Banning the Niqab

[Whisper]

What are your thoughts on banning the Niqab from public services?

http://fadillahcinta.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/niqab.jpg

[ltimm]

For everyday things: no.
If there are important people there: no, still.
People have the right to dress how they want to, and this is their culture.

I know, I know. Safety reasons. In my opinion, what woman is going to carry a bomb underneath her veil? One with a big mouth? I think not.

It's their culture, so let them practice it. Sure, it may seem odd in public, but that's what they want to wear.

[Shadoukun]

What are your thoughts on banning the Niqab from public services?

http://fadillahcinta.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/niqab.jpg

No.

For everyday things: no.
If there are important people there: no, still.
People have the right to dress how they want to, and this is their culture.

I know, I know. Safety reasons. In my opinion, what woman is going to carry a bomb underneath her veil? One with a big mouth? I think not.

It's their culture, so let them practice it. Sure, it may seem odd in public, but that's what they want to wear.

The Japanese in your signature is terrible.

[Jean Poutine]

banzor it banzor it banzor it

canada should enshrine laicity in its constitution and do away with any overt religious symbols in public contexts, crucifixes included.

[Sage]

I think the culture is stupid but that doesn't mean it should be banned. This'll probably just piss the muslims off more.

[Magus]

It's their culture, so let them practice it. Sure, it may seem odd in public, but that's what they want to wear.

I think the culture is stupid but that doesn't mean it should be banned. This'll probably just piss the muslims off more.

Culture =/= Religion
--

From my experience in middle-east. And especially the Arabian-Gulf where I reside. This may be shocking, I'd say they should Ban Niqab in Non-Muslim intensive countries - Nuff said.

[CaptainObvious]

I don't see that we have any right to ban the Niqab. Except outside limited circumstances that require facial identification for which removal is obviously required and should not be circumvented by religious right, I think religious freedom is too important to compromise this way.

[Magus]

So we can have a general information.

Niqab is not of any value.

I can bring tons of evidence that Niqab is not of any importance in Islam.
Hijab is of importance though.

You know, people(usually kids) around here(where I live) call those people Ninja. Why? Because it conceals the face. What other purpose it serves then.

Many people have the thought that Hijab is a religious nuisance. What is with the Niqab then? Nothing more, but augmenting Islam'o-phobia around the corner of the Globe.

[CaptainObvious]

Niqab is not of any value.

I can bring tons of evidence that Niqab is not of any importance in Islam.
Hijab is of importance though.

To you. Who are you to determine the value of someone else's religious beliefs insofar as it effects their right to exercise those beliefs? I happen to think all religion is a bunch of stupid myth; that gives me no right to ban people from practicing as they see fit when it infringes on no one's rights but their own.

[Magus]

To you. Who are you to determine the value ofsomeone else's religious beliefs insofar as it effects their right to exercise those beliefs? I happen to think all religion is a bunch of stupid myth; that gives me no right to ban people from practicing as they see fit when it infringes on no one's rights but their own.

Do I look like an apostate?

Beliefs and practice are two different things.

In now way believe in God means you have to cover up incognito.
We are not talking about generality. We are talking in specifically about Islam.

And you are talking about rights?

Rights differs from a country to another.

Ironical, don't you think.
http://infidelsunite.typepad.com/.a/6a0111685b4b71970c0120a5c8c03c970c-800wi

[CaptainObvious]

Do I look like an apostate?

Beliefs and practice are two different things.

In now way believe in God means you have to cover up incognito.

According to your interpretation of Islam. Clearly many people disagree with your interpretation, and their opinion is a priori just as valid.

And you are talking about rights?

Rights differs from a country to another.

What does that have to do with anything? The fact that rights differ between countries has absolutely no bearing on my opinion of the state of rights in different countries.

[Shadoukun]

Do I look like an apostate?

Beliefs and practice are two different things.

In now way believe in God means you have to cover up incognito.
We are not talking about generality. We are talking in specifically about Islam.

And you are talking about rights?

Rights differs from a country to another.

Ironical, don't you think.
http://infidelsunite.typepad.com/.a/6a0111685b4b71970c0120a5c8c03c970c-800wi


Well BECAUSE it's Islam, let's infringe. By all means.

[Whisper]

No.


Well BECAUSE it's Islam, let's infringe. By all means.

You're obviously against having it banned
But can you please explain to me why this is your position? and what reasoning you have for it?

