PARIS (AP) – President Nicolas Sarkozy lashed out Monday at the practice of wearing the Muslim burqa, insisting the full-body religious gown is a sign of the “debasement” of women and that it won’t be welcome in France.
The French leader expressed support for a recent call by dozens of legislators to create a parliamentary commission to study a small but growing trend of wearing the full-body garment in France.
In the first presidential address in 136 years to a joint session of France’s two houses of parliament, Sarkozy laid out his support for a ban even before the panel has been approved—braving critics who fear the issue is a marginal one and could stigmatize Muslims in France.
“In our country, we cannot accept that women be prisoners behind a screen, cut off from all social life, deprived of all identity,” Sarkozy said to extended applause in a speech at the Chateau of Versailles southwest of Paris.
“The burqa is not a religious sign, it’s a sign of subservience, a sign of debasement—I want to say it solemnly,” he said. “It will not be welcome on the territory of the French Republic.“
In France, the terms “burqa” and “niqab” often are used interchangeably. The former refers to a full-body covering worn largely in Afghanistan with only a mesh screen over the eyes, whereas the latter is a full-body veil, often in black, with slits for the eyes.
Later Monday, Sarkozy was expected to host a state dinner with Sheik Hamad Bin Jassem Al Thani of Qatar. Many women in the Persian Gulf state wear Islamic head coverings in public—whether while shopping or driving cars.
France enacted a law in 2004 banning the Islamic headscarf and other conspicuous religious symbols from public schools, sparking fierce debate at home and abroad. France has Western Europe’s largest Muslim population, an estimated 5 million people.
A government spokesman said Friday that it would seek to set up a parliamentary commission that could propose legislation aimed at barring Muslim women from wearing the head-to-toe gowns outside the home.
The issue is highly divisive even within the government. France’s junior minister for human rights, Rama Yade, said she was open to a ban if it is aimed at protecting women forced to wear the burqa.
But Immigration Minister Eric Besson said a ban would only “create tensions.”
A leading French Muslim group warned against studying the burqa.
________________________________________
Good for Sarkozy, there will be trouble.
Why can’t we have a President like that here? The Burka is a political statement of Islamist domination. It is a sick symbol.
I am split on this issue. Although I believe that many are forced to wear the Burqa as a political statement, it is similarly a religious item and thus those who are not forced to wear it should have the right to do so.
I completely understand the politics and oppression behind the Burqa in many instances, however I am exceptionally concerned when the Government steps in an outlaws any religious item.
re: #2 by Rodan
Our potus thinks it is a woman’s freedom of choice to cover up. Tell that to the victims of honor killing who refused to submit.
Hey towelheads, don’t like it? Then get your friggin’ asses out of France and take your pedophile prophet and gutter religion with you back to the middle-east, douchebags.
re: #3 by WrathofG-d
It’s not a religious thing actually. No where in the Koran does it say Women have to wear Burkas. It’s a political statement of a male dominated Islam.
I just used their own Koran against them.
If you allow Burka’s you are then allowing Sharia Law. It’s a way to open the door.
re: #3 by WrathofG-d
Wrath, do you believe that women have any choice in wearing this attire from the time they are little girls? I have no problem with a head scarf, but a full burkah is a misogynistic symbol of female subjugation and has no place in western society.
re: #6 by Rodan
re: #7 by vagabond trader
The Qu’ran states something about how a woman’s face should be veiled. Now, whether this means burqa, or is just a allegory is another story. However, to even have this discussion we are getting into an area that the State shouldn’t – determining what is an appropriate Religious custom/practice.
This is what concerns me about these types of bans. Sure, it might be simply a sexist rule against women, but then again it might be a Muslim religious rule. Only a Muslim, or religious scholar could answer this question. The State is neither.
My concern is when Government gets involved in determining what religious practices are appropriate and which are not. In many European Countries throughout history, many Governments have tried to outlaw Kosher butchering, and more recently circumcision stating “secular” “altruistic” reasoning.
As sensitive as I am to pushing back against Islamist imperialism, and Shari’a law in Western Countries, I am still very concerned when the Government appoints itself Pope, Imam, or Rabbi.
re: #5 by Bob in Breckenridge
Hehe. Well said Bob, well said.
This is good news indeed.
I don’t have a problem with a government banning Islamic garb such as this because I don’t consider Islam a religion at all.
