View Full Version : French Senate votes to ban Islamic full veil in public
France's Senate has overwhelmingly approved a bill that would ban wearing the Islamic full veil in public.
The proposed measure was already backed by the lower house of parliament, the National Assembly, in July.
The ban will come into force in six months' time if it is not overturned by constitutional judges.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11305033
Note: 14 September 2010 Last updated at 17:51 GMT
Bubblehead1980
09-14-10, 08:37 PM
France's Senate has overwhelmingly approved a bill that would ban wearing the Islamic full veil in public.
The proposed measure was already backed by the lower house of parliament, the National Assembly, in July.
The ban will come into force in six months' time if it is not overturned by constitutional judges.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11305033
Note: 14 September 2010 Last updated at 17:51 GMT
For once, I approve of the French! :up:
Sailor Steve
09-14-10, 08:48 PM
Good for them! We'll see how it works out.
For once, I approve of the French! :up:
I've approved of them since 1778.
Bubblehead1980
09-14-10, 08:59 PM
Good for them! We'll see how it works out.
I've approved of them since 1778.
Of course, how could I forget, ok well I approve of their move to support the colonies.They have aggravated me a bit over the years though.
I once told a man from France the joke "what is the first thing they teach you in the French Army?" "how to say I surrender in German" :har: Always loved that one.Everyone but him found it funny lol.
Sailor Steve
09-14-10, 09:01 PM
The whole French-bashing thing started in 2003 when they refused to support us on the Iraq resolutions. I like the jokes, but I agree with their reasons and their decision.
frau kaleun
09-14-10, 09:06 PM
Well of course they did.
Because no matter what the alleged "problem" is, the best solution for it is to come up with yet another set of rules about what the wimmenz can and cannot do. :yeah:
Honestly I don't know what the motivation behind the passage of this law was - if there's some supposed or actual legitimate public "health and safety" reason for it, or if it's a perverse attempt to force the "freedom" of walking around unveiled on these women whether they want it or not, or if its just another anti-Muslim thing pure and simple.
But really - what does it actually accomplish, other than taking away a woman's presumed right to wear or not wear something? The article says that the "niqab and burka are widely seen in France as threats to women's rights and the secular nature of the state."
As far as women's rights goes, let's be honest: assuming a woman who wears the items in question does so by her own free will, and is not doing so because she's afraid of what might happen to her if she doesn't, making it illegal for her to wear them is limiting her rights, not improving them.
And if a woman is wearing it because she's being required to do so by some other party who has the power to require it and make the requirement stick due to the amount of control over her they can exert... then my fear is that not allowing her to wear it in public will result in her becoming even more isolated from a world in which women actually have the freedom to make their own choices about these things. Because if someone else is controlling her so much that she is wearing the things even though she doesn't want to, they probably have enough control to keep her isolated if it's a choice between going out unveiled and not going out at all.
Personally I find the wearing of these things ridiculous, primarily because of the misogynist mindset that created the mandate in the first place, aside from any religious considerations. But that doesn't mean I get to meddle with someone else's right to acquiesce to that mandate so long as they are doing it freely. And when I say "freely," I mean in the absence of any real and present threat, not because they've been taught that it's right to wear it and have simply accepted it without question (so far).
Again - I don't think anyone has any way of knowing how this will play out in the lives of the individual women who are going to be affected by it. But I'm not gonna buy the "women's rights" angle when all they're doing is countering one set of restrictions limiting women's freedom to choose with another set of restrictions that do exactly the same thing. The way to improve the lot of women who live with nonsensical (to us) religious restrictions on their personal freedom is not to stick it to them from the secular side as well.
Sailor Steve
09-14-10, 09:25 PM
Point taken. As hard as I try, I just can't seem to stop being "one of those".
The only people that wear masks in the civilized world—aside from during periods of frostbite inducing weather—are criminals.
If I would get hassled walking into a local bank wearing a ski mask or halloween mask on some random day here in ABQ, then a woman wearing a mask should expect the same treatment.
