Paris restaurant 'refuses to serve Muslim women'

[7by7]

21 hours ago, Steely Dan said:

On ‎30‎/‎08‎/‎2016 at 7:12 AM, Thorgal said:

.For me, I doubt if these 2 "Muslimas" were aware of he restaurant is named after a religious place in Jerusalem, also known as the "Upper Room",

Snipped for brevity.

Interesting, there is of course the small possibility that the Muslimas knew full well about the background to the name and were actually fishing for some reaction. Not likely at first glance, but clock boy or Mosque fire type incidents do occur quite often.

 

Are you aware that in Islam Jesus is considered to be the messiah who will return to Earth on the day of judgement; just as he is in Christianity?

 

These two women probably are aware of that!

 

Like you, I do not know why they chose that particular restaurant; but the most likely reason is that they fancied a meal and thought that this one and it's menu looked nice.

 

As service is part of gaining and keeping a Michelin star, maybe this particular restaurant should lose theirs?

 

 

 

[NativeSon360]

How can any intelligent human being possibly "like" those insane comments, made by such an ignorant restaurant owner?  Despite the reputed sophistication of the French, apparently they too, have their fair-share of morons, eh?

[MajarTheLion]

On 8/30/2016 at 7:53 PM, stander said:

I, like most atheists believe the world would be a better place without religion. If religion helps believers feel better about dying, then that is fine, but for atheists religion is of no use to us.

 

 

I'm agnostic so I feel ya. However, I suspect a certain percentage of people are going to be violent thugs or otherwise be evil regardless of whether or not there is religion. Just my two cents' worth, and that's probably overpriced. 

[sambum]

On 8/30/2016 at 10:00 PM, metisdead said:

 

It's in the World News forum here:

 

 

Egypt to sharpen laws against Female Genital Mutilation

 

Please continue the discussion regarding that issue in that topic.

Thanks, but I'm not going to trawl through 935 pages to try to find it! Any shortcuts?

Edited September 1, 2016 by sambum

[7by7]

Click on the bit in blue; Egypt to sharpen laws against Female Genital Mutilation. It's a link straight to the topic.

[sambum]

2 hours ago, 7by7 said:

Click on the bit in blue; Egypt to sharpen laws against Female Genital Mutilation. It's a link straight to the topic.

 

Taverymuch!

[Seraphina]

On 29/08/2016 at 8:47 PM, car720 said:

 

What about the part where the guy says............."all terrorists are muslims and all muslims are terrorists".............I would have thought that was fairly clear.  How has this subject become a feminist war cry?

 

Did you misread the original post? Unless the original report in the French newspaper put the restauranteur's comments together at the same time as his refusal to allow the women to enter - which it didn't, then there's no way any of us can know what the restauranteur was actually thinking. I provided examples to make that point. The fact that the two 'victims' were women was by-the-by.

 

If you read the French original story, you would know that the women were hijaab in a public place and you would also know that this is forbidden in France. I live in France and speak French, Arabic AND English. I am also Muslim. Do you hear me supporting the two Muslim women? So, where does that leave you now?

 

I'm on the receiving end of consistently poor service in France. I have been rejected for being 10 minutes late for a hairdressing appointment and also refused entry to restaurants because I arrived at 14.05hrs. That's NOT taking rejection as a female because these things could happen in France to any person, of any nationality, gender or religion.

 

When I lived in the Middle East, I was once "shooed" out of a shop by the owner when I tried to ask for directions. I could not have known, and still don't know to this day, whether I was rejected on the basis of my nationality, gender or religion. Did I make a big fuss over it? No, I moved on. That's why I said - in the same post you quoted from, "This is a big fuss about nothing."

 

People who don't live in France, don't know why such stories appear in the French press or know the first thing about the history of the hijaab ban in France - really need to keep their mouths shut until they're better informed. People like yourself, with your own bigoted ideas, just need to read English with far greater verbal reasoning skills.

[Shawn0000]

28 minutes ago, Seraphina said:

 

Did you misread the original post? Unless the original report in the French newspaper put the restauranteur's comments together at the same time as his refusal to allow the women to enter - which it didn't, then there's no way any of us can know what the restauranteur was actually thinking. I provided examples to make that point. The fact that the two 'victims' were women was by-the-by.

