Muslim Frenchwoman 'fined for veil on Cannes beach'

[GuestHouse]

On 24 August 2016 at 5:49 AM, i claudius said:

If its against the law dont do it ,simple

 

 

The Conseil d'État has ruled the Mayor of Nice did not have the right to enact the ban of the Burqini on the basis of the situation within Nice. 

 

Are you now going to step up and defend the rights of women to wear a Burqini or are you only interested in what's legal when its banning others from choices you don't yourself agree with?

 

Edited August 26, 2016 by GuestHouse

[GeorgesAbitbol]

12 hours ago, JDGRUEN said:

'Cute' ... Wow Mindless Liberals will tolerate anything as nothing matters to them.  Immigrants need to assimilate to the laws and customs of the land that they enter.  

It is not like you adapt to the country here neither from the posts I read.... Stuborn conservatives probably...

Veil is NOT prohibited, this stupid action just show that one more time Men tell women how they should behave... Veil does not cover the face...I don't see you complain about the kippa...but I know why you don't... islam is bad!!right?

Edited August 27, 2016 by GeorgesAbitbol

[Boon Mee]

12 hours ago, JDGRUEN said:

'Cute' ... Wow Mindless Liberals will tolerate anything as nothing matters to them.  Immigrants need to assimilate to the laws and customs of the land that they enter.  

That's right and it includes us Farangs here in LOS.  

[sambum]

21 hours ago, fasteddie said:

Where is it illegal to be a Muslim sympathiser? and where am I changing my stance?

DELETED

 

Edited August 27, 2016 by sambum
Duplicate post

[sambum]

16 hours ago, fasteddie said:

Well it's been overturned by a higher court now, she will be getting her fine back so obviously the high court thought it was an unjust and stupid law so break it and show it up for it's ridiculousness.

 

Thank you for answering one of my questions - that if you don't agree with a law - break it.

What about the other one - what do you think would happen if she deliberately broke the law in a Muslim country?

[ilostmypassword]

16 minutes ago, sambum said:

 

Thank you for answering one of my questions - that if you don't agree with a law - break it.

What about the other one - what do you think would happen if she deliberately broke the law in a Muslim country?

Martin Luther King would agree with your first sentence.

As for the second part, why is it relevant what would happen in a Muslim country? Or for that matter, in Russia, or North Korea or China or in any other country that severely restricts individual liberty?

[stander]

No one is denying them the right to practice their religion in private. They don’t have the right, however, to invade the public space  and impose their ideology  and belief system represented by their dress.

[ilostmypassword]

You mean that by wearing a burkini they are imposing their ideology and belief system?  You mean that if I get too close to one of them I will become a Muslim?  Will I become a Shiite? A Sunni?  A Sufi?  An Alawite? Somehow, knowledge of the particular tenets of a particular branch Islam will become lodged in my mind?  All this from a form fitting swimsuit? A remarkable achievement of Islamic technology!

[Boon Mee]

6 minutes ago, stander said:

No one is denying them the right to practice their religion in private. They don’t have the right, however, to invade the public space  and impose their ideology  and belief system represented by their dress.

That's right!

Who can forget the Hare Krishna's at airports and bus stations back in the day? 

[stander]

It’s looking more and more likely to be a government scam, to stirred up dress issues, so the Governments’ lawyers could pretend to rescue freedoms.

[ilostmypassword]

3 minutes ago, Boon Mee said:

That's right!

Who can forget the Hare Krishna's at airports and bus stations back in the day? 

And the mass conversions of airline passengers.

[sambum]

22 hours ago, fasteddie said:

Where is it illegal to be a Muslim sympathiser? and where am I changing my stance?

 

DELETED - duplicate post

[sambum]

1 hour ago, ilostmypassword said:

Martin Luther King would agree with your first sentence.

As for the second part, why is it relevant what would happen in a Muslim country? Or for that matter, in Russia, or North Korea or China or in any other country that severely restricts individual liberty?

 

So without the rule of law I believe you have what is called "anarchy" - do you want that?

 

The second part is relevant because I was trying to illustrate that Muslims seem to be only too well aware of what the consequences are if they break the law regarding dress code in their "adopted" countries - a small fine or a "slap on the wrist" compared to the punishment that they would receive in their "home" countries for a similar offence.

  

Edited August 27, 2016 by sambum
Amended text

[ilostmypassword]

30 minutes ago, sambum said:

 

So without the rule of law I believe you have what is called "anarchy" - do you want that?

 

The second part is relevant because I was trying to illustrate that Muslims seem to be only too well aware of what the consequences are if they break the law regarding dress code in their "adopted" countries - a small fine or a "slap on the wrist" compared to the punishment that they would receive in their "home" countries for a similar offence.

