new Muslim youth club just opened in Newcastle...

[thebish]

But surely there's already legislation in place about keeping people detained against their will (or whatever the French equivalent is)?

if you think the french police are remoteley interested in an unreported case of a muslim wife being kept at home by her oppressive husband - then you're living in la-la land. In those cases the burqa is a symbol of oppression - but at the very least it allows her to have a life outside the house. banning it would completely isolate her - she would not be allowed to get a job or be involved in french society. consequence - flagship symbolic coup for the govt. but in reality - the oppressed women who it is supposed to help live a much more isolated life.

That wouldn't alter the fact that the legislation is probably in place, should they choose to use it.

indeed not. nor would it alter the fact that we are talking about oppressed women who don't have the same obvious and easily executed choices as you and I.

ok - you disagree - but I still think this law will actually make the lot of oppressed muslim women worse rather than better - it may be counter-intuitive - but then so is the logic by which battered women tell courts that they banged their faces on cupboard doors or fell down the stairs or tripped over the dog...

[thebish]

You seem to be deliberately obtuse on this one bish. If we argued that no law could be acted upon unless it dealt with a problem in its entirety then we'd never achieve anything. There may well be a section of women who will experience greater oppression. There may not be. Conversely, there may be a section of women who experience greater freedom. You or I cannot say, otherwise I want the lottery numbers, now.

what section of women will experience greater freedom?

those who are not oppressed and don't want to wear the burqa - already don't
those who are not oppressed and like the burqa will be a bit miffed - but - hey, live with it.
those who are made to by their husbands will now be forced to stay at home

which section will experience greater freedom.

you seem to be suggesting that some oppressive husbands will react to the law-change by suddenly not being oppressive. That's a very hopeful view indeed....

as for "no law could be acted upon unless it dealt with a problem" - I am asking what the point os of introducing a law that expressly does NOT deal with the problem it is supposed to tackle...

you still haven't described a single scenario in which an oppressed muslim woman might be helped by this law - if you did - that might help me understand your point.

[Lord Kangana]

I'm sure that when beating your wife at home was outlawed, men carried on beating their wives. Is that the argument?

On balance, the state is saying that a small part of the oppression of women will no longer be tolerated. Its a step.

[thebish]

I'm sure that when beating your wife at home was outlawed, men carried on beating their wives. Is that the argument?

On balance, the state is saying that a small part of the oppression of women will no longer be tolerated. Its a step.

ok - we've probably exhausted the trail.

If I accept it is a step - then it is merely symbolic - and maybe you're right that symbolism is a small step. I don't think it is a step that will actually in practice change the life of any oppressed muslim in france - and it looks like you are finding that difficult to see too...

no - that is not the point i was making about domestic violence.

the point I was making there was to Worthy - and was about oppressed women simply being oppressed and finding it far less straightforward than others to access legal redress for their plight - even to the extent of denying the abuse when they do get a fleeting opportunity - fear and hopelessness renders them powerless to grasp those opportunities. so - a muslim woman under a repressive husband in france - and not allowed to leave the maison - would not yell kidnap to the gendarmes... and if anyone asked - she would say she was shy and liked doing the housework.

a sarkosi flagship law - and maybe you are right to attribute motives of bold society changing revolution to him in favour of women...

but i suspect there are a whole lot of other things he could have banned if he was REALLY a bold reformer for womens rights - that were far harder targets and so didn't - the porn industry, for one. like the burqa (remarkably similar in some respects) - some would argue that was repression of women - others that they choose it... but surely the quote you supplied from sarkosi coudl equally be applied to porn? but porn is not so starkly the domain of an already persecuted minority in a country where leaders occasionally have to pander to the far right.... which is what this is REALLY about...

[Lord Kangana]

I've never attributed anything of the sort to that cnut. What I did say was that on balance some good can come of this. And thats how things happen.

[thebish]

I've never attributed anything of the sort to that cnut. What I did say was that on balance some good can come of this. And thats how things happen.

fair enough... (but only with a massively counterweighted balance!)

[Worthy4England]

I'm sure that when beating your wife at home was outlawed, men carried on beating their wives. Is that the argument?

On balance, the state is saying that a small part of the oppression of women will no longer be tolerated. Its a step.

ok - we've probably exhausted the trail.

