[FREE IRAN Project] In The Spirit Of Cyrus The Great Forum Index [FREE IRAN Project] In The Spirit Of Cyrus The Great
Views expressed here are not necessarily the views & opinions of ActivistChat.com. Comments are unmoderated. Abusive remarks may be deleted. ActivistChat.com retains the rights to all content/IP info in in this forum and may re-post content elsewhere.
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Muslims Worldwide Protest French Head Scarf Ban!
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    [FREE IRAN Project] In The Spirit Of Cyrus The Great Forum Index -> News Briefs & Discussion
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
stefania



Joined: 17 Jul 2003
Posts: 4250
Location: Italy

PostPosted: Sun Jan 18, 2004 11:27 am    Post subject: Muslims Worldwide Protest French Head Scarf Ban! Reply with quote

Muslims Worldwide Protest French Head Scarf Ban

Saturday, January 17, 2004



PARIS — Waving the French flag or wearing it as a head scarf, thousands of Muslim women marched Saturday through Paris, the center of a worldwide protest against France's plan to ban head coverings from public schools.

From Baghdad and Beirut to London and Stockholm, protesters condemned the law as an attack on religious freedom. Even in the West Bank city of Nablus and in the summer capital of Indian-controlled Kashmir, Srinagar, women came out to support French Muslims.

"Where is France? Where is tolerance?" the crowd chanted during the four-hour march through Paris. "The veil is my choice."

The protesters want to scrap a bill that will go before French lawmakers next month forbidding "conspicuous" religious signs, from Islamic head scarves to Jewish skull caps and large Christian crosses, in public schools. Easy passage is expected, and the law is to become applicable with the new school year in September.

President Jacques Chirac (search) says the aim is to protect the principle of secularism that anchors life in France. However, it also is seen as a way to hold back the swell of Islamic fundamentalism (search) in France's Muslim community — the largest in Western Europe at an estimated 5 million.

Protesters, from small girls to women, formed a sea of color in fanciful scarves of all sizes in Paris. Bearded men, some in long robes, also joined in the Paris march. A small group set out a prayer mat and prayed.

"Faith is not conspicuous," said one of hundreds of banners. "Neither Fundamentalist nor Terrorist but Peaceful Citizen," read another.

Police said up to 10,000 people took part in the peaceful march in the French capital, while several thousand others protested in a half-dozen cities around the country.

Critics of the law claim it will stigmatize France's Muslims. French authorities contend the principle of secularism is meant to make everybody equal.

"I think it will make things worse," Kods Mejry, 18, said of the head scarf ban. "There will be no more integration."

Her blue, white and red scarf matching the French flag was meant "to show that we are French and Muslim and proud of it."

In Washington, about 100 people protested outside the French Embassy; many were women wearing scarves. The crowded chanted "My scarf, my choice."

Demonstrators held signs that read: "Repressive Does Not Equal Progressive" and "Is My Scarf a Threat to Democracy?"

In London, 2,400 people demonstrated near the French Embassy in the upscale Knightsbridge area. Waving placards, they chanted: "If this is democracy, we say 'No, merci!"'

"The government is isolating Muslims and setting a dangerous precedent," said Ihtisham Hibatullah, spokesman for the Muslim Association of Britain.

Nearby, a small rival group of about 30 demonstrators expressed support for the French ban.

British Foreign Office Minister Mike O'Brien said Britain's overnment supports the right to display religious symbols.

"In Britain, we are comfortable with the expression of religion, seen in the wearing of the hijab, crucifixes or the kippa," O'Brien said in a statement. "Integration does not require assimilation."

Across the Middle East, protesters denounced the French ban. The largest turnout was in the Lebanese capital of Beirut (search), where some 2,500 people marched. Smaller rallies drew up to 100 people each in the Jordanian capital of Amman, in Cairo and in Kuwait.

Some 300 Palestinian women protested in the West Bank city of Nablus.

"As a people who have been oppressed, we know what it means for others in the world who are denied their freedom," said Salam Ghazal, head of a local women's group.

In Iraq, an Islamic group distributed an open letter to Chirac in mosques that called on him to reverse his position, while dozens of male and female students demonstrated at Baghdad's Al Mustansiriya University.

In Canada, snowy weather and subzero temperatures did not shake the resolve of 300 protesters outside the French consulate in Toronto.

"Public outrage will hopefully cause the French government to rethink what they're planning on doing," said Rania Lawendy, a protest organizer.

In Stockholm, too, about 2,000 people marched to the French Embassy. A smaller group protested in Oslo.

