# Two women arrested in France for protesting face veil ban



## Shinigami Perv (Apr 11, 2011)

> *France Burqa Ban Takes Effect; Two Women Detained *
> 
> PARIS -- France's new ban on Islamic face veils was met with a burst of defiance Monday, as several women appeared veiled in front of Paris' Notre Dame Cathedral and two were detained for taking part in an unauthorized protest.
> 
> ...




"Unauthorized protest" hmmm.... Stay classy, France.


----------



## Yachiru (Apr 11, 2011)

Major  to that nurse. In a democratic country, you have the right to do as you wish as long as it doesn't violate laws, others' rights..
Exhibitionism is illegal in many Europan countries. And the burqa was banned for security as well as human right reasons.


----------



## Le Mâle-Pensant (Apr 11, 2011)

Well, she knew the risk. And in France, when you want to protest, you must ask to be allowed to do that. You can't protest without the agreement of the authorities.


----------



## CrazyMoronX (Apr 11, 2011)

Le Fight ze Power.


----------



## MSAL (Apr 11, 2011)

She knew the risks.

France have clamped down on aspects like that because of internal security reasons.


----------



## Darth inVaders (Apr 11, 2011)

While it is true that there are Muslim women who are wrongfully forced to wear the veils, it is also true that there are Muslim women who want to wear the veils. This ban does to women exactly what those a-holes who force women to wear them do - treats them like wards or children, depowers them, stigmatizes them - it is just as wrong, there are far better ways to combat woman abusing a-holes.


----------



## Elim Rawne (Apr 11, 2011)

Darth inVaders said:


> While it is true that there are Muslim women who are wrongfully forced to wear the veils, it is also true that there are Muslim women who want to wear the veils. This ban does to women exactly what those a-holes who force women to wear them do - treats them like wards or children, depowers them, stigmatizes them - it is just as wrong, there are far better ways to combat woman abusing a-holes.



The ban is not against veils per se. It`s against burqas, and its mostly for security reasons. SP probably used veil in the title to victimize Islam,again.


----------



## Le Mâle-Pensant (Apr 11, 2011)

Yes, Elim Rawne is right. I don't even noticed this mistake. Most of anti Burqa ban in this forum, voluntary use the word veil but the veil is not banned.


----------



## Inuhanyou (Apr 11, 2011)

There is no right to go naked in public  that's plain unhygienic for starters


----------



## Punpun (Apr 11, 2011)

> Nurse Olfa Belmanaa is opposed. "We are in France, we are in a  democractic country where everyone has the right to do what they want.  If they want to wear a veil or go competely nude that's their right."



They still can wear the veil. One fail. She should also study a bit more, that's not what democracy or freedom entails. Two fail.


----------



## impersonal (Apr 11, 2011)

Only the niqab and burka are concerned; the later in particular. Clearly Shinigami perv does not know that much about his religion, otherwise he would surely have called things by their names (right?).


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Apr 11, 2011)

They broke the law and didn't go through the proper channels, how is this even news? 

This is like someone setting up a stand on the road side and getting ticketed for no permit. No shit, you need to get a permit.


----------



## Syed (Apr 11, 2011)

impersonal said:


> Only the niqab and burka are concerned; the later in particular. Clearly Shinigami perv does not know that much about his religion, otherwise he would surely have called things by their names (right?).



Didn't know there were so many different types of coverings

I only knew about the first 3.


----------



## Elim Rawne (Apr 11, 2011)

> France Burqa Ban Takes Effect; Two Women Detained



Is the articles original title, if anyone was wondering.


----------



## impersonal (Apr 11, 2011)

Syed said:


> *Spoiler*: __
> 
> 
> 
> ...



*Spoiler*: __ 





Well, the others are basically variations on the hijab... In France, I think I've seen them all except for the burqa. Niqabs are extremely rare as well (I'm not even sure the ones I've seen were in France; I've travelled a bit in Muslim countries. Never saw a burka even there). Young women usually wear either no veil, the hijab, the al-amira, the shayla or, if they're very religious/stuck up/indoctrinated, the Khimar. I think I've seen chadors on old women.

In my experience, the giraffe neck does not come with the Al-amira.


----------



## very bored (Apr 11, 2011)

What's the difference between the hijab and the al-mira?


----------



## Evil Ghost Ninja (Apr 11, 2011)

impersonal said:


> *Spoiler*: __


 
I Like the niqap. it reminds me of ninjas.


----------



## stream (Apr 11, 2011)

Syed said:


> Didn't know there were so many different types of coverings



Well, see, they're women. Of course they have gazillions different types of clothes


----------



## ExoSkel (Apr 11, 2011)

LOL, WTF is that shit? Now looking at burka, France has every fucking rights to ban that ridiculously looking thing on PUBLIC. Wanna wear them? Wear them at your HOUSE! That thing looks like something that Sand People wear straight out of Star Wars.


----------



## Elim Rawne (Apr 11, 2011)

very bored said:


> What's the difference between the hijab and the al-mira?



IIRC the way you put them on


----------



## Syed (Apr 11, 2011)

impersonal said:


> Well, the others are basically variations on the hijab... In France, I think I've seen them all except for the burqa. Niqabs are extremely rare as well (I'm not even sure the ones I've seen were in France; I've travelled a bit in Muslim countries. Never saw a burka even there). Young women usually wear either no veil, the hijab, the al-amira, the shayla or, if they're very religious/stuck up/indoctrinated, the Khimar. I think I've seen chadors on old women.
> 
> In my experience, the giraffe neck does not come with the Al-amira.



Suprised you haven't seen the Burkha in any Muslim country. I've seen some here in Canada but it isn't prevalent, just extremely rare. 
How prevalent is the Burkha or Niqab in France? The last time I went to France was 14 years ago and I don't remember it at all over there. One of the main reasons why I'm surprised it's become a problem there.


----------



## Le Mâle-Pensant (Apr 11, 2011)

Niqab for cars 

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BLh69rIrSXU[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## olehoncho (Apr 11, 2011)

You can be a good follower of Islam without wearing that garment that predates Islam.  Hundreds of millions of muslim women get by without the burka.  Learn to get over it.


----------



## Syed (Apr 11, 2011)

Le M?le Dominant said:


> Niqab for cars
> 
> [YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BLh69rIrSXU[/YOUTUBE]



Where's "her" husband? FAKE


----------



## emROARS (Apr 11, 2011)

impersonal said:


> Only the niqab and burka are concerned; the later in particular. Clearly Shinigami perv does not know that much about his religion, otherwise he would surely have called things by their names (right?).



thank you thank you THANK YOU.

The amount of times I have to tell people the difference between them


----------



## Razgriez (Apr 11, 2011)

Le Mâle Dominant said:


> Well, she knew the risk. And in France, when you want to protest, you must ask to be allowed to do that. You can't protest without the agreement of the authorities.



Kind of defeats the purpose of protesting. 

What makes the bottom half of your face more important to be visible than  your eyes and forehead which you can easily disguise with sun glasses and a ball cap.


----------



## Pilaf (Apr 11, 2011)

If other French citizens can't walk around with masks legally why should Mohammadens be an exception? The law is about having your face obscured and how it related to difficulty in identifying people.


----------



## emROARS (Apr 11, 2011)

anyway the word 'Hijab' doesn't actually mean the veil, it just means to dress modestly, even the Veil isn't enforced in the religion although women usually wear it to show that they're Muslim.

I don't mind them wearing the Veil, but the Burka's and Niqab arn't needed at all.


----------



## Juno (Apr 11, 2011)

Pilaf said:


> If other French citizens can't walk around with masks legally why should Mohammadens be an exception? The law is about having your face obscured and how it related to difficulty in identifying people.



So it's illegal in France to wear sunglasses/hats/beards/wigs in public? 

Funny that.


----------



## Punpun (Apr 11, 2011)

Implying the burqa is comparable to sunglasses. Can you troll harder ?


----------



## Bishop (Apr 11, 2011)

Oh wow, she disobeyed the law that t=she knew would happen two years ago, and got punished. She's just a victim....


----------



## Bishop (Apr 11, 2011)

Juno said:


> So it's illegal in France to wear sunglasses/hats/beards/wigs in public?
> 
> Funny that.



If you're forced to,yes.

If it is for religious purposes, yes.

If they are those 1980's sunglasses that Kanye West wears, yes.


----------



## Kafuka de Vil (Apr 11, 2011)

The burqa is a form of slavery.


----------



## Juno (Apr 11, 2011)

Mandom said:


> Implying the burqa is comparable to sunglasses. Can you troll harder ?



The argument is that the burka is being banned because it obscures your identity. If that was true, every other preferred method criminals frequently use to obscure their identity would be banned. How do you explain why things like sunglasses, hats, and hoods are banned for security reasons in places like banks, but the burka is now banned _everywhere_.

This is not about security. That wasn't the reason Sarkozy and his ilk gave for the ban. And never have muslim women been the pointed to as a likely demographic for violence and criminality.


----------



## Fruits Basket Fan (Apr 11, 2011)

I thought the punishment is suppose to be a fine.....



They were non-violently protesting.....so why were they taken by the police ?


----------



## impersonal (Apr 11, 2011)

Juno said:
			
		

> Implying the burqa is comparable to sunglasses. Can you troll harder ?
> The argument is that the burka is being banned because it obscures your identity. If that was true, every other preferred method criminals frequently use to obscure their identity would be banned. How do you explain why things like sunglasses, hats, and hoods are banned for security reasons in places like banks, but the burka is now banned everywhere.
> 
> This is not about security.


The burka does pose a security risk compared to other ways to hide one's identity. That is, people who wear sunglasses usually won't object to removing them. People who wear burkas make a scandal. This can be a real issue, especially given the attitude of the men that usually come along.

That said, comparing burqas to hats or sunglasses is... over the top. Burqas cover all of your face. None of the things you mentioned do. Put them all together, and yeah, the cops can give you trouble.

It is true however that the security risk isn't the prime reason for the ban -- the prime reason is to give Muslim extremists one less way to control their women.


----------



## Pseudo (Apr 11, 2011)

I'm surprised France has the balls to upset the Muslims.


----------



## Bishop (Apr 11, 2011)

Fruits Basket Fan said:


> I thought the punishment is suppose to be a fine.....
> 
> 
> 
> They were non-violently protesting.....so why were they taken by the police ?



Protest must be submitted in advance in France. They are Democratic, but that doesn't mean they have our constitution (Freedom of assembly)


----------



## Razgriez (Apr 11, 2011)

Juno said:


> The argument is that the burka is being banned because it obscures your identity. If that was true, every other preferred method criminals frequently use to obscure their identity would be banned. How do you explain why things like sunglasses, hats, and hoods are banned for security reasons in places like banks, but the burka is now banned _everywhere_.
> 
> This is not about security.



Laws like that dont really prevent anything. If anything they just use these types of laws to add charges to make it sound like they committed more crimes when they go up to court. It also assists the prosecutors into getting something to tag on the guy since he may get away with the main thing but those added charges get through and add some time or fines to it anyways.


----------



## ExoSkel (Apr 11, 2011)

ThePsuedo said:


> I'm surprised France has the balls to upset the Muslims.


No one should be afraid of the Muslims and their abnormal practice of religion. NO ONE.


----------



## Syed (Apr 11, 2011)

ExoSkel said:


> No one should be afraid of the Muslims and their *abnormal practice of religion.* NO ONE.



Such as what?


----------



## Bishop (Apr 11, 2011)

ExoSkel said:


> No one should be afraid of the Muslims and their abnormal practice of religion. NO ONE.



Oh yeah?

Well I'm bombin your ass tonight.


----------



## Juno (Apr 11, 2011)

Razgriez said:


> Laws like that dont really prevent anything. If anything they just use these types of laws to add charges to make it sound like they committed more crimes when they go up to court. It also assists the prosecutors into getting something to tag on the guy since he may get away with the main thing but those added charges get through and add some time or fines to it anyways.



And the ban on burkas is going to prevent what exactly? I wasn't aware that there were gangs of burka-clad muslim women taking advantage of anonymity to go on crime sprees.


----------



## alchemy1234 (Apr 11, 2011)

well i've always disagreed with the ban, unless there are legitimate security concerns.


----------



## Fruits Basket Fan (Apr 11, 2011)

Bishop said:


> Protest must be submitted in advance in France. They are Democratic, but that doesn't mean they have our constitution (Freedom of assembly)



I am sorry....but that is just absurd.

As long as it is non-violent.....I do not see why they need permission to protest !


----------



## Bishop (Apr 11, 2011)

Fruits Basket Fan said:


> I am sorry....but that is just absurd.
> 
> As long as it is non-violent.....I do not see why they need permission to protest !



I agree, but we can't get ethnocentric; it is their law, and French press restates it every-time something like this happens.


----------



## Le Mâle-Pensant (Apr 11, 2011)

Guys, this is the laws here. When you want to protest, you need a permission. Then the police can organize it. Because when you protest, you take place in a part of the city. The authorities must be aware about this. The security is also a reason why the authorities must be aware about the protests.

I also believe it's a good thing, we don't allow the extremists to protest. I don't want to see the same kind of protest organized in the UK by organization such as Sharia4Islam.



I don't want this shit in my country. And if we allow this protest, it won't help the reputation of Islam. With the rise of far right, such protest will help them even more.


----------



## Razgriez (Apr 11, 2011)

Juno said:


> And the ban on burkas is going to prevent what exactly? I wasn't aware that there were gangs of burka-clad muslim women taking advantage of anonymity to go on crime sprees.



It doesnt prevent shit. Lawmakers are stupid and out of touch with reality.


----------



## Juno (Apr 11, 2011)

Razgriez said:


> It doesnt prevent shit. Lawmakers are stupid and out of touch with reality.



Apparently so.


----------



## ximkoyra (Apr 11, 2011)

Le M?le Dominant said:


> Guys, this is the laws here. When you want to protest, you need a permission. Then the police can organize it. Because when you protest, you take place in a part of the city. The authorities must be aware about this. The security is also a reason why the authorities must be aware about the protests.



So you must get permission from the authorities to protest against the authorities


----------



## Le Mâle-Pensant (Apr 11, 2011)

ximkoyra said:


> So you must get permission from the authorities to protest against the authorities



Yes, you have the right to protest by you need to be allowed to do it. All the mass protest you see on TV backed by Unions received a permission.


----------



## Razgriez (Apr 11, 2011)

Le M?le Dominant said:


> Yes, you have the right to protest by you need to be allowed to do it. All the mass protest you see on TV backed by Unions received a permission.



France is full of just... "what the fuck is this shit".


----------



## Fruits Basket Fan (Apr 11, 2011)

Is France the only country in Europe that requires this boogus permission ?

I am sorry, but I just find it odd for any non-violent protest needing "permission."


----------



## Bishop (Apr 11, 2011)

Razgriez said:


> France is full of just... "what the fuck is this shit".



Err, um, compared to who exactly? Same thing in parts of Britain and parts of USA.


----------



## Razgriez (Apr 11, 2011)

Fruits Basket Fan said:


> Is France the only country in Europe that requires this boogus permission ?
> 
> I am sorry, but I just find it odd for any non-violent protest needing "permission."



Does that mean violent protests dont need permission?



> Err, um, compared to who exactly? Same thing in parts of Britain and parts of USA.



Well both those countries definitely have their face palming laws too.


----------



## Punpun (Apr 11, 2011)

Juno said:


> The argument is that the burka is being banned because it obscures your identity. If that was true, every other preferred method criminals frequently use to obscure their identity would be banned. How do you explain why things like sunglasses, hats, and hoods are banned for security reasons in places like banks, but the burka is now banned _everywhere_.



Get your fact straight, it's illegal to wear this in public place.


----------



## Le Mâle-Pensant (Apr 11, 2011)

Damn, you guys don't understand why you need a permission to protest ??? You think you can block a street in Paris when you want without be allowed to do this ????


----------



## Punpun (Apr 11, 2011)

It's not like they will give the permission for pretty much anything you want. But nah, let's be anarchist.


----------



## Dionysus (Apr 11, 2011)

Mandom said:


> Get your fact straight, it's illegal to wear this in public place.


You guys are lucky it doesn't get very cold in the winter.


----------



## Fruits Basket Fan (Apr 11, 2011)

Razgriez said:


> Does that mean violent protests dont need permission?
> 
> 
> 
> Well both those countries definitely have their face palming laws too.



You know what I mean !



I inputted "non-violent" to let posters know that when I say freedom of protesting....I do not mean the right to cause violence nor mayhem.


----------



## ximkoyra (Apr 11, 2011)

Is this illegal?


----------



## Le Mâle-Pensant (Apr 11, 2011)

ximkoyra said:


> Is this illegal?



In a Hospital ? Yes, it's illegal, even the veil for those who work in a Hospital, if I'm not wrong.


