Should the Burqa Be Banned? Many Women Think No, But Others Disagree

Soon, the muslims, when they gain power in France, will ban wine and require Barqa's for all French men!!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The berka and my reasons why to keep em. Call me what you must, but I'm an unadulterated male! - yeah baby! I'm not ashamed of being a male.

Many Persian women have adopted this form of apparel very well. They look like new world belly dancers, very sexy in many cases. yeah, I'd date her! I'm not shy. And I kind of like the idea of a harem of said women but only if I'm rich enough to put them into discernible pre-menstrual chateaus for the sanity of it all.

Some women, without going into ethnic clarity, just look frightening; even while hiding their girth behind these jet black tarps - sends shivers. When they approach, their mass shifts the air currents and its rather disturbing. The combination creates images of spooky shadow apparitions flying by - barqa tentacles waving behind. Yeah, lets keep these individuals hidden from public display. ALL AHIL BARQA!

Some take on the nun role. And this in of itself is ok because it gives one perspective of purity. Or would that be chastity? No matter, everyone needs the quintessential mother figure to look up to. Yeah, I like to think some barqa bearers are untouchable - in the good sense. I vote yes on the barqa here as well.

And what about the professional barqa bearer? Yep, again, this can be deliberately made to attract prime male specimens. Dr. Barqa, I have some pains, can you help me please? Where does it hurt? I'm so glad you asked, tyvm!

I can think of no good reason to remove the barqa from society. France is crazy.

For all you barqa bearing women. think of me as your neo-liberal male representative voice in America. I'll shout high and loud in your defense to wear the apparel of your choosing. Especially those colorful barqas, ah cha cha cha.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Nicely stated Sarah Seltzer. I have long been surprised that a country like France – founded on equality, fraternity and liberty – could be so actively considering the prohibition of a particular garment. The outlawing of the burqa seems to me every bit as oppressive as the imposition of burqas in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere. I imagine such prohibitions gain support more from the racists and ethnic purity crowd who hide behind ‘feminist’ principles to enact these oppressive laws (trying to purify France for example).

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I suppose the author understands this, but the idea that something can be "patriarchal enough to merit legal regulation" is ridiculous. This is not a legitimate purpose of law, and it makes no sense. I'm glad that American feminists seem to recognize this.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

So...bottom line: women should be able to wear whatever they want, even in France. Of course, fat hairy men over 40 are another matter entirely, due to lack of judgement and public health concerns.

What about double-standards in the US workplace? Women get to wear shorts, flip-flops, and sleeveless shirts, while men have just barely been granted the right to wear polo shirts over the past 10 years or so.

I suppose it's a conflict of interest for men. They'd rather keep their mouth shut than risk starting a rule that women can't wear shorts and sleeveless shirts in the workplace.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It's a complicated issue. Everyone knows many Muslim men are pressuring women into wearing Burkas against their will and some terrorists are hiding underneath Burkas. The libertarian in me believes women can wear whatever they want, just as I can walk around in a ski-mask. But the last time I walked into my bank wearing sunglasses and a baseball cap, everyone freaked out. I think private businesses should be allowed to discriminate against people who hide their faces. It's simply a matter of security.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Couple a hot babes there!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

the old saying 'when in rome, do as the romans do' is still a good hint as to how to dress within a given society... no wait!!! if we force legislation that would mask facial recognition software... no wait, we're already doing this...

just wear what you want or don't want and to hell with fashion statements and glossy magazine ads...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Americans traversed the M.E. were treated like near royalty, so what happened?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Then in Muslim Countries, particularly those with high concentrations of Westerners - like the tourists resorts of Turkey for example, it should be acceptable - at least on properly designated beaches - for anyone who feels like it, to go swimming in the sea and sunbathing completely NAKED - just like in the Greek Islands a few miles away.

Personally, I think diversity in cultures and dress - makes the World a more interesting place, but there has to be tolerance too on both sides.

I don't think people should be arrested if they want to wear a bin bag on their head, but likewise, people should not be liable to be arrested if they want to go skinny dipping in a Muslim Country in an appropriate place.

Incidentally, my Son once took his 15 year old Girlfriend on holiday with us. She was dressed completely appropriately for a young girl to go on holiday to a hot place. We were however going somewhat further than Spain or Greece. When the aircraft had a stop over at Dubai, she literally had to hide as best she could behind her Boyfriend.

