French ban on Islamic face veil comes into force

People are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty. People who have participated in the thread suggest we should assume that men are illegally forced her wife against her wishes to wear something she did not wish to wear. However, the people on this thread have expressed ZERO interest in giving them any option for a trial or the benefit of the doubt. This is wrong.

People on this thread have showered France with support for choosing to punish (assumed) victims for a crime committed upon them by their husband. Do I really have to stand here and argue that you should not punish a victim for a crime being done against them? This is easily the most ridiculous point I've ever had to consider on ATS, and its embarrassing to me fellow ATS users believe we should be arresting and punishing the victim of a crime. The 150 Euro ticket apparently goes to the women who is the assumed victim (no trial necessary of course as per the majority ATS court of opinion).

Two wrongs don't make a right. A few months ago, a country outlawed Muslim religious structures because Saudi Arabia outlawed Christian religious structures. And now on this thread people are saying they would be against that law except that Muslims have equally oppressive laws in their own land against Christians. Take that concept to an extreme and its just so obviously wrong. For example, if a Muslim burns a random Christian child's face in their country, would the best way to achieve justice be to burn the face of a random child Muslim in your own country? Or if a serial killer is out there killing brown-eyed people, is the best way to deal with that killing people with blue eyes? No. So the point is if you see an oppressive law in another country the best response is not to create oppressive laws in your own country. That idea isn't even tit-for-tat because the criminals get off scott free... it simply creates two wrongs from one wrong... two victims from one victim. I realize that most arguments don't focus on this point but a number of people did say harsh laws in Saudi Arabia is why support a law they otherwise would not support.

RE: "If you don't like the law, then move." Well, good idea. But that principle does not make an unethical law ethical or an unjust law just Its simply an idea that can improve someone's situation. I fully appreciate that France can come to a consensus to write whatever laws they deem fitting. In a Democracy, the thing to do with laws you don't like is change them. But for some reason people focus on moving away to somewhere with "better laws" as the correct solution to this problem.

"I accept Muslims... but they are a separate culture that should stay separate." This is an identical attitude to the vast majority of racists. "Equal but separate" was and still is the cry of most KKK groups. I've really only known one person who came out and said he was racist. He said he had no problem with a black person who "integrates into society". He said that it is only the n-----ers he doesn't like. And by n----ers he meant the "black culture".

The fact of the matter is that a woman walking down a street wearing full garb does not hurt someone of an extra-ordinarily different culture. If a nudist can simply accept Arab culture, and an Arab will simply accept nudist culture, then they can peacefully co-exist. Only where you have intolerance of cultures, then you have a culture clash. Multi-culturalism works perfectly when you have tolerance. And I realize Muslims are not known for tolerance... and that is bad. But the correct response is not an equal level of intolerance sent the other way but rather to maintain your own ethics as an example for the guilty party to adapt when they gain more wisdom. If intolerant people wish to purchase their own tract of land where they never interact with others who are "too different" than fine, but that is a problem on public property. Unfortunately several ATS users have taken it upon themselves to enthusiastic supporters of cultural intolerance when they say on this thread "multi-culturalism does not work and Muslims need to return to their home countries".

Yes, it is a crime to force someone to wear something against their will. That is the point though! You don't need another law on top of that law that already exists designed to attack the victims of the crime. So, what does the law accomplish? It accomplishes and probably was designed to accomplish an increase in violence between Arabs and non-Arabs in France, who that very day as a poster pointed out enacted that same law as they were launching a major attack in Libya! This is nothing more than the elite playing the public like puppets to accomplish their agenda of division within Europe. After all, they have a Biblical prophecy they'd love to fulfill: 200 million ground troops crossing into Europe from the east.

People should have have a right to wear whatever they want to. And furthermore, people who stop them should be punished. If a woman says: "I want to wear full garb" and man says back: take it off your I'm sending you to jail, then the police officer needs to be fired immediately and arrested for an attempted wrongful kidnapping. On the other hand if a woman does not wish to wear full garb then the husband should be simply sent to court for the first offense, then take whatever action to stop the wrongful act thereafter. As for fines and fees as a punishment, those are simply ways for a police state to steal your money... an around about way of converting you into an indentured servant or outright slave in some cases.

Summary:
1. Innocent Until Proven Guilty in a Court of Law: Including husbands with wives in full garb.
2. Punish the criminal (*assumed* husband) instead of the (assumed) victim (garb wearer) of a crime.
3. Two wrongs don't make a right.
4. If we don't like a law and we live in a Democracy, we should attempt to change it.
5. Its already a crime to force people into wearing anything, so this is just a barb against Arabs designed by the elite to divide and conquor.
6. You can wear whatever you want in a free society, including either nothing or everything at once.

reply to post by civilchallenger


So you support my right to wear a Mohammed mask with the words Mohammed written on the mask? (it is part of my religious beliefs).

