You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Europe
France issues first court fines for face veil
2011-09-22
A French police court has issued its first fines against two women charged with wearing the full-face covering Islamic niqab.

Police have issued several on-the-spot fines since the ban came into effect in April but these are the first court-issued fines, with the women vowing to appeal their case all the way to the European Court of Human Rights.

Hind Ahmas, 32, was ordered to pay a 120-euro fine, while Najate Nait Ali, 36, was fined 80 euros. The court did not order them to take a citizenship course, as had been requested by the prosecutor.

The two women arrived too late to attend the court's deliberations.

One of the women had not been allowed into the court in May because she refused to take off her niqab to show her face.

Yann Gre from the Don't Touch My Constitution association that is defending the two women who were arrested in May in front of the town hall of Meaux, around 50 kilometres east of Paris, says they will appeal.

He says if the fines are confirmed by a higher court, they will take their case to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.

"This law forbids women in niqab from leaving their homes and going out in public. It's a kind of life-sentence to prison," he said.

The women were arrested in May when they brought a birthday cake for mayor and MP Jean-Francois Cope, also head of president Nicolas Sarkozy's right-wing UMP party that pushed Europe's first anti-burka law through parliament.

Mr Cope was instrumental in getting the ban's scope expanded from official buildings to anywhere on the street, according to Don't Touch My Constitution.

French officials estimate that only around 2,000 women, from a total Muslim population estimated at between four and six million, wear the full-face veils that are traditional in parts of the Arab world and South Asia.
Posted by:

#35  #33 - you are my idol
Posted by: Frank G   2011-09-22 21:48  

#34  asecular state banning religious garment is the biggest example I know of something that in the modern world could even *potentially* be called atheist intolerance against the religious.

But if this is not it, then can you pinpoint me
Try Singapore, Aris.
They actively "manage" religions and any that go against integration are heavily leant on. Muslims have always been leant on but others like Christian groups who embraced Liberation Theology also came under the microscope.
Just some examples of how they attampt to manage Muslims are:
All committees/management of mosques must submit a list of names to the government and the government then decide which names get to run the mosque on an annual basis.
Every Friday sermon must be submitted to the government. The sermon is also monitored and any deviation can result in the mosque being closed down.
80% of housing is government owned in high rise flats which ring the city. When a Muslim is allocated a flat, the bureaucrats actively ensures the the Muslim is as far away from a mosque, family members and other Muslims as they can manage. They basically want to drown them in a sea of Chinese.
No affirmative nonsense.
There are lots more. The Muslims don't like it but if they complain they are pointed out the Malaysian border and told to hop on their bike.
Posted by: tipper   2011-09-22 21:33  

#33  meh

"Just the sort of comment that would cause one to weep for humanity", he said, trying to keep a straight face.
Posted by: SteveS   2011-09-22 21:22  

#32  I used to engage the trolls.... not worth it, past a few comments. Fred deserves better trolls than this
Posted by: Frank G   2011-09-22 21:16  

#31  meh
Posted by: Frank G   2011-09-22 20:45  

#30  For a little while. But not for much longer.
Posted by: lotp   2011-09-22 20:20  

#29  Aw, Doc White, this little hijacking was actually pretty reasonable - amusing even.
Posted by: Glenmore   2011-09-22 18:55  

#28  
Aris: don't hijack any more threads. Consider this a friendly warning, even though you and I aren't friends.
Posted by: Steve White   2011-09-22 18:22  

#27  umm the veil rather
Posted by: European Conservative   2011-09-22 18:02  

#26  Aris and others

This has nothing to do with religious intolerance. We form a society. In order to communicate we want to see the face of the person we are communicating with.

The niqab (not the veal, mind you) "dehumanizes" the person wearing it, it makes the woman "invisible", a "no-person". She is no longer part of society but just a moving black bag.

This is not acceptable in a Western civilization. It should be in no other civilization as well.

Religion has nothing to do with this law. I fully support it.
Posted by: European Conservative   2011-09-22 18:00  

#25  Fred's been incapacitated by recent surgery to remove a pain in the neck.

I don't think it's any coincidence that Aris is now walking the earth and posting again.
Posted by: Thing From Snowy Mountain   2011-09-22 17:41  

#24  Aren't next-day comments are locked for everybody? That would seem fair, anyway. Especially, in light of Greeks bearing gifts of their infinite, inexhaustable wisdom.
Posted by: Pollyandrew   2011-09-22 17:21  

#23  Aris, you are a bankrupt Greek troll. But as long as you can get the Germans to pay for it, go for it. I'll leave the rest up to Frank. And I really believe you're Fred in disguise trying to drive up the comment count.
Posted by: Nimble Spemble   2011-09-22 17:18  

#22  It's not about you Aris
Posted by: Jan   2011-09-22 17:10  

#21  And hijack the thread.

I'm sure the forum will recover from me hijacking a single thread every couple years or so.

It's midnight over here besides. According to my experience from past threads, soon after I go to bed and no longer respond, at least one of you will call me a troll, at least one person will bring up my Greek ancestry and Greece's bankruptcy, and atleast one person (probably Frank) will produce some truly outrageous comments that will make me despair of humanity when I happen to read them tomorrow morning in what will be now a locked thread for me.
Posted by: Aris Katsaris   2011-09-22 16:56  

#20  "An example of atheist intolerance of the religious is seen here in the US with the banning of display by any public institution of the Ten Commandments."

Commanding the *government* institutions NOT to endorse a religion, is hardly intolerance against the religious.

That's merely not accepting the open violation of the church-state separation. I doubt the religious would accept the display of openly atheist statements like "There is no God" in public institutions either.

