France bans the burqa

[Hack&Lube]

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.

Modern day France, like Quebec and many neophyte post-Catholic societies in today's world is mostly atheist or areligious.

[HeartsOfFire]

So, it's a ban on veils that cover the face. Including Burqa's. It's not a ban on the Burqa per-se, but the Burqa's lot is thrown in along with other veils?

And is it just veils? Or masks too?

France'll be a pretty boring place if they can't legally hold any more Masquerade's.

[kipperfan]

Originally Posted by Drury18

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.

I am not sure I agree with the facial hair comparison simply because the facial hair in itself is a distinguishing feature that can easily be used to identify someone. Not only that but when looking at a guy with a beard, even a heavy beard, I can see his mouth, nose and forehead which is a heck of alot more then the half inch of skin I can see around the eyes of someone wearing a burqa. But that is just the security risk side of things.

You have yet to address the issue of the burqa's effect on women. Do you think it is right women are treated like possesions simply because they happen to be Muslim? Should we stand aside and watch as a religous group, that emigrated to this country by choice, continues to treat certain Canadian (or French, for the sake of this debate) women like second class citizens?

[Drury18]

Originally Posted by 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.

So can burqa's. In the presence of another women of their faith, they may remove their burqa to be indentified. As there are plenty of Islam and Muslim women who they could not be related to that you could have security clearanced and all that so they could confirm the women's indentity.

And before you even get to the "They don't have picture ID so you can't indentify them" what about that same person in sunglasses who isn't carrying their ID? They can remove their glasses, but that doesn't confirm any indentity. You still have to have something to comfirm who you are and both the person with the sunglasses and the women with the burqa can be carrying indentifying papers and remove the concealing item in order to do so.

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by Drury18

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.

Also there are many styles of burqa where the eyes are not visible, the wearer sees through a fabric mesh. And it's a security issue when identification cannot be made by the human eye and regular human effort or but requires machines or technology or specialists and experts to do things like fingerprinting or retina scanning.

[stampsx2]

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

Modern day France, like Quebec and many neophyte post-Catholic societies in today's world is mostly atheist or areligious.

Not sure where you are getting your information from. If you want I can give you a couple of websites that show the complete opposite.

I see no problem with religious clothing until it affects my safety. Wearing a face covering affects my safety (airports etc).

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by 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.

All those Muslims and their turbans...
Didn't know they had anything to do with the RCMP turban debate, or the motorcycle turban debate.

[burn_this_city]

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

All those Muslims and their turbans...
Didn't know they had anything to do with the RCMP turban debate, or the motorcycle turban debate.

The most humorous part being Sikhs and Muslims are such great friends.

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by stampsx2

Not sure where you are getting your information from. If you want I can give you a couple of websites that show the complete opposite.

I see no problem with religious clothing until it affects my safety. Wearing a face covering affects my safety (airports etc).

Among young people at least and theoretically, the future population.

That said, the influx of Muslim and other immigration is largely affecting those demographics as well due to the removal of state borders in the European Union.

[Codes]

Originally Posted by Drury18

And before you even get to the "They don't have picture ID so you can't indentify them" what about that same person in sunglasses who isn't carrying their ID? They can remove their glasses, but that doesn't confirm any indentity.

Isn't it the law to carry identification? Not carrying ID is a pet-peeve of mine, so I have no problem with someone getting fined for failure to ID. This doesn't enter into the equation.

But, you fail to consider other places besides airport security. What about banks, schools and government buildings? There are certain places in society where you need to be recognized. It's different here, and sometimes immigrants fail to realize that in the case of security, some things just don't fly here.

[Codes]

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

All those Muslims and their turbans...
Didn't know they had anything to do with the RCMP turban debate, or the motorcycle turban debate.

I wasn't trying to be insensitive. If I have incorrectly labelled groups, I apologize.

All I intended to say was that I think the argument revolved around wearing turbans instead of motorcycle helmets.

My point was that all heads bust open equally well!

[Aeneas]

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

Among young people at least and theoretically, the future population.

That said, the influx of Muslim and other immigration is largely affecting those demographics as well due to the removal of state borders in the European Union.

I read somewhere that inside of 20-30 years the average Frenchman would be a Muslim. Maybe the old guard in France is trying to make "their" country less attractive to immigrants of a certain stripe.

[Drury18]

Originally Posted by kipperfan

You have yet to address the issue of the burqa's effect on women. Do you think it is right women are treated like possesions simply because they happen to be Muslim? Should we stand aside and watch as a religous group, that emigrated to this country by choice, continues to treat certain Canadian (or French, for the sake of this debate) women like second class citizens?

Muslim is not the only relgious group that dictates to be such a way though.

The Qu'aran has this in regards to women:

And say to the faithful women to lower their gazes, and to guard their private parts, and not to display their beauty except what is apparent of it, and to extend their headcoverings (khimars) to cover their bosoms (jaybs), and not to display their beauty except to their husbands, or their fathers, or their husband's fathers, or their sons, or their husband's sons, or their brothers, or their brothers' sons, or their sisters' sons, or their womenfolk, or what their right hands rule (slaves), or the followers from the men who do not feel sexual desire, or the small children to whom the nakedness of women is not apparent, and not to strike their feet (on the ground) so as to make known what they hide of their adornments. And turn in repentance to Allah together, O you the faithful, in order that you are successful"

Qur'an- Sura Nur Chapter: The Light. Verse 31

That to me is no different then where in the Bible it is stated:

For a man ought not to have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man.
For man does not originate from woman, but woman from man;
for indeed man was not created for the woman's sake, but woman for the man's sake. Therefore the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.

1 Corinthians 11:7-10

There are many Western Relgions that also dictate for women to dress or wear a headcovering as well. What makes a burqa any more opressive then that? It's still religion dictating dress and practices.

And then you have the whole practice of Jewish Circumcision which can be considered genital mutilation all in the name of faith and having a pure relationship with God.

This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised.
And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you.
And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed.
He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant. And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant.

Genesis 17: 10-14

Frankly, I find all of these practices completely effed up, but I also don't understand the religious meanings behind it. So for me to say I have a stance on it, without fully understanding it would be foolish.

[Drury18]

Originally Posted by Codes

Isn't it the law to carry identification? Not carrying ID is a pet-peeve of mine, so I have no problem with someone getting fined for failure to ID. This doesn't enter into the equation.

But, you fail to consider other places besides airport security. What about banks, schools and government buildings? There are certain places in society where you need to be recognized. It's different here, and sometimes immigrants fail to realize that in the case of security, some things just don't fly here.

I believe it is the law and I agree with you. That's not an issue of debate for me.

What do you say about the men I see in banks with baseball caps, hoodies or sunglasses on when it specifically says on the door to please remove them before entering and they choose not to? The most I hear is the teller (once they have approached them) asking them to remember not to do it again but I don't see any guards at the door jumping them in order to enforce this security. The people here can barely follow the security rules so again, blaming a minority group for doing things we can't even follow ourselves is just pointing a finger away from our own stupidity.

[sclitheroe]

Originally Posted by Aeneas

I read somewhere that inside of 20-30 years the average Frenchman would be a Muslim. Maybe the old guard in France is trying to make "their" country less attractive to immigrants of a certain stripe.

This was my thought as well. I think its too late though (oh, and wrong..)

[HeartsOfFire]

Circumsision, whilst being a covenant with God in the Jewish faith, likely had much to do as well in the realm of personal hygiene in the days of primitive man. It is my understanding that a circumsised individual is much less susceptible to bacterial infection of the penis because it is easier to clean when the foreskin is not present.

Modern medical science has come a long way. Circumsision is largely unnecessary nowadays, in terms of the health benefits. I believe the symbolism is what keeps it going.

Much like how refraining from eating pork is now more symbolic than anything. With the tools at our disposal in this day and age, eating properly prepared pork is as safe as any other properly prepared meat. But back in those old days, they couldn't do it as well as we could today. Eating pork back then probably was quite dangerous. It's not like fish, something you can practically eat straight out of the water.

[HeartsOfFire]

...

What?

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by HeartsOfFire

...

What?

Fotze, Sex, Humour, Fotze, Cunning Linguists.

[Cheese]

lost in all this mess is...where in the Qur'an does it suggest a woman must wear a Burqa? The answer...no where. The Qur'an has no requirement whatsoever that women must cover their faces with a veil, or cover their bodies with a Burqa.It is the "interpretation" of fanatical clerics that create this issue. Religions of every kind are open to interpretation because the tomes they follow are written so poorly these fanatics can create something out of nothing.

The Quran does not specifically mention the Burqa or tell women to wear such extremely confining clothes. Instead, it instructs men and women to dress and behave modestly in society (24:31)

For women; Cover your chest (24:31); Lengthen your garments (33:59) and for both sexes; The BEST garment is that righteousness and modest conduct (7:26).

The word Burqa is not to be found anywhere in the Quran, but as it falls under the heading of Hijab which is used in Quran we should explore its use. The Arabic word Hijab can be translated into veil or yashmak. Other meanings for the word include screen, barrier, cover(ing), mantle, curtain, drapes, partition, division, divider etc.

The word “Hijab” appears in the Qur’an seven times, five of them as “Hijab” and twice as “Hijaban”. See 7:46, 17:45, 19:17, 33:53, 38:32, 41:5, 42:51. None of these “Hijab” words are used in the Qur’an in reference to what the traditional Muslims call today “the dress code for Muslim woman”. Hijab in the Qur’an has nothing to do with a woman’s dress code.

link

[Drury18]

Originally Posted by HeartsOfFire

Circumsision, whilst being a covenant with God in the Jewish faith, likely had much to do as well in the realm of personal hygiene in the days of primitive man. It is my understanding that a circumsised individual is much less susceptible to bacterial infection of the penis because it is easier to clean when the foreskin is not present.

Modern medical science has come a long way. Circumsision is largely unnecessary nowadays, in terms of the health benefits. I believe the symbolism is what keeps it going.

I've heard similar and it probably has alot of merit as your reasonings are completely legitimate, but when taken at face value reading the scripture that accompanies the reasoning to do it, it doesn't state the health benefits. Just a covenant with the Jewish God and those who do not, are not will be cut off from him and his people. So face value is mutiliate yourself so you can be part of this religion or you get nothing. It's not much different (and even much less painful and permanant) then the Muslim religion requesting women wear a burqa.