Burqa Furor Scrambles French Politics

New York Times ^ | September 1, 2009 | STEVEN ERLANGER

[FreeSmart]

PARIS — It is a measure of France’s confusion about Islam and its own Muslim citizens that in the political furor here over “banning the burqa,” as the argument goes, the garment at issue is not really the burqa at all, but the niqab. Skip to next paragraph Related Times Topics: France Enlarge This Image Mehdi Fedouach/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images

Women at the annual meeting of French Muslims organized by the Union of Islamic Organizations of France in Le Bourget, outside Paris, in April. Enlarge This Image Abbas/Magnum

Two veiled Muslim women carrying the French flag during a march against Islamophobia and in favour of the veil in schools, in Paris in 2004.

A burqa is the all-enveloping cloak, often blue, with a woven grill over the eyes, that many Afghan women wear, and it is almost never seen in France. The niqab, often black, leaves the eyes uncovered.

Still, a movement against it that started with a Communist mayor near Lyon has gotten traction within France’s ruling center-right party, which claims to be defending French values, and among many on the left, who say they are defending women’s rights. A parliamentary commission will soon meet to investigate whether to ban the burqa — in other words, any cloak that covers most of the face.

[FreeSmart]

This is an interesting philosophical question for me. Granted, France is very different than the US. On one hand, I abhor the mistreatment of women in many Muslim cultures, symbolized (at very least) by the burqa. Yet is banning clothing the answer?

I do not think it would -or probably should -fly here in the US? Other opinions?

[Republic of Texas]

Obviously, a piece of clothing doesn’t enslave women, so why not just ban Islam instead?

[icwhatudo]

Ah yes those silly "confused" French can't tell the modern Niqab from a conservative Burqa. How silly of them to confuse such different outfits:

I'm so glad the NY Times is there to point out how silly it is to think these two totally different outfits are even close in appearance. /s

[tkas]

I am conflicted about this. Clearly we have a world-wide problem with radical islam. On the other hand, the thought of banning religious clothing by the gov’t flies in the face of liberty. Amish and Mennonites have religious clothing, as do some orthodox Jews. They aren’t trying to kill us....

The problem is the covering of identity. The burqa and the naqib do just that and I view them with a high level of suspicion. Perhaps that is the line in the sand- if you will. I would refuse to converse or do business with someone who covers their face, whether by ski mask or burqa. I am wondering if it is legal to drive that way.

[Eric in the Ozarks]

The French always believed they had a special relationship with the Muslims, dating back to their north Africa colonies. Now they are finding out that so called French Muslims are not now and never will be citizens. It’s one of those ‘teachable moments’ Barry talked about.

[BigCinBigD]

“I am conflicted about this. Clearly we have a world-wide problem with radical islam. On the other hand, the thought of banning religious clothing by the gov’t flies in the face of liberty. Amish and Mennonites have religious clothing, as do some orthodox Jews. They aren’t trying to kill us....”

No, but Islam is. Any so called religion that requires women to parade around in sacks does not qualify as a modern religion. Only a 10th century cult.

[CPOSharky]

Allah says to cover your female body totally because you will incite lust in the feeble minded, lust riden, males of islam.

Oh, and BTW, you guys must cover up totally when carrying out koran directed deeds that the infidels might not understand as approved religeous activities.

/S

[fortunecookie]

On one hand, I abhor the mistreatment of women in many Muslim cultures, symbolized (at very least) by the burqa.

Absolutely. The burqa has come to symbolize Talibanesque treatment of women. I don't know who these women are who don't want to show their faces. The burqa seems incredibly stifling, in temperature, movement, field of vision. I think women who chose to dress a certain way out of modesty should have that, ie hijab, covered clothing. Those who aren't Muslim and chose conservative dress are often the butt of jokes, yet 'tolerance' and cultural respect are urged for Muslims who wish to cover their faces - even for photo ID's!. Very bi-polar.

In France, there was the argument about the head scarf. Now the burqa? Each time France gives a little and the other side demands more.

Another aspect for me is that these ladies are now French ciitizens. France does not require face coverings and in fact an uncovered face is required for ID purposes. Imagine going into Saudi Arabia (for example) and demanding you're 'right' to not wear the burqa, to not cover your face, to have the right to drive, etc. It simply wouldn't fly with them that a foreigner come in an change their culture. The French are at that point.

[flowerplough]

Those idiot Muslim women want to listen to preachers that order them to be gusseted head to toe with bedsheets and nets, more power to ‘em.

And if the idiot Amish women want to listen to preachers that order them to always do their ironing the hard way, and avoid that English Devil Electricity, what is that to me?

And if a Jehovie (or is it the Seventh Day-ers?) refuses a blood transfusion to keep him, or his kid alive, I ain’t gonna tie him down and start poking needles into his hide, or tie him down so I can start poking needles into the kid’s hide. As Billy Currington’s been singing on the country radio stations, God is great, beer is good, and people are crazy. Can’t keep the crazies from their craziness, and shouldn’t often try.