didn’t protect the shops the few times I have watched the niqab wearing mothers stuff Nivea and hair colouring and sweets up theirs:D
I once watched a niqabi stuff a cosmetic up her son’s jumper and walk out a store:rolleyes:
Niqabs are great disguises.
Oh I have a good one for you.
Dr Niqab! :eek:
http://bannos.blogspot.com/2006/11/dr-niqab-comedy-or-tragedy.html
If this was in response to my post, I hope you understood that I was joking. I get why it’s not allowed; it’s the same reason that riding horses sidesaddle was invented. (Although I suppose if they could drive at all they could get away with driving a Vespa. And even with a burqa on they couldn’t drive any more dangerously than the Italians…)
indeed
although nothing beats Egyptian driving:eek:
Where else would you find a road sign for a tyre killer!
Egyptian submarine
Land of Wonders is Egypt!!
Yeah! Tell them to take their stupid ethnic cuisine with them, too!
Oh, wait…
Hah, so you know how they think. How was that again? The Voices?
But in any case, you do not like how they think, so you want to control how they dress. Got it. Typically European.
Marmite
i understand where you’re coming from, but i’m still confused as to the legal justification of this law. is it to legislate away this cultural dissonance? is that even possible? this law has no teeth, especially in France. this would go a lot further if Saudi Arabia were to ban burkas, and i would totally understand the reasoning for woman’s lib in that case. However in a relatively free society such as France, where there are only 2000 burka wearers in the nation of 63 million, it just doesn’t make sense to me.
as for driving, etc? i have no problem with legislating that you can’t drive with a mask on. i get that. i WOULD have a problem if they said “you can’t drive with a face-veil on” as the burka ban would say because it targets burkas specifically. why?
and for the “it’s not a religious issue, it’s a cultural one” i ask, does it make a difference? you’re targeting a sect of people and limiting their freedoms for really, minimal justification. the law is more of an inconvenience than a real deterrence.
my main problem is the language. it targets burkas. the driving issues, the security issues, are bs as far as i’m concerned. if those were legitimate concerns, the language of the law wouldn’t be specific to “face-veils”. it would be an all-out ban on masks, which some states in the US actually have. SC i’m told has banned all forms of masks except for a 3 day window around halloween.
And pretty much doomed to Epic Fail™ as well…which is also, sadly, a typically European outcome in these sorts of things.
It’s all the smiley emotes…eventually they overload your system, causing one to believe that they know things they don’t, and have insights into peoples and cultures that they really are clueless about. There are some good 12 step programs to curtail such things but…
:):rolleyes::D:dubious::smack::(:)
:mad::p;)!! OFF THE WAGON!
-XT
If there are only 2,000 out of a population of 63 million, now would seem a good time for them to nip it in the bud.
If you really need to dress like a bandit, here’s an idea - find a society that doesn’t think such garb is dehumanising, and too open to abuse to pander to the hurt feelings of a minority.
belgium’s estimates are even crazier - 30.
I call bollocks on both of those claims, to be honest. The first in being so general, and the second on the idea that banning something will make people with a strong political belief in it simply give up. Ban something that people want, and they’ll a) want it all the more and b) hate you for banning it.
And if you believe that banning it will make people go off and join a training camp in Riyadh - why exactly are you for that?
Yes indeed, far better to exult the humanity of citizens by, er, telling them what they may and may not wear. It’s like celebrating freedom of speech by destroying books that speak against it. You’re kind of missing the whole point of the thing, there.
Beyond that, it’s not simply about “hurt feelings”. It’s about considerable potential harm.
I sincerely doubt that this woman chose the burqua entirely out of free will. If she chooses to wear one, regardless of the reason, fine with me, as long as she’s willing to uncover her face anywhere outside her home or a mosque. I strongly feel she should not be allowed to wear one in any airport, subway, amusement park, baseball game, etc.
Society as a whole dictates what we expect of each other. Society also expects us to be open with one another and rational with one another. Seeing a woman in a burqua is seeing a person whom I cannot help or receive help from, 'cause I’m not an imam.
I see a burqua and I’m looking at a human being who thinks a) she’s property and/or b) thinks a sky daddy expects this. This is not socially acceptable for me and I’m willing to bet that the majority of society would vote against the option of wearing a burqua if given the chance.
That DOES sounds likely, RT. So let it happen. We’ll see even more oppression and society-- and maybe eventually those who are banned to their household-- say, we don’t accept it. Take it off in public, or enjoy your faithful imprisonment in your home country.
If these women wearing burquas have jobs in France, and now they stay home, they would be rejected by TWO societies, a civilized one and an uncivilized one. If they feel forced to stay at home, what type of role in the world’s society would they play? They could hardly be a stay at home parent unless the kids are stay at home kids, I suppose.
