French burqa ban upheld by European courts

[ClutchClark]

France, the great bastion of liberty. One day France surely will reflect differently on today's interpretation of the motto of the French Revolution. Canada and the U.S. banning the wearing of Crucifixes and Stars of David will similarly seem retrospectively odd.

In this day and age to so often hear such (sorry..) emphatically wilful ignorance, from seemingly intelligent people from so called 'free' societies, boggles me nauseous.

Like it or not - here are a couple of truths.

Banning the Burqa (face veil), or Niqab (body covering) is a senselss deprivation of liberty.

Burqa's are not some kind of 'Count of Monte Cristo' style mask, enforced upon the innocent by some oppressive male hegemony or diabolical misogynistic cult. Women choose to wear it, and don't need 'saving' from a 'well intended' non-muslim public.

I'm not going to extoll the virtues of the ridiculously obvious, when it comes to freedom of dress, and how harmless it is, apart from when denied as a cultural right.

Now, wearing a stastika, public nudity, race hate motifs and so on... well, I can understand the potential for offence.

Dancing around like a fairy in a park with long hair, a beard, and posies in your locks, hmm... the 60's surely highlighted that freedom.

Let's get back to business.

We know there's nothing wrong with these types of religious apparel. It just looks a bit funny or out of place to some people in society who are unused to seeing it. Nothing more. And guess what? That's ok. Be polite and respectful. Get over it, and get used to it. Turns out having different cultures in society is quite good for everyone. There's lots of cool stuff to share. Trust me.

So, lastly.. the only valid issue mentioned with regards to this. Public security. Yes, this is a fair and practical issue. And guess what? Great, wonderful, friendly, normal muslim countries have dealt with this issue. Turns out it's no different than the issue of going into a bank wearing a motorbike helmet. So, in places like banks and some government offices, as a matter of security and identification, people are required to remove their motorcycle helmet. If you don't like it, don't go inside - simple as that. As a helpful service to customers, banks and other offices allow a queue for women with religious or cultural needs. No biggie, and actually - I think it's quite nice. Anything wrong with making people more comfortable and respected in the world? What are we hoping to teach our kids... intolerance?

The strange thing here is, that the only valid issue - being that of security, and easily fixed, was the one reason that was denied by the ECHR.

A bizarre, shameful and embarrassingly inept outcome indeed. Vive la difference.

Peace and Love.

P.S. A Very Happy Ramadan to the millions of good muslims out there in a world. Peace be upon us all.

Mr Happy,

Are you suggesting that an easy answer to all of this is to just provide a separate room in every place of business for these Burqa clothed patrons to conduct their business?

We used to have practices like that here in the US but we found it interfered with a free and equal society so we ended the practice with Civil Rights Laws.

What I don't understand is why religion be given any special consideration at all. When I go to another country then I expect to abide by their customs and practices--by the rules and laws of their society. If I have an issue with those customs then I do not expect them to make considerations for me. Can you explain to me why you don't have respect for the "host" culture?

You talk about "be polite & respectful" on the one hand yet you excuse those wearing the Burqas from showing that same politeness and respect.

Thank

[sustento]

France, the great bastion of liberty. One day France surely will reflect differently on today's interpretation of the motto of the French Revolution. Canada and the U.S. banning the wearing of Crucifixes and Stars of David will similarly seem retrospectively odd.

In this day and age to so often hear such (sorry..) emphatically wilful ignorance, from seemingly intelligent people from so called 'free' societies, boggles me nauseous.

Like it or not - here are a couple of truths.

Banning the Burqa (face veil), or Niqab (body covering) is a senselss deprivation of liberty.

Burqa's are not some kind of 'Count of Monte Cristo' style mask, enforced upon the innocent by some oppressive male hegemony or diabolical misogynistic cult. Women choose to wear it, and don't need 'saving' from a 'well intended' non-muslim public.

I'm not going to extoll the virtues of the ridiculously obvious, when it comes to freedom of dress, and how harmless it is, apart from when denied as a cultural right.

Now, wearing a stastika, public nudity, race hate motifs and so on... well, I can understand the potential for offence.

Dancing around like a fairy in a park with long hair, a beard, and posies in your locks, hmm... the 60's surely highlighted that freedom.

Let's get back to business.

We know there's nothing wrong with these types of religious apparel. It just looks a bit funny or out of place to some people in society who are unused to seeing it. Nothing more. And guess what? That's ok. Be polite and respectful. Get over it, and get used to it. Turns out having different cultures in society is quite good for everyone. There's lots of cool stuff to share. Trust me.

