Women in face veils detained as France enforces ban

[DarkFish]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

If there is nothing wrong or contraversial then support a ban on beards, a ban on not having beards, a ban on hats, ban not having hats, ban kilts, ban the colour green, ban the colour yellow.......

Except for that a hat or a beard or a kilt don't hide all of your body. Even a headscarf (I hate those as well but I don't think they should or can be banned) leaves most of the face uncovered. If I see someone I want to be able to look him/her in the eyes. I want to be able to see who he is. Not only does that makes you feel safe, it is in fact safer. Who knows if whoever is walking underneath a burqa is indeed an innocent muslim woman? It can just as easily be a male bankrobber with an AK47 underneath his clothes.

If you want to wear a burqa at home, fine by me. But don't do it in public space where you offend or frighten people with it.

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Besides which why won't you answer the question, do you support the proposed ban on Jewish practices in Holland?

What proposed ban on Jewish practices? I've heard nothing about such a proposal

[Skybird]

BBC'S latest update nicely summarizes what it is about in just one sentence:

"The French government says the face-covering veil undermines the basic standards required for living in a shared society and also relegates its wearers to an inferior status incompatible with French notions of equality."

More there is not to say. Everybody not agreeing with this is free to leave and seek his fate in a Muslim country, which - all of them! - are so very much more free and more liberal and more tolerant and more multicultural than our european home nations are. Everybody knows that, right?

You don't like Europe? You are free to leave. You do not want to live by European cultural ways and habits? Then why the heck have you even come here in the first?

Our home places - our rules, our habits, our culture, our values, our laws, our way of life - not yours. You come to us, we do not come to you. In our home countries, we owe you nothing, but you owe us integration.'Don't like it that way? Pack your things and move away, we do not hinder you, we will not miss you.

Period.

Except for that a hat or a beard or a kilt don't hide all of your body

So why did they ban kilts then?

If I see someone I want to be able to look him/her in the eyes.

So you want to ban sunglasses?

It can just as easily be a male bankrobber with an AK47 underneath his clothes.

In that case it can just as easily be a bank robber wearing drag and a raincoat, ban raincoats and women who look like trannies.
A bank robber can be dressed as a policeman, ban police uniforms.

Can you see how your arguements fall apart?
Fuer Frei already did a thorough job on all the arguements that are used with that piece he posted.

What proposed ban on Jewish practices? I've heard nothing about such a proposal

Havn't you? Its part of Geerty boys program of racial purification
The same proposal to get rid of Muslim dietry practices also gets rid of Jewish dietry practices. It is rather reminiscent of the Swiss anti Jewish laws of the 19th century which they introduced because "the evil Jews just won't intergrate and are taking over the world"(sounds familiar doesn't it)
But anyway as you are there and the dutch are in the topic what do you think of the bible bashers making dutch people observe the sabbath by law and banning freedom of religion?

[MH]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

So you are intolerant, its that simple really. Once again you support that which you try to condemn.
Besides which why won't you answer the question, do you support the proposed ban on Jewish practices in Holland?

I don't propose of baning Judaism or Islam but i think that there is need for boundaries.
The same as I'm against blind radicalism in Judaism.
But again fanaticism in Judaism is mostly inward directed while in Islam its opposite.

[danlisa]

Originally Posted by Skybird

You don't like Europe? You are free to leave. You do not want to live by European cultural ways and habits? Then why the heck have you even come here in the first?

Our home places - our rules, our habits, our culture, our values, our laws, our way of life - not yours. You come to us, we do not come to you. In our home countries, we owe you nothing, but you owe us integration.'Don't like it that way? Pack your things and move away, we do not hinder you, we will not miss you.

Nicely describes my view on the matter.

(To answer the bold part, free healthcare, housing benefit, guaranteed work (or unemployment benefits) etc etc.....take your pick).

[gimpy117]

Originally Posted by Skybird

"The French government says the face-covering veil undermines the basic standards required for living in a shared society and also relegates its wearers to an inferior status incompatible with French notions of equality."

