RSS

Fri, Jan 29th 2010, 03:00

Marie-Claude Corneauster, self-employed, Gold Contributor (125)

"People must be free to make these decisions for themselves, not have them imposed by governments or enforced by the police."

what do NewYorkers know about our republican values ?

[“The face is the soul of the body”-Ludwig Wittgenstein.

No one can argue against the fact: that being able to recognise one another is an essential requirement to our humanity and co-existence. The human face is the main medium for social interaction. Facial expressions go far beyond the spoken word. Consider the power of a smile in our social interactions! It is the lack of responsiveness, which makes normal communication virtually impossible.

More much more than its negative social effects, consequences for the health and well being of the individual, it is what it burqa/niqab actually symbolizes and stands for. Namely: the attitude of political Islam towards women, which are in any event,incompatible with the principles of democracy. Suffice it to say, that according to the Islamists if women are not covered from head to toe in a shapeless, sack, they are sluts throwing themselves open to the sexual predators. According to this logic, men in general are so undisciplined their behaviour is determined by instinct as opposed intellect. Intellect: that human attribute which distinguishes, man from the lower animal driven only by their instincts! Pathetic!

The burqa/niqab is a dehumanizing garb, a symbol of political Islam and the subjugation of women. Ban it along with all other racist, misogynist and sexist symbols hidden away under the banner of a so called religion! Freedoms are not absolute!"]

http://www.ledevoir.com/international/actualites-internationales/28...

just that we don't want to become like Canada where Muslims get specific rights

les groupes musulmans radicaux et intégristes instrumentalisent les systèmes juridiques très favorables aux libertés et protecteurs des droits fondamentaux des individus pour obtenir la consécration de droits spécifiquement applicables aux habitants de confession ou d'origine musulmanes».

Fri, Jan 29th 2010, 10:53

Juliette Dixon, Science Po Lille, Gold Contributor (118)

Thank you Marie-Claude for this interesting article from Le Devoir.

What do you respond to the New York Times' point that this piece of legislation is meant to address some 2000 persons in France. These 2000 women must be already quite isolated. Don't you think this will isolate them even more, by not allowing them to have any social interactions anymore? For they will not change their minds when the law finally passes, and quit wearing the niqab, they are likely to simply stop going to public places. This is where the real social exclusion starts.

Fri, Jan 29th 2010, 19:51

Marie-Claude Corneauster, self-employed, Gold Contributor (125)

"The Taliban Would Applaud

It is easy to see that a woman’s human rights are violated when a government requires her to wrap her body and face in an all-concealing veil, as the Taliban used to do when it ran Afghanistan. It should be just as easy to see the violation when a French parliamentary panel recommends, as it did this week, barring women who wear such veils — the burqa and the niqab — from using public services, including schools, hospitals and public transportation. (Muslim head scarves have been banned from public school classrooms since 2004.) "

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/27/opinion/27wed2.html?scp=3&sq=tali...

how would you interpret such an article ?

crass ignorance and or pro integrists

mind you, these 2000 women aren't isolated, they are supported by the pro-barbus, it's from where I picked the NYT article, that rejoiced them. Many of the kind of people operated on the net and have a Twitter account and blogs.

They practice a double language like Tarik Ramadan, with an appearance of smart and educated persons they infuse their insidious indoctrinment. Naturally their argument ar based on our "freedom" principles, (like in Canada) and they will grasp piece by piece our liberties spaces to impse their sharia rules.

Most of these women that wear burka are new converted national women, that make provocation and proselytism to get their case into court. If a court would give them reason for a specific lawsuit, then it is granted for the whole islamic community (I don't use muslim for these persons, but islamism)

Sat, Jan 30th 2010, 10:28

Marie-Claude Corneauster, self-employed, Gold Contributor (125)

until when will we have worst news ?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/spain/7094489/Imam...

that is the heart of the matter...sharia kills... even when it is not the law of the land

it's because fondamentalist Islam requires it & male Muslims will impose sharia death sentence.for these women who refuse to wear exterior signs of their religion

Tue, Feb 2nd 2010, 23:13

John Hadjisky, Blogger, Platinum Contributor (324)

Under the American system, an outright ban on the Burqa is impossible because it would interfere with the free practice of religion, and would constitute discrimination. We allow exceptions for practical reasons, such as photographs for identity cards, passports, etc. and also when presenting these documents people must show their faces for comparison. Possibly it could be banned in the workplace if the garmet or veil interfered with safety, but that would have to be justified for each situation. Teachers cannot wear the burqa in state-funded schools because it gets too close to implying a state preference for religion -- teachers are only permitted discrete symbols, and in some school districts, not even that. But walking down the street, in private schools, in public schools (for students), or in the workplace, I think it would be impossible to have a ban without a Constitutional amendment. The US government should take a laissez-faire approach to culture; the famous melting pot is a function of the private sphere, or possibly local governments, but certainly not a function of the state or federal government.

Having said that, the French and more generally the European systems are different. They respect religion and personal autonomy, but they generally have more a more centralized, proscriptive approach to culture. Culture is actively taught (or at least, regulated) by a central authority. It is more of a balancing test between two competing goods (free expression vs. harmony), rather than the American method of promoting a single good (free expression) with specific, practical exceptions.

Therefore, since I object quite strongly to the Burqa for all the reasons Marie-Claude has given, I support the French ban in a French or European context. Also I think the burqa ban could potentially be useful as part of a larger, Europe-wide initiative to encourage moderate Islam and discourage reactionary, Islamist practices.