So, lastly.. the only valid issue mentioned with regards to this. Public security. Yes, this is a fair and practical issue. And guess what? Great, wonderful, friendly, normal muslim countries have dealt with this issue. Turns out it's no different than the issue of going into a bank wearing a motorbike helmet. So, in places like banks and some government offices, as a matter of security and identification, people are required to remove their motorcycle helmet. If you don't like it, don't go inside - simple as that. As a helpful service to customers, banks and other offices allow a queue for women with religious or cultural needs. No biggie, and actually - I think it's quite nice. Anything wrong with making people more comfortable and respected in the world? What are we hoping to teach our kids... intolerance?

The strange thing here is, that the only valid issue - being that of security, and easily fixed, was the one reason that was denied by the ECHR.

A bizarre, shameful and embarrassingly inept outcome indeed. Vive la difference.

Peace and Love.

P.S. A Very Happy Ramadan to the millions of good muslims out there in a world. Peace be upon us all.

Mr Happy,

Are you suggesting that an easy answer to all of this is to just provide a separate room in every place of business for these Burqa clothed patrons to conduct their business?

We used to have practices like that here in the US but we found it interfered with a free and equal society so we ended the practice with Civil Rights Laws.

What I don't understand is why religion be given any special consideration at all. When I go to another country then I expect to abide by their customs and practices--by the rules and laws of their society. If I have an issue with those customs then I do not expect them to make considerations for me. Can you explain to me why you don't have respect for the "host" culture?

You talk about "be polite & respectful" on the one hand yet you excuse those wearing the Burqas from showing that same politeness and respect.

Thank

She isn't 'going to another country'. She's a French citizen. There are 6 million Muslims in France who are French citizens.

[MJP]

France, the great bastion of liberty. One day France surely will reflect differently on today's interpretation of the motto of the French Revolution. Canada and the U.S. banning the wearing of Crucifixes and Stars of David will similarly seem retrospectively odd.

In this day and age to so often hear such (sorry..) emphatically wilful ignorance, from seemingly intelligent people from so called 'free' societies, boggles me nauseous.

Like it or not - here are a couple of truths.

Banning the Burqa (face veil), or Niqab (body covering) is a senselss deprivation of liberty.

Burqa's are not some kind of 'Count of Monte Cristo' style mask, enforced upon the innocent by some oppressive male hegemony or diabolical misogynistic cult. Women choose to wear it, and don't need 'saving' from a 'well intended' non-muslim public.

I'm not going to extoll the virtues of the ridiculously obvious, when it comes to freedom of dress, and how harmless it is, apart from when denied as a cultural right.

Now, wearing a stastika, public nudity, race hate motifs and so on... well, I can understand the potential for offence.

Dancing around like a fairy in a park with long hair, a beard, and posies in your locks, hmm... the 60's surely highlighted that freedom.

Let's get back to business.

We know there's nothing wrong with these types of religious apparel. It just looks a bit funny or out of place to some people in society who are unused to seeing it. Nothing more. And guess what? That's ok. Be polite and respectful. Get over it, and get used to it. Turns out having different cultures in society is quite good for everyone. There's lots of cool stuff to share. Trust me.

So, lastly.. the only valid issue mentioned with regards to this. Public security. Yes, this is a fair and practical issue. And guess what? Great, wonderful, friendly, normal muslim countries have dealt with this issue. Turns out it's no different than the issue of going into a bank wearing a motorbike helmet. So, in places like banks and some government offices, as a matter of security and identification, people are required to remove their motorcycle helmet. If you don't like it, don't go inside - simple as that. As a helpful service to customers, banks and other offices allow a queue for women with religious or cultural needs. No biggie, and actually - I think it's quite nice. Anything wrong with making people more comfortable and respected in the world? What are we hoping to teach our kids... intolerance?

The strange thing here is, that the only valid issue - being that of security, and easily fixed, was the one reason that was denied by the ECHR.

A bizarre, shameful and embarrassingly inept outcome indeed. Vive la difference.

Peace and Love.

P.S. A Very Happy Ramadan to the millions of good muslims out there in a world. Peace be upon us all.

Mr Happy,

Are you suggesting that an easy answer to all of this is to just provide a separate room in every place of business for these Burqa clothed patrons to conduct their business?

