remove that niqab or leave!

end of the road

jackofalltrades wrote: »

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

most of them know its a joke

jackofalltrades wrote: »

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

she is, she's a hero. she's right to break this law and i hope she continues to do it no matter what.

jackofalltrades wrote: »

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

which is worn mostly by choice, unlike the law which is forcing the governments opinion on people, and is causing wearers to be threatened attacked and the rest, because some vermin think they have a god given right to do it now that there is a law against it. instead of "liberating" the wearers it has imprisoned them instead

jackofalltrades

wes wrote: »

Something that you completely manage to avoid addressing for some bizarre reason...

There is nothing bizarre about what I said. I quoted the line I did to make a point.
The fact that I didn't comment on the harassment(that I completly condemn) is irrelevant.

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?

I've already explained at length how the full face veil impedes social cohesion.
Banning these garments will hopefully reduce the numbers wearing them and reduce future women choosing/being coerced into wearing them.
This should stop these garments becoming more common place, which will protect women who don't wear them from harassment.
It will also send a message to others calling for segregation between men and women.

Seems from the examples above it has achieved the exact opposite and has resulted in attacks, harassment, and has not improved social cohesion.

A few examples in The Guardian is all that's mentioned above.
It's not a basis to come out and say that the law is not working.

Timberrrrrrrr

jackofalltrades wrote: »

There is nothing bizarre about what I said. I quoted the line I did to make a point.
The fact that I didn't comment on the harassment(that I completly condemn) is irrelevant.

I've already explained at length how the full face veil impedes social cohesion.
Banning these garments will hopefully reduce the numbers wearing them and reduce future women choosing/being coerced into wearing them.
This should stop these garments becoming more common place, which will protect women who don't wear them from harassment.
It will also send a message to others calling for segregation between men and women.

A few examples in The Guardian is all that's mentioned above.
It's not a basis to come out and say that the law is not working.

You mean the 0.001% of the population of France that wears it?

wes

jackofalltrades wrote: »

There is nothing bizarre about what I said. I quoted the line I did to make a point.
The fact that I didn't comment on the harassment(that I completly condemn) is irrelevant.

Its completely relevant, as the harassment clearly shows that the law isn't working, hence why you avoid addressing it.

jackofalltrades wrote: »

I've already explained at length how the full face veil impedes social cohesion.

Considering the numbers we are talking about are so tiny, the entire notion is farcical. For your explanation to carry any weight, it would have to be a large scale phenomena, all available information would suggest that is not the case. So unless you can provide figures to contrary, the entire notion that a garment worn by a tiny number of Woman impedes social cohesion is a laughable notion.

jackofalltrades wrote: »

Banning these garments will hopefully reduce the numbers wearing them and reduce future women choosing/being coerced into wearing them.

So few Woman wear them to begin with, and the entire idea that the state should decide what Women should and should not wear is utterly pointless.

jackofalltrades wrote: »

This should stop these garments becoming more common place, which will protect women who don't wear them from harassment.

So instead of jailing harassers, you decide to tell Women what they can and cannot wear for there own good. That is an absurd notion.

jackofalltrades wrote: »

It will also send a message to others calling for segregation between men and women.

I fail to see how sending a message is any kind of justification, as telling people they can't do something, tends to have the opposite effect.

jackofalltrades wrote: »

A few examples in The Guardian is all that's mentioned above.
It's not a basis to come out and say that the law is not working.

The example are rather telling, seeing as there has been an increase of attacks on veiled Women due to this law, and you know the completely lack of evidence of large scale increases in social cohesion, anyone getting the message in regards to gender segregation, and as for less Woman wearing it, well I am sure some have stopped to avoid being fined, but its a bizarre notion that the Women you trying to save, are the only ones who have been punished. The complete lack of a single conviction of a man forcing any Women to wear this, is rather telling, as the only ones being punished the Women who the backers of the law claims they want to help.

Sorry, but the whole thing is a bloody farce.

KERSPLAT!

MOD

Can we get back on topic please

end of the road

jackofalltrades wrote: »

Banning these garments will hopefully reduce the numbers wearing them and reduce future women choosing/being coerced into wearing them.
This should stop these garments becoming more common place, which will protect women who don't wear them from harassment.
It will also send a message to others calling for segregation between men and women.


no . it won't. there is no such thing as "sending out a message" when it comes to laws/punishments.

jackofalltrades wrote: »

A few examples in The Guardian is all that's mentioned above.
It's not a basis to come out and say that the law is not working.

it is . it failed from the very start and is never going to work.

reprise

end of the road wrote: »

no . it won't. there is no such thing as "sending out a message" when it comes to laws/punishments.



it is . it failed from the very start and is never going to work.

