Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

nkelsch wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:


I don't know why you're projecting some kind of racism stereotype onto me, but it's a little bit ridiculous. I have no problem with "brown people." Islam isn't a race, it's a religion, and if I (or many of the other posters in this thread) had a problem with "brown peoples' religions" then we would be railing against Hinduism as well. I don't criticize Islam because it's heavily practiced by "brown people," but rather because it is inherently intolerant in a way that often manifests itself in acts of savagery.

So let's take stock - you've played the Holocaust card, and now you're calling me a racist. What's next?

When the shoe fits...

And you do realize that most of the 'intolerance' was instituted by imperialist powers radicalizing local cultures and religions to fight proxy wars with other imperialist powers for control of the territory.

If you deem all of Islam intolerant and savage due to the actions of a fringe few, then there is no other position to take than to also say all of Christianity and Judaism is intolerant and savage due to a fringe corruption of those faiths in the past and today. That is why it is a bigoted position to take the 'all of Islam is barbaric and bad' position as that argument has been made against most cultures and religions at one time to justify barbaric recourse against them by the 'civilized' peoples.

Proof that it's a fringe few? Because the fact that it's happening in pretty much every country on the face of the earth suggests that it's nowhere near a "fringe few" who hold these intolerant beliefs...

I think you're just posting wishful thinking. Well...wishful thinking and insulting accusations of Nazism and racism.

Your justifications are truly slowed. Islamic extremism is the fault of the West? Wow...heaven forbid you hold people responsible for their actions.

Proof that it's a fringe few? Because the fact that it's happening in pretty much every country on the face of the earth suggests that it's nowhere near a "fringe few" who hold these intolerant beliefs...

Prove that it's happening in "nearly every country in the world?"

Albania, Turkey, Jordan; truly, unstable hellholes where Christians and Jews are slaughtered daily!

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:


Proof that it's a fringe few? Because the fact that it's happening in pretty much every country on the face of the earth suggests that it's nowhere near a "fringe few" who hold these intolerant beliefs...

I think you're just posting wishful thinking. Well...wishful thinking and insulting accusations of Nazism and racism.

Your justifications are truly slowed. Islamic extremism is the fault of the West? Wow...heaven forbid you hold people responsible for their actions.

Ok, then by your argument... the true solution is to ban the practicing of Islam by force for the betterment and security of society. Banning Burkas does nothing to actually stop the practicing of Islam nor does it provide actual security for the citizens, so if your 'truths' of Islam is inherently violent, oppressive and barbaric, then why dance around the issue by bending over backwards to defend an ineffective and pointless 'burka ban' in the name of protecting women and security for the population when it clearly accomplishes neither?

Sounds like in your view, the correct view starts with criminalizing of practicing Islam and removing it from 'civilized' society?

If you want to call a spade a spade, then stand by your convictions. The Burka ban accomplishes none of the 'lofty ideals' promoted by people in thread in regards to human rights or security. It is a proxy battle to slowly go from stigmatizing something to documenting it and then criminalizing it in order to have the will to purge criminal activity from society. If the true problem is Islam, why not tackle the core issue and stand by your beliefs?

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
The Zionists in the British Mandate were carrying out terrorist attacks, absolutely. That was also 60 years ago. There are also exacerbating circumstances (i.e., a broken promise by the British to provide a home for the Jewish people in the Mandate that dates back to WWI). A nationalist struggle like this is nothing like the endemic terrorism practiced by Islam. You can count the number of terror attacks committed by Jews worldwide in the past 20 years on one hand. We couldn't count the number of terrorist attacks committed worldwide by Muslims in the past single year if we had 100 of their victims' hands laid out in front of us.

This is the kind of Jewish exceptionalism anti-Semites thrive on. I'm sure Muslim terrorists have a lot to say about exacerbating circumstances and nationalism, too. Either terrorism by extremists justifies prejudices applied generally or it doesn't. To me, it does not.

I appreciate skepticism regarding the willingness of some Muslims to sincerely participate in Western societies. Again, some Muslim attitudes (including among Muslims currently living in the US and Europe) about female chastity seem totally incommensurate with women being free and equal participants in society. But the same could be said for some Jews and some Christians living currently living in the US and Europe.

nkelsch wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:


Proof that it's a fringe few? Because the fact that it's happening in pretty much every country on the face of the earth suggests that it's nowhere near a "fringe few" who hold these intolerant beliefs...

I think you're just posting wishful thinking. Well...wishful thinking and insulting accusations of Nazism and racism.

