nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

French politician angered by veiled Muslim at beach

crazyderk

http://english.alarabiya.net/en/life-style/art-and-culture/2014/08/19/Nadine-Morano-.html

A conservative French politician sparked a debate after she posted Monday a picture of a veiled Muslim woman on a beach in France and the cover of Le Figaro magazine portraying former French sex icon Brigitte Bardot.

Nadine Morano, who published the picture on her personal Facebook account, wrote: “When one chooses to come to secular, France... one must respect our culture and the freedom of women. If not, go elsewhere!”

In France, women wearing full-face veils in public spaces can be fined up to 150 euros ($205) following a ban passed in 2010.

France, which is home to Europe's largest Muslim community, said the ban is necessary for security reasons and to uphold the country’s secular traditions.

I'm not sure how I feel about this, on one hand if you immigrate to a country you should integrate to that countries traditions however on the other side of the argument if you wants the freedoms then you should also be respecting how other people want to live, is that not the core of democracy?

Do you agree with what she has said or do you think she is wrong?

Edit: Apologies I messed up the title perhaps a mod could fix it? Should read "French politician angered by veiled Muslim at beach"

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Buona Fortuna

pickarooney wrote: »

A beach is a bit different though, no? You can't really go topless into a bank either.

Now there's the real injustice

keith16

The_Valeyard wrote: »

No need to worry, im sure France will soon surrender.

It's incredible that this joke / reputation is still trotted out against France.

IMO, not joining a fight until someone else has won it is a much more cowardly act than surrender.

jam_mac_jam

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Well. Can I wear a bikini in Saudi Arabia? NO.

Can a Muslim wear a horrible Burka here? YES.

Should be a quid pro quo at least.

You can wear one in Turkey or Egypt. Not all Muslims come from Saudi you know.

[Deleted User]

and you can wear one in saudi anyway

jam_mac_jam

keith16 wrote: »

It's incredible that this joke / reputation is still trotted out against France.

IMO, not joining a fight until someone else has won it is a much more cowardly act than surrender.

Yes, usually by people who don't know history very well. France has probably won more wars then most countries in the world and was a world power for hundreds of years. They really surrendered dreadfully in WW1 for example.

Grayson

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

I see nobody is mentioning Muslim countries like Turkey which would have a more sensible attitude, only the extremes. As if all Muslims from all areas in the world are the same.

Now turkey does. When Ataturk came to power the young turks ran through the streets of Istanbul ripping the veils from women.

It was only in 2010 that veils were allowed again. They were banned from all government institutions including colleges.

jam_mac_jam

bluewolf wrote: »

and you can wear one in saudi anyway

I did not know that.

Spanish Eyes

Nodin wrote: »

So no priests uniforms, nuns uniforms, the orthodox Jews can't wear their attire?

And I'm still none the wiser as to what Saudi have to do with anything.

So imposing on you so not showing you their face. Do you take the same view with womens breasts?

The number of religions that do it is fairly irrelevant.

Do the priests, nuns, orthodox Jews hide their faces?

No.

Saudi Arabia is the leading light in covering up. In many ways.

As for breasts. Well show me a Muslim country that would allow them to be on view?

Nodin

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Do the priests, nuns, orthodox Jews hide their faces?

So your comment about religion being a private matter wasn't sincere, and really you're only interested in targeting one specific religion above all others. With ye now.

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Saudi Arabia is the leading light in covering up. In many ways.

Saudi is home to a minority sect within Islam. It is not the "leading light" as there is no hierarchy similar to the catholic or orthodox churches.

Spanish Eyes

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

You can wear one in Turkey or Egypt. Not all Muslims come from Saudi you know.

I have never seen an Egyptian or a Turkish, or a Tunisian, or a Moroccan lady on the beach in a bikini. And believe me I looked!

Doesn't happen.

They are at home getting the dinner ready. As is their place.

jam_mac_jam

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

I have never seen an Egyptian or a Turkish, or a Tunisian, or a Moroccan lady on the beach in a bikini. And believe me I looked!

Doesn't happen.

They are at home getting the dinner ready. As is their place.

I never said they did.

I said you can wear one, I didn't say they did. I have seen plenty women in Egypt swimming or snorkeling in wet suits though not making dinner. Something tells me you have not been to any of those countries anyway...

Nodin

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

I have never seen an Egyptian or a Turkish, or a Tunisian, or a Moroccan lady on the beach in a bikini. And believe me I looked!

Doesn't happen.

They are at home getting the dinner ready. As is their place.

Yeah, heres a typical Turkish housewife before she puts on the spuds
http://youtu.be/mHpg-7n7QvQ

Spanish Eyes

Nodin wrote: »

So your comment about religion being a private matter wasn't sincere, and really you're only interested in targeting one specific religion above all others. With ye now.

Saudi is home to a minority sect within Islam. It is not the "leading light" as there is no hierarchy similar to the catholic or orthodox churches.

I don't think you answered my point re the face covering in other religions.

That's OK.

Nodin

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

I don't think you answered my point re the face covering in other religions.

That's OK.

I did.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=91811548&postcount=61

johnty56

Can those folks who are supporting the right of women in France to wear full face/body covering garments honestly say that they think it is a good thing?

Tacit support for a medieval belief system, in which women are second class citizens in most ways. Europe had the Enlightenment and has arguably moved forward a huge amount.. why should we tolerate such a move backwards?

Lets be honest here, such practises are contiguous with other, less enlightened modes of living and ways of looking at the world and others in it. Whether it is Islam or not is actually irrelevent- it is what is emerging from Islam now.

What rational arguments can you put forward for it? If there were to be continued demographic changes on the scale we have seen in the last century, it is possible that large parts of Europe will be Muslim within 50 to 100 years.

Why would we want to see such a huge devolution?

Spanish Eyes

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

I never said they did.

I said you can wear one, I didn't say they did. I have seen plenty women in Egypt swimming or snorkeling in wet suits though not making dinner. Something tells me you have not been to any of those countries anyway...

Well I suppose I have to admit to having been in. Hurgada, Essouira, Tunis, and Ephesus.

Never saw a NATIVE lady on the beach. Clad or unclad. They are hidden in men's lairs. The tourists give the game away.

Packrat

Magaggie wrote: »

Not one sentence in my post indicated I'm "like" anyone. If anything I was critical of the more extreme muslim customs.
Do you think along "You're either 100% with us, otherwise you're against us" lines? Being opposed to the banning of a veil = supporting jihadists, that kinda simplistic thing?

No, I don't think you support Jihadists. I'm not that simplistic or frankly that stupid thanks.

What I think you are is a typical citizen of a liberal European country who tries to judge people who are not like you by your own high standards. This is where I think the fallacy lies.

In my cynical opinion, which may be wrong, and which I actually hope is wrong (but I don't think is wrong) the only language that these dark age people who believe that their religion trumps law, - our law, which was hard won, understand is force and repression.

If we refuse to defend ourselves and our way of life, by omission or by design, whether out of attempting to treat these people as we would others, or out of fear of offending them, we will find our own culture, laws and safety hollowed out beyond repair.

I don't want my children, or more likely my grandchildren to live under a caliphate and curse us who didn't act now while it's easier.

Shakespeare's Sister

johnty56 wrote: »

Can those folks who are supporting the right of women in France to wear full face/body covering garments honestly say that they think it is a good thing?

No. I'd prefer if they didn't, but I don't agree with stopping them either. Fining/imprisoning someone for wearing something? Ludicrous IMO.
Hopefully they (or their daughters/grand-daughters) can realise for themselves how ridiculous it is eventually.

[Deleted User]

Magaggie wrote: »

No. I'd prefer if they didn't, but I don't agree with stopping them either. Fining/imprisoning someone for wearing something? Ludicrous IMO.
Hopefully they (or their daughters/grand-daughters) can realise for themselves how ridiculous it is eventually.

Women are free and equal unless they wear stuff we don't like

Nodin

johnty56 wrote: »

.............................

What rational arguments can you put forward for it? If there were to be continued demographic changes on the scale we have seen in the last century, it is possible that large parts of Europe will be Muslim within 50 to 100 years.

............

If we ban one backward notion, logic dictates we ban them all. That doesn't sound too enlightened to me.

The 'muslim Europe' thing has been debunked numerous times.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/8189231.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/more_or_less/8189434.stm

Shakespeare's Sister

Packrat wrote: »

What I think you are is a typical citizen of a liberal European country who tries to judge people who are not like you by your own high standards.

I'm not judging anyone, I'm only giving my opinion in response to the OP.

In my cynical opinion, which may be wrong, and which I actually hope is wrong (but I don't think is wrong) the only language that these dark age people who believe that their religion trumps law, - our law, which was hard won, understand is force and repression.

If we refuse to defend ourselves and our way of life, by omission or by design, whether out of attempting to treat these people as we would others, or out of fear of offending them, we will find our own culture, laws and safety hollowed out beyond repair.

I don't want my children, or more likely my grandchildren to live under a caliphate and curse us who didn't act now while it's easier.

