French police going Erdogan over al-niqab?

[merithyn]

We do take children being abused by their parents away from their parents. We also arrest husbands that beat their wives.

I'm not sure how those are equitable. I'm not arguing that we don't do that. In fact, I strongly advocate it.

But what does either of those things have to do with a person choosing to live a life of subjugation?

[Viking]

We do take children being abused by their parents away from their parents. We also arrest husbands that beat their wives.

I'm not sure how those are equitable. I'm not arguing that we don't do that. In fact, I strongly advocate it.

But what does either of those things have to do with a person choosing to live a life of subjugation?

The reason they are related is that we do interfere in situations where the government subjectively decides that abuse is happening to protect the victims. I don't say this to advocate for a ban on the face veil, I'm just problematizing your argument about not protecting victims.

I'm actually against banning of any kind of clothing. It is a symptom and a distraction from the root cause of the abuse. The root cause is the religion and the tradition in which it is practiced.

I think it is reasonable for the police to insist to see the face for identification based on a photo id. I don't think it is reasonable to ban facial coverings.

[Malthus]

The reason they are related is that we do interfere in situations where the government subjectively decides that abuse is happening to protect the victims. I don't say this to advocate for a ban on the face veil, I'm just problematizing your argument about not protecting victims.

I think you are missing the distinction she appears to be making.

Protecting a victim from acts of abuse by an abuser, by punishing or threatening punishment to the abuser = good.

Protecting a victim from him or herself adopting a lifestyle choice that society judges is associated with or symbolic of abuse, by punishing that victim = bad.

[Duque de Bragança]

Not a law against "a veil", it's a law against ID-PREVENTING clothing or equipment such as niqabs (the muslim veil chador/hijab is actually not banned unlike the salafist niqab). The police can ask for IDs and how are they supposed to check who's on the picture if the face is covered?

I'm just going by the article you posted, which claimed that the law "... bans covering one's face in public".

Do the police generally ask people for IDs when they are walking down the street? That's never happened to me. Also, in Canada, for four months of the year my face is covered when I'm walking down the street in public - with a scarf or balaclava; only my eyes are showing. That tends to happen when it's -25 degrees out. Yet Canadian civil society chugs along regardless.

The article also said first the niqab is banned.
Guess what, covering, as in hiding, your face prevents identification...
Also, France does not have these winters, nor does Canada have a significant number of muslims, specially the salafist-like, the troublemaking ones.

Police does ask people for IDs and not only from poor muslims oppressed by French secularists. I've been asked it and showed it without my family rioting, despite other members, men having to show it if asked.

[Malthus]

Not a law against "a veil", it's a law against ID-PREVENTING clothing or equipment such as niqabs (the muslim veil chador/hijab is actually not banned unlike the salafist niqab). The police can ask for IDs and how are they supposed to check who's on the picture if the face is covered?

I'm just going by the article you posted, which claimed that the law "... bans covering one's face in public".

Do the police generally ask people for IDs when they are walking down the street? That's never happened to me. Also, in Canada, for four months of the year my face is covered when I'm walking down the street in public - with a scarf or balaclava; only my eyes are showing. That tends to happen when it's -25 degrees out. Yet Canadian civil society chugs along regardless.

The article also said first the niqab is banned.
Guess what, covering, as in hiding, your face prevents identification...
Also, France does not have these winters, nor does Canada have a significant number of muslims, specially the salafist-like, the troublemaking ones.

Police does ask people for IDs and not only from poor muslims oppressed by French secularists. I've been asked it and showed it without my family rioting, despite other members, men having to show it if asked.

I see women wearing face-covering Muslim outfits (don't know the technical distinctions between 'em) in Toronto with reasonable frequency.

The issue of whether France has harsh winters isn't the point - the issue is whether having bare faces in public is truly necessary for civil society to function properly is. My point is that such measures are evidently not really necessary, given that my society functions perfectly well without it.

As for cops asking random people for ID, seems overly intrusive. However, if that's a requirement, it would appear rather more excessive to outlaw face coverings simply on the off-chance a cop may wish to identify you. Why not a law saying that a cop can demand to see your face for ID purposes?

[Ed Anger]

Who cares? It's a woman. They aren't equals anyways.

