remove that niqab or leave!

jimboblep

Nodin wrote: »

If I say "Sharia has failed" that doesn't mean I live in a Sharia state.

non-Europeans in the country =/= multiculturalism as a policy. Sarkozy was actually getting a dig in at the Brits and Germans, if I recall correctly.

For instance the French state does not record ethnicity or religion. If you're French, you're French, according to them, thus all numbers relating to how many of whatever group live in France are estimates. There is no "positive discrimination". There is no funding for minority languages, because there is only one French language etc.

But their is no active discrimination against different cultures either I.e. no ban on mosques or synagogues no ban on music or films from different cultures etc. So if it permits the practise of multiple cultures within its jurisdiction how can this be seen as non multicultural.
I would also argue that your point on not recording ethnicity or religion is a better way of doing things, as it is far more inclusive and does not mark out groups as something different.
in conclusion it seems on the face of things a far better system than our own flawed way of trying to appease everyone which is completely impractical

SpaceTime

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Could i wear a crucifix or a St Christopher around my neck in France?

Not in a public school as a student or teacher, and not in any public service job.

looking_around

conorh91 wrote: »

Similarly, many reasonable people of ordinary sensitivity are of the opinion that covering one's face in public does not meet the social norms of this society.

This is my opinion.

I have nothing against muslin, they can wear head covering, just not face. It's a fair thing to accept.

Could be a dude under that for all you know ready to attack. You don't know. and know cameras(which are dodgy enough as it is), will catch a picture of the face should the person do something.

They come to Europe, they should accept that some things are and should be unacceptable, the oppression and hiding of the face, is one of those things.

Good on france. It's time for women to find another muslim symbol that doesn't cover their face.

Deenie123

On the one hand, you have the right of women to chose how they dress and how they observe their religion.

On the other hand, you have the right of society to at least be able to identify a person.

In western society, deliberate concealment of your face is tantamount to deliberate concealment of your identity. Western society affords a woman the dignity to be considered a person in her own right; not just as property of her husband or father. This affords both rights and responsibilities - one of those responsibilities is to behave in a manner that society finds acceptable. In general, western society does not find concealment of the face in a public space to be acceptable. This goes for motorbike helmets, balaclavas and niqabs alike. France has decided that any such deliberate concealment of identity is not acceptable.

The other point is that concealing your face is associated with a security threat - who's to know who the person under a balaclava or motorbike helmet or full face veil actually is? If someone with their whole body and face concealed attacks me, how do I go about identifying the person? I would hazard a guess that most people would be opposed to allowing someone to walk into a bank with a balaclava on, correct? And rightfully so. So I believe that France has (correctly) stated that to allow an exception to this for people of certain religious beliefs is conferring more rights on them than on anyone else. To do so goes against equality and so nobody may conceal their face in public.

While I imagine that the incident was uncomfortable for the lady in question, I'm sure she was perfectly aware of the LAW in France, in much the same way as I would be aware that I must wear a head covering if I wander around Tehran for a holiday. She chose to disobey the law, she made performers uncomfortable (wouldn't you be uncomfortable performing if you had people seated right in front of you in full balaclavas when this is expressly against the law?), she was asked to remove the niqab or leave. There appear to have been no more consequences than this. Country enforcing their own law shocker! In summary, France have basically stated that the rights of the individual do not supersede the rights of society in general.

fleet_admiral

My son looked at that article with me earlier, the first words out of his mouth when he saw the woman was 'Scary monster'

Good lad

Tokyo

Fine parenting right there....

Timberrrrrrrr

SpaceTime wrote: »

Not in a public school as a student or teacher, and not in any public service job.

On the streets though, could i wear those on the street?

Tokyo

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

On the streets though, could i wear those on the street?

Yes you can. Even the ban in schools only applies to conspicuous religious symbols, so, for example, you could wear a crucifix or a star of David on a chain without problem.

ZeroThreat

mike_ie wrote: »

Fine parenting right there....

Indeed, if only we know the true identity, the relevant authorities could be contacted.

Timberrrrrrrr

mike_ie wrote: »

Yes you can.

So in truth it's only a ban on Muslim religious symbols?

fleet_admiral

mike_ie wrote: »

Fine parenting right there....

I didnt actually say anything to him, he just saw the picture when he was sitting beside me and said the first thing that came to his mind

looking_around

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

So in truth it's only a ban on Muslim religious symbols?

On one symbol, that covers the face, which is pretty reasonable.

Tokyo

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

So in truth it's only a ban on Muslim religious symbols?

It's the textbook example of a law that on paper sounds fair and equitable, but in practice is not, because crosses or stars of David worn on a chain are A-OK because theoretically they can be hidden under clothes but a niqab is forbidden outright.

fleet_admiral

fleet_admiral wrote: »

I didnt actually say anything to him, he just saw the picture when he was sitting beside me and said the first thing that came to his mind

Well, if all he saw were a pair of eye peering through a black hole, I'm not surprised. Unless he was brought up by a mother who wore one all the time, it's not surprising that it spooked him.

tayto lover

Some of the wans I see about the town should be made wear one.

Tokyo

looking_around wrote: »

On one symbol, that covers the face, which is pretty reasonable.

Is it though? Of course there are situations where niqabs must be removed and the face shown - that goes without saying. Border controls and airport ­security, places that require an ID check, etc being the obvious ones. But other than those examples, how is it reasonable to legislate against cultural attire?

