France Bans Face-Covering Islamic Veil

  • Thread starter Thread starter Charlotte408
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I disagree with this because I completely disagree with the “logic” behind it. Safety? Security? It’s xenophobic is what it is, and we would all be up in arms if an Islamic government enforced a similar rule on religious sisters.

Furthermore, I have traveled all over France and never once did I feel unsafe, even getting on and off trains un-searched… I feel more insecure here in the States every time I go to the airport and am made to feel like anyone at anytime could have a bomb, or a box-cutter or… a PAIR OF TWEEZERS (oh, the humanity!) God forbid that France become as paranoid and fear-mongering as we are here.
 
I read an article a long time a go about a Muslim woman being kicked out of a public pool for wearing a “Burkini,” that is, a full body covering ‘bathing suit.’ Some official defended it for being for “hygenic reasons” which may be believable, but most of his defense was about how horrible it was that women were so repressed and forced to cover themselves up, presumably by their husbands or fathers or, if they choose to, then by repressive religious superstructures.

Similarly, I think security is more of a pretense here. It’s no secret that there is a good deal of anti-Muslim sentiment in France, which is very very secular (somebody said something earlier in this thread about Christian countries being allowed to regulate other religions within reason; it should be clarified that France is not a Christian nation by any stretch of the imagination, even by western European standards). France has been in the process of removing religious expression from public for a while now, and I think this ban is an attempt to further affirm France’s public secularism to the Muslim community, it’s not about security. I don’t agree with it at all. But evidently in France a woman’s right to show off some skin outweighs her right to dress as she pleases, for religious or other reasons. If some women are being forced to dress a certain way by their husbands, then the problem isn’t the veil, it’s the attitude of the people; that is, their unwillingness to report abuse to the police, and that should be addressed, but not by infringing on the rights of those who choose to dress a certain way.
 
Darryl1958 said:
The Muslims who aren’t upset are exactly the Muslims that this kind of law was designed to cater to. No more having the zealots morality forced down their throats or wrapped around their faces either.
As for upsetting hot-headed fanatic Islamists, it is in their nature to be upset.
Click to expand...
You make a good point.
 
Raskolnikov said:
I read an article a long time a go about a Muslim woman being kicked out of a public pool for wearing a “Burkini,” that is, a full body covering ‘bathing suit.’ Some official defended it for being for “hygenic reasons” which may be believable, but most of his defense was about how horrible it was that women were so repressed and forced to cover themselves up, presumably by their husbands or fathers or, if they choose to, then by repressive religious superstructures.

Similarly, I think security is more of a pretense here. It’s no secret that there is a good deal of anti-Muslim sentiment in France, which is very very secular (somebody said something earlier in this thread about Christian countries being allowed to regulate other religions within reason; it should be clarified that France is not a Christian nation by any stretch of the imagination, even by western European standards). France has been in the process of removing religious expression from public for a while now, and I think this ban is an attempt to further affirm France’s public secularism to the Muslim community, it’s not about security. I don’t agree with it at all. But evidently in France a woman’s right to show off some skin outweighs her right to dress as she pleases, for religious or other reasons. If some women are being forced to dress a certain way by their husbands, then the problem isn’t the veil, it’s the attitude of the people; that is, their unwillingness to report abuse to the police, and that should be addressed, but not by infringing on the rights of those who choose to dress a certain way.
Click to expand...
I think that this defense of women wearing veils that completely hides their faces is ridiculous. For example, suppose a young woman were to take a college or university level class in quantum physics or electrical engineering and she was always wearing a veil that completely covered her face. Then came time for the final exams which she knew that she could not pass. What is there to prevent her from having a substitute wearing the same clothing to take the exam and pass with flying colors?
Similarly, suppose she were charged with a serious crime of some sort. What is to prevent her from having her elderly grandmother, from taking her place in the penitentiary?
So I think what we are seeing on this thread is vicious anti-French propaganda which does not really address the problems of women completely hiding their identity in modern western society today.
 
I would tend to agree that burkhas and niqabs should not be banned, out of respect for Muslims’ human rights—and Constitutional rights, in this country.

