It's 1984 In France

French President Nicolas Sarkozy spoke out today against the burqa, a traditional Muslim garment that covers the entire face and body,worn by fundamentalist females. According to Sarkozy, "The burqa is not a religious sign, it is a sign of the subjugation, of the submission of women." Now, while I would agree with him (whole heartedly, in fact) that the burqa is a symbol of subjugation, I feel I have to break the news that such subjugation, itself, is a part of some religions. For those who follow the strictest interpretations of Islam, the burqa is not just a symbol of anything - it is fundamentally mandatory. Since I sincerely doubt that Sarkozy is himself a Muslim, I have a hard time believing that he is more qualified than they to say what is and is not a symbol of their religion.
I have to admit, though, this guy is one of my favorite examples of what not to do in a free society.
Sarkozy wasn't satisfied with just making a public statement condemning the burqa. Many people have done that. I would do that myself if I had a bigger venue than just this blog. That is part of freedom of speech. If we don't like something, we have every right to say we don't like it. I don't like the burqa and I don't like everything the burqa stands for. Unlike Sarkozy, however, I would never even consider banning the burqa in an entire country. Banning the burqa is no more appropriate to a free society than would be banning floor length dresses or the bonnets that are both the accepted clothing of certain minority religious groups over here.
To be honest, though, I don't really expect much resembling proper free society behavior from France. They started their path toward "freedom" with an orgy of executions and they have continued to have some pretty twisted ideas on the concept since then.
No, what really gets me about people like Sarkozy is how fluent they are in what George Orwell (in that classic dystopian novel 1984 which, by the way, was not meant to be a blueprint for society, contrary to modern popular ideas) called doublethink. Doublethink, if you don't remember or haven't read the book, is "[t]he power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them....To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them ..."
Let me give you a shining example:
In today's speech, Sarkozy stated the phrase, "All views must be expressed ..." Keep in mind that he is making this statement in a speech that is in support of banning the views of a certain minority group. Nice contradictory belief there. He went on to say, "we must not be ashamed of our values, we must not be afraid of defending them." Unless, of course, your values happen to be in the minority, in which case we can just legislate them out of existence and too bad for you.
Let's be absolutely clear here: I dislike the burqa and everything it stands for, but that does not give me the right to decide the values of the people who use it. If that woman who is wearing the burqa believes in the values that require her to wear it, that is her right. If she decides she does not believe in those values and wants to remove the burqa then, by all means, throw the entire power of the state behind protecting that right as well, but you do not have the right to make that decision for her. Being elected president does not give you the right to decide other people's values and it doesn't make it right to say one thing while meaning the exact opposite.
Of course, this is from the same guy who couldn't even take a stand against kidnappings, so what are the odds that he'll show any more backbone on this issue?

Addendum: For the record, and for those who don't know, Islam is not even the only religion that has this kind of dress requirement. While fundamentalist Muslims do tend to be the most strict about it, there are branches of Judaism, Hinduism, and even Christianity that have similar modesty standards for women.

The Next French Revolution?

Democracy minus the Rule of Law equals mob rule and the French Revolution of the 18th Century showed us in graphic detail what happens when the mob is allowed to rule. It would seem, from recent news reports, that the French are even more tradition oriented than most of us believed and might actually be interested in revisiting Robespierre's Terror, from a modern perspective. Out with the Rule of Law and in with whatever the mob deems appropriate at the moment, complete with backing from the Left and labor movements.
What am I talking about? I'm talking about a recent surge of kidnappings - dubbed "bossnappings" by a biased press that is apparently incapable of treating these instances with the seriousness they deserve - that have taken place in mostly foreign-owned businesses in France. Workers, angry about the recession and fears of layoffs, have taken to forcefully holding management captive, sometimes for only a few hours and sometimes - in at least one case - for as much as a day. French President Nicolas Sarkozy made a public statement about how such actions would not be tolerated, to which workers replied by capturing more employers. To date, the police have not interfered with any of these so-called "bossnappings". So much for "will not tolerate". And what of the Left? According to them, this is completely understandable.
Let me nail this down into a more finely-detailed picture. Sarkozy, being the hardnosed law and order kind of guy he is (laugh laugh ha ha), offered to meet with representatives of labor and discuss the issues at hand. The response he got was a classic. "I don't see why we should go and see him just so he can politely insult us, since he seems to think we are delinquents for having detained management for a few hours."
Check out that last phrase, "he seems to think we are delinquents for having detained management for a few hours." Newsflash: You are delinquents! You are kidnapping people and holding them hostage against their will. I don't think that qualifies for a Boy Scout award.
Supposedly this whole situation creates a dilemma for Sarkozy, in that he doesn't know which side to appease. I'm not entirely certain how criminal behavior causes a dilemma for a nation's president - I don't think this has yet reached a level to justify calling out the military so it should probably more accurately be a "dilemma" for the various local police forces. Business interests say that if this continues they will be forced to take their business out of France. Labor interests say the people are desperate and you have to be understanding. You can see the dilemma, can't you? Sarkozy has to choose between coddling criminals or protecting his nation's economy. That must be a real keep-you-up-late-at-night kind of decision.
Those few nations (and they have been very few) in history who have made democracy work for any extended period of time have done so only by having a firm set of rules within which the democracy must operate. So long as those rules are followed and certain natural excesses are kept in check then democracy can flourish and usually provide the safest form of government for human liberty and rights. Once those laws begin to be set aside, however, democracy will quickly begin to transform into its evil twin, mob rule. The tyranny of the mob will never protect liberty or rights and it is exactly where democracy goes when the rule of law is removed.
If you want to see a return of The Terror, Mr. Sarkozy, then by all means continue to sit on your hands and bemoan the desperate nature of your people. Do please warn us, however, if that is your goal so that we can make preparations to prevent the madness from spreading.