Two French female students have made a film of the pair of them strolling through the streets of Paris in a niqab, bare legs and mini-shorts as a critique of France’s recently passed law.
Calling themselves the “Niqabitches,” the veiled ladies can be seen strutting past prime ministerial offices and various government ministries with a black veil leaving only their eyes visible, but with their long legs naked bar black high heels.
Bemused passers-by can be seen gawping at the pair or asking to take photographs in the clip.
Well they are French so can’t help themselves and the lasses do have quite nice legs.
At one stage in the film, the two women approach the entrance to the ministry of immigration and national identity, only to be told by a policeman to go elsewhere. However, a policewoman also present is delighted by their clothes. “I love your outfit, is it to do with the new law?” she asks. “Yes, we want to de-dramatise the situation,” one girl replies. “It’s brilliant. Can I take a photo?” asks the policewoman, who will soon be required to fine public niqab wearers.
So you can wear a niqab in private. I was chatting to my wife yesterday about the movie “Psycho”. The shower scene specifically which caused Alf Hitchcock a lot of agro with the censors. My take was… Well, I got into the shower this morning and I wasn’t wearing any clothes. I reckon you possibly did too and completely naked as well! Getting into the shower wearing clothes would be the perverse thing.
In an opinion piece published on the news website, rue89, the anonymous duo – political science and communication students in their twenties – said the film was a tongue-in-cheek way of criticising France’s niqab ban, which the Senate passed last month and is due to go into force early next year.
“To put a simple burka on would have been too simple. So we asked ourselves: ‘how would the authorities react when faced with women wearing a burka and mini-shorts?,” asked the students, one of whom is a Muslim.
“We were not looking to attack or degrade the image of Muslim fundamentalists – each to their own – but rather to question politicians who voted for this law that we consider clearly unconstitutional,” they said.
“To dictate what we wear appears to have become the role of the State (as if they didn’t have other fish to fry …).”
Well, quite. Except this is France. This is the land of Rousseau who believed in “forcing people to be free”. Now don’t get me wrong. The niqab or burka is an affront to civilization. It’s basically saying you infidel chaps see a pretty girl’s face and it’s raping time. It is perverse and purely fitting for a religion that believes quite literally that all men are rapists purely because it’s founder was - “Whatever your right hand possesses” and all that. Margaret Atwood in “The Handmaid’s Tale” has a future America as a fascist state due to the perverse alliance of radical feminists and Christian fundamentalists. I think she got the religion wrong but it’s an interesting idea for a Canadian.
The film had been viewed 71,000 times on rue89 and a few hundred times on YouTube yesterday, but French websites predicted it would become an internet sensation.
France’s law banning the burka makes no mention of Islam, but President Nicolas Sarkozy’s government promoted the law as a means to protect women from being forced to wear Muslim full-face veils such as the burka or the niqab.
I did mention Rousseau didn’t I? It seems his spirit is alive and well and haunting the Elysée Palace.
France’s five-million-strong Muslim minority is Western Europe’s largest, but fewer than 2,000 women are believed actually to wear a full face veil.
So it’s not a problem really is it?
Once the law is in force, a woman who chooses to defy the ban will receive a fine of 150 euros (£125) or a course of citizenship lessons. A man who forces a woman to go veiled will be fined 30,000 euros (£25,000) and serve a jail term.
How the hell the later could be proven is utterly beyond me.
It could yet be overturned by France’s constitutional court.
It would be here (I hope!) and the USA but France? God knows! It is though a sad day when one of the great nations of civilization adopts a dress code. It is a very sad day when they adopt it against the supposed dress code of Islam. And it is a really sad day when they are so politically correct that they don’t dare even name Islam in the law they passed. That is pathetic. So fewer than 2000 French women wear the veil? That’s 2000 out of over 2 million and that is a problem? I tend not to carry a strong hand for victimhood poker but that is ridiculous. And the law is ludicrous. No man will ‘fess up to that. If he is forcing his missus to go round in a tent he clearly has enough control over her to get her to claim it was her free will and take the 150Es and not the 30,000Es and a term in stir. I mean that’s serious.
The burkha, the niqab are tragic. They are a fundamental denial of humanity. They ultimately say something terrible about our species. Terrible and untrue but oddly self-fulfilling. I mean if a glimpse of stocking is something shocking then the burkha is needed. Of course we could live in the modern world where an attractive female dressed as attractive females do in the modern world isn’t “asking for it”. We could live there. I do. I know which world I inhabit and right now it ain’t France. My Frogulent chums do you not understand that imposing a dress code as an antidote to a dress code is missing the point by miles (or kilometres)?
