French approve ban on burqas...

I just can't help myself, the arguments both for and against crease me up!
Please don't ask me to elaborate, it would be highly un-PC.
I just love people on both sides being hypocritical without realising it.


Edited by npjnpj - July 16 2010 at 09:59

Sean Trane wrote: BaldJean wrote: harmonium.ro wrote: Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: Chris S wrote: Sorry but Burqas need to be banned, hopefully other nations will follow suit. Looking at Dubai and commercialism hitting the muslim areas be it westernized or M.East areas, it is time to get WISE for that religion and move with the times. If one suicide bomber is disguised then the method needs to be removed. Wear the burqa as much as they want at their home or in their place of worship. Good one France   As a lawyer I have to disagree with the ban it's anti Constitutuional a woman can wear what she wants:   PREAMBLE The French people solemnly proclaim their attachment to the Rights of Man and the principles of national sovereignty as defined by the Declaration of 1789, confirmed and complemented by the Preamble to the Constitution of 1946, and to the rights and duties as defined in the Charter for the Environment of 2004. DECLARATION OF 1789   4.  Liberty consists in the freedom to do everything which injures no one else; hence the exercise of the natural rights of each man has no limits except those which assure to the other members of the society the enjoyment of the same rights. These limits can only be determined by law.       The use of a Burqa, even when western societies don't use them don't harm anybody, as a fact it's the right of a woman to dress how she wants being harmless for anybody else and the enjoyment of anybody's rights..   And the disguise of a bomber is just a foolish excuse, wigs, beards, mustaches, etc can be used to disguise, lets band them also in that case.   A mustache or a beard can be used also to disguise a person...lets ban them...Hey wigs also, lets send people who use them to prison.   Lets prohibit people to change the color of their hair and use cosmetic contact lens.   The limit of a liberty is the decline of society.   Iván Good thing you quoted the Constitution Ivan, because it shows exactly the reasons. Freedoms are guaranteed not in absolute, but with the condition  they don't harm anyone else. And as full veil is a tool of women's oppression (expressing the interdiction for women to fully and freely interact with other people, and especially other men, alongside with the interdiction for women to have full legal rights, to have any decision power in the family, to have decision power for her own, and alongside horrific punishments going up to stoning and decapitation in some places, if she disobeys), it comes in strong disagreement with the constitution. The fact that many women got used to it doesn't change its nature. you overlook something though. ff the person concerned wants it you have no right to deny it to her   Even if she's been brainwashed through numbskulling religious (actually the Coran does not impose the veil of any kind, old traditions do, just like excision in Africa) almost right from birth???   I didn't read the whole thread, but to me, there are three reasons   1- if you allow it, anyone criminal (potential, terrorists or escaped convicts) can hide under it, not just muslim women!! Ossama surely wore it a few times to escape controls, since you need a female cop to look under the burqa.   2- ever since religion became monotheistic, women have been stripped from power (they were divinities, goddesses,  priestesses, etc..... in anaimistic or multi-divinities superstitions) Men have been accaparating the religious power and setting their moral autorities on women without much physical violence   3- If Islam wants women to remain modest, it is only because it doesn't want to impose on men self-restraint. Therefore when rapes occur, they can blame and punish the women, because she was the temptress and he couldn't help himself

Excuse me, Sean, but what kind of argument is that? It HAD been allowed so far, and how many terrorists disguising in a burka have there been?
As to male self-restraint: Indeed, and how often do you hear "she had it coming to her" when a rape occurs to a woman who was rather scantily clad? That argument is even often used by the defendant's attorney!

Mr ProgFreak wrote: BaldFriede wrote: Mr ProgFreak wrote: ^ He could be metrosexual.   But would that be your first assumption? I doubt it. Anyway, I am just demonstrating how much women are still being oppressed by men. As already said, one of the women wearing a burka including facial veil and gloves told me that wearing one liberated her from being a sex object. She chose to wear the burka of her own free will; no-one had asked her to. But no, that can't be allowed, of course. IMO the burqa simply goes too far - if you're in a public place, you have to show your face. If that woman has such a severe case of paranoia when it comes to men that even a headscarf isn't enough, she should consider starting a therapy. BaldFriede wrote: It is quite ironic that, of all people, none other than Sarkozy is being seen as the liberator of women, when elsewhere he has proven to be anything but a liberator but just the opposite. That alone should give us pause to think about the real meaning of the burka ban in France. The real meaning is that the burqa is mainly a tool to suppress women. Those who, for whatever strange reason, insist on wearing one will have to live with the fact that they can't. Just like those who, for whatever strange reason, refuse to wear clothes have to live with the fact that in public places, they must wear clothes.

How dare you say that? A woman who wears a burka might as well reply that having to wear what in her opinion are indecent clothes is suppressing women by turning them into sex objects. Knowing how I have been looked at when wearing a miniskirt  I would fully understand what she means. No, wearing a burka does no-one harm if the person wearing it wants to wear it. You can't even say it is indecent, as you can say in the case of someone who wants to go naked, We claim to be a permissive society, but when we are faced with something only few people understand we are just as restrictive as we claim other societies are..
The problem is the same as usual: One culture thinks its own values are superior to the values of another and force theirs upon it. This is just what the colonialists did. The Red Indians had to go through this too; our lifestyle was forced upon them.
Have you ever tried to talk to a woman who wants to wear a burka? I have, and though she could not convince me to wear one I clearly saw her point. And I respected it..
Oh, and as for your analogy of the guy who wants to run around naked: Kurt Tucholsky would have pulled your ears for that. Analogies have no place in law. Any judge would tell you that.
Strangely no-one objects to a nun wearing a full habit (some even wear facial veils), but when an Islamic woman does something similar people take offense.


