Interesting.. If the argument for banning the Niqab / Burkha is primarily for public safety I would be more supportive but in that case I would have to see France similarly ban other apparel that could be used for concealment of identity and weaponry.
thanks for proving my point. You realize that you support of the ban is against everything you've been preaching as a conservative? It's more in line with Communism. Welcome dear leader, shall we rename you red thumbs?
laws passed entirely out of xenophobia are bad laws. this is a law aimed directly at a practice of a religion...with no other reasoning or value behind it that i am aware of. but simply because "we" are not comfortable with "them." i realize france doesn't have the US Constitution...the Bill of Rights. but how very disappointing from a progressive, western nation.
You would have us believe that moderates and/or conservatives (or moderate conservatives) are opposed to law and regulation. Wrong, dear sir. Without them democratic civilization cannot exist. However, you clearly would command absolutes, and therefore, with you as the supreme ruler, there would be no law for citizenry, just your law, for you.
dear leader, are you talking to yourself again? I am not a mirror! Please take your socialist agenda back to Leningrad. In America, we don't compromise our democratic values under the guise of big gov't. You left wing radicals can try to tell us what we can wear or how we should do things...but we refuse to let gov't run our lives.
Your position is one extreme or the other -- complete anarchy or complete despotism. Which is it? Clearly you have no concept of a middle ground where laws are ground rules rather than absolutes.
So let me get this straight. A gov't has the right to dictate to women how much of their bodies they are allowed to leave covered or uncovered right? That's not extreme right? Extreme is say, letting the president talk to children at school? Where is this middle ground you speak of? Oh enlighten me. What is the middle ground? I see, if you disagree with it, then it's extreme, but if you agree with it, it's the middle ground. Very good dear red Thumbs. You will make a good commie.
Great question. IMO, as long as she's an adult, let her do what she wants to herself. One principle difference, however, is that you subject the children to a father who has to share time among many women. Children can't choose and don't choose. IMO, as much as possible, we have to limit a bad situation for a kid. Ofcourse they can then turn around and say there's nothing wrong with sharing a good father. IMO the marriage part is easily ok, but I would imagine you'd have to put in some strong controls to ensure that children don't end up in a bad situation. A burqa is different. The act of wearing a mask does not affect anyone else's life. The act of forcing someone to wear it affects someone's else's life.
1) An unintended reaction is different than a law banning it. 2) No one has a problem with certain PLACES not allowing it for security reasons. 3) They don't wear it at home. Why the heck would they wear it at home?
It can't be used to conceal weaponry. It just covers the face. Otherwise, I agree with what you're saying. There is no waiver for having to identify yourself when and where necessary.
That's why the penalty for forcing someone to wear it is 200 times higher than the penalty for wearing it. But of course you did not read that.
Thanks, this was interesting insight. I did assume that motivations would range across what you described. I do not denounce any of these women. I do denounce the culture of oppression and ignorance that leads to women wearing this.
I read that. Why fine the woman at all? Don't tell me what you think, tell me what France has told us is the reason.
If you don't fine the woman at all, you won't get to the men. It's like with drugs. You really want to get the dealer, but to get to him, you fine the drug use itself. I recommend this article for an objective view: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_law_on_secularity_and_conspicuous_religious_symbols_in_schools This one also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laïcité
I'm glad you brought up drug use. Drug prohibition has been working great thus far and is a sparkling example of a law to emulate. I will comment on this analogy in a second. Tell me, how does fining the women achieve getting to the men? Let's assume two sets of laws. One which only fines the man, and the one currently in place. What does the one currently in place achieve that the other one doesn't in terms of penalizing the oppressor?
The analogy does not work 100 %. It is mainly, but not only about penalizing the oppressor. It is also the act of wearing conspicuous religious symbols that is not wanted. France has a long history of "laicite".
It does not even work 50%. You didn't answer the question. You claimed that you must fine the woman to get to the husband. How so? How does it compare to another law which only fines the man?
True but like the Vatican gets to say what goes for Catholics, LDS is kind of the word for Mormons. Because some religious group wants to claim they are the real Mormons doesn't necessarily make it so.
