May 10, 2020

"France, the originator of the burqa ban, has done more than any other Western nation over the past decade to resist face coverings in public."

"But as the country begins to emerge from its coronavirus lockdown Monday, masks are mandatory.... 'If you are Muslim and you hide your face for religious reasons, you are liable to a fine and a citizenship course where you will be taught what it is to be "a good citizen,"' said Fatima Khemilat, a fellow at the Political Science Institute of Aix-en-Provence. 'But if you are a non-Muslim citizen in the pandemic, you are encouraged and forced as a "good citizen" to adopt "barrier gestures" to protect the national community. We see this asymmetrical reading of the same behavior — covering the face, depending on the context and the person who performs it — as arbitrary at best, discriminatory at worst.'... 'In free and democratic societies . . . no exchange between people, no social life is possible, in public space, without reciprocity of look and visibility: people meet and establish relationships with their faces uncovered,' declared a parliamentary study prepared during debate of the 2010 law, which took effect the following year. 'The concealment of the face in public space has the effect of breaking social ties,' the report continues. 'It manifests the refusal of "living together."'... 'It’s not a hypocrisy, it’s a schizophrenia at the end,' said Olivier Roy, a French scholar of secularism and Islam. 'Which is to say that it’s about the problem of Islam. If you cover your face for Islam, it’s not the republic. If you cover your face for a reason not to do with Islam, it’s acceptable.'"

From "France mandates masks to control the coronavirus. Burqas remain banned" (WaPo).

42 comments:

Clyde said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Clyde said...

It's also a way to hide your identity if you are up to sectarian skullduggery. Pierre the Frenchman isn't going to blow people up in a terrorist attack while wearing his pandemic mask. Mohammad the Frenchman, however? Qui sait?

Eric said...

Every day it seems to take less to hurt WaPo's brain.

traditionalguy said...

Georgia has made wearing masks a crime since 1951. The KKK was unwelcome then and ever since. Only FBI agents pretend to be Klan.

DEEBEE said...

I am sure Fatima will follow up a pungent critique with an equally pungent critique of the contradiction in the Mecca versus the Medina verses in the Quran

Josephbleau said...

This complaint should be no problem for a Frenchman, all he needs to do is raise his palms, lift his shoulders, and pretend he does not understand what she is saying.

rhhardin said...

It breaks up social interaction but that's a lower priority than reducing the reinfection rate at the moment.

YoungHegelian said...

'It’s not a hypocrisy, it’s a schizophrenia at the end,' said Olivier Roy, a French scholar of secularism and Islam. 'Which is to say that it’s about the problem of Islam. If you cover your face for Islam, it’s not the republic. If you cover your face for a reason not to do with Islam, it’s acceptable.'

Yep. Laicite' (badly translated into English as "secularism") was the communal faith of France's secular republics. It was meant to be the communal belief of the electorate in response to the Catholicism of the Ancien Regime, which survived the Revolution and still had a lot of kick for an old mule until the 60s.

The problem for France is that no one believes in Laicite' anymore either. No one believes in the power of Reason to be able to move the hearts of men & solve the Nation's problems anymore. I mean, such a childish notion would bring laughter & derision if stated publicly at one of Les Grandes Ecoles!

Fans of secularism have historically misjudged just how durable of a concept secularism is in a nation's life. The Muslims believe, and believe very strongly, in something. It's like the secularists now believe in nothing, or if they do, it's something imbecilic like "To be France, we must allow women to show their tits on a Riviera beach!". I'm engaging in hyperbole here, but not by much.

hawkeyedjb said...

I see no contradiction. And Muslims are not raising the issue out of any desire to be good citizens, of France or any other western country. The desire for special treatment is still there.

I Have Misplaced My Pants said...

Theoretically, the masks are a short term response to an urgent situation.

Narayanan said...

France did not want to tackle the problem of Muslim Islamic harassment of independent women from Middle East. This way they have color of law.

This won't fly in USA but USA will not tackle harassment problem either.

Char Char Binks, Esq. said...

That not mandatory is forbidden. That not forbidden is mandatory.

Mark said...

The Muslims believe, and believe very strongly, in something.

Islam is more of a "do" religion than a "belief" religion.

As for Muslims and France, for 1300 years, ever since they militarily invaded France and got halfway through the country before being stopped by Charles Martel, Muslims have believed in making all of France Muslim -- mostly by the sword in one way or another.

Not Sure said...

Actually, the two policies are exactly the same.

Both are intended to suppress the spread of something unhealthy to the general public.

William said...

Doesn't intent have something to do with it?....France should sign a reciprocity agreement with the Muslim nations that these women come from. Those nations that allow female French visitors to wear short sleeves and short skirts in public should be allowed to have their citizens wear burqas in France.

Sebastian said...

"forced as a "good citizen" to adopt "barrier gestures" to protect the national community"

So, just like the burka: something people are forced adopt, as a gesture that creates barriers. Except that here the barrier is phony in most cases.

Leland said...

In a Democratic society, lacking limitations on government protecting individual rights; the majority can vote to suppress a minority.

Tomcc said...

Yes, Fatima, the obligation to wear a mask in this particular set of circumstances is exactly like the desire/obligation to wear a burqa.

West Texas Intermediate Crude said...

All we need now is some some indication that the general wearing of masks is effective in decreasing the number of people who get sick.
I'll wait.

phantommut said...

When Islam requires men to wear burqas I will buy this argument.

Darkisland said...

So I could wear a niqab or burka if it serves the hygiene theatre purpose. Is there a specification on the masks in France? In the US I can wear an old sock or a bandanna or a sanitary napkin and meet the legal requirements.

