Women in face veils detained as France enforces ban

[Singh]

I think the ban is on all FULL face veils.

I presume that is quite acceptable since in these days of terrorists, one requires people to be recognised, especially with the CCTV since none can say for sure who is a terrorist or not when such people are moving in public.

But after the event, CCTVs help.

Or, is the ban on head scarves also?

If so, that would be rather unfortunate.

There is a ban on any form of religious symbol in public places enforced in France iirc.
The terrorists as far as I am aware always try to blend in not stand out.

 

[Ray]

I wonder.

There is no ban on turbans.

And on a Pak forum there is great lament over this and that is how I came to know!

 

[Singh]

I wonder.

There is no ban on turbans.

And on a Pak forum there is great lament over this and that is how I came to know!

Sir our friends on the pak forum are mistaken, the turban ban is still being enforced.

 

[Armand2REP]

There is a ban on any form of religious symbol in public places enforced in France iirc.
The terrorists as far as I am aware always try to blend in not stand out.

That ban is for schools and related activities and it includes any overt symbols of religion. You can wear a little cross necklace or something, but any of the church crosses are out, burqa, turban, bandana... it is all out.

The burqa ban is really for anything that covers your face. It covers veils, burqa, niqab, masks, cagoules and what not. You are allowed to wear masks during celebrations or sports activities, helmets when riding a vehicle or sports. You can wear religious face covering if you are in a procession. It also allows for artist showings. You cannot wear it in any public place unless it is within proximity to the place of worship. Fine is €150 and or taking a citizenship class.

 

[Param]

That ban is for schools and related activities and it includes any overt symbols of religion. You can wear a little cross necklace or something, but any of the church crosses are out, burqa, turban, bandana... it is all out.

The burqa ban is really for anything that covers your face. It covers veils, burqa, niqab, masks, cagoules and what not. You are allowed to wear masks during celebrations or sports activities, helmets when riding a vehicle or sports. You can wear religious face covering if you are in a procession. It also allows for artist showings. You cannot wear it in any public place unless it is within proximity to the place of worship. Fine is €150 and or taking a citizenship class.

If a naturist in Cap d'agde covers her face with something like a cut to size burqa will she be fined?

 

[mattster]

Here is my opinion on the Burqa ban. Its good to finally see a country "grow some balls" and stand up to these Arab Islamist degenrates.

Why should Europeans who have their own distinct cultures, values and social mores allow that to be subsumed by a stone-age Arab/Islamist culture that treats women like cows in a cattle-ranch.

Bravo to the French for being the first in Europe for having the guts to say - if you want to stay in this country, then respect the social values of our society regardless of your religious beliefs. If you cant do that - then go back to your Neanderthal Islamist Salafist culture and move back to Saudi Arabia !!

I wish more countries in Europe will do this. I a sure lot of moderate French Muslims quietly support the french law

PS: People should remember that unlike India and other parts of Asia - Muslims were not part of the landscape of much of Western Europe except for few places in Eastern Europe that came under the Ottaman Empire.

99% of the active practising Muslim population in Wester Europe are recent immigrants probably less than 40 - 50 years.
There is no reason why Europe should bend over for these guys especially when they use their religion as an excuse for not integrating.

 

[Armand2REP]

If a naturist in Cap d'agde covers her face with something like a cut to size burqa will she be fined?

The rules at Cap d'Agde are that nudity is mandatory. A woman wearing a burqa would never be allowed on that beach.

 

[Nonynon]

Here is my opinion on the Burqa ban. Its good to finally see a country "grow some balls" and stand up to these Arab Islamist degenrates.

Why should Europeans who have their own distinct cultures, values and social mores allow that to be subsumed by a stone-age Arab/Islamist culture that treats women like cows in a cattle-ranch.

Bravo to the French for being the first in Europe for having the guts to say - if you want to stay in this country, then respect the social values of our society regardless of your religious beliefs. If you cant do that - then go back to your Neanderthal Islamist Salafist culture and move back to Saudi Arabia !!

I wish more countries in Europe will do this. I a sure lot of moderate French Muslims quietly support the french law

PS: People should remember that unlike India and other parts of Asia - Muslims were not part of the landscape of much of Western Europe except for few places in Eastern Europe that came under the Ottaman Empire.

99% of the active practising Muslim population in Wester Europe are recent immigrants probably less than 40 - 50 years.
There is no reason why Europe should bend over for these guys especially when they use their religion as an excuse for not integrating.

I 100% agree.

The problem is Europeans don't make kids and that forces them to need to bring someone else to work the factories. But not at those numbers...

