The French Government bans Muslim woman from wearing the veil

[BLEED REBELION!!!]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8480161.stm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009...e-muslim-women
http://english.pravda.ru/news/world/...114946-veil-0/

I find this law to be absolutely absurd!

I am not a Muslim. In fact I might even be called an atheist. I believe in separation of church and state. I am a secularist. I think that god and religion are deeply personal issues and the individual’s right to explore and practice their own religion/spirituality should be respected by the populace and the government. I think this law is not only an attack upon Islam but also an attack on personal freedom.
There are claims that this law is meant to bring equality to women, it is meant to stop women from being subservient non entities. There are women who are forced to wear the veil by their husbands or fathers BUT there are also women who CHOOSE to wear the veil! Forcing women to reveal themselves is just as barbaric and oppressive as forcing them to cover themselves. There is no difference. What matters here is not whether or not a woman covers her self but rather whether or not she CHOOSES to cover her self.
Often in France (and many other countries) men are allowed to be bare-chested. They wear no shirts and it is not an issue because in French culture a man’s chest is not considered risqué, sexual, or special. Yet in France women are not allowed to be as bare-chested as their male counterparts? What if women took to the streets topless, (showing their breasts to the world) and refused to cover themselves? Many average French people would not approve. In fact women would probably be fined or penalized
for such a display. If we follow the logic of the French government then, women should be allowed to bear their breasts in all places where men are generally permitted to.
There is no difference between a woman wearing a veil and a woman wearing a shirt. It is all about perspective. It is about how we view our bodies. And which parts are considered to be taboo. The women themselves should be allowed to make the choice of what parts of their OWN bodies should or should not be shown. This law is not to equalize women. It is a blatant and errant attack upon Islam. It shows the France is not respecting the rights of its own citizens.

As for the woman that are forced to wear the veil. There should be some sort or recourse for these women. If a man attempts to force a women to cover than he should be punished for violating her rights in the same manner in which the French government is its self preparing to do.
As for security concerns: When there is need to verify a woman’s identity. A woman can remove the veil in the presence of other women. So then allow women to show themselves to female staff members who can easily verify their identity in a few minute. It is not THAT difficult.
I would love to hear others opinions on this issue.

[Raza]

I know, it's ridiculous. Some parties are trying their damnedest to push this here, too.

The security arguments are pretty empty. There's only ever one real motivation behind a dresscode, and that is sheer extroverted insecurity.

[LaBelleDameSansMerci]

Quebec is trying to ban face-coverings in public buildings, for all 90 people in the entire province who regularly wear them. They say it is in the interest of safety and ease of identification, but... in libraries? And 95% of these women have the sense to raise their face covering when they need to, like when they (or their child) is receiving medical care, or when they're in another situation in which they need to be identified, even if the person identifying them is a male. I agree that screens in front of the eyes could become an issue of safety (traffic, trip hazards, etc) because they're quite difficult to see through, but other than that... really?

I think part of the problem that we have is that we keep adding "the" in front of it, and talking about veils and head coverings in a tone that we might use for saying someone has died. We turn it into a monolith. "She chooses to wear a niqab" sounds a lot different from "She chooses to wear the niqab."

[BLEED REBELION!!!]

I see your point about my/everyone’s diction. Never bothered to think about it. I suppose the reason I choose THE instead of A is because it isn’t just a random article of clothing. It makes a statement. It has deeper connotations to wear a niqab than a pair of gloves for example. I when I talk about yamikahs (how the hell do you spell that?) I say The yamikah. Because it isn’t just a piece of cloth it is more than the physical thing. I am referring to the spiritual and ideological beliefs attached to such a garment.
Or maybe im just full of shit. Cuz I thought about it and my friend wears A hijab and I never say THE in reference to her. IDK…

[Joker_in_the_Pack]

Originally Posted by BLEED REBELION!!!

yamikahs (how the hell do you spell that?)

Yarmulke, seriously. When Yiddish meets English, the result is not pretty.

[Isaloween]

I just would like to add. I am French and very very sa

[Isaloween]

I just would like to add. I am French and very very sad to be so when I hear about such laws.

My point is that everyone should be free to dress howere they want to without being judged by anyone.
Mr Sarkozy has a very clear idea of what he wants to do with people and with France, and he couldn't care less about what we actualy think. he is living in his own little world and is certainly not thinking or taking in concideration whether this makes his people happy or not.

he is a selfish idiot, running after popularity and glory and he is ready to do about anything to get to his aim.

After the Niqab issue, there is the Roms expulsions and what next?...
All I want is to get in 2012 for the ellections and hope that the next powerfull idiot will be a bit more human.

