Sarkozy = Idiot

[Keystone Phil]

Being a housewive is being subservant? Didn't know you were a feminist, Phil.

I'm not. I'm just using the same rhetoric that you're using.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Who the hell is ordering around the majority? They're ordering around the majority by wanting to wear a burqa?

[GMantis]

Being a housewive is being subservant? Didn't know you were a feminist, Phil.

I'm not. I'm just using the same rhetoric that you're using.

It's absurd to compare this. Being a housewife doesn't hide you from the surrounding world.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Who the hell is ordering around the majority? They're ordering around the majority by wanting to wear a burqa?

This is just part of the problem, which includes the insistence that employers should accommodate them in all possible ways, that they must not be "insulted" - this is taken to an absurd level, for example there have been calls to stop commemoration of the Holocaust as it supposedly denigrates Palestinians. The wearing of burqas (at least for security reasons) is incompatible with European norms, so permitting Muslims to wear them is already imposing their way on life on the majority.
This is a good example of what I'm talking about:
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=18940_Austrian_Muslims_Demand_All_Teachers_Wear_Hajib&only

[Keystone Phil]

It's absurd to compare this. Being a housewife doesn't hide you from the surrounding world.

Whatever, dude.

[quote
This is just part of the problem, which includes the insistence that employers should accommodate them in all possible ways, that they must not be "insulted" - this is taken to an absurd level, for example there have been calls to stop commemoration of the Holocaust as it supposedly denigrates Palestinians. The wearing of burqas (at least for security reasons) is incompatible with European norms, so permitting Muslims to wear them is already imposing their way on life on the majority.
This is a good example of what I'm talking about:
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=18940_Austrian_Muslims_Demand_All_Teachers_Wear_Hajib&only
[/quote]

...

And this has nothing to do with burqas. This is a horrific slippery slope argument.

[GMantis]

It's absurd to compare this. Being a housewife doesn't hide you from the surrounding world.

Whatever, dude.

[quote
This is just part of the problem, which includes the insistence that employers should accommodate them in all possible ways, that they must not be "insulted" - this is taken to an absurd level, for example there have been calls to stop commemoration of the Holocaust as it supposedly denigrates Palestinians. The wearing of burqas (at least for security reasons) is incompatible with European norms, so permitting Muslims to wear them is already imposing their way on life on the majority.
This is a good example of what I'm talking about:
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=18940_Austrian_Muslims_Demand_All_Teachers_Wear_Hajib&only

...

And this has nothing to do with burqas. This is a horrific slippery slope argument.
[/quote]
If Muslims believe that everything they demand for themselves will be granted - and the wearing of burqas is part of that - they'll soon start to demand changes in the life of the majority. I think it's quite logical. Would those extremists have made those demands if it was clear that Muslims couldn't do whatever they wanted (if for example, headscarves were banned in school, as they were in Turkey until not long ago).

[opebo]

Sarkozy is a freedom fighter for this.

Yeah, a real big FF. 

What about the women who actually want to wear a burqa?

Just because the victim of political violence and domestic abuse (two sides of the same coin) has embraced their subjugation does not mean we must condone it.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Sarkozy = Idiot

In general, I strongly agree with your statement. But among every measures of Sarkozy administration, this is probably one of the best. Burqa is an oppression factor that has nothing to do in a democratic and free country. We must fight muslim fundamentalism and his reactionary practices.

[??????????]

I'm very torn on this issue. I feel like Antonio on the issue of fundamentalist Islam and feel a ban would be a good thing. I also feel like it's none of the states business how someone dresses and they should have the freedom to wear what they want. I strongly feel towards the later however, I can see the valid points that the former makes. I can definitely understand them forbidding burqas for drivers licenses and in banks but something inside me says to leave them alone otherwise. Like I've said before, my aunts wore the traditional headscarf when they first came over here but as they assimilated they eventually stopped wearing them. 

[Hash]

Sarkozy = Idiot

In general, I strongly agree with your statement. But among every measures of Sarkozy administration, this is probably one of the best. Burqa is an oppression factor that has nothing to do in a democratic and free country. We must fight muslim fundamentalism and his reactionary practices.

Hear, hear. France is a secular state and must remain so.

[??????????]

France is a secular state and must remain so.

Secular in private life or government?

[Hash]

France is a secular state and must remain so.

Secular in private life or government?

Government. But we must fight Muslim fundamentalism and oppression.

This is banning the burqas, not the headscarf only. I've little problems with headscarves, but a full black burqa has no place in France. France isn't Riyadh, for god's sake.