But I would also say that human rights violations BY Muslims should be prohibited also. Recently, on another thread, an English lady said that in Lancashire, if a westerner goes into a shop owned by a Muslim in the districts where Muslims predominate, the shop owner will purposely ignore non-Muslim customers until all the Muslim customers have been served or helped.

To me, that’s no different than segregated lunch counters in the South in the fifties and sixties. It should be outlawed. Shop owners should have to serve customers in the order in which they come, and not be allowed to get away with racial/religious discrimination.

I also think it should be illegal for Muslim cab drivers to deny blind people rides because they have “seeing-eye” dogs with them.
 
sidbrown said:
I think that this defense of women wearing veils that completely hides their faces is ridiculous. For example, suppose a young woman were to take a college or university level class in quantum physics or electrical engineering and she was always wearing a veil that completely covered her face. Then came time for the final exams which she knew that she could not pass. What is there to prevent her from having a substitute wearing the same clothing to take the exam and pass with flying colors?
Similarly, suppose she were charged with a serious crime of some sort. What is to prevent her from having her elderly grandmother, from taking her place in the penitentiary?
So I think what we are seeing on this thread is vicious anti-French propaganda which does not really address the problems of women completely hiding their identity in modern western society today.
Click to expand...
A university might institute such a ban if they think it will deter cheating. One can cheat just as easily, however, using a cell phone. Does this mean the state should ban cell phones? Keeping kids from cheating on exams is an affair of the university, not of the state.

And the second scenario is ridiculous. In the process of being charged, sentenced, and pu through the process of being imprisoned, she would not be wearing the same set of clothes or the veil the whole time.

By the way, as far as I know, it is perfectly legal in most western countries to walk around in public wearing a ski mask, or a bandana and a sock hat, or a variety of other articles of clothing that obscure the face. Anti-French propaganda? Really? What reason could I or anyone else on this thread have for being anti-French. Anti-Muslim sentiment, on the other hand, is well-known to exist in France. One of the reasons I think security is more a pretense than a reason for the ban is because I’ve read of French officials commenting on things like this or the Burqa ban, and they spend a suspicious amount of time talking about repression of women and husbands forcing them to dress this way, which betrays alterior motives IMO.
 
40.png
colmywaykurtz:
I would tend to agree that burkhas and niqabs should not be banned, out of respect for Muslims’ human rights—and Constitutional rights, in this country.

But I would also say that human rights violations BY Muslims should be prohibited also. Recently, on another thread, an English lady said that in Lancashire, if a westerner goes into a shop owned by a Muslim in the districts where Muslims predominate, the shop owner will purposely ignore non-Muslim customers until all the Muslim customers have been served or helped.

To me, that’s no different than segregated lunch counters in the South in the fifties and sixties. It should be outlawed. Shop owners should have to serve customers in the order in which they come, and not be allowed to get away with racial/religious discrimination.

I also think it should be illegal for Muslim cab drivers to deny blind people rides because they have “seeing-eye” dogs with them.
Click to expand...
Sure. I think it should even be a priority to make Muslim women aware that they have no legal obligation to obey their husbands, and should be made aware that they should contact the police if they are abused. That said, they should have the right to wear a burkha or niqab if they so choose.
 
I am openly Anti-Islam, but even I do not think this is really a good idea.

My opinion, as always.

It really does not matter alongside the opinions of others here. 😦
 
Thank goodness the US Constitution disagrees with you.
Click to expand...
If Christ was king of our nation explicitly, there would be a Christian moral framework which would prohibit homosexual marriage and abortion and uphold the natural law.