----------



## Bishop (Apr 11, 2011)

Le M?le Dominant said:


> Damn, you guys don't understand why you need a permission to protest ??? You think you can block a street in Paris when you want without be allowed to do this ????



FOR.....THE....WIN....


----------



## ExoSkel (Apr 11, 2011)

Some people in this thread are just incapable of understanding other country's policies. Doesn't matter if their law or policy is retarded. It's their law. Either respect it or GTFO.


----------



## ximkoyra (Apr 11, 2011)

Le Mâle Dominant said:


> In a Hospital ? Yes, it's illegal, even the veil for those who work in a Hospital, if I'm not wrong.



So, how do French surgeons dress if they can't look like this?  

Also, is it now illegal to walk around in public dressed as a surgeon?  I want to know how far this law extends and what kinds of loopholes it has.


----------



## Razgriez (Apr 11, 2011)

ExoSkel said:


> Some people in this thread are just incapable of understanding other country's policies. Doesn't matter if their law or policy is retarded. It's their law. Either respect it or GTFO.



Hey when you poke fun at our shit we are only going to do the same.


----------



## Bishop (Apr 11, 2011)

ximkoyra said:


> So, how do French surgeons dress if they can't look like this?



Read the press page on page 1. The law is against f_orced and religious_ only.


----------



## Punpun (Apr 11, 2011)

ximkoyra said:


> So, how do French surgeons dress if they can't look like this?
> 
> Also, is it now illegal to walk around in public dressed as a surgeon?  I want to know how far this law extends and what kinds of loopholes it has.



Bullshit. The veil ain't allowed in hospital under another law.. In short the principe of laicity and neutrality of public establishment. THey can always another form of "veil" that isn't an ostensible sign of religion.

Inform yourself before trying to pick at straws.


----------



## ximkoyra (Apr 11, 2011)

Bishop said:


> Read the press page on page 1. The law is against f_orced and religious_ only.



Well, if that's the case then that means that these burka-clad women could technically start walking around in public dressed as surgeons.


----------



## Bishop (Apr 11, 2011)

ximkoyra said:


> Well, if that's the case then that means that these burka-clad women could technically start walking around in public dressed as surgeons.



Yes. 



......


----------



## Le Mâle-Pensant (Apr 11, 2011)

ximkoyra said:


> So, how do French surgeons dress if they can't look like this?
> 
> Also, is it now illegal to walk around in public dressed as a surgeon?  I want to know how far this law extends and what kinds of loopholes it has.



In a Hospital, when you work there, you can't wear a religion symbol.


----------



## ChocoMello (Apr 11, 2011)

Razgriez said:


> Hey when you poke fun at our shit we are only going to do the same.



I don't see why it's funny. It's handled quite the same in Germany, and I see no problem with it since even the f***n Nazis get their permissions to demonstrate.

It's just a matter of the state wanting to be prepared for the inevitable shitstorm that protest drag along (damaging public property, violence or just clogging up traffic)


----------



## sadated_peon (Apr 11, 2011)

I don't think it should be banned, I think those that wear it should be publically ridiculed. 

I would personally refuse to talk to someone in a burka. The very idea that they feel the need to wear one while talking to me insults me, and I refuse to communicate with someone like that.


----------



## Punpun (Apr 11, 2011)

Especially since under a certain law, the governement is responsible for the damage done.


----------



## Razgriez (Apr 11, 2011)

ChocoMello said:


> I don't see why it's funny. It's handled quite the same in Germany, and I see no problem with it since even the f***n Nazis get their permissions to demonstrate.
> 
> It's just a matter of the state wanting to be prepared for the inevitable shitstorm that protest drag along (damaging public property, violence or just clogging up traffic)



I think you are mixing protests up with riots.


----------



## Punpun (Apr 11, 2011)

Raz, what's your problem here ? It's the same in the US as far as I know. (IE. The case of westboro church picketing a funeral.. They had to do paperwork in order to be allowed to protest)


----------



## ximkoyra (Apr 11, 2011)

Bishop said:


> Yes.
> 
> ......



 Can't wait to see pictures



Mandom said:


> Bullshit. The veil ain't allowed in hospital under another law.. In short the principe of laicity and neutrality of public establishment. THey can always another form of "veil" that isn't an ostensible sign of religion.
> 
> Inform yourself before trying to pick at straws.



Excuse me for not studying your constitution before posting in a NF thread.  Don't get so bent out of shape 



Le M?le Dominant said:


> In a Hospital, when you work there, you can't wear a religion symbol.



Got it


----------



## Le Mâle-Pensant (Apr 11, 2011)

Razgriez said:


> I think you are mixing protests up with riots.



Such protest can turn into riot especially in this case. If they organize a protest against the ban of Burqa, you can be sure that the far right extremist will join and turn it into a manhunt against the muslim.


----------



## Punpun (Apr 11, 2011)

Excuse me, It's just that after having to post x amount of time the same thing..


----------



## Fruits Basket Fan (Apr 11, 2011)

Le M?le Dominant said:


> Such protest can turn into riot especially in this case. If they organize a protest against the ban of Burqa, you can be sure that the far right extremist will join and turn it into a manhunt against the muslim.



Usually police are around to protect the protesters and step in if they get violent or extreme......at least, in other countries.


----------



## Punpun (Apr 11, 2011)

And how does the police can get there if they don't know beforehand such a protest will be held ?


----------



## Bishop (Apr 11, 2011)

Fruits Basket Fan said:


> Usually police are around to protect the protesters and step in if they get violent or extreme......at least, in other countries.



Very true. The reason why you apply for a protest is so cops can be stationed and designated on that day. It's like a 'head up'.


----------



## Razgriez (Apr 11, 2011)

Le M?le Dominant said:


> Such protest can turn into riot especially in this case. If they organize a protest against the ban of Burqa, you can be sure that the far right extremist will join and turn it into a manhunt against the muslim.



It was 2 people.


----------



## Punpun (Apr 11, 2011)

In that case ? you were misled then, Over 60 person were interpelled by the police.


----------



## Fruits Basket Fan (Apr 11, 2011)

Bishop said:


> Very true. The reason why you apply for a protest is so cops can be stationed and designated on that day. It's like a 'head up'.



They do not need to call the police or ask permission though.


They have the right to protest and the police usually come on its own if the protest is too big....just to observe and make sure there is no violence.


----------



## Razgriez (Apr 11, 2011)

Mandom said:


> In that case ? you were misled then, Over 60 person were interpelled by the police.



Actually it just says 2 dozen were involved and 2 people were arrested.


----------



## Le Mâle-Pensant (Apr 11, 2011)

Razgriez said:


> It was 2 people.



Now you change the subject. I justify the fact that's it's necessary to have a permission to protest because you guys laugh of such procedure and now you come back on the Burqas. 
Well it was an illegal protest and the Burqa is banned. They are lucky they didn't charge hers for the Burqa.


----------



## Punpun (Apr 11, 2011)

Ugh there was 100 to 200 persons present and 60 were arrested. It was an illegal protest that was deemed aas illegal cause it could have "incited to heinous act and disrupts the public order".


----------



## Le Mâle-Pensant (Apr 11, 2011)

Fruits Basket Fan said:


> They do not need to call the police or ask permission though.
> 
> 
> They have the right to protest and the police usually come on its own if the protest is too big....just to observe and make sure there is no violence.



When you get a permission from the district, them, i think the district organize the protest with the organizers and the police.

Man, is it too difficult to accept the fact that different countries have different way to deal with issues and that the one practiced in your country is not universal.....


----------



## Bishop (Apr 11, 2011)

Fruits Basket Fan said:


> They do not need to call the police or ask permission though.
> 
> 
> They have the right to protest and the police usually come on its own if the protest is too big....just to observe and make sure there is no violence.



They must apply (In France) to protest. If not, they could be fined and subject to jail time; depending on intensity. Most riots start small. Police can't just observe if not authorized; they have a route to follow for effective governing of a local area. 

I can appreciate your point that you shouldn't have to apply for a protest.


----------



## Razgriez (Apr 11, 2011)

Mandom said:


> Ugh there was 100 to 200 persons present and 60 were arrested. It was an illegal protest that was deemed aas illegal cause it could have "incited to heinous act and disrupts the public order".



Are we reading the same article?


----------



## Le Mâle-Pensant (Apr 11, 2011)

Mandom said:


> Ugh there was 100 to 200 persons present and 60 were arrested. It was an illegal protest that was deemed aas illegal cause it could have "incited to heinous act and disrupts the public order".



No no no, this one was last Saturday. They "try" to start a new one this Monday...


----------



## Punpun (Apr 11, 2011)

2 manifestation in two days ? Both of them illegals and there is still some people doing them an apology ?


----------



## Le Mâle-Pensant (Apr 11, 2011)

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KzJNg7v9hmw[/YOUTUBE]

BTW, i want say that Paris will NEVER allow a protest in a front of Notre Dame. Whatever the protest, it would take place in front of Notre Dame.


----------



## Kojiro Ganryu Sasaki (Apr 11, 2011)

ExoSkel said:


> LOL, WTF is that shit? Now looking at burka, France has every fucking rights to ban that ridiculously looking thing on PUBLIC. Wanna wear them? Wear them at your HOUSE! That thing looks like something that Sand People wear straight out of Star Wars.



Yes because the point of the law is to make sure people only wear decent clothes. People shouldn't walk around in ridiculous looking clothes like burqas.

Yes because the point of the law is to make sure people only wear decent clothes. People shouldn't walk around in ridiculous looking clothes like pants. Especially not women. They should stay at home.

Yes I did that repeat thing on purpose.



Mandom said:


> Ugh there was 100 to 200 persons present and 60 were arrested. It was an illegal protest that was deemed aas illegal cause it could have "incited to heinous act and disrupts the public order".



That makes me think of China for some reason.


----------



## Punpun (Apr 11, 2011)

Implying France and China are remotely comparable on any level. Liberty of religion ? Doesn't exist in China. Liberty of association ? Doesn't exist in China. And so on.. FRANCE IS WESTERN CHINA.


----------



## Terra Branford (Apr 11, 2011)

Bah! WHY DO PEOPLE KEEPING THINKING A VEIL IS THE SAME AS A BURQA OR ANY OTHER ISLAMIC CLOTHING?! Ahem. Anyway...

They knew the risks, as others have said, when they did it.

Besides, if you don't like a country's laws, then leave.


----------



## Shinigami Perv (Apr 11, 2011)

impersonal said:


> Only the niqab and burka are concerned; the later in particular. Clearly Shinigami perv does not know that much about his religion, otherwise he would surely have called things by their names (right?).



The headlines in many papers say "veil"



> Muslim women protest on first day of France's face veil ban





It's just a headline. I'm not going to go through that chart to perfect a headline on a ninja comic forum.



Juno said:


> The argument is that the burka is being banned because it obscures your identity. If that was true, every other preferred method criminals frequently use to obscure their identity would be banned. How do you explain why things like sunglasses, hats, and hoods are banned for security reasons in places like banks, but the burka is now banned _everywhere_.
> 
> This is not about security. That wasn't the reason Sarkozy and his ilk gave for the ban. And never have muslim women been the pointed to as a likely demographic for violence and criminality.




Eeeexactly.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Apr 11, 2011)

Sounds like France needs to double up production of tear gas.


----------



## ScreenXSurfer (Apr 11, 2011)

I say Muslim women who want to wear Burkas should instead dress up as Tusken Raiders. I'm think that's still legal.


----------



## Terra Branford (Apr 11, 2011)

ScreenXSurfer said:


> I say Muslim women who want to wear Burkas should instead dress up as Tusken Raiders. I'm think that's still legal.



I believe it was mentioned by another member, that this doesn't just prohibit the Burqa (or Niqāb with a Abaya), but any form of _full body_ coverings. Tusken Raiders being just that.

They still have the Khimār (scarf/cowl that covers all but the face) to wear if they so please, or at least they should have it.


----------



## T4R0K (Apr 12, 2011)

Let me just tell you of a real case of security matter involving burqas : 

In a town near mine, Athis Mons for the curious, a robbery happenned about 2 years ago were the robbers entered a bank wearing burqas, and successfully escaped with the cash. As far as I know, there has never been any news about arrests... Manipulation ? Proving a point ? Whatever. 

Take them off, ninjas.

Btw, a woman who wears the burqa said on th? radio she'll just wear sunglasses...


----------



## impersonal (Apr 12, 2011)

ximkoyra said:


> So, how do French surgeons dress if they can't look like this?
> 
> Also, is it now illegal to walk around in public dressed as a surgeon?  I want to know how far this law extends and what kinds of loopholes it has.


God, please stop it with the retarded arguments. Of course if it is required for your job, you can wear stuff that obscures your face. If you're a road construction worker, you can wear protection for your face on your workplace. It stands to reason. LeMale just confused the sanitary mask with a niqab. That's all there is to it. Don't be a hypocritical idiot.




			
				T4R0K said:
			
		

> In a town near mine, Athis Mons for the curious, a robbery happenned about 2 years ago were the robbers entered a bank wearing burqas, and successfully escaped with the cash. As far as I know, there has never been any news about arrests... Manipulation ? Proving a point ? Whatever.



Thanks. Another problem with Burkas is that people wearing them will vehemently refuse to get them off for identification. This makes police work very difficult. Especially since there is most likely a community backing up and enforcing the burka wearing.

My mother works as a doctor in a relatively poor area of Paris' suburbs. Every now and then (I don't mean once every 10 years, but several times a year) there's trouble because a small mob of angry retards (all male) disagree about some woman of their extended family who was examined by a male doctor. 

It is easy to see how, given this, women wearing burka are going to be a big issue for police work. Identity controls will be a pain in the ass, shops, banks etc. will not be able to force them to get it off without getting pressured etc., etc.



			
				Juno said:
			
		

> And never have muslim women been the pointed to as a likely demographic for violence and criminality.


This is like saying that balaclavas should be allowed because people who wear them are typically elite police units, who are not a likely demographic for criminality. Well, duh. The whole point is if someone is wearing a balaclava or a burka, you can't tell whether they're an elite police force member, a Muslim woman, a mexican wrestler or what have you. With the burka, it could be a polar bear for all we know, as even the hands are not allowed to be shown (advice: be cautious around really big burkas with prominent bulges around where the nose should be).

Secondly, in France, it is not even allowed to have racial statistics. So allowing a certain gender from a certain community to wear burkas is a no-no.



			
				Shinigami Perv said:
			
		

> The headlines in many papers say "veil"


It says *FACE *veil. How stupid do you think we are? Did you honestly believe we would not notice this?



			
				Shinigami Perv said:
			
		

> It's just a headline. I'm not going to go through that chart to perfect a headline on a ninja comic forum.


So basically this is a ninja comic forum, and nobody should bother writing good, truthful posts on a ninja comic forum. Is this what you meant? Does this mean you're writing bad posts because nothing written here should be better than Kishimoto's writing?


----------



## zuul (Apr 12, 2011)

I'm in favour of the law, but maybe could have let them do their manifestation.


----------



## Plain Scarfs (Apr 12, 2011)

Political points winning from Sarkozy, but really it goes against human rights; they should instead offer more support to those forced to wear the veil, instead of banning it outright.


----------



## impersonal (Apr 12, 2011)

Plain Scarfs said:


> Political points winning from Sarkozy, *but really it goes against human rights*; they should instead offer more support to those forced to wear the veil, instead of banning it outright.



The human right to conceal your identity, or the human right to wear whatever you want in public (including being naked, as the nun wisely pointed out)?


----------



## Plain Scarfs (Apr 12, 2011)

It's about balance; this need not be a black and white debate.


----------



## GrimaH (Apr 12, 2011)

Plain Scarfs said:


> It's about balance; this need not be a black and white debate.



You're not putting forward anything useful.
Plus you haven't answered impersonal's question at all.


----------



## Plain Scarfs (Apr 12, 2011)

The cafe is too absorbed in absolutes that it can't reach compramises, just because we allow X on the basis of the human right to freedom of expression doesn't mean Y also falls under the category.

It abuses the human rights of freedom to practice religion, right to privacy and expression. It's an awful draconian law which is a step in the wrong direction. There does however need to be laws in place to allow for identity checks with the burka taken off; each side has to make concessions here.

I hope that satisfies, I don't want to get into a debate.


----------



## GrimaH (Apr 12, 2011)

> I hope that satisfies



It really doesn't (though your elaboration on that vague statement was something at least).

The inevitable question when it comes to "balance" is: where is it on the scale between freedom of expression/privacy and need for identity checks? How do you even create a scale for that that's anywhere near accurate or precise enough to be useful?

And if we come to the pro's and con's of each side, it's quite obvious that any concern for the fashion inclinations of burqa/niqab wearers (and lovers) is dwarfed by the need for what is quite simply a basic security concession (a simple show of the face). The only even remotely arguable points are the usual slippery slope for security concessions and the imposing of "special citizenship classes" (what the hell does that mean anyway?)

But yeah, keep telling us how draconian it is to want people to uncover their faces.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Apr 12, 2011)

Plain Scarfs said:


> The cafe is too absorbed in absolutes that it can't reach compramises, just because we allow X on the basis of the human right to freedom of expression doesn't mean Y also falls under the category.



You're completely avoiding the issue with that gibberish.



> It abuses the human rights of freedom to practice religion,



Firstly, wearing a tent isn't part of Islam. Even a simple veil isn't part of Islam. Secondly, as soon as your practice of religion becomes a security risk to others, it is no longer a right. Indeed, the moment that practice of religion interferes with any other law, the other law always supersedes.



> right to privacy



Any cop can ask you to identify yourself, the right to privacy pretty much only applies when you're at home.



> and expression.



lolwut

How does freedom of speech factor into that?


----------



## princess of iwagakure (Apr 12, 2011)

Those women playing the victim

I don't have any problems with the French Law that needs permission for protesting. And when it comes to Islamic protests, France is one of the countries which is not a Islam country, with the most population density of muslim people. With that, you cannot say that the protest will _never_ turn into riots. The more the people, the more possibility there will be extremists(which may lead to a riot) just like every other religion. 

Just because you believe religion in a democratic society doesn't mean you can put religious priorities over everything. If that's allowed suicide bombings will happen every day in a democratic country. Okay, so I might be over-exaggerating there. Emphasizing human security over religious acts is convincing. This can be said of every religion.

Not only that, it isn't even permitted to wear a burka to believe in Islam religion. I don't know why they are sticking to the format. They are doing something what they want to do not what they have to do, and the worse part is that it violates human security. Appearing nude in the streets is far more better. At least being nude doesn't make it easier to commit crimes, whereas anybody can pretend to be a muslim, wear a burka, commit a crime, and even the security cameras won't identify them. And they act as if they were a victim

I don't see anything wrong with the French here.


----------



## Bill_gates (Apr 12, 2011)

Between the strikes in Libya, the operations in Ivory Coast and this France has been pretty badass recently...


----------



## Le Mâle-Pensant (Apr 12, 2011)

impersonal said:


> LeMale just confused the sanitary mask with a niqab.



No, my answer was based on this picture.



The sanitary mask is not banned of course but the veil on his head is not allowed.


----------



## Shinigami Perv (Apr 12, 2011)

impersonal said:


> It says *FACE *veil. How stupid do you think we are? Did you honestly believe we would not notice this?



As opposed to what, an ass veil?  

You caught me red-handed in my attempted omission of the word "face" in relation to "veil." You destroyed the ass veil myth with logic. 




> So basically this is a ninja comic forum, and nobody should bother writing good, truthful posts on a ninja comic forum. Is this what you meant? Does this mean you're writing bad posts because nothing written here should be better than Kishimoto's writing?



Basically, it means that any person of intelligence who knows anything about this topic understands that it's about face coverings. Even on a ninja comic forum. Here is another headline:



> French police issue first fine for Islamic *veil ban*






> *French veil ban*: First woman fined for wearing niqab




Now, please STFU.


----------



## Punpun (Apr 12, 2011)

How more childish can you be shiningami. You're disgracing Draper character.

Do you even click on your link ? I quote.





> A Muslim woman in a niqab. A 28-year-old has been fined for wearing the veil in the first enforcement of the French ban.



Fuck off.


----------



## Le Mâle-Pensant (Apr 12, 2011)

Shinigami Perv said:


> As opposed to what, an ass veil?
> 
> Anyway, I can't believe you've got a hair up your butt over the omission of the word "face" in relation to "veil."
> 
> ...



Just show these journalists don't do their job properly. The veil is not banned, it's the Burqa and the Niqab.


----------



## Shinigami Perv (Apr 12, 2011)

Mandom said:


> How more childish can you be shiningami. You're disgracing Draper character.
> 
> Do you even click on your link ? I quote.
> 
> Fuck off.



What are you talking about? 

How much more moronic can this debate actually get from your end, that's what I'm wondering.


----------



## Punpun (Apr 12, 2011)

Moronic ? You are insulting impersonal for saying It's not the veil that is banned, you use article saying clearly that burqa is banned and some woman was fined fior wearing one. All the while claiming it's a veil ban.

For god sake.


----------



## Shinigami Perv (Apr 12, 2011)

Mandom said:


> Moronic ? You are insulting impersonal for saying It's not the veil that is banned, you use article saying clearly that burqa is banned and some woman was fined fior wearing one. All the while claiming it's a veil ban.
> 
> For god sake.



Yeah, I'm not arguing that the burqa is banned, only that other news organizations have described this as a veil ban instead of specifying "niqab" or "burqa." They say "veil" because it's something that usually obscures the face, like many do at a wedding. 

And they aren't attempting to mislead people. That's what I'm saying. You seem lost over what we're talking about.


----------



## Le Mâle-Pensant (Apr 12, 2011)

Shinigami Perv said:


> Yeah, I'm not arguing that the burqa is banned, only that other news organizations have described this as a veil ban instead of specifying "niqab" or "burqa."
> 
> *And they aren't attempting to mislead people.* That's what I'm saying. You seem lost over what we're talking about.



Really ? So why not use the good word. It's clear that it's about the Burqa and the Niqab and not the veil.


----------



## Punpun (Apr 12, 2011)

Apart from the fact the media aren't portraying it as a veil ban of course. 

Headlines aren't made by journalists you know.


----------



## Shinigami Perv (Apr 12, 2011)

Le Mâle Dominant said:


> Really ? So why not use the good word. It's clear that it's about the Burqa and the Niqab and not the veil.



I'm guessing because most western people (at least in my country) wouldn't know a niqab or burqa from a headscarf if you asked them. People who aren't familiar with the difference Islamic face coverings wouldn't understand the distinction made in the title.



Mandom said:


> Apart from the fact the media aren't portraying it as a veil ban of course.
> 
> Headlines aren't made by journalists you know.



From the article: 



> The ban affects women who wear the niqab, which has just a slit for the eyes, and the burqa, which has a mesh screen over the eyes.


----------



## Le Mâle-Pensant (Apr 12, 2011)

Shinigami Perv said:


> I'm guessing because most western people (at least in my country) wouldn't know a niqab or burqa from a headscarf if you asked them. People who aren't familiar with the difference Islamic face coverings wouldn't understand the distinction made in the title.



So you have to adapt the news for the ignorants ???? Seriously, it's not a valid excuse. Just because people don't know what a Burqas or a Niqabs are, doesn't justify a fake information in the title.


----------



## Punpun (Apr 12, 2011)

Shinigami Perv said:


> From the article:



I see no mention of the word veil.


----------



## Descent of the Lion (Apr 12, 2011)

Humans and their silly laws.


----------



## Bleach (Apr 12, 2011)

^Yea! Humans and silly laws that are stupid and worthless and a waste of time for everyone.

Don't you hate that shit?


----------



## Shinigami Perv (Apr 12, 2011)

Le Mâle Dominant said:


> So you have to adapt the news for the ignorants ???? Seriously, it's not a valid excuse. Just because people don't know what a Burqas or a Niqabs are, doesn't justify a fake information in the title.



Most people over here associate veils with a bride's face covering. It seems like an alright way of describing an Islamic garment that covers the face.

The distinction is so trivial I'd rather not waste time discussing it anymore.


----------



## Sophie (Apr 12, 2011)

I agree that it should be banned (along with other face-covering things) while inside public buildings/banks/etc. where it may actually pose a security risk. But I think banning it even on the streets is going too far.


----------



## impersonal (Apr 12, 2011)

Shinigami Perv said:


> Most people over here associate veils with a bride's face covering. It seems like an alright way of describing an Islamic garment that covers the face.
> 
> The distinction is so trivial I'd rather not waste time discussing it anymore.





			
				Shinigami Perv said:
			
		

> [A face veil] as opposed to what, an ass veil?





> A veil is an article of clothing, worn almost exclusively by women, that is intended to cover *some part of the head or face*.


Clearly the veil in general was not forbidden. The hundreds of thousands of french muslim women who used one of the commonplace veils (such as the hijab) will be able to continue to do so in the future. Only the few dozens who wore a veil covering all of the face are now forbidden from doing so.

*Surely the distinction between a few dozens and hundreds of thousands of people concerned is not important. *And clearly a hijab and a burka are the same thing. Right? Keep calling us morons, we all know to appreciate it.

Most news know to call it a "full veil", "face veil", or use "niqab" or "burka". Some newspapers don't -- usually those who want to prove a point or do not understand the issue. Unsurprisingly.


----------



## Shinigami Perv (Apr 12, 2011)

impersonal said:


> Clearly the veil in general was not forbidden, and the *hundreds of thousands* of french muslim women who wore one of the commonplace veils (such as ahijab) will be able to continue to do so. Only the *few dozens* who wore a veil covering all of the face will be forbidden from doing this.
> 
> Surely the distinction between a few dozens and hundreds of thousands of people concerned is not important. Keep calling us morons, we all know to appreciate it.



And? Go harass the Guardian and Herald Sun. They have "veil" all over their headlines. Their editorial departments apparently didn't think the distinction was a big deal despite being aware of it. 

Most over here know that the word veil in association with Islam means face covering. The idea that this headline so misleads people apparently escaped the Guardian too.

You're from France, we get it. You want to defend your laws and way of life. But seriously, try something less pedestrian than semantics even major daily newspapers employ.


----------



## impersonal (Apr 12, 2011)

Shinigami Perv said:


> Most over here knows that the word veil in association with Islam means face covering.



Duh, keep denying the obvious, that'll make it go away. NO, that is not what it means. Wikipedia is of pretty good use when it comes to word usage:



			
				wikipedia said:
			
		

> Islam
> Further information: Islam and clothing, Hijab, and Purdah
> Women head scarves for sale in East Jerusalem
> 
> ...


----------



## Punpun (Apr 12, 2011)

That's still not true. Headlines =/= contents from the article. But maybe wanting to do the difference between two completly differents objects is a french thing..


----------



## Shinigami Perv (Apr 12, 2011)

impersonal said:


> That's not what it means. Wikipedia is of pretty good use when it comes to word usage:



Because everyone reads Wikipedia or a dictionary trying to ascertain the nature of veils just to ensure the Guardian's headline doesn't mislead them. 

This is becoming hilarious.


----------



## impersonal (Apr 12, 2011)

Shinigami Perv said:


> Because everyone reads Wikipedia or a dictionary trying to ascertain the nature of veils just to ensure the Guardian's headline doesn't mislead them.
> 
> This is becoming hilarious.



The article had a title that fit perfectly. You changed "burqa" from the article title and replaced it by "veil" in the thread title. You then proceeded to ignore the omnipresent evidence that "veil" refers to more than just garments than cover the face, including garments that cover parts of the head or neck. 

Excuse me if I find your attitude completely hypocritical.


----------



## Punpun (Apr 12, 2011)

Dat anti-intelectualism.


----------



## Shinigami Perv (Apr 12, 2011)

impersonal said:


> The article had a title that fit perfectly. You changed "burqa" from the title and replaced it by "veil" in the thread title. Excuse me if I call you a complete hypocrite.



I changed the headline to reflect that one was put in the back of a police van and driven away. "Detained" doesn't quite describe that type of action in the US, where we don't need a permit to protest. Didn't think twice about the word "veil", just absentmindedly threw it in there. 

Please explain how all these news organizations had an intent to mislead: 



> Woman detained for France veil ban protest


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-13033653



> French Veil Ban Takes Effect, Women Protest- AP






> Angry protests mark the first day of France's controversial veil ban
> 
> Read more:





> Veil fine for woman





So far, we've got the BBC, the AP, the Herald Sun, and some Chinese English news website forming an unholy alliance to mislead people about the French "veil" ban. 

It seems I'm not the only one who describes these as "veils", as the original article did about 30 times in the body.

All I can think of is that taking this kind of liberty with the word "burqa" must be some egregious error in the French language.



Mandom said:


> Dat anti-intelectualism.



It's a conspiracy by Murdoch and his tabloids to paint Muslims in a sympathetic light by mischaracterizing the French.


----------



## impersonal (Apr 12, 2011)

SP, your continuous lies are what annoy everybody here.


			
				SP said:
			
		

> It seems I'm not the only one who describes these as "veils", as the original article did about 30 times in the body.


The article does make sure which kinds of veils we're talking about at the very first line (as well as in its title).


> France's new ban on Islamic *face* veils



If you had been just a little bit honest, you would have taken into account what the article actually actually says before writing that. Or before writing that "face veil" is a ridiculous notion because there's no such thing as "ass veils"... When obviously lots of people differentiate between the different kinds of veils.

Including the hundreds of thousands of French Muslims who wear some kind of veil.


----------



## Shinigami Perv (Apr 12, 2011)

impersonal said:


> Keep calling us morons, we all know to appreciate it.



Sorry, I shouldn't have said this was moronic or implied that you were morons. That was frustration in my typing. 



> SP, your continuous lies are what annoy everybody here.
> 
> The article does make sure which kinds of veils we're talking about at the very first line (as well as in its title).



The fact that  you think I'm lying or trying to deceive people by omitting the word "face" before "veil" is truly bewildering to me. All I can chalk it up to is "lost in translation." Never in my life would I have guessed that people thought Islamic veil was an item other than something obscuring the face. 

In the body of the original article, the face coverings being banned are explicitly stated. 

I'll have a mod change the title so the actual topic can be discussed instead of this.


----------



## impersonal (Apr 12, 2011)

Shinigami Perv said:


> The fact that  you think I'm lying or trying to deceive people by omitting the word "face" before "veil" is truly bewildering to me. All I can chalk it up to is "lost in translation." Never in my life would I have guessed that people thought Islamic veil was an item other than something obscuring the face.
> 
> In the body of the original article, the face coverings being banned are explicitly stated.


Ah well, thanks. I deleted my last unanswered post so we don't have to keep this discussion going (it was about the neutrality of one of the articles you gave).


----------



## Toby (Apr 12, 2011)

I don't think a lot of you understand the meaning of French secularism, or in fact that the French argument is based on equality of the sexes. Yes, I realise that the English democratic system is based on freedom of choice, but the French democratic system is based on the legal preservation of rights.

The two are incredibly different and important distinctions. Socialists in France and Europe in general are more likely to ban the niqab or the burqa because it says something fundamental about social distrust of men. Wearing a niqab or burqa is the same as underestimating men's ability to control their instincts to mate. But that is why we need to have laws that outlaw rape, and since France has those laws, it does not need to adapt the culture to distrust men - before proven guilty. 

If there is to be any balance of the sexes, women must tolerate to be looked at. A rapist and an innocent man cannot be treated the same way. And the French are preserving that precise distinction, because this ban is made for the public, and not the private. Obviously you shouldn't tolerate somebody who stalks you in private. But you simply have to deal with other people when you are in public.

In the English democratic tradition, there is practically no separation between what you can do in private and public. And consequently they make a lot of exceptions for different cultural groups. This is an important distinction that most Americans just don't understand. Of course the British are hesitant to admit this, but they also enforced strict cultural preferential laws for years on end that have discriminated against Muslims in their own way. At least the French system is an attempt to preserve an equal and level system of rights for all citizens without exceptions. If anything they are in favour of universal rights, as opposed to universal freedom. Freedom after all does not correlate with power, so it can be abused.



Le M?le Dominant said:


> So you have to adapt the news for the ignorants ???? Seriously, it's not a valid excuse. Just because people don't know what a Burqas or a Niqabs are, doesn't justify a fake information in the title.



Damn straight. 



Shinigami Perv said:


> Most people over here associate veils with a bride's face covering. It seems like an alright way of describing an Islamic garment that covers the face.
> 
> The distinction is so trivial I'd rather not waste time discussing it anymore.



You know that's a rationalization and not a justification. If you are truly on the left's side, you must know that vital distinction. And the distinction between a veil, a niqab and a burqa matters because it's the god damn law.


----------



## Shinigami Perv (Apr 12, 2011)

Without the freedom for women to wear what they desire, you are treating them as if they need decisions made for them because they are not strong enough to decide for themselves. 

The women who decided to go into the street and protest the ban obviously want the personal choice to wear the face covering.

I love American law. That's the one reason that so many around the world _still_ think we are the greatest nation, and why applications for entry are overloaded to bursting. They can come here and have the personal choice to practice their religion or their culture however they want within *reasonable* restrictions that help to keep everyone's rights preserved. Or they can shit-can their old country and adopt cheeseburgers and suburban living. The choice is entirely theirs. 

This law was nothing short of pandering to xenophobes under the guises of security and women's rights.


----------



## alchemy1234 (Apr 12, 2011)

Shinigami Perv said:


> *Without the freedom for women to wear what they desire, you are treating them as if they need decisions made for them because they are not strong enough to decide for themselves. *
> 
> The women who decided to go into the street and protest the ban obviously want the personal choice to wear the face covering.
> 
> ...



agree with you mate.


----------



## Toby (Apr 12, 2011)

Shinigami Perv said:


> Without the freedom for women to wear what they desire, you are treating them as if they need decisions made for them because they are not strong enough to decide for themselves.
> 
> The women who decided to go into the street and protest the ban obviously want the personal choice to wear the face covering.
> 
> ...



I have to disagree on multiple tangents here. First of all, if you think that the freedom to choose has in any way protected people from abuse, then you are wrong. The fact is that freedom has never before and certainly will never in the future be equal to the amount of power that an individual has in society. You are as free as the CEO of Goldman Sachs but you are not as powerful. The French, for their part, are suspicious of the niqab and the burqa, and they don't for the most part care about the veil. After all it has no distinction from a hat, really.

What does this mean for the individual? Facts on the table then. You can wear a veil in France. But you cannot wear a niqab or a burqa. Of course that restricts your choice, but the French are arguing that these women don't even that choice today because they are forced to wear these clothes. Americans and English may think that they are free to choose what they wear, but I'm certain that many Europeans are under the impression that these clothes are nothing but tools for suppressing women. And if the facts are of any use here, they certainly suggest so. But my point is that it is culture, and not religion, which is the main force here.

I should had added another vital distinction that Terra Branford mentioned in a previous thread. Neither the burqa nor the niqab are worn voluntarily in most of the Middle East, in fact they are required to do so by law. In other words, these clothes are not worn by choice over there, and perhaps more importantly, since this pertains to religious freedom, it is not a part of the Islamic faith. It is a part of the culture in the Middle East. You do not see Asian Muslims or Balkan Muslims wear these. You will see Malaysian and Indonesian and Muslims in the Balkan wear veils, but not the niqab or the burqa. No fucking way. Why? Because the vast majority of Islamic scholars resoundingly reject that it is a part of the pure tradition of Islam.

So this is a question about culture and legal practice. I do not see it as a religious question. I've given it a lot of thought and I just don't buy it any more as a right to wear this stuff. Wear a veil for all you want, by all means. I understand and have some regard for protestors who wear a hockey mask to shield their identity, but in a free state you shouldn't have to do that. And consequently, the question of security and cultural identity comes first. And in France, it is not necessary because it is not required by law to wear those clothes, and they do not want to import that standard, nor are they required to do so.

If Britain and the US want to continue being the exception, then they are free to do so. However, I must stress this. I do not like the US because of its legal system. I like it because it is a democracy. But it has many flaws, and most of them are in its democratic system, and trumpeting of freedom that is not providing for the equal treatment of all Americans.


----------



## Shinigami Perv (Apr 12, 2011)

Barrel said:


> I have to disagree on multiple tangents here. First of all, if you think that the freedom to choose has in any way protected people from abuse, then you are wrong. The fact is that freedom has never before and certainly will never in the future be equal to the amount of power that an individual has in society. You are as free as the CEO of Goldman Sachs but you are not as powerful. The French, for their part, are suspicious of the niqab and the burqa, and they don't for the most part care about the veil. After all it has no distinction from a hat, really.
> 
> What does this mean for the individual? Facts on the table then. You can wear a veil in France. But you cannot wear a niqab or a burqa. Of course that restricts your choice, but the French are arguing that these women don't even that choice today because they are forced to wear these clothes. Americans and English may think that they are free to choose what they wear, but I'm certain that many Europeans are under the impression that these clothes are nothing but tools for suppressing women. And if the facts are of any use here, they certainly suggest so. But my point is that it is culture, and not religion, which is the main force here.
> 
> ...



I see an inherent goodness to freedom that has nothing to do with power. The ability for me to walk down the street and dress as I want and say what I think is important. Even though I don't say absurd things or dress strangely, it feels good to know the authorities won't try to stop me. Some people will look at me strangely, I might even get beat up, but at least the authorities can't stop me. We also have the freedom to protest as individuals-- I don't need a permit to go down to city hall, bust out my megaphone, and tell everyone is sight how awful our laws have become. 

It's hard for me to express how proud of my country I am when I see polls like this: 




To me, this is a very noble position. There is an inherent wrongness I feel when a government tries to tell me what I can wear, and judging by the poll, most other Americans feel this wrongness. Does it substantially impact me if they banned Islamic face coverings? No. But it feels like the first step down a road I don't want to explore.


----------



## Le Mâle-Pensant (Apr 12, 2011)

Yes but you guys fail to respect the choice of other nations. As an European, i don't approve your choice about freedom to have a gun or death penalty but unlike you guys, i try to understand you and your choice. I finally understand that you guys maybe need this because of your history and your culture. I don't believe it's necessary to have the right to have a gun or death penalty but I don't blame the US for that.


----------



## Petenshi (Apr 12, 2011)

I didn't know whatever the law was had to be the right thing to do. Must have forgotten that in Philosophy 101, or I must have completely misinterpreted letter from a Birmingham Jail.

Also, this is not about respecting your choice. As you can see, we all seem to disagree that the middle east should not be able to have some choices as nations.


----------



## Bishop (Apr 12, 2011)

Le M?le Dominant said:


> Yes but you guys fail to respect the choice of other nations. As an European, i don't approve your choice about freedom to have a gun or death penalty *but unlike you guys, i try to understand you and your choice.* I finally understand that you guys maybe need this because of your history and your culture. I don't believe it's necessary to have the right to have a gun or death penalty but I don't blame the US for that.



Hey, I respect your choices. Also, don't think these people represent America as a whole; Internationally America has been increasing it's popularity from evil to nice and happy- wouldn't want this to mess it up.


----------



## Le Mâle-Pensant (Apr 12, 2011)

Bishop said:


> Hey, I respect your choices. Also, don't think these people represent America as a whole; Internationally America has been increasing it's popularity from evil to nice and happy- wouldn't want this to mess it up.



I'm sorry, i didn't generalize the Americans but only those in this thread that don't even try to understand why we have such a laws.


----------



## Shinigami Perv (Apr 12, 2011)

Le Mâle Dominant said:


> I'm sorry, i didn't generalize the Americans but only those in this thread that don't even try to understand why we have such a laws.



It's too hard for us. The popular story for the USA's founding is that the pilgrims escaped Europe to flee religious persecution. Every child is taught this from the first moment of American history in school. It's in our founding documents. 

Basically, a ban like this is too alien for most of us to understand a justification for it. It runs contrary to everything we traditionally believe.


----------



## Le Mâle-Pensant (Apr 12, 2011)

I do understand that it's not easy for you guys. But try to forget your American and try to understand our history and values are different from different countries and culture. This is why the British share your opinion on the issue or Quebec consider a ban on the Burqa. 
We have 1 century of secularism, it's affected our opinion on religion. But i also believe the events in WWII also had an impact. The fact that we forced Jews to be visible with a yellow star... it's still sensitive here. You know, we don't really like visible religion symbol. 
The dream of our society is that everybody is equal. We believe all the French people should be in one single community, the national community. With it rules and its values.  Burqas or Niqab are seen as a strong obstacle to the national community and our values.

Maybe it's easier for us French, and especially those in this forum, to understand your opinion because we are more aware about the American culture than you guys are aware about our culture. I learn a lot here.


----------



## Hand Banana (Apr 12, 2011)

Le M?le Dominant said:


> I do understand that it's not easy for you guys. But try to forget your American and try to understand our history and values are different from different countries and culture. This is why the British share your opinion on the issue or Quebec consider a ban on the Burqa.
> We have 1 century of secularism, it's affected our opinion on religion. But i also believe the events in WWII also had an impact. The fact that we forced Jews to be visible with a yellow star... it's still sensitive here. You know, we don't really like visible religion symbol.
> The dream of our society is that everybody is equal. We believe all the French people should be in one single community, the national community. With it rules and its values.  Burqas or Niqab are seen as a strong obstacle to the national community and our values.
> 
> Maybe it's easier for us French, and especially those in this forum, to understand your opinion because we are more aware about the American culture than you guys are aware about our culture. I learn a lot here.




While that may be true, you still can't ignore the amount of contradiction behind this. We are forcing you to not wear something you're being forced to wear based on religion. And while we're fighting for equality, we're also telling people what they can and can't do openly. America may be subjective to prejudice, but the government is not so quick to act upon such beliefs.


Growing up I never did understand it. it's like trying to make a Utopia by controlling what everyone does as a whole.


----------



## Toby (Apr 12, 2011)

Well America doesn't have the same problem as the French have in their suburbs, so that's an explanation in itself.


----------



## Le Mâle-Pensant (Apr 12, 2011)

Hand Banana said:


> While that may be true, you still can't ignore the amount of contradiction behind this. We are forcing you to not wear something you're being forced to wear based on religion. And while we're fighting for equality, we're also telling people what they can and can't do openly. America may be subjective to prejudice, but the government is not so quick to act upon such beliefs.
> 
> 
> Growing up I never did understand it. it's like trying to make a Utopia by controlling what everyone does as a whole.



There are places you can't smoke. There are places, you can't enter with your pet. Laws are made to tell you what you can do and what you can't.


----------



## Razgriez (Apr 12, 2011)

Le Male. One thing you forget about Americans is we question everything whether it involves us or not and when it comes to something that involves our 1st amendment rights it goes to hell.

Ive also tried to make sense of it for security reasons and well it doesnt. A little common sense tells you that its futile and just down right stupid and all this law has caused is controversy and unnecessary headaches with your muslim community.



> There are places you can't smoke. There are places, you can't enter with your pet. Laws are made to tell you what you can do and what you can't.



Yes laws are there to help keep order but there is always a moment when laws become too extreme or lead down a dark path. What this law is doing is essentially putting on a dress code on your people under the mask of safety which it doesnt provide any. We got something similar. It was called the Patriot Act. Granted yours is nowhere near as invasive and full of shit as ours but you get the idea.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Apr 12, 2011)

Razgriez said:


> Le Male. One thing you forget about Americans is we question everything whether it involves us or not and when it comes to something that involves our 1st amendment rights it goes to hell.
> 
> Ive also tried to make sense of it for security reasons and well it doesnt. A little common sense tells you that its futile and just down right stupid and all this law has caused is controversy and unnecessary headaches with your muslim community.



 Americans sure are deluded. Your money violates your first amendment and school children are forced to violate the first amendment.


----------



## Bishop (Apr 12, 2011)

Saufsoldat said:


> Americans sure are deluded. Your money violates your first amendment and school children are forced to violate the first amendment.



...True


----------



## Le Mâle-Pensant (Apr 12, 2011)

Razgriez said:


> Le Male. One thing you forget about Americans is we question everything whether it involves us or not and when it comes to something that involves our 1st amendment rights it goes to hell.
> 
> Ive also tried to make sense of it for security reasons and well it doesnt. A little common sense tells you that its futile and just down right stupid and all this law has caused is controversy and unnecessary headaches with your muslim community.



To be honest, from France, the ban look even more controversial abroad that here. Most of Muslim don't care about this ban and are more worried about the rise of FN and their ideas.
I think the reason of the ban is more about the fact that it's a foreign tradition seen incompatible with out society more than a security season. The security reason only come when someone with a Burqa enter in place like Banks.


----------



## Razgriez (Apr 12, 2011)

Saufsoldat said:


> Americans sure are deluded. Your money violates your first amendment and school children are forced to violate the first amendment.



This is another reason why we question your shit. Cause its a circle jerk of shit talk about each others stuff.



> To be honest, from France, the ban look even more controversial abroad that here. Most of Muslim don't care about this ban and are more worried about the rise of FN and their ideas.
> I think the reason of the ban is more about the fact that it's a foreign tradition seen incompatible with out society more than a security season. The security reason only come when someone with a Burqa enter in place like Banks.



If the guy is wearing a mask hes probably not going to wait in line. He is just going to go to business and get the fuck out of there then strip his mask and look like everyone else.


----------



## Bishop (Apr 12, 2011)

Le M?le Dominant said:


> To be honest, from France, the ban look even more controversial abroad that here. Most of Muslim don't care about this ban and are more worried about the rise of FN and their ideas.
> I think the reason of the ban is more about the fact that it's a foreign tradition seen incompatible with out society more than a security season. The security reason only come when someone with a Burqa enter in place like Banks.



I thought the core of the ban was to maintain France's religious independence; therefore to strongly suggest there is no favored mass of people supporting a certain god over another?


----------



## Hand Banana (Apr 12, 2011)

Barrel said:


> Well America doesn't have the same problem as the French have in their suburbs, so that's an explanation in itself.



I was talking about his argument involving America.



Le M?le Dominant said:


> There are places you can't smoke. There are places, you can't enter with your pet. Laws are made to tell you what you can do and what you can't.



How does wearing a burqa now equate to health risks involved with smoking? Or allergic reactions to pet dander?


----------



## Le Mâle-Pensant (Apr 12, 2011)

Hand Banana said:


> How does wearing a burqa now equate to health risks involved with smoking? Or allergic reactions to pet dander?



The connection between these two examples is that it's limited by the law now. 

I use the example of cigarette to show the law tell you what you can't do.  You said : " we're also telling people what they can and can't do openly."
This was my answer to this. Yes there is laws to tell us what we can do and what we can't. When there is an area you can't smoke, it's to preserve the health of people around, when you forbid the use of Burqa in public place, you ban a expression of woman oppression in a society that definitely not share these values.


----------



## Le Mâle-Pensant (Apr 12, 2011)

BTW, i want to ad that it's very interesting to debate about this. Even if we don't share the same opinions, it's interesting to see different point of views...


----------



## Razgriez (Apr 12, 2011)

Le M?le Dominant said:


> The connection between these two examples is that it's limited by the law now.
> 
> I use the example of cigarette to show the law tell you what you can't do.  You said : " we're also telling people what they can and can't do openly."
> This was my answer to this. Yes there is laws to tell us what we can do and what we can't. When there is an area you can't smoke, it's to preserve the health of people around, when you forbid the use of Burqa in public place, you ban a expression of woman oppression in a society that definitely not share these values.



Not everyone views it as a form of oppression. This also bans full face masks as well.


----------



## Hand Banana (Apr 12, 2011)

Le M?le Dominant said:


> The connection between these two examples is that it's limited by the law now.
> 
> I use the example of cigarette to show the law tell you what you can't do.  You said : " we're also telling people what they can and can't do openly."
> This was my answer to this. Yes there is laws to tell us what we can do and what we can't. When there is an area you can't smoke, it's to preserve the health of people around, when you forbid the use of Burqa in public place, you ban a expression of woman oppression in a society that definitely not share these values.



But that's based on the assumption that all women feel opposed.


----------



## Le Mâle-Pensant (Apr 12, 2011)

They are still free to wear it at home.


----------



## Hand Banana (Apr 12, 2011)

But not in public.


----------



## Superstars (Apr 12, 2011)

Come to America ladies.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Apr 13, 2011)

Hand Banana said:


> But not in public.



You can't even drink in public in some states, so stop pretending like your shithole of a country is any better


----------



## zuul (Apr 13, 2011)

People totally disregarding the problem of proselytism there and the fact those ninja loving people pressure other women into doing the same.

'How dare you to show your face and calling yourself a Muslim, you whore.'

And shitting all over women rights is alright when it's in the name of Pasta God.
Let's also add this way of thinking considere all men to be serial rapists without any control on their libido. It's pathetic.


----------



## Xion (Apr 13, 2011)

ITT people not defending freedom of expression when it has to do with religion.

Hypocrites.


----------



## zuul (Apr 13, 2011)

Reiligions are so nice.

they totally don't treat women as second class citizens is not slaves to men for most of them. there are no religion that ever burn unbeliever, forcefully convert people using violence, condemn apostats to death, etc.


Don't bully them !!!*whine*

Religions are poison to society and yet one is not allowed to criticize their BS because it's religion.


----------



## -= Ziggy Stardust =- (Apr 13, 2011)

zuul said:


> People totally disregarding the problem of proselytism there and the fact those ninja loving people pressure other women into doing the same.
> 
> 'How dare you to show your face and calling yourself a Muslim, you whore.'
> 
> ...



It's quite silly that you speak of women rights and yet you do not allow them to wear what they want.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Apr 13, 2011)

Xion said:


> ITT people not defending freedom of expression when it has to do with religion.
> 
> Hypocrites.



Again, what does freedom of speech have to do with this?


----------



## Razgriez (Apr 13, 2011)

Saufsoldat said:


> Again, what does freedom of speech have to do with this?



What does it have to do with freedom of expression?


----------



## maj1n (Apr 13, 2011)

Hand Banana said:


> But that's based on the assumption that all women feel opposed.


No, they are just brainwashed to accept oppression.

It is without doubt that Islam is a patriarchal religion which is favourable to men and unfavourable to women, the commandments to allow beating of wives etc proves this.

Yet there are many Muslim women, did they all choose to follow a religion rationally after careful consideration of its merits?

No.

