France Wants To Ban Full Head Covering On Muslim Women

[Ron in Regina]

The most antisocial form of clothing on women, any man who will demand his wife will never be seen in public with her face exposed is a demented cave man.

France is on the right track, we do no accept this form of attire in our country, wear it in your country that is your business here in France we do not accept that..

I say , "way to go"
Now add a selective screening for the rights to wear a "g" string :lol:

I've seen (what I'd assume where women?) these things being worn
outside of a Superstore in Canada on a really hot day...and they where
Black cloth...not the Blue cloth. I felt pretty bad for these women at first,
but then I thought, what if the material is breezy, and they're completely
naked (except for sandals) under their tarp-like Burkas???

They could be naked & drinking a Slurpee under those things. Hmmm...

 

[dumpthemonarchy]

How come religious types are never forced to give evidence or prove that their religion exists? Simply believing something doesn't give it reality. Show me the g/God thing is real.

We have limits on what we can wear in public, we don't wear tutus to a local hockey arena, but if some people start, so what. I see religion and burkas against social cohesion, but as long as only a few wear them, I am okay with it. it does make me think that immigration should be cut from 250,000 a year to under 100,000 year as these divisive issues start to percolate up to the surface more frequently.

 

[Machjo]

How come religious types are never forced to give evidence or prove that their religion exists? Simply believing something doesn't give it reality. Show me the g/God thing is real.

So why don't nationalist types ever forced to prove that a country is more than just an articicial boundary drawn on a map for collective ego expansion?

We have limits on what we can wear in public, we don't wear tutus to a local hockey arena, but if some people start, so what. I see religion and burkas against social cohesion, but as long as only a few wear them, I am okay with it.

Why are they any more against social cohesion than a feather hat and moccasins? Are we to ban those too?

it does make me think that immigration should be cut from 250,000 a year to under 100,000 year as these divisive issues start to percolate up to the surface more frequently.

Then you seem grossly misinformed of the situation there. About 20% of the French population is now Muslim, but most of it is not from immigration but rather from the former French department of Algeria. That's right. Prior to Algerian independence, Algeria was a fully integrated department of France, treated as an extension of France and so its citizens were French citizens. As French citizens, they were free to travel to the French mainland in Europe, not as immigrants (after all, they were born in Algeria which was essentially an extension of France, and so by being born in Algeria, they wre in fact born in France). This and not immigration is the main source of Islam in France today.

 

[dumpthemonarchy]

So why don't nationalist types ever forced to prove that a country is more than just an articicial boundary drawn on a map for collective ego expansion?

Set up a day and time for your g/God/dess to do something I can see and judge. I am a thinking person, this shouldn't be too hard to do.

Nations are real. France is real. Japan is real. Ethiopia is real. Languages are real. Borders are real, people make countries and they create huge amounts of evidence to enforce their existence. It is what people decide, and sure, boundaries can and do change but they are real where they are.

[/quote]Why are they any more against social cohesion than a feather hat and moccasins? Are we to ban those too?[/quote]

Every country has codes of behaviour for dress and socializing. You have to live in another country to find out what we do here if is often considered quaint or useless in another country. Numbers are important, if I see many women wear burkas I will protest much more strongly.

[/quote] Then you seem grossly misinformed of the situation there. About 20% of the French population is now Muslim, but most of it is not from immigration but rather from the former French department of Algeria. That's right. Prior to Algerian independence, Algeria was a fully integrated department of France, treated as an extension of France and so its citizens were French citizens. As French citizens, they were free to travel to the French mainland in Europe, not as immigrants (after all, they were born in Algeria which was essentially an extension of France, and so by being born in Algeria, they wre in fact born in France). This and not immigration is the main source of Islam in France today.[/quote]

Good for France. We are permitted to make rules and decide on immigration, it is not a holy subject that any dissent is considered racism. This furthers my idea people consider the federal gov't the new Roman Catholic Church and any dissent which used to be heresy is now bigotry. This limits intelligent discussion on an important topic of the day. You won't be censoring me.

 

[Socrates the Greek]

Some of these poor kids must have a problem recognizing their mothers, if they see their faces only 1/4 of their childhood time.
What an unfair world of spirituality.

 

[pegger]

And if the women WANT to wear them?

 

[SirJosephPorter]

This is the religion and where will it stop will we start to tell Hindus not to wear their turbans because men shouldn’t be forced to do this?

A small correction, Liberalman. It is the Sikhs who wear turbans, not the Hindus. Turbans are mandated by Sikh religion, not by Hindu religion.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

1)to vote - you should have to demonstrate you are who you say you are - so you'll have to show your face.

It is not that clearcut, pegger. I changed my opinion on this issue, I used to be of your opinion. However, currently when you go to vote, they don’t ask you for a proof of your identity (they don’t ask for your driver’s license or anything like that). Then why ask a Muslim woman to remover her veil and ask her to identify herself?

If the law is changed (and as far as I am aware, it hasn’t been yet), it should be non discriminatory everybody must produce the proof of identity, not only veiled Muslim women. Then you or I should be asked for our driver’s license, or passport etc. something to prove our identity.

 

[pegger]

1)to vote - you should have to demonstrate you are who you say you are - so you'll have to show your face.

It is not that clearcut, pegger. I changed my opinion on this issue, I used to be of your opinion. However, currently when you go to vote, they don’t ask you for a proof of your identity (they don’t ask for your driver’s license or anything like that). Then why ask a Muslim woman to remover her veil and ask her to identify herself?

