# French Senate bans burqa



## readytogo (14 Sep 2010)

According to CNN.com
http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/09/14/france.burqa.ban/index.html
THe french senate has voted overwhelmingly in favor of banning the wearing of Burqa's callling it "a new form of enslavement that the republic cannot accept on its soil." that will be punishable my fines and possibly up to 1 year in prison and a fine of up to 19000 euros for forcing someone to wear a burqa.


   Isnt this just another quran burning type incident that the radical islamists will use to fuel the flames....AGAIN!!!!! as i understood it the woman has the choice to wear it or not??? so what is the justification in the eyes of the French??


----------



## PuckChaser (14 Sep 2010)

readytogo said:
			
		

> Isnt this just another quran burning type incident that the radical islamists will use to fuel the flames....AGAIN!!!!! as i understood it the woman has the choice to wear it or not???



There's choice, and "choice". Most are given a "choice". France doesn't really care what the hardline Islamists want.... they dealt with 2 weeks of riots and burning cars in Paris a while ago and kept on going.


----------



## readytogo (14 Sep 2010)

I didnt know the riots had already happened, guess we wait and see what unfolds


----------



## PuckChaser (14 Sep 2010)

Wiki's not the most reliable source, but here's some base info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_civil_unrest_in_France


----------



## FoverF (15 Sep 2010)

This is a disgrace. This is undignified, and I am appalled apalled really upset. 

My analogy is Ontario's "women are allowed to go topless" rule. Ontario women are allowed to show their breasts in public. But some of them will have abusive and controlling husbands/male relatives, who will force and coerce them into wearing shirts. 

So we must pass a law banning all clothing which conceals the breasts.

This will of course include your beautiful 15 year old daughter, who will be required to expose her breasts any time she is in public, and you both will get to enjoy the leacherous stares of pretty much all of the men she sees on a daily basis. 

Hope your 85 year old catholic grandmother from Manitoba doesn't mind getting her top off when she comes to visit for a wedding. I'm sure it will make her extrememly uncomfortable, and your grandfather will likely be livid with rage (nevermind what he's going to think when he sees that his 15 y.o great grand-daughter is being drooled over because she's got her tits out). But it's exactly that kind of backwards,  dogmatic, and religiously-derived thinking that we're trying to legislate out of our society! 

Your beliefs in personal modesty are not valid, because we associate them with oppression, and so you will be legally forced to submit to our standards of personal modesty, which we associate with enlightenment and social 'progress'. 

Nothing spells 'Liberty' to me like the government dictating how much, and how little, clothing we are entitled to wear.


----------



## HavokFour (15 Sep 2010)

FoverF said:
			
		

> This is a disgrace. This is undignified, and I am appalled apalled really upset.
> 
> My analogy is Ontario's "women are allowed to go topless" rule. Ontario women are allowed to show their breasts in public. But some of them will have abusive and controlling husbands/male relatives, who will force and coerce them into wearing shirts.
> 
> ...



I'm sure I'm not alone here, we have a huge problem if we can't see their face. The burqa and niqab just wont fly in the western world. Identification is critical, especially in these times.

Note: I am not against the khemar, chador, or the hijab. I in fact think they can add to looks for some woman.


----------



## captloadie (15 Sep 2010)

HavokFour said:
			
		

> I'm sure I'm not alone here, we have a huge problem if we can't see their face. The burqa and niqab just wont fly in the western world. Identification is critical, especially in these times.
> 
> Note: I am not against the khemar, chador, or the hijab. I in fact think they can add to looks for some woman.



What are you talking about? There are only a very few specific places that it may be required to show your face. Everywhere else is not a factor. If we apply this logic, we should ban facemasks, jacket hoods, ball caps and goggles in Canada all the time in all circumstances, just in case we have to identify the guy filling his gas tank or using the drive through banking machine.