Your justifications are truly slowed. Islamic extremism is the fault of the West? Wow...heaven forbid you hold people responsible for their actions.

Ok, then by your argument... the true solution is to ban the practicing of Islam by force for the betterment and security of society. Banning Burkas does nothing to actually stop the practicing of Islam nor does it provide actual security for the citizens, so if your 'truths' of Islam is inherently violent, oppressive and barbaric, then why dance around the issue by bending over backwards to defend an ineffective and pointless 'burka ban' in the name of protecting women and security for the population when it clearly accomplishes neither?

Sounds like in your view, the correct view starts with criminalizing of practicing Islam and removing it from 'civilized' society?

If you want to call a spade a spade, then stand by your convictions. The Burka ban accomplishes none of the 'lofty ideals' promoted by people in thread in regards to human rights or security. It is a proxy battle to slowly go from stigmatizing something to documenting it and then criminalizing it in order to have the will to purge criminal activity from society. If the true problem is Islam, why not tackle the core issue and stand by your beliefs?

I'm not proposing to ban Muslims or Islam. I'm saying that we should hold Muslims to the same standards that we hold everyone else. In the US, in many cities, it's illegal to walk around with a ski mask on your face. DC has a ban specifically on ski masks. In NYC it's illegal to "congregate" with 2+ people while wearing a mask that hides your identity.

Wanna bet that Muslim women aren't being arrested in NYC for flagrantly violating the law?

Islamic principles of violence are illegal in the United States. Their dress code for their women is illegal in the United States. Their Shariah Law is illegal in the United States. Despite this, in many countries they're allowed like enclaves in which they enforce their own savage laws. They must be shown that this is completely unacceptable, and that they will be held to the same standards as everyone else.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Manchu wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
The Zionists in the British Mandate were carrying out terrorist attacks, absolutely. That was also 60 years ago. There are also exacerbating circumstances (i.e., a broken promise by the British to provide a home for the Jewish people in the Mandate that dates back to WWI). A nationalist struggle like this is nothing like the endemic terrorism practiced by Islam. You can count the number of terror attacks committed by Jews worldwide in the past 20 years on one hand. We couldn't count the number of terrorist attacks committed worldwide by Muslims in the past single year if we had 100 of their victims' hands laid out in front of us.

This is the kind of Jewish exceptionalism anti-Semites thrive on. I'm sure Muslim terrorists have a lot to say about exacerbating circumstances and nationalism, too. Either terrorism by extremists justifies prejudices applied generally or it doesn't. To me, it does not.

I appreciate skepticism regarding the willingness of some Muslims to sincerely participate in Western societies. Again, some Muslim attitudes (including among Muslims currently living in the US and Europe) about female chastity seem totally incommensurate with women being free and equal participants in society. But the same could be said for some Jews and some Christians living currently living in the US and Europe.

There are less than 14 million Jews in the world. There is ONE Jewish state. There are over a billion Muslims, and about 20 states that identify as Islamic or otherwise could be considered Islamic states. I'm not seeing how a discussion on terrorist acts committed by Jews 60 years ago scales in any way to the millions of cases of institutionalized religious violence committed by Muslims annually. Every time a Muslim man beats the gak out of his wife because the Koran told him to - that's religiously-sanctioned violence, and it happens every day in pretty much every country in the world.

Jebus this thread skewered to a new area. So any update with this "policy" that may or may not be implemented?

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:


I'm not proposing to ban Muslims or Islam. I'm saying that we should hold Muslims to the same standards that we hold everyone else. In the US, in many cities, it's illegal to walk around with a ski mask on your face. DC has a ban specifically on ski masks. In NYC it's illegal to "congregate" with 2+ people while wearing a mask that hides your identity.

Wanna bet that Muslim women aren't being arrested in NYC for flagrantly violating the law?

Islamic principles of violence are illegal in the United States. Their dress code for their women is illegal in the United States. Their Shariah Law is illegal in the United States. Despite this, in many countries they're allowed like enclaves in which they enforce their own savage laws. They must be shown that this is completely unacceptable, and that they will be held to the same standards as everyone else.

It is not illegal to wear a Ski mask in DC. It is only illegal to wear a Ski mask in dc if you are doing one of the following actions:
1. Interfering with government authorities ability to do their work
2. Used to threaten, harass or intimidate someone
3. Intend to cause someone to fear for personal safety
4. Engaged in criminal activity with the intent of avoiding identification.

