priest came to get introduced to her, she refused to shake hands and told him that she aimed at terminating all private schooling (i.e. with religious background) in the village in favor of public schooling. Very Don Camillo style. Such antagonisms are real comfort to me nowadays. Guess why.
posted by nicolin at 3:42 AM on August 19, 2016 [1 favorite]
Arriving late in the conversation, apologies if I'm making points that have already been made.
1) This isn't a government sanctioned action, these are "arrêtés municipaux", i.e. laws edicted by a mayor or mayoral office, coming from a handful of (fairly right wing) municipalities on the French Riviera coast. They don't represent the French government, and they certainly don't speak on behalf of "the French."
2) The most favorited comments here all read as "Why can't the French be more like us?" I understand religious freedom is paramount in the US. In France, "intégration" and secularism come first. Integration failed badly as far as the muslim population is concerned, that's a given. That doesn't mean it should be given up. The way they see it is as long as you live in France, you learn the language and conform to the local customs, at least in public. Nothing should separate you from the rest of the population.
3) This comes after the terrorist attack of the 14th of July in Nice, previous attacks in Paris, the stabbing of a French woman and her three daughters by a Moroccan national, the killing of an 83 year old priest in Normandy by two young IS sympathisers, the killing of a policeman and his wife and other acts of violence perpetrated by fundamentalist muslims in France. You can call it a knee-jerk reaction, or a political move meant to appease the local, aging, conservative population. Two wrongs don't make a right, but there's a context to be kept in mind.
posted by erin trouble at 1:00 PM on August 19, 2016
1) This isn't a government sanctioned action, these are "arrêtés municipaux", i.e. laws edicted by a mayor or mayoral office, coming from a handful of (fairly right wing) municipalities on the French Riviera coast. They don't represent the French government, and they certainly don't speak on behalf of "the French."
2) The most favorited comments here all read as "Why can't the French be more like us?" I understand religious freedom is paramount in the US. In France, "intégration" and secularism come first. Integration failed badly as far as the muslim population is concerned, that's a given. That doesn't mean it should be given up. The way they see it is as long as you live in France, you learn the language and conform to the local customs, at least in public. Nothing should separate you from the rest of the population.
3) This comes after the terrorist attack of the 14th of July in Nice, previous attacks in Paris, the stabbing of a French woman and her three daughters by a Moroccan national, the killing of an 83 year old priest in Normandy by two young IS sympathisers, the killing of a policeman and his wife and other acts of violence perpetrated by fundamentalist muslims in France. You can call it a knee-jerk reaction, or a political move meant to appease the local, aging, conservative population. Two wrongs don't make a right, but there's a context to be kept in mind.
posted by erin trouble at 1:00 PM on August 19, 2016
Although it is convenient to speak about a ban on the burqa or the burkini, the language of the laws or decrees is obviously more balanced and will state something like "ostentatious religious symbols", so it would indeed include other religions if applicable.
Ostentatious religious symbols like wedding rings, perhaps? No-one's getting burned for those tho. The law is so vague as to be laughable except when 10 women are fined for what they wear it's not funny at all.
posted by urbanwhaleshark at 1:48 PM on August 19, 2016
Ostentatious religious symbols like wedding rings, perhaps? No-one's getting burned for those tho. The law is so vague as to be laughable except when 10 women are fined for what they wear it's not funny at all.
posted by urbanwhaleshark at 1:48 PM on August 19, 2016
Nothing should separate you from the rest of the population.
Really? Nothing at all? That's an alarming principle. What about skin colour? Would I offend the spirit of integration by just being visibly brown in France and, if so, would that be a good reason to legally order me to either buy some skin bleach or get out of the country? Where does a legally-mandated drive for conformity end? What if I'm not only brown but ostentatiously wearing clothes that have a definitely Indian pattern on the fabric? What if I go all the way and decide to walk around Paris in a sari? Or, if it's just about religious expression and not other forms of visible difference, are French priests no longer allowed to walk around in special clothes? Is it illegal to wear a cross on a beach or on a train? Must my Hindu mother take off her bindi when she visits France? Are Jewish men now forbidden from wearing kippah when walking down the street? Are nuns now obliged to take off the habit if they want to leave the convent?
If France has suddenly committed to a general principle that conformity to majority social norms of dress and appearance can be legally forced on the population, at all times when they are out of their private homes, that's terrifying. Fortunately, I don't believe France does accept any such principle. This is a specific, isolated, bigoted targeting of the Muslim population in some few places. I hope it will be overcome either by a return to common sense among the politicians or a legal challenge in the courts. In either case, France will not turn into the kind of full-on totalitarian dystopia that a "no visible difference of any kind from the majority" principle would imply. Integration means that you incentivise immigrant populations to learn the language and participate fully in the culture. You make sure people have the same basic education and the same access to the public square. That has nothing to do with threatening to arrest them for looking different from their neighbours.
Also, can we please stop treating the rights of freedom of expression and freedom of religion as some kind of exclusively American property? The last time I checked, the European Convention on Human Rights was a European instrument and France is not only a party but was instrumental in drafting the thing. Articles 9 and 10 protect freedom of religion and freedom of expression. Both rights can be interfered with proportionately, for achieving ends that are necessary in a democratic society that can't be achieved any other way. "Because it's our culture not to care about that right!" doesn't count and never has. Nor is the recent experience of terrorist atrocity a good reason for violating the rights of whole populations, who are tainted only by association with the terrorists. That is the whole point of an instrument like the ECHR and of the concept of a human right. It ensures that understandable national grief and national trauma don't spill over into morally indefensible scapegoating of minorities by the traumatised majority.
None of this is special to France. 9/11 wasn't a good reason for the Americans to suddenly decide torture was okay. The 7/7 bombings in London were not a good reason for the UK government to decide to detain people indefinitely without trial. No country should abandon its basic legal norms and give up the idea of individual rights because something utterly horrible has happened and no one knows what to do. France is special only because it is especially dispiriting to hear these arguments against the human rights tradition being made in Europe, and in France of all places, exactly as it is frightening and sad to hear variations on the same theme in post-9/11 America. We expect more from these countries than from places that routinely violate individual rights and make no claim to protect them.
posted by Aravis76 at 2:18 PM on August 19, 2016 [15 favorites]
Really? Nothing at all? That's an alarming principle. What about skin colour? Would I offend the spirit of integration by just being visibly brown in France and, if so, would that be a good reason to legally order me to either buy some skin bleach or get out of the country? Where does a legally-mandated drive for conformity end? What if I'm not only brown but ostentatiously wearing clothes that have a definitely Indian pattern on the fabric? What if I go all the way and decide to walk around Paris in a sari? Or, if it's just about religious expression and not other forms of visible difference, are French priests no longer allowed to walk around in special clothes? Is it illegal to wear a cross on a beach or on a train? Must my Hindu mother take off her bindi when she visits France? Are Jewish men now forbidden from wearing kippah when walking down the street? Are nuns now obliged to take off the habit if they want to leave the convent?
