Burqa 'not welcome' in France: Sarkozy

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Then why do we place so much emphasis on uniforms? They are merely pieces of cloth as well.

Don't place an emphasis on a uniform then ...

The 'other' could be other forms of exploitations. Western feminist thoughts have no lack of dissertations about the miniskirt, or even the skirt in general, as to how this piece of cloth exploits women. Same for make-ups. The reality is that we places a great deal of symbolism and intents into what we wear, which is essentially our way of proclaiming to the world our beliefs.

Which is fine - but as you point out, feminists calling the miniskirt or two piece bikini, or any other article of clothing 'degrading' and a 'symbol of exploitation' is not necessarily a reason to ban them.

 

[gambit]

Don't place an emphasis on a uniform then ...

We have to. We have been doing it. We cannot ignore the symbolism of a uniform and the message it convey.

Which is fine - but as you point out, feminists calling the miniskirt or two piece bikini, or any other article of clothing 'degrading' and a 'symbol of exploitation' is not necessarily a reason to ban them.

According to 'some' feminists, the bikini should be banned. But they are the very few and old.

But banning a piece of cloth is not the issue. The symbolism and the message it convey is. Why do you think so many were outraged at Prince William and his Nazi uniform? May be I am in error, but the Nazi uniform is not banned in Britain.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

We have to. We have been doing it. We cannot ignore the symbolism of a uniform and the message it convey.

And the symbolism of a uniform is that one belongs to a military, school, sports team, consumer service etc.

The symbolism of a Sikh Turban or Burqa is that one adheres to a particular interpretation of faith - what exactly is the problem here?

But banning a piece of cloth is not the issue. The symbolism and the message it convey is. Why do you think so many were outraged at Prince William and his Nazi uniform? May be I am in error, but the Nazi uniform is not banned in Britain.

Unfortunately banning a piece of clothing has been made the issue - The Nazi uniform represents a regime and ideology that stood for genocide, war racism and bigotry.

Should there have been an outcry over someone wearing a Nazi costume, as a 'costume' (vs attending serious political meetings and donning it as a sign of support and/or belief in the ideology represented by the uniform), when we don't have outcry's over people dressing up as the Devil (what does he stand for now?), monsters and murderers?

What does the Burqa represent? To me it represents a very conservative interpretation of Islam.

 

[gambit]

And the symbolism of a uniform is that one belongs to a military, school, sports team, consumer service etc.

The symbolism of a Sikh Turban or Burqa is that one adheres to a particular interpretation of faith - what exactly is the problem here?

Unfortunately banning a piece of clothing has been made the issue - The Nazi uniform represents a regime and ideology that stood for genocide, war racism and bigotry.

Should there have been an outcry over someone wearing a Nazi costume, as a 'costume' (vs attending serious political meetings and donning it as a sign of support and/or belief in the ideology represented by the uniform), when we don't have outcry's over people dressing up as the Devil (what does he stand for now?), monsters and murderers?

What does the Burqa represent? To me it represents a very conservative interpretation of Islam.

That the burqa, the hijab, or the chador are 'merely' pieces of cloth. They are not. Just like a uniform that can draw outrage or pride, these pieces of cloth symbolizes beliefs.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

That the burqa, the hijab, or the chador are 'merely' pieces of cloth. They are not. Just like a uniform that can draw outrage or pride, these pieces of cloth symbolizes beliefs.

They do - but unlike the Nazi uniform, the Burqa is not representative of Al Qaeda's ideology for example, except for some numskulls to whom 'Mooslums are all the same'.

 

[wtf]

Frankly I am split on this issue.

First there is the issue of security (police can't identify people) and that of coercion (difficult to prove either way). Maybe this can be worked around - by having all Burkha clad people checked by women cops etc. I am assuming that a woman voluntarily wearing Burkha might not object to lady cops being inquisitive (difficult to say)

Then there is the issue of beliefs. Should a nude man be allowed to walk in Paris if he says that he is a "naturalist" or a pagan ? Governments mostly ban that. Even breastfeeding in public can get you thrown in jail in US (luckily not in Europe).

On the other hand, many have stretched that rule -- most famously when Mahatma Gandhi visited the King of England wearing a loincloth and Sandals. He definitely took an ideological position on it (I'll wear what the poor man in India wears).
Illuminating Lives: Mohandas K. Gandhi

Maybe the issue has to be sorted on a case by case basis and a general ruling might not work in either ways.

 

[Zob]

ok so tell me one thing if someone wants to wear a burqa WILLINGLY should they be allowed....i mean after all the debate is about freedom and rights....

 

[gambit]

ok so tell me one thing if someone wants to wear a burqa WILLINGLY should they be allowed....i mean after all the debate is about freedom and rights....

I believe the burqa SHOULD NOT be banned. The choice to wear or not to wear should be available. However, the woman should not be allowed to exploit her religious beliefs to bypass security laws as facial recognition remains the best method we have to ascertain someone's identity. The burqa, like a nun's attire, is easily recognizable to what it is and that information should also be made available to all. Let the people interpret whatever context they want.

 

[Conscientious objector]

Sarkozy's values & the honour of women

Despite Sarkozy’s political opportunism, his ideological contradictions expose his conscious ignorance, and some may say, out right hatred for the Islamic way of life. Sarkozy who advocates and propagates liberal secularism has forgotten his intellectual heritage. Liberal secularism rests upon the premise of individualism, in other words, viewing the self – the human being – as an abstract entity divorced from social attachments. Two key values are built from this premise, individual freedom and individual rights. According to individual freedom, also explained as freedom of choice, the Burqa shouldn’t be a problem and should be tolerated under French liberal values. So why the contradiction?

Sarkozy is a liberal secular ideologue who doesn’t want to understand or discuss the Islamic way of life. The Islamic way of life is not based upon the false premise of individualism, rather it views the human being as an entity with social links and obligations. This correct view on mankind develops and builds sublime values, which include honouring and protecting women.

In the Sarkozy paradigm these values do not exist hence he wants to fight against their emergence, even if it means contradicting his own ideological beliefs. For example in a liberal secular context, individual freedom allows and, in the case of Sarkozy (his wife is an ex-nudist model), promotes pornography. However pornography has been shown to facilitate rape. According to academic research by Diana E. Russell in her publication ‘Pornography & Rape: A causal model’ she states,

“ My theory about how pornography – violent and non-violent – can cause rape…drawn on the findings of recent research….I believe there are many factors that play a causal role in this crime. I have not attempted here to evaluate the relative importance of these different causal factors, but merely to show the overwhelming evidence that pornography is a major one of them”

In this study journals and academic research were cited which concluded that 56% of rapists implicated pornography in the commission of their offences, 66% of rapists claimed they were incited by pornography and 30 % of college students would rape if they could get away with it.

Sarkozy’s world view would not ban or criminalise pornography. This is because society itself is not considered or taken into account due to the core value of ‘individual freedom’. As a result Sarkozy’s values have contributed to the increase in sexual crimes in France. There are more than 25,000 rapes a year in France alone, and before Sarkozy points the finger at the Muslims or immigrants, 91% of those convicted are of French nationality.

France is not alone in failing to protect and honour women either, in the UK 167 women are raped everyday[5] and in the US a woman is raped every 6 minutes and battered every 15 seconds.

However in Islam, pornography is banned and is viewed as a dishonor to women. Islam protects women by honoring and providing mechanisms in its social model to protect them. The noble Qur'an highlights the immense responsibility men have towards women. The Qur'an says "Men are qawwamoona over women". The key word here is qawwamoona which comes from words such as qiwaamun meaning means of support, qaama almarata meaning he undertook the support of the woman, qaama alaiha meaning he looked after her, and qaama bihi he supported it. Therefore the Qur'an tells society to look after, protect and honour women.

But Sarkozy would rather flaunt that his wife was an ex-nudist model.

