PKPolitics Discuss » Current Issues

French President backs veil ban

(575 posts)
  1. Migel9
    Member

    Nicolas Sarkozythe jew, the French president, has spoken out in favour of a full ban on the face-covering veil as the government draws up a law to prohibit the garment in public spaces.

    According to a government spokesman, Sarkozy told a cabinet meeting on Wednesday that the veil "hurts the dignity of women and is not acceptable in French society".

    Luc Chatel added that a bill banning the veil, also known as niqab, from all public spaces, would be presented to ministers in May.

    "We're legislating for the future. Wearing a full veil is a sign of a community closing in on itself and a rejection of our jewish values," he said.

    'Rising hostility'

    The proposal has attracted both fierce criticism and praise in the home of the largest Muslim community in the 27-member European Union.

    Almost 10 per cent of France's 62 million population is Muslim.

    In depth

    The debate for and against the face-veil
    Readers react to France veil report

    Most French voters back a ban, polls have shown, but legal experts have warned that it could violate the constitution.

    Many feminists from France's poor, multi-ethnic suburbs have spoken out in support of a ban, saying it could help young women who did not want to wear the veil but were forced to do so by their partners or families.

    Others, however, see the ban as part of a rising hostility against Islam and its symbols, and argue that many Muslim women actually want to cover up.

    The debate has spread as far as Afghanistan, where some women's rights activists expressed outrage at the French proposal, saying they disliked the burqa but women should be free to wear whatever they wanted.

    The vast majority of Muslim women, in France and elsewhere, do not wear a full veil, but the niqab, which covers the face apart from the eyes, is widely worn on the Arabian peninsular and in the Gulf states.

    Belgium bill

    The burqa, a shapeless full-body cloak that covers the face with a fabric grille, is worn in some areas of Pakistan and Afghanistan.

    In France, the garments are widely identified with fundamentalist strains of Islam and with the isolation and repression of women in some communities, and politicians suspect their use is spreading.

    "We're not going to let this phenomenon drift," Chatel said.

    France's neighbour Belgium is also preparing legislation, and could become the first European country to ban the full veil when a bill goes before parliament during a plenary session that starts on Thursday.

    Posted 2 years ago on 22 Apr 2010 18:25 #
  2. @Migel9
    Why you are highlighting 'Jew' in this thread title? It is a racist attitude painting French President as a Jew even if he is. Kindly edit by removing the word Jew from the title.

    Posted 2 years ago on 22 Apr 2010 18:30 #
  3. Migel9
    Member

    I wanted high light his ethnic background.just like ISLAMIC TERRORISM..Will remove.

    Posted 2 years ago on 22 Apr 2010 18:38 #
  4. After no response from you thread title has been revised as 'French President backs veil ban'. Offensive word has been removed.

    Posted 2 years ago on 22 Apr 2010 18:39 #
  5. yahya
    Member

    "Nicolas Sarkozythe jew, the French president, has spoken out in favour of a full ban on the face-covering veil as the government draws up a law to prohibit the garment in public spaces."

    @Migel9: What is your complaint over veil ban, just out of interest? You have not become champion of human rights suddenly by any chance?

    Posted 2 years ago on 22 Apr 2010 19:14 #
  6. Assalam-o-Alaikum-Warahmat-ULLAH ALL,

    Those who subscribe to secularism should come forward and explain actions of secular or non-Muslim regimes. They go on with this kind of nonsense in their land without any words from people within our ranks. While these same people don't waste anytime in lamenting us on our decisions, actions, etc etc.

    We are witnessing open acts of intolerance from them against us/Muslims.

    Why don't the people among us, who subscribe to secularism, who hide behind the word 'liberal';

    (1) denounce their intolerance, now ?

    Why do they label us!, Muslims to be the only intolerant people on this earth ?

    --------------------------------------------------------

    Mirza sb. please restore the original title of this thread.

    This is a significant topic.

    Posted 2 years ago on 22 Apr 2010 19:28 #
  7. Quote:
    "Almost 10 per cent of France's 62 million population is Muslim."

    They will be able to overrule this Law where they become 51% of French population and then France could be turned into an Islamic State through majority vote.

    Posted 2 years ago on 22 Apr 2010 19:34 #
  8. toamin
    member

    so a minority will never get their basic right?

