Oxymoronic French law on veils raises its head again...
Discussion
This time, it's a Saudi woman being kicked out of the opera.
I just don't understand how any sane individual can actually look at this legislation and not see the massive logical flaw running straight through the heart of it? The whole thing is like something out of a Monty Python sketch!
Is it wrong to force a woman to wear a sack on her head in public against her will? Yes, of course, absolutely.
So how is it different to force a woman not to wear a sack on her head in public against her will?
OK, fine, this law might mean that women who were forced to wear sacks on their heads in public no longer wear them, but considering the mentality of a man who would force a woman to wear a sack on her head in the first place, does anyone really think that these women are now gamboling foot loose and fancy free through the parks and boulevards of France with the wind blowing serenely through their newly emancipated locks?
Or is it more likely that they've become even more repressed than they were before, and quite possibly aren't allowed out in public at all?
So women who did wear a sack out of choice have had that choice taken away from them, just so that misogynist pillocks now have an excuse to keep their women shut away permanently.
I'm sure that's a positive blow for the equality of women in French sack-wearing communities then!
I just don't understand how any sane individual can actually look at this legislation and not see the massive logical flaw running straight through the heart of it? The whole thing is like something out of a Monty Python sketch!
Is it wrong to force a woman to wear a sack on her head in public against her will? Yes, of course, absolutely.
So how is it different to force a woman not to wear a sack on her head in public against her will?
OK, fine, this law might mean that women who were forced to wear sacks on their heads in public no longer wear them, but considering the mentality of a man who would force a woman to wear a sack on her head in the first place, does anyone really think that these women are now gamboling foot loose and fancy free through the parks and boulevards of France with the wind blowing serenely through their newly emancipated locks?
Or is it more likely that they've become even more repressed than they were before, and quite possibly aren't allowed out in public at all?
So women who did wear a sack out of choice have had that choice taken away from them, just so that misogynist pillocks now have an excuse to keep their women shut away permanently.
I'm sure that's a positive blow for the equality of women in French sack-wearing communities then!
Kermit power said:
This time, it's a Saudi woman being kicked out of the opera.
I just don't understand how any sane individual can actually look at this legislation and not see the massive logical flaw running straight through the heart of it? The whole thing is like something out of a Monty Python sketch!
Is it wrong to force a woman to wear a sack on her head in public against her will? Yes, of course, absolutely.
So how is it different to force a woman not to wear a sack on her head in public against her will?
OK, fine, this law might mean that women who were forced to wear sacks on their heads in public no longer wear them, but considering the mentality of a man who would force a woman to wear a sack on her head in the first place, does anyone really think that these women are now gamboling foot loose and fancy free through the parks and boulevards of France with the wind blowing serenely through their newly emancipated locks?
Or is it more likely that they've become even more repressed than they were before, and quite possibly aren't allowed out in public at all?
So women who did wear a sack out of choice have had that choice taken away from them, just so that misogynist pillocks now have an excuse to keep their women shut away permanently.
I'm sure that's a positive blow for the equality of women in French sack-wearing communities then!
Please suggest an alternative I just don't understand how any sane individual can actually look at this legislation and not see the massive logical flaw running straight through the heart of it? The whole thing is like something out of a Monty Python sketch!
Is it wrong to force a woman to wear a sack on her head in public against her will? Yes, of course, absolutely.
So how is it different to force a woman not to wear a sack on her head in public against her will?
OK, fine, this law might mean that women who were forced to wear sacks on their heads in public no longer wear them, but considering the mentality of a man who would force a woman to wear a sack on her head in the first place, does anyone really think that these women are now gamboling foot loose and fancy free through the parks and boulevards of France with the wind blowing serenely through their newly emancipated locks?
Or is it more likely that they've become even more repressed than they were before, and quite possibly aren't allowed out in public at all?
So women who did wear a sack out of choice have had that choice taken away from them, just so that misogynist pillocks now have an excuse to keep their women shut away permanently.
I'm sure that's a positive blow for the equality of women in French sack-wearing communities then!
psgcarey said:
There is no law in France specifically against wearing veils.
Muslims complained that having to look at crucifixes on the walls of schools was discrimination, so all forms of religious symbolism in public, including veils, is banned. It's called equality.
I think the full face veil is ridiculous but I find it hard to believe that the origin of the ban is what your describe above.Muslims complained that having to look at crucifixes on the walls of schools was discrimination, so all forms of religious symbolism in public, including veils, is banned. It's called equality.
Gargamel said:
Please suggest an alternative
Allow people the freedom to wear whatever head gear they like. There. That wasn't very hard.This law is idiotic populist nonsense. It had nothing whatsoever to do with equality because it clearly was nevet going to affect people equally. Taking the right to exercise a freedom away from someone who never wanted to exercise it in the first place is clearly not equal to removing it from someone who did.