ALL the Muslims were leering at her. What could she do? She didn't have a bin bag.

Tony

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A year or so ago there was something in the news about a schoolteacher in England wearing a face veil. The point here is that in Western culture we are socialized to read facial expression as a part of communication, and the children (as I recall they were in kindergarten) couldn't do this and felt frightened of the veiled unknowable face. Reading facial signals is major in the West. In French there is even an idiom ("faire les grands yeux", to make big eyes) to denote the warning look that grownups give when kids aren't doing right. And, yes, it's always nice when we Westerners can learn new ways, but I would argue that kindergarten is too young to expect children to figure out a new nonverbal code when they are still learning the basic codes of their own culture.

I have never seen a burqa in Chicago but maybe ten or fifteen times I have seen women with their faces fully veiled. Obviously this is done voluntarily here since, although Mayor Daley can be fairly criticized for some things, he doesn't have face-police on the streets. I recall one time when it was hotter out than hell when I saw a woman veiled and wrapped up although her husband was in a short-sleeved shirt and her child dressed appropriately for the very hot weather. Was it her husband or her own internalized no-no's that kept her veiled on a day when most women in Chicago were gratefully wearing shorts?

But veiling is big enough here that a major sewing fabric store now has an entire department devoted to sheer black cotton fabrics called "Midnight" and, the last time I was there, a black-veiled Middle-Eastern lady was working there as a sales clerk. This is not going to be our grandmother's world.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The author equates opposition to radical Islam's degradation of women as being racist. I wonder how much of that Saudi money she got.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Admittedly, the burqa allows a pretty woman to evade MCP's and the plain to evade MCP insults.

Unfortunately, the burqa, chador, and other Fabric From Hell enable terrorists (and I suspect the presence of Al Qaeda Drag Queens under those voluminous folds) to carry homemade WMD's into crowds.

The burqa also allow looksism and egregiously bad male behavior to continue unchallenged. A ban on burqas makes sense for security reasons, and to enable burqa-deprived sisters to learn verbal self-defense and confidence.

I am proud of American female immodesty. We don't have to carry grenades under the skirts or the Kotex.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Ban this, ban that. It's amazing how people want to ban all the luster out of being free.

Luckily the people of France have heads on their shoulders.

Not only is banning the burqa racist, it's sexist, and it's oppressive. A government should not be allowed to "regulate" clothing, it's the same thing as regulating speech.

Soon everything will be banned, and there will be no freedom for anyone.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I know many pretty second generation Muslims who don't wear it, even tho their mothers still don that outfit. And it's very likely their children won't even know what a burqa is.

Give it time.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Women risk bodily harm if they don't adhere to certain standards in certain parts of the world. In the US its about vanity and fitting in. Comparing high heels to burqas is ludicrious. I've never worn high heels a day in my life, haven't worn makeup in years, don't wear jewelry or do my nails, and the most I get is a puzzled look or a question as to why. I choose not to adhere to western ideals of fashion and do just fine. its not the patriachry dressing us in the morning, it ultimately falls on women in the US of what they want to wear and if they want to keep up with the rediculous fashion trends. The burqua is an active tool of controlling women. High heels are a choice.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"How can so many American feminists have come out against a burqa ban in France (as they largely have this past month) when the burqa, along with other excessively modest religious garb, appears to be a classic tool of gender oppression?"

Because denying women choice is an even more widespread tool of gender oppression, and banning the burqa is as bad as banning the miniskirt, short sleeve tops, or any other form of clothing. Its just another case of decisions being made for women, rather than by them.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

ban God instead?

Eliminates the issue of ethnic/racial/gender or any other kind of prejudice.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Here is an article I happened to learn something from. We liberals have to learn to explore the deeper context of our thinking.

Thinking Outside Of The Secular Box

hmmm...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Who knew you could be fired for not wearing makeup to work? Now, actors and news anchors of either sex, for example, wear makeup so as not to appear washed out in front of the camera, but we are talking about a regular job (bartending) here, in which appearance is required to be neat and conform to hygienic standard but not otherwise regulated.