Bingo.

It's a symbol of property. Face covering basically states that: "you are my property, so much to the extent that only I have the right to view you". To opponents who will inevitably say that "it's a choice by the women" I say bull. Sure, maybe a few very devout Muslims will actually choose to do this, but I'm sure the majority of women who are "choosing" to face cover are more so being coerced to say they enjoy it.

and I also support the idea of an immigrants duty to integrate. It you aren't annexing a country, you are moving there. To expect that place to adopt your social traditions, especially Muslim fundamentalist law is as crazy as it in impractical.

@dansila

Nicely describes my view on the matter.

So your view only covers immigrants which means native born muslims can wear whatever they want.

@gimpy

Bingo

Apart from the fact that banning what people can wear destroys the notion of equality they claim to be preserving

[DarkFish]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

So why did they ban kilts then?

They did? Well that's just stupid.

So you want to ban sunglasses?

Let me rephrase it for you: I want to be able to look him/her in the *face*.

In that case it can just as easily be a bank robber wearing drag and a raincoat, ban raincoats and women who look like trannies.
A bank robber can be dressed as a policeman, ban police uniforms.

Except raincoats don't conceil the face, unless you use one of these devices:

Kinda draws attention, doesn't it? If you see someone wearing stockings over his head when there's no costume party anywhere near, you don't trust him. Now why should we trust people who wear essentially the same thing?

Fuer Frei already did a thorough job on all the arguements that are used with that piece he posted.

Except his arguments didn't address my most important one. Can you find it?

Havn't you? Its part of Geerty boys program of racial purification
The same proposal to get rid of Muslim dietry practices also gets rid of Jewish dietry practices. It is rather reminiscent of the Swiss anti Jewish laws of the 19th century which they introduced because "the evil Jews just won't intergrate and are taking over the world"(sounds familiar doesn't it)

Nope I hadn't heard of it yet. But knowing Ole Geert's party, I can easily imagine he proposed something like that.

For the record though, I'm against ritual slaughtering (I take it his proposal is about halal food?) for the sake of animal rights. That includes Jewish rituals as well as Islamic. But indeed, Wilders often wants to prohibit muslims the exact things he allows other people. If you want to prohibit halal, prohibit kosher as well.
But hell, what can you expect? He's simply a huge hypocrite. Isn't his wife an immigrant as well?

But anyway as you are there and the dutch are in the topic what do you think of the bible bashers making dutch people observe the sabbath by law and banning freedom of religion?

I think they suck. If they want to observe sabbath, let them. Let them sit at home and do nothing all day, I hope they all bore themselves to death. As long as they don't impose the beliefs and rituals of their sad little sect on me.

[gimpy117]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

@dansila

So your view only covers immigrants which means native born muslims can wear whatever they want.

@gimpy

Apart from the fact that banning what people can wear destroys the notion of equality they claim to be preserving

it's a moral dilemma for sure...except in this case the garment being banned is being used as a tool of oppression for women.

They did? Well that's just stupid.

Its to fit in with culture, not to stand apart. Plus of course people in kilts were evil terrorists and may well have been of the wrong religion

Let me rephrase it for you: I want to be able to look him/her in the *face*.

Thats better, so is there any good reason why your personal wants should set national policy or override other peoples wants?

Except raincoats don't conceil the face, unless you use one of these devices:

Your arguement was that they could have a machine gun under the robe,get your position in order.
But on your other point disguising the face is easy, a pair of glasses and some powder is quite sufficient.

Now why should we trust people who wear essentially the same thing?

Is there some special requirement that you personally have to feel you can trust every individual that walks through a city?

Except his arguments didn't address my most important one.

They most certainly did.

As long as they don't impose the beliefs and rituals of their sad little sect on me.

There is the problem. They are clamping down on the tourist and market exemptions which are unholy in their eyes. Though it was ruled that their local attempts on other legal isses were against the law, however their official policy in government is that Holland should have laws and punishments based on good old testament scripture...but on the bright side they have had to drop their objections to females being allowed to vote.

@gimpy

it's a moral dilemma for sure...except in this case the garment being banned is being used as a tool of oppression for women.

The woman in the opening article appears to object very strongly to what you are saying.

[gimpy117]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

@gimpy

The woman in the opening article appears to object very strongly to what you are saying.

my point is..is that her talking or her husband talking?

my point is..is that her talking or her husband talking?

That was her talking, the husband has been in some different interviews.

[MH]

Originally Posted by gimpy117

my point is..is that her talking or her husband talking?

While there is a chance that it was her talking there is no way that in general women in Muslim society willingly wear burka.
Sometimes they may know nothing better since they are brought up in certain and submissive way from age 0 having no real choice in life.

[DarkFish]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Its to fit in with culture, not to stand apart.

Well that's the point, kilts are part of Scottish culture so they should remain part of Scottish culture. Burqas are not part of Western culture so they should not be part of Western culture.

Thats better, so is there any good reason why your personal wants should set national policy or override other peoples wants?

And again you hit the nail on the head Is there any good reason why the personal wants of muslims should override the wants of Westerners?

Your arguement was that they could have a machine gun under the robe,get your position in order.

My argument was they could do both.
Meanwhile, did you notice yet the machine gun argument was just a support for my main argument? Which, by the way, you still haven't addressed.

Is there some special requirement that you personally have to feel you can trust every individual that walks through a city?

There are some special requirements that I personally have to feel I can not trust every individual that walks through a city. If someone wears stockings on his head, I don't trust him. If someone wears a nikab, I don't trust him/her either.

They most certainly did.

They most certainly didn't. I read through them and my argument wasn't even mentioned.

There is the problem. They are clamping down on the tourist and market exemptions which are unholy in their eyes. Though it was ruled that their local attempts on other legal isses were against the law, however their official policy in government is that Holland should have laws and punishments based on good old testament scripture...but on the bright side they have had to drop their objections to females being allowed to vote.

Don't get me wrong, I hate those guys as much as I hate fanatic muslims. Every religious loon is a religious loon, the only difference is which loon they worship.

Well that's the point, kilts are part of Scottish culture so they should remain part of Scottish culture.

At what point did kilts become part of Scottish culture? was that scottish culture, highland culture or british culture? Irish maybe or norse? celtic perhaps or even french? such a mishmash ain't it that culture thing.

So if they became part of that culture was it wrong to ban them? What on earth was a bloke from lower saxony doing telling the locals how to dress?

Burqas are not part of Western culture so they should not be part of Western culture.

Nor were curry, kebabs, saris, turbans, mantillas and christianity.
So your point was?

Is there any good reason why the personal wants of muslims should override the wants of Westerners?

A person choosing to wear an item of clothing doesn't really impact on anyone in any meaningful way so there is nothing real to override, banning a person from wearing something overrides their freedom of choice.
Unless there is an extremely good reason for overriding that freedom then it should not be even contemplated.
So far all the reasons given amount to nothing of substance.

My argument was they could do both.

And since they could do still do both in a dozen different ways your arguement doesn't stand.

There are some special requirements that I personally have to feel I can not trust every individual that walks through a city. If someone wears stockings on his head, I don't trust him. If someone wears a nikab, I don't trust him/her either.

Do you think your personal sensibilities requires national legislation to make people to conform to fit to your insecurities?

They most certainly didn't. I read through them and my argument wasn't even mentioned.

Your only arguement that wasn't directly dealt with is your strange sense of fear, but it was indirectly dealt with by showing those fears to be irrational.

Don't get me wrong, I hate those guys as much as I hate fanatic muslims.

I know, it just surprised me that the government was really that desperate when it was looking to form a coilition, then again they were desperate enough to allow that pillock wilders in too.