----------



## A-ryathker (15 Sep 2010)

I think this is going to the opposite extreme. People should be able to wear what they want both in their own rented or owned property and in public. However people should also have the right to restrict what is worn on their private either owned or rented property without fear of being sued for intolerance. Of the top of my head here are some reasons (nothing to do with islam=terrorist which couldn't be farther from the truth)

1. Washrooms- how do you know that that veiled person who just entered the ladies room with a bunch of little girls already inside (ie wonderland, gym locker room or a public school) is indeed a woman? and not a pervy man with a video camera?

2. Security- Identifying the person in front of you is really who they say they are. If veils cant be restricted at all this means that in that logic judges, police, soldiers, lawyers, doctors and  security personnel , and any job that requires access to sensitive information can all wear veils and if woman can why not men too? The potential for security breaches with that is through the roof

3. Fraud- if a certain person always wore a veil then had his/her credit card stolen any woman/man could throw on a veil and have a much easier time ripping the card off. Even if the card was stolen from a non-veil wearer right now a cashier would be afraid to ask a veiled person standing in front of them to lift the veil to see if they match the picture on the card or even the sex of the name (ie  Janet Rose Smith card being used by a man wearing a veil)

4. Safety- operating large machinery, wielding, construction sites, driving, home renovation, etc.....

There is plenty of other reasons as well. Anyways all that to say I think an all out ban is wrong, but lets use common sense and not emotions and let people, business and organizations  have the right to restrict its use on their property without fear of being slammed as intolerant getting sued or worse.


----------



## George Wallace (15 Sep 2010)

FoverF said:
			
		

> This is a disgrace. This is undignified, and I am appalled apalled really upset.
> 
> My analogy is Ontario's "women are allowed to go topless" rule. Ontario women are allowed to show their breasts in public. But some of them will have abusive and controlling husbands/male relatives, who will force and coerce them into wearing shirts.
> 
> ..............Yada, Yada, Yada..........



Your analogy is right out to lunch.  Your analogy is the most absurd thing yet in this discussion.   You are comparing apples to melons.  

I do agree that this is more a “Security” matter, where the wearing of a “disguise” or any mask is usually the indication of something “criminal”.  It is already written in our Laws that this IS a criminal act.  To condone it is not what our society was built on.  

However, we do condone this:


----------



## Edward Campbell (15 Sep 2010)

HavokFour said:
			
		

> I'm sure I'm not alone here, we have a huge problem if we can't see their face. The burqa and niqab just wont fly in the western world. Identification is critical, especially in these times.
> 
> Note: I am not against the khemar, chador, or the hijab. I in fact think they can add to looks for some woman.





I think that F over F is resorting to hyperbole to emphasize an important point: _an individual’s “beliefs in personal modesty are not valid, because we associate them with oppression, and so”_ [that person]_ “will be legally forced to submit to our standards of personal modesty, which we associate with enlightenment and social 'progress'.”_ It is a major intrusion by the state, the biggest _collective_ of all, into the privacy of the individual.

I agree that ‘our’ society has legitimate security concerns and that we have a long standing socio-cultural aversion to hiding our faces. But: does that give ‘us’ the right to dictate veils? In France, in particular, it goes well beyond the face-covering. Many in France, inside the French government, want to ban all public displays of private religious (and other?) preference, including e.g. head scarves, yarmulkes and even crucifixes in public schools. Where, we might ask ourselves should the government’s rights to regulate end? Now France is a highly _illiberal_ society so we ought not to be surprised when it casually, habitually infringes upon individual liberty but is that something we want to applaud?

I’m, broadly, with FoverF on this one, despite my heartfelt wish for the public display of breasts by nubile _young_ but over 18, of course women.


----------



## A-ryathker (15 Sep 2010)

captloadie said:
			
		

> What are you talking about? There are only a very few specific places that it may be required to show your face. Everywhere else is not a factor. If we apply this logic, we should ban facemasks, jacket hoods, ball caps and goggles in Canada all the time in all circumstances, just in case we have to identify the guy filling his gas tank or using the drive through banking machine.



I see your point, but you can still tell facial structure and basic points of reference with ball caps and eye wear on. And face mask or any full face masks of any kind are banned in lots of places. Good luck getting past security with one of those on or refusing to take it off when interacting with law enforcement personnel. They wont hesitate to ask you to take it off or leave.


