French President railing against burkas

[Talon]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8113778.stm

"It will not be welcome on French soil," [Sarkozy] said." We cannot accept, in our country, women imprisoned behind a mesh, cut off from society, deprived of all identity. That is not the French republic's idea of women's dignity."

I happen to agree with Sarkozy. No matter how you slice it, the burka is a symbol of de-humanization and separatism. That said though, I don't think this is any of the government's business. Trying to ban the burka is just going to make the separatism problem worse.

[BroomJockey]

Well, they're spinning it as a human rights issue, and I don't know if France has the same separation of Church and State that the US is supposed to have. Those two things mean they can do whatever they bloody well please. If it results in a mass emigration of people rejecting the resolution, that's the people's right, too. Religious-based oppression is bad no matter which religion or which group is being oppressed. If the religion isn't willing to go forward, and a society decides the practices are detrimental, fine.

Again, this is based on my complete lack of knowledge about France's separation of Church and State. If they're violating that, then it'll never survive a court challenge, and it's all posturing.

[AFPheonix]

There are many women who wear the burkha and headscarves very willingly though. They feel far more comfortable in them than they do in Western dress.
I say let them wear whatever the heck they want as long as it's their choice, and no one else's.

[fireheart17]

I think it depends on a few things: one, how the women themselves see it. two is how the general public sees it (and can tell the difference between a burqa and hijab).

The women themselves might see it as uplifting and free, but there will be others who have no problem with wearing the burqa. That's fine. There's always the niqab as something slightly different....still covers up in a similar way to the burqa but still leaves the eyes open.

The general public need to keep these three differences in mind:

Burqa/chador: the garment that covers the entire body, with a grille in front of the eyes.

Hijab: the headscarf, but still covered up completely. Face is uncovered. (i.e. the "typical" Muslim outfit)

Niqab: same as the above, but the face is covered up bar the eyes.

Some might see it as an example of the Taliban regime, others may not. I think from what I know, that the Burqa is mostly a cultural thing, not so much a religious thing. A good book to read on the subject of the burqa is "My Forbidden Face" by Latifa. Very thought-provoking.

[Nyoibo]

The few women I've know who wear the Hijab have no problem with it, it's their choice to wear it, I've never had the occation to talk to any who wear the Niqb or Burqa though.

[Slytovhand]

I'm not an expert on French government, but I think you'll find their separation of powers goes way beyond the English/American versions. Bear in mind, the Separation of Powers is a British thing, which happened after a little war (or was it teh cause of the war?). The French didn't have that issue (they just had arrogant royalty that got its arse... well, head... kicked). And they're far more inclined towards philosophical attitudes - an arena where religion tends not to fare so well.

But, in saying that, they do have a Good Samaritan law!

[Boozy]

The French have been rabidly protecting secularism since the French Revolution. But they're more concerned about religion affecting government than vice versa. I think Sarkozy has made a mistake here. The separation of church and state must go both ways.

[Talon]

I just learned something that greatly strengthens Sarkozy's case for banning the burka. It seems the all-covering burka has real consequences for human health, namely vitamin-D deficiency, which is caused by lack of exposure to sunlight. That can lead to a condition called Rickets.

Rickets is an abnormal bone formation in children resulting from inadequate calcium in their bones. This lack of calcium can result from inadequate dietary calcium, inadequate exposure to sunshine (needed to make vitamin D), or from not eating enough vitamin D - a nutrient needed for calcium absorption. Vitamin D is found in animal foods, such as egg yolks
and dairy products.

Source: http://bone-muscle.health-cares.net/rickets.php

Sixty-five children in Birmingham have needed hospital treatment in the past three years for rickets, a disease which was thought to have died out in Victorian times. And health bosses fear this may be the tip of the iceberg with more cases of the illness, which affects bone development, not being formally diagnosed. Now they have invested £150,000 to fight the rise of rickets among infants in inner city Birmingham.

Source: http://www.secularism.org.uk/burka-w...returnofi.html

I've changed my mind. I'm all for banning the burka on medical grounds. Maybe they should be subject to the same warning labeling as cigarettes?

[AFPheonix]

No, one can easily supplement vitamin D, it comes over the counter and also a once weekly capsule in a prescription strength.

Vitamin D deficiency is quite common here in Oregon, our RDA is higher than sunner states simply because we live under more of a cloud cover for more of the year.

[Boozy]

Besides, if someone wants to wear a burkha and risk rickets, we have to let them in the name of personal freedom. We also let people ride motorcycles, climb mountains, drink, smoke, eat fast food, and go to bed without flossing.

You can't ban something that only harms the one who chooses to wear it.

[Flyndaran]

Besides, if someone wants to wear a burkha and risk rickets, we have to let them in the name of personal freedom. We also let people ride motorcycles, climb mountains, drink, smoke, eat fast food, and go to bed without flossing.

You can't ban something that only harms the one who chooses to wear it.

Recreational drug use anyone?
Seatbelt laws thread?
Etc.
It's done all the time.

[AFPheonix]

If someone can do a drug without harming anyone and said drug is legal, more power to them. C'mon Flyn, we live in the pot production center of the world

As for seatbelts, as has been pointed out in the other thread, that CAN affect others in that you are no longer in a position to control the car if you get thrown away from the wheel and pedals, and if you are thrown about the car, you can negatively affect your other passengers.

[anriana]

Besides, if someone wants to wear a burkha and risk rickets, we have to let them in the name of personal freedom. We also let people ride motorcycles, climb mountains, drink, smoke, eat fast food, and go to bed without flossing.

You can't ban something that only harms the one who chooses to wear it.

As Americans/Canadians, yes. The French government values freedom from religion more than personal freedoms.

[Boozy]

You're right about that. But I'm not French, and I disagree with much of what France does and stands for. In MY opinion, personal freedom is undervalued in that country. If it works for the French, great. But I'm happy I don't live there.

[Flyndaran]

If someone can do a drug without harming anyone and said drug is legal, more power to them. C'mon Flyn, we live in the pot production center of the world
...

Oregon's state legal MEDICAL use of marijuana has been raided by the federal government numerous times. It is still only rarely prescribed by doctors not affraid to lose their licenses.