Forums > Social Discussion > Help me to understand...

Posted: 13th Jul 2010
First - in order to get a sufficient answer, you might have to contact the French government

Next - I don't know what is behind this new law, because I am neither French, nor part of the government.

Third - I can only state what is going through German media (and it would be interesting what goes through your media in order to compare flow of information).

So let me do that for a moment: French government has passed the law that Burkas in public are prohibited. Allegedly in order to protect women from oppression, allegedly in order to force people who do live in France adhere to French culture.

As far as info goes, about 5 million Muslims live in France and of them, only ~ 2.000 do wear the Burka. Meaning the law is discriminative towards a minority - and as such will not stand in front of the European High Court For Human Rights. They will take it down.

Because of the discriminative aspect of this law, the government removed all mentioning of "Burka" and "Nikab" vanished from the text. Meaning that the law now prohibits all veiling of people...

Conveniently encompassing demonstrators btw

But even without these expressions it remains:

The law is directed against a (religious) minority - the Burka is a traditional religious piece of clothing - and against the personal freedom of individuals, thus it will be dismantled by the European High Court.

Some regard this law as an attempt of the government to sympathize with the right wing voters and getting their approval. Allegedly it's been the French President himself who sparked the debate and he's receiving harsh criticism for it. The debate has been highly emotional and stigmatized women who wear the Burka and their husbands who (allegedly) force them to do so.

Fact of the matter is that some women don't even feel demeaned. Vice versa, they feel protected from men looking at them in a demeaning way. The law as it stands now might not force them to integrate themselves into the French society, but prevent them from going out on the streets "per se".

It's € 150 fine for them and € 30.000 for husbands who force them to wear a Burka in public.

Bottom line - I can't really answer your question. Sorry for having wasted your time.

the best smiles are the ones you lead to

Posted: 13th Jul 2010
hahaha Originally Posted By: FireTomBottom line - I can't really answer your question. Sorry for having wasted your time.

That brought joy to my very stressful day hehe. No no you didn't waste my time, you brought more information to the topic that I did not have before.

The more enlightened man thinks he is the more foolish he proves himself to be.

Posted: 13th Jul 2010
One commentator I heard talking about it related it to the Equality part of the French motto "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity".

France had previously banned all religious symbols from schools and it seems the reasoning is the same. Removing religion from schools was their way of saying "We are all equal".

Similarly the plan to ban full face veils, of which there are a handful of different varieties, is their way of ensuring equality for women. The assumption is that those wearing extreme veils are subject to extreme Islam, which isn't equal to woman.

The problem is that banning the veil doesn't ban the inequality, it just forces it out of sight.

Posted: 14th Jul 2010
I'm probably going to put my foot in it here, but here's my take on it.

"...the ultra-revealing fashions of today are much more demeaning towards women than a veil could ever be"
The issue being they're free to wear those clothes if they want to. Whereas niqabs/burkas are not always worn out of choice, often the opposite. I think it's also your personal view that they're demeaning, it's not a universally held opinion.

I'm not 100% certain, but I recall reading somewhere the Islam doesn't actually prescribe the wearing of veils and as such it's more of a cultural thing, as opposed to Islamic.

I personally think the whole issue of covering women up so as to avoid "men looking at them in a demeaning way" - is a fairly shameful situation. I'd suggest it's the men that need to change their attitudes. Learn to resist temptation, not cover it up.
You could even argue the veils worsen the situation, as an un-veiled woman would attract a lot more attention where it is not the norm.

Whilst I can see that the women to have a right to wear the burka, same as they have the right to wear anything else, it would be interesting to see how many actually want to - but I think it would be very hard to get an honest answer.
Essentially I think it boils down to a strange law that bans one specific item of clothing, based on the grounds of security and equal rights of women. In France's defence, I think if another religion also covered face they would still push the law through, so I don't see it as specifically anti-Islamic.

It's an interesting point that it could cover masks used in protests...

Burner of Toast
Spinner of poi
Slacker of enormous magnitude

Posted: 14th Jul 2010
There is talk of trying to do the same in Australia, cause some idiot is going around robbing stores while wearing a Burka. THe argument is that it will be a growing trend to hide you identity when all other means except the Burka are banned.

