Well truthfully, I don't support an all out ban on them either. I think banning them is also denying a woman the right to choose for herself. While I find them distasteful, I also find skin tight spandex leapord print mini dresses on 300 pound women with too much makeup distasteful as well, but we don't ban those. (Although should it come up for vote I would be the first in line) I think the choice about whether or not to wear the burka should be the woman's. If she chooses to wear it becuase of her own religious beliefs, or whatever reason, then so be it. That is her choice. The problem I have with the burka is that they are currently FORCED upon them and the women are punished if they do not comply. But to FORCE them NOT to wear them isn't the right answer either. Both banning burkas and forcing women to wear burka's take away the woman's right to choose for herself and that is the real crux of the issue in my opinion.

The ban in France has nothing to do with women's rights and everything to do with ethnic conflict in that country.

The face is, they let in too many immigrants, more than they could assimilate (a fact the US would do well to remember), and now they are dealing with the consequences.

fact, not face, I can't type today.

Last night I met a 35 year old Afghani woman attempting to leave her husband. It had been an arrange marriage she was forced into when she was 15. Besides being forced to wear the burka, she was subject to routine beatings from her husband on a nightly basis while he was piss drunk. She fled their home in fear for her life because by leaving him she brought shame onto both families. That is the burka wearing culture. I would love to know how Martha Nussbaum could ever compare that to wearing a mask due to dust. That is maybe the most idiotic thing I've ever heard!

Did you point her towards resources to help her out, battered womens' shelters, law firms, etc?

This apparent cognitive dissonance is easily explainable.

They are liberals first, feminists second.

And one of the core tenets of liberalism is that all cultures are equally valid and valuable, and therefore cannot be criticized.

Any woman who willingly converts to islam and wears hijab should be shot as a traitor to her species.

"The ban in France has nothing to do with women's rights and everything to do with ethnic conflict in that country.

The fact is, they let in too many immigrants, more than they could assimilate (a fact the US would do well to remember), and now they are dealing with the consequences."

I don't disagree with that last statement. They made their bed and now have to lie in it. But I still think banning the burka outright is wrong. It is still forcing a woman of that culture to do something against her will. That makes France no better than the country the women were trying to escape. They are basically telling women that once again, someone else knows better than they do what is good for them and they better listen or suffer the consequances. I also disagree with local gov't in some US counties banning baggy pants on guys. Yes it's tacky but it can also be argued that it's a cultural thing here as well. It's about personal choice. There are some women who flee Afganistan to other parts of Europe to escape their lives but still hold strong to some of their cultural beliefs and some of them actually like wearing thier burka's as hard as it is to believe. They believe in modesty for themselves and the burka gives them that. And some of them, frankly, don't know how to NOT wear it. It's part of their identities. They escaped their country, not their culture. It's like banning turbans for Indian men. Surely there are arguments that they are unhealthy as someone wearing them can overheat but for cultural reasons, men still wear them. Wearing a burka is only hurting themselves anyway so why the hell do people care if those women choose to wear it or not? Why is THAT the thing France is worried about banning anway? Don't they have bigger problems right now? Like getting their immigration under control in the first place? How is banning the burka going to solve their immigration and cultural clash problem?

I should add that I do not support Islam in any way. I hate Islam and everything it stands for. But I also hate totalitarianism and nanny governmenting. I do not think that women should wear burkas personally as *I* believe they are shrouds of oppression (not to mention hot and ugly as hell). But I also don't think it's my right to tell another human being that they are not allowed too wear one. I think the attitude needs to be about personal choice for Islamic women and not about controlling them or forcing them to do it OUR way.
The idea that women MUST adhere to whatever cultural standard of dress WE or anyone else sets for them is just wrong. They way I look at it, as long as when they come over here (or to whatever country they go to) they are legal, pay their fare share of taxes, won't try to blow people up, and speak the language, I think they can wear whatever the hell they want.

