Burqa ban passes French lower house overwhelmingly

[Palehorse]

Your tactics are reminiscent of an individual I will not associate with. . .

[Anne]

 

[Palehorse]

First of all, I don't know the constitution of France, IF it is in violation of it or not...but, I DO understand some concern with the security measures...the burka is also representation of repression of womens rights....women are FORCED to wear them or face serious repercussions from it's religion....we, in the United States outlawed Polygamy, for similar reasons.  I understand the concern for it's ban....i think there could be real concern, if a load of burka covered folks was to board an airplane, I know I would not be very comfortable.

There you go sitting in judgment of a religion that is different than your own. "You can't do that"? Why? Because it makes you personally uncomfortable? Tough luck there bucko. They aren't hurting anyone.

They have to go through the very same security measures that everyone else does, and if you do not trust those measures to  properly screen out those who would do us harm, then why have them in the first place?

One of my daughters has been to Indy 3 times in the last 8 months, and has had to go through the full body scanner/sniffer at Indpls all three times. But do you hear us bitching about it? NO!

These draconian measures are all fine and dandy because they do not impact you personally. . . YET. But when they do you'll be screaming like a little piglet!

[The Troll]

  I like the ban.  Plus there is nothing I like the Muslim Religion.  I think it is evil and very disrespective of the women.  If I had the power, I would give the Muslim women total power over the men.  Let the fun begin.  The poor bastards.

[Palehorse]

  I like the ban.  Plus there is nothing I like the Muslim Religion.  I think it is evil and very disrespective of the women.  If I had the power, I would give the Muslim women total power over the men.  Let the fun begin.  The poor bastards.

What you like has nothing to do with the matter. Hell, I don't like any religion what so ever, so personally it wouldn't bother me to imprison every single practitioner of every single religion in the world. But that also doesn't matter.

What matters is maintaining control of our personal lives, human, and individual rights, and laws like the one being run up the flagpole in France are trampling all over them! Once the bastards are able to restrict the clothing you wear and how you wear it, how long before they begin entering our homes and bedrooms too? You all know I am right about this, the government will push the limits and exceed them whenever they can, and they've been trying to break down the doors to our homes for decades.

When it serves the corporations purpose, they'll get in too, and laws like this one are the foothold they need to impose corporate will upon every single private citizen in the country.

[Palehorse]

It occurs to me that laws such as this one are indicative of the centuries old struggle for superiority within the world by religion, and the fact that it goes on even today.

Move back in time a few centuries and you will find Christians killing those who are non-believers in the name of "God". Back then Christians were in the role muslims assume in todays society. And for a period of time it was Christians against the muslims, and that one never did really end now did it?

Christians killed and oppressed whomever and whatever they needed to to obtain superiority in the world, and eventually it worked. Now Muslims are repeating the pattern in the hope that their religion will obtain control of the majority. Big surprise huh? 

I'd like to assume that Christians eventually learned their lesson surrounding killing in the name of "God", but the reality is they have not. They are just more creative about it. Now they use national government to do their bidding globally, and they have issued a dead or alive poster on Muslims.

Laws like this one are persecuting individuals for their religion. That is wrong, and one would think an American would automatically get that. But no, fear and religious bigotry blind them. . .until it is too late. . .

[Anne]

How do you feel about not requiring burka clad women to have their picture taken without their veil?  I think France has a fairly large population of muslims. Perhaps they are concerned about sucicide bombers which would not be subject to scanners like they have in airports. Anyway it is their business, not ours.

[Locutus]

Anyway it is their business, not ours.

Actually, it may very well be our business, and in fact, right here in my state of Florida, it already has been.  Earlier this decade, a judge ruled against a woman who wanted to have her driver's license picture taken with her burqa on.  The judge ruled that driving in Florida is a privilege, not a right; and as such, the burqa had to be removed if the woman wanted to get a license to drive in this state.

The converse of that, however, is that in this country, freedom of religion is guaranteed by the Constitution which is the supreme law of the land.  Any such attempt to ban burqas in this country would most likely be found unconstitutional even by the conservative leaning SCOTUS that we have now.  The Constitution guarantees women the right to freedom of religion, even if they exercise that freedom by imprisoning themselves in a form of religion that masks their public identity and subjugates their role in society to that of the man. 

[Locutus]

Now again I ask, where do we draw the line between security and freedom of religion?  None have addressed that point so far and I'm not going to be the first to do so. 

[me]

Now again I ask, where do we draw the line between security and freedom of religion?  None have addressed that point so far and I'm not going to be the first to do so. 

