France outlaws burkas

[blu]

You know......I'm gonna put it simple......

If your face is covered, there is no way to identify you.

If you can't be identified? You're probably up to no good.

fail

 

[Ozmar]

So now they have to stay inside their homes or risk being beaten...how is that progress?

If they're stupid enough to allow themselves to be oppressed like that, cordoned off in their little separate society, I'm not sure any progress can be made.

So it is the women's fault. Got it.

I think the whole point is to break the cycle of oppression of women. The little parallel societies they have set up are largely about oppression of their women from birth. Do you really think a woman that brainwashed is going to be happy to give up her burka?
There's a lot of coercion and manipulation at play here... right in the ghettos of France...

 

[Valerie]

I didn't know that about the burka vs the niqab. Thanks for the info.

Am I to understand that this law doesn't also ban the wearing of a niqab?

I'm pretty sure that's what they're saying...It's just the full face coverage burka they will be prohibiting in public places, not the niqab.

The law banning the veil would take effect only after a six-month period.

Full veils 'not welcome': Sarkozy

The Interior Ministry estimates the number of women who fully cover themselves at some 1,900, with a quarter of them converts to Islam and two-thirds with French nationality.

The French parliament wasted no time in working to get a ban in place, opening an inquiry shortly after Conservative President Nicolas Sarkozy said in June 2009 that full veils that hide the face are "not welcome" in France.

The bill calls for the equivalent of $198.75 Cdn in fines or citizenship classes for any woman caught covering her face, or both. It also carries stiff penalties for anyone such as husbands or brothers convicted of forcing the veil on a woman. The $39,750 fine and year in prison are doubled if the victim is a minor.

It was unclear, however, how authorities planned to enforce such a law.

"I will accept the fine with great pleasure," said Drider, vowing to appeal to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg if she gets caught.

CBC News - World - French Senate bans burka

 

[Ozmar]

I didn't know that about the burka vs the niqab. Thanks for the info.

Am I to understand that this law doesn't also ban the wearing of a niqab?

I'm pretty sure that's what they're saying...It's just the full face coverage burka they will be prohibiting in public places, not the niqab.

The law banning the veil would take effect only after a six-month period.

Full veils 'not welcome': Sarkozy

The Interior Ministry estimates the number of women who fully cover themselves at some 1,900, with a quarter of them converts to Islam and two-thirds with French nationality.

The French parliament wasted no time in working to get a ban in place, opening an inquiry shortly after Conservative President Nicolas Sarkozy said in June 2009 that full veils that hide the face are "not welcome" in France.

The bill calls for the equivalent of $198.75 Cdn in fines or citizenship classes for any woman caught covering her face, or both. It also carries stiff penalties for anyone such as husbands or brothers convicted of forcing the veil on a woman. The $39,750 fine and year in prison are doubled if the victim is a minor.

It was unclear, however, how authorities planned to enforce such a law.

"I will accept the fine with great pleasure," said Drider, vowing to appeal to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg if she gets caught.

CBC News - World - French Senate bans burka

I am not allowed to wear a shirt with a swastika on it in most European countries. Is that a violation of my human rights?

 

[Ravi]

I didn't know that about the burka vs the niqab. Thanks for the info.

Am I to understand that this law doesn't also ban the wearing of a niqab?

I'm pretty sure that's what they're saying...It's just the full face coverage burka they will be prohibiting in public places, not the niqab.

The law banning the veil would take effect only after a six-month period.

Full veils 'not welcome': Sarkozy

The Interior Ministry estimates the number of women who fully cover themselves at some 1,900, with a quarter of them converts to Islam and two-thirds with French nationality.

The French parliament wasted no time in working to get a ban in place, opening an inquiry shortly after Conservative President Nicolas Sarkozy said in June 2009 that full veils that hide the face are "not welcome" in France.

The bill calls for the equivalent of $198.75 Cdn in fines or citizenship classes for any woman caught covering her face, or both. It also carries stiff penalties for anyone such as husbands or brothers convicted of forcing the veil on a woman. The $39,750 fine and year in prison are doubled if the victim is a minor.

It was unclear, however, how authorities planned to enforce such a law.

"I will accept the fine with great pleasure," said Drider, vowing to appeal to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg if she gets caught.

CBC News - World - French Senate bans burka

Wow...all this because of 1900 women?

