Burqas banned in France?

Posted: Wed Feb 03, 2010 7:12 am

eldestFLeTcH wrote:

PHaeTHoN wrote:

pacino23 wrote:

weirdobeardo wrote:

Suicide bombers only need to hide the bomb.

Its not just for suicide bombers as they arent the only people are dangerous.
If say a wanted murderer tries to leave the country and covers the face, if the fake passport is convincing then that person will escape just cos people are too afraid to for removal of head gear.

Granted, Identification is necessary to leaving a country but as I said earlier, security can always ask someone to "step this way please". A bomb will do just as much damage inside or outside an "high security area" (so what's the point??) and I stated a situation where it would be reasonable to conceal one's face (if you don't like Fifty Cent we can always substitute for insert name here )

oh so if one is rich and famous they don't have to obey the rules?
no! smokers aren't allowed to have a lighter(understandable), and have designated smoking areas - which makes it fine not to have a lighter b/c someone smoking there isn't going on a trip and will have a lighter or some matches so you can still light up

we're living in a world where security is becoming very invasive to our private and everyday lives; i don't know the solution - but making exceptions just allows the creation of loopholes

when going through airport security people have to remove their shoes & hats when they step up to that air-blower/metal-detector/type-thing - and for a good reason too

Well, I absolutely agree that the rich and famous shouldn't be exceptions, I used a famous person because if I had used myself someone might have replied: "Who the H3ll cares what you do". But if I want to go to the airport while concealing my identity from the public I feel I have a right to do so. Now for the sake of identification I am not against being taken aside and asked to remove my mask for a professional (customs or security agent).

BTW new scanners in airports can see through clothes, officers would be able to see the faces if they were not blurred (so they can't tell whose naked body they're looking at)

Posted: Wed Feb 03, 2010 7:42 am

I have read through the entire thread again and have only one conclusion.
each reply pretty much when read on its own makes sense.
Its a kinda catch 22.
Each post that feels that privacy and its invasion are being tested by this law are real and deserve attention.
The problem is that each post that expresses the issues with security and its issues are also real and deserve attention.
I have worked in many countries where I felt compelled to behave and act in a manner that does not bring undue attention. In Saudi Arabia and Kuwait I have kept quite and a relatively low profile. I did not relax and laugh out loud in public etc which I would do when in Germany or England or USA. Not fear but just nobody really had an outward exuberance or joy of life in public. at least not in any area that I worked or visited.
At the same time when in countries as Germany USA etc I feel that others should consider the issues regarding security and the worries of the public. Many people who come from abroad and live amongst us are decent people but some are adamant that they have the right to act as they would in their own home countries. Now I hope not to offend anyone but surely the rights of the people are paramount and written into our laws. therefore by extension any one from elsewhere is granted those very same rights. However it would seem that those rights are not enough as some want more than is offered and wish to impose their own set of values and principles.
As I read this back to myself I can see that some might regard these words as baiting. I will emphasize that this is not my intent. My thoughts are that should people for religious reasons believe that they should cover themselves I also believe religion enables people to care for one another. If this might be regarded as a true principle towards faith then I cannot understand why they would not remove such an article voluntarily when in a public area.

Posted: Wed Feb 03, 2010 7:43 am

there is also a problem of movie culture ,
should one wearing a burqa or ski-mask enter a bank , its possible to be shot upon without warning .

then again , wearing line-of-sight proof clothes could be wisest thing against skin cancer.

Posted: Wed Feb 03, 2010 8:24 am

This reminds me of getting on the tube (London Underground) Saturday night and seeing a really camp gay guy wearing leather trousers and - the niquab over his top half! Through the eye slits, you could see really extravagant eye makeup. The guy was pole-dancing in the carriage (thankfully not stripping) and making really rude comments about how he loves men - as long as they pay him for sucking their cocks etc... Then he starts complaining about how the couple sitting opposite were looking at him! Starts calling the man a paedophile, and all sorts of shit! Lovely. Me and my mate were laughing our arse off at him to start off with, but then he just got offensive for the sake of it, so we fucked-off to the next carriage, where two girls STILL thought it was a real woman doing all this (were they deaf?!)
I saw this character before on the same line, so it would be curious to see how long before he is arrested, maybe by anti-terrorism police, hehehe!

