Man, culture insensitivity laws are annoying.

France but a ban on burqas (those things that cover up ladies' faces, the black garment that Muslim women wear). Because it makes women look bad. Yet the people that put them on are doing it for religious purposes. If one is caught with one on, you can get a fine or go to jail.

another annoying one, is the middle east. They put a ban on, shorts, necklaces, skirts and even haircuts, and other Western influences, with the police going around giving people fines or arresting them.

I think these are dumb and silly.
Its seems since America has killed Bin Laden, our relationships with the middle east have gone down, even more so with Pakistan.

I certainly hope, America doesn't have any of these culture insensitivity laws.

They aren't banning it in France cos "it makes women look bad" :lol but because it's considered a symbol of oppression and discrimination. Reasonable and fair, it's a good law.

The penalty for wearing face veils in France is not jail time,but a monetary fine or lessons in French citizenship (see this article:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011...urqa-niqab-ban )

And you're right,it is dumb and silly to punish Muslim women for wearing a veil in public - they should punish the men in their families
(husbands,fathers,brothers) who force them to wear those things in first place.Forcing a woman to cover her self so that she
'' won't attract attention '' is wrong because it reduces her to a sex object,like women don't have any other role in life.

Regarding your relations with the middle-eastern countries,those relations were already strained for decades.
As for Bin Laden - good riddance.

I was really hoping this was gonna be a thread about all the shit you cant say to people in the states without ending up in court.

But anyway,

I'm with cookie on that one, it may be their religion, but as a person, religious or lack of religious beliefs aside, it is backwards and oppresses women.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cookie Monster

They aren't banning it in France cos "it makes women look bad" :lol but because it's considered a symbol of oppression and discrimination. Reasonable and fair, it's a good law.

---

Not really. It just replaced one lot of bullshit (the family-driven 'you must wear this or be considered a bad woman/muslim) with another lot ('You must not wear this or be considered a bad woman/muslim'). And it completely fucking failed to fix the underlying issue - that repressive families were using the burqua as a means of control - because it just switched from "we won't let you go out without covering up" to "we won't let you go out without covering up and since you're not allowed to do that, you're not allowed to go out" and completely ignored that not all women who wear it do so under duress.

I'd still rather live in France than the US. For the food, mostly.

The only thing I can think of in the US is the San Francisco ban on underage circumcision. While it hasn't been passed, the fact that it is even being put on the ballot shows cultural insensitivity. The bill provides no religious exemptions. This is my personal opinion, but it is crazy to me that the same people who will wholeheartedly support the right to have abortions will also try to pass these "humane" laws to protect innocent people.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-0...-semitism.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cookie Monster

They aren't banning it in France cos "it makes women look bad" :lol but because it's considered a symbol of oppression and discrimination. Reasonable and fair, it's a good law.

---

I see where they're coming from, but it kinda got lost in the making of the law.
The opression is still happening, and having laws that force women not to wear certain clothes is just as bad as the other way around. Their are some women who wear it as it is part of their religious identity, not because it is forced on them. I'm not denying it is used to opress, but to prevent people from using it totally is just as bad. So much for religious freedom. The best way would be if there could be no reprecussions from anyone for either wearing or not wearing the burqa. The problem is that there's no perfect solution, so while I dislike that law, it seems the best way at the moment to reduce the opression.

When I found this, I thought it would be jokes about political correctness, you know, like Bah-Bah-Rainbow sheep, and Wh*teboards vs Bl*ckboards. Political correctness has gone to far.

Still an interesting debate though. :D

Hey guys, I hear that due to the recent spate of riots and robberies they're outlawing baseball caps and all manner of athletic attire.

:wacko:

(Yeah, don't see why the law would need to be involved. Last I checked most countries over here used our supposed "freedom" as a reason for why we're more civilized than "those people".)

It almost seems like France is giving a subtle message that they are not very supportive of the Middle Eastern traditions. I can't say that I am either. Although I am not well read enough to express an educated opinion, I will say how it looks to me to stir things up. The Muslim mindset seems to represent the last vestiges of a totally primitive and hostile attitude towards human existence, in which illogical delusions are enforced through ignorance and violence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Snuffleupagus

Not really. It just replaced one lot of bullshit (the family-driven 'you must wear this or be considered a bad woman/muslim) with another lot ('You must not wear this or be considered a bad woman/muslim'). And it completely fucking failed to fix the underlying issue - that repressive families were using the burqua as a means of control - because it just switched from "we won't let you go out without covering up" to "we won't let you go out without covering up and since you're not allowed to do that, you're not allowed to go out" and completely ignored that not all women who wear it do so under duress.

---

So because repressive families don't play the chantage card a law like this can't be passed? Fortunately, things don't work like that. There are other reasons why the law was passed, security reasons and there's reciprocity too, something very common in the international laws, but I still think that the reasons I previously stated are enough to justify a law like this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BBardz

I'm not denying it is used to opress, but to prevent people from using it totally is just as bad.

---

It's only banned in public places.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cookie Monster

So because repressive families don't play the chantage card a law like this can't be passed?

---

No, it just makes the law fucking useless for the purposes of fixing the control the families try to exert.

You want to fix the issues? put money into outreach and actually investigating the already illegal bullshit those dumbfucks get away with. Because treating the victims like criminals ain't gonna fix shit, just give the families ammunition and the women even more reason to believe their right when they say France doesn't respect them or their religion.

I'm sorry but I don't see it the way you do. The law just makes it impossible for such families to control that part of their life, the public sphere is out of their reach, they can't impose it there and they'll have to get used to it. It may not be enough but it's a conquest. And of course some grade of resistance is expected but with time even that victimization pose will disappear.

Won't comment too much on the stuff in France, mainly because I can't make up my mind about it. I sorta think it's a nice idea, but Hypnos' points are valid and not being able to wear what you want, assuming some women want to wear them burqas, generally don't sit right with me.

Anyhow, I've always assumed Strasbourg will put a stop to this eventually (the ECHR isn't that big on freedom of religion, but personal and family rights should have its part here too), but who knows.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cookie Monster

I'm sorry but I don't see it the way you do. The law just makes it impossible for such families to control that part of their life, the public sphere is out of their reach, they can't impose it there and they'll have to get used to it. It may not be enough but it's a conquest. And of course some grade of resistance is expected but with time even that victimization pose will disappear.

---

Except it didn't put the public sphere out of their reach - it engineered a situation where the response put the public sphere out of reach of the victims and gave the oppressors a legitimate victim card to play. Net gain: Negative, because the victims are now even more isolated and controlled than they were before.