I know, but just as western countries ban female genital mutilation and other such multicultural delights beloved of people like yourself, we do so in the hope of an enlightened future.

jackofalltrades

wes wrote: »

Its completely relevant, as the harassment clearly shows that the law isn't working, hence why you avoid addressing it.

No it doesn't, a handful of reports in The Guardian doesn't prove anything.
The laws effects have to be looked at in terms of the entire French society, to see if they have a positive effect on inter-cultural relations.
They also have to be looked at in a more medium to long-term perspective.

Considering the numbers we are talking about are so tiny, the entire notion is farcical. For your explanation to carry any weight, it would have to be a large scale phenomena, all available information would suggest that is not the case. So unless you can provide figures to contrary, the entire notion that a garment worn by a tiny number of Woman impedes social cohesion is a laughable notion.

The numbers don't have to be huge to have an effect on the population.
The Niqab, and especially the Burqa, are very strong symbols of segregation and oppression worldwide.
Just seeing women in them will have a negative on a lot of people.
This is even before people try and interact with women wearing them.

And you need to remember that 80% of the population supported this law.
If full face veil wearing had such a low impact, as you claim, then I suspect the figures supporting it would be a lot lower.

So few Woman wear them to begin with, and the entire idea that the state should decide what Women should and should not wear is utterly pointless.

The state already decides what women should and should not wear through public decency laws.
Which also would only affect a small number of women.

So instead of jailing harassers, you decide to tell Women what they can and cannot wear for there own good. That is an absurd notion.

Nowhere am I talking about not jailing harassers.
I was talking about non-muslim women who might be targeted by muslim men as a result of muslim women wearing clothing that covers most or all of their body.
As a poster in this thread has already described happening to her.

I fail to see how sending a message is any kind of justification, as telling people they can't do something, tends to have the opposite effect.

I'm not putting in forward as a justification, it's more of an affect.
Telling people what they can't do usually leads to them not doing it, provided there's a sufficent level of public support.

end of the road

reprise wrote: »

I know, but just as western countries ban female genital mutilation and other such multicultural delights beloved of people like yourself, we do so in the hope of an enlightened future.

a major difference between female genital mutilation and wearing a vale

Timberrrrrrrr

jackofalltrades wrote: »

No it doesn't, a handful of reports in The Guardian doesn't prove anything.
The laws effects have to be looked at in terms of the entire French society, to see if they have a positive effect on inter-cultural relations.
They also have to be looked at in a more medium to long-term perspective.

The numbers don't have to be huge to have an effect on the population.
The Niqab, and especially the Burqa, are very strong symbols of segregation and oppression worldwide.
Just seeing women in them will have a negative on a lot of people.
This is even before people try and interact with women wearing them.

And you need to remember that 80% of the population supported this law.
If full face veil wearing had such a low impact, as you claim, then I suspect the figures supporting it would be a lot lower.

The state already decides what women should and should not wear through public decency laws.
Which also would only affect a small number of women.

Nowhere am I talking about not jailing harassers.
I was talking about non-muslim women who might be targeted by muslim men as a result of muslim women wearing clothing that covers most or all of their body.
As a poster in this thread has already described happening to her.

I'm not putting in forward as a justification, it's more of an affect.
Telling people what they can't do usually leads to them not doing it, provided there's a sufficent level of public support.

The numbers? You mean the few HUNDRED in a population of SIXTY FIVE MILLION or to put it in better terms the miniscual 0.001% of the population. How does seeing someone in a veil have a negative on a lot of people?

C14N

Nino Brown wrote: »

They're dead right, walk into an opera in a Muslim country wearing an mini skirt and see what happens.

So if a foreign country has a dumb law, does that justify others making similarly dumb laws to fill the "dumb law" quota? If we westerners want to go around claiming ourselves to be the progressive, open-minded and tolerant ones, we're supposed to act better. Not to mention that it's not the woman in the Niqab who makes whatever dress code laws apply in Saudi Arabia.

end of the road

jackofalltrades wrote: »

No it doesn't, a handful of reports in The Guardian doesn't prove anything.
The laws effects have to be looked at in terms of the entire French society, to see if they have a positive effect on inter-cultural relations.
They also have to be looked at in a more medium to long-term perspective.

