French MPs vote to ban full veil

fuckfuck Posts: 4,069
edited July 2010 in A Moving Train
sickening

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/europe/10611398.stm

I'm interested to hear thoughts on this... does anyone here actually support this? would anyone like to see something similar in the US? if so, why?
Post edited by Unknown User on
«134

Comments

  • gimmesometruth27gimmesometruth27 St. Fuckin Louis Posts: 23,303
    i find it sickening as well. why the hell can we not live and let live in this world anymore? someone always has to dictate to someone else what they are allowed to say or do, or in this case, wear. what would happen if they banned people from wearing gaudy huge gold cross bling necklaces or the traditional jewish headwear? this is the same thing as banning those things.
    "You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry."  - Lincoln

    "Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
  • haffajappahaffajappa British Columbia Posts: 5,955
    i find it sickening as well. why the hell can we not live and let live in this world anymore? someone always has to dictate to someone else what they are allowed to say or do, or in this case, wear. what would happen if they banned people from wearing gaudy huge gold cross bling necklaces or the traditional jewish headwear? this is the same thing as banning those things.
    yeah... i can understand in certain situations (passport photos, security reasons etc) but all the time?
    if they want to wear it then so be it...
    live pearl jam is best pearl jam
  • redrockredrock Posts: 18,341
    It's not just for the full veil, it's any face covering, though obviously the burqa is a prime example of this. Full face covering is already banned in Belgium (I think) and in other countries (I know of the Netherlands but there are others), face covering - which by the way includes masks - is banned in schools, public transport, etc.
  • __ Posts: 6,651
    Unless there's some information I'm missing or argument that escapes me, I'm opposed to such bans.
  • redrockredrock Posts: 18,341
    I think they say banning full covering of the face in public places is for security reasons.
  • Hub.Hub. Posts: 1,990
    Redrock is absolutely right: "it's any face covering", basically.

    But ministers add that, in the burqa situation, many women don't choose to wear it but are forced by their husbands (or family pressures) and that, in the name of human dignity and sex equality, it should be banned... yeah... whatever!!! :roll:

    My opinion: I really don't care:

    1. I live in the countryside and these problems are far away from me.
    2. I voted against Sarkozy, during the last election. Apparently, it wasn't obvious enough this guy was a bad lot. So now, if French people are fed up with him, next time, they’ll vote for somebody else.

    The problem isn’t only the veil, many reforms are actually voted. This is one of the rare ones you have access to. In France, democracy’s in danger, for sure.

    France gets 25th rank.
  • SmellymanSmellyman Asia Posts: 4,524
    Yes it is for secuity reasons hard to ID somebody especially somone who may have robbed a store or something if they have their face covered.

    Won't be too long before loons start wearing burkas to get away with crime.
  • Why is it sickening?

    I'm not starting an argument here, but it really fucks me off how reactions change.

    What is the difference between having to adhere with, what is basically, socially acceptable dress codes and conduct in one country and yet not in another?

    For example, when it is really hot could men walk round in jeans but no shirt in every country? No they couldn't. So does that make one country right and one wrong? People are free to live in whatever country they choose, but they should be mindful of the fact that they need to adapt to traditions, culture and society in general.

    To do otherwise, for example to wear a full burka, instantly alienates you from the majority. Add on to this stereotypical views and you start to create suspicion, unease and, in extreme cases, hate and prejudice. These opinions may have been created by many different types of stimuli and the resultant reaction the wrong one, but it causes a reaction nonetheless.
    It's gonna be a glorious day...
  • blackredyellowblackredyellow Posts: 5,889
    haffajappa wrote:
    i find it sickening as well. why the hell can we not live and let live in this world anymore? someone always has to dictate to someone else what they are allowed to say or do, or in this case, wear. what would happen if they banned people from wearing gaudy huge gold cross bling necklaces or the traditional jewish headwear? this is the same thing as banning those things.
    yeah... i can understand in certain situations (passport photos, security reasons etc) but all the time?
    if they want to wear it then so be it...

    I agree... I know banks have rules about not wearing hats or whatever at the teller counter so the camera can see your face... those kinds of rules make sense. Even at an airport, I wouldn't expect to be able to go through security with a ski mask on, so if they have to remove them there, I don't have a problem with that.