If I accept it is a step - then it is merely symbolic - and maybe you're right that symbolism is a small step. I don't think it is a step that will actually in practice change the life of any oppressed muslim in france - and it looks like you are finding that difficult to see too...

no - that is not the point i was making about domestic violence.

the point I was making there was to Worthy - and was about oppressed women simply being oppressed and finding it far less straightforward than others to access legal redress for their plight - even to the extent of denying the abuse when they do get a fleeting opportunity - fear and hopelessness renders them powerless to grasp those opportunities. so - a muslim woman under a repressive husband in france - and not allowed to leave the maison - would not yell kidnap to the gendarmes... and if anyone asked - she would say she was shy and liked doing the housework.

a sarkosi flagship law - and maybe you are right to attribute motives of bold society changing revolution to him in favour of women...

but i suspect there are a whole lot of other things he could have banned if he was REALLY a bold reformer for womens rights - that were far harder targets and so didn't - the porn industry, for one. like the burqa (remarkably similar in some respects) - some would argue that was repression of women - others that they choose it... but surely the quote you supplied from sarkosi coudl equally be applied to porn? but porn is not so starkly the domain of an already persecuted minority in a country where leaders occasionally have to pander to the far right.... which is what this is REALLY about...

There are plenty of situations where passing legislation isn't going to have a direct impact on an individual. Your comments regarding wife-beating (or husband-beating) etc. I agree about, I'm sure there are too many people that suffer in silence. That in itself doesn't make it wrong to allow that legal redress, should an individual choose to take it. I agree with LK on the point that to change the status quo, you sometimes have to move one little step after the other.

On to your other point regarding what you believe to be the real reason for the new law. I'm inclined to say that it's probably not without some foundation. Possibly quite a lot of foundation. That said I don't agree with many on here that there's a general acceptance of multi-culturalism within a great many Countries. There's lots of legislation to ensure that people are seen to accept or are conditioned to act as though they accept multi-culturalism, but I still remain to be convinced that if it was put to some sort of vote, it would reflect the legislation that's in place - before anyone heads there, I'm not sure what sort of vote you could put it to that would be in any way simple...

[thebish]

There are plenty of situations where passing legislation isn't going to have a direct impact on an individual. Your comments regarding wife-beating (or husband-beating) etc. I agree about, I'm sure there are too many people that suffer in silence. That in itself doesn't make it wrong to allow that legal redress, should an individual choose to take it.

I didn't say it was wrong to allow legal redress, in fact - nobody did. I was merely responding to your comment that any muslim woman oppressed at home in france had access to false imprisonment laws like the rest of us.. it sounded a bit flippant to me, is all, given the psychology that lies behind domestic oppression and abuse.

[TANGODANCER]

It happened in the eighteenth century (not the sixteenth as Pru suggested) and obviously isn't in force today. Apart from at bullfights, carrying swords isn't really encouraged by the authorities is it? There's even a well known cloak maker in Madrid today, high fashion you know. I'm sure you'll find it if you look hard enough.

Actually - I have looked - and now I am suspecting your use of the word "ban" is a little bit of an exaggeration.

are you referring to the Marquis of Esquilache wanting to substitute long capes for shorter ones and big hats for small ones? and yet as soon as he tried to enforce it among the general public (as opposed to just royal functionaries) there were mass riots and much rampant violence - and (to cut a long story short) King Charles dismissed the ban and dismissed the Marquis of Esquilache?

so - in reality - a ban was attempted - but was never actually properly imposed because the people wouldn't have it. there was never a Spain-wide ban on cloaks.

I have been to, many times, and read a lot of the history of Spain. There is a village somewhere near Cadiz with a statue of a woman wearing a version of a burqa.(Andalusia's Moorish origins are well documented enough, they occupied it for 800 years). There is also a mention somewhere of it being banned during the Spanish Civil War to prevent hiding of weapons or men disguising themselves as women. You can take my word for it, or not, as the case may be. If I can turn up a link, I will. I did however, turn up this:

Charles III instigated some drastic urban reforms, but the Madrilenians were not altogether happy at having his French and Italian tastes forced on them. In 1766, this resentment boiled over when the Marquis of Squillace, the king's Italian minister, banned the wearing of long cloaks and wide-brimmed hats, which he believed thieves were using as a disguise and to conceal weapons.

The Conde de Aranda, another minister, then had the shrewd idea of making the long cloaks and wide-brimmed hats the standard clothing for executioners, which rather dissuaded ordinary citizens from wearing them.

It proves nothing really except maybe to highlight cloaks, masks, burqas etc, as being seen as diguises of one form or another.

[thebish]

It happened in the eighteenth century (not the sixteenth as Pru suggested) and obviously isn't in force today. Apart from at bullfights, carrying swords isn't really encouraged by the authorities is it? There's even a well known cloak maker in Madrid today, high fashion you know. I'm sure you'll find it if you look hard enough.

