Should France be allowed to ban the Burka?

gozunda

end of the road wrote: »

i have read it. frankly dealing with those doing the forcing rather then banning a garment would be a much better use of resources

Yes but ask yourself why is it banned?
The legislation is quite clear on this and has already been quoted in this thread.
France has a perfect right to ban such headdress in the interest of security. The legislation does not ban long dresses or other garments - just that which completely conceals the head and face of a person. It also includes helmets and other types of headwear. Tbh radical fundamental elements are attempting to make the issue into something they can shout about even though many Muslim countries place similar bans on western attire. The difference however is that in France the ban is not based on some archaic custom but rather has been drafted in the interest of combating crime.

The law dealing with those that enforce such dress on others was put in place so that a women could put forward a defence if they were forced to wear such dress. Importantly this aspect of the legislation is there to prevent those that would force woman to wear such dress for their own purposes.

jackofalltrades

Graces7 wrote: »

Your definition of "religious" is skewed. You are meaning religious as in priests or nun, whereas the real meaning is according to religious tradition governing daily life of ordinary people.

And where is it written down that women should wear the Burqa?

bjork

This is quite interesting

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hijab_by_country
Tunisia (since 1981,[2] lifted in 2011) and Turkey (since 1997,[3]) are the only Muslim-majority countries which have banned the hijab in public schools and universities or government buildings, whilst Syria banned face veils in universities from July 2010.[4] This ban was lifted during the 2011 Syrian uprising. In other Muslim states such as Morocco,[5] there has been some restriction or discrimination against women who wear the hijab. The hijab in these cases is seen as a sign of political Islam or fundamentalism against secular government.

gozunda

TheDoc

I don't think a should even comes into this. A country is free to legislate as it sees fit, unless under a binding situation where it's subject to approval from another state . (ie our budgets for example of the past while, requiring approval from Europe)

France already has a culture of "If you come to live here, you live our way, we arn't changing to accomodate you" and in some regards I kind of admire that. So many countries and governments are afraid to make the tough decisions, and afraid to upset the apple cart with what might be perceived as offensive comments or actions, and are PC touchy feely feely.

Can only imagine that their stance on immigration will be re enforced after this weeks incidents.

Letree

I think it is a good idea to ban all garments and anything that can conceal the face in public.

AlanS181824

Keep it banned as it conceals the face, simple as.

RayM

VinLieger wrote: »

In France the law is they can wear anything but the burkha, in many muslim countries they can wear the Burkha and nothing else.

Understand the difference?

In both cases, people are being denied the right to wear what they choose. Understand the similarities?

bb1234567 wrote: »

ugh give over

Top contribution.

end of the road

gozunda wrote: »

Yes but ask yourself why is it banned?
The legislation is quite clear on this and has already been quoted in this thread.
France has a perfect right to ban such headdress in the interest of security. The legislation does not ban long dresses or other garments - just that which completely conceals the head and face of a person. It also includes helmets and other types of headwear. Tbh radical fundamental elements are attempting to make the issue into something they can shout about even though many Muslim countries place similar bans on western attire. The difference however is that in France the ban is not based on some archaic custom but rather has been drafted in the interest of combating crime.

The law dealing with those that enforce such dress on others was put in place so that a women could put forward a defence if they were forced to wear such dress. Importantly this aspect of the legislation is there to prevent those that would force woman to wear such dress for their own purposes.

no, it was brought in for so called "security" reasons, probably for some other agenda as well. the security reasons are no reason. a police or other relevant officer can force someone to remove it if they want to talk to them, and it can be done without waste of resources laws that are nothing to do with "protecting" women

end of the road

TheDoc wrote: »

countries and governments are afraid to make the tough decisions, and afraid to upset the apple cart with what might be perceived as offensive comments or actions, and are PC touchy feely feely.

rubbish. pc doesn't exist, bar in the minds of racists and bigots

end of the road

AlanS181824 wrote: »

Keep it banned as it conceals the face, simple as.

who cares whether its covering the face. frankly it doesn't matter. this law costs money to enforce, when you can just allow a police man to ask for removal when he wishes to talk to the person instead. this law is about apeasing rabblers and nothing more

gozunda

end of the road wrote: »

no, it was brought in for so called "security" reasons, probably for some other agenda as well. the security reasons are no reason.

