View Full Version : Sarkozy speaking sense?
Spiderman
25-06-09, 10:54 AM
He expressed his strong distaste for the head-to-toe Islamic veil, calling it not a sign of religion but a sign of subservience.
"It will not be welcome on French soil," he said." We cannot accept, in our country, women imprisoned behind a mesh, cut off from society, deprived of all identity. That is not the French republic's idea of women's dignity."
Now before anything else can i just say this is not an attack by me on anyones religion and this thread is not a place to air racist or anti muslim views, any of that carry on and i'l ask the relevant mod to delete those posts, however i know many muslims who also agree with his comments and say that there is nothing in their religion that instructs women to wear such a grament.
My personal problem with the burka is the insinuation that all men are rapists, since the reasoning given is that women should not show their faces/bodies to men as they wont be able to control themselves and the womans face an hair should only be seen by their husbands and male family members.
I assure you that i see many womens faces and hair on a daily basis and i can fully control myself thank you very much.
Does this, or in fact any other, overt symbol of belonging to a relgion also not go some way to dividing coimmunities?
Most of these symbols and beliefes etc, are based on a person interpretation of thier religion.beliefs etc. I think that in todays world people should be able to do what they want and not be forced to do it because some old Prophet said so once! Poeple ahve thier own minds, and in few religions woman are the subserviant member, this is wrong. I think that intodays world women are equal and should be teated as such! So yes i agree with the french blokes comments.
the_lone_wolf
25-06-09, 11:07 AM
Is it election time soon in france?
Personally I couldn't give a hoot if people want to wear curtains every day, a tea towel, or even nothing at all, perhaps Sarkozy's missed the many women who wear it out of choice?
If women are being forced to wear it by overbearing men then why not strengthen laws regarding that? Simply banning it won't make those men any less overbearing or change their view of women
It will, however, drum up support from the mouthbreathers who fall for the current "threat du jour"
Alpinestarhero
25-06-09, 11:07 AM
I dislike the full-face covering, i find it very intimidating and I think it would be hard to communicate with someone like that. How bad is it trying to have a conversation with someone when they have a full face lid on? But saying that, I wouldn;t want the option outlawed. People should have a right to wear what they want, not be dictated into a dress-code. Its bad enough when you have to wear a suit for wqork and look like just another mindless drone, but to be told you must wear the same thing all day everyday and never be allowe to change into something more casual and representitive of yourself as a person...well thats just really bad
yorkie_chris
25-06-09, 11:08 AM
A frenchman with some bottle, and USA beating Spain at football.
The end truly is nigh.
Spiderman
25-06-09, 11:08 AM
But do you think this is something a Govt should be in a position to dictate? Would you be in favour of Gordon Brown bannign the wearing of Burkas in this country for example...or as Sarkozy did at least ban all religious symbols in schools, for example.
timwilky
25-06-09, 11:11 AM
Sarkozy is a prat, he must be he is French, it goes with the territory.
However, I do agree 100% with the concept of a secular society and government. There is no place for religion or symbols of religion within a modern tolerant society. and I fully support his argument
I have no issues with the little of islam I know and understand. I do have major issue with anyone who can take 2000 year old text and attempt to apply it out of context, or use it as justification for their own ignorance of their religion. That goes for all the major religions, islam, christianity, judaeism etc.
I seem to recall a muslim guy calling into a radio phone in to say that the complete covering of women isn't a religious requirement at all, it's more of a cultural one, and that the Koran simply says that women should dress "modestly" - which obviously leaves it wide open to interpretation.
Personally, I think he's on dodgy ground dictating a dress code to the country, and can't help wondering if there's something in the wind that he'd rather we didn't hear about - that or an election looming as said before!
Spiderman
25-06-09, 11:27 AM
From my understanding of the religious "law" its stated that a woman should not show her hair to anyone other than her husband or god.
In Judaism they have the same rule and the very odd thing about jews is that they pay about £3-4 THOUSAND pounds for real human hair wigs...to wear over their own hair.
Muslims wear a cloth over their hair and someone tells them it should cover their whole body, jews wear somone elses hair...yet both do it cos their religious rules say they mustn't show their hair.
Why is hair such a sacred thing i wonder???
SoulKiss
25-06-09, 11:34 AM
Personally, I think he's on dodgy ground dictating a dress code to the country, and can't help wondering if there's something in the wind that he'd rather we didn't hear about - that or an election looming as said before!
Key word there.........
Alpinestarhero
25-06-09, 11:34 AM
Hair is scared because men are athigher risk of loosing it. and get jelous seeing women with hair :lol:
no, you are right. I dont understand it either. Some parts of religion i get, like the moral codes with which to live life by (dont sleepw with brothers ans sisters, be kind to people etc etc) but other things I dont understand, and I find it wrong how people use religion to empower themselves and opress others. Isnt religion about being nice to one an other and being accepting of each individual and who they are?
Isnt religion about being nice to one an other and being accepting of each individual and who they are?
Er no religion is about worshipping a deity and doing what it says without question. Or what you think it says. Or what you read about someone thinking it said a gazillion years ago in a foreign language which isn't spoken any more and has been translated 17 times to get to english. Also the concept of "proof" is generally frowned upon and, in fact, ridiculed.
Alpinestarhero
25-06-09, 11:45 AM
Er no religion is about worshipping a deity and doing what it says without question. Or what you think it says. Or what you read about someone thinking it said a gazillion years ago in a foreign language which isn't spoken any more and has been translated 17 times to get to english. Also the concept of "proof" is generally frowned upon and, in fact, ridiculed.
ah i see, probably why im not religious then
SoulKiss
25-06-09, 11:50 AM
Er no religion is about worshipping a deity and doing what it says without question. Or what you think it says. Or what you read about someone thinking it said a gazillion years ago in a foreign language which isn't spoken any more and has been translated 17 times to get to english. Also the concept of "proof" is generally frowned upon and, in fact, ridiculed.
Indeed as it holds the key to the "defeat of god" as reasoned thus
"The argument goes something like this: `I refuse to prove that I exist,' says God, `for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.'
`But,' says Man, `The Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED.'
`Oh dear,' says God, `I hadn't thought of that,' and promptly vanished in a puff of logic."
ah i see, probably why im not religious then
some religions also include moral codes of behaviour etc. Religions that require illegal practices become illegal, and therefore the ones that are still around tend to be the ones that advocate good moral codes.
Oh and religious festivals are ways of getting free days off work, especially if your religion isn't the primary one of the country, as then you get all the primary religion days off work by default, then your own religion's days off too.
I worship the big SV in the sky, which dictates that paid work is always secondary to posting on the org. Come join me, my children.
Ophic (High Priest of SV-anity)
Bluewolf
25-06-09, 11:55 AM
.
can see both sides of this. in one sense agree with what some have said that these forms of dress could be intimidating, and that they could be seen as oppression against women if they are being forced to wear them. On the other hand being told how to dress by a government is a major issue as well. Really all you can do is make sure people aren't being pressured into wearing these things unless they want to. If they do want to then you have to respect their beliefs.
If they do want to then you have to respect their beliefs.
No you don't. Beliefs should be judged on their merit. Otherwise we'd end up with all sorts of crazy and dangerous... oh hang on... #-o8-[[-o<
im not saying accept people who have the belief that blowing up planes is the right thing to do. But if people have their religions and if they believe it all and want to follow it then its not fair to tell them they can't. Unless of course its harming them or other people. And for the record im not religious one bit and dont believe god or whatever exists. My own personal view though.
Warthog
25-06-09, 12:16 PM
I think he is wrong I'm afraid. Being in a free country is all about being free to dress and say how you please so long as it doesn't offend anyone else. Now it is surely ridiculous that anyone is actually afraid of a 5 foot arabic woman in a burkha, so they should be allowed to do what they like. Now whether they are being made to dress like that by their husbands, IS wrong, but that problem can't be addressed by outlawing burkha's anymore than terrorism can be repressed by arresting everyone in the world. Security for all at the expense of freedom. Let everyone wear what they like, worship who they like, say what they like so long as it isn't harmful, and then concentrate on engaging with the muslim men on why they feel the need to hide their women away. It is basically fear and insecurity on their own parts I'd imagine.
...Let everyone wear what they like, worship who they like, say what they like so long as it isn't harmful...
Thats kind of what i was trying to get across :-)
It is basically fear and insecurity on their own parts I'd imagine.
and not religious doctrine at all? like not eating pork, for example? can't see how that's affected by fear or insecurity, but they still all obey it.
Spiderman
25-06-09, 06:02 PM
I think he is wrong I'm afraid. Being in a free country is all about being free to dress and say how you please so long as it doesn't offend anyone else.