In return when I have some free time (aka when this fucking papers done -grumbles-) I will state my opinion and reasonings as well.

I think the culture is stupid but that doesn't mean it should be banned. This'll probably just piss the muslims off more.
Why would fear of upsetting them be the main influence for your decision?

[Atonement]

I believe any kind of religious practice censorship is unnecessary and ridiculous. They have the right to wear whatever they want. Its not like they're nudists going down main street. If that is their beliefs, then they have the right to wear what they please. And the right to wear whatever you please should be universal really. Does the niqab or anytimeof hijab, assuming people are willing to remove them for whatever security purposes, cause any type of threat? Would one ban yamakas and crucifixes too? I know I would be pissed if I was told I couldn't wear a crucifix because it comforts me. Now, to tell an entire religion essentially that they can't practice their beliefs is complete crap in this case.

[Ryhanna]

Nope, don't ban it. It's basically racism... It's part of their culture.
It's like telling lady gaga she can't wear chains and walk around in her underwear on stage.

[Jagster]

Banning the Niqab is like making the secret service wear ninja suits... too bad they're already ninjas. :D

[Jean Poutine]

aside from the obvious religious issues, one could also argue that religious symbols in general and clothing like the niqab in particular slow down the integration of immigrants into the greater Canadian community.

but what do i know right? i'm a dumb unaccepting pure laine québécois.

also let us keep in mind that the niqab can be viewed by some people as something that lowers a woman's worth and makes her only into an object of lust that is to be hidden from men's sight.

i don't understand why we won't do away with these barbarous, fundamentalist traditions that have nothing to do with contemporary occidental society.

i believe in freedom of religion up until it contradicts with the greater values held by our population.

[Whisper]

but what do i know right? i'm a dumb unaccepting pure laine québécois.
Thats a rather harsh thing to say about yourself hun
I actually completely agree with you (Shocker eh LOL) for those exact reasons
I wish Bill 94 was Federal and not just the Quebec legislature

[Magus]

According to your interpretation of Islam. Clearly many people disagree with your interpretation, and their opinion is a priori just as valid.

One question: Do you have Islamic background?
If not, that basically and clearly you have know idea about what Islam is.

You think those internet websites will help you?
Those internet sites do not have quarter of the quarter of what Islam is.

Even those critiquing sites like islam-watch.org, Jihad-Watch.org, Prophet of Doom.org and faithfreedom.org and etc. Does not even covered 0.002% of whats Islam is. Poor them, I feel sorry for those people who are wasting their time there or those Islam'o-phobes and so called "apostates" making silly and frivolous articles. Yeah, and they think they have debunked Islam as a whole. Shame on their retardation.

What does that have to do with anything? The fact that rights differ between countries has absolutely no bearing on my opinion of the state of rights in different countries.


The relation in mind is Banning the Niqab. France banned Hijab and not Niqab.
Which is even more offending to Islam, how did they respond? It raised an uproar, no?

Did any one raised a head when they said, "Ban the Ninja Suit"?

==
Well BECAUSE it's Islam, let's infringe. By all means.

Yes, why not Ban Islam all together?

==
Nope, don't ban it. It's basically racism... It's part of their culture.
1It's like telling lady gaga she can't wear chains and walk around in her underwear on stage.

Wrong, wrong and wrong. Again - Religion =/= Culture. When will you comprehend this?

Yes, it is part of a culture. But not by any means it depends on religion.

Racism? Against whom?{Excluding the Arabian countries} Chinese'? Russians? Albanians? Indonesians? Indians? Malaysians? Spanish? Bulgarians? Hungarians? Turkish? Persian? Americans :yes: ? British :yes: ?

Are Chinese the same as Persian? Are Turkish the same as Persians?
No, each and every country that follows Islam have a totally different culture.

You think I understand the Morrocan Arabic? French is more feasible to understand.

You think traditional clothing of U.A.E is same as what those in Qatar?

Bad example. It is actually telling a full-suited man to throw away his handkerchief.

But of course. Hijab is like a Mask to a Luchador. There are cases(Security, checking etc.) where she can take it off. It is not like she will go to the bottom of the hell for doing that.