    But every day life? I don't have any problem with people wearing what they want...
    My whole life
    was like a picture
    of a sunny day
    “We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
    ― Abraham Lincoln
  • blackredyellowblackredyellow Posts: 5,889
    To do otherwise, for example to wear a full burka, instantly alienates you from the majority. Add on to this stereotypical views and you start to create suspicion, unease and, in extreme cases, hate and prejudice. These opinions may have been created by many different types of stimuli and the resultant reaction the wrong one, but it causes a reaction nonetheless.

    I tend to agree, but what right does a government have in legislating this stuff?

    On an anecdotal note though, we were at the Sesame Place amusement park (outside of Philly) last month... it was like 100 degrees... literally... it's half water park, so most people were in some form of bathing suit or another. There was a family we saw throughout the day, the guy & kids had shorts/trunks on and tank tops or t-shirts... his wife (assuming) was in a full black burqa. I guess having your wife suffer from heat stroke is better than other people seeing any part of her except her eyes. I don't get it at all... but like I said, I don't think the gov't should make laws about it.
    My whole life
    was like a picture
    of a sunny day
    “We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
    ― Abraham Lincoln
  • Godfather.Godfather. Posts: 12,504
    _outlaw wrote:
    sickening

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/europe/10611398.stm

    I'm interested to hear thoughts on this... does anyone here actually support this? would anyone like to see something similar in the US? if so, why?

    it is what it is, there must be some concerns with this from the countries that will not allow it, not every country will give in to and bend over backward to make foreigners happy like the US dose.
    just a thought.

    Godfather.
  • know1know1 Posts: 6,794
    Some people just love to rely on the government to control every aspect of their lives.....until they are told what to wear and then suddenly it's sickening.

    I'm against the ban, btw.
    The only people we should try to get even with...
    ...are those who've helped us.

    Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
  • gimmesometruth27gimmesometruth27 St. Fuckin Louis Posts: 23,303
    Godfather. wrote:
    _outlaw wrote:
    sickening

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/europe/10611398.stm

    I'm interested to hear thoughts on this... does anyone here actually support this? would anyone like to see something similar in the US? if so, why?

    it is what it is, there must be some concerns with this from the countries that will not allow it, not every country will give in to and bend over backward to make foreigners happy like the US dose.
    just a thought.

    Godfather.
    "gove in and bend over backwards to make foreigners happy like the us does"???? like with the new arizona immigration law?
    "You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry."  - Lincoln

    "Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
  • Godfather.Godfather. Posts: 12,504
    Godfather. wrote:
    _outlaw wrote:
    sickening

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/europe/10611398.stm

    I'm interested to hear thoughts on this... does anyone here actually support this? would anyone like to see something similar in the US? if so, why?

    it is what it is, there must be some concerns with this from the countries that will not allow it, not every country will give in to and bend over backward to make foreigners happy like the US dose.
    just a thought.

    Godfather.
    "give in and bend over backwards to make foreigners happy like the us does"???? like with the new Arizona immigration law?

    gove...thanks for pointing that out, the new Arizona law has been a long time coming and it's not finished yet I believe, this is just my opinion and apparently that of many others, I wont argue this with you because it will not change my feelings on the issue.
    as far as the vail goes I see the concerns that may be seen but one way or the other it means little to me.

    Godfather.
  • unlost dogsunlost dogs Greater Boston Posts: 12,553
    Schools increasingly ban dew rags and similar garments that have, in some circumstances, been linked to gangs or whatever... and I know I read last year about a school system that attempted to ban a Muslim girl from wearing a veil.

    Where do you draw the line? A dew rag? Yarmluke? A veil that fully covers a female's hair? One that covers some of her her face? A full burka?

    At what point does an individual's right to express themselves or their personal beliefs intersect and collide with the rights of others to feel secure or just comfortable?

    Does the fact that its a burka donned for religious reasons make it more valid than if it's a dew rag worn because you like the way you look in it?

    Haven't got an answer. Just saying it's a slippery slope.
    15 years of sharks 06/30/08 (MA), 05/17/10 (Boston), 09/03/11 (Alpine Valley), 09/04/11 (Alpine Valley), 09/30/12 (Missoula), 07/19/13 (Wrigley), 10/15/13 (Worcester), 10/16/13 (Worcester), 10/25/13 (Hartford), 12/4/13 (Vancouver), 12/6/13 (Seattle), 6/26/14 (Berlin), 6/28/14 (Stockholm), 10/16/14 (Detroit)
  • Jason PJason P Posts: 19,158
    Schools increasingly ban dew rags and similar garments that have, in some circumstances, been linked to gangs or whatever... and I know I read last year about a school system that attempted to ban a Muslim girl from wearing a veil.

