Man punches nurse for removing wife's burqa during c-section

[Liberal_in_LA]

A Muslim man has been jailed in France for punching a nurse who tried to remove his wife's burqa during an emergency C-section.

Nassim Mimoune, 24, was earlier banned from the delivery room after calling a midwife a "rapist" when she tried to perform an intimate examination on his wife in a Marseille hospital on Monday, La Provence newspaper reported.

The pregnant woman, who had been having contractions for two days when she was admitted, begged her husband to allow the examination, but he threatened her with divorce.

Mimoune, a construction worker from Paris, was then taken away to view the childbirth from another room, but flew into a rage when he saw the nurse removing his wife's burqa.

He smashed open the locked door of the operating room and punched the woman in the face, telling her to replace his wife's Islamic veil.


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/12/23/french-muslim-jailed-for-punching-nurse-who-removed-his-wifes-burqa-1606404483/#ixzz1jIqTgeiX

[limpyhobbler]

1. see, now that's weird

[roguevalley]

39. men like that need to change places.

what the fuck is wrong with men that a woman should make them so fucking stupid?@~?~!?@?

[Dragonbreathp9d]

64. We are fragile beings who try to compensate

Lol

[Odin2005]

2. Backward freak!

[valerief]

3. I am sooooooo sick of crazy people. nt

[Honeycombe8]

185. Me, too. And tired of people giving so-called excuses for them. nt

[hlthe2b]

4. Well then, he can view the next ten years of his wife and child's life.... through bars.

There are undoubtedly moderate Muslim populations and communities somewhere nearby. I hope that they will reach out to this woman to help her deal with this abusive man.

[Liberal_in_LA]

6. not ten years, six months.

[arely staircase]

9. well, he needs to be kept away from her forever nt

[hlthe2b]

12. ten years was my sentence... Six months is hardly enough.

and the wife might well have a chance to "recover" from him and find a new life in 10 years.

[riderinthestorm]

11. 10 years??!! France's burqa laws are so mild, this guy may get a fine only.

And people were/are outraged that France felt they even had to implement ANY laws about this hideous misogynistic garment and all it stands for (the 2nd class status of women and their subjugation by their menfolk).

French culture and their history with religion (and religious garb - they even banned the priests collar at one time during their revolution) makes for a very different societal reaction to religious shrouding, and the concomitant disappearing, of women.

[Matariki]

26. He's being jailed for punching the nurse - not for wearing a burqa.

[riderinthestorm]

29. You mean, not for FORCING HIS WIFE TO WEAR A BURQA! That only brings a fine.

It's only when it crosses the line to assault on a stranger that he actually gets jail time.

And FWIW, nobody has been actually fined or sent to jail under France's burqa laws... at least not yet.




(hoping this guy is a spectacular first case....)

[Matariki]

30. Yeah, no kidding.

I was being facetious.

I'm guessing, although I don't know, that his wife would have to either press charges or implicate him in forcing her to wear it? Do you know what the French law is regarding the burqa?

[snooper2]

47. According to some DU'ers Muslim woman want to wear the burqa

[Ms. Toad]

66. That is a gross mischaracterization of what has been said

Some DU'ers, me being one of them, have said that when a Muslim woman says that she chooses to wear a covering (of whatever sort), or otherwise comply with the dicates of her religion, that it is sexist and bigoted to insist that she is a bobble-head who is unable to make that decision for herself.

That is not the same as making a generalization that Muslim women want to wear the burqa. Many (maybe even most) do not. Those that do not want to wear it deserve our support to free themselves from restrictions they choose not to accept.

However, in a variety of situations, people make choices that I would not make. My disagreement with that choice does not give me the right to dismiss it, and more important, it does not give me the right to dismiss her as a person with the intelligence and free will to make a choice I might find abhorrent.

[riderinthestorm]

68. The burqa is a cultural artifact meant to oppress and diminish women. It's not religious.

Its very design is meant to erase women from society.

I believe any society has the right to determine whether they wish to allow that kind of "expression" in their public square.

[dixiegrrrrl]

70. Actually....

Many Muslims believe that the Islamic holy book, the Qur'an, and the collected traditions of the life of Muhammed, or hadith, require both men and women to dress and behave modestly in public. However, this requirement, called hijab, has been interpreted in many different ways by Islamic scholars (ulema) and Muslim communities (see Women and Islam).

The Quran has been translated as stating:

"O Prophet! Say to your wives and your daughters and the women of the faithful to draw their outergarments (jilbabs) close around themselves; that is better that they will be recognized and not annoyed. And God is ever Forgiving, Gentle."
Qur'an Surah/Chapter Al-Ahzab Ayah/Verse 59

Another verse in the Quran is translated as:

"And say to the faithful women to lower their gazes, and to guard their private parts, and not to display their beauty except what is apparent of it, and to extend their headcoverings (khimars) to cover their bosoms (jaybs), and not to display their beauty except to their husbands, or their fathers, or their husband's fathers, or their sons, or their husband's sons, or their brothers, or their brothers' sons, or their sisters' sons, or their womenfolk, or what their right hands rule (slaves), or the followers from the men who do not feel sexual desire, or the small children to whom the nakedness of women is not apparent, and not to strike their feet (on the ground) so as to make known what they hide of their adornments. And turn in repentance to Allah together, O you the faithful, in order that you are successful"
Qur'an Sura Nur Chapter: The Light. Verse 31

A fatwa, written by Muhammed Salih Al-Munajjid on the Saudi Arabian website Islam QA, states:

The correct view as indicated by the evidence is that the woman's face is 'awrah which must be covered. It is the most tempting part of her body, because what people look at most is the face, so the face is the greatest 'awrah of a woman.[2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burqa

[riderinthestorm]

71. Nope, there is no requirement in the Quran for complete shrouding.

The hijab is different and I have no problems with that. Any fatwas (especially those issued lately and in current times where the oppression of women is so very real) issued by any religious scholar doesn't qualify as any kind of dictate imho. It's just that. One religious scholar's interpretation and not the actual text of the Quran, full stop.

[aquart]

106. The assumption being that all men are potential rapists with no self control whatsoever.

Except, of course, relatives because incest never happens.

[Ms. Toad]

72. Religion and culture are not always clearly delineated

and whether something which, historically, has both cultural and religious aspects currently has religious significance to its practitioners is not up to outsiders to reject as "not religious." I don't get to define someone else's faith for them.

I oppose Muslim women being forced to wear the burqa, or any other covering - whether that force comes from the men in their lives, their religious community, or the government in the country in which they live.

There are many women, and all by all indications this woman is one, who are participating by force (which ranges from real physical force, to laws, to "merely" emotional coercion by threats of being expelled from their family or faith community.)

On the other hand, blanket statements insisting that no woman could ever make the choice to follow certain practices of the Muslim faith which we see as patriarchal (or worse) are insulting to those women (and I know some of them) who have made that choice.

Just as I oppose forced covering, I also oppose forced uncovering - and that includes laws like France has enacted. It violates the religious freedom of any woman who is wearing a burqa not by force, but because she chooses to accept that discipline. It may be something which enriches her spiritual life. It may be something something she merely puts up with because other aspects of her faith enrich her life, and her sense of integrity requires that she follow all of the restrictions rather than picking and choosing among them. Whatever the reason, she has the right to make that choice.

Such laws also further isolate women in the first category who need our support - whose movements are further restricted because their husbands/faith community force them to wear a burqa, which then prevents her from being able to enter the public square.

Your earlier post, and the one I replied to, seem to me to be designed to insult not only Muslim women who make a choice you cannot imagine making - but DUers who have expressed concern about the sexism and bigotry inherent in the assertions any Muslim woman asserting she has made such a choice of her own free will is lying (being duped, acting like a puppet, saying so because she is forced to, etc.)

[riderinthestorm]

74. We can and do make laws on what women can wear in the public sphere.

We don't allow Aboriginal women to wear their native, cultural and religious "dress" which is virtual nudity. We have created laws that prohibit THAT sort of "dress". Why does the burqa get a pass on societal scrutiny on whether we want such a misogynistic garment in our public square?

it would be far more empowering for women to flaunt their fecundity by going naked (ie. matriarchal societies). Yet that is already shut down. So why do we persist in saying we MUST allow this misogynistic garment designed to erase women?

We already have clothing laws for both men and women in the public square. Either you are for ALL of them, or none. Coming out to bat for the burqa simply identifies you as a participant in the oppression of women and the bearer of patriarchy.

To be clear, the burqa is NOT religious! It's a cultural artifact. It if were religious, that MAY be a different argument. But the FACT remains, it's not. As such, any society can and will rule on it's acceptability or not. I welcome that discussion.

[Ms. Toad]

76. And there are are a number of laws that my religion conflicts with (or has)

Slavery, military service, IRCA, taxation for war, marriage without an officiant, taking an oath. I have personally, within my family, and within in my religious community challenged laws which require the violation of our religious beliefs, by engaging in conscientious objection. Many of those laws have changed, as a result. Some we continue to violate, as a matter of conscience. And yes, one of the allegations that is nearly always made is that our actions are not religiously motivated.

Just because laws can be enacted which require that individuals violate their religious beliefs, doesn't make it right to do so, and IMO deliberately targeting religious practices is one area in which it is clearly wrong.