Jespersen v. Harrah’s: Firing of Woman Who Refused To Wear Make-Up Is Upheld

I shouldn't have to point out that makeup can be very expensive and/or clog your pores and damage your skin - or that the employer is, in this case, presuming a higher profit from an employee's sexualized appearance at the employee's expense in what should be a gender-neutral job of mixing drinks.

Just saying, we can't point to France's proposed burqa ban without looking at the reverse/perverse legalities here.

My real worry is that our own ever-PC canadian government, in its current political and religious rightwing mode, has been quietly dismantling our own personal freedoms in their quest for conservative world domination - the polygamy issue is about to be passed onto the federals, along with the buck ... Women cannot afford to let this issue slide. If I could have a stable full of houseboys who supported me in style, I might reconsider but I don't have a large church behind me demanding "religious freedom". Polygamy is not intrinsic to Islam either; you don't need four wives to be "saved". Until * for starters * the taxpayer-supported educational system is fixed such that all children receive a standard education (as opposed to religious indoctrination), legalized polygamy would only open the door to legalized slavery.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I am a man but I hope this doesn't invalidate everything I say. Currently, I am riding my bicycle through South America and I have had the fortune/misfortune of riding through several large deserts. What I have learned is that the desert sun is extremely powerful, so much so that most desert cultures cover the vast majority of their bodies with cloth to avoid sun exposure. I can't deny that the burka has been taken to oppressive extremes but I think it is important to point out that the burka evolved from full body clothing meant to protect the body from sun exposure. Most men in these parts of the world keep most of their bodies covered as well, though they do not stare out through an eye slit.
I also wanted to elaborate on some on the hypocrisy of Westerners for criticizing "oppressive" feminist clothing such as burkas. I am just going to pose a number of questions that I hope will inspire thought. How many muslim women suffer from bulimia or anorexia? How many muslim women suffer from back and foot problems due to wearing high heels? How many muslim women get bacterial infections from bikini waxes? How many muslim women spend thousands of dollars on plastic surgery? My point is that, while we may consider burkas to be oppressive, western beauty standards can be just as oppressive and unhealthy.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Oh how useless the battle to vote would have been if women who wanted the vote did not get angry at the women who did not want the want to vote (and this was vast). The suffragettes had their work cut out for them nearly as much with women as with men. I won't defend someone's practices JUST because she has a vagina, NO. This is how issues and social battles get lost.

Let burqa wearing women do the battle of the sexes among themselves. I am willing to assist them in their achieving better equality, but I will not encourage them in their quest for LESS EQUALITY!!!!!!!!!

No, you lose the political battle if you allow religion to let feminism back down.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

who need to ensure everyone lives by the rules they set for themselves.

the sort of bullshit best exemplified by the 'Christian Modesty' that drives women to keep their arms covered at all times...

"I'm afraid of making decisions for myself that aren't written into easy-to-follow codifications for conduct... RULE ME!... I fear criticism by clearer, more confident people than myself!"

the sort of bullshit that best described as the 'might makes right' answer to the driving questions of personal choices


perspective, people.


Perspective.

The Jeff Farias Show: streams FREE & LIVE Mon-Fri, 6-9pmEDT

FREE podcast
"... tolerance of intolerance is cowardice..." ~ Ayaan Hirsi Ali.
"We, two, form a Multitude" ~ Ovid.

"Violence can only be concealed by a Lie, & the Lie can only be maintained by Violence." ... "Any man, who has once proclaimed Violence as his Method, is inevitably forced to take the Lie as his Principle" – Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn.