I applaud France....They realized their mistake and are now facing it head on. Indeed it's true, multiculturalism will inevitably fail.....Especially when you're dealing with a subculture that encourages what at many times will contradict the freedoms of a nation in which it resides. Multiculturalism gives the impression that any foreign culture has as much merit and power to dictate within a country. This gives ground for competition in the sense of 'whose culture is better'. Banning the burqa is no different than banning Sharia law in my opinion. France must do what it must to protect and preserve their own culture.

I'm not saying that France or any western nation should entirely break free from other cultures. I think there are more secure and pragmatic ways of embracing cultural diversity without allowing a foreign culture to compete against the laws and customs of the country itself.

If these women feel they are being discriminated against or having their 'right' to remain anonymous in public taken away, then by all means they should go to a country where this will not happen. Perhaps a place where they are already culturally assimilated to...like...somewhere in the Middle East.

reply to post by civilchallenger


If they assumed they were guilty then they would just arrest the men, and charge them. This isn't what is happening here at all.

The issue is far more complex than you are willing to recognize. The reasons given on this thread have been well articulated, and you try to just brush them off with this obvious mis-characterization of the problem.

Originally posted by idonotcollectstamps
reply to post by civilchallenger

 

So you support my right to wear a Mohammed mask with the words Mohammed written on the mask? (it is part of my religious beliefs).

It depends on your motivation for wearing the mask. Consensus is key. There is no consensus that wearing a Mohammed mask saying "Mohammed" causes harm. Therefore whether you should wear it amounts to an opinion, and I have no right to force my opinion upon you. However if you are wearing the mask as part of your religion for the purpose of hurting someone's feelings, then I have no issues forcing you to stop doing such a thing. Presumably your religion would not have bad intentions and so I'd support your decision.

Its the same line of reasoning I used to decide if wearing a burka is okay. Wearing a burka does not cause harm in some cases, and is therefore okay to do. In other cases such as when the burka is forced upon a woman against wishes, there is consensus accepted that doing such a thing does cause harm.

So, what happens if you wear your Muhammad mask in a group of Muslims and one of them attacks you? What now? Well, if I'm the judge in that case, I'm going to award you compensation for damages in court. But, because your expectations of not getting attacked were foolish, and you should have seen it coming, I would only award you perhaps half of the damages done. So, I would still award you some compensation if someone used physical force against you such as to destroy your mask or give you a broken nose, but not the same as if you didn't do something so provocative.

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by civilchallenger

 

If they assumed they were guilty then they would just arrest the men, and charge them. This isn't what is happening here at all.

The issue is far more complex than you are willing to recognize. The reasons given on this thread have been well articulated, and you try to just brush them off with this obvious mis-characterization of the problem.

If you realize that the men are not guilty in some of the cases, then where is your grounds to ban the burkas in those cases? Who are the victims and how are they being harmed? I've read almost all of the posts in this thread and most of them seem to center on claiming the burkas are being forced upon the wives, and as a result of that wrongful force the women should be ticketed 150 Euros for wearing them.

Brushing the issue off would have been saying: "Women can wear whatever they want and that includes full garb, PERIOD." Even though that would be essentially the truth of the matter. But I decided to go further and address half a dozen complexities in the matter. If there is a complexity (or anything at all) that I missed, then please bring it up in specific and enlighten me.

reply to post by wayno


Because she wants to. Simple.

I agree that women wear them for the wrong reason. I agree that they are cumbersome and uncomfortable.

But if even one women wants to wear it, for whatever reason, then she should have the right to. Not in banks, not in school, not going through security at airports. But in the street minding her own business why the hell not.

Otherwise you or the government deciding what she can wear is no different than her husband deciding. You all want to control women, decide for them, because you assume they cannot decide for themselves.

If they want to break free, then let them do it on their own. Let them fight their own battles and make their own decisions. It's the only way to truely empower them. Ban Burkas in certain places but still allow the right to choose what you wear walking down the street and they'll make the choice themselves.

reply to post by poet1b


So are you accusing me of being an advocate for beating women who 'don't behave' because of my viewpoint? Man, this is just getting silly. Ad hominen indeed. I don't advocate a man placing his hands in anger on a woman for ANY reason, and vice versa.

You cannot proove that 100% of the women that wear this are forced to do so. Some women, for reasons we may or may not understand, do want to wear it.

And your last paragraph is slightly contradictory. So you are not in favour of a blanket banning of the burka then. You believe it should be allowed in certain circumstances. Me too. Not in banks, not at school, not in businesses if the business owner chooses not to allow it, not at airport security checkpoints, but in the street and during occasions, well that's fine.

reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler


Funny. They wax everything from the waist down, and the arms, armpits, cheeks and eyebrows. That is the norm.
The fact remains that many people focusing on the principle of right to dress as one wants are being distracted from the main problem, which they are not aware of in the country, and this law seeks to address.

