Burka ban passed

[Quillan]

[quote user="breizh"]

I have a very sick feeling in my stomach when the issues like this arise. Politicians playing games for votes? Sarko needs any vote he can get from Ms Le Pen. Meanwhile there are reckoned to be somewhere between 6-10 million muslims in France, roughly 7-8 times more than any other European country.

The law of Unintended Consequences comes into play here. Effectively people are being forced to chose between their loyalty to the State, and their loyalty to their religion. A choice forced on them by the State. Seems to me the perfect way of Radicalising those millions of Algerians, Tunisians, Morrocans, etc in the HLMs. I'm actually a bit scared. Anyone want to guess what is going to happen this summer?

There is no "When in Rome, in this case". France is secular state, not Catholique, not christian. The State owns and maintains the buildings used by Catholiques, Protestants and Jews for worship, paid for by taxes provided in part by Muslims. Anyone spot the problem.

I would have thought, France particualarly, would be very, very cautious about picking on any religious group. History, is not very favourable to them, even during the 20th century.

Maybe, I'm younger than the age group that populates this forum (late 30s), but I don't see a Burqa. I notice it, in the same way as a notice a girl in a short skirt, but in the same way, I've forgotten it 10 seconds later. It's just not an issue for me.  

[/quote]

Yes Sarko is using the the new law in part to try and steal votes from Ms Le Pen but the religious effect of the law is only minor and incidental and not what the law really is for which I have already explained. It's the media which is driving this Burka ban thing and in particular the UK media where it is also being used by the ultra right to stir things up. Don't forget that officially there are only something like 2,000 women in France that this effects although personally I believe its probably around 10,000 but still that's an extremely low percentage of the population. How does it radicalise so many Muslims when only, using yours and my figures of the Muslim population (the 10M and 10,000 just to be safe) the number equates to 0.1% of the Muslim population that currently wear a Burka (that's 0.015% of the total population of France).

The State does not own the builds used by the  "Catholics, Protestants, and Jews for worship, paid for by taxes provided in part by Muslims", it owns a few of the Cathedrals that are of 'historic importance' places like Notre Dame de Paris, Chartres Cathedral, Reims Cathedral, and Basilique du Sacre-Coeur, Eglise de la Madeleine, and Amiens Cathedral. The rest are owned by the Catholic Church.

France is not picking on any religious group it has simply implemented a law which bans the covering of ones face in a public place. The fact that this also just happens to effect a small group of women who wish to wear a Burka is a coincidence but then you can't have one law for the majority but another for a very small minority. The second law that was passed is about families, including husbands, inciting by force others to do something illegal. Again it just so happens that this also means a husband cannot force his wife to wear a Burka in public. Now judging by the women who have protested it seems to me that out of those women that do wear the Burka some do so voluntarily and are not forced or coerced by their husbands or families.

I personally don't have a problem with either law as they stand. I don't agree with anyone covering their faces (although there are a few of the most ugly people around who by putting a brown paper bag over their heads would do us all a favour). I also don't agree with anyone being told what to do and I would have thought that with regards to the second law most feminists would actually approve, a husband (or other family member) does not have the right to tell another what to do once they are an adult. The second law also makes forced marriages even more illegal in France (which brings it in line with EU law) and that has to be a good thing. What I do have a problem with is people twisting these laws to fit their own agenda be they politicians or individuals.

[idun]

Our village 'owned' the church. The maintenance of the church was done by the municipality.  I don't know how this works in France, but I just know how it was where I used to live. If the catholic church had owned it, they it should have been they who paid. I know for a fact that they bled the locals as much as they could, not that long ago. My friend, as a girl went to Rome to hand cash collected from three local villages into the Popes hand. She said that there were thousands of them there, all girls, all handing over cash.

I find it hard to imagine that  'men' could really understand the implications of being expected to wear a sack from head to toe, the bottom of the sack being on the head. If the looneys took over, 'man' wouldn't be expected to wear such a thing.

Men, you can have views on this. And I know some very good men incidentally, but I actually don't really care that much about how 'men' see this. If push came to shove, your lives wouldn't be as affected as 'woman's' would.

Simply, how women are treat and are expected to live is  how I see the world. I don't want women to rule the world or anything like that, just to be treat as respectfully and decently as any man would expect to be treated.

 

ps And how is that for a lot of bad grammer and I actually don't know how to correct it. Please don't, I'll not remember for next time; too old a bird to learn such fundamental new tricks.

[Quillan]

One area where I totally agree with you on is equality be it age, sex, religion, colour or whatever. I have no time for anyone who discriminates on any of these issues.

At the end of the day I don't care really what anyone wears as long as its not offencive and breaks no law. Women have been wearing a sack that covers them from neck to toe for years depending on the fashion and they were not oppressed when it was called fashion. What I think you really object to is the 'sack' that covers the head as well which may be actually racist because only (possibly) a particular race wears this which as well as being a religious thing is also a cultural form of dress. Should we also ban men who wear a 'dress' from doing so (who was that Greek singer years ago)? Some Scottish men, as a parallel, wear a kilt from time, its not religious, its a cultural thing, it's part of their identity of being Scottish. As I said I am not to keen on men in kilts although personally I wouldn't really ban them. Likewise I wouldn't like to wear a 'dress' that goes from head to food although having visited Egypt I can see the point when your there. It gives a lot of protection from the sun (and thus skin cancer) and keeps you cool. Strange how this skin cancer thing has come more to a head over the last 10 or more years, seems the Muslims that lived in the Middle East and North Africa knew about this a long time before we did hence their dress. One of our (English) heroes used to wear one, Laurence of Arabia. Likewise should we ban those Christian Priests and Vicars that wear a 'dress' as a form of religious identity? Where do you stop?

If a woman wants to wear a 'sack' from head to foot as long as they change it to neck to foot whe in public and they are not being forced to wear it I don't really have a problem. Yes it makes them stand out but then so would a 80 year old woman wearing a mini skirt half way up her backside. Whilst in my mind it would look repulsive (in many cases) if I went up to her and told her I didn't like it and go and change I bet I would get a right tongue lashing. [;-)]

What we often see today, as a perceived religious way to dress or do something, is often based on protecting us yet enforced by the threat that if we did something, ate something we would offend our God. Muslims and Jews come from roughly the same part of the world. Neither of them eat pork because its against their religion. The reason for not eating pork was really because pigs are scavengers and will eat anything including the raw sewage from outside the city walls. In olden times people needed to be protected from eating pork because of the diseases they might carry. What better way to stop people from eating the pork than to tell them that the all seeing eye of God will spot them and punish them, its designed to scare them and thus protect them. In a modern, western world, where pork is bred and kept in very good controlled conditions they don't have the ability to pass on nasty diseases to us so there is nothing really wrong with eating pork yet the same religious rules apply and its banned for Muslims and Jews, the logic has been lost in the mists of time. Muslim men used to wear a turban that would be used also to protect them from the sun and sand. Too ensure they were protected God/religion was used again to enforce them to wear this clothing, the same in many ways as the Muslim women and the Burka. Over the years this has all become more of a religious thing than a protection thing and people loose sight of the real reason for them.

[Judith]

Idun,

I so agree with all you say.  It took even longer for women in the UK to get similar rights - I remember that when I first married in 1972, I had to get my husband's permission to take out any hire purchase agreement and such similar things.  It was only when the sex discrimination act was passed that women got all the rights we now take for granted ....and I do feel that the world is going backwards. 

To me the wearing of the burqa, whether by choice or force, is one such retrogragde step.

[chessie]

@ Quillan -

What an excellent thoughtful post.   

Your ref to skin cancer - yes of course the 'black sack' would be protection - but in the desert.     In the darker climes of the UK it's now been discovered that young Muslim girls are starting to suffer from lack of vitamin D leading to rickets - simply because they are not getting enough sunshine.    All the 'scare' about skin-cancer has even led to UK children being smothered with High Factor sun lotion - and they are also suffering early stage rickets !!!

Please - do not confuse wearing the burka with religion - it is not, it is not mentioned in the Koran - it's use has become distorted - it is NOT a religious necessity.

Your point about pork is also an excellent one.

What really needs to happen for the Islamic faith is for them to have a 'Reformation'.   I feel that their religion has not moved with the times;  with discoveries in the fields of science, astronomy, health, medical and food - the Christian religions have altered to absorb these new discoveries.    But Islam seems to be stuck in the Dark Ages of the 5th and 6th century;   that is a cause of conflict;  it is something that really should be addressed by Islamic leaders - and it does not seem to be.     So we have a situation whereby the followers of Islam want to adhere to a life governed by rules from the 5th and 6th century - and yet they are now living in the 21st century;  this is what's causing a problem for everyone.

Halal meat - even the vets hate this method of slaughter.    There are no religious grounds for this - it belongs in the Dark Ages.    We have banned this in the UK on grounds of animal compassion.   But we have a Dark Age religion which refuses to accept progress in this field.  

Eating of pork - your comments about pork being regarded as 'unclean' are spot-on.    Again, improvements in animal care and feed have moved on;   but again Islam is still stuck in the Dark Ages.

As for Female Genital Mutilation - again this is Dark Ages stuff and again is supposedly to be for the 'benefit' of men - dear God Almighty - inflicting pain, distress, torture and life-time health problems on religious grounds.    What the b-----y hell is all that about.

Islam really does need to address these problems;  until this happens we in the West are faced with an 'alien' set of beliefs that are in conflict with our Western society.    But just try telling anyone of the Islamic faith that it is they who need to move into the 21st century - oh boy are you in trouble.

Chessie

[Clarkkent]

[quote user="chessie"]

As for Female Genital Mutilation - again this is Dark Ages stuff and again is supposedly to be for the 'benefit' of men - dear God Almighty - inflicting pain, distress, torture and life-time health problems on religious grounds.    What the b-----y hell is all that about.


Chessie
[/quote]

You may find this of interest:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7731348

It is the abstract to an academic paper writter by a muslim lawyer.

As to the original subject, like many I feel that the legislation is ill thought out and heavy handed, and well contribute to the effective imprisonment of women by bullying husbands.

[Hoddy]

you are right about rickets Chessie. This lack of vitamin D affected all sections of immigrants from the Indian subcontinents until some of them changed their eating and dress habits.

Cousin marriage continues unabated and cause widespread misery.

As for halal meat being banned in the UK - how I wish it was. It is widely used in schools, hospitals and other public eating places in the UK. I have stopped eating New Zealand lamb because I know that most of it is halal.

Sadly, female genital mutilation is carried out in both moslem and christian communities in a particular area and so doesn't seem to have an even tenuous link to religion.

Hoddy

[Quillan]

This is a great thread, its opening up in to quite a good debate.

With regards to male and female circumcision. There is no medical or logical reason why this should be performed on a woman, it serves no purpose what so ever and in this day and age should be banned outright in the whole of the world. Male circumcision is a different matter and I will try and explain the logical and health reasons behind it.

The first reason why this was practiced particularly in North Africa and the Middle East was for health reasons. People didn't always have access to enough water to wash properly, for thousands of years water in some of these regions was worth more than gold (metaphorically speaking). It is, as most women should know, almost impossible to pull back the foreskin of a baby to wash the penis and when very young any attempt will cause great pain to the baby. Without washing regularly under the foreskin quite nasty bacteria can grow which can transfer not only to other parts of the same persons body but when they are mature and have sex to the partner as well. Again with people at that time being illiterate and not educated it is simpler to say God tells us to circumcise and if you don't then he will punish you. Thus it gets embedded in to your particular religious culture.

Surprisingly 80% of American men are circumcised. The percentage of American male babies per year used to be 90% but has now dropped to around 60%. (Source) Very little of the circumcisions are carried out on religious grounds. Interestingly enough Muslim and Jewish women suffer less, as a percentage, from cervical cancer which has been linked quite firmly to their 'same religion' partners being circumcised. Further, from the same website, it is said that the highest proportion of male circumcisions in the UK have been carried out amongst public school boys, why, I don't know, it does not give a reason and I can't think of one. I suppose if I was ultra right wing I could accuse them of all being Jewish because only Jews can afford to send their children to public schools although somehow I doubt it to be true. That got me to wondering if all the male Tory MP's and most of the Labour ones these days are circumcised? [;-)]

Muslim Scientists, well there have been loads over thousands of year and they have contributed a lot to past and present society, you can find a list HERE, I have tried to not pick a religiously biased website for this list but there is more detail of exactly what they contributed on some of the more non extremist Muslim websites. It was probably their thinking way back when that helped create some of the Muslim 'custom's' that we see today enforced by religion when all they really wanted to do is protect people. If you think about it then it's no different to the Catholic Church in that the only people who were able to read and write were the religious leaders and that is how much of this got disseminated amongst the ordinary people. Like many things these practices were started off as good intentions to help prevent disease and/or accidents but as said things have moved on, we are better educated, more enlightened and probably most importantly we communicate a billion times better than we ever did. My point being is that for one 'group' of Muslims they were hardly living in the dark ages.

