But it's not just the burqa that is banned in public places in France, but the hijab as well, the head-scarf, in schools. Of course, such covering-up is oppressive, designed to soothe men, and so on. But if women cannot wear the burqa or jilbab (face-veil) in public, what might be a very real consequence ? That the women are shut up indoors (purdah) and even more reliant on the oppression of their men.

To be able to go out wearing a hijab or jilbab or burqa at least allows women to become familiar with what is going on out in the streets and to meet other people. Yes, it's still oppressive, but some of the arguments against seem to go to the other extreme - that seeing women in hijabs or jilbabs (only 2 % of Muslim women in France wear the burqa) is offensive to Europeans - so the poor bl00dy women can't win either way.

This is a struggle that only Muslim women can resolve, with sympathy and support, and it doesn't help if they are barred from the streets on the spurious grounds of what they are wearing: Bulky clothing can hide bombs ? Then ban overcoats. Head-to-toe covering ? Then ban nuns. Can't see their eyes ? Then ban sun-glasses.

What next ? That they talk funny ? We (the dominants) can't understand them ? Get a life, and let Muslim women live theirs without any more oppression.

Telling women what they can/cannot wear is sexist.

Telling women what they can/cannot wear to 'protect' them from sexism is still sexism.

If people weren't so preoccupied with how muslim women look they might discover that many non-muslim women, simply because they don't adorn a burqa, are far from emancipated.

"what is threatening about a Muslim scarf (or hijab) in the eyes of those who do find it threatening is not that it is an expression of a religious, rather than a secular, culture. It is primarily that the hijab represents a woman who is wilfully subjecting herself to a law other than the law of the nation, another patriarchal order. It is this that those who are trying to find a sense of security in their national space cannot tolerate. For them, the rule is always one nation, one patriarchal law. The laws and the patriarchy of the ‘other’ have no place in ‘my’ national space." - Ghassan Hage

Interesting article. Although I personally find the burqa a ridiculous garment, I think that heavy-handed legislative approaches like banning its wearing in public places are likely to have more negative than positive effects on French society.

For once, I agree with stevenlmeyer - while it's debatable that the burqa is currently a political symbol, banning it will certainly make it so. I also agree with Lodmouth and strayan - if the ostensible reason for banning the burqa is to emancipate repressed Muslim women it is very likely to backfire. The short-term effect of such legislation will be further restrictions on the freedom of on those women who currently wear the burqa, while at a broader level the focus on what a handful of Muslim women wear serves to deflect attention from less obvious patriarchal structures in society.

The quote from anthropologist Ghassan Hage is spot-on.

Good on the frogs for such a law. You can't go into a bank with a bike helmet on, i should imagine a burka would be even more intimidating.
These sort of cultural rules should be made clear before immigration takes place. I think you would be doing these females a good service, It cant be healthy living in such garb surely. I don't see anything against the head scaff like the indonesians, but the burka is offensive.

I think this is a difficult issue, from many angles.
The biggest issue of principle is, how does a society which seeks to promote tolerance deal with intolerance? Islam in its many forms is an intolerant religion. One of the many things it will not tolerate is any interference with its version of dominance, not patriarchy, as others suggest. (In a similar way, Islam demands that a Muslim not be subordinate to a non-Muslim - which is the reason a non-Muslim man marrying a Muslim woman must become a Muslim himself, for in Islam the husband dominates the wife. It also effects work-place promotion decisions.)
A Muslim woman is to be dominated by her husband's choices for her, if he chooses to exercise that right under Islamic law. Hence France is challenging the husband's ability to choose for his wife what she will wear. I imagine it won't be the last time French legislators attempt to interrupt this dominance.
The main personal issue is, how does a society deal with the consequences of its actions towards some of its most oppressed members, in this case, those women who choose to or are forced to wear the burka? It is quite likely that the immediate result will be increased isoltion for those women whose husbands demand they wear the burka at all times. Those who have chosen to wear it can choose for themselves if they wear it at those times where it would be prohibited.
Dominance is an intrinsic value for Islam, and I support any action which seeks to expose and challenge it. Islam's need for dominance is based on intolerance, and it should not be tolerated. The conundrum exists. And I support any program to ameliorate the isolation this action will likely cause.

I find the burqa offensive.
That someone should consider that I should not see them is an insult.
If they do not want to be seen then they should stay indoors.
Certainly I would not do any business with them.
You cannot enter a bank wearing a motorcycle helmet.

From the woman's point of view it must be uncomfortable on a hot day
and be restrictive to wear. Perhaps moslem women are afraid of men.
Sad