French burqa ban goes into force on monday

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted by Reba View Post
Well, when their religious group was being persecuted, the British Pilgrims left England.

I'm not saying they should. I'm only pointing out that there is historical precedence.
I'm going to remember this the next time you talk about deaf discrimination...When in the hearing world...
People choose to follow a religion. Deaf people aren't hearing people who choose to become deaf.

When it comes to "fitting in," it's the deaf people who are expected to adjust to the hearing people. In mainstream classrooms, which is emphasized--teaching ASL to the hearing students or trying to get deaf students to approximate as much English speech as possible?

Yes, some countries provide relay services, captions and interpreters but there is no country that requires hearing people en mass to learn sign language. If they wanted to leave their native countries for one where deafness and sign language were the norm, where would they go?

Deaf people have always been in the "When in the hearing world, do as the hearies do" situation.

Your comparison makes no sense.

Sovereign nations make and enforce their own laws whether we like them or not.

My personal opinion is, I don't think officials should go after veiled women and arrest or ticket them just because they're wearing veils (as a primary offense). However, I believe they should have the right when in a circumstance that would normally require proof of identification, such as a traffic stop, entrance into a secure area, or reasonable suspicion of a crime, to request women to show their faces. If the woman refuses, then the official can take further action, as he would with anyone who refused to give proof of identification when lawfully requested. That can mean arrest, if it's a crime circumstance, or denial of access, if it's a secure area.

That's only my opinion. France does what it wants, just as any other country does. I might not like it but I also don't like the inequities that are done in Saudi Arabia, China, North Korea, Iran, etc. France is no worse than those other countries when it comes to discrimination or religious persecution.
 
If you go to whose country? The French's country? If you go to France? Huh?
:You have not really pay attention here. If I go to Arab world, I would have to wear their veil because it is law there to require for women to cover their faces alike one in Arab. ( a neighbor who used to be an army and lived there for one year and witnessed police beat woman while her husband is helpless because her cover face happen to uncover) I would not argue with them because it is their law and their country. I live here in USA and follow law here. In France they have their own law and those women does not want to follow their culture but their own culture in France. They broke the law there.
 
I was thinking about Elizabeth Smart, remember her? She worn clothes over her face and whole body and no one noticed her for awhile. Lucky for her someone was really pay attention to her and knew it was her.
 
[From the article you linked to]

Jourrnalists at the scene said the arrests came after police moved in to break up the protest which had not been authorised.

It was not due to the veils, it was due to an unregistered (unauthorised) protest.

that's what I thought so in the first place... unruly type.

When is a protest ever authorized? :lol:
In my activism days, when I protested at CBS for lack of captionings, certainly there were those who considered us "unruly." But without us, there would be no closed captioning.
 
I spotted this statement coming from you about a zillion miles away man :lol:

It was only a matter of time. That was why I "specifically" stated that Muslim women were not violating any laws by practicing their religion. They had done this "before" the ban .... for centuries.

Now ... ILLEGAL immigrants, on the other hand ... what was the crime there?

There is nothing even remotely linking those two situations.

eh? I don't understand your post at all :dunno:
 
People choose to follow a religion. Deaf people aren't hearing people who choose to become deaf.

I don't honestly think that people who follow a religion choose to be a part of that religion. Could you just all of the sudden not be Christian? I mean, you can choose to not follow a religion, but how is that in any way an expression of libertie? You're still Christian, just banned from attending Mass.

The deaf don't choose to be deaf, but many do choose to have and follow a culture. What if the US made ASL illegal? Then what? The deaf can still choose to speechread and speak, right? What if the US mandated CI?

When it comes to "fitting in," it's the deaf people who are expected to adjust to the hearing people. In mainstream classrooms, which is emphasized--teaching ASL to the hearing students or trying to get deaf students to approximate as much English speech as possible?
How is that much different than France forcing Muslims to conform to "French" culture? France is a country of immigrants. "French" culture is the minority, just like Standard American English is the minority.

Yes, some countries provide relay services, captions and interpreters but there is no country that requires hearing people en mass to learn sign language.
France isn't making anyone wear religious attire. The Muslims in France aren't asking France to create a burqa mandate, either.

