I refer, of course, to the transfer of the Roma. Too bad they could find no cattle-cars, or the re-enactment would have been complete.

So with this anti-burqa law, it is perfectly fine for Frenchwomen to expose their entire bodies, but it's not OK to cover themselves with modesty.

Isn't this the nation that shipped thousands of Jews eastward? Isn't this the country that committed untold atrocities in Algeria and Morocco?

Sarkozy isn't the problem. It's French society. This Hungarian is merely its symbol.

Plus ca change...

I am a French-American dual citizen and I've had the pleasure of working for >1 years total in Muslim-dominated areas of South Asia in recent years.

From this perspective, I offer the following comments:

1. Widespread support for the burqa ban in political circles as well as amongst the public is a reflection of their visceral horror of seeing (or not seeing, to be exact) women in full burqas in the streets of France, which (since the Revolution) has always prided itself as being the bastion of secularism (laicite). In French tradition, it is not so much "freedom of religion," but "freedom FROM religion," however it may manifest itself. There are some different, more sophisticated arguments about the ban actually being in support of the freedom and womens' rights... But in fact, it has been shown by French journalists that many of the burqa-wearers do not appear to be "slaves to their husbands" and seem to be making conscientious, articulated decisions to wear the burqa. And there is also certainly a sizable minority of French (especially older French an those outside the metropolitan areas) who are privately bigots towards foreigners towards various degrees (some of them are proud supporters of the FN, and I know a few myself)... but for most French, I think it is simply a reaction against such an egregious affront to their country's ideals. They simply do not want France to be home to radical or puritanical versions of Islam regardless of the concept of the freedom of religion. I would like to point out here that the French government does in fact pursue religious sects (see About-Picard law). Compare this also, with the German government's stance towards Scientology and their ilk. The bottom line is that cults and cult-liked behaviors might flourish in the US (see recent history), but they simply aren't welcome in Europe, and rightfully so. Although the American legal system is more tolerant than the French legal system, I would say that French, as people, are far more tolerant than their American counterparts... I believe this would be borne out by comparative, side-by-side surveys on various topics such as gay rights, foreign policy, the environment, attitudes towards respective minorities, etc.

2. As for the current drive against the gypsies: It is a transparent political ploy by the Sarkozy government. Everyone sees that. The questions is whether it is justified. The French do widely associate Gypsies with petty crime as a stereotype, though it has been pointed out in some articles that the Gypsies are a very diverse group and most are not nomadic. I have distinct memories of a close relative in southern France venting her disgust at (nomadic) Gypsies due to an experience in the 1970s when a local caravan that camped down the road was implicated in the burglary of her home. Like some stereotypes, it has enough truth to be self-perpetuating and reinforcing. France has issues with many immigrant groups (north african Arabs, africans from former french colonies, eastern european migrant workers, etc), and I see the singular focus on Gypsies to be quite crass in view of their history. I think the government should instead have a more rational, transparent policy towards all immigrant groups that encourages them to follow the law in a non-stigmatory way (ex. registration in exchange for some protections but without the full benefits of being a completely legal immigrant worker) and strongly discourages miscreants and opportunists amongst them to turn to petty crime (holding the relevant families and communities responsible for misbehavior, petty crime).

The reasoning put forward by Hamas in Lebanon recently align with the Iran clerics claim women not dressing properly cause earthquakes and are responsible for the inappropriate behavior men subject them to including rape.

These statements reinforce the reality the burka is not a freely worn garment given the clear stigma Muslim women, who do not wear the burka or even the veil, are subject to in Muslim communities.

If it is such a free choice how is it Muslim men are not covered in a ton of black fabric or cotton veils to cover their masculinity? Are Muslim men not sexual beings?

The burka is as much a political statement as a naked woman walking in the streets to advocate public nudity as a right which should be accepted by the rest of society. One of subservience to men’s dogma not independence.

Nudism is a cultural and political movement advocating and defending social nudity in private and in public. It may also refer to a lifestyle based on personal, family and/or social nudism.

Society in general has decided public nudism can be very confronting, inappropriate, and even regarded as obscene by some. Although nudism is often practiced in a person’s home or garden, either alone or with members of the family public and in restricted venues public nudity is a behavior which society in general have deemed should be restricted and subject to judicial penalty.

The burka is much more of an obscenity than nudity. For where nudism seeks to expand the societal bounds and diminish prejudice the burka politically advocates a denigrating , subservient role in society for women.

The burka reinforces the notion women are not only to blame for men’s behavior towards them in regards sexual assaults but also women’s aspirations should be necessarily be different and subservient to a man’s definition of what a woman’s life should be.

The public wearing of the burka is a categorical political act which seeks to advance the notion of the acceptance of the subservience and restriction of women’s opportunities in life relative to men which is absolutely obscene and must therefore be subject to judicial penalty.

Everything we do is political. A woman deciding to wear shorts given human history is a political statement in itself. For it can be deemed as simply a relatively freely decided fashion statement. The Burka is an antitheist of this and very much a political statement of subjugation and in no way can be regarded as a fashion statement or a modern principle. No matter how many times and subtle colorful variations get dragged down the catwalk.

