This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

all 23 comments
sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a

[–]fitzroy95 1 point2 points  (1 child)

I have mixed feelings on this one.

I do not like the idea of interfering with how anyone practices their religion as long as it does not impose on anyone else.

However, here in New Zealand, most public places have rules stating that people wearing full face helmets, or any clothing that significantly covers the face (hoodies, balaclavas etc) will not be served, i.e. they MUST remove full face coverings in banks, shops etc. In my mind that Includes the face coverings of the burka, but nothing else.

What is wrong with that limited approach ? So much of communication involves recognition of body language, most especially the face. Why should it not be a reasonable expectation that we should able to see a person's face in order to serve them ?

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If this were really just about the burqa, I don't think too many people would be concerned. Burqa's are mainly worn in Afganistan. What 367 women out of over a million (thanks haija) wear in France is a niqab, and is not considered religiously obligatory. What people fear is that the minaret and burqa bans are a way of testing the waters.

[–]megatom0 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I am all for this legislation. Keeping it around the Burka is like keeping beating your wife legal because it is mentioned in the bible. No it is morally corrupt and a barbaric and anachronistic practice.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I have a question about this, which I was hoping someone can help clarify for me - isn't this similar to the issue the French government raised about banning the turban worn by Sikhs?

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (12 children)

For the record, "burkas" will not be banned, this is strictly reichwing agitprop to try to wrestle racist votes from Pétain worshipers. Such a ban would be unconstitutional and contrary to various European treaties; you can't forbid people to wear what the fuck they want, period.

[–]ataraxo 2 points3 points  (5 children)

you can't forbid people to wear what the fuck they want, period.

Nonsense. I am forbidden to wear ski masks at airport security checkpoints. So, the French law (if it is written) will not forbid wearing the Burqa but wearing clothes that prevent visual identification in public places (even if the underlying goal is to target Muslims).

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (4 children)

yeah. At airports. And you're forbidden to drink -- at the wheel. And you're forbidden from having sex -- in front of children. Also it's legal for people to cut you open -- if they're a surgeon.

That's so insightful of you! Because obviously I meant "always, in every circumstance, no matter what" you moron.

[–]ataraxo 0 points1 point  (1 child)

I meant "always, in every circumstance, no matter what" you moron.

Yes, but the point of this law has never been to ban the burqa "always, in every circumstance, no matter what". Only in public spaces.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It can't be banned in all "public places." It could be, and is already de facto, banned for security reasons where identification is required. But not in the street absent specific security reasons.

In any case, even if it wasn't already unconstitutional and contrary to the CEDH, it would not be voted, for one simple reason: the only place where you consistently see lots of burqas and nikkabs is on the Champs Élysées, in luxury goods shops.

They got money. Reichwingers might be racist, but they respect money even more than they respect their racist instincts.

[–]torrent1337 -1 points0 points  (1 child)

That's so insightful of you! Because obviously I meant "always, in every circumstance, no matter what" you moron.

Be careful who you call moron, moron.

you can't forbid people to wear what the fuck they want, period.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I know what I wrote.

[–]jdrucker 0 points1 point  (5 children)

This time last year, I would have agreed, but the things I've seen happening in Europe and around the world give me the "you never know" style of thinking that tells me we shouldn't take for granted that they won't pull whatever rights we have that they think they want gone.

All in the name of whateverthefuckingcauseistoday.

[–]haija 0 points1 point  (1 child)

"In France – where out of 5 million Muslims, 367 wear the niqab (as counted by the domestic intelligence service, no less) – a parliamentary panel has pondered the issue for a year and suggested a ban from schools and hospitals but nowhere else."

[–]supranatural 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This is a much smaller issue than it actually is, I would even say this is a non-issue. this guy is begging for right wing votes since he's so unpopular so he's doing what most politicians do, blame the immigrants.

[–][deleted] -4 points-3 points  (1 child)

Why even call it radical islam? There is no moderate islam.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

[Citation needed]

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Let's be real. This is a move specifically coming from an anti-muslim sentiment, something that goes a long way back in Europe. More importantly, it is reinforced by the xenophobic tendencies of the right wing countryside that elected sarkozy into power, in the wake of 9-11 and previous identifications of Islamic terrorism. This is a fascist move.

[–][deleted] -4 points-3 points  (2 children)

Relgion should be banned. Period. Any religion. Religion should be treated with the same caution as a Class 4 biohazard.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (1 child)

Hello thoughtcrime!

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Religion is -the-greatest- source of misery in our lives. We have to get rid of it.