Freedom of Conscience is one of the cornerstones of the Enlightenment. Oppression of Women is not.Regardless of colour or creed.
The problem with this law and its timing comes from the fact that this is an issue whipped-up by those who care nothing for the individuals involved, and really are using racism for their own political ends.

well done to the french - shame we havent got the guts to do it here.

freedom is slavery, remember that- in both the muslim and catholic worlds

Good for you France!
BTW, this is all just pro-Islam anti-freedom propaganda. The bill says nothing about the burqa or niqab. It says you cannot cover your face in public using headgear or clothing. Including turbans, motorcylist helmits, balaclavas, etc.

It sucks that here in Britain we are so Islamofriendly we have already incorporated a form of Sharia law. We're only a step away from becoming an Islamic state, and only 5% of the population is Muslim!

Good for you France, these women need to be liberated. The veil is an oppressive tool used to objectify Muslims. They go from people, to walking tents. Not only that, but you could easily have a gun or a suicide vest under there. And a wanted criminal could get away with crime caught on CCTV or whatever.

france is based on equality, freedom and brotherhood.
i fail to see how making everyone equal through their dressing, co-exists with basic freedom.

Do we actually need any format of organized religion in the UK?

I really don't see the need.

I'm afraid i see those that worship as being delusional, fearful, or illogical.

Whatever the veil 'means' or we think it means, I just don't see how a democratic state can make illegal a garment or mode of dress.

Of course, it may be possible to identify places or jobs where such clothes are not appropriate - balancing this with encouraging integration and opposing discrimination - but in the street? I just don't see how it can or should be illegal to wear such broadly-defined clothes or headgear in the street.

The bigger story is Sarkos policy of expelling the Roma. Absolutely disgraceful. Its back to the days of Vichy, following the disgraceful example of Berlusconni and Merkel.

As far as the comments about the punishments for wearing the veil might be, I think it has to be realised that the ban is not aimed at punishing women but more to make it impossible for people in their lives that might force them to wear it. On verra...

This is awful. How can it be possible in the Western world (where we value democracy and freedom) to lock women up for wearing what they want to wear? Those who persist in wearing the veil will be imprisoned.

From a feminist point of view, this is outrageous. My body, my rules. Nobody has the right to decide what a woman can wear. Forcing women to not wear something is the same as forcing them to wear something. In either case, force is involved (by a male-dominated, patriarchal society), is it not? It's the 21st century. When will women be allowed to finally wear whatever they want to wear?

The world seems to have gone mad.

The thing I love about the French is they don't give a hoot what you think Mr Hasan.

What if Paris had won the 2012 Olympic bid? Would they be enforcing the law then? It must damage their prospects of hosting future international events.

Vive La France!Can you stick a burqua over your pus ugly face, please? Than try some breath play sex with a ligature.
MEDHI HUSAN SUSPECTED OF CHILD ABUSE. Full story on CNN. Probably. Not.
Israel will survive you and your kind, you lying shiteating traitor. As for intergenerational sex, who was that prophet with the 9 year old wife? Name's on the tip of my tongue...

Bangladesh: High Court Directs Government to Immediately Implement Sexual Harassment Guidelines in All Educational Institutions, and Ensure that Women Are Not Forced to Veil or Cover Their Heads

Publication Date:
May 2, 2010

Advocate Salahuddin Dolon v Bangladesh, Writ Petition No. 4495 of 2009

Summary: The High Court today directed the Ministry of Education to take immediate steps to implement the Guidelines on Sexual Harassment declared earlier in BNWLA v Bangladesh, and to ensure that no woman working in any educational institution, public or private is forced to wear a veil or cover her head, and may exercise her personal choice whether or not to do so. [1]The Court also observed that Section 27A of the Government Servants Discipline and Conduct Rules 1979, must be read alongside these Guidelines, to ensure that public officials are held to account for any acts of sexual harassment.

The Court observed “It is the personal choice of a woman to wear a veil. If any person tries to compel a woman to wear a veil against her consent or will that amounts to a violation of her fundamental rights as enshrined in the Constitution”.

