[PUG] French Parliamentary Committee Supports Burka Ban

[bamf]

But how long can that be maintained? Even Machiavelli noted the importance of maintaining public support in regards to the survival of any political system, hence why he actually was in favour of republican forms of government(not monarchy, contrary to popular myth).

It's maintained as long as they keep the power. If I have a gun, and a bullet proof vest, and all you have is a stick, you'll either do what I say or be killed. If I have enough power do to that to a country, it will stay my country until I lose the power, the people can more power than me, or an outside force with more power forces me out. It's maintained for as long as the person with more power keeps the power.


EDIT: This is too far off track of the thread. I'm going to quit responding here, but will if a new thread is started

 

[sumone]

Is this discriminatory?

Muslim Woman Sues Over Driver's License Photo
Woman Refused To Show Face


POSTED: Wednesday, January 30, 2002
UPDATED: 9:21 am EDT June 27, 2002

A Muslim woman has sued the state for suspending her drivers license after she refused to remove her face-covering veil for the photo.

Sultaana Freeman, 34, said she was allowed to wear her niqab, which only reveals her eyes, for her drivers license photo in Illinois and for a Florida license issued to her in February. State officials demanded Freeman take a photo without her veil in November, following record checks prompted by the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. Freeman filed suit earlier this month in Orange County. "I don't show my face to strangers or unrelated males," Freeman said. Florida law states that license applicants be issued "a color photographic or digital imaged drivers license bearing a full-face photograph." Robert Sanchez, a spokesman for the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, said his agency has no choice but to enforce that law. But ACLU lawyer Howard Marks said the law is vague and pointed to another Florida law stating the "government shall not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion." Freeman, a former evangelist preacher, converted to Islam about five years ago. At least three other Muslim women have been refused Florida drivers licenses because of their headdresses, said Altaf Ali, executive director of the Florida chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations. Ali said he has asked the state to clarify its policy on religiously mandated clothes.

 

[bamf]

I'd say she shouldn't have to remove her face-cover, but she also shouldn't expect to have a valid form of identification.

 

[Pristinegirl]

With all due respect, but I think that the burka ban is understandable. Having teachers who wear burkas in kindergarden and pre school is outrageous!! It definetly does not symbolize freedom and lets not even talk about the lack of emotional expression these kids cannot percieve due to the full vail.

Or just think if she walks into a bank, in general it would feel unsafe and also what use would an ID have...

 

[Pristinegirl]

Haha she sued the state? That is absolutely riddiculous.. For once I'm with the state, they had to suspend it.

 

[Krumplenump]

This is only going to cause more problems, regardless of their intentions. This is the restricton of harmless religous pratice. If history tells us anything, that leads to problems (and possibly war).

It is not harmless. Nor is it a religious practice. In Turkey where I live right now these sorts of 'Islamic' headwear are politically motivated symbols of a sector of society that want Sharia law and are derivations of radical politiscised Islamic elements mostly outside of Europe but increasingly within - thanks to the insanely tolerant clauses of the human rights law that totally lacks in common sense.

I am pleased they are to be banned and I think symbols of a backward element of contemporary religious segragation, degradation and division should be banned EU-wide.

I've written on this issue several times elsewhere in a very long and winded manner, but the essence of my argument is that if an obsessively tolerant and liberal stance towards elements of Islam that have been fabricated and exaggerated continues today, then tomorrow this radical sect of Islamic society in Europe will be demanding they have their own Sharia courts set up to try their 'own' people. Don't assume at all that the Islamic population of Europe is tolerant and neughbourly because of their faith. They are, as a whole, obsessed with the furtherment of their own agendas and don't give two hoots on the whole about being reciprocal in their tolerance. It is an extremely dangerous and flammable issue that goes way beyond a mere choice of clothing and should be treated with the caution, and firm action, it warrants.

Also, it's worth looking at the Islamic principle of Taqiyya, which is basically a religious green light to lie your way out of certain situations. Many women who wear the Burkha and other facewear claim that it is 'liberating' and 'empowering' and that these symbols of submission and exclusion give them a sense of freedom a western woman supposedly lacks and thereby impying that they are 'freer'. Anyone who asks themselves why so many of these women would come to such a conlusion would probably fail to find a good one. If a burkha-covered woman were to be asked on the street why she is wearing one, do you think they'de subject themselves to the on-the-spot embarrasement of saying 'it's because I have a low status and must be obedient and subservient' or cling on to one of their last vestiges of pride by claiming that it's their own free will and is an empowering choice? It's worth thinking about I think.

To save face, to maintain a certain level of self-perceived honour, the implementation of 'taqiyya' by many of these women is really the only choice they have.

 

[Krumplenump]

Is this discriminatory?

Muslim Woman Sues Over Driver's License Photo
Woman Refused To Show Face


POSTED: Wednesday, January 30, 2002
UPDATED: 9:21 am EDT June 27, 2002

A Muslim woman has sued the state for suspending her drivers license after she refused to remove her face-covering veil for the photo.

Sultaana Freeman, 34, said she was allowed to wear her niqab, which only reveals her eyes, for her drivers license photo in Illinois and for a Florida license issued to her in February. State officials demanded Freeman take a photo without her veil in November, following record checks prompted by the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. Freeman filed suit earlier this month in Orange County. "I don't show my face to strangers or unrelated males," Freeman said. Florida law states that license applicants be issued "a color photographic or digital imaged drivers license bearing a full-face photograph." Robert Sanchez, a spokesman for the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, said his agency has no choice but to enforce that law. But ACLU lawyer Howard Marks said the law is vague and pointed to another Florida law stating the "government shall not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion." Freeman, a former evangelist preacher, converted to Islam about five years ago. At least three other Muslim women have been refused Florida drivers licenses because of their headdresses, said Altaf Ali, executive director of the Florida chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations. Ali said he has asked the state to clarify its policy on religiously mandated clothes.

This is not discriminatory at all, it is absolutely laughable. Again, we see here religion and supposedly faith based practices being given such undeserved signs of respect and reverance. It makes a total mockery of the human rights law. This woman should have been refused a licence if she did not confirm to the neccessary requirements of applicants. Her being issued one with a photo of her in a Burkha is a sign to ALL radical religious groups be they Mormons or Wahabbists that 'religion is your excuse to get what you want' and that they're practically untouchable if they jump on that bandwagon.

GOOD her licence has been suspended and she should NOT be given any right to sue the state and waste tax payers money and judicial expenses and time on such a petty over-blown matter of selfishness.

 

[Stu]

I have to remind myself again and again to be tolerant of people with religious convictions.
As an American I have to accept that it is the right of the individual to express themselves as long as that expression does no direct harm to others. Withholding one's face from view in public, as long as that act causes no danger, is the right of the individual. When that individual comes into a lawful interaction with police then their right of expression takes a back seat to the public's right to security. I would not condone forcing an employer to hire an individual who withholds their face from the view of their coworkers or client's. That said, France has gone too far in my qualified judgment.

 

[TheLastMohican]

Mere arbitrary power only gets you so far. If the people don't see the government as legitimate, it's pretty much screwed in the long-run because it's lost the loyalty of the people.

Loyalty can be ignored when you can manipulate fear. (How long of a "long-run" are you talking about, anyway?)

How exactly are they screwed?

By being under restrictive laws based on Christian doctrines. (Think anti-sodomy laws, enforcements of Sabbath observation, etc.)

St. Thomas Aquinas noted in the 13th century that non-believers should not be forced to believe because that would violate their free will before God. This of course is the origins to our concept of freedom of religion we know today.

Do you really think that the concept of freedom of religion under the state does not predate Thomas Aquinas's commentary on free will? What spectacular bullshit. Did Aquinas also invent democracy and Medicare while he was at it?

Because in a practical sense you guides you on where to put your defenses so to speak.

I can't figure out what this sentence is supposed to mean, let alone how it relates to the topic.