So unless you are protesting, harassing people or breaking the law, you are totally allowed to cover your face with whatever you choose. Until you have taken actions which are basically criminal. So they are being treated equally.

Your position which would be the only way that Burkas would be 'banned' in DC is from the idea that 'islamic head coverings signify violence due to being associated to Islam so anyone with such a head covering is intending to cause you fear because you are afraid of all Muslims because all Muslims are violent'.

That is a terrible attitude to have and the only way to even begin to claim Burkas are illegal in DC. They are not illegal in DC.

The law is applied equally. They are not breaking the laws, and there is nothing wrong with what they are doing, any citizen can wear a mask as long as they are not doing a few specific actions which require identification.

Muslims don't protest in DC while wearing Burkahs?

Also, well done completely ignoring my comment about New York. You know, addressing only half of the items on an exam still gives you a failing grade, right?

http://www.anapsid.org/cnd/mcs/maskcodes.html

A more comprehensive list is available above. Are you really going to tell me that wearing a Burkah doesn't violate any of those statutes, and that Muslims are ever prosecuted for violating them?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 RatBot wrote:

Proof that it's a fringe few? Because the fact that it's happening in pretty much every country on the face of the earth suggests that it's nowhere near a "fringe few" who hold these intolerant beliefs...

Prove that it's happening in "nearly every country in the world?"

Albania, Turkey, Jordan; truly, unstable hellholes where Christians and Jews are slaughtered daily!

Wow, you can name three countries where non-Muslims aren't routinely subjugated. Truly you have proven a point about the Religion of Peace (tm).

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
Muslims don't protest in DC while wearing Burkahs?

Also, well done completely ignoring my comment about New York. You know, addressing only half of the items on an exam still gives you a failing grade, right?

I Live in DC so I spoke to your comment about DC since I have direct knowledge of the actual laws in DC as I am someone who frequents DC and chooses to cover my face sometimes... and being that you are a boldface liar in many of your statements in regards of stereo-typically claiming majorities of muslims violent and are beating their wives and being demonstrably wrong on the laws in DC, and your anti-Semitic hate speech and repeated intellectually dishonest examples in regards to security, I wasn't aware that apparently i need to go google NYC's laws to combat your piles of false statements and prove them all wrong.


Edit: And the Mask ban in NYC is because it is out of date and has been successfully appealed in court many times.

"The ban on masks in New York State dates to 1845, when it was adopted in response to events in the Hudson Valley, where local tenant farmers disguised as American Indians had attacked and killed landlords."

So it is currently easily appealed, selectively enforced and usually only used when the masked people are breaking the law. Considering there are many exceptions to the NYC mask law, I am not even sure a Burka is actually Illegal in NYC unless you are committing a primary offense.

nkelsch wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
Muslims don't protest in DC while wearing Burkahs?

Also, well done completely ignoring my comment about New York. You know, addressing only half of the items on an exam still gives you a failing grade, right?

I Live in DC so I spoke to your comment about DC since I have direct knowledge of the actual laws in DC as I am someone who frequents DC and chooses to cover my face sometimes... and being that you are a boldface liar in many of your statements in regards of stereo-typically claiming majorities of muslims violent and are beating their wives and being demonstrably wrong on the laws in DC, and your anti-Semitic hate speech and repeated intellectually dishonest examples in regards to security, I wasn't aware that apparently i need to go google NYC's laws to combat your piles of false statements and prove them all wrong.

In other words, you picked ONE state where it's marginally legal to wear a mask and ignored the rest of my post.

Wow...brilliant. Just when I thought we couldn't go any further down the road from sanity. First I'm a Nazi, then I'm a racist, and now I'm an anti-semite.

When ad-hominem is all you have...why not just go with that?

It's kind of impossible to have a conversation when you're ignoring the majority of the things I post. That said...you've earned yourself an ignore for being denser than 80's Citadel miniatures. Congrats!

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
Every time a Muslim man beats the gak out of his wife because the Koran told him to - that's religiously-sanctioned violence.

One of my greatest oppositions to organized religion is that it is so often used to justify atrocities. However, if I look beyond my prejudices, I do not believe religion is to blame. Why people commit evil acts, and how they justify their acts are rarely the same. Men don't beat and disfigure their wives because the Koran tells them to, they do it because they're bastards, jealous, vindictive and ultimately insecure. The same is true for Islamic fundamentalists and the 'God hates fags' people... They use holy books to justify their hate, but the real reason is that they are xenophobic, and feel threatened by people who are different. Religion is the justification, and it's often fuel for the fire, but I don't think it's the cause.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

nkelsch wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
Muslims don't protest in DC while wearing Burkahs?

Also, well done completely ignoring my comment about New York. You know, addressing only half of the items on an exam still gives you a failing grade, right?

I Live in DC so I spoke to your comment about DC since I have direct knowledge of the actual laws in DC as I am someone who frequents DC and chooses to cover my face sometimes... and being that you are a boldface liar in many of your statements in regards of stereo-typically claiming majorities of muslims violent and are beating their wives and being demonstrably wrong on the laws in DC, and your anti-Semitic hate speech and repeated intellectually dishonest examples in regards to security, I wasn't aware that apparently i need to go google NYC's laws to combat your piles of false statements and prove them all wrong.

In other words, you picked ONE state where it's marginally legal to wear a mask and ignored the rest of my post.

Wow...brilliant. Just when I thought we couldn't go any further down the road from sanity. First I'm a Nazi, then I'm a racist, and now I'm an anti-semite.

When ad-hominem is all you have...why not just go with that?

It's kind of impossible to have a conversation when you're ignoring the majority of the things I post. That said...you've earned yourself an ignore for being denser than 80's Citadel miniatures. Congrats!

You are moving goalposts when you claim it is illegal in two cities, and were flat out wrong about DC and are functionally wrong about NYC and then falling back on unreferenced laws which you don't mention as being ignored? You picked those two examples and I did the minor research required to refute your false claims.

You are spouting ignorant hate-speech and then claim not to? Awesome.

 Smacks wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
Every time a Muslim man beats the gak out of his wife because the Koran told him to - that's religiously-sanctioned violence.

One of my greatest oppositions to organized religion is that it is so often used to justify atrocities. However, if I look beyond my prejudices, I do not believe religion is to blame. Why people commit evil acts, and how they justify their acts are rarely the same. Men don't beat and disfigure their wives because the Koran tells them to, they do it because they're bastards, jealous, vindictive and ultimately insecure. The same is true for Islamic fundamentalists and the 'God hates fags' people... They use holy books to justify their hate, but the real reason is that they are xenophobic, and feel threatened by people who are different. Religion is the justification, and it's often fuel for the fire, but I don't think it's the cause.

I would say that it's rarely that simple.... Sure, there's probably some insecurity involved in the male who beats his spouse/kids....The Koran, and by extension the Bible and just about any other religious text espouses a belief that a wife and kids are basically "property" and just as you "beat" a horse that will not pull a plow, so too "should" a man beat his wife, should she be out of line with her proper role.

Often times, these kinds of fethers (unless they live in a very Westernized place) do not see what they do as wrong, so many of your ides of them being bastards, jealous, and vindictive dont really come to bear as such.

Plenty of non-Muslim men who beat their wives don't think they're doing anything wrong. "Bitch stepped out." "Need to keep my woman in line." "She didn't have dinner ready." "My wife is my property." None of those are viewpoints exclusive to Muslims.

 RatBot wrote:
Plenty of non-Muslim men who beat their wives don't think they're doing anything wrong. "Bitch stepped out." "Need to keep my woman in line." "She didn't have dinner ready." "My wife is my property." None of those are viewpoints exclusive to Muslims.

Agreed... however, in the context of this discussion, the chances, or opportunity for adverse reactions to the man beating his wife/kids/dog are much, much greater than in an Eastern, or Islamic country. And while Islam claims that they don't drink spirts of any kind (this is a lie), the proportion of drinkers to non drinkers is probably about the opposite of what it is in the US or other, similar Western countries, so I don't think we can really use alcohol as an "excuse" in these situations.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 RatBot wrote:
Plenty of non-Muslim men who beat their wives don't think they're doing anything wrong. "Bitch stepped out." "Need to keep my woman in line." "She didn't have dinner ready." "My wife is my property." None of those are viewpoints exclusive to Muslims.

Agreed... however, in the context of this discussion, the chances, or opportunity for adverse reactions to the man beating his wife/kids/dog are much, much greater than in an Eastern, or Islamic country. And while Islam claims that they don't drink spirts of any kind (this is a lie), the proportion of drinkers to non drinkers is probably about the opposite of what it is in the US or other, similar Western countries, so I don't think we can really use alcohol as an "excuse" in these situations.

Actually, you'd be surprised. Alcoholism is not all that uncommon in many Middle Eastern countries, and it's exasperated by the fact that it's very difficult to get help for alcoholism as it's considered extremely shameful, moreso than in the West. Certainly, though, not nearly as common in many Western countries, I'll grant you. I suspect real rates of alcoholism in Muslim countries are higher than reported rates due to the stigma attached to it. Not as high as North America or Europe, but higher than reported.