The numbers don't have to be huge to have an effect on the population.
The Niqab, and especially the Burqa, are very strong symbols of segregation and oppression worldwide.
Just seeing women in them will have a negative on a lot of people.
This is even before people try and interact with women wearing them.

And you need to remember that 80% of the population supported this law.
If full face veil wearing had such a low impact, as you claim, then I suspect the figures supporting it would be a lot lower.

The state already decides what women should and should not wear through public decency laws.
Which also would only affect a small number of women.

Nowhere am I talking about not jailing harassers.
I was talking about non-muslim women who might be targeted by muslim men as a result of muslim women wearing clothing that covers most or all of their body.
As a poster in this thread has already described happening to her.

I'm not putting in forward as a justification, it's more of an affect.
Telling people what they can't do usually leads to them not doing it, provided there's a sufficent level of public support.

sometimes public support is a reason not to do something. sometimes the public support things that are a waste of time and that are bigoted and racist which means they mustn't be allowed to happen

reprise

end of the road wrote: »

a major difference between female genital mutilation and wearing a vale

Many of same arguments bandied about here can be applied to both in support of their continuance for much the same blinkered reasons.

conorh91

Let me ask a question of the posters who support the right to conceal the face on religious grounds.

Would you further affirm other rights on religious grounds, where those rights impinge on the interests of wider society?

For example, should a Catholic be let go about in public wearing a t-shirt that is grossly anti-Semitic?

Should it be illegal for a Muslim employer to require a Christian worker to go into work on the Christian Sabbath, or is that unfair targeting of Christians?

Should a Catholic married couple, running a guesthouse, be allowed refuse access to homosexual couples, citing the owners' Catholic beliefs?

Just how far do you intend to go regarding the primacy of religious rights over the rights of the rest of society?

I suspect quite a bit of hypocrisy here but please, prove me wrong.

Timberrrrrrrr

conorh91 wrote: »

Let me ask a question of the posters who support the right to conceal the face on religious grounds.

Would you further affirm other rights on religious grounds, where those rights impinge on the interests of wider society?

For example, should a Catholic be let go about in public wearing a t-shirt that is grossly anti-Semitic?

No that would be a hate crime.

Should it be illegal for a Muslim employer to require a Christian worker to go into work on the Christian Sabbath, or is that unfair targeting of Christians?

Many Christians work on a Sunday so i don't see your point.

Should a Catholic married couple, running a guesthouse, be allowed refuse access to homosexual couples, citing the owners' Catholic beliefs?

Nope that's discrimination.

Just how far do you intend to go regarding the primacy of religious rights over the rights of the rest of society?

I suspect quite a bit of hypocrisy here but please, prove me wrong.

Why discriminate against a TINY minority over something that in no way affects the majority?

reprise

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Why discriminate against a TINY minority over something that in no way affects the majority?

Justification #1 for FGM.

DEFTLEFTHAND

end of the road wrote: »

sometimes public support is a reason not to do something. sometimes the public support things that are a waste of time and that are bigoted and racist which means they mustn't be allowed to happen

You're like a parrot, bigoted and racist bigoted and racist bigoted and racist. Look nobody here wants your version of far left fascism.

conorh91

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

No that would be a hate crime.



Many Christians work on a Sunday so i don't see your point.




Nope that's discrimination.

That is all tautology and a waste of time. 'It's wrong because it's illegal'. By your own reasoning, wearing the niqab must be wrong, then.

I am trying to figure out why people are seeking to elevate religious rights in some circumstances, whereas they would presumably dismiss the above religiously-claimed rights.

jackofalltrades

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

The numbers? You mean the few HUNDRED in a population of SIXTY FIVE MILLION or to put it in better terms the miniscual 0.001% of the population.

I used your own figure of approximately 2000, which Wikipedia backs up.

So saw 2000 people(conservative estimate) a year look/interact with each of these 2000 women.
That means they affect a group of roughly 4 million people.
Not including the 4 million talking to other people.

How does seeing someone in a veil have a negative on a lot of people?

Because they know that around the world most women wearing full face veils are treated at a level that is one step above livestock.
It's a symbol of segregation and oppression and they don't want it to catch on.
Just like a lot of people would be uncomfortable if people started walking women around on leashes.

They would also ask themselves is this really good for society to have people disintegrating themselves from it in this way.

