• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

French President Sarkozy: "Burqas are not welcome" in France

Kat Stevens said:
Whether Bossy died from a bolt gun to the frontal armour, or a sword forged in the fires of Mount Doom is immaterial to me, and I would hope most reasonable people too.
I'm not quite as optimistic - I'd have to agree with ERC and MARS, respectively:
There are plenty of Canadians who would oppose a halal restaurant, too.
If 'we' did react .... I would have to conclude it was out of ignorance and the corresponding lack of tolerance.
Me, if I'm interested in eating McDonalds, it won't matter if it's halal or not, and if I want interesting halal food, I'm NOT going to Mickey D's.
 
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.
The burka is symbolicly an oppression of women.
It has no place in a country which prides itself on being secular, and which is facing a cultural crisis.
I also believe down the road that this will stifle any opposition, since it is law that the burka may not be worn, and those who wish to immigrate to France would know before hand.

Be that as it may, in the end what we have is a law that basically imposes a dress code to the populace. I care not for the reasons, to me, that's fundamentally wrong.

Furthermore, 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.

My view is that I'd like to keep the government away from my wardrobe as much as possible.
 
The motto of the French Republic is "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity" (Liberté, Equalité, Fraternité). The burqa goes against all three of those while a ban goes against one.
 
Inky said:
My view is that I'd like to keep the government away from my wardrobe as much as possible.

And should you decide that it is your secular duty to wear a mask, don't be surprised when you are refused entry/access to modes of transport, public and private places, and questioned more than normal as to your identity.  Don't be surprised that you may be subjected to thorough searches of your person. 

One thing that causes people to be biased or prejudiced is that someone does not fit their idea of the norm.  If you want to be different, then expect to be treated differently.
 
Agreed, I never said that these people should be granted outstanding privileges. With the decision to veil one's face, will and should come consequences.
 
Inky said:
Be that as it may, in the end what we have is a law that basically imposes a dress code to the populace. I care not for the reasons, to me, that's fundamentally wrong.

Furthermore, 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.

My view is that I'd like to keep the government away from my wardrobe as much as possible.

If you goto NDHQ in Ottawa to get your claims finalized you have to wear your uniform. If you're off duty you have to wear dress pants and a dress shirt.  You show up in jeans and you'll get denied service (even though civilians working in the same department are wearing jeans).

Go to a high end  fancy restraunt and you'll be refused enterence if you're dressed like a red neck lumberjack.

Is NDQH and fancy restraunts breaking the law?

If France ban's these suckers because they don't like what they believe it stands for then good for them. It's their country, if people don't like it they can choose to live else where.
 
As I said in my previous post, I'm not contesting the ability and willingness of entities, whether public or private to deny or restrict service to burqa wearing individuals. I, as a liberal in the classical sense, am simply saying that the government has no business telling the citizenry how to dress.
 
Inky 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. [...]
I did also write that France (more like all of Europe) was facing a cultural crisis. Having lived in Europe for so many years, I can attest to it.
While you state that the Burqa is a cultural trait, more than a religious one; I have to state that you are mistaken.
When religion is so deeply ingrained in a population, then we can reverse that and say that many of the cultural traits and costumes will be based on said religion.
A concrete example would be homosexuality in North America. The bible says it's wrong, and consequently, it became part of the North American culture.

In this case, men are superior to women. It is written in the Koran\Qur'an.

The symbolic meaning behind this cultural trait relates to the muslim faith.
As I mentioned before, it also helps stifle problems.
By allowing one cultural\religious trait, you allow the possibility for more to slip in, until eventually you are over run.

Inky said:
As I said in my previous post, I'm not contesting the ability and willingness of entities, whether public or private to deny or restrict service to burqa wearing individuals. I, as a liberal in the classical sense, am simply saying that the government has no business telling the citizenry how to dress.

They aren't. They are simply forbidding one 'religious' garment. The only people affected will be muslims. That's the point.
 
bdave said:
I did also write that France (more like all of Europe) was facing a cultural crisis. Having lived in Europe for so many years, I can attest to it.

Having lived in France myself, I can attest that Muslims have been in France for hundreds of years.  The burqa is relatively new to the nation.  It was not seen in France.  Same goes for many other nations where Muslims have been living for hundreds of years.  They have lived "Western" lives, worn "Western" cloths and assimilated well into "Western" societies.  Many see the trend of the Burqa and other identity hiding clothing/practices as being radical and antisocial; a step back centuries in Human Rights and development. 

There are now people abusing this trend here in Canada and North America.  I heard of a Hindu couple claiming the same for passport photos.  It was a second hand story/rumour, but a case that indicates these trends will raise issues here, not only with muslims.  We have already seen Quebec create similar rules in Womens Sports (soccer) and in society.  It will remain an issue for some time.
 
Looks like similar debates are now taking place in Germany.

Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.

Veiled Debate Arrives in Germany


State Prohibits Burqas at Work for Public Employees

02/03/2011
By Anna Reimann in Berlin
Spiegel ONLINE

LINK

Germany has generally steered clear of the issue of what Muslim women can wear in public. But that might now change. The announcement by a city employee in Frankfurt that she will begin wearing more than her usual headscarf to work has sparked widespread criticism, including barbs from inside the Muslim community.

A woman sits at a desk. He face is covered and one can only faintly make out her eyes. A large veil enshrouds her entire body. Residents looking for help approach the unrecognizable woman to ask her questions.

