Can you have your passport or drivers license picture wearing one?
I could be wrong, but I think for driver's licenses, there is some sort of exemption from getting your picture taken...
I can't imagine that there is one for passports though...
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
Can you have your passport or drivers license picture wearing one?
I could be wrong, but I think for driver's licenses, there is some sort of exemption from getting your picture taken...
I can't imagine that there is one for passports though...
...
How can I get one of those exemptions? My drivers license picture looks like i'm stoned.
Well were you?
96 Randall's Island II
98 CAA
00 Virginia Beach;Camden I; Jones Beach III
05 Borgata Night I; Wachovia Center
06 Letterman Show; Webcast (guy in blue shirt), Camden I; DC
08 Camden I; Camden II; DC
09 Phillie III
10 MSG II
13 Wrigley Field
16 Phillie II
Cosmo that might be good just in case you are stoned and pulled over the cop might not think anything of it.
96 Randall's Island II
98 CAA
00 Virginia Beach;Camden I; Jones Beach III
05 Borgata Night I; Wachovia Center
06 Letterman Show; Webcast (guy in blue shirt), Camden I; DC
08 Camden I; Camden II; DC
09 Phillie III
10 MSG II
13 Wrigley Field
16 Phillie II
Can you have your passport or drivers license picture wearing one?
I'm not sure their husbands let them drive.
I'm with them I get scared when my wife drives too.
96 Randall's Island II
98 CAA
00 Virginia Beach;Camden I; Jones Beach III
05 Borgata Night I; Wachovia Center
06 Letterman Show; Webcast (guy in blue shirt), Camden I; DC
08 Camden I; Camden II; DC
09 Phillie III
10 MSG II
13 Wrigley Field
16 Phillie II
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.
I agree that it's not a dictate of the muslim faith, but people have different interpretations and it is not our place to say what is and isn't part of the muslim faith to people who have different beliefs. I know people who wear it because they believe it is a religious/culture expression and with regards to the muslim faith, it is a very particular subject in general because culture is very intertwined with religion.
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...
the main argument from what i have seen has not been a security one whatsoever, and many comments from MPs and sarkozy himself were made regarding the veil itself. why are you acting as if the veil just happened to fall into a category of a bunch of other stuff? this has been a far larger issue than that. and even so, in public places it is not right to bar people from religious expression. the veil has not been such a security issue and this just limits people's freedom
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.
...
I wonder... is it hard to drive while wearing a Burqua?
I cover my eyes when she drives.
96 Randall's Island II
98 CAA
00 Virginia Beach;Camden I; Jones Beach III
05 Borgata Night I; Wachovia Center
06 Letterman Show; Webcast (guy in blue shirt), Camden I; DC
08 Camden I; Camden II; DC
09 Phillie III
10 MSG II
13 Wrigley Field
16 Phillie II
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...
the main argument from what i have seen has not been a security one whatsoever, and many comments from MPs and sarkozy himself were made regarding the veil itself. why are you acting as if the veil just happened to fall into a category of a bunch of other stuff? this has been a far larger issue than that. and even so, in public places it is not right to bar people from religious expression. the veil has not been such a security issue and this just limits people's freedom
Yes, I must admit I'm kind of confused. All the press I've heard about it says it's a ban on veils. I've also read/heard in the news that the purpose of the law is to oppose the oppression of women and " to insist that integration is the only path for immigrant minorities". I haven't read a single thing about banning all articles of clothing that cover the face, for security purposes. I'm not saying I don't believe you, Redrock; I'm sure you know much more about it than I do. But does anyone have a primary source (in English)?
to all the people who are concerned about the 'security' aspect, i hope you are just as concerned about the people who wear sunglasses and hoodies pulled up on their head, because i sure as shit couldn't tell you what they actually looked liked underneath either.
security is a weak excuse. it's Islamophobia, that's what it is. you are scared. people fear what they don't understand.
