Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Burqas and veilsFollow

#27 Jan 26 2010 at 3:25 PM Rating: Good
Annabella of Future Fabulous! wrote:
I would prefer to think of my country as multi-cultural and multi-ethnic.


France doesn't do mutli-cultural. We're integrationist. If you're French, you're expected to be and behave like a French citizen. It's a different model to the multi-cultural British model, or the American melting pot. It's possibly the worst of all three, but that's the way it is.
____________________________
My politics blog and stuff - Refractory
#28 Jan 26 2010 at 3:30 PM Rating: Good
Vagina Dentata,
what a wonderful phrase
******
30,106 posts
RedPhoenixxx wrote:
Annabella of Future Fabulous! wrote:
I would prefer to think of my country as multi-cultural and multi-ethnic.


France doesn't do mutli-cultural. We're integrationist. If you're French, you're expected to be and behave like a French citizen. It's a different model to the multi-cultural British model, or the American melting pot. It's possibly the worst of all three, but that's the way it is.


I had an ex-boyfriend who was Algerian who told me pretty much the same thing. He was pretty westernized but I think he thought the combination of cultural inflexibility and the penchant for the French to (sometimes) forcibly export their culture to be problematic--esp. in Algeria (though he had problems with fundamentalism when he lived in Tangiers so he was between a rock and a hard-place).
____________________________
Turin wrote:
Seriously, what the f*ck nature?
#29 Jan 26 2010 at 3:40 PM Rating: Excellent
Annabella of Future Fabulous! wrote:
I had an ex-boyfriend who was Algerian who told me pretty much the same thing. He was pretty westernized but I think he thought the combination of cultural inflexibility and the penchant for the French to (sometimes) forcibly export their culture to be problematic--esp. in Algeria (though he had problems with fundamentalism when he lived in Tangiers so he was between a rock and a hard-place).


Don't get me started on the relationship between France and Algeria. It's fucked-up. We dealt with our decolonisation and the subsequent immigration pretty woefully.
____________________________
My politics blog and stuff - Refractory
#30 Jan 26 2010 at 4:02 PM Rating: Excellent
Ministry of Silly Cnuts
*****
19,524 posts
RedPhoenixxx wrote:
Don't get me started on the relationship between France and Algeria. It's fucked-up. We dealt with our decolonisation and the subsequent immigration pretty woefully.
Surely the fundamentalism, urban ghettos and disenfranchisement of a generation are a small price to pay for an awesome music genre.

Sniper, Shurik'n and IAM
____________________________
"I started out with nothin' and I still got most of it left" - Seasick Steve
#31 Jan 26 2010 at 4:09 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
Nobby wrote:
RedPhoenixxx wrote:
Don't get me started on the relationship between France and Algeria. It's fucked-up. We dealt with our decolonisation and the subsequent immigration pretty woefully.
Surely the fundamentalism, urban ghettos and disenfranchisement of a generation are a small price to pay for an awesome music genre.

Sniper, Shurik'n and IAM


Well, sure, that is always the hope - oppress people enough and they'll eventually come up with awesome music.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#32 Jan 26 2010 at 4:18 PM Rating: Excellent
Samira wrote:
Nobby wrote:
RedPhoenixxx wrote:
Don't get me started on the relationship between France and Algeria. It's fucked-up. We dealt with our decolonisation and the subsequent immigration pretty woefully.
Surely the fundamentalism, urban ghettos and disenfranchisement of a generation are a small price to pay for an awesome music genre.

Sniper, Shurik'n and IAM


Well, sure, that is always the hope - oppress people enough and they'll eventually come up with awesome music.


Allahu Akbar.
____________________________
My politics blog and stuff - Refractory
#33 Jan 26 2010 at 4:28 PM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts


If I visited an Islamic country I would wear a headscarf and cover my arms. I would show the incumbant culture some respect and try to blend.
By wearing a burqa in a western society, the wearer is rubbing against the culture and inviting segregation and comment. Just as I would if I walked around in a miniskirt and bra in most middle eastern cultures.


