BBC: European Court Upholds French Full Veil Ban.

The burqa and niqab are tools of oppression so don't really see how this law is anti-freedom.

Not if one chooses to wear them. Unless you can prove to me that every single woman that wears the niqab is being forced to do so it remains a matter of personal preference.

Umm no, they can be used for oppression, but they also can not be used that way. You want to restrict the use of them in all cases. Therefore, you're restricting freedom by instituting this law.

I can sympathize with this mentality but is the answer to oppression even more oppression?

And that's the problem, we have no idea who is being forced to wear it and who is making a legitimate choice in wearing it without being coerced. So shame on those women who do choose to wear it by their own volition for giving cover to the misogynists who are forcing women to wear it. I care infinitely more about the well-being of the women who are being forced to wear these deeply offensive garments than I do about the women who enjoy dressing up as bee keepers.

Are you serious?

Absolutely. Women who do legitimately choose to wear the burqa or the niqab should be ashamed of themselves. Not only are these tools of oppression but they are symbols of extreme misogyny. As far as I'm concerned a women willingly choosing to wear these articles of clothing is analogous to a Jew wearing a swastika or a black person wearing KKK robes, and because of that I don't find the "freedom to choose" a compelling reason to not ban it (and just to clarify I am not saying that the the symbolism of the burqa and the niqab alone is a compelling reason to ban it). This is not ideal policy admittingly but given the circumstances I think it's appropriate.

You have such an odd line of reasoning. Just because some women are allegedly being coerced to wear the niqab we should ban altogether? lol. We should abolish parental rights because some parents are abusive. We should abolish the marriage institution because some spouses are violent. The only available solution that wouldn't infringe on the liberty of people to such phenomena is to handle them on a case by case basis and wearing the niqab is no different. You could set up a "emancipating women from niqab" hotline that those women that you care infinitely more about their well-being can call and report domestic abuse to the concerned authorities.
What is deeply offensive about a woman choosing to wear a certain garment, other than the fact that you apparently hate it?

You care about shit just so that we're clear about it.

Sun_Tzu is feeling humorous tonight ladies and gentlemen. People should be ashamed for what they willingly choose to wear. And what are these circumstances that seem to exist only in your alternate universe?

The reasoning may be unorthodox and the policy might be considered drastic by some but that doesn't make it invalid a priori. And ironically it's the very same reasoning that is employed by Islamists who force women to dress that way, only flipped on its head - some men will rape women who reveal any amount of skin or even just reveal their body figure so it is necessary that all women be required to wear these garments. And that is precisely why it is so offensive - it apologizes for rape. And on top of that as a practical matter it conveniently hides the scares and bruises of marital and/or parental abuse. It reduces the public female to an indecipherable ghost.

And what good is your proposed hotline if there's no law against wearing the niqab or burqa?

Then instate a law that bans coercing women to wear niqab, problem solved. Exactly like you have laws against domestic abuse. And just so we're clear, "Islamists" are not the official authority in most if not all Islamic nations. They only hold substatinal authrotiy in Afghanistan, parts of KSA and parts of Yemen, three regions that are mostly tribal.

How exactly are you going to prove coercion in a court of law? It's hard enough to prove domestic abuse or even rape in a court of law, but at the very least there is the potential for physical evidence in these cases. There's none of that here, it is purely a he says/she says matter. And I don't even want to think about what would happen to the poor soul that calls this hotline only to have the police come and go, and then having to deal with her husband or father who now knows that they tried to get them arrested. Worst of all no one will ever know what kind of punishment she would have to deal with because she is forced to wear the burqa in public.

Everything you said there applies to countless cases of rape and domestic abuse, like to the letter. Worst scenario is that the woman would just ask for the protection of social services in case she's feeling that persecuted.

I personally believe that French authorities instated that law to protect the perceived values and persona of the French culture which is really fine. However, they feel the need to justify it because it would undermine the fabric of the French society's moral code, individual liberty in specific. You can't have the cake and eat it so you're either going to adhere to an ideology of full liberty or restrict people's liberties for this or that end. This case proves that the creed of unequivocal liberty is a farce and those who profess to it will betray it when the need calls for it.

Nonsense, "at the very least there is the potential for physical evidence in these cases. There's none of that here, it is purely a he says/she says matter."

Explain to me how you could possibly prove coercion on this matter in a court of law? It is impossible. What you are proposing would just amount to a completely inconsequential PR stunt.

And look, the "liberty" to choose to wear these absurd articles of clothing is not worth protecting when doing so makes these women complicit in the subjugation and oppression of their sisters of the faith. You are creating a caricature of liberal society that no one seriously argues for except for fringe libertarians and anarchists. It is well accepted and has been well established within said society that no "freedoms" are absolute and are appropriate to restrict when the occasion calls for it; this is one of those occasions. I don't see how anyone could justify saying that the well being of the women who are victimized by being forced to wear the buqra and niqab is less important than women having the "freedom" to subjugate themselves and willingly transform themselves into second class citizens. I'd even go so far to say that absent the brainwashing that the women who choose to wear these garments are subject to that even they wouldn't be dressing the way they do.

Can you prove that every single woman that wears it isn't being forced to do so?

Good.

this topic is full of lol

just to let people here know, if you're gonna start adopting such a complex view of agency and "choice" to start considering people who consciously choose to wear the burqa as people who are oppressed since they subconsciously don't want to wear it, you're going to open the floodgates to a rethinking of most of society, the legal system, etc.

And lets not act like this was done to help Arab/Muslim women get rid of oppression. This was done because the burqa is offensive to FRENCH society. I.e, it looks ugly on the streets of Paris.

For the record I have no problem with the ban, but I want to at least see some intellectual consistency and honesty.

Fine by me - not to get too far off topic but the very idea that anyone willingly chooses to do anything based off of some sort of "free will" is a dubious claim all together (in my opinion the concept itself arises out of a poverty of language more than anything else). Which is why I feel confident in saying that the women who do choose to wear the burqa wouldn't do so if they weren't operating under an Islamist paradigm.

But this is more of an aside than anything. Whether or not these select women are actually freely choosing to wear this form of dress is largely irrelevant to my main argument - either way they are complicit in the subjugation of their own sex.

Umm no, they aren't responsible for how others are using the burqa, and they aren't complicit in their crimes at all. A woman choosing freely to wear a burqa is not responsible for the abuses of others, and if anything she is a victim because people like you look down on her for it. She has nothing to be ashamed of. A Jew who wears a swastika likewise has nothing to be ashamed of unless (s)he wears it to sympathize with Nazism. What a bizarre view you have here.

They aren't ultimately responsible but they are complicit. They're no better than Uncle Tom's in more ways that one. Not only are they willingly reducing themselves to second class citizenship but they are providing cover for the misogynists who force their wife or daughter to wear it in the same way people provide cover for mass murderers when they walk around in public openly carrying semi-automatic rifles.

No, they are not complicit - they are also victims because they are being looked down on by people like you, and having their freedoms taken away because of the actions of others, by no fault of their own.

The idea that they are somehow victims simply because I am merely looking down at them is a stretch, but even if I were to grant you that point - in terms of utilitarianism their victimization is preferable to the victimization of women being forced to wear the burqa. There's really no comparison.

As for the bolded, I am curious how consistent (or dogmatic) you are in applying this principle. Do you think that citizens without criminal intentions should be able to openly carry semi-automatic weapons in public? Do you think that these same citizens should be able to walk into a bank or a jewelry store or any other business that is susceptible to robbery while wearing a ski-mask? Should they also be able to dress up as police officers? Should they be able to drive police cars? These are all examples of freedoms that are taken away because of the actions of others by no fault of their own, but in all of these cases there is a compelling interest to restrict or outright revoke these freedoms. I've laid out my reasons for why restricting freedom in this particular case is justified, but instead of engaging with those points you are making an appeal to freedom which is not a counterargument (unless you are arguing for carte blanche freedom, which in that case is a very radical counterargument, even by my standards).

Your response to my bolded is a separate from my point. My whole point here is that people who choose to wear the burqa aren't complicit. Your response here is asking whether having them sacrifice their freedom is worth it in an attempt to stop oppression. Their freedoms being taken away was one of the ways in which they were victims, not addressing a separate point.

My points have been against your claims that these people are complicit in the oppression (an idea which I very strongly disagree with), not whether or not the burqa should be banned.