nekkaz

From the website of France 24:

A French businessman has set up a fund to pay fines for women who wear Islamic veils or the burqa in public “in whatever country in the world that bans women from doing so”.

Rachid Nekkaz, 38, a real-estate businessman based in Paris, travelled to Belgium on Wednesday to pay 100 euros for two women fined in the first case in the country since the law was adopted there.

burqa-in-paris1-300x200

“I’m in favour of a law to convict a husband who forces a women to wear the niqab and who forces her to stay at home. But I’m also for a law that lets these women move freely in the streets, because freedom of movement, just like any freedom, is the most fundamental thing in a democracy, ” Nekkaz told reporters outside the courtroom in Belgium.

The same day, he paid a 75 euro fine for a woman in the north-eastern French town of Roubaix.

“I am calling for civil disobedience,” he told FRANCE 24. “I am telling women to not be afraid to go out wearing their veils. And by paying the fines, I am neutering the law, rendering it inefficient and pointless, showing that it doesn’t work. It is a humiliation for the politicians.”

Monsieur Nekkaz, pest or hero?

Over to the Ricochetoise.

(H/t to Stephen Schmalhofer.)

  • Comment Filters
Contributor Comments
Member Comments
Comment Popularity

Comments :


Joined
Aug '11
Mimi

I have to correct my post. Yes, France does prohibit the wearing of burqas.  France does prohibit public school students from wearing religious garb and accessories, including burqas, and also including big jewelry crosses, etc, because such attire becomes a political distraction for students, and competes with lessons.  Education comes first. Students, as young citizens,  receive and should continue to receive the best education the State can provide; this is doable when all students are equal and not differentiated by religious or ethnic demands.  In school, students learn they will create their own future.

We all want to know: what is Belgium's future? Belgium does not have a government. It has been a year since Belgium has had a government.  With pressures on the Belgian state like this one, where a Parisian pays fines for burkha wearers, perhaps it is high time Belgium formed a government and began once again to take stances on issues.

Edited on Aug 31, 2011 at 1:03am
Illiniguy
Joined
Mar '11
Illiniguy

He sounds like a narcissistic, shallow, inexperienced rabble rouser who's trying to get elected on the strength of his personality. Someone must've told him that he sent a tingle up his leg.

DocJay
Joined
Jul '11
DocJay
Illiniguy: He sounds like a narcissistic, shallow, inexperienced rabble rouser who's trying to get elected on the strength of his personality. Someone must've told him that he sent a tingle up his leg. · Aug 30 at 2:53pm

Hmm, I think he reminds me of someone but I just cannot put my finger on it.  Has Nekkaz written any memoirs yet about his Algerian ancestors.  

Conservative Episcopalian
Joined
Sep '10
Conservative Episcopalian

I see two camps emerging here:

  1. The Hero argument that wishes to hold the line on civil liberties regardless of what seems to be the bigger picture, and;
  2. The Pest argument that suggests if you want to do something real, go to a country where women are truly oppressed and pay for their lawyers and fines there.

I am firmly in the Pest camp. This guy is the same sort of fellow that makes fun of Christians, Jews, Hindus and Buddists on Comedy Central - with no repercussions mind you - but runs and hides when the Muslims say they will kill him if he pokes fun at Islam. He is also the sort of person I think who would say little about honor killings and sexual abuse for fear he would end up like Van Gogh in Amsterdam with his head nearly sawed off.

I understand the Hero arguments, but this is about the future of Western civilization from enemies from within and without. I think France's law is a first attempt to start fighting back without the use of violence against violent people.

Dave Carter: Thank you for your very passionate first post. It was grand.

Dave Carter
Michael Labeit: Dave, the only specific, empirically verifiable coercion here is coming from the French authorities. Ironically, Nekkaz is the only one hedging against this coercion. There seems to be an assumption here that women who veil themselves in France do so as a direct result of duress. A proof of this notion I haven't seen. · Aug 30 at 2:30pm

I should have copied the complete sentence from Dalrymple, to wit:  

...After all, in some giant housing projects surrounding Paris and other French cities, young Muslim women who dress in western clothing are deemed to be fair game, inviting—indeed, asking for—rape by gangs of Muslim youths. In such circumstances, it is impossible to know whether the adoption of Islamic dress by women in western society is ever truly voluntary, and so long as such behavior persists, the presumption must be against it being so. ...

We know that women are beaten for failure to wear a veil in other countries, so it doesn't seem like an entirely unreasonable presumption to me, but we all have our own thresholds of proof I suppose.  

Michael Labeit
Joined
May '10
Michael Labeit

Dave, suppose a woman is veiling under duress. What will legalized de-veiling do for her? According to Medhi Hasan, a similar law was passed in an area of Italy. A disgruntled Muslim husband announced, after his wife there was fined for veiling, that she would no longer leave the house as a result.

Edited on Aug 30, 2011 at 3:57pm
Illiniguy
Joined
Mar '11
Illiniguy
Conservative Episcopalian: This guy is the same sort of fellow that makes fun of Christians, Jews, Hindus and Buddists on Comedy Central - with no repercussions mind you - but runs and hides when the Muslims say they will kill him if he pokes fun at Islam. He is also the sort of person I think who would say little about honor killings and sexual abuse for fear he would end up like Van Gogh in Amsterdam with his head nearly sawed off.

Proof?

I understand the Hero arguments, but this is about the future of Western civilization from enemies from within and without. I think France's law is a first attempt to start fighting back without the use of violence against violent people.

"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself." - Thomas Paine

Caryn
Joined
May '10
Caryn

I am very uncomfortable banning religious garb of any kind, except for one thing and one reason: face covering.  I have no problem with women dressing modestly, in fact I prefer it, and am not bothered by women covering their hair, as do both Muslim and Orthodox Jewish (married) women.  I think the French government is misguided in outlawing these sorts of religious exhibits, along with yarmulkes and "large" crosses, as it is a purely cosmetic cure--a "band-aid," as someone said earlier. 

On the other hand, no one should be able to go about publicly wearing what amounts to a mask.  It is facial recognition that we rely on for identifying people as friend or foe, threatening or safe, or, if necessary for criminal prosecution.  Permitting a segment of society to hide behind masks privileges them and puts the rest of us at a disadvantage, particularly so when some among them have declared themselves our enemy.  It's already known that male terrorists (including Arafat, the pig) have used women's all enveloping costumes to escape legal pursuit, as have some shop robbers in Britain, IIRC.  To me, that's the only issue that really matters.

Illiniguy
Joined
Mar '11
Illiniguy
Caryn: On the other hand, no one should be able to go about publicly wearing what amounts to a mask.  It is facial recognition that we rely on for identifying people as friend or foe, threatening or safe, or, if necessary for criminal prosecution.  Permitting a segment of society to hide behind masks privileges them and puts the rest of us at a disadvantage, particularly so when some among them have declared themselves our enemy.  It's already known that male terrorists (including Arafat, the pig) have used women's all enveloping costumes to escape legal pursuit, as have some shop robbers in Britain, IIRC.  To me, that's the only issue that really matters. · Aug 30 at 4:06pm

So you would trade liberty for security? Where do you draw the line?

Caryn
Joined
May '10
Caryn

Illiniguy: It has been said before that one person's liberty to wave his arms around ends at the tip of the next person's nose.  You draw a false comparison.  There is no trade, but a balancing of societal needs.  There is NO society with full "liberty" as you seem to be defining it.

I am on my way out the door, so any response from me will wait till tomorrow.  I'm not ducking out on anything you might have in follow-up.

Aodhan
Joined
Nov '10
Aodhan

People should be allowed to wear what they like. It violates personal liberty if others decide what is worn.

But what one wears is not merely clothing--shielding the body--but also dress--carrying social meaning. That meaning is public and shared, not individually stipulated.

The Burqa says this: subjugate women.

Now, a woman who chooses to wear a Burqa should be legally permitted to do so. However, she should be publically shamed and reprimanded for doing so, because of what her act implies. So should anyone who encourages her to wear it.

