<p>“All a matter of opinion. Women who wear burquas probably think that wearing shorts and halters is indecent.”</p>
<p>Great! Let them stay in the places where this is common opinion, and we won’t have problems! If they want to come to France, they’re going to have to learn to live with the local customs, just like in the inverted case.</p>
<p>I say France tolerates burqas when Saudi Arabia allows women to drive while wearing shorts and halters. Fair?</p>
<p>I suppose I’d care less about burqas if it weren’t for the steady stream of stories like the ones below:</p>
<p>[For</a> Muslim women, a deadly defiance - The Boston Globe](<a href=“http://www.boston.com/news/world/europe/articles/2006/01/16/for_muslim_women_a_deadly_defiance/]For”>http://www.boston.com/news/world/europe/articles/2006/01/16/for_muslim_women_a_deadly_defiance/)
[Britain</a> examines ‘honor killings’ | csmonitor.com](<a href=“http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0707/p06s02-woeu.html]Britain”>Britain examines 'honor killings' - CSMonitor.com)
[Father</a> found guilty in honor killing in U.K. - USATODAY.com](<a href=“http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2007-06-11-honorkilling_N.htm]Father”>http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2007-06-11-honorkilling_N.htm)
[Afghan-Born</a> German Gets Life for Honor Killing of Sister | Germany | Deutsche Welle | 13.02.2009](<a href=“http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,4026518,00.html]Afghan-Born”>Honor Killing Case – DW – 02/13/2009)
[‘Honour</a>’ killing in Sweden silences courageous voice on ethnic integration | From the Guardian | Guardian Weekly](<a href=“http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/2002/jan/31/guardianweekly.guardianweekly1]'Honour”>'Honour' killing in Sweden silences courageous voice on ethnic integration | | The Guardian)</p>
<p>
No, fair would be if they would both be tolerant. It’s elementary that two wrongs don’t make a right.</p>
<p>The French are under no obligation to tolerate offensive foreign customs. Plenty of other places you can immigrate to if you need to wear a burqa. I heard the UAE was still looking for underpaid laborers to build their skyscrapers. Of course, I’m not sure they allow women to hold jobs there.</p>
<p>When I went to US public schools, I recieved about eight days of religiously-excused absences a year. Had the school not granted these religious exemptions, I might have failed certain marking periods for excessive absenteeism. I don’t think this would have been fair, and I don’t think the fact that I could have chosen to go to a Jewish day school instead would have made it any fairer. The religious absences had little impact on my ability to be a functioning member of the school, and were hence a reasonable accomodation for a special circumstance.</p>
<p>The question is not whether or not we like the burqa, it is whether or not wearing it automatically makes a woman incapable of functioning in French society. I think the answer to that is no - it makes things difficult, yeah, and she’ll be outside the mainstream, but not so isolated that she can’t go to school, hold down a job (of some sort), and take advantage of some of the freedoms of French society.</p>
<p>There are excellent reasons for preventing a woman in a burqua from getting a driver’s licence, or getting into a place that requires photo ID, or, for that matter, from certain jobs. Just as the ADA doesn’t mandate that a blind person be given equal access to jobs as crossing guards or air traffic controllers, religious toleration doesn’t require that we accept a teacher or receptionist whose ability to communicate is severely limited by her religious choices. Otherwise, however, if a woman really does decide that she should walk around with her whole face covered, that is her perogative. The fact that she may have been raised in a narrow-minded environment that conditioned her to think that is not something any government can control</p>
<p>I do, however, agree there need to be tougher measures to make sure this is truly a choice on the woman’s part, perhaps in the form of more resources for women looking to escape such environments.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Perhaps that narrow-minded enviroment is what Sarkozy is trying to limit.</p>
<p>But he can’t unless he wants to dramatically and perhaps dangerously increase the government’s control over family life. Throughout the western world, people use the freedom that world affords them to make monumentally stupid, narrow-minded, and destructive choices for themselves and their children. As long as what they are doing doesn’t cause direct harm to society or rise to the level of child abuse or endangerment (which we tend to define as an issue of physical safety), we give them the leeway to do this.</p>