Timberrrrrrrr

reprise wrote: »

Justification #1 for FGM.

You don't see the difference between allowing a woman to wear a veil and the brutal.mutation of a childs genitals?

reprise

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

You don't see the difference between allowing a woman to wear a veil and the brutal.mutation of a childs genitals?

I think I already stated quite clearly that similar arguments can be extended for both. Feel free to indulge me with more.

Timberrrrrrrr

conorh91 wrote: »

That is all tautology and a waste of time. 'It's wrong because it's illegal'. By your own reasoning, wearing the niqab must be wrong, then.

I am trying to figure out why people are seeking to elevate religious rights in some circumstances, whereas they would presumably dismiss the above religiously-claimed rights.

Show me where it states a christian doesn't have to work on the sabbath. If a law was bought in tomorrow stating monks cannot wear robes in public would you be ok with that? How about hari krishnas can no longer play bongos on the street? Would you deny a rastafarian the rights to his dreadlocks?

Timberrrrrrrr

jackofalltrades wrote: »

I used your own figure of approximately 2000, which Wikipedia backs up.

So saw 2000 people(conservative estimate) a year look/interact with each of these 2000 women.
That means they affect a group of roughly 4 million people.
Not including the 4 million talking to other people.

Because they know that around the world most women wearing full face veils are treated at a level that is one step above livestock.
It's a symbol of segregation and oppression and they don't want it to catch on.
Just like a lot of people would be uncomfortable if people started walking women around on leashes.

They would also ask themselves is this really good for society to have people disintegrating themselves from it in this way.

Oh please you couldn't for any more buzzwords in their if you tried.

Interesting to.see this piece though, would love if a few Muslims went to this and called the police if they refuse to.remove them

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/10/21/world/europe/france-moves-to-clarify-the-rules-on-full-veil-and-burqa-bill.html?referrer=

While a full veil was not permitted in the audience at the Opéra Bastille, veiled women are appearing on stage this month in a production of Mozart’s“The Abduction from the Seraglio” — set in a Turkish harem — at the Paris Opera’s other theater, the Palais Garnier.

UCDVet

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Show me where it states a christian doesn't have to work on the sabbath. If a law was bought in tomorrow stating monks cannot wear robes in public would you be ok with that? How about hari krishnas can no longer play bongos on the street? Would you deny a rastafarian the rights to his dreadlocks?

Let's be fair - does the law actually limit only the rights of a specific religious group? Or does the law apply to everyone, equally, regardless of their religion?

From what I understand, the law is that *nobody* can wear something that covers their face.

Timberrrrrrrr

UCDVet wrote: »

Let's be fair - does the law actually limit only the rights of a specific religious group? Or does the law apply to everyone, equally, regardless of their religion?

From what I understand, the law is that *nobody* can wear something that covers their face.

Do you think the police in France tomorrow would approach a bride and ask her to remove her veil on her wedding day? How about the performers i mentioned above? Would a hotel holding a masquerade ball be raided and everyone told to remove their masks?

jackofalltrades

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Oh please you couldn't for any more buzzwords in their if you tried.

That sentence makes no sense.:)

reprise

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Oh please you couldn't for any more buzzwords in their if you tried.

Interesting to.see this piece though, would love if a few Muslims went to this and called the police if they refuse to.remove them

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/10/21/world/europe/france-moves-to-clarify-the-rules-on-full-veil-and-burqa-bill.html?referrer=

The original play in question was La Traviata which features Violetta - a prostitute.

Using your logic, do you think the actress playing Violetta should have been hauled off the stage and charged with prostitution?

Timberrrrrrrr

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Do you think the police in France tomorrow would approach a bride and ask her to remove her veil on her wedding day? How about the performers i mentioned above? Would a hotel holding a masquerade ball be raided and everyone told to remove their masks?

A veil on a wedding day is something that only lasts a couple of hours of a person's life, same as wearing a mask at Haloween or a helmet while playing sport.

Not the same as wearing an item of clothing day in day out.

jackofalltrades

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Do you think the police in France tomorrow would approach a bride and ask her to remove her veil on her wedding day? How about the performers i mentioned above? Would a hotel holding a masquerade ball be raided and everyone told to remove their masks?

Courtesy of Conorh91:

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.

bodice ripper

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Would you deny a rastafarian the rights to his dreadlocks?

plenty of countries deny them the right to their weed...i see no salt tears shed for them.