[merithyn]

The reason they are related is that we do interfere in situations where the government subjectively decides that abuse is happening to protect the victims. I don't say this to advocate for a ban on the face veil, I'm just problematizing your argument about not protecting victims.

Actually, we prosecute crimes, we don't protect victims. Physical and sexual abuse is illegal, and therefore the person doing the act is arrested. We do not, however, remove a child or a spouse from an emotionally abusive home, as that's not a crime.

I'm actually against banning of any kind of clothing. It is a symptom and a distraction from the root cause of the abuse. The root cause is the religion and the tradition in which it is practiced.

I think it is reasonable for the police to insist to see the face for identification based on a photo id. I don't think it is reasonable to ban facial coverings.

Agreed on both counts.

[Duque de Bragança]

I see women wearing face-covering Muslim outfits (don't know the technical distinctions between 'em) in Toronto with reasonable frequency.

"reasonable frequency" is pretty vague and should be better defined but that certainly far below Argenteuil levels
As for banned outfits, in the name of multiculturalism here are some examples:

The issue of whether France has harsh winters isn't the point - the issue is whether having bare faces in public is truly necessary for civil society to function properly is. My point is that such measures are evidently not really necessary, given that my society functions perfectly well without it.

Your society has not significant number nor proportion of face-hiding muslims who do not function properly in civil society (or even muslims) so the comparison is not apt. Immigration laws (family regrouping) are also different. And so forth.

As for cops asking random people for ID, seems overly intrusive. However, if that's a requirement, it would appear rather more excessive to outlaw face coverings simply on the off-chance a cop may wish to identify you. Why not a law saying that a cop can demand to see your face for ID purposes?

I could agree that asking random people for ID is intrusive, however the police is legally entitled to use them as preventive but not mass-style as in generalised. This is left to police judgement and is very controversial.
Thing is, the law was created to give legal ground for cops to demand to see faces.

PS: no worries ninja outfits are still legal during carnival. It's enshrined in the law.

[Malthus]

I see women wearing face-covering Muslim outfits (don't know the technical distinctions between 'em) in Toronto with reasonable frequency.

"reasonable frequency" is pretty vague and should be better defined but that certainly far below Argenteuil levels
As for banned outfits, in the name of multiculturalism here are some examples:

The issue of whether France has harsh winters isn't the point - the issue is whether having bare faces in public is truly necessary for civil society to function properly is. My point is that such measures are evidently not really necessary, given that my society functions perfectly well without it.

Your society has not significant number nor proportion of face-hiding muslims who do not function properly in civil society (or even muslims) so the comparison is not apt. Immigration laws (family regrouping) are also different. And so forth.

As for cops asking random people for ID, seems overly intrusive. However, if that's a requirement, it would appear rather more excessive to outlaw face coverings simply on the off-chance a cop may wish to identify you. Why not a law saying that a cop can demand to see your face for ID purposes?

I could agree that asking random people for ID is intrusive, however the police is legally entitled to use them as preventive but not mass-style as in generalised. This is left to police judgement and is very controversial.
Thing is, the law was created to give legal ground for cops to demand to see faces.

PS: no worries ninja outfits are still legal during carnival. It's enshrined in the law.

To be specific, 1 in 20 people in my city are Muslim.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Toronto#Religion

I would be very surprised if the real reason for the law were concern about police being able to randomly ID people walking around in public. It strikes me as far more likely that unease with Muslim immigrants has something rather more to do with it. 

[Valmy]

It strikes me as far more likely that unease with Muslim immigrants has something rather more to do with it. 

There will always be this when you get lots of immigrants coming from the same place.  Add to that the French general suspicion of religion and you get a fairly volatile cocktail.

[Viking]

The reason they are related is that we do interfere in situations where the government subjectively decides that abuse is happening to protect the victims. I don't say this to advocate for a ban on the face veil, I'm just problematizing your argument about not protecting victims.

I think you are missing the distinction she appears to be making.

Protecting a victim from acts of abuse by an abuser, by punishing or threatening punishment to the abuser = good.

Protecting a victim from him or herself adopting a lifestyle choice that society judges is associated with or symbolic of abuse, by punishing that victim = bad.

I don't think the victim's perception of abuse is an absolute standard here. We have a long documented history of women choosing to stay in abusive relationships

http://www.examiner.com/article/domestic-violence-why-do-women-stay-abusive-relationships

They do not do this freely, but believe, and in this case belief in god is a  big factor, that there are other factors either commanding her to suffer the abuse or to think that the abuse is justified because she is a bad and or worthless person.

