shuggy's blog
I'd guess that the burka issue is partly a matter of the difficulty of knowing whether a woman really is freely choosing to wear it, or is under coercion from father or husband or brother.
That seems quite different from, say, the women's franchise: women didn't have the vote because the State denied it to them (the Great Reform Act having taken away the women's vote in those constituencies that had had it).
I was going to use votes for women as an example since the franchise is by definition a right granted by the state. The Great Reform Act is neither here nor there: hardly anyone could vote before 1832; hardly anyone could vote after 1832.
I might be able to tell the difference between communism and fascism, but that doesn't stop either one of them being closer to each other than than either of them are to conservatism, liberalism, libertarianism, social democracy, Christian democracy, etc., etc..
Both of them would also quite happily ban the burka. My view is that what someone chooses to wear is none of anybody else's damn business. What next? Banning hoodies, tweed and kilts? The possibility of coercion in the wearing of a burka has nothing to do with the item itself but with the coercion used, and there are perfectly good laws available to deal with that.
I might be able to tell the difference between communism and fascism, but that doesn't stop either one of them being closer to each other than than either of them are to conservatism, liberalism, libertarianism, social democracy, Christian democracy, etc., etc..
The totalitarian thesis in other words. It has its uses as a concept but I think most people today are unaware of its limitations. I just pointed one of them out. There are quite a few others but that would be a subject for another post.
My view is that what someone chooses to wear is none of anybody else's damn business.
What are you - a teenager? If you wore a Nazi uniform outside a synagogue on Saturday, I think you'd find that quite a few people, including the police, would not accept your insistence that what people wear is nobody else's business. Rightly so, in my view. But you disagree? Anyway, you might want to wait until part 2 of this before you start sounding off about this. One of the points that I may make - perhaps should have here - is that there has never been a society since the dawn of civilisation where what people wear is a matter for them alone. Anyway, I wasn't arguing for a ban - did you not even pick that up?
"The Great Reform Act is neither here nor there: hardly anyone could vote before 1832; hardly anyone could vote after 1832."
You're wrong I think. It stopped those women who had had votes from voting; it allowed (didn't it?) Catholics to be voted into the Commons. I don't see why either of those things is "neither here nor there" in a discussion of liberties, privileges or whatnot.
I don't want to repeat myself - I think you'd find most historians would describe the 'Great Reform Act' for the 1832 extension of the franchise as something of a misnomer. I'm struggling to see your point, frankly. Trying to make an anti-statist case over the issue of votes for women is completely absurd. Surely you can see that?
"I'd guess that the burka issue is partly a matter of the difficulty of knowing whether a woman really is freely choosing to wear it"
That is secondary.
In the public domain, the burka is more an issue of nobody knowing who the hell is under there, and nobody being able to identify them after they have:
. Robbed a jewellery shop
. Attacked and mugged an old woman in the ladies toilets.
. Robbed a petrol station.
Being open about who we really are, is actually a fundamental cornerstone of our civil society here.
The way we make ourselves identifiable, and traceable, is a testament to the innocence of our intentions. We do not put burkas over our faces, or our car number plates. We don't walk around the school playing fields with our crash helmets and visors on.
If you ever see someone wandering around in a gorilla suit, and there isn't a marathon on, you'd probably call the police. If you saw several gorillas milling around you would definitely call the police.
The default mode of civil interaction is face uncovered, arse covered. If you want to go shopping tomorrow wearing a coffin with your feet sticking out the bottom, fine, so long as your face is sticking out the top.
But no-one has the right to overturn a civil society just to suit her own personal superstitions.
Monty - when you see a woman walking around in a burka, do you really think "Potential bank robber?" Even the dimmest person in this society thinks "hard-line Muslim".
I hate the garment for feminist, rationalist and aesthetic reasons, but not because I think the person inside is full of criminal intent.
