We the Uk follow suit?
Discussion
king chance in this pussy-footed country, "it's too politically incorrect, lets not offend anyone" 
Muntu said:
AndrewW-G said:
Nope, even though most agree that wearing the Burkha and Niqab are cultural and not religous...............
Even though the said garments are almost unanimously eschewed by the followers of all religions bar one.All it takes is one group of muslims in France to appeal this up to the EU courts and these silly disguises will end up banned across Europe as once the court rules in favour of France's ban it then must rule the same when other nations follow suit, which they will.
I actually think the French have been quite progressive about all this.
I dare say we won't be following for some time. The French government is secular so you can't accuse it of bias towards any faith. However ours is Christian, any move restricting the rights of muslims could be interpreted as an act of prejudice.
It won't happen until our government is truly secular. Even then you need to scrap all forms of religious benefits like tax relief and other "God-given" rights, to avoid cries of prejudice.
I dare say we won't be following for some time. The French government is secular so you can't accuse it of bias towards any faith. However ours is Christian, any move restricting the rights of muslims could be interpreted as an act of prejudice.
It won't happen until our government is truly secular. Even then you need to scrap all forms of religious benefits like tax relief and other "God-given" rights, to avoid cries of prejudice.
Edited by G_T on Wednesday 27th January 13:46
deadslow said:
Yes, but the head of the French state is not also the head of the established religion, so they can make the case a lot more clearly for keeping religious beliefs a private matter and off the streets. Non?
Laïcité.Started under the 3rd République (second half of 19th century), laïcité is a way of organising a Society in such a way that religious and political powers are separated and do not influence each other decisions. the Church shut up when the President speaks and vice versa.
The official law was instituted in 1905 and effectively separates State and Religion (and of course that's all religions).
What it effectively means in today's France (various established religions) is that no sign of any religion including christianism should be imposed onto the People. A French in the street is effectivily on the government's territory, not his/her cult's. Same goes in schools (private or public).
It's not painless though: exclusion is a major issue since some muslim families refuse to remove their religious artefacts and instead take their kids off school... leading to other issues.
Realised I got a bit carried away there...sorry, Laïcité is quite an interesting subject/concept. Especially for someone who can't be bothered with religion.
J B L said:
What it effectively means in today's France (various established religions) is that no sign of any religion including christianism should be imposed onto the People. A French in the street is effectivily on the government's territory, not his/her cult's. Same goes in schools (private or public).
If what you say is true than no priest or monk or nun may walk a French street in their traditional garb as that too would impose their sign of religion in the way they dress just as the burka does. Unless the only signs of religion that count are ones that obscure the mouth and nose.OnTheOverrun said:
J B L said:
What it effectively means in today's France (various established religions) is that no sign of any religion including christianism should be imposed onto the People. A French in the street is effectivily on the government's territory, not his/her cult's. Same goes in schools (private or public).
If what you say is true than no priest or monk or nun may walk a French street in their traditional garb as that too would impose their sign of religion in the way they dress just as the burka does. Unless the only signs of religion that count are ones that obscure the mouth and nose.This decision needs to be taken into today's context with the decency that is requiered: yes, you can wear your nun's clothes / turban / beard but in public places, do not cover your face too much. I can't see the police running after every single nun/imam/hijab wearing girl. The law is here in principle and clearly state "ostentatious religious signs", what you include in that is down to interpretation.
What I didn't touch on much are schools where in 2004, all ostentatious religious signs had to be deleted, cross as well as hijab. I studied in a private school where lots of teachers were actually brothers/priests. I know that today they cannot show their crosses anymore and pupils of muslim origin cannot wear the hijab... good thing is, they lost less than 1% of the muslim girls, mainly because society progresses (3rd generation of muslim born in France) but also because that particular school is a good one and once your kid's in it you don't take her/him out.
Perhaps if you start removing these signs at an early age, their are more chances that you won't find them again in 10 years time.
Anyway, I was reading a French newspaper and it's far from done yet...
Edited by J B L on Wednesday 27th January 16:47
7thCircleAcolyte said:
Muntu said:
AndrewW-G said:
Nope, even though most agree that wearing the Burkha and Niqab are cultural and not religous...............