 

If you read the French original story, you would know that the women were hijaab in a public place and you would also know that this is forbidden in France. I live in France and speak French, Arabic AND English. I am also Muslim. Do you hear me supporting the two Muslim women? So, where does that leave you now?

 

I'm on the receiving end of consistently poor service in France. I have been rejected for being 10 minutes late for a hairdressing appointment and also refused entry to restaurants because I arrived at 14.05hrs. That's NOT taking rejection as a female because these things could happen in France to any person, of any nationality, gender or religion.

 

When I lived in the Middle East, I was once "shooed" out of a shop by the owner when I tried to ask for directions. I could not have known, and still don't know to this day, whether I was rejected on the basis of my nationality, gender or religion. Did I make a big fuss over it? No, I moved on. That's why I said - in the same post you quoted from, "This is a big fuss about nothing."

 

People who don't live in France, don't know why such stories appear in the French press or know the first thing about the history of the hijaab ban in France - really need to keep their mouths shut until they're better informed. People like yourself, with your own bigoted ideas, just need to read English with far greater verbal reasoning skills.

 

The hijab is not banned from public places in France, we do not need to read the "original" report, we can watch the video that the women released themselves which inspired the French paper to take up the story and they are clearly wearing the perfectly legal hijab not the banned niqabs and they are clearly being subjected to Islamophobic hate speech.  It seems strange that a Muslim woman living in France would not be aware of the law.

[car720]

8 hours ago, Seraphina said:

 

Did you misread the original post? Unless the original report in the French newspaper put the restauranteur's comments together at the same time as his refusal to allow the women to enter - which it didn't, then there's no way any of us can know what the restauranteur was actually thinking. I provided examples to make that point. The fact that the two 'victims' were women was by-the-by.

 

If you read the French original story, you would know that the women were hijaab in a public place and you would also know that this is forbidden in France. I live in France and speak French, Arabic AND English. I am also Muslim. Do you hear me supporting the two Muslim women? So, where does that leave you now?

 

I'm on the receiving end of consistently poor service in France. I have been rejected for being 10 minutes late for a hairdressing appointment and also refused entry to restaurants because I arrived at 14.05hrs. That's NOT taking rejection as a female because these things could happen in France to any person, of any nationality, gender or religion.

 

When I lived in the Middle East, I was once "shooed" out of a shop by the owner when I tried to ask for directions. I could not have known, and still don't know to this day, whether I was rejected on the basis of my nationality, gender or religion. Did I make a big fuss over it? No, I moved on. That's why I said - in the same post you quoted from, "This is a big fuss about nothing."

 

People who don't live in France, don't know why such stories appear in the French press or know the first thing about the history of the hijaab ban in France - really need to keep their mouths shut until they're better informed. People like yourself, with your own bigoted ideas, just need to read English with far greater verbal reasoning skills.

 

My understanding of the original story was that a French business man was refusing to do business with 2 muslim women on the basis of his belief that all terrorists are muslims and all muslims are terrorists. (quote).

My query was related to how his rant was suddenly changed from one of religious dislike to one of misogeny and therefore a matter of feminism.  As to me being a bigot.  I may or may not be one but considering the fact that you do not know me personally your remarks are simply vitriol and exhibit a desire to confront for any pretext whatsoever.

[Seraphina]

11 hours ago, Shawn0000 said:

 

The hijab is not banned from public places in France, we do not need to read the "original" report, we can watch the video that the women released themselves which inspired the French paper to take up the story and they are clearly wearing the perfectly legal hijab not the banned niqabs and they are clearly being subjected to Islamophobic hate speech.  It seems strange that a Muslim woman living in France would not be aware of the law.

 

Oh, and which newspapers are you reading, pray?  Certainly not the French ones. However, I'm sure you can read the following.

 

"France was the first European country to ban the full-face Islamic veil in public places." Source: BBC http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-13038095.

