"The irony of fighting repression with a ban seems to have escaped notice".
These comments ignore the fact that Muslim and ex Muslim women who are free enough, brave enough, and un-Stockholm-syndromic enough say the following: they don't want to have to wear the burka; they didn't come to western countries only to have the baleful, archaic practices of their home countries (Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, Saudi) follow them here. More: the Muslims calling for no-ban are males from the more fundamentalist/salafist view of the world; in other words, public policy and discussion being driven by the most retrograde of Islamic thought.
As for the "irony", there is none. We have legislated against practices that are anti-women. We have rape laws, we have anti-discrimination laws in which certain actions are banned. We have laws that prohibit female genital mutilation. Should these not be implemented because we are fighting repression with a "ban", or that it's a "serious invasion of personal liberty”?
Second, the anti-banners like Gopalan ask "... where do you draw the line? Are turbans, yarmulkes, saris, salwars and long skirts next?". Well, no they are not, and for the obvious reason that the ban is targetted at Islam. There are no yarmulke or sari wearers trying to blow up our planes, whereas there are plenty who hew to the "religion of peace", as most obviously represented by the Salafist wearing of the burka. Indeed Gopalan preemptively answers his own question in his opening paragraph: this is about "sending a message to Muslims... French citizens and politicians feel that they need to restore "Frenchness" to their streets".
ADDED (19/6/24): Link Rot again.