The veil and its use fall into 2 broad scenarios here in the west. One, they feel compelled to do so by male relatives and co-religionists. Two, they choose to wear it as a political statement (which is basically flipping the bird to the society that feeds them). I think neither are strong arguments for it in the face of the reality that males wearing masks would likely face many hassles in civilized society.
AngusJS
09-14-10, 09:57 PM
The whole French-bashing thing started in 2003 when they refused to support us on the Iraq resolutions. I like the jokes, but I agree with their reasons and their decision.Every time I hear one of these jokes, I think of Verdun. Those cheese-eating frogs sure did fold there, didn't they! :nope:
Seriously, these jokes were stale in 2003.
Regarding the OP - the government shouldn't prevent a woman from wearing a burqa, just as it shouldn't prevent a woman from wearing short shorts.
If someone is forcing a woman to wear a burqa, the woman should leave that person.
TLAM Strike
09-14-10, 10:08 PM
I've approved of them since 1778.
I've approved of them since they invented the Ménage à trois...
:O:
Ducimus
09-14-10, 10:19 PM
Ummm...
Viva La France? :O:
mookiemookie
09-14-10, 10:26 PM
Every time I hear one of these jokes, I think of Verdun. Those cheese-eating frogs sure did fold there, didn't they! :nope:
I think of:
http://www.topofart.com/images/artists/Jacques-Louis_David/paintings/davidjl006.jpg
Castout
09-15-10, 12:14 AM
The whole French-bashing thing started in 2003 when they refused to support us on the Iraq resolutions. I like the jokes, but I agree with their reasons and their decision.
True friend is not the one who always agree with you but who is daring enough to tell you what he thinks it's right even when you wouldn't like it.:D
As for the full veil ban I feel I must share my experience that a lot of time I found people wearing these full body black veil as kind of odd. I think it's just so extreme of them to cover everything that way.
I think some of them might have flirted with what's left of them: their eye contact (you know being young and seeing an attractive opposite sex which is just normal). . . .so if that's a sin then they might as well cover them too not so that we can't see them but so that they can't see us :D
The truth is imo they wear what they wear because of social pressure and that social pressure comes mainly from the men of the society. Kind of sad imo.
Tribesman
09-15-10, 01:45 AM
Its a pity its introduction will miss the ski season, after all its a ban on partial of full covering of the face.
How crazy is legislation meant to control how 2000 people dress in a country of 65million:doh:
For once, I approve of the French! :up:
http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a75/Panzer_Kamerad/smileys/kiss.png
@ Sailor Steve : Taking Castout's post in consideration,
True friend is not the one who always agree with you but who is daring enough to tell you what he thinks it's right even when you wouldn't like it.I must tell you in all honesty - yet friendly :|\\ - that those of us who're not conducting boot-licking foreign policy are still wondering what a part of our army is doing in the middle east, considering we already have problems with these people in HERE, in OUR country.
:-?
Tchocky
09-15-10, 03:59 PM
I'm not sure. I don't like the idea of people being forced to wear a certain item of clothing. I fail to see how it is different in forcing them not to wear it.
I mean, intellectually I get the concept, but it's a little old-woman-who-swallowed-a-fly to me.
Bubblehead1980
09-15-10, 04:00 PM
Thing is was not the French telling us to not go in because they were being a friend, it was because they made money off the current Iraqi government and did not want us to upset that.The French government did it under the guise of "oh you are wrong my friend" blah blah. No loyalty towards the US is what we angered many at the French.
Tribesman
09-15-10, 04:45 PM
Thing is was not the French telling us to not go in because they were being a friend, it was because they made money off the current Iraqi government and did not want us to upset that.The French government did it under the guise of "oh you are wrong my friend" blah blah. No loyalty towards the US is what we angered many at the French.
Wow, all these years after the disasterous folly in Iraq and someone still spouts the long discredited rubbish from long ago.
The biggest screw up in recent US foriegn policy and bubble seems to still not know it and instead spouts years old wingnut tripe that did the rounds on Rush Limbaugh.:doh:
I'm not sure. I don't like the idea of people being forced to wear a certain item of clothing. I fail to see how it is different in forcing them not to wear it.