A theoretical situation like this might sound strange, but it's precisely the one that public administrators in Frankfurt are currently having to deal with. A 39-year-old German woman of Moroccan descent has announced she will be completely veiled when she returns from maternity leave to reassume her position in the offices of the city's administration. At this point, nobody knows if it will be a blue full-body veil, known as a burqa, or a black niqub, the face veil that only leaves slits for the eyes.

The move also caught her co-workers at the office, where she has worked for years, completely by surprise. Though she wore a headscarf, she was a model of integration and reliability. According to newspaper reports published earlier this week, at some point, she married a very devout Muslim man. Now she is reportedly demanding a severance package from her employer because it refuses to allow employees to come to work with completely enshrouded bodies.

As the personnel department official responsible for such matters puts it: "Our employees show their faces." He added that the woman would be allowed to wear a headscarf, but that she couldn't show up in a burqa. The state government of Hesse, where Frankfurt is located, has announced a decree forbidding civil servants and other state employees from wearing full-body coverings during working hours. The measure is backed by all of the state's political parties, too. Even the Green Party, who are part of the government coalition in Frankfurt, have announced that, if necessary, the matter will be taken before the country's highest court, the Karlsruhe-based Federal Constitutional Court.

The debate over forbidding full-body concealment has erupted at full strength in Europe. France and Belgium have passed bans on wearing burqas in public, and in the past German politicians have called for similar legislation. Critics of the proposal label it "a merely symbolic debate," claiming that the number of women wearing burqas in Germany is negligible.

Either way, the fact is that a case like the one currently unfolding in Frankfurt has never come to the public's attention. And the question now is: How should Germany deal with burqas in the workplace?

'Just Seeing a Burqa Scares Me'

Representatives of Muslim groups have publicly criticized the move by the Muslim woman in Frankfurt. Nurhan Soykan, the secretary general of the Central Council of Muslims in Germany, says: "We are bothered by the woman's behavior and do not accept it." She adds that, although her organization supports people's right to choose, it still views her move as counterproductive and as one that "breeds considerable distrust of young Muslim women who are courageous enough to wear headscarves when starting new jobs." Still, she doesn't believe there has to be an official ban. "This is about a single case in Frankfurt," she says, "and, in this case, a solution can be found without a ban."

Soykan's views are echoed by Ali Kizilkaya, the head of the (German) Islam Council, who says: "With her demands, this woman is hurting all Muslims." He adds that the majority of Muslims do not share her belief that Islam requires women to be fully covered. "I can sympathize with the view that people in public offices need to see their co-workers' faces," Kizilkaya says.


"We can't allow a woman to work in a city office who has no personality because she is completely veiled," says Serkan Tören, a Turkish-born member of the business-friendly Free Democratic Party (FDP). He argues that doing so would be a violation of social order and of the state's obligation to remain neutral when it comes to religious issues. As far as Tören is concerned, the case in Frankfurt proves that a general ban on covering your entire body in public is necessary so that the private sector also has a clear way of handling the issue. "Then we will have a clear policy," he says, adding his belief that the burqa and niqab represent an affront to human dignity and the equitable treatment of men and women.

Feridun Zaimoglu, a popular Turkish-German author who formerly held a position on a national panel on Islam convened by Germany's Interior Ministry called the Islam Conference, has a similar stance. "To put it briefly," he told SPIEGEL ONLINE, "wearing a burqa in Germany just doesn't work. This kind of opaque cloth tent is an extreme form of masking one's identity. Just seeing a burqa scares me." He says Muslims should eschew veiling their entire bodies because "it's well known that it's viewed as a provocation in Germany." Still, Zaimoglu cautions against making women the target of any criticism in this debate or "calling them foolish." You have to go after the men behind them, he says, the ones who are pressuring them to wear it.

At this point, it's anybody's guess what will come out of the dispute in Frankfurt. The woman at the center of the debate was scheduled to come to work for the first time after her maternal leave on Tuesday, Feb. 1. She didn't show up because -- given all the reporters, cameras and media interest -- her lawyer and city officials decided it would be best for her to stay at home.

More on LINK
 
George Wallace said:
Having lived in France myself, I can attest that Muslims have been in France for hundreds of years.  The burqa is relatively new to the nation.  It was not seen in France.  Same goes for many other nations where Muslims have been living for hundreds of years.  They have lived "Western" lives, worn "Western" cloths and assimilated well into "Western" societies.  Many see the trend of the Burqa and other identity hiding clothing/practices as being radical and antisocial; a step back centuries in Human Rights and development. 

There are now people abusing this trend here in Canada and North America.  I heard of a Hindu couple claiming the same for passport photos.  It was a second hand story/rumour, but a case that indicates these trends will raise issues here, not only with muslims.  We have already seen Quebec create similar rules in Womens Sports (soccer) and in society.  It will remain an issue for some time.

And I can't wait for the pendulum to start swinging the other way in Canada. France, now Germany.. it'll definitely swing in Europe first but hopefully it swings the other way here before we find ourselves the minority, and I don't think the new majority will be lenient.

I think a poster said this on army.ca somewhere, anyway, "If a liberal democracy is a democracy where the minority doesn't suffer the wrath of the majority, then what kind of democracy is it when the majority suffers the wrath of the minority?"
 
I'm sorry, but it will be a long time before you are considered a minority.
 
It's not Muslim immigration to western countries. It is Muslim Colonization.

When you immigrate to a county, it is for a reason. If you bring all your baggage with you from the other country, you are colonizing, not immigrating.

Thanks mainly to PET and the Liberals, we have multiculturalism in Canada. Bring all your tribalism, hates, and prejudices to Canada. Canadian taxpayers will subsidize you as you exploit us, grow, and colonize.

Hats off to all those immigrants who want to, and have started afresh.
 
Back
Top