Islam is the creation of a sexual pervert and child rapist. It is a vile faith. It is epically sexist against men. We are quite simply not expected to keep our pecker in our thobe. Well, I tend to keep mine in my combats most of the time otherwise I’d be in jail. I refute it thus but a law? A law! No. We should not have a law against rank stupidity. If we did about a third of the population would be in jail. Or approximately 1/1000 of the Muslim women of France. Knock yourself out Nicky Sarcophagus. Force them to be free! That’s what Rousseau did when he wasn’t decking a tramp to half-inch his boots.
Damn, how to guarantee offense to everyone…..
Genius. They’ve found a great way of making the point. Agreed, having a law is stupid. True, it is deeply sexist in different ways to both men and women, and of course making women dress up like a cross between a ninja and Demis Roussos probably means there’s no way of saying “I don’t fancy yours much” in Arabic. Maybe we should be pointing the implications of that out and waiting for the penny to drop before creating a Ministry of Dress Sense and setting Trinny and Susannah on an innocent public.
I must respectfully disagree, France has the right to assert it’s historical and stringent secular values. This was voted in 246 to 1. That’s France for you.
Take a walk down the high street in West Ham, and down some of the streets in the UK where niqab is prevalent. It’s on the increase. It’s symbolic of the dark ages.
I am heartened to think somewhere in the world Western democracy is prepared to defend itself from a dark and regressive cultural onslaught.
I think the experiment needs to be done. It may prove to be futile and unworkable as you point out
I dislike the idea of legislating - but how else can the state defend the citizens of an encroaching cultural onslaught? Reducing immigration? That cannot be libertarian.
Naked in the shower? How depraved you are!
In Catholic girls schools in the old days, it was forbidden to be naked in the bath. They were issued a loose shift to throw over themselves and they washed themselves under it.
No, there is no limit to stupidity.
“and of course making women dress up like a cross between a ninja and Demis Roussos probably means there’s no way of saying “I don’t fancy yours much” in Arabic. ”
I dunno much Arabic but I suspect your conflation of Japanese assassins and Greek crooners has probably finished of the last vestige of my heterosexuality. Cheers! I was enjoying that orientation.
ED,
There is clearly a “wears the soap” joke lurking there. You are not making that up are you? No you are not. I shall come out. I am naked in the shower for my sins. I have been seen in such a disgraceful state by… Well my wife and it came as a shock to her. She normally insists I wear spats to bed.
Seriously though (and the spats are serious - they chafe) I think, and I re-read my post, this is the key line “I mean if a glimpse of stocking is something shocking then the burkha is needed”. Do you agree? What I was getting at is this… You know the Dr Who Episode “Tooth and Claw” and Queen Victoria refers to Rose Tyler as “naked” because she is dressed as a standard C21st English lass. I mean is that it? Is our level of toleration of undress entirely cultural? And furthermore does that mean that Kylie dropping her knickers in front of me would have the exact same effect as my Great, great grandfather seeing a hint of leg? Or put simply is whatever is deemed the forbidden fruit purely by that definition the sweetest whatever society deems forbidden?
I’m not making it up - the old memory bank has it in there, I think it was a ’60s person talking about her upbringing. Might have been Marianne Faithfull, but can’t be certain.
You’re right, it is relative. I recall being on a beach once with some young Christians, and a girl began changing into a bikini in front of me.
I happened to know that she came from a strict black-stocking church in Holland where probably mini-skirts were frowned on.
The bikini appeared, and yes, it was slightly larger, less revealing, than the skimpy things worn by the middle-of the-road Christians. In relative terms, she was modest.
“So fewer than 2000 French women wear the veil?”
That’s not really a good argument for setting a general policy. Beware the Law of Unintended Consequences!
Back in the early 1960s in the UK, few children were born out of wedlock. It seemed like a compassionate thing to make provision for those few single girls unfortunate enough to get pregnant — provide income to keep the mother & child together; give them a place to stay; make sure the mother still gets an education; etc. Jump to today, where a signficant percentage of babies are born to single mothers, and getting knocked up is almost a career choice for teenage girls. This was not supposed to be the outcome of that compassionate policy.
There are arguments for and against enforcing “open face” rules in a society where traditionally only criminals covered their faces. But the small number of women in France who would be affected today is not one of the supporting arguments.
Kinuachdrach,
And your point is?
The catholic girls school thing is true. As I sort of keep saying, well keep saying a lot actually, puritanism is much the same in terms of silly rules the world over. The primary difference between the West and Islamic world is that we use techniques of shunning and peer pressure to enforce our silly rules, whereas there they cut your head off.
When I first saw it I thought it was a protest AGAINST the Burka!
Can be read both ways, really.
I totally agree with you about it being wrong to legislate for what people can wear in a “free” (snicker) society.
However, I will admit to ideologically impure thoughts on this issue…as a female I am profoundly disturbed and yes! offended by the burka.
So to see it banned gives me a certain wrongheaded satisfaction I’m afraid.
Surely it is correct to ban SOME uniforms, such as the burkha?
However, as in the case of the video, it is NEVER OK to ban girls in anything skimpy.
ADE
In case it is not clear from the above, the issue is MOTIVATION.
ADE
Our nanny states could make a case for banning high heels, and screw the rights of women who choose to wear them despite the risk of bunions, bad posture and twisted ankles - it costs the NHS money to treat that stuff, you know
and clearly being forced by something a silly as a cultural convention into wearing something that inhibits the freedom - ha! - to run … hey, there’s a point, perhaps we should ban pencil skirts as well. Sorry if all this means you girls are going to have to chuck out some of your wardrobe and your favourite heels but this is all in the interests of your freedom, just like banning burqas was for those poor women that are now not be allowed out of the fucking house at all.
The bottom line is that more freedom is never won by banning things.
“The bottom line is that more freedom is never won by banning things.”
I wrote quite a lot on this. I only needed to write a line - yours. Bugger!
“The bottom line is that more freedom is never won by banning things” this is literally and logically incorrect.
Banning the sale of explosives to the general public gives others freedom to walk around without getting blown up, for example.
Freedom of others to live in relative safety means inevitably some things will be banned. Otherwise it would be a savage, backwards, wild west, mob-rule society.
Generally speaking, we as a society should find other avenues than legislation to discourage or encourage behaviours, where possible. But some legislation is necessary for society to function/
It’s not so much about the burkah as about throwing a spanner in the islamisation of France.
Make the country (and hopefully soon the entire continent) as hostile to muhammedans as we can and maybe they’ll pack up and leave.
Solves a lot of problems. Not just crime, social injustice, and things like that, but also unemployment and social security budgets go down drastically.
Being hostile to anyone referring to themselves as Muslim is wrong, the majority of Muslims in this country genuinely think theirs is a great, peaceful religion that has been twisted by the extremists. And so they themselves are decent and peaceful people. And the majority aren’t particularly religious.
However I’m all for being hostile to signs of extremist ideals that contradict liberal democratic ideals that embody the way of life for us in the West.
We shouldn’t make allowances for Islam or Islamic ideals but we should afford ordinary or cultural Muslims the decency we afford everybody else.
“Banning the sale of explosives to the general public gives others freedom to walk around without getting blown up, for example.”
Bull-bleeping-shit. No, it does not give the public any such freedom, as the London 7/11 bombings or the Madrid metro bombings clearly demonstrate. What it does do is give wise politicians the excuse ban more and more things when some nutcase tries to use them for something nefarious. I am reminded of the story (cannot provide link - was retold to me) of an American on a boat in the UK. They had some tangled-ropes problem, and he produced a pocket knife to cut through some of the ropes. Half of the crew just about jumped overboard. Explosives happen to be available to a fairly large number of people in the mining and civil engineering industry, to say nothing of folks in the military. Do you see any of them setting off explosives trying to hurt civilians? I am reasonably sure that in the UK, just like everywhere else, to get explosives-certified, you need an IQ above room temperature (in Fahrenheit), a couple of years in the industry, and passing a test I could probably pass. Yet… no cases. Explain that, please.
Plamus has beaten me to it, marvin. It’s the gun argument all over again: you are not made safer by restricting the liberty of law abiding people and you’re dreaming if you think you are. Assuming that you are not attacking me I would not use a gun against you, so a law preventing me from having one does not grant you greater freedom - it just restricts mine. It certainly doesn’t increase your safety since shooting you is already illegal and is a greater crime than merely having the gun, so anyone who is prepared to shoot you will have no qualms about ignoring the law that says they can’t have a gun. It really doesn’t matter whether we’re talking guns, knives or explosives… or barbecue cylinders or petrol and the means to aerosolise it, preventing law abiding citizens from having something or doing something achieves little or no extra safety (which I’d argue should not be conflated with freedom). All it will definitely achieve is to remove a little more liberty from those law abiding citizens.
“I wrote quite a lot on this. I only needed to write a line - yours. Bugger!”
Nick, use it as much as you like. Libertarianism doesn’t have enough soundbites and we need to counter the constant mutterings and calls of “there oughta be a law against it”.
Angry, Plamus,
This discussion is beginning to remind me of one of the more surreal episodes in the history of the Provisional IRA. Big on their fertilizer bombs were the IRA. Now the thing is to set one of you need sulphuric acid in a strong but frangible container. God knows how they worked this out but they realised a condom was ideal. But the Provos were good Catholics so a truly perverse discussion ensured on the use of immoral devices. I think the irony was lost on them that the bomb was a vastly more immoral device than the condom but expecting sense from such folks is asking too much. Terrorists pretty much by definition lack a sense of proportion. If I get annoyed I right a polite but strongly worded letter to my MP. When terrorists get annoyed they fill the back of a truck with explosives and detonate it in the town square.
Thanks Angry.
Have you actually looked at some of the laws introduced by Labour? Did you know they felt the urgent need to legislate on the sale of grey squirrels and quite farcically it is specifically against the law of the land to enter the wreck of RMS Titanic without the permission of a Minister of State. Well that means I wasted cash on greysquirrels.co.uk and my plans for next weekend are down the pan.
Pedant alert! Rousseau was Swiss.
“We shouldn’t make allowances for Islam or Islamic ideals but we should afford ordinary or cultural Muslims the decency we afford everybody else.”
Bugger. The “ordinary or cultural Muslim” IS the religious fanatic!
The “moderate” IS the one who wants to kill everyone who adheres to a different religion (the “radical” you refer to wants to kill everyone else, other Muslims included).
The only Muslim who is like you feel an “ordinary Muslim” would be would by his peers be considered an apostate, an unbeliever, for not adhering to strict Islamic principles, of which the niqab and burqah are outward signs.
These people exist, but they are a vanishingly small minority and most live in fear of being found out and meeting the wrath of their community (”honour killings”, stoning, burning, beheading).
I know one, he estimates that people like him make up at most 3% of the entire Muslim community worldwide and less than 1% of that in Europe.
Nick, there have been some doozies. Ever looked at the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001? That Act makes it an offence - and you’re never going to believe this - an offence to cause a nuclear explosion (exceptions made for HM Govt if it feels the need to fling any of Britain’s own nukes, natch). Presumably this was vital because otherwise the cops might have nicked someone for conspiracy to cause an explosion and he might have used the fact that actually, no, it was a nuclear explosion as a loophole, and was in no way at all legislative grandstanding to make Phoney Tony and his lobby fodder mob look tough on terrorism.
/facepalm
Actually there’s a second act making it illegal to set off nuclear explosions. They passed the Nuclear Explosions Act 1998 because, according to Jack Straw, it “enables the UK to abide by a nuclear test ban treaty” though Wikipedia says it’s not valid until a minister signs an order to make it come into force, and three years later they brought the other act in instead. Splendid use of Parliamentary time, I think we can all agree.
And above all else we don’t have to worry about Osandwich Short of Picnic Bin Liner getting hold of a wagon load of fissile material and using it to solve the rush hour jams on the A4 permanently, because the law says it’s not allowed.
A lot of good points in the post and the comments.
And you have got the philosophical background - bugger, I am supposed to that.
However, I suppose saying “was not France better before you Muslims turned up, we want out country back” would be a bit un P.C.
The General with the tash betrayed the Arabs who faught for France in Algeria (he handed them over to be tortured to death by the F.L.N.) he feared if even let pro French Arabs come to France then France would not be France anymore - so it was better (for France) to let the FLN torture them to death.
However, as soon as the General stopped being President of the Republic the French government (like the German government with Germany and ….) did everything they could to convince Muslims come to France.
Odd really.
Presumably this was vital because otherwise the cops might have nicked someone for conspiracy to cause an explosion and he might have used the fact that actually, no, it was a nuclear explosion as a loophole, and was in no way at all legislative grandstanding to make Phoney Tony and his lobby fodder mob look tough on terrorism.
That’s exactly right. The laws against murder, criminal damage to property, and assault, and conspiracy or attempt to commit same, have all been repealed.
I just can’t wrap my head around protecting “liberal democracy” (whatever the frak that is but I probably wouldn’t like it anyway) requires depriving adults of the freedom to dress themselves.
Yes, I was aware that it is specifically against English law to detonate a nuclear weapon apart from in the context of war. That is bizarre beyond belief. Setting off a nuke is quite simpl;y an act of war par excellence. We nuke Lyon what is Sarkozy going to do? Fly to New York and demand punitive sanctions at the UN? I don’t think so. He’d be on the horn and asking how many warheads the Navy could unload on us.