[KontanKarite]

...God damn it. This isn't about a fucking dress code. It's just racism people. :-/

[Isaloween]

It's just racism people

Maybe you're right, call me naive, but I'm not thinking of people in terms of "race" this actualy doesn't come to my mind. Sorry

[KontanKarite]

Yes, you're being naive. It's targeted towards muslims. Therefore, it's racist.

[magnus13]

it's more culturalism (which I dont think is a word) than racism, but it is unquestionably prejudice against a cultural/religious group.

[Isaloween]

it's more culturalism

I agree with that a lot more.

[LaBelleDameSansMerci]

It's like a school banning goth attire because they're afraid of gunners.

[Sephiroth Kali]

which would mean its not racism, its fear.

[Isaloween]

And if they keep going that way maybe they'll just end up doing school at home for everyone, just in case kidds talk about guns amongst them or something... better not see each other... keeping fear alive and strong has allways been a great thing for all governements.

[Alan]

Originally Posted by Isaloween

better not see each other... keeping fear alive and strong has allways been a great thing for all governements.

Can you explain me how keeping fear alive is a great thing for governments?

[Isaloween]

An exemple, we're on strike here at the moment, students are in the streets to try and defend their basical rights, and the government is basicaly saying to the people: keep your children home or they might get hurt. That's a way of using people's frears to freak them out so that they get their kids back home and shut their mouths.

Governments use that very often but somehow we all do. Like when you tell someone if you do that (whatever it is), then I'll do that (whatever it is) so be carefull!
You're playing with the others frears to stop him or her doing something that would piss you off.

[Alan]

You live in France, you should know better. What you're explaining is merely a strategical preemptive counter strike (if you do this we'll do this)
That does not explain how a government would channel fear itself as a tool for self-perpetuation.

[Isaloween]

a strategical preemptive counter strike that uses fear as an arm. if you can use it as a counter strike you can use it as a strike it's logical.

Our government is also using people's fears of Muslims in order to help passing the burqa law for exemple, trying to associate burqas, muslims and terrorism as an obvious thing in people's mind, helped with the medias of course.

I'm pretty sure that if he had tried to ban crusifix necklaces it would have been much harder since not many people have a fear for catholics or christians or whoever is using crucifix in our country anyway.People would probably have found that to be strange and unfair, wondering in what a crucifix is wrong. So yeah, you can debate on the fact that a crucifix and a burqa are not the same thing, but to me it's a religous "tool" all the same. Anyway that wasn't the question...

[LaBelleDameSansMerci]

To provide a simplistic example, if the government raises the terror alert to orange and no terrorist attack happens, idiots think the government is doing a good job.

[Alan]

Then why does a government not do this constantly?
These examples are all contingent. What would a government gain from fear?
Does Isaloween really think that the burka thing is merely a big plot to pull a ridiculously subtle halloween prank on the public?

[Isaloween]

Lol LaBelleDame... That's a good one too...

Then why does a government not do this constantly?
These examples are all contingent.

I'm not president (thank god) I guess they do it when it can help them. If you had an arm, would you use it constantly, just for the pleasure? or when you think you really need it?

What would a government gain from fear?

They use it to manipulate thoughts and unfortunatly it works great.

Does Isaloween really think that the burka thing is merely a big plot to pull a ridiculously subtle halloween prank on the public?

Isaloween thinks that Mr Sarkozy is not very happy to have muslims in his country, neither is he happy to have Rome actualy, and that using people's fears against terrorism by easily assimilating everything (burqa=muslim=terrorism) that shouldn't be assimilated, is a great way to see them leave faster, because the people who are going to be affraid won't want them to stay! And many people work in that scheme and actualy do get scared. That's the sad part.

[KontanKarite]

Jesus fucking Christ. You know what. You guys are god damned stupid. It's like a school banning goth attire for fear of gunners? FUCK. YOU. It's fucking racism. You can say it's culturalism all you want, but this is NOT like keeping teenagers from looking like stupid mimes. It's more like a government banning a yamika (sp) because they're afraid the Jews are taking over the world, so they do some stupid shit like this to undermine a group of people and their way of life.

This is NOT the same as a school banning goth attire. Goth clothes is not a racial mandate or even a cultural mandate. Plus, that only applies to schools and not a fucking nation.

Christ, you guys are fucking dumb as shit.

[Versus]

It's culturalism? Seriously? It's like saying "It's not racism! That's way too harsh to describe this!" Who cares about semantics? Who cares, what exactly about it, is wrong?

I fucking hate the middle east, but I would let women dress like a ninja whenever the fuck they wanted simply because otherwise is wrong. It doesn't matter where on the wrong chart it falls.

[KontanKarite]

Nah, dude. It's actually far more worse than what some say is like a high school dress code.