    Where do you draw the line? A dew rag? Yarmluke? A veil that fully covers a female's hair? One that covers some of her her face? A full burka?

    At what point does an individual's right to express themselves or their personal beliefs intersect and collide with the rights of others to feel secure or just comfortable?

    Does the fact that its a burka donned for religious reasons make it more valid than if it's a dew rag worn because you like the way you look in it?

    Haven't got an answer. Just saying it's a slippery slope.
    Just mandate that everyone wear those skull cap thingys that the NFL approved a few years back. Problem solved!
    Be Excellent To Each Other
    Party On, Dudes!
  • Jason P wrote:

    At what point does an individual's right to express themselves or their personal beliefs intersect and collide with the rights of others to feel secure or just comfortable?

    Does the fact that its a burka donned for religious reasons make it more valid than if it's a dew rag worn because you like the way you look in it?

    Haven't got an answer. Just saying it's a slippery slope.

    The problem is that there is a massive amount of double standards that goes on and this just makes the problem even more complex.

    Such as this story:

    http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/289785
    It's gonna be a glorious day...
  • gimmesometruth27gimmesometruth27 St. Fuckin Louis Posts: 23,303
    to me it just seems like an attack on islam. if you ban the religious symbols and clothing then what is next?

    personally i think all religion is stupid, but i fully support the rights of the faithful to wear whatever their faith asks/allows them to wear.
    "You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry."  - Lincoln

    "Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
  • redrockredrock Posts: 18,341

    Does the fact that its a burka donned for religious reasons make it more valid than if it's a dew rag worn because you like the way you look in it?.
    Burkas are not worn for religious reasons.

    Regarding the banning of religious symbols, a lot of major companies and non religious schools already ban wearing overtly any religious symbol that is not 'demanded' by their religion. Eg a cross on a chain is a no-no but the dastaar is fine because it is manatory attire in Sikhism. On the other hand, the jewish yarmulke is also a no-no because their faith do not require them to wear it all the time (only during prayer).
  • blackredyellowblackredyellow Posts: 5,889
    redrock wrote:

    Does the fact that its a burka donned for religious reasons make it more valid than if it's a dew rag worn because you like the way you look in it?.
    Burkas are not worn for religious reasons.

    ok... but they are worn for reasons based on a religious culture.
    My whole life
    was like a picture
    of a sunny day
    “We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
    ― Abraham Lincoln
  • redrockredrock Posts: 18,341
    ok... but they are worn for reasons based on a religious culture.

    I wouldn't say so. Very few actually wear the burka. It's a question of modesty and old, male dominated traditions, not really the modern muslim faith.
  • haffajappahaffajappa British Columbia Posts: 5,955
    Like i said apart from where security comes into question they should be allowed to wear whatever they want....


    ...but I gotta say, what a shitty tradition where women are meant to cover their entire faces or their heads. Men should have to wear them too then... I'm not trying to bash anyone's religion or tradition or whatever, but some people are just brainwashed from birth on what they have to do - especially in their servitude to man :roll:
    live pearl jam is best pearl jam
  • Hub.Hub. Posts: 1,990
    For those who read French (From, Le Monde, an important newspaper) :
    La dignité de l'homme exige qu'il porte la burqa

    par Pierrette Fleutiaux

    LE MONDE du 04/07/09

    Si j'étais un homme pieux, voici ce que je proposerais. La femme est un être faible, soumis à toutes les tentations, nous le savons depuis la nuit des temps. Elle est concupiscente, tout entière la proie de pulsions condamnables. Son corps aspire à celui de l'homme, la société doit maîtriser ce corps, dès son plus jeune âge. La burqa peut sembler une réponse appropriée. Contraindre les mouvements de la femme, la ramener à la modestie, encadrer les désirs sauvages qui lui sont naturels, qui troublent son esprit et corrompent la société, relève du devoir de l'homme respectueux de l'ordre divin.


    Cependant, peut-être avons-nous fait erreur non pas dans l'interprétation de la loi divine, mais dans les moyens de la mieux appliquer. En effet, les yeux de la femme, même derrière un grillage, même dans la fente du niqab, restent libres. La vision périphérique en est certes limitée, mais la perversité naturelle de la femme lui fera trouver le moyen de contourner ce léger handicap. La femme en burqa continue de voir. On imagine quelles turpitudes alors peuvent agiter son esprit. Cachée sous son voile intégral, la femme peut encore se livrer à la débauche mentale.