"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire.
~~~
"Silent Freedom is Freedom Silenced"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

is an exclusionary form of protest against western culture. When worn in Moslem countries it is what it is and what we in the west can't truly understand, but it's part of their culture. When worn in the west it is insulting to our inclusionary culture. We have many years for instance of watching cowboy shows where the criminals put a bandana over their faces so they won't be recongnized while the commit their crimes. Don't you think that sort of activity is engraved in our psyche in a negative way? Openness is a major part of our culture and the opposite has a negative connotation with good reason. In some Moslem countries if a woman is simply an asset owned by some man then he can decide what she wears and doesn't wear but that cannot be allowed in our western countries. Women are the equal of men and no man has the right to treat a woman as part of his property. There is absolutely no rational for the wearing of a burqua in western countries!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I wouldn't for a second ban it, however, no more than I would ban any other clothing with political implications.

Nevertheless, it *is* a symbol, even if a multivariate one. And one of those meanings--which I share--is that it is a symbol of the denigration of a woman's status, which is unacceptable to me.

Of course, there are more meanings of this clothing. While I hate seeing the things flying around town these days, the essence of liberty requires that those able to emancipate themselves do so. Since there is no legal requirement in the US to wear one on command, and presumably since many of the women could stop doing so if they desired, then the practice of wearing the burqa becomes their problem.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I don't like to see our young men wearing their pants down around their ass. This is a horrible fashion statement.
It has done more to undermine American society than all the burkas combined.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I think this a fundamental American misinterpretation of the French action.

Race is the American obsession. Religion - more precisely, fear of religious power - has been more of a French obsession since the Revolution and even before then... Huguenots, St. Bartholomew's Day massacre, "Paris is worth a mass," etc.

Americans never had a revolution where we killed thousands of ministers and priests. (Yeah I realize probably many in the AlterNet audience would find that an interesting prospect!) We may have a pro forma separation of church and state but we have a smarmy church-laden culture, and AlterNet articles every day attest to that.

In this way American feminists and others on the left jump to a default, American lefty position on the burqa controversy - sort of the ACLU position transported to France (i.e. minus the US constitution) - and without considering the larger religious history.

We American liberals and lefties are used to having religious people around. They run the country already and we're always fighting them!

The French aren't so much "racist" as freaked out by the presence of genuinely religious immigrants. They're not used to having religious people around, and it makes them very uneasy.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I was in France when the controversy regarding Muslim female head coverings (called "hijab") broke.

France's official position was to maintain separation of church and state. Unofficially, they were nervous about the growing appeal of Islamism in French culture (not excluding its former colonized North Africans now living in France).

With a few exceptions, articulate French-Muslim women spoke out in favor of the hijab, and asked why Christian crosses, Jewish yarmulkes, and Sikh turbans weren't likewise banned.

The official French responses were mealy-mouthed, contradictory.

To agree with the seeming majority of French-Muslim women about the reasonableness of the hijab is not in any way to be anti-feminist. Rather it is to refrain from imposing western values, such as they are, on very different cultures, even if they are living as exiles in western countries.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Isn't this an issue that should be discussed in terms of utility, rather than religion or retrograde social norms? My gym requires a certain level of coverage on the gym floor for simple reasons of hygiene, i.e. staph is very easily transmitted on sweaty gym equipment. It makes things easier for everyone if the equipment doesn't require a complete wipedown with disinfectant every time someone's done using it.

By what I would consider the same token, much of how we live and interact publicly in the West is about facial recognition and communication. I'm not comfortable talking to a burlap sack with feet. Is the burlap sack in question permitted to interact with me at all if I'm not a sibling or husband? If so, does anyone have any tips on how to know I'm speaking with the right burlap sack if we're in a crowded, noisy place?

I also do not want to share the road with drivers in burlap sacks or in anything - western or eastern - that would compromise his or her visual accuity. And what if the burlap sack gets its hem caught in an escalator or moving sidewalk or car door?

What I'm suggesting is that the modern burlap sack needs a hem short enough to not drag on the ground, and a, opening large enough to permit the face of the wearer to be viewed.

For the French, the headscarf is seen in the same light as a crucifix or Star of David - an expression of religious piety or faith best left out of public life. Part of immigrating to a new country requires understanding and tolerating the culture of your new home. In the same way a western woman wouldn't walk the streets of an Islamic country in shorts and a tank top (without being harassed or arrested) I think it's reasonable to expect a woman who prefers to cover to at least do us the favor of baring her face.