==
I believe any 1kind of religious practice censorship is unnecessary and ridiculous. They have the right to wear whatever they want. Its not like they're nudists going down main street. If that is their beliefs, then they have the right to wear what they please. And the right to wear whatever you please should be universal really. 2Does the niqab or anytimeof hijab, assuming people are willing to remove them for whatever security purposes, cause any type of threat? Would one ban yamakas and crucifixes too? I know I would be pissed if I was told I couldn't wear a crucifix because it comforts me.3Now, to tell an entire religion essentially that they can't practice their beliefs is complete crap in this case.

1- That piece of clothing is not a religious practice. Not even associated with anything to Islam, but the fact it covers the faces of those beauties(Cough) who inflames the men. We all have rights to what ever we want to wear.

Islam urges to wear what ever pleasable, but there are a few exceptions and rules and regulation to be followed.

Male garments are for male only. Skilt 1
Female garments are for female only. Skirt 2(Long is more preferable)

Cut-Clear difference between the two clothing, no?

Another ruling is that they must cover their genitalia no matter what.

Femals? Errrmm... Another whole chapter. I won't go over to it.

2- Of course. Now that the world witnessed the famous incident of 9/11. Even I remember that day.

All the world news channel and national T.V showed the incident.
Al-Jazeera, Al-Arabyia, CNN Arabia, BBC Arabia(Was it formed), you name it.

Now, on who will we put the blame on? The Jews? The Skeptics? The Christians?

No! you dummy!

The most dogmatic, bigoted, fanatical, fundamentalist and extremist prone followers able-religion a.k.a Islam. The ones who killed innocent people in the name of this so called god Allah.

So, they don't want to risk their lives more. They have to do what they need to do. I understand - no! I Feel them. That's why I approve for the banning of this Stealth-suit.

3- It is not like they are telling the Muslim all around the world to Ban Niqab.
But, more or less in a typical Islam'o-phobe region.
----------

What is more ironical. If you go to Dubai's Beach or what not, you will see this image: Few European males in Speedos and a bunch of Covered up(Niqab+Hijab and what not) Females(Obviously some hungry Gulfian Homosexuals in disguise) Wow! What a life out here.{Yes! A pun from Ahmad Ahmad}

Banning the Niqab is like making the secret service wear ninja suits... too bad they're already ninjas. :D

Agreed.

[quartermaster]

One question: Do you have Islamic background?
If not, that basically and clearly you have know idea about what Islam is.


Argumentum ad verecundiam

[Magus]

Argumentum ad verecundiam

Me speak no latin, me speak little anglo-saxonian language and thank you.

From the thousands of words I wrote; out of more than a dozen of logical fallacies I presented, you pick this as the only logical fallacy? Irony in its pure form.

[quartermaster]

Me speak no latin, me speak little anglo-saxonian language and thank you.

From the thousands of words I wrote; out of more than a dozen of logical fallacies I presented, you pick this as the only logical fallacy? Irony in its pure form.

Yes, but comically enough, you have flattered yourself into thinking that I would take the time to read your drivel in its entirety. The only irony here is the fact that you knowingly argue using fallacious statements and evidently hope to actually prove a point.

[Magus]

Yes, but comically enough, you have flattered yourself into thinking that I would take the time to read your drivel in its entirety. The only irony here is the fact that you knowingly argue using fallacious statements and evidently hope to actually prove a point.

I don't know how you come up to this as a fallacy.

But...


One question: Do you have Islamic background?
If not, that basically and clearly you have know idea about what Islam is.

From tips and technique.
1. RESEARCH YOUR TOPIC!

You can not debate on something you do not know anything about. If you do try to debate something and your present the wrong facts you will come off like a fool. If you don't have statistical facts or you have never experienced something yourself then do not bother to argue about it.


Yes, my fallacy is that I stated this. This is to augment my first statement.

You think those internet websites will help you?
Those internet sites do not have quarter of the quarter of what Islam is.


If you do not have the prerequisite regarding the subject in-line. In no way you can contribute in the debate. Be it an approval or disapproval.

The other might have been looking into some articles for reference and other things. But, if you have no Idea what you are talking about and plunging use into, "That's not right to infringe other peoples culture"-like statements. They have only proved that they have weak knowledge about the subject.

You still haven't pointed your point in Niqab? So, let us see it first.
Obviously, if you don't. My statement as a fallacy is debunked - No more it is a fallacy, but an absolute.( :yes: another fallacy :P )

[Atonement]

I actually completely agree with you (Shocker eh LOL) for those exact reasons


The Canadian who actually typed "eh"... made me smile.