Even though the said garments are almost unanimously eschewed by the followers of all religions bar one.I may wear a panama hat, but like the hajib and your granny's headscarf that you brought into the discussion, it has nothing to do with the burkhas and niqabs that we were discussing. Thanks for your input though
J B L said:
OnTheOverrun said:
J B L said:
What it effectively means in today's France (various established religions) is that no sign of any religion including christianism should be imposed onto the People. A French in the street is effectivily on the government's territory, not his/her cult's. Same goes in schools (private or public).
If what you say is true than no priest or monk or nun may walk a French street in their traditional garb as that too would impose their sign of religion in the way they dress just as the burka does. Unless the only signs of religion that count are ones that obscure the mouth and nose.This decision needs to be taken into today's context with the decency that is requiered: yes, you can wear your nun's clothes / turban / beard but in public places, do not cover your face too much. I can't see the police running after every single nun/imam/hijab wearing girl. The law is here in principle and clearly state "ostentatious religious signs", what you include in that is down to interpretation.
What I didn't touch on much are schools where in 2004, all ostentatious religious signs had to be deleted, cross as well as hijab. I studied in a private school where lots of teachers were actually brothers/priests. I know that today they cannot show their crosses anymore and pupils of muslim origin cannot wear the hijab... good thing is, they lost less than 1% of the muslim girls, mainly because society progresses (3rd generation of muslim born in France) but also because that particular school is a good one and once your kid's in it you don't take her/him out.
Perhaps if you start removing these signs at an early age, their are more chances that you won't find them again in 10 years time.
Anyway, I was reading a French newspaper and it's far from done yet...
Edited by J B L on Wednesday 27th January 16:47
I believe the French have every right to democratically ban the burka if they choose, but to say that they treat all obvious public symbols of religion in the same way they treat the burka is evidently nonsense.
OnTheOverrun said:
I'm afraid it still sounds hypocritcal to and selective to me. The pope can visit France and walk the streets dressed as only a pope does carrying a bloody great cross and the law allows it, but the burka is a no-no.
I believe the French have every right to democratically ban the burka if they choose, but to say that they treat all obvious public symbols of religion in the same way they treat the burka is evidently nonsense.
2 things here. I believe the French have every right to democratically ban the burka if they choose, but to say that they treat all obvious public symbols of religion in the same way they treat the burka is evidently nonsense.
Yes it's hypocritical and selective because the main religion in France is Christianism, by a long margin... so of course, the voting majority who is interested in religion is a Christian one. France is not reknowned for its PC stand towards minorities because if the government were to favour one ethnic group more than another, you know what would happen; you'd hear about it.
On the other hand, when the Pope comes you don't have to go and see him, he just doesn't turn up unannounced at the corner of a street. Equally, the Imam of the Mecca's mosque has never been refused entry in France but I don't know any of my friend who went to see him (were they of Arab origin or not), like 99.99% of the population, you see 3 minutes of him on the news program in the evening...like the Pope.
It's not all black or all white, there are tolerances and concessions made and eventually these principles have to be applied for the good of the highest common denominator which encompasses various ethnical groups (of various religious origin) who can't be bothered about religion and would rather get on with their life.
Muntu said:
Most old ladies do not wear a hijab at all.
I may wear a panama hat, but like the hajib and your granny's headscarf that you brought into the discussion, it has nothing to do with the burkhas and niqabs that we were discussing. Thanks for your input though
Round our way they do..... queue of 'em outside the post office already. The vast majority of which are wearing headscarfs of which the hijab is a subtype.I may wear a panama hat, but like the hajib and your granny's headscarf that you brought into the discussion, it has nothing to do with the burkhas and niqabs that we were discussing. Thanks for your input though
The point you missed was that if this was an attack on islamic clothing then the headscarf would also be banned. But it isn't, and that demonstrates it not to be an attack on islam but one on silly disguises that have no place in European streets.
Muslims can comply with their faith without the requirement for either a burkha or a niqab so there's no problem here. It'd do muslims in Europe a power of good to see this as a positive step instead of wailing and creating a song & dance about it.
Won't matter anyway, as like I said some short sighted fool in France will appeal it and then the European Court will make its ruling testing the disguise against the French system where it can't possibly win. This will effectively set the law for all of Europe making it far more likely other countries/provinces will follow suit.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff