Is this right, or an invasion of there right to freedom of speech?

[Eydawn]

Banning a clothing practice related to a major religion is not a good move. However, making it clear that the interests of national security supercede the interests of religious privacy is a good idea.

Women may wear the burqa all they want, as long as they realize that they WILL have to show their face for identification purposes. Non-compliance with that should not be tolerated. Anyone who is unable to understand that (or willfully chooses to disregard it) should not be allowed the same freedom of movement as the rest of the citizenry.

Wendy

CO EMT-B

[Kiwiology]

Ah yes "national security" ..... the ubiquidos excuse to do anything that you as a power-at-be want and pretty much get away with.

Hey I wonder if Osams is under my bed with his cellphone and kidney machine keeping company with the Communists?

[Biker911]

Well said EYDAWN!I agree that would be best.

However, under "Sharia Law" when another man, other than her husband, sees the beauty of a woman, he has the right to beat her and/or divorce her.

A reporter friend of mine wore a burqua for one day and said "It was the most oppressive feeling that she had ever experienced in her life" It really is a repressive act against a human being.

[under-dreaming]

Unfortunately the article is unclear as to the actual reason for wanting to ban the burqa. So we can assume it is for any number of reasons; from national security, to oppression of religion, to woman's rights, to prejudice against a race. I don't know exactly what the legal standards are in France, but I usually assume that they are very similar to the USA.

If say this is all based on national security concerns with the idea that a man (or woman) could strap on a bomb and cause some ruckus or whatever, then this should be of concern. If one is basing the idea of hiding your face as a reason to presume you have questionable intentions, then you are missing out on the fact that many atrocities can be carried along without the need of hiding one's face. akflightmedic makes a good point regarding that tactic in a war zone. I can't argue with that. But this is France. If someone wanted to do something destructive, they probably won't have to worry about wearing female clothing to disguise. If anything at all, this would cause an elevation in security threats for the country due to the possible perceived racial and religious insensitivity. It could piss some people off enough to go into reckless action.

If this is all for the sake of going against the grain of Islamic tradition so that the majority population can gain control over the deemed injustices to women of Islamic culture, then there is also great risk. This risk primarily comes from the source of change. In the early 20th century, many women in the United States got together and worked very hard to change their social status and share equal rights. The outcome was positive. The outcome was the result of their own desires. This situation in France is the desire of a French PM. While I'm personally sure that Islamic women, if given the opportunity, would be better off without the constraints of their traditional standards, many have been raised to believe that what they have going for them is the best that it is going to get for psychological and conditioning reasons that we as outsiders can only speculate on. It's like polygamists. Very few, when given the opportunity, are willing to give up the standards that they have been raised with. While there are many women from polygamist groups that have gotten out and moved on, there are many more who were raised to believe that they are doing God's work. This is similar with women of Islamic traditions. They are doing all of this for God. The PM of France is not comparable to God by their standards. So even if this law was passed, it is very likely that there will be some perhaps unforeseen consequences. If Islamic women who follow the standard of wearing a burqa in public are now not allowed to go outside with their burqa on, what is the most likely thing to happen? They will stop going outside. So if this is about giving some kind of liberation to these women, it is not going to work.

So then, is this about being prejudice against a race/religion? If so, that could spell disaster for the citizens of France. While this French PM feels that he is acting on the best interest of the French, it is the French who will suffer if by some terrible chance some extremist feels that he needs to hurt people because of this legislation.

Like I said though, this article doesn't even explain why this is being considered.

[Kiwiology]

If say this is all based on national security concerns with the idea that a man (or woman) could strap on a bomb and cause some ruckus or whatever, then this should be of concern. If one is basing the idea of hiding your face as a reason to presume you have questionable intentions, then you are missing out on the fact that many atrocities can be carried along without the need of hiding one's face.

Thats true, does it mean every time I walk through a crowded mall with my backpack on or drive to the market I should be detained or somehow "intercepted" by those responsible for "national security" coz heck I might blow the whole place sky high?

Don't look now but that noise in your roof might just be Osama charging up his laptop by plugging into mains power .... his kidney machine probably needs some juice too you know

[Richard B the EMT]

Someone mentioned the person who wanted her drivers licence to show herself in the full face covering of the burqa. Everyone I remember discussing that with was, how are we going to know if the person presenting the licence for ID is actually the person under the garment when the photo was taken?

[akflightmedic]

akflightmedic makes a good point regarding that tactic in a war zone. I can't argue with that. But this is France. If someone wanted to do something destructive, they probably won't have to worry about wearing female clothing to disguise.

Does terrorism exist only in designated "zones", do terrorists respect and curtail activities when not in these "zones", and do you think someone has not already devised the plan to scoot around in one of these burqas as a refugee in hiding outside of Afghanistan OR they are waiting for right time/place to see how far they can get inside certain places as recon so the next time they can do what they desire to do...all if it is within The Zone of course.

[Siffaliss]

Hmmmmm..... nice ethical debate you have opened up Phil....

I think sometimes countries have leaned so far to the rights of the individual that the rights of the majority are lost. I don't mean that minorities should be completely excluded... but I mean that if you know a country is not open to your religion or culture, you should consider not moving there, rather than move there and try to force them to accept your ideations.

With all the political correctness of language and allowances made, and having to have signs, and instructions, and all printed matter in so many languages.. at what point do we become like the people of Babel, where we can't communicate at all?

I know a few places like that ...

In my opinion when it comes to identification, faces should be shown. I've treated several Muslim women in the back of my unit and always respect coverings when we bring them out of the ambo. What might help that I don't allow the husband in the back, which upsets the guy but seems to allow the women to trust me and speak more freely. Anyhow, when it comes to identification, everyone should be treated the same as it is in everyone's best interests. As for what emtannie said regarding forcing someone to accept ideas, I think she said it perfectly.

[under-dreaming]

Does terrorism exist only in designated "zones", do terrorists respect and curtail activities when not in these "zones", and do you think someone has not already devised the plan to scoot around in one of these burqas as a refugee in hiding outside of Afghanistan OR they are waiting for right time/place to see how far they can get inside certain places as recon so the next time they can do what they desire to do...all if it is within The Zone of course.

I didn't consider the refugee aspect. The reason I brought up the "zone" issue is because I thought you were originally referring to guys dressing as fully covered women so that they can pull off some shenanigans in an area that is patrolled for suspicious looking dudes (which would be a war zone). Terrorism obviously can happen at anywhere at any time and it is nothing to be taken lightly. My point was that the covering of ones face with the burqa does not make terrorism any easier or harder in a non-war zone. I was really just trying to figure out what the potential reasons for creating a ban on burqas are, since the article was unclear about that fact.

The potential methods of hurting others in the name of a radical cause are virtually limitless. It is my personal opinion that increased homeland security measures - while they may make it harder for terrorists to accomplish their goals by forcing them to adapt their plans/tactics - cause an unnecessary burden on people who are just trying to live their lives. Again, I'm not entirely sure if this is about homeland (Frenchland that is) security.

Thats true, does it mean every time I walk through a crowded mall with my backpack on or drive to the market I should be detained or somehow "intercepted" by those responsible for "national security" coz heck I might blow the whole place sky high?

Don't look now but that noise in your roof might just be Osama charging up his laptop by plugging into mains power .... his kidney machine probably needs some juice too you know

If terrorists start to dress like school children with backpacks on that are filled with explosives, it may come to that.

National security organizations and the governments of the world are in the business of treating the symptoms (explosions), not the disease (whatever that may be).

[Kiwiology]

They must have learnt from medicine, it's good at doing that, oh and leaving clamps and stuff in people