Anyway, hijab, the covering of women, is not meant to lower their worth. Its actually the opposite. Women are so highly prized that men cannot be trusted to not lust after them, so the women cover themselves to help the men in their religious journey.

[quartermaster]

I don't know how you come up to this as a fallacy.

But...



From tips and technique.


Yes, my fallacy is that I stated this. This is to augment my first statement.



If you do not have the prerequisite regarding the subject in-line. In no way you can contribute in the debate. Be it an approval or disapproval.

The other might have been looking into some articles for reference and other things. But, if you have no Idea what you are talking about and plunging use into, "That's not right to infringe other peoples culture"-like statements. They have only proved that they have weak knowledge about the subject.

You still haven't pointed your point in Niqab? So, let us see it first.
Obviously, if you don't. My statement as a fallacy is debunked - No more it is a fallacy, but an absolute.( :yes: another fallacy :P )


Nice try, but learn your fallacies before you begin to lecture anyone about them. The appeal to authority was the implication that somehow having a so-called "Islamic background" qualifies one to speak on the intricacies of the Koran or Islamic laws/rules. Having a so-called "Islamic background" does not qualify anyone to be anymore of an authority on Islamic rules than one with a Christian background; vis-à-vis, argumentum ad verecundiam. Everything else you pull out of this is irrelevant drivel (something you are fond of posting), but the appeal to authority still stands.

Nonetheless, I have no "heart" in this debate, so by all means do as you please.

[Jean Poutine]

hey, chumps.

nobody cares if the niqab isn't considered a religious garment in islam, and nobody cares if it is of no importance whatsoever to the religion.

it is still something that pretty much defines muslims to the western eye and a woman wearing one is instantly recognised as a muslim. this is where the laicity talk comes in. there should be no outward signs of religious belonging up to and including what "doesn't matter" in public spaces. if somehow wearing a tie-dye shirt identified me as a catholic, even though there's no mention of them anywhere and they do not matter to the faith, i would like them to be banned from public places too.

btw the argument about women can be shot back and forth ad vitam aeternam. it's a matter of perception. to western eyes, we feel like it is objectifying women and trivialising all the gains they have fought for, in their own country. i've spoken to old-school feminists. they feel it's a slap in the face. newcomers butting in and setting back the clocks to the middle ages or what have you.

laws in a country should be passed according to the moral values held by the majority of the inhabitants. equality should be in homogenisation, not pussy-ass "reasonable accomodations" that have as much chances of fissuring society as to unite it.

[Magus]

but learn your fallacies before you begin to lecture anyone about them. The appeal to authority was the implication that somehow having a so-called "Islamic background" qualifies one to speak on the intricacies of the Koran or Islamic laws/rules. Having a so-called "Islamic background" does not qualify anyone to be anymore of an authority on Islamic rules than one with a Christian background; vis-à-vis, argumentum ad verecundiam. Everything else you pull out of this is irrelevant drivel (something you are fond of posting), but the appeal to authority still stands.
Nonetheless, I have no "heart" in this debate, so by all means do as you please.

Marvelous - You haven't read half of what I've wrote and calling it as "irrelevant drivel" as if you just have assessed and analyzed it completely(thw whole post); there are few facts you have blindly neglected -

I already gave my set of opinion(my first post).
And to what it seems like a reply, it is to clear others' throat.

I don't see a fallacy or What you just brought it here. Believe it, I had no Idea what "argumentum ad verecundiam" means, thanks to Wiki, it did gave me a small hint on what it is.

It is great, it will help me in future instances. You have contributed to it too.
==

By "Islamic Background" I presume that you think it is the same as "If you aren't a Muslim, then you have no Idea" Then you have have dived more deeper and into the wrong direction, nothing like what I wanted to convey. I Won't elucidate anymore, clear as a full-moon now. Since you are not participating in anymore discussion and in-line with Niqab.

And please, would you mind sound a little bit less malice, cynical and sarcastic. Because you are undermining to what ever I say here - Hmm.... sounds like one of your "argumentum ad verecundiam"-like thingy.

[Disco Jones]

Uchimata are you actually being serious in this topic, I wish to know before making an argument

[Whisper]

Uchimata are you actually being serious in this topic, I wish to know before making an argument

Yes he is....who are you?