Playing devils advocate on this point for a mo.... who needs to be offended for this to count?
There were instances of people being takn off planes for wearing T-shirts that said Bush & Blair - War Criminals and the such. Now one person disagrees with that and complains. Isnt this now infringing on this persons freedom of speech and/or freedon of expression?
If i was to say that all burka wearers offend me as i see it as abusive does that mean my say is more important than their right to religious expression?
Miss Alpinestarhero
25-06-09, 06:16 PM
I can see both sides of the story. However, I personally feel intimidated by the women wearing the Burkas because if one of them was to speak to me, Id have no idea what they were saying. I rely heavily on facial expressions and lip-reading - so to only be able to see someones eyes just makes me feel really uneasy.
I guess their only solution would be to walk around with a bunch of smiley cards :and display the one appropiate to their facial expression* :lol:
*BTW, im not making a joke out of a serious issue before anyone gets offended at my comment
metalangel
25-06-09, 06:27 PM
I read in a book once that hair is a 'fetish' for pretty much all people, hence why Muslims cover it and Jews shave it. *shrugs*
I see both sides of the story, but to be honest I support Sarko's stance on this.
Basically, if you want to live in our country, you live by our customs. You're free to do whatever you like in your own home and have your own places of worship, but out in public, our way.
If you think this is unfair, feel free to go back to your country of origin and live that way instead. And while you're there, note that WE respect YOUR customs enough to dress YOUR WAY when we're in YOUR country. Indeed, if we don't, quite often we get severely punished and attacked for breaking your rules!
No, I'm not in the BNP. ;)
Miss Alpinestarhero
25-06-09, 06:55 PM
Basically, if you want to live in our country, you live by our customs. You're free to do whatever you like in your own home and have your own places of worship, but out in public, our way.
If you think this is unfair, feel free to go back to your country of origin and live that way instead. And while you're there, note that WE respect YOUR customs enough to dress YOUR WAY when we're in YOUR country. Indeed, if we don't, quite often we get severely punished and attacked for breaking your rules!
yup I agree with this 100%
Spiderman
25-06-09, 07:16 PM
Yeh i agree with that too. However the UK allows for freedom of religious expression and even tho its technically a "chhurch of england" state it really isn't as it has no customs that visitors are expected to observe.
Should we have, or is the freedom to express your religious views more important?
Samurai Penguin
25-06-09, 08:03 PM
My personal problem with the burka is the insinuation that all men are rapists, since the reasoning given is that women should not show their faces/bodies to men as they wont be able to control themselves and the womans face an hair should only be seen by their husbands and male family members.
My understanding is that the burka is not a religious but a cultural requirement.
My understanding is that the burka is not a religious but a cultural requirement.
very hard to separate the two when the religions, governments and culture are often all pretty much the same thing.
Miss Alpinestarhero
26-06-09, 09:12 AM
Yeh i agree with that too. However the UK allows for freedom of religious expression and even tho its technically a "chhurch of england" state it really isn't as it has no customs that visitors are expected to observe.
Should we have, or is the freedom to express your religious views more important?
Well if you consider Christmas Day - all the "little" shops dont remain shut anymore, loads of them are open. (I dont know if this is the case in other areas but it is certainly true where I live).
Paul the 6th
26-06-09, 12:34 PM
Why is hair such a sacred thing i wonder???
cos it's used to make violins strings, worth a fortune in persia
The same people who wrote the bible, thought the world was flat... they could be wrong about other things maybe?
metalangel
26-06-09, 02:49 PM
Yeh i agree with that too. However the UK allows for freedom of religious expression and even tho its technically a "chhurch of england" state it really isn't as it has no customs that visitors are expected to observe.
Should we have, or is the freedom to express your religious views more important?
That lasts up until you start having people taking down nativities and Christmas banners for fear of 'offending' other faiths. At which point a Sarko-esque stance becomes appropriate again. Yes, you're welcome to live in this country, but it's primarily a Christian country, so there's going to be Christian religious festivals. If you don't like it, go home. In much the same way that we wouldn't expect you to stop crying out for morning prayer because the shouting offended us while we visited you.
I've thought about this one quite a bit and several staff and students have raised it. But I can't decide where I stand as I can see many points of view.
Firstly, IMO, women can do, say or wear anything they choose to, within the law and hopefully within common decency. Which means they should not be forced to wear anything because of one interpretation of a religious work or indeed because the men of their religion and culture demand it.