    Posted 2 years ago on 22 Apr 2010 19:36 #
  9. Assalam-o-Alaikum-Warahmat-ULLAH ALL,

    Javed Sheikh sb. Did you know;

    (1) Muslims are 6% in France ?
    (2) Muslims are not allowed to have representation in France ?

    - Why don't you say France is intolerant ?

    - Why doesn't France grant them;

    (a) their rights ?
    (b) the right to religious freedom ?
    (c) the right to have representation ?

    Why should Muslims wait to become a majority to have rights ?

    Why then do you support those who ask for minority rights in Pakistan ?

    What are your true intentions ?

    Posted 2 years ago on 22 Apr 2010 19:37 #
  10. toamin
    member

    spot on Haris Khan!

    Posted 2 years ago on 22 Apr 2010 19:38 #
  11. yahya
    Member

    Those who support human rights violations most in Pakistan are the ones complaining of the same in other countries. What an irony.

    Posted 2 years ago on 22 Apr 2010 19:46 #
  12. Assalam-o-Alaikum-Warahmat-ULLAH ALL,

    Look who's talking. The one who goes against impartial, across the board, FAST!, non-discriminatory justice.

    Posted 2 years ago on 22 Apr 2010 19:50 #
  13. Rights are according to the Constitution, based upon traditions and culture of the Land.

    Would Saudi Arabia allow the 'basic right' of driving an automobile, to all women?

    Posted 2 years ago on 22 Apr 2010 19:54 #
  14. Assalam-o-Alaikum-Warahmat-ULLAH ALL,

    Javed Sheikh sb. Wrong analogy. Wrong! example.

    Why do you run for KSA when you know it is being ruled over by puppets backed by heavy military presence of west in or around KSA ?

    P.S. I didn't ask you for diplomacy. I asked questions to get answers from you.

    Posted 2 years ago on 22 Apr 2010 20:20 #
  15. shriq
    Member

    Bad counter argument! "Those who support human rights violations..........

    Talk about the enlightened west which the thread topic!

    Posted 2 years ago on 22 Apr 2010 20:20 #
  16. Difference are two:

    1. Saudi Arabia is an autocratic type of govt. and France is the cradle of the Western liberalism and freedom.

    2. The French ban the veil because they believe the idea behind it is underlying fundamentalism. OK, but based on what?

    Posted 2 years ago on 22 Apr 2010 20:28 #
  17. SufiSoul
    Member

    Quote:
    They will be able to overrule this Law where they become 51% of French population and then France could be turned into an Islamic State through majority vote. ....

    does Secularism dont have the spirite to absorb all the religions???
    If not as it is clear than the poster here is always missguiding the population that secularism have the tendency to absorba nd allow every one to act upon his own wishes according to the religion...

    Posted 2 years ago on 22 Apr 2010 20:40 #
  18. SufiSoul
    Member

    Quote:
    Would Saudi Arabia allow the 'basic right' of driving an automobile, to all women? ....

    Saudi arabia is not a secular country and can observe bans according to ISLAMIC rulings.
    Why you would like saudia to act as a secular state????

    YOUR stand in favour of secular state is under observation here.
    Pls come up with some sound logics here,circular arguments will never impress but would damage ur cause here....

    Posted 2 years ago on 22 Apr 2010 20:44 #
  19. SufiSoul
    Member

    Quote:
    Rights are according to the Constitution, based upon traditions and culture of the Land....

    Historical misquoting here..

    In pakistan you always back up acts against the consitiution of Pakistan which is having in it ISLAMIC laws only to be implemented..
    Hijab and things like that are purely ISLAMIC rulings but always preach against constitution and HIJAB in Pakistan...
    What is this on your side?????

    Posted 2 years ago on 22 Apr 2010 20:47 #
  20. SufiSoul
    Member

    Quote:
    Those who support human rights violations most in Pakistan are the ones complaining of the same in other countries. What an irony. ....

    Again you are missquoting here..
    Islamists only demand every thing according to the constitution of the Pakistan which is about,implementing and producing anything but not against ISLAM......

    We are according to the constution....

    Posted 2 years ago on 22 Apr 2010 20:49 #
  21. SufiSoul
    Member

    I cant imagine such an intellectual dishonesty at such top level......

    Posted 2 years ago on 22 Apr 2010 20:59 #
  22. achtung
    Member

    bhai logo,

    jin ka mulk hy unnhee ki marzee chaley gi na! hamarey cheekhney chillaney sey bhala kia hoga? as simple as that.