Strict rules make social problems. Tolerance and rationality is essential.

Nino Brown

Laois6556 wrote: »

Ah some religious stuff can cause all sorts of conundrums. In France they say to 'remove your niqab'. In Ireland priests used to say 'remove your trousers'. What wacky adventure will religion get up to next?

Lately it's been removing the head, but we won't mention who's doing that!

Billy86

If you could take odds on if the OP would include a Daily Mail link or not before clicking it, even without seeing who the poster was, and just judging by the thread title, I would have bet the house on 1/1,000,000 odds on. :pac:

Billy86

pablo128 wrote: »

Really? A workmates sister was over in an Arab country for some competition, and had a female shopkeeper spit at her just because she had a tattoo on her wrist.

The shopkeeper did ask first if it was real though.

So do you agree with the shopkeeper or disagree with the opera house and this French law?

the_syco

What was the opera about, and did they have problems with muslims objecting to the content of their operas before?

Tokyo

the_syco wrote: »

What was the opera about, and did they have problems with muslims objecting to the content of their operas before?

It was supposed to be "Phantom of the Opera" but the rest of the audience refused to attend until the guy either took off his mask, or left....

Son Of A Vidic

Hitchens wrote: »

Hopefully, we would do the same here!

Hopefully we wouldn't.

LionelNashe

LionelNashe wrote: »

Yeah, let's turn our societies into restrictive authoritarian regimes with rules about what you can and can't wear, just like Saudi Arabia. That'll learn 'em.

My name is URL wrote: »

So because those countries impose dress rules on their people, we in the west should do the same? That'll learn 'em!

.....

Hey! You're stealing my lines.

looking_around

mike_ie wrote: »

Is it though? Of course there are situations where niqabs must be removed and the face shown - that goes without saying. Border controls and airport ­security, places that require an ID check, etc being the obvious ones. But other than those examples, how is it reasonable to legislate against cultural attire?

Strict rules make social problems. Tolerance and rationality is essential.

So hiding ones identity, which it is, isn't a safety risk? What if it's the middle of the night? a shop? places with a uniform? employees who deal with customes, can they wear it?

Is not easier to say in public this isn't allowed full stop rather than...well it's not allowed at xyz..but can be in abc, unless dfe.
That's just far too much hassle to appease a religion.

wicklowstevo

so what happens at places like passport control etc when some one wearing that sort of gear rocks up and paddy irishman says i cant see your face off with the dish cloth love ?

if she refuses does she get back on the plane ?

fair enough id Islamic states want to have their own rules about clothing in their own countrys but it does seem extremely arrogant to refuse to conform to local laws when in western country's, after all thers plenty irish girl girls living in dubi and saudi that have to obey their rules or spend a few months in a jail over there ,

Nodin

jimboblep wrote: »

But their is no active discrimination against different cultures either I.e. no ban on mosques or synagogues no ban on music or films from different cultures etc. So if it permits the practise of multiple cultures within its jurisdiction how can this be seen as non multicultural.

Multiculturalism generally implies that there are policies in which the state recognises cultural differences amongst its citizens.

Looking Around wrote:

They come to Europe............

Of course they do. They couldn't possibly have been born here or anything. Wrong climate conditions or something.

Timberrrrr wrote:

So in truth it's only a ban on Muslim religious symbols?

Effectively, brought in at a time when Sarkozys lot were losing votes to the far right. If you want a laugh, look up the estimated numbers of those who actually wore the thing

Hitchens

Nodin wrote: »

Multiculturalism generally implies that there are policies in which the state recognises cultural differences amongst its citizens.




Of course they do. They couldn't possibly have been born here or anything. Wrong climate conditions or something.



Effectively, brought in at a time when Sarkozys lot were losing votes to the far right. If you want a laugh, look up the estimated numbers of those who actually wore the thing

zzzzzz :pac:

Nodin

Hitchens wrote: »

zzzzzz :pac:

Very amusing.

Who is the "crocodile" you were referring to earlier?
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92692750&postcount=76

caolfx

Rosy Posy wrote: »

I think this law is entrenched islamophobia dressed up as progression. This law does nothing for women. The niquab allows women to keep purdah while going about their daily business. This law effectively makes women who choose or are coerced into keeping purdah into prisoners in their homes. Women who keep purdah obviously have a strong Islamic faith or tradition which is not going to be changed by a law like this.

Translation:

The law doesn't bow to nor has any regard for religion.

You'd be commending that if it was Ireland's Government vs Catholicism, but seeing as how it's Islam that are offended...well, you know the rest.

Carry

I didn't read all of the so far eight pages of this thread, the first one was enough to be predictable.

But let me tell you this:
I am deeply offended by my new neighbour who put a giant (and awfully ugly and kitschy) marian statue in front of his house in our small and private estate, which I can't avoid seeing every day, and even more offending he is covered in (American) patriotic and religious tattoos - though thankfully not visible in winter. And he is permanently offending me with his "christian love", being all over me like a psycho rash.

What shall I do? Refuse to sing in the opera until he removes the statue and his tattoos? Can't sing anyway.

Will anyone protect my sense of being offended? Will anyone rush to my rescue and demand a law against religious traditions which don't agree with me?

No. Stupid of me to ask.