France Sets $185 Fine in Muslim Veil Ban

The Burqa is not a religious garment.
It is a cultural garment .
The culture of the imposition of mens insecurities onto women.
These women are vulnerable and sometimes its all they have known
Laws for one culture if they change to accomodate other cultures ...then where does it end?
A nation of tribes, the very thing people millenium ago lived with until smaller weaker tribes fled.
Islam is a predatory religious and cultural ideaology,as is Judaism and Christianity.
Law should apply to the human being first,and women wearing burqas breaks civilized codes.
Where are the womens libbers of not so long ago?
They keep stum, as fellow women are `dominated by egotistical selfish insecure brutes.
You never see a muslim man cover his head as a western woman walks by...no strange that.
Law is for all citizens, you and I maybe star wars fans ,we cannot walk around in public wearing darth vader masks, even though we may want to.
Laws are for all citizens and residents and tourists or else the law is discriminating against the majority and putting them into a position of weakness?

reply to post by Mdv2


In Iran, it is only forbidden for Muslim women to not wear a head scarf. Non-Muslims do not have to wear a head scarf. For instance, the large Jewish population in Tehran (yes, there is a huge affluent Jewish population in Tehran, Iran and even a Jewish law-maker, who get treated just fine) doesn't have to wear a head scarf, though many do out of either tradition or respect for everyone else. I also know a nice Christian family that lives right outside of Tehran and the nice young woman never wears a head scarf and doesn't have to. The same thing for many other Islamic countries as well that abide by Shariah. It is only the western media that keeps those tid-bits from us and makes us think otherwise.

--airspoon

reply to post by airspoon


You are telling pure lies. If you would have ever been to Iran, alike me, you would be aware that each mature woman is obliged to wear a hijab in public and yes, that does also apply to the Christian and Jewish minorities. At home, it is a different case, but then again no woman in France is being banned from wearing a burqa at home either.

My Iranian friend is Christian and his girlfriend is forced to wear a headscarf when they are out. If she wouldn't do so, she would end up being harassed by the moral police and probably worse. I've seen one of these crazy granny's harassing a girl myself for not wearing her hijab appropriately. It was also very interesting to witness a couple of Iranian girls on my flight from Tehran to Amsterdam removing their head scarves as soon as we left Iranian airspace, which exemplifies that the Iranian dress code is not exactly a matter of free will.

I recommend you to read the following article from Time:

A Night With the Morality Police

Spooning up some pomegranate seeds by the side of the road while waiting for my German friend Nadia, I noticed the morality police approaching. But dressed in my baggiest clothes and a pair of nerdy glasses, I didn't imagine I could possibly be mistaken for a moral transgressor. I was wrong. The two ladies in long black chadors informed me that my coat was too short, and ordered me into their van.

source

And some more sources:

Ms. Mariam Memarsadeghi: It is important to remember that the political and cultural context of hijab varies from place to place. In Iran, for example, women—even Jewish, Baha'i, Zoroastrian and Christian women—are forced by the regime to veil. They have absolutely no choice in the matter. If they do not, they are subject to imprisonment, flogging and even death. It's just that simple. In Egypt, however, we have a fundamentally different political reality. There, women are free to dress as they choose, and given the biggest challenge to Mubarak's rule comes from the Muslim Brotherhood, hijab has taken on political undertones of resistance and purity from corruption. So when young women choose hijab in Egypt, even while their mothers reject it as a symbol of women's repression, this signifies a commitment to a politics that is against the government's repression, but is also Islamist and often vehemently anti-West and anti-liberal.

source

One Armenian Christian businessman in Tehran, who spoke on condition of anonymity so as not to jeopardize his family's persecution-based application for legal U.S. residence, struggled to come up with a list of reasons to leave Iran. For more than a decade, he said, he had been looking for reasons to stay.

"One, our Iranian passports are useless; we need visas for every country. Two, the Iranian economy is destroyed. Three, my daughters are forced to wear the Islamic head scarf," he said. The 2005 election of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the businessman continued, had increased the sense of uncertainty. "There are foreign threats, there might be a war. We feel pressure every day."

source

You still haven't answered my question. Why are you apologists making such a fuss about a ban that only affects 2000 women while millions of women in countries such as Iran and Saudi-Arabia are being oppressed through laws that forbid to wear their hear uncovered. Why aren't you guys upset about that?











