European Court of Human Rights upholds French burka ban

Because... Laïcité

 

In France, they do.

The problem isn't clothing, it's coercion. Banning Burkas does nothing to address that problem and those women may still be coerced into other non-visible actions in the name of religion. You might not see Burkas on the street because those women won't be allowed to leave the house anymore.

 

This does seem a lot like trying to address a symptom instead of any kind of actual core issue. It's like trying to stop gangs by banning hoodies.

 

If that actually starts happening in significant numbers, there have got to be some fault-finding divorce or civil tort mechanisms they can put in place to empower the female spouse. I guess this is where the long game of social engineering via classrooms and massive media propaganda: like ad campaigns or just a lot of movies and TV shows with unveiled Islamic women, comes into play.

 

The ban is

^^to an extent some are forced, others are not^^

Thats a lot harder than it seems - Many Muslim women willingly adhere to the traditional Muslim women roles in their society. Many don't want to change. And the ones that are forced or coerced, will not be able to change since their husbands are controlling. Its like U.S. women who won't leave an abusive spouse, but times 10.

That being said, the less these women are in public (due to the burka ban) the less likely they are to change in the long run.

HOWEVER, I do believe that banning burkas in public is an infringement on the rights to the Muslim community. IF they wanted to ban all head-coverings in Government buildings, say for "safety reasons", then I could understand that. But that would include any type of hoodie, ski mask, burkas etc. But in the general public..thats going way too far.

 

Burkas are tacky.

 

Why? Nothing wrong with what he posted. I take him seriously, and how about you shut your f**king yap?

 

Women who are coerced into wearing a burka will just be made to stay home and endure further psychological damage. Those who do it by choice will simply gain nothing anyhow.

Just silly arguments. The only valid argument is from a public safety perspective - which is 100% understandable IMO. However, the law does not address that and instead targets one particular group and I have rarely ever seen a law attempt to impose a certain moral on people unless it's from a fascist state.

Essentially, France is acting like Saudi Arabia. It is reducing the freedom of a sub section of the population based on a subjective judgement about the symbolism of wearing a certain type of clothing. It's so specifically similar.

1) YOU MUST COVER YOUR HEAD.
2) YOU MUST NOT COVER YOUR HEAD.

No difference between these two. They are both the product if ideological political force, and both seek goals for which there is no evidence, in history, will be achieved.

This further adds fuel to the fire of the crazies who just love to throw around the "freedom habibi? what freedom? go to france and see if they will let your wife wear a burka. there is no freedom habibi, just my way or highway habibi." Not a significant problem, but hugely irritating nonetheless in a region where we're trying to overcome this type of iron-fisted ideological governance.

 

Nope, no agenda here. Move along.

 

You take him seriously with his constant and ignorant bashing of the US. You are dumber than a box of rocks.

 

Some of his posts are ignorant yes, but look at what you posted on the last page. No substance. Now I know that ad-hominem attacks are intrinsic to the D&D...but screaming "MATHLOOM SUCKS!" fails to get the point across when repeated so many times. Regarding this topic, I am of the same mind as you and ATW btw.

 

You talk about silly arguments and then you compare France with Saudi Arabia. Oh my god shut up already.

 

A good serious post by a serious poster. This type of banning will lead to greater extremism at home and abroad. I don't THINK this is a good way to go if you want to end religious extremism. I must admit that my initial emotional reaction is sort of distaste when I see a woman or man wearing some sort of other religious garb signifying extreme religiosity.

E.g The yellow/orange robes iirc correctly of Moonies (Hey anyone see them lately? The Rev Moonhas passed or has enough money?) Amish garb or even a 4 inch cross worn outside one's shirt. Thankfully Mormon magic underwear is not usually visible nor is the hair shirt of nutjob Opus Dei Catholics. Banning these practices would not help the rest of us normal folks!

Out of familiarity the typical priest collar does not weird me out as much, though I might feel slightly guilty for not going to church.

A sort of semi-Burka with enough exposed sexy eyebrow work and enough dramatic eye make up with not too loose a covering so you can't get a tantalizing hint of the startling figure beneath can be quite appropriate.

 

To be honest, I don't really care about this debate. But there is one thing I'd like to say: This law does not only ban burkas. It bans any kind of face covering in public. That means, Mathloom, that it does not target one particular group. It may affect Muslims more than non-Muslims, but it doesn't target them specifically. In addition, the law does address the public safety issue. In fact, at least according to wikipedia, the security risk connected with the inability to identify someone's face in public places is one of the main reasons the law was implemented in the first place.

 

Project much? Mathloom is Muslim.. Get over it.