Jump to content
Complete France Forum

Burqa ban under discussion


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 173
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

[quote user="Frenchie"]

To me it is all about the I visited many muslim countries, in some of them it was not allowed to wear shorts or to smoke, and on their land, I accepted their rules.

I am very attached to the values of the French Republic, and if we tolerate Burqas, then, what's next?

In my school, as in all schools in France, students respect the law, no veil, no crosses, no religious sign .

And I agree with that.

[/quote]

Absolutely right too Frenchie: and here is the core problem. Once citizens lose their national pride and allow it to be watered down and adulterated by whatever, then their culture and more critically, their society,  is finished.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="Swissie"] Make female circumcision (and male) totally illegal (unless medically required for males for a specific problem) - absolutely and no compromise.


[/quote]

So it's critical to respect Muslim's "Right" to wear veils and burqas: but not OK for Jews to carry on circumcising their male children?

Conclusion: Islam is to be respected: but Judeaism scorned?

Now that is really disingenuous!

Particularly so since the Burqa is a cultural thing: and male circumcision a core part of the Jewish faith!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it OK for some Christians to refuse medical treatment/surgery/transfusion for their children? Many in the medical profession have been fighting against the practice of circumcision of boys- which is required by both Islam and Judaism. It is a surgical procedure which is not without risks, anaesthsia (you hope in the West) and risk of infection- this very high in poorer countries, where Aids is prevalent. It does result in some boys being traumatised, both physically and psychologically - and some men to later suffer psychological problems and under or over sensitivity, resulting in sexual problems. In the third world it is often done in the most dreadful conditions.

But back to the issue - will a ban empower and free girls, or lock them out of education and the chance to become integrated. And does integration mean losing your roots and tradition. Is it possible to be totally and fully integrated, and yet different/

Back to the question of private (publically funded) Catholic schools in France under the Principle of Laicité?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="Swissie"]Is it OK for some Christians to refuse medical treatment/surgery/transfusion for their children? [/quote]

Here, you are I believe, referring to the Jehova's Witness movement, founded by Charles Taze Russell.

Most "Mainstream" Christians would not accept this group as "Christian": thus an isolated and inappropiate statement.

[quote]It is a surgical procedure which is not without risks, anaesthsia (you hope in the West) and risk of infection- this very high in poorer countries, where Aids is prevalent. It does result in some boys being traumatised, both physically and psychologically - and some men to later suffer psychological problems and under or over sensitivity, resulting in sexual problems. In the third world it is often done in the most dreadful conditions.

[/quote]

And here you go again: what on earth has AIDS and the Third World to do with the Burqa ban in France?

[quote]But back to the issue - will a ban empower and free girls, or lock them out of education and the chance to become integrated. And does integration mean losing your roots and tradition. Is it possible to be totally and fully integrated, and yet different/
[/quote]

Now why should such a ban "Lock anyone (sic) out of education?"

France is already a secular state: Muslim parents insisting children accord to a cultural custom which is in direct contradiction of French law is effectively anarchy: when one lives in a state it is a custom, hopefully, to obey the law.

You keep harping on about "Integration" and "Equality": yet, in your earlier example, your star pupil became a Social Worker amongst Asian people: that's not "Integration": that's the opposite.

Integration is when disparate cultures and customs meld: in the UK, for example, 90% of the total population are not Muslim and not Asian and are white.

Q E D: one might expect that minorities, over time, might blend and adjust their customs and practices to their host state. Clearly this is just not happening.

As a pragmatist and thus a realist, however, when I have in the past examined such as new York (Until recent times the most cosmopolitan place in the World}, it is clear how integration never happened: ethnically self-imposed segregation happened: which model makes a nonsense of the ideological fantasies of such as Hattersley. Which interestingly, he admitted on BBC TV last year.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

About equality:

there are 8300 Catholic schools in France

and 256 Jewish schools for a Jewish population of around 600.000

and 4 Islamic schools for a population of about 5 mio.