  

So the US civil rights movement was really a crusade for anarchy?  Get a grip.

What's really interesting about your second comment is that you assume that if someone is a Moslem, then they are not a native of the country they are in?  Or do you hold French Muslims accountable for the conditions in the countries their parents or grandparents or great grandparents emigrated from?  Or should there be 2 standards?  One for native muslims and one for foreign-born muslims?

[stander]

Burqa. Niqab. Burkini. All making a political expression and all unwanted in the public square. The French are RIGHT to ban them.

[ilostmypassword]

28 minutes ago, stander said:

Burqa. Niqab. Burkini. All making a political expression and all unwanted in the public square. The French are RIGHT to ban them.

I didn't know that The French had banned them. Some French banned them.  Most did not.  And if they are in fact a political expression, are you saying that politics should only be practiced in private?  Are you confused?

[Zendo]

[Rc2702]

France being the country that upholds the freedom of speech more than most and then tries to ban certain styles of clothing due to their perception of what it represents. Pretty ridiculous and the French government I think have realised freedom of speech has probably contributed to a lot of the problems they have had recently with terrorism. That hebdo magazine being the catalyst. I'm not defending what happened I just think that magazine should have been reigned in a bit for fear of people who perhaps do not share the same tolerance. It's a sad world when you meet a french Algerian who denies being Algerian vehemently and yet it's so obvious.

[Dumbastheycome]

Is it  forgotten or ignored  that the debate  about banning the burka arose  from the question of  the legal right to hide  facial identity in public by virtue of  a religious  adherence to the choice to wear it. The debate is not  about any right to a choice in religious  faith rather than the public right to safety in the event of an individual who may be a security  risk and  muslim or not  can avoid  identification using religious justifications. Even the  staunchest gurus of Islam have stated the  burka is a personal aspect and  not a religious dictate. Does  anyone defend the  right  to refuse  to remove a motorcycle  helmet or  hood and  dark  glasses  when challenged  by police  or when entering a building such as a  Bank or  Government  office? To do so  would be at risk!

There have  been  many instances around the world where the excuse of the  burka has been used to  avoid indentification  in matters of transgression of law minor or  major.

It is that aspect that has created the debate. 

I have  many friends in Islamic territories and not one of them, male or female,  would  support the idea that the burka has  some superior status over and  above common law.

It has  just occurred to me that it would be interesting to see the result of members of the  KKK who  would daily roam in  full public  view and defend the  right  to wear a hood.  Naturally there  would  have to  be at  least  10  of them to  challenge  1  stroppy  female  follower of  fashion Islam!

 

 

[Rc2702]

1 minute ago, Dumbastheycome said:

Is it  forgotten or ignored  that the debate  about banning the burka arose  from the question of  the legal right to hide  facial identity in public by virtue of  a religious  adherence to the choice to wear it. The debate is not  about any right to a choice in religious  faith rather than the public right to safety in the event of an individual who may be a security  risk and  muslim or not  can avoid  identification using religious justifications. Even the  staunchest gurus of Islam have stated the  burka is a personal aspect and  not a religious dictate. Does  anyone defend the  right  to refuse  to remove a motorcycle  helmet or  hood and  dark  glasses  when challenged  by police  or when entering a building such as a  Bank or  Government  office? To do so  would be at risk!

There have  been  many instances around the world where the excuse of the  burka has been used to  avoid indentification  in matters of transgression of law minor or  major.

It is that aspect that has created the debate. 

I have  many friends in Islamic territories and not one of them, male or female,  would  support the idea that the burka has  some superior status over and  above common law.

It has  just occurred to me that it would be interesting to see the result of members of the  KKK who  would daily roam in  full public  view and defend the  right  to wear a hood.  Naturally there  would  have to  be at  least  10  of them to  challenge  1  stroppy  female  follower of  fashion Islam!

 

 

If this was the case then a simple see through burka would be sufficient or even a burka with full face feature. Totally agree with that point you make but the middle ground is pretty obvious. I guess wearing too much makeup could be construed the same way!

[Dumbastheycome]

A  see through burka  would   probably  be  deemed  inadequate  for the intended purpose but   maybe  legal beagles   could  ursue the  option?

[ilostmypassword]

37 minutes ago, Dumbastheycome said:

Is it  forgotten or ignored  that the debate  about banning the burka arose  from the question of  the legal right to hide  facial identity in public by virtue of  a religious  adherence to the choice to wear it. The debate is not  about any right to a choice in religious  faith rather than the public right to safety in the event of an individual who may be a security  risk and  muslim or not  can avoid  identification using religious justifications. Even the  staunchest gurus of Islam have stated the  burka is a personal aspect and  not a religious dictate. Does  anyone defend the  right  to refuse  to remove a motorcycle  helmet or  hood and  dark  glasses  when challenged  by police  or when entering a building such as a  Bank or  Government  office? To do so  would be at risk!

