Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next

To the contrary, we're rather impressed with the French and we're hoping that this outbreak of national-preservationist sanity in France spreads to the USA.

   

Actually, my normal instincts, as you know, run to the libertarian end of things when it comes to personal freedoms. However, in this case I actually do support the French. If there is one thing that a free cannot tolerate, it is intolerance. The more conservative brands of Muslim have proven themselves to be quite intolerant.

   

We are absolutely of an accord on this. It's because these people are perverting French freedoms as a means to deny others those freedoms that I'm siding with the French.

In France the burkha has been used as a tool of oppression not as much against the Muslim women who wear it, but against the non-Muslim women who don't. See, any woman not wearing the burkha faces harassment and even sexual assault from Muslim men. By forcing the Muslim women to do without the burkha and the veil the French are protecting the rights of non-muslims.

I expect blood to be shed over this in the next few days and weeks as the Muslims have enough numbers in France that they expect to be able to intimidate the French into submission.

At which point Sarkozy may declare a national emergency and have the military and the Gendarmarie start deporting the vermin. It may well be that he's making this move as a calculated move to provoke the hajis into giving him an excuse to expel them.

If that does happen, then once the French set the precedent I fully expect Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, and the UK to follow...and in that order.

   

The full-face veil is NOT freedom of religion. It's written nowhere in Islam that women should wear that. France' motto is Freedom, Equality, Fraternity. Wearing the full-face is NOT freedom, it's oppression. It's not equality, it's disparity of genre. It's not fraternity, it's isolation.

   

Freedom of religion or no, there's no good reason for a general ban. Just ban it where ever security is an issue. That includes identifying yourself to the cops etc. And arrest people who refuse until they can establish their identity. But if someone wants to walk down the street with a rag on their face, that's their business. In Vancouver a lot of Chinese seem to go for the medical face mask look - should be ban that too? It would make more sense to ban the kirpan in a general way, but we don't do that either.

   

WE didn't ban anything. France did

   

Exactly, Proc. Scarves and Burkas etc. are tribal customs, not religious ones.

But then again, I'm not in France and I don't wear them, so I don't care.

   

I'm sure the supporters of this ban would like to see it over here as well. It's not like France is unique in any way on this. As I say, no exemptions in matters of security, but otherwise there's not reason to ban it.

   

If non-muslim women in France are being harrassed and worse because they DON'T wear one, I'd say there's plenty of reason for the ban.

Besides, if they don't like the ban, they can embrace one of France's greatest freedoms, the freedom to leave if they don't like it!

   

Read, and Learn...


The law is worded to trip safely through legal minefields: The words "women," "Muslim" and "veil" are not even mentioned. The law says it is illegal to hide the face in the public space.

While Italy also has a law against concealing the face for security reasons, France's law was the first conceived to target veil-wearers. Sarkozy said he wanted a ban, and that the veils are not welcome in France.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/1 ... 47366.html

   

As I say, I agree with Italy and not with France. No reason for overkill. And if they get an epidemic of say H1N1, when everyone wants to cover their face, will they ticket them too. It's a stupid law, ticketing is a stupid response. If it's a security concern, do more than ticket the person, otherwise leave them alone.

   

France is a lot different than Canada, in that Muslims make up a greater portion of their population (about 2.6% in Canada versus about 9% in France, according a to a wiki source). Also, Muslims comprise around 70% of new immigration to France. Also, the threat of various jihadi movements is much more severe in Europe than it is in Canada. They've had Muslim riots there over the last few years. So clearly the context is completely different.

Here in BC, we don't see the sacks too much. Mostly at the airport. So a ban would be unnecessary. However, I would support a ban against members of the public administration (government workers, public shcool teachers, police officers) from wearing them--or a kirpan for that matter.

Then I'd take that "freedom of religion" line in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and cross it out because all it does is offer special protection to those who choose to be members of Big Religion, and it discriminates against atheists, agnostics and smaller faiths not big or organized enough to be considered a "religion"

   

   

Ditto. Freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression cover all the necessary bases. Specifically protecting the freedom of religion is, at best, redundant and, at worst, discriminatory in and of itself.

   

I doubt banning the burka outright will do much to create peace with Muslims.

I agree with the public workers (or any company that would impose a ban - as in most of them) They should not be allowed in airports for security reasons.

Freedom of religion is a good idea, we should have it in our charter. But with a clause that says freedom of religion doesn't extend to compromising safety or other legitimate restrictions.

And as people have pointed out, the burka isn't even a legitimate religious symbol.

Ban them as necessary. Full across the board bans aren't necessary and probably don't even achieve the intended objective.

   

Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next