It was also banned in Iran from 1936-1941. "Between 1941 and 1979, wearing a hijab was no longer an offense in Iran, but it was a real hindrance to climbing the social ladder, a badge of backwardness and a marker of class. A headscarf, let alone the chador, prejudiced the chances of advancement in work and society not only of working women but also of men, who were increasingly expected to appear with their wives at social functions. Fashionable hotels and restaurants refused to admit women with chador, schools and universities actively discouraged the chador, although the headscarf was tolerated. It was common to see girls from traditional families, who had to leave home with the chador, arriving at school without it and then putting it on again on the way home." (source.
Please reread what I've written. I'm not in favor of wearing a burqa. I don't think it's a good idea for women to wear them. I never have. I do think it's a good idea for women to have the choice. Sorry I just support freedom that way. In this way you are in favor of removing freedom. We have a fundamental disagreement here. I'm favor of the personal freedom, and you are against it. But the one area we both agree on, is that it isn't a great idea to wear a burqa when getting on the metro at the Bastille, or Rue de Rivoli.
Sure, then throw freedom under the bus and move to Saudi Arabia dude, because you are just as intolerant as the intolerant.
You two clowns (FranchiseBlade and New Yorker) can repeat a million times that you are oh-so-much about freedom by "wanting to give women the choice to wear the burqa", but you will still be wrong. I can easily tell that you did not read any of the articles I posted (by Muslims and non-Muslims). You operate on the flawed assumption that the presumed "choice" for these women grants them "freedom", when the opposite is true. You guys think you are oh-so-liberal and such "freedom fighters", but you have not understood the first thing about it.
If I can speak for myself. - I hate the burqa/niqab, and actively speak out against it. - I support a woman's CHOICE to wear it. - I've said that this law will worsen the life of the women who were being forced, because now they will be forced to stay home. So IFFF the purpose is to help them, the purpose will not be met anyhow. - My main gripe is that the actual bad guys, the husbands who are a-holes, are not going to lose anything from this and will carry on doing the same thing. This law applies to 2,000 people - 1,000 of them wear it voluntarily and are unfairly forced to not wear it by the government now, and the other 1,000 suddenly are forced to move or stay home by their husbands. - The solution I propose is for the law enforcement officers to take WAAAAAAY harsher stances with husbands who are reported for this and offer the women protection if needed. - In addition, I propose that women be empowered with information about an exit plan in case they are being forced and want to get out, and that chidren are also empowered with information that shows them the meaning, the history and the sentiment towards wearing a niqab. - EDIT: I am completely supportive of making women remove it when asked for identification, or banning it in banks for example. Anything security-related, I am for. However, I insist that it be communicated that way, and that the law be shaped in a way that shows its purpose. Once again, I'm pro choice, pro-rights, and I believe this ban achieves the opposite of both. The people who are responsible for forced veils have now successfully screwed over a whole bunch of women who wear it voluntarily, and they have not been and will not be penalized for their actions. The reality that this practice will disappear with time and not a ban remains intact, when in reality they could have taken steps to speed up the process. One last time. If your goal is to help these women, then it will fail for sure. If the goal is to protect French culture, then they should be banning a lot more things which they haven't. If the goal is simply to not have women wear a niqab to cater to the preferences of savage english school teachers who bite/scratch other people, then great job, this law is perfect. Perhaps the US should've gone this route with the ground zero mosque. To protect American culture and to protect mosque-goers, forced and not forced, from attacks. How stupid of me. I thought that the constant here is freedom, and everything anyone would like to do would be worked around that. I didn't realize that the constant is actually Europe, and freedom will be cut, modified, increased, reduced and reshaped around that. I though the transgressor was the husband/father in the equation. I didn't realize the transgressor is the woman who is forced to wear a niqab, or the woman who is not forced to wear it. What obnoxious snobs, they must be smiling under there, laughing "HAHAHAHA I'm allowed to be forced to wear this by my husband, what a bunch of French fools!!". If you want to know what I think, it will probably change in a month, and again and again. As I learn more, it will change more. But one thing you can count on is I will step back and ask myself who or what is the problem, and that will never change >> who: the husband/father/brother, what: forcefulness in marriage. For others, it's >> who: Muslim women, what: burqa/niqab. Once again, I'm sick of this topic. I only brought it back to life because I know the identity of the woman who was attacked in France, and she has her own views and her own justification for wearing it, and she is well educated and knows the law (she was willing to pay the fine). She is certainly not forced to wear it, and she doesn't understand why France is becoming like Saudi Arabia. Maybe this is not clear to some, and maybe it's a revelation for some: there are women who wear the burqa/niqab who HATE the practice of forcing women to wear hijab (such as in Iran or Saudi). Think about this for a second.
Syria, Tunisia, Turkey, there are many such countries. Are we taking lessons from these countries now?