----------



## captloadie (15 Sep 2010)

A-ryathker said:
			
		

> I think this is going to the opposite extreme. People should be able to wear what they want both in their own rented or owned property and in public. However people should also have the right to restrict what is worn on their private either owned or rented property without fear of being sued for intolerance. Of the top of my head here are some reasons (nothing to do with islam=terrorist which couldn't be farther from the truth)
> 
> 1. Washrooms- how do you know that that veiled person who just entered the ladies room with a bunch of little girls already inside (ie wonderland, gym locker room or a public school) is indeed a woman? and not a pervy man with a video camera?
> 
> ...


----------



## old medic (15 Sep 2010)

captloadie said:
			
		

> If we apply this logic, we should ban facemasks, jacket hoods, ball caps and goggles in Canada all the time in all circumstances, just in case we have to identify the guy filling his gas tank or using the drive through banking machine.



Lets go running later with a balaclavas on.


----------



## A-ryathker (15 Sep 2010)

"-How do you know someone hasn't already planted a camera in there?"

Ok stick to the how do you know its a woman?

"-Really? Lets be realistic. Only devout Muslim women wear full burquas or veils. I doubt any of them are going to take up a career doing any of the above (accept maybe driving, in which your cellphone is more of a hazard)."

My point is don't ban it but don't make it a right. You never know maybe in 10 yrs from now veils will become a fashion trend and how can you prove if its for religious reasons or not? Simply word of mouth? When making laws you got to consider all possible ways the law could be interpreted not just, aw come on who's gonna do that? The worlds full of people who use legal loopholes to do the unexpected


----------



## Jungle (15 Sep 2010)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Your analogy is right out to lunch.   *You are comparing apples to melons. *



It depends which ladies you are comparing...

I lived in Ontario 9 years, and I've (unfortunately) never seen a pair of apples, or melons, in public.


----------



## Kat Stevens (15 Sep 2010)

Recently I had to replace my passport, so I dutifully filled out all the forms, got the photos, lined up my references, and made the 1.5 hour trek into the organizational delight that is the passport office at Canada Place in Edmonton.  After waiting the required 3 hours for my turn, I finally got to see a snotty little woman at one of the counters.  At the booth next to me, a man of Mid Eastern (I assume) origin was flying into a mouth foaming rage because his wife and two daughters were not going to recieve a passport because he refused to provide photos of them with their applications.  The words "fascist, racist, redneck, Islamophobe", plus a few less appropriate ones were spewed out, at the lady behind the counter with the very dark tan and a colourful dot on her forehead.  This man refused to be told that ALL Canadian passports require a picture.  I wonder if he ever got his way?  Hope not.


----------



## krustyrl (15 Sep 2010)

IMO..rules are rules. Where's the big red stamp... DENIED.!!!!  :rage:


----------



## Nemo888 (15 Sep 2010)

I've had girls in hit on me while wearing full chador. She stared me right in the eye with a smoldering gaze then walked into the sunlight. She was backlit and the chador turned out to be shear. She was not wearing a thing underneath.  I wouldn't stone that out of my bed! Girls will be girls.

Excuse my irreverence but I  believe in an egalitarian secular society. Wasn't France rather influential in that area?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (15 Sep 2010)

Jungle said:
			
		

> It depends which ladies you are comparing...
> 
> I lived in Ontario 9 years, and I've (unfortunately) never seen a pair of apples, or melons, in public.



You need to go to Windsor.


----------



## George Wallace (15 Sep 2010)

A-ryathker said:
			
		

> "-Really? Lets be realistic. Only devout Muslim women wear full burquas or veils. I doubt any of them are going to take up a career doing any of the above (accept maybe driving, in which your cellphone is more of a hazard)."



Not to get picky, but that is false.  This is not a real, honest and truly "Devout thing".  This is a Regional, cultural dress.  Not all Muslim women wear these types of garments.  It is a Regional, cultural manifestation.  Muslim women in European countries didn't wear burquas.  Muslim women in South East Asia and the Pacific Rim don't wear burquas.   Or perhaps you are going to tell me that there are no really "devout Muslim women" in Europe or South East Asia.   We are seeing people using this form of dress in the West now, in some cases as a form of rebellion, some cases as a LCF, and in a few cases as a traditional form of dress of new immigrants/refugees.


