Reply to: French ban burkhas

[londonchris1970]

The French haven't banned burkas, or indeed niqabs - all the story says is that a law has been proposed (by one politician), and said "draft law" hasn't even been filed in the National Assembly yet.

Yes external signs of religions are banned at schools in France. This is to make sure the laicity is preserved in public schools.

However, if you want to give your kids a religious education you can too. Just send them to a religious school.

Imams too are being under control. They are not allowed to talk in bad about France and must respect the laws and love France. If they preach hate Islam, they are silenced. This not only helps preventing spreading hate in some cases, and helps Islam get on with Republican laws.

This aims to prevent communautarism spread and divide people into ghettos or communities. In France you have to be French first, then what you want.
Being French first means you will respect others through laicity and in your private sphere, you are free to be a Christian a Muslim or a Jew...

Not bad principles even if there are tensions.

[EternalOptimist]

How anyone can insist that niqabs are a threat to our security in todays climate is beyond me!!

Have you been outside lately? You cant see anyones faces!! Scarfs round faces, big hats, hoodys on, collars up, faces down, brollies up....

Same difference.

It's not the same

a niqab keeps your ead warm keeps the rain off but is a sign of subservience that imprisons women
a bobble hat keeps your ead warm keeps the rain off

see Sally, one is a Religio/political head warming visible statement
the other is wooly

[SallyAnne]

How anyone can insist that niqabs are a threat to our security in todays climate is beyond me!!

Have you been outside lately? You cant see anyones faces!! Scarfs round faces, big hats, hoodys on, collars up, faces down, brollies up....

Same difference.

[Moscow Mule]

It is, but although the Niqab is a part of Islam, it is not a requirement. It is a cultural choice.


And in general, don't have a go at the Sikhs. They should not be bundled in with the general purpose "paki-bashing" or anti-Moslem blind racist hatreds.

1) That's my point. If I were a Jedi and wanted to wander around with a hood on which completely covered my face (expressing my religious belief) then under this "law" I'd be allowed, but Mrs Muslim across the road couldn't do the same.

2) I'm not having a go a Sikhs, I'm drawing a parallel between things that are optional being allowed. Perhaps I should have gone with the Jedi first.

[EternalOptimist]

It is, but although the Niqab is a part of Islam, it is not a requirement. It is a cultural choice.

Errm, not quite. You won't find many Sikhs in Britain visibly wearing a sharpened blade. They tend to accept they are defended by the state and so the discrete wearing of a blunt knife (effectively ceremonial) is sufficient to represent their faith.

It is just as illegal for a Sikh to go wandering around with a sword as it is for you and I; they do not have an exemption in British law. Edit: yes they do, but they should not be wandering around with massive knives on their belts. If they are that is personal choice, not a religious requirement.

And in general, don't have a go at the Sikhs. They should not be bundled in with the general purpose "paki-bashing" or anti-Moslem blind racist hatreds.

Edit: those Sikhs who do carry a sharpened blade publicly are being a pain in the arse for the hell of it.



Edit edit: I have changed this post so many times in light of subsequence Googling that I am tempted to delete it. I had not realised that over the years the Kirpan has been referenced explicitly many times in British legislation. As I understood the law in the early 1980s, there was no necessity for such an exemption and the British Sikh community had come to a compromise that meant they conformed with the law at the time. That is, that anyone with a good reason could discretely carry a sheathed knife up to 5" in length (e.g. going fishing, Scouts going to camp, catching rabbits, etc.). Having made this explicit exemption for religious reasons, we may as well allow everything for everyone else too.

Funny enough, I used to go around with about a thousand other guys weilding razor sharp weapons and enough firearms to give AtW a bonio,

we used to fight vicious Civil war battles, for the public (and our own) entertainment. The plod used to come around now and then, nod wisely then beat a hasty

[thunderlizard]

discrete

discreet.

Normally I wouldn't bother but on this occasion I thought you might like another reason to edit your post..