If France has suddenly committed to a general principle that conformity to majority social norms of dress and appearance can be legally forced on the population, at all times when they are out of their private homes, that's terrifying. Fortunately, I don't believe France does accept any such principle. This is a specific, isolated, bigoted targeting of the Muslim population in some few places. I hope it will be overcome either by a return to common sense among the politicians or a legal challenge in the courts. In either case, France will not turn into the kind of full-on totalitarian dystopia that a "no visible difference of any kind from the majority" principle would imply. Integration means that you incentivise immigrant populations to learn the language and participate fully in the culture. You make sure people have the same basic education and the same access to the public square. That has nothing to do with threatening to arrest them for looking different from their neighbours.
Also, can we please stop treating the rights of freedom of expression and freedom of religion as some kind of exclusively American property? The last time I checked, the European Convention on Human Rights was a European instrument and France is not only a party but was instrumental in drafting the thing. Articles 9 and 10 protect freedom of religion and freedom of expression. Both rights can be interfered with proportionately, for achieving ends that are necessary in a democratic society that can't be achieved any other way. "Because it's our culture not to care about that right!" doesn't count and never has. Nor is the recent experience of terrorist atrocity a good reason for violating the rights of whole populations, who are tainted only by association with the terrorists. That is the whole point of an instrument like the ECHR and of the concept of a human right. It ensures that understandable national grief and national trauma don't spill over into morally indefensible scapegoating of minorities by the traumatised majority.
None of this is special to France. 9/11 wasn't a good reason for the Americans to suddenly decide torture was okay. The 7/7 bombings in London were not a good reason for the UK government to decide to detain people indefinitely without trial. No country should abandon its basic legal norms and give up the idea of individual rights because something utterly horrible has happened and no one knows what to do. France is special only because it is especially dispiriting to hear these arguments against the human rights tradition being made in Europe, and in France of all places, exactly as it is frightening and sad to hear variations on the same theme in post-9/11 America. We expect more from these countries than from places that routinely violate individual rights and make no claim to protect them.
posted by Aravis76 at 2:18 PM on August 19, 2016 [15 favorites]
Thanks Aravis76 for your very eloquent analysis.
Really? Nothing at all? That's an alarming principle.
I didn't want to extend each phrase to a paragraph. This was roughly speaking. What I meant by that is once you acquire French citizenship, you are (or should be, in theory) considered French first and foremost, and the rest of what makes your identity and culture is disregarded as far as interaction with the state and civil services are concerned. Of course you're free to practice your religion, but you won't be asked what it is on the national census.
Also, can we please stop treating the rights of freedom of expression and freedom of religion as some kind of exclusively American property?
Note the lack of "exclusive" in my sentence. I never implied it was specific to the US. UK has the same approach, so has Canada, etc. But Metafilter being a US web site and commenters being majoritarily US citizens (I'm assuming) I used the US as an example to compare France's approach with.
Integration means that you incentivise immigrant populations to learn the language and participate fully in the culture. You make sure people have the same basic education and the same access to the public square. That has nothing to do with threatening to arrest them for looking different from their neighbours.
They would be asked to get changed, or leave the beach if they don't comply. No arrest, no fine on the spot. It's stupid, but Guantanamo Bay it isn't.
Nor is the recent experience of terrorist atrocity a good reason for violating the rights of whole populations, who are tainted only by association with the terrorists.
I was putting things into context. I'm not condoning the burkini ban. I think another thing that has motivated it was what happened in Corsica recently.
posted by erin trouble at 4:02 PM on August 19, 2016
Really? Nothing at all? That's an alarming principle.
I didn't want to extend each phrase to a paragraph. This was roughly speaking. What I meant by that is once you acquire French citizenship, you are (or should be, in theory) considered French first and foremost, and the rest of what makes your identity and culture is disregarded as far as interaction with the state and civil services are concerned. Of course you're free to practice your religion, but you won't be asked what it is on the national census.
Also, can we please stop treating the rights of freedom of expression and freedom of religion as some kind of exclusively American property?
Note the lack of "exclusive" in my sentence. I never implied it was specific to the US. UK has the same approach, so has Canada, etc. But Metafilter being a US web site and commenters being majoritarily US citizens (I'm assuming) I used the US as an example to compare France's approach with.
Integration means that you incentivise immigrant populations to learn the language and participate fully in the culture. You make sure people have the same basic education and the same access to the public square. That has nothing to do with threatening to arrest them for looking different from their neighbours.
They would be asked to get changed, or leave the beach if they don't comply. No arrest, no fine on the spot. It's stupid, but Guantanamo Bay it isn't.
Nor is the recent experience of terrorist atrocity a good reason for violating the rights of whole populations, who are tainted only by association with the terrorists.
I was putting things into context. I'm not condoning the burkini ban. I think another thing that has motivated it was what happened in Corsica recently.
posted by erin trouble at 4:02 PM on August 19, 2016
Freedom of religious expression, in public or private, is in the European Convention. It is there in the French official text. It does not reflect the UK approach or the US approach to some optional extra interesting social theory, it's the law in the UK and France and Germany and every other country in the EU and every other member of the Convention. It is part of French law. This is not a cultural difference, it's a shared legal norm.
I think we disagree what about a law is, and the way coercion inevitably backs up any law. Suppose a woman in a burkini refuses to leave the beach or change into some other clothing. What happens then? Unless the answer is "the agents of the state look regretful and go away", that is coercion. It's a rights violation.
posted by Aravis76 at 4:08 PM on August 19, 2016 [5 favorites]
I think we disagree what about a law is, and the way coercion inevitably backs up any law. Suppose a woman in a burkini refuses to leave the beach or change into some other clothing. What happens then? Unless the answer is "the agents of the state look regretful and go away", that is coercion. It's a rights violation.
posted by Aravis76 at 4:08 PM on August 19, 2016 [5 favorites]
I suppose that in France, secularism trumps religious freedom, and that's that. There must be enough ambiguity in the law so that France can get away with imposing bans on niqabs and burkinis. You seem to be quite versed into international law, so maybe you could tell me whether France got the back of her hand slapped by the ECHR for passing such laws. I wouldn't be surprised if she did.
