CPS in Manitoba, Canada has “removed” (sounds surgical and it is) a 7-year-old school girl from her home because she was seen at school, twice, with a drawing of a swastika on her arm. The second time, it appears, the swastika was drawn by her father. The CPS rationale is that anyone who draws a swastika on a child’s arm is, per se, harming them emotionally and, therefore, should no longer be a parent. Chilling, thought-provoking video below.
Meanwhile, in France, Reuters reports the French Council of State “has denied citizenship to a veiled Moroccan woman on the grounds that her ‘radical’ practice of Islam is incompatible with basic French values such as equality of the sexes . . .” Égalité of the sexes in France? Mon Dieu!
First, the video from Canada. I should warn readers who consider themselves “liberal”: you might not like what you see. The “liberal” in the clip is — as they often are — angry and out of control. I think being out of control makes “liberals” angry. Sometimes, it’s the other way ’round. Could it be that the word “liberal” has been hijacked by people who don’t really know what it means?
Anyway . . .
And, now, back to France:
“She has adopted a radical practice of her religion, incompatible with essential values of the French community, particularly the principle of equality of the sexes,” said a ruling by the Council of State handed down last month and sent to Reuters on Friday to confirm a report in Le Monde. . .
Married to a French national, the woman arrived in France in 2000, speaks good French and has three children born in France.
She wears a black burqa that covers all her body except her eyes, which are visible through a narrow slit, and lives in “total submission” to her husband and male relatives, according to reports by social services. Le Monde said the woman is 32.
The woman’s application for French nationality was rejected in 2005 on grounds of “insufficient assimilation”. She appealed to the Council of State, which last month approved the rejection.
The legal expert who provided a formal report on the case to the Council of State wrote that the woman’s interviews with social services revealed that “she lives almost as a recluse, isolated from French society,” Le Monde reported.
“She has no idea about the secular state or the right to vote. She lives in total submission to her male relatives. She seems to find this normal and the idea of challenging it has never crossed her mind,” Emmanuelle Prada-Bordenave wrote.
Le Monde quoted Daniele Lochak, a law professor not involved in the case, as saying it was bizarre to consider that excessive submission to men was a reason not to grant citizenship.
“If you follow that to its logical conclusion, it means that women whose partners beat them are also not worthy of being French,” Lochak said.
Yet this is essentially the argument Texas CPS made to justify their position that FLDS people should not be allowed to be parents. Perhaps France should follow Texas and Manitoba. Give her citizenship, for what it’s worth and just take away her children.
Yes, I am absolutely opposed to Nazis of any era. No, I would never write the symbol on my daughter’s arm. But I sure as heck fire would defend the right of any parent to do so if that’s what they believe. Likewise, I would defend the right of
Islamic parents to send their daughters to school with their hair covered, or
Catholic parents to dangle a crucifix (now, there’s a symbol of hatred!) around a child’s neck. or . . .
the First Methodist Church of San Angelo to use the flaming cross in its logo.
I draw the line, however, at covered faces in public. That’s dangerous whether for Islam or the KKK and should not be permitted in any country.
{ 17 comments… read them below or add one }
Mind explaining the inherent “danger” of a piece of cloth?
Well, I suppose a blanket ban on face coverings is a bit much. But ask any bank teller why you can’t walk into a bank with a mask and you’ll get a rough feel for what my concern is. In some states, darkly tinted vehicle windows are (or were) illegal. People who want to physically harm others can do so more easily if they enjoy anonymity. I think exceptions should be available for medical purposes and motorcyclists and such.
People who want to physically harm others can do so more easily if they enjoy anonymity
Not always. Two words: domestic violence.
In some states, darkly tinted vehicle windows are (or were) illegal.
Which state[s]?
You are even asked to remove sun glasses when you walk into a bank. Allowing women ( or “women”, who knows?) to run around with faces concealed is potential cover for more than faces.