Gargamel said:
Please suggest an alternative
If you can prove she's being forced to wear it against her will, then prosecute the person forcing her.If you can't, or even more so she can prove that it's her choice, then who is the French government to interfere?
My son would claim that I force him to eat Broccoli. That doesn't mean that broccoli should be banned, as some people actually choose to eat it of their own free will.
psgcarey said:
There is no law in France specifically against wearing veils.
Muslims complained that having to look at crucifixes on the walls of schools was discrimination, so all forms of religious symbolism in public, including veils, is banned. It's called equality.
Wrong on both counts.Muslims complained that having to look at crucifixes on the walls of schools was discrimination, so all forms of religious symbolism in public, including veils, is banned. It's called equality.
There IS a specific law against women covering their faces in public places and it is NOT because of Muslims complaining about crucifixes but rather the French upholding the secular ideals of their revolution.
rohrl said:
Wrong on both counts.
There IS a specific law against women covering their faces in public places and it is NOT because of Muslims complaining about crucifixes but rather the French upholding the secular ideals of their revolution.
YepThere IS a specific law against women covering their faces in public places and it is NOT because of Muslims complaining about crucifixes but rather the French upholding the secular ideals of their revolution.
If you want to practice a backward, medieval, version of a religion do it outside a western secular state.
JagLover said:
rohrl said:
Wrong on both counts.
There IS a specific law against women covering their faces in public places and it is NOT because of Muslims complaining about crucifixes but rather the French upholding the secular ideals of their revolution.
YepThere IS a specific law against women covering their faces in public places and it is NOT because of Muslims complaining about crucifixes but rather the French upholding the secular ideals of their revolution.
If you want to practice a backward, medieval, version of a religion do it outside a western secular state.
If you don't like the laws in the real world then fk off back to a third world stone age sthole.
Kermit power said:
Gargamel said:
Please suggest an alternative
My son would claim that I force him to eat Broccoli. That doesn't mean that broccoli should be banned, as some people actually choose to eat it of their own free will.in all seriousness, why are the French people not allowed to decide what is acceptable in their country? if they decide their lives are safer and more content if people can't wear headgear or you have to wear gloves on a Thursday that's up to them.
the French didn't found their state on religious principles neither did we or the US etc, so why should religion expect to not be questioned or legislated over / against.
it annoyed me last night that someone who lives in the catchment of a particular secondary school in southend had to have an interview, along his mum, with a priest to get in, that's wrong, his place (in a state school) should not be controlled by religion.
ATG said:
Gargamel said:
Please suggest an alternative
Allow people the freedom to wear whatever head gear they like. There. That wasn't very hard.This law is idiotic populist nonsense. It had nothing whatsoever to do with equality because it clearly was nevet going to affect people equally. Taking the right to exercise a freedom away from someone who never wanted to exercise it in the first place is clearly not equal to removing it from someone who did.
But of course the veil is fine.
Cheese Mechanic said:
People can spout their indignant angst however much they like, but masked people in public is not good, not good at all. It causes immediate suspicion. Similar to wearing a motorcycle helmet in a public place , shop, etc. Why the secrecy? Religion is not an excuse.
It's not even religious - there's bugger all in the Koran about the wearing of veils (iirc)ATG said:
Allow people the freedom to wear whatever head gear they like. There. That wasn't very hard.
Yes but the issue is that those wearing them aren't really doing so out of what I'd call 'choice' they are doing it as a result of the systematic oppression of women in their culture. How many atheists cover their faces in public?rohrl said:
Wrong on both counts.
There IS a specific law against women covering their faces in public places and it is NOT because of Muslims complaining about crucifixes but rather the French upholding the secular ideals of their revolution.
Actually correct.There IS a specific law against women covering their faces in public places and it is NOT because of Muslims complaining about crucifixes but rather the French upholding the secular ideals of their revolution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_law_on_secular...
TKF said:
Soov535 said:
Try going out in public wearing a balaclava and see how long it is before you get nicked.
But of course the veil is fine.
Any record of anyone anywhere ever being arrested for wearing a balaclava?But of course the veil is fine.
jesta1865 said:
Kermit power said:
Gargamel said:
Please suggest an alternative
My son would claim that I force him to eat Broccoli. That doesn't mean that broccoli should be banned, as some people actually choose to eat it of their own free will.in all seriousness, why are the French people not allowed to decide what is acceptable in their country? if they decide their lives are safer and more content if people can't wear headgear or you have to wear gloves on a Thursday that's up to them.
jesta1865 said:
the French didn't found their state on religious principles neither did we or the US etc, so why should religion expect to not be questioned or legislated over / against.
If we didn't found our state on religious principles, then why do we let people sit in the House of Lords as part of the policy making apparatus simply because they wear silly pointy hats?Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff