The headline read :

Sarkozy says burqas are 'not welcome' in France

Ok, I guess but please legislate the attire of all the other religions.

The pope, egads! He is a horid dresser and needs a complete make over immediately. Have you seen his shoes? And those crazy monks, make them take off the bath robes and wear a suit or something.

The legislation in mind to ban the berqa is for security purposes although this is not the stated objective. We have invested great sums of money placing cameras in strategic locations and we can not allow anyone to hide their face now or ever again. If that is a problem with your religion, we'll out law that next.

sounds fair to me. id at least ban burqas in public buildings. if i walked into a supermarket with my face covered, id be thrown out. if i walked into a bank with my face covered, id probably get arrested. it shouldnt be any different for women, regardless of their religious beliefs or the extent tw theyre repressed.

in any case, i think countering that nonsense for the sake of female equality is a good enough reason to ban burqas, even without the security concerns.

There is a significant Muslim population in my area (SW Chicago suburbs), with two mosques within a five mile radius, so I see women in scarves fairly often - but I've never seen one wearing a burqa.

Then again, the scarves aren't any more extreme than the habits worn by Catholic nuns.

Burqas, IMO, are a product of fundamentalist zealots - and fundamentalist zealots suck, regardless of their religion.

It is unfair to judge a certain religion's dress code requirement when one does not know the background of the requirement itself. Not all women are forced to wear them. Some wear them because they want to use it. Its just a matter of interpretation of the regulation. Zealots tend to push for the extreme, when interpreting the laws and requirements.

In Islam, there are certain parts of the women's body that are not allowed to be seen by other than their 'muhrim'. So covering up is the only way to allow possible interaction between non muhrims. Even men have have certain requirements too.

What about photo identification? Driver's licences?

And how on earth with the facial recognition software be able to work with those crazy burqas!?

true, scarves arent quite the same.

im not sure its fair to compare muslim women with catholic nuns, though. we're talking about a tiny minority of religious nut jobs (catholic nuns), numbering, what? i cant even guess, 1 in a couple of thousand in the developed world? (prob barely enough to qualify as a cult in the uk)... with a female population of muslims repressed by the million.

a nun walking into a bank in england is hardly going to blend in.



even men, in all their glory.


i googled. and the whole thing stinks. this is more than a particular relgions obscure dress code - this is gender inequality on a massive scale. medieval patriarchal supremacy, maintened through fear and restricted education. that kind of chauvinism has no more place in the 21st century than slavery or flogging. i dont like it and i dont want to see it.

Pointing out the irony of outlawing freedom of religion in order to protect freedom was my intention.

Of course this assumes that the machine is actually trying to protect freedom.

are there any polls out there on how many of the burqa wearers are wearing them out of fear of being beaten at home or because they really want to?

I've heard it said that the sexiest part on a woman is the eyes. Do any of the burqas come with sun glasses too? If not, perhaps they should be flogged.



so lets get down to it then, let's vote. Which individual below is wearing inappropriate attire that should be banned?

I did understand that..

However, the current "regime" believes the way to freedom is to outlaw it.

(both parties, btw)

as far as the pictures.....

Outlawing the required attire in public places would actually have the effect of making these women prisoners inside their own homes.
This is quite the opposite of the stated objective.

In order for the machine to operate at peak potential, the people must become one. Homoginized ... worshipping only the machine. (Copy right -June 26, 2009)

you sure? dont women have responsibilities? (like feeding their men and so on : ) who would do the shopping?

seriously, i doubt there are so many hardline muslims living in western europe that people couldnt just get over it and come to a compromise. as raden says, the requirements are a matter of interpretation anyway.

i feel a bit out of my depth. im still waiting for a muslim woman to step up and post on the thread.

If they remain true to their religious beliefs, then yes, I feel quite confident they will consider it impossible to go out in public and will feel as if they have been made into prisoners in their own homes.

Not very liberating but as you suggest there is an alternative :

Change your religious beliefs.

This is indeed a major undertaking due to the very nature of religion. If one truely believes that their religion has been ordained by a supernatural being, then nothing humans can say or do is likely to persuade them to abandon their beliefs.

The operation to wipe out the Taliban is due to their refusal to change and I suspect that it is sending a very clear message to those that are listening.

This video is a good message of religious tolerance. Oh yeah, watch the language.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YEUEAJk8nIM

Hi BOY :

I hope all is going well.

I don't know how they handle a DL, but in many states the photo is optional. This isn't widely shared information but it was true at the time the photo indentification systems were implemented. State agents don't generally offer an option and as in many other instances, you may have to demand your rights. As the elders die out, I suspect these exceptions will too if they haven't already.

Facial recog. systems were what I was referring to in the mention of the strategically placed cameras and no one being allowed to hide their face.

No where to run, no where to hide. Big Brother has arrived.



The recent law that requires all medical records be in the goverment approved format for electonic transfer was for the benefit of the patients and the doctors. At least that was the stated objective. Perhaps they'll have me sit for a facial photo and take a DNA sample the next time I go to the doctor. They may even want a full dental impression and a few x-rays too.

You can't be too safe when it comes to government records.

Stated objectives are always suspect. Let the buyer beware.

Later,

Rommel