As for whether or not the burqa is religious, do some research. It has a mixed history, as I have suggested. But bottom line, you have no more right to tell Muslim women who believe their religions requires wearing the burqa that they are wrong than you have to tell Hassidic Jews that wearing payos is not requried, because not all Jews follow that practice.

When someone tells you that something is a matter of religion it is perfectly fine to have a conversation with them and ask why they believe that - but it religious bigotry to sit on the outside and tell them that what they believe their religion requires is just cultural.

[riderinthestorm]

86. You can try to rationalize it all you want but full female shrouding is not religious

There's absolutely nothing in the Quran that dictates that kind of garment is religious. None. If men and women have mistaken notions on this garment that is not my fault. The law will decide these things (like in France for example). The US is no different. We don't allow women to wear a niqab or burqa for a driver's license or to go into a bank because it's already been established that it's not religious - its cultural and can/should be removed upon request. We certainly do dictate religious garb in the public square. As I've already stated, we don't let Aboriginal women go naked or near naked (for example) which is THEIR version of cultural "dress" AND even more strictly religious than virtually any other piece of religious display someone wants to adopt in the public square.

Bottom line is that we can and do tell women especially what they can and cannot wear in public - legally and with the full support of the community.

It is NOT religious bigotry to point out that a particular cultural artifact is damaging to women. We do it with FGM as another example - or do you think we should also "allow" that particular "religious" (cough) practice? Oh riiiight... THAT one is only cultural?

[obamanut2012]

96. Exactly -- just like FGM

There is nowhere in the Koran that advocates, or even mentions, FGM. If we say the burka is okay because of religious freedom, then FGM should also be okay, right?

The burka is not the least religious, it is cultural. As per the Koran, women AND men are supposed to cover their hair. That's it. Just like women used to go in the Catholic Church when attending Mass. It shows a subservience and reverence towards God.

[Ms. Toad]

103. It is not rationalization - it is a fundamental characteristic of religion

that adherents differ as to what is required, particularly when a religion encompasses a broad range of denominations or sects. Each is likely to have their own, slightly different, interpretation.

The Qur'an, just like the bible, is subject to differing interpretations. Different Christian religions interpret the requirements of the bible diffferently - for example, both Quakers (historically, at least) and Catholics believe in the living Christ - not just a dead figure, but as a living presence in our lives. How that plays out in the two has some similarity (e.g., opposition to the death penalty and humanitarian outreach - both based on the concept of reaching out to the Christ within each person, even a murderer). How it plays out in what the world sees more easily, however, is quite different - the rejection of outward sacraments by Quakers v. mandatory participation in outward sacraments by Catholics being one major example. Both practices are based on differing interpretations of same core religious document. That doesn't make one not religious just because it interprets the same religious text differently than the other.

And - to use a different analogy - marriage has both secular aspects and religious aspects. Just because there is a secular aspect to marriage (state recognition and benefits) does not rob marriages which occur under the care of the church of their religious meaning.

Outsiders don't get to determine the beliefs of a particular religion (or denomination or sect within that religion). You can yell it's cultural all you want. That doesn't rob it of the religious significance for those for whom it is religious, rather than cultural, and it doesn't make laws requiring the violation of those beliefs, as a trade off for appearing in public, any more morally supportable.

[riderinthestorm]

104. "Outsiders" can and do make judgements (and pass laws) on practices all the time

that fall within a cultural/religious split. And it is morally supportable regardless of how you feel.

The KKK is a Christian organization but we've outlawed the costume in many areas. Morally supportable? You bet.

FGM is considered a religious obligation for many Muslims. Yet we've outlawed that. Moral? I hope you agree.

You see? "Outsiders" can and do make judgements and outlaw "religious" practices all the time. Because some of them are most definitely more cultural than 'religious" (if they ever were).

I would stipulate that any practice designed to erase women from society is immoral. I have no problem advocating for it's removal by law, in our society.

Funny that I don't see you advocating for the 'rights" of Aborigines to go naked in the courtrooms/banks/classrooms (you want your son taught by an Aborigine woman in "full religious dress&quot ? etc. etc. Yet it's certainly a "religious right" we've decided as a community that we aren't going to allow.

[Ms. Toad]

117. You are missing the starting point -

which is that your entire argument has been based on insisting that it is not a religious practice. You don't get to decide what is a religious practice for someone else. You can accept or reject the doctrines of your own religion as culturally based, but you don't get to decide that for someone else with respect to their religion.

I'm not going to debate the rightness of laws relating to religious garb with someone who can't move past insisting that they have the right to decide what is or is not religious for someone else - that is just such a disrespectful position. It is sort of like a man trying to tell a woman how she experiences the world isn't really how she experiences it. I'm not going there.

When you can acknowledge, respectfully (e.g. without the derisive quotes) that we are talking about, for some people, a practice that they believe is part of their religion, then we have a starting place for the next discussion - about whether we (or France) have the legal or moral right to make laws targeting specific religious practices.

Respectful treatment of native peoples, including aboriginal people, is an entirely different issue. Most countries have quite a pitiful record on that score. I haven't responded to your challenges on that matter because (1) it is a different issue because what has typically happened is not so much banning native dress as stealing the children from aboriginal (or native) communities and anglicizing them so that they no longer even know what native dress is and (2) it is primarily a cultural issue (at least I have not heard native peoples raise concerns about dress in a religious context) and (3) I find your references to aboriginal people troubling - bordering on disrespectful - and I not going to engage in chasing multiple religious/cultural/ethnic stereotypes all over the place.

[riderinthestorm]

119. NO! You're missing the starting point which is that we've ALWAYS decided what religious practices

we will allow in the public square. Furthermore, in the course of evaluating that, the inevitable discussion comes up as to whether a particular practice is religious at all. The two go hand in hand and are part of any debate on what will be allowed in a civil society. Thus the KKK, although a Christian society. is not allowed to "practice" their particular variety of Christian rituals by law. You obviously don't want to acknowledge that we have always judged religious practice and legislated about it from the very start of our little experiment in democracy.

What seems to get religious people's panties in a bunch is that THEIR particular practice gets no more "respect" than someone else's in the course of public debate. Each element should be judged as impartially as we can and a decision rendered imho. Sorry you believe that's disrespectful but in a secular society it's the only fair way. There's absolutely NO Quranic mandate for the burqa. That's a fact. It's not religious just like FGM isn't religious. FLDS polygamy isn't religious. Lynching people isn't religious. Burning witches at the stake isn't religious. These are ALL examples of actions fervent believers once thought were "religious" but now acknowledge as cultural and as such fair game for debate (and just like the KKK hood subject to a legal ban). It took a hell of a long time though for society to even BEGIN to dialogue about these practices in the public square about whether we would or would not accept them. You want me to acknowledge a fantasy in someone's mind as some kind of truth (that the burqa should be recognized as a religious garment). I can't and won't do that since its so patently false and deserves nothing but derision and shame. Call me "disrespectful" then til the cows come home - it's a misogynistic relic of the worst kind without any religious justification. Can I be any plainer? I welcome this debate. I embrace this debate and dearly hope it's not smothered by cultural relativists and patriarchal slaves to the entrenched system.

The religious practices and dress of native people are certainly relevant. You don't want to touch it because it makes you uncomfortable. You're uncomfortable because it's so close to the truth and you have no way to answer without destroying your own argument. Female nudity is powerful - it demonstrates our fecundity and makes clear who really wields power in the world. But the patriarchal religious constructs of the day have ruled out THAT particular religious "dress". If you are going to fight for the right for women to wear burqas because they are "religious" then you should be equally as fierce in advocating for the rights of native women to go about in their native religious garb on a daily basis. If you are not then you are buying into the societal patriarchy. Just don't get in a huff when you are called out on your hypocrisy and your position exposed as untenable. I have no problem looking at both extremes and having a conversation about the role and appropriateness of both ends of the spectrum. Clearly though, you won't.

[Ms. Toad]

132. You have no idea how I feel about the dress of native people

or laws, which you have not even identified, which prohibit it. I have deliberately not engaged with you in that discussion.

Most of your second paragraph still insists that you have the right to determine what is or is not an element of someone else's faith. No one has the right to determine that for anyone else. I'm not in a huff - I am just not going to have a discussion about the ethics of laws banning garb which some of the wearers HAVE identified as religious, with someone who continues to insist the right not only to make laws, but also to determine whether or not the garb banned by those laws is really religious.

I will note that it is interesting that you feel free to assert on behalf of aboriginal cultures a religious basis for nudity, which I do not believe they claim. At the same time you deny that the burqa could possibly be religious, even though it is claimed to be religious by some of the people wearing it. In both instances you are claiming the right to determine for another group of people what their religious beliefs are.

That perspective is just a non-starter for me. I am not going to debate the right of individuals to determine for themselves what their religious beliefs require of them.

[riderinthestorm]

137. Public nudity is prohibited by law. You are being purposefully obtuse.

In virtually EVERY aboriginal culture that has come in contact with "the west", their version of public nudity is ultimately prohibited. If those natives emigrate to "the west" their version of cultural and religious "dress" is prohibited. Sometimes even within their native lands their native "dress" is prohibited (Australia, New Zealand, Kenya, etc etc.) It's undeniable. We do not allow public nudity even when it's been the preferred dress for millenia before "our" (patriarchal religious) arrival. They have tried to assert that right. But they've been brutally beaten into submission by your cultural cohorts and have adopted western dress after centuries of abuse. Your myopia and ignorance of native cultures is to be expected and from your posts its obvious you have never considered their perspective. Even going topless would be incredibly powerful for women but we are denied that. For me, it would be quite the day to see a topless female judge adjudicate a male spousal abuser in court. Wicked. But that won't happen because women like you participate in enforcing shit like burqas and other oppressive garb for women that disappear them.