 Jihadin wrote:
Jebus this thread skewered to a new area. So any update with this "policy" that may or may not be implemented?

The PM decided it was a no go, I was going to say something earlier but decided not to bother it has been a very interesting read so far.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
I'm not seeing how a discussion on terrorist acts committed by Jews 60 years ago scales in any way to the millions of cases of institutionalized religious violence committed by Muslims annually.

Because in those days, fear and loathing of all Jews was whipped up into a hateful froth by those who peddled fear of Zionist violence and it blew up into injustice, dispossession, and eventually slavery and murder. If you don't see the lesson in that, I don't know what to tell you.

nkelsch wrote:
your anti-Semitic hate speech

Accusing Nuggz of anti-Semitic hate speech? Do you know anything about the person you are accusing? I mean, you don't even have to have read his stuff in that past, just in this very thread.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Often times, these kinds of fethers (unless they live in a very Westernized place) do not see what they do as wrong, so many of your ides of them being bastards, jealous, and vindictive dont really come to bear as such.

I agree that it is complicated, but there also appears to be much in the Koran and Islam that teaches compassion towards animals. Plenty of people all over the world consider animals 'property' and yet love and respect them, and there are plenty of men from all cultures who are terrified of women being 'unfaithful' to them, and who express the insecurity through being controlling and violent. Perhaps it is just lack of intelligence (or education), but I resent the idea that 'they don't know any better'.

 Manchu wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
I'm not seeing how a discussion on terrorist acts committed by Jews 60 years ago scales in any way to the millions of cases of institutionalized religious violence committed by Muslims annually.

Because in those days, fear and loathing of all Jews was whipped up into a hateful froth by those who peddled fear of Zionist violence and it blew up into injustice, dispossession, and eventually slavery and murder. If you don't see the lesson in that, I don't know what to tell you.

nkelsch wrote:
your anti-Semitic hate speech

Accusing Nuggz of anti-Semitic hate speech? Do you know anything about the person you are accusing? I mean, you don't even have to have read his stuff in that past, just in this very thread.

Manchu, I definitely see the parallel. I'm not advocating violence toward Muslims at all. I'm advocating that we hold them to the same standards that we hold Westerners. If an American man was to force his wife to walk around in a bed sheet, we would say that he was abusing her. Yet we have women subjugated in this way in the West and we pretend that it's OK because it's their culture.

Our tolerance is a severe problem when it leads us to be tolerant of intolerant cultures. Not ALL Muslims are that way, but many Muslims tend to be far more conservatives than modern Christians and Jews. And the teachings of conservative Islam are, by nature, violent toward non-Muslims, women, etc.

 RatBot wrote:

"He who gives up freedom for security deserves neither."

That "quote" that you terribly mangled there, it doesn't mean what you think it means.

http://techcrunch.com/2014/02/14/how-the-world-butchered-benjamin-franklins-quote-on-liberty-vs-security/

 Bromsy wrote:

 RatBot wrote:

"He who gives up freedom for security deserves neither."

That "quote" that you terribly mangled there, it doesn't mean what you think it means.

http://techcrunch.com/2014/02/14/how-the-world-butchered-benjamin-franklins-quote-on-liberty-vs-security/

Fair enough.

How about this, then:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

I guess you can get around that by permitting states to ban Burqas, because therefore it's not Congress, and therefore it at least follows the letter of the amendment. Obviously this doesn't apply to Australia, but it's an argument as to why it theoretically can't be banned in the US (at least, not on a federal level).

And the teachings of conservative Islam are, by nature, violent toward non-Muslims, women, etc.

I would say it's teachings of radical Islam, not conservative Islam that preaches violence toward non-Muslims, but that's just semantics.

 Manchu wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
I'm not seeing how a discussion on terrorist acts committed by Jews 60 years ago scales in any way to the millions of cases of institutionalized religious violence committed by Muslims annually.

Because in those days, fear and loathing of all Jews was whipped up into a hateful froth by those who peddled fear of Zionist violence and it blew up into injustice, dispossession, and eventually slavery and murder. If you don't see the lesson in that, I don't know what to tell you.

nkelsch wrote:
your anti-Semitic hate speech

Accusing Nuggz of anti-Semitic hate speech? Do you know anything about the person you are accusing? I mean, you don't even have to have read his stuff in that past, just in this very thread.

