Mr. Hounshell,

Your statement that "[b]anning burqas falls well within" France's tradition of laïcité seems presumptuous. I'm not an expert on French history, but in the last 50 years, what measures has France taken, unrelated to Muslim practices, in strengthening the wall between church and state that in any way comes close to a complete ban on a garment worn my women? I'm confident you can produce some evidence on this point, or at least make an effort at explaining how exactly France's secular tradition supports a restriction on religious and personal freedom of this magnitude.

Secondly, your statement "full veiling is one cultural practice that I would be happy to see killed by globalization" seems completely irrelevant. You yourself acknowledge that the French government, not globalization (an attempted euphemism?), is what is responsible for the ban in France. Just two days ago the French senate approved an all-out ban (not restricted to government buildings or driving) on the burqa that will go into effect next Spring. You didn't mention that in your article. You said instead that you didn't like the "notion" of French police arresting or fining citizens for what they wear (again, a euphemism, since that is exactly what will happen next Spring), but then you end with "there are no easy answers." Besides tacitly endorsing the ban with a sort of "it's complicated" shoulder shrug, I'm not really sure you said anything at all.

This is intolerance at it's worst, a mob mentality that has found credence in a frightening number of people. The French say "laïcité!" and "women's rights!", but what about freedom? What about the right to walk down the street outside of your own house and wear a garment that you have deep religious convictions for wearing? What about the politicization of the burqa issue by a floundering politician who seems content to ignore the divide he is creating between west and east, and cares not about the proof he is giving every radical and extremist that there really is no peaceful way for us all to live together, unless of course we coerce the creation of a neutralized population of Muslims who are willing to dress just like we do?

The sad irony of this whole situation is that many Muslim women are being treated like second class citizens by both sides. One side is forcing them to wear the veil, and the other side is forcing them to take it off. God forbid they make their own decision.

It is about time that Islam is forced to usher in from 7th century to 21st century.

Tolerant as it is, Europe is forcing such progress in that medieval religion. Someone has to force rethink in the minds of conservative Islamic Imams, Mullahs and Ayatollahs.

Islamic traditions like Burqa, ‘second class citizenship for women’, ‘four legal wives’, ’waging a jihad against infidels’ and ’converting or be killed’ have no place in present-day democratic society. Even the so-called democratic Islamic countries like Indonesia, Malaysia, Pakistan and Turkey also have to come to realize that Islam has to reform, sooner the better.

Under Islamic obligations, a man is required to cover certain portions of the body and a woman is required to cover certain portions of the body; men are not required to cover up as extensively as women, thus it shouldn't surprise you that a Saudi man in Qatar might wear long jeans and a t shirt or other Western style clothes--men's clothing in the West has generally been modest. Women's clothing has not. Just look at the general manner of dress in the West for women. It's either reveals far too much skin or is incredibly tight (tight pants, tight shirt, tight everything). Thus you don't see many Muslim women wearing Western style clothing, or if they do, it's usually cleverly arranged garments (which is actually far hotter than any niqab you could imagine--I know women who wear the niqab: it's not hot. It's light, loose, and airy).

One also has to take into consideration that the regions in which the niqab is most prevalent (the Arabian peninsula) are also some of the sandiest, windiest areas in the world. I would have loved to have something covering my face while I was in Egypt, and Egypt is nowhere near as bad sand-wise as the deserts of Arabia which frequently have sandstorms.

Also, the notion that you cannot communicate with a person because they'
re wearing a veil is ridiculous. You can hear and speak can't you? This whole non-sense about how it's your "right" to see their face is absurd. It's not your right to see any part of their body. If they don't want you to see their faces, then leave it alone.

It should also be remembered that the vast majority of women in France who wear the niqab are white, French Muslims not poor Arab women that have been shipped over as servile house-slaves. I've met quite a few Western niqabis. They're incredibly intelligent, impassioned people who know what they're doing. Stop talking down to them and start talking to them.

