French Burka Ban

[Badran]

Badran in addition to addressing Waitasec's comment can you address mine? If you missed my question here it is:

If Islamic garb is considered modest and a reflection of Islamic morals, why is western clothing seen a amoral, indecent from what Muslims perceive looking at the media yet in the same breathe, if I judge islam from what I see in the media its wrong?

For one, all western women don't dress trashy but I find it a convenient argument muslimsuse to justify their generalizations by looking at tv but if I do the same its not true?

In both cases of course its not true, the fact that some Muslims do that is sad as by now we should know what it means to generalize against people.

Of course not all western women are immodest, or most of them. Neither are all Muslim women modest.

 

[Vendetta]

In both cases of course its not true, the fact that some Muslims do that is sad as by now we should know what it means to generalize against people.

Of course not all western women are immodest, or most of them. Neither are all Muslim women modest.

Thanks that's all what I wanted to know

 

[waitasec]

Lets take it from the start, you argued that because in the western culture this is not acceptable

right,
it is not acceptable to hide the face

the women should comply. And if they don't they would be defiant and rebellious.

yes.

Just the fact that those westerners don't act that way themselves, and view her dress as weird,

dress the way you want, just don't hide the face

she should do as they do and not expect to have enough freedom to express herself in her own way

western women who live or visit arab countries are respectful to the eastern culture if not they are ridiculed and rightfully so....what's the problem? is the muslim way the "only way" or is it the muslim way?

which also happens to be according to her religion.

religion doesn't have rights...the law of the land trumps religious dogma...thank goodness.

it is the law and it is a fundamental part of western culture to show the face as ID...we've been over this plenty of times...

She is only allowed to do it in the privacy of her home, which in that case is useless because the only place those women actually take off that dress, is at home.

why? because she has been indoctrinated into thinking she is secondary?

Now, there are other people, gays for example, who want a right for same sex marriage.

and why take that right away?

Lets say some culture also views having sex with your same sex as weird, so they refuse to give them that right. No same sex marriage for them, as that opposes that country's culture, and they just think its weird. So gays won't have the right for that, just because those people don't like it, but gays are allowed to do it in private. If gays choose to not follow this, they would be also defiant and rebellious.

either try changing the law, don't move there or move away...simple.

Can you see any similarities?

i don't understand your reasoning...

 

[Bismillah]

and you are equating gay marriage to what exactly?

"There are many things not accepted as socially acceptable that many humanists argue for "

how about a period of adjustment?

What do you mean "adjustment" As I said before "integrating is NOT CONFORMITY".

people do have adjust to their new environment don't they?

As in supporting themselves and paying taxes? How is that any relevant to wearing a Niqab or not.

it's not like the have to walk around in bikinis...get real...just don't cover the face because it is a form of ID....

Yeah? When I go outside to jog I constantly remind myself of a form of ID? What is this middleschool where I need IDENTIFICATION to go to a park?

Every morning at 6 I put this on

Should I be arrested now? Stop trying to impose limits on freedom when there is no need to. Public space does not require identification, it would be idiotic to think so.

why do the muslims expect western women to conform to their way of dressing in muslim countries...

Xenophobic rants done? "MUSLIMS" don't expect anything. Within Islam dress code is voluntary and the laws of Islam are not for kaffir, you need to stop exposing your paranoid tendencies.

This is NOT a law about imposing Burqa on all French women, it is a law targeting Muslim women.

 

[lunakilo]

Why should anyone adjust to anything? Nothing's lost by not adjusting.

If people have to live together (or in close relation to each other) and they don't care if what they do offend anybody, good relations are definetly lost.

 

[lunakilo]

T-****

Ha!

 

[blackout]

"There are many things not accepted as socially acceptable that many humanists argue for "

What do you mean "adjustment" As I said before "integrating is NOT CONFORMITY".
As in supporting themselves and paying taxes? How is that any relevant to wearing a Niqab or not.
Yeah? When I go outside to jog I constantly remind myself of a form of ID? What is this middleschool where I need IDENTIFICATION to go to a park?

