Italian city fines Muslim woman for wearing burqa

[Obama 2012 1,714]

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2010814615_france17.html?syndication=rss

She acknowledged that she began veiling herself completely only after coming to France in 2000. She said she and her husband, Karim, discovered a deepening of their faith through books and cassette recordings.

She was refused French citizenship for what authorities said was her failure to assimilate into French culture. But in each of three reports after interviews with Silmi, officials described her clothing. Her pro bono lawyer, Ronald Sokol, an American living in France, said that is what kept her from becoming a French citizen.

Getting a jump on Gérin's commission, the leader of President Nicolas Sarkozy's parliamentary majority, Jean-François Cope, formally proposed last week a law banning full-face veils in any public place, including the streets. More than 200 members of Parliament backed his suggested legislation, he said.

[Heracles 417]

At least I have lived there BY and maintain relationships with many french families. That doesn't give my opinion any particular weight because anecdotal evidence is not proof but Paul doesn't have more than a fleeting interest in France or the French. His only reference is this stupid ####### about head coverings as some threat to European culture. That is just asinine.

Fair enough, then you do have experience with France.

It's not a threat it's just stupid. Who goes to another country and then does everything they can to not integrate and live in silos? Damn straight a country should stand up to such idiocy. There are lots of people of Muslim and other beliefs that are normal functioning members of society. Difference is that they attempt to integrate and interact with others. If someone is an extremist then they better stay in their home country. Common sense really. These rules just make it obvious to those that don't have this common sense. In order to ensure congruence of values and culture, Australia now has a range of questions citizenship and PR tests that specifically talk about the culture of the country, rather than just the history and laws.

Edited May 5, 2010 by Booyah!

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

BY, you are the only person I know who could read 1984 and think that the society it describes is a desirable place to live.

If you can let go of your hysteria for a couple of minutes, perhaps you will answer a straight question. Do you think that the police should be allowed to operate with no limits whatsoever?

What would you consider unacceptable behaviour on the part of the police?

Maybe he's already a member of the inner party.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Sorry Pike but the majority of the first world doesn't have platinum copies of V for Vendetta or Children of Men. Furthermore, we certainly don't make decisions based on silly fictional novels.

Funny you say I am the one with the hysteria, when it's you who assumes police will abuse their power period. This wouldn't happen to be the same police that have 24/7 video and mics recording their every move now would it? Nevertheless, just look at where the pike approach has gotten the two countries using it most: UK and USA.

You believe gangs like MS13 should have rights. Whereas, I believe they should be hunted down like the dogs they are; rather than be free to terrorize people and their neighborhoods. Perhaps watching a few gangland docos might show you the reality of these gangs. Then come tell me how many rights you want to give them.

BY - when I claimed you were indulging in hysteria, I didn't pull the word out of my ####### for no reason. Words have specific meaning and I choose them because what I see fits that meaning. Now your post is a prime example of it - not only do you make extravagant claims to suggest that the entire "first world" is behind you, which it isn't; but you use loaded language that suggests you are emotionally compromised. If this is not hysteria, then perhaps there is some new meaning of the word that I was not aware of.

Once again, the difference between us is that I judge you based on things you have written, you snatch words out of the air because you are hysterical and because you can't control your temper.

Anyway, let's stop with the lies and exaggeration about what you think I believe, because you can't read my mind and nothing I have written is indicative of what you have said.

Now you have said several times over the last few days that you want to debate. If that is true - then please tell me what, in your opinion, would constitute inappropriate behaviour on the part of the police; and to what extent (if at all) you feel that the police should be subject to any limitations in pursuit of their work.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Fair enough, then you do have experience with France.

It's not a threat it's just stupid. Who goes to another country and then does everything they can to not integrate and live in silos? Damn straight a country should stand up to such idiocy. There are lots of people of Muslim and other beliefs that are normal functioning members of society. Difference is that they attempt to integrate and interact with others. If someone is an extremist then they better stay in their home country. Common sense really. These rules just make it obvious to those that don't have this common sense. In order to ensure congruence of values and culture, Australia now has a range of questions citizenship and PR tests that specifically talk about the culture of the country, rather than just the history and laws.

How do you rationalise that against the fact that Australia also has violent thugs in its midst who beat up Middle-eastern, African and Indian immigrants - and you yourself who said that you felt such behaviour was justified and that you would have joined in, if you could?