----------



## Beech Boy (15 Sep 2010)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Your analogy is right out to lunch.  Your analogy is the most absurd thing yet in this discussion.   You are comparing apples to melons.
> 
> I do agree that this is more a “Security” matter, where the wearing of a “disguise” or any mask is usually the indication of something “criminal”.  It is already written in our Laws that this IS a criminal act.  To condone it is not what our society was built on.
> 
> However, we do condone this:



Mr. Wallace,

From reading the article it looks to me like the French government created the law banning veils because they consider it to be a human rights issue and oppressive towards women, not because it is a security matter.  I thought FoverF's analogy was an entirely valid comparison of two laws that if created would impose that government's own values and modesty (or lack their of) on others.



			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> Not to get picky, but that is false.  This is not a real, honest and truly "Devout thing".  This is a Regional, cultural dress.  Not all Muslim women wear these types of garments.  It is a Regional, cultural manifestation.  Muslim women in European countries didn't wear burquas.  Muslim women in South East Asia and the Pacific Rim don't wear burquas.   Or perhaps you are going to tell me that there are no really "devout Muslim women" in Europe or South East Asia.   We are seeing people using this form of dress in the West now, in some cases as a form of rebellion, some cases as a LCF, and in a few cases as a traditional form of dress of new immigrants/refugees.



Again, I will have to respectfully disagree. From reading A-ryathker's quote I see that he stated "only devout Muslim women wear full burquas or veils" in an effort to point out the it would be a non issue whether they could perform certain jobs safely in a veil, since devout Muslim women would not perform such jobs. From reading your quote you seem to have read it as "*All* devout Muslim women wear full burquas or veils" which would of course be a different statement entirely.

Beech


----------



## jollyjacktar (15 Sep 2010)

My wife is Muslim.  IIRC from what she has told me,  Islam has no requirements for a veil or burka.  Men and women both should dress appropriately in order to not be provocative and inflame the opposite sex.  

Same sex does not apply for as we have all been told for example by MadAhmad "There are no gays in Iran", and it therefore must also apply elsewhere in Islamic lands.  

As for France, did they not have in the past year or so some bank robberies committed by men in disguised with Burkas?


----------



## bdave (15 Sep 2010)

readytogo said:
			
		

> According to CNN.com
> http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/09/14/france.burqa.ban/index.html
> THe french senate has voted overwhelmingly in favor of banning the wearing of Burqa's callling it "a new form of enslavement that the republic cannot accept on its soil." that will be punishable my fines and possibly up to 1 year in prison and a fine of up to 19000 euros for forcing someone to wear a burqa.
> 
> ...



This has been an ongoing process since the early 2000s. It's been going on for years. Check this out: http://Forums.Army.ca/forums/threads/87220.0.html

As I posted then:


			
				bdave said:
			
		

> If someone walked around, in Canada, with a shirt saying "Death to the Jews" or any colorful variation of hate speech, would the person be charged?
> Would they be ordered to take the shirt off?
> 
> While this is a far stretch, I believe it is the same concept.
> ...





			
				bdave said:
			
		

> Inky on July 13 said:
> 
> 
> > [...] the Burqa is more of a cultural trait than a religious one so I find the argument of the preservation of secularism to be a bit shaky. [...]
> ...



The politicians who voted on this, and the people they represented, were extremely in favor for this. I do not see why that is outrageous. The French passed a law within their country that they, almost unanimously, support, and for some reason people are up in arms about it.
A very small minority will be affected.
This is like that law Arizona was trying to pass. It would only inconvenience illegal immigrants. Yet, some people were up in arms about it.
I see nothing wrong with this law.
Regardless of what you say, do or believe, the extremists will always hate you. Doing something fuels their rage. Doing nothing fuels their rage. So why not do something instead?
 I applaud the French for having the balls to stand up for something they believe in. Their country, their rules and the survival of *their* culture.