[edit on 21-5-2010 by Mdv2]

reply to post by Mdv2

You still haven't answered my question. Why are you apologists making such a fuss about a ban that only affects 2000 women while millions of women in countries such as Iran and Saudi-Arabia are being oppressed through laws that forbid to wear their hear uncovered. Why aren't you guys upset about that?

Here is a question for you, why didn't the French government just ask those women who wear Burqahs? Ask them whether they are being oppressed, or being forced to wear that piece of clothing? ASK them..

Why not ask catholic nuns whether they are being oppressed by the Church, or whether they are being forced to wear the clothings they wear.

Why not ask Muslim men, whether they are being oppressed or whether they are being forced to grow beards.

Wait, why not ban growing beards.

I think your mentality effects your vision, unless you see it through another view point you will always be constant.

Thanks for your time.

Hope you answer the questions.

I imagine the women would rather not wear one to start with. They only serve to prevent lust from other men don't they?

reply to post by Mdv2


That's just not true and either your friend is imaginary or confused. I also like how your sources are the very same sources spewing out propaganda on Iran and their democratically elected government to sway popular opinion in support of an ultimate regime change by the west. These are the same sources putting words into Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's mouth. For instance, those same sources were/are saying how Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was calling for Israel to be wiped off the map, which is wholly untrue and a deliberate misinterpretation. These same sources also mislead people by spewing out propaganda leading up to the Iraq War. Your sources are hardly reliable and in fact, have been spewing out propaganda designed to mislead us about Iran and other PTB targets.

*Update* While technically the law in Iran is unclear on whether non-Muslim women need to wear a Hijab or head scarf, it is not enforced for foreigners and non-Muslims alike. So, even if the law technically states that everyone wear a head scarf, which it doesn't though is a little confusing and unclear, it is not enforced at all. End result is that non-Muslim women in Iran need not wear a head scarf. Also, this is in Iran, an extreme example of applying Sharia.

--airspoon

reply to post by Voyager1

I imagine the women would rather not wear one to start with. They only serve to prevent lust from other men don't they?

And I imagine women would rather not wear slutty cloths to lure lust from other men.

But that would be my imagination, and sometimes it goes wild.

Originally posted by LittleSecret

Here is a question for you,

Answering a question with a question is a sign of weakness and I guess you do so, because you lack a real answer to the question, one that doesn't contradict with the very same reason for which people criticize this particular ban.

why didn't the French government just ask those women who wear Burqahs? Ask them whether they are being oppressed, or being forced to wear that piece of clothing? ASK them..

This is an irrelevant question. The burqa prevents one from integrating into Western society and that alone should be reason enough to ban it. Anyhow, I'll answer your question: there is no mechanism for the French government to objectively determine whether these women would answer that question honestly or are simply made to lie about it by their husbands, nor is this the primary reason for the French government to ban it.

Why not ask catholic nuns whether they are being oppressed by the Church, or whether they are being forced to wear the clothings they wear.

As far as I am aware, a person is not born as a nun and if you choose to be so, you obviously have no problems with wearing the clothes that belong to that ''mission''. However, one does not choose to be born in Iran, but she is nevertheless forced into weiring a headscarf by her government. Moreover, your comparison is flawed. Nuns do not cover their faces, only their hair and in case you didn't know, the French government hasn't forbidden Muslims to wear a hijab either.

With all due respect, your last question is too absurd to be taken serious.

I think your mentality effects your vision, unless you see it through another view point you will always be constant.

I could say the very same about you. Have you also lived in the Middle East?

Originally posted by airspoon
reply to post by Mdv2

 

That's just not true and either your friend is imaginary or confused. I also like how your sources are the very same sources spewing out propaganda on Iran and their democratically elected government to sway popular opinion in support of an ultimate regime change by the west.

Tell me, where does this Iranian woman - Mariam Memarsadeghi - 'spew propaganda'? I have asked it before, but you fail to deliver time after time - as soon as you apologists cant find any better argument to debunk something, you dismiss it as 'propaganda'. Provide some sources to proof otherwise... for once.