I mean, intellectually I get the concept, but it's a little old-woman-who-swallowed-a-fly to me.
+1 from me.
Though what dressing up as ninja has to do with the teachings of Mohammad is anybody's guess....
Makes me wonder what they will ban next though, Christian Crosses, jewish ringlets?
Imho it just opens up a whole new can of worms.
Skybird
09-15-10, 04:59 PM
Arguments pro burkha-ban:
It is the most visible evidence given in a person’s appearance that this person does not care for integrat-ing into the social and cultural rules of the hosting nation. This person has not the slightest intention to adapt to it’s new living environment’s rules and contexts. Every detail and aspect of this person’s tells all world that this persons right wants to do exactly the opposite: stay different, raise attention about it’s being-different, and that the others have to change and have to adapt to this person instead of the other way around. But I insist that to integrate and to adapt is the most important and mandatory duty of every immigrant.
Veils, headscarves and burkha are instrumentalised by pro-Islam camp as a weapon of political propa-ganda and confronting the local infidels in order to make them falling back one more small step. Our constant falling back should become a habit we get used to – that is the reason of their constant provoca-tion and also legal challenges over the most absurd things. And it works. German supermarkets for ex-ample are seriously considering to introduce a halal-ampel-seal for all food items being sold – not just in special shops, and not just for some specialised foot.
For professional reasons, on thankfully very rare occasions I had to deal with persons wearing burkhas directly, in a shopping mall here in this town. You simply do not feel comfortable, but confronted when needing to deal with such a person. And this although one should assume I was used to it from earlier travelling. But that was there. These situation now were here – and in their context both persons stood apart from the crowd as if they were bleeding from all body openings, or were totally naked.
The demand to wear a burkha or nikap or headscarf, is expression of the claim that women must obey and accept to live by rules made by male Muslims. @ Frau Kaleun, to say that fighting against this de-mand and not accepting it in our culture, is as oppressive as the original demand, because it does not leave them the freedom to wear what they want, is absurd. They are not free to wear what they want, even when after an adult’s life they are used to it from childhood on. In principle you say that enslaved people shall not be freed, because actually they may like to be slaves, or may be used to it. Actually, many of them are used to it indeed. And that is tragic and tells us something about the issue – just not the conclusions that you draw. Tolerance needs to know the limit beyond which it must stop to tolerate the intolerant, else it become the evil itself, and anyhow: gets overthrown and extinguished by the intol-erant.
Wearing Burkhas at higher (summer) temperatures, are a health hazard (like is the lack of moving and bad, fat food, both of which are major problems with women in many Muslim countries. Life expec-tancy of women in these countries is smaller. Cardiovascular problems and depressions are popular dis-eases of imprisoned women in Muslim countries. It is a social taboo to talk about that. In Egypt I once ended up very closely to a major physical confrontation when I stayed on that topic for too long).
To call the prevention of banning the burkha in our countries a declaration of war against women’s rights (I heared a feminist saying that) :doh: without doubt is the most hilarious endgame of a perverted brain running amok I could imagine. That is like calling fighting against a slave trader and freeing the slaves a violation of their human right to be slaves. :doh: Comments like this tell me how hopelessly beyond control our collective insanity already is. You can have a non-bleeding, intact brain – and still be a zombie.
Or it is a tiny worm that is moving into the brain, and once there starts to eat.
conus00
09-15-10, 05:01 PM
FINALLY somebody is getting the right ideas. Two thumbs up to French for breaking through the stupid "let's please minorities whatever it costs" bull**** policy.
Now, here is to hope that USA will adopt the same (and similar) policies. Soon!
+1 from me.
Though what dressing up as ninja has to do with the teachings of Mohammad is anybody's guess....
Makes me wonder what they will ban next though, Christian Crosses, jewish ringlets?
Imho it just opens up a whole new can of worms.
It's not at all the same as crosses, hairstyles, etc.
That would be banning wearing a crescent necklace, or something. The point of the headgear in question is to hide the person underneath. Again, the only people in the west that do this are these enslaved women (however many there are, let's take tribesman's number of 2000 as true), and ~100% of bank robbers, muggers, etc. :)
I agree, though, a properly constructed law needs to account for very cold weather—the only time when decent people in the West wear head coverings like that.
Wear a ski-mask skiing... you don't get a second look.
Try wearing that same ski-mask into your local bank in September. How would that go for you? How about the airport. Hey, tribesman, next time you fly, show up in a ski mask, please. (just joking, we disagree, but I don't wish you dead)
conus00
09-15-10, 05:09 PM
It's not at all the same as crosses, hairstyles, etc.
That would be banning wearing a crescent necklace, or something. The point of the headgear in question is to hide the person underneath. Again, the only people in the west that do this are these enslaved women (however many there are, let's take tribesman's number of 2000 as true), and ~100% of bank robbers, muggers, etc. :)
I agree, though, a properly constructed law needs to account for very cold weather—the only time when decent people in the West wear head coverings like that.
Wear a ski-mask skiing... you don't get a second look.
Try wearing that same ski-mask into your local bank in September. How would that go for you? How about the airport. Hey, tribesman, next time you fly, show up in a ski mask, please. (just joking, we disagree, but I don't wish you dead)
:rotfl2:
Well said.
Tribesman
09-15-10, 05:29 PM
It is the most visible evidence given in a person’s appearance that this person does not care for integrat-ing into the social and cultural rules of the hosting nation.
So the Hasidics and Amish are next on Skys list as they obviously don't blend in very well.
Imho it just opens up a whole new can of worms.
Look at some examples across in england, scary people in hats and hoodies, it makes them harder to identify and people are intimidated just by the appearance because of what they read in the Daily Mail.
time for restrictions on clothing to quell the panic....oh dear some old grandad isn't allowed in a shopping center because he is wearing a flat cap.
All this crap about mosques and headcoverings is doing exactly what the fundamentalist pricks sitting in a cave in godknowswhereistan want.
@ Skybird,
1) You are forgetting that many of burkha wearers in the west do so out of their own free will, yes it seems that most actually WANT to wear them (so they claim.)
Lets stop pretending that we are doing ALL of these women a favor by banning it. It is quite foolish to think that anyone here can speak on their behalf.
2) True, wearing a burkha in summer can be a health hazard, but so are ciggarettes and alchohol (all year round), in fact they are far worse, but we dont ban them do we?
3) We have tolerated burkha wearing in our countries for decades yet its suddenly a big deal?
Why now? Did 9/11 started it? because to my mind no one gave a damn about burkhas before then, or new mosques for that matter.
I dont understand, what we are supposed to afraid of exactly, I want to know how it has a negative impact on our lives, do we run away screaming because we mistook them for Ninjas?
Ive been in mosque once to take shelter from the rain, did I come out convered to Islam? NO!
Did i have friendly non-regilious chat with a few Turkish guys? Yes!
@ All.
Our Goverments should worry about the real terroists, the economy, global warming, crime, people starving to death - maybe fix all that first, then you can start crying over the bloody Burkha.
I am so sick of this hysterical BS.
Islam is not taking over the world, but perhaps mindless stupidity is.
Banning stuff like this seems to fit well within European norms. They ban political parties, even political symbols in games, right?
So I can see the point of it in France.
In the US, this would obviously be unacceptable on the part of the GOVERNMENT in most instances. The only exceptions might be for official ID, license photos, etc. One standard. Schools (public) routinely ban certain clothes due to gangs, I see no difference in banning disguises there, too.
For people at large, it's clearly not the American way to ban a dress code. That said, I think it should be fine for individuals to discriminate in general as they wish (though I think the government should not do business with a business that does so). So if a store or restaurant has a sign that says, "No shirt, no shoes, no service" and decides to add "No masks or face-coverings allowed" I'm 100% fine with that. The solution is for us to treat people who decided to behave this way (dress like criminals in masks) properly as individuals.
