France: Ban the Burka

[Ms_Maryam]

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/06 ... index.html

PARIS, France (CNN) -- The French National Assembly announced Tuesday the creation of an inquiry into whether women in France should be allowed to wear the burka, one day after President Nicolas Sarkozy controversially told lawmakers that the traditional Muslim garment was "not welcome" in France.

A cross-party panel of 32 lawmakers will investigate whether the traditional Muslim garment poses a threat to the secular nature of the French constitution. They are due to report back with their recommendations in six months.

Last week 57 lawmakers -- led by communist legislator Andre Gerin -- signed a petition calling for a study into the feasibility of legislation to ban the burka in public places.

On Monday Sarkozy declared in a keynote parliamentary address that the burka, which covers women from head to toe, is "not welcome" in France. Watch why burkas are such a controversial issue in France »

"The problem of the burka is not a religious problem. This is an issue of a woman's freedom and dignity. This is not a religious symbol. It is a sign of subservience; it is a sign of lowering. I want to say solemnly, the burka is not welcome in France," Sarkozy told lawmakers.

The right of Muslim women to cover themselves is fiercely debated in France, which has a large Muslim minority but also a staunchly secular constitution. Should Muslim women in France be banned from wearing the burka? Sound Off below

In 2004, the French parliament passed legislation banning Muslim girls from wearing headscarves in state schools, prompting widespread Muslim protests. The law also banned other conspicuous religious symbols including Sikh turbans, large Christian crucifixes and Jewish skull caps.

Last year, France's top court denied a Moroccan woman's naturalization request on the grounds that she wore a burka.

Some lawmakers have called for burkas to be banned completely, claiming they are degrading to women. They also include housing minister Fadela Amara, a Muslim-born women's rights campaigner, who has called the garment "a kind of tomb for women."

"We cannot accept in our country women trapped behind a fence, cut off from social life, deprived of any identity. This is not the idea that we have of a woman's dignity," Sarkozy said Monday.

But French Muslim leaders say that only a small minority of women wear the full veil and had previously criticized calls for the issue to be the subject of a parliamentary inquiry.

"To raise the subject like this, via a parliamentary committee, is a way of stigmatizing Islam and the Muslims of France," Mohammed Moussaoui, the head of the French Council for the Muslim Religion, told AFP last week.

"We are shocked by the idea parliament should be put to work on such a marginal issue."

According to CIA estimates, between 5 and 10 percent of France's 64 million population are Muslim. The country does not collect its own statistics on religion in accordance with laws enshrining France's status as a secular state.

France is not the only European Union country to have considered banning the burka. Dutch lawmakers voted in favor of a ban in 2005, although the government of the time was defeated in elections before it could pass legislation to outlaw the garment.

....


1. Do you agree/disagree with President Sarkozy's stance on this?

2. Would you be for/against a ban on the Burka? Other religious wear (the cross, turbans, Jewish cap)?

[Coyotero]

1. Do you agree/disagree with President Sarkozy's stance on this?

2. Would you be for/against a ban on the Burka? Other religious wear (the cross, turbans, Jewish cap)?

1. Disagreement. It's an issue of freedom. I don't agree with the wearing of the Burka on a personal level, my own religious convictions are that the female form is to be glorified and celebrated, not hidden, by that same token, my religious and cultural background is vastly different from most traditional Muslims.

2. Against. Once again, it's an issue of freedom. I hate the way women are treated by some Islamic sects, but it's not my battle to fight. I wouldn't like being told that I could not wear my Mjollnir or my troth ring, so it would be hypocritical of me to condemn someone else for a similar practice.

[McCulloch]

1. Do you agree/disagree with President Sarkozy's stance on this?

In this, I agree with Sarkozy.

The problem of the burka is not a religious problem. This is an issue of a woman's freedom and dignity. This is not a religious symbol. It is a sign of subservience; it is a sign of lowering.

In my opinion these are ok:

[hijab]

[Al-amira Shayla]

[Khimar and Chador]
so long as the women are not being coerced into wearing them. However, these

[burka and niqab]
are not.

2. Would you be for/against a ban on the Burka? Other religious wear (the cross, turbans, Jewish cap)?

Let's compare apples with apples. If any particular religion required its female members to wear a leash as a symbol of their subservience to men, I would be opposed. A cross, turban, kippah or kirpan do not represent a religious value that is in direct opposition to the universal declaration of Human Rights. The burka does.

This raises the issue of what to do when human rights conflict with religious freedom.

[Coyotero]

This raises the issue of what to do when human rights conflict with religious freedom.

That's pretty much my problem with it... had a hard time coming to a conclusion on this one... On one hand I hate the way certain sects of this religion subjugates women, on the other hand, it's none of the governments business what people wear.

[Scottie]

Hi guys. This is my first post in this forum, so here goes....

I agree totally with what President S has said. There is no place in a secular country for garments who's purpose is to treat women as "temptressess" who require covering up in case they inflame mens passions!