We used to have practices like that here in the US but we found it interfered with a free and equal society so we ended the practice with Civil Rights Laws.

What I don't understand is why religion be given any special consideration at all. When I go to another country then I expect to abide by their customs and practices--by the rules and laws of their society. If I have an issue with those customs then I do not expect them to make considerations for me. Can you explain to me why you don't have respect for the "host" culture?

You talk about "be polite & respectful" on the one hand yet you excuse those wearing the Burqas from showing that same politeness and respect.

Thank

She isn't 'going to another country'. She's a French citizen. There are 6 million Muslims in France who are French citizens.

French birds aren't generally ugly. Burqa needs banning.

[ClutchClark]

France, the great bastion of liberty. One day France surely will reflect differently on today's interpretation of the motto of the French Revolution. Canada and the U.S. banning the wearing of Crucifixes and Stars of David will similarly seem retrospectively odd.

In this day and age to so often hear such (sorry..) emphatically wilful ignorance, from seemingly intelligent people from so called 'free' societies, boggles me nauseous.

Like it or not - here are a couple of truths.

Banning the Burqa (face veil), or Niqab (body covering) is a senselss deprivation of liberty.

Burqa's are not some kind of 'Count of Monte Cristo' style mask, enforced upon the innocent by some oppressive male hegemony or diabolical misogynistic cult. Women choose to wear it, and don't need 'saving' from a 'well intended' non-muslim public.

I'm not going to extoll the virtues of the ridiculously obvious, when it comes to freedom of dress, and how harmless it is, apart from when denied as a cultural right.

Now, wearing a stastika, public nudity, race hate motifs and so on... well, I can understand the potential for offence.

Dancing around like a fairy in a park with long hair, a beard, and posies in your locks, hmm... the 60's surely highlighted that freedom.

Let's get back to business.

We know there's nothing wrong with these types of religious apparel. It just looks a bit funny or out of place to some people in society who are unused to seeing it. Nothing more. And guess what? That's ok. Be polite and respectful. Get over it, and get used to it. Turns out having different cultures in society is quite good for everyone. There's lots of cool stuff to share. Trust me.

So, lastly.. the only valid issue mentioned with regards to this. Public security. Yes, this is a fair and practical issue. And guess what? Great, wonderful, friendly, normal muslim countries have dealt with this issue. Turns out it's no different than the issue of going into a bank wearing a motorbike helmet. So, in places like banks and some government offices, as a matter of security and identification, people are required to remove their motorcycle helmet. If you don't like it, don't go inside - simple as that. As a helpful service to customers, banks and other offices allow a queue for women with religious or cultural needs. No biggie, and actually - I think it's quite nice. Anything wrong with making people more comfortable and respected in the world? What are we hoping to teach our kids... intolerance?

The strange thing here is, that the only valid issue - being that of security, and easily fixed, was the one reason that was denied by the ECHR.

A bizarre, shameful and embarrassingly inept outcome indeed. Vive la difference.

Peace and Love.

P.S. A Very Happy Ramadan to the millions of good muslims out there in a world. Peace be upon us all.

Mr Happy,

Are you suggesting that an easy answer to all of this is to just provide a separate room in every place of business for these Burqa clothed patrons to conduct their business?

We used to have practices like that here in the US but we found it interfered with a free and equal society so we ended the practice with Civil Rights Laws.

What I don't understand is why religion be given any special consideration at all. When I go to another country then I expect to abide by their customs and practices--by the rules and laws of their society. If I have an issue with those customs then I do not expect them to make considerations for me. Can you explain to me why you don't have respect for the "host" culture?

You talk about "be polite & respectful" on the one hand yet you excuse those wearing the Burqas from showing that same politeness and respect.

Thank

She isn't 'going to another country'. She's a French citizen. There are 6 million Muslims in France who are French citizens.

Thanks for pointing that out.

Then change my post to read, "When deciding to become a citizen of another country, I would expect to adhere to the customs and laws of that country I wish to gain citizenship in and I would not expect them to make unique considerations for me."

[sustento]

She hasn't 'become a citizen of another country'. She is a French citizen. She always was a French citizen.

[ClutchClark]

She hasn't 'become a citizen of another country'. She is a French citizen. She always was a French citizen.

Well then she should accept the customs of her own country.

Personally, I don't like Burqas and I don't like balaclavas and I don't like clown make-up unless I am in the ME, on a ski slope or at a carnival, respectively.