As far as your hypothesis is concerned, I guess they'd take the woman's identity and send her a fine by mail, probably. So she'd be able to carry on practicing her religion on the beach, but would have to pay the fine eventually?
posted by erin trouble at 4:29 PM on August 19, 2016
As far as your hypothesis is concerned, I guess they'd take the woman's identity and send her a fine by mail, probably. So she'd be able to carry on practicing her religion on the beach, but would have to pay the fine eventually?
posted by erin trouble at 4:29 PM on August 19, 2016
France succeeded in getting its niqab ban upheld in the ECHR on the basis that it was a proportionate interference with the right to freedom of religion, to achieve a necessary aim; the argument that succeeded depended on the government's claims about the importance of being able to see people's faces. The reasoning in the Court was tightly focused on the ban applying to the concealment of the face generally, rather than targeting religious dress specifically. So I think the argument for the burkini ban will be a lot weaker, assuming it makes it to the court.
The broader point, though, is that it is not open to the French government to argue that freedom of religious expression is just trumped by some other value, forever, so there, no further inquiry necessary. They certainly can't argue, as has been suggested here, that freedom of religious expression is some kind of Anglo-Saxon cultural thing that the French government doesn't have to care about, end of story. There is a right to freedom of religious expression in France. To justify an invasion of it, there needs to be a detailed factual investigation of the exact justification for the invasion, the degree of the invasion, its proportionality to the end served, and why that end is necessary in a democratic society. Those arguments are worth having, of course, but it's a distraction from them to say that this freedom of religion stuff is just meaningless in France because laïcité.
posted by Aravis76 at 4:41 PM on August 19, 2016 [6 favorites]
The broader point, though, is that it is not open to the French government to argue that freedom of religious expression is just trumped by some other value, forever, so there, no further inquiry necessary. They certainly can't argue, as has been suggested here, that freedom of religious expression is some kind of Anglo-Saxon cultural thing that the French government doesn't have to care about, end of story. There is a right to freedom of religious expression in France. To justify an invasion of it, there needs to be a detailed factual investigation of the exact justification for the invasion, the degree of the invasion, its proportionality to the end served, and why that end is necessary in a democratic society. Those arguments are worth having, of course, but it's a distraction from them to say that this freedom of religion stuff is just meaningless in France because laïcité.
posted by Aravis76 at 4:41 PM on August 19, 2016 [6 favorites]
And coming back to the hypothetical example and the question of coercion - when the agents of the state order a woman to leave a beach or change her clothes, and she refuses, and they then send her a fine, and she refuses to pay, you eventually end up at the point where the state's coercive mechanisms - arrest or confiscation of property - kick in. Governments don't empower their agents to politely ask people to change their behaviour. They empower them to issue orders, which change behaviour because, among other things, they are ultimately backed by threats of some kind. Of course, you might say that a woman who refuses to change her clothes and then refuses to pay a fine for wearing certain clothes is being stubborn; the question is whether she should be free to be stubborn in that particular way or not. There may be some argument why she shouldn't be but there's no point pretending that she is anything but unfree at the point when she is ordered to change her clothes, whether the underlying threat of coercion ever actually materialises or not.
posted by Aravis76 at 4:52 PM on August 19, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by Aravis76 at 4:52 PM on August 19, 2016 [3 favorites]
So I think the argument for the burkini ban will be a lot weaker, assuming it makes it to the court.
There's already been some action on that front from the CCIH, the French Human Rights League and SOS Racisme, only at the local level though, for now. The argument I see the backers of the law using is potential civil unrest, with the Corsican incident as an example.
To justify an invasion of it, there needs to be a detailed factual investigation of the exact justification for the invasion, the degree of the invasion, its proportionality to the end served, and why that end is necessary in a democratic society.
Potential civil unrest, due to the emotion running high in the population after several terrorist attacks.
but it's a distraction from them to say that this freedom of religion stuff is just meaningless in France because laïcité.
This is not what I said. I never denied the existence or the importance of religious freedom in France. I said that secularism trumps religious freedom. Secularism is given the same absolute reverence in France as is religion and religious freedom in the UK, US and Canada (which are the examples I know best, there might be other examples in non-English speaking countries). The French Revolution has something to do with it, so has the prevalence of Communism before and after the Second World War.
posted by erin trouble at 5:06 PM on August 19, 2016
There's already been some action on that front from the CCIH, the French Human Rights League and SOS Racisme, only at the local level though, for now. The argument I see the backers of the law using is potential civil unrest, with the Corsican incident as an example.
To justify an invasion of it, there needs to be a detailed factual investigation of the exact justification for the invasion, the degree of the invasion, its proportionality to the end served, and why that end is necessary in a democratic society.
Potential civil unrest, due to the emotion running high in the population after several terrorist attacks.
but it's a distraction from them to say that this freedom of religion stuff is just meaningless in France because laïcité.
This is not what I said. I never denied the existence or the importance of religious freedom in France. I said that secularism trumps religious freedom. Secularism is given the same absolute reverence in France as is religion and religious freedom in the UK, US and Canada (which are the examples I know best, there might be other examples in non-English speaking countries). The French Revolution has something to do with it, so has the prevalence of Communism before and after the Second World War.
posted by erin trouble at 5:06 PM on August 19, 2016
Sure, but "secularism (always) trumps religious freedom" also sounds like an overstatement to me. That would mean that any argument you could call a defence of secularism would justify any level of invasion of freedom of religion. That's not true, fortunately. Both are important values and sometimes one will defeat the other. Personally, I think this is a case where the public order arguments for invading freedom of religion in this way are pretty weak and the argument that it is necessary for the French way of life - maintaining secularism in public spaces - is so weak as to be almost not worth making. As I said, the legal issue is proportionality. The same as it is, incidentally, in Britain.
posted by Aravis76 at 5:11 PM on August 19, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Aravis76 at 5:11 PM on August 19, 2016 [2 favorites]
Yes I'm glad that since secularism trumps religious freedom in France that means that no one is being oppressed by these laws which dictate what women can and cannot wear at the beach. Good on ya, France! Vive la difference!!
/s
posted by some loser at 8:04 PM on August 19, 2016 [1 favorite]
/s
posted by some loser at 8:04 PM on August 19, 2016 [1 favorite]
Quoting myself, from a thread about swimming pools in Brooklyn:
I think it is unfortunate that there are religions and cultures in the world that socialize women into accepting these oppressive restrictions, but as long as there are religions and cultures in the world that socialize women into accepting these oppressive restrictions, we don't make the world a better place by making things harder on the women.
If we want to find a way to combat social and religious oppression of women, we have to find a way that doesn't begin with greater oppression of women, even if we think it might later lead to less oppression.
posted by jacquilynne at 8:21 PM on August 19, 2016 [7 favorites]
I think it is unfortunate that there are religions and cultures in the world that socialize women into accepting these oppressive restrictions, but as long as there are religions and cultures in the world that socialize women into accepting these oppressive restrictions, we don't make the world a better place by making things harder on the women.
