French burqa ban upheld by European courts

[Scott]

An off-topic post has been deleted.

Please stick to the topic.

[transam]

In nearly all Islamic countries, the majority do not support terrorism. Pew are an organisation that is generally accepted for providing reasonable analysis, a fairly recent report on the matter below.

http://www.pewglobal.org/2013/09/10/muslim-publics-share-concerns-about-extremist-groups/

We all know there are islamic radical clerics and others who preach hate and violence and claim the Koran supports their message. In the reverse are many quotes from the Koran or interpretation that preach otherwise.

http://www.juancole.com/2013/04/islamic-forbids-terrorism.html

In all the Abrahamic religions there are those who choose to interpret religious tracts to support suppression, violence, tolerance or peace; there is no overarching truth that dictates Islam is a religion of violence.

It is written a bloke can beat his wife, and that is not violence..?...

[jacky54]

In nearly all Islamic countries, the majority do not support terrorism.

It's obvious most do not support terrorism, but quite a minority do. Just like most Soviets did not support the gulags nor Cambodians support the terror. This does not make the ideology which they had to live under any more benign just because most do not carry out it's extremely hateful and violent commands themselves. Islam is a violent and divisive religion, not all Muslims support terror, but they all support Islam.

[simple1]

In nearly all Islamic countries, the majority do not support terrorism. Pew are an organisation that is generally accepted for providing reasonable analysis, a fairly recent report on the matter below.

http://www.pewglobal.org/2013/09/10/muslim-publics-share-concerns-about-extremist-groups/

We all know there are islamic radical clerics and others who preach hate and violence and claim the Koran supports their message. In the reverse are many quotes from the Koran or interpretation that preach otherwise.

http://www.juancole.com/2013/04/islamic-forbids-terrorism.html

In all the Abrahamic religions there are those who choose to interpret religious tracts to support suppression, violence, tolerance or peace; there is no overarching truth that dictates Islam is a religion of violence.

It is written a bloke can beat his wife, and that is not violence..?...

It's a pity that you make no attempt to recognise the other matters I talked to. However, out of courtesy I will reply to your comment.

Yes that's true & is the final, out of three approaches, in disputes between a man and wife. The Koran does say as a last recourse in a dispute & only lightly; the meaning of 'lightly' would be subject to individual ethics or lack of. The Koran cautions against anger / loss of temper & the negatives that can or will result.

On a personal note, when I lived amongst a Muslim communuty in Thailand, I knew of two women, who were atcually beaten by their male partner. When they spoke with the Imam, following protocol, he authorised their request for divorce; all straight forward & no ongoing drama.

At the end of the day it's the individual and not a religious text. Other religions admonish violence, yet the level of domestic violence against women by non Muslims in Western societies is enormous, look at the stats. As I say down to the individual’s ethics.

To repeat, in the bigger picture, there is no overarching truth that dictates Islam is a religion of violence

[transam]

In nearly all Islamic countries, the majority do not support terrorism. Pew are an organisation that is generally accepted for providing reasonable analysis, a fairly recent report on the matter below.

http://www.pewglobal.org/2013/09/10/muslim-publics-share-concerns-about-extremist-groups/

We all know there are islamic radical clerics and others who preach hate and violence and claim the Koran supports their message. In the reverse are many quotes from the Koran or interpretation that preach otherwise.

http://www.juancole.com/2013/04/islamic-forbids-terrorism.html

In all the Abrahamic religions there are those who choose to interpret religious tracts to support suppression, violence, tolerance or peace; there is no overarching truth that dictates Islam is a religion of violence.

It is written a bloke can beat his wife, and that is not violence..?...

It's a pity that you make no attempt to recognise the other matters I talked to. However, out of courtesy I will reply to your comment.

Yes that's true & is the final, out of three approaches, in disputes between a man and wife. The Koran does say as a last recourse in a dispute & only lightly; the meaning of 'lightly' would be subject to individual ethics or lack of. The Koran cautions against anger / loss of temper & the negatives that can or will result.

At the end of the day it's the individual and not a religious text. Other religions admonish violence, yet the level of domestic violence against women by non Muslims in Western societies is enormous, look at the stats. As I say down to the individual’s ethics.