Cheers

[Johpa]

It is as simple as this: you have the right to show your ass but you don't have the right to cover your body...........Do what you want with your body but please don't cover it...well done France .....keep on dividing your people

The wearing of the burqa has nothing to do with religious rights and Muslim women can fulfill their religious obligations by the wearing of a hajib. For it is the wearing of the burqa that divides the people between those who wish to take the repsonsibility of participating in an open and free society by showing their faces and those who would hide from that responsibility.

[delh]

<script type='text/javascript'

So, lastly.. the only valid issue mentioned with regards to this. Public security. Yes, this is a fair and practical issue. And guess what? Great, wonderful, friendly, normal muslim countries have dealt with this issue. Turns out it's no different than the issue of going into a bank wearing a motorbike helmet. So, in places like banks and some government offices, as a matter of security and identification, people are required to remove their motorcycle helmet. If you don't like it, don't go inside - simple as that. As a helpful service to customers, banks and other offices allow a queue for women with religious or cultural needs. No biggie, and actually - I think it's quite nice. Anything wrong with making people more comfortable and respected in the world? What are we hoping to teach our kids... intolerance?

With regards to your comments in the paragraph starting with 'So lastly' regarding public security, what about the staff of these institutions.. They have no choice.

When you say 'Don't go in there' do you refer to those wearing religious clothing, staff, or the rest of us? Do you want separate queues for muslims, burqa wearers, europeans, or maybe even the needy? Like disabled?

And ask that to any inner city petrol station cashier regarding covered faces, in most european cities, after midnight... The rules are already on the fourcourts.

With regards to 'What are we teaching our kids.... intolerance? Are the burqa wearers doing the same? Maybe....

[socksy01]

Good. An unusually acceptable result from Human Rights. Will UK follow suit?

[Diablo Bob]

How in the HELL does France get itself an a position where it needs the approval of some multinational higher power to uphold its own laws?

How in the HELL do British lawyers get standing to sue France before a multinational court for passing its own laws?

How in the HELL does France give up its national sovereignty to some multinational group that the people of France don't directly elect by themselves?

What in the HELL is wrong with European countries to cede their borders to every idiot who comes along?

How in the HELL can this story be happening in the first place?

Agree,

You think that is bad, Some commision from the European Union was/is trying to stop/ban California wine producers from labeling their products Champagne, because that is the exclusive, belonging to products from Champagne, France.

I don't know the outcome, but I imagine a few Californians have probably replyed to the EU with a polite &lt;deleted&gt;&gt; Off!

[Diablo Bob]

How about a burqa ban unless they're ugly?

Is this like the infamous pencil test?

For this that aren't familiar with it...... in the 60's, when the braless craze was becoming popular, I think it was University of California Berkley issued a rule that if a pencil was placed on the under side of a womens breast, if it fell they were allowed to go braless, if it didn't fall a bra was required......

Don't know if that story was true, but everbody was talking about it!

[JDGRUEN]

I have no way of knowing... but I hope some or even most of the rationale for objecting to religious face coverings for women in a Western country is to protect the rights of women from being suppressed by men in the name of religion. It would seem if a man wants to subjugate women by making it unacceptable to expose her face in public then he should take his family and move to a country where obscuring women's faces and the practice of female subjugation is an accepted norm and allowed by law.

Much of the practice of Islam is male domination of females at every turn - every angle. Female subjugation is the norm in Muslim communities and is at total odds with human rights as practiced in most Western Countries ...

I see women in full burqas in Tesco and Big C stores ... what an amazingly depressing sight in the year 2014. One would think that the men who run the show in their society still live in 714.

[mrpositive]

France, the great bastion of liberty. One day France surely will reflect differently on today's interpretation of the motto of the French Revolution. Canada and the U.S. banning the wearing of Crucifixes and Stars of David will similarly seem retrospectively odd.

In this day and age to so often hear such (sorry..) emphatically wilful ignorance, from seemingly intelligent people from so called 'free' societies, boggles me nauseous.

Like it or not - here are a couple of truths.

Banning the Burqa (face veil), or Niqab (body covering) is a senselss deprivation of liberty.

Burqa's are not some kind of 'Count of Monte Cristo' style mask, enforced upon the innocent by some oppressive male hegemony or diabolical misogynistic cult. Women choose to wear it, and don't need 'saving' from a 'well intended' non-muslim public.

