Monroe Chat

Has anyone been following the story? I thought it was rather intriguing.... French President Nicholas Sarkozy suggested that his opposition to the burqas was due to the oppression of Women. The Burqa is worn by Muslim Women and seen as an act of submissivenes.

I have seen the news reports where Western reporters have infiltrated the Homes and lives of Afgan women, talked to them about the burqas and the restrictions Women face in their Communities. Of the selection who were willing to be interviewed, the majority were against the burqas. Could that seen as progression or are we as a society, trying too hard to enforce our western mindsets on them?

Which brings me to burqas in the US or Europe. Many countries have faced issues with them, stating that for security reasons burqas should not be permissible. Again, are we applying acceptable views on a religious (albeit, fundamentalist ) standard, Or is the guise of security a true reason to prohibit the garments?


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

PARIS (AP) - French legislators took up the touchy subject of face-covering, body-length Muslim veils such as the burqa Wednesday, as a leading lawmaker softened his calls for an outright ban by suggesting the garments could be forbidden gradually.
France's questioning of the veils has raised hackles among some Muslim groups abroad and prompted threats from an al-Qaida affiliate based in Algeria. French President Nicolas Sarkozy said last month that burqas make women prisoners and that they would not be tolerated in France.
The National Assembly, the lower house of parliament, put together a committee of 32 legislators from all four major political parties to study the wearing of burqas and niqabs, face-covering veils worn primarily by women in Saudi Arabia and by some other Muslim women.
The committee held its first meeting Wednesday.
The head of the governing conservative party UMP, Jean-Francois Cope, has called for a ban on the veils in France. On Wednesday, he was quoted in Le Parisien newspaper as suggesting that any ban should not be "hasty."
Instead, he suggested a two-stage effort, "a ban preceded by six months to a year of dialogue, explanation and warnings."
France is home to western Europe's largest population of Muslims, estimated at 5 million. A small but growing group of French Muslim women wear full-body robes and veils that cover everything but the eyes.
Cope insisted that it's a "political debate, not a religious one."
He said the veils pose "a problem of security and public order" because they conceal the wearer's identity. "These clothes exclude women from the national community, deny their identity," Le Parisien quoted him as saying.
Last week, al-Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb, AQIM, issued a statement on Islamic Web sites vowing to "seek vengeance against France" over Sarkozy's comments about the veils. The declaration could not be independently verified.
Human Rights Watch has said a ban would be counterproductive, and a top British Muslim group said Sarkozy's comments were patronizing and offensive. Lebanon's most influential Shiite cleric called on the French leader to reconsider his statement.

I could be wrong, but I believe either Cincinnati or Hamilton County has a ban on wearing masks (pardon the term)in public. This was initially done so The Klan couldn't hide behind their white sheets and would have to show their faces. If I'm correct, I'd say the burqas would also qualify.
I would think that any covering could be construed as a threat, as we don't know who's beneath that covering. Could a man dress in a burqa and go into a woman's bathroom or locker room to have a peek around?
A few years ago a woman in Florida sued the state because they refused to issue her a driver's license, unless she removed her burqa. She refused, on religious grounds. She lost the lawsuit. If her picture had been taken with her burqa in place, what Law Enforcement officer would have known if it was her, or any other woman, should she have been pulled over?
Security should take priority, as long as the rules aren't written with the intent of violating a groups beliefs.

I half agree and half disagree ......... Assume you are a willing participant of a fundamentalist group (inclusive of religion) which requires Women to be attired in such a way... Assuming you are a Citizen or at the very least legal resident of the US. Could this not infringe upon a person's right to express themselves ~ personal freedoms if you will ?

I'm not suggesting that I either agree /disagree, in actuality I'm rather on the fence about it.... The Nicholas Sarkosy statement was (not verbatim) that he wished to ban burqas as he was opposed to the theory behind them, ie; submission and oppression. His was not a statement about security (which has actually been the reason behind many attempts to ban.)

I see your point, but there are all kinds of religious groups and there's no way to appease all of them.
There's a man who lives by Interstate 71 who runs his own "church". His church's entrance has an Israeli flag on the floor and one must walk on the flag to enter the building. If he decided (since it's HIS church) that all members must carry an Israeli flag with them and walk upon it each time they enter a government facility (like to pay a water bill), is that ok? I suspect many government organizations would try to put a stop to it. What if it was a gay/lesbian flag?
My point being that at some point the government must say "We'll try to accommodate your beliefs, but you have to work with us as well. You can carry your flag wherever you want, but you can't trample on it in our facility."
Sarkosy's concern should be security. Not freedom from submission/oppression, except freedom from submission/oppression by his government.

I understand what you are saying ..... certainly not trying to be antagonistic.... just to understand the principles at play here .....

So, if I understand you correctly, it would be preferable (and readily acceptable) to claim 'security' as a reason, which in turn supersedes personal freedoms????

- I must add that I have been pondering this issue since initially reading it. Obviously, we are discussing the US here and NOT Europe/France. I found it to be rather interesting and am enjoying the debate. My understanding of freedoms, liberties and where to draw a line, are constantly being challenged. It is my desire to have a greater understanding NOT to be a 'right fighter.'

I think I can usually tell when you're being antagonistic, and I see where you're trying to grasp my way of thinking. Good luck with that.
It's always best that all freedoms and priveleges (SP?) are complete and unobstructed.
I don't like the idea of telling people that they must do something or can't do something. Certainly not when their religion dictates otherwise. BUT...if a woman in Florida wants a driver's license she must play by the rules. Even when her religion says she's not to have her picture taken without a head scarf or burqa. Her other option? Take the bus or a taxi. The US Constitution does not have a "Freedom to drive" amendment.
Through false information or perhaps the truth, I've read that the Koran states that all infidels/non-muslims are to be killed by Muslims. I don't know if it's true that the Koran says that but if it does, does that authorize Muslims in America to kill in the name of practicing their religion? I think not. That's where the Government steps in and says "Well, we're ok with being of a partucular faith, but you still can't ________. We've done it with Mormons when the Government said they can only have one spouse, even though their beliefs may say otherwise.
On the issue of security vs. Liberty, it gets a bit sticky. I'm not sure I can even put it into words via keyboard.