|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
France recently passed a ban on wearing abayas — the full-length, baggy robe that, like the hijab, is considered to be an outward and visible sign of religion, and thus violates the state’s principle of laicité. A Muslim girl has now called her abaya a “kimono” — a sleight of word designed to make it avoid the ban — and is suing the French state for the right to wear it. More on this attempt to get around the abaya ban can be found here: “Muslim girl banned from school for kimono sues France in UN court, Anadolu Agency, September 22, 2023:
A female Muslim student, who was refused entry into a school in France for wearing a traditional Japanese garment kimono, lodged a complaint with the United Nations for discrimination based on religion, as the country banned long dresses, also known as abayas….
The 15-year-old girl, living in the French city of Lyon, has sent a complaint to Ashwini K.P, special rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia, and related intolerance, over “discrimination she faced on the grounds of her religious affiliation.”…
Criticizing the abaya ban introduced by French Education Minister Gabriel Attal, the complainant said they think that the French government has not taken the necessary steps to prevent all kinds of discrimination against women.
It’s amusing that Muslims, masters of misogyny, dare to claim that the French ban on the abaya constitutes “discrimination against women.” But there is no discrimination against women with this ban on the “kimono/abaya.” The ban on religious clothing and symbols falls on men and women alike. The Jewish kippah, worn only by men, is banned, and so is the wearing of crucifixes, worn by both men and women.
Earlier, the female student also filed a complaint with the Lyon Public Prosecutor’s Office on the grounds that she was “discriminated against due to her religious affiliation.”…
The female student was not discriminated against as a Muslim. To repeat: any outward sign of religious affiliation, including hijabs, abayas, kippahs and crucifixes, are banned in schools and other public institutions.
The court’s ruling came after Vincent Brengarth, a lawyer for the Muslim Rights Action (ADM), filed an appeal on Aug. 31 with the Council of State to seek the suspension of the ban on the abaya, which he said, violated “several fundamental freedoms.”
There is no freedom to wear religious symbols, including clothing, in public institutions — schools, hospitals, government buildings — in France. That prohibition, based on the principle of laicité — falls on males and females alike, and on Christians and Jews, as well as Muslims.
The controversial move sparked a backlash against the government, which has been criticized in recent years for targeting Muslims with statements and policies, including raids on mosques and charitable foundations, and an “anti-separatism” law that imposes broad restrictions on the community.
Now why might it be that the French government has raided mosques, but not churches and synagogues? Could it be because imams have been known to indulge in hate speech, directed at Infidels as “the most vile of created beings,” or especially at Jews as the “sons of apes and pigs”? Might it have something to do with Muslims storing weapons and false papers in mosques? Could those raids on so-called “charitable foundations” have been prompted by those “foundations” having links to the Muslim Brotherhood or providing financial support to terrorist groups?
Could the French raids on mosques have been prompted by an understandable interest in what is being preached by that mosque’s imams? Isn’t it just possible that some Muslim murderers on French soil were “radicalized” by what they heard in certain mosques? Haven’t some terrorist plots been hatched inside mosques? And what about these Muslim “charitable foundations” that have been linked to groups like the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, and Hezbollah — aren’t the French justified to monitor them?
Could the raids on mosques in France have anything to do with the Muslim murderers of 11 Charlie Hebdo cartoonists, the kidnapping, torture, and murder of Ilan Halimi by a Muslim gang, the murders by Muslims of two elderly Jewish women, Sarah Halimi (beaten to death, and then thrown out the window) and Mireille Knoll (set on fire, and stabbed 11 times) , the decapitation of a French priest saying mass at the altar, the murder of shoppers at a kosher market, the murder of a rabbi in Toulouse, together with his two small children and another child, the murders of policemen, the decapitation of high-school teacher Samuel Paty?
In sum: the French state does not discriminate either against women or against Muslims in its dress policy. It bans the wearing of religious symbols by males and females alike in schools and other public institutions, and by all religions equally: kippahs and crucifixes as well as hijabs and abayas. It is completely reasonable for the French security services to want to find out what exactly is going on in the country’s mosques, and especially in those attended by Muslims who went off to join ISIS, or have been responsible for terror attacks inside the country. There has not been too much surveillance of mosques and Muslim “charitable institutions,” but until now, out of fear by the French authorities of being accused of “islamophobia” and “racism,” far too little. That must change.
It’s the Muslims who discriminate against non-muslims; they kill them when they can.
I hope she wins. She is entitled to wear whatever she wants, ffs the same people who want to ban the wearing of a cross think it’s ok for a boy to wear a dress.
I hope this gets dragged through the highest courts and is discussed properly in their government and the unelected EU and their leaders in the United Nations.
Then they will be forced to acknowledge that their rule making is absurd and also that islam FORCES their women to cover their bodies.
Jews had lived in Europe for more than 10 centuries and had never tried to impose their traditions on the majority. Still it had bothered Europeans terribly that the Jews had retained their religion and traditions;.
Now, the relatively few Jews remaining in Europe have been replaced by Muslims, who are far less accommodating than Jews ever were, fairy tales of Jews ruling the world notwithstanding.
Funny, the Muslim girl doesn’t look at all Japanese-ish
Looks like cultural appropriation gone bad to me.
I recently saw a woman dressed in full Islamic covering in the lap pool, trying to swim. It is very very difficult to swim in lots of heavy clothing — impossible to do much more than struggle to stay afloat. Our eyes met and I saw she was very curious about me, probably because I wear a unitard that is modest, but designed for serious lap swimming. I felt so sorry for her.
There is a poolside shower and the rules require everyone to shower before getting into the pool to minimize oils, dirt, etc. She could never do this.
I truly hate multiculturalism and wokeism. Diversity is fine, but multiculturalism is intolerable.
Any other person trying to swim in the pool fully clothed would be told to get out. This woman should be no different. I’m not sure why one should feel sorry for her.
There are swim outfits made for Orthodox Jewish women that look like simple outdoor clothing, with for example a slim skirt over knee-covering pants and a t-shirt with elbow-covering sleeves and a decent neckline. I have worn such outfits and had no trouble swimming in them, or moving around easily. The fabric was developed ten or fifteen years ago for the Italian Olympic swim team and sheds water rather than absorbing it, so there is no chance of sinking. I assume that Muslim women have swim outfits made of similar fabrics and streamlined designs as well.
Yes. I have seen it. It is very becoming. This lady was not wearing anything like that. She was clearly fighting her clothes.
I suppose the French courts could make their ruling that the head coverings et al are not religious symbols if French imams make the similar ruling that these hijabs and niqabs are no more religious and no more essential to the modesty of the Muslima than the bikini.
This reminds me of the time when I was travelling in a minicab, and saw a woman driving a 4 X 4, whilst attired in a burkha. There is no way that her peripheral vision was not compromised – and my minicab diver, who actually had Islamic symbols hanging in his windscreen, had some very forthright things to say about it.
I think that the way to deal with the kimono incident is to ban national dress in public places as well as religious symbols – perhaps with an exception for tourist spots or historical re-enactment events.
Well, first of all, they should put a stop on immigration by members of the religion of peace. If it continues, eventually they might have a majority or enough power to enforce a law that all women must wear their clothing everywhere. They would enact full sharia including stoning for failing to obey their dress codes, wife beating, honor killing, and all the other peaceful practices they are famous for. No offense intended.
These wicked tramps are terrorists in disguise. Lost souls that want to be lost.
They can name it whatever they want, but it is really a sack designed to obscure the tempting sight of evil women.