I support in public, allowing them to wear these stupid things only because i am not convinced of the feasibility of a ban being enforceable throughout the public sphere.

But my position is not some idealistic victory for 'freedom of expression' as naive idealists seem to want to phrase this as, rather, it is a hollow victory whereby i support their freedom to hurt themselves in the hopes they wake up.

Even if you support them being able to wear it, you shouldn't feel proud of this fact, and if you do, you have no idea on how bad muslim women are under Islam, for you support them doing something that continues to hurt them.


----------



## Razgriez (Apr 13, 2011)

maj1n said:


> No, they are just brainwashed to accept oppression.
> 
> It is without doubt that Islam is a patriarchal religion which is favourable to men and unfavourable to women, the commandments to allow beating of wives etc proves this.
> 
> ...



So. We are right and they are all wrong and horribly misled?


----------



## maj1n (Apr 13, 2011)

Razgriez said:


> So. We are right and they are all wrong and horribly misled?


Indeed, the reason for the full-veil is contained in sahih Hadith, which in Islam is second only to quran in authority of what is 'right'.

The reason is similar in protection of the 'virginal purity and virtue' of women, it is by far no different then the age-old middle-ages, thinking that women who are not virgins on-to marriage, are inherently immoral and 'tainted'.

Now a woman today who 'chose' (follows some stupid idealogy) to believe that women whom aren't virgins on marriage, are inherently 'sluttish' and deserving of being considering immoral and inferior, is by far no different then these women.

This is no whimsical 'fashion-sense', but a practice of a religion in which its purpose is that women whom aren't attired in such a manner, shows off their body and are therefore inherently sinful.

According to Islamic texts themselves, it is so ridiculous that some speak of the womens body as being instruments of the devil in bewitching men.


----------



## Razgriez (Apr 13, 2011)

maj1n said:


> Indeed, the reason for the full-veil is contained in sahih Hadith, which in Islam is second only to quran in authority of what is 'right'.
> 
> The reason is similar in protection of the 'virginal purity and virtue' of women, it is by far no different then the age-old middle-ages, thinking that women who are not virgins on-to marriage, are inherently immoral and 'tainted'.
> 
> ...



But that is their belief. Who are you to judge and say its wrong?


----------



## maj1n (Apr 13, 2011)

Razgriez said:


> But that is their belief. Who are you to judge and say its wrong?


A strange question, surely you would judge rapists whom may believe them raping people is inherently ok, is wrong, do you not?

Indeed even in Islam, it is not permissable for wives to say no to their husbands (to the point angels curse them apparently), therefore Islam in fact encourages rape of muslim wives.

Perhaps i should also turn a blind eye to these acts of rape if they occur? are they also not judgable?

And how does Law work with this perspective? should courts allow muslim husbands abusing their wives, on the point that it is 'their belief'?


----------



## Razgriez (Apr 13, 2011)

maj1n said:


> A strange question, surely you would judge rapists whom may believe them raping people is inherently ok, is wrong, do you not?
> 
> Indeed even in Islam, it is not permissable for wives to say no to their husbands (to the point angels curse them apparently), therefore Islam in fact encourages rape of muslim wives.
> 
> ...



All I am pointing out is their thought processes and perceptions are different then our own. Hell women have been 2nd class citizens for thousands of years in most societies and continue today and the notion of them being equal to greater has been something in recent history.

I am not saying its right by no means. Im just saying that maybe some people want to wear that wacky get up and why should there be a law that forces others beliefs onto them to prevent essentially the same concept of not forcing beliefs onto others. Besides, Le Male pointed out they can do it in private kind of defeating the purpose behind this.

Essentially, dont do it when others see you but in your own home you are fine.


----------



## maj1n (Apr 13, 2011)

Razgriez said:


> All I am pointing out is their thought processes and perceptions are different then our own. Hell women have been 2nd class citizens for thousands of years in most societies and continue today and the notion of them being equal to greater has been something in recent history.
> 
> I am not saying its right by no means. Im just saying that maybe some people want to wear that wacky get up and why should there be a law that forces others beliefs onto them to prevent essentially the same concept of not forcing beliefs onto others. Besides, Le Male pointed out they can do it in private kind of defeating the purpose behind this.
> 
> Essentially, dont do it when others see you but in your own home you are fine.


Didn't you state as a rebuttal to me 'who are you to judge their beliefs', i don't think your just 'stating their views' but you had an objection to me stating that the full-veil is oppressive to women in its meaning in Islam, which it is.

I don't think you should have any objection to 'why should there be a law that forces'....

For example, i think there should be laws against people being allowed to be naked in public due to health hazards from it.

Society should provide us freedom to the extent insofar as it does not damage society and benefits it, but there seems to be this troubling notion that society in general, should support the 'ideal' of 'freedom' to the most extreme conclusion.

Naive idealists.

It is far better to argue your stance on the grounds of 'does this law benefit society rather then harm it..'.

I don't think this law is a good law because i can't imagine how it can be enforced in general public, certainly i think it is far more practical to enforce it in institutions such as hospitals etc.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Apr 13, 2011)

Razgriez said:


> What does it have to do with freedom of expression?



They're the same fucking thing.

I don't know when freedom of speech/expression became synonymous with freedom to do whatever the fuck you want to do.


----------



## Bishop (Apr 13, 2011)

Saufsoldat said:


> They're the same fucking thing.
> 
> I don't know when freedom of speech/expression became synonymous with freedom to do whatever the fuck you want to do.



The moment free-wandering opinionated liberals got involved.


----------



## Shinigami Perv (Apr 13, 2011)

maj1n said:


> A strange question, surely you would judge rapists whom may believe them raping people is inherently ok, is wrong, do you not?
> 
> Indeed even in Islam, it is not permissable for wives to say no to their husbands (to the point angels curse them apparently), therefore Islam in fact encourages rape of muslim wives.
> 
> ...



You would compare choice of clothing to rape? 

One is a right to choose, and one is the denial of a right. I might as well be more consistent and compare this law (a denial of a right to choose clothing) to murder, a denial of the right to live. What a ridiculous statement. 

Regardless, spousal rape is also legal in Catholicism. 



> 3 The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4 *The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband.* In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife. 5


----------



## Luxiano (Apr 13, 2011)

Meh , there are more importants problems to solve than the fucking "Burqa" , hell even in Tunisia it's not allowed.


----------



## maj1n (Apr 14, 2011)

Shinigami Perv said:


> You would compare choice of clothing to rape?
> 
> One is a right to choose, and one is the denial of a right. I might as well be more consistent and compare this law (a denial of a right to choose clothing) to murder, a denial of the right to live. What a ridiculous statement.


No, i am rebutting someone whom seem to object to me judging the morality of other beliefs and actions, by giving the example of rape

If you read the discussion, you would understand easily since it is contained *in one post*, easily, but perhaps you require knee-jerk reactions as you strongly seem to defend Islam.



			
				Shinigami Perv said:
			
		

> Regardless, spousal rape is also legal in Catholicism.


I fail to see why Christianity is relevant to Islam, i am not Christian.

Regardless, if you think it is wrong, i presume you find both Islam and Christianity morally wrong in these regards.

The reason for the veil is also wrong, it is a judgement of the morality of a woman based on whether she showed some ankle.

But people such as yourself seem to spend more time defending people practicing and spreading a belief and ritual which is oppressive to women, and challenging those who wish to stop it, rather then trying to actually try and end such a stupid practice through, say, enlightened discussion.

I certainly have never seen you talk about the oppression and immoral aspects of the veil, strange dont you think?


Why you think defending people practicing an evil practice is somehow a worthy cause to champion is beyond me.


----------



## Shinigami Perv (Apr 14, 2011)

maj1n said:


> And so, for the same reason, the reason for the veil is also wrong, it is a judgement of the morality of a woman based on whether she showed some ankle.



No, that's completely incorrect. 

Once again: Spousal rape is the denial of a right to women, the right to have sex when they want. 

I would not want my girlfriend wearing that attire, but it is up to her, not me, and not the state. She has the right to decide what she wants to wear. Denying her that right is no different that the Saudi religious authorities telling women they must wear head coverings. Both sides will argue that they are protecting women and disguise it behind different rationalities, one based on secular beliefs and the other religious, yet neither are willing to let the woman choose.


----------



## maj1n (Apr 14, 2011)

Shinigami Perv said:


> No, that's completely incorrect.
> 
> Once again: Spousal rape is the denial of a right to women, the right to have sex when they want.
> 
> I would not want my girlfriend wearing that attire, but it is up to her, not me, and not the state. She has the right to decide what she wants to wear. Denying her that right is no different that the Saudi religious authorities telling women they must wear head coverings. Both sides will argue that they are protecting women and disguise it behind different rationalities, one based on secular beliefs and the other religious, yet neither are willing to let the woman choose.


You've misquoted me.

Go back and correct yourself, i didn't equate rape and wearing the veil (as free choice).

No, denying the right of a woman to wear the veil is nowhere near as bad as forcing a woman to wear the veil.

Neither is correct, but neither is equivalent.

Hitler forcing Jews to wear the Star of David to identify them and make it easier to oppress them, is NOWHERE near as bad as enforced uniforms in schools.

Your naive attempts to equate thing's is a gross insult to the oppression women experience in Muslim countries.


----------



## Shinigami Perv (Apr 14, 2011)

maj1n said:


> You've misquoted me.
> 
> Go back and correct yourself, i didn't equate rape and wearing the veil (as free choice).
> 
> ...




This reminds me of the South Park episode where the different sects of atheists fight one another over trivial matters. 

You want to deny women a right for one reason, the Saudis for another. Neither of you are right. They trot out some religious doctrine to support their position, you trot out some inane analogy to Nazis denying rights to people. You're trying to "save" them from "religious oppression", the Saudis are trying to "save" them from "immodesty."

To me, you are a secular version of them. You both want women to behave the way you desire, their will be damned.


----------



## -Dargor- (Apr 14, 2011)

People seem to be making a big deal out of this for no valid reason.

If these women would have gone naked instead everybody would be saying "Well duh "

Protesting is fine so long as it remains within the border of the laws in place, past that, don't be surprised when people get arrested.

As for my personnal opinion on the matter, if they don't like France's law, nobody's keeping them from going somewhere else. It should come down to "Is this country really right for me?" "Is the burqa really worth moving away for". If no, then adapt, if yes, well kudos to you for staying true to your convictions, see you in another country.

I'd love to see naturists make this much of a fuss really, protesting for the right to go naked anywhere they please anytime.


----------



## maj1n (Apr 14, 2011)

Shinigami Perv said:


> That's not a misquote, that's you correcting yourself with the "edit" function.


Really? timestamp of mine is before yours



			
				Shinigami Perv said:
			
		

> This reminds me of the South Park episode where the different sects of atheists fight one another over trivial matters.
> *
> You want to deny women a right for one reason,* the Saudis for another. Neither of you are right. They trot out some religious doctrine to support their position, you trot out some inane analogy to Nazis denying rights to people. You're trying to "save" them from "religious oppression", the Saudis are trying to "save" them from "immodesty."
> 
> To me, you are a secular version of them.



ROFL.




			
				maj1n said:
			
		

> *I support in public, allowing them to wear these stupid things *only because i am not convinced of the feasibility of a ban being enforceable throughout the public sphere.


Seems like your arguing against a position i never took.

Your apology is accepted.

Next time, if you want to pitch into my discussion with another person, i suggest you get that discussion right.


----------



## Shinigami Perv (Apr 14, 2011)

maj1n said:


> Really? timestamp of mine is before yours



If you edit within 10 minutes, there's no record of it.  A mod can probably see it, and they'll know I just quoted you. 





> ROFL.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



But you support its enforcement where it's more "practical"? I got the sense that you would ban it for moral reasons but not enforce it for practical ones.



> I don't think this law is a good law because i can't imagine how it can be enforced in general public, certainly i think it is far more practical to enforce it in institutions such as hospitals etc.



I'll give you props for not actually supporting the French law, though, but why would you care if they wear it in hospitals? 

Denying a woman the right to wear it is absolutely identical to forcing her to wear it. Saying that one is better than the other is not different than them claiming the same. It's two sides arguing over the morality of their respective denials of rights.


----------



## maj1n (Apr 14, 2011)

Shinigami Perv said:


> But you support its enforcement where it's more "practical"? I got the sense that you would ban it for moral reasons but not enforce it for practical ones.


But nothing, you promoted a strawman of my position, your misunderstanding is noted.



			
				Shinigami Perv said:
			
		

> Denying a woman the right to wear it is absolutely identical to forcing her to wear it. Saying that one is better than the other is not different than them claiming the same. It's two sides arguing over the morality of their respective denials of rights.



No it isn't, only someone who doesn't think things through belives this.

Denying my child to own a gun is not the same as forcing to give them one.

See how an easy example ABSOLUTELY destroys your argument?

You need to rationally analyse the issue, but you don't, and you won't.

You need to understand that the practice in question is terribly oppressive to women, that it is a purely religious reason to wear it, that we are weighing practicality of whether we can enforce the ban, whether stopping women from wearing these things is more benefit to society then harmful.

This requires *analysis*, social issues are not solved by a simpletons thinking of whether it satisfied some 'right'.

Heres an important thing for you to understand, no one has the 'right' to wear what they want either, for no one should be allowed to go naked in public as it is a public hygeine hazard.

You understand nothing of rights nor anything about social problems or whats needed to.

My disgust with you is trying to boil this argument down to 'rights' when this never existed for this issue, and my disgust with you trying to equate those who are for the ban as being as bad as the saudi religious police.

In my country, certain groups have banned games, this obstructs me choosing to buy the game, but do you think it is mature if i go on a crusade like you do, and liken their actions as that of Hitler?

Those who are for the ban, either for security reasons, or genuinely trying to stop a genuinely oppressive practice that considers women inferior, now they may be misguided or impractical, but don't ever equate them as to saudi religious police whom beat people up if they don't wear the veil, thats just being a fucktard.

Grow up.


----------



## Shinigami Perv (Apr 14, 2011)

maj1n said:


> But nothing, you promoted a strawman of my position, your misunderstanding is noted.



I misunderstood your position on the French law, but I still don't understand why you support it in institutions or other places where it's enforceable. 




> No it isn't, only someone who doesn't think things through belives this.
> 
> Denying my child to own a gun is not the same as forcing to give them one.
> 
> ...



No, I don't. That analogy doesn't make any sense to me. 

Why would "you can't do something" be any different than "you must do something"? "You must pay your taxes", "you can't steal", these are laws designed to make you act a certain way, and emphasizing the difference between positive and negative commands doesn't change the fact that it's a command. In both cases you're denying people the right to decide for themselves.



maj1n said:


> Heres an important thing for you to understand, no one has the 'right' to wear what they want either, for no one should be allowed to go naked in public as it is a public hygeine hazard.



Being naked in public infringes upon the rights of others to a hygienic environment. There would be shit on seats with hepatitis, etc., and that is absolutely intolerable. Nevertheless, the US provides special places where nudity is acceptable in public where people are more familiar with the risks of nude living. Laws should balance the rights of the individual against the rights of everyone. 

Wearing a burka infringes upon the rights of no one.



> In my country, certain groups have banned games, this obstructs me choosing to buy the game, but do you think it is mature if i go on a crusade like you do, and liken their actions as that of Hitler?



That's terrible. You should go on a crusade to get your right to play the games you want, or circumvent the law by buying online if you can.


----------



## maj1n (Apr 14, 2011)

Shinigami Perv said:


> I misunderstood your position on the French law, but I still don't understand why you support it in institutions or other places where it's enforceable.


Many reasons, such as security.



			
				Shinigami Perv said:
			
		

> No, I don't. That analogy doesn't make any sense to me.
> 
> Why would "you can't do something" be any different than "you must do something"? "You must pay your taxes", "you can't steal", these are laws designed to make you act a certain way, and emphasizing the difference between positive and negative commands doesn't change the fact that it's a command. In both cases you're denying people the right to decide for themselves.


Because of its impacts on society, i support the BAN from giving guns to CHILDREN (below age limit), i don't think this is particularly immoral, nor equivalent to FORCING US GIVING GUNS TO CHILDREN.

Your struggling to rebut my example, your logic of 'rights', fails with children being prevented from getting guns, why is that do you think?



			
				Shinigami Perv said:
			
		

> Being naked in public infringes upon the rights of others to a hygienic environment. There would be shit on seats with hepatitis, etc., and that is absolutely intolerable. Nevertheless, the US provides special places where nudity is acceptable in public. Laws should balance the rights of the individual against the rights of everyone.
> 
> Wearing a burka infringes upon the rights of no one.


Same could be said of security searches, with your logic, we should not search people because them wearing concealing uniforms does not 'obstruct anyone'.

But society, and most people, think security searches is understandable and good for many situations and many places.

*you need to understand that our society is not based on 'rights' as you think, it is based on practicality and 'what works', rights are valid only insofar as they benefit society and are therefore practical*.

There's no such thing as 'right to a hygeinic environment' either, you have no damn idea on what rights are, and your just throwing this shit around now.


----------



## Shinigami Perv (Apr 14, 2011)

maj1n said:


> Because of its impacts on society, i support the BAN from giving guns to CHILDREN (below age limit), i don't think this is particularly immoral, nor equivalent to FORCING US GIVING GUNS TO CHILDREN.
> 
> Your struggling to rebut my example, your logic of 'rights', fails with children being prevented from getting guns, why is that do you think?



You don't see that using guns is absolutely irrelevant? I could substitute "drinking water" for "guns" and change that analogy completely. Likewise, I could change a negative command into a positive ("prohibition on keeping guns from children" vs. "every child should have a gun") and it renders this meaningless. You can't see how meaningless the actual wording of the analogy is and realize that denial of rights is the core of this debate? 

This is, at its core, you judging morality, assigning values, and determining which is superior. Through your analogy, you are just arguing that banning face coverings is as obviously less offensive to forcing face coverings as restricting guns from children is to giving every child a gun. The latter being absurd, the former questionable. 




> Same could be said of security searches, with your logic, we should not search people because them wearing concealing uniforms does not 'obstruct anyone'.
> 
> But society, and most people, think security searches is understandable and good for many situations and many places.
> 
> *you need to understand that our society is not based on 'rights' as you think, it is based on practicality and 'what works', rights are valid only insofar as they benefit society and are therefore practical*.



Security searches serve a compelling interest to public safety. Everyone understands why they are necessary, but there will always be debate as to how far these can go, like the recent TSA changes. What compelling interest does banning face coverings serve? It's just banning something one group doesn't like at the expense of the other group's rights. 

One thing you must understand is that for a just law, the rights of everyone must be balanced so that no one is unfairly restricted. Societies will "work" with a variety of unjust laws that the populace supports, but that doesn't make it right. China "works" and even thrives, but I wouldn't say that just because they "work" it lends any weight positively or negatively to their laws. 



> There's no such thing as 'right to a hygeinic environment' either, you have no damn idea on what rights are, and your just throwing this shit around now.



You do realize that here in the US we have hygiene laws at food places dictating that food employees wash their hands after going to the bathroom, right? That is due to a person's right to clean food and a clean eating environment. If people were allowed to sit on benches without pants, the spread of disease would be ridiculous. The public has a right to a hygienic environment.


----------



## maj1n (Apr 14, 2011)

Shinigami Perv said:


> You don't see that using guns is absolutely irrelevant? I could substitute "drinking water" for "guns" and change that analogy completely. Likewise, I could change a negative command into a positive ("prohibition on keeping guns from children" vs. "every child should have a gun") and it renders this meaningless. You can't see how meaningless the actual wording of the analogy is and realize that denial of rights is the core of this debate?


No it isn't meaningless, the fact you can't rebut me is proof of that.

Why can't you rebut it? because your argument is ridiculous in its simplicity, you say 'not letting them wear these clothes is as bad as forcing them to wear clothes'.

No it isn't, neither are imo correct, but stopping women from practicing a truly oppressive and demeaning ritual of a religion is nowhere near as bad as forcing them to practice something that inherently demeans them.

The sheer ridiculousness is shown when you equate people for the ban as equivalent to the saudi situation, an appeal to emotion that makes you come off as an idiot.



			
				Shinigami Perv said:
			
		

> This is, at its core, you judging morality, assigning values, and determining which is superior. Through your analogy, you are just arguing that banning face coverings is as obviously less offensive to forcing face coverings as restricting guns from children is to giving every child a gun. The latter being absurd, the former questionable.


Yes banning the veil is not as bad as forcing women to wear it.

Trying to force women to stop practicing an Islamic ritual in which its religious reason is to treat women as sexual objects, is nowhere near as bad as forcing women to wear it so we can treat them as sexual objects.

I doubt anyone can rationally rebut this reasoning.

E.g. i remember when a person wore the star of david and Jews got upset and university banned this (it was a joke at some uni party) now i think it was a bit of an overreaction, *but forcing them not to wear this which symbolised Hitlers oppression, is nowhere near as bad as forcing them to wear it to symbolise Hitlers oppression*

Is this fucking hard to understand?


			
				Shinigami Perv said:
			
		

> *Security searches serve a compelling interest to public safety.* Everyone understands why they are necessary, but there will always be debate as to how far these can go, like the recent TSA changes. What compelling interest does banning face coverings serve? It's just banning something one group doesn't like at the expense of the other group's rights.


Exactly, which is the angle of all those for the ban, therefore your argument of 'rights' is not enough for this issue.

If you want to rebut them, you rebut them on the grounds of the pro
s and con's of the ban and its affects on society, not whether it affirms your arbitrary right.



			
				Shinigami Perv said:
			
		

> One thing you must understand is that for a just law, the rights of everyone must be balanced so that no one is unfairly restricted. Societies will "work" with a variety of unjust laws that the populace supports, but that doesn't make it right. China "works" and even thrives, but I wouldn't say that just because they "work" it lends any weight positively or negatively to their laws.


Still wrong, we ban guns from children but not necessarily adults.

Your 'balance the rights of everyone' is NOT how society works,that is a big illusion.

There are a million examples i can put forth, where an unequal treatment, is conisdered VERY humane.

E.g. it is a policy to stand up and let old women sit down on public transport, this violates every single little argument of 'rights' that you have put forth.

I have told you time and time again, at its very core, society upholds that which benefits it, rights are subject to this criteria, it does NOT overrule it.



			
				Shinigami Perv said:
			
		

> You do realize that here in the US we have hygiene laws at food places dictating that food employees wash their hands after going to the bathroom, right? That is due to a person's right to clean food and a clean eating environment. If people were allowed to sit on benches without pants, the spread of disease would be ridiculous. The public has a right to a hygienic environment.


No it isn't, it is to improve our society that is for certain, but it certainly has nothing to do with 'rights'.

You don't understand what rights are, you think any and everything is a 'right' or pertains to a 'right'.

A 'right' is something like an entitlement 'you have the right to something', no one in any country has a general 'right' to general good hygiene of public facilities, that is purely up to the social contract in any particular country of its citizens to the Governments implementation of public services.

It is a social agreement, it is not a 'right' like 'fundamental human rights' where we tend to think this applies universally, it is more like a contractual agreement between a citizen and its government, it is somewhat subjective and depends on the Government and country.

The reason? i never paid for the entire toilet facility at some public place, there is certainly no rationale reason that i have a 'right' or any expectation, only if there is a social contractual agreement between me and my government that implements this public facility can i then hold people accountable for unacceptable conditions.

Another reason, is that standards change, what is acceptable in one country (India) is totally unacceptable in my country, but your argument of 'rights' would mean that if i went to India and got sick, i hold them accountable, even when they upheld their standards perfectly.

It 
Does
Not
Work
That
Way

edit: laws are a contractual agreement between citizen and government, proof is that laws change but we still follow these changed laws, its funny you argue for laws, *because since France made this law, you must support it*


----------



## KazeYama (Apr 14, 2011)

I never understood why France hates Muslims so much.


----------



## Psycho (Apr 14, 2011)

Le M?le Dominant said:


> In a Hospital, when you work there, you can't wear a religion symbol.



not even a private or religious hospital?


----------



## reaperunique (Apr 14, 2011)

Not sure if it has been said but covering once face can also be concidered illegal, it makes one unrecognizable in public not gonna trouble myself in searching for it specifically but I though I read it somewhere. personally I don't have a problem with it, but I understand why they law is there.


----------



## abcd (Apr 14, 2011)

Though I am against this law from an ideological stance, I am only being convinced that this might be a good decision. The real problem that is brought to the forefront is the assimilation of immigrants into the society. I would be happy if someone could convince me that this is a bad idea.


----------



## impersonal (Apr 14, 2011)

Xion said:


> ITT people not defending freedom of expression when it has to do with religion.
> 
> Hypocrites.



It's a huge stretch to call the burqa a "means of expression". ie talking or writing are means of expressions, dancing in the streets, for example, not so much. Clearly, wearing a burqa is closer to the latter example than to the former ones. Besides, women typically do not wear it to make a statement, but because it is made mandatory by some religious rule.

The idea behind the ban is mostly that the burqa is an instance of sexist discrimination.


			
				KazeYama said:
			
		

> I never understood why France hates Muslims so much.


What's not to hate about the burqa?

... Anyway, here's a serious answer:
France has the largest Muslim community in Europe, and this is reflected in its foreign policy: France is close to Algeria and Morocco, and also is probably the nation of the west that is most active in supporting Palestine. 

However, there are frictions due to the sheer size of the Muslim community (>5 millions). 

(1) Firstly, the majority of violent *criminality* in France is, by far, committed by Muslims. Social, economic and cultural factors contribute to this: e.g., Muslims are more likely to be unemployed, to have a good professional network; Africans are more used to a more cooperative society in the education of children, but also to more poverty and thus a more intense "fight for survival", etc. etc.

(2) Secondly, there is a *"values" clash*: such fundamental values as secularism or gender equality are not as deeply rooted among the Muslim community as among the rest of French people. 

(3) Thirdly, past and present economic discrimination against immigrants have led to a backlash, with some Muslims (typically the violent youths also responsible for crime, but not only) openly hating the French and promoting their country of origin (most often Algeria), meaning entire areas of some French suburbs have become dangerous if you are Caucasian or Asian. Some people view this phenomenon as some sort of *invasion*.

All of this has led to calls to reduce immigration before the situation degrades too much -- e.g. hatred progressing on both sides. However, bleeding-heart political correctness is very powerful in France and any calls to reduce immigration or to blame the current situation on excessive past immigration are called "xenophobic" or "racist". This has led to political ostracism of those promoting a reduction of immigration. Because of that, the situation kept degrading, as big businesses needed cheap and numerous labor, and campaigning for a reduction of immigration had you labelled a racist and excluded from political discussions. This also encouraged those who argued in favor of harsher immigration rules to become more extreme in their views; many actually ended up _becoming_ racist.

This law is part of addressing one the issues covered above: the values clash issue. It is a way to re-state an essential value of the country, gender equality.

There you have it, the genesis of the current problems France is facing. Dumb one-liners do not come close to any kind of understanding of that situation... I hope you comprehend it better now. Where are you from by the way?


----------



## -= Ziggy Stardust =- (Apr 14, 2011)

impersonal said:


> It's a huge stretch to call the burqa a means of expression. Women do not wear it to make a statement, but because it is made mandatory by some religious rule.
> 
> The idea behind the ban is mostly that the burqa is an instance of sexist discrimination.



I thought they wore it to express how close they are to god?
(for those who wear it willingly)


----------



## abcd (Apr 14, 2011)

-= Ziggy Stardust =- said:


> I thought they wore it to express how close they are to god?
> (for those who wear it willingly)



How does wearing a dress willingly express how close they are to god? , Who are they expressing this to ?


----------



## impersonal (Apr 14, 2011)

-= Ziggy Stardust =- said:


> I thought they wore it to express how close they are to god?
> (for those who wear it willingly)



What? This has nothing to do with expressing anything. It's about not being allowed to show your skin in front of men, because, according to some fundies, the quran says so.

Some people are going to try and claim that this is a way of _"expressing yourself"_, in the same sense that you're "expressing yourself" when you're singing out loud. But clearly this is not what is usually understood by the human right of _freedom of expression_. 

"Expressing yourself" in the first sense means *acting* in conformity with who you are, and in the second sense it simply means being allowed to *state* what you think. These are two very different things. The second one is covered by freedom of expression. The first one is not.

Which is why "free speech" is a much less ambiguous term... One can see immediately that it is silly to claim that wearing a burqa is protected by free speech.


----------



## Bishop (Apr 14, 2011)

KazeYama said:


> I never understood why France hates Muslims so much.



France doesn't hate Muslims.

If you talk to many people in France, they will tell you that they don't care AND NEITHER do the Muslims.

I base this off of asking some of my French buds by Nice and bolonga (North east).


----------



## stream (Apr 14, 2011)

Bishop said:


> France doesn't hate Muslims.
> 
> If you talk to many people in France, they will tell you that they don't care AND NEITHER do the Muslims.
> 
> I base this off of asking some of my French buds by Nice and bolonga (North east).



(Where or what is bolonga? do you mean Bologna in Italy?)

I find it a bit murky.

Talking with French people, I usually sensed a strong displeasure for the fact that even after foreigners have lived many years in France, "they are still not French" (in the words of a guy I talked to). He was not talking about citizenship, because you can become a French citizen after a few years of living there; he meant that they do not have traditional French values.

It is a bit unclear to me why values is such a big problem for Muslims, and not say for Buddhists, but the veil is definitely one of the points that came up often in the conversation. That it has a somewhat religious reason is even worse, because French people do have a very strong secular mindset. I remember explaining to French people that the fourth biggest party in Switzerland is called "Christian-Democratic", and some of them exclaimed: "What? You do not have separation of church and state??"

The fact that there are so many Muslims immigrating to France definitely does not help. But people don't usually give this as a reason by itself to dislike Muslims, because it would be rather xenophobic...


----------



## Zabuzalives (Apr 14, 2011)

This is a good thing. You Dont need to allow a symbol of islamofascism in public. 

Especially as there are security and integration concerns in where societies interest should weigh heavier then expressions of hate. 

This fits with bans on nazi attires And identity concealing masks.


----------



## impersonal (Apr 14, 2011)

stream said:


> It is a bit unclear to me why values is such a big problem for Muslims, and not say for Buddhists


Are you serious about asking this? What parts of Buddhism do you think could possibly conflict with an occidental country's values?

The parts of Islam that cause conflict have been stated already: a tendency towards theocracy and sexism.

Note: I'm not saying Islam always comes with theocratic and sexist aims. Rather, I'm saying that it is _often_ more accepting of it, and _sometimes_ supports it.


----------



## Shinigami Perv (Apr 14, 2011)

maj1n said:


> No it isn't meaningless, the fact you can't rebut me is proof of that.
> 
> Why can't you rebut it? because your argument is ridiculous in its simplicity, you say 'not letting them wear these clothes is as bad as forcing them to wear clothes'.
> 
> ...



And that's where your argument utterly falls apart. The women who choose to wear this don't agree with you that it's demeaning. You're literally telling them that their cultural dress is wrong and yours is right. That is the basis of your argument: theirs wrong, barbaric, cruel, yours right. That is the basis you use to tip the morality scale in favor of depriving them of their ability to choose here over depriving them of choice over there. Don't you see how utterly silly this sounds? 




> Yes banning the veil is not as bad as forcing women to wear it.
> 
> Trying to force women to stop practicing an Islamic ritual in which its religious reason is to treat women as sexual objects, is nowhere near as bad as forcing women to wear it so we can treat them as sexual objects.
> 
> ...



Your rationale is convoluted. Why do you keep bringing up Hitler? He forced them to wear those in order to identify and dehumanize them, ultimately to kill them. How does this compare to countries where women are forced to wear face/head coverings? In Iran, they are forced to wear head coverings because some think they are protecting a woman's modesty dictated under Islam, they're not being singled out for genocide. You believe you're liberating them from a barbaric practice. That analogy is as poor as I've ever seen. 

Both sides sound like this to me: 


> *Still wrong, we ban guns from children but not necessarily adults.*
> 
> Your 'balance the rights of everyone' is NOT how society works,that is a big illusion.
> 
> ...



Do you live in Singapore? Anyway, we don't do things that way over here. 

Kids aren't actually banned from having or shooting guns in this country. It's just that most parents don't want their kids toting around firearms for obvious reason. The reason? We have a "right" to bear arms that makes it very difficult to restrict who can use a firearm. 




> Another reason, is that standards change, what is acceptable in one country (India) is totally unacceptable in my country, but your argument of 'rights' would mean that if i went to India and got sick, i hold them accountable, even when they upheld their standards perfectly.
> 
> It
> Does
> ...



In the United States, we have the "right to bear arms" and "Miranda rights", which aren't universal. We have shareholder and parnter "rights" that are unique to this country. People on the right will talk about the "right to life" and on the left the right to affordable healthcare or housing, neither of which are actually legal rights but describe a public interest they feel are compelling. 

Do you mean "universal right"? Because anything mandated or protected under the law can be described as a right. Even Obama, a constitutional lawyer, uses the word "right" liberally to describe any number of policies.

Why would I support the law just because it's a law made in France? Don't understand how anyone reading what I wrote could come to that conclusion.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Apr 14, 2011)

impersonal said:


> What? This has nothing to do with expressing anything. It's about not being allowed to show your skin in front of men, because, according to some fundies, the quran says so.
> 
> Some people are going to try and claim that this is a way of _"expressing yourself"_, in the same sense that you're "expressing yourself" when you're singing out loud. But clearly this is not what is usually understood by the human right of _freedom of expression_.
> 
> ...