Women dressing like this in the west are being impolite. Just as it is impolite for a westerner to wear immodest clothing in muslim countries, it is impolite to wear a face mask in the west. Oddly, they claim the goal is modesty (I think it is political), but women in such outfits get MORE attention. They don't disappear, they are screaming "look at me!"
So it should be legal, but they should be treated as the impolite people they are.
Tribesman
09-15-10, 05:47 PM
They don't disappear, they are screaming "look at me!"
Would camouflage burkhas be more acceptable?
Banning stuff like this seems to fit well within European norms. They ban political parties, even political symbols in games, right?
Banning political parties eh? thats un-american that is perhaps they need a committee on such activity
Would camouflage burkhas be more acceptable?
In france I think that is called a miniskirt or something.
I remember walking around in Morocco, and the french tourist women were quite obvious. They wore incredibly short skirts (it was bloody hot as I was there in August), and tops I'd expect at the beach. The American and Canadian women were for the most part trying to be "culturally sensitive" and were wearing long skirts, and shorts less revealing than bikinis (though properly form-fitting ;) ).
My wife dressed the same when we were trekking in Nepal a loong time ago. She hiked in a skirt. She was treated very differently by the local women that other women we that were hiking at more or less the same speed (we saw the same people night after night in the inns). My wife was invited into kitchens, etc., they were not.
When in Rome... as they say.
Banning political parties eh,? thats un-american that is
Banning means that the State takes away something at force of arms. Parties being unacceptable is another matter.
If you refer to members of the CPUSA, it was never banned. The CPUSA, however, was 100% under the control of the CCCP. Disallowing people in government, military, etc for being in effect spies for a foreign power is well within reasonable restrictions. As would be arresting Nazis in the US during the war.
Tchocky
09-15-10, 06:03 PM
Arguments pro burkha-ban:
It is the most visible evidence given in a person’s appearance that this person does not care for integrat-ing into the social and cultural rules of the hosting nation. This person has not the slightest intention to adapt to it’s new living environment’s rules and contexts. Every detail and aspect of this person’s tells all world that this persons right wants to do exactly the opposite: stay different, raise attention about it’s being-different, and that the others have to change and have to adapt to this person instead of the other way around. But I insist that to integrate and to adapt is the most important and mandatory duty of every immigrant.
This is not an argument in favour of banning it. It's an argument against....something. Should nations legislate on what someone's appearance or clothing might indicate about their political views?
Off the cuff example - could then Iran be justified in banning the wearing of green?
Women dressing like this in the west are being impolite. Just as it is impolite for a westerner to wear immodest clothing in muslim countries, it is impolite to wear a face mask in the west. Oddly, they claim the goal is modesty (I think it is political), but women in such outfits get MORE attention. They don't disappear, they are screaming "look at me!"
So it should be legal, but they should be treated as the impolite people they are.
I agree with you on that, its indeed the same when westerners visit muslim countries, take Egypt for example (popular tourist destination) some westerners dress modestly, others go around in next to nothing, its down to inderviduals respect (or there lack of) for that particular culture.
In stricter muslim counties you might get in trouble for being inappropriatly dressed in some areas.
Now one way to look as France's ban is titt for tatt, but the other way to look at it, is that they are effectivly aspiring to adopt the very standards they reject.
A few years ago here in the UK a teenager was sent home from school for wearing a crusifix pendant (in case it might offend non christians.)
In this case over liberalsim just comes back around to fascism. Its like watching a snake eat its own tail.
Its all just so unbelivably petty and stupid. Some people just need to mind their own damn business and get on with their lives.
Tribesman
09-15-10, 06:19 PM
Don't go all fenian now Tchocky.
Banning means that the State takes away something at force of arms.
Wow another redefinition, you really are racking them up lately.
Parties being unacceptable is another matter.
What of the matter of membership of a political party being illegal?
Don't go all fenian now Tchocky.
Wow another redefinition, you really are racking them up lately.
What of the matter of membership of a political party being illegal?
That's not a redefinition at all. Here, I ban anyone irish from being on the internet. Nope, I'm part irish, and I'm still typing, looks like it didn't work. To ban something, you have to have power.