IMO in AUs, its just a stunt to appeal to the douchebag vote.

sticks and stones my break my bones, but ski patrol will save me.

Posted: 14th Jul 2010
Islam doesn't prescribe a lot of things - including killing "non-believers" or "converting them with the sword" - but it's still being preached - and practiced.

Just recently Iran disclaimed the stoning of a woman accused and found guilty of adultery... It's not known whether she still has to face death sentence. It's not part of our culture, but in many countries, "honor killings" are part of the tradition...

If you look into the Bible, there allegedly are a few quite drastic rules (which are not getting enforced) - on the other hand you'll find Christian groups that enforce ridiculous rules, which are not part of the Bible (so I heard)

If now a European woman happens to wear a mini-skirt in the middle of Teheran... or maybe just Mekka - she may face arrest...

Now playing devil's advocate: why would France not have the same right to demand from its citizens and migrants adjustment and adaptation to the French way of life? If it is a law, democratically confirmed by parliament and as such it is representing the citizens general consensus...

Australia: the native population is not allowed to pursue their traditional way of life and is cut off from their tradition, to walk their ancestral path. These routes are blocked and this way of life is prohibited by (ownership) laws.

Imagine a group of native American Indians putting up their camp in Central Park... could they? I mean - they are nomads...

Wearing the Burka is not illegal "per se" - just not in public.

(pls note: I'm playing devil's advocate here - the above does not reflect my personal view)

the best smiles are the ones you lead to

Posted: 14th Jul 2010
Originally Posted By: FireTomIslam doesn't prescribe a lot of things - including killing "non-believers" or "converting them with the sword" - but it's still being preached - and practiced.

Im not a muslim, so Im not really an authority but the Muslims believe that Allah will grant total and comprehensive victory to Islam over other religions. The quran talks about this promise in three different verses: 9:33; 48:28; 61:9

This will happen, according to Islamic prophesy, just before the Islamic massiah , Imam al-Mahdi, will arrive. THe destruction of other world faiths is the precurser to the coming of the messiah, and most extremists view their mission as bringing about this prophesy.

Quote:
If you look into the Bible, there allegedly are a few quite drastic rules (which are not getting enforced) - on the other hand you'll find Christian groups that enforce ridiculous rules, which are not part of the Bible (so I heard)
Just take a look at most of the Catholic traditions (no disrespect to Catholics)

Quote:
If now a European woman happens to wear a mini-skirt in the middle of Teheran... or maybe just Mekka - she may face arrest...
An interesting point, but that doesnt give us an excuss for intolerence.

sticks and stones my break my bones, but ski patrol will save me.

Posted: 14th Jul 2010
Originally Posted By: Durbs

I'm not 100% certain, but I recall reading somewhere the Islam doesn't actually prescribe the wearing of veils and as such it's more of a cultural thing, as opposed to Islamic.


It is required from islam that women dress modestly and in a way that will not tempt men. So your right in saying that the veil is more a cultural interpertation of this.

However its also important to understand that religion IS there countries culture. There is no seperation of church and state, so whilst an outsider can argue its more 'culture' than 'islamic'. In reality its much of a muchness.

sticks and stones my break my bones, but ski patrol will save me.

Posted: 15th Jul 2010
Originally Posted By: DurbsI'm probably going to put my foot in it here, but here's my take on it.

"...the ultra-revealing fashions of today are much more demeaning towards women than a veil could ever be"
The issue being they're free to wear those clothes if they want to. Whereas niqabs/burkas are not always worn out of choice, often the opposite. I think it's also your personal view that they're demeaning, it's not a universally held opinion.

Oh absolutely, that is just my opinion. That is all I was saying was that my opinion was that veils are not demeaning to women, but revealing clothing is. It is easy to see that not everyone agrees with me, I don't expect them to either.

Originally Posted By: DurbsI'm not 100% certain, but I recall reading somewhere the Islam doesn't actually prescribe the wearing of veils and as such it's more of a cultural thing, as opposed to Islamic.

