French police going Erdogan over al-niqab?

[Duque de Bragança]

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

No argument from me on that part, Frei Körper Kultur über alles, yet it tends to be in some places not everywhere. Even the DDR was pretty cool about that (there are some FKK Merkel photos of the era for the interested).

[Malthus]

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?

Some areas of the greater Toronto area are nearly 100% Muslim. No-one cares much. Indeed, in this neighbourhood, all streets within the neighbourhood are named after the Khalifa's names and other prominent Ahmadi scholars.

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5inwDY9e4xZy5O9nnDwlsIdzNe1kg

Fortunately, these particular ones appear to be well-off, and so unlikely to be a problem. 

[Duque de Bragança]

Some areas of the greater Toronto area are nearly 100% Muslim. No-one cares much. Indeed, in this neighbourhood, all streets within the neighbourhood are named after the Khalifa's names and other prominent Ahmadi scholars.

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5inwDY9e4xZy5O9nnDwlsIdzNe1kg

Fortunately, these particular ones appear to be well-off, and so unlikely to be a problem. 

"Some areas" is again very vague and we know there aren't many muslims, specially salafites in Canada in comparison to France or even Europe.
A nice Potemkin muslim village

As for the well-off argument, why is that other poor immigrants do not cause such trouble?

[Malthus]

I should also point out that, recently, when some Muslim fanatics allegedly planned to derail the Via Rail, they were ... turned in by people in the Muslim community who tipped off the cops that they were planning crazy shit.

We don't care about Muslims building all-Muslim neighbourhoods around Mosques - because, as far as most folks here are concerned, they are Canadians. In return, they tend to return the favour by acting like Canadians - not like alienated, angry minorities.

It helps that many of the Muslims who come here are well off and well educated. For example, the Persians who come here tend to be over-representedly upper middle class. 

[Sheilbh]

As for the well-off argument, why is that other poor immigrants do not cause such trouble?

What sort of trouble do you mean?

I should also point out that, recently, when some Muslim fanatics allegedly planned to derail the Via Rail, they were ... turned in by people in the Muslim community who tipped off the cops that they were planning crazy shit.

We don't care about Muslims building all-Muslim neighbourhoods around Mosques - because, as far as most folks here are concerned, they are Canadians. In return, they tend to return the favour by acting like Canadians - not like alienated, angry minorities.

Exactly.

[Malthus]

Some areas of the greater Toronto area are nearly 100% Muslim. No-one cares much. Indeed, in this neighbourhood, all streets within the neighbourhood are named after the Khalifa's names and other prominent Ahmadi scholars.

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5inwDY9e4xZy5O9nnDwlsIdzNe1kg

Fortunately, these particular ones appear to be well-off, and so unlikely to be a problem. 

"Some areas" is again very vague and we know there aren't many muslims, specially salafites in Canada in comparison to France or even Europe.
A nice Potemkin muslim village

As for the well-off argument, why is that other poor immigrants do not cause such trouble?

In point of fact, anyone driving around Toronto's suburbs will see very visible signs of the influx of Muslims - namely, lots of mosques being built.

In general, Torontonians and people in the GTA tend to cluster in ethnic communities. Little Italy, Chinatown, "Asian-court" (really, Agincourt  ), etc. Muslims forming Muslim enclaves is nothing unusual here - it's a very typical pattern.

Why are some immigrants a problem and others not? I suggest that those who are a problem are those who, for whatever reason, feel totally alienated from the host society. Poverty is one thing that can do that. Another is of course serious cultural differences, to the extent that these become an issue.

Stuff like having the majority pass laws specifically targeting the everyday habits of the minority tend to not help, in terms of alienation. 

[Duque de Bragança]

I should also point out that, recently, when some Muslim fanatics allegedly planned to derail the Via Rail, they were ... turned in by people in the Muslim community who tipped off the cops that they were planning crazy shit.

We don't care about Muslims building all-Muslim neighbourhoods around Mosques - because, as far as most folks here are concerned, they are Canadians. In return, they tend to return the favour by acting like Canadians - not like alienated, angry minorities.

It helps that many of the Muslims who come here are well off and well educated. For example, the Persians who come here tend to be over-representedly upper middle class.

People don't care about mosques in France if there's no public money involved and they respect zoning and architectural regulations.

Anglo Canadians dont'care as long as they don't speak French with a Québec accent?

You should also be pointed out that Islam is the second religion in France, nothing comparable like Canada. As I said, immigration laws are not comparable. Until you know the situation in European suburban areas, keep your preaching for yourself and/or start being tolerant to Quebeckers. Your choice

As for Iranians, no shit Sherlock! They are shia at most and cannot be salafites so no niqab for them. Most of them in Europe are exiles from the Iranian Revolution times and are pretty vehement against islamism of all varieties, specially salafism, for good reason. They are not going to defend freedom for niqabites.

[Sheilbh]

It's worth saying the niqab doesn't actually mean instant Salafism, any more than a big beard and a salwaar kameez do. It would be far easier to tackle extremism if that were the case

[Duque de Bragança]

What sort of trouble do you mean?

Rioting when being asked for ID for instance.

I should also point out that, recently, when some Muslim fanatics allegedly planned to derail the Via Rail, they were ... turned in by people in the Muslim community who tipped off the cops that they were planning crazy shit.

We don't care about Muslims building all-Muslim neighbourhoods around Mosques - because, as far as most folks here are concerned, they are Canadians. In return, they tend to return the favour by acting like Canadians - not like alienated, angry minorities.

Exactly.
[/quote]

There are tippers everywhere, even in extreme-right circles (the most famous skinhead in France is of Lebanese origin for instance).... Good folks as well, I'm sure.