    Une solution serait de l'aveugler totalement, par le moyen d'un bandeau ou tout autre moyen non cruel mais efficace. Cette solution est à écarter : la femme ne pourrait plus en effet accomplir les tâches auxquelles la destine sa condition subalterne : nourrir l'homme et ses fils, conduire les fils de l'homme à l'école, et faire toutes choses qui dégagent l'homme des tâches matérielles, facilitent l'exercice de son vouloir et son étude des textes sacrés.

    Je soumets ici une modeste proposition à mes frères. Que les hommes portent la burqa, qu'ils s'approprient ce vêtement que dévoie trop facilement la femme. L'homme est beau, l'homme est la création première de Dieu, la femme le désire indécemment. Ne lui donnant pas la liberté de convoiter, ne tentons pas sa faible nature.

    Voyez l'homme derrière lequel marche la femme en burqa. Même voilée, justement parce que voilée, elle a toute licence de contempler les bras que montrent les chemisettes d'été, les pieds dans les sandales, les fesses agiles et les jambes qui se devinent sous les pantalons, les poitrines mâles et les visages nobles. L'homme croit avoir mis la femme à l'abri de tout danger dans sa prison portative de la burqa. En réalité, il lui accorde une liberté scandaleuse.

    L'homme en burqa brisera net l'élan pervers de la femme. Ces yeux brillants, qui transpercent le voile le plus épais, se heurteront à un mur. Ainsi privée dans la journée, elle n'en sera dans sa maison que plus portée à répondre aux besoins sexuels légitimes de son époux.

    Que la femme aille dans la rue dans les atours aguicheurs qu'elle ne manquera pas de se choisir. Son regard s'épuisera sur les autres femmes, elle y verra comme dans un miroir sa propre indécence, sa futilité même la détournera de toute compétition malsaine avec l'homme. Quant à cette exposition de la féminité, elle ne saurait nuire à l'homme. Il s'y verra conforté dans son incontestable supériorité. Il saura, dans les autres burqas, reconnaître les hommes pieux et respectueux de la loi, et ainsi renforcera nécessairement la belle et indispensable communauté masculine.

    ORDRE DIVIN

    Repoussons cette croyance absurde qu'il faudrait voiler les femmes pour que les hommes ne soient pas portés à désirer celles d'autrui. Une telle croyance est mécréante : elle accrédite l'idée que l'homme a été créé libidineux, violeur par nature et faible devant ses désirs. Et que, devant toute femme passant sous ses yeux, s'éveille aussitôt en lui la pulsion de lui sauter sur le râble pour consommer l'oeuvre de chair. L'homme a en lui la force de l'âme et le respect naturel de l'ordre divin. L'homme n'a rien à craindre des misérables appâts de la femme.

    Enfin, reconnaissons qu'il y a grand danger à abandonner les fils de l'homme aux soins de la femme. Son faible entendement ne peut que leur nuire. A l'homme de prendre en charge l'homme dans le nourrisson, à lui de le langer, le nourrir, le soigner. Une fois sa tâche reproductive accomplie, que la femme dirige ses agissements erratiques vers l'extérieur, qu'elle s'en aille piailler dans les assemblées publiques, mais que ses miasmes ne corrompent plus le foyer sacré de l'homme. La dignité de l'homme exige qu'il porte la burqa. La burqa est faite pour l'homme.

    @LEMONDE
  • redrockredrock Posts: 18,341
    Good read Hub. So tongue in cheek but such a role reversal may open up some eyes!
  • Jason PJason P Posts: 19,158
    Hub. wrote:
    For those who read French (From, Le Monde, an important newspaper) :
    La dignité de l'homme exige qu'il porte la burqa

    par Pierrette Fleutiaux

    LE MONDE du 04/07/09

    Si j'étais un homme pieux, voici ce que je proposerais. La femme est un être faible, soumis à toutes les tentations, nous le savons depuis la nuit des temps. Elle est concupiscente, tout entière la proie de pulsions condamnables. Son corps aspire à celui de l'homme, la société doit maîtriser ce corps, dès son plus jeune âge. La burqa peut sembler une réponse appropriée. Contraindre les mouvements de la femme, la ramener à la modestie, encadrer les désirs sauvages qui lui sont naturels, qui troublent son esprit et corrompent la société, relève du devoir de l'homme respectueux de l'ordre divin.


    Cependant, peut-être avons-nous fait erreur non pas dans l'interprétation de la loi divine, mais dans les moyens de la mieux appliquer. En effet, les yeux de la femme, même derrière un grillage, même dans la fente du niqab, restent libres. La vision périphérique en est certes limitée, mais la perversité naturelle de la femme lui fera trouver le moyen de contourner ce léger handicap. La femme en burqa continue de voir. On imagine quelles turpitudes alors peuvent agiter son esprit. Cachée sous son voile intégral, la femme peut encore se livrer à la débauche mentale.

    Une solution serait de l'aveugler totalement, par le moyen d'un bandeau ou tout autre moyen non cruel mais efficace. Cette solution est à écarter : la femme ne pourrait plus en effet accomplir les tâches auxquelles la destine sa condition subalterne : nourrir l'homme et ses fils, conduire les fils de l'homme à l'école, et faire toutes choses qui dégagent l'homme des tâches matérielles, facilitent l'exercice de son vouloir et son étude des textes sacrés.

    Je soumets ici une modeste proposition à mes frères. Que les hommes portent la burqa, qu'ils s'approprient ce vêtement que dévoie trop facilement la femme. L'homme est beau, l'homme est la création première de Dieu, la femme le désire indécemment. Ne lui donnant pas la liberté de convoiter, ne tentons pas sa faible nature.

    Voyez l'homme derrière lequel marche la femme en burqa. Même voilée, justement parce que voilée, elle a toute licence de contempler les bras que montrent les chemisettes d'été, les pieds dans les sandales, les fesses agiles et les jambes qui se devinent sous les pantalons, les poitrines mâles et les visages nobles. L'homme croit avoir mis la femme à l'abri de tout danger dans sa prison portative de la burqa. En réalité, il lui accorde une liberté scandaleuse.

    L'homme en burqa brisera net l'élan pervers de la femme. Ces yeux brillants, qui transpercent le voile le plus épais, se heurteront à un mur. Ainsi privée dans la journée, elle n'en sera dans sa maison que plus portée à répondre aux besoins sexuels légitimes de son époux.

    Que la femme aille dans la rue dans les atours aguicheurs qu'elle ne manquera pas de se choisir. Son regard s'épuisera sur les autres femmes, elle y verra comme dans un miroir sa propre indécence, sa futilité même la détournera de toute compétition malsaine avec l'homme. Quant à cette exposition de la féminité, elle ne saurait nuire à l'homme. Il s'y verra conforté dans son incontestable supériorité. Il saura, dans les autres burqas, reconnaître les hommes pieux et respectueux de la loi, et ainsi renforcera nécessairement la belle et indispensable communauté masculine.

    ORDRE DIVIN

    Repoussons cette croyance absurde qu'il faudrait voiler les femmes pour que les hommes ne soient pas portés à désirer celles d'autrui. Une telle croyance est mécréante : elle accrédite l'idée que l'homme a été créé libidineux, violeur par nature et faible devant ses désirs. Et que, devant toute femme passant sous ses yeux, s'éveille aussitôt en lui la pulsion de lui sauter sur le râble pour consommer l'oeuvre de chair. L'homme a en lui la force de l'âme et le respect naturel de l'ordre divin. L'homme n'a rien à craindre des misérables appâts de la femme.

    Enfin, reconnaissons qu'il y a grand danger à abandonner les fils de l'homme aux soins de la femme. Son faible entendement ne peut que leur nuire. A l'homme de prendre en charge l'homme dans le nourrisson, à lui de le langer, le nourrir, le soigner. Une fois sa tâche reproductive accomplie, que la femme dirige ses agissements erratiques vers l'extérieur, qu'elle s'en aille piailler dans les assemblées publiques, mais que ses miasmes ne corrompent plus le foyer sacré de l'homme. La dignité de l'homme exige qu'il porte la burqa. La burqa est faite pour l'homme.

    @LEMONDE
    What's it all mean, Basil???
    MV5BMTY2MDIzMjc4OV5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTYwNTY5MTA3._V1._SX485_SY321_.jpg
    Be Excellent To Each Other
    Party On, Dudes!
  • fuckfuck Posts: 4,069
    Why is it sickening?

    I'm not starting an argument here, but it really fucks me off how reactions change.

    What is the difference between having to adhere with, what is basically, socially acceptable dress codes and conduct in one country and yet not in another?

    For example, when it is really hot could men walk round in jeans but no shirt in every country? No they couldn't. So does that make one country right and one wrong? People are free to live in whatever country they choose, but they should be mindful of the fact that they need to adapt to traditions, culture and society in general.

    To do otherwise, for example to wear a full burka, instantly alienates you from the majority. Add on to this stereotypical views and you start to create suspicion, unease and, in extreme cases, hate and prejudice. These opinions may have been created by many different types of stimuli and the resultant reaction the wrong one, but it causes a reaction nonetheless.
    this is sickening because it is restricting one's ability for religious expression. I'm not sure in which country a man is not allowed to walk around without a shirt, but even so, you wouldn't be doing so with a religious motive.

    to wear a burka alienates you from the majority? i did not know people are forced to do what the majority does, what kind of fucking sick logic is that?? i guess we should just restrict freedom of religion in general, since being a muslim alienates you from the majority. "Add on to this stereotypical views and you start to create suspicion, unease and, in extreme cases, hate and prejudice." so what do you do? rather than target and try to stop stereotypes and hate and prejudice, you force the people who have done nothing wrong to remove something they choose to wear. how is france just a liberal country if it's restricting other people's freedom?

    if people don't like looking at someone who's wearing a burka, go sit somewhere else, but don't force the person to remove it, it's sickening. all this not mentioning that only 2000 people in the country wear it. how often in a country with what 70 million or something are you likely to run into one.
  • fuckfuck Posts: 4,069
    Does the fact that its a burka donned for religious reasons make it more valid than if it's a dew rag worn because you like the way you look in it?
    yes. it is a difference.
  • __ Posts: 6,651
    It seems to me that there are several issues being discussed here:

    1. Security - People can't be identified if you can't see their faces.

    2. Security - People don't feel safe around others who display these cultural symbols.

    3. Choice - Women should not be forced to conform to sexist ideologies.

    4. Choice - Women should not be allowed to dress this way even if they want to.

    5. Nationalism - Foreigners should conform to the styles of the culture of the country they live in.

    Et cetera.

    Personally, I think #2, #4, & # 5 are bullshit. #2. The world should not be forced to conform to the ideologies and fears of close-minded bigots. This is not analogous to gang symbols & the violence associated with them. #4. I think the problem here is that people impose their own ideologies onto all women, assuming that no one would want to dress this way. But some women do want to, of their own free will. Saying they can't wear veils is no different than saying they can't wear shorts or saying women can't wear pants. #5. Same old shit from the same old people. :roll:

    I agree with #1 & #3. #1.When entering high security areas, like banks or airports, people shouldn't be allowed to cover their faces. But there need not be a special law aimed at veils (if that's actually the case). This should just fall into the same category as sunglasses, hats, etc. The problem is that they seem to be picking on the dress of a certain culture. And that's a pretty big problem. #3. I agree that women shouldn't be forced to conform to sexist ideologies. I just think this kind of law does more harm than good. It would be like saying since it's sexist to believe that women's sole purpose is to have children, all women are banned from having children.

    Just my $0.02.
  • redrockredrock Posts: 18,341
    _outlaw wrote:
    this is sickening because it is restricting one's ability for religious expression.

    Again, the burka or the niqab are not a dictate of the muslim faith. They are not worn for religious expression (contrary to the dastaar). There is absolutely no need for a woman to wear one. Not many do and most of the ones I know who do is because of husbands, fathers, brothers. Not because they find it comfy, becoming, useful or anything like that.

    scb wrote:
    I agree with #1 & #3. #1.When entering high security areas, like banks or airports, people shouldn't be allowed to cover their faces. But there need not be a special law aimed at veils (if that's actually the case). This should just fall into the same category as sunglasses, hats, etc. The problem is that they seem to be picking on the dress of a certain culture.

    The veil is not mentioned at all in the law. It is for ALL articles of clothing, masks, balaklavas, etc. that completelycover the face. The main argument is a security one for all public places. Also, I guess, one could ask why in the street... because there are cameras tracking your every move everywhere...
  • CosmoCosmo Posts: 12,225
    Can you have your passport or drivers license picture wearing one?
    Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
    Hail, Hail!!!
Sign In or Register to comment.