Posted: Wed Feb 03, 2010 8:42 am

johnno23 wrote:

I have read through the entire thread again and have only one conclusion.
each reply pretty much when read on its own makes sense.

Ya i can agree with that. Very hard to say what has to, or needs to, or what can be, done in a situation like this. Usually ill have a strong opinion towords one side or the other in a debate. In this case, I really dont know what to think. Its a touchy issue really.

Posted: Wed Feb 03, 2010 9:03 am

"When in Rome..."
i figure as long as the laws aren't stupid crazy then they should be obeyed
if you don't like the laws in a certain locality, then don't visit/live there

now i've never been outside the US, though i have traveled overseas to Hawaii and around the US using various modes of transportation - not much lately though
so i don't know the international rules of travel; but i don't see anything wrong requiring one to follow the laws of the land they are visiting/living

Posted: Wed Feb 03, 2010 12:53 pm

Devilz_108 wrote:

Well I'm not racist and I repeat I'm not racist and I don't care about religions but if you follow the news you'll see that Muslims are preventing Christians from praying or even having the church bells ringing

Can you be more specific?

Posted: Wed Feb 03, 2010 4:04 pm

choniboms wrote:

weirdobeardo wrote:

I can't believe the responses I'm hearing. You guys really think it's ok to oppress people based on religious beliefs?

They're oppressing themselves - FYI most of them actually don't wear their burka's, just like the men don't wear their dish dash when they travel aboard. If you go into their country then you HAVE TO RESPECT THEIR CUSTOM and comply to their rules regarding dress code - in Saudi especially, so why can't they respect and comply with the country they are visiting? Would you like to wake up to the prayers of a mosque every morning between 4 / 5 and then continuously for 3 times a day? The line has to be drawn somewhere!!!!

Yes, it really should be drawn somewhere. I think that there should be no crosses allowed in public, no church bells, and schoolkids should pray to Allah five times a day. Also, you're quite wrong about the outfits. when you go to a very different country, do you actually buy a whole new outfit so that you will fit in? I didn't think so.

Posted: Thu Feb 04, 2010 10:17 pm

raptortech97 wrote:

Yes, it really should be drawn somewhere. I think that there should be no crosses allowed in public, no church bells, and schoolkids should pray to Allah five times a day. Also, you're quite wrong about the outfits. when you go to a very different country, do you actually buy a whole new outfit so that you will fit in? I didn't think so.

No I would not buy a complete new outfit but i do try to respect the wishes of the host country to my best ability. All of the sideways discussion about oppression etc are probably just extra when the real concern is about security and nothing more.
In a democratic society it is a fundamental right to respect anothers opinion and beliefs. At the same time should belief require a dress code then they should consider an alternative solution so that they could comply with possible consequences of security and its issues. Often the reason for living in a host country is repression of their beliefs. In the west we have plenty of mosques and many are truly quite beautiful as opposed to regular square concrete buildings. The issue is not the religion but the fact that in many western lands we suffer from attacks by a very small minority of people who for whatever reason think they are doing something just and correct. To cover ones head for many is a sign of respect but does it need to be to the extent that only the eyes are visible?
Could the head not be covered but a transparent veil be used to enable less conflict in the dispute of identity?
I think that the stubborn attitude of some people does not help their cause or their beliefs. In a world where too much bad happens they are by remaining stubborn just adding more to distrust than to acceptance.
Try this for example, enter any country wearing a balaclava and see how long you last before you are apprehended and detained by security for an interview. Can I then shout "discrimination" No, i do not think so. I would be deliberately attracting attention to myself by such an action. I think that the tolerance towards the dress code of faiths is very high in the western world but in the last years the increase in violence and terrorism has created a situation where hiding the face has become a very real security issue.
I am 52 and have grown up in a world where people have used ski masks, balaclavas and other clothing items to hide their identity when involved in executions and bombings by groups in Spain Italy France and Northern Ireland. These days the attention is more towards the tiny group of people who wish to create chaos in a world with religion as its excuse. This action is a terrible situation as 99.9% of religious people regardless of their creed or culture are saddened by this fact.
I do not have an answer but ranting about one side or the other in such a debate does nothing to assist in finding any possible solution.
The fact is that any security officer that demands to see clear id cannot do so if the face is covered. This is not a racist attitude i am asked at least 100 times a year asked for photo id as passport as I travel frequently and I am not being singled out I am purely complying with a request by someone who is doing their job. This is not airport control but when travelling on a bus or train or on occasion when entering a sensitive area as a highly popular tourist attraction. It is purely about safety. No ID not allowed in. politely reminded to return with ID and entrance is permitted.
Now the above may seem a long way from "burka" but it is relevant.