So why is France crushing this culture? I mean if the US tried to do something like this, the world community would be in an uproar about it, but France doesn't seem to face much opposition on a world scale. I could be wrong in this, but I have yet to see much outcry.

Originally Posted By: Durbs
I personally think the whole issue of covering women up so as to avoid "men looking at them in a demeaning way" - is a fairly shameful situation. I'd suggest it's the men that need to change their attitudes. Learn to resist temptation, not cover it up.
You could even argue the veils worsen the situation, as an un-veiled woman would attract a lot more attention where it is not the norm.

I disagree with this "solution". Thats like putting an alcoholic in a room with his/her favorite drink and telling them to just resist the temptation. But you're right men do need to change their attitude towards women, but it would be nice if women helped out some too.

Originally Posted By: DurbsI think if another religion also covered face they would still push the law through, so I don't see it as specifically anti-Islamic.


That is a very valid point, and you could be right.


WoodlandApple, in the banks that I have worked at in the US they require you to take off any face covering and hat that may obstruct the face. I've never come across a woman wearing a veil so I have no clue how the two banks I've worked at before would react. It would be interesting to find out. I may just call my old branch manager and find out her opinion on the matter.


Tom the issue is, is that people should not be forced into a mold just because they immigrated to France. I know th freedoms are different between France and the US but here other cultures are not formally discriminated against like what France is doing. Now what individuals are doing is another matter all together. But that is not the topic of this discussion. In fact especially in the South West the state governments and even the Federal government protect the 'rights' of Mexican Americans and their right to celebrate Cinco de Mayo. Though it isn't a Federal holiday, nor is there any law, that I know of, that protects Mexican Americans and their celebration of their heritage and customs try doing something even remotely anti-Mexican on May 5th in the South West and you'll face some sort of action. Odd, kids have even been kicked out of school for wearing the American flag on Cinco de Mayo. Students Kicked Off Campus For Wearing American Flag

So is this law anti-religious or anti-culture? Is one worse than the other or are they equally wrong? In any case does the passing of this law have the potential to criminalize the wearing of any religious attire? Would you eventually get fined for wearing a suit and tie because that is the "religious dress of a non-denominational, restoration church Christian"? Would wearing a Yarmulke be fine-able, or turban or Priests collar, or dot on a forehead or any other symbol of religious affiliation be made illegal soon too? Could this be a pretty intense anti-religion can of worms?

The more enlightened man thinks he is the more foolish he proves himself to be.

Posted: 15th Jul 2010
@ Heed: I understand your concern and why you consider double standards being applied to US and France.

I'll not be going too deep into it (for obvious reasons and because I played devil's advocate)...

It might be quite impossible to judge on this ruling from any other than a moral point of view.

France - as any other country in the world - has all the rights to put restrictions on migration and composition of its society (i.e. other countries are using "skilled migration schemes" to ensure a certain level of education and enabling migrants to settle in society quickly). For example Australia (to my knowledge) is having certain contingents of "open migration visa" for different countries. That already is a limitation and an attempt to regulate composition of population.

On grounds of "religious attributes displayed in public" this ruling is actually quite problematic - I side you completely that this could be a landslide ruling. (what's coming next?)

But luckily it can't - because this law won't stand a chance in front of the European Court for Human Rights.

Anti-religious/ anti-culture - both are equally wrong (imo) - as long as this culture and religion leaves other people alone. For example "honor killings" are completely unacceptable for a (western) society - though being part of a religion and culture... a line needs to be drawn, no?

Would have more to say but it would make my reply lengthy.

@ WA: Thanks for pointing this out... meaning that suicide bombers should be protected under the "religious freedom act"

the best smiles are the ones you lead to

Posted: 15th Jul 2010
Originally Posted By: HeedBut you're right men do need to change their attitude towards women, but it would be nice if women helped out some too.


Helped out with what?

Posted: 15th Jul 2010
by wearing a Burka or handing out reflective sunglasses

the best smiles are the ones you lead to

Posted: 15th Jul 2010
Originally Posted By: natasqiOriginally Posted By: HeedBut you're right men do need to change their attitude towards women, but it would be nice if women helped out some too.


Helped out with what?