    Posted 2 years ago on 22 Apr 2010 21:20 #
  23. 1. Hijaab, Niqaab and Burqa isue has been politicized as a racial and sectarian arrogance, and is no more a religious right or privilege.
    2. Any demand, causing social and functional problems, could be dealt Constitutionally.
    3. Rules and regulations are enacted according to the wishes and for the protection of majority living within an organized social structure.
    4. The Muslim Community Organization or their representatives, living in France, have a constitutional right to present and plead their case, diplomatically.

    Posted 2 years ago on 22 Apr 2010 22:28 #
  24. SufiSoul
    Member

    Quote:
    1. Hijaab, Niqaab and Burqa isue has been politicized as a racial and sectarian arrogance, and is no more a religious right or privilege.....

    A historical missquote...

    Hijab,Niqab and Burqa is never an issue by Islam/Quran/Sunnah BUT a clear cut order of ISLAM not any political issue...

    Secularism should absorb all the religions according to their true sense OR should accept that secularism is noever the solution here.......

    When GAY laws were passed in west,Pls tell me what majority they were having in these countries.
    GAYS were having 51% majority votes in their parliament????

    NOW when they passed and implement Anti-Hijab law.They again have 51% majority votes/refrendum against HIJAB.????
    It's not so but only an executive order was passed by the president to ban the HIJAB.............

    What are you talking about,democracy,secularism,majority votes and things like that????

    I think you have missed complrtly ur logicality here and just try throw some words to fill the post......

    For how long baseless ideology can survive?????its clear here from many posts.......

    Posted 2 years ago on 22 Apr 2010 22:37 #
  25. Gay rights or the issue to legalize use of marijuana, could be validated and settled if don't cause any social damage or threat.
    The Burqa, Hijaab and Niqaab could be used as a cover up for certain activities, which might inflict harm to public safety.
    At that stage it has nothing to do with Secularism but would be taken as a safety concern.

    The level of threat is to be determined accordingly from State to State.
    The legitimate authorities has right to make judgment where something could be a threat in France and not in UK.

    Posted 2 years ago on 22 Apr 2010 23:10 #
  26. yahya
    Member

    "Again you are missquoting here..
    Islamists only demand every thing according to the constitution of the Pakistan which is about,implementing and producing anything but not against ISLAM......

    We are according to the constution.... "

    So French are opposing what is against their traditions and soon it may be part of their constitution. What is the problem then? It's OK to block something if it is perceived to be against Islam but not if it is against the traditions and preferences of French, or another people for that matter? Why do Muslims have this special treatment over all the people of the world?

    Fact is Islamists have been for too long supporting extreme discrimination in constitution and brutal persecution on the ground. Now they don't seem to know how to respond if the same is done to them. I'm laughing at this irony. Poetic justice; as you sow so shall you reap. Although personally I'm not in favour of any restrictions on human rights in France, Pakistan or anywhere else but those who are arguing here from the Islamists side have no such honesty in them. I dare them to announce that there should be no discrimination in Pakistan too and that all should be equal. If they don’t then their complaint of any other place in the world is pure hypocrisy. I for one am not interested in lectures from people with no standards.

    Posted 2 years ago on 22 Apr 2010 23:19 #
  27. SufiSoul
    Member

    marijuana is not a social threat..

    Hijab/Niqab is a social threat and full dress may cause social damage in comming days..

    Masajids are also social threat in west and needs their MINARS to be destroyed in west to get rid of Identity..

    Halal food is also social threat and banned in france????

    What are you talking about?????You know wt type of logics you are comming up with..
    Very interesting pls come up with such more like this..

    Posted 2 years ago on 22 Apr 2010 23:23 #
  28. SufiSoul
    Member

    So French are opposing what is against their traditions and soon it may be part of their constitution. What is the problem then? It's OK to block something if it is perceived to be against Islam but not if it is against the traditions and preferences of French, or another propel for that matter? Why do Muslims have this special treatment over all the people of the world? .....

    pls expain about the parliamentary procedure followed in implementing this law.....

    What seculars would do if some laws are going against any religious duty of the followers of certain religion?????

    Posted 2 years ago on 22 Apr 2010 23:30 #
  29. yahya
    Member

    "Masajids are also social threat in west and needs their MINARS to be destroyed in west to get rid of Identity.."