These are the same sources putting words into Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's mouth. For instance, those same sources were/are saying how Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was calling for Israel to be wiped off the map, which is wholly untrue and a deliberate misinterpretation. These same sources also mislead people by spewing out propaganda leading up to the Iraq War. Your sources are hardly reliable and in fact, have been spewing out propaganda designed to mislead us about Iran and other PTB targets.

Please, provide evidence of my sources 'putting words into Ahmadinejad's mouth'. I've not quoted Fox News or CNN for instance.

*Update* While technically the law in Iran is unclear on whether non-Muslim women need to wear a Hijab or head scarf, it is not enforced for foreigners and non-Muslims alike. So, even if the law technically states that everyone wear a head scarf, which it doesn't though is a little confusing and unclear, it is not enforced at all. End result is that non-Muslim women in Iran need not wear a head scarf. Also, this is in Iran, an extreme example of applying Sharia.

It is enforced and if you would have been to Iran, you would know so. You simply feel better believing your own little truth, which you of course have every right to, but unfortunately for you - it is a is flawed reality.

Anyhow, let's replace Iran by Saudi-Arabia. Are you going to tell me now that women over there can also walk down the street without a veil? Perhaps it surprises you, but many women in Saudi-Arabia are unhappy with the strict Islamic dress code, yet their government forces them to obey the dress code. For the third time, I'm gonna ask you why you are not upset with that, but when a Western nation does so, it suddenly becomes a huge deal.











[edit on 21-5-2010 by Mdv2]

Judging from experiences here in Sweden [which has a certain amount of Muslim immigrants], I find the ban slightly justified. Looking at my school, as an example, Muslim women (those who wear veils showing the majority of their faces, there are many who don't) tend to socialize mainly with similar circles, so to speak.
I would understand how the dress-code, in lack of better terms, is detrimental to building connections as it kind of imposes the serious nature of the religion onto them.

Now I'm not terribly familiar with the subject, but as I see it, the ban could help integrating these people from two incompatible societies. On the other hand, if the Muslims affected would react victimized to the ban, it could also help widen the gap between them even further.

reply to post by airspoon


All i can add is that i don't like the dress sense... especially the Burqa... makes me feel depressed and sometimes angry when i see couple walking down the street... yes, i suppose i have become prejudice but you don't live where i do, so you wouldn't feel like i do....

Like i've said many times before... it all depends where you live in the World!!

reply to post by aboveGoos


A good point you made there... instead of creating seperatism & divide, it could help in integration a lot more... people wouldn't feel victimised or a minority possibly...

Personally i think the whole religion thing is a divide tool but that's just me... i also think it's very stupid to be held back by some book which tells another to do this or that...

[edit on 21-5-2010 by TruthxIsxInxThexMist]

reply to post by TruthxIsxInxThexMist


I could definitely agree with that. Those who aren't exposed to certain issues, tend to not have problems with those issues. For instance, people from Maine can't understand why people from the South have issues with a/ certain race/s, however this still doesn't justify oppressing a group of peoples or initiating force against said peoples.

To many of these women, if not all, they have grown up around wearing these garments and many of them actually feel *naked without them. It would be like a woman moving to a certain country and being forced to go topless. Not only would many of them feel violated, but due to religious beliefs, they will feel as if they are shaming god by being objects of lust and the reason for creating extra sin in the world. So really, it is two fold and worse than a western women having to go topless, especially seeing how they are made to do this simply because others don't feel comfortable with having these people around. Let's face it, if this was some Christian sect, this wouldn't even be an issue. It's an issue because these people are Muslim, regardless of what excuses you can use to try and justify it.

--airspoon

reply to post by Mdv2

You still haven't answered my question. Why are you apologists making such a fuss about a ban that only affects 2000 women while millions of women in countries such as Iran and Saudi-Arabia are being oppressed through laws that forbid to wear their hear uncovered. Why aren't you guys upset about that?

My response was in regards to that paragraph, now you are adding new things:

The burqa prevents one from integrating into Western society and that alone should be reason enough to ban it.

Since I know you are gonna hurdle around, the first thing I want you to do is to put all your reasonings behind the ban on the table so I can do a counter.

