What's new

France starts ban on full-face veil

Why don't you realize that these countries have a Judeo Christian heritage with Greco-Roman civilization underpinnings?

You can't come on and expect them to change it all, just because you demand it?
@Vinod2070
Can I say the same about Islamic states...at least they are up front and not hiding behind a newly coined term called Secularism ....


That doesn't give them a free license to do anything in their own countries.
But it gives Judeo Christian heritage free license to do as they will? Just because they have nicely fooled the world by using the word Secularism and Democratic? My only request is ....EITHER down with that word and do what they are doing now...or stick to the word but live it...no middle way!
And demand the opposite from non Muslims in theirs?

Muslims need to start giving the same rights in their own countries that they demand from others.
Muslim countries are not hiding under secularism...they openly say they are MUSLIM COUNTRIES...they are not lying to the world...
Currently they are getting away with too much because of political correctness in the secular democracies.

Your victim complex is self created and completely at odds with the reality of the situation.
Secular yet we are suppressed....Democratic yet our voices are not heard and have no rights for anything?

Well, no victim complex here...truth is what it is...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
.
it's will of of the people agreed, but majority peoples will doesn't mean it is always the right thing to do, sometimes good governance is also doing the right thing even if it is against the will of the majority. we can't challenge or change their decisions, what we can do is to apply our rationality and logic and discuss whether or not it is right thing to do or not, irrespective of popularity of particular decision.

I didnt say it was the right thing to do. I said it is their right to do so.
If the action is illogical, then the people have to be explained why what they are demanding is wrong. And if the people agree it is ok. If they insist, then it becomes the moral duty of the government to implement that action or resign.
 
.
yes certainly ! individual freedom is not absolute freedom.I support only the full face covering dress for security reasons, everything else is an unnecessary encroachment of freedom of citizen, it can't be defended saying majority opinion or their country their rule arguments, majority opinion can go wrong.

@Agnostic_Indian yet when it came to the cartoonists all of you were thanking the poster for showing individual freedom who wanted it to be absolute? AGAIN double standards!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
.
@Vinod2070
Secular yet we are suppressed....Democratic yet our voices are not heard and have no rights for anything?

Well, no victim complex here...truth is what it is...
You are neither suppressed nor are your voices muzzled.

You have the right to vote. 1 vote per person is your democratic right. Use it.
The people of France also have this right and they have made their choices clear through their elected representatives.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
.
Talon, the sole purpose of a Government is to serve the people who reside in that nation.
If the majority of the people of that nation want a law then it is the government's duty to enforce it.

This is applicable as long as the actions of that government does not cause problems to other countries.

@Contrarian that is the whole thing....There is no majority...the law was as much of a shock to the normal people as to the Muslims....
Secondly, then they should not call themselves Secular....nor democrats if they give no voice to the others...They should just call themselves Asians!

I didnt say it was the right thing to do. I said it is their right to do so.
If the action is illogical, then the people have to be explained why what they are demanding is wrong. And if the people agree it is ok. If they insist, then it becomes the moral duty of the government to implement that action or resign.
@Contrarian were the governments soo transparent, there would be no economical crises at the level we are facing now! There would also not be corruption at the level that is seen now...

You are neither suppressed nor are your voices muzzled.

You have the right to vote. 1 vote per person is your democratic right. Use it.
The people of France also have this right and they have made their choices clear through their elected representatives.
@Contrarian I am not bothered about all these.. ALL I AM SAYING IS ....if you declare secularism...LIVE BY IT....if you declare DEMOCRATIC VIEWS LIVE BY IT....dont hang in the middle being secular democrats at will and oppresses of others at will...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
. .
@Contrarian that is the whole thing....There is no majority...the law was as much of a shock to the normal people as to the Muslims....

You don't seem to know what you are talking about.

A survey by the Pew Research Center’s Global Attitudes Project, conducted April 7 to May 8, finds that the French public overwhelmingly endorses this measure; 82% approve of a ban on Muslim women wearing full veils in public, including schools, hospitals and government offices, while just 17% disapprove.1

Widespread Support For Banning Full Islamic Veil in Western Europe | Pew Global Attitudes Project

It's even higher today for an extension of the law:

The survey, which was conducted by French marketing and opinion centre BVA and published in the daily “Le Parisien” on Monday, found that 86 percent of French people back introducing legislation that would ban “all signs of religious or political affiliation” in private schools and nurseries.

