|
|
Post by Cranky on Apr 11, 2011 13:37:49 GMT -5
Is this an affront to freedom of religion or justified? Do you want it done in Canada? If a veil, what about other religious artifacts? Crosses in schools? Bible in hotel rooms? And what about Korans in hotel rooms? What about portraits of Mohammed in classrooms? Ban everything? Ban nothing? Or ban what you find un-acceptable? ~~~~~~~~ France starts ban on full-face veil (Reuters) - France's ban on full face veils, a first in Europe, went into force on Monday, making anyone wearing the Muslim niqab or burqa in public liable to a fine of 150 euros ($216) or lessons in French citizenship. The ban has been criticized in France and elsewhere, but mainstream Muslim groups -- which had a six-month grace period after the law was passed to explain it to their supporters -- opted not to protest at its entry into force. "We've already had our debate about the law and now our position is clear: we respect French law 100 percent," said a spokesman for the French Council of the Muslim Faith. www.reuters.com/article/2011/04/11/us-france-veil-ban-idUSTRE73A1CL20110411 |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Apr 11, 2011 13:49:06 GMT -5
I feel very wishy-washy on this ...
I think that in government buildings, airports, schools, etc ... basically places where security and segregation can be issues then it should be banned.
I don't think an outright ban should occur. You have to respect a woman's right to choose how she dresses in her own home.
IMO, there is no religious symbolism to covering your face (although if a Muslim wants to show me different I will listen) ... to me it is all about segregation of women, putting women in "their place" , and a pre-historic notion that men can't control themselves around women if they show their beauty.
|
|
|
|
Post by franko on Apr 11, 2011 14:10:54 GMT -5
Is this an affront to freedom of religion or justified? thank you for raising the debate, HA . . . if it were the hijab that was banned then this is the question to be answered: is it freedom of religion or freedom from religion. if it is freedom from -- that is, a fully secular society in which religion is banned then it must be done. if it is freedom of -- that is, a tolerant but secular society, then it should not be done. but because it might be based on security or on rights, then it is justified, but like Skilly says, in public areas but not in religious spaces. as to what about other religious artifacts?Crosses in schools?if you are going to provide public facilities/separate prayer rooms for Muslims then you must provide public facilities/separate prayer rooms for other religious groups as well . . . but that does not mean adorning public walls with religious icons of any sort. Bible in hotel rooms? private facilities and so should not be banned; must not be forced And what about Korans in hotel rooms? same. if there is want then provide by all means -- no one is forced to open either. but I'm sure some HRC will step in. What about portraits of Mohammed in classrooms? only if you want jihad. and speaking of religious icons, pictures of David Suzuki, Al Gore, and other green messiahs should be removed from all schools. |
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Apr 12, 2011 7:45:05 GMT -5
Disagree with the ban completely. It is abhorrent that a supposed civilized and free country could stoop to such reprehensible levels. Ban face coverings in government offices and airports? Fine - there is a security issue there. Ban them in schools? Well, I don't agree (and I'm sure there's a thread on the topic not too far back) but fine. I can understand the rationale. But ban them everywhere? No. I'm sorry. That smacks of a paternalistic, patronizing government that has gone too far in it's "father knows best" policy. What's next? Telling Christians they can't wear crucifixes? Telling Hindus they can not put at Tilaka on their forehead.
Sorry. Way too far and way too broad. Disgusting and appalling.
|
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Apr 12, 2011 8:05:01 GMT -5
It's too bad that decisions like this are based on fear. I'm not so sure that a blanket policy like this will be successful. Government services where ID must be confirmed isn't a bad thing. But, a blanket policy?
You have to wonder whether this might be a powder keg waiting to go off. Short fuse? Long fuse? The implications from a backfire are mind boggling.
Cheers.
|
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Apr 12, 2011 8:28:45 GMT -5
I have already said my peace on this, so this will be my first and only post in this thread.
