French burqa ban upheld by European courts

[DiamondKing]

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.

Yep your right and many of them will never enjoy sex because they have had their clits cut off and their pussys sewn up, another barbaric practice of the muslims the burka is just another oppresive instrument in the ideology of Islam.

I hope you understand they make their women wear that so they dont get turned on and cannot control themselves ITS PATHETIC.

The Burka has no place in a western society

[Johpa]

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

Which of these three justifies this law?

All three. We all have relative freedom of speech, religion, etc. This ruling does not invade one's core liberties. There is no equality when one side is hiding one's face and thus hiding one's mood and one's intentions. Equality implies that I allow another to see who I am and they allow me to see who they are. And that leads us to fraternity where the wearing of the burqa isolates the wearer from the common social fraternity needed to maintain even a semblance of democracy.

[cooked]

oh boy, what a load of twaddle up to now. I knew I shouldn't start reading this thread.

Let's start with champagne. There is a small wine (not 'Champagne ') producing village in Switzerland called Champagne, and this name existed long before the one in France did. The French tried to stop the guys in Champagne, Switzerland, from putting their name on the the bottle. They didn't succeed.

Right. Also in Switzerland, an official refused to issue an ID to a lady that wouldn't remove her burqa and he was taken to court. She lost. It is against the law in many countries, including Switzerland, to hide your identity in public. (Unlike Thailand where the police generally have sunglasses, facial mask and no visible ID).

If I got a nice job in Saudi I don't think I would expect to be able to sit in a park drinking whisky, I would in fact have realised that this was not really approved of (what happens? 50 lashes or something?). By the same token I get annoyed by people that leave their wonderful country with its wonderful traditions and try to impose their customs in other societies.

I find it difficult to be tolerant of people that are intolerant, which is what politically correctness suggests I should be. I understand them but at the same time, if they don't like it, well, go back home.

There are many postings on Thaivisa complaining about Thai customs, and you all know the traditional response:

go back home.

Yes I'm a bit racist, I was 'the foreigner' in Switzerland for 40 years. I adapted.

[impulse]

-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.

If that's your justification, you either a) don't get to Thailand much or are so blinded by your hatred of Muslims that you don't notice that a significant portion of outdoor workers here wear a hat and facemask that completely conceals their identity. Here, they do it mostly to keep off the sun. But it still represents the same "security threat" you hold out as justification to ban them.

So, it seems you'd ban 'em because they're a Muslim tradition, not because they're a security risk. Otherwise you'd be railing against the very common practice here.

And, unlike Georgia, France doesn't have a historical problem with white guys in bedsheets that burn crosses and lynch black folks. That particular statute was probably aimed at protecting the rights of said black folks.

[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?

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.

Can you show me a verse in the New Testament that says Christians must wear a cross?

Found it yet, thought not.

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

Yet, many Christians choose to wear one as an expression of their faith. Do you favour banning them from so doing?

Or is it just Muslims expressing their faith in their own way that you object to?

[7by7]

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

Which of these three justifies this law?

All three. We all have relative freedom of speech, religion, etc. This ruling does not invade one's core liberties. There is no equality when one side is hiding one's face and thus hiding one's mood and one's intentions. Equality implies that I allow another to see who I am and they allow me to see who they are. And that leads us to fraternity where the wearing of the burqa isolates the wearer from the common social fraternity needed to maintain even a semblance of democracy.

Let's take your argument to it's logical (if such a word can be applied to it!) conclusion.

Everyone must walk around completely naked and unadorned.

It would promote liberty; no more laws restricting what people can and can't wear.

It would promote equality; no more flaunting of wealth and status through expensive clothes and jewellery.

It would promote fraternity; everyone would look and feel the same.

It would enhance public safety; no more fear that someone may be concealing a weapon under their clothing.

Of course, it would eliminate freedom of choice; which is surely the core of democracy?

[7by7]

-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.

They can also wear ski masks, full face crash helmets, hoodies etc., etc.; many people in many cities wear masks to protect them from traffic fumes.

