http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/europe/10517707.stmFrance looks like it is about to ban the burka. This calls for one of my favorite all time quotes "The dark night of fascism is always descending in the United States and yet lands only in Europe." As an aside, the quote is usually attributed to Thomas Wolfe, but apparently Wolfe was notinh something someone else said.
The best thing you can do to fight assimilation -- the thing that some parliamentarians profess to be supporting -- is to victimize a segment of the population. If you're american, be proud when you read this. The truth that Europeans can't stand is that, for all of our faults, Americans may not be as "progressive" as Europeans, but we are more open, tolerant, and accepting.
I always figured the fact that the US is large enough so that conflicting cultures can live within self-affirming enclaves divorced from one another combined with the fact that we are generally apathethic in the realm of politics was the reason we never did anything like this. But tolerance sounds cooler.
It's that time of the month again: I completely agree with Matt. Totally maddening racist and sexist stupidity.
try telling this Arizona. and since one state is apparently symbolic of an entire continent, we can safely conclude that the whole of North America is a bunch of bigoted racists.
Yeah, but still ignorant enough to think there's such a thing as "europe". I'm Dutch and I have shit to do with France, Italy, UK, Poland, whatever. You might want to put that in the equasion somewhere.
Neither Islam nor Christianity recognizes social progress, George People just interpret one to get their way more often than they do the other. Whether that's a good thing or not depends on your view of faith.
Because, we all know, no European country is trying to prevent Africans & Asians from entering or remaining illegally, there are no encampments of would-be in France trying to sneak onto lorries & trains heading into the UK via the Chunnel, etc. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...migrants-tried-enter-Britain-crisp-lorry.html
The Arizona law, although misguided, is based on intolerance of law breaking, not on the intolerance of a culture. Legal Mexicans are welcome by all but the most backwards rednecks in Arizona. Whereas in France, elite politicians are debating legalizing discrimination of women for no other reason than they go to other fairytale clubhouses than they do. What exactly is the endgame of those who support this law against the hijab?
I don't think this is about them being islamic actually. Don't forget that this whole baggy muslim fahion thing (covering the face and all) is a relatively young exponent of a not all too progressive or tolerant version of the religion of peace. In that sense, I can understand. But on the other hand, it doesn't make that much sense to ban a piece of cloth.
The point is the misguided paternalism of the state. As MitH said in the OP, they are taking away a woman's freedom of choice while claiming to be giving her more freedom. Now, instead of doing the bidding of her husband or father, she does the bidding of the state.
I don't understand at all. What is the French government aiming to do? And what about women who cover up voluntarily? Why should they be forced to lose their modesty? But we do it equitably. Not by sect or gender.
The French government is aiming to defuse a somewhat tense situation by banning a piece of cloth that, as I said before, is an exponent of ideas that western society rejects. Add to that the increasing tensions in some European countries and I can see where they're coming from to a certain degree. I'm pretty sure the ban (un)covers men and women of every religion.
And what ideas are those? I guess Muslims wearing gold crescents is the next logical step for these xenophobes? But it only effects Islamic women. It's almost like making a law making it illegal for both rich and poor to be homeless. It's intentionally inequitable.
Bans lead to a polarization that does not aid the situation at all. Mind you, it isn't a black and white situation, as people found out when a couple of schools controversially imposed their own headscarf ban in Antwerp. They were much-criticized at first, but people were a bit more understanding when they explained the reasoning behind their choice. Apparently those Muslim girls who did not wear the hijab were being harassed and threatened by a good section of their male peers. Obviously banning the hijab altogether was major overkill, but I do wonder how a school can fight that kind of peer pressure in any sort of effective way.
Punish the boys. How much more simple could that be? Because intolerance of religious choices is one of those ideas that western society rejects. Or at least it should. Seems like Antwerp wanted to take the easy route and this does a disservice to the society as a whole. Because if principles like thought diversity are not valued enough to fight for in schools then where will it happen? Schools are the ONLY avenue.
Much of the harassment was happening outside of school grounds, where they cannot protect the girls who choose not to wear the hijab. As I said, I think it was a mistake to react with a full-on ban, but it hardly is an easy matter for the people in charge. Ideally you'd be able to leave both the girls who want to wear one and those who don't in peace. Look, I'm not debating that a lot of these stupid laws are a direct result of "scared white man" syndrome, but in some cases they are an overreaction to very real problems.
Then that becomes a police problem. It just seems to me that these bans are an admittance that society does not want to deal with the problem correctly because it's too difficult and can be messy. It's a level of cowardice that should not be tolerated by a society. Can an incorrect reaction be an overreaction? I don't know. I mean if there is no appropriate reaction then how can you go overboard with it? Punishing victims for the actions of their assailants is beyond insane. To me, a real overreaction would be life imprisonment for those who harass girls about their wardrobe choices. The sentence is too severe but some sort of punishment is completely merited.
Problems like that are very hard for the police to control. Obviously not impossible, but very hard. For instance, when the ME conflict flares up, the Jewish community in Antwerp often feels the effects of that. Which leads to the police having to patrol the area around the Jewish schools more frequently. But they lack the man-power to do this all the time. I guess the same applied to this. Sure, they might heighten their presence for a few weeks, leading to the boys toning down their hostility a bit, but as soon as the boys in blue are less present, it starts again. Basically police lacks the man-power to consistently keep those girls safe. Of course, the hajib ban does little to fix the underlying problem (the lack of respect those boys have for the girls' personal choice).