 

[manifold]

In principal, they aren't. But I'm not getting how you are justifying denying women wearing something they wear for religious purposes by saying you can't walk down the street naked.

I certainly hope you're not getting THAT because I'm saying no such thing.

I really don't know why you've now concluded that this law was implemented for "religious purposes," when you've already acknowledged, as evidenced by this quote...

Seriously, though, I think this is wrong... unless it was for a matter of imminent threat...

...that it would be ok if indeed there was, in your opinion, an imminent threat.

So I guess I'm confused by your reasons for opposing this law (which I'm quite conflicted about myself btw).

Do you disagree with it because you do not agree with THEIR conclusion that the threat was large enough to justify the law?

Or are you suggesting that THEY are lying about their conclusion concerning the magnitude of the threat and are simply motivated by religious bigotry?

Technically, you could try to weasel out and say both, but realistically the two are mutually exclusive.

I await your clarification.

 

[Ozmar]

The imminent threat is to their society. The burka is the most visible manifestation of a slippery slope.

 

[Kalam]

I'm pretty sure that's what they're saying...It's just the full face coverage burka they will be prohibiting in public places, not the niqab.

It applies to the niqab. Almost nobody outside of Afghanistan and parts of Pakistan wears the type of burqa with the mesh screen.

 

[manifold]

OK, you two. It's principle.

Sorry, was sorta bugging me.

Now that you point it out, it kinda bugs me too.

But not quite enough to got back and edit.

 

[Ravi]

In principal, they aren't. But I'm not getting how you are justifying denying women wearing something they wear for religious purposes by saying you can't walk down the street naked.

I certainly hope you're not getting THAT because I'm saying no such thing.

I really don't know why you've now concluded that this law was implemented for "religious purposes," when you've already acknowledged, as evidenced by this quote...

Seriously, though, I think this is wrong... unless it was for a matter of imminent threat...

...that it would be ok if indeed there was, in your opinion, an imminent threat.

So I guess I'm confused by your reasons for opposing this law (which I'm quite conflicted about myself btw).

Do you disagree with it because you do not agree with THEIR conclusion that the threat was large enough to justify the law?

Or are you suggesting that THEY are lying about their conclusion concerning the magnitude of the threat and are simply motivated by religious bigotry?

Technically, you could try to weasel out and say both, but realistically the two are mutually exclusive.

I await your clarification.

From what I have read the reason this law was passed was because France felt women were being oppressed by being forced to wear burkas. I have not read anywhere that it was passed because France felt there was the likelihood that burka wearing humans would suddenly start blowing up.

Therefore, there is no imminent threat and there is no real justification for passing this law.

 

[ConHog]

In principal, they aren't. But I'm not getting how you are justifying denying women wearing something they wear for religious purposes by saying you can't walk down the street naked.

I certainly hope you're not getting THAT because I'm saying no such thing.

I really don't know why you've now concluded that this law was implemented for "religious purposes," when you've already acknowledged, as evidenced by this quote...

Seriously, though, I think this is wrong... unless it was for a matter of imminent threat...

...that it would be ok if indeed there was, in your opinion, an imminent threat.

So I guess I'm confused by your reasons for opposing this law (which I'm quite conflicted about myself btw).

Do you disagree with it because you do not agree with THEIR conclusion that the threat was large enough to justify the law?

Or are you suggesting that THEY are lying about their conclusion concerning the magnitude of the threat and are simply motivated by religious bigotry?

Technically, you could try to weasel out and say both, but realistically the two are mutually exclusive.

I await your clarification.

From what I have read the reason this law was passed was because France felt women were being oppressed by being forced to wear burkas. I have not read anywhere that it was passed because France felt there was the likelihood that burka wearing humans would suddenly start blowing up.

Therefore, there is no imminent threat and there is no real justification for passing this law.

Watching you go postal is all the justification I need. Bring on a US law.

 

[Si modo]

The imminent threat is to their society. The burka is the most visible manifestation of a slippery slope.

This ban can be viewed as a slipperly slope, too.

I understand what you are saying, though. France and other EU nations have surrendered some of their freedoms to accomodate Muslim pressures. Free speech being a big one.

Now, they seem to be realizing that wasn't such a good idea. They sold out inalienable rights (ie. free speech) to address a large population being 'offended'. rolleyes: I still can't believe how so many allowed that to happen). But, they are selling out inalienable rights to fix their original sellout. Seems like a bad idea to me.

If they go back to some first principles concerning inalienable rights, maybe that might solve this problem. Make it too difficult for these Muslims to live free.

 

[Liability]

Oh great.

Now only outlaws will wear burkas.

Ummm. Or is that maybe already the case?

Hm.

 

[manifold]

I didn't know that about the burka vs the niqab. Thanks for the info.

Am I to understand that this law doesn't also ban the wearing of a niqab?

I'm pretty sure that's what they're saying...It's just the full face coverage burka they will be prohibiting in public places, not the niqab.

Something else I didn't know. Thanks again.

Of course this puzzles me for two reasons.

If the niqab is still legal, then I hardly see this law being particularly effective at reducing the threat they perceived to be great enough to pass this law in the first place.

But at the same time, if women can still where the niqab, then I don't see this as being quite as restrictive to a woman's religious freedom as has been proffered.

 

[Ravi]

The niqab is also now illegal in France.

 

[manifold]

I'm pretty sure that's what they're saying...It's just the full face coverage burka they will be prohibiting in public places, not the niqab.

It applies to the niqab. Almost nobody outside of Afghanistan and parts of Pakistan wears the type of burqa with the mesh screen.

Can we get a ruling on this please?

Somebody with mad google skeelz needed.

 

[Valerie]

I didn't know that about the burka vs the niqab. Thanks for the info.

Am I to understand that this law doesn't also ban the wearing of a niqab?

I'm pretty sure that's what they're saying...It's just the full face coverage burka they will be prohibiting in public places, not the niqab.

The law banning the veil would take effect only after a six-month period.

Full veils 'not welcome': Sarkozy

The Interior Ministry estimates the number of women who fully cover themselves at some 1,900, with a quarter of them converts to Islam and two-thirds with French nationality.

The French parliament wasted no time in working to get a ban in place, opening an inquiry shortly after Conservative President Nicolas Sarkozy said in June 2009 that full veils that hide the face are "not welcome" in France.

The bill calls for the equivalent of $198.75 Cdn in fines or citizenship classes for any woman caught covering her face, or both. It also carries stiff penalties for anyone such as husbands or brothers convicted of forcing the veil on a woman. The $39,750 fine and year in prison are doubled if the victim is a minor.

It was unclear, however, how authorities planned to enforce such a law.

"I will accept the fine with great pleasure," said Drider, vowing to appeal to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg if she gets caught.

CBC News - World - French Senate bans burka

Wow...all this because of 1900 women?

It does seem odd, doesn't it, that so few of them caused such a disturbance to have to create this law...I am conflicted as well, since I hate to see personal liberties taken away...But there is that sense of an imminent threat.


If it is sometimes legally justifiable for public surveillance, how is this any different than the legal standard of reasonable expectation of privacy? Do they really have a "right" to completely cover their face in public?

 

[Ravi]

I'm pretty sure that's what they're saying...It's just the full face coverage burka they will be prohibiting in public places, not the niqab.

Wow...all this because of 1900 women?

It does seem odd, doesn't it, that so few of them caused such a disturbance to have to create this law...I am conflicted as well, since I hate to see personal liberties taken away...But there is that sense of an imminent threat.


If it is sometimes legally justifiable for public surveillance, how is this any different than the legal standard of reasonable expectation of privacy? Do they really have a "right" to completely cover their face in public?

Does a democratic government have a "right" to forbid a religious practice that is for all intents and purposes harmless because someone might take advantage?

 

[manifold]

From what I have read the reason this law was passed was because France felt women were being oppressed by being forced to wear burkas. I have not read anywhere that it was passed because France felt there was the likelihood that burka wearing humans would suddenly start blowing up.

Therefore, there is no imminent threat and there is no real justification for passing this law.

Thanks for the clarification. I appreciate your patience.

However, I still do not fully understand your reason for opposing this law.

Do you not believe muslim women are being forced to wear burkas in sufficient enough numbers to justify this law?

Do you not believe it is justifed NO MATTER whether woman are forced to wear burkas nor how many?

As for the blowing up part, I concede that I've only read about that in opinion pieces, but it doesn't seem completely unfathomable either.

 

[Ravi]

I think that women shouldn't be forced to dress in a certain way by anyone...the government especially.