 

Alternate:  The French ban on face covering* is an act of parliament passed by the Senate of France on 14th September 2010. The original bill (No. 2004-28) was passed on 15th March, 2004 by Jacques Chirac well before the current troubles.**

 

Secondly, my brother works in national security and I have two other brothers in the armed forces, so I fully understand the security risks. If you've watched the film, "Eye in the Sky", you will start to understand that Westerners play by a set of rules including The Geneva Convention, among others.

 

Guerilla fighters don't have a set of rules. Such fighters often have no compunction in killing children, other Muslims, old people and the disabled. They have no moral compass when it comes to killing people in churches, hospitals or schools. Do I need to continue or are you getting the picture?

 

If you really want to comment on modern Islamic issues without looking foolish, I recommend a book entitled, "The Trouble With Islam" and maybe ask someone educated to translate the following: "La France est une République indivisible, laïque, ...et sociale" and then ask them to explain what the word 'secular' actually means!

* This includes Christian veils and is intended to include the wearing of ALL religious symbols. If you're a Christopher Hitchens fan, you'll understand that why he felt this should apply to ALL western societies.

** The interpretation of 'public places' remains a loose term, but currently includes all government property and places of education.

 

[Seraphina]

4 hours ago, car720 said:

 

My understanding of the original story was that a French business man was refusing to do business with 2 muslim women on the basis of his belief that all terrorists are muslims and all muslims are terrorists. (quote).

My query was related to how his rant was suddenly changed from one of religious dislike to one of misogeny and therefore a matter of feminism.  As to me being a bigot.  I may or may not be one but considering the fact that you do not know me personally your remarks are simply vitriol and exhibit a desire to confront for any pretext whatsoever.

 

Your understanding of the story was WRONG and highly presumptious. Try reading the original story instead of reading your own agenda into passed down information.

 

You can copy and paste the French into Google Translate if you don't read French! It's not that difficult.

[Shawn0000]

21 minutes ago, Seraphina said:

 

Oh, and which newspapers are you reading, pray?  Certainly not the French ones. However, I'm sure you can read the following.

 

 

 

"France was the first European country to ban the full-face Islamic veil in public places." Source: BBC http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-13038095.

 

 

 

Alternate:  The French ban on face covering* is an act of parliament passed by the Senate of France on 14th September 2010. The original bill (No. 2004-28) was passed on 15th March, 2004 by Jacques Chirac well before the current troubles.**

 

 

 

Secondly, my brother works in national security and I have two other brothers in the armed forces, so I fully understand the security risks. If you've watched the film, "Eye in the Sky", you will start to understand that Westerners play by a set of rules including The Geneva Convention, among others.

 

 

 

Guerilla fighters don't have a set of rules. Such fighters often have no compunction in killing children, other Muslims, old people and the disabled. They have no moral compass when it comes to killing people in churches, hospitals or schools. Do I need to continue or are you getting the picture?

 

 

 

If you really want to comment on modern Islamic issues without looking foolish, I recommend a book entitled, "The Trouble With Islam" and maybe ask someone educated to translate the following: "La France est une République indivisible, laïque, ...et sociale" and then ask them to explain what the word 'secular' actually means!

 

 

* This includes Christian veils and is intended to include the wearing of ALL religious symbols. If you're a Christopher Hitchens fan, you'll understand that why he felt this should apply to ALL western societies.

** The interpretation of 'public places' remains a loose term, but currently includes all government property and places of education.

 

 

 

 

But you spoke of the hijab, no mention of a veil in your post, nor were the women wearing veils, I suggest you watch the video rather than going by your sensationalized newspaper reports, the women were wearing scarves not veils and thus no law was broken, despite your initial claim that this too was against the law in France. 

 

I fully understand what a secular country means, it means that the state has no religious affiliation or bias, nothing about preventing a woman from covering herself or denying people access due to religious garments, hence why the French law that bans veils also bans all other facial coverings such as helmets, as otherwise the ban would be illegal in secular France.

 

It is not me who has made a fool of myself, you have come one here claiming to be a French living Muslim yet misunderstood the ban on facial covering to include hair covering and ask people to read your tripe newspaper to get the full picture when all they have done is watch the very video that we can watch to make our own minds up about what happened, you are coming across as a very silly person.