Trouble is, that also means that the state, IMO, cannot demand that they wear head and face revealing clothing.
Then again I have known of women who choose to wear the full covering (and the term for this form of dress varies from nation to nation, language to language and culture to culture) and indeed find it empowering to do so. They find it gives them freedom to be, say, act in their own way without any gender politics and stuff getting in the way.
I can also very clearly understand how and why a full facial covering (in fact for men as well as women) is a real hindrance to communication. As Maria said this is true for those who lip read, but it is also true in other ways where people read from gacial expressions the feelings and emotions of another human being.
I guess I just dislike any law that is better served by freedom of choice and intelligent tolerance of difference.
Spiderman
26-06-09, 04:52 PM
Then again I have known of women who choose to wear the full covering (and the term for this form of dress varies from nation to nation, language to language and culture to culture) and indeed find it empowering to do so. They find it gives them freedom to be, say, act in their own way without any gender politics and stuff getting in the way.
i've met women who have this opinion too and tbh i really think this has been conditioned into them by their society and other matriarchal figures from an early age.
The final line you wrote says it all to me, they feel that way yet they could still say and be what they wanted without the large bit of black cloth covering them from head to foot and including their face. And as for the gender idea, again i see this as being conditioned into them since its ONLY women who wear thee coverings so how the heck they think it fres them of their gender being an issue is beyond me.
there was only ever one girl who was honest with me about why she wears her covering (no face cover for her tho) and that was simply this... Its saves me from having to be a fashion victim like a lot of my friends are and it also saves me having to fek about with my hair everyday too. All i need to do is my make-up" and she didn't wear much make up either.
Like i said in my original post...another thing that really bothers me about the need for womed to wear this is that "if men were to see them uncovered (is in normal everyday clothing) they would not be able to control themselves sexualy." And i object to being classifeid as a rapist by proxy.
That's an intereresting point Spidey, that those women who feel empowered have been conditioned to think that way. I'm not sure you're right though, but i'm certainly no expert. I can think of several examples where having the true person covered, ie with a uniform, style of clothing etc, makes people see you as something other than 'a gender' first. but still the element of choice is there, which is what I think is most important.
I completely take your point though about being classified as a rapist by proxy. That is both demeaning to men and victimises women as weak. And it's not that far away from my objection to being labelled a petrol thief by garage forecourts.
Raises an interesting point tho - freedom of choice is great, but what do you do in cases of blatant conditioning such as the example given? Should they also be given free choice, even tho it may be completely wrong? And who is to say who is conditioned and who is totally rational? I mean, we must all be conditioned by our parents to a certain extent...
its an endless arguement thats the problem. Like you said ophic, while we could see one thing as conditioning its also possible to argue that what we see as ok is just another form of conditioning. My head is hurting now lol
You didn't see many women in this country wearing Burkhas before the Gulf War kicked off in 1991. Since then it's become a symbol of defiance by muslim women to stamp their view and show support for the islamic way of life in the only way they can. Before Jan 1981 most Muslims in the UK were quite happy to semi-integrate into society - since Bush/Blair decided to go to war with Iraq the muslim community of UK has tuned it's back on integration and has become more distanced from western cultures.
ya reckon thats what it is lozzo? not looking for arguement, just interested if that is the reason. I cant say pre 1991 what the situation is like, but if thats true then that is an interesting point. I do think that sometimes people are purposely not trying to integrate to the country. I do agree that if you come to a country you should abide by its rules and beliefs but also if your willing to do that then we should also be willing to accept other beliefs. Its not a simple answer mores the pity
Spiderman
27-06-09, 01:04 AM
You didn't see many women in this country wearing Burkhas before the Gulf War kicked off in 1991.
Not so sure if thats right mate, it may have been where you lived/worked but certianly in some commmunities it was always that way.
Perhaps it became more noticable after that war due to more people fleeing those countries and seeking refuge here???
Since then it's become a symbol of defiance by muslim women to stamp their view and show support for the islamic way of life in the only way they can. Before Jan 1981 most Muslims in the UK were quite happy to semi-integrate into society - since Bush/Blair decided to go to war with Iraq the muslim community of UK has tuned it's back on integration and has become more distanced from western cultures.
Agree with the last stament there for sure. But why do you menation 1981 as a time reference? Bush/Blairs influence and the current agression againt the middle east has occured since 2001/2003. I just lost the connection between your 2 timelines.