Screw em. I also say outlaw the use of headscarves for holding their welfare cell phones.
re: #8 by WrathofG-d
Is it about religion or politics? Politics,imho. Burkahs=female enslavement,look at Afghanistan, Pakistan,Saudi.
re: #6 by Rodan
Rodan
That is incorrect.
The Qur’an
024.031
YUSUFALI: And say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty; that they should not display their beauty and ornaments except what (must ordinarily) appear thereof; that they should draw their veils over their bosoms and not display their beauty except to their husbands, their fathers, their husband’s fathers, their sons, their husbands’ sons, their brothers or their brothers’ sons, or their sisters’ sons, or their women, or the slaves whom their right hands possess, or male servants free of physical needs, or small children who have no sense of the shame of sex; and that they should not strike their feet in order to draw attention to their hidden ornaments. And O ye Believers! turn ye all together towards Allah, that ye may attain Bliss.
033.059
YUSUFALI: O Prophet! Tell thy wives and daughters, and the believing women, that they should cast their outer garments over their persons (when abroad): that is most convenient, that they should be known (as such) and not molested. And Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.
http://taslimanasrin.com/OPINION.pdf
re: #12 by vagabond trader
Yes I cannot disagree, and this is part of the reason as to why I am on the fence on this issue.
The other side of it is what I described above. There are European Countries that wanted to outlaw Jewish customs (ie: circumcision) stating that it was child cruelty. It was just another instance where the Government came in and decided, on the basis of something leftist and altruistic sounding, that a Religious practice was not P.C. enough for them (or “cruel”).
What is to stop them from moving past the Burqa? Maybe the Jewish head covering is too much, or some Buddhist robe, or Catholic sacrament etc.?
From the many muslims I’ve spoken to it not a religious garb – it is tribal. Since 9/11 it has become a political finger in the eye of westerners.
On a personal note, before 9/11 I never saw burkas in my area. After 9/11 they were freakin everywhere! In the last few years I can honestly say I haven’t seen one in at least 3-4 years.
I’m with Bob. When in Rome do as the Romans do. If you have a problem with that go back to the country you feel most at ease with.
re: #3 by WrathofG-d
Banning burkas et al would never fly here in the USA, but it’s good to see someone pushing back against Muslim expansionism.
re: #13 by bar
I knew I remembered reading it in the Qur’an (as I stated in #8). Thank you for finding the actual quote. I just love being right
France has a very strict code of “laïcité” which means that religions can only exist in the private sphere. Muslims have been pushing against it, but given that laïcité is as taboo in France as the first amendment in the US with predictable results. It is also true that women in burka cannot ever be anything but leeches on the welfare rolls. Who will ever hire one?
Good for Sarkozy!
re: #14 by WrathofG-d
I knew you were thinking of Jewish women and their head coverings! That and the other examples you give represent traditional belief, not extremism.I know of no Jewish women murdered by male family members because they refused to cover up.
Speaking of circumcision, what do you think of the female variety? That vile practice is also considered a religous rite, one that should be illegal, not least for the sadistic way it is performed causing permanent disfigurement and pain.
re: #18 by Pitiricus
This gives me a new found respect for French law.
I still think allowing the Burka will allow other Islamist activities. Islam is more a political movement than a religion.
re: #19 by vagabond trader
I don’t know enough about female circumcision to comment. However the same claims of “sadistic” “child cruelty”, “emotional abuse” etc were used to attempt to outlaw Jewish male circumcision.
I imagine that a line can be drawn where the state can get involved, but I have learned through living that once the State draws one line they end up going past it and eventually owning the entire thing.
This is what frightens/concerns me. This is also why I brought up Jewish female head coverings. Although there are numerous differences between Jewish women wearing head coverings and Muslim women wearing Burqas (starting with choice vs force) it would not take much for a religion hating, leftist, secularist to conflate the two concepts, and then just go on banning all religious practices THEY disagree with.
To a loony leftist feminist who knows nothing about Judaism, I would imagine that long skirts and head coverings don’t seem ANY different than a Burqa.
re: #3 by WrathofG-d
This is easy, the state has an interest, even a right to be able to identify people in the public. Wear your Burka in the Mosque or at home, in public the police, and all of us have the right to see your face. This ultra protection smuggled in under the state not harassing religion is bereft of common sense.