"A woman wearing mask walks through haze this morning in Shanghai. The Shanghai Meteorological

Bureau issued a yellow haze alert at 7:41am this morning." (Source)

Would you ban all those as well?

[Mosha]

The BBC decided to report on this from Bradford of all places. Where they claimed in certain parts of the city you may see a Burkah or Hiqab. Should have said you may see a white person.

[7by7]

Lots of white faces here!

[media]

[media]

You must have missed it from 6000 miles away!

[Bernard Flint]

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

What a silly post, to the extreme

where do you have the right to show your ass

Where dont you have the right to cover your body

Surely this is about not showing your face when in a bank or airport.

I bet the french have to take off hats and sunglasses

[capcc76]

-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.

If that's your justification, you either a) don't get to Thailand much or are so blinded by your hatred of Muslims that you don't notice that a significant portion of outdoor workers here wear a hat and facemask that completely conceals their identity. Here, they do it mostly to keep off the sun. But it still represents the same "security threat" you hold out as justification to ban them.

So, it seems you'd ban 'em because they're a Muslim tradition, not because they're a security risk. Otherwise you'd be railing against the very common practice here.

And, unlike Georgia, France doesn't have a historical problem with white guys in bedsheets that burn crosses and lynch black folks. That particular statute was probably aimed at protecting the rights of said black folks.

Nah, the stupid old white men that used to wear sheets long ago now get their butts kicked or shot by blacks in Georgia.

Currently, we need to be protected from looney tunes Muslim terrorists that like to blow stuff up . . . with women and in children in or around it. I am all for whatever makes this more difficult. So perhaps this is pretext or a veiled attempt to make life more difficult for Muslims in France to accomplish a larger purpose.

What's done is done. Accept it and move, without the burqa, or get pissed, whine and complain without the burqa.

[NeverSure]

And, unlike Georgia, France doesn't have a historical problem with white guys in bedsheets that burn crosses and lynch black folks. That particular statute was probably aimed at protecting the rights of said black folks.

France has had a serious problem with Islamic terrorism though. I seriously wouldn't expose the country to the possibility that some guy is walking around in a burqa with a bomb strapped to him.

As for the examples of Thai's working and Chinese wearing respirators, they don't wash. I can see that woman in the picture above, see her skin color, eye color, eyes, face shape etc. enough to ID her. Silly comparison.

Good for France for not only passing a law to protect its people, but for bucking the out of country lawyers who sued them.

The next thing they should do is pull out of the EU and all of its trappings, the Eurozone, and get their country back.

Then they should deport everyone who moves to France and insists on bringing their own laws with them.

[ravip]

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?

These are just sayings, dont take them seriously.

Just like "In God we trust"

[ravip]

And, unlike Georgia, France doesn't have a historical problem with white guys in bedsheets that burn crosses and lynch black folks. That particular statute was probably aimed at protecting the rights of said black folks.

France has had a serious problem with Islamic terrorism though. I seriously wouldn't expose the country to the possibility that some guy is walking around in a burqa with a bomb strapped to him.

As for the examples of Thai's working and Chinese wearing respirators, they don't wash. I can see that woman in the picture above, see her skin color, eye color, eyes, face shape etc. enough to ID her. Silly comparison.

Good for France for not only passing a law to protect its people, but for bucking the out of country lawyers who sued them.

The next thing they should do is pull out of the EU and all of its trappings, the Eurozone, and get their country back.

Then they should deport everyone who moves to France and insists on bringing their own laws with them.

As for the examples of Thai's working and Chinese wearing respirators, they don't wash.

What a vulgar statement.

How often do you touch water?

More than the Thais & the Chinese?

[rgs2001uk]

To answer post #65,

As an atheist, I have no interest in what may lie in a book written/chopped and chapters omitted for religious political expediency.

Too be perfectly honest I would ban the lot of them for making public declarations of their faith, I find them all equally offensive, what they choose to do behind closed doors is none of my concern.

What type of Muslims would you be referring to?