The Party of Muslims of France, a small group known for its radical views, organized the Paris march. However, the huge Union of Islamic Organizations of France, a fundamentalist group, gave its blessing and encouraged people to take part.

"The next step is for the president to react before it's too late," said Mohamed Latreche, head of the Party of Muslims of France.






_________________
Referendum AFTER Regime Change

"I'm ready to die for you to be able to say your own opinions, even if i strongly disagree with you" (Voltaire)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website Yahoo Messenger
Azadeh_55



Joined: 16 Jan 2004
Posts: 467

PostPosted: Sun Jan 18, 2004 2:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Where was these protester's concern for "personal freedom" when their buddies were throwing acid in the faces of women who didn't want to wear a rag over their heads on the streets of Tehran. I don't buy it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
sudi



Joined: 19 Jul 2003
Posts: 235
Location: Plano, TX

PostPosted: Sun Jan 18, 2004 3:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Azadeh_55 wrote:
Where was these protester's concern for "personal freedom" when their buddies were throwing acid in the faces of women who didn't want to wear a rag over their heads on the streets of Tehran. I don't buy it.


Indeed. Although I must admit, I liked seeing Chirac get this slap in the face. After years of dealing with and supporting Islamists, it serves him right to see that there is no loyalty from these fanatics and radicals. Poetic justice.

Sudi
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Q



Joined: 09 Jan 2004
Posts: 20

PostPosted: Sun Jan 18, 2004 8:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Why do you religion junkies feel the need for public spectacle? Surely you and your internal monalogue can accomplish goals by praying in silence.

Why is the Islam god so mean to the girls
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Gil



Joined: 15 Dec 2003
Posts: 63
Location: Far Rockaway, New York

PostPosted: Sun Jan 18, 2004 10:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I had to respond to this "well written" post Very Happy...

Q wrote:
Why do you religion junkies


It seems that you are a) an atheist (you do not believe in religion) and b) a liberal (you mock religion). Religion isn't an addiction; it's a method of living. Explanation (to demonstrate the difference to your pea-sized brain): Vegetarianism = method of living; smoking = habit; habit does not equal method of living.

Quote:
feel the need for public spectacle?


Would you call wearing denim jeans in public "public spectacle"? Religous garb (non-descrip by nature), regardless of the venue, is not "public spectacle"; it is not designed to draw attention to the wearer, but to remind the wearer of his/her religious duties. However, I suspect that you object to religious dress because it reminds you that there is an objective Right and Wrong, and you're Wrong.

Quote:
Surely you and your internal monalogue


I have no idea what you mean by an "internal monologue." Are you suggesting that religious folk are incessantly talking to themselves? Confused

Quote:
can accomplish goals by praying in silence.


See my point above as to why you hate religious accessories displayed in public. But this statement of yours is just idiotic - you despise religions you obviously know nothing about, and then attempt to present yourself as knowing how followers of religion can accomplish their religious goals.

Quote:
Why is the Islam god so mean to the girls


Your last question (I'm assuming it's a question - you didn't punctuate it Confused) sheds light on your idiocy. Covering hair does not equal "mean-ness"; to say that it does is like saying that wearing shoes equals matrimonial fidelity. Additionally, in both Islam and Judaism, men and women must cover their hair. Therefore, your last statement/question has nothing to do with this thread, you nincompoop.
_________________
We Won't Get Fooled Again
"Revolution in a Bottle"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
strawberryfields
Guest





PostPosted: Sun Jan 18, 2004 10:51 pm    Post subject: ratherthan Reply with quote

Gil wrote:
I had to respond to this "well written" post Very Happy...

Q wrote:
Why do you religion junkies


It seems that you are a) an atheist (you do not believe in religion) and b) a liberal (you mock religion). Religion isn't an addiction; it's a method of living. Explanation (to demonstrate the difference to your pea-sized brain): Vegetarianism = method of living; smoking = habit; habit does not equal method of living.

Quote:
feel the need for public spectacle?


Would you call wearing denim jeans in public "public spectacle"? Religous garb (non-descrip by nature), regardless of the venue, is not "public spectacle"; it is not designed to draw attention to the wearer, but to remind the wearer of his/her religious duties. However, I suspect that you object to religious dress because it reminds you that there is an objective Right and Wrong, and you're Wrong.

Quote:
Surely you and your internal monalogue


I have no idea what you mean by an "internal monologue." Are you suggesting that religious folk are incessantly talking to themselves? Confused

Quote:
can accomplish goals by praying in silence.


