French Government Condemns Violence Prompted by Veil Ban

Reason

The French government has condemned violence that broke out in the Paris suburb of Trappes over the weekend after a man was detained for allegedly attacking the police officer who stopped his wife for wearing a banned full-face veil.

Wearing full-face veils was banned in France in April 2011. The punishment for wearing the banned veils is a fine of up to 200 euros or a mandatory citizenship course.

From Al-Jazeera:

The French government has condemned as "unacceptable" weekend violence outside Paris triggered by the country's ban on full-face veils and strongly defended the controversial law.

Two senior members of the government, Prime Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault and Interior Minister Manuel Valls spoke on Monday following the violence in the suburb of Trappes, southwest of Paris.

The unrest erupted after a man was detained for allegedly attacking a police officer who had stopped his wife over her full-face veil a practice that is banned in France, outraging many in the Muslim community.

Follow this story and more at Reason 24/7.

Spice up your blog or Website with Reason 24/7 news and Reason articles. You can get the widgets here. If you have a story that would be of interest to Reason's readers please let us know by emailing the 24/7 crew at [e-mail], or tweet us stories at @reason247.

Comments

[Fist of Etiquette]

You know who else collaborated with Hitler?

[Tonio]

Vidkun Quisling?

[creech]

Wait a minute, isn't it the Americans who are bigots and need to be schooled on European sensibilities?

[Eduard van Haalen]

I hear they're confiscating deodorant from Americans at airports.

Wait, that joke doesn't work because the TSA does it, too. Damn.

[anon]

Simpsons did it!

[Eduard van Haalen]

In this case, I'm inclined to sympathize with the fundamentalist Muslims. The veil ban is in the context of a French policy of militant secularization. I understand that, for the sake of evanhandedness, they're going after crosses, too (at least in public institutions). \

The problem, of course, is when unveiled women get attacked or acid-sprayed. That is certainly a problem.

[Live Free or Diet]

I understand that, for the sake of evanhandedness, they're going after crosses, too (at least in public institutions).

I wonder what they would do about a cross tattoo?

[UnCivilServant]

"Scapel"

[UnCivilServant]

*Scalpel

I love typoes.

[Live Free or Diet]

I also have distrato-typeosis!

[Live Free or Diet]

That's one tough rule!

[Careless]

Leave it to the French to make me sympathize with fundamentalist Muslims.

[Adam330]

We have a right to force you under threat of violence to stop doing something fundamental to your religion and that hurts no one, but when you resist it is "unacceptable."

[Outlaw]

Worship of the state is the one true religion! All others are imposters corrupting the people and offering them false hope.

We are the government and we can only have Heaven on Earth if we create it! So trust our leaders for they are the ones we've been waiting for!

[sarcasmic]

It's silly to believe that the universe, matter and energy and the laws of physics were created by a higher power. Obviously these things are a product of emergent order.
It is equally silly to believe that there can be any emergent order in society or the economy. Those things must be tightly regulated, ordered, and controlled by top men or the result will be anarchy and chaos.
Yep. No mental contradiction there. None at all.

[anon]

It's silly to believe that the universe, matter and energy and the laws of physics were created by a higher power.

Bullshit. We all know energy, matter and the universe were created by government.

[Zeb]

It is a very silly set of views to hold. Though I think that atheist totalitarians are still outnumbered by religious totalitarians.

[sarcasmic]

Statism is not a religion?

[ant1sthenes]

Well, statism could mean anything that isn't anarchy, really. But in the sense that you mean it, the state is basically used as a substitute for god. But, that would mean that the state essentially is a god for such a person, so they wouldn't be an atheist. So you're both right.

[Zeb]

Not the way I define religion. It's similar, but not the same.

[Zeb]

What I don't like is framing these sorts of issues as pertaining especially to religion. A government should not force anyone under threat of violence to stop doing anything that they want to do for any reason if it hurts no one. The end. Religion needs no special protection. Religious freedom is a subset of just plain freedom, not a special case.

[sarcasmic]

Religious freedom is considered special in that it is freedom of thought and conscience. You don't have to actually commit any acts to violate laws pertaining to religion. All you have to do is have prohibited thoughts to be a criminal.

[Zeb]

Well, you have to commit some act for people to know that you have prohibited thoughts.

[Eduard van Haalen]

"Religion needs no special protection. Religious freedom is a subset of just plain freedom, not a special case."

I get what you're saying, *but* - when the government regulates everything and everything, it's hard for religious people to prevail on pure libertarian arguments. Maybe they ought to, but it's sometimes a better tactic to rely on religious-freedom principles protected by human-rights instruments.

And it's not as simple as them wanting exemption from a law which applies to everyone else. The veil ban was specifically aimed at the practices of a particular religion. So while technically both Muslims and Left Bank habitues are equally prohibited from wearing veils, we know who the real targets are.

Plus, the French have yielded to militant Muslims on other, somewhat more dubious issues - why pick on Muslim women in particular?

[Eduard van Haalen]

"everything and everything"

I meant *anything* and everything.

Just assume I used the (nonexistent) edit button.

[Zeb]

The problem is that if religion is given special protection under the law, then you end up in a situation where some government agent has to determine what is or is not religion. Unless the law automatically assumes that anything that anyone claims is a religious practice is in fact a religious practice, then laws intended to protect religious freedom actually limit religious freedom by determining what is or is not religion in the first place.
A good example of this is the use of drugs in religious practice. We have ended up in the US with a situation where the Native American Church (or whatever it is called) can use peyote, but pretty much no other religion is allowed the same freedom with any other illegal drug. There is no religious freedom if some court or agency gets to decide that the peyote ceremonies are legitimate religious practice, but my religion that I just invented which requires that I smoke pot every day is not.

[jesse.in.mb]

Silly Muslim protesters, if you really want to prove you're French, flip some small cars, barricade the avenues and throw paving stones at the police. They'll be so happy you've learned French civics they'll probably let the veil thing go.

[Eduard van Haalen]

"Our unemployed riot more before 9 AM that you Muslims riot all day!"

[Gozer the Gozerian]

Rioting is quite French, and appropriate, but only for thirty-five hours a week...

[Anders]

I like the ban on the full veil. The fact is that country is over run with terrorists and this is a way of hiding identity.

Try walking into a government building or even your local bank wearing a motorcycle helmet and a race visor. That's a big no no too. Same reason.

[Sevo]

"The fact is that country is over run with terrorists and this is a way of hiding identity."

Sarc?

[jesse.in.mb]

Sarc?

I take it you haven't had the pleasure of meeting Anders yet.

[Outlaw]

You know who else was named Anders?

[Kaptious Kristen]

The Cylon pyramid player in BSG?

[Sevo]

"I take it you haven't had the pleasure of meeting Anders yet."

I see. Thx.

[Rich]

Completely OT, but this is really cool:
Rapid Design Tool Creates Mechatronic Characters

[anon]

It's easy, just ban violence too.

Bans all the way down.

[Gozer the Gozerian]

Until they ban banning...

[thom]

I like this story because I have no opinion either way. I'd be happy if both sides lost.

[Gozer the Gozerian]

Please define "lose" in this context.