It has been illegal to wear the face veil or ‘niqab’ in public places in Belgium since July.
Mr Nekkaz, who is standing as an independent in next year’s presidential elections in France, is opposed to the niqab but says governments should not intervene to decide who wears what and when.
“I am profoundly laic, profoundly republican and I cannot accept that a great country like Belgium votes for and applies anti-liberal laws,” he told local press. “I think this is a very dangerous downhill slope,” he said.
“Today we might stop women wearing the niqab but tomorrow who will prevent a parliament from voting for laws that ban miniskirts or that ban tattoos or pierced ears? You never know where this kind of downhill slope will end.”
Mr Nekkaz created a million-euro fund called the “Fund for the defence of laicity and liberty” from which he says he will pay all fines imposed on women for wearing the niqab in public. He is also threatening to take both Belgium and France – where a similar law exists – to the European Court of Human Rights.
After Brussels he is scheduled to travel to Roubaix, France, to pay a 75 euro fine
I am glad to see him doing what he is doing and I agree with him on why he's doing it. I too would never wear or urge anybody to wear a face veil, but I would defend their right to do so. If I had the money I'd join him in paying these fines to make the point to the parliament.
Or if they tried to put such a ban here in Canada, I may just wear a veil myself in solidarity and to make the point. Imagine if thousands of people, muslim and non-muslim, women and men wore veils in a sign of protest to the law. That may get their attention.
I'm concerned. I disagree with the face veil ban but I think this businessman is setting a unwise precedent. There is a possibility that a businessman will start paying fines for other criminals who commit certain offences. These criminals and potential criminals will not fear the criminal justice system because they will know fines will be paid off by some wealthy businessman.
I think the above should be taken into consideration.
I was looking at myself talking to myself and I realized this conversation...I was having with myself looking at myself was a conversation with myself that I needed to have with myself.
I was looking at myself talking to myself and I realized this conversation...I was having with myself looking at myself was a conversation with myself that I needed to have with myself.
I am glad to see him doing what he is doing and I agree with him on why he's doing it. I too would never wear or urge anybody to wear a face veil, but I would defend their right to do so. If I had the money I'd join him in paying these fines to make the point to the parliament.
Or if they tried to put such a ban here in Canada, I may just wear a veil myself in solidarity and to make the point. Imagine if thousands of people, muslim and non-muslim, women and men wore veils in a sign of protest to the law. That may get their attention.
For some reason, I pictured you as a dude, so reading the part about you wearing a veil made me do a double-take.
I actually lived in France (been back in the US about a month now) and I was there when the burqa law was put into effect. I think what the guy is doing is great- he isn't even a Muslim. He is basically saying that the law is completely unfair and that the French idea of "laïcité" is completely screwed up (which, by the way, it IS). By paying for their fines, he is allowing Muslim women to continue their right to practice their religion in the way that they want. Also, it isn't all the time that women are given fines for wearing the burqa, most of the time officers turn their heads, or they have much more important things to take care of.
There is a possibility that a businessman will start paying fines for other criminals who commit certain offences.
Do you regard the sisters in France that are wearing niqab as criminals? I can't tell, but the wording of the sentence seems to imply that apart from the criminals who wear niqab, this might start happening for other criminals. Forgive me if I've understood wrong.
format_quote Originally Posted by .iman.
I think what the guy is doing is great- he isn't even a Muslim.
Muslim and non-Muslim sources seem to suggest that he is a Muslim:
Rachid Nekkaz, who is a Muslim, said in a webcast he would help pay fines and was putting a property worth around €2m up for sale to fund his campaign.
Stunningly beautiful adhaan from the Dome of the Rock in Masjid ul Aqsa Download (right click and choose "save target/link as").
This is a clear message for mankind in order that they may be warned thereby, and that they may know that He is only One God, and that those of understanding may take heed (14:52)
Indeed Allah knows, and you know not (16: 74, part)
Do you regard the sisters in France that are wearing niqab as criminals? I can't tell, but the wording of the sentence seems to imply that apart from the criminals who wear niqab, this might start happening for other criminals. Forgive me if I've understood wrong.
Salaam,
I'm not saying Muslim women that wear the Niqaab are criminals. I'm talking about individuals being convicted of a different offence.
I was looking at myself talking to myself and I realized this conversation...I was having with myself looking at myself was a conversation with myself that I needed to have with myself.
I'm not saying Muslim women that wear the Niqaab are criminals. I'm talking about individuals being convicted of a different offence.
Assalam alaykum.
Wearing something you want to wear, or wearing something for religious reasons is not and should not be seen as an offence. I get what you mean that they might start paying other fines but I struggle to see how wearing a niqab can compare to any other crimes or offence. I just dont see the point of the law, niqab does not cause harm to anyone.
i bought a v for vendetta mask on ebay and reinforced it with fibreglass and resin - i also cut out the eye-holes and attached some ballistic sunglasses for good measure, you never know - they tear gas and shoot rubber bullets at people these days ...................
if only we could start local groups to turn out in masses with masks on............
