Veil (and Burqua) not welcome in France

[fireheart17]

Technically, yes. As I understand, the Quran only suggests that women should dress "decently" and "hide the hair". How that should be done is at the worshipper's discretion, though cultural traditions and preferences do have a lot of influence on the matter.

I once had a coworker who converted to Islam, she wore a huge Rastafari hat instead of a hijab. As she said, "hey, it covers the hair, so no problem".

I remember reading a story called "Does My Head Look Big In This?" about a Muslim girl deciding to wear the hijab full-time. (only time she wore it previously was Muslim festivals and at mosque) One of her relatives in the book wore a beanie for her hijab since it covered the hair.

But yes, you are correct. The only absolute requirements are that the head, arms and legs are covered IIRC. Faces are not required to be covered.

Also, a bit of an interesting point.

The headscarf plus facial covering is called a niqab (where you can still see the eyes)
The headscarf plus grille in front of the eyes is called a burqa.

[Dreamstalker]

I have the glasses that darken as well and have never been asked to take them off. I'd think they are common enough that one can differentiate between those lenses and full-on sunglasses.

Our store does have a sign up front that requests people remove hoods, hats, etc. Anyone wearing large sunglasses indoors kinda weird me out too.

My bank (and other banks I've passed by) have the same notice posted. Even in the middle of winter, I take my hat/hood off in the building. Mainly common courtesy; it's understandable that a bank teller might be creeped out by someone with a large part of their face/head obscured. Yes, all the tellers know me, but I'd rather they recognize me as a non-threat from fifteen feet away rather than as I'm being held by police.

[Red Panda]

http://www.fratching.com/showthread.php?t=3156


Evidently my post about France passing this law is the same as a very old topic about the law being proposed.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10611398


What a load of croc. They tried, very lazily, to make it look like its anything but an attack on Muslims by not mentioning Islamic garb specifically, but thats like saying the souther poll taxes weren't racist because poor white people also don't get to vote.

The fact is this measure is nothing but an attack on a traditionly Islamic way of dressing. What really gets me is that the Justice Minister says they are fighting oppression. Because there is no better way to fight oppression then forcing people to dress a certain way.

[Greenday]

http://www.fratching.com/showthread.php?t=3156


Evidently my post about France passing this law is the same as a very old topic about the law being proposed.

Are you saying they are unrelated events? I kinda consider a law being proposed and being passed to be one main event.

I still think an all out ban is ridiculous. But I could see how it'd make sense in certain places like government buildings, court houses, etc.

[Ree]

Evidently my post about France passing this law is the same as a very old topic about the law being proposed.

Right.

And, since this "very old topic" was about the proposal of the law, then it would follow that discussion about the actual passing of the law would be related and could be continued in the thread.

It never hurts to do a search before starting a new topic, (especially when it's a current event story), and add to an existing discussion, so the board doesn't get littered with several threads on the same subject.

[Red Panda]

Except most boards punish you for necroing an old topic and I didn't see it anywhere when I looked around so I thought I would get in trouble for bumping old topics

[Ree]

Except most boards punish you for necroing an old topic

If it's the same issue, and a continuation of the discussion, we don't usually get bent out of shape if an old thread get resurrected. It happens from time to time.

On CS, threads get closed after a certain amount of time with no discussion, but as far as I know, we don't do that here.

The fact that you posted a new thread isn't all that big a deal.
It was closed as a duplicate, and since a link to this thread was provided, the discussion can continue.

There really wasn't any need to make that post about having posted the duplicate.

You obviously have feelings on the issue, so go ahead and share them here.

[Hyena Dandy]

It may have been said already, but I think it bears rementioning before I read through the thread. The idea behind this legislation is to stop people from oppressing the women in public by making them wear burqas. But if they're in a family which IS oppressing them, saying you can't wear a Burqa in public won't stop them from being oppressed. It'll just lead to more oppression. If you can only go out wearing one thing, and then you can't wear that, you won't be allowed out at all.

[Red Panda]

Ignoring family oppression, the idea that women are completly unable to decide for themselves what they want to wear and need government intervention to dress them is in itself pretty offensive to woman. Plus the entire idea that in order to fight oppression you need to oppress those who choose to dress that way is idiotic.

France should just be honest, they don't want Muslims doing a predominitly Muslim traddition.

[Rapscallion]

I think it's more that it's one culture that's very protective about its culture feeling threatened by another with similar attitudes. They're protecting themselves, as far as they see it.

Rapscallion

[Hyena Dandy]

Ignoring family oppression, the idea that women are completly unable to decide for themselves what they want to wear and need government intervention to dress them is in itself pretty offensive to woman. Plus the entire idea that in order to fight oppression you need to oppress those who choose to dress that way is idiotic.

France should just be honest, they don't want Muslims doing a predominitly Muslim traddition.

Well, yes, I suppose if we ignore the whole oppression bit the law doesn't make much sense. Not like the whole oppression thing was the reason the law was created or anything. Probably best if we just ignore anything that disagrees with our opinions. Makes it easier that way, right Panda?

[Red Panda]

Are you saying that ignoring things we disagree with is a bad idea and we should ban it instead?

[suchislife2]

We're not always going to know the situation in the womans life that has brought her to wear/not wear the burqua. However in my own opinion, it's not hurting anyone. True, it's a bit rough to tell a person to take off their helment when walking into a bank but not make a woman take off the head garb that is covering her face. And i guess that is a problem in it's self. But right now, if I want to peraid around in a skimpy bikini and someone else wants to wear something that covered them head to toe, then so be it. Who am I to judge someone on what and why they chose to wear something.

[Nyoibo]

Well, yes, I suppose if we ignore the whole oppression bit the law doesn't make much sense. Not like the whole oppression thing was the reason the law was created or anything. Probably best if we just ignore anything that disagrees with our opinions. Makes it easier that way, right Panda?

I'm going to (and I can't believe the words are coming out of my keyboard) agree with Red Panda here, this law has nothing to do with stopping oppression of women and everything to do with singling out a specific group, in one of the articles related to this only around 1600 women wear full face covering, it's been condemned by Amnesty International, at it's core it's a piece of jingoistic bull.