.......................................................................

 

[Su 30mki]

Every Country has its own rule and when you expect that others should follow your rule when they come to your country then why they not expect that you follow the their rules when going in their country.

SA didnt allow French president to have same room with his g/f because they aren't married, like wise you also follow french rule.

if you dont like their rule who is asking you to go their, no body forcing you to go their.

 

[Conscientious objector]

Every Country has its own rule and when you expect that others should follow your rule when they come to your country then why they not expect that you follow the their rules when going in their country.
Nowhere does it state that someone cannot wear a face veil in french law.Who says its a rule?Get your facts straight before you decide to type something

SA didnt allow French president to have same room with his g/f because they aren't married, like wise you also follow french rule.


if you dont like their rule who is asking you to go their, no body forcing you to go their.

Nowhere does it state that someone cannot wear a face veil under french law.Who says its a rule?Get your facts straight before you decide to type something.

 

[gambit]

Nowhere does it state that someone cannot wear a face veil under french law.Who says its a rule?Get your facts straight before you decide to type something.

That is not what he said. He mean that IF there is such a law, everyone is expected to obey the law while it is in effect in France just as everyone is expected to obey muslim laws in muslim countries while those laws are in effect.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Every Country has its own rule and when you expect that others should follow your rule when they come to your country then why they not expect that you follow the their rules when going in their country.

SA didnt allow French president to have same room with his g/f because they aren't married, like wise you also follow french rule.

if you dont like their rule who is asking you to go their, no body forcing you to go their.

Sure, that one has to follow the laws in the nation one is in is a self evident fact - but laws can nonetheless be criticized for being repressive or impinging upon individual freedom's.

The western press is full of articles criticizing repressive and/or discriminatory laws in the Muslim world, China etc.

Its somewhat ironic that when criticism of proposed restrictions on the freedom of others in Western nations comes about, some resort to hiding behind moral relativism.

Now, if someone defends the repressive laws in one nation, and criticizes them in another, such a line of argument has validity, but only against that particular individual(s).

 

[Conscientious objector]

That is not what he said.

First of all don't misrepresent what he said, and secondly 'I'm sure he can speak for himself and doesn't need you to articulate his argument for him.If what he meant is what you have stated then that's what he should have said.

This is what he actually did say

then why they not expect that you follow the their rules when going in their country.

and

like wise you also follow french rule.

and

if you dont like their rule

He mean that IF there is such a law, everyone is expected to obey the law while it is in effect in France just as everyone is expected to obey muslim laws in muslim countries while those laws are in effect.

What kind of a pointless thing would that be to say, we could start talking if's and buts all day long then couldn't we? We are dealing with facts,with reality, and not fantasizing about if this or maybe that.

The fact is that the law allows everyone to practice their religion without harassment, so why don't you argue for that law to be upheld and for people to abide by it in this case? Ive told you before and I'll tell you again, Your hypocrisy stinks

 

[gambit]

First of all don't misrepresent what he said, and secondly 'I'm sure he can speak for himself and doesn't need you to articulate his argument for him.If what he meant is what you have stated then that's what he should have said.

This is what he actually did say



and



and






What kind of a pointless thing would that be to say, we could start talking if's and buts all day long then couldn't we? We are dealing with facts,with reality, and not fantasizing about if this or maybe that.

If his comment is read carefully and without getting too emotional about it like you have, then it is clear that he is speaking in generalities, which is useful in leading up to hypothetical situations, which can expose principle or execution flaws, which can stop an idea BEFORE it become law, which is a good thing.

The fact is that the law allows everyone to practice their religion without harassment, so why don't you argue for that law to be upheld and for people to abide by it in this case? Ive told you before and I'll tell you again, Your hypocrisy stinks

Is the President of France a legislator? Or is it the legislative body, whatever it is called, that actually make the laws? So far there is a law that affect the broad scope of conspicuous religious attire in public school, while the burqa is a uniquely muslim traditional attire, so are there currently any laws that target specifically the burqa in France?