For me, I guess it comes down to this; you want to express your piety? Fine. But living in a diverse world not only requires tolerance and open-mindedness, it also requires some compromise and some common sense.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What is to stop a woman getting her husband thrown in jail by simply wearing a burqa in public?

I mean, obviously, as a law designed to empower women the sanctions have to be imposed on the man. Otherwise it would just be stupid - I mean you can't seriously count throwing someone in jail as a way of empowering them.

So how do you establish that the husband has actually made his wife wear the thing, and she isn't just doing it to get at him?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Thanks for the bikini pic! It nicely reinforces the false dichotomy men in conservatives cultures use to justify their oppressive dress codes for women: It's burqas or bikinis! Nothing in between!

Out here in the real world, (most) women dress appropriately for the situation. Unfortunately, folks in Muslim countries (and everywhere else, for that matter) are inundated with the objectifying images from Western media, like the thumbnail for this article. They use such images to argue that all women will dress like bikini models and sex workers, given the opportunity.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

1. Most comments assume that Muslim men force their women to cover. These are Semi literate Hollywood/Fox graduates.
Some Muslim men do. But the great majority of Muslim women cover out of their own conviction. some cover their head. very few cover their faces.
2. Stoning to death (magnified by the media) Stoning to death only happens at the hands of extremists unacceptable and unpopular among the Muslim masses. It happens probably less than 5 times a year. The great majority of Muslims do not practice it.
3. Hijab (Headscarf) VS Burqa (Niqab - Covers the face): Most Muslims do not believe a woman should cover her face (Only in Saudi and Afghanistan - less than 1% of Muslims).
The big problem here is bigotry and ignorance disguised as looking out for women's rights.
4. Islam calls for modesty in men and women wear. Modesty helps to keep families together, for the sake of children.
I think that divorce rates, marital infidelity and children growing up with one parent in the US are partly enabled by our culture with regards to sex, marriage and including what is acceptable to wear.
Muslims are not crazy. And the western culture is not superior - not even close.
This is a problem America is unable to solve

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I am against the idea of banning the burkha for the feminist reasons stated in this article, but more explicitly because such a ban forces these women to make choices their Islamic male counterparts do not have to make: do I dress in a way that shames my family or betrays my beliefs and get to participate in society, or do I keep my dress and limit my possibilities for employment and education? For women who would choose the latter either out of devotion or fear of rejection from family, such a ban would mean oppression by the very government that is seeking to "free" them. It would make me happy if there was not a single woman wearing the hijab or burkha because of what they mean to me, shame and status as someone's object of beauty. I find that "covered" merely suggests "uncovered" in the sexual imagination of a man, so the idea that covering allows a woman less objectification is just a pipeline dream to keep them voluntarily covered up for only the pleasure of the men in their lives. However, that's beside the point that women do wear these objects of clothing, and outlawing them only makes the forbidden more intriguing. I think the western world will find that the more it seeks to strangle islamic traditions the more its young people will be curious about and even embrace them. I am not against Islam as such, but just against the way that some of its teachings are interpreted and practiced such that it oppresses and discriminates against women (which is also the problem I have with some Christian practices and doctrines as well).

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Would they ban covering your face in the Alps in winter? Would they ban wearing a headscarf in the rain? They would ban these things, not because they are inherently dangerous or anti-social, but because of the ideas they represent. The wearing of symbolic garb is a form of speech, pure and simple. They only ban those that represent ideas they dislike. That is unacceptable in a free society.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

As tatoos may not be displayed in many workplaces, as some schools ban certain hairdos and wardrobe choices, as certain dress codes are required to enter business, so should be included the burqa.

That one may choose to wear the burqa and play into a patriarchal religion, not my choice, but to display so much in Western cultures: at work, at school, or in certain public, NO, NO, NO, and certainly not on driver's licenses, as some have already tried!!!!!!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

