Sarkozy speaks out against burka

[Ram]

There is a reason why lingerie is sold. Nudity is often not as alluring as a scantily clad person. Also why do you perceive nudity as something negative?

I, as an adult male, have nothing against public nudity. I am on record saying that I will NOT find it disturbing if I see someone walking nude on the streets. BUT, If say I had a 8 year son/daughter who was with me at that point, I DEFINITELY don’t want them to be exposed to such a sight at that age. That’s precisely the reason why I public nudity is an offense right now. Not because its bad per se, but to protect innocent boys and girls from getting being exposed to it. Its for the same reason why it is perfectly acceptable for adults to go to clubs and drink, while kids and teenagers are prohibited from doing so. Society constantly makes this differentiation based on age. We make our laws not based on the strongest section of the society, but to cater to the most vulnerable.

[bharathh]

I know this topic is not about nudity and am sorry be deviating from this... Last post on the nudity issue - Drinking/smoking are completely different from being nude. Being nude is not a vice - it does not corrupt a person's thinking. Coming back to the burka point. There is a lot of emotional baggage associated with the burka. The burka is seen as a way to subjugate women. Many women that are brought up in an ultra-religious environment or those that have ultra-religious leanings would state that their religion requires them to be covered. Most muslims however would agree that there is nothing in the quran that requires women to be covered the way the burka does so. It is more cultural than religious. France does not welcome the culture where they believe women are forced to wear the burka. So banning the burka is not constitutional.

[kumble_rocks]

And btw' date=' Welcome back KR..! ICF was missing your stocks [i']gyan.. How is your portfolio doing? I heard the Dow had the worst August since 2001? :D

Thank you sir ! I am into energy trading now . Trying to hedge on crude.

[kumble_rocks]

Dude, that is the WHOLE POINT of living a free society. People are free to do what they chose to do (of course there are caveats that come with it..) and sometimes, they will do things that are not desirable. (Un)fortunately, people have accept it because that is the small price you pay for living in a free society. Do I find the sight of burqa clad women walking on the street pleasing to the eye? Of course not. Do I find that it is appropriate for women to cover themselves in full? Of course not. But guess what, it is none of my business to decide what someone else wears. Its their right, they’re free to do what they want.

Bad analogy when you compare skimply clad women with women with a tent. One is a liberal other is not. One believes in free society with separation of church and state , other believes in Islamic state. You may have the goodness in you to extend civil liberties to these nutjobs , but I am afraid , you side with majority when it comes to Digambar Jains from a law perspective. In all honesty , I am getting sick and tired of tolerating the intolerants. You may feel that you are standing up for the civil liberties of the oppressed , but in reality , you are standing up for the rights of the oppressor to oppress . And the oppressor in question is the insecure hubby. What next , talaq talaq talaq is okay ?

[yoda]

Interesting writeup: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/liesl-gerntholtz/beyond-the-burqa-to-help_b_223846.html

[f.b.m]

morris, you are making no sense on nudity. I have lived in a country where nudity is no big deal. They have nude only river banks next to the Danube. Kids go there and its no big deal and no its not as attractive or seductive as people seem to think it is. And I dont get why the human genitalia is treated as though its humanity's best kept secret and something that kids should never see. If you actually believe in freedom to clothe oneself as they wish you should also believe that nudity is kosher, there's no getting around this. For the record, I believe that people should have the choice to appear however they wish except when the clothing is physically offensive to others (something like clothes with automatic guns shooting randomly or all the time). There wont be that many nude people except where there are dedicated nude societies like there are in some placed in Bayern, Germany for example.

[King Tendulkar]

Yes, lets have nude people walk freely on public roads, the same time 8, 10 and 12 year old boys and girls will be using the same road as well. :icflove: How someone can even begin relating women wearing burqas to grown adult men and women walking nude on the roads, is beyond me. That’s like saying the same right that allows people to carry hidden/exposed firearms should also give them the right to drive privately owned tanks through the same public roads.

What about waliking nude with your titis hanging out wearing a skimpy thong? As this happens all over europe beach resorts. So your social norm is not applied there. Or is it only on roads that you dont like nudity? I have seen many a 8,10 and 12 year old at the beach:giggle: Morris lost it here:giggle:

[Ram]

morris, you are making no sense on nudity. I have lived in a country where nudity is no big deal. They have nude only river banks next to the Danube. Kids go there and its no big deal and no its not as attractive or seductive as people seem to think it is. And I dont get why the human genitalia is treated as though its humanity's best kept secret and something that kids should never see. If you actually believe in freedom to clothe oneself as they wish you should also believe that nudity is kosher, there's no getting around this. For the record, I believe that people should have the choice to appear however they wish except when the clothing is physically offensive to others (something like clothes with automatic guns shooting randomly or all the time). There wont be that many nude people except where there are dedicated nude societies like there are in some placed in Bayern, Germany for example.