[Sheilbh]

There is a fundamental problem when "culture" causes a citizen to be unable to interact with the government and state and causes the government and state to be unable to interact with the citizen.

The problem isn't the niqab the problem is the culture that thinks that women need a male guardian regardless of age. The niqab is a symptom of this.

Even if your argument's right - and I don't think it is - isn't this a bit like saying 'smoking is a problem, so we should ban ashtrays'?

What's a bobo?

Bourgeois bohemian.

In the islam those women are living under, their personal freedom is restricted. Voluntarily or not. That cannot be compatible with a society build on personal freedom.

Personal freedom can only be guaranteed through vigorous state intervention into people's clothing?

I would be very surprised if the real reason for the law were concern about police being able to randomly ID people walking around in public. It strikes me as far more likely that unease with Muslim immigrants has something rather more to do with it.

Yep. If it's because this makes the job of police asking for people's papers, then I think the real problem is that the police are asking far too many people for their papers and most of their targets seem to be Muslim.

[Viking]

There is a fundamental problem when "culture" causes a citizen to be unable to interact with the government and state and causes the government and state to be unable to interact with the citizen.

The problem isn't the niqab the problem is the culture that thinks that women need a male guardian regardless of age. The niqab is a symptom of this.

Even if your argument's right - and I don't think it is - isn't this a bit like saying 'smoking is a problem, so we should ban ashtrays'?

I did point out that I'm not for a ban on niqab or any other religious dress for private citizens. I'm open to government employees being instructed not to wear cultural or religious symbols if they are divisive, subversive and/or detrimental of the image of authority the government is trying to present.

Using your smoking analogy. I'm saying it's pointless banning ashtrays when the problem is smoking. I haven't gone so far as to demand that smoking be banned cause I drink and I don't want beer banned, or bacon for that matter.

[Duque de Bragança]

To be specific, 1 in 20 people in my city are Muslim.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Toronto#Religion

For a metropolitan, cosmopolite area which is supposed to have most foreigners that's relatively low, as I suspected so the average for Canada as a whole has to be lower.
There are 5-6 millions muslims in France out of 65 and they are not spread regularly i.e only in big city areas, specially the suburbs. Sources are pretty vague, even in the French Wiki

As of 2010, according to the French Government which does not have the right to ask direct questions about religion and uses a criterion of people's geographic origin as a basis for calculation, there are between 5 to 6 million Muslims in metropolitan France. The government counted all those people in France who came here from countries with a dominant Muslim population, or whose parents did. Only 33% of those 5 to 6 million people (2 million) said they were practicing believers. That figure is the same as that obtained by the INED/INSEE study in October 2010.[1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_France

No precise figures about Argenteuil but I'd say 20 to 30 % of the residents and locally in some neighborhoods the quartiers even more.

I would be very surprised if the real reason for the law were concern about police being able to randomly ID people walking around in public. It strikes me as far more likely that unease with Muslim immigrants has something rather more to do with it.

It's not about being able to randomly ID people obviously since as I said the police can ask preemptively for ID if they feel something is fishy to protect the population.
Unease with Muslim immigration? Certainly, but ID checking works wonders for illegal immigration (ask the Gypsies).

And as said jokingly by Tamas

Maybe they should claim the islamotard-wife women can't wear the veils because they pose a national security risk. Then 56% of Americans would support their ban.

There's indeed the security risk but more from delinquency than terrorism. The ghetto gangs pestering the suburbs and public transportation like to hide their faces from CCTV and cops.
Spotting suburban "youths" with hidden faces is a dead giveaway that trouble is going to happen but that might have escaped the bobos.

Last thing, I take it that those opposed to ban any kind of clothing won't have any objections against walking around naked, at least for religious reasons? Or is that forbidden in North America as well?

[Sheilbh]

Last thing, I take it that those opposed to ban any kind of clothing won't have any objections against walking around naked, at least for religious reasons? Or is that forbidden in North America as well?

I think in the UK and some bits of the US it's only actually illegal if there's intent to shock or arouse, in which case it's public indecency. That seems fair enough to me.

I always get the impression they're far more liberal about that sort of thing in Germany