[RichardCranium]

Isn't freedom of religion a European Human Right?

It is, but although the Niqab is a part of Islam, it is not a requirement. It is a cultural choice.

That's why those Sikh chaps are allowed to wander around with massive knives on their belts.

Errm, not quite. You won't find many Sikhs in Britain visibly wearing a sharpened blade. They tend to accept they are defended by the state and so the discreet wearing of a blunt knife (effectively ceremonial) is sufficient to represent their faith.

It is just as illegal for a Sikh to go wandering around with a sword as it is for you and I; they do not have an exemption in British law. Edit: yes they do, but they should not be wandering around with massive knives on their belts. If they are that is personal choice, not a religious requirement.

And in general, don't have a go at the Sikhs. They should not be bundled in with the general purpose "paki-bashing" or anti-Moslem blind racist hatreds.

Edit: those Sikhs who do carry a sharpened blade publicly are being a pain in the arse for the hell of it.



Edit edit: I have changed this post so many times in light of subsequence Googling that I am tempted to delete it. I had not realised that over the years the Kirpan has been referenced explicitly many times in British legislation. As I understood the law in the early 1980s, there was no necessity for such an exemption and the British Sikh community had come to a compromise that meant they conformed with the law at the time. That is, that anyone with a good reason could discreetly carry a sheathed knife up to 5" in length (e.g. going fishing, Scouts going to camp, catching rabbits, etc.). Having made this explicit exemption for religious reasons, we may as well allow everything for everyone else too.

[ratewhore]

Not that a UK government would ever have the balls to try.

I could think of at least one party that would do. They haven't got a snowballs chance in hell of forming a govt though. Thank God...

[TykeMerc]

Isn't freedom of religion a European Human Right?

That's why those Sikh chaps are allowed to wander around with massive knives on their belts.

I know a fair few Sikhs and have never seen any of them wearing a visible knife.

I doubt that the French government would have released this news unless they thought they'd have a good chance of the bill making it into law.

At the risk of sounding racist/religionist I wouldn't mind seeing a similar law here in the UK. Not that a UK government would ever have the balls to try.

[Moscow Mule]

Isn't freedom of religion a European Human Right?

That's why those Sikh chaps are allowed to wander around with massive knives on their belts.

[ratewhore]

Check out US State Department reports on religious tolerance.

[xoggoth]

It should be banned in certain situations where it matters, eg for witnesses or at border controls. Employers, landlords, sellers, lenders etc who need to make a decision about someone's honesty should also be allowed to refuse to consider an applicant where a full covering is insisted on at interview.

Otherwise, this is not really an important issue and banning runs counter to what should be an important principle, personal choice except where others are significantly affected. Maybe they should focus on more important things, like stopping Shariah courts deciding on child custody, marriage and inheritance. Our own cowardly government even backed off from making forced marriage the criminal offence as it should be.

PS I would not be surprised if it did go through. The French do not have a great reputation on religious freedom. Check out US State Department reports on religious tolerance.

[Diver]

Yes, this goes too far. The fact that it may be ‘a sign of subservience that imprison women’ is not the point. If they want to wear it, then fine. Appreciate they might not always get a full say in the matter, but you can't have a blanket ban to deal with some cases.

There is an issue with the burka in terms of personal identification. Businesses should be allowed to deny entry to anyone whose face they cannot see (try going into a petrol station with a crash helmet on).

But to ban it in the street. What next - banning shorts/skirts for people with fat legs.

Definitely ban fat birds in Lycra

[ratewhore]

Will they expand it to include those of us who just want to see her get her kit off?

You need to leave Amsterdam for your own good. Filthy pervert!!!

[Mich the Tester]

A more realistic approach is to allow it but legislate for the ability to remove it when asked by, say, the police. Trouble with this of course, under NL, is that this type of legislation is usually expanded to include local councils, the tax man, what have you...

Will they expand it to include those of us who just want to see her get her kit off?