If you just leave loose ends then this discussion/debate is not gonna go anywhere, you can just jump from one excuse to another.

I would like you to put all your reasoning on the table, then I'll do a full reply, whether it takes 1 post, or 10 post.

This way you will not be wasting everyone time.

Regards.


[edit on 21-5-2010 by LittleSecret]

Um. I can't argue about religion and dislike that topic.

However I can opine about "social politics".

If a religion or cultural habit does not have any conflict with any existing laws or basic needs in a region, then there is no reason to mind. The Amish women in my locale wear neck-to-toes dresses and caps. Nobody minds.

Not seeing someone's face has several issues with it.

1 - in a world that suffers a ridiculous amount of terrorism specifically from related cultural sources, it allows a complete disguise nearly akin to a cloak of invisibility. This really is not wise just for safety reasons.

2 - the rest of the population is subject to cameras everywhere, to IDs and cops peering in the car window at them, to bank clerks evaluating them, etc. If I tried to go into my local bank and get an account without showing my face to match my ID, or refused to show my hidden face to a police officer, it would not end well for me. Allowing this for any group solely because their race/religion is different from mine seems injust to me.

3 - Which brings us to the real issue. Particularly the last decades, the constant efforts to create court 'precedent' that make people, businesses, afraid to ever say anything to anybody who might be Muslim, no matter what they are doing, is just off the charts. So many things have been done clearly intentionally to this end. The push to gradually create an equality of religious/cultural Sharia law with the laws of the cultures they have -- well I would say "have joined" but since they will not ever join, "infiltrated" is a more accurate term in this case -- is a genuine danger, particularly when you review the actual clearly written and stated goals (which coincidentally make all the other behavior mentioned make perfect sense).

It is clearly an established case of a culture-wide effort to 'get a crowbar in' for competition and eventual attempt at insurrection and rule -- all the innocent denial of this is rather pointless given it's all on paper and prayed over several times a day, it's not like a secret. The situation gets worse, not better, all the time. The numbers in France, Sweden etc. are a genuine problem given the culture is *not* simply "part of the culture" -- such as we call "African-Americans" or whatever -- people who will not integrate and who will live forcibly in their own enclaves/laws/culture/religion only and reject everything of their host country, are not enriching a culture, they are competing with it. There is a difference between simply maintaining one's own religion/traditions, versus living within imposed laws that are more separatist than the highest wall could ever be.

The USA has it better simply because it is so huge compared to the teeeny little land masses of Western Europe that it is less affected except in a few metro areas.

I see refusing the burkha like a matter of "putting a foot down" somewhere -- anywhere! just starting *somewhere* -- like: No more "special exceptions" based on the culture/religion of a people who have brought immensely more violence and economic strain to the country while refusing to truly become part of it. No more using religion to 'get out of' the same rules and basics that every other human in the country has to abide by.

And, while some (generally, muslim men) will argue that women choose their attire (threat of disapproval let alone serious violence and family retribution sure adds to 'volunteer' enthusiasm I bet...), you have to consider that were it not for the injust "special kid-gloves fear/handling" of the sharia-law culture, that would probably not be acceptable anywhere. I mean look at it like this:

Let's say as an analogy that in my town, everybody black generally had to live in one area and to prevent "lust and violence" toward them, because we all know both of those are common LOL, we made them wear hoods. For their own good you understand, and despite the 'retaliation' issues we all saw imposed against the few courageous enough to try and get out of that, we would just tell outsiders, hey, our black people LOVE wearing hoods! Yeah it makes them feel really precious and safe! And people around us would say, "Man, that just isn't RIGHT. Everyone is equal. I mean if they really want to wear hoods around the house that's one thing, to each their own. But being forced to wear them even in public, even in 102 degree humid weather, even when trying to eat, just constantly-- that just isn't reasonable, we just can't believe this is truly voluntary, and since we live in a land where every other county in the country has equal laws for equal people, you townspeople forcing just this one group of people into that role seems... well it seems like your county just legalized a really major "-ism," and only gets away with it by insisting that "they like it that way." Seriously, if this were a township doing it to blacks rather than a sharia culture sector doing it to women, would it not seem crazy and injust to everyone? Would there not be major outcry against it? I think there would be.

