Comments:Sarkozy says burqa is "not welcome" in France

Back to article

This page is for commentary on the news. If you wish to point out a problem in the article (e.g. factual error, etc), please use its regular collaboration page instead. Comments on this page do not need to adhere to the Neutral Point of View policy. You should sign your comments by adding ~~~~ to the end of your message. Please remain on topic. Though there are very few rules governing what can be said here, civil discussion and polite sparring make our comments pages a fun and friendly place. Please think of this when posting.

Quick hints for new commentators:

• Use colons to indent a response to someone else's remarks
• Always sign your comments by putting --~~~~ at the end
• You can edit a section by using the edit link to the right of the section heading

Click here to add a new comment · Add onto existing comments

Your women would be wearing 'signs of submission' too if mainstream christians actually practiced anything anymore. Honestly, the worst part is that their clothes have to be dark. Those things are hot!

Whatever happened to usury being forbidden, anyway? —Sleepless in Seattle —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.156.15.40 (talk • contribs)

This is crazy to fight the burqa on this basis. Is not the production and distribution of pronographic materials far more de-humanizing to women? What man who sits drooling over a picture of a naked women respects her as a person??? Yet pornographic materials are not banned because of the abuse that arises from their use. The abuse of the burqa by some can no more be considered an excuse to ban it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.35.83.37 (talk • contribs)

Do not compare it to pornography, first of all, the women in 95% of porn voluntarily agree to it, they are not going to face any consequences if they do not. As well I do not think you should be comparing the rights of a human being to sex, 2 completely different things, pornography exists as of human nature, burqas exist as a result of overly jealous/misogynistic men. -John T. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.35.83.37 (talk • contribs)

Its closer to 99.999% of women in porn agreeing to it, and if they change their mind they are free to complain. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.15.157.243 (talk • contribs)

I'm no fan of sarkozy, but whatever his true motivations for this are, his given reason is pretty good. While I'm all for people wearing religious ornaments (makes it easier to avoid them), the burqa is more about control than religion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.15.157.243 (talk • contribs)

I completely agree that the burqa is a symbol of the Sharia repression of women. What I do not agree with is making an item of clothing illegal in the name of liberty. That's just hypocritical. --84.13.181.121 (talk) 23:22, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. The government may be able to impose certain restrictions on dress (public nudity isn't legal in the entirety of the "free" world), but to say that any such restrictions are in the name of liberty is nonsense.68.228.80.106 (talk) 10:02, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Finally

I'm happy for this, and hope many other countries (including Islamic ones) to follow the example. It's one thing religious freedom, and another to oppress women under the pretext of religious freedom. It's not voluntary when women are coerced to wear the burqa by subtle means, and if only it was like that, but in many cases they are forced against their wishes under dire penalties.

I don't think so...

Wearing the burqa/niqab in (most non-islamic) countries that follow Sunni Shariah is not forced. It is a choice because the burqa/niqab is not fard. Many blogs by women of the faith of Islam state this point. Whatever happened to religious freedom? Who is the French council to decide that wearing something is a sign of opression? To be quite honest, advertising weight loss pills, skanky dress models, and the guilt tripping advertising media is a sign of oppression in my opinion. Spousal abuse in the form of being controlled mentally and physically is not religion. It exists in all forms. Jealousy, control-freaks...etc is not only what you see as the media painted picture of Islam. If anyone wants to call ANYONE a control freak, it should be Sarkozy. For one, he is creating a threat that women (if they do not remove their burqa's) they will be treated differently...forcing them to appeal. Who is he to tell someone what they can and cannot wear? Has he ever ASKED a niqab/burqa wearing woman about wether they were oppressed? What about the reverts/converts to Islam who wear burqa and aren't married? Are they forced into "oppression" too? What about male-dominated fashion corporations and fashion magazines? Do they tell women what to wear? What they should look like? Should the fashion industry be not "welcome" either? 69.118.145.80 (talk) 09:37, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Burqas help liberate women!

The Burqa is not a sign of subservience, but a separation. The point of the Burqa is to allow women to travel in public without the eyes of strange men falling upon them. Culturally the separation of Genders plays a large roll in Islam and also includes a dizzying array of limitations on men as well. If the Burqa is banned then women who adhere to this belief will not be able to leave the home, as being seen by strange men would cause great shame.

That's a fucked-up view of the world. If you feel ashamed that a member of the opposite sex looks at you then you need to see a shrink. I'd just go the whole hog and drop religious beliefs as an exemption on the DSM-IV; then we could see the Pope and Jimmy Swaggart locked up in the same nuthouse. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 12:06, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

That's not what the Burqa is for...to hide. It's to limit the amount that men can see, not to be ashamed. If a woman wearing the burqa is ashamed to be seen by men, then why are so many of them married? 69.118.145.80 (talk) 02:05, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

It's about STRANGE men seeing you, not men in general. It was a lot easier before human beings developed urban environments, where communities were much smaller and running into a man with whom you were not close with was a lot less likely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.61.23.242 (talk) 15:49, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

And next we'll be going back to having eunuchs to guard their honour. Right? --Brian McNeil / ^talk 16:34, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Nothing about this makes sense!

1. Is a man coming to the rescue of women really what feminism is supposed to be about?
2. This is extreme and unnecessary. Does he realize that the flipside of this would be making it mandatory for women to HAVE to wear a burqa? Both ideas are equally stupid.
3. Does he realize this could be construed as an effort to marginalize a religious movement? ...And force them to assimilate?
4. Does he realize he might be forcing his own feminist ideals on women that might not want them?

--98.116.101.225 (talk) 22:06, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Good! About ime SOMEONE looked after women's rights, and finally did not accept the facade of abuse that they exused with religion —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.107.112.127 (talk) 06:36, 26 July 2009 (UTC)