Women Asked to Remove Headscarves at Some French Airports

Categorized | Loon-at-large

Tags | Anti-Muslim, CCIF, France, French Airports, Headscarves, Islam, Islamophobia, women

Women Asked to Remove Headscarves at Some French Airports

Posted on 29 June 2012 by Garibaldi

Couldn’t they accommodate these women by checking their hair and headscarves in a separate room? I know other countries do as much. (via. Islamophobia-Watch):

Women asked to remove headscarves at some French airports

Some French airports have begun to ask headscarf-wearing women to take off their scarves for security reasons, which has spurred criticism from Muslims in the country, who find the practice a discriminatory one.

The Collective Against Islamophobia in France (CCIF) has announced that Nantes Atlantique Airport has made it obligatory for headscarf-wearing women to take off their scarves and place them in the X-ray machine along with their other belongings.

The practice was put into effect two weeks ago by the SGA, the company responsible for Nantes Atlantique Airport’s security. Women affected by the new rules requested that they be allowed to take off their headscarves in a special room staffed only by women, but the request was denied. The women were told that they must place their headscarves on the conveyor going through the X-ray machine if they wanted to avoid missing their plane.

The SGA defended their actions, claiming that dangerous materials could be hidden under the headscarves, which has triggered outrage in France’s Muslim community.

According to EU airport security regulations, security staff do not have the authority to ask women to take their headscarves off.

Click to read more …

Just Stopping By

@Jack Cope: “name me one bomb plot that has been stopped by security” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nezar_Hindawi

@HGG: Would you be okay with a rule that anyone, regardless of religion, who felt a need for privacy could go to a private room for screening? Let’s say that included people who felt that their feet were ugly and didn’t want to take off their shoes in public, and also that doing so involved a risk of missing a flight if there were too many people trying to use the rule.

@AJ: Did you see where HGG said, “Of course the security measure is by itself discriminatory”? That wouldn’t be consistent with someone displaying bigotry. It seems as if HGG is investigating what (s)he called a thorny issue, but without casting aspersions on anyone. To cast that as bigotry may involve some sort of dizzying intellectual contortions.
http://thepenofawanderingstranger.com/personal/ Jack Cope

“Jack, crazy isn’t it, they put in all this security and there are no bombs, isn’t that weird? Maybe they should get rid of the security now.”

Not really, we never had many bombs before all this security did we? Again, name me one bomb plot that has been stopped by security… on the other hand I can name at least half a dozen that have failed to be stopped by security (the most recent being the shoe bomber and printer cartridge plots, both of which went through ‘security’). Plots are stopped by good intelligence, not by minimum wage workers asking you to remove your belt so they can scan it with outdated equipment. It is purely there to make passengers feel better and as a visual deterrent.

Anyway, I agree with the rest, I don’t make a fuss though I find it amusing to see the ‘security’ issue politicised as it is now by both sides of the coin (tends to be ‘libertarians’ fussing about security TBH). Profiling is the main political bludgeon, again a tool that is pretty much useless for many reasons.
Steve

“It’s a choice for you – not for everybody”

Who doesn’t have that choice? A baby has never been born with a religion, how could it?
HGG

“You are a bigot – you just pretend you are not”

Ah, yes. See, I take insults depending on the person who is insulting me. From you, a Perpetual Outrage Machine, I will take it as a badge of honor.

I don’t even see the need to defend myself from someone like you.
http://aayjay.wordpress.com AJ

HGG,

BTW going back to the examples, I gave, #5 is related to religion – a choice according to you. I could insist that if guy # z is carrying human remains in the form of powder without being opened, I be allowed to carry some sort of anonymous powder too – but I wouldn’t since I am respectful of others and their religious beliefs.
http://aayjay.wordpress.com AJ

“Religion, unlike being handicapped or elderly, is a choice”.

It’s a choice for you – not for everybody. Asking a Muslim woman to take off her hijab in front of everybody is tantamount to me asking you to take off your shirt and bra in front of everybody. I really don’t know why you hang around here – you are certainly not a respectful or tolerant person.

I will not ask a Sikh to take off his turban or a Jew to take off his yarmulke or a nun to take off her habit. You are a bigot – you just pretend you are not.
HGG

“Do these “different set of rules for a different set of people” on the airport, bother you too?”

Religion, unlike being handicapped or elderly, is a choice. An old person can’t decide to be young and someone who has lost the use of their legs can’t decide to start walking again. Si, yes, I do make a difference for the cases you mention.

That of course it will bother you. You love being outraged at anyone who has even the smallest disagreement with what you perceive as your religious right being infringed. It’s practically your favorite sport.
http://aayjay.wordpress.com AJ

I agree with you Jack Cope about the scanners seeing through fabrics or otherwise people would be asked to take off their clothes which they are not. This act by the French is nothing but to ridicule and embarrass Muslim women.
http://aayjay.wordpress.com AJ

Is your chest involved in sexual reproduction – why does that stay covered?
Steve

AJ, my opposition to halal slaughter is because of exceptions being made to national laws because of ritual, I have explained this many times.

“Who decides?”

Have you ever tried sexual reproduction using just your hair?
http://aayjay.wordpress.com AJ

@Steve,

“AJ, if that was the requirement, I wouldn’t be happy about it but I would comply”

Halal would hurt animals but he would eat it, he is not happy about taking of his pants and underwear but he will take it off. The latter could be a rule but the former isn’t so why eat halal if it’s against your values unless you are a man of ZERO convictions.

“However there is a big difference between genitalia and the hair on the head.”

Who decides?
http://aayjay.wordpress.com AJ

@HGG, “But it’s a different set of rules for a different set of people.”

Do these “different set of rules for a different set of people” on the airport, bother you too?

1) Handicapped (and expectant mothers) getting closer parking
2) Elderly and Families with young kids boarding the plane earlier than others
3) Bathrooms reserved for wheelchair access
4) Sick people allowed to bring in liquid (medicine) greater than 2 oz in carry on
5) Remains of a dead person, as in ashes in a container, will not be opened if marked “human remains”

and so on and so forth. In the above cases, the people are getting a “different plus preferred treatment”. In the case of hijabi women passing through a room, where they can take off their hijab, they are not getting any treatment that would increase its attraction for you – it would be just “different”. So, if you don’t object to the above cases of “different plus preferred” treatment, why would you have problem with a “different” treatment? And if you don’t have a problem with anything, why are you even bothering with the “different set of rules for a different set of people” comment? Why not just say that – yes we should accommodate these ladies as we do a host of many other special needs – or does religious accommodation seems to be a too foreign word to you?
HGG

“How do having “special accommodations” as in they taking off their attire in privacy hurt you?”

It doesn’t. Also, I never said I did.

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

But it’s a different set of rules for a different set of people.

Of course, you ignored the second part of what I said.
DrM

AJ,

Stevie Blunder is being usual obnoxious contrarian self. I guarantee you he would raise hell if he was profiled and made to go humiliating “security measures.”
http://aayjay.wordpress.com AJ

HGG,

How do having “special accommodations” as in they taking off their attire in privacy hurt you? “Special accommodations” matter if they take away something from you? What does it take away from you?
Steve

AJ, if that was the requirement, I wouldn’t be happy about it but I would comply. However there is a big difference between genitalia and the hair on the head.
http://aayjay.wordpress.com AJ

Steve,

Will you take off your pants and underwear, in front of everybody else, if required?
Pingback: Women Asked to Remove Headscarves at Some French Airports | Islamophobia Today eNewspaper
Steve

@Jack, crazy isn’t it, they put in all this security and there are no bombs, isn’t that weird? Maybe they should get rid of the security now.

I have seen people asked to remove hats while going through security. Frankly I find it all an inconvenience but I don’t kick up a fuss and start banging on about discrimination but then I don’t have the backing of umpteen “rights” groups kicking up a fuss every time I am inconvenienced. I just get on with my life and don’t expect any special treatment.
http://thepenofawanderingstranger.com/personal/ Jack Cope

“if I wore a hat I would have to take that off too.”

No, you wouldn’t because it works through fabrics, shoes are a different matter as the scanning gates tend to be a bit dodgy close to the ground and many shoes have metal in which confuses the scanner. I fail to see how removing headscaves solves anything; the metal detectors can work through fabric you know, hence why people don’t walk through the scanning gates naked…

I worked in airport security for some time and frankly the whole ‘belt, shoes, pocket’ nonsense is a bit of a farce to make passengers feel safer. Anyone care to tell me one time that a detector has stopped a bomb or firearm? And care to compare the number of times that a bomb or firearm has bypassed security?

Threats to aircraft and travellers are solved via good intelligence gathering to find plots which means working with communities. Something I’ve been saying for years and that thankfully most people in positions that matter understand which is why we have had minimal threats to aircraft and travellers for years.

All the rest is just fluff for the benefit of Joe Public, same for the headscarves removal. As I said, there is no logical reason for it, it is purely so that the airport can say ‘look at what we are doing’. Oh and once they start to ask Sikhs to take their turbans off I’ll say this isn’t about discrimination
HGG

“Couldn’t they accommodate these women by checking their hair and headscarves in a separate room? ”

I suppose they could, but that would be special accommodations, wouldn’t it? Different rules applying to Muslims.

Of course the security measure is by itself discriminatory.

It’s a thorny issue.
LibertyPhile

I travel a lot in Europe and I’m fed up to my teeth with the inconvenience of going through security at airports.

To go through bag X-ray and the “body” check I have to empty my pockets, take off my belt, take my laptop out of the bag, and remove my shoes. And quite often if the X-ray operator sees something he/she can’t recognise in my bag (it happens to my wife a lot with all the makeup stuff) I have to watch as the security guard opens and goes through my bag in front of me.

I’m so so soooooooo sorry that the Muslim lady in the queue behind me has to take off her head scarf!!!
Steve

I have to take my shoes off at airports, if I wore a hat I would have to take that off too.
DrM

Time to profile French tourists, perhaps? Body odor scans…
mindy1

Why not accomidate them? It seems reasonable