remove that niqab or leave!

conorh91

Duck Soup wrote: »

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

Lets examine this idea.

If my religion requires that I go around in public whilst fully naked, I should be entitled to? Just because some nut-job arbitrarily decided the Almighty decided so?

end of the road

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?

bigoted and hypocritical, talking about liberty and freedom while taking a free choice away from muslim women

Timberrrrrrrr

Duck Soup wrote: »

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?

Ban beards, shifty looking ****ers i don't trust em.

end of the road

reprise wrote: »

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.

that would be her having something forced upon her and her freedom of choice being taken away from her. just like the french law.

mister gullible

end of the road wrote: »

bigoted and hypocritical, talking about liberty and freedom while taking a free choice away from muslim women

Is it a free choice?? What about peer pressure, male dominance, subjugation of women, medieval notions of chastity??

end of the road

reprise wrote: »

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.

its their job. if they are professional, they will deal with it, if not, then they shouldn't be working in a shop.

end of the road

Radly wrote: »

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.

there is if one wants to wear it

end of the road

Radly wrote: »

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

if it can be proved someone is being forced to wear it, then lock up the person doing the forcing, its as simple as that

Radly

end of the road wrote: »

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"

I don't agree with you. Never say never. If we were just talking about different items of clothing I would agree with you though. But covering your face is entirely different from just wearing things. With western society like it is now I think is is very reasonable to ask people not cover themselves like this.

About things that were usually motivated in the past. I think it is a bad way to move forward as a society if we are afraid to make positive changes due to past mistakes.

Radly

end of the road wrote: »

if it can be proved someone is being forced to wear it, then lock up the person doing the forcing, its as simple as that

It's not as simple as that at all. If a woman is having seven shades kicked out of her and is still expected to bring kids to school etc. How do we go about locking up the person forcing this situation? Or even recognize that there is a situation at all. Humans are good at that a lot of the time, recognizing that something is wrong. But we usually need a few input factors to do this. The face for one.

The Diabolical Monocle

Mods - could you make some digital niquabs temporarily available for user names.

Theres one or two things I'd like to say .... but thing is ... I'd be identifiable and would have to face consequences if I said them with my name visible.

oh damn you personal accountability, oh why can't we live in a world of public anonymity at will. Its all tax numbers, surnames, licences and registrations. boo hoo.

reprise

end of the road wrote: »

that would be her having something forced upon her and her freedom of choice being taken away from her. just like the french law.

Really?

You are not free to prance around naked or rape. Oppressed much?

jimboblep

end of the road wrote: »

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

No you are wrong

reprise

end of the road wrote: »

its their job. if they are professional, they will deal with it, if not, then they shouldn't be working in a shop.

Brave little man aren't ya.

What about those shops looking for motorcyclists to remove helmets.

Fuking pansies eh?

Nodin

Radly wrote: »

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..........

Because - hang on there - I'm deeply cynical about the motivations of politicians.

reprise

Nodin wrote: »

Because - hang on there - I'm deeply cynical about the motivations of politicians.

There was me thinking you were merely bitter.

Packrat

Nodin, Timberrr and End of the road, your baseless bleating is fooling nobody.

You have been asked repeatedly for proof that this law is discriminatory, that it is designed to be predudicial against Muslim women, and you can't. All you've got is "I think Sarkozy did it for votes" "I don't agree with it so it's ok to break that law" and the best yet "I know a Muslim woman and she likes it"

If you were the master debaters you pretend to be, then you'd recognise when you are thoroughly beaten. It's pathetic (if entertaining) watching you getting riddled like this.

For fcuks sake keep SOME dignity :pac:

darkpagandeath

It's a law of a foreign country, When did people become able to pick and choose what law they want to follow. If you want this Particular law changed I suggest you move to France become a French national and only vote for politicians who are going to scrap it. I would back any law that would remove the right to become unrecognizable in areas where that could be dangerous.

Nodin

Packrat wrote: »

Nodin, Timberrr and End of the road, your baseless bleating is fooling nobody.

You have been asked repeatedly for proof that this law is discriminatory, that it is designed to be predudicial against Muslim women, and you can't...................

No, there's just the quotes from the former French president, the fact that it does single out a small percentage of muslim women......

chatperche

end of the road wrote: »

or they could break it in mass, so much that if the government try anything there will be enough of a backclash to topple them. the french are known for their protesting whatever the cost so this won't be a problem

You do realise that this law was passed when Sarkozy was in power? Ask Nodin he'll tell you all about him. We have a new president, a socialist one. He's been in power since 2012 so it's hardly a new law.

chatperche

end of the road wrote: »

sometimes the majority aren't entitled to have things their way

Do me a favour, open a dictionary and check the definition of democracy would you?

Oh and I'll look out for heads on spikes and decapitated children the next time I'm home seeing France is on par with ISIS!

Timberrrrrrrr

Packrat wrote: »

Nodin, Timberrr and End of the road, your baseless bleating is fooling nobody.

You have been asked repeatedly for proof that this law is discriminatory, that it is designed to be predudicial against Muslim women, and you can't. All you've got is "I think Sarkozy did it for votes" "I don't agree with it so it's ok to break that law" and the best yet "I know a Muslim woman and she likes it"

If you were the master debaters you pretend to be, then you'd recognise when you are thoroughly beaten. It's pathetic (if entertaining) watching you getting riddled like this.

For fcuks sake keep SOME dignity :pac:

Yeah i mean it's all for their own good right?

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/sep/19/battle-for-the-burqa

French politicians in favour of the ban said they were acting to protect the "gender equality" and "dignity" of women.

Let's see how that worked for them

There have been instances of people in the street taking the law into their hands and trying to rip off full-face veils, of bus drivers refusing to carry women in niqab or of shop-owners trying to bar entry.

The last time she was attacked in the street a man and woman punched her in front of her daughter, called her a whore and told her to go back to Afghanistan. "My quality of life has seriously deteriorated since the ban.

The politicians claimed they were liberating us; what they've done is to exclude us from the social sphere. Before this law, I never asked myself whether I'd be able to make it to a cafe or collect documents from a town hall. One politician in favour of the ban said niqabs were 'walking prisons'. Well, that's exactly where we've been stuck by this law."

Only the French police can confront a woman in niqab. They can't remove her veil but must refer the case to a local judge, who can hand out a €150 (£130) fine, a citizenship course, or both.

So the theater staff were wrong to ask her to remove the veil.

Her parents were not strict Muslims. She put on the niqab six years ago as an educated single woman who once wore mini-skirts and liked partying, but then rediscovered her faith. She says her now ex-husband had nothing to do with her choice. (The new law punishes men who force women to wear the niqab with a €30,000 fine, but none has yet been imposed.) Like many women in niqab who refuse to stay indoors, she is desperate for work. For years, she worked in call centres as a specialist in telephone polling. Even before the ban, she knew it would be easier to get work without the niqab, so at the office she would always pull back her veil, leaving her face exposed for the day.

Even the French prosecuters think the law is a joke

She converted at 17 and put on the niqab several years later, long before meeting her husband. Her North African parents-in-law didn't like her wearing full-veil, and the marriage ended. Her own parents converted to Islam a few years later but don't believe a niqab is necessary. She told the prosecutor it was her choice and refused to stop wearing niqab. The prosecutor reminded her of the law and let her go with no sanction or punishment. He told the local paper, Nice Matin, that a woman in a veil was less dangerous than someone who had "double or triple parked".

Great lads the French

The group's legal adviser says there has been "an explosion" in the number of physical attacks on women wearing the niqab. Many women say that their attackers were middle-aged or old people. In one recent case a young French convert was assaulted at a zoo outside Paris while carrying her 13-month-old baby. "Her child was traumatised by the zoo attack and is now being seen by a psychologist.

There are no reliable statistics on who wears the niqab in France and whether they have kept wearing it since the law. It is estimated that only a few hundred women wear it, mostly French citizens. Muslim associations say a minority of women have taken off the niqab or moved abroad. Nekkaz says that more than 290 women still wearing niqab have contacted him: he says a large number were divorced with children, most were aged between 25 and 35, many were French of north African parentage, and many were living on income support. An Open Society Foundation report on women in niqabs in France in April found that of a sample of 32 women in niqab, none had been forced to wear the full veil

Kenza Drider, a 32-year-old mother of three, was famously bold enough to appear on French television to oppose the law before it came into force. She refuses to take off her niqab – "My husband doesn't dictate what I do, much less the government" – but she says she now lives in fear of attack. "I still go out in my car, on foot, to the shops, to collect my kids. I'm insulted about three to four times a day," she says. Most say, "Go home"; some say, "We'll kill you." One said: "We'll do to you what we did to the Jews." In the worst attack, before the law came in, a man tried to run her down in his car.

"I feel that I now know what Jewish women went through before the Nazi roundups in France. When they went out in the street they were identified, singled out, they were vilified. Now that's happening to us."

Frank Lee Midere

chatperche wrote: »

Who are you to say what is right and wrong and speak on behalf of French people. Have you even ever been to France or asked a French person their view?

Our "multiculturalists" are entirely influenced by American liberal norms. We don't really have much of an independent identity left. France does so it ploughs it's own field.

So if Muslims want Muslim schools here that's opposed not because of Irish traditions - we've tended to have faith schools - but because it's the Anerican norm. If there are historic catholic paintings in a hospital that's also opposed ( rather than adding other religious icons) not because we traditionally banned iconography but because it's the American norm.

If you are European ( they would say white) and deviate from the American norm the Irish "multiculturalists" will get extremely upset. They know nothing of France's 1905 laws, it's far deeper commitment to secularism which extends to the private space. That's not on American TV. It's wrong.

Hitchens

Nodin wrote: »

No, there's just the quotes from the former French president, the fact that it does single out a small percentage of muslim women......