Every morning at 6 I put this on

Should I be arrested now? Stop trying to impose limits on freedom when there is no need to. Public space does not require identification, it would be idiotic to think so.
Xenophobic rants done? "MUSLIMS" don't expect anything. Within Islam dress code is voluntary and the laws of Islam are not for kaffir, you need to stop exposing your paranoid tendencies.

This is NOT a law about imposing Burqa on all French women, it is a law targeting Muslim women.

Well look, then there's no reason a Muslim woman couldn't wear one of these,
in conjunction with super large sunglasses and a scarf,
and maybe even a vieled hat.
Sometimes you just have to go with the flow,
and get your bottom line by whatever means possible.

 

[Dezzie]

Ha!

Oopsy! Correction has been made! I swear I don't wear what I originally stated! lmao That's just weird!

 

[blackout]

I think I'm actually going to DESIGN some fashionable burqa alternatives.

Comfort, appealing textile, non awkward, non vision impeding, breathable,
ease of wear, mix and match, attractive but modest.

I'm really not sure the face is MEANT to be covered,
but I'm going to give it a go.

 

[Badran]

right,
it is not acceptable to hide the face

Right, so to answer your question when you said in this same post:

and why take that right away?

Here you're referring to gay marriage, so my answer to you is because it is not acceptable. Do you see what i'm talking about now?

western women who live or visit arab countries are respectful to the eastern culture if not they are ridiculed and rightfully so....what's the problem? is the muslim way the "only way" or is it the muslim way?

No, i'm saying in neither cases should women be forced to conform some pathetic cultural codes that have no value except to those who cherish them.

religion doesn't have rights...the law of the land trumps religious dogma...thank goodness.

Once again, people have religious rights. And you are included in those protected rights. Your choice of not following any religion is protected. So is people's choice in following whatever religion, and practicing it as they wish as long as they don't victimize someone else.

it is the law and it is a fundamental part of western culture to show the face as ID...we've been over this plenty of times...

Sure we have, and its really surprising to see you unable to get what i'm saying. It is also a fundamental part of whatever other culture to not accept such thing as gay marriage, so they too will oppress people on the same grounds you're suggesting.

why? because she has been indoctrinated into thinking she is secondary?

Once again, this has nothing to do with what we're talking about.

either try changing the law, don't move there or move away...simple.

Sure those are the options of gays in that situation, but the question is do you see it a good thing or a bad thing that they have to be in this situation in the first place? A situation where people unashamedly expect others to refrain from exercising their freedom merely because it is not similar to their own culture.

In other words, the only part left of your argument is this whole culture and unacceptable thing. I'm trying to show you that you would refuse this premise in other instances, or at least see that its causing oppression. As for identity issues and security and so forth we already addressed that by the simple fact that i have no right to see your face whenever i feel like it, but in some instances it is required to show one's face for security reasons, and we already agreed that it should be enforced in that case.

 

[waitasec]

Here you're referring to gay marriage, so my answer to you is because it is not acceptable. Do you see what i'm talking about now?

no i don't. gay marriage is something completely different because it involves a natural instinct or a natural inclination to human sexuality. wearing a burqua is a learned behavior...

see what i mean?

i'll get back to the rest of your post at a later time...

 

[Badran]

no i don't. gay marriage is something completely different because it involves a natural instinct or a natural inclination to human sexuality. wearing a burqua is a learned behavior...

see what i mean?

I'm not talking about a law addressing gays being gays, i'm talking about a law that warrants them marriage. Some societies don't accept that.

i'll get back to the rest of your post at a later time...

Take your time.

 

[waitasec]

I'm not talking about a law addressing gays being gays, i'm talking about a law that warrants them marriage. Some societies don't accept that.

and marriages are not warranted because.....gays are being gay...
girls are not born with a burqua

 

[waitasec]

No, i'm saying in neither cases should women be forced to conform some pathetic cultural codes that have no value except to those who cherish them.



