http://news.uk.msn.com/world/articles.aspx?cp-documentid=151891504

What say you Dakka? I find this of great interest since I believe other countries will follow France's admittedly daring path. I am torn in two by this whole debate really; on the one hand I think that no government should dictate what people can and can't wear (beyond the obvious clothing with vulgar or inflammatory slogans) and on the other hand, I think nothing represents the opression of women more than the full body veil.

Can you post the story so that people behind work filters can read it? Cheers

I'm all for identification requiring the removal of the head scarf, it's simple useless if you don't. However aside from that there's no good reason to deny these women the right to wear what they want to.

Frankly mumus and spandex over size 6 need to be banned as well, for the good of the nation, and humanity.

Text for those working:

France backs partial veil ban

French parliamentary panel will recommend Tuesday a ban on face-covering Mslim veils in public areas from hospitals to schools but will stop short of pressing for the garb to be outlawed in the street, the panel's president says.
France has backed a partial ban on the wearing of Muslim veils in public.

A parliamentary inquiry recommended they be made illegal in all places of public services, including public transport.

It also said residence cards and citizenship should be refused to anyone with visible signs of a "radical religious practice."

Its report contains a series of measures intended to dissuade women from wearing all-enveloping veils.

But there is no call to outlaw them in private areas and in the street. The 32-member, multi-party panel heeded warnings that a full ban risked being deemed unconstitutional and could even cause trouble in a country where Islam is the second-largest religion.

The language in the report is carefully chosen in an effort to avoid offending France's estimated five million Muslims -- the largest population in western Europe - and accusations of discrimination.

Muslim leaders have already complained that the debate over the full veil coupled with an ongoing discussion on French national identity has already left some Muslims feeling their religion is becoming a government target.

The topic of the all-encompassing veil is charged with passion and politics, and the panel failed to reach a consensus on whether any action was warranted, and what kind, despite universal agreement that veils covering the face are not wanted in France.

The report culminates a six-month inquiry into the wearing of veils that began after President Nicolas Sarkozy said in June that they are "not welcome" on French territory.

The veil is widely viewed in France as a gateway to extremism, an insult to gender equality and an offence to France's secular foundation. A 2004 French law bans Muslim headscarves from primary and secondary school classrooms.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@Frazzled

That made me chuckle!

I'm more shocked as isn't france usually the ones who scream for human rights and equality all the time. On more then one occassion have condemed the U.S for their actions. Just rather well shocks me thats all..

Hmm France are quite hard line and right wing when it comes to things like this as far as I know.

filbert wrote:Hmm France are quite hard line and right wing when it comes to things like this as far as I know.

you would know better then I good sir.. closer in geographical nature then I Do they still have a socialist gov't?

Empchild wrote:

filbert wrote:Hmm France are quite hard line and right wing when it comes to things like this as far as I know.

you would know better then I good sir.. closer in geographical nature then I Do they still have a socialist gov't?

I am by no means an expert in French political machinations, but according to Wikipedia, the current incumbent, Nicolas Sarkozy, is right wing and defeated the socialists in the last election.

Last I checked, France has some major race issues.

This is just stupid. Its fear-based legislation that further removes individual human rights in favor of "feeling safe" for the ethnically centered population.

Then again it is France, so I am not surprised. I guess this just helps America become less of a Jihad target now, so maybe that's a good thing.

Well, many places in the UK banned people from wearing hoodies etc in certain locations (mostly shopping centres). And as far as I recall, you have to remove all headgear and facial coverings when you have a passport picture etc (though I have seen more than a few people with just their eyes showing - which is just stupid and quite dangerous).

I say good on France to be honest.

SilverMK2 wrote:Well, many places in the UK banned people from wearing hoodies etc in certain locations (mostly shopping centres). And as far as I recall, you have to remove all headgear and facial coverings when you have a passport picture etc (though I have seen more than a few people with just their eyes showing - which is just stupid and quite dangerous).

That's for shoplifting precautions though. What France is doing is picking out a certain religious identification and BANNING it.

I think what surprises me the most is that the European Court of Human Rights haven't got their teeth into the legislation yet - or maybe that's to come?

My feelings on this from a security perspective are;

---The security motivation can be dealt with by a requirement that people such as police or those in public office be able to request the veil be removed when necessary for security and safety reasons, such as travelling on planes, or even other forms of public transports such as buses and trains. Once this is done, security requirements would allow the veil to be restored.

---Certain locations monitored by CCTV could legitimately require veils to be removed as they are passed through. Where possible there could be some degree of segregation for those who wish to remove their veil in a more private way - for example, a mainstream route and a female only route, through which women would not be required by their religion to be hidden.

---Private companies such as banks and post offices or even restaurants and bookshops should be allowed to refuse entry and/or service if someone is unwilling to remove the veil for identification purposes. Once again, security considerations alone would then allow the veil to be restored.

I believe the three considerations above are real concerns that warrant immediate legislation requiring that women remove the veil temporarily for security reasons when requested to do so. Refusal to do so, depending on who is doing the asking, could result in legal consequences, denial of access of refusal of service. This legislation would need to be carefully written to protect people's rights without compromising other people's right to feel safe.

My feelings from an oppression point of view are;

---I believe that the burka in particular and body and face coverings in general are tools of oppression of men over women, predominantly for Arabic and other Islamic cultures. I do not regard it as a religious issue, but a cultural one. My belief at this time is that banning the wearing of extreme versions of these coverings such as the burka would liberate women, not oppress them.

---However, I am alert enough to understand that this is an issue in which my opinion is not necessarily the important one. I believe indepth analysis of the situation is needed, and that the only opinions that really matter are those of the women themselves. Having said that, it also needs to be understood that many women who wear these coverings may have already been "brainwashed" into thinking it is right, and not understand the position they have bene put in by their men.

There is a clear case for security reasons that the veil should be removed when necessary.

There is not a clear case that banning the wearing of the veil is for the good of the women who wear it. Although I believe banning it would be best for them, I cannot suggest forcing this course without further evidence I am right.

What troubles me is that whenever the BBC interviews these Muslim women and asks them if wearing the Burka is oppressive to them, they are at pains to point out that they believe in it and it is their choice etc etc.

Are they saying that because they truly believe that or are they saying it because they know if they come out in public denouncing it they will get a beating from their husbands behind the scenes?

It could be the matter that they believe they want to wear it. In the same way that a couple of hundred years ago, it would have been unseemly to go out without a hat, or to show any part of the body but the face and hands etc.

Social norms often influence religion as well as the other way round. My understanding is that Islam only requires that all people "dress modestly". This is interpreted by some to mean that women should cover their heads, and even their faces.

But you then see many "modern" muslim women who dress the same as any western woman, skirts, blouse, make-up etc, believing that they are covered up enough to retain their modesty.

They should wear those chav hoodie scarf combos, that way they can cover up and avoid the law.

Hey you know me, i think we are far far too tolerant of absurd religious traditions. If any religious tradition affects the life of people who are not practicing said religion then it should be scrutinized very heavily indeed.

Forcing a woman to wear one of those fething things (yes they do get forced) is offensive to almost everyone who has some regard for women.

Well done France, Britain will never have the balls to do the same, we have too many self loathing, hand wringing liberal apologists.

filbert wrote:I think what surprises me the most is that the European Court of Human Rights haven't got their teeth into the legislation yet - or maybe that's to come?

Someone will have to bring a case.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

mattyrm wrote:Hey you know me, i think we are far far too tolerant of absurd religious traditions. If any religious tradition affects the life of people who are not practicing said religion then it should be scrutinized very heavily indeed.

Forcing a woman to wear one of those fething things (yes they do get forced) is offensive to almost everyone who has some regard for women.

Well done France, Britain will never have the balls to do the same, we have too many self loathing, hand wringing liberal apologists.

The problem is there are many religious traditions from a number of faiths which a non-co-religionist might easily say are absurd. I won't mention any as it would be inflammatory.

Once you start to pick on one specific thing from one religion, it looks like discrimination.

mattyrm wrote:Hey you know me, i think we are far far too tolerant of absurd religious traditions. If any religious tradition affects the life of people who are not practicing said religion then it should be scrutinized very heavily indeed.

Forcing a woman to wear one of those fething things (yes they do get forced) is offensive to almost everyone who has some regard for women.

Well done France, Britain will never have the balls to do the same, we have too many self loathing, hand wringing liberal apologists.

Its not religious matty-its cultural. Nothing in the Koran says that women should wear a burkkha or its derivatives.

I don't know too much about French politics... I have visited twice, and have some friends there. They've mentioned that the French people tend to be wary of outsiders... not quite the same "melting pot" mentality of America where, once you're a citizen, you're basically in (although Americans are obviously not fully tolerant, either).

I'm actually in favor of this for France... I wouldn't want it for America since it violates so many of our rights/freedoms built into the constitution, but I hate the fact that people are forced to wear head scarves and full body coverings... even though many of them believe it's holy to do so...

I hear what your saying Krazy, as always, you make a sensible comment, but i cannot for the life of me think of any other religion that treats one portion of their society with as much scorn as Islam does women.

I think many religions are innately misogynistic, being as they were founded many many years ago, but i dont think any treat them as badly.

The Taliban went back to "real" Islam, and as a result women were banned from reading, writing, or leaving the house not dressed like a ninja.

Hamid Karzai has also just passed a law basically making it legal to rape your wife. Something that had me utterly aghast, as i did two tours on the premise we were "helping"

I didnt sign up to help legitamize rape. I have no taste for almost all of their "tradition"

I am not the one to defend the Koran, but its my understanding that NONE of those things derive from the Koran itself.

Frazzled wrote:

mattyrm wrote:Hey you know me, i think we are far far too tolerant of absurd religious traditions. If any religious tradition affects the life of people who are not practicing said religion then it should be scrutinized very heavily indeed.

Forcing a woman to wear one of those fething things (yes they do get forced) is offensive to almost everyone who has some regard for women.

Well done France, Britain will never have the balls to do the same, we have too many self loathing, hand wringing liberal apologists.

Its not religious matty-its cultural. Nothing in the Koran says that women should wear a burkkha or its derivatives.

Hush, he's pretending he knows what he's talking about. Just let him have fun. I for one dislike the idea of the ban. The security reasons are at best silly, and at worst an outright copout and lie, and france has abolustely no institutions forcing women to wear these, making it a purely cosmetic and intolerant law. What's next france? Minaret's?

I have read the koran cover to cover years ago, and believe me none of that is really in their. Namely it talks about holding yourself a higher standard in everything you do. Also remember it is much like the bible in todays society, a book of guidelines that have been warped and transfigured by the modern generations. Few sit down and read their respected holy book, only derive their knowledge from others thus making the preacher the one to inforce their own will. The burkha was a way for conservatives to drive down a womens rights and will. It is no different then me beating a child( yes I know bad assoc.) in the sense that I am breaking the will of that child so it makes it easier for me to enforce my own.

This is a tough one ... on the one hand if i walked into a shop wearing a balaclava people would be within their rights to A) ask me to leave or B) remove it. (C ... i would expect to have security round me very quickly)

I think the thing that clinches the veil has to be warn being nonsense is the fact that up to about the 80's most women did not wear it.

Also there has been some evidence that the text requiring women to wear them was a mistranslation and what it actually referred to was a Male chastity belt. This is a sore subject since the Koran is not meant have changed since it was written (but we've all played chines whispers , its easy for mistakes to happen)

It is no different then me beating a child( yes I know bad assoc.) in the sense that I am breaking the will of that child so it makes it easier for me to enforce my own.

The Bhurka is just a form of clothing, and has nothing to do with the institutionalized secondary role of women in islam. That is just as prevalent in christian religions, and for two thousand years all we needed was the book and the will to make women secondary citizens. The burkha is an adherence to a form of "social modesty" which is not in and of itself a concept that reduces rights. It's a symptom of what is a series of documents that are not particularly gender equal. Banning the burkha does nothing to improve the plight of women in muslim predominant countries, nor does it do anything at all for them in france.

Fifty wrote:---I believe that the burka in particular and body and face coverings in general are tools of oppression of men over women, predominantly for Arabic and other Islamic cultures. I do not regard it as a religious issue, but a cultural one. My belief at this time is that banning the wearing of extreme versions of these coverings such as the burka would liberate women, not oppress them.

Many Muslim women are of the opposite opinion. They feel that the hijab and veil liberate them from male scrutiny; giving them the opportunity to go about their lives without sexual attention. This is particularly evident in Turkey, but has also been the subject of a number of interview projects in Western countries where the degree of open sexualization is much higher than in other parts of the world.

But yes, it is a cultural issue rather than a religious one.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

mattyrm wrote:Hey you know me, i think we are far far too tolerant of absurd religious traditions. If any religious tradition affects the life of people who are not practicing said religion then it should be scrutinized very heavily indeed.

Forcing a woman to wear one of those fething things (yes they do get forced) is offensive to almost everyone who has some regard for women.

Well done France, Britain will never have the balls to do the same, we have too many self loathing, hand wringing liberal apologists.

Its not religious matty-its cultural. Nothing in the Koran says that women should wear a burkkha or its derivatives.

Hush, he's pretending he knows what he's talking about. Just let him have fun. I for one dislike the idea of the ban. The security reasons are at best silly, and at worst an outright copout and lie, and france has abolustely no institutions forcing women to wear these, making it a purely cosmetic and intolerant law. What's next france? Minaret's?

I wasnt pretending i knew what i was talking about Shuma, the whole quote was just me saying that i thought we were to tolerant of Religious tradition. Being as this was my opinion of a cultural phenomenon as opposed to an actual fact, such as a geographical location or suchlike, how could i be "pretending" i knew what i was talking about?

You should read things properly, or just keep on topic instead of spending your time trying to "needle" people.

Oh and yeah regards the thread, i disagree with you, i think that at the end of the day, we can all agree or disagree with certain things, certainly i think i am a libertarian in general, just not with regards to Islam! But if we wish to say that we do actually function as a democracy, and the majority of the French public support a ban (they do) then how can you argue Shuma?

Its a touchy subject to be sure, banning anything generally is. But if the majority support it then, well, its hard to disagree with any conviction isnt it?

mattyrm wrote:But if we wish to say that we do actually function as a democracy, and the majority of the French public support a ban (they do)...

Tyranny of the majority is still tyranny.

To play devil's advocate though. This is France. If the French citizenry decides that their culture is paramount and it doesn't violate their particular constitution, the phrase "if you don't like it, don't let the door hit your keister on the way out" comes to mind.

I can't complain about France and then turn a blind eye to the Middle East, the Stans and parts of Asia with its own dress codes/Sharia.

ShumaGorath wrote:
The burkha is an adherence to a form of "social modesty" which is not in and of itself a concept that reduces rights. It's a symptom of what is a series of documents that are not particularly gender equal. Banning the burkha does nothing to improve the plight of women in muslim predominant countries, nor does it do anything at all for them in france.

See I would disagree that it is just a social modesty. I can see your point on it and to a certain level I would agree, but I have been over int he middle east and seen all of this first hand and would say that this is a strong equation in demeaning women in islamic culture. Now I understand your feeling towards this and I had I not been overseas I would agree with you full hearted, but my own experience tells me different. As to your point about france banning it I would agree as this is just france. I am a little shocked as france is heavily inlaid with Algeria from it's colonial days(algeria is heavily islamic) so I am a little suprised that this issue even arose, but that said it does little, but to say agrivate the issues with islam if not to segregate them even more from western society.

dogma wrote:

mattyrm wrote:But if we wish to say that we do actually function as a democracy, and the majority of the French public support a ban (they do)...

Tyranny of the majority is still tyranny.

And Tyranny of the minority is still tyranny, and far more common.

True that Frazz...

Frazzled wrote:
And Tyranny of the minority is still tyranny, and far more common.

Not being able to stop people from wearing something you don't like isn't tyrannical. Tyranny requires oppressive power. There is nothing oppressive about the presence of a Muslim woman in a veil.

dogma wrote:]

Tyranny of the majority is still tyranny.

that is somewhat out of context. Tyrant means single leader of a city state or polis ergo tyranny is enforcing the will of one leader and one Leader only. Draconian tyrants are more were we derive the negative conotation of tyranny as they were evil leaders.

Frazzled wrote:Its not religious matty-its cultural. Nothing in the Koran says that women should wear a burkkha or its derivatives.

Exactly Frazz!! Stroke your wiener dog for me. :-)

As far as the veil goes, I think France has got this right. The veil is a symbol of opression to women, that is entirely cultural. In much the same way radical Islam is mostly cultural.

GG

Frazzled wrote: the phrase "if you don't like it, don't let the door hit your keister on the way out" comes to mind.

I can't complain about France and then turn a blind eye to the Middle East, the Stans and parts of Asia with its own dress codes/Sharia.

Imitation has always been the sincerest form of flattery.

Anyway, I thought we all realized a long time ago that "love it or leave it" is nonsense.

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
And Tyranny of the minority is still tyranny, and far more common.

Not being able to stop people from wearing something you don't like isn't tyrannical. Tyranny requires oppressive power. There is nothing oppressive about the presence of a Muslim woman in a veil.

Thats your opinion and ONLY your opinion. Evidently France disagrees.

Well to be issue neutral on this, I hope it prompts and fosters the sort of immigration and cultural debate that the UK needs right now. Too many right wing and single issue parties are getting a foothold into mainstream politics precisely because the populace at large wants these issues discussed and raised.

