Burka Rage

[thir]

On 'care2 causes' I found this article about proposed legislation on burkas. Some think it supresses freedom of expression, others that it supports the women, and others again have other views.

What do you think?

" Earlier today, French legislators introduced a draft law that would prevent Muslim women from veiling in public. In addition to introducing smaller fines for appearing in public in Muslim veils that cover the face, the measure creates a new offense, "inciting to hide the face," which would heavily fine anyone who forced women to veil (to the tune of just under $20,000) and could even result in jail time. The bill will go to Parliament in July.

Nicolas Sarkozy, who has been one of the most outspoken proponents of the bill, claimed that Muslims should not feel "stigmatized" by the bill. Rather, he said, it simply ensconced French values into law. "We are an old nation united around a certain idea of human dignity, and in particular of a woman's dignity, around a certain idea of how to live together," Sarkozy explained. "The full veil that hides the face completely harms those values, which are so fundamental to us, so essential to the republican compact."

Veiling has been a hot-button issue in France for some time; as the European country with the largest Muslim population, methods of integration have revolved around the extent to which immigrants must physically blend in. Some question whether the legislation is even constitutional, while organizations like Amnesty International protested that such a law would violate women's freedom of rights and expression. Whether the ban would protect Muslim women is uncertain - some point out that it might open the floodgates for more intensified racism.

Six women met with reporters yesterday to talk about the ban, and expressed their extreme disapproval. One woman said, "They are giving people the right to attack us"; another pointed out that their "sisters," other women who veil themselves, would hide out in their homes so as not to be caught breaking the law. She added that she would take her case to the European Court of Human Rights, if arrested.

The threat of physical violence seemed to be realized, also, by a violent attack against a veiled woman in a clothing store. The police refer to these incidents as "burka rage." A physical altercation occurred when a 26-year-old Muslim convert overheard an older woman making "snide remarks" about her burka; according to the Daily Mail, "the lawyer said she was not happy seeing a fellow shopper wearing a veil and wanted the ban introduced as soon as possible." The older woman then allegedly ripped the veil off, before the younger woman punched her.

I worry that incidents like this are too easily portrayed as catfights, when the reality is much more complicated. I certainly agree that the burka ban would violate religious expression in an extremely dangerous manner, and I hope that women would continue to assert their right to wear the burka. The issue of whether the men in women's lives (husbands and fathers primarily) are forcing them to veil is more complex, and ultimately not answered by a simple ban. Instead, the ban uses a faux concern for women's rights to prop up what is ultimately a racist piece of legislation. I hope that more women stand up for their rights, and that discussion of the proposed ban doesn't shy away from dealing with these complicated issues."


http://www.care2.com/causes/womens-rights/blog/burka-rage-ensues-after-proposed-french-burka-ban/

[MMI]

What would happen if Christian Frenchwomen adopted the veil as a fashion item?

[Thorne]

A complicated issue, certainly. Should women be allowed to wear their veil in public? Absolutely. Whether it's a religious statement or a fashion statement, people have the right to wear, or not wear, whatever they please (within the limits of decency, I suppose.)

But what about security? Should merchants or banks be allowed to require women to show their faces, to protect themselves and their customers from potential harm? I think they should have that right. After all, if someone walks into your shop covered from head to toe in a burqa, you don't know if you're dealing with a customer or a crook.

Now, if they want to wear something like THIS (http://contexts.org/socimages/files/blogger2wp/2lil-kim-burqa.jpg), I can certainly get behind it! I would be HAPPY to get behind it!

[denuseri]

For me this is no different than laws requiring women to wear a burka or any such other garment in other countries or for people in general to adhere to certian dress codes in public, nude beaches not withstanding. (When in Rome as they say)

Also lets not forget that many misconceptions and misunderstandings about Islamic attire for women abound and many more women than one may think actually choose to wear what they wear and tech their children to wear it as well, just like your own parents tried to keep you dressed the way they wanted too when you were growing up.

In reality, Islam is not a monolithic geographical bloc with any one set standard and dress practices can be secular and themselves vary from country to country and even from cultural ethnic group to group within any given country.

[IAN 2411]

A complicated issue, certainly. Should women be allowed to wear their veil in public? Absolutely. Whether it's a religious statement or a fashion statement, people have the right to wear, or not wear, whatever they please (within the limits of decency, I suppose.)

But what about security? Should merchants or banks be allowed to require women to show their faces, to protect themselves and their customers from potential harm? I think they should have that right. After all, if someone walks into your shop covered from head to toe in a burqa, you don't know if you're dealing with a customer or a crook.

I can’t remember if it was made law before the end of the last parliament or not, but I do believe we have a law in the UK outlawing them from certain places. IE: - airports for one and schools for another, and it was all down to security. I also think it was rushed through parliament because a Pakistani that murdered his girl friend or wife and escaped justice for the murder for a short while by dressing in a burqa and escaping to Pakistan he was eventually found and sent back.
Women in the UK dressed in burqa's however have not been victimised because no one is allowed in nearly all indoor shopping areas and malls wearing hoods, the whole of the head must be shown at all times and that includes white English. It also law in most public houses that people wearing caps with peaks are not allowed to be worn in certain public house chains. The burqa is not a religious item or a fashion statement, and no one not even the Muslims themselves knows where it originated from. All that has been said about it by religious theorists is pure speculation. I have no worries about women wearing them but I do believe that they are a great security threat to any nation including the Muslim states. This has been seen by the suicide bombers of Israel, Afghanistan and Iraq and not all of them were women.

Regards ian 2411

[gagged_Louise]

I can see the point in outlawing it. Showing your own face, communicating by your eyes and showing that way who you are, is paramount in most parts of the world and it's long been central to the Western world. By showing your face and showing that it's really you speaking you vouch for what you think, what you're going to do, what you stand for as an individual, not just as a grey member of a group. It's a way of communicating "This is sincerely me" - and of making it easy to grasp and verify that this is the same person who signed papers, attended class, did a job, visited hospital etc at some earlier date. If you hide your face, there is always the suspicion that you're being booted around by somebody else, or that there's lying involved. Remember, the law would only apply in public, not at home, and maybe not even to passengers in a private car.

So outlawing the burqa could be a way to show, even if a bit brusquely,. that "nobody outside your little corner will listen to you if you hide your face". The question though is, how far is this going to reach those women, and how will the law be put into action? It's not a huge number of people that wear full-covering veils anyway in Europe -the estimated number in France is less than 3.000 in a country of 65 million people - and those who do often don't speak the language of the country (French, Dutch etc) so they won't really be easy to reach. Again, some women who come as tourists from, like, Saudi Arabia to Paris do wear burqas: would the police yank them in while they're walking down the Champs-Elysées in Paris buying jewellery? Not likely! So the law could become sonmething that only gets enforced in some places and gets used as a tool for making people bend by threats.

There are sound reasons I think, the aim to make these people act like true citizens and to protect their daughters from being pulled into a kind of family control, a suffocating family seclusion that really does happen - those are legitimate concerns. Modern secular school of any kind is pretty much impossible if you're wearing a burqa all the time at school, making a bid for a job becomes useless too. And then there's public safety, that's a reason that just didn't exist twenty years ago: nobody tried during the French-Algerian war or during the Palestinian assaults of the 1970s to enlist women as covert suicide bombers (at least no one was successful in staging such an attack, as far as I know) but that actually happens today. i dont think one can disregard that to many people, a woman in a burqa represents an immediate threat because she might be carrying a bomb or a gun, and that's something she cannot really disprove except by removing the garment, which is just what she doesn't want to do, or even feels forbidden to do.

Sure enough it's a restriction in the right of people to express themselves through what they choose to wear. I still feel the solid reasons in terms of community and citizenship outweigh that. Then making the law work, like I pointed out, is another matter.