Actually its doing the opposite of protecting free speech.


----------



## KazeYama (Apr 14, 2011)

Bishop said:


> France doesn't hate Muslims.
> 
> If you talk to many people in France, they will tell you that they don't care AND NEITHER do the Muslims.
> 
> I base this off of asking some of my French buds by Nice and bolonga (North east).



There have been riots in the past by the Muslim population and tensions between them and the native French population. They also had the stupid banning of headscarves in schools and now this ban of the fully covering attire in all areas. It just doesn't make sense to me as France is, from my understanding, one of the most liberal countries in terms of almost everything else. 

For a country with a sizable Muslim population it makes no sense to impede upon their religious practices in such a way. Wearing such attire isn't physically or mentally harmful in any way. Banning the clothing does not liberate Muslim women, Muslim women do not need liberated. There are already laws in place to protect them if their husbands or families are being abusive, banning the wearing of a religious garment which they may prefer to wear is just silly. The french government acts like an orthodox muslim women may not exist. They don't consider the fact that a woman may feel ashamed or exploited by being forced to show her face. 

Any arguments of security are also stupid. It is easy to pull the cloth down and show the face to check against an ID if necessary. I doubt a string of burka bank robberies were occurring and it was a national security measure to enforce the ban. 

Banning any form of religious expression is heinous. I'm not a religious person by any means but people should be allowed to demonstrate their faith so long as it doesn't impede upon the rights of others. France might as well enforce a national dresscode of berets and striped shirts and burn all the crosses and yammakas while they're at it.


----------



## Ennoea (Apr 14, 2011)

Isn't it just a case of forced assimilation? I don't really see how the Burqa ban would ease them in to French society rather than just cause more tension.


----------



## maj1n (Apr 14, 2011)

Shinigami Perv said:


> And that's where your argument utterly falls apart. The women who choose to wear this don't agree with you that it's demeaning. You're literally telling them that their cultural dress is wrong and yours is right. That is the basis of your argument: theirs wrong, barbaric, cruel, yours right. That is the basis you use to tip the morality scale in favor of depriving them of their ability to choose here over depriving them of choice over there. Don't you see how utterly silly this sounds?


No, because i examine the religious basis in Islam for it.

Their cultural value that makes them wear this ridiculous dress is demeaning to women.

You can't rebut me, because you flat out refuse to actually address its religious meaning, you avoid discussion of this aspect  *because you know i am right*

I will repeat myself again


			
				maj1n said:
			
		

> I support in public, allowing them to wear these stupid things


Funny how you got my position wrong, twice in a row, even when its brought to your attention.

Try again.



			
				Shinigami Perv said:
			
		

> Your rationale is convoluted. Why do you keep bringing up Hitler? He forced them to wear those in order to identify and dehumanize them, ultimately to kill them. How does this compare to countries where women are forced to wear face/head coverings? In Iran, they are forced to wear head coverings because some think they are protecting a woman's modesty dictated under Islam, they're not being singled out for genocide. You believe you're liberating them from a barbaric practice. That analogy is as poor as I've ever seen.
> 
> Both sides sound like this to me:


Because you compared the banning of this veil as equivalent to the situation of the saudi society forcing women to wear the veil, which if they don't they are physically beaten in many times.

Let me repeat it again, even as impractical as forcing women not to wear a cultural dress in which its religious meaning is to consider women sexual objects, it is by far nowhere near as bad as forcing women to wear this dress which affirms treating them as sexual objects.

Your attempts to equate the two as equivalent is why you are in the wrong.

You might also like to know, that originally the people who brought up the veil ban were french muslims.


			
				Shinigami Perv said:
			
		

> Do you live in Singapore? Anyway, we don't do things that way over here.
> 
> Kids aren't actually banned from having or shooting guns in this country. It's just that most parents don't want their kids toting around firearms for obvious reason. The reason? We have a "right" to bear arms that makes it very difficult to restrict who can use a firearm.


I live in a society that imposes age restrictions on selling guns, and i fully support this, as do MOST parents.

I fully support age restrictions on selling drugs to kids too, i support age restrictions on a multitude of other things.

All of which violates every and all your arguments of 'equality'.

Society DOES NOT support equality like you think it does,this is something you need to understand.


			
				Shinigami Perv said:
			
		

> In the United States, we have the "right to bear arms" and "Miranda rights", which aren't universal. We have shareholder and parnter "rights" that are unique to this country. People on the right will talk about the "right to life" and on the left the right to affordable healthcare or housing, neither of which are actually legal rights but describe a public interest they feel are compelling.
> 
> Do you mean "universal right"? *Because anything mandated or protected under the law can be described as a right.* Even Obama, a constitutional lawyer, uses the word "right" liberally to describe any number of policies.
> 
> Why would I support the law just because it's a law made in France? Don't understand how anyone reading what I wrote could come to that conclusion.



Exactly, your proving my point.

* Rights are just a social contract between citizen and state* in most cases.

*do you understand your argument of right to bear arms, being a right due to constitution and/or law in the US, means that the right to dress as you want, in France, as you seem to suggest, is subject to their laws?

That means if this ban becomes law, you lose that right under your own logic*

You NEED to understand what a right is, because you don't understand what it is.

Here let me quote your own words



			
				shinigami_perv said:
			
		

> *Because anything mandated or protected under the law can be described as a right.*


*do you understand your argument is that laws are what affirms a right*?

*do you understand that your logic is circular, that you reject this french law ban because it violates what you perceive is a right, but then go around and say law affirms something as a right*


----------



## Hand Banana (Apr 14, 2011)

Saufsoldat said:


> You can't even drink in public in some states, so stop pretending like your shithole of a country is any better



How does public intoxication correlate to this?



maj1n said:


> No, they are just brainwashed to accept oppression



Just like the nuns who follow Christianity?


----------



## maj1n (Apr 14, 2011)

Hand Banana said:


> Just like the nuns who follow Christianity?



The nun uniform, is just an extension of the old 'monk robes' type uniform, the meaning behind is two fold, it is for one, just a uniform symbolising the particular institution.

And it is also a leftover of the old thinking of 'monk robes' symbolising leading a 'simpler ascetic life' freeing oneself of material and earthly considerations and living for God.

Basically, its what Mahatma Ghandi did.

It is by far nothing like a garment thaat is imposed on women religiously so that they shield their feminine lures from men, because these are instruments of the devil (Islamic veil).

You'll find that the meaning behind things is what is important, that they look similar is not what is important.


----------



## Hand Banana (Apr 14, 2011)

maj1n said:


> The nun uniform, is just an extension of the old 'monk robes' type uniform, the meaning behind is two fold, it is for one, just a uniform symbolising the particular institution.
> 
> And it is also a leftover of the old thinking of 'monk robes' symbolising leading a 'simpler ascetic life' freeing oneself of material and earthly considerations and living for God.
> 
> ...



I'm talking about women brainwashed in general. Not their apparel.


----------



## The_Unforgiven (Apr 14, 2011)

I must say i support this ban if its considered on grounds of public safety. If its just to pick on muslims, then I must say that i don't support it.


----------



## maj1n (Apr 14, 2011)

Hand Banana said:


> I'm talking about women brainwashed in general. Not their apparel.


In my ranking of acceptability to unacceptability
1.Not brainswashed 
2.Brainwashed into supporting good values
3.Brainwashed into supporting very bad values


----------



## Shinigami Perv (Apr 14, 2011)

maj1n said:


> Funny how you got my position wrong, twice in a row, even when its brought to your attention.
> 
> Try again.



I didn't get your position wrong, fully understanding that you don't support the French ban. Is English your first language? Because there's nothing in mine to suggest that you support a ban. I said "tip the *morality scale* in favor of a ban", meaning less bad morally, not that you support it. 




> I live in a society that imposes age restrictions on selling guns, and i fully support this, as do MOST parents.
> 
> I fully support age restrictions on selling drugs to kids too, i support age restrictions on a multitude of other things.
> 
> ...



You're not making sense. No one is suggesting equality between toddlers and adults. That's utterly silly and even you must know it; don't bother bringing up something that ridiculous again. Children don't have equal rights in any society because they haven't developed enough to be treated as adults. You might as well bring up wheelchair access and how a disabled person isn't treated equally to a person who can walk, "OMG that blows my notion of equality apart!"  It's equality in respect for religion and religious expression, of course! 




> Exactly, your proving my point.
> 
> * Rights are just a social contract between citizen and state* in most cases.
> 
> ...



1) I'm saying it's wrong, not that it's illegal under French law. 
2) You're again comparing a choice given to a choice taken away and decided by the government. You don't have to own a gun in the US, the choice is yours. The choice to wear religious clothing is also yours.

The argument you are making is comically muddled. No one is disputing the ability of the French government to put restrictions on its people, but for God's sake understand the difference between choices allowed and choices taken away. Before this law went into effect, people had the ability to choose to wear face coverings or not. They passed a law that was carefully worded to pass constitutionality (because this was obviously targeting Muslims specifically and not about a flimsy security claim), and now Muslim French women have lost the ability to choose what they want to wear. Stop ignoring the difference. 




> *do you understand your argument is that laws are what affirms a right*?
> 
> *do you understand that your logic is circular, that you reject this french law ban because it violates what you perceive is a right, but then go around and say law affirms something as a right*



Read what I said above. The ability to choose religious dress, what we in the US consider the right to freedom of religion, was lost. LOST! Do you understand the difference between a right *to choose* and a restriction?

US: You can choose to wear this. It's your right to choose. Wear it or not, the law will protect your choice either way. 
France: It's not your right to choose, you can't wear it. 
Iran: It's not your right to choose, you must wear it.

Which of these two looks most similar? 



maj1n said:


> In my ranking of acceptability to unacceptability
> 1.Not brainswashed
> *2.Brainwashed into supporting good values
> 3.Brainwashed into supporting very bad values*



Oh my, I didn't see this gem before.


----------



## maj1n (Apr 14, 2011)

Shinigami Perv said:


> I didn't get your position wrong, fully understanding that you don't support the French ban. Is English your first language? Because there's nothing in mine to suggest that you support a ban. I said "tip the *morality scale* in favor of a ban", meaning less bad morally, not that you support it.


No, you are wrong.



			
				shinigami_perv said:
			
		

> is the basis you use to tip the morality scale in favor of *depriving them of their ability to choose here over depriving them of choice over there.*


I support them being able to wear the veil in public, so your argument is void.



			
				shinigami_perv said:
			
		

> You're not making sense. No one is suggesting equality between toddlers and adults. That's utterly silly and even you must know it; don't bother bringing up something that ridiculous again. Children don't have equal rights in any society because they haven't developed enough to be treated as adults. You might as well bring up wheelchair access and how a disabled person isn't treated equally to a person who can walk, "OMG that blows my notion of equality apart!"  It's equality in respect for religion and religious expression, of course!


Exactly, therefore any and all your arguments of equality are invalid because of their simplicity.

You now make exceptions to children, saying 'equality only pertains to sane adults', now its an interesting slippery slope, we could extend this to 'sane and reasonable adults free of undue influence' now where does religious indoctrination take us?



			
				shinigami_perv said:
			
		

> 1) I'm saying it's wrong, not that it's illegal under French law.
> 2) You're again comparing a choice given to a choice taken away and decided by the government. You don't have to own a gun in the US, the choice is yours. The choice to wear religious clothing is also yours.
> 
> The argument you are making is comically muddled. No one is disputing the ability of the French government to put restrictions on its people, but for God's sake understand the difference between choices allowed and choices taken away. Before this law went into effect, people had the ability to choose to wear face coverings or not. They passed a law that was carefully worded to pass constitutionality (because this was obviously targeting Muslims specifically and not about a flimsy security claim), and now Muslim French women have lost the ability to choose what they want to wear. Stop ignoring the difference.


No they didn't, French laws are different to US laws and many other places, you can't just wear a balaclava, there is a more aggressive form of separation of religious expression and public in the form of laiccetz (i spelt it wrong).



			
				shinigami_perv said:
			
		

> Read what I said above. The ability to choose religious dress, what we in the US consider the right to freedom of religion, was lost. LOST! Do you understand the difference between a right *to choose* and a restriction?
> 
> US: You can choose to wear this. It's your right to choose. Wear it or not, the law will protect your choice either way.
> France: It's not your right to choose, you can't wear it.
> ...


Wrong, rights is protected by constitution, it is not a right by itself and stands by itself, it is protected by constitution, and is no different then my argument that 'rights is merely a social contract between citizen and state[/b]

This is why your entire argumentation of rights is a waste of air, because if France affirms this law, any argument of 'right' is meaningless, since really, rights is only affirmed by law.

It is by far a better way to phrase your argument in this way.

'this ban is only going to hurt society rather then benefit it overall because
etc
etc
etc
'

This is what is called a rational argument.


----------



## Shinigami Perv (Apr 14, 2011)

maj1n said:


> No, you are wrong.
> 
> 
> I support them being able to wear the veil in public, so your argument is void.



I understand that. A "morality scale", meaning you argued above that morally it was less bad to have a ban than forcing someone to wear the veil. Morality scale, weighing which is less wrong. Do you understand? Here is your quote comparing the two and the obvious lead-in to a scale:



> but stopping women from practicing a truly oppressive and demeaning ritual of a religion is nowhere near as bad as forcing them to practice something that inherently demeans them.






> Exactly, therefore any and all your arguments of equality are invalid because of their simplicity.
> 
> You now make exceptions to children, saying 'equality only pertains to sane adults', now its an interesting slippery slope, we could extend this to 'sane and reasonable adults free of undue influence' now where does religious indoctrination take us?



Oh brother, the slippery slope? You do know that's a logical fallacy, right? No one is saying that everyone, regardless of age or criminal record, should have the same right to own guns. 

People who practice religion aren't insane, they haven't lost their ability to function or reason. Their reasoning leads them to different conclusions, but they are not insane. 




> No they didn't, French laws are different to US laws and many other places, you can't just wear a balaclava, there is a more aggressive form of separation of religious expression and public in the form of laiccetz (i spelt it wrong).



The balaclava? :rofl

Anyway, I think you understand the difference. One day they had choice, the next they did not. 




> Wrong, rights is protected by constitution, it is not a right by itself and stands by itself, it is protected by constitution, and is no different then my argument that 'rights is merely a social contract between citizen and state[/b]
> 
> This is why your entire argumentation of rights is a waste of air, because if France affirms this law, any argument of 'right' is meaningless, since really, rights is only affirmed by law.
> 
> ...



Your argument is useless because no one is challenging the state's ability to restrict this, only that it is wrong to do so. The mindset is so similar to forcing people to wear a headscarf that it's chilling. The ability to choose is a great thing, it was up to French women to decide whether they want to wear face coverings. Now it is not. That is wrong.


----------



## maj1n (Apr 14, 2011)

Shinigami Perv said:


> I understand that. A "morality scale", meaning you argued above that morally it was less bad to have a ban than forcing someone to wear the veil. Morality scale, weighing which is less wrong. Do you understand? Here is your quote comparing the two and the obvious lead-in to a scale:


Yes forcing women to wear something which symbolises them as sexual objects is nowhere near as bad as banning  it.

Here i'll break it down for you

Forcing it: Take away choice+ symbolise them as sexual objects
banning it: Take away choice.

Is this simple enough for you to understand?




			
				Shinigami Perv said:
			
		

> Oh brother, the slippery slope? You do know that's a logical fallacy, right? No one is saying that everyone, regardless of age or criminal record, should have the same right to own guns.
> 
> People who practice religion aren't insane, they haven't lost their ability to function or reason. Their reasoning leads them to different conclusions, but they are not insane.


I'm not arguing whether their insane, but whether they are of a reasonable mind, because being indoctrinated in reliigous beliefs tends to not make you reasonable pertaining to said religious beliefs.

A fact



			
				Shinigami Perv said:
			
		

> The balaclava? :rofl
> 
> Anyway, I think you understand the difference. One day they had choice, the next they did not.


No, you don't, France is different to the US, as every country is different to another.

It has its particular cultural norms, something you don't understand, but many french posters in this thread have tried to enlighten us about.



			
				Shinigami Perv said:
			
		

> Your argument is useless because no one is challenging the state's ability to restrict this, only that it is wrong to do so. The mindset is so similar to forcing people to wear a headscarf that it's chilling. The ability to choose is a great thing, it was up to French women to decide whether they want to wear face coverings. Now it is not. That is wrong.


Wrong, there's no such thing as 'freedom of choice' as i told you, your not free to go around naked.

The argument of 'freedom of choice' in and of itself, is a bankrupt argument, and only speaks how you don't have any critical thinking in regards to this issue.

I have told you time and time again, you should phrase your argument along these lines
'this ban will impact society negatively more then it will help because etc etc...'

Amusingly, you refuse to do so, but that IS the only rationale argument for any social issue.

There are a million restrictions in our society that is for public interest, but violate your 'freedom' argument.

-Security searches
-Forced women into managerial positions to counter patriarchal attitudes (in the past) in Uk, Australia and Europe 
-Age restrictions
-Taxes

You just simply do not understand that society does not base itself around 'rights'.


----------



## Terra Branford (Apr 14, 2011)

Hand Banana said:


> But that's based on the assumption that all women feel opposed.



Actually, the majority are forced into wearing it. Like all the women in Saudi Arabia (except Jeddah and two more towns), in Pakistan, in Iran...

You can find (if Facebook didn't remove it) the Facebook account with all the women telling the world they don't want the Islamic Religious covering forced on them, which is happens more than those who wish to wear it.

*Oh, and Nuns don't have to wear that and it isn't even required of the religion, nor is being a Nun. Its something people have, I guess you could say, "made up". Plus, they aren't forced into like the majority of women and the Islamic religious clothing *


----------



## -= Ziggy Stardust =- (Apr 15, 2011)

Terra Branford said:


> Actually, the majority are forced into wearing it. Like all the women in Saudi Arabia (except Jeddah and two more towns), in Pakistan, in Iran...
> 
> You can find (if Facebook didn't remove it) the Facebook account with all the women telling the world they don't want the Islamic Religious covering forced on them, which is happens more than those who wish to wear it.
> 
> *Oh, and Nuns don't have to wear that and it isn't even required of the religion, nor is being a Nun. Its something people have, I guess you could say, "made up". Plus, they aren't forced into like the majority of women and the Islamic religious clothing *


I think he was talking about the muslim women in france.



maj1n said:


> I'm not arguing whether their insane, but whether they are of a reasonable mind, because being indoctrinated in reliigous beliefs tends to not make you reasonable pertaining to said religious beliefs.
> 
> A fact


Ignoring the fact that brainwashing arguments are quite silly, as a person from the other side can easily claim that you have been brainwashed by your society to believe that your morals are correct.

But what's  your evidence for this so-called fact?


----------



## Saufsoldat (Apr 15, 2011)

Hand Banana said:


> How does public intoxication correlate to this?



It stifles my freedom of expression and my practice of religion.


----------



## maj1n (Apr 15, 2011)

-= Ziggy Stardust =- said:


> I think he was talking about the muslim women in france.
> 
> Ignoring the fact that brainwashing arguments are quite silly, as a person from the other side can easily claim that you have been brainwashed by your society to believe that your morals are correct.
> 
> But what's  your evidence for this so-called fact?


Religious beliefs in particular Islam, are based on blind belief ie faith.

Thats irrational.

By logic alone, those who believe in such a thing are usually a product of indoctrination, and are therefore not reasonable in their belief, indeed if they were reasonable they would discard their religion.

Given the practical severe restrictiveness of the full-veil, and the cultural/religious reasons behind it, which is to treat women as sinful sexual objects, both are unreasonable, and any muslim woman adopting said cultural attitudes is by definition unreasonable.


----------



## abcd (Apr 15, 2011)

maj1n said:


> Religious beliefs in particular Islam, are based on blind belief ie faith.
> 
> Thats irrational.
> 
> ...



A similar argument can be given by a muslim 

A woman wearing short cloths is a slut , The west views women as mere sex objects who show off their body to gain attention instead of being fully clothd and earning respect through actions alone.

Anyone rational would discard such a filthy way of life and attempt to lead a civilised life. The cultural attitudes of west are by definition unreasonable.


The problem with the argument is that people do not understand assimilation of cultures. When in Rome do as Romans do.


----------



## maj1n (Apr 15, 2011)

abcd said:


> A similar argument can be given by a muslim
> 
> A woman wearing short cloths is a slut , The west views women as mere sex objects who show off their body to gain attention instead of being fully clothd and earning respect through actions alone.
> 
> ...


Correct, i do not believe a woman who dresses revealing is a slut.

I abide by reason and evidence, not my cultural norms without basis, no matter where its from.

Although i dispute that the West believes that.


----------



## Saf (Apr 15, 2011)

maj1n said:


> I abide by reason and evidence, not my cultural norms without basis, no matter where its from


Yeah, I went through this phase. You'll never escape the effects of your cultural inculcation.


----------



## maj1n (Apr 15, 2011)

Saf said:


> Yeah, I went through this phase. You'll never escape the effects of your cultural inculcation.


Never fully escape perhaps, but one can do away with many things one was brought up to believe in.


----------



## abcd (Apr 15, 2011)

maj1n said:


> Although i dispute that the West believes that.



It is the middle east perception of west I was talking about.


----------



## maj1n (Apr 15, 2011)

abcd said:


> It is the middle east perception of west I was talking about.


Then i disagree with your post, since that view of 'the west' is imo incorrect, it is not 'rational' for them to reject Western attire.


----------



## impersonal (Apr 15, 2011)

-= Ziggy Stardust =- said:


> I think he was talking about the muslim women in france.


Why would you think there is a difference?

The point is that the burqa is a tool of sexist oppression. That is the rationale behind the law.


----------



## abcd (Apr 15, 2011)

maj1n said:


> Then i disagree with your post, since that view of 'the west' is imo incorrect, it is not 'rational' for them to reject Western attire.



I am talking about a perception here. It is very real. Of course it is not rational for them to reject Western Attire, Or rational for the west to reject their attire.

In this case the west is rejecting the attire based on an assumption that is is not an attire of choice, which is a different problem altogether.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Apr 15, 2011)

I don't see the big deal. It's illegal to wear nazi attire in Germany. Even if a jew wants to wear it out of his own free will, it's still illegal because of what it symbolizes. Would the people that oppose the burqa ban also say that banning nazi uniforms is as bad as forcing people to wear them?


----------



## abcd (Apr 15, 2011)

Saufsoldat said:


> I don't see the big deal. It's illegal to wear nazi attire in Germany. Even if a jew wants to wear it out of his own free will, it's still illegal because of what it symbolizes. Would the people that oppose the burqa ban also say that banning nazi uniforms is as bad as forcing people to wear them?



The problem with your comparison is ... well u are comparing muslims to nazis ....


----------



## impersonal (Apr 15, 2011)

abcd said:


> The problem with your comparison is ... well u are comparing muslims to nazis ....



... He is comparing muslim *fundamentalists* to nazis. This is perfectly valid comparison.


*Spoiler*: __ 




Tell, me what do you think of an ideology that suggests this situation for half of humanity? How do you think it compares to nazism? [HINT: Those who promote this typically also promote jihad, murdering apostates and blasphemers, and all sorts of crazy things involving rape justice and the treatment of infidels].





And, NO, not all Muslims promote the burqa, or any of the silly ideas that usually come with it. If that was the case there would probably be a full on war between them and the rest of the world already.


----------



## Qhorin Halfhand (Apr 15, 2011)

abcd said:


> I am talking about a perception here. It is very real. Of course it is not rational for them to reject Western Attire, Or rational for the west to reject their attire.
> 
> In this case the west is rejecting the attire based on an assumption that is is not an attire of choice, which is a different problem altogether.



Of course it is rational for any sane person to reject an attire like Burqa. And it is irrational to not reject it. That is not limited to the West alone either. Banning it is also correct, but goes a step beyond rejecting it.


----------



## maj1n (Apr 15, 2011)

abcd said:


> I am talking about a perception here. It is very real. Of course it is not rational for them to reject Western Attire, Or rational for the west to reject their attire.
> 
> In this case the west is rejecting the attire based on an assumption that is is not an attire of choice, which is a different problem altogether.



Sorry but France!=the West.

Sounds like a lot of anti-west blame game going on with you.


----------



## impersonal (Apr 15, 2011)

abcd said:
			
		

> In this case the west is rejecting the attire based on an assumption that is is not an attire of choice, which is a different problem altogether.


Based on the "assumption" that it is a constitutive part of an ideology of oppressing of women and relegating them to an inferior role.


----------



## abcd (Apr 15, 2011)

impersonal said:


> ... He is comparing muslim *fundamentalists* to nazis. This is perfectly valid comparison.
> 
> 
> *Spoiler*: __
> ...



Fallacy of causation.



Narutofann12 said:


> Of course it is rational for any sane person to reject an attire like Burqa. And it is irrational to not reject it. That is not limited to the West alone either. Banning it is also correct, but goes a step beyond rejecting it.



Why is it irrational not to reject it?



maj1n said:


> Sorry but France!=the West.
> 
> Sounds like a lot of anti-west blame game going on with you.



Anti-west blame game? Can u point it out ?



impersonal said:


> Based on the "assumption" that it is a constitutive part of an ideology of oppressing of women and relegating them to an inferior role.



Yes, but is this assumption correct? Should Popes be banned from going near children because of the stereotype they have created?

I think you do not understand my position on this argument. From my experiences(not for reasons u mentioned) I agree with this French law. But I dislike taking such an approach to find a solution . Especially when the way they are tackling the sikh headdress problem in a very different manner


----------



## impersonal (Apr 15, 2011)

abcd said:


> Fallacy of causation.


 _"Fallacy of causation"_ doesn't mean anything. Can you write your argument down?


abcd said:


> Yes, but is this assumption correct?


Yes. This does not mean the law is the best possible move to solve the problem. But undoubtedly, yes, the assumption is correct.


abcd said:


> Especially when the way they are tackling the sikh headdress problem in a very different manner


When you post a link that says the exact opposite of what you pretend it says, it is time to examine your bias.


----------



## Qhorin Halfhand (Apr 15, 2011)

> Why is it irrational not to reject it?


 It is very irrational to make this question.

It is clearly irrational to wonder why a clothing which is 1) supposed to cover up a woman's body completely so that men will not feel lust towards them, and is treating women as sexual objects that are submissive to men's will2) comes along with an ideology and culture of mistreating women. (That ideology/culture exists even if one believes that it is not *the *Muslim culture but a subculture)3) Of course women are very often forced to war this 4) We are talking about a clothing that physically covers up a human being and makes it impossible for other human beings to be able to see it properly. That is not just symbolism. That is incredibly antisocial obviously, not to mention uncomfortable. 5) It is an obstacle with women integrating with the general society.  In fact that it is, the objective here.This problem of lack of integration exists in Muslim countries themselves.   The five is ofcourse tied with the other points. Also as I mention above, I don't see Burqa as a symbol of oppression alone, there are problems with the clothing itself, and those problems are well above beyond it just being a symbol of oppression as I explained 6) There are also issues with security concerns which is a bit unrelated to the above but deserve a mention.

Now the above are arguments about why this clothing is something to reject and for one consider disgusting/extremely appalling. Even Muslim countries have started banning it in Universities which is a start.

Of course someone else might agree with some of my points yet disagree with banning it, but it is easy for me to make an argument about benefits of banning it and reasons for banning it. There are actually several of such reasons, and I find the whole issue to not be that much complex and difficult. Some outside factors that impair us negatively can make it more difficult for us to converse and decide on it than we have to. Of course I am glad I am not a libertarian (or worse feeling that religions deserve special treatment) because then my view would have to be different here, as Libertarians tend to have a  dogmatic view (with its benefits and some wisdom in it too, but as always we have to be adaptable and the negatives of viewing the world in such lens also exists) of seeing rights and their effects.


----------



## maj1n (Apr 15, 2011)

abcd said:
			
		

> Yes, but is this assumption correct? Should Popes be banned from going near children because of the stereotype they have created?


Its not an assumption, and that the veils religious purpose is to burden women with the responsibility of shielding their sinful body is a fact, i can start quoting Islamic scriptures if you want.


----------



## Shinigami Perv (Apr 15, 2011)

Saf said:


> Yeah, I went through this phase. You'll never escape the effects of your cultural inculcation.



Me too. It died when I grew up and got the chance to interact with more people in college. 

It is easy to give in to the temptation to judge.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Apr 15, 2011)

I like how we get lumped in with France, one country doing something with in their right and suddenly the whole West is out to get Islam.


----------



## abcd (Apr 15, 2011)

impersonal said:


> _"Fallacy of causation"_ doesn't mean anything. Can you write your argument down?


U assume that the muslims who wear burqa are most probable to become terrorists, 


impersonal said:


> Yes. _This does not mean the law is the best possible move to solve the problem_. But undoubtedly, yes, the assumption is correct.



This is my biggest problem with it :/. I can observe the reactions directly , Being a part of the cricket team here I play along with many muslims( pak/bangladesh) May of them are completely cool and open minded when they come here , however they become more and more close minded and religious as time progresses, Girls who have never worn burqas in their life have started doing it here (on their own) , Guys who eat any meat start eating only halal... . These laws will only make them feel like victims and increase this problem.


impersonal said:


> When you post a link that says the exact opposite of what you pretend it says, it is time to examine your bias.



Ah My bad ... The Indian govt is positive that the ban will be lifted ( Acc to  and the fact that our prime minister is handling the issue directly)

I am not biased towards anyone here, I am infact against all forms of religion and the concept of god , so i will probably be biased towards atheists. 



Narutofann12 said:


> It is very irrational to make this question.
> 
> It is clearly irrational to wonder why a clothing which is 1) supposed to cover up a woman's body completely so that men will not feel lust towards them, and is treating women as sexual objects that are submissive to men's will2) comes along with an ideology and culture of mistreating women. (That ideology/culture exists even if one believes that it is not *the *Muslim culture but a subculture)3) Of course women are very often forced to war this 4) We are talking about a clothing that physically covers up a human being and makes it impossible for other human beings to be able to see it properly. That is not just symbolism. That is incredibly antisocial obviously, not to mention uncomfortable. 5) It is an obstacle with women integrating with the general society.  In fact that it is, the objective here.This problem of lack of integration exists in Muslim countries themselves.   The five is ofcourse tied with the other points. Also as I mention above, I don't see Burqa as a symbol of oppression alone, there are problems with the clothing itself, and those problems are well above beyond it just being a symbol of oppression as I explained 6) There are also issues with security concerns which is a bit unrelated to the above but deserve a mention.
> 
> ...





maj1n said:


> Its not an assumption, and that the veils religious purpose is to burden women with the responsibility of shielding their sinful body is a fact, i can start quoting Islamic scriptures if you want.



I can completely agree with the fact that Islam is pretty sexist. However people have adapted accordingly in most countries to an extent that these scriptures by themselves are no longer meaningful in reflecting reality. Most muslims I know wear burqa , However they are not forced to do it, The muslim families in India are as sexist as any other family in india nothing more or nothing less.


----------



## Bishop (Apr 15, 2011)

abcd said:
			
		

> I am not biased towards anyone here, I am infact against all forms of religion and the concept of god , so i will probably be biased towards atheists.


Most NF cafe members here are Atheist liberals against Theist and conservatives, sir.

Your membership card is in the mail.


----------



## abcd (Apr 15, 2011)

Bishop said:


> Most NF cafe members here are Atheist liberals against Theist and conservatives, sir.
> 
> Your membership card is in the mail.



I am not new to cafe so i know most peoples political, philosophical and ideological leanings already


----------



## Bishop (Apr 15, 2011)

abcd said:


> I am not new to cafe so i know most peoples political, philosophical and ideological leanings already



Please send card back when delivered.


----------



## Zabuzalives (Apr 15, 2011)

Dont strawman him abcd, he was not talking about terrorism and pointed out correlations, not argumenting causation.

Either adress his point or concede on it.


----------



## Zabuzalives (Apr 15, 2011)

It is very similar to a ban of nazi uniforms, stop cuddling An atrocious ideology out of a misguided sense of political correctness


----------



## maj1n (Apr 15, 2011)

abcd said:
			
		

> I can completely agree with the fact that Islam is pretty sexist. However people have adapted accordingly in most countries to an extent that these scriptures by themselves are no longer meaningful in reflecting reality. Most muslims I know wear burqa , However they are not forced to do it, The muslim families in India are as sexist as any other family in india nothing more or nothing less.


No, i contend that a majority of women who wear the full-veil do so for religious reasons which are oppressive.

I have met and watched many burqa wearing females, and they never come across as confidant-minded women, they always huddle away from general non-muslims amongst themselves.


----------



## Bishop (Apr 15, 2011)

Even so, can't judge em on their cultural beliefs. They can say most American women are insecure and weak, but faking to seem strong; in that they are right. 

No one's perfect.


----------



## maj1n (Apr 15, 2011)

Bishop said:


> Even so, can't judge em on their cultural beliefs. They can say most American women are insecure and weak, but faking to seem strong; in that they are right.
> 
> No one's perfect.


Judgement is valid depending on rationale and reason.

It is incorrect to say we cannot judge Islam or anything, because they can judge us.

Cultural relativism is not a credible argument.

They may certainly judge the west if they wish to do so, in fact saying 'you cant judge someone' seems like a meaningless argument, both in practicality and in logic.


----------



## Terra Branford (Apr 15, 2011)

-= Ziggy Stardust =- said:


> I think he was talking about the muslim women in france.



Ah, okay. I thought he was talking about Muslim women in general.


----------

