remove that niqab or leave!

mike_ie wrote: »

Translation of the law: I believe so much in women's freedom that I'm going to tell those idiot Muslim women what they are and aren't allowed to wear. They're obviously too stupid to think for themselves to they need enlightened western people like myself to think for them.

Well the European Court of human rights doesnt seem to agree with you, but hey what do those guys know.

smurfjed

Saudi Arabia especially it's move of a cultural thing

Its appears to be aa tribal thing based on stopping roaming tribes fighting over beautiful women. The concept didn't appear to exist in the time of the Prophet Mohammed (PBUH)

Nino Brown

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

So if it was freezing cold in January in Paris cod i wear a scarf covering my face? Could i walk around in a shirt with with a crucifix, star of David or st Christopher showing?

The ban is on covering your whole head/face, including balaclavas, hoods etc, what does a cross have to do with anything?, the ban is on head coverings.

PeteFalk78

Nodin wrote: »

And away we go with the silly statements. How many times will it be regurgitated this thread? 10, 20. 30, 40?

And away we go with the lefty liberal BS crap. The record is worn right down.

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

So if it was freezing cold in January in Paris cod i wear a scarf covering my face? Could i walk around in a shirt with with a crucifix, star of David or st Christopher showing?

Common sense is also preserved, no one is going to be arrested for wearing appropriate protective clothing for the weather.

A Niqab would be useless as it has no insulatative qualities.

Frank Lee Midere wrote: »

It's reasonable............

No, being a mirror to Saudi is not reasonable.

My name is URL

Nino Brown wrote: »

I disagree, if you walk around a town center in almost any western country wearing a balaclava, it will make people uncomfortable, in fact so uncomfortable I wouldn't be surprised if you were approached by police to ask why you were wearing it.

Things shouldn't be banned just because they make some folk feel uncomfortable. That's a step backwards.

The sight of a woman's legs once made 'society' uncomfortable, so women were forbidden from showing the skin of their legs... was society better off as a result?

Gay people once had to hide the fact that they were gay because it made people feel uncomfortable. Again, was society better off then?

Nodin wrote: »

No, being a mirror to Saudi is not reasonable.

French law is quite a long way from mirroring Saudi law, Islam isn't banned for starters.

Timberrrrrrrr

Nino Brown wrote: »

The ban is on covering your whole head/face, including balaclavas, hoods etc, what does a cross have to do with anything?, the ban is on head coverings.

So its not about religious symbolism as stated earlier in the thread?

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

So if it was freezing cold in January in Paris cod i wear a scarf covering my face? Could i walk around in a shirt with with a crucifix, star of David or st Christopher showing?

Their is no issue with religous symbols that dont cover the face, including the hijab crucifixes etc , only with full face covers,I think you're getting mixed up with the 20004 law banning religous symbols in school.
So yes I believe their would be an issue if you walked around with your face covered with a scarf, as that is prohibited in the 2010 law.

MRnotlob606

peekabooo

Laois6556

I personally think we should bring in strict laws for womens clothing here in Ireland. Bra and knickers only, if you're cold wear a hat and socks. If you don't like it then you can leave. Our country, our rules.

Deleted User wrote: »

When in Rome (Paris) do as the Romans(Parisians) do.
The French have clearly decided that "multiculturalism" had gone too far and was degrading French culture and lifestyle, that they decided to enact laws to preserve it.

The French have never ever practiced multiculturalism.

Peterfalk78 wrote:

And away we go with the lefty liberal BS crap. The record is worn right down.

Some point you want to make?

Dolanbaker wrote:

French law is quite a long way from mirroring Saudi law, Islam isn't banned for
starters.

I never said it was. What I stated was that bring up what they do in Saudi/muslim countries as some justification for whats done elsewhere is a silly, stupid argument.

Timberrrrrrrr

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Common sense is also preserved, no one is going to be arrested for wearing appropriate protective clothing for the weather.

A Niqab would be useless as it has no insulatative qualities.

Bit if the ban bans head coverings then surly it must cover ALL or NONE right? Regardless of its insulation properties should someone be told to remove a niqab but the person wearing a hat and scarf (covering just as much of the face) be left alone?

Hitchens wrote: »

so some posters on here think that the French laws should just be ignored because it offends Muslims?

No, it offends notions of personal freedom. You, however, believe in enforcing the law based solely on the effect it has on muslims.

Hitchens wrote: »

An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile — hoping it will eat him last

- Winston Churchill

Good oul Winston - any UVF supporter who bombed Iraqis must be a source of wisdom.

Do tell me, who is the "crocodile" here?

nyarlothothep

My name is URL wrote: »

Things shouldn't be banned just because they make some folk feel uncomfortable. That's a step backwards.

The sight of a woman's legs once made 'society' uncomfortable, so women were forbidden from showing the skin of their legs... was society better off as a result?

Gay people once had to hide the fact that they were gay because it made people feel uncomfortable. Again, was society better off then?

Pretty much. I find the Niqab completely medieval and somewhat repugnant even but I defend their right to wear it and saying that it's a patriarchal thing, while true probably to some extent, doesn't cover the fact that some muslim women wear it out of choice. Who am I or anyone to say they can't wear it. Moreover why should I care enough? What someone decides to wear or not wear doesn't affect me to the degee that I would want to ban it.

Nodin just curious as to why you think france has never practiced multiculturalism in any form?

jimboblep wrote: »

Nodin just curious as to why you think france has never practiced multiculturalism in any form?

Because France has never practiced multiculturalism in any form. It supposedly goes against the principles of Egalite and Fraternite.

T-K-O

nyarlothothep wrote: »

Pretty much. I find the Niqab completely medieval and somewhat repugnant even but I defend their right to wear it and saying that it's a patriarchal thing, while true probably to some extent, doesn't cover the fact that some muslim women wear it out of choice. Who am I or anyone to say they can't wear it. Moreover why should I care enough? What someone decides to wear or not wear doesn't affect me to the degee that I would want to ban it.

This is fair but I am curious, what about in a situation that most would consider a security risk. I.E Airports, Banks etc, should we still respect their religious beliefs?

laurinjames wrote: »

Should that also apply to Europeans in the middle east ?

It already does, Europeans have to comply with the Islamic based laws or else.

Rosy Posy

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.

Defender OF Faith

trinity_grad wrote: »

Glad to hear this. People are finally rejecting the moronic politically correct bullsht we've been forcefed for the past decade. Muslims can adapt to European ways or leave.

Ha I cant believe you registered just to write that, anyway that women did well to leave to avoid more trouble. Clearly a Muslim women covering her hair & self has no place in their "tolerant secular state" which is surprising since even though the Bible clearly states:
"For if a woman does not cover her head, she might as well have her hair cut off; but if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, then she should cover her head."
1 Corinthians 11:6
"We tolerate all religion but Islam" this appear to be the motto of the western world

Ruu

trinity_grad won't be responding folks.

Mod.

Rosy Posy

[Deleted User] wrote: »

It already does, Europeans have to comply with the Islamic based laws or else.

Head covering by foreigners has been optional in any Islamic country I've ever visited unless you are visiting a mosque. Which is not to say that there aren't any number of unjust and misogyistic laws in some of these countries.

Rosy Posy wrote: »

Head covering by foreigners has been optional in any Islamic country I've ever visited unless you are visiting a mosque. Which is not to say that there aren't any number of unjust and misogyistic laws in some of these countries.

When I was in Riyadh, it was clear that "optional" meant only at your own risk, many of the locals were intolerant of women who didn't cover their heads.

Nodin wrote: »

Because France has never practiced multiculturalism in any form. It supposedly goes against the principles of Egalite and Fraternite.

Have to say I disagree with you on that, pre Sarkozys speech in 2011 announcing his belief that "multiculturalism had failed" france had quite a strong record of welcoming different cultures. My source for this is , eurosphere working paper 2008, multiculturalism in France:evolutions and challenges by Artan Fuga

Rosy Posy

[Deleted User] wrote: »

When I was in Riyadh, it was clear that "optional" meant only at your own risk, many of the locals were intolerant of women who didn't cover their heads.

It certainly depends on where you are- I would always wear a duputta just in case I would feel more comfortable covering my head but in more 'westernised' (richer) places like hotels or malls or restaurants it never was a problem. In the market it's better so as not to have a glowing light over your head reading 'tourist- fleece me'!

The French have always been very protective of their French identity, the best way to see this is through the official attempts to prevent English language words "polluting" the French language, "le sandwich" is frowned upon for example.