Woman in face veil detained

[meryt-tetisheri]

well if you don't like it you could stay at home and sit in the garden with your burka off, or go to a country that will allow you to take it off.

I do not mean that, but that is basically the argument being put forward for the ban on wearing a veil. oppression in one place does not justify oppression in another place.

Can you tell me first about the oppression of women, a justification of having the face veil forced on them, or being told since childhood that they are first & foremost a sexual object ? You cannot argue for the freedom of a group or a community, but sweep the freedom and dignity of women under the rug of 'it's our custom/tradition/religion', specially when it is being dictated & financed by SA.

As for me, don't worry, there's more to me than a piece of meat hiding in a garden, or an object to be tucked away under a piece of cloth to protect the moral fragility of others. Egyptian women took off the face veil in 1908. Under the leadership of Hoda Shaarawy , Ceza Nabarawi & other courageous women, they organized demonstrations & publically removed the veil, were shot at by the police, & joined the 1919 revolution. LittleFish, I come from a long proud line of Egyptian women and I do not apologize for my conviction, nor hide in a garden; or cover my face.

[Little Fish]

Can you tell me first about the oppression of women, a justification of having the face veil forced on them, or being told since childhood that they are first & foremost a sexual object ? You cannot argue for the freedom of a group or a community, but sweep the freedom and dignity of women under the rug of 'it's our custom/tradition/religion', specially when it is being dictated & financed by SA.

As for me, don't worry, there's more to me than a piece of meat hiding in a garden, or an object to be tucked away under a piece of cloth to protect the moral fragility of others. Egyptian women took off the face veil in 1908. Under the leadership of Hoda Shaarawy , Ceza Nabarawi & other courageous women, they organized demonstrations & publically removed the veil, were shot at by the police, & joined the 1919 revolution. LittleFish, I come from a long proud line of Egyptian women and I do not apologize for my conviction, nor hide in a garden; or cover my face.

I object to the state telling people what they can and cannot wear in public, that would make us allies wouldn't it? Edited April 17, 2011 by Little Fish

[The Silver Thong]

I object to the state telling people what they can and cannot wear in public, that would make us allies wouldn't it?

When religion dictates to the state and the state bends it's knee to religion, that would not make us allies. The burka is a political statement as much as a religious one.

[meryt-tetisheri]

I object to the state telling people what they can and cannot wear in public, that would make us allies wouldn't it?

In this one case I give priority to the rights & dignity of women, and their health, because the burka covering up leads to numerous problems.

You might not be aware of it, but many women are coerced by male relatives, or even harrassed in the streets, called "w°°°es, etc to force the veil on them using religion as a pretext when in reality it is not the case; rather there is a question of a ruling dynasty that is seeking political leverage via religious hegemony & the creation of a Muslim "Vatican" of sorts. I am for the law.

[shadowhive]

I object to the state telling people what they can and cannot wear in public, that would make us allies wouldn't it?

Muslim Middle Eatern countries want women to wear one type of clothing (and only one type) and to treat woomen as second class citizens.

France want women to not wear one item of clothing, which is not necessary and more often then not forced upon the wearer. However, women are free to wear anything else they desire.

The two situations are very different.

Edited April 17, 2011 by shadowhive

[Mainpoint]

Muslim Middle Eatern countries want women to wear one type of clothing (and only one type) and to treat woomen as second class citizens.

France want women to not wear one item of clothing, which is not necessary and more often then not forced upon the wearer. However, women are free to wear anything else they desire.

The two situations are very different.

hmmm isnt it france that telling its women officially what to wear or what not to wear. if there is a concern that women are being forced to wear certain clothing why not punish the people responsible why is the fine being levied on the women?

[Mainpoint]

You didn't even read my earlier (by one) post, did you ?

If there is no such thing as Islamic Imperialism, please explain to me the conquest of most of the Middle East (as we now call it), North Africa, Turkey, Spain, Southern France (as was), Italy.. I can go on.. by the armies of the Muslim Caliphate ?

You didn't know ANY of that, did you ?

when the Muslim Armies began their conquest of Spain, they first conquered a Spanish town called Cordoba. This then became a symbol of "the first step" .. the bridgehead.

A Saudi-financed group have been lobbying to create a Mosque on the site of "ground zero"... the ruins of the World Trade Centre.

Guess what they wanted to call it ?

The Cordoba Mosque.

No Islamic Imperialism ? Wake up Mainpoint, and do a little research.

I am not hating. There is much to admire in the Islamic faith. I do not hate, but at the same time, I am not blind.

meow purr

Dear meow purr you should study imperialism in depth this should make for a good reading

http://books.google.com/books?id=bl0k_ZjcWZ8C&dq=age+of+imperialism&printsec=frontcover&source=in&hl=en&ei=BlmqTdzUJ8Lq0gHh5OiOCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=17&sqi=2&ved=0CIcBEOgBMBA#v=onepage&q=age%20of%20imperialism&f=false

Imperialism was a term coined roughly 2-3 centuries ago when mostly european countries made colononies and expolited rest of the world notably africa india and south america. They tapped the other countries dry to fatten themselves.

