Women who wear burkas and niqabs on the street in France face fines of £700

Women who wear Islamic veils in public in France face a £700 fine under strict new laws being proposed.

The amount could be doubled for Muslim men who force female members of their family to cover their faces.

Jean-Francois Cope, president of Nicolas Sarkozy’s ruling UMP Party, said the legislation was intended to protect the ‘dignity’ and ‘security’ of women.

He is set to file the draft law in the National Assembly after Mr Sarkozy said veils were ‘not welcome’ because they intimidated non-Muslims.

Read more: dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1241293/Women-wear-burkhas-street-France-face-fines-700.html#ixzz0c7CrajZ8

I didn’t now that France charged fines in British pounds sterling. I thought the Euro was the unit of French currency, as on most of the continent.

In any case, I object to such a law, as it goes against religious freedom.

They ban burqas today. They will ban crosses and crucifixes tomorrow.

  1. Not every Muslim woman who wears a hijab/burka/veil is being “forced to.”
  2. Not every woman who covers is Muslim.

This is horrific news. :frowning:

Miz

So they’re protecting women’s dignity, ay?
When are they going to ban bikinis?

[quote="bpbasilphx, post:2, topic:182430"]
I didn't now that France charged fines in British pounds sterling. I thought the Euro was the unit of French currency, as on most of the continent.

In any case, I object to such a law, as it goes against religious freedom.

They ban burqas today. They will ban crosses and crucifixes tomorrow.

[/quote]

Further down in the article it states that the fine will probably be 750 Euros.

Why they chose to put a headline as 700 British pounds may be because it a paper in the UK and maybe because the equivalency, at this point in time, is around 750 Euros - give or take.

+The subject line of this post is very deceiving . . . this fine is evidently merely part of a “proposed” law . . . and in fact no law has been passed nor is it in effect . . . people propose laws . . . *just and unjust *. . . every day . . . that doesn’t mean a law will be successfully passed . . . *far from it . . . *[RIGHT]. . . all for Jesus+[/RIGHT]

Typical of the Daily Mail, I'm sorry to say. It is not highly thought of in this country, to say the least, and my heart sinks when I see it quoted here as if it were trustworthy.

Posters would do far better to quote a quality newspaper.

[quote="Medion, post:4, topic:182430"]
So they're protecting women's dignity, ay?

When are they going to ban bikinis?

[/quote]

That is certainly the quote of the day.

:thumbsup:

[quote="paperwight, post:7, topic:182430"]
Typical of the Daily Mail, I'm sorry to say. It is not highly thought of in this country, to say the least, and my heart sinks when I see it quoted here as if it were trustworthy.

Posters would do far better to quote a quality newspaper.

[/quote]

I've often wondered if the OP has shares in the Daily Mail, it's used so often as a source by him/her. Or maybe it's used because of its apparently inexhaustible store of sensationalist and misleading headlines. :D

Considering that the ruling party has proposed the law, it is a newsworthy article, even if the headline is misleading. After all, health care has merely been proposed, not passed, but we still find it worthy of discussion.

The Economist wrote about this back in June 2009 when the commission that The Daily Mail is reporting on was convened. TDM is merely announcing what the commission decided: yes, we should formally propose a ban.

From the Economist:

Now that Mr Sarkozy has publicly condemned the burqa, the chances of a ban have risen sharply. Parliament has launched a cross-party mission to report back in six months. In fact, few women wear the full garment in France. But mayors of cities with big Muslim populations report a steady increase in numbers, due not to immigration but to its adoption by French-born women—often from North African countries where the burqa is not traditionally worn.

There are Muslim women, both in America and Europe, that have started wearing hijab as a reaction against anti-Muslim sentiment; a show of solidarity.

The already-in-place headscarf ban (in state schools) affects Jewish and Christians who cover their hair, and not just Muslim women. But saying that Christians will be next doesn’t bother them because most French people are atheists or agnostics. Tyranny of the majority at work.

I’m sitting here grinning to myself, because I have wondered the exact same thing but didn’t like to say.

Perhaps this would have been a more accurate headline:

French draft bill to fine burqa-wearing women

Some extracts:

The draft legislation will be presented in the next two weeks and should come up for debate in parliament after the March regional elections.

France’s political establishment is divided on whether to ban the burqa, with the opposition Socialists this week saying that it opposed a law even though Muslim women must be discouraged from wearing the full veil.

The burqa debate has heated up ahead of the release at the end of the month of a much-awaited report by a parliamentary panel that has conducted six months of hearings on the issue.

Many politicians from the left and right have cautioned that a draconian law banning the head-to-toe veil would be difficult to enforce and probably face a challenge in the European rights court.

Critics argue that a specific law enacted to ban the full veil would be tantamount to using a sledgehammer to swat a fly. Only 1,900 women wear the full veil in France, according to the interior ministry.

I actually found these two tidbits enlightening:

"We can measure the modernity of a society by the way it treats and respects women," he said.

Girls Gone Wild, anyone? Does that make us barbarians? Yes, he's absolutely right. It does.

In the interview, Cope argued that a law would act as a deterrent by sending a "clear message" that France will not allow women to fully cover themselves.

God forbid women cover themselves. The world would stop turning. Modesty is so... oppressive.

Soon you'll have women showing an interest in something other than being a sex object. Young girls would start to develop their character instead of their looks. What next? Reading, cooking, and spending time with our families in our free time? The return of marriage? I'm shaking in my boots, already. We certainly don't want to go down that road. :eek:

I have mixed feelings about the face covering, but I see no reason they shouldn’t be allowed to cover the bodies and hair.

There was a story last year about a woman in France denied entry to a bank unless she removed her hijab. Her face was clearly visible.

huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/27/france-woman-wearing-hija_n_270436.html

Now, I would understand their reluctance if her face were covered. When I go to the bank the teller asks for my ID. The teller looks at the ID picture, looks at my face, sees that I’m me, and gives me my money. If my face were covered, how would the teller know if it’s really me in there?

But there’s absolutely no reason a women shouldn’t cover her body and hair. Why should the hijab-wearing woman have to expose her hair? Hair doesn’t identify a woman. Women change their hair styles and colors all the time so it’s certainly not for identification purposes.

On the other hand, if a woman feels that covering her face is modest, it seems cruel to prevent her from doing so. But I’m wondering how she’ll do banking and other things that require ID. Thumb print maybe?

I am completely against the Burka and Islamic practices in general. But banning them? Really? All that's going to do is confine those already marginalized women to their houses, since their husbands/fathers/brothers or whoever "manages" them just won't let them go out.

All that's gonna happen is these isolated women are going to raise their children in similar isolation from the real world.

It is a matter of public safety that people should not be allowed to go around with their faces covered. It is an affront to the dignity of the wearer also of course, just as much as going to work in a bikini would be, but bottom line is we have a right to see who it is we are dealing with in public. People with sheets over their head and other such spooks should be confined to trick-or-treating at Halloween.

Like foot-binding in ancient China, the use of these full face coverings are relics from a bygone era of primitive indifference to the dignity of people. Such practices certainly have no place in civilized society. To the extent that they are the norm of other societies, they reflect on the barbarity of those societies.

Daily Mail — Circulation: 2,241,788
According to wapedia.mobi/en/Daily_Mail

[quote=wikipedia]he Daily Mail is a British daily tabloid newspaper. First published in 1896 by Lord Northcliffe, it is the United Kingdom’s second biggest-selling daily newspaper after The Sun. Its sister paper, The Mail on Sunday was launched in 1982. Scottish and Irish editions of the paper were launched in 1947 and 2006 respectively. The Daily Mail was Britain’s first daily newspaper aimed at what is now considered to be the middle-market[citation needed] and the first British paper to sell a million copies a day.[3]

[/quote]

Seems to be doing all right, in spite of your opinions.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.