... a burka-less woman is not a morally ambiguous creature. The men in a traditional muslim culture look at women a little differently. A woman with uncovered hair or legs attracts unhealthy attention. In a wealthy suburb of some big UAE city it might not be such a stark thing -- everybody is educated, well-traveled and genteel. But if, as a woman, you ever have the bad luck to be lost in a poor muslim part of Paris, you would be extremely uncomfortable. Why should a western woman be harassed just for walking in a Muslim neighborhood? How do you integrate people from a relatively uneducated, traditionalist background into a liberal western culture? I think making a few new laws is not such a crazy idea. And in this case, it doesn't even have much to do with feminism. Much like the author feeling obliged to wear makeup to work -- is not a feminist issue -- it is an issue of succumbing to peer pressure.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I've always understood that one of the prime differences between a liberal society and a conservative one is that in a liberal society, people are free to behave in ways more conservative than the mainstream, if it does not infringe upon the rights of others to behave differently. On the other hand, people living in a conservative society are generally not free to behave in ways more liberal than that of the mainstream.

In other words, the guiding principle for liberal societies is diversity and freedom and for conservative societies it's conformity and fitting in.

Consequently, I think France is out of step with the general spirit of its own culture by seeking to legally ban burqas. In the interests of freedom and diversity, people should be free to wear whatever they wish.

The only valid limitations I can see would be in the interests of security, such as requiring women to uncover their faces for driver's license photos, when going through security checkpoints, etc.

But a general ban, no. I think the unintended result of such a ban would be more Muslim women ending up confined to their homes, as their husbands wouldn't allow them to go out "improperly" dressed.

Not all societal concerns can be effectively solved by throwing laws at them. And I think that a law limiting freedom of dress would create more problems than it solved.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Recently we have heard much noise made about the negative social, cultural, and emotional influences coming out of extremist elements of the Middle East. The burka is symptomatic of the kind of cultural darkness that these terrorists wish to impose on people all over the world. This issue is nothing more than another way to bully more people. It is in no way a cultural or religious issue. They merely like to tell others what to do. I will have respect for that when pigs fly.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

....in Costco a few months ago. It shocked me to my core. It's a portable prison, no less. The writer makes some excellent points but the prevalence of objectification of women through dress and otherwise does not argue against getting a good start by banning the damn thing. (Besides, people can carry big suicide bombs in them.) I don't want France to become Islamicized; think what they might do to the Louvre. It's better for immigrants to start adapting to one of the world's great nations.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

If the Quran advises women to use purdah, should they do so? My answer is, No. Irrespective of which book says it, which person advises, whoever commands, women should not have purdah. No veil, no chador, no hijab, no burqa, no headscarf. Women should not use any of these things because all these are instruments of disrespect. These are symbols of women's oppression. Through them, women are told that they are but the property of men, objects for their use. These coverings are used to keep women passive and submissive. Women are told to wear them so that they cannot exist with their self-respect, honour, confidence, separate identity, own opinion and ideals intact. So that they cannot stand on their own two feet and live with their head held high and their spine strong and erect.

Taslima Nasrin
Outlook India, 17 January 2007

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

As stated,most burkas are worn to protect women from the sun. IN THE USA, WOMEN DESTROY THEIR SKIN WEARING BIKINIS-JUST WAIT A FEW YEARS AND THEY HAVE SARCOMAS ALL OVER!
BUT MAINLY, BARELY DRESSED WOMEN ARE FOR THE BENFIT OF "MEN". UNLESS YOU ARE AN ANOREXIC TEENAGER, YOU LOOK LIKE A HELL. IT USED TO BE CALLED SOFT PORN, NOW IT'S HIGH VICTORIA SECRETS!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

what some government or person tells them. I don't think men should have the power to make women cover themselves up so totally--on the other hand, what right does government have to intrude upon a person's life like that? But France doesn't have the freedoms we Americans used to have--most of Europe does not now have free speech, so I suppose forcing people to wear or not to wear something religious is the next step. Have they banned Christian and Jewish trappings also? All religious trappings? If so, then obviously they are trying to stamp out religion in France.

I don't think this law means that the French government really cares about women--I think it's a law to control Islam in France. Ever since the French revolution, they have been anti-religion, or "secular" as they call it.

It seems to me that Muslims have been singled out in both Europe and the USA. I can't speak for France, but we in the USA are supposed to have freedom of religion. Unless a religion is causing someone physical or mental pain, or involuntary servitude, or death, governments should stay the H out of it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The burqa is oppressive not because of what it is, but because of why it's used. If was really a woman's choice based only her personal comfort or preference without religious oppression or misogynistic doctrine, then what's the problem?
