Customer Discussions > politics discussion forum

Is France correct in banning Muslims from wearing the Burka and praying in public?


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 886 posts in this discussion
Initial post: 25 Sep 2011 23:08:37 BDT
Spin says:
I can understand that, in an airport, one may be required to defrock and prove one is not carrying a bomb, but to ban the burkah in nation that apparentltly upholds human rights? And to ban a person praying on the street? Are they to ban catholics saying a prayer in public as well? Of course not. Cheese-eating surrender monkeys....=)

In reply to an earlier post on 25 Sep 2011 23:14:07 BDT
[Deleted by Amazon on 1 Nov 2011 18:47:06 GMT]

Posted on 25 Sep 2011 23:21:06 BDT
S Wood says:
Perhaps one should support the right for woman (or men) to wear which-ever clothing they deem suitable for themselves whether it is head coverings in France, or trousers and t-shirts in Saudi Arabia?

In reply to an earlier post on 25 Sep 2011 23:26:04 BDT
Spin says:
S Wood: Today the Sikhs were complaining about having to remove their turbans in airports. Sikishm is the most gentle and honest religion I have ever encountered. So I understand their annoyance. Europe is now classifying ALL non-christian, non-white and non-capitalists beliefs as enemies. That is exactly the frame of mind we fought a world war against! We are making enemies, not allies.

Posted on 25 Sep 2011 23:30:45 BDT
Spin says:
For a nation to fight wars in the name of freedom, that nation must allow freedom in its own territory. If it does not allow freedom to its own citizens, while demanding the death of their children in the name of "Freedom", it will collapse.

Posted on 25 Sep 2011 23:37:07 BDT
S Wood says:
@spin

Sikhs are hardly pacifists! For starters- they've blown up one or two Indian primeministers. This issue is specific to France which has a long history of being a secular state, a right wing president who is happy to play the tough no-nonsense man with regards to female muslims. Whatever issues one has with so called traditonal muslim head-dress using the "justice" system to deal with it is likely to create as many, or more problems than it has hope of remedying.

In reply to an earlier post on 25 Sep 2011 23:55:58 BDT
Spin says:
S Wood: Judaism, Christianity, Islam, in fact ALL religions proclaim peace. As do ALL politics. Are you condemn the majority because of the errors of the minority? As for France, it was a colonial power in North Africa (Muslim nations) and it treated the natives as scum. France is just as guilty as the Nazis for human rights abuses and murder. France cannot claim to be an upholder of human rights (nor, indeed, does it, with its new fascist laws). It can do what it wants because the EU values financial prosperity, not the principle it was originally created for: Human rights.

Posted on 26 Sep 2011 00:00:00 BDT
Dave says:
I think France is absolutley right to ban the burka , its a pity that Britain dosn't do the same. Its all very well bleating about human rights but unfortunately that the last thing a muslim extremist ever thinks about. What about the rights of people who feel intimidated when they see a black 'dalek' walking down the street towards them ? Your not allowed to wear a crash helmet in a bank so why should you be allowed to walk in with your face covered like a bank robber ? All these people who are so keen on human rights should try living in an islamic state and see how many rights they have then !!!

In reply to an earlier post on 26 Sep 2011 00:04:12 BDT
Spin says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on 26 Sep 2011 09:52:59 BDT
David Groom says:
I have no particular problem if people want to wear whatever clothing they choose, provided they are genuinely do so from their own free choice, and not as the result of pressure or worse from men in their own community. That's what freedom means in a western democracy and for this reason alone I don't find the French new law very comfortable as it is quite arbitrary, even if it does represent the wishes of the majority of the French people.

