bbauska wrote:What response would you implement? (If you were the French Premier)

The western ideal of freedom of expression is coming into conflict with sacred Muslim beliefs. They (meaning a significant number of Muslims )are demanding that we give in and not allow certain expression antithetical to Islam

But in fact, the Koran prescribes no punishment for blasphemy. Like so many of the most fanatical and violent aspects of Islamic terrorism today, the idea that Islam requires that insults against the prophet Muhammad be met with violence is a creation of politicians and clerics to serve a political agenda.
One holy book is deeply concerned with blasphemy: the Bible. In the Old Testament, blasphemy and blasphemers are condemned and prescribed harsh punishment. The best-known passage on this is Leviticus 24:16 : “Anyone who blasphemes the name of the Lord is to be put to death. The entire assembly must stone them. Whether foreigner or native-born, when they blaspheme the Name they are to be put to death.”
By contrast, the word blasphemy appears nowhere in the Koran. (Nor, incidentally, does the Koran anywhere forbid creating images of Muhammad, though there are commentaries and traditions — “hadith” — that do, to guard against idol worship.) Islamic scholar Maulana Wahiduddin Khan has pointed out that “there are more than 200 verses in the Koran, which reveal that the contemporaries of the prophets repeatedly perpetrated the same act, which is now called ‘blasphemy or abuse of the Prophet’ . . . but nowhere does the Koran prescribe the punishment of lashes, or death, or any other physical punishment.” On several occasions, Muhammad treated people who ridiculed him and his teachings with understanding and kindness. “In Islam,” Khan says, “blasphemy is a subject of intellectual discussion rather than a subject of physical punishment.”

What response would you implement? (If you were the French Premier)

danivon wrote:

bbauska wrote:What response would you implement? (If you were the French Premier)

Here's the thing. I don't see what legislation would do, and in terms of action the main effort is and should be to arrest the perpetrators and let justice apply.

Generally I would have not implemented the ban on niqabs, but undoing it right now would probably be poor timing.

What would you do?

bbauska wrote:Treat everyone the same; regardless of race, creed, religion, sex, national origin. If you don't want people wearing Hijabs, yamakas or crucifixes in public, then make a rule and enforce it. If people need to not have religious clothing and symbols in public, then equally enforce it.

If everyone needs to show their face for drivers license, then make the rule and equally enforce it.

I know I am much more for the death penalty than you are, but these terrorists certainly would have deserved more than life in prison in my opinion. (Although Devil's Island...)

bbauska wrote:Nice jab, attributing a psychosis to me. Not beneficial, but whatever...

If it is the law, then let the people try to remove the law via representative government. Vote for the representatives that you think will change the laws the way you want them. To say that people have the "freedom" to do X, and if they don't we are being like the religious extremists is hyperbole.

As for the drivers license comment, I was expanding the scope of what you were typing about.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/2011/stephenbrown/canadas-ringing-no-to-the-niqab/

A rather progressive nation, Canada; Eh? (Has this policy been removed?)

As for the death penalty, just shoring that I wanted greater penalty for terrorists than you do.