# Coming Soon: Hefty Fines For Wearing Burqa In France



## spnadmin (Jan 8, 2010)

France is formulating a strict new law under which women who wear full-length veils (burqa) in public places will have to pay a fine of over 750 Euro.

The amount could be doubled for Muslim men who force their wives or other female members of their to cover their faces, _The Daily Mail_ has reported.

Jean-Francois Cope, president of Nicolas Sarkozy's ruling UMP Party in the French parliament, said the new was intended to protect the 'dignity' and 'security' of women.

He is set to file the draft law in the National Assembly after Sarkozy said veils are 'not welcome' as they intimidate and alienate non-Muslims, especially in a secular country like France.

"We want a ban in public areas," said Cope, making clear that the veil would not be allowed in public buildings, or on the streets of France, as it encourages extremism.

Cope said, "The wearing of the burqas will be subject to a fine, probably of the 4th class, which is to say 750 Euros."

He said the fine would apply to 'all people on the public street whose face is entirely covered'.

A parliamentary inquiry into the wearing of all-body burqas and naqabs is due to publish its recommendations next month, the report said.


----------



## Astroboy (Jan 8, 2010)

*Re: Coming soon: Burqa fine in France*

Tell them to pass another bill also. Highest reward for those who walk naked in public.


----------



## spnadmin (Jan 8, 2010)

*Re: Coming soon: Burqa fine in France*

A discussion of this article may prove very interesting. I found it to be yet another news article published this week that left me a tad baffled. 

Does everyone agree that the new law is mainly aimed at protecting the dignity and privacy of Muslim women? That this is the genuine reason for banning the burqa?

Is the burqa intimidating to "non-Muslims" in "secular" countries? 

I see at least 3 women a day either at work or in my neighborhood in burqa and have never felt intimidated.  Some of my friends are intimidated by the sight of a woman in a burqa. Some are horrified. 

I confess that I do feel some strains of concern: Burqas  must be hot, confining and possibly even place a women in physical danger in certain circumstances. Many years ago there was a story of a ferry boat that sank off the coast of Indonesia. All of the women drowned because they were weighed down by the burqa and did not have the freedom to work themselves free once it became soaked. Another story not so long ago reported the number of women who are badly burned in Afghanistan because, as they pass by fires in market places while shopping, the burqa catches on fire. The small eye opening also limits a woman's peripheral vision. So the burqa poses a safety hazard that is real. 

On the flip-side. Men have been known to wear burqas. A terrorist, either carrying out an attack or under police surveillance,  could indeed use a female disguise as a distraction and be essentially invisible. 

Wondering what forum member's reactions to this article are?


----------



## BhagatSingh (Jan 8, 2010)

*Re: Coming soon: Burqa fine in France*

I'll let this guy do the "crazy" talking. :advocate: not that I agree with him or anything...

YouTube- Ban the burka


----------



## kds1980 (Jan 9, 2010)

*Re: Coming soon: Burqa fine in France*

There is hardly any Difference between militant secularism and Talibanistic way of Life.
Both try to impose their way of life on others and Here we see people day and night cursing religions


----------



## BhagatSingh (Jan 9, 2010)

*Re: Coming soon: Burqa fine in France*

Oh there is a lot of difference Kanwardeep Singh ji!
You have made a very shallow comparison. Let's see you elaborate on that.


----------



## kds1980 (Jan 9, 2010)

*Re: Coming soon: Burqa fine in France*



BhagatSingh said:


> Oh there is a lot of difference Kanwardeep Singh ji!
> You have made a very shallow comparison. Let's see you elaborate on that.



Both try to impose their lifestyle on others

Both impose freedom on religions

Both believe that what others are doing is wrong and everyone adopt their philosophy


----------



## spnadmin (Jan 9, 2010)

*Re: Coming soon: Burqa fine in France*

kanwardeep singh ji

I agree with your comment above. At first, though I didn't understand your earlier point. Thanks for the clarification.


----------



## Astroboy (Jan 10, 2010)

As the Sufi mystics say, "Allah is veiled by his own Light." "By the Light of Allah, I see Allah."


----------



## BhagatSingh (Jan 10, 2010)

*Re: Coming soon: Burqa fine in France*



Kanwardeep Singh said:


> Both try to impose their lifestyle on others
> 
> Both impose freedom on religions
> 
> Both believe that what others are doing is wrong and everyone adopt their philosophy


This is still a very shallow comparison. I think you are very well aware of how different the things, that are being imposed and their reasoning, are.


----------



## kds1980 (Jan 10, 2010)

*Re: Coming soon: Burqa fine in France*



BhagatSingh said:


> This is still a very shallow comparison. I think you are very well aware of how different the things, that are being imposed and their reasoning, are.



Well Its the way of looking .The difference is that talibans use voilence.
But the net net result of both societies is the same .You have to leave a militant secularist society or embrace their way ,You have to embrace islam or
leave afghanistan.The net result of both societiy is same.


----------



## Randip Singh (Jan 10, 2010)

You know I don't like the idea of a Bur-qua, because if a woman wears it then so should a man, but I am with the Muslims on this.

The French IMHO have some very lax morals where affairs and mistresses are seen as the norm and are tolerated. I suppose I am a Secularist at heart but the French have  very weird idea of Secularism.


----------



## BhagatSingh (Jan 10, 2010)

The idea is to keep religion personal, and keep it out of the public. Why is that a problem?
Every religion or non-religion is being told to do so. This is simply imposing the laws of the land, and they are fair since they are being "imposed" equally.



> Well Its the way of looking .The difference is that talibans use voilence.
> But the net net result of both societies is the same .You have to leave a militant secularist society or embrace their way ,You have to embrace islam or
> leave afghanistan.The net result of both societiy is same.


The net result of both societies is the same?? I'd like to see the logical progression here.

Secularists aren't imposing their lifestlyle on anyone, the only thing they ask is to keep religion out of politics and public, and keep it to yourself. Taliban on the other hand are, they will control each and every aspect of your life using guidance from ALLAH. talibans will say keep religion to yourself if you are non-Muslim.

Secularists won't oppress women nor anyone else. Taliban will oppress everyone except Muslim males.

The secularist reasoning of keeping religion out of politics seems to be working. Look at the Islamic nations, and compare with secularist ones. Religion muddles everything up, and whose religion will you mix with politics. You CAN NOT mix them all! 
Allowing religion to enter public is just giving religions like Islam a loophole to get their Sharia Law, burqas, niqabs, and otehr other closed-minded, medieval, chauvinistic, dangerous and anti-Western things into society.
And you cannot allow let's say the turban and not the burqa, since that's unfair. Even though, we know the difference between the two. They are the exact opposite of each other.

Please clarify what oyu mean by militant secularism. Is that where secularists bomb tall buildings because they will get 72 virgins??? because the only definition of secularism I know is where you keep religion personal.


----------



## kds1980 (Jan 10, 2010)

> The idea is to keep religion personal, and keep it out of the public. Why is that a problem?



There are many religions that cannot be kept personal what about them?



> Every religion or non-religion is being told to do so



LOL do no religious people need such type of law it only affect religious people



> The net result of both societies is the same?? I'd like to see the logical progression here.



Yes if you take religious symbols out of some religions they could die in long run.Their future generations could end up becoming agnostic/atheists.Just like in talibanistic society
people may end up converting to islam in long run



> Secularists aren't imposing their lifestlyle on anyone, the only thing they ask is to keep religion out of politics and public, and keep it to yourself



They are imposing their lifestyle that's why they want people not to wear a turban or burqa
Also in religious society religion can never be kept out of politics just like the politics of language and culture never go



> Secularists won't oppress women nor anyone else. Taliban will oppress everyone except Muslim males.



Wrong muslim males too were also oppressed by them for not practising islam properly
In the same way Sikhs and Hindus were asked to wear saffron badges and pay jaziya



> Allowing religion to enter public is just giving religions like Islam a loophole to get their Sharia Law, burqas, niqabs, and otehr other closed-minded, medieval, chauvinistic, dangerous and anti-Western things into society.
> And you cannot allow let's say the turban and not the burqa,



This is their mentality .Just because islamic societies oppress it does not mean no other religion should be allowed in Public.Why are they afraid of religion in public?