I'm not going to extoll the virtues of the ridiculously obvious, when it comes to freedom of dress, and how harmless it is, apart from when denied as a cultural right.

Now, wearing a stastika, public nudity, race hate motifs and so on... well, I can understand the potential for offence.

Dancing around like a fairy in a park with long hair, a beard, and posies in your locks, hmm... the 60's surely highlighted that freedom.

Let's get back to business.

We know there's nothing wrong with these types of religious apparel. It just looks a bit funny or out of place to some people in society who are unused to seeing it. Nothing more. And guess what? That's ok. Be polite and respectful. Get over it, and get used to it. Turns out having different cultures in society is quite good for everyone. There's lots of cool stuff to share. Trust me.

So, lastly.. the only valid issue mentioned with regards to this. Public security. Yes, this is a fair and practical issue. And guess what? Great, wonderful, friendly, normal muslim countries have dealt with this issue. Turns out it's no different than the issue of going into a bank wearing a motorbike helmet. So, in places like banks and some government offices, as a matter of security and identification, people are required to remove their motorcycle helmet. If you don't like it, don't go inside - simple as that. As a helpful service to customers, banks and other offices allow a queue for women with religious or cultural needs. No biggie, and actually - I think it's quite nice. Anything wrong with making people more comfortable and respected in the world? What are we hoping to teach our kids... intolerance?

The strange thing here is, that the only valid issue - being that of security, and easily fixed, was the one reason that was denied by the ECHR.

A bizarre, shameful and embarrassingly inept outcome indeed. Vive la difference.

Peace and Love.

P.S. A Very Happy Ramadan to the millions of good muslims out there in a world. Peace be upon us all.

Mr Happy,

Are you suggesting that an easy answer to all of this is to just provide a separate room in every place of business for these Burqa clothed patrons to conduct their business?

We used to have practices like that here in the US but we found it interfered with a free and equal society so we ended the practice with Civil Rights Laws.

What I don't understand is why religion be given any special consideration at all. When I go to another country then I expect to abide by their customs and practices--by the rules and laws of their society. If I have an issue with those customs then I do not expect them to make considerations for me. Can you explain to me why you don't have respect for the "host" culture?

You talk about "be polite & respectful" on the one hand yet you excuse those wearing the Burqas from showing that same politeness and respect.

Thank

She isn't 'going to another country'. She's a French citizen. There are 6 million Muslims in France who are French citizens.

Thanks for pointing that out.

Then change my post to read, "When deciding to become a citizen of another country, I would expect to adhere to the customs and laws of that country I wish to gain citizenship in and I would not expect them to make unique considerations for me."

Hi Mr ManualTransmission,

1. Not suggesting women with cultural or religious issues be given the same consideration afforded to people with wheelchairs etc. Just sharing an observation, and saying I think it's a nice way to go in my humble opinion. Nothing more.

2. I don't recall saying or implying that I don't respect 'host' culture. Far from it. Maybe you are just interested in playing the man - not the ball. Tolerance - give it a try. It won't hurt, I promise.

3. Polite & Respectful. Sorry, I don't follow you. Has a lady wearing a Burqa ever been impolite or disrespectful to you? I'm sure she didn't mean it. Maybe it was a miscommunication. Live and let live.

All the best.

[mrpositive]

<script type='text/javascript'

So, lastly.. the only valid issue mentioned with regards to this. Public security. Yes, this is a fair and practical issue. And guess what? Great, wonderful, friendly, normal muslim countries have dealt with this issue. Turns out it's no different than the issue of going into a bank wearing a motorbike helmet. So, in places like banks and some government offices, as a matter of security and identification, people are required to remove their motorcycle helmet. If you don't like it, don't go inside - simple as that. As a helpful service to customers, banks and other offices allow a queue for women with religious or cultural needs. No biggie, and actually - I think it's quite nice. Anything wrong with making people more comfortable and respected in the world? What are we hoping to teach our kids... intolerance?

With regards to your comments in the paragraph starting with 'So lastly' regarding public security, what about the staff of these institutions.. They have no choice.

When you say 'Don't go in there' do you refer to those wearing religious clothing, staff, or the rest of us? Do you want separate queues for muslims, burqa wearers, europeans, or maybe even the needy? Like disabled?

And ask that to any inner city petrol station cashier regarding covered faces, in most european cities, after midnight... The rules are already on the fourcourts.

With regards to 'What are we teaching our kids.... intolerance? Are the burqa wearers doing the same? Maybe....