I asked a question that as of yet no one can answer, I doubt very much if the grand ayatollah of wherever could answer it, for the simple reason, its nothing to do with the religion.

Heres another question for you, how is wearing a burqa expressing faith?

As mentioned before, perhaps drawing on your Middle East experience (you have lived there I take it) you could answwe why there is no RELIGIOUS requirment to wear a burqa in say, Jordan, Egypt, The Emirates, do you want me to go on, heck even the Thai Muslims dont wear it.

Nothing to do with religion.

Next time you see one wearing one in good old blighty why dont you ask why they wear it, and where its written that they must.

I am more interested in hearing of where its written they must.

[impulse]

Nothing to do with religion.

Next time you see one wearing one in good old blighty why dont you ask why they wear it, and where its written that they must.

I am more interested in hearing of where its written they must.

When I was a kid (Catholic), I couldn't eat meat on Friday

I had to give something up for lent each year

Mom had to wear a hat in church, and I couldn't.

My Catholic girlfriends weren't allowed to use contraceptives. (not that it mattered, I never scored anyway)

Strangely, I couldn't find any of those rules in the Bible. But they seemed to have something to do with religion, because my Protestant and Jewish friends ate meat on Friday, and the Jewish girls I dated were all on the pill (still didn't score).

Now, Catholics can eat meat on Friday, too. Because the Pope said so. I'm pretty sure God didn't care either way, and I'm really sure they didn't revise the Bible to reflect the new rule.

[sustento]

And, unlike Georgia, France doesn't have a historical problem with white guys in bedsheets that burn crosses and lynch black folks. That particular statute was probably aimed at protecting the rights of said black folks.

France has had a serious problem with Islamic terrorism though. I seriously wouldn't expose the country to the possibility that some guy is walking around in a burqa with a bomb strapped to him.

As for the examples of Thai's working and Chinese wearing respirators, they don't wash. I can see that woman in the picture above, see her skin color, eye color, eyes, face shape etc. enough to ID her. Silly comparison.

Good for France for not only passing a law to protect its people, but for bucking the out of country lawyers who sued them.

The next thing they should do is pull out of the EU and all of its trappings, the Eurozone, and get their country back.

Then they should deport everyone who moves to France and insists on bringing their own laws with them.

Despite the fact that you continually complain that those of us who aren't from the USA 'don't understand' America you seem to think you're qualified to make political judgments about Europe.

Europe and the countries in it aren't like the USA. We didn't have the great good fortune to be able to start with a clean slate and write a new set of rules. We're lumbered with 2000 years worth of history and we have to deal with things as they are not the way we'd all like them to be.

[KhunMoo]

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?

I think i can guess what great nation, you are from, very old man.

Oh them foolish others! Nai Nai we say! Shut it down! The UN, The ICC - The lot of them!

How dare them others, correct our fine and fleshy people!

---

On topic: All victemless crimes are bullshit, and should not be labeled as crimes. No state should intervene in peoples personal dress code; Spiderman dress, Hijab (the head pice, that uneducated idiots refer to as a Burka), a Singha singlet or what ever people around the world thinks look good on them.

[rgs2001uk]

Nothing to do with religion.

Next time you see one wearing one in good old blighty why dont you ask why they wear it, and where its written that they must.

I am more interested in hearing of where its written they must.

When I was a kid (Catholic), I couldn't eat meat on Friday

I had to give something up for lent each year

Mom had to wear a hat in church, and I couldn't.

My Catholic girlfriends weren't allowed to use contraceptives. (not that it mattered, I never scored anyway)

Strangely, I couldn't find any of those rules in the Bible. But they seemed to have something to do with religion, because my Protestant and Jewish friends ate meat on Friday, and the Jewish girls I dated were all on the pill (still didn't score).

Now, Catholics can eat meat on Friday, too. Because the Pope said so. I'm pretty sure God didn't care either way, and I'm really sure they didn't revise the Bible to reflect the new rule.

Yes thankfully one of the greatest men who ever lived came along and blew those myths out the water, I refer of course to Martin Luther, thanks for leading us "out of the darkness" martin.

Wouldnt that be the same church of rome that invented things such as purgatory, confession, the cult of worshipping the dead etc etc

The very same church that claims to preach christain values, wasnt it written somewhere about worshipping false idols?

Really you couldnt make this stuff up.

Perhaps you could also ask the same church where jesus made any reference to gays, and why gays cant be married in a church?

[sustento]

Perhaps you could also ask the same church where jesus made any reference to gays, and why gays cant be married in a church?

They can as long as you pick the right church.

[rgs2001uk]

Perhaps you could also ask the same church where jesus made any reference to gays, and why gays cant be married in a church?

They can as long as you pick the right church.

Thanks for the info, however as an atheist its extremley unlikely I will ever set foot in one.

[NeverSure]

And, unlike Georgia, France doesn't have a historical problem with white guys in bedsheets that burn crosses and lynch black folks. That particular statute was probably aimed at protecting the rights of said black folks.

France has had a serious problem with Islamic terrorism though. I seriously wouldn't expose the country to the possibility that some guy is walking around in a burqa with a bomb strapped to him.

As for the examples of Thai's working and Chinese wearing respirators, they don't wash. I can see that woman in the picture above, see her skin color, eye color, eyes, face shape etc. enough to ID her. Silly comparison.

Good for France for not only passing a law to protect its people, but for bucking the out of country lawyers who sued them.

The next thing they should do is pull out of the EU and all of its trappings, the Eurozone, and get their country back.

Then they should deport everyone who moves to France and insists on bringing their own laws with them.

As for the examples of Thai's working and Chinese wearing respirators, they don't wash.

What a vulgar statement.

How often do you touch water?

More than the Thais & the Chinese?

"They don't wash" means they don't work together, or unacceptable. Commonly "It doesn't wash."

Cambridge Dictionary

to be unacceptable :Don’t think you can get credit without doing the work – that doesn't wash around here.

In my sentence, I said that comparing burqas with respirators or headgear for Thai laborers "doesn't wash."

If you'd like even more education, please post back.

Next.

[Johpa]

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

Which of these three justifies this law?

All three. We all have relative freedom of speech, religion, etc. This ruling does not invade one's core liberties. There is no equality when one side is hiding one's face and thus hiding one's mood and one's intentions. Equality implies that I allow another to see who I am and they allow me to see who they are. And that leads us to fraternity where the wearing of the burqa isolates the wearer from the common social fraternity needed to maintain even a semblance of democracy.

Let's take your argument to it's logical (if such a word can be applied to it!) conclusion.

Everyone must walk around completely naked and unadorned.

Well I daresay that the only other body part that would clearly show one's mood and intentions other than the face would be the male penis, but even that appendage shows rather limited information compared to the face. So I am a bit confused as to how you extrapolate my way of thinking to demanding that everyone should walk around buck naked.

[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?

I think i can guess what great nation, you are from, very old man.

Oh them foolish others! Nai Nai we say! Shut it down! The UN, The ICC - The lot of them!

How dare them others, correct our fine and fleshy people!

---

On topic: All victemless crimes are bullshit, and should not be labeled as crimes. No state should intervene in peoples personal dress code; Spiderman dress, Hijab (the head pice, that uneducated idiots refer to as a Burka), a Singha singlet or what ever people around the world thinks look good on them.

Yes you can guess what country I'm from. It's the one which would never allow a group unelected by the citizens to meddle in its affairs. It's the one with enough guts to stand on its own two feet instead of ganging up with a bunch of other tiny countries while trying to amount to something.

The topic, sadly, isn't about burqas. It's a shocking topic where French sovereignty was subjugated to a bunch of UK lawyers and an international body that the people of France didn't elect.

It's a sad story about the loss of democracy in a once great land.

It's a a headline that shouts out the decline and fall of Western Europe.

[Jizzlam]

Its very simple!

Law abiding citizens must abide by the laws (new & old) of the country that they: (a) Live in ( visit/transit through.

If you dont agree with the laws of that particular country, then just leave (dont go there in the first place) and feel free to live somewhere that is more appealing to your lifesyle.

I applaud France for this decision.

Hopefully other EU members will grow some balls and wake up to the fact that this is just the tip of the Iceberg.

Next on the agenda should be Sharia Law....

Piss be upon you.

[NeverSure]

-snip-

Really you couldnt make this stuff up.

Perhaps you could also ask the same church where jesus made any reference to gays, and why gays cant be married in a church?

For the sake of accuracy, Jesus clearly defined marriage as between one man and one woman, always, and from the beginning, "becoming one flesh." (Matthew 19:4-6)

Then he defined unmarried sex as wrong translated to fornication, adultery etc.

It is from this that some churches deduct a belief about gays.

I could go on for pages and pages explaining why I think they are wrong, but suffice to say I'll debate them any day.

[ClutchClark]

-snip-

Really you couldnt make this stuff up.

Perhaps you could also ask the same church where jesus made any reference to gays, and why gays cant be married in a church?

For the sake of accuracy, Jesus clearly defined marriage as between one man and one woman, always, and from the beginning, "becoming one flesh." (Matthew 19:4-6)

Then he defined unmarried sex as wrong translated to fornication, adultery etc.

It is from this that some churches deduct a belief about gays.

I could go on for pages and pages explaining why I think they are wrong, but suffice to say I'll debate them any day.

NeverSure,

I don't think anyone here on TV doubts your willingness to debate nor the lengths you will go but I am surprised to see you taking the position in support of Gays. You are not as predictable as some might think.

Cheers ;-)

[tartempion]

Great work by the British legal team and France for accepting it's citizens religious right.

It's sad to see how only few limited shallow minded people passes racial comment over other religion. Let us learn to respect people and their religion. It's a matter if their faith and belief, we have no right to criticize their belief. We don't own them, do we?

Right,

In Belgium Muslims are trying to forbid Christian holidays and artifacts.

Brussels cancelled it's 2012 Christmas tree to show respect for others people religion.

Voices are up to condemn Holland's and Belgium's zwarte piet for the folkloric Sinterklaas. Theyu were at it again just this week for 2014 Sinterklaas.

Since when has Belgium become a Muslim state???

[NeverSure]

-snip-

Really you couldnt make this stuff up.

Perhaps you could also ask the same church where jesus made any reference to gays, and why gays cant be married in a church?

For the sake of accuracy, Jesus clearly defined marriage as between one man and one woman, always, and from the beginning, "becoming one flesh." (Matthew 19:4-6)

Then he defined unmarried sex as wrong translated to fornication, adultery etc.

It is from this that some churches deduct a belief about gays.

I could go on for pages and pages explaining why I think they are wrong, but suffice to say I'll debate them any day.

NeverSure,

I don't think anyone here on TV doubts your willingness to debate nor the lengths you will go but I am surprised to see you taking the position in support of Gays. You are not as predictable as some might think.

Cheers ;-)

It's pretty simple. I'll tell you about it. Anyone can grab a couple of statements out of context from a really big book and find his desired conclusion. Just as bad, he can fail to state other contexts that on their face would seem to contradict the first statements. Of course they don't contradict, but the reader doesn't understand.

He goes with his prejudice and misses the big picture. If he has an agenda, he will always find a couple of things that support his agenda, while carefully ignoring things that explain it away.

Believe it or not, Jesus wasn't religious. Religion requires an inflexible dogma. He railed against the Jewish religious leaders (the scribes and pharisees) of the day for being so pompous. He was a Jew but he didn't join the Jewish religion and he didn't start the Christian religion. That was all started by man.

How many different brands of Christianity can you get from one simple man who never owned a home or had a church, and who actually never said all that much?

Most religious leaders are control freaks.

[Mosha]

Lots of white faces here!

[media]

[media]

You must have missed it from 6000 miles away!

I lived in WEST YORKSHIRE for 48 years. I know what Bradford, Barley and Dewsbury are like. 2 of those places would nbe mislin caliohates if Choudrey had his way.