To those asking if anyone knows any, I know many, and interact with them on a daily basis. I know who loves to dance, I know one who goes skydiving. They (the ones not forced) choose to wear it because they believe it is the best way to live their life. There are certainly many who are forced to wear it. I've even slept with one (not uncommon here). I've met some who wear it when they go out with guys because they don't want to be seen by family/friends. They have all the same concerns as anyone else, and access to all the same information. They know what they are doing. Unless they are in Saudi Arabia, they are free to run away in favor of their principles. It's not my business to ask them about their personal relationship with God IMO.
You keep saying that, but it is not true. That's kind of like saying laws against child abuse are bad because then it is going to take place more secretly than it would otherwise. This, once again, is absolutely wrong. If you had actually read about it (and read what I already posted in this thread), the fine for the women is largely symbolic, whereas the fine for the husbands is much, much higher. Here it is again for you: The law presents a large difference between the penalty for those who wear the burqa (150 Euros) and for those who force others to wear the burqa: a fine of 30,000 Euros a year in prison (twice if it involves a minor). Thanks for this great "proposal for a solution". As you can see above, this IS ALREADY the law that you are so vehemently arguing against. I agree with that. I haven't read the entire law, but would not be surprised if that is already part of it. Whether you insist or not, it is also, but not only about security, so the French law (passed 335 to 1!!!!) "insists" that the mobile jails are outlawed in public all the time, not only "for security". Once again, you are wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong. Read above. The fine for the people who force these women is 200 times higher than the one for wearing it. If anything, the way the law is structured gives these women at least a little bit of power over their abusive husbands and fathers. It is very clear that the law is in reality targeted at these people, not at the women, but you will not get to these people unless you also sanction the manifestation of their abuse. The law is a great step to speed up the process. No, that is wrong. What would fail would be continuing to allow these islamist pricks to force their women into mobile jails unpunished. It's hilarious how you focus on one isolated incident of ALLEGED biting/scratching to justify your opposition to the law. Indeed. But given your cultural background and the environment you live in, I can understand. At least you seem to be an intelligent person, which is a lot more than can be said about someone like New Yorker, for instance. You are not making any sense. Well, then there is hope. Again: No, no, no, you are getting it wrong. Look at the actual fines that are imposed and you will realize that you are on the wrong track. France is in no way becoming like Saudi Arabia - completely ridiculous statement. Islamists are trying to make it that way, but the law is a great step to fight that. Then they are schizophrenic or have no free choice. The law frees them.
ATW, thanks. I had not understood the fine differentiation. The problem with a thread this long is that it's impossible to read all of it before wanting to join in of course.
Actually ATW, I was reading your articles and found that largely they were preaching to the choir. I'm not in favor of anyone wearing a burqa. I think at it's very heart it represents an inequality that women should have to wear one, but men don't. I'm against people having to wear burqas. I don't understand why they think it's a good idea, why it's a way they would want to live their lives. I wouldn't mind the part of the law that punishes families for forcing someone to wear the burqa. But outlawing wearing it is curtailing their freedom. My point is that I'm not so arrogant, and authoritative as you are to believe that because I think one way, there has to be a law to make people who disagree with me behave the way I feel is best for the them. It isn't my job to tell them what to do. The fact that I believe a woman should be free to choose to do something that I disagree with is being a stronger advocate for her freedom, even if she chooses to voluntarily deny herself some of those freedoms.
Just want to note that I'm not reading anything you write anymore. Frankly, I'm tired of you telling me what I mean lol Have fun
Did not want to start another thread on this. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...verted-Islam-trip-Iran.html?ito=feeds-newsxml Anyone else hear about this? I don't know how big a deal it is, but it's going to be interesting to see how Tony reacts to this.
Well, clearly she should not be allowed to make this choice with respect to wearing a hijab. We know better than her. We should pass a law or something.
i've posted this numerous times, yet you cannot seem to get it through that skull of yours. my temper is just fine. i'm posting this while getting ready to enjoy the wonderful day with my beautiful wife and great friends. the beer is on ice and the pipe is loaded. i've got a fantasy basketball draft to prepare for, so i'm not going to stick around the site much this morning. i'm thinking of breaking the grill out later, maybe cook some bratwurst and top it with some kimchi in your honor. it's going to be a good day and i'm a happy man. i mean, if one had to pick who was the angry man - the person spending the day the way i just described or the person spending the day scouring the interwebs looking for any article that can be used the demean the religion of millions upon millions of peaceful people on an internet message board - i'm pretty sure we both know what the choice would be every single time. regardless, calling an ******* bigot on a message board an '******* bigot' does not make me an angry man. just a direct and astute one. p.s. i may choose dirk in your honor as well.
I think FB stated it best. You don't have a right to DECIDE what is best for anyone. It's socialist to play the role of big brother and decide that people shouldn't wear x, y, or z. Move to China, where they DECIDED that it was best for people not to believe in god and thus got rid of religion. I'm an atheist, but I'd never suggest that people ban religion because I respect people's freedom to make their own path. These woman may be oppressed and I don't think it's in their best interest to wear a burqa, but they WANT to wear them. And no matter how you slice it, you are basically taking away what someone wants to do because of your hate for Islam.
That's one assumption. Another might be that the French are afraid that someone with a moustache and a bomb is hidden under that burqa.
