I don’t doubt the good faith and eloquence of my compatriot, but next time you meet him, offer him the excellent book of L.Mucchielli (Le scandale des tournantes) and he will see that the details he provided are a complete media fabrication, that gang-rapes are not more common than they were 15 or 30 years ago, that when they happen (as they do), they are tied to exclusive male societies (such as police squads, military conscripts, bands of friends and, yes, young unprivileged youths from poor suburbs) but not clearly to Islam, ethnicity or lack of modesty.

“How no amount of apparent access to opportunity could sufficiently ameliorate this early controlling and dependency sustaining influence.”

This is not in agreement with my entirely anecdotal experience. Since I have been teaching in higher education institutions, I have taught about a dozen classes, and in each one of them, there was precisely one veiled young woman (different each time). Without exceptions, they have been serious, hard-working, dedicated, and dare I write, unremarkable students. None of them looked particularly hapless, and trust me that I have had my lot of hapless students.

“Finally he detailed about how the above considerations were a very vibrant and honest part of the national debate among secular French citizens”

The debate of 5 to 10 years ago about the veil in schools might have been, though I suspect that punishing criminal and oppressive behaviors while promoting a policy of affirmative action would have been vastly more productive; the current debate about the burqa seems to me to be pure political pandering to the extreme-right, whose votes the current government will crucially need in the upcoming elections.

How much weight ought freedom of religion to have when it comes up against a universal value like “personal security”? What weight, if any, should the sometimes very deep natural aversion to naked exposure have against that value?

I didn’t read Alex’s comments as rants (sorry Alex I think this offends your moniker). There are a number of obvious reasons to think that these laws are racist or colonialist, of the “we know what’s good for them” variety. As I have repeatedly pointed out, and as was the original purpose of this post, “what’s good for them” in this case seems to ignore the opinion of the veiled women themselves, who object to being forced to walk semi-naked through the streets of Paris. Or Algeria. Or wherever. And I still think that the claims of bullying are concern trolling, a smokescreen to enlist concerned dissenters into uncomfortably supporting these laws “for the good of the women”.

This is where I think Australian multicultural policy has something to show Europe. It’s not a beauty contest, as you put it – but we have some ideas about how to manage difference that don’t involve ghettos and guest workers, and I really don’t think Europe is so different to Oz that some of them might not be valid.

Australia’s multiethnic/racial/cultural melting pot makes Europe monocultural by contrast, and that is partly because Europe is much more ghettoized than multicultural. But the main reason is that Australian society and its natural/physical charms are a great enticement for immigrants to WANT to become more Australian than the fetid hellholes from which they fled. Places like Britain, France, and Belgium do not hold these enticements or attractions. The future for civic integration and harmony in Europe is very grim indeed.

2) No.
3) I would be very surprised if people who actually do this for real go around with no idea who they are talking to. Certainly, in 80s-90s West Yorkshire, I never heard of such an incident occurring. This is anecdote, not data, but it’s usually the responsibility of someone making an unusual assertion to bring the data.
4) No. Nothing does. If someone believes that (something) makes other people less than human, it’s not the fucking dress regulations that are the problem.
5) No – see 4.
6) Define “full integration” and “society”, if possible explaining why in that case we shouldn’t all wear uniform.

1. Why are Muslim men not fully veiled? Are Muslim men immodest and irreligious?
If the men were draped in a black chador and fully veiled, would you be comfortable with that? Would you interpret that as modesty and religiousness? Or would you find it threatening?
2. If you are a veiled man or woman and no one can see your face, are you in effect faceless and essentially a non-entity?
3. If you are a veiled man or woman, how can you be recognized by other people you encounter? If you are not recognizable, do you become non-existent?
4. If the veil makes an individual non-existent, then does it make them less than human? Or at least perceived as less than human?
5. If you are veiled and perceived as less than human or very ‘other’ , can you easily obtain employment or acceptance or good-will?
6. In essence is not the veil and also the head-scarf a declaration by the person of ‘otherness’, of separateness? Are not all distinctive religious dress a declaration of separateness, of otherness, of difference and finally of exclusion designed to avoid full integration into society?

