An article on the BBC website discusses the recommendations of a French parliamentary committee which described the veil as :
“contrary to the values of the republic” and called on parliament to adopt a formal resolution proclaiming “all of France is saying ‘no’ to the full veil”.
So two thoughts then: (1) far from being an aberration in France, there was a very recent period when very many French women (or perhaps “French” women) were veiled; (2) attempts by the state to change that didn’t lead to female emancipation and the triumph of Enlightenment values.
I offered the following comment, fairly early on:
Not too many folks here making the point that, at its heart, this is the kind of ignorant political babble we deride in the US. Because it’s France, where even foreign “experts” tend to be at sea, we give this racist crap a pass?
Sorry.
This is another version of the Swiss decision to ban minarets. It’s anti-Muslim hysteria being couched as something noble, even in the “spirit” of the “Republic”. French Tea Baggers might support it, but this American does not.
Which fairly quickly elicited the following, meaningless, retort:
Ah. That didn’t take long.
#19 is a “Doesn’t exist!” response and Chris’s #20 is “it’s ok if most of the people are not coerced” response.
Let’s get down to details. Here’s the main assertion:
“Normally, it doesn’t enhance freedom to coerce everyone not to do a thing in order to prevent some people from coercing some people to do that thing.”
The problem is that not “everyone” is doing the thing, right? Roughly half are already not doing the thing. They’re exempt. Yet it’s clear that some nontrivial fraction of the exempt half are doing the coercing.
So the above quoted principle transforms to something along the lines of (I think): “Normally, it doesn’t enhance freedom to coerce a minority of the population to not do a thing in order to prevent some people (including some other exempt people) from coercing some people to do that thing.”
I don’t think that’s a particularly strongly founded principle. Looks pretty muddy to me. And I haven’t even touched on the underlying power relations. Which only make it muddier, and weaker.
Which is not to say that a Government can on balance “fix” the situation by applying top down blunt instruments.
(Can we stifle the stupid racism accusations? Tx)
First of all, I wasn't acting on any particular "principle" other than a general sense that it is wrong to demand of others they surrender something central to their identity in the name of values that are inherently contradictory. The "values of the Republic", in place since the Revolution - "liberty, equality, and fraternity" - contradict one another in the most basic sense. Furthermore, this particular piece of recommended personal regulation comes on the heels of recent race riots in France that revealed a certain refusal on the part of French authorities to recognize the reality of human difference. They continue to insist that (a) race isn't a problem in France because the French government doesn't recognize race as a category by which it divides up its populace; therefore (b) the riot by North African immigrants and their descendants in cheap, dilapidated housing, often crammed together, is not the result of discriminatory French social policy but misguided French citizens who have no idea how lucky they are.
Furthermore, in a country whose current government is only barely to the left of George W. Bush promoting a piece of legislation specifically targeting Muslim women has no racist intent.
Obviously.
I have only three words in response to Russell Carter's failed attempt to tease out what I was saying.
You are full of shit.