Another example is religions that claim ingesting psychedelic mushrooms or smoking pot is part of their religion. So maybe it is; find a place to exercise your religion, but not in public. As a Christian I cannot sit around at work preaching, or trying to proselytize, nor demand baptismals at airports etc… Islam gets away with this stuff because they kill people when they do not get their way.
OK, I’m going to be snarky. Most of those women need to be covered from head to toe. KIDDING, please don’t ban me.
Good for Sarkozy.
What is true is that the fact that in France, multiculturalism is a dirty word, French Muslims are far more assimilated than British ones. While there are pockets of resistance, millions have assimilated very well in French society. The rules being very clear, there have been no nonsense about exceptions for Islam.
An anecdote: religious symbols are forbidden for civil servants and anybody working in a state institution. A few years back, I visited a relative in an hospital (state in France) and a resident (female) wore the veil. I called the ministry of health to complain about it and the next day she was unveiled.
OT- Icarus got played on his own blog!
re: #23 by Jehu
What then for Jewish Kippot, or Women’s sheitels (head coverings?). Maybe Jewish men’s tzitzit (fringes) hanging down are a public safety concern. Possibly circumcision is “torture”?
I could go down the list, as there are many “social” reasons for banning many religious customs.
Its just easier to ban them when they aren’t yours.
Now I understand the other side of the argument as well. The State DOES have an interest in knowing the identity of individuals as they walk down the street, into banks, into buildings, while driving cars etc.
The balance of these two interests is why I am on the fence. I wouldn’t want the state to tell me they have a right to seeing my entire head and thus I can no longer wear a kippot, or that I cannot cover my head with a head covering once I am a married women for the same public interest of identification.
re: #22 by WrathofG-d
Wrath,leftists like The Obama are ok with burkahs.We aren’t going to ban religous garb at this time and hope we don’t regret it.Sharia minded Islamists will attempt to subvert every democracy protected legality they can.
Ask Imam
Question: My sister says that there is no pint in wearing scarf if you are wearing jewelry Or bright dress but I say that I am wearing bright and attractive dress in ladies
Answer: According to the Shari’ah, it is incumbent upon a Muslim female to fully cover herself in front of Ghayr Mahram men besides her hands and feet. If any part of her body, be it even a strand of hair is exposed in front of non-Mahram men, she will be sinful for exposing her Satar / Awrah, and will unfortunately earn the curse and wrath of Allah.
It is good to know that you have started wearing the Abayah and Hijaab. This should be worn at all times whenever leaving the house. If you cannot wear the Abayah for some reason and resort to wearing a scarf, utmost care should be taken that your head is well covered and you are wearing clothing which does not reveal your figure. You should not pay attention to what your sister says. She is wrong and trying to mislead you to fall under the curse and wrath of Allah Ta’ala.
and Allah Ta’ala Knows Best
Mufti Ebrahim Desai
———————————-
Crazy stuff, but pretty standard for “Is-lame”.
re: #26 by Rodan
Here’s Icarus’s reply.
re: #29 by bar
Observing women in Iran,the extent to which they covers up seems to be diverse. Interesting.
re: #27 by WrathofG-d
Since 1905 in France all conspicuous signs of religion are banned from schools and any government building. This is true of Christian signs (nuns cannot teach in garb in a public school or be in garb in a state hospital and when I went to school in the 60s, girls with crosses were told to put them under their shirt so as not to see them).
And the law has worked perfectly for all until the Muslims have tried to have it changed. It isn’t my sign or your sign but all signs of religion.
The result of Muslim pressure has been a law again saying that all signs of religions, including the veil, are banned from schools.
re: #30 by Rodan
Irish rose is spouting off at defenseman.Disturbing.
re: #32 by Pitiricus
I am not familiar with French law. You seem to be. If this banning of religious symbols is universal, and already part of the French system, then so be it.
However, does this mean that a Jew cannot wear a kippah (head covering) while walking down the street in France?
re: #31 by vagabond trader
Yes it does.
Islam is just like Christianity and Judaism as in it is not monolithic, there are different groups with slightly different ideas.
re: #34 by WrathofG-d
Of course no. The banning is in public institutions. Say a Jewish doctor cannot wear a kippa while working in a state hospital (about 95% of the hospitals in France). He can wear it while receiving patients in his own cabinet. A Jewish professor cannot wear a kippa while teaching at a university (about all universities are public).