Why do people feel the need to wear something to "advertise" their faith? I just don't get that and think that all these types of clothing (skull caps and the rest) should be banned.

[Coyotero]

Hi guys. This is my first post in this forum, so here goes....

Hi Scottie! Well met.

I agree totally with what President S has said. There is no place in a secular country for garments who's purpose is to treat women as "temptressess" who require covering up in case they inflame mens passions!

I agree on principal, and believe that the burka is a vile invention. Unfortunately I must disagree on the grounds that it shouldn't be any of the government's business what people wear.

Why do people feel the need to wear something to "advertise" their faith? I just don't get that and think that all these types of clothing (skull caps and the rest) should be banned.

You're talking about the death of freedom, here. The government has no business telling people what they can and can't wear provided nobody is being harmed (This is where the overlap occurs regarding the burka). People should be allowed to advertise their faith, just as you should be allowed to say they shouldn't. One freedom cannot stand without the other.

I do not want religions telling the government to do things according to their standards. Nor do I want the government treading on anyone's religious freedom. Church and state should be entirely separate.

[Goat]

Hi guys. This is my first post in this forum, so here goes....

Hi Scottie! Well met.

I agree totally with what President S has said. There is no place in a secular country for garments who's purpose is to treat women as "temptressess" who require covering up in case they inflame mens passions!

I agree on principal, and believe that the burka is a vile invention. Unfortunately I must disagree on the grounds that it shouldn't be any of the government's business what people wear.

Actually, in the place where the burka started being used, it was a wonderful invention. However, taking a design that was made for harsh desert conditions that the sun would damage skin , and make it a religious outfit is just plain stilly. The social controls put on the people outside of a harsh sunlight environment with it is also restrictive.

However, for it's original purpose, it is reasonable.

[Coyotero]

Actually, in the place where the burka started being used, it was a wonderful invention. However, taking a design that was made for harsh desert conditions that the sun would damage skin , and make it a religious outfit is just plain stilly. The social controls put on the people outside of a harsh sunlight environment with it is also restrictive.

However, for it's original purpose, it is reasonable.

You are correct, I should have been more choice with my words in that regard.

[Scottie]

Hi guys. This is my first post in this forum, so here goes....

Hi Scottie! Well met.

I agree totally with what President S has said. There is no place in a secular country for garments who's purpose is to treat women as "temptressess" who require covering up in case they inflame mens passions!

I agree on principal, and believe that the burka is a vile invention. Unfortunately I must disagree on the grounds that it shouldn't be any of the government's business what people wear.

Why do people feel the need to wear something to "advertise" their faith? I just don't get that and think that all these types of clothing (skull caps and the rest) should be banned.

You're talking about the death of freedom, here. The government has no business telling people what they can and can't wear provided nobody is being harmed (This is where the overlap occurs regarding the burka). People should be allowed to advertise their faith, just as you should be allowed to say they shouldn't. One freedom cannot stand without the other.

I do not want religions telling the government to do things according to their standards. Nor do I want the government treading on anyone's religious freedom. Church and state should be entirely separate.

It becomes the states business when "religious" clothing is being used as a weapon to oppress. people ARE being harmed by this.

I also believe that the wearing of overt religious symbols should not be acceptable in government funded institutions, such as schools and universities (as already happens in some countries).

I would accept that the wearing of headwear, jewellry and the like is OK in public; but NOT whole body coverings and NOT in publically funded institutions.
Most people are not permitted to wear garments/objects which advocate a particular political affiliation to work. Why is religion any different?

Sorry about the clumsy post. I had split it to argue each point, but when I tried to spell check I lost the whole post!
I promise I'll get better

[Coyotero]

It becomes the states business when "religious" clothing is being used as a weapon to oppress. people ARE being harmed by this.

I agree that it is used as a tool of oppression. Problem is, there are people, women even, that believe that by wearing said garment they are practicing their beliefs to the best of their ability. I am not one to tell them they are wrong in doing so, even if I do not understand it. Oppression can be a two-way street.

I also believe that the wearing of overt religious symbols should not be acceptable in government funded institutions, such as schools and universities (as already happens in some countries).

Define what constitutes an 'overt religious symbol'... I don't see a problem with someone wearing a small piece of jewelery or the like. They are working for the government, not representing it.

I would accept that the wearing of headwear, jewellry and the like is OK in public; but NOT whole body coverings and NOT in publically funded institutions.
Most people are not permitted to wear garments/objects which advocate a particular political affiliation to work. Why is religion any different?

The difference is that sometimes religious convictions require their adherents to wear these garments, such as head coverings. I don't see a problem when someone is wearing something to symbolize their personal convictions. So long as they aren't vocal about it, it should be a non-issue.

The big problem with all of this is the threat it presents to freedom. Freedom of speech/expression/religion applies to everyone, even those who disagree with you.