> Please clarify what oyu mean by militant secularism. Is that where secularists bomb tall buildings because they will get 72 virgins



What is the meaning of secularism? The aim of secularism was that all people should be allowed to worship their respective religions its aim was not that Religions should not be allowed at all in Public and I already said that Militant secularistic people don't use voilence


Many Islamic societies also say that non islamic Religions should not be allowed in public
but people are free to worship them in private


----------



## BhagatSingh (Jan 10, 2010)

> This is their mentality .Just because islamic societies oppress it does not mean no other religion should be allowed in Public.


You misquoted me, I said:


> And you cannot allow let's say the turban and not the burqa,                         since that's unfair.





> The aim of secularism was that all people should be allowed to worship their respective religions its aim was not that Religions should not be allowed at all in Public...


Once you allow small changes to be made in "respect" to religion, you are on the slippery slope. This slope leads one right into a ditch, known as Islam.


----------



## kds1980 (Jan 11, 2010)

> Once you allow small changes to be made in "respect" to religion, you are on the slippery slope. This slope leads one right into a ditch, known as Islam.



So here we go the problem is Islam so lets ban all religions in Public.What kind of stupid logic is this.

Anyway muslims are already 5% of France 's population and birth rate of muslim women
is much higher than other french women.so burqa or no burqa they will get stronger and stronger

BTW I have another idea to control islam why not ask non muslim women  of France to have more kids or pay fine and also ask women who have more than 3 children to pay fine too this will automatically lead to equal birth rate of all religions and non religion people


----------



## BhagatSingh (Jan 11, 2010)

> So here we go the problem is Islam so lets ban all religions in Public.What kind of stupid logic is this.


Problem is religion because letting religion through the door means leading Islam in. Like I said You cannot treat Islam differently! because that's what we would call *unfair*, discriminating, and "not treating everyone equally".

This kind of one-sided law-imposing is much more similar to Taliban.


----------



## kds1980 (Jan 12, 2010)

BhagatSingh said:


> Problem is religion because letting religion through the door means leading Islam in. Like I said You cannot treat Islam differently! because that's what we would call *unfair*, discriminating, and "not treating everyone equally".
> 
> This kind of one-sided law-imposing is much more similar to Taliban.



If the fear of islam is so high their minds then they should try some different methods.Why should other religions suffer because of Islam? and if islam is not stopped by this then what will be the next step banning all religions?

And how one sided law against islam is talibanistic? Talibans too treated all non muslims equally.


----------



## BhagatSingh (Jan 12, 2010)

Kanwardeep Singh said:


> If the fear of islam is so high their minds then they should try some different methods.Why should other religions suffer because of Islam?


I wish it was just Islam. All religions( and other dogmatic systems) are prone to the same problem as Islam. Islam just happens to be on the worst end of it right now.



Kanwardeep Singh said:


> and if islam is not stopped by this then what will be the next step banning all religions?


You are committing a fallacy here. This is not the next step, and you know it.


Kanwardeep Singh said:


> And how one sided law against islam is talibanistic? Talibans too treated all non muslims equally.


Saying that simply Muslims should not be allowed to make their religions public is more akin talibanistic ideology because they too say only non-believers cannot make their religions public. 
They treat one religion differently than others. Secular governments won't do that because that would be 





> *unfair*, discriminating, and "not treating everyone equally"





PS If you are here simply to vent out your frustration, let me know, I will be most happy to leave.


----------



## kds1980 (Jan 12, 2010)

> I wish it was just Islam. All religions( and other dogmatic systems) are prone to the same problem as Islam. Islam just happens to be on the worst end of it right now.



Who are miltant secularists to decide that all religions are prone to same problem? is it not the same mentality that all kafirs are bad?



> ou are committing a fallacy here. This is not the next step, and you know it.



No one knows what lies in Future.Anti religion propaganda rose after 9/11



> They treat one religion differently than others. Secular governments won't do that because that would be



What is the meaning of secularism? Please define in your own words.some states in USA are even  allowing sikhs to wear kirpan while France and germany is not allowing them to turban.So who is secular ? 



> PS If you are here simply to vent out your frustration, let me know, I will be most happy to leave.



LOL:}{}{}::}{}{}::}{}{}::}{}{}: I don't get frustrated by these childish debates
but you certainly look frustrated


----------



## BhagatSingh (Jan 14, 2010)

Kanwardeep Singh said:


> Who are miltant secularists to decide that all religions are prone to same problem?


lol you are right! with such childish questions, the debate will be quite childish.



> is it not the same mentality that all kafirs are bad?


You equate:
"Religions are prone to the same problem" with "Kaffirs are bad"
That is childish.

Religion is a system, where as Kaffirs are people. You cannot equate the two, first of all.

Why are kaffirs bad? Because Quran says so. This is the mentality.

Why are all religions prone to the same problem? 
Because they are all *dogmatic* in nature.


> *Dogma* is the established belief or doctrine held by a religion, ideology or any kind of organization: *it is authoritative and not to be disputed, doubted or diverged from.*


Read the bolded sentence. This is not true for something like secularism, which has no authority, and this is where you have freedom of speech. You are able to raise doubts on the laws, etc.
Whereas, with Dogmatic systems like religion. You cannot raise doubts, and in a bad scenario, you don't have freedom of speech. You cannot diverge from the system, you cannot change from it because it is God's word. 
The talibanistic societies are evidence of this. *They CANNOT be disputed, doubted or changed!*

The fact that there are several gradients of* secularism *like you mention US, UK, and France. Shows that the system is flexible and *once you present valid reasoning for changing it, it will be changed.* 
*It can be disputed, doubted and changed!*

The difference in the mentality also includes the reasoning that is provided by the texts and the proponents of the system from which the mentality emerges.



And what is the problem with practicing religion in the privacy of one's own home?? We call it spirituality, what we should be after, in the first place. No type of clothing is going to make you more spiritual, and parading in the public, will only inflate the ego, which has a direct negative impact on one's spirituality. 

PS If you think a debate is childish, perhaps you should not be a part of it.


----------



## kds1980 (Jan 14, 2010)

> And what is the problem with practicing religion in the privacy of one's own home?? We call it spirituality, what we should be after, in the first place. No type of clothing is going to make you more spiritual, and parading in the public, will only inflate the ego, which has a direct negative impact on one's spirituality.



Who are you any Government to decide what type of clothing makes a person more or less spiritual.Is it not imposing their views?



> PS If you think a debate is childish, perhaps you should not be a part of it.


:}{}{}::}{}{}::}{}{}:


----------



## kds1980 (Jan 14, 2010)

Bhagat singh here I want to show you something
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, which France signed on to in 1948, states in Article 18:

“Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.”
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now making laws against burqa or turban is france is not voilating Human rights .The declaration France itself signed?


----------



## Sinister (Jan 14, 2010)

but what about nudists? why are they discriminated against and incarcerated for indecent exposure if they were to roam around baring it all on a hot day? where are their rights? who is fighting for them?

what about if my religious persuasion told me not to wear clothes sewn together by child laborers in some distant land? and to wear and bare the skin that god gave me with pride? what about if i was female from a tribal area of the Omo valley in ethopia visting france?

the existance of cultural norms can make laws that discriminate against a minorities practices. the wailing cry of superfiscially distressed citizens is louder and more resonant in free societies compared to despotic/religious/hegemonic ones (where the majority of civil liberty violations occur...but oddly the least amount of outrage is expressed) 
this fine/levy IS an outrage because a secular society should be above and beyond and protect the rights of its citizens when they need it the most. There are other ways to persuade people not to do things rather than banning them outright...media campaign, with the help of islamic feminist groups should have been the first step before any law to ban them outright was implemented. (i bet no such outreach was ever attempted).

all this law does is provide more cannon fodder for the nutbag islamic extremists...this is a cultural war and carrot is sometimes better than the stick


----------



## BhagatSingh (Jan 14, 2010)

Sinister ji, I don't think its the governments duty to organize such things 





> media campaign, with the help of islamic feminist groups should have been the first step before any law to ban them outright was implemented.


Islamic Feminists or rather any otehr feminist group should have raised a voice a long time ago. The fact that they didn't may suggest the nature of the problem. This religion of peace is not exactly peaceful... If nothing else, banning is a short-term solution.

I don't really support the fine but its a way to enforce the law, I guess. 



> all this law does is provide more cannon fodder for the nutbag islamic extremists...this is a cultural war and carrot is sometimes better than the stick


I have been watching Pat Condell's youtube videos (link to one of them on the first page), and he talks about how they (british) are bending over backwards to please these people. Eventually the Sharia Law was being implemented into courts, backed up by British law. This is not a good situation for many muslims to be in.
If France, is on the hard end of the secularist scale then Britan is definitely on the soft end. So, perhaps middle ground is key here.

I am interested in knowing exactly how banning the burkha provides cannon fodder for extremists.


----------



## Sinister (Jan 19, 2010)

Bhagat Singh ji,

the question is about liberty and choice. If a woman wants to wear a burka (for whatever ridiculous reason) then so be it...who are we to tread on their rights?

however if a young girl is being coerced into wearing a burqa then the appropriate set of laws should be implemented in protecting her from community and in many cases family.

Governments consist of a multi-body politic of different persuasions. It wont be hard to find a political party that voices strong condemnation of such a dress...and they will be taken to the polls...and the votes will be tallied...and the people will voice an opinion.

but you cannot take away rights. if you do then their are no such thing as rights...you are left with only privileges (that will continue to shrink).



BhagatSingh said:


> I am interested in knowing exactly how banning the burkha provides cannon fodder for extremists.


 
this law is an act of persuasion. Basically the French government is saying (indirectly) that it does NOT want the islamic zealot class roaming around on their streets. and it might work in breaking an ethnic enclave within france and aid in integration (or at least letting more moderate muslims in)

But whenever the question of tolerance arises on the world stage, the islamic fundamentalist will use this case to paint the entire western countries as an unnaccepting intolerant land...which it clearly is not.

so this law does more harm than good to the reputation of liberty in the west.


----------



## BhagatSingh (Jan 19, 2010)

Sinister ji,


Sinister said:


> Bhagat Singh ji,
> 
> the question is about liberty and choice. If a woman wants to wear a burka (for whatever ridiculous reason) then so be it...who are we to tread on their rights?


We have no right to do that. But like you mention below.



> however if a young girl is being coerced into wearing a burqa then the appropriate set of laws should be implemented in protecting her from community and in many cases family.


I think it would be very difficult to enforce such laws. I think those women who are being coerced now get an excuse for not wearing it... "you know, it's illegal."




> Governments consist of a multi-body politic of different persuasions. It wont be hard to find a political party that voices strong condemnation of such a dress...and they will be taken to the polls...and the votes will be tallied...and the people will voice an opinion.
> 
> but you cannot take away rights. if you do then their are no such thing as rights...you are left with only privileges (that will continue to shrink).


true



> this law is an act of persuasion. Basically the French government is saying (indirectly) that it does NOT want the islamic zealot class roaming around on their streets. and it might work in breaking an ethnic enclave within france and aid in integration (or at least letting more moderate muslims in)


pretty much



> But whenever the question of tolerance arises on the world stage, the islamic fundamentalist will use this case to paint the entire western countries as an unnaccepting intolerant land...which it clearly is not.


You know they have been doing that already, they don't need such laws! They will say look how the western men dress their women.. like prostitutes, to give you one example.

 But to tell you the truth they don't even need use this tactic, they can go on a global jihad by following the teachings found in their texts! They can persuade moderates to wage war by showing them the fundamentals of the faith.
Robert Spencer from Jihad Watch speaks quite openly about this.



> so this law does more harm than good to the reputation of liberty in the west.


Well, on the surface of it, it does seem that way.


----------



## kds1980 (Jan 19, 2010)

> I think it would be very difficult to enforce such laws. I think those women who are being coerced now get an excuse for not wearing it... "you know, it's illegal."



 there is other side of story and that If a husband or father is strict muslim then he may not allow her wife or daughter  to study or work if he really believe That wearing a Burqa is a must for women


----------



## Mai Harinder Kaur (Mar 9, 2010)

All that banning the burqa will accomplish is to make conservative Muslim women prisoners in their own homes.


----------



## roab1 (Mar 10, 2010)

The burqa coveys a very strong message.
1. Man and Woman are not Equal.

For me it is enough to know that Guru Amardas forbade his women disciples from wearing Burqas.


----------



## kds1980 (Mar 11, 2010)

roab1 said:


> The burqa coveys a very strong message.
> 1. Man and Woman are not Equal.
> 
> For me it is enough to know that Guru Amardas forbade his women disciples from wearing Burqas.



What if tomorrow France or any other country says that Turban and Patka's are sign of oppression for Sikh boy's and men as There is always pressure on sikh boys to wear it so they should also be banned?


----------