The burka is a problem in itself. There are precedent to banning it: in Italy, veiling your face in the street is forbidden in a lot of cities. except at carnival time. And last month in France they passed a law forbidding to wear hats that obscure your face (cagoules) in demonstartions as they are used by people that are violent.
re: #35 by bar
Just struck me as odd in an Islamist theocracy.
re: #36 by Pitiricus
I would imagine that this could have the effect of precluding religious Jews from working in State Hospitals, and Universities.
re: #38 by WrathofG-d
Not at all. In the Talmud it is written dina demalkut dina, the Law of the Land is the Law. There are a lot of religious Jewish doctors and Professors that obey the Law when they work there and they are allowed by the religious Law.
I know a lot of religious doctors in the French hospitals. They really have no problem with the Law.
re: #39 by Pitiricus
Well I’m not going to get into my own personal thought on Derech Eretz, but I understand your point there.
re: #8 by WrathofG-d
Wrath, I can understand your concerns.
I would agree with you if Muslim terrorism, overwheming Muslim declarations that anyone not Muslim is deserving to be murdered in the name of Islam for the “crime” of not being Muslim and the security threat posed by allowing fully covered individuals to mingle with the general population.
They should rescind the ban on scarves if they do this to show willingness to compromise and of course they should not proscribe any garments for religious worship in the home or a place of worship.
Although the State should not be involved in passing laws concerning religion, the security threat alone trumps those rights. Vigilance must be maintained when proposals are made by the State regarding religion but these body coverings are extreme and are contentious even among those who practice Islam.
when did france get more balls than the us?
re: #42 by LanceKates
About the time we cut ours off by voting for Hussein.
re: #8 by WrathofG-d
Given the cases of terrorist hiding under a burka, I consider it national security, just like when they wanted to wear them for driver license pictures. One can cover their face without wearing a whole body baggy covering.
I don’t know that I would support a ban here, but it is still more guts than the rest of europe has shown, and more than Obama will ever show
re: #43 by m
I didn’t cut mine off… I say no to cults…;)
re: #24 by newsjunkie_ky
Have you ever seen the disgusting old musli women spit on the sidewalk?
re: #44 by LanceKates
There are definite national security reasons for not allowing people to walk down the street in complete disguise and otherwise unidentifiable. I don’t believe this is the case here. I also question how far that “national security” argument can go. This is why I asked if it could be applied to Jewish women who wear head coverings or Jewish men who wear kippot.
re: #33 by vagabond trader
Uh oh.
Wrath
I guess I hate Islam enough that any restrictions applied, even if it affects me is OK, within bounds. I am not really worried the State is going to pass laws to get at Islam and therefor mess with me and my beliefs.
The opposite seems to be true, to allow the slow creep of Sharia Law because Muslims keep agitating for that darkness. It is like them establishing the call to prayer, already a reality in Flint, MI. If we have to say no more church bells, in order to stop this crap, I say OK.
If we actually had any guts as a society we would outlaw all practices of Islam until they allow churches and synagogues in Saudi Arabia. But instead we have declared a suicide pact with the 1st amendment, and the ACLU and Islam have taken notice of this fact.
Actually if I was dictator, instead of Obama, I would do everything to start the debate whether Islam is actually a religion with the goal of stripping it of any 1st amendment rights. I would treat is like Nazism is treated in Germany. Which I think it is illegal, right? Can you buy Mein Kampf in Europe?
Our problem is really the fact that we will not face what Islam really is, and take the measures to isolate it and defeat it in the West. The West is getting AIDS from unprotected intercourse with Islam. We refuse to admit it is a deadly disease. Instead we have these unending internal debates. Anyone, anyone name one redeeming fact about Islam. Anyone show were any nation is better after adopting Islam. Anyone show where Islam has elevated the human spirit and human experience. Anyone show the hospitals built by Islam, the science discoveries by Islam, the breakthroughs in anything worthwhile for humanity.
re: #41 by jakee308
No, France should not restrain the ban on veils. It is about as realist as saying that the US should restrain the first amendment to show concession.
They came to France., Well they should obey France’s laws. If they don’t want, I am sure they’ll feel better in Saudi Arabia!
[...] Combating female circumcision – Iraq Oil ReportSpeaking of circumcision, what do you think of the female variety? That vile practice is also considered a religous rite, one that should be illegal, not least for the sadistic way it is performed causing permanent disfigurement and … Read more [...]