Sarkozy says burqas have no place in France

Reuters ^

[Sub-Driver]

Sarkozy says burqas have no place in France Mon Jun 22, 2009 10:18am EDT

PARIS (Reuters) - President Nicolas Sarkozy said on Monday that burqas, garments that cover women from head to toe and hide their faces, had no place in France as they were a sign of the subjugation of women.

During a solemn speech to parliament on a wide range of issues, Sarkozy backed an initiative launched by legislators last week who expressed concern over an increase in the use of burqas in France.

"The issue of the burqa is not a religious issue, it is a question of freedom and of women's dignity," Sarkozy told a joint session of both houses of parliament, held at the Palace of Versailles.

"The burqa is not a religious sign, it is a sign of the subjugation, of the submission of women. I want to say solemnly that it will not be welcome on our territory," he said to strong applause.

Referring to a cross-party initiative by close to 60 legislators last week, who proposed a parliamentary commission to look into the spread of the burqa and find ways to combat the trend, Sarkozy said it was the right way to proceed.

"A debate has to take place and all views must be expressed. What better place than parliament for this? I tell you, we must not be ashamed of our values, we must not be afraid of defending them," he said.

[Freelance Warrior]

From your posts, we can only guess that you still keep your wife in her burka?

A nice try of shifting the topic, but this isn't a relevant argument.

[calex59]

One leader standing up to the muslims.

[calex59]

Making someone to wear or wear not something is an encroachment on human rights. Sarkozi has no authority to evaluate the nature of this or that garments.

You are missing the point. Muslim women are MADE(forced)to wear burkas, so by your own admission it is wrong for Muslim women to wear them unless they freely want to wear them. However, if they think they should be able to wear them in situations where ID is necessary, then they don't have that right. Sarkozy is trying to mitigate the effects of muslims trying to take over French(and other countries)culture and he is correct in outlawing this garmet that is designed to torture women.

[My hearts in London - Everett]

Doesn’t have to be an “argument” every time you discuss something. Sometimes it can just be a conversation, my FReeper friend.

[My hearts in London - Everett]

P.S. Do you feel lonely on this thread? lol ;~)

[Freelance Warrior]

Ah, yes, the bruises, black eyes, broken noses, they don’t show when a woman wears a burka.
If a country offers justice to victims of family violence why isn't that enough?

As far as the banks go
I'm in favour of the situation when there is a choice: either you wear a burka or enter a bank. So a woman can decide herself (and not Sarkozi).

[Freelance Warrior]

P.S. Do you feel lonely on this thread? lol ;~)
It's a good part of the pleasure.

[My hearts in London - Everett]

:~)

[My hearts in London - Everett]

"If a country offers justice to victims of family violence why isn't that enough?"

Because in this case the abuse is concealed from all who would be concerned and probably won't be discovered until it leads to the woman's death.

[Freelance Warrior]

Muslim women are MADE(forced)to wear burkas
This is the basement of your following deduction. But there are problems:

- Why do we know they're REALLY made?

- Why are the mentioned women denied the right to decide whether they're being tortured or not?

- If those women think they're being tortured why doesn't the government give them the means to stop it?

- If they don't why should the society interfere?

if they think they should be able to wear them in situations where ID is necessary
In this case they must be dressed in a way which allows them to be identified in a manner like the others are. But they a given a choice: either wear or don't enter. This is a difference with plain banning of burka.

[Freelance Warrior]

Because in this case the abuse is concealed from all who would be concerned and probably won't be discovered until it leads to the woman's death.
So it basically means the sitiation when a woman decides herself not to to appeal to justice, doesn't it?

[magellan]

"A gulf state, the UAE, requires female western tourists to wear hijabs."

This is not the case in Dubai or Abu Dhabi.

[Freelance Warrior]

This is not the case in Dubai or Abu Dhabi.

Those are just two of the emirates, aren't they?

[My hearts in London - Everett]

It appears that the use of logic can be a very cold hearted point of view at times. There also comes a time to politely agree to disagree.

[Freelance Warrior]

There also comes a time to politely agree to disagree.
Personally, I have had enough of this game. So I agree with you.

[Reeses]

Most of us at FR wear virtual burkas to remain somewhat anonymous when we post. The freedom to wear a burka in public should be up to the person.

In Iran, women have the right to vote. If they don't like their culture they don't have to fight too hard to change it.

[Ford4000]

I have a different take on this: the issue is fundamentally one of compulsion. Muslim societies seem to have a culture which encourages or at least permits threats, intimidation and vigilante violence by individuals to enforce cultural, social and religious norms.

We in the west should not be fooled by arguments that this is about freedom of religion: it is about freedom from having these values imposed on others.

[Mr Rogers]

Combine this with the new battle rules for Afghanistan, and I feel compelled to say, “I wish I was French!”

Damn! But it hurts to type that...

[Mr Rogers]

Frankly, a woman who WANTS to wear a burka doesn’t belong in the USA. But the French have bigger balls than modern Americans.

[Freelance Warrior]

Frankly, a woman who WANTS to wear a burka doesn’t belong in the USA. But the French have bigger balls than modern Americans.

Why not making this legal?