If we want to find a way to combat social and religious oppression of women, we have to find a way that doesn't begin with greater oppression of women, even if we think it might later lead to less oppression.
posted by jacquilynne at 8:21 PM on August 19, 2016 [7 favorites]
If we want to find a way to combat social and religious oppression of women, we have to find a way that doesn't begin with greater oppression of women, even if we think it might later lead to less oppression.
Bingo. Well said.
posted by some loser at 8:24 PM on August 19, 2016 [1 favorite]
The way they see it is as long as you live in France, you learn the language and conform to the local customs, at least in public.
The thing is, then admit that the local custom is a sort of secular Roman Catholicism, not a magically religiously neutral basis.
posted by jeather at 8:37 PM on August 19, 2016 [11 favorites]
The thing is, then admit that the local custom is a sort of secular Roman Catholicism, not a magically religiously neutral basis.
posted by jeather at 8:37 PM on August 19, 2016 [11 favorites]
The way they see it is as long as you live in France, you learn the language and conform to the local customs, at least in public.
The thing is, then admit that the local custom is a sort of secular Roman Catholicism, not a magically religiously neutral basis.
posted by jeather at 8:37 PM on August 19
The thing is, French law is not based on custom. If it was, we would be stuck with an unbearable religious weight inherited from the past that we fought fiercely to get rid of. Some people want law to follow closely their idea of what France should be, but the making of laws should always aim at diminishing arbitrariness.
It is maybe necessary to acknowledge that the bans - stupid as they are - originate in the fact that burkinis, niqabs are perceived as promoting a new worldview, as propaganda tools. Even if I disagree with these laws and the remarks of members of the government, it is absolutely obvious that these are not "magically religiously neutral dresscodes".
I'd say that, be they authorized in a variety of contexts : for instance, if civil servants were allowed to wear the "foulard" or if some lifeguards were wearing burkinis, it would exert a very tangible pressure on people who share the same cultural background but have chosen not to wear those signs.
posted by nicolin at 4:16 AM on August 20, 2016
The thing is, then admit that the local custom is a sort of secular Roman Catholicism, not a magically religiously neutral basis.
posted by jeather at 8:37 PM on August 19
The thing is, French law is not based on custom. If it was, we would be stuck with an unbearable religious weight inherited from the past that we fought fiercely to get rid of. Some people want law to follow closely their idea of what France should be, but the making of laws should always aim at diminishing arbitrariness.
It is maybe necessary to acknowledge that the bans - stupid as they are - originate in the fact that burkinis, niqabs are perceived as promoting a new worldview, as propaganda tools. Even if I disagree with these laws and the remarks of members of the government, it is absolutely obvious that these are not "magically religiously neutral dresscodes".
I'd say that, be they authorized in a variety of contexts : for instance, if civil servants were allowed to wear the "foulard" or if some lifeguards were wearing burkinis, it would exert a very tangible pressure on people who share the same cultural background but have chosen not to wear those signs.
posted by nicolin at 4:16 AM on August 20, 2016
a very tangible pressure? my country (thankfully) has not seen any federal-level attempt to make all Muslim women cover their hair (except for one state), and there has been an increase, but tht's due to the increased normalisation of certain conservative readings of the practice (there's even a mefi post about it), BUT here's an important thing to remember: this 'pressure' seems to have not been able to raise the % of wearers at this point in history (it seems to have stabilised, and you can very much examine the socioeconomic distinctions within these numbers), probably because there are competing norms at play, both supported by various kinds of authority, and not only that, some women wear them in some areas/events, and take it off at others, while others (like me) eventually grew to discard it altogether. No law made us do it. And in the meantime, these hijabi women ARE STILL able to enjoy a good quality of life as a citizen in the public areas of life, including enjoying ourselves at pools and beaches and doing things, that yes, a quite sizeable number of patriarchy's representatives would like them to not do (did you really think policing of women would stop at them wearing a headcovering? it might not cover enough, it might be too bright, you could still be accused of doing shameful things like hugging another man, or even be a part of motorports, as grid girls or as riders.) France needs to have a good long look at itself and what it means to be French, and I say this as a foreigner who continually marvels at just how deeply intertwined French Muslims are in French daily life every time I'm in Paris (and perhaps that means I need to go out of Paris the next time I have the opportunity).
Anyway: Non-Muslims flock to buy burkinis as French bans raise profile of the modest swimwear style
posted by cendawanita at 8:47 AM on August 20, 2016 [9 favorites]
Anyway: Non-Muslims flock to buy burkinis as French bans raise profile of the modest swimwear style
posted by cendawanita at 8:47 AM on August 20, 2016 [9 favorites]
Thanks for posting that, cendawanita. I had been wondering if women with lupus or other conditions with sun sensitivity we're able to benefit from that type of garment.
posted by The Underpants Monster at 3:02 PM on August 20, 2016
posted by The Underpants Monster at 3:02 PM on August 20, 2016
A Proposal to Ban the Veil in Germany
The interior minister said the facial covering favored by some Muslim women “doesn't fit in with our open society.”posted by Joe in Australia at 11:55 PM on August 20, 2016
I'm pretty conflicted in how I feel about that. One one hand, I think that people should feel free to dress the way they want in public. On the other hand, I find it discouraging and difficult to interact with people whose faces I cannot see. And since we identify people by their faces, it makes some kind of sense to not want those covered in public.
It's complicated.
Much more so than banning people from the beach for wearing a hooded wetsuit. That's not complicated at all: I find that ridiculous and also just a really bad idea.
posted by Too-Ticky at 2:17 AM on August 21, 2016 [1 favorite]
It's complicated.
Much more so than banning people from the beach for wearing a hooded wetsuit. That's not complicated at all: I find that ridiculous and also just a really bad idea.
posted by Too-Ticky at 2:17 AM on August 21, 2016 [1 favorite]
This garment doesn't cover the wearer's face.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 4:14 AM on August 21, 2016
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 4:14 AM on August 21, 2016
Washington Post story about the origin of the burkini. It was invented by an Australian woman who wanted something comfortable for her niece to play sports in and who then moved on to swimwear. She says she regrets the name, because people associate the word burqa with face-covering and wrongly assume it covers the wearer's face. She has made official ones for lifeguards in Australia, and she says she sells a lot to non-Muslims.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 4:30 AM on August 21, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 4:30 AM on August 21, 2016 [2 favorites]
This garment doesn't cover the wearer's face.