 

No I am not a fan of Christopher Hitchens or any other angry little bigots from the Daily Mail, thanks.

[Shawn0000]

28 minutes ago, Seraphina said:

 

Your understanding of the story was WRONG and highly presumptious. Try reading the original story instead of reading your own agenda into passed down information.

 

You can copy and paste the French into Google Translate if you don't read French! It's not that difficult.

 

Try watching the video instead of reading your own agenda into passed down information from your newspaper.

[car720]

3 hours ago, Seraphina said:

 

Your understanding of the story was WRONG and highly presumptious. Try reading the original story instead of reading your own agenda into passed down information.

 

You can copy and paste the French into Google Translate if you don't read French! It's not that difficult.

 

More vitriol.  Is that the best you've got?

[7by7]

5 hours ago, Shawn0000 said:

6 hours ago, Seraphina said:

 

Your understanding of the story was WRONG and highly presumptious. Try reading the original story instead of reading your own agenda into passed down information.

 

You can copy and paste the French into Google Translate if you don't read French! It's not that difficult.

Try watching the video instead of reading your own agenda into passed down information from your newspaper.

 

Here is the video (again), with English subtitles.

 

If the subtitles do not correctly translate what is being said, no doubt you, Seraphina, can correct them for us!

 

 

Notice that the woman we can see does not have her face covered. I think it's safe to assume that her companion's face isn't covered either; because that would be illegal.

 

I find it very strange that someone who says she is a French Muslim doesn't know the difference between a hijab, which it is not illegal to wear in public in France, and a niqab or burka, both of which are illegal to wear in public in France.

 

 

 

[tomacht8]

It is my business.
If any guests spoil the mood, I close them out.
Whether these are any drunk, or want to repurpose my place of joy to a political event.
It's my house and I determine who enters through my door will be granted.

[simple1]

4 hours ago, tomacht8 said:

It is my business.
If any guests spoil the mood, I close them out.
Whether these are any drunk, or want to repurpose my place of joy to a political event.
It's my house and I determine who enters through my door will be granted.

 

 

 

Incorrect, it's the legislators who enact law and enforce, not you. Your personal comments, as well as echoing rhetoric of the right wing, equate to vigilante activity which again and again had proven to be contrary to national security & harmony in society.

 

[7by7]

I wonder how many of those who are supporting this restaurateur's actions and his 'right' to refuse service on grounds of religion would be doing so if the women had been orthodox Jews dressed like this

Edited September 3, 2016 by 7by7

[MissAndry]

I prefer not to occupy the same premises as the blatantly insane.

Subscribe to any nutty ideas you like, but not in my face please.

[thaibeachlovers]

5 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

I wonder how many of those who are supporting this restaurateur's actions and his 'right' to refuse service on grounds of religion would be doing so if the women had been orthodox Jews dressed like this

I don't see anything to say that she is a religious person- she doesn't have a big sign on her. I wouldn't look twice if I passed her in the street. The point of this whole thread is that they were obviously Muslim.

Regardless, I support the right of any owner of a business to say who allowed on their premises and should not have to justify it. I say who can, or can not come in my house- same same.

[7by7]

 

Not a lot of difference between what she is wearing and a Muslim woman in a hijab. Indeed, some people may mistake her for a Muslim woman in a hijab!

 

You do, of course, have a perfect right to admit or deny entry to your home to anyone for any reason; except the police with a warrant.

 

But in most civilised countries business owners do not have the right to refuse service based on race, nationality, religion, gender, sexual preference, disability etc.

 

 

Edited September 3, 2016 by 7by7
Removed referances to pictures which didn't appear in final post

[Chicog]

6 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I don't see anything to say that she is a religious person- she doesn't have a big sign on her. I wouldn't look twice if I passed her in the street. The point of this whole thread is that they were obviously Muslim.

Regardless, I support the right of any owner of a business to say who allowed on their premises and should not have to justify it. I say who can, or can not come in my house- same same.

 

You can support what you like, but in the civilised world, practising irrational bigotry in a business that is open to the public is against the law.

 

So you can sod off over the road to McDonalds and whinge and whine about the bad muslims from there.

