|
Post by spindrift on Apr 22, 2010 9:06:18 GMT
I admit that in public places (such as the underground) I tend to wrap my scarf around my face to try and avoid breathing in noxious germs and filthy air.
|
|
|
Post by lagatta on Apr 22, 2010 11:44:36 GMT
Ha! You can imagine how niqabi we are when it goes down to -20c here in the wintertime!
Admittedly it hasn't been so bitterly cold recently, but in past decades it was very common.
Deyana, "dowry murders" are unfortunately common in Hindu villages in India. Typically the killing of the young wife is disguised as a cooking-fuel accident. And so-called "honour-killings" were far from unknown in Christian countries in southern Europe until fairly recently. I remember an incident in Sicily in which the husband locked his wife up in the house. There was a huge problem with marital violence in Spain, and it is to the current government's credit that they have been honest about this problem and taken it on seriously. No one religion has a monopoly on backward patriarchal attitudes.
By this I'm not denying the rise of a very reactionary movement based on a fundamentalist interpretation of Islam. We are fortunate in the "Western World" that Church no longer has the power it did before the Enlightenment...
|
|
|
Post by gertie on Apr 26, 2010 20:17:39 GMT
Very well said, lagatta, I don't know that there is a religion that has never been over done to the determent of at least part of it's people. And some people are simply woefully uneducated and completely disinterested in becoming so. I've seen some pretty backward patriarchal attitudes among so-called Christian religions in my area, and quite recently, sad to say. I really do think a good deal of it is just opportunistic bullies.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 26, 2010 20:43:56 GMT
We had a niqab incident flare up in France over the weekend. A woman received a 22€ fine for driving with a niqab ("impaired visbility" or some such) that she refused to pay. She is a French convert who did not appreciate being told "you should go back to your own country" and then as the incident unfolded, it was determined that her husband had four wives --but only one official marriage.
He has been grinning on the news to say "this is France - in France you can have as many mistresses as you want."
|
|
|
Post by hwinpp on Apr 29, 2010 7:17:54 GMT
It seems to me if they base a ban on security and stipulate people may not cover more than a certain percent of their face in public, it would be ok. I do not know exactly what percentage is necessary for facial recognition software to work, but it seems a lesser percent than that would be a great idea. I'd agree with that completely. The face should be visible for everyone to see at all times. This is what I witnessed at Malaysian immigration on a recent trip. We had a ten hour layover in Kuala Lumpur and decided to go into town instead of boring ourselves at the airport so we had to pass through immigration. There were lots of long lines in front of the counters, lots of Middle Easterners among them, the women all in black and completely veiled. When one particular family's turn came to stride to the official's counter, he asked the woman to show her face. The husband didn't like this and asked the official why he needed to see it. The official was Malay and a fellow Muslim but he refused to give in and in fact he didn't even react to the husband. He just repeated what he'd said before. By now people behind them were starting to grumble, the official wasn't budging and the husband was starting to feel it. So he asked for a female official to come and look at the wife's face. He was told to wait until a free female official could be found... by now some people were getting loud, changing lines, shuffling their feet. This had now taken about 10 minutes but just as it was our turn to stamp in, the husband gave in and allowed the wife to lift her veil. And I got a glimpse from the side ;D
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 30, 2010 5:08:42 GMT
Well, Belgium has now voted its anti face-covering law. The French version of the law is supposed to be proposed next week.
|
|
|
Post by spindrift on Apr 30, 2010 7:01:26 GMT
^ that's good news. I can't see it happening in England.
|
|
|
Post by gertie on May 8, 2010 4:58:52 GMT
|
|
|
Post by lagatta on May 8, 2010 22:11:31 GMT
Oh dear. I don't feel at all sorry for the guy, who is a fraudster and hypocrite, but this will mean there is no way he can be forced to take any responsibility for his progeny.
Note that in France, the legal marriage is the civil one - that is also true in much more strongly Catholic Italy - bixa, is it also the case in Mexico, since the revolution? Lots of couples have a church, mosque, synagogue, Buddhist or Hindu temple ceremony, but the one at la mairie is the one that counts in legal terms.
Hmm, some people here are claiming that the guy is being punished for adultery - I don't think that is the question, it is his refusing to accept paternity responsibility. I confess that while I knew about Mazarine well before Mitterand died - it was pretty much an open secret if you knew French journalists - I didn't know about public funds supporting her. Unless they mean Mitterand's salary as President?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 10, 2010 9:18:16 GMT
Mazarine's mother was lodged in a government building. They have stopped talking about the niqab husband, because he was also quick to say that if mistresses (he avoided the term 'wives') are not authorized in France, there are a lot of people in trouble.
I don't think that the government is being very clever in the handling of all this, but they may have unwittingly done something that might be useful in the end -- giving the message that any woman fined or just stopped for wearing a niqab would be exposing herself to opening a whole can of worms, since they will investigate with whom she is living, are they citizens, are they living legally in France, what about the rest of the family circle, etc., etc. This might cause some of the concerned people to decide that if they want to live in peace and protect their family from government snooping, it might behoove them to wear authorized garb.
|
|
|
Post by bixaorellana on May 10, 2010 20:27:02 GMT
bixa, is it also the case in Mexico, since the revolution? Lots of couples have a church, mosque, synagogue, Buddhist or Hindu temple ceremony, but the one at la mairie is the one that counts in legal terms. Opening sentence in this OP. Although I understand the logic of separating church and state, I have to say that the system in the US wherein ministers and priests are legally deputized to perform weddings is far more efficient all the way around.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 23, 2010 6:58:05 GMT
Even the mail order ministers? I can't see the efficiency of say, 85 people in a town authorized to perform weddings. This implies that each person individually has to contact the legal authorities to check the marital status of the parties involved and then send the paperwork along afterwards. If the legal affairs are all taken care of in one place, there's no need for all of this paper shuffling.
|
|
|
Post by bixaorellana on May 23, 2010 7:04:33 GMT
The legal affairs are all still taken care of in one place and there is no more paper shuffling. It just means the ceremony itself, including the witnessing, doesn't have to take place at the courthouse. And if every person in town was authorized to perform weddings, it wouldn't have any bearing on efficiency.
|
|
|
Post by lagatta on May 23, 2010 11:26:32 GMT
Making civil marriage the only recognised form should prevent discrimination - not only against same-sex couples in countries where that has become legal, but also partners of different confessions or none. Sure, a government official can be just as bigoted as a cleric, but he or she can be sacked for it. I know that several different groups of people can be authorised to perform civil weddings here. We still have validity of religious marriage - Mexico is ahead of us in many ways in terms of secularism, but that took the 1910 Revolution.
Even in Italy, civil weddings are the only ones legally recognised. Often the religious ceremony immediately follows the civil one.
Over-the-top "Italian weddings" as known in North America tend to be much less common in the real Italy.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 25, 2010 10:52:12 GMT
|
|
|
Post by bjd on May 25, 2010 11:27:17 GMT
I wonder if showing up for your wedding in a camouflage -style burqa will give a hint about your political sensibilities? As would showing up in the stars and stripes version.
Notice the Danish flag ones are out of stock. Lots of cartoonists getting married, I guess.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 28, 2010 5:01:03 GMT
At the office, everybody wanted the camouflage model.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 14, 2010 9:22:03 GMT
Today, the French Senate is supposed to finally vote on the law making it illegal to "hide one's face in public." There is obviously no reference to any sort of religion in the law. The National Assembly already approved the law last spring.
It will probably enter into effect in spring 2011, and I'm sure the international media will have a field day then.
|
|
|
Post by Jazz on Sept 14, 2010 12:02:06 GMT
CBC just reported on this story this morning. They mentioned fines and a course on ‘secularism’…?... Yes, ‘the international media will have a field day’.
It is obviously a case of state vs. religion and France appears to be a secular society. This proposed law seems invasive of personal and religious rights. I don’t understand why anyone would feel offended if a Muslim woman chose to cover her face because of her religious beliefs. I certainly wouldn’t do it, (I am not Muslim), but I live in a city and country where this is their choice and that is just fine. I have no problem with it. Our society is not deeply disturbed by this, actually, it is a 'given' and part of the cultural mosaic.
----.’the French Senate is supposed to finally vote on the law making it illegal to "hide one's face in public." There is obviously no reference to any sort of religion in the law’----
Why does France need a law making it illegal to ‘hide one’s face in public’? Forgive the awful pun, but it is a slap in the face to the Muslim religion. If this law passes, it will probably increase tensions. What is the point and who gains, if anyone?
|
|
|
Post by betsie on Sept 14, 2010 13:11:07 GMT
I live in a country where it is against the law to wear face covering in public buildings. If the police stop a motor cyclist for any reason, he/she is required to take off their helmet and show face. Motorists are not allowed to have blacked out windows, since pedestrians and cyclists have to be able to see their faces. Nudists are not allowed to appear naked in public.
So you see we do not have total freedom and we do not see why an exception should be made for those who wear the burka.
We find it offensive to have people wearing black bags when we're trying to work with them or talk to them. Two girls went to court recently and lost their case: they were students and not only wanted to be taught wearing burkas, but to do their practical training as nursery nurses wearing their black bags.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 14, 2010 13:27:43 GMT
Well, the fine is supposed to be 150€ or a course in civics. Since the head scarf ban was applied with very few problems in public schools, I am personally not expecting too many hissy fits about forbidding concealed faces. Religion is not above the law in France.
|
|
|
Post by betsie on Sept 14, 2010 14:07:20 GMT
Well, the fine is supposed to be 150€ or a course in civics. Since the head scarf ban was applied with very few problems in public schools, I am personally not expecting too many hissy fits about forbidding concealed faces. Religion is not above the law in France.Optimistic, Kerouac. I hope you're right, but I'm pretty sure you won't be. I think, if it does go through in France and Belgium (the EU will probably interfere as usual), all hell will be raised throughout the Muslim world. We have been kowtowing to their demands for a couple of decades now and a hideous tantrum and worse is to be expected.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 14, 2010 14:13:57 GMT
The Saudi imans have already issed a decree that Saudi women may uncover their faces when they visit France, although they have also said that Saudi families should prefer other destinations for holidays ("preferably Muslim countries").
This is a debate even in Saudi Arabia, and the Saudi press constantly points out that there is absolutely nothing in Islam that says a woman must completely cover her face -- it is merely a traditional custom and not at all a religious requirement. Therefore, no naked-faced woman is running any risk of going to hell.
|
|
|
Post by bjd on Sept 14, 2010 15:12:39 GMT
And in Egypt, niqabs are banned for university exams, since they caught people taking exams for others.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 10, 2011 18:19:40 GMT
|
|
|
Post by lagatta on Apr 10, 2011 23:42:07 GMT
I hope they don't persecute people with facial deformities or disfigurements.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 11, 2011 9:20:30 GMT
They are not even planning on persecuting the burqa women. It is just one of the many laws that they can pull out of their hat when somebody is being annoying for other reasons, like jumping a metro turnstile.
As for demanding the face to be uncovered for reasons of official identification, such as retrieving a registered letter at the post office or voting, this has been going on for a long time. Some schools do not turn over children to the mothers waiting outside unless the mother shows her face, too.
|
|
|
Post by onlymark on Apr 11, 2011 10:11:27 GMT
How does the kid recognise the mother anyway? An article I read says there are only about 2000 or so women covered in France but it isn't them who will receive the worst punishment, it's the male who made them do it. There's also a guide at the bottom of the article as to the basic different types of covering. I like the shayla best. Quite feminine and attractive. www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-13031397
|
|
|
Post by bjd on Apr 11, 2011 10:58:35 GMT
How does the kid recognise the mother anyway?By her shoes? In Berlin last year we saw a woman (probably a Saudi tourist) wearing full black with orange croc shoes with blue spangles on them. Like these,but with blue glitter
|
|
|
Post by onlymark on Apr 11, 2011 12:29:35 GMT
Just like mine then funnily enough.
|
|