Also, I did not read the thread.


----------



## Michael OLeary (15 Sep 2010)

bdave said:
			
		

> This is like that law Arizona was trying to pass. It would only inconvenience illegal immigrants. Yet, some people were up in arms about it.



Actually, it would have "inconvenienced" all those citizens who, by the colour of their skin, might be illegal immigrants and thus subject to submitting to demands for identification at the whim of any law enforcement official, with or without probably cause.  That extends the "inconvenience" well beyond your assumed target group.

If the purpose of outlawing the burqa is to counter oppression of women by a religious minority - how, exactly, is the oppression decreased?  Are those women now safer in their homes, allegedly living with the men who oppress them?  Will denying women the burqa make those men treat them better, in or out of the public eye?

If it's a security issue, wouldn't it be better to have a law saying all ID photos must be taken with no coverings on the face or head (regardless of religion, weather, etc.), and that anyone must bare their head to confirm their identity?


----------



## brihard (15 Sep 2010)

I'm more afraid of a supposedly free state that presumes to tell people that they cannot cover their face while peaceably going about their daily business than I am of some boogeyman that might be purported to hide under a burqa.

Rights are difficult to defend, harder still to gain, and easily lost or bargained away by the complacent. I have no problem with women having to show their face for the purpose of identification when it's reasonably required by law, but beyond that it's nobody's damned business. I'd rather see them out in society looking out from inside the burqa and seeing the freedom that's on offer should they choose it, than have them cooped up in their homes because they're not comfortable - or not allowed - to leave due to such oppressive laws.

I hate seeing women in burqas, but I'll be damned if I concede that the state has any business in this matter.


----------



## Alea (15 Sep 2010)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> As for France, did they not have in the past year or so some bank robberies committed by men in disguised with Burkas?



Yes they did and it was not "a separated event". The 2 men robbed the post office of Athis-Mons in the region of Essone. 
In France, Post Offices are also banks.

Here's a link to the story. I am sorry, I could not find the same in English. 
http://www.ladepeche.fr/article/2010/02/07/771648-La-poste-braquee-en-burqa.html

Belgium voted a law to ban burqas in April 2010.
http://www.lepoint.fr/monde/eclairage-comment-l-italie-interdit-la-burqa-sans-faire-de-loi-04-05-2010-451037_24.php

Italy is on the verge of voting for this law also.
Meanwhile Montenegro municipality banned the burqa in 2009.
http://www.lefigaro.fr/flash-actu/2009/09/25/01011-20090925FILWWW00509-italie-une-municipalite-interdit-la-burqa.php

A week before Montenegro banned the burqa, a young woman (Morocan) was murdered (in the north of the country) by her father because she was dating an Italian man.

In Spain: Madrid, Barcelona and other towns have also banned the burqa
http://www.latribune.fr/depeches/reuters/une-ville-espagnole-interdit-le-port-public-de-la-burqa.html
http://french.irib.ir/info/international/item/96629-espagne-le-burqa-interdit-a-barcelon

The only thing stated in the Coran concerning woman wearing the veil is during the 5 prayers of the day when they should cover their head as well as when they go to the mosque.
As catholics, if we were to go by the book, it is also stated in the bible that we should cover our heads during mass.
As stated earlier, Burqas are only related to culture. Not religion. 

Alea


----------



## brihard (15 Sep 2010)

The issue in the minds of many is neither religion nor culture, but individual liberty. Those who would give up essential liberty for a little temporary security, and all that...


----------



## bdave (15 Sep 2010)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> Actually, it would have "inconvenienced" all those citizens who, by the colour of their skin, might be illegal immigrants and thus subject to submitting to demands for identification at the whim of any law enforcement official, with or without probably cause.  That extends the "inconvenience" well beyond your assumed target group.



