''The veil, my choice!'' _ Muslim women march against head scarf ban

AP ^ | December 21, 2003 | JOHN LEICESTER

[sarcasm]

Thousands of people, mainly Muslim women shouting "The veil, my choice," marched through Paris on Sunday against presidential proposals to ban Islamic head scarves from public schools and maybe at work, too.

The protest, a cry of anguish from a rarely heard section of French society, was the first in Paris against President Jacques Chirac's announcement Wednesday that head scarves and other conspicuous religious symbols, including Jewish skullcaps and large Christian crosses, should be banned from schools to protect French secularism.

[bulldogs]

Good, they need to cover those ugly mugs.

[breakem]

the French government knows where to fight the big battles.

[livius]

Actually, this is ridiculous. The froggies used it as a chance to attack Christianity and Judaism, essentially.

In terms of the "veil," we're not talking about a full Saudi drape, but what is essentially a headscarf. In the US, this would be no problem.

But to the French, who have lead the fight to excise Christianity from the history of Europe, any opportunity to attack religion is a welcome one.

[paleolith]

The problem with Muslim women wearing headscarves in France is that Muslim men have been raping women who do not wear headscarves. France would be better off publicly executing the Muslim rapists. Forcing Muslim women to bare their face does no one any great pleasure.

[cake_crumb]

Rarely heard? Muslims are almost all we EVER hear from or about. Mostly how they only murder innocents because they're victims of (Islamist Talking Point of the Day Here) and how intolorant people hate them for being members of the Religion of Peace ®

[Alouette]

a law should stop patients from refusing care from doctors of the opposite sex -- aimed at Muslim women who have rebuffed male medical workers.

This is beyond idiotic.

[swarthyguy]

>>what is essentially a headscarf.

It's the political context of the headscarf that's cause for concern.

In Egypt, the headscarf was used as a method to identify islamist sympathisers from others. Non wearers were attacked, called "loose" and even raped, particularly in France. Eventually more started wearing it for protection and benefits, eg. rides to school on the Muslim Brotherhood buses. It's the coercion inherent in the wearing that is the concern.

It's a tough issue because to the islamists, every woman with a headscarf is a victory for islam, regardless whether they blow themselves up or not.

[cake_crumb]

Actually, the hijab is a religious symbol. The Qu'Ran itself doesn't specify a headscarf be worn. That's a religious interpretation of the hadiths, which are themselves religious interpretations of the Qu'Ran written mostly by hard up men - so they spend a lot of time on the 72 alleged virgins. In fact, the only clothing requirement in the Qu'ran is that the "sacks" (bosom) be covered.

[tkathy]

I think banning these awful things will free up these terrorized women.

[boycott]

Good, they need to cover those ugly mugs.

How can we convince Hillary that she would look good in one of these?

[DoctorMichael]

If these clowns hate the norms of Western Society so much why are they living in Western Society?

[Harmless Teddy Bear]

I think banning these awful things will free up these terrorized women.

No, it won't. Attacking the symbol does nothing. Which is why france is doing this. Easy to attack the symbol (head scarves on women). Hard to attack the problem (the actions of Muslim men toward women who don't wear the scarves).

[NTegraT]

"sacks" ? That's a new one on me.

[joyful1]

If these clowns hate the norms of Western Society so much why are they living in Western Society?

Great question. Answer: cause their holy book tells them to take over the world or die trying.

[ThinkDifferent]

Hard to say which is worse, the oppression of a misogynist religion, or the oppression of an intrusive government.

[JaimeD2]

I can't believe what I'm reading - this is a perfect chance to expose the French for their lack of commitment to something as basic as freedom of religious expression, yet some posters are siding with them? Moreover, these posters aren't thinking through all of the ramifications of this ban; for example, "big" crosses will be banned from clothing, while "little" ones will be alright. Where does it stop? If you take away a woman's right to wear a cloth over her head, what right does another woman have to wear a cross around her neck? What right does a Jew have to wear a yarmulke? Seriously, this isn't a difficult question.

[vladog]

Like they say in the stripper bars on amature night. "Put it back on, put it back on"!

[BenLurkin]

There's a Baptist church locally that expects the women to dress VERY modestly day in and day out.

Should those gals be obliged to wear mini-skirts?

It is, after all, part of Western culture for women to show some thigh.

[Bob J]

You're talking a slippery slope. If Muslims can wear scarves or jihadi headress, how can they keep skinheads from wearing a swastika or nudists from wearing nothing? Either they can dictate dress codes or nothing at all.

In my opinion, if they want to tell people what they can and cannot wear, they should establish a uniform and stick to it. Same for private enterprise.