Edited by BaldFriede - July 16 2010 at 09:27

No one here proves that the burqa is a tool of women's oppression.  They just say so, as though it's a given.  It isn't.  Every article I've read calling it that is written by a Westerner.

I've known Muslims, and some of them take extreme measures for maintaining purity (tahara).  For example, they do not drink alcohol.  Beyond this, they won't eat in any establishment where alcohol is served if possible.

Why not let the women speak for themselves?  Here are excerpts from this one:

"There is nothing oppressive about the burka," the French woman, who changed her name to Khadija after embracing Islam six years ago and dons a burka, told IslamOnline.net._____

By the way, what's wrong with a wife submitting to her husband?  My wife submits to me.  She believes in that.  Is she oppressed?

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: Chris S wrote: Sorry but Burqas need to be banned, hopefully other nations will follow suit. Looking at Dubai and commercialism hitting the muslim areas be it westernized or M.East areas, it is time to get WISE for that religion and move with the times. If one suicide bomber is disguised then the method needs to be removed. Wear the burqa as much as they want at their home or in their place of worship. Good one France   As a lawyer I have to disagree with the ban it's anti Constitutuional a woman can wear what she wants:   PREAMBLE The French people solemnly proclaim their attachment to the Rights of Man and the principles of national sovereignty as defined by the Declaration of 1789, confirmed and complemented by the Preamble to the Constitution of 1946, and to the rights and duties as defined in the Charter for the Environment of 2004. DECLARATION OF 1789   4.  Liberty consists in the freedom to do everything which injures no one else; hence the exercise of the natural rights of each man has no limits except those which assure to the other members of the society the enjoyment of the same rights. These limits can only be determined by law.       The use of a Burqa, even when western societies don't use them don't harm anybody, as a fact it's the right of a woman to dress how she wants being harmless for anybody else and the enjoyment of anybody's rights..   And the disguise of a bomber is just a foolish excuse, wigs, beards, mustaches, etc can be used to disguise, lets band them also in that case.   A mustache or a beard can be used also to disguise a person...lets ban them...Hey wigs also, lets send people who use them to prison.   Lets prohibit people to change the color of their hair and use cosmetic contact lens.   The limit of a liberty is the decline of society.   Iván

Good thing you quoted the Constitution Ivan, because it shows exactly the reasons. Freedoms are guaranteed not in absolute, but with the condition  they don't harm anyone else. And as full veil is a tool of women's oppression (expressing the interdiction for women to fully and freely interact with other people, and especially other men, alongside with the interdiction for women to have full legal rights, to have any decision power in the family, to have decision power for her own, and alongside horrific punishments going up to stoning and decapitation in some places, if she disobeys), it comes in strong disagreement with the constitution. The fact that many women got used to it doesn't change its nature.


Edited by harmonium.ro - July 16 2010 at 06:10

^ He could be metrosexual.  

Edited by Mr ProgFreak - July 16 2010 at 01:32

I know your persuasion and totally respect it and also I beleive this conversation is going nowhere-now here.

BaldFriede wrote: The T wrote: Padraic wrote: I think this is a terrible decision for many reasons. (Teo) What is your view? I'd be interested in hearing the reasons too. I'm kind of torn on this though I tend to agree with the ban. It is slightly negative for religious freedom but I can't accept religious ideas that make one half of the population into second-class persons, and that forces them to hide behind a curtain. Maybe they feel freer inside the veil? Maybe. But themandate to wear it is a man-made (male-made should I say) decision, imposition on all muslim woman who wouldn't have a choice not to wear the thing (at least those in the radical exextremes of the religion) so I think this decision is healthy and a steo towards less discrimination. On the contrary, it is a step towards discrimination. You take it for granted that the "poor Islamic women" would ratheer wear something else. While there certainly are such women there are some who willingly wear the burka: I personally know a few, and they definitely don#t wear them because their husbands or families suppressed them; no, it was their own free decision. One of them even said it liberates her to wear one! The reason she gave was that it freed her from being a sex object and only her human values, her personality counts that way, Being a woman myself I certainly see her point there. Is it not suppressing women to have them wear sexy clothes so that men can glare at them? This is exactly what is being done in the Western world. Think about it twice and try to assume a female position to answer this.

Well we are in a modern world and as far as women wearing sexy clothes, I am sure women glare at them too, good on em'

Chris S wrote:   Until you know of someone who was lost or blown to smithereens, rant away about loss of "so called" priveliges.

I don't call them privileges, I call them rights. I'm sorry if you lost someone to terrorism, and I personally think we should blow them (terrorists, not Muslims) all up without mercy, but let them wear what they want while we're doing it.

The T wrote: Epignosis wrote: Chris S wrote: I don't think you'll find many suicide bombers blowing up mosques and their own families. Wear it at home and get off on it.   And the first Nun to blow up 20 innocent muslims, europeans, africans, earthlings, then damn well ban that friggin habit too or..   we can all get warm and fuzzy the next time suicide bombers attack and we all say " Shame what about the majorities loss of human rights and loss of liberty" we should really allow more nuns habits and burqas.   Until you know of someone who was lost or blown to smithereens, rant away about loss of "so called" priveliges.   Time for the Just For Fun section i think...   The tree analogy was rediculous. By your foolishness, we should ban automobiles too.  "They" kill more people than terrorists. that analogy is getting old Robert. Time to think of a new one.

Thank God we have some unfoolish people around too...amen