to all the people who are concerned about the 'security' aspect, i hope you are just as concerned about the people who wear sunglasses and hoodies pulled up on their head, because i sure as shit couldn't tell you what they actually looked liked underneath either.
security is a weak excuse. it's Islamophobia, that's what it is. you are scared. people fear what they don't understand.
i think the majority of us agree that the only security issue is where you need to be identified (banks, airports, passport photos etc)
they can wear whatever they want otherwise...they could walk around with a giant cardboard box on their head for all i care (which in my opinion is just as ridiculous as the veil... as for me the issue isn't what they wear but the fact that they are forced or told that they must wear it... what a tradition! all women must cover their faces in public :roll: )
to all the people who are concerned about the 'security' aspect, i hope you are just as concerned about the people who wear sunglasses and hoodies pulled up on their head, because i sure as shit couldn't tell you what they actually looked liked underneath either.
security is a weak excuse. it's Islamophobia, that's what it is. you are scared. people fear what they don't understand.
i think the majority of us agree that the only security issue is where you need to be identified (banks, airports, passport photos etc)
they can wear whatever they want otherwise...they could walk around with a giant cardboard box on their head for all i care (which in my opinion is just as ridiculous as the veil... as for me the issue isn't what they wear but the fact that they are forced or told that they must wear it... what a tradition! all women must cover their faces in public :roll: )
do you really believe honestly, that the majority of conservatives and bigots who applaud this move care about women's rights? the fact is that this law denies women the right to choose what they wear, and that is every bit as wrong as men denying women the right to choose what they wear.
I haven't read a single thing about banning all articles of clothing that cover the face, for security purposes. I'm not saying I don't believe you, Redrock; I'm sure you know much more about it than I do. But does anyone have a primary source (in English)?
"Officials have taken pains to craft language that does not single out Muslims. While the proposed legislation is colloquially referred to as the "anti-burqa law," it is officially called "the bill to forbid concealing one's face in public."
It refers neither to Islam nor to veils. Officials insist the law against face-covering is not discriminatory because it would apply to everyone, not just Muslims. Yet they cite a host of exceptions, including motorcycle helmets, or masks for health reasons, fencing, skiing or carnivals."
I'm sorry, I'm not finding much in English - tons in french though. Tried to find a copy of the bill in english but was not successful. The bill (which is not law yet) definitely does not specifically single out muslim women who wear the burka. Though, as I have said before, it is an 'attack' in disguise. Sarkozy (and many others) make no secret of the fact that they consider the burka a sign of 'oppression' towards the women and that this has not place in a country like France.
Outlaw... I'm not 'acting as if the veil just happened to fall in the category...'. I'm just stating what the bill says. I'm not saying I agree with it.
I haven't read a single thing about banning all articles of clothing that cover the face, for security purposes. I'm not saying I don't believe you, Redrock; I'm sure you know much more about it than I do. But does anyone have a primary source (in English)?
"Officials have taken pains to craft language that does not single out Muslims. While the proposed legislation is colloquially referred to as the "anti-burqa law," it is officially called "the bill to forbid concealing one's face in public."
It refers neither to Islam nor to veils. Officials insist the law against face-covering is not discriminatory because it would apply to everyone, not just Muslims. Yet they cite a host of exceptions, including motorcycle helmets, or masks for health reasons, fencing, skiing or carnivals."
I'm sorry, I'm not finding much in English - tons in french though. Tried to find a copy of the bill in english but was not successful. The bill (which is not law yet) definitely does not specifically single out muslim women who wear the burka. Though, as I have said before, it is an 'attack' in disguise.
Outlaw... I'm not 'acting as if the veil just happened to be....'. I'm just stating what the bill says. I'm not saying I agree with it.
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.
I started to translate it, but I don't have much time, so I'm gonna do it short:
According to the author (who's a woman, so she's really ironic) :"if she were a pious man and that women were the problem (obsessed, vile...), she would ask men to wear the burqa and not women. After all, women, if they are that vile, even under a veil, can see men and have bad thoughts. But if men were to wear a burqa, women wouldn't be tempted. Because, apparently, according to men, women are the problem, not men".