Upon re-reading my post I’m going to mention first that the “State Council” and the “Constitutional Council” are two different bodies, in order not to confuse readers.
It’s a bit complicated. French courts have consistently refused to check the constitutionnality of laws voted by the parliament (even though they aren’t in theory barred from doing so, they don’t. They could change their mind, as they did with checking the conformity of laws with international treaties a couple dozen years ago, but I don’t see this happening).
To give a related example, French courts (and more specifically the “State Council”, the highest court for cases involving public authorities and their decisions) had consistently voided the attempts of individual schools to ban the muslim veil within their premises on the basis that such bans weren’t constitutionnal…until it was passed as a law by the parliament.
Now, there’s a constitutional court, but right now, it doesn’t receive any appeals, and can only be seized by the executive or a given number of MPs, right after the law is voted. To take again the example of the veil in schools, since all the political parties represented in the parliament were in favour of the ban, the Constitutionnal Council was never involved. So, no recourse for individual citizens.
Back to the burka. The proposed law about the ban of the burka was presented to the “State Council” (who acts both as a court and as an advisory body for the government regarding legal issues) by the government, and in its advice, it stated that such a general ban as proposed wouldn’t be constitutional (it probably would be been deemed constitutionnal if it had banned the burka in specific places for specified purposes or something similar). However, there’s no obligation for anybody to follow this advice, and the executive didn’t seem to care about this opinion.
Now, it happens that a constitutionial amendment has been voted allowing parties in a case to request the review of the constitutionnality of a law by the Constitutionnal Council, and this change will soon come into force. And if the ban is voted, I’m pretty sure that it will be challenged as soon as it will be possible to do so. Especially since the decision to accept or not a request for a review by the Constitutional Council will be up to the highest “regular” court, in this case the State Council, who, as I said before, doesn’t seem to like much the concept of general bans of veils and/or burkas.
However, I’m not sure how it will be handled for two reasons :
-The constitutional council reviewing the constitutionnality of laws in specific cases will be a complete novelty, so I’m not sure how it will handle that exactly.
-It is my opinion that the Constitutional Council is becoming more and more “politized”, in particular by appointing there retired politicians or similar people instead of highly experienced judges (as it seems to be the case in most other countries). Also, according to the constitution, former French presidents are de jure members of the Constitutional Council. Until recently, none of them actually sat in this court. But some years ago, two of them (previous president Chirac and Giscard d’ Estaing, president during the 70’s) changed the “custom” and became actual members of the Council (the Council normally has 9 members, and as a result now 11, so it’s significant), thus in my opinion compounding the problem. I’m not at all convinced that a former president (or more generally a former politician) will perceive the constitutional review of a law in the same way an experienced judge would.
By the way, two other comments :
The ban is highly popular, including amongst the french muslim population, even amongst recent immigrants, since most of the muslim immigrants in France came from countries were the burka has never been traditionnally worn, not many of them are very religious anyway (only 12% of the muslims regularly go to the mosque in France, for instance), and finally muslim religious authorities in France have a strong tendancy to distance themselves from the supporters of the strictest interpretations of the Koran/Hadiths.
Women wearing burkas are vanishingly rare in France (I live in Paris, and I think I see a burka in the street maybe twice a year or so), for the reason mentioned above (immigrants coming from countries where the burka isn’t worn). A significant part of women actually wearing it, as a result, are women (especially young women) who for some reason switched to very strict religious views and decided freely to wear it (not to say that there aren’t any woman who wear it under pressure from their husband. These exist too). I read recently an estimate of the number of women wearing a burka here, and though I can’t manage to remember the figure exactly, it’s in the 10 000 range (might be 5 000 or 20 000). So, aside from principles, I’m quite irritated by all the fuss going on here about a mostly marginal issue.
Anecdotically, during these debates, many people mentionned that individuals involved in criminal activities, like for instance bank robbers, could use burkas as a camouflage. This gave ideas to some, since for the first time, a hold-up by people posing as burka-wearing women took place in a post office some weeks ago.
After reading the thread and some link I see I made two mistakes :
-I mixed up burkas and hijabs. When I said I noticed a burka maybe twice a year, I actually meant a hijab. I’ve never seen a burka.
Yes, because they don’t already have an imaginary sky pixie, who via his representatives on Earth tells them what to eat, drink, wear, and when and when not to fuck, right?
Remember, I’m non-religious. I’ve got just as much right to treat their beliefs with disdain, as they have to think I am a god-forsaken heathen.
^^ This. I fully agree. You summed up perfectly. [ tips hat ]
The whole problem with this is society makes its own demands too. Respect these demands not out of law, but basic courtesy. Since basic courtesy can’t seemed to be found, well, make a law. You want to be part of a society, show some respect for us by showing your face.
[ makes funny face ]