We are still waiting for the link that you love so much...........you've been asked politely numerous times

You have been badly exposed in this debate

wes

Hitchens wrote: »

We are still waiting for the link that you love so much...........you've been asked politely numerous times

You have been badly exposed in this debate

Nicolas Sarkozy's cabinet approves bill to ban full Islamic veil

--snip--
"We are an old country anchored in a certain idea of how to live together. A full veil which completely hides the face is an attack on those values, which for us are so fundamental," he told his ministers. "Citizenship has to be lived with an uncovered face. There can therefore be absolutely no solution other than a ban in all public places."
--snip--

It is nothing short of amazing that people, are denying that the intention behind bringing in the law, was to out law the veil. Yes, the language used in the law is generic, but to some how claim that the intent wasn't to ban the veil is utterly bizarre.

The thread title is "remove that niqab or leave!", and yet the law isn't about targeting the veil? It pretty clear that the primary (indeed in most cases only) concern for posters for this ban, is the veil worn by a minority of Muslim Women.

Are people actually make a claim otherwise seriously? The entire debate has been about the veil in this thread, the entire debate in France over the law was about the veil, and apparently the law isn't targeting it? I think people making this claim are being disingenuous in the extreme.

I have to say that Timberrrrrrrr post shows that the law has not liberated these Women, and has instead resulted in various attacks, and make a mockery of the claim of these Women being liberated, and I doubt that anyone in favor of this silly ban will address the various example in an substantive way. If people who support this law are so in favor of Women rights, I would like an explanation as to how this law has achieved this (btw claiming that law is about liberating these Women, and simultaneously not targeting the veil shows the level of farce some posters have descended into)? According to the information above, no man has been fined for forcing a Woman to veil, and yet the Women (who are to be liberated) have been fined, harassed and attacked. How exactly does that liberated them? I look forward to an explanation on how this law has helped these Women.

bodice ripper

Frank Lee Midere wrote: »

Our "multiculturalists" are entirely influenced by American liberal norms. We don't really have much of an independent identity left.

Speaking as someone who has an Irish and an American parent; my arse.

jackofalltrades

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Even the French prosecuters think the law is a joke

You can't use the opinion of one prosecutor to define what all of them think.

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Great lads the French

I think there's a word for people who label the whole population of a country based on the actions of a few.

She refuses to take off her niqab – "My husband doesn't dictate what I do, much less the government"

Great citizen she is, picking and choosing the laws that she follows.

"The politicians claimed they were liberating us; what they've done is to exclude us from the social sphere"

Quite ironic from someone who wears an item of clothing designed to segregated the wearer.

Duck Soup

Here's a thing. Ever since the Israeli government decided to incinerate most of Gaza, the yarmulke has become a provocative symbol. Unlike less religiously observant Jews, who tend towards a more liberal, less hawkish stance, those who wear the yarmulke do so as an identifier for rigid right-wing opinion and approval for an almost genocidal policy towards Palestine.

As such, it inflames public sentiment when worn out in public and can lead to violence. We, as a nation, cannot be seen to approve of such an incendiary item of clothing and it should be banned for the public good and to acknowledge the offense it causes.

This would not be a discriminatory measure as anyone can wear a yarmulke who chooses to. We would simply be creating greater social cohesion by making sure everyone looks and dresses the same. And after all, isn't that what every society strives for?

wes

jackofalltrades wrote: »

Great citizen she is, picking and choosing the laws that she follows.

Yeah, kind of like the people who are harassing and attacking Woman like her, who don't deserve a mention, despite engaging in a far more serious crime.......

BTW, the law is a recent one, so she in all likelihood started wearing the veil before they brought in the law.

jackofalltrades wrote: »

Quite ironic from someone who wears an item of clothing designed to segregated the wearer.

I think the greater irony is a law that was suppose to liberate her, has instead resulted in harassment and attacks on Women like her. Something that you completely manage to avoid addressing for some bizarre reason, and instead have a go at one of the victims of this harassment instead. Amazing how the concert for these Women evaporates, and descends into attacks on them instead.

So, care to explain how this law actually achieve liberation of Woman, social cohesion, or any of various aim that posters have attributed to this law? Seems from the examples above it has achieved the exact opposite and has resulted in attacks, harassment, and has not improved social cohesion.

Grayson

Frank Lee Midere wrote: »

Our "multiculturalists" are entirely influenced by American liberal norms. We don't really have much of an independent identity left. France does so it ploughs it's own field.

So if Muslims want Muslim schools here that's opposed not because of Irish traditions - we've tended to have faith schools - but because it's the Anerican norm. If there are historic catholic paintings in a hospital that's also opposed ( rather than adding other religious icons) not because we traditionally banned iconography but because it's the American norm.

If you are European ( they would say white) and deviate from the American norm the Irish "multiculturalists" will get extremely upset. They know nothing of France's 1905 laws, it's far deeper commitment to secularism which extends to the private space. That's not on American TV. It's wrong.

Err... American liberalism mainly came from France and partly from the UK.

feel free though to label people as crazed liberals though. That and the lack of evidence really helps a discussion.