[gagged_Louise]

Also lets not forget that many misconceptions and misunderstandings about Islamic attire for women abound and many more women than one may think actually choose to wear what they wear and tech their children to wear it as well, just like your own parents tried to keep you dressed the way they wanted too when you were growing up.

In reality, Islam is not a monolithic geographical bloc with any one set standard and dress practices can be secular and themselves vary from country to country and even from cultural ethnic group to group within any given country.

So true, and too often forgotten in a wind of hectoring rhetoric about every muslim being a threat and a fanatic. Most islamic veils don't cover the face, and many muslim women don't wear any kind of veil at all. Goes without saying that not nearly all muslims are hardline sharia pluggers either.

[leo9]

A friend who works a lot with the Asian communities in the North of England pointed out that it's not just women who are increasingly wearing what they consider "traditional" costume. Twenty years ago you rarely saw men in Indian-style pyjama outfits, they dressed English to try to fit in and avoid trouble. Now they feel safe asserting their cultural identity like other citizens... another part of the patchwork of styles and languages that makes our cities so fascinating.

[gagged_Louise]

Leo9, I don't have any trouble with hidjabs (veils going from the chest up and draping the head but leaving the face completely free; common in Iran and Pakistan), nor with Indian, African or Lapponian clothing. I loved it when I saw a marriage photo in the paper here with a woman who had married an Indian chief from the south-western USA; he was wearing his full chief's uniform with feather headgear and all in the pic and his wife was beaming.

But I think one has to take the fear of hidden bombs and the concerns over shrunk options of taking part in society seriously. Allowing the burqa without any questions is an easy route to allow for a murky kind of control by family or clan heads over their women and kids, and if the subject doesn't know the language of the country or doesn't move around much on her own, then they don't have much of a chance to speak up or make contact if they would be harassed by their next of kin. If they are required to wear a burqa as soon as they leave the house, they won't really get far with learning the new language anyway, so it becomes a covert prison. And that kind of control really does happen - "honouir killings" and forced marriages are much easier to engineer and to hide if the woman has never been in touch with authorities and is under the thumb of her male relatives or her parents.

[Thorne]

[B][COLOR="Pink"]many more women than one may think actually choose to wear what they wear and tech their children to wear it as well, just like your own parents tried to keep you dressed the way they wanted too when you were growing up.
Except that I could not be executed for "choosing" not to dress as my parents wished. And I could not be executed for turning away from my parents' faith. These things can, and do, happen under Sharia law. So what choice do these women really have?

[VaAugusta]

Relating to BDSM...
I would not have a problem with a woman (or man) wearing a collar into a bank, in spite of how demeaning or whatever else people may think about it. My main objection to burqas is how they do not show any distinguishing feature. I believe there was an instance of a bank robbery in N.C. where the police weren't sure if they're looking for a woman or a man. Now, I'm all for religious freedom as long as it doesn't infringe on anyone else's rights.. But burqas clearly infringe on society's ability to live our daily lives without fear the person has a gun under their cloak. :/

[Ozme52]

So will this law apply to widows at funerals?
Will this law apply to hygenic masks if one goes out in public while sick?

Is a church (or mosque) a public place?

What would on say if it applied to other head coverings of a pious nature?

Laws written as this one is reportedly written, are ridiculous.

Better to write a law that protects women from being forced by another to wear a veil in public or private.

[thir]

So will this law apply to widows at funerals?
Will this law apply to hygenic masks if one goes out in public while sick?

Is a church (or mosque) a public place?

What would on say if it applied to other head coverings of a pious nature?

Laws written as this one is reportedly written, are ridiculous.

Better to write a law that protects women from being forced by another to wear a veil in public or private.

It would be good if we could have such freedom of dress, but how would you enforce such a law?

As to the other, I do understand the difficulty of the situation, where to set the limits. I can only say that I would not want a teacher with the burka so I cannot see who she is, nor a doctor, nor a dentist. I simply need to see peoples faces. But that is beside the point as such, as I can simply choose some that do not wear it.

[Thorne]

I can only say that I would not want a teacher with the burka so I cannot see who she is, nor a doctor, nor a dentist. I simply need to see peoples faces. But that is beside the point as such, as I can simply choose some that do not wear it.
Those kinds of services are, of course, up to the individual. But what about the convenience store clerk who is confronted by someone covered from head to toe. Should he be allowed to refuse service, or even admission into the store, in such an instance? What about banks? Or airports?

Yes, the intent is as a symbol of religious belief. But those symbols, and others perhaps, must be set aside when they conflict with the safety of the public. People can claim almost anything to be a symbol of religious belief. Would you be willing to allow someone to board your plane with a shotgun, just because he claimed it to be a religious symbol?

[MMI]

The security argument is a wholly futile one. If I can't use a woman in a burka to bomb public places, I'll get a girl and hide the bomb inside her dress.

When they ban dresses, I'll shove dynamite down boys' trousers ...

[gagged_Louise]

The security argument is a wholly futile one. If I can't use a woman in a burka to bomb public places, I'll get a girl and hide the bomb inside her dress.

When they ban dresses, I'll shove dynamite down boys' trousers ...

I'm aware that anyone can hide an envelope of anthrax or some kind of small explosive device under everyday underwear and then post it in a busy place - or rip a gun out of a clip under the coat (raw nuclear devices are more problematic because stuff like bulk enriched uranium emits heat that makes it impossible to just slip under the dress or the briefs and walk throiugh a crowd without notice). I never said you could make your country fail safe against terror acts by forbidding burqas in public places, of course one can't. But if we're talking of groups and not just isolated lunatics, it's harder for a terrorist group of any kind to keep up a drive of assaults if they have to make their carriers show their faces and leave clear images of how they looked on the scene, who they were, images and data that might be used by the police. With a garment that hides the face and much of what's distinctive about the body, and which is mostly used by women - not the kind of armed militants people will expect in most places - it becomes more inviting to equip women with bombs and send them into crowds. Whether they die in the attack or they escape, they fell they can act under a shield of "I'm not going to be tracked" and if you remove that feeling of secure anonymity, recruitment for the militant groups becomes harder too. No society can protect itself 100% against isolated madmen but most political killers are not completely isolated.

[denuseri]

Anyone given any thought as to what these women are going to have to wear in lieu of burkas or how much they will themselves restirct or have their movments restricted becuase they are banned?

[Ozme52]

The security argument is a wholly futile one. If I can't use a woman in a burka to bomb public places, I'll get a girl and hide the bomb inside her dress.

When they ban dresses, I'll shove dynamite down boys' trousers ...

And I'll be happily watching women naked from the waist down!! :blurp_ani

----------
We return you to your regularly scheduled debating. ;)

[gagged_Louise]

When they ban dresses, I'll shove dynamite down boys' trousers

Dynamite tampons pushed up the a** is one invention I can live without, however sizzling. :p

[thir]

Those kinds of services are, of course, up to the individual. But what about the convenience store clerk who is confronted by someone covered from head to toe. Should he be allowed to refuse service, or even admission into the store, in such an instance? What about banks? Or airports?


yes, it is a problem in some areas, no doubt.



Yes, the intent is as a symbol of religious belief.


I think it is more of a cultural thing. I do not think it says anywhere in the Koran that women have to wear it. And that is probably why some want to do it, as an identification marker. Because in our Western world you can choose - or at least you will not be stoned if you do not wear it. Hopefully.

[angelhunter]

I am totally lost with the Islam or Arab thing. I am a member of this site by this Arab girl to get a grip on that. She talks about how the world view Arabs and so on. I have to say certain religions are to overwheming and I see why some just back off from all of that. In some religions it's a form of bondage, slavery and I am just saying. I am an Buddhist but in doubt I am not religious and I label myself as spiritual. Some just take it too far and even in Buddhism. I have asked the basic question, is there something beyond this life? Did god or the Gods create us or did we create them or he? I have to be honest, I don't know.
Nuff said on that one.