There have  been  many instances around the world where the excuse of the  burka has been used to  avoid indentification  in matters of transgression of law minor or  major.

It is that aspect that has created the debate. 

I have  many friends in Islamic territories and not one of them, male or female,  would  support the idea that the burka has  some superior status over and  above common law.

It has  just occurred to me that it would be interesting to see the result of members of the  KKK who  would daily roam in  full public  view and defend the  right  to wear a hood.  Naturally there  would  have to  be at  least  10  of them to  challenge  1  stroppy  female  follower of  fashion Islam!

 

 

But the burkini doesn't obstruct the view of the face so it isn't about that.

[Dumbastheycome]

No? So its  only all  about  discrimination aimed at   followers  of  Islam.

So I am safe  to  start the  Faith of the  Hoody and   dark Glasses  !  Yehaa !

[ilostmypassword]

3 minutes ago, Dumbastheycome said:

No? So its  only all  about  discrimination aimed at   followers  of  Islam.

So I am safe  to  start the  Faith of the  Hoody and   dark Glasses  !  Yehaa !

Thanks for putting the emoji in there. Otherwise, how could we tell your comment was meant to be funny?

[Rc2702]

Unless I'm reading news features no one else I thought the basis of the ban on burka etc was based on subjugation of women not facial recognition. Your point about identity concealment makes more sense but that is not the basis of the stories I have been following.

[Dumbastheycome]

The  Hijab  and  Burkini are  not  considered a problem  because they do  not  obscure the  face  any  more than a typical  headscarf in normal circumstance.

However the  full  veiling with  only  eyeslits has the potential to disguise any individual, male or  female.

The  subjugation of woman may be a populist aspect but  given that the  defendant in this  French case was a woman who may admittedly have been defiant as  due to adherence to subjugative influence it is  the issue of  identity that is the priority although appeal to the  human rights issue may be  deemed correctly supportive but contradictory to the similar  issue  were the  Catholic organization officially disallows female  priests !

So is the  issue of the  burka a matter of the  obvious security aspect or is it  just a false facet used in the internationally encouraged  discrimination  of a human right  to religious choice? Both  perhaps? One has legal justification. The other is..........

 

 

[PTC]

4 hours ago, stander said:

Burqa. Niqab. Burkini. All making a political expression and all unwanted in the public square. The French are RIGHT to ban them.

 

If it is th public square, then it is not your square. At least not any longer. The days of the old white male reactionary telling others, particularly minorities what to do is over. People no longer accept marginalization by bigots and racists. Laws to allow this kind of bigotry are being repealed and challenged all across the US.

[Rc2702]

3 minutes ago, Dumbastheycome said:

The  Hijab  and  Burkini are  not  considered a problem  because they do  not  obscure the  face  any  more than a typical  headscarf in normal circumstance.

However the  full  veiling with  only  eyeslits has the potential to disguise any individual, male or  female.

The  subjugation of woman may be a populist aspect but  given that the  defendant in this  French case was a woman who may admittedly have been defiant as  due to adherence to subjugative influence it is  the issue of  identity that is the priority although appeal to the  human rights issue may be  deemed correctly supportive but contradictory to the similar  issue  were the  Catholic organization officially disallows female  priests !

So is the  issue of the  burka a matter of the  obvious security aspect or is it  just a false facet used in the internationally encouraged  discrimination  of a human right  to religious choice? Both  perhaps? One has legal justification. The other is..........

 

 

Word of advice. Try to understand your publishing information which a cross section of the world is reading. In using your clever well articulated words/sentences you are simply preventing a lot of people from understanding your points. Surely a clever person with such good use of language can understand this and using simpler terms may actually benefit the reader as well as the author. 

[sambum]

1 hour ago, Rc2702 said:

Word of advice. Try to understand your publishing information which a cross section of the world is reading. In using your clever well articulated words/sentences you are simply preventing a lot of people from understanding your points. Surely a clever person with such good use of language can understand this and using simpler terms may actually benefit the reader as well as the author. 

 

Good point - I call it gobbledygook!

[ClutchClark]

5 hours ago, PTC said:

 

If it is th public square, then it is not your square. At least not any longer. The days of the old white male reactionary telling others, particularly minorities what to do is over. People no longer accept marginalization by bigots and racists. Laws to allow this kind of bigotry are being repealed and challenged all across the US.

 

More hatred of old white males being spewed out on the pages of TVF. 

 

The only group liberals have declared its perfectly alright to despise and insult and marginalize. Liberals don't have a problem with bigoted or racist practices, they just want it directed at the white males.

 

You guys are certainly an angry bunch.