"Girls get the message early on here that they are sexual beings, from advertising and marketing campaigns — and even from department stores that sell lingerie for girls as young as 6."
And then we all wonder why there are so many sick perverts running around.
"France seeks to outlaw child pageants" by Angela Charlton | Associated Press, September 19, 2013
PARIS — Child beauty pageants may soon be banned in France, after a surprise vote in the French Senate that rattled the pageant industry and raised questions about how the French relate to girls’ sexuality.
Such contests, and the made-up, dolled-up beauty queens they produce, have the power to both fascinate and repulse, and have drawn criticism in several countries. France, with its controlling traditions, appears to be out front in pushing an outright ban.
French legislators stopped short of approving a measure banning anyone under 16 from modeling products meant for adults — a sensitive subject in a country renowned for its fashion and cosmetics industries, and about to host Paris Fashion Week.
The proposed children’s pageant amendment sprouted from a debate on a women’s rights law. The legislation, approved by a vote of 197-146, must go to the lower house of Parliament for further debate and another vote.
Its language is brief but sweeping: ‘‘Organizing beauty competitions for children under 16 is banned.’’ Violators — who could include parents, contest organizers, or anyone who ‘‘encourages or tolerates children’s access to these competitions’’ — would face up to two years in prison and $40,000 in fines.
It doesn’t specify whether it would extend to things like online photo competitions or pretty baby contests.
While child beauty pageants are not as common in France as in the United States, girls get the message early on here that they are sexual beings, from advertising and marketing campaigns — and even from department stores that sell lingerie for girls as young as 6.
The United States has also seen controversy around child beauty pageants and reality shows such as ‘‘Toddlers & Tiaras.’’
Now we have Honey Boo Boo!
Such contests gripped the public imagination after the 1996 death of 6-year-old beauty queen JonBenet Ramsey, as images of her splashed over national television and opened the eyes of many to the scope of the industry.
I think the mother killed her out of jealousy.
‘‘We are talking about children who are only being judged on their appearance, and that is totally contrary to the development of a child,’’ said Chantal Jouanno, the French amendment’s author.
‘‘The question of the hyper-sexualization is deeper in the United States than in France, but the levees are starting to fall. Before we are hit by the wave, the point is to say very clearly: ‘Not here.’ ’’
She insisted she is not attacking parents, saying that most moms do not realize the deeper societal problems the contests represent.
‘‘When I asked an organizer why there were no mini-boy contests, I heard him respond that boys would not lower themselves like that,’’ she said in the Senate debate.
Michel Le Parmentier, who says he has been organizing ‘‘mini-miss’’ pageants in France since 1989, passionately defended his business on Wednesday.
He said that he has been in discussions with legislators about regulating such pageants, but was not expecting an overall ban. He says his contests forbid make-up and high heels and corporate sponsors, and focus on princess dresses and ‘‘natural beauty’’ — and that he should not be lumped in with pedophiles or other contest organizers who capitalize on children for profit.
‘‘It’s just little girls playing princess,’’ he said.
He said that if the law is approved, he will focus on children’s talent contests called ‘‘Mini-Stars’’ that he has already been conducting.
The senators debated whether to come up with a softer measure limiting beauty pageants, but in the end decided on an overall ban.
--more--"
Then there is the flip side just below in printed paper:
"Britain finding a middle ground on veils" by Jill Lawless | Associated Press, September 19, 2013
LONDON — In Britain this week, a judge struck a blow for religious freedom. Or for secularism. It all depends on whom you ask.
Judge Peter Murphy ruled that a female Muslim defendant may stand trial wearing a face-covering veil — but must remove it when giving testimony. The compromise ruling had some insisting it backs a woman’s religious right to wear the veil, and others saying it shows British justice remains independent and won’t bow to religious demands.
The case has reignited a debate about Muslim veils that has flared across Europe, sparking protests and exacerbating religious tensions in several countries. Those tensions exist in Britain, too, and attacks on Muslims and mosques rose after the slaying of an off-duty British soldier by Islamist extremists in May.
See: British Bellyaches
But both the court ruling and the interpretations of it suggest that Britain is facing the issue with a streak of pragmatism, and there is little appetite from the center-right coalition government for a ban like that introduced in France.
This is a country where many politicians agree with the aide to former prime minister Tony Blair who famously said: ‘‘We don’t do religion.’’
‘‘I don’t think the government should tell women what they should be wearing,’’ Home Secretary Theresa May said Tuesday.
Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg agreed: ‘‘We shouldn’t end up like other countries issuing edicts or laws from Parliament telling people what they should or should not wear.’’
The veil has become an emotive issue in European countries that are home to visible and growing Muslim populations.
Two years ago France became the first country to ban face-covering veils such as the niqab or burqa anywhere in public. The officially secular nation had already banned Muslim headscarves and other ‘‘ostentatious’’ religious symbols from classrooms.
Belgium has a similar ban, while several other European countries have restrictions in the works. The debate also has erupted in Canada, where the majority French-speaking province of Quebec has proposed banning public servants from wearing showy religious symbols including veils, large Christian crosses, and Jewish skullcaps.
I'll bet that last one raised some ire with certain
The debate exposes the gulf between two differing and sometimes conflicting views — the idea that social cohesion can be imposed by the state, and the idea that freedom of religion is a fundamental right. Many European countries lean toward the former, while the United States feels strongly about the latter. As on many issues, Britain lies somewhere in the middle.
A 2010 Pew Research poll found majority support for banning veils in several European countries, including Britain. The level of support in Britain was lower than in France or Germany, but higher than in the United States, where a large majority opposed such a ban.
Britain has no government bans on religious symbols. Schools and employers may set dress rules, but are forbidden from discriminating based on religion.
--more--"
Yeah, it's those women running around in veils that are the threat. Just ignore all the bankster looting and war-profiteering that have destroyed your economy and way of life!
Also see: Britain calmly legalizes gay marriage
There are some differences between British and French, as you can see.