Whether we like it or not, I think the idea of unrestricted immigration and the encroachment of Islam into Western society unnerves and worries people. It needs to be debated before the issue degenerates into fear and rumour mongering and kills any chance of addressing the problem.

generalgrog wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Its not religious matty-its cultural. Nothing in the Koran says that women should wear a burkkha or its derivatives.

Exactly Frazz!! Stroke your wiener dog for me. :-)

As far as the veil goes, I think France has got this right. The veil is a symbol of opression to women, that is entirely cultural. In much the same way radical Islam is mostly cultural.

GG

You knew I had to go there

Empchild wrote:
that is somewhat out of context. Tyrant means single leader of a city state or polis ergo tyranny is enforcing the will of one leader and one Leader only. Draconian tyrants are more were we derive the negative conotation of tyranny as they were evil leaders.

Not really. Tyranny of the majority is a specific political term that deals with the disproportionate power afforded to large population groups in a pure democracy. Its been around since Plato wrote about it in The Republic.


Also, tyranny, in its minimal form, means "oppressive power". Also, there is no necessary connection to a tyrant of any sort.

Yeah i have to say i find it kinda oppresive, i mean, they could be men hiding right? I thought that was one of th major issues.

If i was alone on a subway and 6 head to toe blacked out Burkha glad fethers got on, i think id feel worse than just 6 big guys who i can see clearly.

I thought that was one of the issues you know, hiding weapons, bombs, your size, actual sex, its all do-able with a ninja suit on isnt it?

Quote from wikipedia "In classical politics, a tyrant is one who has taken power by his or her own means as opposed to hereditary or constitutional power. This mode of rule is referred to as tyranny."

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

why do you make me look these up why....Not that I mind proving you wrong and me right but really!

why do you make me look these up why....

I dunno, my question is how do you manage to look them up wrong?

tyr⋅an⋅ny  [tir-uh-nee] Show IPA
–noun, plural -nies.
1. arbitrary or unrestrained exercise of power; despotic abuse of authority.
2. the government or rule of a tyrant or absolute ruler.
3. a state ruled by a tyrant or absolute ruler.
4. oppressive or unjustly severe government on the part of any ruler.
5. undue severity or harshness.
6. a tyrannical act or proceeding.

Via dictionary.com

Shuma do you ever actually convey a real point or just banter people? I am curious you now goback on my ignore list until you can be a legitimate part of the conversation.

Yeah i have to say i find it kinda oppresive, i mean, they could be men hiding right? I thought that was one of th major issues.

If i was alone on a subway and 6 head to toe blacked out Burkha glad fethers got on, i think id feel worse than just 6 big guys who i can see clearly.

Yes, and when they start making laws because of your insecurities that will matter.

I thought that was one of the issues you know, hiding weapons, bombs, your size, actual sex, its all do-able with a ninja suit on isnt it?

That is one of the issues, though it's also true that no crime has been committed in france wherein a bhurkha made it difficult to apprehend or identify a suspect. It's a faux security issue to cover up what belies the law itself, that being western insecurity about a foreign religion that they are now in contact with.

Funny how freedoms only free when you're a white christian/athiest who dresses like everyone else.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Empchild wrote:Shuma do you ever actually convey a real point or just banter people? I am curious you now goback on my ignore list until you can be a legitimate part of the conversation.

My first post had a point, now that I've stated what I believe I'm at that point in the thread where I tell people that are wrong how and why they are wrong. Sometimes I can do it simply by quoting a dictionary. Those times are the easiest.

Frazzled wrote:
Thats your opinion and ONLY your opinion. Evidently France disagrees.

Oppression is the cruel or unjust expression of authority or power. Obviously the notions of authority and cruelty have no place here; leaving us with justice and power. In the social sense (the only sense that's important here), power relates only to the ability to control others. The wearing of a veil cannot be an oppressive act in the relevant sense. Its not a matter of opinion at all.

That said, the veil can be used to oppress in the same way that any required article of clothing can be used to oppress. However, if the issue is the oppression of Muslim women by Muslim men there are are far better ways to deal with it than banning the veil.

Empchild wrote:Shuma do you ever actually convey a real point or just banter people? I am curious you now goback on my ignore list until you can be a legitimate part of the conversation.

Wait.... you mean actually brought him off of ignore? :-)

GG

Absent a violation of their fundemental rights, tyranny of the majority is what the rest of the world calls-democratic government.

Sorry if that democracy thing bugs you.

Empchild wrote:Quote from wikipedia "In classical politics, a tyrant is one who has taken power by his or her own means as opposed to hereditary or constitutional power. This mode of rule is referred to as tyranny."

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

why do you make me look these up why....Not that I mind proving you wrong and me right but really!

Really, I'm not the person to debate political science with.

Tyranny of the Majority

The phrase tyranny of the majority, used in discussing systems of democracy and majority rule, is a criticism of the scenario in which decisions made by a majority under that system would place that majority's interests so far above a dissenting individual's interest that the individual would be actively oppressed. The phrase also refers to tyrants and despots whose behavior causes similar oppression.

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
Thats your opinion and ONLY your opinion. Evidently France disagrees.

Oppression is the cruel or unjust expression of authority or power. Obviously the notions of authority and cruelty have no place here; leaving us with justice and power. In the social sense (the only sense that's important here), power relates only to the ability to control others. The wearing of a veil cannot be an oppressive act in the relevant sense. Its not a matter of opinion at all.

That said, the veil can be used to oppress in the same way that any required article of clothing can be used to oppress. However, if the issue is the oppression of Muslim women by Muslim men there are are far better ways to deal with it than banning the veil.

Interesting point of contention i'll give you that. So in lamest terms you feel if france is doing this for their own kicks then they are wrong, but if they are doing it to stop muslim men from oppressing muslim women then they are right?

P.S Shuma when your on ignore it just shows up as ingored post

ShumaGorath wrote:

That is one of the issues, though it's also true that no crime has been committed in france wherein a bhurkha made it difficult to apprehend or identify a suspect. It's a faux security issue to cover up what belies the law itself, that being western insecurity about a foreign religion that they are now in contact with.

Funny how freedoms only free when you're a white christian/athiest who dresses like everyone else.

I don't suppose for a moment that burka wearing Muslim women make up a large percentage of the criminal fraternity, however I don't think the French are making any pretence that it is being done purely for security reasons, one of the reasons I admire their approach; they are tackling the issue of cultural integration head on. I don't see anyone complaining about lack of freedom to practise Islam in western societies - only the restriction on elements that conflict with our society. That's why Sharia law isn't implemented over here.

AHHHH now dogma by adding tyranny into a sentence we are shooting for a whole different ball game here, and yes I never know why but I take shuma off every now and then. Then he rambles something odd or so offbeat that I put him on.. I think he will stay on ignored from now on.

Frazzled wrote:Absent a violation of their fundemental rights, tyranny of the majority is what the rest of the world calls-democratic government.

Yes, it is. Its also implicit in Plato's discussion of democracy. There's a reason there are no viable, pure democracies in the world.

Frazzled wrote:
Sorry if that democracy thing bugs you.

Government by the ignorant should be inherently bothersome.

It can stand to reason too though that if the majority of frances hours(no idea what their governing group is called) feels that this law should be in effect I feel they have the right to do so. In sense these people are "ELECTED" officials by the people of france and thus act accoarding to the peoples wishes(yes I know what I just said). So really in my eyes france has stood up and said they don't want these people to wear burkhas in their country, and they have that right.

dogma wrote:

Government by the ignorant should be inherently bothersome.

That's pretty much a permanent state of affairs here in the UK

Mmm...the words of the Dictator. Franco would be proud.

They have the right to do as they wish, but they do not have the right to remain free from criticism.

That's why saying "they have the right" is not an effective means of deflecting criticism.

Empchild wrote:It can stand to reason too though that if the majority of frances hours(no idea what their governing group is called) feels that this law should be in effect I feel they have the right to do so. In sense these people are "ELECTED" officials by the people of france and thus act accoarding to the peoples wishes(yes I know what I just said). So really in my eyes france has stood up and said they don't want these people to wear burkhas in their country, and they have that right.

I wonder if they have put it to a referendum? Our European neighbours seem to be a little more keen than British governments have hitherto been to refer pressing matters back to the electorate.

dogma wrote:They have the right to do as they wish, but they do not have the right to remain free from criticism.

That's why saying "they have the right" is not an effective means of deflecting criticism.

If I stand and yell at somone committing a murder did they still do it, or did they stop due to my criticism. Doesn't change the fact hell any U.S citizen knows we are hated because of what our gov't does. Doesn't change the fact that we are still gonna do it until somone stops us

Frazzled wrote:Mmm...the words of the Dictator. Franco would be proud.

So I take it you enjoy being told what to do by people who don't know what they're talking about? Isn't that why you dislike government, pretty much as a rule?

@ dogma. Are you agreeing with France's decision here or not? Are you just arguing for fun?

GG

Empchild wrote:
If I stand and yell at somone committing a murder did they still do it, or did they stop due to my criticism. Doesn't change the fact hell any U.S citizen knows we are hated because of what our gov't does. Doesn't change the fact that we are still gonna do it until somone stops us

I'm not interested in stopping France from doing anything. I'm discussing something for my own amusement.

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Mmm...the words of the Dictator. Franco would be proud.

So I take it you enjoy being told what to do by people who don't know what they're talking about? Isn't that why you dislike government, pretty much as a rule?

How is that different from ANY gov't. Their are always going to be supporters and haters hell here in mass we just elected a REPUBLICAN( holy feth). Their are people already talking smack that he doesn't know what he's doing and the guy hasn't even started yet.

I'm not exactly left wing and aside from times when identification is necessary I can't see any reason to ban burkhas or veils. Ya know what, last time I checked France was one of those nice little free societies and one of the really ugly part of freedom is that occasionally someone is going to do something you don't like, maybe wear a burkha, and that's just tough for you because there's no legal reason they can't. Well there wasn't.

If the woman is willing to show her face for identification purposes and doesn't have obscenities plastered across her mobile tent exactly what reason do you have for telling her she can't dress like that aside from "Well I just don't like what I think that stands for,"? Security? Really? You think walking around like a paranoid bee keeper doesn't draw every eye to you? If you're worried about a suicide bomber I'd spend my time checking backpacks or guys wearing large jackets. Criminals, and terrorist, don't get very far drawing attention to themselves and in a western country like Europe a burkha is going to draw a LOT of attention.

Sorry, but to start infringing on someone's rights I need a better legal foundation for that than, "I just don't like it."

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Mmm...the words of the Dictator. Franco would be proud.

So I take it you enjoy being told what to do by people who don't know what they're talking about? Isn't that why you dislike government, pretty much as a rule?

Well here in the UK, our first past the post electoral system usually means that most people didn't vote for the winning party. That's the thing about democracy; you usually end up having to suck up and live with other people's opinions and rules on how to live your life.

generalgrog wrote:@ dogma. Are you agreeing with France's decision here or not? Are you just arguing for fun?

GG

Disagreeing. Somewhere in the second page I essentially spell it out.

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Mmm...the words of the Dictator. Franco would be proud.

So I take it you enjoy being told what to do by people who don't know what they're talking about? Isn't that why you dislike government, pretty much as a rule?

I don't call it tyranny.

Empchild wrote:
How is that different from ANY gov't. Their are always going to be supporters and haters hell here in mass we just elected a REPUBLICAN( holy feth). Their are people already talking smack that he doesn't know what he's doing and the guy hasn't even started yet.

Its not particularly different. The real issue is the degree to which ignorance influences the process of governance. I was just defending myself from being accused of holding dictatorial beliefs.

Frazzled wrote:
I don't call it tyranny.

Disconnected comments. Democracy is prone to tyranny of the majority. Full stop. Government by the ignorant should be inherently bothersome.

dogma wrote:

Empchild wrote:
How is that different from ANY gov't. Their are always going to be supporters and haters hell here in mass we just elected a REPUBLICAN( holy feth). Their are people already talking smack that he doesn't know what he's doing and the guy hasn't even started yet.

Its not particularly different. The real issue is the degree to which ignorance influences the process of governance. I was just defending myself from being accused of holding dictatorial beliefs.

VIVA LA FRAZZ!!!!!!! UP WITH HIM DOWN WITH ALL.. if you have dictorial views who cares, in the end none of us short of shuma will judge you. I see your point, but I also see the point of france made the choice and I for one support it. Now part of that support is due to my own personal bias towards islam and I know that and acknowledge it.

Well, the point is that I don't.

I don't know, weren't there some cases about people who used the body veils in a criminal activity recently?

"A Glasgow jewellery shop has decided to bar individuals wearing face coverings after being robbed by two men in Muslim female dress. BBC News reports.

ATAA Jewellers in the west end of Glasgow was raided by two Asian men entirely covered apart from their eyes."

Yes, I'm sure a misdemeanor dress code violation would have halted their nefarious plans in their tracks.

dogma wrote:Many Muslim women are of the opposite opinion. They feel that the hijab and veil liberate them from male scrutiny; giving them the opportunity to go about their lives without sexual attention. This is particularly evident in Turkey, but has also been the subject of a number of interview projects in Western countries where the degree of open sexualization is much higher than in other parts of the world.

But yes, it is a cultural issue rather than a religious one.

Let me ask you this - when a woman chooses not to wear a burka, who is it that deals with it?

In countries under Muslim majority rule where Sharia Law or similar is in force, it is men. Men in positions of authority, mandated by the government and religious authorities, which are often the same thing. These same governments and religious authorities are dominated by men. Men punish women for not wearing a Burka.

In countries not under Muslim dominance, it is dealt with by men in the home and other men in the community they are part of.

It is entirely possible that many women like wearing a burka, but lets not pretend for a minute it is like they all have a choice in the matter. Some, maybe even most, I have no idea, but lets not pretend it is all.

Now, I have known two women who, as they moved into adulthood and chose to wear a hijab (not a burka), were not forced into it at all. In fact, one of the two had a sister who did not wear one, so it was clearly her choice. I have known other women for whom it was no issue.

BUT, let's not pretend that all women in any country are free to choose for themselves which way to go.

The issue is therefore a complex one - Which is more oppressive - members of family and community forcing a woman to wear a burka, or a government forcing them not to? You also have to consider where to draw the line. A loose head scarf is one thing, a hijab another and a burka something else.

ShumaGorath wrote:The Bhurka is just a form of clothing, and has nothing to do with the institutionalized secondary role of women in islam. That is just as prevalent in christian religions, and for two thousand years all we needed was the book and the will to make women secondary citizens. The burkha is an adherence to a form of "social modesty" which is not in and of itself a concept that reduces rights. It's a symptom of what is a series of documents that are not particularly gender equal. Banning the burkha does nothing to improve the plight of women in muslim predominant countries, nor does it do anything at all for them in france.

It really does seem you say things purely to be objectionable.

The burka is a visible sign of oppression of women, and women do get punished for choosing not to wear one. It is not the entirety of Islamic culture's oppression of women, but it is part of it, just like forcing Jews to wear Stars of David was part of the oppression of Jews.

dogma wrote:That said, the veil can be used to oppress in the same way that any required article of clothing can be used to oppress. However, if the issue is the oppression of Muslim women by Muslim men there are are far better ways to deal with it than banning the veil.

Indeed, and I hope that other areas of oppression are also tackled. For example, it is a widespread practice in some Muslim dominated regions to deny education to women, and it has happened on a limited scale in Western countries, with individual families and small communities deliberately conspiring to prevent girls being well educated. It seems obvious that well educated women are more likely to question their secondary role. This is one of the reasons I am fearful of the rise of Muslim girl-only schools in parts of London. Thankfully they fall under the auspices of OFSTED, so they have standards to maintain - one of the few things OFSTED is good for.

Tyyr wrote:Sorry, but to start infringing on someone's rights I need a better legal foundation for that than, "I just don't like it."

There is no part of this for me that is about disliking women wearing burkas or hijabs because of its appearance.

I dislike any practice that disrciminates against one section of society unfairly. I consider the burka to be a part of this, thus, I dislike it, just like I would not ask Jews to wear a Star of David or to ask Black and White children to attend different schools.

I am a tolerant person. My tolerance does not extend to accepting intolerance.

Fifty wrote:

Let me ask you this - when a woman chooses not to wear a burka, who is it that deals with it?

In countries under Muslim majority rule where Sharia Law or similar is in force, it is men. Men in positions of authority, mandated by the government and religious authorities, which are often the same thing. These same governments and religious authorities are dominated by men. Men punish women for not wearing a Burka

....*snip*.....

I am a tolerant person. My tolerance does not extend to accepting intolerance.

What an excellent, well thought out and articulated post. I completely and utterly agree.

dogma wrote:Disconnected comments. Democracy is prone to tyranny of the majority. Full stop. Government by the ignorant should be inherently bothersome.

This is certainly true. Democracy has many flaws, and this is but one of them - a very serious one.

As for the robbers in Glasgow - banning people wearing veils into the store might not stop those men from being criminals, but they would find it harder to be successul at robbing that jewellers. The same two men would not have been allowed entry if wearing balaclavas, and yet coming in in a veil is acceptable? There is no need to prevent them wearing a veil, but it is reasonable to ask them to show their face before restoring the veil to its normal position.

filbert wrote:

Fifty wrote:

Let me ask you this - when a woman chooses not to wear a burka, who is it that deals with it?

