Comments:France first to enforce burqa ban

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Back to article

This page is for commentary on the news. If you wish to point out a problem in the article (e.g. factual error, etc), please use its regular collaboration page instead. Comments on this page do not need to adhere to the Neutral Point of View policy. Please remain on topic and avoid offensive or inflammatory comments where possible. Try thought-provoking, insightful, or controversial. Civil discussion and polite sparring make our comments pages a fun and friendly place. Please think of this when posting.

Use the "Start a new discussion" button just below to start a new discussion. If the button isn't there, wait a few seconds and click this link: Refresh.

Start a new discussion

Comments from feedback form - "Needs more facts and informati..."

Needs more facts and information on laws that may have been broken and maybe more information on what are goals for future contries (talk)17:34, 21 December 2012

I'm glad somebody has finally been brave enough to do this.

The burqa is a prime example of people expecting their religion to let them get away with things nobody else can. One is not allowed to enter a bank wearing a motorcycle helmet (or anything else that covers their entire face), for security reasons, and the same applies to various tube stations. Muslims expect to be allowed to violate this rule on the basis of an outdated and probably false (as with all religions—I'm not singling Islam out on that count) set of morals that are supposed to be unchallengeable on the basis that they extend to the existence of a deity.

If I were to try to go about my daily life with a scarf wrapped around my face, I would—rightly—be asked to remove it to perform various tasks, and I would consider it impolite to walk around in such a manner in public. I, for one, am rather intimidated by people who walk around with their faces covered, and I expect I am not alone.

However, Muslims expect, on the basis of their religion, to be exempted from this. If one cannot enter a shopping centre in a hooded top, why should one be allowed to do so with their full body and face covered in a thick black garb? It is somewhat unfair, methinks.

If these people wish to wear the burqa in the privacy of their own home, or within their place of worship, they are perfectly free to do so, and they are—of course—free to believe in whatever religion, or system of morals, they wish. However, they must also comply with the laws of the land, as must everybody else, and this includes removing their face covering in public places (esp. banks, subway stations, shopping centres, and passport terminals).

The law of the land is not applied selectively based on religion. One cannot pick and choose which aspects of it to follow. If you don't like it, go somewhere else.

DENDODGE15:34, 12 April 2011

Very well said. I had been losing faith on the French, but it seems they are recovering their mind now. Hopefully other European countries will follow the example; Britain still needs to get rid of sharia courts, where one can get stoned for being raped.

Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV (talk)21:45, 12 April 2011

whats so ever....its not justified...IN EUROPE France has the fast growing Muslim community and they are mostly locals accepting Islam not people coming from other day u will see France will become a Muslim majority country than what will u guys say and do about the national laws.this is not a law its interference in some ones values and beliefs and u cant impose it by force any where. (talk)01:31, 14 April 2011


[adnan khan<pakistan>.115]] (talk)01:32, 14 April 2011

Yes, it is justified. France is a secular country where religion is to be practiced in privacy. It's the law since 1905. Wearing a burqa or a niqab everywhere is clearly an attempt to express you religious belief in public places.

In addition, this new law does not ban the religious Muslim veil specifically. The ban is on anything which may fully cover one's face making it impossible for them to be identified. Hence, burqa, niqab and military-like full face hoods are banned. People fully covering their faces will not only be brought to the police station for identification, but will also have to pay a 150 €uro fine.

Going back on the article, it should be clearly stated that the arrested people were only arrested because their protestation was not official. In France, you can protest as much as you'd like, but you must "declare" it first at the town hall.

Xionbox (talk)06:14, 14 April 2011

Islam is a religion imposed by force in the first place. If you are not a believer then according to Islam they are to either convert you or kill you, and if you are a believer and decide to renounce your faith, if you are a man you will be killed, and a woman or child you will be imprisoned until you admit that you were wrong in renouncing it. I honestly don't understand how people can say that France is forcing people to not be Muslim when the religion is forced onto them in the first place. (talk)07:26, 14 April 2011

I have no problem with Islam as a religion that I do not also have with Christianity, Judaism, Sikhism, Buddhism, et al. And I have no problem with religion per se, just with religion being imposed upon people or used as an "excuse".

What I do have a problem with is people—of any religion—trying to have their religion treated as an exemption to the rules that everybody else much follow.