So yes, like the clothing and many other things some of these old practices need 'upgrading' and bought in line. Going back to circumcision for a second we have antibiotics and other drugs that can deal with most problems possibly encountered by men who are not circumcised. Likewise there is no need to protect yourself from fierce sunlight when you visit western countries because we know the sun sits higher and there is less harmful ultra violet radiation than down in the deserts. These things have been ingrained in to us, I mean if we visit Egypt or somewhere like that we would be far better off dressing the way the locals do to protect ourselves but we don't. We walk around in western dress, beach wear almost and then get badly sunburned but again for us this is almost bred in to us and that's what we wear. The locals probably think we are stupid, they probably see us like that and say to each other "they will be burnt to a crisp in a couple of days, idiots". When we visit a Mosque or some other buildings we are told to cover ourselves a certain way out of respect and we do so to tell a Muslim woman not to wear a Burka is to tell her that in this country we have this law and we ask you to respect it.

I am Jewish by birth, I am not practicing although I believe in God (to a degree) and I love a bacon sandwich with loads of Worcestershire Sauce on it just as much as I love gnoring away at a nice big juicy pork chop to get the last bit of meat. I don't personally think that if there is a heaven and that when I die the gate will be closed to me just because I eat pork. I know pork is very safe to eat these days because the butcher tells me so. [:D] The thing is a lot of these things are not in religious books, they are simply an interpretation that has been made. The Koran tells Muslims to live side by side in peace with other faiths and/or religions just like the bible tells us to turn the other cheek. The thing is some cleaver 'Richard' comes along and twists something else they find in the same book to mean the opposite to justify their own ends like the bible also says and eye for an eye so if somebody upsets you you can beat the sh*t out of them because the bible says it's OK. When we have gone to war in Europe soldiers pray to God, the army chaplain tells us it's Gods will to kill the other nasty chap yet we are all using the same book, the bible, crazy. When you think about it us humans are quite sad really and not so cleaver as we would like to think we are.

[sunny]

This burkha ban by the French govt, the crazy tea party stuff in the US, all designed to turn us against each other, quibbling about our neighbours, instead of focusing on the real villains amongst us...

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-real-housewives-of-wall-street-look-whos-cashing-in-on-the-bailout-20110411?page=1

[idun]

I don't believe that it is designed to turn us against each other at all and has nothing to compare it with the tea party.

Sometimes bad things need to be stopped and in the here and now in the west, where women fought hard for their rights, dark age practices that are proscribed looks like the right thing to do to me. 

[Frenchie]

...and to me ....

 

[Quillan]

Dark age practices! Well we still practice the most horrific of all dark age practices in the world right here right now and women's clothing is nothing in comparison to the evilness of it. It affects million up millions of people across whole continents and its sexist of the highest order and women are excluded from the decision making at the highest levels. After that we have racism, probably one of the most vile crimes in modern society and also a world wide disease which we still have not cured.

As far as the women are concerned, well it's OK you getting up on your high horse claiming your not racist but it is simply a campaign to 'free' these women from wearing a dress you don't like. What I would like to know is of those that say this have they actually stopped a woman wearing this form of dress and asked them their opinion first hand or are their comments based on what they have read in some tabloid paper or are they simply racist?

[idun]

Have you realised what you have said. Call it a high horse, call it what you want, but women have to speak out. And has has been said, reformation sounds like it would be an improvement to me, cannot see it happening though.

It is all interlinked, certainly where women are concerned it is. I see a picture of how over half the world's population should be and  it disgusts me completely that 'woman' is still, as I said earlier, 2nd, 3rd class or even lower than animals where she lives in so much of the world. Never mind having a general partnership in life with 'men', or even authority in their communities.