I have not seen any official arguments that the problem is social separation, either. I have heard that officials do not like to talk to veiled women, and the reason they give is that they do not feel the women are “open” with them, which might just not make a woman who wears a veil or headscarf feel a whole lot like changing her mind. And to make the argument about a woman wearing a shoulder-length scarf that leaves her face in full view is stupid.

Personally, I suspect it might well be more than a tad foxhunty – in practice, most people involved on both sides will invoke the prime directive (“don’t be such a shit about it”) and get on with life, or else find some sort of workaround to obey the law in letter but not spirit. However, the problem with the PD is that there is a small but non-trivial population of shits, and some of them will insist on pressing a confrontation.

At which point, at least some people who are, by the assumptions of the debate, already disadvantaged will be refused public services, which include but are not limited to education, medicine, unemployment benefit, libraries, possibly public transport, and conceivably public housing. Orange-France Telecom is one-third nationalised and about 40% of its employees are civil servants. Is it legal to use the phone wearing a hijab? EDF is 100% nationalised; will they turn off the electricity? As for employment, that’s going to rule out 40-50% of jobs. Extreme argument, I agree, but the problem is exactly the people who will want to force silly extreme cases to make their political points.

And presumably, if they don’t accept this, it will be enforced by police power. In a Bayesian sense, you’ve surely got to put a much higher weighting on the stuff that will physically happen as a result of the legislation than all this talk of republic, etc – it may not be entirely cynical or wholly content-free, but it’s not facts-on-the-ground either.

Further, this proposal trips a number of General Bullshit Warnings. It’s a demand for more police power over a specified minority; not good. It’s certainly very conveniently timed from an electoral and political point of view; suspicious. The combination of both is worse. And, as I pointed out way back, it’s the classic Thatcher/Blair argument – We need to put these people’s kids in a giant database/dock their benefits/lock them up/deport them to Zimbabwe faster…for their own good. As always, one is expected to sign up for the state violence now, and trust in promises that the parenting classes or whatever will be delivered later.

I tried to say something like this:

“currently the girls being bullied are being bullied for being unveiled. The proposal to prevent bullying is to unveil more. I don’t know how this works?”

So you admit (more than) the possibility of them being bullied into a veil, or a burqa. & I will assume that you agree the world would be a better place if they weren’t bullied.

(and I did not want to point to a beauty context between migration policies; I just point to the fact that the migration is very very different between Australia and Europe – and the idea that what works there should work here utterly naïve. But yes, this is universal at least: a world without a need for freedom of religion is a better one, if we can bring it about to have no individual of her own free will to still be religious)

The United States has always traditionally permissive about letting people use whatever name they wished as long as it was not for criminal purposes.

I’m nobody! Who are you?
Are you nobody, too?
Then there’s a pair of us – don’t tell!
They’d banish us, you know!

How dreary to be somebody!
How public like a frog
To tell one’s name the livelong day
To an admiring bog!

And in the Western part of our country self-reinvention was just a way to start over:

Oh, what was your name in the States
Was it Thompson, or Johnson, or Bates
Did you murder your wife and fly for your life
Say, what was your name in the States

This isn’t very true; the French have historically been a bit rubbish at following the values of the Republic, which is why they’re onto their Fifth already.

I think you confused my point about provocative dressing – currently the girls being bullied are being bullied for being unveiled. The proposal to prevent bullying is to unveil more. I don’t know how this works?

I’m also really dubious of your claim that “more and more women” feel they will be harassed if they walk unveiled. 132 comments in and I don’t see much evidence of that. The OP does contain some evidence that veiled women feel harassed if they are forced to unveil.

I really don’t think you’ve answered Alex’s points very clearly either. “It’s complex” is never an answer.