Females In France Face Full Face Exposure

[kai]

But I assume you have no trouble with the state interfering with what kinds of weapons citizens can own, such as bazookas and fully automatic weapons. Or the state interfering with how inebriated people might want to get in public, like falling down, puking drunk.

no trouble at all

 

[linwood]

But hijab is not banned, so how is this photo relevant to the banning of the burqa?

It`s not.
I mistakenly said "Hijab" in one of my posts and Pengy jumped on it as if it was relevant and not an actual mistake.

I guess that`s what you do when your original argument isn`t working out.

I dunno.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

But hijab is not banned, so how is this photo relevant to the banning of the burqa?

I can't remember when I last saw a nun dressed like that in the street in England. It must have been in the 50's. I think it is only the closed orders that wear a full habit today.

 

[England my lionheart]

France's Senate backs National Assembly and bans women from wearing the burka in public

Wearing a burka in public is set to become illegal across France after senators passed a nationwide ban.

The country’s upper house voted by 246 votes to one in favour of the measure, although there were a number of abstentions.

This means that a measure banning full face Islamic veils, also including the niqab, taken by the National Assembly, the lower house, in July was ratified.

Women who defy the planned law face fines of up to £125, or being ordered to attend citizenship classes.

These sentences, which would be doubled if the ‘victim’ is a minor, are designed to avoid men subjugating women.

The measure will be become effective in the spring of 2011, subject to a six-month period of mediation, and possible appeals.

source

​

As a matter of security this appears to be a wise decision.

Vive la France,good for them,all though itdoesn't mentionit for security it makes sense and the full face veil is not a requirement in Islam and in no way promotes intergration,if thats a problem for these people then Saudi Arabia would cater for their needs.

 

[Badran]

Vive la France,good for them,all though itdoesn't mentionit for security it makes sense and the full face veil is not a requirement in Islam and in no way promotes intergration,if thats a problem for these people then Saudi Arabia would cater for their needs.

But don't you think that one needs a very good reason for doing such thing? I mean making it illegal for people to wear something, which also has a religious aspect to it?

Put in mind that some of the people who wear this, view it as a religious requirement. So, to them this law forbids them to follow their religion, and forbids them from wearing what they want in general.

One doesn't have to wear something that others like, and wether that dress is liked or not is completely irrelevant. As for security reasons, i would understand that, if i hear a solid argument behind it, which i haven't so far.

Do you agree for example with what Saudi Arabia enforces in regards to dress? I don't. To make something illegal, there should be solid arguments as to why this should be so.

 

[England my lionheart]

But don't you think that one needs a very good reason for doing such thing? I mean making it illegal for people to wear something, which also has a religious aspect to it?

I do think there is a good reason for it,try going into a Bank wearing a crash Helmet with the visor down,as for the religious aspect where does it say it should be fully covering the face,from what i understand its a bit like a Priests or Vicars Dog collar,its what it symbolises and not its practicality.

Put in mind that some of the people who wear this, view it as a religious requirement. So, to them this law forbids them to follow their religion, and forbids them from wearing what they want in general.

Well if it could be proved it is a religious requirement maybe they would have a case,unfortunately they cannot.

One doesn't have to wear something that others like, and wether that dress is liked or not is completely irrelevant. As for security reasons, i would understand that, if i hear a solid argument behind it, which i haven't so far.

Personally i think a full face covering is detremental to social intergration but the security aspect is plain to see,i think though that the mistake was to single out these two forms of religious dress and it should have been a ban on full face coverings across the board.

Do you agree for example with what Saudi Arabia enforces in regards to dress? I don't. To make something illegal, there should be solid arguments as to why this should be so.

Fortunately Saudi Arabia isn't my country but i do disagree with much that Saudi does,but yes there should be a solid argument to make something illegal and vis a vis there shold be a good argument to make something legal too,in this instance i do not see one.

