remove that niqab or leave!

FTA69

For the craic I decided to count how many women I saw wearing a niqab on my way home. Walking around an area that's around 85% Muslim during the school run, through two busy markets, a trip to the supermarket and a trip to the Halal butcher, I counted six. Out of hundreds upon hundreds of Muslim people, I noticed six women wearing the thing. When you extrapolate the tiny minority of Muslim women who wear it into the population as a whole, the number is wholly insignificant.

The notion that society will break down as a result of the niqab is nonsense, the French law has far more to do with pandering to a certain element in society than it does maintaining social cohesion.

jackofalltrades

Nodin wrote: »

...which effectively targets a group of muslim women who wear face coverings. Therefore......

The religion of the wearer has nothing to do with it.
Only the fact that they are wearing it.

As both myself and conorh91 have pointed out it will also apply to Jewish sects as well.
Do you consider this law anti-semitic as well?

Nodin

looking_around wrote: »

He's pointing out (I think). That discrimination, to the benefit of someone because of their race, is still racism.
.)

.....positive discrimination now? That's random.

looking_around wrote: »

There's nothing racist in the law. It affects anyone and everyone who covers their face. It is unfortunate that this affects some woman who like to cover their face

And yes, they are only wearing it because they like to. (or being forced..either way. religion is an excuse.)

I've never described it as racist. The fact is that it was brought in to target a small number of women in the muslim community.

Nodin

jackofalltrades wrote: »

The religion of the wearer has nothing to do with it.
Only the fact that they are wearing it.

As both myself and conorh91 have pointed out it will also apply to Jewish sects as well.
Do you consider this law anti-semitic as well?

I doubt they gave a rats ass about any jewish group one way or the other. The law was brought in to target sections of the muslim community.

reprise

Nodin wrote: »

.....positive discrimination now? That's random.



I've never described it as racist. The fact is that it was brought in to target a small number of women in the muslim community.

No it was'nt. Do keep up.

Radly

For those who are constantly looking out for the well being of minorities in society, and more power to those of you who do so without bias, should we not be looking the possibility that maybe a small minority of this small minority of French are walking around in these things on an order from an abusive husband? Or to hide his handy work.This minority needs protection

looking_around

Nodin wrote: »

.....positive discrimination now? That's random.



I've never described it as racist. The fact is that it was brought in to target a small number of women in the muslim community.

This thought here, your assumption that this is why it was brought in, is racist

Nodin

looking_around wrote: »

This thought here, your assumption that this is why it was brought in, is racist

How the jaysus do you come to that conclusion?

Radly

Nodin wrote: »

The law was brought in to target sections of the muslim community.

I'll ask again. Link to show this law was brought in to target sections of the muslim community and not to protect women in society?

Nodin

Radly wrote: »

I'll ask again. Link to show this law was brought in to target sections of the muslim community and not to protect women in society?

I've already given quotes by Sarkozy that reference muslim women specifically
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92718939&postcount=547

looking_around

Nodin wrote: »

How the jaysus do you come to that conclusion?

because you're focusing on the muslims, and not on the fact that this affects everyone who covers their face.

Like I said positive discrimination, is still discrimination.

Donkey Oaty

Radly wrote: »

For those who are constantly looking out for the well being of minorities in society, and more power to those of you who do so without bias, should we not be looking the possibility that maybe a small minority of this small minority of French are walking around in these things on an order from an abusive husband? Or to hide his handy work.This minority needs protection

Hold your fire , comrade: you're in danger of making an astute point which has no place in AH discussions.

Radly

Nodin wrote: »

I've already given quotes by Sarkozy that reference muslim women specifically

From that post:
"The issue of the burqa is not a religious issue. It is a question of freedom and of women’s dignity. The burqa is not a religious sign. It is a sign of subjugation, of the submission, of women .… I want to say solemnly that it will not be welcome on our territory "

I see nothing wrong with what he says there.
So do you think Sarkozy was being bigoted towards the muslim community with that or that he was looking out for the safety of women from the muslim community?

jackofalltrades

Nodin wrote: »

The law was brought in to target sections of the muslim community.

Any proof to show that this law was "directed at muslims specifically"?