[TantricSoul]

I think it is more of a cultural thing. I do not think it says anywhere in the Koran that women have to wear it. And that is probably why some want to do it, as an identification marker. Because in our Western world you can choose - or at least you will not be stoned if you do not wear it. Hopefully.

This is true, all the Koran states regarding a womans dress code is that she must dress modestly. In fact there is a verse about not covering up the identity of females ...

[33.59] O Prophet! say to your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers that they let down upon them their over-garments; this will be more proper, that they may be known, and thus they will not be given trouble; and Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

[MMI]

How many suicide bombers will be recognised a second time?

[denuseri]

Agian I ask: Has anyone given any thought as to what these women are going to have to wear in lieu of burkas or how much they will themselves restirct or have their movments restricted becuase they are banned?

[Thorne]

Because in our Western world you can choose - or at least you will not be stoned if you do not wear it. Hopefully.

Maybe not stoned, but.... (http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/11/02/arizona.iraqi.dad/)

[Thorne]

How many suicide bombers will be recognised a second time?

It's not the suicide bombers that worry me, it's the criminals who will hide behind such clothing to disguise themselves, whether they are Muslim or not.

[TantricSoul]

Agian I ask: Has anyone given any thought as to what these women are going to have to wear in lieu of burkas or how much they will themselves restirct or have their movments restricted becuase they are banned?

Unfortunately the majority in France seems to be focused on their fear of getting blown up by Burka wearing terrorists or perhaps their fear of those that don't blend in, not on those actually affected by the law. They seem to be ok with the idea that many muslim women will be prisoners in their own homes because they wont want to break the law.

[Thorne]

Unfortunately the majority in France seems to be focused on their fear of getting blown up by Burka wearing terrorists or perhaps their fear of those that don't blend in, not on those actually affected by the law. They seem to be ok with the idea that many muslim women will be prisoners in their own homes because they wont want to break the law.

Is it because they won't break the law, or because their husbands/fathers won't let them? How many of those women would gladly give up those restrictive clothes if they weren't afraid of being murdered? That's what it comes down to, you know. They are taught from early childhood that they are property, Muslim women who must always obey their fathers, their brothers, their husbands. And the penalty for disobedience is death.

Aside from that, laws based on protecting the public must always be given preference over laws based on superstition and wishful thinking.

[Ozme52]

Better to write a law that protects women from being forced by another to wear a veil in public or private.


It would be good if we could have such freedom of dress, but how would you enforce such a law?
By ensuring the police take complaints seriously. It used to be the same regarding domestic violence and spousal abuse. There was a time that such complaints were basically ignored. No more. I think those who choose to wear a burka should be allowed to do so. Those who are threatening violence against those who choose not to wear a burka are the ones we need to eliminate from western societies.

As to the other, I do understand the difficulty of the situation, where to set the limits. I can only say that I would not want a teacher with the burka so I cannot see who she is, nor a doctor, nor a dentist. I simply need to see peoples faces. But that is beside the point as such, as I can simply choose some that do not wear it.
Exactly. Their choice to wear it, yours to choose other service providers who don't.

Those kinds of services are, of course, up to the individual. But what about the convenience store clerk who is confronted by someone covered from head to toe. Should he be allowed to refuse service, or even admission into the store, in such an instance? What about banks? Or airports?

Yes, the intent is as a symbol of religious belief. But those symbols, and others perhaps, must be set aside when they conflict with the safety of the public. People can claim almost anything to be a symbol of religious belief. Would you be willing to allow someone to board your plane with a shotgun, just because he claimed it to be a religious symbol?

Yet there are solutions. If it is a symbol, let a symbol suffice. Sikh men are required to carry a knife in their belly sash. It's a safety issue in the workplace. How do you bar weapons but allow for religious freedom? In the US that was resolved by compromise. The knife is less than an inch long. Less dangerous than a four inch plastic knife passed out at work luncheons.

[Ozme52]

Maybe not stoned, but.... (http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/11/02/arizona.iraqi.dad/)

Which is why we should target the zealots instead of eliminating choice to the other extreme.

[Ozme52]

It's not the suicide bombers that worry me, it's the criminals who will hide behind such clothing to disguise themselves, whether they are Muslim or not.

For which a wide brimmed hat and sunglasses will suffice. The burka is irrelevent save as a rallying point between fanatics and fearmongers who hate other religions out of hand. If not for Islam, I fear this would be about yarmulkes (sp) again.

[Thorne]

Yet there are solutions. If it is a symbol, let a symbol suffice. Sikh men are required to carry a knife in their belly sash. It's a safety issue in the workplace. How do you bar weapons but allow for religious freedom? In the US that was resolved by compromise. The knife is less than an inch long. Less dangerous than a four inch plastic knife passed out at work luncheons.
I wonder, though, if they would be allowed to carry them onto planes, or into government buildings. Or even if they should. Even a one inch blade could puncture an artery, or take out an eye.

But even so, carrying such an item does not obscure ones identity. I'm not sure how you could have a "symbolic" covering that didn't cover the face, when many Muslim women are not permitted to show so much as an eyelash in public.

[Thorne]

Which is why we should target the zealots instead of eliminating choice to the other extreme.
Target the zealots, absolutely! But limiting where someone could wear the burqa is not the same as eliminating its use. Just as prohibiting where someone is permitted to smoke does not prevent them from smoking in private, or in acceptable public areas. Both issues are involved with public safety.

Along these lines, I wonder what would happen if a store owner refused admittance to anyone who refused to show his, or her, face to a security camera? I imagine it would cut down on robberies, if nothing else. And would showing her face to a camera violate the Muslim proscriptions? After all, she wouldn't be directly displaying her face for all to see.

[Ozme52]

I wonder, though, if they would be allowed to carry them onto planes, or into government buildings. Or even if they should. Even a one inch blade could puncture an artery, or take out an eye.
So can a plastic spoon. It's irrelevent.


But even so, carrying such an item does not obscure ones identity. I'm not sure how you could have a "symbolic" covering that didn't cover the face, when many Muslim women are not permitted to show so much as an eyelash in public.

Then those who do (voluntarily) can't fly or agree to reveal themselves privately to a female TSA agent.

Again, I argue for freedom of choice, for oneself, and not for those who would impose their will on others.

[Ozme52]

Target the zealots, absolutely! But limiting where someone could wear the burqa is not the same as eliminating its use. Just as prohibiting where someone is permitted to smoke does not prevent them from smoking in private, or in acceptable public areas. Both issues are involved with public safety.

That's a stretch imo.

[Thorne]

I argue for freedom of choice, for oneself, and not for those who would impose their will on others.
Freedom of choice is noble, certainly, but we place restrictions on people's choices every day. People are not permitted to walk around naked in public, though they may choose to do so in private. Restaurants can refuse service to anyone they deem improperly dressed ("No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service"). The speed you "choose" to drive a vehicle is limited by the law. If these choices can be restricted, why not the ability to cover ones face?


Then those who do (voluntarily) can't fly or agree to reveal themselves privately to a female TSA agent.
Exactly. They are not permitted to fly, so their choice is limited. Or they can reveal themselves to the proper authorities, under controlled conditions. That's a reasonable compromise. But that might not be an option when entering a bank or a store.

[thir]

By ensuring the police take complaints seriously. It used to be the same regarding domestic violence and spousal abuse. There was a time that such complaints were basically ignored. No more. I think those who choose to wear a burka should be allowed to do so. Those who are threatening violence against those who choose not to wear a burka are the ones we need to eliminate from western societies.


