French Call for Veil Ban in Public Buildings

Monday, January 25, 2010


PARIS — A French parliamentary panel will stop short of recommending a ban on face-covering veils in the street and instead will ask for the garb to be banned in public facilities such as hospitals, the panel's president says.

The 32-member panel's report due Tuesday culminates a six-month inquiry into the wearing of all-encompassing veils that began after President Nicolas Sarkozy said in June that they are "not welcome" on French territory.

Andre Gerin, a Communist lawmaker who heads the multiparty panel, said the report contains a "multitude of proposals" to ban such garb in places like schools, hospitals and other public buildings, but not private buildings or on the street.

Gerin stressed the need to move "progressively" toward a law banning the attire in the streets and to work "hand in hand" with Muslim leaders and associations.

A 2004 French law bans Muslim headscarves from classrooms.

Muslim religious leaders have warned that a law banning face-covering attire in the streets could stigmatize Muslims and drive some to extremism. They were joined last week by Roman Catholic and Jewish leaders who said they consider such a drastic step unnecessary.

France has Western Europe's largest Muslim population, estimated at some 5 million. Only a tiny minority of Muslim women wear such attire, usually a "niqab" pinned across the face to cover all but the eyes.

Critics of the veils call them a gateway to extremism, an insult to gender equality and an offense to France's secular system.

"It is perhaps a marginal problem, but it is the visible part of the iceberg," Gerin said in a recent interview. "Behind the iceberg is a black tide of ... fundamentalism." He denounced those he called "gurus" or "French Taliban" who, he claimed, promote a radical brand of Islam that forces women and girls to hide themselves.

Critics of a formal ban have raised concerns about the constitutionality of state mandates on dress.

"I don't think an ideology should be fought through constraining measures but through ideas," Mohammed Moussaoui, the head of a coalition of Muslim organizations, said in an interview. "It's very difficult to talk about the liberation of women through a law that constrains." (WHAT??? HUH???- BBJ)

Introduction to The Infidel Task Force

TURMOIL IN TEHRAN

TEHRAN, Iran – Thousands of protesters defied Iran's highest authority Saturday and marched on waiting security forces that fought back with baton charges, tear gas and water cannons as the crisis over disputed elections lurched into volatile new ground."



Shall we salute and spiritually support the youth movement in Iran, for standing up against a bloodthirsty, corrupt, dictatorship in Iran?



Should Obama let it be known that the US is supporting this said movement?



Would Iran be better off with Musavi, instead of Amadinajhad?



Simple questions, right?



Not necessarily.....the answers are:

YES!

NO!

NO!



Yes, we should give our support and prayers for the students that are marching and fighting in the streets of Tehran. Reports coming in tell of up to 40 people may have been killed. Undocumented reports also state that helicopters may be pouring chemically enhanced agents from the air. Causing a burning sensation if it comes in contact with the flesh. Thank goodness the women are covered from head to toe.

Those youths that have hit the streets have been met with extreme violence form the police and the civilian militias. Baton wheeling thugs storming into buildings and hospitals seem to relish the though of cracking skulls and popping veins.

So, my answer to this question is...Yes. WE should be behind the protestors. Americans stand for liberty and we should support those that truly wish for it.



Second question? My answer is NO!! Obama has been, and should continue to maintain a moderatly neutral stance. His relationship with the current government depends on it. This "uprising" may fizzle out, as many have done before, and Obama will be weaker then he already is. Not to forget the Arab Islamists are a very un-grateful people. Just look at Iraq.

Not to mention that if Obama speaks out in support of the protestors, it will be just another case of Americans "meddling" in foreign affairs.

Better to keep your mouth shut and see what happens, then to play your cards now and end up the loser.



Last question...another resounding NO!!

NO! Iran would not be better if Musavi won over Amadinajhad. Why? Because they are ALL corrupt!!

Don't forget, Musavi was the last Prime Minister in Iran before the constitutional changes which removed the post of prime minister. And it was under Musavi that Iran started its nuclear programs. Like Ahmadinejad, Musavi said Iran will not halt its nuclear work, but suggested he would do more to assure the West it is not for bomb-making. Big freakin deal!!

Besides, its not the Iranian president that holds power, its the Islamic mullahs. And all they care about is the repression of women, and the elimination of Israel and the jewish race.

Iran would not be better off...well OK, maybe a little. But lets not be naive, the chances of the protestors getting what they wish is very slim. Changing regimes is even slimmer. Iran becoming a semi-democracy is non-existent.



So, we can support them, we can pray for them, we can wish them all the luck in the world. But as far as I'm concerned...they're on their own.



BlackbootJack 6/20/09

http://www.blackbootjack.blogspot.com/