Some church nuts can "ban" some books—maybe they're diiirty books. Whatever. Is the book banned? No, still there on the shelf in the bookstore, still a good seller on amazon.
Banning requires a state actor, and it has the power to take people's liberty or lives. Real banning is at the point of a gun, in other words.
Being "unacceptable" is a personal thing. Personal, not state. There is a difference, you know. It's not OK for the state to do some things that it IS OK for individuals to do—even if what they do is disgusting to most people. That's the point of limiting government power, while preserving individual liberty.
So you don't ban the burqua (though you can require "colorblind" standards for official pictures, what you can wear in airports, etc). Banning a hat is wrong.
The society at large, however, should treat people who chose to dress in a way that is reserved from criminals, or is making an explicit statement that the freedom of their own women is wrong and disgusting, with the disdain it deserves.
If a guy from New Guinea got off the plane and wandered around in naught but a penis gourd, he'd get funny looks and treatment, too.
Tribesman
09-16-10, 01:46 AM
That's not a redefinition at all.
It most certainly is.
You are still trying to avoid addressing the bannning parties fiction you used.
If a guy from New Guinea got off the plane and wandered around in naught but a penis gourd, he'd get funny looks and treatment, too.
Would the country have to introduce legislation to specificly address men from new guinea at airports due to public hyateria?
krashkart
09-16-10, 10:05 AM
Islam is not taking over the world, but perhaps mindless stupidity is.
+1 Couldn't have said it better myself. :DL
Anyone remember the line delivered by FDR during his inaugural speech (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=amNpxQANk0M&feature=related)? Can we all take a step back and think about that for just a moment? We're screwing ourselves into a corner.
I am suspending my view of cheese eating surrender monkeys for kick ass we take no guff.
Given continental beach clothing standards, I think france should repeal the burqa ban, and instead require that all women go topless on the beach. They could also have swimming as a mandatory part of school PE—and have that coed and topless, too.
I say debauch Islam out of existence!
:D
(might be worth trying here, too :) )
We could just ban all clothes. :rotfl2:
Given continental beach clothing standards, I think france should repeal the burqa ban, and instead require that all women go topless on the beach. They could also have swimming as a mandatory part of school PE—and have that coed and topless, too.
I say debauch Islam out of existence!
:D
(might be worth trying here, too :) ) topless :yep:
Do you really think that all women wear burqua because they want to?
What should came next biting up women in muslim quarters for not wearing one.
Some moderate muslim organization even supported the law as stupied as the law may seem.
Skybird
09-17-10, 05:24 AM
http://blog.balder.org/billeder-blog/Cartoon-Burkha-Voting.gif
Stealth Hunter
09-17-10, 05:28 AM
http://blog.balder.org/billeder-blog/Cartoon-Burkha-Voting.gif
Doing it wrong.:up:
Sammi79
09-17-10, 06:24 AM
I am suspending my view of cheese eating surrender monkeys for kick ass we take no guff.:haha:
Seconded. While IMO it is slightly over the top for a government to illegalise a form of clothing, it is at least an attempt to deal with the problem of integration of Islamic cultures within western nations. Full veils make people seem intimidating (granted not quite as bad as flak jackets and balaclavas) or at the very least unapproachable. In terms of modesty, well what's immodest about showing your face, if that's all you are willing to reveal. You may also consider colours other than black for your modesty garments as it is what people who have suffered a bereavement wear to signify mourning here.
http://blog.balder.org/billeder-blog/Cartoon-Burkha-Voting.gif
LMAO! :rotfl2::rotfl2:
Do you really think that all women wear burqua because they want to?
What should came next biting up women in muslim quarters for not wearing one.
