France bans the burqa

[SeeBass]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

Whats the justification for no minarets?? I have yet to hear a rational argument on that one.

Danger for skydivers

[burn_this_city]

Originally Posted by SeeBass

Danger for skydivers

You'd think a steeple on a church would be more of a danger to them.

[SeeBass]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

You'd think a steeple on a church would be more of a danger to them.

good point, time to ban churches too

[Hanni]

Wasn't the minarets because they apparently promoted radical Islam?

[peter12]

It's amazing to find that many of CP's users are closet xenophobic fascists. And I am staunchy against the burka, myself. French have taken this one too far. Like always.

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by DuffMan

If my wife and I visited a burqa wearing prone country, and my wife wanted to walk around in public, in a bikini, what would happen? My guess is they are not very tolerant on that sort of thing, and she would be arrested and stoned to death within a minute.

So they go to France, and France says, no wearing burqa's, as we don't want people covering their identities, and they would have a problem accepting that because, why?

How do you know they went to France?
Can't a muslim be born there?, perhaps after many generations of their family has as well.
Basically your argument can be summed up as white=local, colored=immigrant, and you fail to understand the difference between religion and nationality, or a secular vs religious nation.

[kipperfan]

Originally Posted by Drury18

I hope your list includes the Bible, Crosses/Crucifixes, Kippahs, Yarmulkes and Rosaries. If you ban one religous item, you need to ban them all.

It's sickening how many people (not directed at the OP, I'm using people in the general sense) are quick to want religious items of a Eastern Culture banned, but don't see their own religious items which are openly on display as being stupid to people, even those of their own country.

I'm an atheist, I don't want to see your damn religious symbol here or anywhere and its not dependant on which deity you choose to worship or what country you were born in.

I consider myself an atheist as well and agree with your post for the most part. At the same time I think your missing the biggest issues here, the burqa is not only a tool used to segregate and degradate women but it is also, IMO and in the opinion of many others, a national security risk. The same can not be said about rosarie beads and bibles.

[photon]

First they came for the burqas...

Waiting for the first bust at a wedding where the bride is wearing a veil.

[kipperfan]

Originally Posted by 3 Justin 3

Oh noes, they are wearing a head scarf in the mall. All hell is going to break loose. Seriously.

My only problem was when the Indian guys wanted their turban apart of the RCMP uniform.

Well first of all, this law does not forbid head scarves. There is a world of difference between a burqa (which covers the entire body including the face) and a head scarf (which covers the head) so lets not confuse the two.

And if you have no issue with head scarves, what is your issue with turbans being worn by RCMP members? A RCMP member wearing a turban not only endangers nobody but it also hurts nobody, why would you possible oppose that and have no issue with the burqa?

[jayswin]

I want everything banned!

[Addick]

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

And so some states are permitted to practice their draconian laws just because they are theocracies while secular ones are not in order to protect their cultural identity and security?

Basically, yes. While I don't condone their laws, they have a different system than us and it would be wrong to use their reasoning and processes.

Also, our cultural identity; please explain? Are we the land of only certain immigrants (i.e. ones with Western religions)?

[HotHotHeat]

It's an interesting direction. Europe clearly feels threatened by the Islamic world, and somewhat justifiably. The Western mentality of 'When you go somewhere, you should immerse yourself in the culture' is not shared by the Middle East, or Asia for that matter. Whether that's selfish of them or not is another debate, but they certainly don't feel obligated to join the prides and traditions of their new homeland.

As for the religious aspects of the story... I'm fairly sure my views on religion are well documented. As are my views on Santa Clause.

[Codes]

I think the real issue regarding RCMP and Turbans revolved around the police officers that operated motorcycles. The Indian officers wanted to wear their turban in place of a motorcycle helmet.

I don't mind if Indian officers want to wear a turban instead of the traditional hat, but when it comes to legally-required protective gear, you can't make religious exceptions. A Muslim person's head busts open just as easily as a Christian's.