 

[England my lionheart]

The worst part for me is followers of a religion that is so intollerant of other religions and cultures that punishes Apostacy,Homosexuality,Adultery etc should expect the rest of the world to bend over backwards to accomodate it seems something of a cheeck IMO of course

 

[Reptillian]

Start packing.

Take a parka.
I`m not dictating that you should take a parka I`m just suggesting it.

I'm packed, I didn't take a parka though. I figured I'd just layer a bunch of burkas. (or is the plural form of burka: burkae?)

 

[DarkSun]

Fortunately Saudi Arabia isn't my country but i do disagree with much that Saudi does,but yes there should be a solid argument to make something illegal and vis a vis there shold be a good argument to make something legal too,in this instance i do not see one.

I like your logic.

1. Clothing keeps us warm.
2. We clearly don't need clothing on hot days.
3. Something needs a good reason to be legal, otherwise it can't be.
4. Therefore: clothing must be made illegal on warm days.

As for the whole "Saudi Arabia makes restrictions on what we can wear, why can't we? "... Do I really, honestly have to explain why we shouldn't be following the example of the Middle East when it comes to democracy...? Just because a bunch of other countries have done something doesn't make it right for us to do it. That kind of reasoning is nothing more than a global version of an appeal to the majority fallacy.

The only reason I can see that someone could possibly agree with France's law is if they have some kind of religious contempt. Otherwise, there is no logical basis behind the law. There's no reason for it. None. It's not made for our safety, it's been made to spite a minority group. What people wear shouldn't be a matter for the law to decide, unless there really is some kind of threat associated with it (which there isn't). And telling people to wear something they're uncomfortable in is as stupid as telling people they can't wear clothing when it's hot.

 

[England my lionheart]

I like your logic.

1. Clothing keeps us warm.
2. We clearly don't need clothing on hot days.
3. Something needs a good reason to be legal, otherwise it can't be.
4. Therefore: clothing must be made illegal on warm days.


Honestly, the only reason I can see that someone could possibly agree with France's law is if they have some kind of religious contempt. Otherwise, there is no logical basis behind the law. There's no reason for it. None. It's not made for our safety, it's been made to spite a minority group. What people wear shouldn't be a matter for the law to decide, unless there really is some kind of threat associated with it (which there isn't). And telling people to wear something they're uncomfortable in is as stupid as telling people they can't wear clothing when it's hot.

(That's what she said...)

Whats the weather got to do with it,and they are a minority,so what

 

[Badran]

I do think there is a good reason for it,try going into a Bank wearing a crash Helmet with the visor down,

Its understandable that in some places you would be required to show your face, or that in some places for security reasons this wouldn't be allowed. What is not understandable, is to make it illegal to wear it at all.

as for the religious aspect where does it say it should be fully covering the face,from what i understand its a bit like a Priests or Vicars Dog collar,its what it symbolises and not its practicality.

Well if it could be proved it is a religious requirement maybe they would have a case,unfortunately they cannot.

I'm not sure i understand you here. Are you saying they must convince the rest of us with their view? That they must convince us that this thing is a requirement?

If so, why do they particularly have to do that? I mean this is their interpretation which is as good as anyone else's. I don't think covering the face is part of Islamic teachings at all, let alone it being a requirement. However, thats completely irrelevant, and holds as much authority on the subject as their opinion.

Personally i think a full face covering is detremental to social intergration but the security aspect is plain to see,i think though that the mistake was to single out these two forms of religious dress and it should have been a ban on full face coverings across the board.

For the security part, like i told you i would be happy to hear an explanation for it, if there's any. An explanation for why people shouldn't be allowed to cover their faces any where, and that they should face some sort of penalties if they do not comply.

For the integration part, integration between who? Muslim people and french people? Aren't a lot of those Muslims in france, also french? I mean i think its quite possible that a french born woman, would embrace Islam, and decide to wear a niqab, in that case, what should she integrate with? I'm just trying to get more clarification on the points, because they are not obvious to me.

Are you okay with certain women being oppressed in order for supposedly easier circumstances for integration? Just because the rest of people don't like what she wears, she has to meet their standards? So that she could fit in?

Fortunately Saudi Arabia isn't my country but i do disagree with much that Saudi does,but yes there should be a solid argument to make something illegal and vis a vis there shold be a good argument to make something legal too,in this instance i do not see one.

You mean a good argument to support why women have the right to wear something they want, which also happens to be a part of their religion?

I think the only case where we should have any say in such situation, is if there is a reason to, a good reason. If not, then naturally, they should be able to do what they want.

The worst part for me is followers of a religion that is so intollerant of other religions and cultures that punishes Apostacy,Homosexuality,Adultery etc should expect the rest of the world to bend over backwards to accomodate it seems something of a cheeck IMO of course

Well, regardless of the fact that lots of muslims don't fit with this description, if you're talking about people who believe in those things (ex. killing converts), and also objecting to this, i understand that.

However, in general, as in muslims in general, nobody is expecting anybody to bend. Its expectance that people would mind their own business, and not interfere with muslim women's choice of clothing. Its only backwards in your view, which doesn't make it so. Certain people believe they should cover their face, thats up to them. I don't like it, and i don't agree with it, however i'm not being forced to bend or do anything about it.

 

[DarkSun]

Whats the weather got to do with it,and they are a minority,so what

Being a minority is not an excuse to be mistreated by the majority. It just means you're a minority.

I was making parallel between wearing the Hijab and wearing clothing in general. I think the problem here is that people aren't looking at it as just another piece of rag you put over your body, they see it as something unnecessary. Wearing clothing on a hot day is equally unnecessary though. :sarcastic

Btw, I edited my post.

 

[England my lionheart]

Its understandable that in some places you would be required to show your face, or that in some places for security reasons this wouldn't be allowed. What is not understandable, is to make it illegal to wear it at all.

OK i for one would see this as a reasonable compromise to ban it in certain places



I'm not sure i understand you here. Are you saying they must convince the rest of us with their view? That they must convince us that this thing is a requirement?

If so, why do they particularly have to do that? I mean this is their interpretation which is as good as anyone else's. I don't think covering the face is part of Islamic teachings at all, let alone it being a requirement. However, thats completely irrelevant, and holds as much authority on the subject as their opinion.

Well i for one feel insulted,not because of the full face and body covering itself but because some and i stress some Muslims on this Forum have indicated its because us lusty sex mad Men cannot control our sexual desires which of course is rubbish.

For the security part, like i told you i would be happy to hear an explanation for it, if there's any. An explanation for why people shouldn't be allowed to cover their faces any where, and that they should face some sort of penalties if they do not comply.

OK i'm not keen on the penalties but i think an appeal to common sense has failed and we've ended up with this,but i think there are definate places where it should be enforced like Banks and Schools.

For the integration part, integration between who? Muslim people and french people? Aren't a lot of those Muslims in france, also french? I mean i think its quite possible that a french born woman, would embrace Islam, and decide to wear a niqab, in that case, what should she integrate with? I'm just trying to get more clarification on the points, because they are not obvious to me.

OK this one is easy for me,i know quite a few Muslims some of whom consider themselves British and have integrated into British society very well and vote etc,and then there are Muslims who do not regard themselves as British at all and despise our jahili existence and cling to the Ummah first and do not integrate and have no intention to do so.

Are you okay with certain women being oppressed in order for supposedly easier circumstances for integration? Just because the rest of people don't like what she wears, she has to meet their standards? So that she could fit in?

Ask yourself this,do you think there was any intention to try to fit in

You mean a good argument to support why women have the right to wear something they want, which also happens to be a part of their religion?

No i mean a good argument why they have the need to wear it

I think the only case where we should have any say in such situation, is if there is a reason to, a good reason. If not, then naturally, they should be able to do what they want.

Well i'll still go with security,as for the oppression thing theres plenty of that of that about without the Burqa

Well, regardless of the fact that lots of muslims don't fit with this description, if you're talking about people who believe in those things (ex. killing converts), and also objecting to this, i understand that.

Of course many Muslims don't fit that description,many others don't really have a choice,i can say though that the majority of Muslims i have met do not fit that description at all.

However, in general, as in muslims in general, nobody is expecting anybody to bend. Its expectance that people would mind their own business, and not interfere with muslim women's choice of clothing. Its only backwards in your view, which doesn't make it so. Certain people believe they should cover their face, thats up to them. I don't like it, and i don't agree with it, however i'm not being forced to bend or do anything about it.

Whether its backward or not isn't the problem and you could wear a hat made of cream Doughnuts for all i care itis purely the face covering thats the problem

 

[England my lionheart]

Being a minority is not an excuse to be mistreated by the majority. It just means you're a minority.

I was making parallel between wearing the Hijab and wearing clothing in general. I think the problem here is that people aren't looking at it as just another piece of rag you put over your body, they see it as something unnecessary. Wearing clothing on a hot day is equally unnecessary though. :sarcastic

Btw, I edited my post.

OK fair enough,i don't see it as mistreatment though,just common sense to me

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

i agree with all of this, especially the bolded.

...and i still dislike the burqa.

So do I.

Is it the case in France that Christian women may wear face veils and Muslim women may not?

It's more that Muslim women may not wear a face veil in the way they wish to, while the law still allows face veils in other contexts.

Here's the law in question: http://www.senat.fr/leg/tas09-161.html

Here's a rough translation of the first two articles:

Article 1

No person may, in public, wear clothing designed to conceal his face.

Article 2

I. - For the purposes of Article 1, the public space is made up of public roads and places open to the public or engaged in a public service.

II. - The prohibition in Article 1 shall not apply if the conduct is required or permitted by law or regulation, whether it is justified by health or professional reasons, or if it is required in the context of sports practice, festivals, or artistic or traditional displays.

IOW, if a woman wears a burqa while walking down the street to do her shopping, she's committing a crime. However, if a busker decides to impersonate Batman on the same sidewalk, he's not. If a cyclist goes by wearing one of those "smog masks", he's not. They're all in proximity to each other and all with their identities just as obscured, but only one is breaking the law.

Actually, I just thought of a possible workaround to the law: if a woman can find someone to pay her one Euro a year to be a "burqa model", then austensibly, she's wearing it for "professional reasons" and therefore would be permitted to wear it in public. Hmm.

But hijab is not banned, so how is this photo relevant to the banning of the burqa?

It's not. It's relevant to the post that I was replying to.

It`s not.
I mistakenly said "Hijab" in one of my posts and Pengy jumped on it as if it was relevant and not an actual mistake.

Actually, I thought that you were confusing the school hijab ban with this issue.

 

[Badran]

Well i for one feel insulted,not because of the full face and body covering itself but because some and i stress some Muslims on this Forum have indicated its because us lusty sex mad Men cannot control our sexual desires which of course is rubbish.

I understand what you mean. I don't think all women who wear it, or people who agree with wearing this in general look at it this way.

OK this one is easy for me,i know quite a few Muslims some of whom consider themselves British and have integrated into British society very well and vote etc,and then there are Muslims who do not regard themselves as British at all and despise our jahili existence and cling to the Ummah first and do not integrate and have no intention to do so.

Well, that second type is certainly bad, one can relate both to his society and to his/her muslim fellows. If this law is aimed at these kind of people though, it will fail miserably to affect their mind in any positive way or make them fit in more. It only further alienates them.

Ask yourself this,do you think there was any intention to try to fit in

By women who wear face veil you mean?

If so, not all woman who wear this have a problem with your society or don't want to be a part of it. Lots of the women who wear it view it as something that makes them closer to god, or as an extra effort.

No i mean a good argument why they have the need to wear it

Some wear it because they think its a religious duty, some like i said as an extra effort. And in both cases, i can't see any good reason which makes anybody entitled to force them not to do this. With the exception of course of situations in which its necessary to reveal one's face.

Whether its backward or not isn't the problem and you could wear a hat made of cream Doughnuts for all i care itis purely the face covering thats the problem

I think this face covering thing is wrong, and i think we should try to make it clear why it is so. However, my only problem is like i told you is this type of laws which oppresses those women.

One last thing, i haven't read the whole article, but i couldn't see any reference to security reasons, it was only in the comments on the article. It seems (and correct me if i'm wrong) that their explanation is centered on the integration part. That i find disgusting. You can't make people see things your way and force them to supposedly integrate. Its wrong, and won't work.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

One last thing, i haven't read the whole article, but i couldn't see any reference to security reasons, it was only in the comments on the article. It seems (and correct me if i'm wrong) that their explanation is centered on the integration part. That i find disgusting. You can't make people see things your way and force them to supposedly integrate. Its wrong, and won't work.

And in that respect, it seems to me that the burqa ban goes completely against its purported aims.

Integration doesn't happen overnight. If a woman who feels that she needs to wear a burqa to go outside (or even if she's forced to wear one by her husband or father) but this isn't permitted, then she'll never be able to interact with society beyond her own family or religious community. How is someone supposed to integrate with a society if there's a major barrier to her actually interacting with that society?

Basically, this law makes it illegal for these women to be only slightly integrated into French society... but it's very difficult for a person to go from being not integrated at all to fully integrated without passing through gradual steps from the one point to the other.

 

[beenie]

^ Badran and 9-10ths you have both expressed my views very well.

while i don't wear it, i will stand up for the right of women who choose to wear it; it's not our place to decide when our how someone will integrate into society.

 

[Smoke]

How is someone supposed to integrate with a society if there's a major barrier to her actually interacting with that society?

The burqa itself is such a barrier, so it's a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't situation. It may be that such women cannot be integrated into French society by any means. But the burqa ban may help to insure that their daughters can.

I don't support this law for two reasons: I don't think women wearing burqas represent a serious threat to French culture, and I agree with Kathryn that it's not an effective way to address French fears about a growing presence of fundamentalist Islam in France. The law succeeds in being offensive without actually accomplishing much, in my opinion.

However I think supporters do have some valid concerns, one of which is obviously the fear that women may be coerced into wearing the burqa. I'm not sure whether there are legitimate security concerns. Certainly there have been documented incidents of crime and terrorism being committed by people wearing burgas, but I don't know if we want to ban all garments that allow for the easy concealment of bombs and weapons -- raincoats, for instance. Still the burga does have the distinction of allowing for that kind of concealment while also masking the face. I wouldn't worry about a man wearing a trench coat, but a man wearing a trench coat and a mask would definitely arouse my suspicions.

Also, I think a woman wearing a burqa is perceived, with good reason, as an adherent of an fundamentalist version of Islam, and fundamentalist versions of Islam are perceived, also with good reason, as being hostile to Western, secular societies. To wear a burqa in a Western country has the effect -- intended or not -- of offering insult to one's host country. That should probably not be illegal. But it is uncivil. It's even immodest, if you think about it. It also sends a message to the French people that one wishes to be walled off from them in a fundamental way. I think that if immigrants are helped to understand the way the burqa is perceived by most Westerners and still wish to keep this custom up, it does raise a legitimate question of whether such families are appropriate candidates for immigration.

I think a better option might be to require all immigrants to successfully complete classes designed to help them integrate with French society, though, instead of resorting to this kind of legislation. Guests have an obligation to be civil, but so do hosts.

 

[dust1n]

After Rene Descartes, the French have contributed nothing important to "Western" society anyways, including this ban on Burqas/Niqabs.

That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.