Your embrace of patriarchal religious enforcement on religious garb (para 2) is noted. Nuff said. Your position is deliciously exposed. Good luck with that. You can't even see the debate through the fog of the patriarchal blinders.

[Ms. Toad]

146. You might want to go back and reread and respond to what I actually wrote

rather than the straw man you have created.

Your knowledge of what I have and have not considered, and what interactions I have or have not had with native cultures is rather surprising since I have deliberately remained pretty much silent on it. You would probably be surprised at how far off base you are - but there is just no no point in even starting second conversation about different minority group on which you are imposing your religious construct (which is what you are doing when you attribute a religious motivation to native dress, when they have not asserted that motivation themselves).

And, we are back to where I started: This statement is a gross mischaracterization of what I have said: "Your embrace of patriarchal religious enforcement on religious garb (para 2) is noted."

What I have said is:

When a Muslim woman says that she chooses to wear a covering (of whatever sort), or otherwise comply with the dicates of her religion, that it is sexist and bigoted to insist that she is a bobble-head who is unable to make that decision for herself.

. . .

In a variety of situations, people make choices that I would not make. My disagreement with that choice does not give me the right to dismiss it, and more important, it does not give me the right to dismiss her as a person with the intelligence and free will to make a choice I might find abhorrent.

The key word in that quote is "chooses."

That is a very different question from "enforcement." We agree as to enforcement - I just don't happen to believe that every single Muslim woman who wears a covering of some sort is is forced to do so, particularly some of the bright independent women I know who have told me it is their choice.

[riderinthestorm]

152. We are centuries beyond women being able to assert their "rights" to go naked in public

in "western cultures". Patriarchy put an end to that particular religious freedom centuries ago. Those pockets of female empowerment remain rare these days as you well know. Native (and increasingly rare) Aboriginal cultures like those in Australia for example. that have resisted assimilating, embrace their religious and cultural nudity where they are free to express their power - in the bush. But even they know enough to NOT show up in the streets of Redfern without clothes on. That's not a "choice". Its law. It's not my 'religious construct", it simply is the facts.

Furthermore, the woman in the OP was not given any choice. In fact, her husband threatened to divorce her if she allowed herself to be prepped for surgery. France has made laws about burqa because there's a problem there about it. Stories like the OP reinforce the motivations behind that law. Did you know that virtually ALL of the Muslim women in France support the burqa ban? And the even older ban on religious garb (like the hijab) in public places?

Your anecdotal stories don't outweigh the fact that burqas are misogynistic and deserve to be debated as to their public value in western society. Furthermore, you are on an anonymous public message board and if you choose to be obtuse, secretive and non-participatory in the conversation assumptions will be made. You are welcome to disabuse me of anything that's wrong. You are the one whose choosing to be coy in this discussion.

I'm off for the night. Have at it. Or not.

[Ms. Toad]

178. The right of self determination for all people is a core value for me

It is the reason I entered the conversation in the first point. I responded to a post which grossly mischaracterized concerns I** raised, about sexist and religiously intolerant comments being made recently on DU, by insinuating that my belief that some women do choose to follow practices that others see as patriarchal means that I believe all women wearing burqas are doing so by choice. That is just nonsense - I believe all women to choose - and it beyond dispute that many women are forced by their husbands, families, religious communities, or governments into practices in which they do not want to participate. They deserve our support to free themselves from the enforced participation in those practices. If you feel like doing a search, you can easily find places I have said just that.

But a natural consequence of my belief that everyone has the right to choose is that I also have to support her choices even when she makes a choice I fundamentally disagree with - and I don't get to dismiss her as merely the puppet of patriarchy just because I can't imagine making the same choice. Making comments describing women who make such choices as "bobble-heads" is both sexist and religious intolerance, both of which are violations of the TOS of DU. I will continue to point that out.

But, as to where you have tried to take this conversation, if we don't even agree that every individual has the right to determine what their religion requires of them, I am just not interested in having a discussion about whether society has a legal or moral right to impose restrictions on the expression of those beliefs. It is just as pointless as having a a conversation about women's rights with someone who insists that any woman who says it was her choice to be a stay at home mom is merely a bobble-head front for her husband; that she could not possibly have made that choice.

So if you want to have a substantive conversation about the burqa laws in France, or elsewhere, it has to start with the premise that we don't get to decide for others what the expression of their beliefs look like - whether that is wearing burqas, or polygamy, or any of the other practices you have dismissed as "not religious." Once we have that as a baseline, I'm happy to discuss whether it is appropriate, or not, for society to regulate those practices. I'm just not going to have a conversation that is based, at its core, on intolerance for religious self determination

I'm still not going to discuss tangents with you, but just to let you know how wildly off base you are as to whether I have ever spent any time thinking about native rights, I am on the national board of an organization with many projects - one of which (for at least the past 30 years) has been working to change US laws relating to prior, and ongoing, interference with the rights of native people to self determination. I have also spent a minor amount of time with some of the indigenous people in Australia, specifically the Northern Territory.

**The comment was not specifically directed to me, as far as I know. It was, however, intended to disparage concerns I have been raising, by grossly mischaracterizing the concerns.

[riderinthestorm]

182. I just fundamentally disagree with your premise about the "start" of the conversation

which means we are at a stand still since you refuse to continue. That's fine.

And FWIW, I have never addressed any human being as a "bobble head". Ever. Not on DU and certainly not in real life.

Peace.

[Ms. Toad]

189. No it wasn't you -

it was another member of DU, who used that phrase repeatedly. I find that phrase directed at Islamic women who happen not to have made the politically acceptable choice, and the sexist implications that anything they say that doesn't conform to our version of what they should be choosing must not be their free choice incredibly offensive. But those comments were left standing by numerous juries, and the DU member who I know made them is still with us. I can't imagine that reference being tolerated against women in general, or against any other minority. That is why I am so firm on this issue.

I agree that there are far too many Islamic women who are trapped (or worse) by a variety of entities (husbands, family members, governments) in religious practices they have not chosen for themselves - and, as I believe I noted earlier - all indications are that that applies to this woman. She deserves our support - but so do the women who make choices which we may not find as politically acceptable.

In other circumstances, when it is not connected to the anti-Islamic baggage I find disturbing here, I am not opposed to discussing the deliberate cultural annihilation of native culture carried out by those who invaded their countries in almost every instance.

[Honeycombe8]

187. Boy, are you wrong in this instance. In order to give proper medical care,

medical staff need to be able to de-clothe people. Period. If someone disagrees with that because the clothes are religious and can't be removed, then don't go to the hospital. Otherwise, you're interfering with the care provider providing proper care. If something went wrong, guess who that man would hold responsible?

Second point: in France, a democracy where women are full, equal citizens, it is not the husband's decision what to do, anyway. The wife had no doubt signed an authorization before the surgery, where SHE agreed for them to do what they deemed necessary. A husband's say-so after the fact cannot change HER decision.

Third point: The burqa is now against the law in public places in France, anyway. It is not a religious garment. It's been deemed a garment of oppression, making women as invisible and non-persons as possible; the democracy has found it offensive to its citizens (much like we here in America would find the wearing of shackles of African American women offensive). Not all muslim women wear burqas. That's because it is not a religious garment.

When a master moves with his slave to a democracy that doesn't recognize slavery, he must eithr adjust or return to where he came from. If an American moves to Afghanistan, don't expect to wear your bikini to get a tan and live very long.

[Ms. Toad]

188. I have not commented on any of the things you suggest I have taken a position on

with the exception of whether the burqa can be a religious garment.

The sacrament of communion varies widely among Christians(e.g. Catholics use wine; Methodists use grape juice, most Quakers reject the outward sacrament entirely, the age or religious education required before participating varies, as does whether non-members are allowed to participate). So for some Christians, the consumption of wine by children as young as 7 is a religious practice. The fact that not all Christians engage in that practice is not because it is not a religious practice - it is because among Christians beliefs vary.

Not all Islamic women wear burqas, any more than all Christians use wine in communion. That doesn't make it not religious - it just means that beliefs about what is required to be faithful vary from person to person, or amont sects.

You don't get to decide that wearing a burqa not an element of faith for someone for whom it is just because you don't like the cultural message it sends to you. That is a personal decision between the practitioner and whatever deity is involved.

And again, just because I am getting very tired of having words I have never said put in my mouth: No one other than the individual has the right to decide for anyone else what elements of their faith are means just that. You don't get to decide for women who choose to wear some form of covering garment that it is not an element of her religion. Husbands don't get to decide, families don't get to decide, governments don't get to decide. No one means no one.

There are lots of people involved in working to end religious practices being imposed on others in the name of Islam - in the rush to condemn some really atrocious practices,Islamic women are being told by people who are theoretically on their side that the only acceptable option is for them to reject all forms of covering (because we won't believe them if they tell us that they choose to wear the burqa or even some less severe form of covering). Insisting on that outcome is forcing religious beliefs on them from the opposite perspective - and that is religious intolerance..

[YellowRubberDuckie]

83. Orthodox Jews are also really bad about the practice of making women 2nd class citizens.

As do Fundamentalist Christians. But the only ones anyone seems to get pissed about is the Muslims.
Let's include everyone in our disdain and outrage.

[riderinthestorm]

85. Fine with me. nt

[Violet_Crumble]

151. Then why haven't you ever focused on anything but Muslims?

As a feminist, that's what's setting off the alarm bells for me that all this passion is about something else other than caring about the abuse of women by religious loonies. Also, it doesn't help matters that in the past you've also opposed the so-called '9/11 Mosque' and supported the ban on minarets in Switzerland that was proposed by an extremist RW Swiss party....

[riderinthestorm]

155. That's 110% untrue, my post history supports that. I oppose ANY religious "shrines" near Ground 0.

I believe the area near the former World Trade Towers is now officially tainted with religious craziness. I don't support ANY religion "claiming" to set up a "peace center" anywhere near the place. In fact, I believe the site screams out for some kind of anti-religious zone around it because of the history. I'm by no means anti-one-religion-over-another. I say ban ALL religious centers for 5 miles around the site or it's going to become some silly one-up game. ALL of them are culpable of inciting violence. ALL of them deserve to be shunned. NONE of them should be able to set up shop in any way nearby. It's asking for trouble, each one trying to "claim" some kind of "peace" proprietorship on the site. It's despicable.

That's also in line with my position on all controversial religious shrines anywhere - like in Switzerland. Sorry but its a universal position for me. I would object to a Greek Orthodox gold dome in Switzerland as well as a minaret if that had been proposed. All are tacky and designed to further divide us along religious lines - I object. Enough is enough afaic.

Furthermore, when we have a story about an Orthodox Jewish man in France screaming at the midwife that she's a rapist, and punching out a female staff member for trying to take off his wife's stockings for a C-section, AND I patently ignore the blatant misogyny THEN you can accuse me of bigotry. Otherwise I'm pretty fairly anti-religion, anti-misogyny, anti-patriarchal societal constructs etc. etc. regardless of what form it comes in.

[Violet_Crumble]

156. Sorry, but it was true...

Here's what you said about the so-called '9/11 Mosque' at DU2 (emphasis is mine)


I would. I don't want a mosque built there.

I believe a multi-cultural, multi-faith (and no-faith at all) center devoted to peace would be a much greater contribution than another religious shrine. Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Hindu, Buddhism, etc. etc. - all would be welcome to come and meditate, see photos, leave notes or memorials - whatever.

Having a single religion claim that place, a central, highly public place, near such a culturally significant area such as the World Trade Center calamity that had such global implications is dead wrong, imho. It's the absolute worst message to send on many levels.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=4398757&mesg_id=4401412

If I were claiming to be equally opposed to things, no matter what religion did it, I'd make damn sure that I didn't just focus on one religion to the exclusion of all others. But then again, I don't confine my dislike of religious loonies to just one single example the way you have

[riderinthestorm]

158. That's completely consistent with my position. I'm pretty anti-religious all around.

I think its really odd you don't seem to appear on any other threads where I am as vocal about women's rights, or poverty issues, or Occupy, or public education in the US, or the political situation in Ireland, or critique of Obama, or horses for slaughter, or Libya, or Syria, or the EU monetary austerity measures, or rural life or... (insert any other number of issues I regularly comment on). I'm all over the road in my posting history.

Nope, you seem to be ONLY tracking burqa/Islam threads I post on and those are the only threads where you regularly call me out. These are a small fraction of the issues I care about yet you are on virtually ALL of them while I never see you anywhere else.....

Why is that? Is it because YOU are a single issue poster and only concerned with Muslim issues?

[Violet_Crumble]

159. The position being that the only religious loonies worth getting passionate about are Muslim ones?

Maybe you could give some examples with links to threads where you've spoken out against specific examples of religious abuse of women that aren't from Muslims? God forbid I should have missed something you've posted!

Not sure what occupy, or public education in the US have to do with what was being discussed, which was focusing only on one religion and not getting even slightly passionate about others...

Nothing like a bit of over-exaggeration. I recall only having an exchange with you in at most two other threads here at DU. I've read far more than I've posted, though if you think I'm a single issue poster, I suggest you do a search of my posts before making any more strange comments like that

[riderinthestorm]

161. Uhm, you made the accusation first and clearly saved (stalked?) my 1 answer from before

My post history is public and you are free to search it. You are the one who made the accusation that I was a single issue poster against Islam out of the thousands I've posted over the years. Good luck with that. You are clearly choosing to overlook the other thousands of posts on a myriad of other issues that I've posted and now want to play silly games. I have no time and less patience with deliberate baiting.

[Violet_Crumble]

164. I didn't realise doing a quick google was stalking. There ya go!

See, when I googled, what I found was the stuff I mentioned, but nowhere was there anything where there were specific incidents involving religious loonies from other religions, even though OPs about them do appear at DU. Which is why I asked, just in case google was being a bit selective...

I think you need to go back and reread what I said. I didn't say you were a single issue poster. I'm not interested in what you've posted about Occupy or education etc, as the discussion was specifically about religious loonies and their abuse of women.

Given the very hostile response, I don't think I've overlooked anything

[former9thward]

102. Any society that does not have a First Amendment that is.

To combat views like yours was why the founders put the Amendment in the Constitution.

[riderinthestorm]

105. We can and do put restrictions on it. FGM has been argued by Muslims to be a religious right

Yet we've clearly decided as a society to ban it. I happen to agree with that law. Do you? Or do you think ANY practice that is deemed "religious" should be allowed (or just those that harm women?) There are many other examples of restrictions on the First Amendment here in the US from bans on animal sacrifices to no face coverings allowed for a drivers license photo. The First Amendment is not carte blanche (but you knew that).

[former9thward]

115. There are society interests which overrule religious concerns.

So banning animal sacrifices or face covering for driver's identification are allowed because of the greater interests of society. Society does not have an interest in what people wear in a public place as long as it is not expose parts of the body considered sexual. You have no right to impose your views on anyone.

[riderinthestorm]

116. We can and do make laws governing what people may wear in public. We can and do impose our "views"

on everyone else. We as a society make rules about what we will or will not allow in the public square. To say otherwise is a blatant lie. The burqa is designed to erase women from society - there's no good argument to be made that it serves any place in our society other than you are endorsing the oppression of women.

Arguing for this misogynistic cultural garment designed to erase women makes about as much sense as arguing for a federal judge to be able to wear a KKK hood while serving on the bench. Ridiculous right?

Yes, because we as a society have made laws regarding what we want worn in public, we do impose our "views" on each other. We make laws regarding what we believe is appropriate garb and what offends us as a society.

Beyond all of that, what you may consider "sexual" is nowhere near a universal standard. My BIL gets an erection from pretty feet. Ban bare feet? They can be realllllyy sexual! Many believers in Islam believes hair is sexual. Ban it's display too? In aboriginal cultures breasts are not sexual. Does their view count in society? All of these are examples of clothing choices we have decided as a community to discuss and resolve. Why does the burqa get some sort of free pass from the same scrutiny and debate? It doesn't even have the advantage of being religious. It's a culturally imposed shroud that signifies to all that the person underneath is a secondary citizen.

[riderinthestorm]

5. Waiting for those who still think the burqa isn't some misogynistic garment to chime in....

And of course this woman is living in the west! So wearing it is completely her "choice"! It's not some misogynistic cultural relic, no sirree!
/sarcasm off


I wonder how many still think France's burqa laws are a bad thing...

FWIW, I can't imagine trying to give birth in a burqa (says rider, mother of two daughters)

[Liberal_in_LA]

7. How about begging your husband to allow exam by doctor?

[Quantess]

8. HE threatened HER with divorce?

That's a good offer. I hope she takes it.

[chrisa]

41. Well "divorce" would probably be more like killing her.

Awful situation.

[virgogal]

10. This poor woman has to LIVE with this guy? Awful.

[EFerrari]

15. She has to take a new baby home to THAT.

I think I'd refuse to leave the hospital until he was behind bars.

[DURHAM D]

13. This guy is nuts.

His actions aren't about his religion - he is just crazy. Hope he gets help.

[jberryhill]

24. +1

[Auntie Bush]

14. That poor woman must have been in so much pain!

How could a loving husband not want her to receive help and relief...even if it was beneath his dignity.

I wonder how many Muslim woman have died due to lack of necessary medical care? I think I heard they only get midwives...male Drs can't deliver them...and there a very few woman Drs.

[riderinthestorm]

18. If she's in a burqa during labor and delivery, he doesn't love her.

I have no doubt that this woman was in tremendous pain and suffering mightily under a virtual shroud as she sweated and groaned during labor.

But I also have no doubt her husband doesn't really love her to put her through that. His wife is simply chattel and a handy vagina to have sex upon and begat the next generation of misogynistic assholes.

And FWIW, many European countries have midwives deliver babies. It's much more common than the US and I don't have a huge problem with that per se however the problem obviously stems from the fact that even a woman wasn't allowed to work with this guy's "property" during her most critical hour.

