I find neither to be offensive, but if I HAD to pick one, I'd probably pick the shirt since it exposes skin rather than covers it. But I assume you're talking ridiculously low cut, such as one that reaches to or below the bottom of the breast.

It's obviously not about 'offensive', or else we would have thrown Mindless Self Indulgence in jail a long time ago. It's about what France views as threatening, both physically and socially.

Physically:
In a culture highly dependant on visual recognition for national security (just look at the camera system in Britain's subways if you don't believe me), France has ruled that what is practically a uniform preventing visual identification is dangerous and undesirable.

Socially:
Burqas and niqabs and threatening to France socially, because they represent a tight-knit culture with vastly different attitudes which refuses to be assimilated. Again, the French have decided that this is undesirable. In this respect, it's more of a symbolic move than anything, showing that the French government doesn't 100% approve of Islam, and isn't afraid of doing non-'politically-correct' things.

However, IMHO, all this will do is piss people off, and is probably the wrong way to go about doing things.

I'd almost forgotten one other thing.
It's also worth noting that french law is very anti-religion. The public display of religious symbols is banned, and unlike american constitution, there's nothing in the french constitution to prohibit laws that suppress religion outside a place of worship.

In addition, the Burqa and Niqab are only mandated by Islamic sects that prevent a woman from owning property, working, choosing her husband, rejecting sexual advances, and driving, among other things.

I'm not sure what I think about the whole thing, as both sides seem to be in the wrong.

An interesting quote on the matter:

I agree with everything else you've said, and I'm sure you're not being serious about the above, but I just want to say that those are terrible ideas.
Checking for suspicious people is basically going to mean checking minorities in today's societies, and gait recognition is plain retarded.

Jesus, I read about this when it was just heating up. I didn't think they would pass it. But, here we are. Frankly, I can't see the rationale behind it, either. And really, I read an article about it just now, and apparently the Netherlands, Belgium, and Switzerland are all considering it. WHY? Why would you ban something that is basically part of their life (I'm no expert, but I'm pretty sure that where it is practiced it's quite important)? Seriously.

So is it any type of headwear that obscures/conceals the face to a certain extent, or specifically Burkas?

In the United States, a work place is not allowed to prevent you from dressing a certain way if it's a matter of religion. Do you know why America was founded? TO FREELY PRACTICE THE PROTESTANT RELIGION. This is basic history.

Burqas.

Does that really justify engaging in similar behaviour? Does compromising your values in order to go tit for tat with another country exemplify integrity?

Just to reapply myself: I think the fact that this got voted in is bull♥♥♥♥, but there are arguments on both sides. Not that I side with both. Religious expression is much more important.

Allstone, not at all. I'm just saying it's a double standard, and that it's bull♥♥♥♥. Doesn't make it right at all to retaliate, but it's still unfair.

But that isn't the US. That is France. And you know why what we now know as France exists? To free it's citizens from the bourgeoisie and the Catholic church. As such, their religious freedoms are much less... Free. The state makes no secret that it does not approve of religion. This is also basic history.


I don't know the specific wording of the law, but it (at very least) includes niqabs, so it's not specifically burqas. It also isn't Muslim headwear as a whole, as both the chador and the hijab are permitted.


Yeah, my example was a bit much, but you get my point The French view it as a crime (and an infringement on other's rights) to display any religious symbol, whether it be a cross or a star of david, in public.

Just to clarify, I'm with alphagamer774. There are arguments on both sides, but religious expression is more important, and French law is silly. I just want to point out how and why this passed in France, and why the unique constitution of France means that this isn't unconstitutional for them. I think that it's stupid and wrong, but I'm just pointing out that the reasons it happened are complex and deep-rooted.

this is a remarkably sensible debate

congratulations, drl, you're not entirely ♥♥♥♥ retarded

continue!

The French are being reactionary and stupid.

They are basing their fears of terrorism and suicide attacks on the Islamic culture and religion, but Islamic religion and culture specificaly forbid the use of terrorism and any form of vigilantes. To commit murder is a capital crime in many Islamic countries so Muslim terrorists are infact breaking the laws of their religion and casting bad light on the rest of their fellow muslims. One might say that the Terrorists are using the capital crime of "spreading mischief in the land" as justification for suicide attacks and terrorism, but not only are vigilantes forbidden and the proper law must be followed, retribution against innocents is also against the law, killing innocent civilians is against the law and commiting suicide is to condemn yourself to the Islamic version of purgatory. As such all terrorists are breaking many Islamic Sharia laws and should be viewed as sepparate from the rest of the Islamic and Muslim population.
So these French bully-boy tacics are both useless and serve only to promote Western-Muslim anger.

I generally like to avoid arguments aimed at emotion, but

This illustrates my point pretty well. The national motto of France is Liberty, Equality, Fraternity. Core principles shouldn't be an acceptable sacrifice for security.

That pretty much sums it up. I don't like Burkhas, they creep me out a wee bit but damn I'm not going to vote for them to be banned.