As opposed to bringing in a law to ban a specific types of clothing regardless of the religion of the wearer.

bodice ripper

Are they ordering Aisan tourists in hooded coats and paper masks to stop walking the streets?

conorh91

Maybe we should take a look at the English translation of the relevant provisions of the French "burqa" ban.

section 1
No one shall, in any public space, wear clothing designed to conceal the face.

section 2
I For the purposes of the application of the foregoing section, the public space shall be composed of the public highway and all premises open to the public or used for the provision of a public service.

II The prohibition set forth in section 1 hereinabove shall not apply if such clothing is prescribed by law or regulations, is justified on medical or professional grounds or is worn in the context of sporting practices, festivities, or artistic or traditional events.

Now it is as clear as day that this ban applies to all people - balaclava-wearers, some Jews, and some Muslim women - who tend to conceal their faces.

However, I would differ from some of the other people who support the French law, in that I think it is abundantly clear that the law was motivated by the Islamic face covering.

I don't think French law-makers have ever denied that. Two months prior to the "burqa ban" was voted into law, the French National Assembly adopted a motion declaring that the burqa was irreconcilable with the values of the French Republic.

But just because a law is motivated by opposition to the Islamic face covering, does not mean that the law is anti-islamic.

If it were truly anti-Islamic, the law would have prohibited the Islamic head covering which does not cover the face.

If it were truly anti-Islamic, the law would have prohibited the niqab in places of worship open to the public. A Muslim is allowed to wear her niqab and go and proselytize in a Roman Catholic Church, for example.

The decision to allow face-concealment to be carried on in public places of worship is actually important from a historical viewpoint. It was the first time that the French Republic came close to recognizing religion for over 100 years. France recognizes no religions, and many saw this aspect of the law as a noteworthy concession.

So yes, the law was motivated by the niqab. But it is plainly not anti-Islamic in any bigoted way.

Nodin

Radly wrote: »

From that post:
"The issue of the burqa is not a religious issue. It is a question of freedom and of women’s dignity. The burqa is not a religious sign. It is a sign of subjugation, of the submission, of women .… I want to say solemnly that it will not be welcome on our territory "

I see nothing wrong with what he says there.
So do you think Sarkozy was being bigoted towards the muslim community with that or that he was looking out for the safety of women from the muslim community?

I think he was being bigoted towards that segment of the muslim community.

looking_around wrote:

because you're focusing on the muslims, and not on the fact that this affects everyone who covers their face. ?

It was targeted at muslims. You can read the debates at the time.

Timberrrrrrrr

conorh91 wrote: »

Maybe we should take a look at the English translation of the relevant provisions of the French "burqa" ban.

section 1
No one shall, in any public space, wear clothing designed to conceal the face.

section 2
I For the purposes of the application of the foregoing section, the public space shall be composed of the public highway and all premises open to the public or used for the provision of a public service.

II The prohibition set forth in section 1 hereinabove shall not apply if such clothing is prescribed by law or regulations, is justified on medical or professional grounds or is worn in the context of sporting practices, festivities, or artistic or traditional events.

Now it is as clear as day that this ban applies to all people - balaclava-wearers, some Jews, and some Muslim women - who tend to conceal their faces.

However, I would differ from some of the other people who support the French law, in that I think it is abundantly clear that the law was motivated by the Islamic face covering.

I don't think French law-makers have ever denied that. Two months prior to the "burqa ban" was voted into law, the French National Assembly adopted a motion declaring that the burqa was irreconcilable with the values of the French Republic.

But just because a law is motivated by opposition to the Islamic face covering, does not mean that the law is anti-islamic.

If it were truly anti-Islamic, the law would have prohibited the Islamic head covering which does not cover the face.

If it were truly anti-Islamic, the law would have prohibited the niqab in places of worship open to the public. A Muslim is allowed to wear her niqab and go and proselytize in a Roman Catholic Church, for example.

The decision to allow face-concealment to be carried on in public places of worship is actually important from a historical viewpoint. It was the first time that the French Republic came close to recognizing religion for over 100 years. France recognizes no religions, and many saw this aspect of the law as a noteworthy concession.

So yes, the law was motivated by the niqab. But it is plainly not anti-Islamic in any bigoted way.

And then they would have to ban all head scarves and hats.

Radly

Nodin wrote: »

I think he was being bigoted towards that segment of the muslim community.

Not too familiar with the guy, but has he shown previous bigotry towards the muslim community?

Radly

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

And then they would have to ban all head scarves and hats.

Yes, you would right if they did make the ban to cover the non face covering headwear muslims wear. But they didn't, afaik

Nodin

Radly wrote: »

Not too familiar with the guy, but has he shown previous bigotry towards the muslim community?

Well.....
http://world.time.com/2012/03/08/sarkozys-xenophobia-french-president-panders-to-the-extreme-right/

I don't think that he personally cares, obviously. Most probably he's just in it for the votes.

reprise

Nodin wrote: »

I think he was being bigoted towards that segment of the muslim community.


It was targeted at muslims. You can read the debates at the time.

Heres the irony, if a Muslim woman claimed asylum here saying she was persecuted for refusing to wear a veil, you would have orgasms defending her right to stay.

reprise

Nodin wrote: »

Well.....
http://world.time.com/2012/03/08/sarkozys-xenophobia-french-president-panders-to-the-extreme-right/

I don't think that he personally cares, obviously. Most probably he's just in it for the votes.

Try being a French shop assistant serving someone robed up off the street and see how pleasant a little one on one is on the ground is.

Radly

Nodin wrote: »

Well.....

I don't think that he personally cares, obviously. Most probably he's just in it for the votes.

It's an opinion. I'm just trying to get my head around why you would sooner believe someone is making the decision to protect the women of their country and doing it for all the wrong reasons than the right ones. It is a barbaric form of suppression of the female, in my opinion, and I would be quiet happy to see other countries following suit. Let people practice their religion all they want. But there's no need for this clothing.

end of the road

jackofalltrades wrote: »

No it's not, it's aimed at people who cover their face for whatever reasons.
If a Jewish woman wanted to wear a burqa she would be stopped too.

it was aimed at muslims that wear the veil and thats the end of it.

end of the road

jimboblep wrote: »

They couldnt prove it because it isnt the case, and it came back an almost unanimous decision.
I think you should go read the courts statement, before making presumptions.
they have previously found against turkey on a similar case

they couldn't prove it because there was little to no evidence, that doesn't mean it wasn't the reason for the law

end of the road

Quote:
"The problem of the burka is not a religious problem, it's a problem of liberty and women's dignity. It's not a religious symbol, but a sign of subservience and debasement. I want to say solemnly, the burka is not welcome in France. In our country, we can't accept women prisoners behind a screen, cut off from all social life, deprived of all identity. That's not our idea of freedom."



oh, the irony

"it's a problem of liberty" yet he took away ones "liberty" to wear it

"That's not our idea of freedom." yet he took away the freedom of one to wear it.

effectively its "freedom and "liberty" on the governments terms, if the likes of Sarkozy don't agree with it they will take your freedom to do it away, and use dubious nonsense as an excuse that will appeal to the bigots of society

Radly

end of the road wrote: »

Quote:
"The problem of the burka is not a religious problem, it's a problem of liberty and women's dignity. It's not a religious symbol, but a sign of subservience and debasement. I want to say solemnly, the burka is not welcome in France. In our country, we can't accept women prisoners behind a screen, cut off from all social life, deprived of all identity. That's not our idea of freedom."



oh, the irony

"it's a problem of liberty" yet he took away ones "liberty" to wear it

"That's not our idea of freedom." yet he took away the freedom of one to wear it.

effectively its "freedom and "liberty" on the governments terms, if the likes of Sarkozy don't agree with it they will take your freedom to do it away, and use dubious nonsense as an excuse that will appeal to the bigots of society

What about the liberty and freedom of the minority of muslim women who are forced to wear the niqab?

Duck Soup

fedor.2. wrote: »

It's a law against covering ones face. COVERING ONES FACE, it has nothing to do with socks,sweaters or any other item of clothing.

Yes thanks, I'm well aware of what the law is against. I'm asking why it's against it. I can't see someone's face fully?

Should we also ban sunglasses?

One more time. It makes someone feel uncomfortable. So fuggin' what?

end of the road

Radly wrote: »

Link to show he brought the law in to woo voters and not for the greater good of protecting women in french society please

laws that ban people wearing things because someone doesn't agree with it are never "for the good of society" . they are usually racially motivated and deliberately restrictive to persecute anyone who isn't a "native"