French Report Calls for Ban on Veil

[Duque de Bragança]

I'm still not exactly understanding what you mean here.  What cases dropped?  What is this about not teaching crusades?  Lets start with what is the goal of this type of legislation?  What was the goal of the previous legislation?  Were those goals met?

Not only directed to Raz

ONCE MORE: THE CURRENT DEBATE IN FRANCE IS ABOUT THE FULL VEIL NOT A MERE SCARF
which does not prevent identification.

First issue was the number of minor girls wearing "islamic clothing" in a religiously neutral place such as school (in France) of which the piece of cloth over the head was only the beginning.

Teaching the history of crusades because it is "a war of christian/european/white agression against islam" so as to respect their feelings (leftist logic don't ask), same thing for the extermination of jews since it's "all jewish propaganda" according to islamists and "we want peace in our classrooms" in our time.

The goal of the current legislation ? It hasn't been voted yet (niqab ban). It's mostly for security purposes in order to obtain identification if refused on religious grounds.

The goal of the previous legislation ? Keep the school free from religious interference and provide legal guidelines if things went bad e.g Sports classes are unislamic, we want female only sports classes in public schools etc.
There is a conciliation procedure after an exclusion. It banned btw all ostentatious symbols (not only islamic).
Islamist wishes went beyond a mere piece of cloth, that's what I am repeating from the beginning.

Not so much of a fuss now and the number of girls "freely" wearing the veil has sharply decreased and the full veil appearance in schools has been thwarted.

[Warspite]

white socks with black shoes.

Give me liberty, or give me death!

I disagree with what you wear, but I will defend to the death your right to wear it.

[Admiral Yi]

Murder Boner's right to wear white socks with black shoes is not worth the bones of a single Croatian grenzer.

[Razgovory]

I'm still not exactly understanding what you mean here.  What cases dropped?  What is this about not teaching crusades?  Lets start with what is the goal of this type of legislation?  What was the goal of the previous legislation?  Were those goals met?

Not only directed to Raz

ONCE MORE: THE CURRENT DEBATE IN FRANCE IS ABOUT THE FULL VEIL NOT A MERE SCARF
which does not prevent identification.

First issue was the number of minor girls wearing "islamic clothing" in a religiously neutral place such as school (in France) of which the piece of cloth over the head was only the beginning.

Teaching the history of crusades because it is "a war of christian/european/white agression against islam" so as to respect their feelings (leftist logic don't ask), same thing for the extermination of jews since it's "all jewish propaganda" according to islamists and "we want peace in our classrooms" in our time.

The goal of the current legislation ? It hasn't been voted yet (niqab ban). It's mostly for security purposes in order to obtain identification if refused on religious grounds.

The goal of the previous legislation ? Keep the school free from religious interference and provide legal guidelines if things went bad e.g Sports classes are unislamic, we want female only sports classes in public schools etc.
There is a conciliation procedure after an exclusion. It banned btw all ostentatious symbols (not only islamic).
Islamist wishes went beyond a mere piece of cloth, that's what I am repeating from the beginning.

Not so much of a fuss now and the number of girls "freely" wearing the veil has sharply decreased and the full veil appearance in schools has been thwarted.

This religiously neutral thing, that's a French cultural value yes?  That's what it said in the original article.  I'm guess you broadly agree with it.  When you say things such as "Islamist wishes went beyond a mere piece of cloth" and "of which the piece of cloth over the head was only the beginning" what do you mean?  What is it you think these "islamists" want?  What is it the beginning of?

[Grallon]

I'm still not exactly understanding what you mean here.  What cases dropped?  What is this about not teaching crusades?  Lets start with what is the goal of this type of legislation?  What was the goal of the previous legislation?  Were those goals met?

Not only directed to Raz

ONCE MORE: THE CURRENT DEBATE IN FRANCE IS ABOUT THE FULL VEIL NOT A MERE SCARF
which does not prevent identification.

First issue was the number of minor girls wearing "islamic clothing" in a religiously neutral place such as school (in France) of which the piece of cloth over the head was only the beginning.

Teaching the history of crusades because it is "a war of christian/european/white agression against islam" so as to respect their feelings (leftist logic don't ask), same thing for the extermination of jews since it's "all jewish propaganda" according to islamists and "we want peace in our classrooms" in our time.

The goal of the current legislation ? It hasn't been voted yet (niqab ban). It's mostly for security purposes in order to obtain identification if refused on religious grounds.

The goal of the previous legislation ? Keep the school free from religious interference and provide legal guidelines if things went bad e.g Sports classes are unislamic, we want female only sports classes in public schools etc.
There is a conciliation procedure after an exclusion. It banned btw all ostentatious symbols (not only islamic).
Islamist wishes went beyond a mere piece of cloth, that's what I am repeating from the beginning.

Not so much of a fuss now and the number of girls "freely" wearing the veil has sharply decreased and the full veil appearance in schools has been thwarted.

Eminently sensible. 




G.

[grumbler]

Not only directed to Raz

ONCE MORE: THE CURRENT DEBATE IN FRANCE IS ABOUT THE FULL VEIL NOT A MERE SCARF
which does not prevent identification.

I think part of the problem here is that "veil" and "scarf" have different meanings in French and English, and shouting about them when you don't understand their meanings simply makes you look like a loud ignoramus, as opposed to a quiet one.

A burqa is not a veil or a scarf in English, it is a burqua.  if this is what you mean, then say so (just don't yell; yelling is impolite).  Otherwise, I don't think your shouted distinction between veils and scarves is meaningful.

The rest of your post doesn't make any sense to me, but since you are not discussing the issue with me I don't care.

[Syt]

I see scarves on the street every day, by the dozens:


Occasionally, I will see chicks in veils:


I think I've only seen a burqa once in Vienna.

[The Minsky Moment]

By that same reasoning, people don't have rights either.

No that doesn't follow.  The maxim is that every right must have a remedy.  If a limited government violates a citizen's right, the citizen has a remedy which the infringer of the right has bound itself to honor.  That does not exist among Westphalian states, which explains why all those hundreds of principalities, bishoprics and states whose "rights" of non-interference were supposedly guaranteed by the treaty ceased to exist within about 200 years.

[ulmont]

The maxim is that every right must have a remedy.

Like consular notification...

[grumbler]

Like consular notification...

Oooh!  Cryptic.  I like it.

I'll try one:  like eshewing obfuscation....

[ulmont]

Like consular notification...

Oooh!  Cryptic.  I like it.

I'll try one:  like eshewing obfuscation....

Not that cryptic.  The case is Medellin v. Texas, from 2008. 

The United States ratified the Vienna Convention, which provides in pertinent part that

if a person detained by a foreign country "so requests, the competent authorities of the receiving State shall, without delay, inform the consular post of the sending State" of such detention, and "inform the [detainee] of his righ[t]" to request assistance from the consul of his own state. Art. 36(1)(b), id., at 101.

The Supreme Court assumed that

Article 36 grants foreign nationals "an individually enforceable right to request that their consular officers be notified of their detention, and an accompanying right to be informed by authorities of the availability of consular notification."

Not withstanding that assumption of an individually enforceable right, the Supreme Court held that Medellin had no remedy, and in fact that the only entity that could do anything related to the right was Mexico, who could complain to the UN Security Council.

So again, Medellin has an "individually enforceable right" that he cannot, in fact, enforce.
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/06-984.pdf

I'm pretty sure Minsky saw the case when it came down.

[Alatriste]

This is nothing short of religious and or ethnic discrimination. Is it illegal for a woman in Paris to cover her face with a scarf if it's cold outside?

That's a very interesting question. And sane, and logical too.

My answer is, yes, she can. And under the proposed ban, a woman in Paris actually could wear a burkha on the street. She would, however, be forced to remove it when entering a public building, an school or boarding an airplane ("interdiction dans les services publics, transports inclus", if you know French)

Can you enter a public building, an school or board a plane wearing a hockey mask?

http://www.france24.com/fr/20100126-voile-int-gral-mission-parlementaire-veut-linterdire-services-publics

[Duque de Bragança]

This religiously neutral thing, that's a French cultural value yes?  That's what it said in the original
article.  I'm guess you broadly agree with it.

Yes, it is called laïcité here and there's no real equivalent in English.
Correct guess.

  When you say things such as "Islamist wishes went beyond a mere piece of cloth" and "of which the piece of cloth over the head was only the beginning" what do you mean?  What is it you think these "islamists" want? 

Back in 1989, it started with MINORS i.e people without full civil rights for age reasons wearing mere scarves AT SCHOOL. Nobody said anything about adults wearing scarves or even full veils since it's a then unknown salafist gimmick, furthermore foreign to North Africa and Turkey, regions where most muslims in France come from.

I stick to the term of full veil as a synonym for the niqab, burqa and the like since veil is not that precise (cf. Josephus mixing it up with scarf) and for a law, specially in Roman-style law, ambiguities are not desirable.

Problem is, after turning a blind eye in the name of cultural sensitiveness to the appearance of the veil/scarf (not the niqab/full veil cf. Syt's pic) other "requests" followed such as gender-separated sports classes, no participation in swimming classes since it would require unislamic dress, revision of the history curriculum in state-owned schools. I said "public" previously but it is not in the British sense.

Please note that religious schools do exist. Even religious schools have to get some form of state recognition of their curriculum if they want to get some subsidies. 

Today, in 2010, instances of islamist fundies refusing their niqad-clad wifes to be examined by a male doctor or refusing to have them remove their full veils when dealing with the French administration which requires identification for obvious reasons.

Let's say than drawing a veil over this issue no longer possible (se voiler la face as they say in France).

What is it you think these "islamists" want? 
What is it the beginning of?

The islamist agenda.
PC surrendering leading to self-segregated salafist "communities" while leeching on French welfare and guess what, after given radical anti-western/french/european/whatever indoctrination, terrorist cells.

It has to be mentioned there are regional elections in March...

[grumbler]

Not that cryptic.  The case is Medellin v. Texas, from 2008. 
(snip)

I don't see how that supports your contention that states have rights (or at least a right).  Or is this no longer your contention?

[Josephus]

This is nothing short of religious and or ethnic discrimination. Is it illegal for a woman in Paris to cover her face with a scarf if it's cold outside?

That's a very interesting question. And sane, and logical too.

My answer is, yes, she can. And under the proposed ban, a woman in Paris actually could wear a burkha on the street. She would, however, be forced to remove it when entering a public building, an school or boarding an airplane ("interdiction dans les services publics, transports inclus", if you know French)

Can you enter a public building, an school or board a plane wearing a hockey mask?

http://www.france24.com/fr/20100126-voile-int-gral-mission-parlementaire-veut-linterdire-services-publics

See that's all OK. But after she boards the plane, shows her face to a security woman, who checks it against the passport, why can't she put her Burka back on when she sits down on the plane. I think there's few people who would disagree with said woman showing who she is to proper, sensitive authorities, but once she shows who she is, why not allow her to cover up.
If she's gonna blow up the plane, she's gonna do it with or without her Burka on.