[Blue_Tires]

49. +1

[YellowRubberDuckie]

84. Not only that...

In most countries with Sharia Law, women's hospitals do not have pain meds.
Apparently some of our missionary friends (when I was in college) were in a serious car accident in Saudi Arabia. They took the men to the Men's hospital and the women to a woman's hospital. The men were treated like kings, given pain meds, etc. The woman was more seriously injured than the men, and she was never offered of given any sort of pain med. She was treated like crap and finally they were able to transfer her to an American Hospital somewhere near by. Poor thing was SUFFERING. She had broken bones and needed surgery. They were going to do it without anesthesia. It was not a pretty situation.

[ellisonz]

170. That's not entirely true...

It kinda depends about where we are talking about, but in most of the Muslim world, although a female is preferred, a male doctor may deliver. I think it's also important to point out that women have been delivering birth via the hands of midwives for thousands of years. In fact, I have a friend whose mother is a midwife; it's actually quite in vogue, and this is in Honolulu. I'd also add that medical care in much of the Muslim world is poor because of a lack of trained doctors and resources.

27 US States license midwives.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midwifery#United_States

[riverwalker]

16. Foxnews...must be true n/t

[DesertRat]

19. Another source

http://in.news.yahoo.com/man-punches-nurse-removing-wifes-burqa-160544861.html

[Warren DeMontague]

34. Well, just because it's true, doesn't mean it's true.

And by that I mean, "inconvenient to my personal narrative and/or agenda"

[GoneOffShore]

69. Here's a link to the French paper La Provence

Details the prosecution of this religious "guy" http://www.laprovence.com/actu/region-en-direct/condamne-pour-des-violences-commises-sur-une-sage-femme-de-lhopital-nord

He gets six months for hitting the nurse and the prosecutor tells him that his religion is not an excuse.

[saras]

17. I am not always a good person. The doctors should have removed this guy's claim to superiority.

It's a simple enough operation, he was already in the hospital, they obviously don't need to have any more babies, and he was, in a manner of speaking, just begging for it. Thirty seconds with a gelding tool is all it would take, no anesthesia.

[The Straight Story]

20. That guy is almost as bad as us guys in the US

[Liquorice]

60. There's no doubt that there are nuts like him in the US too. nt

[kestrel91316]

21. Wow. I'd send the guy to jail for about 10 years and then deport him. And

I'd put the wife and child in a witness protection program or some such.

[jberryhill]

22. Go to jail, go directly to jail, do not pass Go /nt

[msongs]

23. religion, the gift that keeps on ... taking lol nt

[LanternWaste]

45. Precisely.

Precisely. If there were no religion, there would be no violence...

[pnwmom]

25. And I bet he is one of those who insists his wife VOLUNTARILY wears a burqa.

There is no such thing as freedom of choice for a woman with this kind of husband.

[etherealtruth]

62. Its all voluntary

The Sharia "police" are just for show.

(*do I really need the sarcasm thingy?)

[sufrommich]

27. I can just imagine what happened to that woman

when she got home. Pig.

[ZombieHorde]

28. Why do you hate all men!?

That is a joke.

[Warren DeMontague]

36. So the guy says to the Genie, "I didn't wish for a 12 inch PIANIST!"

that is a punchline to a joke.

[mainer]

94. I love that joke!

but I can't tell it in public.

[Warren DeMontague]

112. My favorite bar joke involves surreptitiously ripping up a napkin into little pieces beforehand

"what did the farmer say after he blew the chicken?"

(then cough napkin bits out of fist into big cloud all over listeners)

only works once, and be sure to clean up afterwards or you'll piss off the bartender.

[Liquorice]

31. That sounds like crazy cult behavior to me. The burqa itself

seems like something you would wear in a cult. That poor woman. I hope she and the baby can get away from that man.

[Warren DeMontague]

35. I'd like to know the specific difference between a "religion" and a "cult"

My own opinion? There isn't one.

[MattBaggins]

50. A religion is a cult people have decided to accept

[Warren DeMontague]

53. I think it's more like, "steal $100, you're a filthy criminal"

"steal $100 Billion, you're a major influential power-broker on the world stage"

[treestar]

54. And gets large enough

Every religion likely starts as a cult - but if it catches on and gains establishment power - then it becomes a religion.

[Liquorice]

58. I know what you mean. But I do think people can

belong to a religious group without being in a cult. My own view is that when an external belief system takes over a person's whole life, and they lose themselves and devote their entire being to that ideology, then you're getting into cult territory. That's why the burqa symbolizes a cult, or at least cult-like behavior, to me. It seems like you would have to do some major brainwashing to get anyone to accept that wearing that crazy thing is normal.

[piratefish08]

82. religion has more members than a cult.

[Marrah_G]

32. Men like these have zero value to society

[Warren DeMontague]

33. Wait... Where are all the people lining up to say this sort of shit deserves "cultural tolerance"?

Not to mention the fact that, here in the west, many women choose*

[font size=1](*sorry. They only mistakenly think they're 'choosing' to. They don't realize that the Patriarchy has gone into their purse while they weren't looking and stolen their ability to meaningfully consent, along with that crumpled up $2 off coupon to Quiznos)[/font]

to wear bikinis or even let pictures of themselves be taken naked , thereby enabling male gaze phallocentric exploitation which has been scientificacally provenated in many scientificanisinated type studies to have a magical quantum effect of harmy-harming ALL women through evil nudity and objectification and hypersexualization---

...which, all good progressives must agree, are at least as bad as forcing your wife to wear a beekeeper suit to a c-section.

[Charlemagne]

61. Yep, this week on DU

We all decided that pornography, stripping, and scantily clad women were all examples of violence and glorification of the rape culture. I guess the alternative, a burqa, must be preferable???

[Warren DeMontague]

37. When people have invisible friends who tell them to act out violently, we call it "mental illness"

I'm becoming more and more convinced that fundamentalism and mental illness are indistinguishable.

[obamanut2012]

97. They've actually done studies on that, you knpw

On adults converting to Fundamentalism. I have to go out for a few hours, but I'll try to find one of the studies when I get back.

[Snake Alchemist]

38. How did this person become a French citizen?

Doesn't sound like he is assimilating at all. I

[JVS]

40. Because someone has to do the construction work in France.

[Snake Alchemist]

43. That doesn't sound like France.

Migrating there is very difficult.

[KamaAina]

44. He may well have been born in France to French parents

who were among the many Muslim immigrants there. He's only 24. There have been substantial Muslim communities there for a lot longer than that.

And he's still not asssimilating at all.

[GoneOffShore]

73. Came back from France in December - Friends there tell me that the younger

Muslims are rejecting the assimilation that their parents were fine with.

More beards, more head scarves and increasing radicalism.

One of the people we spoke to lives in Montreuil - just outside the city limits and teaches north of Paris proper. She teaches dance and sign language to kids. She told us that the older Muslim women (35+) interact with the kids and teachers. The younger ones (under 30) stay aloof from any interaction with non-Muslims and refuse to participate with their kids.

The other person works in Marseille. He's encountering the same attitudes.

[Snake Alchemist]

87. Did they have any ideas as to the cause? nt

[GoneOffShore]

88. As French citizens they're puzzled - Despite being on opposite sides of the political fence

They both see this radicalization and don't understand it - especially as some of the people come from modestly successful families who have pretty much assimilated into France.

[Snake Alchemist]

89. That is troubling. nt

[dougolat]

171. How about the decade of trumped-up pre-emptive war in the Middle East? nt

[Snake Alchemist]

179. By the French? nt

[dougolat]

180. no, by the West in general

which, if you recall, has had a hand in the conditions that made for emigration in the first place; THEN the latest outrage, resulting in a lot of irrationality. And one can hardly expect someone as irrational as this guy to assign nuanced blame.

[Snake Alchemist]

181. That seems a bit too general an enemy. nt

[WI_DEM]

42. There are all kinds of religious fanatics

[Blue_Tires]

46. well that lady sure picked a winner...

[msanthrope]

51. What makes you think she had any choice in the matter? nt

[obamanut2012]

98. Yup -- doubt she did

[downwardly_mobile]

48. The Religion of Peace.

[obamanut2012]

100. His behavior and beliefs have nothing to do with Islam

Islam is just used as the cudgel. Just like there is nothing in The Gospels, or even in Paul's propaganda, that advocated treating women like the FLDS do. It's culture and control.

[treestar]

52. And cue Faux Noise to use that one guy to condemn the entire religion

What would happen in a hospital in an Islamic country? This guy may not be normal even for there.

[Union Scribe]

59. Who needs Fox when DUers will do the same job.

Here I thought "find violent Muslim, mock 'religion of peace'" was a right wing tactic.

[Warren DeMontague]

67. Christian nutjob does something similar, I'll say the same thing.

When your excuse for acting violently is "my invisible friend in the sky made me do it", you're mentally ill. Fundamentalism, in many forms, is hard to distinguish from being just plain nuts.

[Union Scribe]

75. At least you qualified it with "fundamentalism"

And no, they aren't mentally ill. They're choosing to do evil to other people. It's an insult to people who are mentally ill to say some thug can't stop oppressing the women around him.

[Warren DeMontague]

77. I think that having invisible friends in the sky who talk to you IS a form of mental illness.

Sorry, I do. And I'm not going to qualify that OR apologize for it.