[Mechaman]

As much as fundamentalist Islam turns my stomach I will never understand people who would ban freedom of expression.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Good for Sarkozy.

BTW I'm sure some Muslim women have consented to genital mutilation as well, yet it's still illegal in every civilized country.

[Keystone Phil]

they'll soon start to demand changes in the life of the majority. I think it's quite logical. Would those extremists have made those demands if it was clear that Muslims couldn't do whatever they wanted (if for example, headscarves were banned in school, as they were in Turkey until not long ago).

No, it's not logical; it's a ridiculous slippery slope.

France is a secular state and must remain so.

Secular in private life or government?

Government. But we must fight Muslim fundamentalism and oppression.

This is banning the burqas, not the headscarf only. I've little problems with headscarves, but a full black burqa has no place in France. France isn't Riyadh, for god's sake.

Wow. Just...wow.

Again, ignoring the will of women that actually want to wear it because France "isn't Riyadh."

This is the same genius that rails against xenophobic, nationalist fascists, right?  Where do we draw the line? Does Sarkozy now want to regulate what happens in mosques as well? Is he going to force mosques to allow women and men to pray together? I mean, why shouldn't he? This "isn't Riyadh," right?

Good for Sarkozy.

BTW I'm sure some Muslim women have consented to genital mutilation as well, yet it's still illegal in every civilized country.

We can make distinctions, BRTD. Burqas are not on the same level and genital mutilation is far more likely to be something forced on a woman.

I, personally, do not like burqas but there is some tradition behind it and I am in no place to tell women that want to wear them that they shouldn't because the U.S. "isn't Riyadh."

[Sbane]

First of all your correct observation that non muslims are made to wear burqas in places like Saudi Arabia is not relevant in the west. You seriously think some muslims, who are heavily in the minority, are going to force some westerner (frenchwoman in this case) to wear a burqa? Uhh....wow.

Also how is a burqa antisocial? I personally don't like them one bit, but if a woman wants to wear it she should be able to. If she is being forced to wear one she would have a right to complain and would be heard in the west.

There have been some cases, where non-women living in heavily Muslim areas to at least cover their heads to avoid constant abuse.

I am guessing you meant women living in muslim areas in non-muslim countries? Do you have any evidence that non-muslim women are forced to cover their head in these areas? You are being one paranoid nut if you think muslims are going to force Europeans to start covering their head and praying 5 times a day to mecca.

[Sbane]

Sarkozy = Idiot

In general, I strongly agree with your statement. But among every measures of Sarkozy administration, this is probably one of the best. Burqa is an oppression factor that has nothing to do in a democratic and free country. We must fight muslim fundamentalism and his reactionary practices.

Hear, hear. France is a secular state and must remain so.

So banning head scarves and turbans will somehow make you "secular". I don't see these actions as being anything other than fascist and anti-immigrant. If someone wants to wear a Burqa they should be able to as long as they are not forcing it upon others and there should be exceptions for things like driver's licence pictures and such. Beyond that can you give me just one good reason why banning turbans for sikhs and headscarves isn't the symptom of a fascist state?

[Keystone Phil]

By the way, how is banning a religious custom a sign of a secular government? This doesn't affect the government at all; it targets personal life.

Has France banned habits for nuns?

[Antonio the Sixth]

As much as fundamentalist Islam turns my stomach I will never understand people who would ban freedom of expression.

Do you mean the American version of freedom of expression ? You have the right to say "homosexuality is an abomination" "we should kil doctors who practiced abortion", you have the right to be a neo-nazi and diffuse hatred against other races, but if you are not a fanatic anti communist during the McCarthysm or if you are arab and the brother of your father's cousin said for laughs when he was drunk "Bin Laden is a good man !", then you will be arbitrarily arrested, tortured and sentenced to death.

I, personally, do not like burqas but there is some tradition behind it and I am in no place to tell women that want to wear them that they shouldn't because the U.S. "isn't Riyadh."

The quetion is not whether you like it or not. Some users are beginning to say "Women chose to wear burqa". Yes, they chose, but why ? Just because their minds are deadened by a fundamentalist rhetoric that told them since the childhood they were inferior beings, and they must serve their husbands and hide their body. "tradition" is a synonym of "oppression".

[Franzl]

As much as fundamentalist Islam turns my stomach I will never understand people who would ban freedom of expression.