With changing a suppressive culture.... or maybe your suggesting its only a males role to do this?

sticks and stones my break my bones, but ski patrol will save me.

Posted: 15th Jul 2010
WA and Natasgi, I think I wasn't clear in my reply to Durbs as you have both basically asked the same question. I will try to clarify. Please remember this is just my opinion about things. I'm not trying to force it on anyone.

If the world truly wants Men to stop objectifying women, women have to stop objectifying themselves. Men are incapable of changing their attitude about women. Men shouldn't look at women in a (to quote Durbs) "shameful way". However it is nigh impossible to do so when women on a regular basis have more flesh showing than they are covering.

All I'm saying is that if men are to change, women have to change some too. They don't have to go around looking like veiled nuns... no I think that is too far on one side of the spectrum. But a little modesty in your every day life wont hurt anyone.

However this is way off topic. I apologize for sending it so.

The more enlightened man thinks he is the more foolish he proves himself to be.

Posted: 15th Jul 2010
Originally Posted By: HeedWA and Natasgi, I think I wasn't clear in my reply to Durbs as you have both basically asked the same question. I will try to clarify. Please remember this is just my opinion about things. I'm not trying to force it on anyone.


Im a bit confused as to what question I was asking you,my last comment was directed at Natasgi for trying to bait you.

oh and I disagree with the fact that men cant change their behaviour. I agree that both sexes need to work on the issue but to say we are incapable is a cop out.

sticks and stones my break my bones, but ski patrol will save me.

Posted: 15th Jul 2010
Ohh I didn't see what Natasgi said as trying to bait me, I thought you were both asking me to clarify my statement. Sorry for the confusion.

The more enlightened man thinks he is the more foolish he proves himself to be.

Posted: 16th Jul 2010
I think it is unfortunate that there is a line under our user names as natasGi sounds stupid. It's a Q.

It wasn't a total bait.. I did want an answer to it...

By looking in a shameful way, do we mean perving?.. I will take it as such.

I do not believe perving is a crime nor do I care about it stopping.
Men can think and look all they want, they just can't TOUCH.
It's all about actions. Why do Muslim men want the women to cover up? Is it because they think they can't control themselves around naked bodies? Do YOU as men believe you could not control yourselves around naked bodies? If there were no clothes in the world, do you think this would mean men would be raping right left and centre?

I think men and women should be able to wear whatever they please. I don't think it is possible to control people's thoughts. I will still look at a tight butt in leather pants and be "MMM YUM!" but I would not walk passed him and squeeze it. That's called self-control.

If you wear revealing clothes, you are ASKING to be looked at. But you do not deserve to be groped, called names or raped. Any girl who thinks that she can have her boobs half hanging out and a tiny skirt and thinks that no one should look at her is deluding herself.
Humans like looking at bodies that attract us. That will never change.

People who studied Handmaid's Tale will remember Freedom To and Freedom From.

I would prefer to err on the side of freedom to.
Freedom to wear what I want, freedom to say what I want, abortion, euthanisia etc etc
Rather than Freedom from
Freedom from rape, freedom from oppression etc etc. Freedom from babies/old people killed etc

But I know others have different opinions.

this is just mine

Posted: 16th Jul 2010
natasqi - w00t got it right... I'm sorry about the 'g' from earlier posts.

Define freedom. Do people who wish to wear whatever they want, be it no clothing on one end of the spectrum or covered up completely on other, have a greater right than someone who does not wish to see others naked, near naked or whatever? True if I don't want to see someone wearing something revealing I don't have to look at them, or I can avoid them but is that not infringing on my freedom to go where I want and walk around with my eyes open? At what point does your freedom to live how you want trump my freedom to live how I want?

And are you saying that you prefer that people were free to oppress, rape, steal, kill, and just do whatever they want than be free from oppression? That it is better to live a life filled with worry that someone might rape you because they are free to rape you instead of being free from that kind of violence?

That kind of world scares me. I pity a world where people are free to do whatever they want, just simply because they want. That is not freedom by any means.

If our own lusts were able to be controlled the sex industry in all its forms, from consensual pornography to illegal prostitution (sex trafficking) would either be seriously diminished or non-existent. These trades require a certain lack of control.