Then again I have known of women who choose to wear the full covering (and the term for this form of dress varies from nation to nation, language to language and culture to culture) and indeed find it empowering to do so. They find it gives them freedom to be, say, act in their own way without any gender politics and stuff getting in the way.
I can also very clearly understand how and why a full facial covering (in fact for men as well as women) is a real hindrance to communication. As Maria said this is true for those who lip read, but it is also true in other ways where people read from gacial expressions the feelings and emotions of another human being.
Just like the internet. Does that make us all hypocrites then? :smt017
I read in a book once that hair is a 'fetish' for pretty much all people, hence why Muslims cover it and Jews shave it. *shrugs*
I see both sides of the story, but to be honest I support Sarko's stance on this.
Basically, if you want to live in our country, you live by our customs. You're free to do whatever you like in your own home and have your own places of worship, but out in public, our way.
If you think this is unfair, feel free to go back to your country of origin and live that way instead. And while you're there, note that WE respect YOUR customs enough to dress YOUR WAY when we're in YOUR country. Indeed, if we don't, quite often we get severely punished and attacked for breaking your rules!
No, I'm not in the BNP. ;)
We are saying in our society we are accepting for all people regardless of religous views so why should we persecute them for wanting to dress this way in our society.
I dont see it any more scary than a biker in leathers with a tinted visor. There are a lot of groups out there that dress in different ways because of what they beleive in.
After all our views on this and have been largely manufactured by our own politics and media by association with religious fanatics.
In my view dress like this which are also cultural traditions should be saved.
Agree with the last stament there for sure. But why do you menation 1981 as a time reference? Bush/Blairs influence and the current agression againt the middle east has occured since 2001/2003. I just lost the connection between your 2 timelines.
My mistake, it was a typo. I meant to type January 1991, when the first Gulf War kicked off. I can remember the day clearly, I was flying out of Malta with 24 small bottles of Kinnie in hand luggage and got stopped at security. The next day my grandad, who I'd just been to see in hospital, died.
ArtyLady
27-06-09, 08:32 AM
...........
Basically, if you want to live in our country, you live by our customs. You're free to do whatever you like in your own home and have your own places of worship, but out in public, our way.
If you think this is unfair, feel free to go back to your country of origin and live that way instead. And while you're there, note that WE respect YOUR customs enough to dress YOUR WAY when we're in YOUR country. Indeed, if we don't, quite often we get severely punished and attacked for breaking your rules!
...
I agree with this totally
We are saying in our society we are accepting for all people regardless of religous views so why should we persecute them for wanting to dress this way in our society.
We should not, currently. There is no requirement to integrate in this country.
The reason I feel the burkha is such an issue, is because the solution to differing cultural backgrounds is communication. If this doesn't happen, it becomes very "them & us" and neither side discovers that we're all pretty normal people underneath. The burkha is a major psychological barrier to this open communication. Should you ever have a conversation with someone wearing one, its extremely difficult to recognise them later on, and therefore impossible to develop any kind of one-to-one relationship. So if wearing a burkha makes it impossible to integrate, then its basically saying "**** you" to the rest of society. It says "we don't care about you, we don't like you, we don't want to talk to you".
In fact, any dress that promotes memberships of a particular group can be a problem. We have a natural unconcious tendency to dress like our peer group. This also means that we look at someone dressed differently to us and think "they're nothing like me". Doesn't matter if its biker leathers, religious dress or men wearing skirts, it makes people less approachable.
Of course, its easy to point out the problems. Solutions are more difficult. Sarkozy has used one method - its admirable that he's doing something, protecting the existing french culture, and is prepared to deal with the repercussions. But the UK is a different place and I don't think it would work here, as we're already too far down the road of non-integration.
The other obvious problem is the security aspect. The gov't and private companies put in all these security cameras and the burkha makes them completely useless. Even old school policing uses descriptions of the perp, and drawings and photos if available are distributed - and then there's the old identification line-up. All utterly ineffective. Imagine being mugged by someone wearing a burkha. Fortunately I've never heard of this actually happening... yet. When it does, there's gonna be all kinds of problems, which will further widen the divide. If the gov't outlaw it, can you imagine the backlash against people being arrested for wearing a burkha?
long rambling post... i'm still half asleep :smt015
We should not, currently. There is no requirement to integrate in this country.