However, with the right to wear this particular kind of dress comes a responsibility. Where the circumstances of a situation demands that the head be uncovered, such as when entering banks, or some shopping centres or when teaching children etc. then exceptions should not be made. The argument that this is a religious requirement shouldn't hold sway either, partly because as far as I know, there is no religious need for such headwear and secondly because religion should never be allowed some sort of trump card to enable its followers to have to adhere to different laws or rules from the rest of us. Where it is possible to enable the religious wishes to be met without compromising the safety of the individual or the public then that is fine. So for example it is OK by me for sikh police officers to have protective helmets shaped like a turban or ditto crash helmets. I've no problem with the law compromising in this way to keep all sides comfortable, although it is difficult to see how this could be done when it comes to a whole body encasing garment.

Posted on 26 Sep 2011 13:37:30 BDT
XLR8R says:
The French didn't ban Muslims from wearing the Burka and praying in public, they banned *ALL* forms of face covering (the law translates as 'Act prohibiting concealment of the face in public space') and *ALL* forms of public prayer. It's just that, for whatever reason, the Muslim element has garnered the most attention.

In reply to an earlier post on 26 Sep 2011 18:24:28 BDT
Freedom to subjugate women in the name of religion? Your support to the exemption of Muslim women from wearing a facecovering in a public place is giving privileges to a specific religious group above others and that's racist.

Posted on 26 Sep 2011 20:14:40 BDT
Last edited by the author on 26 Sep 2011 22:03:22 BDT
J A R P says:
Converts to Islam were originally converted by virtue of their desire to escape death. Islam demanded submission, or punishment. Having come to a country where this brutal decision is not put to them, they should take advantage, and leave the false doctrines behind.

Alternatively, they can just persist in their folly, irritating the rest of us, meanwhile.

--

I understand that Muslim ways are a cultural thing. But I also understand that Isslam has forever sought to unite the Religion and the State. Its desire, despite itself, is to unite the British state with Mohammed's book. This cannot happen, on multiple levels of the word 'cannot'.

In reply to an earlier post on 27 Sep 2011 00:36:29 BDT
Spin says:
Linguistic: These women CHOOSE to wear the burkha. They live in a free society and are not subject to torture if they disobey the rules created by mad mullahs. In France, they CHOOSE to obey their religion. Indeed, two women were brought to court in France a few days ago for refusing to adhere to the new fascist law. They were not forced to wear the burkha, for the law now says they cannot war wear it. They chose to wear it and to defy the law. france sends troops to foreign lands under the pretence of fighting for religious and secular freedom, but then bans such freedoms in its own country. No wonder the east treats us with disdain.

Posted on 27 Sep 2011 15:20:56 BDT
Spin writes that these women 'obey their religion'. No - nowhere in the Koran does it say that women have to wear a burka. It is a rule made up by misogynistic mullahs.
France is entitled to make what laws it likes.

In reply to an earlier post on 27 Sep 2011 18:14:02 BDT
No they don't "choose" to wear the burkha, they aren't given choice by their religion, family, social group. It's a circular argument similar the "cow that wants to be eaten" from the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy. If a slave was brainwashed into wanting to be a slave does that mean it's ethically correct to keep a such a person as a slave.

The law is the law and should be applied equally to all. Your support for restricted rights to wear face coverings in a public place for non-Muslims yet exemptions for a Muslims is racist, fascist and crypto-Nazism.

In reply to an earlier post on 27 Sep 2011 18:59:13 BDT
Spin says:
Linguistic: Just as you do not choose to think and live as you choose, but are conditioned by your religion (or lack of it), your family, social group etc. The Terms "pot" "kettle" and "black" spring to mind.... And I do not support religious discrimination. I do not support restrictions on the public and/or private declarations of ones belief. You misunderstand my point completely (obviously by being unaware of sarcasm and political criticism).

In reply to an earlier post on 27 Sep 2011 19:05:22 BDT
Last edited by the author on 27 Sep 2011 19:07:57 BDT
Renzo says:
YES
I respect your right to comment but feel you have completely missed the point. The Nation fights wars for freedom. Since the dark ages in Europe (and elsewhere) it has been considered both sinister and subversive to cover one's identity.