I agree that nobody, regardless of how they are dressed, deserve to be accosted/assaulted/raped or any of the above. Nor do they deserve to be treated as pieces of meat.

Your original question was asking what women should help out with. (That is if I understand you correctly.) It is my contention that if women want men to stop treating them like objects instead of people then they need to help men by wearing a little more clothing. I'm not saying that it has to be some crazy extreme. Yes men must strive to do all they can to not treat women as objects, but it is a two way street.

We have differing opinions and I'm not trying to force mine on anyone.

The more enlightened man thinks he is the more foolish he proves himself to be.

Posted: 16th Jul 2010
Originally Posted By: WoodlandAppleoh and I disagree with the fact that men cant change their behaviour. I agree that both sexes need to work on the issue but to say we are incapable is a cop out.

I love you so much right now WA! You are a good example to not only men, but to people who claim these things are uncontrollable because of their own lacks of vigilance, complacency, or simply cosigning their own B.S. in regards of being accountable/responsible for their behavioral choices.

The only reason this law cannot pass here is because it's unconstitutional under the first amendment. I have no idea what France's laws are concerning freedom of speech/expressions or lack there of, looking into that might provide answers on how it was able to be brought into the official books as a "law".

~Rock on!~

"As the pattern gets more intricate and subtle, being swept along is no longer enough"-Waking Life

(All you RLers this is epitome_of_lame *waves hello*)

Posted: 17th Jul 2010
Democracy in action! Two wolves and a goat deciding what's for lunch.

I believe that there is a difference in what is acceptable in society and what is acceptable to an individual. Anyone can use the argument that a social policy conflicts with their personal beliefs or religious prescriptions. Society makes rules, it's called legislation. You make personal choices to live by, its called your personal code of conduct.

France is acting to preserve what they believe to be part of their value system. You are French first, everything else is secondary and of no concern to French society. I can't say I completely disagree with this thinking.

Reading material:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La%C3%AFcit%C3%A9

IS this an act of oppression/discrimination?

France has long been a centre of society and enlightenment in the western world. For centuries France was the centre of western civilisation. The argument can be made that this policy is to preserve the rights of individuals and prevent discrimination.

Originally Posted By: HeedAt what point does your freedom to live how you want trump my freedom to live how I want?

Just before your nose

Originally Posted By: EoNThe only reason this law cannot pass here is because it's unconstitutional under the first amendment.

Here is my view on what can and cannot happen despite the constitutional guarantees in the 'Bill of Rights'.

I couldn't get the video to do what I told it to do.
https://vodpod.com/watch/2332111-an-amendment-to-be-simpsons

EDITED_BY: Refuge Crew (1279371266)
EDIT_REASON: fixing link

The popcorn extends life... The popcorn expands consciousness...

Posted: 17th Jul 2010
In the very first line of the wikipedia page says Quote:In French, laïcité (pronounced [la.isiˈte]) is a concept of a secular society, connoting the absence of religious involvement in government affairs as well as absence of government involvement in religious affairs.

The law that the French government is trying to pass is putting government involvement in religious affairs. I say this because to a Muslim, their religion is part of their culture and visa versa. The French cannot ban things that are part of their culture without banning things that are part of their religion.

True Secularism however is not a possibility. Morality, the concept of right and wrong is a belief system. Morality is embedded in all legal systems. Hence why murder, rape, theft are universally illegal (as well as many other). {Universal morality does exist and cannot be denied to exist because every culture has some concept of right and wrong.} So unless the French plan on getting rid of all laws, then they will never be rid of Morality which (as stated earlier) is a belief system. It may not be a formalized religion but it exists none the less.

Even a belief in nothing, is a belief in something. You cannot say "There is no God!" Without having a belief in something(that there is no God).

In the U.S. we have the 1st Amendment that, in short, states that the government cannot formally recognize or prohibit a religion (along with other things that are not relevant to this topic).

All this means is that the government must remain religiously ambiguous. It cannot make laws that officially support any one religious belief over another. This does include laws in the favor of belief systems like atheism and other such non-formalized belief systems.

The more enlightened man thinks he is the more foolish he proves himself to be.

Posted: 18th Jul 2010
Originally Posted By: HeedDefine freedom. Do people who wish to wear whatever they want, be it no clothing on one end of the spectrum or covered up completely on other, have a greater right than someone who does not wish to see others naked, near naked or whatever? True if I don't want to see someone wearing something revealing I don't have to look at them, or I can avoid them but is that not infringing on my freedom to go where I want and walk around with my eyes open? At what point does your freedom to live how you want trump my freedom to live how I want?


I don't see why nudity is illegal. Clothes are definitely FUNCTIONAL but I think that their role in society has become devisive. People are judged by what hey were and it's all about status and social standing. Nude, people are equal, bare, "truthful". The human body is an amazing beautiful thing and I think it's sad you don't agree. From a Christian point of view (I'm not religious), Nudity was fine in the Garden of Eden and only through sin, do people become ashamed of who they are.

So yes, I believe people's right to wear what they chose should outway your right to only look at people and things you find attractive.

Originally Posted By: Heed
And are you saying that you prefer that people were free to oppress, rape, steal, kill, and just do whatever they want than be free from oppression? That it is better to live a life filled with worry that someone might rape you because they are free to rape you instead of being free from that kind of violence?

That kind of world scares me. I pity a world where people are free to do whatever they want, just simply because they want. That is not freedom by any means.

I'm not promoting anarchy. I simply think that if you are not hurting anyone else, then you should have a right to do that thing.

Originally Posted By: Heed
If our own lusts were able to be controlled the sex industry in all its forms, from consensual pornography to illegal prostitution (sex trafficking) would either be seriously diminished or non-existent. These trades require a certain lack of control.


I don't agree that porn involves a lack of control. We watch movies to make ourselves happy, smarter or sad. Why not horny?
And sex trafficing isn't widely accepted by the community. Lusts ARE being controlled.

Originally Posted By: Heed
Your original question was asking what women should help out with. (That is if I understand you correctly.) It is my contention that if women want men to stop treating them like objects instead of people then they need to help men by wearing a little more clothing. I'm not saying that it has to be some crazy extreme. Yes men must strive to do all they can to not treat women as objects, but it is a two way street.

How do you believe men are treating women like objects? As I said above, I believe perving/looking is totally legitimate.

Posted: 18th Jul 2010
Originally Posted By: HeedThe law that the French government is trying to pass is putting government involvement in religious affairs. I say this because to a Muslim, their religion is part of their culture and visa versa. The French cannot ban things that are part of their culture without banning things that are part of their religion.

This is a fair argument. It might be fair to say it's a matter of check and balance. There are MANY examples of both interfering with one another, despite such laws. It seems to me that giving the gov. an upper hand on religion interfering with it's function is a lesson learned from the dark ages.

Originally Posted By: HeedIn the U.S. we have the 1st Amendment that, in short, states that the government cannot formally recognize or prohibit a religion (along with other things that are not relevant to this topic).

Yet, the US gov. has to formally recognise a religion in order for it to avoid taxation and operate as an organisation.

Originally Posted By: HeedAll this means is that the government must remain religiously ambiguous. It cannot make laws that officially support any one religious belief over another. This does include laws in the favor of belief systems like atheism and other such non-formalized belief systems.

I think that a social value can be the same as a religious value and still be up held with ambiguity. It would be hard for any western society to separate their values from it's foundations in the 'Great Western Myth'. It will always appear that any social policy limiting religious expressions in a matter of state will favour, Atheism or Christianity in the Indo-European world.

This policy just seems to me, to be a national dress code for the public institutions. Maybe the French feel that a female neither has to be over exposed or under exposed to go into public.

The popcorn extends life... The popcorn expands consciousness...

Posted: 18th Jul 2010
Yes for tax purposes that is not what I meant, I apologize for my lack of clarity. What I meant was that the Government cannot say that one religions is better/more important/whatever, than a different religion. Nor can it make laws that favor a belief system over another.

What if the women want to be under-exposed? What if wearing the veil is something that they CHOOSE to do? Why shouldn't they be allowed to wear it in public (especially if it is acceptable for women to go around rather 'over-exposed')?

The more enlightened man thinks he is the more foolish he proves himself to be.

Posted: 18th Jul 2010
Originally Posted By: HeedYes for tax purposes that is not what I meant, I apologize for my lack of clarity. What I meant was that the Government cannot say that one religions is better/more important/whatever, than a different religion. Nor can it make laws that favor a belief system over another.

It is still interfering in matters of faith.

Title 13 of the BSA part of the Patriot Act prevents a Muslim woman from wearing a chador into financial institutions, banks, casinos, ect. and there are other parts of the Patriot Act that force them to remove them upon entering certain public institutions considered sensitive.

As for why the French national assembly passed this law, here is a great article that explains the reasons.

https://christinagoes.wordpress.com/2010/07/13/french-mps-vote-to-ban-full-islamic-veil-in-public/

The popcorn extends life... The popcorn expands consciousness...

Posted: 18th Jul 2010
Yes if you read up towards my first post I addressed the issue of a woman covering her face in a financial institution. Having worked as a teller before, I wouldn't help anyone covering their face. To a teller that is like asking to get robbed. The law also words on people wearing sunglasses and ball caps. There is a distinct difference between security and just walking down the street.

Thank you for the link it was an interesting read. I think I am understanding a bit more about what is going on in France.

The more enlightened man thinks he is the more foolish he proves himself to be.

Posted: 18th Jul 2010
Quote:Yes if you read up towards my first post I addressed the issue of a woman covering her face in a financial institution.

But you didn't reference the law requiring this. If you look at the reasons in the BSA, you will see that it isn't for the teller or the banks protection.

I think title 13 is ridiculous! I hated filling out a FinCEN every time someone spent too much or looked funny or wanted an odd amount of change.

The popcorn extends life... The popcorn expands consciousness...

Posted: 18th Jul 2010
Thank you for taking this topic as far from the original course as you could. I guess its my fault for taking the bait.

Quote:But you didn't reference the law requiring this.

I also wasn't quoting a law. So why would I need to reference a law?

But you're still wrong about the BSA, it has nothing to do with anti-Muslim or anti-Arab Culture. And while it may not be designed to help the specific teller it is designed to protect the financial institution, as well as protect against things like money laundering and what not. It was originally created in 1970, and augmented in 2001 after the Terrorist attacks of 9/11.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_Secrecy_Act

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_PATRIOT_Act,_Title_III


Point being, that you're just plain wrong if you are trying to suggest that these two banking regulations have anything to do with or are similar to what France is doing with their anti-veil law. Also there is no Title 13, the US Patriot act only goes up to Title 10 (Roman Numeral X).

The more enlightened man thinks he is the more foolish he proves himself to be.

Posted: 19th Jul 2010
Oh my BAD, I didn't know there was a rule against just me diverting the course by using an example.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_PATRIOT_Act
Section B - revisions to the BSA

and

https://www.occ.treas.gov/bsa/bsaregs.htm

also
Title 13 of the BSA

Any law preventing a Muslim woman from observing hijab is reliant as far as I am concerned and fair game when you involve the civil liberties of France vs. the US.

If you want to understand why France would do it ask yourself why would the US do it?

The popcorn extends life... The popcorn expands consciousness...

Posted: 19th Jul 2010
Yes in the financial institutions, I understand why the US is doing it... France however is saying that women can't wear the veils in public without facing a fine. The US is not fining women, for walking down the street with a veil on. Do you see the distinct difference? Yes the US says you cannot wear the veils into banks/CUs, State/Federal Buildings, and other such "secure" areas.

I personally don't have a problem with that and I think that a rational Muslim woman who wears a veil normally would understand that as well. It isn't against her that those laws are in place. The laws are in place against those who would use her cultural/religious style to commit a crime. The same is true for the guy wearing a ball cap. He has to take off his cap when he goes into those places and the laws are not anti-redneck (I am exaggerating to show a point).

There is a difference between what the US law(s) and this new French law is(are) going to do.

The more enlightened man thinks he is the more foolish he proves himself to be.