So if I am a Muslim woman, wearing a black piece of cloth over my face, and the police stop me:

"this is to comply with French law" Ok, free to go

"This is to comply with islamic law" Off to the pokey.

"This is to comply with French AND Islamic law" What the Hell is the cop supposed to do?

Doesn't make sense to me. But then I am not a Frenchman.

John Henry

Ingachuck'stoothlessARM said...

n-95 burqua

...problem solved! (sort of)

Lurker21 said...

'In free and democratic societies . . . no exchange between people, no social life is possible, in public space, without reciprocity of look and visibility: people meet and establish relationships with their faces uncovered,' declared a parliamentary study prepared during debate of the 2010 law, which took effect the following year. 'The concealment of the face in public space has the effect of breaking social ties,' the report continues. 'It manifests the refusal of "living together."'

Is there a lesson here for legislators, judges, and law professors? The more you try to explain and the more original or daring or comprehensive you try to be in your interpretations, the likelier it is that it will come back and bite you in the you-know-where someday?

Howard said...

Blogger rhhardin said...
It breaks up social interaction but that's a lower priority than reducing the reinfection rate at the moment.


Math is Hardin

Bill, Republic of Texas said...

Muslim women in France have been wearing medical masks for years to get around the covered face ban.

So don't pretend this is something new.

SGT Ted said...

Sorry. Muslims have brought it on themselves. They love civil rights, until they gain absolute power. Then civil rights disappear.

Howard said...

I thought that Muslin was too course of a weave to adequately block virus transmission.

Szoszolo said...

Discriminatory? Right -- as if men are subject to the same requirement to cover their faces as women are under Islam. Uh huh.

n.n said...

It's like the secularists now believe in nothing, or if they do, it's something imbecilic like "To be France, we must allow women to show their tits on a Riviera beach!"

They're Pro-Choice, selective, opportunistic. It's a masculinist society which normalizes women to remain barefoot, available, and taxable. The Feminists go along for their share of capital, control, and progress.

SGT Ted said...

"Actually, the two policies are exactly the same.

Both are intended to suppress the spread of something unhealthy to the general public."

That's a thing of beauty right there.

SGT Ted said...

When your religion isn't a misogynist death cult, people don't care what you wear on your face.

Howard said...

Fixed it for you mister oil Man
Blogger West Texas Intermediate Crude said...
All we need now is some some indication that the general wearing of a Scott Pak is effective in decreasing the number of people who get dead from sour gas.
I'll wait.


rhhardin said...

I notice a nearby city is arresting people for felonies as usual except a charge of violating the city stay at home order is added to their list of violations.

n.n said...

Physical distancing for viruses with hygienic (e.g. fecal) transmission paths. Social distancing for face coverings in an unrelated contexts.

Birkel said...

One is left to wonder if the lessons learned over this weekend, from the FBI lies to the F. Chuck Todd lies, will be applied elsewhere.

Or will the Leftist Collectivism win the day tomorrow.

jimbino said...

Nonsense. It makes sense to ban wearing masks in public in order to facilitate law enforcement. However, an emergency situation clearly justifies and exception.

Even the Constitutionally secured civil rights of Amerikan citizens are not absolute, but are subject to suspension when life, health and safety of those citizens are threatened and there is no less-intrusive way to protect them.

Tyrone Slothrop said...

I have a permit to carry a concealed weapon. Permitees are specifically enjoined from wearing masks while carrying. I have been consistently ignoring that rule and I don't expect to be penalized for it. The sheriff in the next county said he wasn't going to arrest anybody for that infraction since "... they won't be wearing masks for the purposes of concealing their identities". In other words, it's a question of intent. I believe the sheriff of my county is reading from the same page, since he is an ardent 2A supporter.

As for the French face covering ban, I'm sure such a law would not last long in the US, though traditionalguy says it's de rigeur in Georgia. I guess when you've had enough of terrorism, whether ISIL or KKK, you stop caring about niceties.

Bill Peschel said...

"Sorry. Muslims have brought it on themselves. They love civil rights, until they gain absolute power. Then civil rights disappear."

I have to add Sgt. Ted, that it's the same in America for the left and the right. Which is why we need opposing groups. We're undergoing the same loss of civil rights online, with nary a Muslim in sight.

Anonymous said...

I’d be happy to give Muslims the right to wear their get-ups, as long as they go back to their countries of origin. Or their parents’ country of origin.
And...is wearing a mask now going to be a permanent feature of life? When does it stop? When can we go back to work? When there is no work to go back to? We’ve gone mad.

Marc in Eugene said...

The Roman Catholic priestly institutes associated with 'traditionalism'-- the FSSP, ICRSP, IBP, FSVF (with the implicit support of the FSSPX)-- along with a few other associations etc on the Right have appealed to the Conseil d'Etat for a summary judgment overturning the government's continued ban on public worship (I don't know the ins and outs of the process, but in this matter the Conseil d'Etat acts or can act like our Supreme Court); meanwhile, the Conference of Bishops glowers in its silent acquiescence to the Macron government's course of action. People worrying about their ridiculous masks is not something that I care about, myself.

Ironclad said...

A niqab covers the face. A burka covers the whole body. A mask covers the mouth and nose. A mask doesn’t cover the hair which is the actual proscribed area in Islam on the head to be covered for women. The analogy is frankly silly.

The WAPO article is disgracefully badly researched. It’s just victim chic of the poor oppressed in France just trying to establish their dominance.

Unknown said...

Someone besides CAIR should stand up for Muslims.

This shrinking population lacks the ability to defend itself.