A laïc nation must make laws considering general interest and individual rights, disregarding superstitions.
Individual rights mean the right for woman not to be the property of her father, elder brother or husband, as the muslim supertition says.

i'm from belgium and we have or will be having the same kind of law as in france.
you must undestand that we have a much larger muslim minority than the US. they are also a very visible minority. the ban on burqa's followed the ban on headscarfs (i don't know the correct islamic word for it) for government employees and in schools. i am personally against such a ban, but i do understand the motives.
the motives for the girls in school are very diverse, for example the headscarf is used as an excuse for not having to participate in swimming lessons and other activities. the rules in school should be the same for every student and therefore a ban is/was needed. but the ban is not for muslims only. the rules are the same for sikh boys or jewish students. they cannot wear their visibly religious symbols in a state school. same for government employees.

the ban on the burqa has other reasons as well. it is for example forbidden to walk around on the street without being recognisable. i guess this was motivated with bankrobbers and thieves in mind, but these laws existed long before the burqa come to town.

also you must not underestimate the feeling women in burqa's give to others. the burqa is seen as a symbol of male dominance over women, as disrespectfull to women and as clothing for muslim fundamentalists, who even though they live here, show by wearing it, that they do not want to be part of our society and culture. (again, this is not my personal view)
many women are in favor of the ban and offcourse the political right uses it as an example. in short, women wearing burqa's give others an uneasy feeling, hence the ban on it. (which is not a good reason to me)

my personal opinion is that banning those clothes is ignorant. people should be able to wear what and how they want. if a girl wants to dress herself like a nun it should be just as accepted as a girl clothing herself as a street hooker. people should try to be a little more understanding towards other religions and cultures but in the same time immigrants should try to integrate as much as possible, as it is in their own favor to do so. they shouldn't throw away their beliefs and customs but they do have to accept the local laws and customs. personally i like the way it is in the UK where everybody does as pleasing and nobody seems to matter anymore.

"We cannot allow someone to claim the right to look at others without being seen."

This is a very good point and probably the strongest and most convincing argument I have heard on this issue. It is a bit like when you meet someone and they are wearing mirrored glasses and you can't see their eyes. A certain level of openness is required for trust building to take place. I agree with the idea of modesty in relation to the wearing of certain religious garb, but modesty is also in the eyes of the beholder.

This string of comments is enough to make a logical person have aneurysm. We're so far from civilized debate it's almost not worth trying.

First of all, I am not a muslim. I'm an American, and I live in Tennessee. I have attended the Christian church my whole life. I commented on this post in the only because I just spent 4 months studying in London, England as part of a law school program, and a good deal of time studying human rights and in specific the Burqa controversy in France.

It's amazing what people, even though they are confronted with the complete anonymity of the internet, assume about someone because of they're opinion.

To Aryabhat, I know you're angry. I'm sure you were yelling and simultaneously typing while you posted your comment. But I beg of you, take a moment to regain your cool and consider what you said with as much rationality as you can muster:

Basically, you are saying that because Saudi Arabia discriminates against non-muslims, muslims in other countries should not argue for religious freedom, and other countries should have no qualms about denying it to them. This is not logical. First of all it groups all muslims together, making those muslims who are moderate and who believe in religious freedom for others as well as for themselves responsible for all the wrongs committed by muslim theocracies (like Saudi Arabia, Iran, etc.). Who is trying to have it both ways? Are the Saudi Princes walking the streets in France, enjoying croissants and Eiffel Tower views and demanding that they be allowed to behave how they wish in France but that the world still must conform to Saudi Arabia's stringent Islamic codes? And if they were, would that mean all muslims in France believed that very same thing? If your answer is yes, then you're not really thinking about it.

More importantly, should Western democratic countries stoop down to the level of theocracies in mandating the practice of one religion and no others? Of course not. And neither should they annihilate religious freedom, lest they become just an agnostic theocracy, forcing outward displays of conformity of another sort.