Most Muslims in France do not wear a burqua, do not wish to wear or to make wear, a burqua.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

National pride - a good measure of the performance of any countries/or districts education system.

As MLK might have said I judge/respect people by the content of their character not by the flag they attach to their ford Cortina.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="Gluestick"]

Here, you are I believe, referring to the Jehova's Witness movement, founded by Charles Taze Russell.[/quote]

It is misleading to say that Charles Taze Russell was the founder of the Jehovah's Witnesses.

(1) Russell was a non-sectarian who did not believe in such an authoritarian organization as the "Jehovah's Witnesses", and he preached against such an organization. No such authoritarian organization was associated with the Watch Tower in the days of Russell. Thus, it is misleading to say that he was the founder of something that he preached against.

http://ctr.reslight.net/category/founder-of-jws

(2) The Jehovah's Witnesses have rejected the core teaching for which Russell began printing the Watch Tower to defend, that is, the "ransom for all." This teaching was replaced with a teaching that basically says, "Join us, or you will be eternally destroyed." Again, it is misleading to attribute to Russell as founding teachings that he preached against.

http://ctr.reslight.net/category/ransom-sacrifice

(3) Russell never said anything against blood transfusions. The teaching came about after Russell died. Thus, again, it is misleading to associate Russell's name with the JW idea of forbidding blood transfusions.

http://jws.reslight.net/?p=24

The true founder of the Jehovah's Witnesses was Joseph Rutherford. After Russell died, Rutherford, by means of deceit and legal trickery, gained control of the legal entity, the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, and used that as an instrument to form his "new organization," and to present doctrines that would strengthen his power as the head of that organization. As best as I can determine, since teaching that Good News that Christ's ransom would be applied to every man, woman, child, baby, infant, etc., including Adam, would not be beneficial  to promote an organization that he desired to rule over, he rejected that teaching, and basically began to threaten "second death" upon any who disagreed with him, whether they had received justification by means of the ransom sacrifice or not.

By 1930, the majority of the earlier Bible Students movement had rejected Rutherford's "new organization" (WT, December 1, 1916, page 371), and were carrying on the their affairs apart from Rutherford's "new organization". Thus, in order to distinguish his new organization from the old Bible Students movement, in 1931 Rutherford adopted the name "Jehovah's Witnesses" for his organization.

Christian love,

Ronald Day

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we are not careful, we shall be sidetracked into a discussion about Jehovah's Witnesses.

For what it's worth, I see Russell (for whom membership of the masons does not appear to be properly substantiated) was a Lenin-like figure who was followed by Rutherford, a Stalin figure. Rutherford was a nasty, evil man and his re-creation is a parody of religion. I do not claim to be a Christian in anything other than cultural terms, but do see that the Watchtower displays few of the defining characteristics of Christianity.

However, JWs do not wear Burqas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is nothing stopping JW's wearing burqas and they do all dress rather somberly and always drive rather nice but secondhand cars. They have died to help bloodless surgery become more succesful which is quite useful. On the other hand the ........ have done absolutely nothing useful.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="Swissie"]About equality:

there are 8300 Catholic schools in France

and 256 Jewish schools for a Jewish population of around 600.000

and 4 Islamic schools for a population of about 5 mio.

Most Muslims in France do not wear a burqua, do not wish to wear or to make wear, a burqua.
[/quote]

Therefore, there is no demand for Islamic schools as the majority are quite happy to integrate into society !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="Swissie"]About equality:

there are 8300 Catholic schools in France

and 256 Jewish schools for a Jewish population of around 600.000

and 4 Islamic schools for a population of about 5 mio.

[/quote]

The corollary in this for me is that Jews and Catholics are far more interested in education than are Muslims..........

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The text I saw a couple of weeks ago, plainly stated that the covering of the face in public places was to be banned. No mention of specific items of clothing.