A bit of an aside, but reading Poirer's article, her point about the French not having a debate about Frenchness because of 2 centuries of grounding in the Revolution and Republic strikes me as being extremely naive, and the word one might apply to back up that point would be "Vichy". Also, didn't Sarko get his rapturous reception largely because the opposition all stayed at home rather than travelling to that well known symbol of Revolution and Republic, Versailles. Perhaps Sarko's party had all been eating cake? Or is it Brioche?
What about the transgendered community?
[We'll defer to your superior knowledge on the subject whilst at the same time insisting that we're not interested on the gounds of irrelevance.]
Edited By Siteowner
KB:
"Monty - when you see a woman walking around in a burka,"
How do you know that's a woman? How do you know that's a muslim?
The burka has been used as a disguise for criminals in Paris for many years, especially by young muggers. It is also handy if you are going to rob a jewellery shop. And if you are on the run from the police, it's a grand way of making your escape.
If you walked into the bank wearing a motorcycle helmet and visor, they would throw you out. The same rule should apply to all scenarios in which people are vulnerable. Schools, hospitals, all financial institutions, even your corner shop. They should all be able to say "make your face identifiable or you aren't coming in".
As for the women who wear it, it isn't our responsibility to liberate them. They are grown ups. But they should not be allowed to inflict hazard, loss, or inconvenience on anyone else.
A bit of an aside, but reading Poirer's article, her point about the French not having a debate about Frenchness because of 2 centuries of grounding in the Revolution strikes me as being extremely naive
No I think she's right. They have this Republican confidence - a sense of a nation founded on revolutionary ideas. Rather like it personally. Kinda regret Britain missed this particular 18th century window.
The burka has been used as a disguise for criminals in Paris for many years, especially by young muggers.
FFS Monty - no-one doubts that this is possible or that it has happened on a few occasions but that isn't the issue. Rather, its use obviously has its origins in the desire of men to limit the social interaction of 'their' women. I say obviously but clearly there's rather a lot of dimmwits out there that would prefer to see some kind of psuedo-feminist rationalisation in the whole business of wearing a moveable tent. Save some argumentative energy for them, will ya?
"They" have this republican confidence etc etc. Would "they" include the crowd that whistled down the Marseillaise at the France - Algeria game at St Denis the other year - most of whom were, I would guess, born and raised, and still lived, within about 10 miles of the Stadium? I think that you and Poirer are missing something rather important here, and it plays into the issues that Sarko raised in his inimitable manner. (And this is not a "defence" of the burka or an "attack" on it, I'd hasten to add - its a comment on French society.)
Shuggy:
"but that isn't the issue. Rather, its use obviously has its origins in the desire of men to limit the social interaction of 'their' women."
They already have the full protection of the law Shuggy. And the charitable sector has provided refuges for those who seek to escape from the oppression of their own menfolk, and take their children with them. The details are printed in a multiplicity of languages. And still they wander our streets dressed in their shrouds, and still they consign their daughters to the same fate.
We will never sort this problem out, until they decide to sort it out. Right now, they are stuck on servile.
Why should any Scotswoman, or any Englishwoman, go to the barricades for a woman who is so cowardly, so venal, and so bloody self absorbed that she hasn't noticed that she is surrounded by about 60 million libertarians and the cage door is open?
It might surprise you to know that I am a woman, and I consider myself a feminist also. And I was once in a terrible fight with a man. He tried to push my face into an open coal fire. I was seventeen years old. He didn't win.
But that was a long time ago.
It might surprise you to know that I am a woman
Yeah it does - 'Monty' not being an obviously female name. Why didn't you wait until someone accused you of sexism over this issue, then you could have hit them with this revelation? That would have been more fun.
"If you saw several gorillas milling around you would definitely call the police."
You'd call the police? Because people were wearing gorilla suits? Good God...
Most normal people would simply ask "Stag do, is it?" and then go on with minding their own fucking business.
"...wherever regimes that are secular have triumphed, even those deemed to be 'totalitarian', this has almost always been accompanied by significant advances in the position of women in society."
Well it does rather depend on what you mean by "advances", does it not?
The female factory workers of Stalin's era might have felt that their situation was an advance on that of their forebears, I don't know. But I would have thought it at least debatable.
Commenting by HaloScan
