Ban ruled Constitutional I'm curious as to what in their Constitution gives them the right to ban them, and find it interesting that the US opposes such a ban while most other Western nations approve.
If they want to go around in the streets with that thing covering their faces, as some do where I live, that's fine with me - but for drivers licenses, entering buildings that require identification, etc., it's should not be permitted.
That makes sense in the name of practicality. The idea of banning the burqa from public spaces just seems fucked up to me... I've seen interviews that suggest to me that a lot of women who wear them do so out of their choice, not because their husband imposes it upon them or something. It's a part of their religion/culture and I can't understand this move as anything but discrimination. Is there really much of a difference between a burqa and a yamulke (sp?)? Unless someone can present an argument that explains how different the two are I can't help but react to the burqa ban with the same degree of disappointment and disgust as I would to a yamulke ban...
i think its yarmulke but thats just pissing in the wind. i think the other poster hit it right on. it has to do with identification. a yarmulke does not hide your identity, a burqa will. personally i detest the idea of personal identification papers for any reason, but if we gotta have them....then we gotta. and somebody's piss-pot (or otherwise) religion can't be an exemption from the rules.
Sending home Roma Gypsies and now this... Ze French are taking a worrying direction... BBC News - France sends Roma Gypsies back to Romania
I could actually see the US attempt to follow suit with this in maybe 3 years. Solely for the political thrill of it.
The US sees the burqa ban as discriminatory because we're using to seeing the law through the lens of our own constitution. I'd say the identification part in public areas is correct. France's constitution (like most other Western nations) has a more politically authoritative tone, as it gives power to the state on matters that may be considered "hurtful to society" or national security, which has been the argument and general opinion for the ban in France. There's also no explicit mention of making a law "prohibiting the free exercise" of religion like there is in our Constitution.
Its part of these peoples faith. You cant say you can wear it on the streets then take it off in buildings. Its all or nothing on something like this IMO. I think what other people do is their business, but if you move into a different country and the culture is so drastically different, adaptation should be expected. Someones feelings are always going to get hurt
What gives you this idea? so far i believe only belgium and france have legislated on this issue. Its not really a big issue, and i dont think it is that well supported in australia. (which like the US has a very small muslim population) Whether its supported or not its bad policy.
I'm curious as to how you qualify that assertion. The European political establishment and press rightly condemn it as monstrously illiberal. Perhaps you have headline-grabbers such as Geert Wilders in mind? This, alongside the deportation of ethnic Roma, is the tidemark of the Sarkozy regime's desperation. This incumbency refuses to face up to the fact that its allies have shunned it and that all that remains for them is to disperse into the wilderness for the foreseeable future. It's a sad end to what used to be a robust, centrist government. That said, I think calling it portentous of a sea change in French (especially European) politics is premature. ...Then again, they did after all nearly elect Le Pen. =/
I was just going off the statement made in the article, "Clear majorities also backed burqa bans in Germany, Britain and Spain, while two out of three Americans opposed it, the survey found." And for some reason I considered France, Britain, Germany and Spain to be "most other Western nations".
Back in colonial times, when England ruled the waves, the sun never set on the brittish empire and a small contingency of brits had control over hundreds of millions in India, there was more than a few cultural differences so to speak. Like the then Indian custom of burning the widow of a deceased husband on the same burial-pyre. This will not do, said the brits. Whereupon the indians said, but it's part of our culture, our religion, our tradition. So be it said the brits. But we have a tradition to. We hang those that burn widows alive. So they erected gallows in close proximity to traditional burial-pyre sites. And before you could say "respect of culture!", widows gained a new lease on life so to speak. The burka-ban is much the same thing. It is us Europeans saying, this will not do. Women are equally free as men, so they are not to be expected to cover up in fucking tents! Deal with it. Wearing tents is about as voluntary as getting on the pyre with a deceased husband. It was voluntary to the extent that it was what was expected of them, quite often under threat, anything else would leave them in disgrace, and worse, their family in shame. Only way to cut such a vicious circle, is to end it forcefully. We can do that here in liberal Europe. Not that easy in backwards arab-countries like Saudi-Arabia. Eventhough many brave souls do keep trying, much to their own peril.