The officer in question needed to have a reason to inconvenience a citizen. I doubt he would be stopping any mexicans (I'm not gonna sugar coat it) who were rolling around in honda civics or otherwise. Those who seemed like they were driving erraticlally, drove beaters and\or spoke little to no english would probably be asked to provide identification. How is this a big deal? People need to have I.D. on them if they're driving anyway. A few years back, when I was driving in Montreal, I was stopped (it was a road block with police questioning all passing vehicles) and questioned on if everything was fine. I replied that it was, and was on my way. Took 10 seconds of my time. 
The only people who will be inconvenienced are those who look like they may be illegal immigrants. While it may be "tough", it is a viable solution to stopping illegal immigration.
The officers are also allowed to question those who may/are known to harbor or transport illegal immigrants laborers for work or otherwise. 



			
				Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> If the purpose of outlawing the burqa is to counter oppression of women by a religious minority - how, exactly, is the oppression decreased?  Are those women now safer in their homes, allegedly living with the men who oppress them?  Will denying women the burqa make those men treat them better, in or out of the public eye?


That's a strawman and you know it. 

Regardless, reasons are as follows:
-It is meant to be symbolic. As I said, it is also an inherent cultural trait brought on by religion. Let one in, and many more shall follow.
-The French seem to be saying "We run this gig, so watch it". The message is clear.
-It is also a step in validating women's worth/equality towards those of muslim faith *who may disagree*. They'll have to get used to it. They will after a decade or two.
-As for having the men treat them better? It's much harder to hide the black eye your husband gave you when your face isn't covered.



			
				Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> it's a security issue, wouldn't it be better to have a law saying all ID photos must be taken with no coverings on the face or head (regardless of religion, weather, etc.), and that anyone must bare their head to confirm their identity?


What if the person were to refuse to bare their head? Would the officer be allowed to physically remove the burqa? Would the person be restrained and have to go through a legal procedure? 
You can do that and invite tons of lawsuits and problems, or simply have no one wear burqas.


----------



## Antoine (16 Sep 2010)

France has a tendency to put the collective interest/rights above the individual ones when it serves the people in power and/or the population majority (I don't know who manipulates who in this equation). In addition, multiculturalism isn't a continental European concept but more of British tradition. Also, France is an old country with strong traditions and like an heavy truck speeding on a straight lane, it has a hard time to negotiate the numerous bends in the 21st century road. Historically, France was a strong Empire that was able to change the environment to better its own interest and without a need to adapt to changes neither new cultures. I think that many French citizens are still living in the last century. 
Thus, I am not surprised about the French Senate decision. I wanted to recall that us, North Americans, are not approaching immigration and the right of being different the same way as them, neither on the same basis.  Therefore, our discussion/arguments about individual rights will probably fall on deaf ears in France.
However, I don't pretend answering the question about who is right but I agree that continental Europe seems to tolerate less and less the difference, the people walking outside the cultural mainstream. The Burqa is one of many examples. I personally doubt that the Burqa is a real threat and many other reasonable options are available as people said in the present topics.

My main concern that could be called a Trudeau Heritage, lays in the big question: when do the majority's rights start to be the minority's burden and who is the majority and based on what criterion/right. We are all part of different minorities over lapping with different interest (social rank, work fields, age, sex, ....). How can we build a strong country where everyone shares enough similarity to operate efficiently and in the same direction, but where differences are also accepted so diversity can operate and new ideas to solve new problems emerge in a creative way. In the present case, ask yourself to who this decision benefits. I'll say, the politicians that capitalized on the frustration of French who can't adapt to the new challenge of diversity and globalization in a depressed economy. Thus, they have a tendency to introvert in to their past republican Empire ideals and are hunting for a black sheep.


----------



## captloadie (16 Sep 2010)

bdave said:
			
		

> -As for having the men treat them better? It's much harder to hide the black eye your husband gave you when your face isn't covered.



I would bet there are more physically abused wives married to white christian men then there are to Muslim men. They just use make-up and sunglasses instead of veils to cover up the abuse.


----------



## Edward Campbell (16 Sep 2010)

Brihard said:
			
		

> I'm more afraid of a supposedly free state that presumes to tell people that they cannot cover their face while peaceably going about their daily business than I am of some boogeyman that might be purported to hide under a burqa.
> …
> I hate seeing women in burqas, but I'll be damned if I concede that the state has any business in this matter.