In countries under Muslim majority rule where Sharia Law or similar is in force, it is men. Men in positions of authority, mandated by the government and religious authorities, which are often the same thing. These same governments and religious authorities are dominated by men. Men punish women for not wearing a Burka

....*snip*.....

I am a tolerant person. My tolerance does not extend to accepting intolerance.

What an excellent, well thought out and articulated post. I completely and utterly agree.

Cheers to fifty i think they said it all

My word, when I engage in debates here I normally get told off for being offensive. Maybe I am learning?

Or maybe it is that I regard this as a genuinely complex issue that requires careful thought, whereas the creationism-evolution debate I normally engage in seems to obviously cut-and-dried to me that I can't ever bring myself to hide my... "strong" feelings on the matter

Thank you, I am glad I managed to express myself well.

Fifty wrote:

Tyyr wrote:Sorry, but to start infringing on someone's rights I need a better legal foundation for that than, "I just don't like it."

There is no part of this for me that is about disliking women wearing burkas or hijabs because of its appearance.

I dislike any practice that disrciminates against one section of society unfairly. I consider the burka to be a part of this, thus, I dislike it, just like I would not ask Jews to wear a Star of David or to ask Black and White children to attend different schools.

I am a tolerant person. My tolerance does not extend to accepting intolerance.

I never said appearance. It was a general "I don't like it," you supply the reason. The problem is that you can't prove that every woman wearing a burkha is oppressed or being discriminated against. You're assuming she is or that enough women are somewhere to make it worthwhile to discriminate against those women who might choose to wear it willingly.

Besides, if a household really is hardcore enough to beat a woman for not wearing her burkha what do you think is going to happen if you suddenly outlaw burkhas? Will their husbands or families who are already willing to viciously beat their own flesh and blood just throw up their hands in defeat or will the women's situation get even worse? If they don't wear their burkhas they get beaten by their family but if they do they get arrested by the police, and then likely beaten by their families anyways.

In no way will a law like this foster any kind betterment of these women's plights. If anything the rift it makes between mainstream society and the muslim minority will only make things worse. You don't solve intolerance or social ills by just outlawing them. If that worked the US would have been just fine and dandy race relations wise in the 1960's. The only way to get through is to educate, inform, and build some bridges between the cultures over time.

If you wanna claim sympathy and caring for the women then supporting a law that only puts out the group who willingly wears them and worsens the situation of those forced tow wear them all while mucking up relations with their entire religious group is probably a bad place to start. I'm all for women's rights and bettering their situations but outlawing burkhas would just attacking a symptom rather than a root cause of a problem. Which means you do nothing to fix the real problem, you just feel better because you can pretend you have while the real problem gets worse.

To reiterate, so long as the women are willing to show their faces for identification I can't see any reason to outlaw the style of dress.

It really does seem you say things purely to be objectionable.

It could just be that I don't bother sugar coating or dumbing down my posts for idiots, meaning that when an opinion is nuanced it comes across purely as one designed to be confrontational for arguments sake. I do not agree with frances position for the reasons I stated in my first post, the security reasons are invalid and the counter-oppression reasoning is invalid. There are no oppressed muslim women in France, the only place where the law will take effect. Thus it does nothing to counteract it. Thus it is an intolerant law which is such purely for the sake of aesthetics.

The burka is a visible sign of oppression of women, and women do get punished for choosing not to wear one. It is not the entirety of Islamic culture's oppression of women, but it is part of it, just like forcing Jews to wear Stars of David was part of the oppression of Jews.

Women get punished for choosing not to wear one in Saudi Arabia. Not france. Not even Iran. Not Indonesia, not Iraq, not northern China. It's an oppressive item of clothing in the same way dresses are in northern and central africa, where women are punished for wearing pants. The Bhurkha is just a piece of clothing, it takes a societal structure to make its absence punishable, something that FRANCE doesn't have.

I dislike any practice that disrciminates against one section of society unfairly. I consider the burka to be a part of this, thus, I dislike it, just like I would not ask Jews to wear a Star of David or to ask Black and White children to attend different schools.

So you are intolerant of the non existent intolerant people in france forcing women to wear burkhas, but you are totally tolerant of the quite real intolerant law prohibiting women to wear them when in many cases it's considered by the women themselves to be a large part of their personal and religious identities? That doesn't seem the least bit counter intuitive to you?

Where do I assume that it is best to ban the burka? Where have I said it should be done? I have specifically said I think it may be a good idea, but my opinion alone is not enough to justify it. Have you even read my posts? I said it is a complex situation that needs careful consideration and thorough analysis...

Empchild wrote:AHHHH now dogma by adding tyranny into a sentence we are shooting for a whole different ball game here, and yes I never know why but I take shuma off every now and then. Then he rambles something odd or so offbeat that I put him on.. I think he will stay on ignored from now on.

Color me shocked, the guy that can't quote a dictionary right in some wild goose chase argumentative attempt at proving that tyranny of the majority can't exist without a tyrannical leader has me on ignore for being confrontational. Boy howdy, doesn't that beat all.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Fifty wrote:Where do I assume that it is best to ban the burka? Where have I said it should be done? I have specifically said I think it may be a good idea, but my opinion alone is not enough to justify it. Have you even read my posts? I said it is a complex situation that needs careful consideration and thorough analysis...

But you are stating two similar events which are unrelated. While it is quite oppressive that women are forced to wear such items in Saudi Arabia, that does not mean that alternately it is then not oppressive to ban their use in an western culture. By the tone of your post you were setting up a choice, when both are logically oppressive and therefore poor choices.

The second portion of my quote from your post is what I am primarily debating against. While it may seem oppressive in one region, it is not in france. It is not a requirement of french muslim women to wear Bhurkhas now, nor has it ever been. The comparison to the star of david is both misleading and somewhat insulting to any that have dealt with actual secular oppression, especially when you consider that in both of these cases a secular government is doing something to control the dress of a minority religion which that same government and peoples often blames for economic and security related hardship.

Fifty wrote:
Let me ask you this - when a woman chooses not to wear a burka, who is it that deals with it?

In countries under Muslim majority rule where Sharia Law or similar is in force, it is men. Men in positions of authority, mandated by the government and religious authorities, which are often the same thing. These same governments and religious authorities are dominated by men. Men punish women for not wearing a Burka.

But that doesn't make the burqa inherently oppressive. It makes the systems which use it as a means of control inherently oppressive. The burqa is just an article of clothing, nothing more.

Fifty wrote:
BUT, let's not pretend that all women in any country are free to choose for themselves which way to go.

Where did I indicate that all women in any country are ever free to choose for themselves? I imagine there are plenty of non-Muslim women in both the United States, and England who lack free choice. I imagine there are plenty of Muslim, and non-Muslim men as well. The issue is not the burqa, the issue is the cultural stigma that comes with defying perceived social norms.

Fifty wrote:
The issue is therefore a complex one - Which is more oppressive - members of family and community forcing a woman to wear a burka, or a government forcing them not to? You also have to consider where to draw the line. A loose head scarf is one thing, a hijab another and a burka something else.

If you ban the wearing of such clothing in public, do you believe that it will reduce violence in private? It isn't as though the women in question can simply leave the abusive situation, this has been shown time and again in the course of generic domestic violence cases.

ShumaGorath wrote:

It really does seem you say things purely to be objectionable.

It could just be that I don't bother sugar coating or dumbing down my posts for idiots, meaning that when an opinion is nuanced it comes across purely as one designed to be confrontational for arguments sake. I do not agree with frances position for the reasons I stated in my first post, the security reasons are invalid and the counter-oppression reasoning is invalid. There are no oppressed muslim women in France, the only place where the law will take effect. Thus it does nothing to counteract it. Thus it is an intolerant law which is such purely for the sake of aesthetics.

You see how calling people idiots for disagreeing with you could be taken badly, right?

Not a single Muslim woman in France is oppressed by her family? Now, that seems like quite a strong statement to make. Have you checked? With all of them? And made sure they are not being intimidated into just saying that? Really? Did it take long?

The burka is a visible sign of oppression of women, and women do get punished for choosing not to wear one. It is not the entirety of Islamic culture's oppression of women, but it is part of it, just like forcing Jews to wear Stars of David was part of the oppression of Jews.

Women get punished for choosing not to wear one in Saudi Arabia. Not france. Not even Iran. Not Indonesia, not Iraq, not northern China. It's an oppressive item of clothing in the same way dresses are in northern and central africa, where women are punished for wearing pants. The Bhurkha is just a piece of clothing, it takes a societal structure to make its absence punishable, something that FRANCE doesn't have.

Women do get punished in Iran by the authorities for not wearing a burka. Also in other countries. No, not all countries do it via the authorities, but I never said they did. Finding exceptions to a trend does not disprove the trend.

Now, I would also be against women being punished for wearing trousers, so I don't see how that is a useful argument. "Women in Africa get beaten for wearing trousers, so it is okay for women in Saudi Arabia and Iran to get beaten for not wearing hijabs or burkas." Does that really sound right to you?

Now, as to France, clearly women are not punished by the authorities when they wear a burka in France. But again, unless you want to detail here your extensive studies in France and other Western countries, how will you demonstrate that no woman in France is punished by her family or community for it?

I dislike any practice that disrciminates against one section of society unfairly. I consider the burka to be a part of this, thus, I dislike it, just like I would not ask Jews to wear a Star of David or to ask Black and White children to attend different schools.

So you are intolerant of the non existent intolerant people in france forcing women to wear burkhas, but you are totally tolerant of the quite real intolerant law prohibiting women to wear them when in many cases it's considered by the women themselves to be a large part of their personal and religious identities? That doesn't seem the least bit counter intuitive to you?

Again, I have to ask if you have read my posts at all? I clearly state that there is a conflict between the need to protect women from having to wear a burka if they don't want to, and the injustice of preventing them from wearing one if they do want to.

You seem to be thinking this is a clear cut issue and that your way is right. Most people are accepting that it is a tricky situation, in which some women need to have their right to NOT wear a burka protected and others need their right TO wear one protected.

Modquisition on.
This thread is getting flamy with some posts being seriously trolling towards other posters. Lets all remember Dakka Rule #1 or this thread will be closed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:

Its not particularly different. The real issue is the degree to which ignorance influences the process of governance. I was just defending myself from being accused of holding dictatorial beliefs.

Point taken Doggie.

Can we at least agree that it is wrong to oppress women?

Can we agree that one method by which some women in some places are oppressed is forcing them to wear a burka? Even if it is just a symptom, not a significant aspect of the problem?

Can we agree that if any woman does not want to wear a burka, she should not have to?

I could support a country, community, culture, family or religion in its decision to make all women wear burkas if men had to do the same, but that is not the case.

The difficult question then becomes, not "should women be forced/prevented from wearing burkas?" but a far more important question of "how can we best protect women from oppression?" and "Is preventing the wearing of burkas useful in this desire?"

Some would say "yes", others would say "no", others would say "depends".

mattyrm wrote:I hear what your saying Krazy, as always, you make a sensible comment, but i cannot for the life of me think of any other religion that treats one portion of their society with as much scorn as Islam does women.

I think many religions are innately misogynistic, being as they were founded many many years ago, but i dont think any treat them as badly.

The Taliban went back to "real" Islam, and as a result women were banned from reading, writing, or leaving the house not dressed like a ninja.

Hamid Karzai has also just passed a law basically making it legal to rape your wife. Something that had me utterly aghast, as i did two tours on the premise we were "helping"

I didnt sign up to help legitamize rape. I have no taste for almost all of their "tradition"

Karzai has no legitimacy and IMO it was a mistake to accept his "re-election"

Most societies are misogynistic -- Islam is worse than the West though our hands aren't clean either. It was only in 1994 that rape within marriage was made illegal in the UK.

I just don't think banning a particular aspect of behaviour is the best way to approach the issue. It takes two or three generations to change a society. Modern Islamic women in the UK are pretty well integrated and westernised compared to their parents. That's why all the trouble with honour killings and so on.

You can't force people to be free by making it illegal not to be free.

You see how calling people idiots for disagreeing with you could be taken badly, right?

Not when they have me on ignore!

Not a single Muslim woman in France is oppressed by her family? Now, that seems like quite a strong statement to make. Have you checked? With all of them? And made sure they are not being intimidated into just saying that? Really? Did it take long?

Oh, there most certainly is somewhere, but thats an issue for frances social services workers, and is honestly pretty irrelevant to the idea of a ban on burkhas in public places.

Now, I would also be against women being punished for wearing trousers, so I don't see how that is a useful argument. "Women in Africa get beaten for wearing trousers, so it is okay for women in Saudi Arabia and Iran to get beaten for not wearing hijabs or burkas." Does that really sound right to you?

No, but it also seems entirely irrelevant to the conversation about such attire in France. Why are you drawing parallels to unequal and unrelated situations? It appears that you are attempting to imply that because an article of clothing is oppressive in one place it is in western nations that do not have laws or practices governing them as well. How is the burkha different than trousers here?

Now, as to France, clearly women are not punished by the authorities when they wear a burka in France. But again, unless you want to detail here your extensive studies in France and other Western countries, how will you demonstrate that no woman in France is punished by her family or community for it?

I can't. I also can't prove that no one punishes their children for coming out of the closet, getting mohawks, getting tattoos, or doing much anything else. What you are comparing the burkha to at this point is household religious traditions and equating them to oppression. Certainly the argument has a point, often times muslim households do enforce religious laws and customs, but by that same token are you going to outlaw the little jewish cap? Or the Bindi perhaps? What about green hair? Piercings? I'm all for standardizing the care of children in households, but why plant your flag specifically in the Burkha when there are literally thousands of similar situations which go commonly accepted?

You seem to be thinking this is a clear cut issue and that your way is right. Most people are accepting that it is a tricky situation, in which some women need to have their right to NOT wear a burka protected and others need their right TO wear one protected.

No, I just think that you are hiding a rather simple opinion in a "complicated and nuanced" form. Distilling your posts you are essentially saying that "Burkhas are a sign of oppression in foreign countries, but not in france, but that it's a difficult consideration because french muslim families may still be forcing their women or children to wear them". This is not a nuanced or difficult opinion to understand, and while it's somewhat legitimate it's a far cry from being enough so to base an intolerant law on. This is entirely under the purview of french social services, banning the public wearing of burkhas does nothing to prevent private familial religious traditions from effecting the lives of french muslim women.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Fifty wrote:Can we at least agree that it is wrong to oppress women?

Can we agree that one method by which some women in some places are oppressed is forcing them to wear a burka? Even if it is just a symptom, not a significant aspect of the problem?

Can we agree that if any woman does not want to wear a burka, she should not have to?

I could support a country, community, culture, family or religion in its decision to make all women wear burkas if men had to do the same, but that is not the case.

The difficult question then becomes, not "should women be forced/prevented from wearing burkas?" but a far more important question of "how can we best protect women from oppression?" and "Is preventing the wearing of burkas useful in this desire?"

Some would say "yes", others would say "no", others would say "depends".

This post is actually well balanced and respecting of both sides of the issue, without stating directly or indirectly support for one side or another, like in previous posts. I will agree here, though agreeing that "differen't sides exist" in a somewhat contentious debate isn't a particularly groundbreaking thing to do.

Most societies are misogynistic -- Islam is worse than the West though our hands aren't clean either. It was only in 1994 that rape within marriage was made illegal in the UK.

Be careful when equating a religion to a region of the world and saying one is worse than the other. It's not a particularly apt comparison. Islamic states have historically been no worse than religiously governed western states, we simply live within an irreligious secularized hemisphere at this point and they do not. An example of secularization vs oppressive religious doctrination is a bit more valid a comparison.

Shuma, a jewelers got robbed by two fellas in Burkhas, and if i recall correctly, one of the London bombers apparently escaped dressed in a Burkha, if these things are happening, then how on earth is it just a "faux" security issue?

Also, do you have do be needlessly inflammatory to the (many) people who you disagree with? Put your points across without calling people names, as no doubt you are going to carry on winding people up and then another interesting thread is going to get locked.

Do you wear a Virtual Burkah? I only ask because more than anyone else on here i think you most certainly are a "Thread Bomber"

I know it is hard (SO HARD!) in the OT Forum, but NO MORE PERSONAL ATTACKS!

So here we are, at another sign post moment in a thread.

After this, people who choose to ignore the above warning will be punished...

Sad, but true.

Dogma, what was your point about veils and Turkey? IIRC, even headscarves were illegal outside of mosques until recently. I can ask my Turkish friend about this, but I wouldn't be surprised if she's never worn a veil in her life, and can't imagine she'd find it liberating. Maybe there's an urban/rural difference on that issue, but IIRC the majority of the population there is in the cities...

Shuma, a jewelers got robbed by two fellas in Burkhas, and if i recall correctly, one of the London bombers apparently escaped dressed in a Burkha, if these things are happening, then how on earth is it just a "faux" security issue?

The bomber was caught, and the Burkha doesn't hide anything a mask doesn't, and when was the last time any armed robbery was committed without something hiding the face? Are ski masks illegal now? One would think a full body burkha would make a robbery more difficult to complete and then escape from? In neither case did the article of clothing do anything extraordinary for the criminal beyond what could be accomplished with a hoody.

Also, do you have do be needlessly inflammatory to the (many) people who you disagree with?

I was only inflammatory to the guy that A. was trolling before I entered the thread, B. has me on ignore, and C. has in every thread he's ever commented towards me on proclaimed that I'm just a troll.

