Would you rather look at this:
Or this?:
Posted on 07/07/2009 2:45:52 AM PDT by Kaslin
The French Republic is not blessed or burdened with a First Amendment. So when President Nicolas Sarkozy recently suggested that France ban the wearing of the burqa in all public places, the Chamber of Deputies took it up.
Unlike the headscarf, which covers a woman's hair but leaves her face visible, the burqa is a head-to-toe covering that makes walking draperies of women. Some, like the chador worn in Afghanistan, feature a mesh covering for the face. The Saudi version usually sports a slit for the eyes. Here's an online catalogue's description of one: "Khimar and niqab set made of an all season, buttery soft georgette. Reaches to approximately knee level (depending upon your height) and provides full coverage. Arm openings about half-way down the khimar are a convenient feature with this style. Edges are embellished with matching satin trim. Imported from Saudi Arabia. Available in your choice of Navy Blue, Brown, or Saudi Black." Yes "Saudi black." In a country where summertime temperatures often reach 120 Fahrenheit, the geniuses designed a garment for women that is stifling and black.
In London, which has come to resemble Algiers more than New York, these walking shadows are everywhere. Even in summer, some women who wear the "Saudi black" burqa also wear black gloves and sunglasses over their facemasks. One would no more strike up a conversation with such a specter than with Darth Vader.
You needn't approve of the slatternly attire so often found on Western women to stoutly and angrily resist the encroachment of the burqa -- and everything it represents -- into Western life. Let's be clear. It took guts for Sarkozy to say what did. He called the burqa "a sign of subjugation ... of debasement." Al-Qaida, reliably enough, issued a fulminating statement: "We will not tolerate such provocations and injustices, and we will take our revenge from France ... by every means and wherever we can reach them."
Muslims agree that the faith requires "modest" dress on the part of women. Beyond that, things get disputatious. Some argue that the face must be veiled. Others deny it. Both cite Quranic authority. But there is no doubt that the vast majority of the world's Muslim women do not wear these personality-obliterating shrouds. The burqa's revival in some parts of the Muslim world (Iran, Egypt, Morocco, even Lebanon) is more of a political than a religious expression. Some women insist that they freely choose to swaddle themselves. But in many Muslim nations women are subjected to a variety of coercions, both cultural and political, to erase themselves in public. Also, there must be thousands of Muslim women who, by moving to Western Europe, thought they could shed the oppression of their home countries. Instead, they have found cringing European "multiculturalists" eager to excuse every Third World depredation -- from wife beating to polygamy to the burqa -- as a sign of their broadmindedness.
Europeans are not the only ones cringing. In his Cairo address, President Obama engaged in his by now famous false equivalence: "Among some Muslims, there's a disturbing tendency to measure one's own faith by the rejection of somebody else's faith ... Likewise, it is important for Western countries to avoid impeding Muslim citizens from practicing religion as they see fit -- for instance, by dictating what clothes a Muslim woman should wear. We can't disguise hostility towards any religion behind the pretence of liberalism."
Since the president's speech predated Sarkozy's comments on the burqa, Obama must have been referring to France's 2004 decision to ban the headscarf (along with crucifixes and yarmulkes) in public offices and schools. Let's see, in Saudi Arabia it is illegal to build a church (to say nothing of a synagogue) or to carry a Christian Bible on your person. In most Muslim majority nations, alcohol is prohibited to everyone, not just to practicing Muslims. And little girls are subjected to genital mutilation and other forms of torture and abuse on a widespread basis. Well, President Obama explains, both sides need improvement.
The French approach would be constitutionally complicated in America. But as C.C. Colton observed, "The law allows what honor forbids." For all men and women who consider themselves enlightened, fighting off the burqa should be a matter of honor.
i dont think US should go the French route. It run counter to freedom.
You know, it's sort of been a tradition here.
ML/NJ
Those idiot Muslim women want to listen to preachers that order them to be gusseted head to toe with bedsheets and nets, more power to ‘em.
And if the idiot Amish women want to listen to preachers that order them to always do their ironing the hard way, and avoid that English Devil Electricity, what is that to me?
And if a Jehovie refuses a blood transfusion to keep him, or his kid alive, I ain’t gonna tie him down and start poking needles into his hide, or tie him down so I can start poking needles into the kid’s hide. As Billy Currington’s been singing on the country radio stations, God is great, beer is good, and people are crazy. Can’t keep the crazies from their craziness, and shouldn’t often try.
The Burqa:
Brought to you by the worthless moral savages of the
Religion of Pieces.
Abetted by our crypto-muzzie POTUS.
Resisted, hopefully, by President Sarkozy.
(Trying to lighten up) For those of us in the armed forces: the next time you’re on the beach watching beautiful women in bikinis go by, remember that we are literally fighting for their right to dress any way it pleases them! (As it pleases us.)
