This is me getting ranty

[themadpoker]

Umm. You're kidding me, right? Because the true test of your citizenship is your clothing?

GAH. This story makes me seriously unhappy. I know a girl who decided she wanted to wear the niqab (she's 15 right now I think although I don't know when she made the decision. I met her at the Reviving the Islamic Youth conference last year and she was wearing it then). It was her own decision, not her family's. And I really can't see any valid way you could make the connection between her wearing the niqab and practicing radical Islam. Apparently they know how in France though.

“She has adopted a radical practice of her religion, incompatible with essential values of the French community, particularly the principle of equality of the sexes,” the ruling said.

Really? I mean let's just ignore the assertion that wearing a niqab is a radical practice (and the implication that they have the right to arbitrarily decide what constitutes a radical practice and ban it despite it not having any impact on anyone beside the wearer herself) and look at that bit about equality of the sexes.

So. How is it practicing gender equality to deny the ability of a woman to make her own choices? Because Ms. Silmi pretty clearly states the niqab is her own choice.

“They say I wear the niqab because my husband told me so,” she said. “I want to tell them: It is my choice. I take care of my children, and I leave the house when I please. I have my own car. I do the shopping on my own. Yes, I am a practicing Muslim, I am orthodox. But is that not my right?”

That can't possibly be true ma'am. There's no way you would voluntarily adopt a practice you view as part of your religion. Particularly not one I think promotes gender inequality. Obviously your husband choose for you. You poor oppressed thing.

Also in answer to your question? No.

I wouldn't want to be a Muslim in France. =(

Comments

[fabien-aybara.livejournal.com]

It is! The discrimination is ridiculously out of hand and they have the stupidest laws and rules for said religious minorities. What I thought was absolutely mind-boggling about what you posted was that apparently the women didn't know she was being oppressed by her husband. WTF.

And the religious symbols law. I don';t even understand on what grounds that will cause any sort of trouble. Laicite is simply a means to get away with BS.

[themadpoker.livejournal.com]

The whole thing was crazy on so many levels! What on Earth makes them think they have the right to deem whether she's oppressed or not? I'm seeing oppression there but it's not from the husband.

Generally speaking their argument is it's needed to solve problems of cultural assimilation. Which is absolutely ridiculous (I feel like taking about France makes me overuse this word alot). If there is a problem with assimilation I'd say it stems from minorities feeling they're being persecuted and forced to give up their own culture in arenas where it it none of the government's BUSINESS.

To be specific (and accurate) the hugest argument has been that they're trying to 'help' young Muslim girls who are forced to wear hijabs by their relatives. Again ridiculous. It disallows the possibility of their being girls who make the choice to wear it and doesn't offer any real help to those who are. If girls are suffering pressure at home, 'freeing' them from the hijab at school does very little to actually alleviate the problem.

France is having to deal with their visible minorities making themselves visible and they're indulging their prejudice uncer the form of upholding laicite. D-<

-looks at comment- Can you tell I have alot to say about this topic? xD

[themadpoker.livejournal.com]

Oh wow that comment is riddled with spelling errors. -hides head in shame-