The reason I feel the burkha is such an issue, is because the solution to differing cultural backgrounds is communication. If this doesn't happen, it becomes very "them & us" and neither side discovers that we're all pretty normal people underneath. The burkha is a major psychological barrier to this open communication. Should you ever have a conversation with someone wearing one, its extremely difficult to recognise them later on, and therefore impossible to develop any kind of one-to-one relationship. So if wearing a burkha makes it impossible to integrate, then its basically saying "**** you" to the rest of society. It says "we don't care about you, we don't like you, we don't want to talk to you".
I hear what you are saying but communication can be done in many ways and some people (because of their culture) dont want a one-to-one relationship. One doesnt need to be seen to be heard and integration into a community isnt about seeing someones face. Afterall I only know a few faces on here but I still feel part of the community.
Of course, its easy to point out the problems. Solutions are more difficult. Sarkozy has used one method - its admirable that he's doing something, protecting the existing french culture, and is prepared to deal with the repercussions. But the UK is a different place and I don't think it would work here, as we're already too far down the road of non-integration.
I dont feel sorry for the french, english or spanish about protecting their culture. They have all been doing this very well for 100s of years - and imposing it on many other cultures along the way. I feel his comments are just another political stunt to wind up the western views and keep himself in the tabloids. He is using it on a minority group that he knows will get support because of the perceptions associated with the dress code. We are all suckers. :)
The other obvious problem is the security aspect. The gov't and private companies put in all these security cameras and the burkha makes them completely useless. Even old school policing uses descriptions of the perp, and drawings and photos if available are distributed - and then there's the old identification line-up. All utterly ineffective. Imagine being mugged by someone wearing a burkha. Fortunately I've never heard of this actually happening... yet. When it does, there's gonna be all kinds of problems, which will further widen the divide. If the gov't outlaw it, can you imagine the backlash against people being arrested for wearing a burkha?
That's actually quite funny. I can just imagine the gangsters deciding on what to wear. "Balaclava or burkha's today fellas..." :lol: :lol:
I hear what you are saying but communication can be done in many ways and some people (because of their culture) dont want a one-to-one relationship. One doesnt need to be seen to be heard and integration into a community isnt about seeing someones face. Afterall I only know a few faces on here but I still feel part of the community.
I don't really feel that an internet forum is a valid comparison. For all I know, burkha wearing women are all highly active forum posters, and it makes no difference whatsoever. The community that is at question here is the real one, out in the real world.
However some parallels can be drawn. Even in an online community, we are all identifiable by our forum names. We are also held responsible for what we post. Out there in real world land, its the face that is the primary feature of recognition. The burkha takes this away, makes the wearer anonymous and therefore also not responsible for their actions as they cannot be identified.
I dont feel sorry for the french, english or spanish about protecting their culture. They have all been doing this very well for 100s of years - and imposing it on many other cultures along the way. I feel his comments are just another political stunt to wind up the western views and keep himself in the tabloids. He is using it on a minority group that he knows will get support because of the perceptions associated with the dress code. We are all suckers. :)
All political decisions and comments can be viewed cynically. Only Sarkozy knows what truly motivates him.
That's actually quite funny. I can just imagine the gangsters deciding on what to wear. "Balaclava or burkha's today fellas..." :lol: :lol:
It's funny til someone actually does it.
Paul the 6th
27-06-09, 11:41 AM
Lol @ the idea of what appears to be a load of Islamic women in a bank when suddenly, in a thick romford accent one of them yells "everyone down on the f***ing floor, this is a robbery!"
northwind
28-06-09, 09:24 PM
"It will not be welcome on French soil," he said." We cannot accept, in our country, women imprisoned behind a mesh, cut off from society, deprived of all identity. That is not the French republic's idea of women's dignity."
Of course, women's dignity will be aided by telling them what they can and can't choose to wear, right?
It's a tricky one, because the fact is a lot of those who wear the burqa (or similiar) do it because they've not been given any choice, but there are others that do choose to wear it. And fundamentally, while he's talking about women's rights, he's also talking about taking away those women's rights to dress how they wish.
The other problem is that for some of those who do impose/choose these dress codes, the alternative isn't going out unveiled- it's just not going out at all. So potentially, what you do here is you end up imposing an even worse restriction.
(myself, I think it's blatantly obvious that Sarkozy is a racist scumbag, and that he'd decided to wrap up an anti-islamic campaign in a pro-women's-rights wrapper, but I digress ;) )
vBulletin® , Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.