• fb_100003156639334 avatar Robin Posted: 10/6/2012 5:01am PDT

    Hijab and Buqa should be banned for oever

  • Freedom Posted: 4/28/2010 5:48pm PDT

    Freeeeeedoooooom, except when it's ugly or I don't want to look at it, or it's someone else's freedom, or if its from a culture I don't know, understand or find weird, or if its the culture of some foreign far away land from which a few bad apples blew up something or scared me in any way...
    Anyway, Freeeeeedooooooom!

  • Barret Posted: 4/27/2010 7:13pm PDT

    Could get tangled in switchgear. What about airbag deployment. I mean, geez, some states don't allow driving without shoes...

  • Jim Posted: 4/27/2010 3:28pm PDT

    Oh come on. A good helmet offers more than 180 degrees of peripheral vision. The outfits the ladies in the picture are wearing look like they would be lucky to offer 90 degrees. A motorcycle shield is clear, these ladies eyes are covered with a mesh. A motorcycle (M) helmet or a car (SA) helmet in no way impairs visual ability. They are engineered this way because seeing is important while driving.
    Anyone driving in the outfits in the picture with this story should be ticketed with driving with obstructed vision. These outfits are not engineered for vision because no one needs to be able to see while being oppressed.

  • optimus boat Posted: 4/27/2010 6:35am PDT

    Specific to driving hazards if you cant see the face that makes a huge difference in being able to effectively communicate. How do you know if they see you, or if they are just blazing ahead without recognition of an on coming accident. (whether or not they are the one causing it) Facial expression is a way of communicating non verbally.
    "Jean-Michel Pollono, her lawyer, told Agence France-Presse that he will appeal the conviction. He called it a violation of human rights and women's rights." .... I think a society forcing the integration of ridiculous cultural outfits hiding their identity even though their religious book doesn't call for it is a violation of human rights, specifically women rights. I understand that is what they are comfortable in NOW however I would be content in hiding if I have never been allowed to express myself before either. As the Qur'an suggests women are still able to dress modestly without having to become in-adamant objects ... aka sheets.

  • Greg Posted: 4/27/2010 6:15am PDT

    I love how both forcing and forbidding someone to wear a veil is a violation of women's rights.

  • Comocho Posted: 4/27/2010 4:39am PDT

    So what proof do they have? What are the statistics stating how many traffic casualties are attributed to veiled drivers?

  • dualportabledvd Posted: 4/27/2010 4:37am PDT

    I'm all for someone practising their faith so long as it doesn't endanger anyone, but show me where in the Qu'ran it says that Muslim women should cover their entire head and face.
    (note: "dress modestly" =/= "cover entire body from light of day")

  • Between Beetle Posted: 4/26/2010 5:58pm PDT

    Hey Limosine Liberal: Ya know, there are some of us out here who DO actually think most religions should be banned ... or at a minimum taxed like any other large corporate enterprise.

  • R2Dad Posted: 4/26/2010 2:21pm PDT

    It's not the veil per se; that's just a proxy punishment for muslims that will not integrate into French society. France has a huge problem with the large number of socially conservative, uneducated muslims that are overwhelming the areligious status quo. In case we think this is all silly, recall our previous efforts to outlaw flag burning--it holds that sort of passion for those involved. Few are really foaming-at-the-mouth but everyone has an opinion.

  • Fizz Posted: 4/26/2010 1:28pm PDT

    ...Could have caused an accident. Anything COULD cause an accident. Why don't they leave these poor people alone. This all stems from the French people's objections to veils. Things must be pretty quiet in France if the police have time for this nonsense.

  • nixon Posted: 4/26/2010 1:24pm PDT

    the fact that Jean-Marie Le Pen a notorious bigot thinks this has gone to far says it all

  • Limousine Liberal Posted: 4/26/2010 1:03pm PDT

    definitely an odd case. good for the lawyer of course to make a name for himself. always love the "slippery slope" re legal cases. only a shameless advocate (or the ACLU :-) ) will be able to take this incident and say it is the first step to legally sanctioned government jailings, abuses and, ulimately, the destruction of religious freedom.

  • CyrusEM Posted: 4/26/2010 12:40pm PDT

    The issue stems from the fear of the average French to loose its prized state-religion separation. This is no different to Americans loosing its unofficial language - English. Technically a veil is NOT a safety device and does block the view. I would like to see someone drive an average modern car with a helmet... good luck with that

  • Fiddle Mike Posted: 4/26/2010 12:29pm PDT

    From the so-called "Hurt Report":
    48. Safety helmet use caused ... no limitation of precrash visual field...

  • cynic Posted: 4/26/2010 12:09pm PDT

    All this over a $22 fine?