Sabrina, I think there's a distinction to be drawn. If women want to go about in public wearing glorified black mu-mus, that's their business. But covering the face is another matter. It's a long-standing principle, going back to ancient civilizations, that anyone who goes about in public with their face covered is up to no good. The last set of people we had in America who routinely ran around in public with their faces covered was the KKK. In response to that, a number of Southern states passed laws, which are still on the books, that prohibits the wearing of masks or face coverings in public. But if Muslims can legally do it, then the Klan can do it too. And I doubt that very many people would be happy about that.

Sabrina, again, it's not about women, it's about resisting the encroachment of another culture.

Another vote with Cousin Dave.

Didn't Florida have to fight someone who wanted to get her driver's license photo taken while covered? IIRC she lost, and rightfully so.

Even the Amish have reflectors on their buggies. There are limits to accommodation.

I agree with the commenters who mentioned that in France, the banning of the burkha is related to cultural assimilation--if you keep yourself separate, you are not part of the culture to which you emigrated. Additionally, the ban only includes public places and is also partially for safety reasons.

One thing that I don't think has been mentioned is that the wearing of the full, face-covering burkha is actually a CULTURAL artifact, not a religious one. Not all countries ruled by a Muslim theocracy require full veils and there is nothing in the Quran that requires it so to put it under the aegis of religious freedom is spurious.

And I concur with Cousin Dave--if folks want to go around with a scarf on their head wearing a tent, that's their business. But to have the face covered is something else. Down in Florida a woman wanted to have her drivers license picture taken in a full veil--kinda negates the whole picture thing.

If someone has emigrated to a country, then to a certain extent, they should adopt the ways of that country--language, dress (within limits), otherwise why did they leave the place they were in the first place? If you don't, all you've done is set up a colony.

In her view, a ban would be "unacceptable in a society committed to equal liberty. Equal respect for conscience requires us to reject" all the arguments that have been made against face veiling.

Think about what voluntarily wearing the burqa represents: a devout belief in a religion that is actively hostile towards liberty and freedom of conscience.

So, how does equal respect for conscience require us to accommodate conduct that flaunts complete disrespect for conscience?

I'm not sure where in Western values tolerating the supremely intolerant appears, or accommodating the religious freedom of those who would, given the opportunity, deny religious freedom.

That said, I agree with Amy; banning the burqa in the US is not on. But the argument isn't as clear cut as it appears on the surface.

So if people are"free" to wear whatever, then it should be just fine to run around nude, right?

Suppose there is an island in the South Pacific where everyone is naked. A family moves to the U.S. Do they have the right to go naked because it is their culture?

As others have said, security is an issue when the face is covered. I doubt that I would be allowed into my bank wearing a ski mask, but a group of "women" in burkas walking into a bank could turn out to be men with automatic weapons concealed in their robes.

"It's like banning turbans for Indian men."

Actually it's not. Wearing a turban doesn't affect anyone else. Are Sikhs allowed to carry kirpans on airplanes? Carrying a kirpan is part of the religion, but safety trumps that.

I would agree with you Amy, cept, I kinda don't consider Islam a religion - at least, I don't believe it's any religion the Founding Father's had in mind when writing our Constitution.

They use our religious freedoms against us. To kill us. They hide behind their so-called religion to do it. If they weren't commanded to kill, and to lie to us non-believers and they didn't have totalitarianism ideology and Sharia tucked up under their religion - if they didn't put their religion above being an American, I wouldn't care.

But they don't.

Here's what Teddy says - and I agree with him entirely (especially about the good faith part).

"We should insist that if the immigrant who comes here does in good faith become an American and assimilates himself to us he shall be treated on an exact equality with every one else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed or birth-place or origin.

But this is predicated upon the man's becoming in very fact an American and nothing but an American. If he tries to keep segregated with men of his own origin and separated from the rest of America, then he isn't doing his part as an American. There can be no divided allegiance here. . . We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language, for we intend to see that the crucible turns our people out as Americans, of American nationality, and not as dwellers in a polyglot boarding-house; and we have room for but one soul loyalty, and that is loyalty to the American people." Pres. Theodore Roosevelt, 1907

Another vote for banning full face coverings. Those who commented before said it better than I could.

>>"Once, a nearby construction project filled her office with dust. Allergic, she started wearing a mask and a scarf to protect herself. And she felt just fine, thank you very much. She did not feel as if she'd lost any individuality or dignity."

Seriously? SERIOUSLY? She's comparing the forced wearing of a full-body covering to a dust mask and scarf? A choice, by the way, that she was ALLOWED to make as opposed to a man saying "wear this or I'll beat the holy crap out of you". Man, that goes past apples to oranges, that's all the way to apples and bananas.

It's tricky, for sure. And I love our religious freedoms and our Constitution - two things that don't really gel well with Islam.

So I getcha, it's a real grey area. I don't believe we should outlaw Islam. But the people who are so devout as to require foot baths, and prayer room accommodations and burkas (with head-covers, not the hijabs) are the die hard fanaticals (pun intended) that don't follow our laws but their own as written in the Quran.

You start laying this up as a precedence (I personally don't believe this is a slippery slope, but some may feel otherwise) and where does it end? Requiring all restaurants and supermarkets to offer Halal meats? Footbaths? I mean these are the accommodations being demanded in their other adoptive countries as well as in some Muslim communities here.

My main concern is this is the whole divide and conquer strategy they've used historically to take over other countries.

"Sabrina, again, it's not about women, it's about resisting the encroachment of another culture."

You may change a persons clothing but you will never change what is in their hearts. Even if they wear "normal" clothing, they will still hold their beliefs and still push them onto other people. And she can still preach Muhammed and speak in her language in Western clothes too. So, my thinking is that the problem is not with the wardrobe, it's with the immigration policies in general. If they don't want other countries encroaching on theirs and think there are too many of them, then the solution is to stop letting them in. Banning the burka isn't going to get rid of the ones that are already there and stop more from coming.

"If someone has emigrated to a country, then to a certain extent, they should adopt the ways of that country--language, dress (within limits), otherwise why did they leave the place they were in the first place? If you don't, all you've done is set up a colony."

Of course they should. But, the reality is that there are little colonies set up all over the US. People tend to live in communities with others like themselves. I believe there is even science to back this up though I can't find the actual articles at this time. Othodox jews live with only other Orthodox jews and still require all their women to cover their heads and legs. Even in summer. The men wear their hats and curls. Women in Indian commuities wear sari's and the men wear Turbans (Or Pagris as they call them). In China town, you would be hard pressed to find a Chinese immigrant not speaking in Chinese and praying to Buddha instead of our govt's accepted Christian God. We have Spanish ghetto's, black hoods, white suburbia, Little Italy, Havanna, and other little cultural colonies all over the place. It's unavoidable. It is going to happen regardless of wardrobe. I would imagine it's the same in France with any Immigration population they have there.

"One thing that I don't think has been mentioned is that the wearing of the full, face-covering burkha is actually a CULTURAL artifact, not a religious one. Not all countries ruled by a Muslim theocracy require full veils and there is nothing in the Quran that requires it so to put it under the aegis of religious freedom is spurious."

True. The face coverings were something that the men who rule put into place, not the actual religious teachings. But, they are still an important part of their culture for them, even if we disagree with them.
Sari's are also not religious garb but only cultural and no one is talking about banning those in public. No one demands that an Indiam woman wear Western clothing. Turbans can also be associated with Islam as well. (They are called Lungee in Afgantistan). If one argument is that Burkas should be banned because of the religion they represent, then so should Turbans. But then that should go for ALL cultures who wear Tubans and headdresses then because they are not an accepted style of dress in OUR culture and religion in our country. If you ban one piece of cultural clothing then you must ban them all with that argument.

"It's a long-standing principle, going back to ancient civilizations, that anyone who goes about in public with their face covered is up to no good."

Teenagers wearing a face full of goth makeup could also be seen as trying to disquise their appearance. Why no ban on that in public? Shit I got attacked by a guy who's face was totally visible, gave a great description of him to the cops, and it was on tape and they STILL haven't identified him. Him wearing a mask would have made no difference at all really. If someone is up to no good, they are up to no good. Mask or not.

