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:
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.