    No one has destroyed any minars in west although many churches, christians and bibles have been burnt in Pakistan and no one got prosecuted for any of the crimes. No wonder west doesn't find Muslims very agreeable and is trying to discourage the radicals among them.

    Posted 2 years ago on 22 Apr 2010 23:32 #
  30. yahya
    Member

    @SufiSoul: I don't understand a single word you are talking about. It's Ok if you persecute someone or put restrictions on them even if that is against their religion or traditions, or treat them as second/thirds class citizens but it's not OK the other way round if others put restrictions on you? I don't understand. Sounds pure hypocrisy to me. The constitution of Pakistan or Islam is not the problem of non-Muslims in Pakistan; they must be treated with respect and equality and no element must be put in Pakistani constitution that discriminates among its people or undermines their human rights and sense of equality. This is what freedom is. Those who don't provide this to others have no moral right to ask the same in other countries.

    Posted 2 years ago on 22 Apr 2010 23:38 #
  31. SufiSoul
    Member

    So secularism donot guarantee your religious freedom,against the wishes of the people....?????

    ISLAM only gives you the rights mentioned under ISLAMIC code of conduct for Non-Muslims...

    I think you preacher of secularism here tried to missguide us about that secularism confirms your religious rights in any case.............

    You tried to be SHAH SE ZIYADA SHAH K WAFADAR.......

    NOW i understand it......

    Posted 2 years ago on 22 Apr 2010 23:45 #
  32. yahya
    Member

    "What seculars would do if some laws are going against any religious duty of the followers of certain religion????? "

    If a religion does not give freedom to others and thus goes against the spirit of secularism then it's questionable if such a religion should be tolerated by others too. There should be level playing field. After all secularism does not mean you can use the freedom that secularism provides to destroy secularism itself so freedom of other people comes under threat. Also, if you burn other people then they tend to try to protect themselves from you and try to undermine you in return. That's human nature. May be its time to look at human rights situation in Muslim countries and say we mean no harm to anyone and then rectify the situation so world doesn't see Islam as a problem to be taken care of and does not have ill feelings towards Muslim societies anymore.

    Posted 2 years ago on 22 Apr 2010 23:48 #
  33. SufiSoul
    Member

    @SufiSoul: I don't understand a single word you are talking about.....

    I know you are half developed as for as your knowledge and understanding is concerened....
    Its very clear from your arguments and knowledge over here from long time.....
    BUT Inshaallah you will gradually learn more if you kept discussing here........
    Dont worry....
    Its never too late to learn something concrete their are billions of people having in need to learn them some very basics about life.............

    Posted 2 years ago on 22 Apr 2010 23:49 #
  34. yahya
    Member

    "So secularism donot guarantee your religious freedom,against the wishes of the people....?????"

    It does. That is why it needs to deal with an ideology that does not guarantee and in-fact attacks religious freedom. Persecution of people in Muslim countries is in fact justification to curtail radical Islam so it does not become a power in the west and starts persecuting people here too.

    Every time you ask Islamists why they persecute others they quote Islam as the reason; its Islam that is reason for Hudood ordinance, its Islam that does not allow a non-Muslim to be treated equally and so on and so forth. This sort of ideology is in direct clash with secularism and hence needs to be curtailed or secularism would be no more.

    Posted 2 years ago on 22 Apr 2010 23:50 #
  35. SufiSoul
    Member

    You mean to say secularism is a KHICHRY of different laws....
    And seculars would decide like,marijuana is not harming but Minars of Masajids are harmfull to the society like

    switzerland did demolished MINARS of MASAJIDS......

    Who would like such stupids as their law makers i am sure,

    they cannot be more than a stupid,followers of secularism....

    Posted 2 years ago on 22 Apr 2010 23:54 #
  36. Hey would the statute ban wedding veils, funeral veils or summer gauzed veiled hats worn by the elite western women? That will be great!!

    Posted 2 years ago on 22 Apr 2010 23:55 #
  37. SufiSoul
    Member

    Another result is that secularism is the key to get rid of religion and its duties....
    Calling them as in direct clash with secular laws/human rights........

    what a beautifull cover is...........

    Posted 2 years ago on 22 Apr 2010 23:57 #
  38. yahya
    Member

    "switzerland did demolished MINARS of MASAJIDS......"

    Nope, you are misinformed. Any previously accepted minars were not demolished restriction is on new minars only. There are only four mosques in whole of Switzerland with minars anyway.