Yes, in theory I agree. That is so say, people should have a right to choose for themselves, except where it may be dangerous for others.

But it is easier said than done. A complaint over a violent spouse does not nessecarily save the person complaining, even today.

In DK we have "honour-killings" and nobody helps young girls who want to run away and live as they want.

Protecting women who are forced into the burka will not be easy.

[denuseri]

Still it doesnt seem fair to punnish the woman who eaither chooses to wear one or is forced by someone else to do so or place her in jeopardy becuase of it.

[leo9]

Freedom of choice is noble, certainly, but we place restrictions on people's choices every day. People are not permitted to walk around naked in public, though they may choose to do so in private. Restaurants can refuse service to anyone they deem improperly dressed ("No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service"). The speed you "choose" to drive a vehicle is limited by the law. If these choices can be restricted, why not the ability to cover ones face?


I would believe in this if the call were for a ban on all face-hiding costumes, such as dark-visor motorcycle helmets. Some sensitive locations, such as banks, require people to take off such helmets and pull down hoods at the entrance, and with good reason. If someone wanted to argue for extending this to all public places, I would still think it an over-reaction, but at least I would believe it was honestly about public safety.

In the Caribbean area of Leeds where I once lived, the young gangstas used to hang out on the street corners in "ninja masks" - hoods plus bandanas over the lower face (and shades too, usually). It was calculatedly intimidating, giving out the message that they could do what they liked because they couldn't be named. I never heard anyone campaign to make that illegal, though the justification would be far stronger; they weren't maybe hiding a criminal, they were known criminals.

When one particular group's freedom is restricted while other equally valid targets are ignored, that's dishonest. If the target group is ethnically defined, it's textbook racism.

[leo9]

What would happen if Christian Frenchwomen adopted the veil as a fashion item?

It would immensely increase my respect for the French. There have been threats of just such a response.

I'm reminded of the story of the Nazis' attempt to make Jews wear the yellow star in occupied Denmark. The day after they announced the law, the King appeared in public wearing a yellow star. Gentiles all over Denmark wore yellow stars until the law was quietly allowed to die.

[Thorne]

When one particular group's freedom is restricted while other equally valid targets are ignored, that's dishonest. If the target group is ethnically defined, it's textbook racism.
You are absolutely correct, leo. My comments were, like yours, intended for places of business, such as banks or stores, not for in public places. I know here in SC you are also required to remove motorcycle helmets and hoods in banks, even sunglasses and hats which conceal the face. I have heard (although I've not experienced it personally) that Halloween-type masks are not permitted in public on adults. But again, those restrictions apply to everyone, not a particular group.

[IAN 2411]

I have a small security question that until you think about it, the question is not a stupid as first take it to be. The passport of the Burka wearer does it show a picture of the face or of the Burka? Does anyone work in passport control anywhere in the world, and please don’t tell me it’s the way they write their signature.

Regards ian 2411

[denuseri]

Note I do not work in Airport security or at a border checkpoint...but: I have happended to travel in regions of the world where the wearing of hijabs and burkas are commonplace and everyone's identification of course showed one's face and those garbed in such fashion that one couldnt just pull down the viel easily or had to have ones face obscured from the sight of all non-familial males had to go into a seperate room and have their identity confirmed by a female officer.

[MMI]

The simpest solutions are usually the best ones, den, and if non-moslems didn't make such a fuss about it, there'd be no trouble at all. There is the one drawback that there'd always have to be at least one female officer present, but that's a staffing issue, not a reason to ban the hijab or the burka.

Now, I've seen that the British Humanist Association markets t-shirts bearing their H logo, and the website of American Atheists sells, among other things pendants with their hydrogen atom symbol, worn just like a christian cross or crucifix, or a Star of David. Should those be banned in public places too? Or is that an attack on free thought and individual liberty?

[Thorne]

Now, I've seen that the British Humanist Association markets t-shirts bearing their H logo, and the website of American Atheists sells, among other things pendants with their hydrogen atom symbol, worn just like a christian cross or crucifix, or a Star of David. Should those be banned in public places too? Or is that an attack on free thought and individual liberty?
If those items could be used to hide the identity of the wearer then yes, they would have to be prohibited in some public places.

[MMI]

Ooops - I wandered off the point a bit! I forgot we were talking about the veil and was thinking of the wearing of all kinds of religious symbols.

[Thorne]

Ooops - I wandered off the point a bit! I forgot we were talking about the veil and was thinking of the wearing of all kinds of religious symbols.
LOL! Despite my being an atheist, I've never once advocated banning the display of any symbols. That would be a violation of free speech laws. Even though I understand the rationale behind it, I'm not even comfortable with the idea of Germany banning display of the swastika. And that has thousands of years of religious symbolism behind it, not just the Nazi perversion of the symbol.

[denuseri]

Why not ban ALL clothes that could be used to conseal in anyway shape or form a weapon or bomb then by the same principle?

The spandex industry would make a killing.

[Thorne]

Why not ban ALL clothes that could be used to conseal in anyway shape or form a weapon or bomb then by the same principle?
I think that would be impractical. Unless you wanted to go the "Puppet Master" route of banning all clothing completely. No, I'm only suggesting that certain clothing, which hides the identity of the wearer, be prohibited in certain areas which should maintain high security. Airports and banks come to mind, of course, perhaps sports stadiums. Train stations or subway platforms as well. And of course, private business owners should be permitted to refuse to allow anyone access to their premises if they refuse to show themselves. After all, would you allow a stranger into your home if he/she was hiding their face with a canvas sack? I doubt it!

[MMI]

Just because I can't enter your house with a bag over my head is no reason why I shouldn't be allowed to wear one.

But I agree you have the right to deny me entry

... and I think you can extend that principle as far as it will go.

[denuseri]

Now previously I said the french law is no different that other types of dress code laws and in so far as purely legal matters go its not imho until its targeted on a specific type of dressage as is the case with the burka ban.

Which in light of the overall situation to me still apears to be state sponsored bigotry plain and simple.

It makes no sence to make such a law when they allready have plenty of sufficient identity verification that works just fine for women wearing burkas or anything else that would conseal ones identity at first glance at every majior municiple airport in the world where no one has felt the need to ban anything persay conserning this type of thing.

[Thorne]

Just because I can't enter your house with a bag over my head is no reason why I shouldn't be allowed to wear one.

But I agree you have the right to deny me entry

... and I think you can extend that principle as far as it will go.
I'm not saying you can't wear a bag over your head. Just not in my house. Or in my bank. Or in my store. Or in airports, or train stations, or other areas where large groups of people are crammed together by necessity.

[MMI]

I'll go anywhere I like with my bag on my head with or without your approval. But if you deny me entrance to your own property, so be it, that's your right. If other people don't like it, they can go elsewhere. After all, isn't that liberty?

[Thorne]

I'll go anywhere I like with my bag on my head with or without your approval. But if you deny me entrance to your own property, so be it, that's your right. If other people don't like it, they can go elsewhere. After all, isn't that liberty?
Yes it is. And while you are walking around outside you have the right to wear that bag. But I can keep you from my home. I can keep you from entering my store. I can keep you from entering my bank. The same laws which allow the government to control the items one can carry into the airport and onto the planes can also control what people wear in those locations, and elsewhere. The same laws that can prohibit you from entering a bank with a loaded crossbow can prevent you from hiding your identity. Liberty does not endow anyone with the freedom to do whatever they damned well please. That would be anarchy. Limits must be in place to ensure public safety.

[MMI]

You don't need to know who I am if I have a bomb strapped to my waist, and just because you do know who I am won't stop me wearing it to the marketplace.

Whole nations move from day to day and year to year without needing to know what is under a burka, why do Western countries fret about it so?