[Duque de Bragança]

It's worth saying the niqab doesn't actually mean instant Salafism, any more than a big beard and a salwaar kameez do. It would be far easier to tackle extremism if that were the case

The ones preaching the niqab are salafist, though. That' not moderate islam and you know it. Of course, one could defend the need to let them keep their niqabs so they can be easily spotted as said once by Le Pen once.

[Sheilbh]

The ones preaching the niqab are salafist, though. That' not moderate islam and you know it. Of course, one could defend the need to let them keep their niqabs so they can be easily spotted as said once by Le Pen once.

Not always Salafi.

I hate the phrase 'moderate Islam'. Moderation is a political not a religious virtue. Even your trendiest vicar would probably object to being called a 'moderate Christian'.

Anyway I don't really worry about what sort of Islam people believe in, it's only if there's belief in violence that I think it should be a worry.

[Duque de Bragança]

The ones preaching the niqab are salafist, though. That' not moderate islam and you know it. Of course, one could defend the need to let them keep their niqabs so they can be easily spotted as said once by Le Pen once.

Not always Salafi.

I hate the phrase 'moderate Islam'. Moderation is a political not a religious virtue. Even your trendiest vicar would probably object to being called a 'moderate Christian'.

Anyway I don't really worry about what sort of Islam people believe in, it's only if there's belief in violence that I think it should be a worry.

Funny enough, the ones hating "Moderate Islam" are the extreme-right wingers around here.
If that bothers you, well make it belief in violent islam.

[Malthus]

People don't care about mosques in France if there's no public money involved and they respect zoning and architectural regulations.

Anglo Canadians dont'care as long as they don't speak French with a Québec accent?

You should also be pointed out that Islam is the second religion in France, nothing comparable like Canada. As I said, immigration laws are not comparable. Until you know the situation in European suburban areas, keep your preaching for yourself and/or start being tolerant to Quebeckers. Your choice

As for Iranians, no shit Sherlock! They are shia at most and cannot be salafites so no niqab for them. Most of them in Europe are exiles from the Iranian Revolution times and are pretty vehement against islamism of all varieties, specially salafism, for good reason. They are not going to defend freedom for niqabites.

The issues between Anglo-Canadians and Quebequois have nothing to do with this debate. They don't need my "toleration", because they have their own province, where they are in the political majority.

But really now, your argument isn't persuasive - I'm saying, as an outsider, that your law is counter-productive because it is likely to increase immigrant alientation. It is hardly an answer to say 'well, your country has problems too, so please STF up' or 'you just don't know what it's like here'. Those are the arguments of bankruptcy, what's left when you can't persuade with facts or logic. 

There is not doubt Canada has problems, and does some things worse than France. This just happens to be something Canada does better. If a Frenchman told me Toronto was a cultural wasteland compared to a comparable French city, that's fair enough; we don't do culture as well as the French. What we do better, is accomodate and absorb Muslim immigrants.

Anyway, if you want to point to a comparable problem, don't point to Quebec - point to Native Canadians. 

[merithyn]

So by the numbers provided, France has a population of about 10-12% Muslim, and only about 3% devout or conservative Muslims. That doesn't really seem so extreme to me.

I think the problem is that France doesn't like different. Look at how they handle their language. Basically, if you're going to live in France, you must look, act, and talk like a Frenchperson. If not, they'll force you to.

That's not something that I will ever understand.

[Jacob]

Probably surprising no one, I tend to agree with the socially liberal axis of Meri, Malthus, Sheilbh et. al. on this.

I do agree that the niqab and other veil type garments can be symbols of gender oppression. But at the same time they are also symbols of modesty, of cultural identity, of a struggle for social acceptance, of defiance of a heavy handed state, of piety, and of several other things. Insisting there is only one reading of a symbol, especially if you don't belong to the culture that employs the symbol, is bound to cause conflict.

There are a number of issues surrounding the wearing of the niqab in France, and a number of reasons and arguments given from the ban.

The argument is made that it's to protect the women from abusive relationships and being subjugated. My question is, how much effort is being put into identifying and helping specific women who are being actively abused? Are there attempts to find, reach out to, and help these women, without simultaneously requiring them to reject their own culture and identity? If there aren't, and if you aren't concerned with providing these things, then claims to want to counter the abuse and oppression ring somewhat hollow.

Similarly regarding security concerns - if you are primarily concerned about security but wanted to be respectful of cultural differences, you could look for compromises instead of a blanket ban. Maybe you just ban the niqab in places that requires very high security; maybe you check niqab wearing women's identity using women officers, and in private unless there are pressing reasons not to; maybe you train the people doing the checks to do them with some respect. Again, if you're looking for ways to address specific security concerns while doing your best to accomodate the wishes of the minority group in question you come across as a lot more sincere than if you simply announce a blanket ban and back it up with the direct coercive power of the state.

It really seems the underlying motivation is "we don't like who you are, and we're looking for ways to harass you."

Ultimately, of course, different cultural groups have to figure out how to coexist; and minority groups have to work out to accomodate the majority, and vice versa. Some degree of assimilation is going to happen one way or the other.

Personally I believe that the more tolerant, liberal approach of maximizing personal and community freedom with a core of individual rights that cannot be violated produces the most harmonious results and - ultimately - is more effective in assimilation; it seems to me that the more you go with "follow our rules, or else" the more conflict you generate, and the more you entrench the cultural values you want to get rid of as a reaction to that heavy hand.

History has countless of examples of cultural and religious groups that have withstood attempts (many which are beyond the will of a country like modern France to implement) to force them to change their ways, but those groups have emerged with stronger identities and more commitment to their practices.