"Additionally, the ban only includes public places and is also partially for safety reasons."

A face full of piercings is also dangerous and also alters ones appearance. Why no ban on that in public?

"So if people are"free" to wear whatever, then it should be just fine to run around nude, right?"

Nope. There is no good argument for that. It is unsafe, unsantitary, and inappropriate. There is no legimate reason, religious or cultural, why anyone needs to be naked in public in today's society unless it's to show everyone their goodies. Unless you are a poor child in the African Safari, there is no good claim for nudity in public. However if I am going to remain consitant in my statement regarding freedom of choice 100% of the time, then I would have to say yes, people should be allowed to walk around nude if they want. And if someone excercises that right, then they must also accept the consequences of said choice. I also say that women wearing burkas should accept the consequences of their choice as well. And if you are going based on history, it was the Christians that made clothing mandatory. It started out as protection against the elements, then clothing was a status symbol and then became a tool for Christian Modesty. So, I could also argue that clothing in general was forced on non believers as law.

Look, I get the argument against the burkas. I really do. And I am not defending them even though my arguments may seem like it. I just think an all out 100% ban a bit counterproductive and probably unenforcable. It's not going to solve the problem anwyay. It isn't as simple as "banning Burkas". Anyone can argue that ANYTHING should be banned for ANY reason. Burkas just happen to be the thing right now because of their affilition to Islam. In the next ten years, who knows? At the end of the day, despite all arguments for or against the ban of burkas, I think the real problem is fear. When we see a Burka, we automatically think of Islam and we think of terrorists. And that understandibly scares us. But we cannot make decisions in government because of fear or hatred for that particular culture.

Of course I think that reasonable requirements should be made in which the face must be uncovered. Drivers license photos, passport photos, govt buildings, schools, etc... That just makes sense. But banning them in the general public, well, not so much. I don't really care what someones face looks like in a public restaurant, grocery store, or at the park. Unless they are attacking me of course, but then again, see my above example in which it likely wouldn't make a difference anyway. In any case, I doubt I would survive an attack by a burka wearing bitch anyway, and neither would they. Like I said, in woman who would wear a burka is still going to hold fast to her beliefs, live in a community with others like her, preach Muhammed, and if desired still try to blow someone up regardless of what she is wearing. I would much rather know who my enemy is up front then find out my seemingly fully assimilated neighbor was just biding her time.(Besides, the ones running around in burkas aren't the ones blowing people up in Europe. And even if they were wearing a burka, they could still just have easily have blown something up in a pair of jeans and a tee shirt.)

"Besides, the ones running around in burkas aren't the ones blowing people up in Europe. And even if they were wearing a burka, they could still just have easily have blown something up in a pair of jeans and a tee shirt."

There are a handful of stories (minimum) that men dress in burkas in order to blow themselves up. It does make it easier. If you were to approach them as being suspicious, you look like an intolerant jerk. They use this against us. And I am sure it is a hell of a lot easier to conceal explosives (or even use a larger amount of explosives) under a tent than under a t-shirt and jeans.

Just sayin'.

(What is incredibly frustrating to me is that these jerks are using our freedoms against us - it is really a shame).

Feebi. I actually agree 100% with that. But I guess that's what makes it so hard to deal with.

We have a right to religious freedom, not to use religion as a way to oppress. We don't allow female genital mutilation here so why is it that we cannot ban forms of religions that call for killing or oppression?
And Nicole K, I met the Afghani woman in a safe setting for women who are abused, so yes, she was given all of the resources available. The things she faces though are so different from (hate to say this) "regular" victim of domestic violence because there is so much religious and cultural influence in her case.

[Nussbaum] doesn't believe that showing one's face for purposes of identification is even really necessary....

The police just don't seem to get as far in their investigations when they're looking for a suspect who's "5 feet tall with two hands, two feet, and a head."

