A victory for decorum.

[DeaconKC]

While in court today I wanted to applaud the judge. He told one of the "gentlemen" appearing there to pull up his pants and make sure they stayed up. He then warned everyone there that he would not tolerate pants falling down and would take appropriate action! Absolutely made my day!

 

[Undertow]

While in court today I wanted to applaud the judge. He told one of the "gentlemen" appearing there to pull up his pants and make sure they stayed up. He then warned everyone there that he would not tolerate pants falling down and would take appropriate action! Absolutely made my day!

Ha, no kidding?

Dare I question the charges?

 

[Stanley Doble]

A good judge is supposed to be impartial when it comes to judging a case but passing sentence is another matter. It's surprising how many don't know this. Or maybe they don't mind a longer sentence, or jail time instead of community service.

 

[ButteMT61]

Oh man, that's potentially racist, depending on who the defendant was. But I have seen this before; and I applaud it 100%

 

[DeaconKC]

I have no idea what the initial cretin's charge was who incurred the Judge's ire. My parolee was in on some old fines he hadn't paid.

 

[Benny Holiday]

There's a huge debate brewing in Australia at the moment over the burqa, the face-covering Islamic headwear for women and whether it should, or could, be banned. Without delving into the religious, legal or poltiical ramifications of the debate, I find it odd to think that on the one hand society appears to be frowning on someone covering up their face while on the other, young women and men are wandering around the very same streets with half their buttocks exposed and no one seems to be offended by it. Doesn;t make sense to me.

 

[W4ASZ]

This happens all the time. Few judges in my state are fans of "expressive clothing" in the courtroom.

 

[Trombone]

There's a huge debate brewing in Australia at the moment over the burqa, the face-covering Islamic headwear for women and whether it should, or could, be banned. Without delving into the religious, legal or poltiical ramifications of the debate, I find it odd to think that on the one hand society appears to be frowning on someone covering up their face while on the other, young women and men are wandering around the very same streets with half their buttocks exposed and no one seems to be offended by it. Doesn;t make sense to me.

Benny, that same debate is going on here in the US. And I have to agree with your comment about the Double Standard of one way of clothing yourself compared to another, just don't know

 

[ButteMT61]

Isn't one voluntary and the other, um, required? And didn't France ban that?

 

[ButteMT61]

Isn't one voluntary and the other, um, required? And didn't France ban that?

 

[lolly_loisides]

............I find it odd to think that on the one hand society appears to be frowning on someone covering up their face while on the other, young women and men are wandering around the very same streets with half their buttocks exposed and no one seems to be offended by it. Doesn;t make sense to me.

Reading your comment reminded me of this 1961 cartoon about beach inspectors throwing women off beaches because they considered them dressed immodestly.

 

[vitanola]

Isn't one voluntary and the other, um, required? And didn't France ban that?

Ban what?

They DID ban all outward religious symbolism in govenment schools, with the "Loi n° 2004-228 du 15 mars 2004", which went in to effect on
Sept. 15 of 2004.

The law bans all Christian symbolism, (veils, signs, medallions, etc), Muslim symbolism (veils, signs symbols etc.) along with the signs, symbols, clothing and headware of any of the less well-known religions.

 

[ButteMT61]

Ban what?They DID ban all outward religious symbolism in govenment schools, with the "Loi n° 2004-228 du 15 mars 2004", which went in to effect onSept. 15 of 2004. The law bans all Christian symbolism, (veils, signs, medallions, etc), Muslim symbolism (veils, signs symbols etc.) along with the signs, symbols, clothing and headware of any of the less well-known religions.

See this page....

 

[scottyrocks]

 

[Edward]

Isn't one voluntary and the other, um, required? And didn't France ban that?

Ban what?

They DID ban all outward religious symbolism in govenment schools, with the "Loi n° 2004-228 du 15 mars 2004", which went in to effect on
Sept. 15 of 2004.

The law bans all Christian symbolism, (veils, signs, medallions, etc), Muslim symbolism (veils, signs symbols etc.) along with the signs, symbols, clothing and headware of any of the less well-known religions.

Yes, officially the law covers all displays of religion: basically the French state seems to require that religion, at least in a public place, remain the dirty little secret of its adherents. The sad reality is that it was on the ground very clearly aimed at the Muslim community, at a time when playing to popular Islamphobia was a convenient move for an unpopular and under fire Sarkozy. Sidestepping the political debate over the Burkha, it always seemed to me rather belittling to the women who choose to wear one for outsiders to their community to tell them they are wrong so to do. Surely not giving someone the free choice to wear one is as much an imposition as the idea that they are forced to wear it? I gather it has had very limited impact in practice, as there really only were a few hundred women in all of France who wore them.

 

[sheeplady]

Yes, officially the law covers all displays of religion: basically the French state seems to require that religion, at least in a public place, remain the dirty little secret of its adherents. The sad reality is that it was on the ground very clearly aimed at the Muslim community, at a time when playing to popular Islamphobia was a convenient move for an unpopular and under fire Sarkozy. Sidestepping the political debate over the Burkha, it always seemed to me rather belittling to the women who choose to wear one for outsiders to their community to tell them they are wrong so to do. Surely not giving someone the free choice to wear one is as much an imposition as the idea that they are forced to wear it? I gather it has had very limited impact in practice, as there really only were a few hundred women in all of France who wore them.

Well, and also the problem of banning all religious paraphernalia is that wearing a religious head covering is much different than wearing a symbol around your neck. The purpose of something like a head covering is much different than displaying your faith by wearing a cross- it's less a message that you belong to a religion and more something that is integral to your beliefs about modesty. Not to mention that something like a head covering can't be hidden- a religious person could still wear a symbol under their clothing- but the only option for something that evokes modesty is to wear it.

There's plenty of religions that allow women to choose more modest options; although sometimes it may mean that not wearing them means you must change sects or some other thing. No one I ever met felt "forced" to wear or not wear an item, although occasionally I have met individuals who faced a lot of conflict with loved ones for their choice.

 

[Gin&Tonics]

There's a huge debate brewing in Australia at the moment over the burqa, the face-covering Islamic headwear for women and whether it should, or could, be banned. Without delving into the religious, legal or poltiical ramifications of the debate, I find it odd to think that on the one hand society appears to be frowning on someone covering up their face while on the other, young women and men are wandering around the very same streets with half their buttocks exposed and no one seems to be offended by it. Doesn;t make sense to me.

Your point is well taken, however I would also point out the fact that the burqa can be viewed as a security issue since it completely hides the identity of the person wearing it, making them impossible to identify. That aspect of the debate has yet to be mentioned, apparently.

Also, it should be noted that the burqa is not in any sense required or prescribed by the Muslim religion, and is actually merely a cultural practice which was created with the purpose of oppressing women. Now, one may well argue that it's equally improper to interfere with a person's cultural practices as it is to interfere with the requirements of their religion, but we would do well to cast the debate in its proper light before moving forward with it.

 

[Benny Holiday]

I dig where you're coming from G&T, but that's why I didn't want to go into the debate about the burqa at all. My point is simply that I don't get how people can complain about someone covering their face and find that offensive while at the same time not be offended by half of another person's bare backside staring them in the face.

ScottyRocks, that is one funny poster!

 

[LizzieMaine]

Here's an angle on the head-covering thing they probably haven't thought about. Many religious denominations do require women to wear a head cloth or similar covering as a sign of humility, modesty or submission. But what about those of us who wear such a cloth for more practical purposes? I wear a head cloth most every day in the summer, wrapped over my hairpins. Would I be required to take it off in a French classroom? Mine has no religious significance whatever, but I'm constantly being questioned about it by people who assume it means I'm a Mennonite, which I'm not. I just don't want to go around with bobby pins sticking out in open view when it's too humid to wear my hair down. Is that allowed in France? How can they determine if someone is wearing something for a religious reason or a practical reason?

 

[Gin&Tonics]

Benny - I was meaning that perhaps the reason for them wanting to ban it is not that they're offended, but that they suspect it allows terrorists to go around undetected like ninjas...sneaky, sneaky ninjas...

I agree with you that it's extremely silly to be offended by someone covering their face for religious reasons and NOT be offended by people's bums hanging out in the open.

Lizzie - you make an excellent point! One of many reasons I tend to strongly denounce such legislation. Slippery slope...