Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Woman in face veil detained


Persia

Recommended Posts

do you think there should be no limits on clothing we wear no matter what others opinion is?

I have asked people here to defend public nudity in all places and the wearing of Nazi swastikas. They don't seem to be able to join the dots in that they will not defend these "liberties". They are highly selective in their Liberalism.

Br Cornelius

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 331
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Little Fish

    64

  • dekker87

    46

  • Mainpoint

    43

  • shadowhive

    33

I have asked people here to defend public nudity in all places and the wearing of Nazi swastikas. They don't seem to be able to join the dots in that they will not defend these "liberties". They are highly selective in their Liberalism.

Br Cornelius

They don't understand the principle involved.

that's why i posted the mohammed / bomb t-shirt...

and being accused of being a 'racist' and a 'hitler in the making' or whatever drivel was thrown at me kinda proved my point.

....

btw - RAW changed the way i see the world when i was about 12 yrs old...

Edited by dekker87
Link to comment
Share on other sites

They don't understand the principle involved.

that's why i posted the mohammed / bomb t-shirt...

and being accused of being a 'racist' and a 'hitler in the making' or whatever drivel was thrown at me kinda proved my point.

....

btw - RAW changed the way i see the world when i was about 12 yrs old...

Never the same again after a close encounter with RAW. Try to read the Illuminatus Trilogy every few years - always something new.

Br Cornelius

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Never the same again after a close encounter with RAW. Try to read the Illuminatus Trilogy every few years - always something new.

Br Cornelius

the man was a genius.

:tu:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Little Fish’s picture book argumentation irks me.

Sorry to answer that late but I was on a business trip to Toronto.

If you realy think about what little fisch said you will see that he has a point with the med mask. But this is not the reason why I disagree with you.

It is the statement that european laws are based on european traditions.

Most european laws are based on the civil roman law. So is the law in Croatia, Bosnia, Germany.... At the same time the laws of Bosnia, Croatia, Austria (central europe) are influenced by the German civil Law ( including non europaen Japan )which is a subgroup and France,Italy, Spain..are a romanistic subgroup.

In order to create a civil law (european) the law makers had to part with many european traditions as they interfeered with the civil law itself.

The UK, as an expample has not a civil law but a common law.

So in that matter we can not realy talk about a common european law based on european tradition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry to answer that late but I was on a business trip to Toronto.

If you realy think about what little fisch said you will see that he has a point with the med mask. But this is not the reason why I disagree with you.

It is the statement that european laws are based on european traditions.

Most european laws are based on the civil roman law. So is the law in Croatia, Bosnia, Germany.... At the same time the laws of Bosnia, Croatia, Austria (central europe) are influenced by the German civil Law ( including non europaen Japan )which is a subgroup and France,Italy, Spain..are a romanistic subgroup.

In order to create a civil law (european) the law makers had to part with many european traditions as they interfeered with the civil law itself.

The UK, as an expample has not a civil law but a common law.

So in that matter we can not realy talk about a common european law based on european tradition.

what's your opinion of the burkha ban odas? there's no islamic requirement for the wearing of such a garment is there?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

what's your opinion of the burkha ban odas? there's no islamic requirement for the wearing of such a garment is there?

I realy do not like to talk to you but since you asked nicely I will answer.

No, the burka is not an islamic requirement. I personaly do not like it and I am against women wearing burkas.

But the law in question is degrading the women who wear it in the same way that some tribal laws are degrading the women by asking them to wear it.

It is a very small percentage of muslim women who weare the burka or niqab. The burka is traditionaly to find in Afghanistan an the niqab in Saudi Arabia.

The waste majority of religious women in Islam are wearing the hijab, covers only the hair, and it comes in many variaties. The same hijab or headscarf is a religious tradition in Judaism and Christianity.

Now back to the real reason for the law in France. This is a political law by Sarkozy to please the right wing of Le Pen, the same guy who said he does not like the French national soccer team because there are to many blacks playing.

This law is not about freedom and rights but for political purposes.

That's about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I realy do not like to talk to you but since you asked nicely I will answer.

No, the burka is not an islamic requirement. I personaly do not like it and I am against women wearing burkas.

But the law in question is degrading the women who wear it in the same way that some tribal laws are degrading the women by asking them to wear it.

It is a very small percentage of muslim women who weare the burka or niqab. The burka is traditionaly to find in Afghanistan an the niqab in Saudi Arabia.

The waste majority of religious women in Islam are wearing the hijab, covers only the hair, and it comes in many variaties. The same hijab or headscarf is a religious tradition in Judaism and Christianity.

Now back to the real reason for the law in France. This is a political law by Sarkozy to please the right wing of Le Pen, the same guy who said he does not like the French national soccer team because there are to many blacks playing.