Yeah, that's a good equivocation. Oh wait, it isn't. You don't have any religious conviction to wear or not wear an article of clothing, so there's no easy analog for you, there. Let's try one based around modesty, which is an important part of this. Would you see it as just a cultural idiosyncrasy if you were forced to be naked from the waist down in a given culture? I mean, after all, it's just a cultural social convention that you should cover that part of your body right?

____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#34 Jan 26 2010 at 4:38 PM Rating: Decent
***
2,086 posts
Smasharoo wrote:


If I visited an Islamic country I would wear a headscarf and cover my arms. I would show the incumbant culture some respect and try to blend.
By wearing a burqa in a western society, the wearer is rubbing against the culture and inviting segregation and comment. Just as I would if I walked around in a miniskirt and bra in most middle eastern cultures.


Yeah, that's a good equivocation. Oh wait, it isn't. You don't have any religious conviction to wear or not wear an article of clothing, so there's no easy analog for you, there. Let's try one based around modesty, which is an important part of this. Would you see it as just a cultural idiosyncrasy if you were forced to be naked from the waist down in a given culture? I mean, after all, it's just a cultural social convention that you should cover that part of your body right?



If I had visited the other culture voluntarily and knew what I was getting myself into, then yes I would do it.

Naked > Orange Jump Suit and shackles Smiley: tongue
#35 Jan 26 2010 at 5:09 PM Rating: Good
Ministry of Silly Cnuts
*****
19,524 posts
I'm still waiting for Sarkozy to ban those stupid fUcking pedestrian crossings that turn from green to red and back faster than a strobe light. Then again, driving in France is supposed to be 'white knuckle', right?

____________________________
"I started out with nothin' and I still got most of it left" - Seasick Steve
#36 Jan 26 2010 at 5:19 PM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
I would think they could write a law that would require removal or partial removal of any garment the interferred with proper identification, without outright banning them from any government building (removing a burqa from the face only). Then, once they've been properly id'd, they can put them back on.

While France may indeed have strict laws against any show of religion in public places, whether burqas and veils are religious or not is debatable.

Is a nun in habit or a visibly displayed rosary forbidden in government buildings in France?






Edited, Jan 27th 2010 12:20am by Elinda
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#37 Jan 26 2010 at 5:25 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
Habits don't generally obscure the face.

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#38 Jan 26 2010 at 5:28 PM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
Samira wrote:
Habits don't generally obscure the face.

No, neither do rosaries. I was kinda responding to Nobby's comment that France was rather strict in allowing any religious displays in government building. Guess I was just trying to gauge how strict.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#39 Jan 26 2010 at 5:48 PM Rating: Good
Repressed Memories
******
21,027 posts
Reeks of ethnocentrism.

There is no legitimate practical reason to ban the garments. As noted earlier it is not illegal to wear other head coverings in public; this would be entirely inconsistent. It also doesn't serve a useful purpose. There is no significant threat here. The majority of violent crimes are committed by men, not women, and the number of burqa wearing women in the country is insignificant.

There is also no ethical or moral reason to outlaw burqas. In a modern country where women are given full rights the burka is not a symbol of repression but merely of religious expression. Most of the women who attend my church wear dresses, which could be easily seen as just as oppressive if you remove our cultural familiarity and history with them.

This is nothing more than a deeply denied fear of foreign cultures and peoples.

Edited, Jan 26th 2010 6:00pm by Allegory
#40 Jan 26 2010 at 5:50 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
Elinda wrote:
Samira wrote:
Habits don't generally obscure the face.

No, neither do rosaries. I was kinda responding to Nobby's comment that France was rather strict in allowing any religious displays in government building. Guess I was just trying to gauge how strict.


Oh, I took that to mean permanent fixtures.