Putting my cynical head on. Is the nasty little drawf sneaking legislation through to prevent street demonstrations? No scarves, or crash helmets for the ados at the annual "throw bricks at the police" festivals? Is France sleep walking into the sort of regime the Grantham Milk Snatcher created? Bye-bye CGT?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gluestick, having taught in several inner city schools in the UK, I can categorically say that the Muslim students were very very keen to achieve and had very supportive parents, on the whole. More than I can say for some sections of the UK population, very sadly.

Wish they would ban black balaklava and sunglasses men roaming the countryside in Pembrokeshire just now! (but that is another story...)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One reason for more schools for jewish children than muslims ( and it's the same in UK too, I believe) is that jews are more interested in girls having a religious education than muslims. Jewish schools are usually single sex.

Also,muslim boys go to the mosque in the evenings for their religious tuition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Surely the primary point is that there is no islamic basis for the wearing of the burqa?  It is simply a tool of female oppression imposed by extreme and fundamental islamists.  The wearing of the hijab is an adequate form of head covering and this hasn't been banned.  As an aside, the subject of the French banning of the burqa came up in conversation a number of times when we travelling in Anatolia and, without exception, every muslim we spoke to lauded the French government for their stand.

Mrs R51

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Two good points made   a/ most Muslims do not wear a burqua or wish to wear one b/ the hijab or scarf is banned in schools, and has resulted in a lot of tension over the past decade, including some girls dropping out of school, and others being banned from entering the school wearing a scarf.  It's a very difficult one - and the UK and French situations are quite different, for all sorts of reason. The UK has never been a secular State, and the Queen is the head of the Anglican Church. Also 'our' Muslims are mainly from the Indian sub-Continent, whereas the French one are mainly from North Africa - and are culturally a very different group.

If the scarf/hijab had not been banned in schools about 10 years ago- causing much tension and discord - it would now be much easier and less confrontational, to ban the burqa.

Again, for me the main point is ' would banning improve relations with the Muslim community or inflame'? I am definitely NO friend of the Burqa, but I do feel the latter is more likely and it would be best to leave well alone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="Swissie"]
Again, for me the main point is ' would banning improve relations with the Muslim community or inflame'? I am definitely NO friend of the Burqa, but I do feel the latter is more likely and it would be best to leave well alone.
[/quote]

Whilst France has the largest Muslim community in Europe (I believe still) they are still a minority.

How can any minority expect to impose their sectarian wishes and demands upon the majority in any democracy?

And, as has been repeatedly stated in this thread, it's a cultural issue not a religious issue.

Now personally, if I were still a Secondary School Governor(Which thankfully I am not), I would ban girlies trying to report to school for their education, wearing jeans around their crotch: and the elastic top of their knickers on display. As was the moronic style some time back.

There is no difference: what has "Inflamed" this issue are Muslims screaming that their religious "Rights" are being breached: when in point of fact they have not been and are not planned so to be.

In the UK where government and authority has allowed itself to become indoctrinated by Left Wing PC Claptrap, the bureaucrats responsible are too stupid to realise the core difference between cultural custom and religious tenet.

France, thank goodness is different: and more power to France's elbow!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi

There are many arguments to be made I guess.....

For me its only a question of maintaining a national identity..

You want to leave your own country, and live in someone elses. you should be prepared to integrate completely if required, that should include language, religion etc etc.

You dont like it, no one is forcing you to stay!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is only one thing for it burqa wearers must be heavily taxed and be chipped and tagged.

I am going to start the Miss Burqa Universe a beauty competition for burqa wearers. All competitors will undergo full body scanning - airport style.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I have said before that its a matter of security for me thats the most important thing. You don't see many motorcyclists walking around with their full face crash helmet on, they just wear it when they ride their bike. If you did see one walking about with one on I am sure it would make you wonder why as history has shown they are normally up to no good, like about to rob somebody or something. I want to be able to see the face of those around me and people who to my mind hide behind some form of full facial covering simply raise my suspicions that there is something not quite right because it's just not needed. I don't like 'hoodies' either by the way and keep clear of them as well. So for me its nothing to do with religion.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll play devil's advocate here, as I 100% agree with Swissie. I'm a politician with an agenda to obtain the 5.5million muslim votes. Day 1, I get a 75 year old grandmother, a Gallic muslim convert, to walk deliberately down the Champs Elysee wearing a burqa. The police arrest her. Charged. Court. Sentenced to 3 months. Anyone want to speculate on the media attention I'll get, and the votes I'll gain?

Still say it's a law to give the CRS a reason to wade into a demos for wearing balaclavas and scarves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="Richard51"]Surely the primary point is that there is no islamic basis for the wearing of the burqa?  It is simply a tool of female oppression imposed by extreme and fundamental islamists.  The wearing of the hijab is an adequate form of head covering and this hasn't been banned.  Mrs R51
[/quote]

Agreed.

The wearing of the hijab is perfectly legal in public places, true.

In state schools , no form of religious faith is tolerated.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A real story - I do wonder what you would have done. As a teacher I organised lots of trips abroad for our students. Last trip I organised was to Epinal, our twin town. It was our 10th or more exchange with them, so we knew the teachers, the Head, and the area very well. Very few immigrants or Muslims there. As always, we sent the letters the students had written about themselves and their family, with their photo in the top corner. The French school did the same, so we could try and best match the kids according to hobbies, music, sport, families, etc. and so the kids could write to each other a few times - a brilliant excuse to write something practical and relevant in the language, and to get to know each other better. A week before we were due to leave in May (French students were to come to us in June) - I had a phone call from one of the (French) English teachers : they were very sorry, but the family where Rashree was supposed to stay had a family emergency and she couldn't come on the exchange. It never even crossed my mind something else was up. I explained (R was in my tutor group) how much she was looking forward to it, how much effort she had put in her letters and French to prepare - that her family had seen me at parents' evening a few days before and had explained they had re-decorated the spare room and bought a new bed - and had been practising typical English recipes with a neighbour for the exchange. Dad was a surgeon and mum a university lecturer- lovely people- she wore western style clothes, with a coloured scarf (like the daughter). I explained it was essential they did everything possible to find another family, or ask staff and teachers if anybody would have one of the older 6th Formers so that R. could stay with a family. I phone every day to check and the answer was 'no no, we've tried everything to no avail, she just can't come'. We hadn't told R. or her family as we knew they would be sooooo disappointed. In desperation I phoned Marie, the older 6th former who had stayed with me the previous year- and explained the situation. 5 Mins later her mum phoned back - no prob, Rashree can stay with us too (I was to stay with them)- the mum was lovely and said she totally understood R's disappointment. I immediately telephone the teacher and told her the good news - I'd found a family and R was coming.

Silence ... then she said sharply 'NO, you can't do that! She can't come, that is it'. Surprised by her reaction, I asked why - and then the penny dropped. Rashree's photo, of course, was taken with a scarf on! Teacher said ' if she comes, we will all go on strike'. I just could not believe it.

Got an emergency meeting with the Langs DPT and the Head to discuss how to proceed. A/ we would explain the situation to the parents that evening - and see their reaction. If they agreed for R. to come without wearing her scarf, we were OK. If they did not, we would explain that there was no way we would not take her- but that she must be aware that she might cause a reaction and had to be mentally and emotionally prepared for it. We would have dealt with all consequences- but it was a hard thing to take on - we were ready, but we didn't want R to suffer or be uncomfortable. Once we had explained the cultural differences and the Principe de laicité- they immediately said - no problem, she can go without her scarf. And we were saved by their positive reaction. I cannot imagine what would have happened had they said that their culture is not something they can just take on and off on demand.

I met R. recently in Leicester - she was blooming - a social worker, soon to be married. Wearing jeans, a cotton top and a bright coloured scarf. Couldn't be more integrated, a useful and active member of English society - fully integrated, with her culture and religion still very much part of her. Proof that you do not need to become more English than the English, more French than the French. My husband's family did just this- and totally lost their roots and culture. A shame.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...