Oh yes it was ...

THE EUROPEAN COURT of Human Rights upheld France’s ban on wearing a burqa in public.

The Court ruled that the ban was not expressly based on the religious connotation of the clothing in question – but “solely on the fact that it concealed the face”.

So you know more than the European Court of Human Rights? Right best of luck with that...

end of the road wrote: »

a police or other relevant officer can force someone to remove it if they want to talk to them, and it can be done without waste of resources laws that are nothing to do with "protecting" women

Really????

Police in the suburbs of Paris are working to restore order after hundreds of Muslims went on a rioting spree to protest the simple identity check of a Muslim woman who was wearing a full-face Islamic veil.

...

The latest round of violence erupted the evening of July 19 in Trappes, a gritty suburb situated 30 kilometers (20 miles) southwest of Paris. Trappes has 30,000 inhabitants, many of whom are Muslim immigrants.

Police say a crowd of possibly 400 Muslims gathered outside the Trappes police station in response to the arrest on July 18 of a man who had assaulted a police officer during an identity check on his wife, who was entirely veiled.

The niqab-wearing woman in question is 20-years-old; her 21-year-old husband, a convert to Islam, reportedly objected to the policeman interrogating his wife, and allegedly tried to strangle him, an act that lead to his arrest. Muslims insist the man was provoked.

After police in Trappes rejected Muslim demands to release the husband, the mob went on a rampage, throwing stones and Molotov cocktails at police, pelting police with firecrackers from rooftops, burning cars and trucks and destroying public property, including several bus stops, before being repelled by riot police.

...

Although no one died in the disturbances, five people were injured, including four police officers and a 14-year-old boy, who lost his eyesight from a projectile.

Despite a heavily reinforced police presence, on July 20, approximately 50 people were involved in fresh clashes with riot police. Around 20 cars were torched and four people arrested. A seven-minute video of the violence can be viewed here.

The violence also spread to the surrounding towns of Elancourt and Guyancourt.

The rioting continued on July 21, when police in Trappes dispersed several dozen protesters after fireworks and other projectiles were tossed towards police lines.

At least six people have been arrested in connection with the riots, and on July 22 a French court sentenced a 19-year-old North African youth to six months in prison on charges of committing acts of violence and throwing projectiles at the police during the riot in Trappes.

Clean-up crews are now clearing away shattered glass from bus shelters, burned trash bins and stones littering the pavement; tow trucks are carting away burned cars.

http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/3877/france-muslim-attack-burqa-ban

How's that for a 4 day waste of resources involving squadrons of police, riots, the burning of cars - all because a single police man wished to verify the identity of a single completely veiled woman? I would suggest you look at the facts again ...

skooterblue2

end of the road wrote: »

who cares whether its covering the face. frankly it doesn't matter. this law costs money to enforce, when you can just allow a police man to ask for removal when he wishes to talk to the person instead. this law is about apeasing rabblers and nothing more

You are right the law costs money, the law costs a lot of money to enforce. The department of Justice is a massive part of the government budget. Police, judicary, prisons, staff, training, customs and excise, the law library the coursts system not ony to se up and maintain. What a drain on the economy.

So we will do away with it all in one fell swoop. In 6 months we will be like Iraq with an AK in every home and in 12 month it will be no better than Somalia and the Sudan. Yes we pay a very expensive cost for security and enforcing the law. Remember a lock is the only thing that ever stopped an honest man. "The Price of Liberty is constant vigilance." thomas Jefferson.

We can have people entering this country and deciding what laws they will obey and what laws they will not. This is a ste to introduce Sharia law into Ireland bit by bit. We are only seeing the Thin edge of the wedge and it is going to be more visible as time goes on

end of the road

gozunda wrote: »

Oh yes it was ...

THE EUROPEAN COURT of Human Rights upheld France’s ban on wearing a burqa in public.

The Court ruled that the ban was not expressly based on the religious connotation of the clothing in question – but “solely on the fact that it concealed the face”.

So you know more than the European Court of Human Rights? Right best of luck with that...



Really????



http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/3877/france-muslim-attack-burqa-ban

How's that for a 4 day waste of resources involving squadrons of police, riots, the burning of cars - all because a single police man wished to verify the identity of a single ompletely veiled women? I would suggest you look at the facts again ...

well, riot police vermin are expected to deal with such stuff its their job its what they are payed for

end of the road

skooterblue2 wrote: »

You are right the law costs money, the law costs a lot of money to enforce. The department of Justice is a massive part of the government budget. Police, judicary, prisons, staff, training, customs and excise, the law library the coursts system not ony to se up and maintain. What a drain on the economy.

So we will do away with it all in one fell swoop. In 6 months we will be like Iraq with an AK in every home and in 12 month it will be no better than Somalia and the Sudan. Yes we pay a very expensive cost for security and enforcing the law. Remember a lock is the only thing that ever stopped an honest man. "The Price of Liberty is constant vigilance." thomas Jefferson.

We can have people entering this country and deciding what laws they will obey and what laws they will not. This is a ste to introduce Sharia law into Ireland bit by bit. We are only seeing the Thin edge of the wedge and it is going to be more visible as time goes on

a load of old rubbish. sharia law won't be in ireland. ever

gozunda

end of the road wrote: »

well, riot police vermin are expected to deal with such stuff its their job its what they are payed for

"Riot police are vermin"???

Your interpretation of the French ban on the burka /headcovering is evidently biased and without foundation

Your idea that police can easily seek identification of veiled woman is clearly ridiculous

Where exactly are you getting off? The riot police in this instance were called in because a man tried to strangle a policeman who as you stated should have had no problem asking a women to remove her burka so she could be identified. Guess what? That wasn't possible because The Neanderthals of the area then went on a rioting spree to which the riot police had to become involved

How about calling the French fundamentalist terrorists who massacred an office of ordinary people 'vermin' or would that show evident bigotry against western values and culture?

skooterblue2

Find that Crafty old Vulture Halawa in the Clonskeagh Mosque. See his interview with UCD and he is asked what he does and he claims he advises on Sharia law. I say he is running his own Sharia courts to settle disputes. I hve heard this story in Birmingham from Sources.

The Judicary in England were asked to make accomodations to allow aspects of sharia law into English law. Rather than a Mortages which is illegal under Sharia law... to have dimished owner ship over time. The Judicary said it was completely unworkable and would not entertain it. Also the Immans were urgin women NOT to report domestic voilence to the civil authorities but to bring them before an Imman. Gosh that sounds like what the Catholic church did about their pedophile problems. "We can sort this out in the best interest of everyone".

Sharia Law needs to be stamped out hard and fast and these clerics have no business in this country. He has more pressing matters in Egypt. Brother "take the plank out of your own eye before you take the splinter out of mine"

end of the road

gozunda wrote: »

"How about calling the French fundamentalist terrorists who massacred an office of ordinary people 'vermin'

its common sense what i think of them so i've no need to repeat it here

gozunda

end of the road wrote: »

a load of old rubbish. sharia law won't be in ireland. ever

That is an extremely naive and blindfolded approach to the dangers of fundamentalist ideologies imo

http://m.independent.ie/irish-news/sharia-law-in-ireland-if-muslims-are-the-majority-26416822.html

end of the road

skooterblue2 wrote: »

Find that Crafty old Vulture Halawa in the Clonskeagh Mosque. See his interview with UCD and he is asked what he does and he claims he advises on Sharia law. I say he is running his own Sharia courts to settle disputes. I hve heard this story in Birmingham from Sources.