Or we can have a secular state that holds a constitution as nearly divinely inspired and deal with the demonic abortion industry our country has. I think there is this misconception that after Vatican II the church holds that an american styled government is best.
When once men recognize, both in private and in public life, that Christ is King, society will at last receive the great blessings of real liberty, well-ordered discipline, peace and harmony.
Click to expand...
If, therefore, the rulers of nations wish to preserve their authority, to promote and increase the prosperity of their countries, they will not neglect the public duty of reverence and obedience to the rule of Christ. What We said at the beginning of Our Pontificate concerning the decline of public authority, and the lack of respect for the same, is equally true at the present day. “With God and Jesus Christ,” we said, “excluded from political life, with authority derived not from God but from man, the very basis of that authority has been taken away, because the chief reason of the distinction between ruler and subject has been eliminated. The result is that human society is tottering to its fall, because it has no longer a secure and solid foundation.”[31]
Click to expand...
 
spunjalebi said:
The fact of the matter, this has to do more with the intrusion on personal freedom of religious expression than privacy or security.

Let’s generalize the argument of “security” to non-Islamic women. By golly, how do we know that those women wearing coverings to Mass aren’t really sneaking in something dark and sinister? Or those NUNS with their full habits not sporting some fancy small-hand held automatic…

See how ridiculous that is?

Honestly, very few Islamic women cover their entire faces. Most women do the basic hijab-- covering their hair and wearing very modest clothing. This law is taking the instances of a few people and applying it to everyone. Face-covering Islamic veils are not the rule, but the exception.
Click to expand...
How many Catholic nuns have committed acts of terrorism in the name of their religion? There are none, so your analogy fails.

Ishii
 
I was emailed this story about the burqa in Australia…

November, 2010 -Australia
aca.ninemsn.com.au/Video.aspx?videoid=af53d2ac-f507-4e8d-983a-a5a259bbe6fc

A woman in a burqa was pulled over by the police because she was a “P” plate, (provisional) driver and the plates weren’t displayed correctly.
He asked her for her license and asked her to remove her burqa so that he knew it was her license.
She accused him of being racist and that the only reason he pulled her over was because she was wearing a burqa.
She then told him he would be sorry and that she would take him to court.
She then contacted the media and said he was racist, had touched her burqa and she was intimidated by him.
Had her accusations been upheld, his career could have been in jeopardy.
However, luckily for the policeman, the police car’s video camera was operating and it was all caught on film.
She has now been charged and sentenced to jail for 6 months.
The judge said she was the racist one. Now her solicitor is saying it wasn’t her who made the complaint but someone else wearing a burqa.
He claimed she shouldn’t go to jail because she has 7 children to care for – with no regard for the policeman’s family had he lost his job due to her false accusations.
 
You know, I don’t like Islam because I believe it is a false religion. They do worship the same God as us though. But yet, even though they may not have correct beliefs, I still support their freedom of religion. Therefore, I oppose the French’s ban on the Islamic veil. I mean, really, how would Catholics in France feel if Catholics nuns were forbidden to wear traditional habits? I think they would be outraged.
 
Holly3278 said:
You know, I don’t like Islam because I believe it is a false religion. They do worship the same God as us though. But yet, even though they may not have correct beliefs, I still support their freedom of religion. Therefore, I oppose the French’s ban on the Islamic veil. I mean, really, how would Catholics in France feel if Catholics nuns were forbidden to wear traditional habits? I think they would be outraged.
Click to expand...
Habits don’t cover your entire face. There’s a huge difference, between a person wearing a cross, or a habit, and a person covering their entire face and walking around a potential threat that no one can identify.
 
For all of those that want equal rights as far as burqa wearing Muslims vs. habit wearing nuns; I tried doing a web search on 2 phrases, “bank robber wearing burqa”, and “bank robber wearing nun habit”. Burqas are the choice for crime, not nun habits. Isn’t this a great excuse? Can you imagine if people insisted it was their right to wear hosiery on their heads as they went about their regular business?

Don’t Native Americans or Amish have to provide proof that they are exempt from having their photo taken for a driver’s license? These laws are in place for a reason!!!
 
I’m still waiting to see any source that states women wearing burqas have committed acts of terrorism… or even gas station robberies. Petty theft at Wal-mart. Anything. 🤷
 
 
LOL!! Nice. Okay, I’m sold. It’s a security threat. But why on earth doesn’t France just come out and say so? Why all this nonsense about the dignity of women? It’s really the wording of the law that disturbs me the most.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top