French minister: Muslim women who wear veils like ‘negroes’ supporting slavery

[anatolian]

Nothing to do with security. It has to do with the insecurity of the French to recognize a changing population. As well as the insecurity of the French in recognizing that Islam is no longer relegated to the exterior of French society.

OK. I am not living in France. If you think it is the case....

 

[Bhabha]

OK. I am not living in France. If you think it is the case...

I apologize if I sounded harsh. [emoji24] I did not mean to.

Just really not liking France at the moment. They have always been double faced about these issues.

 

[anatolian]

I apologize if I sounded harsh. [emoji24] I did not mean to.

Just really not liking France at the moment. They have always been double faced about these issues.

No, nothing wrong with your expression. But these things can be mixed up easily..What do you mean with "France" or "They" . Do you think the ban of veils come from the ruling class or is it a general opinion of the French society?

 

[sister herb]

And the headscarf is banned in all public buildings, most infamously including schools. Any Muslim girls are forbidden from wearing the hijab in school premises.

This might lead to the situations that Muslims girls don´t go to the public schools as often than at the nowadays. Islamic communities will build their own Islamic schools for girls only and when at the same time the society talks about the needs to integrate religious and enthnic minorities to the society, it by its own laws and bans makes it even more difficult than it´s now.

At the same time sociologists and other experts are talking how important the integration is as the way of prevent isolation of etchnic groups and by that way prevent the terrorism. Talking about how those people don´t just fit to the French society and with different kinds of bans they only gives to some people the message that they aren´t welcomed. And this will leads to the isolation...

I see some kind of vicous circle with all of this.

 

[sister herb]

^^ This similar discussion is nowadays in many European countries, not only in France. Like I have seen it odd in my country when people claim that Muslim immigrants don´t fit to the society which follows the Christian values. Then when the church told they will support and help the refugees and asylum seekers, same people have resigned from the church as the protest. Why? Just because the church adheres to Christian values in this case.

:heated:

 

[noraina]

This whole point has been very controversial in England as well, that the Muslim youth in particular do not make enough efforts to integrate with wider society, are not 'British' enough and are creating 'closed' communities.

I have no idea where they get these statistics from. All of my Muslim friends and myself included are proud British citizens Alhamdulillah, we love our English accents , our parents vote in the elections - granted I do not exactly agree with the foreign policy of this country but nonetheless if I ever went to live anywhere in the world I would always want to come back here.

What creates problems is when people start complaining Muslims should go back home (Trump ideology). Why should I go? Why must people say you cannot be Muslim and British at the same time? I honestly cannot see the conflict between the two so it seems some people see the need to shout out how Muslims are the 'other'. I mean Alhamdulillah the UK is still very tolerant compared to France but when these issues crop up it is so annoying.
And then those delusional teenagers running away to ISIS aren't exactly helping either tbh. :hmm:

 

[anatolian]

^^ This similar discussion is nowadays in many European countries, not only in France. Like I have seen it odd in my country when people claim that Muslim immigrants don´t fit to the society which follows the Christian values. Then when the church told they will support and help the refugees and asylum seekers, same people have resigned from the church as the protest. Why? Just because the church adheres to Christian values in this case.

:heated:

I dont see any correlation between these two. That one is about helping people who are in need, but the above discussion is about the freedoms in society. If those refugees in your country do not respect the values of Finns then those Finns are right to think so. But if it is that they think those refugees are not living like Christians then it is wrong. Because it is about religious freedom.

 

[sister herb]

It´s the same discussion in here and in France as well in many European countries. Difference is that here politicians don´t try to make bans of hijabs etc.

 

[Serinity]

I agree. We should be listening to the muslima women themselves, and not to our own biases and preconceived ideas.

I wonder though, while I strongly support a muslima's right to wear what she wants (as well as a man to wear a turban or long beard or whatever he wants), how many of you here would join me in also supporting the rights of nudists to wear what they want (nothing at all)?

No, we should not let nudists go naked.

Only people without a sense of morality would allow that.

And no, you using my statement as a cardboard against me, doesn't detract from the truth/reality.

What I am saying is, do you think people should be allowed to have intercourse on the street?

There is a limit to 'freedom'. you may wear as much clothes you want to, but you can't walk naked. Only someone devoid of morality would say that.

Should we allow people to agree to suicide? If 2 people agree to kill eachother, should we allow that? No. Sadly, the more materialstic you get, the more blind you get to certain stuff.
It is disgusting and immodest to go naked outside in public.

I will never support nudist going naked in public. Just as I will never support transgenders or homosexuals. They may cry or moan however much they want, I will never support immorality and sinning.

 

[Pygoscelis]

Why must people say you cannot be Muslim and British at the same time? I honestly cannot see the conflict between the two so it seems some people see the need to shout out how Muslims are the 'other'.

This and mentalities like it are the best case I can make to answer your question:

I will never support nudist going naked in public. Just as I will never support transgenders or homosexuals. They may cry or moan however much they want, I will never support immorality and sinning.

noraina, you may have difficulty being British or French or Canadian and Muslim at the same time if your adherence to Islam comes before your identity and loyalty to your nation. There can be a conflict. Serenity's example and hypocrisy (wanting non-muslims to respect muslims and benign muslim behaviour they are not comfortable with, while disrespecting and denying rights to the homosexual and transgendered due to Islamic beliefs) shows why I wouldn't want mass immigration of Muslims of his sort to Canada. Unfortunately we can't screen everybody (and expect honest answers) as they apply to immigrate, so blanket rules applying to all muslims may start to gain an air or reasonableness.... and people like Donald Trump then twist and exagerate to the point of wanting to ban all muslims. I would not ban all muslims, but I do wish to maintain the moral and societal progress my country has made, and there is a real conflict between the current British/French/Canadian values and Islamic values.

Imagine if Saudi Arabia was a democracy. Would you not be alarmed if millions of Christians or Atheists (or nudists) moved there, with very different and un-islamic or anti-islamic views? This is the same reason that Israel has (and the only legitimate reason, amongst a dozen illegitimate reasons) for not integrating Palestinians into one joined democratic country.

 

[sister herb]

Surely some French see hijabi ladies on the streets as a threat to traditional French way of life but by the same way through the ages also older generations have seen younger generations and their new habits and values as similar threats to their traditions and they have said how they will destroy the moral of the society. Would the world be better if new generations wouldn´t never change anything but we still follow the same ways of life and moral habits like our great grandparents? The world is changing all the time, people move like they have moved during the history of the mankind and surely this kind of moral irritation because of the strange habits has continued during the centuries.

 

[sister herb]

I don´t think that only Muslims are so "old-fashioned" that they don´t accept the idea of nudism, specially the public nudism. It´s quite common way to think in this world. Or is here any country where public nudism would to be legal or at the least generally accepted moral norm?

 

[noraina]

But in order to be British or French or Canadian must one have to accept and indeed, agree with, everything that country may have in its legal system or society? I do not think so. I mentioned before I disagree with some parts of British foreign policy, I also believe that nudity (which btw many non-Muslims find objectionable) and homosexuality are wrong. Does that mean I am not British? If this is the case, every political dissenter or opposition party is also not British. I do not think that either. I said before I do believe Muslim nations would do well to learn from Western countries in some aspects.
You may have heard that Sayeeda Warsi, a British politician, resigned from her position because she objected against Britain's position concerning Palestine - that does not make her any less a British citizen, even if she disagrees with the government's central standpoint.
On an ethnic or racial sense, I do not agree with everything in Afghan culture - but I am still proud to be of Afghani descent.
In Islam there is this branch of Islamic law called 'urf' or 'local customs'. Our foremost loyalty is only to Allah SWT, but as long as they do not contradict the teachings of Islam, a Muslim is permitted to, and in fact encouraged to, follow the law of the land or the accepted customs in a specific nation.
I see a greater hypocrisy in the way a nation will permit homosexuality or even nudity while forbidding women to wear the hijab or niqab, so much for freedom for all.

 

[sister herb]

I mentioned before I disagree with some parts of British foreign policy, I also believe that nudity and homosexuality are
wrong. Does that mean I am not British?

There is no legal practice which would force citizens of some country to accept their country´s foreign policy. Maybe in some countries it´s better be quiet if you don´t accept it but they are usually called as dictatorships. Persons whose claims that everyone have to accept the countries foreign policy etc. what the government decides, might not want that their country would calls as the dictatorship.

What then if some Christian British for example disagrees with the government? Is he then also a non-British? Then all the political opposition is in the same position...

 

[noraina]

Perhaps I understand why some find the niqab intimidating, but what on earth is so offensive about a woman with a piece of cloth wrapped around her head? Where I live nuns are walking up and down the street in their flowing robes and heads covered and don't even get a second glance. To see a woman with her head covered and in long robes should be quite an acceptable sight, especially in Western countries. Unlike homosexuality or nudity, which, for the most part, have been illegal and looked down on in Western culture for centuries. It should be easy to adjust to the hijab and abaya, so why the controversy?

Tbh for me the reasons do not have a moral basis - rather one of racism and politics.

 

[Serinity]

This and mentalities like it are the best case I can make to answer your question:



noraina, you may have difficulty being British or French or Canadian and Muslim at the same time if your adherence to Islam comes before your identity and loyalty to your nation. There can be a conflict. Serenity's example and hypocrisy (wanting non-muslims to respect muslims and benign muslim behaviour they are not comfortable with, while disrespecting and denying rights to the homosexual and transgendered due to Islamic beliefs) shows why I wouldn't want mass immigration of Muslims of his sort to Canada. Unfortunately we can't screen everybody (and expect honest answers) as they apply to immigrate, so blanket rules applying to all muslims may start to gain an air or reasonableness.... and people like Donald Trump then twist and exagerate to the point of wanting to ban all muslims. I would not ban all muslims, but I do wish to maintain the moral and societal progress my country has made, and there is a real conflict between the current British/French/Canadian values and Islamic values.

Imagine if Saudi Arabia was a democracy. Would you not be alarmed if millions of Christians or Atheists (or nudists) moved there, with very different and un-islamic or anti-islamic views? This is the same reason that Israel has (and the only legitimate reason, amongst a dozen illegitimate reasons) for not integrating Palestinians into one joined democratic country.

It isn't really hypocrisy.. It is common sense.

Would you tolerate rapists walking around? No. 100% equality is unrealistic. I won't support / tolerate rapists, or people mutually having intercourse down the street. It is detrimental to the wellbeing of one's morality. Children will become confused etc. It is a disease.

Idc about being british, or canadian or whatever. Just as Idc about being a Nazi, or German.

 

[Bhabha]

This and mentalities like it are the best case I can make to answer your question:



noraina, you may have difficulty being British or French or Canadian and Muslim at the same time if your adherence to Islam comes before your identity and loyalty to your nation. There can be a conflict. Serenity's example and hypocrisy (wanting non-muslims to respect muslims and benign muslim behaviour they are not comfortable with, while disrespecting and denying rights to the homosexual and transgendered due to Islamic beliefs) shows why I wouldn't want mass immigration of Muslims of his sort to Canada. Unfortunately we can't screen everybody (and expect honest answers) as they apply to immigrate, so blanket rules applying to all muslims may start to gain an air or reasonableness.... and people like Donald Trump then twist and exagerate to the point of wanting to ban all muslims. I would not ban all muslims, but I do wish to maintain the moral and societal progress my country has made, and there is a real conflict between the current British/French/Canadian values and Islamic values.

Imagine if Saudi Arabia was a democracy. Would you not be alarmed if millions of Christians or Atheists (or nudists) moved there, with very different and un-islamic or anti-islamic views? This is the same reason that Israel has (and the only legitimate reason, amongst a dozen illegitimate reasons) for not integrating Palestinians into one joined democratic country.

You are under the assumption that Muslims immigrate all of the time. The Muslim is not just an immigrant. And the view that Muslims are just immigrants is what creates disparities for converts who choose to exercise their religious freedom that is so espoused and protected in the name of Liberty by Western democracies. Do not confuse the sudden rush of Syrian refugees who are not all Muslim, as the migration of Islam into Europe, Canada or the United States.

On the note of Islam and Europe. Islam has been part of Europe for more than 800 years. It is not recent. It is not new. Islam has been residing longer in Europe than the Americas have been colonized by the British, the Spaniards or the colonized Australian continent. It was not the Muslims who forced Islam into Spain. But who offered protection to Christians and Jewish people in need of protection and who initially established trading routes with Europe with the trading systems of Asia.

Me thinks you need to take a look at the historical realities of Islam in the context of Europe. Yes Islam did go into Spain. But the fact is that many scholars define the relation of Islam with Spain to be one of harmony and one that was conducive to the many advancements we often assume to be internal to the European society. Read Americo Castro for example and I will also have my dissertation posted when I am done with it about this. Non Muslim scholars if I may add.

For the Europeans and Americans and western countries to deny the exercise of religious freedom in their own backyards is a serious disregard for their own values. The values which they have tried to forcibly implement down the throats of other countries. In the case of France and the burka. If the argument of France is that it is trying to protect its values and it society. Then the assumption would be that they would also do the same to others. However their reason for invading Afghanistan and validating the invasion was so that France could "liberate" Afghanistan women while disregarding the complicated society that Afghanistan is due to foreign invasion. This is called political and logical myopia.

On a further note. Saudi Arabia has a massive amount of Christians. But the requirement to wear the abaya is not something randomly imposed or arbitrary. It had been there for a long long time and it is there to protect women from the massive amounts of foreign male workers as well. The regulations of Saudi stipulate that sexual inter course outside of marriage or sexual displays in public are banned for both couples regardless of whether they are Muslim or non Muslim. Saudi has never recognized homosexual marriage so therefore the stipulation would be that homosexuals can be homosexuals without sexual inter course and still function in Saudi society since sex is a private matter in the first place. There are probably members of the LGTB community in Saudi who live there and are Saudi. But who know that sex is illegal in the first place and punishable. It is not a random punishment but one known and inscribed in law. There is no need to politicize and thus make the issue visible.

The ban on the hijab in France however is random. The ban on the veil in Europe is random since Europe defines itself through the conscious decision of human agency. Through human emancipation. Through the freedom of expression and Liberty. But refuses to allow this to Muslim women who consciously decide to define themselves as Muslims and as such is unwarranted and hypocritical.

(If there are spelling mistakes. I apologize my phone autocorrects)[emoji24][emoji24][emoji24][emoji24][emoji24]

 

[Bhabha]

No, nothing wrong with your expression. But these things can be mixed up easily..What do you mean with "France" or "They" . Do you think the ban of veils come from the ruling class or is it a general opinion of the French society?

Well in order to have a ban approved. The veil needs to become a public issue. So it needs to be politicized and made into a public issue. Most likely by politics or by legislations that sort of inculcate this desire to implement a ban.

There is a really good book by social psychologist Daniel Kahneman that talks about the psychology of public policy and how people are first primed (basically brainwashed) about the horrors of something and then policies are implemented that seem to make sense in the minds of those who have been primed. Its not just politics. But the entire system and the institutions are slowly set up to allow this public opinion. Tv shows for example. Marketing.

Quite interesting. [emoji39]

 

[Pygoscelis]

I don´t think that only Muslims are so "old-fashioned" that they don´t accept the idea of nudism, specially the public nudism. It´s quite common way to think in this world. Or is here any country where public nudism would to be legal or at the least generally accepted moral norm?

It varies from place to place. In Ontario it is legal for women to go topless, for example (though few do). Nude beaches are all across europe, and we have one in Toronto as well.

My point though was that I see little basis to discriminate against one group based on clothing and not against another. If muslimas in France want to be accepted wearing burkas, in a place where people find that disturbing, why shouldn't the nudists also be accepted in places that are disturbed by nudity? If we are to allow community norms to dictate, then you have no basis to complain when such norms dictate against your religious practices or garments.

 

[Pygoscelis]

Perhaps I understand why some find the niqab intimidating, but what on earth is so offensive about a woman with a piece of cloth wrapped around her head?

I could never figure that out either. I think it is more bigotry once get that benign. But full on burkas, yes, they make me uncomfortable to be around. I have seen these people walking down the street in downtown Toronto and I find it much more disturbing than I would naked people walking down the street. So why should we make one legal and the other not?