Mr Rothkopf : "Forcing my father to wear a yellow star on the streets of Vienna when he was a boy is the flip side of this coin" - if you must engage in false equivalence to bolster your case obviously you are struggling to present a case. ln ltaly lslam is not officially recognised as a religion because of the way lslam treats with womwn and because of the widespread links to violence and terrorism. Before you get all self righteous perhaps you ought to ponder whether or not lslam is in fact a religion.
Many have described lslam as a political movement and not just a religion. lt will take you quite a while do get your mind around that proposition, whilst you distracted three more Christians will be killed in Nigeria, another church will be destroyed in Kosovo or lndonesia and two or three US soldiers will be killed in Afghanistan etc etc etc etc etc.
What you you whining about, something to do with birkas and freedom of expression? Oh you mean we are not free to criticise lslam? sorry l forgot.

I would point out the following:

1) There is nothing in Islam that requires the burqa. It is a primitive Middle Eastern practice that predates both Islam and Judaism's for that matter.
2) Banning clothing that makes someone distinctive can not in any world be considered the same as requiring people to wear something that degrades them.
3) The yellow badges you found so offensive were required by Muslims to to be worn by Jews in keeping with their status as Dhimmis.
4) While France may see itself as fragile, that is not the issue here. It is seen as a symbol of rejection of France and the West.
5) You neglect that it is not necessarily the choice of a woman but is the result of coercion.
6) You also neglect that many Muslim communities in France and Europe have set up Sharia 'enforcers', similar to the role of religious police as you find in Muslim countries, who who threaten and punish families and the woman who don't wear head coverings. They have also assaulted couples for public displays of affection and woman who have violated proximity laws.

I would point out the following:

1) There is nothing in Islam that requires the burqa. It is a primitive Middle Eastern practice that predates both Islam and Judaism's for that matter.
2) Banning clothing that makes someone distinctive can not in any world be considered the same as requiring people to wear something that degrades them.
3) The yellow badges you found so offensive were required by Muslims to to be worn by Jews in keeping with their status as Dhimmis.
4) While France may see itself as fragile, that is not the issue here. It is seen as a symbol of rejection of France and the West.
5) You neglect that it is not necessarily the choice of a woman but is the result of coercion.
6) You also neglect that many Muslim communities in France and Europe have set up Sharia 'enforcers', similar to the role of religious police as you find in Muslim countries, who who threaten and punish families and the woman who don't wear head coverings. They have also assaulted couples for public displays of affection and woman who have violated proximity laws.

Really, David?
This is the flip side of the yellow star that your dad (and my grandma) were forced to wear in Vienna? That's the quickest application of Godwin's Rule in history.
I think they took it too far, but i do believe that the law should require that an establishment (such as a bank, where security is an issue) be allowed to ban such clothing.
You know what, anywhere that requires a dress code.
Also, police officers should be allowed to demand removal of the Burqa for the purpose of identification

You, David, dont know Sarkozy. He is the Muslims friend and has been very busy selling out the native French to the newcomers, very busy indeed. He is supposedly big on law and oreder but its all bluster. Under him France is finished, taken over by the lslamic conquerer lock stock and barrel, so to speak (and yes theyve now started shooting cops bigtime - the recent "trouble" in Grenoble shows you where its all heading).
Sarkozy has done a deal - the so called mainstream Muslims have agreed to surrender the headcovering but dont be fooled, Sarkozy will reward them handsomely. Sarkozy is the man who recently lectured and admonished the native French that they must "intermingle" with the newcomers - they have NO CHOICE.
ln short if youre looking for an lslamic France Sarkozy is your man. This is the same France that Jews are now leaving because they are being persecuted. Gee l wonder who is doing the persecuting.

1) Rothkopf

Take a basic course in secularity, separation of powers, separation of Church and State and human rights, specially women rights, then maybe we can have an intelligent discussion. It's meaningless to have such a discussion with people who don't understand the basics of Enlightment, despite all their "amendments" mantra.

2) Glom

Sarkozy is Jewish from his mother's side, his son recently converted to Judaism. And you are an ignorant idiot.

why do you speak of tolerance in absolute terms? Tolerance is always conditional - any idealistic expression of freedom and liberty etc is always constrained by practical considerations - any country no matter how tolerant it imagines itself to be will embrace 'intolerance' if the predominant culture begins to feel threatened. I've lived extensively in Paris - 20 years ago there was no arrondissement I would have considered a no go zone - that's not true today - and 20 years from now? Would you call France foolishly intolerant for, as any open society does, placing specific limitations on immigration to protect the integrity of a status quo? Conversely, would you consider France a shining example of enlightened tolerance if it just threw open its doors and said come one, come all and once you're here do what ever you want?

Conditions always apply to any expression of freedom and tolerance - America is so diverse and sprawling and fungible that it possibly can pretend that's not true, but it's always true - the people who settled this country certainly understood that, but with so much opportunity and space to exploit and with the threat available cultural permutations so limited it was easy to pretend tolerance was in a sense absolute - that is of course until the predominant culture bumped up against a truly alien one in the form of aboriginals and proceeded to exterminate them - conditions always apply.