Wearing something you want to wear, or wearing something for religious reasons is not and should not be seen as an offence. I get what you mean that they might start paying other fines but I struggle to see how wearing a niqab can compare to any other crimes or offence. I just dont see the point of the law, niqab does not cause harm to anyone.
I see where you are coming from. Try to see it from this perspective. The government states what is legal and what is not legal. Animal testing is legal but not is necessarily seen as moral. Parking on a double yellow lines is illegal but is not considered to be immoral. A criminal is simply a person who breaks the law. So if a Muslim women wears the Niqaab, this means she broke the law and would be viewed as a criminal from the French government perspective. Here, law and morality must be distinguished. Just because the government declares certain acts constitute a criminal offence, does not mean it is right.
From our perspective, we disagree with the ban and see Muslim women that wear the Niqaab as victims.
I wouldn't put too much emphasis on the term criminal. I can become a leader and decide wearing lipstick whilst eating a burger is criminal....
Last edited by GuestFellow; 10-16-2011 at 11:26 AM.
I was looking at myself talking to myself and I realized this conversation...I was having with myself looking at myself was a conversation with myself that I needed to have with myself.
I see where you are coming from. Try to see it from this perspective. The government states what is legal and what is not legal. Animal testing is legal but not is necessarily seen as moral. Parking on a double yellow lines is illegal but is not considered to be immoral. A criminal is simply a person who breaks the law. So if a Muslim women wears the Niqaab, this means she broke the law and would be viewed as a criminal from the French government perspective. Here, law and morality must be distinguished. Just because the government declares certain acts constitute a criminal offence, does not mean it is right.
From our perspective, we disagree with the ban and see Muslim women that wear the Niqaab as victims.
I wouldn't put too much emphasis on the term criminal. I can become a leader and decide wearing lipstick whilst eating a burger is criminal....
Yep, I get your point. But what I am saying is that the business man who is paying the fines knows that it is a silly law, it mainly targets Muslim women. Now other offences such as parking on double yellow lines and such are not silly because they are aimed at everyone and people can easily not park there. Some Muslims see niqab as Fardh so they wont just take it off. So other businessmen should be intelligent enough to know which offences deserve to be punished and which offences dont and also which offenders are victimes and which arent. Even lawyers end up sticking up for criminals so we cant expect no-one to stand up for niqabis.
Oh yeh, you sound like a proper law person, should have stuck with law lol
format_quote Originally Posted by Ramadhan
And if I ever become the owner of this forum, I'll declare posting delicious cakes as avatar and sig as a crime deserving capital punishment!
that law is so ridiculous - what if there are pathogens in the air - or people want to avoid exhaust fume inhalation?
Then the French government will jump through hoops to allow people to wear those types of masks, while still rendering the niqab illegal. Not that I agree with them. It's just most likely what they would do based on their behaviour in the past. Remember the banning of religious symbols? Technically, a Sikh man's beard and turban and a Christian's cross necklace are religious symbols, but the French government made concessions for these while all but admitting the ban was specifically targetting women who wore a headscarf.
I wish the French government would quit the whole 'pro-secular, anti-all-religions-not-just-Islam' facade and just admit they don't like Isam and Muslims.
The thing with the French government there is that they only apply their secular laws to Muslims, and they are taking it too far. You don't hear news stories about Christian girls being sent home because they were wearing a cross necklace. Instead, you have Muslim girls in high school, who can't wear their hijab, but still choose to dress correctly either wearing abaya, or a long skirt and long sleeves. There have been instances where the girls have been singled out (sent to the principal's office) and basically interrogated because they were still observing the Muslim dress, but without the hijab. In one particular case, the girl was sent home and asked not to return until she wore "normal" clothes. Other girls have been told that they can't wear long skirts.
So the question is, where will they draw the line? First, they ban "all" religious symbols (which basically just means hijab), then they ban niqab, now they are punishing girls for wearing skirts to school? All of this in the name of "secularism"!
I used to be a law student. I decided to study Maths, though I am thinking of becoming a self-employed Will Writer for a while.
I was looking at myself talking to myself and I realized this conversation...I was having with myself looking at myself was a conversation with myself that I needed to have with myself.
I do believe Tragic brought up an excellent point, but keep in mind one thing: Usually, bails are only given to petty things, or seemingly-petty things. You won't be given a bailout for committing murder or doing something extremely fraudulent. In this case, I do believe the businessman is wise and noble for doing so. And I think most people will agree, he's a generous man for taking this bold step.
I used to be a law student. I decided to study Maths, though I am thinking of becoming a self-employed Will Writer for a while.
You don't have to be a lawyer to write wills where you live? You would have to be if you lived in in Canada. Doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. I don't see why non-lawyers shouldn't be able to write wills for people. After all, there are those "do it yourself" will kits around now anyway.
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
When you create an account, we remember exactly what you've read, so you always come right back where you left off. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and share your thoughts. Sign Up
Scimitar liked this post
It's torture...
Hide
Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks