France to ban Burqas/Niqab in Public?

[Ihavequestions 419]

"The burka is not a sign of religion, it is a sign of subservience. It will not be welcome on the territory of the French republic," the French president said.

How many of you who are aghast and appalled at the French President's opinon wear a burka yourself? Do you not wear it because you choose to? Or do you not wear it because you don't believe it has anything to do with Islam? If you agree that it is, indeed, Islamic, why don't you wear it as a symbol of your own submission to God?

In my opinion, this is not about Islam at all. It is, instead, about women's rights and, in my opinion, sisters have a duty to look out for other sisters. We should all be aghast that the burka exhists in the first place.

I'm sorry, but did or did not the french government ruthlessly supress native populations in north africa? In no way am I suggesting the descendents of this oppression rise up and take an eye for an eye. I am merely commenting on the irony of the french government whining about a few muslim women wearing a face veil as a threat to the very framework of their society when the french government did much worse to threaten framework of the societies they colonized.

Is the hideous legacy of colonialism the reason that Egypt is crazy about anything French, from hideous French Provincial furniture stuffed into flats to school children required, by the government, to learn French? Who, actually, were the "native populations"? Weren't they, themselves, subject to thousands of years of war, or were they all Islamic from Day One?

You can't pick a point in time and decide that's where history begins. You either have to look at the entire picture or ignore the picture altogether. Anything else is a slippery slope.

Nor can you choose which part of history to present in order to support a claim. The article says: "In 2004, France banned the Islamic headscarf and other conspicuous religious symbols from public schools, triggering heated debate in the country and abroad." France is a secular nation and it did not ban only the headscarf, it banned "conspicuous religious symbols." Big difference.

In a truly secular nation, not only are people allowed freedom of religion, they are allowed freedom from religion. That means if I don't want to look at "conspicuous religious symbols" I shouldn't have to because another's right stops where mine start. THAT is freedom.

And also the fact that many of these people are even in france is also a direct result of france's colonizing efforts in north africa. There wouldn't be a veil problem in france if france didn't colonize in the first place.

How did you reach those conclusions?

People migrate for many reasons, and it's not typically to join the other team.

Edited June 23, 2009 by Ihavequestions

[Kathryn41 3,205]

Inflammatory post removed

[aisha kandisha 0]

"The burka is not a sign of religion, it is a sign of subservience. It will not be welcome on the territory of the French republic," the French president said.

How many of you who are aghast and appalled at the French President's opinon wear a burka yourself? Do you not wear it because you choose to? Or do you not wear it because you don't believe it has anything to do with Islam? If you agree that it is, indeed, Islamic, why don't you wear it as a symbol of your own submission to God?

In my opinion, this is not about Islam at all. It is, instead, about women's rights and, in my opinion, sisters have a duty to look out for other sisters. We should all be aghast that the burka exhists in the first place.

This makes no sense to me. Islam is not monolithic. There are different views in Islam, different madhabs, and many Muslims respect these different opinions. If the opinion I follow doesn't require niqab, it doesn't mean I should force my views upon a sister who follows a view that does say it is required. I eat zabihah but would never suggest that the sisters who choose to follow the looser al-kitab ruling be barred from shopping the meat section at the grocery store.

If anything makes me aghast, it is that any Muslim would want to do away with the different opinions that are a mercy to us and impose upon all Muslims only what they have deemed correct.

[sandinista! 1,816]

"The burka is not a sign of religion, it is a sign of subservience. It will not be welcome on the territory of the French republic," the French president said.

How many of you who are aghast and appalled at the French President's opinon wear a burka yourself? Do you not wear it because you choose to? Or do you not wear it because you don't believe it has anything to do with Islam? If you agree that it is, indeed, Islamic, why don't you wear it as a symbol of your own submission to God?

In my opinion, this is not about Islam at all. It is, instead, about women's rights and, in my opinion, sisters have a duty to look out for other sisters. We should all be aghast that the burka exhists in the first place.

I'm sorry, but did or did not the french government ruthlessly supress native populations in north africa? In no way am I suggesting the descendents of this oppression rise up and take an eye for an eye. I am merely commenting on the irony of the french government whining about a few muslim women wearing a face veil as a threat to the very framework of their society when the french government did much worse to threaten framework of the societies they colonized.

Is the hideous legacy of colonialism the reason that Egypt is crazy about anything French, from hideous French Provincial furniture stuffed into flats to school children required, by the government, to learn French? Who, actually, were the "native populations"? Weren't they, themselves, subject to thousands of years of war, or were they all Islamic from Day One?

You can't pick a point in time and decide that's where history begins. You either have to look at the entire picture or ignore the picture altogether. Anything else is a slippery slope.

Nor can you choose which part of history to present in order to support a claim. The article says: "In 2004, France banned the Islamic headscarf and other conspicuous religious symbols from public schools, triggering heated debate in the country and abroad." France is a secular nation and it did not ban only the headscarf, it banned "conspicuous religious symbols." Big difference.

In a truly secular nation, not only are people allowed freedom of religion, they are allowed freedom from religion. That means if I don't want to look at "conspicuous religious symbols" I shouldn't have to because another's right stops where mine start. THAT is freedom.

And also the fact that many of these people are even in france is also a direct result of france's colonizing efforts in north africa. There wouldn't be a veil problem in france if france didn't colonize in the first place.

How did you reach those conclusions?

People migrate for many reasons, and it's not typically to join the other team.

the notion that one must wear a burka in order to defend others' rights to wear a burka is absurd. i'm repulsed and disgusted by hate speech and websites like stormfront.org, but in a truly free society, such things have every right to exist. i don't have to participate in hate speech in order to defend its right to exist. the aclu, when it defended the rights of neo-nazis to march in a parade, defended their free speech even though everything those marchers stood for was repulsive to them. (a few of the lawyers who defended them were in fact jewish) it's not truly freedom though unless everyone is covered, even those whose actions are the hardest and yuckiest to defend. burqas are how some people choose to practice islam, whether you like it or not. and a truly free society does not impinge on their right to wear it.

equally absurd is the idea that any individual enjoys the right to impinge on someone else's right to religious expression because there also exists the right to freedom from religion. because i have the right to freedom of religious expression does not mean i can ban someone from wearing a t-shirt in public that says "god is dead" on it. nor can anyone else's freedom from religion prohibit me from exhibiting whatever form of religious expression i want, just because they don't believe in it. that's a hallmark of a truly free society, one that france does not have.

i'm not understanding what egyptian affinity for french decorative accoutrements has to do with the horrors of colonialization either. i'm an anglophile, and love all kinds of english stuff, but that doesn't mean that i'm a fan of the british colonialization of the united states. i'm still a fan of the american revolution even though i think england is a really cool place. you seem to be suffering from the same mental block as dienorglerin, who equates the offensiveness of gang rape to the french having to deal with a few random people in burqas in public. no one is calling for full-scale war and violence against the french in retaliation for their hideous and brutal colonial history. even though some of them don't like it, they should have to deal with the fact that a few people in france want to wear burqas anyways-and if they don't like it, tough. other people have been forced to deal with for worse over the course of history. france is getting off pretty easy.

[bhajishah 4]

sometimes shooter is right on target. However i think frances intention is not to liberate woman who covers thier face. Its a clear nonacceptance of muslim religion. typical french politics attitutude toward others.

[bhajishah 4]

The women here i know who cover completely up . have a few screws loose, anti social, and end up divorcing the husband because he not Islamic enough. One lady got pregnant by another man whom she converted to islam. said it waws GOds will a miracle. divorced her other muslim husband.Look at that nut case thought she could go interview the Taliban. wow they captured her.

Religion comforts and fulfills -balances life. Not make it all stress full and crazy

[amysaid 9]

Good for France !

You said it. France finally takes a stand. These robes cover up perfectly beautiful women!

Not everything is about being beautiful. Inappropriate much?

Edited June 24, 2009 by amysaid

[Ahmeds Girl 0]

Perspective of a Muslim woman:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-...ed-streets.html

"Why I, as a British Muslim woman, want the burkha banned from our streets"

By Saira Khan

24th June 2009

Shopping in Harrods last week, I came across a group of women wearing black burkhas, browsing the latest designs in the fashion department.

The irony of the situation was almost laughable. Here was a group of affluent women window shopping for designs that they would never once be able to wear in public.

Yet it's a sight that's becoming more and more commonplace. In hardline Muslim communities right across Britain, the burkha and hijab - the Muslim headscarf - are becoming the norm.

In the predominantly Muslim enclaves of Derby near my childhood home, you now see women hidden behind the full-length robe, their faces completely shielded from view. In London, I see an increasing number of young girls, aged four and five, being made to wear the hijab to school.

Shockingly, the Dickensian bone disease rickets has reemerged in the British Muslim community because women are not getting enough vital vitamin D from sunlight because they are being consigned to life under a shroud.

Thanks to fundamentalist Muslims and 'hate' preachers working in Britain, the veiling of women is suddenly all-pervasive and promoted as a basic religious right. We are led to believe that we must live with this in the name of 'tolerance'.

And yet, as a British Muslim woman, I abhor the practice and am calling on the Government to follow the lead of French President Nicolas Sarkozy and ban the burkha in our country.

The veil is simply a tool of oppression which is being used to alienate and control women under the guise of religious freedom.

My parents moved here from Kashmir in the 1960s. They brought with them their faith and their traditions - but they also understood that they were starting a new life in a country where Islam was not the main religion.

My mother has always worn traditional Kashmiri clothes - the salwar kameez, a long tunic worn over trousers, and the chador, which is like a pashmina worn around the neck or over the hair.

When she found work in England, she adapted her dress without making a fuss. She is still very much a traditional Muslim woman, but she swims in a normal swimming costume and jogs in a tracksuit.

I was born in this country, and my parents' greatest desire for me was that I would integrate and take advantage of the British education system.

hey wanted me to make friends at school, and be able to take part in PE lessons - not feel alienated and cut off from my peers. So at home, I wore the salwar kameez, while at school I wore a wore a typical English school uniform.

Now, to some fundamentalists, that made us not proper Muslims. Really?

I have read the Koran. Nowhere in the Koran does it state that a woman's face and body must be covered in a layer of heavy black cloth. Instead, Muslim women should dress modestly, covering their arms and legs.

Many of my adult British Muslim friends cover their heads with a headscarf - and I have no problem with that.

The burkha is an entirely different matter. It is an imported Saudi Arabian tradition, and the growing number of women veiling their faces in Britain is a sign of creeping radicalisation, which is not just regressive, it is oppressive and downright dangerous.

The burkha is an extreme practice. It is never right for a woman to hide behind a veil and shut herself off from people in the community. But it is particularly wrong in Britain, where it is alien to the mainstream culture for someone to walk around wearing a mask.

The veil restricts women. It stops them achieving their full potential in all areas of their life, and it stops them communicating. It sends out a clear message: 'I do not want to be part of your society.'

Every time the burkha is debated, Muslim fundamentalists bring out all these women who say: 'It's my choice to wear this.'

Perhaps so - but what pressures have been brought to bear on them? The reality, surely, is that a lot of women are not free to choose.

Girls as young as four are wearing the hijab to school: that is not a freely made choice. It stops them taking part in education and reaching their potential, and the idea that tiny children need to protect their modesty is abhorrent.

And behind the closed doors of some Muslim houses, countless young women are told to wear the hijab and the veil. These are the girls who are hidden away, they are not allowed to go to university or choose who they marry. In many cases, they are kept down by the threat of violence.

The burkha is the ultimate visual symbol of female oppression. It is the weapon of radical Muslim men who want to see Sharia law on Britain's streets, and would love women to be hidden, unseen and unheard. It is totally out of place in a civilised country.

Precisely because it is impossible to distinguish between the woman who is choosing to wear a burkha and the girl who has been forced to cover herself and live behind a veil, I believe it should be banned.

President Sarkozy is absolutely right to say: 'If you want to live here, live like us.'

He went on to say that the burkha is not a religious sign, 'it's a sign of subservience, a sign of debasement... In our country, we cannot accept that women be prisoners behind a screen, cut off from all social life, deprived of all identity.'

So what should we do in Britain? For decades, Muslim fundamentalists, using the human rights laws, have been allowed to get their own way.

It is time for ministers and ordinary British Muslims to say, 'Enough is enough'. For the sake of women and children, the Government must ban the wearing of the hijab in school and the burkha in public places.

To do so is not racist, as extremists would have us believe. After all, when I go to Pakistan or Middle Eastern countries, I respect the way they live.

Two years ago, I wore a burkha for the first time for a television programme. It was the most horrid experience. It restricted the way I walked, what I saw, and how I interacted with the world.

It took away my personality. I felt alienated and like a freak. It was hot and uncomfortable, and I was unable to see behind me, exchange a smile with people, or shake hands.

If I had been forced to wear a veil, I would certainly not be free to write this article. Nor would I have run a marathon, become an aerobics teacher or set up a business

We must unite against the radical Muslim men who love to control women.

My message to those Muslims who want to live in a Talibanised society, and turn their face against Britain, is this: 'If you don't like living here and don't want to integrate, then what the hell are you doing here? Why don't you just go and live in an Islamic country?'

I was born in this country, and my parents' greatest desire for me was that I would integrate and take advantage of the British education system.

[Staashi 371]

Very well written article - I appreciate her perspective.

[MrsAmera 41]

That article was exactly what I was trying to articulate.

[sandinista! 1,816]

that article was rubbish. what will be the next form of religious expression banned by governments of europe then? do those who support this ban honestly feel that governments can and should decide what, when, where, why and how people practice their religion? liking the idea of governments establishing curbs on other people's religious freedom, just because you don't like their practices, is a very dangerous, very slippery slope. eliminating another person's choice to wear whatever they want is every bit as wrong as forcing a person to wear something they don't want to wear. both are unacceptable assaults on personal freedom.

[amysaid 9]

that article was rubbish. what will be the next form of religious expression banned by governments of europe then? do those who support this ban honestly feel that governments can and should decide what, when, where, why and how people practice their religion? liking the idea of governments establishing curbs on other people's religious freedom, just because you don't like their practices, is a very dangerous, very slippery slope. eliminating another person's choice to wear whatever they want is every bit as wrong as forcing a person to wear something they don't want to wear. both are unacceptable assaults on personal freedom.

[Dr. A ♥ O 203]

I for one would appriciate the banning of baggy jeans in public.

[Kenza 1]

that article was rubbish. what will be the next form of religious expression banned by governments of europe then? do those who support this ban honestly feel that governments can and should decide what, when, where, why and how people practice their religion? liking the idea of governments establishing curbs on other people's religious freedom, just because you don't like their practices, is a very dangerous, very slippery slope. eliminating another person's choice to wear whatever they want is every bit as wrong as forcing a person to wear something they don't want to wear. both are unacceptable assaults on personal freedom.

:thumbs:

[Jenn! 918]

I for one would appriciate the banning of baggy jeans in public.

Some towns in the U.S. have tried that actually. Just another example of the wrong way of going about trying to solve a larger problem.