HI Dehl,

1. Staff having no choice? Not sure what you mean here. Staff do their job. What's the big deal here?

2. Don't go in there. Yes, I'm saying if someone wearing a Burqa must remove their face covering to use a bank, they can simply refuse to use the bank if they don't want to take it off. Easy peasy. Separate queues, umm - just sharing an observation from other countries. That's all. It would be an extra expense or possibly not practical in many places. Just an observation friend. It's not a big scary issue. Just try to relax and be normal.

3. Petrol stations. Well, it's been common policy in Australia for decades, that cashiers are not to serve people wearing helmets - for security reasons. This highlights the practical nature of this point. An easy remedy.

4. Burqa wearers teaching intolerance to their kids? Maybe? Well I would be interested to know where you get that inference from. It's clearly a product of your frightened imagination. To help you with this point, let me put your mind at ease. No, Burqa wearers do not preach intolerance. Having lived and worked in ME countries, I can't genuinely express enough to you, how warm, gracious and neighbourly these good people are. They genuinely go out of their way to assist guests of all countries and cultures. It's most humbling and indicative of the many sad misconceptions that exist in this day and age. How genuinely and warmly do you welcome strangers in your home country?

Thanks.

[NeverSure]

How in the HELL does France get itself an a position where it needs the approval of some multinational higher power to uphold its own laws?

How in the HELL do British lawyers get standing to sue France before a multinational court for passing its own laws?

How in the HELL does France give up its national sovereignty to some multinational group that the people of France don't directly elect by themselves?

What in the HELL is wrong with European countries to cede their borders to every idiot who comes along?

How in the HELL can this story be happening in the first place?

Agree,

You think that is bad, Some commision from the European Union was/is trying to stop/ban California wine producers from labeling their products Champagne, because that is the exclusive, belonging to products from Champagne, France.

I don't know the outcome, but I imagine a few Californians have probably replyed to the EU with a polite <deleted>> Off!

The US and its people are fiercely independent. For instance, here's a list of 10 UN treaties that the US didn't and won't sign. LINK

The concept of a EU beyond trade and defense agreements is totally foreign.

Actually, the reason you'll see a McDonald's sue a small restaurant in Thailand is the law. It says that if you don't challenge people you lose the right to. Under that premise, I doubt that the wine name is enforceable at this late date.

I love touring the wine regions of France. I particularly like the Loire Valley. The US is young, and early on most buildings were made of wood, even logs. They are long gone. There is nothing comparable to Europe with any of its major cities, castles, cathedrals, etc. etc.

The US had an interesting 19th century with wagon trains and the population beyond the Mississippi River, stage coach inns, Western towns etc. I can show you some original wagon train ruts, some stagecoach inns etc, but nothing like Europe.

[ClutchClark]

How in the HELL does France get itself an a position where it needs the approval of some multinational higher power to uphold its own laws?

How in the HELL do British lawyers get standing to sue France before a multinational court for passing its own laws?

How in the HELL does France give up its national sovereignty to some multinational group that the people of France don't directly elect by themselves?

What in the HELL is wrong with European countries to cede their borders to every idiot who comes along?

How in the HELL can this story be happening in the first place?

Agree,

You think that is bad, Some commision from the European Union was/is trying to stop/ban California wine producers from labeling their products Champagne, because that is the exclusive, belonging to products from Champagne, France.

I don't know the outcome, but I imagine a few Californians have probably replyed to the EU with a polite <deleted>> Off!

Champagne. A culture battle.

Region vs Trademark.

http://apps.americanbar.org/buslaw/blt/2009-05-06/robertson.shtml

[Scott]

Off-topic posts and replies deleted.

[Baerboxer]

Good sense at last - well done France

Well it's not really "well done France" is it?

The judgement was by the European Court of Human rights whose judges come from across Europe.

Note also that the case was brought by a Brititsh legal team. Britain has the most aggressive human rights lawyers, who will argue the most preposterous cases and try to exploit every ill judged comma in human rights legislation; usually to the overall detriment of law abiding Brits and British security. Probably the case was so ill devised that French lawyers wouldn't touch it.

So, "well done France" for having the legislation, but shame that French legislation and French national sovereignty are open to foreign (albeit EU) interference in this way.

Yet France is often a supporter of those who work for a closer more centrally controlled "federal" Europe. Hence the growth in popularity of the FN party.

And this is a decision of the European Court - not French courts. If the courts had supported the plaintiff what would France have done then?