Well, what do you expect? Once you have entrenched the feminist "empowerment" horse-hockey that insists women have to be allowed to do ANYTHING that pleases them at ANY time, and cannot ever be restricted in exercising their "choices" (meaning "privileges")in ANY way, you have painted yourself into an ideological corner.

Nonsense begets nonsense begets nonsense ... (but the Empress' new clothes are just DIVINE, aren't they?!)

Several years ago, the Italian blogger known as Joy of Knitting (not defunct) predicted that both feminists and fashion magazines would begin to idolize the burqua and the veil. I wish I'd saved her post, because it was uncannily predictive.

"She doesn't believe that showing one's face for purposes of identification is even really necessary"
It should be your right to wear whatever, but how others treat you based on what you wear is not your right, it is their right to choose how to treat you.
If I was a buisness owner I should have the right to deny cashing a check or accepting a credit card or using a drivers liscense for age restrictions of anyone I can't ID.

otherwise why did they leave the place they were in the first place? If you don't, all you've done is set up a colony.

Posted by: Midwest Chick

Thats exaactly what they are doing

You may change a persons clothing but you will never change what is in their hearts

***

True but you may discourage them from immigrating there to begin with. Which I think is part of the (unstated) goal.

I see the point against a burka ban, but the risks are too high not to ban the burka.

Theocracy is not compatible with American democracy, and the burka is an expression of an aggressive theocracy, among other things.

Women's fashion never makes any sense. Why should the Islamic world be any different?

It is strange why islamic women who were exposed to western freedom were so ferocious for their right to wear their islamic headgear.

Fashion change and most time changed for the better. So, why is it that their islamic woman is so slow to advocate change and don't change for the better? In malaysia, some islamic woman even go to the extent of boasting about their various islamic style of covering their head (with slight variation but nonetheless still extreme and horrible). It is not fair of them to impose their inconsistencies on us. In the end, those various islamic tribes have to be considerate of our need for safety and our need to protect our own individual freedom.

And I agree that there is a limit to their idiotic cover up and it is not right of them to impose their suffocating dress sense on us nonbelievers. For example in Saudi, they forced us nonbelievers to wear their horrible black abaya, which is a type of horrible loose long black gown. There is nothing modest about their clothing, if they don't behave modestly. Behaving modestly is more important. Do they expect everyone to wear black just because they wear black?

And this all leads back to something else that I think pisses off a lot of Westerners about Islam, and makes it difficult to respect Islam. We've seen enough news stories by now about Muslim movers and shakers who make a huge show of being pious and demanding piety from everyone around them... but then, when the rubes aren't looking, they party like it's 1999. I'm reminded about the story of the 9/11 hijackers who went to a strip club a few days before and partied hardy. We all know the sex trade is huge in the Mideast, and resort areas like Bahrain aren't running solely on Western dollars. Since Islam basically gives a free pass to anyone who claims that they're engaged in jihad, it's not hard to understand how this hypocritical culture develops.

The term "Intelligent Feminists" is an oxymoron.

> "Intelligent Feminists" is an oxymoron.

Without feminism, your life would be for shit. Don't kid yourself, big boy.

I tend to agree: the burka is a symbol of misogyny and the oppression of women, and rightly so. It is used to marginalize women. Nevertheless, if a woman feels that religious devotion requires her to wear it, I'm very uncomfortable with the government telling her no. European countries are choosing a symbol as the place to draw a line in the sand, and I don't think that's stragic.

On a side note, I'm a Christian who also thinks that evidence-free belief in God is silly. I also think that evidence-free disbelief in God is silly (because, contrary to popular Internet lore, the atheist is making a truth claim and so does have to shoulder his share of the burden of proof).

If those islamic women who proudly wear their islamic headgear, whether it is during certain times or at all times, without a whimper of protest, then they thmeselves are guilty of marginalising themselves. And there are many of them who don't wear islamic headgear but appear to be very fanatic about their cult religion too. So, how do we protect our own freethinking world from those islamic world that appear to be nonislamic but in reality are as ferociously fanatic and intolerant of disadvantaged freethinking individual as well?

So, Jim, tell us then you objective proof of god that everyone may know it