I know this is in french, but here are the two Articles of this bill:
"... il a déposé une proposition de loi à l'Assemblée Nationale visant à interdire l'ensemble des vêtements ou accessoires permettant de masquer l'identité d'une personne.
Ce texte a été renvoyé à la commission des lois constitutionnelles, de la législation et de l'administration générale de la République.
Voici le texte de la proposition, qui se résume à deux articles :
PROPOSITION DE LOI
Article 1er
Toute personne allant et venant dans l’espace public doit avoir le visage découvert et porter des vêtements ou accessoires permettant aisément sa reconnaissance ou son identification. Le principe mentionné à l’alinéa précédent ne s’applique ni aux services publics en mission spéciale, ni aux activités culturelles telles que le carnaval ou le tournage d’un film.
Article 2
Est puni de deux mois d’emprisonnement et 15 000 € d’amende la violation du principe mentionné à l’article 1er. Est puni de la même peine l’incitation à violer ledit principe.
En cas de récidive, ces peines seront portées à un an de prison et 30 000 € d’amende."
Basically, saying that all persons in a public place must have the face visible and wear clothes or accessories that enable easy identification. Then they go on about exceptions (eg carnival, special missions - I guess this could be riot police with helmets, or when filming. Second article is about the fines for breaking this law. This is where the news bits about husbands being fined if they make their wives wear full covering gear.
And yes, whilst the bill does not mention burqas, there has been plenty of talk in french government (very openly as well) about the burqa and niqab and how it is not 'welcome' in France for a number of reasons.
By the way - do all of you realise that this kind of law is already in place in Belgium and the Netherlands? Also some arab countries such as Egypt have banned the burqa (without disguising it with a more 'general' law).
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.
The burka is not a religious symbol, so your argument about that falls flat. The burka is a subservient symbol for women, based on religious interpretation that has been twisted out of all recognition by Neanderhal male opinions that are frighteningly outdated, vis-à-vis the ‘it’s a man’s world’ perspective that most religion is built on which, in itself, is utter bullshit.
“I guess we should just restrict freedom of religion in general” Again, I’ll repeat, it’s not religious. Strange how there’s no furore generally from Islam about it isn’t there? There has been small protests but I see no marches, no mass demonstrations, do you? Why don’t all women wear it, if it’s religious? Probably because their husbands live in this century, perhaps and have some respect for their wives?. And, even if it was, do you conversely think it’s acceptable for a nurse to have a crucifix, that she’s worn all her life, taken away so as not to offend? This also happened to a schoolgirl. Local councils, last year, banned Christmas decorations in case minorities found them offensive. Isn’t that restricting freedom of religious symbols? Isn’t that an attack on Rome and the Catholic faith?
"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”
It’d be great to remove stereotypes, hate and prejudice. It’s another item on the “To make a perfect world” list. It’s never going to happen, unfortunately. To remove every single potentially negative stimulus is utterly impossible.
Interesting to hear your views, but that’s the last I’m saying on the matter.
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.
Seems to be a pretty good reason to ban them to me.
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.
Seems to be a pretty good reason to ban them to me.
But does a government have a right to do this? If very conservative husbands, etc. do not want their women to wear mini skirts, do we ban these?
When I was working with women being forced to wear the burqa, it was compared to domestic abuse as the extremely controlling husbands (or male relatives) were dictating how the woman should dress, act, etc. The burqa (and submissive wife!) is based on traditions of the 7th century. I'm sure we can all accept that these are no longer relevant in the 21st. The change though has to come 'within' and has for the majority of muslim women (even in arab countries). Women have come a long way over the years in the western world, legislation helping them. Do these 'oppressed' women (yep... a lot of them are, though admitedly not all) need legislative help as well?
