Canada’s Globe And Mail:
French President Nicolas Sarkozy said the Muslim burqa would not be welcome in France, calling the full-body religious gown a sign of the “debasement” of women.
In the first presidential address to parliament in 136 years, Mr. Sarkozy faced critics who fear the burqa issue could stigmatize France’s Muslims and said he supported banning the garment from being worn in public.
“In our country, we cannot accept that women be prisoners behind a screen, cut off from all social life, deprived of all identity,” Mr. Sarkozy said to extended applause at the Chateau of Versailles, southwest of Paris.
“The burqa is not a religious sign, it’s a sign of subservience, a sign of debasement — I want to say it solemnly,” he said. “It will not be welcome on the territory of the French Republic.”
Dozens of legislators have called for creating a commission to study a possible ban in France, where there is a small but growing trend of wearing the full-body garment despite a 2004 law forbidding it from being worn in public schools.
France has Western Europe’s largest Muslim population, an estimated 5 million people, and the 2004 law sparked fierce debate both at home and abroad.
Even the French government has been divided over the issue, with Immigration Minister Eric Besson saying a full ban would only “create tensions,” while junior minister for human rights Rama Yade said she was open to a ban if it was aimed at protecting women forced to wear the burqa.
The terms “burqa” and “niqab” often are used interchangeably in France. The former refers to a full-body covering worn largely in Afghanistan with only a mesh screen over the eyes, whereas the latter is a full-body veil, often in black, with slits for the eyes.
A leading French Muslim group, the French Council for the Muslim Religion, has warned against studying the burqa, saying it would “stigmatize” Muslims.
Mr. Sarkozy was due to host a state dinner Monday with Sheik Hamad Bin Jassem Al Thani of Qatar, where women wear Islamic head coverings in public — whether while shopping or driving cars.
I applaud the President’s stand, since it represents a welcome remedy towards the “Political Correctness” that has plagued the west for around 35 years. The women of Islam are treated with little or no respect and are forced to wear symbols of their inherent worthlessness. This was built into their “religion” (for it is a political system) from the beginning.
I will accept Islam as a religion when a synagogue is allowed in Mecca and women are allowed to wear what they will.
May President Sarkozy and the west prevail.
Kaffir and proud.
The burqua and niquab are indeed the outward symbol of women’s oppression under Islam. Clerics argue it is to be worn as a protective measure by women to fend off the unwanted glare of a man; and, as women are viewed as the sole source of enticement it is her obligation to hide her physical beauty. No beauty, no predator, is the twisted logic.
So then, women are deemed weak and in need of protection and worse, are saddled with the blame of inviting sexual perversion and violent cruelty if uncovered. The burqua has nothing to do with chosen modesty and everything to do with punishment and the maintenance of misogyny. I have often referred to http://www.islamqa.com., a site which all questions referring to Islam are answered by pious Muslim scholars. If there is any doubt regarding the blatant crueltyand oppression forwarded to women in Islam, I invite those who are still in denial or apt to apply cultural relativism in equal measure to read this site.
Additionally it is often visually offensive to many western women and men Muslim and non-Muslim alike, to be confronted by such an outward symbol of ignorance, intolerance and extremism. It is not welcome in France, nor should it be.
Another way to look at it, to borrow a rhetorical device from Mark Steyn, may be to say that Islam in forcing women to so cover is in essence saying “Nice body you have there. Would be a shame if something happened to it” and in typical Islamic fashion putting all the onus on the women for anything that may happen to them if they fail to obey every extreme nuance of sharia law. It is also a way of defining Muslim property from non muslim property. Women who are not Muslim and are not dressed as Muslim women are according to Mohamed’s rule book, fair game for whatever happens to them, and I do not wish to detail that at this time. While Muslim women get some greater measure of protection by virtue of their submission to the rules of sharia. Im certain that other posters can detail what I am saying here with facts figures and dates better than I. Hopefuly I get the idea across though. Thanks Grace and RRWest for posting.
“Women who are not Muslim and are not dressed as Muslim women are according to Mohamed’s rule book, fair game for whatever happens to them, and I do not wish to detail that at this time.”
Mein Qurampf 33:59 is the verse that gives the ideological backing to what we’ve heard mahoundian clerics vomit all over Western Europe and Australia, in order to claim that their beloved mahoundian youths could never be responsible for the rapes and gang-rapes they commit. They allege that “no mahoundian male can be held responsible for his actions in the presence of a ‘naked’ woman (a woman who’s not wearing a mobile tent, that is)”, and that comes straight from that stupid little verse from their holy book of toilet paper.