[Thorne]

Whole nations move from day to day and year to year without needing to know what is under a burka, why do Western countries fret about it so?
Because the misogynists who require their women to wear the damned things have declared war on Western civilization! Would the British government have allowed uniformed Hitler Youth to wander freely around England in 1940? I doubt it!

[IAN 2411]

French Parliament Votes To Ban The Veil


The French parliament has voted overwhelmingly in favour of a ban on wearing veils over the face, a
There were 336 votes for the bill and just one against at the National Assembly.
Most members of the main opposition group, the Socialist Party, refused to participate in the vote.
President Nicolas Sarkozy has pushed for the law, saying the full veil "hurts the dignity of women, and is not acceptable in French society".
But government advisers warned the proposed ban could be unconstitutional.
Face-covering veils, like the burka and niqab, are worn by many Muslim women out of choice and are not required by Islamic law.
However, some critics claim that many are pressured into wearing the veil.
Although France has the largest Muslim population in Europe - an estimated five million people - the veil ban is thought to only directly affect fewer than 2,000 women.
The new legislation would forbid face-covering Muslim veils in all public places in France, including on the country's streets.
Anyone caught flouting the ban would face a £125 fine or citizenship classes, or both.
Those convicted of forcing someone else to wear a full veil would be hit with a fine of £25,000 and a one-year jail sentence.
If the ban is approved by parliament the law could come into force by September.
A similar law was passed in Belgium in April.

Regards ian 2411

[MMI]

I hear that any woman convicted for wearing an "Islamic" veil will have her €150 fine paid for her by fund set up by a moslem businessman. Hopefully other wealthy moslems such as Al Fayed, or the royal families of the Middle East will help fund it.

According to the BBC, the French Justice Minister has said the vote was a victory for democracy and for French values: "Values of freedom against all the oppressions which try to humiliate individuals; values of equality between men and women, against those who push for inequality and injustice."

It seems to me that the greatest victory here is the removal of freedom of choice. I was not aware that oppression of certain women ranked high among French values. I was not aware that France was a racist country.

However, I applaud the part of the law that will impose a €30,000 on men who force women to wear veils against their will - and I hope that the French authorities will have the balls to fine immans who preach oppression to their congregations and ostracise women who adopt European clothes.

But what abpout mothers and grandmothers who pressurise their (grand)daughters to comply with their old traditions?

[MMI]

Misogyny and terrorism are two unconnected things, even if some misogynists are also terrorists and some terrorists espouse misogyny.

The answer has nothing to do with any of that. The attack on the islamic veil is an attack on islamic society by the West for no better reason than it is different. The veil shows that the wearer has high moral standards and virtues that were last seen in the west some time before the First World War, and the West can't deal with that. Instead it sees murderers and terrorists hiding behind the veil in order to bring down Western society, when only a handful of men are known to have adopted such a disguise.

The sensible way to find out who is under a veil is to get another woman to look.

[denuseri]

According to ROD McGUIRK of the Associated Press:

Muslim women would have to remove veils and show their faces to police on request or risk a prison sentence under proposed new laws in Australia's most populous state that have drawn criticism as culturally insensitive.

A vigorous debate that the proposal has triggered reflects the cultural clashes being ignited by the growing influx of Muslim immigrants and the unease that visible symbols of Islam are causing in predominantly white Christian Australia since 1973 when the government relaxed its immigration policy.
Under the law proposed by the government of New South Wales, which includes Sydney, a woman who defies police by refusing to remove her face veil could be sentenced to a year in prison and fined 5,500 Australian dollars ($5,900).
The bill — to be voted on by the state parliament in August — has been condemned by civil libertarians and many Muslims as an overreaction to a traffic offense case involving a Muslim woman driver in a "niqab," or a veil that reveals only the eyes.
The government says the law would require motorists and criminal suspects to remove any head coverings so that police can identify them.
Critics say the bill smacks of anti-Muslim bias given how few women in Australia wear burqas. In a population of 23 million, only about 400,000 Australians are Muslim. Community advocates estimate that fewer than 2,000 women wear face veils, and it is likely that even a smaller percentage drives.
"It does seem to be very heavy handed, and there doesn't seem to be a need," said Australian Council for Civil Liberties spokesman David Bernie. "It shows some cultural insensitivity."
The controversy over the veils is similar to the debate in other Western countries over whether Muslim women should be allowed to wear garments that hide their faces in public. France and Belgium have banned face-covering veils in public. Typical arguments are that there is a need to prevent women from being forced into wearing veils by their families or that public security requires people to be identifiable.
Bernie noted that while a bandit disguised with a veil and sunglasses robbed a Sydney convenience store last year, there were no Australian crime trends involving Muslim women's clothing.
"It is a religious issue here," said Mouna Unnjinal, a mother of five who has been driving in Sydney in a niqab for 18 years and has never been booked for a traffic offense.
"We're going to feel very intimidated and our privacy is being invaded," she added.
Unnjinal said she would not hesitate to show her face to a policewoman. But she fears male police officers might misuse the law to deliberately intimidate Muslim women.
"If I'm pulled over by a policeman, I might say I want to see a female police lady and he says, 'No, I want to see your face,'" Unnjinal said. "Where does that leave me? Do I get penalized 5,000 dollars and sent to jail for 12 months because I wouldn't?"
Sydney's best-selling The Daily Telegraph newspaper declared the proposal "the world's toughest burqa laws." In France, wearing a burqa — the all-covering garment that hides the entire body except eyes and hands — in public is punishable by a 150 euro ($217) fine only.
The New South Wales state Cabinet decided to create the law on July 4 in response to Police Commissioner Andrew Scipione's call for greater police powers. Other states including Victoria and Western Australia are considering similar legislation.
"I don't care whether a person is wearing a motorcycle helmet, a burqa, niqab, face veil or anything else — the police should be allowed to require those people to make their identification clear," State Premier Barry O'Farrell said in a statement.
The laws were motivated by the bungled prosecution of Carnita Matthews, a 47-year-old Muslim mother of seven who was booked by a highway patrolman for a minor traffic violation in Sydney in June last year.
An official complaint was made in Matthews' name against Senior Constable Paul Fogarty, the policeman who gave her the ticket. The complaint accused Fogarty of racism and of attempting to tear off her veil during their roadside encounter.
Unknown to Matthews, the encounter was recorded by a camera inside Fogarty's squad car. The video footage showed her aggressively berating a restrained Fogarty and did not support her claim that he tried to grab her veil before she reluctantly and angrily lifted it to show her face.
Matthews was sentenced in November to six months in jail for making a deliberately false statement to police.
But that conviction and sentence were quashed on appeal last month without her serving any time in jail because a judge was not convinced that it was Matthews who signed the false statutory declaration. The woman who signed the document had worn a burqa and a justice of the peace who witnessed the signing had not looked beneath the veil to confirm her identity.
Bernie, the civil libertarian, said the proposed law panders to public anger against Muslims that the case generated on talk radio and in tabloid newspapers, which itself is a symptom of the suspicion with which immigrants are viewed.
Muslims are among the fastest-growing minorities in Australia and mostly live in the two largest cities, Sydney and Melbourne. There are many examples to suggest they are not entirely welcome.
Muslim and non-Muslim youths rioted for days at Sydney's Cronulla beach in 2005, drawing international attention to surging ethnic tensions. Proposals to build Islamic schools are resisted by local protest groups. The convictions of a Sydney gang of Lebanese Muslims who raped several non-Muslim women were likened by a judge to war atrocities and condemned in the media.
In 2006, then-Prime Minister John Howard published a book in which he said Muslims were Australia's first wave of immigrants to fail to assimilate with the mainstream.
Government leaders have also condemned some Muslim clerics who said husbands are entitled to smack disobedient wives, force them to have sex and for suggesting that women who don't hide their faces behind veils invite rape.
"I wouldn't like to go and say this is Muslim bashing," said Ikebal Patel, president of the Australian Federation of Islamic Councils, of the proposed New South Wales laws.
"But I think that the timing of this was really bad for Muslims," he said.