There are many organizations across Europe that will fund cases like this to promote their idea of human rights.

The issues here are the continued erosion of sovereign power by the EU and in this context the right of a country to enforce its views on religion.

Any Catholics displaying large symbols of their religion so be treated the same in France now, as should any other religion.

[Baerboxer]

How in the HELL does France get itself an a position where it needs the approval of some multinational higher power to uphold its own laws?

How in the HELL do British lawyers get standing to sue France before a multinational court for passing its own laws?

How in the HELL does France give up its national sovereignty to some multinational group that the people of France don't directly elect by themselves?

What in the HELL is wrong with European countries to cede their borders to every idiot who comes along?

How in the HELL can this story be happening in the first place?

Agree,

You think that is bad, Some commision from the European Union was/is trying to stop/ban California wine producers from labeling their products Champagne, because that is the exclusive, belonging to products from Champagne, France.

I don't know the outcome, but I imagine a few Californians have probably replyed to the EU with a polite <deleted>> Off!

Most of the "old" wine producing countries label their wines in this way. Not just champagne.

The "new" wine countries use the grape type.

When buying you then know what quality to expect.

Why should someone in California be able to use someone else's name?

Maybe France should produce an over priced highly marketed fizzy drink and call in Coca-Cola, Coke or Pepsi?

A fizzy wine produced in California ain't champagne.

[7by7]

It is obvious that many posters in this topic are unaware that the European Union and the European Court of Human rights are two separate entities; maybe that's because most of those posters are Americans?

The ECtHR is older than the EU and not all of it's members (i.e. signatories to the European Convention on Human Rights and members of the Council of Europe) are also members of the EU.

France is a founder member of the EU, the ECtHR and the CoE.

I'm not a lawyer, but it is obvious from all the news reports (the judgement itself doesn't seem to have been published yet) that the court found for the defendant, France, because the French ban applies to all overt symbols of all religions, not just Muslim ones. Had the ban applied to just one particular religion then they would have found it discriminatory and found for the plaintiff.

I have to wonder, though, how the French law applies to Christian nuns, Buddhist monks, Hasidic Jews etc.

If one of them were prosecuted by the French authorities for the same crime as this woman, would certain members here be so vociferous in their condemnation of that individual and their support of the French government as they are in this particular case?

[7by7]

She hasn't 'become a citizen of another country'. She is a French citizen. She always was a French citizen.

Well then she should accept the customs of her own country.

The three main ones of France being; Liberty, Equality, Fraternity.

Which of these three justifies this law?

[impulse]

She hasn't 'become a citizen of another country'. She is a French citizen. She always was a French citizen.

Well then she should accept the customs of her own country.

The three main ones of France being; Liberty, Equality, Fraternity.

Which of these three justifies this law?

+1.

I'll believe in the ban on burquas when I can walk down the street butt naked. Because aren't all modesty requirements just different levels of righteousness on the part of the God squad? To a native of the Amazon, the fact that I have to wear pants could be seen as a blatant violation of my rights. To a Brazilian, outlawing topless sunbathing would be unthinkable. Different degrees, absolutely. But not different concepts.

This is just a kneejerk backlash at the Muslims. I dare them to try to ban the Catholic nuns from wearing their habits, or the Pope from wearing his beanie, or Hasidic Jews from wearing their beards, or schoolgirls from wearing bikini tops, or....

[rgs2001uk]

She hasn't 'become a citizen of another country'. She is a French citizen. She always was a French citizen.

Well then she should accept the customs of her own country.

The three main ones of France being; Liberty, Equality, Fraternity.

Which of these three justifies this law?

Well talking of laws, can anyone point me to any verse in the koran that stipulates a burqa must be worn.

Failing that any of the hadiths will do.

Found it yet, thought not.

Many muslim middle eastern countries have no requirment for it.

The bottom line is there is no religious requirment to wear one.

[impulse]

Well talking of laws, can anyone point me to any verse in the koran that stipulates a burqa must be worn.

Failing that any of the hadiths will do.

Found it yet, thought not.

Many muslim middle eastern countries have no requirment for it.

The bottom line is there is no religious requirment to wear one.

Not relevant. This woman chooses to wear one, for whatever reason. France says she can't.

Yet nuns can choose to wear habits, Jews can choose to wear beards and/or yamakas, priests are free to wear their collars, Mormons are free to wear their black suits and ties, and on and on. But she's not allowed to dress according to her own standard of modesty.