See my point above as to why you hate religious accessories displayed in public. But this statement of yours is just idiotic - you despise religions you obviously know nothing about, and then attempt to present yourself as knowing how followers of religion can accomplish their religious goals.

Quote:
Why is the Islam god so mean to the girls


Your last question (I'm assuming it's a question - you didn't punctuate it Confused) sheds light on your idiocy. Covering hair does not equal "mean-ness"; to say that it does is like saying that wearing shoes equals matrimonial fidelity. Additionally, in both Islam and Judaism, men and women must cover their hair. Therefore, your last statement/question has nothing to do with this thread, you nincompoop.


We all have important points to make - but in the words of that guy who got beat up by a bunch of cops.. ohh yes, Rodney King -

"Can't we all just get .. get along.."

Smile

Meant to lighten the mood.. but seriously boys, I take it many of you are males since I can smell the testosterone rushing out of this thread - can we use this time to discuss respectfully amongst each other rather than attacking.. Also keep in mind, it's easy to mis-interpret things on a message board..

Attacks like these by whoever makes them are a sign of weakness anyways - if you have a point then make a logical argument.. Any person is entititled to their views - perhaps we could respect this principle!
Back to top
Azadeh_55



Joined: 16 Jan 2004
Posts: 467

PostPosted: Sun Jan 18, 2004 11:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Would you call wearing denim jeans in public "public spectacle"?


That all depends. If a particular religious groups starts singling out people who aren't wearing denim jeans for violence (say by throwing acid in their faces) and ridicules (by calling them whores and sluts), then yes.

Quote:
Religous garb (non-descrip by nature), regardless of the venue, is not "public spectacle"; it is not designed to draw attention to the wearer, but to remind the wearer of his/her religious duties. However, I suspect that you object to religious dress because it reminds you that there is an objective Right and Wrong, and you're Wrong.


They just want to terrorize the rest of us into submission with their public spectacles. They can remind themselves of their religious duties by making little notes to themselves. They don't have to mark and identify themselves in public. It's just like when a violent youth gang wears a specific attire. They do it to separate themselves from other gangs (so that they don't attack members of their own gang). In some neighbourhoods in some neighbourhoods in France, Muslim men single-out young girls who don't wear the hijab for gang-rape. I read a long story about this heinous cime on frontpagemagazine.com but I can't find the link now.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Gil



Joined: 15 Dec 2003
Posts: 63
Location: Far Rockaway, New York

PostPosted: Mon Jan 19, 2004 12:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Azadeh_55 wrote:
Quote:
Would you call wearing denim jeans in public "public spectacle"?

That all depends. If a particular religious groups starts singling out people who aren't wearing denim jeans for violence (say by throwing acid in their faces) and ridicules (by calling them whores and sluts), then yes.


A) Then wearing the denim wouldn't be a public spectacle, but the terrorists reactions to the wearing the denim would be the public spectacle. That's an important difference. Wink

B) You're forgetting that the ban on religious dress was against Jews and Catholics, as well as Muslims. Jews and Catholics haven't been commiting acts of terrorism against other religions; therefore, just apply my argument to Jews and Catholics, and it still stands. Smile

Quote:
Quote:
Religous garb (non-descrip by nature), regardless of the venue, is not "public spectacle"; it is not designed to draw attention to the wearer, but to remind the wearer of his/her religious duties. However, I suspect that you object to religious dress because it reminds you that there is an objective Right and Wrong, and you're Wrong.

They just want to terrorize the rest of us into submission with their public spectacles. They can remind themselves of their religious duties by making little notes to themselves. They don't have to mark and identify themselves in public. It's just like when a violent youth gang wears a specific attire. They do it to separate themselves from other gangs (so that they don't attack members of their own gang). In some neighbourhoods in some neighbourhoods in France, Muslim men single-out young girls who don't wear the hijab for gang-rape. I read a long story about this heinous cime on frontpagemagazine.com but I can't find the link now.


See above.

strawberryfields wrote:
We all have important points to make - but in the words of that guy who got beat up by a bunch of cops.. ohh yes, Rodney King -
"Can't we all just get .. get along.."
Meant to lighten the mood.. but seriously boys, I take it many of you are males since I can smell the testosterone rushing out of this thread - can we use this time to discuss respectfully amongst each other rather than attacking.. Also keep in mind, it's easy to mis-interpret things on a message board..
Attacks like these by whoever makes them are a sign of weakness anyways - if you have a point then make a logical argument.. Any person is entititled to their views - perhaps we could respect this principle!