Look at the thread about the muslims in England, who are threatening western women in that country, if they do not cover their heads with a scarf, and speak openly about having for goal the installment of Sharia law for all in that country. The english don't want to go the way of the french and insist that people living in France respect French law and customs. I say good luck to them with that. We'll see how it turns out.

Whether you are talking about relations on a small scale, between individuals, or larger scale, between groups, there is no logic to making effort to respect the right of expression for someone (or some peoples) who do not share that value and see it as their duty to trample yours, violently.

The principle sounds good, but like many things, is relative to the context, and theory can be universal, but not in practice and in face with reality.

Here's a suggestion- Italy just recieved thousands of immigrant Muslims from Tunisia. They put them on a train to France. France refused them entry. They are, for the most part, young men. Being as France already has a huge muslim population which is terrorising and oppressing the french people, they aren't accepting any more.

Why don't the Americans, English, whoever else feels so strongly about protecting these people, volunteer to take them in? Show them freedom at your place? They are sitting in waiting for your open arms in Italy (who don't want them either).

I can't even imagine a city filled with people wearing masks. There are so many negative sides to this that are coming to my mind.
So if someone else can wear it then i can also.. If not its discrimination right?
Men can also wear it and you wouldn't even notice.
Criminals can come into the store and no one can see their face..just take out a gun and walk out..then when you walk out you just walk away without any problem.

Would Arab countries change the laws because of us?
I know some of their laws and you know what? I will never go there on a vacation...never in my life..and here they are trying to change our laws. It's not right..

Walking around naked is banned in majority of the world. I do not agree with burqa bans, but clothing regulation by law is everywhere, this is nothing new.

reply to post by idonotcollectstamps

So you support my right to wear a Mohammed mask with the words Mohammed written on the mask? (it is part of my religious beliefs).

No, those are not your religious beliefs. Quit lying.

It does not work, you are not making a decent argument. Go back to school. The view that civilchallenger brought forth is the only one not filled with hatred. Dang kids trying to debate issues on the internet...watch and learn instead.

Originally posted by Nimes
I can't even imagine a city filled with people wearing masks. There are so many negative sides to this that are coming to my mind.
So if someone else can wear it then i can also.. If not its discrimination right?
Men can also wear it and you wouldn't even notice.
Criminals can come into the store and no one can see their face..just take out a gun and walk out..then when you walk out you just walk away without any problem.

Would Arab countries change the laws because of us?
I know some of their laws and you know what? I will never go there on a vacation...never in my life..and here they are trying to change our laws. It's not right..

This is the biggest problem I think with the covering of the face. If one can wear a burka face covering, then one could also wear a halloween mask and claim that it is religious belief. You could wear ANY type of face covering and claim religious grounds for wearing it. But we DO allow this! We allow women to wear makeup changing their appearance, we allow humans to get facial reconstruction surgery, we allow GIGANTIC nearly clown like sunglasses, hats hooded sweatshirts, bandanas, stocking caps. Is there a law saying that you cannot wear silicon movie style makeup to change your appearance? Where does it end?

The Burka ban IS specifically targeting Muslim women. It IS religiously biased.

It is a ridiculously sticky wicket. Do you ban females being allowed to wear makeup since makeup can change your appearance? Do you prevent makeup for men and women? Do you ban sunglasses? Do you set a limit to the size of sunglasses that people can wear? Are you going to have a special device used to measure how large sunglasses can be? It is stupid to ban the burka.

Instead what we need to do is show them they do not hold the patent on religious tolerance. Have a gigantic group of people go around wearing a Mohammed mask. Let them complain that they are offended by this religious belief and explain to them how offensive the face covering is to other people.

Either they will learn religious tolerance or they will cast off the veil. Either way it is a win/win situation with Islam moving away from fundamentalism and embracing moderation. I see no other way to change this other than pure willpower, not laws banning cloth.

MOHAMMED MASK! Mohammed came to me in a vision and told me to spread the word to my fellow brothers and sisters! DO YOUR PART! Mohammed wants YOU to wear a Mohammed mask and write the name Mohammed on the mask. This is the truth and newest teaching of the prophet Mohammed peace be upon him.

Originally posted by Zamini
reply to post by idonotcollectstamps

 

So you support my right to wear a Mohammed mask with the words Mohammed written on the mask? (it is part of my religious beliefs).

No, those are not your religious beliefs. Quit lying.

It does not work, you are not making a decent argument. Go back to school. The view that civilchallenger brought forth is the only one not filled with hatred. Dang kids trying to debate issues on the internet...watch and learn instead.