These directions were given in a writ petition filed by Adv. Salahuddin Dolon, following a news report that the Headmistress of a Primary School in Kurigram had been verbally abused in sexually coloured remarks during a public meeting of her school by a public official, an Upazilla Education Officer, because she had not covered her head in his presence. During the course of the hearing, the Education Officer had apologized in person to the Headmistress in Court. The Court also observed that this Officer may be transferred from his current area of operations.

The judgment was passed by a Division Bench comprising Mr Justice Syed Mahmud Hossain and Ms. Justice Syed Afsar Jahan. Advocate Dolon appeared for himself. Ms Sara Hossain represented the Bangladesh Legal and Services and Trust as co petitioner. Mr Razik Al Jalil, DAG appeared for the state.

Background: On 28.6.2009, the High Court issued a Rule on the Government (Ministries of Education and Home Affairs) and the Upazilla Education Officer to show cause as to why the Ministry of Education should not be directed to take appropriate action against the said Education officer for uttering highly derogatory remarks against the Headmistress of a school.

The Rule was issued in a writ petition filed by Advocate Salahuddin Dolon, following publication of a report in the Daily Shomokal. The report alleged that a Thana Education Officer had verbally abused the Headmistress of a Primary School in Kurigram on the ground that she had failed to wear a veil. The Court directed the education authorities to submit a report to the court. In the report it was stated that the Education Officer had made an “inadvertent error”. The Court thereupon called the Education Officer to appear before the Court and on doing so, he apologized in person to the headmistress who was also present in court.

On 4.5.2009 BLAST through its Deputy Director (Legal Aid) Farida Yeasmin filed an application for addition of party as co-petitioner. The application was allowed and BLAST was added as co petitioner no. 2.

Adv. Salahuddin Dolon submitted that the alleged statements made by the respondent no. 3 were highly objectionable and that the Court should frame a guideline so that women in different educational institutions would be able to work freely and with dignity.

Ms Hossain, for BLAST submitted that the actions of the Education Officer constituted sexual harassment and were a clear instance of gender-based discrimination perpetrated by a state official. She further submitted that the imposition of a dress code on women amounts to a violation of fundamental rights to equality, the right to be treated in accordance with law, and to personal liberty, freedom of expression, as well as freedom of religion Such actions warranted specific measures being taken by the state to implement its constitutional obligations to prohibit gender discrimination and ensure equality of opportunity in employment for men and women. She prayed for the existing conduct and discipline rules for government servants to be read together with the sexual harassment guidelines and effectively implemented.

The Court observed “It is the personal choice of a woman to wear a veil . If any person tries to compel a woman to wear a veil against her consent or will that amounts to a violation of her fundamental rights as enshrined in the Constitution. It is her personal choice to do so or not to do so. In Bangladesh there has been no uniform practice of veiling or head covering among women. In recent years there have been reported instances of attempts to forcibly impose this not only by private persons but also by government officials. The instant case demonstrates the harassment of women and girls in public spaces, schools, educations and places of higher education both public and private.”

Existing Rules on Sexual Harassment and Discipline of Government Officers

· The High Court’s Guidelines on Prevention of Sexual Harassment earlier laid down on 14.5.2009 in Bangladesh National Women Lawyers Association v Government of Bangladesh (2009) 14 Bangladesh Law Chronicles directed the Government to enact legislation to address the issue immediately pending which the Guidelines would have the force of law.

· Guidelines, Rule 4(i)(c) Sexually coloured verbal representation; Rule 4(1)(f) Sexually coloured remark or gesture;

· Government Servants Discipline and Conduct Rules 1979, Rule 27A. Conduct towards female colleagues- No Government servant shall use any language or behave with his female colleagues in any manner which is improper and goes against the official decorum and dignity of female colleagues.