Yes, other people are entitled to their views. And I'm entitled to point out how they're wrong. Smile
_________________
We Won't Get Fooled Again
"Revolution in a Bottle"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
Sourena



Joined: 15 Jan 2004
Posts: 191

PostPosted: Mon Jan 19, 2004 1:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Gil wrote:
Yes, other people are entitled to their views. And I'm entitled to point out how they're wrong. Smile


Very true. lol. This person should probably not have put down Islam without knowing too much about it. Their opinion is wrong. It is VERY wrong, mainly because they are either:
a)misinformed
b)uninformed
c)stupid
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Azadeh_55



Joined: 16 Jan 2004
Posts: 467

PostPosted: Mon Jan 19, 2004 3:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
A) Then wearing the denim wouldn't be a public spectacle, but the terrorists reactions to the wearing the denim would be the public spectacle. That's an important difference.


I support a ban on hijab for many reasons. The women who wear hezbollah's uniforms are making a public statement. A year after the revolution, the Islamic Republic's first president came on national TV saying that women had to hide their hair in public because women's hair has rays coming from it that harms men. Soon after, the women who refused to wear the hijab were fired from their jobs, had acid thrown in their faces, spat on, dragged out of taxi cabs and were beaten. This dress code is more than just about religion. I think the women who wear this dress code voluntarily are worst than the hezbollahi thugs who beat women for not wearing it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Q



Joined: 09 Jan 2004
Posts: 20

PostPosted: Mon Jan 19, 2004 10:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

It seems that Islamic males have no sexual self control or at least this is what they claim. My guess is that they are heavey porn addicts. Do Moslems never watch Bollywood or Hollywood movies?

Instead of imprisoning Muslim women why not simply castrate the males?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
stefania



Joined: 17 Jul 2003
Posts: 4250
Location: Italy

PostPosted: Mon Jan 19, 2004 11:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Gil, i also am an atheist but i am not liberal..

i only keep my right to believe or not believe..

What counts is not my personal belief ( religion must be only a personal matter)

what counts is what we do..
_________________
Referendum AFTER Regime Change

"I'm ready to die for you to be able to say your own opinions, even if i strongly disagree with you" (Voltaire)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website Yahoo Messenger
sudi



Joined: 19 Jul 2003
Posts: 235
Location: Plano, TX

PostPosted: Mon Jan 19, 2004 12:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Indeed religion is a 'personal matter'. It is an individual's right to engage in (or abstain from) any religious activity, as long as they do not infringe on the rights of others. Unfortunately, personal rights and freedom have no meaning to the mullahs of Iran or to other Islamists (Islamic radicals) around the world. Iran needs a strict separation of church/mosque and State.

Sudi
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Azadeh_55



Joined: 16 Jan 2004
Posts: 467

PostPosted: Mon Jan 19, 2004 12:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
It seems that Islamic males have no sexual self control or at least this is what they claim. My guess is that they are heavey porn addicts. Do Moslems never watch Bollywood or Hollywood movies?


I don't know what they do. I grew up in an anti-religious family.

Quote:
Instead of imprisoning Muslim women why not simply castrate the males?


That would make more sense. But why does anyone need to do anything? Before the revolution, between 10% to 25% (depending on the city and neighbourhood) of women wore the veil and no man was ever castrated. And as far as I know, there were no problems with "male sexual self-control". My mom says the cities were so safe that she used to travel from city to city by herself when she was my age. This would have meant walking to your death in my time.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
redemption



Joined: 30 Dec 2003
Posts: 1158
Location: California

PostPosted: Mon Jan 19, 2004 12:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

sudi wrote:
Indeed religion is a 'personal matter'. It is an individual's right to engage in (or abstain from) any religious activity, as long as they do not infringe on the rights of others. Unfortunately, personal rights and freedom have no meaning to the mullahs of Iran or to other Islamists (Islamic radicals) around the world. Iran needs a strict separation of church/mosque and State.

Sudi


Sudi - you've pinned the tail on the donkey so to speak... What further discussion is needed? - this is the MAIN POINT - SEPARATION OF CHURCH/MOSQUE and STATE - and RELIGION IS A 'PERSONAL MATTER'..

I don't know how much futher the whole concept needs to be discussed. Conclusion seems pretty conrete to me..

_________________
IRANIANS UNITE
PERSIA LIVES ON!!
FREE IRAN NOW!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    [FREE IRAN Project] In The Spirit Of Cyrus The Great Forum Index -> News Briefs & Discussion All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Page 1 of 5

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group