RC

There's nothing wrong with France making this law and imposing a fine on those who break it. It's their country, they can make whatever laws they choose. It is a European country and they have every right to keep their European culture alive in their country. They are not going into a Muslim country and trying to impose their culture on them, nor are they trying to impose their laws on them. When people move to another country they should adapt to that country, not try to force that country to adapt to them.

If the Muslims are not comfortable living in a western society they have every right to move to a middle eastern society that is more to their liking.

There was a thread last year when France was talking about banning the burqa. The reason they decided to do this was because there were Muslim men and boys raping, killing, etc, girls and women that did not wear them. They were also receiving complaints from people like one man that complained because a dentist refused to give dental treatment to his wife that was not properly covered. There were also complaints from women who said that they were forced to wear the burqa by their family member.

The french president also said that it was seen as oppressing women. If the burqa is causing so many problems in their country, and they see it as an oppression of women, they have every right to regulate, or ban it.

All of these problems are being created by extremist, who site Muslim law as their reason. It is because of these extremist that this law was enacted, not the French government, or the French people. The French government simply had to find a way to rid their country of these problems. If people are upset over this law, then direct your anger at those responsible, the extremist.

BTW it's true there are men of other religions that rape, difference is they don't offer up their religion and religious laws/teachings as a reason for and defense of their actions.

reply to post by chise61


You cite all of the reasons, yet not a single one is based on logic and/or reason. I don't mind at all, respecting someone else's opinion, when that opinion is based at least in part, on reason or logic. When the opinion expressed purely our of ignorance, then it is hard for anyone without the ignorance to respect that ignorance. If your going to try and justify this law, at least do it with a little logic and/or reason, as some others have. Also, you make a lot of assumptions about Muslims being from the Middle East, while ignoring the fact that many Muslims are French citizens.

There's nothing wrong with France making this law and imposing a fine on those who break it. It's their country, they can make whatever laws they choose. It is a European country and they have every right to keep their European culture alive in their country. They are not going into a Muslim country and trying to impose their culture on them, nor are they trying to impose their laws on them. When people move to another country they should adapt to that country, not try to force that country to adapt to them.

It is France and they do have every right to enforce their laws, however they don't have the right to tell their citizens what what kind of clothes to wear or how they should or shouldn't worship their god/s. It was my grandfather who stormed the beaches of Normandy for their freedom and now they want to throw away that freedom.

Also, France does go into other countries to impose their will on others. Are you forgetting France in Afghanistan, Vietnam, Africa and South America, among many others? Furthermore, allowing people to worship their god/s by wearing a certain item of clothing, is hardly imposing your will on others, such as France does around the globe.

If the Muslims are not comfortable living in a western society they have every right to move to a middle eastern society that is more to their liking.

You are assuming that all Muslims in France are from the Middle East, or at least from another country. What about the French citizens who happen to be Muslim? Since when is it okay for France to be a theocracy? I'm willing to bet your one of those people who denounce other countries for having a theocratic government, while supporting the same thing as long as it fits in with your own views. Maybe French citizens don't want to move to another corner of the globe just to worship in the way that they choose.

There was a thread last year when France was talking about banning the burqa. The reason they decided to do this was because there were Muslim men and boys raping, killing, etc, girls and women that did not wear them. They were also receiving complaints from people like one man that complained because a dentist refused to give dental treatment to his wife that was not properly covered. There were also complaints from women who said that they were forced to wear the burqa by their family member.

These reasons listed are not valid at all but rather a shoddy attempt to justify discriminatory theocratic policies. So because the Catholic church molests little boys, why do we not ban the Catholic church then? Why don't we outlaw vehicles while we are at it, since many people like to get drunk, drive and kill others. Also, if someone wants to refuse business to someone else for any reason, then they should be allowed to do it, though that is besides the point. If that was the gripe, then why not pass a law stating that you can't refuse someone for any reason at all? The last part, women being forced to wear the burqa, isn't that already against the law? Why not just enforce the laws already on the books. If someone robs me and forces me to hand over my wallet, should we then ban wallets so nobody can rob you for your wallet?

The french president also said that it was seen as oppressing women. If the burqa is causing so many problems in their country, and they see it as an oppression of women, they have every right to regulate, or ban it.

Again, this is imposing your will on other people. If women don't want to wear the burqa, then they don't have to. If someone forces a woman to wear it, then the laws already on the books could deal with the problem. There are many people who do choose to wear the burqa so now France is oppressing those women by forcing them to remove the item. How does that help?

Women here in the States are forced to wear a shirt. Are they oppressed too? Should we then outlaw shirts for women? As much as we would probably like such a law, it still isn't right and ultimately oppresses the women. This law is the oppressor, not the other way around.

All of these problems are being created by extremist, who site Muslim law as their reason. It is because of these extremist that this law was enacted, not the French government, or the French people. The French government simply had to find a way to rid their country of these problems. If people are upset over this law, then direct your anger at those responsible, the extremist.

Again, this makes no sense at all. See above...

BTW it's true there are men of other religions that rape, difference is they don't offer up their religion and religious laws/teachings as a reason for and defense of their actions.

First of all, your wrong. Catholic Priests, who rape innocent little children who can't defend themselves, do so because of the circumstances defined by their religion. Also for instance, many Mormon communities here in the States rape women and children because of their beliefs in what their bible teaches them. Do we then start to outlaw the Mormon church... or maybe an item of their clothing in a senseless measure?

The point is, you can't go around oppressing people because of the actions of a few. You deal with those problems as they are. The truth here, is that this law wasn't placed for any logical reason, rather because of the fear to integrate these people. This law is purely discriminatory and that is all it is intended to be. All of these excuses are simply to try and justify something that can't be justified.

--airspoon

The reason they decided to do this was because there were Muslim men and boys raping, killing, etc, girls and women that did not wear them. They were also receiving complaints from people like one man that complained because a dentist refused to give dental treatment to his wife that was not properly covered. There were also complaints from women who said that they were forced to wear the burqa by their family member.

These reasons listed are not valid at all but rather a shoddy attempt to justify discriminatory theocratic policies.

If those aren't valid reasons, what would be, out of curiosity?

Your example that because a few priests made the news for child molestation, that 'closing down the church' is the same logic as requesting people not wear burkhas publicly, doesn't really fly. You might want to come up with a different analogy.

Best,
RC

reply to post by airspoon


They are all based on logic and reason. They are logical and reasonable reasons to the people of France, and that's really all that matters as it is their country and they must run it as they see fit. They are all valid reasons.

It was my grandfather who stormed the beaches of Normandy for their freedom and now they want to throw away that freedom.

I'm sure that he didn't storm those beaches so that they could have their culture wiped out and replaced with another.

They don't want to throw away their freedom, they simply want to keep their culture, and prevent the abuse of women in their country.

You are assuming that all Muslims in France are from the Middle East, or at least from another country. What about the French citizens who happen to be Muslim?

No I don't assume that, I know full well that many of them are French citizens. It's not about where they're from, it's about which culture they prefer. If they prefer a middle eastern culture, than perhaps they should live in the middle east.

Since when is it okay for France to be a theocracy?

France is not a theocracy, nor are they attempting to be one. In reality France is trying to prevent their country from being turned into a theocracy.

If you really have a problem with theocracies then maybe you should focus your attention and outrage at Saudi Arabia.

Perhaps you could show me some examples of cases where men from other religions have offered up their religiuous laws and teachings as a reason and defense for their crimes, and to the degree that Muslim men and boys do. I'm not saying that there may not be cases out there, just that I haven't seen them. Since you obviously have maybe you can share them with me.

They have no fear of integrating these people, they have tried for years. These people simply refuse to integrate into the culture of the country that they chose to live in.


Here are some of the valid reasons the French people have for their ban.



www.cbsnews.com...


www.guardian.co.uk...


www.newsvine.com...

reply to post by RedCairo


That is a great post, well put.

If you don't start fighting back now with laws that eliminate the segregation and cultural invasion of Islam, then soon enough it will be a violent war, and possibly one of the most barbaric that can be imagined.

It is good to be tolerant of others, but not to the point where you are letting others walk all over you and yours, along with theirs.

Men who treat their own mothers, daughters, and sisters like property, as slaves, sure aren't going to treat you or yours any better should they get the upper hand.