I haven't seen to many chicks wearing minis in some of the arab states. Or walking with a man who isn't their husband. Or hanging out with men at a social get together. Or praying in the same mosque with the men. With all that in mind I would say that France can make the law. Whether they "understand" or not.
The poison from the poison stream caught up to you ELEVEN years ago and you floated out of here. Sept. 14, 08
The burka is not a religious symbol, so your argument about that falls flat. The burka is a subservient symbol for women, based on religious interpretation that has been twisted out of all recognition by Neanderhal male opinions that are frighteningly outdated, vis-à-vis the ‘it’s a man’s world’ perspective that most religion is built on which, in itself, is utter bullshit.
who are you people? is there a collection of Islamic scholars on this forum I don't know about? I don't believe the burqa is obligatory in Islam personally, but guess what, there are people who do. who do you think you are to argue otherwise?
“I guess we should just restrict freedom of religion in general” Again, I’ll repeat, it’s not religious.
Lol, after you show me your PhD in Islamic law, you'll have some credibility.
Strange how there’s no furore generally from Islam about it isn’t there? There has been small protests but I see no marches, no mass demonstrations, do you? Why don’t all women wear it, if it’s religious? Probably because their husbands live in this century, perhaps and have some respect for their wives?.
Because many women have different interpretations. Some women believe the burqa is obligatory, others believe only the head scarf is obligatory, other women don't believe you have to cover their face/hair at all. And of course there aren't mass demonstrations, only 2000 women wear it, but just because it's an attack on a minority people does not make it justified... what kind of faulty logic is this?
And, even if it was, do you conversely think it’s acceptable for a nurse to have a crucifix, that she’s worn all her life, taken away so as not to offend? This also happened to a schoolgirl. Local councils, last year, banned Christmas decorations in case minorities found them offensive. Isn’t that restricting freedom of religious symbols? Isn’t that an attack on Rome and the Catholic faith?
What the hell does this have to do with anything? there are obvious differences: 1. many women believe wearing a burqa is a religious obligation as opposed to catholics who just wear a crucifix symbol to represent their religion. second, where have I ever said this is not wrong?
"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”
It’d be great to remove stereotypes, hate and prejudice. It’s another item on the “To make a perfect world” list. It’s never going to happen, unfortunately. To remove every single potentially negative stimulus is utterly impossible.
so instead you punish the people who are victims of this hate and prejudice? it would be like during the civil rights movement in the U.S. if the administration were to punish black people because they're victims of prejudice and hate. extremely illogical, hypocritical, and THIS most of all from what you said is what i addressed in my first post, it's sickening
I haven't seen to many chicks wearing minis in some of the arab states. Or walking with a man who isn't their husband. Or hanging out with men at a social get together. Or praying in the same mosque with the men. With all that in mind I would say that France can make the law. Whether they "understand" or not.
I'm curious what arab states you've been to. or are you basing this off of hollywood movies and media portrayals?
obviously France CAN make the law. I don't think anyone is disputing whether or not they have the physical ability to. we're discussing the moral issue here.
Comments
Godfather.
I could be wrong, but I think for driver's licenses, there is some sort of exemption from getting your picture taken...
I can't imagine that there is one for passports though...
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
How can I get one of those exemptions? My drivers license picture looks like i'm stoned.
Hail, Hail!!!
Well were you?
98 CAA
00 Virginia Beach;Camden I; Jones Beach III
05 Borgata Night I; Wachovia Center
06 Letterman Show; Webcast (guy in blue shirt), Camden I; DC
08 Camden I; Camden II; DC
09 Phillie III
10 MSG II
13 Wrigley Field
16 Phillie II
98 CAA
00 Virginia Beach;Camden I; Jones Beach III
05 Borgata Night I; Wachovia Center
06 Letterman Show; Webcast (guy in blue shirt), Camden I; DC
08 Camden I; Camden II; DC
09 Phillie III
10 MSG II
13 Wrigley Field
16 Phillie II
Great point... why didn't I think of that?
Probably from being stoned.
Hail, Hail!!!
I'm not sure their husbands let them drive.
http://www.facebook.com/pages/ZaRoFF/95885951739?created#!/profile.php?id=100001560978213
I'm with them I get scared when my wife drives too.
98 CAA
00 Virginia Beach;Camden I; Jones Beach III
05 Borgata Night I; Wachovia Center
06 Letterman Show; Webcast (guy in blue shirt), Camden I; DC
08 Camden I; Camden II; DC
09 Phillie III
10 MSG II
13 Wrigley Field
16 Phillie II
there is no Muslim French citizens?
Nothing but xenophobia at it's worst!!
I wonder... is it hard to drive while wearing a Burqua?
Hail, Hail!!!
I cover my eyes when she drives.
98 CAA
00 Virginia Beach;Camden I; Jones Beach III
05 Borgata Night I; Wachovia Center
06 Letterman Show; Webcast (guy in blue shirt), Camden I; DC
08 Camden I; Camden II; DC
09 Phillie III
10 MSG II
13 Wrigley Field
16 Phillie II
Yes, I must admit I'm kind of confused. All the press I've heard about it says it's a ban on veils. I've also read/heard in the news that the purpose of the law is to oppose the oppression of women and " to insist that integration is the only path for immigrant minorities". I haven't read a single thing about banning all articles of clothing that cover the face, for security purposes. I'm not saying I don't believe you, Redrock; I'm sure you know much more about it than I do. But does anyone have a primary source (in English)?
You are allowed to wear religious headwear so long as your entire face is shown in the photo.
security is a weak excuse. it's Islamophobia, that's what it is. you are scared. people fear what they don't understand.
they can wear whatever they want otherwise...they could walk around with a giant cardboard box on their head for all i care (which in my opinion is just as ridiculous as the veil... as for me the issue isn't what they wear but the fact that they are forced or told that they must wear it... what a tradition! all women must cover their faces in public :roll: )
"Officials have taken pains to craft language that does not single out Muslims. While the proposed legislation is colloquially referred to as the "anti-burqa law," it is officially called "the bill to forbid concealing one's face in public."
It refers neither to Islam nor to veils. Officials insist the law against face-covering is not discriminatory because it would apply to everyone, not just Muslims. Yet they cite a host of exceptions, including motorcycle helmets, or masks for health reasons, fencing, skiing or carnivals."
I'm sorry, I'm not finding much in English - tons in french though. Tried to find a copy of the bill in english but was not successful. The bill (which is not law yet) definitely does not specifically single out muslim women who wear the burka. Though, as I have said before, it is an 'attack' in disguise. Sarkozy (and many others) make no secret of the fact that they consider the burka a sign of 'oppression' towards the women and that this has not place in a country like France.
Outlaw... I'm not 'acting as if the veil just happened to fall in the category...'. I'm just stating what the bill says. I'm not saying I agree with it.
Thanks for the info.
I started to translate it, but I don't have much time, so I'm gonna do it short:
According to the author (who's a woman, so she's really ironic) :"if she were a pious man and that women were the problem (obsessed, vile...), she would ask men to wear the burqa and not women. After all, women, if they are that vile, even under a veil, can see men and have bad thoughts. But if men were to wear a burqa, women wouldn't be tempted. Because, apparently, according to men, women are the problem, not men".
http://www.facebook.com/pages/ZaRoFF/95885951739?created#!/profile.php?id=100001560978213
I know this is in french, but here are the two Articles of this bill:
"... il a déposé une proposition de loi à l'Assemblée Nationale visant à interdire l'ensemble des vêtements ou accessoires permettant de masquer l'identité d'une personne.
Ce texte a été renvoyé à la commission des lois constitutionnelles, de la législation et de l'administration générale de la République.
Voici le texte de la proposition, qui se résume à deux articles :
PROPOSITION DE LOI
Article 1er
Toute personne allant et venant dans l’espace public doit avoir le visage découvert et porter des vêtements ou accessoires permettant aisément sa reconnaissance ou son identification. Le principe mentionné à l’alinéa précédent ne s’applique ni aux services publics en mission spéciale, ni aux activités culturelles telles que le carnaval ou le tournage d’un film.
Article 2
Est puni de deux mois d’emprisonnement et 15 000 € d’amende la violation du principe mentionné à l’article 1er. Est puni de la même peine l’incitation à violer ledit principe.
En cas de récidive, ces peines seront portées à un an de prison et 30 000 € d’amende."
Basically, saying that all persons in a public place must have the face visible and wear clothes or accessories that enable easy identification. Then they go on about exceptions (eg carnival, special missions - I guess this could be riot police with helmets, or when filming. Second article is about the fines for breaking this law. This is where the news bits about husbands being fined if they make their wives wear full covering gear.
And yes, whilst the bill does not mention burqas, there has been plenty of talk in french government (very openly as well) about the burqa and niqab and how it is not 'welcome' in France for a number of reasons.
By the way - do all of you realise that this kind of law is already in place in Belgium and the Netherlands? Also some arab countries such as Egypt have banned the burqa (without disguising it with a more 'general' law).
http://www.facebook.com/pages/ZaRoFF/95885951739?created#!/profile.php?id=100001560978213
The burka is not a religious symbol, so your argument about that falls flat. The burka is a subservient symbol for women, based on religious interpretation that has been twisted out of all recognition by Neanderhal male opinions that are frighteningly outdated, vis-à-vis the ‘it’s a man’s world’ perspective that most religion is built on which, in itself, is utter bullshit.
“I guess we should just restrict freedom of religion in general” Again, I’ll repeat, it’s not religious. Strange how there’s no furore generally from Islam about it isn’t there? There has been small protests but I see no marches, no mass demonstrations, do you? Why don’t all women wear it, if it’s religious? Probably because their husbands live in this century, perhaps and have some respect for their wives?. And, even if it was, do you conversely think it’s acceptable for a nurse to have a crucifix, that she’s worn all her life, taken away so as not to offend? This also happened to a schoolgirl. Local councils, last year, banned Christmas decorations in case minorities found them offensive. Isn’t that restricting freedom of religious symbols? Isn’t that an attack on Rome and the Catholic faith?
"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”
It’d be great to remove stereotypes, hate and prejudice. It’s another item on the “To make a perfect world” list. It’s never going to happen, unfortunately. To remove every single potentially negative stimulus is utterly impossible.
Interesting to hear your views, but that’s the last I’m saying on the matter.
But does a government have a right to do this? If very conservative husbands, etc. do not want their women to wear mini skirts, do we ban these?
When I was working with women being forced to wear the burqa, it was compared to domestic abuse as the extremely controlling husbands (or male relatives) were dictating how the woman should dress, act, etc. The burqa (and submissive wife!) is based on traditions of the 7th century. I'm sure we can all accept that these are no longer relevant in the 21st. The change though has to come 'within' and has for the majority of muslim women (even in arab countries). Women have come a long way over the years in the western world, legislation helping them. Do these 'oppressed' women (yep... a lot of them are, though admitedly not all) need legislative help as well?
http://www.facebook.com/pages/ZaRoFF/95885951739?created#!/profile.php?id=100001560978213
I haven't seen to many chicks wearing minis in some of the arab states. Or walking with a man who isn't their husband. Or hanging out with men at a social get together. Or praying in the same mosque with the men. With all that in mind I would say that France can make the law. Whether they "understand" or not.
The poison from the poison stream caught up to you ELEVEN years ago and you floated out of here. Sept. 14, 08
obviously France CAN make the law. I don't think anyone is disputing whether or not they have the physical ability to. we're discussing the moral issue here.