Do you mean the American version of freedom of expression ? You have the right to say "homosexuality is an abomination" "we should kil doctors who practiced abortion", you have the right to be a neo-nazi and diffuse hatred against other races, but if you are not a fanatic anti communist during the McCarthysm or if you are arab and the brother of your father's cousin said for laughs when he was drunk "Bin Laden is a good man !", then you will be arbitrarily arrested, tortured and sentenced to death.

Where in the world did you get that information?

[Franzl]

The quetion is not whether you like it or not. Some users are beginning to say "Women chose to wear burqa". Yes, they chose, but why ? Just becaus their mind are deadened by a fundamentalist rhetoric that said them from the childhood that they were inferior being, that they must serve their husbands and hide their body. "tradition" is a synonym of "oppression".

Why should the state judge why somebody wants to wear certain clothing?

Can't you just as easily say Catholics shouldn't wear crosses around their necks because "their minds are deadeneds by rhetoric"?

[GMantis]

they'll soon start to demand changes in the life of the majority. I think it's quite logical. Would those extremists have made those demands if it was clear that Muslims couldn't do whatever they wanted (if for example, headscarves were banned in school, as they were in Turkey until not long ago).

No, it's not logical; it's a ridiculous slippery slope.

If society capitulates (as many Muslims see it) on Islamic clothing, then some Muslims (mainly extremist, but still) see it permissible to pressure society to accommodate other demands, and if these are accommodated, to press yet other demands. Remember, most of these Muslims come from countries where minorities have little rights and many think that because the host countries give them many rights, they are somehow in control. And after all, they have religious justification for this.

[Keystone Phil]

Yes, they chose, but why ? Just becaus their mind are deadened by a fundamentalist rhetoric that said them from the childhood that they were inferior being, that they must serve their husbands and hide their body. "tradition" is a synonym of "oppression".

So now let's just ban the religion.  

Hey, imagine this - some people believe and like the traditions. They can do that.

By the way, you have warped what Islam really means just to excuse your dislike for it and give you reasons to surpress it legally. I've had a Muslim classmate describe to the class the tradition of the burqa/headscarve. Now I understand that there are people that actually want them worn to keep women as second class citizens but plenty of women really do follow the tradition and like it and for you to tell them they can't is disgusting and patronizing.

As for "tradition" being a synonym for "oppression," well, this isn't even worth my time anymore.

The quetion is not whether you like it or not. Some users are beginning to say "Women chose to wear burqa". Yes, they chose, but why ? Just becaus their mind are deadened by a fundamentalist rhetoric that said them from the childhood that they were inferior being, that they must serve their husbands and hide their body. "tradition" is a synonym of "oppression".

Why should the state judge why somebody wants to wear certain clothing?

Can't you just as easily say Catholics shouldn't wear crosses around their necks because "their minds are deadeneds by rhetoric"?

Bingo

they'll soon start to demand changes in the life of the majority. I think it's quite logical. Would those extremists have made those demands if it was clear that Muslims couldn't do whatever they wanted (if for example, headscarves were banned in school, as they were in Turkey until not long ago).

No, it's not logical; it's a ridiculous slippery slope.

If society capitulates (as many Muslims see it) on Islamic clothing, then some Muslims (mainly extremist, but still) see it permissible to pressure society to accommodate other demands, and if these are accommodated, to press yet other demands. Remember, most of these Muslims come from countries where minorities have little rights and many think that because the host countries give them many rights, they are somehow in control. And after all, they have religious justification for this.

And when Muslims wish to carry out Sharia Law and stuff like that, we can (and do) speak out against it. In the meantime, stop using the slippery slope argument for burqas. It's like me saying, "Well, we have to seal the borders because if we let too many Mexicans in, they'll force Spanish to become our official language."

[Sbane]

As much as fundamentalist Islam turns my stomach I will never understand people who would ban freedom of expression.

Do you mean the American version of freedom of expression ? You have the right to say "homosexuality is an abomination" "we should kil doctors who practiced abortion", you have the right to be a neo-nazi and diffuse hatred against other races, but if you are not a fanatic anti communist during the McCarthysm or if you are arab and the brother of your father's cousin said for laughs when he was drunk "Bin Laden is a good man !", then you will be arbitrarily arrested, tortured and sentenced to death.

I, personally, do not like burqas but there is some tradition behind it and I am in no place to tell women that want to wear them that they shouldn't because the U.S. "isn't Riyadh."

The quetion is not whether you like it or not. Some users are beginning to say "Women chose to wear burqa". Yes, they chose, but why ? Just because their minds are deadened by a fundamentalist rhetoric that told them since the childhood they were inferior beings, and they must serve their husbands and hide their body. "tradition" is a synonym of "oppression".