 

 

[7by7]

17 minutes ago, MissAndry said:

I prefer not to occupy the same premises as the blatantly insane.

Subscribe to any nutty ideas you like, but not in my face please.

 

Your right to eat where you like; a right these women share and wished to exercise.

 

 

[thaibeachlovers]

3 minutes ago, Chicog said:

 

You can support what you like, but in the civilised world, practising irrational bigotry in a business that is open to the public is against the law.

 

So you can sod off over the road to McDonalds and whinge and whine about the bad muslims from there.

 

 

Which is why I said they shouldn't have to give a reason.

[7by7]

6 minutes ago, Chicog said:

 

You can support what you like, but in the civilised world, practising irrational bigotry in a business that is open to the public is against the law.

 

So you can sod off over the road to McDonalds and whinge and whine about the bad muslims from there.

 

 

 

Problem for him is, he'd find Muslims either working, eating or both in most McDonalds!

 

He's going to need to find a place that only serves pork.

[thaibeachlovers]

1 minute ago, 7by7 said:

 

Your right to eat where you like; a right these women share and wished to exercise.

 

 

They had every right to eat there if they took the uniform off. In that case, no one would have objected. No requirement in Islam that they had to wear it anyway.

[MissAndry]

5 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

 

Your right to eat where you like; a right these women share and wished to exercise.

 

 

 

You could make the same argument for smokers ...............

When someone else's bad (or extreme) behaviour impinges on me, their 'rights' need to be curtailed. This is what civilization is all about.

 

How about if they wanted to wear Nazi Uniforms ...... bet you'd be telling a different story then!

Edited September 3, 2016 by MissAndry

[7by7]

2 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

They had every right to eat there if they took the uniform off. In that case, no one would have objected. No requirement in Islam that they had to wear it anyway.

Wrong; they had every right to eat there, period; unless they were drunk, abusive or similar.

 

Correct, the hijab is not a requirement of Islam and many Muslim women don't wear one.

 

Would you be saying the same, though, about a Jewish man who was refused service because he was wearing a yarmulke or a Sikh man because he was wearing a turban? Neither of those are strict requirements of their religion.

 

2 minutes ago, MissAndry said:

 

You could make the same argument for smokers ...............

When someone else's bad (or extreme) behaviour impinges on me, their 'rights' need to be curtailed. This is what civilization is all about.

 

I am a smoker, but I agree with the smoking ban in bars, restaurants etc. My second hand smoke has been proven to be hazardous to the health of others.

 

Others wearing religious forms of dress or symbols only impinges upon your narrow minded prejudices; not your health. If you find it offensive, don't look at them.

[thaibeachlovers]

1 hour ago, 7by7 said:

Wrong; they had every right to eat there, period; unless they were drunk, abusive or similar.

 

Correct, the hijab is not a requirement of Islam and many Muslim women don't wear one.

 

Would you be saying the same, though, about a Jewish man who was refused service because he was wearing a yarmulke or a Sikh man because he was wearing a turban? Neither of those are strict requirements of their religion.

 

 

I am a smoker, but I agree with the smoking ban in bars, restaurants etc. My second hand smoke has been proven to be hazardous to the health of others.

 

Others wearing religious forms of dress or symbols only impinges upon your narrow minded prejudices; not your health. If you find it offensive, don't look at them.

I am opposed to ALL religions that require people to wear uniforms, whether it's the preachers wearing silly hats, or the congregation having to wear any particulat item of dress or a particular hair style. They should all be banned.

God only cares as to what is in a persons heart.

[Shawn0000]

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I don't see anything to say that she is a religious person- she doesn't have a big sign on her. I wouldn't look twice if I passed her in the street. The point of this whole thread is that they were obviously Muslim.

Regardless, I support the right of any owner of a business to say who allowed on their premises and should not have to justify it. I say who can, or can not come in my house- same same.

 

Have you seen how the woman was dressed in the video?  Pretty similar attire. Your lack of knowledge of Jewish head scarves doesn't make those Muslim women more obviously Muslim than the picture being obviously of a Jewish woman, it just demonstrates your ignorance.