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.

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!