[thir]

Well, off hand I'd say the police have a right to identify people if there is a problem, as is said whether it is a veil or a helmet or scarf or whatever.

[denuseri]

I agree the police should be able to identify people, but this particular law seems to be specifically designed and timed to target one sub section of society as a way of state sanctioned discrimination.

[denuseri]

Here we go again:

CORINNE LESTCH AND BILL HUTCHINSON, DAILY NEWS WRITERS Report:
Rye Playland (http://us.lrd.yahoo.com/_ylt=ArhwxJaW6acgCeZ64WYdL.tCH8F_;_ylu=X3oDMTFkZWg zYnZwBG1pdANCbG9nIEJvZHkEcG9zAzIEc2VjA01lZGlhQmxvZ 0JvZHlBc3NlbWJseQ--;_ylg=X3oDMTNmZDloYzI3BGludGwDdXMEbGFuZwNlbi11cwRw c3RhaWQDNTZiNmYxMTUtZTJlZC0zOGMyLWE1NWUtNTIyMDRiNT dmMTMwBHBzdGNhdANvcmlnaW5hbHN8bG9jYWxuZXd5b3JrBHB0 A3N0b3J5cGFnZQR0ZXN0Aw--;_ylv=0/SIG=124ha2pug/EXP=1316019254/**http%3A//www.nydailynews.com/topics/Rye%2BPlayland) was shut down Tuesday after cops scuffled with Muslims upset that women wearing head scarves were barred from the rides, witnesses said.
Fifteen people, including three women, were charged with disorderly conduct and assault in the chaos, authorities said.
The Westchester County (http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/Westchester+County) park was packed with Muslims celebrating Eid-ul-Fitr (http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/Eid+al-Fitr) - the holiday marking the end of the Islamic holy month of Ramadan (http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/Ramadan).
One woman, Entisai Ali (http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/Entisai+Ali), began arguing with cops over the amusement park's head scarf, or hijab, rule, said Dena Meawad (http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/Dena+Meawad), 18, of Bay Ridge (http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/Bay+Ridge), Brooklyn (http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/Brooklyn+%28New+York+City%29).
The ban, which is not Muslim specific, was imposed about 3 years ago mostly to prevent hats from falling onto the tracks of roller coasters and other rides, park officials said.
"The cops started getting loud with her and she started getting loud, too. They pushed her on the ground and arrested her," Meawad said.
Her cousin, Kareem Meawad (http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/Kareem+Meawad), 17, went to try to protect the woman and was beaten by cops and also arrested, she added. Her brother, Issam Meawad (http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/Issam+Meawad), 20, was pushed to the ground and taken into custody when he tried to help his cousin, she said.
"She just wanted to get on a ride. That was it," Dena Meawad said of the initial confrontation. "It's clear, this all happened because we're Muslim."
John Hodges (http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/John+Hodges), chief inspector of Westchester County Public Safety, insisted that police did not use excessive force.
He said up to 100 cops from surrounding departments converged on the park.
Two park rangers were injured in the melee, prompting felony assault charges against two people arrested, officials said.
The ugly incident happened just after 1 p.m. The event was organized by the Muslim American Society of New York (http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/Muslim+American+Society+of+New+York), and attracted 3,000 Muslims from Brooklyn, Queens, the Bronx (http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/The+Bronx) and Westchester County.
Ali's sister, Ayman Alrabah (http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/Ayman+Alrabah), 24, of Brooklyn said her husband, brother and father were all tackled by cops and put into handcuffs when they tried to help her sister.
Alrabah said she was unaware of the head-scarf rule until she and her sister tried to get on the park's Dragon Coasters.
"We requested a refund and all of a sudden an argument became a riot," Alrabah said. "Cops came. They were hitting my brother, my dad. My husband was on the floor and they were handcuffing him.
She said her 4-year-old son was "traumatized" by seeing his father arrested.
"They treated us like animals, like we were nothing," Alrabah said. "They came with their dogs and sticks. We came to have fun."
'It's clear, this all happened because we're Muslim,' says Dena Meawad. (Norman Y. Lono for NY Daily News)

The park was closed for about two hours because of the fracas. It reopened at about 6 p.m.
Peter Tartaglia (http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/Peter+Tartaglia), deputy commissioner of Westchester County Parks, said the Muslim American Society of New York was warned in advance of the rule barring head scarves on rides for safety reasons.
"Part of our rules and regulations, which we painstakingly told them over and over again, is that certain rides you cannot wear any sort of headgear," Tartaglia said. "It's a safety issue for us on rides, it could become a projectile."
Many Muslims were given refunds as they left the park disappointed.
"In this heightened state of Islamaphobia, a woman wearing a hajib is an easy target these days," said Zead Ramadan, president of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/Council+on+American-Islamic+Relations) - New York (http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/New+York). "Unfortunately, this turned ugly due to a lot of miscommunication."

[Thorne]

Lots of things wrong went on here.

First off, the park had rules regarding the wearing of headgear on certain rides, for safety reasons. So refusing to allow anyone wearing a hat, or a scarf, or a hajib, was a SAFETY issue, not a religious one.

Second, the woman involved made a mistake by verbally attacking cops. Never a good idea to start with.

Third, the cops over-reacted as well, forcing the woman to the ground and assaulting her. As well as assaulting those who came to help her. And yes, there was probably a certain amount of Islamophobia involved in the police reaction. We've all seen videos of cops over-reacting, kicking and beating an apparently submissive suspect. It happens, and should be dealt with within the law.

Screaming "religious discrimination" just because a safety issue happens to interfere with your superstitious* need to wear a scarf is just as inane as getting mad because a restaurant won't let you dine naked. You don't like the rules, don't patronize the business.

* Yes, denuseri, I know you think that's condescending. I don't care. It's no less a superstition than a ball player making the sign of the cross before an at bat, or carrying a lucky penny. It might make the person feel better, but has no bearing on anything that actually happens in their lives. Except in cases like this where clinging to your superstition violates a business' rules.

[thirteen]

Just chiming in...Rye Playland often shows up in the news as the site of death and serious injury due to their sketchy machinery and safety policies. I find it suspicious that the park informed the group that those wearing hijab wouldn't be able to ride any of the rides and yet the two parties still managed to come to a paid agreement. In addition I wouldn't call wearing hijab a superstitious act. It's an act of modesty. This incident seems like pretty clear cut religious discrimination to my atheist eyes -- especially as it comes at the end of Ramadan and 9/11 approaches.

[denuseri]

No Thorn for your statement to be condescending you would need to hold a superior position, which you do not, and I am fully aware that you do not care, since only your beliefs are valid in your eyes... and as 13 so aptly pointed out its got nothing to do with superstition in the first place. Insulting; yet again, every single person who believes in or adheres to a belief in something that's religious in nature as usual...clearly makes one no better really than the other Islam-a-phoebes and would be discriminators.

[Thorne]

I find it suspicious that the park informed the group that those wearing hijab wouldn't be able to ride any of the rides and yet the two parties still managed to come to a paid agreement. This incident seems like pretty clear cut religious discrimination to my atheist eyes -- especially as it comes at the end of Ramadan and 9/11 approaches.
If it was clearly pointed out before hand that no headgear could be worn on the rides, and both parties agreed, I don't see how it can be called discrimination. I've seen plenty of other places which require the removal of headgear, for safety reasons, and for all patrons. Should I feel discriminated against because my bank requires me to remove my hat and sunglasses when I enter the building?


In addition I wouldn't call wearing hijab a superstitious act. It's an act of modesty.
It's an act of modesty which is REQUIRED by a superstition. Whether the superstition is religious or cultural in nature is irrelevant. Kind of like that old fashion statement about not wearing white after Labor Day. It only has relevance if you choose to grant that relevance. Otherwise it's just an annoying fad.

[Thorne]

only your beliefs are valid in your eyes...
Not true. Any beliefs which are based in reality are valid, though it's hard to categorize them as beliefs if they are reality. Gravity doesn't require belief, does it? It works whether you choose to believe or not. Believing in things which are unreal, or irrational, or based solely on wishful thinking, whether religious or not, would qualify as invalid in my eyes, though.



Insulting; yet again, every single person who believes in or adheres to a belief in something that's religious in nature as usual...clearly makes one no better really than the other Islam-a-phoebes and would be discriminators.
I am not trying to insult anyone. I am merely stating that a belief in something which cannot be proven to exist, which cannot even be tested, and which has no explanatory value in the real world is, by its very nature, a superstition. If you disagree then you only need to show the evidence that the rabbit's foot in your pocket really does change your luck.

[denuseri]

Additionally the wearing or not of particular pieces of clothing has more to do with culture than religion.

As for beliefs in things that have no basis in reality...like atheism...which also has no way to prove itself any more than said rabbits foot....that's a topic best left for oh say any one of the other threads on that subject of which there are several don't you think? ...instead of using it to hijack yet another discussion just because it mentions the word religion.

[Thorne]

Additionally the wearing or not of particular pieces of clothing has more to do with culture than religion.
Doesn't matter. If the park rules forbid it, you either follow the rules or don't patronize the park.


As for beliefs in things that have no basis in reality...like atheism...which also has no way to prove itself any more than said rabbits foot....that's a topic best left for oh say any one of the other threads on that subject of which there are several don't you think? ...instead of using it to hijack yet another discussion just because it mentions the word religion.
Nice way to throw in your two cents worth and close the door at the same time. But yeah, I agree, this isn't the place. But then, I wasn't the one who hijacked the thread in the first place, was I?

[thirteen]

My point was that I doubted the clarity of the communication. Yet even if the rule was clearly communicated, the rule itself still seems to be discriminatory. I don't know of any other major amusement park that forbids hijab. It seems doubly unacceptable as this park is owned and funded by Westchester County. What I was trying to suggest with the mention of death at the park is that Rye Playland doesn't take safety policies seriously - except apparently in the case of women wearing hijab. Westchester County is in Long Island, many people in Long Island go to work in NYC. Many people in Long Island are also white, and patriotic Christians -- you know, proper Americans. Numerous women wearing hijab, in their all American amusement parks? Right before 9/11? There are a lot people, a lot of cops in Long Island who would feel frightened/threatened/angered by such an idea.

Certainly I personally agree that organized religion is silly but this "riot" still seems to me an extremely poorly handled clash of culture and religion. The whole affair and all of the debate it has sparked has so far only served to once again highlight the depth of Islamic fear and discrimination in this country. Instead of saying kudos to the police for beating and arresting them crazy Muslims before they did something terrible like wearing a scarf on an old rickety 1950s roller coaster there are other more positive and less violent ways to approach this situation. I sincerely hope that Westchester County takes this opportunity to bring the communities together instead of pushing them further apart.

[Thorne]

thirteen,

I understand what you're saying, and I agree that the whole incident was badly mishandled by all parties involved. And believe me, I have no sympathy for cops feeling "frightened/threatened/angered" by people because of their religious/cultural beliefs. But I also have no sympathy for those who cling to such irrational beliefs. "When in Rome" and all that. What I find ironic is that in some of the homelands of these Islamic people a woman without the hijab, whether Muslim or not, would be arrested and thrown into prison, and these same people who complain of discrimination would have no problem with such acts. The idea that "You must respect my idiotic beliefs, but don't expect me to respect your idiotic beliefs" just doesn't hold any water for me. What will bring communities together is to toss aside the old customs, for both sides, and establish new customs that all can live with.

And I still say that, based upon what I read in the article, the Muslim group was informed beforehand that the hajibs would not be permitted. They could have declined to spend their money at the park if such rules offended them. By going into the park anyway and then making a scene about it they were instigating the disruption.

[Lion]

What I find ironic is that in some of the homelands of these Islamic people a woman without the hijab, whether Muslim or not, would be arrested and thrown into prison, and these same people who complain of discrimination would have no problem with such acts.

For many "Islamic" people (Muslims), homeland is America. Where their families past is as close to them as a white American with an Irish background. They may celebrate a little more on St. Patty's, but that doesn't make them representatives of Ireland or in anyway linked to the current state of that country. As for Muslims who have no problem with arresting women who are hijab-less, has there been a major push to enact a mandatory hijab law by any Muslims here? Why do you think that just because it happens in their parent's land, or even in the country they lived in the past, that they condone it?

I have no idea what happened in that park, and I have faith in local law officials in their duty to serve and protect. Personally, I don't like burqa's in North America, but a woman wearing one is as much part of America then the girl wearing a string bikini on a beach that same day.

[AeroFly]

Most attire worn by men and women around the world has had a scientific reason attached to it. We wear Jeans because its the most convenient fabric, though it started off as a tough cloth for the miners. Burqa started off as means to protect the eyes and face of women as they traveled through the sandy deserts. Burqa, started off in the second century as a means to show class and status as well, since only those with riches could afford to cover their women with so much cloth. That too, only the urban women were veiled. Several rulers from Iran and Egypt have tried to get rid of it, without much success. Men, with their low life confidence, insecurity and maturity decided to keep the tradition on. Personally, I feel the Burqa represents oppression of one's freedom of speech, freedom of movement and every other. It, to me, is demeaning for any women and none should be forced to go through it. One can argue that wearing is a Burqa is religious and to impose a ban on the Burqa is imposing the freedom of practicing religion. But that comment is flawed. Consider this scenario: A new religion is born that professes wearing no clothes ever. Would that be acceptable to the society as a whole? Would you stand next to a naked man shopping for tomatoes in a super market? I'm sure I would be uncomfortable. As uncomfortable as it makes me standing next to a women wearing a Burqa. It represents oppression, slavery without a choice, and is nothing short of humiliation to women all over the world.

[Thorne]

Most attire worn by men and women around the world has had a scientific reason attached to it.
Not necessarily scientific, but at least a rational reason. There have been many such rational reasons for many different practices which, over the centuries, have become entrenched in dogma. The real reasons for doing those things have been forgotten, and they are done only because it's the way they've always been done. Even though there is now no rational reason for doing so.


We wear Jeans because its the most convenient fabric, though it started off as a tough cloth for the miners.
The reasons for wearing jeans are almost as numerous as the different brands, but none of them are considered to be requirements (except by those enslaved to the fashion dictates of designers). And they are certainly not FORCED upon half of the population by the other half of the population.


Several rulers from Iran and Egypt have tried to get rid of it, without much success.
That's because the clerics have made it an integral part of the religion, with disobedience resulting in death. Remove the stranglehold of religion and the problem disappears. Not as simple as it sounds, I know.

[denuseri]

It's not just the clerics or any one group propagating the wearing of traditional clothing.

[Thorne]

It's not just the clerics or any one group propagating the wearing of traditional clothing.
I didn't mean to imply that it was. It's both a cultural and a religious dogma. It's a tossup as to whether the religious dogma is descended from the cultural mores or vice versa, but when the only choice is to submit to the dogma or die, you'll find few who will fight it.

[denuseri]

Even if they (religion and culture) sometimes seem as if they are hopelessly tangled together, at least in so far as certain traditional practices are concerned...doesn't it make more sense to simply have no laws concerning what someone wears so long as it applies universally or regionally on some kind of decency scale and leave all the rest up to personal preference?...as opposed to making laws specifically designed to isolate and increase cultural tensions?

Removing religion isn't a feasible solution to this cultural issue imho.

[MMI]

To my mind, the French law is discriminatory on racist, religious and gender grounds and is deliberately provocative. It attacks the weakest members of the section of society it wishes to marginalise, knowing that the radical leaders (male) will respond to that provocation, while the moderates will have no option but to submit.

[Thorne]

doesn't it make more sense to simply have no laws concerning what someone wears so long as it applies universally or regionally on some kind of decency scale and leave all the rest up to personal preference?...as opposed to making laws specifically designed to isolate and increase cultural tensions?
And who's concept of "decency" should we use? The group that claims it's indecent for a woman to show any skin below the neck? Or the group that thinks it's okay for anyone to walk around naked if they so choose? WHO gets to define what's "decent"? And while I agree that the French law is aimed at Muslim women in particular, isn't it true that it applies to ALL people in France?


Removing religion isn't a feasible solution to this cultural issue imho.
Removing religion may not be feasible, but eliminating the power of religion to rule those who are not subscribed to that religion is not only feasible but mandatory. We have to put religion back in the box where it belongs. Keep it in the churches, and in your home if you wish. It does not belong in public or government.

[Thorne]

To my mind, the French law is discriminatory on racist, religious and gender grounds and is deliberately provocative. It attacks the weakest members of the section of society it wishes to marginalise, knowing that the radical leaders (male) will respond to that provocation, while the moderates will have no option but to submit.
ANY law which limits the actions of a minority group, for whatever reasons, is going to be viewed as discriminatory, regardless of the validity (or not) of the reasons for such law. In this case, removing the chance for criminals to hide behind veils is a valid justification for this law. The fact that it steps on the toes of religious extremists is just a bonus.

[denuseri]

And who's concept of "decency" should we use? The group that claims it's indecent for a woman to show any skin below the neck? Or the group that thinks it's okay for anyone to walk around naked if they so choose? WHO gets to define what's "decent"?

The people of each effected cultural group or community should get some say in the matter at the very least.

And while I agree that the French law is aimed at Muslim women in particular, isn't it true that it applies to ALL people in France?

So what if it applies to all people in the world when it only "effects" certain groups of Muslim women; targets them in fact, putting even more pressure on those same women so many in the west liken to being oppressed..now from two fronts thanks to the French and others.


Removing religion may not be feasible, but eliminating the power of religion to rule those who are not subscribed to that religion is not only feasible but mandatory. We have to put religion back in the box where it belongs. Keep it in the churches, and in your home if you wish. It does not belong in public or government.

And yet different religions are indeed and have always been key components to almost every government of the past and many of the present. And not just because they are being shy-locked or something silly....the majority because the people who practice those faiths wish for it to be that way where they live.

If the French practice freedom of religion...they should perhaps also practice respect and tolerance of the various religions cultural preferences when it doesn't hurt anyone else.

[Thorne]

And yet different religions are indeed and have always been key components to almost every government of the past and many of the present
Yeah, and just look how well THAT'S worked out!


If the French practice freedom of religion...they should perhaps also practice respect and tolerance of the various religions cultural preferences when it doesn't hurt anyone else.
Why should religious cultures get special preference? And who says those preferences aren't hurting anyone? Do you believe that ALL Muslim women really WANT to wear the burka? How many of them, if given the choice without fear of repercussions, would choose to discard it in favor of something else? How many Muslims would denounce their religion if they didn't have to fear death, the "religious preference" for apostasy?

No, ANY religious culture which controls through fear and murder does not deserve any special treatment, other than ridicule and legal attacks. It certainly doesn't deserve respect OR tolerance.

[AeroFly]

"No, ANY religious culture which controls through fear and murder does not deserve any special treatment, other than ridicule and legal attacks. It certainly doesn't deserve respect OR tolerance. "

I understand the point that you are trying to make here. I understand the thought behind it. However, as I try to understand different religions across the human race, I wonder how many can we really find as such. Every religion requires the believers to follow certain traditions, certain norms, certain rules. This eventually, come from either the priests or the higher echelons of that religion. Spiritual blackmail is an integral part of most religions as I know it. 'Do good or you will go to hell' or 'Its a war and you must bomb and kill thousands, for you will have angels waiting for you in heaven' or ' Praise the lord and he will forgive all your sins ( even if you have murdered 14 children and women)' or ' You will go to hell, if you choose not to wear a burqa and disgrace god' - they all sound the same across all religions.

[thir]

Even if they (religion and culture) sometimes seem as if they are hopelessly tangled together, at least in so far as certain traditional practices are concerned...doesn't it make more sense to simply have no laws concerning what someone wears so long as it applies universally or regionally on some kind of decency scale and leave all the rest up to personal preference?...as opposed to making laws specifically designed to isolate and increase cultural tensions?

Removing religion isn't a feasible solution to this cultural issue imho.

These are the two problems that I see:

1) What you wear should be optional for everybody, regardless.
But in some countries you are forced to wear for instance the burka, in others you are forced not to. Some women have claimed that they Will wear the burka as a statement of identity, but they are, I think, very few. I think the main problem is in the states where you Have to wear it, as part of the general rule set for women.

2) There is a security and cultural problem with the burka, overlooking that does not help.
The security problem is obvious - there are situtations where you might be asked to lift it for identification, or where you cannot wear it, as in places with high security. The other problem is situations where people want to see the faces on the persons they are dealing with. If we are talking dentists or doctors or the like anyone can choose, but if we are talking police, official clerks, judges, teachers, hospital staff etc then you have a right to see people's faces - that is what I think.

[thir]

Quote Originally Posted by denuseri View Post
doesn't it make more sense to simply have no laws concerning what someone wears so long as it applies universally or regionally on some kind of decency scale and leave all the rest up to personal preference?...as opposed to making laws specifically designed to isolate and increase cultural tensions?



The problem is that there is no universal decency scale. You either regulate, according to whatever, or let people choose for themselves.

[Thorne]

Every religion requires the believers to follow certain traditions, certain norms, certain rules. This eventually, come from either the priests or the higher echelons of that religion. Spiritual blackmail is an integral part of most religions as I know it. 'Do good or you will go to hell' or 'Its a war and you must bomb and kill thousands, for you will have angels waiting for you in heaven' or ' Praise the lord and he will forgive all your sins ( even if you have murdered 14 children and women)' or ' You will go to hell, if you choose not to wear a burqa and disgrace god' - they all sound the same across all religions.
I'm not talking about 'spiritual blackmail', but real, mortal danger. The standard sentence for renouncing Islam is death. The standard punishment for offending Islam is death. Not hell, not Allah's displeasure, but real death. Execution, when they can get away with it, assassination if you are in a non-Islamic country. There have been other religions, including Christianity, which have practiced similar penalties in the past. The leaders of these religions are not concerned with any spiritual punishment, but with maintaining control, and in many cases the only way to do that is to kill those who do not agree with them.

As an atheist, I deny the existence of gods, I deny the existence of an afterlife. Therefore religious leaders no longer have and 'spiritual blackmail' with which to try to control me. In much of the modern world, of course, I am protected by the same laws which protect those who practice religion. But in some parts of this world, simply denying the existence of the local gods is punishable by death. Simply speaking against the religious leaders is punishable by death. Obviously these religious leaders have no faith in the 'spiritual' punishments of their deities, and resort to physical punishments as a means of maintaining control.

ANY law which helps to reduce that stranglehold is, in my opinion, a good law. It does nothing to harm the followers of any religious cult, but does weaken the power of the leaders of those cults. It is the leaders of the Muslims in France who are most threatened by this law, not the women who will be liberated by it.