This law is not about freedom and rights but for political purposes.

That's about it.

thank you odas.

confirmation, again, from an actual muslim that the niqab / burkha is not a requirement of Islam...hence the law is not going to restrict religious freedom in any way, shape or form.

nice post...i think you've pretty much hit the nail on the head from all angles there.

and btw i don't think anyone has any issue with the hijab.

:tu:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here are some actual quotes from the article -

At least two women have been briefly detained in France while wearing Islamic veils, after a law banning the garment in public came into force.

Police said they were held not because of their veils but for joining an unauthorised protest, and they were later released.

The two women detained had taken part in a demonstration outside Notre Dame cathedral in Paris. Police said the protest had not been authorised and so people were asked to move on. When they did not, they were arrested.

One of the women, Kenza Drider, had arrived in Paris from the southern city of Avignon, boarding a train wearing a niqab, and unchallenged by police.

Under the law, any woman - French or foreign - walking on the street or in a park in France and wearing a face-concealing veil such as the niqab or burka can be stopped by police and given a fine.

It is a small fine, but symbolically this is a huge change, says the BBC's Hugh Schofield in Paris.

Guidelines issued to police say they should not ask women to remove their veils in the street, but should escort them to a police station where they would be asked to uncover their faces for identification.

The French government says the face-covering veil undermines the basic standards required for living in a shared society and also relegates its wearers to an inferior status incompatible with French notions of equality.

The ban on face coverings - which does not explicitly mention Islamic veils, but exempts various other forms - has angered some Muslims and libertarians.

More information on the law -

The French ban on face covering (French: Loi interdisant la dissimulation du visage dans l'espace public, "Act prohibiting concealment of the face in public space") is an act of parliament passed by the Senate of France on 14 September 2010, resulting in the ban on the wearing of face-covering headgear, including masks, helmets, balaclava, niqābs and other veils covering the face in public places, except under specified circumstances.[1] The ban also applies to the burqa, a full-body covering, if it covers the face. The bill had previously been passed by the National Assembly of France on 13 July 2010.[2]

The key argument supporting this proposal is that face-coverings prevent the clear identification of a person, which is both a security risk, and a social hindrance within a society which relies on facial recognition and expression in communication. The key argument against the ban is that it encroaches on individual freedoms.[3] Many Muslim women have claimed that the ban "stigmatises one gender of one religion – Muslim women".

As of 11 April 2011, it is illegal to wear a face-covering veil or other headwear in public places such as the street, shops, museums, public transportation, and parks. Veils such as the chador, scarves and other headwear that do not cover the face, were not affected by this law.[4] The law applies to all citizens, including men and non-Muslims, who may not cover their face in public except where specifically provided by law such as motor-bike riders and safety workers and during established occasional events such as some carnivals.

As a result of the law, the only exceptions to a woman wearing a niqāb in public will be if she is travelling in a private car or worshiping in a religious place.[5] French Police say that while there are five million Muslims in France, fewer than two thousand are thought to fully cover their faces with a veil.[2] The wearing of all conspicuous religious symbols in public schools was previously banned in 2004 by the French law on secularity and conspicuous religious symbols in schools. This affected the wearing of Islamic veils and headscarves in schools, as well as turbans and other distinctive items of dress.

I don't think anyone should be forced to wear anything because they are a woman but as far as I can tell, this law is not directed only toward Muslim women. It includes men, helmets and masks.

Nibs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Text of law (translated by Babel Fish)

TEXT ADOPTED n° 524

“Small law”

NATIONAL ASSEMBLY

CONSTITUTION OF October 4, 1958

THIRTEENTH LEGISLATURE

EXTRAORDINARY SESSION OF 2009-2010

July 13, 2010

BILL

prohibiting the dissimulation of the face

in public space,

ADOPTEE BY the National Assembly

IN FIRST READING.

The National Assembly adopted the bill whose content follows:

See the numbers: 2520 and 2648.

Article 1st

No one cannot, in public space, to carry a behaviour intended to dissimulate its face.

Article 2

I. - For the application of the article 1st, public space is consisted of the public highways as well as places open to the public or assigned to a public service.

II. - The prohibition envisaged with the article 1st does not apply if the behaviour is prescribed or authorized by legislative measures or lawful, if it is justified by professional health reasons or reasons, or if it lies within the scope of sporting practices, festivals or artistic or traditional events.

Article 3

The ignorance of the prohibition enacted with the article 1st is punished fine planned for the infringments of the second class.

The obligation to achieve the training course of citizenship mentioned to the 8° of article 131-16 of the penal code can be at the same time marked or in the place of the sorrow of fine.