As for the burqa, I am undecided. I see this is a very harsh, very bold move from the French. But, when it comes to national security, then yes, the minority cannot endanger the majority.

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

Whats the justification for no minarets?? I have yet to hear a rational argument on that one.

Because they ruin the skyline, part of the cultural heritage and tourist attraction of European skylines is the European look which would be ruined when dotted by minarets.

It's like how in St. Louis there is the law prohibiting buildings to be taller than the St. Louis arch.

[Drury18]

Originally Posted by kipperfan

I consider myself an atheist as well and agree with your post for the most part. At the same time I think your missing the biggest issues here, the burqa is not only a tool used to segregate and degradate women but it is also, IMO and in the opinion of many others, a national security risk. The same can not be said about rosarie beads and bibles.

So is any person with excessive facial hair if you want to get particularly anal about it. A burqua still allows you to see the eyes of the person and with retina scanning and fingerprinting becoming more common as a way of distinguishing indentity, I fail to see where a burqua is anymore of a security threat then the man with an excess of facial hair that also covers most of his face.

I agree, rosaries and bibles obviously do not fall under the same category of a security threat as a burqua, but if we are going to start banning things that are security threats as opposed to religious objects which are offensive to groups (which is all I was referring to in my post), then we need to start banning facial hair, bandana's, belaclava's, sunglasses and other such things that impede everyone from seeing the whole face since that is also a security risk.

Again, its a matter of if you want to ban one thing for a reason, then it all needs to go.

[burn_this_city]

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

Because they ruin the skyline, part of the cultural heritage and tourist attraction of European skylines is the European look which would be ruined when dotted by minarets.

It's like how in St. Louis there is the law prohibiting buildings to be taller than the St. Louis arch.

Ruins the skyline for who? The Xenophobic Swiss who tolerate church steeples but not minarets.

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I hope France is up to date on riot control techniques, because its going to get ugly.

I am sure they are pros by now. There are constant riots there in the "NO GO" zones by "YOUTHS"

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by Addick

Basically, yes. While I don't condone their laws, they have a different system than us and it would be wrong to use their reasoning and processes.

Also, our cultural identity; please explain? Are we the land of only certain immigrants (i.e. ones with Western religions)?

This has nothing to do with OUR cultural identity. Please explain where you are inferencing that and what are you talking about because I don't get your point. This is not a discusson about Canada. Our young country is built on immigration and our system works on majority rule with minority rights and I am pretty sure a burqa ban wouldn't ever fly here.

France and other European countries are hundreds of years older than Canada and existed for a large part of their history as a homogeneous culture. I feel they have a right to try to preserve something of their cultural heritage/image or impose a ban on something that they feel is a security issue.

Regardless of whatever we are talking about, the majority will always try to impose their identity or cultural rules upon the minority and I agree that it has to be that way to an extent. Think about all the language laws in Quebec which obviously are discriminatory and draconian in many ways in the modern world but I agree that the majority should have a right to enforce such things. I've always agreed with the position that immigrants in a foreign country should try their best to adapt to the culture of the country they are living in and not force their own practices upon that country. You should adopt the language of that country and try to adopt and assimilate into the language and customs of that country to foster better relations.

[Codes]

Drury, who the hell goes to an airport wearing a belaclava? Or any public place for that matter. Unless it's -40C, no-one is walking around in public with a belaclava. Facial hair? Why don't we just ban all hair. Sunglasses can be removed, and if there is any question of identity, they are removed.

These are poor examples. And in the case of bandanas (covering the face in conditions that don't require it), and belaclavas (unless it's blizzarding) are already looked upon as suspicious.

My kid brother and his friend decided it would be fun to drive around with belaclavas. All they were doing was driving, and they were pulled over by the police.

[stampsx2]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

I would be more than happy if France outlawed every public display of religious observance.

Religion is like sex. Keep that bizarre in your house you freaks.

Wow