But if it's based on a false belief that women are only to be controlled by men and are responsible for men's iniquities but yet have no human rights, then ban the burqa since it would as equivalent to the medieval chastity belt.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I have no hankering for the banning things by law except where a ban provides protection against specific threats of danger to the public. Like carrying loaded firearms in urban areas. Burqas are disgusting to me for what they represent - oppression of women, pure & simple - but they do not threaten me. Neither do swastikas or Ku Klux Klan hoods which I put in the same category as burqas. These are not articles of clothing. Substitutes for clothing, yes, but they have distinctly different form and function. I am not talking about headscarves. It's those damn ugly shrouds I'm referring to, that conceal every bit of a person's identity leaving just a slim slit that so thoughtfully allow the eyes do their job - keeping the wearer from running into things. In my experience, the women (presumably women but how do you know?) under those creepy things clearly wear them in public around this American city with the intention of intimidating people on the street, daring them to say something about it. Sorry but that's what I have experienced and I think it is pathetic that some people seriously advocate for tolerance of them. They do not ask for tolerance. If anything they seem to be asking to be ignored. Screaming it in fact, usually without making a sound. It is not hard to understand why the French would want to ban them in their frustration. In this country we have a different standard though that is obviously often manipulated by people claiming that they are just "expressing themselves." If they say so, then we have to take them at their word in the name of free speech. I do believe in giving the benefit of the doubt but I think they are generally liars. This is not self-expression. It is religious doctrine asserting itself and I resent it. If they who willingly don the shroud really buy into the whole ridiculous self-oppressive charade, whether it's for religious purposes or not, they are nothing but fools and I feel sorry for them. How can my feminist sisters tolerate & defend this crap? They who fought so long and hard against male oppression - burning bras and such in the early days of the movement - how can they condone this patriarchal stifling of women's identities and power? Please don't tell me it's out of respect for religion, the most oppressive force in history. Burn your burqas, my sisters! Burn them!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

If it comes down to security issues...you gotta take that sucker off. If you want a drivers license...take it OFF. If you DON'T want to get profiled at the airport....take it OFF!!! As long as it doesn't interfere with the safety and welfare of the masses IN AMERICA...I'm fine with it but don't complain when you get treated differently.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

THE MAJOR WORLD WIDE PROBLEM IS THE OPPRESSION OF WOMEN. THE WEARING OF BURKAS CAN ACTUALLY PROTECT WOMEN FROM FROM MALE ATTACKS. THE "BARE ALL" STYLE NOW PROMOTED BY AMERICAN FASHION MAVENS IS NOT FOR THE BENEFIT OF WOMEN. IT PANDERS TO MALE VOYEURISM AND IS & CAN BE AN INVITATION FOR SEXUAL ATTACK.
UNFORTUNATELY, OUR YOUNG WOMEN HAVE BEEN SET BACK WITH THE EMPHASIS ON BOOBS, BUTTS AND BELLYBUTTONS BUT NO BRAINS.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

One statement in the article detracts from everything the author has to say. It has become fashionable to criticize what is disliked by labeling it "racist." Does the writer even know what racism means? Using her implied definition, restaurants that do not serve low calorie salads with low calorie dressing could be classified as racist. Let's agree to use the language with some consideration for its true meaning, not just for shock effect.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

One statement in the article detracts from everything the author has to say. It has become fashionable to criticize what is disliked by labeling it "racist." Does the writer even know what racism means? Using her implied definition, restaurants that do not serve low calorie salads with low calorie dressing could be classified as racist. Let's agree to use the language with some consideration for its true meaning, not just for shock effect.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This piece is illogical in comparing the societal pressures in a free society with those in a society where women are often physically threatened if their dress does not conform to the cultural and quasireligius views of that oppressive society. In fact, it is so illogical that it reads as if the author is a mole for the Islamist enemy.

Women in the West are not physically harmed for their dress choices (the odd rapist excepted) whereas in Muslim societies which support the burkah the woman without one is in risk of physical harm, and often is compelled to wear it, so to speak about choice in each society is at least disingenous is not actually dishonest.

Further, one of the reasons Sarkozy wants to ban the burkah in France is that forcing women to wear such a garment is not compatible with the basic french principle of liberty.

Also, how does one drive a car safely with perhipheral vision with a burkah; how is the demeanor of a witness in court observed with a burkah; in these days of concern about terrorists, who knows what is under the burkah and it has been used for that purpose in both Iraq and Afghanistan by both men and women. Etc, Etc.

Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, we have certain societal customs, and the old adage that "When in Rome do as the Romans do" should still have some force.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

If every woman had the freewill to choose "Cover up or not to cover up",What would be the outcome?

I can easily guess-
Many would not want to wear a massive black sheet covering their entire body head to toe!
Why is this imposed on only Females?
Why is there no such regulation on what a male must wear in public?
Of course the answers are obvious and clear.
Men and Religion is your answer,not freewill.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]