Which is exactly why I'm not conflicted about this. I thought I made that clear, but maybe not.
posted by Too-Ticky at 5:40 AM on August 21, 2016
Which is exactly why I'm not conflicted about this. I thought I made that clear, but maybe not.
posted by Too-Ticky at 5:40 AM on August 21, 2016
I'm with you, Too-Ticky. For me, there is not even a question that states should just leave people alone when it comes to their hair coverings. It is the height of ridiculousness to tell women how they should dress, and in particular to mandate how much they should leave uncovered; I cannot even believe we are having a debate about this in the 21st century democratic world.
But niqabs and other full face coverings are really depressing and give me conflicted feelings as well. They were invented to prevent human interactions with women, since they block out almost all of the social cues that we advanced primates use with each other. In my years in more conservative climates, I've certainly had my share of personal interactions with niqabi women. Shoot, I've spent hours flirting with niqabi girls once or twice. But it never stops being deeply off-putting to be talking to a faceless ghost.
I suppose at some point it becomes the new normal. Imagine how it must have been in Saudi Arabia (or ultra conservative towns like Suez, Egypt) and gradually over the last few decades, watching women's faces utterly disappear from the world around you.
For women in places like that, it must be an odd kind of power, seeing men's faces and emotions as an always open book, while your own are clothed in darkness...
posted by jackbrown at 8:16 AM on August 21, 2016 [1 favorite]
But niqabs and other full face coverings are really depressing and give me conflicted feelings as well. They were invented to prevent human interactions with women, since they block out almost all of the social cues that we advanced primates use with each other. In my years in more conservative climates, I've certainly had my share of personal interactions with niqabi women. Shoot, I've spent hours flirting with niqabi girls once or twice. But it never stops being deeply off-putting to be talking to a faceless ghost.
I suppose at some point it becomes the new normal. Imagine how it must have been in Saudi Arabia (or ultra conservative towns like Suez, Egypt) and gradually over the last few decades, watching women's faces utterly disappear from the world around you.
For women in places like that, it must be an odd kind of power, seeing men's faces and emotions as an always open book, while your own are clothed in darkness...
posted by jackbrown at 8:16 AM on August 21, 2016 [1 favorite]
I truly just don't understand what niqabs and other face coverings have to do with this particular story, which is about a particular set of rules that outlaw a particular garment that doesn't cover the face.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 8:24 AM on August 21, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 8:24 AM on August 21, 2016 [4 favorites]
Not a whole lot, that's a fair point, but I guess they all go under 'specific garments that Muslim women use to cover themselves, and that some governments (want to) prohibit'.
posted by Too-Ticky at 9:47 AM on August 21, 2016
posted by Too-Ticky at 9:47 AM on August 21, 2016
I'm currently in an alpine French resort town, and am surprised at the number of women I've seen in headscarves, boys and men in kippahs and with tzitzit, and Jewish women in wigs. They are freely walking around here enjoying themselves, as anyone else. Most are French speaking, although I have seen two groups of Muslims with strong south London accents. I've seen two French speaking Muslim women in Gloria Swanson-style turbans, but otherwise most seem perfectly okay wearing a headscarf. I was surprised by this initially as I'd expected the complete opposite - that they wouldn't feel free to wear such things, but that's certainly not what I've observed, here in the mountains in summer.
I've also seen Muslim women paddling in the sea (not this trip, and in quite a few different countries around the world) and they've been fully clothed, sometimes with full abaya-type garments on - no doubt dangerous and uncomfortable when saturated! I'm glad the result of all this, so far, is more publicity for the burqini, and increased sales, and I hope it continues.
posted by goo at 12:01 PM on August 21, 2016 [3 favorites]
I've also seen Muslim women paddling in the sea (not this trip, and in quite a few different countries around the world) and they've been fully clothed, sometimes with full abaya-type garments on - no doubt dangerous and uncomfortable when saturated! I'm glad the result of all this, so far, is more publicity for the burqini, and increased sales, and I hope it continues.
posted by goo at 12:01 PM on August 21, 2016 [3 favorites]
Missed the edit window - I am not glad the burqini has been banned, just to clarify! I hope the publicity and increased sales continue.
posted by goo at 12:17 PM on August 21, 2016
posted by goo at 12:17 PM on August 21, 2016
Enforcement appears (with what appears to be guns backing it)
This seems to get to the above point, that at the end if this is a policy some portion of France wants to support, it will necessarily lead to women being ordered to strip at gunpoint.
posted by CrystalDave at 4:46 PM on August 23, 2016 [7 favorites]
This seems to get to the above point, that at the end if this is a policy some portion of France wants to support, it will necessarily lead to women being ordered to strip at gunpoint.
posted by CrystalDave at 4:46 PM on August 23, 2016 [7 favorites]
Incredibly sickening. "We're scared so let's work out our rage on innocent women."
posted by bleep at 5:46 PM on August 23, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by bleep at 5:46 PM on August 23, 2016 [2 favorites]
Enforcement appears (with what appears to be guns backing it)
What the fuck. She's not even wearing a burkini. She's just wearing... clothes. You're not allowed to be on the beach unless you're borderline naked, now?
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 6:13 PM on August 23, 2016 [3 favorites]
What the fuck. She's not even wearing a burkini. She's just wearing... clothes. You're not allowed to be on the beach unless you're borderline naked, now?
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 6:13 PM on August 23, 2016 [3 favorites]
Beaches of Gor.
posted by Joe in Australia at 6:31 PM on August 23, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Joe in Australia at 6:31 PM on August 23, 2016 [1 favorite]
His thoughts were red thoughts: What the fuck. She's not even wearing a burkini. She's just wearing... clothes.
That's what a burkini looks like.
I'm actually amazed. I didn't think they'd be enforcing this. It's shameful and appalling.
posted by Too-Ticky at 11:48 PM on August 23, 2016 [1 favorite]
That's what a burkini looks like.
I'm actually amazed. I didn't think they'd be enforcing this. It's shameful and appalling.
posted by Too-Ticky at 11:48 PM on August 23, 2016 [1 favorite]
That's what a burkini looks like.
(By which I mean: it's ridiculous in either case. That was unclear. Sorry, I'm upset.)
posted by Too-Ticky at 12:04 AM on August 24, 2016
(By which I mean: it's ridiculous in either case. That was unclear. Sorry, I'm upset.)
posted by Too-Ticky at 12:04 AM on August 24, 2016
An opinion piece in the Jerusalem Post: Ban men, not burkinis. I can't help but feel that the author has a point.
posted by Too-Ticky at 12:15 AM on August 24, 2016
posted by Too-Ticky at 12:15 AM on August 24, 2016
I cannot believe they are forcing women to strip at gunpoint. What the actual fuck, France.
posted by corb at 12:49 AM on August 24, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by corb at 12:49 AM on August 24, 2016 [5 favorites]
Well, in a town where the policy is that men can't be bare-chested (many seaside towns actually have such policies), the same cops would ask you to put a shirt on. Would that qualify as "forced to put a t-shirt on at gunpoint" ?
posted by nicolin at 3:59 AM on August 24, 2016
posted by nicolin at 3:59 AM on August 24, 2016
Would that qualify as "forced to put a t-shirt on at gunpoint" ?
Yes. The next question is how serious a violation of a man's freedom it is to order him to do that. Most people's common sense would tell them that 1) ordering someone to take off their clothes has some potential to be more humiliating than ordering them to go home and put on more clothes; and 2) ordering someone to violate what they consider to be a demand of their religion is more serious than ordering them to do something that doesn't engage their deepest convictions in the same way.
In any case, the comparison seems pretty disingenuous given the difference in context. In the case of this woman, according to a witness, people nearby were shouting at her to go home and her child was reduced to tears. There is an obvious racist and threatening component involved in the police singling a person out in this way, because of a marker of identity that anyway makes them vulnerable to xenophobic attack - do you really think there is no difference between that and asking a white man to please put a shirt on? Can you imagine a scenario where other French people on the beach would be shouting threats at the man and frightening his children, while the police issued this order?
I just don't understand how anyone could miss the difference between the two situations, both legally and in terms of the social cost of this kind of behaviour by the state. If I were a French Muslim woman living in this town, this would be the point at which I would wonder what would happen if I got physically attacked in the street by a mob: would the police really be on my side? Or would I be blamed for just looking too Muslim at the time? Please tell me what the analogous social cost of the "men must wear shirts" rule is.
posted by Aravis76 at 4:38 AM on August 24, 2016 [24 favorites]
Yes. The next question is how serious a violation of a man's freedom it is to order him to do that. Most people's common sense would tell them that 1) ordering someone to take off their clothes has some potential to be more humiliating than ordering them to go home and put on more clothes; and 2) ordering someone to violate what they consider to be a demand of their religion is more serious than ordering them to do something that doesn't engage their deepest convictions in the same way.
In any case, the comparison seems pretty disingenuous given the difference in context. In the case of this woman, according to a witness, people nearby were shouting at her to go home and her child was reduced to tears. There is an obvious racist and threatening component involved in the police singling a person out in this way, because of a marker of identity that anyway makes them vulnerable to xenophobic attack - do you really think there is no difference between that and asking a white man to please put a shirt on? Can you imagine a scenario where other French people on the beach would be shouting threats at the man and frightening his children, while the police issued this order?
I just don't understand how anyone could miss the difference between the two situations, both legally and in terms of the social cost of this kind of behaviour by the state. If I were a French Muslim woman living in this town, this would be the point at which I would wonder what would happen if I got physically attacked in the street by a mob: would the police really be on my side? Or would I be blamed for just looking too Muslim at the time? Please tell me what the analogous social cost of the "men must wear shirts" rule is.
posted by Aravis76 at 4:38 AM on August 24, 2016 [24 favorites]
I think that overreacting is maybe not what the situation calls for. Some (right-wing) mayors want to show their electors that they are really doing something against radicalization - which is obviously doubtful - and people respond to them by emphasizing what is deeply wrong in the way French authorities treat muslims. I really don't want to fill in the gaps that way, because I feel that's detrimental to a better mutual understanding of the different communities in France, which is in need of a lot of real mending.
I'd rather wait to know what le Conseil d'Etat has to say about it. If Mayors can't implement those policies, then it's going to be OK because it was pretty stupid in the first place. If they can, because, as I said before, and even if the implications are really different, some towns can already issue dispositions about the way people are dressed in public places, then I guess that the people who don't agree will have to fight it on legal grounds.
I don't want to get agitated because of what fundamentalists, right-wing politicians or the press want me to do or to think. No need to get peremptory, to me that's absolutely the other way round.
posted by nicolin at 6:15 AM on August 24, 2016
I'd rather wait to know what le Conseil d'Etat has to say about it. If Mayors can't implement those policies, then it's going to be OK because it was pretty stupid in the first place. If they can, because, as I said before, and even if the implications are really different, some towns can already issue dispositions about the way people are dressed in public places, then I guess that the people who don't agree will have to fight it on legal grounds.
I don't want to get agitated because of what fundamentalists, right-wing politicians or the press want me to do or to think. No need to get peremptory, to me that's absolutely the other way round.
posted by nicolin at 6:15 AM on August 24, 2016
I guess those of us whose safety and freedom are not at risk can afford the luxury of not caring either way how it turns out. I'm glad there is both litigation and protest, however; I don't consider either an overreaction.
posted by Aravis76 at 6:36 AM on August 24, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by Aravis76 at 6:36 AM on August 24, 2016 [5 favorites]
if this is a policy some portion of France wants to support, it will necessarily lead to women being ordered to strip at gunpoint.
The photo of a woman in her 30s being made to remove clothing at gunpoint in front of her children is apparently going mega viral now. That'll lead to good things, I'm sure.
posted by Coda Tronca at 6:45 AM on August 24, 2016
The photo of a woman in her 30s being made to remove clothing at gunpoint in front of her children is apparently going mega viral now. That'll lead to good things, I'm sure.
posted by Coda Tronca at 6:45 AM on August 24, 2016
It would appear that Nice is prepared to respond to their virality issue by threatening to file suit against people sharing photos. (Assuming this site is trustworthy & the translation is accurate)
English article
« Je dénonce ce qui apparaît comme une manipulation qui dénigre la police municipale, et met en danger ses agents », dénonce Christian Estrosi, qui prévient : « D’ores et déjà, des plaintes ont été déposées pour poursuivre ceux qui diffusent les photographies de nos policiers municipaux ainsi que ceux qui profèrent à leur encontre des menaces sur les réseaux sociaux ».
posted by CrystalDave at 3:36 PM on August 24, 2016
English article
« Je dénonce ce qui apparaît comme une manipulation qui dénigre la police municipale, et met en danger ses agents », dénonce Christian Estrosi, qui prévient : « D’ores et déjà, des plaintes ont été déposées pour poursuivre ceux qui diffusent les photographies de nos policiers municipaux ainsi que ceux qui profèrent à leur encontre des menaces sur les réseaux sociaux ».
posted by CrystalDave at 3:36 PM on August 24, 2016
Would that qualify as "forced to put a t-shirt on at gunpoint" ?