 

[Tronic]

I wonder.

There is no ban on turbans.

And on a Pak forum there is great lament over this and that is how I came to know!

Sir, there is a turban ban against Sikhs also.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4782420.stm

http://articles.timesofindia.indiat..._french-turban-ban-religious-symbols-petition

 

[pmaitra]

Here is my opinion on the Burqa ban. Its good to finally see a country "grow some balls" and stand up to these Arab Islamist degenrates.

Why should Europeans who have their own distinct cultures, values and social mores allow that to be subsumed by a stone-age Arab/Islamist culture that treats women like cows in a cattle-ranch.

Bravo to the French for being the first in Europe for having the guts to say - if you want to stay in this country, then respect the social values of our society regardless of your religious beliefs. If you cant do that - then go back to your Neanderthal Islamist Salafist culture and move back to Saudi Arabia !!

I wish more countries in Europe will do this. I a sure lot of moderate French Muslims quietly support the french law

PS: People should remember that unlike India and other parts of Asia - Muslims were not part of the landscape of much of Western Europe except for few places in Eastern Europe that came under the Ottaman Empire.

99% of the active practising Muslim population in Wester Europe are recent immigrants probably less than 40 - 50 years.
There is no reason why Europe should bend over for these guys especially when they use their religion as an excuse for not integrating.

I totally second this.

Would the Saudis allow an European to wear a bikini at a Saudi beach? A negative answer begs the question why?

The answer is simple, in Rome, do as the Romans do. Don't like it, get out of Rome.

 

[Sid]

I think it should not be an obligation for any women to wear burqa or not.

According to the Quran and the Hadiths, woman should be covered from head to toe in front of strangers,therefore, a dress like burqa becomes mandatory in any islamic/non-islamic nation.

But keeping the laws of that country in mind, which muslims are living in, the point to be pondered upon is what is more important?- religious laws or the law of the land?

 

[The Messiah]

I totally second this.

Would the Saudis allow an European to wear a bikini at a Saudi beach? A negative answer begs the question why?

The answer is simple, in Rome, do as the Romans do. Don't like it, get out of Rome.

Difference being that west recognizes saudi arabia as barbaric and hold themselves on a higher moral ground. So why go around banning things like wahabis ?

They can do whatever they like but claiming to morally better and 'free'ier' is piss.

"in rome, do as romans do" So british shouldn't have intervened against sati ?

 

[The Messiah]

I think it should not be an obligation for any women to wear burqa or not.

According to the Quran and the Hadiths, woman should be covered from head to toe in front of strangers,therefore, a dress like burqa becomes mandatory in any islamic/non-islamic nation.

But keeping the laws of that country in mind, which muslims are living in, the point to be pondered upon is what is more important?- religious laws or the law of the land?

Incorrect. You are equally as mistaken as many muslims themselves.

 

[Nonynon]

France isn't banning Islam, she's banning a small minor part of the modern Islamic tradition that represent the more radical aspects - oppression of woman. Morally speaking I think almost every country should ban it, especially the Western ones.
Then there's the strategic gain, help securing the Western culture. Here too I think it would be morally to act like that in order to help make the citizens feel safe about their future, its the county's job to do that. The new immigrants that don't like that idea don't really have a say here. They chose to go to France and they can't expect France to change for them, they need to change themselves.

 

[mattster]

Difference being that west recognizes saudi arabia as barbaric and hold themselves on a higher moral ground. So why go around banning things like wahabis ?

They can do whatever they like but claiming to morally better and 'free'ier' is piss.

"in rome, do as romans do" So british shouldn't have intervened against sati ?

Can anyone in this forum including those of you who are Muslims, claim that Muslim communities dont take advantage of the system to intimidate and coerce people who challenge their beliefs. This includes intimidating fellow Muslims themselves who are non practising, secular, non-religious types.
In Muslim areas of London they are now even threatening non-Muslims/non-practising Muslims with death for the way they dress.

This is what the Brits get for their multi-cultural tolerance !!
Think about that for a second - Give an inch and they take a mile and thats not enough.

This is not some isolated incident - everywhere you go in the Muslim world - its the same. In Malaysia, they were first trying to ban the use of the word Allah by non-Muslims and now they are threatening violence against Christians for printing a bible in Malay for many Malay speaking christian groups in East Malaysia. Imagine if India were to say that you cant print the Koran in any Indian language - Imagine the reaction of the Muslims.

The storyline never changes - Everyone else has to accomodate Muslims and Islam, but they can treat every other faith and its followers like its shit !!

This is why many people call it Islamo-fascism.