Had I been a Christian Male, ought I to demand and insist upon my right to wear a Black Balaclava and Full-Length Black Trench Coat? No, because that would alarm and disturb.

It is not a matter of religion or of culture, it is common sense and it is wrong.

In reply to an earlier post on 27 Sep 2011 19:11:42 BDT
[Deleted by the author on 27 Sep 2011 19:12:01 BDT]

In reply to an earlier post on 27 Sep 2011 19:26:07 BDT
Spin says:
Jogon: We fight wars for "freedom" while denying it to our own citizens? How can that be justified? Is "freedom" only available to those who provide wealth and military advantage? If a government derides, and indeed outlaws, the beliefs of its citizens, it cannot ask them to give their lifes in the name of freedom. But then, France has always treated its former muslim colonies, and their culturs, with disdain and hatred.

In reply to an earlier post on 27 Sep 2011 19:34:23 BDT
Renzo says:
My experience at UK Manchester Airport was that my 13 year old daughter was made to TAKE HER HAT OFF as she came through security.
Yet:
Burka-Clad 'person' behind just walked straight through.

Makes your blood boil.

In reply to an earlier post on 27 Sep 2011 19:44:11 BDT
Religion subverts the identity. If you do not support "religious discrimination" then I'm sorry to tell you that allowing Muslims special exemptions and exclusions to the law purely because they are Muslims and not extending this to non-Muslims is religious discrimination against, Christians, Jews, Sikhs, Hindus, Buddhists, etc.

In reply to an earlier post on 27 Sep 2011 19:48:43 BDT
Renzo says:
Spin
The "freedom" you seek is to completely cover women up in cloth?
Do you then feel that women not so-attired are of lesser morals?
Or deserve harrassment?
Can men not be trusted unless no flesh is seen?
Where, in any religious teaching is this required.

As I said, since the Dark Ages it has been Sinister and Subversive to cover one's identity.

Common Sense.

In reply to an earlier post on 27 Sep 2011 20:12:25 BDT
Spin says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 27 Sep 2011 20:16:19 BDT
Spin says:
Jogon: Where did I claim I seek to cover women? Are you guys not reading or understanding my posts? Jesus on a chariot, did you not read the title of the thread I myself posted? In fact, if you took time to read my posts on other threads you would know how much I defend freedom of speech, religion and conscience. The only thing that ires me is ignorance...=)
‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 36 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


Recent discussions in the politics discussion forum

Discussion Replies Latest Post
Why Do The Newest "Designer Drugs" Seem Aimed More At Murder Than Thrills? 963 6 minutes ago
Hyndreds of oeople atre beheaded or mutilated by Extremist communities every day so why the sudden shock and horror at the death of an Anerican journalist? 92 6 hours ago
Galloway 'Will Not Be Silenced' By Police Probe 8 9 hours ago
Banned In The U.S. Amazon Forums 3638 12 hours ago
Why does the US have an army if they are impotent? 31 14 hours ago
What is it with the sudden interest in old threads? 22 18 hours ago
How Did the U.S. End Up Such A Slave to Bad Politicians and a Manipulative Media? 585 21 hours ago
Why is the UK supporting IS ( formerly ISIS) in Syria but opposing them in Iraq? 49 4 days ago
The Death Penalty - Time To Bring It Back To The Table?? 538 5 days ago
Cameron says IS poses a real threat on the streets of Britain. But he will not deploy troops to combat this apparent threat.. 61 6 days ago
Most Active Forums 31 6 days ago
Suggested Solutions or Strategies? 37 6 days ago

More Customer Discussions

Most active community forums
Most active product forums

Amazon forums
 

This discussion

Discussion in:  politics discussion forum
Participants:  88
Total posts:  886
Initial post:  25 Sep 2011
Latest post:  17 Apr 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 6 customers

Search Customer Discussions