The Judicary in England were asked to make accomodations to allow aspects of sharia law into English law. Rather than a Mortages which is illegal under Sharia law... to have dimished owner ship over time. The Judicary said it was completely unworkable and would not entertain it. Also the Immans were urgin women NOT to report domestic voilence to the civil authorities but to bring them before an Imman. Gosh that sounds like what the Catholic church did about their pedophile problems. "We can sort this out in the best interest of everyone".

Sharia Law needs to be stamped out hard and fast and these clerics have no business in this country. He has more pressing matters in Egypt. Brother "take the plank out of your own eye before you take the splinter out of mine"

sharia law can't be stamped out hard and fast as it isn't in and won't be in ireland

end of the road

gozunda wrote: »

That is an extremely naive and blindfolded approach to the dangers of fundamentalist ideologies imo

http://m.independent.ie/irish-news/sharia-law-in-ireland-if-muslims-are-the-majority-26416822.html

i don't

gozunda

end of the road wrote: »

its common sense what i think of them so i've no need to repeat it here

The problem with common sense is that it is really not that common ...

skooterblue2

end of the road wrote: »

sharia law can't be stamped out hard and fast as it isn't in and won't be in ireland

If it can happen there it can happen here:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/10716844/Islamic-law-is-adopted-by-British-legal-chiefs.html

Socially Britian are almost 40 years ahead of Ireland. Based on the post WW2 immigration to Great Britian and the thriving econonly of the Mid 90's. Islam is the fastest growing religion in Ireland.

Smiles35

Since when is law alien, and a threat though? America nearly went hard on drink with prohibition. They found it unworkable. The Amish are the only ones that kept the old-style religion and you see the lengths they had to go too to preserve it.

jungleman

Of course France should be allowed to ban the burka, any country should have the ability to ban something which obscures the face. I'm not saying that as a knee-jerk reaction to the recent attacks in Paris, but from the point of view that it is comparable to people wearing balaclavas or motorbike helmets in public. Just because it has cultural or religious significance to a group of people doesn't make it any less disturbing or divisive.

skooterblue2

jungleman wrote: »

It is comparable to people wearing balaclavas or motorbike helmets in public. Just because it has cultural or religious significance to a group of people doesn't make it any less disturbing or divisive.

now that sounds right, not the whole head just the face....

Venus In Furs

I'm torn on this one.

While I despise what the burka stands for, and while a private enterprise can't be stopped from banning the wearing of it on its premises... I find it hard to agree with a state banning the wearing of something.
However despicable the meaning this garment is imbued with, it is still ultimately just the wearing of a garment. I don't know that I'd want a state to take away this choice. People might dispute how much "choice" is actually involved, but Stockholm syndrome is a powerful thing. Unimaginable as it may seem, there are women who want to wear it - as part of their faith, as part of hundreds of years of indoctrination, which isn't always that straightforward to shake off. I don't agree with forbidding them from doing so.
I think the French state expressing its condemnation of the burka and offering the choice NOT to have to wear it (which it obviously does) is sufficient.

The idea of prosecuting someone for wearing something is ludicrous to me.

gozunda

A huge issue with what has been called the 'burka ban' is that the hysterical reaction is in fact a deliberate misnomer. I personally believe that many of the extreme Muslims groups are using this issue simply as an excuse to cry discrimination - When in reality it is far from anything of the sort.

The law as enacted states with certain small exceptions, anyone in France "covering their face on the street and in parks, on public transportation, in public institutions such as train stations and town halls, and in shops, restaurants and movie theaters, will be subject to a fine of €150." Exceptions to the ban on 'head coverings' include covering of one's face with a motorcycle helmet whilst on a motorcycle, sunglasses, a bandage, using a welding mask, a fencing mask or a fancy dress mask.

As French nationals or guests of that nation any one in France is by virtue of their residency in that country should be obliged to obey the laws of the land especially where such laws relate to serious and ongoing security concerns.

AlanS181824

I think given the recent events of the last few days in France the least thing they're going to be doing for Muslim people is upholding their dress code.

They've every right to keep it banned too, they're not a Muslim country.

VinLieger

end of the road wrote: »

its common sense what i think of them so i've no need to repeat it here

So you admit your view of riot police as vermin is not common sense