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

French Senate bans burqa

Beech Boy

New Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
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
 
J

jollyjacktar

Guest
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

Full Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
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.


  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??

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.
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.
bdave 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.

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

Army.ca Fixture
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
2
Points
410
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

Army.ca Fixture
Mentor
Reaction score
4,341
Points
1,110
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

Sr. Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
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

Army.ca Fixture
Mentor
Reaction score
4,341
Points
1,110
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

Full Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
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

Full Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
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

Sr. Member
Subscriber
Reaction score
62
Points
330
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

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Mentor
Reaction score
1,054
Points
1,160
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

Guest
Reaction score
0
Points
0
(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

New Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
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

Full Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
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

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
3,242
Points
1,060
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

Sr. Member
Subscriber
Reaction score
62
Points
330
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

Army.ca Dinosaur
Reaction score
4
Points
410
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

Full Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
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

Full Member
Reaction score
0
Points
210
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.

When the video surfaced online in August, then-transport minister John Baird said security measures were already in place to examine the faces of passengers, but he would ensure that airlines were following boarding security procedures.

Current Transport Minister Chuck Strahl reportedly initiated the new measure on Aug. 28, though it garnered little notice.

Read more...
 

Edward Campbell

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Mentor
Reaction score
1,054
Points
1,160
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.
 
Top