[Fawke Em]

90. And calling continously calling a diety, "an invisible friend in the sky"

is intolerant.

I can agree that absolute fundamentalism is a form of mental illness, but religion is not simply boiled down to an "invisible friend in the sky."

Extreme atheism is just a bad as extreme religiosity: both show an insane level of intolerance.

[Warren DeMontague]

110. Why? Is the deity supposed to be visible? No. Is the deity supposed to be a friend, of sorts? Yes.

(certainly, many believers consider the 'personal relationship' with said deity to be core to their faith)

Where's the deity generally imagined to be residing? Okay, that's a bit tougher, but "the sky" is a reasonable approximation of a lot of lyrical descriptions of faith.

No, it's only "intolerant" in the way that telling steak aficionados that they like to eat cooked dead cow is "intolerant". People don't like to hear the actual truth.

[dionysus]

65. check the post above yours!

[LiberalEsto]

57. Sounds like he could use a strait jacket

Behavior like that would seem to indicate some form of mental illness.

[CrawlingChaos]

78. Not newsworthy, but it's a chance to smear Muslims so it gets lots of media play

There are lunatics of ALL stripes out there. Crazed Christians, Jews, atheists - you name it. One person's actions should not be used to smear the entire group. and yet I see that happening on this forum almost daily.

[ellisonz]

79. Why it took so long for someone to point out this key point is beyond me...

"He said seeing his wife's veil lifted in front of a male health worker was like seeing her "bare-chested" in front of another man."

It appears to me the issue was the presence of a "male health worker," my guess is that there was a cultural communication breakdown. I doubt he would have had any issue if the doctor and nursing staff was all female. The amount of ignorance of certain Islamic cultures in this thread astounds me - how do you think women gave birth in Afghanistan under the Taliban or before modern medicine?

Let's explore this issue a bit more:

About 18,000 Afghan women die during childbirth every year, says the Afghan Health Ministry. According to a recent report by the NGO Save the Children, Afghanistan ranked as the worst place to give birth, followed by Niger and Chad. In these countries, 60% of all births are not attended to by skilled health professionals. On average, about 1 in 23 mothers are expected to die from pregnancy-related causes. Children also die young and suffer from malnutrition, and education for girls is poor.

Often the challenge is just getting women to hospitals. Rural Afghans, even in relatively progressive provinces like Bamiyan in central Afghanistan, are suspicious or dismissive of doctors. In the town of Bamiyan, the main hospital has a new maternity ward. But head midwife Sediqa Hosseini says many of the 25 beds in the ward are often empty. On a recent summer afternoon, Hosseini, a tiny, serious woman in a baby blue headscarf, greets the 12 women who have checked in. One is Fatima, a 25-year-old farmer's wife. "When Fatima arrived, her baby was coming out shoulder first," Hosseini says. "She had to have a C-section. Without help, both of them would have died."

Fatima says her husband took her to the hospital when her labor became so painful that she was doubled over. Hosseini says few husbands would have done the same. Many rural men prefer to pray with a mullah to cure illnesses, she says. "They believe this is more reliable than medicine." As she breast-feeds her newborn daughter, Fatima says she wouldn't have gone if it had not been for a community-health worker who told her hospitals are safe and free.

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2094031,00.html#ixzz1jQVebsfP

Afghanistan has an atrocious infant mortality rate because it does not have enough trained female mid-wives and social workers who are capable of doing this type of work. I refuse to believe that the only acceptable approach on our part is to impose a Westernized hospital model where it is not wanted. What is needed is a team approach. Trained local/culturally sensitive teams of social workers, mid-wives, nurses, doctors, and religious officials. I refuse to believe that under proper conditions that Islamic men and women with belief with this type of belief system can not be persuaded to do the smart thing in regards to child birth, and in fact, treatment of women and children in general. I think we do a great disservice to ourselves when we persist with the notion that somehow ipso facto other people are fundamentally different than us in their basic humanity. As Nobel Peace Prize winner described, "How can you defy fear? Fear is a human instinct, just like hunger. Whether you like it or not, you become hungry. Similarly with fear. But I have learned to train myself to live with this fear." We must all train ourselves, simply throwing our hands up in the air and saying what a fool, or how could anything like this ever happen, we must with reasoned mind, approach the problem and solve it together, as one, a common race, human kind.

The condition of women in Islamic societies as a whole is also far from desirable. However, we should acknowledge that there are differences. In certain countries, the conditions are much better and in others much worse.

Women are the victims of this patriarchal culture, but they are also its carriers. Let us keep in mind that every oppressive man was raised in the confines of his mother's home.
Shirin Ebadi

[Warren DeMontague]

81. What's astounding is that it took this long for someone to show up & try to apologize for this shit.

Also, the guy was in FRANCE. How dare those French Hospitals try to insenitively "impose a Westernized Hospital Model!"



Damn Western Patriarchal medical rabble-rousers, always insensitive to the needs to the batshit crazy sex-phobic godbags of the world!

[ellisonz]

101. Does it seem like they did a good job communicating with the Father?

I think not. What's your interest? Find solutions, or finding problems with the "batshit crazy sex-phobic godbags of the world?"

Does not France have a large Muslim population?

[Warren DeMontague]

108. There is a solution. Put this shithead in prison, he attacked a hospital employee.

What's the 'solution'? Don't violently attack people, even if you think Allah told you to.

There.

[ellisonz]

120. That's after the fact...

How could the situation have been avoided in the first place; that's what I'm concerned with. Your anger at him is noted.

[Warren DeMontague]

122. How could it have been avoided? By educating this fuckhead that a C-Section requires Burka removal.

And maybe telling him to leave his fundamentalism at the Hospital door.

[ellisonz]

125. They don't have female OB/GYNs in France?

From the article, his issue seemed to be the presence of male staff.

I don't think this is very good reporting. Au revoir!

[riderinthestorm]

128. No, his issue was with both the male and FEMALE staff.

He threatened the female midwife. Of course you are glossing over THAT part.





(obviously I'm on ignore. I hate talking to the wall.... )

[ellisonz]

136. I'm not ignoring you...

I'm doubting the quality of the reporting, suggesting the hospital may not have handled this in the best way, watching football, and baking shrimp.

[riderinthestorm]

138. There are at least 4 other links to other sources upthread. Maybe you could read the thread? nt

[ellisonz]

150. I've read the thread. None of the other articles differ substantially and seem to echo eachother. nt

[Warren DeMontague]

162. I'm an Atheist. My wife is Jewish. She had a baby at a Catholic Hospital.

Each room had a little wooden crucifix over the bed, so a delivering mom could look up while pushing and see a little 7 inch tall Jesus being crucified. Seemed odd to me, actually when we toured the hospital during the pregnancy and filled out the forms, they assured us they would take it down.. happens all the time, they said.

Well, whatever... when the big day came, for whatever reason, 7 inch tall Jesus was still there. Not exactly the pinnacle of cultural understanding and tolerance for my Jewish wife and me, the unbeliever.

So, naturally, I beat the crap out of the staff, because, you know, that was the rational thing to do, especially since they could have done a much better job of understanding and accomodating our needs.


Actually, that's not true. I barely even noticed, and didn't give a shit, since I was focused on my wife and making sure both she and my baby were healthy, which is what this asshat "father" should have been doing.


Oh, and it was "as bad as having her be topless".. what the fuck does this clown think the birth process entails? I remember our MALE doctor sitting between my wife's legs like Johnny Bench, with at least as explicit a view of her as I've EVER had... funny, though, I was somehow able to control myself and not, say, punch him in the face.



This isn't the hospital's fault. I don't think we should be making any excuses for this shitwit.

[riderinthestorm]

124. His wife labored for 2 days in that damn burqa!! The staff allowed it!

And then he called the FEMALE midwife a rapist for doing a basic exam. He was EJECTED from the room because he wouldn't even allow female staff to examine his wife.

I'm sorry you are clearly avoiding me. Fine. But those questions won't go away. There's nothing the hospital staff could have done to have avoided this confrontation. The guy was deep into fundie-land and there's no rationalizing with that.

[ellisonz]

130. From the OP story...

"He said seeing his wife's veil lifted in front of a male health worker was like seeing her "bare-chested" in front of another man."

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/12/23/french-muslim-jailed-for-punching-nurse-who-removed-his-wifes-burqa-1606404483/#ixzz1jUaPvMKP

I'm not avoiding you. We disagree. You think the problem is just him; I think the problem is a failure in communication and that's what led to the incident.

[riderinthestorm]

131. You COMPLETELY glossed over this part

"Nassim Mimoune, 24, was earlier banned from the delivery room after calling a midwife a "rapist" when she tried to perform an intimate examination on his wife in a Marseille hospital on Monday, La Provence newspaper reported.

The pregnant woman, who had been having contractions for two days when she was admitted, begged her husband to allow the examination, but he threatened her with divorce."


Oh yes, what was that comment about female staff attending her and this "problem" would have been avoided?

This has nothing to do with gender!

[ellisonz]

134. The story isn't clear...

...if male staff was also present in the room. I don't trust this reporting. I'm going to err on the side of where was the social worker. You have a good night.

[riderinthestorm]

140. It doesn't matter if male staff were in the room. His wife needed medical attention and he tried to

deny that because she would have to remove her burqa to deliver their baby!