“Bikini patriotism”, anyone?
;^)
I don't have a problem with harmless Amish minding their own business and religion. They aren't trying to kill me.
The hairy shemales underneath the burqas, that's another story. Its like driving a car. I assume every other driver is trying to kill me. Since 9/11, I assume every muslim is trying to kill me. Its the safest approach to potential danger. You forgive them.
Would you rather look at this:
Or this?:
Is it even possible to see masses of women in burqas in the USA? I don’t recall the tradition going over too well here, because Muslims like to live in big cities rather than cloistered out in the countryside like the Amish. And big cities mean traffic. You can’t be walking around half blind and survive very long.
“there must be thousands of Muslim women who, by moving to Western Europe, thought they could shed the oppression of their home countries. Instead, they have found cringing European “multiculturalists” eager to excuse every Third World depredation — from wife beating to polygamy to the burqa — as a sign of their broadmindedness.”
Sharia courts also come to mind.
Spooky!!!
Doesn’t this terrify young children?
No wonder they’re all NUTS!
I'd agree. Except for the fact that Islam isn't just a religion, its a political system, social system, justice system, and financial system.
The recent story that muslims in america are demanding that women should be allowed to testify in court wearing a full burka, in some cases, only their eyes exposed, is a prime example of how this isn't about "civil rights" or "resonable accommodation", its about Islam creating a parrallel political, social, justice, and financial system in the US.
Although I find the burqa off-putting, and scary, I do not believe it should be banned in America. I do think, however, that it should not be accepted in identification photos, nor do I think women who wear them be allowed to work in Western business or organizations specifically because you cannot see the individual.That causes all kinds of potential problems for the workplace. If they want to walk to the supermarket looking like that, I am fine with it, but these people should be respectful of Western tradition, and just go their own way, quietly.
I was in Costco in Seattle yesterday. There was a muslim family that walked in right after me and whole sections of the store just froze as they walked around. The father had a long beard wearing a white polo shirt and cargo shorts. He would ask employees questions about where stuff was.
His wife and daughter both walked 3 paces behind him the entire time. Both wearing head to toe black burkas with only their eyes visable. He stopped, they stopped. He moved, they moved. He was allowed to speak to the infidels, they were not.
Our Rights are guaranteed only if they do not infringe on the rights of someone else. If the condition for accepting public transport is the positive identification of the traveler then wearing a head-to-toe disguise is contrary to that condition. The the muzzies don’t want to conform then they should go back to sandland.
I don’t see why muzzies insist on disguising their females with the burqa. The muzzies consider their women property, so they should have no problem allowing the airport security people to open them up for inspection.
Then we'll ban the wearing of crossing in public.
And in private.
And in churches (because they're public places).
Burqas SHOULD be banned and these Islamist bastards along with them.
I would support the right for a woman to wear any outfit that covers as much as say a traditional Catholic nun’s garb. That said, they should be no more allowed to cover their whole face for routine public business than one ought to be allowed to dress like Grand Wizard Robert “Sheets” Byrd in his heyday. Banks rightly ask me to remove my hat and sunglasses before I enter, and I oblige. Businesses should be allowed to set such standards without fear of cries of discrimination. Of course, the burqa-clad typically don’t transact such business.
Could the U.S. Ban the Burqa, Too?
NO.
Reasons:
Obama
Liberals
MainstreamMedia
Cowards.
People are not allowed to walk around in public in robes that cover them from head to toe (unless they’re Muslim).
Why the special treatment for Muslims?
The US COULD do a lot of things . . . . . . but, with zero running the show right now, we aren’t likely to!!
Sure, it should be legal... until the FIRST time a muzzie or anyone else uses it as a cover for a bomb or any other killing device. Then, no more.
They shouldn’t be allowed to go in the bank and stuff, if they are which I don’t know, that’s wrong.
But if anyone wants to walk around the streets in a burqa or a halloween mask that their perfect right in this country.
But not KKK robes.
Walking around in the USA with your face covered is usually frowned upon, at the very least.
Just wait until street thugs find its acceptable to wear this and go into liquor stores to rob and kill and the security cameras can’t do squat to identify them.
All because of our “sensitivity” to religious freedoms.
People may not like it, some punk cop might even give grief over it to such a person but it’s not illegal to cover your face in public, with KKK robes either. Nor should it be.
Burqa’s don’t kill people, Jihadists kill people. Facists and small-minded bureaucrats get obsessed with appearances and minutiae because it’s easier than addressing real problems.
I believe it IS illegal in some jurisdictions, based on old laws against the KKK. And although those old laws might not pass today's constitutional muster, I'm all for them.