So you are trying to tell me what my religious beliefs are? I am sorry that Mohammed has not visited you with a vision telling you about the Mohammed mask. I reason that you are not one of the chosen ones It is up to me to spread the word of Mohammed. This is his NEWEST teaching that he wants to share with the world. Mohammed wants YOU to wear a Mohammed mask and write the word Mohammed on the mask. It is truth my brother I SWEAR IT!

reply to post by Zamini


That is a very hypocritical stance. If the veils are allowed, every other face covering clothing needs to be allowed, too. There will be no special treatment just for muslims!

reply to post by idonotcollectstamps

So you are trying to tell me what my religious beliefs are?

No, I'm telling you there is no religion that says you have to wear a mask like that. Quit lying.

I am sorry that Mohammed .... you are not one of the chosen ones ....It is truth my brother I SWEAR IT!

Uhuh...chosen ones...are you Jewish by any chance? Besides that, way to ridicule yourself and bring yourself to a point where your argument rests on voice in your head, really shows progression.

reply to post by Maslo

That is a very hypocritical stance. If the veils are allowed, every other face covering clothing needs to be allowed, too. There will be no special treatment just for muslims!

That really is a non-argument. Must say, I'm not surprised it comes from you.

Personally though, I don't see the big issue with people wanting to wear headwear however they see fit. Just don't walk into a bank with a ski-mask on...(fyi; this does not equate to; don't walk into a democracy with your religion showing). Certain things must be kept in mind.

Your approach is one of war- and fearmongering, you're part of those who support division.

reply to post by Nammu


Your reasoning is flawed. Those who wears the burqas are expected by their husbands to wear them at all times. They are not permitted to ever remove them, whether in a bank, while driving a car -- ever.

They have no choice. The fact remains that there is no good reason to wear such garb. It serves only to ease the jealous mind of a weak man. No woman of sane mind would of her own volition decide that this kind of thing is appropriate across the board in every climate and circumstance.

There is no freedom of choice here. Your suggestion that anyone would choose this is absurd.

reply to post by coquine

Funny. They wax everything from the waist down, and the arms, armpits, cheeks and eyebrows. That is the norm.
The fact remains that many people focusing on the principle of right to dress as one wants are being distracted from the main problem, which they are not aware of in the country, and this law seeks to address.

Let me put it to you this way, there is absolutely no chance, that every, man, woman, and child in france is getting body waxes.

Just as there is no chance that every woman who wears a burka is a terrorist, or beaten by her husband, or any of the other absolutes bandied about.

What you displayed in fact is you get angry, when you are stereotyped into a group based on the perceptions of others thinking in absolutes.

Yet you are all to happy to think in absolutes yourself.

Stereotyping can be quite ugly and demeaning to those being painted with such a broad brush.

If you really don't like it when someone does it in a way that misrepresents you, you really shouldn't do it in a way that misrepresents others.

Originally posted by wayno
reply to post by Nammu

 

Your reasoning is flawed. Those who wears the burqas are expected by their husbands to wear them at all times. They are not permitted to ever remove them, whether in a bank, while driving a car -- ever.

They have no choice. The fact remains that there is no good reason to wear such garb. It serves only to ease the jealous mind of a weak man. No woman of sane mind would of her own volition decide that this kind of thing is appropriate across the board in every climate and circumstance.

There is no freedom of choice here. Your suggestion that anyone would choose this is absurd.

Actually the truth is many of the women who wear them in Afghanistan have no husbands. They are widows.

Widows from decades of wars and proxy wars fought between the Russians and the Americans and their own tribes.

So unless you imagine their husbands are reaching back from the grave then you are just wrong.

Additionally many of these widows end up as paupers in Kabul, begging in districts where the Burka is not commonly worn and no one if forcing them to wear it.

Here is another reason to wear the Burka you haven't thought of, that in fact leads some women in Afghanistan to wear it, and that's facial disfigurement caused by being the victim of violence not by their husbands but Coalition Bombs dropped on their homes a process often supported by people who imagine the things that you do.

A process that often kills them far in excess of any religious crime that would lead to punishment, a process that often leaves them widowed, and a process that often leaves them badly scarred and disfigured.

Whether then as an ode to female vanity, or a decision not to upset others with the horror of their scars and disfigurement, or as a decision not to risk being denied a handout because they are so scarred, or as a decision not to be denied a handout by the conservatives who favor the burka, or as a decision to stick to their cultural roots like the people of France are claiming to want to do in denying them this, they still wear the Burka with no Husband at all.

Cherry picking elements for a biased argument is just that, it's cherry picking elements for a biased argument, and as such does not make it a sound or factual argument.

reply to post by Nammu


If you have any quotes of my making these accusations, then post them, otherwise stop fabricating lies about what I have said.

You can not prove that any sane Muslim women choose to wear the burqa either, but we can prove that most women do not want to wear the burqa, and being that our chosen style of government is a democracy, then that majority has a right to ban such offensive articles of clothing that are proven to be used to control and abuse women.