French Senate bans burqa

[readytogo]

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]

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]

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

 

[PuckChaser]

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

 

[FoverF]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?

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

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

-So maybe use a better method of identifying people who have access to sensitive material. Fingerprints or iris identification don't require you to show your face.

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)

-Wouldn't it be easier to just skim the card and steal the pin number or online info than cross dress

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

-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).

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.

 

[old medic]

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]

"-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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Nemo888]

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]

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]

"-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.