French approve ban on burqas...

Padraic wrote: I would love to hear a Muslim's take on this, unfortunately we have very few, if any, members here of that faith.

I saw a woman in a burqa here in Montréal yesterday when it was 32 degrees celsius and I said hi baby ain't it hot in there? She didn't think it was funny.

Vibrationbaby wrote: I saw a woman in a burqa here in Montréal yesterday when it was 32 degrees celsius and I said hi baby ain't it hot in there? She didn't think it was funny.

We are referring here to all kind of clothes that cover a women leaving only her eyes visible, they are different in each country and have different names.

Epignosis wrote: clarke2001 wrote: Epignosis wrote: 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. Reading a few books by Khaled Hosseini and Yasmina Khadra is a good starting point. I have read the former author.  Very good writer, but please note what I said: Epignosis wrote: Now the burqa can be used oppressively (as many innocuous things can), and I think the big one is how the Taliban enforced the burqa on women in Afghanistan for a period of time.  But that's just as wrong as what France has done, I think: It isn't liberating women.  It's telling them what they can and cannot wear.

I agree with that. And if I may add, a further problem with burqa ban is thus:

Let's say even after a ban is approved, some woman goes out wearing one. The French policeman approaches her and says, 'madame, it's not allowed, please remove your burqa or else you will be fined with 100 euros (or something)'. The woman refuses to take it off. What will happen? He can put her in police car and take her to police station, or simply take her home. Surely the police officer won't tear it off while screaming at her? In any case, woman is a victim...and it's not her fault.

However, I'm still for the ban.

Yes, in moral balance between good and evil, it's evil, yes, the problems will arise, and yes, these women will suffer even more, at least for a while. And yes, it's a kick to one's freedom.

In moral counterbalance where murdering a human = evil , but murdering 1 human to save 10 lives = less evil = closest to 'good' , I believe it's a good thing to do. Some woman embraced the symbol of oppression, the burqa, because human beings are extremely flexible creatures that can get used to a burden. Let us not forget prisoners in concentration camps who were suffering and being tortured every day were also joking and laughing. It's in the human spirit. Let's take a look at a hypothetical country somewhere in the world where slavery is still allowed. (Oficially, slavery is banned everywhere on the planet 20 years ago.)
You might impose some political pressure to change the political system in such a country, and try to liberate the slaves, but there will be a certain number of them who would refuse to the change because they loved their 'master' because their 'master' is being good to them.

I'm not sure the burqa ban will work. But I think we need to take a look at the broader picture and try to make a better society. I'm also aware this was, by a huge percentage, driven by a human phobias - I'm not naive. But I keep a right to incline towards something I believe is a vision of better option - and I'm willing to sacrifice a chunk of my own personal freedom for the improvement of society.

The T wrote: BaldFriede wrote: harmonium.ro wrote: We are referring here to all kind of clothes that cover a women leaving only her eyes visible, they are different in each country and have different names. Sorry, but that is not the case. We were talking about the specific burka ban in France. Are "the components" of the burka that important? If they are, can you please enumerate them and mention their relevance?   I guess only people who have worn a burka once for a demonstration should have any opinion on the matter...

Yes, they are important indeed. I think one should know what one is talking about before banning it. Don't you agree?
I don't claim to be an expert on the matter; I have worn the thing once and was told the names for the numerous parts (there are LOTS of parts, but I don't claim to have them all in mind; I would have to look them up again). Will it suffice if I give you the name of some parts of the facial veil? That alone is quite a list.


Edited by BaldFriede - July 16 2010 at 11:19

The T wrote: Yes. So please describe the intricate "components" of the burka. (it really sounds like it has moving parts)

Well, the spring has to be wound tight so that it turns the gears properly, and the vibrations of crystals regulate the movement. In some of the nicer models, small gemstones such as rubies are used to reduce friction and cut down on wear and tear.


No wait.... that's a watch.


Edited by thellama73 - July 16 2010 at 11:32

harmonium.ro wrote: Epignosis wrote: harmonium.ro wrote: Epignosis wrote: Did you even read my first post on the previous page?  These are women who say they were not coerced to wear the burqa, that they do it by choice.  That's their words. You are only assuming that's how things are.  I provided sources. You are also speaking for all the women in this situation. The fact that you gave individual examples does not show anything the whole of them. You just accused me of this in your previous post. Epignosis wrote: Muslims do not believe in alcohol consumption.  Should Muslim women be forced to drink as well because the government wants to "free them" from their "religious oppression" that they've been a "slave" to since birth?  Of course not, It's not a good analogy. The good analogy would be: women would be forced to drink a certain drink because it's a symbol of their culture, and the French government would ban this drink on France's territory. I am certainly not speaking for all women.  I let them speak for themselves, and provided sources.  Their words, not mine.  You are the one speaking for them. I have not found a single source that says women are forced to wear the burqa in France.  Every one of them they say they choose it. OK, let me rephrase it. Only a few women have spoken through your sources. Your sources didn't speak for the whole of those women, just for themselves. However there was in an article you posted a survey (which I assume has a more general relevance) where it's said that for women in Muslim countries women's rights are in big sh*t, and that they look up towards the West when thinking of women's rights. What that survey was also saying was that women's oppression in the Muslim countries is implemented in many ways, of which the full veil is not the most stringent.

I'm not trying to speak for all women.  How could I?

However, you speak for all women without any sources.  I have at least done some research on the subject, and let me reiterate that every Muslim woman who spoke specifically about dress did not find it oppressive at all (except for many in Afghanistan).

Without religion the world would be a better place.

harmonium.ro wrote: 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.

I.- Limits of the law: In any country of the world including France, the laws are limited by the Constitution and we have to follow the principle of literality

Freedoms are guaranteed not in absolute, but with the condition they don't harm anyone else

The use of the words SOMEBODY ELSE specifically defines the limit of the Constitutional article, it has to harm a person who is not the one enjoying their liberty.

The laws have to be SPECIFIC, and in this case the words SOMEBODY ELSE mark the limit of the legislator's attribution.

 

If it harms (in the mind of the legislator), the person that uses the burqa, they have nothing to say, unless it places the health or life in imminent risk.

 

2.- Unconstitutional Law:

The law bans garments that could hide the person's face, but they exclude

1.- Motorcycle helmets: What? Why can people be forced to use helmets that don't hide the face? Maybe because they are not so cool.

2.- Sky Masks: Here in Perú and in most parts of the world we have the experience that the sky mask is the first item that terrorists use to hide their faces, plus if the law was Constitutional it would say: Sky masks during the practice of sky.

3.- Carnival masks: Double what? They limit the free exercise of a Religion or cultural identity but they allow the use of a mask or pleasure?

This proves the excuse is BS.

3.- International Treaties: According to International Law, the International Treaties about Human and Civil Rights have Supra-Constitutional rank, or at least the same rank than the Constitution.

As a fact, French Constitution is clear:　

Constitution of October 4, 1958 Article 55. Treaties or agreements duly ratified or approved shall, upon publication, prevail over Acts of Parliament, subject, with respect to each agreement or treaty, to its application by the other party.

In other words, if there's a treaty ratified by France, NO PARLIAMENT CAN MAKE A RULE AGAINST IT.

As a fact, there is such treaty:

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Article 27 In those States in which ethnic, religious or linguistic minorities exist, persons belonging to such minorities shall not be denied the right, in community with the other members of their group, to enjoy their own culture, to profess and practise their own religion, or to use their own language. Participant Signature Accession(a), Succession(d), Ratification France 4 Nov 1980 a

The Parliament has no power to enforce this xenophobic law, because France signed and ratified an International Treaty against this kind of acts.

So, for anybody who knows something about laws...This is a legal aberration.

Iván

Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - July 16 2010 at 12:38