I believe it is Sikhs whose religion states that they are to carry a sword everywhere, and I would deny them that right. Because something written in a book that is thousands of years old does not imply an inalienable right to ignore the rules and laws of the land in which one resides. The carrying of an offensive weapon is a prime example, and I expect most Sikhs would not expect to be allowed to carry said sword in public.

I simply apply the same logic to the Muslim veil. There are many circumstances in which full-face coverings are deeply inappropriate, and one cannot be expected to be exempted from this on the basis of an outdated system of beliefs, especially by people who do not share those beliefs, or by the government of a secular nation.

Muslims are, of course, as is everyone else, free to believe whatever they like, and free to perform whatever acts of worship or religious expression they wish in the privacy of their own home of place of worship. But expecting to be allowed to do so in public is imposing your religious beliefs on others, and should not be permitted.

DENDODGE10:49, 14 April 2011

Bravo, I couldn't of said it better!

Xionbox (talk)08:06, 15 April 2011

May I know where is it in Islam that if you are not a believer they are to either convert you or kill you?

Iundrah (talk)16:22, 23 April 2011

Citizenship classes?

This sounds like forced assimilation to me. I don't look that favorabley to the religion of Islam, but a government doing this is just plain scary. (talk)13:22, 12 April 2011

If they dont like it they can go back to where they came from. You cant come to a new country and obligate the locals to accept offending practices from your country of origin. Covered muslim women represent an offense to the progressive Western World, not a simple neutral cultural element. (talk)19:51, 12 April 2011

While many of society's laws are created to prevent people from being offended, for example the, very relevant, law against public nudity in general, I know it is impossible to keep everyone from being offended all the time and in trying to do so society often tramples upon a very basic human right: free speech. These women should be able to express themselves by wearing burqas, just as much as someone should be able to use "foul" language without being in serious danger of law enforcement intervening. I think that people take things too personally and then hand the responsibility of change off to the government. If the people of France in general are offended by the wearing of burqas then they should promote a social movement against it and confront those practitioners in a way in which nothing is obligatory. I think people are involving themselves to heavily in other peoples' affairs, forcing their own beliefs upon them. This type of law making is not a staple of progressive society but instead of "backward" countries like Iraq, or a better example would be the acid attacks in Srinagar, India, force women to wear the coverings. Governments should be protective (from things like war, and environmental destruction) and liberative (enforcing people's rights to do certain things, like women's right to vote), not domineering and controlling.

Lord Arador (talk)23:35, 14 April 2011

I don't see how covering their faces entirely is free speech. On the contrary, I am convinced that wearing a full face veil is an oppression of such essential liberty.

In France, it is very difficult to talk with religious groups (of any religion). Talks have been organized (even just a couple weeks ago) on the expression of faith to the public. France has been a secular country since 1905. After the horrors of WWII, it was deemed illegal to explicitly be able to identify one's religion in public (because the Nazis obliged Jewish people to wear a yellow Cross of David and people were obliged to be able to prove they were Christan baptized at anytime, even when just walking in the street).

One of the most famous French expressions [1] is the following (translated to English):

One's freedom stops where starts the freedom of others.

This expression is meant to teach one to limit their own freedom in a community and to not abuse of power. Banning expression limiting and often male-imposed full face veils enables two important freedoms:

  • The freedom for the woman to choose her own religion without the obligation of a man
  • The freedom for one to choose their own religion without being influenced by their public surroundings (no visible Christian crosses, no visible crosses of David, no visible full face veils)

In addition, it also put everyone and every religion on the same level of tolerance. As DENDODGE very rightly writes in the "Good!" thread, expecting to be allowed to do so in public is imposing your religious beliefs on others, and should not be permitted.

P.S.: If I had to choose between seeing some naked people in the streets and people wearing burqas, I would prefer seeing naked people. Now that would be an expression of liberty!

  1. La liberté des uns commence là où s'arrête celle des autres
Xionbox (talk)08:35, 15 April 2011

I see this point of the argument much better now. Thank you for your response, I believe it has changed my opinion on the topic. Lord Arador (talk) 03:48, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Lord Arador (talk)03:48, 16 April 2011

Nice, now they are compelled to express liberty.

Iundrah (talk)16:19, 23 April 2011

If the woman's family has been living there for, say, three generations, would you still say that she should go back "where she came from"? What if she is an ethnically French, but has converted? Banning burqa is like banning the wearing of crosses. I'm sure some Muslim-majority countries ban that too, but do we really need to go down to their level? (talk)01:31, 15 April 2011

And what's wrong with that? When France starts cracking down on muslim pedophily will you also complain of forced assimilation?

Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV (talk)21:49, 12 April 2011

Comments from feedback form - "this is totally against humani..."

this is totally against humanity........everyone should have the right to follow their religion and traditions anywhere in the world.that is what equality is. (talk)01:20, 14 April 2011

France is a secular country since 1905. The law states that religious is to be practiced in private. Hence, it is illegal to wear any big religious symbols in public (may it be a big bling-bling christian cross over your sweater or religious-specific full body veil).

The French motto is "freedom, equality, fraternity". What people often forget, is that this motto means equality and fraternity for judgments: everyone has the right to have a lawyer, even if they can't pay for one, and everyone is free to choose their own lawyer.

Xionbox (talk)06:18, 14 April 2011

OK I get it: equality & fraternity, but where is freedom?

Iundrah (talk)16:16, 23 April 2011

One thing I find even more offensive than France squashing religious freedom is the hyperbolic xenophobia I see in this comments section.

"Like it or go back where you came from" indeed - like it's up to you to declare that people must give up their religious identity in order to escape from an oppressive homeland.

Samarium (talk)17:07, 15 April 2011

Comments from feedback form - "Haha, "location of France." I ..."

Haha, "location of France." I really hope you put that there to take up space rather than because it necessary for your readers. (talk)16:42, 15 April 2011

Why always object the Hijaab Burqa or nakaab why should not object the Jesus Sisters which also wear the almost same clothes.

Question: What is the difference between Iran and France? Answer: Nothing! They both suppress freedom of speech/freedom of expression.

Question: But I thought the reason we had secular states was so that people could freely express their views. Everyone has different views, dont they? Answer: Secularism will allow you to express your views only if it is against religion.

Question: But what about the people who believe in god sincerely. Are they allowed to express their faith freely? Answer: NO! We live in a secular state and you will do as we say. You have to OBEY the laws. No freedom of expression for you!

Question: So that makes secularism as bad as religion, doesnt it? Answer: You are asking too many questions. Shut up before I convince everybody you are the enemy. This is reality of freedom in france... (talk)23:16, 13 April 2011

The US also has some laws against face covering, where is the outrage? Maybe because there it was created to combat the KKK.

Question: What's the difference the Klan and islam? Answer: Islamic terrorists kill more people in the name of islam every DAY than the Klan has killed in the last 50 years.

Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV (talk)15:40, 14 April 2011, please use critical thinking. I won't waste time answering all of your questions and correcting your absurd answers. I'll just answer one: one of the moult differences between Iran and France is that in France, the president was actually elected legally with normal elections where everyone is able to participate. And more importantly, the French president doesn't threat the erase Israel and the US of maps at every other public speech.

Xionbox (talk)08:14, 15 April 2011

Comments from feedback form - "hgh"

hgh (talk)23:38, 13 April 2011

Comments from feedback form - "The law does not ban the relig..."

The law does not ban the religious Muslim veil specifically. The ban is on anything which may fully cover one's face making it impossible for them to be identified. Hence, burqa, niqab and military-like full face hoods are banned. In addition, this article would show less of a point of view if it were clearly state that the arrested people were only arrested because their protestation was not official. In France, you can protest as much as you'd like, but you must "declare" it first at the town hall.

Xionbox (talk)07:32, 13 April 2011

Let me also add that the law does allow people to wear full face covered dressing (such as burqa and scarf) near a religious place like a mosque, a temple or a cemetery.

Last but not least, people fully covering their faces will not only be brought to the police station for identification, but will also have to pay a 150 €uro fine.

This law is not only an equalization law between men and women of all religions, it also allows police to arrest hooligans who often venture around legal protests but break everything in their path. These same hooligans may also be arrested in subway stations before they commit crimes.

No matter how many benefits this law bring to our modern society, one must admit is will be very difficult to apply.

Xionbox (talk)07:43, 13 April 2011