Wearing Burqa? You’re Not Welcome in France!

The Swiss voters banned minarets, and were accused of racism over not allowing the building piles of bricks of doubtful aesthetic value in a Central European landscape. One of the first to accuse Switzerland of racism was the highly gifted and diplomatic Foreign Minister of France, Bernard Kouchner.

Currently in French parliament, a law is being discussed to ban women wearing burqa from entering public buildings. This law, nota bene, was introduced by the current government which normally should include the foreign minister. But obviously, Kouchner is too busy to keep up with what is going on in his country.

The limitation on the ban on burqas in public buildings is prompted on by the most humanitarian reasoning: The French Government is afraid that a general ban would be dragged to Strasbourg’s European law courts almost immediately, while by limiting it to public buildings they are able to hide behind citing security reasons for the ban. This is not deductive thinking on my part, but official French policy, as it emerged over a further law that is currently prepared for French parliament.

Eric Besson, Minister for Immigration, announced yesterday that he is prepared to present a bill to parliament barring women wearing burqa from attaining French citizenship. He was cited as reviewing visa practices on the same grounds. Aren’t we just grateful to the French for clarifying the issue that religious buildings have a race, but clothing doesn’t? Or is the message just that attacking a minority within a minority is not attacking a minority at all?

France is a Republic, not a Democracy, and this points me to two comments I received on my article about the Swiss minarets. First, I want to quote our fellow writer (recommended reading by the way) Leonardo davinci Evans: (quote) Democracy has spoken if that is the kind of government intended, but I prefer a Republic which merely uses elements of Democracy as a means of different people coming to a decision, but absolutely believes that all its citizens have specific Human Rights which are not subject to anyone’s Democratic vote (And what would be a tyranny of the people if done otherwise). (unquote)

Second, a comment left by an anonymous user under ‘jamie mullen’: (quote) “The word democracy translates to power of the people, and it means that the people have the last say on any issue concerning the country, its laws, and its interests. It also means that the people are always right.”

No, actually it does not. Just because the majority thinks something is true does not make it morally or even factually correct. Even people who truly love democracy have to admit it has it’s flaws. I would say this is a prime example of one of those flaws namely the ability of the voting population to be swayed by emotion rather than rational thinking. (unquote)

While I thought that jamie mullen went over the top as compared to Leonardo davince Evans when stripping politicians of their humanity (emotions are often quoted as one of the characteristics that set humans apart from other animals), I am currently reconsidering if he was not right after all. The pure cynicism of minority management in France makes one wonder.

For those who are not current about French politics: France’s only claim to fame in the 20th century, apart from having lost all wars (the ones they won were won for them by others), is the ruthless suppression of minorities. By making the French language the only used in schools by Presidential decree, they try to root out the Breton in the east, the Basque on the border to Spain, the Provencal in the South together with the Corse, the German in the North, and the spoken Allemannic in the West. Maybe Kouchner should take the Swiss pointer of cleaning out your own house before pointing your finger at others.