Take the anti off the front of anti-semitic hate speech and you might be getting close

I'd just like to place a quote here that i read in todays paper in a story entitled "hijabs and baseball caps" about rugby league supporters. " Al-Chami, however, says she has urged people in her community to "show their humanity as a Muslim, and their character as an Aussie" " and that my friends is multiculturalism in action that has been so denounced in this thread.

Wait, Australia allows people to enter state buildings with their faces covered?

That seems kind of crazy, how is surveillance related to facial identification supposed to function under those circumstances? I'm just thinking about my own experiences in regards to passing through security at state and municipal buildings in the states.

I think insisting on the reverse is all kinds of crazy. I'm glad I live in a country like this.

 Bullockist wrote:
that my friends is multiculturalism in action that has been so denounced in this thread

As already explained, no it is not.

nkelsch wrote:
And all major religions and even non-religious cultures in human history have histories of warped beliefs and violence attached to them.

Define major. Also, explain to me when you will consider religious beliefs to be warped and when you will consider them to be straight/genuine.

nkelsch wrote:
I just find it questionable how people can have the idea that 2014 america is the 'true and documented correct way to live' for human civilization and that 'idea' needs to be legislated and forced upon the citizens.

It is not the same thing to say there is only one “true and documented correct way to live” and to say there are some universal values and right that should apply everywhere, while leaving a LOT of leeway with everything else.
I mean, this is right there in the very title of the Universal declaration of human rights!

nkelsch wrote:
There are millions of Muslims who are tolerant, progressive, live and practice equal rights and don't act as you paint them all to be.

And how many of those Muslims wear burka? How many do so on their own choosing?
Now, I am not sure we are still talking millions.

nkelsch wrote:
To take your position to logical ends, it would basically facilitate the forced end of allowances of all religions in our society.

Is that a bad thing ?

nkelsch wrote:
The truth is it is a convenient law for people who simply don't want to see or interact brown people in funny clothes at their Starbucks.

How the hell will you know the skin color of people in a burka? They may be black, they may be whiter than white, they may be East-Asian, …
What they are, though, is either supporters of a very conservative, very hardline version of Islam or people who are forced to wear a burka. This is not stereotyping people into a race like you did, this is just a logical conclusion.

nkelsch wrote:
And you do realize that most of the 'intolerance' was instituted by imperialist powers radicalizing local cultures and religions to fight proxy wars with other imperialist powers for control of the territory.

Apart from making Saudi Arabia and making them rich, I do not see what you are talking about. Those leaders of what later became Saudi Arabia were already fans of a very hardline Islam before being made rich and powerful by the U.S.A. I am not certain which “imperialist power” is responsible for the Supreme Ulema Council of Morocco issuing a fatwa saying ex-Muslim apostates should be put to death? Which proxy war has Morocco fight in? And this is just one examples, I can provide more as you ask me to.

 Smacks wrote:
Men don't beat and disfigure their wives because the Koran tells them to, they do it because they're bastards, jealous, vindictive and ultimately insecure.

Yes, but when they are not punished for it because the Quran allow them to (actually, if you want to check that out in context and with multiple translations, go there: http://quranexplorer.com/quran/ . Surah 4 verse 34. From what I get out of it, the amount of violence authorized is not very clear, but the subservience of the wife to her husband is. Anyhow, it is sadly interpreted as allowing a lot of violence in a bunch of Muslim countries), then it is, if not religiously motivated violence, still religiously sanctioned violence.

 Smacks wrote:
I agree that it is complicated, but there also appears to be much in the Koran and Islam that teaches compassion towards animals.

Reference please? I would love to check this for myself, and I am always interested in learning more about the Quran. I did read it entirely a long time ago, but I do not remember that.

Can somebody give me a TLDR from the op?

 Bullockist wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
Jebus this thread skewered to a new area. So any update with this "policy" that may or may not be implemented?

The PM decided it was a no go, I was going to say something earlier but decided not to bother it has been a very interesting read so far.

So it's not going to be implemented? Good, I hadn't heard that yet.


It was a stupid idea not just because it was discriminatory, but because it didn't add any extra security, defeating it's purpose. They've already gone through several security checks just to get put in behind the glass... woo? If they were going to do something drastic, chances are they could still do it.

And if they were really that worried all they'd need is a female officer or two to check their ID in a more private room (and, IIRC, this was already done in some cases).


But this matters not, as thankfully this stupidity isn't being implemented.

This is certainly pertinent...