If they wanted to leave their native countries for one where deafness and sign language were the norm, where would they go?
Is there a country where being French and Muslim is the norm? Of course not.

What if that country for the Deaf is Somalia? Is that fair? Can I tell deaf people who don't like how it is in the U.S. to leave? Of course not! You have rights as citizens! As human beings!

Deaf people have always been in the "When in the hearing world, do as the hearies do" situation.
So have religious minorities. Jews, Muslims, Jehovah's witnesses...the persecution usually starts with 'inconsequential' yet 'logical' acts of legislation like so. The French government officials say there are too many Muslims, that the burqa is not welcome, that Muslims need to assimilate (lose their Islam) and pretty much everything that indicates Muslims are second class citizens, if even that.

Being Muslim does not = being able to go anywhere in the world that is a Muslim country. You think a French Muslim wants to live in Saudi Arabia? I hear Nicaragua has great schools for the deaf. Lots of churches, too. Should I advocate the deaf people on AD move here?

Um, no. I believe in protecting the rights of citizens rather than suggesting deportation or emigration just so that I can keep our streets looking American and our language sounding "American".

Your comparison makes no sense.

Sovereign nations make and enforce their own laws whether we like them or not.
Yes. But this has implications for the rest of the world.


My personal opinion is, I don't think officials should go after veiled women and arrest or ticket them just because they're wearing veils (as a primary offense). However, I believe they should have the right when in a circumstance that would normally require proof of identification, such as a traffic stop, entrance into a secure area, or reasonable suspicion of a crime, to request women to show their faces. If the woman refuses, then the official can take further action, as he would with anyone who refused to give proof of identification when lawfully requested. That can mean arrest, if it's a crime circumstance, or denial of access, if it's a secure area.
Muslim women have been doing that for decades. Go on a plane, step aside with a female agent, show them your face, pass security and proceed...
That's only my opinion. France does what it wants, just as any other country does. I might not like it but I also don't like the inequities that are done in Saudi Arabia, China, North Korea, Iran, etc. France is no worse than those other countries when it comes to discrimination or religious persecution.
I think we agree on a lot. I just don't think it's fair to tell them to "leave if they don't like it".
 
eh? I don't understand your post at all :dunno:

The Muslim women weren't doing anything illegal. They were French citizens practicing their own religion and harming no one.

The Hispanics in question had high numbers of immigrants who potentially broke immigration law.
 
I don't honestly think that people who follow a religion choose to be a part of that religion. Could you just all of the sudden not be Christian? I mean, you can choose to not follow a religion, but how is that in any way an expression of libertie? You're still Christian, just banned from attending Mass.

The deaf don't choose to be deaf, but many do choose to have and follow a culture. What if the US made ASL illegal? Then what? The deaf can still choose to speechread and speak, right? What if the US mandated CI?

How is that much different than France forcing Muslims to conform to "French" culture? France is a country of immigrants. "French" culture is the minority, just like Standard American English is the minority.

France isn't making anyone wear religious attire. The Muslims in France aren't asking France to create a burqa mandate, either.

Is there a country where being French and Muslim is the norm? Of course not.

What if that country for the Deaf is Somalia? Is that fair? Can I tell deaf people who don't like how it is in the U.S. to leave? Of course not! You have rights as citizens! As human beings!

So have religious minorities. Jews, Muslims, Jehovah's witnesses...the persecution usually starts with 'inconsequential' yet 'logical' acts of legislation like so. The French government officials say there are too many Muslims, that the burqa is not welcome, that Muslims need to assimilate (lose their Islam) and pretty much everything that indicates Muslims are second class citizens, if even that.

Being Muslim does not = being able to go anywhere in the world that is a Muslim country. You think a French Muslim wants to live in Saudi Arabia? I hear Nicaragua has great schools for the deaf. Lots of churches, too. Should I advocate the deaf people on AD move here?

Um, no. I believe in protecting the rights of citizens rather than suggesting deportation or emigration just so that I can keep our streets looking American and our language sounding "American".

Yes. But this has implications for the rest of the world.


Muslim women have been doing that for decades. Go on a plane, step aside with a female agent, show them your face, pass security and proceed...
I think we agree on a lot. I just don't think it's fair to tell them to "leave if they don't like it".

none of your points above made any sense. looks like I was right - you're misapplying deaf component to this. :nono:

please do not confuse disability with religion. please stop comparing burqa with deafness. it's outlandish.
 
none of your points above made any sense. looks like I was right - you're misapplying deaf component to this. :nono:

please do not confuse disability with religion. please stop comparing burqa with deafness. it's outlandish.

Now it starts..........................
 
none of your points above makes any sense. looks like I was right - you're misapplying deaf component to this. :nono:

please do not confuse disability with religion. please stop comparing burqa with deafness. it's outlandish.

I'm talking about bigotry.

I'm talking about prejudice.

I'm talking about liberty.

Both of these situations fall under the building blocks of both French and U.S. law. (Though the French haven't taken it as seriously as we have. Ironic.) If you studied political philosophy or comparative governments, maybe you'd understand my points.

The French believe in separation of church and state. It's clearly outlined in their government (whereas here we just suggest the term without writing it in any law book or document). Both countries have provisions for religious freedom.

The French government (and American government) is based on this idea of Universal Human Rights - and these rights are ones that every human being has. They cannot be created. They just are.

The French constitution (current and previous) do not use the same language as the American Declaration (which uses the word "Creator"), but the principle is the same: every person is endowed to natural rights. These are the things that no State can take away. To do so invalidates the State.

The Declaration of the Rights of Man states that all men have the natural right to liberty, property, security and resistance to oppression.

...

"All the citizens, being equal in the eyes of the law, are equally admissible to all public dignities, places, and employments, according to their capacity and without distinction other than that of their virtues and of their talents,"

In the French Constitution, laws that are positively discriminatory are unconstitutional, since certain groups would have more rights than others. The same goes for the American Constitution.
 
I'm talking about bigotry.

I'm talking about prejudice.

I'm talking about liberty.

Both of these situations fall under the building blocks of both French and U.S. law. (Though the French haven't taken it as seriously as we have. Ironic.) If you studied political philosophy or comparative governments, maybe you'd understand my points.

The French believe in separation of church and state. It's clearly outlined in their government (whereas here we just suggest it). Ironically, French government (and American government) is based on this idea of Universal Human Rights.
again - I don't see any valid point in your post. Just because this is a deaf forum doesn't mean you can conveniently use deaf component to sway this to your favor. that's just a lowball cheapshot. I wouldn't use epilepsy for this subject because disability or medical condition has NOTHING to do with this.

From The Declaration of the Rights of Man states that all have the natural right to liberty, property, security and resistance to oppression.
by your logic... skinheads have every rights to display Nazi flag on their front porch and vehicle. Do you support that skinhead's "natural right to liberty, property, security and resistance to oppression"?

In the French constitution, laws that are positively discriminatory are unconstitutional, since certain groups would have more rights than others.

The French constitution (current and previous) do not use the same language as the American Declaration (which uses the word "Creator"), but the principle is the same: every person is endowed to natural rights.

in case you didn't know...... which I repeated several times....

http://www.alldeaf.com/war-politica...ban-goes-into-force-monday-6.html#post1797087
The French Constitutional Council said the law did not impose disproportionate punishments or prevent the free exercise of religion in a place of worship, finding therefore that "the law conforms to the Constitution."

"Given the damage it produces on those rules which allow the life in community, ensure the dignity of the person and equality between sexes, this practice, even if it is voluntary, cannot be tolerated in any public place," the French government said when it sent the measure to parliament in May.

Lawmakers have also cited security reasons for forbidding people from covering their faces in public.
 
again - I don't see any valid point in your post. Just because this is a deaf forum doesn't mean you can conveniently use deaf component to sway this to your favor. that's just a lowball cheapshot. I wouldn't use epilepsy for this subject because disability has NOTHING to do with this.

There is no lowball cheapshot. I mentioned deaf because yes, this is a deaf forum. If I were on a Jewish forum, I'd use Jewish history as an example. It's called "relating". It's not an unfair argument. We're talking about matters of constitutionality. Also, I suggest you look into the Facundo Element. I hear they warn you to be careful of how you use the word "disability".

by your logic... skinheads have every rights to display Nazi flag on their front porch and vehicle. Do you support that skinhead's "natural right to liberty, property, security and resistance to oppression"?
Yes. When people are not actively inciting violence, hurting others, or contributing to the possible overthrow of the government, yes.


in case you didn't know...... which I repeated several times....
http://www.alldeaf.com/war-politica...ban-goes-into-force-monday-6.html#post1797087

Again, you do not have to be a majority group to have these rights. I'm sorry you don't see that. The French government has stated its distaste of practicing Muslims again and again and again. This law is about the burqa. It is not about ensuring gender rights. I have already made my points on that in this thread. This is not the Jiro Show.
 
There is no lowball cheapshot. I mentioned deaf because yes, this is a deaf forum. If I were on a Jewish forum, I'd use Jewish history as an example. It's called "relating". It's not an unfair argument. We're talking about matters of constitutionality..

Im afraid to say; I have to stand by Jiro on this one.

YOU KNOW jewish history. I would never head out to a jewish forum and tell them what their history was because I don't know. You don't know Deaf history, and in your recent posts it shows. What you had to say in these posts were offensive as well.
 
Im afraid to say; I have to stand by Jiro on this one.

YOU KNOW jewish history. I would never head out to a jewish forum and tell them what their history was because I don't know. You don't know Deaf history, and in your recent posts it shows. What you had to say in these posts were offensive as well.

Whatever I know about deaf history is what I've seen on these boards, on Gualludet's website, a few books (Hands of My Father totally took me by surprise a few years ago) a few smatterings in a textbook. I don't claim to know Deaf history. I do know some of the complaints by what people say on here, though. I do know that deaf people used to be discriminated against in Jewish law.

I don't expect you to know Jewish history. But I do expect you to know a little something about the history of Jewish discrimination. At the very least, a bit of knowledge about the Holocaust. I expect you to have some degree of empathy for the fact that my people have been persecuted for the last three thousand years. Just because you don't know a culture's history does not mean you cannot feel compelled to defend one's rights to liberty. I may not know a black man being lynched, but I'll be damned if I won't have an opinion on it, nu?

All that being said, this isn't about deaf history. This is about the principles of the French constitution being violated. It is about Liberté, amigo. It is about the right to be free from persecution. The scenarios I outlined fall under that principle.

I don't like the burqa. I don't like fundamentalist Islam. But I've also seen what happens when the majority imposes their ignorant assumptions on the minority. I don't follow Orthodox Judaism because I wouldn't be comfortable with my position as a woman. I have choices. Deaf people have choices. You would never get CI. Some Deaf here do have CI. And so forth and so on.

There is this thing called "sticking up for what you believe is right" - even when people have their differences. There are very, very few things I believe to be absolutely right, but natural rights is one.

My opinions on d/Deaf issues come from what I hear, what I see, and science. As we've reluctantly agreed, you and I, our positions are pretty similar.

There is an argument that Deaf culture is un-American. There is an argument that Islam is un-American. The only American principles I can are the ones outlined in our founding documents. The same goes for the French government's history. Nowhere does it declare Christianity to be supreme. Nowhere does it say that deaf should be sub-citizens.


Discriminatory Practices that infringe on one's right to be self-sufficient, practice religion, receive an education, or otherwise prohibit members of being active in civics and community life​

are not American -or French- principles.

Again, the reason why I made the initial comment was because the idea that "If you don't like it you can just leave" is very, very dangerous.
 
Im afraid to say; I have to stand by Jiro on this one.

YOU KNOW jewish history. I would never head out to a jewish forum and tell them what their history was because I don't know. You don't know Deaf history, and in your recent posts it shows. What you had to say in these posts were offensive as well.

PFH, if you address me on the boards, I may respond. But keep in mind you complained just two days ago about me disagreeing with you. So, mods, please note this.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top