Once again, people have religious rights. And you are included in those protected rights. Your choice of not following any religion is protected. So is people's choice in following whatever religion, and practicing it as they wish as long as they don't victimize someone else.



Sure we have, and its really surprising to see you unable to get what i'm saying. It is also a fundamental part of whatever other culture to not accept such thing as gay marriage, so they too will oppress people on the same grounds you're suggesting.



Once again, this has nothing to do with what we're talking about.



Sure those are the options of gays in that situation, but the question is do you see it a good thing or a bad thing that they have to be in this situation in the first place? A situation where people unashamedly expect others to refrain from exercising their freedom merely because it is not similar to their own culture.

In other words, the only part left of your argument is this whole culture and unacceptable thing. I'm trying to show you that you would refuse this premise in other instances, or at least see that its causing oppression. As for identity issues and security and so forth we already addressed that by the simple fact that i have no right to see your face whenever i feel like it, but in some instances it is required to show one's face for security reasons, and we already agreed that it should be enforced in that case.

whenever there is a double standard it will multiply into more standards...
that is why there is the rule of law...ID is the law...in western culture.
ID is not oppressive, why twist it around as if it were?
you realize ambiguity is what you're supporting.

the double standard of marriages will become one standard
by allowing gay marriage because it does not oppress anyone. the limitations it has now is oppressive in some cultures BECAUSE of the double standard

the basic reason why covering a woman's face is a double standard, in western culture, is because we see it as an oppressive defiant act against women. don't forget, the women of the west just recently stepped up to the plate, instilling self dignity and self respect into the female psyche, by giving them a greater and a clearer sense of equality than previous generations. and in our culture emancipation is the standard...the polar opposite of the eastern culture...
i think that is the fundamental problem...how the west and east value personal freedom and equality differently...

 

[Badran]

whenever there is a double standard it will multiply into more standards...
that is why there is the rule of law...ID is the law...in western culture.
ID is not oppressive, why twist it around as if it were?
you realize ambiguity is what you're supporting.

the double standard of marriages will become one standard
by allowing gay marriage because it does not oppress anyone. the limitations it has now is oppressive in some cultures BECAUSE of the double standard

the basic reason why covering a woman's face is a double standard, in western culture, is because we see it as an oppressive defiant act against women. don't forget, the women of the west just recently stepped up to the plate, instilling self dignity and self respect into the female psyche, by giving them a greater and a clearer sense of equality than previous generations. and in our culture emancipation is the standard...the polar opposite of the eastern culture...
i think that is the fundamental problem...how the west and east value personal freedom and equality differently...

and marriages are not warranted because.....gays are being gay...
girls are not born with a burqua

In that culture, it is unacceptable to legalize or equate such thing with their idea of marriage. In their view, this is unacceptable. However, gays can still have sex. Why is the fact that in the women's case they chose to wear the veil makes it okay to use this same argument against them? Does the fact that they chose to on its own makes it okay to take that liberty from them? of course not.

In other words, is the distinguishing factor merely that gays are born that way? Well if thats the case, why not accept other things that people are born with or can't help too? Well, because in those other cases, these things hurt somebody else. So, obviously, merely being born with something does not warrant acceptance. So, the reason gay marriage should be accepted is that there are no arguments made against it hurting somebody else, not merely that they're born with it. Now, can such argument be made against women wearing the veil? No, only in certain instances as we established, is it needed to reveal the face. A woman wearing niqab or burqa does not hurt anybody else. You have no such right of seeing my face whenever you like. "Culturally unacceptable" and "weird" are not grounds to make something illegal.

You seem to fail to see the obvious similarity, that if we accept "culturally unacceptable" or "weird" as reasons on their own to make something illegal, this would naturally be justified.

 

[Apex]

It is amazing the lengths some people will go to validate their bigotry.

 

[waitasec]

In that culture, it is unacceptable to legalize or equate such thing with their idea of marriage.

and tell me, which culture would that be?
Gay Marriage - Where is Gay Marriage Legal

In their view, this is unacceptable. However, gays can still have sex.

are you kidding me? you think that being gay is just about the sex and not about the innate sense of HUMAN COMPANIONSHIP people crave...honestly, i would think you equate gays with being purely animalistic, not surprising coming from a person who considers women to be subjected to men's chauvinism...by establishing their role in islam as a being nothing more than a pet...

Why is the fact that in the women's case they chose to wear the veil makes it okay to use this same argument against them? Does the fact that they chose to on its own makes it okay to take that liberty from them? of course not.

i think you're using the word chose loosely, which is a point you are ignoring. most of these girls have been indoctrinated since they were young that they are secondary to men...not their equal.
i would even go as far as saying most of those women who do convert to islam later in life may have issues with where they fit in society either because they were abused and/or have very little self esteem...

In other words, is the distinguishing factor merely that gays are born that way? Well if thats the case, why not accept other things that people are born with or can't help too? Well, because in those other cases, these things hurt somebody else.

you answered your own question...hurt being the operative word..
verb-transitive
To cause physical damage or pain to; injure.

To cause mental or emotional suffering to; distress.

To be detrimental to; hinder or impair

To have or produce a feeling of physical pain or discomfort

humans need interaction...explain what the purpose of veiling a face or veiling an individual is...doesn't that separate the individual from their environment? this smells like an act of control, extinguishing any and all elements of improvising... an obviously planned and calculated existence is not a natural existence because life is spontaneous...
this is why veiling a face is an outright wrong because it harms the human condition... it is no more different than the way people approach their pets

So, the reason gay marriage should be accepted is that there are no arguments made against it hurting somebody else, not merely that they're born with it. Now, can such argument be made against women wearing the veil? No, only in certain instances as we established, is it needed to reveal the face. A woman wearing niqab or burqa does not hurt anybody else.

but it does hurt the girl/woman wearing it. it is not an act of self rule but rather of being ruled by mans biases, bigotry and fear.

edit:
a veil on a woman has the same connotation as a leash on a dog.

You have no such right of seeing my face whenever you like. "Culturally unacceptable" and "weird" are not grounds to make something illegal.

with this line of thinking everyone should be walking around hiding their face....
sure it is, especially when you're around my children...
what are you hiding? it is, after all, suspicious behavior.

You seem to fail to see the obvious similarity, that if we accept "culturally unacceptable" or "weird" as reasons on their own to make something illegal, this would naturally be justified.

i wanted to convey the feeling along with the fact that it is the law for OTHER reasons...this law is not about being subjected to suspicious behavior of those who are defiant, but about security... remember criminals tend to hide their faces for a reason. it's rather telling how this haughty religion plays on the fears of others by hypocritically calling it an act of freedom of expression when this very religion is absolutely against women expressing their individuality in an uncontrolled environment

btw, from what i read there is a growing population of homosexuals in saudi arabia. the eastern world will have to reckon with this fact sooner or later, because sweeping this pink elephant under the rug will become too cumbersome...

 

[Badran]

and tell me, which culture would that be?
Gay Marriage - Where is Gay Marriage Legal

I see you're intentionally missing the point. Lets say that it happens that there aren't any cultures today that refuse gay marriage, still we will use the example as a proposed scenario, which used to happen before. That of course is aside from the fact that there are societies today that refuse gay marriage.

are you kidding me? you think that being gay is just about the sex and not about the innate sense of HUMAN COMPANIONSHIP people crave...

Being gay is about human companionship? Being homosexual or heterosexual simply refers to which gender your attracted to, thats it. These other feelinings you're referring to are present in all people, however it has nothing to do with them being gay or not.

honestly, i would think you equate gays with being purely animalistic, not surprising coming from a person who considers women to be subjected to men's chauvinism...by establishing their role in islam as a being nothing more than a pet...

Wrong on all accounts. But for your impression about how i view gays, an explanation would be that any such tone you detect in my words are only there to match yours about women in face cover to try to show you your double standard. I'll just get you an example from this very post:

most of these girls have been indoctrinated since they were young that they are secondary to men...not their equal.
i would even go as far as saying most of those women who do convert to islam later in life may have issues with where they fit in society either because they were abused and/or have very little self esteem...

i think you're using the word chose loosely, which is a point you are ignoring.

Not at all, they did chose to whether you like it or not. At best it will only be that their choice is affected by their upbringing (which in some cases it is), and that does not negate their choice.

you answered your own question...hurt being the operative word..
verb-transitive
To cause physical damage or pain to; injure.

To cause mental or emotional suffering to; distress.

To be detrimental to; hinder or impair

To have or produce a feeling of physical pain or discomfort

humans need interaction...explain what the purpose of veiling a face or veiling an individual is...doesn't that separate the individual from their environment? this smells like an act of control, extinguishing any and all elements of improvising... an obviously planned and calculated existence is not a natural existence because life is spontaneous...
this is why veiling a face is an outright wrong because it harms the human condition... it is no more different than the way people approach their pets

I'll disregard for now the fact that this doesn't come even close to remotely be victimizing others. I'll follow your reasoning instead. Okay, this does indeed need legal intervention. Lets see what else this applies to. How about someone who insults other people's religion?

What is the purpose of that? doesn't that hurt their feelings and further alienates them? Seems to me this is an act of aggression. A planned and calculated one at that. It is an outright wrong too, it should be illegal as well. Oh wait, i forget, freedom of speech is okay in western culture, i guess i'll have to find something else. How about men in long hair? Some people are pretty offended by that.

but it does hurt the girl/woman wearing it. it is not an act of self rule but rather of being ruled by mans biases, bigotry and fear.

edit:
a veil on a woman has the same connotation as a leash on a dog.

Mere personal opinion that has zero value to whether this should be legal or not.

with this line of thinking everyone should be walking around hiding their face....

It was only a matter of time before you said this.

sure it is, especially when you're around my children...
what are you hiding? it is, after all, suspicious behavior.

No its not, its not your right to see her face whenever you like, she is not doing any suspicious behavior, and your feelings about her being around your children are completely irrelevant to the law. Its only relevant to you, don't let women wearing it around your children if you like.

i wanted to convey the feeling along with the fact that it is the law for OTHER reasons...this law is not about being subjected to suspicious behavior of those who are defiant, but about security...

Thats not true unfortunately. This law is not about security, as i already mentioned more than once, if you're talking about France that is.

remember criminals tend to hide their faces for a reason.

Like have been said in this thread or the other one applying this logic should include all kinds of face coverings, any kind of object that covers the face. And once again, if the law was actually about security, it would have been less insulting, because it would be just a matter of stupidity, unlike the case we have here where its matter of discrimination. It would be stupidity in security reasons case because its silly to make something illegal because of its misuse by a few. You'll have to establish that this is causing a serious concern in order to make it illegal, or then we should ban a whole lot of other things, like cars.

it's rather telling how this haughty religion plays on the fears of others by hypocritically calling it an act of freedom of expression when this very religion is absolutely against women expressing their individuality in an uncontrolled environment

False, irrelevant, and another mere sign of your inability to set aside your feelings towards religion in general, and this religion in particular.

btw, from what i read there is a growing population of homosexuals in saudi arabia. the eastern world will have to reckon with this fact sooner or later, because sweeping this pink elephant under the rug will become too cumbersome...

Yeah probably, just like France will have to reckon with the growing population of Muslims sooner or later.

 

[RitalinO.D.]

Thats not true unfortunately. This law is not about security, as i already mentioned more than once, if you're talking about France that is.

What exactly is the reason this law was passed? Does anyone even know the actual presidence or is it all speculation?

I have no clue

 

[Badran]

What exactly is the reason this law was passed? Does anyone even know the actual presidence or is it all speculation?

I have no clue

The main reason is the whole integration thing, as far as i've read in some articles about this. Another possible addition would be to "lift oppression of women" and so forth. However, not any source i've encountered states the security reasons.