Couldn’t have said it better myself
No, having a woman totally cover herself to become anonymous, ... in our society ... is COUNTER to FREEDOM. I frankly "enjoy" seeing people from other countries walking around the streets of Atlanta wearing their traditional outfits. Good for them, and good for the FREEDOM we have here that they can basically dress as they like. But a totally covering burka is one step too far ... If I put on a black ski mask, black sweater and pants and walked into the grocery store, I'd probably be arrested. Let them have their traditions, but HERE our tradition is that we look people in the face so we can "see" their smile. It should be against OUR law to cover a person's smile.
It sure is illegal. Try robing yourself head to toe and walk around downtown and see how fast the police are on you.
If your statement were true, all Catholic women would be required to wear a habit. The habit is not only not required, but is a privilege conferred only after years of probation as a novice and the voluntary taking of vows of poverty, chastity (which rules out marriage), and obedience. And even after that, a nun may be released from her vows whereupon she would remove her habit.
Agreed. Islam is a barbaric social and political system in religious drag. It is not compatible with our traditions and Constitution.
Islam will thrive here only because Christianity has been purged from the public sphere by an out of control federal court system that denies the Christian, Natural Law foundation of the Declaration and Constitution.
People will not believe in nothing. Islam, Progressivism, Marxism, Environmentalism, and other nonsense, etc will fill the void.
Since many states have banned masks as part of their anti-KKK laws they should be able to ban burkas for the same reason.
Except on Halloween.
I’m in favor of the burka, especially when it comes to Helen Thomas.
Using the rationale of security risk (ability to conceal weapons and explosives, just like the gangsta baggy pants) the burqa could be banned from public buildings and public transportation. Private business and institutions are free to make their own regulations anyway.
I think Mrs. B. Hussein Obama should start the fashion ... with her and the two girls.. the rest of the kool aid drinkers would follow...
“Could the U.S. Ban the Burqa, Too?”
Only if everyone began to wear them. In this case, no one anywhere at anytime could be positively identified. Including thugs robbing the local liquor store, or murdering some innocent bystander downtown at 5th and Main.
Excuse me mam, oh sorry. Sir, can you identify the suspects? Yea, they all wore burqas head to toe. They all wore dark sunglasses too. In fact, they all looked just like me. :)
Can you cite a staute? I doubt there would be a law on the books or that such a law if it exists anywhere is constitutional. A cop would be an overzealous bully for harassing a person doing nothing but walking the streets in robe with his face covered. If he was also fingering a baton in the parking lot of small store that would be another matter.
Obligatory Michael Jackson thread-killer...
That appears to illegalize only a group of 3 or more people together wearing masks without a permit for some kind of party or parade.
It is certainly not constitutional to ban just one guy from walking down the street in a mask and this law in NYC does not appear to do so.
http://law.justia.com/virginia/codes/toc1802000/18.2-422.html
§ 18.2-422. Prohibition of wearing of masks in certain places; exceptions.
It shall be unlawful for any person over sixteen years of age while wearing any mask, hood or other device whereby a substantial portion of the face is hidden or covered so as to conceal the identity of the wearer, to be or appear in any public place, or upon any private property in this Commonwealth without first having obtained from the owner or tenant thereof consent to do so in writing. However, the provisions of this section shall not apply to persons (i) wearing traditional holiday costumes; (ii) engaged in professions, trades, employment or other activities and wearing protective masks which are deemed necessary for the physical safety of the wearer or other persons; (iii) engaged in any bona fide theatrical production or masquerade ball; or (iv) wearing a mask, hood or other device for bona fide medical reasons upon the advice of a licensed physician or osteopath and carrying on his person an affidavit from the physician or osteopath specifying the medical necessity for wearing the device and the date on which the wearing of the device will no longer be necessary and providing a brief description of the device. The violation of any provisions of this section shall constitute a Class 6 felony.
(Code 1950, §§ 18.1-364, 18.1-367; 1960, c. 358; 1975, cc. 14, 15; 1986, c. 19.)
Here’s another one. They appear to be quite common.
North Carolina:
§14-12.7. Wearing of masks, hoods, etc., on public ways.
No person or persons at least 16 years of age shall, while wearing any mask, hood or device whereby the person, face or voice is disguised so as to conceal the identity of the wearer, enter, be or appear upon any lane, walkway, alley, street, road, highway or other public way in this State. (1953, c. 1193, s. 6; 1983, c. 175, ss. 1, 10; c. 720, s. 4.)
§14-12.8. Wearing of masks, hoods, etc., on public property.
No person or persons shall in this State, while wearing any mask, hood or device whereby the person, face or voice is disguised so as to conceal the identity of the wearer, enter, or appear upon or within the public property of any municipality or county of the State, or of the State of North Carolina. (1953, c. 1193, s. 7.)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.