If you think I am so petty, that I just don't like what 'she's wearing', well shallow, I am not. Somethings are symbolic and I cannot think of a better illustration of how 'woman' is soumis than to 'erase' her metaphorically as she goes about her daily business. So yes, the outward symbol of oppression is appearance.

Personally I am not even sure what racism is. A word that is bandied around in a PC world. I have never judged anyne by their race or colour. And I don't read right wing news papers. I did live in France a long time and maybe my views are coloured by living in France? (I only ever browsed the local rag in France).

The creed bit is religion ? and I have a great problem with all religions, I fear them all, not as what they can say in the bibles themselves, but how some followers 'intrpret' them, or say nothing when bad things happen. I have quite a few good friends who are practicing catholics, and when the child abuse scandal rose it's ugly head and went on for years, they would not talk about it, or would imply that it affected so few that it was not important. My thoughts on those comments are for another day.

 

[Hoddy]

Quillan I wonder if you have any idea how depressing it is to see a photocall of some major meeting where the some important part of the future of the world is being discussed and that it consists almost entirely of men in grey suits ?

As to the racist thing, I spent my working life in a multi-ethnic/racial environment so I think I know racism (which is sometimes linked to sexism) when I see it. I've been on the reeceiving end. I remember, in particular, a man who refused to answer when I spoke, but was perfectly happy to address his remarks to my, much younger and inexperienced, male assistant.

How does, "They think because she blond she's a slag", sound to you ? To me as a blond myself and the mother of another one it was pretty offensive. I just want to make the point that racism is not all one way.

I hardly dare start on religion.

Hoddy

[Théière]

[quote user="Hoddy"] I hardly dare start on religion. Hoddy[/quote]

Are their ANY blondes in the Bible, Quran or Torah? [;-)]

[Quillan]

Hoddy, actually I could not agree more with much of what you have said. My comment about the 'dark age' that we still live in is about war, started by men and run by men at the exclusion of women which is a shame because personally I think that if it were left to women there would be a lot more sitting round a table and trying to sort things out rather than just shooting at each other which is what men do. The amount of lives saved would be huge. Personally I think if women were involved in wars there would be a lot less of them and the world may be a safer place.

As too 2nd and 3rd world countries well we only have what we know and live in to compare with others. Who really is to say that one is better than another? Look at us in 'the west' we have so much of this and that yet the majority is quite happy to sit while in another part of the world young children suffer the most horrendous disabilities and worse like die (like loss of eyesight, malnutrition etc) while we have the some of the highest obesity levels and the cost of the drugs to cure things like the loss of eyesight cost peanuts yet we do so little. Think of all the money that could be saved if men got ride of the macho, primitive and dark age views on fighting wars and spent the money on people who really need help. So in many ways we are just as backward as anyone else. All the religions recognise the sanctity of life yet the human race still refuses to protect it all over the world.

What people wear also identifies them as an ethnic group so to pick on the way a person dresses is actually racist. My point is that France has instituted a law, rightfully or wrongly, that you can't cover your face in public. From that we somehow, almost by accident because the law not aimed at a particular group, we got to some people thinking its a good idea because it makes Muslim women stop wearing a Burka and forces them to integrate which is utter tosh because it doesn't and to other groups who believe that way a woman dresses can be an affront to women's rights and equality. My previous comments about women in mini skirts etc was made tongue in cheek but one could argue (from a mans point of view) that women should look like women and that they should all wear 'girly' feminine cloths and therefore ban trousers. It's all what is in individual eyes what people should wear and in the west we are used to dressing a certain way. Just because another person dresses a different way does not make them any more or less feminine and does not always indicate that the person is oppressed. I can't think of her blinking name but there is a lady who is something to do with UK child poverty who always wears bright African type cloths and a 'tuban', she talks a lot of sense, I don't like her dress, but she does a lot of good and I would hardly call her oppressed yet you never see her in 'western' cloths.

Actually the Koran does say that women are equal which gets again to the point about interpretation because obviously some Muslims don't see it this way but then for over a thousand years neither did Christian's yet the bible tells us we are all equal. This is one of the many reasons I have always had a problem with religion in general.