Forgive my lack of tact when dealing with him.

Do you wear a Virtual Burkah? I only ask because more than anyone else on here i think you most certainly are a "Thread Bomber"

Hurr.

gorgon wrote:Dogma, what was your point about veils and Turkey? IIRC, even headscarves were illegal outside of mosques until recently. I can ask my Turkish friend about this, but I wouldn't be surprised if she's never worn a veil in her life, and can't imagine she'd find it liberating. Maybe there's an urban/rural difference on that issue, but IIRC the majority of the population there is in the cities...

There are a number of Turkish cultural movements which focus on the relaxation of the anti-Islamic laws imposed by the Ataturk reforms. In particular, there is a certain segment of Turkish feminism which views the hijab and veil as a significant component of a woman's right to choose, and need not represent oppression. Its very similar to modern, Western feminism which denies the notion that femininity is intrinsically submissive, or without power. Here is an article about one, though the author is wrong to say that she is startlingly unique. Look here for a journalistic segment (unless you have JSTOR access). Also, a decent book on the issue if The veiling issue, official secularism and popular Islam in modern Turkey

synopsis wrote:
In the Turkish elections of December 1995, the Islamic Welfare Party became the biggest Party in parliament and for the first time in history, an Islamic party had come to power by means of free elections.The rise to power of the Turkish Islamists is a result of several decades of revivalism. In this process the veil has been a prominent symbol of the new religious puritanism, causing resentment among those who regard the bare-headed woman as the symbol of progress and emancipation. In the light of a century-long conflict between secularism and popular Islam, the present study describes the conflict over the veil as it became a burning issue in the decade following the military intervention of 1980 and remains to this day a matter of controversy.While focusing on the issue of veiling, the author also considers the wider picture of tension between official secularism and popular Islam in present-day Turkey. Althoughthis tension is not discounted, the author argues that the fact that the Islamic movement is on the rise does not mean that it threatens the very foundations of modern Turkish society. Whereas the controversies of the nineteenth century could be described as a 'clash of civilizations' (between Islam and the West), those of today have shrunk into conflicts over certain cultural symbols that are part of the same globally-expanding technological civilization.

Head scarves are still illegal (the amendment lifting the ban was annulled), as are veils, but the ban only applies to government buildings, schools, and universities. It is, and was, always sparsely enforced.

ShumaGorath wrote: Hurr.

Hey they cant all be good ones...

Ahem.. im off to bed.

The burkha doesn't represent the islamic faith (its not mentioned in the koran), but the downward spiral it has been taken by extremisists and oppressors, just look at footage of Iraq 50 years ago, no burkhas or very few headscarfs. Muslim countries especially in arabic and african nations have gone backwards if you compare them to islam in the past.

The main things are security and education, a passport is worthless if the picture is that of a burkha instead of the person behind it and in area of elevated security if people have to show their face at all time a burkha should not be allowed. For education, it has been show in multiple studies that face to face communication (especially for young children) plays a critical role in a childs development and learning ability, so no teacher should be allowed to cover their face.

The burkha doesn't represent the islamic faith (its not mentioned in the koran), but the downward spiral it has been taken by extremisists and oppressors, just look at footage of Iraq 50 years ago, no burkhas or very few headscarfs.

Iraq has been a secular bastion in the middle east for decades, and is only now becoming heavily islamified due to the prevalence of muslim extremist militias and many concessions made in their newly minted constitution. Before the invasion Sadaam reacted quite harshly to the growth of muslim centers of power in Iraq.

Muslim countries especially in arabic and african nations have gone backwards if you compare them to islam in the past.

It depends on how you define country, but many have reversed more recent secular movements or are in the process of doing so (Egypt for example). The secular reforms of the 20th century didn't work in many cases, and due to the influx of corrupt oil and drug money religious power centers are starting to take hold against the relatively weak governments. Throw in soviet wars of conquest and repeated American and western involvement in toppling and replacing governments and you have what is a ludicrously complicated set of problems in the region.

The main things are security and education, a passport is worthless if the picture is that of a burkha instead of the person behind it and in area of elevated security if people have to show their face at all time a burkha should not be allowed. For education, it has been show in multiple studies that face to face communication (especially for young children) plays a critical role in a childs development and learning ability, so no teacher should be allowed to cover their face.

Agreed on both counts.

Well, i honestly think this thing really passes the boundaries of just burkha.
On the same premise of forbidding the burkha (really unimportant at this point if the Quran asks it or not), as it's a real part of their culture, you could also ban the use of minorities' languages => you could ban the use of Spanish in America, Arabic in France, even practising your own religion as a minority in another country, what's REALLY the difference? it's still a cultural thing, isn't it?

Now, i don't want to fall in the other brazen extreme...i don't know if you know about the hungarian minority problem in Romania...well, there's a great hungarian minority in the north-east part of the country who demands school be taught in their own language and no be needed to learn romanian, why? They are here, they have to play by OUR rules. I'm not saying they don't have the right to use their own language, habits and cultures, but it's like spanish people in the US simply refuse to speak english and force the others to learn spanish.

Burkha, traditions, languages are all part of a nation and they have the right to be maintained, unless it's a threat to the safety and security of the others...meaning i agree with the fact that should be able to wear it, unless police asks them to identify

Hope i made myself clear

dogma wrote: Democracy is prone to tyranny of the majority. Full stop. Government by the ignorant should be inherently bothersome.

Ah, the joys of people with a superiority complex. Because making a statement like this generally implies that you believe you are smarter than the majority of people, to such an extent that you can call them 'ignorant'.

That isn't the implication there. I didn't call anyone ignorant. I said that ignorant people should not be allowed to govern. That does not imply that I should be allowed to govern, or that I am not ignorant. It only implies that, if a person is ignorant, he should not govern.

dogma wrote:That isn't the implication there. I didn't call anyone ignorant. I said that ignorant people should not be allowed to govern. That does not imply that I should be allowed to govern, or that I am not ignorant. It only implies that, if a person is ignorant, he should not govern.

Ah, but in saying that ignorant people should not govern in regards to a democracy, you are implying that the majority of the population MUST be ignorant. In order to judge others ignorant means that you mentally must believe that you are smarter than them, otherwise you have no standard for comparison. You do not have stupid people admitting they are stupid, and then accusing the majority of the population of being stupid as well.

aka_tizz wrote:Well, i honestly think this thing really passes the boundaries of just burkha.
On the same premise of forbidding the burkha (really unimportant at this point if the Quran asks it or not), as it's a real part of their culture, you could also ban the use of minorities' languages => you could ban the use of Spanish in America, Arabic in France, even practising your own religion as a minority in another country, what's REALLY the difference? it's still a cultural thing, isn't it?

Now, i don't want to fall in the other brazen extreme...i don't know if you know about the hungarian minority problem in Romania...well, there's a great hungarian minority in the north-east part of the country who demands school be taught in their own language and no be needed to learn romanian, why? They are here, they have to play by OUR rules. I'm not saying they don't have the right to use their own language, habits and cultures, but it's like spanish people in the US simply refuse to speak english and force the others to learn spanish.

Burkha, traditions, languages are all part of a nation and they have the right to be maintained, unless it's a threat to the safety and security of the others...meaning i agree with the fact that should be able to wear it, unless police asks them to identify

Hope i made myself clear

You do, and it's barely valid, sorry.

the Bhurka/Hijab is not even close to a cultural tradition, it's in fact, anti-cultural even in many Islamic countries. It's usefull in a sandstorm, but it is in no way comparable to traditional dress. In addition, it's in no French tradition. Also, I got to know a lot of Turks last year and while some of the girls wear scarves, they are not keen on the Bhurka/Hijab. The Scarf is more of a choice, it's almost a fashion accesory. A Bhurka can never be like that, it's a prison (and traffic hazard). It might be traditional in Saudi-Arabia, perhaps, but few, if any French (or European in general) Muslims are from Saudi-Arabia. North-African, Levantine, Anatolyan and Balkan muslims have very different traditional clothing.

It's a mysoginistic, oppresive demand by madmen prudes who were frightened by their own rapist urges and decided they'd rather cover-up women entirely than to face punishment if they acted on their maniac urges. Naïve analphabetics saw these men as figures of wisdom and authority so rolled with it.

As for minority languages, I agree with you. I'm greatly annoyed even by Frisians who can't find the decency to talk standard Dutch to non-Frisians (and they learn it in school, so they're just rude b-tards). anyway, refusing to learn the national language is only harming the minority if it comes to employment and the use of public services.
In my job as telemarketeer (service-based calls to customers of the biggest Dutch Internet/phone provider) I occassionaly call Muslim families of which only the kids and husband speak Dutch, the wife barely knows the language and that must be as frustrating to me as it is for her. Anytime she needs to interact with other people not from her own ethnicity it will be a pain... What about teacher-parent meetings for example? I fear a lot of "muslim youth" troubles originate from this, and I do blame the muslim men for it, because they are the ones who tell their wifes they don't need to speak Dutch.
Truth be told, it's not general, every muslim culture differentiates in this (most Turks, Syrians and Lebanese are usually able to speak Dutch at a fair standard)

as for the Hungarian minority... Have they thought it through enough? do they want to isolate themselves from the rest of the country? Is it the entire minority or just a few "tribalists" with an inferiority complex?

That being said, I'm not against minority languages, I find them very interesting. I do oppose segegration because it isolates minorities, which will breed resentment and trouble in the future.

Firstly such a ban would be totally unenforceable. Seriously are the police going to have to arrest middle aged Muslim women for just walking down the street, minding their own business, whilst in possession of a bit of religious garb? What does that achieve apart from wasting massive amounts of police time and taxpayers money?

Secondly if the covering of the face for 'security' reasons is an issue then you can't just limit it to the hijab. You would have to ban anything that obscured the face. Scarves, Ski Masks, Stockings (in case Bank Robbers should use them) Bike Helmets, comedy plastic glasses/moustache combos. it's a right can of worms and again is unenforceable.

It would also mean arresting everyone who attended the protests below. Hows that in anyone's interest?

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/webscout/2008/02/protesters-asse.html

Finally I simply don't accept that it is the role of the State to enforce a dress code. For example courts in England recently decide that this fellow would not be prosecuted as there was no indication that his decision to wear no clothes was actually hurting anyone (though the Scots are still trying to lock this harmless eccentric up) and rightly so. If the State can't stop someone from wearing too few clothes on what grounds can they prosecute someone for wearing too many?

Yes I accept the potential misogynistic origins and movies of the hijab/burka but such issues are only resolved by progressive thought and natural changes in social attitudes. Draconian legislation does more harm than good and I think France will find this out the hard way.

Herohammernostalgia wrote:
as for the Hungarian minority... Have they thought it through enough? do they want to isolate themselves from the rest of the country? Is it the entire minority or just a few "tribalists" with an inferiority complex?

My friend, this is on for the last hundred years or so, with the crushing majority of hungarians claiming autonomy of that region from the romanian state.

As for the burkha, i beg to differ. Who forces them to wear it in public in France? or any other western country? family? don't think so, it's not like they'd be rock killed if they, don't as is the case in some arabic countries, so why do they wear it? the only logical answer remains that it's a part of them

Ketara wrote:Ah, but in saying that ignorant people should not govern in regards to a democracy, you are implying that the majority of the population MUST be ignorant. In order to judge others ignorant means that you mentally must believe that you are smarter than them, otherwise you have no standard for comparison. You do not have stupid people admitting they are stupid, and then accusing the majority of the population of being stupid as well.

"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute talk with the average voter."
-Winston Churchill

Let's knee-cap this rather pedantic argument.

Ignorance= uneducated in general; lacking knowledge or sophistication...

Stupidity= a poor ability to understand or to profit from experience

Aside the fact that Dogma was relatively clear in his meaning, and he clarified further in his response...

Ignorance and stupidity are not interchangeable, as anything more than an 'insult'.

Aside this, and more to the point, intelligence (associated with a lack of, within stupidity), and knowledge (associated with a lack of, within ignorance), are not the same thing. You can be knowledgeable, and still be considered stupid, you can also be intelligent, and have a lack of knowledge.

Processing information, and having information can be two entirely different things, and they usually are by default.

Dogma made no assertion that anyone was specifically ignorant, but to entirely miss his point, is to forget that a large majority of people, can be considered ignorant, as a natural occurrence of being alive. I have no clue about what I would do specifically, to fix the problems that I see in the world generically; this by all faults would make me ignorant to a solution. Not stupid, but most definitely ignorant for the most part.

I feel that adding a new anchor to this discussion would be appropriate as well. If people are ignorant on the whole (specifically on cultural, economic, and political issues), why is this? Is it because the economics of knowledge and intelligence (which is, within itself, a debate lacking substance without hard data as to what you are actually discussing within a 'narrow' scope) are limited in similar ways to everything physical? Not entirely impossible, though I sway more to the equity of intelligence, knowledge, and associated symbols of power.

There is/are a/many reason/s people are not educated, not least of which lays in the simple logistics of such a monumental task, as to actually provide viable and efficient education.

Is the system the reason people are hyperbolic naturally? Is hyperbole (which I consider the original post to be in essence, not the OP, but the actual source: through information distributor x, from culture b) a natural survival mechanism? Are we simply looking at a poorly thought out reaction, to a debatably non-circumstantial issue?

The main issue here, is how political this actually is, and how much of it is a result of natural processes.

I'm suprised this is still going, and to the fact that it has broken so far away from the OP. How about it gets left that france is infringing on many personal rights by their actions, but it is their right to do what they feel to make their country safe whatever the reason may be.

I think the US should ban wearing pants that are halfway down around the ass (and no not just for fat chicks). I really don't care to see some 14yo "gangsta wannabes" spongebob boxers (not to mention how the hell are you badass wearing spongebob boxer shorts)?

Ketara wrote:In order to judge others ignorant means that you mentally must believe that you are smarter than them, otherwise you have no standard for comparison.

No, it simply means that I believe they are not knowledgeable when compared to people who are knowledgeable. The knowledgeable person who serves as a standard of comparison does not have to be me.

Ketara wrote:
You do not have stupid people admitting they are stupid, and then accusing the majority of the population of being stupid as well.

Ignorance and stupidity are not interchangeable. That said, there's no reason that a stupid person could not acknowledge his stupidity, while recognizing that the majority of others are his equal. Though one might argue that the ability to do such a thing makes the hypothetical stupid person noticeably smarter.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Wrexasaur wrote:
Dogma made no assertion that anyone was specifically ignorant, but to entirely miss his point, is to forget that a large majority of people, can be considered ignorant, as a natural occurrence of being alive. I have no clue about what I would do specifically, to fix the problems that I see in the world generically; this by all faults would make me ignorant to a solution. Not stupid, but most definitely ignorant for the most part.

Wrex nailed it. In fact, I wish I would have read past Ketara before replying, as my post is now redundant.

I find Burkhas unpleasant mainly because they are symbol of unwillingness to integrate with a 'host' culture and/or adopt our values. Oppression of women within the Muslim community is a wider issue, which shouldn't be distilled down to a clothing choice (or lack thereof). Muslim women desperately need empowerment if the islamic community is to succesfully integrate (which they should, as a matter of grave importance). This empowerment will not be acheived by oppressing them further.

The burka plays a very important role in the dress of Muslim women. Faced with either removing the burka or remaining in the home, it’s likely almost all Muslim women will remain at home. Muslim women are already marginalised by Muslim men and by greater society, and now we’ve given them one more reason to stay separate from the rest of society. In terms of encouraging integration, this new French law is nothing but a big failure.

The security issues are frankly silly. It’s use in crime has been minimal at best, forcing an entire class of people out of public life when practical measures, such as limiting the bans to high profile targets like pawn shops, is plainly ridiculous.

This simply has nothing to either of those issues. The third argument put forward, France can do what they want, isn’t even an argument for the veil, it’s just an effort to deflect criticism from this law.

The issues driving this have nothing to do with the veil, just as the issues in Switzerland had nothing to do with the four minarets that had been put up. This has everything to do with people feeling threatened or intimidated by Islam, and wanting to reduce that fear by putting a control over Muslims. Of course, the only possible result is to increase the tension between the social groups, increasing the level of fear.

Ironically, this is very similar to the fear of women in many Islamic cultures that drives Muslim men to place strict dress codes on Muslim women.

Fifty wrote:Let me ask you this - when a woman chooses not to wear a burka, who is it that deals with it?

In countries under Muslim majority rule where Sharia Law or similar is in force, it is men. Men in positions of authority, mandated by the government and religious authorities, which are often the same thing. These same governments and religious authorities are dominated by men. Men punish women for not wearing a Burka.

In countries not under Muslim dominance, it is dealt with by men in the home and other men in the community they are part of.

It is entirely possible that many women like wearing a burka, but lets not pretend for a minute it is like they all have a choice in the matter. Some, maybe even most, I have no idea, but lets not pretend it is all.

You are absolutely right that the burka is not a choice for all women. Even Muslim immigrants to Western countries will generally still have social pressure to wear burkas and other traditional garb. It is a real issue, and beyond the level of discomfort these clothes have, there are far greater issues driving the need to wear a burka - the need to control the sexuality of women.

But those issues are not helped one bit by the law proposed in France. All that law will do is force Muslim women out of public, which will reduce their exposure to greater society and their access to social and economic opportunities, which in turn will reduce their power and make them less capable of choosing to wear the burka or not. The solution is to be found in greater integration, not less.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

LuciusAR wrote:It would also mean arresting everyone who attended the protests below. Hows that in anyone's interest?