    "Hey would the statute ban wedding veils, funeral veils or summer gauzed veiled hats worn by the elite western women? That will be great!! "

    Are any of them persecuting others or trying to force their religion onto others unlike Islamists?

    Posted 2 years ago on 22 Apr 2010 23:58 #
  39. yahya
    Member

    "Another result is that secularism is the key to get rid of religion and its duties...."

    All religions are flourishing in secular countries unlike their Muslim counterparts..you just need to be in the west to see it with your own eyes. I am and I see it daily.

    Posted 2 years ago on 22 Apr 2010 23:59 #
  40. SufiSoul
    Member

    It does. That is why it needs to deal with an ideology that does not guarantee and in-fact attacks religious freedom.....

    So Hijab was attacking some religious freedom of majority of france thats why it get banned.....

    Posted 2 years ago on 23 Apr 2010 0:00 #
  41. SufiSoul
    Member

    All religions are flourishing in secular countries unlike their Muslim counterparts..you just need to be in the west to see it with your own eyes. I am and I see it daily. ....

    You observe religion islam with Hijab or without Hijab
    flourishing in the west???????
    OR you just want run out of this discussion so starts generalising things here.........?????

    Posted 2 years ago on 23 Apr 2010 0:02 #
  42. yahya
    Member

    "So Hijab was attacking some religious freedom of majority of france thats why it get banned..... "

    No but Muslims do, so anything that shows radical form of Islam is under attack as far as I have understood what they are trying to do. Although I'm not in France so can't say what discussion took place over there. Security is also a concern; hard to recognise a person with veil.

    Posted 2 years ago on 23 Apr 2010 0:03 #
  43. SufiSoul
    Member

    No but Muslims do, so anything that shows radical form of Islam is under attack.....

    Does MINARS of masajids shows some form of radical ISLAM?????

    OR muslims can use MINARS as hideouts for hitting around in case of any war??????

    Posted 2 years ago on 23 Apr 2010 0:06 #
  44. yahya
    Member

    I don't know ask them. Although ban on minarets doesn't fare anywhere close to burning Christians alive so I can't see much reason to complain in comparison.

    Posted 2 years ago on 23 Apr 2010 0:08 #
  45. SufiSoul
    Member

    Never any president of any ISLAMIC country ordered to burn them alive....
    Pls mention if it was carried out against christians under govt cover.......???

    BUT at president level secular france is doing all this against ISLAM....

    The irony is that you preach here secularism as a JUSTICE for all religions and all people......
    And any religion can flourish only under secularism and you even advise me to come and see..........lolzzzzzz

    Posted 2 years ago on 23 Apr 2010 0:11 #
  46. zia m
    Member

    I believe the ban on burqa by French is unjustified and impinges on the liberty of her citizens, but the Islamists have no right to complain when they themselves don't believe in basic human rights.

    Posted 2 years ago on 23 Apr 2010 0:31 #
  47. yahya
    Member

    Islamists go after Aitezaz Ahsan for demanding human rights, call the demand for rights by Aitezaz an insult to Muslims;

    http://www.express.com.pk/epaper/PoPupwindow.aspx?newsID=1100920024&Issue=NP_LHE&Date=20100423&sms_ss=email

    Posted 2 years ago on 23 Apr 2010 0:55 #
  48. One good came out from Aitzaz Ahsan's statement, that a party finally accepted Mohammad Ali Jinnah as the true Muslim, who was once declared as Kafir by the same party in 1946.

    Posted 2 years ago on 23 Apr 2010 1:20 #
  49. SufiSoul
    Member

    I believe the ban on burqa by French is unjustified and impinges on the liberty of her citizens, but the Islamists have no right to complain when they themselves don't believe in basic human rights. ...........................

    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Again the same logic....you come up with..

    Muslims dont accept any human rights type things which is beyond the ISLAMIC CODE of conduct..And they can only claim human rights under Islamic charter only...This must be clear......

    BUT when secular claims that all the religions can flourish freely under secularism than we have the right to demand our religious rights under secular charter.....

    Is it something very difficult to understand..

    Posted 2 years ago on 23 Apr 2010 1:27 #
  50. I fully support the French ban on niqab and burqa because this fashion accessoray is sign of inferior status and discrimination on the base of sex. Burqa and niqab should only be worn in public if the males adopt them also and the religion demonstrates equality.

    Posted 2 years ago on 23 Apr 2010 1:28 #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply »

You must log in to post.