Article 4

After the section 1 (a) of the chapter V of title II of book II of the penal code, it is inserted a section 1 B thus written:

“Section 1 B

“Of the forced dissimulation of the face

“Article 225-4-10. makes it for any person force one or more other people to dissimulate their face by threat, violence, constraint, abuse of authority or abuse of power, because of their sex, is punished one year of imprisonment and 30 000 € of fine.

“When the fact is made with the damage of a minor, the sorrows are changed at two years of imprisonment and 60 000 € of fine.”

Article 5

The articles 1st with 3 come into effect to the expiry of a six months deadline as from the promulgation of this law.

Article 6

The present law applies to the whole of the territory of the Republic.

Article 7

The Government submits to the Parliament a report on the application of this law eighteen months after its promulgation. This report/ratio draws up an assessment of the implementation of this law, accompanying measures worked out by the public authorities and of the encountered difficulties.

Deliberated in public, in Paris, on July 13, 2010.

The President,

Signed: Bernard ACCOYER

ISSN 1240 - 8468

Printed by the National Assembly

It appears to me that NO FACE COVERINGS are allowed. It isn't directed at anyone.

Now, if it's used to TARGET Muslim individuals, they need to be punished. (not the target)

Nibs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

thank you odas.

confirmation, again, from an actual muslim that the niqab / burkha is not a requirement of Islam...hence the law is not going to restrict religious freedom in any way, shape or form.

nice post...i think you've pretty much hit the nail on the head from all angles there.

and btw i don't think anyone has any issue with the hijab.

:tu:

Well, that is not that easy said.

While the burka is not explicitly inforced in Islam, it is also not forbiden at all.

Wearing a full face cover is not a requirement, as I said, it is up to the woman if she wants to wear it to express her religious feelings.

How to explain it to a non muslim. It is realy not easy for a non muslim to understand Islam since many muslims do not understand it the right way either.

The Holy Quran has strickt laws, yes, but they are not as strickt as many beliefe.

I will just give you one simmple exsample.

We all know that muslims are not alowed to eat pork. Right? Yes. However. The Quran sais if you are hungry, if there is nothing else to eat, you, as a muslim, are alowed to eat only that much of pork as to not to die of hunger and until you find something else to eat that will satisfy your hunger and is permited by the Islamic law.

Honestly, Islam is not that strickt as people might think. But, for me personaly, it is understandable that non muslims are not familiar with the Quran and interprate it intentionaly or unintentionaly the wrong way, but I do not understand the muslims who yell out of their lungs that they follow the Quran but have no clue what it actualy sais.

Many muslims are the actual ones who demonize the Quran by being ignrorant to what it realy sais.

I do not expect that people agree with me, that is only my personal opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, that is not that easy said.

While the burka is not explicitly inforced in Islam, it is also not forbiden at all.

Wearing a full face cover is not a requirement, as I said, it is up to the woman if she wants to wear it to express her religious feelings.

How to explain it to a non muslim. It is realy not easy for a non muslim to understand Islam since many muslims do not understand it the right way either.

The Holy Quran has strickt laws, yes, but they are not as strickt as many beliefe.

I will just give you one simmple exsample.

We all know that muslims are not alowed to eat pork. Right? Yes. However. The Quran sais if you are hungry, if there is nothing else to eat, you, as a muslim, are alowed to eat only that much of pork as to not to die of hunger and until you find something else to eat that will satisfy your hunger and is permited by the Islamic law.

Honestly, Islam is not that strickt as people might think. But, for me personaly, it is understandable that non muslims are not familiar with the Quran and interprate it intentionaly or unintentionaly the wrong way, but I do not understand the muslims who yell out of their lungs that they follow the Quran but have no clue what it actualy sais.

Many muslims are the actual ones who demonize the Quran by being ignrorant to what it realy sais.

I do not expect that people agree with me, that is only my personal opinion.

Eh, there are many Christians who are exactly the same. They only remember or "use" the biblical verses that allow them power.

If a woman wants to wear a full covering and believes it is the correct thing to do then I don't have an issue. I have issues with ANY religion forcing any woman to do anything that is debasing or that subjugates them in any way.

The more I learn about the Qu'ran and Islam the less "scary" it becomes. Just like the Bible. Some individuals twist it out of context and use it to oppress and abuse.

Nibs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here are some actual quotes from the article -

More information on the law -

I don't think anyone should be forced to wear anything because they are a woman but as far as I can tell, this law is not directed only toward Muslim women. It includes men, helmets and masks.

Nibs

If I read the text correctly then no, it is not aimed against muslim women who weare a niqab but to everyone who covers his face in public unless for safety reasons.