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#41 Jan 26 2010 at 5:51 PM Rating: Good
*****
13,251 posts
Allegory wrote:
Reeks of ethnocentrism.
FTFY?
#42 Jan 26 2010 at 6:02 PM Rating: Decent
Repressed Memories
******
21,027 posts
Spoonless wrote:
FTFY?

Technically either works, but yes I misspelled the intended word.
#43 Jan 26 2010 at 6:12 PM Rating: Good
I now have another reason to go to France and **** people off.
#44 Jan 26 2010 at 6:56 PM Rating: Good
*****
15,952 posts
Didn't read thread, sorry.

Seeing a Muslim woman is ok if it's done by another woman. When ID is taken, a headscarf that allows the full face to be seen could be allowed, the staff in the room taking the picture should be women, and the image processed by women. Most countries have infrastructure large enough to be able to handle that requirement.

When people need to show ID, then female staff should handle it. If there are no female staff at a private business like a nightclub or bottle-shop, then too bad for the Muslim woman. That shouldn't be too hard on Burqa wearing women anyway.

At official sites, there should be plenty of female staff around to handle peeking under a burqa. Airports, government buildings, etc.


If a policeman sees a burqa clad individual behaving suspiciously, on the street or elsewhere, he should be able to detain the person on the spot to wait with him until a female officer can turn up to speak face to face with the person.

Burqa wearing drivers might have a harder time of things, having to wait around more, or to go into police stations more often to be processed, rather being processed on the spot, but c'est la vie.

Anyway, what I'm saying is that compromises can be made so that only other women see under burqas. As for Headscarf wearing Muslims, their ID should be taken with the Headscarf on. The only reason non-Muslims are asked to have their heads bare and not to smile is so that the photo will match with your face in your most usual state when you are walking around. (as well as so that the face isn't partially obscured in the ID photo). Since Muslim women will habitually and usually be wearing their scarf, then it makes sense that their ID photo displays them wearing one. Also, most Mulim scarfs are sleekly pulled away from the face, leaving it unobscured, so that there should be no face obscuring problems.
#45 Jan 26 2010 at 7:06 PM Rating: Good
***
2,086 posts
Aripyanfar wrote:
Didn't read thread, sorry.

Seeing a Muslim woman is ok if it's done by another woman. When ID is taken, a headscarf that allows the full face to be seen could be allowed, the staff in the room taking the picture should be women, and the image processed by women. Most countries have infrastructure large enough to be able to handle that requirement.

When people need to show ID, then female staff should handle it. If there are no female staff at a private business like a nightclub or bottle-shop, then too bad for the Muslim woman. That shouldn't be too hard on Burqa wearing women anyway.

At official sites, there should be plenty of female staff around to handle peeking under a burqa. Airports, government buildings, etc.


If a policeman sees a burqa clad individual behaving suspiciously, on the street or elsewhere, he should be able to detain the person on the spot to wait with him until a female officer can turn up to speak face to face with the person.

Burqa wearing drivers might have a harder time of things, having to wait around more, or to go into police stations more often to be processed, rather being processed on the spot, but c'est la vie.

Anyway, what I'm saying is that compromises can be made so that only other women see under burqas. As for Headscarf wearing Muslims, their ID should be taken with the Headscarf on. The only reason non-Muslims are asked to have their heads bare and not to smile is so that the photo will match with your face in your most usual state when you are walking around. (as well as so that the face isn't partially obscured in the ID photo). Since Muslim women will habitually and usually be wearing their scarf, then it makes sense that their ID photo displays them wearing one. Also, most Mulim scarfs are sleekly pulled away from the face, leaving it unobscured, so that there should be no face obscuring problems.



For the requirements with female only staff. Who will pay for it? Who will enforce it?

Its one thing to be expected to be frisked by a female member of security at an airport. Its quite another to demand that pictures be taken only by women and processed only by women. Apart from anything else I would have thought that would lay an employer open to being sued for sexism if they declined a man for the role.



#46 Jan 26 2010 at 7:13 PM Rating: Good
*****
15,952 posts
GwynapNud of the Emerald Dream wrote:
For the requirements with female only staff. Who will pay for it? Who will enforce it?

Its one thing to be expected to be frisked by a female member of security at an airport. Its quite another to demand that pictures be taken only by women and processed only by women. Apart from anything else I would have thought that would lay an employer open to being sued for sexism if they declined a man for the role.


We send in females for females all the time in some situations. Female teachers to search the female student's toilets, or to help a girl with an unexpected period. Female prison guards, female officers for strip searches of women in all sorts of places. This is just an extension. It's not like we'd need female staff for all female civilians. We'd only need a minimum of one female staff per organisation to process the teeny minority of burqa wearing Muslim women in the west.

Really, the headscarf is much more popular than the burqa, and a male staff/officer can ID a woman in a headscarf.

Edited, Jan 26th 2010 8:14pm by Aripyanfar
#47 Jan 26 2010 at 7:25 PM Rating: Good
***
2,086 posts
Aripyanfar wrote:
GwynapNud of the Emerald Dream wrote:
For the requirements with female only staff. Who will pay for it? Who will enforce it?

Its one thing to be expected to be frisked by a female member of security at an airport. Its quite another to demand that pictures be taken only by women and processed only by women. Apart from anything else I would have thought that would lay an employer open to being sued for sexism if they declined a man for the role.


We send in females for females all the time in some situations. Female teachers to search the female student's toilets, or to help a girl with an unexpected period. Female prison guards, female officers for strip searches of women in all sorts of places. This is just an extension. It's not like we'd need female staff for all female civilians. We'd only need a minimum of one female staff per organisation to process the teeny minority of burqa wearing Muslim women in the west.

Really, the headscarf is much more popular than the burqa, and a male staff/officer can ID a woman in a headscarf.

Edited, Jan 26th 2010 8:14pm by Aripyanfar


We agree about the scarf, but thats not what this entire thread is about, which is the burqa. So try not to change the subject.

I also agree with you about using female staff to search women, I would not want a man searching me!

What I'm questioning is your statement that female only staff should be used for film processing. Is this truly workable? Think hard about this and how databases function, how data is stored and who has access to that data. Do you expect government agencies and large companies to put in place security checks to ensure that only women view a burqa wearing muslims picture? That it is not seen by a man?

Edited, Jan 27th 2010 1:26am by GwynapNud
#48 Jan 26 2010 at 7:34 PM Rating: Good
Once the picture is taken, I don't believe it actually matters who views it, as it doesn't pertain to actually interacting with the person.

So: the person developing the film can be of either gender (though, really, how many places still use a film camera for producing ID cards, considering how cheap digital cameras and inkjet printers are anymore?).
#49 Jan 26 2010 at 7:40 PM Rating: Good
*****
15,512 posts
I'm pretty sure they use JPEG (at least in Texas) because I think I can see compression artifacts on my driver's license.

Maybe it's just a terrible photo.

Edited, Jan 26th 2010 7:40pm by Sweetums
#50 Jan 26 2010 at 8:10 PM Rating: Good
Sweetums wrote:
I'm pretty sure they use JPEG (at least in Texas) because I think I can see compression artifacts on my driver's license.

Maybe it's just a terrible photo.

Edited, Jan 26th 2010 7:40pm by Sweetums
Has anyone complained about noticing compression artifacts in your presence?
#51 Jan 26 2010 at 8:16 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
Sweetums wrote:
I'm pretty sure they use JPEG (at least in Texas) because I think I can see compression artifacts on my driver's license.

Maybe it's just a terrible photo.

Edited, Jan 26th 2010 7:40pm by Sweetums


Maybe your face is compressed. Smiley: mad

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 216 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (216)