Removed for wearing an inked-on swastika? Do these ignoramuses know how ancient that symbol is, and how long it was associated with pre-Nazi, far-eastern cultures before Hitler glommed onto it? Try 3,000 years.
To R: In domestic violence cases, anonymity and invisibility equate to the same thing. Those who abuse their spouses do so primarily in private. The pattern of abuse is pretty standard. So yes, domestic violence, most of it, is anonymous – to everyone but the victim.
R –
My guess is that windows (from driver forward) tinted beyond a stated degree of opacity are illegal in all states. But I know for sure that they are in New York, NJ, Mass, California and Georgia.
The Georgia Code section is O.C.G.A. § 40-8-73.1 which you can find at http://www.lexis-nexis.com/hottopics/gacode/default.asp.
You can also Google “tinted windows” + violation to get nearly 4,000 hits on the subject.
My point in bringing up domestic violence as an example is to state precisely the opposite: the abusor is not anonymous to the abusee. S/he does not shield his/her identity.
Allowing women ( or “women”, who knows?) to run around with faces concealed is potential cover for more than faces.
By that logic all loose-fitting clothing should be banned, because it can hide things.
R – Not sure what logic you mean by “that logic”.
“That logic” = Islamic clothing should be unacceptable or outlawed because people can hide things under it.
BTW, obviously windshield, driver, and front passenger windows should be clear. That has less to do with allowing other people to see in than with making sure the driver can see out. But a good chunk of the minivans and SUVs I see have tinted rear windows, and I see a lot of commercial trucks where the windows are either painted over or nonexistent.
R — Actually, no it’s not primarily so the driver can see out. If you do just a bit of your own research, you’ll find that the primary rationale for outlawing tinted windows is to protect others — including law enforcement — from violence perpetrated by those behind the tint.
And no one in this discussion has suggested “outlawing Islamic clothing”. I have said that covered faces — in public places — should be outlawed.
A community, like France, should be able to decide whether it is willing to allow members of the community to run around in masks all the time. Obviously, the French believe that such dress is a sufficient rationale to deny an application for immigration.
Just a comment about the ‘flaming cross.’
I believe the flame represents the Holy Spirit based on the Day of Pentecost when He descended on the church and the people had what appeared as flames of fire on their heads.
I’m not Methodist, so I don’t know for sure, but I worked briefly for a Presbyterian church (I’m not that, either!), and flames in their graphics always indicated the Holy Spirit/Ghost.
Chai T – True enough. Like the swastika, the flaming cross is ambiguous. The flaming cross was hijacked by the KKK. The swastika by the Nazis:
There is a great debate as to what the swastika means now. For 3,000 years, the swastika meant life and good luck. But because of the Nazis, it has also taken on a meaning of death and hate.
These conflicting meanings are causing problems in today’s society. For Buddhists and Hindus, the swastika is a very religious symbol that is commonly used. Chirag Badlani shares a story about one time when he went to make some photocopies of some Hindu Gods for his temple. While standing in line to pay for the photocopies, some people behind him in line noticed that one of the pictures had a swastika. They called him a Nazi.
See http://history1900s.about.com/cs/swastika/a/swastikahistory.htm
Should we make an “ugly exception”, maybe graded like the darkness on window tint, for those covering their faces? The uglier get more cover?
I have said that covered faces — in public places — should be outlawed.
And I’m saying the rationale – that they may *conceiveably* be hiding something is rather silly. Should cars therefore be built without trunks? Should all purses and bookbags be mandated to be see-through?
A pizza parlor down the street from me regularly has an employee stand out on a corner in a gorilla suit holding an ad. Should I regard him as a potential threat to public safety?
I completely understand why Kurt would not want covered faces in public, in two words “Elizabeth Smart”
But PUBLIC has no authority to decide how individuals dress, as long as they are not taking away the rights of others to to be free from their influence.
On the other hand, Banks, any other private business, or even government buildings and public safety officers on a public street, have the authority to require facial and visible identification.