Actually - I have looked - and now I am suspecting your use of the word "ban" is a little bit of an exaggeration.

are you referring to the Marquis of Esquilache wanting to substitute long capes for shorter ones and big hats for small ones? and yet as soon as he tried to enforce it among the general public (as opposed to just royal functionaries) there were mass riots and much rampant violence - and (to cut a long story short) King Charles dismissed the ban and dismissed the Marquis of Esquilache?

so - in reality - a ban was attempted - but was never actually properly imposed because the people wouldn't have it. there was never a Spain-wide ban on cloaks.

I have been to, many times, and read a lot of the history of Spain. There is a village somewhere near Cadiz with a statue of a woman wearing a version of a burqa.(Andalusia's Moorish origins are well documented enough, they occupied it for 800 years). There is also a mention somewhere of it being banned during the Spanish Civil War to prevent hiding of weapons or men disguising themselves as women. You can take my word for it, or not, as the case may be. If I can turn up a link, I will. I did however, turn up this:

Charles III instigated some drastic urban reforms, but the Madrilenians were not altogether happy at having his French and Italian tastes forced on them. In 1766, this resentment boiled over when the Marquis of Squillace, the king's Italian minister, banned the wearing of long cloaks and wide-brimmed hats, which he believed thieves were using as a disguise and to conceal weapons.

The Conde de Aranda, another minister, then had the shrewd idea of making the long cloaks and wide-brimmed hats the standard clothing for executioners, which rather dissuaded ordinary citizens from wearing them.

It proves nothing really except maybe to highlight cloaks, masks, burqas etc, as being seen as diguises of one form or another.

your first italicised paragraph is the story i described myself - except you have Squillace where I have Esquilache. yes that happened - but first only for royal functionaries - and then when he tried to enforce it in the town (not the whole of spain) - the people rioted and king Charles overturned the attempted ban and sacked Esquilache.

I am not doubting you have been to spain - but I am doubting whether the cloak has ever been successfuly banned in spain - as opposed to a failed attempt to ban the long cloak in favour of a shorter cloak in a town in spain.

[Prufrock]

Banning the burkha is going to make absolutely no difference to the lives of the women who are actually oppressed, apart from possibly, as the Bish says, making them worse. I understand the symbolic argument, and why for many that small step looks like a good idea in the right direction, but in reality all you are doing is banning one group of people from expressing their religious beliefs (and there are many women who wear the burkha through their own choice- a lad I used to coach's mum wore one, and she was certainly the head of that household) whilst making no real difference to the group you are trying to help. The only way to win this fight is to win minds, and change attitudes, how you do that is beyond me, but isolating a minority who already feel like they are second-class citizens and pandering to the folk who not that long ago finished second in an election trying to send them all 'home' seems to be more than a small step in another direction.

I understand that even if Sarkhozy's motives are wrong, that doesn't mean good can't come of this. and perhaps it will, but equally, in a country with the racial tensions France has it could easily go the other way. Next stop banning minarets, then the building of new mosques?

[Worthy4England]

There are plenty of situations where passing legislation isn't going to have a direct impact on an individual. Your comments regarding wife-beating (or husband-beating) etc. I agree about, I'm sure there are too many people that suffer in silence. That in itself doesn't make it wrong to allow that legal redress, should an individual choose to take it.

I didn't say it was wrong to allow legal redress, in fact - nobody did. I was merely responding to your comment that any muslim woman oppressed at home in france had access to false imprisonment laws like the rest of us.. it sounded a bit flippant to me, is all, given the psychology that lies behind domestic oppression and abuse.

Not intended to sound flippant. I understand that many people find it difficult to come forwards and make a complaint, many withdraw the complaint after it's been made (and may consequently be worse off for having done so in the first place).

[thebish]

The population of france is somewhere in the region of 64,000,000

it is estimated - and it seems, generally accepted - that there are about 2000 burqa-wearing women in the whole of france

i reckon that's 0.003% of the population

I suspect whatever imagined good effect this will have will be less than negligable - and vastly outweighed by the storm surrounding it.

[Worthy4England]

Aye - not worth kicking up a fuss that they've passed the first stage of legislation on it, with effects that small.

[thebish]

it is just that when someone uses such a HUGE hammer to crack such a tiny nut - then my cynical mind wonders whether, in fact, there is summat else going on than that which has been declared...

[Worthy4England]

it is just that when someone uses such a HUGE hammer to crack such a tiny nut - then my cynical mind wonders whether, in fact, there is summat else going on than that which has been declared...