There is also an exeption for the niqab if the woman drives as passenger in a private car.

Sounds reasonable to me, but then again, if we dismiss safety (helmets, workgear, med masks) how many non muslims women weare a full face wear for religious reasons?

The law itself is not aimed against muslim burka women but the reason for it-is, as I already explained Sarkozies pleasing the right wing.

I think that we will have to wait up and eventualy this law will be obeyd and will not be an issue anymore. Things just need time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I read the text correctly then no, it is not aimed against muslim women who weare a niqab but to everyone who covers his face in public unless for safety reasons.

There is also an exeption for the niqab if the woman drives as passenger in a private car.

Sounds reasonable to me, but then again, if we dismiss safety (helmets, workgear, med masks) how many non muslims women weare a full face wear for religious reasons?

The law itself is not aimed against muslim burka women but the reason for it-is, as I already explained Sarkozies pleasing the right wing.

I think that we will have to wait up and eventualy this law will be obeyd and will not be an issue anymore. Things just need time.

I don't know how many non-Muslim women wear face coverings for religious reasons, I don't think there would be many. Possibly some orthodox nuns but I honestly don't know.

The law does also state the helmets, masks and head coverings (head sock type of things) also cannot be worn in public so it is for ANY head coverings.

I don't know much about the PM trying to please the right wing in France. I know that it happens here as well. It's stupid. Just like some states in the US trying to legislate Islam. It's WRONG.

My only real point is that the law itself isn't discriminatory.

Some people are but not the law itself. It's application shouldn't be discriminatory either but as you say, time will tell.

I believe that too many people throw "Islam" into the situation only to start drama and hysterics. On both sides.

It's sad that a religion is being used (by extremists and people who want attention) as a trigger for hysterics.

Nibs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry to answer that late but I was on a business trip to Toronto.

If you realy think about what little fisch said you will see that he has a point with the med mask. But this is not the reason why I disagree with you.

It is the statement that european laws are based on european traditions.

Most european laws are based on the civil roman law. So is the law in Croatia, Bosnia, Germany.... At the same time the laws of Bosnia, Croatia, Austria (central europe) are influenced by the German civil Law ( including non europaen Japan )which is a subgroup and France,Italy, Spain..are a romanistic subgroup.

In order to create a civil law (european) the law makers had to part with many european traditions as they interfeered with the civil law itself.

The UK, as an expample has not a civil law but a common law.

So in that matter we can not realy talk about a common european law based on european tradition.

I gave up on this thread, since we’re going in circles.

Everyone stated their opinion, gave arguments, remains convinced. Let’s move on before you have a heart attack, I said to myself.

And I had such a crappy day today I actually wished for a burka. Just 15 minutes of peace under it... only I absolutely necessarily have to smoke while I unwind, and that would definitely draw unwanted attention – "OMG, there’s smoke coming out of that burka!" :lol: I’d be soooo left alone but then police and firefighters would soooo extinguish me...

Anyway, where from Roman and German laws came if not from their traditions, also European?

But I agree that they tried to keep the part of tradition that made sense and get rid of silly stuff. Succeeded only partially.

Besides, a lot of things that were essential yesterday, are silly today. Some day, someone will find one of my photos and laugh at granny and her oldfashioned style, so outrageous in my time... the only constant in this world is change or something like that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The law does also state the helmets, masks and head coverings (head sock type of things) also cannot be worn in public so it is for ANY head coverings.

It's a good thing they have moderate temperatures because Canada, with it's bitterly cold winters, would be fining everyone. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a good thing they have moderate temperatures because Canada, with it's bitterly cold winters, would be fining everyone. :P

*lol* I was thinking about the fact that everyone of my kids got a "HeadSock" as a stocking stuffer for Xmas this year.

BUT - hubby was asked to remove his when he went to our local bank this winter.

Nibs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Last few posts I have seen some good points.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

do you think there should be no limits on clothing we wear no matter what others opinion is?

no clothing should be banned.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right or wrong the woman broke the law, end of.

The law that was recently created is the problem it can be changed

Link to comment
Share on other sites

swastikas on t-shirts?

the mohammed cartoon?

ban T shirts? nope.

swastikas and cartoons are not banned and they are not clothing either.

what you are doing here is attaching a message to a piece of clothing, and under rights of freedom of speech no message should be banned.

do you advocate banning Mein Kamp?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ban T shirts? nope.

swastikas and cartoons are not banned and they are not clothing either.

what you are doing here is attaching a message to a piece of clothing, and under rights of freedom of speech no message should be banned.

do you advocate banning Mein Kamp?

nope.

but i think that clothing that would pose a public order risk should have a legislative framework surrounding it so that should the legislation be needed to be enforced then it can be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.