Governments ban clothing all the time. Try wearing a Klu Klux Klan outfit to your kid's PTA meeting. Try wearing it in a predominately black neighborhood and see how far you get. Let's pretend it's the good old USA where the Constitution "allows" you to carry a gun for self-defense. Wear your white sheets into a black neighborhood, pop a couple of teenagers in "self defense" and see how far you get in a court of law. A woman in Winnipeg lost custody of her kids for sending them to school with Nazi tattoos. Government intervention in public appearance is not new, nor generally unwanted. In the last thread on this topic I brought up the naked African tribesman who cannot respect the traditions and customs of his culture; nobody cared about him, because well, "it's sexual" even though of course it's not, any more than the burqa is religious.
There is a reason why the burqa has been banned in many Muslim countries, just as there is a reason why the French Council on Muslim Faith, representing the five million Muslims in France did not oppose the ban. It's an outdated, demeaning and patriarchal form of control, intended to keep women "in their place." Women who wear the burqa - usually at the insistence of their fathers and then their husbands, and who grow up knowing no other way of life - cannot work as fire fighters, police or military officers, construction workers, pilots and probably a dozen other "male" jobs. There is no religious basis for wearing a burqa. It's also, rightly or wrongly, associated with fundamentalist Islam, just as simple white sheets are associated with Aryan Nations.
We would not tolerate a society where a man was allowed to walk his wife on a leash, why should we tolerate this?
|
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Apr 12, 2011 11:21:16 GMT -5
We would not tolerate a society where a man was allowed to walk his wife on a leash, why should we tolerate this? I tried to walk my wife on a leash....and she bit me.  I try to start threads that can go either way without my opinion, unless of course I want to start some controversy. Anywho, my pinion on the subject is conflicted. Yes, I believe the burka has no place in our society. NONE. ZERO. Nada. The ONLY thing it's meant to be is to hide a womans face in case Muslim man can't control their lechery. "She's my property and you ain't looking at her" says that sad piece of cloth. It's not just a dog leash, it's a bag and a chastity belt too. On the other hand....... I also lived under a dictators thumb and mistrust every and all governments decree in social issues. For security? Yes, But on the street? No. |
|
|
|
Post by duster on Apr 13, 2011 12:16:10 GMT -5
Having lived in France and been educated for a short time under their system, I do understand why they did this. The French government has always prided itself on its secular principles. Despite being a catholic country, nowhere in any Lycee (that I know of ) are there any references to religion ether by crucifix, prayer or pictures of the Pope. There is a firm belief that the country should be governed strictly by rule of law. Since burquas and niqabs are essentially tribal and therefore "not French", they have no protected legal status and have no place in France. You'll find no sympathy from the French in that regard as well. A recent bank robbery perpetrated in central France by Arabic speaking men wearing niqabs just hammered the point home for many. In a pragmatic country like France, law and order trumps religion anytime.
When it comes to Canada, that type of pragmatism is impossible. This a country where the squeaky wheel gets the oil and no politician will dare propose such a thing if it means losing the support of special interest groups. Quebec is trying to be secular like the French but is being hypocritical since it allows crucifixes.
Unless an act of terrorism or a crime is committed using a niqab or burqua, I see no reason for a ban. On the other hand, I don't believe the right to wear one should come at the expense of majority.
|
|
|
|
Post by franko on Apr 14, 2011 10:20:07 GMT -5
interesting op-ed Well-meant but flawed niqab law will hurt those it seeks to help Afsun Qureshi“Just stay home” was the answer I got as a teenager when ennui set in and I wanted out of the house. I am not talking about going raving or going to sex clubs. I am talking about the mall, the bowling alley, a friend’s house or just to see a flick. But no. Home, for my devout Muslim parents, was a sanctuary where nothing bad could happen.
Those four walls of our suburban Willowdale, Ont. box were meant to shield us girls from the baddies out there, from what the grownups in our extended family called the “3D”: the triple demons of “drinking, dancing and dating” — their very own axis of evil.
My brothers? They roamed free, exploring the unholy 3D at their whim, while my parents looked the other way.
It was oppressive, it was frustrating, it was boring — especially for someone like me, who has a naturally outgoing, inquisitive personality. No surprise: Much to my parent’s fury, rebellion set in.
So, do I feel sorry for the niqab-wearers in France? You bet I do. And the sentiment behind the country’s new ban on face-veiling is one that I wholeheartedly applaud. But such laws have to be done right. The French ban, which allows women to veil themselves indoors but not in public, will only worsen an existing problem: the isolation of some Muslim women from society.
If I were a betting woman, and I am, I would say the new law will cause many women to stay at home. For many of these women, the choice between going out without a veil or staying home will be no contest. The veil will win every time. The law won’t cause Muslim families to simply cave in and jettison one of their most deeply held convictions. Never underestimate the power of faith.
Experience has taught us that in non-Muslim countries, veiled or hijabbed women are judged, misunderstood, even feared. Sadly, the reverse is true, too: Women with covered heads and faces often harbor the same hostile attitudes toward non-covered women.
I know: I come from a Muslim family where some members of my family, even my own mother, came to look at me with contempt and fear. “Please God,” they thought, “don’t let this fallen specimen influence our other girls and women in any way — get her highlighted head out of our sight.”
By design or not, Muslim female headgear has always created an “us vs. you,” “believer vs. infidel” divide. There is something about a burka, niqab or hijab that is more stark — that creates ironclad boundaries — more than a turban or a yarmulke ever could.
The result of the new French law, ultimately, will be to push the problem behind closed doors: The trifecta of the police, religion, and the women’s own convictions will force them to stay at home, further isolating them, further radicalizing them, further making them an inscrutable object of Western fear and fascination.
In other words, the law helps to further oppress the women it is meant to liberate. Which drives home the point that the oppression of Muslim women is not a problem easily solved with laws. Deeply ingrained cultural attitudes cannot be changed by legislative fiat, which is something French lawmakers should have thought about beforehand.
In many Muslim countries, such as Saudi Arabia, staying at home is not a problem. Women are not exactly encouraged or pressured to work in these countries, and foreign labour is cheap and plentiful. The patterns of life are designed so that women don’t have to earn money, run errands or drop the children off at school. But that model doesn’t work for France’s veiled Muslim women. The strain between their culture and the society around them will only become stronger.link |
|
|
|
Post by Doc Holliday on Apr 16, 2011 9:46:08 GMT -5
I have already said my peace on this, so this will be my first and only post in this thread. Governments ban clothing all the time. Try wearing a Klu Klux Klan outfit to your kid's PTA meeting. Try wearing it in a predominately black neighborhood and see how far you get. Let's pretend it's the good old USA where the Constitution "allows" you to carry a gun for self-defense. Wear your white sheets into a black neighborhood, pop a couple of teenagers in "self defense" and see how far you get in a court of law. A woman in Winnipeg lost custody of her kids for sending them to school with Nazi tattoos. Government intervention in public appearance is not new, nor generally unwanted. In the last thread on this topic I brought up the naked African tribesman who cannot respect the traditions and customs of his culture; nobody cared about him, because well, "it's sexual" even though of course it's not, any more than the burqa is religious. There is a reason why the burqa has been banned in many Muslim countries, just as there is a reason why the French Council on Muslim Faith, representing the five million Muslims in France did not oppose the ban. It's an outdated, demeaning and patriarchal form of control, intended to keep women "in their place." Women who wear the burqa - usually at the insistence of their fathers and then their husbands, and who grow up knowing no other way of life - cannot work as fire fighters, police or military officers, construction workers, pilots and probably a dozen other "male" jobs. There is no religious basis for wearing a burqa. It's also, rightly or wrongly, associated with fundamentalist Islam, just as simple white sheets are associated with Aryan Nations. We would not tolerate a society where a man was allowed to walk his wife on a leash, why should we tolerate this? Kaboom! Right on. |
|
