Bahrain
Kuwait
Oman
Qatar
Saudi Arabia
UAE
Liberté, égalité, fraternité – but no burqa
by This email address is being protected from spam bots, you need Javascript enabled to view it on Wednesday, 24 June 2009
Page 1
Results 1 to 13 of 13
Posted on Monday, 29 June 2009
When in Rome, do like the Romans
Posted by Kevin at 17:10 UAE time
If any lady, whether from US or South Africa were to enter Saudi Arabia they have to wear the hijab! Well no one seems to be objectin to that,so why does Saorkozy's statement (not actions like KSA) have such a huge impact!
People are ever so blind to take what is not theirs!
CLICK HERE TO POST A COMMENT
Posted on Saturday, 27 June 2009
Sarkozy is a looser
Posted by amer at 11:55 UAE time
He cant run a country so he is trying to just create a furore on a sensitive issue and everybody goes ga-ga over it.
A country which talks about freedom why dosnt it allow burqa, what kind of freedom is this where people cant wear what they want! and that too not lewd but covered clothes. It is just ridiculous!
Saudi Arabia is a monarchy, and whatever the king wishes it has to be followed and whoever is NOT ready to follow can leave the country. (this comment is for the so called devot muslims who favor Sarkozy and his stupid actions!!!)
There is nothing wrong in wearing burqa, it is a choice by all muslim women and not an oppression.
CLICK HERE TO POST A COMMENT
Posted on Thursday, 25 June 2009
Non issue
Posted by Hussain at 19:31 UAE time
Just wanted to say, I really appreciated the piece. Btw, 'blue shuttlecock'? Priceless :) I'm really glad someone's chosen to write about the absurdity of all of this, or at the least voice the concerns of the minority French Muslims that do chose to wear it.
With all due respect to some of the other comments I've seen here about whether the burqa of any other veiling garment is relevant or not to the cultural or religious matrix of France or the 21st century is a non issue. France, is a declared secular State (as opposed to comparing it to Saudi, apples and oranges), and I think that limits the legal discourse to certain broadly accepted norms. Secularism is embracing all faiths in their forms of symbolism, it's not picking berries chosing only that which fits into an onlooker's comfort zone. And on a higher level, government has no right to be interfering in my outfit choices as long as I live up to certain social norms (think-lewd behavior charges). Additionally, when legislating for a minority (in this case, the minority that do wear it), voice is given to protect it's choices, rather than to marginalize it. Finally, by volunteering the reasoning for this 'ban' as deeming these garments a sign of opression etc., is insulting to the intellect and integrity of the women that wear it. Why should a woman's ability to contribute meaningfully to the evolution and betterment of her society be dictated by what she wears, or for that matter doesn't wear. And let alone, for the State to insist that her clothing and any perceived mindset that comes lock step with the garment is detrimental, is insulting to the collective intelligence of women as a whole.
Needless to say, this, of all issues, was the most unnecessary to raise in a stump speech during a rare appearance in parliament akin to the State of the Union, using that platform has unfairly emboldened one side, while leaving the other side of the debate voiceless and foregone, in what by all accounts is a proud and fully representative democracy.
CLICK HERE TO POST A COMMENT
advertisement
Reality...
Posted by Abu Khaled at 15:01 UAE time
It is freedom and civilized to have nude beaches, but it is not freedom to wear according to one’s religious believes!!!
I read the article and the comments and the first thing that popped to my mind was: Oh!! Not again!! My respect to Mr. Sarkozy, but his opinion that burqa is "sign of subservience, of lowering”, and the women who wear them as “trapped behind a fence” and “deprived of any identity” reflect lack of knowledge, racism and extremism. I was shocked that it came from a man who always appears to be intelligent and know what he is talking about.
Using the same level of his thinking, one could argue that having nude beaches were everyone walks naked is “sign of primitive ages, and the people who practice nudity in public have no moral decency or self respect”. It is free to walk naked, but it is not free to cover??!!!
Some readers stressed that if one does not adapt to a country’s culture, must leave. This is absolutely true. But a country should not claim “civilization, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and democracy” and at the same time contradicts its self, and deprive ‘some’ people from living according to their beliefs. One thing that should be obvious to the world is that Saudi Arabia is the origin of Islam and, therefore, do not expect to see bars, nude beaches, and uncovered women there.
Before this we had the Danish attack on the prophet. Mr. Sarkozy... you goofed!!! Why can’t we live and let live?
CLICK HERE TO POST A COMMENT
France and th Burqa
Posted by Wissam at 14:35 UAE time
I am a muslim arab, but i respect the decision of Sarkozy: if the french does not want the burqa, they are free. It is their country, their home, and they are free to do or ask whatever they want. Likewise the Saudi, the Iranians, or the Japanese. Whoever does not like that decision he or she can go where the burqa is required, could be saudi, pakistan or afghanistan. That is not to say i am not a devout muslim, on the contrary. But one should respect other peoples' freedom to decide whatever they want.
CLICK HERE TO POST A COMMENT
Sokozy is right
Posted by SR at 09:47 UAE time
The burka or any vial for that matter was designed to cover women from the prying eyes of men who can’t control themselves and therefore made it the woman’s problem to deal with by having to hide themselves – how utterly absurd!
It has no place in the 21st century or in a country that upholds human rights above religious rules. France is not a theocracy and should protect its secularism fiercely.
CLICK HERE TO POST A COMMENT
Posted on Wednesday, 24 June 2009
@ Marli
Posted by Voltaire at 18:43 UAE time
Marli, as I explained, the burka issue is NOT used as a distraction from other subjects -which he adressed at length in the very same speech. And it's not a rant, it's a speech. A rant is what Mr. Moussaoui does, for instance.
France is hardly an anti-religious country. The country's history (the vastly anti-clerical French Revolution, the progressive establishment of a secular Republic during the 19th century and eventually, the 1905 law on the separation between the Church and the State) has made secularism a very important element of the country's social unity. That is why, for instance, no religious sign is allowed in a public school. In that, France may differ from its neighbors (the UK, Germany etc.) but it doesn't make it any less tolerant towards religions in general and Islam in particular. And Islam is perfectly soluble in the French democracy. France's attitude towards Islam is not one of "shame, denial and suppression" nor is it discriminating to Muslim, as you seem to insinuate. If you disagree, I'm open to a discussion based on factual evidence but I can't let you depict France as a anti-religious, discriminating country.
CLICK HERE TO POST A COMMENT
Well...
Posted by Voltaire at 17:49 UAE time
To those who say Sarkozy has used the Burka issue has a cover up for other bad news -such as the economy or the budget deficit-, I would say this is simply false: had you actually listened to the speech, you'd seen that most of it is about the economy and the country's finance. The "burka" part is in fact quite short. In any case, the burka issue never made it to the major headlines, perhaps only to the first page columns. I defy anyone to provide factual evidence that raising the burka issue was a move designed to hide other important issues.
Now, if the burka is such a minor issue for Muslims, why the big fuss about it? See, burka appears to be a symbol of everything that is contrary to french values of freedom and social integration. It's not even a religious sign, merely an instrument of opression which belongs to another age. Nevertheless, I agree that provided that it is an entirely free and personal decision, women should be allowed to wear it -why on Earth would they want to wear it, I have no idea, but it's not my problem. The only problem is that there is abunding evidence -gathered from social workers, doctors, teachers, police officers etc.- which shows that the women who wear the burka in France do not have a choice. Hence the need for a law to protect them.
I also agree that the law, should there be one -since it's not yet the case, theses things take time in a democracy, it's not just a presidential decree-, will probably not be effective and I for one don't support such a law. But as Paul said, if the people of France think in their majority that the burka should be banned, well, let the people have it their way.
And finally, for all the Middle Eastern commentators who are worried about freedom of choice, thank you very much, but I don't think you are in a position to criticize. Want me to ellaborate on why? I think you get my point. In France, Muslims, like any other french citizens, have the right to believe, to pray in mosques, and of course to dress as they like -except of course in public schools and when working for administrations.
CLICK HERE TO POST A COMMENT
Sarkozy misses the point
Posted by Marli at 17:40 UAE time
In all likelihood, Sarkozy's rant is a red herring designed to distract the public from more critical issues of economy and state. Nonetheless, his attitude suggests an unbearable paternalistic arrogance that ill befits the nation which gave the world Voltaire, Rousseau, and the French Revolution.
The difference between 'secular' and anti-religious is that one practices judicious indifference, while the other institutionalizes contempt. A secular republic ensures that political process is not dominated by religious agenda, but allows for tokens of individual expression as a basic human right and as a form of self-identification. An anti-religious state, however, barely masks its contempt for any and all displays of religious identification with the fallacious argument that an individual's choice to wear a religious symbol is somehow an affront to the separation between Church and State. It is Marxist intolerance, plain and simple.
In other countries, the attitude towards religious diversity is one of pride, inclusion and dialogue, not shame, denial and suppression. It is one thing to make it illegal for a man to force his wife to wear a burqa. To tell her than she herself should not wear it, is just as bad. One is done via the coercion of an individual. The other is backed by the State.
CLICK HERE TO POST A COMMENT
sarkozy
Posted by paul at 16:55 UAE time
Switzerland banned naked hiking few months back but I didn't see an outcry from all these burka-supporters concerned about European liberal democracy then.