<p>I do think that a government has a right, if it chooses to do so, to require all students to attend public schools, although I also believe that even within those schools, every effort must be made to respect religious freedom. There is a difference, however, between saying that all children must be at least exposed to an education based on agreed-upon French values and that they are not free to deviate from those values in a non-harmful way upon reaching adulthood</p>
<p>
I suppose they aren’t, since they apparently don’t enjoy the same freedoms we have in the United States. I don’t consider that something to celebrate, however.</p>
<p>Just wanted to point out that there are State and municipal laws on the books in the U.S. that prohibit wearing masks in public, so France’s governmental prohibition is not really particularly exotic. The U.S. laws are generally intended to prohibit hiding one’s identity while committing a crime, but some are more general than that.</p>
<p>(I found this overview of U.S. “anti-mask” laws on google: [CND:</a> State Codes Related To Wearing Masks](<a href=“http://www.anapsid.org/cnd/mcs/maskcodes.html]CND:”>CND: State Codes Related To Wearing Masks))</p>
<p>That’s right Bay. Moreovoer, some states still have a ‘Ku Klux Klan Act’ on the books. Those are laws adopted in the early 20th Century that prohibit the wearing of masks by subject organizations whose members specifically wear them in public as a means of intimidation and unjustified concealment. That law in Georgia was challenged and upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1980s I believe. No, I am not equating a burqa with a Klansman’s mask. But the Klan’s constitutional right of free expression had to defer to a legitimate concern of the state.</p>
<p>^^^
I’m sorry but that was a horrible example by any measure. Surely you can come up with better?</p>
<p>I HAVE seen a woman wearing a burka. We live in an area that draws tourists from everywhere. I was walking with my daughters and saw a man and I imagine, his wife, entering Barneys. We live in a very cosmopolitan area with Christians, Jews, Muslems, Janns etc. But this was different and scary. The woman was not allowed to speak to a salesperson. (We were there first, so no, we weren’t following them.) It was so jarring that my girls, who don’t get the creeps, got them.</p>
<p>Every human being has the right to follow the teachings of his or her religion and seek to please his or her Lord. No one can compel him or her, under any circumstances, to give up his or her duties.
What some French say about the hijab that it is a religious symbol [and, thus, may create religious differences in society] is not true at all. Symbols have no functions in themselves, as is the case with the yarmulke and the Star of David of the Jews,
No Western country has prevented the Jews from wearing the yarmulke or the Christians from wearing the cross, though such objects are symbols of religion. Why should they prevent the Muslim women from wearing hijab? and the cross of the Christians.
France is in verge of violating and hurting the sentiment of religious people. Earlier sikhs were banned from wearing turban, jewish from wearing skull caps, muslim women from head scarves in schools. These all things are violating the right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion.
Nude photography, nude art is always entertained in the name of freedom of expression
And it is being promoted.
it has been a controversial subject in all ages , in all civilizations
but still such things are allowed in the name of freedom of expressions
.when it comes to right to freedom of practicing ones religion then why are u banning a thing which is attached with some ones faith. After all they have right to cover themselves by their will, so why are you forcing such laws which restrict themselves from wearing what they want to wear.
Mr. sarkozy is a bit either lunatic or biased. For sure he is not a fair person. if a women want to cover her self, you want to banned this system on the other hand if some one want to sell her nude images & video it is allowed in the same system because it is considered to be the symbol & parameter of freedom & upliftment of the women.same on u & your sort of people who r so called Mordern. actually they r shameless,mentally, illiterate.
U dnt know ur religion u dnt even follow it bt have serious problem if some body is following his own religion. Did u know what does bible have say abt hijab?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Right on, brother! My religion and my lord require me to KILL anyone whose name begins with “sar,” and no government has the right to stop me! (sarcasm, duh)</p>
<p>In the United States, freedom of religion isn’t absolute, but it can only be overriden for a significant purpose. For example, a person can be required to have a photo taken to get a driver’s license. Children can be required to get an education, and people can be required to provide medical care to their kids. But it’s clear that in the U.S., it would be unlawful to generally outlaw the wearing of the burqa. Most likely, a general “anti-mask” law would be found to be overbroad. I think a more focused law, which (for example) prohibited a person from covering his or face while driving a car, or when entering certain secure locations (perhaps a bank, or an airport) would be upheld.
I think our system has the best balance of these interests that is currently available…better than France, and certainly way better than Islamic countries that are even more intolerant.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Again with the horrible examples. Wearing the burqa is not harming or killing anyone. To me its an eyesore but if banning whatever we don’t want to see has become the norm in the West, let me be the first to propose some new laws. Lets start with all the North Face, Spandex, Uggs boot wearing women that seem to traverse my campus in droves every winter.</p>
<p>If its part of their culture to wear the burqua let them wear it, as long as it isn’t harming anyone else except themselves. Since when did banning bad decisions become the norm?</p>
<p>And Hunt you are absolutely right.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This was one of the main issues debated in an older CC thread about the ban of the hijab in France. There is little to no historical support for the position of the fundamentalists who use religion to push discriminatory political and social agendas. </p>
<p>Although the President of France is rarely worthy of applause for his positions, this one is different. Banning the hijab in schools in France was correct, and so is this latest declaration of Sarkozy.</p>
<p>Sarfraz:</p>
<p>I do find it interesting that you capitolize Muslim and not Jew or Jewish.</p>
<p>But to further the discussion of religious freedom in France. There is a ban of all overt religious garments in public schools, including yamulkes. If one is Jewish and must wear a yamulke one goes to a private Jewish day school. (I have a friend who’s family lives in France and are religious Jews.) The opinion is :put your Euro where your faith is and don’t expect their government to be pc.</p>
<p>Crosses are also banned in French schools. </p>
<p>BTW, the Orthodox Jewish population is barely affected because they rarely attend public school. The most devout Muslims also don’t go to public school. And of course there are Christian schools as well.</p>
<p>It was funny, the juxtaposition of ellebud in #72:
followed by sarfraz in #73:
</p>
<p>The first one is scared by a woman in a burqa, and the second one is scared by women not in burqas (nude images & video)!</p>
<p>Well, I think this represents the Janus face of misunderstanding between cultures, don’t you think? Some want those women out of burqas because they are scaring the children, and others want the women covered because they “r shameless,mentally,illiterate”. There’s no room for discussion in either of these positions.</p>
<p>And then there are folks who think that women in burqas are oppressed, and maybe they are. And some Sharia adherents believe that Western women are hookers and men manquees with the way they dress, work and manage their own lives.</p>
<p>Sorry, ellebud, your comment made me 
After years in the Middle East and in parts of Europe where women and men wear all manner of “Muslim” garb (in quotes, because it is not really doctrinal), I can tell you that the motivations are decidedly mixed.
Women wear hijab, niqab, or burqa for any of the following reasons:</p>
<p>They are making a religious statement
They are making a personal statement about their culture (sometimes tribal or family)
They are forced, or pressured into it by husband or husband’s family
They are having a bad hair day
They just had plastic surgery (really)
The husband just took a younger wife and their vanity took a hit
They are the younger wife, and the older wife (or wives) pressured them to wear niqab
They want to disguise their identity
They are concealing a pregnancy
They are just plain self-conscious, particularly around men
They had a bad experience with being groped, molested, sexually harassed or raped
They don’t want to talk to you</p>
<p>I suppose anything unfamiliar can be scary. But my issue with the burqa is that it shuts down communication. That was discouraging when we lived in the Middle East. Even my friendly next-door neighbor – his wives (yes, plural) were completely covered with black abayas or burqas (with black gloves and socks, etc.) never spoke to me even when I greeted them directly in Arabic. I couldn’t even see where their faces were.</p>
<p>(sarfraz, I think before calling anyone else “mentally,illiterate” I’d check my own syntax)</p>