As to France well I cannot agree more about French men's attitudes towards women and its still rife. I have to go to the doctors and even hospital with Mrs 'Q' because of male attitude towards women. The reason is that they won't speak to her, they only speak to me. Every time I go with Mrs 'Q' they turn to ME and ask whats wrong and I tell them to ask her then they tell ME what the diagnosis is and I have to tell them to tell HER. It gets right up her and my nose I can tell you. Also have a daughter of mixed race I notice only too well the racism in France far more than I have ever experienced in the UK. One French couple with whom we got on very well with would not talk to us after I introduced my daughter. When it comes to tolerance of race France is back in the dark ages.

[Théière]

[quote user="Quillan"]

Hoddy, actually I could not agree more with much of what you have said. My comment about the 'dark age' that we still live in is about war, started by men and run by men at the exclusion of women which is a shame because personally I think that if it were left to women there would be a lot more sitting round a table and trying to sort things out rather than just shooting at each other which is what men do. The amount of lives saved would be huge. Personally I think if women were involved in wars there would be a lot less of them and the world may be a safer place.

[/quote]

Have you not been to the January sales?

I'll leave you to your debate

[Quillan]

[quote user="Théière"][quote user="Quillan"]

Hoddy, actually I could not agree more with much of what you have said. My comment about the 'dark age' that we still live in is about war, started by men and run by men at the exclusion of women which is a shame because personally I think that if it were left to women there would be a lot more sitting round a table and trying to sort things out rather than just shooting at each other which is what men do. The amount of lives saved would be huge. Personally I think if women were involved in wars there would be a lot less of them and the world may be a safer place.

[/quote]

Have you not been to the January sales?

I'll leave you to your debate

[/quote]

Ah yes, I forgot about that, perhaps not such a good idea. [;-)]

[idun]

Ah well done, now you think I'm racist, because I want women free and liberated and have full choices over their lives.

Where does one start with this. Change has to start somewhere and this feels like as good a starting point as any.

Any powerful men out there on the planet with suffisamment de couilles to get real change done and encourage all men to behave themselves and start acting like decent human beings? Just musing, I know there isn't.

                                                                              ------------------

We used to go to college when we were having problems with son. I would talk to the Head and he would look at my husband and then talk to him. Been there done that and that is without wearing a tent.

AND you don't touch baby boys foreskins. They are not meant to be touched until a boy is old enough to pull it back and clean it themselves. Kellogg encouraged male circumcision in America as he thought it would stop masturbation, much rot is spoken about the whole thing.  

[just john]

[quote user="Quillan"] My comment about the 'dark age' that we still live in is about war, I think if women were involved in wars there would be a lot less of them and the world may be a safer place. [/quote]

Boadicea, The Amazons, Joan of Arc, Margaret of Anjou, Margaret of Thatcher,  immediately spring to mind.[:D]

[Bugsy]

[IMG]http://i129.photobucket.com/albums/p211/Bugbear2/smile.jpg[/IMG]

"Oh, come on, I said SMILE"

.

[mint]

Bugs, I saw a similar picture and the caption was something like:  Is your wife the second from the right? (sic)

[powerdesal]

The Burkha is NOT a religious garment, its NOT a requirement of the Koran.

Its a statement.

Its 'thumbing a nose' at Western, predominantly Christian based, society.

It has no place in Europe either culturally, in religious terms, as a practical clothing item or in any other form, other than being worn by a visiting tourist from the Middle east.

Strictly speaking it has no practical use in the modern Middle east countries either. As a desert dwelling bedu it may have benefit, but not in black, as the best (coolest) colour for the desert heat is white, as worn by the arab men.

Its an anachronism that should be dispensed with being as modern and practical as chain mail.

[Frenchie]

My argument may be simplistic but I do think it is absolutely necessary to be able to identify a person from his/her face in public spaces.  . For me it is above all a matter of safety.

What if everybody wore a balaclava ?

 

[Bugsy]

[quote user="Frenchie"]

My argument may be simplistic but I do think it is absolutely necessary to be able to identify a person from his/her face in public spaces.  . For me it is above all a matter of safety.

What if everybody wore a balaclava ?

[/quote]

I quite agree Reg.

[IMG]http://i129.photobucket.com/albums/p211/Bugbear2/SummmerFun.jpg[/IMG]

[:P][:D][kiss]

.