You’re making me sound as though I am some sort of social conservative hawk on this issue. If you have read all of my posts, you will find that my first comment on this topic is that I, as an adult male, have no problem with public nudity whatsoever. But no, I certainly don’t want grown men and women to walk freely on public roads nude at the same time impressionable boys and girls will be using the same roads.

[f.b.m]

You’re making me sound as though I am some sort of social conservative hawk on this issue. If you have read all of my posts, you will find that my first comment on this topic is that I, as an adult male, have no problem with public nudity whatsoever. But no, I certainly don’t want grown men and women to walk freely on public roads nude at the same time impressionable boys and girls will be using the same roads.

You are a social conservative hawk on this issue (these are your own words, I wouldnt be as harsh, lawlz). Its the same old "I'm ok with it but what about zhe kids?? Wont they die?" argument that was used against homosexuality or wearing short skirts. My post and KTs post were talking about countries where at least in sections of the countries, nudity is no problem even for the kids.

[Guest Shivani]

Its not the govt's job to decide what its citizens should or should not wear.. Today, face veil has been banned, tomorrow they might ban turbans for Sikhs. Religion and its practice is a private domain of a citizen where the state should not interfere at any cost unless it is not in conformity with any of its policies or is unlawful/illegal. Concerns of religion should not be taken into account while framing the public policies/laws. I am a believer of the two sword theory, hence do not approve of such bans in the name of secularism. Such bans not only violate the basic principle of your govt , secularism , but also infringe your basic fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression.

[The Outsider]

Its not the govt's job to decide what its citizens should or should not wear.. Today' date=' face veil has been banned, tomorrow they might ban turbans for Sikhs. Religion and its practice is a private domain of a citizen where the state should not interfere at any cost unless it is not in conformity with any of its policies or is unlawful/illegal. Concerns of religion should not be taken into account while framing the public policies/laws. I am a believer of the two sword theory, hence do not approve of such bans in the name of secularism. Such bans not only violate the basic principle of your govt , secularism , but also infringe your basic fundamental right of freedom of speech and [b']expression.

I've made these points earlier in the thread as well more than a year ago, but have nothing to do so might as well type them again : 1. Agreed, the government should not be concerned with what an individual wears, but like every other liberty there are limitations. 2. Burqa is a security threat. You might have a terrorist roaming around behind a Burqa. There have been numerous instances of crimes committed around the world by people exploiting a Burqa. Yes, people commit crimes even wearing Jean and T-shirts but a Burqa quite obviously impedes identification if a crime is committed. 3. If it is such a natural desire for a certain section of women to cover themselves from head to toe, without the years of brainwashing that has gone before it, why do I not see a single male covering his body in a Burqa like attire? Is there any scientific basis to argue that this natural urge to cover yourself in a Burqa happens only in females? On nude beaches, you can find male and female alike. Freedom of wearing whatever you want is good, and I would be willing to listen to any argument, but there is simply no getting around the fact that Burqas at the very minimum are a security threat and so the government has every right to step in and ban it in the interests of other citizens. I understand France is not using that reasoning to ban the Burqa, at least primarily, but there is not justification for allowing a Burqa in a free society for reasons explained above.

[EnterTheVoid]

^ Much simpler than that Shwetabh, what about the most BASIC tenant of observing the social norms of the land ? If you wish to wear the burkha in a society that scorns its use, than it doesn't take much to figure out you'd be alienated from society, treated as an outcast and forced into communal ghettos.

[The Outsider]

^ Much simpler than that Shwetabh, what about the most BASIC tenant of observing the social norms of the land ? If you wish to wear the burkha in a society that scorns its use, than it doesn't take much to figure out you'd be alienated from society, treated as an outcast and forced into communal ghettos.

I don't agree with that line of reasoning at all, in fact find it a huge red herring thrown into conversations, 'if you don't like it here, pack up and leave'. Who does not like it where? Most Muslims in France are citizens of France, you can of course extend this argument to any other country/situation, I am just restricting myself to this particular example. Where are they supposed to go after packing up and leaving? They have been living there for at least 15-20 years, given what I know about how difficult it is to get a citizenship in Western European countries. Do you expect them to pack up their lives of decades and move on to some other country - assuming some other country gives them a residential permit - just because they can't wear a Burqa. They are well within their rights to oppose the legislation and still stay there. Why don't they have the right to protest peacefully against a government/judicial decision like any other group - majority or minority? There were numerous anti war protests in the US during the time of the Iraq war, mostly by white Americans. Would you have told them to leave to some other country if you don't like certain decisions your government is making? That's not how a matured democracy works - it works through peaceful protests, getting intellectual people from your group to represent your opinion in the big league, and influence decision making in a legislative and judicial way. Not through, 'you don't like it, pack up and leave'. That's how sh!thouses like Saudi Arabia operate.