Poll shows French back veil ban in private sector - FRANCE - FRANCE 24
 
Last edited by a moderator:
.
@Agnostic_Indian yet when it came to the cartoonists all of you were thanking the poster for showing individual freedom who wanted it to be absolute? AGAIN double standards!

no contradictions there, I am all for drawing cartoons of muhmad, Jesus, or Hindu gods in good taste, good humour and good criticism, I am against racial, nude cartoons of prophet , etc.if a particular cartoon is vulgar, or offensive concerned parties can approach court, and sue the cartoonist and magazine but saying you can't make cartoons of muhmad at all is an encroachment to artistic freedom.each party should keep their own freedom and boundary of that freedom.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
.
no contradictions there, I am all for drawing cartoons of muhmad, Jesus, or Hindu gods in good taste, good humour and good criticism, I am against racial, nude cartoons of prophet , etc.if a particular cartoon is vulgar, or offensive concerned parties can approach court, and sue the cartoonist and magazine but saying you can't make cartoons of muhmad at all is an encroachment to artistic freedom.each party should keep their own freedom and boundary of that freedom.
@Agnostic_Indian soo vulgar is bad but mockery is fine?

so you support what YOU thing is fine not what OTHERS may feel about it?

@Cloakedvessel All I am saying is EU either should change its constitution and say they are NOT TOLERANT and THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS FREEDOM for others (immigrants or other religions) EXCEPT that for those who belong to a certain classification such as a mocking cartoonist....OR stick WITH WHAT SECULAR DEMOCRAT actually means!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
.
I didnt say it was the right thing to do. I said it is their right to do so.
If the action is illogical, then the people have to be explained why what they are demanding is wrong. And if the people agree it is ok. If they insist, then it becomes the moral duty of the government to implement that action or resign.

I don't think govt should work like that, govt should try to do the right thing with in their limits even if it is against the will of the people, I agree that no govt can take extreme measures against the will of the people but certainly there is a considerable room for maneuver.in this case it was a govt initiative rather than govt submitting to public demand or protest.
 
.
@Agnostic_Indian soo vulgar is bad but mockery is fine?

so you support what YOU thing is fine not what OTHERS may feel about it?




mockery is a wrong word to describe a good cartoon with humour and constructive criticism, often people who are being drawn and criticised also enjoy the humour in the cartoon and appreciate it.

everybody got there own likes and dislikes it's subjective that's why I said people who feel that a particular cartoon is offensive they can approach the court.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
.
561196_10151449148353122_374373028_n.jpg
 