To repeat, in the bigger picture, there is no overarching truth that dictates Islam is a religion of violence

Sorry to repeat this, but their book, written by it seems the "Boss" who took time to write it, says you can bash your wife. Now to me any guy who bashes his wife is a low life and it is violence. Why do you and another keep making excuses when it is in black and white ?

[simple1]

In nearly all Islamic countries, the majority do not support terrorism. Pew are an organisation that is generally accepted for providing reasonable analysis, a fairly recent report on the matter below.

http://www.pewglobal.org/2013/09/10/muslim-publics-share-concerns-about-extremist-groups/

We all know there are islamic radical clerics and others who preach hate and violence and claim the Koran supports their message. In the reverse are many quotes from the Koran or interpretation that preach otherwise.

http://www.juancole.com/2013/04/islamic-forbids-terrorism.html

In all the Abrahamic religions there are those who choose to interpret religious tracts to support suppression, violence, tolerance or peace; there is no overarching truth that dictates Islam is a religion of violence.

It is written a bloke can beat his wife, and that is not violence..?...

It's a pity that you make no attempt to recognise the other matters I talked to. However, out of courtesy I will reply to your comment.

Yes that's true & is the final, out of three approaches, in disputes between a man and wife. The Koran does say as a last recourse in a dispute & only lightly; the meaning of 'lightly' would be subject to individual ethics or lack of. The Koran cautions against anger / loss of temper & the negatives that can or will result.

At the end of the day it's the individual and not a religious text. Other religions admonish violence, yet the level of domestic violence against women by non Muslims in Western societies is enormous, look at the stats. As I say down to the individual’s ethics.

To repeat, in the bigger picture, there is no overarching truth that dictates Islam is a religion of violence

Sorry to repeat this, but their book, written by it seems the "Boss" who took time to write it, says you can bash your wife. Now to me any guy who bashes his wife is a low life and it is violence. Why do you and another keep making excuses when it is in black and white ?

did not make any excuses, gave a straight reply

[transam]

[Scott]

Off-topic post removed.

[Basil B]

Finally some common sense, Go to a Muslim country and try an impose your religious views and they will probably stone you to death, Our Governments need to grow a set and stop pandering to these minorities.

Go to some Muslim countries and try to build a Christian house of worship, Muslims are very quick to oppress other religions.

[wigantojapan]

Considering that you have never answered any question put to you.........

Dear kettle, yours pot!

As I said, I am not going to try and justify the actions of any terrorist group as I abhor those actions.

and yet you vehemently support the idea of a uk government who are seen in the eyes of many Muslim and non Muslim as being a state sponsored terrorist organisation, and their actions throughout time has proven that point .

[7by7]

^^^^

<deleted>???

WtoJ, are you saying that a democratically elected government is the same as terrorist organisations such as Al-Qaeda (Muslim) and Anti-balaka (Christian)?

[Scott]

This is the final warning. The topic is about the French burqa ban.

I suggest you stay on topic.

[7by7]

Sorry to repeat this, but their book, written by it seems the "Boss" who took time to write it, says you can bash your wife. Now to me any guy who bashes his wife is a low life and it is violence. Why do you and another keep making excuses when it is in black and white ?

did not make any excuses, gave a straight reply

Indeed you did, Simple1, but according to Transam's logic, anything except an admission that he is right and you are wrong is seen as 'making excuses, dodging the question or twisting his words!'

Transam, you claim to know a lot about the Koran, maybe you should spend as much time reading the Old and New Testaments. You'll find much that today is seen as barbaric.

Some examples:

Exodus 21:20-21 If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.

Leviticus 20:13 If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death.

Deuteronomy 7:1-2 When the Lord your God brings you into the land you are entering to possess and drives out before you many nations . . . then you must destroy them totally. Make no treaty with them, and show them no mercy.

Ephesians 5:22-24 Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Saviour. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.

1 Peter 2:18 Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh.

Edit:

Apols, Scott; I was typing this when you posted the above.

I hope you will allow it as it addresses issues raised in previous posts; but it is, of course, your decision.

[Scott]

The post can remain, but back to the topic, please.

[Jay Sata]

Emily Pankhurst and others fought for women's equality in this country.

There is nothing equal about a man forcing his wife to dress like a walking tent in public.

A Muslim woman can stand trial wearing a full-face veil but must remove it to give evidence, a judge ruled.

Try convincing a judge you need to wear a full crash helmet because you are a member of some religion and see how far that gets you.

Good for France I say and the ruling means we can ban young girls in school being forced to submit to this niqab and burka ritual that belongs in the dark ages.

Filling stations and banks insist you remove crash helmets. The same rule should apply to anyone wearing these coverings.

[wigantojapan]

The Uk Government of course, set the precedent in modern day history, for the banning of an item of clothing, that was seen by the authorities to be a symbol of in today's world a terrorist.

The ban led to people being sent into exile as well as murder and imprisonment under UK Law

The clothing was seen as a symbol of rebelliousness and anti christian.

Yet still, UK citizens, here still uphold that the French decision is an unjust one ,even though it is more lenient, in the case that no Muslim lady has been deported,raped ,imprisoned or sent into exile by the authorities,unlike their fellow UK citizens men women and children.

[Basil B]

Your not harking on about the "Dress Act 1746" are you?

[7by7]

Why Muslim women choose to wear the veil

It's often assumed that girls who wear the niqab are forced into it by their families. But is that really true? I met Asma, who was just 13 when she started covering her face.

"My family were completely shocked. My mum especially. They couldn't believe I wanted to start veiling."

Asma's mother doesn't wear the niqab. In fact, nobody in her family does. She told me that she hadn't even understood the reasons why the niqab was worn. "I went to an all-girls' school, with all women teachers, so I didn't even need to wear it at that time."

So why did she? "I had seen my friend at the local mosque wearing it. It was something new, something different. Young girls want to find a way of expressing themselves. It's almost like a teenage rebellion."

Asma says she has since studied her religion's teachings on the veil and decided to continue with it. "It gives me a peace, a spiritual peace."

From further on in the article

Ironically, scholars say that face veiling was practised by many cultures before Islam - and that Muslims adopted it as a way of fitting into these societies.

Today, they are accused of the very opposite. And yet many of the young women we met say they are, in their own ways, still simply trying to fit in, of finding a way of expressing the very British freedoms they are accused of undermining.

As for the French woman who took her case to the ECtHR; French Muslim women on burqa ban ruling: 'All I want is to live in peace'

Her lawyer, Tony Muman, told the European court (ECHR) last November: "She's a patriot", adding that she had suffered "absolutely no pressure" from her family or relatives to wear the burqa and was prepared to uncover her face for identity checks..........

[jacky54]

'All I want is to live in peace' very easily achieved, obey French law. If she cannot or will not, go to live in a Muslim country where she can walk about in disguise in public, in France it's illegal.

[jacky54]

Ironically, scholars say that face veiling was practised by many cultures before Islam - and that Muslims adopted it as a way of fitting into these societies.

But France and western countries are NOT these societies from 100's of years back are they. It's only recently that Muslims have discovered this desperate need to go about in public covered up, 30 years ago it was unseen almost anywhere in the west. It really is just a divisive two fingers up to their host countries, if they want to integrate do so, if not go and live in a Muslim country. They should now be fitting into our societies, not harking back to repressive ones, Islamic or not from 1,000 years back.

Veiling was common in parts of ancient Greece, but then so was infanticide and slavery.

[7by7]

I am amazed that in the 21st century certain people feel that they have the right to dictate to others how they should dress and behave; whilst at the same time condemning Muslim men who, they allege, force their wives and daughters to cover up! Some double standards there.

As long as someone is obeying the law of the land in which they live, then who are you or I to tell them what they can and can't do?

Most of the women who wear burqas or any other form of Islamic dress are citizens of the country where they live, so talk of them 'putting two fingers up to their host countries' is pure nonsense.

I wonder what those who would stop people wearing cloths as an expression of their religious faith think of these guys from North London.

Are they failing to integrate?

Are they 'putting two fingers up' to the UK?

But, I hear you say, you can see their faces.

True; but what about these, then.

Speaking personally, I'd feel safer walking down a dark alley and being approached by a group of women in burqas than I would being approached buy a group of hoodies!

[nidieunimaitre]

I am amazed that in the 21st century certain people feel that they have the right to dictate to others how they should dress and behave; whilst at the same time condemning Muslim men who, they allege, force their wives and daughters to cover up! Some double standards there.

As long as someone is obeying the law of the land in which they live, then who are you or I to tell them what they can and can't do?

Most of the women who wear burqas or any other form of Islamic dress are citizens of the country where they live, so talk of them 'putting two fingers up to their host countries' is pure nonsense.

I wonder what those who demand everyone dress 'western' think of these guys from North London.

But, I hear you say, you can see their faces.

True; but what about these, then.

Speaking personally, I'd feel safer walking down a dark alley and being approached by a group of women in burqas than I would being approached buy a group of hoodies!

Christian Europe had The Enlightenment, French Revolution and 1968.

Muslim countries missed out on all three.

In Europe religion is considered to be a personal thing, and we have seperation of state and church.

Europeans don't want religion in our face. Even priests and nuns wear normal clothes thes days.

Not so long ago, the priest would tell my parents who to vote for, how to dress, not to eat meat on fridays. After a long battle, we got rid of that, but now it is coming back.

In Belgium there are no longer crosses in court rooms, we do not swear to tell the truth holding a hand on the bible.

We are proud of that.

[7by7]

So the Hasidic Jews I pictured above are not able to dress like that in Belgium?

You want the freedom not to express any religious faith; yet would deny the freedom of others to do so if they wish?

BTW, apols for editing my post while you were quoting it.

[transam]

So the Hasidic Jews I pictured above are not able to dress like that in Belgium?

You want the freedom not to express any religious faith; yet would deny the freedom of others to do so if they wish?

They look like me 40 odd years ago.............

I lived in a tent many times but never walked around in it............

[Scott]

What do Hasedic Jews in the UK have to with Burqa's in France?

Please stay on topic.

[7by7]

Hasidic Jews wear what they wear due to their faith.

You, Transam, want to deny that right to Muslim women.

Do you also want to deny that right to Hasidic Jews?

Any possibility of a proper answer, or will you just make another silly comment about tents?

[7by7]

What do Hasedic Jews in the UK have to with Burqa's in France?

Please stay on topic.

Apols, Scott; but I thought that was clear from the context of the post.

That is, the right of people of any faith to express that faith in any lawful way.

The ECtHR has determined that the so called burqa ban is legal as it is not, in fact, a ban on burqas but on all face coverings.

That is, as I said earlier, the correct legal decision. Whether or not it is the correct moral one is a matter of opinion.

I used Hasidic Jews as an example of the ways other religious groups dress to express their faith.

I think it is relevant, given the amount of vitriol that has been directed at Muslims in general and burqa wearing women in particular throughout this thread, to ask if people have the same hatred for other religious groups who dress differently to what they consider the norm.

However, if you feel it is not so then I will accept that.

[transam]

Hasidic Jews wear what they wear due to their faith.

You, Transam, want to deny that right to Muslim women.

Do you also want to deny that right to Hasidic Jews?

Any possibility of a proper answer, or will you just make another silly comment about tents?

Here you go again, saying "I" have something against Jews. You have a serious problem about reading stuff.

Do you not understand that security in NON Muslim countries want to see faces on camera because of terrorism from a Muslim faction,. DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND THAT....?

[Scott]

I was being facetious. I know what you were trying to say, however, I think we should try to stick a little closer to the topic.

[nidieunimaitre]

So the Hasidic Jews I pictured above are not able to dress like that in Belgium?

You want the freedom not to express any religious faith; yet would deny the freedom of others to do so if they wish?

As for the Hasidic jews (who by the way have their own schools, teachers paid by the Belgian government): I will not comment, since I do not want to be banned.

Your second sentence: Yes, I think that religion should be a personal matter, between a person and the god(s) of his choice.

I do not see how I limit somebody's freedom by that.

Foreigners in my country should do what I do in Thailand.

Some parts of the Thai culture I like, others parts I dislike.

In my house in Thailand I do what I want, but surely I do not walk around upsetting Thais by behaving as a European in Europe.