Instead you have "In God We Trust" in your money, and "One nation under God" in your pledge to the flag. If these words were replaced by "We Trust there's no God" and "One nation under an absence of Gods" (which I'm NOT proposing) -- I'm sure you'd consider this to be atheist intolerance; but the presence of the religious equivalent you don't so consider...
Posted by: Aris Katsaris   2011-09-22 16:47  

#19  so as an atheist I see fit to challenge previous statements spoken in this forum about how "Intolerance is the atheist way".

And hijack the thread. Pfui.
Posted by: Pappy   2011-09-22 16:13  

#18  'When in Rome...'
How is covering your face religious? Especially when it only is for women? Our western civilization is all about freedom, assimilate.
Also TW makes a great point regarding safety. I'll add driver's licenses to this as well.
Posted by: Jan   2011-09-22 15:44  

#17  An example of atheist intolerance of the religious is seen here in the US with the banning of display by any public institution of the Ten Commandments. Also the banning of manger scenes on public property.
Posted by: Deacon Blues   2011-09-22 15:37  

#16  Steve, if you have a real-life example I'm not familiar with, please see fit to enlighten me. (Keep in mind I'm talking about the current world, so French revolutionaries guillotining priests, or the Albanian communists banning religion, doesn't count)
Posted by: Aris Katsaris   2011-09-22 15:31  

#15  if this isn't an example "atheist intolerance against the religious", nothing else in the current world qualifies

This might sound good in a debate, but it is logically wrong.
Posted by: SteveS   2011-09-22 15:07  

#14  
"This law forbids women in niqab from leaving their homes and going out in public..."

No, it doesn't. You're intentionally conflating the cart and the horse, Mr. Gre.
Posted by: Parabellum   2011-09-22 14:29  

#13  trailing wife, I don't oppose France's decision, though my reasoning for it isn't the same yours. Mown reasoning is that I support acts that in *practice* favor freedom, and Islamic dress is too often made mandatory (whether officially by Islamic authorities, or unofficially by Muslims gangs) that to ban it is most likely pro-freedom in practice, counter-intuitive though it can seem.

My point is that if this isn't an example "atheist intolerance against the religious", nothing else in the current world qualifies, so as an atheist I see fit to challenge previous statements spoken in this forum about how "Intolerance is the atheist way".
Posted by: Aris Katsaris   2011-09-22 14:27  

#12  Aris, France has a history of fully veiled individuals stealing from shops. Once in flight, they cannot be identified from other similarly clad persons who may or may not be female. How is one to say, after only a brief glimpse, that this particular Moving Black Object is the one that robbed you some minutes ago, when the police dare not even touch her, let alone search her person? This is not a religious issue, but one of public safety.

There is also the culture thingy -- in the West we do not hide our faces from the world. Nor does Islam require it, although there are ethnic cultures which do.
Posted by: trailing wife   2011-09-22 14:09  

#11  lotp, a secular state banning religious garment is the biggest example I know of something that in the modern world could even *potentially* be called atheist intolerance against the religious.

But if this is not it, then can you pinpoint me
to examples of where "Intolerance is the atheist way" as was claimed? And also where in the modern world atheists are doing their supposed best to make sure people that follow "deist religions" can't follow them?
Posted by: Aris Katsaris   2011-09-22 13:47  

#10  Agree with JH. If the reason for a niqab is Islamofascist animals then let's get rid of the animals; cage them, put them down or move them to "old" pastures, but DON'T give in to them.

If it's a religious purpose, move to somewhere that does not consider niqabs offensive in both senses of the word.
Posted by: AlanC   2011-09-22 13:20  

#9  RandomJD,

You're kidding right? France used to be included in Western Civilization. The solution for people who need to wear niqabs to avoid barbaric behavior is to not change Western Civilization into the barbaric culture.

Perhaps these women would feel more comfortable in an islamic country more appropriate to their tastes.

Please don't let "islamofascist animals" and their ways into our culture. They're trying to change our culture in our civilization. And it's been a pretty good civilization for the most part.
Posted by: Jeque Hupairong2828   2011-09-22 12:38  

#8   Dear France,
Congratulations on finally growing a set.

Sincerely,
Fan of Western Civilization

Dear Great Britain. Now it is your turn to grow one.
Posted by: JFM   2011-09-22 11:12  

#7  I'm not sure I like this. It depends on why a woman is wearing the niqab.

If the purpose is to intimidate or make a political statement of Islamic dominance - like a towering minaret, or an armband - no problem.

If the purpose is to be able to go about their daily business without getting raped or killed by Islamofascist animals, then I have a big problem with blaming the victim.

It sounds like the law does not discriminate between the two, because criminalizing behavior that depends on the reason a person did it is antithetical to Western law in general. Which means the law captures both, which is why I'm not wild about it. Fining niqab-wearers targets the symptom, not the disease. Anyone agree/disagree?
Posted by: RandomJD   2011-09-22 11:04  

#6  Well said, lotp.
Posted by: Nimble Spemble   2011-09-22 10:22  

#5  No.
Posted by: lotp   2011-09-22 10:18  

#4  Is this the sort of "intolerant" and "bigoted" atheism that was condemned in a Rantburg thread two days ago, by everyone in that thread except me?
Posted by: Aris Katsaris   2011-09-22 10:05  

#3  I suppose there will be fatwas issued and car torchings to follow. Good for France.
Posted by: JohnQC   2011-09-22 10:02  

#2  The two women arrived too late to attend the court's deliberations

I can see two 5' tall sightless bags wandering lost on the way to court
Posted by: Frank G   2011-09-22 09:51  

#1  Dear France,
Congratulations on finally growing a set.

Sincerely,
Fan of Western Civilization
Posted by: Thromong Glusonter2198   2011-09-22 09:43  

00:00