			
				Antoine said:
			
		

> France has a tendency to put the collective interest/rights above the individual ones when it serves the people in power and/or the population majority (I don't know who manipulates who in this equation). In addition, multiculturalism isn't a continental European concept but more of British tradition. Also, France is an old country with strong traditions and like an _sic_ heavy truck speeding on a straight lane, it has a hard time to negotiate the numerous bends in the 21st century road.
> …
> My main concern that could be called a Trudeau Heritage, lays in the big question: when do the majority's rights start to be the minority's burden and who is the majority and based on what criterion/right. We are all part of different minorities over lapping with different interest (social rank, work fields, age, sex, ....)
> …




I agree with these two members.


----------



## A-ryathker (16 Sep 2010)

(quote) Again, I will have to respectfully disagree. From reading A-ryathker's quote I see that he stated "only devout Muslim women wear full burquas or veils" in an effort to point out the it would be a non issue whether they could perform certain jobs safely in a veil, since devout Muslim women would not perform such jobs. From reading your quote you seem to have read it as "All devout Muslim women wear full burquas or veils" which would of course be a different statement entirely.  (end quote)

Never said that buddy, some other guy added that to a quote from my post.  Right now whats stopping a woman who currently works at one of those industries from converting to the brand of Islam that wears a veil but dose not want to quit her job. No one can claim thats impossible or wont happen.

Alot of whats being said is all opinion that cant be proved. Legally you cant prove if someone is devote in their religion or not. All they have to do as of now is say they are devote Muslim and hence the veil and everyone should bend over and naively accept it without daring to question. Not even Muslims can prove its for religious reasons and are just as divided on the issue as we are. So that goes to say this has nothing to do with religion or post 9/11 culture changes, its about looking at the facts and weighing pros and cons. The french banned it for reasons that I admit cant be proved( they feel burka symbolizes oppression) but when a nation is faced with an issues of difference of opinion  the majority win, as along as the majority are not going against constitution. Also The committee is currently reviewing the law to see if its constitutional or not. And France isnt even our country, if everyone commenting against the ban of veils is so tolerant and accepting as they say they are, then tolerate and accept this law and the people who support it and try to see their side instead of verbally and in some cases physically attacking them.  Practice what you preach....


----------



## Beech Boy (16 Sep 2010)

A-ryathker said:
			
		

> (quote) Again, I will have to respectfully disagree. From reading A-ryathker's quote I see that he stated "only devout Muslim women wear full burquas or veils" in an effort to point out the it would be a non issue whether they could perform certain jobs safely in a veil, since devout Muslim women would not perform such jobs. From reading your quote you seem to have read it as "All devout Muslim women wear full burquas or veils" which would of course be a different statement entirely.  (end quote)
> 
> Never said that buddy, some other guy added that to a quote from my post.  Right now whats stopping a woman who currently works at one of those industries from converting to the brand of Islam that wears a veil but dose not want to quit her job. No one can claim thats impossible or wont happen.
> 
> Alot of whats being said is all opinion that cant be proved. Legally you cant prove if someone is devote in their religion or not. All they have to do as of now is say they are devote Muslim and hence the veil and everyone should bend over and naively accept it without daring to question. Not even Muslims can prove its for religious reasons and are just as divided on the issue as we are. So that goes to say this has nothing to do with religion or post 9/11 culture changes, its about looking at the facts and weighing pros and cons. The french banned it for reasons that I admit cant be proved( they feel burka symbolizes oppression) but when a nation is faced with an issues of difference of opinion  the majority win, as along as the majority are not going against constitution. Also The committee is currently reviewing the law to see if its constitutional or not. And France isnt even our country, if everyone commenting against the ban of veils is so tolerant and accepting as they say they are, then tolerate and accept this law and the people who support it and try to see their side instead of verbally and in some cases physically attacking them.  Practice what you preach....



My appologies A-ryathker, I misread the origin of that quote. Further, I was not agreeing or disagreeing with the point being made but rather pointing out that I thought Mr. Wallace had misinterpreted it.