It's absurd in the most grotesque way to think this is anything other than fundy craziness which needs nothing more than utmost contempt!

He threatened to divorce his wife if she took off the damn burqa to get a C-section! What part of this is escaping you as crazy??

[ellisonz]

148. The part where I rush to judgment based on an incomplete account.

I think you probably should just give up, we're not going to see eye to eye.

[riderinthestorm]

154. I agree. You've made yourself perfectly clear on this thread and I have nothing more to add.nt

[riderinthestorm]

91. Are you seriously advocating for sex segregated hospitals in France?? Really?!

The people who will go out of their way to try to accommodate sexism (and discrimination if we are talking about separate but equal facilities - gag) under the guise of cultural relativism is unbelievable.

This is France! Medical facilities should NEVER have to be segregated by gender or any other blatantly wrong ideology.

[ellisonz]

99. I'm advocating for cultural sensitivity. n/t

[riderinthestorm]

107. He'd been banned from the room for calling the FEMALE midwife a "rapist" for doing an internal exam.

Do you really still think the gender of the medical staff had anything to do with this?? He was bat shit because his wife was going to become free of her damn burqa and he wasn't going to have that under any circumstances (even C-section surgery).

You are the one who appears to be missing key elements of this story. A medical team had already allowed the poor woman to suffer for 2 DAYS in labor with the damn shroud on - I'd call that culturally sensitive to the point of absurdity. It was far beyond the time the staff should have allowed the woman to breathe and move freely by taking it off. Did I also mention he'd already called the female midwife a rapist?

Are you a man?? Have you ever had a child? (I can't believe I'm even going here) but try doing that wrapped in a bed sheet for 48 hours and tell us how you feel...? All culturally warm and sensitive?

I'm sorry but there's no more "cultural sensitivity" to be spared for this fundie control freak imho. He's a French citizen so clearly he's been in the country for a while and knows that French hospitals are not gender segregated places. He deserves absolutely ZERO tolerance.

[Warren DeMontague]

114. Don't even bother. You're not properly checking your White Male privilege against Oppressed Peoplez™

Oppressed Peoplez™ can never do any wrong, and when they are mistakenly believed to have done something "wrong", like violently attacking a hospital employee for trying to remove his wife's beekeeper outfit faith based womyn's patriarchal defense garb, we must immediately begin to examine the situation to discover the way in which, exactly, the structure of white male eurocentric imperialism is at fault.

Really, what should have happened, was they should have figured out a way to perform C-Sections on Oppressed Peoplez™ without removing their beekeeper outfits faith based womyn's patriarchal defense garb. And they should apologize to this poor man, of course.

[Warren DeMontague]

113. Yeah. Love that line. We've got people who think porn and cheesecake pancakes should be illegal

but who also think FGM deserves "cultural sensitivity", too.

Fucking insane.

[ellisonz]

121. "Fucking insane."

Yeah that about describes your projection here about porn and cheesecake pancakes; boy did that come out of left-field.

[Warren DeMontague]

123. Have you been here long?

Because I've seen exactly that. People contorting themselves all the fuck over to justify criminalizing porn & pancakes, then turning around and weeping because there's not enough "cultural sensitivity" to the "needs" of people whose religion tells them to mutilate their daughters.

[ellisonz]

127. 2003. I don't make a point of reading porn and pancake threads.

Au revoir!

[Warren DeMontague]

167. Well, we'll always have Paris

and Porn, and Pancakes.

[ellisonz]

168. Yes we will...

...and Rick Perry: http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511513

[Warren DeMontague]

169. Puh-leeze.

He's a pedantic pissant.

with a pistol.

[Warren DeMontague]

109. People need to remember who the real 'victim' is, here, i.e. the poor misunderstood guy who couldn't

figure out that the beekeeper suit would have to come off for the c-section.

[Douglas Carpenter]

80. as a Respiratory Therapist - I have attended hundreds and hundreds of C-sections in Saudi Arabia

over a twenty year period. None of the women ever even once wore a veil, abaya, burqa or even a hijab (headscarf) during the procedure and this was never - ever even once an issue - ever. There were lots of male OB/GYNs in Saudi - although no doubt most were women.

[Liberal_in_LA]

133. thanks for the info. Glad women are free to give birth without a burqa

[ellisonz]

135. This in *Saudi Arabia* of all places! n/t

[riderinthestorm]

142. Yes, NOT France where you believe they should have gender segregated hospitals to accomodate Muslims

[ellisonz]

145. Segregated?

You do realize that there are about 2.6 million observant Muslims in America and that such requests are met everyday in hospitals in this country. It is not segregation to expect one's religious beliefs to be respected in the hospital. Here are some resources for understanding the social dynamics of interactions such as this one and why this incident might have happened.

In the Journal of Medical Ethics, Padela and co-author Pablo Rodriguez del Pozo, a medical ethicist at Cornell University's Weil Medical College in Doha, Qatar, describe a scenario in which a woman wearing a hijab, a Muslim religious head covering, comes to the emergency department complaining of leg pain after a fall. She asks to see a female doctor.

According to Islamic bioethics, a Muslim patient's first choice of a doctor would be one who is also Muslim and of the same sex. Second choice would be a non-Muslim of the same sex, followed by a Muslim of the opposite sex and a non-Muslim of the opposite sex, Padela and his co-author write.

Simply acknowledging that a patient might be uncomfortable and asking how to put them at ease can relieve anxiety, Padela says. In his paper's scenario, the patient and doctor reach a compromise: A female nurse practitioner will examine the patient while the doctor observes.

"Physicians all across the country in all spheres of practice understand that making patients comfortable in a cultural context will really help," says Upland, Calif., neurologist Faisal Qazi, vice president of American Muslim Health Professionals. "It's a trust issue."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2010-11-09-muslim-women-doctors_N.htm

http://muslimnursesassociation.blogspot.com/
http://amwpa.org/
http://www.aclu.org/religion-belief-womens-rights/discrimination-against-muslim-women-fact-sheet
http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2010/07/muslim_woman_sues_somerset_hos.html
http://www.infocusnews.net/content/view/18070/135/

[riderinthestorm]

149. The woman in the OP was being seen by a FEMALE midwife, who was accused of being a RAPIST!

Because she was performing a basic medical OB exam. You KEEP completely missing that aspect.

Muslims living in the west are going to HAVE to come to grips that modern medical hospitals will have both male and female staff. I have NO patience for those who believe we must create separate but equal facilities based on gender. It's discriminatory, unnecessary and a dangerous practice that we already know does NOT work in any modern society. Obviously in the OP case, a female staff member was present but even that wasn't enough.

I'm done. Your cultural relativism bullshit has no place here. Even those who have real time medical experience in ME countries are aghast on this very thread. You are the only one trying to assert some bullshit "cultural sensitivity" on childbirth that's mythical and nonsensical.

[obamanut2012]

175. Excellent post!

[Douglas Carpenter]

139. I have never heard of anything like this in a total of 25 years in the Middle East

even when I was working in the 80's outside a remote village in the mountains near Yemen. There were male OBGYN's and frequently other male health care workers in attendance and certainly none of the women ever wore anything except hospital gowns.

[riderinthestorm]

141. But you know, in FRANCE, the medical staff are being "culturally insensitive" to remove the burqa

for a c-section!! Because you know, this wasn't a gender segregated hospital in France!

The gall (a sick attempt at humour after a ridiculous discussion)

[Douglas Carpenter]

143. my problem with this story is that it begins with the title "French Muslim Jailed" and then thestory

begins with the words, "A Muslim man" - Then the story describes something that has nothing to do with Muslims or Islam or Islamic practices or beliefs or anything of the sort - even practices in the strictest forms of Islamic practice in the world. Then the story proceeds to support a racist and bigoted stereotype. No doubt as we speak right now there are many C-sections going on involving Muslim women. No doubt there are male health care workers in attendance at many of those c-sections. No doubt the female patient is wearing nothing other than a standard hospital gown just like they would wear anywhere in America or Europe. So why on earth is this story is titled, "French Muslim Jailed"? What does the assaulter being Muslim have to do with the story? Nothing! Absolutely nothing! "A Muslim man"? It is worded that way for the same reason that there were times and places in the world and there probably still are where a headline could have read, "Black man rapes white girl" or "Jew caught running a ponzi scheme" or "Homosexual arrested for molesting young boys". The frame of mind that would word stories that way - is the same frame of mind that could word this story this way. Take an example of something that probably really did happen and use it smear an entire people with something that has nothing to do with the practices of that people.

[riderinthestorm]

144. There are multiple other accounts of the story from other sources

Unfortunately it's indisputable that this guy IS Muslim and objected to the "unveiling" of his wife because he didn't want her 'exposed" to strangers.

The story supports a racist and bigoted stereotype because the French husband in the article behaved in a hideous way based on his interpretation of Islam. Is it an anomaly? Sure. But that's what NEWS is. Man bites dog. It's the rare and unusual. Others on this thread have testified to the rising fundamentalism of (theoretically) assimilated French Muslims who are reverting to despicably misogynistic cultural attitudes despite decades in country. Sorry but that's also news.

Of course with threads like this, there's the usual brouhaha over burqa.... but regardless of that, there's no disputing the facts that the guy was a French Muslim citizen who went batshit over medical staff unveiling his wife for a c-section in a French hospital with competent staff attending (who he verbally and physically assaulted).