Yes. (...)
posted by Aravis76 at 4:38 AM on August 24
No, it wouldn't. Because that's a terribly sensationalist framing of a situation wherein the cops themselves are terribly uneasy to implement a stupid law. So using that framing in a different situation would be perfectly ridiculous. Judging France as a whole on the grounds of that framing doesn't make sense, it's obfuscating what explains those decisions locally, which has little to do with a supposed French desire to oppress muslims and women.
posted by nicolin at 3:37 PM on August 24, 2016
Yes. (...)
posted by Aravis76 at 4:38 AM on August 24
No, it wouldn't. Because that's a terribly sensationalist framing of a situation wherein the cops themselves are terribly uneasy to implement a stupid law. So using that framing in a different situation would be perfectly ridiculous. Judging France as a whole on the grounds of that framing doesn't make sense, it's obfuscating what explains those decisions locally, which has little to do with a supposed French desire to oppress muslims and women.
posted by nicolin at 3:37 PM on August 24, 2016
Nicolin, I think you're taking this personally, and you shouldn't. Yes (maybe) the police are "uneasy" about it - but they are enforcing it. You agree that it's a stupid law, so why defend it? It's not like our raised eyebrows are going to bring down the Republic.
posted by Joe in Australia at 4:11 PM on August 24, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Joe in Australia at 4:11 PM on August 24, 2016 [1 favorite]
I'm not judging France as a whole, as Joe in Australia says; I'm judging a single bad law, which plenty of French people agree with me about.
That the law is ultimately enforced at gunpoint, in one sense or another, also has nothing to do with France or the particular law or even the particular cops whose unfortunate job it is to enforce the law. It's just one aspect of what it means to have a law; it's how I frame my understanding of every law with a criminal sanction, in every country, when I'm thinking about whether it's a good idea. The risk with this kind of rule is that there's a temptation to think only about whether the behaviour it forbids is a good or bad idea - is it a good idea to wear a burkini on a beach a few days after a terrorist attack, is it prudent to leave your hair uncovered in Jeddah, is it safe for women to drink alone in bars in Mumbai after 1am? When you're looked at a law that forbids some behaviour, it's important to focus on what enforcement of the law actually means, however you feel about the behaviour. I'm not really keen on adultery, personally, but I still find it horrifying that Saudi criminalises adultery because I know how horrible and dehumanising enforcement of that law is (even if Saudi's standards of criminal punishment were not in themselves appalling - even if they just jailed or fined people for adultery - that would still involve a horrifying violation of privacy and family life). I wouldn't care if these municipal governments had issued some advice to Muslim women, strongly encouraging them not to wear burkinis on the beach but to wear sunscreen instead. That might be dumb but there would be no question of enforcement of any kind - because it wouldn't be a law, just advice - and then there would be no human rights issue. Making it a law, with a criminal sanction attached, inevitably brings in the idea of guns.
posted by Aravis76 at 10:43 PM on August 24, 2016
That the law is ultimately enforced at gunpoint, in one sense or another, also has nothing to do with France or the particular law or even the particular cops whose unfortunate job it is to enforce the law. It's just one aspect of what it means to have a law; it's how I frame my understanding of every law with a criminal sanction, in every country, when I'm thinking about whether it's a good idea. The risk with this kind of rule is that there's a temptation to think only about whether the behaviour it forbids is a good or bad idea - is it a good idea to wear a burkini on a beach a few days after a terrorist attack, is it prudent to leave your hair uncovered in Jeddah, is it safe for women to drink alone in bars in Mumbai after 1am? When you're looked at a law that forbids some behaviour, it's important to focus on what enforcement of the law actually means, however you feel about the behaviour. I'm not really keen on adultery, personally, but I still find it horrifying that Saudi criminalises adultery because I know how horrible and dehumanising enforcement of that law is (even if Saudi's standards of criminal punishment were not in themselves appalling - even if they just jailed or fined people for adultery - that would still involve a horrifying violation of privacy and family life). I wouldn't care if these municipal governments had issued some advice to Muslim women, strongly encouraging them not to wear burkinis on the beach but to wear sunscreen instead. That might be dumb but there would be no question of enforcement of any kind - because it wouldn't be a law, just advice - and then there would be no human rights issue. Making it a law, with a criminal sanction attached, inevitably brings in the idea of guns.
posted by Aravis76 at 10:43 PM on August 24, 2016
Even if this law is enforced until (hopefully) overturned, surely the most enforcement Reasonable is issuing a ticket , not forcing a woman to undress while you surround her.
posted by chapps at 11:27 PM on August 24, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by chapps at 11:27 PM on August 24, 2016 [1 favorite]
French burkini ban row escalates as top court to rule on bans
posted by Joe in Australia at 3:29 AM on August 25, 2016
posted by Joe in Australia at 3:29 AM on August 25, 2016
What we are seeing in France is part of the continued criminalisation of being Muslim. Particularly the criminalisation of visibly Muslim people – particularly Muslim women. What we are seeing is a vulgar display of White Feminism codified and legislated by the state. We’re seeing women being forced to conform to something held up as ‘liberty’ with no irony at all.I don't think that writing against this -- on multiple axes -- is an overreaction, that calling it sexist, Islamophobic, hypocritical, wrong is rushing to judgement.
posted by jeather at 6:59 AM on August 25, 2016 [6 favorites]
What we are seeing is a vulgar display of White Feminism codified and legislated by the state.
I don't believe I know a single non-Muslim woman who supports the ban. Even the women I know who personally disapprove of religion-based modest dress for women (when it's not expected of men) believe that it's wrong for civil authorities to dictate what women are allowed to wear. The women I know are outraged over the gun incident. The ban smells more of heavy-handed paternalism than of white feminism gone wrong to me. Maybe I'm just not as plugged in to the feminist scene online as I thought I was.
posted by The Underpants Monster at 8:26 AM on August 25, 2016 [3 favorites]
I don't believe I know a single non-Muslim woman who supports the ban. Even the women I know who personally disapprove of religion-based modest dress for women (when it's not expected of men) believe that it's wrong for civil authorities to dictate what women are allowed to wear. The women I know are outraged over the gun incident. The ban smells more of heavy-handed paternalism than of white feminism gone wrong to me. Maybe I'm just not as plugged in to the feminist scene online as I thought I was.
posted by The Underpants Monster at 8:26 AM on August 25, 2016 [3 favorites]
I can't speak for France, but in Quebec, it has been very much white feminism re: Muslim women. Enough where a whole bunch of white feminists wrote a letter that was pretty damn offensive to a media outlet about the Charter of Rights kerfuffle in 2013.(note: letter in French). From HuffPo Canada, this is a distillation of that letter if you don't read French and what it was about.
I am hoping that French white feminists are more supportive than their Quebec counterparts.
posted by Kitteh at 8:48 AM on August 25, 2016
I am hoping that French white feminists are more supportive than their Quebec counterparts.
posted by Kitteh at 8:48 AM on August 25, 2016
The Underpants Monster: The women I know are outraged over the gun incident.
As am I. But I'm not sure that it's helpful to call it a 'gun incident'. As far as I know, none of the police officers pointed a gun at the woman on the beach. Just because they probably carried guns, that doesn't make it a 'gun incident' and I would also not say she was forced to undress 'at gunpoint'.
Things are shitty enough as they are, no need to make them sound worse.
posted by Too-Ticky at 9:13 AM on August 25, 2016
As am I. But I'm not sure that it's helpful to call it a 'gun incident'. As far as I know, none of the police officers pointed a gun at the woman on the beach. Just because they probably carried guns, that doesn't make it a 'gun incident' and I would also not say she was forced to undress 'at gunpoint'.
Things are shitty enough as they are, no need to make them sound worse.
posted by Too-Ticky at 9:13 AM on August 25, 2016
In some of the photos the police have their fingers on their CS gas sprays. So brave. The whole thing is an IS recruitment poster.
posted by Coda Tronca at 9:40 AM on August 25, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by Coda Tronca at 9:40 AM on August 25, 2016 [5 favorites]
It's not like our raised eyebrows are going to bring down the Republic.
To be fair, some of us are raising them one at a time. That's some strong instability generation right there.
posted by flabdablet at 11:31 AM on August 25, 2016 [2 favorites]
To be fair, some of us are raising them one at a time. That's some strong instability generation right there.
posted by flabdablet at 11:31 AM on August 25, 2016 [2 favorites]
Burkini Bans, Muslim ‘Hygiene,’ And The History Of The Holocaust
posted by homunculus at 4:38 PM on August 25, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by homunculus at 4:38 PM on August 25, 2016 [2 favorites]
The ban has been temporarily suspended. From the language used, it sounds like the court is moving towards finding that the bans are illegal.
posted by Aravis76 at 6:41 AM on August 26, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Aravis76 at 6:41 AM on August 26, 2016 [2 favorites]
Frolicking Nuns - "Imam protests burqini ban by posting image of nuns at the beach in full habits".
posted by urbanwhaleshark at 11:47 AM on August 26, 2016
posted by urbanwhaleshark at 11:47 AM on August 26, 2016
Yes, as expected the ban has been overturned , and it should become jurisprudence, i.e., any such ban is void. Even the mayors probably knew this would happen but prefered to score political points even if it meant stoking racism and xenophobia, at a particularly difficult time. Assholes.
posted by anzen-dai-ichi at 12:35 PM on August 26, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by anzen-dai-ichi at 12:35 PM on August 26, 2016 [6 favorites]
Several articles have also included this:
But several mayors in southeast France remained defiant on Thursday, declaring shortly after the ruling that they would continue to fine women wearing burkinis.
I don't know how that plays out in practice in France.
posted by thefoxgod at 12:45 PM on August 26, 2016
But several mayors in southeast France remained defiant on Thursday, declaring shortly after the ruling that they would continue to fine women wearing burkinis.
I don't know how that plays out in practice in France.
posted by thefoxgod at 12:45 PM on August 26, 2016
@LaSauvageJaune provides an illustration: The lottery of indecency
posted by Kabanos at 1:02 PM on August 26, 2016
posted by Kabanos at 1:02 PM on August 26, 2016
Even the mayors probably knew this would happen but prefered to score political points even if it meant stoking racism and xenophobia, at a particularly difficult time.
Not to mention Sarkozy and some other national politicians. This epidemic of dangerously short-term thinking among politicians worldwide is so depressing.
posted by Aravis76 at 1:24 PM on August 26, 2016 [1 favorite]
Not to mention Sarkozy and some other national politicians. This epidemic of dangerously short-term thinking among politicians worldwide is so depressing.
posted by Aravis76 at 1:24 PM on August 26, 2016 [1 favorite]
But several mayors in southeast France remained defiant on Thursday, declaring shortly after the ruling that they would continue to fine women wearing burkinis.
I don't know how that plays out in practice in France.
Legal challenges in court.
posted by Fizz at 1:28 PM on August 26, 2016
I don't know how that plays out in practice in France.
Legal challenges in court.
posted by Fizz at 1:28 PM on August 26, 2016
Yeah, my confusion was "wasn't this already a legal challenge? If they're refusing the courts orders how does that get resolved".
But it looks like the issue is that technically this only applied to one town's ban. While it seems clear the other ones would get struck down, they might have to get individually escalated to the courts, if I am reading correctly.
posted by thefoxgod at 2:46 PM on August 26, 2016
But it looks like the issue is that technically this only applied to one town's ban. While it seems clear the other ones would get struck down, they might have to get individually escalated to the courts, if I am reading correctly.
posted by thefoxgod at 2:46 PM on August 26, 2016
German mayor fires Palestinian intern for wearing headscarf
[...] Social Democrat (SPD) and mayor of Luckenwalde, Elisabeth Herzog-von der Heide said she was unable to provide the intern with a suitable field of work as she refused to take off her headscarf in the presence of men.posted by Joe in Australia at 3:29 AM on August 27, 2016
"The Islamic headscarf is a means of expression of religious belief," Herzog-von der Heide said.
Allowing the woman to wear her headscarf would have violated the neutrality in the town hall, she argued, adding that there are no crucifixes on the walls of the building.
Huh: Alabama ACLU sues government, claiming pro-Muslim discrimination
posted by Joe in Australia at 5:09 AM on September 1, 2016
posted by Joe in Australia at 5:09 AM on September 1, 2016
N.B. I think they're right to do so; it's a pretty clear breach of the Establishment clause; it's just funny because it's a "man bites dog" situation.
posted by Joe in Australia at 5:10 AM on September 1, 2016
posted by Joe in Australia at 5:10 AM on September 1, 2016
Deputy Mayor of Nice doubles down on their idiocy by calling for a ban on photographing and sharing photos of Police during these sorts of enforcement actions.
posted by Mitheral at 9:01 AM on September 1, 2016
posted by Mitheral at 9:01 AM on September 1, 2016
Taking a page from France's book, ISIS has now banned burqas in Mosul.
This year is getting too weird for me.
posted by Joe in Australia at 4:37 PM on September 6, 2016 [1 favorite]
This year is getting too weird for me.
posted by Joe in Australia at 4:37 PM on September 6, 2016 [1 favorite]
« Older Queering up the big screen... in teensy tiny steps | She’s never ever cute or soft or scared of you. Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by mai at 11:45 AM on August 17, 2016 [84 favorites]