Women in face veils detained as France enforces ban

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.

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by MH

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.

I was in the cafeteria at school today and I walk up to use the microwave. There was this girl in a Hijab there waiting and another girl who was cooking her own food. The one girl finishes and walks away and the girl in the Hijab tells me to go ahead and use the microwave, I tell her "no, you were here first". She still tells me to use it first. I don't know if it was a cultural thing or what but I felt really bad standing there for three minutes while my food cooked and she still waited.

I don't know sometimes...

I do get your point however which I will address below.

You didn't, it was the saxon which banned it. I suppose it would be like if Hirsi Ali got to be beatrix and banned dutch people wearing jeans which are not really dutch

Well first of all I don't see curry, kebab, saris and turbans as part of Western culture. You could have chosen better examples to make your point.

You missed Christianity and Mantillas off that list, last time we had a discussion about dutch culture you was convinced that everyday christian practices which date back for many many hundereds of years in the Netherlands were also not part of Dutch culture.


@TLAM

I don't know sometimes...

Maybe she was Canadian, they have a reputaion of being very polite.

@Rilder

Actually isn't there places all around Europe (Included districts in cities) where you can walk around naked?

But that is errrrrr....freedom of choice.
We need to ban freedom to save errrrr....freedom

[MH]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

But that is errrrrr....freedom of choice.
We need to ban freedom to save errrrr....freedom

Come on you can do better than that.....or not?

[Penguin]

The burka is not a religious symbol, it's a political and patriarchal symbol, it has more to do with tribal culture than with faith. I can't recognise it as just a garment like a kilt or pants.

Even if you regard it as a symbol for a religion. Imo the freedom of religion is one of the "soft" basic rights. It becomes superseded by the right of self-determination. I agree that most women who wear it don't do it out of their own free will - when you are brainwashed you also don't have free will.
Dressing modest is a total different thing, but nobody can tell me that somebody wears a black burka voluntarily when it's 30° C outside.

However the whole talk and action about the ban is nothing but a fight against the symptoms, not the root of the problem. The real problem are men who have such low self-esteem that they want to hide their women and chain them to themselves. Or those who are so sick that they assume that they have no self control and jump onto the next women who doesn't hide her female features.
Maybe those nuts should wear horse blinkers instead of forcing their women to wear a sack.
This offends me as a man who appreciates women, that those morons want to put every men into the same category.

Come on you can do better than that.....or not?

In essence that is all it boils down to, all the arguements against a form of clothing fall down very rapidly.
So all that is left is the removal of freedom of choice to maintain freedom of choice which is perfect newspeak.
Personaly I think the burqa and niquab are silly tribal affections which cannot even claim the strange "merit" of gods orders that some claim over dress codes. But banning them is fundamentaly wrong on every level in a free country, and to do so on what are admitted as "irrational fears" is so indefencible it would be laughable if it wasn't really happening.
The government has no role in regulating what clothes people can and cannot wear, leave that to nuts like the maoists the sauds and the taliban.

but nobody can tell me that somebody wears a black burka voluntarily when it's 30° C outside.

Would you prefer pink burkas? maybe yellow ones with purple stripes?
Wasn't there a recent study on the best colours to wear for heat avoidance in hot climates that founds no noticable difference between black cloth and white cloth.
These people in deserts with hot weather, both male and female seem to wear big robes and head coverings don't they, maybe it hads something to do with it being over 30 degrees outside

[DarkFish]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

You missed Christianity and Mantillas off that list, last time we had a discussion about dutch culture you was convinced that everyday christian practices which date back for many many hundereds of years in the Netherlands were also not part of Dutch culture.

Exactly - were not part of Dutch culture. You confuse present and past here. If you go back to the Germanic times, christianity didn't even exist yet so how could it be part of Dutch culture?

You must also differentiate between christian culture and Dutch culture. Important people wearing a white robe is part of christian culture but absolutely not part of Dutch culture. Christian traditions are only part of Dutch culture as long as lots of the common men follow those traditions.

Originally Posted by Rilder

Actually isn't there places all around Europe (Included districts in cities) where you can walk around naked?

Only some isolated areas. Never heard of any city district where it's allowed.

christianity didn't even exist yet so how could it be part of Dutch culture?

The dutch didn't exist so how can they have any culture anyway?
Since christianity existed in those lowlands before there was any kingdom of the Netherlands then Dutch people must be banned as they are usurpers of the christian marshland culture.

[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.

[DarkFish]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

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.

The small kilt or walking kilt (similar to the 'modern' kilt) did not develop until the late 17th or early 18th century
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_kilt

I do get your point however which I will address below.

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?

[...]

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

Well first of all I don't see curry, kebab, saris and turbans as part of Western culture. You could have chosen better examples to make your point.

So let's continue with your kilt example, assuming it were indeed the Saxons who introduced the kilt. In the present time, the kilt is part of Scottish culture. Banning it would be senseless. But when the saxons introduced it, if the Caledonians disliked it, IMHO they would have been well within their rights to ban it.

Burqas may very well become part of our culture once. When that has happened, banning them would be just as stupid as banning kilts is nowadays. But until that day I will oppose them every bit I can.

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

Depends on the clothing. Burqas can have an impact, see below.

banning a person from wearing something overrides their freedom of choice.

Well we already have "clothing laws". I can't walk around naked. Now should I feel offended that my freedom of choice is overrided?

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

which is why I only used the argument in support of my fear argument The chances of a burqa-wearing person being a bankrobber are practically zero. There are a thousand other ways a bankrobber can dress, many of them much more likely. Fearing that someone wearing a burqa is a bankrobber isn't rational. But neither are our instincts. There could be an AK47 underneath that burqa. There could hide a criminal under that veil. And that alone is often enough to, either consciously or subconsciously, instill fear in the hearts of some.

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

If many people share those sensibilities, yes I do.

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.

And I completely agree. Most fears are. But the fact that they are irrational and often instinctive doesn't mean they aren't real. And I think banning muslims from wearing burqas is a small price to pay to remove some of that fear from many Westerners.

Originally Posted by DarkFish

Well we already have "clothing laws". I can't walk around naked. Now should I feel offended that my freedom of choice is overrided?

Actually isn't there places all around Europe (Included districts in cities) where you can walk around naked?