----------



## bdave (16 Sep 2010)

captloadie said:
			
		

> I would bet there are more physically abused wives married to white christian men then there are to Muslim men. They just use make-up and sunglasses instead of veils to cover up the abuse.



You'll have to back this up.
Though this is somewhat of a tangent since I'm sure abused women was not one of the primary reasons the French decided to ban burqas.


----------



## Jarnhamar (17 Sep 2010)

captloadie said:
			
		

> I would bet there are more physically abused wives married to white christian men then there are to Muslim men. They just use make-up and sunglasses instead of veils to cover up the abuse.



 :


----------



## captloadie (17 Sep 2010)

Oh, I don't think that this has anything to do with French decision. I was just highlighting what I see as broad stroke comment against Muslem men that because they make their wives go around fully covered they must also beat them.


----------



## George Wallace (17 Sep 2010)

captloadie said:
			
		

> Oh, I don't think that this has anything to do with French decision. I was just highlighting what I see as broad stroke comment against Muslem men that because they make their wives go around fully covered they must also beat them.



My reply was the same as Grimaldus.  It is a cultural matter, and culturally many men , who may not necessarily practicing Islam (although the vast majority do), from South West Asia treat their women and children like possessions.  I am sure that if you wanted to put your statement about white Christian men to the test with statistics, you would be 100% off base.  This does not excuse domestic violence by anyone.


----------



## time expired (17 Sep 2010)

In A -Stan or elsewhere in the  the Muslim world I suspect the wearing of the burka or the headscarf is
probably a cultural thing and I also suspect this is true of the older generation of immigrants to western
countries.However among younger Muslims in the west these are political statements that say quite
clearly "I reject your society and your values and I refuse to become part of it".Judging by the comments
on this thread this seems to be Okay with most Canadians,so be it but in France and other Western
European countries that have large and growing Muslim minorities it becoming less and less acceptable,
and President Zorkosy is reacting to the opinion of a large majority of the French people.Democracy
at work.
                                                Regards


----------



## HavokFour (19 Sep 2010)

*New rule means airline passengers must show 'entire face'*​


> In the wake of controversy stirred by a YouTube video of two women apparently passing through airport security without removing their veils, the federal government is beefing up security measures for airline travel.
> 
> The jittery YouTube video that sparked this latest review was recorded at a Montreal airport in June. It shows a man, who is traveling with the two veiled women, hand over their passports as his companions walk through the boarding gate without being checked.
> 
> ...



Read more...


----------



## Edward Campbell (19 Sep 2010)

HavokFour said:
			
		

> *New rule means airline passengers must show 'entire face'*​
> Read more...




And this is a perfectly good and proper situation for the government to tell us what we may not wear: specifically we may not cover our faces while being identified during aircraft boarding, etc. A Muslim woman who, for whatever (private) reason prefers to be veiled may replace her veil as soon as the officials have verified her identity. A very, very tiny minority of women may object on some ground or another, but none will be valid. Those who cannot bear to remove their veils will have to take a train/ship/train to get to Mecca.

This is vastly different from what is being proposed in France.


----------



## FoverF (20 Sep 2010)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> And this is a perfectly good and proper situation for the government to tell us what we may not wear: specifically we may not cover our faces while being identified during aircraft boarding, etc....Those who cannot bear to remove their veils will have to take a train/ship/train to get to Mecca.
> 
> This is vastly different from what is being proposed in France.



Proper order. 

There are certain times and places where asking a woman to temporarily remove a veil/burkha is appropriate for identification purposes. 

Now, is this a good time to dig up the 'headgear in a Legion hall' issue  ;D ?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (20 Sep 2010)

FoverF said:
			
		

> Now, is this a good time to dig up the 'headgear in a Legion hall' issue  ;D ?



Whole different issue. Stay on topic please.

Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## Jarnhamar (20 Sep 2010)

captloadie said:
			
		

> I was just highlighting what I see as broad stroke comment against Muslem men that because they make their wives go around fully covered they must also beat them.



Considering traditional (non-westernized?) Islam's views on women (ie _victims_ of rape being punished) I think abuse is more accepted in that culture, ergo it's probably more prevalent.


----------