If the law is changed (and as far as I am aware, it hasn’t been yet), it should be non discriminatory everybody must produce the proof of identity, not only veiled Muslim women. Then you or I should be asked for our driver’s license, or passport etc. something to prove our identity.

In the last federal election - I had to show my passport or my licence before I could vote. And I'm not a woman...or muslim....last time I checked, that is.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

I did read the article, and it is not clear to me what the French are trying to do. It said that in civil service they don’t permit any kind of religious sign, and it may make sense to ban the veil from the workplace.

However, ban burka in public? That would be a nutty law, how are they going to enforce it? Are they going to arrest a woman who is wearing burka? If that happens, then France would be no different from Saudi Arabia or Taliban (where a woman could be arrested for baring her ankle, not wearing a burka etc.).

These are difficult issues with no clear cut answer. Every effort should be made to accommodate the minorities, while at the same time, respecting the law and the constitution.

So I am withholding judgment on this one, I would like to see what kind of restrictions they are proposing.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

In the last federal election - I had to show my passport or my licence before I could vote. And I'm not a woman...or muslim....last time I checked, that is.

Did you really? When was that? In the last election here in Ontario, they didn’t ask me for anything. I simply handed in the election card I got in the post, and that was sufficient.

I wasn’t aware that they asked anybody to produce a proof of their identity. It has never happened to me.

Anyway, if they asked everybody to prove their identity, then there would be a case to say that Muslim women must bare their face and also produce driver’s license etc., so that the election officer can verify her identity.

However even here, just to ask her to bare her face doesn’t make sense, without asking for some proof of identity.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

And if the women WANT to wear them?

That is exactly the point. If some women want to wear them, does the state really have the right to ban burka? That is why it makes sense to ban it at workplace. However, to say that women cannot wear burka in public would be a nutty law.

I can understand how an educated Muslim woman may decide on her own to wear the burka (she would be wrong, and such cases would be extremely rare, but it can happen). Then does the state really have the right to tell her that she cannot do that in public?

I am not familiar with constitution of France, so I don’t know the answer. However, it would most certainly be unconstitutional in USA or Canada.

In many places in North America (such as Ontario, New York etc.) it is perfectly legal for a woman to go in public bare breasted (it is not widely known, and I haven’t known of any woman ever doing it, but it is legal). If it is permitted for a woman to walk on the street bare breasted, it makes no kind of sense to say that she cannot walk down the street wearing a burka.

 

[pegger]

Did you really? When was that? In the last election here in Ontario, they didn’t ask me for anything. I simply handed in the election card I got in the post, and that was sufficient.

I wasn’t aware that they asked anybody to produce a proof of their identity. It has never happened to me.

Anyway, if they asked everybody to prove their identity, then there would be a case to say that Muslim women must bare their face and also produce driver’s license etc., so that the election officer can verify her identity.

However even here, just to ask her to bare her face doesn’t make sense, without asking for some proof of identity.

October - 2008. In Cambridge, Ontario. I remember clearly - because my kids hid my wallet, and I couldn't find passport. I went to the polling station (walking distance) - they wouldn't let me vote - and I had to go home and tear the house apart to find it.

 

[Cannuck]

This Guy? 8O

There is something fitting about a French guy with Napoleon complex

 

[Cannuck]

I say , "way to go"
Now add a selective screening for the rights to wear a "g" string :lol:

Are you trying to say that you have a problem with this?

I can't believe Ron would post pictures of himself on the net.

 

[Cannuck]

What I find interesting is that those who advocate the banning on burkas because they are demeaning to women never seem to advocate the banning of strip clubs.

It's about freedom of choice. I believe women should be allowed to do as they choose, be it wearing a burka or peeling.

 

[Cannuck]

Did you really? When was that? In the last election here in Ontario, they didn’t ask me for anything. I simply handed in the election card I got in the post, and that was sufficient.

But you are the Great Joey. Had they had a problem with your card and asked for proof, you would have simply told them "Well, that is a matter of opinion isn't it" or "I guess we'll have to agree to disagree" and that would be the end of it. Us simple folk can't get away with stuff like that.

 

[Cannuck]

I can understand how an educated Muslim woman may decide on her own to wear the burka (she would be wrong, and such cases would be extremely rare, but it can happen). Then does the state really have the right to tell her that she cannot do that in public?

Try walking into a bank with a balaclava on.

 

[L Gilbert]

Since when have French governments ever shown much intelligence?

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Well that's the rap on Christianity, not real Biblical or ecclisiastical Christianity. With Islam there is no such subtlety or interpretation.. no turning the other cheek, not casting the first stone.. no forgiveness, no agape (divine love). There is vengeance.. page after page in the Koran of stonings, whippings, beheadings, hangings, amputations.. for any slight to God or His law. In Christianity, God took all those afflictions on Himself. The difference is.. night and day.

Coldstream it really doesn’t matter what some religious book (to which very few people pay any attention) says. The record of Christians in committing atrocities is no better than that of Muslims. Indeed, in terms of sheer numbers, one would be hard pressed to figure out who has killed more people in the name of religion, Christians or Muslims.

In terms of forced conversions again, there is really nothing to choose between the two. So you accusing Islam of stoning, beheadings etc, is pot calling the kettle black (though the criticism is undoubtedly valid).