Grow a pair
Ok, bud, I'll get right on that.
what I'm hearing is a win win. if she's forced to wear the veil when going out, she'll be forced not to by law. If she's so oppressed that she's not allowed to leave the house without the veil, if she doesn't want to live that way she goes to social services.
The options are already there without this law in place. It's merely forcing her families hand if the law is in place. In reality i'm not sure how they would enforce a woman not to go out whether it's to go to work, pick up the kids, get the groceries or what have you. And if that family is so unhappy as to consider moving to another country what chance did this person ever have?
This is a consequentialist argument that does not address the justice of the law, and I'm not even convinced your analysis of the consequences is correct.
I don't see a viable alternative solution. the options are leave it as it is, or change the law.
Someone who sees solutions to social problems as emanating from the state indeed could not conceive of a viable alternative. Having the state enact a blanket ban on some sort of personal behavior is always the lazy, unimaginative, immoral, and cowardly solution-- little wonder why pandering, sleazebag politicians are so fond of them.
Any meaningful and lasting change in society has almost always come from the ground up and very rarely from the top down.
You guys wonder how the Muslims manage to force the government and its various authorities/agencies to concede to so many of their objectionable or silly demands? The common explanations given are that British culture has become too PC or that the government lacks balls. The former may be true, the latter isn't-- I wouldn't classify a government that has consistently been sending soldiers and intelligence agents to far-flung regions of the globe, continually engaging in direct or proxy wars between the 12th century and 2010 to be one that "lacks balls".
No the real reason is that the Muslim community is simply better organized and more active than the secularists and other opponents of "Islamification" (not fond of that term, but we'll use it for shorthand right now). That's fuckin it, that's the main thing.
Look, if you work in a factory you can vote every couple of years for some politician who promises to raise the minimum wage (thus driving all wages up) and hope he keeps his promise OR you can take matters into your own hands with your co-workers, get organized, united, and disciplined (form a labor union), and use your collective leverage to bargain better wages and working conditions from your employer right now.
The secular opponents of political Islam in the UK and Europe (I don't anticipate it being a big issue in the US anytime soon, despite the gloom and doom pronouncement of the right-wing) have a similar choice to make. You can take a passive approach, voting for this or that politician hoping they'll pass some damn law that will make things better (and be prepared to give up some of your society's liberty in the process), or you can get organized, united, and disciplined and let both the government and society at large react to your organizational power.
The goal should be to make religious fundamentalism socially unacceptable (here our problem is with the Christian fundies, there it's with the Islamists) no matter where you live, what your ethnicity is, or what name you give to God(s). It shouldn't be to pass legislation which will erode religious liberty while making very little real impact. Even if you take a consequentialist approach, history has shown such measures have a tendency to backfire and only increase religious fervor (again, what will the UK do if Muslim women start engaging in civil disobedience over wearing the burqua and provoke arrests and the use of riot police? Do you think that helps or hurts matters?)-- state-enforced secularism only works long-term if very repressive, totalitarian measures are used (like Hoxha's Albania).
I'm still sitting on the fence on this issue, but I would have no complaints if France or any other country banned the burka/niqab in public places.
The main reason is security.
What do you mean by "public places"?
I honestly think the "oh it's my religion!" argument is clouding this issue. ANY other face covering would not be allowed in public places, so the burka/niqab shouldn't be either.
Maybe they should be-- ever think of that? If someone stood in, what's that square/park in London where you have the people soapboxing, ranting and shit? Anyhow, if someone stood in the middle of that park and wore a balaclava to symbolize how modern society has become faceless and started making a political speech, you think the cops should arrest that person?
Personally, I don't see how it's justified to ban face coverings outside no matter what the reason for wearing it is. In a secure facility I can understand it, or at a private institution with security concerns like a bank or a jewelery store (though that should be the decision of the proprietors), but just outside on the street? Fuck that. That doesn't, in and of itself, pose any more danger than you clenching your fist does-- should we arrest anyone who clenches their fist because
they might be planning on hitting someone with it?
You know how we had a Draw Muhammad day? I think we should have a "Wear A Balaclava Day" too just to see if the burka defenders feel comfortable with non-Muslim men and women walking around with their faces covered... in shops, in schools, in hospitals, in airports, in train stations etc.
See-- that I don't have a problem with. I actually think it's a good idea. I just don't think having the state ban something like that is a good idea.
Topic: French parliament approves ban on face veils