Some moderate muslim organization even supported the law as stupied as the law may seem. so it feels natural to follow the laws and regulations adequately, and that means that if a ban is up, which in this case, I can not see that it is possible to ignore, regardless of the Religion in question, in this particular case the controversy is speaking for several reasons
Skybird
09-17-10, 04:14 PM
so it feels natural to follow the laws and regulations adequately, and that means that if a ban is up, which in this case, I can not see that it is possible to ignore, regardless of the Religion in question, in this particular case the controversy is speaking for several reasons
Wait until the EU dictatorship embarks on it. They will not let their prime hobby-project down, promised (although several European countries, amongst the both France and Germany, have valid laws in their law codes that ban full face coverings in general, which includes ski masks as well as veils or burkhas - just nobody dares to remind of that unwelcomed legal fact anymore - pointing out the law can be taken as an offence by some sensible people).
Wait until the EU dictatorship embarks on it. They will not let their prime hobby-project down, promised (although several European countries, amongst the both France and Germany, have valid laws in their law codes that ban full face coverings in general, which includes ski masks as well as veils or burkhas - just nobody dares to remind of that unwelcomed legal fact anymore - pointing out the law can be taken as an offence by some sensible people). and it's just a matter of time if a switch to operate in a way that benefits the citizen,it is as I see it wrong people at the top, which in turn makes it extremely top-down and bureaucratic,Sovereignty countries should not be questioned.
The Third Man
09-17-10, 04:45 PM
If you believe in republican government then all is right in France.
The same goes to Obama democrats and their problems.
Skybird
09-17-10, 05:10 PM
and it's just a matter of time if a switch to operate in a way that benefits the citizen,it is as I see it wrong people at the top, which in turn makes it extremely top-down and bureaucratic,Sovereignty countries should not be questioned.The reorientation of the EU over the past 15, 20 years, was done with the explciit goal on mind to destroy the sovereignity of nations and their elected parliaments, and to replace it with a centralised superstate that has a ruling commission at the top that is beyond the need of democratic legitimation by the European people. By valid EU trewaties and laws, national parliamnts can no longer pobject to demkands by the EU comission. And the comission's head is decided on behind closed doors by only the head of governments.
There is a reason why I call the EU a dicatorship. The reason is simple: by design and intention it now is, and by behavior it more and more reveals that. The EU comission now wants to raise its own taxes directly from the European people. Over 80% of the legislation in Germany is about laws that the EU comission has filed in as a demand. National parliaments have no legal rights to object them even if it violates their national constitutions. They must wave it through. And exactly that is what is happening - since many years now.
Beside Islam in Europe, the EU of the past 20 years os the biggest catastrophe in Europe since WWII. And both must be listed now amongst the biggest cultural disasters in all European history alltogether. Two disasters, walking hand in hand and turning upside down everything that has been acchieved in Europe in freedoms and liberties and legal and democratic standards. It's not about strengthening democracy. It is about deconstructing democracy - but lulling people about it.
The reorientation of the EU over the past 15, 20 years, was done with the explciit goal on mind to destroy the sovereignity of nations and their elected parliaments, and to replace it with a centralised superstate that has a ruling commission at the top that is beyond the need of democratic legitimation by the European people. By valid EU trewaties and laws, national parliamnts can no longer pobject to demkands by the EU comission. And the comission's head is decided on behind closed doors by only the head of governments.
There is a reason why I call the EU a dicatorship. The reason is simple: by design and intention it now is, and by behavior it more and more reveals that. The EU comission now wants to raise its own taxes directly from the European people. Over 80% of the legislation in Germany is about laws that the EU comission has filed in as a demand. National parliaments have no legal rights to object them even if it violates their national constitutions. They must wave it through. And exactly that is what is happening - since many years now.
Beside Islam in Europe, the EU of the past 20 years os the biggest catastrophe in Europe since WWII. And both must be listed now amongst the biggest cultural disasters in all European history alltogether. Two disasters, walking hand in hand and turning upside down everything that has been acchieved in Europe in freedoms and liberties and legal and democratic standards. It's not about strengthening democracy. It is about deconstructing democracy - but lulling people about it. and this has consequences, not just related to religion but also on the whole all by the EU expanding to other countries, which occurs when the victorious tenth of them own ranks causing side effects in several areas, the currency is one countries that they do not use € are significant independent and have a greater effect to act decisively,I can see a scenario that in the high 10 years when there is not this form of the union no longer.
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.