Yes people should have the freedom of speech no matter what they say (with a few restrictions). You guys don't support that in france?

Also you say that the Burqa is oppressive and that women have been brainwashed since birth to wear it. You may have a point there but it's still their choice. Would you force some 70 year old lady who has worn a burqa all her life to wear something else? Also do you think a hijab is oppressive? It seems to me to be an article of clothing. And IS A TURBAN OPPRESSIVE? You can't seriously make that claim. Why don't you just own up to it that all these "secular" laws are aimed solely at the immigrants in France. Xenophobia at it's best.

[GMantis]

they'll soon start to demand changes in the life of the majority. I think it's quite logical. Would those extremists have made those demands if it was clear that Muslims couldn't do whatever they wanted (if for example, headscarves were banned in school, as they were in Turkey until not long ago).

No, it's not logical; it's a ridiculous slippery slope.

If society capitulates (as many Muslims see it) on Islamic clothing, then some Muslims (mainly extremist, but still) see it permissible to pressure society to accommodate other demands, and if these are accommodated, to press yet other demands. Remember, most of these Muslims come from countries where minorities have little rights and many think that because the host countries give them many rights, they are somehow in control. And after all, they have religious justification for this.

And when Muslims wish to carry out Sharia Law and stuff like that, we can (and do) speak out against it. In the meantime, stop using the slippery slope argument for burqas. It's like me saying, "Well, we have to seal the borders because if we let too many Mexicans in, they'll force Spanish to become our official language."

I don't think those who have surrendered on so many issues regarding Muslims, would have much authority if they suddenly turned around out and opposed Sharia law and the like. After all, the same arguments can be used in this case, as in earlier cases: "It's just part of their religion and tradition!", "As hosts we must make immigrants feel welcome!" and so on.
And while all this is going on, all the negative drawbacks of burqas also go on: the isolation and alienation of Muslims, the security risks,  the forced wearing of burqas under pressure of their relatives, wider community and recently, Islamist groups.
I see that you believe strongly in the high minded position of absolute freedom, but absolute freedom is useless and even dangerous against those who have no respects for freedom and only wish to destory it.

[??????????]

As much as fundamentalist Islam turns my stomach I will never understand people who would ban freedom of expression.

Do you mean the American version of freedom of expression ? You have the right to say "homosexuality is an abomination" "we should kil doctors who practiced abortion", you have the right to be a neo-nazi and diffuse hatred against other races,

That's right, freedom of speech is absolute. No matter how disgusting or revolting it may be hate speech = free speech. Freedom of speech is a natural right granted to us by our Creator. France can do whatever the hell it wants to do, I don't want to force our rights on anyone else but obviously I would be happy if they would choose my line of thought on the matter.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Hyperbole much?

[Sbane]

they'll soon start to demand changes in the life of the majority. I think it's quite logical. Would those extremists have made those demands if it was clear that Muslims couldn't do whatever they wanted (if for example, headscarves were banned in school, as they were in Turkey until not long ago).

No, it's not logical; it's a ridiculous slippery slope.

If society capitulates (as many Muslims see it) on Islamic clothing, then some Muslims (mainly extremist, but still) see it permissible to pressure society to accommodate other demands, and if these are accommodated, to press yet other demands. Remember, most of these Muslims come from countries where minorities have little rights and many think that because the host countries give them many rights, they are somehow in control. And after all, they have religious justification for this.

And when Muslims wish to carry out Sharia Law and stuff like that, we can (and do) speak out against it. In the meantime, stop using the slippery slope argument for burqas. It's like me saying, "Well, we have to seal the borders because if we let too many Mexicans in, they'll force Spanish to become our official language."

I don't think those who have surrendered on so many issues regarding Muslims, would have much authority if they suddenly turned around out and opposed Sharia law and the like. After all, the same arguments can be used in this case, as in earlier cases: "It's just part of their religion and tradition!", "As hosts we must make immigrants feel welcome!" and so on.
And while all this is going on, all the negative drawbacks of burqas also go on: the isolation and alienation of Muslims, the security risks,  the forced wearing of burqas under pressure of their relatives, wider community and recently, Islamist groups.
I see that you believe strongly in the high minded position of absolute freedom, but absolute freedom is useless and even dangerous against those who have no respects for freedom and only wish to destory it.

There is a huge difference between allowing someone the right to wear a burqa or headscarf and a minority imposing sharia law on the majority. I don't see how one can lead to the other.