No way that such a law would be upheld by the courts.
The French are very naked people....Burquas are stupid anyway. The women should rejoice they can be free from them...The law is technically wrong, but in this case it does women a favor...
What a terribly written article. Bouncing back and forth between burqa and the budget? Crap
And I think it's fine as long as Jews aren't allowed to wear yamakas, Christians aren't allowed to wear crosses or any shirt with Jesus or a religious message on it, and other Muslims aren't allowed to have beards or wear turbans.
While they're at it, why not just make it that they have to specifically buy from a French clothing company so they can bring their shitty economy back up?
I like this last idea. As a corollary, we should pass a law that Americans can only buy GM, Chrysler, or Ford cars and trucks. Only Harley-D motorcycles should be allowed on the roads.
American tax dollars provide the roads, so only vehicles made in America, by Americans, should be allowed on the roads.
I am not keen on people putting their religion in other peoples faces but that is an absolutely ridiculous comparison. Throughout the world women have been subjected to horrific acts of violence because they were not wearing burqas. The burqa is a tool of subjugation used to keep women as chattel.
So you want to give ALL the power to the unions with no competition huh?
Good idea. You should run for Senate.
So has a bottle of whiskey and a backhand. But the women who stay with those kinds of guys are the same who wear the stupid fuckin burqa. Grow a set and take your rights, but no one will do it for you.
As long as it's got Sarkozy's backing, it has very good chances of being upheld. A year ago, a Moroccan integral-veil-wearing woman married to a French citizen and who gave birth to three children in the country was refused French citizenship because of the way she dresses.
And let's not forget that girls who choose to wear the veil can't attend public schools because of a law on ostentatious religious symbols at school. At the same time, christmas trees are displayed all across France during holiday season.
I personally think veils are an aberration of the Islamic religion. But if worn out of choice, I don't see why the state should get involved. Then again, I never understood why people can't walk around naked either...
wow, I actually agree with Irish...
Unless there is an issue with identification or something is unquestionably obscene, it's ridiculous. Apparently a grown woman doesn't have the right to cover herself up. While they are at it, turtle necks and bras are suppressive. Infact, they should just force all women to go topless, so they can be "free". I mean guys can walk street
You cannot force someone to be free.
Your attempts to rationalize and/or justify mysogeny are failing. Your solution to what is a hostage situation involving threats of violence and acts of violence carried out over a period of years is naive, overly simplistic and downright ignorant.
There is the European Court of Human Rights.
France can fuck herself sideways, no way Jose.
This is why I prefer the American to the French conception of liberty.
The French have always had the tradition that the government can encourage/enforce a national culture. The promotion of French over "franglais," and the aggressive support of cultural institutions and protection for local industries, and the whole business of "laicite" or the absence of religion from the public sphere. What this means is that they have trouble assimilating immigrants because "Frenchness" is such a rigid concept.
Then sometimes they wind up going the other way. Last year, I believe, a court invalidated the marriage of a (Muslim) couple because the husband complained his wife was not a virgin.
I think this comes from a confusion as to what is the state's business and what isn't. They would see the burqa issue as anti-Muslim and the marriage issue as pro-Muslim. As an American (with individualistic beliefs) I see the burqa issue as an illegitimate attempt to dictate national culture, and the marriage issue as a failure to apply the law impartially to all citizens. But once you think the government can take sides as to whether France should be "more Islamic" or "less Islamic," you open the door to abuse in both directions.
The court invalidated the marriage because it the woman admitted the use of deception to get hitched. I fail to see how the two issues are even remotely comparable.
And here's a cool bit if you can understand French.
so the logical step is to go from being forced to wearing them and being subjugated by not wearing them, to be being forced not to wear them and being subjugated for wearing them?
I'm confused where the misogyny got left out?
It is obviously about WHO EXACTLY tells women what to do in France.
But, as long as they are men I do not care who wins.