I think its important to remember as-well this is a ban in regards to PUBLIC SERVICE areas NOT a complete ban

In other words if you take a French immersion class they want to be able to see your face when they're conversing with you so they can watch your lips to help you with pronunciation
They want to see your face when you cast a vote
They want to see your face when you walk into a hospital
They want to see your face when your applying for automotive insurance
etc...
Basically when you're dealing with any gov officials period rly

All I have to say about this is the same thing I had to say here: This will cause an international uproar, with mountains of blather about intolerance. Few, if any, in the mainstream media will note how severely the rights of non-Muslims are restricted in Saudi Arabia and in Sharia states in general, and few, if any, will even entertain the notion that France has a right to stand up for its cultural integrity and set some standards accordingly.

"Niqab for Muslim women banned in Canadian province," from IANS, March 25 (thanks to Block Ness):

TORONTO: After France, Muslim women have been banned from wearing niqab in Canada's French-speaking Quebec province.
A bill tabled Wednesday will not allow government services to women wearing the niqab.

The bill comes after protests triggered by an Egyptian immigrant's refusal to remove her niqab in her French languages classes in Montreal, forcing the school and the provincial government to throw her out.

The college says the Muslim woman was given the front seat in the class so that all male students sat behind her. She was even allowed to make presentations from the rear of the classroom with her back to the class which had three male and 17 female students.

However, students and the college authorities were shocked when one day the woman asked male students to move away from her and refused to sit with them around a U-table to converse and learn French pronunciation....

The government last week ordered that every niqab-clad woman must uncover her face to confirm her identity when applying for her medicare card. Wednesday's bill will be the first such step in North America to curtail any religious dress.

According to the bill, women seeking medical and auto insurance services will have to remove their veil, adding that face coverings will not be tolerated in people's dealings with government officials.

Speaking to the media, Quebec premier (equal to chief minister in India) Jean Charest said the step was needed for maintaining gender equality and secular character of public institutions.

"This (bill) is a symbol of affirmation and respect - first of all, for ourselves, and also for those to whom we open our arms. This is not about making our home less welcoming, but about stressing the values that unite us.

"An accommodation cannot be granted unless it respects the principle of equality between men and women, and the religious neutrality of the state,'' the premier said....


This law should be Canada wide
PERIOD

[MaliciousBunface]

Hmm well I talk to all my muslim friends and they say that its only the super obsessed people who wear all that stuff..and why are you guys arguing about what other people wear...it's kinda pathetic :|

[Whisper]

Hmm well I talk to all my muslim friends and they say that its only the super obsessed people who wear all that stuff..and why are you guys arguing about what other people wear...it's kinda pathetic :|
right.....you seem to be missing the entire concept

[Disco Jones]

it's just that i have trouble believing an actual person would actually say that equality should be in homogenization, and that people should not have the right to wear signs of religion in public

[Whisper]

it's just that i have trouble believing an actual person would actually say that equality should be in homogenization, and that people should not have the right to wear signs of religion in public

omg so let me get this straight, just to make sure we're on the same page. Not only have you not bothered with looking into the background for why the law was proposed but you haven't even bothered to read two posts back in the thread?

All I have to say about this is the same thing I had to say here: This will cause an international uproar, with mountains of blather about intolerance. Few, if any, in the mainstream media will note how severely the rights of non-Muslims are restricted in Saudi Arabia and in Sharia states in general, and few, if any, will even entertain the notion that France has a right to stand up for its cultural integrity and set some standards accordingly.

"Niqab for Muslim women banned in Canadian province," from IANS, March 25 (thanks to Block Ness):

TORONTO: After France, Muslim women have been banned from wearing niqab in Canada's French-speaking Quebec province.
A bill tabled Wednesday will not allow government services to women wearing the niqab.

The bill comes after protests triggered by an Egyptian immigrant's refusal to remove her niqab in her French languages classes in Montreal, forcing the school and the provincial government to throw her out.

The college says the Muslim woman was given the front seat in the class so that all male students sat behind her. She was even allowed to make presentations from the rear of the classroom with her back to the class which had three male and 17 female students.

However, students and the college authorities were shocked when one day the woman asked male students to move away from her and refused to sit with them around a U-table to converse and learn French pronunciation....

The government last week ordered that every niqab-clad woman must uncover her face to confirm her identity when applying for her medicare card. Wednesday's bill will be the first such step in North America to curtail any religious dress.

According to the bill, women seeking medical and auto insurance services will have to remove their veil, adding that face coverings will not be tolerated in people's dealings with government officials.

Speaking to the media, Quebec premier (equal to chief minister in India) Jean Charest said the step was needed for maintaining gender equality and secular character of public institutions.

"This (bill) is a symbol of affirmation and respect - first of all, for ourselves, and also for those to whom we open our arms. This is not about making our home less welcoming, but about stressing the values that unite us.

"An accommodation cannot be granted unless it respects the principle of equality between men and women, and the religious neutrality of the state,'' the premier said....

This is flat out about equal rights
and equal treatment

and since everyones freaking this is part of their culture may I ask where the line is drawn? What aspects of their culture do we refuse? Should we embrace everything? Stoning? Honor killing? Polygamy? Should Muslim women be allowed to walk around outside the home without a male escort?
I mean if we're embracing their culture and all
ohhh waaaait maybe, just maybe, this is WHY they're leaving their shitty countries and flooding into western nations, because we believe in equal rights, and equal treatment of gender.
So why should our citizens, those who've immigrated and integrated from other nations and those of us who were born here have OUR rights infringed on just so we can accommodate them?

For that matter why do orthodox Sikh get to wear a dagger in school? I don't give a shit if its a religious icon, its a fucking weapon. It seems Canadian children everywhere have their rights to safety in an educational environment trumped.
Source: http://www.wluml.org/node/2820
Quebec was the only province that had the balls to try and oppose it! (Fuckin A!!)

Americans have the right to arms, how come teens can't walk around american schools with concealed guns? (thats a strawman in-case your confused, i don't care if its a fallacy it's still something to think about holistically in regards to this)


As far as i'm concerned there are some traditions, and some practices that are best left in the "old country" and if you wish to continue them, thats fine, its your right to choose so, but not in Canada. Go the fuck home.

[Disco Jones]

bro it is not particularly difficult

people have the freedom to wear what they want

of course, it is sometimes necessary for faces to be exposed for government purposes and at that point they can be exposed

but it is exceedingly dumb to try to force equality by restricting clothing rights

[Whisper]

bro it is not particularly difficult

people have the freedom to wear what they want

of course, it is sometimes necessary for faces to be exposed for government purposes and at that point they can be exposed

but it is exceedingly dumb to try to force equality by restricting clothing rights

Thats all the law is asking for
they wouldn't be flat out banned
a fact stated on all the data retaining to this on various sources online AND by me in this very thread multiple times
Yet still allot of you are having difficulty grasping that :)

[Disco Jones]

Uchimata takes it a bit further than that to the point of ridiculousness, that is why I asked if he was serious. I wasn't arguing with you, but when you stepped up with the "you had not bothered" I thought you were on the same page as him.

[Jean Poutine]

Uchimata takes it a bit further than that to the point of ridiculousness, that is why I asked if he was serious. I wasn't arguing with you, but when you stepped up with the "you had not bothered" I thought you were on the same page as him.

were you going to blow my comments out of proportion and slyly introduce the notion that maybe i was referring to a "brave new world"-esque homogenisation process where everything is calculated, tabled and exact?

because that would have been pretty damn funny. fyi, even in such extreme examples as huxley's work there is some value to the process.

but it is exceedingly dumb to try to force equality by restricting clothing rights

don't worry, that individualisation phase will wear out soon. i went through that "the individual, namely me, is the most important thing on the planet and what the individual wants should be prioritised over the common good" too.

and that people should not have the right to wear signs of religion in public

that's funny. think about how many calories and how much breath we would be saving if we all lived in perfectly laicized countries. but i'm getting ahead of myself.

here's the catch. why should the majority have to cope with alien beliefs they have nothing to do with and even disagree with for the sole purpose of coping with them? immigrants should have the courtesy of reciprocrating to our welcome by adapting to our customs. i don't care for the whole "cultural mosaic" thing.

what i think was ironic about the egyptian girl is that she was about half-way there by learning french. i have studied languages for three years now. i think it was already too much to allow the girl to talk to the audience facing the other way. the teacher could not see her lips and diagnose pronunciation problems correctly. proper oral communication mechanics could not have been practiced. it was way more than should have been offered.

this is what it all boils down to. the rights of the majority versus the concessions that should be given to the minority. banning things that we as a majority do not agree with is the step forward to take.