 

[Ray]

What makes me really wonder is as to how Islamic fundamentalists can motivate people to die willingly for the cause of Islam, as is enunciated to them by the fundamentalists.

I saw the BBC interview of the young suicide bomber who failed to blow himself up at the Sufi shrine in Pakistan and was seriously injured.

He regretted killing old men, women and children, but had no remorse for his act, even though he was worried that he would be now killed by the Taliban.

He exulted about Paradise after death and said he was worried about the bomb, but he hoped it would be only a 'small pain'.

What is this strong motivation that a young boy can be administered wherein he willing and happily embraces death thinking of a Paradise he has never seen?

Is it that the religion that through its scriptures that encourages this déjà vu towards death or is it because of the powerful motivation of the fundamentalists?

How can a young boy so readily give up his life, when he has not even seen life in it totality wherein out of sheer disgust of an unfair life, one does not mind, dying for a cause.

Is religion that powerful?

What is this powerful psychology?

That is what perplexes me.

 

[Nonynon]

Sisi BBC doesn't want you to know that most of those suicide bombers were brainwashed to a point they aren't sorry for killing people.
The secrete is to keep the population in extreme poverty so that they turn radical with hate and religion, then the Local Imam steps in and does the rest. The suiciders are promised haven and they are 100% sure it exists because they suffer so much in this life. They are also promised that their family will be taken care of (money) so they doesn't have to weary about them and they can be sure that everyone will be for the better if they suicide, them, their family and the mortal world.
Another good example for such a behavior is when in the Iran-Iraq war, Iran used kids as kamikaze bombs against the Iraqi tanks. Kids who grow up in such extreme conditions are naive and can be turned to a suicide bomb more easily then an adult that knows a thing or two about life.

 

[Godless-Kafir]

What did I say that was lies? Please give me a reasonable response rather than a mindless attack and rant.



This is nonsense in itself. Do you have any clue how many news articles and hyperbole has been over Guantanamo Bay, or Water Boarding? Also I hate to interrupt your Chomskyite rant, but where was the oil in Taiwan or South Korea in the 1950s? What about Israel, Bosnia, or Kosovo? If the US was only interested in oil, why did it allow the regimes in Egypt and Tunisia to be overthrown if they were pro-western? Is there any oil down here in Australia, or in the UK that I haven't heard about? No offense mate, but this is the kind of response I would expect from a terrorism apologist or useful idiot, not someone like you. Yes there is opportunism everywhere, but the US is not on the same moral depravity level as the communists in power in China. The amount of people the CCP have killed in the last century alone testifies to this.

Those wars where fought as proxies in the cold war in Asia. It was a power struggle between the communists and west, Israel is an religious war for the Republican types in the US.

Do you really think the west is fighting the noble war? Are you that full of your own ideology? WHat happened to Dawfur and Burma why not interfere there?

 

[Yusuf]

Ray Sir, it's not only islam but any religion which if taken as be all and end all it leads to all kinds of problems. It's been happening for time as long as religions have existed. Crusades even had papal sanction, whereas today's fundamentalism is more out of vested interests. Be it Al Qaeda or Taliban or even present day terror in Kashmir which was hijacked the kashmir movement which started with it's initial cause. Today terror is a big industry which gets huge money in for the leaders who then use it to buy out poor souls into blowing themselves up with the promise of paying their families. For the youth that matters more than the 72 virgins that is drilled into his head.

 

[Nonynon]

Those wars where fought as proxies in the cold war in Asia. It was a power struggle between the communists and west, Israel is an religious war for the Republican types in the US.

Do you really think the west is fighting the noble war? Are you that full of your own ideology? WHat happened to Dawfur and Burma why not interfere there?

There's a religious prospective for US's help to Israel but the ties really started when Israel decided to join USA in the cold war during the Korean war. Until then Israel was always either neutral or sided with USSR so for the cold war I would call it all as just another Cold war policy. Later on the ties had no reason to weaken with the end of the cold war. You can even say the cold war never ended here, Russia is still arming Israel's enemies. But the ties do seem to weaken slowly with time right now while Russia's ties with Israel slowly improve (mainly in Obama's time).
Dawfur and Burma are only two examples of how the West didn't interfere when it should have, there are a lot more but it would be impossible for the West to intervene there with the leftist public opinion that think the West should stop carring about anything happening outside it's boarders. Going for another Vietnam wouldn't have done anyone any good. However, Iraq is now far better then it was then before USA invaded it, even after considering the oil thing. There are many other examples of how the West did something for it's own good but it included the well being of the locals as well.