To Dr. Kuchbhi: For the record, I never called you an islamophobe. And although I hate to say it, you're making the same type of argument as Aryabhat: in other words, that because in other countries where the government is founded on an Islamic belief system and dominated by muslims non-muslims do not have religious freedom, France shouldn't give this type of religious freedom (to wear a Burqa) to its muslims.

And why is that? Because muslims will take over the government if allowed to wear the Burqa? Because if France grants this to muslims then it will somehow slip into theocracy? Or do you think it is because the people of France are scared of muslims, and women in black veils, and of terrorists and bombs, and they really can't help but make associations between those things?

And (also for the record) I don't want anyone pretending they're in the 11th Century (although there is some discord about what century muslims are supposedly living in on this comment string). If you recall, I said we should pressure muslims to give each other freedom of choice and not use violence, fear or social pressures to coerce anyone, especially women, into following a muslim practice. I think freedom of choice is a 21st century idea.

To Adam Neira, you have got to be kidding me. Please do not buy into the "right to be seen" argument. It is a pretense. I guarantee you I could walk down the street in France wearing a halloween mask for the next ten years undisturbed. I could paint my face, making it basically unrecognizable, and no one would arrest me. I'll bet you a boat ride down the river Seine that I could put a box on my head and write "dangerous idiot" on it and they wouldn't make a law saying I couldn't. And why not? Because this is not about being seen, or the right to see others while remaining anonymous yourself. It is about what the French people, and a lot of people across the world who would rather be prisoners than be afraid, think about muslims, and what they believe muslims might do if left to their own "scary", "non-western" religious practices.

While Mr. Sarkozy is in full swing for attacking vulnerable foreign religions and cultures, for trying to regain his political popularity, this one would be an instant block buster for him.
Mr. Sarkozy knows very well that all Muslims living in France do one more 'unFrench’ thing in their homes. They all have a small flower watering container next to their toilets in their rest rooms. This is also true for all Muslims living in the the UK and USA and all other 'Western' societies.
What do they do with these flowering watering containers? They do what no French Christians do, or for that matter no UK or US Christians do. What they do has implications for Mr. Sarkozy’s personal hygiene. His personal hygiene will be found to be inferior to those of Muslims after this Lota use is investigated.
And why they do it? and why should they be allowed to not be a part of the main stream French practices in the restroom?
So the French Senate should seriously and immediate act with concern, about Muslims diluting and violating French customs in the bath room, ban and disallow the use of Lota in their French homes.
While Mr. Sarkozy and his 'trend setters' are at it anyways, this can be a big feather to add to their crown of protecting French culture. After the burqa ban they should also get the Lota banned.....

What woman would ever choose to to live her entire life behind a wall.
And they still allow that in France? Mon Dieu!

Does it bother you that ultra orthodox Jewish women shave their heads and wear wigs? That members of Catholic religious orders aren't allowed to have sex?
There are at most 2000 women in France who wear the burqa. Half of the women in Denmark who do so are Danish converts.

Why don't you worry more about the Rabbi who ordered 40 lashes for a man who was caught singing to a mixed audience of men and women. Or the Haredi "morals police" who throw acid on the legs of girls in miniskirts.

You might also learn to look a woman in the eyes.
Maybe that's what you find so disconcerting.

Look at the photograph on the top of the page.

need to forget the planet's Patriarchal traditions (all designed to control female minds) and if a deity is needed, perhaps return to pre-Bronze Age deities --- when God was a Woman (tho I have no personal need for it myself).

All current, member-swinging male gods and religious personalities are historically either transgendered goddesses (Buddha, Brahma, Abraham, Allah) or sons of goddesses (Yahweh).

All this silly minutiae about dress, diet, ritual, ad nauseam --- chuck it (or upchuck it).

Anyhoo, all human being regardless of gender need to take responsibility for thinking one's own thoughts, instead of looking for someone/thing else to do the thinking for them.