From the article:
Quote:This dispute was only resolved in 1801, when Napoleon Bonaparte signed a Concordat with the Pope, which officially brought the Catholic religion under state control.
Do you think this is a good idea - one that should be replicated? To me it seems to be the opposite of secularism. It is the state taking over the church - like with your previous example that the state should get to decide who is an 'official' clergy and thus legally allowed to wear a religious looking garment in public.
Quote:Also, as many have pointed out, the burqa is not a religious requirement. Many women wear it for cultural reasons. Just as western women vary greatly in the extent of clothing they would feel comfortable in, so to do muslim women. No-one would suggest forcing a pious Christian woman, or even a conservative atheist, to uncover her neck or shoulders so that she may be more easily identified. This is the same thing.
Also, from the Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen, which arose at the same time (the revolution) and whcih acts as a constitution:
Quote:http://www.hrcr.org/docs/frenchdec.html
Liberty consists in the freedom to do everything which injures no one else; hence the exercise of the natural rights of each man has no limits except those which assure to the other members of the society the enjoyment of the same rights. These limits can only be determined by law.
The ban is a direct contradiction of this bit of their constitution. Or does this not count because the constition only gives rights to men, not women?
Quote:Nonsense. A very simple justification is that your 'elaborate social events' are not taking place on the street, the shop, the office. The public space is NOT to be appropriated by any particular ideology.
Walking round in a veil is not appropriating public space. The offence is all in your mind.
Also, the argument was not that it had been previously banned (which it hasn't), but that uncovering your face is part of our culture. Those people who went to these parties were never forced to take the mask off until they got in the door. And yes, it has always been perfectly acceptable for people to do the same thing in public. They have exercised this right. These parties were never limited to private property as you suggest, either by tradition or law.
Quote:Secu;ar tights are not unlimited. SO freedom to wear what you like is limited.
Religious freedom is not unmlimited. SO what you can wear for religious reasons is limited.
Rights and freedoms are only limited where they restrict the rights and freedoms of others. This is even stated explicitly in the frech declaration. They are not merely some kind of convenience to be extended at the whim of the state. Otherwise they are not actually a right. In this case, there is no restriction on your rights and freedoms if a woman covers her face. Being able to see someone's else's face in public is not a fundamental human right. Choosing what to wear is. It is a pure case of you trying to limit someone else's freedom based on your own ideology.
Quote:There is no justification for compelling reason for covering your face in public as a matter of course.
There is according to the people who do it. And besides, people do not have to justify exercising their rights to you. that's what a right is. Even the french understand this, even if they struggle to put it into practice.
Forum
Pages: 
French senate approves burqa ban. (Read 17840 times)