[1] Directions: “The Ministry of Education, Respondent no. 1 is directed to ensure that the women working in different educational institutions both in public and private are not harassed by their superiors as stated in the judgment and to ensure that the women working as such are not forced to wear veils or cover their heads and may have a choice whether to do or not to do so. The Ministry of Education is also directed to implement the Guideline formulated in BNWLA v Bangladesh in all educational institutions both in the public and private sectors.

http://www.stop-stoning.org/en/node/1194

The problem with this ban is that it is specific to the burqa. It is indeed a woman's right to live mired in ignorance and servitude but that is a separate issue.

The ban should forbid anyone from concealing their identity while in public whether it is a helmet or a burqa.

Peter in this case it's a majority of French white men forcing legislation on a tiny minority of women mostly of foreign origin. It's a heady cocktail of ignorance, xenophobia, sexism and prejudice against Islam, proposed by a government busily involved in something akin to ethnic cleansing in Roma camps.

I'd support a ban on police officers covering their faces and numbers, but I don't think I'd go further than that.

spelling mistakes aside... well said 1R4M

@ Aliya
A few points - It is a stupid proposed law - but no more stupid than the existing laws in certain Muslim countries restricting what women can wear. You can't have it both ways.
Moderating comments? I too think some of the comments on various boards are disgusting - but that is free speech and I applaud the NS for allowing it. While it can sometimes reduce debate to a slanging match it also let's sane people see how many nutters there are out there. I don't think any intelligent person is going to be swayed by ad hominen attacks.

Good news for France tackling the odious mohammedist dogs.

Daniele - couldnt agree more with your post, but know that France MUST enforce the law, even if it means a few (more) extremist martyrs for Islam...

To put it simply, women who wear the burka (whether freely or not) are showing that they are hardcore religious nutters and masochists to boot: they are as easily as offensive as someone wearing full Nazi/SS uniforms on the streets, and scoiety cannot allow the spread of such hideous fascist demonstrations...

It was the great Julie Burchill who described the burka as "that hideous mobile prison on the street" - thank God one European nation has clearly said: oh bondage, no more!

"It sucks that here in Britain we are so Islamofriendly we have already incorporated a form of Sharia law. We're only a step away from becoming an Islamic state, and only 5% of the population is Muslim! "

Is this true? Only a step away! Seriously?

Des Demona,

I don't advocate having it both ways, I think for once, we've got it right in the UK. I think women should be allowed the freedom to choose what they want to wear, whether that's a mini skirt or a bikini or the hijab or niqab. You may not decide to wear either, but I don't think it's for the state to intervene in choice of clothing. That is individual and personal expression, and it's for women to have that control.

So I'm not saying the law is right in Muslim countries, I've just always associated Western values (aka my values, yes I'm a Muslim, but born and bred British and proud to be British) with freedom.

As for moderating comments, I guess you're right. It's not constructive but I guess still consistent in terms of freedom of speech, and harmless.

Buckskins,

If that is so, punish the men oppressing the women. Why would you fine and throw the women in prison? What will imprisoning the victim achieve?

@ Aliya

Well said. The elephant in the room though is - if it came down to a choice between a UK with secular values and religious freedom or a country governed by Sharia Law - which would you choose?
That is the $64,000 dollar question that seems to be posed and one which I think lies at the heart of the more heated debates on the question of Islam.
You live in a country that has those freedoms. Freedoms that have been fought for over centuries. Others do not. Especially those who are governed by religious dogma.

Des demona,

Trouble is, I don't believe there is an elephant. I think certain parts of the media would like you to think there's an elephant where non exists. For example, I believe the Daily Mail is the main purveyor of elephant-related services... ;-)

I don't even have to think about that question, the choice is obvious. I may not like the current government but I have the freedom to vote and change it... it's a secular democracy every time, with the freedom to practice religion as individuals might choose. I'm pretty sure most Brits who are Muslim would choose the same, though no denial that there are some who would not. I'm Muslim AND British, not one or the other.

Although it is sort of a pussy move, they could have helped out with the wars for instance, it's definitely in the right direction.

Muslims need to know that free countries will not tolerate their attempt to supplant western law with the sharia. They must know that we will kill every single one of them before this happens.