.
(New York, February 27, 2004)—The proposed French law banning Islamic headscarves and other visible religious symbols in state schools would violate the rights to freedom of religion and expression, Human Rights Watch said today. The law, which forbids “signs and dress that conspicuously show the religious affiliation of students,” will be debated in the French Senate on March 2.“The proposed law is an unwarranted infringement on the right to religious practice,” said Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch. “For many Muslims, wearing a headscarf is not only about religious expression, it is about religious obligation.”International human rights law obliges state authorities to avoid coercion in matters of religious freedom, and this obligation must be taken into account when devising school dress codes. The proposed prohibition on headscarves in France, as with laws in some Muslim countries that force girls to wear headscarves in schools, violates this principle.Under international law, states can only limit religious practices when there is a compelling public safety reason, when the manifestation of religious beliefs would impinge on the rights of others, or when it serves a legitimate educational function (such as prohibiting practices that preclude student-teacher interaction). Muslim headscarves, Sikh turbans, Jewish skullcaps and large Christian crosses—which are among the visible religious symbols that would be prohibited—do not pose a threat to public health, order or morals; they have no effect on the fundamental rights and freedoms of other students; and they do not undermine a school’s educational function.Some supporters of the proposed law—known as the “Draft law concerning the application of the principle of secularism in schools, junior high schools and high schools,” which would come into force in September—believe it is necessary to uphold the separation of church and state in education, and to protect the secular state from the perceived threat of religious fundamentalism, particularly Islamic fundamentalism.However, protecting the right of all students to religious freedom does not undermine secularism in schools. On the contrary, it demonstrates respect for religious diversity, a position fully consistent with maintaining the strict separation of public institutions from any particular religious message. Human Rights Watch recognizes the legitimacy of public institutions seeking not to promote any religion via their conduct or statements, but the French government has taken this a step further by suggesting that the state is undermining secularism if it allows students to wear religious symbols.Supporters of the law have also defended the ban on the grounds that it will protect Muslim girls from being forced or pressured to wear the headscarf by their parents. Under international law, states must respect the responsibilities, rights and duties of parents to provide, in a manner consistent with the evolving capacities of the child, appropriate direction and guidance in the child’s exercise of their basic rights. States must also take all appropriate measures to ensure that children are protected against discrimination or punishment on the basis of the beliefs of their parents or family members. At the same time, states are responsible for taking appropriate legislative, administrative, social and educational measures to protect children where parents are responsible for physical or mental violence, injury or abuse, neglect or negligent treatment, maltreatment or exploitation, including sexual abuse. Unnecessary restrictions on children’s personal rights and freedoms should not be promoted as a means of child protection.The impact of a ban on visible religious symbols, even though phrased in neutral terms, will fall disproportionately on Muslim girls, and thus violate antidiscrimination provisions of international human rights law as well as the right to equal educational opportunity. Indeed, the promotion of understanding and tolerance for such differences in values is a key aspect of enforcement of the right to education. In practice, the law will leave some Muslim families no choice but to remove girls from the state educational system.Some in France have used the headscarf issue as a pretext for voicing anti-immigrant andanti-Muslim sentiments. Some arguments appear to be based on the premise that allMuslims want to oppress women, or that women and girls who choose to veil do not understand women’s rights. Public debate has also touched on many other significant social issues: religious fundamentalism and political uses of religious symbols; oppression of girls and women; levels of immigration; discrimination and lack of economic opportunity for immigrant communities; pluralism and national integration.“The proposed law has raised important issues about religious freedom and the role of the state in France,” said Roth. “The resolution of this issue will have important implications throughout Europe and beyond. But simply banning headscarves and other expressions of religious belief from the schools is not the answer.”

France: Headscarf Ban Violates Religious Freedom | Human Rights Watch
 
.
hiding face is a threat, because it gives the anti social the advantage of anonymity, in my state there is rule which prevents using window tint for vehicles, because of the same reason.
one could ask can't the police check the vehicles but that is not practical all the time, same is the case here, police can't go behind people to check the faces, banning full face cover saves lot of work for police,and people also recognise who is who and that also helps to public safety, in case something wrong happens CCTV Cameras can be checked to identify people if their face is not covered.
now can a long coat be used to hide explosives, yes and if required that also can be banned, but it's a call which is to be made according to the threat perception,practicality, inconvenience caused to people, and wisdom of law makers, you can't argue that it's a hypocrisy that they didn't ban big coats but only face cover.

My friend Hooded tops , every kind of mask, face painting, hats, glasses, long jackets/coats or any stuff which people use to cover their face/ear/nose in cold winter etc also make it difficult to be identified in case of crime. Why don’t go for banning all these stuffs if some criminal could misuse them?

Mobile/internet can also be used by criminals to commit certain crimes then we should also go for banning these things even when majority of us use it for right purpose. Wine or drunk people can also be dangerous for safety of public because rape or serious accident could happen if you are too drunk then why don’t ban wine? No instead Government will spend million to protect this right of people and will appoint extra policemen at mid night to look after drunk people or for safety of general public. Its Irony that people are feeling threatened with one extra piece of clothes but never stop expansion of nuclear weapons which killed millions

MR Nicolas Sarkozy did not gave same reasoning for banning the burqa/veil

“I want to say solemnly, the burka is not welcome in France. In our country, we can't accept women prisoners behind a screen, cut off from all social life, deprived of all identity. That is not our idea of freedom."


How could he speak on behalf of all Muslim women and to assume that they are feeling oppressive or prisoners when they wear it by their own free will or choice. Its not right for champions of freedom and equality to support any kind of ban on an individual's choice of dress. If muslim woman is not happy with the burka then she is alright. If she is happy with the burka then she is a radical
 
.
It is a symbolic step in the right direction.

It is not against any religion, just trying to uphold the country's cultural values of dignity of women.

women's "dignity" ?

Since when is it "dignified" to peel off a womans clothing and commoditize her body for the world to ogle and wow at as a piece of artwork?

What if a woman chooses to do the absolute opposite i.e wear layers of clothing that gives this clear message to men: "hands off", "eyes off" and last but not least "back off" ?
 
.

Country Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom