• Welcome to the PopMalt Forums! Whether you're new to forums or a veteran, welcome to our humble home on the web! We're a 20-year old forum community with thousands of discussions on entertainment, lifestyle, leisure, and more.

    Our rules are simple. Be nice and don't spam. Registration is free, so what are you waiting for? Join today!.

France - The final step to ban Burka

Bananas

Endangered Species
Proof of your post :

I have seen nothing that says there will be fines for men who will not let their wives/daughters leave the home.
I think it would be classed as and punishable under false imprisonment laws.
 

Ilus_Unistus

Registered Member
There is no specific law about men getting fined for not letting their wives go out. I said that these men will be fined if they force their wives to wear burga, which means they probably won't let their wives go out with it - that's why these men will be fined.

No, you said
EllyDicious said:
If you don't let someone go out because they don't wear burka, then it's an indirect way of forcing someone to wear burka. So, they will get the same punishment as mentioned previously.

in response to what I posted:
Ilus_Unistus said:
The oppressors obviously hold the values very high of forcing their women to wear a burqa, Fair? So now, instead of allowing their oppressed women to go out wearing a Burqa, they now force them to stay within the home and not be seen in this manor. So explain how Sarkozy is going to improve these oppressed women's social life or provide them identity when they are now not able to leave their own home because their oppressive husbands wont allow them to be seen without a Burqa?
I asked if you had proof of your answer to this as I have seen nothing in or about this law to protect or assure these women will in fact have all this new freedom.

If these women are unable to leave the home and are in fact oppressed by their husbands and this is the way of life for them as has been suggested, also it has been suggested these women do not report they must wear Burqa because of the punishment they know they would face (all in the quotes I made earlier) so, what changes for these women to now report they are prisoners in their own home instead of in a Burqa?
 
Last edited:

EllyDicious

made of AMBIGUITY
V.I.P.
What you quoted are the same thing. If men don't let their wives go out without burga, then they will be fined.
I don't think those women will remain locked up for the rest of their lives. (otherwise it would be a ridiculous drama)
They'll either accept to pay the fines everytime they go out wearing burka, or they'll give up from it.

If women don't report their husbands and still go out wiearing burka then these women will be fined.

p.s. there's a typo in the first quotation. "withOUT".
 

Ilus_Unistus

Registered Member
What you quoted are the same thing. If men don't let their wives go out without burga, then they will be fined.
I don't think those women will remain locked up for the rest of their lives. (otherwise it would be a ridiculous drama)
They'll either accept to pay the fines everytime they go out wearing burka, or they'll give up from it.

If women don't report their husbands and still go out wiearing burka then these women will be fined.

p.s. there's a typo in the first quotation. "withOUT".
Okay, this makes more sense to what you were saying then, I was confused by the typo, sorry.
 

Wade8813

Registered Member
Laws are constantly changing, and we have to adapt to it wether we like it or not
The discussion in this thread isn't about whether or not we should obey laws we disagree with - it's about whether this law should exist in the first place.

Agreed. That still misses the point about husbands beating their wives. The example wasn't used to compare the two, only that the two MAY be religiously oriented but still contrary to sicietal norms.
Sure. And my point was that some things are religious in nature, against a social norm, and should be illegal. Some things are religious in nature, against a social norm, and should be legal.

But we have laws where women are treated as equally as men, minorities are treated as equally as whites, etc...in some parts of Texas there is a large German population where the older people don't speak very much English, there are pockets in big cities like Chinatown, Little Italy, Little Mexico, etc..where many don't speak English. Fairness, anti-discrimination, are societal norms, speaking English is not.
We generally expect people to speak English. Public safety messages are in English. If a customer walks into a store - even a large international chain - if they don't speak English, there's a good chance we won't even be able to help them. Sure, our society is starting to accommodate non-English speakers, but it's the exception rather than the rule.

Some of those are illegal and some mostly receive communal sanction the way when someone offends what is considered the social norm (and I cannot emphasize more how France is obsessed with the separation of church and state, thanks to its history, so as to develop its own concept, laicite, stressing the importance it puts on secularism as a norm) . The standards of behavior have been there a long time, it's a given to the locals that one shouldn't do it, without it having to be a law. There's no need to make it a law because it's seen as common sense for any citizen here. To not do so is just being unFrench. But you know, since Sarkozy period, we have witnessed attempts to break the norm and try to make it acceptable to public.
I'm still confused about the status of religious freedom in France. About half of what I've read (from your posts, and the bit of research I've done) seems to indicate that France's position is very similar (if not identical) to most other western countries. But the other half seems to indicate something more similar to what Ilus says Estonia is like.