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/webscout/2008/02/protesters-asse.html

It is always in everyone's interest to lock up members of Anonymous.

aka_tizz wrote:
My friend, this is on for the last hundred years or so, with the crushing majority of hungarians claiming autonomy of that region from the romanian state.

As for the burkha, i beg to differ. Who forces them to wear it in public in France? or any other western country? family? don't think so, it's not like they'd be rock killed if they, don't as is the case in some arabic countries, so why do they wear it? the only logical answer remains that it's a part of them

Really must take issue with you on this point. A recent case in the UK was of a young Muslim woman killed by her father and uncle because the guy she eloped with wasn't approved by the family. There are plenty of examples of these so called 'honour' killings. Just because Muslims do not publicly execute women for refusing to wear burkas does not mean they arent punished, beaten and coerced in private.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Albatross wrote:I find Burkhas unpleasant mainly because they are symbol of unwillingness to integrate with a 'host' culture and/or adopt our values. Oppression of women within the Muslim community is a wider issue, which shouldn't be distilled down to a clothing choice (or lack thereof). Muslim women desperately need empowerment if the islamic community is to succesfully integrate (which they should, as a matter of grave importance). This empowerment will not be acheived by oppressing them further.

I think in very real terms, a large part of this proposed ban by France is a reaction to this failure to integrate. It's simply dressed up in 'security' clothes, although there is a slight anti terrorist theme to the legislation.

filbert wrote:Really must take issue with you on this point. A recent case in the UK was of a young Muslim woman killed by her father and uncle because the guy she eloped with wasn't approved by the family. There are plenty of examples of these so called 'honour' killings. Just because Muslims do not publicly execute women for refusing to wear burkas does not mean they arent punished, beaten and coerced in private.

While the idea of someone being beaten for refusing to wear a burkha sounds a lot like a crappy tv movie, the reality is that violence isn't even necessary. To make them wear the burka you just remove all other choices. We like to pretend we're all free souls that can agree or reject anything we want, but the reality is we have that mindset because of how we've been raised and where we're placed in society.

A lot of Muslim women don't have the power to choose. This is why banning the burka is such a stupid, counter-productive thing to do.

sebster wrote:

A lot of Muslim women don't have the power to choose. This is why banning the burka is such a stupid, counter-productive thing to do.

Quite possibly, however claiming that women aren't forced and coerced into wearing Burkas is disingenuous at best.

LuciusAR wrote:
Finally I simply don't accept that it is the role of the State to enforce a dress code...

...Draconian legislation does more harm than good and I think France will find this out the hard way.

This pretty much sums up my feelings on this subject.

Also: For the record, I have thoroughly enjoyed my time on DakkaDakka. However the sheer brazen ignorance and idicotic nature of some posters here truly sickens me.

I say this every thread, opressing a minority never works. The more jimcrow laws passed the more you prove them right. A few already have said they support the law because they don't like islam. these innocent moderates you opress will be pushed into the extreme by your own actions.

There was an interview with a French official on the news last night, and he was commenting that it is not just the "security issue" surrounding the fact that full coverage allows potential criminals to move throughout society unseen (where a man wearing a mask would be stopped, or at least noticed), but the cultural issues as well.

Islam is Frances second largest religion, and constantly growing due to large numbers of immigrants, as well as low native birth rates. The full body and face coverings go directly against the relatively open nature of Frances culture, promoting the "us and them" mentality that causes problems.

It was suggested by this official that they were attempting not only to make the nation safer, but also to try and improve integration into French culture and promote a more open Islamic practice within the Muslim communities of France (although I think part of the issue is that there are "communities" to start with. Areas of total non-integration existing within another culture, as are common in the UK as well; part of the reason there is so much of an issue for so many people).

Just because you live in France doesn't mean you have to be 'French'. Who knows? Maybe in a thousand years, building Mousques and wearing Burkas will be the 'French' thing to do?

SilverMK2 wrote:There was an interview with a French official on the news last night, and he was commenting that it is not just the "security issue" surrounding the fact that full coverage allows potential criminals to move throughout society unseen (where a man wearing a mask would be stopped, or at least noticed), but the cultural issues as well.

Islam is Frances second largest religion, and constantly growing due to large numbers of immigrants, as well as low native birth rates. The full body and face coverings go directly against the relatively open nature of Frances culture, promoting the "us and them" mentality that causes problems.

It was suggested by this official that they were attempting not only to make the nation safer, but also to try and improve integration into French culture and promote a more open Islamic practice within the Muslim communities of France (although I think part of the issue is that there are "communities" to start with. Areas of total non-integration existing within another culture, as are common in the UK as well; part of the reason there is so much of an issue for so many people).

This is why I applaud the French government in certain respects in that they are almost 'forcing' the issue of integration with this move. I think the security concerns run a poor second to the idea that banning the burka will promote Muslims living in France to adopt a more westernised form of clothing. Surely this can only help to foster integration? I dont think anyone would suggest that it can be healthy for a group of people to emigrate to a new country yet remain entirely autonomous, cut off and independent of the prevailing culture.

Albatross wrote:I find Burkhas unpleasant mainly because they are symbol of unwillingness to integrate with a 'host' culture and/or adopt our values. Oppression of women within the Muslim community is a wider issue, which shouldn't be distilled down to a clothing choice (or lack thereof). Muslim women desperately need empowerment if the islamic community is to succesfully integrate (which they should, as a matter of grave importance). This empowerment will not be acheived by oppressing them further.

Well said sir.

I also admit to being uneasy at what the Veil represents but the very idea that you can enforce intergration by banning things is almost beyond parody. If anything it just errects yet more barriers.

I feel the same way about sombreros.

For me, integration is something that will evolve over time. 1st generation French muslim women may well feel more comfortable with a veil, and it might be handed down to the 2nd generation, but by the 3rd generation they probably start to adopt western habits. Forcing the issue is just going to create ill feeling.

My more controversial comment is that this kind of policy making, however you dress it up, has a lot to do with making people feel less intimidated by the presence of muslim immigrants. People will always be wary of new cultures that appear different to their own and legislating against clothing that is out of the ordinary will probably make a few French voters feel more comfortable.

Regardless, it's a bad idea and though such an event would be deplorable, I give Paris a year or two before the occurence of their 9/11 or 7/7 as a result.

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/international/france-to-ban-spiderman-201001272418/


..

reds8n wrote:http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/international/france-to-ban-spiderman-201001272418/


..

Nicely satirical, somes up the daftness of it all quite well.

They're going to outlaw monks next..

... they want them to integrate more and breal their bad habits.

reds8n wrote:They're going to outlaw monks next..

... they want them to integrate more and breal their bad habits.

That was bad, and you should feel bad about it.

Ahtman wrote:I feel the same way about sombreros.

Hey! The sombrero is a symbol of mexican empowerment!


The long, droopy moustache and bandoliers are just for fun.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Muslim countries especially in arabic and african nations have gone backwards if you compare them to islam in the past.

It depends on how you define country, but many have reversed more recent secular movements or are in the process of doing so (Egypt for example). The secular reforms of the 20th century didn't work in many cases, and due to the influx of corrupt oil and drug money religious power centers are starting to take hold against the relatively weak governments. Throw in soviet wars of conquest and repeated American and western involvement in toppling and replacing governments and you have what is a ludicrously complicated set of problems in the region.

when i was talking about the past, i was talking about 100's of years, art, arcitecture, social and religious interactions and beliefs were far more 'liberal' than they are now in a large selection of muslim countries.

Ahtman wrote:I feel the same way about sombreros.

Don't dick with sombreros or we'll kick yer ass!

Flashman wrote:For me, integration is something that will evolve over time. 1st generation French muslim women may well feel more comfortable with a veil, and it might be handed down to the 2nd generation, but by the 3rd generation they probably start to adopt western habits. Forcing the issue is just going to create ill feeling.

I think the problem that may be present with this thought is that the inward looking and closed off communities are not as exposed to the influence of external culture. This means that people brought up within the community are not becoming westernised over time, or if they are, it is far more slowly than otherwise. Added to which, the fresh arrivals of "old school" non-western immigrants into those communities further limits the influx of new culture and ideas from the host nation.

I have known quite a few muslims who were westernised to one degree or another (generally it tends to be the men who are most western - possibly because they are not as tightly controlled). But some of the girls/women I have known who are fairly westernised always shy away from showing it whenever they were with family or were in muslim heavy areas. Two girls I knew relatively well would not walk alone (or in a group for that matter) with white males around areas where there were people who knew them, or otherwise muslim areas. The more conservative women did not want to have anything to do with us.

There is such a strong anti-western (not in terms of "blow them up" but more in terms of "that is not our culture and it is to be frowned upon") vibe in some areas that I doubt that they will ever become westernised. Certainly not with the factors stated above factored into the mix.

When you can go out, shop in shops with goods drawn exclusively from the middle east, walk down streets lived in exclusively by muslims, speak and be spoken to exclusively in arabic and generally not meet a "native" during your day to day activities, you are not going to be drawn into the cuture.

LuciusAR wrote:Secondly if the covering of the face for 'security' reasons is an issue then you can't just limit it to the hijab. You would have to ban anything that obscured the face. Scarves, Ski Masks, Stockings (in case Bank Robbers should use them) Bike Helmets, comedy plastic glasses/moustache combos. it's a right can of worms and again is unenforceable.

This already enforced, a shop, bank or restaurant can ban you from entering if you cover you face in such a way, and a police officer can demand you take of items that cover your face, this law is mainly to allow police officers to do their job without fear of being sued for racism.

aka_tizz wrote:

Herohammernostalgia wrote:
as for the Hungarian minority... Have they thought it through enough? do they want to isolate themselves from the rest of the country? Is it the entire minority or just a few "tribalists" with an inferiority complex?

My friend, this is on for the last hundred years or so, with the crushing majority of hungarians claiming autonomy of that region from the romanian state.

As for the burkha, i beg to differ. Who forces them to wear it in public in France? or any other western country? family? don't think so, it's not like they'd be rock killed if they, don't as is the case in some arabic countries, so why do they wear it? the only logical answer remains that it's a part of them

Do you actually read a newspaper, or watch the news, every year the police investigate multiple cases of domestic violence (even murder) performed by muslim males against their wives, daughters or relatives because they did something 'non-muslim', if you then times this by the fact that a large portion of muslim women (especially middle-eastern) cannot speak the local language, and by the institutionalised fear the amout of actual cases will be far higher.

dogma wrote:Head scarves are still illegal (the amendment lifting the ban was annulled), as are veils, but the ban only applies to government buildings, schools, and universities. It is, and was, always sparsely enforced.

I remember that now about government institutions, etc.

Still, while it may be a movement, I doubt it's taken hold in any major way in Istanbul, which has as much European vibe as it does Middle Eastern. But I can ask my friend about it.

filbert wrote:Quite possibly, however claiming that women aren't forced and coerced into wearing Burkas is disingenuous at best.

Disingenuous is a pretty big claim, it'd rely on people having a complete understanding of power relationships in Islamic communities and choosing to claim something that isn't true. I find that very unlikely. It's far more likely they don't know how it works, or know and have a different opinion to you or me.

Either way, the point here is the French law and I can't see how anyone who is genuinely interested in removing the pressure to wear a burka thinks this will do anything other than force women into the home. Instead, I think like the Swiss minaret thing, this has everything to do with being afraid of a group of people and wanting to exert some control over them to release that fear.

Many British (and i presume French) Muslim women are taken to an "uncle" and have their genitals mutilated with a razorblade.

"Female circumcision" apparently sounds nicer, but thats what it is. A disgusting vile practice.

If you think that Muslim women arent going to be forced to do anything because they happen to live in France, im sorry, but you are utterly delluding yourself.

Lets be realistic, are most Muslims like that? No.

But are there plenty of muslims who act like this?

Damn straight.

We get the whole shebang over here, "honour" killings, mutilations, torture, kidnapping, pro-jihad marching. It does occur, and i wouldnt even say its that rare considering there is something in the news every bloody week.

It annoys me that left leaning types whinge and whine about people who are right of centre pointing out the extremes (as they often do) but come on, you cant whine about them and then try to make out that all muslims are peace loving and tolerant.

gak loads of them arent.

Flashman wrote:For me, integration is something that will evolve over time. 1st generation French muslim women may well feel more comfortable with a veil, and it might be handed down to the 2nd generation, but by the 3rd generation they probably start to adopt western habits.

I'm sorry but this is an incredibly naive view and assumes the culture WANTS to integrate. Islam isn't about Integration... it's about Expansion. The hardcore Muslim doesn't want to become French, they want to turn France into an Islamic state.

How many Honor Killings have you heard about where Muslim women are killed for becoming Westernized? Too many, that's how many.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

mattyrm wrote:We get the whole shebang over here, "honour" killings, mutilations, torture, kidnapping, pro-jihad marching. It does occur, and i wouldnt even say its that rare considering there is something in the news every bloody week.

It annoys me that left leaning types whinge and whine about people who are right of centre pointing out the extremes (as they often do) but come on, you cant whine about them and then try to make out that all muslims are peace loving and tolerant.

gak loads of them arent.

Ditto in the US.

I agree entirely with you TGG. They dont WANT to fit in, they WANT to make Europe predominantly Muslim, as commanded by their 1600 year old book of desert fables and song lyrics.

And I assume you've got laws prohibiting murder? Laws against child abuse? etc.? If practices like honor killings and genital mutilation still occur in-spite of existing laws against them what's the point of banning burkhas? Do you expect this to be the final straw that will break their backs? The extremists will move out and the reasonable ones will stay and integrate peacefully? The deeper ills with that portion of Muslim society aren't caused by burkhas, so banning them will do nothing about the practices you so hate in radical Islam. Burkhas are at best a symptom of the problem and banning them will solve nothing. In fact it'll be counter productive as those women who could previously venture out into the streets and see what Western society could offer will now be locked up at home.

mattyrm wrote:I agree entirely with you TGG. They dont WANT to fit in, they WANT to make Europe predominantly Muslim, as commanded by their 1600 year old book of desert fables and song lyrics.

This would be the great Islamic hive mind, would it? The single mind with the single thought to enslave all of Europe? Dude, listen to yourself.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

mattyrm wrote:Many British (and i presume French) Muslim women are taken to an "uncle" and have their genitals mutilated with a razorblade.

And the point is that banning the burka and therefore forcing them into the home improves this situation exactly how?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

The Green Git wrote:I'm sorry but this is an incredibly naive view and assumes the culture WANTS to integrate. Islam isn't about Integration... it's about Expansion. The hardcore Muslim doesn't want to become French, they want to turn France into an Islamic state.

It's a very naive view to think anyone wants to integrate, and an incredibly bizarre idea to apply a human desire to a culture.

Integration happens because individuals see things in the surrounding environment that they want to do, the more they engage with the greater culture of their new home country they more they take on its practices and values. As such, laws that reduce integration with the greater population are crap laws... such as the ban on burkas.

Seb, he said "hardcore" Muslim, not average everyday muslim.

Ive got a "muslim" mate, ie. His parents try to force him to be a muslim but he went to school with us so he you know, drinks, parties, refuses to have an arranged marriage, you know, basically does what hardcore muslims dont do, enjoys his life.

People like that do integrate, people like his parents, dont. And as i was referring to them, i dont see how what i said was incorrect.

Seb, you know from my 500 posts im not a neo-con or a right-wing nut, these fethers DO exist, and you seem to be coming across as too far the other way with regards to your political leanings, as if Islam is actually the answer to all of our problems and the only reason we have an issue with it is because we are all bigtoed zealots.

The point is, sure the neo-con types demonise Islam, but your kicking the arse out of the other direction, i think Islam genuinelly is an extremely negative influence on our society.

Edit- lol, bigoted zealots, not Big-toed zealots.

sebster wrote:
And the point is that banning the burka and therefore forcing them into the home improves this situation exactly how?

I think you've hit the nail here a little bit. You're assuming integration is desired.
I'd posit a big undercurrent in regard to the legislation here is that they want them gone or at least out of the public view.

Frazzled wrote:I think you've hit the nail here a little bit. You're assuming integration is desired.
I'd posit a big undercurrent in regard to the legislation here is that they want them gone or at least out of the public view.

So it's bad that there's female circumcision and spouse abuse and that's why the burka is really wrong, but we won't worry that we're actually exacerbating the problem as long as we don't have to see a reminder that it exists. What a lovely lot we are.

For some really great articles, Google "Dearborn Michigan muslim". It is essentially the Muslim capitol of the US. If you just Google the place you get a lot general city articles and stuff on Henry Ford.

sebster wrote:

Frazzled wrote:I think you've hit the nail here a little bit. You're assuming integration is desired.
I'd posit a big undercurrent in regard to the legislation here is that they want them gone or at least out of the public view.

So it's bad that there's female circumcision and spouse abuse and that's why the burka is really wrong, but we won't worry that we're actually exacerbating the problem as long as we don't have to see a reminder that it exists. What a lovely lot we are.

What do you mean "we" partner?

Are they going to ban catholic iconography too?

Others have articulated why this law is stupid and uneeded better than I ever could.
Man. I really dislike the current French government. A lot.

aka_tizz wrote:Well, i honestly think this thing really passes the boundaries of just burkha.
On the same premise of forbidding the burkha (really unimportant at this point if the Quran asks it or not), as it's a real part of their culture, you could also ban the use of minorities' languages => you could ban the use of Spanish in America, Arabic in France, even practising your own religion as a minority in another country, what's REALLY the difference? it's still a cultural thing, isn't it?

Burkha, traditions, languages are all part of a nation and they have the right to be maintained, unless it's a threat to the safety and security of the others...meaning i agree with the fact that should be able to wear it, unless police asks them to identify

Hope i made myself clear

That is absolutely ridiculous. You are crystal clear, but sadly, I fear, utterly misguided.

To explain why, let me say that if Spanish women were forced to speak only Spanish and not learn English, and remain subservient in the home, yet Spanish men were encouraged to learn English and go out into the world, I would take strong issue with that too. I even suspect it may be possible in the US, and if I heard about a family that sent their son to school, but kept their daghter home and only let her speak Spanish, I'd take equal issue with that.

Languages, traditional dress, yes, fine, they are part of a community's culture, but when an aspect of a culture is forced upon only women, it is not an acceptable thing to do.

It is part of Western culture to bring about equality and liberty, and if we truly believe in equality and liberty for women, we have a duty to support and encourage it for all women, not just those with the same skin colour as us, or born into the same communities as us.

I was going to say, in response to some earlier posts, that no, banning the burka won't directly improve the lives of Muslim women, but that it may be a sign that it is not accepted in Western society, and may aso be helpful as leverage in preventing individual cases of mistreatment by Muslim men. I honestly believe that there may be some benefits in banning the burka as a way of making overall improvements...

But then I read the post below...

sebster wrote:The burka plays a very important role in the dress of Muslim women. Faced with either removing the burka or remaining in the home, it’s likely almost all Muslim women will remain at home. Muslim women are already marginalised by Muslim men and by greater society, and now we’ve given them one more reason to stay separate from the rest of society. In terms of encouraging integration, this new French law is nothing but a big failure.

Now that is a very strong argument indeed, and enough to make me swing towards the idea of not banning the burka. I'd much rather any women be out in public, even in a burka, than shut away indoors because either she or her husband do not want her to be seen. Maybe the burka is the lesser of two evils.

A miracle may have occurred - I believe I have just been swayed by an argument made on an internet forum.

Da Boss wrote:Are they going to ban catholic iconography too?

Others have articulated why this law is stupid and uneeded better than I ever could.
Man. I really dislike the current French government. A lot.

Again, Catholic iconography is not a method of oppressing women. Okay, Catholicism itself is not exactly an equal opportunities faith, but it is not the iconography that does the oppression. Despite me being an atheist who works in a Catholic school, one of the many issues I have with Catholicism is it institutional sexism. I don't see how Catholicism gets to be sexist "because it is traditional" whereas the police force also has a history of sexism, but has to reform... they should both have to.

Fifty wrote:

aka_tizz wrote:Well, i honestly think this thing really passes the boundaries of just burkha.
On the same premise of forbidding the burkha (really unimportant at this point if the Quran asks it or not), as it's a real part of their culture, you could also ban the use of minorities' languages => you could ban the use of Spanish in America, Arabic in France, even practising your own religion as a minority in another country, what's REALLY the difference? it's still a cultural thing, isn't it?

Burkha, traditions, languages are all part of a nation and they have the right to be maintained, unless it's a threat to the safety and security of the others...meaning i agree with the fact that should be able to wear it, unless police asks them to identify

Hope i made myself clear

That is absolutely ridiculous. You are crystal clear, but sadly, I fear, utterly misguided.

To explain why, let me say that if Spanish women were forced to speak only Spanish and not learn English, and remain subservient in the home, yet Spanish men were encouraged to learn English and go out into the world, I would take strong issue with that too. I even suspect it may be possible in the US, and if I heard about a family that sent their son to school, but kept their daghter home and only let her speak Spanish, I'd take equal issue with that.

Languages, traditional dress, yes, fine, they are part of a community's culture, but when an aspect of a culture is forced upon only women, it is not an acceptable thing to do.

It is part of Western culture to bring about equality and liberty, and if we truly believe in equality and liberty for women, we have a duty to support and encourage it for all women, not just those with the same skin colour as us, or born into the same communities as us.

[color=red][b]I was going to say, in response to some earlier posts, that no, banning the burka won't directly improve the lives of Muslim women, but that it may be a sign that it is not accepted in Western society, and may aso be helpful as leverage in preventing individual cases of mistreatment by Muslim men. I honestly believe that there may be some benefits in banning the burka as a way of making overall improvements...

No, it seems i haven't made myself clear. i have NOTHING against burkha or women...i do STRONGLY disagree with it being enforced onto them...as i do enforcing ANYTHING onto women...i would have said exactly the same if men were required to wear it or stay indoors. i'm not sexist and i do believe in equality of sexes (most of it at least)
To go even further, i must say, though i do not fully agree with it, i support banning the burkha (in public spaces => malls, streets, places with monitoring cameras, etc.) FOR THE PURPOSE OF PUBLIC SECURITY. it's exactly the same thing with banning the hoodies or any other means of face-obscuring in this matter
i totally disagree with it being banned JUST BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT WANTS SO.

Oh, and i never said anything about banning the speak of spanish in america FOR WOMEN. i was talking about both sexes

That's an issue where I'm from. Banks ban face masks and ski masks inside due to security reasons but a woman can wear her burkha into a bank to make a transaction.

Policy should be the same everywhere. I realize it's not but it should be the same for everyone. Especially regarding policies involving Federal institutions.

Keeping in mind that the 'ban' is only in place for public institutions, I am having a hard time actually considering this all that unreasonable.

As i stated earlier. Democracy.

Now, we can all (as budding internet warriors) sit here and come up with reasons for and against, but my point remains.

If a large portion of France want it to happen, then surely, it should happen should it not?

People like Shuma can make good convincing arguments, about opression and censorship and fundamental human rights and such, and i agree on some points, disagree on others, but the fact remains, that if the majority of a nation agree with something, then it should happen right? Even if we disagree with it?

Its all well and good harping on about democracy when things go your way, not so good when the other guy wins.

We can argue back and forth about it all we like, but i dare say we dont agree with an alcohol ban for example, and that is the way it is in some places, should they legalize it because a minority wants it to happen?

I hate the labour government, but i have just cracked on voting and getting on with my life. Ive not tried to rally around a recount or some such nonsense. You cant just spit your dummy out when you lose a vote. Thats how it works.

And Dogma's attitude that to me seemed to basically be "I am right even if i am in the minority" holds no water at all.

mattyrm wrote:As i stated earlier. Democracy.

Now, we can all (as budding internet warriors) sit here and come up with reasons for and against, but my point remains.

If a large portion of France want it to happen, then surely, it should happen should it not?

People like Shuma can make good convincing arguments, about opression and censorship and fundamental human rights and such, and i agree on some points, disagree on others, but the fact remains, that if the majority of a nation agree with something, then it should happen right? Even if we disagree with it?

Its all well and good harping on about democracy when things go your way, not so good when the other guy wins.

We can argue back and forth about it all we like, but i dare say we dont agree with an alcohol ban for example, and that is the way it is in some places, should they legalize it because a minority wants it to happen?

I hate the labour government, but i have just cracked on voting and getting on with my life. Ive not tried to rally around a recount or some such nonsense. You cant just spit your dummy out when you lose a vote. Thats how it works.

And Dogma's attitude that to me seemed to basically be "I am right even if i am in the minority" holds no water at all.

Its depends on whether you view government as limited or not.
Not-aka the Obama/far right ban it if it offends me crowd-you are spot on.
Limited government is bestest government-then no thats not how it works. the will of the people as expressed through government fiat may only be applied in certain limited, spelled out circumstances. Everything else remains inviolate and untouched.

Meh, I find myself agreeing with the ban.

For instance, in many UK Banks, there are signs asking Motorcyclists to remove their helmets before entering, as they hide your face. Why not the veil?

The trouble with Democracy is that whilst the minority still need to be looked after, they often seem to forget that the majority still needs to come first. This is where Britain has gone a bit awry over the years, as special interest groups are the most vocal, and thus seem to take up most of the Governments time. I say sod them all.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Meh, I find myself agreeing with the ban.

For instance, in many UK Banks, there are signs asking Motorcyclists to remove their helmets before entering, as they hide your face. Why not the veil?

The trouble with Democracy is that whilst the minority still need to be looked after, they often seem to forget that the majority still needs to come first. This is where Britain has gone a bit awry over the years, as special interest groups are the most vocal, and thus seem to take up most of the Governments time. I say sod them all.

Good points there.

The "needs of the majority"? Come off it. Letting women wear the burka hardly impinges on the majority that much.
Also. If women are being oppressed or beaten by their husbands or uncles or dads, then the solution is to catch them at it, lock them up. Engage in outreach programs. Education programs. Integration programs. Sure, it's harder, it costs more, and it doesn't sound all hard ass and cool like banning stuff outright, but it's fairer and more effective.
If the burka is an expression of unfair oppression on women, then surely criminalising said women is a stupid way to deal with it?
(I'd also be interested to see stats on pay rates between men and women in France. If they're not equal (and they usually aren't) I call foul on them caring about women's rights.)
I'm a lefty socialist scumbag, but I don't think the government should be able to control what I wear, or what anyone else wears. The security risk is so minimal as to be laughable.

Frazzled wrote:

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Meh, I find myself agreeing with the ban.

For instance, in many UK Banks, there are signs asking Motorcyclists to remove their helmets before entering, as they hide your face. Why not the veil?

The trouble with Democracy is that whilst the minority still need to be looked after, they often seem to forget that the majority still needs to come first. This is where Britain has gone a bit awry over the years, as special interest groups are the most vocal, and thus seem to take up most of the Governments time. I say sod them all.

Good points there.

Gee, i wanted to say that myself, just couldn't do it (language problems)
100% submit to it

Da boss wrote:I'm a lefty socialist scumbag, but I don't think the government should be able to control what I wear, or what anyone else wears. The security risk is so minimal as to be laughable.

Is it? then how would you think of 4 men entering a bank (you can't say they're men because they have the burkha on) and start shooting randomly. you can't identify who did it. they get away
Is the security risk still minimal?
And the men could be women too, makes no difference actually. I've seen women like this

Da Boss wrote:The "needs of the majority"? Come off it. Letting women wear the burka hardly impinges on the majority that much.
Also. If women are being oppressed or beaten by their husbands or uncles or dads, then the solution is to catch them at it, lock them up. Engage in outreach programs. Education programs. Integration programs. Sure, it's harder, it costs more, and it doesn't sound all hard ass and cool like banning stuff outright, but it's fairer and more effective.
If the burka is an expression of unfair oppression on women, then surely criminalising said women is a stupid way to deal with it?
(I'd also be interested to see stats on pay rates between men and women in France. If they're not equal (and they usually aren't) I call foul on them caring about women's rights.)
I'm a lefty socialist scumbag, but I don't think the government should be able to control what I wear, or what anyone else wears. The security risk is so minimal as to be laughable.

Minimal it might be, but then take Bluewater, which banned the wearing of Hooded Tops, as people can use them to obscure their faces, making them harder to identify should they kick off. Again, same with the full on Burka. You shouldn't be allowed to hide your face in a public place. For one, it's kind of rude, and if that's not enough, who is under the veil? All too easy to hide anything when all people can see are your eyes.

I'm a lefty beardy weirdy as well, but I still feel lines need to be drawn.

mattyrm wrote:If a large portion of France want it to happen, then surely, it should happen should it not?

People like Shuma can make good convincing arguments, about opression and censorship and fundamental human rights and such, and i agree on some points, disagree on others, but the fact remains, that if the majority of a nation agree with something, then it should happen right? Even if we disagree with it?

I actually disagree with that statement rather strongly.

Just because the majority want something, it does not make it acceptable.

If the majority are voting to increase people's rights or privileges in a certain way, it should generally be a pass, IMO.

If the majority are voting to restrict rights of a minority group, then that should only come into power if there is a very good reason, IMO.

For example, if the majority voted to allow public nudity, or to declassify drugs for personal use, I would say go with it.

But if a majority voted that over-75s should not be allowed out in public, I'd have to ask "why?" and hear good reasons about why it is necessary to do this to protect other people's safety and/or wellbeing...

Of course, I am sure it would be easy to come up with specific examples that go against what I wrote above, but hopefully you can see the general principle.

Fifty, welcome to Democracy, where what the majority says, goes. Even if you personally disagree with it.

mattyrm wrote:
And Dogma's attitude that to me seemed to basically be "I am right even if i am in the minority" holds no water at all.

Democracy doesn't deal in rightness. In fact, no political institution deals in rightness (where right is in conformance with truth). They deal in organization, and motivation; keeping the peace and developing a sense of common direction. I am right (if the issue if of discussing the specific nature of oppression) to the extent to which I can prove that I am right, whether or not people will listen to me is independent of logic.

To put it another way: If 60% of the people in England voted to institute Sharia law, would you be wrong to oppose their decision?

Fifty do you watch South Park? have you seen the episode with the elderly not being allowed to drive? if you didn't : http://www.southparkstudios.com/guide/710

Believe me, it's pretty educative. Funny too

If someone wants to break the law by breaking into a bank and shooting, they can do it even if you ban burkas. I mean, unlicensed firearms are banned, but these get used in crimes all the time. Ban scarves? Ski masks? Motor bike helmets?

Are you THAT afraid of crime? That you would restrict people's freedom to make yourself feel safer, when in fact the difference is tiny?
I don't agree with banning hoodies either. The paranoia about crime is ridiculous.
To me, this all stinks of hypocrisy and closet intolerance.

Frazzled wrote:
Not-aka the Pelosi/far right ban it if it offends me crowd-you are spot on.

Fixed that for you.

Da Boss wrote:If someone wants to break the law by breaking into a bank and shooting, they can do it even if you ban burkas. I mean, unlicensed firearms are banned, but these get used in crimes all the time. Ban scarves? Ski masks? Motor bike helmets?

Are you THAT afraid of crime? That you would restrict people's freedom to make yourself feel safer, when in fact the difference is tiny?
I don't agree with banning hoodies either. The paranoia about crime is ridiculous.
To me, this all stinks of hypocrisy and closet intolerance.

Don't start throwing offences
I didn't say they couldn't enter a bank if weren't wearing burkhas. But if they did and shoot someone in there with burkhas on, how could you possibly identify them? same goes for any other public place, and THAT was my point.
When i go inside a bank and i wear a hat or smth, i take it off. it's not banned, but i do out of respect for the people inside.
And last but not least, i'm not afraid of crime. Believe me, crime is everywhere around me and i can pretty much take care of myself. I'm afraid for the women and kids out there who are the easy targets. And i'm definitely not paranoid

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
Not-aka the Obama/far right ban it if it offends me crowd-you are spot on.

Fixed that for you.

Fixed it back thanks.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Meh, I find myself agreeing with the ban.

For instance, in many UK Banks, there are signs asking Motorcyclists to remove their helmets before entering, as they hide your face. Why not the veil?

The trouble with Democracy is that whilst the minority still need to be looked after, they often seem to forget that the majority still needs to come first. This is where Britain has gone a bit awry over the years, as special interest groups are the most vocal, and thus seem to take up most of the Governments time. I say sod them all.

No truer word said.
We can find money for druggies, but not the blind or elderly

Really? I thought blind and elderly people were entitled to welfare in the UK.
(That was sarcasm)

The social services coundn't afford one person to sit in a room with twenty blind people, while they played bingo (with dominos).
The transport other carers, even the room was free.

But they give druggies free furniture and preferential treatment regards social housing etc

You're right, it would be so much easier for those addicts to get better if they had no furniture, or better yet, were completely homeless!
Screw it, can't take drugs if they're dead, right?

Of course if the blind die no loss eh ?

Lack of bingo is so often fatal.

but then the last blind person I know didn't sell their furniture to buy drugs

Probably couldn't get it to the shop. Being blind and all.

loki old fart wrote:but then the last blind person I know didn't sell their furniture to buy drugs

*Insert generic joke about American Health Care*

Da Boss wrote:Lack of bingo is so often fatal.

Lack of a social life leads to depression.
depressed people then neglect themselves, leading to hospital sometimes death.

WON'T SOMEONE THINK OF THE BLIND DRUGGIES!!!

Wrexasaur wrote:WON'T SOMEONE THINK OF THE BLIND DRUGGIES!!!

HOW about the blind elderly druggies?

What about blind elderly burka wearing druggies!?

Da Boss wrote:What about blind elderly IRISH burka wearing druggies!?

There thats better

Finally some smiles on this heat-debated thread

begorra.

the mother in laws named Mc Laughlin, where do you think she's from

Fun Fact: the Mac or Mc means "son of" in Irish. So Chicken McNuggets are Chicken, Son of Nuggets.

The feminine is Ní (daughter of).
I'd hazard a guess at Dublin for location. Because most irish people are from dublin.

Belfast



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Imho the burka says more about male muslim insecurity, than female.

Frazzled wrote:

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
Not-aka the Obama/far right ban it if it offends me crowd-you are spot on.

Fixed that for you.

Fixed it back thanks.

What has Obama banned because someone didn't like it?