Another insight

http://www.michaelparenti.org/Imperialism101.html

[Mainpoint]

Can you tell me first about the oppression of women, a justification of having the face veil forced on them, or being told since childhood that they are first & foremost a sexual object ? You cannot argue for the freedom of a group or a community, but sweep the freedom and dignity of women under the rug of 'it's our custom/tradition/religion', specially when it is being dictated & financed by SA.

Your argument is thrown out the window because you are not considering those french women who decide to become muslims as adults then decide to wear hijab.

Why is the law punishing these women. If your argument is sincere and honest then the law should be designed to punish the oppressors. I find there is general lack of honesty and hidden hatred in promulgating such laws.

[meryt-tetisheri]

hmmm isnt it france that telling its women officially what to wear or what not to wear. if there is a concern that women are being forced to wear certain clothing why not punish the people responsible why is the fine being levied on the women?

Actually, men who force their wives or daughters to wear burkas will face up to a year in prison, and fines of 30 000€ approximately.

[libstaK]

Explain how showing your face is 'living a life of sexual perversion' because from my experience, most women show their face and don't think that for a heartbeat so why do you suppose Muslim women think that way?

One hundred percent right there !!! This issue of sexual perversion is ridiculous. A human being, of any sex in any part of the world has the right not to be objectified by the opposite sex for the sake of pandering to weak willed lusts and perversions in the minds of the people having those thoughts. IT IS ALL IN THE HEAD, if there is a culture on this Earth (not pointing any fingers LA LA LA) in which the men are incapable of viewing the female form as anything other than a potential vessel for the slaking of their lusts then that culture needs to have a good long hard look at how weak in mind and body the men in it's society really are.

A strong being will not blame someone else for the weakness in their own character and penalise anyone or anything for the abhorrent thoughts in their mind. A strong being will confront themselves and their thoughts and take responsibility to remove them or reign them in so no one else is harmed by them, either sexually or in any other way.

[meryt-tetisheri]

Your argument is thrown out the window because you are not considering those french women who decide to become muslims as adults then decide to wear hijab.

Why is the law punishing these women. If your argument is sincere and honest then the law should be designed to punish the oppressors. I find there is general lack of honesty and hidden hatred in promulgating such laws.

The "oppressors" face a much heavier penalty,€ 30 000+ prison, compared to 150. Maybe that will help the women find their voices

Can you give any concrete proof that there was no pressure, coersion, exerted on these women; no effort to convince them that their new faith, not Saudi cultural customs, absolutely require covering their faces?

It all comes back to the arguments dehumanizing women and reducing them to sexual objects, the burkas becoming the men's chastity belts which women have to wear on their faces for them; while debates can go on about how much of an eye brow may show, definitions of seditious eyes etc...things which you, as a man, do not have to suffer, yet indirectlly defend.

My argument stays solidly WITHIN the room or whatever is on the other side of the window.

It's 5 AM where I am and it's time for me to try get some sleep...

[Mainpoint]

The "oppressors" face a much heavier penalty,€ 30 000+ prison, compared to 150. Maybe that will help the women find their voices

Can you give any concrete proof that there was no pressure, coersion, exerted on these women; no effort to convince them that their new faith, not Saudi cultural customs, absolutely require covering their faces?

It all comes back to the arguments dehumanizing women and reducing them to sexual objects, the burkas becoming the men's chastity belts which women have to wear on their faces for them; while debates can go on about how much of an eye brow may show, definitions of seditious eyes etc...things which you, as a man, do not have to suffer, yet indirectlly defend.

My argument stays solidly WITHIN the room or whatever is on the other side of the window.

It's 5 AM where I am and it's time for me to try get some sleep...

Still the women are getting punished because they too are getting fined. Its like blaming the victim. Even the authors of this law dont seem to think there is coercion. If their thoughts were noble perhaps they should not have included any fine for the woman that was suffering.

We are dealing with french law what has saudi arabia got to do with this?

French women choose to wear this there is no pressure. Sorry but the burden of proof is needed for people that are wanting to make other do it. Yawwn I need some sleep too.

Edited April 17, 2011 by Mainpoint

[Little Fish]

[Guest]

Back to comparing a surgical mask(optional) with a Burka (not optional). Another good score there

Br Cornelius

[Little Fish]

"Contrary to common misunderstanding, Islam does not compel women to cover their faces. Wearing the burka, nijab and hijab (head scarf) is optional. The minority of women who chose to dress with the burka do so of their own volition for personal religious/cultural reasons. In Arab culture, women themselves place a high value on modesty in public appearance."

"One Muslim woman, originally from North Africa now living in France, said: “Liberty, equality, fraternity – it’s all a big lie” and she compared the situation with 1939-45. “They are now doing to Muslims what they did to Jews.”

"Given the French political establishment’s heinous collaboration with Nazi Germany in the persecution of Jews, communists and other “undesirables”, Sarkozy in this latest French move to ban the burka is indeed playing with fire. "

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=19143

[ships-cat]

Dear meow purr you should study imperialism in depth this should make for a good reading

http://books.google.com/books?id=bl0k_ZjcWZ8C&dq=age+of+imperialism&printsec=frontcover&source=in&hl=en&ei=BlmqTdzUJ8Lq0gHh5OiOCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=17&sqi=2&ved=0CIcBEOgBMBA#v=onepage&q=age%20of%20imperialism&f=false

Imperialism was a term coined roughly 2-3 centuries ago when mostly european countries made colononies and expolited rest of the world notably africa india and south america. They tapped the other countries dry to fatten themselves.

Another insight

http://www.michaelparenti.org/Imperialism101.html

Mainpoint, you seem to assume that only Western powers could (historically or currently) act imperialisticly (e.g. to form empires).

Webster defines Imperialism as:

: the policy, practice, or advocacy of extending the power and dominion of a nation especially by direct territorial acquisitions or by gaining indirect control over the political or economic life of other areas; broadly : the extension or imposition of power, authority, or influence.

(emphasis mine).

Here is a list of Islamic Empires.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_empire

Now, how is this relevant to the discussion of the Burqa ?

Well, as I suggested before: I think the ban makes no sense at all if analysed in terms of a piece of clothing. Others have pointed out that it makes limited sense in terms of female emancipation from a perceived oppressive religious/cultural system. In the same way, the recent Swiss ban on minarets makes little sense in architectural terms.

I would suggest that the reason for this apparent "logical disconnect" is NOT because the legislators in both France and Switzerland suddenly went mad. It is because the laws where framed for a different purpose. And that purpose was to draw a metaphorical "line in the sand" against what was perceived as "Islamification" of French (or Swiss) society. A deliberate, co-ordinated and planned attempt - backed by foreign nation-states - to change the nature of the French Republic. Not by violent revolution (at least not initially), but by a series of incremental impositions; each one relatively innocuous in itself, but with the sum total designed to embed the "muslim way of doing things" into everyday French life, and hence pave the way for a final political takeover.

Now, you may think this paranoid hogwash, and perhaps you are correct. But consider this; the French burka ban actually makes SENSE from this perspective. It is not a 'thing in and of itself', it is merely the first part of a process of resisting "Islamification". It COULD have been minarets as in switzerland, or perhaps arresting Imam's for inflammatory hate speech, or banning Halal slaughter, or outlawing Sharia courts... and perhaps in the future these things WILL come under the spotlight... but it just happened to start with Burkas. Everything has to start SOMEWHERE, and - historically - the "opening shots" of many major conflicts where over something seemingly trivial.

meow purr

Edited April 17, 2011 by ships-cat

[Guest]

Mainpoint, you seem to assume that only Western powers could (historically or currently) act imperialisticly (e.g. to form empires).

Webster defines Imperialism as:

(emphasis mine).

Here is a list of Islamic Empires.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_empire

Now, how is this relevant to the discussion of the Burqa ?

Well, as I suggested before: I think the ban makes no sense at all if analysed in terms of a piece of clothing. Others have pointed out that it makes limited sense in terms of female emancipation from a perceived oppressive religious/cultural system. In the same way, the recent Swiss ban on minarets makes little sense in architectural terms.

I would suggest that the reason for this apparent "logical disconnect" is NOT because the legislators in both France and Switzerland suddenly went mad. It is because the laws where framed for a different purpose. And that purpose was to draw a metaphorical "line in the sand" against what was perceived as "Islamification" of French (or Swiss) society. A deliberate, co-ordinated and planned attempt - backed by foreign nation-states - to change the nature of the French Republic. Not by violent revolution (at least not initially), but by a series of incremental impositions; each one relatively innocuous in itself, but with the sum total designed to embed the "muslim way of doing things" into everyday French life, and hence pave the way for a final political takeover.

Now, you may think this paranoid hogwash, and perhaps you are correct. But consider this; the French burka ban actually makes SENSE from this perspective. It is not a 'thing in and of itself', it is merely the first part of a process of resisting "Islamification". It COULD have been minarets as in switzerland, or perhaps arresting Imam's for inflammatory hate speech, or banning Halal slaughter, or outlawing Sharia courts... and perhaps in the future these things WILL come under the spotlight... but it just happened to start with Burkas. Everything has to start SOMEWHERE, and - historically - the "opening shots" of many major conflicts where over something seemingly trivial.

meow purr

[Knight Of Shadows]

interesting discussions ... well not all of them

of course there's some people just trolling around with hate speeches

against islam .. but apart from that there's really some nice

interesting discussions

i got one thing to say let's NOT forget when europe

wasn't able to decide wheather women are human or animal ...

back then in arabic islamic countries

the women were given their full right of everything

it's just reminder for the trolls on the topic and islam haters

trolls that history before you troll around islam

If muslim woman covered her whole body : she's oppressed

if a Nun covered her whole body : she's dedicated to god

grand denial

Edited April 17, 2011 by Knight Of Shadows

[ships-cat]

interesting discussions ... well not all of them

of course there's some people just trolling around with hate speeches

against islam .. but apart from that there's really some nice

interesting discussions

Hey there Knight of Shadows, good to see you again. Hows it going in Syria ? I gather the emergency laws are going to be lifted within a week.... AGAIN ?

I just wanted to clarify a couple of your points. For example, you stated that...

i got one thing to say let's NOT forget when europe

wasn't able to decide wheather women are human or animal ...

back then in arabic islamic countries

the women were given their full right of everything

I'm not familiar with this element of European History. Precisely when - and where - did this debate on the Humanity of women take place ? Also, it is my understanding that women did not - and still do not - have 'full right of everything', according to scripture ? For example, in a court of law the testimony of a man is worth twice that of a woman ?

it's just reminder for the trolls on the topic and islam haters

trolls that history before you troll around islam

Ahhh.... the above doesn't make any sense in English. Could you rephrase it ?

If muslim woman covered her whole body : she's oppressed

if a Nun covered her whole body : she's dedicated to god

So far as I am aware, nuns to NOT cover up their faces. (although I also gather than the precise nature of a Nun's clothing can vary from Order to Order).

grand denial

I deny that !

[shadowhive]

i got one thing to say let's NOT forget when europe

wasn't able to decide wheather women are human or animal ...

back then in arabic islamic countries

the women were given their full right of everything

In Europe women are now treated as equals. Yes, if you go far back enough in ANY society, women were treated as inferior.

Interestingly, though, only one believed that women should be covered head to toe to 'protect their modesty' and that same one seeks to keep women in that state, whereas the rest of the world now treats women as equals.

True equality for women isn't covering them from head to toe and convincing them to hide their faces. True equality for women isn't scaring them into thinking men will rape them if more then their eyes are on show.

If muslim woman covered her whole body : she's oppressed

if a Nun covered her whole body : she's dedicated to god

grand denial

The issue here is about the veil, which covers the face. I haven't seen a sinngle nun which wears a veil, so I'm sorry but they are NOT the same.

[shadowhive]

You're really not giving up on this are you?

If Muslim women really want to cover their faces that badly, then they should wear the mask. Simple.

[Mainpoint]

You're really not giving up on this are you?

If Muslim women really want to cover their faces that badly, then they should wear the mask. Simple.

Not all muslim women some select women according to demographics there are roughly only 2 thousand of them in France. This is targeting them. Its discriminatory and not considering them as equal by not giving them equal rights. Its and issue of human rights.

The mask??? what mask did you mean the following

Edited April 17, 2011 by Mainpoint

[Mainpoint]

interesting discussions ... well not all of them

of course there's some people just trolling around with hate speeches

against islam .. but apart from that there's really some nice

interesting discussions

i got one thing to say let's NOT forget when europe

wasn't able to decide wheather women are human or animal ...

back then in arabic islamic countries

the women were given their full right of everything

it's just reminder for the trolls on the topic and islam haters

trolls that history before you troll around islam

If muslim woman covered her whole body : she's oppressed

if a Nun covered her whole body : she's dedicated to god

grand denial

Great Point!

[shadowhive]

Not all muslim women some select women according to demographics there are roughly only 2 thousand of them in France. This is targeting them. Its discriminatory and not considering them as equal by not giving them equal rights. Its and issue of human rights.

The mask??? what mask did you mean the following

And again: out of those 2 thousand, how many of them make the choice to wear it themselves? How many of them are, instead, coerced into wearing them?

[Mainpoint]

And again: out of those 2 thousand, how many of them make the choice to wear it themselves? How many of them are, instead, coerced into wearing them?

Now that could have been easily investigated deeply and researched before the law curtailing peoples freedom and liberties was enacted hastily and with prejudice

All the women I know wear the veil out of their free will. They encourage other people including men women and children to be modest dont tell lies dont steal etc etc. Its just what they decide to do.

As a percentage in France they appear to be a small miniscule minority. Compared to that there are many more nuns out there in france.

Edited April 17, 2011 by Mainpoint