What are people's thoughts on the burkini ban in France?
- Thread starter Arazi
- Start date
- Status
Soldato
- Joined
- 1 Mar 2010
- Posts
- 6,316
We think (incorrectly in a lot of cases) that women are being forced to do things, to combat this we are going to force women to do things!! lawl
The irony and hypocrisy is outstanding.
That's the plan. Wait till they ask for a sandwich, swiftly followed by a traditional family, 2.5 kids and less feminist 'noise' after 11pm; raiding Mumsnet, a fawning mistress and free VR pr0n optional. The irony reactor will go critical then.
We think (incorrectly in a lot of cases) that women are being forced to do things, to combat this we are going to force women to do things!! lawl
The irony and hypocrisy is outstanding.
People aren't suggesting they're forced to do anything. It's being suggested that they don't do something. It takes action to make the decision to put those outfits on.
Because they weren't abiding by the law?
That's the point it's a pathetic law which is making France look really bad internationally.
Ironically it's the type of law that you would expect to see in a dictatorship or theocracy !!
And actually I was referring to resident xenophobes here calling for a similar ban in the U.K!!
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 1 Mar 2010
- Posts
- 6,316
That's the point it's a pathetic law which is making France look really bad internationally.
Ironically it's the type of law that you would expect to see in a dictatorship or theocracy !!
Actually, isn't it just a bunch of Southern French mayors going a bit nana? I don't think this is countrywide, hence the review and slapdown by a higher court.
Yeah, bylaws but laws none the less.
For the sake of accuracy:
Europe did not have the same laws throughout. It wasn't even seen as one place. There was very frequent war between different European countries.
Britain wasn't one country either for almost all of the period of time you mention, so it too didn't have one set of laws.
I'll restrict my reply to England, since I don't know the history of law in other places. Property rights unsurprisingly varied over the ~12,000 year period you refer to and for almost all of that period of time England didn't exist either. Different tribes might well have had different laws, but it's impossible to know since they left no records of their laws. The earliest records are Roman and imply that British women had significant property rights. Roman law at that time gave women significant property rights.
Christianity, unsurprisingly, reduced women's rights in all sorts of ways including but not limited to property ownership, but we're rather short on evidence of law for the early medieval period. It wasn't a Dark Age as such, but it is "dark" in the sense of a scarcity of surviving writing.
The laws you're (somewhat inaccurately) referring to were Norman. Under Norman law, a marriage was a legal entity (rather like a modern company) andlegally the marriage itself controlled the property. Obviously, this didn't apply to unmarried people. Unmarried people, regardless of their sex, could own and control property and other assets in their own name. If you examine medieval records from after the Norman conquest, you will find many examples of women owning property (and land and businesses and everything else). Also, in law a husband couldn't dispose of property without the permission of his wife, since a married person couldn't control property or other assets.
There was very often a lot of anti-female sexism the way the law regarding marriages owning property was implemented, so the husband was often given priority in law even though the law as written didn't explicitly do so in the context of control of property (inheritance of property was a different matter - that was explicitly sexist). But, of course, that only applied to married people. The laws regarding marriage, however they were implemented, couldn't apply to people who were not married.
Also, prior legal agreements could over-ride the default (and often did). People who had money could (and often did) add clauses into a marriage contract to ensure their daughter(s) had an independent income.
The Married Women's Property Acts (there were 2, not 1, and they were passed in 1870 and 1882, not the 1860s) you refer to gave married women superior property rights to those married men had. The marriage controlled the husband's property and assets, but the wife controlled her own. This is the origin of the phrase "What's mine is mine and what's his is ours". That was what the law stated at that time.
Those are not really seperate things, particularly with a religion that so thoroughly permeates into a culture.
Last edited:
I would go slightly further and remove the state church too...because I think religion really should be a PRIVATE matter. No effect on law. No effect on education. No effect on society. Religion+power is far too dangerous a combination for it to be prudent to allow it to happen. Religion+power leads to conquest, especially for the Abrahamic religions since they are so strongly geared towards power over everything (i.e. conquest and rule) and particularly for Islam as that's currently the worst of the worst in that way.
Do you really think they can be "won over"?
It's only a double standard if you make the assumption that all Muslims are the same. They aren't.
What does a French Muslim have to do with the policies of Saudi Arabia for example? Why should we, the west, ban women from wearing items of clothing, and at the same time be trying to stop Saudi doing essentially the same thing? Now that is a double standard.
"Do as I say, not as I do" is pretty much what France would need to say if they ever get into discussions with Saudi about allowing women more freedom to wear what they want.
So, you've realized that you were, and now can't think of an appropriate escape plan?
Which is almost ironic, considering the laws they were breaking were themselves not lawful.
A display of antagonistic policies doesn't really help.
I'm not talking about those who have already put there alligence with terrorists, but the everyday folk who get reinforcement of 'us vs them'. Everyone talks about 'oh those communities need to shop these extremists' but I really don't think policies like this one encourage mutual feelings of respect...
Nail on head.
Intolerance will just breed further issue. Intolerant people are as much an enemy of Western values as extremist terrorists. They all attack our way of life.
The SA argument is to create a contrast between rights in the West (where minorities are afforded a lot of protections). The reality is that in Saudi (despite bans) women still have a chaperone. She wouldn't even be allowed alone on the beach and yet people kick up a fuss about Muslim women's rights. That I a clear double standard being applied and is stepping into hypocrisy.
What protections exist for minorities in Islamic countries? Very few indeed and they have to suck it up.
- Status