That would be similar to Brazil telling all tourists they can't wear their bikini tops, because the local standard of beach dress is topless.

[3NUMBAS]

if only the \UK had the balls to do the same but they wont ,they just allow the terrorists a safe haven

[NeverSure]

-snip-

I have to wonder, though, how the French law applies to Christian nuns, Buddhist monks, Hasidic Jews etc.

If any of them walk around in public obscuring their identity with clothing, then we can talk about that security risk.

Men can wear a burqa when they are up to no good.

The US is BIG on freedoms of religion, expression, etc. BUT:

United States, State of Georgia, criminal code:

GEORGIA Code Title 16 - Crimes and Offenses,16-11-38.

(a) A person is guilty of a misdemeanor when he wears a mask, hood, or device by which any portion of the face is so hidden, concealed, or covered as to conceal the identity of the wearer and is upon any public way or public property or upon the private property of another without the written permission of the owner or occupier of the property to do so.

(This Code section shall not apply to: (1) A person wearing a traditional holiday costume on the occasion of the holiday; (2) A person lawfully engaged in trade and employment or in a sporting activity where a mask is worn for the purpose of ensuring the physical safety of the wearer, or because of the nature of the occupation, trade, or profession, or sporting activity; (3) A person using a mask in a theatrical production including use in Mardi gras celebrations and masquerade balls; or (4) A person wearing a gas mask prescribed in emergency management drills and exercises or emergencies.

[ClutchClark]

Yet nuns can choose to wear habits, Jews can choose to wear beards and/or yamakas, priests are free to wear their collars, Mormons are free to wear their black suits and ties, and on and on. But she's not allowed to dress according to her own standard of modesty.

I don't believe anyone has forbidden these women from wearing their beards.

You don't seem to understand the context of societies concern about a garment that disguises a person 's identity completely...it is not about religion. As for your argument, please provide a physical description of the persons in the below images.

[Nebula]

Well talking of laws, can anyone point me to any verse in the koran that stipulates a burqa must be worn.

Failing that any of the hadiths will do.

Found it yet, thought not.

Many muslim middle eastern countries have no requirment for it.

The bottom line is there is no religious requirment to wear one.

Not relevant. This woman chooses to wear one, for whatever reason. France says she can't.

Yet nuns can choose to wear habits, Jews can choose to wear beards and/or yamakas, priests are free to wear their collars, Mormons are free to wear their black suits and ties, and on and on. But she's not allowed to dress according to her own standard of modesty.

That would be similar to Brazil telling all tourists they can't wear their bikini tops, because the local standard of beach dress is topless.

All is relevant. The woman chooses to wear one for whatever reason???? I read all comments and didnt see someone comment on this, she said she chose to do it and nobody forced her. I ve heard this several times from young muslim women, one I remember was on french TV. So correct me if I am wrong but all these women grow up in families where this is the standard. They are taught this way, wear it after the age of 16 ( I think was 16) ...they are brainwashed from little girls. Of course after years of thinking and hearing this is the way they dont need someone to force them, it is normal.

[sustento]

-snip-

I have to wonder, though, how the French law applies to Christian nuns, Buddhist monks, Hasidic Jews etc.

If any of them walk around in public obscuring their identity with clothing, then we can talk about that security risk.

Men can wear a burqa when they are up to no good.

The US is BIG on freedoms of religion, expression, etc. BUT:

United States, State of Georgia, criminal code:

GEORGIA Code Title 16 - Crimes and Offenses,16-11-38.

(a) A person is guilty of a misdemeanor when he wears a mask, hood, or device by which any portion of the face is so hidden, concealed, or covered as to conceal the identity of the wearer and is upon any public way or public property or upon the private property of another without the written permission of the owner or occupier of the property to do so.

(This Code section shall not apply to: (1) A person wearing a traditional holiday costume on the occasion of the holiday; (2) A person lawfully engaged in trade and employment or in a sporting activity where a mask is worn for the purpose of ensuring the physical safety of the wearer, or because of the nature of the occupation, trade, or profession, or sporting activity; (3) A person using a mask in a theatrical production including use in Mardi gras celebrations and masquerade balls; or (4) A person wearing a gas mask prescribed in emergency management drills and exercises or emergencies.

Last time I looked France wasn't in Georgia.

[DiamondKing]

WELL DONE FRANCE

The sooner the rest of Europe Bans it the better.