[Douglas Carpenter]

147. there is no disputing that Bernie Madoff is a Jew but we don't report the story in a bigoted manner

because what Bernie Madoff did had nothing to do with him being Jewish except in the minds of bigots.

[riderinthestorm]

153. Are you really asserting the guy's religion in the OP had nothing to do with his actions? nt

[Violet_Crumble]

157. A question for you...

Do you think that the mainstream media (US in particular) has a tendency to push out stories about Muslims doing horrible things and that it caters to the blatant anti-Muslim feeling in the US? And do you think there is widespread bigotry against Muslims in the US?

btw, if you want to read and learn about issues affecting Muslims, there's an Islam/Muslim group here at DU that you might get something out of

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1224

[riderinthestorm]

160. I read the story first in a British paper.

So whether there's more or less bigotry in the US vs anywhere else, the story is clearly to be found in virtually all newspapers including Australian ones from a quick google search. Do you think Indonesia has a great deal of anti-Muslim bigotry? Because the story's in all of their newspapers too....

It's hard to make sweeping generalizations. I'm an atheist and we are the MOST discriminated group in the US. There's huge anti-atheist sentiment here and widespread bigotry. Muslims are well within the "most trusted" groups by Americans in most polls compared to atheists.... Since I'm anti-theist completely and completely discriminated against, it's hard to say Muslims are treated any worse or better. In my view all religious groups are granted a large degree of acceptance and tolerance in this culture that should be much more secular.

I've certainly browsed the Islam/Muslim group as well as the other religious groups. I don't post in any of them as I'm sure you now know. If a post of mine appears within those categories its because I hit the thread before it was moved but in general I stay away from all of them. I grew up an evangelical christian in the most fundie area. I have volunteered in Wheaton IL for many decades which is a virtual magnet for immigrant populations because of it's huge number of aid organizations and I get any religious information first hand from people I see at the food pantry. the women's shelter, or in my ESL classes without relying on anonymous internet boards.

[Violet_Crumble]

165. That's not what I asked you....

I asked: 'Do you think that the mainstream media (US in particular) has a tendency to push out stories about Muslims doing horrible things and that it caters to the blatant anti-Muslim feeling in the US?'

Since when has the British media not been the mainstream media?

Guess what? I'm an atheist too, and the two groups that suffer the most in the way of bigotry and intolerance at DU are Jews and Muslims. From American friends and from what I've read, that's a fact, and for anyone to try claiming that atheists are completely and utterly discriminated against so bad that an atheist just can't tell if Muslims are treated better or worse is just as silly as those Christians I see in the US whining about them being persecuted in the US...

[Douglas Carpenter]

166. no more than a snake handler in the mountains of West Virginia has to do with Christianity

I have personally assited in hundreds and hundred of C-sections in the strictest Muslim county in the Middle East - Saudi Arabia. I have l have also worked in one of the most remote, most ethnocentric regions of the strictest country in the Middle East - the Asir Mountain region near the Yemen boarder. There were almost always male health care workers present. This was a non-issue. The patients wore nothing more than the normal hospital gown than anyone would wear in America or Europe. No doubt thousands and thousands of Muslim women have had C-sections in France with male health care workers in attendance. I have never heard of anyone ever being assaulted out of the hundreds of thousands of Muslims who have had C-sections whether in the West or in the Islamic world. It is possible that in some backward tribal region somewhere that this thinking could be a local tribal belief. I have no idea. But I have certainly never - ever heard of it until now. This is not a Muslim belief or practice in any way, shape or form.

[riderinthestorm]

183. Oh, I completely agree with you. However, the guy in the story obviously does not.

That was my point. He appears to have some extremely bizarre interpretation of Islam that's so far off the scale it's crazy. But I don't think you can deny that his actions were definitely tied into his interpretation of his religion. That was my only point.

Ellisonz, the other poster on this subthead, also appears to believe that male hospital staff being present is culturally insensitive towards Muslims having babies as well. My comments are in completely agreement with yours that this is/should be completely unnecessary because medical care transcends that kind of strict gender segregation as far as I've ever been told.

And unfortunately, a snake handler in West Virginia is a Christian if they say they are. "No True Scotsman" applies there as well as the crazy guy in the OP....

Peace.

[Fuzz]

92. Foxnews? Think they would post an article like this if the guy was an insane christian?

The guy is a psycho though and the wife should have said ok to the threat of divorce.

[riderinthestorm]

93. There are at least 4 other links to other sources upthread. Maybe you could read the thread? nt

[Fuzz]

176. Okies. That's not what I said though. It's fine.

[Edweird]

95. Yeah, but it was a 'peaceful' punch.

[spanone]

111. there are mentally ill muslims, too.

[riderinthestorm]

126. Do you really think he's mentally ill? Or are you inferring he's religiously crazy?

[CrawlingChaos]

129. uh oh, you dropped a turd of reason into the punch bowl of hate

Not that it will matter; people are so eager to get their hate on.

[Warren DeMontague]

163. Upthread, people are arguing it's the hospital's fault for not being more 'culturally sensitive'.

Can't have it both ways- either this is a direct outgrowth of a cultural sensibility, or he's a completely bugfuck insane outlier. It can't be both.

[CrawlingChaos]

172. nonsensical statement

Regardless of what they're discussing upthread (which I have not read), trying to convince people that a whole group should be condemned based on the actions of one person is vile. It's how the seeds of hate are sown.

[Warren DeMontague]

174. Okay, which is THAT, then?

A

1) "nonsensical statement",

or

2) me "trying to convince people that a whole group should be condemned based on the actions of one person"?



The answer, actually, is that it's neither, nor have I done the latter anywhere in this thread.

And regarding the former, I like to think most of the shit I say makes at least a little bit of sense, too.

[CrawlingChaos]

190. You have done both (n/t)

[Warren DeMontague]

191. at least I never beat the crap out of someone attempting to deliver my baby

so I got that goin' for me, which is nice.

[riderinthestorm]

184. Since you are passing judgement without having any context of the convo perhaps you can read

the rest before you smear long time DUers?

Nobody is condemning a whole group based on the actions of one person. Nobody.

In fact ellisonz is the one who is doing the smearing by trying to assert the guy in the OP isn't batshit. He's trying to state that the guy in the OP is the norm for Muslims and that "we" (the amorphous West, the French hospital, posters on DU who disagree with that - take your pick) are/were wrong for not having/demanding gender segregated medical care ("culturally insensitive&quot .

[CrawlingChaos]

192. This thread is full of Muslim-bashing

I don't have to locate and read the specific subthread you're referencing to see that. I'm sick of seeing this garbage here and I don't care whether it comes from long time DUers or people who joined yesterday. It's hateful BS.

[riderinthestorm]

195. Oh FFS!! You admit you haven't read the thread or subthread and yet pass summary judgement??!!

Despicable behavior towards anyone.

[ellisonz]

173. That's not my argument.

I'm arguing that in absence of a more complete account of what transpired, restating the basic principles under which things like this should be handled can't hurt.

Yes it can be both - to judge otherwise is binary thinking.

[Warren DeMontague]

118. I was at a newsstand, and a man I didn't know bought a copy of a magazine called "Juggs"

This magazine was enshrouded in a thick black plastic wrapper, and the salesperson put it in a brown paper bag after the man bought it... nevertheless, I have reason to believe that the magazine in question contains- you're not gonna believe this- pictures of women in various stages of undress, some of them completely naked..

I also- and remember, although shocking and distressing, this is only speculation- suspect that the man in question may have taken that magazine home and engaged in some male gaze objectification phallocentric erotoxin producing activities which I shall NOT describe here, but we can safely say that several scientificalically validatinated and provinisticated studies have definitinitively shown that said activities are not only functionally indistinguishable from "violence", but they also invariably led to lower pay, not to mention a quantum mojo harming of all-women-as-a-class.


So given this shocking example of Real Oppression™, why are we even bothering to discuss this culturally insensitive abrogation of the rights of Oppressed Peoplez™, like the husband of Ms. Burqa C-Section?

[JustAnotherGen]

177. Could care less about the burqua law in FRANCE

Do care that a Human Being was punched in the face. Yep - good, bad, or indifferent the woman's husband was angry that the nurse removed her burqua.

But regardless - he PUNCHED a human being in the face. In a country (being quite familiar with the folks there and having spent a great deal of time there) where woman from a young age are 'taught' so-to-speak to look in a mirror and appreciate themselves: Wrinkles, crooked teeth, large nose, etc. etc.

I hope he gets the book thrown at him by the justice system there.

I could care less about the burqua debate - REGARDLESS of his religious 'freedom of expression' his freedom did not give him the right to punch another Human Being in the face. He punch a person in the face that was doing their job to bring HIS child into the world.

He's a f*cking violent sun-of-a-bitch and if it was ANYONE at DU's husband, wife, mother, son, sister, best friend that had been punched in the face ooohh say by a Christian Fundamentalist we'd be screaming for their head on a platter.

[Enrique]

186. not enough people are calling bullshit

we call bullshit for much less than this, why are we all (except a few) taking a Daily Mail story about Muslims at face value?

[CrawlingChaos]

194. +1

[aaaaaa5a]

193. Religion raises its ugly head again! nt