What huge hammer is that then? Is the cynical thing that they're enacting the will of the people?

Opinion polls in France suggested that upwards of 57% of people were in favour of banning veils that cover the whole face or the more direct burqa focused questions - although the Indie seems to have found one with a lower figure (33%), there are other up at the 75-80% mark.

France isn't alone in these opinion polls (run by people like Harris - rather than the BNP)

The polls generally reflect the same in Italy, Germany, UK and other European Countries.

There is currently a bill going through the UK Parliament called the Face Coverings (Regulation) Bill, although as it's a Private Members Bill, it's unlikely to get anywhere near the statute books - as it's from an independent MP and not backed by any of the significant parties as far as I can tell.

[thebish]

it is just that when someone uses such a HUGE hammer to crack such a tiny nut - then my cynical mind wonders whether, in fact, there is summat else going on than that which has been declared...

What huge hammer is that then? Is the cynical thing that they're enacting the will of the people?

Opinion polls in France suggested that upwards of 57% of people were in favour of banning veils that cover the whole face or the more direct burqa focused questions - although the Indie seems to have found one with a lower figure (33%), there are other up at the 75-80% mark.

France isn't alone in these opinion polls (run by people like Harris - rather than the BNP)

The polls generally reflect the same in Italy, Germany, UK and other European Countries.

There is currently a bill going through the UK Parliament called the Face Coverings (Regulation) Bill, although as it's a Private Members Bill, it's unlikely to get anywhere near the statute books - as it's from an independent MP and not backed by any of the significant parties as far as I can tell.

the huge hammer is state legislation covering 99.997% of the population to whom it does not apply.

the cynical thing is dressing up a craven appeal to the french right wing as a noble measure for women's emancipation.

[Worthy4England]

it is just that when someone uses such a HUGE hammer to crack such a tiny nut - then my cynical mind wonders whether, in fact, there is summat else going on than that which has been declared...

What huge hammer is that then? Is the cynical thing that they're enacting the will of the people?

Opinion polls in France suggested that upwards of 57% of people were in favour of banning veils that cover the whole face or the more direct burqa focused questions - although the Indie seems to have found one with a lower figure (33%), there are other up at the 75-80% mark.

France isn't alone in these opinion polls (run by people like Harris - rather than the BNP)

The polls generally reflect the same in Italy, Germany, UK and other European Countries.

There is currently a bill going through the UK Parliament called the Face Coverings (Regulation) Bill, although as it's a Private Members Bill, it's unlikely to get anywhere near the statute books - as it's from an independent MP and not backed by any of the significant parties as far as I can tell.

the huge hammer is state legislation covering 99.997% of the population to whom it does not apply.

the cynical thing is dressing up a craven appeal to the french right wing as a noble measure for women's emancipation.

But wouldn't a poll of 57% reflect a view much wider than just the French right wing? (As far I I can see, there's been quite a few polls all pretty much coming out with a fairly clear majority...

[CAPSLOCK]

Ah, but the majority view isn't important

Just the view of the 'clever' folk

[thebish]

it is just that when someone uses such a HUGE hammer to crack such a tiny nut - then my cynical mind wonders whether, in fact, there is summat else going on than that which has been declared...

What huge hammer is that then? Is the cynical thing that they're enacting the will of the people?

Opinion polls in France suggested that upwards of 57% of people were in favour of banning veils that cover the whole face or the more direct burqa focused questions - although the Indie seems to have found one with a lower figure (33%), there are other up at the 75-80% mark.

France isn't alone in these opinion polls (run by people like Harris - rather than the BNP)

The polls generally reflect the same in Italy, Germany, UK and other European Countries.

There is currently a bill going through the UK Parliament called the Face Coverings (Regulation) Bill, although as it's a Private Members Bill, it's unlikely to get anywhere near the statute books - as it's from an independent MP and not backed by any of the significant parties as far as I can tell.

the huge hammer is state legislation covering 99.997% of the population to whom it does not apply.

the cynical thing is dressing up a craven appeal to the french right wing as a noble measure for women's emancipation.

But wouldn't a poll of 57% reflect a view much wider than just the French right wing? (As far I I can see, there's been quite a few polls all pretty much coming out with a fairly clear majority...

yes it might - but that doesn't stop it being a craven appeal to the french right wing.

(as i have said before - i have not said that it is not within the rights of a nation to decide policy - i am merely responding to a debate that invited opinions about the actual issue. The French nation is free to enact whatever legislation it chooses. the fact that it may have a majority would not make me believe that the legislation will have any effect at all on the problem sarkosi says the legislation is designed to adress.)