Exactly the same situation obtains with respect to the Swastika. It says this: liquidate Jews. Still, people should be free to display it. But they should be publically despised and pilloried for the bigots or idiots they are.

If women are forced to don the Burqa, then other measures are called for. It should be a serious crime for one adult to coerce another to wear it. Imagine if X forced Y to display the Swastika on Y's forehead. Both acts of coercion are repulsive.

The public should everywhere challenge Burqa-wearing as they would Swaztika-sporting, regardless of its voluntariness. One should not respect disrespect.

wilber forge
Joined
Oct '10
wilber forge

Illiniguy

Caryn: On the other hand, no one should be able to go about publicly wearing what amounts to a mask.  It is facial recognition that we rely on for identifying people as friend or foe, threatening or safe, or, if necessary for criminal prosecution.  Permitting a segment of society to hide behind masks privileges them and puts the rest of us at a disadvantage, particularly so when some among them have declared themselves our enemy.  It's already known that male terrorists (including Arafat, the pig) have used women's all enveloping costumes to escape legal pursuit, as have some shop robbers in Britain, IIRC.  To me, that's the only issue that really matters. · Aug 30 at 4:06pm

So you would trade liberty for security? Where do you draw the line? · Aug 30 at 4:20pm

Trust in Liberty, verify for the Security of all.

Diane Ellis, Ed.

Aodhan:

The Burqa says this: subjugate women.

Now, a woman who chooses to wear a Burqa should be legally permitted to do so. However, she should be publically shamed and reprimanded for doing so, because of what her act implies. So should anyone who encourages her to wear it.

Who are you to decide the burqa's meaning.  I've only personally known two women who wore the burqa, both college classmates of mine.  They explained that they wore it out of reverence and submission to Allah.

I'm profoundly uncomfortable with your statement that we should shame and reprimand women who freely choose to express their submission to their god.

Keep in mind that the Christian cross is a symbol of execution.  Would you ban the wearing of the cross and shame and reprimand those who wore it because it celebrated execution?

Joseph Eagar
Joined
Oct '10
Joseph Eagar

Diane Ellis, Ed.

Aodhan:

The Burqa says this: subjugate women.

Now, a woman who chooses to wear a Burqa should be legally permitted to do so. However, she should be publically shamed and reprimanded for doing so, because of what her act implies. So should anyone who encourages her to wear it.

Who are you to decide the burqa's meaning. I've only personally known two women who wore the burqa, both college classmates of mine. They explained that they wore it out of reverence and submission to Allah.

If the Burka stayed at that level, it wouldn't be a problem and no one would be complaining. The problem is it never stays that at a benign level. I've read stories of libertarian or liberal people who support burka bans, and it's always the same. The first few women to wear do it so show reverence for their god.

Their successors do not. They wear it first out of shame, than out of fear. Every story I'd read--whether it's in France, Britain, or Turkey--ends with women afraid to walk at night for being raped. Every one.

See Claire's excellent article.

Edited on Aug 30, 2011 at 5:41pm
Diane Ellis, Ed.

Joseph Eagar

Diane Ellis, Ed.

Aodhan:

The Burqa says this: subjugate women.

Who are you to decide the burqa's meaning.  I've only personally known two women who wore the burqa, both college classmates of mine.  They explained that they wore it out of reverence and submission to Allah.

If the Burka stayed at that level, it wouldn't be a problem and no one would be complaining.  The problem is it never stays that at a benign level.  I've read stories of libertarian or liberal people who support burka bans, and it's always the same...

See Claire's excellent article.

Their successors do not.  They wear it first out of shame, than out of fear.  Every story I'd read--whether it's in France, Britain, or Turkey--ends with women afraid to walk at night for being raped.  Every one.

My issue is with a Western male deciding the universal meaning for a Muslim female's article of clothing.

I don't dispute your point that women in France may be afraid of being raped, but I fail to see how banning the burka remedies the problem of Muslim rapists.

Joseph Eagar
Joined
Oct '10
Joseph Eagar

Diane Ellis, Ed.

 

My issue is with a Western male deciding the universal meaning for a Muslim female's article of clothing.

I don't dispute your point that women in France may be afraid of being raped, but I fail to see how banning the burka remedies the problem of Muslim rapists. · Aug 30 at 5:46pm

It suppresses religious extremism and sends a clear signal that Wahabist-style Islam is not socially acceptable.  That's the idea, anyway, and since it's popped up in a number of countries independently (and sometimes by very liberal or libertarian people) I think it's inevitable.

Of course, Islamist extremism will not last forever; both facism and communism collapsed as widespread ideologies.  Islamism will too, and this sort of thing won't be an issue.  But that's probably decades away.

Michael Labeit
Joined
May '10
Michael Labeit

Dave Carter

Michael Labeit

I should have copied the complete sentence from Dalrymple, to wit:  

...After all, in some giant housing projects surrounding Paris and other French cities, young Muslim women who dress in western clothing are deemed to be fair game, inviting—indeed, asking for—rape by gangs of Muslim youths. In such circumstances, it is impossible to know whether the adoption of Islamic dress by women in western society is ever truly voluntary, and so long as such behavior persists, the presumption must be against it being so. ...

We know that women are beaten for failure to wear a veil in other countries, so it doesn't seem like an entirely unreasonable presumption to me, but we all have our own thresholds of proof I suppose.  

"Some" housing projects? Let the French police deal with the violent criminality. Only law enforcement and economic improvement, combined, will reduce the problem of rape in this environment. I see banning the burqa as an excellent method of giving Muslim men the impression that they are victims of the state, granting them another excuse to misbehave.

Michael Labeit
Joined
May '10
Michael Labeit

Joseph Eagar

Diane Ellis, Ed.

 

My issue is with a Western male deciding the universal meaning for a Muslim female's article of clothing.

I don't dispute your point that women in France may be afraid of being raped, but I fail to see how banning the burka remedies the problem of Muslim rapists.

It suppresses religious extremism and sends a clear signal that Wahabist-style Islam is not socially acceptable.  That's the idea, anyway, and since it's popped up in a number of countries independently (and sometimes by very liberal or libertarian people) I think it's inevitable.

Of course, Islamist extremism will not last forever; both facism and communism collapsed as widespread ideologies.  Islamism will too, and this sort of thing won't be an issue.  But that's probably decades away.

It incites religious extremism. Women have already been (see 17:35) the recipients of even worse conduct from their husbands as a result of burqa bans in Europe. This will only embolden Muslim extremists in Europe.

Devin Cole
Joined
May '10
Devin Cole

My issue with the burka ban, and now in the case of the Belgian fines, is whether this helps those most oppressed by the burka.  I think the goal ought to be freeing those who are oppressed, while avoiding oppression of those voluntarily making a religious choice. 

How does a fine on a woman wearing a burka help her, exactly?  She will likely be the subject of future worse oppression.

We can say for sure that a fine on burka wearing religious intolerance by the state against those who chose it as a submission to their god.

Claire's argument (in her article and on Ricochet) failed to satisfy my concerns before, and I remain unconvinced. 

I think the burka ban by a the state fails on both levels. 

As for this Nekkaz fellow, I think he may be a pest, but I also think he is calling attention to bad policy.  Would we be discussing this now without his action?

Chelly Bouferrache
Joined
Jun '11
Chelly Bouferrache-Swan

I have female family and friends who are Muslim. None of them have been forced to wear any kind of covering. If they did so, they did it of their own accord and because of their own religious convictions. Was their any pressure from their husbands? Possibly. Certainly there are women all over the world forced to do this. This is Europe we are talking about though.  I think we underestimate these women and see them as helpless victims of a misogynistic culture. Yes, there are some Islamic countries that are in the dark ages. Not all are. My ex mother-in-law wears an abaya and veil (after many years of not doing this) and her husband hates it. However, he knows it is her choice. The Burqua law is a bad law and imo this man is doing the right thing.


Would you like to comment on this Conversation?

Become a Member for $3.67 a month.

Join the Conversation
Already a member? Sign In
Loading
Welcome Visitor

Already a Member?
Please Sign In

Become a Member to enjoy the full benefits of Ricochet:

Join Ricochet today!

Already a Member? Sign In