Total hyprocrisy. You're not interested in freedom, you're just selectively expressing outrage because this one affects you.
Sarkozy is elected by the people, for the people. In France, those who disagree with him are free to argue their case, protest peacefully, organize political opposition and to field a candidate against him in the next election. Muslims are free to preach their religion in France and seek converts.
Stop whining about freedom in France. Tell me one place in the middle east that comes close in terms of freedom and democracy?
CLICK HERE TO POST A COMMENT
French "secularism" is not new - ask the Sikhs
Posted by Gangs of Mumbai at 16:45 UAE time
Raking up religious issues, is you probably not new in France. Currently it's the Muslims; before that it was the Sikhs.
The French government had provoked the Sikhs in the country a few years back by proposing a ban on their turbans and in case you don't know how sensitive that is; it's one of the fundamental tenets of their religious identity.
Of course, not that such demands haven't been made in the West - but those were for personal safety reasons - a Sikh worker was asked to trim his hair (blasphemy!!!) in the Americas, but to enable him to wear a security helmet as his job involved risks.
Yet, the man sued his employer and won.
I'm neither a Sikh, nor a Muslim - but secularism also means "choice" – a choice to choose. And banning a practice that is not harmful to anyone’s physical or emotional personal safety, especially when it is of own volition – is purely like playing a prank.
Stop the prank Mr Sarkozy.
And yes, we surely know why you wouldn’t like your wife to remain inside the burqa.
Neither would we! ;-)
CLICK HERE TO POST A COMMENT
Sarkozy..France and the Burga
Posted by sara Moussavi at 14:35 UAE time
Clearly Western democracy especially in France is selective! What a disgrace that in 2009, women are still being told what they can and can't wear in a so called liberal democracy such as France. Womens' rights and freedoms do not begin and end with their attire..and anyone who believes that forcibly removing the burga somehow ' liberates' women is pretty stupid.
CLICK HERE TO POST A COMMENT
THANK YOU!
Posted by UKMuslim at 13:46 UAE time
Thank you, thank you, thank you! You got to the point! Doesn't anyone question why oh why after one hundred odd years of not being able to give a speach in front of their parliment Sarkozy would choose the subject of Burqa from NOWHERE to talk about?
And whats sad is the vast majority of 'free' westerners on here are applauding the simplistic idea and not even choosing to be critical thinkers even in the slightest...and being Western, this is something we pride ourselves on!
I find it simply astounding the comments on the board coming from fellow westerners! Some sound like people who have never left their local chav neighbourhood, not people who are actually living in a non western country with the ability to educate themselves on other cultures in a way others have never had the opportunity of doing! I wonder if in the time some of these people have been here if they have ever bothered themselves to even talk to a woman in Hijab or niqab? Why do we all think OUR way is right? and that if your not western minded you are somehow NOT from 2009?!
We spout our pride at our 'freedoms' and the fact that we are 'tolerant' and some how this 2+2 leads to -1! As we declare they should be grateful or go home cos we're NOT like the Arab countries who say behave the way we want...or go home!
The self rightous...our way is right attitude is quite simply shocking!
These so called 'muslim' countries are NOT democracies, nor are we citizens here! BUT France IS a democracy...and the people we are talking about are NOT 'guests' they ARE FRENCH!
How would the average French woman like to be told by Sarkozy that since his wife posed nude and this is his idea of FREEDOM that all of them must pose nude also, though some may not mind, I would assume not everyone would agree!
I HATE that women are always used in political battles...and whats worse the western women on here seem to be supporting that use of women! While it is true that BURQA was used by MEN in places like afghanistan to oppress women and used for political gain, and women were beaten for taking it off...is it REALLY any better of another political leader to YET AGAIN use women and the BURQA to oppress and get political gain. What will they do in France to the women who disobey? I can't see how a woman can seriously agree that it is insane to beat a woman for NOT wearing it, while standing and applauding another man for FORCING her to take it off....whatever happened to women having a mind of their own and choosing!?
PLEASE THINK! think beyond the simple...this was a political move to hide other things and as usual women are the losers, as is the case all over the world. If you want to champion womens rights in the East champion them in the West too...two wrongs do not make a right! Women in the west are still paid less than their male counterparts are more likely to work in part time jobs so they can take care of the children and hence are not entitled to all that full time workers are entitled to etc etc!
Don't stand up for ANY man be he western or eastern who is using women for a politcal advantage...and this guy has a history of it...remember his wife, who he conveniently kept by his side till he won the election and then dumped to marry a model! Do you seriously think THIS guy is a champion of womens rights?
FORCED to take it off, is as bad as FORCED to wear it! Anyone can see that, surely!
CLICK HERE TO POST A COMMENT
Page 1
Mobile