I don't think allowing veils would lead to that. Wearing veils doesn't affect anyone else. Sharia customs of violence against women/gays are obviously illegal.

jam_mac_jam

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Well I suppose I have to admit to having been in. Hurgada, Essouira, Tunis, and Ephesus.

Never saw a NATIVE lady on the beach. Clad or unclad. They are hidden in men's lairs. The tourists give the game away.

Maybe they don't need to suntan as much? I doubt you saw many men on tourist beaches either, other then the people who work there. Its irrelevant anyway.

I never said they wear bikinis anyway my point is there are Muslim counties where you can wear a bikini. Which is what I said.

Nodin

Packrat wrote: »

No, I don't think you support Jihadists. I'm not that simplistic or frankly that stupid thanks.

What I think you are is a typical citizen of a liberal European country who tries to judge people who are not like you by your own high standards. This is where I think the fallacy lies.

In my cynical opinion, which may be wrong, and which I actually hope is wrong (but I don't think is wrong) the only language that these dark age people who believe that their religion trumps law, - our law, which was hard won, understand is force and repression.

If we refuse to defend ourselves and our way of life, by omission or by design, whether out of attempting to treat these people as we would others, or out of fear of offending them, we will find our own culture, laws and safety hollowed out beyond repair.

I don't want my children, or more likely my grandchildren to live under a caliphate and curse us who didn't act now while it's easier.

Hi, and welcome to the 21st century. Today we're talking about the right of French Women to wear what they want. We realise that you've been pulled straight from a 15th century Tavern argument in Albania about just how evil the Ottoman empire is, but hope that given time you'll get the gist of things as they are today.

johnty56

Nodin wrote: »

If we ban one backward notion, logic dictates we ban them all. That doesn't sound too enlightened to me.

The 'muslim Europe' thing has been debunked numerous times.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/8189231.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/more_or_less/8189434.stm

I think you need to think a little about the path that Europe took towards, and through that period of Enlightenment.

It often was necessary to ban ridiculous and outlandish practises, for a variety of reasons.

Universal Reason wasn't spontaneous.

Grayson

johnty56 wrote: »

Can those folks who are supporting the right of women in France to wear full face/body covering garments honestly say that they think it is a good thing?

Tacit support for a medieval belief system, in which women are second class citizens in most ways. Europe had the Enlightenment and has arguably moved forward a huge amount.. why should we tolerate such a move backwards?

Lets be honest here, such practises are contiguous with other, less enlightened modes of living and ways of looking at the world and others in it. Whether it is Islam or not is actually irrelevent- it is what is emerging from Islam now.

What rational arguments can you put forward for it? If there were to be continued demographic changes on the scale we have seen in the last century, it is possible that large parts of Europe will be Muslim within 50 to 100 years.

Why would we want to see such a huge devolution?

I'm an atheist. I think all religion and all religious actions are a big stinking pile of mumbo jumbo. However, if we are to allow people to live in a free liberal country, that means we allow people to believe whatever mumbo jumbo they like. Muslim, Christian, Buddhist it doesn't matter, they can believe and practice whatever they want so long as it does not disturb anyone or the public order.

BTW, were you talking about Christians or Muslims there?

Nodin

johnty56 wrote: »

I think you need to think a little about the path that Europe took towards, and through that period of Enlightenment.

It often was necessary to ban ridiculous and outlandish practises, for a variety of reasons.

Universal Reason wasn't spontaneous.

....given the attitude displayed by our colonial masters in this state towards Catholicism, you would - going by your outlook - have expected the entire place to be a bunch of liberal COE members by the 19th century. Yet....

mrDerek

im all for it props to france its quite unsettlen seeing these people fully covered, could be anybody underneath somebody dangerous even

johnty56

Grayson wrote: »

I'm an atheist. I think all religion and all religious actions are a big stinking pile of mumbo jumbo. However, if we are to allow people to live in a free liberal country, that means we allow people to believe whatever mumbo jumbo they like. Muslim, Christian, Buddhist it doesn't matter, they can believe and practice whatever they want so long as it does not disturb anyone or the public order.

BTW, were you talking about Christians or Muslims there?

Theoretically yes. However, what if that freedom of religious expression impinges on the freedoms of others?

Nodin

mrDerek wrote: »

im all for it props to france its quite unsettlen seeing these people fully covered, could be anybody underneath somebody dangerous even

Not Larry Murphy?

johnty56

Nodin wrote: »

....given the attitude displayed by our colonial masters in this state towards Catholicism, you would - going by your outlook - have expected the entire place to be a bunch of liberal COE members by the 19th century. Yet....

That has nothing to do with what I was saying, and you know it. Diversionism.