[Heracles 417]

BY - when I claimed you were indulging in hysteria, I didn't pull the word out of my ####### for no reason. Words have specific meaning and I choose them because what I see fits that meaning. Now your post is a prime example of it - not only do you make extravagant claims to suggest that the entire "first world" is behind you, which it isn't; but you use loaded language that suggests you are emotionally compromised. If this is not hysteria, then perhaps there is some new meaning of the word that I was not aware of.

Once again, the difference between us is that I judge you based on things you have written, you snatch words out of the air because you are hysterical and because you can't control your temper.

Anyway, let's stop with the lies and exaggeration about what you think I believe, because you can't read my mind and nothing I have written is indicative of what you have said.

Now you have said several times over the last few days that you want to debate. If that is true - then please tell me what, in your opinion, would constitute inappropriate behaviour on the part of the police; and to what extent (if at all) you feel that the police should be subject to any limitations in pursuit of their work.

Have you lost your mind or are you really this delusional in person? After five years you are still doing it. You will insinuate something and then when someone points out what you are actually saying, you conveniently claim you never said it. I have traveled extensively around the world and can without a doubt say the police over there have more power than they do both here or in the UK.

Nevertheless, do you think it's a coincidence that anyone who disagrees with you has the same issues with you? You ask questions and demand answers, yet never answer any of your own in detail. When you do answer, is something straight out of the script of a politician. That is, generic in nature. Then when pressed for details, that's when red-herring arguments come out like the Aborigines.

You are the one who makes 1984 claims not me. I base my opinion on 2010 and empirical observation of reality. Like I said to another poster, place Aussie police to man a US city with crime and allow them to implement their laws and use their AUS authority in that city. I guarantee you the crime will drop to Aussie levels.

Edited May 5, 2010 by Booyah!

[Heracles 417]

How do you rationalise that against the fact that Australia also has violent thugs in its midst who beat up Middle-eastern, African and Indian immigrants - and you yourself who said that you felt such behaviour was justified and that you would have joined in, if you could?

Actually, that is why they have implemented these new measures and tests to ensure people understand the country they are coming into. You are also talking about isolated cases which have been dealt with by the law. The police even tracked down the person who started the riot, thus his jail sentence. That is how you empower your police to do their work. Racism is illegal there and not considered freedom of speech.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Have you lost your mind or are you really this delusional in person? After five years you are still doing it. You will insinuate something and then when someone points out what you are actually saying, you conveniently claim you never said it. I have traveled extensively around the world and can without a doubt say the police over there have more power than they do both here or in the UK.

Nevertheless, do you think it's a coincidence that anyone who disagrees with you has the same issues with you? You ask questions and demand answers, yet never answer any of your own in detail. When you do answer, is something straight out of the script of a politician. That is, generic in nature. Then when pressed for details, that's when red-herring arguments come out like the Aborigines.

You are the one who makes 1984 claims not me. I base my opinion on 2010 and empirical observation of reality. Like I said to another poster, place Aussie police to man a US city with crime and allow them to implement their laws and use their AUS authority in that city. I guarantee you the crime will drop to Aussie levels.

As I said, BY I'd be interested to know what you would consider unacceptable behaviour on the part of the police. The reason I ask this is because you do seem to think (please correct me if I'm wrong) that anything is justifiable, based not on whether it works, but on how it is justified by the politicians.

I'm not really interested in your personal issues with me. Quite simply, you are unable to control your temper and that is entirely your problem, not mine (even if I do get an occasional kick out of seeing you blow up).

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Actually, that is why they have implemented these new measures and tests to ensure people understand the country they are coming into. You are also talking about isolated cases which have been dealt with by the law. The police even tracked down the person who started the riot, thus his jail sentence. That is how you empower your police to do their work. Racism is illegal there and not considered freedom of speech.

OK, but how do you rationalize this against what you said the other day - that the Australians had "had enough" and were standing up for themselves; were justified in what they did and that you yourself wanted to join in the fighting?

You also said, a few posts above:

If someone is an extremist then they better stay in their home country. Common sense really

So... if the people who committed those violent acts were "extremists" who were rightfully jailed, then why were you supporting them?

Wouldn't that also make you an extremist, by definition?

[Peikko 1,575]

Fair enough, then you do have experience with France.

It's not a threat it's just stupid. Who goes to another country and then does everything they can to not integrate and live in silos? Damn straight a country should stand up to such idiocy. There are lots of people of Muslim and other beliefs that are normal functioning members of society. Difference is that they attempt to integrate and interact with others. If someone is an extremist then they better stay in their home country. Common sense really. These rules just make it obvious to those that don't have this common sense. In order to ensure congruence of values and culture, Australia now has a range of questions citizenship and PR tests that specifically talk about the culture of the country, rather than just the history and laws.

Essentially, the problem with the Burqa, as apposed to some other symbols of faith, is not so much what it is (although those who suggest there is a public safety issue with complete face covering do have a point) but as to what it is supposed to represent - modesty.

The French as we know are a secular state and for historical reasons they prize their secularism highly - that does not mean they are anti- religious, it simply means that there is strict separation between the state and religious organization. In practice, that means that if there is a conflict of interest between a religious freedom and a state granted freedom, the state freedom is almost bound to trump the religious freedom.

How does this affect their attitude to the burqa? In my opinion, the problem with the burqa is not that it is a symbol of the muslim faith, but that to the French state at least (rightly or wrongly), it symbolises female oppression. I have to admit that I am sympathetic towards that point of view - my reasons being that head and body covering is restricted to only one sex, the woman, but for me, more importantly the rational for head/body covering is dubious (modesty is not dependent on what one wears - it is ones attitude) and worse, the whole ethos of female head/body covering is surrounded by the murky stench of resting the responsibility for sexual propriety on women alone.

However, at the end of the day, what is the best way for the state to combat the dangers of an attitude? Realistically, banning things generally has the result of entrenching positions and sharpening the edges of the debate. Those who believe that the burqa is a positive benefit to women are not going to be persuaded that they are misguided simply by being told that they can't do that which they believe they are required to do for religious and family reasons - in fact they are more likely to turn inwards and become more belligerent and cling to the symbolisms of their faith.

Oh, and from the French point of view you can add to the mix the historical frictions and tensions of the 'Algeria' question, just for added piquancy

Edited May 5, 2010 by Madame Cleo

[thongd4me 69]

I have highlighted the bolded because that has nothing to do with any public safety issue that could be addressed by unrestricted stop and search policies - so how do you explain this phenomena? I am interested.

You've certainly stumped me there - no trollworthy explaination I'm afraid.

[Peikko 1,575]

You've certainly stumped me there - no trollworthy explaination I'm afraid.

I think it is a bad thing for children that they are not able to walk to school as much as was done in the past and if there is some way that this can be safely encouraged, that would be a really good thing. My son's school does not even allow a child to make its own way to school until 4th grade, so that might be part of it, but I am not sure why that was put in place - or even if this is a common phenomena.

[Heracles 417]

Essentially, the problem with the Burqa, as apposed to some other symbols of faith, is not so much what it is (although those who suggest there is a public safety issue with complete face covering do have a point) but as to what it is supposed to represent - modesty.

This is how I see it. If I was to move to Japan and did everything I can to go against the Japanese culture, they should rightfully throw me out. If someone has no interest whatsoever in integrating into another country they choose to enter, then sorry, they should not be there period. I went to school with a girl or two like that and it was extremely uncomfortable for all of us, on the odd days she attended class. She didn't speak to anyone nor cared to. Then I was young, now I would approach her and her habibi and ask them what the #### they are even doing here.

Edited May 6, 2010 by Booyah!

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

If someone has no interest whatsoever in integrating into another country they choose to enter, then sorry, they should not be there period.

I agree.

[Peikko 1,575]

I agree.

I am not quite sure how you assess the 'intention to assimilate' - or what that consists of exactly. As long as they obey any and all laws, surely that's all you can require? We have people on this very message board who bring spouses into the US from around the world and their cultural identity is presumably integral to that attraction, not something that each spouse wants to instantly dispose of once they step on US soil.

I don't like the implications of having modesty symbolized by a garment of clothing, I don't like that women in some cultures seem to be put in the position of being solely responsible for sexual propriety, but I don't think making a law requiring them to make alternative arrangements for an outward show of modesty is going to solve the problem - would that it would to be honest.