Posted: Thu Feb 04, 2010 11:45 pm

johnno23 wrote:

Try this for example, enter any country wearing a balaclava and see how long you last before you are apprehended and detained by security for an interview.

People don't wear balaclavas for religious reasons.

I think we've gotten off topic, though, because the ban in France isn't just airports. And

Posted: Thu Feb 04, 2010 11:59 pm

I have lived in many countries and worked with lots of races,cultures and religions.
The one thing I have learned is not to take the village with you and adapt to the circumstances and local rules and regulations.
Whats very normal in Chili is completely absurd in Suriname.
And how should one be identified and how should a passport check be done if somebody in covering their face?

Cheerss

Posted: Fri Feb 05, 2010 12:43 am

weirdobeardo wrote:

johnno23 wrote:

Try this for example, enter any country wearing a balaclava and see how long you last before you are apprehended and detained by security for an interview.

People don't wear balaclavas for religious reasons.

I think we've gotten off topic, though, because the ban in France isn't just airports. And

Correct, i used the balaclava purely as a reference to having something that hides the face for easy identification. I deliberately stated that i have on frequent occasions been asked to offer id on buses trains and at tourist attractions where density of the public is high and my face is not covered.

Posted: Fri Feb 05, 2010 2:50 am

weirdobeardo wrote:

Pef wrote:

the issue here is not that french are oppressing the poor arab women , but that the arab men are oppressing the poor arab women and the french are trying to help them

I could just as easily say that the American media oppresses models and starlets, or strip clubs oppress their dancers. The thing is, they're all making that choice. As long as they still have the ability to make that choice, it's dishonest to say that they're oppressed.

I understand where you are coming from. Oppressing an individual's religious and cultural beliefs and behaviours is a situation fraught with peril. Nevertheless, if one takes a lesson from history there are many examples of such a thing happening for the benefit of the individual. For instance, the removal of the practice of footbinding on Chinese girls and women. The question has to be is the practice detrimental to the individual. Are the women concerned in a position that they can make a choice?

Personally, I don't see the Burqua as a big deal. Fashion is fashion and we are all victims and captives of it. Whether the pressure comes from the family, religion or government, it's all the same. They won't let people out in public naked and now they want to stop women from covering themselves totally - I say fark that.

Another lesson from history: the French are very big on majoring on minor issues.

Posted: Fri Feb 05, 2010 9:15 am

FluffyDuck wrote:

I understand where you are coming from. Oppressing an individual's religious and cultural beliefs and behaviours is a situation fraught with peril. Nevertheless, if one takes a lesson from history there are many examples of such a thing happening for the benefit of the individual. For instance, the removal of the practice of footbinding on Chinese girls and women. The question has to be is the practice detrimental to the individual. Are the women concerned in a position that they can make a choice?

Footbinding was never a choice for women. The process was started in infancy, so by the time they were old enough to make the choice, it was too late. Ironically, though, footbinding has found a resurgence as a sort of body mod. Plus, even western women do crazy things to fit into tiny shoes. There's a new fad in plastic surgery of women actually amputating their little toe to fit into shoes. Now, do I think these practices are disgusting? Oh hell yeah. But if they're making the choice and it's not being forced on them, who am I to say they can't do it?

Quote:

Another lesson from history: the French are very big on majoring on minor issues.

And banning Islamic practices. The hijab was banned a few years ago, too.

Posted: Mon Feb 08, 2010 9:09 pm

They should be banned without question. If they want to wear stupid masks then they should live in a country that allows it. I am sick of muslims thinking there better than everyone else and I am sick of them always using religion as a weapon, I say send them back if they don't comply with the country's laws.