[Guest Shivani]

I've made these points earlier in the thread as well more than a year ago, but have nothing to do so might as well type them again : 1. Agreed, the government should not be concerned with what an individual wears, but like every other liberty there are limitations. 2. Burqa is a security threat. You might have a terrorist roaming around behind a Burqa. There have been numerous instances of crimes committed around the world by people exploiting a Burqa. Yes, people commit crimes even wearing Jean and T-shirts but a Burqa quite obviously impedes identification if a crime is committed. 3. If it is such a natural desire for a certain section of women to cover themselves from head to toe, without the years of brainwashing that has gone before it, why do I not see a single male covering his body in a Burqa like attire? Is there any scientific basis to argue that this natural urge to cover yourself in a Burqa happens only in females? On nude beaches, you can find male and female alike. Freedom of wearing whatever you want is good, and I would be willing to listen to any argument, but there is simply no getting around the fact that Burqas at the very minimum are a security threat and so the government has every right to step in and ban it in the interests of other citizens. I understand France is not using that reasoning to ban the Burqa, at least primarily, but there is not justification for allowing a Burqa in a free society for reasons explained above.

Agree Outty. This, I see basically as a post-9/11-step, not something done to establish themselves as a true secular state. What I have problem with is the ban made in the name of secularism (because this is just not consistent with the theory of secularism, not in any goddamn way, and this way you're interpreting secularism in an absolutely wrong way), otherwise I am happy for the Muslim women in France who can now come out of the black tents and dress up in their favorite little black dress :D

[EnterTheVoid]

I don't agree with that line of reasoning at all, in fact find it a huge red herring thrown into conversations, 'if you don't like it here, pack up and leave'. Where are they supposed to go after packing up and leaving? They have been living there for at least 15-20 years, given what I know about how difficult it is to get a citizenship in Western European countries. Do you expect them to pack up their lives of decades and move on to some other country - assuming some other country gives them a residential permit - just because they can't wear a Burqa. They are well within their rights to oppose the legislation and still stay there.

As a citizen of a country, the least you could do is obey the laws of the land, obey the social norms of the land. Is that too unreasonable a request ? I am all up for their right to protest/oppose the legislation through legal/peaceful avenues. If this transcends into violence, riots, death threats etc if they don't get their way, than yes, asking them 'to pack up and leave' is not out of the question.

[The Outsider]

As a citizen of a country, the least you could do is obey the laws of the land, obey the social norms of the land. Is that too unreasonable a request ?

Huh? How many French Muslims have you come across in person or media, who have not followed this legislated 'law of the land'? Please point to me incidents where French Muslims have broken the law to protest against this legislation.

I am all up for their right to protest/oppose the legislation through legal/peaceful avenues. If this transcends into violence, riots, death threats etc if they don't get their way, than yes, asking them 'to pack up and leave' is not out of the question.

Has it transcended into any violence in France or any other unlawful activity? And even if it has or it does in the future, what is this garbage about 'pack up and leave'? They are citizens of France, they have the right to live there as any other French citizen and certainly much more than some random person on the internet asking them to 'pack up and leave'. If they, as French citizens, have broken any French laws by all means necessary judicial action should be taken against them under the framework of the French constitution, in a French judiciary, rather than applying the 'pack up and leave' formula for people who have many more rights to stay in that country than you or I.

[EnterTheVoid]

Huh? How many French Muslims have you come across in person or media' date=' who have not followed this legislated 'law of the land'? Please point to me incidents where French Muslims have broken the law to protest against this legislation.[/quote'] I was speaking in general terms. Even than, I don't understand why this is an issue of contention at all. If you're a citizen of ANY country, whether it be Australia, India, America etc, you're expected to respect the values of the land, adapt to the country's way of life -- That much, can we agree on ? As for as the French Muslims right to oppose the burqa, as I said before, they are well within their rights to do so and I have no objection to it whatsoever. After all, they're citizens of France and like any other citizen, whether they're of the majority or minority, they're entitled to get their views across. With that in mind, onto the next query;

Has it transcended into any violence in France or any other unlawful activity? And even if it has or it does in the future, what is this garbage about 'pack up and leave'

I am not sure if you're familiar with Anjem Choudhary --- He's a British Citizen by birth but never misses an opportunity to spew venom against the British (and the Americans, Israelis and jews in general), going as far as picketing the British troops home coming. Long story short, he and his band of thugs never miss an opportunity to flare up communal tensions by calling for sharia law in UK, praising suicide attacks on British troops in Afghanistan/Iraq etc. Now, if this verdict transcends into violence, and we can acknowledge it has the potential too, if Anjem Choudhary clones start cropping up in France, than ? In such case, I am up for them to be packed up and deported. I didn't mean the average law abiding citizen should pack up and leave.

[The Outsider]

I was speaking in general terms. Even than, I don't understand why this is an issue of contention at all. If you're a citizen of ANY country, whether it be Australia, India, America etc, you're expected to respect the values of the land, adapt to the country's way of life -- That much, can we agree on ?

No, I don't agree with that at all. Any country has a zillion laws and rules and it's practically impossible to find any person who would support each and every law and rule. Would it be fair that the next time you express an objection to some Australian law or rule, for me to ask you to 'pack up and leave'? You need to draw a distinction between what one objects to and whether such an objection or the instrument of objection is legal or illegal.

As for as the French Muslims right to oppose the burqa, as I said before, they are well within their rights to do so and I have no objection to it whatsoever. After all, they're citizens of France and like any other citizen, whether they're of the majority or minority, they're entitled to get their views across.

Good. Then why your earlier sentiments that if French Muslims don't like the law they should 'pack up and leave'. For surely you don't object to them protesting against the legislation in a constitutional manner going by your above statement?

With that in mind, onto the next query; I am not sure if you're familiar with Anjem Choudhary --- He's a British Citizen by birth but never misses an opportunity to spew venom against the British (and the Americans, Israelis and jews in general), going as far as picketing the British troops home coming. Long story short, he and his band of thugs never miss an opportunity to flare up communal tensions by calling for sharia law in UK, praising suicide attacks on British troops in Afghanistan/Iraq etc. Now, if this verdict transcends into violence, and we can acknowledge it has the potential too, if Anjem Choudhary clones start cropping up in France, than ? In such case, I am up for them to be packed up and deported. I didn't mean the average law abiding citizen should pack up and leave.

Plain and simple - if he is guilty of any crime under the British law he should be punished in accordance to it. Extending it, if the majority of the British feel that their present laws are not adequate to handle his case, they should introduce and ratify new laws and punish him through that in a constitutional manner. It's sheer lunacy to ask for some citizen of your own country to 'pack up and leave' rather than punishing him within your countries' judicial system. So, you must be very happy that Dawood Ibrahim 'packed up and left' rather than faced trial within the Indian judicial framework?

[EnterTheVoid]

^ I will clarify what I meant when I said 'pack up and leave' As an Australia citizen, there are some laws I agree with, others I don't. The ones I don't like, I live with anyway -- theres no reason for me wanting to revoke my citizenship based on these laws I don't like. I am sure we can agree thats reasonable enough ? Now, if I was born, bred in Australia (or lived most of my life in Australia) and enjoy all the benefits this great land has to offer but I never miss an opportunity to spew venom against Australia, incite communal hatred, incite and condone violence against Australians overboard or those living in the mainland itself, than ? I mean, if you harbor such hatred against this country, why do you even stay here ?

[The Outsider]

^ I will clarify what I meant when I said 'pack up and leave' As an Australia citizen, there are some laws I agree with, others I don't. The ones I don't like, I live with anyway -- theres no reason for me wanting to revoke my citizenship based on these laws I don't like. I am sure we can agree thats reasonable enough ?

Yeah, that's reasonable enough.

Now, if I was born, bred in Australia (or lived most of my life in Australia) and enjoy all the benefits this great land has to offer but I never miss an opportunity to spew venom against Australia, incite communal hatred, incite and condone violence against Australians overboard or those living in the mainland itself, than ? I mean, if you harbor such hatred against this country, why do you even stay here ?

Well, if you do all those things that you are claiming then I am sure Australia, like most other civilized, democratic countries, would have laws to impede you from doing so. And if you are breaking those laws you should be held to a fair trial in Australia and go through whatever sentence a fair jury/judge announces. And in all the sentencing that I have come across, I have never come across a sentence where a country asks one of it's citizens to 'pack up and leave'. The person is a citizen of the country! He cannot leave to anywhere else! Anyways, French Muslims have not done anything remotely similar to the extreme situations you are bringing up, so what is your justification for asking them to 'pack up and leave' for merely opposing a government legislation in a peaceful way? (even if they have done that, I am not sure).