Well, the Burkha/Niqab is by no means central to islamic culture - most practising modern western muslim women wear the hijab or veil. They are still dressed 'modestly, similar in many ways to orthodox Jewish women (who have similar cultural 'rules' to Muslim women, ironically...), but the face is still visible. I don't have a problem with this per se, but the Burkha is a symbol of the most extremist islamic attitudes towards women. It is effectively a mask, and in the west we are distrustful of such things, as they are not traditionally part of our culture, even at the height of female inequality in the UK. To me, it smacks of a lack of respect for OUR values. As far as I'm concerned, feth their values! If a particular community goes to great lengths to ghettoize itself and distance itself from mainstream society, it should not be surprised when the citizens of the host nation don't trust it.
The Burkha is not to be encouraged - but banned? It's a tricky one.

Hear hear Albatross. I might be pretty liberal over all, but I really don't like being asked to respect anothers values when they have no intention of respecting anyone elses.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:I might be pretty liberal over all

That is kinda like saying black is a little dark, isn't it?

Fifty wrote:Now that is a very strong argument indeed, and enough to make me swing towards the idea of not banning the burka. I'd much rather any women be out in public, even in a burka, than shut away indoors because either she or her husband do not want her to be seen. Maybe the burka is the lesser of two evils.

A miracle may have occurred - I believe I have just been swayed by an argument made on an internet forum.

Nice.

I have to admit I saw the red text and my first thought was 'crap, what did I say to get publically modded?'


Automatically Appended Next Post:

mattyrm wrote:As i stated earlier. Democracy.

Now, we can all (as budding internet warriors) sit here and come up with reasons for and against, but my point remains.

If a large portion of France want it to happen, then surely, it should happen should it not?

Well, it is happening, none of us are French so we're not stopping it, so that's all just a bit of a dead end, isn't it?

Whether or not the French are doing this, we can talk about whether its the right thing for the French to do.

And Dogma's attitude that to me seemed to basically be "I am right even if i am in the minority" holds no water at all.

Ghandi said 'Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth.'


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Meh, I find myself agreeing with the ban.

For instance, in many UK Banks, there are signs asking Motorcyclists to remove their helmets before entering, as they hide your face. Why not the veil?

Which would be great, if we were talking about a ban on the burka in banks, but we aren't. If this was a ban on burkas in jewellery stores, pawn shops and banks then the security reason would hold, but this is a blanket ban on burkas in public.

This means you can't go to a shopping mall or to a public park, or to see a movie. You can't go into public life at all. This has nothing to do with security.

The trouble with Democracy is that whilst the minority still need to be looked after, they often seem to forget that the majority still needs to come first. This is where Britain has gone a bit awry over the years, as special interest groups are the most vocal, and thus seem to take up most of the Governments time. I say sod them all.

What majority need is being met by banning the burka?

This is about exerting control over a minority group, plain and simple.

Why such a kerfuffle? France will be the first western European Muslim country soon so it'll be overturned. Just wait to see what happens when France's Muslim majority ban wine and porno...France'll ask the US and UK for help.

I am not sure this has been brought up, but it seems to me that the infusion of immigrants of moslim decent is stiring debate about emigration in Europe. Not unlike Mexicans in my own country are being delt with.

Blokus wrote:I am not sure this has been brought up, but it seems to me that the infusion of immigrants of moslim decent is stiring debate about emigration in Europe. Not unlike Mexicans in my own country are being delt with.

I touched on it a little earlier but it's worth reiterating. I think many people have alluded to it in this thread already, that the proposed ban is not so much about security and more about showing that the French government are keen to enforce 'control' and more importantly, being seen to do so, over the Muslim elements within France, in much the same way that the Swiss have with banning a proposed building of a minaret. This is not necessarily a bad thing, the problem is that jingoism, racism and xenophobia often get bound up in these things and the important message gets lost. I am all for civil and rational debate; I would hope that this proposed ban fosters the kind of frank and honest debate over immigration and integration that has thus far been dodged in the UK (and other European countries to a lesser degree) rather than have the whole issue come to a crisis point, which we have seen before in the UK with race riots in Bradford and the North. These riots are prompted largely by mistrust and concern over immigration.

sebster wrote:Which would be great, if we were talking about a ban on the burka in banks, but we aren't. If this was a ban on burkas in jewellery stores, pawn shops and banks then the security reason would hold, but this is a blanket ban on burkas in public.

This means you can't go to a shopping mall or to a public park, or to see a movie. You can't go into public life at all. This has nothing to do with security.

Sorry mate, but you appear to be wrong about that. I thought it was actually pretty clear what was intended, though there is obvious room for interpretation.

http://news.uk.msn.com/world/articles.aspx?cp-documentid=151891504

France has backed a partial ban on the wearing of Muslim veils in public.
(This seems to be the hinge of misunderstanding, it would appear that the article is actually poorly written. I wouldn't be surprised if the proof-reader fethed the pooch on this one.)

A parliamentary inquiry recommended they be made illegal in all places of public services, including public transport.

But there is no call to outlaw them in private areas and in the street. The 32-member, multi-party panel heeded warnings that a full ban risked being deemed unconstitutional and could even cause trouble in a country where Islam is the second-largest religion.

The language in the report is carefully chosen in an effort to avoid offending France's estimated five million Muslims -- the largest population in western Europe - and accusations of discrimination.

I need to try and find the actual report, because this article is severely lacking in actual detail. It would be wrong if it did actually cover something like a public park, but I have doubts about that assertion. The only 'real words' we have to work with here, are, 'public services, including public transport'. I am going to assume for now, that it entails things such as hospitals, police stations, schools, etc... not things like parks and shopping malls.

I believe I'm the first French guy to post in this topic, so I'll try to give you the perspective of an insider. Plus I've read plenty of nonsense and misunderstandings, so I'll try to correct them a little bit.

First and foremost: the proposed ban is NOT on head scarf but on Niqab / Burqa, the full veil you see women wearing outside in Saudi Arabia, Iran of Afghanistan.

To understand the topic, one need to know and understand the concept of laicity. This is a very French idea, in many ways alien from the UK and US mindsets from my experience as an expat in both countries. Laicity means total separation between the State and the Church (whatever it is), so that the State doesn't seem to endorse or place a higher value on a specific religion other another. A few examples of what laicity entails: - no "In God we Trust" on bank notes, because it means the State, which has exclusive right of issuing money, believes in "God" and not in Allah, Yahveh, Vishnou, Odin, etc. (add any deity/shamanic spirit here)
- no swearing on the Bible of the newly elected President, as it means a specific god and religion grnats the president its authority, while the authority comes from the people's election
- no visible religious symbol in schools operated by the State, as it would mean the State endorses a specific religion.

This concept of laicity dates back to the French Revolution (you know, the end of the 18th Century, when French people beheaded their king) and was the core ideal of the French Republic throughout its long and troubled history during the 19th Century. I won't make a history lesson here, suffice to say that Royalists were backed by Church officials when stating the king should be head of State by divine right, while Republicans where fierce opponents of the Church, and the most radical Republicans were labelled "Clergymen-eaters" back then. To summarize, laicity is one of the core concepts of the French Republic, and one of its assumptions is that religion being a private affair, it should not be publicized widely. While discreet visible signs such as a cross, a hand of Fatima necklace, or a head scarf are perfectly acceptable, a very visible sign is sometimes considered offensive.

This etiquette is one of the cultural specificities of France, kind of similar to one's own space in the US. As such, it is not expressed clearly as much as it is assumed to be known and understood. This is the natural link to the false equation immigrants = muslims that most people make. Because it is not the norm in France, the Burqa or Niqab is seen as a blatant statement that female are discriminated upon and considered inferiors (I don't say there is no actual discrimination against women in France, the salary gap and job glass ceiling are sufficient proofs of the contrary). Openly and publicly saying you are an atheist and that the very idea of a god is BS is considered rude and offensive in the US, you can somehow draw a parallel with the Burqa in France.

This topic, of course, is then heralded by politicians for political reasons, of course, but the root cause of the problem is cultural.

Disclaimer: I am not stating any position on the Burqa or Niqab nor am I saying that the concept of laicity and its implications are right or wrong. I am only presenting key facts that the discussion hasn't touched on so far.

Thanks Hasdrubal. Very enlightening.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Meh, I find myself agreeing with the ban.

For instance, in many UK Banks, there are signs asking Motorcyclists to remove their helmets before entering, as they hide your face. Why not the veil?

The trouble with Democracy is that whilst the minority still need to be looked after, they often seem to forget that the majority still needs to come first. This is where Britain has gone a bit awry over the years, as special interest groups are the most vocal, and thus seem to take up most of the Governments time. I say sod them all.

The majority only needs come first when there is a genuine issue with what the minority want to do.

E.g. Paedophiles.

This is a case where the majority want to impose their idea of public dress code on a very small minority for no very good reason.

Such a large number of excuses is given that it makes it look like no-one has considered the full outcomes. It really looks like it is being done as a populist, discriminatory move as part of the general rising tide of conservatism in Europe. (The exact same thing as the Swiss Minarets.)

If we want to support Islamic women in their struggle for emancipation, there are better ways of doing it.

Kilkrazy wrote:

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Meh, I find myself agreeing with the ban.

For instance, in many UK Banks, there are signs asking Motorcyclists to remove their helmets before entering, as they hide your face. Why not the veil?

The trouble with Democracy is that whilst the minority still need to be looked after, they often seem to forget that the majority still needs to come first. This is where Britain has gone a bit awry over the years, as special interest groups are the most vocal, and thus seem to take up most of the Governments time. I say sod them all.

The majority only needs come first when there is a genuine issue with what the minority want to do.

I'd proffer, to France, this is a genuine issue.

..if by "France" you mean "under pressure leaders looking for a cheap popularity boost and distraction from other issues" then you'd be correct.



http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jan/28/france-national-identity-muslim

reds8n wrote:..if by "France" you mean "under pressure leaders looking for a cheap popularity boost and distraction from other issues" then you'd be correct.

By France I mean whoever is backing the ban in France. I'm too lazy to look to see if this is even law at this point.

Hmm.. okay.. you don't think this might be a cheap attempt to, perhaps, distract voters from events and scandals like this one especially when there's elections in March and the curent govt. is pretty much dependent upon holding onto the far right voters -- really far right, Le pen's moro..err.. followers -- to secure the votes they'll need.

..really ?

reds8n wrote: Hmm.. okay.. you don't think this might be a cheap attempt to, perhaps, distract voters from events and scandals like this one especially when there's elections in March and the curent govt. is pretty much dependent upon holding onto the far right voters -- really far right, Le pen's moro..err.. followers -- to secure the votes they'll need.

..really ?

Talking to me?

Of course i do. Everything a politician does is a cheap attempt to distract from events and scandals. Thats like, Job One!

OT but Ford made their first anual profit in 4 years. yea Ford.

Sarkozy is one world leader I would thoroughly enjoy punching in the face. I'd like to see himself and Merkel in a cage match.

Frazzled wrote:

OT but Ford made their first anual profit in 4 years. yea Ford.

Hooray for Obama then eh ? !

yea then his hawt model wife would kick your Irish keister Custer!



Never mess with a French chick. They are only two steps away from a Mexican chick.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

reds8n wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

OT but Ford made their first anual profit in 4 years. yea Ford.

Hooray for Obama then eh ? !

Ford was the only one that DIDN'T take bailout money. . .

Good for Ford. I'd have to hoof it after hitting him, it's true. Yer wan looks like she has a mean streak.

Mmm, Mexican chicks.

Aye, you see through the smoke screen for the truth of it Tyyr.

That's why I'm a big fan of immigration, more foreign chicks.

Tyyr wrote:That's why I'm a big fan of immigration, more foreign chicks.

Our strength is our diversity!

Always been a much bigger fan of diversity than assimilation. Nothing wrong with white girls but a man likes some diversity.

Frazzled wrote:

Tyyr wrote:That's why I'm a big fan of immigration, more foreign chicks.

Our strength is our diversity!

Sure, keep the men out, let only the women in. I can TOTALLY agree with that

Frazzled wrote:yea then his hawt model wife would kick your Irish keister Custer!



Never mess with a French chick. They are only two steps away from a Mexican chick.

She's Italian.

Kilkrazy wrote:

Frazzled wrote:yea then his hawt model wife would kick your Irish keister Custer!



Never mess with a French chick. They are only two steps away from a Mexican chick.

She's Italian.

Thats doubly dangerous. Thats only one step removed from a Mexican lass. Plus she's probably really good with a stiletto or failing that, meat cleaver.

I cant believe this thread is still going and my gay thread got locked, it was just about to get interesting as i had just admitted i would be willing to spank a man off for a large sum of money!

On topic... Id rather be wearing a Burkha whilst carrying out my paid work!

France has had problems for some time

Media accounts of the riots that spread across France in the fall of 2005 lay the blame squarely on a racist society that has marginalized the children and grandchildren of North African immigrants.

The violence flared again two years later in neighbourhoods outside Paris, following the deaths of two teens who were killed in a crash with a police patrol car in November 2007.

While there is no denying that racism is a factor in these incidents, we need to dig deeper if we are to understand the violence, immigration experts believe.

"There are many other factors involved," Jeffrey Reitz, a University of Toronto sociology professor who studies ethnicity and immigration, told CBC News Online in the wake of the 2005 riots. "It's not the immigrants, but their children, who are a very different group of people."

Reitz said that, in general, when immigrants compare their situation in their adopted country to the life they left behind, they usually find things are better, even if they are discriminated against. And if things don't improve, they often have the option of returning home.

"The second generation can't go back as easily and have been told in school they should be treated equally. When it doesn't happen, there's disappointment," Reitz said.

Canada's ambassador to France, Claude Laverdure, agreed. "There's a deep frustration of being seen as immigrants for young people who were born in France," Laverdure told CBC Newsworld two years ago.

Bloodshed in the suburbs

And so conditions were ripe for violence in France's immigrant suburbs when two teenagers of African origin were accidentally electrocuted in October 2005 while hiding from police. Police said they weren't chasing the teens, but anger erupted into chaos in several Paris suburbs heavily populated by immigrants and their children.

The trouble later spread to other regions throughout the country and the riots quickly deteriorated into France's worst civil unrest in decades, claiming at least one life. The violence ebbed and the headlines stopped, but the tensions beneath French society continue to simmer. On a normal night in 2007, police estimate about 100 cars are set ablaze across France.

Then, in November 2007, two teens were killed in a crash with a police patrol car in the Paris suburb of Villiers-le-Bel.

Youth took to the streets, throwing Molotov cocktails, setting police barricades on fire and, in a disturbing escalation of the violence, injuring dozens of police officers with gunfire.

So the 2nd generation can have issues if everything isn't roses? Thats a pathetic joke and a copout. You don't see massive riots daily in the US and Canada by 2nd generation immigrants (ok maybe after a game of Basketball or Hockey...).

Maybe if they went cossack on the rioters it would stop?

I like this the best:

On a normal night in 2007, police estimate about 100 cars are set ablaze across France.

Thousands of people would be dead here, as the turkeys were shot by car owners, thus solving the problem. You don't feth with a man's car.

The second generation muslims feel discriminated against.

The average white french person feels intimidated by muslim youths rioting.

Poor comunication is the root cause of the problem

I'm not entirely sure that the riots in France were really down to race relations and not more because of external circumstances. There was a lot of ill feeling amongst the youth because of the death of the two youngsters and this was hyped and increased by anti-establishment groups and general disaffection.

I'm not trying to claim that France doesn't have deep lying race divisions, just that the riots were more an outburst of anti authority feeling over the deaths of those two kids rather than anything race specific. Greece saw something similar recently when a teenager was killed (accidentally I believe) by police and it sparked a wave of riots.

loki old fart wrote:The second generation muslims feel discriminated against.

The average white french person feels intimidated by muslim youths rioting.

Poor comunication is the root cause of the problem

Sorry I don't see where communication is the problem here.

Frazzled wrote:So the 2nd generation can have issues if everything isn't roses? Thats a pathetic joke and a copout. You don't see massive riots daily in the US and Canada by 2nd generation immigrants (ok maybe after a game of Basketball or Hockey...).

Maybe if they went cossack on the rioters it would stop?

I like this the best:

On a normal night in 2007, police estimate about 100 cars are set ablaze across France.

Thousands of people would be dead here, as the turkeys were shot by car owners, thus solving the problem. You don't feth with a man's car.

The problem in France (and Britain too) is that the second generation have noticed there are lots less jobs for people who made the mistake of not being born with white skin.

US car production would be greatly improved if about 100 cars got set alight on a normal night.

Kilkrazy wrote:

The problem in France (and Britain too) is that the second generation have noticed there are lots less jobs for people who made the mistake of not being born with white skin.

US car production would be greatly improved if about 100 cars got set alight on a normal night.

There's not a lot of jobs if your white either

Probably really suck if you're plaid.

aka_tizz wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Tyyr wrote:That's why I'm a big fan of immigration, more foreign chicks.

Our strength is our diversity!

Sure, keep the men out, let only the women in. I can TOTALLY agree with that

You had me at 'hello'.

Wrexasaur wrote:Sorry mate, but you appear to be wrong about that. I thought it was actually pretty clear what was intended, though there is obvious room for interpretation.

http://news.uk.msn.com/world/articles.aspx?cp-documentid=151891504

Ah, fair enough. Thanks for the correction, I was wrong to assume it was a complete ban.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Hasdrubal wrote:This topic, of course, is then heralded by politicians for political reasons, of course, but the root cause of the problem is cultural.

Disclaimer: I am not stating any position on the Burqa or Niqab nor am I saying that the concept of laicity and its implications are right or wrong. I am only presenting key facts that the discussion hasn't touched on so far.

Thanks for that, I've had the laicity explained to me before but never as clearly as you put it across. Cheers.

I'm left wondering how it relates to the idea of banning the burka in train stations but not in parks, though. Surely it is as offensive in one as it is in the other?

sebster wrote:
I'm left wondering how it relates to the idea of banning the burka in train stations but not in parks, though. Surely it is as offensive in one as it is in the other?

It is; however, in a faux-security context, the guise under which this ban is being introduced, a train station is more of a security threat and logical target for terrorists dressed in burkas. If France flat out banned burkas everywhere then they would leave themselves wide open to accusations of racism (more so than they are if the ban is done as a matter of 'security').

Frazzled wrote:So the 2nd generation can have issues if everything isn't roses? Thats a pathetic joke and a copout. You don't see massive riots daily in the US and Canada by 2nd generation immigrants (ok maybe after a game of Basketball or Hockey...).

The experience of being a Muslim in France is quite different to being an immigrant elsewhere. In addition to the racism Government policy put large numbers of refugees in the same areas and didn't do much to help them get jobs. The result was ghettos with high unemployment, which in turn led to resentment.

Empchild wrote:Shuma do you ever actually convey a real point or just banter people? I am curious you now goback on my ignore list until you can be a legitimate part of the conversation.

he gets free ride for his trolling.

But certain people have always gotten a free pass around here.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sebster wrote:

Frazzled wrote:So the 2nd generation can have issues if everything isn't roses? Thats a pathetic joke and a copout. You don't see massive riots daily in the US and Canada by 2nd generation immigrants (ok maybe after a game of Basketball or Hockey...).

The experience of being a Muslim in France is quite different to being an immigrant elsewhere. In addition to the racism Government policy put large numbers of refugees in the same areas and didn't do much to help them get jobs. The result was ghettos with high unemployment, which in turn led to resentment.

the minor fact that those people have made no attempt in integrate themselves into French society and have instead rioted and howled when France doesn't become the dark age cesspool that they want has -nothing- to do with it right? If they want "home" so bad, they should have stayed home.

Good point. You don't go in a foreign country and demand to be treated as a citizen of that country, especially if you demand it via sticks and stones

Emperors Faithful wrote:

aka_tizz wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Tyyr wrote:That's why I'm a big fan of immigration, more foreign chicks.

Our strength is our diversity!

Sure, keep the men out, let only the women in. I can TOTALLY agree with that

You had me at 'hello'.

This is an immigration policy I can get behind.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sebster wrote:

Frazzled wrote:So the 2nd generation can have issues if everything isn't roses? Thats a pathetic joke and a copout. You don't see massive riots daily in the US and Canada by 2nd generation immigrants (ok maybe after a game of Basketball or Hockey...).

The experience of being a Muslim in France is quite different to being an immigrant elsewhere. In addition to the racism Government policy put large numbers of refugees in the same areas and didn't do much to help them get jobs. The result was ghettos with high unemployment, which in turn led to resentment.

Translation-US policy through the early 20s. My point still stands.

Frazzled wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:

aka_tizz wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Tyyr wrote:That's why I'm a big fan of immigration, more foreign chicks.

Our strength is our diversity!

Sure, keep the men out, let only the women in. I can TOTALLY agree with that

You had me at 'hello'.

This is an immigration policy I can get behind.

All we need to do is get some club bouncers and station them at all the border crossings, ports, and airports. I think we need to move on this idea, now. I'm calling my congressmen.

Tyyr wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:

aka_tizz wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Tyyr wrote:That's why I'm a big fan of immigration, more foreign chicks.

Our strength is our diversity!

Sure, keep the men out, let only the women in. I can TOTALLY agree with that

You had me at 'hello'.

This is an immigration policy I can get behind.

All we need to do is get some club bouncers and station them at all the border crossings, ports, and airports. I think we need to move on this idea, now. I'm calling my congressmen.

i will gladly increase the national debt in support of this idea. She Who Must Be Obeyed may have a lesser opinion of the idea.

Tyyr wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:

aka_tizz wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Tyyr wrote:That's why I'm a big fan of immigration, more foreign chicks.

Our strength is our diversity!

Sure, keep the men out, let only the women in. I can TOTALLY agree with that

You had me at 'hello'.

This is an immigration policy I can get behind.

All we need to do is get some club bouncers and station them at all the border crossings, ports, and airports. I think we need to move on this idea, now. I'm calling my congressmen.

You need to inform them to let me in. I wouldn't like to be left out upon landing on JFK/LAX/w/e airport I'd land on. Especially after some 18 hours flight

You've got a 50/50 chance.

I'll sit and cry if i'm not allowed to enter. Hell, after all it was my idea.
Oh, and i promise to bring 5 girls. 90/60/90 and totally AWESOME!!!

The girls are fine, your whiny crying ass will probably be shot.

Ok, i plus with 5 bottles of Jack. And the promise to make it the best party EVER!!!

aka_tizz wrote:Good point. You don't go in a foreign country and demand to be treated as a citizen of that country, especially if you demand it via sticks and stones

What about if you were born there and you are a citizen?

Kilkrazy wrote:

aka_tizz wrote:Good point. You don't go in a foreign country and demand to be treated as a citizen of that country, especially if you demand it via sticks and stones

What about if you were born there and you are a citizen?

then you do time honored Amurican tradition and sue the bas rds?

1 lawyer is worth 100 burned cars. Plus they have an aversion to sunlight, thus keeping the streets clear, but I digress...

Frazzled wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:

aka_tizz wrote:Good point. You don't go in a foreign country and demand to be treated as a citizen of that country, especially if you demand it via sticks and stones

What about if you were born there and you are a citizen?

then you do time honored Amurican tradition and sue the bas rds?

Yep, and you even have a very reasonable chance of winning

Update: it definitely wouldn't be more stupid than this
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20827350/
I think actually nothing is

God refused to comment on the action other than to state the claim had no merit and that the claimant just expired after mysteriously being eaten by manbearpig. Reports are that Al Gore was at this moment flying to this latest sighting.

dude, i've actually seen last night imaginationland when Al Gore supports the army's decision to nuke Imaginationland and to finish with manbearpig once and for all. And he was serial too!

On the other hand, i've just had the best fething idea EVER!!!
I could sue God for making me be born in a crappy country, with a crappy economy, and some crappy people. Win and make the church pay me 1 million euros, as it's God's legal representative here on Earth. I'm getting fething rich!!!

Howlingmoon wrote:the minor fact that those people have made no attempt in integrate themselves into French society and have instead rioted and howled when France doesn't become the dark age cesspool that they want has -nothing- to do with it right? If they want "home" so bad, they should have stayed home.

To the extent that an entire religion drawn from dozens of countries all came with the same mission of insidious conversion, that's a telling point. To the extent that's it the fantasy of talkback radio callers, it's less convincing.

You can recognise that your home country isn't great and you want out without rejecting the entirety of your culture. You can in fact, leave China because of the corruption and lack of democracy, and still cook Chinese food.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

filbert wrote:It is; however, in a faux-security context, the guise under which this ban is being introduced, a train station is more of a security threat and logical target for terrorists dressed in burkas. If France flat out banned burkas everywhere then they would leave themselves wide open to accusations of racism (more so than they are if the ban is done as a matter of 'security').

That pretty much explains it, I think.

Banning burkhas is discrimination because it specifically targets an item of clothing belonging to a particular racial/religious group, when there are other items of clothing which have the same disguising effect, which are not banned.

It would be fair to ban the wearing of all full face or head covering apparel, including motorcycle helmets, big scarfs balaclava helmets, burkhas and Komuso basket hats, in places where security is an issue.

Most banks in the UK do not allow people in wearing motorcycle helmets.

Now as the muslim here i will weight in...

The Viel, or Hijab, in arabic, is in a sense, like the Jewish Skull cap. Its a symbol of humility toward God, God asks you to cover yourself, not to the extreme that they do, but just don't show your tits, and cover your hair. Not taht bad. In the end, you can't force a woman to wear it. Personaly i think the face mask is a bit too much, but they have a right to wear what they want. Freedom of speech is something that we should all have, and The french gov't is a hypocrocy for doing that.

EDIT: Plus, in the end, these women wnat to wear it. It is their right to express their religiopus beliefs, like my mom wears the Hijab, and they should have it. If the french don't like it because its different, then the gov't is slowed.

I would agree with both Kilkrazy and isthatmycow (WTF? ).

Saying that the mask is a sign of oppresion is a gross over-simplification, and only idiots would take it as that and only that.

@EF - Except that isthatmycow was talking about the Hijab, not the Niqab - but I'm sure you know the difference.


/sarcasm

I reallu wouldn't know the first thing about it. But having lived in the middle east for nearly half my life, I can tell you that both (I think...) are cultural in nature. What that says about thier culture is debatable.

On a less serious note:

I went to school with an Iranian girl. Freshman year she would not allow herself to be seen by men without her head covered. Senior year she was going skinny dipping. Best looking girl I've ever seen.

isthatmycow wrote:Now as the muslim here i will weight in...

The Viel, or Hijab, in arabic, is in a sense, like the Jewish Skull cap. Its a symbol of humility toward God, God asks you to cover yourself, not to the extreme that they do, but just don't show your tits, and cover your hair. Not taht bad. In the end, you can't force a woman to wear it. Personaly i think the face mask is a bit too much, but they have a right to wear what they want. Freedom of speech is something that we should all have, and The french gov't is a hypocrocy for doing that.

EDIT: Plus, in the end, these women wnat to wear it. It is their right to express their religiopus beliefs, like my mom wears the Hijab, and they should have it. If the french don't like it because its different, then the gov't is slowed.

This is very true but I think the French government arent targeting 'moderate' Muslims; it's the 'hardcore' that they are seeking to influence. I dont think any right minded person has a problem with allowing people to wear what they want. It's not the women who chose to wear the veil or head scarf that are the issue; it's getting to the root of the enclaves that force and coerce women to wear the full coverings and beat them if they refuse - that sort of thing should not be present in any so-called democracy. And actually, I think this is kind of a secular argument anyway; if it was a sect of Christianity that beat women up and forced them to cover themselves head to toe and we proposed banning that, would everyone be up in arms? It's only because there is so much friction between Western culture and Islam that the cracks are showing.

The friction is increased by this sort of blatant racial discrimination.

Kilkrazy wrote:The friction is increased by this sort of blatant racial discrimination.

On both sides.

Bah you beat me to it Ahtman! I was going to comment along the same lines; is all too easy to portray Western culture and society as being evil and intolerant and to complain that we don't make the effort to understand Islam, but I would humbly suggest there needs to be an effort on both parts; an effort to welcome and an effort to integrate. Unfortunately, in the UK and many other countries, there seems to be one sided effort, or at least the perception of it, that Muslims want to integrate us and not the other way round.

The burka embraces all skin colors.

Being indoctrinated by the military i freely admit to having a sort of, irrational dislike for Islam, i even read jihadwatch.org, and im well aware it is hideously bias.

The odd thing is, i am intelligent enough to know that it is programming by a government that wanted me to have no hesitation when it came to killing our nations percieved enemies, and yet i dont really seem to mind so much.

I genuinelly believe that Islam is the greatest threat to peace and stability in the world at this moment, and it is the most aggressive and inately misogynistic religion practiced today.

I think the world would be a far far better place without it, i think that its vile combination of aggresive censorship, even to the point of murder (remember Theo) and self promotion are truly disgusting, and i openly appluaud any strong measures that governments take to combat it.

You're painting with a very broad brush there, mattyrm.

If you modify your statements to "Extreme Islam" I think it is nearer the truth.

Careful matty, you will get people crying that not all Islamics are evil.

I really have no problem with other people from other countries wearing, in private and to some extent in public, particular articles of clothing if they are allowed BUT if a particular establishment has banned clothing for things such as security reasons than EVERYONE who enters those places should have to obey.

People are quick to spew "it's discriminatory to make a woman lower her veil when she enters a bank." It's discriminatory to make me take off my motorcycle helmet when I walk into a bank. If I want to walk around wearing a motorcycle helmet on my head that is my right. The fact that I must take it off when I enter a bank is discriminatory. It violates my rights to freedom of expression.

Not to mention if you are a foreigner of any type you should be expected to have to obey the same laws natural born citizens have to obey. Don't like the fact you have to show your face if you are a Muslim woman while you are in one of OUR Federal buildings than either go back to the country you came from or don't do anything requiring a bank (in other words get any paycheck for working deposited directly, bank online, don't have a checking account or debit card) or having to enter any other Federal building such as a courthouse or the DMV or the SSA building.

It's really so simple.

As i said Krazy, im aware that it sounds terrible to make such a polarizing statement, but 4 tours of Iraq/Afghanistan do funny things to your mind.

My rational mind screams at me to turn away from such broadbrush statements, but i just feel like there is a genuine effort being made by governments to cover up the issue.

I honestly believe that there are far more aggresive muslims in Europe than we have been made to believe. I dont think that it is better than we think, i think it is alot worse.

I tend to not really think there is such a thing as a real "moderate" muslim. They havent been really vocal about renouncing the extremist ones have they?

They have never really truly united as a people and absolutely put the issue to bed 100% and said "we utterly renounce any and all terrorist actions.

It seems to me that the majority of muslims are either very insular or very aggressive. At best you seem to get disinterest and veiled apologies that dont really sound very genuine, and at worst you get people willing to kill for their beliefs.

I stand by my statement, i do think that as a whole, that religion is a negative influence on Western Society, and on topic, women wearing big black ninja suits have no place in any society that claims women have identical status to men.

Hey matty, the US and UK have something in common. The liberals and humanitarians over in this country say the same thing, that "Muslims aren't a problem over here. That they are discriminated against unfairly and that they are a peaceful people."

It might only be extremists but with any religion or viewpoint it's on the shoulders of the Muslims who AREN'T extremists to belay the fears of people who don't "get" Islam or who just see the bad these men and women do. The problem is that the ones who aren't terrorists are so outspoken and "extreme" about shoving their viewpoints into peoples faces that not all Muslims are violent, evil people that they look as fanatical and overzealous as the ones blowing gak up. That kind of leaves my view of them soured. Extremist nut that blows stuff up or a Muslim doppleganger of Jesse Jackson? Neither one paints a very good picture of the people they are representing.

@mattyrm

My father still hates Arabs from when he was stationed over there in the 50s, so you are not alone.

@Fateweaver, are you saying that all Islamic people are, or appear to be violent and evil? That's what you seem to be saying.

Fateweaver wrote:
It might only be extremists but with any religion or viewpoint it's on the shoulders of the Muslims who AREN'T extremists to belay the fears of people who don't "get" Islam or who just see the bad these men and women do.

That's completely incorrect, and one of the most ignorant things you've ever said. There is no requirement for people of a given religion to defend their faith from people who want to simplify their lives by lumping people into a single, emotive category. The onus is on you to separate those people who are violent from those who aren't, its really quite simple.

I think i get what FW is saying mate, he is basically agreeing with me when i say that i think that the Muslims who ARENT extemists just dont do a very good job of making us feel warmer towards them, and thats my point, they are not integrating, and this is what is causing the tensions.

I have to say, it is a diffcult thing to classify someone, as following a religion doesnt make you look any different. I say this because i have a good muslim friend, but he in my eyes, isnt actually a muslim.

Basically his parents are, and if he fills in a census form, he would put "Muslim" but he drinks, he smokes, he supports Middlesbrough football club, he doesnt go to any religious meetings or mosques, and he spurned the idea of an arranged marriage and has a white non muslim girlfriend and as a result is a black sheep of sorts to his family.

These "muslims" are fine, but in my eyes, he isnt a muslim.

Proper practicing muslims, who regularly attend mosques and pray 5 times a day, and the ones i am referring too. They really do not properly condemn the extremists in my eyes, and i do think that my polarizing statement is essentially correct.

I think we are in a far worse state than we realise, and they are not integrating successfully at all.

By 'integrating' do you mean 'dressing, acting, and behaving exactly like Westerners'? Because that's what it seems like you mean.

No Dogma, i think i mean mixing with and socialising with and such. I think that kind of thing is very important for a nice stable society, i had an Indian friend when i was at school, and i used to go to his house for tea, have sleep overs, gak like that. His family were very traitional, but they were very nice and his mother became very close friends with mine.

It seems to me that the majority of Muslims in the UK (proper ones, not plaggy muslims like my mate as described above) are very insular, you know, few or no white friends, dont speak much English, dont mix at all with the natives and such. And it is this which causes the issues, people fear them in some way because they dont get the chance to really get to know any of them so they demonise them in their minds.

They think they know them because of what they read in the press, and thats not knowing.

As i stated above as well, i am aware i have a bias regarding this issue, i have a deep rooted distrust of Islam as a whole, and i concede i am not the best man to talk with on this issue because i have an inclination to be less patient than i really should be!

dogma wrote:

Fateweaver wrote:
It might only be extremists but with any religion or viewpoint it's on the shoulders of the Muslims who AREN'T extremists to belay the fears of people who don't "get" Islam or who just see the bad these men and women do.

The onus is on you to separate those people who are violent from those who aren't, its really quite simple.

I remember 911 recovering a car from shelton (our local muslim area). Those non extremist muslims were handing sweets out in the street to celebrate, the planes hitting the towers. Bet that wasn't on the news.

That's dangerously close to hate speech, which is illegal in the UK.

I'm closing this thread now.