I forgot to address what you posted about the Consitutional Council. It's true that this bill will not take effect if the Consitutional Council doesn't give the green light. We'll see perhaps a month from now how they will decide on the matter. For religious arguments against the ban, I think the Council will overrule those given the law of 2004 just emphasizes the constitutional support for laicite in cases where it conficts religious freedom. What will be interesting is how they will decide on the constitutionality of the coverage of the ban (whether public is just public institutions or anywhere outside private homes/establishments is public). There will also be decisions to make if it infringes on personal liberty although proponents of the bill argue that freedom to not be free isn't freedom. Lastly, even if the Constitutional Council approves this, France has to deal with EU which is more focused on protecting individual human rights and doesn't have the clause to protect state secular identity that can override such rights (unlike in France).
I agree it'll be interesting to see how it plays out. My main point was that if it might get rejected on the basis of France's own constitution (not to mention international human rights laws), I think that should at least give people pause. Even if they conclude they don't think it has a problem with either of those, it's not so minor you can just dismiss it out of hand (not saying you are, obviously, but that's the impression I get from some posts in this thread).
 
Last edited:

ysabel

/ˈɪzəˌbɛl/ pink 5
I'm still confused about the status of religious freedom in France. About half of what I've read (from your posts, and the bit of research I've done) seems to indicate that France's position is very similar (if not identical) to most other western countries. But the other half seems to indicate something more similar to what Ilus says Estonia is like.
I see what you're saying because if I do research on Google, Wikipedia (country profiles) or even the 2009 Report on Religious Freedom by the US Dept of state, one would read that those countries you mention (US, France, Estonia, etc.) have a constitution that provides for freedom of religion and other laws and policies contributed to the generally free practice of religion. Those also have separation of church and state policy.

Just given that as reference, one could easily assume that these countries are the same. In reality, despite the similar constitutional guarantees, there would be policies/laws that may exist or is acceptable to one country but not to another. My guess is that this could be the reason why it is so:

"The concept of separation has since been adopted in a number of countries, to varying degrees depending on the applicable legal structures and prevalent views toward the proper role of religion in society."

To understand the societal views toward the role of religion, you have to consider the history and the social norms (mostly unwritten rules but very much in practice) of each country, and they're normally different in that case.



I agree it'll be interesting to see how it plays out. My main point was that if it might get rejected on the basis of France's own constitution (not to mention international human rights laws), I think that should at least give people pause. Even if they conclude they don't think it has a problem with either of those, it's not so minor you can just dismiss it out of hand (not saying you are, obviously, but that's the impression I get from some posts in this thread).
I'm not sure I understand your post properly (if I did, then my next phrases would make sense...let's see, haha). Even if both Constitutional Council and the EU laws accept the bill, I feel people are pretty much aware it's going to be a polemique with repercussions from certain groups in the society and that has to be addressed not simply dismissed. Frankly, I'm less confident that the EU will endorse it and the bigger controversy here (if it passes the French Constitutional Council and rejected by EU) will not even be the constitutionality of the bill, but debates on sovereignty and whether EU should have a bigger say in this matter. I don't know on the international laws level how the ban will play out but it's not like France is the first ever country to ban the burqa and I don't know if any of the others had to change their law.
 
Last edited:

Wade8813

Registered Member
I see what you're saying because if I do research on Google, Wikipedia (country profiles) or even the 2009 Report on Religious Freedom by the US Dept of state, one would read that those countries you mention (US, France, Estonia, etc.) have a constitution that provides for freedom of religion and other laws and policies contributed to the generally free practice of religion. Those also have separation of church and state policy.

Just given that as reference, one could easily assume that these countries are the same. In reality, despite the similar constitutional guarantees, there would be policies/laws that may exist or is acceptable to one country but not to another. My guess is that this could be the reason why it is so:

"The concept of separation has since been adopted in a number of countries, to varying degrees depending on the applicable legal structures and prevalent views toward the proper role of religion in society."

To understand the societal views toward the role of religion, you have to consider the history and the social norms (mostly unwritten rules but very much in practice) of each country, and they're normally different in that case.
Yeah. Part of my issue probably stems from what I feel the definition of "separation of church and state" should be. It seems pretty obvious to me that it should mean that the state doesn't impose laws promoting or restricting any religion.

IMO, if a French politician wanted to run for office in a manner similar to GW Bush (ie placing a heavy emphasis on his or her personal faith), that's fine - and it would be up to the voters to decide whether or not they want to vote for that sort of thing. If elected, that official would obviously still be subject to the same rules about not promoting/establishing religion.

I see no reason not to allow students to wear overt religious symbols in school (assuming your nation isn't war torn because of religious strife). It really shouldn't be a big deal.


I'm not sure I understand your post properly (if I did, then my next phrases would make sense...let's see, haha). Even if both Constitutional Council and the EU laws accept the bill, I feel people are pretty much aware it's going to be a polemique with repercussions from certain groups in the society and that has to be addressed not simply dismissed. Frankly, I'm less confident that the EU will endorse it and the bigger controversy here (if it passes the French Constitutional Council and rejected by EU) will not even be the constitutionality of the bill, but debates on sovereignty and whether EU should have a bigger say in this matter. I don't know on the international laws level how the ban will play out but it's not like France is the first ever country to ban the burqa and I don't know if any of the others had to change their law.
Yeah, the national sovereignty VS the EU certainly looks like it could be interesting.

Basically, my point was that a lot of people on GF seem sure that this law is fine, but it might not even be constitutional/follow international law.
 
Top