France and America may share an historical attachment to certain ideals - and we're all thankful for those ideals - but France ain't America and it's ridiculous to expect it to be - it's much smaller, it's cultural traditions much less diverse, and its shared sense of history much older and much more set in its ways. I've lived there and I know how proud the predominant culture is and I know for a fact they view Islam as a growing threat - the French may be particularly sensitive to this perceived threat but the fear of Islamification exists throughout western Europe - awash in delusion in America you may view this fear as hysterical and unsubstantiated - but for them it's real.

Thank you Dr. Rothkopf for an astute analysis regarding France's recent Niqab-banning legislation.

Living in the US, its difficult for me to accurately assess the social reality of people in France, particularly as it relates to Muslims in France and how they are viewed and treated. I suspect that much of the hysteria over niqab is exascerbated by those who, as you rightly pointed out, lack confidence in the ability of their own narrative to endure. This insecurity is not the exclusive preserve of France, but is apparent almost uniformly across the west; how our society as a whole responds to it will determine our ability to stay true to the very values we claim to uphold.

As for the Hitchens article, as usual there are a number of fatal flaws. His analyses are usually filled with emotionalism, cheap cynicism, and have few arguments that ever hold water. In the article cited in the comments section, he makes a number of presumptions which simply arent true; the first being that the niqab is not a product of women choosing their own dress, which it very well is. He cant wrap his head around the fact that women would choose to dress like that, so its summarily dismissed as anachronistic to his worldview. There are other arguments as well which could easily be dissected, but I think irishman did a good job of bringing them to light.

I will concede that there are certain arenas within which a positive facial identification are critical, and creating legislation for those arenas would be perfectly acceptable to me.

In any case, thanks again.

PAUL HPC - probably the best explanation of why France is voting this ban - and by the way so is Belgium. I assume M. Rothkopf that Belgium is another bigot illiberal European country...

I dont know if M. Rothkopt doesnt understand enlightment, but he certainly doesnt understand French and European culture(s) or concepts of freedom, separation of State-Church, and secularism that are not American.

By the way, last time I checked, it was in Florida that a pastor wanted to burn a Koran...not in Paris...

Moreover, equating the (far-)right-wing leaning Sarkozy government, and particularly the policies supported by his Minister of Interior to the whole French society is also quite idiotic.

As to the comparison of the ban to Nazi Germany and the yellow stars, ROEEORLAND provided the best reply.

cheers

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 ’convert 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.

I agree with David; however I'm not sure how the state should deal with women wearing Burqa for identification purposes, like in courts, and others.

The burqa is an act of oppression of women who are treated as domestic animalsy and a blatant rejection of an open, free society. It is also a significant potential security threat.

Rothkopf's equation of liberty with perogative is infantile. That his father was abused in Nazi Austria is certainly lamentable, but his use of his family history is not only opportunistic, it is also hysterical and libelous. He displays no understanding or knowledge of modern French society. If there actually is something he knows about, I would suggest he stick to it next time.

According to SEYAS anyone who wants to preserve their culture is a racist. What a joke. lf you are not happy with your cultural inheritance - your Western cultural inheritance, then you can move to Saudi or lran or some far flung dungheap.
For people like SEYAS and FRENCHCONNECTION its unfortunate that European Western culture is far superior to any other, they are continually having that burden to carry about - its such a heavy weight and so disheartening, so what do they do? they recomend we deconstruct our Western culture, deconstruct it and rebuild it so that it resembles the culture of Algeria or Egypt. No thankyou. Please leave and take your seventh century beliefs with you.
http://galliawatch.blogspot.com/

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 the personal hygiene of French Senators. Their personal hygiene will be found to 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 act with immediate 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.....

hello everyone,Welcome to our website

===== http://www.buyshopping.us/ ====

jordan air max oakland raiders $34–39;

Ed Hardy AF JUICY POLO Bikini $25;

Christan Audigier BIKINI JACKET $25;

gstar coogi evisu true jeans $35;

coach chanel gucci LV handbags $36;

coogi DG edhardy gucci t-shirts $18;

CA edhardy vests.paul smith shoes $32;

jordan dunk af1 max gucci shoes $37;

EDhardy gucci ny New Era cap $16;

coach okely Adidas CHANEL DG Sunglass $18;

===== http://www.buyshopping.us/ ====

If the intent is to pass a progressive law that empowers women to maintain autonomy over their bodies, why does the law single out the burqa? It must merely say women cannot be told what to wear. How we present our bodies in public is subject to so many choices and forces and that is equally true whether you are a burqa wearer or not. Some individuals finding a certain kind of clothing offensive is not enough basis to ban it in a democratic society.

Also it raises questions of which parts of our lives we want dictated by laws. I personally find it very regressive if a law, rather than protecting a woman with the space to negotiate her own choices, tells her how her body must or must not be presented.