|
|
May 24, 2013
|
|
French Court Bans VeilPosted on Oct 8, 2010
France’s highest court has upheld a law banning facial veils in public, with supporters claiming it will protect women’s rights while critics say it abridges religious freedom. The law is to take effect in six months, after which a woman wearing a veil would face arrest and a fine of $195. A man forcing a woman to wear a veil could be fined $42,000 and face up to a year in prison. —JCL
Advertisement New and Improved CommentsIf you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy. |
By maud, April 12, 2011 at 5:28 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
right
first of all as a reaction to what i read above, im french, and I do not eat frogs and snails lol, like 80 % of the french population would also say yuck at just the thought of it. forget it,frogs and snails are long gone.
Our law does prevent people from hiding their faces in public, and that applies to everyone. go out with a mask and u can be arrested, thats the law.now of course the debate is to know if thats what made the government ban the face veil..
But well after all, the qu’ran itself does not mention that women have to be ghost covered from head to feet, and our country gives a lot of freedom to regular muslims in the everyday life. all we are asking is a bit of respect for women, i dnt think it is too much to ask
Report thisBy Roger L, October 9, 2010 at 2:08 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
I used to say: the veil is a shadow, the burqa a coffin. And who wants to live under a shadow ? Still I find it bizarre and disconcerting that a woman can bare her breasts in public and it is perfectly legal but if she chooses to cover her face out of modesty she is now a criminal.
Report thisBy Jim Yell, October 9, 2010 at 8:34 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
The veil is a device to oppress women. It is a sign of women’s subordination to men. There is at lest one version which is also required of men to veil their faces. All of this is an attempt to control sexual urges and to guarantee in the case of women that they will not present their husbands with another man’s child.
It is better for society as a whole to worry more about the child than the fragil egos of brutal men and silly absolutes. Besides as a guarantee of faithfulness it is a failure.
This brings us back to the very real issue of being able to identify who we are dealing with. To allow the veil and to be safe would require the face to be revealed for identification documents and on an as needed bases by authorities. The veil doesn’t work for modern people and society. As to does the woman wear it freely or is it forced upon her? That is almost impossible to answer,except to observe where it isn’t forced upon people by society or their husband it is abandoned completely or as an alternate resort to really ugly headscarfs.
It is one more good reason to suspect the worst of religions of “NO” and “Must”.
Report thisBy Inherit The Wind, October 9, 2010 at 7:53 am Link to this comment
A veil, when not transparent, is a mask. I have nothing against barring the wearing of masks in public with obvious exceptions made for things like ski masks and scarves in extremely cold weather and for motorcycle tinted face shields.
It’s not just the current fear of terrorism. Masking has been the tool of bandits and criminals long before “terrorist” became the bogeyman of our lexicon.
So, I don’t know if this law is specifically worded to ban veils on women, but it should be more generalized to ban masks.
Interestingly, a person FORCING a woman to wear a veil gets far more extreme penalties—which I don’t have a problem with.
Religious freedom has never been interpreted to allow endangering public safety. So, we can comfortably forbid animal sacrifice, or burning of heretics or stoning of adulteresses.
Report thisBy Lafayette, October 9, 2010 at 5:16 am Link to this comment
Consonant with the dubious logic that there shouldn’t be laws banning anything? Explain yourself.
Whilst I am against the wholesale Federal excesses of the Patriot Act, I find the above comment naive in the extreme.
Facial recognition is a prime auxiliary-weapon against terrorist. Read here about women involvement in suicidal bombings. In fact, the Internet has multiple articles on the subject.
Perhaps you don’t think women are up to suicidal bombings in public places? Moscow, 29 March of this year—more than 30 dead. Israel - the list is too long to report.
Never in America!?! Yeah, right ... where have I heard that mindless sound-bite before?
Report thisBy Lafayette, October 9, 2010 at 1:08 am Link to this comment
FREEDOM FRIES
And I figure that silly Americans eat too much (period). And get freaked out over abortion. Which has been permitted by French law since 1994, under the constitutional right of a woman do with her body as she sees fit.
Which also continues the long-standing legal opinion that the human being begins life at birth and, until then, is merely an appendage of the mother.
Now, which of these reactions is worse? Getting freaked out by a veil or preventing a woman to do as she sees fit with her body? I suggest it is the latter.
Go eat some Freedom Fries, bigot.
POST SCRIPTUM
The reason for forbidding the veil was one of security. France has been the subject of more than a few kamikazi bombers and the authorities were afraid of them being unrecognizable in front of a surveillance camera.
The French Muslim Community (as expressed by a National Association of Mosques) approved the ban. There is no other restriction on the practice of one’s beliefs in France.
Report thisBy skulz fontaine, October 8, 2010 at 2:24 pm Link to this comment
In the photag, Flickr / Ranoush (CC-BY-SA), is that the same lady t’was on the
Report thiscover of the National Geographic? Sure looks like her. The give away is her eyes.
Wow, the French sure gits their knickers all in a knot over veils. Silly French eat
frogs and snails and get freaked out by a veil? Go figure.