French Senate votes to ban Islamic full veil in public

[Alex]

Originally Posted by Bubblehead1980

For once, I approve of the French!

@ Sailor Steve : Taking Castout's post in consideration,

Originally Posted by Castout

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]

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]

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.

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.

[JU_88]

Originally Posted by Tchocky

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]

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) 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. 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]

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!

[tater]

Originally Posted by JU_88

+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]

Originally Posted by tater

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)

Well said.

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.

[JU_88]

@ 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.

[tater]

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.

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

[tater]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

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]

Originally Posted by Skybird

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?