If I have to remove my glasses, brush my bangs from my forehead, and put my hair behind my ears to get a pic taken at the license bureau your darn right a woman should have to remove her face cover to get a drivers license pic taken.  And to answer your question, security should come before religion.  The French have finally figured out that the radical Muslims are dangerous and will put your lights out no matter who you are because they don't care and it's about time we realized that too.

[Locutus]

If I have to remove my glasses, brush my bangs from my forehead, and put my hair behind my ears to get a pic taken at the license bureau your darn right a woman should have to remove her face cover to get a drivers license pic taken.  And to answer your question, security should come before religion.

I agree here.  None of the rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights are absolutes, and this is just as true for freedom of religion as it is for any other.  I'm fine with women and burqas up until they apply for a legal form of identification or present themselves at an airport security checkpoint.

The French have finally figured out that the radical Muslims are dangerous and will put your lights out no matter who you are because they don't care and it's about time we realized that too.

But is that really where this law is directed?  I would have much less problem with it if it addressed security related issues like the ones I mentioned here in this post.  This is a broad sweeping law that appears to be more discriminatory in nature than anything that's attempting to address security. 

[LOsborne]

I found a line in Locutus's press release that I like a whole lot. Here it is:

Forcing a woman to wear a niqab or a burqa would be punishable by a year in prison or a 15,000-euro ($19,000) fine

I would like to see the fine a little higher though -- high enough to pay the woman's legal fees in the divorce, let her select a new wardrobe, and pay for some classes on resume writing and interviewing for that job she needs to get, now that all her earthly needs won't be met by her owner ... excuse me, husband.

[LOsborne]

Move back in time a few centuries and you will find Christians killing those who are non-believers in the name of "God".

Oh, you don't need to go back all that far, Palehorse. Didn't Scott Roeder claim to be doing "god's work" when he murdered George Tiller?

[Palehorse]

There is a price to pay for freedom, and sometimes that price includes risks that may infringe upon individual / public security or the perceptions of it.

. . .

That being said, the line has already been clearly drawn by the US Constitution surrounding:

. . . where do we draw the line between security and freedom of religion?  None have addressed that point so far and I'm not going to be the first to do so. 

Government cannot persecute individuals on the basis of religion, nor can it infringe upon the practices of a religion when said practices do not constitute a real and present danger to the well being and safety of the public in general. Dress, in and of itself, does not meet this benchmark despite what personal fears and unrealistic imaginations may assume.

The best the law can hope to do is to create policies that address the "symptoms", that do not infringe upon the individual and religious rights of the individual, and remediate the fears of the general public, no matter how unrealistic they may be.

If I have to remove my glasses, brush my bangs from my forehead, and put my hair behind my ears to get a pic taken at the license bureau your darn right a woman should have to remove her face cover to get a drivers license pic taken.  And to answer your question, security should come before religion.  The French have finally figured out that the radical Muslims are dangerous and will put your lights out no matter who you are because they don't care and it's about time we realized that too.

Answered already:

. . .  Earlier this decade, a judge ruled against a woman who wanted to have her driver's license picture taken with her burqa on.  The judge ruled that driving in Florida is a privilege, not a right; and as such, the burqa had to be removed if the woman wanted to get a license to drive in this state.

. . .

I do not disagree with this line of reasoning and I believe it to be well within governmental authority.

Each and every time situations such as this one in France come up, the terrorists win. The global community is feeding its fear in exchange for a panacea that in the end is meaningless, but fuels the oppositions anger and validates its propaganda. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, and in terrorism this is just as true as it ever was.

Until we change the basic thinking of those who hate and those who live in fear, we are doomed to repeating history and failing to learn the lessons within it.

Fear them and they win. Attempt to restrict their actions and you end up only restricting yourselves and removing your own freedoms until you eventually become that which you now detest; by your own hand!

[The Troll]

What you like has nothing to do with the matter. Hell, I don't like any religion what so ever, so personally it wouldn't bother me to imprison every single practitioner of every single religion in the world. But that also doesn't matter.

What matters is maintaining control of our personal lives, human, and individual rights, and laws like the one being run up the flagpole in France are trampling all over them! Once the bastards are able to restrict the clothing you wear and how you wear it, how long before they begin entering our homes and bedrooms too? You all know I am right about this, the government will push the limits and exceed them whenever they can, and they've been trying to break down the doors to our homes for decades.

When it serves the corporations purpose, they'll get in too, and laws like this one are the foothold they need to impose corporate will upon every single private citizen in the country.

  WOW, Palehorse on his highhorse.  I don't care what people do in private, but when they run around completely covered from head to foot, I don't like and I don't care what you think about that.

  Try walking into a large bank, a city, county, state, federal office where a armed cop is with a ski mask, a halloween mask or Panty hose over your head and see what happens.  If you get your ass shot off see how much money you would get in a law suit with me of the jury.